Elias824
Golden Member
- Mar 13, 2007
- 1,100
- 0
- 76
I've provided the details in the doctors' own words. If you don't want to take a few minutes to listen to what the doctors are saying, then you are choosing to dodge. that is certainly your right, and is exactly what I said would happen
I have done my "own work", and listening to the doctors destroy the official story is a great Interestingly enough, the more I dig, the more I find video footage of doctors contradicting the official lies. more video footage of several dallas doctors showing the large wound to the back of kennedy's head:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr_abl2N6nE#t=2m26s
now, why are all of these doctors contradicting the government and making large shapes with their hands at the back of their heads?
Oh look, how about the government doctoring the autopsy photos? Yeah, a doctor and government photographer on record calling bullshit to the government's lies, and how the large wounds were changed in the photographs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btPXzX1DtJE
do you have video footage of the doctors saying those quotes and which autopsy photos they're actually looking at? the doctors you listed made clear in the youtube NOVA footage linked above that they saw a large wound in the back of kennedy's head, thus contradicting the government. I'd like to know what they're referring to in the quotes you listed, because your quotes of the doctors directly contradict their actions in the previous nova footage I linked.
oh wait, i found out why it appears the doctors are contradicting themselves in the same NOVA footage
it took a few minutes of digging, but here's the explanation:this little gem of a video explains why the 4 dallas doctors you quoted said what they said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFq_0aOfZRM
in summary (i'm quoting from the video's creator, time stamp 6 minutes 43seconds):
3) and (what author Bugliosi does not tell his readers) Peters and McClelland specifically stated [under oath] that the presence of a moveable back-of-the-head "flap", which they interpreted as moved 'back into its place' in the autopsy photo, is the reason the photo of the back of the head matches their memory of that wound.
Oh, did you intentionally leave out this little "flap" detail?
Digging a little more, there are plenty of references to the "flap" area by nurses, reporters, and government officials. hmmmm loyalist, leaving out little details and distorting the truth..... last but not least: why was the damaged windshield of jfk's limo destroyed and not kept for evidence purposes? anyone!
Last edited:
Folks, nothing is going to be solved on the wound. There is evidence on each side, and unanswered mysteries, all of which are going to lead nowhere.
As for the windshield, there are a variety of possible answers, but 'the Secret Service was in on the conspiracy and helped hide the evidence of a second shooter' is not very plausible.
As for the windshield, there are a variety of possible answers, but 'the Secret Service was in on the conspiracy and helped hide the evidence of a second shooter' is not very plausible.
showing a cover-up with jfk's wounds does plenty, and certainly helps to establish a conspiracy. not sure why you're in denial about that.
also, the windshield was damaged, and subsequently destroyed. cover-up defined.
edit: wait, will you even admit the windshield of jfk's limo was damaged or destroyed?
Last edited:
Except you can't show a coverup with JFK's wound IMO. You can show inconclusive evidence and your opinion.
also, the windshield was damaged, and subsequently destroyed. cover-up defined.
edit: wait, will you even admit the windshield of jfk's limo was damaged or destroyed?
No, it's not a 'coverup defined'. Ohmigish, the prosecutor of OJ had him put on a glove he was able to put on, helping get him get off - the prosecuter was a traitor, coverup defined! No.
I'll repeat just once more, there are a variety of possible reasons for the handling of the limo and windshield. You have not proven a 'coverup' by any stretch (no limo pun intended).
Again, destroying the limo for the purpose of coverup involves a large conspiracy with the Secret Service, which is not plausible.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Getting sorta legal like... Accessory before and after the fact are quite different positions to be in... Before the fact they would be part of the conspiracy to assassinate the President while after the fact they would be significantly less in jeopardy. For instance perhaps... the President could have issued (Johnson) a "Finding" where in he determines that in the interest of the USA this matter of JFK must be shown to be totally the work of LH Oswald... that finding gives all actors a pass on what otherwise would have been an AFTER the fact crime. I think it is quite plausible for this to have occurred.
In any event, IF just one single bit of the evidence surrounding JFK's assassination can be shown to be altered it puts the entire 'official' position in the trash. It may not change the 'Who' did it part which I consider separate. So there exists two parts to this. The bit before and the bit after the assassination... They seem to meet at a point then diverge again... But there are two aspects to the JFK issue and I'd doubt any reliable evidence can be brought to bare on the 'Who' part... However, there seems to be all sorts of evidence that 'Who shot Kennedy' is more than one person and just about everyone from Johnson's 'friends' starting with Bobby Baker to the entire Big Oil folks seem to have a motive to have it done although they would not have been the shooters of course.
