Dallas police chief Jesse Curry and his JFK assassination file

Dallas police chief Jesse Curry was riding in the lead car on November 22, 1963. When the shots rang out he grabbed his radio and told his men to check the area that would become known as “the grassy knoll.”

That’s where Curry thought the fatal shot had come from.

Source: Jesse Currys, JFK Assassination File. Limited Collectors Edition

327 comments

  1. Lawrence Schnapf says:

    The first paragraph of page 61 is particularly illuminating. “The physical evidence and eyewitness accounts do not clearly indicate what took place on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository at the time John F. Kennedy was assassinated….The testimony of the people who watched the motorcade was much more confusing than either the press or the Warren commission seemed to indicate.”

    • HIDEJI OKINA says:

      But after the your quote parts,he explaind many eyewitness see
      the TSBD’s shooter(page61-63).
      After the Dr.Perry’s statement(“President was shot from the front”),he explained
      “Immediate speculation began about shots coming from in front of the motorcade from the grassy knoll or triple underpass”(P34).
      Why assassination research community member tell the half-truth?
      Why they are answer(conspiracy is exist)-first?
      Why they are not honest?
      Why research community have disguice and deception tendency?

      • But after the your quote parts,he explaind many eyewitness see
        the TSBD’s shooter(page61-63). — Hideji Okina

        Are you asserting that his explanation meant that ‘many eyewitnesses identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin?’ That is simply not factual, and some could argue it is a half truth.

        ‘Why they are answer(conspiracy is exist)-first?’ — Hidell Okina

        Some who experienced the events of that weekend from within a few hundred miles of the crime scene and with an understanding of the political, social, economic dynamics of the day, factor in that awareness and understand more fully why a conspiracy is the only conclusion to explain the anomalies in the Warren Report and subsequent commissions.

        ‘Why they are not honest?’ — Hideji Okina

        Refuting the official version of the assassination can hardly be labeled as dishonest; in fact one could ask why you would believe the omissions and misrepresentations of the Warren Commission?

        ‘Why research community have disguice and deception tendency?’ — Hidaji Okina

        The disguise (?) and the deception began within minutes of the assassination; the ‘research community’ was certainly not responsible.

        • HIDEJI OKINA says:

          Thanks your comment.

          I not deny Warren comission,HSCA,FBI,CIA,US Governmanet cover-up existance.
          I believed so-called “assassination resercher”s cover-up is exist.
          Official-side cover-up act not justfy resercher-side cover-up act.
          Perhaps you misunderstand my opinion.
          For example,first generation article “Fifty-one
          witness:The Grassy Knoll”(Harold Feldman,1965)
          is not fair.
          This title isn’t fair,Feldman interpret 51 witness testimony separate “Grassy Knoll witness”.
          But not,if you read this bad article,you understand resercher side deception.

          For example,perhaps reserch community member praised first-generation reserchers.
          I think Sylvia Meagher is worst fabricater.
          I read and analyzed her reserch book and index book,oh! I find so many her deception and cover-up.

          Shortly after the assassination,witness’s misapprehension is began.
          Assassination reserch first generation member’s misused their testimony.
          Conspiracy-making start shortly after the assassination.
          Official-side cover-up and disguise,conspiracy-side cover-up and disguise start at the same time.

          • “Official-side cover-up act not justfy resercher-side cover-up act.” — Hideji Okina

            We agree.

            “Official-side cover-up and disguise,conspiracy-side cover-up and disguise start at the same time.” — Hideji Okina

            Assuming you understand that confusion was central to the cover up, we are in agreement. If you argue that all researchers who immediately questioned the official version and began to pursue the facts were part of a disguise, then I vehemently disagree. At the risk of sounding like a devotee, I invoke the courage and intellect of Vince Salandria as but one example of intellect and courage that drove the pursuit of truth.

            Individual researchers and authors may let you down personally, but unless you can identify deliberate intent to deceive – including your accusations against Ms Meagher – I think you and we should be grateful to them all for keeping the investigation alive. It’s our responsibility to sort the wheat from the chaff, and this site goes a long way to that end.

          • Tom S. says:

            Hideji, your recent comment contains too many words. Please reduce the number of words and submit it again.

            http://www.wordcounttool.com

            http://jfkfacts.org/comment-policy/
            Comment Policy
            …. 10. Comments that are more than 500 words long will not be considered.

          • HIDEJI OKINA says:

            At first,sorry my long comment.
            I didn’t notice comment max words.
            Thanks your comment.
            U.S citizens(and resercher’s) double standard about JFK assassination is long time big mystery for me.

            From shortly after the assassination, semi-resercher’s(later their became a first generation resercher) attitude about (JFK and Connally’s)wound(terminal) ballistics is very strange.
            They called official-version wound ballistics is “Magic Bullet”.
            But they didn’t explain their own
            wound ballistics.

            After the knoll’s shooter’s bullet(s)
            hit JFK’s throat and head,bullet go straight? go turn?not penetrate or penetrate?throat wound form proved a shot from knoll?if knoll shot,JFK’s throat wound is’nt minor circle,but little large oval?JFK’s head exit wound position isn’t back of the right head,left side?

            Stil this odd attitude is continue.
            Why?
            Because a conspiracy-version wound ballistics is more strange,odd,impossible than official-version ballistics.
            This thing is resercher’s side most dirty cover-up!

    • Relying on the accuracy of Lawrence Schnapf’s reference: “The physical evidence and eyewitness accounts do not clearly indicate what took place on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository at the time John F. Kennedy was assassinate”

      Jesse Curry in his capacity would have had first hand knowledge of just how compromised the crime scene and the physical evidence was. Certainly Tom Alyea, photographer for WFAA-TV knew. He spoke to the “Tulsa World” in November, 2013:

      “. . . On the sixth floor, Alyea, a photojournalist for WFAA-TV in Dallas, filmed three boxes stacked near an open window, where the sniper apparently had steadied his rifle.

      Capt. Will Fritz picked up three shell casings and held them out for Alyea’s camera to get a better angle.

      They weren’t worried about disturbing evidence.

      “I knew that any fingerprints would be burned off when the shell was fired,” Alyea said. “It didn’t hurt anything to pick them up.” . . .

      His most famous footage shows a detective dusting a rifle for prints just moments after it was found stashed between some boxes.

      A round was still in the gun’s chamber, ready to fire, with two more bullets in the ammunition clip.

      “That always bothered me,” Alyea said . . . “He left a loaded rifle behind, but how did he know he wouldn’t have to shoot his way out?”

      cont.

      • (cont)
        Alyea, however, has little patience for conspiracy theorists who ask whether Lee Harvey Oswald really did it. . . . In what he calls “the sixth-floor scam,” Alyea described a chaotic investigation that didn’t exactly go by the book but was later “cleaned up” in official reports.

        Before taking crime-scene photos, for example, a detective dropped the spent shell casings back on the floor, as if they had never been picked up, Alyea said.

        “Obviously his photos aren’t right,” he said. “He couldn’t put them where they had been because he had never seen them.” . . .

        More significant to him, detectives moved boxes around while searching the building, even disturbing the sniper’s nest itself, Alyea said.

        The boxes were restacked before other journalists got access to the building, but they weren’t put back exactly the same way, he said.

        One box originally was tilted on the windowsill, where Oswald apparently rested the rifle on it to help him aim, Alyea said.

        Later photos show the box sitting upright, suggesting a slightly higher angle for the fatal shot, he said.

        The police also restacked other boxes higher and closer together, making the sniper’s nest almost completely hidden, he said.
        In fact, as the boxes were originally arranged, Oswald could’ve been seen from much of the sixth floor, had anybody else been there, Alyea said.

        None of it seems to cast doubt on the conclusion that Oswald was the lone gunman.

        But Alyea was shocked by police reports — some written by officers who he said weren’t even there — that failed to mention how the crime scene was treated in the early, hectic phase of the case.

        “The lies,” Alyea said. “The lies bother me. The historical record is not accurate.”

        To set the facts straight, Alyea has written a five-chapter manuscript, complete with never-before-seen photos from inside the Book Depository. But it remains unpublished . . . ‘

        http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/jfk-assassination-cameraman-followed-police-as-they-searched-for-sniper/article_9679af95-d45f-502b-b094-2a09bc29c16f.html

        As this issue has been discussed previously on this forum, specifically on another Curry thread, I will preempt John McAdams’ assertion that Alyea might not be reliable by reminding the professor of his own words: “Of course I know you don’t believe witnesses you find inconvenient to be reliable.”

        • Note to Ramon Herrera: Most likely you have already thought of this, but I strongly suggest the photographs of the 6th Floor interior should be studied and verified to determine when precisely they were taken and by whom before incorporating any measurements gleaned from them into a digital presentation; specifically the positioning of the 3 boxes at the window as well as the stacks of boxes that are alleged to prove a sniper was concealed when in fact according to Tom Alyea, photojournalist for the DMN, the boxes were moved from their original position and that a shooter could have been exposed.

  2. sgt_doom says:

    I find it incredibly interesting the Chief Curry was the victim of a home invasion, when three French thugs, posing as journalists, threatened his life if he didn’t tell them everything he knew about the Kennedy assassination (I had previously posted a link here for Ron).

    But what is the mystery, after all: According to declassified files found at the Mary Ferrell Foundation, the CIA contacted OAS assassin, Jean Souetre, some months prior to the assassination – – then an expulsion order was generated to pick up Jean Souetre on the very day of the assassination in the city of Dallas (necessary to requisition a military aircraft for deportation), and Eugene Dinkin, stationed at an NSA site in Metz, France, some months prior to 11/22/63, had intercepted cables between the CIA station in Italy and an OAS site, detailing that the assassination of JFK was planned to take place in Dallas, between 11/22 to 11/28.

    Seems pretty cut-and-dried once all the CIA disinformation stories of anti-Castro Cuban hit squads, or the pro-Castro Cuban hit squads, and The Mob, etc., are ignored and the verifiable facts are examined.

    • But what is the mystery, after all: According to declassified files found at the Mary Ferrell Foundation, the CIA contacted OAS assassin, Jean Souetre, some months prior to the assassination – – then an expulsion order was generated to pick up Jean Souetre on the very day of the assassination in the city of Dallas (necessary to requisition a military aircraft for deportation),

      Factoid alert!

      Willy posted this, and it seems the claim of an expulsion order was merely a claim that Souetre made.

      U.S. officials followed it up, and could not confirm his claims.

      and Eugene Dinkin, stationed at an NSA site in Metz, France, some months prior to 11/22/63, had intercepted cables between the CIA station in Italy and an OAS site, detailing that the assassination of JFK was planned to take place in Dallas, between 11/22 to 11/28.

      Even the Mary Ferrell site is skeptical of this story:

      But the FBI reports on Dinkin, including interviews with him conducted in April 1964, state that the allegations came about from Dinkin’s study of military publications such as Stars and Stripes. Dinkin told the FBI that it was his study of “psychological sets” which revealed to him both an anti-Kennedy bias as well as a military plot in the works. How we could divine the latter, and in particular attach dates and places for the upcoming murder, is hard to imagine.

  3. Alan Dale says:

    Professor Peter Dale Scott in Dealey Plaza with retired Chief Curry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7Zk5LNWY8U

  4. “We don’t have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did.
    Nobody’s yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand.”~Jesse Curry
    retired police chief of Dallas, Texas, “JFK Assassination File.”
    . . . . .
    No Identifiable Fingerprints
    No fingerprints were found on any of the three empty bullet shells found in the TSBD, or on the intact bullet. Nor were any prints found on the rifle clip that held the intact bullet and into which the shells must have been loaded by hand (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, pp.253, 258-60).
    Lieutenant J.C. Day of the Dallas police examined the rifle, and found faint traces of two fingerprints on the metal housing by the trigger. He took photographs and applied a protective layer of cellophane to the area (Warren Report, pp.122f).
    Shortly before midnight on the day of the assassination, the rife was flown to Washington. Sebastian Latona, a fingerprint expert at the FBI laboratory, examined the rifle and the photographs, but concluded that no identifiable prints were present (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, p.21). The rifle was returned by the FBI to the Dallas police on 24 November.

    http://22november1963.org.uk/oswald-fingerprint-palmprint-evidence

    \\][//

    • Nor were any prints found on the rifle clip that held the intact bullet and into which the shells must have been loaded by hand (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, pp.253, 258-60).

      Interesting you failed to mention that Oswald’s palmprint was found on the barrel of the rifle.

      Is the buff claim here that if anybody handles a rifle or clip they will necessarily leave prints?

      That’s at odds with what standard forensics sources say:

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid4.htm

  5. Lawrence Schnapf says:

    @Hideji- the paragraph I quoted is the first of that chapter. The rest of the chapter explains the statement.

  6. Eddy says:

    I have started to consider that the acoustic evidence, and its provenance in determining where shots were fired from, is far far more significant than it is currently thought to be. If the theorising about this evidence is stripped away then what is left is a set of facts, indicating that the Dictabelt recording contains shots, recorded at the relevant time, in Dealey plaza, from which the direction of firing can be estimated.

    There is doubt about the provenance of the acoustic evidence, but as a whole I don’t think its reasonable doubt.

    • HIDEJI OKINA says:

      In acoustic theme,perhaps a most new research and analyze
      book is “The Kennedy half century”‘s paperback version
      (Larry Sabato,2014).
      And most detailed analyzed book is “SEE NO EVIL”(Donald
      Thomas).
      But I think Thomas’s analyze is not good.

      • Eddy says:

        The HSCA rushed the acoustic analysis. It’s conclusion is sketchy and was pretty easy to rubbish. As a second generation reader, I feel I have been duped into ignoring this evidence. Here are some facts :

        1. When firing shots in a reconstruction it was possible to significantly match shots fired from the TBSD to sounds on the Dictabelt.(3 shots matched from the TBSD)

        2. A motorcycle rider with the motorcade was transporting a radio capable of receiving sound from its vicinity, transmitting it and having it recorded on the Dictabelt. The radio would need to be stuck on transmission to do this. The motorcycle rider confirmed his radio frequently stuck on transmission.

        3. Comparing the sounds on the Dictabelt with the motion of the motorcycle produces a significant match to the assassination shots when compared with the film footage available, and the estimated speed and position of the motorcycle.

        4. There were six sounds identified as having the characteristics of shots.

        5. One shot significantly matched a shot coming from the Grassy Knoll, and not from the TBSD. This left two ‘shotlike’ noises that the analysts were unwilling to draw conclusions from.

        6. The famous debunking of the Dictabelt recording by claiming that ‘crosstalk’ on the recording from another radio channel proves the sounds did not occur at the time of the assassination is open to an entirely plausible alternative explanation. This explanation matches the known performance characteristics of the recording devices (They stopped recording if no sound was registered)

        The supposed debunking of the acoustic evidence killed the conclusions of the HSCA, and was a severe brake on JFK research. I would urge those interested to avoid falling for the spin on the acoustic evidence. Consider the almost mind boggling coincidences one has to accept if this recording is not of the assassination.

        • HIDEJI OKINA says:

          HSCA’s final conclusion is typically “Rush to Judgement”.
          Perhaps big bugget pressure is their miscalculated reason.
          At first,why acoustic shooter’s position is not
          original “grassy knoll shooter”‘s position?
          Why this position is so-called “Badgemen”‘s
          position?

        • “Consider the almost mind boggling coincidences one has to accept if this recording is not of the assassination.”~Eddy

          It is beyond coincidence; when were there ever rifle shots fired in Dealey Plaza other than during the assassination?

          The acoustic signature is unique for a rifle shot. Just like the acoustic signature of Paul McCartney’s voice proves he’s not dead.
          \\][//

          • Eddy says:

            Assuming the raw experimental data is still available an updated analysis of the acoustic evidence would be fascinating.
            1. What impact would silenced rifle fire have on results?, one result of silencers is increased directionality.
            2. More focus is needed on further research into the 2 unnattributed ‘shots’.
            3. The HSCA analysis does not assume film alteration. What if scenarios are considered whereby the Zapruder film has been altered, and thus doesn’t match the shots pattern.
            4. Assuming the six sounds are all shots, what was their timing? My expectation would either be two groups of three, or less likely 3 groups of 2.

            I am very frustrated that momentum on the acoustic evidence was lost. I guess all the top researchers struggle with the need for technical skills to provide analysis. The basic facts are enough to make me yearn for more good research.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Eddy

            If a silenced or “suppressed” rifle was fired from behind the limo, the muzzle blast of the rifle would be eliminated, but the sound of the bullet breaking the sound barrier would be heard along the entire path of the bullet. Each time the bullet passed a hard vertical surface, this sonic boom would be reflected off these hard surfaces back toward the origin of the shot.

            Contrary to popular belief, an object travelling at supersonic speeds does not make just one sonic boom as it passes through the sound barrier. It makes a series of continuous and uninterrupted sonic booms all the time it is travelling in excess of the speed of sound.

            Oddly enough, the overall effect is to make it appear, to ear witnesses, that the source of the shot is actually down where the bullet ends up; 180° away from the actual source of the shot.

            This is the very reason for fitting a high powered rifle with a suppressor. It does not totally eliminate the sound, but it completely destroys anyone’s ability to pinpoint the origin of the shot. It might even be able to throw off a Dictabelt recording.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            The one dead giveaway that any shots fired from behind the limo were suppressed is the description, by many witnesses, that the 1st shot sounded like a firecracker. The total lack of startle reactions on the faces of bystanders in the Altgens 6 photo, supposedly taken 5 seconds after the first shot at z190, also points strongly toward a suppressed rifle.

            NO ONE can tell me that the short barrelled 6.5mm Carcano would not have made a deafening muzzle blast that would have made everyone in that photo crap their drawers and be sprawling on the sidewalk. Firecracker, indeed.

          • Eddy says:

            Thanks for the information on suppressed rifles Bob. Can I ask have you looked much at the acoustic evidence? I suspect you might be able to draw information from it. I know you have views on the shots, how do they tally with the acoustic evidence?

        • Photon says:

          Neither one of the principal proponents of the acoustic evidence heard or were even aware of the spoken words ” hold everything secure” which could even be picked up from a cheap copy of the tape published in a magazine.
          How could such ” experts” construct a complete scenario claiming 95% or better accuracy in determining where the shots were fired when they couldn’t even pick up a routine phrase-which indicated that the recording occurred after the assassination?
          The short answer was that they couldn’t-and the entire exercise was flawed from the start with assumptions and claims based on junk science, speculation and erroneous evaluation of the tape in the first place.
          Of course the malposition of the motorcycle cop, the crescendo siren sounds, the bell tones and other issues are more evidence that the recording wasn’t even in Dealey Plaza, but the phrase that went undetected destroys the credibility of the two experts who couldn’t even pick up 3 spoken words.

          • Eddy says:

            Photon : Please could you address the points I have stated as fact. As you will know two sets of ‘experts’ were consulted. They broadly agreed with each others findings. It is frankly rather silly to portray them as incompetent.

          • Eddy says:

            I find Jef Morley has leaned unwisely on the side of those who rubbish the Dictabelt evidence.

            “In my subjective view, Garwin and co. have posed a big problem for Thomas but not so big as to exclude a gun shot from the grassy knoll beyond the limits of plausible conjecture.” Jefferson Morley, The Man Who Did Not Talk (November, 2007)

            I find his ‘subjective’ view amazing. The other ‘crosstalk’ instances on the recordings are not in synch with the alleged motorcycle recording, why does Jeff think it went into synch for the ‘hold everything secure’ recording? . Jeff may not have been aware at the time of his article, but the ‘hold everything secure’ channel was voice activated. No voice, no recording , potentialy giving the impression it occurred at the same time as the assassination shots when ‘crossed’ onto the motorbike channel.
            Bad call Jeff Morley.

