Comment of the week

John McAdams – December 6

Does the fact that a piece of evidence this important was hid from the public until the 70’s even though Hoover knew about it rather quickly bother you? – Steve Stirlen – December 5

I’m not aware of Hoover knowing about it.

If you disagree, post evidence.

The folks in the Dallas FBI were way more afraid of Hoover than of anybody else (officials, press, etc.).

You can huff and puff all you want about the note, but it’s no evidence of conspiracy at all.

 

74 comments

  1. Steve stirlen says:

    Tom S.

    As the owner of the comment of the week, I am HORRIFIED at my incorrect grammar usage. It should say “was hidden.” I am hopeful that Mrs. Pinkard, my high school English teacher has entered the pearly gates. Otherwise, I shall pay hell.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Ha. Grammar and English were weaknesses of my own in Hi School and College. If not for auto correct many of my post’s would be illegible. Before you came I asked Jeff for an edit icon multiple times.

  2. Ronnie Wayne says:

    What was the entire quote from Steve which McAdams response was based on?

  3. Skeptic says:

    The severely edited version of Hosty’s ASSIGNMENT OSWALD on google.com suggests that my memory is correct that he blamed the destruction of the note on John Mohr, one of Hoover’s barons. More tentatively, my fading facualties recall that the note was destroyed to keep it from Hoover. In any event, there seems no doubt that it was destroyed by Hosty under orders from the local SAC.

    In A G-MAN’S JOURNAL, Chuck Revell, who later served as number two in the FBI, offers that Hosty did not mention note until after the murder. And that he would not–could not–destroy evidence even if ordered. Save that he did so on his own hook! Presumably, this is entirely mistaken.

    • Fearfaxer says:

      From what I remember, in 1975 Hosty said he was ordered to destroy the letter by J. Gordon Shanklin, who was Special Agent In Charge of the Dallas FBI office at the time of the assassination. Shanklin denied this, but Hosty’s claim was apparently backed up by William Sullivan, FBI Assistant Director in 1963.

    • Chuck Revell, who later served as number two in the FBI, offers that Hosty did not mention note until after the murder.

      Without going back and checking sources, I think it was found by a supervisor (Howe?) in Hosty’s workbox, after the JFK assassination and before Oswald was shot. Hosty was then ordered to write a memo about it. This was before Oswald was shot and he was ordered to destroy the note and the memo.

      • “This was before Oswald was shot and he was ordered to destroy the note and the memo.”~McAdams

        And yet here we find again a proven instance of ‘Destruction of Evidence’. Which you obviously find of no concern.
        Why is this Mr McAdams?
        \\][//

      • Steve Stirlen says:

        Mr. McAdams:

        As you have correctly noted, the destruction of the note does not even begin to hint at a conspiracy. On that point, I am in complete agreement with you.

        However, what it DOES show, again, is the absolute and utter incompetence of the FBI on both the national and local level. That is a FACT that is not in question. How can the nation’s “premier” law enforcement agency destroy evidence and hope to have any credibility is beyond me. They were supposed to be fighting crimes, NOT committing them.

        How J. Edgar Hoover kept his job for so long shows anyone with an open mind that Washington was broken as far back as the 30’s and 40’s. The only discernible talent that he had was being smart enough to take pictures of power brokers having sex with someone else besides their spouse. That used to be called BLACKMAIL in this country. I guess it does not when you are talking about the “top cop.”

        He was also smart enough to let the power brokers know his “secret file cabinet” existed and he would use its contents at any time. Quite a resume builder, isn’t it Mr. McAdams?

        He also had the “courage” to keep secret files on such criminals as MLK Jr., who dare to ask this country to live up to its creed, that we are all equal. Taping Dr. King’s phones and photographing his trysts with his lady friends allowed him to focus on fighting the Mob, which was out of control during his entire reign. Oh, wait, Hoover did not really believe the Mob was a factor in this country. However, Dr. King and his dalliances were going to corrupt this poor country of ours.

        So, while you point out the “honorable men” that investigated JFK’s murder, I believe you are full of it, and your refusal to acknowledge that the FBI was seriously flawed under Hoover’s leadership makes you MORE full of it. (insert ad hominem reference here.) Hoover was a criminal. He should have been tried as a criminal. Of course, when a criminal is surrounded by other criminals, then I guess you are left with no one to run this country into the ground.