Zapruder's film also has many issues that to me indicate it has been altered. Y'all have seen the opinions/evidence on this I'm sure.
If the Governor was hit by the first bullet that also hit JFK I would be amazed. BTW, The Governor was Johnson campaign manager at one point and about the closest person to him in that arena which sorta softens a willy nilly shooting event IF it was a Johnson supported event.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
As I mentioned in my most previous post... It is quite plausable for the SS and anyone else to 'cover up' this issue... A Finding by Johnson that anything but a lone nut gunman must be supported makes sense to me. After all we were in a cold war era etc..
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
I want the names and names and testimonies of the people you are asking me about, as I can't rightly be expected to say if anyone is lying or not without knowing exactly what they've said. Or are you again just speaking in some nebulous sense rather than anything you can point to specifically?
Rather, all you can do is dismiss the irrefutable evidence of a cover-up with your opinion, much like young Earth creationists dismiss all the evidence that the Earth is far older than they prefer to believe. Put simply, people often engage in such mental divergence when the facts conflict with their beliefs, which is why you absurdly slander Kennedy as having regretted his suggestion that journalists should have the good sense not to publish "covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations" and the like.
Anyway, for some credentialed psychological analysis of the matter, the abstract of this paper in American Behavioral Scientist sums up the situation well:
Last edited:
I can't show a coverup with JFK's wounds? Funny, I've been showing a cover-up of JFK's wounds for pages. Time for you to address every single link I've posted in post #177
All dallas doctors shown in my NOVA link contradict the official autopsy photos, which can also be seen in the the jpeg. Then again, you're entitled to your (dodging) opinion. Like blankdodge, I'm betting you don't have the guts to man up and address them .Prosecutor and OJ? That has nothing to do with the intentional destruction of windshield evidence. Try harder.
"destroying the limo for the purpose of coverup involves a large conspiracy with the Secret Service, which is not plausible". Wrong. It is certainly plausible, as witnessed by having agents ordered off JFK's limo / multitude of other security failures.
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
I don't see any evidence to suggest it was a "large conspiracy" within the Secret Service or otherwise, and rather it seems far more likely that a few people in key positions tricked others into destroying evidence and such, employing "a variety of possible reasons" to justify doing so. For instance, the Agent who demonstrated bewilderment when he was ordered away from the limo apparently wasn't in on any conspiracy, and Agent Hill's testimony in regard to the location of the head wound suggests he wasn't either.
Last edited:
I've provided the details in the doctors' own words. If you don't want to take a few minutes to listen to what the doctors are saying, then you are choosing to dodge. that is certainly your right, and is exactly what I said would happen
Interestingly enough, the more I dig, the more I find video footage of doctors contradicting the official lies. more video footage of several dallas doctors showing the large wound to the back of kennedy's head:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr_abl2N6nE#t=2m26s
now, why are all of these doctors contradicting the government and making large shapes with their hands at the back of their heads?
LOL! You haven't been paying attention to detail. "Side", 'lateral", "temporal". Did you not hear those descriptions in the video? Also, just look at your image above. Some of those are indicating the parietal and temporal regions and one even appears to have his hand over the upper parietal area that this image shows as the entrance point.
Dr David Mantik? What is his medical specialty? Is he a pathologist, or more preferably a forensic pathologist? What qualifies him as an expert on what he is expounding on? Joe O'Donnell? Well, just who was Joe O'Donnell? I hate to besmirch the character of a deceased individual but he is not without controversy.
A controversy followed the printing of his obituary in the press. Some of the photographs that had been attributed to O'Donnell were actually shot by other photographers.[1] A photograph of a saluting John F. Kennedy Jr. during the funeral for his father in 1963 was taken by Stanley Stearns for United Press International, not by O'Donnell. O'Donnell also claimed credit for a photograph showing Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill during a wartime meeting in Tehran, Iran, in 1943, but O'Donnell is not known to have been in Tehran at the time. O'Donnell's son Tyge O'Donnell attributes some of the instances of his father's taking credit for others' work to the onset of dementia in the 1990s.
Ok, he was just suffering from dementia.
The Robert Knudsen that O'Donnell talks about? Well, let's see now......
Late White House photographer Robert Knudsen was the source of much of the recent spate of stories about a "second set of autopsy photos" and "faked autopsy photos." His family, talking to the ARRB, quoted him telling a variety of interesting stories, which unfortunately were at odds with his sworn testimony to the House Select Committee.
