JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Steve M. Galbraith on November 14, 2022, 07:22:26 PM
-
Yes, another triumph of hope over experience but here's an interesting and excellent (so far, I'm only about half way through it) work debunking the conspiracy claims: "Thinking Critically about the Kennedy Assassination: Debunking the Myths and Conspiracy Theories". It's by a French-Canadian author, Mr. Michel Gagne. Never heard of him before but his bio is here: https://www.routledge.com/authors/i22003-michel-gagn#bio
A review is here: https://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2022/11/gagne.html
One of his key points (not original but he states it quite well) is that the Camelot myth that was created after JFK's death, largely by Jackie, has led to an "evolving conspiracy narrative", a narrative that changes based on the particular myth that the conspiracist believes. For example, the myth that JFK was a peace maker, specifically he was going to end the Vietnam War, and it was for that that he was killed. Another mythical JFK was going to end the exploitation by the wealthy, the Texas oil men, and it was for that that he was killed. Another myth has JFK going to dismantle the CIA, the out of control agency that ruined the aspirations of Third World people liberated from colonialism, and it was for that that he was killed.
And on and on. Myth after myth, fable after fable and conspiracy narrative after conspiracy narrative.
What he shows is what we, those who tangle with the conspiracists, know: if you listen to 15 different conspiracy believers they will give you 15 different explanations as to what happened. Different explanations as to who killed JFK, how they did it, who covered it up and why. They are all different from beginning to end. In each case the conspiracist simply starts with his mythical conclusion - JFK was going to end the Vietnam war or JFK was going to end the power of the oil companies or he was going to dismantle the CIA - and then finds facts to support that conclusion. Conclusion first, facts, second. And because each conspiracist has his own myth they each have their own explanation. Thus the thousands of books claiming a conspiracy yet at odds with each other on what happened.
So here we almost are some 60 years or so later and the conspiracists can't agree on anything other than there was a conspiracy. Was Oswald a participant? Or was he totally innocent? CIA? FBI? Dallas oilmen? Who did it? They disagree on any of these. Because, again, they are starting with their own conclusions and arguing backwards from there. A hundred different conclusions, a hundred different answers to our questions.
-
Yes, another triumph of hope over experience but here's an interesting and excellent (so far, I'm only about half way through it) work debunking the conspiracy claims: "Thinking Critically about the Kennedy Assassination: Debunking the Myths and Conspiracy Theories". It's by a French-Canadian author, Mr. Michel Gagne. Never heard of him before but his bio is here: https://www.routledge.com/authors/i22003-michel-gagn#bio
A review is here: https://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2022/11/gagne.html
One of his key points (not original but he states it quite well) is that the Camelot myth that was created after JFK's death, largely by Jackie, has led to an "evolving conspiracy narrative", a narrative that changes based on the particular myth that the conspiracist believes. For example, the myth that JFK was a peace maker, specifically he was going to end the Vietnam War, and it was for that that he was killed. Another mythical JFK was going to end the exploitation by the wealthy, the Texas oil men, and it was for that that he was killed. Another myth has JFK going to dismantle the CIA, the out of control agency that ruined the aspirations of Third World people liberated from colonialism, and it was for that that he was killed.
And on and on. Myth after myth, fable after fable and conspiracy narrative after conspiracy narrative.
What he shows is what we, those who tangle with the conspiracists, know: if you listen to 15 different conspiracy believers they will give you 15 different explanations as to what happened. Different explanations as to who killed JFK, how they did it, who covered it up and why. They are all different from beginning to end. In each case the conspiracist simply starts with his mythical conclusion - JFK was going to end the Vietnam war or JFK was going to end the power of the oil companies or he was going to dismantle the CIA - and then finds facts to support that conclusion. Conclusion first, facts, second. And because each conspiracist has his own myth they each have their own explanation. Thus the thousands of books claiming a conspiracy yet at odds with each other on what happened.
So here we almost are some 60 years or so later and the conspiracists can't agree on anything other than there was a conspiracy. Was Oswald a participant? Or was he totally innocent? CIA? FBI? Dallas oilmen? Who did it? They disagree on any of these. Because, again, they are starting with their own conclusions and arguing backwards from there. A hundred different conclusions, a hundred different answers to our questions.
I've never heard of Mr Gagne.... But obviously he believes he's superior to any CT..... But I'll wager that none of the theories in his book are based on a deranged madman who was a heartbeat away from the presidency, and his cohort that was the director in charge of the most powerful police agency in the world....Mr FBI.
-
Pot-kettle.
Warren Commission: conclusion first, facts, second.
-
Yes, another triumph of hope over experience but here's an interesting and excellent (so far, I'm only about half way through it) work debunking the conspiracy claims: "Thinking Critically about the Kennedy Assassination: Debunking the Myths and Conspiracy Theories". It's by a French-Canadian author, Mr. Michel Gagne. Never heard of him before but his bio is here: https://www.routledge.com/authors/i22003-michel-gagn#bio
A review is here: https://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2022/11/gagne.html
One of his key points (not original but he states it quite well) is that the Camelot myth that was created after JFK's death, largely by Jackie, has led to an "evolving conspiracy narrative", a narrative that changes based on the particular myth that the conspiracist believes. For example, the myth that JFK was a peace maker, specifically he was going to end the Vietnam War, and it was for that that he was killed. Another mythical JFK was going to end the exploitation by the wealthy, the Texas oil men, and it was for that that he was killed. Another myth has JFK going to dismantle the CIA, the out of control agency that ruined the aspirations of Third World people liberated from colonialism, and it was for that that he was killed.
And on and on. Myth after myth, fable after fable and conspiracy narrative after conspiracy narrative.
What he shows is what we, those who tangle with the conspiracists, know: if you listen to 15 different conspiracy believers they will give you 15 different explanations as to what happened. Different explanations as to who killed JFK, how they did it, who covered it up and why. They are all different from beginning to end. In each case the conspiracist simply starts with his mythical conclusion - JFK was going to end the Vietnam war or JFK was going to end the power of the oil companies or he was going to dismantle the CIA - and then finds facts to support that conclusion. Conclusion first, facts, second. And because each conspiracist has his own myth they each have their own explanation. Thus the thousands of books claiming a conspiracy yet at odds with each other on what happened.
So here we almost are some 60 years or so later and the conspiracists can't agree on anything other than there was a conspiracy. Was Oswald a participant? Or was he totally innocent? CIA? FBI? Dallas oilmen? Who did it? They disagree on any of these. Because, again, they are starting with their own conclusions and arguing backwards from there. A hundred different conclusions, a hundred different answers to our questions.
I give those CTers who at least articulate a theory some credit. They have to defend those positions with evidence and arguments even though these efforts fail. In contrast, the CTer contrarians won't even articulate who they believe was behind the assassination. Like Inspector Clouseau, they suspect everyone, and they suspect no one. There is apparently a dim realization that there is no evidence that points toward anyone other than Oswald. Certainly no evidence that points toward anyone else that satisfies the impossible standard of proof that they apply to evidence of Oswald's guilt. That also allows them to take the lazy defense attorney approach by suggesting doubt of Oswald's guilt without grappling with any of the direct implications of their claims having validity with all the obvious absurdity that entails.
-
I give those CTers who at least articulate a theory some credit. They have to defend those positions with evidence and arguments even though these efforts fail.
Says the guy who never defends his own position with evidence.
-
Says the guy who never defends his own position with evidence.
Richard feels that everybody who studies this case has to have a theory about what happened. He desperately needs such a theory to have something to attack and ridicule, instead of having to explain and defend his own pathetic claims.
The irony is that this, by itself, illustrates the weakness of the case against Oswald. If Richard really considered the case solid, he wouldn't have to resort to this kind of behavior. He would simply present the case, back it up with persuasive evidence and be done with it, regardless of what other theory anybody has. The mere fact that he doesn't do that is in fact an admission of just how weak the case against Oswald is.
-
Richard feels that everybody who studies this case has to have a theory about what happened. He desperately needs such a theory to have something to attack and ridicule, instead of having to explain and defend his own pathetic claims.
The irony is that this, by itself, illustrates the weakness of the case against Oswald. If Richard really considered the case solid, he wouldn't have to resort to this kind of behavior. He would simply present the case, back it up with persuasive evidence and be done with it, regardless of what other theory anybody has. The mere fact that he doesn't do that is in fact an admission of just how weak the case against Oswald is.
You have reached a conclusion. You just won't admit it or explain it. For example, you concluded that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination. The only implication that can be drawn from that conclusion is that Oswald could not have assassinated JFK from the 6th floor. since the stairs were his ONLY apparent means to reach the 2nd floor minutes later. Yet you refuse to acknowledge that you are a CTer or explain what you are suggesting. It just begins and ends with a conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."
You keep suggesting that I or some other LNer must present a "case" to you that satisfies your subjective impossible standard of proof on the topic of Oswald's guilt. I've explained a dozen times or more that the evidence of Oswald's guilt was compiled by the law enforcement agents charged with investigating the case. The WC laid out that evidence in excruciating detail almost six decades ago. Arguably, the most investigated criminal case in history. That evidence is widely available. That is the evidence of Oswald's guilt. That evidence is known to you. Why do you keep trying to deflect the discussion to reiterate the same evidence over and over so that you can roll out the same contrarian responses? You have had that discussion with dozens of posters here taking every discussion down the same rabbit holes and making a mockery of this forum. You really want to do it again? Why not just confirm that you accept the only apparent implication of your own conclusion that Oswald couldn't have been the assassin because "he didn't come down the stairs"? Are you such a contrarian that you take issue even with yourself?
-
You have reached a conclusion. You just won't admit it or explain it. For example, you concluded that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination. The only implication that can be drawn from that conclusion is that Oswald could not have assassinated JFK from the 6th floor. since the stairs were his ONLY apparent means to reach the 2nd floor minutes later. Yet you refuse to acknowledge that you are a CTer or explain what you are suggesting. It just begins and ends with a conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."
You keep suggesting that I or some other LNer must present a "case" to you that satisfies your subjective impossible standard of proof on the topic of Oswald's guilt. I've explained a dozen times or more that the evidence of Oswald's guilt was compiled by the law enforcement agents charged with investigating the case. The WC laid out that evidence in excruciating detail almost six decades ago. Arguably, the most investigated criminal case in history. That evidence is widely available. That is the evidence of Oswald's guilt. That evidence is known to you. Why do you keep trying to deflect the discussion to reiterate the same evidence over and over so that you can roll out the same contrarian responses? You have had that discussion with dozens of posters here taking every discussion down the same rabbit holes and making a mockery of this forum. You really want to do it again? Why not just confirm that you accept the only apparent implication of your own conclusion that Oswald couldn't have been the assassin because "he didn't come down the stairs"? Are you such a contrarian that you take issue even with yourself?
So many words and still nothing new. Even the lies are getting old. We keep going round in circles, with you constantly and desperately trying to deflect away from answering my straight forward questions.
You have reached a conclusion. You just won't admit it or explain it. For example, you concluded that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination.
I have explained that conclusion many times by now. I can't help it if you don't (want to) understand or like it.
You keep suggesting that I or some other LNer must present a "case" to you that satisfies your subjective impossible standard of proof on the topic of Oswald's guilt.
I have never suggested anything of the kind. But I do feel that when you or any other LN claims that Oswald is guilty of a crime, he or she should be able to explain that accusation, beyond merely pointing to the WC report.
Only fanatical zealots in a cult point to their "bible" to "explain everything". You are not one of those, are you?
I've explained a dozen times or more that the evidence of Oswald's guilt was compiled by the law enforcement agents charged with investigating the case. The WC laid out that evidence in excruciating detail almost six decades ago.
I have never asked you to just cite the WC evidence. I have asked you to explain why you believe that evidence to be conclusive and correct as well as why you think the WC came to the right conclusion. You've never done so.
You have claimed firmly that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. The WC report offers no evidence of any kind to support that claim. All the WC did was to assume Oswald was there because a rifle was found on the 6th floor which they claimed, on highly dubious grounds, belonged to Oswald. I have asked you how anybody can conclude that the presence of a rifle is evidence of the presence of a particular person, in this case Oswald, and again you have failed to provide an answer.
The WC also never claimed that Oswald did come down the stairs. They just assumed he did so unnoticed. You, on the other hand, have claimed firmly that Oswald did come down the stairs but have failed to explain how he could have done it when all the available evidence points to it having been impossible for him to do.
The purpose of this forum is to discuss the case against Oswald and thus the findings of the WC at all. If all you want to do is point to the WC findings and not discuss and/or defend those findings, then the question is why you are here exactly? Why are you spending so much time on a discussion forum when you are unwilling or unable to discuss anything?
Why not just confirm that you accept the only apparent implication of your own conclusion that Oswald couldn't have been the assassin because "he didn't come down the stairs"? Are you such a contrarian that you take issue even with yourself?
I have already confirmed this several times. In the context of the official narrative Oswald couldn't have been the assassin on the 6th floor if he wasn't on that floor and never came down the stairs. The far more important question that needs to be answered is; if Oswald didn't come down the stairs and thus couldn't have been on the 6th floor when the shots were fired, how can the WC report still be considered credible?
-
You keep suggesting that I or some other LNer must present a "case" to you that satisfies your subjective impossible standard of proof on the topic of Oswald's guilt. I've explained a dozen times or more that the evidence of Oswald's guilt was compiled by the law enforcement agents charged with investigating the case. The WC laid out that evidence in excruciating detail almost six decades ago.
And it fails to meet any standard of proof. You just call it an "impossible" standard to try to make up for the fact that you cannot prove anything.
But that's not the point. You make your own claims that you provide no substantiation for: for example, your claim that Oswald was on the sixth floor at 12:30 and went down to the second floor within 75 seconds without being seen or heard by any of the at least 12 people who were along the way. There is no evidence for this. Not from your posts. Not from the Dallas police. Not from the FBI. Not from the Warren Commission. It's just assumed that he did. Why don't you just admit that there is no evidence of this, and that you merely believe it on faith?
-
The purpose of this forum is to discuss the case against Oswald and thus the findings of the WC at all. If all you want to do is point to the WC findings and not discuss and/or defend those findings, then the question is why you are here exactly? Why are you spending so much time on a discussion forum when you are unwilling or unable to discuss anything?
That's another great question that "Richard" is unlikely to ever answer. It appears that he is here because he gets his jollies insulting people who don't agree with his assumptions.
-
The purpose of this forum is to discuss the case against Oswald and thus the findings of the WC at all. If all you want to do is point to the WC findings and not discuss and/or defend those findings, then the question is why you are here exactly? Why are you spending so much time on a discussion forum when you are unwilling or unable to discuss anything?
I'm not unwilling to discuss the case. You have repeatedly asked for "my" evidence and I've explained to you countless times that "my" evidence of Oswald's guilt is the evidence compiled by the law enforcement agencies tasked with investigating the case. Why keep asking me to repeat that evidence and implying that somehow I must travel back in time like Sherlock Holmes to uncover additional evidence that the law enforcement authorities missed to convince you? You don't accept that evidence because you are a contrarian who applies an impossible standard of proof to the case against Oswald. You mistakenly believe the standard is to convince you of Oswald's guilt. I'm not sure there has to be a "purpose" to participate in an internet forum. What purpose do you have to show up here night and day if all you want to do is nitpick the evidence against Oswald? What do you expect to happen?
-
So here we almost are some 60 years or so later and the conspiracists can't agree on anything other than there was a conspiracy. Was Oswald a participant? Or was he totally innocent? CIA? FBI? Dallas oilmen? Who did it? They disagree on any of these. Because, again, they are starting with their own conclusions and arguing backwards from there. A hundred different conclusions, a hundred different answers to our questions.
We may never find out the truth about what happened but it makes perfect sense why most people don't believe the "lone-nut" explanation.
Why:
- The lone-nut narrative requires not one, but TWO lone-nuts. Oswald and Ruby. And we're supposed to ignore Jack Ruby's relationships with the Dallas PD and organized crime.
- You can drive a truck through all the holes in the forensic evidence in the Kennedy assassination (coincidentally, both Kennedy assassinations are full of evidence problems).
- The US government remains secretive about the Kennedy assassination almost 60 years later.
I could add more to the list but you get the gist. People intuitively believe something stinks about the JFK assassination because the facts of the case do stink...
-
I'm not unwilling to discuss the case. You have repeatedly asked for "my" evidence and I've explained to you countless times that "my" evidence of Oswald's guilt is the evidence compiled by the law enforcement agencies tasked with investigating the case. Why keep asking me to repeat that evidence and implying that somehow I must travel back in time like Sherlock Holmes to uncover additional evidence that the law enforcement authorities missed to convince you? You don't accept that evidence because you are a contrarian who applies an impossible standard of proof to the case against Oswald. You mistakenly believe the standard is to convince you of Oswald's guilt. I'm not sure there has to be a "purpose" to participate in an internet forum. What purpose do you have to show up here night and day if all you want to do is nitpick the evidence against Oswald? What do you expect to happen?
"my" evidence of Oswald's guilt is the evidence compiled by the law enforcement agencies tasked with investigating the case. Why keep asking me to repeat that evidence and implying that somehow I must travel back in time like Sherlock Holmes to uncover additional evidence that the law enforcement authorities missed to convince you?
Nobody has ever asked you to travel back in time or to uncover additional evidence. What is being asked of you is your reasons for concluding that the evidence produced by the law enforcement agencies is correct, complete and persuasive. That's all. It is after all your opinion that they got it right, so why can't/won't you defend that opinion? What are you afraid of?
You don't accept that evidence because you are a contrarian who applies an impossible standard of proof to the case against Oswald.
Or you are just a naive, highly impressionable, fool who accepts what he is told on blind faith and without question, and who doesn't see or understand just how weak the evidence and the whole case against Oswald really is.
The irony is that by constantly complaining about "contrarians who apply an impossible standard of proof" you are actually admitting that the case against Oswald is so weak that it can not withstand the scrutiny you call "an impossible standard of proof". What you fail to understand is that evidence is either conclusive or it isn't. Conclusive evidence can easily withstand close scrutiny. Weak evidence can't.
You mistakenly believe the standard is to convince you of Oswald's guilt.
Hilarious! That's exactly the standard. The entire WC report was written to convince people of Oswald's guilt! That's the only reason for presenting evidence; to convince people!
I'm not sure there has to be a "purpose" to participate in an internet forum.
Oh boy...... Are you really saying that you don't have a purpose for participating on this forum? If that's true, perhaps you should try to get a life or at least a hobby that does have a purpose.
What purpose do you have to show up here night and day if all you want to do is nitpick the evidence against Oswald? What do you expect to happen?
First of all, I'm not here night and day, You would have no way of knowing, if I was, unless you were here also, but that's beside the point. I have actually been away for more than a week. Secondly, I can tell you exactly why I joined this forum. After reading the WC report I found it hard to believe that this was all there was in the case against Oswald, so I wanted to find out more. The way to do this is to scrutinize every aspect of the case and the evidence. It really is not my problem if some fanatic gets upset when somebody has a closer look.
-
I'm not unwilling to discuss the case. You have repeatedly asked for "my" evidence and I've explained to you countless times that "my" evidence of Oswald's guilt is the evidence compiled by the law enforcement agencies tasked with investigating the case.
So then by "discuss" you actually mean just repeating your conclusions and insisting that they are true.
I'm not sure there has to be a "purpose" to participate in an internet forum. What purpose do you have to show up here night and day if all you want to do is nitpick the evidence against Oswald? What do you expect to happen?
What I'd like to know is exactly what about that evidence do you find so convincing, and why?
-
Saying this case was investigated would be true if not for Oswald being the only person being looked into. Bottom line this had to be resolved before the 1964 election.
I'm not unwilling to discuss the case. You have repeatedly asked for "my" evidence and I've explained to you countless times that "my" evidence of Oswald's guilt is the evidence compiled by the law enforcement agencies tasked with investigating the case. Why keep asking me to repeat that evidence and implying that somehow I must travel back in time like Sherlock Holmes to uncover additional evidence that the law enforcement authorities missed to convince you? You don't accept that evidence because you are a contrarian who applies an impossible standard of proof to the case against Oswald. You mistakenly believe the standard is to convince you of Oswald's guilt. I'm not sure there has to be a "purpose" to participate in an internet forum. What purpose do you have to show up here night and day if all you want to do is nitpick the evidence against Oswald? What do you expect to happen?
-
Here is a better book to read: Dr. David Mantik's newly released book JFK Assassination Paradoxes, in which he proves with hard scientific evidence--optical density measurements and radiological analysis--that the JFK autopsy skull x-rays have been altered. As Dr. Greg Henkelmann says in his endorsement of this book, "to reject alteration of the JFK skull x-rays is to reject basic physics and radiology."
https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Assassination-Paradoxes-Essays-Reviews-ebook/dp/B0BH6RV51D (https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Assassination-Paradoxes-Essays-Reviews-ebook/dp/B0BH6RV51D)
Lone-gunman theorists seem to be caught in a time warp and act like we're living in the early 1990s, seemingly oblivious to the historic evidence that has come to light via the ARRB releases and new scientific research.
For example, are you aware that we now know from ARRB-released files that the autopsy doctors determined for an absolute fact during the autopsy that JFK's back wound had no exit point, and that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat? The autopsy doctors, we now know, probed the back wound extensively after removing the chest organs and while positioning the body in different angles and positions. Toward the end of the probing, Dr. Finck informed the two FBI observers (Sibert and O'Neill) that the back wound had no exit point. One of the medical technicians who witnessed the probing could see the end of the probe pushing against the lining of the chest cavity--he could see that the wound was shallow and had no exit point. The HSCA medical panel was aware of this evidence but chose to suppress it by sealing it for 50 years, but the ARRB released it in the mid-1990s.