        You tout the “evidence” the FBI collected as proof that LHO was the sole culprit. I point out a FBI man that says the bullet hole was too low to allow the SBT to happen, and you dismiss him as not knowing what he is talking about. You say that Robert Frazier was the gold standard of experts, but James Hosty was “scared” of Hoover. Which story do you want to run with, John?

        As for me, I will stick with what I have always known. The FBI, under Hoover, was a secret organization with a secret agenda. Sometime, when you have the time, explain to me why Hoover’s name is on the FBI building instead of a prison roll call sheet.

        • You say that Robert Frazier was the gold standard of experts, but James Hosty was “scared” of Hoover. Which story do you want to run with, John?

          All the forensic evidence that Frazier presented to the WC was validated by independent experts working for the HSCA in the 70s.

          All your fussing and fuming is just so much useless verbiage. It’s really not important whom you hate.

          Indeed, the WC had its own independent experts: Joseph Nicol on the ballistics, for example.

          • pat speer says:

            McAdams: “All the forensic evidence that Frazier presented to the WC was validated by independent experts working for the HSCA in the 70s.”

            One of Frazier’s main conclusions, John, was that the scope would have been of great assistance to Oswald, and that Oswald used the scope. The HSCA’s ballistics experts came to a quite different conclusion, and concluded that the use of the scope would have had a negative impact on both speed and accuracy. Their conclusion has stood the test of time. When you consult the numerous books on sniping now available, it becomes clear that using a scope while firing at a relatively close moving object only complicates the task. Frazier almost certainly knew this as well. If so, this suggests that Frazier and the FBI went with the scope because they knew it would sell in Peoria.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Mr. McAdams,

            Oh good! Now I can rest assured on the “facts.” Because as it has been shown over and over again, the Warren Commission was FILLED with honorable men. If only you had said the WC had its OWN investigator, I would not have had to do all of this typing.

            What a load of crap.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Mr. McAdams,

            You can call it “useless verbiage” if you want. Here is some more useless verbiage for you.

            I notice you do not dispute anything I have said about Hoover, Dulles, and Johnson. Oh, you did say that the Gulf of Tonkin was okay because of “scared soldiers.” Oh yeah, “scared soldiers” is a PERFECT excuse for a war, isn’t it John? A perfect ruse to make General Dynamics and Bechtel and Haliburton scads and scads of money.

            You believe men like Hoover and Dulles and Johnson. That is YOUR right as an American. But, for a man of higher ‘education,” I would have thought you have had some type of exposure to ethics on some level. I know I did in college.

            You believe a report that was produced by liars, murderers, and men of deceit. Again, that is your choice. I wish you well with your faith.

            However, know this: as you troll this website spouting “ad hominem” and “factoids” and the Warren Omission report, I shall remind the very same readers that the men who “wrote” that piece of trash were liars, murderers and men of deceit.

          • When you consult the numerous books on sniping now available, it becomes clear that using a scope while firing at a relatively close moving object only complicates the task.

            First, Pat, you are talking about one small part of what Frazier said. Are you admitting that the HSCA confirmed all his other forensic assessments?

            Also: when the WC recreated the shooting tests, they had one shooter do the tests through the iron sights. Apparently, they knew perfectly well that Oswald might not have used the scope.

          • Mr. McAdams,

            You can call it “useless verbiage” if you want. Here is some more useless verbiage for you.

            Yes, it is.

            You hate certain people. You constantly spew your hatred.

            I don’t care whether you hate them or not. Even if they were as evil as you think, that proves nothing about whether they conspired to kill Kennedy.

            So your hatefest is irrelevant here.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            If my hatefest is not needed here, then neither is your lovefest with liars, murderers and men of deceit. It is your love of men like Dulles, Hoover, and LBJ that allows our government to devalue human life around the globe. By God’s grace you were born in a country that affords you and me a lifestyle beyond our wildest dreams. You also believe that gives our “democratically elected leaders” a free pass to do whatever they want, wherever they want. So what if Dulles and Eisenhower decided to remove the leader of Iran and put in the puppet Shah? The millions he killed were not worth the price of gasoline in the US, was it John? And you wonder why the rest of the world hates the US? The rest of the world does not hate America, just American politics. As do I. Just because I have a bigger gun than you does not make it okay for me to fire at those less fortunate than me, because I need MORE of their money.

            Hatefest? Yeah, when it comes to people that slaughter innocent people for their money or natural resources, I would guess you could call me a hater. The fact that you are not outraged by their soullessness is a sad commentary on your conscience. (insert ad hominem reference here)

          • Tom S. says:

            Steve ??? Perhaps you are looking for an internet destination that does not exist? I don’t want to think I am working single handedly to avoid this?
            http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=stats
            A w-e-l-c-o-m-i-n-g aka i-n-v-i-t-i-n-g place to comment about Jfk Facts?

        • I point out a FBI man that says the bullet hole was too low to allow the SBT to happen, and you dismiss him as not knowing what he is talking about.

          Why do you think his testimony has more value than an actual photo of the back?

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg

      • “A bullet entering that low would have collapsed the right lung. But the right lung was not collapsed.”~McAdams

        It has been established that the right lung indeed collapsed.

        The back wound was at T3/T4 junction. The throat wound was a wound of entry. JFK was shot from the front with a frangible bullet that struck him in tangentially in the right temple, and burrowed a trough through the Occipital-Parietal, fracturing the skull like an eggshell.

        This is what the actual forensic evidence proves.
        I have made my citations for all of these points previously and will not be repeating myself again.
        \\][//

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          It is further established that Finck did in fact probe the back wound at T-3 with a malleable metal probe which stopped before the lung even though not reported in the “official” autopsy. In “The Eye Of History”.

        • Photon says:

          No, it was not established. Willy, there was no autopsy evidence of a pneumothorax. There was no x-ray evidence of a pneumothorax. It would have been impossible for JFK to have had a tension pneumothorax. do you know why?
          Your mistakes and false statements keep pilling up.
          You have made no citations demonstrating the effects of frangible bullets on human tissue, certainly not with the rounds available in 1963.

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Yes photon, it is established.

          Yes photon, it is established by Medical Technician Paul O’Connor as well as Finck.
          Pg. 149, In The Eye Of History. “He agrees with Jenkins that he probe placed into the back wound did not penetrate pleura, going in almost four inches. (Under Oath, Kennedy’s chief pathologist, James J. Hume, confirmed this to the ARRB). O’Connor repeatedly states that the exit from this wound would surely have been through the sternum , near the level of the heart. By explicitly stating that the back wound was three inches below the 7th cervical vertebrae he violently disagrees with the Warren Reports single – bullet scenario.”

          Pg. 199. O’Connor. Dr. Finck had come over from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology at Walter Reed Army Hospital. He was a Forensic Pathologist and he strongly objected to Commander (not a forensic pathologist) doing what he did (probing with his finger). He took a sound. … We started with a rigid probe and found that it only went so far (1 1/4″). So we used a malleable probe… went through the intercostal muscles, between the ribs… arched downward, hit hie back of the pleural cavity… and stopped. …it didn’t traverse the body… It did not… come out the other side of the body.”

          • Photon says:

            Finick? You can’t even get the Pathologist’s name correct and I am supposed to accept your viewpoint? You have posted no information that Paul O’Connor even knew how to recognize a pneumothorax. Remember, O’Connor claimed that JFK HAD NO BRAIN in his head at the time of the autopsy, that the body was in a body bag, that the body arrived in a cheap shipping casket-all patently untrue and what should cause any serious researcher to question his credibility. Of course CTers lap it up-despite him being at best a peripheral witness who grossly exaggerated his role in the autopsy.
            Apparently you do not understand that his claim that the probe used to evaluate the wound stopped after it ” hit the back of the pleural cavity ” rules out a pneumothorax caused by the round.

          • I would like to repost this comment from another page if I may. It has to do with the shot to Kennedy’s head, and the evidence that it was a fragmenting bullet traveling at a supersonic velocity having been fired from a high powered rifle:

            “In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances, involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a “lead snowstorm”. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug.”
            ~Dr. Vincent DiMaio

            (Gunshot Wounds, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1999, p. 318,)
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Review of “JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination “: ” This is an excellent book that I recommend without hesitation. . .It dispels the myths and falsehoods that have either grown up or been generated about the weapon, and the wounds. Any one interested in the Kennedy Assassination must have a copy of this book.- Dr VINCENT DIMAIO.” That is right on the cover of the book.
            As usual Willy you fall in the habit of taking a passage out of context, misinterpreting what the author really means and not telling the WHOLE STORY. The author of the source you have posted endorses and praises a book on the forensic aspects of the JFK assassination that contradicts VIRTUALLY EVERTHING that you believe ( and post) regarding the forensic facts of this case.
            This is why I don’t believe many CTers are interested in the facts of the matter, only in advancing an agenda .You can’t find 100% of the truth if you are willing to report only 80% of the data.You can’t find 100% of the truth if you are willing to misrepresent what individuals REALLY believe.

          • Gunshot Wounds
            Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques
            Second Edition
            by
            Vincent J. M. Di Maio, M.D.

            http://www.e-reading.club/bookreader.php/135302/Gunshot_wounds._Practical_aspects_of_firearms,_ballistics,_and_forensic_techniques.pdf

            \\][//

          • This passage explains what I was saying about the bullet hole in Kennedy’s back.
            And why the lower mark is most likely the actual bullet hole.
            [https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/sherry-fiester-on-enemy-of-the-truth/#comment-10830]:

            “The concept of a gunshot wound held by most individuals is that of a
            bullet going through a person like a drill bit through wood, “drilling” a neat
            hole through structures that it passes through. This picture is erroneous. As
            a bullet moves through the body, it crushes and shreds the tissue in its path,
            while at the same time flinging outward (radially) the surrounding tissue
            from the path of the bullet, producing a temporary cavity considerably larger
            than the diameter of the bullet.1,2This temporary cavity, which has a lifetime
            of 5 to 10 msec from initial rapid growth until collapse, undergoes a series
            of gradually smaller pulsations and contractions before it finally disappears,
            leaving the permanent wound track (Figure 3.1). It is the combination of the
            crushed and shredded tissue and the effects of the temporary cavity on tissue
            adjacent to the bullet path (shearing, compression, and stretching) that determines
            the final extent of a wound.
            The location, size, and the shape of the temporary cavity in a body
            depend on the amount of kinetic energy lost by the bullet in its path through
            the tissue, how rapidly the energy is lost, and the elasticity and cohesiveness
            of the tissue.~Di Maio
            (pg. 71/72) — Gunshot Wounds
            Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques
            \\][//

          • “Thus, the bullet may be fired perpendicular to the body but strike a projecting surface, e.g., the breast so that an eccentric abrasion ring wound is produced even though the bullet is going straight into the body. Thus, it is never possible to say with certainty in which direction a bullet has traveled through the body from examination of the entrance wound alone.”~Di Maio
            (pg. 102)

          • Photon says:

            Willy, I’m not sure but I don’t think that JFK had a breast protruding from his neck-nor any other body part. Your previous post has nothing to do with where you claim the back wound was, nor any other point that you have tried to make in regard to the neck wound. In addition, the tissue reactions associated with Dr DiMaio’s description of what happens when a round goes through a human body could very well have been altered by the abnormal tissue associated with JFK’s abnormal neck-although probably only minimally. The fact is that DiMaio rejects your and other CT claims that JFK was hit from the front-and endorses a book that completely refutes your claims. But I suppose that you know more about what DiMaio believes and tries to state-than DiMaio

          • Tangential wounds of the skull have classically been called “gutter wounds.”
            In first-degree gutter wounds only the outer table of the skull is grooved by the bullet, with resultant carrying away of small bone fragments. In second degree wounds pressure waves generated by the bullet fracture the inner table.
            In third-degree wounds the bullet perforates the skull in the center of the tangential wound (Figure 4.40). The outer table is fragmented, and there are depressed fragments of the internal table if not comminution and pulverization of both tables in the center of the wound track. Fragments of bone can be driven into the brain causing death. After third-degree wounds come “superficial perforating wounds.” Here there is production of separate entrance and exit wounds in the bone. (pg. 133)

            In distant wounds, gas plays no part in the production of fractures. These fractures are produced by the pressure built up in the skull as a result of temporary cavity formation. The size of this cavity is proportional to the amount of kinetic energy lost by the bullet in its passage through the head.
            The greater the amount of kinetic energy lost, the larger the cavity; the larger the cavity, the greater the pressure produced on the walls of the cranial chamber and the more likely a fracture is to occur.
            […]
            The fact that the fractures in a skull are due to temporary cavity formation was demonstrated by a series of experiments with skulls.
            When the skulls were empty, the bullets “drilled” neat entrances and exits without any
            fractures. When the skulls were filled with gelatin to simulate the brain, massive secondary skull fractures were produced.
            […]
            On occasion one will be presented with what initially appears to be a perforating gunshot wound of the head but in fact is a penetrating wound. There will be both an entrance and an “exit” wound in the scalp. The autopsy reveals the bullet still to be in the head. What happens is that the bullet, after perforating the brain, strikes the opposite side of the skull with sufficient force to fracture it and propel a piece of bone out through the scalp. The bullet itself had insufficient velocity to exit the head. (pg. 135)
            Di Maio – ©1999 CRC Press LLC
            \\][//

