INTERVIEW WITH JAMES SIBERT -- "NO LARGE BULLET WAS FOUND"

128 views
Skip to first unread message

David Von Pein

unread,
Oct 16, 2008, 6:41:47 PM10/16/08
to

2005 INTERVIEW WITH FBI AGENT JAMES SIBERT......

"NO LARGE BULLET OF ANY KIND...WAS FOUND." -- James W. Sibert

============================================


www.c-span.org/search.aspx?For=C-SPAN%20Radio%20Special:%20JFK%20Assassination%20Oral%20Histories%20Hollstein

Linked above is an audio interview from June 30th, 2005, with former
FBI agent James W. Sibert, one of the two FBI agents who attended
President Kennedy's autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the night of
JFK's assassination in November 1963.

There are interviews with other FBI agents at the above link as well.
The segment featuring Sibert begins approximately 35 minutes into the
program.

Of particular interest during the interview are several portions of
Mr. Sibert's detailed re-telling of the things he witnessed during
President Kennedy's autopsy at Bethesda, such as when Sibert talks
about the "surgery of the head area" remark made by lead autopsy
surgeon James J. Humes, with Sibert laying to rest the incorrect
speculation about this remark.

And there's also the important details revealed by Sibert concerning
the bullet fragments that he saw that night in 1963, i.e., the two
very small metal fragments that were removed from President Kennedy's
brain and then handed over to Sibert and placed in a glass jar.

The size of these small fragments, as repeated by Sibert during the
2005 interview, measured 7x2 millimeters and 3x1 millimeters.

The verbatim quote shown below should put to rest the erroneous idea
that any whole (or nearly-whole) "missile" was recovered during any
part of JFK's autopsy on 11/22/63 (regardless of the word "missile"
appearing in a report filed by Sibert and fellow FBI agent Francis X.
O'Neill after the autopsy):

"There was no large bullet of any kind there at Bethesda during
this autopsy that was found." -- James W. Sibert; June 30, 2005


The 2005 interview with Sibert pretty much (all by itself) destroys
the credibility of David Lifton's 1980 fairy-tale book "Best
Evidence", inasmuch as Lifton relied very heavily on the observations
of FBI agent Sibert to try and support a good chunk of the nonsensical
"body alteration" assassination theory that appears in that book.

But, as Sibert explains in no uncertain terms during his 2005
interview, the "surgery of the head area" remark made by Dr. Humes was
not referring to any type of covert "surgery" done by evil
conspirators prior to the Bethesda autopsy (which is covert surgery
that Mr. Lifton firmly believes did take place, in order to alter the
wounds on the President's body). Listen to the '05 interview and hear
Sibert's explanation for the "surgery" remark.

And the "missile" that conspiracists want to think was recovered
during the autopsy wasn't a full, intact bullet at all. The bullet
items (referred to as a "missile", for whatever reason, in Sibert's
FBI report) consisted of only two tiny fragments of a bullet, as
described above.

So much for Mr. Lifton's "Best Evidence".

S.B.T. ADDENDUM:

In the 2005 interview, Mr. Sibert expresses his doubts about the
validity of the Single-Bullet Theory, telling the interviewer that the
wound in President Kennedy's upper back was "much lower than
that" (i.e., "much lower than [the base of the neck]").

Mr. Sibert, of course, is quite correct. His eyes weren't deceiving
him on the night of November 22, 1963. The location of JFK's back
wound was, indeed, lower than the "base of the neck".

But this is merely a confusion of terminology....an issue of "back vs.
neck" semantics. And that's all this kind of debate has ever been.
Because if Mr. Sibert had ever taken one look at the two autopsy
photos (linked below), placed side-by-side for comparison purposes, he
would have had no trouble whatsoever in determining two important
factors with respect to the wounds on President Kennedy's body (with
both of these factors leading toward the validity of the Single-Bullet
Theory):

1.) The wound that is visible on President Kennedy's body in the top
photo linked below is positively NOT located in the "neck" or the
"base of the neck"; it is just exactly where James W. Sibert of the
FBI said it was in 1963 and in 2005 -- the "upper back".