The fact that the back wound had no exit point, of course, debunks the single-bullet theory, and without the SBT there can be no lone-gunman theory. Since the SBT is false, there must have been at least two gunmen firing at JFK.
Have you just not heard about any of this stuff?
-
Here is a better book to read: Dr. David Mantik's newly released book JFK Assassination Paradoxes, in which he proves with hard scientific evidence--optical density measurements and radiological analysis--that the JFK autopsy skull x-rays have been altered. As Dr. Greg Henkelmann says in his endorsement of this book, "to reject alteration of the JFK skull x-rays is to reject basic physics and radiology."
https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Assassination-Paradoxes-Essays-Reviews-ebook/dp/B0BH6RV51D (https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Assassination-Paradoxes-Essays-Reviews-ebook/dp/B0BH6RV51D)
Lone-gunman theorists seem to be caught in a time warp and act like we're living in the early 1990s, seemingly oblivious to the historic evidence that has come to light via the ARRB releases and new scientific research.
For example, are you aware that we now know from ARRB-released files that the autopsy doctors determined for an absolute fact during the autopsy that JFK's back wound had no exit point, and that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat? The autopsy doctors, we now know, probed the back wound extensively after removing the chest organs and while positioning the body in different angles and positions. Toward the end of the probing, Dr. Finck informed the two FBI observers (Sibert and O'Neill) that the back wound had no exit point. One of the medical technicians who witnessed the probing could see the end of the probe pushing against the lining of the chest cavity--he could see that the wound was shallow and had no exit point. The HSCA medical panel was aware of this evidence but chose to suppress it by sealing it for 50 years, but the ARRB released it in the mid-1990s.
The fact that the back wound had no exit point, of course, debunks the single-bullet theory, and without the SBT there can be no lone-gunman theory. Since the SBT is false, there must have been at least two gunmen firing at JFK.
Have you just not heard about any of this stuff?
Michael T. Griffith, have you read the book by Michel Jacques Gagne “Thinking Critically About The Kennedy Assassination”?
Just curious…. :-\
-
Michael T. Griffith, have you read the book by Michel Jacques Gagne “Thinking Critically About The Kennedy Assassination”?
Just curious…. :-\
I read part of it and quickly saw that it's another uninformed pseudo-academic book on the case that dodges the evidence that has emerged since the 1990s.
-
Michael T. Griffith, have you read the book by Michel Jacques Gagne “Thinking Critically About The Kennedy Assassination”?
Just curious…. :-\
Apparently Mr. Griffith - who will likely perform his disappearing act again ("Now you See him, Now you Don't") - believes that some type of bullet was fiired by CIA snipers that went into JFK's back only a few inches. And then disappeared. Then another bullet fired by CIA snipers went into JFK's throat/neck a few inches and also disappeared. Yes, these CIA snipers assigned to kill JFK fired not one but two bullets that only went a few inches into JFK and then vanished.
This explanation seems to be more likely to him then a bullet entering the back and exiting through the throat. The autopsy doctors failed to find this during the autopsy because the tracheotomy covered the exit wound. This has been known for decades.
Added: Mantik believes that both wounds - the back and neck - were caused not by bullets but by shrapnel: one piece of glass from the windshield causing the neck wound and another piece of shrapnel from, well, I'm not sure, causing the back wound. And that the autopsy photos and x-rays, indeed the autopsy itself, are fake. This is, well, not very believable. Whether Mr. Griffith believes this is anyone's guess including his own.
As the three autopsy doctors from the Ramsey Clark committee concluded: "The other bullet struck the decedent's back at the right side of the base of the neck between the shoulder and spine and emerged from the front of his neck near the midline. The possibility that this bullet might have followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found. There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea described in the Autopsy Report. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck."
Again: "The possibility that this bullet [that entered the back] might have followed a pathway OTHER THAN ONE PASS ING THROUGH THE SITE OF THE TRACHEOTOMY was considered. NO EVIDENCE FOR THIS WAS FOUND."
-
I read part of it and quickly saw that it's another uninformed pseudo-academic book on the case that dodges the evidence that has emerged since the 1990s.
Well, the table of contents is available on the website:
https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-Critically-About-the-Kennedy-Assassination-Debunking-the-Myths/Gagne/p/book/9781032114477 (https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-Critically-About-the-Kennedy-Assassination-Debunking-the-Myths/Gagne/p/book/9781032114477)
Is that the “part of it” that you have read? Or have you actually read part of the book itself? :-\
-
Well, the table of contents is available on the website:
https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-Critically-About-the-Kennedy-Assassination-Debunking-the-Myths/Gagne/p/book/9781032114477 (https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-Critically-About-the-Kennedy-Assassination-Debunking-the-Myths/Gagne/p/book/9781032114477)
Is that the “part of it” that you have read? Or have you actually read part of the book itself? :-\
He's more of a believer in the Garrison claims that Oswald conspired with Ferrie and Shaw at a party with numerous people listening in (!?) to kill JFK as part of a homosexual thrill kill.
No, wait. He believes in Newman's theory that it was the Pentagon. No, wait again. He believes Antonio Veciana's claim that it was David Phillips and the CIA.
He believes it was the CIA or the Pentagon or homosexuals. He also believes Oswald was totally innocent but also that he was one of the conspirators.
If you talk to 15 different conspiracy believers you will hear them tell 15 different explanations as to what happened. Or you can talk to Mr. Griffith alone and get 15 different explanations all by himself.
-
He's more of a believer in the Garrison claims that Oswald conspired with Ferrie and Shaw at a party with numerous people listening in (!?) to kill JFK as part of a homosexual thrill kill.
No, wait. He believes in Newman's theory that it was the Pentagon. No, wait again. He believes Antonio Veciana's claim that it was David Phillips and the CIA.
He believes it was the CIA or the Pentagon or homosexuals. He also believes Oswald was totally innocent but also that he was one of the conspirators.
If you talk to 15 different conspiracy believers you will hear them tell 15 different explanations as to what happened. Or you can talk to Mr. Griffith alone and get 15 different explanations all by himself.
Any explaination other than the government’s explaination will do…. ::) :D
-
Any explaination other than the government’s explaination will do…. ::) :D
Yes, "the official explanation" must be dismissed at all costs. Any other explanation will suffice even if that one contradicts another one which contradicts a third which contradicts a fourth. They are all believed.
It's like a giant Rube Goldberg conspiracy device. Instead of bells and whistles and mechanisms it's the CIA over here and the FBI over there and Texas oilmen over in another place. You push a button and the conspiracy whirls and turns and at the end of it JFK is dead. Great fun, I guess but nobody should take this nonsense seriously.
(https://answersafrica.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/rube.jpg)
-
Here is a better book to read: Dr. David Mantik's newly released book JFK Assassination Paradoxes, in which he proves with hard scientific evidence--optical density measurements and radiological analysis--that the JFK autopsy skull x-rays have been altered. As Dr. Greg Henkelmann says in his endorsement of this book, "to reject alteration of the JFK skull x-rays is to reject basic physics and radiology."
Mantik's "optical density measurements". LOL Maybe Mantik used seer stones. (Pat Speer doesn't think much of Mantik.)
Lone-gunman theorists seem to be caught in a time warp and act like we're living in the early 1990s, seemingly oblivious to the historic evidence that has come to light via the ARRB releases and new scientific research.
For example, are you aware that we now know from ARRB-released files that the autopsy doctors determined for an absolute fact during the autopsy that JFK's back wound had no exit point, and that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat? The autopsy doctors, we now know, probed the back wound extensively after removing the chest organs and while positioning the body in different angles and positions. Toward the end of the probing, Dr. Finck informed the two FBI observers (Sibert and O'Neill) that the back wound had no exit point. One of the medical technicians who witnessed the probing could see the end of the probe pushing against the lining of the chest cavity--he could see that the wound was shallow and had no exit point. The HSCA medical panel was aware of this evidence but chose to suppress it by sealing it for 50 years, but the ARRB released it in the mid-1990s.
The fact that the back wound had no exit point, of course, debunks the single-bullet theory, and without the SBT there can be no lone-gunman theory. Since the SBT is false, there must have been at least two gunmen firing at JFK.
Have you just not heard about any of this stuff?
Seems like all that was more-or-less in the 1963 Silbert-O'Neill Report, widely publicized in the paperback edition of "Inquest". The HSCA looked into it. Compare with David Lifton, who used the same FBI Report to come up with a bizarre body-alteration theory.
Eyewitness accounts don't always agree, especially by time the ARRB met (in fact, the Board cautioned against Loons attributing too much reliance on the Board hearings). The forensic evidence told the WC, the Clark Panel and HSCA that the bullet that inflicted the back wound transited the neck to cause the throat wound seen at Parkland before the tracheotomy was made through it.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/50/29/gP4bRQ2M_o.jpg)
-
Any explaination other than the government’s explaination will do…. ::) :D
Not really.
Any explanation (from the government or anybody else), not based on assumptions and conjecture and supported by credible, authenticated, conclusive evidence would do.
-
If a time machine were invented, the contrarians would tell us that we shouldn't believe our own eyes. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable! It would only be someone's "opinion' that they saw Oswald pull the trigger. Even if he did, they would require proof that the gun was loaded with bullets! Maybe it just went "bang" but someone else fired the shots! So many contrarian possibilities that would need to be disproven to their subjective contrarian satisfaction. No conclusion is ever allowed if it lends itself to Oswald's guilt.
-
If a time machine were invented, the contrarians would tell us that we shouldn't believe our own eyes. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable! It would only be someone's "opinion' that they saw Oswald pull the trigger. Even if he did, they would require proof that the gun was loaded with bullets! Maybe it just went "bang" but someone else fired the shots! So many contrarian possibilities that would need to be disproven to their subjective contrarian satisfaction. No conclusion is ever allowed if it lends itself to Oswald's guilt.
(https://media.tenor.com/yYhklLepkb4AAAAd/dead-lmaooo.gif)
If you question the existence of God, you are an atheist (*).
If you question the official narrative in the JFK case, you're a contrarian (*).
(*) in the mind of a fanatical zealot, of course.....
-
The problem couldn’t possibly be that “Richard” makes a really lousy case for his conclusion. Oh no — the problem must lie with the people who dare to question it.
-
Apparently Mr. Griffith - who will likely perform his disappearing act again ("Now you See him, Now you Don't") - believes that some type of bullet was fiired by CIA snipers that went into JFK's back only a few inches. And then disappeared. Then another bullet fired by CIA snipers went into JFK's throat/neck a few inches and also disappeared. Yes, these CIA snipers assigned to kill JFK fired not one but two bullets that only went a few inches into JFK and then vanished.
This explanation seems to be more likely to him then a bullet entering the back and exiting through the throat. The autopsy doctors failed to find this during the autopsy because the tracheotomy covered the exit wound. This has been known for decades.
Added: Mantik believes that both wounds - the back and neck - were caused not by bullets but by shrapnel: one piece of glass from the windshield causing the neck wound and another piece of shrapnel from, well, I'm not sure, causing the back wound. And that the autopsy photos and x-rays, indeed the autopsy itself, are fake. This is, well, not very believable. Whether Mr. Griffith believes this is anyone's guess including his own.
As the three autopsy doctors from the Ramsey Clark committee concluded: "The other bullet struck the decedent's back at the right side of the base of the neck between the shoulder and spine and emerged from the front of his neck near the midline. The possibility that this bullet might have followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found. There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea described in the Autopsy Report. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck."
Again: "The possibility that this bullet [that entered the back] might have followed a pathway OTHER THAN ONE PASSING THROUGH THE SITE OF THE TRACHEOTOMY was considered. NO EVIDENCE FOR THIS WAS FOUND."
The fact that the autopsy x-rays and photos have been altered is "not very believable"??? We're talking hard science here. We have hard scientific evidence that the autopsy skull x-rays have been altered. Do you know anything about the science of optical density measurement? It's used in radiology and other fields all the time. It's an established science. Three different scientists have done optical density measurements on the autopsy skull x-rays and have found the same clear proof that they have been altered.
Quoting the laughable Clark Panel is not going to cut it in 2022. You must be kidding. How about if you quote the ARRB medical panel instead? The ARRB panel consisted of three forensic pathologists, and all three refuted the Clark Panel's bogus finding that the rear head entry wound was in the cowlick.
We should keep in mind that Dr. Pierre Finck, the only forensic pathologist at the autopsy, confirmed to the ARRB that there was a fragment trail that went from a point near the external occipital protuberance (EOP) upward to the area of the right orbit (behind the right eye). Why is this important? One, no bullet fired from the Oswald sniper's nest could have made that wound, unless Kennedy's head was tilted nearly 60 degrees forward, which the Zapruder film and the Muchmore film clearly show it was not. Two, there is no such fragment trail on the extant autopsy skull x-rays, even though it is described in the autopsy report and was confirmed by Dr. Finck to the ARRB.
By the way, another fact disclosed by the ARRB releases is that both the back wound and the throat wound were probed, and that after extensive, prolonged probing, including probing done after the chest organs were removed, the autopsy doctors determined for an absolute, definite fact that the back wound was shallow and had no exit point. Ignoring this historic evidence won't make it go away.
Autopsy photographer John Stringer revealed to the ARRB that the throat wound was probed. This confirms the report of a friend of Humes's who revealed in the 1990s that Humes told him that he probed the throat wound and had a picture taken of the probe in the throat. This is key because it's further evidence the autopsy doctors were lying when they claimed they were not aware of the throat wound until after the autopsy.
-
When the time machine is invented, the contrarians will explain that merely because Oswald pointed his rifle at JFK at the moment of the assassination and it went "bang" doesn't mean Oswald was the assassin. They will note that many people in history have fired a rifle. Does that make them an assassin? Of course not. And maybe the rifle had blanks. Many things go "bang" without killing anyone. Children's balloons sometimes pop making a "bang." Does that mean attendees at a children's birthday party are assassins? And on and on down the contrarian rabbit hole.
-
When the time machine is invented, the contrarians will explain that merely because Oswald pointed his rifle at JFK at the moment of the assassination and it went "bang" doesn't mean Oswald was the assassin.
More arguments by fabricated fantasy stories from “Richard” instead of facts and evidence. Who woulda thunk?
-
Foxhole Atheist: Atheist who 'gets it' on his death bed
-
Foxhole Atheist: Atheist who 'gets it' on his death bed
When evidence is presented it's dismissed as corrupt - chain of custody, possibly manufactured. The WC was corrupt, the HSCA was corrupt, the news media investigations were corrupt.
So we have to somehow prove a negative. When we try to do something like that as in, "If Marina was coached then why didn't she say Oswald said he hated JFK?" Or "Why didn't she say she saw him carry a large package that day"? it's dismissed as dishonest questions.
All of this is challenged, dismissed, waved away. Where can we take this?
Meanwhile these goofy conspiracy theories such as the one by Mantik - the x-rays and photos were faked and JFK's wounds were caused by shrapnel - goes unchallenged. We have conspiracists here and at the insane Edu Forum promoting all sorts of conspiracies including ones that contradict their previous theories. They are never challenged.
-
When evidence is presented it's dismissed as corrupt - chain of custody, possibly manufactured. The WC was corrupt, the HSCA was corrupt, the news media investigations were corrupt.
So we have to somehow prove a negative.
This is a strawman, because even if it’s authentic, the available evidence does not prove who killed JFK beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that the little evidence (real evidence — not crap like a ring in a cup) there is cannot be authenticated just adds to the doubt.
Meanwhile these goofy conspiracy theories such as the one by Mantik - the x-rays and photos were faked and JFK's wounds were caused by shrapnel - goes unchallenged.
Analyses such as Mantik’s expose real discrepancies in the evidence. They can’t be waved away simply by calling them “goofy”.
-
- dozens of witnesses between Parkland and Bethesda saw an exit wound in the back of JFK’s skull.
- some witnesses, including Kennedy’s personal physician, placed his back entry wound too low to support the Single-bullet theory.
- Due to the chain of custody problems, it cannot be proven that CE399 wasn’t planted.
- there are discrepancies between the eye witness accounts, the autopsy photos, and the x-rays.
If you believe the above issues make it impossible to conclusively say that ‘only one shooter was involved with Kennedy’s assassination’, then you’re a “crazed conspiracy theorist” 🤓
-
Mantik's "optical density measurements". LOL Maybe Mantik used seer stones.
This answer is as silly as the answer that a Flat Earther would give when shown satellite photos of the round Earth. In one ignorant and incriminating swoop, you wave aside the established science of optical density measurement.
No, Dr. Mantik didn't use "seer stones"--he used an optical densitometer, which is used by scientists in many fields, especially medical fields that involve the use of x-rays, and particularly in radiology. And Dr. Mantik, who is both a physicist and a radiation oncologist, was not the only one to perform optical density measurements on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays: Dr. Michael Chesser, a neuroscientist, got permission to view the original autopsy x-rays at the National Archives and performed optical density measurements on the skull x-rays, and his results matched Dr. Mantik's. As Dr. Greg Henkelmann says in his endorsement of this book, "to reject alteration of the JFK skull x-rays is to reject basic physics and radiology."
Here are some non-assassination-related scientific links on the science of optical density measurement:
http://www.cet-science.com/products/testing-methods/biological-analysis/optical-density-measurement-od600/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338168550_Optical_Density_Measurement_for_Absorbed_Dose_Estimation_to_Enhance_Quality_Assurance_and_Quality_Control_in_Dental_Radiography_using_Dental_Radiographs
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16642363/
https://www.turito.com/blog/physics/optical-density
https://www.linshangtech.com/tech/optical-density-meter-tech1368.html
(Pat Speer doesn't think much of Mantik.)
As you well know, but didn't mention, Speer is the odd man out in the skeptic community when it comes to the OD evidence, and Dr. Mantik has answered Speer's criticisms in detail. As you also know, but also didn't mention, Speer rejects the single-bullet theory (SBT) as silly fiction.
Seems like all that was more-or-less in the 1963 Silbert-O'Neill Report, widely publicized in the paperback edition of "Inquest". The HSCA looked into it. Compare with David Lifton, who used the same FBI Report to come up with a bizarre body-alteration theory.
Eyewitness accounts don't always agree, especially by time the ARRB met (in fact, the Board cautioned against Loons attributing too much reliance on the Board hearings). The forensic evidence told the WC, the Clark Panel and HSCA that the bullet that inflicted the back wound transited the neck to cause the throat wound seen at Parkland before the tracheotomy was made through it.
So you are still lying about this evidence. I have personally documented and discussed this evidence in previous replies to you when you repeated your silly line that this evidence is just based on the Sibert and O'Neill report. The evidence consists of a lot more than that, and you know it, but you just keep getting on this board and lying about it.
Yes, the HSCA--actually, the HSCA's medical panel--did look into it, and they found all kinds of evidence that the back wound had no exit point, but then they suppressed this evidence by sealing it for 50 years. Fortunately for history, the ARRB released this crucial evidence in the mid-1990s.
Thanks to the ARRB, we now know that Sibert and O'Neill saw the same thing that many other autopsy witnesses saw, including Dr. Karnei, Dr. Canada, Dr. Lipsey, autopsy technician James Jenkins, autopsy radiologist Dr. John Ebersole, and Tom Robinson, the mortician who prepared JFK’s body for burial. The back wound was probed extensively, and pictures were taken of the probe in the back wound. After some initial probing, the autopsy doctors decided to remove the chest organs so they could have a clear view of the wound tract and could see where the probe led.
With the chest organs removed, the pathologists resumed probing the back wound, placing the body in multiple positions and angles to ensure the probing was conclusive and so they could see where the probe went. When Humes probed the wound again with his finger, people at the table could see the end of his finger pushing against the lining of the chest cavity--the wound had no exit. Then, the autopsy doctors probed the wound with a surgical probe, and once again they could see that the back wound did not penetrate the lining of the chest cavity because they could see the probe pushing against the lining of the chest cavity. At this point, Finck turned to Sibert and O'Neill and advised them that the back wound had no exit point. Interestingly, when pressed during his ARRB interview, Finck admitted that the probe did not go through the body! Dr. Karnei, Tom Robinson, Dr. Lipsey, Dr. Ebersole, and James Jenkins likewise confirmed that the probe did not go through the body and that the back wound had no exit point.
Incidentally, Lipsey also noted that the autopsy doctors were "absolutely, unequivocally convinced" that JFK "had been shot three times" and that they identified "three separate wounds" caused by "three separate bullets." And we also now know that Jenkins told the HSCA that the back-wound probing enabled Humes "to reach the end of the wound" and that the wound tract was "not into the chest cavity."
Another key fact that emerged from the ARRB disclosures is the fact that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat. That's why Humes illegally burned the first two drafts. We now know that the first two drafts said the back wound had no exit point, and that the second draft said the throat wound was caused by an exiting fragment from the head shot. We also now know that during a WC executive session, chief counsel Rankin disclosed that the autopsy doctors determined through probing that the back wound was shallow and that "it didn't go any further than that."
Yet another key fact that emerged from the ARRB materials is the fact that the throat wound was in fact probed during the autopsy. This, of course, belies the later tale that the autopsy doctors were unaware of the throat wound during the autopsy and only learned of it the next morning. This also confirms the account of one of Humes's close friends, Jim Snyder, who confidentially reported to CBS producer Robert Richter in 1967 that Humes told him that he was aware of the throat wound during the autopsy and that an x-ray was taken of a metal probe inserted into the back wound. Snyder also reported that Humes said the back wound's tract was erratic, that it went downward, then upward, and then downward again. Richter's memo on Snyder's disclosures to him surfaced in the 1990s.
