Jump to content


Spartacus

There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat


  • Please log in to reply
169 replies to this topic

#1 Ashton Gray

Ashton Gray

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts

Posted 21 October 2007 - 05:55 PM

If your favorite indoor sport is trying to figure out or "prove" whether the purported bullet wound that "everybody knows" was in John F. Kennedy's throat was an inny or an outty, this article is useless to you, so please pass on by and find something else to do.

If you have invested tens or hundreds or even thousands of hours of your life chasing after elusive no-see-ums like Hat Man, Badge Man, Dog Man, or any other Ethereal Phantom of the Grassy Knoll (hereinafter EPGK), or some other gun-toting h'aint haunting the Texas School Book Depository parking lot, or the Grassy Knoll retaining wall, or the pergola, or the overpass, or the sewage drain, or any bush, tree, fence, crevice, steam pipe, rock, leaf, or blade of grass anywhere outdoors in the width and breadth of Dealey Plaza and surrounds, which Ethereal Phantom you are sure must have existed in order to deliver the alleged bullet wound to the throat of John F. Kennedy, this article could send you into violent, shaking paroxysms of furious denial. You might break something, and nobody wants that.

Of course, I can't stop you from reading on. But with these caveats, the author is not responsible and cannot be held accountable for any damage to persons or property that ensues if you do: you have been warned.

There was no bullet wound in John F. Kennedy's throat.

It categorically is impossible. That is the extremely simple reason why at all relevant times there has been, and continues to be, infinite unresolved and unresolvable argument over whether the throat wound was a bullet entrance wound or a bullet exit wound. It wasn't a bullet wound at all. Ipso facto, the question of bullet entrance or bullet exit has no answer or resolution because there was no bullet involved. To continue seeking an "answer" is an idiot's game.

Therefore all search for an outdoor gunman that could have delivered such a "bullet wound" to the throat is nothing more than a search for a phantasm that never existed, who could not have shot a bullet that never existed, in order to cause a bullet wound that never was.

The net result of fervent industry devoted to such searches for nonexistent answers, gunmen, guns, and bullets, of course, would be never to find the phantom gunman, never to find the phantom gun, never to find a provable or even plausible location for such phantom gunman, never to find a bullet that created such a phantom bullet wound, and not to have in hand a single particle of physical evidence of there ever having been such a phantom bullet wound, bullet, gun, or gunman.

And that is exactly where the situation stands at this instant. The paragraph above is the precise net result of over 40 years of investigation, Congressional hearings, testimony, affidavits, analysis, discussion, symposiums, conventions, books, interviews, arguments, berserk speculation, and the densest population of elusive ghosts since Disney built the Haunted Mansion as far as a gunman for a "bullet wound" to the throat of John F. Kennedy is concerned.

In fact, the only valid physical evidence in existence that can be seen with the eyes—as opposed to a Niagara of so-called "testimony," which we'll get to—proves in a glance beyond a reasonable doubt—at least to an impartial and reasonably prudent person who hasn't already made up his mind otherwise—that a bullet wound to John F. Kennedy's throat at the location where "eyewitnesses" claimed there had been a bullet wound categorically is impossible absent extensive damage to John F. Kennedy's tie and shirt—which damage did not and does not exist.

This already was demonstrated at the beginning of this year with this animation:

Posted Image

As if that weren't enough to demonstrate conclusively to any rational unbiased observer's satisfaction that no bullet could have gone into John F. Kennedy's throat from the front at the location of the tracheostomy butchery, it was augmented with this animation:

Posted Image

Of course a wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse (which truth surely must extend to blind jackasses), so naturally there was considerably more braying and haying and naysaying to endure. Here is another comparison to the profile autopsy photo, this one with a profile of JFK from the non-part side of his head (since no one has ever determined with any certainty whether the profile autopsy photo was flopped or not), and with inerrant predictability, it again proves conclusively that no bullet possibly could have entered the throat from the front at the purported location of a bullet throat wound:

Posted Image

Well, disinformation crows have to caw, and the Front Shot Faithful cannot stand to have their faith shook, so of course this, too, undoubtedly will be attacked with every specious and nonsensical catcall and hoohah and distraction that can be contrived. [Yawn.]

