Willy Whitten with SATYR


Another One Bites the Dust
I have come to the conclusion that Craig McKee is a mole, in cahoots with Jim Fetzer.

See this:

Fetzer posted two comments there.They were answered by Marley Engvall:
marley engvall
April 20, 2018 at 12:24 pm
“why are you linking to junk website?”

Marley made a good response to Fetzer’s no-planes bullshit. Now McKee has deleted Marley Engvail’s reply!

Fuck Craig McKee!
Now Fetzer has posted two new comments on that thread. Both are disinformation propaganda. One is even disparaging AE911, whom Craig McKee supposedly supports. He even writes columns for them! But Craig lets Fetzer post this bullshit, and then he has no comment, no rebuttal, nothing.
McKee doesn’t even seem to be paying attention to the fucking hogwash Fetzer spews. Fetzer is trashing AE911, whom McKee claims to support, and even writes articles for them, yet he allows this putrid disinformation from Fetzer. McKee is either mind boggling stupid, or he is a willing participant in this disinformation and propaganda.



“The points adduced in this excellent review are consistent with–and in some cases reinforce–the summary overview I presented on The Brian Ruhe Show, “9/11: Who was responsible and why”, https://www.bitchute.com/video/E3YaOLqzcwzF/

. . . . . . . . . .

“A&E still touts nanothermite, after T. Mark Hightower and I demonstrated in 2011 (with 3 studies) that nanothermite cannot possibly have blown the towers apart, since it has only 1/13th the power of TNT (the international standard). A&E says something else may have been involved, but the same is true of toothpaste, which is non-explosive but could be made explosive by combining it with an explosive. To this day, A&E refuses to say what else that could have been.

And. like the Judy Wood DEW cult, A&E refuses to address WHO was responsible and WHY. I would suggest that a 9/11 research society that cannot explain HOW it was done and will not address WHO was responsible and WHY represents a limited hangout. I have laid the out in many places; see, for example, “On C-SPAN, Richard Gage leaves 9/11 Truth in a time warp”, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/09/on-c-span-richard-gage-leaves-911-truth.html

. . . . . . . . . .

“Just curious. May I ask why the last comment from Marley Engvail was removed? Thank you.”

. . . . . . . . . .

“I removed it because it did not address the content of the links posted and because it didn’t even specify which site he was claiming was “junk news” or why. Nothing about it was clear, and I did not want to begin the comments on the post with an off-topic argument about something that isn’t relevant.”


© Willy Whitten 2018



© Willy Whitten 2018

NIST Fraud:

WTC Disaster Study – The specific objectives were:
[1] Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;

NIST was mandated to “determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed” –They FAILED to do so
And they admitted it!

NIST: “We are Unable to Provide a Full Explanation of the Total Collapse”–Catherine S. Fletcher, Chief Management and Organization Division, NIST Sept. 27, 2007

“The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable. (p xxxvii/39 of Draft)”–NIST
“The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower.” BUT the “focus” of the investigation is NOT the “goal” of the investigation as stated in their own words: “Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed.”
This is spurious rhetorical sophistry in the guise of rational argumentation on the part of NIST.

NIST did not provide a full explanation as to why the WTC Towers collapsed. NIST modeled their CGI cartoons to the point that the building was “poised for collapse”, and left it at that, a glaring example of circular reasoning.
This is scientific fraud and nothing less.
. . . . . .
Each tower weighed about 500,000 tons. divide that by the number of floors and we have about 5,000 tons per floor.
Each tower had 100,000 tons of steel – divide that by number of floors, we have about 1,000 tons of steel per floor.
North Tower (WTC 1) at 8:46 am, impacting between the 93rd and 99th floors. Seventeen minutes later, United Airlines Flight 175 approached from the southwest, over New York Harbor, and crashed into the South Tower (WTC 2) southern facade at 9:03 am between the 77th and 85th floors at 540 miles per hour
. . . . . .
Disproving simple gravity collapse by simple math:
Each tower weighed about 500,000 tons. divide that by the number of floors and we have about 5,000 tons per floor.
North Tower (WTC 1) Planes impacted a span of 93rd and 99th floors. So the upper section would be about 16 floors. Multiply 16 x 5,000 = 80,000 tons verses 420,000 tons of remaining undamaged floors.
. . . . . . . . . .
Disproving simple gravity collapse by common sense
One can not presume that a cohesive block of intact material can exist acting as a pile driver can fall through the center of the buildings, when we can see with our own eyes that there is that amount of crushed and fragmented material blown horizontally beyond the frame of the buildings in all of the imagery available of the destruction of WTC 1&2.

I have already shown how elementary Newtonian physics precludes the possibility of a gravity driven collapse:
All progressive collapse theories defy Newtonian physics:
Newton’s third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Applying this principle to the collapse of the WTC Towers, it proves that the upper portion could only destroy the lower portion by the equal amount of the floors; That is if 12 floors are crushing the floors beneath them they can crush no more than 12 stories below. Simple physics.
What is the work done in ‘crushing’? It is smashing and destroying a material and objects. Equal and opposite crushing is crushing from above and equal crushing from below. ‘Crush up–Crush down’.
The material crushed in the interaction is equal. Therefore there is no material left to crush down after it is exhausted itself against the crush up.

Now all that is needed to fulfill my original assertion is physical proof of explosive material:
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
“We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the
destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 ˚C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.”
. . . . . .

For those who still fail to grasp Newton’s Third Law of Motion, I am going to attempt one more time to make it clear.
I will be pointing out the term “INERTIA” and why, when MOTION comes into play on an inert object, terms of description must change.

When the buildings are standing with no motion in play, they are said to be INERT. So the term used to describe the structure in this state is that the structure below is “HOLDING UP” the structure above..
When motion comes into play the structure below is now “PUSHING UP” because we are now speaking to ACTION.

Taking the North Tower as our example, having been struck by the airplane at about the 93rd floor, we will have the upper 17 stories falling down on the lower 93 floors. Because of the terms of inertia we now describe this ACTION as “PUSHING DOWN”

Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion is, for every force there is an equal and opposite force. Thus the 17 floors pushing down on the 93 floors below are met with the force of those floors pushing up against them.
According to this equation of 17 to 93, only 17 floors of that 93 could be crushed in an equal and opposite reaction, leaving 76 intact floors standing.

The same principles would apply to the South Tower.
A total global collapse of either tower would have been impossible.
. . . . . .
The Missing Jolt
Now, so far in my exposition of the simple physics of the WTC towers destruction, I have shown that if once initiated, the tower collapse would be arrested at a specific point due to Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion.
At this point I am going to address the insurmountable problem of the assertion of a gravity driven collapse; that being the lack off proof of INITIATION in the first place.
I had begun my critique of the official collapse scenario with what I call the ‘NIST Fraud’, wherein I show that NIST asserts collapse initiation without proof of such.

I will begin here with the analogy often given by NIST supporters of a hammer being dropped on a plate of glass. In that simple analogy it is asserted that a hammer dropped from some unspecified distance above a plate of glass, that it is obvious that the hammer would shatter the glass.
The insurmountable problem with this assertion is that at the point of impact there would be a sudden jolt as the hammer hits the surface of the glass.

This problem is insurmountable because the collapse curve calculated for the collapse reveals no sudden jolt.

I will now turn to the April 22, 2009 paper by Graeme MacQueen & Tony Szamboti titled ‘The Missing Jolt:
A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis
The paper begins with:
“In this paper we will, concentrating on the North Tower, offer a refutation that is:
• easy to understand but reasonably precise
• capable of being stated briefly
• verifiable by any reader with average computer skills and a grasp of simple mathematics.

As the paper notes: “The rigidity of the upper block of stories is crucial to this explanation. If the upper block were to break, disintegrate or flow on impact it would certainly not threaten the 92 intact floors beneath it.”

The Necessary Jolt:

“As Bazant has said, when the top part fell and struck the stories beneath it, there had to be apowerful jolt. While a jolt entails acceleration of the impacted object it requires deceleration of the impacting object. Even a hammer hitting a nail decelerates, and if the hammer is striking a strong, rigid body fixed to the earth its deceleration will be abrupt and dramatic…
Testing for Deceleration:
If a jolt occurred there would have been high short-term deceleration of the upper block. Why not simply check for this deceleration? It is not difficult. We will:

• examine a video clip of the North Tower’s collapse
• find a point on the upper block of the North Tower, the progress of which can be
observed and measured in the early stages of the collapse
• plot the progress of this point on a graph
• check for evidence of deceleration
We have shown the curve starting upward again after the impact, on the generous assumption that the impacting object (the upper block) is now free to accelerate. We have also only charted what the effect on the velocity would have been for an initiating impulse between the first two floors to collide.
The measurements of the roof’s actual fall do not show any abrupt negative change in velocity,
so it appears that there was no impulse and thus no amplified load. It seems that Dr. Bazant was simply theorizing that there had to be one to make sense of the collapse in a natural way. It is also important to note here that Dr. Bazant was off by a factor of ten in his calculation of the stiffness of the columns, with his 71 GN/m estimate. [8] The actual stiffness, calculated here using the actual column cross sections, is approximately 7.1 GN/m. (see Appendices B and C) [19][20] This error caused Dr. Bazant to significantly overestimate the potential amplifying effect of the impulse or jolt, which he claims occurred after a one story fall of the upper block…

We have tracked the fall of the roof of the North Tower through 114.4 feet, (approximately 9 stories) and we have found that it did not suffer severe and sudden impact or abrupt deceleration. There was no jolt. Thus there could not have been any amplified load. In the absence of an amplified load there is no mechanism to explain the collapse of the lower portion of the building, which was undamaged by fire. The collapse hypothesis of Bazant and the authors of the NIST report has not withstood scrutiny.”

Read entire paper:
. . . . . .
~Willy Whitten 3/4/2018


This is an addendum to my first essay on the Moon Hoax and the dunderheads that think the Apollo Missions were faked. I am posting this because I still get questions put to me by Internet posters seeking my perspective.

The first essay and commentary can be found at this URL:

I will begin with the issue of the Van Allen Belts, and the confusion as to the misunderstanding of new Project Orion.

NASA Readies for Major Orion Milestones in 2017
From the beginning of assembly work on the Orion crew module at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida to testing a range of the spacecraft systems, engineers made headway in 2016 in advance of the spacecraft’s 2018 mission beyond the moon. A look at the important milestones that lie ahead in the next year give a glimpse into how NASA is pressing ahead to develop, build, test and fly the spacecraft that will enable human missions far into deep space.

Orion Power On

The NASA and Lockheed Martin team at Kennedy spent much of 2016 integrating structural elements into the spacecraft, and then began incorporating critical systems such as avionics components and propulsion tubing. In the spring of 2017, computers in the Orion crew module for the spacecraft’s first mission with NASA’s Space Launch System will be turned on for the first time to verify the spacecraft can route power and send commands. It’s an essential integrated test that will verify Orion’s systems are connected and responding as planned.

Service Module Arrival Stateside

The European-built service module for Orion, which will propel and power it in space, is an essential component of the spacecraft and extends NASA’s international collaboration with ESA in human spaceflight into deep space. The service module for Orion’s upcoming flight will be shipped to Kennedy, after structural and systems work is completed at the facility of ESA contractor Airbus Defence & Space in Bremen, Germany.

Stacking Up

Orion’s heat shield will be secured onto the crew module in the summer, and the crew and service modules will subsequently be stacked together. Both operations are essential steps to be completed ahead of the early 2018 shipment of the entire stack to NASA Glenn’s Plum Brook Station in Ohio, where the craft will be put through a series of tests to ensure it is ready for the dynamics of launch and the harsh environment of deep space flight.

Construction Begins on First Orion for Crew

While the Orion outfitting and assembly process for the first mission of the spacecraft atop the Space Launch System rocket continues in 2017, construction will also begin on the vehicle for the first Orion flight with astronauts that will fly as early as 2021. The first panels of the crew module pressure vessel for that mission are expected to arrive at NASA’s Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans in the spring, when weld operations will begin.
. . . . . . . . . .
NASA ‘Admitted To Apollo Hoax’ In Orion Video, Say Obviously Mistaken Conspiracy Theorists

A NASA video designed to promote the Orion space craft has accidentally whipped up Moon Landing Hoax theorists into a frenzy.

Which is a shame. Because the ‘Orion: Trial By Fire’ video is actually an interesting, if brief introduction into the test flights.

Presented by NASA engineer Kelly Smith, the video contains insights into how Orion might help humans get to Mars and how its systems are designed to cope with the difficulties of travelling in deep space.

But it also describes how the capsule will be lifted from an initial orbiting trajectory of around 100 miles above Earth, to more than 3,600 miles before the end of the mission.

And therein lies the issue. Because the aim of this test is to send Orion through the Van Allen belt — a thick ribbon of dense radioactive particles caused by the magnetic field of Earth which could be dangerous to human travellers.

“Radiation like this could harm the guidance systems, on-board computers or other electronics on Orion,” Smith says. “Shielding will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation… We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space.”

Aha! And that’s where the conspiracy theorists jump in. Because surely, they argue, NASA already sent people through this region for the Apollo missions to the Moon in the 1960s and 1970s?

Another adds: “Didn’t NASA go to the moon? With very little shielding? Aren’t you guys basically saying you didn’t land on the moon? ”
Yet another (there are lots of these people) says: “If the moon missions were real, then it seems the whole “punching through the Van Allen belt” problem should have been solved over 40 years ago.”
So? So, so? Can NASA explain that?

Yes. Yes they can.

The answer, simply, and which has been explained in detail elsewhere, is that the Apollo astronauts were not in the Van Allen belt for long enough to have to deal with dangerous levels of exposure to radiation.

The Apollo astronauts did return to Earth having been exposed to significant radiation – but not more than is allowed by US law for workers at nuclear power stations, for instance.

So what’s different with Orion EFT-1? Put simply, two things: equipment and time.
First, Orion contains much more complex and complicated electronic equipment than the Apollo systems, which could potentially be damaged by radiation and so has to be tested before humans are allowed to fly inside it.

Second, Orion isn’t just intended to go through the Van Allen belt and back in a few short days. It’s designed for missions up to 21 days long, and perhaps even longer if it forms part of a mission to Mars. As a result it would face exposure to vast amounts of radiation in space, for months on end, and so testing its shields and how much radiation gets through.

In a Q&A NASA said:

“Traveling 15 times farther into space than the International Space Station will take Orion beyond the radiation protection offered by Earth’s atmosphere and magnetic field. In fact, the majority of EFT-1 will take place inside the Van Allen Belts, clouds of heavy radiation that surround Earth.
No spacecraft built for humans has passed through the Van Allen Belts since the Apollo missions, and even those only passed through the belts – they didn’t linger.

Future crews don’t plan to spend more time than necessary inside the Van Allen Belts, either, but long missions to deep space will expose them to more radiation than astronauts have ever dealt with before. EFT-1’s extended stay in the Van Allen Belts offers a unique opportunity to see how Orion’s shielding will hold up to it. Sensors will record the peak radiation seen during the flight, as well as radiation levels throughout the flight, which can be mapped back to geographic hot spots.”

. . . . . . . . . .
For information on the real science of the Apollo Missions see:
Moon Base Clavius is an organization of amateurs and professionals devoted to the Apollo program and its manned exploration of the moon. Our special mission is to debunk the so-called conspiracy theories that state such a landing may never have occurred.

This site is named after the Clavius Moon Base in Arthur C. Clarke’s novel 2001: A Space Odyssey, and visualized by Stanley Kubrick in the film of the same name.



© Willy Whitten 2017


> The perpetrators of the events of September 11,2001 are ruthless psychopaths

> Several agendas Intelligence-Military-Industrial are served by the events of 9/11

> The use of secret teams from members of the Intelligence-Military-Industrial complex are drawn on to carry out certain specific tasks, intellectual operational & planning. These teams are experts in various fields and can best be characterized as specialists in Black Ops (covert operations).
A good overview of this concept is given in ‘THE SECRET TEAM’ by Col Fletcher Prouty.

>This psychological operation is an ongoing enterprise establishing a permanent ongoing war of terror and aggression by the perpetrators. This aggression is manifest both overseas, and domestically as oppression and totalitarian domination.


The central impetus of the 9/11 operation is a simple insurance scam by the Silverstein Group that was organized by the combined efforts of the military industrial agendas of both the United States and Israel.
There are compelling reasons to surmise that the company CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS Inc. was contracted to assess and design a plan for the demolitions of the World Trade Center complex. It can be further postulated that this demolition company did not actually carry out the process of preparing the buildings for destruction, and that this operation was carried out by covert military demolition teams of primarily Israeli origin. These teams modified the original plan by CD Inc in such a way as to give the appearance that the building’s collapses initiated at the points of aircraft impacts, thus giving the visual impression that the air crashes were the initial cause of the building collapses. This was a slight of hand diversion tactic and central to the psychological trauma meant to result from this burlesque magic act.
* * * * * *
BEFORE getting down to brass tacks, I want to give a short accounting of my own experience on September 11, 2001 that now follows:
I knew as soon as I saw a tower collapse on television that it was an explosive demolition. I mean, the towers explode with the force of a volcano! I had been suspicious from the early morning hours when I saw that tapeloop of the jet hitting over and over again projected behind the TV announcer, that it really looked to be what is referred to as “psychic jamming” a form of traumatic programming developed by Dr Ewing Cameron, one of the MKUltra psychiatrists. I was in Tarzana CA that morning for a job interview at Stan Winston Studios (I was a special effects artist for some 20 years) I saw the plane hit sequence in the little continental breakfast area of the motel I had stayed in. The sound on the TV wasn’t on, and after a few rounds of the plane hitting I said out loud. “wow what the fuck is going on?” there was a guy looking at a map or something sitting at a table next to me. He said. “Oh didn’t your hear? An airplane hit the World Trade Towers in New York!”

Boy shit howdy! before I even heard about the mandated landings of all the aircraft, I thought to myself that I had better get back up to San Diego before martial law was announce. Of course at that time nobody knew if the attacks were going to continue or for how long. I don’t know if you are familiar with FWY traffic in So Cal, but it can be bumper to bumper from LA to SD. It certainly had been when I drove up to LA the night before, and that was near midnight.

It was like the Twilight Zone on the drive back. There wasn’t a single car on the road! I saw one car pass coming the other way in Orange County. It was the weirdest drive I ever had…on one of the weirdest days I had ever experienced. I listened to the radio all the way back home. Another thing hit me about that. On every channel, the same cast of commentators the usual suspects) had been recruited to talk on air. And it was like they were all reading from the same script. Already it was “Osama bin Laden”…”al Qaeda” like a singsong chorus. Ha! I was pretty sure from that that it most certainly was not bin Laden…

I got home in time to pull my wife’s old portable TV out of the closet and take it upstairs to my studio. I set that up and fired up the computer…the net was humming with weird stories already…and of course the TV was glued to the scene at the towers.
Anyway after digging as deep as I could into the events, I found that my sense of things when I first saw the tower blow up on TV was right.
Of course the debunkers would say I have “confirmation bias”… well everybody can be accused of confirmation bias until they make their case and prove their position. I am convinced that 9/11 was and continues to be a PSYOP by the National Security State. The same state that killed Kennedy in a coup d’etat in 1963.

I will begin with the destruction of the World Trade Center

No building exhibiting all the characteristics of controlled demolition has ever not been a controlled demolition.”~David Ray Griffin



There are ‘Signature Effects’ to physical phenomena, and forensic science is put to analyzing the signature of specific characteristics to determine the cause and effects of events.

Explosive demolitions of structures have a known set of specific characteristics, and a set of these were in full display in the destruction of the World Trade Towers. It is pure pretense and conjecture to propose any other mechanism would duplicate and mimic these very specific signature characteristics.

10 Signature Characteristics of a Controlled Demolition:

1. Each collapse occurred at virtually free fall speed;

2. Each building collapsed straight down, for the most part onto its own footprint;

3. Virtually all the concrete was turned into particulates and dust;

4. In the case of the Twin Towers, heavy material was blown out horizontally for 200 feet or more;

5. The collapses were total, leaving no steel columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air;

6. Videos of the collapses reveal “demolition waves”, meaning “confluent rows of small explosions”;

7. Most of the steel beams and columns came down in sections that were no more than 30 feet long;

8. According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings;

9. Each collapse was associated with detectable seismic vibrations (suggestive of underground explosions);

10. Each collapse produced molten steel (which would be produced by explosives), resulting in “hot spots” that remained for months.

[+] The combined points of evidence and deductive analysis thereof is then adduced as “Ultimate Fact”.

Ultimate Fact

[=] The combined evidence of the destruction of the towers is shown conclusively and beyond a reasonable doubt to be the result of a chemical-explosive controlled demolition .

[Full Definition of ULTIMATE FACT: “a basic fact essential to maintain a cause of action or to establish a defense thereto as distinguished from the subsidiary individual facts that are offered in evidence as tending to prove a basic fact”]


A forensic study of the physical evidence, as much or little as there is known of in the public realm, as well as analysis of what the ‘government’ has revealed as can be determined in the text and subtext.
* * * * * * * * * *
Plausibility of 9/11 Aircraft Attacks Generated by GPS-Guided Aircraft Autopilot Systems
Aidan Monaghan (B.Sc., EET)

U.S. federal government and civil aviation industry
publications describe the development and
implementation pre-September 11, 2001, of state-ofthe-art
systems capable of facilitating precise
automated navigation of the Boeing 757 and 767
aircraft used that day to a given destination. The
Global Positioning System (GPS) is a space-based
radio-navigation system that generates accurate
positioning, navigation and timing information for
civil use at no cost. The information signal can be
obtained through the use of GPS signal receiving
Augmented GPS signal service intended to replace
dated and expensive ground-based aviation
navigation signals, was developed during the mid-tolate
1990s by the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) and Raytheon. Serving on Raytheon’s Special
Advisory Board was “Project for the New American
Century” signatory Richard Armitage, although it is
unknown precisely when he served in this capacity.2
Known as the Wide Area Augmentation System
(WAAS), precisely surveyed ground-based Widearea
Reference Stations monitor and collect GPS
satellite signal errors. Ground-based Wide-area
Master Stations then transmit corrected GPS signal
information to ground-based Ground Uplink Stations
that then transmit the corrected GPS signal
information to Geostationary Satellites. These
satellites then broadcast the corrected positional
information back to Earth for use within a GPS-like
On May 1, 2000, just 16 months prior September 11,
2001, President Clinton announced that intentionally
embedded position and timing errors in GPS data
(Selective Availability or SA) would end. SA was
implemented to deter abuse of GPS in the national
security interest.4 The FAA later announced on
August 24, 2000, just 13 months prior to the
September 11, 2001 attacks, that the WAAS signal
was available pending final approval by the FAA.
Horizontal and vertical positional data accurate to
between one to three meters and sufficient for
Category I precision aircraft runway approaches, was
now available throughout the contiguous United
States.5 6 Normal GPS service only provides
placement accuracy to within 100 meters.
Conventional en route aviation navigation beacon
signals were only able to provide placement
information accurate to within one mile.7 Raytheon’s
director of satellite navigation systems reported that
rescue personnel utilized the newly activated WAAS
signal, in order to precisely survey the Ground Zero
site following the September 11, 2001 terrorist
Read the whole article at:

Dov Zakheim and the 9/11 Conspiracy
In a document called “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century” published by The American Enterprise’s “Project for a New American Century”(1), System Planning Corporation (SPC) International executive, Dov Zakheim, called for “some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor” being necessary to foster the frame of mind needed for the American public to support a war in the Middle East that would politically and culturally reshape the region. A respected and established voice in the intelligence community, his views were eagerly accepted, and Dov went from his position at Systems Planning Corporation to become the Comptroller of the Pentagon in May 2001. (2)
Perhaps not so coincidentally, it was an SPC subsidiary, TRIDATA CORPORATION, that oversaw the investigation after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.
SPC, according to their official website, specializes in many areas of defense technology production and manufacture, including a system developed by their Radar Physics Group called the Flight Termination System, or FTS.(3) This is a system used to destroy target drones (craft that would be fired on by test aircraft or weaponry) in the event of malfunction or “misses”. This highly sophisticated war-game technology allows the control of several ‘drones’ from a remote location, on varying frequencies, and has a range of several hundred miles. This technology can be used on many different types of aircraft, including large passenger jets.
According to the SPC website (4), a recent customer at that time was Eglin AFB, located in Florida. Eglin is very near another Air Force base in Florida-MacDill AFB, where Dov Zakheim contracted to send at least 32 Boeing 767 aircraft, as part of the Boeing /Pentagon tanker lease agreement.(5) As the events of September 11, 2001 occurred, little was mentioned about these strange connections, and the possible motives and proximity of Dov Zakheim and his group. Since there was little physical evidence remaining after the events, investigators were left only with photographic and anecdotal evidence.

[ROUGH DRAFT 12/30/201


This is another in my series of blog essays concerning disinformation, disinformants and propaganda now in a viral state on the Internet.
I began this project back when I had my first WordPress blog; HybridRogue1blog, and have continued with this new blog under the present name.
These essays are primarily concerned with two topics which fall under the general heading of ‘Conspiracy Theories’; the JFK Assassination, and the PSYOP on 9/11.
The terms used when dealing with such issues are; ‘Trolls’, ‘Stooges’, ‘Shills’, ‘Moles’, ‘Disinformants’, ‘Cognitive Infiltrators’ & ‘State Propagandists’
These are distinct from organized public propaganda as in mainstream media, and other governmental mouthpieces. The disinformation I speak to in this article is that spread by seemingly individual commentators who have the profile or MO of a state propagandist, and display all of the characteristics of agents of cognitive infiltration as defined by Cass Sunstein in his book, CONSPIRACY THEORIES.

I will give the URL addresses to my previous essays at the end of this introduction. First I want to introduce you to an Internet Shill, I recently encountered on a YouTube forum who goes by the gravitar of Cantonear1968. Like most of these disinformants he or she is an anonymous entity with no background information available. He or she uses all of the methods and techniques of the classic Internet Shill, including disingenuous spurious rhetorical sophistry, prevarication, hand-waving, appeals to authority, appeals to argumentum ad populum, etc.
The exchange between this shill and I took place over the last couple of weeks on the YouTube channel of one Myles Power, a propagandist paid by BBC to produce a series of videos titled,’Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, a 7 part series that is really quite juvenile and transparent in its appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Here is the final exchange between Cantonear and myself which took place just last evening:

Fragment from one comment;
“Lastly, and this is where my head really starts to hurt at the stupidity: in absolutely no case is nanothermite an explosive. It is an incendiary. It does not explode. It burns. Any paper you plan on referencing shows it as an ignitor for explosives. Not an explosive. And I gave you several scientific errors in the Harrit/Jones paper that you never acknowledged or refuted. You’ve proven nothing.”
. . . . .
My Response;
FALSE, nanothermite is certainly an explosive. (followed by 2 sources with short examples from each. I then posted a second post just after that with two more sources with a bit longer examples from each)

cantonear1968 replied with:
“I saw 2 references Willy. So one of your posts must not have shown up.

And nanoenergetics doesn’t mean nanothermite. And it doesn’t mean nanothermite is an explosive.

You need to read your tl:dr’s yourself Willy. Or have someone explain them to you.”
. . . . . .
[tl;dr means; “Too long; didn’t read.”]

These are the four sources I referred to:

I did not post the following, which should be the first source used to get a general definition of a topic:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
‘Nano-thermite or super-thermite is a metastable intermolecular composite (MICs) characterized by a particle size of its main constituents, a metal and a metal oxide, under 100 nanometers. This allows for high and customizable reaction rates. Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale. MICs, including nano-thermitic materials, are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use, as well as for general applications involving propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.

What distinguishes MICs from traditional thermites is that the oxidizer and a reducing agent, normally iron oxide and aluminium, are in the form of extremely fine powders (nanoparticles). This dramatically increases the reactivity relative to micrometre-sized powder thermite. As the mass transport mechanisms that slow down the burning rates of traditional thermites are not so important at these scales, the reaction proceeds much more quickly.’
Short definition of terms

Troll’ a troll is any poster who has the goal of disrupting a discussion, they usually have no more agenda than to be noticed and to insult people just for the fun of it,

Stooge’,& ‘Shill’ refers to the paid disinformants,Cognitive Infiltrators & State Propagandists, with a serious agenda to disrupt a discussion and insert reinforcement of the official narrative of the state. They all have the same general MO, and seem to use prescripted dialogs from the ‘Stooge Playbook 101’.
All of their words are familiar catch phrases; which are obvious to the veteran researcher who are trying to spread genuine information that has come out about the events we are discussing herein.

Mole‘ refers to a government agent that has infiltrated a movement and poses as a member, while disseminating similar messages as the original group, but veering off into wilder and wilder theories and preposterous explanations for the events being discussed. The agenda is to fragment the movement and make the original members of the movement look foolish because they are assumed to agree with the absurd notions of the mole by others. Moles will often work in conjunction with shills and stooges in silent undisclosed agreements.

Other essays on this topic can be found at the following URLs:

I will be discussing these issues further in the comments section below.

Willy Whitten 12/22/2017


The Shamans of Scientism

Michael Shermer – June 2002

What is it about Hawking that draws us to him as a scientific saint? He is, I believe, the embodiment of a larger social phenomenon known as scientism. Scientism is a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science.

Scientism’s voice can best be heard through a literary genre for both lay readers and professionals that includes the works of such scientists as Carl Sagan, E. O. Wilson, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins and Jared Diamond. Scientism is a bridge spanning the abyss between what physicist C. P. Snow famously called the “two cultures” of science and the arts/humanities (neither encampment being able to communicate with the other). Scientism has generated a new literati and intelligentsia passionately concerned with the profound philosophical, ideological and theological implications of scientific discoveries.

. . . . . . . .

First, cosmology and evolutionary theory ask the ultimate origin questions that have traditionally been the province of religion and theology. Scientism is courageously proffering naturalistic answers that supplant supernaturalistic ones and in the process is providing spiritual sustenance for those whose needs are not being met by these ancient cultural traditions. Second, we are, at base, a socially hierarchical primate species. We show deference to our leaders, pay respect to our elders and follow the dictates of our shamans; this being the Age of Science, it is scientism’s
shamans who command our veneration. Third, because of language we are also storytelling, mythmaking primates, with scientism as the foundational stratum of our story and scientists as the premier mythmakers of our time.



This is a most revealing article by this “epitome of skepticism”, who in fact is a shining example of a ‘shaman of scientism’.

I have studied Shermer for several years, and tested his theories on ‘Conspiracy Theory’. Shermer makes gross generalisms on this topic, and has no real rational arguments on the top so-called “conspiracy theory” of our era, that being the events called 9/11.

Shermer is one of these pseudo-skeptics who use specious rhetorical sophistry in the guise of reasonable and rational debate, his main argument is appeal to authority. He pretends to a level of understanding the facts of the events of 9/11 that he has clearly not achieved. He has stated outright falsehoods as though they were actually facts. Shermer claims that the alleged 9/11 hijackers were effectively invisible to the Intelligence community before the attacks. But the so-called “19 hijackers” were far from “invisible” they were tracked by intelligence services for years. Many of them were found to be living in the US with people connected to intelligence. Able Danger had photos of Mohamed Atta, and knew of all of his movements and connections. The government shutdown that operation and destroyed some thousands of terabytes of information, and persecuted the head of the operation; Lt. Colonel Anthony Shaffer and revoked his security clearance and put a gag order on him so that he could not testify in hearings regarding Able Danger. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger https://youtu.be/WRqxhwbrKzs?t=2602

Shermer claims that it would be impossible for the government to keep such a large operation secret if they were in fact the perpetrators as has been charged by the critics of the official narrative. However the Manhattan Project, involving armies of scientists and engineers was kept secret for YEARS, and no one came forward to reveal its existence. Why? They were sworn to secrecy, the project was run on a need to know basis. This is the way the military and government operates. Shermer cherrypicks his facts and examples just like he accuses the Truth Movement of doing. Shermer is an outrageous prevaricator and agent provocateur. He is no “skeptic”, he is a mouthpiece for the state, a propagandist. Anyone who has actually investigate 9/11 knows this.

Shermer seems to want to pretend that there is no US National Security State; that there is no such thing as the ‘State Secrets Act’, that CIA is an agency instituted on the techniques of covert action, deceit, murder (euphemistically termed “Executive Action”), the infiltration and overthrow of governments; governments which historically been democratic in nature and have duly elected leaders, which have been murdered by coups financed and directed by CIA. Shermer purposely ignores this history and speaks to the body politic of the United States as though it were actually an open and free society. He ignores that the truth of the matter is that the US is a panoptic maximum security state, that experienced a coup d’etat in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963 with the murder of John F. Kennedy. Shermer calls this proven proposition a “conspiracy theory’ despite the penumbra of evidence that has been revealed in the half century since the coup.

This page of Willy Whitten Blog, is dedicated to investigating the claims of so-called “skeptics” such as Shermer, and pointing out the errors of their specious arguments, while providing the actual facts that they have summarily dismissed, or misrepresented with false argumentation and outright disinformation.

~Willy Whitten, 12/23/2017



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)

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

The range of motion from the acromion to the mastoid process when leaning the head sideways and lifting the shoulder can shorten the distance by as much as 70 %. These are not “fixed anatomical landmarks” by any stretch of the term.
However the vertebrae are fixed anatomical landmarks.

9.2.4 Special Wound Ballistics of the Head -Krager

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.


Kneubeuel (Editor), Coupland, Rothschild, Thali

Ballistics is the science of bodies in flight, encompassing the physical phenomena
involved and the movement of the projectile. It is divided into a number of areas,
based on where the projectile is.
Interior ballistics is the study of the acceleration of the bullet in the weapon
and the related processes. The domain of interior ballistics ends where the bullet
leaves the barrel. However, the weapon can continue to influence the flight of the
bullet even after this point, e.g. through oscillations or via the gases that follow
and overtake the bullet. This phase of the bullet’s motion is known as intermediate
Between the moment at which the bullet escapes the influence of the weapon
and the moment at which it strikes its target, the bullet obeys the laws of exterior
ballistics. This part of ballistics involves determining the changes over time and
space of the trajectory of the bullet, its velocity and the movements it describes
about its centre of gravity, taking into account all the forces acting upon it.
The study of the phenomena occurring when a bullet strikes and penetrates an
object is termed terminal ballistics. If the object is a person or an animal, we
speak of wound ballistics.
Interior, intermediate and exterior ballistics can all affect wound ballistics, depending
on the distance between muzzle and target. The structure of the bullet and
certain aspects of the weapon may also play a role. As a result, one can only understand
what happens to a bullet in a living being if one has a basic understanding
of the physics involved (mechanics, thermodynamics and fluid dynamics), of
ballistics and of arms and ammunition. We shall cover these aspects in Chapter 2.
Chapter 3 – General wound ballistics – examines the phenomenon of the
wound channel, describes simple physical models of velocity and energy over
time and distance and provides an overview of the simulants generally used in
wound ballistics.


Sherry Fiester – ENEMY OF THE TRUTH

Like many people, I believed that President Kennedy’s fatal head shot came from the grassy Knoll. I had been to Dealey Plaza and stood behind that within wooden fence. For 35 years witnesses and researchers had pointed to the grassy Knoll as the location for that shooter. I like them believe that the fatal shot came from the right front of the president. The problem was. I was confused about where front was located. In 2003, I completed a trajectory analysis to reconstruct the shooting for the fatal headshot. Using the same standard procedures Investigators use today in shooting homicides, I made a surprising discovery. I thought front was the grassy Knoll. But I like so many others was mistaken. President Kennedy is looking approximately 25° beyond profile reference to Zapruder. This means the grassy Knoll was at an approximate 90° angle to him.Front as applied to president Kennedy at the time of the headshot was actually near the South end of the triple overpass, on the opposite side of Dealey Plaza. Utilizing the trajectory analysis techniques, the grassy Knoll is excluded as a possible location for the shooter for the fatal headshot

In 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

CSI Sherry Fiester – Curriculum Vitae

Detective Lieutenant – Forensics
St. Charles Patish Sheriff’s Department
August 1995 – October 1999 (4 years 3 months)
In 1995 newly elected Sheriff Greg Champagne employed me to head his Forensic Unit. It was a wonderful opportunity to assist in the development of an investigative unit that would become regionally based and respected for their expertise.

My duties included: Supervise overall operations for Forensic Unit, Evidence Division, and License and Permits Departments; Direct, supervise and coordinate forensic investigations and personnel in the field; Develope forensic standards, protocols, training manuals, policy and procedures for meeting national individual certifications; Maintain fiscal responsibility, develop budgets and maintain inventory for three departments without budget overages; Develop and maintain computerized records management system for case activity, sex offenders database and evidence retention; Inspect facilities for emergency readiness and compliance of OSHA regulations; And develop instructional materials and conducte educational programs on state and national levels.

Detective Sargeant – Forensics
Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Department
1982 – 1993 (11 years)
In 1983 I began my career with Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Department. After three years in Patrol I transferred to the Forencis Investigation Division. I have testified as an expert in crime scene reconstruction and bloodstain pattern interpretation in Federal and local judicial districts in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida. I am published in Crime scene Investigation, Reconstruction and Blood Spatter Interpretation and has taught at state, national and international levels.

Directed, supervised and coordinated forensic investigations for multiple agencies in a 6 parish region
Trained, supervised and coordinated clerical office staff and forensic investigative personnel
Developed forensic certification standards, protocols, training manuals, policy and procedures for successfully meeting national individual certifications
Developed and maintained computerized records management system for case activity
Maintained fiscal responsibility, developed budget and maintained inventory.

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 points located on any moving object, on its components and in the immediately adjacent environment.


Bloodstain Pattern Analysis

Bloodstain pattern analysis (BPA) is one of several specialties in the field of forensic science. The use of bloodstains as evidence is not new; however, the application of modern science has brought it to a higher level. New technologies, especially advances in DNA analysis, are available for detectives and criminologists to use in solving crimes and apprehending offenders.

The science of bloodstain pattern analysis applies scientific knowledge from other fields to solve practical problems. Bloodstain pattern analysis draws on the scientific disciplines of biology, chemistry, mathematics and physics. If an analyst follows a scientific process, this applied science can produce strong, solid evidence, making it an effective tool for investigators, although care does need to be taken when relying on bloodstain pattern analysis in criminal cases. A report released by The National Academy of Sciences calls for more standardization within the field. The report highlights the ability of blood spatter analysts to overstate their qualifications and the reliability of their methods in the court room.[1]

In physics there are two continuous physical states of matter, solid and fluid. Once blood has left the body it behaves as a fluid and all physical laws apply.

Gravity acts on blood (without the body’s influence) as soon as it exits the body. Given the right circumstances blood can act according to ballistic theory.
Viscosity is the amount of internal friction in the fluid. It describes the resistance of a liquid to flow.
Surface tension is the force that maintains the shape of a drop of liquid, such as blood. When two fluids are in contact with each other (blood and air) there are forces attracting all molecules to each other.

Blood spatter flight characteristics.
Experiments with blood have shown that a drop of blood tends to form into a sphere in flight rather than the artistic teardrop shape. This is what one would expect of a fluid in freefall. The formation of the sphere is a result of surface tension that binds the molecules together.

This spherical shape of blood in flight is important for the calculation of the angle of impact (incidence) of blood spatter when it hits a surface. That angle will be used to determine the point from which the blood originated which is called the Point of Origin or more appropriately the Area of Origin.

A single spatter of blood is not enough to determine the Area of Origin at a crime scene. The determination of the angles of impact and placement of the Area of Origin should be based on the consideration of a number of stains and preferably stains from opposite sides of the pattern to create the means to triangulate.


“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


Read more:

Considering the time zones, it was between 90 minutes and 2 hours after the arrival of those fragments at the FBI labs, that Tomlinson was awakened by someone from the FBI, demanding that he “keep his mouth shut” about the bullet he found at Parkland hospital. This is from the recorded 1967 interview of Tomlinson by Ray Marcus. The interview is also documented in the HSCA records.

Tomlinson: On Friday morning about 12:30 to 1 o’clock – uh, excuse me, that’s Saturday morning – after the assassination, the FBI woke me up on the phone and told me to to keep my mouth shut.
Marcus: About the circumstances of your finding the bullet?
Tomlinson: That is (one short word, unintelligible) what I found…
Marcus: I understand exactly what you mean, when they call you, it’s pretty authoritative. But the thing is this, did they say – was there any particular thing about what they said or they just didn’t want you to talk about it period?
Tomlinson: Just don’t talk about it period.
In contrast to all of these very solid corroborations, we have 100% denial by the four men who examined the bullet that Tomlinson found, that it was CE399. Unlike many other issues related to the case, this one is not a tough call. It seems that J. Edgar Hoover agreed, because in recordings of telephone conversations between him and LBJ, he suggested that Connally was wounded because he came between the President and an assassin, and that if Connally had not come between them, JFK would have taken his bullet.

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.


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:


JFK head nod and backspatter:

Mr. STURDIVAN – “There is another section of film here, before we get to the skulls, which we forgot to mention. Perhaps we should go ahead and go through it since it is already there. This is a can of tomatoes which I think demonstrates some of the principles of physics that are involved here. The picture will be much the same as those with the skull. The bullet will be coming in from the left, will strike the can and you will see pieces of the can moving toward the right in the direction of the bullet, but you will also see pieces of the can moving in other directions.

**Notably, the top of the can will be moving back toward the left in the direction from which the bullet came.**

You notice the backsplash as the bullet has entered the left-hand side of the can. The material is beginning to move back out. This is called the backsplash of the projectile. In the next case, the bullet is still within the can and, in fact, has stopped within the can.”~Larry Sturdivan — HSCA testimony


Characterization as an entrance wound by the Parkland doctors

Here are the descriptions of the throat wound by the doctors and one nurse at Parkland hospital:
Dr. Malcolm Perry
Lifton describes the initial news accounts of the opinions of the Parkland doctors, particularly Dr. Malcolm Perry:
On November 22, 1963, millions of Americans heard radio and TV networks report that Dr. Malcolm Perry, a Dallas Physician who was with the President in the emergency room when he died, said there was a bullet entrance wound situated on the front of Kennedy’s neck.
Because Perry later changed his mind about the direction of the bullet, after receiving a visit from the Secret Service, and denied what he had originally said, Lifton goes to much effort to document Perry’s initial accounts. Here is some of that documentation:
UPI report at 3:10 p.m. CST on 11-22 (1):
Dr. Malcolm Perry, thirty-four, said “there was an entrance wound below the Adam’s apple.”
Tom Wicker with the New York Times (2):
Dr. Malcolm Perry, an attending surgeon, and Dr. Kemp Clark, chief of neurosurgery at Parkland Hospital, gave more details. Mr. Kennedy was hit by a bullet in the throat, just below the Adam’s apple, they said. This wound had the appearance of a bullet’s entry…
Dallas News reporter John Geddie (3):
Dr. Perry said, “in the lower portion of Kennedy’s neck, right in the front, there was a small puncture.”
Lifton explains why he felt confidant that Perry had not been misquoted, as he later claimed:
Another factor reinforcing my conviction that Dr. Perry had not been misquoted was his reaction to the news that the shots were all fired from a building located behind the motorcade. Faced with that fact, Dr. Perry did not change his opinion about the wound; on the contrary, he simply assumed that President Kennedy was turned toward the rear when the bullet struck… He told the Boston Globe’s medical editor, Herbert Black (4):
“It may have been that the President was looking up or sideways with his head thrown back when the bullet or bullets struck him”.
However, we know from the Zapruder film that the President’s head was in fact facing forward when the fatal bullet struck his head.
Dr. Ronald Jones
In his Warren Commission deposition, Dr. Jones explained why the doctors considered the throat wound to be an entrance wound:
The hole was very small and relatively clean-cut as you would see in a bullet that is entering rather than exiting from a patient. (5)
Many of the doctors initially thought that the throat and head wound were caused by the same bullet, entering through the throat and exiting through the back of the head. Dr. Jones explained to the Warren Commission his initial thoughts:
With no history as to the number of times that the President had been shot or knowing the direction from which he had been shot, and seeing the wound in the midline of the neck (which Jones characterized as an entrance wound in his medical report) and what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull, the only speculation that I could have as … to how this could occur with a single wound (bullet) would be that it would enter the anterior neck and possibly strike a vertebral body and then change its course and exit in the region of the posterior portion of the head… if I accounted for it (both wounds) on the basis of one shot, that would have been the way I (would have) accounted for it. (6)
Dr. Paul Peters
Dr. Peters testified at the Warren Commission Hearings (7):
We saw the wound of entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound, and it is a known fact that high velocity missiles often have a small wound of entrance and a large wound of exit…
Dr. Charles Baxter
Lifton notes that despite Arlen Specter’s aggressive efforts to get the Parkland physicians to equivocate on their characterization of the throat wound, some of them argued back against him. Dr. Baxter, for example, noted that such a wound (to have been an exit wound) would be “unusual… ordinarily there would have been a rather large wound of exit.” (8)
Dr. Charles Carrico
On the afternoon of November 22, Dr. Charles Carrico described the throat wound in his medical report as “a small penetrating wound of the ant. (front) neck in the lower 1/3”. (9)
Nurse Margaret Henchliffe
Margarette Hencliffe testified to the Warren Commission (10):
It was just a little hole in the middle of his neck… about as big around as the end of my little finger… that looked like an entrance bullet hole…
Lifton describes Ms. Henchliffe’s exchange with Arlen Specter:
When asked by Specter if it could “have been an exit bullet hole,” Nurse Henchliffe insisted that she had “never seen an exit bullet hole… that looked like that… It was just a small wound and wasn’t jagged like most of the exit bullet wounds that I have seen…”
Immediately following this exchange, attorney Specter began a series of questions designed to establish that Nurse Henchliffe did not have qualifications to render such an opinion. Nurse Henchliffe answered that her experience was limited to five years in the ER at Parkland Memorial Hospital and, more generally, her twelve years as a registered nurse. “We take care of a lot of bullet wounds down there – I don’t know how many a year,” she testified (11).
Dr. Robert McClelland
Lifton describes Dr. McClelland’s interview with Richard Dudman of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (12):
Dr. McClelland told the Post-Dispatch: “It certainly did look like an entrance wound.” He explained that a bullet from a low velocity rifle, like the one thought to have been used, characteristically makes a small entrance wound, sets up shock waves inside the body, and tears a big opening when it passes out the other side.
Dr. McClelland conceded that it was possible that the throat wound marked the exit of a bullet fired into the back of the President’s neck… “but we are familiar with bullet wounds,” he said. “We see them every day – sometimes several a day. This did appear to be an entrance wound.”
McClelland noted in the same interview, having been informed that Lee Harvey Oswald had shot the President from behind:
We postulated that if it was a wound of entry, as we thought it was… he would have to have been looking almost completely to the rear.
And McClelland testified to similar effect to the Warren Commission (13):
At the moment… it was our impression before we had any other information… that this was one bullet, that perhaps had entered through the front of the neck and then in some peculiar fashion which we really had… to strain to explain to ourselves, had coursed up the front of the vertebra and into the base of the skull and out the rear of the skull.
“Secret Service Gets Revision of Kennedy Wound”
On December 18th, a story by Richard Dudman appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, titled “Secret Service gets revision on Kennedy wound – After visit by agents, doctors say shot was from rear”. The doctors referred to in the article were Malcolm Perry and Robert McClelland. Here is an excerpt from the article:
Two Secret Service agents called last week on Dallas surgeons who attended President John F. Kennedy and obtained a reversal of their original view that the bullet in his neck entered from the front. The investigators did so by showing the surgeons a document described as an autopsy report from the US Naval Hospital at Bethesda. The surgeons changed their original view to conform with the report they were shown.

4 No. 2 © Copyright 2006 Vincent M. Palamara
Parkland Hospital

Page 7:_St. Louis Post-Dispatch`, 12/1/63—_This [the neck wound] did appear to be an entrance wound.`[another important >St. Louis Post-DispatchA article, dated 12/18/63: > Secret Service Gets Revision of Kennedy Wound-after visit by agents, doctors say shot was from rear.A-“[the Secret Service] obtained a reversal of their original view that the bullet in his neck entered from the front.
The investigators did so by showing the surgeons a document described as an autopsy report from the United States Naval Hospital at Bethesda. The surgeons changed their original view to conform with the report they were
shown.” One of the agents may very well have been SA Elmer Moore. RIF#180-10109-10310 is a 6/1/77 HSCA interview transcript of graduate
student James Gouchenaur and his 1970 conversation with Moore, who told him that he felt remorse for the way he (Moore) had badgered Dr. Perry into changing his testimony to the effect that there was not, after all, an entrance
wound in the front of the president’s neck! (see 2 H 39, 41; 6 H 36-37; and _Best Evidence`, pages 156, 166-167, 196 and 286); SEE ALSO CD 379; 3 H 363, 364 and 6 H 6, 7 (Carrico); 3 H 387 and 6 H 17 (Perry); 6 H 27 (Clark); 6 H 57 (Jones); 6 H 44 (Baxter); 6 H 50-51 (Jenkins); 6 H 63 (Bashour); 6 H 75 (Giesecke); ];


_Nova`, 11/15/88 (see still photo in _Killing The Truth`)—before AND after viewing the official photos, McClelland places his hand on the right rear area of his head where he saw the wound on JFK and speculates, “that a large flap of skin is obscuring the large wound in the official photos.”
pg. 8
Image result for Weitzman affidavit

Image result for Adm Burkley jfk death certificate

Image result for Adm Burkley jfk death certificate