Another key disclosure from the ARRB-released materials is that Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, told the HSCA that he noticed the throat wound early in the autopsy. Ebersole also told the HSCA that the probing of the back wound "revealed there was no point of exit."
And Dr. Karnei revealed to the ARRB that after Humes probed the back wound, Finck probed it as well, and that Finck probed it "with a succession of flexible metal probes." Karnei added that several photos were taken of the probes inserted into the back wound, and that by the end of the autopsy the pathologists had not "found an exit wound for the entry in the shoulder."
A crucial disclosure from the ARRB materials is that Agent O'Neill told the HSCA that the autopsy doctors "couldn't locate an outlet for the bullet that entered the back" and that "when the autopsy was complete there was no doubt in anyone's mind that the bullet in Dallas was the one that came out of JFK's body," i.e., that that bullet was the bullet that had entered the back and that it had fallen out of the shallow back wound.
-
This answer is as silly as the answer that a Flat Earther would give when shown satellite photos of the round Earth. In one ignorant and incriminating swoop, you wave aside the established science of optical density measurement.
No, Dr. Mantik didn't use "seer stones"--he used an optical densitometer, which is used by scientists in many fields, especially medical fields that involve the use of x-rays, and particularly in radiology. And Dr. Mantik, who is both a physicist and a radiation oncologist, was not the only one to perform optical density measurements on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays: Dr. Michael Chesser, a neuroscientist, got permission to view the original autopsy x-rays at the National Archives and performed optical density measurements on the skull x-rays, and his results matched Dr. Mantik's. As Dr. Greg Henkelmann says in his endorsement of this book, "to reject alteration of the JFK skull x-rays is to reject basic physics and radiology."
Here are some non-assassination-related scientific links on the science of optical density measurement:
http://www.cet-science.com/products/testing-methods/biological-analysis/optical-density-measurement-od600/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338168550_Optical_Density_Measurement_for_Absorbed_Dose_Estimation_to_Enhance_Quality_Assurance_and_Quality_Control_in_Dental_Radiography_using_Dental_Radiographs
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16642363/
https://www.turito.com/blog/physics/optical-density
https://www.linshangtech.com/tech/optical-density-meter-tech1368.html
As you well know, but didn't mention, Speer is the odd man out in the skeptic community when it comes to the OD evidence, and Dr. Mantik has answered Speer's criticisms in detail. As you also know, but also didn't mention, Speer rejects the single-bullet theory (SBT) as silly fiction.
So you are still lying about this evidence. I have personally documented and discussed this evidence in previous replies to you when you repeated your silly line that this evidence is just based on the Sibert and O'Neill report. The evidence consists of a lot more than that, and you know it, but you just keep getting on this board and lying about it.
Yes, the HSCA--actually, the HSCA's medical panel--did look into it, and they found all kinds of evidence that the back wound had no exit point, but then they suppressed this evidence by sealing it for 50 years. Fortunately for history, the ARRB released this crucial evidence in the mid-1990s.
Thanks to the ARRB, we now know that Sibert and O'Neill saw the same thing that many other autopsy witnesses saw, including Dr. Karnei, Dr. Canada, Dr. Lipsey, autopsy technician James Jenkins, autopsy radiologist Dr. John Ebersole, and Tom Robinson, the mortician who prepared JFK’s body for burial. The back wound was probed extensively, and pictures were taken of the probe in the back wound. After some initial probing, the autopsy doctors decided to remove the chest organs so they could have a clear view of the wound tract and could see where the probe led.
With the chest organs removed, the pathologists resumed probing the back wound, placing the body in multiple positions and angles to ensure the probing was conclusive and so they could see where the probe went. When Humes probed the wound again with his finger, people at the table could see the end of his finger pushing against the lining of the chest cavity--the wound had no exit. Then, the autopsy doctors probed the wound with a surgical probe, and once again they could see that the back wound did not penetrate the lining of the chest cavity because they could see the probe pushing against the lining of the chest cavity. At this point, Finck turned to Sibert and O'Neill and advised them that the back wound had no exit point. Interestingly, when pressed during his ARRB interview, Finck admitted that the probe did not go through the body! Dr. Karnei, Tom Robinson, Dr. Lipsey, Dr. Ebersole, and James Jenkins likewise confirmed that the probe did not go through the body and that the back wound had no exit point.
Incidentally, Lipsey also noted that the autopsy doctors were "absolutely, unequivocally convinced" that JFK "had been shot three times" and that they identified "three separate wounds" caused by "three separate bullets." And we also now know that Jenkins told the HSCA that the back-wound probing enabled Humes "to reach the end of the wound" and that the wound tract was "not into the chest cavity."
Another key fact that emerged from the ARRB disclosures is the fact that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat. That's why Humes illegally burned the first two drafts. We now know that the first two drafts said the back wound had no exit point, and that the second draft said the throat wound was caused by an exiting fragment from the head shot. We also now know that during a WC executive session, chief counsel Rankin disclosed that the autopsy doctors determined through probing that the back wound was shallow and that "it didn't go any further than that."
Yet another key fact that emerged from the ARRB materials is the fact that the throat wound was in fact probed during the autopsy. This, of course, belies the later tale that the autopsy doctors were unaware of the throat wound during the autopsy and only learned of it the next morning. This also confirms the account of one of Humes's close friends, Jim Snyder, who confidentially reported to CBS producer Robert Richter in 1967 that Humes told him that he was aware of the throat wound during the autopsy and that an x-ray was taken of a metal probe inserted into the back wound. Snyder also reported that Humes said the back wound's tract was erratic, that it went downward, then upward, and then downward again. Richter's memo on Snyder's disclosures to him surfaced in the 1990s.
Another key disclosure from the ARRB-released materials is that Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, told the HSCA that he noticed the throat wound early in the autopsy. Ebersole also told the HSCA that the probing of the back wound "revealed there was no point of exit."
And Dr. Karnei revealed to the ARRB that after Humes probed the back wound, Finck probed it as well, and that Finck probed it "with a succession of flexible metal probes." Karnei added that several photos were taken of the probes inserted into the back wound, and that by the end of the autopsy the pathologists had not "found an exit wound for the entry in the shoulder."
A crucial disclosure from the ARRB materials is that Agent O'Neill told the HSCA that the autopsy doctors "couldn't locate an outlet for the bullet that entered the back" and that "when the autopsy was complete there was no doubt in anyone's mind that the bullet in Dallas was the one that came out of JFK's body," i.e., that that bullet was the bullet that had entered the back and that it had fallen out of the shallow back wound.
Have you taken this to the NY Times and told them that you have debunked the WC's conclusion that Oswald was the assassin? I get a real kick out of CTers who lurk on Internet forums pontificating about their "evidence" that proves a conspiracy. If I had what I believed to be real evidence of a conspiracy to kill the President, I wouldn't waste my time here. Take it to the NY Times, Wash Post. or some mainstream media outlet and have them verify your evidence. It's Pulitzer Prize winning material. Or are they all in on it?
-
Have you taken this to the NY Times and told them that you have debunked the WC's conclusion that Oswald was the assassin?
More idiocy from “Richard”. The post he’s replying to has nothing to do with who the assassin was.
-
This answer is as silly as the answer that a Flat Earther would give when shown satellite photos of the round Earth.
From the Ultra-Right Mormon unleashed Conspiracy Theorist. :D BTW, how many JFK CTs were among the crowd that wanted for JFK Jr. in Dealey Plaza?
In one ignorant and incriminating swoop, you wave aside the established science of optical density measurement.
I didn't attack the science of optical density measurement. I had a go at Mantik's misuse of the methodology. Seems you just automatically see conspiracy and incompetence in anything from the LN side.
No, Dr. Mantik didn't use "seer stones"--he used an optical densitometer, which is used by scientists in many fields, especially medical fields that involve the use of x-rays, and particularly in radiology. And Dr. Mantik, who is both a physicist and a radiation oncologist, was not the only one to perform optical density measurements on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays: Dr. Michael Chesser, a neuroscientist, got permission to view the original autopsy x-rays at the National Archives and performed optical density measurements on the skull x-rays, and his results matched Dr. Mantik's. As Dr. Greg Henkelmann says in his endorsement of this book, "to reject alteration of the JFK skull x-rays is to reject basic physics and radiology."
Here are some non-assassination-related scientific links on the science of optical density measurement:
As you well know, but didn't mention, Speer is the odd man out in the skeptic community when it comes to the OD evidence, and Dr. Mantik has answered Speer's criticisms in detail.
From Speer's website ( Link (https://www.patspeer.com/chapter18x-rayspecs) ):
"The portable x-ray equipment used at Bethesda was
reportedly an "old" General Electric 250. It was almost
certainly of World War II vintage. The 1943 guidebook
Medical Radiographic Technique by General Electric’s
Technical Services Division explains "Defining contrast
as the degree of difference in density between adjacent
areas on the film, it is not difficult to recognize that gross-
overexposure or under-exposure will affect this difference."
It then offers: “Technics should not be used to produce
maximum contrast, but rather technics which will give
satisfactory contrast for maximum visibility of structure.”
The book thereby presents three x-ray images of a human
skull: one created with a short exposure that is too light;
one created with a longer exposure that has an appropriate
amount of contrast; and one created with an even longer
exposure that is too dark.
These images are shown on the slide below."
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/pa9HXr9yPqQpqS6fAVV-dVOTSOjxtfxbd8lCkVQP1a54B_my4h4BE8rQMLTJrPvHanm7RjTtNhEM7vibGe12OwD6fBCaUOY8_7qWGXl4Nwjnzs3cmv3_L1KK4aANRy2HWskPazxW5jBOlBBKHn4MtfoP9ohFeESQS4yK=w1280)
As well, Pat posted this recently, and, as far as I can see, it wasn't seriously challenged:
"In any event, even if Mantik's readings are all legit. they still
don't mean much. You see, the OD apparent on an X-ray is
determined by a variety of factors: power, time of exposure,
and density of the item being X-rayed. Mantik's controls, on
which he bases his argument Kennedy's X-rays are impossible,
were all provided him from one source. Well, that's a huge problem.
He should have studied a wide variety of X-rays, including those
created on a portable machine like that used on 11-22-63, and
particularly those performed on badly fractured skulls with over-
lapping bone, and missing brain. He did not. His results are
therefore apples and oranges.
And, yeah, yeah. I know he's got some letters after his name. But
those in attendance at the 2013 Wecht Conference, including Jim,
know that in our joint discussion of the Harper fragment Mantik
had to eat some major crow, and admit he'd had the Harper
fragment x-ray (his supposed area of expertise) incorrectly oriented
for the last 4 years, and had incorrectly criticized me for having it
the wrong way. I allowed him to go first, in hopes I wouldn't have
to slam him on this point. And he did us both a favor, and admitted
his mistake.
So, to be clear, while I have come to respect David's integrity, I
continue to feel sure his thoughts on the Harper fragment are both
wrong and of no help to the research community, as they are likely
to be shot down by a stream of credible experts as soon as they
reach the level where people are starting to believe him. I mean,
there's a reason why none of his colleagues will sign onto them,
and there's a reason why the only forensic radiologist to study his
findings, Dr. John Fitzpatrick, as I recall, told Doug Horne there was
no there there. (Now that's another thing...Fitzpatrick told this to
Horne in the mid-90's, and yet Horne held onto this info for more than
decade. Hmmm...)"
_____
Speer himself seems to be self-convinced about something he perceives on a photo:
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1PENkbbuxTqeQM6FTQHu-9JhXFn8l8Wqc)
And yes, I've made more than a few mistakes myself.
As you also know, but also didn't mention, Speer rejects the single-bullet theory (SBT) as silly fiction.
Uh? Doesn't matter to me if Speer has lots I disagree with. If his research in a particular area (Mantik, Hickey Theory) is competent and reasoned, I will accept it. One of the first-generation critics, Paul Hoch, later thought the SBT should be given serious consideration. Unfortunately, Speer's site is marred by juvenile at-times inappropriate puns and "clever" wordplay.
So you are still lying about this evidence. I have personally documented and discussed this evidence in previous replies to you when you repeated your silly line that this evidence is just based on the Sibert and O'Neill report. The evidence consists of a lot more than that, and you know it, but you just keep getting on this board and lying about it.
Yes, the HSCA--actually, the HSCA's medical panel--did look into it, and they found all kinds of evidence that the back wound had no exit point, but then they suppressed this evidence by sealing it for 50 years. Fortunately for history, the ARRB released this crucial evidence in the mid-1990s.
Thanks to the ARRB, we now know that Sibert and O'Neill saw the same thing that many other autopsy witnesses saw, including Dr. Karnei, Dr. Canada, Dr. Lipsey, autopsy technician James Jenkins, autopsy radiologist Dr. John Ebersole, and Tom Robinson, the mortician who prepared JFK’s body for burial. The back wound was probed extensively, and pictures were taken of the probe in the back wound. After some initial probing, the autopsy doctors decided to remove the chest organs so they could have a clear view of the wound tract and could see where the probe led.
With the chest organs removed, the pathologists resumed probing the back wound, placing the body in multiple positions and angles to ensure the probing was conclusive and so they could see where the probe went. When Humes probed the wound again with his finger, people at the table could see the end of his finger pushing against the lining of the chest cavity--the wound had no exit. Then, the autopsy doctors probed the wound with a surgical probe, and once again they could see that the back wound did not penetrate the lining of the chest cavity because they could see the probe pushing against the lining of the chest cavity. At this point, Finck turned to Sibert and O'Neill and advised them that the back wound had no exit point. Interestingly, when pressed during his ARRB interview, Finck admitted that the probe did not go through the body! Dr. Karnei, Tom Robinson, Dr. Lipsey, Dr. Ebersole, and James Jenkins likewise confirmed that the probe did not go through the body and that the back wound had no exit point.
Incidentally, Lipsey also noted that the autopsy doctors were "absolutely, unequivocally convinced" that JFK "had been shot three times" and that they identified "three separate wounds" caused by "three separate bullets." And we also now know that Jenkins told the HSCA that the back-wound probing enabled Humes "to reach the end of the wound" and that the wound tract was "not into the chest cavity."
Another key fact that emerged from the ARRB disclosures is the fact that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat. That's why Humes illegally burned the first two drafts. We now know that the first two drafts said the back wound had no exit point, and that the second draft said the throat wound was caused by an exiting fragment from the head shot. We also now know that during a WC executive session, chief counsel Rankin disclosed that the autopsy doctors determined through probing that the back wound was shallow and that "it didn't go any further than that."
Yet another key fact that emerged from the ARRB materials is the fact that the throat wound was in fact probed during the autopsy. This, of course, belies the later tale that the autopsy doctors were unaware of the throat wound during the autopsy and only learned of it the next morning. This also confirms the account of one of Humes's close friends, Jim Snyder, who confidentially reported to CBS producer Robert Richter in 1967 that Humes told him that he was aware of the throat wound during the autopsy and that an x-ray was taken of a metal probe inserted into the back wound. Snyder also reported that Humes said the back wound's tract was erratic, that it went downward, then upward, and then downward again. Richter's memo on Snyder's disclosures to him surfaced in the 1990s.
Another key disclosure from the ARRB-released materials is that Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, told the HSCA that he noticed the throat wound early in the autopsy. Ebersole also told the HSCA that the probing of the back wound "revealed there was no point of exit."
And Dr. Karnei revealed to the ARRB that after Humes probed the back wound, Finck probed it as well, and that Finck probed it "with a succession of flexible metal probes." Karnei added that several photos were taken of the probes inserted into the back wound, and that by the end of the autopsy the pathologists had not "found an exit wound for the entry in the shoulder."
A crucial disclosure from the ARRB materials is that Agent O'Neill told the HSCA that the autopsy doctors "couldn't locate an outlet for the bullet that entered the back" and that "when the autopsy was complete there was no doubt in anyone's mind that the bullet in Dallas was the one that came out of JFK's body," i.e., that that bullet was the bullet that had entered the back and that it had fallen out of the shallow back wound.
The supposed lack of neck transit was first mentioned in the Silbert-O'Neill Report in 1963 (so how was it "sealed" until the 1990s?). The issue was pondered over for awhile by Humes as he prepared his Autopsy Report. By time Humes gave weight to the throat wound being the point of exit for the neck transit, Silbert and O'Neill were out of the loop.
I doubt the back wound was probed as "extensively" as you promote. The pathologists feared creating a false passage if they pushed too hard. I also have a problem with a finger being inserted
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Backwound.jpg)
It was reasoned that the missile passage through the neck had become restricted because of the change in the body from the wounding position when the President was alive. At autopsy, rigor mortis was also a factor.
The titillating "sweeteners" you find so arousing from the ARRB hearing (back probe photo, finger pushing the interior wall) has to applied against the ARRB's own caution about the reliability of witnesses to events decades pass. When are you going to take these "stunning" developments to be vetted at the New York Times?
-
Just came across this from my files.
And somebody somewhere said that particular ammo has a narrow wound path (which would partially explain the careful probing, one might think)
Subject: JFK_ SECTION II.--PERFORMANCE OF AUTOPSY
Date: 21 July, 2014 11:59:53 PM EDT
The following is from Volume 7 of the HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
ASSASSINATIONS:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy3.txt
SECTION II.--PERFORMANCE OF AUTOPSY
PART I. INTRODUCTION
(27) Throughout the last 15 years, many critics have
questioned the competency and validity of the autopsy of
President Kennedy. The efforts of the U.S. Department of the Navy
and other Government sources to insure privacy with respect to
the autopsy procedures and other events that took place at
Bethesda Naval Hospital have contributed in part to much of the
uncertainty and skepticism. Included in these efforts was an
order of silence issued to the participants in the autopsy. (1)
(28) Because of this skepticism and in accordance with its
mandate to conduct a full and complete investigation into the
circumstances surrounding the death of President Kennedy, the
committee decided to investigate the performance of the autopsy.
The focus was to be on the following issues:
1. The possibility that someone ordered or
otherwise strongly suggested that the autopsy
doctors perform a limited or incomplete
autopsy;
2. The question of the competency and validity of
the autopsy; and
3. The documentation of the events that occurred,
how they occurred, and when they occurred.
(29) The committee conducted a review of all documentary
evidence and contacted almost all persons still alive who had
attended the autopsy. The Department of the Navy agreed to
rescind the orders of silence issued to the autopsy personnel.
(30) The following material relates the issues and
corresponding facts chronologically (part II) and then presents
the conclusions of the committee.
(31) The evidence indicates that while the pathologists
were given authority to perform a complete autopsy, the autopsy
was not complete according to established medicolegal standards.
PART II. FACTS AND ISSUES
Background
(32) At 1:30 p.m., eastern standard time (e.s.t.), on
November 22, 1963, President Kennedy and Governor Connally were
shot while riding in a Presidential motorcade, through the
streets of Dallas, Tex. The driver of the Presidential limousine,
Secret Service Agent William Grier, immediately drove the
limousine at high speed to Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas,
Tex. arriving at approximately 1:35 p.m., e.s.t.(2) Having been
alerted to the emergency by radio, Parkland Hospital personnel
quickly escorted the wounded President and Governor into the
emergency treatment facilities.
(33) Drs. Malcolm Perry and Charles J. Carrico were two of
the first doctors to attend the President. In addition to a
massive head wound, both observed a small, circular wound
situated in the region of the neck below the adam's apple, which
they subsequently characterized as an entry wound. (3) To combat
the President's failure to breathe, Dr. Perry decided to perform
a tracheotomy.(4) In doing so, he cut through the small, circular
neck wound, making it difficult to identify the missile wound.
(34) With respect to the head wound, Dr. Robert McClelland,
another the doctors who attended the President, said in his
testimony before the Warren Commission, that the right posterior
section of the skull had been blasted. (6) Dr. Kemp Clark, who
also assisted with the President, similarly described the wound
as being in the back of the President's head--in the right
posterior part. (7)
(35) The Parkland doctors soon realized their efforts to
save President Kennedy were fruitless. Dr. Clark pronounced him
dead at 2 p.m., e.s.t.(8)
(36) The total time that the doctors had observed or
treated the President was approximately 20 minutes. They had
been concerned only with administering emergency treatment. Their
primary concern was to restore the breathing and stop the
bleeding. None examined the President's back--and so did not
discover any wound there. Further, none observed any wound to the
head other than the one massive wound. Nor was their job to
measure precisely the location of the wounds or to examine the
body for all possible wounds. When the President died, the
Parkland doctors' functions also ended. (9)
(37) Drs. Robert Shaw, Charles Gregory, and George Shires
treated the wounds of Governor Connally. (10) In their medical
reports, they described wounds to his chest, wrist, and thigh.
