EXCERPT...



The drawing above demonstrates the alleged behavior of the single bullet.   The drawing was designed (though not executed) by John Lattimer, a urologist who has published several infomercials in medical journals promoting the lone assassin theory.  What is wrong with this picture, aside from the fact that the men are too far apart?    Experts assure me the Carcano bullet is much too stable to behave like this.   Perforating a neck could divert the bullet, but not make it tumble to this extent in so short a time and in so short a space.     (There is more on Lattimer below.)

The wound in Connally’s back did not indicate a sideways hit any more than the wound in the back of Kennedy’s head.  The latter was 1.5 x 0.6 centimeters, and the former, 1.5 x 0.8 centimeters, as documented on at least four occasions by the governor’s thoracic surgeon, Dr. Robert Shaw.  (4WCH104, 107; 6WCH85, 86).   The holes in the back of Connally’s shirt and jacket were as small as his back wound. (5WCH64) (See TABLE below.)  The damage inside Connally’s chest also disproves a sideways hit.  According to Shaw, the bullet created a "small tunneling wound" (7HSCA149) and he noted, "the neat way in which it stripped the rib out without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it."  (4WCH116)   Shaw felt that the shape of the bullet was explained either by a “slight tumbling,” or by it striking at a tangent. (6WCH95)   It had to have been a tangential hit since the bullet  “followed the line of declination of the fifth rib” (4WCH105), i.e., its path slanted downward. 

SOURCE: http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/BigLieSmallWound/BigLieSmallWound.htm

ABC’s Marquardt fumbles JFK facts

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022189427

The post was based on information provided by www.JFKFacts.org, a new website created by Jefferson Morley and Rex Bradford.

I wrote locking moderator Warren Stupidity, who kindly replied that all the moderators were in agreement about the source being known as a conspiracy theorist website.

I believe the mods are in error, as the site is maintained by two people with impeccable credentials. Thus, I believe the DU mods are mis-informed about the nature of JFKFacts.org.

Information about the authors from the site:



Morley and Bradford have reputations as being objective reporters. Neither is a "conspiracy theorist," particularly as the term is used in a derogatory manner to denote crackpots or paranoids who are afraid the government is after them.

Morley, in his book "Our Man in Mexico," stated he believes Oswald acted alone, based on the evidence at hand. Bradford has publicly stated a belief in conspiracy as behind the assassination of President Kennedy, based on the evidence at hand.

As their website was founded to merely present the facts, I had believed it would be useful for DUers interested in learning about the assassination of President Kennedy.

Like a good mini minder dude, always on the alert.

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=298715&mesg_id=298856

CRITICAL THINKING AND THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION:

A REPLY TO KEN RAHN'S ARTICLE

"TWENTY SIMPLE TRUTHS ABOUT THE JFK ASSASSINATION"

Michael T. Griffith
2002
@All Rights Reserved
Revised on 12/01/2012

According to Ken Rahn, critical thinking will lead one to accept the Warren Commission's conclusions about the JFK assassination, from its lone-gunman scenario to its claims about Jack Ruby. Rahn expresses this view repeatedly at his web site, The Academic JFK Assassination Site. Rahn portrays his approach to the JFK case as academic and says those who reject the lone-gunman theory simply aren't thinking critically and aren't using the academic approach. Rahn devotes a section of his site to the subject of critical thinking and the Kennedy assassination. One of the articles carried in that section is Rahn's "Twenty Simple Truths About the JFK Assassination." Let's examine these alleged simple truths and see if they hold up under scrutiny.

"1. The JFK assassination is only as hard as you make it (by choosing bad evidence and methods). It is easy to make easy. Proof: consistent answers from physical evidence vs. scattered answers from testimony."

There are no "consistent answers" from the physical evidence. For instance, experts are divided over what is shown on the autopsy x-rays. The Clark Panel said the x-rays indicated Kennedy's skull was struck by high-velocity ammunition, but Oswald supposedly used a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, which even the FBI's Robert Frazier said was a low-velocity weapon. At best, the Carcano is a medium-velocity rifle.

Another example is the Dallas police dictabelt recording. Acoustical experts who were retained by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) and who were recommended by the Acoustical Society of America studied the tape and concluded, (1) that it was recorded in Dealey Plaza, (2) that it contained four impulses that were caused by gunshots, and (3) that one of those four shots came from the grassy knoll. But a National Research Council panel of the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the work of the HSCA's acoustical experts and claimed they erred and that the tape didn't contain four gunshot impulses. Recently, Dr. D. B. Thomas reviewed both sides and concluded the HSCA's acoustical experts were correct and that the National Research Council's panel erred badly in rejecting the acoustical experts' findings.

As for the eyewitness testimony in the case, a substantial amount of that testimony is very consistent and mutually corroborating, and in some cases the eyewitness testimony is also supported by physical evidence. Rahn and his fellow lone-gunman theorists want to dismiss eyewitness testimony even when several or more eyewitnesses gave the same account or description. For example, all five of the witnesses who saw a man in the sixth-floor sniper's window said the man was wearing a light-colored shirt. Warren Commission apologists doubt this description because Oswald wore a rust-brown shirt to work that day and was seen in that shirt by a policeman less than two minutes after the shots were fired.

CONTINUED w suggested readings:

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/critical.htm

That is the members and directors of the War Party and those who make money off of war.

Details from William Blum:

http://killinghope.org/

Oswald, the CIA and Mexico City

By John Newman, Ph.D.
Copyright ©1999 by John Newman.
All Rights Reserved.

I. The Rosetta Stone

The Assassination Records Review Board finished its search more than a year ago—a search for records relating to the murder of a president thirty-six years ago. Surprisingly, the passage of time has not managed to erode or cover over all of the important evidence. On the contrary, the work of the Review Board has uncovered important new leads in the case. I will leave medical and ballistic forensics to others. I will confine myself to document forensics, an area for which the work of the board had been nothing less than spectacular. More specifically, I will confine myself to the documentary record concerning Lee Harvey Oswald’s 1963 visit to Mexico City.

In 1978, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) completed its work, including a report on Oswald’s activities in Mexico written by Eddie Lopez and Dan Hardway. Our first glimpses of their report began shortly after the 1993 passage of the JFK Records Act. Not even all the redactions of those early versions could hide the seminal discoveries in that work. While Lopez couched his words in careful language, he suggested that Oswald might have been impersonated while he was in Mexico City just weeks before the assassination. Lopez was more forthright when I interviewed him about this in 1995. Armed with more CIA documents and the first Russian commentary (Nechiporenko’s book, Passport to Assassination), I went further in my own Oswald and the CIA (Carroll & Graf: 1995) in advancing the argument that Oswald was impersonated in the Mexican capitol. Specifically, someone pretending to be Oswald made a series of telephone calls between 28 September and 1 October, allegedly to and from the Cuban and Soviet consulates in Mexico City.

I concluded then, that, based on the content of the CIA Mexico City telephone transcripts alone, the speaker purporting to be Oswald was probably an impostor. I will not repeat my lengthy discussion here, other than to summarize it in this way: the speaker’s words were incongruous with the experiences we can be reasonably certain Oswald underwent. For reasons still obscure, the CIA has lied consistently for these past several decades about the tapes from which those transcripts were made. The Agency concocted the story that the tapes were routinely destroyed before the assassination. It is perhaps true that some tapes were destroyed before the assassination. But Lopez uncovered FBI documents containing detailed accounts of how two of the tapes were listened to after the assassination by FBI agents familiar with Oswald’s voice.

More evidence would come in time. Shortly after the passage of the JFK Records Act, the public gained access to a telephone transcript the day after the assassination in which FBI Director Hoover informs President Johnson that it is not Oswald’s voice on the tapes. The Review Board diligently followed these leads and settled the matter when they found CIA documents in which the Agency itself explicitly states that some of the tapes were reviewed after the assassination. The CIA’s continued silence on the matter of the tapes stands, like a giant beacon, pointing the way forward to the investigator. The impersonation of Oswald in Mexico by someone who drew attention to an Oswald connection to a KGB assassination officer may prove to be the Rosetta stone of this case.

Before going further, I once again pay tribute to Peter Dale Scott, who wrote of these matters as early as 1995, advancing his "Phase I-Phase II hypothesis" on largely deaf ears. I will not repeat his lengthy discussion here, other than to summarize it in this way: In Phase I, immediately after the assassination, previously planted evidence of a Cuban/Kremlin plot surfaced in Oswald’s files; this, in turn, precipitated Phase II, in which a lone-nut cover-up was erected to prevent a nuclear war.

In Oswald and the CIA, I deliberately steered clear of the conspiracy-anti-conspiracy vortex in order to set out some of the facts concerning Oswald’s pre-assassination files. Since then, the cumulative weight of the evidence uncovered by the Review Board has led me to the conclusion that the Oswald impersonation can best be explained in terms of a plot to murder the president. I remain open to other interpretations and fresh analyses by fellow researchers, and I understand that new evidence could corroborate or undermine this hypothesis. What follows is a first stab at explaining, in a short and simple way, how those plotting the president’s murder may have left their fingerprints in the files.

CONTINUED...

http://www.ctka.net/pr999-osciamex.html

Now we know what Robert F. Kennedy really thought.

And if he put the Mafia and the CIA together, it would lead to certain frightening conclusions.

Hear you about Lee, Rex. That guy saved Poppy, not Pruneface.

The "back end" of the yawing bullet went through Connally's wrist? That was paraded on a television show for maximum plausible deniability.

Here's where to go to find out the latest on assassination:



PS: Please do not substitute your own words, or much worse, your own ideas, for mine, stopbush. Thank you.

The reason they don't is that they're not stupid and don't want to waste time, as the Warren report is largely wrong.

Here's your Warren Commission's entire argument ... The Magic Bullet.



JFK Exhibit F-294

Photo of 5 bullets fired from the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle: (left to right) the "magic bullet" (CE 399), two bullets fired into cotton wadding(CE 572), a bullet fired through a goat rib (CE 853), and a bullet fired through the wrist of a human cadaver (CE 856).

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=45739

The magic bullet appears to have been fired into cotton wadding.

That makes clear why the Warren Commission's case is bogus.

Published by the University of Kansas, the work by the Hood College professor emeritus of history spells out precisely how.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10182

The Warren Commission Report on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy . . . was instantly implausible because the authors hid the secrets they knew (and ignored the ones they didn't). -- David Ignatius, Washington Post Book World