JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[Axxman300]

I first heard of this "opposite direction" phenomenon on the JFK section of the London Education Forum from user and gun enthusiast Robert Prudhomme. I Googled and browsed around gun forums and saw corroboration for this, where not only can the use of noise-suppressors in conjunction with supersonic ammunition distort the noise of a shot to make it difficult to locate it's origin, but in some cases it can actually sound like the shots are coming from the opposite direction of the shooter. Here are some gun nuts talking about it:

The problem is that none of those accounts are from the early 1960s, few are from a city setting.

John Plaster is a historian of MACVSOG, a unit which had all the latest silenced weapons. The only one with reach was their .45 rifle. Their men killed close-in, that's why most of their weapons were hand guns.

Ask BStrong what happens when you fire a suppressed weapon and then jam it into your pants as you make your get away...no really ask.

What are you talking about? If the noise caused by a subsonic bullet moving through the air is louder than the noise caused by the muzzle blast, the sound of the shot will be distorted. And earlier I provided a book that talked about how silencers can disperse the sound of the muzzle blast itself.

A supersonic round is as loud as a muzzle blast, but a subsonic round would depend on the caliber, and even then it comes down to the gun used.

You can't "disperse" a sound from its source. I was a studio guitar player, and spent a lot of time around microphones. Sound can be influenced by the setting it occurs, this is why some concert halls have fantastic acoustics, and why you can built a studio where Van Halen can play all night without the neighbors ever knowing they're working (unless they leave the door open). A good interior decorator can take a loud room with crappy acoustics and with a few tall potted plants, and decorative wall hangings can dial down the noise.

More to the point, sound changes over distance from its originating source. This is why I mike my amp from about a foot away, but the bass player has to place his mike about 12 feet away since the frequency doesn't fully develop until that distance. This is why I didn't hear Gene Simmon's bass as well as the guitars on the other side of the stage, even though I was 10 feet from them. The sound went right over my head. This is why I had a sonic hangover from Ted Nugent, because I sat in the back of the hall (Cow Palace - worst acoustics west of the Mississippi) and caught both the head-on blare of his amps as well as the back-slap from the rear and side walls.

At my place of work, guests complain of noise from the room next door, but we can't hear it from the outside because noise travels between the interior walls, but not through the thicker outer walls.

The US Army used to train at all hours at Fort Ord, and sometimes we could hear them 20 miles away as if they were on the other side of the hill due to atmospheric conditions. Other days you could drive past the coastal firing ranges on M-60 day with the windows rolled down and not hear a thing from 300 yards away.

Finally, as a ghost hunter I spent a lot of time in the dark listening. One incident I heard two men talking on an upper floor of an empty office building. I searched to no avail while the conversation continued until I tracked the source to a couple of guys about 120 yards away in a parking lot. The way they were facing with their backs to a solid, 2-story flat wall, focused the sound of their voices toward the building I was in where it resolved through a broken window off an interior wall. Had I quit on my search I would have walked out of the building certain I had heard disembodied voices, but instead I learn just how funky sound waves can be in the right conditions.

 

[HSienzant]

Nope, the evidence gravitates towards JFK's autopsy pathologists knowing about the bullet wound in the throat. That's something history will have to live with.

Of course they knew. I said that. I also pointed out that David Lifton goes through the entire issue in great detail in his book BEST EVIDENCE. I've pointed that out to you numerous times.

Here's what we know:
Mr. SPECTER - Did you have occasion to discuss that wound on the front side of the President with Dr. Malcolm Perry of Parkland Hospital in Dallas?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; I did. I had the impression from seeing the wound that it represented a surgical tracheotomy wound, a wound frequently made by surgeons when people are in respiratory distress to give them a free airway.
To ascertain that point, I called on the telephone Dr. Malcolm Perry and discussed with him the situation of the President's neck when he first examined the President, and asked him had he in fact done a tracheotomy which was somewhat redundant because I was somewhat certain he had.
He said, yes; he had done a tracheotomy and that as the point to perform his tracheotomy he used a wound which he had interpreted as a missile wound in the low neck, as the point through which to make the tracheotomy incision.
Mr. SPECTER - When did you have that conversation with him, Dr. Humes?
Commander HUMES - I had that conversation early on Saturday morning, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - On Saturday morning, November 23d?
Commander HUMES - That is correct, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - And have you had occasion since to examine the report of Parkland Hospital which I made available to you?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; I have.

Now, "early on Saturday morning" is otherwise undefined. It could be anytime after midnight on 11/23/1963 Washington time (after 11pm 11/22/1963 Dallas time). Your attempt to make more of it that what it says is telling. Yet somehow now the entire conspiracy hinges on exactly when this phone call took place - "That's something history will have to live with".

Note that if the phone call took place just 30 minutes after midnight Washington time, for example, Perry's recollection of it happening on Friday night (Dallas time) and Humes claim it happened "early on Saturday morning" could both be true.

Please, carry on. Tell us why it's pertinent and how you know its pertinent. Tell us when the phone call actually took place, but do so without using recollections from 15 or 33 years after the fact.

We all know those aren't worth much.

Remember too that the earliest critics liked to claim that the autopsy doctors reached their conclusion about the bullet transiting the neck long after the autopsy was concluded... they argued that the phone call "early on Saturday morning" happened well after the body was removed from the morgue and well after the doctors could no longer confirm that transit conclusion by directly examining the body.

You're attempting to move the phone call to during the autopsy. But that undercuts entirely one major criticism of the autopsy -- if the phone call took place during the autopsy while the body was still in front of them, then the autopsists had time to verify the transit conclusion while the body was still in front of them.

Moving the phone call to earlier strengthens the autopsists conclusions about the transit, it doesn't weaken it.

Are you sure you're cut out for this "Warren Commission critic" gig?

Hank

 

[BStrong]

The problem is that none of those accounts are from the early 1960s, few are from a city setting.

John Plaster is a historian of MACVSOG, a unit which had all the latest silenced weapons. The only one with reach was their .45 rifle. Their men killed close-in, that's why most of their weapons were hand guns.

Ask BStrong what happens when you fire a suppressed weapon and then jam it into your pants as you make your get away...no really ask.



A supersonic round is as loud as a muzzle blast, but a subsonic round would depend on the caliber, and even then it comes down to the gun used.

You can't "disperse" a sound from its source. I was a studio guitar player, and spent a lot of time around microphones. Sound can be influenced by the setting it occurs, this is why some concert halls have fantastic acoustics, and why you can built a studio where Van Halen can play all night without the neighbors ever knowing they're working (unless they leave the door open). A good interior decorator can take a loud room with crappy acoustics and with a few tall potted plants, and decorative wall hangings can dial down the noise.

More to the point, sound changes over distance from its originating source. This is why I mike my amp from about a foot away, but the bass player has to place his mike about 12 feet away since the frequency doesn't fully develop until that distance. This is why I didn't hear Gene Simmon's bass as well as the guitars on the other side of the stage, even though I was 10 feet from them. The sound went right over my head. This is why I had a sonic hangover from Ted Nugent, because I sat in the back of the hall (Cow Palace - worst acoustics west of the Mississippi) and caught both the head-on blare of his amps as well as the back-slap from the rear and side walls.

At my place of work, guests complain of noise from the room next door, but we can't hear it from the outside because noise travels between the interior walls, but not through the thicker outer walls.

The US Army used to train at all hours at Fort Ord, and sometimes we could hear them 20 miles away as if they were on the other side of the hill due to atmospheric conditions. Other days you could drive past the coastal firing ranges on M-60 day with the windows rolled down and not hear a thing from 300 yards away.

Finally, as a ghost hunter I spent a lot of time in the dark listening. One incident I heard two men talking on an upper floor of an empty office building. I searched to no avail while the conversation continued until I tracked the source to a couple of guys about 120 yards away in a parking lot. The way they were facing with their backs to a solid, 2-story flat wall, focused the sound of their voices toward the building I was in where it resolved through a broken window off an interior wall. Had I quit on my search I would have walked out of the building certain I had heard disembodied voices, but instead I learn just how funky sound waves can be in the right conditions.

Never did that, but on one occasion I had an attack of dumb-ass to the head where I placed a suppressed M16 on a wooden picnic table I had been using as a rest - the can was in contact with the table top and the next thing I knew the contact area on the table was smoking from the heat of the can.

I put a pretty good burn mark on the thing.

As far as supersonic rounds downrange, they definitely make noise, but less than an actual muzzle blast. Folks uneducated will actually stand around confused when they hear a passing projectile.

Ah, music! My first love.

My band has a rehearsal/recording space built by us, at this point model 2.0. It's sound proof to a point and is decent enough sonically for what we want to do, and it keeps the neighborhood peaceful.

At the corner of the room where my R.O.D. (Rig Of Doom) lives, The low freq sound waves (I'm a bass player professionally and a guitar player for edification) has collapsed the roof above the studio...over time, sounds that can barely be heard from the outside caused structural damage.

 

[Axxman300]

I love when James Bond or other movie spies blow through two mags in a fire fight, and then calmly stick the gun back into the holster under their jackets. When he takes off his shirt his chest should look like a cat's face from all of the burn scars.

Another thing that drives me nuts is how CTers never take panic/shock/stress into consideration when talking about eye-witness territory. Many years ago, after band rehearsal in Salinas, CA., my drummer and I had lingered to talk about the next gig in front of the track-side warehouse we used as our practice pad. This small Toyota coupe pulled up and two Hispanic men jumped out and drew their guns on us...I couldn't tell you what either man looked like, the color of their car, nor what they were wearing. All I saw was the muzzles of their small handguns, and I can tell you that when you have a gun pointed at your face it looks like a Howitzer, maybe the Death Star. All you see is that black hole where the bullet comes from.

We told them we were leaving and they advised that we did so immediately. I drove about three miles in the dark before I realized my headlights were off.

Good times.

 

[MicahJava]

I'm not at all sure how you think this diatribe helps your case. Was the grassy knoll opposite the TSBD? No, it wasn't, it was parallel. The Forum posts you quote are mostly correct, but you missed a key point. The distances involved plays a key role. The distances in Dealey Plaza were very short range, mostly well under 100 yards, some less than 50 yards. One poster even acknowledged the phenomenon you allege only works at medium to long range where the suppressed muzzle blast is not audible. But, anyone in the Dealey Plaza area would likely have heard both the supersonic crack and the reduced muzzle blast.

You simply have gone to a lot of trouble to disprove your point.

A suppressor does not render the muzzle blast silent, it only reduces it. At the distances in Dealey Plaza those anywhere on the street in front or those on the knoll itself would have heard it. Did anyone report a muffled sound? Certainly not that I've read about.

Congratulations, you've just disproven the point you're trying to make.

If you can provide any hard evidence at all other than this crap (which you don't understand) such as as an actual bullet or an exit wound that would prove this, I'll accept the possibility of a shooter from the grassy knoll area. Otherwise you're simply blowing smoke about something you don't understand.

No, that's basically what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying the muzzle blast would be that silent of suppressors were used in Dealey Plaza. It depends on the witness. With the motorcycle backfire and crowd noises, that especially factors in confusion. Nobody's saying that 1960's noise-suppressors would cover up the muzzle blast that much in a situation like this.

 

[MicahJava]

Notice a common thread in the bolded stuff?

Here's a challenge for you Micah. Try making the case for a conspiracy without citing witness memories as the crux of your argument.

I bet you come up empty handed.

Dr. Humes' version of events is witness evidence. The other people there tell a different story. Everybody else tells the story of how the autopsy physicians figured out the throat wound wasn't just a trach incision, so they stuck probes in and out of it. I don't think Dr. Humes ever even mentioned the second phone call that Dr. Perry did.

 

[MicahJava]

Axxman300, I accidentally typed subsonic when I meant supersonic. A supersonic bullet will be louder than it's suppressed muzzle blast, ergo knoll witnesses.

 

[MicahJava]

Of course they knew. I said that. I also pointed out that David Lifton goes through the entire issue in great detail in his book BEST EVIDENCE. I've pointed that out to you numerous times.

Here's what we know:
Mr. SPECTER - Did you have occasion to discuss that wound on the front side of the President with Dr. Malcolm Perry of Parkland Hospital in Dallas?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; I did. I had the impression from seeing the wound that it represented a surgical tracheotomy wound, a wound frequently made by surgeons when people are in respiratory distress to give them a free airway.
To ascertain that point, I called on the telephone Dr. Malcolm Perry and discussed with him the situation of the President's neck when he first examined the President, and asked him had he in fact done a tracheotomy which was somewhat redundant because I was somewhat certain he had.
He said, yes; he had done a tracheotomy and that as the point to perform his tracheotomy he used a wound which he had interpreted as a missile wound in the low neck, as the point through which to make the tracheotomy incision.
Mr. SPECTER - When did you have that conversation with him, Dr. Humes?
Commander HUMES - I had that conversation early on Saturday morning, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - On Saturday morning, November 23d?
Commander HUMES - That is correct, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - And have you had occasion since to examine the report of Parkland Hospital which I made available to you?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; I have.

Now, "early on Saturday morning" is otherwise undefined. It could be anytime after midnight on 11/23/1963 Washington time (after 11pm 11/22/1963 Dallas time). Your attempt to make more of it that what it says is telling. Yet somehow now the entire conspiracy hinges on exactly when this phone call took place - "That's something history will have to live with".

Hee-larious. So you agree that they could've been notified about the bullet hole in the throat during the actual autopsy? Well here's the problem: they never said that's how it happened. That's not the notorious "botched autopsy" story we've all grown to know and love. When Dr. Humes et. al did eventually admit that they thought the throat wound was a bullet hole, they only vaguely mentioned it like it was an unsubstantiated suspicion on theirs.

Note that if the phone call took place just 30 minutes after midnight Washington time, for example, Perry's recollection of it happening on Friday night (Dallas time) and Humes claim it happened "early on Saturday morning" could both be true.

Perry said there were two phone calls. The first was discussing the trach incision, the second was discussing "the placement of the chest tubes for drainage of the chest cavity". I don't think Dr. Humes ever spoke of a second phone call. Perhaps the first one came at Friday ~11:00 PM, and the second one happened on Saturday morning (daytime).

Please, carry on. Tell us why it's pertinent and how you know its pertinent. Tell us when the phone call actually took place, but do so without using recollections from 15 or 33 years after the fact.

We all know those aren't worth much.

Yeah, well many of those witnesses did say some nonsense things that most likely never happened, but they mostly said correct things. Because it was them staring at a President's autopsy for several hours, not a quick crime or car accident like you're trying to make it out to be.

Remember too that the earliest critics liked to claim that the autopsy doctors reached their conclusion about the bullet transiting the neck long after the autopsy was concluded... they argued that the phone call "early on Saturday morning" happened well after the body was removed from the morgue and well after the doctors could no longer confirm that transit conclusion by directly examining the body.

You're attempting to move the phone call to during the autopsy. But that undercuts entirely one major criticism of the autopsy -- if the phone call took place during the autopsy while the body was still in front of them, then the autopsists had time to verify the transit conclusion while the body was still in front of them.

Moving the phone call to earlier strengthens the autopsists conclusions about the transit, it doesn't weaken it.

Are you sure you're cut out for this "Warren Commission critic" gig?

Hank

Incompetence is often a cover for collusion.

 

[HSienzant]

Dr. Humes' version of events is witness evidence.

But in 1964... six months or so after the assassination. Not 15 years later, or 33 & 1/3rd years later. Do you understand that eyewitness testimony cannot improve over the years, it can only degrade?

The other people there tell a different story. Everybody else tells the story of how the autopsy physicians figured out the throat wound wasn't just a trach incision, so they stuck probes in and out of it.

And your point is what? That with the body in front of them, they investigated the neck transit and determined it was what actually happened? As I said, I really don't think you're cut out for this "Warren Commission critic"" gig, if that's your argument. You're supposed to be calling into question the WC conclusions, not reinforcing them.

I don't think Dr. Humes ever even mentioned the second phone call that Dr. Perry did.

Refresh everyone's memory. When did Perry mention the two phone calls? And did he express any doubts about his ability to recall things accurately?
Given the difference between the two recollections, do you decide:
(a) eyewitnesses are unreliable, and we should rely on the hard evidence, or
(b) eyewitnesses are reliable, and you get to choose, 53 years after the fact, which one was more reliable, and which one was lying?

Please let us know how you decide when there is conflict between two or more witnesses testimony.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

But in 1964... six months or so after the assassination. Not 15 years later, or 33 & 1/3rd years later. Do you understand that eyewitness testimony cannot improve over the years, it can only degrade?

Yeah, and Dr. Perry implied the possibility of a Friday night phone call to the Warren Commission. ~15 years later is when we got Ebersole's testimony, and ~33 years later Audrey Bell's, and they both imply that a Friday night call between Dr. Perry and Dr. Humes happened. It's a good basis for explaining why there are witnesses saying they saw the doctors probing the throat wound.

And your point is what? That with the body in front of them, they investigated the neck transit and determined it was what actually happened? As I said, I really don't think you're cut out for this "Warren Commission critic"" gig, if that's your argument. You're supposed to be calling into question the WC conclusions, not reinforcing them.