And:

2.) When comparing the location of the bullet entry hole in JFK's
upper back in the top photo with the location of the throat wound that
is visible in the bottom photo below, it is beyond doubt that the
wound in the throat is located anatomically LOWER on President
Kennedy's body than the wound in JFK's upper back, even though the
upper-back wound is not visible in the bottom photograph. But a visual
comparison between the two photos (and, hence, a comparison between
the two wounds in question) can certainly be performed nonetheless:


http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/010.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=DIGw2EgAAACxA9os6ADQQ0uomp7ozclQT6M9AgXJ-JY_OgXpIEVhMQoUxDqPr3a3rJhy6a6rzuSDH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/009.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=k3zNb0gAAACxA9os6ADQQ0uomp7ozclQZE0o1jVez_RPR-pJQmH91nVHd7P92WQT_OogFubXGiaDH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg

Related articles:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d1d7ea222703d800
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c65419db537d4abf


============================================


Sibert interview source: C-Span Radio and C-Span.org.

www.c-spanvideo.org


============================================


"The "missile" handled by Sibert & O'Neill on Nov. 22 consisted
of very small FRAGMENTS of metal removed from JFK's head -- fragments
only. How do we know this for an absolute ironclad fact? 2
reasons......

"1.) Humes, et al, were searching desperately during the autopsy
for a bullet (or bullets)--ANY signs of a bullet or bullets!--inside
JFK's body. They found NONE. Zero. Zilch. Only the small fragments in
the head. Nothing else. Nothing.

"And 2.) No whole "bullet" (or nearly-whole bullet) was entered
into evidence by Sibert, O'Neill, or anybody else connected in any way
to JFK's autopsy. The only whole bullet in the entire case is CE399.
Period. And that wasn't found at Bethesda. ....

"If a whole "bullet" had been found at Bethesda, then that
bullet would be part of the evidence on the table in this case
TODAY. .... The reason that none of the three autopsists testified to
seeing a whole bullet during the autopsy is because no such "bullet"
exists....and never did." -- David Von Pein; October 14, 2008

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/308702de1c90e97e

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com


lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Oct 16, 2008, 6:56:58 PM10/16/08
to
Sibert is also adamant the SBT Never happened-got that! & he was never
asked by is superiors about the major inconsistencies in his report,
probably the most famous bullet in history.

John McAdams

unread,
Oct 16, 2008, 10:43:42 PM10/16/08
to

First, what is your source for Silbert about the SBT never happening?

Second, how would Sibert have any particular knowledge about this?

The notion that witnesses are all-purpose experts is a fallacy. They
know what they saw -- or what they *think* they saw.

But often they are wrong about that.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

tomnln

unread,
Oct 17, 2008, 1:23:03 AM10/17/08
to

"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:9ruff41neps4ku5qr...@4ax.com...

They also have EARS.

They report what they heard from the Doctors.

Were they wrong about the Suspect/Evidence ALSO???

-------------------------------------------------------------

jfk...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 17, 2008, 1:26:39 AM10/17/08
to
On Oct 16, 9:43 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:

Especially when their statements are at variance with the WCR.

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Oct 17, 2008, 2:55:39 AM10/17/08
to
Both Siebert & O'Neill were interviewed by William Law for In The Eye Of
History and the statements therein are stronger than their ARRB
testimony in this regard.

Walt

unread,
Oct 17, 2008, 8:23:16 AM10/17/08
to
On 16 Oct, 21:43, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:

Hey asshole.....Don't you have some posts to censor over in your
hovel?? What are you doing here,?? trying to learn the truth?? Naw
that can't be it .....cuz you already know the truth ....and that
is....The Warren Report is a pile of BS.

But since yer stinkin up the place with yer presence .....let me ask
you; Do you actually believe that TWO intelligent and educated FBI
agents would know the difference between tiny fragments of a missile
(bullet) and a complete missile?

And do you think that BOTH of those agents would have signed a reciept
for a SINGLE missile (bullet) if they were receiving several
fragments?