Yet another animation, created with a front view of a dress shirt and tie sized to closely approximate Kennedy's autopsy profile, demonstrates further how cartoonishly farcical the idea is that a bullet could have entered JFK's throat without penetrating four layers of shirt fabric and at least fifteen layers of tie fabric (yes: four layers of shirt fabric and fifteen layers of tie fabric):

Posted Image

No dress shirt in history ever spontaneously sagged like a Salvador Dali painting, no man's tie in history ever spontaneously loosened in the manner necessary to have allowed a bullet to enter John F. Kennedy's throat from the front at the indicated location without going through the tie and shirt.

To pass through the knot of the tie, a bullet from the front would have had to penetrate the tie not once, but at least five times, as shown by this diagram of a four-in-hand knot:

Posted Image

Because a man's tie is three layers thick (fabric on both sides with a "stiffener" fabric between), that means that any such bullet—had it ever existed, which it did not—would have had to pass through at least fifteen layers of tie material.

There would not be just one hole in the tie: there would be at least five holes in the tie—which in fact would be holes through fifteen layers of fabric.

And what is the physical evidence? Inarguably, there are zero bullet holes in the tie.

Then there's the shirt. The plackets of a man's dress shirt are doubled on the side where the button holes are and on the side where the buttons are, so that's four layers of shirt fabric that any such bullet would have had to pass through after passing through the tie.

The physical evidence? There are zero bullet holes in the button and button hole plackets of the shirt.

The physical evidence of record is that there is not one bullet hole in either tie or shirt where so many bullet holes would have to be in order for a bullet from the front to have penetrated JFK's throat at the indicated location. There are none.

Count with me again: zero.

Why? The only possible answer is as elementary as it is obvious to any but the blindest eye of blind faith and bullheaded bias: because no bullet ever entered John F. Kennedy's throat from the front. And if a bullet didn't enter from the front, then no bullet ever entered John F. Kennedy's throat at all.

"But the Parkland doctors said..."

Well, just what did they say?

We'll take up that question in Part 2, below.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray, 21 October 2007 - 06:54 PM.


#2 Ashton Gray

Ashton Gray

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts

Posted 21 October 2007 - 05:59 PM

"But the Parkland doctors said..."

Well, what did they say about the wound to the throat? They didn't say much of anything that a same-size group of longshoremen or checkout girls couldn't have said about it, with just as much contradiction of each other, but scarcely more.

What they didn't say is the hyperinflated mythology that rages like a fire-and-brimstone tent revival in the "research community," where Garrison-Book thumpin' Front-Shooter Faithful will swear on the Holy Gun-Totin' Ghost(s) that every medical personnel in Parkland 'lowed that there was a bullet hole in the throat, and that it was an entrance wound, so JFK absolutely had to have been shot from the front.

Well, while the Front-Shooters all hold hands and sing "I shall not be, I shall not be moved," while they steadfastly refuse the evidence of their own eyes and stare fixedly away from the heathenistic animations above, let's you and me just go all-out heathen and heretic, and consult the actual sworn testimony of these sainted Parkland personnel to find out what in fact came out of their mouths—summarized and counted rather clinically and dispassionately here in this summary of sworn testimony about the celebrated lower-throat stigmata:

Posted Image

If you're having any trouble with that image immediately above, you can access it through these links as:

a direct browswer link to the image, or,

a PDF file of the same chart, or,

a web page with the chart as an html table, or,

even download it to your default download location as a Microsoft Excel file.

Assuming you have the chart in front of you in some form, it can be seen that out of 12 Parkland Hospital personnel who testified under oath about the throat wound—10 doctors and 2 nurses—9 were ambiguous about or flat out didn't know whether the wound was a bullet entrance wound or a bullet exit wound. In fact, fully half of the personnel at issue, 6 of them, said under oath that they never saw the throat (neck) wound at all, or saw the area only after Dr. Malcolm Perry had electively sliced a gaping tracheotomy gash right through the center of it—conveniently eradicating all evidence of the wound, however it had been made.

