Post by Rob Caprio on Sept 11, 2021 13:04:48 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
mindovermystery.com/wp-content/uploads/SingleBullet.jpg
throughtheoswaldwindow.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/SBT.jpg
There are actually several key points that make or break the Warren Commission’s (WC) claim of a lone assassin, but perhaps none shows it more clearly and concisely than the Single Bullet Theory (SBT). The whole need for a SBT came about because the WC was limited to three shots by the assassin due to the time constraints offered by the Zapruder film. Using this film it was concluded that the assassin would have had roughly 5.6 seconds to fire at the motorcade and the cycling time of the Mannlicher-Carcano (M-C) was 2.3 seconds by the most experienced shooters, thus, the maximum number of shots that could be fired were three.
This is what both the FBI and Secret Service (SS) reported in their reports, and continue to report as they even scoff at the SBT as not happening. Initially there were no problems with three shots though as the FBI and SS said the first shot hit JFK in the back, the second hit JBC in the back and the third hit JFK in the head. This was neat and concise and worked for both of these organizations. The fly in the ointment arose when a man by the name of James Tague came along however and said he was wounded on the cheek by debris from a bullet hitting the concrete curb near him a the Triple Underpass area. He was standing there watching the motorcade. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover (JEH) initially did what he did with a lot of evidence in this case -- he IGNORED him! He would not recognize him for many months, but finally this bullet had to be addressed. Which one could have struck President John F. Kennedy (JFK) or Governor John B. Connally (JBC) and still traveled that far and struck the curb near Tague? The WC came to the scary conclusion none could, thus, they had a problem. NOW they had to address 7 wounds in two men with just two bullets!
Enter the SBT scenario. This theory lacks any evidence and proof of its validity as we have seen previously in other posts about the SBT, but it has been the official government stance for 57 years now. This post will look in an overview fashion at the claims of the WC in regards to the SBT.
****************************************
The WC said that the first shot probably missed completely (they would also say maybe the second one missed) and landed near the Triple Underpass and wounded James Tague when the bullet hit the curb and caused a piece of cement to strike him in the cheek. Here is what the WC said about this shot in its Report (WCR). It is not certain for sure, but this is the shot most who support the WC’s version of events agree missed.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0068a.gif
If the first shot missed, the assassin perhaps missed in an effort to fire a hurried shot before the President passed under the oak tree, or possibly he fired as the President passed under the tree and the tree obstructed his view. (WCR, p. 111)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0068a.htm
Quote off
How can anyone have complete certainty in the results of the WC’s investigation when they could not even determine which shot missed for sure? Also, the second explanation given as a reason for the miss is preposterous as why would anyone fire if they had a tree in their line of sight?
They would then say the second shot hit JFK in the base of the neck and then exited JFK's throat. It would then go on to enter JBC’s back on the right side and exit his chest near the right nipple (in the meantime it broke the fifth rib and deflated his right lung) and then went on to smash his radius bone in his right wrist and then exit there and land in his left thigh leaving a superficial wound. This is the SBT shot and was necessary to make up for the missed shot since JFK and JBC had seven wounds between them (save for the head wound in JFK) that needed to be accounted for.
The third shot hit JFK in the head while his head was in a position NOT one witness could be found to say it was in at the time of impact (they claimed his head was completely down to the point of his chin nearly touching his chest). IN fact, there is NOT one picture or film that shows JFK's head in this position at the time of impact that I am aware of. This positioning was depicted in Commission Exhibit (CE) 388.
CE 388: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0504b.jpg
The reason this position was needed was to explain for the bullet that supposedly went from JFK’s base of the neck through to his throat. The issue with this explanation is that the hole seen in the back of JFK did NOT traverse and was traveling downward.
Quote on
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md44/pages/Image4.gif
During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was BELOW the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.
This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with his finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was short distance inasmuch as the end of the end of the opening could be felt with a finger. (Sibert & O’Neill Report, p. 4) (Emphasis added)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0011b.htm
Quote off
This shows the wound in JFK’s back was well below the base of the neck as the WC would claim (this was the invention of Congressman Gerald Ford and WC lawyer Arlen Specter) and was traveling DOWNWARDS so how could it travel up through the throat? As we have seen before multiple witnesses saw a wound in the location described in this report, but no witness who saw JFK would say they saw a wound in the base of the neck. Only Specter and Ford would claim this wound existed.
