Dr.
Gary Aguilar – Okay, excellent, I’m going to be running through quite a few
slides here this morning, and I want to thank everyone, and I want to thank and
congratulate Cyril for his devotion and attention to this subject for a long
time. He’s one of the people who stimulated
my interest and brought me, sort of on board a little bit, after a debate on
the medical evidence at the Journal of American Medical Association, a debate
in Chicago, in 1983, I think it was and it was at that point that we became
acquainted, and I met Wayne Smith who is walking in to sit down.
So,
I want to start out with a discussion here about, it was originally reported in
the New York Times in an introduction to the Warren Commission report in 1964
that no material question remains unresolved so far as the death of president
Kennedy is concerned. This was the conclusion that was reached and promulgated
by The New York Times at the outset of the release of the Warren Report, before
anyone really had the time to read the report and read the 26 volumes of
supporting evidence. The New York Times,
right from the get go was very supportive of this, and this has become
“official” policy.
So,
when you look at the people that we should trust on this,
one
of the things that you will know from people who have followed this case for a
long time is that there are people who are considered really the authorities,
the people whose opinion that we should trust on this these are people who are
detached, objective, very knowledgeable, experienced, thoroughly professional,
and scientifically trained, and so on and so forth.
And
who are they? Well, you know, initially, up at the top left there, this is an
old photograph, I couldn’t find a better one, these are the autopsy
pathologists, Dr. Boswell on the left, Humes in the middle, Fink on the right,
their conclusion, their autopsy report showed two shots from the right. [I
don’t know what he means, but that’s what he said. He meant to say “from the
rear.”]
To the right of that I don’t have a younger
photograph of him but Alfred Olivier, or Olivi-era, some people pronounce it
differently, he was a doctor of vetinary medicine, he worked for the Aberdeen
Proving Ground, he did duplication tests, he testified before the Rockefeller
Commission and did work for the Warren Commission, and testified to the Warren
Commission.
You
have Dr Russell Fisher, a colleague of Dr. Wechts, who was the medical examiner
of Baltimore, another medial examiner. He was the chairman of the Clark panel.
He agreed two shots from the rear.
You have Louis Alvarez, a
Nobel Laureate in Physics, out where I live in Berkley, his test proved that a
“jet effect” explained JFK’s recoil and he also debunked the acoustics, which I
think Don, Don Thomas will be talking about.
And
finally on the right, the one person who whenever the anniversary comes around
and they want to get into the medical, legal autopsy they automatically defer
to Dr. Michael Baden, a former coroner of New York City. He was the chairman of the House forensics
committee and he said everything fits with Oswald being the lone killer.
(Gary
reads) “I am extremely pleased that, finally, we are able to have published in
the peer-reviewed literature the actual findings of what took place at the
autopsy table on November 22 (Gary incorrectly says the 23rd) 1963.
I completely believe that this information, as personally given by Jim Humes,
and J. Boswell;” and that is a picture of them standing there with Dr. Lundberg,
not a very good one; “is scientifically sound and, in my judgment, provides
irrefutable evidence that President Kennedy was killed by only two bullets that
struck him from above and behind and that caused fatal high-velocity wounds.” The editor of the Journal of the American
Medical Association who is also the editor of all of the AMA journals, [it’s]
quite a powerful endorsement.
And,
of course The New York Times immediately chimed in,
that
by organizing and publishing this restatement of the key finding of the Warren
Commission these JAMA articles performed a service for reasonable people and
for reason. The basic facts of the
evidence survives and to all who are willing to listen offers proof against
paranoia.
Again, the most respectable
sources and authorities in the country, leading medical editors, leading
forensic pathologists, leading government authorities. So, the science of
Oswald’s guilt basically comes down to, I mean there’s lots and lots of things
we could go into, but fundamentally with respect to the medical and autopsy
evidence and the scientific evidence,
it’s
the autopsy evidence; the test shots on skulls, which duplicated JFK’s
injuries, and so prove that shots could have been fired by Oswald; the bullet
evidence, neutron activation analysis that was said to have proved that the
“Magic Bullet” and all the recovered fragments [were] traced to only two
bullets that had been fire arms matched to Oswald’s rifle; and finally, the
scientific duplication of test shots that prove that shots from behind drove
JFK backward through a so called “jet effect” that was proved by the Noble
Laureate in Physics.
So, let’s go through these,
here’s the autopsy evidence:
And
Arlen Specter announced that, “There is every reason to believe that we did get
a comprehensive, thorough, professional autopsy report from trained, skilled
experts.”
And here they are:
Commander
Humes who you know already he’s in the middle, he was a senior pathologist and
director of laboratories at Bethesda Naval hospital. His assistant at Bethesda Naval Hospital was
J. Thorton Boswell, Chief of pathology.
And they brought in as a consultant after they had already started the
autopsy a half hour later, Lt. Col. Pierre Finck.
I
will make only one comment about this, as Dr. Wecht pointed out, neither Humes
nor Boswell had ever done a gunshot autopsy.
Dr.Pierre
Finck, as Dr. Morton Halperin who was the Dean of Forensic Pathology once
reported and you will find it in Tink Thompson’s book, that Pierre Fink had
been in the position of basically reviewing the autopsies of other people and
had not done a hand’s on autopsy himself in about four years prior to the time
he stepped into the autopsy room at Bethesda.
So,
these were NOT practicing forensic pathologists.
Nevertheless, this is in
the autopsy report, Commission Exhibit #387
(Gary
reads) “According to available information…three shots were heard and the
President fell forward bleeding from the head…A Dallas Times Herald
photographer said he looked around as he heard the shots and saw a rifle barrel
disappearing into a window on an upper floor of the nearby Texas School Book
Depository.”
Part
of the autopsy report, not uncommon for autopsy reports to include information
that is relevant to the circumstances of the event, in this case an assassination,
and so, there it is. Three shots were heard, the president fell forward.
The
autopsy report then was supplemented with these diagrams which were produced as
we heard earlier for testimony by the autopsy pathologists
But,
(reading) “the autopsy report said there is a large irregular defect in the
scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending
somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions with an actual absence of
scalp and bone producing a defect which measures 13cm in greatest diameter.”
And
there you can see that this is the diagram as was prepared by the autopsy
doctors who worked with an artist named [ Harold A.] Rydberg and they drew
these diagrams showing what Kennedy looked like at the time he was
assassinated.
Now,
no one pointed tihs out at the time and it has not become of any great interest
until recent years but this was prepared for the Warren report on the far left,
the Rydberg diagram, producing a defect of 13cm, as I will try to show, yeah,
here we go, in it’s greatest diameter.
But, on the night of the autopsy there was an autopsy diagram, this is
from the face sheet that Dr Boswell drew, and you will see right in here it
says “17 and missing.” I will be showing
this several times, you will see it in a larger view, but you can make that
out.
And
under oath, and repeatedly, and, by the way, in recorded conversation I had
with Dr. Boswell that I only recorded because I knew that Warren Commission
defenders would say that I was lying, as they always do (laughs) he told me
exactly the same thing. And he said he would be fair to say that when you first
examined the body prior to the arrival of the fragments that the skull that was
missing from approximately those dimensions, 10 by 17cm? And you can see there
is a 10cm across here and a 17cm across here, that is when they first got the
skull, when they first examined him the defect wasn’t 13cm, it was 17cm. That is what they wrote on the night of the
autopsy, in ink, on a blood stained autopsy report. I mean, it’s not something that was invented
later on. The wound was actually much,
much larger than what was reported in the autopsy report. He said yes.
And I’ll get into exactly what that means. And I know I’m speaking to some people who
know this material better than I do, and so I’m trying to bring everybody up to
speed on some of this a somewhat complicated issue. So, if I’m speaking down to people I
apologize, if I’m speaking above people I apologize for that too because some
of this is quite complicated.
So,
here’s the diagram prepared on the night of the autopsy.
The
autopsy doctors are then criticized for missing the real, correct site of the
inshoot. They said the inshoot went in
low at the bottom of the head near the external occipital protuberance. The
Clark panel and other people who reviewed the data later on say, no, no, no,
they missed the inshoot by ten centimeters.
The
top of the skull to the bottom of the skull is about 12 centimeters. So, they basically are said to have missed
where the entrance wound was by 10 out of 12 centimeters. Quite an error. Nevertheless, they marked the skull, right
here, for the House Select Committee, that’s where their marking is. That’s
where the correct entrance wound, later determined by the Clark Panel, the
Rockefeller Commission experts, and the House Select Committee on
Assassinations experts said it was, it actually went in there.
But,
here is what the diagram shows on the night of the autopsy, 10 by 17
centimeters missing. And when Boswell
was interviewed before the Assassination Records Review Board, and Dr. David
Mantik actually has better slides on this than I do, I found one finally but
too late to put into the talk, here is a diagram of a skull that he prepared
showing the defect that he found when he firt examined the body. This is the outline the skull defect went
from here to here. If you take a centimeter ruler and you measure it from the
higher inshoot location and 17 centimaters forward (demonstrating) it puts you
out (Gary seems to be pointing to a space several inches outside and in front
of his own head, as if the high inshoot combined with the 10 x 17cm missing
measurements are larger than JFK’s head )
We can assume perhaps that with the training they have they know how to
use a centimeter ruler, and so with a 17 centimeter defect there, then the
defect had to have gone way to the back of the head. (which seems to vindicate
the idea of a low inshoot, if the 10 x 17cm dimensions are correct. Yes?) I
mean, there’s no way around that. Unless perhaps they were so incompetent that
not only did they not know how to do a forensic autopsy they did not know how
to use a ruler. But, I don’t think
that’s the case.
In
any case, here’s the autopsy report.
Again, the other evidence for an inshoot at that point was that there
was beveling.
Now
beveling occurs when you hit an object, say shooting a BB at a plane of glass,
you will find a little hole at the entrance and a bevel on the inside, that
proves the direction of the bullet. This
(above) is a diagram from the House Select Committee on Assassinations and it
says that situated in the posterior scalp there was this wound and that there
was corresponding exhibits beveling on the margins of the bone when viewed from
the inner sides of the skull. So, as they’re talking about, and this is from
the autopsy report, they looked at the inside and they said there is beveling
in here so that shows the bullet came forward.
And
the other evidence that the shot entered low in the rear of the head and went
forward was X-rays of the skull reveal multiple metal fragments along a line
corresponding with a line joining the above small described occipital wound and
the right supra-orbital ridge. In other
words from here, here is the supra, the orbit is the eye, so there should have
been a track of fragments along here and the beveling cinches the case from a
forensics standpoint. And their
conclusions was that Kennedy died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds
fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased. The
fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the external
occipital proturberance, and so on and so forth.
So,
here we are internal beveling proved the site of the inshoot was in the
occipital bone and a trail of bullet fragments seen from the occipital inshoot
to the upper ridge of the eye socket. So, that’s where the trail of fragments
was. And this is to show it on a human
skull, not Kennedy’s, but just one. And
I’m putting this is in the same orientation as the Rydberg diagram in the
Warren Report for, well, purposes of confusing everyone I think.
In
any case, in 1968 Ramsey Clark apparently was concerned about this, some
criticism was being raised about this, and the fact that only government
officials had looked at the autopsy work and so he commissioned a panel, the so
called Ramsey [ Clark ] Panel, or the Clark panel, rather, and they looked at this
and they determined that the autopsy surgeons were wrong about where the fatal
bullet had struck JFK in the head. And they said the correct location was 10cm
higher.
And
Dr. Fisher, who again, well respected authority and forensic pathologist, for decades
was the chief coroner for the state of Maryland, in his report on the lateral
bullet film, the fragments, in other words there were a lot of bullet fragments
in there, if you extend their long axis, if you extend it posteriorly it passes
through the above mentioned 10cm higher entrance hole.
This
is where the original entrance wound was supposed to have been and there was
supposed to have been a trail of fragments going from here to the upper edge of
the eye, of the eye socket. And they
said, no, no, no, you know, that’s wrong because the trail of fragments
actually goes from this 10cm higher location forward. And, of course, that
helps prove that they had made this 10 cm error.
And,
of course, John Lattimer, who was a very strong defender of the Warren
Commission’s conclusions that Oswald had done it alone also looked at the
X-rays, got privileged access to them as I have had, and Cyril, and a handful
of people outside the government and he said that he also reported in ‘Kennedy
& Lincoln,” that if you looked at the fragment trail that they were
arranged roughly in a line that would pass, if extended posteriorly, through
the wound of entry,” which again, he agreed was where the Clark Panel and later
on the House Select Committee [ on Assassinations ] would agree it was, up
here. And so he was basically saying that
the trail fragment goes from here and extends forward.
And
here again, here is where the forensic pathologists labeled the skull, where
they said the entrance wound went. [ The red line] This is where the Clark
Panel, the House Select Committee on Assassinations, the Rockefeller Commission
and John Latimer said it was, higher.
So,
again, there has been lots of criticisms about this as Cyril mentioned about
the original autopsy report that the original autopsy team missed the inshoot
by 10cm, they failed to dissect the back wound, they took poor autopsy
photographs, a whole list of failings, not worth detailing in any detail here.
Well,
we’ve been through this already. And the trail of fragments.
So,
let’s look through the real evidence itself and I want this audience to realize
that you are more expert despite the fact that very few of you are trained [as]
physicians, radiologists, forensic pathologists, you are more expert than
everyone I have talked about in describing this. So, here is where the original autopsy
doctors said the trail of fragments was.
Here
is where the forensic pathologists said the trail of fragments was. And the House Select Committee on
Assassinations, and this is
the original autopsy X-ray up there, a poor quality duplication of it. I have seen the originals. That’s where the
Clark Panel, the House Select Committee on Assassination said it was.
Can
anybody here see where that is? Where the real trail is?
[The
yellow line] That’s where it is. It’s real clear. It doesn’t show up so well here but to those
of us who have seen them, David Mantik has seen them, Cyril has seen them, I’ve
seen them, and ultimately the House Select Committee on Assassinations had a
couple, and had one radiologist who talked about the trail being at least 5cm
higher than the higher inshoot that they had selected as the entrance site.
All
of them had missed it, [and] by a whopping margin. And these were trained
authorities.
And,
of course, we can prove that the shot came from behind because there is
beveling on the inside of the skull, meaning that the bullet had hit going in
from the outside and creating a beveling wound.
And
there was also, the New York Times chimed in on this besides that, besides the
beveling issue there was a bruise at the rear of the neck that had proved a
bullet had gone in from behind. Okay, so those are two things that The New York
Times is pointing out.
But,
let’s get back to the business of beveling.
So, beveling as we have pointed out here occurs when the bullet goes
through, like a BB through a plane of glass. But when Boswell; and this is also
in my recording which is available at the national archives now, I turned it
over to the ARRB; Boswell told me the same thing he told, I think it was
Harrison Livingstone the same thing, and he testified before the House Select
Committee on Assassinations the same thing, and I think maybe also the
Assassination Records Review Board testimony, he said that they had to dissect
JFK’s scalp to see the entrance wound in to JFK’s skull, “But not too much
because the bone was all gone and actually the smaller fragment fit this piece
down here –there was a hole here, only half of which was present in the bone
that was intact and this small piece then fit on there and the beveling on
those was on the interior surface.
What
he is saying essentially is that this suggests that there was a intact plate of
bone, and you took out the brain and you looked at the inside of it and inside
that intact plate of bone there was a beveled wound, smaller on the outside,
beveled out on the inside.
But, that wasn’t what it
was at all. What he is saying is, what there was was a fragment, an edge of a
bone and then another fragment was brought in later and [it] fit in down there
and when you put the two together then you could make out that there was
perhaps beveling, that’s his testimony.
And it’s supported by his own autopsy face sheet diagram that shows 17cm
missing, that had to go back down to the level of the external occipital
protuberance or otherwise you do not have enough skull. So, then if you look at
the bottom of this skull, there is this small little diagram of something, and
again, because this bone was all gone, and actually this smaller fragment fit
this piece down here only half of which was present in the bone that was
intact, and this small piece then fit right on there and the beveling on those
was on the interior surface.
Now
this is the autopsy face sheet. I’ve
blown this small thing up here to show this. And this is essentially what
Boswell was saying that there was a complete absence of bone which is what his
face sheet diagram suggests and there’s an implication that this, but nobody
had ever asked him, and when I was working with Jeremy Gunn to prepare him for
some of the questioning he did of these people it did not occur to me to ask
him, was this meant to be the diagram of that fragment that fit in down there
and completed the entrance wound that supposedly showed the beveling?
So,
far from being an absolute certainty this evidence is very sketchy now. I mean,
you have to assume that he oriented that fragment correctly, that the blasted
skull was right, and that they were able to see that. So, it’s far from [being]
totally convincing.
So,
again, we go back to the autopsy report, according to the available
information, the president fell forward bleeding from the head, and so on and
so forth. But, that’s not what happened at all. A few shots were heard, the
president didn’t fall forward at all. A
few shots were heard and the president fell backwards. But, the autopsy
pathologists were told that he had fallen forward.
And
in fact, in the handwritten autopsy report, a copy of which is available at
Harold Weisberg’s “Post Mortem,” it says the president fell forward, face
forward to the floor of the car.
And
they were told, that. okay, we got the assassin, he was shooting from the sixth
floor above and behind the president, he was hit in the head and he fell
forward, they were given a body and they say figure out how all of this
fits. And they were not particularly
competent pathologists to do this kind of work. So, hearsay evidence got
elevated into immutable forensic fact.
So,
let’s talk about the test shots on human skulls that duplicated JFK’s
injuries. Again, these are not, you
know, this is again, The New York Times reporting on this, they say that one of
the bullets hitting the skull, I’m reading from the bottom there, one of the
bullets hitting the skull on a point close to the estimated entry point into
the president’s head blew out the right side of the skull in a manner very
similar to the head wounds of the President.
Of
course, The New York Times has always been extremely subservient to the
official version here, and, of course, they put that down, but they weren’t
wrong about saying that that is what had been testified to by Dr. Olivier. And here is, this is a copy taken directly,
it says that this particular skull blew out the right side in a manner very
similar to the wounds of the President.
Specter
asked him, did you formulate any other conclusions or opinions based on the
tests on firing at the skull?
(
Olivier answers, ) Well, let’s see. We found that this bullet could do exactly,
could make wounds very much like the President.
(Gary) I’m sorry I cut that off.
And
again, this is right from the Warren Report, “The (test) bullet blew out the
right side of the reconstructed skull in a manner very similar to the head
wounds of the President.” Now the irony of this is that they already had this
diagram, the Warren Commissioners had this diagram, these are the photographs
that he showed to the Warren Commission.
And here is the test skull that he shot. (WCE 861 and 862 in Warren
Commission Volume 17.) So, he shoots a test skull, he brings in these images,
these are published in the Warren Report, and this is supposed to duplicate
that, no one raises a finger, no one raises any objection to it. There is no New York Times reporter pointing
out the fact that there is a huge disparity between what the known injuries
were, the absence of any facial injuries on the President either in the autopsy
report or the Rydberg diagram and what happened to the test skull. And, of course, there’s an autopsy photograph
proving, that’s a real autopsy photograph, by the way, as many of you or all of
you know.
So,
the Warren Report also reported that based on the information provided by the
doctors who conducted the autopsy an artist’s drawing depicted the path of the
bullet through the President’s head, with his head being in the same
approximate position [ as Zapruder frame 312 ].
But,
you’ll notice they did this to show you the path of the bullet. And you’ll notice one huge difference between
Zapruder frame 312 and this, okay? And that is that they had the head bent far
further down in the Rydberg diagram but the point is that had you shot Kennedy,
had Kennedy been shot in the way that they say he had, entering near the bottom
of the skull from Oswald’s position you can see that that bullet would have
blown out (right) through his face just as it did in the test skulls. But, in
order to avoid that by canting the head downward they can depict this and yet
still report that they had the head in about the same position.
So,
now we have neutron activation analysis with the bullet evidence. Now, this has long been held, and this has
been a very powerful thing.
Here’s
Paul Hoch writing many years ago, right after the House Select Committee on
Assassinations. And I think that critics
like Paul Hoch, and including even people like Bob Blakey, and other people,
were absolutely smitten by the neutron activation analysis evidence when it was
first presented
And
Paul Hoch then reports, somewhat forlornly, it almost sounds like that, but the
fact remains that the House Committee took a stab at the tests that we the critics
wanted, not completely, not perfectly, but we expected that any one of the
tests would demolish the WC reconstruction, neutron activation analysis,
trajectory analysis, and they didn’t.
And
so here we have the House Select Committee on Assassinations, this by the way
his testimony occurred fairly early in the HSCA’s examination of this, of the
Kennedy case, and it took the wind out of the sails of a lot of people who were
critics when Vincent Quinn reported that the neutron activation analysis proved
that all bullets came from, all the bullets and fragments came from but two
bullets, firearms matched to Oswald’s rifle.
But, here he is testifying,
Dr. Quinn says, “Yes, sir, there is no evidence for three bullets, four
bullets, or anything more than two, but there is clear evidence that there are
two.” And they had been firearms matched to Oswald’s rifle
And
here’s Blakey on a Firing Line episode with David Belin in 1981. Blakey says, abd there is a transcript of
this available online
“the
scientific approach we took, we reestablished in fact , established better in some cases than they,
The Warren Commission, did because we had more science and technology available
to us – that their basic scenario was correct, and, again, that the critics
were wrong on it. For example, the
single bullet theory is absolutely correct. We established it with the
photographs and with the ballistics testimony and the neutron activation
analysis testimony.”
John Lattimer again, quotes
and uses the neutron activation analysis in his book on page 217.
And
here you have in 2004 the neutron activation analysis, again, an article
published in the peer reviewed, scientific literature, (emphasizing) peer reviewed scientific literature,
this means that experts have reviewed this and have approved it for
publication, that by Ken Rahn and Larry Sturdivan, “Neutron Activation and the
JFK Assassination: Part 1 Data Interpretation,” and this is taken right from
that, I didn’t type it myself, I just copied and pasted it. This substantiates Guinn’s original
conclusion that two and only two bullets from Lee Harvey Oswald’s rifle struck
the two men.
So,
then Science Daily picks this up, a very respected, scientific publication,
“neutron Activation Analyses prove Oswald acted alone.” Again, published just
after Ken Rahn’s article appeared.
And
then if anyone bothered to take a look Ken Rahn’s paper with any care would
notice a very interesting thing.
It
was published in 2004, if you look at the footnotes, of which there are only
15, a paper like that probably should have had 30 or 40, mine do, as those who
publish in the scientific literature know how we do such things everything that
makes any sense is thrown in here. The
most recent citation in Ken Rahn’s 2004 paper was published in 1979 and it was
by Vincent Guinn, who had lots of stuff published in the intervening
years. So, I had always been very
skeptical about this and I heard about a guy named Rick Randich, Erik Randich,
that he had testified in a court case against Vincent Guinn when somebody had
been charged in a murder case and it was published in the Los Angeles Times.
And this guy had been confronted with Vincent Guinn testifying for the
prosecution in a murder case using neutron activation analysis evidence. Rick
Randich testified against him and the guy ultimately was acquitted.
I
thought, well, this is interesting. So,
I looked up Rick Randich who was over at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in
Berkley, right across the bay from me, and I tried to peak his interest in
this. And so it turns out that he and
his associate, Pat Grant, and Pat Grant had been Vincent Guinn’s graduate
student. So, he knew him personally and
had no axe to grind. And they don’t care
at all about whether Kennedy was killed by Oswald or a conspiracy, they have no
opinion on that, they care nothing at all. But, they did take a look at it, and
they did take an interest and I brought them out to give a little paper on it
in San Francisco to a small group, I think two or three people here who were at
that, and then they finally went and published in the press and I wanted to get
them here 10 years ago, originally, to talk about this, but ultimately they
concluded the bullet evidence in the JFK assassination was [ or should be?]
reexamined from a metallurgical and statistical standpoints. And their conclusion was that “a conclusion
for material evidence for only two bullets in the questioned JFK assassination
specimens has no forensic basis…Moreover, the fragments need not necessarily
have originated from MC ammunition. Indeed, the antimony compositions of the
evidentiary specimens are consistent with any number of jacketed ammunitions
containing unhardened lead.”
Very
shortly after that, the next year Spiegleman, Tobin, Wexlar, et al published
another article again absolutely took apart the statistical analysis as well as
some of the metallurgical conclusions that had supported neutron activation
analysis. Neutron activation analysis
has been completely debunked. There is
virtually no one who still clings to neutron activation analysis. And I’m not
going to read this for you, but again, those that have an interest in this I
can get you the citation, it’s readily available (online.)
Now
even Dr. Blakey says its junk science.
So,
Paul Hoch again, he said the fact remains the HSCA took a stab at some of these
tests and we thought they would demolish the Warren Commission reconstruction,
and it didn’t, particularly neutron activation analysis and trajectory
analysis.
So,
the House Select Committee on Assassinations got NASA scientist Thomas Caning
who performed the HSCA’s trajectory analysis. And he proved the wounds of the
two victims were aligned to receive a single bullet originating from the
sniper’s nest at Z-190.
And
he was able to prove this with incredibly elegant work. For those who really want to read in depth
about trajectory and the problems with trajectory analysis that Thomas Canning
did I would refer you to Don Thomas’ book “Hear No Evil.” He’s sitting right
here in the front row. And I will only touch on some of these just to show that
this, once again, is another example of junk science.
Canning
has the origin of the head shot 29 degrees to the right of true north. That’s from his report. But, none of the
measurements reported anywhere in the analysis were ever given reference to
true north, or even what it means. There is no objective way of testing
Canning’s work. And that was also true of the back wound.
Canning
calculated the head shot trajectory, and this is a diagram from Canning’s own
report, and where is the president sitting? In the middle of the limousine, and
not to the right where he actually was.
And I’m not going to go
through this, the trajectory analyses are, again, an example of trying to prove,
trying to confirm a bias. And I’ll
continue on with that in just a minute.
None of the wound locations in Canning’s trajectory analysis are the
same as those reported in the Forensic pathology panel. Canning chose his own
wound locations.
He
just chose them himself, it’s incredible. Canning then assumed that the bullet
deflection in passing through JFK’s body was negligible. But, the forensics panel, and this is right
from the Forensics panel. They said that
the forensics panel was concerned as to the degree of accuracy obtainable in
determining the missile trajectory based on a backward extension of a bullet
track from within the body particularly of precisions within the range of a few
degrees as required. And why is that?
Because there is such a thing as a cavitation cavity. And a cavitation cavity
occurs when a bullet strikes it causes a cavitation cavity within the tissues,
soft tissues, of course, if it hits bone it will be deflected by the bone, very
often. But even in some of the studies, I’m not going to belabor this but a
cavitation cavity even within soft tissues can deflect the bullet. Canning
allowed for none of this.
Dale
Meyers came up with a trajectory analysis that was reported on ABC. And these are diagrams from his work. And
Dale Myers again proved that the trajectory came right from the 6th
floor of the school book depository, southeast corner, but his analysis is
based on a bullet hitting at Z224 . So, it seems it doesn’t matter if a bullet
hits you at Z190 or at Z224 when the president is at a decidedly different
positions the trajectory analysis will still get you right to that southeast
corner window.
I
don’t know if Pat Speer is in here, or not, oh there he is, okay, I took this
from Pat Speer’s work. It is worth reading his work on this, and I think he’s
done a very nice job of it. And David Mantik has done some good work on Dale
Myers’ analysis but I couldn’t find it at the last minute, but, again, what
Dale Myers has done, of course, is he moved the back wound up a little bit and
in order to make it work because it appears as if the neck wound is at a higher
location than the back entrance wound,
he has Kennedy slumped forward slightly.
And
so the House Select Committee on Assassinations determined that there was this
upward track through Kennedy on the non-fatal back wound. And Michael Baden had always wanted to try
explain how that occurred. And so, this is the diagram from the House Select
Committee on Assassinations showing that at the time of the fatal shot Kennedy
was leaning forward. And so if you’re
leaning forward and you’re being shot from above then the bullet can track
upward because you’re leaning further forward than the downward slope of the
shot.
And here is Michael Baden
demonstrating that in a TV show.
No comments:
Post a Comment