Jump to content
The Education Forum

A new proposal re the JFK shots and wounds


Recommended Posts

I have a proposed new solution on the bullets and wounds of JFK which I believe has not previously been proposed, and solicit criticism or counterevidence. My argument proposes to establish two key conclusions. The first is that the stretcher bullet at Parkland came from JFK, not Connally. The second is that the entrance wound of the bullet that exited JFK's throat was the occipital rear entrance wound at the back of JFK's head, and that this bullet, after passing through JFK's throat, then continued into Connally causing all of Connally wounds. This shot occurred at about Z323 or thereabouts, less than a second after the head shot of Z313. In other words, a modified Single Bullet Theory but with a different entrance wound than has heretofore been considered. Following I outline the arguments supporting these two conclusions. But first:

Negative finding of fact: the WC and HSCA Single Bullet Theory, aka the "Magic Bullet" (entrance JFK upper back; exit JFK throat; cause all wounds of Connally; bullet found in nearly pristine condition on the stretcher at Parkland) can be excluded. (As brought out by Dr. Cyril Wecht and others; nothing original here.)

-- The vertical trajectory is wrong, and the near-pristine nature of the stretcher bullet/C399 is incompatible with a bullet that struck the bone in Connally's wrist.

-- However although the Single Bullet Theory of the WC and HSCA is not correct, it was believed that it must or could only be correct by the majority of WC and HSCA on the basis of a perceived inability to explain where the bullet that exited JFK's throat went if it did not go into Connally. (This was the major argument of Bugliosi in defense of the WC single-bullet against Dr. Wecht.) The reconstruction that the bullet went into Connally and caused Connally's wounds seemed to be the best explanation of this point. Arlen Specter said that point was key to his own belief that the single bullet explanation was correct. Perception that the single-bullet explanation must be correct caused pressure to "raise" the location of the entrance wound on JFK's upper back (as in Gerald Ford's famous hand-drawn edit moving higher the position of the entrance wound in JFK's upper back). 

With this negative finding out of the way, I turn to the positive argument.

1. The Parkland stretcher bullet came from JFK, not Connally

-- It can be shown the Parkland stretcher bullet did not come from Connally. First, it was not found on Connally's stretcher and there is no positive reason to link it to Connally. Second, the stretcher bullet was in near-pristine condition inconsistent with a bullet that struck the bone in Connally's wrist and fractured. And third, a fragment of the bullet that hit Connally fell out of Connally's thigh in the operating room, inconsistent with the near-pristine condition of the stretcher bullet which is not missing any fragments of itself. 

-- At the same time, it can be shown the Parkland stretcher bullet did come from JFK. First, there is witness testimony associating a bullet with JFK's body at Parkland. Second, the stretcher bullet was found in the emergency receiving area of Parkland and there were only two known gunshot victims there, one of whom (Connally) is excluded as the source of that bullet on independent grounds, process of elimination argument. And third, the condition of the stretcher bullet--near-pristine--is what would be expected from a bullet matching the specific description of one of the gunshot wounds of JFK, namely the bullet of the upper back entrance wound which did not penetrate very deeply into JFK's body. Fourth, a friend of Secret Service Special Agent Kinney, after Kinney's death, has recounted that Kinney told him he found a bullet that had fallen out of JFK in the presidential limousine while at Parkland, and that he, Kinney, had walked into the emergency area of the hospital and had placed that bullet somewhere there. And fifth--this is the original part of my contribution to this point--a reconstruction of the circumstances of how the bullet came to be on the specific stretcher at the location the bullet was found (not written out here).  

-- Whether the Parkland stretcher bullet was C399 or C399 is a secondary substitution for the stretcher bullet is a distinct issue and not necessary to resolve here. All witnesses report the stretcher bullet was near-pristine, with the only discrepancy being that some witnesses have reported the stretcher bullet was pointed whereas C399 is rounded; also, that persons in the chain of custody refused to corroborate that C399 was the bullet they handled. The present argument is unaffected no matter which way that issue is resolved, since in either case the stretcher bullet was near-pristine and came from JFK, which are the key points here.

2. Modified single bullet theory in which the bullet entered at the rear of JFK's head (not previously considered; changes everything).

-- the throat wound of JFK, seen by some at Parkland before a tracheometry over the bullet hole destroyed the evidence of the wound, was thought to be an entrance wound by some observers, but there is recognition that it is not always easy to be certain whether a given bullet hole is an entrance or exit, and in any case this one was not examined and could not be examined more closely once the tracheometry was done.

-- in fact the throat wound cannot have been an entrance, because there is no exit. The possibility that a bullet entered JFK's throat and did not exit but remained in JFK's neck can be excluded for this reason: at the autopsy from witness reports there was a major attempt to "find the bullet" that was believed to be in JFK's body undiscovered, and X-rays were taken for that purpose. But no bullet was identified in JFK's body from the X-rays.

-- The JFK throat wound therefore was an exit. But an exit wound requires an entrance on the other side of the body and in a trajectory that is possible for a direction of a bullet fired at JFK. There are only two bullet wounds on the rear of JFK, both independently identified as entrance wounds, and so the bullet of the throat wound must be one of those two. That the occipital wound at the back of JFK's head was an entrance wound (and not an exit wound) is established from beveling in the skull at the point of that bullet's entry (cite specifics here). 

-- Because the occipital rear entrance wound of JFK has never been considered possible as the point of entry of the bullet that exited JFK's neck, it was perceived that the upper back entrance wound of JFK must be the entrance of the bullet that exited JFK's neck.

-- The reason the rear occipital wound of JFK's head was not considered as a possible entrance for the bullet of the throat exit wound can easily be reconstructed. Two reasons: first, it was believed that there was only a single head shot, and therefore the immense damage blowing out a major part of JFK's brain cavity required that bullet to do it, and therefore that bullet could not have simultaneously exited the throat. And second, the vertical trajectory is too steep to be compatible with that of a shot fired from a building to the rear of JFK sitting in an upright position. If the vertical trajectory from the 6th floor TSBD is about 16 degrees downward, the vertical trajectory of rear occipital to throat exit of JFK might be in the 30-40 degree range (these are guesses from me, not data or measurements, which I have not undertaken). There is no known time from the Zapruder film prior to the head shot at Z313 which would have JFK in a posture or position which would not have a difference in magnitude of trajectory which excludes it from consideration. For these two reasons, the rear occipital entrance as the bullet which exited JFK's throat--the proposal I argue here--was considered a non-starter at the outset, not even on the table for consideration. It is not that this possibility can be found discussed and then rejected for reasons a,b,c. It has simply never even been brought up for discussion as a possibility in the major discussions. 

-- As seeming airtight as both of those reasons seemed at the time (for excluding an occipital rear head entrance for the JFK throat exit wound), it happens that both objections in fact are illusory, and the piercing of these illusory objections causing them to disappear is key to the present proposal. First, in recent years multiple researchers have argued very convincingly that there were in fact two shots to JFK's head, not just one. I am thinking particularly of the work of Gary Aguilar here. In any case, it is convincing. Two shots to JFK's head is revolutionary, but one important implication of the two-JFK-head-shots finding has been missed until now: it in principle removes one of the two main reasons just cited for why the rear occipital wound was never considered for association with the throat exit wound. It was my noticing that (and following working out my analysis of the Parkland stretcher bullet as coming from JFK) that launched my thinking toward working out the theory of the present outline.

-- The other reason considered to make the rear occipital JFK wound a non-starter (for the throat exit wound)--the vertical trajectory too steep--is decisive in excluding such a reconstruction at all points of Zapruder except at the one point at which independent argument places the timing of the shot that caused that rear-occipital wound of JFK's head, namely ca. Z323 or thereabouts, ca. 0.7 seconds after the head shot of Z313.

-- The head shot of Z313--the shot that blew out JFK's skull and brains--knocked JFK's head rapidly and severely backward and to the left (pivoting backward on the neck like whiplash) and also knocked JFK's body leftward. This dramatic and rapid change in the position of the rear occipital entrance wound compared to the throat wound lowered the angle of the trajectory such that at ca. Z323, the time that blur analysis indicates for the final shot 0.7 seconds after the Z313 head shot--and the angle of the trajectory can now be seen correct. Studies remain to be done--all I have done is look at the Zapruder frames at Z313f many times and try to mentally envision approximate angle of trajectory. But because other grounds call for the rear occipital wound as the entrance for the bullet that exited JFK's throat, I believe this is the solution. The sudden distortion in the positioning of JFK's head and body posture at this precise point in the Zapruder sequence at the time indicated for the final shot brings the vertical trajectory in alignment with a shot fired from a building to the rear. 

-- Many witnesses heard the final two shots very close together, and commented on this phenomenon so specifically that that witness testimony is very compelling. This witness testimony corresponds to blur analysis of the Zapruder frames--blur analysis being the gold standard method for identifying times of the gunshots in Zapruder--indicating the head shot at Z313 and another shot--the final shot--about 0.7 seconds later at ca. Z323. 

-- Since there is convincing argument from medical evidence on independent grounds for two head shots, and since the head shot of Z313 is the one that did the major brain and skull damage to JFK (with good grounds for identifying the source of that shot as the Grassy Knoll), the shot of Z323 was the second head shot, the rear occipital entry at the back of JFK's head.

-- Separately and independently, there has already been argument set forth that Connally was hit after Z313 rather than earlier, based on analysis of his movements and witness testimony (cite, describe, and discuss). Although the timing of the shot that hit Connally is debated, the stronger argument seems to be the post-Z313 argument. WC and HSCA had Connally hit earlier, but ca. Z323 makes better sense on a number of grounds. (Argue specifics and details on this point here.) 

-- The conclusion is a modified single-bullet theory in which at ca. Z323 a single bullet entered the rear occipital of JFK's head, exited JFK's throat, and proceeded to hit Connally causing all wounds to Connally. The bullet fractured when hitting the bone of Connally's wrist and pieces were found under Nellie Connally's seat, hitting the windshield and falling to the front of the limousine, and a piece lodged in Connally's thigh. 

-- With this reconstruction longstanding problems in understanding the JFK shots and wounds may in one fell swoop be solved. With an earlier shot hitting JFK in the upper back, another shot accounting for the street and kerb hit and then Tague (if he was grazed by a fragment of concrete spun his way by that bullet), and the final two shots to the head of JFK with the final one being a single bullet hitting both JFK and Connally, all data can be accounted for in terms of four shots total, with the final two very close together, such that some witnesses might hear the final two as one. 

The shot to JFK's upper back again

-- At the JFK autopsy according to witness testimony there were many attempts to probe the wound in JFK's upper back, attempting to find a path to the throat wound, which were unsuccessful. There were also X-rays with attempts to "find the bullet" suspected to be lodged inside JFK, but none was seen in the X-rays. Humes probed the upper back wound with his little finger and reported the wound was only about an inch deep. This back wound was not connected to the throat wound. Furthermore, the direction of the bullet entering the back wound was found to be somewhat downward, consistent with a trajectory of a shot fired from a rear building sloping downward into JFK's back (rather than the slightly-upward trajectory necessitated if the exit was through JFK's throat). 

-- All of the evidence with respect to the wound of the upper back of JFK is consistent with an entrance wound which the bullet barely penetrated--a wound so shallow, in fact, that the bullet of that wound fell back out, and was found as the stretcher bullet at Parkland.

-- In this reconstruction, JFK's raising of his arms and elbows and appearing to be reaching both hands to his throat, of Zapruder, becomes a reaction not to the bullet of the rear occipital entrance and exiting through his throat--that shot has not happened yet--but rather is a reaction to the shot that hit JFK in the upper back.

There was a conspiracy

-- In the establishment as a finding of fact--from blur analysis and other argument--of two final shots 0.7 seconds apart--it is the timing between shots (not the total time required for all shots) is the key evidence which excludes explanation in terms of a single shooter. The establishment as a finding of fact--from medical analysis and argument--that there were two head shots not one to JFK, also establishes more than one shooter, since the two shots can only have been very close together per Zapruder, too close in time between shots for both to have been done by a single shooter.

-- That (preceding paragraph) adds to the already-known lines of evidence indicating the first head shot, at Z313, came from the right or front. Such evidence includes the reaction of JFK when hit with this shot in Zapruder; the bloody matter from JFK's head splattering motorcycle police officers to the rear and to the left; witnesses hearing a gunshot and smelling gunsmoke near the Grassy Knoll. The explanations offered for JFK's sharp head movement to the rear and to the left at Z313 as caused by a shot from the rear are insubstantial upon examination, and have served only to obfuscate. A witness, the deaf Ed Hoffman, whom I judge credible, saw from a distance the shooter at the Grassy Knoll. The witnesses who encountered an unexplained Secret Service person who has not been identified corresponds with what Hoffman witnessed and suggests the mechanism of that shooter's escape was impersonation of an investigating officer in the moments following the shooting. A shot from the Grassy Knoll establishes more than one shooter, since other shots--the shot that hit JFK's upper back, and that which entered the rear occipital of JFK's head--originated from the rear, in a different location. There was more than one shooter, hence conspiracy (planning by two or more to commit a crime).  

Metacomment 

-- Drawing on Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, and my study under Martin Bernal who supervised an M.A. for me at Cornell and who analyzed "the sociology of scholarship", along with a fascination I have had with this topic, this comment. After an existing paradigm or theory is established and entrenched, it gathers numerous other points which are interpreted and seen as supporting the theory. After this passes a certain point it is extraordinarily difficult to dislodge a theory simply and only by showing factual refutations of any specific point The human mind--including the scientific mind--will (if honest) acknowledge problems in theories, and look for alternative explanations which will allow the paradigm to remain. If no alternative explanation is at hand, in most cases in the humanities or social sciences (hard physical sciences excepted) theories which have served well and are considered productive and familiar, are rarely overthrown or rejected simply because someone showed a mere key fact to be false. What is required for minds to change in these cases is not only the factual refutation--a necessary but not sufficient condition--but also the presentation of an alternative and superior narrative or story which better accounts for the facts in their totality. (Even then Kuhn showed that scientists rarely change paradigms mid-life; they simply die out and younger scientists gravitate to the newer theory based on its superior explanatory power.)

-- On the matter of the JFK assassination, the bullets and medical wounds establishing more than one shooter is absolutely critical, the difference between a case that is closed and a case that remains open. Although a number of theories of the shots and explanations of the wounds of JFK and Connally have been offered, arguably each have suffered from their own problems if they do not take into account the two points offered here: the stretcher bullet at Parkland as coming from JFK; and the modified single bullet theory in which the bullet entered not in JFK's upper back but entered at the rear occipital of his head, in the second of two head shots which occurred at ca. Z323. 

If this stands, this could not only be satisfying in being correct, but could become seen to be correct by those who have assumed the WC had the best explanatory narrative to account for the facts of the ballistics and medical evidence.

Appeal

The above is an outline only, setting forth the argument obviously in abbreviated form. Thank you in advance for comments!

Edited by Greg Doudna
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You’re ignoring the hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, which could only have been caused by a front shot to the throat.

There was no exit of the throat shot because either the round was removed prior to the autopsy or, as per the autopsists’ speculation, JFK was hit with a high tech round that dissolved.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Cliff V., I don't know if it should be assumed that the hairline fracture of the T1 transverse process of JFK would be caused by the bone being struck by a bullet inside the body. From what I read in checking on this, fractures of the transverse process are almost always caused by forceful violent twisting of the body, as in auto accidents. This medical study analyzing transverse process fractures of IED blast victims of armed forces personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, https://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Fulltext/2018/07002/Analysis_of_isolated_transverse_process_fractures.19.aspx, says transverse fractures in persons seated in automobiles "are associated with excessive lateral movement of the occupant and are typically observed in side and multiple impacts. They are common at either C7 or T1, which is thought to be due to the interaction with the shoulder belt causing oblique hypeflexion."

Reading this I think of JFK's cervical back brace which made him unable to move. At Z313 when JFK was hit with the massive blow of that head shot from the side, perhaps that is when that hairline fracture occurred--from the violent twisting in the area of JFK's neck combined with the cervical back brace preventing his whole body from moving in response to the external shock of the hit which had violent sidewards force. Also, that the fracture at JFK's T1 was hairline seems less severe than a full break and seems to argue more strongly for some twisting or muscle stress overload as causing that hairline fracture, probably occurring at Z313 at the time of that head shot, comparable to a hairline fracture in a sprained ankle is caused by twisting the wrong way. So unless some qualified medical opinion says otherwise, from what I read I don't think the bullet of the throat wound did the hairline fracture at the T1 transverse process, despite being in physical proximity. 

Edited by Greg Doudna
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Cliff V., I don't know if it should be assumed that the hairline fracture of the T1 transverse process of JFK would be caused by the bone being struck by a bullet inside the body. From what I read in checking on this, fractures of the transverse process are almost always caused by forceful violent twisting of the body, as in auto accidents.

Like the violent auto crash that killed JFK in Dealey Plaza??

Quote

This medical study analyzing transverse process fractures of IED blast victims of armed forces personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, https://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Fulltext/2018/07002/Analysis_of_isolated_transverse_process_fractures.19.aspx, says transverse fractures in persons seated in automobiles "are associated with excessive lateral movement of the occupant and are typically observed in side and multiple impacts. They are common at either C7 or T1, which is thought to be due to the interaction with the shoulder belt causing oblique hypeflexion."

Reading this I think of JFK's cervical brace which made him unable to move.

You mean the “cervical brace” around his waist?

Quote

At Z313 when JFK was hit with the massive blow of that head shot from the side, perhaps that is when that hairline fracture occurred--from the violent twisting in the area of JFK's neck combined with the cervical brace preventing his whole body from moving in response to the external shock of the hit which had violent sidewards force. Also, that the fracture at JFK's T1 was hairline seems less severe than a full break and seems to argue more strongly for some twisting or muscle stress overload as causing that hairline fracture, probably occurring at Z313 at the time of that head shot, comparable to a hairline fracture in a sprained ankle is caused by twisting the wrong way. So unless some qualified medical opinion says otherwise, from what I read I don't think the bullet of the throat wound did the hairline fracture at the T1 transverse process, despite being in physical proximity. 

Greg, I strongly suggest you drop your pet theories and study the evidence more.

At this point all you’re doing is making stuff up.  Haven’t we had enough of that already?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You’re ignoring the hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, which could only have been caused by a front shot to the throat.

There was no exit of the throat shot because either the round was removed prior to the autopsy or, as per the autopsists’ speculation, JFK was hit with a high tech round that dissolved.

When I was looking at sources on this alledged fracture, I found one that said this fracture appeared on the PRE-mortem x-rays. Are we sure that this artifact exists, and it is post-mortem?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi
 

I shall probably not be popular with this, but...

One of the things that was quite striking when I first began to study this subject was how none of the theories presented up to that point in time (more than 10 years ago now) worked fully across the full range of data. Quite a few worked for the evidence presented, but hit some awkward little facts when considered more broadly. This was challenging as I thought the physical evidence would be the area that would play to my strengths.

Then came Dr D B Thomas 2014 seminal work ‘Hear no Evil’ which is a staggeringly impressive piece of work. There are a few loose ends still  In terms of those 6 seconds but in all honesty JFK researchers need to recognise that there should no longer be this internal debate about the basic events of the assassination itself. Five shots, three shooters with the the fatal head shot at z313 from the grassy knoll. Thomas’ work is if the highest academic standard.

Any new proposal needs to build on that work and incorporate it in the way in physics new theories build on GR and QED which in turn build on and incorporates classical physics within themselves.

As a detail CE399 can’t have hit anything very hard at all.

Edited by Anthony Mugan
Typo
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

When I was looking at sources on this alledged fracture, I found one that said this fracture appeared on the PRE-mortem x-rays.

Pre-autopsy x-rays, not pre-mortem.

2 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Are we sure that this artifact exists, and it is post-mortem?

From the HSCA report:

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. There is disruption of the integrity of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the opposite side and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a fracture in that area. There is some soft tissue density overlying the apex of the right lung which may be hematoma in that region or other soft tissue swelling.

Evaluation of the post-autopsy film shows that there is subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying C7 and T1. The same disruption of T1 right transverse process is still present.

On the film of the right side, taken post-autopsy, there are two small metallic densities in the region of the C7 right transverse process. These densities are felt to be artifact, partly because of their marked density, because there is a similar artifact overlying the body of C7, and because these metallic-like densities were not present on the previous, pre-autopsy film. Therefore, I assume that these are screen artifacts from debris present in the cassette at the time that this film was exposed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

I have wondered if the shooting could have been accomplished by one person shooting from behind, but with their gun chamber alternating between low and high velocity rounds.

I have similarly wondered if the moon was made of cream cheese...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Cliff V., your response to Micah (whom I do not know), also earlier to me, comes across as uncivil, which can have the effect of shutting down discussion. I ask you to be civil when expressing disagreement.

On your point regarding the T1 transverse process fracture as an argument for a front entry of the throat wound, I confess I did not know what "transverse process" was until reading your use of the term and looking it up. Then I did some more digging to find what most commonly causes fractures of that series of wingtip extensions from the spinal cord, and found centrally that twisting, combined with trauma, is almost always involved. I assume you already know this, but anyway. With twisting of the upper body a direct causative factor in most cases of fractures of this bone, I do not see that it is making things up to apply this reality in the overwhelming number of other cases of transverse process fractures to ask if some form applies in the case of JFK. But there is another consideration, and that is your mention that the fracture was actually "hairline" (though I do not see the word "hairline" in the parts of the HSCA report you quote). If it was hairline, that is much less, and in my checking on this--no doubt you already know this, but anyway--that is most commonly caused by repetitive stress, then at a critical point "one more" stress causes a beginning of a slight fracture, the hairline fracture. I do not see that it is out of bounds to ask whether the violent twisting that occurred at Z313 when JFK was hit with the head shot--restrained from the cervical back brace (true it is lower on his trunk, but the inhibition of his movement and the effect on twisting stress force of his upper spine would be enhanced by that brace, it seems to me) might be related to the T1 transverse fracture. No I do not know that. I am only conjecturing. You could be right that the fracture was caused inside the body by being struck by a bullet. I do not know. However, I suspect you don't really know either (no offense intended). 

My problem with leaping to a firm conclusion that it requires a throat-entrance bullet for explanation is twofold. First, would a bullet cause a "hairline fracture" of a bone tip which is normally caused by stress of a muscle or twisting of the body? I don't know. I am no ballistics expert. But mentally I imagine bullets smashing into things, exploding things, wrecking things. Hairline fracture? Its possible. Maybe the bullet grazed one tip of the transverse process ever so slightly and it was just enough to hairline fracture it but no worse? I wouldn't know.

But that is not the main problem. The main problem is whether there was a bullet entering the throat wound at all. There is no exit and X-rays turned up no sign of a bullet inside the neck. If a bullet entered the throat, where did it go since it did not come out the other side of JFK's neck? Well, you suggest either the bullet was removed prior to the autopsy, or there was unspecified superior technology causing the bullet to dissolve inside the body and become invisible to X-rays ("a high-tech round that dissolved"). Again, no offense intended, but the second possibility cited strikes me as like theologians invoking God when natural explanations seem insufficient. While I suppose superior technology capable of making a bullet disappear after entering the neck is hypothetically possible, I am skeptical of such lines of explanation in principle. As for the bullet which entered the neck having been removed prior to the autopsy, I suppose that is conceivable but I know of no witness testimony or evidence or positive basis for supposing that happened. Since, from my point of view a throat entrance is effectively a non-starter for reasons named, by my reasoning the hairline fracture of the T1 transverse process will have some explanation other than a bullet entering at the throat wound. I do not expect or ask you to agree or see this the same way. But these are my reasons, and I hope you can respect that.

Edited by Greg Doudna
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Cliff V., your response to Micah (whom I do not know), also earlier to me, comes across as uncivil, which can have the effect of shutting down discussion. I ask you to be civil when expressing disagreement.

I strongly suggest you put me on ignore.

I find that ridicule is the only intellectually honest response to Lone Nut talking points like the throat wound was an exit. Once the facts have been laid out pet theories need to die, as painful as that may be.

Quote

Now on your interesting point regarding the T1 transverse process fracture as an argument for a front entry of the throat wound, I confess I did not know what "transverse process" was until reading your use of the term and looking it up. Then I did some more digging to find what most commonly causes fractures of that series of wingtip extensions from the spinal cord, and found centrally that twisting, combined with trauma, is almost always involved. I assume you already know this, but anyway. With twisting of the upper body a direct causative factor in most cases of fractures of this bone, I do not see that it is making things up to apply this reality in the overwhelming number of other cases of transverse process fractures to ask if some form applies in the case of JFK.

You cited a “cervical brace” — just making stuff up.  Do better homework and you won’t be the butt of ridicule.

Quote

But there is another consideration, and that is your mention that the fracture was actually "hairline" (though I do not see the word "hairline" in the parts of the HSCA report you quote). If it was hairline, that is much less, and in my checking on this--no doubt you already know this, but anyway--that is most commonly caused by repetitive stress, then at a critical point "one more" stress causes a beginning of a slight fracture, the hairline fracture. I do not see that it is out of bounds to ask whether the violent twisting that occurred at Z313 when JFK was hit with the head shot--restrained from the cervical brace (true it is lower on his trunk,

Enough!  No, I have no respect for your views whatsoever.  The brace was a soft type wrapped around his waist.

I suggest you stop being such a sloppy student of the case.

“It isn’t personal, Sonny.  It’s strictly business.”

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

8 hours ago, Anthony Mugan said:

I shall probably not be popular with this, but...

One of the things that was quite striking when I first began to study this subject was how none of the theories presented up to that point in time (more than 10 years ago now) worked fully across the full range of data. Quite a few worked for the evidence presented, but hit some awkward little facts when considered more broadly. This was challenging as I thought the physical evidence would be the area that would play to my strengths.

Then came Dr D B Thomas 2014 seminal work ‘Hear no Evil’ which is a staggeringly impressive piece of work. There are a few loose ends still  In terms of those 6 seconds but in all honesty JFK researchers need to recognise that there should no longer be this internal debate about the basic events of the assassination itself. Five shots, three shooters with the the fatal head shot at z313 from the grassy knoll. Thomas’ work is if the highest academic standard.

Any new proposal needs to build on that work and incorporate it in the way in physics new theories build on GR and QED which in turn build on and incorporates classical physics within themselves.

As a detail CE399 can’t have hit anything very hard at all.

Anthony Mugan, thank you so very much for your comment, and I like to think I am in exact agreement in everything you said.

In fact it was reading D. B. Thomas's articles on the Mary Ferrell site which were the most important formative factor in the synthesis I outlined (especially the Part 2 of the three-part "Overview and History of the Acoustical Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination"). The 0.7 seconds between the final two head shots, and the order of the head shots ... from D. B. Thomas. I did not however realize until your mention that he had a book, which I have now ordered.

The synthesis I propose differs from Thomas's reconstruction in the timing of Connally's wounds, also in my suggestion of the rear occipital entrance exiting at the throat in the final shot. Also I cited four shots not five. However these modifications I believe "build on that work and incorporate it".

Thomas has extensively argued that the HSCA acoustic evidence--the Dictabelt--indeed was a record of the shots, contrary to other studies having rejected it. This puzzled me no end, and I got the scientific articles making the opposing case, and Thomas's responses to those articles, the expert debate back and forth, and tried hard to follow it but it is over my head at this time. The thing is, Thomas makes an extraordinarily amazing argument that the acoustics' findings, properly understood, agree exactly with blur analysis of Zapruder, both yielding five shots at the same time intervals apart, plus a sequence in the separate matter of the echo locations corresponding to relative sequence of movement of the motorcade. Thomas's demonstration of that was so astonishing to me that I was left thinking, "Somehow, some way, I feel in my gut that Dictabelt acoustics is going to at some future time be vindicated after all. This is too much correspondence with the blur analysis to be coincidence." If the Dictabelt acoustics were recognized to be valid per Thomas's arguments, it would provide immeasurable reinforcement to the timing and intervals between the shots that I am working with. But I decided I cannot cite it or rest reasoning or conclusions on it, given that the relevant community of experts at this time has rejected that it is evidence. 

So I ask you Anthony, given your background, do you personally follow and have you read both sides of the scientific arguments over that Dictabelt, and if so what is your take on it? I am very interested.

All the time leading up to making the abbreviated writeup, I kept puzzling, was it five shots or four? For I know the blur analysis (also the acoustics if the Dictabelt analysis of Thomas is correct) indicates five shots. The reason I wrote four instead of five is because most witnesses heard only three, and while I can understand due to the 0.7 second separation of the final two head shots, witnesses hearing four shots as only three, I have some cognitive dissonance in understanding how so many witnesses would hear five shots as three. A second reason was because no more than four shots were required (in my reconstruction) to account for the wounds in the presidential limousine and the kerb bullet. That does leave one blur shot indication on Zapruder unexplained--true, and I have no explanation for that--and I almost had a sentence on that in my writeup acknowledging that point but edited it out at the last minute. Anyway that is why I had four not five--it seemed to me a choice between overwhelming witness testimony and the blur analysis, and I went with the overwhelming witness testimony. 

On the timing of Connally being hit, Thomas sticks with the conventional earlier timing (Z234-250), which could be right. In favor of that being correct are all the arguments already published in WC, and a lapel of Connally's jacket flapping outwards at X234, just a moment before Connally is argued to be shown reacting in Zapruder to being hit, that jacket flap opening is argued to be from the bullet then. That could be right, but if so that requires a fifth shot. I drew from separate arguments (not Thomas) arguing for relocating Connally being hit until 0.7 seconds after the JFK head shot of Z313. I departed from Thomas in that, and I reconstructed a modified single bullet explanation at Z323, requiring only four shots total. But I will study Thomas's full book and rethink that matter some more. Thanks again for your comment.

Edited by Greg Doudna
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Anthony Mugan said:

Hi
 

I shall probably not be popular with this, but...

One of the things that was quite striking when I first began to study this subject was how none of the theories presented up to that point in time (more than 10 years ago now) worked fully across the full range of data.

That’s because you give weight to improperly produced data.  If we approach the murder of JFK like any homicide case we’d only weigh properly produced medical evidence.

The properly produced evidence includes the bullet holes in the clothes (for which there is a chain of possession), the contemporaneous written reports of witnesses in positions of authority (including the verified Death Certificate and the properly filled out portions of the autopsy face sheet), and the cervical x-ray (authenticated by Dr. David Mantik.)

Both the final autopsy report and the autopsy photos were not prepared according to autopsy protocol.

8 hours ago, Anthony Mugan said:

Any new proposal needs to build on that work and incorporate it in the way in physics new theories build on GR and QED which in turn build on and incorporates classical physics within themselves.

As a detail CE399 can’t have hit anything very hard at all.

The JFK research community has a complexity fetish.  Simple facts are eschewed to indulge junk evidence like the acoustics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cliff V., I see now! Believe it or not I knew Kennedy had a back brace from his trunk down, not around his neck (a cervical brace)! I misspoke, and said "cervical brace" even though I was thinking back brace. Your ridicule is justified, and I retract my objection to being ridiculed on that!!! Here I thought you were referring to my entire erudite (ahem) writeup at the beginning disparagingly as if was all worthless.  

I'll get that changed now from cervical brace --> back brace!

OK, I had that one coming Cliff. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You really need to get off the “throat exit” bit.

Otherwise, nothing personal here, good luck in your studies.

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...