Errors at JFK Online website
Dave Reitzes
In an alt.assassination.jfk post of April 10, 2008, Anthony Marsh stated
that my website is "Chuck [sic] full of errors."
I would like to extend an invitation to Mr. Marsh and anyone else to point
out any and all errors of fact or interpretation at my website so that I
can correct them.
Please be specific and cite your sources.
Dave
Stug...@aol.com
reader the impression that Anne Dischler was in the process of discounting
the Clinton story until Jim Garrison removed her; you have implied as much
in posts as well.
(1) Anne Dischler presented at the Lancer Conference in 2006 and she
fully believes the Clinton story, the Clinton witnesses, etc. She also
does not believe she was removed because she was uncovering the "truth"
about the Clinton incident-- indeed, she believes the truth was Garrison's
interpretation of the event.
(2) Even Pat Lambert discounts this interpretation. When confronted with
what you had written in this regard on your site, she distanced herself
from your interpretation.
In asmuch as these would represent your two best sources for your claim,
you should either remove the implications from your Clinton treatment, or
acknowledge that this is your own, personal speculation without any
grounding in reality.
-Stu
On Apr 11, 9:09 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
> As some here may know, I have a website on the JFK assassination:
>
> http://www.jfk-online.com
>
> In an alt.assassination.jfk post of April 10, 2008, Anthony Marsh stated
> that my website is "Chuck [sic] full of errors."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
Dave Reitzes
> In your treatment of Anne Dischler and the Clinton witnesses you give the
> reader the impression that Anne Dischler was in the process of discounting
> the Clinton story until Jim Garrison removed her; you have implied as much
> in posts as well.
>
> (1) �Anne Dischler presented at the Lancer Conference in 2006 and she
> fully believes the Clinton story, the Clinton witnesses, etc. �She also
> does not believe she was removed because she was uncovering the "truth"
> about the Clinton incident-- indeed, she believes the truth was Garrison's
> interpretation of the event.
>
> (2) �Even Pat Lambert discounts this interpretation. �When confronted with
> what you had written in this regard on your site, she distanced herself
> from your interpretation.
>
> In asmuch as these would represent your two best sources for your claim,
> you should either remove the implications from your Clinton treatment, or
> acknowledge that this is your own, personal speculation without any
> grounding in reality.
>
> -Stu
Here's what I say at my website:
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100clinton.html
<QUOTE ON>--------------------------------------------
At trial, eyewitness Corrie Collins was the only person to positively
identify all three men at the CORE voter registration drive: Lee Harvey
Oswald, David Ferrie, and Clay Shaw. Incredibly, his earliest statement to
the DA's office tells of a black Cadillac pulling up, and, not Lee Oswald,
but a local man named Estus Morgan getting out of the car, along with a
companion dressed all in white. Anne Dischler identified the man in white
as an East State Louisiana Hospital employee named Winslow Foster, a
friend of Morgan's whose job required him to wear white. Dischler was
about to interview Foster and close the case when Garrison suddenly
dismissed her, and Foster's named disappeared from the record.
<QUOTE OFF>-------------------------------------------
My cited source for this paragraph is Patricia Lambert's FALSE WITNESS,
pp. 193-95, which in turn cites Lambert's interviews with Dischler and
Dischler's 1967 field notes. I would also call your attention to a passage
from Lambert's book, pp. 196-97:
<QUOTE ON>--------------------------------------------
[Francis] Fruge and Dischler interviewed Corrie Collins on October 3,
1967, and Dischler identified Winslow Foster as the man in white that same
day. On October 9, Dischler made her last working entry in her steno pads
when she recorded additional information about Winslow Foster. Four days
later she wrote her final note: "To New Orleans" it reads, "to turn in
last report to Louis Ivon." Without explanation, Garrison had abruptly
removed Fruge and Dischler from the case. One of their contacts in the
DA's office told Dischler the investigation had to be "shut down" because
of threats against Garrison's family. But Garrison didn't shut it down. He
turned it over to Andrew Sciambra.
Shortly before Garrison dismissed Fruge and Dischler, who had conducted an
energetic and honest effort, James Alcock told Tom Bethell that "the
Clinton angle 'wasn't working out.' Perhaps Garrison jettisoned Fruge and
Dischler because they had failed to find the witnesses he needed. But more
likely, it was because of their unwitting pursuit of of unwanted
information about the real occupants of the black car. For while Estus
Morgan was conveniently dead, Winslow Foster was alive and still working
at the hospital. The next step for Fruge and Dischler was to interview
him. By shutting down THEIR investigation, Garrison prevented that
interview from ever taking place.
<QUOTE OFF>-------------------------------------------
I agree that the four words "and close the case" ("Dischler was about to
interview Foster and close the case when Garrison suddenly dismissed her .
. .") are unsupported by the evidence, and have removed them from my
article.
Otherwise I stand by my source, although if you wish to post a transcript
of Dischler's Lancer remarks, I would be happy to note her dissent from
Lambert's conclusions.
Thanks for your assistance in improving the accuracy of my website.
Who's next?
Cliff
> As some here may know, I have a website on the JFK assassination:
>
> http://www.jfk-online.com
>
> In an alt.assassination.jfk post of April 10, 2008, Anthony Marsh stated
> that my website is "Chuck [sic] full of errors."
>
>
> I would like to extend an invitation to Mr. Marsh and anyone else to point
> out any and all errors of fact or interpretation at my website so that I
> can correct them.
>
> Please be specific and cite your sources.
>
> Dave
Hi Dave,
You write:
(quote on)
It is absolutely false that the Single Bullet Theory requires the bullet
to travel upwards. This is a misconception, based on the fact that the
bullet holes on the President's shirt and jacket appear slightly lower
than the exit wound in the President's throat would seem to allow.
However, a photograph taken by Robert Earl Croft about three seconds
before the bullet strike (see below) shows the back of the President's
jacket bunched up considerably at his neck; this probably accounts for the
apparent discrepancy.
(quote off)
The Dealey Plaza films and photos clearly show that JFK's jacket DROPPED
in Dealey Plaza, leaving fraction of an inch folds in his clothing.
The first two images in the link above are frames from the Nix film taken
on Houston St. seconds before the turn onto Elm St.
JFK was leaning forward speaking with Nellie in the first image. Note his
jacket collar rode over the top of his shirt collar.
The second image is a split second later as JFK leaned back and his jacket
dropped to reveal the shirt collar.
The third image was taken on Main St. just west of the Adolphus Hotel
about two minutes before the shooting. Note that JFK had his head turned
to the right as he waved his right arm. Also note that his jacket rode up
into his hairline.
The fourth image is a close-up of JFK in the Betzner photo at Z186, a
split second before the shooting.
Note JFK had the same posture (head to the right, right arm waving) and a
similar jacket fold in the Elm St photo as the Main St. photo.
The Betzner was taken after the Croft photo, and after JFK turned his head
to the right and started to wave his right arm (circa Z176).
The major difference between the third and fourth images was the visible
shirt collar and small jacket fold on Elm St.
The irrefutable conclusion is that JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza,
which cannot be reconciled in the real world with the claims of the Single
Bullet Fallacy.
Cliff
Dave Reitzes
Sorry, Cliff, you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this
one.
Dave
tomnln
Jas
bullet did in JFK's case don't understand the simple anatomy of the upper
body. Just look at any picture of a person, especially a male in his
mid-40s as JFK was. The lower anterior neck area below the Adam's Apple is
situated below the upper back/lower neck area if viewed from the side and
compared to a horizontal, level plane.
One doesn't need to be a doctor to understand this. Just use your eyes.
It's plain as day.
James
"Cliff" <nk...@sfo.com> wrote in message
news:e075e337-9504-4422...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
Dave Reitzes
> "Dave Reitzes" <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:b10a63a5-a77b-433e...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
There's nothing there that contradicts my website, Tom. It appears you
haven't even bothered to read what I've written.
Dave
Cliff
There's nothing to dis-agree about.
People can see with their own eyes that JFK's jacket dropped on
Houston St. wshen he leaned back from his chat with Nellie.
But don't let the facts get in your way, Dave.
Cliff
People that think the bullet would have to travel upward to exit where the
bullet did in JFK's case don't understand the simple anatomy of the upper
body. Just look at any picture of a person, especially a male in his
mid-40s as JFK was. The lower anterior neck area below the Adam's Apple is
situated below the upper back/lower neck area if viewed from the side and
compared to a horizontal, level plane.
One doesn't need to be a doctor to understand this. Just use your eyes.
It's plain as day.
James
(quote off)
The bullet holes in JFK's shirt and jacket are 4 inches
below the "upper back/lower neck area."
Use your eyes, it's as plain as day.
Anthony Marsh
I have already and you don't care. Because you are a WC defender.
Anthony Marsh
> People that think the bullet would have to travel upward to exit where
> the bullet did in JFK's case don't understand the simple anatomy of the
> upper body. Just look at any picture of a person, especially a male in
> his mid-40s as JFK was. The lower anterior neck area below the Adam's
> Apple is situated below the upper back/lower neck area if viewed from
> the side and compared to a horizontal, level plane.
>
JFK was not hit in the lower neck. The bullet entered the upper back.
> One doesn't need to be a doctor to understand this. Just use your eyes.
> It's plain as day.
>
Even the WC itself realized the problem when Rankin said that the BACK
wound was LOWER than the throat wound. Just use some common sense.
Anthony Marsh
Cute, but what the Hell is the point of the photos? The Web site does not
explain what we are looking at and what the significance is. Are you
arguing that JFK was shot at those frames? What?
Jas
Use your eyes, it's as plain as day."