If you think they received fragments, I'd like to hear your logic in
how you arrived at such a bizzarre, irrational, conclusion

Ben Holmes

unread,
Oct 17, 2008, 9:25:19 AM10/17/08
to
In article <9ruff41neps4ku5qr...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...

>
>On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:56:58 -0700, lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
>
>>Sibert is also adamant the SBT Never happened-got that! & he was never
>>asked by is superiors about the major inconsistencies in his report,
>>probably the most famous bullet in history.
>
>First, what is your source for Silbert about the SBT never happening?

How embarrassing for you, John!

You *surely* have run across his statements about any possible trajectory though
the body - yet you don't seem embarrassed to admit your ignorance!


>Second, how would Sibert have any particular knowledge about this?

He had eyes, he was there at the autopsy. What more is needed?


>The notion that witnesses are all-purpose experts is a fallacy. They
>know what they saw -- or what they *think* they saw.
>
>But often they are wrong about that.
>
>.John

The eyewitnesses all had to be wrong - LNT'ers can name a SINGLE eyewitness whom
they believe completely.

Walt

unread,
Oct 17, 2008, 10:33:38 AM10/17/08
to
On 16 Oct, 17:41, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> 2005 INTERVIEW WITH FBI AGENT JAMES SIBERT......
>
>       "NO LARGE BULLET OF ANY KIND...WAS FOUND." -- James W. Sibert
>
> ============================================


Do you suppose that there was a clause in Sieberts contract that
prevented him from ever disclosing any information he'd learned while
employed by the FBI under penalty of prison. Do you suppose his
pension depends on him "toeing the line"???


>
> www.c-span.org/search.aspx?For=C-SPAN%20Radio%20Special:%20JFK%20Assa...

> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/010.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO...
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/009.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO...
>
> Related articles:www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d1d7ea222703d800www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c65419db537d4abf

David Von Pein

unread,
Oct 17, 2008, 5:07:29 PM10/17/08
to


>>> "Do you actually believe that TWO intelligent and educated FBI agents would know the difference between tiny fragments of a missile (bullet) and a complete missile?" <<<


Walt thinks Sibert agreed to an interview in 2005 so that he could lie
his ass off (multiple times). Why, Walt? Just....why?

Was somebody holding a gun to Sibert's head on 6/30/2005, ordering him
to tell the listening C-Span Radio audience this lie?:

"There was no large bullet of any kind there at Bethesda during

this autopsy that was found." -- James Sibert


IOW -- Why would Sibert EVER agree--voluntarily--to utter the above
sentence in public if he knew damn well it was nothing but a lie? Why?

Walt can't answer my last question in a reasonable and believable
fashion, because no such reasonable and believable answer for it
exists. But I'm sure Walt will make one up anyway.

----------

BTW, today's Oct. 17th reminder for the masses:

Walt Cakebread is a five-star idiot and ten-star kook.

Walt

unread,
Oct 17, 2008, 5:18:50 PM10/17/08
to
On 17 Oct, 16:07, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Do you actually believe that TWO intelligent and educated FBI agents would know the difference between tiny fragments of a missile (bullet) and a complete missile?" <<<
>
> Walt thinks Sibert agreed to an interview in 2005 so that he could lie
> his ass off (multiple times). Why, Walt? Just....why?

Because he enjoyed not being in prison and receiving his pension from
the FBI...


>
> Was somebody holding a gun to Sibert's head on 6/30/2005, ordering him
> to tell the listening C-Span Radio audience this lie?:

Yes ..... He was bound by contract to say nothing about anything he'd
learned while being employed by the FBI. The only way he could
respond to questions was with written approval from the FBI.


>
>       "There was no large bullet of any kind there at Bethesda during
> this autopsy that was found." -- James Sibert
>
> IOW -- Why would Sibert EVER agree--voluntarily--to utter the above
> sentence in public if he knew damn well it was nothing but a lie? Why?

the key word is "VOLUNTARILY"..... He didn't voluntarily (freely) say
anything he said what he was ordered to say.

>
> Walt can't answer my last question in a reasonable and believable
> fashion, because no such reasonable and believable answer for it
> exists. But I'm sure Walt will make one up anyway.

Didn't have to make one up....I knew the answer.

Message has been deleted

Ed Dolan

unread,
Oct 17, 2008, 7:56:00 PM10/17/08
to
On Oct 16, 6:41 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> 2005 INTERVIEW WITH FBI AGENT JAMES SIBERT......
>
> "NO LARGE BULLET OF ANY KIND...WAS FOUND." -- James W. Sibert
>
> ============================================
>
> www.c-span.org/search.aspx?For=C-SPAN%20Radio%20Special:%20JFK%20Assa...
> ============================================
>
> Sibert interview source: C-Span Radio and C-Span.org.
>
> www.c-spanvideo.org
>
> ============================================
>
> "The "missile" handled by Sibert & O'Neill on Nov. 22 consisted
> of very small FRAGMENTS of metal removed from JFK's head -- fragments
> only. How do we know this for an absolute ironclad fact? 2
> reasons......
>
> "1.) Humes, et al, were searching desperately during the autopsy
> for a bullet (or bullets)--ANY signs of a bullet or bullets!--inside
> JFK's body. They found NONE. Zero. Zilch. Only the small fragments in
> the head. Nothing else. Nothing.
>
> "And 2.) No whole "bullet" (or nearly-whole bullet) was entered
> into evidence by Sibert, O'Neill, or anybody else connected in any way
> to JFK's autopsy. The only whole bullet in the entire case is CE399.
> Period. And that wasn't found at Bethesda. ....
>
> "If a whole "bullet" had been found at Bethesda, then that
> bullet would be part of the evidence on the table in this case
> TODAY. .... The reason that none of the three autopsists testified to
> seeing a whole bullet during the autopsy is because no such "bullet"
> exists....and never did." -- David Von Pein; October 14, 2008
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/308702de1c90e97e
>
> www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

I regret I never got into this discussion much earlier as I knew 3 of
the Navy officers at the autopsy, now all dead. The primary
relationship with the three was professional, although I and my spouse
had social relationships with two as we attended parties together
Because of an unusual situation. The two and I were attached to the
same unit and for one day I was their commanding officer.
s/f Dolan

David Von Pein

unread,
Oct 17, 2008, 8:26:42 PM10/17/08
to

>>> "He [James W. Sibert] was bound by contract to say nothing about anything he'd learned while being employed by the FBI. The only way he could respond to questions was with written approval from the FBI. .... The key word is "VOLUNTARILY"..... He didn't voluntarily (freely) say anything[;] he said what he was ordered to say." <<<

Walt thinks James W. Sibert was "ordered" to lie like a cheap rug to C-
Span Radio in June 2005, when James said that no whole bullet was
found at the autopsy.

The shit that is believed by kooks like Walt is just....amazing.
Amazing indeed.

Walt WANTS Sibert's "missile" to equal a whole bullet (which it never
did, quite obviously, otherwise we'd have another whole bullet
labelled as a WC exhibit in this case, which we don't) -- so, by
golly, Walt's gonna MAKE Sibert's "missile" into a whole bullet found
at the autopsy. Simple as that.

And on top of that (because it's required now), Walt's going to make
up some shit about Jim Sibert being "ORDERED" to tell all kinds of
lies decades later (in 2005) by an organization (the FBI) that he had
long ago retired from. But, evidently, per Walter, the FBI still
CONTROLS ex-agents like Sibert long after they've retired.

Also.....

Walt thinks that James Sibert, during his 2005 C-Span interview (and,
no doubt, during his interview with William Law for Law's 2005 book)


"didn't voluntarily (freely) say anything[;] he said what he was
ordered to say".

And this would have to INCLUDE Sibert's anti-SBT comments that he made
in the C-Span interview and these remarks he made for Law's book:

"What a liar [speaking of Arlen Specter]. I feel he got his
orders from above. How far above, I don't know." -- J. Sibert

So, Walt's of the opinion that Sibert was being stifled and gagged by
his former employers, the FBI, but at the same time Sibert was
permitted to tell the truth about SOME things evidently -- like when
it came to the controversial Single-Bullet Theory, Sibert was free to
call Specter a "LIAR"! A "liar", no less!

That's really a great theory about Sibert being told what to say by
the FBI, Walt. (It's a nice theory, that is, if you're a mega-kook
like Walt, who paints everything and everybody with his brush of
suspicion, 24/7.)

I guess Walt will next say this (to support his wholly-unsupportable
hunk of shit that he has now tied himself to):

Yes, Von Pea-Brain, Sibert called Specter a liar. Why not? The
FBI didn't like the fact that their initial '3 shots & 3 hits' version
of the shooting was being changed by the WC. So, the FBI didn't care
what Sibert said about Specter or the silly SBT.

Is that pretty close to the next hunk of made-up shit you were going
to toss my way, Mr. Walt-Kook?

Was the Bureau going to knock off Sibert if he told the C-Span
audience (or Bill Law) the "CT truth", Walt?

Per Walt's "The FBI Is God And All Ex-Agents Do Exactly What They're
Told" rules, why in the world would the FBI's big boys even allow
Sibert to talk to ANYBODY about the case, period, after 11/22/63?
Didn't they fear that a piece of "the truth" would slip out of
Sibert's mouth?

Just make up some more answers for that last question, Walt. It's a
slow day in the Nuthouse anyway. You've got time. So, let's see Walt
The Evidence-Mangling Idiot go to work and create some additional
incoherent bullshit for the Google archives.

I can't wait.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Oct 17, 2008, 9:37:54 PM10/17/08
to


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/82e6614faf211f0c/b55af9fceabff2fa?hl=en&#b55af9fceabff2fa


>>> "David, your assertion that the back wound in the one photo is above the throat wound in the other is simply not true." <<<

Yes, I'm afraid it is true. Only a blind person could think otherwise.
Sorry.

>>> "Please show us how the back wound in the one photo is above the throat wound in the other, when the person receiving these wounds is sitting erect." <<<

~sigh~

Already have done this. Many, many times. Merely by pointing out the
obviousness of that fact by comparing the two previously-posted
autopsy pictures, side-by-side.

And "Reclaiming History" author Vincent Bugliosi completely agrees
with me on this issue (regarding the turned-sideways autopsy photo
showing the left side of JFK's head):*

"Perhaps the clearest visual evidence of the fact that the
entrance wound in the [President's] back was definitely above the exit
wound in the throat appears in one of [the autopsy] photos taken of
the left side of the president's head as he is lying on his back, his
head on a metal headrest. Only the wound to the throat is visible, not
the wound to his upper right back. However, it couldn't be clearer
from this photo that the wound to the back was definitely above the
exit wound in the throat." -- VINCE BUGLIOSI; Page 424 of "Reclaiming
History" (c.2007)

* = BTW, in case you might think I'm merely riding VB's coattails in
this regard, I'll point out that I was promoting the obviousnness of
the wounds' relative heights in the two autopsy pictures many months
prior to VB's book coming out; and I hadn't read a single word of the
book until the two free Intro chapters were made available online in
April 2007:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d1d7ea222703d800

I guess Pat thinks that JFK isn't in an "erect" posture in this
photograph:

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/jfk_zeroang.jpg

~shrug~

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Oct 17, 2008, 11:39:24 PM10/17/08
to
Brilliant logic as usual from the lone nutters-Sibert is certain as well
as his partner O'Neill that the SBT didn't happen, the X-Ray Tech Custer
was also certain the SBT never happened, as well as the Mortician Tom
Robinson- all say the wound is at least T3..all of the 4 above were
there, and the fact that they all corroborate each other independently,
and saw the body for a long period of time shows they couldn't all be
mistaken, and the back photograph is just not a reliable artifact.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Oct 18, 2008, 12:34:34 AM10/18/08
to
In article <18161-48F...@storefull-3233.bay.webtv.net>,
lazu...@webtv.net says...

Well stated. LNT'ers can't list *anyone* who they can completely believe,
because the assassination simply didn't happen the way "history" now "records"
it.

David Von Pein

unread,
Oct 18, 2008, 12:47:56 AM10/18/08
to

Jim Sibert said the wound on JFK's backside was in his "back".

Well, guess what? -- Sibert's 100% correct:

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/010.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=DIGw2EgAAACxA9os6ADQQ0uomp7ozclQT6M9AgXJ-JY_OgXpIEVhMQoUxDqPr3a3rJhy6a6rzuSDH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg

Sibert's disagreement about the "neck" and "back of the neck"
terminology used by the WC doesn't actually MOVE the physical wound,
for Pete sake.

And Gerald Ford's very slight "change" in the way the wound is
DESCRIBED ON PAPER doesn't physically MOVE the wound on JFK's back
either.

That wound is still where it always was -- "14 cm. below tip of rt.
mastoid process" -- via Boswell's Face Sheet. And that measurement
perfectly aligns with (and is perfectly consistent with) this
authenticated-as-unaltered autopsy photograph, and no amount of CTer
foot-stomping is going to change this fact:

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/010.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=DIGw2EgAAACxA9os6ADQQ0uomp7ozclQT6M9AgXJ-JY_OgXpIEVhMQoUxDqPr3a3rJhy6a6rzuSDH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg

Bud

unread,
Oct 18, 2008, 1:43:22 AM10/18/08
to
On Oct 18, 12:34 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <18161-48F95A6C-...@storefull-3233.bay.webtv.net>,
> lazuli...@webtv.net says...

>
>
>
> >Brilliant logic as usual from the lone nutters-Sibert is certain as well
> >as his partner O'Neill that the SBT didn't happen, the X-Ray Tech Custer
> >was also certain the SBT never happened, as well as the Mortician Tom
> >Robinson- all say the wound is at least T3..all of the 4 above were
> >there, and the fact that they all corroborate each other independently,
> >and saw the body for a long period of time shows they couldn't all be
> >mistaken, and the back photograph is just not a reliable artifact.
>
> Well stated. LNT'ers can't list *anyone* who they can completely believe,

The witnesses are comprised entirely of human beings, and all human
beings are fallible.

> because the assassination simply didn't happen the way "history" now "records"
> it.

Since human beings are fallible, the only reasonable approach would
be to take this reality into consideration. But the people who saw
murders, or saw the murderer shortly after murders consistently say it
was Oswald they saw. These most important witnesses are the ones that
conspiracy kooks go into contortions to disregard.

David Von Pein

unread,
Oct 18, 2008, 10:33:55 PM10/18/08
to


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/82e6614faf211f0c/39324b50d03e945f?hl=en%05baf35df57f5c981%E9%A6%9Cb50d03e945f


>>> "Mark the location of the back wound in the one photo--below the shoulder line--on someone...and then mark the location of the throat wound--below the Adam's Apple but above the sternal notch--on this same person. And then compare their relative positions while the person is sitting erect. You will see that they are roughly the same level. The HSCA Panel said the back wound was below, but I will grant that it's really about the same level." <<<

Therefore, Pat, you're of the opinion that the back wound (if it were
visible in the photo below) would actually and truly be located at the
VERY BOTTOM of this picture:

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/jfk_zeroang.jpg


You must think that very thing, Pat. Because the wound would have to
be located at the VERY BOTTOM of that picture on JFK's back if Pat is
correct and the wounds were located at about the same relative height
when JFK was upright/erect.

Now, can anyone tell me (with a straight face) that JFK's wound in his
UPPER back was really located way down at the very bottom of that
photo above? It's ridiculous.

Therefore, unless the two autopsy pictures (in tandem, no less!) are
LYING to my eyes (and everyone's eyes), and unless there's some kind
of "HIGHER REALLY EQUALS MUCH LOWER" anomaly being exhibited in the
two autopsy photos in question -- then there simply is no possible way
that Pat Speer is correct with respect to JOHN KENNEDY'S body and the
wounds that were in JOHN KENNEDY'S upper back and throat in November
1963.

