06-07-2015, 09:34 AM
*
David Josephs Wrote:Cliff Varnell Wrote:Thank you much, David!
Now you know I think the ice flechette is a decent possibility for the throat wound... or it may have been something that did not "melt away" and is the reason for the enlarged trach wound... they had to get it out of there before anyone would have a chance to find it which did not leave them the time to properly work on the skull... or maybe they got started and Humes et al finished the job...
David,
Let's game out these two scenarios.
1) Pre-autopsy removal of the round which struck JFK in the throat and did not exit.
If this was a first-shot/kill-shot it missed the head and it was a short load.
Same with the back shot -- a miss, a short load.
What are the chances of a military-style ambush suffering from two misses and two short loads in the first two shots?
2) From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:
(quote on)
Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general
feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning
the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]
bullet, one which dissolves after contact.
(quote off)
From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:
(quote on)
The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused
by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments
completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I
left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]
Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that
would almost completely fragmentize (sic).
(quote off)
"Ice bullets? You're joking!"
Serious Researchers of a certain age are culturally incapable of taking this scenario seriously.
The subject makes them feel foolish, which has led to a mass denial in regards to the physical evidence in JFK's murder.
If the COPA and Lancer Conferences were organized/attended/presented strictly by Millennials, this stuff would be micro-analyzed.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church...nseney.pdf
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church..._Colby.pdf
You are aware Cliff that the FBI acknowledges that the SS told them they not only had CE399 but that a bullet was lodged behind JFK's ear... this memo is written DURING the autopsy and the FBI was making plans to acquire this bullet too.
We have the Johnson bullet, the Todd bullet, the 7.65 envelope, the use of sabots, the manhole cover bullet and on and on... there were well more than a few bullets in evidence at one time yet they all seemd to have faded into history.
None of those rounds were associated with the back or throat wounds.
Those rounds entered and did not exit.
That's a root fact of the case.
As to the actual physical evidence of the body... If the process of probing the wounds was hidden, Sandra Spencer & Knudsen hidden, the bullets removed hidden (per O'Connor via Stringer I think said the removed a bullet from the intercostals on the right side) and no recrod of the opening of the neck or upper torso, yet we know this was done... is it really hard to fathem that the body contained other holes from the back? (or out the back from a frontal shot?)
It's impossible to fathom two bullets and one set of bullet holes in the shirt and jacket.
This p.o.s. theory is taking on Zombie status!
Not that the Thorasic level hole was not there or even added later.... but who really knows what happened between 6:40 and 8pm in that Morgue other than the men who did it?
But Secret Service SA Glenn Bennett signed off on seeing the back shot four inches down from JFK's shoulder -- this was before AF1 landed at Andrews.
In the back-wound-mutilation scenario Bennett must have been a mastermind since he accurately described the location of the wound prior to any opportunity to create it.
And what a huge mistake that location turned out to be -- covering up for a conspiracy by creating evidence that must lead to the conclusion there was a conspiracy?
Nahhhh...
My suggestion has always been to only look at the Evidence as it relates to the Conspiracy, not the Crime... The Evidence IS the Conspiracy...
Understanding that makes it so much easier to create a POV from which to learn from this inadvertent evidence.
I've asked repeatedly if there is any one item of authentic evidence of the assassination and completely forgot that the jacket and shirt are such items.
Jim - we are not IGNORING the physical evidence, just putting it in the proper perspective and context.
Can you name any other physical evidence which is indicative of what happened during the assassination rather than describing the conspiracy?
Respectfully
DJ