Posted on 10/11/2009 7:31:25 PM PDT by Karma Police
I'm watching a collection of old news footage from the JFK assassination on the History Channel right now, and was wondering if any Freepers have any theories about what really happened.
I figure with the great wealth of knowledge here on Free Republic, there's got to be some pretty good theories waiting to be shared.
arlen specter was on the warren commission, now THATS a conspiracy theory!!!!
HARTMAN: Anybody know who Lee Harvey Oswald was? Private Snowball?
SNOWBALL: Sir, he shot Kennedy, sir!
HARTMAN: That’s right, and do you know how far away he was?
SNOWBALL: Sir, it was pretty far! From that book suppository building, sir!
HARTMAN: All right, knock it off! Two hundred and fifty feet! He was two hundred and fifty feet away and shooting at a moving target. Oswald got off three rounds with an old Italian bolt action rifle in only six seconds and scored two hits, including a head shot! Do any of you people know where these individuals learned to shoot? Private Joker?
JOKER: Sir, in the Marines, sir!
HARTMAN: In the Marines! Outstanding! Those individuals showed what one motivated marine and his rifle can do! And before you ladies leave my island, you will be able to do the same thing!
Precisely. Ruby was mentally unstable. One way this manifested was that he had an abnormal attachment to his dogs. One of them he even called his "wife".
But he supposedly plotted to kill Oswald, without having a clue that Oswald would be coming out the door at that point (he was supposed to have already been transferred), and leaving his dogs in the car, knowing he'd never get away.
He was a junior staff member.
One of my favorite movies of all time.
You are certainly welcome to your opinion.....many disagree with the “Oswald Alone” theory
It is true that "The doctors and nurses who attended the press conference the next day were unanimous that the throat wound was an entry wound. They also reiterated that at the Warren Commission." That's indisputable. All you have to is look at the press transcripts of the press conference and Warren Commission.
Most of the doctors never got a good look at the throat wound because they did a tracheotemy in the emergency room, through the existing wound, enlarging it. Anybody that indicated it might be a frontal shot was only speculating.
This is not an argument that they didn't say it was an entry wound at the press conference and then reiterate that at the Warren Commission. They did say it. This is an argument that they were all wrong and somehow incorrectly remembered it as an entry wound. You can believe that if you want.
The medical evidence shows two shots from behind, one a head shot.
Let's see now there was "a tracheotemy in the emergency room, through the existing wound, enlarging it" so even the doctors and nurses who treated him when he first came into the emergency room never got a look at the wound (and they somehow didn't realize they never got a look at the wound), but the autopsy still proves a shot from behind based on the altered wound.
He was shot by Oswald. Sometimes things are just what they seem.
I’ve often thought that if you were writeing a novel and you had the bad guy armed with Carcano the publishers would advise you to change that,’’ nobody will believe it’’ Like wise if you had the ‘’ good guy’’ armed with a Carcano you would be advised the same. No one ever bought that up. I heard Micheal Reagan say one time on his radio show that he was young at the time but the drift of the adult conservations he heard was that old Joe K. set it up to make him a myrtar. JFK had very serious back ailment which would eventually incapcitate him. Some time later a caller mentioned that to Regan and he strongly denied he said it??
BUSH'S FAULT!
No. Dr. Malcom Perry mentioned that the throat wound, "appeared to be an entrance wound."
There was no unanimous appearance by doctors and nurses, and Perry was only saying how things looked. He was treating a patient in an emergency room, not doing a forensic examination.
It isn't logical to cling to this one statement and throw out the bulk of the medical and ballistic evidence. Perry's statement isn't even incorrect. It did "appear" like an entrance wound. But it wasn't.
"This is not an argument that they didn't say it was an entry wound at the press conference and then reiterate that at the Warren Commission. They did say it."
"They" didn't say it, it was Perry as I described above. And "they" especially didn't tell the Warren Commission that it was an entrance wound.
Here is Dr. Perry's testimony:
Mr. SPECTER - Based on your observations of the neck wound alone, do you have a sufficient basis to form an opinion as to whether it was an entrance wound or an exit wound.The totality of the medical evidence shows two shots from behind. It isn't just based on the throat wound.Dr. PERRY - No, sir. I was unable to determine that since I did not ascertain the exact trajectory of the missile. The operative procedure which I performed was restricted to securing an adequate airway and insuring there was no injury to the carotid artery or jugular vein at that level and at that point I made the procedure.
Mr. SPECTER - Based on the appearance of the neck wound alone, could it have been either an entrance or an exit wound?
Dr. PERRY - It could have been either.
Mr. SPECTER - Permit me to supply some additional facts, Dr. Perry, which I shall ask you to assume as being true for purposes of having you express an opinion. Assume first of all that the President was struck by a 6.5 mm. copper-jacketed bullet fired from a gun having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second, with the weapon being approximately 160 to 250 feet from the President, with the bullet striking him at an angle of declination of approximately 45 degrees, striking the President on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula, being 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process, passing through the President's body striking no bones, traversing the neck and sliding between the large muscles in the posterior portion of the President's body through a fascia channel without violating the pleural cavity but bruising the apex of the right pleural cavity, and bruising the most apical portion of the right lung inflicting a hematoma to the right side of the larynx, which you have just described, and striking the trachea causing the injury which you described, and then exiting from the hole that you have described in the midline of the neck.