(38) Soon after Dr. Kemp Clark of Parkland Hospital,
Dallas, Tex., pronounced the President dead, the Secret Service
and other personnel proceeded to transport the body from Texas to
Washington, D.C. While in flight, Mrs. Kennedy chose Bethesda
Naval Hospital in Bethesda, Md., as the site for the autopsy,
since the President had served in the Navy. (11)
(39) The Secret Service and the Navy Department made
arrangements for the performance of the autopsy. (12) The surgeon
general the Navy and the commanding officer of the Naval Medical
School advised Comdr. James J. Humes, the director of
laboratories of the National Medical School, (13) Naval Medical
Center, Bethesda, Md., that the Secret Service was transporting
the body of the President to Bethesda and that he was to
ascertain the cause of death. (14)
(40) The FBI authorities contacted their Baltimore field
office and advised that arrangements should be made for Bureau
agents to proceed to Andrews Air Force Base, Camp Springs, Md.,
to meet Air Force One and to handle any matters that would fall
within FBI jurisdiction.(15) Consequently, Special Agents Francis
X. O'Neill, Jr., and James W. Sibert proceeded to Andrews Air
Force Base. Their specific instructions were to accompany the
body at all times, ride in the motorcade to Bethesda Naval
Hospital, witness the autopsy, preserve the chain of custody of
any evidentiary material, and transport any bullets that might be
recovered to the FBI Laboratory.
(41) On arrival at Andrews Air Force Base, a motorcade
transported the body of the President to the Bethesda Naval
Hospital, (17) with Special Agents Sibert and O'Neill traveling
in the third car. (18) At Bethesda, the ambulance first stopped
at the main entrance; Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy and Attorney
General Robert F. Kennedy got out (19) and joined other members
of the Kennedy family on the 17th floor of the hospital to await
the conclusion of the autopsy. (20) The ambulance then proceeded
to the rear of the building, arriving at approximately 7:35
p.m.(21). Personnel carried the body into the hospital. (22)
(42) Dr. Humes chose J. Thornton Boswell, M.D., chief of
pathology at Bethesda, (23) and Pierre A. Finck, M.D., chief of
the military environmental pathology division and chief of the
wound ballistics pathology branch at the Armed Forces Institute
of Pathology at Walter Reed Medical Center, (241) to assist him
in performing the autopsy. During the autopsy, Special Agents
Sibert and O'Neill recorded the names of what they believed were
all the persons in attendance at any time. (25) In a report they
submitted subsequent the autopsy, they included: (26)
1. Adm. Calvin B. Galloway, commanding officer of the U.N.
[sic] National Naval Medical Center;
2. Adm. George C. Burkley, White House physician to the
President;
3. Comdr. James J. Humes, director of the laboratories of
the National Medical School, Naval Medical Center,
Bethesda, Md.;
4. Capt. James H. Stover, Jr., commanding officer of the
Naval Medical School;
5. John Thomas Stringer, Jr., medical photographer;
6. James H. Ebersole, assistant chief radiologist at the
Bethesda Naval Medical Center;
7. Floyd Albert Riebe, medical photographer;
8. J. Thornton Boswell, chief of pathology at Bethesda;
9. Jan Gail Rudnicki, laboratory technologist, assisting Dr.
Boswell;
10. Pierre A. Finck, M.D., chief of the military
environmental pathology division and chief of the wound
ballistics pathology branch at Walter Reed Medical
Center; (27)
11. Paul K. O'Conner, laboratory technologist;
12. Jerrol F. Custer, X-ray technician;
13. James Curtis Jenkins, laboratory technologist;
14. Edward F. Reed, X-ray technician;
15. James E. Metzler, hospital corpsman third-class;
16. Capt. David Osborne, chief of surgery;
17. Brig. Gen. Godfrey McHugh, Air Force aide to the
President;
18. Lt. Comdr. Gregory H. Cross, resident in surgery;
19. Gen. Philip C. Wehle, commanding officer of the U.S.
Military District, Washington, D.C.;
20. Chester H. Boyers, chief petty officer in charge of the
pathology division;
21. Dr. George Bakeman, U.S. Navy (the committee could not
locate this person);
22. Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman;
23. Secret Service Agent William Greer; and
24. Secret Service Agent John J. O'Leary. (28)
(43) Through its own investigation, the committee
determined that the following persons also attended the autopsy:
1. Richard A. Lipsey, personal aide to General Wehle;(29)
and
2. Samuel Bird,(30) in 1963, a lieutenant stationed at the
ceremonial duties office, Fort Myers, Va., 3d Infantry
Division.
(44) Additionally, Sibert and O'Neill reported that,
following the autopsy, four persons from Gawler's Funeral Home in
Washington, D.C., entered the autopsy room to prepare the
President's body for burial. They were:
1. John Van Haeson;
2. Edwin Stroble;
3. Thomas Robinson; and
4. Mr. Hagen.(31)
(45) These persons, together with Sibert and O'Neill, were
the only ones present at any time in the autopsy room with the
body of the President.
(46) In their report, Sibert and O'Neill noted that the
body of the President was removed from the casket in which it
arrived and placed on the autopsy table.(32) They said that a
sheet covered the entire body; an additional wrapping, saturated
in blood, surrounded the head. (33)
(47) Dr. Humes had testified previously to the Warren
Commission that the body was received in a casket, was wrapped in
a sheet, and was unclothed.(34) James Jenkins, a student
laboratory technician, whose normal duties included admitting a
body to the morgue and conducting an initial examination,
likewise stated that the body of the President was unclothed and
that it may have been wrapped in a sheet. (35)
(48) A major issue in the initial stages of the autopsy was
whether Dr. Humes had authority to perform a full or partial
autopsy.
(49) The belief that Dr. Humes had authority for only a
partial autopsy derived from several factors. Special Agent
O'Neill told the committee that he recalled that Mrs. Kennedy had
given permission for a partial autopsy and that Dr. Burkley, the
President's physician, reiterated her remarks in the autopsy
room. (36) He believed there was no question that Dr. Burkley was
conveying the wishes of the Kennedy family regarding a
full-versus-partial autopsy.(37) Special Agent Sibert told the
committee that he, too, had the impression the Kennedy family was
somehow transmitting step-by-step clearances to the pathologists.
(38)
(50) John Stringer, the medical photographer, likewise
recalled some discussion at the beginning of the autopsy
concerning the scope of the autopsy. He said he believed Dr.
Burkley played a central role in the discussions and seemed to be
acting on behalf of the Kennedy family.(39) He specifically
recalled Dr. Burkley indicating to the doctors that they should
not conduct a full autopsy, saying, "* * * (you) shouldn't do a
complete one if (you) don't have to."(40)
(51) Adm. David Osborne (then captain) stated that at the
beginning of the autopsy there was tremendous pressure to perform
a "quick post" and to leave the hospital. (41)
(52) The evidence supports the above recollections. They
reflect the general nature of the initial stages of the autopsy:
somewhat confused at the beginning with discussions concerning
the extent and nature of the autopsy to be performed. The
evidence also indicates, however, that these observations do not
reflect the total picture and that Dr. Humes ultimately received
permission to perform a complete autopsy. The following
memorandum is a primary source:
DATE: NOVEMBER 26, 1963.
SAC, Baltimore.
From: SA's James W. Sibert and Francis X. O'Neill, Jr.
Subject: Assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Following arrival at the Naval Medical Center and
preparation of the President's body for inspection and
autopsy, to be performed by Dr. Humes, chief
pathologist and commander, U.S. Navy, Admiral Burkley,
the President's personal physician advised that Mrs.
Kennedy had granted permission for a limited autopsy
and he questioned any feasibility for a complete
autopsy to obtain the bullet which had entered the
President's back.
At this point, it will be noted Dr. Humes, as the
physician conducting the autopsy, stated it was his
opinion that the bullet was still in the President's
body and could only be extracted through a complete
autopsy, which he proposed to do.
Special Agent Roy Kellerman, Secret Service, in
conference with Special Agents Sibert and O'Neill, from
an investigative and protective standpoint, advised
Admiral Burkley that it was felt the bullet should be
located.
At this point, Adm. C.B. Galloway, Commanding
Officer of the National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda,
Md., told Commander Humes to perform a complete
autopsy.
(53) Special Agent O'Neill corroborated the information in
this memorandum in an affidavit and in his interview with the
committee.(42) In addition, Admiral Osborne (the Captain) stated
in a committee interview that Dr. Humes was successful in
resisting pressure to perform an incomplete autopsy and that no
one issued any orders limiting it. (43) Admiral Galloway also
stated that no one transmitted any orders to limit the autopsy in
any manner and that this memorandum was consistent with his
recollections.
(54) For these reasons, it may be concluded that Dr. Humes
possessed authority to perform a complete autopsy.
(55) During the initial stages of the autopsy, when the
discussion over a full-versus-partial autopsy occurred, the
pathologists conducted an examination of the exterior of the body
and took photographs and X-rays before making any incisions. (45)
This is when the pathologists observed that a tracheostomy had
been performed on the President.(46)
(56) Stringer(47) and Riebe(48) took the autopsy
photographs under the direction of Dr. Humes. Stringer told the
committee that his equipment included a 4- by 5-inch graphic view
camera that had standard lens and used film holders which
contained one segment of film on each side.(49) He also stated
that as he photographed the body, he would give the film to a
Secret Service agent standing adjacent to him who later signed a
receipt to Captain Stover to obtain formal custody of the
film.(50) Such a receipt--from Capt. J. H. Stover, Jr.,
commanding officer of the U.S. Naval Medical School to Roy H.
Kellerman, assistant special agent in charge, U.S. Secret
Service--does exist. (51)
(57) Stringer also stated that a Federal agent took a
camera from Riebe and exposed the film. (52) This apparently
occurred because the agent felt Stringer was the only person
authorized to photograph the body and that Riebe was only to
assist Stringer and not take photographs on his own initiative.
(58) Special Agents Sibert and O'Neill confirmed that the
pathologists had X-rays taken before and after making
incisions.(53) Dr. Ebersole, the acting chief of the radiology
department that evening, stated in a deposition to the committee
that prior to commencing the autopsy he took several X-rays of
the skull, chest and trunk of the body. (54) He stated that he
used portable X-ray equipment (55) and did not take X-rays of the
hands and feet.(56) Dr. Ebersole further told the committee that
he hand carried these films in their cassettes to the fourth
floor of the hospital, where a darkroom technician developed them
and then returned them to him. Ebersole then hand carried them
back to the autopsy room. (57)
(59) After completion of the autopsy, before releasing the
X-rays, Dr. Ebersole received a receipt from Roy H. Kellerman
acknowledging possession of them.
(60) Sibert and O'Neill observed that, on the basis of the
preliminary X-rays, the pathologists concluded that:
* * * no complete bullet of any size could be located in the
brain area and likewise no bullet could be located in the
back or any other area of the body as determined by total
body X-rays. (59)
(61) At approximately 8:15 p.m., e.s.t, Dr. Humes made the
first incision. (60) In his Warren Commission testimony, he
stated that he used a routine incision:
Which is a Y-shaped incision from the shoulders over the
lower portion of the breastbone and over to the opposite
shoulder and reflected the skin and tissues from the
interior portion of the chest. (61)
(62) Dr. Humes then began examining the missile wounds.
Sibert and O'Neill noted that he located the track of a missile
that appeared to enter the rear of the head and progress forward.
(62) The X-rays of the skull revealed numerous minute fragments
widely distributed throughout the skull, as well as two larger
fragments. The pathologists commented that this indicated the
missile had fragmented on passing through the skull. (63)
(63) Dr. Humes located the entrance of the missile track in
the head as approximately 2.5 centimeters laterally to the right
and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. (64)
(64) In the autopsy report, Dr. Humes described the exit
as:
A large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat
into the temporal and occipital regions. (65)
He further stated that:
n this region there is an actual absence of scalp and
bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13
centimeters in greatest diameter. (66).
(65) Sibert and O'Neill observed that Dr. Humes removed two
fragments from the right side of the skull; one 7 by 2
millimeters in size, the other 1 by 3 millimeters.(67) Special
Agents Sibert and O'Neill signed a receipt for custody of these
fragments and immediately following the autopsy transported them
to Special Agent Kurt Frazier at the FBI Laboratory. (68)
(66) The receipt for the fragments has been a continuing
source of controversy. It states that Bureau agents received a
"missile," (69) as opposed to two fragments. Chester H. Boyers,
the corpsman who typed the receipt,(70) submitted an affidavit to
the committee which stated that the receipt was for two fragments
that Dr. Humes removed from the skull, despite the receipt's
caption of "a missile." (71) Boyers emphasized that he gave
Sibert and O'Neill only missile fragments.
In affidavits and committee interviews, Sibert and O'Neill
also stated that Dr. Humes had retrieved two fragments and that
they received these fragments and not a missile. (73)
(67) The evidence indicates that the receipt was in error
and that Boyers transferred only fragments to Sibert and O'Neill.
(68) Sibert and O'Neill next observed in their report that
Dr. Humes examined a wound situated below the shoulders and 2
inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.(74)
In the autopsy report, Dr. Humes characterized this wound as an
entrance wound and located it 14 centimeters from the tip of the
right acromion process and 14 centimeters below the tip of the
right mastoid process. (75) Dr. Humes probed this wound with his
finger and concluded that the missile had only traveled a short
distance because he could feel the end track with his finger.(76)
During the autopsy, Dr. Humes stated that he and his colleagues
opened the chest cavity and carefully examined the lining of the
chest cavity and both lungs.(77) Admiral Galloway told the
committee that the pathologists examined the brain and all of the
internal organs and structures. These included the liver, heart,
lungs, spleen, kidneys, and adrenal glands.(78) The autopsy
protocol and supplemental report state that the doctors examined
the chest cavity, lungs, heart, abdominal cavity, skeletal
system, liver, spleen, kidneys, and brain, but did not list the
adrenal glands.(79)
(69) In regard to the examination of the chest cavity, Dr.
Humes told the Warren Commission and the committee that he
specifically remembered the photographers taking Kodachrome
photographs of the interior of the President's chest. (80)
Stringer, one of the photographers, stated that he also thought
he had taken some interior photographs of the President's chest.
(81) Dr. Burkley, however, told the committee that no one took
any photographs of the interior of the chest. (82) There is no
evidence that such photographs exist.
(70) By this point in the autopsy, the pathologists had
closely examined the body and had still not located any missile,
particularly the one which entered the back. They could not
explain why they could not find any bullets.(83) They then began
speculating about bullets which fragment. Special Agent Sibert
decided to call Special Agent Charles L. Killion at the firearms
section of the FBI laboratory to inquire about fragmenting
bullets.(84) On receiving this call, Killion informed Sibert that
Secret Service Agent Richard Johnson had forwarded to the
laboratory a bullet which reportedly had been found on a
stretcher in the emergency room of Parkland Memorial Hospital in
Dallas, Tex. (85) Killion described the bullet as a
6.5-millimeter rifle missile with a copper-alloy full jacket.
(86)
(71) Sibert and O'Neill stated in their report that during
the autopsy Dr. Humes, concluded on the basis of this information
and knowing that the Parkland doctors had performed cardiac
massage that they may have forced the bullet out of the
President's back. (87) This theory would account for a missile
track with no bullet.
(72) During the latter stages of the autopsy, authorities
sent from Dallas three separate fragments of skull bone (88)
found in the Presidential limousine. There is no evidence to show
who sent these fragments to Bethesda. The pathologists concluded
they were from the skull. Dr. Humes directed the X-raying of
these fragments(89) and observed that one of the fragments
contained minute metallic fragments along a line which
corresponded with the large defect in the skull of the
President.(90) This particular bone fragment alone exhibited
beveling of the outer table which Pierre Finck said indicated
that a missile exited at that point.(91) Both Dr. Humes and Dr.
Burkley informed the committee that these fragments were placed
back in the skull of the President. (92)
(73) By the termination of the autopsy at approximately 11
p.m.,(93) the pathologist had formulated the following general
conclusions:
1. One missile entered in the rear of the skull of the
President and exited in the front of the skull; and
2. One missile entered the back of the President and was
apparently dislodged during cardiac massage at Parkland
Hospital.
(74) Admiral Galloway corroborated these statements before
the committee, saying that an assassin or assassins shot the
President from behind with two shots. (95)
(75) After completing the autopsy, Dr. Humes remained to
assist the morticians in preparing the President's body. (96)
Secret Service Agent Kellerman said that after the morticians had
prepared the body, the Secret Service agents and the Kennedy
family left the hospital at 3:56 a.m. and went to the White
House. (97)
Additional issues arising from
the performance of the autopsy
(76) Although Dr. Humes had authority to perform a complete
autopsy, the committee still had to resolve the issue of the
actual scope of the autopsy. Specifically, Dr. Humes may have
decided on his own initiative to limit the autopsy in certain
respects or, despite the initial grant of authority, some factors
may possibly have surfaced during the course of the autopsy which
may have impinged on the independent decisionmaking of Dr. Humes.
(77) Dr. Pierre Finck, one of the pathologists, asserted in
a sworn statement to the committee that he believed the autopsy
was incomplete.
Because of the restrictions I suggested or said I felt
it was not complete, but Dr. Humes then said that the
autopsy had accomplished the purposes as stated-the
number of wounds, the direction of the projectiles and
the cause of death so I was actually satisfied. (98)
Dr. Finck later stated that restrictions from the family (were)
the reason for limiting our actions. (99) Specifically, Dr. Finck
contends that someone ordered them (the pathologists) not to
dissect the missile track that began in the upper back and
progressed forward into the neck region. When questioned about
the source of this order, Dr. Finck stated:
I cannot say that it was this army general, I can't
recall that precisely. I remember the prosecutors and
Admiral Galloway. As far as saying now so and so told
me that or didn't tell me that, it is extremely
difficult. There was an army general in that room and I
cannot readily pinpoint the origin of those
instructions to comply with those family wishes. (100)
(78) The committee determined that it was Dr. Humes and not
any army general or other person who made the decision not to
dissect the back entry wound. The following exchange between one
of the medical consultants for the committee and Dr. Humes
supports this conclusion:
Dr. BADEN. Now, for example, not exploring the wound from
the back to the neck, that was not done. I mean, cutting it
open completely. That wasn't done specifically; was that
because somebody said, "Don't do it"?
Dr. HUMES. Now wait a minute, that wound was excised.
Dr. BADEN. The back wound?
Dr. HUMES. Yes, sir. The back of the neck, and there are
microscopic slides of that wound.
Dr. BADEN. I see. The skin was taken out. And then was --
Dr. HUMES. It was probed.
Dr. BADEN. Was it opened up?
Dr. HUMES. It was not laid open.
Dr. BADEN. Now that was your decision as opposed to somebody
else's decision?
Dr. HUMES. Yes. It was mine. (101)
(79) The committee also investigated the possibility that
the Kennedy family may have unduly influenced the pathologists
once the autopsy began, possibly by transmitting messages by
telephone into the autopsy room. Brig. Gen. Godfrey McHugh, then
an Air Force military aide to the President, informed the
committee that Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and Kenneth
O'Donnell, a presidential aide, frequently telephoned him during
the autopsy from the 17th floor suite. (102) McHugh said that on
occasions, Kennedy and O'Donnell asked only to speak with
him.(103) They inquired about the results, why the autopsy was
consuming so much time, and the need for speed and efficiency,
while still performing the required examinations. (104) McHugh
said he forwarded this information to the pathologists, never
stating or implying that the doctors should limit the autopsy in
any manner, but merely reminding them to work as efficiently and
quickly as possible.(105)
(80) While General McHugh or others may not have stated or
implied that the doctors should limit the autopsy, their remarks
no doubt caused consternation, although they may not have
substantively affected the autopsy. The following passage
explains this view:
(81) Dr. HUMES. There were no questions but we were being
urged to expedite this examination as quickly as
possible, that members of the President's family were
in the building, that they refused to leave the
premises until the President's body was ready to be
moved; and similar remarks of the vein which we made
every effort to put aside and approach the
investigation in as scientific a manner as we could.
But did it harass us and cause difficulty--of course it
did, how could it not!
Dr. BOSWELL. I don't think it interfered with the
manner in which we did the autopsy.
Dr. HUMES. I don't either. (106)
(82) Dr. Boswell further stated that there were no
constraints. (107) Dr. Ebersole, the radiologist, likewise
informed the committee that "to the best of my knowledge there
were absolutely no restrictions and it was Dr. Humes' decision as
to the extent of the autopsy."(108) Stringer, one of the medical
photographers, also could not recall anyone issuing any orders.
(109) He stated specifically that while McHugh manifested a great
deal of emotion, he did not issue any orders. (110)
(83) This evidence indicates that:
1. Commander Humes had full authority to perform a complete
autopsy, and indeed, that Admiral Galloway told him to do
so;
2. Commander Humes, not anyone else, made any decision that
resulted in a deviation from a complete forensic autopsy;
and
3. The remarks of others to expedite the autopsy were
probably the reason for the decision to perform a less than
complete autopsy.
(84) In a committee telephone interview with Admiral
Osborne, another issue arose. He stated that he thought he
recalled seeing an intact slug roll out from the clothing of
President Kennedy and onto the autopsy table when personnel
opened the casket and removed the clothing from the body of the
President. (111)
(85) The committee reviewed thoroughly all documents and
recontacted those persons who moved the body of the President
from the casket onto the autopsy table and then prepared the body
for examination. Paul K. O'Connor, who along with James Jenkins,
had the duty of preparing the body for the autopsy, said the body
had arrived at about 8 p.m. and was wrapped in a body bag, the
head in a sheet. (112) O'Connor said he assisted in unwrapping
the sheet(113) and could not recall any foreign object,
specifically a missile, being discovered during the autopsy or
while unwrapping the sheets. (114)
(86) Jenkins likewise said he could not recall any foreign
objects being discovered or discussed and specifically could not
recall any missile or fragments of a missile falling out onto the
autopsy table or floor. (115)
(87) Throughout the committee's investigation, no one had
ever mentioned the discovery of a missile in Bethesda Naval
Hospital. The only bullet recovered was the one discovered at
Parkland Memorial Hospital.