  7. Bill Binnie says:

    I think the evidence that Mr Zapruder slightly flinches at z frames 190,227 and 318 is also extremely important- He would of course be reacting to the shots taken from the concealed and open area to his right, which is far closer to him than the elevated windows and enclosed spaces to his left on Houston Street. The timing is telling and correlates to the film- First shot is considered and taken, striking the throat- Second shot is rushed in 2 seconds and misses- Third shot is well considered over 5 seconds time and is fatal-

    • Bill Binnie says:

      PS- The rushed second shot from the Front Shooter at z 227 hits the Limousine right windshield molding and is deflected from hitting its target- 3 Separate shots are taken from behind in rough correlation with the shots from the front- They hit the Presidents Back, the Governors back and the curb- Since there are 3 shots taken from opposite ends of the Plaza at roughly the same times, this is why most witnesses only hear 2 or 3 shots, while a few who were centrally located heard a fusillade-

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        The damage to the windshield moulding was on the inside of the limo. How could a shot from the front have caused that?

      • HIDEJI OKINA says:

        If front shooter’s bullet hit windshield,then big sound outbreak.
        I see bombproof glass shot test video,very big sound.
        Why limousine crews didn’t react?
        This absurd theory from James Fetzer’s editd books(his edited books are third-rate)?

  8. Lawrence Schnapf says:

    I believe the Wecht Institute will be covering this evidence in a September program.

  9. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Leslie Sharp said:

    “His most famous footage shows a detective dusting a rifle for prints just moments after it was found stashed between some boxes.

    A round was still in the gun’s chamber, ready to fire, with two more bullets in the ammunition clip.

    “That always bothered me,” Alyea said . . . “He left a loaded rifle behind, but how did he know he wouldn’t have to shoot his way out?” ”

    As far as I know, Leslie, Will Fritz opened the bolt of the rifle and extracted one live cartridge long before it was dusted for fingerprints. As for two more live cartridges still being in the clip in the magazine, there is no evidence to support there being anything but an empty clip in the magazine. In fact, the empty clip not falling out of the magazine, as soon as the last cartridge was chambered, has long been a point of contention in the JFK research community.

    • Bob, for clarification and maybe you realized it, but that is not what “Leslie said”; they are Alyea’s words as told to the Tulsa World reporter.

      My focus is on the sniper’s nest and the contamination of a crime scene. Alyea confirms just how poorly it was handled in the first several hours, and indicates he witnessed a re-staging of the scene including misrepresentation that Oswald was well hidden when in fact he could have been seen by anyone in the vicinity of the window. I suppose it could be argued that if Alyea misremembered the sequence of seeing the clip and dusting for prints he could misremember watching as law enforcement rearranged the boxes; however, he seems quite certain he saw bullets in the clip because it prompted the rational question, why did Oswald leave a loaded weapon behind. Why would Alyea lie about that, keeping in mind he continues to believe that Oswald was a lone shooter?

    • “That always bothered me,” Alyea said . . . “He left a loaded rifle behind, but how did he know he wouldn’t have to shoot his way out?”

      An odd statement. Anybody seen in the Depository, or leaving the Depository with a gun in his hand would just as well have had a target painted on his back.

    • “In fact, the empty clip not falling out of the magazine, as soon as the last cartridge was chambered, has long been a point of contention in the JFK research community.”~Bob Prudhomme
      . . . . . . . . . . .

      According to the Warren Report, when the weapon allegedly used to kill the President was found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD), one cartridge remained, and it was in the chamber.9 Therefore, if operating properly, the rifle had automatically ejected the clip. The Warren Commission reported, however, that when the rifle was found, it contained a clip.10 Firearms experts for the HSCA explained the discrepancy. On September 8, 1978, Monty C. Lutz of the Committee’s firearms panel, was asked about this by Pennsylvania Representative Robert W. Edgar.

      Mr. Edgar. The cartridge clip was removed from CE-139 by Lieutenant Day of the Dallas Police Department on November 22, 1963 at the crime laboratory for the police department. Shouldn’t a clip automatically fall out once the last cartridge has fed into the chamber?
      Mr. Lutz. This rifle is designed to incorporate that feature so that the last cartridge is stripped out of the clip, then that allows the clip itself to fall or to drop from the opening that you see in the bottom of the box magazine. However, in many cases, and in this particular case, where we functioned the rifle, fed cartridges through it, we found this clip to stay in the rifle after the last round had been stripped and fed into the chamber. Because the lips or the edges of the clip many times will open up, they will spring against the walls on the inside of the box magazine and it will hang up in that areaa [sic], and even though it is supposed to drop out, many times it will hang up in the box area.11

      That explanation seems reasonable enough. But it is not. It is true that the clip must be deformed to have any chance of getting as stuck as this one. But once bent, it stays bent. Commission Exhibits (CEs) 574 and 575 are photographs of the alleged clip in its normal, unbent condition. And five years after the HSCA reported the clip deformed, Life magazine photographer Michael O’Neill photographed it in normal condition for Life’s November 1983 issue.12

      http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/gtds.html#N_63_

      \\][//

      • Jean Davison says:

        “That explanation seems reasonable enough. But it is not. It is true that the clip must be deformed to have any chance of getting as stuck as this one. But once bent, it stays bent….”
        http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/gtds.html#N_63_

        No, once again a conspiracy source makes an unwarranted assumption and misleads the reader. Lutz said nothing at all about the clip being “deformed.” That was the CT writer’s assumption. Lutz said that although the clip is designed to fall out, “in many cases” the clip will “stay in the rifle.” He didn’t say why. It happened in the HSCA test. Other M-C owners have reported the same thing. The clip can be seen starting to work its way out in photos of Day carrying the rifle away from the TSBD.

  10. Lawrence Schnapf says:

    or the windshield molding is is hit by bullet that is fractured after passing through Connolly (CE 399 being planted) and these are the fragments found on the front carpeting of the limo.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      The bullet did not actually pass “through” Connally. It followed the outside of his 5th rib on an extreme downward angle that would have taken it nowhere near the windshield moulding, unless it bounced off the floor of the limo first.

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        But it then passed out his right nipple, so in a roundabout way it did go through. By this time it was spent and would not have shattered Connally’s wrist and eventually wound up in his leg. Certainly not in a pristine state.
        It wouldn’t have done the damage it supposedly did to Connally if it had already passed through JFK’s neck if you move T-3 up like Ford.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Ronnie

          It’s all in the medical report from Parkland Hospital. With Connally facing forward, the bullet impacted the crease of his right armpit, a shallow flesh wound that contacted his 5th rib just ahead of the mid axillary line (extreme lateral edge of chest). It was only in contact with the outside surface of the 5th rib (travelling downwards) for 10 cm. (4 inches) of the length of the 5th rib, before exiting MEDIAL to his right nipple.

          Medial means toward the centre of his chest. In other words, the bullet exited his chest between his right nipple and the centre of his chest.

          Do you begin to see the true nature of Connally’s wound, and how we’ve been lied to about it for all these years?

          The bullet entered at the outside of the right side of his chest and was travelling a right to left path across his chest before exiting on his left side of his right nipple. Unless Connally was turned to his extreme right when the bullet struck him, there is NO way a bullet passing through JFK OR a bullet originating from the SE corner of the 6th floor could have inflicted this wound.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Ronnie

            Here is the link to a copy of Appendix VIII of the WCR. I recommend reading all of it, but the part relative to Connally begins a ways down the page with the medical report of Dr. Robert Shaw, the surgeon who repaired Connally’s chest.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/app8.htm

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            More to be found in Dr. Shaw’s WC testimony:

            http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/shaw1.htm

            If you’re a thinking person, you are likely wondering how a bullet could follow 4 inches of a curved surface such as the 5th rib. It’s quite simple, really. As Shaw reports, the 5th rib, even at Parkland, was depressed inward into the pleural cavity, in comparison to the 4th and 6th ribs. In other words, in passing through the outer surface of the 5th rib, the bullet actually was able to push the rib inwards and straighten a portion of it; exerting so much pressure, it actually broke the rib at the back where it attached to the thoracic vertebra.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Just to clarify, I do not believe it was remotely possible that the bullet that struck Connally’s back ever struck JFK.

            The bullet that struck Connally’s back was certainly not tumbling either, as evidenced by the perfectly round, approximately 3/8″ diameter exit hole the bullet made in the front of Connally’s suit jacket. I do not see how this bullet could lose any appreciable energy after travelling through no more than a bit of flesh and 4 inches of the outer surface of Connally’s 5th rib, which was quite soft at this point.

            I also cannot see how the bullet that struck Connally in the chest could be the same bullet that inflicted the damage to Connally’s right wrist.

          • Lawrence Schnapf says:

            Bob- wasnnt Connolly’s rear wound elongated-suggesting the bullet was tumbling?

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            More deception, Lawrence. The bullet struck Connally in the crease of the armpit, not square on to his back. The bullet was almost moving parallel to the flesh it contacted. Of course it is going to make an elongated hole.

            Below is a link to a study on wound ballistics:

            http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Fackler_Articles/wounding_patterns_military_rifles.pdf

            On the second to last page, there is some discussion about “older” style bullets, such as the round nosed 6.5mm Carcano. According to this study, this type of bullet is supposed to be able to penetrate 50 cm. (20 inches) of flesh without showing signs of yawing. Are we supposed to believe the bullet was tumbling after passing through the small distance of JFK’s neck?

          • Bob- wasn’t Connolly’s rear wound elongated-suggesting the bullet was tumbling?

            Yes, that’s what the HSCA FPP concluded. From Volume VII:

            The panel believes that the ovoid characterization of this wound requires interpretation. . . . One possible interpretation is that the avoid entrance wound, as described, could have resulted from the missile striking the skin surface on a tangential plane, causing an abrasion most pronounced on the margin adjacent to the acute angle of the trajectory that would create the illusion that the wound was more ovoid than it actually was. The undermining of the contralateral margin, when the wound itself is looked into, would accentuate the out-of-round character of the wound itself. Dr. Shaw, in his original description and subsequent interview, did not note any significant undermining or abrasion by the missile which would have been produced by a non tumbling, tangential impact.

            Another possible interpretation of this ovoid wound is that the missile itself, just, prior to striking the body, was out of alignment with its trajectory (due to striking an intervening object). That is to say, it had tumbled slightly before entering the body, thereby creating an elongated defect.

            The panel (except for Dr. Wecht) concludes, therefore, that the wound in Governor Connally was probably inflicted by a missile which was not aligned with its trajectory but had yawed or tumbled prior to entry into the Governor.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Then I say thank God for Dr. Wecht, the only man on the HSCA FPP not bought and paid for.

            I believe you and Photon would have gotten along famously with the majority of the members of the FPP; birds of a feather and all that.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            BTW, if the entrance wound was not elongated as a result of the bullet striking the side of the chest tangentially, as first considered, do you not find it a bit of a coincidence that the scar observed by Dr. Baden in 1978 on John Connally’s rear right armpit was oriented on a horizontal plane, perfectly in line with the path of the bullet?

            I mean, just how many coincidences can we stand for?

        • Lawrence Schnapf says:

          Bob- the common reports are that the rib was smashed. Is this also inaccurate in your opinion?

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Yes, it was smashed, but not quite in the way we have been led to believe. The bullet stayed in the outer surface of the rib for 10 cm. (4 inches), ploughing out the rib material but not actually fully penetrating the rib.

            If the bullet had travelled a mere fraction of an inch further out from Connally’s rib cage, this would have been a shallow flesh wound tat did not touch any bone, and Connally likely would have walked out of Parkland on the same day.

            Connally’s open pneumothorax (sucking chest wound) was caused, as Dr. Shaw pointed out, by shattered shards of rib bone acting as secondary missiles, penetrating his pleural cavity and right lung.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            If you think about it, it was rather an amazing fluke that the bullet followed the exact downward angle of the 5th rib the entire time it was in contact with it, thus preventing the bullet from entering the pleural cavity. Had it entered the pleural cavity, Dr. Shaw would have had more work to do repairing this wound. Then again, as I said before, if the bullet had followed a path even half an inch out from what it did, his 5th rib probably would not have been touched.

  11. Ronnie Wayne says:

    The Magic, Pristine bullet found on a unidentified stretcher. So some want us to believe a round nosed bullet from a medium powered rifle passed through JFK’s neck, 4-6″, without hitting any bone.
    Then hit Connally in the arm pit, traversed right 5th rib exiting the nipple, shattered his right wrist, wound up in his thigh, fell out and was found on the stretcher. That’s stretching the imagination a little to say the least.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      If the bullet hit Connally in the armpit, and the followed the outside of his 5th rib and exited at his right nipple, wouldn’t Connally have to be turned quite a bit to his right for this bullet to have come to him from JFK’s neck?

      Do we see Connally turned to his right at z224?

      • Actually, yes. Connally’s torso seems to be virtually facing Zapruder in this frame.

        The HSCA observed that Connally, after Z-160, turned his head and then his torso to the right:

        The first reaction by any of the limousine occupants to a severe external stimulus begins to occur in the vicinity of Zapruder frames 162-167.* At this time, Connally is looking to his left, when his head begins a rapid, sudden motion to the right. In quantitative terms, he turns his head approximately 60 (deg) to his right in one-ninth of a second (a rate equivalent to a 540 (deg) rotation per second). He pauses momentarily and then executes a further 30 (deg) turn to his right, within an eighteenth of a second (again, a rate equivalent to a 540(deg )rotation per second). This initial rapid motion, in which Connally has apparently turned his head to look behind him, is accompanied during the next approximately 20 frames by a more gradual 60(deg) shift to the right of his upper torso.

        Volume VI.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Get your eyes checked, John. At frame z224 of the Zapruder film, Connally’s head is turned to the right, but his upper torso is facing forward. In order for the bullet to follow the right to left path across Connally’s chest, and be coming from JFK’s neck, his upper torso would have to be turned about 45° to the right, and it is clearly nowhere near this at z224.

          • Myers estimated Connally’s torso to be rotated 37 degrees to the right at 223.

            I think your eyes need to be checked.

            Or rather, you need to stop loudly proclaiming things that are your subjective impression.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          For comparison, look at frame z225, a mere 1/9th of a second after z223:

          http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z225.jpg

          Jackie’s torso is clearly turned to the right to allow her to face her husband. Compare Jackie’s shoulders to Connally’s. See the difference? See how Connally’s torso is facing forward, and Jackie’s is turned to the right?

          Too bad Myers missed this. Guess he just wasn’t looking hard enough, eh? Or was he being too subjective?

    • HIDEJI OKINA says:

      CE399 not a pristine,the side is flattend.
      Because this bullet trejectory is unstable,this bullet hit Connally’s wrist from bullet’ side.
      Many reproduce expariment is sucsessful.
      1970′-1990′ John Lattimer,1992 mock trial,2004 “Beyound the magic bullet”,2013 “Cold case”.
      These experiment isn’t perfect.
      But why conspiracy side didn’t againt own exprtiment?

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Hideji

        The bullet exited Connally’s chest and passed through his suit coat. According to FBI SA Robert A. Frazier, who examined the coat, the bullet made a perfectly round 3/8″ diameter hole as it passed through the suit coat. If the bullet had been unstable, and tumbling, there is no way this bullet could have made such a round hole, indicative of a bullet travelling straight and true.

        Further, Dr. Shaw reported that the bullet only damaged the 5th rib as it followed its length and left the intercostal muscles above and below the 5th rib undamaged. A tumbling bullet would have torn up much more flesh passing through this area.

        Accept it, the bullet was not unstable, and it was not tumbling. Connally’s wrist was likely struck by a fragment of a bullet from another source.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          I might add that the 6.5mm Carcano bullet is just a hair bigger than 1/4″ in diameter, and that a 3/8″ diameter hole would only be 1/16th of an inch larger on each side than this bullet diameter.

        • Photon says:

          ” The wound of entrance was approximately 3 cm long in its longest diameter.”
          Operative Report on John Connolly , Parkland hospital, Nov. 22, 1963.
          The report mentions the sizes of both entrance and exits wounds prior to any incision being made-as is standard medical recording procedure.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            LOL Photon. boy, that train is always on time, isn’t it.

            Dr. Shaw mistakenly described, in his medical report, the entry wound on John Connally’s back as being 3 cm. in its longest diameter. In his testimony to the WC, he corrected this to 1.5 cm.

            “Mr. SPECTER – Will you describe in as much detail as you can the wound on the posterior side of the Governor’s chest?
            Dr. SHAW – This was a small wound approximately a centimeter and a half in its greatest diameter. It was roughly elliptical. It was just medial to the axilliary fold or the crease of the armpit, but we could tell that this wound, the depth of the wound, had not penetrated the shoulder blade.”

            The reason Dr. Shaw mistakenly described the wound as 3 cm. long is because this is the diameter he surgically opened the wound up to when operating on Connally.

            Further evidence of the wound being only 1.5 cm. at its greatest diameter is supplied by FBI SA Robert A. Frazier, who examined Connally’s suit coat and found an elliptical bullet hole on the back of the coat at the armpit that he described as being 1.5 cm. at its greatest diameter.

            Nice try, though!

          • Photon says:

            Give me one example of an operative report that describes a wound as it appeared after debridment prior to mentioning an incision?
            Operative reports list the specifics of the procedure in a chronological order.
            Why do you consider a spoken comment made 4 months after the episode superior in veracity to a written legal document composed minutes after the procedure?
            If you assume that position you cannot criticize Perry, Clark or any of the other physicians who later stated that their initial perceptions might have been in error.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Photon

            Perhaps you could explain to all of us how a bullet could make a hole in the back of Connally’s suit coat that was only 1.5 cm. at its greatest diameter, and an entrance wound 3 cm. at its greatest diameter in Connally’s back; a mere fraction of an inch further in.

            You’re flogging a dead horse here, Photon. This old LN chestnut was de-bunked years ago.

          • “Give me one example of an operative report that describes a wound as it appeared after debridment prior to mentioning an incision?”~Photon

            Dr. Shaw’s is that example, as he explained himself in sworn testimony.
            \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            BTW, Photon, Dr. Baden had the opportunity to examine the scar on the back of John Connally’s right armpit in 1978.

            Baden reported this scar as being 1 and 1/8″ in length and oriented horizontally on its longest diameter, the opposite of what is seen on the wound diagram prepared by the Secret Service.

            But I’ll bet I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know. Right? 🙂

      • “Many reproduce expariment is sucsessful.
        1970′-1990′ John Lattimer,1992 mock trial,2004 “Beyound the magic bullet”,2013 “Cold case”.”~HIDEJI OKINA

        Hideji, John Lattimer is a confirmed quack and charlatan:

        “John K. Lattimer, Kennedy and Lincoln: Medical & Ballistic Comparisons of Their Assassinations (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1980) p. 299; hereafter cited as Lattimer 299. Lattimer’s objectivity and credibility on the assassination have long been suspect. After Lattimer became the first private doctor to view the JFK autopsy photos and X-rays, Sylvia Meagher noted that, “Dr. Lattimer has made emphatic assertions which verge on the omniscient. He tells us that a bullet entered the back of the neck at a point even higher than ever claimed before, which happens to coincide with the point of entry on a sketch used by Dr. Lattimer in his lectures on behalf of the Warren Report as early as 1969 or some three years before he saw the autopsy photos. He does not explain how this bullet high in the neck produced holes in the coat and the shirt more than five inches below the top of the collar, except to offer the lame suggestion about the garments riding up that was discredited long ago.” Seven years after Lattimer located the back wound higher, the HSCA’s panel of forensic experts examined the alleged same X-rays and photos he had examined, and placed the same wound lower than the Warren Commission’s placement. (Sylvia Meagher, “The case of the urologist apologist,” The Texas Observer May 26, 1972, pp. 22-24. Guth and Wrone xxix, citing 7 HH).”

        http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/gtds.html#N_63_
        \\][//

        • Photon says:

          William Allen’s photo of Lt. Day holding the Carcano shows the clip in the rifle.
          Lattimer was a well knownmedical historical researcher of the Lincoln assassination, which is why the Kennedy family selected him to be among the first researchers granted access to the autopsy materials. He had extensive experience treating gunshot wounds in WWII and probably saw multiple patients with gunshot wounds during his residency. He was a world renowned Urologist and head of one of the most prestigious academic Urology departments in the country. He was no charlatan nor a quack-Willy you may disagree with his conclusions but you are certainly in no position to call one of the foremost medical educators of the 20th Century a quack-heck, you don’t even have a college degree.
          As for Sylvia Meagher’s medical credentials: she was a clerk.

