Jump to content
The Education Forum
James DiEugenio

Where is the exit?

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

There is some evidence that there was a bullet recovered e.g. the receipt for missile thing.  And the late Robert Morrow said that he knew one of the doctors at the morgue and he told him that there was a bullet taken out of Kennedy's back.

That is something that I think is explainable.

Certainly possible.

19 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

But the no exit for the throat wound is a real puzzler to me.

The FBI had been briefed on the prospect of such puzzling wounds appearing out in the field.  Civilians from the US Army Special Operations Division alerted the FBI that such puzzling wounds would result from an attack by foreign perps.

Had Oswald been gunned down instead of captured the FBI was ready to blame the KGB for these puzzling wounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I've believed for years Dr. Perry's repeated statement on the afternoon of 11/22/63 that the throat wound was an entrance wound.  Before Secret Service Agent Moore spoke with him and other doctors and nurses in early December.  After that he backed up, waffled and tap danced.  Maybe, I guess, it could have been an exit wound or words to this effect.  He was an experienced emergency room doctor in a hospital that received patients with gunshot wounds on a regular sometimes daily or multiple per day basis.  He had seen likely hundreds of entrance and exit wounds and knew the difference.  He said it was a small entry wound within a couple of hours after he had cut it open further to perform the tracheotomy.  And repeated this when questioned.  He still Never came back and said it Was an exit wound.

As to where is the exit...  I wish Bob Prudhome still posted here.  His posts were logical and reasonable based on his EMT and hunting experience.  I'm not an anatomy expert though I understood the basic concepts in Biology 101 and I used to hunt in my younger years.  I don't think there was an exit wound.  The subject has been discussed on the forum in depth in years passed before I joined but read it often, the subject of frangible bullets.  It's been speculated about in regards to the back, head and neck wound.  Somebody thought that's why there was no exit wound for the back entry wound if the throat wound was also an entry wound.  Somebody thought a right temple shot with one was responsible for the "star" disbursement of tiny metal particles going from front to back (more at the front fading to less/none at the back) in one of the xrays.

My point is if a bullet used on the throat was small caliber and frangible their likely wouldn't be an exit wound.  Small game frangible bullets are designed to, after penetrating the skin, basically explode on impact, disintegrate when they hit muscle or say a wind pipe.  Since the idiots in Bethesda either chose not to or were prevented from following standard autopsy procedure and dissecting both the throat and back wounds we'll likely never know for sure what happened to the bullet from the front throat entry wound.

I googled "small caliber frangible bullet".  I think this short article explains the concept better than I.

https://ronspomeroutdoors.com/blog/frangible-varmint-bullets-big-game/

Ron,

The behavior of the bullets that struck JFK are, to me, a proof in themselves that there was more than one shooter.

If was are to believe the WC, LHO loaded two types of ammo in the $13 rifle, in the specific order he planned on striking JFK to cause the wounds he did: a FMJ penetrating round for the magic bullet, and a frangible round for the head.  The WC's description of the behavior of the magic bullet forces that conclusion, that it penetrated and kept on penetrating.  The x-ray evidence of the disbursement of metal particles force the conclusion of the frangible round.  Add to those two items the fact that the MC clip was only partially loaded with 4 rounds our of 6, and you have an unbelievable situation.  Who loads multiple types of round in a single clip?  Who partially loads a clip when intentionally assassinating a president?

Your idea of a frangible round in the throat makes sense if it was fired from the same position / firearm as the frontal right temple > back right head with disintegration from the south knoll (thanks to Sherry Feister).  

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Then what's the alternative scenario, Pat?

I challenge you to come up with a reasonable, sensible, and believable anti-SBT theory which is based on the actual evidence (and wounds) in the case. Can you do that without using the words "fake", "manipulated", or "cover up"?

Good luck.

 

Dead wrong. But I guess you think you know more about these things than the four doctors on the Clark Panel who signed off on this conclusion in February 1968 (emphasis DVP's)....

"The possibility that this bullet might have followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found. There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea described in the Autopsy Report. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck." -- Clark Panel Report

Yep. The Clark Panel thought, or pretended to think, the back wound was inches above the throat wound, and admitted that an entrance from a lower location (where it was later proved to have been) would almost surely have been intercepted by bone.

So... David. Who do you believe? The Clark Panel---a secret four-member panel convened to dismiss conspiracy theories that published no drawings or images in support of their claim the back wound was well above the throat wound--or the HSCA FPP--a nine-member panel which published tracings and drawings to demonstrate that--yikes--the back wound was at or even below the level of the throat wound?

incredibleshrinking.jpg

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Like what?

Well, like

Witnesses:

1)  As I mentioned I believe above, a witness at Bethesda who claimed to have obtained another bullet.  Did he lie?

2)  many people who either said they saw a puff of smoke on the grassy knoll.  Did they all lie?

3)  Lee Bowers who stated he saw a flash or something out of the ordinary happen at the time of the assassination.  Did he lie?

4)  The fact that there is credible evidence the autopsy evidence, x-rays, were mutilated, lost, which confirms that the evidence we have is far from trustworthy.  I always laugh about that because in trial, if a good trial lawyer finds flaws in the handling of the evidence, well, what happened with OJ.   Did these witnesses lie?

5)  A police officer who is to the back of JFK who gets sprayed with blood.  Was he not sprayed with blood?

6) The fact that we now know President Ford liberally moved the bullet entrance?  Is this no big deal?

Reports:

The surgeon general report alleging that there was a shot from the front.  (We could prove conclusively whether a shot went through the windshield if only LBJ did not order the car restrored and cleaned.) Was the surgeon general report wrong?

The FBI report which detailed that they had another bullet in possession, when all bullets were already in possession.  Was this a lie?

The FBI report that some type of surgery or cutting had been done on the JFK flap.  Were they lying?

Medical evidence-I know, how dare I bring up the Parkland doctors, but, many said that what the autopsy showed is not what they saw.  Were they lying?

I could go on and on, and believe me, I would like to have proof that LHO did it, close the case.  Yet here we are x number of years later and nothing conclusively proves he did it.  Instead, the new records just create more questions.

You act like the SBT is the only plausible explanation for the wounds.  But if the evidence is tampered with, which it was, then you cannot logically hold to that line.

Nothing I said will convince you.  That would shatter your world.  Me,  if it was LHO, fine, prove it conclusively so that everyone can move on.  My world would not change.

But hey MOVE ALONG PEOPLE, NOTHING TO SEE.

It is hard to discount the above evidence and so much other evidence that shows this event happened due to the hands of more than one person.

DVP, answer me 2 questions since I responded fairly to yours.

1)  Do guilty people try and hide and/or destroy the evidence of their crime?  Yes or no please?

2)  Do you concede that even if the SBT was correct, that it is possible LHO was not the shoot?  Yes or no please?

3)  Do you concede that there is a possibility that the medical evidence was altered, tampered with, lost, or destroyed?

4)  If you concede 3, do you concede there is a possibility that the shot angles could be from different point or points other than the TSBD?

Edited by Cory Santos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:

1)  Do guilty people try and hide and/or destroy the evidence of their crime?  Yes or no please?

Yes, usually they do.

In this case, for whatever unknown reason, Oswald (who is the only truly "guilty" person associated with the murders of JFK and J.D. Tippit, IMO), didn't even attempt to hide and/or destroy the bullet shells and the 38-inch brown paper bag he left lying right in the Sniper's Nest. And he COULD certainly have taken those easy-to-conceal items with him when he left the TSBD. But he didn't. Why, you might ask? I haven't the slightest idea. We'd have to dig Lee up and ask him to find out the reason. (He tried his best to "hide" the rifle though.)

 

Quote

2)  Do you concede that even if the SBT was correct, that it is possible LHO was not the shoot[er]?  Yes or no please?

No.

There's too much stuff on the "Oswald Did It" table (including Oswald's own guilty-like actions following the assassination---which includes the Tippit murder, which was undeniably committed by LHO) to even consider answering your last question with a "Yes".

 

Quote

3)  Do you concede that there is a possibility that the medical evidence was altered, tampered with, lost, or destroyed?

Altered? --- No way.

Tampered with? --- No way.

Lost? --- Perhaps.

Destroyed? --- Yes. Three items specifically come to mind ---

....The Hosty note. (Obviously done for CYA purposes by the FBI. Certainly NOT done to cover-up any "plot" relating to the actual assassination.)

....Dr. Humes' blood-stained autopsy notes. (Destroyed by Humes for the exact reason he stated in his testimony---because they were stained with the President's blood. Perfectly reasonable.)

....And Humes' first draft of the autopsy report. (Burned by Humes because the first draft was inaccurate in some respects and therefore should not be relied upon. Hence, it was an expendable item. A perfectly reasonable thing to do, IMO. Similarly, the FBI agents usually "destroy" their original notes after they transfer their notes to a final, formal report. Should that practice of the FBI routinely destroying their own notes also be looked upon as being suspicious or sinister in some fashion? If so, why?)

 

Quote

4)  If you concede 3, do you concede there is a possibility that the shot angles could be from different point or points other than the TSBD?

No. There is no reliable enough evidence to indicate that any shots came from any non-TSBD location. And I do not think the many witnesses who said they heard shots coming from the Grassy Knoll are "reliable enough". Here's why -----> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/dealey-plaza-earwitnesses.html

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Yes, usually they do.

In this case, for whatever unknown reason, Oswald (who is the only truly "guilty" person associated with the muerders of JFK and J.D. Tippit, IMO), didn't even attempt to hide and/or destroy the bullet shells and the 38-inch brown paper bag he left lying right in the Sniper's Nest. And he COULD certainly have taken those easy-to-conceal items with him when he left the TSBD. But he didn't. Why, you might ask? I haven't the slightest idea. We'd have to dig Lee up and ask him to find out the reason. (He tried his best to "hide" the rifle though.)

 

No.

There's too much stuff on the "Oswald Did It" table (including Oswald's own guilty-like actions following the assassination---which includes the Tippit murder, which was undeniably committed by LHO) to even consider answering your last question with a "Yes".

 

Altered? --- No way.

Tampered with? --- No way.

Lost? --- Perhaps.

Destroyed? --- Yes. Three items specifically come to mind ---

....The Hosty note. (Obviously done for CYA purposes by the FBI. Certainly NOT done to cover-up any "plot" relating to the actual assassination.)

....Dr. Humes' blood-stained autopsy notes. (Destroyed by Humes for the exact reason he stated in his testimony---because they were stained with the President's blood. Perfectly reasonable.)

....And Humes' first draft of the autopsy report. (Burned by Humes because the first draft was inaccurate in some respects and therefore should not be relied upon. Hence, it was an expendable item. A perfectly reasonable thing to do, IMO. Similarly, the FBI agents usually "destroy" their original notes after they transfer their notes to a final, formal report. Should that practice of the FBI routinely destroying their own notes be looked upon as being suspicious or sinister in some fashion? If so, why?)

 

No. And there is no reliable enough evidence to indicate that any shots came from any non-TSBD location. And I do not think the many witnesses who said they heard shots coming from the Grassy Knoll are "reliable enough". Here's why -----> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/dealey-plaza-earwitnesses.html

I appreciate you answering the questions.  

So the x-ray tech who testified I believe to the Assassination Review Board that he was told to tape pieces of skull together to make sure it looked like one piece, he lied?  I cannot discount that.

As for LHO acting strange, the biggest clue is he left his ring.  This is a big act.  Clearly it was too much of a coincidence that he went unknowingly to the TSBD that day without some knowledge something was going to happen.  

The FBI report clearly shows someone messed with the presidents skull prior to arrival at Bethesda.  I cannot discount that.

I am glad you concede guilty people try to hid evidence of their crime.  Assuming I agree LHO was a shooter, perhaps not the only even though this conflicts with the test showing he did not shoot a rifle that day, then you must concede that LBJ ordering the limo cleaned, restored etc. and having clothing immediately washed is a clear sign of guilt then.  Who else would go out and say hey, lets destroy evidence.

In a civil case that is called spoliation of evidence, a very bad thing to do because a presumption is created.  Here that does not work well for LBJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 9:46 AM, Paul Brancato said:

It's an indication of something. It looks to me like he freezes at that moment, as if he's been hit with something that partially paralyzed him. His hands never get to his throat. I'm one of those that think he was hit in the throat from in front first. 

About the time his hands were about to get to his throat he was hit with the back shot which is what "froze" him.  Just my thoughts. on it.  But regarding Jim's original question, the throat shot came first, and it didn't exit.

Edited by Ron Bulman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

So the x-ray tech who testified I believe to the Assassination Review Board that he was told to tape pieces of skull together to make sure it looked like one piece, he lied?  I cannot discount that.

Huh? Please cite.

 

Quote

The FBI report clearly shows someone messed with the president's skull prior to arrival at Bethesda.  I cannot discount that.

The "surgery" remark by Humes has been explained.

"When the body was first observed on the autopsy table, it was thought by the doctors that surgery had possibly been performed in the head area and such was reflected in my notes at the time. However, this was determined not to be correct following a detailed inspection." -- James W. Sibert; Oct. 1978 (HSCA Interview)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-with-james-sibert.html

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1002.html

 

Quote

I am glad you concede guilty people try to hid evidence of their crime.  Assuming I agree LHO was a shooter, perhaps not the only even though this conflicts with the test showing he did not shoot a rifle that day, then you must concede that LBJ ordering the limo cleaned, restored etc. and having clothing immediately washed is a clear sign of guilt then.  Who else would go out and say hey, let's destroy evidence.

In a civil case that is called spoliation of evidence, a very bad thing to do because a presumption is created.  Here that does not work well for LBJ.

The limo yielded its evidence when it was examined in great detail at the White House garage on Nov. 23 AM.

I agree that it wasn't a good idea to wipe out any blood while the limo was at the Parkland emergency entrance. But I'm still not sure that was done either. It's never been proven with certainty that any blood was wiped out, but it might very well have been, with the bucket that is visible in the photos being a good indication that some tidying-up was being done at Parkland. But if it was done, it was certainly not a "sinister clean-up" at that early point in time. (How would anyone know at that hour what to clean up and what to leave there?)

And do you want to call Nellie Connally a co-conspirator too? She's the one who washed some of her husband's bloody clothes right after the shooting. Was she doing it "on orders" from LBJ as part of a cover-up?

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, you agree the limo might have been cleaned but not really?

I will find the evidence on the x-ray tech, I believe Douglas Horne provided it.

But, will it matter to you as evidence?

You have discounted so much already, respectfully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Ok, you agree the limo might have been cleaned but not really?

Well, Cory, I was a little confused as to the TIMING of the alleged "limo cleaning" that you were talking about earlier. Were you referring to what I referenced in my last post---the early (alleged) Nov. 22 "bucket clean-up" while the car was still under the Parkland emergency entrance overhang? Or were you referring to the bogus myth about LBJ "ordering" that the limo be completely "rebuilt" (and, I guess, cleaned as well) a day or two after the assassination? (The latter never happened, of course. The limo wasn't modified and rebuilt until much later---well after November '63.)

 

Quote

I will find the evidence on the x-ray tech, I believe Douglas Horne provided it.

But, will it matter to you as evidence?

You have discounted so much already, respectfully.

If it comes from Doug Horne....no, I probably won't believe a word of it (if the X-ray tech's words have been spun by Horne into some "conspiracy plot", which is quite likely, given the source).

Mr. Horne has about as much credibility with me as Jean Hill and Roger Craig.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/doug-horne-part-1.html

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Well, Cory, I was a little confused as to the TIMING of the alleged "limo cleaning" that you were talking about earlier. Were you referring to what I referenced in my last post---the early (alleged) Nov. 22 "bucket clean-up" while the car was still under the Parkland emergency entrance overhang? Or were you referring to the bogus myth about LBJ "ordering" that the limo be completely "re-built" (and, I guess, cleaned as well) a day or two after the assassination? (The latter never happened, of course. The limo was modified until much later than Nov. '63.)

 

If it comes from Horne....no, I probably won't believe a word of it (if it's spun into some "conspiracy plot").

Mr. Horne has about as much credibility to me as Jean Hill and Roger Craig.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/doug-horne-part-1.html

Lol, alright, then we agree to disagree.  I wont try to convince you, that is not my purpose here.

Can you convince me that the SBT is correct?

What evidence are you relying on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Lol, alright, then we agree to disagree.  I won't try to convince you, that is not my purpose here.

I'd still like to see your citation regarding the X-ray technician. Do you have a quick link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reprise....

59 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

So the x-ray tech who testified I believe to the Assassination Review Board that he was told to tape pieces of skull together to make sure it looked like one piece, he lied?

Cory,

Are you sure this isn't in reference to a technician who was assisting the morticians (after the autopsy was completed) in attempting to piece JFK's head back together as much as they could for a possible open-casket funeral? (Sure sounds like it to me.)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...