JFK Assassination Forum

On the 20th March 1964, Baker and Truly took part in time trials which established how quickly both men took to get up to the second floor lunchroom after the assassination. The first time was around 90 seconds, the second time around 75 seconds.
Five days later, the 25th March, both men testify before the WC and they talk about the time trials.
On the 7th April the testimonies of Adams, Lovelady and Shelley are taken. Adams goes first, telling the Commission she raced down the stairs to the first floor and reached the first floor in less than 60 seconds. On arriving at the first floor she saw Lovelady and Shelley there as she crossed the floor, heading for the Houston Street loading dock door.
The results of the time trials are firmly established by this point and there is no contradiction between her testimony and the Truly/Baker time trials - the reason she didn't see them and they didn't see her is that she was already out the back door before Truly and Baker got to the area around the elevators.

Then come the testimonies of, first Lovelady, then Shelley, during which both men tell exactly the same lie which completely contradicts the Truly/Baker time trials and the testimony of Adams.
Both men testify to the effect that Truly and Baker were still outside the TSBD building at least three minutes after the assassination. This completely contradicts the time trials. The timings for Baker and Truly entering the TSBD building have already been firmly established. Now both Lovelady and Shelley are more or less testifying that Baker and Truly were lying and that the whole time trial was a sham. And it's not just one of them telling this lie...it is both of them. It is an organised and co-ordinated Lie.
I'm not sure if the Commission was aware of the Darnell footage at the time of the testimonies of Lovelady and Shelley. Film evidence proving the lies of these men.
Unbelievably, the Commission never questions these lies. The lies are allowed to stand, unchallenged.
Even more unbelievably, when it comes to offer it's final version of events on the day of the assassination, the Commission somehow accepts the results of the Baker/Truly time trials (contradicting the "3 minute" lie of Shelley and Lovelady), but they also use the timings of Shelley and Lovelady (contradicting the Truly/Baker time trials) to undermine the testimony of Adams!!

 “A May 15, 1973, memo in the files of researcher Richard Popkin recounts a conversation with former CIA official Victor Marchetti in which Marchetti reportedly offered "a theory he claimed to have heard that fits with his own picture of the chaos in the CIA; namely that the KGB has infiltrated the CIA and the CIA has infiltrated the KGB so it is impossible at the present stage to tell who is who (he mentioned a case of having been sent to meet somebody and being shown all sorts of identification and then being totally unable to tell whether he was dealing with a U.S. or Russian agent). Marchetti thinks it is the KGB branch of the CIA that killed Kennedy and that the U.S. CIA is too embarrassed to investigate and reveal the real state of affairs."     

---30---

This is interesting.

I am going from memory, but AFAIK Euins maintained he heard four shots.

His description of the shooter wandered a bit, or he was misquoted.

I'm afraid your memory is faulty.

   Officer Baker allegedly thought there was an active shooter atop the TSBD due to his seeing pigeons flying from the rooftop after shots were fired. Yet, he does Not ride his motorcycle right up to the front of the TSBD? He turns onto Elm St, props his motorcycle up, and as you claim looks around before heading toward the TSBD with that active shooter inside?  And with an active shooter inside the TSBD, he then encounters Oswald and Fails to even "pat" Oswald down? Officer Baker's story is riddled with inconsistencies.

Dear Comrade Storing,

Do you think Officer Baker was part of THE CONSPIRACY?

-- Tom

If anyone has any questions about the arguments being made by SBT defenders in this thread, please message or email me and I'll address them. Unless something changes, I'm probably not going to spend any more time responding to their strained, evasive arguments.

You'll notice that not one of them is explaining how a bullet exiting the throat wound and shirt slits could have missed the tie knot, and how such a bullet could have weaved around the body of the knot to nick its outer surface on the left area of the bottom half of the knot (and not on the edge).

Sherlock Holmes famously said, "When you eliminate the impossible, however improbable, whatever remains must be the truth." To put it another way, once all impossible scenarios are removed from consideration, the only remaining explanation, even if it seems unlikely, must be the correct one.

In this case, the remaining explanation is eminently probable on its face, and it is proven beyond any rational doubt by JFK's shirt, coat, and tie.