          • “As for Sylvia Meagher’s medical credentials: she was a clerk.”~Photon

            As for Albert Einstein’s credentials in Theoretical Physics: he was a clerk.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Of course Eintein held a teaching certificate for physics at the time he worked in the Swiss Patent Office and earned his Ph.D in 1905.
            Where did Meagher get her Ph.D?

        • Hideji, John Lattimer is a confirmed quack and charlatan:

          I’m afraid that on medical matters, it’s Meagher who is the quack and the charlatan.

          On most issues, the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel agreed with Lattimer. And those were nine of the nations top forensic pathologists, who had access to all the autopsy materials, including all the photos and x-rays.

          • “the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel agreed with Lattimer.”~McAdams

            The HSCA was compromised by CIA via Joannides. The totality of their work must be suspect to corruption. The piper plays the tune he is pied to play.
            \\][//

          • The HSCA was compromised by CIA via Joannides.

            And what did Joannides have to do with the FPP? It was not investigating the CIA.

        • HIDEJI OKINA says:

          Yes,I know resercher’s blame about Lattimer.
          Dr.Wecht is one of the two forger “Magic bullet trejectory”.
          He insisted his false story again and again,”Connally sit President’s direct front”(1978 HSCA,1986 BBC mock trial,1988 “Reasonable Doubt:Magic Bullet”).
          But his lie not blamed from resercher’s community members.
          Why James DiEugenio didn’t blame “Dr.Wecht is liar”?
          In past,DiEugenio believed “First generation Magic bullet trejectory”,but now not.
          Why JFK assassination reserch community menber’s double-standard still continue?

  12. Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry, who btw was *not* involved in the JFK assassination:

    “We don`t have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody`s yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand.”

    Source: Dallas Morning News, 6 Nov 1969. Article by Tom Johnson.

    • And just what did Curry know that he has never revealed about the evidence?

      Something that we here don’t know?

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/opinions.htm

      • “And just what did Curry know that he has never revealed about the evidence?
        Something that we here don’t know?”~McAdams

        Of course not John. we all already know that there is no evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the rifle. No witness has positively identified him as firing the rifle.

        The evidence is that Oswald didn’t even own the rifle, and had never touched that rifle.

        I think the best evidence is that Dallas Postal Inspector Harry Holmes procured both the Carcano and the .38 S&W pistol, and provided them to his fellow conspirators in DPD to plant at the TSBD and on Oswald after he had been killed attempting to “escape” from the scene of the shooting.

        But Oswald slipped away unnoticed from the TSBD, and made it to the Texas Theater to meet a contact should things go wrong and the President was actually shot…

        All of the above is predicated on the latest findings indicating that Oswald was deep cover ONI working to infiltrate the Banister operation to reorganize the Anti-Castro Cubans in counter to Kennedy’s orders.

        See: John M. Newman; ‘Oswald and the CIA’, and ‘Where Angels Tread Lightly’
        \\][//

        • All of the above is predicated on the latest findings indicating that Oswald was deep cover ONI working to infiltrate the Banister operation to reorganize the Anti-Castro Cubans in counter to Kennedy’s orders.

          And the evidence for that is?

          • “And the evidence for that is?”~McAdams

            The evidence for that is in the two books by John Newman that I cited.

            I’m afraid that this evidence runs many times over the 500 word limit on the comments here “professor” – You will have to read the books themselves.
            \\][//

          • You will have to read the books themselves.

            Translation: if you posted the supposed evidence here, it would not sound very convincing.

          • There is no “Translation” McAdams – I said in plain English EXACTLY what I meant to say.
            \\][//

        • All of the above is predicated on the latest findings indicating that Oswald was deep cover ONI working to infiltrate the Banister operation to reorganize the Anti-Castro Cubans in counter to Kennedy’s orders.

          OK, let’s start with that.

          What is the evidence for that?

          • “OK, let’s start with that.
            What is the evidence for that?”

            Oswald had his office in the same building as Banister and EVERYBODY knows this ALREADY McAdams.
            \\][//

          • Oswald had his office in the same building as Banister and EVERYBODY knows this ALREADY McAdams.

            No, Oswald never had an office in the Newman Building.

    • Jean Davison says:

      Dallas Police Chief Curry, 11/24/63:

      “We have been able to place this man in the building, on the floor at the time the assassination occurred. We have been able to establish the fact that he was at the window that the shots were fired from.” (WC, XXIV, 780)

      http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0399b.htm
      (right side of page)

      • ed connor says:

        Jean, to paraphrase our friend, Photon, exactly which witnesses place LHO on the 6th floor and at the window when the assassination occurred?
        He was certainly in the building; he worked there. He certainly left prints on boxes; he was a wharehouseman whose job it was to move boxes.
        I am unaware of any witness who places him on the 6th floor, at the window, at 12:30 pm on 11/22.

        • Oh, so you are challenging Curry’s opinion!

          That’s fine. But it was just his opinion when he said things Jean quoted, and just his opinion when he said things that buffs like.

          • ed connor says:

            “You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.”
            – Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

            The site is called “JFK Facts,” Professor. And the fact is that no witness places LHO on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm on 11/22.

          • The site is called “JFK Facts,” Professor. And the fact is that no witness places LHO on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm on 11/22.

            No witness places him anywhere else.

            But the issue was Curry’s opinion.

            You guys are fine with citing him as authoritative, until Jean comes up with a quote from him you don’t like.

            Then you blow it off.

      • Bogman says:

        He also said Oswald’s paraffin test was positive for shooting a rifle and that was later found to be false.

        Jean, you often make the case the authorities often get things wrong in the immediate aftermath of a catastrophe. In this case, you can add the pressure from on high to cut-off speculation on any conspiracy (whether that was well-intentioned or not) to influence their statements.

        • HIDEJI OKINA says:

          Oswald’s paraffin test case is resercher’s side most dirty cover-up.
          From common sence view-point,6th rifle shooter hit to motorcade,his muzzle of gun toward below,then puff of smoke toward below.
          Of cause,powder isn’t adherent shooter’s body,face,hands.

          Generally,so-called “assassination resercher” not interested unti-conspiracy fact,evidence.
          It’s sad,U.S citizens still deceived by resercher’s side cover-up,lie,disguise,deception.

        • Jean Davison says:

          I’m not sure Curry did say that, Bogman. I think he said the paraffin test showed Oswald had fired a “gun.” What does your source say?

          Can you show that Curry felt any “pressure” or modified what he said because of pressure? Doesn’t this call for either mind-reading or supposition? So how reliable can that be?

  13. Larry. Schnapf says:

    so curry said they could place him on tgr 6th floor while ge was jnder pressure to make the case but admitted that was not the case years later when he was not under the same pressure. which statement do you think would seem more credible to a reasonably objective person? i would suggest the latter.

    • Jean Davison says:

      “so curry said they could place him on the 6th floor while he was under pressure to make the case but admitted that was not the case years later when he was not under the same pressure.”

      You’re *assuming* that Curry was “admitting” something, yet other things in the book suggest that over the years he’d been influenced by conspiracy theories that changed his opinion.

      My point is that both of Curry’s statements are only his *opinion*. Opinion is not evidence (unless maybe it’s the opinion of an expert witness in some technical field). Curry’s 1963 statement wasn’t evidence then, his later statement isn’t evidence now.

      • Hey, Jean, so Chief Curry look at the evidence and changed his mind as to the guilt of Oswald, didn’t he? Can’t even put a rifle in his hand in Curry’s opinion. Quite a contrast to his previous statements.

        I think Curry’s change in viewpoint moved in tandem with that of the American people who after the publication of Mark Lane’s book Rush to Judgement in 1966, have always believed in a conspiracy in the JFK assassination and that the US government was lying to them on this topic.

        • Photon says:

          Of course you and everybody else on this topic are ignoring what Curry said during an interview ” with Researcher Jeff Meek Mid 1970’s” available on YouTube-statements made years after the ones he made attempting to sell a book.
          He clearly stated in the interview that Oswald would have been convicted of murdering JFK. No ifs,ands or buts. And Meek’s entire interview was nothing but leading questions trying to get Curry to say he didn’t think Oswald did it.
          But obviously Curry did think Oswald did it.

        • From Paul Hoch:

          Watch out for principals who have become buffs, and are basing conclusions on information outside their areas of direct knowledge or expertise. If John Rosselli, for example, knew there was a shot from the knoll, it might not have been from inside knowledge, but because some of his friends, like many others, heard Mark Lane’s stump speech.

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hoch.htm

        • Jean Davison says:

          “I think Curry’s change in viewpoint moved in tandem with that of the American people who after the publication of Mark Lane’s book…”

          Yes, I too think Curry was influenced by conspiracy sources.

          Long ago I wanted to find out who was lying to me, Mark Lane or the WC, so I checked a bunch of footnotes in both Rush to Judgment and the WR against the documents/testimony they claimed to cite. Sure enough, somebody had badly misled me, all right. Mark Lane.

          • Jean says: “Long ago I wanted to find out who was lying to me, Mark Lane or the WC, so I checked a bunch of footnotes in both Rush to Judgment and the WR against the documents/testimony they claimed to cite. Sure enough, somebody had badly misled me, all right. Mark Lane.”

            Long ago, Henry Sienzant tried this same tactic, and ended up posting the photo that proved Mark Lane correct.

            If Mark Lane were as error-ridden as believers continually assert that he was, they’d have long ago CITED FOR IT.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Long live the memory of Mark Lane for his Friends and Family. Thank you sir for your work.

          • Jean Davison says:

            “If Mark Lane were as error-ridden as believers continually assert that he was, they’d have long ago CITED FOR IT.”

            I HAVE cited for it. Here’s one of many examples. Lane told the WC that witness Markham told him she was able to ID Oswald “because of his clothing, a gray jacket and dark trousers. And this was the basis for her identification–”
            Here’s Lane’s interview with Markham, in which she said no such thing.

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137#relPageId=591&tab=page

            Mark Lane told the WC, “The [paraffin] test proved, according to Mr. Curry, and the statement that he made on Saturday, November 23, to the press that Oswald had fired the murder weapon.”

            Once again, that’s the opposite of what the witness actually said. On 11/22 Curry said of the paraffin test results, “It only means that he fired a gun.”

            QUOTE
            [Reporter]. That he fired a gun, Chief, not the rifle or pistol?”
            Curry. That’s right. We just say a gun.

            UNQUOTE

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140&search=paraffin_AND+curry#relPageId=782&tab=page

            Want more examples of Lane’s distortions? Just ask.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Correction: should be “Once again, that’s the opposite of what the witness actually said. On 11/23 Curry said of the paraffin test results, “It only means that he fired a gun.”

            23, not 22. Sorry!

          • If Mark Lane were as error-ridden as believers continually assert that he was, they’d have long ago CITED FOR IT.

            Lots of stuff to read here:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane

          • Long ago, Henry Sienzant tried this same tactic, and ended up posting the photo that proved Mark Lane correct.

            What photo was that?

          • Jean says: “Long ago I wanted to find out who was lying to me, Mark Lane or the WC, so I checked a bunch of footnotes in both Rush to Judgment and the WR against the documents/testimony they claimed to cite. Sure enough, somebody had badly misled me, all right. Mark Lane.”

            Long ago, Henry Sienzant tried this same tactic, and ended up posting the photo that proved Mark Lane correct.

            If Mark Lane were as error-ridden as believers continually assert that he was, they’d have long ago CITED FOR IT.

            Now, amazingly enough, Jean was courageous enough to attempt to defend her statement.

            WITHOUT A SINGLE REFERENCE TO ‘RUSH TO JUDGMENT’. Even though it’s this book that undoubtedly first drew her to try to criticize Lane.

            So let’s look at her claims:”Lane told the WC that witness Markham told him she was able to ID Oswald “because of his clothing, a gray jacket and dark trousers. And this was the basis for her identification–”

            Amazingly enough, this is a perfectly valid way to look at what she said. See, for example, page 15 of the exhibit, where she describes perfectly the dark trousers and gray jacket.

            Jean’s next example is: “Mark Lane told the WC, “The [paraffin] test proved, according to Mr. Curry, and the statement that he made on Saturday, November 23, to the press that Oswald had fired the murder weapon.”

            Once again, that’s the opposite of what the witness actually said. On 11/22 Curry said of the paraffin test results, “It only means that he fired a gun.”

            *REGARDLESS* of whether Curry was speaking of a pistol or a rifle, it was the “murder weapon”.

            This example falls flat even faster than the first.

            Now, I wonder if Jean can open her copy of “Rush to Judgment,” quote Mark Lane, then reference the citation that doesn’t support what he said.

            Because trying to rely on Helen Markham is just too silly for words.

          • Long ago, Henry Sienzant tried this same tactic, and ended up posting the photo that proved Mark Lane correct.

            John asks: “What photo was that?”

            I don’t think that JFKFacts needs to cite other websites… but it was Nolan Potter’s viewpoint showing where the smoke was.

            But rather than worry about this, why not answer the previous posts first?

          • Jean Davison says:

            Ben wrote, QUOTE:
            “So let’s look at her claims:”Lane told the WC that witness Markham told him she was able to ID Oswald “because of his clothing, a gray jacket and dark trousers. And this was the basis for her identification–”

            Amazingly enough, this is a perfectly valid way to look at what she said. See, for example, page 15 of the exhibit, where she describes perfectly the dark trousers and gray jacket.”
            UNQUOTE

            “A perfectly valid way to look at what she said”?! Absolutely not. Lane claimed that Markham said something SHE DID NOT SAY. Markham did not tell him she was able to ID Oswald because of his clothing on page 15 (or anywhere else). If she did, please quote it:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137&search=looked#relPageId=605&tab=page

            Ben wrote, QUOTE:
            ————-
            “Jean’s next example is: “Mark Lane told the WC, “The [paraffin] test proved, according to Mr. Curry, and the statement that he made on Saturday, November 23, to the press that Oswald had fired the murder weapon.”

            Once again, that’s not what the witness said. On 11/22 Curry said of the paraffin test results, “It only means that he fired a gun.”

            *REGARDLESS* of whether Curry was speaking of a pistol or a rifle, it was the “murder weapon”.
            —————————
            UNQUOTE

            No, Lane is referring specifically to the rifle, and forgive me for not including the context:

            “The test proved, according to Mr. Curry, and the statement that he made on Saturday, November 23, to the press that Oswald had fired the murder weapon. However, a reading of the test indicates that one could come to a very different conclusion. The test in reference to the face proved negative, indicating that Oswald had not fired a rifle on November 22, 1963–although the test on the hands showed positive indicating, according to the person who did the analysis, the kinds of patterns consistent with one having fired a revolver. ”

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/lane_m1.htm

            Once again Lane is claiming someone said something he DID NOT SAY. In fact Curry stated the opposite of what Lane claimed. Curry emphasized that the paraffin test did *not* link Oswald to the rifle.

            “Now, I wonder if Jean can open her copy of “Rush to Judgment,” quote Mark Lane, then reference the citation that doesn’t support what he said.”

            Why don’t you first deal with the Lane misrepresentations already on the table, Ben?

          • Jean Davison says:

            Would anyone like to defend Mark Lane’s handling of testimony from Curry and Markham as discussed in this thread? Is it okay for a writer to claim a witness said something he/she didn’t say?

          • Jean says: “Why don’t you first deal with the Lane misrepresentations already on the table, Ben?”

            Already have.

            You’ve still been unable to tell us which weapon was NOT a “murder weapon”.

          • Jean Davison says:

            QUOTE
            “Jean says: “Why don’t you first deal with the Lane misrepresentations already on the table, Ben?”

            Already have.”
            UNQUOTE

            Sorry, Ben, you have not.

            “You’ve still been unable to tell us which weapon was NOT a “murder weapon”.”

            As I said in my last post, Lane himself indicated which weapon he meant. When he said “the murder weapon” he was referring to the JFK murder weapon, as opposed to the “revolver,” if you’ll just read what he said.

            Lane’s testimony is searchable here and if you look for “murder weapon” you’ll find that every time he uses that term he’s talking specifically about the rifle. He says, e.g., “I described the picture as the one of Oswald allegedly holding the murder weapon in his left hand, and having on his right hip a pistol, allegedly the pistol with which he slew Officer Tippit.”

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/
            lane_m1.htm

            And what about the second example? Markham didn’t tell Lane “she was able to identify [Oswald] because of his clothing….” — not on page 15 or anywhere else in the transcript.

          • I told Jean: “You’ve still been unable to tell us which weapon was NOT a “murder weapon”.

            Jean says: As I said in my last post…

            Yet you still haven’t answered the question.

            Which weapon, the pistol or the rifle, was not a “murder weapon?”

            I’ve learned, from long experience with disinformation specialists, that it’s wise to keep the topic very specific and narrow…

            Once you answer that question, we can move on.

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Yet you still haven’t answered the question.

            Which weapon, the pistol or the rifle, was not a “murder weapon?””

            I’ve responded to that already. Sorry you don’t get it. Lane didn’t refer to “a” murder weapon, he referred to “THE murder weapon,” i.e., a SPECIFIC weapon:
            “The test proved, according to Mr. Curry, and the statement that he made on Saturday, November 23, to the press that Oswald had fired the murder weapon.”
            Lane’s context shows that he was referring to the JFK murder weapon, the rifle.

            Curry did not claim that the paraffin tests showed that Oswald had fired THE rifle or THE revolver, he said the test showed only that Oswald had fired “a gun.”

            If you really don’t understand that, maybe you should look up the definition of “the.” On second thought, maybe the right word here is “evasion.” There really is no way to defend Lane’s distortion of Markham’s and Curry’s statements. Maybe you know that?

            The “disinformation” here comes from Mark Lane and you refuse to address it. Would you like to try again or retreat into more insults? Up to you, I don’t care, but if you can’t be civil I won’t reply.

          • I said: “Yet you still haven’t answered the question.

            Which weapon, the pistol or the rifle, was not a “murder weapon?”

            Jean says: “I’ve responded to that already.”

            You can keep running, Jean – but you can’t hide.

            Same question…

          • Jean Davison says:

            “You can keep running, Jean – but you can’t hide.

            Same question…”

            You’re the one running, Ben.

            Obviously there were two murder weapons, and Curry told the press the paraffin test didn’t link Oswald to either one of them in particular, just to “a gun.” Mark Lane claimed he said the opposite, that it tied Oswald to one specific murder weapon, the rifle.

            To restate the obvious, there were two murder weapons. I have answered your question. Now, what do you think of Lane’s handling of these statements by Curry and Markham?

          • “You can keep running, Jean – but you can’t hide.

            Same question…

            Jean says: “You’re the one running, Ben. Obviously there were two murder weapons…”

            GOOD!!!

            I knew you had it in you to be able to answer the question.

            Mark Lane told the WC, “The [paraffin] test proved, according to Mr. Curry, and the statement that he made on Saturday, November 23, to the press that Oswald had fired the murder weapon.”

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Mark Lane told the WC, ‘The [paraffin] test proved, according to Mr. Curry, and the statement that he made on Saturday, November 23, to the press that Oswald had fired the murder weapon.’”

            You seem to think that “the murder weapon” and “a gun” mean the same thing here or that Lane was agreeing with Curry, but that’s not true. If that’s what you think, you’re misreading it.

            And you still haven’t commented on the Markham example.

          • Jean says: “You seem to think that “the murder weapon” and “a gun” mean the same thing here…

            [You’ve admitted that both possible weapons were “murder weapons”]

            Jean says: …or that Lane was agreeing with Curry, but that’s not true. If that’s what you think, you’re misreading it.”

            It’s funny how I can never get a believer to tell everyone what Curry was TRYING to say without directly lying about it.

            You *KNOW* that he intended the impression that the paraffin test was evidence against Oswald in the assassination of the President.

            Then you pretend Mark Lane lied when referred to this.

            But you won’t convince anyone other than rabid believers…

            Mark Lane didn’t lie… and Curry was careful enough not to tell a direct lie…

          • Jean Davison says:

            “[You’ve admitted that both possible weapons were “murder weapons”]”

            Of course. But you still don’t get it.

            One last time. Curry said the test indicated that Oswald had fired “a gun,” and since two murder weapons were recovered, he was saying that it could’ve been either.

            Lane claimed Curry was referring to ONE SPECIFIC (“THE”) murder weapon, the rifle.

            I’ll quote Lane again, with my emphasis:

            “The test proved, according to Mr. Curry, and the statement that he made on Saturday, November 23, to the press that Oswald had fired THE MURDER WEAPON. HOWEVER, a reading of the test indicates that one could come to A VERY DIFFERENT CONCLUSION. The test in reference to the face proved negative, indicating that Oswald had not fired A RIFLE on November 22, 1963 — although the test on the hands showed positive indicating, according to the person who did the analysis, the kinds of patterns CONSISTENT WITH ONE HAVING FIRED A REVOLVER.”

            “It’s funny how I can never get a believer to tell everyone what Curry was TRYING to say without directly lying about it.”

            Ridiculous, and the kind of insult you regularly stoop to on other forums. I’ve quoted Curry verbatim and if you don’t understand what he said that’s not my fault, or Curry’s.

            “You *KNOW* that he intended the impression that the paraffin test was evidence against Oswald in the assassination of the President.”

            Evidence against Oswald, certainly, but Curry didn’t say the test connected him to the rifle, as Lane falsely claimed. You’d have to be a mind-reader to know what Curry “intended.”

            “Then you pretend Mark Lane lied when referred to this.”

            Nobody has to “pretend” Lane distorted testimony.

            And you STILL haven’t commented on Lane’s false claim about Markham. I’ve asked you at least three times. What do you call it, Ben, when someone refuses to answer a question about an issue being discussed?

          • I said: “It’s funny how I can never get a believer to tell everyone what Curry was TRYING to say without directly lying about it.”

            Jean says: “Ridiculous…”

            And yet, you prove my statement yet again…

            Why is that, Jean?

            Do you think no-one can read?

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Jean says: ‘Ridiculous…’

            And yet, you prove my statement yet again…”

            And yet, you didn’t say how.

            “Do you think no-one can read?”

            I certainly hope everyone can, and I hope they notice that although you often accuse people of “running away,” you still haven’t dealt with Lane’s untrue statement about Markham.

          • Tom S. says:

            Pat Speer, your recent pending comment is 600 words, a second one of yours of a few days ago is 825 words. I don’t make the rules, only provide the alerts…..

            http://jfkfacts.org/comment-policy/

            http://www.wordcounttool.com/

          • Jean says: ‘Ridiculous…’

            I replied: “And yet, you prove my statement yet again…”

            Jean says: “And yet, you didn’t say how.”

            Then why did you snip the statement directly above your assertion of “Ridiculous”??? Here it is again:

            “It’s funny how I can never get a believer to tell everyone what Curry was TRYING to say without directly lying about it.”

            Now Jean – why did you snip that statement, then pretend that I didn’t say how???

            WHY ARE YOU NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION? (and pretending not to know what the question is…)

            I asked Jean: “Do you think no-one can read?”

            Jean says: “I certainly hope everyone can, and I hope they notice that although you often accuse people of “running away,” you still haven’t dealt with Lane’s untrue statement about Markham.”

            If there *were* an untrue statement, I’d be happy to address it.

            But I’ve already addressed your claim.

            Now, will you run away again?

          • Jean Davison says:

            It’s tiresome trying to get you to answer a question first asked six days ago. And you’re still ducking it.

            QUOTE
            ———–
            Jean says: “And yet, you didn’t say how.”

            Then why did you snip the statement directly above your assertion of “Ridiculous”??? Here it is again:

            “It’s funny how I can never get a believer to tell everyone what Curry was TRYING to say without directly lying about it.”

            Now Jean – why did you snip that statement, then pretend that I didn’t say how???
            ——————-
            UNQUOTE

            Why did I snip it?? Because I’d already answered that, and you’ve snipped my answer! I said:

            “Ridiculous, and the kind of insult you regularly stoop to on other forums. I’ve quoted Curry verbatim and if you don’t understand what he said that’s not my fault, or Curry’s.”

            Ben says: “WHY ARE YOU NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION? (and pretending not to know what the question is…)”

            Oh, the irony… You should be asking yourself that.

            And if you think someone is “directly lying” because you don’t understand what Curry said, how is that my fault?

            QUOTE:
            —————–
            Jean says: “I certainly hope everyone can [read], and I hope they notice that although you often accuse people of “running away,” you still haven’t dealt with Lane’s untrue statement about Markham.”

            If there *were* an untrue statement, I’d be happy to address it.

            But I’ve already addressed your claim.”
            —————–
            UNQUOTE

            Classic tactic of someone dodging an issue: ignore the question for as long as possible, then claim you’ve already answered it.

            But you haven’t. Here is Lane’s statement once more:

            “She [Markham] said–when I asked her how she could identify him–she indicated she was able to identify him because of his clothing, a gray jacket and dark trousers. And this was the basis for her identification–”

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=38#relPageId=59&tab=page

            And no, that’s not on page 15 of the transcript:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137#relPageId=605&tab=page

            That link gives you Lane’s transcript of his entire conversation with Markham. Please quote her saying what Lane claimed or acknowledge it’s not there.

            I predict you’ll do neither.

    • which statement do you think would seem more credible to a reasonably objective person?

      Curry’s opinion doesn’t count for anything.

      If he actually had some evidence that we don’t know about, why didn’t he reveal it?

    • John says: “Curry’s opinion doesn’t count for anything. If he actually had some evidence that we don’t know about, why didn’t he reveal it?”

      Ironically, a statement NEVER made about someone who offers an opinion in favor of the Warren Commission.

      Believers are really having a hard time now that so *much* of the testimony & evidence is available online for anyone to read and draw their own opinions…

  14. Larry Schnapf says:

    @ prof mcadams- while i agree the absence of fingerprints is not necessarily dispositve nor is the presence of a partial latent print on the portion of the barrel that is only exposed when the rifle is dissassembled. it only suggests possession and possession is not proof of actually firing the rifle from the 6th floor at 12:30 on 11/22/63.

  15. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Damage control at its finest! Go John, Photon and Jean!

    Your tax dollars hard at work! 🙂

    • Damage control at its finest! Go John, Photon and Jean!

      Your tax dollars hard at work!

      Buff theorizing at its finest, Bob.

      Whose tax dollars do you represent?

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        I’m so sorry, John, did I touch a sensitive nerve there?

        • Did I touch a sensitive nerve with you?

          Anything you want to confess about whom you represent?

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            LOL John! Are you serious, my friend?

            I’m nothing more than a semi-retired ex-West Coast Logger with bad knees and a crappy IWA pension to look forward to.

            Pretty amazing how a dumb hick like me up in the Middle of Nowhere, Canada can dance circles around the Great Professor John McAdams, wouldn’t you say?

            Want to know my secret? Why I will eventually triumph over you and your buddies? It’s quite simple. This was a murder committed with a rifle, and I have forgotten more about rifles than your little brain will ever be able to comprehend.

            To make matters worse for you, I have the truth on my side, and the truth makes sense. All you have is some cock and bull story cooked up on the spot by a desperate little man named Arlen Specter, who was afraid that WW III really would ensue if this murder wasn’t pinned on one man.

            Poor Arlen, what a mess that was dumped in his lap. And now it’s up to you to keep the lid on this mess. I almost feel sorry for you, John.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            PS

            I’ll save you the trouble of Googling “IWA”. It stands for “I Walk Alone”.

            LOL just kidding. That was our affectionate name for one of the most useless American unions that ever snuck into Canada. It actually stands for “International Woodworkers of America”.

  16. Bob Prudhomme says:

    If we are to believe that John Connally was struck in the back of his right armpit by a tumbling bullet that had just passed through JFK’s neck, we are required to suspend basic logic in order to do so.

    On the second to last page of this study below, the long round nosed 6.5mm Carcano bullet is described as a very stable “old style” bullet, capable of deep penetration in a wound without yawing.

    http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Fackler_Articles/wounding_patterns_military_rifles.pdf

    The author of this study clearly states the 6.5mm Carcano is capable of travelling 50 cm. (20 inches) through flesh without showing signs of yaw; more than twice the distance the Magic Bullet is purported to have travelled through JFK’s neck.

    As it is the effects of travelling through flesh that will cause a bullet to lose stability and begin to yaw, we can assume that, once the bullet left JFK’s neck, no further deterioration of the bullet’s stability would occur in the air space between JFK and Connally. Therefore, the SBT proponents are at a loss to explain how the exit wound in JFK’s throat was a perfectly round hole 3-8 mm in diameter and was clearly not the exit wound of a tumbling bullet.

    If the bullet was not tumbling when it left JFK’s throat, what could make it tumble in the air space between JFK and Connally?

    (continued)

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Dr. Robert Shaw described John Connally’s chest wound as a “burrowing” wound that did not penetrate his chest cavity. Rather, the bullet followed the outside of Connally’s 5th rib for 10 cm. (4 inches) before exiting medial to and just underneath his right nipple.

      If the bullet that caused this wound was tumbling, how could Shaw have described its path through Connally’s outer chest as burrowing? Shaw went on to relate that this bullet did no damage to the intercostal muscles above and below the 5th rib. Considering the narrowness of the 5th rib at this point, this in itself is rather an amazing feat, as a tumbling bullet would have torn up a great deal of flesh as it passed through. Once again, this is a sign of a bullet travelling straight and true, and not tumbling.

      The final bit of damning evidence against the Magic Bullet being a tumbling bullet is the hole this bullet made in the front of Connally’s suit coat as it exited. As measured by FBI SA Robert A. Frazier, there was a round hole 3/8″ in diameter in the front of Connally’s suit coat; a mere 1/8″ larger than the roughly 1/4″ diameter of a 6.5mm Carcano bullet.

      Are we to believe that each time this tumbling bullet exited one of its victims it just happened to be in mid-tumble with its nose pointing forward? What kind of fools do they take us for?

      • DB says:

        Bob that is some excellent analysis that I never really thought about . I’m certainly no expert like you but it really just smacks of common sense

        JFK and Connolly exit wounds could not be caused by a tumbling bullet . Nothing like hard science and evidence to clear up an issue ( for me at least lol ). I don’t see that can be explained away to fit the WC report. Geez each year I’m baffled on how such a lazy inaccurate report was the official version until 1978. Freaking embarrassing

        Also good Connolly photo analysis , how could a bullet travel thru his chest when we have his exact position at the time ? Torso forward , shot entrance impossible as deputies by WC

        Incredible analysis , a common theme of this website . Thank You

        Also good comment by the individual who suggested a re look at the acoustic , is there any way to explain those coincidences away ?

    • The author of this study clearly states the 6.5mm Carcano is capable of travelling 50 cm. (20 inches) through flesh without showing signs of yaw; more than twice the distance the Magic Bullet is purported to have travelled through JFK’s neck.

      But the issue is whether it would have tumbled when it moved from one medium (Kennedy’s torso) to another medium (the air between Kennedy and Connally).

      • Paulf says:

        John:

        What’s your proof that the bullet did that? Any solid evidence?

        No, you just assume the single-bullet and the only way that works is if the bullet acted that way, even though a bullet acting that way is a hundred million to one odds.

        In other words, your conclusion is the only evidence you have.

        • In other words, your conclusion is the only evidence you have.

          Actually, it’s you folks who start with your conclusion: conspiracy.

          Do you believe the throat wound was an entrance?

          If so, what happened to the bullet?

          If you can’t answer that plausibly, you have a problem.

          • “Do you believe the throat wound was an entrance?
            If so, what happened to the bullet?
            If you can’t answer that plausibly, you have a problem.”~McAdams

            There was no “bullet” to the throat, it was a dissolving flechette, as I so aptly proved previously.
            \\][//

          • Paulf says:

            John:

            So basically you admit you have no proof.

            What I believe is of no consequence. I’m not a paid advocate who has spent his life studying this. You claim to know definitively what happened. Give me forensic proof that the bullet acted the way it did, something other than that it fits your conclusion.

          • Paulf says:

            BTW, it’s kind of amusing that asked to provide proof for their assertions in recent days, both McAdams and photon ignore the request and ask me questions.

            Guys, you claim to know the truth, simple questions shouldn’t be so hard.

          • So basically you admit you have no proof.

            Of what, that the bullet exited the throat?

            In the first place, the fibers of Kennedy’s shirt were displaced outward.

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

            In the second place, the wound of the back was clearly an entrance wound, since it had an abrasion collar.

            But no bullet was found in Kennedy’s body. No bullet showed on the autopsy.

            So it’s pretty obvious what happened to it.

          • Paulf says:

            John, OK, thanks.

            Let me get this straight. No bullet was found in the body, so it is obvious that it went through Kennedy and thereafter performed the magic bullet act?

            That’s one possibility, but to call it obvious is going far beyond where the evidence lies, and presumes a conclusion.

          • so it is obvious that it went through Kennedy and thereafter performed the magic bullet act?

            No, it just went straight on and hit Connally.

            Every serious attempt to plot the trajectory finds that it works. HSCA, Itek, FAA . . .

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt-faa.jpg

            Myers:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/SOH_1061.jpg

          • Paulf says:

            And your definition of serious is “agrees with me.”

          • And your definition of serious is “agrees with me.”

            My definition of “serious:”

            1. Does not put Connally directly in front of Kennedy.

            2. Done by some organization with established expertise in modelling events (Itek, FAA).

            3. Peer reviewed (Myers).

            4. Some by someone with expertise in working out angles and trajectories (Canning for the HSCA).

            And your definition?

            1. Bullet needs to zig and zag.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus4.gif

          • “No, it just went straight on and hit Connally.”~McAdams

            And there are several problems with this fanciful assertion that you have been made aware of countless time.

            The bullet hit Kennedy in the back at the T-3 Vertebrae — REMEMBER: Where Dr Baden testified the bullet holes in JFK’s back, his shirt and his coat all aligned.

            This extinguishes your trajectory. Then there is the pause that refreshes, wherein JFK is reacting to a throat wound for at least 3 seconds before Connally is hit. [Z-film, and both Connally and his wife’s testimony]

            Of course this makes the assertion that they are the same bullet “hyper-dimentional” ergo, another time-space continuum.

            Thus the name “The Magic Bullet”
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Willy continues to claim that JFK’s back wound was at T3. The only source for this is Burkley’s Navy Death Certificate which is incomplete and states only that the wound was ” about” T3.
            No physician that I know of supports this claim; certainly no forensic pathologist familiar with the case does. It is nothing but a myth promulgated by an individual with absolutely no knowledge of anatomy, pathology, radiology or any other aspect of medicine germane to the case.
            Willy, please post a single quote from any physician aside from Burkley who examined the body or examined the autopsy materials and has stated unequivocally that the back wound was at T3.
            You can’t do it.

          • “Willy continues to claim that JFK’s back wound was at T3. The only source for this is Burkley’s Navy Death Certificate which is incomplete and states only that the wound was ” about” T3”

            Testimony of Michael Baden, Head of the HACA Medical Panel:

            Mr. KLEIN: Whose clothing is that and where did it come from?

            Dr. BADEN: This is the clothing worn by President Kennedy at the time of the assassination and does show various perforations in the fabric that were of importance for the medical panel to evaluate. Present on the mannequin is the jacket and shirt and tie. The jacket and the clothing had been torn at Parkland Hospital by the examining physicians in the course of providing emergency care to the President .

            Mr. KLEIN: And with respect to the wounds to the President’s back, what did the panel learn from that clothing?

            Dr. BADEN: In the jacket and the underlying shirt there is a perforation of the fabric that corresponds directly with the location of the perforation of the skin of the right upper back that, the panel concluded, was an entrance gunshot perforation that entered the back of the President.
            This is correspondingly seen in the shirt beneath.
            [1 HSCA 196: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_5_Baden.pdf%5D

            The hole in the jacket was 5.5 inches below the upper margin of the jacket collar, and the hole in the shirt, 5 3/4 below the upper margin of the shirt collar [7 HSCA 83]

            That is exactly where the T3 Vertebrae is located.

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_5_Baden.pdf

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_6_Baden.pdf

            \\][//

          • “Photon” says: “Willy continues to claim that JFK’s back wound was at T3. The only source for this is Burkley’s Navy Death Certificate which is incomplete and states only that the wound was ” about” T3.”

            That is simply untrue. And I’m sure that “Photon” knows it.

    • Photon says:

      Nothing like putting out disinformation, eh Bob?
      You know as well as I do that the bullet didn’t start to tumble until it left the tissue of the neck.
      Please see ” Cold Case JFK” on YouTube 30:00-33:30.
      You ignore the appearance of the ballistic gel and the soap, but you also ignore the tissue shoring effect of JFK’s collar. The Cold Case film clearly shows the Carcano only begins to tumble upon leaving the simulated neck-twice.
      What are you gonna believe-your false claims or your lyin’ eyes?
      Bob, it is all there in color.

      • Good catch. Prudhomme seems to invent the ballistic principles he needs.

        https://youtu.be/1H-PNsGtNLA?t=25m10s

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          John

          If you want to play this game, at least try to have a little class.

          Referring to people by their last name, although intended to be degrading to that person, merely shows the level of desperation you have descended to, and that you have quite obviously run out of logical arguments.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Photon

        Are you saying the bullet was beginning to tumble AS it exited the gelatin block, or AFTER it exited the gelatin block?

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Let me re-phrase that, Photon. Was the bullet slightly off its axis (yawing) as it left the gelatin block, or did it only begin to yaw (go off its axis) after it exited the gelatin block?

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Photon

        You’d better have a little chat with the Professor, and make sure you two are on the same page.

        You say the bullet did not begin to tumble until AFTER it left JFK’s neck, yet your buddy is now saying the bullet in the Nova Cold Case experiment was “not very much off axis at the point of exit”.

        In other words, the Nova bullet was beginning to tumble BEFORE it exited the gelatin.

        BIG difference, my friend.

        • In either case, the bullet would be tumbling when it hit Connally in the back.

          You need to quit claiming certainty about what happened to a level of precision that can’t be established.

          It’s quite clear that a bullet that passed through Kennedy’s torso would have begun to tumble. And the wound on Connally’s back shows that it was tumbling.

  17. Ronnie Wayne says:

    What? Photon provides a (useless) source! “ballistic gel and soap, the shoring effect of JFK’s collar”, ah, ahem, ahaaaaaaaaa.

  18. Bob Prudhomme says:

    John and Photon

    I just love how you two can state something outrageous and make it appear to be undeniable fact. Is it practice or has someone trained you well?

    Did you know that a 6.5mm Carcano bullet can easily travel 1000+ yards through air, after leaving the muzzle, without yawing or tumbling?

    Bullets begin to yaw in soft tissue because the medium they are travelling through is so much denser than air. Short pointed bullets tend to yaw within a few centimetres of entering soft tissue, while long, narrow and round nosed bullets tend to be much stabler and, as Dr. Fackler pointed out, can travel up to 50 centimetres in soft tissue without yawing.

    Now, if the wound in JFK’s throat was an exit wound, it tells us one very important thing about the bullet that made it. As the throat wound was described as a neat round wound of 3-8 millimetres in diameter, in could only have been made by a bullet that was NOT tumbling as it exited JFK’s throat.

    If this bullet was travelling straight and true as it exited JFK’s throat, and not tumbling or yawing, and it was entering a medium (air) not capable of inducing a yaw in a bullet travelling that fast, what could possibly induce this bullet to yaw between JFK’s throat and Connally’s armpit?

    Despite the charade that was called “Cold Case JFK”, your arguments defy all logic. Connally’s chest wound, as described by Dr. Robert Shaw, could not have been inflicted by a tumbling bullet.

    • Despite the charade that was called “Cold Case JFK”, your arguments defy all logic.

      What you call a charade is a well documented experiment conducted by two bona fide ballistics experts.

      As the throat wound was described as a neat round wound of 3-8 millimetres in diameter, in could only have been made by a bullet that was NOT tumbling as it exited JFK’s throat.

      Look at the experiment in NOVA. The bullet is not very much off axis at the point of exit, but far off axis when it hits the witness panel.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Well, I’m glad to see they had no trouble fooling you and the rest of the little kids, John.

        In the real world, bullets that exit a dense medium (ie. soft tissue, soap, gelatin) flying straight and true, without yaw or tumble, do not suddenly begin tumbling just because they are now travelling through air.

        I don’t suppose it ever occurred to you that what you see on TV isn’t always real, did it?

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          BTW, John, you have yet to address how a tumbling bullet could make the narrow wound track described by Dr. Shaw, nor have you addressed how a tumbling bullet could exit Connally’s suit coat, making a round 3/8″ diameter hole on its way out.

          Over the years, I have seen the results of many tumbling bullets,mostly from rifle cartridge handloading experiments that went wrong. Want to know a secret? I have NEVER seen a tumbling bullet make a neat round hole in a paper target. Instead, they do something we call “keyholing”, where a bullet goes through the paper sideways and leaves an oblong hole resembling a keyhole.

          And yet, we are expected to believe the Magic Bullet did this twice; once leaving a perfect round hole in JFK’s throat and once leaving a perfect round hole in the front of Connally’s suit coat.

          Blessed Jesus, it was a miracle!!

          • Photon says:

            Bob, what is the problem? The Haags’ demonstration clearly shows that what you claim is not possible is actually clearly a probable event. Your ignorance of the standard use of ballistic gel and ballistic soap to simulate human tissue ( as has been done for decades) in firearms demonstrations reveals that for all of your self-described expertise in firearms and hunting you really don’t know much about the effects of rifle bullets once they traverse human tissue.To this day you have never fired a Carcano, never personally seen the effects of a Carcano bullet wound, never seen a human bullet wound. Yet you can’t accept the observations and recorded results of those that have.Why?
            This film demonstrated the precise ” keyholing ” effect that you describe-what do you want?
            As for Connolly’s clothes, you like so many CTers resort to the same tactic-omit the rest of the story. Connolly’s clothes were laundered before any measurements of bullet wound dimensions were made. At any rate, we have the wound dimensions on Connolly’s back and chest noted in the operative report, dictated immediately after surgery.
            This Cold Case exercise is valuable for another reason- that despite the claims of the CT community that a Carcano bullet could not do this or that, that it could never do the damage seen in JFK and Connolly and remain pristine, that the Single Bullet theory is impossible,ridiculous ,fantasy,comical,etc scientific and photographic proof shows that those assumptions are simply incorrect. Criticizing the testing modalities (which have been standard ways of evaluating fired bullets for decades) is simply an admission that “you can’t handle the truth” or more precisely do not want to know the truth.

        • Photon says:

          So they faked it-right Bob? The high speed camera was really an animation,right?The gel and soap was really just props made in somebody’s workshop,right?
          The Haags are really CIA operatives who paid off PBS,right?
          Isn’t that a rather pathetic way to deal with facts that you don’t like?

    • HIDEJI OKINA says:

      From WCE IV 114
      “Mr. SPECTER – What is your opinion as to whether bullet 399 could have inflicted all of the wounds on the Governor, then, without respect at this point to the wound of the President’s neck?
      Dr. SHAW – I feel that there would be some difficulty in explaining all of the wounds as being inflicted by bullet Exhibit 399 without causing more in the way of loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of the bullet. ”

      First,Dr.Shaw’s knowledge about ce399 is not a bullet itself,but a ce399 picture(WCE XVII,P49).
      This picture is only this bullet one side,Dr.Shaw delusion this flatten bullet as a “pristine bullet”.

      Second,Dr.Shaw’s WCE VI testimony(P95).
      “Mr. SPECTER – As to the wound on the back of Governor Connally, was there any indication that the bullet was tumbling prior to the time it struck him?
      Dr. SHAW – I would only have to say that I’m not a ballistics expert, but the wound on his chest was not a single puncture wound, it was long enough so that there might have been some tumbling. ”
      “Dr. SHAW – The wound entrance was an elliptical wound. In other words, it had a long diameter and a short diameter. It didn’t have the appearance of a wound caused by a high velocity bullet that had not struck anything else; in other words, a puncture wound. Now, you have to also take into consideration, however, whether the bullet enters at a right angle or at a tangent. If it enters at a tangent there will be some length to the wound of entrance. ”
      (Too long continue)

    • HIDEJI OKINA says:

      Yes,in fact “can travel up to 50 centimetres in soft tissue without yawing.”
      But so-called “defense-type wound”s(a kind of re-entry wound)
      first entry wound and second entry wound(re-entry wound) distance is very short.
      In fact,bullet can yawing or tumbling between short distance.

      If conally’s back wound is not a re-entry wound,this wound is
      tangent wound?
      No! Because if shot from Dealy Plaza’s most high building,
      tangent wound is not!
      By elimination method,comparison method,conspiracy theory defeated by official theory.

    • HIDEJI OKINA says:

      But Dr.Fackler affirm official-side conclusion and deny conspiracy-side conclusion.
      I recommended below article.

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/fackler.pdf
      Why conspiracy-side counter-method is only argument?
      Why resercher-side didn’t prove “Knoll shooter’s trejectory” by their own experiment or explanation?
      About a conspiracy version bullet trejectory,conspiracy-side didn’t explain,didn’t prove,didn’t demonstrate,didn’t verified.
      Oh!Past 53 years,resercher’s side did nothing.
      Or they can’t?

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        Oh my.
        “Oh! Past 53 years researcher’s side did nothing/
        Or they can’t?”
        Without them we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
        The official version would have been eventually accepted.
        Just one example. Seth Kantor a former Dallas reporter, at he time of the assassination a Washington reporter with the press corp on the Texas tour talked with Jack Ruby at Parkland Hospital(he knew him).
        The Warren Omission claimed he was mistaken.
        They also claimed Ruby had no mafia ties.
        He investigated and wrote a book on it proving them wrong.

        At this price ignore the 5 review’s and decide for yourself.

        https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0821739204/ref=tmm_mmp_used_olp_sr?ie=UTF8&condition=used&qid=1466912487&sr=1-1

        It’s on DiEugienio’s top 10.

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          I bought my copy in 1980 or 81. I’ve been more suspicious of the official version ever since.

        • HIDEJI OKINA says:

          Oh!You are completely misused or misunderstainded my comment.
          I say
          “Oh!Past 53 years,resercher’s side did nothing.
          Or they can’t?”
          =”conspiracy version bullet trejectory”
          and “Knoll shooter’s trejectory” is not proved or not demonstrated by resercher’s side.

          In fact,my english is not good.
          But why you mislead my comment meaning?
          I read over 500 assassination reserch books.
          I see so many both side document-tv.
          You know knoll-shooter’s trejectory proved by resercher’s side?
          Knoll-shooter shot JFK’s throat from “between the front and right,slightly upward” position,then throat entry wound form isn’t small circle,but rather large ellipse.
          Knoll-shooter shot JFK’s head from his position,then bullet penetrated left side of the head.
          But almost assassination resercher insist
          JFK’s throat small circle wound and the back of the head big wound caused knoll-shooter’s shot.
          Please explain these mechanism.
          If you know resercher’s side perfect explanation about this theme,please inform me.
          Please!

  19. Bob Prudhomme says:

    And please have the decency to refrain from calling my eyes liars.

  20. Larry. Schnapf says:

    @Prof McAdams- I agree it is Curry’s opinion and not direct evidence but its opinion as an experienced law enforcement officer of the state of the evidence.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      “Larry Schnapf” and “Larry. Schnapf”? What’s up with that, Larry?

      • Tom S. says:

        What is up with you, Bob? I didn’t approve your off topic post presenting your opinion of the authenticity and english language skills of another commentor.
        Larry is more than capable of responding to your question.

        I’ve demonstrated I am monitoring closely for fakery. I can assure readers the two commentors Bob is recently challenging the authenticity of have provided
        private details, an IP# and or an email address that indicate no ground for concern. I’ve worked to remove this dimension of discussion, but it keeps coming up.

        If a commentor chooses to use an alias it is with an understanding it is at the expense of some of the “game” brought on, compared to those including their actual names with their comments. When you complain of a commentor’s choice of names you risk weakening the impression you are making on readers.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Wow, relax Tom. I just thought it odd that he would post under two very similar but different names. He’s obviously not trying to pull something off.

          No one is accusing Larry of anything here.

      • Larry Schnapf says:

        @bob-typo. i was changing my first name from the formal to the one i use and somehow added a period.

  21. Larry Schnapf says:

    @Jean- I agree its his opinion of the evidence. What caused him to change his opinion is unclear but in 1963 he was speaking as one responsible for an investigation with a suspect and under pressure to support the arrest.His change of opinion six years later could also be because he was free to speak his mind.

  22. Larry Schnapf says:

    I am as far from a ballistics expert so I ask if a bullet that created a burrowing wound would have had to be traveler relatively slowly?

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Hi Larry

      It doesn’t matter if it is travelling slow or fast, unless it slows down so much as to de-stabilize itself. The important thing is that the bullet was travelling straight and true, without wobble or yaw.

      What Dr. Shaw meant by a “burrowing” wound is a wound that basically travelled through the surface of Connally’s chest in a straight line, without tumbling, as it travelled a 10 cm. section of the 5th rib. As the damage was restricted to the narrow width of the rib, and the intercostal muscle tissue above and below the 5th rib was untouched, it is clearly demonstrated this bullet could not have been tumbling as it traversed the surface of Connally’s chest.

      • What Dr. Shaw meant by a “burrowing” wound is a wound that basically traveled through the surface of Connally’s chest in a straight line, without tumbling, as it traveled a 10 cm. section of the 5th rib.

        And where did he say “without tumbling?”

  23. Bob Prudhomme says:

    John McAdams has just admitted that “The bullet is not very much off axis at the point of exit….” in the Nova Cold Case experiment.

    In other words, the bullet exiting the gelatin block was beginning to yaw as it exited the gelatin block.

    Know what happens to a bullet that yaws just a little, John? That yaw quickly grows on itself and develops into a tumble. Once the bullet de-stabilizes even just a little, it’s just like a spinning top that develops a wobble; pretty soon the wobble gets out of hand and the top goes down.

    HOWEVER, if it is off its axis even just a little exiting soft tissue, gelatin or soap block, it will NOT make a perfectly round little hole, such as the 3-8 mm diameter perfectly round little hole in JFK’s throat. That slightly off axis bullet can only make an oval shaped hole as it exited JFK’s throat, which it did not.

    • HOWEVER, if it is off its axis even just a little exiting soft tissue, gelatin or soap block, it will NOT make a perfectly round little hole, such as the 3-8 mm diameter perfectly round little hole in JFK’s throat. That slightly off axis bullet can only make an oval shaped hole as it exited JFK’s throat, which it did not.

      You are assuming that, exiting Kennedy’s throat, it was sufficiently off axis to make a hole that was noticeably ovoid.

      The fundamental problem with all your posts is that you claim absolute assurance about matters that, in the real world of ballistics, have some variation.

      Your opinions are flatly at odds with essentially all the experts who have examined the issue.

      So should we believe you, or believe (for example) the HSCA FPP, or Mike and Luke Haag?

  24. I’m amused that people who think that the bullet must have been tumbling as it created a 1.5 x .8cm wound, never seem to think that the bullet that struck JFK’s head was tumbling, even though it was a comparable 1.5 x .6cm

    • How is your JFK forum working out Ben?
      Glad to see you here. Sorry we can’t get my registration glitch worked out over at your place.
      ~Magus Maverik

      \\][//

      • The Forum is just getting rolling… but already has some interesting content.

        You’re registered under the name you registered with.

        Everyone is welcome.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      It is quite amusing, Ben, and yet that elongated tangential wound on Connally’s armpit is the only proof they have the Magic Bullet was “tumbling”.

      I also find it amusing how they cling to one tiny error in Dr. Shaw’s medical report, that being describing the back wound on Connally as being 3 cm. at its greatest diameter, instead of the actual 1.5 cm. diameter it actually was. Although none of them would actually do so, it would be necessary to label Dr. Baden as a liar, as he stated he observed Connally’s back in 1978, and reported seeing a scar 1 and 1/8th inches long and oriented on a horizontal plane.

      • Anyone notice the silence on this topic? I think Bob, that John, Jean, Photon, and other believers just don’t like the evidence all that much right about now…

  25. One of the main things I came away with after reading Dr Baden’s testimony, is his opinion that practically nothing can be certain when it comes to the behavior of bullets, and reading gunshot wounds. He is of the opinion that just about ANYTHING can happen, and often does. These revelations from the good doctor do not fare well for either side of the argument in this case. The bottom line according to Baden being that, ‘you never can tell’.

    Ergo, it’s a ‘FREE-FOR-ALL’

    So what we end up with is the uncertainty that will drive the Warrenista’s crazy, as there is nothing more unsettling for a conformist than the prospect of uncertainty. And for the critic’s side, we have the benefit of all of the other aspects of the case indicating a conspiracy perpetrated from the highest level of the statist system.

    I for one however disagree with the central premise that the science of forensic ballistics is so open ended as is suggested by Dr Baden. And although his testimony tended in that direction when pressed on the term, “possibility”, I don’t think Baden holds to such other than rhetorically. And this brings us to another point that is revealed in the good doctors testimony, the position of the back wound and the trajectory of a bullet fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

    A bullet striking Kennedy in the back at the lower position cited by Baden, based on the the alignment of the shirt and coat with what he said was the same position in the flesh of the back (T-3) would be highly unlikely to exit from a position some five inches higher, that being the throat just below the Adam’s apple. It would be more likely according to the known trajectory for that bullet to exit somewhere near the sternum.

    We have the “nick” on the vertebrae, that can be said to have redirected the bullet path, and we have the appearance of the throat wound prior to the tracheotomy. It is just as reasonable to conclude that the nick of the vertebrae at the C7-T3 junction was caused by a projectile entering the throat from the front.

    I already understand the rage this scenario brings to the dedicated Warrnenista. I have heard it all before. So I will fuel that flame with one other assertion; I think that the consensus of the pathologists on Baden’s panel derives from the pressure to conform with the official narrative. This having been so for the other panels convened before and since. It is known as ‘Confirmation Bias’.

    My adversaries may think we are back at square one here. I disagree with that as well. I think this case has been solved for more that 40 years. The accumulated evidence is for a coup d’etat by the military industrial complex.

    Let the chorus of bleating begin.

    http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_5_Baden.pdf

    http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_6_Baden.pdf

    \\][//

    • Dr. Baden, unfortunately, knows very little about this case. I invite knowledgeable people to critique this paragraph by Dr. Baden:

      “The [autopsy] photographer was there, the corpsman who usually took pictures of damaged hearts and cirrhotic livers and other diseases. He was snapping away when he caught the attention of an FBI agent, who came up to him and asked for his clearance. ‘Clearance?’ said the corpsman. ‘This is my job.’ The agent took away his camera, exposed all the film, and threw him out. (The exposed film is in the archive.) ‘We’ve got our own man taking pictures,’ the FBI agent said. The FBI photographer, who had clearance, was in the same quandary as Humes. He had never taken autopsy pictures before and was untrained in photographing gunshot wounds. The photographs of the body’s interior were out of focus … Before the President was buried, no one, either in Dallas or Washington, looked at both sides of the body, front and back, and realized that a bullet had entered the back and exited the throat … ” – Michael Baden “Unnatural Death – Confessions of a Medical Examiner”, pg. 10-11

      Now, although I’ve never been able to get a WCR Supporter to admit it, VIRTUALLY EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE IN THE ABOVE QUOTE IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

      One sentence is an absolute lie.

      Can anyone name the true statement… or the lie?

      • I don’t see any lies.

        I don’t see any true statements either.

        Baden was not there at the autopsy.

        • pat speer says:

          Still giving Baden a free pass, I see. If you recall, you once explained to me that no matter how inaccurate or far-fetched Baden’s statements, that you thought it unfair to claim he was lying. Your thinking went like this: you said that you thought the word “liar” should only be applied to those you see as an adversary, as those on your side don’t need to make stuff up, and would therefore never make stuff up. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

          • Photon says:

            Why do you focus on Baden when every other forensic pathologist to review the case save for the eccentric( as noted by his fellow county Pathologists) Wecht has come to the same conclusion-2 shots hit JFK, both from behind?
            it is like saying you don’t like one red M&M in a bag when the pieces all taste the same.

          • You don’t seem to understand this.

            If Baden had simply stuck with what he told the HSCA, and what the HSCA FPP concluded, that would have been perfectly consistent with LHO as the lone shooter.

            So why should he change his story to convict Oswald?

            You buffs are so addicted to calling everybody you disagree with “liar” that you can’t admit that sometimes people just make mistakes.

            Did you not notice that nothing the the paragraph quoted above is something of which Baden had first hand knowledge?

            And nothing in it has anything to do with the natures of the wounds?

            You have fallen into the trap typical of buffs here. You are keen to shout “liar, liar!” at people who disagree with you.

          • pat speer says:

            Wrong, John. Baden is useful in pointing out the hypocrisy of those claiming Oswald did it. He, and Spitz, for that matter, have recited more blithering nonsense about the Kennedy assassination than just about anyone. His record for accuracy is far worse than Mark Lane or Jim Garrison, for example. And yet he is held up as an unbiased arbiter of truth, while Lane and Garrison are denounced as shyster attorneys. It’s a double standard, pure and simple. if someone can’t remember or be bothered looking up the facts of an issue, and prefers to make stuff up and claim it as a fact, they are a liar, no matter what their point of view. And sure, this means that almost everyone to have written on this case has told a lie. But pretending that only one side is capable of lying is bizarre, and indicative of cognitive dissonance, wouldn’t you say?

          • Photon says:

            I would say that the “buff” side has made up far more nonsense than the LN side. Take the Baden situation. The statements you refer to were made years after his HSCA work-and let’s face it, after he became a celebrity pathologist the quality of his work has deteriorated. But in 1978 he was considered one of the top forensic pathologists in the country.
            The fact is that no forensic pathologist who has reviewed the records and data aside from Wecht disagrees with Baden’s conclusions that confirm the WC perceptions of the wounds. To believe the Speer viewpoint you have to believe that multiple experts who have done thousands of autopsies don’t know what they are talking about, while someone who has never seen an autopsy knows more.
            That is simply not logical.

          • And sure, this means that almost everyone to have written on this case has told a lie. But pretending that only one side is capable of lying is bizarre,

            You are really slow getting this.

            Nothing in the latter-day account of Baden is something that he needed to add to support Oswald as the lone assassin. It’s just random stuff.

            You want to use that to impeach what Baden told the HSCA, years before. When his memory was fresh. When he was talking about forensic pathology, not arcane facts about the autopsy.

            And what he told the HSCA was the consensus of a nine-member panel (with Wecht dissenting on a few issues). It also accorded with the Clark Panel, and the Rockefeller Panel.

            You are just engaged in an ad hominem attack on Baden.

          • But pretending that only one side is capable of lying is bizarre,

            I’ve never said that only one side if capable of lying, although if there was no conspiracy, one is much more likely to find lies on the conspiracy side.

            But you don’t seem to understand a simple point: If somebody says something untrue, is it a lie, or merely a mistake?

            If there is no reason to lie, it’s probably not a lie.

            If Baden had early on said things that let Oswald off the hook, and then changed his story to make Oswald guilty, perhaps you could say that the Evil Minions had pressured him to lie.

            But his early testimony was consistent with Oswald as the lone shooter. If he was later under the control of the Evil Minions, those Evil Minions would have been perfectly happy with him simply repeating what he said earlier.

            And also happy with his getting the details of the autopsy right.

          • To believe the Photon viewpoint you have to believe that there is no such thing as peer pressure to conform, nor a tendency by the successful to promote the system in which they have become successful within.

            The very psychological definition of Confirmation Bias.

            \\][//

          • What Dr. Baden wrote in a book years later is bad enough… he had plenty of time to get it right…

            But this says far more about believers than it does about Dr. Baden’s character…

            In other forums, I’ve never been able to get even one believer to state the truth about the quoted paragraph… and it seems that I can’t do so here either.

            Why is it so hard to tell the truth about the evidence in this case?

            John McAdams comes closest with his statement that these were all untrue statements – but didn’t appear to know that one of those statements was completely impossible…

            There has NEVER been an internal chest photo that has been seen by anyone at all.

            John, Photon, and other believers cannot explain how someone can be “mistaken” on a topic such as a photo that doesn’t exist.

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Baden is useful in pointing out the hypocrisy of those claiming Oswald did it. He, and Spitz, for that matter, have recited more blithering nonsense about the Kennedy assassination than just about anyone….And yet he is held up as an unbiased arbiter of truth….”

            Who ever claimed Baden is an arbiter of truth? I don’t think I’ve ever cited Baden on anything — I’ve quoted the HSCA medical panel as a unit, yes, but not Baden individually.

            Virtually everything in the Baden quote in this thread is wrong. Not only was this book written years after the HSCA, it was also co-authored by someone who may have been in effect a ghost writer. People don’t get their names on a book cover for no reason.

            https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=judith+adler+hennessee

            Since it’s Baden’s book, he’s definitely responsible for everything in it, but the passage quoted may not have been written by him. A similar book under Connally’s name “with” another writer, “In History’s Shadow,” contained errors that I don’t think Connally himself would’ve made. If I remember correctly the book came out shortly after Connally died. “Ghosting” for famous people is very common, but not a good policy, imo. I believe Cyril Wecht has had co-authors as well, though I haven’t read those books and don’t know the circumstances.

            “It’s a double standard, pure and simple. if someone can’t remember or be bothered looking up the facts of an issue, and prefers to make stuff up and claim it as a fact, they are a liar, no matter what their point of view.”

            This always puzzles me. Don’t CTs know that people get things wrong without even trying? It’s the very definition of “human.”

            If someone claims that the WC concluded that Oswald fired three shots in six seconds when it didn’t say that, is that a lie or simply a misunderstanding? When Hoover told LBJ that Tippit was killed in a “gun battle” at the Texas Theater, was he lying? Or just clueless?

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=807&relPageId=3&search=policeman

          • “When Hoover told LBJ that Tippit was killed in a “gun battle” at the Texas Theater, was he lying? Or just clueless?”~Jean Davison

            Hoover was telling Johnson what was scripted to happen. However Oswald didn’t bolt and run, so there was no staged gun battle. And Oswald was taken in alive. This called for a new contingency; and voila!! Ruby shoots Oswald on Sunday.
            \\][//

          • “The [autopsy] photographer was there, the corpsman who usually took pictures of damaged hearts and cirrhotic livers and other diseases. He was snapping away when he caught the attention of an FBI agent, who came up to him and asked for his clearance. ‘Clearance?’ said the corpsman. ‘This is my job.’ The agent took away his camera, exposed all the film, and threw him out. (The exposed film is in the archive.) ‘We’ve got our own man taking pictures,’ the FBI agent said. The FBI photographer, who had clearance, was in the same quandary as Humes. He had never taken autopsy pictures before and was untrained in photographing gunshot wounds. The photographs of the body’s interior were out of focus … Before the President was buried, no one, either in Dallas or Washington, looked at both sides of the body, front and back, and realized that a bullet had entered the back and exited the throat … ” – Michael Baden “Unnatural Death – Confessions of a Medical Examiner”, pg. 10-11

            Jean says: “Virtually everything in the Baden quote in this thread is wrong.”

            And yet, it’s truly amusing how most believers run in the opposite direction when I produce this quote. Indeed, Henry Sienzant, whom I’m sure you know, was quite grossly inaccurate when he posted on this topic.

            But my purpose isn’t to show how bad Dr. Baden is on his knowledge of the evidence… it’s to show how believers shy away from correcting fellow believers.

        • You don’t see any lies? Then simply produce ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that anyone … ANYONE… ever saw any internal chest photographs.

          But you won’t.

          You can’t.

          That is an absolute LIE on Dr. Baden’s part.

          The only true statement is “The exposed film is in the archive.” – no need to cite for that statement, since the information is contained on YOUR WEBSITE.

          But it is good to see a WCR Supporter actually admit that Dr. Baden is stating factually incorrect statements.

          That’s quite rare… most believers refuse to address the issue.

          • That is an absolute LIE on Dr. Baden’s part.

            Why would he lie about that? What would the point be?

            But it is good to see a WCR Supporter actually admit that Dr. Baden is stating factually incorrect statements.

            You are doing the buff thing again.

            You are assuming that nobody is ever mistaken. If they say something incorrect, it must be a “lie.”

            Virtually all the stuff you quoted is something Baden had no personal knowledge of, and was not even in the purview of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel.

            And it was written years after the HSCA FPP.

          • Interestingly, John McAdams fulfilled my prediction… he was completely unable to produce ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to an internal chest photograph.

            You cannot ‘misremember’ and describe what it’s never been possible for you to have seen.

            Dr. Baden lied.

            Shouting “Buff Buff” won’t change those facts.

          • You cannot ‘misremember’ and describe what it’s never been possible for you to have seen.

            Nonsense. False memories are quite common.

            But in Baden’s case, he was not there at the autopsy, so it’s not a “memory” issue. It’s a “use of sources” issue.

          • Arguing that Dr. Baden had a “false memory?”

            Sounds pretty desperate to me… you cannot credibly explain how Dr. Baden “remembered” out of focus chest photos that have never existed.

            More importantly, you can’t explain how *YOU* – who clearly knew better – said nothing about it.

            Not one single member of the Warren Commission or the Clark Panel or the HSCA were present at the autopsy.

            It’s a poor argument for defending someone who lied about the evidence.

          • Sounds pretty desperate to me… you cannot credibly explain how Dr. Baden “remembered” out of focus chest photos that have never existed.

            The whole point of “false memories” is that people do remember things that didn’t happen.

            You are being really slow getting this.

            More importantly, you can’t explain how *YOU* – who clearly knew better – said nothing about it.

            Why should I pay any attention to a book that Baden wrote in 1990, when we have the work of the HSCA FPP (agreed to by nine top forensic pathologists — with Wecht an exception on a few issues)?

            And why should I care about errors that have nothing to do with whether Oswald was the lone assassin?

            I think you buffs’ “liar, liar!” rhetoric is some sort of therapy for you folks. It’s certainly not any serious sort of historical inquiry.

          • John says: “The whole point of “false memories” is that people do remember things that didn’t happen. You are being really slow getting this.”

            And you John, are being really slow in explaining how someone could be “mistaken” about something that doesn’t exist, and never has existed for anyone to see…

            Then go on to explain mythical characteristics of these mythical photos.

            Why do you refuse to do so?

            Since you believe it to be a “mistake,” surely you can explain to others how such a mistake could have come about…

            John says: “Why should I pay any attention to a book that Baden wrote in 1990…”

            Because I quoted it, and you RESPONDED TO IT.

            Yet still refuse to state how you could possibly have missed a reference to non-existent photos…

            The other errors can be easily explained – THEY ALL HAVE *SOMETHING* TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL HISTORICAL RECORD.

            But not the interior chest photos. They’ve never been seen by anyone we know of.

            And that includes Dr. Baden.

          • pat speer says:

            This idea pushed by John McAdams–that Baden had a strong grasp of the facts in 1979 that was in accordance with the HSCA panel beyond Wecht just isn’t true. The panel was split on much of the evidence. Dr. Petty, for example, was convinced the Connally bullet traversed the chest along the rib, and never actually entered the lung. And that’s not even to point out some of the eccentric views of Baden, as revealed by his testimony and related statements. When looking at the A-P x-ray, for example, he noted that the crown of the head was missing (when it was clearly present on the autopsy photos). He also claimed Dr. Humes had testified to seeing a beveled exit on the intact frontal bone, when he had actually claimed no such exit was apparent. He also said the fatal bullet broke up on the windshield strut, and was intact while traveling within the skull, save a few fragments leaking from the base of the bullet, and one large fragment squeezed from the base of the bullet which somehow lodged on the back of the skull in a 6.5 mm shape giving the appearance of a cross-section. In short, much of what Baden claimed then, and later, was blithering nonsense which would get him laughed off even the lamest of JFK forums. So let’s quit with the hero worship, and argument from (false) authority!

            FWIW, I document Baden’s many mistakes in the Baden’s Reign of Error section, here:
            http://www.patspeer.com/chapter13b%3Aattackoftheclones

          • Pat’s essay says:

            Once one realizes that the head of the HSCA’s forensic pathology panel testified with one of his key exhibits upside down, and lied about his orientation for the skull fragments, of course, one should rightly wonder why. Was Dr. Baden really so befuddled by the head wounds?

            Still pushing this nonsense, eh?

            Baden orients the F8 photo the way it would have looked in Stringer’s viewfinder.

            He then mentions the “forehead,” and correctly points to the upper part of the skull in the photo, which is indeed the forehead.

            The fact that the photo is typically shown 180 degrees different does not change the fact that he knows perfectly well which way is up.

          • pat speer says:

            JOHN McADAMS wrote:
            Pat’s essay says:

            Once one realizes that the head of the HSCA’s forensic pathology panel testified with one of his key exhibits upside down, and lied about his orientation for the skull fragments, of course, one should rightly wonder why. Was Dr. Baden really so befuddled by the head wounds?

            Still pushing this nonsense, eh?

            Baden orients the F8 photo the way it would have looked in Stringer’s viewfinder.

            He then mentions the “forehead,” and correctly points to the upper part of the skull in the photo, which is indeed the forehead.

            The fact that the photo is typically shown 180 degrees different does not change the fact that he knows perfectly well which way is up.

            PAT SPEER responds: John, you just can’t help yourself, can you? Of the 40,000 or so people to view my video, you are the only one to think Baden presented the autopsy photo in an orientation indicating he knew what he was talking about. The last time you brought this up on your own forum, in fact, you got shouted down by John Fiorentino, as true blue a LNEr as ever graced the internet. The facts are this. Baden pointed to the presumed exit on the so-called mystery photo and said this corresponded to the exit depicted on a drawing of Kennedy…near his temple. He then pointed to an intact section of skull in the photo and said this corresponded to the top of the head in the drawing. He was thereby claiming the blow out was on the side of Kennedy’s head but that the top of his head was intact. That Baden believed as much, moreover, was confirmed by his subsequent claim the Harper fragment came from the temple area. In any event, Baden’s mistake was demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt in my first video, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEvZWeYXpec&list=PLB8A4DFA068102508

          • I state: “You cannot ‘misremember’ and describe what it’s never been possible for you to have seen.”

            John says: “Nonsense. False memories are quite common.

            But in Baden’s case, he was not there at the autopsy, so it’s not a “memory” issue. It’s a “use of sources” issue.”

            Once again, John shows a rather appalling lack of understanding.

            NO-ONE, absolutely no-one… at the autopsy saw the interior chest photos. Indeed, no-one at the autopsy SAW ANY PHOTOS WHATSOEVER.

            So John is being quite silly to suggest that if only Dr. Baden had been at the autopsy, he’d have correctly remembered a non-existent photo.

            Nor is it a “use of sources” issue… Dr. Baden ABSOLUTELY AND INDISPUTABLY saw each and every one of the existing autopsy photographs.

            HE’S SPEAKING FROM ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY.

            And he lied. Because there’s no such photo. It’s really just that simple.

            John *STILL* cannot offer a credible scenario for Dr. Baden to be “remembering” not only a non-existent photo, but able to “describe” that it was out of focus.

          • PAT SPEER responds: John, you just can’t help yourself, can you? Of the 40,000 or so people to view my video, you are the only one to think Baden presented the autopsy photo in an orientation indicating he knew what he was talking about.

            Pat, do you deny that he placed the photo with the forehead upward?

            Do you deny that Kennedy would have been lying on his back on the autopsy table, with his forehead upward?

            Do you deny that Baden pointed to a section of the forehead, and said it was “forehead?”

          • He then pointed to an intact section of skull in the photo and said this corresponded to the top of the head in the drawing. He was thereby claiming the blow out was on the side of Kennedy’s head but that the top of his head was intact.

            Baden supervised the Dox drawing, which shows the “great defect” in parietal bone, at the top of the head, on the right side.

            Your interpretation of what he says is rather eccentric.

        • “Baden was not there at the autopsy.”~McAdams
          . . . . . .

          ‘Brilliant’ observation ‘professor’.

          Baden has given what is clearly conflicting testimony. Anyone who reads the entirety of the testimony closely must surely see that.

          One aspect of this testimony concerns the position of the wound in JFK’s back. Baden and his entire panel concluded that this wound was in the same position as that of the bullet holes in Kennedy’s shirt and suit coat. That being some 5 1/4 inches from the bottom of the shirt collar.

          Everyone here also understands the significance of this finding – and it simply CANNOT have escaped Baden’s notice.

          I would also like to point out ONCE AGAIN, that the clothes of a victim of a gunshot wound is ESSENTIAL evidence in a forensic autopsy. This is beyond debate.
          It is also beyond sincere and honest debate that the autopsy at Bethesda was botched; compromised in so many aspects as to rebuke any proposed excuses of simple ‘incompetence’. Federal Evidence Rule # 406 is applicable.

          [See: Rule 406. Habit; Routine Practice. Evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice.]

          This routine of spoilage of procedure and evidence is serial in the JFK case; from the original “investigation” of the alleged ‘crime scene’ to the improper removal of JFK’s body from Parkland Hospital, in what can only be fairly characterized as “body snatching”.

          What is clear to the lucid and reasonable mind, is that there was and continues to be a systematic cover up of the real facts of the JFK assassination.

          \\][//

          • Baden and his entire panel concluded that this wound was in the same position as that of the bullet holes in Kennedy’s shirt and suit coat. That being some 5 1/4 inches from the bottom of the shirt collar.

            Of course they concluded it was in the same position. The same bullet penetrated his jacket, shirt and his back.

          • “Of course they concluded it was in the same position. The same bullet penetrated his jacket, shirt and his back.”~McAdams

            Indeed, I am glad to see you finally admit the obvious.
            \\][//

          • Indeed, I am glad to see you finally admit the obvious.

            And the photos of the back show the wound at T1.

            So the holes in the shirt and jacket have to be consistent with that.

            I think buffs ignore that the measurements of the holes in the shirt and jacket are from the top of the collar.

          • “And the photos of the back show the wound at T1.
            So the holes in the shirt and jacket have to be consistent with that.”

            You know better than that “professor,” The holes in the shirt and coat were 5 1/4 inches below the collar of the shirt, which is EXACTLY at T-3.

            The hole in Kennedy’s back in the autopsy photo is at T-3, as I have explained over and again. It is the POV of the photo at an extreme angle, plus the way in which the body is being lifted that makes it appear higher.

            Now ask yourselves, WHY? Why is this the ONLY photo from the autopsy that shows the back wound?

            WHY? Why only ONE single X-ray of JFK’s chest publicly available but the one that looks like a blurry fifth generation Xerox copy?

            It is a preposterous to end up with nothing conclusive in the record, unless it is the product of purposeful deceit.
            \\][//

          • You know better than that “professor,” The holes in the shirt and coat were 5 1/4 inches below the collar of the shirt, which is EXACTLY at T-3.

            So we should believe you, rather than every forensic pathologist who has ever looked at the materials.

            You sound like Prudhomme. You think you can make something true by simply asserting it continually.

          • Now ask yourselves, WHY? Why is this the ONLY photo from the autopsy that shows the back wound?

            There were two color photos of that back, and apparently two black and white photos in addition.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/infojfk/jfk6/authaut.htm

            See para. 595.

          • John says: “So we should believe you, rather than every forensic pathologist who has ever looked at the materials.”

            The underlying hidden presumption, and John knows this to be incorrect, is that the “forensic pathologists” had access to ALL the evidence relevant to their task.

            We know now, of course, that they didn’t.

            I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER ignoring (or more properly, ‘considering correctly) the opinions of those who weren’t in receipt of ALL relevant facts.

            For example, no-one continues to believe in the Piltdown Man… yet the information that uncovered that fraud COULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN to the paleoanthropologists of the day – had they but examined the skull & jaw. John does not, I’d presume, complain that I don’t accept “expert opinion” in that case – as *I PERSONALLY* know more facts about that skull & jaw than thousands of experts did during the more than 40 years that Piltdown was accepted.

            Likewise, had the HSCA’s medical panel been allowed to hear the medical testimony of those who were there, and knew firsthand… who knows how they would have judged the evidence???

          • “So we should believe you, rather than every forensic pathologist who has ever looked at the materials.”~McAdams

            So you are now denying where the holes in JFK’s coat were located, aye “professor”?

            You are getting more desperate with each escalating comment here.

            If there are “colored photos” of JFK’s back wound, show the forum a jpg.
            \\][//

          • >FBI Exhibit 59, JFK’s suit coat, measures the bullet hole in the jacket to be 5 3/8 inches below the top of the collar, and appears to be directly in the middle of the back.

            >FBI Exhibit 60, JFK’s shirt, measures the bullet hole in the shirt is 5 3/4 from top of collar and about 3/4 inch from center.

            >Autopsy drawings of President Kennedy conducted by Dr. Humes, shows a bullet hole in JFK’s back that would match the location of the hole in his clothing. Hole is in the middle of back approximately 6 inches down from the neck.

            >Autopsy photograph of Kennedy’s body shows a bullet hole in Kennedy’s back clearly away from base of neck and matching the location of hole in shirt.
            \\][//

          • I meant to add this link to my comment on the position of the bullet holes in JFK’s shirt and coat:

            http://www.ctka.net/marler.html

            \\][//

          • Likewise, had the HSCA’s medical panel been allowed to hear the medical testimony of those who were there, and knew firsthand… who knows how they would have judged the evidence???

            And what were they “not allowed” to hear?

            And why should they value “testimony” in preference to the autopsy photos and x-rays?

          • So you are now denying where the holes in JFK’s coat were located, aye “professor”?

            Your posts don’t make much sense, probably because you are assuming something that is not true.

            The holes are were they are, and the entry in Kennedy’s back was where it was.

            So what is your point?

          • John posts another untruth:”And what were they “not allowed” to hear?

            Don’t debase yourself, John.

            (Interested readers can Google “How Five Investigations” – and read the HSCA chapter)

            John asks: “And why should they value “testimony” in preference to the autopsy photos and x-rays?”

            This question from the very same poster who just complained that Dr. Baden had not attended the autopsy???

            The judicial system recognizes the superiority of eyewitness testimony to that of photos (and x-rays), as has been pointed out before.

            And John knows this…

          • “The holes are were they are, and the entry in Kennedy’s back was where it was.
            So what is your point?”~McAdams

            The point is as clear as an azure lake at springtime McAdams.

            The holes in Kennedy’s back and his shirt and his coat were ALL located at the T3 Vertebrae.
            Which makes the shot from the so-called “sniper’s nest” in the TSBD IMPOSSIBLE.

            Capiche?
            \\][//

          • And this information about JFK’s back wound being aligned with the shirt and the coat, and being where the HSCA located the wound — at T3, is EXACTLY the information that should have clued Baden, who produced that testimony, that there was an insurmountable problem with the assertion of the shots being fired from the TSDB.
            \\][//

          • The judicial system recognizes the superiority of eyewitness testimony to that of photos (and x-rays), as has been pointed out before.

            And John knows this…

            Actually, no. Juries are free to value evidence as they see fit, and if photos show one thing, and witnesses say something else, a sensible jury will go with the photos.

          • and being where the HSCA located the wound — at T3,

            The HSCA located the wound at T1, 13.5 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process.

          • “Juries are free to value evidence as they see fit.”~McAdams

            This is not entirely true either. Judges are under the obligation to inform juries of their right to ‘Jury Nullification’- yet this is rarely done.

            It seems more to the point that Judges are free to value law as they see fit. As is with most things in postmodern society there is a bias toward power and authority, which tends towards graft, and other corruption throughout the spectrum of human activities.

            \\][//

  26. Larry Schnapf says:

    @John- not everyone is a “buff” and not everyone calls you or others who believe in a lone shooter a liar. You have a tendency to group people into categories in what appears to be an effort to provide a simple simple explanation for why people believe there was a conspiracy. It does injustice to those of use who dont generally believe in conspiracies and who are serious researchers.

    • @John- not everyone is a “buff” and not everyone calls you or others who believe in a lone shooter a liar.

      Do you believe Baden was lying?

      Yes or No?

      Note that I said calling people liars is “typical.”

      I’ll stand by that. We see it here on this board.

      If you are an exception, good for you.

      • “Now that I look back, I realize that a life predicated on being obedient and taking orders is a very comfortable life indeed. Living in such a way reduces to a minimum one’s need to think.”~Adolf Eichmann

        \\][//

      • John cannot offer any possible explanation for why Dr. Baden spoke of non-existent photos, even to the extent of describing their quality.

        No possible scenario has been offered that avoids the fact that he lied.

        Indeed, John can’t explain how *HE* managed to miss the fact that Dr. Baden was speaking about something that has NEVER existed in this case.

        Why is it that people he refers to as “Buffs” tell the citable truth, and believers like John always end up being publicly corrected about the evidence?

        • Photon says:

          ” Buffs tell the citable truth”
          Like James Jenkins was a Ph.D. Student in Pathology.
          Like Carlos Hathcock recreated the shot and couldn’t make it.
          Like Adele Edisen having a memorable dinner at a restaurant that happened to be closed on the same date.
          Like Beverly Oliver filming the assassination with a camera that had not been invented.
          Like Judyth Baker going on holiday with Oswald to Cancun years before it existed.
          Like claiming that Connolly was directly in front of JFK at exactly the same height.
          Like claiming that the Zapruder film was faked.
          Like claiming that Allen Dulles spent the weekend of the assassination at Williamsburg.
          Like claiming that Williamsburg is in Northern Virginia.
          Like claiming that Billy Hargis said that he was hit by brain tissue ” with such force” that he thought that he was hit.
          Like claiming that the Harper fragment was found immediately to the left of the limo’s position at the time of the head shot.
          Like claiming “Badgeman” existed.
          Like claiming Cheryl McKinnon existed and was photographed.
          Like claiming that the “Backyard photos” were faked.
          Like claiming that a Mauser was found in the TSBD.
          Like claiming that the most important conspiracy witness at Parkland is infallible and saw a large wound at the back of the head when in reality he was so unsure of the nature of the head wound that his first written description made minutes after the assassination was a regurgitation of what ANOTHER doctor who had a better view told him-AND WAS COMPLETELY WRONG.

          • Exactly what I stated, “Buffs tell citable truth”.

            But you want me to defend what other people have stated… based on *your* interpretation of what they said… rather than quote anything I’ve ever said.

            So are *YOU* willing to defend the nonsense told by believers?

            Unlike you, I won’t compile a long list… I’ll offer merely ONE: A believer asserts that the fact that someone did NOT read a newspaper, is evidence that one is a murderer.

            You’ll see it on page 956 of Vincent Bugliosi’s tome.

          • Like Photon claiming JFK had an abnormal neck.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            JFK did have an abnormal neck. None of the medical ” experts” on this site were aware of it, some continue to ignore it. None to my knowledge ever asked an internist to look at the photos I referred to; had they done so they might have conceivably learned a valuable lesson about anatomy and how certain diseases can affect that anatomy. But again, that topic demonstrates the CT habit of only telling part of the story, for including all of the facts and information often can a alter a conclusion already made.
            Take the Baden issue. What can possibly be the relevance of statements made a decade after an event to what was stated at the time of the event? Are you claiming that what somebody says in 1990 invalidates what he stated in 1978? Furthermore, if those statements and findings were confirmed at the time by other world-renowned experts what does it matter what Baden stated years later when memories had clouded and mistakes are understandable? The simple answer to the issue of not liking what Baden stated years later is to refer to what the other forensic experts on the HSCA panel stated. None save Wecht disagreed with Baden’s conclusions. Therefore, it is quite pointless to regurgitate what Baden claimed about photos years later when the forensic pathologists at the time came to the same conclusion without seeing the photos Baden claimed existed.
            If CTers are really interested in the veracity of witness statements and who is lying one only has to refer to the recent Tanenbaum discussion on this site. Since there is no evidence to support his claim that Phillips “stormed out” of a committee meeting one could say that he lied-or was simply mistaken. The fact that he has yet to comment on this despite being invited to on this site several times leads me to believe the former.But either way the CTers on this blog still continue to lap up everything he says as the gospel truth.Clearly a double standard.
            Perhaps the most egregious example of this double standard is how an entire CT industry has grown up based on the claims of Dr. Robert McClellan in regards to the head wound. We have seen drawings that are claimed to show his perception of the head wound published up and down the CT literature. We have seen him quoted as THE Parkland authority on the head wound who contradicts the 3 Bethesda pathologists, pathologists on the Rockefeller and Clark panels, pathologists on the HSCA-and even fellow ER doctors at Parkland.
            But those same McClelland disciples ignore the written statement of McClelland on Nov 22 regurgitating the incorrect view of another physician-making what he has stated since that time in regards to the head wound TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. Why has no CTer ever brought up this contradiction?

          • Photon on June 28, 2016 at 7:14 am, says;
            “JFK did have an abnormal neck.”

            Hahahahahahaha!!! Good one Dr Photon!
            \\][//

        • John cannot offer any possible explanation for why Dr. Baden spoke of non-existent photos, even to the extent of describing their quality.

          No possible scenario has been offered that avoids the fact that he lied.

          You are continuing to do the buff thing, and calling each inaccurate statement a “lie.”

          But you can’t explain why Baden would tell any such lie. None of his inaccurate statements tended to support LHO as the lone shooter. They are just all over the place.

          You folks just like to attack people who disagree with you.

          • You are continuing to do the believer thing, and refuse to offer any possible explanation for why Dr. Baden spoke of non-existent photos, even to the extent of describing their quality.

            No possible scenario has been offered that avoids the fact that he lied.

            I’m really not required to explain someone’s motivations for lying, only to point it out.

            You’ve still not explained YOUR seeming ignorance of the fact that no interior chest photos exist.

            Why is that, John?

          • I’m really not required to explain someone’s motivations for lying, only to point it out.

            Actually, yes you are.

            If the two possibilities are “lying” or “mistaken,” and you can’t possibly see a reason for somebody to lie, you have to go with “mistaken.”

          • Sorry John… a lie is simply a lie.

            It requires no crystal ball to determine the motivations of the liar.

            Merely the pointing out of an untruth.

            You’ve STILL refused to explain why you ignored the mythical ‘interior chest photo’ that has never been seen by ANYONE.

            What possible reason did the HSCA have to write so untruthfully about the medical testimony?

            Can YOU provide their motivation?

          • Ben,

            Perhaps ‘professor’ McAdams would prefer the term, “prevaricator” to the term “liar” – it is so much more ACADEMIC sounding….grin
            \\][//

          • Larry Schnapf says:

            One should exercise caution before labeling a person a liar. Is it possible that Dr. Baden was deliberately misstating facts-yes. But think it is certainly plausible that Baden misremembered details about the autopsy. I know many very good lawyers with excellent memory’s who sometimes experience what we call “deal merge”- confusing facts from different ongoing transactions much less from documents reviewed decades ago. Full disclosure- Dr. Baden was my professor for my medical law class in 1982. I personally talked to him after class on several occasions about the assassination and he was candid about the state of the evidence.

          • You’ve STILL refused to explain why you ignored the mythical ‘interior chest photo’ that has never been seen by ANYONE.

            What is your point? Why should I have cared any more about that than any of the other inaccurate statements in Baden’s 1990 account?

            What possible reason did the HSCA have to write so untruthfully about the medical testimony?

            But they didn’t write untruthfully.

          • “I personally talked to him [Baden] after class on several occasions about the assassination and he was candid about the state of the evidence.”
            ~Larry Schnapf

            And what was the “state of the evidence” according to the candid Dr Baden?
            \\][//

          • I asked John: “Tell everyone here what how they compared the Parkland witnesses to the Bethesda witnesses”…

            John responds: “That wasn’t the Forensic Pathology Panel. That was some staffer.”

            No John… I didn’t say that this was a Forensic Pathology Panel. My exact question was: “What possible reason did the HSCA have to write so untruthfully about the medical testimony?”

            I stated that the HSCA had lied about the medical evidence. You have a very pronounced tendency to try to change the topic of discussion.

            John commits an anachronism: “And the staffer was obviously under the influence of Lifton, who believed there was a discrepancy between the Parkland testimony and the Bethesda testimony.”

            “Best Evidence” was a 1981 book, the HSCA report was from 1978.

            Tell us why the HSCA, which had the ACTUAL MEDICAL TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF THEM, should prefer the influence of a book not yet written…

            John says: “But the best evidence is the photos and x-rays, so it doesn’t matter much what the very muddled witness testimony says.”

            Again, the change of topic.

            Now, let’s get back to it, I asked you, “What possible reason did the HSCA have to write so untruthfully about the medical testimony?”… you’ve not yet answered that question.

            Would you like to try again?

          • John commits an anachronism: “And the staffer was obviously under the influence of Lifton, who believed there was a discrepancy between the Parkland testimony and the Bethesda testimony.”

            Go to this page:

            http://www.nara.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder.exe/0?path=jfkcnew.txt&id=demo&pass=&OK=OK

            Enter “Lifton” as a term, and “HSCA” as “Submitting Agency.”

            Lifton was certainly in contact with the HSCA. However, some of his contact was about the MLK assassination. But he certainly was “onto” his body alteration theme at the time of the HSCA.

            So you are bitching about an odd error written by some staffer, and not the Forensic Pathology Panel.

            Did it ever occur to you that if the HSCA staffer wanted to lie to support the LN theory, he would have simply said that witnesses in both places gave the same testimony, consistent with a shot from the rear?

            And of course, you have to impeach not only the FPP, but the Clark Panel, and the Rockefeller Panel.

            You are so hung up on calling people “liar” that you can’t actually discuss evidence.

          • John says: “But the best evidence is the photos and x-rays, so it doesn’t matter much what the very muddled witness testimony says.”

            Again, the change of topic.

            No, you just want to bitch and call people liars, when the real issue is the nature of the wounds.

            Could it be you actually understand that Kennedy was hit by two bullets from behind?

          • Here’s the question again, John: Tell us why the HSCA, which had the ACTUAL MEDICAL TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF THEM, should prefer the influence of a book not yet written…

            And, of course, the question you keep dodging: “What possible reason did the HSCA have to write so untruthfully about the medical testimony?”… you’ve not yet answered that question.

            Would you like to try again?

            It doesn’t go away simply by ignoring it, John.

          • John says: “But the best evidence is the photos and x-rays, so it doesn’t matter much what the very muddled witness testimony says.”

            Again, the change of topic.

            Now, let’s get back to it, I asked you, “What possible reason did the HSCA have to write so untruthfully about the medical testimony?”… you’ve not yet answered that question.

            Would you like to try again?

          • you’ve not yet answered that question.

            Yes I have.

            You just didn’t like the answer.

            So don’t be a Robert Harris, always loudly bitching that people haven’t refuted you, when they have, merely because you didn’t like their answers.

        • John McAdams tells an untruth: “But they didn’t write untruthfully.”

          You cannot support that John, and you know it.

          Tell everyone here what how they compared the Parkland witnesses to the Bethesda witnesses…

          Then cite even a single example that supports their lie.

          But you won’t.

          My crystal ball has spoken.

          • Tell everyone here what how they compared the Parkland witnesses to the Bethesda witnesses…

            That wasn’t the Forensic Pathology Panel. That was some staffer.

            And the staffer was obviously under the influence of Lifton, who believed there was a discrepancy between the Parkland testimony and the Bethesda testimony.

            But the best evidence is the photos and x-rays, so it doesn’t matter much what the very muddled witness testimony says.

          • I stated: Tell everyone here what how they compared the Parkland witnesses to the Bethesda witnesses…

            Then cite even a single example that supports their lie.

            But you won’t.

            My crystal ball has spoken.
            ———————————

            Seems that my crystal ball is still predicting perfectly.

            John KNOWS that the HSCA didn’t tell the truth about the medical evidence.

            He’ll twist & turn and blame this, and blame that…

            But in the end, the facts haven’t changed from when I first pointed them out.

          • pat speer says:

            What are you talking about, John? What HSCA staffer? Are you really saying that the HSCA report misrepresented the statements of the Bethesda witnesses because some anonymous staffer was under the influence of Lifton? Really? Lifton, who believed there was a divide between the statements of the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses…convinced a staffer to falsely claim the recollections of the Bethesda witnesses unanimously supported the veracity of the autopsy photos? And this somehow got by Coe and Weston and Baden etc, who signed off on the report?

          • And this somehow got by Coe and Weston and Baden etc, who signed off on the report?

            Where do you think it came from, Pat?

            You buffs are always shouting “liar! liar!,” but is this a lie?

            If they were going to lie, why not say that all the witnesses saw wounds consistent with a shot from the rear?

            Or, why not just be fully accurate, and say the witness testimony is all over the place, and has little if any probative value?

            You buffs have the bad habit of saying that every inaccuracy or anomaly is sinister. You need to explain how it might be sinister.

          • John KNOWS that the HSCA didn’t tell the truth about the medical evidence.

            You are doing the “buff” thing again, and claiming that if you can find one inaccuracy, you can dismiss everything the HSCA said.

            You need to prove they “didn’t tell the truth” about two bullets hitting Kennedy from behind.

            But you ignore that issue. It’s obvious why.

        • I stated: “You’ve STILL refused to explain why you ignored the mythical ‘interior chest photo’ that has never been seen by ANYONE.”

          John asks: “What is your point? Why should I have cared any more about that than any of the other inaccurate statements in Baden’s 1990 account?”

          Sorry John, it would be a violation of this website’s guidelines to be specific about my “point”.

          I have, however… made it. My apologies if you missed the point. 🙂

        • Indeed, John can’t explain how *HE* managed to miss the fact that Dr. Baden was speaking about something that has NEVER existed in this case.

          There is some sort of logical slippage in your mind. I said that everything in the passage you quoted was untrue, and you are saying I missed the thing about the supposed chest photos.

          “Untrue” included those. They are part of “everything.”

          Somehow, you are using very opaque logic.

          • Indeed, John can’t explain how *HE* managed to miss the fact that Dr. Baden was speaking about something that has NEVER existed in this case.

            John says: “There is some sort of logical slippage in your mind. I said that everything in the passage you quoted was untrue, and you are saying I missed the thing about the supposed chest photos. Untrue” included those. They are part of “everything. Somehow, you are using very opaque logic.”

            First John, you’ve still not noted that there *IS* one correct statement in that quote.

            Second, your inability to differentiate between false statements that *could* be mistakes (as they are very similar to real historical events), and a statement that is simply impossible on the face of it, simply demonstrates your character.

            Not your lack of knowledge.

            Nothing “opaque” here at all. I’m pointing out facts.

            If they weren’t facts, you’d be refuting what I state with citation.

            Dr. Baden isn’t intentionally lying when he claims that the FBI was photographing the autopsy… someone clearly was, and he got confused.

            But you can’t get “confused” over NONEXISTENT evidence.

            That’s an invention… that’s a deliberate lie.

            There’s a difference.

          • Second, your inability to differentiate between false statements that *could* be mistakes (as they are very similar to real historical events), and a statement that is simply impossible on the face of it, simply demonstrates your character.

            You can’t make something true by simply repeatedly declaring it.

            The more you keep saying the same thing, and fail to respond to counter-arguments, the lamer you look.

            A photo of the interior of the chest is not “impossible on the face of it.” In fact, Humes said one was made. Humes was almost certainly wrong about that.

            But people make mistakes, and people have false memories, and you look silly if you try to deny that.

          • “Professor” McAdams is certainly working overtime on this thread! After virtually disappearing for a couple of months. I wonder what it is that has given him a new lease on strife?

            I think it is most hypocritical for the “professor” to accuse anybody of “using very opaque logic.”

            He has at this point agreed that the bullet holes in JFK’s shirt and jacket are 5 1/4 inches down from the collar, and that these bullet holes are in the same location on JFK’s back. This location is at the T3 Vertebrae.

            Ergo, it is impossible for this bullet to have been fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

            But McAdams denies this, claiming that the bullet hit JFK at T1…despite admitting earlier that it was in the same position as the bullet holes in the shirt and coat.

            Ergo, he defends Baden and the HSCA medical panel when he chooses, and disputes them when their findings are inconvenient to the finding that Oswald fired the shots.

            Which is also a double-bind problem for the HSCA medical panel itself; as their own finding on the position of the wound to Kennedy’s back is in conflict with their finding that the shot’s came from TSBD.

            But all of this should be hand waved by the critics of these fraudulent government panels because “the word of Authority is correct whether it is rational or not, simply because it IS Authority.”

            Let us pray; “gawdblesmurkah”

            \\][//

          • Which is also a double-bind problem for the HSCA medical panel itself; as their own finding on the position of the wound to Kennedy’s back is in conflict with their finding that the shot’s came from TSBD.

            You keep saying this, but that’s not what the HSCA medical panel concluded.

            Again, you can’t make something true by merely endlessly repeating it.

      • “Photon” asks: “Take the Baden issue. What can possibly be the relevance of statements made a decade after an event to what was stated at the time of the event?”

        Even though it should be obvious to any intelligent reader, I’ll go ahead and answer that question.

        There are certain issues in this case (such as the Baden quote, or the Alyea two rifles frame, or the mythical “roll call”) in which believers are incapable of correctly assessing what they read or see.

        This has nothing whatsoever to do with the case itself – it has EVERYTHING to do with illustrating the character of those who cannot read or see.

        An honest person who knows the facts, would simply state that Dr. Baden was quite wrong on virtually all of his statements, and IMPOSSIBLY wrong on one of them. Then move on…

        Because IT DOESN’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE CASE EVIDENCE!

        But I enjoy pointing out that WCR Supporters cannot view evidence impartially, nor reason as average people reason.

        And *that*… is the relevance.

        • Photon says:

          Except every other peer on the HSCA pathology panel agreed with him on his conclusions-except for Wecht, and he partially accepted them.
          But of course Ben, you know more about forensic pathology than the foremost practioners in the field at the time.
          Of course. And NAVL is a maritime term.

          • “Photon” says: “Except every other peer on the HSCA pathology panel agreed with him on his conclusions-except for Wecht, and he partially accepted them.”

            Name one.

            Just one.

            Then DOCUMENT that they agreed with Dr. Baden in the quote I provided.

            But you won’t, nor can you. You are, like John, trying to change the topic to something else…

            “Photon” ad hominems: “But of course Ben, you know more about forensic pathology than the foremost practioners in the field at the time.”

            So too does John McAdams – who has AGREED that none of the statements are correct.

            Why don’t you make the same comment to John?

            (My crystal ball is predicting no answer to this)

            “Photon” says: “Of course. And NAVL is a maritime term.”

            Lost me there… a search of this entire page thus far reveals only one use of “NAVL” – and that is your statement. Could you have misread or misinterpreted what I posted?

          • ed connor says:

            NAVL: Non-invasive assisted ventilation of the lungs.
            Or, if you want someone to understand what you are saying, “bagging.”

          • Photon says:

            Ok Ben , how about Earl Rose,MD-who would have done the Autopsy in Dallas if Kenny O’Donnell hadn’t removed the body to get Jackie Kennedy out of Dallas . He agreed with every other Pathologist on the HSCA panel except the eccentric Wecht-two shots from behind, one hit JFK and Connolly. It is the conclusion of real experts, not armchair researchers who have never been in a morgue, let alone seen an autopsy or smelled the results of a bone saw cut after the Y incision.
            Ed, good try but you need to get a copy of the Grant’s Method lab workbook. If you ever sued a Cardiologist you might have run across the term.

          • ed connor says:

            Grant’s Method: wasn’t that attrition?
            BTW, what does cardiology have to do with the assassination? Did JFK die from an M.I.?

        • “Photon” says: “Except every other peer on the HSCA pathology panel agreed with him on his conclusions-except for Wecht, and he partially accepted them.”

          Name one.

          Just one.

          Then DOCUMENT that they agreed with Dr. Baden in the quote I provided.

          But you won’t, nor can you.

          Photon says:”Ok Ben , how about Earl Rose,MD-who would have done the Autopsy in Dallas if Kenny O’Donnell hadn’t removed the body to get Jackie Kennedy out of Dallas.”

          Perhaps you didn’t read what I stated carefully enough.

          So I’ll simply repeat it again.

          Name just *ONE* person… ANYONE AT ALL… who agrees with the quote I gave from Dr. Baden.

          Cite that agreement where others can see it.

          As I stated, you won’t… nor can you.

  27. So what we have is the perpetual and redundant serial APPEAL TO AUTHORITY by the Warrenista’s here.

    They deny this with the Orwellian euphemism of claiming that it is “expertise” that they appeal to. However, it is the State Authority with the power of coercion, that hires and leads such expertise in these cases of state crimes against democracy and liberty.
    \\][//

  28. Larry Schnapf says:

    @Willy- Prof McAdams is correct that a jury can consider all admissible evidence. However, there have been numerous studies showing that eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable and is best used to corroborate “hard evidence.” Indeed, a significant percentage of the persons who have been exonerated by the Innocence Project have been due to flawed eyewitness testimony.

    @Photon- Contemporaneous testimony is generally more probative than testimony offered years later but there can be specific circumstances that can reverse that presumption. One should not make broad, sweeping assertions that a later statement by a particular person such as Baden or Curry are irrelevant without examining the context in which the statements are made.

    @Ben- why are you so obsessed about a misstatement about chest x-rays? A single misstatement does not necessarily invalidate the rest of the factual statements.

    • “@Willy- Prof McAdams is correct that a jury can consider all admissible evidence.”~Larry Schnapf

      And that which is “admissible evidence” is in the final determination, is what the judge sitting on the bench allows.

      Realpolitik.
      \\][//

    • Larry asks: “why are you so obsessed about a misstatement about chest x-rays? A single misstatement does not necessarily invalidate the rest of the factual statements.”

      I’ve several times now explained the incongruity of speaking of the characteristics of non-existent photos. (Who said anything about chest X-rays???) And demonstrated that no-one can offer a credible explanation for that statement other than a deliberate misrepresentation.

      And, as pointed out, there’s only *one* statement in Dr. Baden’s quote I provided which was true.

      One.

      You refer to “factual statements”…

      Can you quote any one of them, then cite for it?

  29. Larry Schnapf says:

    While I will always be grateful to Mark Lane for exposing the WC machinations, I have to admit that he sometimes blurred the distinction between facts and advocacy

  30. Larry Schnapf says:

    @Ben- I think what Professor McAdams may be saying is that he thinks Baden misremembered the “sources” that he has seen. It is possible that he thought he had seen chest photos, my have thought someone told him there were chest photos or he simply did not know but thought he did. Many professionals working on numerous projects can suffer from the “cluttered mind syndrome” or have “deal merge” where they misremember facts or think there were facts that did not exist. It doesnt necessarily mean they are lying. when you get old enough, you’ll understand. 🙂 It is also possible as you say that he was lying but I think you would have to have more evidence to make such an inference than you have now. BTW- I believe that LHO did not fire a shot that day just so you know that my statements are not being influenced by my beliefs.

    • @Ben- I think what Professor McAdams may be saying is that he thinks Baden misremembered the “sources” that he has seen. It is possible that he thought he had seen chest photos, my have thought someone told him there were chest photos or he simply did not know but thought he did.

      Yes, all of that is possible.

      I will point out that Baden had in fact seen the autopsy photos. That fact might make it easier to think he had seen an “out of focus” photo. Perhaps one he saw in another context.

      It’s also the case that Humes told the Warren Commission a “Kodachrome” was shot of the interior chest. No such photo is known to have ever been in evidence. But false memories being what they are, some agglomeration of various things could have produced a false memory.

      And as Jean suggest, a ghostwriter who was simply sloppy with sources may be the best explanation.

      I’ve not read Bill O’Reily’s book on the assassination, but I did read an excerpt. It’s full of errors. Not “lies” for the purpose of convicting Oswald, but just mistakes a non-expert ghost writer might make.

      • Larry Schnapf says:

        After re-watching the video of his presentation, it seems to me that at the very least Baden was ill-prepared for his presentation….or very nervous. He seemed to me to be very uncertain of the facts and the evidence.-IMHO

      • “Not “lies” for the purpose of convicting Oswald, but just mistakes a non-expert ghost writer might make.”

        Ah yes McAdams, those Ghost Writers In The Sky! Yippy ayea yippy ayeo!!

        \\][//

        • those Ghost Writers In The Sky! Yippy ayea yippy ayeo!!

          Sure, Willy.

          We know if it has O’Reilly’s name on it, he wrote every word.

          Same with Hillary. Same with George Bush. Ghost writers are just a myth of some sort.

      • John says: “I will point out that Baden had in fact seen the autopsy photos.”

        Good of you to admit it after I corrected you. Your initial claim was that Dr. Baden wasn’t at the autopsy.

        Which, of course, means absolutely nothing in respect to his viewing of the autopsy photographs… as I pointed out.

        John says: “It’s also the case that Humes told the Warren Commission a “Kodachrome” was shot of the interior chest. No such photo is known to have ever been in evidence. But false memories being what they are, some agglomeration of various things could have produced a false memory.”

        This is the sort of thing that you have to do when you’re a believer.

        The average person is going to understand that if you have a bruise on the apical portion of the lung, AND IT’S THE ONLY EVIDENCE OF TRANSIT THAT YOU HAVE – then of course you’re going to document it with at least one or two photographs.

        John HAS to believe that such photographs never existed, despite the statements contrary by Dr. Humes. Because the alternative, that the photo went missing while under government control, doesn’t bear thinking about.

        And it’s embarrassing indeed that the only “evidence” of transit is missing… I rather suspect it went missing because it demonstrated that there was *no* transit.

        But to believe that the photo[s] never existed, that takes a true believer.

        • Good of you to admit it after I corrected you. Your initial claim was that Dr. Baden wasn’t at the autopsy.

          He wasn’t at the autopsy. He saw them as a member of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel.

          This is the sort of thing that you have to do when you’re a believer.

          It’s what you do when you pay attention to an extensive psychological literature on memory.

          then of course you’re going to document it with at least one or two photographs.

          So you are saying that Baden was correct about photos of the interior of the chest?

          But to believe that the photo[s] never existed, that takes a true believer.

          So you do think that Baden was telling the truth about that!

          The evidence of transit included the fact that the wound in the back was an entrance (it had an abrasion collar), and not bullet was found in Kennedy’s body.

          • I stated: “Good of you to admit it after I corrected you. Your initial claim was that Dr. Baden wasn’t at the autopsy.”

            John agrees: “He wasn’t at the autopsy. He saw them as a member of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel.”

            So tell us John… why did you attempt the argument that Dr. Baden was not at the autopsy when it had ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on whether or not he’d seen the autopsy photos?

            You tend to throw so much stuff up against the wall – so I’ll merely delve into this one.

          • I stated: “Good of you to admit it after I corrected you. Your initial claim was that Dr. Baden wasn’t at the autopsy.”

            You didn’t correct me. I simply stated the obvious: Baden was not at the autopsy.

            He had seen the autopsy photos and x-rays.

            Why are you having trouble understanding that?

        • Ben,

          Ever hear of Henry Sienzant?

          \\][//

          • Of course.

            You can see a past exchange on my forum… Henry is very knowledgeable, and the only WCR Supporter I’ve EVER met who has the amazing ability to call people by their real names. Rather than insulting and ad hominem, Henry relies on an ability to stick only to areas he’s competent on – and absolutely refuses to debate anything else.

            He’s gone YEARS without answering the simple question of how many weapons can be seen in the Alyea video frame.

      • The Criteria for Assessing the Reliability of Witness Testimony

        The most critical would be:

        1. – POV – and Distance from event witnessed

        2. — Consideration of obstructions a witness’ position would encounter

        3. — Human perception of events that occur in a matter of seconds and less

        4. – The likelihood of a duck response to a nearby dangerous event.

        5. – Possible conflict of interests

        6. – Obvious conflict of interests

        7. – Internal conflicts of a single witness’ testimony, and a detailed analysis of how this might be understood. (see 3rd criteria point)

        8. – MO; Established history of lying

        9. – Conflicts with known and established empirical evidence.

        10. – Particular circumstances of specific witnesses, that could effect the reliability of a certain witness (Handicaps, etc).
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        “The measurements I made, as far as I’m concerned, were accurate. You could debate whether they were wise choices to be made or not, but they were accurate.”~Dr Humes – testimony before ARRB
        . . . . .
        This witness testimony touches on Points 6,7,8,9,&10. One need not debate whether the choices were wise, they were clearly not – it is absurd; it is senseless when there are fixed anatomical landmarks nearby. Humes chose to measure the position of JFK’s back wound from the Mastoid Process to the Acromion – a distance that can very 70% depending on the relative positions of the head and shoulder; thus it is a rather preposterous choice for such a measurement. Thus, the measurement is inaccurate by lack of proper criteria.

        Furthermore; The location given by Humes conflicts with known and established empirical evidence [#9]
        There is an established history of Humes lying about the notes and number of autopsy reports [#8]
        There is evidence that Humes initially did place the back wound at T3 in earlier notes and reports [#7]
        Humes has a `conflict of interest’ as he is a participant in a cover-up [#6]

        \\][//

  31. Larry Schnapf says:

    @Ben- O’Reilly has no veracity to me. He was hot on the trail of assassins when he was a cub reporter, going so far as falsely stating he was outside DeMonhrenschildt’s home when George supposedly committed suicide, but when he got hired by Fox, he suddenly changed his tune. Same with Geraldo..who by the way I grilled three weeks ago on the street when I ran into him while walking my dog.

    From the link that Jean provided to Lane’s WC testimony, it looks to me he was testifying as an advocate and not as a factual witness…

    I have not been closely following the tick or tat about misstatements in Rush to Judgment about the paraffin test. Is the issue that he wrote that an official claimed the test proved LHO fired a weapon when no one said that?

    • Larry says: “@Ben- O’Reilly has no veracity to me.”

      Nor to me. When he tried to pass Oswald off as a “crack shot” – something I doubt even John McAdams would swallow – O’Reilly lost all credibility.

      It wasn’t I who cited or referenced anything from O’Reilly.

      I noticed that John tried to defend O’Reilly by reference to a “ghostwriter” who wasn’t an “expert”.

      You’d be searching for a long time to find a “mistake” that contradicts the Warren Commission’s case written by any Warren Commission apologists.

      All “mistakes” only help the case… never hinder it.

    • but when he got hired by Fox, he suddenly changed his tune.

      Be careful here. Yes, since Fox leans right and the conspiracy culture leans left, you might think Fox would be anti-conspiracy.

      But in both 2003 and 2013, Fox documentaries were more “conspiracy friendly” than those on the mainstream liberal networks.

      Actually, this makes sense. Fox is the “new kid” only founded in the 1990s. It does not have the “mainstream media” tradition of opposing conspiracy theories that CBS, NBC, the New York Times and other similar media have.

      BTW, with regard to O’Reilly, some of his early conspiracy stuff was the result of his being manipulated by Gaeton Fonzi:

  32. Larry Schnapf says:

    @Prof McAdams- Yes- I was pleasantly surprised by the Fox special on the 50th anniversary when it concluded there was evidence of second rear shooter on top of Records Bldg/Court House. Being what used to be called a Rockefeller republican, I don’t bash Fox. Your guess as to why he changed his mind could be right though I suspect the $$ from Fox and access to power brokers was very persuasive to someone like him. Fox would not want a conspiracy theorist as a principal anchor. I don’t think its a coincidence that Geraldo also changed his mind when he got hired by Fox….

  33. Larry Schnapf says:

    @jean and Ben- on the issue of Mark Lane’s statement about Curry, i have to agree this one time with Jean. Lane was advocating a view and overstated (or obfuscated) the facts. while i believe Markham is a very shaky witness who would have been destroyed on cross-examination, Lane also had a tenuous connection with the facts regarding her testimony.

    • while i believe Markham is a very shaky witness who would have been destroyed on cross-examination,

      Ironically, she held up better when subjected to manipulative questioning by Mark Lane than when she was questioned by WC counsel:

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt

    • Larry says: “@jean and Ben- on the issue of Mark Lane’s statement about Curry, i have to agree this one time with Jean. Lane was advocating a view and overstated (or obfuscated) the facts.”

      What do YOU think Curry was trying to say without saying it? (This will, of course, be a test of *your* character…)

      Mark Lane was absolutely accurate… and that simply bothers a lot of people who cannot discredit him.

    • Jean Davison says:

      I appreciate your comment, Larry. Thanks.

  34. Larry Schnapf says:

    in this excerpt alone, she contradicted herself, very agreeing the shooter was short, heavy with bushy hair but later denies she the described him that way and blamez it on a reporter. a good defense lawyer would have destroyed her. i suspect Belin included this passage to undermine Lane’s accusations.

    • “in this excerpt alone,she contradicted herself”~Larry Schnapf

      Can you tell me which excerpt you are referring to?

      Thanks, \\][//

    • If you are talking about this, I don’t see her contradicting herself.

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt

      She said he was “short” (what does that mean?) a “little heavy” (150, 160 lb.) but denies that he had bushy hair (but was a “tore up a little” since “he had been through a lot”).

      150 pounds is not very heavy.

      Of course, Belin wanted to undermine Lane’s accusations. He did an excellent job of it, since Lane was engaged in a sleazy exercise.

      No amount of leading questioning or manipulation could change the fact that she had picked Oswald out of the lineup.

  35. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Did she now? Let’s look at her WC testimony.

    “Mr. BALL. Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?
    Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
    Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
    Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
    Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody–I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
    Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
    Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
    Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn’t know nobody.
    Mr. BALL. I know you didn’t know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
    Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
    Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
    Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
    Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
    Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
    Mr. BALL. Was there a number two man in there?
    Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two is the one I picked.
    Mr. BALL. Well, I thought you just told me that you hadn’t–
    Mrs. MARKHAM. I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing.
    Mr. BALL. No. I wanted to know if that day when you were in there if you saw anyone in there–
    Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two.
    Mr. BALL. What did you say when you saw number two?
    Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, let me tell you. I said the second man, and they kept asking me which one, which one. I said, number two. When I said number two, I just got weak.
    Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
    Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
    Mr. BALL. You recognized him from his appearance?
    Mrs. MARKHAM. I asked–I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn’t sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me.

    Continued…..

  36. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Continued…..

    Mr. BALL. When you saw him?
    Mrs. MARKHAM. When I saw the man. But I wasn’t sure, so, you see, I told them I wanted to be sure, and looked, at his face is what I was looking at, mostly is what I looked at, on account of his eyes, the way he looked at me. So I asked them if they would turn him sideways. They did, and then they turned him back around, and I said the second, and they said, which one, and I said number two. So when I said that, well, I just kind of fell over. Everybody in there, you know, was beginning to talk, and I don’t know, just–
    Mr. BALL. Did you recognize him from his clothing?
    Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on a light short jacket, dark trousers. I looked at his clothing, but I looked at his face, too.
    Mr. BALL. Did he have the same clothing on that the man had that you saw shoot the officer?
    Mrs. MARKHAM. He had, these dark trousers on.
    Mr. BALL. Did he have a jacket or a shirt? The man that you saw shoot Officer Tippit and run away, did you notice if he had a jacket on?
    Mrs. MARKHAM. He had a jacket on when he done it.
    Mr. BALL. What kind of a jacket, what general color of jacket?
    Mrs. MARKHAM. It was a short jacket open in the front, kind of a grayish tan.
    Mr. BALL. Did you tell the police that?
    Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, I did.
    Mr. BALL. Did any man in the lineup have a jacket on?
    Mrs. MARKHAM. I can’t remember that.
    Mr. BALL. Did this number two man that you mentioned to the police have any jacket on when he was in the lineup?
    Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
    Mr. BALL. What did he have on?
    Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on a light shirt and dark trousers. (Representative Ford is now in the Commission hearing room.)”

    Ball could not have lead this witness more if he had put a ring in her nose and tied a rope to it.

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