The most significant difference between his ARRB "testimony" and his HSCA testimony is that the former had him actually *photographing* the autopsy, while in the latter he said he first became aware of autopsy photos the morning after the autopsy.
But in 1977, Knudsen apparently told his "I was at the autopsy" story to POPULAR PHOTOGRAPHY. That journal ran a story titled (in rather dubious taste) "'Shooting' the Presidents" in the August 1977 number.
Quoting from page 81:
The most significant difference between his ARRB "testimony" and his HSCA testimony is that the former had him actually *photographing* the autopsy, while in the latter he said he first became aware of autopsy photos the morning after the autopsy.
But in 1977, Knudsen apparently told his "I was at the autopsy" story to POPULAR PHOTOGRAPHY. That journal ran a story titled (in rather dubious taste) "'Shooting' the Presidents" in the August 1977 number.
Quoting from page 81:
The one Presidential trip which Bob Knudsen did *not* make was the one to Texas in November, 1963. Scheduled to go, he was hospitalized at the last moment with steel slivers in his eye. Cecil Stoughton went instead, and wound up making the most famous of all Presidential succession pictures: Lyndon Johnson being sworn in aboard Air ForceOne following the Kennedy assassination.
When the news of the assassination came from Dallas, Kundsen left the hospital to meet Air Force One at Andrews Field. He was the only photographer to record the autopsy -- "the hardest assignment in my life."
John Stringer, who actually photographed the autopsy, would doubtless be surprised to learn that Kundsen was the "only" photographer there.
But one year later, on 8/11/78, Kundsen testified under oath to the HSCA. This is how the questioning went (from page 5 of the transcript):
MR. PURDY. Your responsibilities were for the President and not for the First Lady?
MR. KUNDSEN. That is correct. I photographed the President's activities and appointments and social functions.
MR. PURDY. When did you first become aware of the existence of photographs of the autopsy of President Kennedy?
MR. KUNDSEN. The morning following the autopsy, Dr. Berkley -- to the best of my knowledge, Dr. Berkley had the film holders in a brown paper bag and handed them to me. Jim Fox, the Secret Service photographic expert, was told to go over and develop them and see that they were secure at all times.
So it seems that Kundsen had one story when he was under oath and talking to people likely to know the details of the autopsy and the photographs, and a different one for POPULAR PHOTOGRAPHY and for his family.
When the news of the assassination came from Dallas, Kundsen left the hospital to meet Air Force One at Andrews Field. He was the only photographer to record the autopsy -- "the hardest assignment in my life."
John Stringer, who actually photographed the autopsy, would doubtless be surprised to learn that Kundsen was the "only" photographer there.
But one year later, on 8/11/78, Kundsen testified under oath to the HSCA. This is how the questioning went (from page 5 of the transcript):
MR. PURDY. Your responsibilities were for the President and not for the First Lady?
MR. KUNDSEN. That is correct. I photographed the President's activities and appointments and social functions.
MR. PURDY. When did you first become aware of the existence of photographs of the autopsy of President Kennedy?
MR. KUNDSEN. The morning following the autopsy, Dr. Berkley -- to the best of my knowledge, Dr. Berkley had the film holders in a brown paper bag and handed them to me. Jim Fox, the Secret Service photographic expert, was told to go over and develop them and see that they were secure at all times.
So it seems that Kundsen had one story when he was under oath and talking to people likely to know the details of the autopsy and the photographs, and a different one for POPULAR PHOTOGRAPHY and for his family.
The video footage is in the Nova documentary. I have no reason to doubt Mr McAdams on the matter. His friends on the other side haven't challenged him on it. I assume that since you're referencing it that you've watch the actual documentary. Have you not? They would have been shown all of the autopsy photos.
the doctors you listed made clear in the youtube NOVA footage linked above that they saw a large wound in the back of kennedy's head, thus contradicting the government. I'd like to know what they're referring to in the quotes you listed, because your quotes of the doctors directly contradict their actions in the previous nova footage I linked.
oh wait, i found out why it appears the doctors are contradicting themselves in the same NOVA footage
this little gem of a video explains why the 4 dallas doctors you quoted said what they said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFq_0aOfZRM
in summary (i'm quoting from the video's creator, time stamp 6 minutes 43seconds):
3) and (what author Bugliosi does not tell his readers) Peters and McClelland specifically stated [under oath] that the presence of a moveable back-of-the-head "flap", which they interpreted as moved 'back into its place' in the autopsy photo, is the reason the photo of the back of the head matches their memory of that wound.