The WC said all the evidence that showed the wound in JFK's back was at the T-3 thoracic level was wrong (this includes the death certificate, the shirt and jacket worn by JFK, the Sibert & O’Neill Report, the autopsy drawings and numerous witnesses who placed the wound at the T-3 level and to the right of the spine), and said it was actually at the base of the neck (T-1 level) and substantially to the left of where the other evidence showed the wound to be. What evidence did they offer for this change? None as there is NOT one piece of evidence that ever showed the wound was at the base of the neck prior to Ford/Specter claiming it was there.
The WC will claim a single bullet, CE 399, caused all seven wounds to JFK and JBC (including breaking JBC's fifth rib bone and shattering his dense radius bone) and come out virtually pristine. The WC would conduct tests to match the exploits of CE 399 using the Army testing facilities. They would have the experts there fire 100 rounds into sheep chests and bones of human cadavers. The results showed NOT one bullet came out in the same condition as CE 399! They caused them to fire the head of the tests Dr. Joseph Dolce, who was the Army’s most senior expert in wound ballistics, and replaced him with Alfred Olivier and Arthur J. Dziemian who would endorse their theory. Dolce would be excluded from giving any testimony before the WC and he expressed his outrage about this in a letter to his senator when the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was being formed. Here is a portion of it that pertains to this issue.
Quote on
I am disturbed as to why I was not asked by the Warren Commission to give final testimony, even though Doctors Olivier and Dzimean [sic], to whom I serve as their Consultant were called, to give final testimony. I had advised these doctors to conduct certain experiments at Edgewood — which they did — and their findings were not consistent with their testimony.
Dr. Olivier accepts Dr. Gregory’s impression of what was the entrance and what was the exit wounds of Connaley’s [sic] right wrist, in spite of the fact, that his experiments on ten (10) cadaver wrists proved just the opposite — yet, he is willing to accept the conclusions of Gregory, who has no wound ballistic experience. This is extremely important, as he then tries to fit the yaw and the tumbling effects to coincide with Gregory’s interpretations — this is wrong and this is the part of the investigation that has been criticized so bitterly in medical circles. Personally, I strongly believe that the wrist wound in a separate and distinct wound made by one of the shots by Oswald. Also — this bullet is not deformed and yet, the bullets that struck the cadaver wrists are badly deformed, and these same bullets did not go through a neck or through a chest wall. In the experiments on ten cadaver wrists, all the exit wounds are larger than the entrance wounds — this is a known fact — yet, Dr. Olivier chose to accept Gregory’s thoughts of Connaley’s [sic] wound as just the opposite. (Joseph Dolce, M.D.)
Quote off
Dolce believed LHO was the sole assassin so he should NOT be attacked for being a conspiracy believer by the WC defenders. He was in charge of Olivier and Dziemian so his testimony should have been taken, but the WC excluded him because he said things they did not want to hear. Bullets fired into cadaver wrists look nothing like CE 399 as we see here.
www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=62296&relPageId=35
Clearly the WC had a problem so they simply excluded the one person who was going to mention it and instead called his subordinates who would skirt the issue.
The angles don't match-up for a SBT either as JBC is too far to the right for a bullet coming from the angle of the sixth floor SE window of the TSBD. IF a shot came from there and entered JFK's neck area as the WC/Specter claim (of course this is a lie) it would be moving down and to the left of JBC, NOT the right. The WC/Specter handled this with two lies. First of all they said the bullet was forced right when it exited the throat of JFK. Secondly, IF you don't buy that one they had another one ready for you. They used the time behind the Stemmons Freeway sign as a plausible excuse for JBC's position changing. The argument goes like this, "You can't see what is happening when the limousine is behind the sign, JBC could have moved to his left considerably. You just don't know for sure."
Fair enough, but please explain this small detail for me. The lapse time behind the sign was .09 seconds! This means it was a 10th of a tick SHORT of a second! How does one move to his left dramatically and then be back in his original position when the limousine clears the sign in a nine-tenths of a second? Can anyone beyond Flash do this?
A greater issue for WC was the key point that the prosectors were NOT even aware of a wound to the throat in the first place! This is key to the whole SBT! They said there was a tracheotomy done but they make NO mention of a wound in their notes. The doctors at Parkland Hospital (PH) have a very firm opinion of the wound as they saw it, they said it was a wound of ENTRY! They said it was no more than a 3 X 5 mm wound, and as Cyril Wecht has noted this is SMALLER than the ammunition allegedly used! The official version said it was a wound of exit and showed us the huge gaping wound in the President's throat as proof. Since you can't have a back wound lower than a throat wound when the shot is supposed to be coming from above, they moved the back wound to the base of the neck as mentioned above. The problem for the WC, and this story, is that Dr. Charles Carrico of PH noted a small neat wound ABOVE the ragged wound used for the tracheotomy in his testimony.
Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Carrico, with respect to this small wound in the anterior lower third of the neck which you have just described, could you be any more specific in defining the characteristics of that wound?
Dr. CARRICO. This was probably a 4-7 mm wound, almost in the midline, maybe a little to the right of the midline, and below the thyroid cartilage. It was, as I recall, RATHER ROUND and there were NO JAGGED EDGES or stellate lacerations.
He only noticed the ragged wound while putting an endotracheal tube in, but the smaller wound was above it. This shows us there was a wound that was NOT covered by the tracheotomy, so how did the prosectors miss this wound (if they did as claimed)?
The autopsy report is very vague on these two wounds (the back and throat) as they use the word "presumbly" to describe both of them. The throat wound is "presumbly" one of exit and the back wound is "presumbly" one of entrance. Isn't the main purpose of an autopsy is to reach firm conclusions on how someone was killed or died? I would think so, but all we get is very vague wording all the time. Since the prosectors were NOT able to definitively declare the throat wound as one of exit, I think we have to stick with the verdict given to us by the doctors at PH who had way more experience with gunshot wounds than the prosectors did. The small neat wound had to be one of entrance.
If the base of the neck wound and the throat wound were connected as the autopsy prosectors and WC claim, why is there NO picture of the two wounds being probed to show this? Is this NOT a basic, standard procedure at an autopsy? How do we explain Humes' comments that FBI agents O'Neill and Siebert noted about the back wound NOT trasversing (meaning go through and through) when he probed it with his finger? How did we get from there to it moving up six inches and transversing through to the throat (a wound they were NOT even initially aware of)? The throat wound was not even tracked to see if it connected with any other wound and we see this in Commander James Humes’ Assassinations Record Review Board (ARRB) testimony.
Q. Do you know what the standard autopsy protocol is for gunshot wounds and autopsy of the neck?
Humes. Well, no. I haven't seen that in--what you say, standard, I mean, many times if you have a track of a missile, 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—
Humes. I don't recall that there was. There might have been some abortive efforts superficially in the back of the neck, but no. And if there's a standard protocol, I don't know where you'd find it, to tell you the truth.
Why was this basic procedure NOT done? Or was it attempted and realized that there was NO connection at all as claimed?
CE 399 is certainly a magical bullet for it not only caused seven wounds including breaking two major bones without nary a dent (very small indentation at the bottom) but it also appeared as if it was magical since NO one at PH remembers it being the bullet they saw and touched on November 22, 1963. The man who found it, Darrell Tomlinson, said it was NOT the bullet he found. The man he gave it to, O.P. Wright - head of security at PH, said it was NOT the bullet Tomlinson gave him and finally SS agent Johnsen said it was NOT the bullet he sent to D.C. after it was given to him. IF CE 399 was NOT found on the stretcher at PH, and it would appear it was NOT, where did it come from?
Another tricky issue for CE 399 is the FACT there are small spots on JBC's x-rays that show ever so small traces of lead left by the bullet or bullets that hit him, and these add up to more grains than are missing from CE 399. In fact, the WC knew there were more grains in the wrist area of JBC than was missing from entire CE 399, but chose to bury this information for us. How can there be more grains in JBC’s wrist (not to mention JFK and the other areas of JBC) than missing from CE 399 IF it was the bullet that did the damage? All three prosectors would say there were more fragments in JBC’s writs than missing from CE 399. Here is Colonel Pierre Finck’s WC testimony as an example of this.
Mr. SPECTER - And could it have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?
Colonel FINCK - No; for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist.
CE 399 lacked some other major things as well IF it was the bullet used. It lacked blood, tissue, and clothing striations. How could CE399 enter two men, who were clothed by the way, and NOT have a trace of any of this stuff on it? Joseph Nicol gave testimony about finding no fabric marks on CE 399.
Mr. NICOL. Yes, this was the exhibit [399] that was given to me as Q-1 in the original transmission.
Mr. EISENBERG. This being which Commission exhibit?
Mr. NICOL. This being 399. .The only other work I did on it was with respect to an examination of the nose of Q-1 to ascertain whether there was any evidence of ricochet or perhaps contact with fabric and so on. However, although there were some fine striations on there, there was nothing of such a nature that it would, suggest a pattern, like a weave pattern or anything of that nature.
This shows CE 399 could NOT have gone through two fully clothed men as claimed. We would see that there was very little blood or tissue (if any at all) on CE 399 too from FBI Expert Robert Frazier’s WC testimony.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you prepare the bullet in any way for examination? That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was clean and it was not necessary to change it in any way.
Mr. EISENBERG - There was no blood or similar material on the bullet when you received it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Not any which would interfere with the examination, no, sir. Now there may have been slight traces which could have been removed just, in ordinary handling, but it wasn't necessary to actually clean blood or tissue off of the bullet.
Slight traces that were removed in ordinary handling? I thought the police were supposed to PRESERVE the evidence, not destroy it. How could a bullet that went through two men supposedly have so little blood on it (allegedly)?
Obviously one could go on and on in terms of examining this fairy-tale, but I'll stop with this point. The WC claimed JFK and JBC were hit with the same bullet, presumably the second shot, but JBC denied this categorically his whole life. He always said he was hit AFTER JFK was hit, and he was backed-up by his wife Nellie. The key point to showing this is the Zapruder film which clearly shows JBC reacted AFTER JFK had already been hit (we know this because JFK's arms are up and his hands are near his throat), and study has shown it was about 1.6 seconds AFTER JFK's reaction that JBC reacted. The smashing of JBC's wrist severed a major nerve, the Ulner, in his hand that allows the thumb and forefinger to grasp and hold on to something. As JFK is reacting to the shot we see JBC is still holding his Stetson hat, this would be impossible if he too had been hit already by the same bullet.
As we can see, the WC hoisted a fairy-tale on the American public "presumably" to restore confidence in our government, but all they did with this fairy-tale is begin a long and slow process whereby most Americans don't trust their government in the least anymore.
mindovermystery.com/wp-content/uploads/SingleBullet.jpg
throughtheoswaldwindow.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/SBT.jpg
There are actually several key points that make or break the Warren Commission’s (WC) claim of a lone assassin, but perhaps none shows it more clearly and concisely than the Single Bullet Theory (SBT). The whole need for a SBT came about because the WC was limited to three shots by the assassin due to the time constraints offered by the Zapruder film. Using this film it was concluded that the assassin would have had roughly 5.6 seconds to fire at the motorcade and the cycling time of the Mannlicher-Carcano (M-C) was 2.3 seconds by the most experienced shooters, thus, the maximum number of shots that could be fired were three.
This is what both the FBI and Secret Service (SS) reported in their reports, and continue to report as they even scoff at the SBT as not happening. Initially there were no problems with three shots though as the FBI and SS said the first shot hit JFK in the back, the second hit JBC in the back and the third hit JFK in the head. This was neat and concise and worked for both of these organizations. The fly in the ointment arose when a man by the name of James Tague came along however and said he was wounded on the cheek by debris from a bullet hitting the concrete curb near him a the Triple Underpass area. He was standing there watching the motorcade. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover (JEH) initially did what he did with a lot of evidence in this case -- he IGNORED him! He would not recognize him for many months, but finally this bullet had to be addressed. Which one could have struck President John F. Kennedy (JFK) or Governor John B. Connally (JBC) and still traveled that far and struck the curb near Tague? The WC came to the scary conclusion none could, thus, they had a problem. NOW they had to address 7 wounds in two men with just two bullets!
Enter the SBT scenario. This theory lacks any evidence and proof of its validity as we have seen previously in other posts about the SBT, but it has been the official government stance for 57 years now. This post will look in an overview fashion at the claims of the WC in regards to the SBT.
