Death Deception, (The Framing of Lee Harvey Oswald), Part V

Death Deception, (The Framing of Lee Harvey Oswald), Part V.

By S.r. “Dusty” Rohde

© November, 2016

*AUTHOR’S NOTE: At the beginning of this series, I suggested that people should refrain from critiquing overly much what is being presented until seeing all of the articles. In the previous article (Part IV), I stated what I was about to post would be “controversial” and I also mentioned that you should pay more attention to what you read, rather than what you see in the previous article. I stated the previous article would be controversial, as it was intended to be just that. An explanation will be forthcoming in this article. As one of my favorite radio personalities (Paul Harvey) would say, “Now for the rest of the story”.

I had hoped that the previous article would create more “controversy” than I actually saw from the assertion that a possible bullet was captured in several frames of the Zapruder film. Only two individuals pointed out that this would not be possible (in consecutive frames) due to the speed of travel of a bullet versus film frame speeds of the Zapruder film. While this is technically correct, it is also a bit misleading. One individual suggested that the bullet speed was around 1700 FPS (Feet per Second). This is actually incorrect; the bullet speed of a 6.5 round from the Mannlicher-Carcano is over 2,000 FPS, so is actually even faster than 1700 FPS. So, it is true, a bullet could not be captured in consecutive frames, but does not mean a bullet could not be captured in any individual frames. If a bullet was indeed captured in any of the frames between Z-310 to Z-317, the most likely frame is Z-314. We may never know the answer until our technology advances.

But, what I stated in the previous article is that whether any bullet was captured or not in the Zapruder film, “it makes no difference“. It makes no difference because the trajectory remains identical, bullet or no bullet. What I didn’t show you, is all of the information related to this bullet trajectory. The TRAJECTORY is what is critically important, not the bullet. This is what I need to make everyone understand. The true bullet trajectory is what I need to burn into people’s memories, so that in the future, you will not be deceived by anyone.

Understanding any of the evidence related to the case of the murder of President Kennedy is based upon ones having the correct “perception”. Without accurate perception, understanding what actually took place on the 22^nd of November will not be possible.

Let me explain by relating some stories this way. A father fly explained to his son, “My son, do you see that man over there? He has been alive all of my life, all of my father’s life, all of my grandfather’s life and every one of my grandfather’s lives, as far back as our memory goes . . . truly men are gods”, (in the eyes of a fly). Or perhaps I can demonstrate in this way, if I ask you, “If you take two apples from three apples, how many do you have”. Normally most people reply “One apple”, which of course is wrong . . . if you take two, you have two. If I ask you, “If you have a four sided house, all four sides face south and a big bear walks by, what color is the bear”. When I ask someone that question, I almost always receive a blank stare from the person I asked and they respond by saying, “A bear? What does a bear have to do with it”? Obviously, if the house has four sides all facing South, the bear is white…as the house is on the North Pole. The lesson here is that critical thinking leads to correct perception, both of which are required to resolve the problems and understanding the issue at hand with clarity.

Now, let me give you the remaining info about the bullet trajectory that hit JFK in the back of the head, from behind. I showed you in the previous article the image with the entry and exit points marked, (see below).

The bottom two images (shown above) are the true entry and exit wounds already described in previous articles. These wounds result in the identical trajectory in the top image, (bullet or no bullet captured in any Z-film frame). As I mentioned before, the trajectory is such that the bullet causing these entry and exit wounds (fired from behind) would still be on target to strike the front windshield, and can be traced back to the Dal-Tex building. Now let me explain something else about this particular bullet trajectory that I did not mention or show previously.

In the official Warren Report, the WC made the determination that a bullet “missed” it’s intended target (  ), struck the curb farther ahead of the President’s limo and then a fragment of this bullet (or possibly a piece of concrete from this strike) goes forward and injures James Tague (  ). James Tague was standing near the freeway overpass, ahead of the limo (  ). If I were a CTer, at this point, it would be greatly to my advantage to agree with the Warren Report stating this shot missed, as it adds to the number of shots fired in total which is more than three. But, I need to show you all something. This particular bullet trajectory, by an amazing coincidence, just happens to line up with the bullet that struck the curb! (See Next Image)

      You can also see that this bullet trajectory passes through the limo in the correct location per the entry and exit wounds known to exist on JFK’s head, and strike the windshield.If you enlarge the image shown above, what is immediately apparent is that this same trajectory happens to very, very coincidentally line up with the bullet strike on the curb, the alleged “missed” shot (See next image).

Now, it has already clearly been demonstrated in previous articles that J.J. Humes and Ida Dox committed fraud, and that there is clear indication that a concerted effort is being made to frame Oswald. There is no possible way this bullet was fired from the curb towards the limo, meaning a frontal shot, impossible! No one was at this curb when the shots were fired. Is it really conceivable that another bullet was fired at this exact same trajectory, missed its intended target and strikes the curb? That is what the Warren Commission wants everyone to believe. The shot striking the curb was a missed shot? Don’t believe it! To make the “magic” and “Pristine” bullet of the Single Bullet Theory work, this shot still had to be accounted for. The only problem being is that it can’t be shown to hit anyone in the limo, LOL. One “magic” bullet, and one shot to JFK’s head left them no choice but to say this shot missed. Either that or admit the truth, that there was more than three shots and shots didn’t originate from where they claimed.

I also need to point out, that the Dal-Tex building was the only location behind the limo with a clear field of fire. (See next image).

The Yellow line shows the clear field of fire from the Dal-Tex building, the Red circles show the trees blocking the view from both, the TSBD and the Courts building. The FBI had documented that the shooters view of JFK from the TSBD was blocked by trees a good part of the time (  ).

Researchers and JFK assassination enthusiasts have ask dozens of times, “Why didn’t Oswald take the shot as the limo was coming down Houston Street (Houston Street indicated in Blue, previous image). There is a very simple answer to that, because the shooter in the Dal-Tex building taking the kill shot didn’t have a shot on the limo until after it turned down on Elm Street and Oswald never fired a shot. I also need to point out that in James Tague’s testimony, he stated he was hit “after the second shot” (  ). Tague doesn’t say exactly how long after, but this back of head shot from the Dal-Tex building was indeed “after” the second shot. With shots coming from the Dal-Tex building, directly behind the TSBD, it would be difficult to tell the difference in shot origins, with the buildings so close together.

There is another factor I would like to add to the evidence already presented. While this image is not exact, it is close enough for demonstration purposes. According to past research, JFK’s head was turned approximately 26 degrees when he was hit in the head in Zapruder film frame 313. In this next image, you can easily see that this trajectory from the Dal-Tex building is would be an easy match. Note the blue line crossing the skull (See next image).

Once again, I’ll show you the trajectories from a different angle. The yellow line in the next image represents the trajectory from the sixth floor window of the TSBD. The purple line represents the trajectory from the Dal-Tex building. (See next image).

You can see that the trajectory coming from the Dal-Tex building would have hit the windshield. The trajectory coming from the TSBD would have caused the bullet to hit the interior of the vehicle or possibly Jackie Kennedy or Nellie Connally, (as the angle of trajectory is much greater left to right to the limo, diagonally). No such damage was found to the limo per FBI and Secret Service reports (  ). Nor was either of the two wives hit by any bullets or fragments. You may have to enlarge the previous image to see it very well, apologies for that. Again, the image is not intended to be exact, but good enough for demonstration purposes.

Last but not least, take a look at the enlarged film frame Z-240 of the Zapruder film. (See next image)

As JFK has his arms lifted to his throat, look closely at the windshield. There is no indication of any bullet damage. This gives credence and greater confirmation that it was indeed the bullet fired from the Dal-Tex building that impacted the windshield and not a frontal throat shot.

Okay, enough with the back of head shot from the Dal-Tex building. I want to start examining the evidence of the “frontal” headshot to JFK. To start with, I want to share a diagram made by Lt. Col. Pierre A. Finck, another of the Bethesda Autopsy physicians involved with JFK’s autopsy. (See next image)

What Dr. Finck is demonstrating, is that bullet entrance wounds are typically smaller than their resulting exits wounds (Shown above, red and blue marks were added by myself). Anyone who has ever had much use of weapons already knows this, from experience. There are exceptions to this, but they are somewhat rarer. Exit wounds sizes can vary drastically relative to the caliber and type of bullet used. In the case of a standard 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano round, the size of the exit hole is considerable. In the case of a .303 round fired from a WWII British Enfield rifle, the resulting exit hole would be massive, and would likely take most of a human head completely off. Generally speaking though…in most cases a bullet entry wound is a small neat round hole (See next image).

As you can see, in the image to the far left, shown above, JFK’s back entry wound is a small neat round hole. In the middle image the wound to the head (as described by Richard Lipsey) was a small neat round hole. In the far right image is the skull of a cadaver used by the HSCA to test fire the Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 rounds into for wound comparison. Here again, the entry wound is a small round hole. I imagine you get the idea by now.

The resulting exit wounds of the middle image and far right image shown above are shown in the next image (See below).

As you can easily see, the exit wounds shown in the above images were massive and many times larger than their correlating entry wounds, there is zero doubt about this. The image on the right is of course the large exit blowout wound in the temporal region, fired from the Dal-Tex building located behind the limo. With this in mind, a frontal shot by comparison, should also have a very large exit wound and a small entry wound. So, to refresh everyone’s memory, the next image reflects part of the large blowout to the back of JFK’s head. (See below)

Okay, we are going to have to take a look at one of JFK’s X-rays, and revisit Dr. Boswell’s testimony I provided in previous articles. (See next image).

In this X-ray of JFK’s head, the Plaster of Paris placed inside the empty brain cavity is visible. This is the same area as in the second to last image, where the white oval outline is visible under the hair. Also the same location where the numerous witnesses testified they saw this sizeable wound. Once again, the same location that the Doctor’s represent in their drawings and the same location to which Dr. Boswell stated is the “more posterior” area where they had neither enough scalp nor the missing fragment(s) to fill. The area’s outlined in Blue and Red, in the right image is not bone. The two areas are actually Plaster of Paris that the morticians from Gawler’s Funeral Home applied. There are a couple of notable aspects that relate to this particular X-ray. First, this X-ray was made “after” the autopsy had been completed. Second, this X-ray was also made before the morticians had fully packed JFK’s empty brain cavity with the Plaster of Paris. How do we know this? Very simple, had the morticians fully completed packing the empty skull cavity, the dark region in the front part of the skull would not exist. This area would show up very white, same as the areas outlined in blue and red. The areas outlined in red and blue is the resulting exit wound of a frontal head shot.

I noted in previous articles, J.J. Humes was going to be thrown under the bus, as the HSCA made the lower back of head wound vanish, and moved their new back of head wound up (by four inches). What members of the HSCA discovered was that there were actually two identifiable bullet tracks, completely unrelated to each other (  ). Since the upper bullet track helped hide the low bullet trajectory from the Dal-Tex building, AND matched the trajectory of the TSBD far better, the HSCA moved the back of head wound approximately 4 inches higher (See next image).

In the HSCA investigation, this drawing was submitted representing the new and improved bullet trajectory, albeit, they still maintained this bullet came from behind. In the image above, the HSCA represented the “entry” wound with the letter “A” and the “exit” wound with the letter “B”, according to the “second” bullet tract. The only problem being of course is that the “small neat round hole” already demonstrated for you, was in the forehead, and the large exit wound was in fact in the back of the head. Also make note of all the small black spots through the top of the skull, these are supposed to represent bullet fragments, according to the HSCA medical evaluation.

Isn’t it interesting that the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations have identified two entirely different bullet tracts, independently of each other?

While the head wound low in the back of the head was made to entirely disappear, in spite of all the witnesses, autopsy report, Rydberg drawings, etc., the wound trajectory displayed in the above image makes complete sense, with the exception that the trajectory is reversed. The reason the HSCA is doing this is once again, to stick to the “3 shot, Lone Assassin Theorem”.

Okay, let’s use a little common sense, with the help of a couple of photo comparisons. Note in the previous image the location of “B”, the alleged “exit” wound by the HSCA. Bear in mind that again, exit wounds are normally larger than entry wounds. This is especially true of the 6.5 round from a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. (See next image)

On the image (shown above), the area circled in Red is the alleged “exit” wound according to the HSCA. The image on the right shows the resulting “exit” wound from test firing the 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano round into the back of the test skull. Does anyone not notice an extreme difference? The “exit” wound test fired into a cadaver’s skull blew the entire front of the face off and as we can clearly see, JFK has nearly all of his face intact. This difference exists because the image to the left is an entry wound and on the right image, an exit wound. Take a closer look at the X-ray of JFK’s skull. You can see the bullet entry wound just inside the red ring; the entry wound shows up as a slightly irregular white circle. (See next image)

The blue dot in the previous image is the approximate exit wound. The purple outline is the Plaster of Paris which shows the approximate size of a back of head “blowout”. This is a complete reversal of what we see in the HSCA Test Skull, where the bullet was fired into the back of the head and exits the front. (See next image)

Let me say it one more time, JFK’s x-ray shows a frontal shot, the HSCA test firing shows the results of a shot to the back of the head. The images, just as the shots, are polar opposites. The HSCA test firing is consistent with a shot from behind as is the shot fired from the Dal-Tex building and resulting blowout. (See next image).

So then you might ask “which shot came first”. The answer to that question is also fairly obvious for a few reasons. In the Zapruder frame 313, anyone who has seen the film sees the blowout on the side of JFK’s head. What you don’t see is any damage at this point to the area blown out indicated in the X-ray, or in Z-313. (See next image).

This image of Z-313 shows no blowout of the back of the head (inside the red ring, which is the back of the head and right rear side of the head.

When JFK was shot in the back, that shot was not fatal, this is fairly obvious as he is still moving around as seen in the Zapruder film. The shot from the Dal-Tex building causes severe damage to the head, almost certainly rendering him unconscious at the least and very likely instantly dead. What does that mean? After the shot to the back, JFK’s brain and synaptic knobs are still sending electrical pulses to his muscles. He is conscious and moving. When he is hit in the back of the head, these functions cease. Then the frontal head shot hits, and what are the results?  The results are just as everyone has been quoting for years, “Back and to the left”. Why back and to the left? When the frontal head shot hits, JFK’s body is already leaning far to the left. So, when the bullet impacts from the front, transferring massive amounts of kinetic energy in the process, there are no electrical pulses from the brain to tell the muscles to resist. JFK’s body simply reacts to the impact force, flying backwards. As his body was already leaning far to the left, he then rolls to his left as his upper body mass (weight) was already off center to his left. Ladies and gentlemen, there were two shooters firing these two bullets. Neither one of these shooters was Lee Harvey Oswald, as neither shot originated from the TSBD.

The next image shows the approximate horizontal trajectories of the two head shots (See next image).

One more obvious point showing that these two shots could not have been fired from the same location is the trajectories themselves. If these trajectories were extended outward to the rear and to the front, they would be 15 feet or more apart. No single shooter could have fired two shots from so far apart in such a short time, (POW, POW). No single shooter would have had enough time to reposition themselves, not to mention there was obviously no one running around Dealey Plaza from point A to point B shooting.

Whoever took the frontal shot, had to be in the area of the South Knoll, as Sherry Fiester discusses in her book “Enemy of the Truth”. The South Knoll area also happens to have a clear field of fire. The shot from the front had to come from the direction and area inside the purple cone, per the bullet trajectory.

Before I end this segment I’d like to point out one more item, for any of you who still harbor any doubts to whether Lee Harvey Oswald fired any shots from the TSBD, think on this.

The types of elevators used in the Texas School Book Depository in 1963 were the old type where the gates (doors) have to be manually closed. These types of elevators were supplied with some built in safety features. One of those features is that the elevator will not move with the gates even partially open. The other feature is that the gates were designed so that a person could not stick their arms through the gates once closed. In an article posted a couple of weeks back by Rob Clark, I noticed part of the article where DPD police said they couldn’t call the elevators because the gates were stuck closed. That statement is incorrect. If the gates were closed, the elevators would be able to be called to other floors. It is only when the gates are open, that no one can call the elevator to a different floor. This is very important. In Barry Ernst’s book, “Girl on the Stairs”, the book explains how Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t use the stairs to go to the second room break room. Oswald was reportedly found in the break room with a soda.
Vicki Adams, the subject of Mr. Ernst’s book ( and assassination witness) walked down the stairs (from the fourth floor of the TSBD with another witness) immediately after the shots were fired. Long story short is Oswald wasn’t on the stairs at the same time Vicki Adams was…so, unless Oswald flew to the second floor, logic says he would have had to use the elevator. Here lies the problem.

Just for fun, let’s say Oswald is on the sixth floor, takes the shots, hides the rifle, and calls the elevator, if it isn’t already at the sixth floor. Oswald would then have to take the elevator down to the second floor to get to the break room, so far, so good. But, Dallas Police also reported that the elevators were stuck on the fifth floor. Sooo, how did they get there? If Oswald gets off the elevator at the second floor, he can’t send the elevator back to the fifth floor. First, you have to close the gates (doors) before the elevator will move, and if the gates are closed, you can’t stick your hand through to punch the button for the 5^th floor. It’s a bit of a problem, isn’t it?

On the other hand, Bonnie Ray Williams testified that he took the elevator down to the 5^th floor immediately prior to the shots being fired from the sixth floor window. Let’s think about this for a minute. Bonnie Ray Williams leaves his lunch sack and soda sitting at the sixth floor window where he said he was having lunch. Bonnie Ray was sitting at the sixth floor window, around the same time frame that the sniper should be preparing to take the shots, (and he didn’t notice the shooter)? Then, Bonnie Ray Williams has “debris” in his hair, no one else does, just Bonnie Ray. I mean, Bonnie Ray claimed to have taken the elevator to the fifth floor just before the shots, where his other sixth floor co-workers were located. It seems to me, that if somebody fired a rifle inside an old warehouse, the shock wave would very easily knock dirt or debris from overhead off of the rafters, and the debris would fall on your head, if you were in the same room. Then think on this, if in fact Oswald was already on the second floor when the shots were fired and no one used the stairs immediately AFTER the shots were fired AND the elevators are stuck on the fifth floor with the gates open, unable to be called, it means the shooter is stuck on the fifth floor, after all, the shooter wasn’t on the stairs. I mean, Police searched the roof and sixth floor, no one was there. The only place above the fourth floor where Vicki Adams and friend got on the stairs is the fifth floor and she stated no one else used the stairs sooo, who was on the fifth floor? 😀

*AUTHOR’S NOTE: More to come folks, sorry for the delay in posting this article, but deciding how to make these images in the best way to present them was a bit of a challenge. Stay tuned for Article VI of “Death Deception”.

Advertisements

DEATH DECEPTION, The Framing of Lee Harvey Oswald, (Part II), by S.r. “Dusty” Rohde,

DEATH DECEPTION, The Framing of Lee Harvey Oswald (Part II)

By S.r. “Dusty” Rohde

© November, 2016

As we continue with Part II of Death Deception, I’m very pleased to be able to make the stunning revelation you will find in this article. It isn’t often researchers can find true “smoking guns” related to the assassination these days, but this is one of those times . . . enjoy.

In Part I of Death Deception, I stated that the Single Bullet Theory is about to go up in flames, so here we go.

Look close at the autopsy photo (Next image), there are actually four wounds on JFK’s back, not one as proclaimed by Chief Autopsy Surgeon J.J. Humes! Yet the Rydberg and Dox drawings both show the single wound, (19, 20). Ask yourself why Humes, or anyone else would deliberately leave out not one, not two, but three of JFK’s back wounds on these drawings? J.J. Humes couldn’t say he wasn’t aware of the four different wounds in JFK’s back, he helped perform the autopsy, he supervised it, and he also saw and handled the body for hours. Yet, strangely enough, the final autopsy report (below right) doesn’t show the four wounds to JFK’s back either! Is this why Humes burned his original autopsy report (21)? So he could make the other three wounds disappear? Did his original report include all four of the back wounds? Does anyone fault me for thinking that maybe Humes “integrity” and “seriousness” of presenting legitimate evidence isn’t what “Willens” claimed it to be? Wouldn’t the deliberate falsification on an autopsy report fall under the heading of “fraud” . . . or at the very least raise some serious red flags? I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer but apparently Arlen Specter thought so.
By now, some people are probably wondering how I know J.J. Humes “entry wound” was in fact an exit wound and not an entry wound. The answer is found in the evidence, of course. Two pieces of evidence will prove the alleged bullet entry point asserted by Humes is an exit wound. The pieces of evidence are the autopsy photograph of the back, and JFK’s jacket. One day, for reasons I don’t recall, I decided to use the computer to overlay JFK’s jacket over his body. When I did this, I got a fairly big surprise. I had made the mistake, that so many others have made in taking Humes word about the back “entry” wound as fact, silly me, (never make assumptions). First of all let’s be clear about something. There was and is only one single bullet hole in the back of JFK’s jacket, not two, not three, not four. There were four wounds to the back and only one hole in the jacket, four actual wounds versus only one wound per J.J. Humes “official” autopsy report. (See Below)

In the next image the little tiny white spec at the back end of the white arrow is the bullet hole through the back of JFK’s jacket. I’m going to mark the bullet hole with a brighter white spot so it makes things easier to see. Then I will also place a red dot over one of the wounds on JFK’s back. Then I will enlarge the jacket to match JFK’s body size in the autopsy photo. I will also have to rotate the image of JFK’s jacket so that it matches the angle of the autopsy photo and position the jacket to fit the body. The purpose now is to merge the two images to see if Humes alleged bullet entry point matches up with the entry hole in Kennedy’s jacket. If Humes is correct with his alleged “entry” wound, the white dot should fall directly over J.J. Humes alleged entry wound, (next image).

Uh oh, guess what? With the jacket resized and aligned over JFK’s body, the hole in the jacket lines up perfectly with the wound shown with the red arrows (Seen below), and NOT with Humes alleged “entry” wound! J.J. Humes “entry” wound claims turns out to be a lie, and again, not an accidental one.

The white entry wound dot on the jacket and the red dot of this back wound have blended to become the pink spot. The entry wound, as described by Richard Lipsey is a “round hole”, as is the wound indicated by the red dot. There is only one entry hole in JFK’s jacket, which means, Humes alleged “entry” wound is actually an EXIT wound! This of course means, the SBT is based upon a possible two exit wounds and no entry wound (if in fact the frontal neck wound was an exit wound), proof positive the SBT is BS. The actual bullet entry wound is about 1 ¾ inches farther down than Humes exit wound (a wound over 3 inches farther down than originally proclaimed by Humes), and what does that mean? It means the SBT theory is going out the window.
Humes said that the Bethesda doctors didn’t explore his alleged “neck” wound (22), which would be hard to do, since it didn’t exist in the first place, at least in the back of the neck. Humes also stated that he and the other doctors were unaware of the bullet wound to the front of the neck, due to the incision made by the Parkland doctors for the tracheotomy (23). How utterly convenient is that?
In Richard Lipsey’s testimony, he says that the bullet to the back was deflected downward and then explains how the doctors spent a good deal of time trying to trace this bullet and never did find it, before they gave up (which agrees with Humes testimony) (24). According to these testimonies, if the bullet never left the body, then there was no “Pristine Bullet” that exited JFK. This is the point where Humes claims this caused him to call the Parkland Hospital and when he first heard about the frontal neck wound (25). It was from this point that Humes decided the bullet had to exit the front of JFK’s neck (26).
I don’t think this is precisely accurate though; at least it’s not what the evidence indicates. We now know where the real “entry” wound was in JFK’s back (versus Humes erroneous entry wound), and this presents a new problem. There are still four other wounds (three in JFK’s back and one at the front of his neck that need explaining (See next image).

Of the three remaining wounds on JFK’s back, note that one is almost directly to the left of the actual entry wound, one is up and left and the third is almost straight up and slightly left from the entry wound, keep that in mind.

There are two different possibilities that might account for these four remaining wounds. One possibility is that there was a shot from the front that hit JFK’s throat and exited the back with three fragments. According to FBI testimony, the tear in the front of the shirt, and damage to the tie indicated this was an exit wound (27). The FBI also claimed the tie was “grazed” and yet, looking at the tie, we see what looks to be a very obvious “through and through” hole (28). I say that because in the following image, we are looking at the very front of the tie, and not a side view. Since the bullet wasn’t travelling sideways….this isn’t a “graze”.

So, a frontal throat shot can not be entirely ruled out. However, according to the autopsy X-rays, there were no holes through any of the vertebra (if you can trust the X-rays). Two of the fragment wounds are almost directly over the spine and these fragments surely would have penetrated vertebra to exit JFK’s back. This damage would also have shown up on JFK’s X-rays, it doesn’t. There would also be problems with the bullet trajectory. A bullet from the front would have to have come from almost directly in front of JFK. The trajectory would have been low, low enough to hit the windshield and would have to miss Gov. Connally and the Secret Service agent in the front passenger seat to hit JFK. This would also add an extra shot fired, over and above the three allegedly fired from the TSBD. So, while this possible shot can’t be ruled out entirely, it does seem very improbable due to the known evidence.

Personally, I’m going to stick to “Occam’s Razor” on this one. If the front of the neck wound was an exit wound (as evidence suggests), it means the wound to JFK’s back fragmented into five pieces, which also happens to destroy the “Pristine Bullet” and associated SBT theory. These fragments are far too large to have left any bullet in “Pristine” condition. This also would mean the so called “Pristine Bullet” never touched JFK. If the bullet entering JFK’s back fragmented it would also explain why the Bethesda doctors were unable to find the bullet. It would be much harder to find a smaller fragment versus a full undamaged bullet. The evidence indicates this bullet entered JFK’s back and fragmented. One fragment deflected downward (inside the body), three of the five fragments deflected upward and three (possibly four) of the five deflected to the left. A frontal neck exit wound trajectory is consistent with the fragment trajectories in JFK’s back (moving up and to the left). Apparently, none of the fragments exiting JFK’s back penetrated his shirt or his jacket. In any case, whether there was a frontal shot to the neck, or whether the shot to the back fragmented, there was no “Pristine Bullet” involved and no SBT.

While I’m on the subject of the “Pristine Bullet”, I need to point something else out. The ongoing claims related to the “Pristine Bullet” state that the wound to Gov. John Connally’s leg was a shallow wound that didn’t penetrate muscle tissue and the bullet must have fallen out of his leg in the hospital. This is another lie. If we look at the medical report on John Connally, it shows that the fragment that was left in Connally’s body was in fact lodged in the bone (Next image)! In the medical training I’ve had, muscle surrounds bone. This is why they didn’t remove the fragment. The wound was not a shallow wound.

You have now discovered that J.J. Humes willfully committed both fraud and perjury during the Warren Commission Hearings. The sole purpose of these acts was to help frame Lee Harvey Oswald. The Single Bullet Theory was a complete lie as is the “Pristine” bullet theory. John Kennedy’s necktie was not grazed, a bullet or fragment passed directly through the tie. This is still just the tip of the iceberg, from here it just keeps getting worse.

Authors Note:
Some people may wonder why 2nd Lt. Richard Lipsey waited for slightly over 15 years to give testimony to the HSCA in 1978. This is because as he states, he was made to sign a “non-disclosure” agreement that was to be in effect for “X” number of years.
For anyone not familiar with a “non-disclosure” agreement, these types of agreements are not unusual when subject material is deemed classified or top secret, which our government doesn’t want immediately released. I’ve had to sign a non-disclosure agreement myself when I decided to return to the United States after working on top secret projects for our government while overseas for years. This includes a “debriefing”, in my case by two government agents. This also includes reading several documents and signing the non-disclosure agreement, which lasts for however many years they deem necessary to protect national security.

Being curious by nature, when the agents slid the non-disclosure agreement in front of me and told me to sign, I jokingly asked, “and if I don’t sign it”? Both agents immediately gave me a look that said “curiosity killed the cat”, they were not remotely amused. I really did want to know what would happen if somebody doesn’t sign, but not that bad, LOL.
A non-disclosure agreement means a person is not allowed to transfer information, in any format about anything they saw or heard pertaining to the mission or assignment. After the looks I got from the agents, I didn’t bother to ask them if that included the Russian spy ship, code name “Brand X”. Brand X was a spy ship that showed up like clockwork anytime a mission was under way. I didn’t ask if it included the Greenpeace ship “Rainbow Warrior” that entered our restricted area; the ship was blown up by French frogmen a day and a half later, killing the crew. I took a boat out to talk to the crew before it was blown up. I asked them if they realized they had entered a restricted area and if they had heard from our government yet. The crew told me they hadn’t been approached by anyone in security or by our government. I was pretty surprised that they weren’t immediately contacted and escorted out of the area. I figured it was only a matter of time and they were begging for trouble. Little did I know they would be dead less than two days later, problem solved? Technically, these events were not directly related to the mission, but this is where the term “don’t ask, don’t tell” comes into play. You don’t ask, and you don’t talk about any of it, unless you want some potentially very serious trouble. In any case, Lipsey’s explanation of why he didn’t testify during the WC investigation due to his non-disclosure agreement rings true.
I bring up non-disclosure agreements because I suspect that everyone involved with the autopsy was made to sign them (except Humes). I can’t swear to this, but I’m about 99% certain. If this is true, then J.J. Humes would have no doubt been aware of this. He knew that no one would be able to discuss anything about the autopsy. He knew that the autopsy images were likely never to surface. So, he also knew that in filing a false autopsy report and giving false evidence to the Warren Commission he was likely not going to be caught any time soon. Humes also had no idea that by 2016 personal computers and associated technology and potential would be as common as a clock.

The HSCA was far more benevolent to Mr. Humes than I can be, they chalked up all of the errors and omissions on the autopsy report by Humes as due to his inexperience. If that is true, why did Humes choose the highest of the four back wounds to note on the autopsy report? If he wasn’t trying to create a false trajectory, why did he use the highest exit wound as opposed to the actual entrance wound to represent? Why did he choose to hide the remaining three wounds to JFK’s back on the autopsy report and in the Rydberg drawings? Why did he burn his original autopsy report? Why did Humes not confess to these errors, after all the years his work was done? All of this manipulation was done because of inexperience? Bullshit! Even a high school dropout with no experience could have done a better job of an honest autopsy report. Even a blind man would have known there were four wounds on JFK’s back. This wasn’t inexperience; it was deliberate manipulation and omission of the autopsy evidence! That’s fraud. Lee Harvey Oswald was libeled, slandered and accused based partly upon that fraud.
J.J. Humes gave testimony to the Assassination Record Review Board (AARB). Humes said “The one disturbing thing I would not like to see widely publicized any more today than I would in 1963 were the photographs that we made, which were very, very repulsive” (29). He doesn’t mention that the photos would also expose his fraud in JFK’s autopsy report. In page 111 of his ARRB testimony, Humes commits perjury, he says “A. Well, we looked at this wound in the upper part of his neck” (referring to the fictitious wound in the back of JFK’s neck) (30). There was NO wound in the back of JFK’s neck, period. On page 229 of this same testimony, the ARRB itself questions Humes on whether he was “pressured” or “encouraged” in any way to have the Rydberg drawings misrepresent the wounds (31). Even the ARRB knew Humes wasn’t telling the truth.

This ends part II of Death Deception. What’s coming next? See J.J. Humes get thrown under the bus by the HSCA and Ida Dox commit fraud and perjury.

CITATIONS:

19. Rydberg Drawing, (CE385), https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_385.pdf

20. Dox Drawing, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JFK_posterior_back_wound.jpg

21. CE397, Humes Destruction of Autopsy Report, page 48, http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_397.pdf

22.

23.

24.

25.

27. FBI Frazier description of JFK clothing, http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazr2.htm

28. FBI Frazier description of JFK Tie, page 7, http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazr2.htm

29.

30.

31.

Death Deception, Framing Lee Harvey Oswald

DEATH DECEPTION

(Framing Lee Harvey Oswald)

By S.R. “Dusty” Rohde

© November, 2016

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

I would like to make special thanks to Gayle Nix-Jackson, Michael Doherty and Ted Rubenstein, all of who helped trigger the paths that led to the discoveries in the upcoming articles. Also, a special thanks to Linda Giovanna Zambanini for listening and constant help with my requests.

PROLOGUE
For 53 years, a battle has been raging between two groups. The groups are the “Lone Nutters” (LNer’s) and “Conspiracy Theorists” (CTer’s). These two groups have opposing viewpoints on whether President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, or by others who successfully committed a Government coup in America.
President John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas. Lee Harvey Oswald, the person branded as JFK’s assassin was himself assassinated two days later while in police protective custody, by Carousel Club owner Jack Ruby. Jack Ruby was bosom buddies with a large portion of the Dallas Police employees and had numerous ties to organized crime.
Having researched the JFK assassination for years, I long ago discovered there is a mountain of misinformation in existence related to this case. This misinformation comes from both sides of the fence, meaning from “LNer’s” and “CTer’s”. Much of this misinformation has been deliberate, and some accidental. None of this false information has benefitted a resolution to the assassination case; all of false information is misleading and cripples any understanding of what took place on that fateful day. The Warren Commission itself deliberately presented false evidence related to JFK’s wounds. Hoover’s FBI withheld evidence and continues to do so even today. The CIA continues to refuse the release of their records on the assassination. Witnesses were granted immunity for testifying, whose records were promptly sealed. Was all of this deception to protect Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged “Lone Assassin”, and a man already murdered? I don’t think so. If Lee was so guilty and a “lone assassin”, why all this drama?
My tasks or goals in this Chapter are twofold. The first task is to present you, the reader, with fact based (including corrected) evidence. The second task is to help provide a clear and accurate understanding of that evidence. If I succeed in these two goals, I have little doubt that what really happened in Dallas will begin to become alarmingly clear to you.
The youngest President in American history was murdered on 22 November, 1963 . . . but it was not Lee Harvey Oswald who killed him. Three men died that weekend, Kennedy, Oswald and Dallas Police patrolman, J.D. Tippit. A fourth man was seriously wounded, Governor John Connally. None of them deserved their fate.
Lee Harvey Oswald was quickly branded a “Communist”, a “Lone Nut” and the “Lone Assassin”. Oswald was blamed for the injuries to Kennedy, Connally and Tippit, but those allegations aren’t true. Sadly, Lee’s former wife (Marina Oswald), his mother Marguerite, his two daughters (June and Rachel) and his brother (Robert) would all have to carry the burden of Lee’s alleged guilt for 53 years.
After hundreds and thousands of hours examining the evidence, I hope what I reveal here today sinks in. I hope that finally Americans will begin to grasp the depth of deception involving these murders, with greater perception than ever before. This isn’t the end of evidence proving the framing of Oswald, it’s the beginning.

S.R. “Dusty” Rohde

 

 CHAPTER I

(Framing Lee Harvey Oswald)

     The Warren Commission was the investigative body (of JFK’s assassination) appointed by President Lyndon Baines Johnson, headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren. Johnson was sworn in as President at Love Field on Air Force One, in Dallas, Texas, shortly after JFK was assassinated.                                                                                                                                         Howard P. Willens was one of three members who made up the WC’s “Supervisory staff”. In Willens book “History Will Prove Us Right” he states, “I was witness to the thoroughness, seriousness, and integrity with which the Warren Commission approached its task” (1). To this I must object. Willens also proclaimed “criticism of our work is seriously misguided” (2). By Willens definition, I’m misguided. In my defense I can only say “at least I didn’t deliberately deceive the American public”, the Warren Commission and House Select Committee on Assassinations did. Obviously, I’m going to have to justify that statement.                                                                                                                                               As far as “thoroughness” by the WC goes, I’ll only mention that in the JFK Research community, the Warren Commission’s work is commonly referred to as The Warren Omissions. This is primarily due to the considerable amount of evidence that wasn’t looked into, witnesses who weren’t questioned and so on and so forth. The label has a good deal of validity, but that isn’t the area I want to cover in this article. I’m more interested in examining the WC’s integrity and their alleged seriousness. In other words, did the WC tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Did the “House Select Committee on Assassinations” (HSCA)? The answer is no.                                                           Parkland hospital staff (in Dallas) originally worked on JFK and John Connally immediately after they were wounded in Dealey Plaza. Several members of the Parkland staff were later called as witnesses during the WC hearings. These Parkland staff members were deliberately shown false images (with artist’s drawings) representing JFK’s head and back wounds (3). These images were a collection of misleading drawings alleged to represent JFK’s wounds. Artist Harold “Skip” Rydberg was commissioned by the WC to perform their necessary work (4). Artist Ida Dox was later commissioned in 1978 by the HSCA to create more artist renderings of JFK’s wounds. The Ida Dox drawings also give false representations of JFK’s wounds, but in this case, Ida Dox is responsible for any false representations of JFK’s wounds. This is because Ida Dox had access to the JFK autopsy images, X-rays and previous witness testimonies from the WC hearings; she referenced them often (5). The Parkland Hospital staff would again be called to give testimonies by the HSCA in 1978, only this time, they would be shown new drawings and altered photographs depicting fake or disappearing wounds.                                                                     My contention is that the false wound representations were done through two different artist’s renderings, one artist who knew when they created the images that they were false, and one artist who did not. The deception didn’t stop there though. The deception grew from fraudulent drawings to altered photographic deceptions presented to the Parkland Hospital witnesses, (in the HSCA hearings). The photos would shock and confuse them, what the images showed, were not the wounds to JFK’s body these witnesses saw or remembered.

Before I show the medical evidence that was misrepresented and how, I want you to become familiar with this statement made by Arlen Specter to the WC staff. Arlen Specter, as assistant counsel for the Warren Commission was the creator of the “Single Bullet Theory” (6) which involved the use of the “Pristine” bullet (7). While his theory is in error (demonstrated in this article, I have to give Mr. Specter credit for the following statement. This statement was sent by Arlen Specter to Mr. J. Lee Rankin, “general counsel” of the Warren Commission. I quote, “The Commission should determine with certainty that there are no major variations between the films and the artist’s drawings,–Commission exhibits Nos. 385, 386 and 388 were made from the recollections of the autopsy surgeons as told to the artist. Someday someone may compare the films and the artist drawings and find a significant error which might substantially affect the essential testimony and the Commissions conclusions” (8). This statement by Mr. Specter was very prophetic, because that “someday” is today, here and now. The Warren Commission staff should have listened to Mr. Specter. I would suggest that Mr. Specter knew that the artistic renderings were not accurate and attempted to warn the WC away from their intended use. Mr. Specter was attempting to prevent the WC members from future embarrassment, but his words fell on deaf ears.

     In the case of Harold “Skip” Rydberg, his drawings of the wounds to JFK were not deliberately misrepresented by his own doing. Mr. Rydberg was instructed by J.J. Humes as to where to place the wounds in the drawings (9). At the time of the drawings, Rydberg had never seen any of the actual photographs of the wounds or the body itself, he was totally dependent upon J.J. Humes to give accurate descriptions of JFK’s wounds (10). J.J. Humes, as Chief Autopsy Surgeon was certainly very familiar with JFK’s wounds and their locations. The responsibility for any errors in the artist renderings falls directly on Humes shoulders as the originator of the errors in wound locations. You can damn well bet that Humes knew better, he knew where the entry wounds were, but falsely identified them, through Rydberg. What I’m saying is, point-blank, Commander Humes with full knowledge and intent was the creator of the fraudulent wound locations and identification. The question we have to ask ourselves is why would Humes do this? Why would Humes risk his rank and his career to attempt fraud? It’s true that Humes could have done this of his own volition, but the risk of being caught would have been considerable. This option, while possible, doesn’t seem very probable. The only plausible reason I can think of, is that somebody higher up the chain ordered him to do so. Humes wasn’t asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement, but committing fraud would insure his silence. Others involved in the autopsy were made to sign non-disclosure agreements or told not to talk about the autopsy by government officials. Humes knew these people wouldn’t be talking for a good long while. Humes was also aware that the autopsy images were most likely never to be released, as this was against his wishes and allegedly those of Attorney General Robert Kennedy and the Kennedy family. Humes had no idea that many years later the HSCA would be formed to begin a new investigation into JFK’s assassination or that some of the autopsy images  would become available. Had the images not surfaced of JFK’s wounds, few people would ever know the true extent of JFK’s wounds or the deliberate deceptions committed by Humes and Ida Dox during the WC and HSCA hearings.

So, rather than simply talk about the wound misrepresentations and deceptions, I am going to show them to you. The Rydberg images are WC exhibits CE385, CE386 and CE388 (11), (12).

The three images shown above are the drawings of JFK’s wounds created by Harold Rydberg, according to the wound descriptions given to him by J.J. Humes.

I’m going to address the errors in wound placement on the center image (CE 386) first, as this directly shows the false depictions of CE 385 and CE 388. Both entry wounds in CE 386 are in the wrong positions, both wounds are shown higher than they actually were and this was no accident. To verify that these wounds are located inaccurately; I’m going to refer to testimony given by 2nd Lt. Richard Lipsey during the HSCA hearings. Lt. Lipsey was present during the majority of JFK’s autopsy at Bethesda Hospital (13). Lipsey was ordered by Generel Wehle to stay with the body at all times. 2nd Lt. Richard Lipsey was aide to General Wehle, who was in charge of funeral arrangements and related events. Mr. Lipsey’s reference to this particular wound is the one where he discusses a bullet entering “low in the back of the head” and or “high up in the neck”, but “in the hair-line” and terminates in the “blowout”. Lipsey’s testimony can be heard at this link (14). You can also read Lipsey’s testimony transcribed at this link (15).

Mr. Lipsey states specifically that the entry wound to the back of JFK’s head was “in the hair line”, meaning where JFK’s hair ends at the bottom edge, in the back of the neck. He also states that this entry wound was a “round hole”. So, while the Rydberg drawing in CE 386 shows the round entry wound, it is placed too high. Arlen Spector also states “none of the doctors at Parkland Hospital in Dallas observed the hole in the President’s back or the small hole in the lower portion of his head” (16). Whether or not the Parkland hospital staff saw the back wound or small entry wound to JFK’s head is not important. What matters is that here, Arlen Specter is also referring to the same bullet entry wound noted by Mr. Lipsey. Arlen Specter noted specific objections related to the Rydberg drawings, “The artists drawing prepared at Bethesda (CE Nos. 385 and 386) shows a slight angle of declination. It is hard, if not impossible, to explain such a slight angle of decline” (17)  . . . referring to the necessary angle of trajectory to prove the shot came from the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD). From here, things go from bad to worse. This is because when Arlen Specter made these observations, he had never seen JFK’s body or the Autopsy photographs (18). If we correct the wound locations, (moving them lower to the correct positions), this then lessens the angle of declination to an even great degree!

At this point, I’ve corrected JFK’s head (entry) wound location and you can see how dramatically this changes the wound trajectory (see next image).

If Specter thought it would be hard to explain such a low angle of declination with the wounds in the false locations, it becomes vastly more difficult from the corrected locations! Here is your first major clue that something wasn’t right in the house of deception. Of course, as I said, Arlen Specter had no idea the actual wounds were lower than what were shown in the Rydberg drawings, had he known he would have stared in disbelief, knowing he would be expected to prove this shot came for the sixth floor of the TSBD.

(*Authors note: I don’t want you to think the trajectory shown in the image above is the exact trajectory, it isn’t, but it is very close).

The neck wound depicted in the Rydberg drawings creates a far bigger problem than the head wound. In the first place, here again, the wound is shown far above the actual wound location. In the Rydberg drawings, the second wound is shown actually in JFK’s neck, which it wasn’t. J.J. Humes had to know this wound wasn’t in JFK’s neck. How could he not? The only reason in moving this wound up from its actual location was for the sole purpose of creating a false downward bullet trajectory (shown in CE 385) and attempting to create a trajectory that would be a closer match to the sixth floor snipers nest. Correcting the wound location per the JFK autopsy images, we would arrive with a new trajectory (See next image).

Now remember, Arlen Specter had doubts about proving the shots came from the TSBD from their false entry point locations. As seen in the image above, the alleged entry point, per J.J. Humes was up in the neck. The actual wound Humes refers to is below the shoulder line by about an inch and a half. Specter would certainly have a much harder time proving the shots were from the TSBD from the new corrected entry points and resulting trajectories, but . . . things still get much, much worse, as if they aren’t bad enough already.

Arlen Specter developed the “Single Bullet Theory”, (that a single bullet passed through JFK and Governor John Connally), based on fictitious wound locations and false trajectories. But there is something else that Mr. Specter didn’t know. Not only did J.J. Humes misrepresent the wound locations, he falsely identified a fragment “Exit” wound as an entry wound! The alleged “entry” wound presented by J.J. Humes, isn’t an entry wound at all, it’s an EXIT wound! The entire Single Bullet Theory and associated trajectory is based on two exit wounds! Folks, the SBT is about to go up in flames.

Don’t believe it? You will, after you see the next edition tomorrow….stay tuned for a shocker!

CITATIONS

 

Chapter One:

 

1. “History Will Prove Us Right”, by Howard P. Willens, page 12.

 

2. “History Will Prove Us Right”, by Howard P. Willens, page 12.

 

3. Medical Testimonies, Warren Commission, Vol

 

4. ARRB Testimony of James Joseph Humes, page 227, http://assassinationofjfk.net/for-the-sake-of-historical-accuracy/

 

5. HSCA Testimony of Ida Dox, page 147, http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0076a.htm

 

6. “Single Bullet Theory”, https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Single_Bullet_Theory.html

 

7. “Pristine Bullet”, (CE 399) http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0038a.htm

 

8. JFK Exhibit No. 11, HSCA, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=83&search=Arlan_Spector#relPageId=98&tab=page

 

9. ARRB Testimony of James Joseph Humes, page 229,  http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/humesa.htm

 

10. Statement by Harold “Skip” Rydberg, http://assassinationofjfk.net/for-the-sake-of-historical-accuracy/

 

11. Rydberg Drawings, (CE385, CE386), https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_385.pdf

 

12. Rydberg Drawing, (CE388), https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_388.pdf

 

13. Lipsey Doc

 

14. Lipsey, Richard A., Video Testimony, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9UZz07eNMc

 

15. Lipsey, Richard A., HSCA Testimony, http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm

 

16. JFK Exhibit No. 11, HSCA, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=83&search=Arlan_Spector#relPageId=99&tab=page

 

17. JFK Exhibit No. 11, HSCA, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=83&search=Arlan_Spector#relPageId=99&tab=page

 

18. JFK Exhibit No. 11, HSCA, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=83&search=Arlan_Spector#relPageId=99&tab=page