Oh, did you intentionally leave out this little "flap" detail?
Peters and McClelland eh? Well, either you somehow missed the transcript of McClelland's testimony that I posted or you just chose to ignore it. Here it is again:
Mr. SPECTER - In what position was President Kennedy maintained from the time you saw him until the pronouncement of death?
Dr. McCLELLAND - On his back on the cart.
Mr. SPECTER - On his what?
Dr. McCLELLAND - On his back on the stretcher.
Mr. SPECTER - Was he on the stretcher at all times?
Dr. McCLELLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - In the trauma room No. 1 you described, is there any table onto which he could be placed from the stretcher?
Dr. McCLELLAND - No; generally we do not move patients from the stretcher until they are ready to go into the operating room and then they are moved onto the operating table.
Mr. SPECTER - Well, in fact, was he left on the stretcher all during the course of these procedures until he was pronounced dead?
Dr. McCLELLAND - That's right.
Mr. SPECTER - Then, at any time was he positioned in a way where you could have seen the back of his body?
Dr. McCLELLAND - No.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe any gunshot wound on his back?
Dr. McCLELLAND - No.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe the condition of the back of the President's head?
Dr. McCLELLAND - Well, partially; not, of course, as I say, we did not lift his head up since it was so greatly damaged. We attempted to avoid moving him any more than it was absolutely necessary, but I could see, of course, all the extent of the wound.
The doctors at Parkland, including McClelland, did not get a good view of the back of Kennedy's head.Dr. McCLELLAND - On his back on the cart.
Mr. SPECTER - On his what?
Dr. McCLELLAND - On his back on the stretcher.
Mr. SPECTER - Was he on the stretcher at all times?
Dr. McCLELLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - In the trauma room No. 1 you described, is there any table onto which he could be placed from the stretcher?
Dr. McCLELLAND - No; generally we do not move patients from the stretcher until they are ready to go into the operating room and then they are moved onto the operating table.
Mr. SPECTER - Well, in fact, was he left on the stretcher all during the course of these procedures until he was pronounced dead?
Dr. McCLELLAND - That's right.
Mr. SPECTER - Then, at any time was he positioned in a way where you could have seen the back of his body?
Dr. McCLELLAND - No.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe any gunshot wound on his back?
Dr. McCLELLAND - No.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe the condition of the back of the President's head?
Dr. McCLELLAND - Well, partially; not, of course, as I say, we did not lift his head up since it was so greatly damaged. We attempted to avoid moving him any more than it was absolutely necessary, but I could see, of course, all the extent of the wound.
And Dr Perry?
I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen AND I DIDN'T INSPECT IT FURTHER. I JUST GLANCED AT IT AND I WENT ON OUTSIDE AND LATER WAS SUMMONED UP TO THE OPERATING ROOM TO HELP IN
THE CARE OF GOVERNOR CONNALLY.
THE CARE OF GOVERNOR CONNALLY.
So here, as in the case of other doctors like McClelland, Aguilar claims that they testified to seeing the back of the head blown out, when according to their own testimony they could have seen no such thing. Either this is a serious inconsistency in their accounts, or, more likely, this is normal imprecision in language, were "back" simply means "posterior" which means anything behind the ears. And "occipital" means the back fifth of the head, as Grossman suggested to THE BOSTON GLOBE.
Last edited:
The people that I'm asking you about are James J. Humes, M.D., J. Thornton Boswell, M.D., and Pierre A. Finck, M.D.
We're done; you're irrational. You are the garden variety conspiracist in these posts, where every bit of evidence on one side is accepted uncritically, and every bit on the other not learned, not comprehended, baselessly discredited - every possibility becomes 'proof' if it supports the conclusion you're blindly determined to accept.
As a garden variety conspiracist, you throw out dishonest attacks at anyone who points out your errors.
You need to read more of the reports above, looking for the conspiracy theorist behaviors.
I'm the rational one here - indeed, I haven't ruled out the possibility of a conspiracy, and just spent an hour laying out motives for one - which doesn't prove one - in a post that was lost again to this board's lousy 'log you out' mess. If there was evidence of a conspiracy that were stronger, I'd say so immediately - there's no reluctance. Only a loyalty for the truth you lack, as with your over and over pestering on an irrelevant issue of Kennedy's speech you got wrong - and I think Ted Sorensen can say better than you.
I gave you a chance for a rational discussion, you trashed the possibility. Go on with your predictable rants how this is all part of the coverup.
I can't show a coverup with JFK's wounds? Funny, I've been showing a cover-up of JFK's wounds for pages. Time for you to address every single link I've posted in post #177
Prosecutor and OJ? That has nothing to do with the intentional destruction of windshield evidence. Try harder.
"destroying the limo for the purpose of coverup involves a large conspiracy with the Secret Service, which is not plausible". Wrong. It is certainly plausible, as witnessed by having agents ordered off JFK's limo / multitude of other security failures.
No, you haven't been showing a coverup with JFK's wounds. You have shown some evidence contradictory with other evidence, about which one theory is a coverup, a far cry from actually proving a coverup. The OJ Simpson defense team claimed to have shown he was innocent, and presented much info to support that theory, but did not show he was innocent, because he wasn't. The glove did not fit, but they did not have to acquit - turns out, he could make his hand swell and did so.
There's no dodging - but I also don't talk much to people who are as rude as you now are, with your inults and baiting.
If there is a conspiracy, you and Kyle are bad champions for showing it. It's a little like having some KKK guy say OJ did it because he's black - he did it, but that's guy's a loon.
You and Kyle show no understanding of the idea of there being evidence with different explanations, or even without explanations, that isn't conclusive.
The JFK assassination is filled with it, as I've said much of it mutually exclusive showing a lot of what people say is 'proof' of something is wrong.
You should watch the 60 Minutes story on eyewitness testimony some time. A woman was raped, and as she was raped she was trying to make herself memorize the face of her attacker, to help catch him. Later, at a trial, she looked at a defendant, and she compared him to a second man the defense said was the real rapist, and she testified the defendant was the real rapist, she was sure. Turns out it was the man the defense said, who she looked at but did not feel fear the way she did with the defendant.
The show explains all this - and the case she was right was a lot stronged than the one about the doctors on this issue.
It's frustrating not getting clear answers, but that's not a reason to start accepting inconclusive evidence as more than it is, as you have.
There are a lot bigger mysteries around the wound you haven't even touched on. But until you can drop your idiotic insults, you won't do much but post your own rants.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Oh... Well... If that is in fact what happened then I must be amazed.
For the sake of this issue let's assume the Zapruder film that we've been provided is NOT doctored and otherwise pristine.
My amazement would come from the following:
Governor C was aware of one shot before he was hit, he said. He did not hear the shot that hit him, I think I recall that he said and that would be a normal condition because the sound would follow the impact...
It has been determined that the first shot (firecracker sound) hit Kennedy. IF Connelly heard that shot and was not hit then that issue is in doubt.
He is seen still holding the hat which he could not have been doing - facing forward - had his wrist nerve been severed.
I don't look to the Specter trajectory as being anything but possible IF all the bodies etc. lined up but the shot that was suppose to have caused the throat injury was stated to be an entry wound anyhow... initially. We can't view it (the injury)... for ourselves (Autopsy meaning). The firecracker sound of the first shot seems to have been a low power shot? Could have caused an entry into JFK's back where it did not proceed beyond an inch or so... There is an entry wound in the back which JFK would have had to been all bent over to provide the exit wound in the throat. I don't see that position for that to have occurred.
I find that IF there is an AFTER the fact cover up it was the result of a Presidential Finding because too many folks are involved to have been otherwise.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Too many Md's and others had witnessed a gaping hole in the back of the head which presumably is an exit wound. That is the most powerful evidence in this case. The hole in Kennedy's back indicates a shot had to have come from the rear. Oswald could hardly hit the target during qualifications in the Marines. I think his buddies said he had "Maggie's pants" or like that... heheheheh... Connelly was hit from the rear.. that is the second indication of a rear shot. The fellow under the overpass was hit by curb cement or some such from something... presumably a shot from behind Kennedy. Eyewitnesses see entry hole in windshield and that would be at least one shot from the front.
IF Connelly was hit from the back and the hole in the windshield is from the front we have two shooters regardless of the other issues...
IF Connelly was hit from the back and the hole in the windshield is from the front we have two shooters regardless of the other issues...
Actually the first shot (firecracker sound) missed. It was the second shot that hit Kennedy and Connally.
That's a little hard to follow. Let me just say that the trajectory does line up. The entry wound in the upper back, the exit wound in the throat (yes, it was an exit wound), and then to Connally's back.
I've already dealt with that here. If you go back and read my posts you'll see that the "gaping hole in the back of the head" has been thoroughly debunked.
There wasn't a hole in the windshield. There was a crack.
Or, there was one shooter from the back who fired off three shots. A fragment of the third shell is believed to have hit the windshield and caused the crack. Lead residue was recovered from the inside surface of the windshield.
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
That affidavit describes a head wound like the Warren Commission claimed rather than the HSCA claims you referred to previously. Here's side by side official illustrations for reference sake:
So, which of those two claims of head wound do you believe is correct specifically, or are you simply of the nebulous opinion that it could be either of those two, but not the large hole in the back-right of the head as stated in the many testimonies I referred to? Regardless, I'm not claiming the three men who signed that affidavit were lying, just weak-minded enough to sign an inaccurate affidavit written by God knows who.
Your refusal to acknowledge the fact that a distinction can exist between calls for self-censorship and calls for common sense in matters of national security proved you incapable of rationally discussing this topic, and your slandering Kennedy as having regretted his suggestion that journalists should have the good sense not to publish "covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations" and the like has long been my stopping point with you. That is why I keep referring you back to that wholly unsupported and downright absurd claim of yours, as I can't rightly expect rational discourse from you as long as you refuse to address that issue.
Spending an hour speculating on motives rather than addressing the evidence you've been presented with isn't rational by any stretch. Rather, it provides a textbook example of "how preexisting beliefs can interfere with people’s examination of evidence for state crimes against democracy", just like American Behavioral Scientist suggests.
Last edited:
That affidavit describes a head wound like the Warren Commission claimed rather than the HSCA claims you referred to previously. Here's side by side official illustrations for reference sake:
So, which of those two claims of head wound do you believe is correct specifically, or are you simply of the nebulous opinion that it could be either of those two, but not the large hole in the back-right of the head as stated in the many testimonies I referred to?
The one on the left was not based on autopsy photos and x-rays. It was done entirely by memory. The one on the right was based on autopsy photos and x-rays and is thus a fairly accurate reflection of what those photos and x-rays show. So, I'm going with the one on the right.
LOL! Weakminded??? No, comeon, seriously now. What do you really think?
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
According to who, specifically? According to Dr. Evalea Glanges and Ford Plant manager George Whittaker, Sr.; there was a hole in the windshield caused by a bullet from the front.
Then why did you ask me to address an affidavit which describes a wound like that depicted on the left?
Yeah, I figure the men were simply manipulated into signing an inaccurate affidavit by some means or another. Are you suggesting they were lying?
Last edited:
According to Warren Commission exhibit CE 350. Here is a blow up of it. Where's the hole?
Believe them if you wish. However, just where do you suppose that bullet went? What or who did it hit after passing through the windshield?
I asked you to address an affidavit that affirmed the authenticity of the autopsy photos and x-rays. You choose to label the three reputable pathologists as cowards and liars. That is what you are in effect calling them... "liars".
So, you're now saying that they weren't lying, they were just stupid???? Am I reading you right?
I believe them when they said that the autopsy photos and x-rays that they viewed in 1967 corroborated their visual observations during the autopsy and conclusively supported their medical opinion as set forth in the summary of their autopsy report. I believe that they were being completely honest when they wrote:
It was then and is now our opinion that the two missiles which struck the President causing the neck wound and the head wound were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased.
Our examination of the photographs and x-rays lasted approximately five hours, and at its conclusion the photographs and x-rays were returned to the Archivist of the United States.
[signed by Humes, Boswell, and Finck]
You on the other hand are either essentially calling them liars...weak-minded people who were willing to make a written statement and sign off on it when they knew it to be false..., or you're calling them just plain stupid.Our examination of the photographs and x-rays lasted approximately five hours, and at its conclusion the photographs and x-rays were returned to the Archivist of the United States.
[signed by Humes, Boswell, and Finck]
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
I've seen the picture, but I don't know who took it our if that person has vouched for it, so I can't rightly take it over the words of those who report seeing a hole made by a bullet from the front. As for where the bullet went, it could have went any number of places; perhaps it caused the wound in Kennedy's left temporal lobe which Dr. Marion Thomas Jenkins testified to, and exited out the back right and into a gutter.
I've previously expressed my doubt they wrote the statement, or that they intended it to be inaccurate, but I've no doubt that the statement is inaccurate. From the afidavit:
Again, the affidavit which describes a wound like that depicted by the Warren Commission illustration, while you previously agreed that the alleged the autopsy photos and x-rays match the HSCA illustration:
So again, why are you asking me to address an affidavit which describes a wound like that depicted on the left, while you claim the head wound was like that on the right?
Last edited:
FBI Agent Robert A Frazier took the the photo:
Mr. SPECTER - But then there is on the record now all of the identification of the metallic or bullet fragments found in connection with your examination of the President's car or which were examined by you after having been found by someone else?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. There is one other, it is not a metal particle but it is a residue of metal on the inside of the windshield.
Mr. SPECTER - Aside from that residue of the windshield which I am going to come to now, have we placed on the record a description of all of the bullets or bullet fragments?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - Now---
Mr. DULLES - Just one moment. You mean bullet fragments related to the car or bullet fragments found anywhere?
Mr. SPECTER - Related to the President's automobile.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; you have.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you have occasion then to examine the windshield of the Presidential limousine?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - What did that examination disclose?
Mr. FRAZIER - On the inside surface of the windshield there was a deposit of lead. This deposit was located when you look at the inside surface of the windshield, 13 1/2 inches down from the top, 23 inches from the left-hand side or driver's side of the windshield, and was immediately in front of a small pattern of star-shaped cracks which appeared in the outer layer of the laminated windshield.
Mr. DULLES - What do you mean by the "outer layer of the laminated windshield"?
Mr. FRAZIER - The windshield is composed of two layers with a very thin layer of plastic in between which bonds them together in the form of safety glass. The inside layer of the glass was not broken, but the outside layer immediately on the outside of the lead residue had a very small pattern of cracks and there was a very minute particle of glass missing from the outside surface.
Mr. DULLES - And the outside surface was the surface away from where the occupants were sitting?
Mr. FRAZIER - That is correct; yes.
Mr. DULLES - And the inside surface was the surface nearest the occupants?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - What do those characteristics indicate as to which side of the windshield was struck?
Mr. FRAZIER - It indicates that it could only have been struck on the inside surface. It could not have been struck on the outside surface because of the manner in which the glass broke and further because of the lead residue on the inside surface. The cracks appear in the outer layer of the glass because the glass is bent outward at the time of impact which stretches the outer layer of the glass to the point where these small radial or wagon spoke-wagon wheel spoke-type cracks appear on the outer surface.
Mr. DULLES - So the pressure must have come from the inside and not from the outside against the glass?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; that is correct.
Mr. DULLES - As far as the car is concerned from the back to the front?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. DULLES - Not from outside against the glass--from the front against the glass.
Mr. FRAZIER - That is right.
Mr. SPECTER - Was a comparison made of the lead residues on the inside of the windshield with any of the bullet fragments recovered about which you have heretofore testified?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. They were compared with the bullet fragment found on the front seat, which in turn was compared with Commission 399. The lead was found to be similar in composition. However, that examination in detail was made by a spectrographer, Special Agent John F. Gallagher.
Mr. SPECTER - Was that examination made in the regular course of examining procedures by the FBI?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - And was that information made available to you through the normal conference procedures among FBI examiners?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. He submitted his report to me and I prepared the formal report of the entire examination.
Mr. SPECTER - Are his report and your formal report a part of the permanent record of the FBI then?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - I now show you Commission Exhibit No. 350
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; it is. This Exhibit 350 is a photograph which I took on the 23d of November, showing a view from the front toward the rear of the Presidential limousine and showing the crack in the glass and the lead residue on the inside surface.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you produce at this time the lead residue obtained by you from that inside surface, please? May it please the Commission, I would like to mark this as Commission Exhibit 841 and move for its admission into evidence at this time.
Mr. DULLES - It shall be admitted into evidence.
which has heretofore been identified as a picture of the windshield of the Presidential limousine and I ask you if that is the crack about which you have just testified?
Regarding an earlier point, also note what agent Frazier had to say about the condition of the car:Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. There is one other, it is not a metal particle but it is a residue of metal on the inside of the windshield.
Mr. SPECTER - Aside from that residue of the windshield which I am going to come to now, have we placed on the record a description of all of the bullets or bullet fragments?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - Now---
Mr. DULLES - Just one moment. You mean bullet fragments related to the car or bullet fragments found anywhere?
Mr. SPECTER - Related to the President's automobile.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; you have.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you have occasion then to examine the windshield of the Presidential limousine?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - What did that examination disclose?