David Von Pein

unread,
Oct 18, 2008, 11:31:53 PM10/18/08
to


>>> "You probably proofread his [Bugliosi's] manuscript." <<<


<chuckle>

If that were true, Tony, then Page #423 wouldn't exist in the book at
all, because it totally contradicts Page 424.

Vince suffered a rare brain cramp on Page 423, and it's a real mystery
to me how the publisher (or the real proofreader) somehow allowed
pages 423 & 424 to co-exist, side-by-side, within "Reclaiming
History".

http://hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html

Walt

unread,
Oct 18, 2008, 11:41:22 PM10/18/08
to
On 16 Oct, 17:41, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> 2005 INTERVIEW WITH FBI AGENT JAMES SIBERT......
>
>       "NO LARGE BULLET OF ANY KIND...WAS FOUND." -- James W. Sibert
>

I'm sure I'm not the first one to have noticed that James W Siebert
did NOT say that no whole bullet was found...

He said no LARGE bullet of any kind was found..... He did not exclude
a SMALL COMPLETE bullet

> ============================================
>
> www.c-span.org/search.aspx?For=C-SPAN%20Radio%20Special:%20JFK%20Assa...

Robert Harris

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 9:02:02 PM10/28/08
to
In article <9ruff41neps4ku5qr...@4ax.com>,
John McAdams <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:56:58 -0700, lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> >Sibert is also adamant the SBT Never happened-got that! & he was never
> >asked by is superiors about the major inconsistencies in his report,
> >probably the most famous bullet in history.
>
> First, what is your source for Silbert about the SBT never happening?

From an interview with William Matson Law in the book, *In the eye of
History*

Law: I was going to ask you to tell me your thoughts on Mr. Specter and
the single-bullet theory.

Sibert: Well I-that single-bullet theory-when they had me come up to the
ARRB deposition there at College Park, I said, "Well before I come up
there, I want you to know one thing. I'm not an advocate of the
single-bullet theory." I said, "I don't believe it because I stood there
two foot from where that bullet wound was in the back, the one that they
eventually moved up to the base of the neck. I was there when Boswell
made his face sheet and located that wound exactly as we described it in
the FD 302." And I said, "Furthermore, when they examined the clothing
after it got into the Bureau, those bullet holes in the shirt and the
coat were down 5 inches there. So there is no way that bullet could have
gone that low then rise up and come out the front of the neck, zigzag
and hit Connally and then end up pristine on a stretcher over there in
Dallas."

Law: You don't believe in the single-bullet theory. Period.

Sibert: There is no way I will swallow that. They can't put enough sugar
on it for me to bite it. That bullet was too low in the back.

Law: Where do you remember seeing it, exactly? Your partner, Frank
O'Neill, if I remember right, credits you with finding the bullet hole
in the back.

Sibert: Well, let me clarify that. When they had the body over at
Parkland, they had a shoving match between the fellow who was going to
do the autopsy' who said that the autopsy had to be clone in Texas-and
they were going to do it there-and you had Kellerman telling them that
he had orders from the Secret Service and also from Bobby Kennedy that
it was going to be done in Washington. At Parkland, they never knew
there was a bullet wound in the back. That body left there and they did
not know about the bullet wound in the back. Then, Bethesda did not know
there was a bullet wound where the tracheotomy was made. So that is a
pathetic situation. It could have been handled if they had made a phone
call. The smart thing to have done-if there hadn't been such animosity
between the partners over there-put one of those Parkland doctors on Air
Force One to come right into Bethesda and say, "Here's what we did." And
the clothing should have come in with the body. But they held the
clothing-they didn't even undo the tie over there at Parkland and there
was a nick in the knot-and here you had this entrance or exit wound in
the throat where the tracheotomy was.


I found the statement and other information on Sibert at:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKsibertW.htm

No, don't bother thanking me John - always glad to help.


Robert Harris

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages