Thoughts on a bus trip

[Alan Ford]

You can count on one hand the number of times the FBI recorded a change to what was "first said" to be in favor of Oswald.


Here is a perfect illustration of this concept in action... From the Exec Session we have a triple hit...

1) There is no such statement in the Autopsy report in Evidence
2) "what they first said" as found in the FBI report of Sibert/O'Neil needed to be forgotton and contradicted with a thru and thru shot begetting CE399
3) the location on the back is higher than the location on the front - "so that how it could turn...."


April 27, 1964 Norman Redlich to Rankin in a memo related to the Eisenberg examinations of the Zfilm. On Jan 20 the FBI delivered WCD298 http://www.ctka.net/2016/JosephsFBIZ313.pdf which placed 3 shots and the relative position of the key motorcade cars on a 3d model. By April 27 and this memo the conclusions of that model were totally incorrect based on the evidence developed as I try to show.

If this paragraph does not convince anyone of the preconceived nature of this "investigation" as understood by the lawyers tasked with compiling and creating the final report - I know of few other things that can. The follow-up to this declaration is 3 shots become 2 shots and a miss... now all that was needed was the evidence to substantiate the hypothesis...

:hock::
We have not yet examined the assassination scene todetermine
whether the assassin in fact could have shot the Presidentprior to
frame 190. We couldlocate the position on the ground which
corresponds to this frame and it would then be our intent toestablish
by photography that the assassin would have fired the firstshot at the
President prior to this point. Our intention is not to establish the point with completeaccuracy,
but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies theconclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin.




Mr. Rankin:
Then theres a great range of material in regards to the wound and theautopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of theneck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the presenttime.

We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragmentcame out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have comefrom, and the angle, it seems quite apparent, since we have the picture ofwhere the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below theshoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where thepicture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, andthe bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, thatparticular bullet, and go through.

So that how it could turn, and --

Rep. Boggs. I thought I read that bullet just went in a finger's length.

Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said

:: a rousing standing O, Mr. Joseph.

Also, what a very telling choice of words ---> Our intention is not to establish the point with completeaccuracy,
but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies theconclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin.

Translation, we are here to rubber stamp the whitewash, rather than actually evaluate actual evidence to the contrary....

underLIES[SUB][/SUB]