          • My last few posts are quoted directly from Dr. DiMaio,that I think are applicable to the three wounds suffered by JFK.

            I am not ‘interpreting’ anything DiMaio has said, nor claiming that Di Maio has this or that opinion of the JFK assassination.

            I do however want to point out that DiMaio is the author of, ‘Gunshot Wounds -Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques’.

            DiMaio did not write, ‘JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination’, the author of that book is Larry Sturdivan.

            No I want to urge anyone interested in gaining some knowledge in Ballistic Science to read
            Dr Di Miao’s entire book, which is available as a free PDF @:
            http://www.e-reading.club/bookreader.php/135302/Gunshot_wounds._Practical_aspects_of_firearms,_ballistics,_and_forensic_techniques.pdf

            \\][//

          • Appendix B
            The Forensic Autopsy in Gunshot Wound Cases

            The forensic autopsy differs from the hospital autopsy in its objectives and relevance. In addition to determining the cause of death, the forensic pathologist must establish the manner of death (natural, accidental, suicidal, homicidal or undetermined), the identity of the deceased if unknown, and the time of death or injury. The forensic autopsy may involve collection of evidence from the body, which can be used to either incriminate or exonerate an individual charged with a crime; determine that a crime had or had not been committed and provide clues towards a subject if it has.
            Because of the possible medicolegal implications of forensic cases, not only do these determinations have to be made, but the findings or lack of findings must be documented. In many cases the cause and manner of death may be obvious. It is the documentation of the injuries or lack of them as well as the interpretation of how they occurred and the determination or exclusion of other contributory or causative factors that is important.
            The forensic autopsy involves not only the physical examination of the body on the autopsy table, but consideration of other aspects that the general pathologist does not consider as part of the autopsy—the scene, the nature of the weapon (if any), clothing, toxicology, and the results of laboratory tests on evidence.

            >> The forensic autopsy begins at the scene. The pathologist should not perform a forensic autopsy unless they know the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the death. This is a very basic principle that is often violated. <<

            The scene should be documented with diagrams or photographs, preferably both. Individuals should be interviewed, and a written report given to the pathologist before the autopsy. At the scene, the body should be handled as little as possible. (pg. 396)

            Examination of the clothing is as much a part of the autopsy as examination of the wounds. The clothing must be examined for bloodstains and trace evidence as well as to determine whether the wounds in the body correlate with the defects in the clothing. (pg. 397)
            Di Maio – ©1999 CRC Press LLC
            \\][//

  4. JohnR says:

    By Hosty’s own admission, he conspired with Shanklin to destroy the note. I presume McAdams meant something else.

    • I didn’t say who ordered Hosty to destroy the note. But it clearly was Shanklin.

      • Tom S. says:

        John McAdams, are you inferring that the SAC of the Dallas office, a key office in the JFK Assassination investigation, perjured himself in denying knowledge of the Hosty note? Buffish of you, IMO.

        http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=60437&relPageId=125
        “Mr. Parker. That was when you first learned of the note?
        Mr. Howe. That’s right.
        Mr. Parker. You think that would be then on the 24th of
        November or subsequent to that date?
        Mr. Howe. It would be some time around the 24th, I presume,
        or the day after….

        Next page – 571

        ….Mr. Howe. He (Shanklin) hadn’t heard about it.
        Mr. Parker. When did you first actually see the note?
        Mr. Howe. It was some time subsequent to that particular
        event, and there even I can’t say whether it was two or three
        days or possibly a week or 10 days later. I can’t draw out of
        that accumulation that we were going on then, that specific
        time, but it was some time following that, that I was going
        through Hosty’s work box in an effort to find something in one
        of the cases that was asssigned to him because it wasn’t in the
        file and in the course of going down through his work box I
        came across the note, which, of course, I immediately — then
        I recall — associated with the note that Nan Fenner had been
        talking about and which she alleged had been left there, in her
        opinion at least, by Mr. Oswald….

        Pg. 572
        …. Mr. Parker. DId you read the note?
        Mr. Howe. yes, I read the note.
        Mr. Parker. What were its contents?
        Mr. Howe. That I can’t say. I can no longer visualize
        that note. … I also have a vague recollection that there was
        something threatening in the note,..– “stop talking to my wife or else.”….
        Mr. Parker. What action did you take when you discovered the note in the work box….?
        Mr. Howe. Well, my first reaction was, of course, that was something the SAC should
        know about. And I took the note directly to his office.
        Mr. Parker. What was Mr. Shanklin’s response when you brought that note to him?…”

        http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=60437&relPageId=180
        Pg. 625

        Mr. Edwards. ….at the moment in time you for the first time knew that Mr. Shanklin denied all knowledge of the note you had discussed with him, were you amazed?
        Mr. Howe. Yes.

        • John McAdams, are you inferring that the SAC of the Dallas office, a key office in the JFK Assassination investigation, perjured himself in denying knowledge of the Hosty note? Buffish of you, IMO.

          Yes, I am implying Shanklin perjured himself, having inferred that.

          So how does that prove a JFK assassination conspiracy?

          Is your assumption that bureaucrats are either (1.) perfect, or (2.) guilty of killing JFK?

          • Steve stirlen says:

            John,

            News flash. A WHOLE lot more bureaucrats than one FBI agent perjured themselves beforehand, during and after the assassination.

  5. “You can huff and puff all you want about the note, but it’s no evidence of conspiracy at all.”~John McAdams

    In my experience, in McAdams’ world there is no such thing as ‘evidence of conspiracy’. His is a circle-limit epistemology of “there is no conspiracy therefore there can be no evidence of such.’

    I think Tom Scully once used the term “incurious” to characterize McAdam’s mind-set.
    \\][//

    • Explain how the destruction of the note is evidence of a conspiracy to murder Kennedy.

      • Tom S. says:

        Assoc. Prof. McAdams,
        Explain your doubtless and determined defense of the investigative details as reported by the Dallas FBI office to the Warren Commission.

        http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=118882#relPageId=32

        “I have had the opertunity to read a statement furnished by Nannie Lee Fenner who was the receptionist at the Dallas FBI office when I was Assistant Special Agent in Charge.
        The information in Mrs. Fenner’s statement is new and foreign to me.

        At not time prior to the assassination of President Kennedy was I ever shown a note or made aware of such a note. Along the same line I was never aware of not did I hear any rumors or statements that “Oswald had visited the office
        to see Special Agent Hosty”.

        I have also been advised that Special Agent Kenneth How has reported that he found such a note in Special Agent Hosty’s work box and gave it to either myself or the Special Agent in Charge J. Gordon Shanklin. This information is also new and foreign to me. At no time did I ever see, read or know of such a note. Eaven though I have been told there was such a note I still cannot believe such a thing happened.”

        /s/ Kyle G. Clark
        Sworn to and subscribed before me on July 18, 1975 at New York, New York,
        Harold N. Bassett
        Assistant Director – FBI
        J. Allison Conley
        Inspector – FBI

        • Steve Stirlen says:

          Tom S.

          You had better be careful. When you ask John Mc to go beyond the WR, you are risking the ol’ “ad hominem” attack! Outside of Priscilla Johnson and her book, Mr. McAdams does not believe anything outside of what the WR says! However, because Priscilla’s book helps us all feel sorry for poor ol’ Marina, it has been given the “McAdams stamp of lone nut syndrome approval.”

        • Explain your doubtless and determined defense of the investigative details as reported by the Dallas FBI office to the Warren Commission.

          What’s your point? We know about the note. How is it evidence of a conspiracy to kill Kennedy?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            We know about the note? Can you provide us a picture of the note? What CE identification was it given? On what page of the WR can I turn to to reference it in the reading? I need a little help here, John.

    • “Explain how the destruction of the note is evidence of a conspiracy to murder Kennedy.”~McAdams

      The note is circumstantial evidence of a relationship between Hosty (FBI) and Oswald. “Blow up” could very well mean “blowing the cover”, that Oswald was working with Intelligence via the FBI; written in a dramatic metaphor to get Hosty’s attention that he didn’t want Marina molested or even clued in that Oswald and Host had a ‘business arrangement’.

      At the very least we have a crime of destroying evidence, obstruction of justice, and covering up an incident that is surely more bizarre than the excuses given that “Oswald’s a nut”. A pat answer given from everyone in authority sings like a phrase from a Hymnbook.

      McAdams you simply lack imagination and curiosity, not a good profile for crime investigation, and tracking clues.
      \\][//

      • Sandy K. says:

        Comment of the week is a fine addition to this site. A modest proposal: add a Whopper of the week feature. I nominate any and all of Photon’s claims about the late President Kennedy’s “abnormal neck.”

      • The note is circumstantial evidence of a relationship between Hosty (FBI) and Oswald.

        We know what the “relationship” was. Oswald was pissed that Hosty had been out to Irving, trying to find him and talking to Marina.

        First, from Ruth Paine:

        Ruth Paine: I will go on as to the recollections that came later. He told me that he had stopped at the downtown office of the FBI and tried to see the agents and left a note. And my impression of it is that this notice irritated.

        Albert Jenner: Irritating?

        Ruth Paine: Irritated, that he left the note saying what he thought. . . .

        Albert Jenner: You mean he was irritated?

        Ruth Paine: He was irritated and he said, “They are trying to inhibit my activities. . . .”

        And now Marina:

        Marina Oswald: “I told him that they had come, and that they were interested in where he was working and where he lived, and he was, again, upset. He said he would telephone them—I don’t know whether he called or not—or that he would visit them.”

        Then there is the fact that Oswald blew up at Hosty during Oswald’s interrogation.

        According to Dallas Police detective Elmer Boyd, Oswald was “pretty upset with Mr. Hosty,” because Oswald “said [Hosty] had been to the house two or three times talking to his wife, and he didn’t appreciate him coming out there when he wasn’t there.”

        And a final comment from Willy:

        McAdams you simply lack imagination and curiosity, not a good profile for crime investigation, and tracking clues.

        Sure. Who needs evidence when you can just imagine stuff.

        • “Sure. Who needs evidence when you can just imagine stuff.”~McAdams

          Every single item that you have and use in daily life was “imagined”, “designed” and “invented” by imaginative people. One of the main features that distinguishes humans and the rest of animal life on this planet, is the human capacity for imagination.

          If you would rather go foraging for grubs with a stick, you are welcome to take up such a lifestyle.

          This capacity for imagination is applicable to figuring out what happened in a crime as well.

          I find it sad that such elementary concepts need to be explained to those who are supposedly adults here.
          \\][//

        • Gerry Simone says:

          Sure. Who needs evidence when you can just imagine stuff.

          I can say the same thing about the SBT Professor.

          The destruction of that note makes the people wonder or imagine it’s implications in the face of many other questionable circumstances that don’t mesh with the official version.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          To reply to McAdams’ specific question, due to the note’s destruction, we really don’t know what Oswald truly wrote. It might have provided evidence that Oswald was a confidential informant for the FBI.

          If that’s the case, it could support his claim that he was a patsy.

          • we really don’t know what Oswald truly wrote

            But actually, we do know, based on the testimony of Marina and Ruth Paine.

            How irate was the note? Nanny Fenner and Hosty disagree, but they agree it was about Oswald’s anger at Hosty’s trying to find him and talking to Marina and Mrs. Paine.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            But actually, we do know, based on the testimony of Marina and Ruth Paine.

            How irate was the note? Nanny Fenner and Hosty disagree, but they agree it was about Oswald’s anger at Hosty’s trying to find him and talking to Marina and Mrs. Paine.

            Even if he was angry, he could’ve written something else down.

            If it was also a real threat to the FBI office, why wouldn’t Hosty keep that note as evidence?

            Marina and Ruth didn’t write or read that note. Ruth Paine’s character is suspicious.

            http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKpaine.htm

            (I don’t have the passage from Barry Krusch’s book but Michael and Ruth Paine knew more than they let on about that phone call overheard by a telephone operator).

            Marina was afraid to be deported so I don’t put much credence in her WC testimony.

  6. Bob Prudhomme says:

    John McAdams
    December 10, 2015 at 10:29 am
    There is simply no way that the bullet entering at the T3/T4 location could have exited the throat.

    A bullet entering that low would have collapsed the right lung. But the right lung was not collapsed.

    Also, the autopsy said the tip of the right lung was bruised. That’s consistent with an entry at T1, but not with a lower entry.

    *****************************************************************

    John

    Is this perhaps why Dr. Marion T. Jenkins, one of the surgeons at Parkland, stated there were “obvious signs of pneumothorax” visible with JFK?

    Is a tension pneumothorax not synonymous with a collapsed lung?

    • Bob Prudhomme,

      “Tension Pneumothorax” is the medical term for a collapsed lung.
      “Simple Pneumothorax” is the medical term for a partially collapsed lung or lung in the process of collapsing.
      \\][//

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Willy

        I already knew the answer; the question was merely to get under Photon’s skin.

        BTW, the other type of pneumothorax is an “open pneumothorax” or “sucking chest wound”

    • Photon says:

      Dr Jenkins also said that JFK had a wound in the left temple ” above the zygomatic arch”. As his testimony is 100% accurate, perhaps you can enlighten us as to how this wound was not seen by anybody else in the ER. Who is responsible for covering it up? If you believe Jenkins statement about the pneumothorax how can you dismiss this unique perception?
      Dr Prudhomme, perhaps you can tell us how JFK could have had a tension pneumothorax when a key element necessary for a tension pneumo was missing.
      The fact is there was no pneumothorax .It was not confirmed at autopsy and the chest tubes placed prophylactically never entered the pleural space.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Several doctors from Parkland wrote in their medical reports that not only had chest tubes been inserted into JFK, they had also been hooked up to closed drainage.

        Are you saying these doctors were lying?

        Now, do you want to play cat and mouse for the next week or so about the missing “key element” that prevented JFK from having a tension pneumothorax, or do you wish to share this information with us?

        While you’re at it, why not tell us what “abnormal neck condition” JFK had that made the oterwise impossible Single Bullet Fantasy somehow possible?

      • Photon says:

        C’mon Bob-you claim to be an EMT and to have experience dealing with pneumothorax patients. If you really have any experience with that condition it should be easy to explain why it was impossible for JFK to have a tension pneumothorax. On the other hand, if you really don’t have that experience you may never be able to answer it-and that certainly should call your claims of expertise into question.
        On the other hand, have you figured out that JFK had a closed casket wake?

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          You did not answer the question, Photon.

          Were the Parkland doctors who reported chest tubes were inserted AND connected to sealed drainage liars?

          PS

          The only thing that could be missing was that JFK stopped breathing at some point in Trauma Room One. However, positive pressure assisted ventilation was being provided, and that would contribute to a tension pneumothorax even more than just the patient’s own breathing.

          • Photon says:

            No, they weren’t liars. The prosectors found the wounds for the tubes in the anterior chest; they also noted that the was no contiguous penetration of the pleura with either wound, that is the chest tubes were placed subcutaneously and not successfully. Whether they were actually connected to a water seal using the traditional water bottles at the time I do not know, but considering that the resusitation was terminated within about 10 minutes after placement it seems doubtful.
            Bob, you do know that chest tubes are placed prophylactically in major trauma centers in the U.S. for suspected chest trauma even without diagnosing a pneumothorax-right?

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        In the left temple? I need to re read Dr. Jenkins testimony. This supports James Jenkins assertion of an entrance wound in the hairline at the autopsy which supports the exit wound/blowout in the back of the head. Thanks for the lead photon.

        • Photon says:

          No it supports the fact that even one of the two doctors who examined the head most closely WAS MISTAKEN in his perception of the head wound. He later admitted he made a mistake.
          Now, any logical conclusion to take away from that is that ER perceptions of wounds can be erroneous-and PROVEN to be in this aspect of the JFK treatment history.But for many CTers (who base their entire narratives on initial perceptions of wound trajectories by some of the Parkland doctors) that concept is simply unfathomable-ergo they start down a false path before even evaluating the physical evidence.

    • Jenkins may have thought that, but the autopsy x-rays (which the HSCA FPP had) did not show that.

      • “but the autopsy x-rays (which the HSCA FPP had) did not show that.”~McAdams

        Do these X-rays show the lungs full of air then? Do the lungs not collapse upon expiration at any rate?
        \\][//

        • Photon says:

          Willy, according to Bill Roberts what is the usual stage of the cardiac cycle seen at death? If you are going to comment on the post -mortem state of the lungs you should obviously know that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more