Now, assuming those facts to be true, would the hole which you observed in the neck of the President be consistent with an exit wound under those circumstances?Dr. PERRY - Certainly would be consistent with an exit wound.
So Perry told the Warren Commission that he couldn't be sure if the wound was an exit or entrance, it could have been either, and that it was consistent with an exit wound.
"Let's see now there was "a tracheotemy in the emergency room, through the existing wound, enlarging it" so even the doctors and nurses who treated him when he first came into the emergency room never got a look at the wound (and they somehow didn't realize they never got a look at the wound), but the autopsy still proves a shot from behind based on the altered wound."
What's the wound in his back got to do with it? You mean if they had seen the wound in his back then they would have thought the neck wound was an exit wound or something nonsensical like that?
To a man they all stated later that the neck wound was a exit wound. Please see The Journal of the American Medical Association Volume 267, No. 20 (May 27,1991) & Volume 268, No 13 (October 7, 1992) for the personal interviews with Drs. Pepper Jenkins (anestheologist), Malcolm Perry (surgeon), Jim Carrico (surgical resident) and Charles Baxter (surgeon). All four agree: “Nothing we observed contradicts the autopsy finding that the bullets were fired from above and behind by a high-velocity rifle.”
If that is an accurate site, it's clear they were talking about whether the autopsy photos give any evidence that he was shot from in front. That's what they meant by "we observed". Since they did a tracheotomy on the neck wound, altering it, that's not convincing. If they had been talking about observed in 1963, then their statements back then wouldn't make any sense. Strangely no one ever asks them about what they said back then, including that website.
The fact remains that, as I said, they all stated at the time it looked like an entry wound. Apparenly you just assume they were all mistaken (or something). I see no reason to assume that. Nothing changes the fact they said it.
The doctors and nurses weren’t basing their statements on the autopsy so I don’t know what you’re point is, unless you’re trying to argue the autopsy can’t be used to determine whether it was an entry wound, which I agree with.
There was no unanimous appearance by doctors and nurses
Everyone who stated an opinion at that time said it looked like an entry wound. You have nothing to the contrary. All the statements are at the link I provided.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20745
It isn't logical to cling to this one statement
It is not one statement. Again read the link. I have to assume you did not do so.
Mr. SPECTER - Permit me to supply some additional facts, Dr. Perry, which I shall ask you to assume as being true for purposes of having you express an opinion.
.
.
. and then exiting from the hole that you have described in the midline of the neck.
Now, assuming those facts to be true, would the hole which you observed in the neck of the President be consistent with an exit wound under those circumstances?
Dr. PERRY - Certainly would be consistent with an exit wound.
I would have to agree with Perry, if we assume that the bullet exited his neck under the scenario described by Specter, then I would have to agree it was consistent with an exit wound. So in other words, if we assume the bullet exited his neck, then it would in fact be consistent with an exit wound. I guess you're a fan of circular reasoning as a way of proving things.
So Perry told the Warren Commission that he couldn't be sure if the wound was an exit or entrance, it could have been either, and that it was consistent with an exit wound.
He said it was consistent with an exit wound, assuming Specter's scenario. That was Specter's question. It was a lawyer's question designed to lead to the conclusion it was an exit wound. Do you even understand what you've typed? He never changed his opinion at that time that it appeared to be an entry wound. Nor did any of the other numerous people who expressed an opinion.
As for clinging to things, you are putting a lot of weight on the fact he said he couldn't be sure it was an entry wound. No one could ever be 100% sure of that. He was being very careful about what he said. He said he couldn't be sure because he "couldn't ascertain the exact trajectory of the missile". I take that to mean because he didn't actually see it enter his throat.
The totality of the medical evidence shows two shots from behind. It isn't just based on the throat wound.
It's not based on the throat wound at all. The autopsy assumes the wound in his back somehow exited his throat. That's all. It assumes that.
If you're right - the MO used was to kill the person who "knows" - and that would keep happening "up the chain". I'd look for a pattern of strange deaths among old LBJ Texas law enforcement...
All of the evidence shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that both shots entered Kennedy from above and behind. I used to think there might be something to some of those conspiracy theories, but certainly no longer. Posner and Bugliosi, especially Bugliosi, have put all those silly and ridiculous assertions to rest.
All who are interested in the Kennedy assassination might want to take a look at the DVD - On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald, The What If Trial Of The Century, Featuring Actual Witnesses, Litigated by Vincent Bugliosi and Jerry Spence (2-Disc Set, Approximately 5.5 hours). This aired originally on Showtime in 1986. The actual witnesses participated, including Ruth Payne, with whom Marina Oswald was staying when Oswald killed Kennedy. The Carcano was being stored in her garage prior to the assassination. Not surprisingly Bugliosi (The Charles Manson Prosecutor) got a guilty verdict in this trial.
Make that Ruth Paine. I got mine from Amazon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.