Micah Mileto

Are you suggesting Barnum fabricated the date on his journal, which was before the existence of a back wound was revealed to the public?

Do you have November 1983 Life Magazine?

Yes, but it's also possible that Humes called Perry during the later stages of the autopsy, around midnight to 1:30 AM.

I think Doug Horne's theory of a "half secret" second draft of the autopsy report is probably just wrong. The idea of a fragment exiting the throat is probably an independant invention of the FBI. Maybe.

The diary of George Barnum says they concluded by the early morning hours that a bullet had exited the throat.

I have always wondered if, in a Pat-Speerian way of argumentation, the shooting could've been accomplished by a single shooter using an automatic rifle, alternating between firing high and low velocity shots.

Yes, Kennedy's eyes were closed at Parkland.

Yes, many witnesses were shown the photographs. But pasting all of that information here would take up multiple pages - from my unfinished manuscript of "The Case For An Altered Throat Wound". The HSCA only showed Dr. Perry the sketch reproduction of the autopsy photos, and their report does not say whether or not he agreed with the size and shape of the trach. The ARRB failed to show the photos to the Parkland witnesses. Only private researchers have tried asking the witnesses their full opinion on the photos. There is contradictory information on Perry's opinion of the photos - Groden claimed that Perry rejected the trach seen in the photos in a 1979 interview.

Who is to say whether the autopsy pathologists could have honestly missed a large wound? There is an extensive discussion of that possibility here: https://old.reddit.com/r/JFKeveryday/comments/jz45jj/small_wounds_in_the_front_of_jfks_head_part_11/

