I thought of that when I saw some of the 9/11 "theories." I could just see a 9/11 story with government supplied antimatter micronukes and alien spacecraft firing their beam weapons, along with the Illuminati and CIA all seeing who can blow it up first . . .

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Oh my, I am still wiping tears. Priceless indeed!

Spitfire, excellent posts.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

Thank you. It's good to know that my BA in American History wasn't a total waste of time.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

I think that this thread will probably die now (it already died once); but having come into it late, I want to get my money's worth.

Since turbonium doesn't want to spin a theory, I will. I feel that I have familiarity (though not necessarily expertise) with the CT arguments, by virtue of having been a believer once (hey, we've all got something in our past). So here's my thought experiment (DISCLAIMER: I don't believe any of what follows):

First off, we need a patsy. LHO fills the bill. He's probably a shooter - though not the only one. After all, we need to control his movements, can't very well have him chatting with a secretary while the motorcade passes by, So we might as well put him on the 6th floor. Besides, Connally was clearly hit by a shot from behind. But someone else was back there shooting - more on that later.

One, two.

We need two shooters from the front. Why two? Well, one for the small-caliber non-transiting throat wound, and one for the clearly large-caliber head shot. In fact, I'm going to say that the three tramps were two shooters and a helper. One of these, btw, was the infamous Howard Hunt, identified in one photograph by his uniquely malformed ear (I'm not making this up!).

Why all the firepower? We need Kennedy not merely dead, but really most sincerely dead. If he's alive in the E.R., he will be subjected to surgery, and not only will the true nature of the wounds become known, but bullets will be recovered. Can't have that.

Three, four, five.

We need one in the motorcade - probably the driver. No evasive action please. Six.

We need one at the hospital. Remember, it has been conclusively proved behond a shadow of a doubt that bullet 399 was a plant. Ergo, someone to plant it. Probably another SS agent; a "hospital worker" may not be given access to the stretcher on which it was found.

Why plant the bullet? Good question! There needs to be a Carcano bullet to tie to Oswald. The only reason to plant one is that the real bullet was not from the Carcano, but from some other rifle fired from behind.

Seven so far.

I'm goint to put two conspirators on Air Force One. Why? Well, as Lifton has pointed out, the body must be altered prior to the autopsy. Wounds must be made to look different, bullets and/or fragments must be removed. So, one to guard the door, and one to do the dirty work.

Eight, nine.

While it would be convenient to have the autopsy faked, I don't think that is necessary, provided that sufficient pressure can be brought to bear on the doctor. Add at least one more blackguard to the list. So, ten.

Oh yes, and Jack Ruby, plus at least one member of the Dallas Police, to effect the silencing of the patsy. Eleven, twelve.

We need a mastermind, a Dr. Evil - how about George H. W. Bush? I keep seeing his name in these theories. Might as well use it here. And if not him, then LBJ.

I wonder if Bill Clinton can account for his whereabouts on that day.

Anyone on the Warren Commision? The two most likely would be Earl Warren himself, by virtue of his position of authority; and Arlen Specter, by virtue of the inane softball leading questions he kept asking. But since I'm not convinced the theory actually needs them, I'll leave them out. (I'm trying to imagine a Bob Newhart-style phone conversation recruiting Warren into the conspiracy: "Hello Earl? George here...fine, thank you, how are yours....Great! So listen Earl, I need your help with a job...")

So our count is 13 - a rather appropriate number. While it could easily be greater, I consider this a minimum number. Well, actually, one would be the minimum. But then that's not a conspiracy, is it?

Don't you love that feeling? (English, myself, but still.)

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Not true. z225 shows JFK already beginning to bring his right hand up to his throat in reaction to a bullet that had already been shot. Connally had clearly not yet been hit by a bullet at z225. If you look at the subsequent frames, Connally is shot no earlier than z235, which means over 1/2 second minimum time lapse (z225 - z235). Even that is allowing for JFK being hit later than he actually had to have been, since he is already reacting to a bullet when he finally comes into view past the Stemmons sign.

If you contend Connally was hit before z235, exactly when are you claiming he was hit, and what evidence can you cite to support that view?

One also has to accept that the doctors at Bethesda were too incompetent to probe the back wound beyond a few inches deep, despite repeatedly attempting to do so. One further has to accept that all the Parkland doctors incorrectly identified the throat wound as an entry wound.

When the body was absconded from Parkland, there was ample time to remove the bullets. The body was certainly altered between Parkland and Bethesda, as the Parkland doctors stated that the autopsy photos showed there had been surgical incisions to JFK's head that were not present in Dallas. Making a couple of shallow bullets disappear would not be terribly difficult.

From perfessor's Dictionary of Debating Tactics:

Handwaving, n. A verbal or written construct in which something which is impossible or wildly improbable, is made to seem trivially easy.

Example:

If you contend Connally was hit before z235, exactly when are you claiming he was hit, and what evidence can you cite to support that view?

Connally was hit about z223, one frame before his lapel flips.

See here.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

One also has to accept that the doctors at Bethesda were too incompetent to probe the back wound beyond a few inches deep, despite repeatedly attempting to do so.

What part of "[t]he panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck, and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into the same position it was in when the missile penetrated" do you not understand??

Additionally, you yourself pointed out that it was Dr. Humes's first gunshot-wound autopsy.

One further has to accept that all the Parkland doctors incorrectly identified the throat wound as an entry wound.

What part of "[exit wounds] may be similar to the entrance wound in size if the bullet was fired from a high velocity rifle shot at long distance (eg a military rifle)" do you not understand??

When the body was absconded from Parkland, there was ample time to remove the bullets.

When and where could this have been done without anyone's noticing?

The body was certainly altered between Parkland and Bethesda, as the Parkland doctors stated that the autopsy photos showed there had been surgical incisions to JFK's head that were not present in Dallas.

Uh, turbonium, I really hate to have to break this to you, but an autopsy requires that many new surgical incisions be made in a body, including in the head.

Making a couple of shallow bullets disappear would not be terribly difficult.

Again, where and when was this done? Also, what if Jackie had had the presence of mind to push Kennedy down before the head shot? What happens when the surgeons at Parkland recover two different types of bullets??

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

I minored in English.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

But you said the autopsy doctors should have deferred to the Parkland doctors' opinions about whether it was an entry or an exit wound, and that that was an "inexcusable mistake." Now it develops that in fact they didn't know whether it was or not. Further, Dr. Perry and Dr. Carrico both stated that the autopsy report was completely consistent with their observations at the time.

[edit: how does their stating that they didn't know if it was an entry or exit wound support your claim? It undermines it, because you assert that the throat wound couldn't possibly have been an exit wound, yet they both state that it could have been.]

I said the statements from Carrico and Perry do not refute my assertions. They both originally stated the throat wound appeared to be an entry wound, and they later said during the WC that they didn't know if it was an entry or exit wound. The original statements support my claim, while the later statements still do not refute my claim, which is what you said - that it "...clearly flies in the face of your assertions".


Of course, you had to omit the rest of the quotation, where he states that "that was just a guess," because it completely destroys this part of your case. Also, at that time, Dr. Perry didn't know what type of weapon had been used, or where the shots had come from.

It was a guess based on expert testimony, which is still valid evidence based on qualified opinion. That hardly "destroys" my argument.

It's only ridiculous to you because you postulate a conspiracy--anyone else who thinks it's ridiculous, please speak up.

No, it's ridiculous. It's called leading the witness - ..asking a question during a trial or deposition which puts words in the mouth of the witness or suggests the answer...A proper objection would be that this question assumes facts not in evidence or lacks foundation.

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.a...d=%7C%7C%7C%7C
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_the_witness


All right, turbonium I specifically request that you list every "unfounded assumption" and "made-up fact" from Specter's question to Dr. Perry, and explain why each is so.

First of all, Specter states twice, once before and once after, that he is suggesting a scenario that should be based on "....facts..to assume as being true..."

Mr. SPECTER - Permit me to supply some additional facts, Dr. Perry, which I shall ask you to assume as being true for purposes of having you express an opinion.
Assume first of all that the President was struck by a 6.5 mm. copper-jacketed bullet fired from a gun having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second, with the weapon being approximately 160 to 250 feet from the President, with the bullet striking him at an angle of declination of approximately 45 degrees, striking the President on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula, being 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process, passing through the President's body striking no bones, traversing the neck and sliding between the large muscles in the posterior portion of the President's body through a fascia channel without violating the pleural cavity but bruising the apex of the right pleural cavity, and bruising the most apical portion of the right lung inflicting a hematoma to the right side of the larynx, which you have just described, and striking the trachea causing the injury which you described, and then exiting from the hole that you have described in the midline of the neck.
Now, assuming those facts to be true, would the hole which you observed in the neck of the President be consistent with an exit wound under those circumstances?

As I pointed out - this question assumes facts not in evidence or lacks foundation. The location of the back wound is completely unfounded - the evidence places the wound several inches below the location Specter is citing in his scenario. WC member and former Pres. Ford is on record admitting to illegally tampering with the evidence when he changed the WC's location of the back wound's entry to "..the back of his neck..", from the report originally stating it entered at his uppermost back.
http://i3.tinypic.com/wco2zm.jpg

That fact makes the subsequent details of the scenario more than just unfounded assumptions - they have no basis in fact and are simply false. Even disregarding Ford's admission of altering the evidence, the bullet trajectory would have a downward, right to left trajectory, that could not traverse through the body and exit at the throat as described.

<snip of lame attempt to ridicule Specter's line of questioning>

The line of questioning by Specter was lame. More precisely, they were blatant examples of leading the witnesses.

Let me stop at this point of the debate in order for you to address the evidence that Ford illegally altered the back wound location for the WC report so it would support the SBT. This evidence exists in the National Archives.

Gee--maybe I should become a telephone psychic.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

What part of "[t]he panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck, and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into the same position it was in when the missile penetrated" do you not understand??

They believe it "probably resulted" from being unable to manipulate the body. What do they base that claim on? Possible rigor mortis? If so, that is unfounded, as no mention was made of the body being too stiff to manipulate.

What part of "[exit wounds] may be similar to the entrance wound in size if the bullet was fired from a high velocity rifle shot at long distance (eg a military rifle)" do you not understand??

FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier explained to the WC that the Carcano was a low velocity weapon: "The recoil is nominal with this weapon, because it has a very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet weight....This has a low velocity." 3 H 414
What difference is there between a low velocity weapon and a high velocity weapon that you do not understand?

Uh, turbonium, I really hate to have to break this to you, but an autopsy requires that many new surgical incisions be made in a body, including in the head.

Uh, Spitfire, I really hate to break it to you, but the autopsy photos the Parkland doctors looked at for comparison were of the body before the doctors at Bethesda were said to have begun doing anything to the body. Or do you think they only took photos after making incisions?

The part I bolded (emboldened?) is interesting to me, because the #1 reason I hear to 'prove' Oswald couldn't have fired three shots was the recoil of the rifle was so high it would have been impossible...

Ballistics information that I can find for this round show it to have a velocity of 2296 fps with an energy of 1902 foot pounds. This gives the bullet a mass of about 163 grains. The one site I found that gave loading data said that a good starting wieght of the poweder charge was 37 grains, with 38.5 being a max load. The base rifle wieghed 7.5 pounds, and adding another 8 ounces for the scope gives us 8 pounds even. Based on that the felt recoil would be just under 12 foot pounds at 9.76 fps.

The velocity, and bullet weight would be almost identical to the old west 30-30 Winchester.

The 30 carbine used in Korea had a muzzle velocity of about 2300 fps also, but a much lighter bullet.

For comparison, the 30-06 round fired by the M-1 Garand is 168 grains and has a muzzle velocity of 2800 fps. There are few rifles that exceed 3200 fps with 4200 being very near the cap. (.17 caliber... very small bullet). The difference between "high" and "low" is not as much as many people think.

Velocity will drop as the bullet weight increases. It has to to keep the pressure at a safe level.

A bullet is much more likley to be destroyed or deformed as the velocity increases. A slower moving bullet will not expand as much and will be prone to leave a much smaller hole when exiting. If the bullet did not expand at all, there would be no reason for the hole to be any bigger on one side than the other for a low velocity round. A high velocity round would casue more of what is known as hydrostatic shock damage. This is casued when the shockwave of the bullet passes through the largely liquid environment of tissue. The soft tissue is disrupted, and damaged, but returns to it's original position. It is also called the temporary wound channel. As opposed to the hole made by the solid bullet, which is the permanent wound channel.

The bullet recovered... the magic bullet... did not expand at all. This would be consistent with a lower velocity round nosed bullet. Assuming the bullet went through the upper back and came out the neck, a high velocity round would have probably exploded the neck completely.

__________________
I'm not evil.
An evil person would do the things I think up.

I said the statements from Carrico and Perry do not refute my assertions. They both originally stated the throat wound appeared to be an entry wound, and they later said during the WC that they didn't know if it was an entry or exit wound. The original statements support my claim, while the later statements still do not refute my claim, which is what you said - that it "...clearly flies in the face of your assertions."

Your claim: "[T]he throat wound was also solidly established at Parkland as an entry wound."

Please explain how it can be "solidly established" that it was an entry wound, when it could also have been an exit wound?

It was a guess based on expert testimony, which is still valid evidence based on qualified opinion. That hardly "destroys" my argument.

Yes, it does destroy this part of your argument, for reasons that I mentioned (and you, as usual, have ignored) in an earlier post. You need to prove that the SBT is "virtually impossible." Any unrefuted demonstration that it is possible, even if unlikely, destroys your argument. For example, let's be very generous and assume Dr. Perry had a 75% chance of making an accurate guess. That leaves a 25% chance that he was wrong. This shows that the SBT is possible, even if unlikely, and thus destroys this part of your argument. Further, as has been shown, Dr. Perry's guess was based on highly incomplete information, which increases the chance of his having guessed wrong. Or do you believe that an expert can always guess with near 100% accuracy based on highly incomplete information?

No, it's ridiculous. It's called leading the witness - ..asking a question during a trial or deposition which puts words in the mouth of the witness or suggests the answer...A proper objection would be that this question assumes facts not in evidence or lacks foundation.

I see we can add the law to the long list of subjects on which you are an expert.

First of all, the Warren Commission hearings were not a trial (this is why Mark Lane was not permitted to represent Oswald), and did not follow the rules of criminal procedure. Second, because the hearings were non-adversarial proceedings, there were no "hostile witnesses" or "friendly witnesses"--there were only "witnesses." There would have been nothing improper about Specter's leading a witness had he so chosen.

Second, Specter is not asking leading questions here--the only question he asks is at the end, and that is a yes/no question [edit: that is not leading--merely asking the opinion of an expert witness.]

First of all, Specter states twice, once before and once after, that he is suggesting a scenario that should be based on "....facts..to assume as being true..."

Even in criminal proceedings, there is nothing inherently wrong with asking hypothetical questions as long as the judge allows them, and it is perfectly proper to ask an expert witness to comment on a certain theory of the crime.

Furthermore, the facts and assumptions that you are so quick to complain about are in evidence. If you don't believe me, check the list of Warren Commission exhibits.

As I pointed out - this question assumes facts not in evidence or lacks foundation.

As I pointed out (indirectly), you are not an expert in the law.

"Assumes facts not in evidence" is an objection to a complex (i.e. "loaded") question that would require the witness to admit or deny some non-established fact no matter how he or she answers.

For example:

Prosecutor: "Mr. Smith, have you stopped beating your wife?"

Smith's attorney: "Objection--assumes facts not in evidence. It has not been established that my client ever has beaten his wife."

"Improper foundation" can refer, among other things, to questions that assume the existence of evidence that has not been introduced.

Now, let's look at the list [edit: of facts that you allege are not "in evidence"]:

"Assume first of all that the President was struck by a 6.5 mm. copper-jacketed bullet fired from a gun having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second,"

Mannlicher-Carcano[edit: found on 6th floor of Depository building]--in evidence.
[edit: copper-jacketed 6.5 mm bullet found at Parkland--in evidence.]

"with the weapon being approximately 160 to 250 feet from the President, with the bullet striking him at an angle of declination of approximately 45 degrees,"

map of Dealy Plaza showing locations of Depository building and Presidential limo--in evidence.

"striking the President on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula, being 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process, passing through the President's body striking no bones, traversing the neck and sliding between the large muscles in the posterior portion of the President's body through a fascia channel without violating the pleural cavity but bruising the apex of the right pleural cavity, and bruising the most apical portion of the right lung"

autopsy report--in evidence.

inflicting a hematoma to the right side of the larynx, which you have just described, and striking the trachea causing the injury which you described, and then exiting from the hole that you have described in the midline of the neck."

previous testimony--in evidence.

The location of the back wound is completely unfounded - the evidence places the wound several inches below the location Specter is citing in his scenario.

It's almost word-for-word from Kennedy's autopsy report--in evidence.

[edit: So tell us, turbonium, exactly what "facts not in evidence" are on the list?]

WC member and former Pres. Ford is on record admitting to illegally tampering with the evidence when he changed the WC's location of the back wound's entry to "..the back of his neck..", from the report originally stating it entered at his uppermost back.

Uh, turbonium, exactly how does a member's making revisions to a draft of a commission's final report constitute a crime?? I can't wait to hear this one.

That fact makes the subsequent details of the scenario more than just unfounded assumptions - they have no basis in fact and are simply false.

That "fact" was invented by you, in order to attempt to handwave away the doctors' testimony, and to attempt to muddy the waters.

Even disregarding Ford's admission of altering the evidence...

Sigh--evidently more deliberate obtuseness. Ford did not alter the evidence--he altered the wording of the report.

...the bullet trajectory would have a downward, right to left trajectory, that could not traverse through the body and exit at the throat as described.

What is your evidence for this??

Let me stop at this point of the debate in order for you to address the evidence that Ford illegally altered the back wound location for the WC report so it would support the SBT. This evidence exists in the National Archives.

No. You are merely throwing out a red herring to attempt to change the subject because you can't answer my questions or provide any real evidence for a conspiracy. And in any case, the wording Ford used agrees with the autopsy report.

[edit: I completed this post very late, and initially neglected to move the list of evidence to where I intended to place it in the text. Also, I have corrected several punctuation and formatting errors. I have deleted nothing, and anything added is so indicated.]

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

WC member and former Pres. Ford is on record admitting to illegally tampering with the evidence when he changed the WC's location of the back wound's entry to "..the back of his neck..", from the report originally stating it entered at his uppermost back.

A line in a draft of the Warren Commission Report read:
Ford recommened that it be changed to read:
The version published read:

What happens is that the greatest force occurs by moving the melon material sideways as the bullet passes through. The second thing is that the shock wave fractures out the back, in an expanding cone, doing much damage but imparting little momentum. The third thing is that the melon material pushed to the side follows along the unfractured walls of this expanding cone and is thus redirected out the back, thereby transferring momentum of the melon towards where the gunshot was fired.

This is a fairly well-known phenomena among target shooters. It hold up significant less among the flesh and blood melons than the ones we swiped from Farmer Jones, and in many cases may even work in reverse.

So, either way you call it - it's a crap shoot.

__________________
After careful consideration of NASA's Constellation Program, I believe Directv3 is the only viable means of achieving the objectives of NASA's Vision for Space Exploration.

"...only nuclear power can now halt global warming." - James Lovelock, independent scientist, author, researcher, environmentalist, and an open member of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy

Pfft, nice. They all say the same thing. I mean, where is the "back at a point slightly above the shoulder" if not the neck?

This is what you call tampering, turbonium?

This is what you call tampering, turbonium?

No he called it "illegally tampering".

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

They believe it "probably resulted" from being unable to manipulate the body. What do they base that claim on? Possible rigor mortis? If so, that is unfounded, as no mention was made of the body being too stiff to manipulate.

As usual, you selectively paraphrase--the original doesn't just say "inability to," it says "failure or inability to"--that is, possibly they chose not to do it (because they were in a hurry, or it wasn't considered necessary). You have repeatedly characterized the autopsy as "a complete farce," yet, whenever it suits you, you claim that proper procedures must necessarily have been followed to the letter.

Also as usual, you have difficulty with issues of the nature of proof. If the doctors tried and failed to manipulate Kennedy's body into the proper position (assuming they even knew what the proper position was), why do you assume that Dr. Humes would have explicitly mentioned that in his report?

Here is the testimony of Dr. Finck, whose job during the autopsy was to actually examine the wounds.

As you'll undoubtedly attempt to "spin" Finck's testimony, turbonium, I pose the following specific questions to you.

1) Did Dr. Finck state that muscle contraction of the corpse could result in failure to find a missile track, even if one existed?

2) Did Dr. Finck characterize his probing as "unsuccessful?"

3) Did Dr. Finck state that muscle contraction was the reason that his probing of JFK's back wound was unsuccessful?

4) Did Dr. Finck accept that the throat wound was the exit wound for the back wound?

5) Given your answers to 1-4 above, do you still insist that Dr. Finck established "beyond any doubt" that the back wound was a "shallow entry wound?" If you still so insist, a) what are your reasons for so insisting, and b) why should anyone continue to take you seriously?

FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier explained to the WC that the Carcano was a low velocity weapon: "The recoil is nominal with this weapon, because it has a very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet weight....This has a low velocity." 3 H 414
What difference is there between a low velocity weapon and a high velocity weapon that you do not understand?

This quotation is taken out of context (a standard conspiracist tactic). If you read Frazier's entire testimony, it is clear that he means that the Carcano had a lower muzzle velocity than the other military rifles discussed. However, it still has a much higher muzzle velocity than pistols, submachine guns, or shotguns, which are true low-velocity weapons.

See here for Frazier's complete testimony.

It gets worse for your argument. Effective engagement range with a rifle in most situations is about 200 yards. The first shot that struck Kennedy was at about 1/4 that range. Also, bullets with higher muzzle velocities tend to slow down more quickly, as air friction is proportional to velocity^2. So, a Mannlicher-Carcano shot at 50 yards will have a velocity comparable to that of many higher-powered rounds at 200 yards. See here for some ballistics tables that illustrate this.

[edit: Finally, despite your attempt to muddy the waters by raising spurious legal objections to the question, several of the Parkland doctors who saw the wound testified that it could have been caused by a 6.5x55 mm shot from above and behind exiting through the throat.]


Uh, Spitfire, I really hate to break it to you, but the autopsy photos the Parkland doctors looked at for comparison were of the body before the doctors at Bethesda were said to have begun doing anything to the body. Or do you think they only took photos after making incisions?

No. The doctors were allowed to view all the autopsy photos. See here. Note particularly Dr. Peters' comment about the brain incision.

[edit: hyperlink]
[edit: line break]

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

Please explain how it can be "solidly established" that it was an entry wound, when it could also have been an exit wound?

I said it was solidly established by all those present at Parkland that it was an entry wound. That includes the original statements of Perry and Carrico.

First of all, the Warren Commission hearings were not a trial (this is why Mark Lane was not permitted to represent Oswald), and did not follow the rules of criminal procedure. Second, because the hearings were non-adversarial proceedings, there were no "hostile witnesses" or "friendly witnesses"--there were only "witnesses." There would have been nothing improper about Specter's leading a witness had he so chosen.

Then why did they later flip-flop in that regard?

Under its "investigation" concept, the commission had no trouble at all in dealing with the New York lawyer, Mark Lane, when he came forward early in the inquiry with an offer to "protect" the interests of Lee Oswald - presumably, as a trial advocate would. There could be no intention to appoint a lawyer to act on Oswald's behalf, since, as was pointed out by chief counsel J. Lee Rankin: "The commission is not engaged in determining the guilt of anybody. It is a fact-finding body."

Mr. Rankin made that statement on January 10. A few weeks later, in early February, the Warren Commission took the testimony of Oswald's widow as the first witness, followed by testimony from his mother and brother. Then suddenly, on February 24, the commission did a turnabout and appointed lawyer Walter E. Craig of Phoenix, Arizona, the president of the American Bar Association and a designee for the federal district bench, as an "independent lawyer" to protect Oswald's interests.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/history...Rosenberg.html

Second, Specter is not asking leading questions here--the only question he asks is at the end, and that is a yes/no question [edit: that is not leading--merely asking the opinion of an expert witness.]

Specter proposes a scenario in order to make the SBT look not only plausible, but also most likely to be the truth, and is clearly fishing for a positive reply from the witnesses to achieve that goal.

Even in criminal proceedings, there is nothing inherently wrong with asking hypothetical questions as long as the judge allows them, and it is perfectly proper to ask an expert witness to comment on a certain theory of the crime.

A judge will sometimes allow hypothetical questions if they are based on established facts and evidence. Why did Specter qualify his scenario by stating that it included "...facts...to assume as being true.." if it only contained proven facts? Why the need to assume they were true?

I wrote...

WC member and former Pres. Ford is on record admitting to illegally tampering with the evidence when he changed the WC's location of the back wound's entry to "..the back of his neck..", from the report originally stating it entered at his uppermost back.

Uh, turbonium, exactly how does a member's making revisions to a draft of a commission's final report constitute a crime?? I can't wait to hear this one.

Ford changed the actual location of the wound which had previously been established even by the autopsy diagram (among other sources) as being at the upper part of his back. Not at the nack of his neck. Not a simple "revision", as if it was done for insignificant reasons such as semantics or grammar. "Revising" the wound entry from the back to the neck is altering indisputably critical evidence of the murder investigation.

Ford did not alter the evidence--he altered the wording of the report

When he altered the "wording", he clearly altered the evidence - the wound location is a critical detail of the evidence.

I'll address the rest of the post later..

Ford changed the actual location of the wound which had previously been established even by the autopsy diagram (among other sources) as being at the upper part of his back. Not at the nack of his neck.

The draft did not say "upper part of his back" either. Here are Ford's changes that he recommended:

http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/ford1.gif

Not a simple "revision", as if it was done for insignificant reasons such as semantics or grammar.

The original wording in the draft was, "a point slightly above the shoulder and to the right of the spine." I don't think that wording is clear. Just what is "above the shoulder"? I picture something up on the neck. In fact, I think the final wording, "the base of the back of his neck," places the wound lower than what was in the draft.

When he altered the "wording", he clearly altered the evidence - the wound location is a critical detail of the evidence.

The Report included a copy of the autopsy report. That is the evidence, and that wasn't altered.

As a hypothetical exercise, please propose an alternative to the SBT which is "not only plausible, but likely to be the truth."

Got it. I'll add the names of Ford and Specter to the conspiracy. So our count now stands at 15 minimum, impressively including at least 2 former presidents, and a current U.S. senator.

The original wording in the draft was, "a point slightly above the shoulder and to the right of the spine." I don't think that wording is clear. Just what is "above the shoulder"? I picture something up on the neck. In fact, I think the final wording, "the base of the back of his neck," places the wound lower than what was in the draft.

It originally said "A bullet had entered his back at a point...", so at least it places it at his back, which is of course lower than the neck. I agree that "..above the shoulder..." is not clear in meaning, so that should have been better defined. But the final wording does not say the bullet entered at "the base" of the neck, but that it "traversed" through the base of the neck. The report says the bullet...entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck.

The thorax is, strictly speaking, below the neck - so that part of the description correctly indicates bullet entry at the back. But the description "above the scapula" contradicts the autopsy diagram, the FBI photos of the body and clothing, and the description of the wound location by several witnesses.

...we know that the holes in JFK's clothing place the wound five to six inches below the collar line... Dr. Boswell's "verified" autopsy face sheet diagram shows the wound five to six inches below the neck...the President's death certificate places the wound at the third thoracic vertebra...Dr. John Ebersole, who saw the back wound during the autopsy, said the wound was near the fourth thoracic vertebra...Secret Service agent Clint Hill said the entrance point was "about six inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column" ... Navy medical technicians Jenkins, O'Connor, and Reed have stated that the wound was well below the neck ... autopsy photographer Floyd Riebe recalls that the back wound was probed and that it was well below the neck...Jan Gail Rudnicki says the wound was "several inches down on the back" ... Parkland nurse Diana Bowron, who washed the President's body before it was placed in the casket, has indicated that the back wound was two to three inches BELOW the hole shown in the alleged autopsy photo of JFK's back, and this hole, by the HSCA's own admission, is about two inches lower than where the WC placed the wound (Nurse Bowron, therfore, located the wound five to six inches below the neck, and at the same time challenged the authenticity of the alleged autopsy picture of the President's back...Warren Commission chief counsel J. Lee Rankin said the bullet entered Kennedy's back BELOW the shoulder blade (63:632). Rankin even referred to a picture which he said showed that "the bullet entered below the shoulder blade" (68:78-79).

http://www.jfk-info.com/index2.html

The Report included a copy of the autopsy report. That is the evidence, and that wasn't altered.

The final report includes an altered, incorrect description of the wound location, that contradicts the evidence that is all in agreement on the wound location, listed above.

In other words, what you are claiming is that because a majority of the doctors initially speculated, based on cursory examination in a high-stress situation, and based on extremely incomplete information, that it was an entry wound, therefore it is virtually impossible that it could have actually been an exit wound. You are further claiming that all of the following information is irrelevant:

a) Dr. Perry's later statement that his opinion "was just a guess,"

b) Dr. McClelland's statement that their speculation was uncertain,

c) Dr. Jenkins' statement that he initially thought the wound was an exit wound,

d) Dr. Akin's statement that he initially thought the wound could have been either an entry wound or an exit wound,

e) Several Parkland doctors' later statements, based on much more complete information, that it could have been either an entry or an exit wound,

f) Several Parkland doctors' statements that in the case of a 6.5x55 mm shot from the Depository building, it would have been an exit wound, and

g) the study showing that emergency physicians frequently confuse entry and exit wounds.

Is that an accurate characterization of your views, turbonium?

Affirming the consequent--individuals testifying under oath have a right to counsel even in non-judicial proceedings, because of their 5th Amendment right not to incriminate themselves. Initially the Commission members felt that Oswald didn't need an attorney, because he obviously wouldn't be testifying, and obviously was no longer in any legal jeopardy.

I don't know if you read the entire article, but the author answers your question quite eloquently farther along in the text:

You are missing the point of the question, either intentionally or unintentionally. The question is not intended as a soapbox for Specter to proclaim the SBT, as you're attempting to characterize it. Rather, the question is intended to show that, if the SBT is otherwise accurate, the throat wound would have been consistent with an exit wound. The doctors indicated that the throat wound would represent an exit wound in that case. Therefore, no claims that the doctors' initial speculation, on the basis of highly incomplete information, that the throat wound was an entry wound, can impeach the SBT. Your claim that he was "clearly fishing for a positive reply" would be more plausible if there were more than two alternatives (entry or exit). Also, do you imagine that the doctors were so awed by the Warren Commission that they would give inaccurate professional opinions just because Specter was "fishing" for them? Maybe you'd better reconsider the sawed-off shotgun idea, turbonium, frankly, it has more traction.

Again, I want to head off a potential objection. You will likely attempt, by means of splitting hairs, to claim that one or more of Specter's postulated facts is incorrect or questionable, and that this invalidates the doctors' opinions. In order to invalidate it, you must demonstrate that the fact in question a) is actually incorrect, and b) that the error could have materially affected the doctors' answers. The main point of the question, which is pretty well unassailable, is that, in certain circumstances, a 6.5 mm shot from above and behind could have exited through Kennedy's throat and produced the wound that the Parkland doctors saw.

There is no requirement that such questions be based on "established facts and evidence"--in fact, by definition, a question based only on established facts and evidence would not be hypothetical. A better characterization than "based on established facts and evidence" would be "does not contradict established facts and evidence and represents a reasonable theory of one or more aspects of the case."

For example, suppose a medical examiner were testifying about a murder, and the defense attorney claimed that her client couldn't be the murderer, because the bullet trajectory showed that the murderer must have been shorter. If the judge allowed it, it would be perfectly proper for the prosecutor to ask, "Dr. Quincy, hypothetically, if a man as tall as the defendant had been on his knees, could he have fired the fatal shot?"

In certain cases, the judge might well not allow the question. For example, if four witnesses had previously testified that they had observed the defendant standing at the instant they heard a gunshot, the question might well be disallowed. A question such as "Could the building have caught fire due to being hit by a death ray from a UFO?" would also be disallowed, as this is clearly an unreasonable theory. You of course maintain that the SBT is not a reasonable theory of the Kennedy assassination--however, your claims for this have been shown to be unsubstantiated.

[edit: Another point--the testimony was taken during the evidence collection phase of the Warren Commission's work, before any conclusions had been drawn or the report published. Any conclusions were necessarily tentative at that point; therefore, Specter asked the doctors to assume that they were true.]

One final observation--if, as you claim, Specter's question is so outrageously improper, why didn't the Chief Justice of the United States raise any objection to it??

Joe Durnavich has addressed this point very well--I just want to add two comments. First of all, to reiterate, the report is not evidence. Your accusation of criminal conduct by President Ford is frankly laughable, and serves only to further illustrate your breathtaking ignorance of legal matters. Second, Warren Commission Exhibits 386 and 387 are illustrations of Kennedy's wounds made from descriptions given by Dr. Humes from memory, and without reference to the autopsy photos. They both clearly place the back wound at the base of the neck. So, turbonium, where is your evidence that Ford deliberately misstated the wound location?

[edit: grammar and repeated word]

[edit: missing word and typo]

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

Here, at last, is my detailed response to Turbonium's answers to my first round of questions. Sorry it's taken so long, but we got somewhat sidetracked on the medical evidence of the SBT.

The only person said to actually witness the shooting was Helen Markham, who contradicted herself considerably, and also made false statements during her testimony to the WC. The WC said “Her description and that of other eyewitnesses led to the police broadcast at 1:22 p.m. describing [Tippit’s] slayer as ‘about 30, 5’8”, black hair, slender." But Markham initially said that the gunman was “short, a little on the heavy side,” with “somewhat bushy” hair - proven through a tape recording of the conversation she had with attorney Mark Lane previous to her WC testimony. That also further weakens the official story of how Oswald's description over the police radio, as provided by witnesses to the Tippit shooting, helped the police to quickly track down and arrest Oswald.

This is yet another example of your uncritical repetition of conspiracist "factoids." Helen Markham neither "contradicted herself considerably, " nor did she lie to the Warren Commission. Further, she did not initially describe Oswald as "short, a little on the heavy side," with "somewhat bushy" hair. Also, she was not the only person to witness the shooting, but I will deal with her first.

A bit of background: attorney Mark Lane was retained by Oswald's mother in order to "represent Oswald's interests" (read: attempt to disprove the allegations against Oswald) before the Warren Commission. The Commission declined to allow Lane to do so. However, he had interviewed Mrs. Markham, and in testimony before the Commission, claimed that she had described Tippit's murderer as you stated. He then produced a tape that allegedly supported his claim. From the transcript, the tape, far from proving the allegation, makes clear the fact that Lane was attempting to put words in Mrs. Markham's mouth, and was pressuring her to change her story, based on a purported incorrect initial newspaper report of her description of the murderer. As for "lying," she initially claimed never to have spoken with Lane because, according to her, he misrepresented himself as an official of the Dallas police when he called. Also, she testified that he had called her at work, and she was attempting to end the conversation as quickly as possible, so that she wouldn't get into trouble. This would explain her attempts at mild agreement with Lane's statements--e.g., telling him what she thought he wanted to hear, in order to get rid of him (note that this could have been a sub-conscious reaction). Finally, a detective testified that Mrs. Markham broke down when Oswald was brought into the line-up room.

Again, you either didn't bother to investigate this "factoid," or you simply ignored the true explanation in favor of the standard conspiracist line that Mrs. Markham lied and contradicted herself. You and other conspiracists have no choice but to do this, because no claim of Oswald's innocence can be sustained unless her frankly damning testimony can somehow be explained away.

None of the Commission's other witnesses actually saw the shooting. Many either said "possibly" it was Oswald, or described a very different shooter than what Oswald looked like.

Sorry, Turbonium, but handwaving won't make it so. Here is the relevant portion of the Warren Commission report. If you wish to dispute that this is an accurate description of the eyewitness testimony, please cite specific examples--all the assertions are documented, and the testimony transcripts are available on the same web site. Text versions are available at McAdams' web site.

There were four other witnesses in the immediate vicinity of the shooting. To briefly summarize their testimony:

Benevedes--witnessed the shooting, but felt he was too far away to identify the shooter. He stated that there was only one shooter, and that the shooter emptied his revolver into the bushes.

Scoggins--witnessed the shooting, but did not actually see the shooter pull the trigger, as the shooter was obscured by bushes. However, he had a clear view of the shooter both immediately before and immediately after the murder, and the shooter passed within 12 feet of Scoggins while fleeing. Scoggins picked Oswald out of a line-up the next day--Scoggins stated that he might have seen Oswald's photo in a newspaper, but had not seen him on TV or police photos.

Davis sisters--witnessed shooter empty his gun and cut across their lawn. Both positively identified Oswald in a line-up that evening, and both stated that they had not previously been shown photos of Oswald.

Two other witnesses who saw the shooter running down a nearby street positively identified Oswald in a line-up that evening.

Five additional witnesses were later discovered, after Oswald was dead. Three of them were positive that the man they'd seen running and holding a gun was Oswald. Two of them testified that the man "resembled" Oswald, and one of these was making his identification two months after ths shooting.

None of the witnesses described someone "very different" from Oswald, and, interestingly enough, no one described a short, heavy, bushy-haired shooter.

turbonium, I just have to ask--where in the world did you come up with such a demonstrably ridiculous statement? Did you just make it up because you're in such deep denial about Oswald's guilt? Or are you just mindlessly parroting some really bad conspiracist web site? Your answer will have some bearing on whether I consider it worthwhile to continue to debate you on this topic.

Second, the shell casings - there were two types of ammunition found at the crime scene - but the first reports described casings from an automatic, not a revolver. The first report came from Dallas policeman H. W. Summers, the second report from Sgt. Gerald Hill, one of the first officers to arrive at the crime scene. After examining a shell found nearby, Hill said the casing indicated the suspect had used an automatic pistol.

Here is what Officer Hill had to say about the "automatic" shell casings on the PBS series Frontline in 1993:

Do you have an explanation for this, turbonium, or will you concede that this was simply a mistaken initial report? Also, you didn't address my question about why shell casings from Oswald's revolver were found at the scene.

And a third policeman, Officer J. M. Poe, marked two of the empty shells found at the crime scene with his initials. Poe told the Secret Service he was positive he had marked the shells, and confirmed this during his testimony to the WC.

Third, that he "violently resisted arrest" - the testimony is very unclear and contradictory regarding his arrest at the theater.

Your handwaving is frankly growing tiresome, turbonium. The testimony is reasonably clear, in the circumstances, and the contradictions are minor--basically concerning whether or not Oswald was struck with the butt of a shotgun while being subdued. Further, Oswald admitted during questioning that he was guilty of carrying a concealed weapon and resisting arrest, so there's no need even to delve too deeply into the issue.

Again, you are merely attempting to plant a few seeds of doubt by your characterization.

Oswald only reacted after police started searching him for a weapon - because he believed he would be in trouble for carrying a gun into a theater. But he didn't react prior to that, when he was said to have quietly remained seated. Why would he wait and allow the police to approach him, and even begin frisking, before reacting?

Are you seriously suggesting that Oswald wouldn't have expected the police to search him for a weapon when they arrested him? Further, if he was only concerned about a concealed-weapon charge, why would he tack on resisting arrest, plus the more serious charges of assaulting a police officer and assault with a deadly weapon? With several police officers present, Oswald must have known he would be arrested unless he somehow managed to kill or seriously injure at least some of them. Frankly, your answer is nothing more than a typical conspiracist attempt to make the data fit the theory, rather than make the theory fit the data. Once the large number of inaccurate data points are eliminated or corrected, the data in this case fit a straight line to Oswald as the lone assassin quite well. You and other conspiracists, however, keep attempting to fit a cubic that leads to some sort of big conspiracy, and if you have to alter or add data points, so what?

If he was guilty he would have been afraid they were coming to arrest him for the murder(s) he committed. Why wouldn't he try to avoid the police from even getting near him, let alone make himself accessible to a frisking?

How was he supposed to keep them from getting near him? There were several officers in the theater, and he likely surmised that there were more outside--he'd have had no chance had he tried to make a break for it or pulled out his gun and started shooting. Oswald had no good options at that point, but some were worse than others. His best bet was to play it cool and hope that the police were just checking the theater for anyone who looked suspicious--he might also have hoped that he wouldn't be recognized because he'd ditched his jacket. Once he knew the jig was up, he resisted arrest.

Finally, you have failed to address the issue of why Oswald was illegally carrying a concealed weapon in the first place. While addressing that issue, why did he leave work in the middle of the day?

[continued...]

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

[...continued]

It has always seemed odd to me that Ruby would only fire one shot, and also made sure it was directly into Oswald's belly.

Ruby did not shoot "directly into Oswald's belly"--he shot Oswald in the lower left chest, hitting Oswald's spleen, liver, and right kidney, as can be seen from the following excerpt from the report of Oswald's surgery.


I have my own theory about why a lifelong gangster, with years of experience in "snuffing" people, would not at least attempt to shoot him in the head, or at least in the heart.

Uh, turbonium, what's your evidence that Ruby was a "lifelong ganster," or that he ever killed anyone--let alone that he had "years of experience in 'snuffing' people?" This is simply another conspiracist factoid. Also, as mentioned above, Ruby shot Oswald in the lower chest--he may have been trying to shoot Oswald in the heart, but pulled the trigger a bit too quickly in his haste.

Ruby claimed later that he was "manipulated" into shooting Oswald.

Ruby claimed a great many things, a number of which strongly suggest that he was suffering from serious mental illness.

Taking that as the truth, for argument's sake, he could have been talked into it if he was told to fire just one, non-fatal shot at Oswald (like the abdomen). That would mean he would not be charged with murder, and receive a lesser sentence.

What could "they" possibly gain by telling Ruby to fire a non-fatal shot if the idea is to kill Oswald?? That's absurd. That just leaves "them" with two conspirators in jail, rather than one.

Combined with the fact he was buddies with most of the cops at the station, who could have also helped convince Ruby that he would receive support from them at any subsequent trial.

Again, you insinuate that some Dallas police officers were involved--exactly how big was this conspiracy? This raises another point--why do you believe that any Dallas police officers would go along with the conspiracy? Also, how were they recruited to participate?? What if one who was asked declined to go along?? How would "they" know that that person would not blow the whistle? Or did "they" threaten to kill anyone who didn't cooperate?

Also add in the fact that he may be looked upon as either a hero or at least not a "villain" for shooting "JFK's assassin", may work in his favor as well.

There is some evidence that Ruby did believe that killing Oswald would make him a great hero, and would be acquitted due to a groundswell of public support. However, why would he expect this to help him if he committed attempted murder, but not actual murder?

This is, once again, purely conjecture on my part. Ruby was, despite his emotional erraticism, not acting on a "spur of the moment" fit of anger.

You can't possibly know this--as usual, you are simply proclaiming a conspiracy with no support.

He knew full well that he was going to immediately be arrested by shooting someone right in a police station! He would also know that committing first degree murder would sign his death warrant. I simply don't feel he was deliberately sacrificing his own life for some sort of "justice" for JFK's murder.

You are ignoring the strong evidence of his mental illness, and your own suggestion that he might have expected to get off due to public pressure.

But there is documented evidence that Oswald did in fact work for the CIA. Below are portions of a memo which clearly proves this...

It might clearly prove that if it were authentic, but it's undoubtedly a forgery, as I mentioned before. To recap my previous points from my post #185:

-totally inappropriate security clearance

-awkward phrase "Oswald subject" repeated several times

-last page with signature easily lifted from authentic memo or letter

-states that information about Oswald should be given to Warren Commission "if requested."

-no known provenance

-Secret Service, rather than CIA, document control number

-questioned even by leading JFK conspiracists

Note that the first and third points above, taken together, very strongly point to the document's being a forgery, as any document available with McCone's signature and two generic sentences on the last page would be much more likely to have the lower security clearance of "confidential" rather than "top secret" or "eyes only."

Two additional points:

First, McCone was a career businessman, and not a career CIA officer. I discovered a web page with several memos and letters he wrote around the time of Kennedy's assassination, and they are all very clearly written, with no awkward phrases such as "the Oswald subject" or "the Dallas action."

Second, McCone is purportedly writing to the head of the Secret Service. Kennedy's death was obviously a particularly painful subject for everyone in that agency, including Rowley, and because of that McCone would have been extremely unlikely to have referred to the assassination as "the Dallas action," as if it were some sort of minor CIA operation.

See here for additional problems with the memo. Note that this web site is run by a conspiracist who is convinced that the memo is a fake.

There were other factors that may have played a part in why Oswald needed to be silenced, but this fact alone provides a significant motive for it. Moreover, it also falsifies the WC assertion that Oswald was simply a lone-nut, Communist sympathizer.

As usual, you claim the statement about Oswald to be a "fact," and that it "falsifies" some claim from the Warren Commission report, despite the obvious major problems with the memo. Tell me, turbonium, exactly what about the memo leads you to believe it's genuine, other than your desperately wishing it to be so?

Please provide actual details as to exactly what "evidence" has been proposed that I am supposedly "belittling" rather than refuting. - what exactly are you referring to?

Examples of your belittling the evidence against your position:

"...the cops are sure enough that "the crazed killer" is also "the gate crasher", that within minutes they're swarming into the theater to capture a guy whose only proven "crime" was that he didn't shell out a couple bucks at the door? He must obviously be the assassin, because he's the only person out of the 700,000 people in Dallas that matches the description!! Besides, only a crazed murderer would ever rip off sweet Mrs. Postal at the ticket booth!" (#119)

"So what good did all his talking do anyway? He was lying, obviously - he was JFK's crazy lone nut assassin, a cold blooded cop killer, and a Castro / Commie lover - all the newspapers and Walter Cronkite told us so by the next day. Uncle Wally would never lie to us, so Oswald must be " (#119)

"Not the best security, but really - how could they ever have imagined he'd plug Oswald in the gut? No wonder they stood there in stunned silence, it was such a shocking surprise!" (#119)

"There are so many problems with the "Oswald as lone assassin" theory that I hardly know where to begin. The SBT is utterly ludicrous, and the autopsy was a complete farce." (#163)

(In fairness, I note that you had attempted to offer some evidence against the SBT prior to my post.)

Same request for what you assert has been my "uncritical repetition of long-debunked conspiracist positions"

Examples of your uncritical repetition of long-debunked conspiracist factoids:

"In fact, there were CIA agents arrested in the area but released with no further mention or follow-up investigation." (#119)

"[Ruby was a] long time gangster..." (#119)

"...the WC tests done by FBI firearms and ballistics experts were consistently unable to reproduce the result of a near-pristine bullet after it went through bone (wrist, ribs) similar to that of what hit Connally." (#165)

Even though you forgot to ask, here are some examples of your unsupported proclamations of a conspiracy:

"It's all too convenient to eliminate the pre-ordained 'lone nut assassin' before he had a chance to say anything that might blow the lid off of the cover story...." (#104)

"My view is that Oswald was already designated to be the official "lone shooter" before Nov.22." (#119)

"...the media already had their Oswald press packs, ready to put on TV and in papers..." (#119)

As to an "utter failure" to provide a comprehensive theory about the entire topic, I should remind you that I first posted in this thread only regarding the issue of Ruby shooting Oswald.
Since then, various other points have been raised and discussed. I don't see the point in trying to post an all-encompassing theory in one fell swoop on a topic so immense in depth and breadth of scale. There are also limitations placed on the size of posts, and that serves to prevent one from attempting to turn a few paragraphs into a massive and unwieldy tome.

You're selectively mis-paraphrasing what I wrote. I never said you'd failed to describe a "comprehensive" or an "all-encompassing" theory--I said you'd failed to describe "any sort" of a theory. I now specifically request that you describe, in 2000 words or less (well within post size limit), your theory of what happened. You can just hit the high points if necessary. Or do you believe in a conspiracy so vast and Byzantine that you can't even summarize it in less than five typed, single-spaced pages??

The fact that you entered the thread on a single specific issue is irrelevant--since that time, you have made a large number of additional claims that all require or suggest the existence of a conspiracy. The fact that there is a limit on post sizes is also irrelevant--If a post is too long, you can always break it up, as I've done once or twice. This is just an excuse you're using to avoid discussing your theory, or lack thereof.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

It originally said "A bullet had entered his back at a point...", so at least it places it at his back, which is of course lower than the neck.

In light of your criticism of Ford for allegedly altering the wording of a wound description, it is interesting to see you trim that quote to eliminate the ambiguity inherent in the full sentence.

which is of course lower than the neck.

Not necessarily. Text which uses a term like "back" in this context is not necessarily being medically precise about the location. You cannot infer from it that the author was cognizant of the debates that would later ensue and meant to exclude "the base of the back of the neck."

By the way, the modern (post HSCA) description of the location that you often see is something along the lines of "between or in the vicinity of the C7 and T1 vertebrae", which is the border between "the base of the back of the neck" and "the uppermost back". So, either "back" or "neck" is consistent with the autopsy report.

I agree that "..above the shoulder..." is not clear in meaning, so that should have been better defined. But the final wording does not say the bullet entered at "the base" of the neck,

We are talking about the Warren Commission Report here, specifically, on page 3, in the Summary and Conclusions section. The final wording read:

And the draft for reference:

http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/ford1.gif

but that it "traversed" through the base of the neck.

I find only 8 instances of the word "traversed" in the Warren Commission Report and none of them are in regards to "the base of the neck." If I missed it, please post a citation.

The report says the bullet...entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck.

That is not the Warren Commission Report draft nor Ford's amended version, but the autopsy report itself. Note that Ford did not write the "base of the...neck" phrase; Humes, Boswell, and Finck did. As Spitfire has been trying to point out to you, Ford was correct to change the wording in the WCR draft to that stated in the autopsy report.

The thorax is, strictly speaking, below the neck - so that part of the description correctly indicates bullet entry at the back.

Again, the "base of the neck" and the "on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula" are the same area. That is why the autopsy report uses both phrases.

But the description "above the scapula" contradicts the autopsy diagram,

This would be the case if the doctors were better typists than artists.

the FBI photos of the body and clothing, and the description of the wound location by several witnesses.

I like how the conspiracy theorists complain that the pathologists measured the location of the back wound relative to movable landmarks such as the mastoid and acromion processes, but they have no qualms about locating the wound using clothing and decades-old witness memory.

You cannot fault Ford or Specter for relying on the autopsy protocol.

...we know that the holes in JFK's clothing place the wound five to six inches below the collar line... Dr. Boswell's "verified" autopsy face sheet diagram shows the wound five to six inches below the neck...the President's death certificate places the wound at the third thoracic vertebra...Dr. John Ebersole, who saw the back wound during the autopsy, said the wound was near the fourth thoracic vertebra...

Ebersole said this in 1992, long after Ford made his changes and Specter asked his questions. Anyway, in his testimony to the HSCA, in 1978, Ebersole said, "The autopsy proceeded and at this point I am simply an observer. Dr. Humes in probing the wound of entrance found it to extend perhaps over the apex of the right lung bruising the pleura and appeared to go toward or near the midline of the lower neck." This is consistent with the autopsy report and the Commission Report.

Secret Service agent Clint Hill said the entrance point was "about six inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column"... Navy medical technicians Jenkins, O'Connor, and Reed have stated that the wound was well below the neck ...

Hill's statement was at least given to the Warren Commission. The others seem to be from Livingstone's 1990-ish interviews.

autopsy photographer Floyd Riebe recalls that the back wound was probed and that it was well below the neck...

Riebe also confirmed for the ARRB that the back photos correspond to his observations on November 22nd, 1963. The photos he was staring at as he testified to this don't show the wound well below the neck.

Jan Gail Rudnicki says the wound was "several inches down on the back"

Why don't you include the full quote? Jan doesn't sound so sure of her memory: "Yeah, I remember--at least I think I remember--a small--what appeared to be an entry wound several inches down on the back." This interview was in 1990. Ford and Specter would not have been aware of it in 1964.

... Parkland nurse Diana Bowron, who washed the President's body before it was placed in the casket, has indicated that the back wound was two to three inches BELOW the hole shown in the alleged autopsy photo of JFK's back

Bowron didn't mention this in her Warren Commission testimony, though. She said this many years later.

Warren Commission chief counsel J. Lee Rankin said the bullet entered Kennedy's back BELOW the shoulder blade (63:632).

This is not evidence.

The final report includes an altered, incorrect description of the wound location, that contradicts the evidence that is all in agreement on the wound location, listed above.

No, the final report, as has been shown, has pulled phrases directly from the autopsy report. Your witness statements were from interviews done with conspiracy theorist authors decades after Ford and Specter did their work for the Warren Commission.

In other words, what you are claiming is that because a majority of the doctors initially speculated, based on cursory examination in a high-stress situation, and based on extremely incomplete information, that it was an entry wound, therefore it is virtually impossible that it could have actually been an exit wound.

I am claiming it was solidly established that it was an entry wound.

Dr. Charles Crenshaw, surgeon at Parkland Hospital: "As I was cutting off his trousers around his waist, I was on the right side, there was a small entrance wound, about 4 to 8 millimeters in size. Clearly an entrance wound in the lower third of the neck, below the adam's apple in the throat. Dr. Carrico had put in the tracheotomy tube to try to assist him with breathing."

"I also identified a small opening about the diameter of a pencil at the midline of his throat to be an entry bullet hole. There was no doubt in my mind about that wound. I had seen dozens of them in the emergency room."

(Emphasis mine)

Dr. Peters:...we speculated as to whether he had been shot once or twice because we saw the wound of entry in the throat..

(WC testimony - emphasis mine)

You are further claiming that all of the following information is irrelevant:

a) Dr. Perry's later statement that his opinion "was just a guess,"

His "guess" was what he stated as a qualified expert with experience in gunshot wounds. He also performed the tracheotomy, and therefore had seen the wound prior to any incisions.

b) Dr. McClelland's statement that their speculation was uncertain

From his WC testimony...

The neck wound, when I first arrived, was at this time converted into a tracheotomy incision. The skin incision had been made by Dr. Perry, and he told me—although I did not see that—that he had made the incision through a very small, perhaps less than one quarter inch in diameter wound in the neck.

c) Dr. Jenkins' statement that he initially thought the wound was an exit wound,

Dr. Jenkins said the back wound was "...very shallow...it didn't enter the peritoneal (chest) cavity." So even if he initially thought the throat wound was an exit wound, he knew it wasn't an exit wound of the bullet that entered the back!

d) Dr. Akin's statement that he initially thought the wound could have been either an entry wound or an exit wound

Akin didn't see the wound before the tracheotomy. He also stated he had little experience in identifying exit wounds, but was familiar with entry wounds.

e) Several Parkland doctors' later statements, based on much more complete information, that it could have been either an entry or an exit wound

What statements are you referring to?

f) Several Parkland doctors' statements that in the case of a 6.5x55 mm shot from the Depository building, it would have been an exit wound

"In the case of..." an unfounded hypothesis, you mean? Another point - according to your logic, the throat wound could have been an exit or entry wound, so the back wound could have been either an entry or exit wound.

g) the study showing that emergency physicians frequently confuse entry and exit wounds.

Irrelevant. I can cite a study that shows they rarely confuse entry and exit wounds. The relevant issues are: who was present at Parkland, what their prior experience in gunshot wounds was, and what they described as seeing at the time.

Initially the Commission members felt that Oswald didn't need an attorney, because he obviously wouldn't be testifying, and obviously was no longer in any legal jeopardy.

But they did reverse that decision. Why? The link I provided (which I certainly did read) explains...

However, it soon became apparent that the whole venture was instinct with accusation, try as one might to be neutral, impartial or merely "fact-finding."

The article concludes with an important point...

But the commissioners seem to have found that under American traditions "investigation" by them cannot serve as a satisfactory predicate for pinning guilt on even the most wretched of men. Ruby's trigger finger robbed Oswald of life—and history of justice and truth.

(Emphasis mine)