With the body in front of them, they investigated the neck transit and determined what happened. Apparently it wasn't a back-to-throat transit. We have that 1967 CBS memo talking about Dr. Humes telling his television producer neighbor that he x-rayed a probe from the back to the throat, which took an irregular path, but that could just be another lie to support the SBT.

Refresh everyone's memory. When did Perry mention the two phone calls? The precise date would be nice, but we'll settle for the decade. If you remember.

Hank

Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?

Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.

Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?

Dr. PERRY - He did.

Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the conversation that you first had with him?

Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not occur to me at the time. I did what appeared to me to be medically expedient. And when I informed him that there was a wound there and I suspected an underlying wound of the trachea and even perhaps of the great vessels he advised me that he thought this action was correct and he said he could not relate to me any of the other findings.

Mr. SPECTER - Would you relate to me in lay language what necropsy is?

Dr. PERRY - Autopsy, postmortem examination.

Mr. SPECTER - What was the content of the second conversation which you had with Comdr. Humes, please?

Dr. PERRY - The second conversation was in regard to the placement of the chest tubes for drainage of the chest cavity. And I related to him, as I have to you, the indications that prompted me to advise that this be done at that time.

 

[HSienzant]

Hee-larious. So you agree that they could've been notified about the bullet hole in the throat during the actual autopsy?

No, I'm pointing out you're quibbling when Humes testimony is unclear, and has a hole big enough to drive an 18-wheeler through.

Well here's the problem: they never said that's how it happened.

So how did you decide that's how it did happen?

That's not the notorious "botched autopsy" story we've all grown to know and love. When Dr. Humes et. al did eventually admit that they thought the throat wound was a bullet hole, they only vaguely mentioned it like it was an unsubstantiated suspicion on theirs.

Sigh. When did they admit that? Can you quote it?

Perry said there were two phone calls. The first was discussing the trach incision, the second was discussing "the placement of the chest tubes for drainage of the chest cavity". I don't think Dr. Humes ever spoke of a second phone call. Perhaps the first one came at Friday ~11:00 PM, and the second one happened on Saturday morning (daytime).

Or perhaps the only one happened at 8am Saturday Washington time. Or perhaps there were two, one at 6am and another at 9am, and Humes simply combined them into one in his recall. You just don't know. And you appear from here to be quibbling over a meaningless detail, which is what conspiracy theorists do. You appear to be crediting Perry with the more accurate memory, although he specifically disavowed having a clear memory of this:
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.

Yeah, well many of those witnesses did say some nonsense things that most likely never happened, but they mostly said correct things.

How do you decide which never happened? Is it as simple as "if it furthers a belief in a conspiracy, it must have happened?" This is an important question. Your failure to spell out how you assess witness testimony, given this issue has been raised any number of times, is very telling.

Because it was them staring at a President's autopsy for several hours, not a quick crime or car accident like you're trying to make it out to be.

You appear to be making the same silly argument I've seen any number of times, that "this was the most important case of their careers, they would not forget something like that!" But then there's always the conflicts in the witness testimony, establishing that argument is just silly. Because conflicts would not exist if memory was as good as you insist. For example, there's that mention of "sutures" that you've already admitted is nothing but nonsense. So how do YOU reconcile your belief they wouldn't forget the important details with the fact they do and did forget (or INVENT) important details?

Oh, I forgot: "conspiracy". That solves everything.

Incompetence is often a cover for collusion.

It doesn't appear from here you're colluding with anyone. I think you need a better explanation for why your arguments fail so frequently.

Hank

 

[BStrong]

I love when James Bond or other movie spies blow through two mags in a fire fight, and then calmly stick the gun back into the holster under their jackets. When he takes off his shirt his chest should look like a cat's face from all of the burn scars.

Another thing that drives me nuts is how CTers never take panic/shock/stress into consideration when talking about eye-witness territory. Many years ago, after band rehearsal in Salinas, CA., my drummer and I had lingered to talk about the next gig in front of the track-side warehouse we used as our practice pad. This small Toyota coupe pulled up and two Hispanic men jumped out and drew their guns on us...I couldn't tell you what either man looked like, the color of their car, nor what they were wearing. All I saw was the muzzles of their small handguns, and I can tell you that when you have a gun pointed at your face it looks like a Howitzer, maybe the Death Star. All you see is that black hole where the bullet comes from.

We told them we were leaving and they advised that we did so immediately. I drove about three miles in the dark before I realized my headlights were off.

Good times.

Whenever I've had the opportunity and a willing newbie, I've introduced folks to firearms, both conventional types and NFA types.

The overwhelming reaction, 99%+, is that folks with no training on any type of magazine fed full auto weapon is how fast the mag runs dry, and "man, this thing got hot!"

One guy absolutely didn't believe me and was convinced the mag I gave him wasn't full. I gave him an empty mag, the mag loader and a full box of 9mm and told him to have at it. Rule of thumb for usage of squirt guns in Hollywood, if the piece has a 30 round mag the actor will go through a sequence firing 200-300 rounds w/o a mag change. He was absolutely floored at how quickly an MP5 went dry as opposed to what he learned at the movies.

As far as heat goes, pain is unfortunately the best teacher, and not just the piece itself. When a crew served weapon, like an M2 .50 or any of the 7.62 types is fired that brass being ejected is best avoided, and if you have the misfortune of getting one up your sleeve or down the uniform you can get some interesting beauty marks. The Browning .50 at least ejects out the bottom, but 60's eject out the right side and can make things unpleasant. The HK 21 not only ejects from the right but throws the case into the next county. Until you get rained on by one it's hard to imagine damn near red hot brass rain.

 

[Meadmaker]

With the body in front of them, they investigated the neck transit and determined what happened. Apparently it wasn't a back-to-throat transit. We have that 1967 CBS memo talking about Dr. Humes telling his television producer neighbor that he x-rayed a probe from the back to the throat, which took an irregular path, but that could just be another lie to support the SBT.

Hmmm....Yes. It could be.

What we know for certain is that it supports the single bullet theory.

 

[HSienzant]

Yeah, and Dr. Perry implied the possibility of a Friday night phone call to the Warren Commission. ~15 years later is when we got Ebersole's testimony, and ~33 years later Audrey Bell's, and they both imply that a Friday night call between Dr. Perry and Dr. Humes happened. It's a good basis for explaining why there are witnesses saying they saw the doctors probing the throat wound.

So implications you draw from recollections 15 or 33 years later is evidence now? Can I see a citation to that effect? When did that rule go into effect?

Or are you just quibbling over the time of a phone call to strengthen the WC's case?

With the body in front of them, they investigated the neck transit and determined what happened.

You just strengthened the WC argument for transit. That's what the autopsy doctors testified to. And you're arguing they reached that conclusion "With the body in front of them."

Thanks.

Apparently it wasn't a back-to-throat transit.

See, the way it works is, there are experts, and there are non-experts. Experts are allowed to express an opinion, and they can testify to their conclusions. Humes did. He performed an autopsy, assisted by Finck and Boswell, and all three agreed on the findings, two shots struck the President, both from behind. The one that struck the President in the upper back exited his throat. The three autopsists all reached this conclusion. Further, all subsequent forensic pathologists to examine the extant autopsy materials reached the exact same conclusions. This is what is called "EVIDENCE" in a court of law.

Then there are non-experts, like yourself. They have insufficient knowledge, they don't get to express an opinion in court, they can only testify to what they saw and did. As a non-expert, your opinion doesn't count, and as a non-witness, you get to provide no testimony. What you think or conclude is of essentially NO VALUE.

You need to understand that your conclusions are meaningless and unconvincing to everyone here.

We have that 1967 CBS memo talking about Dr. Humes telling his television producer neighbor that he x-rayed a probe from the back to the throat, which took an irregular path, but that could just be another lie to support the SBT.

And you're back to quoting hearsay. Would that CBS 1967 memo be admissible evidence? If you say yes, explain why.

Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not occur to me at the time. I did what appeared to me to be medically expedient. And when I informed him that there was a wound there and I suspected an underlying wound of the trachea and even perhaps of the great vessels he advised me that he thought this action was correct and he said he could not relate to me any of the other findings.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you relate to me in lay language what necropsy is?
Dr. PERRY - Autopsy, postmortem examination.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the content of the second conversation which you had with Comdr. Humes, please?
Dr. PERRY - The second conversation was in regard to the placement of the chest tubes for drainage of the chest cavity. And I related to him, as I have to you, the indications that prompted me to advise that this be done at that time.

All well and good, but as I noted, you appear to be quibbling over whether there was one or two phone calls merely for the sake of quibbling. Please tell us what the point of this argument is. Perry could have remembered two when there was only one, and Humes could have remember one when there was really two. What difference do the difference in recall make, and how do you reconcile it with your belief that these men wouldn't forget details like this in the most important case in their lives?

Especially since you already admitted: "Yeah, well many of those witnesses did say some nonsense things that most likely never happened..."

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Hmmm....Yes. It could be.

What we know for certain is that it supports the single bullet theory.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=597

"Although initially in the autopsy procedure the back wound could only be penetrated to finger length, a probe later was made -- when no FBI men were present -- that traced the path of the bullet from the back going downwards, then upwards slightly, then downwards again exiting at the throat.

Humes said that a wound from a high power rifle, once it enters a body, causes muscle, etc. to seperate and later contract; thus the difficulty in initially tracing the wound's path in the case of Kennedy. Also, once a bullet from a high power rifle enters a body its course can be completely erratic; a neck wound could result in a bullet emerging in a person's leg or any where else."

Qué?

 

[HSienzant]

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=597

"Although initially in the autopsy procedure the back wound could only be penetrated to finger length, a probe later was made -- when no FBI men were present -- that traced the path of the bullet from the back going downwards, then upwards slightly, then downwards again exiting at the throat.

Humes said that a wound from a high power rifle, once it enters a body, causes muscle, etc. to seperate and later contract; thus the difficulty in initially tracing the wound's path in the case of Kennedy. Also, once a bullet from a high power rifle enters a body its course can be completely erratic; a neck wound could result in a bullet emerging in a person's leg or any where else."

Qué?

Wait, so Bob Richter wrote a memo to Les Midgley relaying what Jim Snyder supposedly told him about a conversation Snyder supposedly had with Humes, and you consider this worthy of credence?

Why? It is the very definition of hearsay, and is not evidence, and would be inadmissible in court.

That's the problem with conspiracy theorists. They have no evidence, so they bring a lot of extraneous nonsense into the argument simply to have something to debate.

There is no debate here. The memo is not evidence. Of anything.

Period.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Wait, so Bob Richter wrote a memo to Les Midgley relaying what Jim Snyder supposedly told him about a conversation Snyder supposedly had with Humes, and you consider this worthy of credence?

Why? It is the very definition of hearsay, and is not evidence, and would be inadmissible in court.

That's the problem with conspiracy theorists. They have no evidence, so they bring a lot of extraneous nonsense into the argument simply to have something to debate.

There is no debate here. The memo is not evidence. Of anything.

Period.

Hank

We can all understand the CBS memo is hearsay. It may or may not be something that Dr. Humes claimed. It's a whisper. We know.

 

[HSienzant]

We can all understand the CBS memo is hearsay. It may or may not be something that Dr. Humes claimed.

So since you cannot establish the accuracy of it, why did you bring it up?

Because you had no real evidence to discuss?

It certainly appears that way.

Do you have any evidence to discuss, or are we going to be stuck listening to you quote (often out of context and incompletely) 15- or 33-year after the fact recollections for the next year or more, and trying to make a case for conspiracy from stuff we all know is as unreliable as the hearsay you cited above?

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

So since you cannot establish the accuracy of it, why did you bring it up?

Because you had no real evidence to discuss?

It certainly appears that way.

Do you have any evidence to discuss, or are we going to be stuck listening to you quote (often out of context and incompletely) 15- or 33-year after the fact recollections for the next year or more, and trying to make a case for conspiracy from stuff we all know is as unreliable as the hearsay you cited above?

Hank

Just to establish that, since the throat wound was most likely probed during the autopsy, there is no evidence they seriously considered a back-to-throat track. The only thing approaching evidence is that CBS memo talking about the zig-zagging probe.

 

[Axxman300]

Just to establish that, since the throat wound was most likely probed during the autopsy, there is no evidence they seriously considered a back-to-throat track. The only thing approaching evidence is that CBS memo talking about the zig-zagging probe.

You ignore the part where the fibers of JFK's tie and shirt indicate the bullet exited through the front of the throat. The shirt and jacket indicate ONE bullet entered through the back.

So if the clothing indicates one bullet entered through the back and exited out of the front of the body then the math looks something like this:

1 = 1

You're making it 1 = 2.

When you look at the COMBINATION of physical evidence; the pathology, forensics, and ballistics a reasonable person must conclude the shot was a 6.5x52mm Carcano round. There is ZERO evidence of more than 2 rounds striking the President.

Period.