Jump to content
The Education Forum
Ashton Gray

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

Recommended Posts

For two years, from 1958 to 1960, Dr. Ronald Coy Jones—who worked on both Kennedy and Oswald—was in a general practice residency at the University of Oklahoma Medical Center in Oklahoma City. Also at the University of Oklahoma School of Medicine was Louis Jolyon "Jolly" West, Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry, who would murder an elephant with LSD in August 1962—after Jones had left to do a residency in surgery at Parkland Hospital that ended soon after the assassination, in 1964. "Jolly" West later was assigned as the psychiatrist to examine Jack Ruby.

Jones arrived with Malcolm O. Perry in Trauma Room One on the day Kennedy was murdered. Jones assisted Perry with the tracheostomy that eradicated all evidence of the throat wound. Jones also pretended to insert a chest tube into John F. Kennedy's chest, as covered in another thread in this forum, Incisions for Chest Tubes: The "Cut Downs" at Parkland, which should be studied thoroughly. Jones also told a material lie about the source and reason for the Solu Cortef (steroids) administered to Kennedy, which lie served to mask the presence of Admiral Burkley in Trauma Room One at relevant times.

I'll mention here just briefly that on the weekend of 22-24 November 1963, when both Kennedy and Oswald died at Parkland hospital, the surgical staff at Parkland Hospital had been reduced. According to Dr. Paul Conrad Peters in a 1991 interview, "most of the guys" conveniently were in Galveston, Texas "because of a big surgical meeting down there."

Ashton

Edited by Ashton Gray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still do not have an answer to my question. Why did Kennedy come out from the Stemmon's Freeway Sign (which was inserted into the film - Great Zapruder Film Hoax) with his elbows up, his hands clenched shut, trying to open his tie as something was choking him? What was that all about? I don't care if it was a bullet or a needle or anything that happened at Parkland. Why were his arms up like that, and his hands useless to open his tie?

Kathy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still do not have an answer to my question. Why did Kennedy come out from the Stemmon's Freeway Sign (which was inserted into the film - Great Zapruder Film Hoax) with his elbows up, his hands clenched shut, trying to open his tie as something was choking him? What was that all about? I don't care if it was a bullet or a needle or anything that happened at Parkland. Why were his arms up like that, and his hands useless to open his tie?

Kathy

Kathy, he and Jackie were playing charades. They did it all the time at the

most inappropriate moments. Like on Elm St. Where it looks like JFK's left

index finger was clawing at his neck band -- he was signaling, "One word!"

Jackie looks at him intently as the limo comes out from behind the sign.

"One word! Sounds like...choke? Choke! Sounds like choke!...Joke!..."

That's it. Joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still do not have an answer to my question. Why did Kennedy come out from the Stemmon's Freeway Sign (which was inserted into the film - Great Zapruder Film Hoax) with his elbows up, his hands clenched shut, trying to open his tie as something was choking him? What was that all about? I don't care if it was a bullet or a needle or anything that happened at Parkland. Why were his arms up like that, and his hands useless to open his tie?

Kathy

Kathy, he and Jackie were playing charades. They did it all the time at the

most inappropriate moments. Like on Elm St. Where it looks like JFK's left

index finger was clawing at his neck band -- he was signaling, "One word!"

Jackie looks at him intently as the limo comes out from behind the sign.

"One word! Sounds like...choke? Choke! Sounds like choke!...Joke!..."

That's it. Joke.

You know, if I ever posted a sick Kennedy Assassination joke on this or other Forums, I'd be thrown off. That's not a suggestion, Cliff.

So I still would like an answer to why President Kennedy's elbows were in the air, his hands unable to open as he tried helplessly to open his tie. You can see this in the Altgen's photo -- The Man in the Doorway. Look into the limo.

Kathy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I still would like an answer to why President Kennedy's elbows were in the air, his hands unable to open as he tried helplessly to open his tie. You can see this in the Altgen's photo -- The Man in the Doorway. Look into the limo.

Kathy

I thought the official explanation was that it was an involuntary reflexive reaction to the back shot. (but I have no faith in official explanations).

If only the Stemmons Freeway sign had been transparent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I still would like an answer to why President Kennedy's elbows were in the air, his hands unable to open as he tried helplessly to open his tie. You can see this in the Altgen's photo -- The Man in the Doorway. Look into the limo.

Kathy

I thought the official explanation was that it was an involuntary reflexive reaction to the back shot. (but I have no faith in official explanations).

If only the Stemmons Freeway sign had been transparent.

Since he brought his hands up in the direction of his throat I'd conclude

he was reacting to a wound in the throat.

The sick joke is this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The sick joke is this thread.

I don't agree, Cliff.

It's one of the best threads, imo. Worst case scenario is that Ashton may be wrong but it's a plausible and well-presented case. Why wouldn't the planners have an operative planted in Parkland?

Beats me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The sick joke is this thread.

I don't agree, Cliff.

It's one of the best threads, imo. Worst case scenario is that Ashton may be wrong but it's a plausible and well-presented case. Why wouldn't the planners have an operative planted in Parkland?

Beats me.

Because they had the technology to paralyze him, which is exactly what

we see happening to JFK in the limo.

I don't agree that it's a plausible case. It is yet another example of gratuitous

witness-bashing, the amount of which that goes on in this case is repugnant, imo.

Answer Kathy's question, please.

If JFK wasn't reacting to a shot to his throat -- what was he doing with his hands

up around his throat?

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two separate questions here:

Were there shots from the front?

Were there conspirators at Parkland assigned to administer a coup d'grace?

Further, these questions may be broken down as follows:

If there were shots from the front, did one or more cause the throat wound?

If there were conspirators at Parkland, did they carry out their assignments?

NOT present is a cause-and-effect relationship between the questions.

Charles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread keeps wandering off the proposition THAT NO BULLET PENETRATED

THE NECKTIE AND COLLAR.

In my briefings of the HSCA staff in the seventies, I brought up this point but

was not allowed to testify about it. NO BULLET PENETRATED THE NECKTIE AND

COLLAR.

IF there was a throat wound, it was not caused by a bullet. To this extent,

I agree with Ashton.

That leaves us with an UNSOLVED MYSTERY concerning the 'throat wound.'

Ashton posed a possible solution which I find rather far-fetched. People

had rather argue over Ashton's theory than look at the available evidence.

I agree with Doug Weldon and his evidence of a bullet from the front transiting

the windshield...but that bullet did not go through the necktie.

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burgundy, again.

There are two separate questions here:

Were there shots from the front?

It is a proven fact that the shot to the throat came

from the front.

Were there conspirators at Parkland assigned to administer a coup d'grace?

And what kind of coup d'grace needs to be performed on a man

with the right back of his head blown out?

Further, these questions may be broken down as follows:

If there were shots from the front, did one or more cause the throat wound?

One did the trick.

Before the autopsists were officially gang-pressed into the cover-up,

they had a "general sense" that JFK was struck with blood soluble rounds.

One of the FBI guys called the FBI Lab to enquire as to the existence of

such rounds -- and he was then informed of the existence of Q1, the Magic

Bullet.

It was at that point that the cover-up commenced full bore.

Had a normal investigative process been allowed to take place, the

"blood soluble" scenario would have found much corroboration in the

photo evidence. The CIA possessed the technology to strike a target

with a blood soluble round that would paralyze within seconds and leave

nothing identifiable in the autopsy.

If there were conspirators at Parkland, did they carry out their assignments?

Diana Bowron is a heroic figure in my book. She was

subject to intense witness tampering at Parkland when LBJ, while walking

by Bowron, turned to Lady Bird, and said (paraphrasing from memory),

"Take down everything everyone says!" I wonder how Bowron's accusers

here would have reacted to such a situation...

NOT present is a cause-and-effect relationship between the questions.

Charles

Kathy's questions hangs in the air like a 500 pound

house fly.

If JFK wasn't reacting to trauma at his throat -- what WAS he doing with

both hands up near his throat?

z230.jpg

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread keeps wandering off the proposition THAT NO BULLET PENETRATED

THE NECKTIE AND COLLAR.

In my briefings of the HSCA staff in the seventies, I brought up this point but

was not allowed to testify about it. NO BULLET PENETRATED THE NECKTIE AND

COLLAR.

Because the round struck above the neck-tie and below the adams

apple. Ashton's claim that this area was not exposed is disputed by

redundant photographic evidence to the contrary.

Scroll down...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0385474466...670#reader-link

Nobody wears their neck tie above their adams apple!

IF there was a throat wound, it was not caused by a bullet. To this extent,

I agree with Ashton.

That leaves us with an UNSOLVED MYSTERY concerning the 'throat wound.'

Ashton posed a possible solution which I find rather far-fetched. People

had rather argue over Ashton's theory than look at the available evidence.

I agree with Doug Weldon and his evidence of a bullet from the front transiting

the windshield...but that bullet did not go through the necktie.

Jack

Above the neck-tie. Below the adams apple.

But don't let me stop anyone from digging yet another black hole

in this case.

There are so many fruitless areas of research here already -- what's

one more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another question for those who buy Bowron-as-perp.

According to the neck x-ray, there was an air pocket overlapping C7 and T1.

How does a needle plunged into the throat leave an air pocket

at the back of the neck?

How does a conventional round leave such an air pocket?

What kind of round would one expect to leave an air pocket?

One that dissolved. Just as the autopsists speculated immediately

after the autopsy.

It's all the case file, Clarise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The sick joke is this thread.

I don't agree, Cliff.

It's one of the best threads, imo. Worst case scenario is that Ashton may be wrong but it's a plausible and well-presented case. Why wouldn't the planners have an operative planted in Parkland?

Beats me.

Because they had the technology to paralyze him, which is exactly what

we see happening to JFK in the limo.

I don't agree that it's a plausible case. It is yet another example of gratuitous

witness-bashing, the amount of which that goes on in this case is repugnant, imo.

imo, that's the kind of sentiment which impedes progress toward closure in this case. All the talk about tarnishing reputations presupposes that the normal rules of society apply. In this case they don't. There was no genuine investigation, no satisfactory explanation of what happened, hence almost anyone is suspect. It's regrettable if fate has dealt the players in this drama such a hand but the blame rests with the USG, not those keen to learn the truth.

Answer Kathy's question, please.

If JFK wasn't reacting to a shot to his throat -- what was he doing with his hands

up around his throat?

It looks that way. Or maybe it was meant to look that way. A front shot seems the most likely explanation to me too. Since we don't know for sure, what's the harm in exploring every possibilty? No matter how well trained the assassins were, there was no guarantee a kill shot would be made. It would have been foolish for JFK's killers to assume as such. Shooters get nervous. Greer might have unwittingly moved the target. Anything could have gone wrong. If JFK's gets a non-fatal hit, where's his next stop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cliff: The sick joke is this thread.

Mark: I don't agree, Cliff.

It's one of the best threads, imo. Worst case scenario is that Ashton

may be wrong but it's a plausible and well-presented case. Why wouldn't

the planners have an operative planted in Parkland?

Cliff:

Because they had the technology to paralyze him, which is exactly what

we see happening to JFK in the limo.

I don't agree that it's a plausible case. It is yet another example of gratuitous

witness-bashing, the amount of which that goes on in this case is repugnant, imo.

Mark in blue...

mo, that's the kind of sentiment which impedes progress toward

closure in this case.

And, in my opinion, it is just this kind of witness-bashing that impedes

progress toward closure in this case.

I'm of the view the first day witness testimony, the Dealey Plaza photos,

and the contemporaneous documentation PRIOR to the introduction of

CE399 tells us the how, which in turn tells us the who, which in turn tells

us the why.

Any speculation not based on the first day evidence is a waste of time, imo.

And yes -- Occam's Razor applies to this case.

All the talk about tarnishing reputations presupposes that the normal rules of society apply. In this case they don't. There was no genuine investigation, no satisfactory explanation of what happened, hence almost anyone is suspect. It's regrettable if fate has dealt the players in this drama such a hand but the blame rests with the USG, not those keen to learn the truth.

On 11/22/63 there most certainly was a genuine investigation,

albeit short-lived, which commenced at Bethesda, when Humes, Boswell

and Finck huddled up after the autopsy, in the presence of Sibert

and O'Neill of the FBI.

They couldn't figure out why there was no bullet and no lane of exit for

the back wound.

A very plausible explanation to the men who examined the body

was that the president had been struck with a blood soluble round.

In a direct, genuine investigative action Sibert called the FBI to enquire

as the the existence of rounds that dissolved in the body.

Sibert's enquiry was deflected by news of CE399.

From the moment that the Magic Bullet was presented to the autopsists,

everything Humes, Boswell, and Finck wrote or said was skewed

by the political decision made in DC to blame the crime on a single

gunman.

Prior to that moment, what they had to say about blood soluble rounds was

corroborated by the Dealey Plaza photo evidence and the neck x-ray.

Answer Kathy's question, please.

If JFK wasn't reacting to a shot to his throat -- what was he doing with his hands

up around his throat?

It looks that way. Or maybe it was meant to look that way.

Maybe it was meant to look that way?

Okay, so the Zapruder film was faked entirely, same with the Altgens

photo, and any witnesses who described JFK bringing his hands up are

possible perp-accomplices?

I tell you what, since this is such a good line of inquiry, let's track down

all the Dealey Plaza witnesses who described JFK in a manner consistent

with the photo evidence. Let's see if we can find something in their back

ground that might suggest intelligence connections, hm?

Disgusting. Morally repugnant.

A front shot seems the most likely explanation to me too. Since we don't know for sure,

Sez you.

The DP films and photos show him responding to a trauma in his neck region.

His wife testified that he had a quizzical look on his face. Kellerman testified

that Jackie said -- "What are they doing to you?" or words to that effect.

The Zapruder film shows JFK bringing his hands toward his throat for a

couple of seconds and then acts paralyzed.

At the hospital two contemporaneous written reports refer to a small

wound of entrance in the throat. A half-dozen Parkland witnesses

specifically describe the wound as one of entrance.

According to the neck x-ray there was a bruising of the tip of the lung

consistent with this frontal shot, as well as a minute fracture of the tip

of the T1 transverse process and most importantly a layer of

air overlapping C7 and T1.

According to the autopsists prior to the corruption of their analysis

by CE399 blood soluble rounds seemed like a plausible explanation.

William Colby and Charles Senseney testified to the Church Committee

that blood soluble rounds were developed for the CIA and tested on

humans which would render the target paralyzed within a few seconds

and not show up on x-ray.

Me, I'm not a Co-Incidence Theorist. No.

what's the harm in exploring every possibilty?

What's the harm in gratuitously attacking the credibility of anyone

who witnessed the crime?

Such an approach guarantees the crime could NEVER be solved.

No matter how well trained the assassins were, there was no guarantee a kill shot would be made. It would have been foolish for JFK's killers to assume as such. Shooters get nervous. Greer might have unwittingly moved the target. Anything could have gone wrong. If JFK's gets a non-fatal hit, where's his next stop?

That's why they paralyzed him first.

They had the technology, and the evidence is consistent with its use.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...