Let's see now...using your logic: if, say a man was pulling on his pants,
and was shot in the rear calf area of his right leg, since the bullet went
through the right buttock area of the pants fabric and left a hole there
because his pants were around his knees at the time of the shot, the man
was shot in the right buttock. Is this what you're contending?
Hmmmm. Very interesting logic indeed.
I don't know about what anyone else here thinks, but the location of where
the bullet actually entered JFK's body -- not his clothes -- is the true
beginning of the bullet path.
James
"Cliff" <nk...@sfo.com> wrote in message
news:dc4ce41d-cb50-4630...@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Dave Reitzes
> Dave Reitzes wrote:
> > As some here may know, I have a website on the JFK assassination:
>
> >http://www.jfk-online.com
>
> > In an alt.assassination.jfk post of April 10, 2008, Anthony Marsh stated
> > that my website is "Chuck [sic] full of errors."
>
>
> > I would like to extend an invitation to Mr. Marsh and anyone else to point
> > out any and all errors of fact or interpretation at my website so that I
> > can correct them.
>
> I have already and you don't care. Because you are a WC defender.
Surprise, surprise: Anthony's got nothing.
Everyone, please check out my website for feature articles, book
reviews, documents, and loads of useful links:
Dave
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:b5udnaVSSNz305_V...@comcast.com...
Cliff
> Cliff wrote: "The bullet holes in JFK's shirt and jacket are 4 inches
>
> below the 'upper back/lower neck area.'
>
> Use your eyes, it's as plain as day."
>
> Let's see now...using your logic: if, say a man was pulling on his pants,
Let's cut this strawman in the bud.
Your example has nothing to do with JFK.
The bullet holes in his shirt and jacket were 2-3 inches
below the SBT in-shoot.
That is a fact.
The Dealey Plaza photos show the jacket dropped in the seconds
before he was shot.
That is a fact.
The burden of proof is on you and Dave Reitzes to show how
JFK's jacket could elevate by dropping.
You can't, of course, the notion is absurd..
> "Cliff" <n...@sfo.com> wrote in message
Herbert Blenner
Will you please fix the broken links on the IBM Research Report. For
example see:
http://reitzes.www4.50megs.com/ibmfig4.html
Herbert
kbs8...@yahoo.com
> On Apr 13, 8:08 pm, "Jas" <jste...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Cliff wrote: "The bullet holes in JFK's shirt and jacket are 4 inches
>
> > below the 'upper back/lower neck area.'
>
> > Use your eyes, it's as plain as day."
>
> > Let's see now...using your logic: if, say a man was pulling on his pants,
>
> Let's cut this strawman in the bud.
>
> Your example has nothing to do with JFK.
>
> The bullet holes in his shirt and jacket were 2-3 inches
> below the SBT in-shoot.
>
> That is a fact.
>
> The Dealey Plaza photos show the jacket dropped in the seconds
> before he was shot.
>
> That is a fact.
>
> The burden of proof is on you and Dave Reitzes to show how
> JFK's jacket could elevate by dropping.
>
> You can't, of course, the notion is absurd..
I think you have the burden of proof backwards. The proof that the
coat/shirt were bunched up is satisfied by looking at the JFK autopsy
photos. Since you are saying the coat/shirt dropped before the shot
and the holes in the coat/shirt are 2 to 3 inches below the autopsy
photos, the burden of proof is on you to explain how the bullet make a
couple of turns between exiting JFK's shirt and entering his body.
Dave Reitzes
Jas
facts straight, and knows what he's talking about beyond any possible
shadow of a doubt. Man, if we had more people like you on this earth, all
mankind's problems would be solved!
In this forum the "burden of proof" isn't on anyone. This is a JFK
assassination discussion forum, not a court of law.
Just because a number of people think something is a fact, and that it may
happen to be the current prevailing opinion, doesn't mean it is. If the
holes in JFK's shirt and jacket are located where you say they are, fine.
They still don't indicate the actual entrance of the bullet into his upper
back and therefore can't indicate the actual entrance wound.
And, if you can't understand the analogy of what I am saying about the
pants example, that's your problem.
James
"Cliff" <nk...@sfo.com> wrote in message
news:15b23947-5a3e-4040...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Herbert Blenner
>
> - Show quoted text -
The links on the following page
http://www.jfk-online.com/acousibm04.html
use your former domain name. Clicking on any link opens a referral
page that goes to your current home page. So your site does not have
any means of getting to the intended graphics.
This problem is common to the entire report.
Herbert
claviger
> Let's cut this strawman in the bud.
Rather odd mixed metaphor, but let's do examine the reasons why the
clothing is not a good indicator of the back wound as compared to the skin
and muscle of the back itself.
> The bullet holes in his shirt and jacket were 2-3 inches
> below the SBT in-shoot.
> That is a fact.
Yes. However the human torso is not shaped like a coat hanger. There is
more curvature to the back than the front. When standing upright the suit
coat hangs properly the way the tailor designed it. When sitting on a
couch or car seat the coat is caught between the seat, the back of the
seat, and the torso. This distorts the suit because it causes wrinkles and
folds. Some people prefer to hang a coat up when involved in long
meetings, but that isn't always possible, such as in a parade or public
motorcade.
> The Dealey Plaza photos show the jacket dropped in the seconds
> before he was shot.
What photos?
> That is a fact.
Some researchers believe the President was first wounded when the
Limousine was behind the Stemmons Fwy sign, so the Z-film might not be
much help. What photo are you referring to?
> The burden of proof is on you and Dave Reitzes to show how
> JFK's jacket could elevate by dropping.
> You can't, of course, the notion is absurd.
Yes, that is quite absurd which is why no one is saying that but you. What
some people now consider the last photo taken of JFK approximately 90
seconds before the first shot shows his coat bunched up with a fold as
high as his collar. In almost every photo of the President where his right
arm is resting on the window or waving to the crowd, this motion is
causing his jacked to rise up.
Assuming the bullet track does not line up with the holes in the clothing,
what are the implications to your theory? I assume you think the wound
itself was lower than reported in the autopsy. Did the sniper on the
Grassy Knoll fire this shot instead of LHO? Or is the bullet angle from a
much flatter trajectory tracking back to another office building, such as
the Dal-Tex building. Only problem with flat trajectories is there was a
Secret Service agent riding high on the trunk of the follow-up car behind
the Limousine. He would be an obstacle to any flat trajectories from the
buildings on Houston street. It would take a magic bullet to circle around
this bodyguard and hit the President.
Another question, would the back of the seat behind the President prevent
a shot much lower than the one found in the autopsy? If the actual wound
is lower than claimed what does that prove? Why would anyone go to the
trouble of changing this wound by 2"? They would have to plug up the real
wound and create another fake wound. How and where did "they" alter these
wounds?
Anthony Marsh
> On Apr 14, 12:33 am, Cliff <n...@sfo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 13, 8:08 pm, "Jas" <jste...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Cliff wrote: "The bullet holes in JFK's shirt and jacket are 4 inches
>>> below the 'upper back/lower neck area.'
>>> Use your eyes, it's as plain as day."
>>> Let's see now...using your logic: if, say a man was pulling on his pants,
>> Let's cut this strawman in the bud.
>>
>> Your example has nothing to do with JFK.
>>
>> The bullet holes in his shirt and jacket were 2-3 inches
>> below the SBT in-shoot.
>>
>> That is a fact.
>>
>> The Dealey Plaza photos show the jacket dropped in the seconds
>> before he was shot.
>>
>> That is a fact.
>>
>> The burden of proof is on you and Dave Reitzes to show how
>> JFK's jacket could elevate by dropping.
>>
>> You can't, of course, the notion is absurd..
>
> I think you have the burden of proof backwards. The proof that the
> coat/shirt were bunched up is satisfied by looking at the JFK autopsy
> photos. Since you are saying the coat/shirt dropped before the shot
Not bunched up enough to make the entrance above the top of his shoulders.
Dave Reitzes
Thanks. I'm fixing it right now.
Dave
tomnln
JFK did NOT wear 2nd-hand/Used Jackets/shirts.
"Jas" <jst...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:48038638$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Cliff
> Ah, another extremely defensive reaction
Be that as it may, you are equating two fundamentally
different kinds of body/clothing movement.
In clothing design the terms of art for these two fundamental
kinds of body/clothing movement are "normal" and "gross."
The term of art for clothing movement is "ease," which
you refer to as "bunch."
"Normal" movements of the body are casual, like lifting
your right arm and waving.
"Gross" movements involve reaching or extending the body,
like when you reach down to pull up your pants.
"Normal" body movements cause fractions of an inch of
fabric to move; "gross" movements can cause multiple
inches of fabric to move.
JFK performed "normal" movements in the limo, obviously.
And the photos clearly show the jacket dropped.
> from someone thinking he has the
> facts straight, and knows what he's talking about beyond any possible
> shadow of a doubt.
Let's go over this again, please point out where there
is any doubt:
1) The holes in JFK's jacket are 2-3 inches below
the SBT in-shoot.
2) The jacket dropped in Dealey:
Are you denying this?
> Man, if we had more people like you on this earth, all
> mankind's problems would be solved!
This evidence was first presented to the world in 1966:
We've had 4 decades of un-supported assertions
concerning the clothing evidence, starting with
Arlen Specter, all the way thru to Dave Reitzes,
Assertions endlessly repeated isn't argument,
and if its one thing Dave Reitzes is known for,
it's fact-based argument.
His silence when called upon to defend the Single
Bullet Theory is thus even more deafening..
Cliff
> On Apr 14, 12:33 am, Cliff <n...@sfo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 13, 8:08 pm, "Jas" <jste...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > Cliff wrote: "The bullet holes in JFK's shirt and jacket are 4 inches
>
> > > below the 'upper back/lower neck area.'
>
> > > Use your eyes, it's as plain as day."
>
> > > Let's see now...using your logic: if, say a man was pulling on his pants,
>
> > Let's cut this strawman in the bud.
>
> > Your example has nothing to do with JFK.
>
> > The bullet holes in his shirt and jacket were 2-3 inches
> > below the SBT in-shoot.
>
> > That is a fact.
>
> > The Dealey Plaza photos show the jacket dropped in the seconds
> > before he was shot.
>
> > That is a fact.
>
> > The burden of proof is on you and Dave Reitzes to show how
> > JFK's jacket could elevate by dropping.
>
> > You can't, of course, the notion is absurd..
>
> I think you have the burden of proof backwards. The proof that the
> coat/shirt were bunched up is satisfied by looking at the JFK autopsy
> photos.
You are aware that the HSCA found the authenticity of those
photos suspect?
From Vol 7 of the HSCA findings:
(quote on, emphasis added))
Among the JFK assassination materials in the National Archives
is a series of negatives and prints of photographs taken during
autopsy. The DEFICIENCIES of these photographs as scientific
documentation of a forensic autopsy have been described
elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:
1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.
2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner
that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction
of view.
3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present,
WERE POSTIONED IN SUCH A MANNER TO MAKE IT DIFFICULT
OR IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN ACCURATE MEASUREMENTS OF
CRITICAL FEATURES (SUCH AS THE WOUND IN THE UPPER
BACK) FROM ANATOMICAL LANDMARKS.
4. None of the photographs contain information identifying
the victim; such as his name, the autopsy case number, the
date and place of the examination.
In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of haste,
inexperience and unfamiliarity with the understandably
rigorous standards generally expected in photographs to
be used as scientific evidence. In fact, under ordinary
circumstances, the defense could raise some reasonable
and, perhaps, sustainable objections to an attempt to
introduce such poorly made and documented photographs
as evidence in a murder trial.
Furthermore, even the prosecution might have second
thoughts about using certain of these photographs since
they are more confusing than informative. Unfortunately,
they are the only photographic record of the autopsy.
Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been
content to point out the OBVIOUS DEFICIENCES OF THE
AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS AS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
Some have questioned their very authenticity. These
theorists suggest that the body shown in at least some of
the photographs is not President Kennedy, but another
decedent deliberately mutilated to simulate a pattern of
wounds supportive of the Warren Commissions' interpretation
of their nature and significance. As outlandish as such a
macabre proposition might appear, it is one that, HAD THE
CASE GONE TO TRIAL, might have been effectively raised
by an astute defense anxious to block the introduction of the
photographs as evidence. IN ANYEVENT, THE ONUS OF
ESTABLISHING THE AUTHENTICITY OF THESE
PHOTOGRAPHS WOULD HAVE RESTED WITH THE
PROSECUTION.
(quote off)
In her testimony before the ARRB, Saundra Kay Spencer,
(the woman on record as having developed the extant
autopsy photos) declared under oath that the extant autopsy
photos are not the ones she developed.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=797&relPageId=8
(pg 35)
The lack of a chain of evidence for the extant autopsy photos
compounds their "obvious deficiences as scientific evidence,"
to put it mildly.
There are only two pieces of evidence left in support of the
Single Bullet Theory:
1) The wound locations listed in the final autopsy report.
2) The measurement from the mastoid process written
in pen on the autopsy face sheet.
Here's how the "posterior" wound was described in the
autopsy report:
(quote on)
Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper
border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound. This
wound is measured to be 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion
process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process.
(quote off)
There are two different wound locations listed in the final autopsy
report -- "just above the upper border of the scapula" and "14cm
below the tip of the right mastoid process."
As this diagram shows, the upper border of the scapula is
T2/T3:
http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/back_diagram.gif
"Just above the upper border of the scapula" puts the wound
at T2; 14cm below the mastoid process" puts the wound at
C7/T1.
Neither of these contradictory locations have any evidentiary
value according to one of the guys responsible for the autopsy
report!
That would be Dr. Pierre Finck, who testifed before the ARRB:
(quote on)
JFK's spine, a fixed landmark, was the correct and only point of
reference to determine the accurate location of this posterior wound.
(quote off)
Neither of these locations in the final autopsy report was
"correct" since neither used the spine as a landmark, as
per proper autopsy protocol.
Q: Where in the medical evidence do we find the spine used
correctly as a reference point for JFK's back wound?
A: In Burkley's death certificate -- marked "verified" -- which
listed the back wound as in "the posterior back at about the
level of the third thoracic vertebra."
Burkley's death certificate trumps the final autopsy report
because, as Finck himself noted, the spine is the ONLY
correct reference point for the back wound.
The low wound location was also recorded in another
contemporaneous document: the autopsy face sheet
diagram -- marked "verified.":
http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/autopdescript1.gif
There was a measurement recorded in pen on the autopsy
face sheet -- 13.5cm below the mastoid process -- but using
a pen is a violation of autopsy protocol, and using a cranial
landmark as reference to a back wound is a violation of
autopsy protocol.
All of the correct evidence in the case puts the back wound
at T3.
The FBI autopsy report was a straight forward investigative
document, and it listed the wound in a location consistent
with the holes in the clothes and the death certificate, which
are consistent with the sworn testimony of at least 5 federal
agents (FBI SA James Sibert, FBI SA Francis O'Neill, SS SA
Glen Bennett, SS SA Clint Hill, SS SA Roy Kellerman) and the
witness statements of medical personnel who handled the body
(Parkland Nurse Diana Bowron, autopsy Doctor John Ebersole
autopsy witness Chester Boyers, autopsy witness Floyd Reibe
autopsy witness Jan Gail Rudnicki, autopsy witness James
Curtis Jenkins, autopsy witness Edward Reed).
There is no valid medical evidence of the SBT inshoot
at C7/T1.
Indeed, the evidence of the T3 "low back wound" is
exhaustive.
So why is Dave Reitzes claiming otherwise?
Cliff
> Cliff,
>
> > Let's cut this strawman in the bud.
>
> Rather odd mixed metaphor,
Straw doesn't bud?
> but let's do examine the reasons why the
> clothing is not a good indicator of the back wound as compared to the skin
> and muscle of the back itself.
Unfortunately, the autopsy photos lack both a chain of
possession and any significant evidentiary weight, the
latter according to the HSCA.
>
> > The bullet holes in his shirt and jacket were 2-3 inches
> > below the SBT in-shoot.
> > That is a fact.
>
> Yes. However the human torso is not shaped like a coat hanger. There is
> more curvature to the back than the front. When standing upright the suit
> coat hangs properly the way the tailor designed it. When sitting on a
> couch or car seat the coat is caught between the seat, the back of the
> seat, and the torso. This distorts the suit because it causes wrinkles and
> folds. Some people prefer to hang a coat up when involved in long
> meetings, but that isn't always possible, such as in a parade or public
> motorcade.
This issue was settled by Chad Zimmerman, as presented
on the Discovery Channel's Unsolved History. Chad found a
guy 6' 170lbs like Kennedy, marked a point 4 inches below
the coat collar with a metal dot which he then x-rayed.
According to Chad Zimmerman's x-rays, T3 is 4 inches below
the bottom of the collar.
>
> > The Dealey Plaza photos show the jacket dropped in the seconds
> > before he was shot.
>
> What photos?
More than a dozen taken from Main St. to Elm St.
Here are 4 images which show it the best:
The first two images are from the Houston St. segment
of the Nix film. In the first image JFK was leaning
forward chatting with Nellie Connally. His shirt collar
was not visible in the first image (red box).
A split second later he leaned back and his shirt collar
was exposed -- the jacket had dropped.
The third image shows JFK in the same posture he
was in when he was first shot (head turned to the right,
right arm waving), but this image was taken on Main St.
about 2 minutes before the shooting.
Note that JFK's jacket rode up into his hairline in the
third image. Note the diagonal fabric indentation in the
upper back of the jacket.
The fourth image is a close up of Betzner #3 taken at Z186,
a split second before the shooting. JFK's head was turned
to the right and he was waving his right hand.
There is an indentation in the jacket in Betzner, below the
1/2" of exposed shirt collar (blue arrow) and above the minor
(less than a half-inch) fold in the jacket (red arrow).
The drop of JFK's jacket in Dealey Plaza is wholly inconsistent
with the claim that JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated 2-3 inches
in tandem in a manner consistent with the SBT.
>
> > That is a fact.
>
> Some researchers believe the President was first wounded when the
> Limousine was behind the Stemmons Fwy sign, so the Z-film might not be
> much help. What photo are you referring to?
There are many in addition to the ones cited above..
Note the position of the jacket vis a vis the shirt collar
in the Jefferies film:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2-6XI4Y883w&feature=related
JFK's shirt collar was not visible at the back on Main St,
but it was highly visible on Elm St as seen in the Towner film:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7xtwBULHBFg
>
> > The burden of proof is on you and Dave Reitzes to show how
> > JFK's jacket could elevate by dropping.
> > You can't, of course, the notion is absurd.
>
> Yes, that is quite absurd which is why no one is saying that but you.
Excuse me? Since the holes in JFK's clothes are 2-3 inches
below the SBT in-shoot, the shirt and jacket HAD to elevate
in tandem 2-3 inches for the SBT to be viable.
Are you denying that the SBT requires such an elevation of the
clothing?
> What
> some people now consider the last photo taken of JFK approximately 90
> seconds before the first shot shows his coat bunched up with a fold as
> high as his collar.
You're refering to the Jefferies film (see above), taken 90
seconds before the shooting.
The Jefferies film is hardly the "last photo taken" of
JFK before the shooting.
The Towner film was taken 5-10 seconds before the shooting
and Betzner #3 was taken a split second before the shooting
(and shows a decidedly minor fold in the jacket).
> In almost every photo of the President where his right
> arm is resting on the window or waving to the crowd, this motion is
> causing his jacked to rise up.
Wrong. The jacket clearly dropped in Dealey Plaza. When
JFK turned to the right and started to wave his right arm for
the last time (circa Z176), he knocked his jacket down a bit
more.
Thus the minor fold in the jacket in the third image (see above).
>
> Assuming the bullet track does not line up with the holes in the clothing,
> what are the implications to your theory?
It isn't a theory. There is nothing theoretical in what I present.
It is a matter of readily observable fact -- the holes in the clothes
are 2-3 inches below the SBT in-shoot, and the Dealey Plaza
films and photos show the jacket dropped.
This event was first observed by author Jim Moore in
CONSPIRACY OF ONE all the way back in 1991.
> I assume you think the wound
> itself was lower than reported in the autopsy.
It isn't about what "I think" or "you think".
The holes in the clothes are in a location that Chad Zimmerman
has shown is about the level of the third thoracic vertebra -- right
where the correctly prepared (and marked "verified") death
certificate put it, right where the autopsy face sheet diagram
put it, right where the FBI autopsy report put it, right where
the shown testimony of 5 federal agents put it, right where the
witness statements of another half-dozen people who handled
the body put it.
At T3. Well below the location required by the SBT.
> Did the sniper on the
> Grassy Knoll fire this shot instead of LHO?
I don't see how JFK could have been shot in the back from
the Grassy Knoll, unless it was when the limo neared the
underpass...
> Or is the bullet angle from a
> much flatter trajectory tracking back to another office building, such as
> the Dal-Tex building. Only problem with flat trajectories is there was a
> Secret Service agent riding high on the trunk of the follow-up car behind
> the Limousine. He would be an obstacle to any flat trajectories from the
> buildings on Houston street. It would take a magic bullet to circle around
> this bodyguard and hit the President.
I don't think the upper floors of the Dal-Tex would have had
any trajectory problems.
>
> Another question, would the back of the seat behind the President prevent
> a shot much lower than the one found in the autopsy?
Not according to Secret Service agent Glen Bennett, who saw
JFK get hit "four inches down" -- which was exactly where the
bullet holes in the clothes are, 4 inches below the collars.
> If the actual wound
> is lower than claimed what does that prove?
A conspiracy to kill Kennedy which covered-up at
the highest levels of the US government and media.
> Why would anyone go to the
> trouble of changing this wound by 2"?
They didn't change the wound. They changed the "official"
description of the location of the wound several times, and
they faked an autopsy photograph.
> They would have to plug up the real
> wound and create another fake wound. How and where did "they" alter these
> wounds?
Gimme a break. All they did was tailor the autopsy report
to fit the 3-shot scenario and ginned up an autopsy photo.
Anthony Marsh
And you said there are no problems with your Web site. I constantly find
little mistakes on any Web site, including my own. Out of date links,
out of date graphics, misspellings, etc.
> Dave
>
Anthony Marsh
> Cliff,
>
>> Let's cut this strawman in the bud.
>
> Rather odd mixed metaphor, but let's do examine the reasons why the
> clothing is not a good indicator of the back wound as compared to the skin
> and muscle of the back itself.
>
>> The bullet holes in his shirt and jacket were 2-3 inches
>> below the SBT in-shoot.
>> That is a fact.
>
> Yes. However the human torso is not shaped like a coat hanger. There is
> more curvature to the back than the front. When standing upright the suit
> coat hangs properly the way the tailor designed it. When sitting on a
> couch or car seat the coat is caught between the seat, the back of the
> seat, and the torso. This distorts the suit because it causes wrinkles and
> folds. Some people prefer to hang a coat up when involved in long
> meetings, but that isn't always possible, such as in a parade or public
> motorcade.
>
>> The Dealey Plaza photos show the jacket dropped in the seconds
>> before he was shot.
>
> What photos?
>
Of course you are not familiar with the photos in Dealey Plaza. Tell me
something new.
>> That is a fact.
>
> Some researchers believe the President was first wounded when the
> Limousine was behind the Stemmons Fwy sign, so the Z-film might not be
> much help. What photo are you referring to?
>
I think it is a good assumption. Read Pictures of the Pain.
>> The burden of proof is on you and Dave Reitzes to show how
>> JFK's jacket could elevate by dropping.
>> You can't, of course, the notion is absurd.
>
> Yes, that is quite absurd which is why no one is saying that but you. What
Saying what? You mean what thousands of other researchers have pointed
out before?
> some people now consider the last photo taken of JFK approximately 90
> seconds before the first shot shows his coat bunched up with a fold as
The last photo taken of JFK was not 90 seconds before the first shot.
There are many photos showing the jacket bunched up and many showing it
not bunched up.
> high as his collar. In almost every photo of the President where his right
> arm is resting on the window or waving to the crowd, this motion is
> causing his jacked to rise up.
>
Yeah, rise up a half inch. BFD.
> Assuming the bullet track does not line up with the holes in the clothing,
> what are the implications to your theory? I assume you think the wound
> itself was lower than reported in the autopsy. Did the sniper on the
Reported or depicted? Reported is inaccurate. You mean Boswell's dot?
Anyone can see that dot is very low, too low.
> Grassy Knoll fire this shot instead of LHO? Or is the bullet angle from a
What a ridiculous straw man argument, saying that the grassy knoll
shooter could hit JFK's back.
> much flatter trajectory tracking back to another office building, such as
> the Dal-Tex building. Only problem with flat trajectories is there was a
> Secret Service agent riding high on the trunk of the follow-up car behind
> the Limousine. He would be an obstacle to any flat trajectories from the
> buildings on Houston street. It would take a magic bullet to circle around
> this bodyguard and hit the President.
>
No, he wouldn't. You have not plotted the trajectory. Some angles are
possible, as shown from the error cones provided by the HSCA.
> Another question, would the back of the seat behind the President prevent
> a shot much lower than the one found in the autopsy? If the actual wound
Yes, the padding over the deck would have to be pierced for a hit as low
as T-4.
> is lower than claimed what does that prove? Why would anyone go to the
> trouble of changing this wound by 2"? They would have to plug up the real
> wound and create another fake wound. How and where did "they" alter these
> wounds?
No need for real plastic surgery. They used verbal plastic surgery. They
simply lied and all you WC defender swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
kbs8...@yahoo.com
> On Apr 14, 8:36 am, kbs88...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 14, 12:33 am, Cliff <n...@sfo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 13, 8:08 pm, "Jas" <jste...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Cliff wrote: "The bullet holes in JFK's shirt and jacket are 4 inches
>
> > > > below the 'upper back/lower neck area.'
>
> > > > Use your eyes, it's as plain as day."
>
> > > > Let's see now...using your logic: if, say a man was pulling on his pants,
>
> > > Let's cut this strawman in the bud.
>
> > > Your example has nothing to do with JFK.
>
> > > The bullet holes in his shirt and jacket were 2-3 inches
> > > below the SBT in-shoot.
>
> > > That is a fact.
>
> > > The Dealey Plaza photos show the jacket dropped in the seconds
> > > before he was shot.
>
> > > That is a fact.
>
> > > The burden of proof is on you and Dave Reitzes to show how
> > > JFK's jacket could elevate by dropping.
>
> > > You can't, of course, the notion is absurd..
>
> > I think you have the burden of proof backwards. The proof that the
> > coat/shirt were bunched up is satisfied by looking at the JFK autopsy
> > photos.
>
> You are aware that the HSCA found the authenticity of those
> photos suspect?
>
I was wondering how long it would take for this thread to degenerate into
an "autopsy photos are fake" one.
I'm sorry but I just don't buy your argument that those Dealy Plaza grainy
photos you mentioned a few posts back show JFK's coat/shirt dropping down
before the shot in the back is received. To use those photos as evidence
but post the HSCA's opinion that the autopsy photos are too low quality to
be of use is a pretty interesting take on your part. One of the autopsy
photos clearly shows the entrance would on JFK's back so the point about
the position of the coat/shirt should be a moot one.
Dave Reitzes
Citation!
I constantly find
> little mistakes on any Web site, including my own. Out of date links,
> out of date graphics, misspellings, etc.
Who doesn't?
You wussed out, Anthony, just as you do everytime you're challenged to
back up the nonsense you post.
I'm going back to ignoring your posts, as I usually do. Adios.
Dave
Anthony Marsh
Poor quality and sloppiness does not prove they are not genuine.
They are authentic.
Yes, maybe she developed Knudsen's photographs taken for the Kennedy
family.
> (pg 35)
>
> The lack of a chain of evidence for the extant autopsy photos
> compounds their "obvious deficiences as scientific evidence,"
> to put it mildly.
>
> There are only two pieces of evidence left in support of the
> Single Bullet Theory:
>
> 1) The wound locations listed in the final autopsy report.
>
> 2) The measurement from the mastoid process written
> in pen on the autopsy face sheet.
>
> Here's how the "posterior" wound was described in the
> autopsy report:
>
> (quote on)
>
> Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper
> border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound. This
> wound is measured to be 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion
> process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process.
>
> (quote off)
>
> There are two different wound locations listed in the final autopsy
> report -- "just above the upper border of the scapula" and "14cm
> below the tip of the right mastoid process."
>
> As this diagram shows, the upper border of the scapula is
> T2/T3:
>
On SOME people. Not on all.
> http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/back_diagram.gif
>
> "Just above the upper border of the scapula" puts the wound
> at T2; 14cm below the mastoid process" puts the wound at
> C7/T1.
>
Coincidence.
> Neither of these contradictory locations have any evidentiary
> value according to one of the guys responsible for the autopsy
> report!
>
> That would be Dr. Pierre Finck, who testifed before the ARRB:
>
> (quote on)
>
> JFK's spine, a fixed landmark, was the correct and only point of
> reference to determine the accurate location of this posterior wound.
>
> (quote off)
>
>
> Neither of these locations in the final autopsy report was
> "correct" since neither used the spine as a landmark, as
> per proper autopsy protocol.
>
> Q: Where in the medical evidence do we find the spine used
> correctly as a reference point for JFK's back wound?
>
> A: In Burkley's death certificate -- marked "verified" -- which
> listed the back wound as in "the posterior back at about the
> level of the third thoracic vertebra."
>
> Burkley's death certificate trumps the final autopsy report
> because, as Finck himself noted, the spine is the ONLY
> correct reference point for the back wound.
>
No, it does not, because Burkley was not qualified to make that
determination.
> The low wound location was also recorded in another
> contemporaneous document: the autopsy face sheet
> diagram -- marked "verified.":
>
Verified means nothing.
> http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/autopdescript1.gif
>
> There was a measurement recorded in pen on the autopsy
> face sheet -- 13.5cm below the mastoid process -- but using
> a pen is a violation of autopsy protocol, and using a cranial
> landmark as reference to a back wound is a violation of
> autopsy protocol.
>
> All of the correct evidence in the case puts the back wound
> at T3.
>
No, that is physically impossible. If the bullet continued on a downward
trajectory it smash into the manubrium.
> The FBI autopsy report was a straight forward investigative
> document, and it listed the wound in a location consistent
> with the holes in the clothes and the death certificate, which
> are consistent with the sworn testimony of at least 5 federal
> agents (FBI SA James Sibert, FBI SA Francis O'Neill, SS SA
> Glen Bennett, SS SA Clint Hill, SS SA Roy Kellerman) and the
> witness statements of medical personnel who handled the body
> (Parkland Nurse Diana Bowron, autopsy Doctor John Ebersole
> autopsy witness Chester Boyers, autopsy witness Floyd Reibe
> autopsy witness Jan Gail Rudnicki, autopsy witness James
> Curtis Jenkins, autopsy witness Edward Reed).
>
> There is no valid medical evidence of the SBT inshoot
> at C7/T1.
>
Talk to Baden.
> Indeed, the evidence of the T3 "low back wound" is
> exhaustive.
>
Ridiculous. Physically impossible.
claviger
> > > Let's cut this strawman in the bud.
> > Rather odd mixed metaphor,
> Straw doesn't bud?
Not the kind used to make a strawman stuffed with dead grass.
> Unfortunately, the autopsy photos lack both a chain of
> possession and any significant evidentiary weight, the
> latter according to the HSCA.
The HSCA could be talking about a legal technicality in a trial, but that
doesn't mean the photos are fake, especially if the three prosectors look
at them and verify that is exactly what they saw.
> This issue was settled by Chad Zimmerman, as presented
> on the Discovery Channel's Unsolved History. Chad found a
> guy 6' 170lbs like Kennedy, marked a point 4 inches below
> the coat collar with a metal dot which he then x-rayed.
Since I didn't see the program I can't comment, other than I doubt the
issue was "settled."
> > > The Dealey Plaza photos show the jacket dropped in the seconds
> > > before he was shot.
> > What photos?
> More than a dozen taken from Main St. to Elm St.
> Here are 4 images which show it the best:
> http://occamsrazorjfk.net/
> The drop of JFK's jacket in Dealey Plaza is wholly inconsistent
> with the claim that JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated 2-3 inches
> in tandem in a manner consistent with the SBT.
All those photos show a high fold blocking the view of the complete shirt
collar that would be visible if the President were standing upright and
the jacket hung properly.
> Note the position of the jacket vis a vis the shirt collar
> in the Jefferies film:
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=2-6XI4Y883w&feature=related
This photo in particular shows a large fold that would use up almost
3" of material.
> JFK's shirt collar was not visible at the back on Main St,
> but it was highly visible on Elm St as seen in the Towner film:
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=7xtwBULHBFg
Only the part to the left side. The back of the shirt collar is not
visible.
> Excuse me? Since the holes in JFK's clothes are 2-3 inches
> below the SBT in-shoot, the shirt and jacket HAD to elevate
> in tandem 2-3 inches for the SBT to be viable.
> Are you denying that the SBT requires such an elevation of the
> clothing?
I agree that folds in the clothing explain the difference between the
holes in the cloth and the wound in the torso.
> You're refering to the Jefferies film (see above), taken 90
> seconds before the shooting.
> The Jefferies film is hardly the "last photo taken" of
> JFK before the shooting.
> The Towner film was taken 5-10 seconds before the shooting
> and Betzner #3 was taken a split second before the shooting
> (and shows a decidedly minor fold in the jacket).
Croft photo #3 taken about 4 seconds before the shot shows a high fold
the same level as the President's hair line which completely covers
the back of the shirt collar.
> Wrong. The jacket clearly dropped in Dealey Plaza. When
> JFK turned to the right and started to wave his right arm for
> the last time (circa Z176), he knocked his jacket down a bit
> more.
If you're talking about the Towner film it too demonstrates the
President's white shirt collar can only be seen partially from the side.
If the jacket had dropped the entire shirt collar would be visible.
> It isn't a theory. There is nothing theoretical in what I present.
> It is a matter of readily observable fact -- the holes in the clothes
> are 2-3 inches below the SBT in-shoot, and the Dealey Plaza
> films and photos show the jacket dropped.
No they don't, in fact just the opposite.
> It isn't about what "I think" or "you think".
> The holes in the clothes are in a location that Chad Zimmerman
> has shown is about the level of the third thoracic vertebra -- right
> where the correctly prepared (and marked "verified") death
> certificate put it, right where the autopsy face sheet diagram
> put it, right where the FBI autopsy report put it, right where
> the shown testimony of 5 federal agents put it, right where the
> witness statements of another half-dozen people who handled
> the body put it.
> At T3. Well below the location required by the SBT.
They all measured the wound from what anatomical landmark?
> I don't see how JFK could have been shot in the back from
> the Grassy Knoll, unless it was when the limo neared the
> underpass...
Agreed.
> I don't think the upper floors of the Dal-Tex would have had
> any trajectory problems.
Which upper floors?
> Not according to Secret Service agent Glen Bennett, who saw
> JFK get hit "four inches down" -- which was exactly where the
> bullet holes in the clothes are, 4 inches below the collars.
Did Glen Bennett measure it with a ruler?
> A conspiracy to kill Kennedy which covered-up at
> the highest levels of the US government and media.
Of course.
> They didn't change the wound. They changed the "official"
> description of the location of the wound several times, and
> they faked an autopsy photograph.
Several times? Wouldn't once be enough?
> Gimme a break. All they did was tailor the autopsy report
> to fit the 3-shot scenario and ginned up an autopsy photo.
The Kennedy family had their trusted people at the autopsy and RFK was in
constant communication with them during the long pathological examination.
There is no way anything could be faked without RFK knowing about it. The
whole time he was upstairs with Jackie who refused to leave the hospital
until the autopsy was finished and she could leave with the body.
Therefore, any alterations of the facts discovered during the autopsy
would need to be approved by RFK. There is one theory that suggests that
is indeed what happened which is why the brain and adrenal glands went
missing, and why Humes was so vague about the entrance wound on the head.
Herbert Blenner
Where's the chuck, Tony?
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
> Cliff,
>
>>>> Let's cut this strawman in the bud.
>>> Rather odd mixed metaphor,
>> Straw doesn't bud?
>
> Not the kind used to make a strawman stuffed with dead grass.
>
>> Unfortunately, the autopsy photos lack both a chain of
>> possession and any significant evidentiary weight, the
>> latter according to the HSCA.
>
> The HSCA could be talking about a legal technicality in a trial, but that
> doesn't mean the photos are fake, especially if the three prosectors look
> at them and verify that is exactly what they saw.
>
Forget the HSCA. You know that the CIA tampered with the photos when the
HSCA had them. The ARRB authenticated the autopsy photos. You should not
depend on the autopsy doctors for anything. They are liars.
>> This issue was settled by Chad Zimmerman, as presented
>> on the Discovery Channel's Unsolved History. Chad found a
>> guy 6' 170lbs like Kennedy, marked a point 4 inches below
>> the coat collar with a metal dot which he then x-rayed.
>
> Since I didn't see the program I can't comment, other than I doubt the
> issue was "settled."
>
>>>> The Dealey Plaza photos show the jacket dropped in the seconds
>>>> before he was shot.
>>> What photos?
>> More than a dozen taken from Main St. to Elm St.
>> Here are 4 images which show it the best:
>> http://occamsrazorjfk.net/
>> The drop of JFK's jacket in Dealey Plaza is wholly inconsistent
>> with the claim that JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated 2-3 inches
>> in tandem in a manner consistent with the SBT.
>
> All those photos show a high fold blocking the view of the complete shirt
> collar that would be visible if the President were standing upright and
> the jacket hung properly.
>
So what?
>> Note the position of the jacket vis a vis the shirt collar
>> in the Jefferies film:
>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=2-6XI4Y883w&feature=related
>
> This photo in particular shows a large fold that would use up almost
> 3" of material.
>
Prove it. And do you really think JFK was hit then?
>> JFK's shirt collar was not visible at the back on Main St,
>> but it was highly visible on Elm St as seen in the Towner film:
>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=7xtwBULHBFg
>
> Only the part to the left side. The back of the shirt collar is not
> visible.
>
>> Excuse me? Since the holes in JFK's clothes are 2-3 inches
>> below the SBT in-shoot, the shirt and jacket HAD to elevate
>> in tandem 2-3 inches for the SBT to be viable.
>> Are you denying that the SBT requires such an elevation of the
>> clothing?
>
> I agree that folds in the clothing explain the difference between the
> holes in the cloth and the wound in the torso.
>
But you don't even know where the wound in the torso was.
>> You're refering to the Jefferies film (see above), taken 90
>> seconds before the shooting.
>> The Jefferies film is hardly the "last photo taken" of
>> JFK before the shooting.
>> The Towner film was taken 5-10 seconds before the shooting
>> and Betzner #3 was taken a split second before the shooting
>> (and shows a decidedly minor fold in the jacket).
>
> Croft photo #3 taken about 4 seconds before the shot shows a high fold
> the same level as the President's hair line which completely covers
> the back of the shirt collar.
>
So, you think JFK was hit at Z-161?
>> Wrong. The jacket clearly dropped in Dealey Plaza. When
>> JFK turned to the right and started to wave his right arm for
>> the last time (circa Z176), he knocked his jacket down a bit
>> more.
>
> If you're talking about the Towner film it too demonstrates the
> President's white shirt collar can only be seen partially from the side.
> If the jacket had dropped the entire shirt collar would be visible.
>
>> It isn't a theory. There is nothing theoretical in what I present.
>> It is a matter of readily observable fact -- the holes in the clothes
>> are 2-3 inches below the SBT in-shoot, and the Dealey Plaza
>> films and photos show the jacket dropped.
>
> No they don't, in fact just the opposite.
>
>> It isn't about what "I think" or "you think".
>> The holes in the clothes are in a location that Chad Zimmerman
>> has shown is about the level of the third thoracic vertebra -- right
>> where the correctly prepared (and marked "verified") death
>> certificate put it, right where the autopsy face sheet diagram
>> put it, right where the FBI autopsy report put it, right where
>> the shown testimony of 5 federal agents put it, right where the
>> witness statements of another half-dozen people who handled
>> the body put it.
>> At T3. Well below the location required by the SBT.
>
> They all measured the wound from what anatomical landmark?
>
Burkley did not measure the wound.
>> I don't see how JFK could have been shot in the back from
>> the Grassy Knoll, unless it was when the limo neared the
>> underpass...
>
> Agreed.
>
>> I don't think the upper floors of the Dal-Tex would have had
>> any trajectory problems.
>
> Which upper floors?
>
Look at the error cones.
>> Not according to Secret Service agent Glen Bennett, who saw
>> JFK get hit "four inches down" -- which was exactly where the
>> bullet holes in the clothes are, 4 inches below the collars.
>
> Did Glen Bennett measure it with a ruler?
>
>> A conspiracy to kill Kennedy which covered-up at
>> the highest levels of the US government and media.
>
> Of course.
>
>> They didn't change the wound. They changed the "official"
>> description of the location of the wound several times, and
>> they faked an autopsy photograph.
>
> Several times? Wouldn't once be enough?
>
>> Gimme a break. All they did was tailor the autopsy report
>> to fit the 3-shot scenario and ginned up an autopsy photo.
>
> The Kennedy family had their trusted people at the autopsy and RFK was in
> constant communication with them during the long pathological examination.
> There is no way anything could be faked without RFK knowing about it. The
> whole time he was upstairs with Jackie who refused to leave the hospital
> until the autopsy was finished and she could leave with the body.
> Therefore, any alterations of the facts discovered during the autopsy
> would need to be approved by RFK. There is one theory that suggests that
> is indeed what happened which is why the brain and adrenal glands went
> missing, and why Humes was so vague about the entrance wound on the head.
>
All they had to do was lie about it the next day.
>
Jas
wound -- clothes or no clothes -- and the remaining trajectory of the
bullet through JFK's upper body, out his lower anterior neck, and into
Connally, still lines up with the sniper's window of the 6th floor TSBD.
Since the bullet through JFK was a clean"through and through"
high-powered, full metal jacketed bullet -- extremely stable -- this
remaining trajectory is proof that the bullet was not fired from anywhere
else in Dealey.
Therefore, a detailed, photo-intensive study/argument of exactly where his
shirt and jacket were located on his back when the shot struck -- bunched
up, folded up, high, low, whatever -- is moot.
It can be lined up from the front.
James
"Cliff" <nk...@sfo.com> wrote in message
news:1b34f5f2-c1bf-4b13...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:KP6dnWoxJOVFn5vV...@comcast.com...
Anthony Marsh
> Something that needs to be pointed out is, the point of entry of the
> back wound -- clothes or no clothes -- and the remaining trajectory of
> the bullet through JFK's upper body, out his lower anterior neck, and
> into Connally, still lines up with the sniper's window of the 6th floor
> TSBD.
No, it does not. Not with a straight line. In order to get a straight
line, every proponent of a SBT has to lie about something, usually where
the back wound was. Even the WC itself knew that when Rankin reminded all
that the back wound was BELOW the throat wound. You need to move the back
wound UP, above the top of the shoulders, as Dale Myers does.
>
> Since the bullet through JFK was a clean"through and through"
> high-powered, full metal jacketed bullet -- extremely stable -- this
> remaining trajectory is proof that the bullet was not fired from
> anywhere else in Dealey.
>
That is not the proof.
> Therefore, a detailed, photo-intensive study/argument of exactly where
> his shirt and jacket were located on his back when the shot struck --
> bunched up, folded up, high, low, whatever -- is moot.
>
No, it is relevant, as further evidence that the WC SBT does not work.
> It can be lined up from the front.
>
You can line up anything if you fudge the data.
Cliff
> Something that needs to be pointed out is, the point of entry of the back
> wound -- clothes or no clothes -- and the remaining trajectory of the
> bullet through JFK's upper body, out his lower anterior neck, and into
> Connally, still lines up with the sniper's window of the 6th floor TSBD.
Not with the back wound at T3. That trajectory doesn't work
at all.
The holes in the clothes are 2-3 inches below the SBT
in-shoot. That is a fact.
>
> Since the bullet through JFK was a clean"through and through"
There is no evidence of this whatsoever. The autopsy found the
back wound to be shallow. The wound was probed repeatedly
by Finck and the conclusion reached was that there was no lane
of transit.
You must keep in mind the historical context of the JFK
assassination. The decision to charge one man for the
crime was reached at the highest levels of the US government
the afternoon of the killing. As military men acting under
orders, the autopsists were assigned the task of making
the evidence fit the conclusion that only 3 shots were fired.
It's Finck who gave this game away when he told the ARRB
that the "correct and only" way to locate the back wound
was by a spinal landmark.
The death certificate filled out by Dr. Burkley put the posterior
wound "about the level of the third thoracic vertebra."
That is the "correct and only" way to record the wound.
Finck & Co. gave the back wound two different locations
in the final autopsy report -- neither of which were recorded
according to autopsy protocol.
"Just above the upper margin of the scapula" is a location
consistent with T2, as per this diagram:
http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/back_diagram.gif
"14cm below the mastoid process" is consistent with C7/T1
and what we see in the highly-questionable "Fox 5" autopsy
photo:
http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/jfk05.jpg
The wound in that photo was clearly not "just above
the upper margin of the scapula."
I suggest you read Gerald McKnight's BREACH OF TRUST
to get an idea of how the autopsy report was a political
document, not at all a medicolegal document.
> high-powered, full metal jacketed bullet -- extremely stable --
The MC was not a high powered rifle.
> this
> remaining trajectory is proof that the bullet was not fired from anywhere
> else in Dealey.
You review the evidence under the assumption your
conclusion is true -- this is circular logic.
>
> Therefore, a detailed, photo-intensive study/argument of exactly where his
> shirt and jacket were located on his back when the shot struck -- bunched
> up, folded up, high, low, whatever -- is moot.
>
> It can be lined up from the front.
See above.
Cliff Varnell
Anthony Marsh
> On Apr 16, 7:58 pm, "Jas" <jste...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Something that needs to be pointed out is, the point of entry of the back
>> wound -- clothes or no clothes -- and the remaining trajectory of the
>> bullet through JFK's upper body, out his lower anterior neck, and into
>> Connally, still lines up with the sniper's window of the 6th floor TSBD.
>
> Not with the back wound at T3. That trajectory doesn't work
> at all.
>
> The holes in the clothes are 2-3 inches below the SBT
> in-shoot. That is a fact.
>
>
>> Since the bullet through JFK was a clean"through and through"
>
>
> There is no evidence of this whatsoever. The autopsy found the
> back wound to be shallow. The wound was probed repeatedly
> by Finck and the conclusion reached was that there was no lane
> of transit.
>
Wrong. Humes was incompetent and that is not the way to examine a bullet
wound. It was not shallow.
> You must keep in mind the historical context of the JFK
> assassination. The decision to charge one man for the
> crime was reached at the highest levels of the US government
> the afternoon of the killing. As military men acting under
> orders, the autopsists were assigned the task of making
> the evidence fit the conclusion that only 3 shots were fired.
>
> It's Finck who gave this game away when he told the ARRB
> that the "correct and only" way to locate the back wound
> was by a spinal landmark.
>
> The death certificate filled out by Dr. Burkley put the posterior
> wound "about the level of the third thoracic vertebra."
>
> That is the "correct and only" way to record the wound.
>
No. Burkley was not qualified to make that determination.
> Finck & Co. gave the back wound two different locations
> in the final autopsy report -- neither of which were recorded
> according to autopsy protocol.
>
> "Just above the upper margin of the scapula" is a location
> consistent with T2, as per this diagram:
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/back_diagram.gif
>
And what says that the diagram is the same as JFK's body?
> "14cm below the mastoid process" is consistent with C7/T1
> and what we see in the highly-questionable "Fox 5" autopsy
> photo:
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/jfk05.jpg
>
Close enough for government work.
kbs8...@yahoo.com
> assassination. The decision to charge one man for the
> crime was reached at the highest levels of the US government
> the afternoon of the killing. As military men acting under
> orders, the autopsists were assigned the task of making
> the evidence fit the conclusion that only 3 shots were fired.
>
So the coat/shirt discussion has now lead us to this: Massive cover up
starting a few hours after JFK was killed and the doctors fabricating
autopsy results.
Sorry, but I'm taking the path of least resistance here. The folds in the
coat/shirt are secondary to the entrance on JFK's back. The downgrade of
Elm Street along with JFK's anatomy is more than enough to match the
entrance/exit wounds on his body back to the sniper's nest. To say
otherwise makes a person have to disregard all the evidence found on the
sixth floor. And that's what this all comes down to. Coming up with clever
scenarios based on the position of JFK's coat and shirt in an attempt to
exonerate Oswald. The only problem is that all the other evidence is way
too strong to be beaten down by a coat and shirt (unless you bring in the
military men, DPD, US Government, secret service, FBI, CIA, and just about
everyone else in Dealy Plaza, leaving Jackie as the sole person not
involved with the conspiracy that day).
Jas
> On Apr 16, 7:58 pm, "Jas" <jste...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Something that needs to be pointed out is, the point of entry of the back
>> wound -- clothes or no clothes -- and the remaining trajectory of the
>> bullet through JFK's upper body, out his lower anterior neck, and into
>> Connally, still lines up with the sniper's window of the 6th floor TSBD.
>
> Not with the back wound at T3. That trajectory doesn't work
> at all.
Depending on the curvature of the upper back and the fact that Kennedy
wasn't sitting straight up with his spine completely vertical at the time
of the shot, even T3 could be an entry point with the still bullet passing
out the lower anterior neck.
>
> The holes in the clothes are 2-3 inches below the SBT
> in-shoot. That is a fact.
As I said, this argument is moot because it still doesn't negate the 399
bullet path findings of the WC.
>
>
>>
>> Since the bullet through JFK was a clean"through and through"
>
>
> There is no evidence of this whatsoever. The autopsy found the
> back wound to be shallow. The wound was probed repeatedly
> by Finck and the conclusion reached was that there was no lane
> of transit.
>
The probing by Finck part of the way into the bullet hole does not prove
the bullet was not a "through and through" wound. This has been argued
repeatedly in the years since the assassination. The flesh and muscle
tissue can and does fall back on itself, closing the path hole, and gives
any cursory examination with a finger and/or metal probe only the
appearance of the wound path stopping.
>You must keep in mind the historical context of the JFK
>assassination. The decision to charge one man for the
>crime was reached at the highest levels of the US government
>the afternoon of the killing. As military men acting under
>orders, the autopsists were assigned the task of making
>the evidence fit the conclusion that only 3 shots were fired.
>
Any decision to charge one man from the "highest levels of the US
government" was only after Oswald was arrested after the pieces of the
puzzle were put together that pointed the finger at him being the
assassin. The Warren Commission was charged with finding a possible
conspiracy, and couldn't. And, "military men acting under orders" means
nothing. The autopsists were following protocol when the victim is the
president of the United States, the Commander-in-Chief of the US armed
forces, and the fact that Kennedy was an ex-Navy man. It's as simple as
that.
> It's Finck who gave this game away when he told the ARRB
> that the "correct and only" way to locate the back wound
> was by a spinal landmark.
He didn't give anything away, he was simply describing how to plot the
location of a back wound. Why do conspiracists always have to find
something sinister in each and every little thing? I never could
understand this.
>
> The death certificate filled out by Dr. Burkley put the posterior
> wound "about the level of the third thoracic vertebra."
>
> That is the "correct and only" way to record the wound.
>
See above.
> Finck & Co. gave the back wound two different locations
> in the final autopsy report -- neither of which were recorded
> according to autopsy protocol.
Some discrepancies were made, yes. So what. There still was nothing
sinister going on.
>
> "Just above the upper margin of the scapula" is a location
> consistent with T2, as per this diagram:
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/back_diagram.gif
>
> "14cm below the mastoid process" is consistent with C7/T1
> and what we see in the highly-questionable "Fox 5" autopsy
> photo:
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/jfk05.jpg
>
> The wound in that photo was clearly not "just above
> the upper margin of the scapula."
>
> I suggest you read Gerald McKnight's BREACH OF TRUST
> to get an idea of how the autopsy report was a political
> document, not at all a medicolegal document.
>
As I mentioned before, the curvature of the upper back, especially with a
male that's 46 years of age, and more than likely has the beginning
effects of osteoporosis because of his large intake of cortisone to treat
his Addison's disease -- and the fact that Kennedy was not sitting
straight up when the bullet struck -- is why there was confusion as to the
exact entry location, anatomically speaking. The trouble with the
conspiracists arguing this is that at least 17 pathologists on the WC,
HSCA, and other commissions have concurred on this point. Why do you argue
it further?
>> high-powered, full metal jacketed bullet -- extremely stable --
>
>
> The MC was not a high powered rifle.
>
Yes it is. A weapon with a muzzle velocity of over 2,000 fps is a
high-powered weapon.
>> this
>> remaining trajectory is proof that the bullet was not fired from anywhere
>> else in Dealey.
>
> You review the evidence under the assumption your
> conclusion is true -- this is circular logic.
So do you, my friend.
Anthony Marsh
>
> "Cliff" <nk...@sfo.com> wrote in message
> news:969bd8b7-69af-4053...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 16, 7:58 pm, "Jas" <jste...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> Something that needs to be pointed out is, the point of entry of the
>>> back
>>> wound -- clothes or no clothes -- and the remaining trajectory of the
>>> bullet through JFK's upper body, out his lower anterior neck, and into
>>> Connally, still lines up with the sniper's window of the 6th floor TSBD.
>>
>> Not with the back wound at T3. That trajectory doesn't work
>> at all.
>
> Depending on the curvature of the upper back and the fact that Kennedy
> wasn't sitting straight up with his spine completely vertical at the
> time of the shot, even T3 could be an entry point with the still bullet
> passing out the lower anterior neck.
>
Sure, but T3 would be damaged which it wasn't, and the manubrium would
be damaged which it wasn't.
>>
>> The holes in the clothes are 2-3 inches below the SBT
>> in-shoot. That is a fact.
>
> As I said, this argument is moot because it still doesn't negate the 399
> bullet path findings of the WC.
>
The WC's own executive session negates the SBT path.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Since the bullet through JFK was a clean"through and through"
>>
>>
>> There is no evidence of this whatsoever. The autopsy found the
>> back wound to be shallow. The wound was probed repeatedly
>> by Finck and the conclusion reached was that there was no lane
>> of transit.
>>
>
> The probing by Finck part of the way into the bullet hole does not prove
> the bullet was not a "through and through" wound. This has been argued
> repeatedly in the years since the assassination. The flesh and muscle
> tissue can and does fall back on itself, closing the path hole, and
> gives any cursory examination with a finger and/or metal probe only the
> appearance of the wound path stopping.
>
>> You must keep in mind the historical context of the JFK
>> assassination. The decision to charge one man for the
>> crime was reached at the highest levels of the US government
>> the afternoon of the killing. As military men acting under
>> orders, the autopsists were assigned the task of making
>> the evidence fit the conclusion that only 3 shots were fired.
>>
>
> Any decision to charge one man from the "highest levels of the US
> government" was only after Oswald was arrested after the pieces of the
> puzzle were put together that pointed the finger at him being the
> assassin. The Warren Commission was charged with finding a possible
Oswald was arrested BEFORE the autopsy. And the Dallas authorities
wanted to charge him with conspiracy, but were overruled by Washington.
> conspiracy, and couldn't. And, "military men acting under orders" means
> nothing. The autopsists were following protocol when the victim is the
> president of the United States, the Commander-in-Chief of the US armed
> forces, and the fact that Kennedy was an ex-Navy man. It's as simple as
> that.
>
No, they were NOT following protocol. And they wanted to check it off as
an incomplete autopsy, but were threatened by the military brass.
>> It's Finck who gave this game away when he told the ARRB
>> that the "correct and only" way to locate the back wound
>> was by a spinal landmark.
>
> He didn't give anything away, he was simply describing how to plot the
> location of a back wound. Why do conspiracists always have to find
> something sinister in each and every little thing? I never could
> understand this.
>
The way they did it was not the correct way to do it.
>>
>> The death certificate filled out by Dr. Burkley put the posterior
>> wound "about the level of the third thoracic vertebra."
>>
>> That is the "correct and only" way to record the wound.
>>
> See above.
>
>> Finck & Co. gave the back wound two different locations
>
>> in the final autopsy report -- neither of which were recorded
>> according to autopsy protocol.
>
> Some discrepancies were made, yes. So what. There still was nothing
> sinister going on.
>
Yeah, just a little cover-up.
>>
>> "Just above the upper margin of the scapula" is a location
>> consistent with T2, as per this diagram:
>>
>> http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/back_diagram.gif
>>
>> "14cm below the mastoid process" is consistent with C7/T1
>> and what we see in the highly-questionable "Fox 5" autopsy
>> photo:
>>
>> http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/jfk05.jpg
>>
>> The wound in that photo was clearly not "just above
>> the upper margin of the scapula."
>>
>> I suggest you read Gerald McKnight's BREACH OF TRUST
>> to get an idea of how the autopsy report was a political
>> document, not at all a medicolegal document.
>>
>
> As I mentioned before, the curvature of the upper back, especially with
> a male that's 46 years of age, and more than likely has the beginning
> effects of osteoporosis because of his large intake of cortisone to
> treat his Addison's disease -- and the fact that Kennedy was not sitting
> straight up when the bullet struck -- is why there was confusion as to
You don't even know WHEN he was struck.