Less than two hours after JFK died, the Parkland Hospital doctors held a press conference. During the presser, Dr. Malcolm Perry identified the throat wound as an entrance wound three times. Dr. Perry, who had much more experience with gunshot wounds than Humes or Boswell, diagnosed the throat wound as an entry wound because it was small (3-5 mm), neat, circular, and punched-in, and because of the damage he saw behind the wound.

We have the transcript of the press conference, but not any film footage of it. Why? How could this be? Because the Secret Service confiscated all film footage of the presser, and it has not surfaced since then.

Moreover, the Secret Service lied to the WC and said they could not locate the films or the transcript of the press conference. Thanks to the ARRB, we now know that the Secret Service had the transcript in their possession by 11/26, four days after the shooting.

With no film or transcript of the press conference, the WC claimed that press reports that quoted Perry as saying the wound was a neat puncture wound were inaccurate, and that all the journalists at the presser somehow misunderstood what Perry said. The Commission even pressured Perry into endorsing this claim.

The Church Committee discovered in the 1970s that the Secret Service pressured Dr. Perry to change his story long before he testified before the WC.

It gets worse. Journalist Martin Steadman and two other journalists spoke with Dr. Perry about a week after the assassination. Steadman knew that Perry had identified the throat wound as an entrance wound at the 11/22 press conference. Steadman wrote that Dr. Perry said he thought the throat wound was an entrance wound because the hole was small, circular, and clean (not ragged). Perry added that he had treated hundreds of patients with gunshot wounds and knew the difference between an exit wound and entrance wound.

Steadman reported that Dr. Perry then told him that during the night of the assassination, he got several phone calls from the doctors at Bethesda. He said they were very upset about his statement that the neck wound was an entry wound.

Let me pause to note that this debunks the autopsy doctors' lie that they knew nothing about the throat wound until the morning after the autopsy. The Parkland press conference had been widely reported on by major news outlets. Even without Dr. Perry's disclosure, it would be hard to believe that the autopsy doctors heard nothing about the throat wound until the morning after the autopsy.

Anyway, to continue. Steadman reported that Perry said that the autopsy doctors asked him if he or another Parkland doctor had turned over the body to see the wound in Kennedy’s back. Perry said they had not. They then argued that he could not therefore be certain about the throat wound, that there was no evidence of a shot from the front, and that he should stop saying the throat wound was an entrance wound.

Moreover, Steadman said that Dr. Perry told him that when he insisted he could only say what he believed to be true, one or more of the autopsy doctors told him he would be brought before a medical board if he continued to insist on his story. Perry said they even threatened that he would lose his medical license.

Crucially, Parkland nurse Audrey Bell confirmed in her 1997 ARRB interview that Dr. Perry told her that he received several calls on the night of the assassination from Bethesda Naval Hospital pressuring him to change his story about the throat wound:

Saturday morning, when I got over there, Dr. Perry came up to
the office. I said, "You look awful. Did you get any sleep last night?"

He said, "Well, not too much, between the calls from Bethesda
that came in during the night." ["Bethesda" refers to Bethesda Naval
Hospital, where the autopsy was performed.]

I said, "What about?"

He said, "Oh, whether that was an entrance wound or an exit wound
in the throat."

He said, "They were wanting me to change my mind."
(https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_interviews/audio/ARRB_Bell.htm)

All of this makes perfect sense when we acknowledge the hard physical evidence that no bullet could have exited the throat and shirt slits without tearing through the tie, that no such bullet could have magically flown around the knot and nicked its outer surface, which facts in turn confirm that the throat wound was above the tie knot and could have only been an entry wound.

MG ”Sherlock Holmes famously said, "When you eliminate the impossible, however improbable, whatever remains must be the truth." To put it another way, once all impossible scenarios are removed from consideration, the only remaining explanation, even if it seems unlikely, must be the correct one.”
 
Where does Sherlock say if lacking evidence for your grand proclamation, it is OK to fabricate your own evidence? Must be in a different nugget of wisdom.

MG “In this case, the remaining explanation is eminently probable on its face, and it is proven beyond any rational doubt by JFK's shirt, coat, and tie.”

Great explanation, except the autopsy photos do not support this nonsense and show the bullet hole lower on JFK’s throat and then there is the problem of the bullet went on to strike JBC in the back. Other than that, a very inspirational observation.