****************************************
The WC said that the first shot probably missed completely (they would also say maybe the second one missed) and landed near the Triple Underpass and wounded James Tague when the bullet hit the curb and caused a piece of cement to strike him in the cheek. Here is what the WC said about this shot in its Report (WCR). It is not certain for sure, but this is the shot most who support the WC’s version of events agree missed.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0068a.gif
If the first shot missed, the assassin perhaps missed in an effort to fire a hurried shot before the President passed under the oak tree, or possibly he fired as the President passed under the tree and the tree obstructed his view. (WCR, p. 111)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0068a.htm
Quote off
How can anyone have complete certainty in the results of the WC’s investigation when they could not even determine which shot missed for sure? Also, the second explanation given as a reason for the miss is preposterous as why would anyone fire if they had a tree in their line of sight?
They would then say the second shot hit JFK in the base of the neck and then exited JFK's throat. It would then go on to enter JBC’s back on the right side and exit his chest near the right nipple (in the meantime it broke the fifth rib and deflated his right lung) and then went on to smash his radius bone in his right wrist and then exit there and land in his left thigh leaving a superficial wound. This is the SBT shot and was necessary to make up for the missed shot since JFK and JBC had seven wounds between them (save for the head wound in JFK) that needed to be accounted for.
The third shot hit JFK in the head while his head was in a position NOT one witness could be found to say it was in at the time of impact (they claimed his head was completely down to the point of his chin nearly touching his chest). IN fact, there is NOT one picture or film that shows JFK's head in this position at the time of impact that I am aware of. This positioning was depicted in Commission Exhibit (CE) 388.
CE 388: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0504b.jpg
The reason this position was needed was to explain for the bullet that supposedly went from JFK’s base of the neck through to his throat. The issue with this explanation is that the hole seen in the back of JFK did NOT traverse and was traveling downward.
Quote on
history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md44/pages/Image4.gif
During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was BELOW the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.
This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with his finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was short distance inasmuch as the end of the end of the opening could be felt with a finger. (Sibert & O’Neill Report, p. 4) (Emphasis added)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0011b.htm
Quote off
This shows the wound in JFK’s back was well below the base of the neck as the WC would claim (this was the invention of Congressman Gerald Ford and WC lawyer Arlen Specter) and was traveling DOWNWARDS so how could it travel up through the throat? As we have seen before multiple witnesses saw a wound in the location described in this report, but no witness who saw JFK would say they saw a wound in the base of the neck. Only Specter and Ford would claim this wound existed.
The WC said all the evidence that showed the wound in JFK's back was at the T-3 thoracic level was wrong (this includes the death certificate, the shirt and jacket worn by JFK, the Sibert & O’Neill Report, the autopsy drawings and numerous witnesses who placed the wound at the T-3 level and to the right of the spine), and said it was actually at the base of the neck (T-1 level) and substantially to the left of where the other evidence showed the wound to be. What evidence did they offer for this change? None as there is NOT one piece of evidence that ever showed the wound was at the base of the neck prior to Ford/Specter claiming it was there.
The WC will claim a single bullet, CE 399, caused all seven wounds to JFK and JBC (including breaking JBC's fifth rib bone and shattering his dense radius bone) and come out virtually pristine. The WC would conduct tests to match the exploits of CE 399 using the Army testing facilities. They would have the experts there fire 100 rounds into sheep chests and bones of human cadavers. The results showed NOT one bullet came out in the same condition as CE 399! They caused them to fire the head of the tests Dr. Joseph Dolce, who was the Army’s most senior expert in wound ballistics, and replaced him with Alfred Olivier and Arthur J. Dziemian who would endorse their theory. Dolce would be excluded from giving any testimony before the WC and he expressed his outrage about this in a letter to his senator when the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was being formed. Here is a portion of it that pertains to this issue.
Quote on
I am disturbed as to why I was not asked by the Warren Commission to give final testimony, even though Doctors Olivier and Dzimean [sic], to whom I serve as their Consultant were called, to give final testimony. I had advised these doctors to conduct certain experiments at Edgewood — which they did — and their findings were not consistent with their testimony.
Dr. Olivier accepts Dr. Gregory’s impression of what was the entrance and what was the exit wounds of Connaley’s [sic] right wrist, in spite of the fact, that his experiments on ten (10) cadaver wrists proved just the opposite — yet, he is willing to accept the conclusions of Gregory, who has no wound ballistic experience. This is extremely important, as he then tries to fit the yaw and the tumbling effects to coincide with Gregory’s interpretations — this is wrong and this is the part of the investigation that has been criticized so bitterly in medical circles. Personally, I strongly believe that the wrist wound in a separate and distinct wound made by one of the shots by Oswald. Also — this bullet is not deformed and yet, the bullets that struck the cadaver wrists are badly deformed, and these same bullets did not go through a neck or through a chest wall. In the experiments on ten cadaver wrists, all the exit wounds are larger than the entrance wounds — this is a known fact — yet, Dr. Olivier chose to accept Gregory’s thoughts of Connaley’s [sic] wound as just the opposite. (Joseph Dolce, M.D.)