One of the primary pieces of evidence for an altered throat wound is Lifton’s reported 1966 interviews with Parkland doctors, where they were each asked to recall the length of the tracheostomy incision. Drs. Charles Carrico, Charles Baxter, Marion Jenkins, and Gene Akin were reportedly interviewed on 1/8/1966, Robert McClelland on 11/9/1966, Ronald Jones on 11/10/1966, and Paul Peters on 11/12/1966. It reads in Best Evidence, starting with Carrico (Link): […Part III. A Search for New Evidence, Chapter 11: The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs. Bethesda] On November 8, 1966, I telephoned him, introducing myself as a UCLA graduate student attending a legal seminar held by "Professor Wesley Liebeler, who was on the Warren Commission." I told him I was doing a paper on the tracheotomy operation. "Dr. Perry testified that he made this incision in the neck... you were there when this happened, correct?" "Right." "Could you tell me approximately the length of the tracheotomy incision that was made?" "Gee. It's been a while. Probably-it would just be a guess-between two and three centimeters, which is close to an inch." "Between two and three centimeters?" "Yes." I asked: "Do you think the incision that Dr. Perry made might have been, let's say, four centimeters?" Replied Carrico: "Oh, I really don't know. But it, that would probably be the upper limit. I doubt if it was that large." As with Perry, the confident tone of Dr. Carrico carried the message that he did not need more than an inch to insert the tracheotomy tube. The next doctor was Charles Baxter, who assisted Perry with the tracheotomy. I posed the question: LIFTON: Now, about what was the length of the incision? BAXTER: Oh, it's roughly an inch and a half. LIFTON: ...you could see the incision before they placed the tracheotomy tube into the incision? BAXTER: Oh, yes. Yes. LIFTON: So at that time you remember it as being an inch and a half [3.8cm]? BAXTER: Yeah, roughly.1 The assassination, I commented, was three years before. How sure was he of the details? "It's pretty vivid," replied Baxter, adding: "It's such a common operation that it's just standard. I think he probably had the most standard of standard operations . .. you do exactly what you're trained to do . . . if it wasn't standard, I don't know what it would have been." Besides asking each doctor about the incision length, I also sought his reaction to an 8cm (3.2in) incision. I asked Jenkins: "Do you think the incision could have been three and a quarter inches?" "No, I don't think so," he replied.2 Dr. Carrico responded: "Jiminy Christmas. How big is eight centimeters?" "Three and a quarter inches," I replied (actually it is 3.2 inches). Replied Carrico: "It would be certainly the exception. It would have to be an unusual circumstance."3 Carrico asked me if the autopsy report gave the incision length, but I dodged the question. I asked Baxter if he ever made tracheotomy incisions that were three inches long: "No, we seldom do. You don't need that much."4 Dr. Peters told me of his most vivid recollection. The incision had been made when he walked into the room, and Dr. Perry had one, possibly two, fingers in it. Quantifying his recollection of length was difficult. Dr. Peters estimated: "With two fingers, there's about, well, an inch and three quarters . . . at most, it was two inches."5 In the course of my inquiries about length, I developed some contrary data, and evidence that doctors at Parkland were discussing my calls. The problem first arose with McClelland. I had trouble reaching him, and had to leave my name. When I did reach him, I had the feeling he was anticipating what I was going to ask. When I came to the question of incision length, his reply agreed exactly with Dr. Humes' testimony: "In centimeters, that would be something like eight centimeters, seven or eight centimeters."6 I asked McClelland whether he thought that was the usual length of a tracheotomy. McClelland, a professor of surgery at Parkland Memorial Hospital, replied: "That's about the usual length, uh huh."7 McClelland then admitted he had heard about Liebeler and his course. Curious to see just how far McClelland would go to allay my suspicions, I asked: "Would you say that if eight [centimeters] is the normal size, would you say they sometimes run up to, let's say, ten to twelve centimeters?" (Twelve centimeters is 4.8 inches.) "Oh, they might. They might," replied Professor McClelland. "You just make whatever's necessary to get into the neck. And it's conceivable that in certain people with rather short stocky necks, that you might have to make an incision that large a size."8 Try as I might, I found it difficult to imagine having to make a tracheotomy incision nearly five inches long to get into someone's neck. I concluded that Dr. McClelland, whose statements about the throat wound being an entry had received such widespread publicity, did not wish to become further embroiled in the assassination controversy. Dr. Jones was the only other doctor who gave me an answer that agreed with Humes' testimony: "Probably two and a half or three inches, somewhere along in there. . . "9 He also told me that Dr. McClelland had told him I had called and asked about the length of the incision. During these interviews, another criterion for estimating the incision length arose. Dr. Carrico explained that a tracheotomy tube had a flange—a piece of material perpendicular to the tube, that permits the tube to "sit" on the patient's neck. To keep the tube in place, straps from the flange are often tied around the neck. Carrico suggested that I determine what kind of tracheotomy tube was used and measure the flange. If the incision didn't extend beyond the flange, that would provide at least an upper limit. Dr. Carrico said he had no recollection of whether this particular incision extended beyond the flanges, but that normally it didn't. I decided to ask this question of the remaining doctors on my list. Dr. Baxter said he didn't think the incision could be seen beyond the flange, whose width he estimated at 1 1/4 inches, at most."10 Jenkins didn't know.11 McClelland said the incision did extend from the flange.12 Jones, who had talked with McClelland, said the same thing.13 Dr. Akin, who had given me a 2 1/2-inch incision estimate, was nevertheless emphatic that the incision would not show beyond the flange. "Tracheotomy tubes are far too wide for an incision to be showing beyond that, unless an unreasonably large incision has been made."14 What, then, was the flange size on the tracheotomy tube used on President Kennedy? The tube was not saved, but Dr. Baxter told me it was definitely a plastic one, and it was either a number seven, eight, or nine. I checked a medical catalog and found the maximum width was 4cm. * My flange-length research corroborated the estimates I received from Drs. Perry and Carrico that the tracheotomy incision was "2-3cm" long. [...] * In 1973, Parkland Memorial Hospital was renovating the emergency room area, and offered to sell the National Archives implements used in the emergency room—not the implements used on November 22, 1963. One item provided was a plastic tracheotomy tube. At my request, the Archivist measured the flange length. It was 1 1/4 inches long (1 1/4 inches is 3.1 centimeters). [...] Dr. McClelland goaded me into asking the question with his talk of a 7-8cm incision as being “usual.” I asked him about the edges: LIFTON: . . . Could you tell me, if you were going to describe the edges of the incision, do you have any idea . . . were they smooth edges? Was it a smooth incision? MCCLELLAND: Well ... as I say, when I got there, the incision had been made; and according to Dr. Perry's statement to me as I walked in the room, the first thing he said to me was that there was a wound in the neck, through which he had made the incision. Just as an extension of this wound . . . So I actually did not see the edges of the tracheotomy where it had extended it. And it was smooth, uh, since it was made, of course, with a knife [emphasis added].17 A few days later, I talked with Dr. Peters: LIFTON: In what words would you best describe the edges of that incision? PETERS: Oh, I guess "sharp." LIFTON: Sharp? PETERS: Yeah. LIFTON: In other words, because it was made with a knife by a surgeon? PETERS: That's right. It was a fairly neat incision, pretty close to the midline.18 Dr. Jones used the same word: “sharp.”19

Kilduff talked to Livingstone on 4/17/1991. When Livingstone said “As you know, the face was not damaged at all. No witness saw any damage to the head past the midline of the skull, forward of the right ear”, Kilduff replied “Forward of the right ear? No! Forward of the left ear, they did. I did. The bullet came in on the right side and exited the left side. What splatter there was”. Kilduff apparently meant “left” to mean the anatomical right, as he also said “...the left part of his forehead looked like—when I got over to the car—looked like two pounds of ground beef”, “The blow-out was in the left front. The Zapruder film shows that. Frames 313, 314, 315” (Livingstone, High Treason 2, 1992, p. 447, Chapter 21. The Presidential Party, Malcolm Kilduff). Sometimes people can misspeak or confuse anatomical language. Link to borrow ebook of High Treason 2: https://archive.org/details/hightreason2grea00livi Kilduff may have told researcher Gary Mack that pointing to the right front of his head at the 11/22/1963 press conference was meant to signify the LARGE wound, not a small wound. As explained in Pat Speer’s online book A New Perspective on the Kennedy Assassination: [...Chapter 18c: Reason to Doubt, By Way of Illustration] Kilduff's subsequent statements to Gary Mack, in which he confirmed that when he pointed to his temple during the 11-22-63 press conference he was pointing to, in Mack's words, "where the big hole was on Kennedy's head." (Note: I can't remember where I got this quote from Mack...via an article, a taped interview, or a personal email. If you know the answer, please remind me. As it stands, I've tracked down a 12-29-99 post from Mack on the alt.assassination.JFK newsgroup in which he claims Kilduff told him but a month before that he didn't intend to specify the wound by the temple as an entrance or an exit in the 11-22-63 press conference, and that he was merely pointing out the location of the wound.) Kilduff passed away on 3/3/2003 (UPI, 3/4/2003; New York Times, 3/5/2003; Washington Post, 3/5/2003; Arlingtoncemetery.net; Findagrave.com).

The chest tubes, perhaps?

According to the official story, the trach incision was made that large not just because the trachea was deviated, but also because it doubled as an exploratory incision to check whether the bullet could've damaged the major blood vessels. There are Parkland witness statements suggesting that the cut was made smaller than it appears in the photographs/autopsy report, and there are witness statements denying such a difference. Officially, the torso wounds were not dissected at the autopsy, but there are autopsy witness statements suggesting that the throat was indeed dissected, but if that were true, then that would be evidence for a cover-up. John Ebersole's statements in the late 70's indicated the autopsy began with the trach incision already suture shut. Paul O'Connor claimed the incision was even more gaping than it appears in the photos, and that he could see the esophagus past the incision - no medical incision would be long or deep enough to see the esophagus. I have a 400 page report about this coming out one of these months.

Perry stated “...at the time I began the tracheotomy, I made an incision right through the wound which was present in the neck in order to gain complete control of any injury in the underlying trachea. I made a transverse incision right through this wound and carried it down to the superficial fascia, to expose the strap muscles overlying the thyroid and the trachea. There was an injury to the right lateral aspect of the trachea at the level of the external wound. 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...” (WC Vol. 6, pp. 7-18, Perry’s 3/25/1964 testimony [text]), “...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” (WC Vol. 3, pp. 366-390, Perry's 3/30/1964 testimony [text]). When Dr. Robert McClelland testified on 3/21/1964, he stated “...as I say, all I did was simply assist Dr. Perry and Dr. Baxter in doing the tracheotomy. All three of us worked together in making an incision in the neck, tracting the neck muscles out of the way, and making a small opening into the trachea near the spot where the trachea had already been blasted or torn open by the fragment of the bullet, and inserting a large metal tracheotomy tube into this hole, and after this the breathing apparatus was attached to this instead of the previous tube which had been placed here”, “That damage consisted mainly of a large amount of contusion and hematoma formation in the tissue lateral to the right side of the trachea and the swelling and bleeding around this site was to such extent that the trachea was somewhat deviated to the left side, not a great deal, but to a degree at least that it required partial cutting of some of the neck muscles in order to get good enough exposure to put in the tracheotomy tube…” (WC Vol. 6, pp. 30-36 [text]).

Kilduff may or may not have told Livingstone that there was a wound in the temple, but his phrasing was ambiguous.

Dr. Perry and McClelland described cutting through the strap muscles on the front of the neck, and those muscles are some centimeters apart. Usually in a tracheostomy, strap muscles are pulled aside rather than cut through, but Perry and McClelland indicated that Kennedy's trachea was slightly deviated, which complicated the situation. That's the official story on why the incision looks so large and wide.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSLgEAeFYE8 12 minutes 40 seconds in

Any updates? The people on alt.conspiracy.jfk still think he's dead, even though no such thing has been announced. The puzzle palace website has been down.

If it were truly that easy to scientifically disprove the Single Bullet Theory, then certainly it would be worth using a few thousand dollars to conduct a study on patients with a similar physique as JFK - it would just take more and more axial scans at the c7 and t1 range before it could be proven - that a ~21 degree angle can't exist without hitting bone.

I am aware that "discussing JFK's torso wounds" has been down for about a year. I will not post a new one until I fix some small mistakes and then I will post an updated version within the coming months.

I posted a generic model found on the internet where the angle looks like a bullet could conceivably miss the spine. I forget where I saw this, but on one of the JFK discussion forums, somebody posted a picture of a 3D generic medical model, with a straight line going through and missing the spine (assuming a generously high position for the back wound).

More relevant pics https://ia601305.us.archive.org/20/items/nsia-AutopsyJFKPicturesandX-raysTrialBrief/nsia-AutopsyJFKPicturesandX-raysTrialBrief/Autopsy JFK PX TB 09.pdf

Finck, at the Shaw trial, said that although he thought the Rydberg drawings, and the autopsy report's "slightly above the EOP" measurment, depicted the wound slightly too low, but that "4 inches" was still too high (he consistently used the phrasing "4 inches", so a lone nutter could try arguing that Finck was acknowleging the possibility of 3.9 inches - at least as far as the Shaw trial testimony is concerned).

Am I incorrect, or did Lifton say here in an email to Fred Litwin that I was "one of the really good researchers"? https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/david-lifton-1939-2022-r-i-p Remember what Garrison told me (which is quoted on the London Forum by one of the really good researchers): “After the fact there is no truth; only what the jury decides.” IMHO: that’s a good summary of JG’s “modus operandi” —the key to how he thinks. Its the mentality of very simple minded thinking, and of a demagogue.

Lifton had 40 filing cabinets of stuff he paid a storage unit to house. Where are those now? Not ony that storage unit, but he had to have had numerous other things laying around, physical or digital media. That, plus the information we already have could allow us to make a reconstruction. Just like how Turner Classic Movies made a one-hour long reconstruction of the lost silent horror film from 1927, London After Midnight, by showing surviving still images from the film accompanied with dialogue from the script. And we know Lifton's manuscript was not even completed before it's loss and Lifton's death, so either way we woud get an unfinished product which would need further reconstruction from things like Lifton's personal interviews, his forum posts, summarizing some of the already-well-discussed philosophy he talked about regarding evidence - as well as a full accounting of all of the information and discussion we have suggesting the possibilities of body alteration, photographic evidence in Dealey Plaza being alterd, Oswald being an actor. I'm trying to make The Case For An Altered Throat Wound as full as possible.