There are many posts and commentaries on these issues spread between several entries on my various blogs, which I hope to consolidate herein on a single entry.

I will begin with some basic concepts of investigation before moving into the actual case of the JFK assassination.

Federal Rules of Evidence # 406

Habit; Routine Practice

“Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice.”
. . . . .
This rule officiates the concept of Modus Operandi as relevant evidence in criminal law.

Subsequently this rule transfers as relevant in discussion on this forum, and has to do with how the term “Fact” is used and a specific form of “information” derived from a reasonable organization of datum.

The epistemologically mature individual grasps that data points are but “beads” to be snapped together into chains in order to bring out the ‘meaning’ of datum.

In tandem with Routine Habit is the construction of the “profile” of a group or individual. That would be a catalog of the habits and routines of individuals or groups.
This can turn from an exacting science to an art form by talented individuals with long experience in such investigation and research.

Chain of Custody
Paul C. Giannelli
Case Western University School of Law, (1996)

Authentication or identification
of real evidence 1 refers to the requirement that an item of evidence be proved to be genuine, that is, that it is what its proponent claims it to be. McCormick expressed the requirement this way: “[W]hen real evidence is offered an adequate foundation for admission will require testimony first that the object offered is the object which was involved in the incident, and further that the condition of the object is substantially unchanged.”2 Federal Evidence Rule 901(a) codifies this requirement.
Police Markings

An object that is inscribed with the initials or markings of a police officer or other person may be readily identifiable. In such cases, the person converts a nonunique object into a readily identifiable one by placing distinctive markings on it. This practice, recommended in crime scene and evidence collection manuals, is well accepted in the cases. Firearms, bullets, currency, laboratory slides, and sundry other objects have been admitted into evidence, at least in part, on this basis.
Witness Uncertainty
A witness’s uncertainty in identifying an exhibit, however, affects the weight, not the admissibility, of the evidence.
(Example given here is not an applicable analog to the Parkland Bullet case)
Need for Chain of Custody
In some situations the proponent must establish a chain of custody. Such proof may be necessary either because the item of evidence is not readily identifiable, or because more than simple identification is necessary to establish the item’s relevance.
Lab Analysis
If the relevance of an exhibit depends on its subsequent laboratory analysis, identification by police markings made at the scene does not provide a sufficient foundation. The markings establish that the exhibit in court was the item seized by the police, but a chain of custody may be necessary to establish that the item seized was the item analyzed at the crime laboratory. For example, in Robinson v. Commonwealth, the court reversed a rape conviction due to a break in the chain of custody: “The mere fact that the blouse and the panties were identified (by the victim at trial] did not prove the chain of possession necessary to validate the F.B.I. analysis of them. ”
Links in Chain
The “links” in the chain of custody are those persons who have had physical custody of the object. Persons who have had access to, but not possession of, the evidence generally need not be accounted for. Such persons are not custodians. As noted by one court: “There is no rule requiring the prosecution to produce as witnesses all persons who were in a position to come into contact with the article sought to be introduced in evidence.
Failure to account for the evidence during possession by a custodian may constitute a critical break in the chain of custody. Some courts have indicated that all the links in the chain of custody must testify at triaJ.58 The prevalent view, however, is that “the fact of a ‘missing link does not prevent the admission of real evidence, so long as there is sufficient proof that the evidence is what it purports to be.
Thus, while a custodian in the chain of possession need not testify under all circumstances, the evidence should be accounted for during the time it was under that custodian’scontrol. Several recurrent examples of “missing link” cases are discussed in this article.

Burden and Standard of Proof
The burden of proving the chain of custody rests with the party offering the evidence. Prior to the adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the courts described the standard of proof in various ways. The most common expression of the standard was that the offering party had to establish the identity and condition of the exhibit by a “reasonable probability.” Phrases such as “reasonable certainty” and “reasonable assurance” seem only variants of this standard. The reasonable probability standard appears to require no more than the “preponderance of evidence” or “more probable than not” standard, and some courts have explicitly expressed the standard in those terms. This standard is the typical standard in evidence law. Under this view, chain of custody “requirements go to the competency of the evidence, not merely to its credibility.” Under this view, the trial court determines whether this standard has been satisfied.
Habit Evidence
The proponent may also introduce evidence of habit or routine practice to establish the chain of custody. Federal Rule 406 provides that evidence of the routine practice of an organization is relevant to prove that the conduct of the organization “on a particular occasion was in conformity with the … routine practice.” Accordingly, evidence of the standard operating procedures of police departments and laboratories in safeguarding real evidence may be used to establish the chain of custody.

Rule 406. Habit; Routine Practice
Evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice. The court may admit this evidence regardless of whether it is corroborated or whether there was an eyewitness.


(Pub. L. 93–595, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1932; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)

Crime Scene Protocol 1963
It was standard practice and mandated by FBI protocol in 1963 (up until the 1980s) to mark a shell or hull with a unique mark for chains of custody.
“Police Markings”
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Handbook of Forensic Science 100 (rev. ed. 1984); C. O’Hara

Crime Scene Investigation
Autopsy Protocol

The National Association of Medical Examiners

Standard F22 Neck
The muscles, soft tissues, airways, and vascular structures of the anterior neck must be examined to identify signs of disease, injury, and therapy. A layer-by-layer dissection is necessary for proper evaluation of trauma to the anterior neck. Removal and ex situ dissection of the upper airway, pharynx, and upper esophagus is a necessary component of this evaluation. A dissection of the posterior neck is necessary when occult neck injury is suspected. The forensic pathologist shall:

F22.1 examine in situ muscles and soft tissues of the anterior neck.
F22.2 ensure proper removal of neck organs and airways.
F22.3 examine neck organs and airways.
F22.4 dissect the posterior neck in cases of suspected occult neck injury.
F22.5 perform anterior neck dissection in neck trauma cases.

Standard F23 Penetrating Injuries, Including Gunshot and Sharp Force Injuries
Documentation of penetrating injuries as listed below should include detail sufficient to provide meaningful information to users of the forensic autopsy report, and to permit another forensic pathologist to draw independent conclusions based on the documentation. The recovery and documentation of foreign bodies is important for evidentiary purposes. Internal wound pathway(s) shall be described according to organs and tissues and size of defects of these organs and tissues. The forensic pathologist shall:

F23.1 correlate internal injury to external injury
F23.2 describe and document the track of wound
F23.3 describe and document the direction of wound
F23.4 recover foreign bodies of evidentiary value
F23.5 describe and document recovered foreign body

Standard G30 Evidence Processing
Custodial maintenance and chain of custody are legally required elements for documenting the handling of
evidence. The forensic pathologist or representative shall:

G30.1 collect, package, label, and preserve all evidentiary items.
G30.2 document chain of custody of all evidentiary items



. . .

College Park, Maryland on Tuesday, February 13, 1996

Q. Could you describe how the President’s head looked at the very first time that you saw it after it had been unwrapped?

A. Well, the most obvious thing was a large defect in the right parietal area. The
measurements are in the autopsy protocol, and the hair was matted in that area and bloody and so forth. And there was a suggestion like a contusion in the right frontal area over the right eyebrow. The skin was a little bit discolored in that area, but it wasn’t very remarkable. The most striking thing was this large defect. His face was, for all intents and purposes, normal. Normal as anybody can be in death, I guess. It was not significantly injured in any way.

Q. Were any portions of the brain extruding from any wounds in the head?

A. Well, the wound was so big that–I don’t know what you mean by extruding. It wasn’t really- -it was just a gaping hole and the brain was right there. It wasn’t really being extruded, no.

Q. So you could see it, but it was not as if it were coming out–

A. No.

Q. –sort of just seeing inside a hole–

A. It was a big hole, yeah.
Q. Right below the middle of the skull, there is the number 17 with, again, arrows pointing, at least on the paper, up and down. Do you see that?
A. Yeah. I would presume that this is the antero-posterior maximum measurement of this defect. Okay?

Q. Okay.

A. So it was 17 centimeters (approx 6.7 in), fore and aft, if you will, and 10 wide (4 in). I got some slightly different measurement, I think, in my written report, but ball park, you know.

Q. Right below the 17 and the arrow, there’s the word, it looks as if it’s “missing.” Do you see that?

A. That much bone is missing. That was a big defect, you see.

Q. Now, when this 10 by 17 centimeters of bone is missing, does that mean that it was present nowhere in the autopsy room during the autopsy?
A. Not until later when part of it was brought to me, which I described, I believe, in the written report.

Q. So would it–

A. The pieces that were brought to me, it was either two or three, I think three: one pretty sizable one and two smaller ones. Again, I’m talking off the top of my head. When they were repositioned to where they should have been, there was still a defect. We didn’t have sufficient bone to totally close the defect.

Q. So then from the first time that you saw the President’s head without the pieces of skull fragment that came in later, the approximate measurements of the missing scalp would be roughly 10 centimeters to 17 centimeters?

A. By 17, right.

Q. In the autopsy protocol, you referred to the amount as being 10 centimeters by 13 centimeters, and let me show you the protocol.

A. I’m not going to debate it. I mean, it would depend on how you were measuring it, because it wasn’t a–like this room is 25 by 35. It’s got walls and extreme–this was irregular, so you could make any kind of measurement you want…
Q. Was scalp missing from that same–from those same measurements?

A. Not as much scalp. There was some scalp missing, but we were able to pretty much close the scalp, skin, when we finished everything. So I can’t tell you how much was–but it was not that much skin missing, no.

Q. So mostly skull fragments–

A. Right.

Q. –but not the scalp itself?

A. Right. Right.
Q. The next question I wanted to ask you would be where, as best you recall, the lacerations were on just the scalp.

A. They went in every direction. They were– I think I described them as stellate. So they went down this way and back, and the whole area was lacerated.

Q. For the scalp?

A. Yes.

Q. In towards the back of the head, so in the occipital–

A. Not really. Not really. The parietal region primarily. Parietal and to some extent occipital, but primarily parietal.

Q. Okay. Just for any scalp lacerations, were there any tears over the occipital bone?

A. No. No.

Q. None whatsoever?

A. No.

Q. There were tears, however, over the temporal–

A. Temporal and parietal
Q. And the parietal.

A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any recollection now about radio-opaque objects being in or appearing in the X-rays?

A. Yes, in the skull. There were some little tiny fragments of radio-opaque material, which we thought to be bullet fragments, traversing from– well, I don’t know. It looked like it was going from posterior to anterior. Very fine, sort of granular-looking material, went almost as far forward as the frontal bone, but not quite that far.

Q. Those are dust-like fragments?

A. Yes, right.

Q. Were there any–

A. A couple of them were–we did retrieve a couple that were maybe a couple millimeters, as I recall, from that path, you know. But that was about all.
Q. Do you recall where you retrieved those fragments?

A. I think from the frontal lobe of the brain.

Q. Were there any X-rays taken between the time that you–or after the time that you removed the small fragments?

A. No.

Q. So all of the X-rays of the cranium were taken before any–

A. Exactly.

Q. –metal fragments were removed?

A. Exactly, exactly.

Q. Do you have any recollection now about the shapes of the fragments that were removed?

A. They were small and irregular. That’s all I can tell you.

Q. Long and sliver-like or roundish or–any recollection?

A. Flat, irregular, two or three millimeters.
Q. Dr. Humes, let me show you part of your testimony to the HSCA. Question by Mr. Cornwell– I’ll read this into the record. It’s from page 330, and it is Exhibit 21 to this deposition.
“Mr. Cornwell: And you finally began to write the autopsy report at what time?”
“Dr. Humes: It was decided that three people couldn’t write the report simultaneously, so I assumed the responsibility for writing the report, which I began about 11 o’clock in the evening of Saturday November 23rd, having wrestled with it for four or five, six hours in the afternoon, and worked on it until 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning of Sunday, the 24th.”

“Mr. Cornwell: Did you have any notes or records at that point as to the exact location of the –

“Dr. Humes: I had the draft notes which we had prepared in the autopsy room, which I copied.”

Now, again, the question would be: Did you copy the notes so that you would have a version of the notes without the blood on them but still notes rather than a draft report?

A. Yes, precisely. Yes. And from that I made a first draft, and then I destroyed the first draft and the notes.

Q. So there were, then, two sorts of documents that were burned: one, the draft notes, and, two, a draft report?

A. Right.

Q. Is that correct?

A. That’s right. So that the only thing remaining was the one that you have.

Q. Why did you burn the draft report as opposed to the draft notes?

A. I don’t recall. I don’t know. There was no reason–see, we’re splitting hairs here, and I’ll tell you, it’s getting to me a little bit, as you may be able to detect. The only thing I wanted to finish to hand over to whomever, in this case Admiral Burkley, was my completed version. So I burned everything else. Now, why I didn’t burn the thing that J wrote, I have no way of knowing. But whether it was a draft or whether it was the notes or what, I don’t know. There was nothing left when I got finished with it, in any event, but the thing that you now have, period.

Q. Well, the concern, of course, is if there is a record related to the autopsy that is destroyed, we’re interested in finding out what the exact circumstances–

A. I’ve told you what the circumstances were. I used it only as an aide-memoire to do what I was doing and then destroyed it. Is that hard to understand?

Q. When I first asked the question, you explained that the reason that you had destroyed it was that it had the blood of the President on it.

A. Right.

Q. The draft report, of course, would not have had the blood of–

A. Well, it may have had errors in spelling or I don’t know what was the matter with it, or whether I even ever did that. I don’t know. I can’t recall. I absolutely can’t recall, and I apologize for that. But that’s the way the cookie crumbles. I didn’t want anything to remain that some squirrel would grab on and make whatever use that they might. Now, whether you felt that was reasonable or not, I don’t know. But it doesn’t make any difference because that was my decision and mine alone. Nobody else’s.
Q. You’re welcome to read as much as you would prefer.

A. Whatever.

Q. It’s just I have a question for you on the first sentence only.
A. Okay.

Q. You see that Dr. Burkley identifies the posterior back at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra. Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that correct?

A. I don’t know. I didn’t measure from which vertebra it was. It’s sometimes hard to decide which vertebra, to tell you the truth, by palpation. Maybe you can do it accurately because the first and second–did I say the third? Oh, he says third thoracic. I think that’s much lower than it actually was. I think it’s much lower than it actually–you have seven cervical vertebrae. I don’t know. I mean, he’s got a right to say anything he wants, but I never saw it before, and I don’t have an opinion about it.

Q. Did you ever discuss which vertebra–

A. I never discussed anything about it with George Burkley, period, or anybody else.
I mean, with all due respect, you seem to have come to me from left field. You know, I just- -they’re not things of which I’m aware.
The measurements I made, as far as I’m concerned, were accurate. You could debate whether they were wise choices to be made or not, but they were accurate.
. . .

It is my opinion that from the moment JFK’s body was removed from Parkland Hospital, a medical cover-up was assured.

The so-called “autopsy” at Bethesda was beyond incompetent, it was criminal negligence__a complete fraud. This can only indicate one thing: CONSPIRACY.

ROBERT McCLELLAND, MD: In testimony at Parkland taken before Arlen Specter on 3-21-64, McClelland described the head wound as, “…I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered…so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out….” (WC–V6:33) Later he said, “…unfortunately the loss of blood and the loss of cerebral and cerebellar tissues were so great that the efforts (to save Kennedy’s life) were of no avail.” (Emphasis added throughout) (WC–V6:34) McClelland made clear that he thought the rear wound in the skull was an exit wound (WC-V6:35,37). McClelland ascribed the cause of death to, “…massive head injuries with loss of large amounts of cerebral and cerebellar tissues and massive blood loss.” (WC–V6:34)

McClelland’s unwillingness to change his recollection has recently attracted detractors in the aftermath of Charles Crenshaw’s book, “Conspiracy of Silence”. McClelland told Posner, “I saw a piece of cerebellum fall out on the stretcher.” (Posner, G. “CC.”, p. 311, paper). To dismiss McClelland, Posner quotes Malcolm Perry, “I am astonished that Bob (McClelland) would say that… It shows such poor judgment, and usually he has such good judgment.” (Posner G. “Case Closed”. p. 311, paperback edition.) Perry’s own inconsistent and unreliable memory lessens the merit of his opinions of others, as we will see.

3) MARION THOMAS JENKINS, MD: In a contemporaneous note dated 11-22-63, Jenkins described “a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound.” (WC–Exhibit #392) To the Warren Commission’s Arlen Specter Dr. Jenkins said, “Part of the brain was herniated. I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound…” (WC–V6:48) Jenkins told Specter that the temporal and occipital wound was a wound of exit, “…the wound with the exploded area of the scalp, as I interpreted it being exploded, I would interpret it being a wound of exit…” (WC–V6:51.)

Jenkins described a wound in JFK’s left temple to Specter. Jenkins: “…I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process.” Specter: “The autopsy report discloses no such development, Dr. Jenkins.” Jenkins: “Well, I was feeling for–I was palpating here for a pulse to see whether the closed chest cardiac massage was effective or not and this probably was some blood that had come from the other point and so I thought there was a wound there also.” A few moments later Jenkins again pursued the possibility that there had been a wound in the left temple: “…I asked you a little bit ago if there was a wound in the left temporal area, right above the zygomatic bone in the hairline, because there was blood there and I thought there might have been a wound there (indicating) (sic). Specter: “Indicating the left temporal area?” Jenkins: “Yes; the left temporal, which could have been a point of entrance and exit here (indicating) (sic-presumably pointing to where he had identified the wound in prior testimony–the right rear of the skull), but you have answered that for me (that ‘the autopsy report discloses no such development’).” (WC-V6:51)

In an interview with the HSCA’s Andy Purdy on 11-10-77 Marion Jenkins was said to have expressed that as an anesthesiologist he (Jenkins) “…was positioned at the head of the table so he had one of the closest views of the head wound…believes he was ‘…the only one who knew the extent of the head wound.’) (sic)…Regarding the head wound, Dr. Jenkins said that only one segment of bone was blown out–it was a segment of occipital or temporal bone. He noted that a portion of the cerebellum (lower rear brain) (sic) was hanging out from a hole in the right–rear of the head.” (Emphasis added) (HSCA-V7:286-287) In an interview with the American Medical News published on 11-24-78 Jenkins said, “…(Kennedy) had part of his head blown away and part of his cerebellum was hanging out.”.

CHARLES JAMES CARRICO, MD: On the day of the assassination he hand wrote, ” (the skull) wound had avulsed the calvarium and shredded brain tissue present with profuse oozing… attempts to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted…” (CE 392–WC V17:4-5)

In is first mention of JFK’s skull wound to the Warren Commission on 3/25/64, Carrico said, “There seemed to be a 4 to 5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue.” (6H3) And… “The (skull) wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. As I stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura.” (6H6)

On 3/30/64 Carrico appeared again before the Commission. Arlen Specter asked, “Will you describe as specifically as you can the head wound which you have already mentioned briefly?” Dr. Carrico: “Sure. This was a 5 by 71 cm (sic–the author feels certain that Dr. Carrico must have said “5 by 7 cm) defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region. There was an absence of the calvarium or skull in this area, with shredded tissue, brain tissue present…”. Specter: “Was any other wound observed on the head in addition to this large opening where the skull was absent?” Carrico: “No other wound on the head.”(WC–V3:361)

In an interview with Andy Purdy for the HSCA on 1-11-78, Dr. Carrico said, “The skull wound” …was a fairly large wound in the right side of the head, in the parietal, occipital area. (sic) One could see blood and brains, both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound.” (sic) (HSCA-V7:268)

MALCOLM PERRY, MD: In a note written at Parkland Hospital and dated, 11-22-63 Dr., Perry described the head wound as, “A large wound of the right posterior cranium…” (WC–V17:6–CE#392) Describing Kennedy’s appearance to the Warren Commission’s Arlen Specter Dr. Perry stated, “Yes, there was a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium….” (WC- V3:368) Later to Specter: “…I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe laceration of underlying brain tissue…” (WC–V3:372) In an interview with the HSCA’s Andy Purdy in 1-11-78 Mr. Purdy reported that “Dr. Perry… believed the head wound was located on the “occipital parietal” (sic) region of the skull and that the right posterior aspect of the skull was missing…” (HSCA- V7:292-293) Perry told Mr. Purdy: “I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen…” (HSCA-V7:302-interview with Purdy 1-11-78.

RONALD COY JONES: was a senior General Surgery resident physician at Parkland Hospital. Under oath he told the Warren Commission’s Arlen Specter, “…he had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head… There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood.” (WC-V6:53-54) A few minutes later he described “what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull”. (Emphasis added throughout) (WC-V6:56)

GENE AIKIN, MD: an anesthesiologist at Parkland told the Warren Commission under oath, “The back of the right occipital
parietal portion of his head was shattered with brain substance extruding.” (WC-V6:65.) He later opined, “I assume the right occipital parietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of the head, or at least tangentially in the back of the head…”. (WC-V6:67)

PAUL PETERS, MD: a resident physician at Parkland described the head wound to the Warren Commission’s Arlen Specter under oath as, “…I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput…It seemed to me that in the right occipital parietal area that there was a large defect.” (WC-V6:71)

CHARLES CRENSHAW, MD: a resident physician at Parkland neither wrote his observations contemporaneously or was interviewed by the Warren Commission. He, with co-authors, Jess Hansen and Gary Shaw, recently published a book, JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, ” (Crenshaw, CA, Hansen, J, Shaw, G. ( JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, 1992, New York, Signet). Crenshaw has claimed both in his book and in public interviews that the President’s head wound was posterior on the right side. In JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, he wrote, “I walked to the President’s head to get a closer look. His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater–an empty cavity. All I could see there was mangled, bloody tissue. From the damage I saw, there was no doubt in my mind that the bullet had entered his head through the front, and as it surgically passed through his cranium, the missile obliterated part of the temporal and all the parietal and occipital lobes before it lacerated the cerebellum.” ( JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, p. 86)

CHARLES RUFUS BAXTER, MD: a resident physician at Parkland in a hand written note prepared on 11-22-63 and published in the Warren Report (p. 523) Baxter wrote, “…the right temporal and occipital bones were missing (emphasis added) and the brain was lying on the table…” (WR:523). Very oddly, as Wallace Milam pointed out to one of the authors (Aguilar), when asked to read his own hand written report into the record before the Warren Commission’s Arlen Specter the words are recorded exactly as he wrote them, except for the above sentence. That sentence was recorded by the Warren Commission and reads “…the right temporal and parietal bones were missing. (emphasis added)…”. (WC-V6:44) It is reasonable to assume that Baxter’s original description of a more rearward wound is more reliable than his later testimony before Arlen Specter, who on more than one occasion tried to move the skull wound away from the rear. Baxter then described the head wound saying, “…literally the right side of his head had been blown off. With this and the observation that the cerebellum was present….” (WC-V6:41) Thus the wound he saw was more likely to have been “temporo-occipital” than “temporo-parietal”, because he also recalled, “cerebellum was present”. (WC-V6:41) Shortly later in the same interview he also said, “…the temporal and parietal bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table….” (WC-V6:44) The authors are unaware of any explanation for the discrepancies, and can only speculate that either Baxter was misquoted twice or he adjusted his testimony to conform with what he might have felt was wanted of him. The mystery was confounded when author Livingstone reported that Baxter described the skull wound as “…a large gaping wound in the occipital area.” Livingstone also reported that “(Baxter) could not have been more clear when he rejected the official picture (showing the rear scalp intact).”(Groden & Livingstone, High Treason, 1989, New York, Berkley Books, p. 45)

PAT HUTTON, RN: a nurse at Parkland who met the limousine and helped to wheel the President into Trauma Room 1 wrote a report soon after claiming, “Mr. Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound in the back of his head, and was lying there unresponsive.” (Price Exhibit V21 H 216–Emphasis added). While helping with resuscitation efforts a physician asked her to apply a pressure dressing to the head wound, she observed, however, that, “This was no use, however, because of the massive opening in the back of the head.” (IBID)

DORIS NELSON, RN: was a supervising nurse at Parkland. She was interviewed by Arlen Specter for the Warren Commission and she was neither asked or volunteered information regarding the nature of JFK’s wounds. (WC-V6:143-147) As Groden and Livingstone reported, however, journalist Ben Bradlee, Jr. asked her, “Did you get a good look at his head injuries?” Nelson: “A very good look…When we wrapped him up and put him in the coffin. I saw his whole head.” Asked about the accuracy of the HSCA autopsy photographs she reacted: “No. It’s not true. Because there was no hair back there. There wasn’t even hair back there. It was blown away. Some of his head was blown away and his brains were fallen down on the stretcher.” (High Treason I. p. 454)

SECRET SERVICE AGENT WILLIAM GREER: described the President’s wounds upon arrival at Parkland to Arlen Specter of the Warren Commission: “His head was all shot, this whole part was all a matter of blood like he had been hit.” Specter, “Indicating the top and right rear side of the head?” Greer: “Yes, sir; it looked like that was all blown off.”(WCV2:124)

SECRET SERVICE AGENT CLINT HILL: described the wounds he saw at Parkland as, “The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed…There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.” (WC–V2:141)

The Criteria for Assessing the Reliability of Witness Testimony

The most critical would be:

1. — POV — and Distance from event witnessed

2. –- Consideration of obstructions a witness’ position would encounter

3. –- Human perception of events that occur in a matter of seconds and less

4. — The likelihood of a duck response to a nearby dangerous event.

5. — Possible conflict of interests

6. — Obvious conflict of interests

7. — Internal conflicts of a single witness’ testimony, and a detailed analysis of how this might be understood. (see 3rd criteria point)

8. — MO; Established history of lying

9. — Conflicts with known and established empirical evidence.

10. — Particular circumstances of specific witnesses, that could effect the reliability of a certain witness (Handicaps, etc).


“The measurements I made, as far as I’m concerned, were accurate. You could debate whether they were wise choices to be made or not, but they were accurate.”~Dr Humes – testimony before ARRB

This witness testimony touches on Points 6,7,8,9,&10. One need not debate whether the choices were wise, they were clearly not – it is absurd; it is senseless when there are fixed anatomical landmarks nearby. Humes chose to measure the position of JFK’s back wound from the Mastoid Process to the Acromion – a distance that can very 70% depending on the relative positions of the head and shoulder; thus it is a rather preposterous choice for such a measurement. Thus, the measurement is inaccurate by lack of proper criteria.

Furthermore; The location given by Humes conflicts with known and established empirical evidence [#9]
There is an established history of Humes lying about the notes and number of autopsy reports [#8]
There is evidence that Humes initially did place the back wound at T3 in earlier notes and reports [#7]
Humes has a ‘conflict of interest’ as he is a participant in a cover-up [#6]

by, Gary L. Aguilar, MD
San Francisco, California, August, 1994

“That JFK’s head wound was on the right side of his head is universally accepted. With a single exception, all witnesses placed JFK’s major skull defect on the right side, and given the frequency of witness error, this suggests good witness reliability in this case. The most peculiar aspect of JFK’s wounds is that of the 46 witnesses whose opinions I have examined between Parkland and Bethesda, 45 of whom correctly claimed that the skull defect was on the right side, 44 were apparently wrong by the “best” evidence to claim that the wound was in the right-rear, rather than the right-front. The “authenticated” photographs, the originals of which were twice examined by author Aguilar at the National Archives, show no rear defect at all, only an anterior-lateral defect, and so, if valid, the images prove that not a single witness accurately described JFK’s fatal wound, and that even the autopsy report fails to accurately describe the skull defect visible in the images!

The HSCA’s forensic panel, which delved into the mysteries of JFK’s autopsy, accepted the authenticity of the current inventory of X-rays and photographs. Principally on the basis of these images, the panel concluded that the autopsists missed the correct location for the entrance bullet wound to the skull by placing it 10-cm too low, and missed the location of the bullet entrance to JFK’s back by placing it 5-cm too high. While the HSCA’s forensic panel apparently never considered the overwhelming witness testimony that there was a rear defect in JFK’s scalp/skull, it follows that all the witnesses were wrong if the images are right. To add to the muddle, recently revealed documents cast doubt on at least the completeness of the photographic inventory, and the technicians who took JFK’s X-rays and photographs both insist the current images are not those they took.”

Dr Boswell’s Face Sheet

9.2.4 Special Wound Ballistics of the Head

PDF) "Crossfire in Dealey Plaza Reexamined: The Shot from the Front" |  Larry Rivera -

In intracranial gunshot wounds, several of the above-mentioned factors enhance the degree of tissue disruption. The inelastic quality and the high water content of brain tissue make it per se very vulnerable to cavitation and stretch-mechanism. The penetration of the skull can imply the generation of secondary missiles in the form of bone (Fig. 9.7) or bullet fragments [28, 41, 42, 43, 44] and a tendency towards early tumbling or deformation of the bullet. Kirkpatrick and DiMaio [44], for example, were able to demonstrate intracerebral bone chips solely by digital palpation of the brain in 16 out of 42 cases of civilian gunshot wounds to the brain. Even more important, intracranial trajectories gain a new quality by the rigid skull functioning as a non-yielding wall. Because brain tissue is almost incompressible, intracranial temporary cavitation and surrounding overpressure meet counter-pressure from the skull.

The skull will, so to speak, try to overcome the principle of nonconfinement of the cavity by denying the free space necessary for a gradual decrease of radial tissue displacement and associated overpressure. The volume of the intracranial temporary cavity will consequently stay smaller than a cavity formed under identical conditions in tissue not confined in a casing. Intracranial overpressures around the expanding temporary cavity, however, clearly exceed the pressures found in nonconfined tissue [4, 10, 45, 46]. These high dynamic pressures, the asymmetric shape of the temporary cavity, and unilaterally fixed tissue structures lead to shear forces within brain tissue. The unyielding skull does not allow the brain to expand, so the brain will transfer the overpressures to the skull. In other words, the brain’s surface gets pushed with great force against the inner table of the neurocranium and the brain stem gets forced down into the foramen magnum.

Consequently, the layer of cerebral tissue between temporary cavity and skull is compressed much more strongly than tissue not confined in a rigid casing and shearing of brain tissue is increased by bone structures projecting into the skull cavity. Analogous to blunt trauma, enhanced compression can result in contusion of brain tissue discernible as (cortical) contusion zones in superficial layers of the brain remote from the trajectory [28, 44, 47, 48, 49] (Fig. 9.8). The stretching and especially shearing of tissue is responsible for intracerebral petechial hemorrhages remote from the tract in the form of classical perivascular ring hemorrhages or spherical hemorrhages [28, 41, 43] (Fig. 9.9). They are simply the result of an enlarged zone of extravasation due to the enhanced effect of temporary cavitation.

Preferential neuroanatomical sites are more central parts of the brain such as the basal ganglia, midbrain, pons, and cerebellum The skull will at first be slightly stretched by intracranial overpressures. If the skull’s capacity to elastically stretch is surpassed, there will be indirect skull fractures, i.e., fracture lines without contact to the primary bony entrance and exit defects. Because the base of the skull is inhomogenous and less resistant to stretching than the vault, preferential locations are the roofs of the orbitae (Fig. 9.10) and the ethmoidal plates in the anterior cranial fossa [50]. While secondary radial fractures originating from the gunshot defects are induced by the bullet’s impact, tertiary concentric fractures connecting the radial fracture lines (Fig. 9.11) are indirect heaving fractures [51, 52, 53] functioning as additional stress relief for internal overpressures. If the internal pressures are high enough, indirect skull fractures will combine to an ‘‘explosive’’ type of head injury [54] with comminuted fractures of the skull and laceration of the brain.

Click to access Forensic_ballistics_Karger.pdf


Sherry Fiester CSI Investigation into the bllistics of the JFK assassination

The illustration above is the product of photogrammetry Photogrammetry is the science of making measurements from photographs, especially for recovering the exact positions of surface points. Moreover, it may be used to recover the motion pathways of designated reference point – Illistration by Sherry Fiester

n the years since President Kennedy’s death, various technical fields have made great strides in understanding ballistics. Developing accurate methods to establish projectile trajectories and establishing a better understanding of wound ballistics continues to be the focus of new research and technical publications. Scientifically establishing directionality of the projectile striking Kennedy in the head is paramount TO EITHER support a single rear shooter, OR establishing a conspiracy. Beveling, fracture sequencing, and projectile fragmentation, target movement, and blood spatter in gunshot wounds to the head are current methods of assessing a projectile’s direction of travel. Application of the latest forensic technology and research provides new pieces of the assassination puzzle. Identifying the head shot as a front or rear injury is significant as it proves a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy. Contemporary research indicates of the five methods to determine the direction of travel of the projectile fatally wounding President Kennedy. One is deemed unreliable, and the other four support a shot from the front. Importantly, they do so while meeting the evidentiary standard required to support a criminal conviction in today’s courtroom.


Bullets traveling through bone create marginal conical shaped fractures adjacent to the entry or exit site. The conical beveling characteristically appears as a symmetrical chipping out of bone forming an indentation surrounding the entry or exit point on the opposite side of impact. The small end of the cone touches the interior or exterior bone table from which the bullet entered. Tangential gunshot wounds to the head create elliptically shaped defects containing both internal and external beveling (Levy, 2012).

Some wounds present both internal and external beveling. Researchers attribute this pseudo-beveling in high velocity distance shots to the transference of kinetic energy to the skull as dislodged chips flaking off entry wound edges, producing the effect of beveling. Without careful examination, misinterpretation of an entrance wound as an exit wound is possible in all types of entries (Quatrehomme, 1998, Coe, 1981; Prahlow, 2010; Adams, 2010).

Based upon current forensic research, it appears beveling cannot provide conclusive evidence of projectile direction. Incorrect assessment of direction can occur with tangential entries or exits, mistaken orientation, insufficient beveling, or the failure to recognize external beveling on entry wounds.

Fracture Patterns

When a projectile strikes the skull, radial fractures are created which extend outward from the wound. Internal pressure from temporary cavitation produces concentric fractures create that are perpendicular to the radial fractures. Research addressing the sequencing of radial and concentric of skull fractures in gunshot injuries indicates the radial fractures stem from the point of entry (Viel, 2009; Karger, 2008; Smith, 1987; Leestma, 2009).

The Clark Panel observed extensive fracturing in the autopsy X-rays. The panel report specified there was extensive fragmentation “of the bony structures from the midline of the frontal bone anteriorly to the vicinity of the posterior margin of the parietal bone behind”. The report goes on the state, “throughout this region, many of the bony pieces have been displaced outward; several pieces are missing”. The Clark Panel report indicates the majority of the fracturing and displaced bones fragments are closer to the location they described as the exit wound; this is in direct conflict with scientific research concerning skull fractures resulting from gunshot injuries.

The Kennedy autopsy report stated multiple fracture lines radiated from both the large defect and the smaller defect at the occiput, the longest measuring approximately 19 centimeters. This same fracturing pattern was discussed in the Assassinations Records Review Board deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer, the X-ray technician on call at Bethesda Hospital the night of the Kennedy autopsy. Custer testified the trauma to the head began at the front and moved towards the back of the head (CE 387 16H978; ARRB MD 59:10). Kennedy’s autopsy X-rays have distinct radial fractures propagating from the front of the head, with the preponderance of concentric fractures located at the front of the head. Current research indicates fracturing patterns of this nature correspond with an entry wound located in the front of Kennedy’s head.

Target Movement

When examining the Zapruder film frame by frame, it is readily apparent the President Kennedy’s head moves forward slightly for one frame before his head and shoulders move backward in response to the gunshot wound to the head.

German wound ballistic researcher Bernd Karger, states initial transfer of energy causes the target to move minutely into the force and against the line of fire, prior to target movement with the force of the moving bullet. Karger found greater the transferred energy, the more pronounced the forward movement (Karger, 2008). Wound ballistic researcher Robin Coupland used high-speed photography to confirm and document the forward movement into the line of fire referenced by Karger (Coupland, 2011).

Researchers Karger and Coupland noted the force in a moving bullet is energy of motion, or kinetic energy. Upon impact, the bullet pushes against the head, and initially, as the weight of the head is greater than the weight of the bullet, the head moves against the line of fire. As the projectile slows, more kinetic energy transfers to the target. A overcoming the weight of the head with a sufficient transfer of energy causes the target to move with the continued direction of force of the moving bullet. Application of contemporary wound ballistics research to the movement observed in the Zapruder film indicates a minute forward motion followed by more pronounced rearward movement—consistent with a single shot from the front.

Bullet Fragment Distribution

The distribution of bullet fragment begins near the point of entry and continues in the direction of the bullet trajectory in an ever-widening path as it moves away from the entry wound. A lateral view of the same pattern will reveal a conical shape to the fragment distribution. The apex of the pattern is closest to the entry wound and the wider portion of the fragment cone is closest to the exit wound (Rushing, 2008; Fung, 2008; DiMaio, 1998).

The House Select Committee on Assassinations heard testimony concerning the characteristics of bullet fragment patterns when Larry Sturdivan testified the majority of metallic fragments are typically deposited nearest the entry wound (HSCA 1: 402). Clark Panel Report also stated the majority of fragments were located in the front and top of Kennedy’s head (ARRB MD59:10-11).

Multiple forensic publications indicate X-rays fragment patterns display the majority of fragments near the entry wound. Kennedy’s autopsy X-rays depict the majority of bullet fragments in the front and top of the head, which indicates a frontal shot.

Blood Spatter

Backspatter is blood ejected from the entry wound and travels against the line of fire, back towards the shooter. Although forward and back spatter pattern display some common features, there are also dissimilarities. Studying forward and back spatter patterns created during a singular incident identifies those differences. By differentiating between forward and back spatter in shooting incidents, the identification of the direction of the origin of force is possible (James, 2005).

Scientific journals, books, and research published since the late 1980s indicate the blood observed in the Zapruder film displays the pattern shape of back spatter. It also extends from the wound area a distance characteristic of back spatter, particularly when correlated to blood documented elsewhere on the scene. The timing for the pattern creation and the dissipation rate identifies it as back spatter. In fact, all available information concerning the blood spatter pattern in the Zapruder film corresponds in every measurable manner with back spatter replicated in forensic laboratories and described in peer-reviewed publications since the late 1980s. Consequently, the only possible conclusion is the back spatter in the Zapruder film is genuine. Identifying the blood in the Zapruder film as back spatter signifies a shot from the front of President Kennedy.”~Sherry Fiester CSI


“In this article I address the chain of custody for the so-called “magic bullet,” otherwise known as Commission Exhibit 399 (or CE399). According to the Warren Commission, this bullet wounded both President Kennedy and Governor John Connally.
In fact, the chain of custody for this central piece of evidence is non-existent. The true and amazing story about the near-pristine “magic bullet” found at Parkland Hospital shortly after JFK’s assassination has been carefully pieced together by analysts such as Sylvia Meagher in the ’60s and John Hunt in the past few years.
Although Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen received the bullet in Parkland Hospital by about 1:30 p.m., an hour after the assassination, Johnsen’s initials are nowhere on the magic bullet, despite regulations mandating Secret Service agents to initial forensic evidence.
Johnsen handed the bullet to the Secret Service Chief James Rowley at Andrews Air Force Base at about 7:30 p.m., who didn’t initial it either. Neither Johnsen nor Rowley could identify the bullet when shown it later.
The chief of the Dallas police crime lab, Carl Day, said he initialed all three hulls found on the sixth floor at about 1 pm on the afternoon of November 22.

When Day testified on 4/22/64 to the Warren Commission, he had to admit that he did not initial any of them during the time that they were found at the 6th floor of the book depository.

As the hulls are nondescript, initialing them is essential if anyone hopes to recognize such an item again. Detective Richard Sims wrote that after Day took pictures of the hulls, he picked up the “empty hulls”, Day held open an envelope, Sims dropped them in. Sims held onto an unsealed envelope with three hulls in it at 2 pm; at some point, homicide chief Will Fritz was given the envelope by Sims. Fritz later gave the envelope to a sergeant, who eventually brought one hull back to Fritz and the other two hulls back to Day.

Day admitted during his Warren Commission testimony that he only initialed the two hulls in the unsealed envelope when he got it back at 10 that night. Day passed the shells on to FBI agent Vince Drain in the early morning, and I am similarly unaware of any record of Drain initialing any of these materials before he passed them on to firearms expert Robert Frazier at the FBI lab. Frazier’s testimony doesn’t mention anything about these shells being initialed by either of these men.

These hulls should have been excluded based on the failure to have a reliable chain of custody.”
~Bill Simpich

Darrel Tomlinsen told Josiah Thompson in an interview that this is what the bullet looked like that he had found on the stretcher at Parkland. It looks like a 30-30, and is certainly not CE399.

The Parkland Bullet & Broken Chain of Custody to CE399

Within an hour after the assassination, Johnsen was given the bullet by Parkland hospital security director O.P. Wright, after orderly Darrell Tomlinson found it by a stretcher. Like Johnsen and Rowley, neither Wright nor Tomlinson could identify the bullet.

The first 4 links in the chain of custody of the bullet found a Parkland are unable to identify it as CE399.
They are:

1. Orderly Darrell Tomlinson >>
2. Parkland hospital security director O.P. Wright >>
3. SS Agent Richard Johnsen >>
4. Agent Rowley (Secret Service Chief).

A break in the chain of custody at this proximate point proves that the bullet of record, CE399 is NOT the bullet found at parkland, and therefor CE399 is a planted bullet by the highest authorities themselves.

Let me remind you once again: A memorandum from the FBI office in Dallas on June 20th to J. Edgar Hoover contains the statement, “neither DARRELL C. TOMLINSON [sic], who found bullet at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, nor O. P. WRIGHT, Personnel Officer, Parkland Hospital, who obtained bullet from TOMLINSON and gave to Special Service, at Dallas 11/22/63, can identify bullet”

Warren Commission Testimony vol. VI
The testimony of Darrell C. Tomlinson was taken on March 20, 1964, at Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Arlen Specter, assistant counsel of the President’s Commission
However, at the time Tomlinson was questioned by Specter, he had not seen CE399. When Tomlinson finally did see CE399, he said that it was not the bullet he found at Parkland.

The Parkland Bullet is a distinct and different bullet from CE399.

The hole in the jacket was 5.5 inches below the upper margin of the jacket collar, and the hole in the shirt, 5 3/4 below the upper margin of the shirt collar [7 HSCA 83] about where witnesses said the back wound was – well below the base of the neck.

Mr. KLEIN: And with respect to the wounds to the President’s back, what did the panel learn from that clothing?

Dr. BADEN: In the jacket and the underlying shirt there is a perforation of the fabric that corresponds directly with the location of the perforation of the skin of the right upper back that, the panel concluded, was an entrance gunshot perforation that entered the back of the President.
This is correspondingly seen in the shirt beneath.
[1 HSCA 196:

This should make it perfectly clear where T-3 is located:

> Exactly where Kennedy’s back wound is in Boswell’s autopsy facesheet.
> Exactly where Kennedy’s back wound is in that photograph.
> Exactly where Kennedy’s back wound is in his shirt.
> Exactly where Kennedy’s back wound is in his coat.
> Exactly where Kennedy’s back wound is in Burkley’s autopsy report.
> Exactly where Kennedy’s back wound is as told by SS Agent Sibert.

On 11-22-63, at 3:16 PM CST, barely two hours after JFK was pronounced dead, Perry appeared with Kemp Clark, MD, the professor of neurosurgery who had pronounced JFK dead.

A newsman asked Perry: “Where was the entrance wound?”

Perry: “There was an entrance wound in the neck…”

Question: Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? At him?”

Perry: “It appeared to be coming at him.”…

Question: “Doctor, describe the entrance wound. You think from the front in the throat?”

Perry: “The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes, that is correct. The exit wound, I don’t know. It could have been the head or there could have been a second wound of the head. There was not time to determine this at the particular instant.”[66] (emphasis added)

Read the how Perry was badgered into changing this clear and straightforward opinion by Arlen Specter, and the PR Machine:

Boswell Sent To Garrison Trial To Shut Up Dr Finck

Q. Very early on in your deposition today, you made reference to Mr. Eardley from the Justice Department asking you to go to New Orleans; is that correct?

A. Mm-hmm.

Q. What did he say to you about the reason he wanted you to go to New Orleans?

A. He was really upset. He says, “J, we got to get somebody in New Orleans quick. Pierre is testifying, and he’s really lousing everything up.” And I called Jim to see if he didn’t want to go, and he was having–his mother-in-law was ill, and he couldn’t go. So they put me on a plane that day and took me to New Orleans, and that was one of the most interesting adventures of my life. I met–do you want to hear all of this?

Q. Yes, please.

A. Carl Eardley sent me to a hotel, and I went into the hotel and registered. I was already registered. I got up to my room, and there was a note on my bedside table telling me to meet somebody at a certain place at a certain time. And this was a scary place. This was down around the wharfs, and the federal attorney’s office was in a big warehouse down there. And that’s–I met somebody on the street. He took me in there, and then they told me what was going on. They showed me the transcript of Pierre’s testimony for the past couple of days, and I spent all night reviewing that testimony. And it was this bit about the general. Jim said, “Who’s in charge here?” And when they asked Pierre in court who supervised and ran the autopsy, he says, “Some Army general.” And so that is why–and I never appeared. I spent two days down there and then came home, never appeared in court. And the government won their case.

Q. Actually, the government was the district attorney. So my next question for you actually was: What was the United States Department of Justice doing in relationship to a case between the district attorney of New Orleans and a resident of New Orleans?

A. Well, they–I went over and met somebody, some lawyer in another firm that night, and I don’t know who he was representing. But, obviously, the federal attorney was on the side of Clay Shaw against the district attorney.

Q. Do you remember the name of that federal attorney?

A. No. I have no idea.

Q. Was it Harry Connick?

A. It could very well have been. That name sounds–of course, Connick is not an uncommon name. It could have been.

Q. Do you recall meeting with an attorney named Wegman?

A. No.

Q. Or Dymond?

A. Thirty years ago, no, I can’t remember that.

Q. What did the government attorney say to you? Did he help prepare potential testimony for you?

A. They were getting ready to. I guess it all depended on what Pierre did that next day or something. I don’t know. All I know is that they- -he was answering in very strange ways their questions, and, yes, they sent me down and talked to me and tried to get me to agree that he was very strange and that I could do a better job or something.

Q. Did you ever talk to Dr. Finck about his testimony?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever talk to him at all after that point?

A. Oh, yes, many times. Pierre’s wife was there with him, and he was staying in the same hotel I was. And so we met just by chance at breakfast the day after I arrived. And we didn’t discuss why I was there. I’m sure he asked me, and I don’t know what I told him. But, anyway, we have met on a number of occasions since then. His daughter is in this country, and she was going to school in Missouri for several years. And I used to–they’d stop by here and visit with us as they were on their way. We were very good friends.

Q. Do you have any idea why he was answering the questions the way he was in the Clay Shaw trial?

A. Well, you’ll know when you meet him, if and when you meet him. He is a very strange–but a sharp guy. He was a good pathologist, a hard worker. He was devoted to the United States and to the Army despite the fact that he was going back home. But he’s a strange guy. I knew that long before we invited him over to help us on this autopsy. He’s just a strange fellow.

Q. Do you recall who paid for your trip to go to New Orleans?

A. I would assume that the Justice Department provided my plane tickets and my hotel bill.

Q. Other than for this experience in New Orleans, were you contacted at any other point by any representative of the U.S. Government to provide assistance for the government in regard to the Kennedy autopsy?

A. No. But aside from that, Carl Eardley called me when King was assassinated and said, “J, we got a problem down in Memphis. They’re alleging that we’re letting the Reverend die.” And then he called me back and said, “He died. Would you go down there and supervise the autopsy?” And I said I’m the last–by this time, it had been several years, and we’d had an awful lot of stuff about the autopsy. And so I said, “I’m the last one you want to go down.” And I gave him the name of the guy who was at that time the neuropathologist–I knewwhat they were going to find because he had been shot in the neck and the spinal cord was severed. And I gave him the name of the neuropathologist at the AFIP, and he called him and got him to go.
That’s the only other incident relative to that.

Page 213 forward ARRB Deposition of Boswell

Additional damage to the windshield and/or the rear-view mirror of SS100X

There is so much more to this issue that I want to publish here. So I will also be uploading more info in the comments section.

William Whitten is an autodidact , polymath, epistemic maverick & artist



    1. The Roots of the Great Reset Agenda

      Farewell America: The Plot to Kill JFK Paperback – November 22, 2002
      by James Hepburn (Author), William Turner (Author)
      Originally published in 1968 in France under the title L’Amerique Brule (America Is Burning), Farewell America quickly became a best-seller in Europe in eleven languages. It was the inside story of the assassination of President John Kennedy. Although borrowing heavily from published critics of the Warren Commission Report, the book describes the roots of the Cold War, the linkage between large corporate and banking interests, the ever-growing American intelligence apparatus, and the international petroleum cartels that were lined up with a bevy of military brass and Mafia chieftains against JFK. A combination of these powerful interests called “The Committee” coordinated all aspects of the murder, from setting the time and place of the shooting to the recruitment of the gunmen and the coverup of the conspiracy afterward. The bottom line was that enemies of JFK collaborated with the CIA to erase the perceived threat to their interests by John and Robert Kennedy. Heady stuff for 1968. So incendiary, in fact, that importation of the book through Canada was squelched, allegedly at the instigation of the FBI. Farewell America wasn’t just another book about the assassination conspiracy; it bristled with restricted information about U.S. intelligence agencies, the White House, global business, and military and political affairs that had to have come from a knowlegdeable source, in this case, French intelligence. It also represented the surreptitious intrusion by those in French government circles into American politics, namely, the 1968 presidential elections.



      1. Louis Mortimer Bloomfield
        Louis Mortimer Bloomfield
        Louis Mortimer Bloomfield, the son of Harry Bloomfield, was born in Canada, about 1910. A Zionist, Bloomfield joined the British military and served in Palestine as an Intelligence Officer under General Charles Orde Wingate. Bloomfield was involved in training the Jewish army, Haganah (1936-1939).

        President Franklin D. Roosevelt established the Office of Strategic Services in 1942. Bloomfield was recruited and given the rank of major. In 1947, the OSS evolved into the Central Intelligence Agency, and Bloomfield continued doing contract work for the new organization. He was a regular visitor to Israel and met the Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion on 4th May, 1949.

        A successful lawyer he worked for years at the law firm of Phillips and Vineberg in Montreal. He was also a major stockholder of Permindex, a corporation based in Switzerland. He was also the author on several books on on international law including The British Hondurus Guatemala Dispute (1953) and Egypt, Israel and the Gulf of Aqaba (1957).

        In Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal (1970) William Torbitt claims that the assassination of John F. Kennedy was organized by Bloomfield and Permindex. Also involved included Defense Industrial Security Command, organized by J. Edgar Hoover and William Sullivan. Torbitt claims that Bloomfield was in control of the operation. DISC agents included Clay Shaw, Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Lee Harvey Oswald, and Jack Ruby.

        According to the author Permindex was comprised of:

        (1) Solidarists an Eastern European exile organization.

        (2) American Council of Christian Churches led by Haroldson L. Hunt.

        (3) Free Cuba Committee headed by Carlos Prio.

        (4) The Syndicate headed by Clifford Jones, ex-lieutenant governor of Nevada. This group also included Bobby Baker, George Smathers, Roy Cohn, Fred Black and Lewis McWillie.

        (5) Security Division of NASA headed by Wernher von Braun.

        Louis Mortimer Bloomfield died in 1984. A few years before his death donated 31 boxes of documents to the Library and Archives Canada. This included correspondence with some well-known politicians such as George H. W. Bush. The one condition Bloomfield placed on the donation was that public access to the papers would be restricted for 20 years after his death. However, when researcher, Maurice Phillips, attempted to gain access to these materials in 2004 he found that Bloomfield’s widow, Justine Stern Bloomfield Cartier, was still refusing permission for them to be released into the public domain.


    2. Oliver Stone’s new JFK assassination doc is being ignored by the MSM… a sure sign he might be onto something
      Michael McCaffrey

      The establishment media is celebrating odd, sexually charged movies at the Cannes Film Festival – yet won’t even acknowledge Oliver Stone’s foray back into the troubling case of President John F. Kennedy’s murder. I wonder why?
      Last week, Oliver Stone premiered his new documentary about the Kennedy assassination titled ‘JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass’, at the Cannes festival.

      You’d think that Stone, the polarizing, two-time Best Director Academy Award winner, whose filmJFK created such a furor it led to the US government passing the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, premiering a controversial JFK assassination documentary at Cannes would be very big news. You’d be wrong.

      When ‘JFK: Revisited’ premiered on Monday, July 12, the mainstream media didn’t praise it or pan it. They pretended it didn’t exist.

      The New York Times’ vast coverage of Cannes consisted of 11 articles, most focusing on the more salacious content, such as ‘Benedetta’, a steamy story about lesbian nuns, ‘Annette’, a musical where Adam Driver sings while performing oral sex on Marion Cotillard, and ‘Titane’, where a woman has sex with a car and lactates oil. But not once has ‘JFK Revisited’ been mentioned in the supposed ‘paper of record’.

      The same is true of the Washington Post, Boston Globe, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, the Guardian, the Atlantic, the New Yorker and every mainstream outlet I searched, as none of them acknowledge ‘JFK Revisited’exists at all.

      The only media mentions I found were in trade papers likeVariety and the Hollywood Reporter, and in the British press, in the Times and Daily Telegraph. Their reaction to the film was split, with Variety and The Times giving negative reviews and THR and the Daily Telegraph praising it.

      Considering that Cuba, intelligence agency nefariousness, and conspiracy theories are making headlines, and that the small critical assessment of the documentary is split, it’s curious that the media is maintaining the status quo by endorsing sexual depravity at Cannes instead of pursuing truth by debating ‘JFK Revisited’.

      I’m kidding, of course. It’s no surprise that the American myth-making media who bequeath to us the official narrative from which ‘respectable’ people will never deviate, are tossing ‘JFK Revisited’ down the memory hole and lavishing praise on horny nuns and coital Cadillacs.

      You see, the establishment loves to distract the masses and hate conspiracies – except for the ones they love.

      JFK assassination conspiracies are rejected outright as unserious, despite a plethora of damning evidence, because they indict the establishment itself. Half of the talking heads on cable news are former (wink-wink) intelligence community members, and the vast majority of journalists are lapdogs for the intel agencies, so they’re not going to bite the hand that feeds them in service to the truth about the JFK assassination.

      This same anti-conspiratorial press spent four years breathlessly belching up every half-assed Russia conspiracy story they could conjure – including Russiagate, claims of Russia using microwave weapons or hacking into power grids and voting machines – and shouted them from the rooftops 24/7 until they become presumed true despite a complete lack of evidence.

      As Noam Chomsky would say, this is how deceptive propaganda is effectively disseminated and consent is manufactured, through “controlled market forces, internalized assumptions and self-censorship.”

      ‘Serious’ people prove their seriousness by believing those absurd officially sanctioned anti-Russia conspiracies because they are deemed ‘serious’ and are propagated by other ‘serious’ people, while ‘unserious’ conspiracies like JFK and the Wuhan lab leak theory are ridiculed, and those believing them demeaned as ‘conspiracy theorists’.

      This is why the establishment loathes Stone so much, because he flipped the script in ’91 by using his considerable cache in the wake of his massive Hollywood success to make a movie about the JFK assassination that obliterated the official account of the Warren Commission and presented a compelling counter-argument.

      To get a taste of how much the establishment despises Stone, go read his ‘JFK: The Book of the Film’, which features 97 reactions and commentaries about the movie.

      Unlike his adversaries, Stone prints those who disagree with him, as evidenced by articles featured in the book such as ‘Does JFK conspire against reason?’ ‘Hollywood Wonders if Warner Brothers Let JFK Go Too Far’, ‘Oliver’s Twist’, ‘The Paranoid Style’ and ‘The Plot to Assassinate the Warren Commission’, to name but a few.

      The hysteria that ‘JFK’ triggered among the elites in ’91 is perfectly encapsulated in a tale told by the late film critic Roger Ebert, who claimed Walter Cronkite gave him a “tongue-lashing” and said he should be “ashamed” of himself for praising the movie.



    3. The Roots of the Great Reset Agenda.
      During the Cold War, these operations continued after an image-makeover yet were still caught red-handed carrying out their old tricks attempting several of the 13 assassination attempts carried out by France’s Charles DeGaulle (for which Permindex operations were banned from both France and Switzerland).



      1. Farewell America: The Plot to Kill JFK Paperback – November 22, 2002
        by James Hepburn (Author), William Turner (Author) $28.65
        Originally published in 1968 in France under the title L’Amerique Brule (America Is Burning), Farewell America quickly became a best-seller in Europe in eleven languages. It was the inside story of the assassination of President John Kennedy. Although borrowing heavily from published critics of the Warren Commission Report, the book describes the roots of the Cold War, the linkage between large corporate and banking interests, the ever-growing American intelligence apparatus, and the international petroleum cartels that were lined up with a bevy of military brass and Mafia chieftains against JFK. A combination of these powerful interests called “The Committee” coordinated all aspects of the murder, from setting the time and place of the shooting to the recruitment of the gunmen and the coverup of the conspiracy afterward. The bottom line was that enemies of JFK collaborated with the CIA to erase the perceived threat to their interests by John and Robert Kennedy. Heady stuff for 1968. So incendiary, in fact, that importation of the book through Canada was squelched, allegedly at the instigation of the FBI. Farewell America wasn’t just another book about the assassination conspiracy; it bristled with restricted information about U.S. intelligence agencies, the White House, global business, and military and political affairs that had to have come from a knowlegdeable source, in this case, French intelligence. It also represented the surreptitious intrusion by those in French government circles into American politics, namely, the 1968 presidential elections.


    4. David Wrone: 50th Anniversary of JFK’s Assassination

      David Wrone, author of The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK’s Assassination , at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics on 11/21/2013

      hybridrogue1 / January 25, 2016

      The Warren Commission concluded that at approximately 1:15 p.m., Dallas Patrolman J. D. Tippit drove up in his patrol car alongside Oswald—presumably because Oswald resembled the police broadcast description of the man seen by witness Howard Brennan firing shots at the presidential motorcade. Patrolman Tippet’s encounter with Oswald occurred near the corner of East 10th Street and North Patton Avenue.[183][184] This location is about nine-tenths of a mile (1.4 km) southeast of Oswald’s rooming house—a distance that the Warren Commission concluded “Oswald could have easily walked.”[185] Tippit pulled alongside Oswald and “apparently exchanged words with [him] through the right front or vent window.” “Shortly after 1:15 p.m.”,[n 10] Tippit exited his car and was immediately struck and killed by four shots.Numerous witnesses heard the shots and saw Oswald flee the scene holding a revolver; nine positively identified him as the man who shot Tippit and fled.[188][n 11] Four cartridge cases found at the scene were identified by expert witnesses[189] before the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee as having been fired from the revolver later found in Oswald’s possession, to the exclusion of all other weapons. However, the bullets taken from Tippit’s body could not be positively identified as having been fired from Oswald’s revolver as the bullets were too extensively damaged to make conclusive assessments.
      . . . .

      Oswald was in the Texas Theater at the time Tippit was killed.

      None of the so-called ‘witnesses’ who supposedly ID’d Oswald actually did. Many of these witnesses had obviously been coached. And they still went off script during official questioning.

      The bullets taken from Tippit could not be tied to the pistol that Oswald is said to have when arrested at the theater.

      The question remains. who actually had that revolver before the scuffle in the theater? It is highly likely that the entire scuffle scene was staged to plant that pistol on Oswald. Remember that gun could not be fired in the condition it was “found” in.

      You have a problem on the receiving end at the PO Box where both the Carcano rifle and the 38 SW pistol were sent. An insider that we have discussed before, who also “just happened to be at Oswald’s last interrogation, and who just happened to have a birds eye view just above the sniper at the south-west end of Dealey Plaza just at the entrance to the underpass on Commerce St. — that being the US Post Office Building of course.


  1. The Other Side of Six Seconds in Dallas Covering Op the Cover-up
    By Milicent Cranor

    In Six Seconds, Thompson exposes a fatal
    flaw in the single bullet theory (SBT). He describes noticing “for the first time” separate
    reactions to bullets, that one struck Kennedy,
    and another Connally, on the original Zapruder (Z) film at Life Magazine.
    A disturbing question was raised by the
    U.S. government’s promotion of the single
    bullet theory: did the government lie? Thompson suggests they did not know any better,
    that it was “an “oversight” due to the “inferior” copy of the Z film they viewed.
    . the Commission had chosen to disregard his
    (Connally’s) testimony. prompted by their desire
    to believe that there had been only one assassin
    and aided. unknowingly perhaps, by the inferior
    quality of the film they had used for reference (Six
    Seconds, p.9)

    It seemed clear, then, that the Commission had
    either neglected or only hastily examined the photographic record of the assassination. (p 14)
    Life Magazine had already shown that
    Kennedy was hit before Connally in their Memorial issue, November 29, 1963_ This preSBT issue featured small black and white stills
    showing the separate reactions, with captions
    nem September-October, 1999
    This is—by definition—a one-sided review
    of Six Seconds in Dallas.
    From a distance, Six Seconds in Dallas seems
    to bulge with good information expressed in
    literate English backed by mathematics made
    vivid with pictures and actual words of witnesses. But these words were made to seem
    as ephemeral as the smoke on the knoll, dissipating in the wind.
    Josiah Thompson concluded there is no
    proof of conspiracy in the assassination of
    John E Kennedy. He continues to promote this
    position despite recent revelations that suggest otherwise. To some, this may suggest
    standards of ratiocination so rigorous that
    nothing suffices to definitively contradict the
    lone assassin theory. Are these standards
    manifest in this book? What exactly is in this
    book? What was omitted, and why?
    By Milicent Cranor

    Click to access Item%2002.pdf



    1. Sylvia Meagher was a research analyst at the UN’s World Health Organization. She took a strong interest in the assassination of John F. Kennedy and read the twenty-six volumes of the hearings and exhibits of the Warren Commission: “It was appalling to find how many of the Commission’s statements were unsupportable or even completely contradicted by the testimony and/or exhibits… I began to list what is now a long list of deliberate misrepresentations, omissions, distortions, and other defects demonstrating not only extreme bias, incompetence, and carelessness but irrefutable instances of dishonesty.”

      In 1965 Meagher published Subject Index to the Warren Report and Hearings and Exhibits. As Meagher pointed out, studying the entire twenty-six volumes without a subject index would be “tantamount to a search for information in the Encylopedia Britannica if the contents were untitled, unalphabetized, and in random sequence.”

      A deep study of the Warren Commission Report convinced her that the its detailed evidence contradicted its general conclusions. Meagher therefore published Accessories After the Fact: The Warren Commission, the Authorities, and the Report (1967). Meagher was unconvinced that Lee Harvey Oswald had been a lone gunman and concluded that the Warren Commission had attempted to cover-up details of the real people behind the assassination. Meagher believed that John F. Kennedy had been killed by a group Anti-Castro exiles.

      Meagher helped Mark Lane (Rush to Judgment), Léo Sauvage (The Oswald Affair – an Examination of the Contradictions and Omissions of the Warren Report) and Edward Jay Epstein (Inquest: The Warren Commission and the Establishment of Truth) in their research. In his book Sauvage commented: “I wish to express my gratitude to Mrs. Sylvia Meagher, author of an indispensable Subject Index and the only person in the world who really knows every item hidden in the twenty-six volumes of Hearings and Exhibits… With total unselfishness, Mrs. Meagher has always been available to me as to others, for any needed information, verification, or reference.”

      In 1975 Richard Schweiker, who later became a member of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, pointed out that the Accessories After the Fact: The Warren Commission, the Authorities, and the Report “clearly establish Sylvia Meagher’s major contribution to understanding this tragic incident in our nation’s history… and was instrumental in finally causing a committee of Congress – with full subpoena power, access to classified documents, and a working knowledge of the nuances of the FBI and CIA – to take a second official look at what happened in Dallas November 22, 1963.”

      In 1980 Meagher co-authored with Gary Owen, the Master Index to the John F.Kennedy Assassination Investigations. This book incorporated the House Select Committee on Assassinations volumes with the original Warren Commission Report. The lawyer, Russell Stetler, commented: “To the FBI agents in Dallas – who at least were doing their research on company time-the thought of plowing through thousands of pages of unindexed reference material was indeed daunting. Should we not pause to imagine how intimidating such work looked to spare-time researchers, that first generation of Warren Commission critics? Sylvia Meagher’s index to the volumes not only enabled many researchers to get to work, pushed them over the first hurdle, so to speak; her efforts also provided a model of scholarly rigor and selfless personal dedication which has only grown more stunning with the passage of time.”


    1. State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City, Double Agents, and the Framing of Lee Oswald

      by Bill Simpich
      Published online here at MFF

      The Mary Ferrell Foundation is pleased to present the online serialization of this book by Bill Simpich. State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City, Double Agents, and the Framing of Lee Oswald delves deeply into the strange story of the Oswald Mexico City trip two months before the assassination. With a focus on the wiretap operation and the curious manipulation of CIA information on Oswald, and based on voluminous research using the MFF’s CIA records, Bill presents a compelling new analysis of this mysterious event.

      The text of each chapter – including links to the primary documents in the National Archives – can be read by clicking on the titles below:



    2. Farewell America
      by James Hepburn

      The Man of November 5
      The election of the new Prince of the Universe should have had profound and far-reaching
      consequences for the future of the American people and for the life, liberty and happiness of
      But in the summer of 1968, the legitimate representatives of the Republican and Democratic
      Parties decided to pick their candidates for 37th President of the United States from among the
      merchandise on sale in the bargain basement.
      In the decades and in the history books to come, 1968 will be remembered as the year the
      lights flickered out — as a year of frustrations, regressions and shattered myths. These reversions to
      the past — Prague, the Vatican, Chicago — are the manifestations of political and economic forces
      seeking desperately to preserve situations of which they have long since lost control.
      But the twilight descending upon the United States will have the gravest consequences of
      all, for it is America that sets the pace of the world, and often dictates its choices.
      As the Sixties draw to a close, the peoples of the earth, left to themselves without gods and
      without leaders, are awaiting new decisions. The Man of November 5 cannot escape the
      confrontations before him. By refusing these choices, he will leave the problems unsolved.
      Two Americans, John and Robert Kennedy, had the courage to meet these problems head on
      and break down the doors to the future. They were stopped by the frightened accomplices of the
      traditions on which they infringed.
      When John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s head exploded, it was for some the signal for toasts. One
      November morning the cannon boomed, the Panama Canal was closed, flags everywhere flew at
      half-mast, and it is said that even Andrei Gromyko wept. Adlai Stevenson declared that he would
      bear the sorrow of his death till the day of his own, and the Special Forces added a black band to
      their green berets.
      Almost five years passed, and another bullet shattered the brain and stopped the heart of
      another Kennedy who had taken up the fight.
      There was another funeral. Once again the Green Berets formed the Honor Guard; once
      again the Stars and Stripes flew at half-mast. One evening in June, Robert Kennedy joined his
      brother beneath the hill at Arlington, and those passing by can bring them flowers.
      “Happy Days Are Here Again,” they sang at the Chicago Convention. But the scores have
      not been settled.
      Who killed them?
      And why?
      This book sets out to answer these questions. But beyond the facts and the outcries, behind
      the assassins and their motives, other culprits appear. The responsibility of American civilization is
      no longer in doubt.
      Europe sometimes speaks of taking up the American challenge. But do the force of arms, the
      excesses of an economy and the abuses of a political system constitute an adequate example?
      Washington, Lincoln and the Kennedys gone, never in two centuries have the virtues and hopes on
      which the young Republic was founded been so gravely endangered as they are today.
      By their meditations, by their decisions, by their rebellion, the citizens of the United States
      will bring about their Renaissance.
      We dedicate this book to the youth of the Seventies. Only they will know how to face the
      crises that lie ahead. May they find in these pages the strength to defy the redoubtable old men and
      revive the forgotten glories.

      Click to access Farewell_America.pdf



  2. Charles Cabell was born in Dallas County on 11th October, 1903. He graduated from West Point Military Academy in 1925. He also studied at the Command and General Staff School (1940) and the Army and Navy Staff College (1943).

    During the Second World War Cabell was was a member of the advisory council for the United States Army Air Force headquarters in Washington before being made commander of the Forty-fifth Combat Wing of the Eighth Air Force in the Europe. He also served as Director of Plans (December, 1943 – April, 1944), Director of Operations and Intelligence Mediterranean Allied Air Forces (July, 1944 – May, 1945) and attended the Yalta Conference in February, 1945.

    After the war he was the United States air representative on the military staff committee of the United Nations in New York. In 1951 he was appointed director of the staff for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, where he worked under General Omar Bradley. In 1953 he was appointed deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency. In this job he was involved in organizing the Bay of Pigs invasion. It is also believed that Cabell was involved in developing plans to assassinate Fidel Castro.

    His brother Earle Cabell was elected mayor of Dallas in May 1961. He therefore was involved in planning the trip John F. Kennedy made to Dallas on 22nd November, 1963. Many researchers think that the brothers were involved in the plot to kill Kennedy: “The two combined motive, means, and opportunity.”


  3. From President to Ambassador, Cabinet Officer to Commanding
    General, and from Senator to executive assistant-all these men have their
    sources of information and guidance. Most of this information and
    guidance is the result of carefully laid schemes and ploys of pressure
    groups. In this influential coterie one of the most interesting and effective
    roles is that played by the behind the scenes, faceless, nameless,
    ubiquitous briefing officer.

    He is the man who sees the President, the Secretary, the Chairman
    of the Joint Chiefs of Staff almost daily, and who carries with him the
    most skillfully detailed information. He is trained by years of experience
    in the precise way to present that information to assure its effectiveness.
    He comes away day after day knowing more and more about the man he
    has been briefing and about what it is that the truly influential pressure
    groups at the center of power and authority are really trying to tell these
    key decision makers. In Washington, where such decisions shape and
    shake the world, the role of the regular briefing officer is critical.

    Leaders of government and of the great power centers regularly leak
    information of all kinds to columnists, television and radio commentators,
    and to other media masters with the hope that the material will surface and
    thus influence the President, the Secretary, the Congress, and the public.
    Those other inside pressure groups with their own briefing officers have
    direct access to the top men; they do not have to rely upon the media,
    although they make great use of it. They are safe and assured in the
    knowledge that they can get to the decision maker directly. They need no
    middleman other than the briefing officer. Such departments as Defense,
    State, and the CIA use this technique most effectively.

    For nine consecutive, long years during those crucial days from
    1955 through January 1, 1964, I was one of those briefing officers. I had
    the unique assignment of being the “Focal Point” officer for contacts
    between the CIA and the Department of Defense on matters pertaining to
    the military support of the Special OperationsJH of that Agency. In that
    capacity I worked with Allen Dulles and John Foster Dulles, several
    Secretaries of Defense, and Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well
    as many others in key governmental places. My work took me to more
    than sixty countries and to CIA offices and covert activities all over the
    world— from such hot spots as Saigon and to such remote places as the

    South Pole. Yes, there have been secret operations in Antarctica.

    –Col. Fletcher Prouty — THE SECRET TEAM



  4. Now that the McNamara report has been published and has emerged
    from the depths of security, it can be added that this pivotal report was not
    written by McNamara; it was not even written in Saigon. This report, like
    the one dated October 2, was actually written by a group of ST and near-
    ST members and was drafted by them solely to impress upon the new
    President their idea of the increasing gravity and frightful responsibility of
    the war in Indochina. It was not for nothing that the Times noted that this
    report was “laden with gloom” and that it offered nowhere any easy or
    quick panacea for early victory in Indochina. It was not untended to do so.
    In fact, it did just the opposite. It left no room for any course of action
    other than eventual escalation of the war. This report and the ones that
    followed close upon it were carefully and skillfully written to instill into
    the new President an indelible belief that the war in Vietnam was the
    greatest issue facing the Free World. They hammered home the fanciful
    belief that if South Vietnam fell before the onslaught of Communism, the
    whole world would be engulfed.


  5. PARTI
    The Secret Team

    Chapter 1 The “Secret Team” —

    The Real Power Structure

    The most remarkable development in the management of America’s
    relations with other countries during the quarter-century since the end of
    World War II has been the assumption of more and more control over
    military, financial and diplomatic operations at home and abroad by men
    whose activities are secret, whose budget is secret, whose very identities
    as often as not are secret — in short, by a Secret Team whose actions only
    those implicated in them are in a position to monitor and to understand.

    For the purposes of this historical study, the choice of the word
    “Team” is most significant. It is well known that the members of a team,
    as in baseball or football, are skilled professionals under the direct control
    of someone higher up. They do not create their own game plan. They work
    for their coach and their owner. There is always some group that manages
    them and “calls the plays”. Team members are like lawyers and agents,
    they work for someone. They generally do not plan their work. They do
    what their client tells them to do. For example: this is true of agents in the
    Central Intelligence Agency. It is an “Agency” and not a “Department”
    and its employees are highly skilled professionals who perform the
    functions their craft demands of them. Thus, the members of the highest
    level “Secret Team” work for their masters despite the fact that their own
    high office may make it appear to others that they, themselves are not only
    the Team but the Power Elite. This recalls a story related by the Rt. Hon.
    Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, of Great Britain, during WW II.

    Winston Churchill had left the Admiralty to become Prime Minister.
    Frequently he would come down to the Admiralty basement on his way
    from #10 Downing Street, to his underground, bomb-proof bedroom. He
    made it his practice to visit the Officer in Charge for up-to-date

    Intelligence and then stroll into the Duty Captain’s room where there was a
    small bar from which he sometimes indulged in a night-cap, along with his
    ever-present cigar.

    On this particular night there had been a heavy raid on Rotterdam.
    He sat there, meditating, and then, as if to himself, he said, “Unrestricted
    submarine warfare, unrestricted air bombing ~ this is total war.” He
    continued sitting there, gazing at a large map, and then said, “Time and the
    Ocean and some guiding star and High Cabal have made us what we are.”

    This was a most memorable scene and a revelation of reality that is
    infrequent, at best. If for the great Winston Churchill, there is a “High
    Cabal” that has made us what we are, our definition is complete. Who
    could know better than Churchill himself during the darkest days of World
    War EE, that there exists, beyond doubt, an international High Cabal? This
    was true then. It is true today, especially in these times of the One World
    Order. This all-powerful group has remained superior because it had
    learned the value of anonymity. For them, the Secret Team and its
    professionals operate.

    We may wish to note that in a book “Gentleman Spy, the Life of
    Allen Dulles” the author, Peter Grose cites Allen Dulles response to an
    invitation to the luncheon table from Hoover’s Secretary of State, Henry L.
    Stimson. Allen Dulles assured his partners in the Sullivan & Cromwell
    law firm, “Let it be known quietly that I am a lawyer and not a diplomat.”
    He could not have made a more characteristic and truthful statement about
    himself. He always made it clear that he did not “plan” his work, he was
    always the “lawyer” who carried out the orders of his client whether the
    President of the United States, or the President of the local bank.

    The Secret Team (ST) being described herein consists of security-
    cleared individuals in and out of government who receive secret
    intelligence data gathered by the CIA and the National Security Agency
    (NSA) and who react to those data, when it seems appropriate to them,
    with paramilitary plans and activities, e.g. training and “advising” — a not
    exactly impenetrable euphemism for such things as leading into battle and
    actual combat — Laotian tribal troops, Tibetan rebel horsemen, or
    Jordanian elite Palace Guards.

    Membership on the Team, granted on a “need-to-know” basis,
    varies with the nature and location of the problems that come to its
    attention, and its origins derive from that sometimes elite band of men
    who served with the World War II Office of Strategic Services (OSS)
    under the father of them all, General “Wild Bill” William J. Donovan, and
    in the old CIA.

    The power of the Team derives from its vast intragovernmental
    undercover infrastructure and its direct relationship with great private
    industries, mutual funds and investment houses, universities, and the news
    media, including foreign and domestic publishing houses. The Secret
    Team has very close affiliations with elements of power in more than

    three-score foreign countries and is able when it chooses to topple
    governments, to create governments, and to influence governments almost
    anywhere in the world.

    Whether or not the Secret Team had anything whatsoever to do with
    the deaths of Rafael Trujillo, Ngo Dinh Diem, Ngo Dinh Nhu, Dag
    Hammerskjold, John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther
    King, and others may never be revealed, but what is known is that the
    power of the Team is enhanced by the “cult of the gun” and by its
    sometimes brutal and always arbitrary anti-Communist flag waving, even
    when real Communism had nothing to do with the matter at hand.

    The Secret Team does not like criticism, investigation, or history
    and is always prone to see the world as divided into but two camps —
    “Them” and “Us”. Sometimes the distinction may be as little as one dot, as
    in “So. Viets” and “Soviets,” the So. Viets being our friends in Indochina,
    and the Soviets being the enemy of that period. To be a member, you don’t
    question, you don’t ask; it’s “Get on the Team” or else. One of its most
    powerful weapons in the most political and powerful capitals of the world
    is that of exclusion. To be denied the “need to know” status, like being a
    member of the Team, even though one may have all the necessary
    clearances, is to be totally blackballed and eliminated from further
    participation. Politically, if you are cut from the Team and from its
    insider’s knowledge, you are dead. In many ways and by many criteria the
    Secret Team is the inner sanctum of a new religious order.

    At the heart of the Team, of course, are a handful of top executives
    of the CIA and of the National Security Council (NSC), most notably the
    chief White House adviser to the President on foreign policy affairs.
    Around them revolves a sort of inner ring of Presidential officials,
    civilians, and military men from the Pentagon, and career professionals of
    the intelligence community. It is often quite difficult to tell exactly who
    many of these men really are, because some may wear a uniform and the
    rank of general and really be with the CIA and others may be as
    inconspicuous as the executive assistant to some Cabinet officer’s chief
    deputy. Out beyond this ring is an extensive and intricate network of
    government officials with responsibility for, or expertise in, some specific
    field that touches on national security or foreign affairs: “Think Tank”
    analysts, businessmen who travel a lot or whose businesses (e.g. import-
    export or cargo airline operations) are useful, academic experts in this or
    that technical subject or geographic region, and quite importantly, alumni
    of the intelligence community — a service from which there are no
    unconditional resignations. All true members of the Team remain in the
    power center whether in office with the incumbent administration or out of
    office with the hard-core set. They simply rotate to and from official jobs
    and the business world or the pleasant haven of academe.

    Thus, the Secret Team is not a clandestine super-planning-board or
    super-general-staff. But even more damaging to the coherent conduct of
    foreign and military affairs, it is a bewildering collection of semi-
    permanent or temporarily assembled action committees and networks that

    respond pretty much ad hoc to specific troubles and to flash-intelligence
    data inputs from various parts of the world, sometimes in ways that
    duplicate the activities of regular American missions, sometimes in ways
    that undermine those activities, and very often in ways that interfere with
    and muddle them. At no time did the powerful and deft hand of the Secret
    Team evidence more catalytic influence than in the events of those final
    ninety days of 1963, which the “Pentagon Papers” were supposed to have

    The New York Times shocked the world on Sunday, June 13, 1971,
    with the publication of the first elements of the Pentagon Papers. JH The
    first document the Times selected to print was a trip report on the situation
    in Saigon, credited to the Secretary of Defense, Robert S. McNamara, and
    dated December 21, 1963. This was the first such report on the situation in
    Indochina to be submitted to President Lyndon B. Johnson. It came less
    than thirty days after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and
    less than sixty days after the assassinations of President Ngo Dinh Diem
    of South Vietnam and his brother and counselor Ngo Dinh Nhu.

    Whether from some inner wisdom or real prescience or merely
    simple random selection, the Times chose to publish first from among the
    three thousand pages of analysis and four thousand pages of official
    documents that had come into its hands that report which may stand out in
    history as one of the key documents affecting national policy in the past
    quarter-century — not so much for what it said as for what it signified.
    This report is a prime example of how the Secret Team, which has gained
    so much control over the vital foreign and political activities of this
    government, functions.

    Most observers might have expected that the inner group of men
    who had worked so closely with President Kennedy for three years would
    have lost heart in those days following his tragic death. On the contrary,
    they burst forth, as though from strong bonds and fetters and created this
    entirely new report, thus shaping the future of the Indochina conflict.
    Their energy and their new sense of direction seemed almost to rise from
    the flame of Kennedy’s tomb in Arlington.

    During those hectic months of late summer in 1963 when the
    Kennedy Administration appeared to be frustrated and disenchanted with
    the ten-year regime of Ngo Dinh Diem in Saigon, it approved the plans for
    the military coup d’etat that would overthrow President Diem and get rid
    of his brother Nhu. The Kennedy Administration gave its support to a
    cabal of Vietnamese generals who were determined to remove the Ngos
    from power. Having gone so far as to withdraw its support of the Diem
    government and to all but openly support the coup, the Administration
    became impatient with delays and uncertainties from the generals in
    Saigon, and by late September dispatched General Maxwell D. Taylor,
    then Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), and Secretary of Defense
    McNamara to Saigon.

    Upon their return, following a brief trip, they submitted a report to

    President Kennedy, which in proper chronology was the one immediately
    preceding the remarkable one of December 21, 1963. This earlier report
    said, among other things “There is no solid evidence of the possibility of a
    successful coup, although assassination of Diem and Nhu is always a
    possibility.” The latter part of this sentence contained the substantive
    information. A coup d’etat, or assassination is never certain from the point
    of view of the planners; but whenever United States support of the
    government in power is withdrawn and a possible coup d’etat or
    assassination is not adamantly opposed, it will happen. Only three days
    after this report, on October 5, 1963, the White House cabled Ambassador
    Lodge in Saigon: “There should be… urgent covert effort … to identify
    and build contact with possible alternate leadership.” Knowledge of a
    statement such as this one made by the ostensible defenders and
    supporters of the Diem regime was all those coup planners needed to
    know. In less than one month Diem was dead, along with his brother.m

    Thus, what was considered to be a first prerequisite for a more
    favorable climate in Vietnam was fulfilled. With the Ngo family out of the
    way, President Kennedy felt that he had the option to bring the war to a
    close on his own terms or to continue pressure with covert activities such
    as had been under way for many years. Because the real authors were well
    aware of his desires, there was another most important statement in the
    McNamara-Taylor report of October 2, 1963: “It should be possible to
    withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time….” [the end of 1965]
    This statement came at a key point in time.

    Like the others, it was written by Secret Team insiders who knew
    the President’s mind and how far they could go in setting forth ideas which
    he would accept and yet be acceptable to their own plans. Reports such as
    the October 2, 1963, document were not written in Saigon and they were
    not written by the men whose names appeared on them.

    This pivotal report was written in Washington by members of the
    ST. Although it contained a lot of updated material from Saigon (some of
    which had been transmitted to Saigon verbatim for the express purpose of
    having to then re-transmitted back to Washington for inclusion in the
    report — with the all-important Saigon dateline), one may be certain that
    this report contained a skillful mixture of what the President wanted to
    hear and what its authors in Washington wanted the President to read.
    Therefore, when it included the blunt and unequivocal statement that “it
    should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time”,
    the authors, cover and undercover, were in tune with the times. They knew
    the President was favorably considering means to extricate the United
    States from Vietnam.


  6. The ST had had its day with Kennedy on the beaches of the Cuban
    Bay of Pigs. Kennedy had minutely reviewed that debacle, and from that
    time on he was ever alert for the slightest sign of any undercover operation
    that might expand and get so out of hand as to involve this country in any
    more such disasters. The Team had come a long way since that dismal
    period in April 1961, and had learned well how to use and thrive with Jack

    Kennedy, in spite of his caution. One way to do this was to be certain to
    spell things correctly — meaning hewing close to his line while retaining
    ST initiative. It is a safe bet to say that this forecast of personnel
    withdrawal by the end of 1965 was the maneuvering time they wanted and
    what Kennedy would accept, in their language, so that he too would have
    time to get re-elected and then carry out his own decisions as he had
    related them to Senator Mansfield. It appears that Kennedy felt that with
    the obstacle of the Diem regime out of the way, he would have the
    opportunity to disengage this nation from the war that he had so far been
    able to keep from becoming a runaway overt action. Up to the end of
    1963, all U.S. Army troops in South Vietnam, with the exception of a
    small number in the Military Advisory and Assistance Group (MAAG)
    and a few other such positions, were there under the operational control of
    the CIA. This was flimsy cover and it was a poor device to maintain that
    the United States was not overtly involved in military activity in
    Indochina; but the device did achieve its purpose of keeping the level of
    the war to a minimum.

    Within thirty days of the Taylor-McNamara report, Diem and his
    brother were dead. The Government of South Vietnam was in the hands of
    the popular and powerful General Duong Van “Big” Minh. Minh was a
    strong enough man to have made Vietnamization work. But within another
    thirty days President Kennedy was dead, and the Government of the
    United States was in the hands of Lyndon B. Johnson. “Big” Minh may
    have been the man Kennedy wanted in Saigon, but he did not last long
    with the new Johnson Administration. Four days after Kennedy’s death, on
    November 26, 1963, President Johnson issued an order reaffirming United
    States policy in South Vietnam and at the same time referring to the new
    Government of General Minh as a “provisional government”, presaging
    and assuring the inevitability of another change in the near future.
    President Johnson’s advisers wanted a “benevolent” military regime in
    Saigon, and they wanted one which would be more suitable than Minh’s.
    Kennedy would have had Minh rally around him a popular and strongly
    independent Vietnamese administration. After Kennedy’s death, U.S.
    policy called for leadership in Saigon which would accept continuing
    United States participation in the internal affairs of that Government.

    Less than fifteen days after the death of Kennedy, Secretary of
    Defense McNamara was on his way back to Saigon to assess the situation
    under General Minh and to report to the new President of the United
    States. This time, the McNamara report was, to quote The New York
    Times, “Laden with gloom”. His assessment laid the groundwork for the
    long haul and included decisions to step up the covert war against North
    Vietnam in early 1964 and to increase American aid to South Vietnam.
    Within ninety days the Government of “Big” Minh was eased out of office
    and replaced by the more tractable General Nguyen Khanh.

    There are those who say that because he had approved certain covert
    operations in Indochina, President Kennedy was planning to expand the
    war. It is true that accelerating cover operations is like stoking the fire; but
    we should weigh Kennedy’s actions against the fact that the United States

    had been actively involved in clandestine operations in Indochina since
    1945 as well as in other areas of the world for many years, and that these
    activities did not signify that the administration concerned had embarked
    upon a course leading to open warfare.

    The paramount condition underlying any approval for clandestine
    operations is absolute control at the top. The ST will come up with
    operational schemes all the time and will seek approval for as many as it
    believes it can get away with. The only way to cope with this is for the
    President to make it clear that there will be no covert operations without
    proper approval and that he will always be in a position to cancel or
    disapprove of any and all operations as he sees fit. Truman and
    Eisenhower knew this and practiced it. Kennedy learned it at the Bay of
    Pigs. Eisenhower had terminated major operations in Tibet, Laos, and
    Indonesia without escalating them into open war. Until his death Kennedy
    had held the line at the limited level of covert activities in Indochina, and
    American participation there was restricted to an advisory capacity. (Of
    course, we all recognize that this advisory role was, in many cases, pure

    Clandestine operations that are small and strictly controlled with a
    fixed and time-limited objective can be terminated at any time, whether
    they succeed or fail. However, clandestine operations that become large,
    that are permitted to continue and to be repeated, that become known or
    compromised — and yet still continue, as in Laos — are very dangerous and
    can lead to open hostilities and even war. Thus, when the ST proposed a
    vastly escalated covert campaign against North Vietnam in December
    1963, they were laying positive plans for the major military action that
    followed in 1965 .[31 Within thirty days after Kennedy’s death all of this
    changed drastically. In his report of December 21, 1963, McNamara
    stated: “Viet Cong progress had been great during the period since the
    coup. We also need to have major increases in both military and USOM
    (United States Operations Mission) staffs.”

    Later, he added, “Our first need would be immediate U-2 mapping
    of the whole Laos and Cambodian border, and this we are preparing to do
    on an urgent basis.” And then, “One other step we can take is to expand
    the existing limited but remarkably effective operations on the Laos side,
    the so-called Operation HARDNOSE… Plans to expand this will be
    prepared and presented for your approval in about two weeks.” And
    further, “As to the waterways, the military plans presented in Saigon were
    unsatisfactory, and a special Naval team is being sent a once from
    Honolulu to determine what more can be done.”

    Then he noted: “Plans for covert action into North Vietnam were
    prepared as we had requested and were an excellent job. . .General Krulak
    of the JCS is chairing a group that will lay out a program in the next ten
    days for your consideration.” All of these statements were evidence of
    typical, thorough ST groundwork.

    McNamara closed out this report — which was so vastly different


  7. Disclosure of JFK Assassination Records

    Disclosure of JFK Assassination Records – 1992-04-28 – Product 25784-1-DVD – House Committee Government Reform and Oversight. Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security. The House Government Operations Subcommittee on Legislation and National Affairs heard testimony on legislation that would mandate full disclosure of the federal government’s files on the investigation into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. Witnesses included movie director Oliver Stone, who directed the movie “JFK,” which renewed public interest in the Kennedy assassination. Filmed by C-SPAN. Non-commercial use only. For more information,



  8. – Bethel Park Speaker Series Dr Cyril Wecht

    Cyril Harrison Wecht is an American forensic pathologist. He has been the president of both the American Academy of Forensic Sciences and the American College of Legal Medicine, and headed the board of trustees of the American Board of Legal Medicine.



      1. Rule of Law in Ancient China: Chinese Substance or Western Function?

        At the beginning of this century, Chinese reformers borrowed the ancient substance-function distinction for a popular slogan: 中 學 為 體 西 學 為 用 Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning as the function.” This was a formula for blending Chinese and Western culture. Chinese learning is a political-moral dao and Western learning is science and technology.� China, according to this slogan, should preserve its substance of moral and political insights while using Western scientific and rational techniques.

        China and the Rule of Law



  9. A Case for Conspiracy with Dr. Cyril H. Wecht

    The Reports and Supporting
    Volumes of the House
    Select Committee on
    Assassinations and
    The Warren Commission
    Sylvia Meagher
    in collaboration with
    Gary Owens



    1. The Warren Commission’s failure to provide an index to its twenty-six volumes–if only for the future use of the FBI–was inexcusable. An index would have cost the taxpayers some money, to be sure; but the sum could not have approached one-half of one percent of what the Warren Commission had already spent. The long-term saving might have been measured in the time that the FBI could have saved in checking out future leads and rumors. The
      best that can be said in defense of the Commission is that it never dreamed that its volumes would receive such intense scrutiny over the years.

      This argument turns inside out, however, when applied to subsequent investigations. Congressional investigations could not expect their evidence to escape the scrutiny to which the Warren Commission’s evidence was subjected. Decisions that limited the accessibility of their evidence–like the continuing failure to provide indexes—were, if not cynically intentional, at least taken with a conscious understanding of the consequences. The Schweiker-Hart Senate subcommittee held no public hearings, provided no index to its slender but fascinating report, and made none of its evidence public. The House Select Committee on Assassinations did hold public hearings and did publish fourteen volumes of supporting material, but neither its report nor the supporting volumes contain any index.

      Once again, it was left for selfless private citizens–Sylvia Meagher and Gary Owens–to perform a task of essential scholarship that an official body did not see fit to provide despite its budget in excess of five and a half million dollars. The House Select Committee, in fact, specifically urged the Justice Department to pursue the investigation further. Can one seriously imagine the Justice Department staff making much headway in the fourteenvolume labyrinth without the guideposts that Meagher and Owens have provided so promptly and competently in this Master Index?

      Click to access MasterIndexJFK-AI-Meagher.pdf



      1. Insider Col L Fletcher Prouty discusses the JFK assassination and America’s clandestine history

        The medical evidence proves the Warren Report implossible. The testimony of the Parkland doctors is unequivical, A massive defect in the rear occipital parietal from a shot from the front, A small entry wound in the throat, that was opened slightly for tracheotomy by Dr Malcom Perry;


        Liked by 1 person

      2. William WhittenWrites ·just now


        Commentary by Jim Keith

        Although the mainstream media has attempted to discourage speculation that John F. Kennedy Jr., his wife Carolyn, and her sister Lauren Bessette might have been murdered, persistent questions arise. For one thing, immediately prior to his death, JFK Jr. may have strayed into highly dangerous territory when he chose to research the questionable circumstances surrounding the 1995 assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin.

        Kennedy’s George Magazine had already run a 13-page article on the possibility of a conspiracy in the death of Rabin, and his interest in the case did not stop there.

        According to Catherine Crier of Fox TV’s The Crier Report, at the time of his death JFK Jr. was planning to meet with high-ranking members of the Israeli Mossad intelligence agency to discuss information about the Rabin murder. It has been reported that Kennedy was also planning to interview other members of the Israeli intelligence community in a quest to find out who the real perpetrators were.

        Israeli journalist Barry Chamish, the author of Who Killed Yitzchak Rabin, is another person who has noted that Kennedy was treading on dangerous ground before his death: “The day it happened I wrote that JFK Jr. was doing more than any other American media figure to get to the bottom of the Rabin assassination truth.” Chamish also points out in an unpublished article a potentially salient point: that JFK Jr.’s chauffeur was an Israeli, and would have been able to place a bomb in the group’s luggage prior to takeoff.

        This would all be just a conspiracy theory if on-site accounts at the time didn’t convincingly disprove the accepted version of the crash. That version says Kennedy’s plane plummeted to its destruction because of his inexperience as a pilot, or poor visibility.

        At least three persons on Martha’s Vineyard reported seeing or hearing an explosion in the sky in the area where the aircraft was at the time. One witness, a reporter for the Martha’s Vineyard Gazette, described seeing a “big white flash in the sky.” Oddly, or perhaps not, this information of an explosion has been ignored by the major media flagships.

        More compelling evidence that a bomb destroyed the plane is the classified “Federal Bureau of Investigation Preliminary Report on the Recovery of Piper Saratoga Aircraft of John F. Kennedy, Jr.”, leaked to investigator Sherman Skolnick. Among statements in the document:

        “The recovered aircraft shows evidence of an explosive device having been glued or affixed within the tail luggage compartment.”

        “Device was apparently activated by a barometric trigger. Radio signals not ruled out.”

        “Satellite images supplied by the National Reconnaissance Office record an outbursting flash from the aircraft just prior to it going into perpendicular descent.”

        And: “Preliminary examination of the aircraft shows residue of an explosive device the Laboratory identifies as being the type used by certain foreign intelligence agencies.”

        Although the major media would like us to think so, the death of John F. Kennedy Jr., like the death of his illustrious father, is far from a ‘case closed.’



  10. Heavy Metals Give Ants a Powerful Bite
    A combination of metal atoms and natural proteins is the secret behind the super-strong jaws, claws, and stingers of some tiny animals
    A reddish orange leafcutter ant with large front mandibles on a green leaf
    Heavy metal-fortified mandibles help leafcutter ants save energy and muscle mass.

    SEPTEMBER 13, 2021 12:05PM

    Leafcutter ants use their powerful jaws to slice vegetation, scorpions rely on sharp stingers to puncture a predator’s thick skin, and spiders need strong fangs to devour their meals. New research reveals the secret behind some tiny creatures’ super-durable appendages: heavy metal atoms.

    University of Oregon physicist Robert Schofield and his colleagues examined ant teeth, spider fangs, scorpion stingers, marine worm jaws, and other arthropod appendages under a special microscope, reports Rahul Rao for Popular Science. Many of these animals are using their pinchers, teeth or stingers in life-or-death situations, when durability and strength are paramount. When scientists looked at the jaws of a leafcutter ant species called Atta cephalotes, they could see a thin, even disbursement of heavy metal atoms like zinc and copper mixed with natural proteins.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: