A potential explanation for the disappearance of the throat and back bullets.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

JFK had a bruised larynx, which was above the tie so your whole "low throat wound" theory is untenable.

 

If the wound was above the tie, how do you explain the holes in the collar of the shirt underneath the necktie knot (which is where the "low throat wound" would be located)?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

31 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

58 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Just because an autopsist at Bethesda wondered out loud if a bullet could be a dissolving one doesn't make it so. 

Correct!

But it's a lead which deserves to be followed.

Yes, it's a lead that does deserves attention. But you go beyond that. If anybody puts forth a different hypothesis, you label them a Pet Theorist.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

22 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

And you don't cherry pick, Cliff?

Nope.  I have strict rules for weighing evidence.

1)  Only weigh medical evidence which was prepared/maintained/recorded according to proper autopsy protocol.  This would include Burkley's death certificate (signed off as "verified"), the portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil (signed off as "verified"), the contemporaneous notes of the Parkland doctors, the cervical/chest x-ray (authenticated by Dr. David Mantik).  The FBI report on the autopsy was also produced according to proper professional protocols.

2)  I almost always cite consensus witness testimony.

Everything I look at is in the First Day Evidence...

Quote

 

Of course you do, otherwise you'd believe the official story, that the shot to the head came from behind and blew out the top-right of the head.

Non sequitur.

Quote

You question what came from the autopsy just like I do.

Again, it all depends on whether or not the work product of the autopsy followed proper protocol.

Quote

 

And you choose to believe only those things that support the theory of dissolving bullet.

Projection.  I'm only pointing out items from the historical record consistent with the Prosector's Scenario.

Pointing out consistencies does not constitute "belief."

Quote

 

At least I am willing to consider other possibilities.

 

Me too.  It's just that I avoid making l-i-a-r-s out of witnesses.

Edited August 12, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

8 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Yes, it's a lead that does deserves attention. But you go beyond that. If anybody puts forth a different hypothesis, you label them a Pet Theorist.

 

No, I label someone Pet Theorist when they ignore the consensus witness testimony in order to repeat a Lone Nut talking point.

Edited August 12, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

12 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

If the wound was above the tie, how do you explain the holes in the collar of the shirt underneath the necktie knot (which is where the "low throat wound" would be located)?

 

The shirt was cut when the tie was cut off.

[Sandy Larsen]

I created this thread to explore another possibility that could explain the throat wound, the back wound, and the "missing bullet." I'm not pushing this theory. I'm trying to find out if is plausible.

There are three other theories that I believe are plausible. But I am willing to discard any that are shown not to be plausible.

Cliff Varnell labels me a "Pet Theorist" for some reason, just he does other members. I believe he uses that label as a pejorative.

I have an open mind and am willing to consider any possibility. Therefore Cliff is wrong when he says I'm a pet theorist.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I created this thread to explore another possibility that could explain the throat wound, the back wound, and the "missing bullet." I'm not pushing this theory. I'm trying to find out if is plausible.

It's plausible only if you are willing to make l-i-a-r-s out of Roy Kellerman, Pierre Finck, Glenn Bennett and everyone who described the back wound as an entrance.

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

There are three other theories that I believe are plausible. But I am willing to discard any that are shown not to be plausible. 

And the reason you reject the witness testimony is...why?

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Cliff Varnell labels me a "Pet Theorist" for some reason, just he does other members. I believe he uses that label as a pejorative.

Yeah, I have a problem with the implied witness bashing involved in the refusal to weigh consensus witness statements.

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I have an open mind and am willing to consider any possibility. Therefore Cliff is wrong when he says I'm a pet theorist.

 

No, you're a pet theorist because you ignore the witnesses in order to repeat lone nutterisms.

[Sandy Larsen]

11 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

24 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

If the wound was above the tie, how do you explain the holes in the collar of the shirt underneath the necktie knot (which is where the "low throat wound" would be located)?

 

The shirt was cut when the tie was cut off.

Okay.

But I reject that possibility because the knife or scalpel went through both sides of the front opening. Which means that the shirt collar was closed when the cut was made, and Kennedy would have been stabbed in the throat or nearly stabbed at best. I'm certain that the nurse who cut the tie would have pulled it away from the throat while cutting.

(I'm fairly certain that you won't buy me reasoning here (even as sound as it is) because doing so would damage your pet theory. Oops, I mean the autopsists pet theory that you have adopted and relentlessly defend.)

 

[Cliff Varnell]

22 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Okay.

But I reject that possibility because the knife or scalpel went through both sides of the front opening. Which means that the shirt collar was closed when the cut was made, and Kennedy would have been stabbed in the throat or nearly stabbed at best.

Not if the collar were pulled out.

Quote

I'm certain that the nurse who cut the tie would have pulled it away from the throat while cutting.

(I'm fairly certain that you won't buy me reasoning here (even as sound as it is) because doing so would damage your pet theory. Oops, I mean the autopsists pet theory that you have adopted and relentlessly defend.)

 

No, I don't buy your reasoning because of the bruised larynx and the probing-of-the-back-wound-no-transit conclusion of Finck and Carrico's testimony for the WC and SS SA Bennett's contemporaneous notes.

The Prosector's Scenario is part of the historical record, stands on its own and cannot be "damaged."

Doesn't make it certain, certainly.

Edited August 12, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Sandy Larsen]

6 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Quote

There are three other theories that I believe are plausible. But I am willing to discard any that are shown not to be plausible. 

And the reason you reject the witness testimony is...why?

 

I generally don't reject eyewitness testimony when there are numerous witnesses corroborating each other.

But sometimes even multiple witnesses can be wrong. For example, suppose that an Obama impersonator was walking around in a nearby mall. It's quite possible that several witnesses would swear they saw Obama at the mall, when in fact they didn't.

In the case of the throat and back wounds, I have checked around and found that sometimes an exit wound can look like a entrance wound (I linked to one such source earlier.) So I consider that a possibility

But in any case, I do weigh eyewitness testimony against any conflicting evidence.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

4 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

In the case of the throat and back wounds, I have checked around and found that sometimes an exit wound can look like a entrance wound (I linked to one such source earlier.) So I consider that a possibility

What makes you think this was one of those "sometimes"?

James Gordon produced an anatomical model that showed a direct line from the point the round exited the trachea to C7/T1 transverse processes.

There are lots of reasons the JFKA wasn't one of those "sometimes."

[Sandy Larsen]

8 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Quote

I'm certain that the nurse who cut the tie would have pulled it away from the throat while cutting.

(I'm fairly certain that you won't buy me reasoning here (even as sound as it is) because doing so would damage your pet theory. Oops, I mean the autopsists pet theory that you have adopted and relentlessly defend.)

No, I don't buy your reasoning because of the bruised larynx and the probing-of-the-back-wound-no-transit conclusion of Finck and Carrico's testimony for the WC and SS SA Bennett's contemporaneous notes.

 

Okay, then you believe that some person at Parkland Hospital cut Kennedy's tie off without first loosening it, and came dangerously close to stabbing Kennedy in the throat.

I don't buy that because it is easy to loosen a tie, and certainly the person would have done that before cutting it.

Oh, and by the way,  ALL the early testimony indicated that the throat wound was located below the shirtline, just behind the tie:
 

Dr. Charles Carrico (WC Testimony):

MR. DULLES: Will you show us about where [the throat wound] was?

DR. CARRICO: Just about where your tie would be.

 

Dr. Kemp Clark (WC Testimony):

Mr. SPECTER. And let me read for the record and for you this excerpt.

"On his part according to the New York Times of November 27, 'Dr. Kemp Clark, who signed the Kennedy death certificate, declared that a bullet hit him right where the knot of his necktie was.' He added," apparently referring to you, " 'this bullet penetrated into his chest and did not come out'. The surgeon went on to say that .the second wound of the President was 'tangential' and that it had been caused by a bullet which hit 'the right side of his head' "

Dr. Clark, my first question is--what, if anything, did you say to a New York Times representative or anyone, for that matter, with respect to whether a bullet hit the President where the knot of his necktie was.

Dr. CLARK. I remember using the phrase to describe the location of a wound in the President's throat as being at the point of his knot of his necktie. I do not recall ever specifically stating that this was an entrance wound, as has been said before. I was not present when the President arrived and did not see this wound. If any statement regarding its entrance or exit was made by me, it was indicating that there was a small wound described there by the physicians who first saw the President.

So Dr. Clark was relying upon what he heard from the other doctors when he reported that the throat wound was behind the necktie's knot.

 

SSA Roy Kellerman (WC Testimony):

SPECTER: ...Did you observe any hole in the clothing of the President on the front part, in the shirt or tie area?

KELLERMAN: No, sir.

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?

KELLERMAN: It would have been below the shirtline, sir.

 

Why are you bashing the witnesses, Cliff? 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Okay.

But I reject that possibility because the knife or scalpel went through both sides of the front opening. Which means that the shirt collar was closed when the cut was made, and Kennedy would have been stabbed in the throat or nearly stabbed at best.

Not if the collar were pulled out.

 

I don't think Kennedy's clothing was so ill-fitting that the shirt collar could be pulled out that far.

And still, the hypothesis you defend ignores the testimony of witnesses who said that the wound was below the shirt line.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

In the case of the throat and back wounds, I have checked around and found that sometimes an exit wound can look like a entrance wound (I linked to one such source earlier.) So I consider that a possibility

What makes you think this was one of those "sometimes"?

 

I don't think that. I'm saying that it's a possibility.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

In the case of the throat and back wounds, I have checked around and found that sometimes an exit wound can look like a entrance wound (I linked to one such source earlier.) So I consider that a possibility

What makes you think this was one of those "sometimes"?

James Gordon produced an anatomical model that showed a direct line from the point the round exited the trachea to C7/T1 transverse processes.

Yeah, I remember that. And in response Robert Prudhomme produced images that showed that Gordon's drawing was wrong.