Why was there a back wound?

[Ashton Gray]

Where did the alleged dart go?

Ashton

[Ron Ecker]

The dart was designed to dissolve without a trace.

[Ashton Gray]

The dart was designed to dissolve without a trace.

We have our hands around yet another twosie: It was veteran FBI agent Sibert (of "orange-sized hole in back center of head" fame) who introduced the idea of a magic dissolving projectile—but in relation to the back wound, not the throat wound (which, by the time Sibert saw the body, had been conveniently hacked out of existence by Malcolm Perry).

It was Sibert who purportedly took a little break from the autopsy vigil to go to a phone and call HQ to inquire about a magic disappearing bullet when the back wound was probed and determined to be shallow, with no bullet having at that time been discovered.

So here we go: vast clouds of confusion over not one, but two purported magic disappearing projectiles. Let's all go on a snipe hunt, kids: there are at least two for everyone to go on chasing endlessly for the rest of their lives.

Two No-See-Ums to chase. It's not just a twosie: it's a No-See-Um twosie. It's a floor wax and a dessert topping.

The snipes are waiting.

"Run, boy! Run!" [sUNG] "In Camelot..." [/sUNG].

Ashton

Edited January 10, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Charles Black]

Hello Cliff

I do not understand why the six points which you mention at the end of your last post are not in harmony with my spectator/assassin frontal throat shot.

When a well qualified Parkland Hospital trauma staff reported an anterior throat wound, which appeared to be a bullet entry wound.....why is it being considered that they were not qualified to make this diagnosis correctly. I consider this to be "expert" testimony given within minutes of the President's death.

I have absolutely "no reason to assume" them to be mistaken because some were later admittedly pressured to alter their testimony.

Of course in 1963, they had not yet had the paranoia or the wisdom which might be derived from James Bond films.

It is apparent to me that JFK was reacting to violet throat trauma. It still makes absolutely no sense to me why this should be assumed to be anything other than a bullet wound as reported by

the only persons truly qualified to diagnose this wound.

You have departed the realm of probability when you begin to insert James Bond "could have happened" possibilities. Many things seem possible, merely because it is impossible to "prove" the negative of the issue.

I prefer to stick to the probable as was reported on the afternoon of 11/22/63 by the persons whose profession it was "TO KNOW"......not to guess at things that could be possible.

You may of course continue to believe whatever you wish. If you were to propose that the assassination was carried out by 132 aliens from an out of galaxy planet.....I could not PROVE you wrong.

Since none of us can possibly truly know the answer, I have chosen to accept what I personally

believe to be the "most likely".

Charlie Black

[Ashton Gray]

At this point in this discussion I am going to point out several facts that I believe the majority of people engaged in these pursuits and these discussions can agree on:

1. John Connally inarguably was shot in the back, and the bullet took a somewhat downward trajectory while passing through his torso.
   
2. John F. Kennedy inarguably was shot in the back, and the bullet took a somewhat downward path into his torso.
   
3. Therefore, there inarguably was a shooter somewhere behind the motorcade in a somewhat elevated position.
   

Anyone who wants to argue these points will argue them with someone else. I believe these facts above have a very high degree of consistency of evidence, and therefore approach a very high relative certainty.

It is my informed belief that the path to truth is paved with certainties. In the matter of shooters and locations, the above are very solid pavestones of certainty.

All other extant theories I am aware of concerning postulated locations of shooters are uncertainties based on little or no physical evidence—and some of these theories are wild indeed.

Of course anyone is fully within their right to chase as many uncertainties as long and as far as they want, and I wouldn't wish to dissuade them. But for me, I will pave my path with as many certainties as I can find and establish, and it's my experience that such a path leads to more certainties.

Ashton

Edited January 10, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Charles Black]

Ashton

Some nice writing but you should practice reading!

You distorted my position. I am not going to spend much time with this, but you idiocized (new word) my speculation.

I will again explaine to you the " HOW "!

The handgun was sound supressed (therefore very little noise)...it was concealed in a "real world" manner such as a camera, hat, purse, magazine, hand held clothing item, newspaper, magazine....you get the idea. It would not have been seen at all, and the sound supression would have been effective enough with "firecrackers"...."missed bullets"...real shots that were not "silenced"....

motorcycle backfires, etc. happening all at the same time. This assassin had the easiest avenue of escape. He or she, blended in with the crowd. Maybe went up to explore the knoll area with the other onlookers.

This was up close and personal and with a hand held weapon.....much the same way that "successful" assassinations have been carried out which pre-date the Roman forum.

Nothing very tricky or James Bondish. Not a very "clever" scheme which utilized darts, umbrellas, paralysing agents and umbrellas. Just a very easy and simple scheme that is probably beneath the dignity of you higher intellects. We "dummies" have to "Keep It Simple" !

Charlie Black

[Jack White]

This is an interesting thread, but it is like looking at individual trees instead of the forest.

Here is how I have always looked at the wounds/shots:

1...back/neck wound(s) JFK

2...throat wound JFK

3...head wound(s) JFK

4...back chest wound JBC

5...front chest wound JBC

6...top wrist wound JBC

7...bottom wrist wound JBC

8...thigh wound JBC

9...dent in limo chrome

10...windshield bullet hole

11...bullet fragments in car

12...bullet found at hospital

13...bullet(s) found in grass

14...richochet wound to Tague

15...smoke reported by eyewitnesses

16...multiple gunshots heard by earwitnesses

17...timing/spacing/direction of shots

18...alleged weapon falsity

19...incompetent alleged gunman

Looking at the forest instead of the trees gives a clearer understanding of the

lone nut gunman/single bullet theory posed by the official story.

Could a lone gunman in the sixth floor window do all of this? No.

Jack

[Cliff Varnell]

Hello Cliff

I do not understand why the six points which you mention at the end of your last post are not in harmony with my spectator/assassin frontal throat shot.

I was under the impression your bullet track ended many inches higher in the brain.

And your scenario does not account for the metallic debris in the vicinity of T1.

And I do not find the first-shot/kill-shot approach a likely strategy.

When a well qualified Parkland Hospital trauma staff reported an anterior throat wound, which appeared to be a bullet entry wound.....why is it being considered that they were not qualified to make this diagnosis correctly. I consider this to be "expert" testimony given within minutes of the President's death.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I have absolutely "no reason to assume" them to be mistaken because some were later admittedly pressured to alter their testimony.

Of course in 1963, they had not yet had the paranoia or the wisdom which might be derived from James Bond films.

They had not yet heard the 1975 testimony of Charles Senseney, William Colby, and

Richard Helms to the effect that the CIA had a weapon that fired a round about the size

of a .22 that induced paralysis within 2 seconds.

It is apparent to me that JFK was reacting to violet throat trauma. It still makes absolutely no sense to me why this should be assumed to be anything other than a bullet wound as reported by

the only persons truly qualified to diagnose this wound.

I agree. Where we diverge is over the nature of the round and its firing position.

You have departed the realm of probability when you begin to insert James Bond "could have happened" possibilities.

I wholeheartedly disagree. I think it highly "improbable" that a conventional .22 round

struck only soft tissue and then stopped at the tip of the T1 transverse process.

The non-exiting rounds are consistent with blood soluble bullets -- as is the metallic

debris field at the point of deepest penetration of the throat wound.

CIA SPECIAL WEAPONS AND EQUIPMENT by H. Keith Melton, pg 22:

(quote on, emphasis added)

DART GUN

The dart gun is a single-shot pistol firing a .03-caliber, mass stabilized

projectile...made of iron particles and the tranquilizer M-99

formed together with a blood/water soluble bonding agent...If left in

the body, the dart dissolves and becomes unidentifiable on X-ray.

(quote off)

According to Senseney's Senate testimony the bigger the target the larger

the round, which would account for the metallic debris field showing up on

x-ray. It seems like the only probable explanation for two wounds and no

bullets, the internal damage noted at Parkland and Bethesdsa, and JFK's

paralysis many of us note in the Elm St. films/photos.

Many things seem possible, merely because it is impossible to "prove" the negative of the issue.

I prefer to stick to the probable as was reported on the afternoon of 11/22/63 by the persons whose profession it was "TO KNOW"......not to guess at things that could be possible.

The scenario I have laid out takes into account the extant first day witness testimonies,

the photographic evidence, the medical evidence, and JFK's photographed reactions to

being hit.

I'll argue that this is the ONLY scenario that accounts for every facet of the

evidence, and is well-supported by research indicating a high probability that

people connected to the CIA were involved.

You may of course continue to believe whatever you wish. If you were to propose that the assassination was carried out by 132 aliens from an out of galaxy planet.....I could not PROVE you wrong.

Since none of us can possibly truly know the answer, I have chosen to accept what I personally

believe to be the "most likely".

Charlie Black

My sentiments exactly, for the reasons I've already stated.

Edited January 11, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Ashton Gray]

I started this thread based on several certainties:

1. John Connally inarguably was shot in the back, and the bullet took a somewhat downward trajectory while passing through his torso.
   
2. John F. Kennedy inarguably was shot in the back, and the bullet took a somewhat downward path into his torso.
   
3. Therefore, there inarguably was a shooter somewhere behind the motorcade in a somewhat elevated position.
   

There are other points that I feel have a very high level of relative certainty that bear consideration for any rational and objective analysis:

• 1. No projectile penetrated John F. Kennedy's collar.
  
  2. It is impossible that there could have been a projectile wound where the tracheotomy butchery took place without there having been penetration of the collar. This is supported by eyewitness testimony stating that the small round throat wound (and I specifically do not say projectile or bullet wound) that was seen by several people inside Trauma Room One before the tracheotomy was below shirt line. A visual recreation confirms this fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
  
  

With these paving stones of certainty, it is an impossibility for there to have been a projectile wound to the throat in the indicated location.

Therefore, it becomes a very high relative certainty that the small round throat wound observed only by a few people, only in Trauma Room One, and only for a very brief time, was not a wound from a bullet or dart or any other type of projectile.

These high-level certainties are the foundation for the hypothesis that the back wound to JFK might well have been only to provide a "plausible explanation" for a small round throat wound that would only be seen for a brief period of time by a small number of people, would not be closely inspected, then have all evidence of existence almost immediately eradicated by Malcolm Perry.

Ashton Gray

Edited January 11, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Michael Crane]

Ashton,

Since it is "most likely" that a method called "soft edge matte" or I`ll say it bluntly.... one "altered" photograph (or photograph taken after the autopsy/reconstruction) is known to exist in the archives,have you considered the "possibility" of that number being higher? (blurry shirt photograph)

* I assure you that I am not trying to be a wiseguy.

Edited January 11, 2007 by Michael Crane

[Jack White]

I started this thread based on several certainties:

1. John Connally inarguably was shot in the back, and the bullet took a somewhat downward trajectory while passing through his torso.
   
2. John F. Kennedy inarguably was shot in the back, and the bullet took a somewhat downward path into his torso.
   
3. Therefore, there inarguably was a shooter somewhere behind the motorcade in a somewhat elevated position.
   

There are other points that I feel have a very high level of relative certainty that bear consideration for any rational and objective analysis:

• 1. No projectile penetrated John F. Kennedy's collar.
  
  2. It is impossible that there could have been a projectile wound where the tracheotomy butchery took place without there having been penetration of the collar. This is supported by eyewitness testimony stating that the small round throat wound (and I specifically do not say projectile or bullet wound) that was seen by several people inside Trauma Room One before the tracheotomy was below shirt line. A visual recreation confirms this fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
  
  

With these paving stones of certainty, it is an impossibility for there to have been a projectile wound to the throat in the indicated location.

Therefore, it becomes a very high relative certainty that the small round throat wound observed only by a few people, only in Trauma Room One, and only for a very brief time, was not a wound from a bullet or dart or any other type of projectile.

These high-level certainties are the foundation for the hypothesis that the back wound to JFK might well have been only to provide a "plausible explaination" for a small round throat wound that would only be seen for a brief period of time by a small number of people, would not be closely inspected, then have all evidence of existence almost immediately eradicated by Malcolm Perry.

Ashton Gray

Do I understand correctly that you theorize the "back wound" was not

created by a bullet, but by the hand of someone at the hospital or

later? That would account for:

1. no bullet in the wound

2. autopist probe could not find path of bullet

3. angle of wound not correct

The corrollary to your theory would be that the shirt and coat holes

were not bullet holes either, correct?

Just wondering.

Jack

Edited January 11, 2007 by Jack White

[Ashton Gray]

Ashton,

Since it is "most likely" that a method called "soft edge matte" or I`ll say it bluntly.... one "altered" photograph is known to exist in the archives,have you considered the "possibility" of that number being higher? (blurry shirt photograph)

* I assure you that I am not trying to be a wiseguy.

I've considered it for all the photographs, Michael. I doubt, though that the original of the shirt photograph I've reproduced a section of, blown up, is blurry. I started with the largest image of it I could find on the web and took all the care I could not to alter it myself when blowing it up, but there is no escaping artifacts once an image has been saved as a JPEG.

So I believe the fuzziness in that blowup almost certainly is attributable to that.

Still, I thought there was sufficient detail to be able to determine whether there was a hole in that shirt that could account for a bullet passing through it or not, or I wouldn't have posted it. I also consider what I see in that image to be consistent with the majority of other information that's available, and it's the cumulative consistency of the available evidence arguing against a throat shot that I find compelling.

If you know of any source for getting a TIFF file of that photo, please send it my way and I will gladly blow that up as big as is feasible and then save the blow-up in a suitable format for posting here.

Ashton

[Ashton Gray]

I started this thread based on several certainties:

1. John Connally inarguably was shot in the back, and the bullet took a somewhat downward trajectory while passing through his torso.
   
2. John F. Kennedy inarguably was shot in the back, and the bullet took a somewhat downward path into his torso.
   
3. Therefore, there inarguably was a shooter somewhere behind the motorcade in a somewhat elevated position.
   

There are other points that I feel have a very high level of relative certainty that bear consideration for any rational and objective analysis:

• 1. No projectile penetrated John F. Kennedy's collar.
  
  2. It is impossible that there could have been a projectile wound where the tracheotomy butchery took place without there having been penetration of the collar. This is supported by eyewitness testimony stating that the small round throat wound (and I specifically do not say projectile or bullet wound) that was seen by several people inside Trauma Room One before the tracheotomy was below shirt line. A visual recreation confirms this fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
  
  

With these paving stones of certainty, it is an impossibility for there to have been a projectile wound to the throat in the indicated location.

Therefore, it becomes a very high relative certainty that the small round throat wound observed only by a few people, only in Trauma Room One, and only for a very brief time, was not a wound from a bullet or dart or any other type of projectile.

These high-level certainties are the foundation for the hypothesis that the back wound to JFK might well have been only to provide a "plausible explaination" for a small round throat wound that would only be seen for a brief period of time by a small number of people, would not be closely inspected, then have all evidence of existence almost immediately eradicated by Malcolm Perry.

Ashton Gray

Do I understand correctly that you theorize the "back wound" was not

created by a bullet, but by the hand of someone at the hospital or

later? That would account for:

1. no bullet in the wound

2. autopist probe could not find path of bullet

3. angle of wound not correct

The corrollary to your theory would be that the shirt and coat holes

were not bullet holes either, correct?

Just wondering.

Jack

Just the opposite, Jack. I think it's inarguable that JFK was shot in the back at a downward angle. All back-wound evidence is consistent with that: coat, shirt, and hole in body.

The premise of the thread is that Kennedy possibly was shot in the back solely to later provide a "plausible explanation" for a throat wound that would be seen only very briefly in one location: Trauma Room One at Parkland hospital. With a wound in the back from a gunshot (an entrance wound), that could be used to "explain" something that was assumed to be a bullet hole in the throat—which almost immediately was carved out of existence by Malcolm Perry.

The very fact of its eradication is what has not only allowed, but promoted, eternal conflict over whether it was an "entrance wound" or an "exit wound," with the Official Story, of course, being that it had to be an exit wound from the same bullet as the back wound.

If the throat wound wasn't a bullet wound at all, then it was neither a bullet entrance wound or a bullet exit wound. But it has been able to be "explained" as a bullet exit wound precisely because there was a handy back wound proximate enough to justify just that "explanation."

Pause for a moment and consider all the "coincidences" involved in the back and throat wounds. These are truly amazing "coincidences," the final one, of course, being that the throat wound just happened to be in the precise location where it could be erased out of existence by ham-handed butchery passing for a "tracheotomy."

Ashton

Edited January 11, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Erick A. Bovik]

The back wound to John F. Kennedy is a very strange piece of evidence in the case.

The more one considers it, the stranger it gets.

John Connally certainly was shot in the back. So there certainly was at least one shooter behind the motorcade somewhere. But Connally, from all that I can determine, was hit with a high-velocity bullet that inarguably went straight through his torso, creating a sucking chest wound.

Connally, it appears to me, was hit with a high-velocity round only seconds or fractions of a second before JFK was hit with a high-velocity round to the head. The simplest explanation for this, to me, is that Connally's wound resulted from a missed head shot aimed at JFK with a semi-automatic high powered rifle, and the next shot hit its intended mark.

I don't ask anyone to agree with this; it's what adds up from the visual and medical record to me.

But the back shot to John F. Kennedy then makes no sense. It was a shallow wound of a small caliber bullet. It almost certainly was not a fatal wound. But it also, inarguably, was shot from behind the motorcade.

The other odd thing about it is that there apparently, from available evidence, was a different character of sound to the first shot (the back shot), and there was a delay between that shot and the two quick high-velocity shots.

The only reasonable deduction I can arrive at is that a shooter shot JFK in the back with a small caliber low velocity weapon for some reason, then either changed weapons and went for the head shot or a second shooter with a high velocity weapon took it. Missing and hitting Connally, he shot again and hit JFK in the head.

I'm prepared for the firestorm of naysaying, name-calling, and obloquy concerning my sanity, lineage, politics, and hat, but I'm going to carry this through anyway:

I believe the back shot was to provide a "reasonable explanation" for a small throat wound. (And I didn't say bullet wound.)

And that is exactly what it was used for by the Warren Commission.

But they hadn't counted on Connally getting hit. So then that one bullet intended to account for both back and throat had to become very, very magic indeed.

Oh, my...

Ashton Gray

Ashton,

Here is a possibility to consider for discussion: The President's back wound could have been caused by the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the 6th floor of the Book Depository. That rifle was never intended as the primary killing weapon, because no serious sniper would have used it. It was a throw-down gun, a diversion, but someone fired it nonetheless. Old military surplus ammo can have what is called a "dud round" whereby not all of the powder propellant burns. This results in a low-velocity discharge, with a rapid bullet drop rate. This would explain the shallow back wound. It could also explain the so-called pristine bullet found at Parkland Hospital. I realize that bullet was not found on the President's stretcher, but the person who found it could have been mistaken. The bullet could have been forced out during resuscitation efforts.

Erick

[Cliff Varnell]

ASIDE: There is an aspect of CIA operations that is one of their most covert, subtle, and insidious tricks, and is pervasive in everything I've ever studied where they are known to be involved: the insinuation of fictions, which by their very discussion, even in attempts to "disprove the negative," perpetuates the fiction. The seeker of fact encounters something that must be addressed and discussed, but that has no reality or substance.

Dr. Malcolm Perry's news conference, 11/22/63 (well before the formation

of the Warren Commission):

(quote on)

There was an entrance wound in the neck...It appeared to be coming at him...

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.

(quote off)

The seeker of fact weighs the evidence judiciously.

One autopsy photo has been cited, the Stare of Death with that big ugly

trach incision.

The size of that incision is inconsistent with another autopsy photo -- left

lateral -- that appears to show a smaller, neater wound.

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html

The size of the SOD wound is inconsistent with some Parkland witness testimony,

most notably Dr. Perry's insistence that the trach incision was sufficient to

put in the tube and no bigger.

Weigh the value of the SOD with the value of the x-ray described in

this HSCA report:

According to the HSCA:

(quote on)

In the post autopsy film of the thoracic region there is debris in the

radiographic image superimposed over the area to the right of the C7

vertebral body.

(quote off)

This metallic debris is consistent with a shot from the throat with

a blood soluble round using iron particles as a bonding agent.

Say hello to our little friend, because that debris field is 95%

likely to be his signature...

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwerbell.htm