Nick Bartetzko

I guess we'll just continue to disagree. Yes, I am not sure about the exact location of the throat wound and indeed no one admitted to cutting the clothing there. Only Carrico that I can recall emphasized it was above the shirt and tie. The fact still remains that the medical personnel believed it was an entrance wound and they saw many bullet wounds on a regular basis. You've lost me as to film alteration relating to JFK having his mouth open and appearing to be in distress right before he's obviously struck in the back. I am indeed focusing on eyewitness testimony and the best one imo is Dr Perry who told Weisberg that he wiped blood from the throat, saw a ring of bruising and then did the tracheostomy incision. That Perry would testify later that it could have been an exit wound is understandable to me. I can imagine the tremendous stress it caused and pressure he was under.

I think the two hour interview at Parkland by Weisberg is definitive enough for me. The medical staff at Parkland also thought it was an entry wound. Not a contrarian opinion that I can recall. As to the shoring up of the wound via the clothing, didn't Dr Carrico say the wound was above the shirt? Weisberg's hypothesis is the shirt/tie damage was done by a scalpel when trying to remove the clothing in the ER. JFK was obviously reacting to something (a throat shot after Z186 imo) and that is seen for a frame or two around Z223/4 If I recall correctly. Have you seen what Im describing, and if so, what might have caused that? A bullet, concern about hearing very loud noise...?? As to those fragments you reference which I don't doubt were present, I would think they could be from either of the two head shots.

Dictators, anti-vaxxers, the gentleman currently in office.... I've had enough. Alfred E. Neuman for 2024.... and he never ages too. Just check all his pics throughout the years

I hadn't thought about the Richard Sprague materials for many years. While in Los Angeles some decades ago, I tracked down the Computers and Automation journal. Very interesting and worthwhile work by Mr Sprague.

The source for the "ring of bruising" phrase was Dr Perry directly to Harold Weisberg in an interview conducted at Parkland in 1966. It's in the Post Mortem book and likely on an audiotape at wherever the Weisberg materials are housed. Perry didn't just glance at the wound, he got a close look and wiped blood off the wound with his finger. Weisberg didn't push him for a conclusion, just asked some questions. Weisberg commented that Perry didn't appear to be aware of the significance of this comment. As I said, this is all from memory and its been some time since I actually re-read those pages. As to those fragments in the throat, I have no idea. There was a reason for the throat gash... to start disposing of evidence contrary to any shots other than from the rear. Where did those fragments come from, what happened to all the other bullets, fragments, photos, xrays, evidence that are missing?? The greatest mystery to me has always been what projectile caused the throat wound are where did it originate from. I've been to Dealey Plaza twice and imo it did not come from behind the picket fence.

@Denise Hazelwood Don't know about the answer to those tiny metallic fragments. But the clincher for me as to it being an entry wound has always been Dr Perry telling Weisberg in 1966 (in the book Post Mortem) that the throat wound had "a ring of bruising, as they always do". I've put that in quotes, but I'm going from memory as I don't have the book available at the moment.

Just saw this, Vince. Great stuff. Nick

@Denny Zartman Didn’t Jack White have a collage of photos he did years ago of the Mannlicher photographed in Dallas vs the one in the National Archives today wherein he alleged discrepancies as to the length and a slight variation in the font of the C2766? Any recollection of that? Nick

Wow….amazing…. I’m just stunned in your ability to dismiss or ignore the incredible amount of materials that have been accumulated that contradict your lone nut position.

Hi Vince, Hmmm…more good stuff in another book 🤔 Works for me!

Vince, Was there not was a Secret Service agent…I forgot which one…who claimed he had copies of the Secret Service records for the Chicago trip and promised to make them available? Is my memory correct on that, and if so, did he do that and were you able to get access to those documents for your book? Nick

Joe, That was part of my question as I don’t recall any of the three saying they smelled gunpowder. I’m aware of Senator Yarborough’s comment, but I can’t see how the smell of gunpowder from the 6th floor can be reconciled with someone detecting it at street level. The smell at street level was likely from the sewer drain and/or knoll.

Thanks for your comment, BC. Yes, am aware of the numerous witnesses who saw a rifle projecting from the 6th floor window and pointing downward. Can’t recall any specifically who saw smoke being discharged from the barrel and who smelled gunpowder as well. I think it’s very likely (two) shots were fired from the window, just wasn’t 100% convinced. We do have one or more witnesses who also saw an individual with a rifle at the opposite end of the 6th floor.

Having been to Dealey Plaza twice and having stood in each location, both sites were definitely deliberate diversions. I am not 100% convinced that shots were fired from the “Oswald window”. Can anyone answer whether or not there would be any detectible scent of gunpowder on the 6th floor when reporters and police got up there? How long could the scent of gunpowder linger inside if a rifle had been fired?

You could be right. But for me, that would stretch credulity a bit for a bone fragment to cause that perception. But my recollection is also that she may be the only witness in her area to claim a bullet struck the street. A few witnesses were on the overpass and then we have the DPD motorcyclist. I don’t ever recall seeing a witness plat that showed their locations and where they claim bullets struck.