Mr. FRAZIER - On the inside surface of the windshield there was a deposit of lead. This deposit was located when you look at the inside surface of the windshield, 13 1/2 inches down from the top, 23 inches from the left-hand side or driver's side of the windshield, and was immediately in front of a small pattern of star-shaped cracks which appeared in the outer layer of the laminated windshield.
Mr. DULLES - What do you mean by the "outer layer of the laminated windshield"?
Mr. FRAZIER - The windshield is composed of two layers with a very thin layer of plastic in between which bonds them together in the form of safety glass. The inside layer of the glass was not broken, but the outside layer immediately on the outside of the lead residue had a very small pattern of cracks and there was a very minute particle of glass missing from the outside surface.
Mr. DULLES - And the outside surface was the surface away from where the occupants were sitting?
Mr. FRAZIER - That is correct; yes.
Mr. DULLES - And the inside surface was the surface nearest the occupants?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - What do those characteristics indicate as to which side of the windshield was struck?
Mr. FRAZIER - It indicates that it could only have been struck on the inside surface. It could not have been struck on the outside surface because of the manner in which the glass broke and further because of the lead residue on the inside surface. The cracks appear in the outer layer of the glass because the glass is bent outward at the time of impact which stretches the outer layer of the glass to the point where these small radial or wagon spoke-wagon wheel spoke-type cracks appear on the outer surface.
Mr. DULLES - So the pressure must have come from the inside and not from the outside against the glass?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; that is correct.
Mr. DULLES - As far as the car is concerned from the back to the front?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. DULLES - Not from outside against the glass--from the front against the glass.
Mr. FRAZIER - That is right.
Mr. SPECTER - Was a comparison made of the lead residues on the inside of the windshield with any of the bullet fragments recovered about which you have heretofore testified?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. They were compared with the bullet fragment found on the front seat, which in turn was compared with Commission 399. The lead was found to be similar in composition. However, that examination in detail was made by a spectrographer, Special Agent John F. Gallagher.
Mr. SPECTER - Was that examination made in the regular course of examining procedures by the FBI?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - And was that information made available to you through the normal conference procedures among FBI examiners?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. He submitted his report to me and I prepared the formal report of the entire examination.
Mr. SPECTER - Are his report and your formal report a part of the permanent record of the FBI then?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - I now show you Commission Exhibit No. 350
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; it is. This Exhibit 350 is a photograph which I took on the 23d of November, showing a view from the front toward the rear of the Presidential limousine and showing the crack in the glass and the lead residue on the inside surface.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you produce at this time the lead residue obtained by you from that inside surface, please? May it please the Commission, I would like to mark this as Commission Exhibit 841 and move for its admission into evidence at this time.
Mr. DULLES - It shall be admitted into evidence.
which has heretofore been identified as a picture of the windshield of the Presidential limousine and I ask you if that is the crack about which you have just testified?
Mr. SPECTER - What was the condition with respect to cleanliness?
Mr. FRAZIER - There were blood and particles of flesh scattered all over the hood, the windshield, in the front seat and all over the rear floor rugs, the jump seats, and over the rear seat, and down both sides :hmm:
Mr. FRAZIER - There were blood and particles of flesh scattered all over the hood, the windshield, in the front seat and all over the rear floor rugs, the jump seats, and over the rear seat, and down both sides :hmm:
Which of the three shots was that from?
Who wrote it then, and why did the three sign it?
Did they write it or not?
If so, why do you doubt the accuracy of their statement. Were they lying?You know, I'm new to this whole JFK conspiracy debate. A lot of the details are new to me. So, I have to admit that on this particular point I was basically attracted to the much better quality drawing. That being the one on the right of course. You have to admit that the one done by Corpsman R.A. Rydberg isn't the best. The pathologists themselves addressed the issue of the conflicting views beforehand when they pointed out that "Due to the fractures of the underlying bone and the elevation of the scalp by manual lifting (done to permit the wound to be photographed) the photographs show the wound to be slightly higher than its actually measured site." I'm not saying that the Rydberg drawing is dead on accurate...it's not. Just as the back wound drawing of his is off, so is his head wound drawing as well. The Dox drawing is probably off some as well. However, one thing is absolutely clear: neither of the two show a gaping hole in the back of Kennedy's head.Again, the affidavit which describes a wound like that depicted by the Warren Commission illustration, while you previously agreed that the alleged the autopsy photos and x-rays match the HSCA illustration:
So again, why are you asking me to address an affidavit which describes a wound like that depicted on the left, while you claim the head wound was like that on the right?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter