"A surveyor then placed his sighting equipment at the precise point of
entry on the back of the president's neck, assuming that the President
had been struck at frame 210, and measured the angle to the end of the
muzzle of the rifle positioned where it was believed to have been held
by the assassin." (WCR 106)
The citations given for this statement, 'WC 5H 153' and 'WC 5H 137' do
NOT state that the surveyor "placed his sighting equipment at the
precise point of entry on the back of the president's neck..." Indeed,
there is no citation possible that will support this statement, since
the wound was in JFK's back, not the back of his neck. Utilizing false
citation like this to support a lie seems to be a frequent tactic of
the WC, as well as supporters of the WC (Posner comes to mind)
Indeed, CE 903,
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm which shows this same angle of declination that was measured by the
surveyor (17º 43' 30"), fails to show a path beginning at the base of
the neck. Note the string in the background, which was set to exactly
this declination.
Why did the WC simply lie about what the surveyor did? Could it be
that the Warren Commission was just trying to find more "evidence" for
their theory? By lying about that evidence?
What is clear, however, is that this is merely another example where
the Warren Commission lied...
And both Corbutt & Huckster will refuse to defend this lie...
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)