This edited chart below reflects, then, the only actual eyewitnesses of record—except now I've moved the count for Dr. Ronald Jones from the EXIT WOUND column to the ENTRANCE WOUND column as a result of a discussion with someone in this forum that took place while this article was in progress—not because Jones actually made a definitive declatory statement that it was an entrance wound, but because his own ambiguous statements could be interpreted either way, and I was happy to concede the benefit of the doubt:

Posted Image

So of the six actual eyewitnesses, half said it could have been either an entrance or an exit wound, one said he thought it was an exit wound, and two people in the entire world who claim they saw the wound—including the ambivalent Jones—said they thought it was a bullet entrance wound.

Two people. Two. In the entire world. Two.

(I probably should be more politic than to mention that one of those two—Dr. Ronald Jones—lied under oath about steroids that were administered to Kennedy in Trauma Room One in order to hide that fact that JFK's personal physician, Admiral Burkley, had been in the room and supplied the steroids, because it's a very inconvenient time for Burkley to have been there. But why should I start being politic now?)

The utterly simple, if lamentable and painful (to some), truth that explains in full the conflicting opinions and assertions about whether it was a bullet entrance wound or a bullet exit wound is that it was not a bullet wound at all.

Now, there's a good deal more that could be said about all this, and some of it I have said before, and some of it I could further say, but being a heathen and a heretic is only a part-time position and doesn't pay well at all, so for the moment I believe I will give this over to the Front-Shot Faithful and let the ghost-hunt begin. Again.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray, 21 October 2007 - 09:22 PM.


#3 Pat Speer

Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,369 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 October 2007 - 11:09 PM

Now, I don't want to hurt your feelings, Ashton, but I actually agree with most of what you say. The immediate perception of Carrico and Perry was that it was an entrance wound, but studies have shown that emergency room doctors are frequently mistaken as to entrance and exit. Which is one of the reasons they have autopsies.

You are also correct in that it may not have been a bullet wound of any kind. Harold Weisberg spent years studying the tie and shirt slits, and fully believed they were scalpel cuts made when the nurses cut off Kennedy's clothes. He fully believed that when the autopsy photos would be revealed, the wound would be high on Kennedy's throat, above the location of the tie. It wasn't.

It seems quite possible the neck wound was a bone fragment or bullet fragment exit related to the back wound, as proposed by Tom Purvis, or the first of two head wounds, as proposed by myself. It was most certainly not an entrance or exit of a high-speed bullet as large as CE399.

#4 J. Raymond Carroll

J. Raymond Carroll

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,447 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island, New York
  • Interests:https://www.facebook.com/search/me/friends/photos-of

Posted 21 October 2007 - 11:15 PM

It was most certainly not an entrance or exit of a high-speed bullet as large as CE399.


What about an entrance (or exit) for a smaller-caliber bullet, such as a .223?

#5 Jack White

Jack White

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,640 posts

Posted 22 October 2007 - 12:40 AM

"But the Parkland doctors said..."

Well, what did they say about the wound to the throat? They didn't say much of anything that a same-size group of longshoremen or checkout girls couldn't have said about it, with just as much contradiction of each other, but scarcely more.

What they didn't say is the hyperinflated mythology that rages like a fire-and-brimstone tent revival in the "research community," where Garrison-Book thumpin' Front-Shooter Faithful will swear on the Holy Gun-Totin' Ghost(s) that every medical personnel in Parkland 'lowed that there was a bullet hole in the throat, and that it was an entrance wound, so JFK absolutely had to have been shot from the front.

Well, while the Front-Shooters all hold hands and sing "I shall not be, I shall not be moved," while they steadfastly refuse the evidence of their own eyes and stare fixedly away from the heathenistic animations above, let's you and me just go all-out heathen and heretic, and consult the actual sworn testimony of these sainted Parkland personnel to find out what in fact came out of their mouths—summarized and counted rather clinically and dispassionately here in this summary of sworn testimony about the celebrated lower-throat stigmata:

Posted Image

If you're having any trouble with that image immediately above, you can access it through these links as:

a direct browswer link to the image, or,

a PDF file of the same chart, or,

a web page with the chart as an html table, or,

even download it to your default download location as a Microsoft Excel file.

Assuming you have the chart in front of you in some form, it can be seen that out of 12 Parkland Hospital personnel who testified under oath about the throat wound—10 doctors and 2 nurses—9 were ambiguous about or flat out didn't know whether the wound was a bullet entrance wound or a bullet exit wound. In fact, fully half of the personnel at issue, 6 of them, said under oath that they never saw the throat (neck) wound at all, or saw the area only after Dr. Malcolm Perry had electively sliced a gaping tracheotomy gash right through the center of it—conveniently eradicating all evidence of the wound, however it had been made.

This edited chart below reflects, then, the only actual eyewitnesses of record—except now I've moved the count for Dr. Ronald Jones from the EXIT WOUND column to the ENTRANCE WOUND column as a result of a discussion with someone in this forum that took place while this article was in progress—not because Jones actually made a definitive declatory statement that it was an entrance wound, but because his own ambiguous statements could be interpreted either way, and I was happy to concede the benefit of the doubt:

Posted Image

So of the six actual eyewitnesses, half said it could have been either an entrance or an exit wound, one said he thought it was an exit wound, and two people in the entire world who claim they saw the wound—including the ambivalent Jones—said they thought it was a bullet entrance wound.

Two people. Two. In the entire world. Two.

(I probably should be more politic than to mention that one of those two—Dr. Ronald Jones—lied under oath about steroids that were administered to Kennedy in Trauma Room One in order to hide that fact that JFK's personal physician, Admiral Burkley, had been in the room and supplied the steroids, because it's a very inconvenient time for Burkley to have been there. But why should I start being politic now?)

The utterly simple, if lamentable and painful (to some), truth that explains in full the conflicting opinions and assertions about whether it was a bullet entrance wound or a bullet exit wound is that it was not a bullet wound at all.

Now, there's a good deal more that could be said about all this, and some of it I have said before, and some of it I could further say, but being a heathen and a heretic is only a part-time position and doesn't pay well at all, so for the moment I believe I will give this over to the Front-Shot Faithful and let the ghost-hunt begin. Again.

Ashton Gray


Ashston...your excellent graphics depict the identical thing that I showed
the HSCA staff nearly 30 years ago. If you like, I will try to find my slides
showing the throat wound behind the tie knot and email it to you for posting.
I agree with you and Weisberg that no bullet caused a throat wound. I am
not so certain about a possible glass splinter from the windshield bullet,
although the same argument applies.

Unfortunately, the HSCA staff saw the slides, but I was not permitted
to show them when I testified. I was told to testify ONLY about the backyard
photos and the MC rifle...and if I tried to mention anything else, I WOULD
BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS.

Jack

#6 Kathleen Collins

Kathleen Collins

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,818 posts

Posted 22 October 2007 - 03:03 AM

"But the Parkland doctors said..."

Well, what did they say about the wound to the throat? They didn't say much of anything that a same-size group of longshoremen or checkout girls couldn't have said about it, with just as much contradiction of each other, but scarcely more.

What they didn't say is the hyperinflated mythology that rages like a fire-and-brimstone tent revival in the "research community," where Garrison-Book thumpin' Front-Shooter Faithful will swear on the Holy Gun-Totin' Ghost(s) that every medical personnel in Parkland 'lowed that there was a bullet hole in the throat, and that it was an entrance wound, so JFK absolutely had to have been shot from the front.

Well, while the Front-Shooters all hold hands and sing "I shall not be, I shall not be moved," while they steadfastly refuse the evidence of their own eyes and stare fixedly away from the heathenistic animations above, let's you and me just go all-out heathen and heretic, and consult the actual sworn testimony of these sainted Parkland personnel to find out what in fact came out of their mouths—summarized and counted rather clinically and dispassionately here in this summary of sworn testimony about the celebrated lower-throat stigmata:

Posted Image

If you're having any trouble with that image immediately above, you can access it through these links as:

a direct browswer link to the image, or,

a PDF file of the same chart, or,

a web page with the chart as an html table, or,

even download it to your default download location as a Microsoft Excel file.

Assuming you have the chart in front of you in some form, it can be seen that out of 12 Parkland Hospital personnel who testified under oath about the throat wound—10 doctors and 2 nurses—9 were ambiguous about or flat out didn't know whether the wound was a bullet entrance wound or a bullet exit wound. In fact, fully half of the personnel at issue, 6 of them, said under oath that they never saw the throat (neck) wound at all, or saw the area only after Dr. Malcolm Perry had electively sliced a gaping tracheotomy gash right through the center of it—conveniently eradicating all evidence of the wound, however it had been made.

This edited chart below reflects, then, the only actual eyewitnesses of record—except now I've moved the count for Dr. Ronald Jones from the EXIT WOUND column to the ENTRANCE WOUND column as a result of a discussion with someone in this forum that took place while this article was in progress—not because Jones actually made a definitive declatory statement that it was an entrance wound, but because his own ambiguous statements could be interpreted either way, and I was happy to concede the benefit of the doubt:

Posted Image

So of the six actual eyewitnesses, half said it could have been either an entrance or an exit wound, one said he thought it was an exit wound, and two people in the entire world who claim they saw the wound—including the ambivalent Jones—said they thought it was a bullet entrance wound.

Two people. Two. In the entire world. Two.

(I probably should be more politic than to mention that one of those two—Dr. Ronald Jones—lied under oath about steroids that were administered to Kennedy in Trauma Room One in order to hide that fact that JFK's personal physician, Admiral Burkley, had been in the room and supplied the steroids, because it's a very inconvenient time for Burkley to have been there. But why should I start being politic now?)

The utterly simple, if lamentable and painful (to some), truth that explains in full the conflicting opinions and assertions about whether it was a bullet entrance wound or a bullet exit wound is that it was not a bullet wound at all.

Now, there's a good deal more that could be said about all this, and some of it I have said before, and some of it I could further say, but being a heathen and a heretic is only a part-time position and doesn't pay well at all, so for the moment I believe I will give this over to the Front-Shot Faithful and let the ghost-hunt begin. Again.

Ashton Gray


If there was no bullet wound of any kind on his neck, why on the Zapruder film, do we see President Kennedy clutching his throat? He seems to want to undo his tie. His head, on this doctored film, seems to be imploding to me until the shot that came from the front right. Could an extremely thin missile, say a dart from an umbrella-fashioned weapon, have entered his neck from the front right? And the Stemmons Freeway sign conveniently inserted into the film to obscure where Kennedy was first hit with whatever he was choking on?

Kathy

#7 Ashton Gray

Ashton Gray

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts

Posted 22 October 2007 - 03:59 AM

your excellent graphics depict the identical thing that I showed
the HSCA staff nearly 30 years ago. If you like, I will try to find my slides
showing the throat wound behind the tie knot and email it to you for posting.


I'd be very interested in seeing your slides on this. If you don't still have my e-mail address from the image you sent me last year, PM me.

I agree with you and Weisberg that no bullet caused a throat wound. I am
not so certain about a possible glass splinter from the windshield bullet,
although the same argument applies.


Yes, nothing possibly could have penetrated Kennedy's throat from the front at the location of the tracheostomy: not a bullet, a bullet fragment, a glass splinter, a June bug, or a beer keg. When the shootin' was done, the tie and shirt fully covered the location where the tracheostomy was done, and the tie and shirt were intact when they were removed at Parkland Hospital.

It equally is impossible for a bullet, a bullet fragment, a bone fragment, or a Volkswagon to have made an exiting puncture wound in that location that was 1.5 to 5 (or more—depends on who you listen to) millimeters in diameter—but to have then come to a screeching halt at the instant it touched the inside of the shirt collar. No such exiting missile is anywhere in evidence, either. I didn't feel much like getting into that in the original article. Come to think about it, I don't feel much like getting into it now. There isn't much to get into: the concept is too ludicrous to entertain.

Unfortunately, the HSCA staff saw the slides, but I was not permitted
to show them when I testified. I was told to testify ONLY about the backyard
photos and the MC rifle...and if I tried to mention anything else, I WOULD
BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS.


In "My Little Chickadee," Mae West is asked by a judge: "Are you trying to show contempt for this court?"

She replies: "On the contrary, your honor; I'm trying to hide it."

Ashton

Edited by Ashton Gray, 22 October 2007 - 07:59 PM.


#8 Mark Stapleton

Mark Stapleton

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,913 posts

Posted 22 October 2007 - 04:15 AM

Excellent thread.

So I have to ask the obvious question. If, as Ashton argues, it was not a bullet wound at all, then what the hell was it?

And why did the WC consider it so important that they found it necessary to construct the SBT to accomodate it--thus permanently destroying any vestige of credibility they may have had.

#9 Ashton Gray

Ashton Gray

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts

Posted 22 October 2007 - 04:24 AM

If there was no bullet wound of any kind on his neck...


There isn't an "if" involved. Look at the animations in my first post. There could not have been a bullet wound in his throat where a bullet wound was claimed to have been without it having gone through the tie and shirt. No bullet went through the tie and shirt. I'm not discussing it as an "if" until you tell me first how a bullet could have gotten through his tie and shirt without damaging them. Which means I won't be discussing any such "if," because it's patently impossible.

...why on the Zapruder film, do we see President Kennedy clutching his throat?


I believe Mark Twain was onto something when he said, "Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'we.'" I don't see President Kennedy clutching his throat anywhere in the Zapruder film.

Kennedy's hands are never at or around his throat or his tie or his collar. If you will clutch your own throat, you will realize in an instant that nowhere in the Zapruder film does Kennedy do anything at all like you are doing when clutching your own throat.

At Zapruder 237, his fists have flown, clenched, up in front of his face:

Posted Image

By Zapruder 260, his right hand is down by his chest, and his left forefinger is pointing down to his chest:

Posted Image

Could an extremely thin missile, say a dart from an umbrella-fashioned weapon, have entered his neck from the front right?


No. It was a puncture wound in his throat. It was 1.5 to 3 (or as many as 5 in one account) millimeters in diameter. It could not have been made by a missile of any description, traveling in any direction, in Dealey Plaza. It is physically impossible.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray, 22 October 2007 - 07:59 PM.


#10 Ashton Gray

Ashton Gray

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts

Posted 22 October 2007 - 04:39 AM

Excellent thread.

So I have to ask the obvious question. If, as Ashton argues, it was not a bullet wound at all, then what the hell was it?


This is one candidate:

Posted Image

Please keep in mind that John F. Kennedy was not DOA at Parkland Hospital. However grave the man's condition may have been when he arrived in Trauma Room One, it's rather relevant to note that the President of the United States was still alive.

Let me say it again: the President of the United States arrived at Parkland Hospital still alive.

That would be a trifle inconvenient for the perpetrators if there were, in fact, a conspiracy afoot to assassinate the man and pin it on a Communist patsy, who, even as the President arrived at the hospital, was being run to ground and framed for the murder of a Dallas cop, wouldn't you agree?

And why did the WC consider it so important that they found it necessary to construct the SBT to accomodate it--thus permanently destroying any vestige of credibility they may have had.


If it was necessary to make a hole in the throat of the President of the United States and then immediately eradicate the evidence of it before anyone could get a very good or close look at it, it nonetheless was necessary to "explain" it somehow as part of the shooting once anyone had seen it at all.

Ashton

Edited by Ashton Gray, 22 October 2007 - 05:46 AM.


#11 Charles Drago

Charles Drago

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,618 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rhode Island, USA

Posted 22 October 2007 - 05:48 AM

As I've pointed out in a previous thread, a conspiratorial presence at Parkland was essential to the plan. Once the hit was initiated, the only survivable outcome for the conspirators would be eradication of the target.

That being noted, it surely must have been clear to the designated administrator(s) of the coup de grace that JFK's head wounds were fatal. So why risk an unnecessary hospital attack?

Then again ... better safe than oh so sorry.

Charles

#12 Tim Gratz

Tim Gratz

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6,939 posts

Posted 22 October 2007 - 05:55 AM

Charles wrote:

As I've pointed out in a previous thread, a conspiratorial presence at Parkland was essential to the plan. Once the hit was initiated, the only survivable outcome for the conspirators would be eradication of the target.

I agree with the second sentence but not the first. I believe the plan was to ensure JFK did not leave DP alive. And for all intents and purposes he was DOA upon his arrival at Parkland.

"A conspitatorial presence at the hospital?" What are you suggesting? A doctor did it?

#13 Mark Stapleton

Mark Stapleton

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,913 posts

Posted 22 October 2007 - 08:53 AM

Excellent thread.

So I have to ask the obvious question. If, as Ashton argues, it was not a bullet wound at all, then what the hell was it?


This is one candidate:

Posted Image

Please keep in mind that John F. Kennedy was not DOA at Parkland Hospital. However grave the man's condition may have been when he arrived in Trauma Room One, it's rather relevant to note that the President of the United States was still alive.

Let me say it again: the President of the United States arrived at Parkland Hospital still alive.

That would be a trifle inconvenient for the perpetrators if there were, in fact, a conspiracy afoot to assassinate the man and pin it on a Communist patsy, who, even as the President arrived at the hospital, was being run to ground and framed for the murder of a Dallas cop, wouldn't you agree?

And why did the WC consider it so important that they found it necessary to construct the SBT to accomodate it--thus permanently destroying any vestige of credibility they may have had.


If it was necessary to make a hole in the throat of the President of the United States and then immediately eradicate the evidence of it before anyone could get a very good or close look at it, it nonetheless was necessary to "explain" it somehow as part of the shooting once anyone had seen it at all.

Ashton



Of course. Makes sense.

Interesting idea Ashton but I have a slight problem with one of the assertions you made in support of it. JFK may have been alive--technically--when admitted to Parkland but I doubt there would have been a realistic chance of recovery, given his wounds.

Are you suggesting a poison dart may have been used or a piercing needle? If the latter, then why? Is there a weapon which can propel such a projectile? A needle has no ballistics. How could it otherwise be inserted?

Edited by Mark Stapleton, 22 October 2007 - 10:15 AM.


#14 Thomas H. Purvis

Thomas H. Purvis

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,055 posts

Posted 22 October 2007 - 09:57 AM

Now, I don't want to hurt your feelings, Ashton, but I actually agree with most of what you say. The immediate perception of Carrico and Perry was that it was an entrance wound, but studies have shown that emergency room doctors are frequently mistaken as to entrance and exit. Which is one of the reasons they have autopsies.

You are also correct in that it may not have been a bullet wound of any kind. Harold Weisberg spent years studying the tie and shirt slits, and fully believed they were scalpel cuts made when the nurses cut off Kennedy's clothes. He fully believed that when the autopsy photos would be revealed, the wound would be high on Kennedy's throat, above the location of the tie. It wasn't.

It seems quite possible the neck wound was a bone fragment or bullet fragment exit related to the back wound, as proposed by Tom Purvis, or the first of two head wounds, as proposed by myself. It was most certainly not an entrance or exit of a high-speed bullet as large as CE399.



Pat;

Although I do not normally even bother posting to such idiotic topics such as this, which are written by persons who have apparantly done absolutely no research into the subject matter, your presences here demonstrates that you are still on the fence as to what created the anterior neck wound.

As you may recall, I long ago posted the handwritten respons of Dr. Perry to me, when I discussed this wound with him as well as corresponded with him on the subject matter.

This topic generally rates up there with the Admiral Burke not being on the Bus quality of research which we all saw long ago, by the same poster.

Again, allowing such topics as this to be posted and continued, will either be the demise of this forum, or else give it the name of the "non-educational/educationally deprived" JFK Forum.

#15 Tim Gratz

Tim Gratz

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6,939 posts

Posted 22 October 2007 - 10:28 AM

What Tom wrote in a different thread needs to be posted here, IMO. So here it is:



To even imply that JFK entered Parkland Hospital without an anterior neck wound, when virtually every medical person who entered the Trauma room observed this injury, is completely asinine and clearly demonstrates that one is too lazy to even bother to conduct research.

So, since one can not explain how the injury occurred, one just sits around and makes up tales which attempt to blame the wound on some medical personnel of Parkland having accidentally slit the throat of JFK.

For those who missed it, John Dolva long ago did some fantastic photographic work which clearly demonstrates the slightly oval nature of the anterior throat wound.

Now, I would assume that those who, for lack of research expouse the "slit throat" theory of conspiracy, will now have to come up with some form of 3mm to 5mm oval weapon with which the tie was removed from JFK.

That anyone wastes their time with such nonsense is one of the primary reasons for these simple issues having become so confused, because I can assure that there are those who are actually reading and believing this nonsense.

Not unlike each and every aspect of the assassination, there is a simple, logical, as well as forensically; ballistically; pathologically; and physically factual reason for the anterior throat wound.

But, one will not find these answers by looking for mythological "throat slitters" in the Parkland Trauma Room.


(by Tom Purvis in thread "The Anterior Neck Wound".)

Edited by Tim Gratz, 22 October 2007 - 10:29 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users