(88) Following this investigation, the committee
recontacted Admiral Osborne and informed him that the body of the
President had not arrived in any clothes, but was wrapped in
sheets,(116) and that no one else recalled anything about the
discovery of a missile.(117) Admiral Osborne then said that he
could not be sure he actually did see a missile and that it was
possible the FBI and Secret Service only spoke about the
discovery of a missile. He did say he was positive only one
bullet was ever recovered, whether it was discovered at Bethesda
Hospital or Parkland Hospital. (118)
Post-autopsy events
(89) On Saturday morning, November 23, Dr. Humes informed
the committee that he fulfilled a religious commitment and then
met with the other two autopsy pathologists in the late morning
(119) to discuss the preparation of the autopsy report. Dr. Humes
said he then called Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas to speak
with the doctors who had administered emergency treatment to
President Kennedy.(120) Dr. Perry, one of the first physicians to
see and treat the President, told the committee that Dr. Humes
called him twice, separated by about a 30-minute interval. (121)
During the first call, Dr. Perry told Dr. Humes that due to the
President's failure to breathe, he had determined a tracheostomy
was necessary, then or never, and therefore made a transverse
incision straight through the bullet wound in the anterior aspect
of the neck at approximately the second or third tracheal ring.
(122) The second call involved a discussion of chest incisions
made on the President at Parkland. (123)
(90) As a result of these telephone calls, Dr. Humes
concluded that the missile which had entered the upper back had
traversed the body and exited in the anterior portion of the
neck,(124) although he had not observed the remains of any such
hole during his examination of the body.
(91) Following the telephone calls with Dr. Perry, Dr.
Humes went home and rested until late that afternoon and then
proceeded to write the autopsy protocol (autopsy report).(125) He
told the committee that after writing the report he destroyed the
original notes because they were stained with the blood of the
President and he felt it would be "inappropriate to retain [them]
to turn in to anyone in that condition" (126)
(92) In preparing the autopsy protocol, Dr. Humes did not
have access to the autopsy photographs or X-rays. (127) (This was
also the case with respect to his Warren Commission testimony.)
(93) After completion of the autopsy protocol(128). Dr.
Humes hand-carried the document to the Office of the White House
Physician at approximately 6 p.m. that evening.(129) The general
conclusions were that:
1. One missile entered in the rear of the skull of the
President and exited in the front of the skull; and
2. One missile entered the back of the President and exited
in the front of the neck. (130)
(94) The pathologists completed a supplementary report
approximately weeks later and delivered it to the White House
Physician on December 6, 1963. (131)
PART III. CONCLUSIONS
(95) The two major issues connected with the autopsy are
its scope--full versus partial--and the competency with which the
prosectors performed it. Despite allegations that the Kennedy
family or other authorities ordered a partial or limited autopsy,
evidence shows that the pathologists were given authority to
perform a complete autopsy. The autopsy was not complete,
however, according to established medicolegal standards. A
combination of strong Kennedy family desires to finish the
autopsy quickly, a military environment that hindered independent
action, a lack of experience in forensic pathology among the
prosectors, and a lack of established jurisdictional and
procedural guidelines all contributed to the pathologists'
failure to take certain measures essential to the completion of a
thorough medicolegal autopsy and to competently perform the
autopsy.
(96) The measures essential to a thorough medicolegal
autopsy that the pathologists failed to take are
1. Conducting the autopsy in an atmosphere free from the
presence of individuals not necessary to any medical or
investigative aspects of the autopsy. Aside from the
Secret Service and FBI agents, it was not necessary for
other military personnel to be in the autopsy room who
were not performing a medical function.
2. Consulting the Parkland Hospital doctors who administered
emergency treatment to the President before initiating
the autopsy. According to the medical panel of the
committee, such consultation is normal procedure.
3. Acquiring the assistance of an experienced pathologist
engaged in the full-time practice of forensic
pathology, as opposed to the consulting capacity Dr.
Finck possessed. Such experienced assistance might have
prevented several errors.
4. Recording precisely the locations of the wounds according
to anatomical landmarks routinely used in forensic
pathology. The medical panel of the committee stated
that the reference points used to document the location
of the wound in the upper back--the mastoid process and
the acromion--are movable points and should not have
been used.
5. Dissecting the wound that traversed the upper back of
the President. The medical panel stated that probing a
wound with a finger is hardly sufficient; to ascertain
the actual track, the wound must be dissected.
6. Examining all organs and documenting the results of
such examinations. Although the pathologists did
examine most organs, they made no reference to the
adrenal glands, part of the anatomy routinely examined
during the autopsy.
7. Sectioning the brain coronally. Such documentation
could have provided additional insight into the
destructive impact of the missile in the brain.
(97) The committee recognizes that the inadequacies of the
autopsy originated in part from the unique and hectic
circumstances surrounding the death of the President, and not
with any one source. Whatever the cause, however, these
inadequacies have continued to feed the confusion and mistrust so
long associated with the autopsy of President Kennedy and have
reduced the effectiveness of the committee's review of the
medical evidence. These problems reinforce the necessity for
establishing substantive and procedural guidelines to be followed
in the performance of any autopsy stemming from the assassination
of a national political official.
REFERENCES
(1) Letter from Capt. H.P. Miller, Medical Service
Corps, U.S. Navy, Director, Administrative Services, to the House
Select Committee on Assassinations, Sept. 22, 1977 (JFK Document
No. 002590).
(2) Report of the President's Commission on the
Assassination of President Kennedy (Washington, D.C: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1964), p. 53 (hereinafter "Warren
Report").
(3) Id. at p. 54.
(4) Ibid.
(5) Interview of Malcolm O. Perry, Jan. 11, 1978, House
Select Committee on Assassinations, p. 2 (JFK Document No.
006186). See addendum I of sec. V of this volume for this
document.
(6) Testimony of Robert Nelson McClelland, Hearings
before the President's Commission on the assassination of
President Kennedy (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1964), vol. VI, p. 33 (hereinafter McClelland testimony,
VI Warren Commission hearings, p. 33).
(7) Testimony of William Kemp Clark, VI Warren
Commission hearings, p. 20.
(8) Warren Report, p. 55.
(9) The Parkland doctors were providing emergency
treatment to the President. Once the President died, their
functions ceased. Further, after the President died, they
believed it was beyond the scope of their duties to conduct any
further action. (Warren Report, pp. 55-56).
(10) Id at p. 56.
(11) Warren Report, p. 59.
(12) FBI report, Bureau No. BA 89-30, Nov. 26, 1963, p.
3 (JFK Document No. 013618) (hereinafter cited as Sibert and
O'Neill).
(13) Testimony of Dr. James J. Humes, Sept. 7, 1978,
hearings before the Select Committee on Assassinations, U.S.
House of Representatives, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. (Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979), vol. I, p. 323ff
(hereinafter Humes testimony, Sept. 7, 1978, I HSCA-JFK hearings,
323ff).
(14) Id. at p. 324.
(15) Sibert and O'Neill, p. 1. See also staff interview
of James W. Sibert, Aug. 29, 1977, House Select Committee on
Assassinations, p. 1 (JFK Document No. 002191 ).
(16) Ibid., Sibert interview.
(17) Sibert and O'Neill, p. 1.
(18) Ibid.
(19) Ibid.
(20) Warren Report, p. 59.
(21) Ibid. See also Humes testimony, II Warren
Commission hearings, p. 349. Sibert and O'Neill, p. 1.
(23) Staff interview of J. Thornton Boswell, Aug. 16,
1977, House Select Committee on Assassinations, p. 1 (JFK
document No. 002071).
(24) Deposition of Pierre A. Finck, Mar. 11, 1978, House
Select Committee on Assassinations, pp. 70--71 (JFK Document No.
013617).
(25) Sibert and O'Neill, p. 3.
(26) Id. at p. 2.
(27) The Sibert and O'Neill report documented that Finck
arrived after the autopsy had begun. Sibert and O'Neill, p. 2.
(28) The Sibert and O'Neill report documented that
O'Leary only remained in the autopsy room for a short time.
Sibert and O'Neill, p. 2.
(29) Staff interview of Richard A. Lipsey, Jan. 18,
1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations (JFK Document No.
014469).
(30) Outside contact report, Samuel Bird, Feb. 17, 1978,
House Select Committee on Assassinations (JFK Document No.
005541).
(31) Sibert and O'Neill, p. 3.
(32) Sibert and O'Neill, p. 1.
(33) Ibid.
(34) Humes testimony, II Warren Commission hearings,
349.
(35) Outside contact report, James Curtiss Jenkins, June
27, 1978, Select Committee on Assassinations, p. 1 (JFK Document
No. 009526).
(36) Staff interview of Francis X. O'Neill, Jan. 10,
1978, House Select Committee on Assassination, p. 3 (JFK Document
006185).
(37) Ibid.
(38) See reference 15, Sibert interview, p. 5.
(39) Outside contact report, John Thomas Stringer, Aug.
17, 1977, House Select Committee on Assassinations, p. 13 (JFK
Document No. 003070).
(40) Staff interview of John Thomas Stringer, Aug. 17,
1977, House Select Committee on Assassinations, P. 17 (JFK
Document No. 002070). See also affidavit of Dr. George C.
Burkley, Nov. 28, 1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations,
p. 2, in which Dr. Burkley said that the autopsy was to be a
complete autopsy, with no limitations.
(41) Outside contact report, Capt. David Osborne, June
20, 1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations (JFK Document
No. 018628).
(42) Affidavit of Francis X. O'Neill, Nov. 8, 1978,
House Select Committee on Assassinations, p. 4 (JFK Document No.
013073). See reference 36, O'Neill interview, p. 3 (JFK Document
No. 006185). See also p. 7, O'Neill affidavit, where he stated
that he prepared this memorandum.
(43) See reference 41.
(44) Staff interview of Adm. Calvin B. Galloway, May 17,
1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations, p. 1 (JFK
Document No. 009409).
(45) Humes testimony, I HSCA-JFK hearings, p. 324.
(46) Sibert and O'Neill, p. 3.
(47) See reference 40, Stringer interview.
(48) Outside contact report, Floyd Albert Riebe, Apr.
20, 1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations (JFK Document
No. 007339).
(49) See reference 40, Stringer interview, p. 10.
(50) Id. at p. 11. Also blank letterhead memorandum,
Nov. 22, 1963 (JFK Document No. 002504).
(51) The original number of film exposures listed on the
receipt was in error and was changed by crossing out the typed
notation and writing in the correct number. See U.S. Secret
Service document, Dec. 5, 1963, which reflects this change.
(52) See reference 40, Stringer interview, p. 10.
(53) Sibert and O'Neill, p. 3.
(54) Deposition of James H. Ebersole, Mar. 11, 1978,
House Select Committee on Assassinations, p. 4 (JFK Document No.
013617).
(55) Ibid.
(56) Id. at p. 9.
(57) Ibid.
(58) Receipt from Comdr. John H. Ebersole, MC, USN,
acting chief of radiology, USNH, National Naval Medical Center,
Bethesda, Md., to Roy H. Kellerman, agent, U.S. Secret Service,
Nov. 22, 1968 (JFK Document No. 002504).
(59) Sibert and O'Neill, p. 4.
(60) Ibid., p. 3.
(61) Humes testimony, II Warren Commission hearings,
363.
(62) Sibert and O'Neill, p. 3. In their report, Sibert
and O'Neill also stated that surgery had been performed on the
head area prior to the arrival of the body at Bethesda Naval
Hospital. The committee concludes that this report was in error.
In an affidavit to the committee, Sibert acknowledged that the
statement that head surgery was performed was determined "not to
be correct following detailed inspection." See affidavit of James
Sibert, Oct. 24, 1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations
(JFK Document No. 012806).
(63) Sibert and O'Neill, p. 3.
(64) Autopsy protocol of President John F. Kennedy,
Naval Medical School, Bethesda, Md., autopsy No. A63-272, Nov.
22, 1963, p. 4 (hereinafter cited as autopsy protocol).
(65) Id. at p. 3.
(66) Ibid.
(67) Sibert and O'Neill, p. 3.
(68) Ibid., p. 5.
(69) See a copy of the receipt which is attached to the
affidavit of Chester H. Boyers, Dec. 4, 1978, House Select
Committee on Assassinations (JFK Document No. 014834).
(70) Ibid., Boyers affidavit, p. 3. See also staff
interview of Chester H. Boyers, April 25, 1978, House Select
Committee on Assassinations (JFK Documents Nos. 013614 and
014462).
(71) Ibid.
(72) Ibid.
(73) See reference 42, O'Neill affidavit, p. 5, and
reference 62, Sibert interview, p. 5. See also reference 36, p.
5; and reference 38, Sibert interview, p. 4.
(74) Sibert and O'Neill, p. 4.
(75) Autopsy protocol, p. 3.
(76) Sibert and O'Neill, p. 4.
(77) Humes testimony, II Warren Commission hearings,
363.
(78) See reference 44, p. 2.
(79) Autopsy protocol; supplemental autopsy report of
President John F. Kennedy, Dec. 6, 1963 (hereinafter cited as
supplemental autopsy report).
(80) Humes testimony, II Warren Commission hearings,
363. See also interview of Dr. James J. Humes, Aug. 17, 1977,
House Select Committee on Assassinations, p. 7 (JFK Document No.
003070).
(81) See reference 40, Stringer interview, p. 40.
(82) Interview of Dr. George C. Burkley, Aug. 17, 1977,
House Select Committee on Assassinations, p. 4 (JFK Document No.
003070).
(83) Sibert and O'Neill, p. 4.
(84) See reference 62, Sibert affidavit, p. 4; and
reference 15, Sibert interview, p. 4.
(85) Sibert and O'Neill, p. 4.
(86) Ibid.
(87) Id. at p. 5.
(88) Autopsy protocol, p. 4.
(89) Deposition of John H. Ebersole, Mar. 11, 1978,
House Select Committee on Assassinations, p. 5 (JFK Document No.
013617).
(90) Autopsy protocol, p. 4.
(91) Ibid.; Letter from Pierre A. Finck to Brig. Gen.
J.M. Blumberg, MC, USA, director, Armed Forces Institute of
Pathology, Feb. 1, 1965, p. 2.
(92) See reference 80, Humes interview, p. 7; and
Burkley interview, p. 4.
(93) Humes testimony, II Warren Commission hearings,
349.
(94) Dr. Humes emphasized in his open session testimony
before the committee that there was one and only one bullet wound
to the hack of the President's head that it entered in the rear
and that it exited in the front. Humes testimony, Sept. 7, 1978.
I HSCA JFK hearings. See also Sibert and O'Neill, p. 5.
(95) See reference 44, Galloway interview, p. 2. But see
staff interview with Richard A. Lipsey, Jan. 18, 1978, House
Select Committee on Assassinations (JFK Document No. 014469), in
which Lipsey stated that he recalled the doctors concluding that
three missiles struck the President from behind. Lipsey said that
one bullet entered the upper back of the President and did not
exit; one entered in the rear of the head and exited the throat;
and one entered and exited in the right, top portion of the head,
causing a massive head wound.
The committee agreed that President Kennedy suffered a
wound in the upper back, a wound in the rear of the head, a
massive wound in the top right side of the head, and a wound in
the throat. Lipsey was wrong, however, in concluding that three
shots struck the President and mistaken if he believed the
pathologists reached such a conclusion. Only two shots struck the
President. One entered the upper back and exited the throat.
Another entered the rear of the head and exited on the top, right
side of the head, causing the massive defect.
Lipsey apparently formulated his conclusions based on
observations and not on the conclusions of the doctors. In this
regard, he believed the massive defect in the head represented an
entrance and exit when it was only an exit. He also concluded
that the entrance in the rear of the head corresponded to an exit
in the neck. This conclusion could not have originated with the
doctors because during the autopsy they believed the neck defect
only represented a tracheostomy incision. Lipsey did properly
relate the preliminary conclusion of the doctors during the
autopsy that the entrance wound in the upper back had no exit.
The doctors later determined that this missile had exited through
the throat. Thus, although Lipsey's recollection of the number of
defects to the body and the corresponding locations are correct,
his conclusions are wrong and are not supported by any other
evidence.
(96) Humes testimony, Sept. 7, 1978, I HSCA-JFK hearing.
(97) Testimony of Roy H. Kellerman, II Warren Commission
hearings, 100.
(98) Deposition of Pierre A. Finck, Mar. 11, 1978. House
Select Committee on Assassinations, p. 110 (JFK Document No.
013617).
(99) Id. at p. 128.
(100) Id. at p. 76.
(101) Interview of James J. Humes, Sept. 16, 1977, HSCA,
p. 67 (JFK Document No. 013616), reprinted as part of Addendum I
to this report.
(102) Interview of Gen. Godfrey McHugh, May 11, 1978,
House Select Committee on Assassinations, p. 4.
(103) Ibid.
(104) Ibid.
(105) Ibid.
(106) See reference 101, Humes interview, Sept. 16,
1977, p. 66.
(107) Id. at p. 73.
(108) See reference 89, Ebersole deposition, p. 10.
(109) See reference 40, Stringer interview, p. 13.
(110) Ibid.
(111) See reference 41.
(112) Outside contact report, Paul K. O'Connor, June 28,
1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations (JFK Document No.
013613).
(113) Ibid.
(114) Ibid.
(115) See reference 35.
(116) Sibert and O'Neill, p. 3; see reference 112; see
also reference 35.
(117) See reference 41.
(118) Ibid.
(119) See reference 101, Humes interview, Sept. 16, 1977
p. 49.
(120) Ibid.
(121) Interview of Dr. Malcolm Perry, Jan. 11, 1978,
House Select Committee on Assassinations, 9.8 (JFK Document No.
006370).
(122) Id. at p. 2.
(123) Id. at p. 8.
(124) Autopsy protocol, p. 6.
(125) See reference 101, Humes interview, Sept. 16, 1977
p. 51.
(126) Ibid. See also Humes testimony, Sept. 7, 1978 I
HSCA-JFK hearings. p. 330.
(127) Ibid., Humes testimony, p. 331.
(128) Admiral Galloway instructed Elsie B. Closson, his
secretary, to type the autopsy report and the supplemental report
because he believed he needed a typist with a top secret security
clearance. See outside contact report, Elsie B. Closson, May 4,
1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations (JFK Document No.
008135 ).
(129) See reference 101, Humes Interview, Sept. 16,
1977, p. 22.
(130) Autopsy protocol, p. 16.
(131) Supplemental autopsy report.
-
In which we learn that faking the autopsy results to hide a bullet fired from the front has "nothing to do with who the assassin was." LOL. Classic contrarian idiocy. Front and back entry wounds mean more than one assassin unless Oswald ran like a bunny to fire another shot from the front. That's a conspiracy scenario that is contrary to the WC's conclusion. The stuff that would win a Pulitzer Prize for any major newspaper if it were legitimate evidence of such. Instead it is only posted on Internet forums. Wonder why?
-
In which we learn that faking the autopsy results to hide a bullet fired from the front has "nothing to do with who the assassin was." LOL. Classic contrarian idiocy. Front and back entry wounds mean more than one assassin unless Oswald ran like a bunny to fire another shot from the front.
Like you can prove that Oswald fired anything from any direction.. LOL.
But that’s not the point, “Richard”. If the autopsy materials were tampered with, it was to support a particular narrative—whether it actually did an adequate job of that or not.
But no x-ray or autopsy in the world can tell you who did the shooting.
-
Learn to read contrarian.
-
Learn to read contrarian.
Says the guy who has shown time after time that he has a reading comprehension problem.
John is right. Regardless how many shooters there were, no x-ray or autopsy can tell you who did the shooting.
-
Says the guy who has shown time after time that he has a reading comprehension problem.
John is right. Regardless how many shooters there were, no x-ray or autopsy can tell you who did the shooting.
Again, learn to read. Two shooters mean a conspiracy. A CONSPIRACY. Whoever your two shooters might be, it would involve a conspiracy if two shooters were involved, and the autopsy was faked. Exactly as I stated. Now instead of deflecting the discussion down another rabbit hole, why don't you take this "evidence" if you believe it to the NY Times or other media outlet to publish this story? Any reasonable person who believed they had legitimate evidence of a CONSPIRACY to kill JFK that contradicts the conclusion of the WC that only one person was the assassin would take that evidence to the media and share the Pulitzer Prize. Loons, however, limit themselves to Internet forums. Good luck. Let us know how it works out after your release from the asylum.
-
Again, learn to read. Two shooters mean a conspiracy. A CONSPIRACY. Whoever your two shooters might be, it would involve a conspiracy if two shooters were involved, and the autopsy was faked. Exactly as I stated. Now instead of deflecting the discussion down another rabbit hole, why don't you take this "evidence" if you believe it to the NY Times or other media outlet to publish this story? Any reasonable person who believed they had legitimate evidence of a CONSPIRACY to kill JFK that contradicts the conclusion of the WC that only one person was the assassin would take that evidence to the media and share the Pulitzer Prize. Loons, however, limit themselves to Internet forums. Good luck. Let us know how it works out after your release from the asylum.
Two shooters mean a conspiracy.
Nobody said otherwise
Whoever your two shooters might be, it would involve a conspiracy if two shooters were involved, and the autopsy was faked.
Yes, that's true, and I said as much
Regardless how many shooters there were, no x-ray or autopsy can tell you who did the shooting.
Exactly as I stated.
No, not exactly as you stated;
This is what you really said;
In which we learn that faking the autopsy results to hide a bullet fired from the front has "nothing to do with who the assassin was." LOL. Classic contrarian idiocy.
As John said; no x-ray or autopsy can tell you who the assassin was.
Did you say something about learning to read? Take your own advice!
-
Again, learn to read. Two shooters mean a conspiracy. A CONSPIRACY. Whoever your two shooters might be, it would involve a conspiracy if two shooters were involved, and the autopsy was faked. Exactly as I stated.
No, "Richard", you claimed that Michael was trying to debunk the WC's conclusion that Oswald was the assassin with this analysis of the autopsy materials. Learn to read, indeed.
-
I didn't attack the science of optical density measurement.
You implied it, and you've dismissed OD measurement in previous replies.
I had a go at Mantik's misuse of the methodology. Seems you just automatically see conspiracy and incompetence in anything from the LN side.
What about the fact that Dr. Chessar's OD findings confirm Dr. Mantik's findings?
From Speer's website ( Link (https://www.patspeer.com/chapter18x-rayspecs) ):
"The portable x-ray equipment used at Bethesda was
reportedly an "old" General Electric 250. It was almost
certainly of World War II vintage. The 1943 guidebook
Medical Radiographic Technique by General Electric’s
Technical Services Division explains "Defining contrast
as the degree of difference in density between adjacent
areas on the film, it is not difficult to recognize that gross-
overexposure or under-exposure will affect this difference."
It then offers: “Technics should not be used to produce
maximum contrast, but rather technics which will give
satisfactory contrast for maximum visibility of structure.”
The book thereby presents three x-ray images of a human
skull: one created with a short exposure that is too light;
one created with a longer exposure that has an appropriate
amount of contrast; and one created with an even longer
exposure that is too dark.
These images are shown on the slide below."
Speer doesn't know what he's talking about. None of what you just quoted lays a finger on Dr. Mantik's OD research. I take it you didn't bother to read Dr. Mantik's reply to Speer, right? Yes, of course. In fact, you don't appear to have even read Dr. Mantik's OD research. Dr. Mantik's reply is available on his website.
For starters, Speer ignores Dr. Mantik's use of controls from other portions of the autopsy skull x-rays and his follow-on comparison of the contrasts with other skull x-rays.
Do you know how Speer explains the unnatural white patch on the lateral skull x-ray? He floats the absurd argument that it's the flap over the right ear! The white patch is nowhere near the flap, and the flap is not remotely thick enough to explain the density of the white patch. The white patch is about hundreds of times brighter than any other object on the skull x-rays and about 1,000 times brighter than that that same location on any other known x-ray. If the white patch were genuine, instead of an added image, it would mean that there was skull bone from one side of JFK's skull to the other.
What about the fact that Dr. Chessar's OD findings confirm Dr. Mantik's findings?
As well, Pat posted this recently, and, as far as I can see, it wasn't seriously challenged:
"In any event, even if Mantik's readings are all legit. they still
don't mean much. You see, the OD apparent on an X-ray is
determined by a variety of factors: power, time of exposure,
and density of the item being X-rayed. Mantik's controls, on
which he bases his argument Kennedy's X-rays are impossible,
were all provided him from one source. Well, that's a huge problem.
He should have studied a wide variety of X-rays, including those
created on a portable machine like that used on 11-22-63, and
particularly those performed on badly fractured skulls with over-
lapping bone, and missing brain. He did not. His results are
therefore apples and oranges.
This is absurd. Some of the controls are on the autopsy skull x-rays themselves, while others are based on older skull x-rays.
What about the fact that Dr. Chessar's OD findings confirm Dr. Mantik's findings?
And, yeah, yeah. I know he's got some letters after his name. But
those in attendance at the 2013 Wecht Conference, including Jim,
know that in our joint discussion of the Harper fragment Mantik
had to eat some major crow, and admit he'd had the Harper
fragment x-ray (his supposed area of expertise) incorrectly oriented
for the last 4 years, and had incorrectly criticized me for having it
the wrong way. I allowed him to go first, in hopes I wouldn't have
to slam him on this point. And he did us both a favor, and admitted
his mistake.
This is making a mountain out of mole hill. The fact is that the Harper Fragment is clearly occipital bone. Many of the experts who have studied it disagree about what part of the occiput it came from.
You know that all the doctors in Dallas who examined the Harper Fragment in person, hands-on, said it was occipital bone, right? Right?
So, to be clear, while I have come to respect David's integrity, I
continue to feel sure his thoughts on the Harper fragment are both
wrong and of no help to the research community, as they are likely
to be shot down by a stream of credible experts as soon as they
reach the level where people are starting to believe him. I mean,
there's a reason why none of his colleagues will sign onto them,
and there's a reason why the only forensic radiologist to study his
findings, Dr. John Fitzpatrick, as I recall, told Doug Horne there was
no there there. (Now that's another thing...Fitzpatrick told this to
Horne in the mid-90's, and yet Horne held onto this info for more than
decade. Hmmm...)"
Oh, boy. Leaving aside the fact that this is a distorted portrayal of the facts, are you aware of what Dr. Mantik has said about Dr. Fitzpatrick's comment? Any clue?
Uh? Doesn't matter to me if Speer has lots I disagree with. If his research in a particular area (Mantik, Hickey Theory) is competent and reasoned, I will accept it. One of the first-generation critics, Paul Hoch, later thought the SBT should be given serious consideration. Unfortunately, Speer's site is marred by juvenile at-times inappropriate puns and "clever" wordplay.
And yet you cite Speer to attack Dr. Mantik on the OD evidence and on the Harper fragment.
What about the fact that Dr. Chessar's OD findings confirm Dr. Mantik's findings?
The supposed lack of neck transit was first mentioned in the Silbert-O'Neill Report in 1963 (so how was it "sealed" until the 1990s?).
Where did I say that the Sibert and O'Neill report was sealed until the 1990s? Where? Once again, you set up a dishonest straw-man argument. I said that the HSCA medical interviews that uncovered evidence of the shallow back wound were sealed. I never even implied that the Sibert and O'Neill report was sealed until the 1990s.
The issue was pondered over for awhile by Humes as he prepared his Autopsy Report. By time Humes gave weight to the throat wound being the point of exit for the neck transit, Silbert and O'Neill were out of the loop.
Phew! LOL! Yeah, right. So after Humes had burned his first two drafts of the autopsy report, and when he no longer had the body in front of him, and ignoring the clear, observable, probe-established fact that the back wound had no exit point, Humes cooked up the story that the throat wound was the exit wound for the back wound. And you present this nonsense as believable, in spite of all the evidence I presented to you in my previous reply. Incredible, but not surprising.
I doubt the back wound was probed as "extensively" as you promote. The pathologists feared creating a false passage if they pushed too hard. I also have a problem with a finger being inserted.
Uh, sorry, but the ARRB materials document just how thoroughly the back wound was probed, including the removal of the chest organs and the use of multiple flexible probes following Humes' manual probing. It's all there in the ARRB-released HSCA interviews and in the ARRB follow-up interviews.
It was reasoned that the missile passage through the neck had become restricted because of the change in the body from the wounding position when the President was alive. At autopsy, rigor mortis was also a factor.
Sigh. This nonsense AGAIN? I get it: You're just never, ever going to admit that you're wrong about this, that the back wound was shallow and had no exit point. No matter how many firsthand accounts we find from autopsy witnesses--doctors, med techs, morticians, etc.--that mutually corroborate each other on this crucial point, you're just never going to be convinced because you don't want to be convinced, because then you would have to abandon the single-bullet theory. It's really a waste of time talking with you about this stuff, because you float the same silly nonsense in reply over and over again. I only reply to you for the sake of others.
Now, as I've noted to you before, rigor mortis does not prevent wound probing, and the reason autopsy doctors use flexible probes is to avoid creating false passages, which is why Finck used flexible probes when he probed the back wound. And, the whole reason the autopsy doctors removed the chest organs and positioned the body at multiple angles and different positions during the probing was to ensure they could probe to the end of the wound and see where the probe went. AGAIN, the doctors and technicians standing near the autopsy table could see the probe pushing against the lining of the chest cavity; they could see that the wound tract did not enter the chest, and we have multiple independent accounts of this fact.
This is why the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat. This is why the second draft of the autopsy report said the wound was shallow and went no farther. This is why Humes lied about when he knew of the throat wound. This is why he illegally burned the first two drafts of the autopsy report. This is why the throat wound was small (about 5 mm) and punched in--it was an entrance wound, just as the experienced Parkland ER doctor and nurses said it was. This is why all the x-rays and photos that were taken of the probe inserted into the back wound were destroyed.
The titillating "sweeteners" you find so arousing from the ARRB hearing (back probe photo, finger pushing the interior wall) has to applied against the ARRB's own caution about the reliability of witnesses to events decades pass.
So multiple mutually corroborating accounts given independently by medical professionals at different times and under different circumstances are just "titillating sweeteners," hey? Yeah, right.
Leaving aside your misuse and mischaracterization of the "ARRB's own caution," reasonable, honest investigators agree that when multiple credible witnesses independently confirm key details, especially when they do so in two separate interviews and without knowing what the others have said, such accounts should be viewed as highly reliable and important.
When are you going to take these "stunning" developments to be vetted at the New York Times?
Wow, really? This is beyond silly and disingenuous. As you surely must know, the New York Times has been an ardent, blind-faith backer of the Warren Commission's lone-gunman theory for decades, and started peddling the theory even before the Warren Report was published. Even liberal journalists who've worked for the Washington Post and who've become convinced of the case for conspiracy have said that the New York Times is deaf to any and all evidence of conspiracy.
-
The Connallys, Greer and Kellermann all testified that they were hit by blood, brain and other material that ejected from JFK's head. Connally said a piece of brain the size of his thumbnail landed on him. The front of the limo, the interior, the hood, were all covered with this blood/matter. The Zapruder film shows this blood/brain/matter exploding up and forward. As DPD motorcycle officer Bobby Hargis, riding right behind JFK, said: "If he'd got hit in the rear, I'd of been able to see it. All I saw was just a splash come out on the other side." That is, he saw no "splash" come out of the back of the head.
We have eyewitness accounts, physical evidence, x-rays, photos and a film corroborating this.
There is no way a bullet can exit/explode out of JFK's head in the back and for this to happen. And yes, I am aware of the 40 back of the head witnesses. Their accounts are not corroborated by anything else.
Or you can believe, as Dr. Mantik does, that all of this was fake, the Connallys et al lied, the films/x-rays/phots were all faked, and the examination of the limo was staged.
If you believe Dr. Mantik's claims then there is nothing to persuade you otherwise. You'll just dismiss it as fake.
-
Two shooters mean a conspiracy.
Nobody said otherwise
Whoever your two shooters might be, it would involve a conspiracy if two shooters were involved, and the autopsy was faked.
Yes, that's true, and I said as much
Exactly as I stated.
No, not exactly as you stated;
This is what you really said;
As John said; no x-ray or autopsy can tell you who the assassin was.
Did you say something about learning to read? Take your own advice!
Again, why are you not assisting him in taking this to the NY Times to share in the Pulitzer Prize? Why would anyone waste their time on an Internet forum if they had compelling evidence that demonstrates a CONSPIRACY and contradicts the WC"s conclusion that LHO was the lone assassin? And, of course, the autopsy results are crucial evidence in confirming who the assassin was or was not in the context of the totality of the evidence. It is certainly a bizarre argument, even from a not too bright contrarian, to claim that autopsy results can't aid us in determining who the killer was in a crime. Unreal. If, as the WC concluded pursuant to the evidence, LHO was on the 6th floor of a building behind JFK, then he couldn't have fired a shot that caused a frontal wound. You are reaching astounding levels of stupidity.
-
Again, why are you not assisting him in taking this to the NY Times to share in the Pulitzer Prize? Why would anyone waste their time on an Internet forum if they had compelling evidence that demonstrates a CONSPIRACY and contradicts the WC"s conclusion that LHO was the lone assassin? And, of course, the autopsy results are crucial evidence in confirming who the assassin was or was not in the context of the totality of the evidence. It is certainly a bizarre argument, even from a not too bright contrarian, to claim that autopsy results can't aid us in determining who the killer was in a crime. Unreal. If, as the WC concluded pursuant to the evidence, LHO was on the 6th floor of a building behind JFK, then he couldn't have fired a shot that caused a frontal wound. You are reaching astounding levels of stupidity.
And, of course, the autopsy results are crucial evidence in confirming who the assassin was or was not in the context of the totality of the evidence.
That's not what you said earlier. Do you now understand your error?
If, as the WC concluded pursuant to the evidence, LHO was on the 6th floor of a building behind JFK, then he couldn't have fired a shot that caused a frontal wound.
That's true. But what evidence was it exactly that allowed the WC to conclude that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
You are reaching astounding levels of stupidity.
The biggest fool is he who overestimates his own "intelligence" and calls others stupid, just because he doesn't understand what they say.
-
And, of course, the autopsy results are crucial evidence in confirming who the assassin was or was not in the context of the totality of the evidence.
That's not what you said earlier. Do you now understand your error?
If, as the WC concluded pursuant to the evidence, LHO was on the 6th floor of a building behind JFK, then he couldn't have fired a shot that caused a frontal wound.
That's true. But what evidence was it exactly that allowed the WC to conclude that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
You are reaching astounding levels of stupidity.
The biggest fool is he who overestimates his own "intelligence" and calls others stupid, just because he doesn't understand what they say.
So I won't be reading about this in the NY Times anytime soon? LOL. Of all the idiotic claims you have made on this forum, and they are numerous, the one about the autopsy not shedding light on who was the assassin is a knee slapper. And you were so quick to parrot that nonsense from your contrarian sidekick not even pausing to consider the astounding stupidity of it. Pure comedy gold.
-
So I won't be reading about this in the NY Times anytime soon? LOL. Of all the idiotic claims you have made on this forum, and they are numerous, the one about the autopsy not shedding light on who was the assassin is a knee slapper. And you were so quick to parrot that nonsense from your contrarian sidekick not even pausing to consider the astounding stupidity of it. Pure comedy gold.
the one about the autopsy not shedding light on who was the assassin is a knee slapper.
So, you still haven't understood after all. Let's try baby steps.... the autopsy can possibly shed a light on the number of assassins, but it can shed no light whatsoever on who the assassin(s) was/were. If fact, the autopsy did in no way identify Oswald as the assassin or even contribute to such an identification.
Btw, am I to conclude due to the lack of an answer to my question that you really haven't got a clue what evidence allowed the WC to conclude that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD? Now, why doesn't that surprise me?
-
the one about the autopsy not shedding light on who was the assassin is a knee slapper.
So, you still haven't understood after all. Let's try baby steps.... the autopsy can possibly shed a light on the number of assassins, but it can shed no light whatsoever of who the assassin(s) was/were. If fact, the autopsy did in no way identify Oswald as the assassin or even contribute to such an identification.
Btw, am I to conclude due to the lack of an answer to my question that you really haven't got a clue what evidence allowed the WC to conclude that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD? Now, why doesn't that surprise me?
You are really doubling down on this? HA HA HA. Just when I thought it couldn't get any better. Quincy M.D. you aren't. Obviously, the autopsy is a critical component of any murder investigation. Each crime is different, but the results of the autopsy can be taken in conjunction with other crime scene evidence to help identify or eliminate a suspect. Just repeating idiotic general comments like "it can shed no light on who the assassin was" as though there is no further context because your moronic sidekick said it and you embarrassed yourself by repeating it is amusing. The WC used crime scene evidence to place a shooter (i.e. Lee Harvey Oswald) at a specific location. Whether you agree with its conclusion is the not point. The autopsy result can lend support to that conclusion or eliminate that possibility. And that has direct implications for the conclusion that LHO was the assassin.
-
And, of course, the autopsy results are crucial evidence in confirming who the assassin was or was not in the context of the totality of the evidence.
No, an autopsy tells you nothing about who the killer was. And what “totality of the evidence”? You’ve steadfastly avoided ever enumerating this evidence.
Insulting people doesn’t make your nonsensical ramblings any less nonsensical.
-
That's not what you said earlier. Do you now understand your error?
On the very remote chance that he did understand his error, he would never admit it. You can always tell when “Richard” is beaten and humiliated — he starts slinging even more insults than usual. But he never slings any evidence.
-
No, an autopsy tells you nothing about who the killer was.
Especially when it was one of the worst autopsy performances in recorded history.
A large part of the reason why the medical evidence remains inconclusive on the question of “conspiracy” is due to the poorly handled autopsy that raised more questions than answers about what happened.
That anyone still defends the JFK autopsy is really amazing…
-
You are really doubling down on this? HA HA HA. Just when I thought it couldn't get any better. Quincy M.D. you aren't. Obviously, the autopsy is a critical component of any murder investigation. Each crime is different, but the results of the autopsy can be taken in conjunction with other crime scene evidence to help identify or eliminate a suspect.
You’re the one doubling down on an idiotic claim. Given that you cannot demonstrate where Oswald was at the time of the shots or even precisely where the head shot came from, the direction of the head shot (even if it had been reliably determined) does not rule in or out Oswald or anybody else.
-
You are really doubling down on this? HA HA HA. Just when I thought it couldn't get any better. Quincy M.D. you aren't. Obviously, the autopsy is a critical component of any murder investigation. Each crime is different, but the results of the autopsy can be taken in conjunction with other crime scene evidence to help identify or eliminate a suspect. Just repeating idiotic general comments like "it can shed no light on who the assassin was" as though there is no further context because your moronic sidekick said it and you embarrassed yourself by repeating it is amusing. The WC used crime scene evidence to place a shooter (i.e. Lee Harvey Oswald) at a specific location. Whether you agree with its conclusion is the not point. The autopsy result can lend support to that conclusion or eliminate that possibility. And that has direct implications for the conclusion that LHO was the assassin.
The WC used crime scene evidence to place a shooter (i.e. Lee Harvey Oswald) at a specific location.
Could you be anymore evasive and vague? I doubt it! What "crime scene evidence" used by the WC are you talking about?
I haven't seen any supporting evidence for the conclusion that Oswald was on the 6th floor in the WC report, so what am I missing?
-
Anyone who rejects Dr. Mantik's OD measurements on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays needs to explain how and why the measurements are wrong. OD measurement is an established science. Dr. Mantik made multiple sets of OD measurements on the skull x-rays in his several trips to the National Archives. He has published those measurements. Dr. Michael Chessar made his own OD measurements on the skull x-rays at the National Archives, and his findings confirm Dr. Mantik's.
When Dr. Fitzpatrick dismissed Dr. Mantik's OD research, he offered no explanation for the OD measurements, nor did he bother to do his own OD measurements. Fitzpatrick may not have known how to do OD measurements, but he is a forensic radiologist, so one would presume he knew how. Radiation oncologists use OD measurements frequently. Of course, Dr. Mantik is a radiation oncologist, and also a physicist.
Why is it that not a single WC apologist has arranged for an independent radiation oncologist or neuroscientist to do OD measurements on the skull x-rays? Why didn't Dr. Fitzpatrick do so when he had full access to the autopsy materials for the ARRB? Why haven't any WC apologists ventured to explain Dr. Mantik's and Dr. Chessar's OD measurements? I think we all know the answers to these questions, even if some of us won't say so publicly.
Dr. Fitzpatrick was obviously reluctant to conclude that the skull x-rays have been altered, and so he naturally could not accept Dr. Mantik's OD measurements and still believe the x-rays are unaltered.
Keep in mind that Pat Speer mistakenly based his whacky theory that the white patch was caused by the overlapping bone above the right ear on Dr. Fitzpatrick's analysis of the skull x-rays. Dr. Fitzpatrick noted the area of overlapping bone seen over the right ear in the lateral x-ray and in the autopsy photos, but he did not claim that this area was the white patch.
Speer's theory is ridiculous. Not only is the overlapping bone area not thick enough to be the white patch, but it is clearly above and forward of the area covered by the white patch. Anyone can look at the autopsy photos and see that the flap of overlapping bone is above the right ear, but the white patch on the skull x-rays is undeniably behind the right ear and below the flap. Indeed, part of the white patch extends into the parietal region. This isn't even a close call.
Here is Dr. Mantik's reply to Speer's criticisms:
http://www.themantikview.org/pdf/Speer_Critique.pdf (http://www.themantikview.org/pdf/Speer_Critique.pdf)
The Sibert and O'Neill report was not among the ARRB-released materials. However, the information that Sibert and O'Neill revealed in their ARRB depositions was new, and it agreed with what several of the ARRB-released HSCA medical interviews revealed, especially O'Neill's disclosure that at the end of the autopsy, there was no doubt in anyone's mind that the bullet that was found in Dallas had fallen out of the back wound. In fact, let's quote part of what O'Neill said about this:
There was not the slightest doubt when we left there that the bullet found on the stretcher in Dallas was the bullet which worked its way out through external cardiac massage. And the doctor said, since the body had not been turned over in Dallas, “External cardiac massage was conducted on the president, and the bullet worked its way out."
There was not the slightest doubt, not a scintilla of doubt whatsoever that this is what occurred. In fact, during the latter part of it and when the examination was completed, the doctor says, "Well, that explains it.” Because Jim [Sibert] had gone out, called the laboratory, learned about the bullet, came back in.
Because I was closer to the President’s body than I am to you, and you’re only about a foot and a half away or two feet away. And viewing them with the surgical probe and with their fingers, there was absolutely no point of exit and they couldn’t go any further. And that presented a problem, one heck of a problem. And that’s why Jim went out and called. . . .
Q: You previously made reference to attempts to probe that wound. Did you ever see any kind of metal object used to probe that wound?
A: Yes. They used a metal probe, in addition to their fingers. . . . In the back, they probed it to a point where they could not probe any further. In other words, it did not go any further.
Sibert told the ARRB the same thing. Sibert said he called Killion to see if any bullets had been found because the autopsy doctors said the back wound had no exit point:
Q: Can you tell me, was the phone call made to Mr. Killion before or after the body was unloaded from the casket?
A: Oh, that was after the body was removed; it was on the autopsy table, and the autopsy was in progress. Because the reason I made that call was that the pathologists said, "There’s no exit to this back wound,” and probed it with rubber glove and a chrome probe.
Sibert confirmed that Dr. Finck also probed the back wound:
Q: Okay. Do you recall whether Dr. Finck took any notes?
A: I don’t recall. I do recall he helped probe the back wound.
Sibert explained more about the probing and the fact that the autopsy doctors--"Finck, in particular"--said they could feel the end of the back wound:
But when they raised him up, then they found this back wound. And that’s when they started probing with the rubber glove and the finger, and and also with the chrome probe.
And that’s just before, of course, I made this call, because they were at a loss to explain what had happened to this bullet. They couldn’t find any bullet.
And they said, "There's no exit.” Finck, in particular, said, "There's no exit.” And they said that you could feel it with the end of the finger. I mean, the depth of this wound.
John Stringer, the autopsy photographer, told the ARRB that the back wound was probed and that the probe did not come out of the neck:
Q: Was the probe put into the neck, or did it come of the neck?
A: It was put into the back part.
Q: The back of the body. And then did the probe come out the neck?
A: No.
When the ARRB released the HSCA medical interviews and the transcripts of the ARRB's own medical interviews, WC apologists seemed to show little or no interest in them, whereas WC skeptics studied them carefully and found numerous crucial disclosures. WC apologists have lamely dismissed these accounts as "mistaken," "faulty memories," etc., even though the witnesses gave their accounts independently and with no knowledge of what other witnesses had said, and even though those witnesses who were also interviewed by the ARRB confirmed their HSCA accounts.
You can bet that if numerous autopsy witnesses had independently given mutually corroborating accounts that said the probing of the back wound determined that the exit point was the throat, and if all of those witnesses who were also interviewed by the ARRB confirmed their earlier accounts, WC apologists would--justifiably--view those accounts as powerful evidence. But, since the HSCA and ARRB interviews reveal the opposite--that the back wound was shallow and had no exit point--WC apologists must, at least publicly, lamely dismiss them as "mistaken."
-
The WC used crime scene evidence to place a shooter (i.e. Lee Harvey Oswald) at a specific location.
Could you be anymore evasive and vague? I doubt it! What "crime scene evidence" used by the WC are you talking about?
I haven't seen any supporting evidence for the conclusion that Oswald was on the 6th floor in the WC report, so what am I missing?
You are disputing that the WC concluded that LHO fired the shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD? Good grief. I know you disagree with their conclusion because you are a kooky contrarian. That isn't the point here. You stupidly indicated that an autopsy "can shed no light whatsoever on who the assassin(s) was/were." A false and even idiotic statement even by your low standards. The autopsy can be used in conjunction with the crime scene evidence to confirm whether the shot was fired from the TSBD or some other location via the location of the wounds on the body. Therefore, lending important confirmation as to whether Oswald as the assassin or eliminating him in the context of the WCs conclusion that he fired the shots from a specific location. The autopsy results are not viewed in a vacuum as you stupidly imply. They are used in conjunction with other evidence to confirm or deny the involvement of an individual.
-
You are disputing that the WC concluded that LHO fired the shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD? Good grief.
Wow, you really have no reading comprehension, do you? We all know what the WC concluded. Conclusions aren’t evidence.
I know you disagree with their conclusion because you are a kooky contrarian.
No, you agree with their conclusion because you’re a kooky authoritarian devotee.
That isn't the point here. You stupidly indicated that an autopsy "can shed no light whatsoever on who the assassin(s) was/were."
Even with a properly done autopsy, it can at best tell you where a shot came from, not the identity of the shooter.
The autopsy results are not viewed in a vacuum as you stupidly imply. They are used in conjunction with other evidence to confirm or deny the involvement of an individual.
For the zillionth time, what “other evidence”? And if you’re using “other evidence “ to determine the shooter, then the autopsy is not telling you who did the shooting. Get it now?
-
You are disputing that the WC concluded that LHO fired the shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD? Good grief. I know you disagree with their conclusion because you are a kooky contrarian. That isn't the point here. You stupidly indicated that an autopsy "can shed no light whatsoever on who the assassin(s) was/were." A false and even idiotic statement even by your low standards. The autopsy can be used in conjunction with the crime scene evidence to confirm whether the shot was fired from the TSBD or some other location via the location of the wounds on the body. Therefore, lending important confirmation as to whether Oswald as the assassin or eliminating him in the context of the WCs conclusion that he fired the shots from a specific location. The autopsy results are not viewed in a vacuum as you stupidly imply. They are used in conjunction with other evidence to confirm or deny the involvement of an individual.
You are disputing that the WC concluded that LHO fired the shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD? Good grief.
Why would I dispute that when we all know that came to that conclusion, correct or incorrectly. I'm disputing that they had any conclusive evidence to justify that conclusion and the mere fact that you, for several months now, have been unable to produce evidence that Oswald was in fact on the 6th floor confirms that no such evidence to justify the WC conclusion exists.
I know you disagree with their conclusion because you are a kooky contrarian.
A typical comment of somebody who makes claims that he can't back up with evidence. Blame the lack of evidence on the other guy's disbelief. It's pathetic.
You stupidly indicated that an autopsy "can shed no light whatsoever on who the assassin(s) was/were." A false and even idiotic statement even by your low standards.
By itself, an autopsy can tell you nothing about who the assassin(s) was/were.
The autopsy can be used in conjunction with the crime scene evidence to confirm whether the shot was fired from the TSBD or some other location via the location of the wounds on the body.
Ah, so now it's in conjunction with other evidence! So, you agree that the autopsy by itself can not tell you who the the assassin(s) was/were?
Also, the autopsy can tell you at which angle a bullet entered the body. It can not confirm conclusively that the shots were fired from the TSBD. They could just as easily have come from the Dal-Tex building. And, of course, none of this tells you anything about the identity of the shooter(s).
The autopsy results are not viewed in a vacuum as you stupidly imply.
I did not imply anything of the kind. It was you who made the stupid claim;
And, of course, the autopsy results are crucial evidence in confirming who the assassin was
They are used in conjunction with other evidence to confirm or deny the involvement of an individual.
Even in conjunction with "other evidence" (whatever that is) the autopsy plays no part in determining the identity of the shooter(s).
-
You are disputing that the WC concluded that LHO fired the shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD? Good grief.
Why would I dispute that when we all know that came to that conclusion, correct or incorrectly. I'm disputing that they had any conclusive evidence to justify that conclusion and the mere fact that you, for several months now, have been unable to produce evidence that Oswald was in fact on the 6th floor confirms that no such evidence to justify the WC conclusion exists.
I know you disagree with their conclusion because you are a kooky contrarian.
A typical comment of somebody who makes claims that he can't back up with evidence. Blame the lack of evidence on the other guy's disbelief. It's pathetic.
You stupidly indicated that an autopsy "can shed no light whatsoever on who the assassin(s) was/were." A false and even idiotic statement even by your low standards.
By itself, an autopsy can tell you nothing about who the assassin(s) was/were.
The autopsy can be used in conjunction with the crime scene evidence to confirm whether the shot was fired from the TSBD or some other location via the location of the wounds on the body.
Ah, so now it's in conjunction with other evidence! So, you agree that the autopsy by itself can not tell you who the the assassin(s) was/were?
Also, the autopsy can tell you at which angle a bullet entered the body. It can not confirm conclusively that the shots were fired from the TSBD. They could just as easily have come from the Dal-Tex building. And, of course, none of this tells you anything about the identity of the shooter(s).
The autopsy results are not viewed in a vacuum as you stupidly imply.
I did not imply anything of the kind. It was you who made the stupid claim;
They are used in conjunction with other evidence to confirm or deny the involvement of an individual.
Even in conjunction with "other evidence" (whatever that is) the autopsy plays no part in determining the identity of the shooter(s).
You have contradicted yourself so many times it is impossible to decipher. An autopsy is ALWAYS taken in conjunction with totality of evidence to reach a conclusion about what happened and who was responsible for the crime. ALL evidence is taken in conjunction with other evidence in a case to determine to reach these conclusions. Good grief. It is only in the contrarian fantasy world that each individual piece of evidence is examined as though it fell from the heavens. The classic contrarian example being to mock the fact that Oswald left his wedding ring at home on the morning on the assassination. And analyze that as though it is being suggested that Oswald was a suspect solely for that reason alone with the logic that people do sometimes forget to wear their wedding ring without intending to assassinate the president. Laughable. That is why your contrarian mantra is ludicrous. Making idiotic statements that an autopsy can't be useful in identifying the assassin is just false. The autopsy is a critical piece of evidence in conjunction with the other evidence in the case. There is no reason to exclude the existence of other evidence when analyzing the autopsy results in making a determination about who the assassin was in this case. That is completely nuts.
-
You have contradicted yourself so many times it is impossible to decipher. An autopsy is ALWAYS taken in conjunction with totality of evidence to reach a conclusion about what happened and who was responsible for the crime. ALL evidence is taken in conjunction with other evidence in a case to determine to reach these conclusions. Good grief. It is only in the contrarian fantasy world that each individual piece of evidence is examined as though it fell from the heavens. The classic contrarian example being to mock the fact that Oswald left his wedding ring at home on the morning on the assassination. And analyze that as though it is being suggested that Oswald was a suspect solely for that reason alone with the logic that people do sometimes forget to wear their wedding ring without intending to assassinate the president. Laughable. That is why your contrarian mantra is ludicrous. Making idiotic statements that an autopsy can't be useful in identifying the assassin is just false. The autopsy is a critical piece of evidence in conjunction with the other evidence in the case. There is no reason to exclude the existence of other evidence when analyzing the autopsy results in making a determination about who the assassin was in this case. That is completely nuts.
An autopsy is ALWAYS taken in conjunction with totality of evidence to reach a conclusion about what happened and who was responsible for the crime.
So, you admit that your previous claim that "the autopsy results are crucial evidence in confirming who the assassin was" was wrong. Well, that's at least something.
-
An autopsy is ALWAYS taken in conjunction with totality of evidence to reach a conclusion about what happened and who was responsible for the crime.
So, you admit that your previous claim that "the autopsy results are crucial evidence in confirming who the assassin was" was wrong. Well, that's at least something.
No. That statement is 100% correct. An autopsy is conducted in every modern homicide case for that very reason. You falsely and stupidly tried to imply that the autopsy results cannot be taken in context. As though it was a completely separate event from the crime investigation that cannot be used in conjunction with other evidence. In this case, the autopsy results can confirm or reject the WC's conclusion that Oswald was the assassin. The WC concluded that he fired the shot from a particular location. If the autopsy confirm that the shots originated from that location, then it has provided critical evidence to confirm that LHO was the assassin. Why are you so desperate to remove all context?
-
Anyone who rejects Dr. Mantik's OD measurements on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays needs to explain how and why the measurements are wrong. OD measurement is an established science. Dr. Mantik made multiple sets of OD measurements on the skull x-rays in his several trips to the National Archives. He has published those measurements. Dr. Michael Chessar made his own OD measurements on the skull x-rays at the National Archives, and his findings confirm Dr. Mantik's.
When Dr. Fitzpatrick dismissed Dr. Mantik's OD research, he offered no explanation for the OD measurements, nor did he bother to do his own OD measurements. Fitzpatrick may not have known how to do OD measurements, but he is a forensic radiologist, so one would presume he knew how. Radiation oncologists use OD measurements frequently. Of course, Dr. Mantik is a radiation oncologist, and also a physicist.
Why is it that not a single WC apologist has arranged for an independent radiation oncologist or neuroscientist to do OD measurements on the skull x-rays? Why didn't Dr. Fitzpatrick do so when he had full access to the autopsy materials for the ARRB? Why haven't any WC apologists ventured to explain Dr. Mantik's and Dr. Chessar's OD measurements? I think we all know the answers to these questions, even if some of us won't say so publicly.
Dr. Fitzpatrick was obviously reluctant to conclude that the skull x-rays have been altered, and so he naturally could not accept Dr. Mantik's OD measurements and still believe the x-rays are unaltered.
Keep in mind that Pat Speer got his whacky theory that the white patch was caused by the flap over the right ear from none other than Dr. Fitzpatrick. It was Dr. Fitzpatrick who suggested that the white patch was caused by the bone flap seen over the right ear in the autopsy photos.
But, of course, this is ridiculous. Not only is the flap not thick enough to be the white patch, but it is nowhere near the area covered by the white patch. Anyone can look at the autopsy photos and see that the flap is above the right ear, but the white patch on the skull x-rays is undeniably behind the right ear and well below the flap. Indeed, part of the white patch extends into the parietal region. This isn't even a close call.
Here is Dr. Mantik's reply to Speer's criticisms:
http://www.themantikview.org/pdf/Speer_Critique.pdf (http://www.themantikview.org/pdf/Speer_Critique.pdf)
Now where did Speer concede to all of Mantik's counter-arguments?
The Sibert and O'Neill report was not among the ARRB-released materials. However, the information that Sibert and O'Neill revealed in their ARRB depositions was new, and it agreed with what several of the ARRB-released HSCA medical interviews revealed, especially O'Neill's disclosure that at the end of the autopsy, there was no doubt in anyone's mind that the bullet that was found in Dallas had fallen out of the back wound. In fact, let's quote part of what O'Neill said about this:
Sibert told the ARRB the same thing. Sibert said he called Killion to see if any bullets had been found because the autopsy doctors said the back wound had no exit point:
Sibert confirmed that Dr. Finck also probed the back wound:
Sibert explained more about the probing and the fact that the autopsy doctors--"Finck, in particular"--said they could feel the end of the back wound:
John Stringer, the autopsy photographer, told the ARRB that the back wound was probed and that the probe did not come out of the neck:
When the ARRB released the HSCA medical interviews and the transcripts of the ARRB's own medical interviews, WC apologists seemed to show little or no interest in them, whereas WC skeptics studied them carefully and found numerous crucial disclosures.
You're claiming the controversy over the neck transit was unknown until "disclosed" (sensationally, the way you tell it) by the ARRB. Not so, the Silbert-O'Neill Report had that, and Humes and Bowell testified before the WC and HSCA about their initial suspicion during the autopsy that the back wound had no exit, though they found it strange at the time. Humes wondered about it after the autopsy and said that after a discussion with Dr. Perry of Parkland, he became convinced that the throat wound was the exit point and that a neck transit helped explain the bruising of the lung and so forth.
WC apologists have lamely dismissed these accounts as "mistaken," "faulty memories," etc.,
The ARRB cautioned against accepting everything a witness said:
"Finally, a significant problem that is well known to trial lawyers, judges,
and psychologists, is the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Witnesses
frequently, and inaccurately, believe that they have a vivid recollection of
events. Psychologists and scholars have long-since demonstrated the
serious unreliability of peoples' recollections of what they hear and see."
even though the witnesses gave their accounts independently and with no knowledge of what other witnesses had said, and even though those witnesses who were also interviewed by the ARRB confirmed their HSCA accounts.
How do you know what might have influenced the ARRB medical witnesses? Do you know if they read any of the hundreds of conspiracy books or saw a documentary on TV? The "JFK" movie was a big deal a few years earlier.
You can bet that if numerous autopsy witnesses had independently given mutually corroborating accounts that said the probing of the back wound determined that the exit point was the throat, and if all of those witnesses who were also interviewed by the ARRB confirmed their earlier accounts, WC apologists would--justifiably--view those accounts as powerful evidence. But, since the HSCA and ARRB interviews reveal the opposite--that the back wound was shallow and had no exit point--WC apologists must, at least publicly, lamely dismiss them as "mistaken."
Again. No one is saying they weren't honestly testifying. Furthermore, the ARRB are asking questions right out of the CT playbook.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1qnZVEH5vvf29iv8R4UDOW1uBx9kW6XUE)
We can see that any probing of the "official" neck-transit missile channel would be near to the body cavity lining above the tip of the lung. A back entry wound-site lower than the "official" site, as most critics contend, would mean a bullet only penetrated about the length of the bullet (any further, it would have penetrated the body cavity). And it wouldn't have bruised across the tip of the lung. What happened to such a low-entry back bullet? And what happened to the throat wound bullet if it likewise penetrated a short distance?
Let's see what Finck told the ARRB about the extent of the probing?
Q: When you were performing the autopsy of President Kennedy,
did you make any attempts to track the course of the bullet—
A: Yes.
Q:—that you referred to as the upper back?
A: Yes. That was unsuccessful with a probe from what I remember.
Q: What kind of probe did you use?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Is there a standard type of probe that is used in autopsies?
A: A non-metallic probe.
Q: In using the probe, did you attempt to determine the angle of the
entrance of the bullet into President Kennedy's body?
A: Yes. It was unsuccessful from what I remember.
Q: In the probes that you did make, did you find any evidence that
would support a bullet going into the upper back and existing from the
place where the tracheotomy incision had been performed?
A: From what I recall, we stated the probing was unsuccessful.
...
Q: Do you have any recollection of photographs being taken with probes
inserted into the wounds?
A: I don't.
...
Q: At the time you concluded the autopsy, on the night of November
22nd-23rd, did you have any conclusion in your own mind about what
had happened to the bullet that entered the upper thoracic cavity?
A: No. And that was the reason for the phone call of Dr. Humes the
following morning, and he found out there was a wound of exit in the
front of the neck. But at the time of the autopsy, we were not aware
of that exit wound in the front of the neck.
...
Q: Sure. Did the angle of the probe when you inserted the probe into
the wound, begin in a direction that pointed down into the thoracic
cavity rather than out the throat?
A: I don't think I can answer the question, because we said the probing
was unsuccessful. So how can I determine an angle if the probing
was unsuccessful?
Humes to the ARRB:
A. My problem is, very simply stated, we had an entrance wound high
in the posterior back above the scapula. We didn't know where the
exit wound was at that point. I'd be the first one to admit it. We knew
in general in the past that we should have been more prescient than
we were, I must confess, because when we removed the breast plate
and examined the thoracic cavity, we saw a contusion on the upper
lobe of the lung. There was no defect in the pleura anyplace. So it's
obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung.
...
... it's helpful to take a long probe and put it in the position. It can tell
you a lot of things. If you know where the point of entrance and the
point of exit are, it's duck soup. But for me to start probing around in
this man's neck, all I would make was false passages. There wouldn't
be any track that I could put a probe through or anything of that nature.
It just doesn't work that way.
Q. Was any probe used at all to track the path—
A. I don't recall that there was. There might have been some abortive
efforts superficially in the back of the neck, but no.
...
Q. Do you recall any photograph or X-ray that was taken with a probe
inserted into the post thorax?
A. No, absolutely not. I do not have a recollection of such.
Boswell to the ARRB:
Q. Previously in the deposition, you've made reference to there being a
probe to help track the direction of the neck wound. Do you recall that?
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. Could you tell me about how long the probe was or describe the
dimensions of the probe?
A. It's a little soft metal instrument that looks like a needle with a blunt
end on one end and a flattened end on the other, like a needle that you
would knit with or something. And it's, I would say, eight inches long,
blunt on one end and sort of has a sharp point on the other end.
Q. Were there any X-rays taken with the probe inside the body that
you recall?
A. No.
Q. How far in did the probe go?
A. Very short distance. Three inches, about.
Q. Were there any photographs taken with the probe inserted?
A. I doubt it.
...
... When we saw the clothing, we realized that where I had drawn this was—
if you looked at the back of the coat, it was in the exact same place. But the
coat had been—was up like this. He was waving, and this was all scrunched
up like this. And the bullet went through the coat way below where this
would be on his body, because it was really at the base of his neck. And the
way I know this best is my memory of the fact that—see, we probed this hole
which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such
a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had
closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it. But when
we opened the chest and we got at—the lung extends up under the clavicle
and high just beneath the neck here, and the bullet had not pierced through
into the lung cavity but had caused hemorrhage just outside the pleura.
And so if I can move this up to here—it's shown better on the front, actually.
The wound came through and downward just above the thoracic cavity and
out at about the thyroid cartilage. So if you put a probe in this and got it back
through like this, that would come out right at the base of the neck.
-
No. That statement is 100% correct. An autopsy is conducted in every modern homicide case for that very reason. You falsely and stupidly tried to imply that the autopsy results cannot be taken in context. As though it was a completely separate event from the crime investigation that cannot be used in conjunction with other evidence. In this case, the autopsy results can confirm or reject the WC's conclusion that Oswald was the assassin. The WC concluded that he fired the shot from a particular location. If the autopsy confirm that the shots originated from that location, then it has provided critical evidence to confirm that LHO was the assassin. Why are you so desperate to remove all context?
You falsely and stupidly tried to imply that the autopsy results cannot be taken in context.
Only in your imagination. In the real world I never implied any such thing.
In this case, the autopsy results can confirm or reject the WC's conclusion that Oswald was the assassin
Actually, no they can't.
The WC concluded that he fired the shot from a particular location.
So you keep telling us. What you don't tell us (for several months now) is what evidence that conclusion is based on. Why is that?
If the autopsy confirm that the shots originated from that location,
This is just plain stupid. An autopsy can not confirm where the shots originated from. At best it can tell you what the trajectory of the bullet was when it entered Kennedy's body. The trajectory, in combination with the position of the victim's body, can help determine from which general location the shots came from.
then it has provided critical evidence to confirm that LHO was the assassin.
And now you are going completely of the deep end.
After your failure, for months now, to provide the evidence that shows Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired, it's pretty sure that you can not prove he was there, never mind that he was the assassin. Even if the trajectory of the bullet would have pointed directly to the sniper's nest window (which it didn't), it still provides no proof whatever that Oswald was the assassin.
-
You have contradicted yourself so many times it is impossible to decipher.
He hasn’t contradicted himself even once. He contradicts the bogus strawmen you continually try to attribute to him.
An autopsy is ALWAYS taken in conjunction with totality of evidence to reach a conclusion about what happened and who was responsible for the crime.
The autopsy doesn’t identify the murderer. Deal with being wrong rather than trying to backpedal your idiotic statement.
ALL evidence is taken in conjunction with other evidence in a case to determine to reach these conclusions. Good grief. It is only in the contrarian fantasy world that each individual piece of evidence is examined as though it fell from the heavens. The classic contrarian example being to mock the fact that Oswald left his wedding ring at home on the morning on the assassination. And analyze that as though it is being suggested that Oswald was a suspect solely for that reason alone with the logic that people do sometimes forget to wear their wedding ring without intending to assassinate the president. Laughable.
What’s laughable is people like you thinking that “I think a murderer would do something like X” constitutes evidence of anything other than your own confirmation bias.
-
No. That statement is 100% correct. An autopsy is conducted in every modern homicide case for that very reason.
That’s ridiculously ignorant, even by “ridiculously ignorant Richard” standards. An autopsy (in theory) can provide evidence for things like cause and manner of death, time of death, medical evidence collection, and identification of the type of murder weapon. It cannot tell you who did the killing.
If the autopsy confirm that the shots originated from that location, then it has provided critical evidence to confirm that LHO was the assassin.
Unadulterated BS, even in theory. Besides, in this particular case the available autopsy materials don’t even “confirm” what location the kill shot originated from, much less who fired it.
Stop lying about the evidence, “Richard”.
-
Please notify every police department in the nation that an autopsy is not helpful in determining who committed a crime. A lot of money saved. Now that we have gone down that unnecessary contrarian rabbit hole back to the point. Why not send the evidence that proves a CONSPIRACY in the assassination of JFK to the NY Times or other media outlet instead of expending so much time and effort on an Internet forum? There are Pulitzer Prizes and fame awaiting anyone that accomplishes this. So do they actually believe their own "evidence" or is this all a fraud? Questions abound.
-
Please notify every police department in the nation that an autopsy is not helpful in determining who committed a crime.
Not necessary. You’re the only one ignorant enough to think so.
Now that we have gone down that unnecessary contrarian rabbit hole back to the point. Why not send the evidence that proves a CONSPIRACY in the assassination of JFK to the NY Times or other media outlet instead of expending so much time and effort on an Internet forum?
Nobody said that the autopsy inconsistencies prove a conspiracy, Strawman “Smith”.
So do they actually believe their own "evidence" or is this all a fraud?
You certainly are one.
-
In which we learn that an autopsy result that shows front and back wounds to JFK (i.e. two shooters) and then altered autopsy results to make consistent with the WC's conclusion that only one shooter was involved does not prove a conspiracy. HA HA HA. Comedy gold. What is the implication here? That two random shooters with no connection to one another just happened to appear by coincidence at the same place and time and shot JFK at the same moment. And for some unknown reason, the authorities wanted to place all the blame on one shooter by altering the autopsy results? Wow.
-
I admit being largely ignorant of Dr. Mantik’s OD study. This thread began as a heads-up for anyone who might be interested in a new book “Thinking Critically About The Kennedy Assassination” by Michel Gagne. I was interested enough to order a copy of the book and have just gotten started reading it. The discussion in this thread regarding Mantik caused me to skip ahead to see what Gagne might have to say about Mantik. Here is a paragraph (from pages 371-372) that seems to sum up some of what Gagne has to say about Mantik.
In 1997, the ARRB discovered during its deposition of Jerrol Custer, a Bethesda Hospital X-Ray technician who was on duty that night, that Dr. Ebersole had indeed seen Mantik’s alleged “6-millimeter object” during the autopsy—a “half circle that appears to be the lightest part of the film […] in the right orbital superior” —after Custer pointed it out to him as a possible bullet fragment. This suggests that the “6.5-millimeter object”already appeared on the X-ray before the body was dissected and was not added later, as Mantik suggests.76 Ebersole dismissed it offhand, telling Custer it was an artifact.77 If Custer is right, Ebersole would presumably have said the same thing to the pathologists if they inquired, which explains why no mention of it was made in the autopsy report and why it was easily forgotten until the HSCA’s Forensic Pathology Panel questioned them about it 15-years later. Like the “white spot” at the back of JFK’s head, the “6.5-millimeter object” is little more than a distraction caused by circular logic. What is missing here is not just a motive, but also the signature hypercompetence of the JFK buff’s all-powerful enemy. Instead, Mantik offers us a one-time ad hoc explanation to suggest that, rather than being devilishly cunning, the men who killed Kennedy were in fact wildly incompetent.78 We can therefore safely conclude that the “object” on the X-ray is just what many experts said it was, an artifact, and that Mantik is seeing monsters in his bedroom closet.
-
In which we learn that an autopsy result that shows front and back wounds to JFK (i.e. two shooters) and then altered autopsy results to make consistent with the WC's conclusion that only one shooter was involved does not prove a conspiracy. HA HA HA.
Yet another “Richard” strawman. Michael’s post didn’t say anything about an autopsy result showing front and back wounds.
-
I admit being largely ignorant of Dr. Mantik’s OD study. This thread began as a heads-up for anyone who might be interested in a new book “Thinking Critically About The Kennedy Assassination” by Michel Gagne. I was interested enough to order a copy of the book and have just gotten started reading it. The discussion in this thread regarding Mantik caused me to skip ahead to see what Gagne might have to say about Mantik. Here is a paragraph (from pages 371-372) that seems to sum up some of what Gagne has to say about Mantik.
In 1997, the ARRB discovered during its deposition of Jerrol Custer, a Bethesda Hospital X-Ray technician who was on duty that night, that Dr. Ebersole had indeed seen Mantik’s alleged “6-millimeter object” during the autopsy—a “half circle that appears to be the lightest part of the film […] in the right orbital superior” —after Custer pointed it out to him as a possible bullet fragment. This suggests that the “6.5-millimeter object”already appeared on the X-ray before the body was dissected and was not added later, as Mantik suggests.76 Ebersole dismissed it offhand, telling Custer it was an artifact.77 If Custer is right, Ebersole would presumably have said the same thing to the pathologists if they inquired, which explains why no mention of it was made in the autopsy report and why it was easily forgotten until the HSCA’s Forensic Pathology Panel questioned them about it 15-years later. Like the “white spot” at the back of JFK’s head, the “6.5-millimeter object” is little more than a distraction caused by circular logic. What is missing here is not just a motive, but also the signature hypercompetence of the JFK buff’s all-powerful enemy. Instead, Mantik offers us a one-time ad hoc explanation to suggest that, rather than being devilishly cunning, the men who killed Kennedy were in fact wildly incompetent.78 We can therefore safely conclude that the “object” on the X-ray is just what many experts said it was, an artifact, and that Mantik is seeing monsters in his bedroom closet.
For a "pseudo intellectual" (whatever that means), Gagne's written a solid work. Lots of details but not too much. It's sort of a Reader's Digest version of Bugliosi's work. Minus 87,000 pages.
As you said above, he has large sections that go into great detail debunking Mantik's arguments, specifically about the alteration of the evidence such as the x-rays and photos, Zapruder film et cetera. Mantik says all of this physical evidence - every piece - is faked. Along the way he argues that eyewitness accounts should be given greater credibility than the physical evidence since the physical evidence can be falsified. Throughout his explanations Mantik repeatedly relies on eyewitness accounts over other evidence despite the overwhelming evidence for me about its unreliability.
Some eyewitness accounts are good, some are bad, some physical evidence is good, some is bad/questionable. It seems to be you have to view the reliability of each piece independently and not group them into categories and place one higher or lower than another. This is one of Mantik's major errors. Confirmation bias too, but that's something we all are prone to do. It's unavoidable.
Gagne: "Mantik argues that wherever eyewitness reports diverged from the Zapruder film or other films and photographs [e.g., x-rays, autopsy photos], one should always take the side of the eyewitnesses since their memories are not likely to be manipulated by conspirators the way images can
be manipulated."
-
Instead, Mantik offers us a one-time ad hoc explanation to suggest that, rather than being devilishly cunning, the men who killed Kennedy were in fact wildly incompetent.78 We can therefore safely conclude that the “object” on the X-ray is just what many experts said it was, an artifact, and that Mantik is seeing monsters in his bedroom closet.[/i]
This is yet another version of the “the conspirators I made up in my head would never do something like that, therefore it must be genuine” argument.
-
This is yet another version of the “the conspirators I made up in my head would never do something like that, therefore it must be genuine” argument.
This is yet another insignificant remark from the peanut gallery.
-
…as if something Michel Gagne thinks we can “safely conclude” is somehow more significant.
-
…as if something Michel Gagne thinks we can “safely conclude” is somehow more significant.
Gagne says he spent two decades as a conspiracy believer. Then he wised-up…. 8)
-
You can't debunk the facts .
-
You can't debunk the facts .
But the conspiracists keep trying…
-
Gagne says he spent two decades as a conspiracy believer. Then he wised-up…. 8)
It's not what he concludes it's what he bases his conclusions on.
But in conspiracy world - skeptic world too - everything he bases his conclusions on is faked, false, corrupt, uncertain, unknown, not possible, made up, lies. And all of the people who conducted the investigations were liars too. Multiple generations of people from a wide variety of backgrounds: all liars too. Or either not smart enough to know that they were using lies, corrupt, false evidence. Yes, hundreds and hundreds of people - top legal minds, forensic pathologists, photographic experts, ballistics experts - all of their conclusions are just waved away.
-
But in conspiracy world - skeptic world too - everything he bases his conclusions on is faked, false, corrupt, uncertain, unknown, not possible, made up, lies. And all of the people who conducted the investigations were liars too. Multiple generations of people from a wide variety of backgrounds: all liars too.
Strawman. Next?
-
Gagne says he spent two decades as a conspiracy believer. Then he wised-up…. 8)
There are few things more insipid and uninspiring than a true believer who has found a particular religion and declares "I once was blind, but now I see!"
-
They haven't read a single page of the book, looked at a single argument he's made, but they immediately dismiss it. Just wave it away. Every part of it. Not some of it or most. Does he have some things right? It doesn't matter, they don't care. They just reject all of it.
Yet they say they are here to discuss the evidence.
-
They haven't read a single page of the book, looked at a single argument he's made, but they immediately dismiss it. Just wave it away. Every part of it. Not some of it or most. Does he have some things right? It doesn't matter, they don't care. They just reject all of it.
Yet they say they are here to discuss the evidence.
Another strawman. Next?
But every lone-nut oriented book just regurgitates all the same misinformation and conjecture -- they don't actually objectively analyze the evidence. From what has been posted here, there's no reason to think this one is any different.
Based on the review, it also smacks of special pleading, given how much the official narrative is filled with hackneyed fallacies, factoids, and fundamental contradictions. It's the oft repeated argument:
Look at these crazy conspiracy theories. Aren't they crazy? Therefore Oswald did it.
-
There are few things more insipid and uninspiring than a true believer who has found a particular religion and declares "I once was blind, but now I see!"
I disagree with your opinion. But the comments from the peanut gallery definitely are insipid. The people who are relegated to the peanut gallery don’t usually have any conspiracy theories that they have the balls to defend. And they typically have insignificant but critical remarks whenever the authorities are mentioned.
-
The idea that it takes “balls” to make up a story that cannot be substantiated (like the official narrative) is patently absurd. It takes an overactive imagination.
-
The idea that it takes “balls” to make up a story that cannot be substantiated (like the official narrative) is patently absurd. It takes an overactive imagination.
Who said anything about “making up” a story? The comment says “defend” a theory.
What’s truly absurd is to have a plethora of theories (59-years worth) to select from, and to pretend that none of them are valid. It appears that the people in the peanut gallery have decided that a theory of how the assassination happened is optional. That’s why they belong in the peanut gallery.
-
A “theory” with no basis is no different from a made-up story. It’s not some kind of virtue to be able to make up stories. People with no valid arguments resort to juvenile nicknames and hope that they somehow will make up the difference.
-
How can you claim that CE 399 was a magic bullet since that bullet was still in Connallys left thigh ? Uh-oh !!!!!
-
A “theory” with no basis is no different from a made-up story. It’s not some kind of virtue to be able to make up stories. People with no valid arguments resort to juvenile nicknames and hope that they somehow will make up the difference.
People in the peanut gallery have nothing significant to contribute. So they resort to showing their displeasure at everything.
-
Condescending and supercilious put downs are what some people consider “significant”. But it’s all they‘ve got. They think people should show “pleasure” at their brilliant speculations.
-
Just hopping on. James Di Eugenio has critiqued Gagne's book at the Kennedysandking.com website.
P.S. The publisher for Gagne's book (Routledge) seems friendly to anti-conspiracy authors. I've critiqued an article by one of them who dismisses all JFK conspiracy theories.
-
I give those CTers who at least articulate a theory some credit. They have to defend those positions with evidence and arguments even though these efforts fail. In contrast, the CTer contrarians won't even articulate who they believe was behind the assassination. Like Inspector Clouseau, they suspect everyone, and they suspect no one. There is apparently a dim realization that there is no evidence that points toward anyone other than Oswald. Certainly no evidence that points toward anyone else that satisfies the impossible standard of proof that they apply to evidence of Oswald's guilt. That also allows them to take the lazy defense attorney approach by suggesting doubt of Oswald's guilt without grappling with any of the direct implications of their claims having validity with all the obvious absurdity that entails.
Strawman arguments. 6 out of 7 mock trials have resulted in either a hung jury or acquittal in favor of Oswald - in other words, there is reasonable doubt as to his guilt. (The exception was a farcical trial).
We need not know who pulled the trigger or who planned it*. All that is relevant to conclude the assassination was a conspiracy is that the evidence shows that Oswald could not have pulled it off and that it had to be by others. It also doesn't help the lone gunman scenario that a cover-up of the truth by the Warren Commission and certain agencies or departments of the government occurred.
*People can theorize how, who and why after the fact - if the police didn't theorize, nobody would go to jail. There are theories that fit the facts better than the SBT.
-
Strawman arguments. 6 out of 7 mock trials have resulted in either a hung jury or acquittal in favor of Oswald - in other words, there is reasonable doubt as to his guilt. (The exception was a farcical trial).
We need not know who pulled the trigger or who planned it*. All that is relevant to conclude the assassination was a conspiracy is that the evidence shows that Oswald could not have pulled it off and that it had to be by others. It also doesn't help the lone gunman scenario that a cover-up of the truth by the Warren Commission and certain agencies or departments of the government occurred.
*People can theorize how, who and why after the fact - if the police didn't theorize, nobody would go to jail. There are theories that fit the facts better than the SBT.
UFO believers require a government cover up to explain why they can never prove the existence of aliens. Those men in black are always showing up just in time to hide the evidence. Some JFK CTers need to claim that this case can't be solved for similar reasons. They can't prove an alternate conspiracy theory. Nothing adds up much less the existence of any actual evidence that point to anyone except Oswald. Rather, like middling defense attorneys (or Inspector Clouseau) they can "suspect everyone and suspect no one." A lazy but amusing approach that allows them to eat their cake and have it too. After nearly six decades, the bottom line is they don't know what happened. Never will. It just can't be Oswald. If a time machine was invented to allow these types to witness the event, they would gouge their own eyes out before witnessing Oswald pull the trigger.
-
UFO believers require a government cover up to explain why they can never prove the existence of aliens. Those men in black are always showing up just in time to hide the evidence. Some JFK CTers need to claim that this case can't be solved for similar reasons. They can't prove an alternate conspiracy theory. Nothing adds up much less the existence of any actual evidence that point to anyone except Oswald. Rather, like middling defense attorneys (or Inspector Clouseau) they can "suspect everyone and suspect no one." A lazy but amusing approach that allows them to eat their cake and have it too. After nearly six decades, the bottom line is they don't know what happened. Never will. It just can't be Oswald. If a time machine was invented to allow these types to witness the event, they would gouge their own eyes out before witnessing Oswald pull the trigger.
The classic LN "if you can't prove (with evidence I will never accept) that there was a conspiracy, Oswald is guilty by default"
After nearly six decades, the bottom line is they don't know what happened.
And neither do you. You only think you do.
It just can't be Oswald.
I have no problem accepting Oswald as the lone gunman, when actual persuasive evidence (and not opinions) is provided to support such a finding. So, go on then....provide it.
Wait, I forgot, you can't show that evidence and blame it on me for asking for something so impossible.
-
The classic LN "if you can't prove (with evidence I will never accept) that there was a conspiracy, Oswald is guilty by default"
After nearly six decades, the bottom line is they don't know what happened.
And neither do you. You only think you do.
It just can't be Oswald.
I have no problem accepting Oswald as the lone gunman, when actual persuasive evidence (and not opinions) is provided to support such a finding. So, go on then....provide it.
Wait, I forgot, you can't show that evidence and blame it on me for asking for something so impossible.
Unless you are suggesting that JFK committed suicide, the options are that Oswald did it or a ton of evidence was manufactured to make it look like he did. You are constantly implying the latter. Which would be a conspiracy. There is a mountain of evidence confirming that Oswald did it. That is why some CTers allege the evidence was planted. To frame Oswald for the crime. The fact that this evidence doesn't satisfy the subjective criteria of a contrarian loon doesn't change that. Again, the case against Oswald has been publicly known and available for nearly six decades. You know that evidence. Why do you keep asking me for it? Do you think I have evidence that wasn't available to law enforcement and the WC? You are constantly confusing your own impossible subjective standard of proof on the topic with facts and evidence. Every contrarian doesn't have to be convinced for something to be a fact.
FACT: Oswald did it.
FACT: there is no credible evidence of anyone else being involved. After nearly 60 years, you can't and won't even articulate any counternarrative. That speaks volumes as to the lack of evidence of any conspiracy.
-
Unless you are suggesting that JFK committed suicide, the options are that Oswald did it or a ton of evidence was manufactured to make it look like he did. You are constantly implying the latter. Which would be a conspiracy. There is a mountain of evidence confirming that Oswald did it. That is why some CTers allege the evidence was planted. To frame Oswald for the crime. The fact that this evidence doesn't satisfy the subjective criteria of a contrarian loon doesn't change that. Again, the case against Oswald has been publicly known and available for nearly six decades. You know that evidence. Why do you keep asking me for it? Do you think I have evidence that wasn't available to law enforcement and the WC? You are constantly confusing your own impossible subjective standard of proof on the topic with facts and evidence. Every contrarian doesn't have to be convinced for something to be a fact.
FACT: Oswald did it.
FACT: there is no credible evidence of anyone else being involved. After nearly 60 years, you can't and won't even articulate any counternarrative. That speaks volumes as to the lack of evidence of any conspiracy.
the options are that Oswald did it or a ton of evidence was manufactured to make it look like he did.
What "ton of evidence" would that be?
There is a mountain of evidence confirming that Oswald did it.
If that's true, why do you constantly fail to present that evidence?
Again, the case against Oswald has been publicly known and available for nearly six decades. You know that evidence.
You mean the "evidence" that doesn't actually prove what is being alleged?
Why do you keep asking me for it?
Because you continue not to produce it. You make all sorts of claims about a paper bag, Oswald being on the 6th floor and going down the TSBD stairs within 75 seconds after the last shot, and much more, without actually ever producing a shred of conclusive evidence for it.
Do you think I have evidence that wasn't available to law enforcement and the WC?
Well, you must have, because the WC never actually claimed there was any evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when Kennedy passed by. They just said he was. Yet, you claim there is such evidence. So, where is it?
You are constantly confusing your own impossible subjective standard of proof on the topic with facts and evidence.
What "facts and evidence"? After about six months of asking, I finally gave up asking for the evidence you said existed that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 on 11/22/63 and that he ran down the stairs, unseen, within 75 seconds after the last shot. Are you now still claiming that such evidence exists?
FACT: Oswald did it.
A fact can be proven. So, prove it or it isn't a fact
FACT: there is no credible evidence of anyone else being involved.
That's not necessarily true. Within the body of evidence that the WC provided, there is enough to make a circumstantial case for a conspiracy, but you will never accept any of it.
After nearly 60 years, you can't and won't even articulate any counternarrative.
Don't have to...
That speaks volumes as to the lack of evidence of any conspiracy.
No it doesn't.
-
Unless you are suggesting that JFK committed suicide, the options are that Oswald did it or a ton of evidence was manufactured to make it look like he did.
Wrong again, “Richard”. There isn’t a “ton of evidence” that looks like Oswald did it. There’s a ton of false or unsubstantiated claims that you keep regurgitating and calling it “evidence”. Big difference.
FACT: Oswald did it.
LOL. FACT: “Richard” is delusional
FACT: there is no credible evidence of anyone else being involved. After nearly 60 years, you can't and won't even articulate any counternarrative. That speaks volumes as to the lack of evidence of any conspiracy.
LOL. Every delusional LN evangelist nut doesn’t have to be convinced for something to be “credible”.