David Josephs Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 ='Cliff Varnell' date='18 April 2012 - 03:07 AM' timestamp='1334711223' post='250682'] ='David Josephs' date='17 April 2012 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1334706576' post='250680'] And there are those that testify to a hole thru JFK right about at that spot on the jacket. Who testified to a "wound thru JFK" at the base of his neck? How is it, David, that everyone who saw JFK's low back wound and everyone who saw his throat entrance wound got it wrong in the same way? Mass hallucination? Gimme a break... ============ No Cliff... just a few people who saw things differently... Except ANYTHING at Bethesda has to be taken on faith as we reallt have no idea what occurred between Parkland and that table. LIPSEY: Alright, as I remember them there was one bullet that went in the back of the head that exited and blew away part of his face. And that was sort of high up, not high up but like this little crown on the back of your head right there, three or four inches above your neck. And then the other one entered at more of less the top of the neck, the other one entered more of less at the bottom of the neck. Mr. KELLERMAN. Entry into this man's head was right below that wound, right here. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear about the lower third of the ear? Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. But it was in the hairline, sir. Mr. SPECTER. In his hairline? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. SPECTER. Near the end of his hairline? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. SPECTER. What was the size of that aperture? Mr. KELLERMAN. The little finger. ='David Josephs' date='17 April 2012 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1334706576' post='250680'] CLIFF: It is also possible that Rankin was correct when he said he was looking at an autopsy report.... There is little if any reason to shoot JFK in the throat from the front with such a small round. I disagree most vigorously. They had the capacity to paralyze a target before the kill shot -- to insure a kill shot, to avoid the possibility that a non-lethal first shot might cause JFK to duck down. JFK seized up paralyzed in about 2 seconds, utterly consistent with known testing by the CIA. They had the capacity to fire a blood soluble toxin with the second shot. These capacities existed. It's a fact. Why do you think they wouldn't use the technology available to them? ========== I am of the opinion that he DID speak since the backwound was a shallow, non-transitting one, and the throat wound comes after the headshot. Since the autopsy was not properly done we have no idea what the head, skull, mouth, or any other thing actually looked like at the time of the shooting. I am willing to agree to disagree about the throat shot Cliff... I do not want to get into a shouting match over something that is masked by inauthentic evidence. ANY shot prior to the kill shot would be cause for alarm, if alarms were on people's minds... they weren't. We have a shot just after the turn onto Elm... there is plenty of corroboration for this shot "sounding like a firecracker or backfire" (ground level sounds) and causing cement to kick up beside the limo.... Why weren't the alarms raised at this point... plus, it is 143 z frames after the back shot before 313... are you saying that his being paralyzed in turn cause the SS agents to be paralyzed? cause Jackie not to pull him down, Greer to speed off? I do not accept your premise as to WHY a paralyzing shot would even be taken, and especially so far before the killzone... No Cliff... I am going to stick with the throat wound NOT being a bullet but a fragment along with other fragments... and themedical evidence we have is simply not complete enough to say ne way or the other.... Mr. KELLERMAN. As we turned off Houston onto Elm and made the short little dip to the left going down grade, as I said, we were away from buildings, and were there was a sign on the side of the road which I don't recall what it was or what it said, but we no more than passed that and you are out in the open, and there is a report like a firecracker, pop. And I turned my head to the right because whatever this noise was I was sure that it came from the right and perhaps into the rear, and as I turned my head to the right to view whatever it was or see whatever it was, I heard a voice from the back seat and I firmly believe it was the President's, "My God, I am hit," and I turned around and he has got his hands up here like this. ='David Josephs' date='17 April 2012 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1334706576' post='250680'] It is MUCH MORE LIKELY that a fragment of bullet or bone exited there (the embalmers notes include 2-3 small holes in the cheeks where "shrapnel" is said to have exited. So JFK started reacting to a wound in his throat before he suffered a wound in his throat? And all the people at Parkland who spoke of a throat entrance wound suffered the same mis-impression? No, I don't find either of those scenarios likely at all, to put it mildly. ========== Again Cliff...it's all how you want to see it. IF there was no frontal shot... AND we know the back shot did not go thru the throat... the only other possibility is a fragment of bullet or bone. IF there WAS a frontal shot I am willing to entertain your theories... I am just not yet convinced of this throat shot when there are other explanations as well as contradictions with Kellerman's testimony. ='David Josephs' date='17 April 2012 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1334706576' post='250680'] Sadly, since the evidence with which we are given to work is such crap... completely inauthentic, proving what happened is futile. There is nothing inauthentic about the statements of the witnesses to the low back wound and the throat entrance wound. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater -- and indirectly engaging in the same witness bashing we get from LNers. ========== Maybe you misunderstand... there WAS a lower back wound... and yes, the throat hole was considered an entrance wound from a bullet at Parkland, no argument there. But you have to address the 143 frames or so where JFK had been shot at least once in the back... and whether paralyzed or not, NOBODY - save Hill - comes to his aid... NOBODY speeds away, Nobody moves heaven and earth to cover up and save the president... Whether the hole was an ice dart or not has no bearing on that travesty or the FACT the final shot(s) were from the front. ='David Josephs' date='17 April 2012 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1334706576' post='250680'] Mr. Rankin: Then there‘s a great range of material in regards to the wound and the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the present time. We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent, since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through. So that how it could turn, and -- Rep. Boggs. I thought I read that bullet just went.in a finger's length. Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said What was said FIRST, and later corrected to implicate Oswald more completely... MAY be the real clues to the mystery... If a bullet worked its way out AND a fragment exited the throat... we have very simple answers for very strange happenings.... While I still think ANYTHING is possible including the ice bullet idea... our disagreement does not detract at all from the conclusion... Cheers DJ Rankin struggling to put the evidence into a 3-shot scenario is amusing. And ridiculous. The witnesses with the best view of JFK describe him reacting to throat trauma from the first shot, which is what the Zapruder film also shows. Do you really think JFK started reacting to throat trauma before he was struck in the throat? I don't. And I see no reason to impeach the testimony of the throat and back witnesses in favor of such capricious scenarios. ====== A fragment of bone exiting the throat is NOT a capricious scenario... in fact, are you sure you mean "capricious"? ca•pri•cious adjective 1. subject to, led by, or indicative of caprice or whim; erratic: He's such a capricious boss I never know how he'll react. 2. Obsolete . fanciful or witty. What JFK is doing with his hands can be interpreted a number of ways... I see him being pushed forward slightly AFTER his arms raise from behind the sign. Plus, wouldn't we expect to see some blood on JFK if he has a hole in his throat? Looking at Altgens and Z255-260... not so much. Yet I have reached no conclusion on this matter. All I do know is that while either scenario is possible as the technology was available.... I don't know how we can resolve the holes left in each. Cheers DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 I believe I addressed your post but want to clarify... I am not arguing against the T3 wound - no matter how you slice it the SBT is not possible. Now, whether the damage you described was actually seen at the autopsy - again, how would we know if they did not write it down? Check the autopsy report... there is simply no mention of the condition of JFK's head, mouth, sinus, neck, throat... http://jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html so we could not know whether those areas were damaged or not. With regards to the findings of the Parkland Doctors and the throat wound... it LOOKED like a small entry wound... Rankin tells us that AN AUTOPSY REPORT informs them that that hole was caused by a fragment... this HAD to be written somewhere for him to quote it. And it had to have been changed to what the autopsy says today. Do you have info that they did look at these areas you name and concluded something from that examination? your #d) no evidence from Bethesda does not mean it was not there, it simply means it was not even looked at... a BIG difference. Cheers DJ We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck , but with the elevation the shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent, since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through. So that how it could turn, and -- James... That is what they TELL us... Sorry, but the FBI's track record with regards to this case's physical evidence is pathetic. Does that little crescent look as if anything was taken from there as opposed to the lower hole... Shouldn't we have seen fibers from the jacket and shirt in his backwound and on the bullet? And there are those that testify to a hole thru JFK right about at that spot on the jacket. David I have never examined the jacket, however Humes did examine it on Monday March 16th before he went on to testify. On P. 365 it appears that Specter wanted Humes to say that this upper hole is the back entrance wound through the jacket. There is a superb moment when asked by Specter does this hole go all the way through the jacket, Humes initially says yes. Then he pauses for a moment and says this hole is not quite as clear as the damage to the lower hole. Then, when asked directly by Specter does this hole go all the way through the jacket, Humes says no. The damage does not go all the way through. However it is not just the appearance of a hole in this region of the jacket, it is that there is no corresponding hole in the body that coincides with this damage to the jacket. I may argue that the back hole seen in the autopsy image is unlikely to be around T3, I feel it may be nearer T2. But what is certain is that this hole is also nowhere near where you believe this damage to the jacket is. Let alone the fact that Humes, who did examine the jacket, is on record stating that it is not a through hole through the complete jacket. There is little if any reason to shoot JFK in the throat from the front with such a small round. It is MUCH MORE LIKELY that a fragment of bullet or bone exited there (the embalmers notes include 2-3 small holes in the cheeks where "shrapnel" is said to have exited. There is a logic to this idea, but it does not stack up. Aside from the fact that the embalmers note refers to small damage to the cheek and not inside the mouth. Putting aside that this happens too early in the assassination it is not possible. It is not just that damage has to be inside the mouth the following have also to be damaged. a) there has to be a hole in the roof of the mouth to allow these fragments into the mouth. there also has to be hole in the floor of the mouth to allow these fragments to move into the trachea c) there also has to be a means whereby these same fragments can now exit the trachea. d) there is no evidence that this kind of damage was discovered at Bethesda. AND all this has to be done in such a way as to fool experienced Parkland doctors into thinking what they are seeing is a bullet wound of entrance. The problems involved for this to happen are so complex, they make it an impossibility. I concur that there is a logic to your idea but practically speaking the requirements for it to happen far outweigh the possibilities. James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted April 18, 2012 Author Share Posted April 18, 2012 I believe I addressed your post but want to clarify... I am not arguing against the T3 wound - no matter how you slice it the SBT is not possible. Now, whether the damage you described was actually seen at the autopsy - again, how would we know if they did not write it down? Check the autopsy report... there is simply no mention of the condition of JFK's head, mouth, sinus, neck, throat... http://jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html so we could not know whether those areas were damaged or not. With regards to the findings of the Parkland Doctors and the throat wound... it LOOKED like a small entry wound... Rankin tells us that AN AUTOPSY REPORT informs them that that hole was caused by a fragment... this HAD to be written somewhere for him to quote it. And it had to have been changed to what the autopsy says today. Do you have info that they did look at these areas you name and concluded something from that examination? your #d) no evidence from Bethesda does not mean it was not there, it simply means it was not even looked at... a BIG difference. Cheers DJ David, O.k. lets discuss this. First can you point me to the Rankin quote. I am not familiar with it. Lets assume that the throat wound is an exit wound, as you suggest. So I can think this through, before replying are we agreed that this throat wound occurred before Z 225. Or are you contesting that, that is not the moment. In which case when do you suggest this wound happened? James. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 (edited) I'll go burgundy ='Cliff Varnell' date='18 April 2012 - 03:07 AM' timestamp='1334711223' post='250682'] ='David Josephs' date='17 April 2012 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1334706576' post='250680'] And there are those that testify to a hole thru JFK right about at that spot on the jacket. Who testified to a "wound thru JFK" at the base of his neck? How is it, David, that everyone who saw JFK's low back wound and everyone who saw his throat entrance wound got it wrong in the same way? Mass hallucination? Gimme a break... ============ No Cliff... just a few people who saw things differently... Except ANYTHING at Bethesda has to be taken on faith as we reallt have no idea what occurred between Parkland and that table. LIPSEY: Alright, as I remember them there was one bullet that went in the back of the head that exited and blew away part of his face. And that was sort of high up, not high up but like this little crown on the back of your head right there, three or four inches above your neck. And then the other one entered at more of less the top of the neck, the other one entered more of less at the bottom of the neck. I haven't seen any evidence that Richard Lipsey attended the autopsy of John F. Kennedy. Is there anyone to vouch for him? Mr. KELLERMAN. Entry into this man's head was right below that wound, right here. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear about the lower third of the ear? Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. But it was in the hairline, sir. Mr. SPECTER. In his hairline? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. SPECTER. Near the end of his hairline? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. SPECTER. What was the size of that aperture? Mr. KELLERMAN. The little finger. This isn't the back wound Kellerman is describing. ='David Josephs' date='17 April 2012 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1334706576' post='250680'] CLIFF: It is also possible that Rankin was correct when he said he was looking at an autopsy report.... There is little if any reason to shoot JFK in the throat from the front with such a small round. I disagree most vigorously. They had the capacity to paralyze a target before the kill shot -- to insure a kill shot, to avoid the possibility that a non-lethal first shot might cause JFK to duck down. JFK seized up paralyzed in about 2 seconds, utterly consistent with known testing by the CIA. They had the capacity to fire a blood soluble toxin with the second shot. These capacities existed. It's a fact. Why do you think they wouldn't use the technology available to them? ========== I am of the opinion that he DID speak since the backwound was a shallow, non-transitting one, and the throat wound comes after the headshot. So everyone who described the throat shot as the first shot -- and what we see in the Zapruder film -- all got it wrong? Or did JFK start reacting to a wound in the throat 6 seconds before he actually experienced a wound in the throat? Not only does that dog not hunt, it's eaten up by the fleas. Since the autopsy was not properly done we have no idea what the head, skull, mouth, or any other thing actually looked like at the time of the shooting. A bunch of people at Parkland described the throat wound as an entry. Mass hallucination or mass incompetence? I am willing to agree to disagree about the throat shot Cliff... I do not want to get into a shouting match over something that is masked by inauthentic evidence. And the Parkland witnesses were "inauthentic"...why? ANY shot prior to the kill shot would be cause for alarm, if alarms were on people's minds... they weren't. With the exceptions of Jackie Kennedy, Nellie Connally, Linda Willis and Clint Hill. And their testimonies are "inauthentic"...why? With all due respect, David, this just smacks of good old fashioned witness bashing. We have a shot just after the turn onto Elm... there is plenty of corroboration for this shot "sounding like a firecracker or backfire" (ground level sounds) and causing cement to kick up beside the limo.... Why weren't the alarms raised at this point... Because no one was hit? plus, it is 143 z frames after the back shot before 313... I'll take the Pepsi challenge on that one, David. Give me your argument for when the back shot occurred. I think you're roughly 100 Z frames too early. are you saying that his being paralyzed in turn cause the SS agents to be paralyzed? Nope. cause Jackie not to pull him down, Yep. Greer to speed off? Nope. I do not accept your premise as to WHY a paralyzing shot would even be taken, and especially so far before the killzone... It took a couple of seconds for the paralytic to take effect, and then a couple of seconds later he was struck in the back. I don't see any timing problems there, at all. No Cliff... I am going to stick with the throat wound NOT being a bullet but a fragment along with other fragments... and the medical evidence we have is simply not complete enough to say ne way or the other.... So JFK started reacting to a shot in his throat 6 seconds before he suffered an actual wound in the throat? This is an amazing assertion! Mr. KELLERMAN. As we turned off Houston onto Elm and made the short little dip to the left going down grade, as I said, we were away from buildings, and were there was a sign on the side of the road which I don't recall what it was or what it said, but we no more than passed that and you are out in the open, and there is a report like a firecracker, pop. And I turned my head to the right because whatever this noise was I was sure that it came from the right and perhaps into the rear, and as I turned my head to the right to view whatever it was or see whatever it was, I heard a voice from the back seat and I firmly believe it was the President's, "My God, I am hit," and I turned around and he has got his hands up here like this. Yep. Just like what we see in the Zap, just like what Nellie Connally, Linda Willis, Clint Hill and others testified to. JFK was struck in the throat and he reacted by lifting his arms and attempting to loosen his neck-tie. Jackie said he had a "quizzical" look on his face. Is that the reaction one would expect from a shot in the back? And Glen Bennett described the back shot as occurring after the first shot. ='David Josephs' date='17 April 2012 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1334706576' post='250680'] It is MUCH MORE LIKELY that a fragment of bullet or bone exited there (the embalmers notes include 2-3 small holes in the cheeks where "shrapnel" is said to have exited. So JFK started reacting to a wound in his throat before he suffered a wound in his throat? And all the people at Parkland who spoke of a throat entrance wound suffered the same mis-impression? No, I don't find either of those scenarios likely at all, to put it mildly. ========== Again Cliff...it's all how you want to see it. I disagree. It's what the witnesses and the photographic evidence show. IF there was no frontal shot... I'd have to characterize such an assertion as gravely mis-informed. How is it that everyone who saw JFK's wounds got it wrong? This is pet theorizing run amok... AND we know the back shot did not go thru the throat... Correct! the only other possibility is a fragment of bullet or bone. Which means JFK started reacting to a wound in the throat 6 seconds before he actually suffered a wound in the throat... IF there WAS a frontal shot I am willing to entertain your theories... It's not my theory. It was the scenario suggested by the autopsists the night of the autopsy, before they were fully dragooned into the cover-up I am just not yet convinced of this throat shot when there are other explanations as well as contradictions with Kellerman's testimony. What contradictions with Kellerman's testimony? What about the statements of the Parkland personnel as to the throat entrance wound? Chopped liver? ='David Josephs' date='17 April 2012 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1334706576' post='250680'] Sadly, since the evidence with which we are given to work is such crap... completely inauthentic, proving what happened is futile. There is nothing inauthentic about the statements of the witnesses to the low back wound and the throat entrance wound. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater -- and indirectly engaging in the same witness bashing we get from LNers. ========== Maybe you misunderstand... there WAS a lower back wound... and yes, the throat hole was considered an entrance wound from a bullet at Parkland, no argument there. But you have to address the 143 frames or so where JFK had been shot at least once in the back... and whether paralyzed or not, NOBODY - save Hill - comes to his aid... NOBODY speeds away, Nobody moves heaven and earth to cover up and save the president... Why do I have to explain any of that? Those issues stand aside from the nature of the back and throat wounds Whether the hole was an ice dart or not has no bearing on that travesty or the FACT the final shot(s) were from the front. Right. Separate issues. I'm addressing the nature of the back and throat wounds, so there is a natural limitation on the issues that can therefore be properly addressed. ='David Josephs' date='17 April 2012 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1334706576' post='250680'] Mr. Rankin: Then there‘s a great range of material in regards to the wound and the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the present time. We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent, since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through. So that how it could turn, and -- Rep. Boggs. I thought I read that bullet just went.in a finger's length. Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said What was said FIRST, and later corrected to implicate Oswald more completely... MAY be the real clues to the mystery... If a bullet worked its way out AND a fragment exited the throat... we have very simple answers for very strange happenings.... While I still think ANYTHING is possible including the ice bullet idea... our disagreement does not detract at all from the conclusion... Cheers DJ Rankin struggling to put the evidence into a 3-shot scenario is amusing. And ridiculous. The witnesses with the best view of JFK describe him reacting to throat trauma from the first shot, which is what the Zapruder film also shows. Do you really think JFK started reacting to throat trauma before he was struck in the throat? I don't. And I see no reason to impeach the testimony of the throat and back witnesses in favor of such capricious scenarios. ====== A fragment of bone exiting the throat is NOT a capricious scenario... in fact, are you sure you mean "capricious"? ca•pri•cious adjective 1. subject to, led by, or indicative of caprice or whim; erratic: He's such a capricious boss I never know how he'll react. 2. Obsolete . fanciful or witty. Yes, I find the notion that JFK started to react to throat trauma 6 seconds before he was struck in the throat quite whimsical and erratic. I could say "idiotic," but I generally respect your other posts, our current kerfuffle aside, and I don't want to flash unintended disrespect. Edited April 18, 2012 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 I believe I addressed your post but want to clarify... I am not arguing against the T3 wound - no matter how you slice it the SBT is not possible. Now, whether the damage you described was actually seen at the autopsy - again, how would we know if they did not write it down? Check the autopsy report... there is simply no mention of the condition of JFK's head, mouth, sinus, neck, throat... http://jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html so we could not know whether those areas were damaged or not. With regards to the findings of the Parkland Doctors and the throat wound... it LOOKED like a small entry wound... Rankin tells us that AN AUTOPSY REPORT informs them that that hole was caused by a fragment... this HAD to be written somewhere for him to quote it. And it had to have been changed to what the autopsy says today. Do you have info that they did look at these areas you name and concluded something from that examination? your #d) no evidence from Bethesda does not mean it was not there, it simply means it was not even looked at... a BIG difference. Cheers DJ David, O.k. lets discuss this. First can you point me to the Rankin quote. I am not familiar with it. Lets assume that the throat wound is an exit wound, as you suggest. So I can think this through, before replying are we agreed that this throat wound occurred before Z 225. Or are you contesting that, that is not the moment. In which case when do you suggest this wound happened? James. Ok... sounds good From the Jan 27 1964 Exec Session. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0127/html/WcEx0127_0069a.htm Mr. Rankin: ....We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck... For the throat wound to be of exit it would have to be a result of the bone and bullet fragments from a head shot... and depending on who you believe this was either at 313 or 343 (there is very good evidence that the WCR pushed the location of 313 from 4+65 to 4+95 feet... 30 feet further down the road) So no, if the wound is as Rankin says the Autopsy described as a fragment exiting... it could not be before 225 and Kellerman was correct when he heard JFK speak after the back wound. I believe they were most afraid of an autopsy in TX that would reveal the frontal shot(s) as well as to find bullets that were written about but are no longer around. If you look at the Frazier/Todd/Rowley/Cunningham bullet trail... it is obvious there are more bullets than accounted for. Cheers DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Viklund Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 (edited) Answers in red. Cliff Varnell: "They had the capacity to paralyze a target before the kill shot -- to insure a kill shot, to avoid the possibility that a non-lethal first shot might cause JFK to duck down. JFK seized up paralyzed in about 2 seconds, utterly consistent with known testing by the CIA. They had the capacity to fire a blood soluble toxin with the second shot. These capacities existed. It's a fact. Why do you think they wouldn't use the technology available to them?" Cliff, I'll give you two reasons which I find very convincing. 1) Why try to shoot the President in the neck - purposely - with something that will not kill him? Glenn, he was shot in the throat with something that didn't kill him! Yes, but that's only as a result of another bullet taking care of that, before the first one may well have. Perhaps I should have added in my first posting that I don't agree with your basic assumption of why we see JFK act the way he did, after being hit the first time. You describe this as him being "paralyzed". Perhaps this is an agreeable description. However, the conclusion that his actions - or lack of actions - was the result of some kind of toxin entering his body, is highly speculative. What we can agree on, surely, is that JFK had been hit in his neck by a bullet. I don't know exactly what makes you conclude that his apparently "paralyzed" reaction must have had something to do with a toxin of some kind? As you stated, Jackie said he looked quizzical. Who wouldn't look quizzical? Just a few seconds after something completely incomprehensible happened to him, and his brain had just begun to processing what was going on? The sensation, and possibly pain, that JFK must surely have felt from this shot should of course have been completely unexplainable to him. His hands came up to his throat as the result of a reflex response, not as a result of a processed thought. After this reaction his only movement was that he fell over slightly forward and towards his left, Jackie. Newton, that is. I don't know what it is that you would have expected him to do here, in these few seconds after he was hit - to not conclude that he was injected with some kind of toxin? Stand up? Lay down? Take cover, somehow? Say something? Or what? I believe that JFK was completely overwhelmed by the sensation of the hit and that he also was just beginning to register all kinds of totally unknown sensations that he was unable to comprehend. Could he swallow, for example? Had the pain of the hit begun register? Was he able to breath properly? Personally I don't believe that JFK in the few seconds before the head shot ended it all, understood the situation; that he'd been hit. I think his brain was in turbo mode to sort out all strange and never before felt signals his body was sending him. And that yes, he had begun to feel the pain. Nellie Connally, who got a glance of him after the first hit, described his eyes as "empty and frightened". Possibly his left hand fist is an indication of this. In my view, as a response to what was going on inside of him, not because he was thinking of what exactly had happened or what might happen. Cliff, I don't have the answers to all of this. But no matter how I turn the stones here, I cannot see that President Kennedy's reaction would have had to have anything to do with a toxin. Another matter is that toxins are traceable. Not only in the sense that it existed, but also possibly where it came from; was manufactured. Why risk that with the questions that would follow? So therefor, yes, he was hit with a bullet that didn't kill him. But in my view, it might well have as I believe it was a standard bullet. The doctors at Parkland suggested that there could be no guarantee that JFK would have survived the neck hit. It may well have turned out fatal. If someone was going to take a shot at JFK, why not just aim for the President's head with a standard bullet and the likelihood is very strong that it would all be game over? They didn't want to go to the gas chamber if the first shot failed to kill JFK. Well, Cliff, do you really think that anyone who would have been caught and convicted for being part of the alleged assassination team at DPD would not get the death sentence? I doubt it. Glenn, would you risk your life on a "very strong likelihood" that the first shot was a kill shot when you had the capacity to paralyze the target first? That is a question which I believe no shooter would have had any possibility of answer during the shooting. How would anyone be able to decide whether a hit had been fatal or not, in the few seconds they had to decide this? Which is confirmed by what the doctors said about the neck shot, "it may have been fatal". First-shot/kill shot was not a 100% proposition. With a blood soluble paralytic a strike anywhere on the body is successful -- this could not be assumed with a standard round. And the damage shown on the neck x-ray was utterly inconsistent with a standard round. The shallow wound in the back was utterly inconsistent with a standard round. Well, there's hardly consensus about that. The only "theory" I advance here is that the back shot -- the second shot -- was a toxin. OK. Cliff. Fair enough. Because they wanted no shots from in front to be visible? Come on, Cliff? This couldn't be the reason? No, that's not the reason. The purpose was to render the target paralyzed. What do we see in the Zapruder film? JFK seizing up paralyzed in a little over two seconds. See above for my view on this. Furthermore, the neck is a smaller target and thus more difficult to hit, right? Especially on a moving target. Why risk this? They didn't need to hit him in the neck -- anywhere on his body would have worked. You've got a source for this toxin, and that it existed in 1963? Here you present the argument I made above -- why risk a dicey first-shot/kill-shot when you MUST score a direct hit on the head of a moving target? The risk for a blood soluble round was nil. The risks of a failed first-shot/kill-shot were enormous. Well, I see it the other way around. Two guns with standard ammunition, instead of one, would raise the chances of success by at least 50%. No matter how you slice it. Because I take it you don't expect those two seconds to still be that short amount of time (which as I understand your theory, is an absolute requirement) if this toxin originated in, say, his chest? First of all, it's not my theory -- it was the theory of the guys who actually handled the body on 11/22/63. This scenario was so compelling to them that FBI SA Sibert called the FBI Lab to inquire as to the existence of such weaponry. Did you read this? http://karws.gso.uri...s/flechette.txt A shot to the chest would work as well as a shot to the throat. GV: 2) I also find it extremely hard to believe that if there were more than a single shooter, one of them would be taking all those enormous risks involved in an endevour like this one - without having the capacity to actually to do the job, which was to kill JFK? I don't follow you. The shooters firing the blood soluble rounds weren't taking any more of a risk than anyone else. The idea behind using a paralytic was to reduce the risk for everyone. OK. At least now I do understand your argument for this. But we look at this very differently. In my view, it reduces the chances of success, it does not raise them. GV: You've got to admit that this idea is somewhat far fetched...? The autopsists didn't think it was far-fetched. The FBI men at the autopsy didn't think it was far-fetched. It isn't far-fetched when you consider the minor damage to the throat the shot caused; it isn't far-fetched when you consider the fact that the back wound was shallow; and it isn't far-fetched when you consider the fact that JFK seized up paralyzed in a little over two seconds. Yes, I'm aware of that. But I'd like to see those photos that Robert Knudsen testified about to the HSCA. Where he basically stated that he had been part of developing and thus seen photos from the autopsy of metal probes through JFKs body, one of them through the neck. If this is true, it certainly supports the notion that a single bullet went through JFKs neck. I'm not a medical expert, Cliff, (but I am now trying to dig deeper in to the medical evidence, fwiw) and the number of contradictory statements from the autopsists and what Sibert stated in that report, is remarkable. And it isn't far-fetched when you consider the historical fact that such weaponry was tested on humans by the Central Intelligence Agency. I guess most of this comes down to whether one believe that a single bullet pierced Kennedy's neck or not. Edited April 19, 2012 by Glenn Viklund Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted April 19, 2012 Author Share Posted April 19, 2012 David, Thanks for providing the issue. It is quite a common issue with regard to the throat wound that needs to be addressed and can’t just be ignored. From the points that you make regarding the moment of the head shot, it is clear that we are on different sides of the question here. However that has no influence on the point you make whether the head shot was at Z 313 or Z 343. For the sake of this argument, the head shot is the head shot irrespective of its time. There is one criteria that must be met with this issue. Whatever exited the throat, it did so between Trachea rings 3 & 4. It is a criteria of the assassination and the Autopsy report. It cannot be avoided or changed. I assume there is no debate about that. That said, I feel there is an issue that you need to address. If the wound to the throat occurred during the head shot, what is happening at Z 225?? I don’t feel it is satisfactory just to leave it unanswered. I feel that is something you ought to explain. To help me explain why I feel you are wrong, I have created the image below. a) I have cut away areas of the head in order to make explanation easier. The horizontal purple line represents the position of Trachea rings 3 & 4. The vertical purple line creates some idea of the boundary of the flesh on the body. I know the flesh is not vertical like the line. It is not exact in that sense. I am assuming that you don’t necessarily accept that the bullet entered the trachea, as Humes states it did. It is not important here, we can let that lie. a) The yellow lines represent the notion that the fragments broke through the floor of the mouth at A. Now before you chastise me about the idea that the fragment went vertically down and then turned sharp right to exit, that is not what I am saying. The point I am making is that whatever the fragments angle of descent, there is going to have to be a fairly sharp change in direction to exit between these trachea rings. And exiting at trachea rings 3 & 4 is not a a debatable issue. It is an essential criteria. However, as you can see, having the fragment break through the floor of the mouth imposes restrictions on what is possible. On that point alone I suggest that this fragment did not break through the floor of the mouth. The angle of change is just too great. You are welcome to play about with the image to make your own angles. However I feel you will come to the same conclusion as I. In order to exit between rings 3 & 4 the change in direction is impossible. The blue lines represents that the fragments broke through the floor of the head at B. This angle is better however there is still a very steep direction change in order to exit between rings 3 & 4. It is also unlikely that it can escape going through the voice box. Now that kind of damage is not described in the autopsy or in the x-rays. Again you can play around with the lines and see if you can do better. However let us assume that somehow, I don’t know how, you can create a satisfactory line of exit. In that case your problems have not ended there. The damage to the lung and right strap muscle have not been accounted for. However this fragment has found a way to exit, two things it has to have done (prior to leaving the body) is damage these two organs. Nor can you say a bullet later entered through trachea rings 3 &4 and created that damage. Your argument is that this hole was created by an exiting bone fragment not a bullet entering the throat. So, how were these organs damaged? There has to be an explanation. I would suggest it is impossible to devise any trajectory whereby a bone fragment can exit as you argue. However lets suppose there is such a trajectory. To then suggest that not only does this fragment find this path to the 3rd and 4th rings, it also finds two different paths that also allow it to damage these two organs prior to exiting. I suggest that stretches credulity beyond its acceptable tolerance. There is considerable ambiguity in what Rankin says in that quote you use. It is not at all clear what he is referring to. However, lets assume you are right and there was a second autopsy report that Rankin had access to. That does not help you. You have to find a way to:- a) show how a fragment could exit between 3rd and 4th trachea rings. And also show how this same fragment could also damage the lung and right strap muscle. Note that the damage was that of bruising. Neither are described as having been struck. Thanks for raising the issue, it allowed me to examine the feasibility of an issue that often comes up. It allowed to see why this suggestion is an impossibility. James. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Cliff, I am going to have to assume that there were a number of military personnel in that room who do not have anyone who will VOUCH they were there for a number of reasons. But how about Major Gen Wehle who is listed on the autopsy attendee sheet from I believe the S&O report LIPSEY: So, we watched the autopsy. Once again, my hours are a little fuzzy. The autopsy lasted approx. , if I'm not mistaken, approx. 3 - 4 hours. After that we stayed in the room. When the men from the funeral home came in, because, by this time when Gen Wehle had come back down, but he was in and out. He was still making a lot of arrangements, but he would come in occasionally for a couple of minutes to let me go out and take a little break. Then the men from the funeral home came in and we sat there while they more or less put him back together and made the cosmetic, made the different cosmetic changes that had to be made on the body. Yes, Kellerman is describing the right temple wound to the RIGHT OF THE EAR in the hairline. Just yet another wound location not listened to or recorded by the WCR… Lipsey is in good company Cliff – that they describe a frontal shot after a SHOOTING EVENT is no real stretch now is it? Then the hole was sliced thru… THEN it was obliterated… what we see on the Zfilm – IF THE THROAT WOUND WAS CAUSED BY A FRAGMENT – is his reaction to the shot in the back which even if it only went in a inch or so could and would cause pain to the throat area AND cause the arms to raise…. The reaction is fine… that you believe it was caused by a paralyzing ice dart is still a stretch. Hearing “My God, I’m hit” and the number of fragments, a very small 2-3mm fragment could have easily caused that hole. So yes, it is possible that they were wrong about the throat wound. Again Cliff… they were in an ER dealing with a gunshot victim. It was a VERY SMALL HOLE so either you have your ice dart… or it was an exiting fragment. Maybe if they dissected the wound – or let Rose do the autopsy – we’d know. The MEDICAL EVIDENCE is inauthentic Cliff… not the Parkland witnesses. They saw a gunshot entry, which as I say, is expected. But even by their standards it was a VERY SMALL HOLE for a bullet. Besides… if you are going to foster the ice bullet/flechette idea please remember that they were designed to leave no mark, enter undetected thru clothing… If the throat would can be considered “undetected” the CIA must have gone back to the drawing board… “Cause no one was hit” – so hearing a shot, seeing the dust… means the SS should what… slow the car down further? The back shot occurs at about z220. The 143 frames prior I discuss is 313-143 = z190 so it really should be 113 frames earlier…. I hypothesize that the “FIRE” command came over a radio and up to three people fired simultaneously… The delay in seconds you attribute to the toxin working is AGAIN, not how it was designed. If you are going to argue hi-tech CIA weapons… then get what they do correct please. This toxin was instantaneous… as designed. What good would shooting a dog with a weapon that took seconds to work… BARK BARK. The 6 second delay thing is not applicable IF the wound was a fragment… The BACKWOUND could have caused the same paralysis and still allow him to speak. How would YOU FEEL with a bullet lodged in your back? Your description of JFK trying to loosen his tie is absurd Cliff… and of course the BACKSHOT comes after the FIRST SHOT… the FIRST SHOT occurs at z160 to many… z190-220 for others like JC who know it hit JFK before he was hit by a separate shot. Jackie describing JFK as “quizzical” is nice and all but it is just an adjective… So Cliff, he’s shot in the throat at what 190? And we so no blood, no realization of blood by Jackie who is looking right at him, nothing seen by Nellie… Now take a look at the FRONT of JFK’s shirt… Good luck with that as the only image I have of the FRONT is the closeup of the button and lapels… there was a bullet hole not an inch from this button and collar… where’s all the blood from this wound? They got it wrong – possibly – because all they saw was the entrance hole… and then it is lost to history. I am still going to disagree with your premise that the throat wound MUST have been caused by a shot… not because anyone at Parkland was so wrong… they just went on instinct… SMALL ENTRY LARGE EXIT was what they saw… TINY entrance and the head blown out in the occip…. All I am saying is there is also evidence that contradicts the autopsy findings that a fragment MAY have caused the throat wound and the related trauma surrounding it… a fragment coursing thru JFK would cause a number of the upper chest wounds that were recorded. I repeat, I cannot say one way or the other based on the available evidence whether the throat wound was NOT a fragment exiting. I can also say that a frontal shot to accomplish what you suggest is possible… but not necessarily the ONLY solution to the throat wound. I do not see his reaction at 225+ as having to be in response to a throat wound as opposed to a back one which in turn makes your 6 second argument moot. IF there was no throat shot… the fragment theory makes perfect sense. And I appreciate the restraint… I do not think any less of you as a person for believing in ice bullets and self-propelled flechettes…. Because I think you make valid points presented well I enjoy the conversation… I will leave some room for a throat shot if you leave some room for other possibilities. Cheers Cliff DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 (edited) David, Thanks for providing the issue. It is quite a common issue with regard to the throat wound that needs to be addressed and can’t just be ignored. From the points that you make regarding the moment of the head shot, it is clear that we are on different sides of the question here. However that has no influence on the point you make whether the head shot was at Z 313 or Z 343. For the sake of this argument, the head shot is the head shot irrespective of its time. There is one criteria that must be met with this issue. Whatever exited the throat, it did so between Trachea rings 3 & 4. It is a criteria of the assassination and the Autopsy report. It cannot be avoided or changed. I assume there is no debate about that. That said, I feel there is an issue that you need to address. If the wound to the throat occurred during the head shot, what is happening at Z 225?? I don’t feel it is satisfactory just to leave it unanswered. I feel that is something you ought to explain. To help me explain why I feel you are wrong, I have created the image below. a) I have cut away areas of the head in order to make explanation easier. The horizontal purple line represents the position of Trachea rings 3 & 4. The vertical purple line creates some idea of the boundary of the flesh on the body. I know the flesh is not vertical like the line. It is not exact in that sense. I am assuming that you don’t necessarily accept that the bullet entered the trachea, as Humes states it did. It is not important here, we can let that lie. a) The yellow lines represent the notion that the fragments broke through the floor of the mouth at A. Now before you chastise me about the idea that the fragment went vertically down and then turned sharp right to exit, that is not what I am saying. The point I am making is that whatever the fragments angle of descent, there is going to have to be a fairly sharp change in direction to exit between these trachea rings. And exiting at trachea rings 3 & 4 is not a a debatable issue. It is an essential criteria. However, as you can see, having the fragment break through the floor of the mouth imposes restrictions on what is possible. On that point alone I suggest that this fragment did not break through the floor of the mouth. The angle of change is just too great. You are welcome to play about with the image to make your own angles. However I feel you will come to the same conclusion as I. In order to exit between rings 3 & 4 the change in direction is impossible. The blue lines represents that the fragments broke through the floor of the head at B. This angle is better however there is still a very steep direction change in order to exit between rings 3 & 4. It is also unlikely that it can escape going through the voice box. Now that kind of damage is not described in the autopsy or in the x-rays. Again you can play around with the lines and see if you can do better. However let us assume that somehow, I don’t know how, you can create a satisfactory line of exit. In that case your problems have not ended there. The damage to the lung and right strap muscle have not been accounted for. However this fragment has found a way to exit, two things it has to have done (prior to leaving the body) is damage these two organs. Nor can you say a bullet later entered through trachea rings 3 &4 and created that damage. Your argument is that this hole was created by an exiting bone fragment not a bullet entering the throat. So, how were these organs damaged? There has to be an explanation. I would suggest it is impossible to devise any trajectory whereby a bone fragment can exit as you argue. However lets suppose there is such a trajectory. To then suggest that not only does this fragment find this path to the 3rd and 4th rings, it also finds two different paths that also allow it to damage these two organs prior to exiting. I suggest that stretches credulity beyond its acceptable tolerance. There is considerable ambiguity in what Rankin says in that quote you use. It is not at all clear what he is referring to. However, lets assume you are right and there was a second autopsy report that Rankin had access to. That does not help you. You have to find a way to:- a) show how a fragment could exit between 3rd and 4th trachea rings. And also show how this same fragment could also damage the lung and right strap muscle. Note that the damage was that of bruising. Neither are described as having been struck. Thanks for raising the issue, it allowed me to examine the feasibility of an issue that often comes up. It allowed to see why this suggestion is an impossibility. James. Thanks so much for your great post... I have to start out by saying that whatever was seen and recorded at the 8pm autopsy was NOT the condition of the body laying on the table at Parkland. Given what was described as most of the top and right side of his head was gone... Had he arrived at Parkland in that condition, there would have been no need for any life saving procedures... the body placed on the table at 8pm was not in the same condition as the one that died at 1pm in Dallas. So let me ask you... without using the extant autopsy report as a guide for anything... it is possible that a bullet thru the head COULD cause a fragment of bullet or bone to escape thru the neck... Mr. SPECTER - Would you continue to describe your observations of the President? Dr. CARRICO - His-- the President's color--I don't believe I said--he was an ashen, bluish, grey, cyanotic, he was making no spontaneous movements, I mean, no voluntary movements at all. We opened his shirt and coat and tie and observed a small wound in the anterior lower third of the neck, listened very briefly, heard a few cardiac beats, felt the President's back, and detected no large or sucking chest wounds, and then proceeded to the examination of his head. The large skull and scalp wound had been previously observed and was inspected a little more closely. There seemed to be a 4-5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue. The pupils were inspected and seemed to be bilaterally dilated and fixed. No pulse was present, and at that time, because of the inadequate respirations and the apparent airway injury, a cuffed endotracheal tube was introduced, employing a larynzo scope. Through the larynzo scope there seemed to be some hematoma around the larynx and immediately below the larynx was seen the ragged tracheal injury. The endotracheal tube was inserted past this injury, the cuff inflated, and the tube was connected to a respirator to assist the inadequate respiration. At about this point the nurse reported that no blood pressure was obtained. Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Carrico, with respect to this small wound in the anterior third of the neck which you have Just described, could you be any more specific in defining the characteristics of that wound? Dr. CARRICO - This was probably a 4-7 ram. wound, almost in the midline, maybe a little to the right of the midline, and below the thyroid cartilage. It was, as I recall, rather round and there were no jagged edges or stellate lacerations. Dr. PERRY - Yes, there was blood noted on the carriage and a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium. I cannot state the size, I did not examine it at all. I just noted the presence of lacerated brain tissue. In the lower part of the neck below the Adams apple was a small, roughly circular wound of perhaps 5 mm. in diameter from which blood was exuding slowly. I did not see any other wounds. I examined the chest briefly, and from the anterior portion did not see any thing. I pushed up the brace on the left side very briefly to feel for his femoral pulse, but did not obtain any. I did no further examination because it was obvious that if any treatment were to be carried out with any success a secure effective airway must be obtained immediately. I asked Dr. Carrico if the wound on the neck was actually a wound or had he begun a tracheotomy and he replied in the negative, that it was a wound, and at that point-- Dr. PERRY - The area of the wound, as pointed out to you in the lower third of the neck anteriorly is customarily the spot one would electively perform the tracheotomy. This is one of the safest and easiest spots to reach the trachea. In addition the presence of the wound indicated to me there was possibly an underlaying wound to the neck muscles in the neck, the carotid artery or the jugular vein. If you are going to control these it is necessary that the incision be as low, that is toward the heart or lungs as the wound if you are going to obtain adequate control. Therefore, for expediency's sake I went directly to that level to obtain control of the airway. Mr. SPECTER - Would you describe, in a general way and in lay terms, the purpose for the tracheotomy at that time? Dr. PERRY - Dr. Carrico had very judicially placed an endotracheal but unfortunately due to the injury to the trachea, the cuff which is an inflatable balloon on the endotracheal tube was not below the tracheal injury and thus he could not secure the adequate airway that you would require to maintain respiration. (At this point, Mr. McCloy entered the hearing room.) Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, you mentioned an injury to the trachea. Will you describe that as precisely as you can, please? Dr. PERRY - Yes. Once the transverse incision through the skin and subcutaneous tissues was made, it was necessary to separate the strap muscles covering the anterior muscles of the windpipe and thyroid. At that point the trachea was noted to be deviated slightly to the left and I found it necessary to sever the exterior strap muscles on the other side to reach the trachea. I noticed a small ragged laceration of the trachea on the anterior lateral right side. I could see the endotracheal tube which had been placed by Dr. Carrico in the wound, but there was evidence of air and blood around the tube because I noted the cuff was just above the injury to the trachea. Commander HUMES - Yes; in essence we have. When examining the wounds in the base of the President's neck anteriorly, the region of the tracheotomy performed at Parkland Hospital, we noted and we noted in our record, some contusion and bruising of the muscles of the neck of the President. We noted that at the time of the postmortem examination. Now, we also made note of the types of wounds which I mentioned to you before in this testimony on the chest which were going to be used by the doctors there to place chest tubes. They also made other wounds. one on the left arm, and a wound on the ankle of the President with the idea of administering intravenous. blood and other fluids in hope of replacing the blood which the President had lost from his extensive wounds. Those wounds showed no evidence of bruising or contusion or physical violence, which made us reach the conclusion that they were performed during the agonal moments of the late president, and when the circulation was, in essence, very seriously embarrassed, if not nonfunctional. So that these wounds, the wound of the chest and the wound of the arm and of the ankle were performed about the same time as the tracheotomy wound because only a very few moments of time elapsed when all this was going on. So, therefore, we reached the conclusion that the damage to these muscles on the anterior neck just below this wound were received at approximately the same time that the wound here on the top of the pleural cavity was, while the President still lived and while his heart and lungs were operating in such a fashion to permit him to have a bruise in the vicinity, because that he did have in these strap muscles in the neck, but he didn't have in the areas of the other incisions that were made at Parkland Hospital. So we feel that, had this missile not made its path in that fashion, the wound made by Doctor Perry in the neck would not have been able to produce, wouldn't have been able to produce, these contusions of the musculature of the neck. James - If I am reading this correctly, Humes is saying that the strap muscles were injured at the same time as the pleural cavity - while he was alive...and that the missle path and NOT the doctors caused the contusions in the strap muscles. That the tracheotomy did NOT injure these muscles. When we learn from testimony that they did do the damage to these muscles... Dr. PERRY - There was both blood, free blood and air in the right superior mediastinum. That is the space that is located between the lungs and the heart at that level. As I noted, I did not see any underlying injury of the pleura, the coverings of the lungs or of the lungs themselves Senator COOPER - Assuming that we draw a straight line from Point "C" which you have described as a possible point of entry of the missile, to Point "D" where you saw an incision of the tracheotomy-- Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. Senator COOPER - What would be the relation of the bruise at the apex of the pleural sac to such a line? Commander HUMES - It would be exactly in line with such a line, sir. exactly. Mr. SPECTER - Aside from the slight differences which are notable by observing those two exhibits, are they roughly comparable to the angle of decline? Commander HUMES - I believe them to be roughly comparable, sir. Mr. SPECTER - Could you state for the record an approximation of the angle of decline? Commander HUMES - Mathematics is not my forte. Approximately 45 degrees from the horizontal. REALLY? Looks to me there is no way to have a bullet enter at T3, travel DOWNWARD at 45 degrees, or even 20 degrees... TOUCH THE PLEURAL CAVITY... and exit at a spot well ABOVE the pleural bruise. My point James is that the autopsy and the information related to it is pure BS from start to finish... the illustration below makes it obvious as the trachea ring they are pointing to is the 3rd ring... since there is no downward connection between the rear hole and the trach hole AND for a bullet to injure the plureal cavity AND exit the trachea it would have to be moving UPWARD. If, on the other hand, there was a shot from the front to the throat from above and TO THE SOUTH OF THE LIMO... the bullet would damage the right side of JFK's neck and possibly injure the pleural cavity. With the back wound many times the size of the front, is it not possible the bullet went thru front to back? As you can tell, there is very little resolution to the issue since the data we are working with is so unreliable. That Humes and others rejected the cerebellum damage seen at Parkland and did not dissect the wound, nor perform a complete autopsy I find it hard to conclude that a fragment could NOT have caused the hole. Yet just as possible is a south knoll shot that transits, a SK shot whose bullet is removed prior to 8pm in Bethesda... OR it was indeed a fragment. Cheers to you James... enjoyable discussion DJ Edited April 19, 2012 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted April 19, 2012 Author Share Posted April 19, 2012 David, I’ll try to answer you numerous points as best I can. Your text I’ll in black and my comments are in red. I have to start out by saying that whatever was seen and recorded at the 8pm autopsy was NOT the condition of the body laying on the table at Parkland. Given what was described as most of the top and right side of his head was gone... Had he arrived at Parkland in that condition, there would have been no need for any life saving procedures... the body placed on the table at 8pm was not in the same condition as the one that died at 1pm in Dallas. Again we are probably on different sides of the fence here. I have difficulty in the “body alteration” theories. So let me ask you... without using the extant autopsy report as a guide for anything... it is possible that a bullet thru the head COULD cause a fragment of bullet or bone to escape thru the neck... The best way to answer this is to say yes I agree it is possible, but I doubt it is probable. The difficulties I outlined restrict the idea of possibility and tends to suggest it is more likely to be impossible. Mr. SPECTER - Would you continue to describe your observations of the President? Dr. CARRICO - His-- the President's color--I don't believe I said--he was an ashen, bluish, grey, cyanotic, he was making no spontaneous movements, I mean, no voluntary movements at all. We opened his shirt and coat and tie and observed a small wound in the anterior lower third of the neck, listened very briefly, heard a few cardiac beats, felt the President's back, and detected no large or sucking chest wounds, and then proceeded to the examination of his head. The large skull and scalp wound had been previously observed and was inspected a little more closely. There seemed to be a 4-5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue. The pupils were inspected and seemed to be bilaterally dilated and fixed. No pulse was present, and at that time, because of the inadequate respirations and the apparent airway injury, a cuffed endotracheal tube was introduced, employing a larynzo scope. Through the larynzo scope there seemed to be some hematoma around the larynx and immediately below the larynx was seen the ragged tracheal injury. The endotracheal tube was inserted past this injury, the cuff inflated, and the tube was connected to a respirator to assist the inadequate respiration. At about this point the nurse reported that no blood pressure was obtained. Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Carrico, with respect to this small wound in the anterior third of the neck which you have Just described, could you be any more specific in defining the characteristics of that wound? Dr. CARRICO - This was probably a 4-7 ram. wound, almost in the midline, maybe a little to the right of the midline, and below the thyroid cartilage. It was, as I recall, rather round and there were no jagged edges or stellate lacerations. Dr. PERRY - Yes, there was blood noted on the carriage and a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium. I cannot state the size, I did not examine it at all. I just noted the presence of lacerated brain tissue. In the lower part of the neck below the Adams apple was a small, roughly circular wound of perhaps 5 mm. in diameter from which blood was exuding slowly. I did not see any other wounds. I examined the chest briefly, and from the anterior portion did not see any thing. I pushed up the brace on the left side very briefly to feel for his femoral pulse, but did not obtain any. I did no further examination because it was obvious that if any treatment were to be carried out with any success a secure effective airway must be obtained immediately. I asked Dr. Carrico if the wound on the neck was actually a wound or had he begun a tracheotomy and he replied in the negative, that it was a wound, and at that point— Yes it is an interesting point this one. It leaves open the suggestion that the wound could be confused with surgery or, in your case, a fragment exit. Dr. PERRY - The area of the wound, as pointed out to you in the lower third of the neck anteriorly is customarily the spot one would electively perform the tracheotomy. This is one of the safest and easiest spots to reach the trachea. In addition the presence of the wound indicated to me there was possibly an underlaying wound to the neck muscles in the neck, the carotid artery or the jugular vein. If you are going to control these it is necessary that the incision be as low, that is toward the heart or lungs as the wound if you are going to obtain adequate control. Therefore, for expediency's sake I went directly to that level to obtain control of the airway. Mr. SPECTER - Would you describe, in a general way and in lay terms, the purpose for the tracheotomy at that time? Dr. PERRY - Dr. Carrico had very judicially placed an endotracheal but unfortunately due to the injury to the trachea, the cuff which is an inflatable balloon on the endotracheal tube was not below the tracheal injury and thus he could not secure the adequate airway that you would require to maintain respiration. (At this point, Mr. McCloy entered the hearing room.) Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, you mentioned an injury to the trachea. Will you describe that as precisely as you can, please? Dr. PERRY - Yes. Once the transverse incision through the skin and subcutaneous tissues was made, it was necessary to separate the strap muscles covering the anterior muscles of the windpipe and thyroid. At that point the trachea was noted to be deviated slightly to the left and I found it necessary to sever the exterior strap muscles on the other side to reach the trachea. I had not noticed this point. It is not clear what side he is talking about, but it reads like he cut the right strap muscle. Humes makes no mention that the muscle has been cut. What he talks about is ecchymosis, which is a bruising. So Humes is saying the right muscle is bruised and Perry appears to be saying that in order to complete the tracheotomy he cut the right Muscle. If you look to P. 10 Vol 6 you will see that Perry says it was the left muscle that he cut. I noticed a small ragged laceration of the trachea on the anterior lateral right side. I could see the endotracheal tube which had been placed by Dr. Carrico in the wound, but there was evidence of air and blood around the tube because I noted the cuff was just above the injury to the trachea. Commander HUMES - Yes; in essence we have. When examining the wounds in the base of the President's neck anteriorly, the region of the tracheotomy performed at Parkland Hospital, we noted and we noted in our record, some contusion and bruising of the muscles of the neck of the President. We noted that at the time of the postmortem examination. Now, we also made note of the types of wounds which I mentioned to you before in this testimony on the chest which were going to be used by the doctors there to place chest tubes. They also made other wounds. one on the left arm, and a wound on the ankle of the President with the idea of administering intravenous. blood and other fluids in hope of replacing the blood which the President had lost from his extensive wounds. Those wounds showed no evidence of bruising or contusion or physical violence, which made us reach the conclusion that they were performed during the agonal moments of the late president, and when the circulation was, in essence, very seriously embarrassed, if not nonfunctional. So that these wounds, the wound of the chest and the wound of the arm and of the ankle were performed about the same time as the tracheotomy wound because only a very few moments of time elapsed when all this was going on. So, therefore, we reached the conclusion that the damage to these muscles on the anterior neck just below this wound were received at approximately the same time that the wound here on the top of the pleural cavity was, while the President still lived and while his heart and lungs were operating in such a fashion to permit him to have a bruise in the vicinity, because that he did have in these strap muscles in the neck, but he didn't have in the areas of the other incisions that were made at Parkland Hospital. So we feel that, had this missile not made its path in that fashion, the wound made by Doctor Perry in the neck would not have been able to produce, wouldn't have been able to produce, these contusions of the musculature of the neck. James - If I am reading this correctly, Humes is saying that the strap muscles were injured at the same time as the pleural cavity - while he was alive...and that the missle path and NOT the doctors caused the contusions in the strap muscles. That the tracheotomy did NOT injure these muscles. When we learn from testimony that they did do the damage to these muscles... As pointed out above it was the left muscle that was cut. Humes is talking about the right muscle. Dr. PERRY - There was both blood, free blood and air in the right superior mediastinum. That is the space that is located between the lungs and the heart at that level. As I noted, I did not see any underlying injury of the pleura, the coverings of the lungs or of the lungs themselves I see the point you are making. However, although I can’t find the reference I though Perry said he noticed bruising of the lung. Senator COOPER - Assuming that we draw a straight line from Point "C" which you have described as a possible point of entry of the missile, to Point "D" where you saw an incision of the tracheotomy-- Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. Senator COOPER - What would be the relation of the bruise at the apex of the pleural sac to such a line? Commander HUMES - It would be exactly in line with such a line, sir. exactly. Mr. SPECTER - Aside from the slight differences which are notable by observing those two exhibits, are they roughly comparable to the angle of decline? Commander HUMES - I believe them to be roughly comparable, sir. Worth noting Humes language. “roughly comparable.” Mr. SPECTER - Could you state for the record an approximation of the angle of decline? Commander HUMES - Mathematics is not my forte. Approximately 45 degrees from the horizontal. REALLY? Looks to me there is no way to have a bullet enter at T3, travel DOWNWARD at 45 degrees, or even 20 degrees... TOUCH THE PLEURAL CAVITY... and exit at a spot well ABOVE the pleural bruise. My point James is that the autopsy and the information related to it is pure BS from start to finish... the illustration below makes it obvious as the trachea ring they are pointing to is the 3rd ring... since there is no downward connection between the rear hole and the trach hole AND for a bullet to injure the plureal cavity AND exit the trachea it would have to be moving UPWARD. Absolutely. And that is why in CE 385 the entry point C is nowhere near T3. In CE 385 point C is actually above the shoulder bones. If, on the other hand, there was a shot from the front to the throat from above and TO THE SOUTH OF THE LIMO... the bullet would damage the right side of JFK's neck and possibly injure the pleural cavity. Yes, South is the logical position to be firing from. It is certainly more likely to injure the right lung, than a North location. However I can’t get on board this idea. I can’t get my head around the idea of gunmen in the South plaza. With the back wound many times the size of the front, is it not possible the bullet went thru front to back? Again there is a clear logic here. The problem is the position of the back wound. If it is at T3 or even T2, in order to reach it the bullet would have to make a passage through the lung. It has no alternative, there is no other route to get to those points. And that would invalidate the idea because the lung was not damaged. As you can tell, there is very little resolution to the issue since the data we are working with is so unreliable. That Humes and others rejected the cerebellum damage seen at Parkland and did not dissect the wound, nor perform a complete autopsy I find it hard to conclude that a fragment could NOT have caused the hole. In the TV program NOVA the Parkland doctors went to the Archives to see the X-rays and Photos. The issue of the cerebellum came up in discussion. They agreed that it was not damaged and they had been wrong when they suggested it had been. Yet just as possible is a south knoll shot that transits, a SK shot whose bullet is removed prior to 8pm in Bethesda... OR it was indeed a fragment. Cheers to you James... enjoyable discussion DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 (edited) First point... Alteration. At Parkland the wound was a 5-7cm hole in the right occipitol... and a throat wound. At Bethesda? The wound was described as a 10x19cm hole with MOST of his skull missing... I think your conclusions related to alteration are premature James. There are some great threads related to Lifton's and Horne's work on this.... and I think you might take another more detailed look at the documentation that SCREAMS that JFK was in the ER well before the 8pm official start time. Perry's comment is in his WC testimony. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/perry_m1.htm Do a ctrl "F" to find "pluera," with the comma. It will take you right to it. Dr. PERRY - Yes. Once the transverse incision through the skin and subcutaneous tissues was made, it was necessary to separate the strap muscles covering the anterior muscles of the windpipe and thyroid. At that point the trachea was noted to be deviated slightly to the left and I found it necessary to sever the exterior strap muscles on the other side to reach the trachea. So James... I do not know what "P.10 Vol 6" means but this is in Perry's WC testimony and makes it pretty plain that he cut JFK's anatomically RIGHT strap muscles... Humes/Boswell, imo, lied their way thru the entire thing in a patriotic trance... which is why I simply cannot believe the autopsy or any of the evidence related to the autopsy. Jsut ask Sandra Spencer or Robert Knudsen. Regarding the bruise to the pleural cavity... and the fact that in either direction there is no way that a line connecting the back and throat wounds passes thru the pleural cavity/top of the lung... as we have proven. Cerebellum - Sorry James, but in my experience there are simply too many redactions of evidence from "impossible it was Oswald" to "I was mistaken, it must have been the way the WCR says it was" By the sheer law of averages, SOME of the FBI/SS/DPD mistakes had to fall in Oswald's favor. Yet we cannot name one. So we are left with few options... 1) shallow entrance back and neck shots (back falls out and is found in JFK's clothes at Bethesda - subsequently this disappears... front - well I still believe that bullet, if it was one, would have been removed when the trach incision was enlarged.) 2) shallow back wound... fragment from assassination out the front - and a complete coverup of the pathways creating this hole. 3) There was yet another shot, higher on the neck but lower on the skull that resulted in skull damage and the fragment that exited Mr. KELLERMAN. To the left of the ear, sir, and a little high; yes. About right in here. Mr. SPECTER. When you say "removed," by that do you mean that it was absent when you saw him, or taken off by the doctor? Mr. KELLERMAN. It was absent when I saw him. Mr. SPECTER. Fine. Proceed. Mr. KELLERMAN. Entry into this man's head was right below that wound, right here. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear about the lower third of the ear? James - where would you place this wound based on this description? Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. But it was in the hairline, sir. Mr. SPECTER. In his hairline? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. SPECTER. Near the end of his hairline? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. SPECTER. What was the size of that aperture? Mr. KELLERMAN. The little finger. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the diameter of the little finger. Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. 4) Why didn't others see the bleeding throat wound? It could have been below the collar... Senator COOPER. You are saying this, then, that you did not see, yourself, at any time the mark of any wound in his neck front? Mr. KELLERMAN. When we took him into the hospital in Dallas; that is right. Senator COOPER. What? Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right; when we took him in the hospital in Dallas, I did not. Senator COOPER. Did you ever see it? Mr. KELLERMAN. Only after he was opened up in the morgue; yes, sir. Senator COOPER. You saw some indication or some mark of a wound in the front of his neck? Mr. KELLERMAN. Senator, from the report of the doctor who worked on him in Dallas, that he enlarged the incision here in his throat to perform that tracheotomy, and I believe in his own statement that that wound was there prior to this incision. Senator COOPER. I know, but I am asking-- Mr. KELLERMAN. I didn't see it, sir. Senator COOPER. What you saw yourself? Mr. KELLERMAN. No; I didn't. Representative FORD. Was that because Hill had thrown his coat over the President, or just didn't see the skin or the body at the time? Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir. When I--that coat was thrown over, sir, to eliminate any gruesome pictures. Representative FORD. How far over that body? Did it go over the head only or down the chest? Mr. KELLERMAN. No; the whole coat went all the way down to the waistline, sir. Mr. SPECTER. You saw the President's face, though, at a later time as you have described? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, thank you. This I had lost track of, to help you out, Mr. Congressman. While he lay on the stretcher in that emergency room his collar and everything is up and I saw nothing in his face to indicate an injury, whether the shot had come through or not. He was clear. Representative FORD. But while he was on the stretcher in the emergency room you saw his face? Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right. Representative FORD. But he had his tie and his collar still.-- Mr. KELLERMAN. Still on. Representative FORD. Still on? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir. Representative FORD. You never saw his neck? Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir. Representative FORD. At that time? Mr. KELLERMAN. At that time, I did not observe him. Representative FORD. The only time you saw him was later at the morgue? Mr. KELLERMAN. Very much, sir. Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any blood on the portion of his body in the neck area or anyplace in the front of his body? Mr. KELLERMAN. I don't recall any. Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any hole in the clothing of the President on the front part, in the shirt or tie area? Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir. Mr. SPECTER. From your observation of the wound which you observed in the morgue which you have described as a tracheotomy, would that have been above or below the shirtline when the President was clothed? Mr. KELLERMAN. It would have been below the shirtline, sir. Mr. SPECTER. Now, have you described all of the wounds of the President to which you have referred? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. GREER. No, sir. When he was in the emergency room and I was there, I did see his chest expand and move, the movement of the chest a time or so. Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to observe any wound on the front side of the President? Mr. GREER. No, sir; I didn't, I never seen any on the front side of the President. The only thing I saw was on the head. I didn't know at the time of any other injuries on him. Mr. SPECTER. As to the front side of the President's body, were you able to observe any hole or tear in either his shirt or tie? Mr. GREER. No, sir; I didn't and I brought them back, those things, and didn't see them at the time. I probably didn't inspect them very closely but they were handed to me in a paper bag to bring back. The first FBI laboratory reports on Kennedy’s clothes revealed that the holes in his coat and shirt submitted to both X-ray and spectrographic analysis showed traces of copper (bullet metal) around the edges of the holes. This was forensically consistent with JFK having been shot in the back with copper-jacketed ammunition. The same tests run on Kennedy’s collar and tie showed no bullet metal was found in the surrounding fabric. Rather than admit that the slits in the President’s collar and nick in his tie were not caused by an assassin’s bullet, the FBI lab report noted that the slits had the “characteristics of an exit hole for a bullet fragment.” (My italics). [2] So James, by all indications either a fragment exited the throat as the FBI elude to or even a BONE FRAGMENT that would leave no bullet traces. If we consider the lower neck shot entrance per Lipsey and Kellerman, I believe the angles work much better for what may have been the REAR head shot at the same time as the frontal one... Edited April 19, 2012 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 (edited) burgandy Cliff, I am going to have to assume that there were a number of military personnel in that room who do not have anyone who will VOUCH they were there for a number of reasons. But how about Major Gen Wehle who is listed on the autopsy attendee sheet from I believe the S&O report LIPSEY: So, we watched the autopsy. Once again, my hours are a little fuzzy. Maybe his recollection of the back wound was a little fuzzy as well, since he appears to have been a passive observer. But please continue... The autopsy lasted approx. , if I'm not mistaken, approx. 3 - 4 hours. After that we stayed in the room. When the men from the funeral home came in, because, by this time when Gen Wehle had come back down, but he was in and out. He was still making a lot of arrangements, but he would come in occasionally for a couple of minutes to let me go out and take a little break. Then the men from the funeral home came in and we sat there while they more or less put him back together and made the cosmetic, made the different cosmetic changes that had to be made on the body. So you have ONE witness to a base of the neck wound versus 16 witnesses to the lower wound. And Lipsey may have watched the autopsy, but unlike many of the low back wound witnesses he was not involved in the procedures close up, evidently. And your confidence in the infallibility of this one witness is based on what? Yes, Kellerman is describing the right temple wound to the RIGHT OF THE EAR in the hairline. Just yet another wound location not listened to or recorded by the WCR… Lipsey is in good company You're still working at a 16 to 1 deficit. Those 16 people don't constitute "good company"? Why not? Besides, you can cherry pick ONE testimony all you want, but you can't get the clothing to behave in a manner required by that scenario. Is it just a coincidence that 16 people describe a wound in the same location as the holes in the clothes? Cliff – that they describe a frontal shot after a SHOOTING EVENT is no real stretch now is it? What does that have to do with anything? The wound was uniformnly described as one of entrance by those who saw it, your attempt to rationalize this away notwithstanding. Then the hole was sliced thru… THEN it was obliterated… what we see on the Zfilm – IF THE THROAT WOUND WAS CAUSED BY A FRAGMENT – is his reaction to the shot in the back which even if it only went in a inch or so could and would cause pain to the throat area AND cause the arms to raise It would? How do you figure that? Please explain how a shallow wound in the back causes pain in the throat. I'm unfamiliar with this condition. And then we have the neck x-ray which shows a bruised lung-tip, a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, and an air-pocket under the skin overlaying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes -- this fragment of yours certainly took a strange route to exit the throat. Look closely at the Z film -- JFK was attempting to loosen his neck-tie. Is that how one responds to a sudden back pain -- by attempting to loosen the tie? …. The reaction is fine… that you believe it was caused by a paralyzing ice dart is still a stretch. Such was not the conclusion of the autopsists the night of the autopsy. Quite the opposite. Hearing “My God, I’m hit” Nellie and Jackie didn't report him saying anything, and they had a much better view of Kennedy than Kellerman did. It's much more likely that Kellerman was wrong about this than Jackie, Nellie and all the throat wound witnesses getting it wrong. and the number of fragments, a very small 2-3mm fragment could have easily caused that hole. And the hairline fracture of the T1 transverse process, the bruised lung-tip, the air-pocket under the skin at the base of the neck? These are some Magic Fragments you've got working here, David. So yes, it is possible that they were wrong about the throat wound. I don't find the argument that everyone who saw JFK's wounds got it wrong particularly compelling. I don't find the claim that JFK felt pain in his throat because he was shot in the back particularly compelling. I don't find the notion that single witnesses with inferior views can trump consensus testimony from those with superior views to be particularily compelling. I don't find the notion that a fragment of the headshot could start at the back base of the neck and work it's way out of the front of the throat to be particularily compelling. Add all that up and I'd the the possibility of any of it is close to nil. Again Cliff… they were in an ER dealing with a gunshot victim. It was a VERY SMALL HOLE so either you have your ice dart… or it was an exiting fragment. Maybe if they dissected the wound – or let Rose do the autopsy – we’d know. I have the advantage of citing the Zapruder film and the neck x-ray in support of the autopsists initial conclusions -- you cannot cite either one in support of this fragment theory. I can offer consensus testimony of those with superior views; you can only offer single obseravtion by Lipsey and Kellerman who had inferior views. The MEDICAL EVIDENCE is inauthentic Cliff… not the Parkland witnesses. David, there are two kinds of medical evidence in the JFK case -- that which was prepared/maintained according to proper protocol, and that which was NOT prepared according to proper protocol. The material which was NOT properly produced -- the final autopsy report, the autopsy photos, the measurements in pen on the autopsy face sheet, and anything to do with the head wound(s) given the indication of pre-autopsy surgery to the head -- can be logically dismissed. The material which WAS properly produced -- Burkley's death certificate, the portions of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil, the FBI report on the autopsy, the neck x-ray, the contemporaneous notes of the Parkland doctors -- are consistent with the witness testimonies, the photographic evidence, and the physical evidence (holes in the clothes.) Don't throw the good stuff out with the bad. They saw a gunshot entry, which as I say, is expected. Why expected? There are wounds with characteristics of entry, and wounds with characteristics of exit. The Parkland witnesses described a wound in the throat consistent with a wound of entry. This conclusion matches what we see in the Zapruder film, and what the witnesses with superior views of JFK said they saw in the limo. But even by their standards it was a VERY SMALL HOLE for a bullet. Besides… if you are going to foster the ice bullet/flechette idea please remember that they were designed to leave no mark, enter undetected thru clothing… If the throat would can be considered “undetected” the CIA must have gone back to the drawing board… Factually incorrect. There were many different devices developed. From William Colby's Church Comm. testimony: Church: And the dart itself, when it strikes the target, does the target know that he has been hit and [is] about to die? Colby: That depends, Mr. Chairman, on the particular dart used. There are different kinds of these flechettes that were used in various weapons systems, and a special one was developed which potentially would be able to enter the target without perception. Church: Is it not true, too, that the effort not only involved designing a gun that could strike at a human target without knowledge of the person who had been struck, but also the toxin itself would not appear in the autopsy? Colby: Well there was an attempt-- Church: Or the dart? Colby: Yes; so there was no way of perceiving that the target was hit. The larger the round, the bigger the entrance wound. The smallest rounds may not have been suitable for shots from a distance. “Cause no one was hit” – so hearing a shot, seeing the dust… means the SS should what… slow the car down further? I think you left out a question mark in your quote...What does this have to do with what we're debating here? The back shot occurs at about z220. The 143 frames prior I discuss is 313-143 = z190 so it really should be 113 frames earlier…. I hypothesize that the “FIRE” command came over a radio and up to three people fired simultaneously… The delay in seconds you attribute to the toxin working is AGAIN, not how it was designed. It was the paralytic that was designed to render dogs silent. Read the testimony. If you are going to argue hi-tech CIA weapons… then get what they do correct please. You have one finger pointing at me and three fingers pointing back at yourself, David. Please read the testimony regarding the use of paralytics on dogs. Schweiker: What was the most-utilized device of the ones with which you worked and supervised? Senseney: The only thing I know that was really used was the dog projectile. The other things were in the stockpiles. I don't think anyone ever requested them. Schweiker: How do you know for certain it was for dogs? Senseney: Well that is what they asked us to test them against. They wanted to see whether they could put a dog to sleep, and whether sometime later the dog would come back and be on its own and look normal. Schweiker: Of the devices that came through you, which of these were utilized in any capacity other than for testing? Senseney: That was the only one that I know of--the dog projectile. I call it a dog projectile. We were developing it because the scenario read that they wanted to be able to make entrance into an area which was patrolled by dogs, leave, the dog come back, and then no one would ever know they were in the area. So that was the reason for the dog projectile. This toxin was instantaneous… as designed. What good would shooting a dog with a weapon that took seconds to work… BARK BARK. You haven't read the testimony? That was the idea -- to keep the dog from barking. The 6 second delay thing is not applicable IF the wound was a fragment… A fragment from what? The head shot? Again, you have JFK on film reacting to throat trauma, several witnesses with superior views of JFK describing his reactions to throat trauma -- but the throat suffered no impact for another 6 seconds? I'll never buy that one. The BACKWOUND could have caused the same paralysis and still allow him to speak. How does a shallow wound in the back cause paralysis and a desperate attempt to loosen the neck-tie? How would YOU FEEL with a bullet lodged in your back? I'd immediately curse, arch my back, and instinctively reach for the wound. JFK's hands don't go to his back -- they go to his throat and neck. Your description of JFK trying to loosen his tie is absurd Cliff Why "absurd" -- because it runs contrary to your pet theories? See Gil Jesus' breakthrough research on this matter, posted above. Is it possible for you to lay aside your pet theories and study closely what JFK was doing with his left index finger? … and of course the BACKSHOT comes after the FIRST SHOT … the FIRST SHOT occurs at z160 to many… z190-220 for others like JC who know it hit JFK before he was hit by a separate shot. Jackie describing JFK as “quizzical” is nice and all but it is just an adjective… So? It's inconsistent with a shot in the back, and quite consistent with an unconventional round, so that the victim has no clue what exactly happened to them. Hence, a quizzical look. So Cliff, he’s shot in the throat at what 190? Exactamundo! We have Phill Willis who took his 5th photo in startle response to a gunshot, and Willis 5 corresponds with Z202. And we so no blood, no realization of blood by Jackie who is looking right at him, nothing seen by Nellie… Correctamundo! CIA tested blood soluble rounds that entered the body as undetected as possible. Only a small wound of entrance in this case, no blood. Now take a look at the FRONT of JFK’s shirt… Good luck with that as the only image I have of the FRONT is the closeup of the button and lapels… there was a bullet hole not an inch from this button and collar… where’s all the blood from this wound? There is no bullet hole in the front of the shirt. It was Nurse Henchcliffe at Parkland, iirc, who made those cuts while cutting off JFK's tie. They got it wrong – possibly – because all they saw was the entrance hole… and then it is lost to history. I am still going to disagree with your premise that the throat wound MUST have been caused by a shot… not because anyone at Parkland was so wrong… they just went on instinct… What instinct? They saw a wound consistent with entry and said so. This is consistent with the neck-ray, what we see in the Zap, and what the Dealey witnesses described. SMALL ENTRY LARGE EXIT was what they saw… TINY entrance and the head blown out in the occip…. All I am saying is there is also evidence that contradicts the autopsy findings that a fragment MAY have caused the throat wound and the related trauma surrounding it… a fragment coursing thru JFK would cause a number of the upper chest wounds that were recorded. I repeat, I cannot say one way or the other based on the available evidence whether the throat wound was NOT a fragment exiting. I can also say that a frontal shot to accomplish what you suggest is possible… but not necessarily the ONLY solution to the throat wound. I do not see his reaction at 225+ as having to be in response to a throat wound as opposed to a back one which in turn makes your 6 second argument moot. IF there was no throat shot… the fragment theory makes perfect sense. And I appreciate the restraint… I do not think any less of you as a person for believing in ice bullets and self-propelled flechettes Self-propelled flechettes? What are you talking about? And with me it isn't a matter of belief, but of evidence. The fact is the autopsists considered this scenario very possible the night of the autopsy. So did the FBI men. The historical fact is this technology existed. We have consensus testimony of witnesses in Dealey Plaza as to JFK reacting to throat trauma, and consensus testimony of Parkland personnel that the throat wound was an entrance. There is no place for "belief" in any of this. Just the facts, David. Edited April 20, 2012 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 (edited) Cliff... the evidence from the moment jfk left DP is suspect. I do not argue your points, which may be valid... I just dont see the dart gun thing broken out in DP. The fibers in the shirt were moving outward yet had no bullet related material on them while the coat and shirt on the back do. You say dart (which pushes IN), I say bone from a shot to his head... I think you underestimate the PAIN JFK would be in related to his back and ANY disruption. I've had L4/5 surgery... a very bad back such as JFK's could create extreme pain for him. Loosening his tie so as to breathe... Perry is quite specific about cutting the strap muscles and Humes is quite specific tha THAT was not what occurrred. Dr. PERRY - Yes. Once the transverse incision through the skin and subcutaneous tissues was made, it was necessary to separate the strap muscles covering the anterior muscles of the windpipe and thyroid. At that point the trachea was noted to be deviated slightly to the left and I found it necessary to sever the exterior strap muscles on the other side to reach the trachea. HUMES:...So, therefore, we reached the conclusion that the damage to these muscles on the anterior neck just below this wound were received at approximately the same time that the wound here on the top of the pleural cavity was, while the President still lived and while his heart and lungs were operating in such a fashion to permit him to have a bruise in the vicinity, because that he did have in these strap muscles in the neck, but he didn't have in the areas of the other incisions that were made at Parkland Hospital. Will get back to this tomorrow... I do NOT refute the existence of the technology.. found some nice images and articles on the gun... and it would be the utmosty in balls to have used that weapon that day... right? not that it changes things one bit... bone, dart.. bullet, alteration...whatever. NONE DARE.... DJ Edited April 20, 2012 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted April 20, 2012 Author Share Posted April 20, 2012 David, I will again attempt to answer your various points. Again I will place my responses in red. First point... Alteration. At Parkland the wound was a 5-7cm hole in the right occipital... and a throat wound. At Bethesda? The wound was described as a 10x19cm hole with MOST of his skull missing... I think your conclusions related to alteration are premature James. I see you are using a much copied version of the Boswell drawing. You might find this one more useful. There are some great threads related to Lifton's and Horne's work on this.... and I think you might take another more detailed look at the documentation that SCREAMS that JFK was in the ER well before the 8pm official start time. Perry's comment is in his WC testimony. http://mcadams.posc....ny/perry_m1.htm Do a ctrl "F" to find "pluera," with the comma. It will take you right to it. Dr. PERRY - Yes. Once the transverse incision through the skin and subcutaneous tissues was made, it was necessary to separate the strap muscles covering the anterior muscles of the windpipe and thyroid. At that point the trachea was noted to be deviated slightly to the left and I found it necessary to sever the exterior strap muscles on the other side to reach the trachea. So James... I do not know what "P.10 Vol 6" means but this is in Perry's WC testimony and makes it pretty plain that he cut JFK's anatomically RIGHT strap muscles... Yes this is my fault. The correct reference is WCH: 6 P. 18. At that point you will find this reference from Perry. “The trachea was deviated slightly to the left and it was necessary to divide the strap muscles on the left side in order to gain access to the trachea.” I believe “divide”, in this context means to cut. Because a couple of lines later Perry says “the wound in the trachea was then enlarged………” In the reference I feel there is considerable ambiguity. I can understand your interpretation, but the same passage can be read to also refer to the left strap muscle. It is true that he says he saw no damage to the pleural cavity, but he does go on to say that “the presence of this free blood and air in this area could be indicative of a wound in the right hemithorax..” Hemithorax is the upper chest area. So although he did not see damage to the pleural cavity this blood and air suggested to him that damage might well be there. Humes/Boswell, imo, lied their way thru the entire thing in a patriotic trance... which is why I simply cannot believe the autopsy or any of the evidence related to the autopsy. Jsut ask Sandra Spencer or Robert Knudsen. I don’t think he did lie, but I feel he was expeditious with the truth, and with evidence such as CE 385, he was not adverse to distorting the evidence. The “why” was because of the position he was in. Although he was a Commander, there were numerous much more important officials above him that he did not dare to oppose. Douglas Horne portrays Humes as one of the villains in the assassination. I can’t go along with that. Although David Lifton also believes in body alteration, he does not accuse Humes of doing it. Regarding the bruise to the pleural cavity... and the fact that in either direction there is no way that a line connecting the back and throat wounds passes thru the pleural cavity/top of the lung... as we have proven. Cerebellum - Sorry James, but in my experience there are simply too many redactions of evidence from "impossible it was Oswald" to "I was mistaken, it must have been the way the WCR says it was" By the sheer law of averages, SOME of the FBI/SS/DPD mistakes had to fall in Oswald's favor. Yet we cannot name one. So we are left with few options... 1) shallow entrance back and neck shots (back falls out and is found in JFK's clothes at Bethesda - subsequently this disappears... front - well I still believe that bullet, if it was one, would have been removed when the trach incision was enlarged.) 2) shallow back wound... fragment from assassination out the front - and a complete coverup of the pathways creating this hole. 3) There was yet another shot, higher on the neck but lower on the skull that resulted in skull damage and the fragment that exited Mr. KELLERMAN. To the left of the ear, sir, and a little high; yes. About right in here. Mr. SPECTER. When you say "removed," by that do you mean that it was absent when you saw him, or taken off by the doctor? Mr. KELLERMAN. It was absent when I saw him. Mr. SPECTER. Fine. Proceed. Mr. KELLERMAN. Entry into this man's head was right below that wound, right here. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear about the lower third of the ear? James - where would you place this wound based on this description? This reference is from WCH: 2 P. 81. The hole that is being talked about is the entrance for the head wound. I rather not speculate here. I don’t know what he means by the “right of the ear” and “the lower third of the ear.” Nor is there any exhibit that relates to this. While I am on the subject, I am also unhappy is Horne’s description of Kellerman’s role in the assassination. Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. But it was in the hairline, sir. Mr. SPECTER. In his hairline? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. SPECTER. Near the end of his hairline? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. SPECTER. What was the size of that aperture? Mr. KELLERMAN. The little finger. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the diameter of the little finger. Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. I hope you are not suggesting that this is the back entrance wound. It appears to me to be Kellerman confirming the WC point of entrance for the head wound. The one that is very low down on the back of the head. The HCSA later raised the entry point further up the head. 4) Why didn't others see the bleeding throat wound? It could have been below the collar... No, the wound was above the shirt. This is an area I am working on. I am not prepared to release my research work so far, but I am happy to discuss my work and show you a tentative conclusion. Legend has it that the Tracheotomy destroyed the bullet wound into the throat. To a large extent it did destroy most, but not all, of the upper portion of the wound. The importance of the upper part is that gives up position of the entrance of the wound. There may have been some shrinkage of the position of the flesh in the seven hours since the assassination, but to all extents it accurately pinpoints the position. The lower half is more problematic because it has been stretched down because of time and the position of thehead. In the Fort Worth image taken that morning when JFK was speaking to the crowd, you will see on his neck clear crease marks. In BE 3, (BE stand for “Best Evidence” and 3 the image sequence in that volume) better known as the ‘stare of death you will see these same crease lines. However the use of flash has all but washed the digital evidence off the picture. I am in the process of trying to get a company to restore this image back to its original quality. I have had quite a number of disappointments so far (because of the damage to the original) however there is a company in Australia that is giving me hope that it may be possible to restore this image even with the dirt, distortion and washing out of data. Work so far does give me outlines of the creases, but they are not sufficient to avoid ambiguity and disagreement. Even with the quality of the evidence I have so far, it is possible to measure down the creases and calculate the difference between the last crease and the upper remains of the bullet wound. When I am successful, it ought to be game over for the SBT. This time it will throw out the external trajectories, especially the trajectory from JFK to Connally. There is no way Dale Myers will be able to use this definitive location, on the surface of the flesh ( as opposed to trachea rings 3 & 4 which although definitive are difficult to translate to the flesh of the throat ) to link the Single Bullitt from JFK to Connally. It is tentative but my research suggests the position wound is as seen below. Senator COOPER. You are saying this, then, that you did not see, yourself, at any time the mark of any wound in his neck front? Mr. KELLERMAN. When we took him into the hospital in Dallas; that is right. Senator COOPER. What? Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right; when we took him in the hospital in Dallas, I did not. Senator COOPER. Did you ever see it? Mr. KELLERMAN. Only after he was opened up in the morgue; yes, sir. Senator COOPER. You saw some indication or some mark of a wound in the front of his neck? Mr. KELLERMAN. Senator, from the report of the doctor who worked on him in Dallas, that he enlarged the incision here in his throat to perform that tracheotomy, and I believe in his own statement that that wound was there prior to this incision. Senator COOPER. I know, but I am asking-- Mr. KELLERMAN. I didn't see it, sir. Senator COOPER. What you saw yourself? Mr. KELLERMAN. No; I didn't. Representative FORD. Was that because Hill had thrown his coat over the President, or just didn't see the skin or the body at the time? Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir. When I--that coat was thrown over, sir, to eliminate any gruesome pictures. Representative FORD. How far over that body? Did it go over the head only or down the chest? Mr. KELLERMAN. No; the whole coat went all the way down to the waistline, sir. Mr. SPECTER. You saw the President's face, though, at a later time as you have described? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, thank you. This I had lost track of, to help you out, Mr. Congressman. While he lay on the stretcher in that emergency room his collar and everything is up and I saw nothing in his face to indicate an injury, whether the shot had come through or not. He was clear. Representative FORD. But while he was on the stretcher in the emergency room you saw his face? Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right. Representative FORD. But he had his tie and his collar still.-- Mr. KELLERMAN. Still on. Representative FORD. Still on? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir. Representative FORD. You never saw his neck? Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir. Representative FORD. At that time? Mr. KELLERMAN. At that time, I did not observe him. Representative FORD. The only time you saw him was later at the morgue? Mr. KELLERMAN. Very much, sir. Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any blood on the portion of his body in the neck area or anyplace in the front of his body? Mr. KELLERMAN. I don't recall any. Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any hole in the clothing of the President on the front part, in the shirt or tie area? Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir. Mr. SPECTER. From your observation of the wound which you observed in the morgue which you have described as a tracheotomy, would that have been above or below the shirtline when the President was clothed? Mr. KELLERMAN. It would have been below the shirtline, sir. As pointed out above, I believe I will be able to disprove this. It is also pertinent to point out that with the shirt off, which is how Kellerman is describing him, it is really difficult to place the wound. That is why the creases are so important. They don’t change their position. By tracking them you can definitely place the wound as it was on the flesh of the body. I can’t find the reference, but I am sure there is a reference from Carrico that states he saw this wound while Kennedy was still clothed. Mr. SPECTER. Now, have you described all of the wounds of the President to which you have referred? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. GREER. No, sir. When he was in the emergency room and I was there, I did see his chest expand and move, the movement of the chest a time or so. Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to observe any wound on the front side of the President? Mr. GREER. No, sir; I didn't, I never seen any on the front side of the President. The only thing I saw was on the head. I didn't know at the time of any other injuries on him. Mr. SPECTER. As to the front side of the President's body, were you able to observe any hole or tear in either his shirt or tie? Mr. GREER. No, sir; I didn't and I brought them back, those things, and didn't see them at the time. I probably didn't inspect them very closely but they were handed to me in a paper bag to bring back. The first FBI laboratory reports on Kennedy’s clothes revealed that the holes in his coat and shirt submitted to both X-ray and spectrographic analysis showed traces of copper (bullet metal) around the edges of the holes. This was forensically consistent with JFK having been shot in the back with copper-jacketed ammunition. The same tests run on Kennedy’s collar and tie showed no bullet metal was found in the surrounding fabric. Rather than admit that the slits in the President’s collar and nick in his tie were not caused by an assassin’s bullet, the FBI lab report noted that the slits had the “characteristics of an exit hole for a bullet fragment.” (My italics). [2] So James, by all indications either a fragment exited the throat as the FBI elude to or even a BONE FRAGMENT that would leave no bullet traces. Except that you have yet to show how a fragment could cause such damage. I have described just how difficult, if not impossible, such a theory is. I await you showing how it was possible. If we consider the lower neck shot entrance per Lipsey and Kellerman, I believe the angles work much better for what may have been the REAR head shot at the same time as the frontal one... Are you saying that this initial Warren Commssion position for the head entrance, for the head wound, also traversed the body and exited in the lower neck? I can’t agree to that. James. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 (edited) Cliff... the evidence from the moment jfk left DP is suspect. I do not argue your points, which may be valid... I just dont see the dart gun thing broken out in DP. That's cool. The autopsists saw it before they were dragooned into the cover-up, and the neck x-ray and the Zap corroborate the conclusion. On that basis I'd say it is the most likely scenario. The fibers in the shirt were moving outward yet had no bullet related material on them while the coat and shirt on the back do. You say dart (which pushes IN), I say bone from a shot to his head... It was the FBI lab which claimed to find traces of copper in the back of the clothing. I'd say the FBI lab has no credibility in this case whatsoever. I think you underestimate the PAIN JFK would be in related to his back and ANY disruption. I've had L4/5 surgery... a very bad back such as JFK's could create extreme pain for him. Loosening his tie so as to breathe... I was a poker dealer for 25 years, lots of bending over the table, with a few periods of severe back pain. My experience, and what I observe in other people, is that when we feel pain in a particular area of the body we instinctively reach for that area. JFK didn't reach for his back, he reached for his throat. And I don't see how back pain would cause his left index finger to freeze in a pointing position. David, it's a matter of consistency in the evidence. A guy reaching for his throat is consistent with a guy feeling pain in his throat. A guy acting paralyzed is consistent with a guy actually being paralyzed. Can there be other explanations? Sure, but what is the explanation most consistent with the event? Edited April 20, 2012 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now