Quote off
Dolce believed LHO was the sole assassin so he should NOT be attacked for being a conspiracy believer by the WC defenders. He was in charge of Olivier and Dziemian so his testimony should have been taken, but the WC excluded him because he said things they did not want to hear. Bullets fired into cadaver wrists look nothing like CE 399 as we see here.
www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=62296&relPageId=35
Clearly the WC had a problem so they simply excluded the one person who was going to mention it and instead called his subordinates who would skirt the issue.
The angles don't match-up for a SBT either as JBC is too far to the right for a bullet coming from the angle of the sixth floor SE window of the TSBD. IF a shot came from there and entered JFK's neck area as the WC/Specter claim (of course this is a lie) it would be moving down and to the left of JBC, NOT the right. The WC/Specter handled this with two lies. First of all they said the bullet was forced right when it exited the throat of JFK. Secondly, IF you don't buy that one they had another one ready for you. They used the time behind the Stemmons Freeway sign as a plausible excuse for JBC's position changing. The argument goes like this, "You can't see what is happening when the limousine is behind the sign, JBC could have moved to his left considerably. You just don't know for sure."
Fair enough, but please explain this small detail for me. The lapse time behind the sign was .09 seconds! This means it was a 10th of a tick SHORT of a second! How does one move to his left dramatically and then be back in his original position when the limousine clears the sign in a nine-tenths of a second? Can anyone beyond Flash do this?
A greater issue for WC was the key point that the prosectors were NOT even aware of a wound to the throat in the first place! This is key to the whole SBT! They said there was a tracheotomy done but they make NO mention of a wound in their notes. The doctors at Parkland Hospital (PH) have a very firm opinion of the wound as they saw it, they said it was a wound of ENTRY! They said it was no more than a 3 X 5 mm wound, and as Cyril Wecht has noted this is SMALLER than the ammunition allegedly used! The official version said it was a wound of exit and showed us the huge gaping wound in the President's throat as proof. Since you can't have a back wound lower than a throat wound when the shot is supposed to be coming from above, they moved the back wound to the base of the neck as mentioned above. The problem for the WC, and this story, is that Dr. Charles Carrico of PH noted a small neat wound ABOVE the ragged wound used for the tracheotomy in his testimony.
Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Carrico, with respect to this small wound in the anterior lower third of the neck which you have just described, could you be any more specific in defining the characteristics of that wound?
Dr. CARRICO. This was probably a 4-7 mm wound, almost in the midline, maybe a little to the right of the midline, and below the thyroid cartilage. It was, as I recall, RATHER ROUND and there were NO JAGGED EDGES or stellate lacerations.
He only noticed the ragged wound while putting an endotracheal tube in, but the smaller wound was above it. This shows us there was a wound that was NOT covered by the tracheotomy, so how did the prosectors miss this wound (if they did as claimed)?
The autopsy report is very vague on these two wounds (the back and throat) as they use the word "presumbly" to describe both of them. The throat wound is "presumbly" one of exit and the back wound is "presumbly" one of entrance. Isn't the main purpose of an autopsy is to reach firm conclusions on how someone was killed or died? I would think so, but all we get is very vague wording all the time. Since the prosectors were NOT able to definitively declare the throat wound as one of exit, I think we have to stick with the verdict given to us by the doctors at PH who had way more experience with gunshot wounds than the prosectors did. The small neat wound had to be one of entrance.
If the base of the neck wound and the throat wound were connected as the autopsy prosectors and WC claim, why is there NO picture of the two wounds being probed to show this? Is this NOT a basic, standard procedure at an autopsy? How do we explain Humes' comments that FBI agents O'Neill and Siebert noted about the back wound NOT trasversing (meaning go through and through) when he probed it with his finger? How did we get from there to it moving up six inches and transversing through to the throat (a wound they were NOT even initially aware of)? The throat wound was not even tracked to see if it connected with any other wound and we see this in Commander James Humes’ Assassinations Record Review Board (ARRB) testimony.
Q. Do you know what the standard autopsy protocol is for gunshot wounds and autopsy of the neck?
Humes. Well, no. I haven't seen that in--what you say, standard, I mean, many times if you have a track of a missile, 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—
Humes. I don't recall that there was. There might have been some abortive efforts superficially in the back of the neck, but no. And if there's a standard protocol, I don't know where you'd find it, to tell you the truth.
Why was this basic procedure NOT done? Or was it attempted and realized that there was NO connection at all as claimed?
CE 399 is certainly a magical bullet for it not only caused seven wounds including breaking two major bones without nary a dent (very small indentation at the bottom) but it also appeared as if it was magical since NO one at PH remembers it being the bullet they saw and touched on November 22, 1963. The man who found it, Darrell Tomlinson, said it was NOT the bullet he found. The man he gave it to, O.P. Wright - head of security at PH, said it was NOT the bullet Tomlinson gave him and finally SS agent Johnsen said it was NOT the bullet he sent to D.C. after it was given to him. IF CE 399 was NOT found on the stretcher at PH, and it would appear it was NOT, where did it come from?
Another tricky issue for CE 399 is the FACT there are small spots on JBC's x-rays that show ever so small traces of lead left by the bullet or bullets that hit him, and these add up to more grains than are missing from CE 399. In fact, the WC knew there were more grains in the wrist area of JBC than was missing from entire CE 399, but chose to bury this information for us. How can there be more grains in JBC’s wrist (not to mention JFK and the other areas of JBC) than missing from CE 399 IF it was the bullet that did the damage? All three prosectors would say there were more fragments in JBC’s writs than missing from CE 399. Here is Colonel Pierre Finck’s WC testimony as an example of this.
Mr. SPECTER - And could it have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?
Colonel FINCK - No; for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist.
CE 399 lacked some other major things as well IF it was the bullet used. It lacked blood, tissue, and clothing striations. How could CE399 enter two men, who were clothed by the way, and NOT have a trace of any of this stuff on it? Joseph Nicol gave testimony about finding no fabric marks on CE 399.
Mr. NICOL. Yes, this was the exhibit [399] that was given to me as Q-1 in the original transmission.
Mr. EISENBERG. This being which Commission exhibit?
Mr. NICOL. This being 399. .The only other work I did on it was with respect to an examination of the nose of Q-1 to ascertain whether there was any evidence of ricochet or perhaps contact with fabric and so on. However, although there were some fine striations on there, there was nothing of such a nature that it would, suggest a pattern, like a weave pattern or anything of that nature.
This shows CE 399 could NOT have gone through two fully clothed men as claimed. We would see that there was very little blood or tissue (if any at all) on CE 399 too from FBI Expert Robert Frazier’s WC testimony.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you prepare the bullet in any way for examination? That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was clean and it was not necessary to change it in any way.
Mr. EISENBERG - There was no blood or similar material on the bullet when you received it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Not any which would interfere with the examination, no, sir. Now there may have been slight traces which could have been removed just, in ordinary handling, but it wasn't necessary to actually clean blood or tissue off of the bullet.
Slight traces that were removed in ordinary handling? I thought the police were supposed to PRESERVE the evidence, not destroy it. How could a bullet that went through two men supposedly have so little blood on it (allegedly)?
Obviously one could go on and on in terms of examining this fairy-tale, but I'll stop with this point. The WC claimed JFK and JBC were hit with the same bullet, presumably the second shot, but JBC denied this categorically his whole life. He always said he was hit AFTER JFK was hit, and he was backed-up by his wife Nellie. The key point to showing this is the Zapruder film which clearly shows JBC reacted AFTER JFK had already been hit (we know this because JFK's arms are up and his hands are near his throat), and study has shown it was about 1.6 seconds AFTER JFK's reaction that JBC reacted. The smashing of JBC's wrist severed a major nerve, the Ulner, in his hand that allows the thumb and forefinger to grasp and hold on to something. As JFK is reacting to the shot we see JBC is still holding his Stetson hat, this would be impossible if he too had been hit already by the same bullet.
As we can see, the WC hoisted a fairy-tale on the American public "presumably" to restore confidence in our government, but all they did with this fairy-tale is begin a long and slow process whereby most Americans don't trust their government in the least anymore.