Comment of the week

By Photon – November 7

Willy, do you have any evidence that the bullet pictured as Wright’s pointed bullet actually IS Wright’s pointed bullet?


Why is the picture of this bullet on exactly the same type of background as we see with the Carcano 6.5 mm bullet?
Remember, Thompson NEVER showed Wright a Carcano bullet, only PICTURES of it.
Please refer to Thompson’s interview from the assassination conference recorded on the Mary Ferrell site concerning this-as referred to by JFK Facts. He makes no mention of Wright producing a bullet, but states TWICE that Wright thought that it looked like a .30-.30 round, well known to have a ” pointed nose”.
But the .30-.30 was well known to have a ROUNDED nose-and was almost unique for that characteristic that it shared with the virtually unknown Carcano 6.5 mm round.
So I ask you ( and others) : how can Tink Thompson be possibly credible on this issue? How can any conclusion based on a story with multiple contradictions and factual errors possibly be logical, let alone correct?
Why hasn the CT community looked into the accuracy of Dr. Thompson’s claims instead of a 45 year history of celebratiing his excellence as a researcher and accepting those claims despite an absence of corroborating evidence to support those claims? These are questions that I am sure CTers do not want to address, but the truth is a hard mistress.

 

110 comments

  1. Bill Pierce says:

    Photon writes:
    “But the .30-.30 was well known to have a ROUNDED nose-and was almost unique for that characteristic that it shared with the virtually unknown Carcano 6.5 mm round.”

    I have two boxes of .30-.30s from the early 1960s. The noses are flat and they are not FMJ. No one would have any trouble differentiating those .30-.30s from CE399. It’s possible there were other configurations that had rounded or pointed noses, but all of this is 100% irrelevant.

    Photon, your game is to nitpick and obfuscate. It’s silly.

    Mr. Wright was trying to be helpful. He told Mr. Thompson that the stretcher bullet did not look like CE399. The nose was pointed. Mr. Wright’s answer is what it is. What can be gained by debating this endlessly? [None of the ballistics evidence is trustworthy, particularly CE399.]

  2. Charles says:

    For once I completely agree with Photon. “How can any conclusion based on a story with multiple contradictions and factual errors possibly be logical, let alone correct?”

    Sums up the WC perfectly…

  3. leslie sharp says:

    “How can any conclusion based on a story with multiple contradictions and factual errors possibly be logical, let alone correct?” — photon

    Indeed, photon, how can the Warren Commission story with multiple contradictions and factual errors possibly be logical, let alone correct?

    Any comment that opens a door to common ground must surely be worthy of recognition. Whether or not photon’s statement is a Freudian slip is not clear but if he or she has the integrity to acknowledge that the Warren Commission Report meets the exact criteria laid out here as being illogical and incorrect, this site might well be the home for a new era in the debate.

  4. Skeptic says:

    Haven’t seen the picture in a long time, but recall the odd length/width ratio reminded me of the 7.35mm Carcano. This was actually a smaller bullet than the M-C 6.5mm (130 grains v 162?).

    .30-30 is round nosed, usually. There is even a flat nosed version. My guess is that Wright misspoke and was trying to refer to the .30’06. For that matter, over the decades, I have occassionally seen print “corrections” substituting .30-30 for .30’06.

    The inherent contradiction is shooting from multiple weapons from multiple locations to blame a single innocent man–whom some claim was on the steps watching the parade. _This_ represents a power broker plot?

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      The 7.35x51mm Carcano was not actually a smaller bullet than the 6.5x52mm Carcano bullet, despite the fact it weighed approximately 130 grains, compared to the 6.5mm at 162 grains.

      The 7.35mm Carcano short rifle was essentially identical in all respects to the 6.5mm Carcano short rifle. The only difference was the wider slug and corresponding barrel with greater internal diameter. This was the result of recycling worn out 6.5mm long rifle barrels by boring them to the new larger diameter.

      The 7.35mm had a pointed nose, as opposed to the round nose of the 6.5mm, and, inside that nose, incorporated a new feature to increase the killing power of this round. Inside the bullet jacket, the forward third of this slug was made of aluminum, while the rear tw-thirds of the slug was made from lead. This created an imbalance of mass between the two ends of the bullet. When the pointed nose struck bone, it would cause the bullet to begin tumbling in a wound, This tumbling was magnified by the heavier rear of the bullet attempting to pass the lighter front.

      This very lethal bullet was a slavish copy of the .303 British Mk. VII cartridge, first introduced around 1906.

  5. Photon says:

    Please post any contradictory comments or factual errors in the Warren Report.
    The original critical reviews of the Warren conclusions were based on the same evidence documented in the report-only interpreted differently ( and often incorrectly). Some authors( such as Mark Lane) invented stories when they couldn’t impeach the documented evidence in the report( the lie about a picture showing Ruby in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, the lie about ” not a single shooter able to repeat Oswald’s” feat come to mind.)
    But what is really interesting is that nobody is coming to Thompson’s defense or giving any reasonable explanation for his errors and unconfirmed claims.

    • “Please post any contradictory comments or factual errors in the Warren Report.”~Photon

      Lol…what do you think has been happening here on this blog the whole time you’ve been here???

      The Warren Report is proven completely untenable, a fabulist grimoire
      of mythical nonsense.
      \\][//

    • leslie sharp says:

      photon, before your attempt to distract by introducing Lane and Thompson takes effect . . . . WC contradictions are apparent throughout, but the determination of who would and would not be significant as witnesses is a good place to begin:

      Pillsworth, Mary
      In spite of being one of the last witnesses to the assassination and holding a credential as a news reporter, Ms. Pillsworth was not called to testify.

      Styles, Sandra
      In spite of being one of the last witnesses inside the TSBD who descended the stairs in a scene that established a timeline used to posthumously convict Oswald, Styles was not called to testify.

      Under skilled examination these two witnesses might have provided keys leading away from the premature conclusion about Oswald.

      Campbell, Ochus
      In spite of being the co-owner of the depository business housed in the building that was the alleged scene of the crime and in spite of being Lee Oswald’s ultimate employer and in spite of having witnessed the assassination with Roy Truly – his own employee who hired Lee Oswald – Campbell was asked only to provide an FBI affidavit. He was not called to testify.

      Why was Campbell not required to answer probing questions about the history of the depository business, its various locations including most recently the Dal-Tex building, his relationship with DH Byrd who knew Oswald thru the CAP, and his business partner – Jack Cason – who was openly hostile to Kennedy?

      In contrast, George deMohrenschildt testified for hours and hours even though he was out of the city at the time of the assassination yet we know more about him than almost any individual involved in events leading to the assassination. But go looking for information on Ochus V. Campbell who actually employed Oswald, was the occupant of record of what was the alleged crime scene, and who witnessed the event. The Warren Commission Report would not be your primary source.

    • Gary Aguilar says:

      For starters, let’s take a gander at the Warren Commission’s med/autopsy evidence. I explored those errors and omissions in an on-line essay some years ago. It’s available here: http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1b.htm

      And let’s not forget the critiques of the Warren Commission by patriotic U.S. government officials: BOTH the Church Committee and the House Select Committee. I wrote about those, with hot-links to the source documents, here: http://www.ctka.net/pr900-holland.html

      It’s patriotic to support the Warren Commission. It’s also patriotic to believe Nobel Laurate was right when he backed up the US and Israeli governments when both denied Israel/South Africa had exploded a test nuke in the Indian Ocean in the so-called “Vela Incident.”

      But just because it’s patriotic to believe these things, it’s no more patriotic to really believe them than it was to believe Bush II that Saddam had WMDs and posed us here, in the Land of the Free, an imminent threat.

      • Gary Aguilar says:

        Oh, I forgot. The Nobel Laureate that “confirmed” there was no nuclear blast in the Vela Incident was the same Nobel Laureate who concluded a “jet effect” explained JFK’s rearward jolt after Zapruder frame 313: Luis Alvarez.

        • Photon says:

          He was correct. What is your point? After 18 years the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

          • Gary Aguilar says:

            Wrong again, “Photon.” Despite the Nobel Laureate’s claim Israel/S.Africa didn’t fire a test nuke in the Indian Ocean, the evidence is clear there was such a test:

            A good summary of government evidence proving a nuclear blast in the Vela Incident is available in: Report on the 1979 Vela Incident -on-line at: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Safrica/Vela.html [“(Investigative journalist Seymour) Hersh reports interviewing several members of the Nuclear Intelligence Panel (NIP), which had conducted their own investigation of the event. Those interviewed included its leader Donald M. Kerr, Jr. and eminent nuclear weapons program veteran Harold M. Agnew. The NIP members concluded unanimously that it was a definite nuclear test. Another member – Louis H. Roddis, Jr. – concluded that “the South African-Israeli test had taken place on a barge, or on one of the islands in the South Indian Ocean archipelago” [Hersh 1991; pg. 280-281.On-line at: http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres10/SamsonOption.pdf%5D. He also cited internal CIA estimates made in 1979 and 1980 which concluded that it had been a test.

            “The U.S. Naval Research Laboratory conducted a comprehensive analysis, including the hydroacoustic data, and issued a 300-page report concluding that there had been a nuclear event near Prince Edward Island or Antarctica [Albright 1994b].”]

            Same holds for Alvarez on the “jet effect” and JFK’s rearward jolt after Z-313: Alvarez’s results were “patriotic,” not trustworthy.

            John Lattimer explained how the Nobel Laureate jiggered his test to get the result he wanted.

          • Gary Aguilar says:

            I know it’s patriotic to believe government officials, in this case one with a Nobel, on questions such as “jet effect.” But how then about Larry Sturdivan?

            Here he is describing the Army’s shooting tests on human skulls intended to determine whether there was “jet effect”:
            “Did the gunshot produce enough force in expelling the material from Kennedy’s head to throw his body backward into the limousine? Based on the high-speed movies of the skull shot simulations at the Biophysics Laboratory, the answer is no.”

            Sturdivan, “JFK Facts,” p. 162.

            It seems, “Photon,” you’re wrong on both accounts, or rather Alvarez was wrong on both accounts: Israel/So. Africa’s Nuke Test in the Indian Ocean and Alvarez’s claim a “jet effect” explained JfK’s rearward motion post Z-313.

            That

          • Photon says:

            You are being disingenuous , Dr Aguilar. Why are you neglecting to mention the rest of Studivan’s comments-as I posted on this site on Nov. 3, 2015. @ 8:42 PM? It is dishonest to only claim part of what someone states and neglect to mention the whole statement. Sturdivan stated that Lattimer’s skull results were more accurately representative of the factors contributing to tha validity of the Jet Effect than his own-from the same source you reference.
            After South Africa opened its nuclear program for inspection the International Atomic Energy Agency had full access to its nuclear records. They concluded that there was not enough enriched uranium missing to account for a nuclear device like the supposed Vela bomb. The Chelyabinsk incident is a much more likely model for what the aged Vela satellite detected, especially as it had returned questionable data previously.
            No fallout from the “test” was ever detected-and that was how atmospheric tests were detected and evaluated.
            Israel had no need for atmospheric tests in 1979-particularly of “nuclear artillery shells” as claimed by Seymour Hersh. The nuclear artillery shell was long obsolete by 1979.

