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

[Mark Stapleton]

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 would call it exploring a plausible line of enquiry. We have to agree to disagree here.

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.

Sez you. I don't see it that way.

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.

I'm not disputing the probability of your scenario, Cliff. They had the technology. They (may have) paralysed him. But you didn't really address my conundrum, ie. what if something went wrong with the plan? What if they couldn't get in a clean headshot and he wasn't fatally wounded? What then? In my view, it makes sense for the planners to have a presence at Parkland, because that's where JFK was going.

[Cliff Varnell]

I would call it exploring a plausible line of enquiry. We have to agree to disagree here.

Mark,

I want to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The underlying

premise is sound: the plotters faced a conundrum in that a first-shot/kill-shot was

not 100% guaranteed.

Before we get to the baby, let's chuck the bathwater. It has all kinds of nasty bugs

in it.

Cliff:

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?

Mark:

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

Cliff:

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

grounds that might suggest intelligence connections, hm?

Disgusting. Morally repugnant.

Mark:

Sez you. I don't see it that way.

From William Newman's Clay Shaw trial testimony:

(quote on, emphasis mine)

Q: Do you have any impression as to the direction from which the shots came?

A: Yes, sir. From the sound of the shots, the report of the rifle or whatever it was,

it sounded like they were coming directly behind from where I was standing.

Q: Now would you push the microphone aside and step down to the aerial photograph

and identify that general area, just the general area from which the sounds came.

A: In my opinion, the sounds of the shots sounded as if they had come from directly

behind me (indicating). I was standing near this light standard here, and I thought the

shots were coming from back here, and apparently everybody else did because they

all ran in that direction....

...Q: Would you tell us in as much detail as you can recall about the impact which you

may have observed from the shots.

A: Yes, sir. you want me to start with the first two shots?

Q: Start right from the beginning and just tell us as you recall.

A: Okay. My wife and myself were watching the parade come toward us.

We had to more or less step off the curb to look up the street, and as the

car was approaching I heard two shots -- BOOM, BOOM -- and when the

first shot was fired the President throwed his hands up like this (demonstrating),

and at the time what we thought had happened, somebody throwed firecrackers

or something under the automobile and he was protecting his face.

(quote off)

The plotters planted a "family guy" witness who testified to a knoll shooter

(and thus conspiracy) while giving *false* statements as to Kennedy's hand

movements?

And look who else was *part of the plot* -- Nellie Connally!

From her WC testimony:

(quote on, emphasis added)

Mr. DODD: ...You heard a shot, what appeared or sounded like a shot, a sharp

noise, to you? You turned to your left or your right?

Mrs. CONNALLY. My right.

Mr. DODD. You turned to your right. As you turned around and

saw the President, you saw him clutching his throat?

Mrs. CONNALLY. I saw him reach up to his throat.

Mr. DODD. Both hands were on his throat?

Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes, sir.

(quote off)

I guess the script went a little awry here, since the films don't show JFK

clutching his throat, although his hands were in that area. However, as we

can see in the Gil Jesus video cited earlier in this thread, JFK momentarily

tried to tug at his shirt collar with his left index finger -- so Nellie's

inaccuracy is a minor inconsistency.

And then there's Jackie.

From her WC tesimony:

(quote on)

JBK:

...I was looking this way, to the left, and I heard these terrible noises. You

know. And my husband never made any sound. So I turned to the right.

And all I remember is seeing my husband, he had this sort of quizzical

look on his face, and his hand was up, it must have been his left hand.

(quote off)

Was Jackie *in on it*?

Hey, that might explain how Bowron got away with stabbing JFK in the throat on

the way to TR1 -- Jackie had her back!

But what kind of *coup de grace* was that, anyway?

According to the neck x-ray there was a nicked trachea, a bruised lung-tip,

and a hairline fracture of the tip of the right T1 transverse process (and that

pesky air pocket overlaying C7 and T1 -- which everyone ignores because it

doesn't fit their pet theories.)

All of those wounds were non-fatal, non-life-threatening.

Of course, we could always pile the neck x-ray on the mound of faked

and planted evidence -- but for one enduring question: Why?

Why would the plotters alter the body to suggest shots from 2 directions

when one of their contingency plans was to pin the deed on a lone

assassin?

Why shiv a guy in the throat when he's already D.O.A. with brain matter extruding

from the right-rear of his head?

*Underkill* if ever I've heard of it.

Mark:

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?

Cliff:

That's why they paralyzed him first.

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

Mark:

I'm not disputing the probability of your scenario, Cliff. They had the technology.

They (may have) paralysed him. But you didn't really address my conundrum, ie.

what if something went wrong with the plan? What if they couldn't get in a clean

headshot and he wasn't fatally wounded? What then? In my view, it makes sense

for the planners to have a presence at Parkland, because that's where JFK was

going.

And that operative risked getting caught and thus exposing the conspiracy

just to inflict non-fatal wounds in the neck of a guy whose brains were already

blown out?

No, Mark, that is not a plausible scenario.

But yes, Mark, the plotters couldn't count on a first-shot/kill-shot. That's why

he was hit with a paralytic first. Once JFK was paralyzed (which he certainly

appears to be in the Zapruder film), more than one shooter had a clean head shot.

Two shooters behind the fence, perhaps. Two in the TSBD. Another in the Dal-Tex.

And perhaps one on the roof of the County Courts Building, and one on the south knoll.

They couldn't miss.

On the other hand, where was there a "clean" shot at Parkland?

Edited November 13, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Mark Stapleton]

Cliff,

I must say that after reading all your posts thouroughly and looking at the Z-film evidence, especially the Gil Jesus Youtube series 'Was JFK trying to cough up a bullet' (slomos of Z225-Z237), it's difficult to dispute the claim that JFK was hit by a frontal throat shot. It appears Ashton's claim that no shot struck JFK in the throat is wrong. Perhaps Ashton might submit further evidence in support of the claim.

A tranquiliser immobilising JFK for the triangulated round of fire which followed, and the conspirators being aware that JFK's back brace would help in keeping him upright, permiitted the shooters to administer the coup-de-gras right there in DP. This appears to be the most likely scenario.

For the record.

[Charles Drago]

My Two Good Friends,

You're both missing the single, critical point here.

Once the firing started, the conspirators had to ensure that the job was done.

If JFK survived the attempt -- even in a gravely diminished state -- the conspirators were doomed.

Period.

Every angle had to be covered. Absent the best possible conditions on the ground, the "GO" order would not be forthcoming.

But once it was given, even under optimal conditions and after clearly visible, likely fatal hits, the deed could not be considered done.

Parkland had to be covered.

As far as the conspirators were concerned, the most critical period during the hit and its immediate aftermath would be the time between the infliction of initial wounds and the medically certified death of the target.

The danger was great. Great risk was warranted.

JFK's posterior head wound of exit was missed even by some of the attending physicians until the president's body was manipulated into a position that made the massive defect visible.

How would a killer assigned the task of administering the coup d'grace assess JFK's condition immediately upon arrival at Parkland?

Why should we assume that he or she had an option?

The die had been cast. JFK had to die. And unless his head was in a bowling ball bag on the floor next to the gurney, the conspirators had no choice but to inflict one final wound.

Nothing else makes sense.

Nothing.

I have no doubt that JFK was struck by at least one round fired from the front of his limo. There is nothing inconsistent with holding this position and accepting the probability of a Parkland insurance policy.

Nothing.

Charles

Edited November 14, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Mark Stapleton]

My Two Good Friends,

You're both missing the single, critical point here.

Once the firing started, the conspirators had to ensure that the job was done.

If JFK survived the attempt -- even in a gravely diminished state -- the conspirators were doomed.

Period.

Every angle had to be covered. Absent the best possible conditions on the ground, the "GO" order would not be forthcoming.

But once it was given, even under optimal conditions and after clearly visible, likely fatal hits, the deed could not be considered done.

Parkland had to be covered.

As far as the conspirators were concerned, the most critical period during the hit and its immediate aftermath would be the time between the infliction of initial wounds and the medically certified death of the target.

The danger was great. Great risk was warranted.

JFK's posterior head wound of exit was missed even by some of the attending physicians until the president's body was manipulated into a position that made the massive defect visible.

How would a killer assigned the task of administering the coup d'grace assess JFK's condition immediately upon arrival at Parkland?

Why should we assume that he or she had an option?

The die had been cast. JFK had to die. And unless his head was in a bowling ball bag on the floor next to the gurney, the conspirators had no choice but to inflict one final wound.

Nothing else makes sense.

Nothing.

I have no doubt that JFK was struck by at least one round fired from the front of his limo. There is nothing inconsistent with holding this position and accepting the probability of a Parkland insurance policy.

Nothing.

Charles

Charles,

I agree and still believe a Parkland insurance policy was a logical precaution for the plotters to take. The argument stands independent of the front throat shot discussion. Whether this contingency was used is not clear. It's a persuasive argument but the precondition submitted by Ashton that there was no frontal throat shot appears to be wrong.

[Tim Gratz]

The "insurance policy" was a car bomb that would have taken out the entire presidential limousine.

And of course it is absolutely nonsensical to state that had JFK been left a vegetable why then the conspirators would have been tracked down. Whatever the reasons for the cover-up, they existed regardless of whether JFK was dead or alive but nonfunctioing. Obviously.

[Cliff Varnell]

Charles and Mark,

JFK was struck twice with rounds that did no significant internal damage.

The back wound was very shallow, and like the throat wound it was inconsistent with a round

fired from any conventional firearm, or so I've been assured.

It was the nature of the back wound that spurred the autopsists to speculate that JFK was hit with

a blood soluble round.

Returning to that brief moment of actual investigative speculation, I submit that the coup de grace

was possibly a toxin fired into his back.

The problem with a wound induced at Parkland is this: how to guarantee the operatives had access

to Kennedy?

Surely Bowron wasn't in a position to guarantee she'd be the nurse to go out to meet the limo.

And if one is going to administer a coup de grace -- make it a coup de grace!

Why stab the guy in the throat when you could just as readily stab him in the heart?

It certainly appears that neither the throat wound nor the back wound were intended to

inflict fatal damage, in and of themselves. Makes sense (imo) to hit him with a paralytic,

and then a toxin, and then the head shot(s).

In a real investigation, two guys would have immediately been dragged in and grilled heavily:

Sidney Gottlieb and Mitch WerBell 3rd. They were the two most capable of creating such weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Gottlieb

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

Edited November 14, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Bernice Moore]

Cliff:

McCloy-Rankin document.....

B...

Edited November 14, 2007 by Bernice Moore

[Tim Gratz]

Cliff, IMO what hit JFK in the back was CE399.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff, IMO what hit JFK in the back was CE399.

No way. The wound was very shallow. Neither of JFK's non-fatal wounds

were consistent with a conventional round.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff:

McCloy-Rankin document.....

B...

Thank you, Bernice! I think the FBI recreation in Dealey Plaza, which

left Specter holding his stupid pointer 4 inches above the "wound," was

such an embarrassment for the WC that Rankin felt a need to distance

himself from Darlin' Arlen's SBT.

In the end, they had no choice but to hold their noses and go with it.

[Tim Gratz]

Cliff your post #161 is an interesting point worthy of discussion.

The pathologists obviously thought it was the entry of a bullet.

Query whether a bullet from a MC traveling at a lower velocity would not penetrate deeper than it did.

[Jack White]

I have been waiting for someone to mention the most OBVIOUS need for

a wound in the throat. Without an EXIT wound in the anterior neck, the

SINGLE BULLET THEORY would not have been possible.

Jack

[Cliff Varnell]

I have been waiting for someone to mention the most OBVIOUS need for

a wound in the throat. Without an EXIT wound in the anterior neck, the

SINGLE BULLET THEORY would not have been possible.

Jack

And how would the need for the SBT be assessed minutes after the shooting?

The murder was designed to look like a conspiracy, after all.

A Castro conspiracy.

[Jack White]

I have been waiting for someone to mention the most OBVIOUS need for

a wound in the throat. Without an EXIT wound in the anterior neck, the

SINGLE BULLET THEORY would not have been possible.

Jack

And how would the need for the SBT be assessed minutes after the shooting?

The murder was designed to look like a conspiracy, after all.

A Castro conspiracy.

Thanks for making my point.

That is the trouble with the "Ashton Theory"...there is no way to know that quickly

that a throat wound would be needed..

And even though the throat wound is essential to the SBT, darlin' Arlen had not

even invented it yet. So that does not fly as a reason.

Therefore theories about a piercing throat wound at Parkland are very iffy. It seems

improbable that the SBT was a planned contingency.

...so back to square one...NO WOUND WAS CAUSED BY A BULLET GOING THROUGH

THE NECKTIE KNOT...so how did such a wound occur?

Jack