> the exact entry location, anatomically speaking. The trouble with the
> conspiracists arguing this is that at least 17 pathologists on the WC,
> HSCA, and other commissions have concurred on this point. Why do you
> argue it further?
>
>>> high-powered, full metal jacketed bullet -- extremely stable --
>>
>>
>> The MC was not a high powered rifle.
>>
>
> Yes it is. A weapon with a muzzle velocity of over 2,000 fps is a
> high-powered weapon.
>
No.
Cliff
I wrote:
(quote on)
There was a measurement recorded in pen on the autopsy
face sheet -- 13.5cm below the mastoid process -- but using
a pen is a violation of autopsy protocol, and using a cranial
landmark as reference to a back wound is a violation of
autopsy protocol.
(quote off)
The measurement recorded on the autopsy face sheet
was the same as in the autopsy report -- "14cm."
Of course, recording this in pen on the face sheet
was a violation of 3 distinct autopsy protocols.
1. A pencil is always used.
2. Cranial landmarks are never used for reference to a
thoracic wound.
3. "The correct and only way" to reference the back wound
is to the spine, as in Burkley's death certificate.
> > All of the correct evidence in the case puts the back wound
> > at T3.
>
> No, that is physically impossible. If the bullet continued on a downward
> trajectory it smash into the manubrium.
You assume he was hit with a conventional round.
No such assumption can be made.
There is no verified, concrete contemporaneous evidence of
a wound higher than T2/T3.
>
> > The FBI autopsy report was a straight forward investigative
> > document, and it listed the wound in a location consistent
> > with the holes in the clothes and the death certificate, which
> > are consistent with the sworn testimony of at least 5 federal
> > agents (FBI SA James Sibert, FBI SA Francis O'Neill, SS SA
> > Glen Bennett, SS SA Clint Hill, SS SA Roy Kellerman) and the
> > witness statements of medical personnel who handled the body
> > (Parkland Nurse Diana Bowron, autopsy Doctor John Ebersole
> > autopsy witness Chester Boyers, autopsy witness Floyd Reibe
> > autopsy witness Jan Gail Rudnicki, autopsy witness James
> > Curtis Jenkins, autopsy witness Edward Reed).
>
> > There is no valid medical evidence of the SBT inshoot
> > at C7/T1.
>
> Talk to Baden.
I don't have to. Finck impeached the wound locations
in the autopsy report. The HSCA impeached the
authenticity of the autopsy photos.
You can sit there an insist on this dis-credited evidence
all you want, but the clothing holes, the contemporaneous
documents, and the witness statements are all irrefutably
consistent with the proven T3 back wound.
Anthony Marsh
> Correction!
>
> I wrote:
>
> (quote on)
>
> There was a measurement recorded in pen on the autopsy
> face sheet -- 13.5cm below the mastoid process -- but using
> a pen is a violation of autopsy protocol, and using a cranial
> landmark as reference to a back wound is a violation of
> autopsy protocol.
>
> (quote off)
>
> The measurement recorded on the autopsy face sheet
> was the same as in the autopsy report -- "14cm."
>
> Of course, recording this in pen on the face sheet
> was a violation of 3 distinct autopsy protocols.
>
> 1. A pencil is always used.
>
Prove that. Prove that this was the protocol in 1963.
> 2. Cranial landmarks are never used for reference to a
> thoracic wound.
>
> 3. "The correct and only way" to reference the back wound
> is to the spine, as in Burkley's death certificate.
>
But Burkley did not determine. He only guessed.
No, they did not. The HSCA accepted them as genuine.
> You can sit there an insist on this dis-credited evidence
> all you want, but the clothing holes, the contemporaneous
> documents, and the witness statements are all irrefutably
> consistent with the proven T3 back wound.
>
>
Much too low.
>
alo...@maine.rr.com
thinking - though who can trust your grasp of facts when you accuse me
of "abusing" you in the past, and yet cannot produce evidence? We have
disagreed, but watch how you word things, as I have NEVER been abusive
in my posts about you and I personally take offense at the charge -
but let's get to your article on RIchard Nagell - full of half-truths;
contrary to what you cite as Nagell's incompetence to speak, the
ultimate findings of the doctors at the VA was that he WAS competent -
and this was a man who suffered multiple wounds on several combat
occassions, and than was the sole survivor of a plane crash, and than
was later shot in the line of law-enforcement duty. How much combat
time have you faced, Dave? go through what Nagell went through and
you, too, might come out the other side with some strangeness;
liberals like yourself always prefer to let someone else fight their
(literal) battles; but anyone who reas the ENTIRE Dick Russell book
will understand that Nagell's contradictions fit well into the whole
espionage and counter-espionage milieu and that lots of his statements
have been corroborated, enough to make us take seriously some of his
charges (and yes, he did say some crazy things, but simultaneously he
revealed much essential info) - and of course you neglect to mention
all the contemporaneous things he said that talk about Dallas as a
motive for his bank robbery, as well as the Oswald ID that was in his
possession, the military intelligence files that coinfirm he was an
op, the fact that the FBI spent two hours interrogating Marina about
him - while you cite the CIA as confirming that he never worked for
the CIA - can you really be that naive, Dave? the CIA, in this case,
is a useless source -
-Allen Lowe
marki...@yahoo.com
> Forget the HSCA. You know that the CIA tampered with the photos when the
> HSCA had them. The ARRB authenticated the autopsy photos. You should not
> depend on the autopsy doctors for anything. They are liars.
How did the CIA tamper with the autopsy photographs during the HSCA
possession of them? That statement catches my attention. Could you explain
a bit, or direct me to where I can read about that? Respectfully, thanks!
~Mark
David Von Pein
RE: NAGELL........
====================
"On January 3, 1967, {Richard Case} Nagell got off a letter to U.S.
Senator Richard Russell in which he talked about Oswald coming under his
scrutiny in 1962 and 1963. He proceeds to tell Russell that Oswald had no
significant contact with pro-Castro elements, or Marxist or racist groups,
et cetera, nor was Oswald "an agent or informant, in the generally
accepted sense of the words, for any investigative, police, or
intelligence agency, domestic or foreign."
"He continued that Oswald was part of a conspiracy to murder Kennedy
that had nothing to do with a foreign government. He concludes, "For what
little it is apparently worth now, my opinion is that the death of
President Kennedy was indirectly, if not directly, resultant from a
conspiracy and also due in great part to the stupidity or negligence of
the FBI; that Mr. Oswald definitely was the only assassin; and that his
own demise was not attributable to any conspiracy of which I was
cognizant." (DOJCD Record 186-10001-10118)
"Using Nagell's own words, he seems to be indirectly removing
himself from consideration by conspiracy theorists as being a player on
their field. But Nagell remained, and remains, a fixture in the conspiracy
firmament.
"If there was anyone who had a wilder imagination about the
assassination than Richard Nagell, it was New Orleans DA Jim Garrison,
whose looney, conspiratorial theories knew no boundaries. As indicated
earlier in this endnote, in his investigation of Clay Shaw for the murder
of President Kennedy, Garrison actually flew to New York City in May 1968.
He met with Nagell on a park bench in Central Park, hoping Nagell would
help break the case wide open for him. (What a conversation it must have
been between someone almost certifiably psychotic [Nagell] and someone
[Garrison] symptomatically psychotic.) [DVP: An "LOL" interjection is
certainly required here.]
"But, for Garrison, Nagell answered very few questions and was
deliberately evasive, except to say, without providing any supporting
evidence, that Guy Banister, Clay Shaw, and David Ferrie were behind the
assassination and had manipulated Oswald.
"Nagell also refused to discuss the CIA (the conspiratorial devil
behind the assassination in Garrison's eyes) or any other federal agency
except that he claimed he was ignored by the FBI when he tried to warn
them of Kennedy's assassination.
"Nagell, wanting to testify, flew to New Orleans on his own before
the Shaw trial in 1969, but Garrison never called him to the stand, not
only because he had nothing to say, but also because, per Garrison, "by
the time [Shaw's attorneys] finished with Nagell, the jury would have been
left with the impression of a crackpot" (Garrison, On the Trail of the
Assassins, pp.213-216, 267).
"When one is a crackpot even in the eyes of someone as screwy and
erratic as Jim Garrison, it's time for that person to go home.
"A footnote to the Nagell story: The ARRB sent Nagell a letter dated
October 31, 1995, requesting that he contact the board to discuss any
documents or evidence he might have in his possession relating to the
assassination (e.g., Nagell told Russell he had a Polaroid photograph of
himself and Oswald in New Orleans, that he had documentary proof of the
letter he allegedly sent to the FBI in September of 1963 warning of
Kennedy's death, etc.). The ARRB learned that Nagell died (from natural
causes) in his Los Angeles apartment on November 1, 1995. A member of the
ARRB staff, with the assistance of Nagell's son and niece, searched his
apartment, and footlockers of his kept in storage in Phoenix, and found
none of the items Nagell claimed he had. (Final Report of the ARRB,
p.133)"
-- VINCENT BUGLIOSI; PAGES 700-701 OF "RECLAIMING HISTORY" (ENDNOTES)
(c.2007)
tomnln
<marki...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:35ba4ac7-9c5f-4f5b...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
~Mark
The HSCA had a security man supplied by the CIA named Blahut;
The autopsy material was in a HSCA Safe.
They walked in & found the autopsy material out of the safe & Blahut's
fingerprints were found on them.
No charges were ever brought against Blahut.
Anthony Marsh
We don't know how the CIA tampered with them. Search for HSCA Blahut CIA.
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/HSCA_Medical_Interviews
> ~Mark
>