          • As far as Sturdivan is concerned, I think these comments he made to Pat Speer in a telephone discussion are the most revealing thing he ever said:

            Sturdivan replied: “I guess Mathews corrected the exhibit numbers.” (Mathews refers to I. Charles Mathews, the HSCA Special Counsel responsible for Sturdivan’s testimony.) When I asked why some of the questions asked Sturdivan had been changed, Sturdivan’s response surprised me. He replied: “In the case of (Congressmen) Fauntroy and Ford, the staff probably published the questions as phrased on the script they were supposed to follow. Some of the Congressmen had trouble following the script — or just did what politicians do; i.e., speak without thinking what they are trying to say, just because they like the sound of their own voices…” “When I asked him WHAT script he was talking about, he clued me in on how the HSCA conducted its “public” hearings. (Dr. Baden had previously mentioned the use of scripts in his 1989 book Unnatural Death, but it had fallen below my radar). Sturdivan replied: “A couple of weeks before the open hearings, I got a copy of the questions to be asked, keyed to each Congressman in turn. I prepared my “probable answer” to each so that the staff and/or Congressman could pre-prepare any follow-up questions. I.e., the Committee’s staff did it. I suggested a few changes to questions and a few additional questions to make the story more complete. However, the Congressmen had a lot of trouble following the script. Some asked questions I had already been asked by another person and did not ask some of the questions they were scripted to ask. As a result the story got scrambled and less understandable.”

            The most important thing we discover in this article is that testimony before these committees are SCRIPTED. They are not spontaneous questions and answers. As I have posited before, these hearings are simply burlesque: Staged theater.
            \\][//
            [Number of words: 326]

          • Charles says:

            I think Photon is COMPLETELY OFF BASE in his certainty regarding the Vela Incident. It is hardly worth mentioning but it provides a useful template to understand his imperviousness to reason and the Incident is a useful template to see how cover-ups are fashioned by Authorities.

            ALL that can be said with certainty is that Vela is in dispute. Until more government documents are released, the facts will never be known but most in the nuke field lean towards that the test happened.

            For those curious to make up their own mind or see how Photon makes up his, a really short but good introduction to the incident is a slide deck from Stanford Fellow Leonard Weiss: http://iis-db.stanford.edu/evnts/7484/Weiss_vela_presentation_12.10.12.pdf

            His C.V.:http://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/staff/3542/Leonard_Weiss-CV.pdf

            An in depth and fair overview: http://thebulletin.org/flash-past-why-apparent-israeli-nuclear-test-1979-matters-today8734

            In my view, for anyone to declare with certainty that Vela did NOT happen is UTTERLY INSANE or HOPELESSLY PARTISAN.

          • Gary Aguilar says:

            Oh, yes, Lattimer! In his book, “Hear No Evil,” Donald Thomas, Ph.D. explained why: “Lattimer’s diagrams reveal that the incoming angle of the bullet trajectory sloped downwards relative to the top of the ladder, with the justification that the assassin was shooting from an elevated position … But the downward angle would have had the effect of driving the skulls against the top of the ladder with a predictable result – a rebound.” (A video clip of Dr. Lattimer’s shooting tests shows the ladder rocking forward as the skull is driven against the top of the ladder. ) Clearly, the forward momentum Mr. Sturdivan had shown pushing his test skulls forward was what was being transmitted to the ladder, causing it to move forward while the skull rebounded. Unlike Dr. Lattimer’s skulls, the base of JFK’s skull and his chin were not resting on a hard, flat surface. (It is also worth mention that the “wounds” sustained by the blasted skulls were not, as Dr. Lattimer reported, “very similar to those of the President.” )

            The results of Dr. Lattimer’s tests are in sharp contrast not only to those Mr. Sturdivan reported from the Biophysics Lab, but also to similar, skull-shooting tests conducted by University of Kansas’s pathology professor, Dr. John Nichols, MD, Ph.D., F.A.C.P. Rather than shooting down at skulls perched atop a flat surface, Dr. Nichols shot MCC ammo at both melons and cadaver material that were suspended by a wire. (Warren loyalist Paul Hoch, Ph.D. has said that this was the proper way to test for “jet effect” – personal communication.) Professor Nichols’ finding? “This study did not demonstrate the jet effect and would lead us to reject the jet effect as the basis for President Kennedy’s backward head movement.”

            Like you, Mr. Sturdivan was grasping for any thread that’d keep Oswald in the dock. Jet effect, alas, can’t do it.

            And you’re being a wee bit disingenuous yourself by not reminding readers that Alvarez didn’t shoot jacketed MCC shells at his soft-shell melons when he “proved” jet effect, but instead he hot-loaded non-jacketed rounds up from 2800 ft/sec to 3200 ft/sec, and only then got “jet effect.”

            That’s “junk science,” for ya.

          • Gary Aguilar says:

            It’s predictable, if almost preposterous, that you’re defending Alvarez’s denial Israel/So. Africa blew up a nuke in the Indian Ocean.

            The quickest response is, “A claim made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.” So you’ve got nothing, “Photon.”

            Here’s some government evidence proving it was a nuclear blast:

            * The Vela Incident – Nuclear Test or Meteoroid? National Security Archive. On-line at: http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB190/index.htm
            * A good summary of government evidence proving a nuclear blast in the Vela Incident is available in: Report on the 1979 Vela Incident -on-line at: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Safrica/Vela.html [“(Investigative journalist Seymour) Hersh reports interviewing several members of the Nuclear Intelligence Panel (NIP), which had conducted their own investigation of the event. Those interviewed included its leader Donald M. Kerr, Jr. and eminent nuclear weapons program veteran Harold M. Agnew. The NIP members concluded unanimously that it was a definite nuclear test. Another member – Louis H. Roddis, Jr. – concluded that “the South African-Israeli test had taken place on a barge, or on one of the islands in the South Indian Ocean archipelago” [Hersh 1991; pg. 280-281.On-line at: http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres10/SamsonOption.pdf%5D. He also cited internal CIA estimates made in 1979 and 1980 which concluded that it had been a test.

            “The U.S. Naval Research Laboratory conducted a comprehensive analysis, including the hydroacoustic data, and issued a 300-page report concluding that there had been a nuclear event near Prince Edward Island or Antarctica [Albright 1994b].”]

          • Photon says:

            Why don’t you mention that the only record that we have of the Nichols “tests” is a letter written by his wife after he died? With no description of the actual test methods or any evidence whatsoever that the “tests” even occurred .
            If you can produce any conclusive evidence published in the last 20 years that proves the Vela incident was a nuclear explosion be my guest. But I do not understand what that has to do with Dr. Thompson posting statements that are not true and making claims about what a person told him 3 years after the assassination without any independent verification that the conversation even took place .I do not see how the Vela incident is pertinent to the fact that Dr.Thompson claimed that the same individual said that the round looked like a 30-30 ” which has a pointed nose” when in actuality it has a rounded nose-like the Carcano round.
            And please explain how a Third Class petty officer lab technician who had never attended college became a Ph.D candidate in Pathology.What does that say about your research methods?

          • Photon says:

            Let’s look at what Dr Aguilar’s “scientific” test of D Nighols actually was. Nichols’ widow in the Lawrence Journal World of Jan. 7, 1979 states ” We used melons-we would pour through the bins at City Market and weigh them”. The Feb 24 report from the same paper is longer that the report that Mrs. Nichols presented to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences-which was only FOUR paragraphs long The article mentions that Mrs. Nichols used ” nine pound honeydews, cantaloupes, watermelons. Neither report mentions cadavers specimens.. Mrs. Nichols mentioned that there was ” minimal discussion” of her report. I wonder why.
            The four paragraph report claims that the bullet velocity was calculated by the melon oscillations to be 200 ft/sec. That is correct-200ft/sec.
            Absolutely unbelievable-and more unbelievable is that a researcher could even take this travesty of a report seriously and claim that it has any merit whatsoever .
            And Dr. Aguilar is an authority on what constitutes “junk science”?

        • Gary Aguilar says:

          “Photon” says, “Why don’t you mention that the only record that we have of the Nichols “tests” is a letter written by his wife after he died? With no description of the actual test methods or any evidence whatsoever that the “tests” even occurred.”

          Note that “Photon” doesn’t provide a link to Dr. Nichols’ work, which is kept at Baylor U: http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/185131.pdf It was indeed put together by his wife after he died. Would “Photon” have us suppose she was lying?

          It’s of note that “Photon” doesn’t mention that Nobel Laureate Alvarez wrote that the wrapped melons he shot that proved a jet effect were fired on not with jacketed MCC rounds, but with “hot-loaded” hunting rounds, soft-nosed rounds that, unlike MCC rounds, tend to deform on impact.

          Nor does “Photon” let slip that Alvarez said, “It is important to stress the fact that a taped melon was our a priori best mock-up of a head, and it showed retrograde recoil in the first test … If we had used the ‘Edison Test,’ and shot at a large collection of objects, and finally found one which gave retrograde recoil, then our firing experiments could reasonably be criticized. But as the tests were actually conducted, I believe they show it is most probable that the shot in 313 came from behind the car.” L. Alvarez, AJP, 9.76

          In what alternate universe is a soft-shelled melon, even a wrapped one, a good mock up of a bony human skull?

          Finally, “Photon” doesn’t admit that Paul Hoch gave Tink Thompson the photo file of the shooting tests done by Alvarez’s group, and they shot at lots of targets, which Alvarez forgot to mention in his Am J. Physics paper. Only the melons shot with hot-loaded ammo recoiled toward the shooter.

          “Photon” asks for evidence that’s less than 20 years old that proves the Vela Incident was a nuke. Well, since government investigators concluded more than 20 years ago it ideed was a nuke, more recent proof isn’t required or necessary. Note also that “Photon” provides no links to his “disproof” of a Vela nuke.

          Finally, “Photon,” was JFK’s jaw perched upon a ladder when he was shot, like Lattimer’s skulls were? If he wasn’t, don’t you think that difference might explain why Lattimer’s skulls moved backward when the Army’s and John Nichols’ blasted skulls didn’t?

          Just asking.

          • Photon says:

            “In what alternative universe is a soft shelled melon, even a wrapped one, a good mock-up of a bony human skull”?
            Apparently the Universe of Dr. And Mrs. John Nichols , for that is what they used for the “trial” that you seem to accept with no documentation other than a four paragraph note without any footnotes,illustrations, graphs or evidence that any of the supposed tests took place. Cadavers are mentioned, but there is no mention of what is defined as a cadaver, nor what portion of a cadaver is used.
            How can you possibly take seriously a study that claims that a Carcano bullet’s velocity 25 feet from the barrel it was supposedly fired from was 200 feet/sec, as determined by the “oscillations of the” melon it was fired into?

          • Gary Aguilar says:

            Ok, so forget Dr. Nichols, if you like. But Nichols, as well as Stanford Linear Accelerator’s Art Snyder, Ph.D., Doug Desalles, MD, and others have tried shooting at melons, if only to see if they could duplicate Alvarez’s findings of recoil. They didn’t do it because they thought a melon was a reasonable mock-up of a human head. I mean, good grief! And by the way, Doug Desalles, MD and Art Snyder, Ph.D. (physics) did NOT get recoil when they fired 6.5 MCC bullets at melons.

            But am I to understand that you apparently agree that soft-shelled melons are NO ONE’S best mock up of a human skull. Unless, of course, one’s a Nobel Laureate who obviously inhabits a different universe than the rest of us mere mortals.

            I don’t want to put words in your mouth,”Photon,” so please tell us, right here: Do you buy “jet effect” as an explanation for JFK’s rearward jolt? Do you buy that wrapped, soft-shelled melona are good mock-up of a bony human skull? And if you don’t, why not? Why did Alvarez think so?

          • Photon says:

            Of course the “Jet Effect ” can occur-not as a rule , but in enough examples to prove that it does happen when relatively hollow spherical objects filled with semi-liquid less dense material.are struck by high velocity rounds. Whether the effect will ALWAYS drive that sphere toward the gun is not the question. To quote bogus studies and uncontrolled recreations does not alter the fact that the effect can occur-as the Penn and Teller video demonstrates. Melons are a cheap and available test object, good enough to demonstrate the principle. When investigators used brain matter filled human skulls you didn’t like the results anyway.
            JFK’s movements after the head shot are the results of various factors-neurological discharge,the effect of the back brace,JFK’s position prior to being hit, the motion of the limo and yes even the “jet effect”. Once JFK was hit in the head his body was going to collapse despite the back brace; how it did was not dependent on the direction of the shot as CTers wish to believe, but the sum results of the factors mentioned.
            That makes using the Zapruder film as a basis for interpreting where the shot came from pointless.

          • Gary Aguilar says:

            It’s amusing that “Photon” dismisses the findings of the Army’s skull-shooting tests that showed, as Larry Sturdivan has testified and written, that skulls moved away from the shooter. And he embraces the entirely dishonest reporting of Luis Alvarez, who used different ammo, which he “hot-loaded” to get the “jet effect” he couldn’t get any other way. And Alvarez failed to report that everything else he fired at moved away from the rifle. Failing to report one’s own contradictory results is fraudulent. But that’s the sort of anti-conspiracy “junk science” one finds in the “peer-reviewed” med/scientific literature.

            It’s wort quoting Alvarez’s misleading remarks again:
            “It is important to stress the fact that a taped melon was our a priori best mock-up of a head, and it showed retrograde recoil in the first test … If we had used the ‘Edison Test,’ and shot at a large collection of objects, and finally found one which gave retrograde recoil, then our firing experiments could reasonably be criticized. But as the tests were actually conducted, I believe they show it is most probable that the shot in 313 came from behind the car.” L. Alvarez, AJP, 9.76

            Ya can’t make this s_it up!

            Sturdivan’s report that the test skulls moved 3ft/sec in the direction away from the shooter gives ample justification to believing that a tangential shot with a non-jacketed bullet could easily have moved JFK rearward. Don Thomas has explored this in useful detail. (“Hear No Evil,” p. 344ff)

    • Gary Aguilar says:

      Dear Photon,

      Here’s something I wrote on-line about the Warren Commission that’s worth your defending:

      Sylvia Meagher was the first to point out that, to buttress the Single Bullet Theory, the Commission had selectively and misleadingly cited the opinions of three Dallas doctors who had treated Governor Connally’s wounds in Dallas: Drs. Robert Shaw, Charles Gregory and George Shires. The Commission wrote:

      “In their testimony, the three doctors who attended Governor Connally at Parkland Hospital expressed independently their opinion that a single bullet had passed through his chest; tumbled through his wrist with very little exit velocity, leaving small metallic fragments from the rear portion of the bullet; punctured his left thigh after the bullet had lost virtually all if its velocity; and fallen out of the thigh wound.”[80]

      Meagher observed that the Commission’s claim accurately reflects what these witnesses had said during their first, 3/23/64, Commission interview. But that was before they had seen the Zapruder film, the stretcher bullet (CE #399), and other key physical evidence. The Commission’s account, however, doesn’t reflect the fact that they radically altered their view after they were allowed to see this evidence.[81]

      During his second Commission interview on 4/21/64, Dr. Shaw said, “I feel that there would be some difficulty in explaining all of the wounds [both Kennedy and Connally had sustained] being inflicted by bullet Exhibit 399 without causing more in the way of loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of the bullet.”[82] Appearing with Dr. Shaw, and next to be questioned before the Commission, Dr. Gregory was treated to Specter’s famous begged question about the throat wound that asked him to assume one bullet had done all the damage. Despite Specter’s clear signals, Gregory, who, like Shaw, had also seen the additional evidence, remained skeptical. He answered, “I am not persuaded that this (the Single Bullet Theory) is very probable … .”[83] [84] Despite this unambiguous dissent, two years later Arlen Specter was still telling the press that, as he put it in a U. S. and News Report interview, “all of the doctors who attended the Governor thought [the same bullet had inflicted all of the nonfatal wounds].”[85]

      Again, the issue is not whether Arlen Specter’s Single Bullet Theory accurately explains what happened, but whether the Commission honestly investigated – asking unbiased questions and following the evidence where it led, as opposed to pushing and shaping the evidence to fit predrawn conclusions and attract public support. The Commission’s examination of JFK’s fatal skull wound is no more inspiring than Specter’s performance with the nonfatal wound.

      Footnotes and hotlinks avail, here: http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1b.htm

    • Roy W Kornbluth says:

      Any errors in the WR?!?! Here’s my favorite (and Ronnie Wayne’s too, I think): “Jack Ruby had no significant connections to organized crime.” Whereas JR had nothing but connections to the Mob from before he had whiskers.

      The sins (and errors) of omission are as bad as the sins of commission. A small sample of the unmentioned in the War Con:
      –several phony SS in DP with genuine credentials, seen by many, including experienced lawmen
      –Earlene Roberts’ report of two men in Tippit’s police car, #10, pulling up to LHO’s boardinghouse shortly after 1:00, and tooting the horn surreptitiously
      –three witnesses (women so maybe they don’t count) near the murder of JD Tippit who saw two men with guns fleeing the scene, one slightly resembling LHO but taller (Larry Crafard), the other stockier with dark bushy hair (Roscoe White—Why won’t you look up RAW, dear Photon?)
      –washing down the limo’s trunk and left rear side at Parkland
      –the LHO lookalike in the balcony of Texas Theater who was hustled out the back door by police, while LHO was brought out the front
      –the massive wound in JFK’s right occiput, seen by dozens at Parkland
      –Jack Ruby’s appearances all over Dealey, seen by many; JR’s appearances all around DPD the morning BEFORE he silenced LHO
      –Etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum

      No one is as blind as someone who does not want to see.

    • Steve Stirlen says:

      Photon:

      I would like to play along.

      Sibert: Well I-that single-bullet theory-when they had me come up to the ARRB deposition there at College Park, I said, “Well before I come up there, I want you to know one thing. I’m not an advocate of the single-bullet theory.” I said, “I don’t believe it because I stood there two foot from where that bullet wound was in the back, the one that they eventually moved up to the base of the neck. I was there when Boswell made his face sheet and located that wound exactly as we described it in the FD 302.” And I said, “Furthermore, when they examined the clothing after it got into the Bureau, those bullet holes in the shirt and the coat were down 5 inches there. So there is no way that bullet could have gone that low then rise up and come out the front of the neck, zigzag and hit Connally and then end up pristine on a stretcher over there in Dallas.”

      Law: You don’t believe in the single-bullet theory. Period.

      Sibert: There is no way I will swallow that. They can’t put enough sugar on it for me to bite it. That bullet was too low in the back.

      Photon—begin character assassination/discrediting credentials/lack of medical knowledge NOW:

    • Steve Stirlen says:

      Photon:

      I would like to play again:

      But did McCone come close to perjury all those decades ago? Did the onetime Washington outsider in fact hide agency secrets that might still rewrite the history of the assassination? Even the CIA is now willing to raise these questions. Half a century after JFK’s death, in a once-secret report written in 2013 by the CIA’s top in-house historian and quietly declassified last fall, the spy agency acknowledges what others were convinced of long ago: that McCone and other senior CIA officials were “complicit” in keeping “incendiary” information from the Warren Commission. According to the report by CIA historian David Robarge, McCone, who died in 1991, was at the heart of a “benign cover-up” at the spy agency, intended to keep the commission focused on “what the Agency believed at the time was the ‘best truth’—that Lee Harvey Oswald, for as yet undetermined motives, had acted alone in killing John Kennedy.” The most important information that McCone withheld from the commission in its 1964 investigation, the report found, was the existence, for years, of CIA plots to assassinate Castro, some of which put the CIA in cahoots with the Mafia. Without this information, the commission never even knew to ask the question of whether Oswald had accomplices in Cuba or elsewhere who wanted Kennedy dead in retaliation for the Castro plots.

      Please remind me, Photon, what do the words perjury, complicit and incendiary exactly mean in relation to the word cover-up?

      • leslie sharp says:

        Steve, The designation ‘onetime Washington outsider’ should be revisited if it is meant to diminish McCone’s influence in any way … to portray him a simple by-stander caught in the ugly conspiracy. McCone can hardly be considered a DC outsider when he had served the DOD and was Eisenhower’s Chair of the Atomic Energy Commission, returning to military defence contractor Bechtel-McCone before replacing Dulles as Kennedy’s CIA man. McCone’s board boasted among others of interest, CB Thornton, cofounder of another defence contractor, Litton Industries; Thornton played a significant role in landing his fellow Whiz-Kid Robert McNamara the defence post. This in itself suggests a small cabal. Litton and Bechtel along with military contractors who had interlocking boards would have been heavy players in Washington DC, lobbying for position that would come to fruition in Vietnam after Kennedy was assassinated. Bechtel had already enjoyed contracts in the Middle East that would have needed the greasing of US diplomats and military to secure. There is more on McCone’s life post-DCIA including his close friendship with Ike and his role with ITT on another jfkfacts thread.

    • Roy W Kornbluth says:

      Dear college chum Photon,
      How could I have forgotten the most obvious, egregious error in the War Con? Worse even than “JR had no significant mob connections,” whereas he ran messages and pay envelopes for THE Al Capone at the tender age of ten and went downhill from there. “Jack Ruby was not at Parkland Hospital when JFK’s mutilated body was there.” Professional reporter Seth Kantor talked with JR at Parkland. They called each other by name. They knew each other well. Two society women (Mrs. Wilma Tice was one, I forget the other) kept their eagle eyes on ol’ Jack. But the Warren Omission chose to take the word of a career criminal over three expert observers.

      Andra moi ennepe, Musa…

    • Josiah Thompson says:

      Photon asks, “Why is the picture of this bullet on exactly the same type of background as we see with the Carcano 6.5 mm bullet?”

      Of course, the background is not the same because one photo was taken by the Archives staff and the other by me in my room at the Sheraton Hotel in Dallas. Proof? I happen to have the original Polaroid photo and, if staff can figure out how I can get it on the website, I’ll send it to them to publish on the website.

      Photon writes: “Please refer to Thompson’s interview from the assassination conference recorded on the Mary Ferrell site concerning this-as referred to by JFK Facts. He makes no mention of Wright producing a bullet, but states TWICE that Wright thought that it looked like a .30-.30 round, well known to have a ”pointed nose.”

      I call attention to the claim that “he [Thompson} makes no mention of Wright producing a bullet..” Please refer to the long footnote accompanying the photo on page 175 of Six Seconds published in 1967. “I asked him what the bullet looked like, and he replied that it had a pointed tip like the one I held in my hand (earlier he had procured a .30 caliber unfired projectile that we had placed on the stretcher cart in our reenactment).

      Do you have any other purported “contradictions” or “factual errors” you would like me to comment on?

      • Greetings Mr Thompson,

        First I want to thank and commend you for the long years of service and hard work put into digging up the facts of the assassination of John Kennedy

        You have made an incredibly valuable contribution to history.

        If you can will you name those who were present when Wright produced the bullet in question? Or anyone who was present when either of the photos you mention were taken, and the circumstances of such.

        Thank you, Willy Whitten

      • Photon says:

        Why the 30-30 comments? Are you now saying that they were never made?
        Why would he have ” procured a .30 caliber unfired projectile that WE had placed on the stretcher cart in our reenactment .” How many hospital security directors have unfired .30 caliber rifle rounds laying around in their desk drawers? Why would he have let you take this precious round out of the hospital in the first place? Why didn’t you photograph it at the hospital if it was so important? Why a Polaroid? I thought that you were on assignment for a magazine-and all that they could come up with was a Polaroid camera? Why didn’t YOU bring the unfired round for a reenactment? After all, it was your story.
        Are the two witnesses to these events alive? Did Wright ever repeat this claim to anybody else?
        Why do you claim that the Harper fragment was found 25 feet to the left of the limo when your source ( not Harper) stated that it was found 25 feet SOUTH-an entirely different kettle of fish for a vehicle traveling southwest?
        Have you ever seen an autopsy? Why do you completely discount the autopsy findings when they are the only real scientific way to determine cause of death and establish direction of missiles transiting a body after a firearm injury?

        • “Why would he have let you take this precious round out of the hospital in the first place?”~Photon

          This one sentence proves you do not understand at all what this item is and was. This is NOT the round that was originally found at Parkland, this is a common slug for reloaders, they come by the box-full.
          \\][//

        • Josiah Thompson says:

          MY COMMENTS IN CAPS:

          Why would he have ”procured a .30 caliber unfired projectile that WE had placed on the stretcher cart in our reenactment.” WRIGHT DIDN’T “PROCURE” ANYTHING. HE HAD A .30 CAL PROJECTILE IN HIS DESK AND WE USED IT WITH TOMLINSON AND WRIGHT TO REENACT THE FINDING OF THE BULLET. WE PUT IT BY THE PAD ON A GURNEY AND MOVED THE GURNEY TO VARIOUS POSITIONS. PHOTOS SHOWING THE .30 PROJECTILE LYING BY THE PAD ON A GURNEY ARE PUBLISHED IN SIX SECONDS. THEY ALSO ARE POLAROIDS I TOOK.

          How many hospital security directors have unfired .30 caliber rifle rounds laying around in their desk drawers? GOD KNOWS WHY WRIGHT HAD A PROJECTILE IN HIS DESK, BUT HE DID.

          Why would he have let you take this precious round out of the hospital in the first place?
          PRECIOUS? IT WASN’T PRECIOUS. IT WAS JUST SOME BULLET THAT ENDED UP IN HIS DESK DRAWER. AND FIFTY YEARS LATER YOU THINK THERE IS SOMETHING ODD ABOUT HIM GIVING IT TO ME?

          Why didn’t you photograph it at the hospital if it was so important?

          WE DID PHOTOGRAPH IT ON A GURNEY. HE LET ME KEEP IT SO THERE WAS NO URGENCY TO PHOTOGRAPHING IT. THAT’S WHY I PHOTOGRAPHED IT BACK AT THE SHERATON.

          Why a Polaroid? I thought that you were on assignment for a magazine-and all that they could come up with was a Polaroid camera?
          “THEY” (LIFE MAGAZINE}DIDN’T COME UP WITH SQUAT. PATSY SWANK, LIFE’S STRINGER IN DALLAS, GOT US INTO PARKLAND VIA HER HUSBAND WHO WAS A DISTINGUISHED ARCHITECT. WE COULDN’T BRING A PHOTOGRAPHER. I BELIEVE, I BORROWED THE POLAROID FROM MY MOTHER.

          Why didn’t YOU bring the unfired round for a reenactment? I DID. THE PHOTOS ARE IN SIX SECONDS.

          Are the two witnesses to these events alive? I DON’T KNOW. PATSY SWANK DIED A FEW YEARS AGO.

          Did Wright ever repeat this claim to anybody else? I DON’T KNOW.

          Why do you claim that the Harper fragment was found 25 feet to the left of the limo when your source ( not Harper) stated that it was found 25 feet SOUTH-an entirely different kettle of fish for a vehicle traveling southwest?
          Have you ever seen an autopsy? Why do you completely discount the autopsy findings when they are the only real scientific way to determine cause of death and establish direction of missiles transiting a body after a firearm injury?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon:

            I would like to play along again with your “point out errors with the WO report. Does an error of emission, or an outright deception considered an “error” in your book?

            • When asked by the Warren Commission if there was any metal fouling in the barrel of the gun found in the School Book Depository, FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier replied that he “did not examine it for that.” A “swab test” is a standard procedure that can determine if a rifle has been fired since its last cleaning. Since the rifle had not been cleaned after alledgedly being fired at the President, a clean swab from the barrel would prove that the rifle had not been fired.

            Oops, I hope the above information is incorrect, or you can spin it somehow. Otherwise, why would your beloved FBI not perform a “standard procedure” in the crime of the century?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon:

            Can I play one more time “finding errors in the WO report. This one is also filed under the category of error of deliberate omission:

            “In common with other important documents that contradicted the Commission’s conclusions, such as the Parkland Hospital press conference transcript, the Sibert and O’Neill Report was deliberately ignored, and was neither quoted in the Warren Report nor published in the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits. The document was placed in the National Archives, where it was discovered in 1966 by Harold Weisberg.
            Neither Sibert nor O’Neill was interviewed by the Warren Commission. Both agents gave interviews to the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s and to the Assassination Records Review Board in the early 1990s, in which they again contradicted important elements of the lone–assassin argument.”

            I thought you said the WO report was a COMPLETE investigation into JFK’s murder. Tell me, Photon, why did the WO not put Sibert and O’Neill’s 302 into the “greatest investigation by our government ” into the final report? The WO is 888 pages. Didn’t they have one more page to spare?

          • Photon says:

            If you brought an unfired round for a reenactment , why did you need a round from Wright?
            What is the status of the 30-30 comment? Did Wright make it or did you make a mistake. The 30-30 claim is referenced by this site, so I assume that you made it.Why?
            You mentioned that you had two witnesses, one being a Patsy Swank who is now deceased Any confirmation documenting Mrs. Swank’s observations? Who is the second witness? Any confirmation from this witness that this story is correct? You did state that you had 2 witnesses.
            If Life Magazine didn’t “come up with squat” how did you get access to the Zapruder film frames that formed the basis for your 4-shot 3 -shooter hypothesis? As you don’t accept the power of autopsies the Zapruder film seems to be the entire evidence that you base your conclusions on.
            Again, if you did not know that your claim as to where the Harper fragment was found was false, how can any of your conclusions related to the direction of the head shot be taken seriously?

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Mr. Thompson

            I was unsure of how to contact you so, I sent a PM to you at the Education Forum, where I believe you are still a member. It is regarding some observations you made about z313.

        • Gary Aguilar says:

          Photon asks, “Why do you completely discount the autopsy findings when they are the only real scientific way to determine cause of death and establish direction of missiles transiting a body after a firearm injury?”

          Oh, are you now defending JFK’s autopsy, “Photon?”

          By all accounts, John Kennedy got a lousy autopsy. Although the government determined that “the resources available for (JFK’s) autopsy were extensive,” they were woefully underutilized. “Where bungled autopsies are concerned, President Kennedy’s is the exemplar,” is how the chairman of the 1978 House Select Committee’s (HSCA) forensic panel, former New York Coroner Michael Baden, put it. The HSCA’s criticisms included the fact that JFK’s wounds were not properly dissected, nor were they properly described relative to standard anatomic landmarks. The pathologists did not examine JFK’s clothes. The angles of the bullet tracks through the body were not measured relative to the body axis. The brain was not properly examined. Original autopsy notes were destroyed. Proper autopsy photographs were not taken, etc.

          Moreover, the autopsy report says there was a trail of fragments visible on the lateral X-ray from the inshoot in OCCIPITAL bone, anteriorly. Having seen the originals myself, and as the HSCA’s radiologists have pointed out, that trail of fragments is at more than 10-cm higher than any line joining the claimed occipital bone entrance and JFK’s anterior skull. The trail is nowhere near where the autopsy report says it is.

          Given all their errors and omissions, are you saying you stand by their claimed facts? Or, alternatively, are you willing to ignore that their facts are wrong, but the conclusions based on their false facts are right?

          But, you say, a certified forensic pathologist, Pierre Finck, MD, was in attendance.

          Though a properly accredited forensic specialist, the colonel Finck was out of his league and out of his element. Describing his predicament as a lower-ranking Army officer in a Navy morgue, Finck admitted, “They were admirals, and when you are a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army you just follow orders.” The famed New York City coroner Milton Helpern, MD, has laid out the problem particularly well: “Colonel Finck’s position throughout the entire proceeding was extremely uncomfortable. If it had not been for him, the autopsy would not have been handled as well as it was; but he was in the role of the poor bastard Army child foisted into the Navy family reunion. He was the only one of the three doctors with any experience with bullet wounds; but you have to remember that his experience was limited primarily to ‘reviewing’ files, pictures, and records of finished cases. There’s a world of difference between standing at the autopsy table and trying to decide whether a hole in the body is a wound of entrance or a wound of exit, and in reviewing another man’s work at some later date in the relaxed, academic atmosphere of a private office … .” (Credit Tink’s “Six Seconds” for quote.)

          • Photon says:

            The comment made by Dr Halpern was directly lifted from an article in Argosy magazine from 1967. In the same article he states that he had not examined the photographs or radiographs. His criticism was directed at the methods of the Warren Commision and the autopsy team-not their results. He dismisses the autopsy note drawings on the human figures as schematic with no real precision, not to be taken as literal wound positions-something that is repeated done by conspiracy theorists.
            He dismisses the Dec. FBI report as inaccurate and incomplete-virtually confirming comments that I have previously posted.
            He also suggested that a group of notable forensic pathologists review the pictures, x-rays and other physical evidence to confirm the findings of the autopsy team.
            This was done with the HSCA investigation. That group of distinguished forensic pathologists confirmed the findings of the Bethesda team, namely that only two shots hit JFK, both came from the rear.
            And THAT is the rest of the story. Good DAY.

          • Gary Aguilar says:

            ?And that is the rest of the story. Good Day?

            Not quite, my dear patriot.

            Take a gander at the errors and omissions and tendentious nature of the HSCA’s forensic panel. It’s available on-line here: http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm

          • Photon says:

            How can I take seriously anything from a source that states “James Curtis Jenkins, then a Ph.D candidate in pathology” when he was nothing but a Third Class Corpsman lab technician who wasn’t even a college student and apparently never graduated from any health care training program aside from a post-A-school Navy lab technician’s course?
            How many Ph.D candidates get into Grad School without a degree?

  6. Ronnie Wayne says:

    “but the 30-30 was well known to have a ROUNDED nose…” Actually the one I pulled out of my safe to look at has a rounded nose but a slightly flattened LEAD tip. It’s not copper jacketed like CE399 and shell and all it’s 2 1/2″ long. It looks nothing like the 3″ long CE399 bullet portion without the shell.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      BTW, the 30-30 does not come out at all usually but gets pretty smashed up when found whether it has hit bone or only muscle. Pristine in no way. CE399, not pointed but jacketed would still have been deformed after passing through two people, breaking Connally’s wrist, and leaving more of it in that wrist and his leg than it lost. IMHO.

  7. “Photon” says:

    “But the .30-.30 was well known to have a ROUNDED nose-and was almost unique for that characteristic that it shared with the virtually unknown Carcano 6.5 mm round.”

    You used past tense so are you saying that 30-30 rounds used to have rounded noses? Just looking around at modern rounds, some are somewhat blunt, but I would not categorize them as rounded and none of them look remotely like the MC 6.5 rounds.

  8. Photon says:

    Again, the complete avoidance of the topic at hand.
    So much for the accuracy of Dr. Thompson-even the conspiracy crowd avoids his credibility issues and would rather talk about something (ANYTHING ) else. The Vela incident? How about the creation of the HIV virus?-I am sure that must have some connection to the assassination,too.
    I thank the moderators for confirming the validity of my concerns about the accuracy of Tink Thompson in a way superior to anything that I could have posted.

    • “So much for the accuracy of Dr. Thompson-even the conspiracy crowd avoids his credibility issues and would rather talk about something (ANYTHING ) else.”~Photon

      Just what are these “credibility issues” you speak of here Photon?

      You posit because there is no reference to the names of the two witnesses that were with Thompson means that he MUST BE LYING!

      That is hardly the foundation of asserting any lack of credibility on Josiah Thompson’s part.

      It is up to you to provide proofs against Thompson, not for us to try to imagine what you are talking about.
      \\][//

  9. kennedy63 says:

    JFK was killed by 2 of the 3 bullets fired by Oswald’s surplus WWII rifle, from the 6th floor of the TSBD. One bullet hit JFK in the upper back.This [theoretical] bullet traversed JFK’s body and exited his throat, despite the autopsy Drs.’inability to locate a point of exit for the entry back wound. This [theoretical] bullet, after passing unscathed through JFK, inflicted ALL of Gov. Connally’s 5 wounds. Later, this [theoretical] bullet is assigned as [WC Exhibit, C-399] evidence (even with a broken legal chain of evidence). Specter’s untenable Single[Theoretical]Bullet is the linchpin of our government’s official non-conspiracy propaganda. When you accept that the WC’s purpose was to CONvince the American people Oswald was the sole assassin, that he does not have confederates at large, whatever the WC concocted and foisted upon the American people was paternalistically benign. Connally (although not a bastion of truth telling) vehemently denied being hit by the same bullet as JFK. If you carefully watch the Zapruder film, you can see Connally is hit separately. One of the fatal head shots is fired from in front of JFK AFTER Connally

  10. kennedy63 says:

    falls (pulled) into Nellie’s lap. No, Photon, you can not advocate the truth based on such a flawed and untenable report produced by the Warren/Dulles Omission.

  11. Thomas says:

    It is utterly ridiculous and spinning wheels to respond to Photon’s request to “post any contradictory comments or factual errors in the Warren Report.” This matter was resolved long ago by everyone, including on the LN side, that the Warren Report was biased, incomplete, and sometimes factually wrong. The only issue has been how to interpret the mistakes and omissions of the Warren Report.

    • Photon says:

      Then Thomas, why hasn’t anybody posted any specific example of a Warren Report error-except to claim that Ruby had significant Mob ties, which is is an exaggeration of the true situation.
      Specific errors, please. Not generalities based on wishful thinking and unsubstantiated claims or associations. The ” everybody knows” claim is a poor substitute for actual documented evidence.

      • “Then Thomas, why hasn’t anybody posted any specific example of a Warren Report error-except to claim that Ruby had significant Mob ties, which is is an exaggeration of the true situation.”
        ~Photon

        See quite a few at: Roy W Kornbluth on November 12, 2015 at 3:21 am

        Those can be combined with the aggregate of points made on this very thread. And they can be combined with thread after thread on JFKfacts, containing definitive arguments against the WC assertions.

        It would be simpler to ask what specifically the WC got right. Perhaps the fact that Kennedy and Connally were both shot in Dealey Plaza is the one single item that the Commission did get unequivocally right!
        \\][//

        • Roy W Kornbluth says:

          Willy,
          “…what the WC got right,” would be the easiest topic ever on JFK Facts. “THAT Kennedy and Connally were both shot in Dealey Plaza” is one fact, yes. They got the ‘what’ right. But the War Con botched the by whom, how, when (they were hit), why, and where (on JFK) of even that. For the Dulles Omission’s biggest success, I nominate Jack Ruby shooting (silencing) Lee Oswald in the DPD basement. They had the who how what when where right. But then, they didn’t have a choice because it was on live national TV. They only flubbed the ‘why’, and completely.

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            All,
            I’m sorry. War Con did NOT get the ‘how’ right of JR shooting LHO in DPD basement. They claimed JR walked down the ramp, whereas he was let in a back door by Blackie Harrison. And who’s that other guy BH was in the restaurant with right before the second assassination, the second historic ‘lone nut’ in less than 48 hours? They shielded JR before he burst through the line of reporters and police, and shot LHO in the gut.

        • Photon says:

          Any evidence to confirm that any of those statements are actually accurate ?
          As soon as he brings up the Roscoe White nonsense he impeaches his line of comment.
          Repeating conspiracy factoids that have no basis in fact does not address the question-what specifically in the Warren Report is a lie or error? Do you really believe that the report should have included every unsubstantiated claim or false witness -particularly those invented years after the Report was published?
          Again, proving my point-anything to avoid the point of the comment of the week.

          • bogman says:

            What are my points below, chopped liver?

            The biggest “error” in the WC is that they started with the assumption – nay, the objective – to prove Oswald was the lone gunman. It was not a honest investigation into the truth, and somewhat understandable considering the situation but a disservice in the end to the American people and to history.

        • Gary Aguilar says:

          But my dear “Photon,” I already did post a flat out WC misrepresentation, one you ignored. I wrote:
          Dear Photon,

          Here’s something I wrote on-line about the Warren Commission that’s worth your defending:

          Sylvia Meagher was the first to point out that, to buttress the Single Bullet Theory, the Commission had selectively and misleadingly cited the opinions of three Dallas doctors who had treated Governor Connally’s wounds in Dallas: Drs. Robert Shaw, Charles Gregory and George Shires. The Commission wrote:

          “In their testimony, the three doctors who attended Governor Connally at Parkland Hospital expressed independently their opinion that a single bullet had passed through his chest; tumbled through his wrist with very little exit velocity, leaving small metallic fragments from the rear portion of the bullet; punctured his left thigh after the bullet had lost virtually all if its velocity; and fallen out of the thigh wound.”[80]

          Meagher observed that the Commission’s claim accurately reflects what these witnesses had said during their first, 3/23/64, Commission interview. But that was before they had seen the Zapruder film, the stretcher bullet (CE #399), and other key physical evidence. The Commission’s account, however, doesn’t reflect the fact that they radically altered their view after they were allowed to see this evidence.[81]

          During his second Commission interview on 4/21/64, Dr. Shaw said, “I feel that there would be some difficulty in explaining all of the wounds [both Kennedy and Connally had sustained] being inflicted by bullet Exhibit 399 without causing more in the way of loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of the bullet.”[82] Appearing with Dr. Shaw, and next to be questioned before the Commission, Dr. Gregory was treated to Specter’s famous begged question about the throat wound that asked him to assume one bullet had done all the damage. Despite Specter’s clear signals, Gregory, who, like Shaw, had also seen the additional evidence, remained skeptical. He answered, “I am not persuaded that this (the Single Bullet Theory) is very probable … .”[83] [84] Despite this unambiguous dissent, two years later Arlen Specter was still telling the press that, as he put it in a U. S. and News Report interview, “all of the doctors who attended the Governor thought [the same bullet had inflicted all of the nonfatal wounds].”[85]

          Again, the issue is not whether Arlen Specter’s Single Bullet Theory accurately explains what happened, but whether the Commission honestly investigated – asking unbiased questions and following the evidence where it led, as opposed to pushing and shaping the evidence to fit predrawn conclusions and attract public support. The Commission’s examination of JFK’s fatal skull wound is no more inspiring than Specter’s performance with the nonfatal wound.

          Footnotes and hotlinks avail, here: http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1b.htm

      • bogman says:

        Photon –

        There’s a 400-page footnoted volume on the topic called “Breach of Trust” by historian and academic Gerald McKnight.

        The WR is a PR piece, btw. In PR, you don’t lie outrightly. You parse the truth and leave out what you don’t need to fit your pre-conceived narrative. And that was their stated purpose and that’s what they did.

        e.g. They never ONCE mention JFK’s backward head snap in the Zapruder film. It’s what ALL America first notice when they finally got to see the film.

        As one hunter said, I’ve never had prey fall towards the shot.

        Again, lies through omission. But I have a feeling you’re fully aware. You’re just hijacking the conversation again.

        • bogman says:

          To add, how about this BS drawing of Kennedy’s “neck wound” that doesn’t come close to matching the bullet hole in his shirt and coat: http://bit.ly/1MMXaU5

          Now tell me some BS story how they didn’t mean to get this wrong but somehow they did, like calling it a “neck” wound, like not talking about the head snap, etc., etc.

          Or tell me why the WR forgot to mention the existence of “Oswald” tapes from MC – that the FBI, LBJ and WC lawyers KNEW existed. And if still around could still prove a conspiracy showing an Oswald imposter.

          It’s obvious to anyone but you that the WR is a prosecutor’s brief meant to calm the public at the time. It hides evidence, distorts evidence and misrepresents evidence.

          It also depended upon the world’s largest law enforcement agency for almost all of its “evidence” – an agency who’s director wanted the case closed from the get go and changed witness affidavits, intimidated others and destroyed key evidence.

          It also go no help from the foreign intelligence agency that wanted to “wait out the commission”.

          And depended on ambitious lawyers like Specter who conducted off-the-record coaching of testimony time and again.

          Gimme a friggin’ break.

          But why harp on the WR? The latest federal conclusion said it was a conspiracy (HSCA). But that investigation was also undermined by CIA obstruction.

          The latest latest from the feds is the ARRB archive release. IMO, researchers like Morley and Newman have come much closer to the truth of the assassination by sifting through these docs for revelatory nuggets of information than the WC or HSCA ever did.

      • bogman says:

        Photon – how about the FBI’s transposition of frames 314 and 315 to create the false impression that a rifle shot to Kennedy’s head had been fired from behind?

        Amazing how all these “mistakes” worked in the favor of the lone gunman theory.

        You want more or are we done with you not being able to find “any errors” in the WR?

      • Bogman says:

        Other WR ‘errors’ –

        o the claim that Loran Hall and two acquaintances visited Sylvia Odio and not with Oswald. All three later recanted their stories.

        o the on the record dissent regarding the single bullet theory by Sen. Russell that was never actually recorded or included in the WR

        o the CIA staying mum on its relationship with the DRE

        Want more?

      • Gary Aguilar says:

        But my dear “Photon,” I already did post a flat out WC misrepresentation, one you ignored. I wrote:
        Dear Photon,

        Here’s something I wrote on-line about the Warren Commission that’s worth your defending:

        Sylvia Meagher was the first to point out that, to buttress the Single Bullet Theory, the Commission had selectively and misleadingly cited the opinions of three Dallas doctors who had treated Governor Connally’s wounds in Dallas: Drs. Robert Shaw, Charles Gregory and George Shires. The Commission wrote:

        “In their testimony, the three doctors who attended Governor Connally at Parkland Hospital expressed independently their opinion that a single bullet had passed through his chest; tumbled through his wrist with very little exit velocity, leaving small metallic fragments from the rear portion of the bullet; punctured his left thigh after the bullet had lost virtually all if its velocity; and fallen out of the thigh wound.”[80]

        Meagher observed that the Commission’s claim accurately reflects what these witnesses had said during their first, 3/23/64, Commission interview. But that was before they had seen the Zapruder film, the stretcher bullet (CE #399), and other key physical evidence. The Commission’s account, however, doesn’t reflect the fact that they radically altered their view after they were allowed to see this evidence.[81]

        During his second Commission interview on 4/21/64, Dr. Shaw said, “I feel that there would be some difficulty in explaining all of the wounds [both Kennedy and Connally had sustained] being inflicted by bullet Exhibit 399 without causing more in the way of loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of the bullet.”[82] Appearing with Dr. Shaw, and next to be questioned before the Commission, Dr. Gregory was treated to Specter’s famous begged question about the throat wound that asked him to assume one bullet had done all the damage. Despite Specter’s clear signals, Gregory, who, like Shaw, had also seen the additional evidence, remained skeptical. He answered, “I am not persuaded that this (the Single Bullet Theory) is very probable … .”[83] [84] Despite this unambiguous dissent, two years later Arlen Specter was still telling the press that, as he put it in a U. S. and News Report interview, “all of the doctors who attended the Governor thought [the same bullet had inflicted all of the nonfatal wounds].”[85]

        Again, the issue is not whether Arlen Specter’s Single Bullet Theory accurately explains what happened, but whether the Commission honestly investigated – asking unbiased questions and following the evidence where it led, as opposed to pushing and shaping the evidence to fit predrawn conclusions and attract public support. The Commission’s examination of JFK’s fatal skull wound is no more inspiring than Specter’s performance with the nonfatal wound.

        Footnotes and hotlinks avail, here: http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1b.htm

  12. Clarence Carlson says:

    “Why is the picture of this bullet on exactly the same type of background as we see with the Carcano 6.5 mm bullet?”
    *What exactly is your point?

    “Remember, Thompson NEVER showed Wright a Carcano bullet, only PICTURES of it.”
    *If Wright had actually handled the Caracano bullet one would think that viewing pictures of the alleged bullet would only help to stimulate his memory of handling said round. It did not.

    “Please refer to Thompson’s interview from the assassination conference recorded on the Mary Ferrell site concerning this-as referred to by JFK Facts. He makes no mention of Wright producing a bullet”
    *As documented in Six Seconds in Dallas, Wright did produce a bullet: “I asked him what the bullet looked like and he replied it had a pointed tip like the one I held in my hand (earlier he [Wright] had procured a .30 caliber unfired projectile)”

    “but states TWICE that Wright thought that it looked like a .30-.30 round, well known to have a ” pointed nose”.
    But the .30-.30 was well known to have a ROUNDED nose-and was almost unique for that characteristic that it shared with the virtually unknown Carcano 6.5 mm round.”
    *You are selectively obfuscating by focusing on issues of caliber, Wright clearly said that the bullet he handled on November 22 was not the same shape as the Caracano bullet.

    So I ask you ( and others) : how can Tink Thompson be possibly credible on this issue? How can any conclusion based on a story with multiple contradictions and factual errors possibly be logical, let alone correct?
    *Multiple contradictions? Rhetoric. Wright is unambiguous in his statement that the shape of the bullet he held in hid hands the day of the assassination was pointed and not rounded.

    • Photon says:

      How do you know that Wright even made the statement? Thompson contradicts the claimed statement by making an inaccurate statement about a round known to have a rounded nose. He made up the quote out of ignorance-and got caught by someone who actually looked at the facts and didn’t accept his narrative out of sympathy for his conclusions

      • Photon,

        You should have done so years ago, but can shut down your carousel ride now.

        The government itself cuts out the first four links in the chain of custody:

        According to WC Exhibit No. 2011, Chief James Rowley could not identify CE 399 as the bullet he received from Special Agent Johnsen and given to Special Agent Todd.

        Let me remind you ONCE AGAIN!!: A memorandum from the FBI office in Dallas on June 20th to J. Edgar Hoover contains the statement, “neither DARRELL C. TOMLINSON [sic], who found bullet at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, nor O. P. WRIGHT, Personnel Officer, Parkland Hospital, who obtained bullet from TOMLINSON and gave to Special Service, at Dallas 11/22/63, can identify bullet”
        http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59607#relPageId=29
        http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59607#relPageId=86

        You have no legal chain of custody linking the Parkland Bullet to CE399. It is as simple as that.

        With this settled, calling Thompson a liar has no rational foundation. He photographed a pointed bullet that Wright pulled from his desk drawer. We have all seen the photo of the bullet next to the key.

        You have been requested to provide other instances of Josiah Thompson lying. You always circle back to the same thing. It is a classic circular argument Photon. You are saying that Thomson has a history of deception based on ONE instant that you cannot prove.

        Thompson should be given the benefit of the doubt over the ridiculous Magic Bullet Theory offered in the WC Report, for the very reason that it is absurd and untenable; as proven from every angle here.
        \\][//

        • Photon says:

          I have. You don’t want to look. We have seen your opinion about the chain of custody of #399 expressed many times. It really has nothing to do with the unsubstantiated claims of Tink Thompson, whether they be his false claim about Billy Hargis or his false claims about the location of the Harper fragment. But Willy, seriously, what is your legal background that makes you an expert in this matter? Have you passed the Bar? Have you tried a case or presented evidence before a judge or jury? Can you post a single opinion of a judge at the District, State or Federal level that # 399 would be inadmissible do to an incomplete chain of custody? How many of the Warren Report and HSCA investigators and participants were attorneys or judges? Why was the chain of custody never a problem with any of them?

          • “what is your legal background that makes you an expert in this matter? Have you passed the Bar? Have you tried a case or presented evidence before a judge or jury?”~Photon

            That is a fair question Photon; what is YOUR legal background that makes you an expert in this matter? Have you passed the Bar? Have you tried a case or presented evidence before a judge or jury?

            You pretend at being a medical expert as well, prove it, what is your real name and credentials?

            As previously noted, by the governments own account, you have no legitimate chain of custody from the Parkland Bullet connecing to CE399. Prattling on about Tink Thompson and his so-called “lies” will not get you out of that.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            So the answer is no.

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            Willy,
            This one time, you’re barking up a bad tree turning Photon’s questions back on him. He has: legal background, passed the Bar, tried a case. But don’t let him pull rank on you because of that irrelevant nothing.

            Returning to the case at hand, the laughable CE399. Yes, as you so admirably, exhaustively point out, the chain of custody would have been laughed out of court had Lee Oswald ever made it to trial.
            But something even prior to that argues against War Con’s case. Tomlinson saw the slug fall off the stretcher of a little boy who had split his face open, falling down his masonry back steps. It wasn’t even John B. Connally’s stretcher! Hapless Jacob Leon (after a good friend he help get killed) Rubinstein, aka Jack Ruby, planted a bullet, the wrong bullet!, on the stretcher of a 3- or 4-year old, I forget which.

          • Photon,

            My answer is exactly as I stated it.
            You have no chain of custody for CE399.
            \\][//

          • Gary Aguilar says:

            Re the chain of custody of the “Magic Bullet,” Tink and I wrote as follows: http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm

            In 1964 the Warren Commission, or rather the FBI, claimed that Wright believed the original bullet resembled #399. In 1967, Wright denied there was a resemblance to Thompson. Recent FBI releases prompted by the JFK Review Board support author Thompson’s 1967 report.

            A declassified 6/20/64 FBI AIRTEL memorandum from the FBI office in Dallas (“SAC, Dallas” – i.e., Special Agent in Charge, Gordon Shanklin) to J. Edgar Hoover contains the statement, “For information WFO (FBI Washington Field Office), neither DARRELL C. TOMLINSON [sic], who found bullet at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, nor O. P. WRIGHT, Personnel Officer, Parkland Hospital, who obtained bullet from TOMLINSON and gave to Special Service, at Dallas 11/22/63, can identify bullet … .” [Fig. 5 – Page 1, Page 2]

            Whereas the FBI had claimed in CE #2011 that Tomlinson and Wright had told Agent Odum on June 12, 1964 that CE #399 “appears to be the same” bullet they found on the day of the assassination, nowhere in this previously classified memo, which was written before CE #2011, is there any corroboration that either of the Parkland employees saw a resemblance. Nor is FBI agent Odum’s name mentioned anywhere in the once-secret file, whether in connection with #399, or with Tomlinson or with Wright.

            A declassified record, however, offers some corroboration for what CE 2011 reported about Secret Service Agents Johnsen and Rowley. A memo from the FBI’s Dallas field office dated 6/24/64 reported that, “ON JUNE TWENTYFOUR INSTANT RICHARD E. JOHNSEN, AND JAMES ROWLEY, CHIEF … ADVISED SA ELMER LEE TODD, WFO, THAT THEY WERE UNABLE TO INDENTIFY RIFLE BULLET C ONE (# 399, which, before the Warren Commission had logged in as #399, was called “C ONE”), BY INSPECTION (capitals in original). [Fig. 6]

            Convinced that we had overlooked some relevant files, we cast about for additional corroboration of what was in CE # 2011. There should, for example, have been some original “302s ” – the raw FBI field reports from the Agent Odum’s interviews with Tomlinson and Wright on June 12, 1964. There should also have been one from Agent Todd’s interviews with Secret Service Agents Johnsen and Rowley on June 24, 1964. Perhaps somewhere in those, we thought, we would find Agent Odum reporting that Wright had detected a resemblance between the bullets. And perhaps we’d also find out whether Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen or Rowley had supplied the Bureau with any additional descriptive details about the bullet.

            See next post for the rest.

          • Gary Aguilar says:

            Continuation on CE 399’s chain of possession: http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm

            Convinced that we had overlooked some relevant files, we cast about for additional corroboration of what was in CE # 2011. There should, for example, have been some original “302s ” – the raw FBI field reports from the Agent Odum’s interviews with Tomlinson and Wright on June 12, 1964. There should also have been one from Agent Todd’s interviews with Secret Service Agents Johnsen and Rowley on June 24, 1964. Perhaps somewhere in those, we thought, we would find Agent Odum reporting that Wright had detected a resemblance between the bullets. And perhaps we’d also find out whether Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen or Rowley had supplied the Bureau with any additional descriptive details about the bullet.
            In early 1998, we asked a research associate, Ms. Cathy Cunningham, to scour the National Archives for any additional files that might shed light on this story. She looked but found none. We contacted the JFK Review Board’s T. Jeremy Gunn for help. [Fig. 7] On May 18, 1998, the Review Board’s Eileen Sullivan, writing on Gunn’s behalf, answered, saying: “[W]e have attempted, unsuccessfully, to find any additional records that would account for the problem you suggest.”[10] [Fig. 8] Undaunted, one of us wrote the FBI directly, and was referred to the National Archives, and so then wrote Mr. Steve Tilley at the National Archives. [Fig. 9]
            On Mr. Tilley’s behalf, Mr. Stuart Culy, an archivist at the National Archives, made a search. On July 16, 1999, Mr. Culy wrote that he searched for the FBI records within the HSCA files as well as in the FBI records, all without success. He was able to determine, however, that the serial numbers on the FBI documents ran “concurrently, with no gaps, which indicated that no material is missing from these files.”[11] [Fig. 10] In other words, the earliest and apparently the only FBI report said nothing about either Tomlinson or Wright seeing a similarity between the bullet found at the hospital and the bullet later in evidence, CE #399. Nor did agent Bardwell Odum’s name show up in any of the files.

          • Gary Aguilar says:

            In early 1998, we asked a research associate, Ms. Cathy Cunningham, to scour the National Archives for any additional files that might shed light on this story. She looked but found none. We contacted the JFK Review Board’s T. Jeremy Gunn for help. [Fig. 7] On May 18, 1998, the Review Board’s Eileen Sullivan, writing on Gunn’s behalf, answered, saying: “[W]e have attempted, unsuccessfully, to find any additional records that would account for the problem you suggest.”[10] [Fig. 8] Undaunted, one of us wrote the FBI directly, and was referred to the National Archives, and so then wrote Mr. Steve Tilley at the National Archives. [Fig. 9]
            On Mr. Tilley’s behalf, Mr. Stuart Culy, an archivist at the National Archives, made a search. On July 16, 1999, Mr. Culy wrote that he searched for the FBI records within the HSCA files as well as in the FBI records, all without success. He was able to determine, however, that the serial numbers on the FBI documents ran “concurrently, with no gaps, which indicated that no material is missing from these files.”[11] [Fig. 10] In other words, the earliest and apparently the only FBI report said nothing about either Tomlinson or Wright seeing a similarity between the bullet found at the hospital and the bullet later in evidence, CE #399. Nor did agent Bardwell Odum’s name show up in any of the files.

            [editor’s note: Dr. Aguilar followed up in 2005 with the National Archives, asking them in letters dated March 2 and March 7 to search for any FBI “302” reports that would have been generated from CE399 being shown to those who handled it. On March 17, 2005 David Mengel of NARA wrote back reporting that additional searches had not uncovered any such reports.]
            Stymied, author Aguilar turned to his co-author. “What does Odum have to say about it?” Thompson asked.
            “Odum? How the hell do I know? Is he still alive?”
            “I’ll find out,” he promised.
            Less than an hour later, Thompson had located Mr. Bardwell Odum’s home address and phone number. Aguilar phoned him on September 12, 2002. He was still alive and well and living in a suburb of Dallas. The 82-year old was alert and quick-witted on the phone and he regaled Aguilar with fond memories of his service in the Bureau. Finally, the Kennedy case came up and Odum agreed to help interpret some of the conflicts in the records. Two weeks after mailing Odum the relevant files – CE # 2011, the three-page FBI memo dated July 7, 1964, and the “FBI AIRTEL” memo dated June 12, 1964, Aguilar called him back.
            Mr. Odum told Aguilar, “I didn’t show it [#399] to anybody at Parkland. I didn’t have any bullet … I don’t think I ever saw it even.” …
            See:http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm for footnotes and hotlinks

          • Gary Aguilar says:

            So, “Photon,” if the FBI wasn’t lying in CE 2011 when it reported that Agent Bardwell Odum had interviewed Messrs. Tomlinson and Wright, where are the 302’s of those interviews, the reports FBI agents submit after interviewing witnesses?

            Tink and I looked for them. We sent researchers to look for them. We had the ARRB look for them. We had the National Archives look for them.

            Bupkis!

            They all said there ain’t no 302’s from Bardwell Odum re C 1, otherwise known as CE #399. And damn if that’s not what Bardwell Odum told me and Tink when we visited him in his home: he said he never had no #399; never showed it to no Tomlinson nor Wright

          • Photon says:

            What is your reference that supports your claim that these actions would always generate “302” forms?

          • Gary Aguilar says:

            In Commission Exhibit 2011, in a 1964 FBI letterhead memorandum, the Bureau reported that Agent Bardwell Odum interviewed Parkland witnesses Tomlinson and Wright regarding the “magic bullet,” Commission Exhibit 399.

            I pointed out that a search done by me, by the ARRB and by the National Archives disclosed there were no field reports, so-called “302” reports, from Odum in any FBI files.

            Whereupon, Photon asks:

            “What is your reference that supports your claim that these actions would always generate “302” forms?”

            Carrying around an important piece of evidence like CE 399 and displaying it to witnesses most assuredly would have been memorialized in a report, a 302, from the Dallas-based agent, or

          • Gary Aguilar says:

            In Commission Exhibit 2011, a 1964 FBI letterhead memorandum, the Bureau reported that Agent Bardwell Odum interviewed Parkland witnesses Tomlinson and Wright regarding the appearance of “magic bullet,” Commission Exhibit 399.

            I pointed out that a search done by me, by the ARRB and by the National Archives disclosed there were no field reports, no so-called “302” reports, from Odum in any FBI files.

            Whereupon, Photon asks:

            “What is your reference that supports your claim that these actions would always generate “302” forms?”

            Carrying around an important piece of evidence from the ‘crime of the century,’ like CE 399, and displaying it to witnesses most assuredly would have been memorialized in a report, a 302, from the Dallas-based agent, for that info in the FBI memo to the Warren Comm (CE 2011) had to have come from someplace.

            But there’s more. I’ve got several patients who are former FBI agents who I’ve asked. I also asked former FBI agent Bill Turner. And I asked Bardwell Odum himself, for Tink and I visited with him in his home.

            All the FBI agents told me that Bureau protocol would have required a 302 report(s) from the agent.

            Moreover, Bardwell Odum made the obvious point when he denied to us that he’d ever had such a bullet, ever showed such a bullet around, etc. He said that FBI sphincters were tight as a drum re the JFK case in Dallas in ’64. ‘If I’d have ever had such a bullet and shown it around, you can bet your last dollar I’d have written up a 302,’ or words to that effect.

            Bureau files back him up: there are no 302s from Odum, or any other FBI agent, regarding CE 399, which was then referred to as “C 1.”

            The FBI hasn’t exactly distinguished itself in the truth-telling department, whether on the Kennedy case, the mafia, or in other cases. So isn’t it fascinating to see how loyal some people remain to whatever the Bureau reports?

            Warren loyalists incessantly demand “independent” corroboration for any fact claimed by a skeptic, but almost invariably take the Warren-loyal word of the Bureau as gospel. Thus never demanding corroboration of claims that come from an outfit known for outright falsehoods and prevarication.

            It’s the same outfit that somehow missed Ruby’s mafia connections. And its pro-govt, pro-cop, pro-prosecution lab has been a scandal for decades.

            Remember Frederick Whitehurst?

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Thank you Mr. Aguilar. Ruby’s mafia connections in particular were my breaking point with the WCR.

          • “Remember Frederick Whitehurst?”~Gary Aguilar

            Ahh yes indeed! I have read and own that book. A terrific expose of an obviously corrupt agency.
            They are still setting up patsy Muslims for the phony “War on Terror”. The case of the 1993 WTC bombing being one of the more outrageous ones. Wherein the FBI actually supplied the materials and explosives to make the bomb, and then did nothing to prevent it being put in place. A scandal that goes beyond the FBI and right into the courts, where this evidence was never revealed.
            Another glimpse into the machinations of the Deep State.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Why would a single agent fill out a “302”.

          • Photon says:

            If Bill Turner was kicked out of the FBI in 1961, how was he an expert in what the policies were for “302s” in 1964-3 years later? Particularly if he had an axe to grind-as he demonstrated that he did?
            Your patients told you the policies for generating “302s”- that is your basis for making the assumption that since you can’t find these phantom “302” reports the documented evidence in the legal record is false?
            The simpler answer is that you have made an incorrect assumption based on incomplete information on how “302s” were generated and ignorance of the protocol that generated them.

          • Photon says:

            It is apparent that Dr. Aguilar is unaware why that his assumption that S.A. Odium would generate a ” 302″ is incorrect.
            But incorrect it is.

          • I am reposting this from another thread, as it has apparently been missed by the members of this foru,:

            “It’s at C7/T1.”~John McAdams

            The picture McAdams provides clearly shows that the bullet wound in Kennedy’s back is NOT at C7/T1.

            C7/T1 is at the beginning of the “Leatherneck” just at the the first deep crease just above the top of the ruler.

            This picture shows the wound at T3.
            The same location on the Death Certificate, the shirt and coat, the ‘dot’ on Boswell’s face-sheet, and the testimony of SSA Sibert, who attended the so-called “autopsy” and stood less than an arms length from that wound while it was measured.
            \\][//

  13. Thomas says:

    To reiterate: The attempt to confine criticism to ONLY what is in the Warren Report is to be willfully blind to the big picture. That the Report might be internally consistent is by design of the makers. They included the data and evidence that was needed to conform to a predetermined theory and ignored the rest.

    What actually matters is WHAT WAS LEFT OUT and everyone with an open mind knows and readily admits that the omissions are glaring. This discussion is like the cat chasing its tail and people should refrain from taking the bait.

    • leslie sharp says:

      Thomas – in a perfect world, dusting off one’s feet and declaring a victory is not only logical, it is pragmatic on a purely personal plain. However, the fact is there remain dozens of photons and Jeans and Bills and McAdams and Von Peins et al – as well as dozens of collective interests – intent on continuing to pull the wool over the eyes of coming generations of Americans and world citizens in order to perpetuate the disavowal of the conspiracy. Those who have served on the front lines of exposing the conspiracy that was behind the assassination of the then leader of the free world for over 5 decades, warrant – in spite of the fact they have never demanded – the stamina of a new generation of researchers. This is about the survival of our democracy, not one under threat by self-engineered enemies – be they communists to jihadists – but under threat from within. Simply because we acknowledge democracy was taken to the brink in 1963 does not mean we can rest easy with that self-awareness. Preservation requires diligence. This site in particular has the opportunity to facilitate that diligence.

      • Jean Davison says:

        Leslie makes another accusation:

        “However, the fact is there remain dozens of photons and Jeans and Bills and McAdams and Von Peins et al – as well as dozens of collective interests – intent on continuing to pull the wool over the eyes of coming generations of Americans and world citizens in order to perpetuate the disavowal of the conspiracy.”

        I’ve asked you before, several times. If you want to accuse me of something, post the evidence for it. Show that anything I’ve said here is incorrect, and I’ll retract it.

        What I try to do here is pretty much the opposite of what you claim. I try to expose some of the vast array of CT misinformation that has pulled the wool over the eyes of millions.

        One small example, above, from another poster: “the FBI’s transposition of frames 314 and 315 to create the false impression that a rifle shot to Kennedy’s head had been fired from behind.” No such impression was created, since the head moves very little between those two frames and the more dramatic backward movement continues until Z319. Here are the two transposed frames, as published:

        313, 314:
        http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1135#relPageId=84&tab=page

        315, 316:
        http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1135#relPageId=85&tab=page

        (Each photo shows the individual frame as well as a snippet of the actual preceding frame in a small space above it.)

        Here’s the correct order:
        http://opendb.com/images/z311-315.jpg

        The transposition error was noticed by one of the first researchers to see this volume of the WC Hearings.

        • leslie sharp says:

          Jean, I make another uncomfortable observation, not accusation.

          It could also be observed that you are superficially effective at this debate because you follow the same pattern as the conspiracy itself, a skillful application of compartmentalization. You segregate a single detail that if taken out of full context appears to be a strong argument. The compartmentalization of the conspiracy assured that future analysis of the whole would be virtually impossible; similarly you tie others on this site in knots trying to find the ‘i’ that is or is not dotted, the ‘t’ that is or is not crossed. It is unsettling to consider this might be a parlor game for you. The first step toward unveiling the conspiracy should have been from the outset, understanding and exposing the compartmentalization. The key to understanding your process is to ponder the similarities. Both can be compared to figuring out a magic trick.

          I will let you and ‘another poster’ (respectfully, it was bogman who introduced frames 313, 314) debate frames. Perhaps you could respond to him directly rather than hijack my comment.

          On another thread, I commented and you ignored: “It would be impossible to challenge your position without the occasional appearance of challenging you personally but be assured that if Saint Theresa of Avila had lived in our times and penned a similarly speculative book about Oswald’s motive that not only perpetuated the highly flawed Warren Commission conclusion but also served it by filling in the gap, I would severely question and criticize her work not to mention her “motive”; if Theresa took offense then so be it. . . .

          and I concluded with and repeat here: “Would you state here, unequivocally, that you believe Oswald – in a spontaneous act – was the sole perpetrator of the assassination because of his strong political views that conflicted with those of John Kennedy?”

          • Jean Davison says:

            Leslie,

            “Compartmentalization” is just an excuse for accusing someone of bad faith, deception, or whatever it is you’re accusing me of, when you can’t provide a single shred of evidence to support it. You can’t back up your insulting comments with anything but your opinion, and you don’t even see a problem with that, evidently.

            “…and I concluded with and repeat here: ‘Would you state here, unequivocally, that you believe Oswald – in a spontaneous act – was the sole perpetrator of the assassination because of his strong political views that conflicted with those of John Kennedy?'”

            No. Once again you’re trying to put words in my mouth.

            Since you continue to try to make me the topic of conversation instead of talking about the JFK evidence, I see no reason to interact further with you.

          • Mariano says:

            It is a simple task determining if someone is interested in the truth about JFK rather than misinforming and distracting the course of scrutiny: ask them if they support the release of all files relating to the assassination.

            The regular elements who are drawn here with a devoted mission to protect the secrecy surrounding JFK’s assassination, by the CIA et al, do not support the release of documents that will enable a proper investigation of the truth.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jean, suggesting that I attempt to make you the topic of conversation is just your excuse to avoid my assertion that you apply compartmentalization to your defence of the Warren Commission. How many permutations of this can either of us devise.

            “I see no reason to interact further with you …” Those who have followed this site since 2013 will recognize that you have left our exchanges in a huff on a number of occasions.

            You are not the topic of the conversation; however your allegation that Oswald – in a spontaneous moment of political outrage – shot the president of the United States because he disagreed with him is most certainly the topic of this conversation.

            If you can identify any words I have put in your mouth, any way that I’ve misconstrued your claim that Oswald was the lone assassin motivated by his political beliefs, why not set me straight with a simple paragraph reaffirming your original hypothesis? If your 1983 conclusion needs to be updated or the 2013 re-issue of “Oswald’s Game” is obsolete, all the more reason for you to go on the record here at jfkfacts. You have a significant profile here because you are one among a very limited crowd who promote the Warren Commission conclusion; you have an apparent high degree of respect here, so why hesitate to make a definitive statement at least periodically as you enjoy this podium to promote the credibility of the details and conclusion issued by the Warren Commission?

  14. A lot of people took Vince Palamara’s list of witness testimonies at face value, although it is in reality a jumble of real first hand testimony and second hand stuff mixed together with testimonies of many who simply could not have had an unobstructed view of the limo at the time of the shooting.

    That Josiah Thompson took the Harges’ testimony, that was actually a second hand account gone undifferentiated by Palamara is an unfortunate mistake. It is when people such as Jim Fetzer and Doug Horne knowingly promote so much such testimonies that have finally been vetted properly that there is a problem of purposeful disinformation being spread.

    Much of Fetzer’s misnamed “Assassination Science”, is made from these testimonies – and I know that he knows that the ones he continues to use are fraudulent.

    I can forgive Thompson for his one mistake, but it is the continued use of many of the ones now proven to be false that is unforgivable and indicative of the willful doing of disinformants.
    \\][//

    • Photon says:

      But if his one mistake is a major factor in coming to his most significant conclusion how can that conclusion be correct-particularly if he repeats it over and over again?
      Coupled with the Harper fragment inaccuracy how can you give any credence to what he says in regard to the source of the shots?

      • Steve Stirlen says:

        The same way you give the CIA a free pass about what it knows about the assassination and the files it refuses to release and the picture it gave us of LHO in Mexico City that looks like a Russian wrestler because it made a “simple mistake.” Oh, and don’t forget the tapes and voice recordings it destroyed as a matter of “routine practice.”

        Trying to figure out which lie or liar to believe is desperately hard, isn’t it, Photon?

        • Photon says:

          What does that have to do with Dr. Thompson coming to conclusions based on erroneous data? It would appear that my perceptions are right on target-your trying to change the subject because you have no answer to the topic at hand.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            I am not interested in the “topic at hand.” What Mr. Thompson did or did not say, or whether he made a mistake or did not make a mistake matters not one whit to me.

            You see, Photon, unlike you that reads verbatim from the WO report, Mr. Thompson actually WROTE a book after spending time in Dallas, and ACTUALLY talking to the people directly involved in the assassination. You have done NOTHING of the sort. If Mr. Thompson made a mistake, and as Jean has correctly pointed out, people do make mistakes, his mistake was a mistake of action, whereas the mistakes of your beloved WO were mistakes of omission, deceit, or outright LYING.

            Case in point—you asked to point out one instance of the WO making errors on this thread. Bogman gave you a wonderful list, and you have not answered a SINGLE one. I have asked you to clarify three. Why did the 302 Sibert and O’Neill filed not make its way into the WO report? How come Hosty’s destruction of LHO “threatening” note not make it into the WO. Tell me, Photon, how much time did Hosty spend in jail for destruction of evidence in a murder case? How come the WO report does not mention the JM/WAVE station in Florida? How come NO ONE from the CIA went to jail for destroying tapes of “Oswald” in MC? You see, Photon, those are not mistakes. Those are deceptions. And, at one time, they were considered criminal acts.

            So, Mr. Thompson made a mistake. Your beloved WO made, oh let’s pick a round number of 20 CRIMINAL mistakes. I think I shall believe Mr. Thompson a LITTLE more than your WO.

      • “Coupled with the Harper fragment inaccuracy how can you give any credence to what he says in regard to the source of the shots?”~Photon

        You provided one single reference disputing the Harper fragment.
        You cannot insist that the controversy is solved, as the validity of your source relies on merely your personal opinion.
        Mine, Thompson’s and yours are all merely opinions on this matter.
        That which is NOT opinion is the invalidity of the chain of custody for CE399. Both the FBI and Thompson have rebuked that chain of custody, eliminating the first 4 links in that chain.
        This makes all of the other issues surrounding the so-called Magic Bullet moot, just trifling details that are not worth the continuous carousel of back and forth here.
        As a final reminder, at the core here is that this site is called JFKfacts for a reason.

        We may all express our opinions, but certain facts ARE established. The lack of chain of custody for CE399 is one of these facts

        The culpability of Humes for the destruction of official evidence is another.
        The position of JFK’s back wound at T3 is another fact that cannot be disputed in other than with empty opinion.
        \\][//

      • leslie sharp says:

        It appears that photon continues to have an internal struggle with the Warren Commission: “if [its one] mistake is a major factor in coming to [its] most significant conclusion how can that conclusion be correct …. “

      • Photon,

        You should be aware that there is more to the controversy of where the Harper fragment was found. There is also the problem of what exact portion of the skull that fragment came from.
        More on this can be found here:
        http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm
        \\][//

        • Photon says:

          You realize of course that your source makes no mention of where the fragment was found.
          Mr. Hunt is no expert in anatomy so his conclusions as to the source of the fragment are nothing but the unsupported conjecture of a layman.
          But his previous work does completely destroy the claims that JFK’s clothing holes support a bullet wound at the T3 level.Did you know that?

  15. larry webb says:

    Look sources and methods what don’t you understand if we get joannides file out in the open castro and the communists win.

    • Mariano says:

      Larry, the Cold War is over, and the people of America reserve the right to know why JFK was assassinated without the continued cover-up of evidence.
      Whether it was Wright’s bullet or not; we know that national security is no defence for the blatant cover-up of the assassination of the President of the United States.
      For decades the government, agencies and other entities have hijacked this democracy to such an extent, many who care have little trust in the powers that be.
      The criminal behavior of those in whom we ought to trust must be exposed; the depiction of history must cease to be manipulated; and in order to grow as a nation or as a humanity, the true circumstances of JFK’s assassination must be evaluated.

  16. ARRB Testimony of James W. Sibert:

    Q: When you say “back wound, you’re
    referring to –
    A: I’m referring to this wound below the
    shoulders here marked with the dot.
    […] Page 74
    Q: Did you see any wounds or injuries on the
    neck?
    A: The tint of the neck, you’re speaking of?
    Q: Any part of the neck. A: Yes. This tracheotomy incision was very
    evident.
    Q: Okay. Were there any other wounds that
    you noticed at that time on the body?
    A: No.
    Q: Later in – during the course of the
    autopsy, did you ever see any additional wounds?
    So, maybe you did not see them before the first
    incision.
    A: No.
    Q: You referred earlier in this deposition to
    a wound on – I think you said below the shoulders.
    A:Right.
    -75
    Q: Do you recall that?
    A: Yes.
    Q: Can you tell me where that wound was, or
    describe that for me?
    A: Well, that drawing you gave me there. it
    was below the scapula or the shoulders. And down
    far below the base of the neck.
    A: Now, Humes, as I recall, didn’t give any
    measurement on that. He did on this piece of skull
    that was brought in and the fragments. It was
    below the shoulders and to the right of the midline
    of the body.
    Q: Okay.When you said just a moment ago the
    drawing that I had shown you, you were referring to
    the drawings that were attached to Exhibit No. 85;
    is that correct?
    A: Right.The back wound.

    http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf
    \\][//

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.