There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat

[Chris Newton]

...because Ruth Paine's mother-in-law had a childhood friend who later became the mistress of Allen Dulles, that Ruth Paine must be a CIA Agent.

If that was the only connection, then I would agree 100%. Unfortunately it's one small thread of a much bigger web. See Dulles' correspondence at Princeton for details of how those connections allowed him to keep apprised of the situation with Michael and Ruth P.

way off topic - Sorry

[Robert Prudhomme]

After you read about this bullet, here is a video about it.

Wouldn't it hurt a bit getting hit with one of those?

Just a little bit?

No?

Oh yes.

[Robert Prudhomme]

From Ashton Gray:

"2. If one reasonably rejects Specter's moronic "magic bullet" theory to account for the wound in the throat, yet stays with the prejudiced presumption that the wound in the throat had to have been made by a projectile, one is left staring at the necessity of an even more magic bullet, because all other evidence makes it categorically impossible for any bullet to have caused the hole in JFK's throat."

Just for your perusal, Ashton, I give you one "magic" bullet. Look this page over and let me know what you think. I will then present my theory of what I believe were the cause and nature of two of JFK's three wounds.

https://www.corbon.com/glaser-safety-slug.html

Robert, the WC testimony of Doctors James Hume and Pierre Finck from Bethesda Hospital refers to "dumdum" bullets, which are apparently bullets that explode on contact, so that even a "dumdum" can liquidate a target with any contact of any kind.

They were repeatedly asked to deny that the JFK head wound was caused by a "dumdum" bullet.

I believe these are also called "safety slugs" in some circles.

It seems to me that the single bullet that penetrated Governor Connally, producing five wounds (as widely testified) was not an exploding bullet -- but the bullet which hit JFK in the head was one (and thus is evidence of at least two shooters).

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Hi Paul

The label of "dum dum" is used profusely, yet the concept of an "exploding" bullet is almost universally misunderstood.

First of all, a bullet that explodes on contact would be completely useless for a head shot. It might or might not fracture the skull, it would definitely give the victim a headache but real damage requires a bullet to enter a skull, via a neat little hole, and then come apart inside.

A truly exploding bullet would require some kind of explosive charge inside the bullet and these are very rare; mostly because there are far simpler ways to make a bullet come apart and inflict maximum damage.

The history of the dum dum bullet began, in the 1890's, at the British Dum Dum Arsenal in Dum Dum, India with a Captain Neville "Bertie" Clay, and the first dum dum bullet was made for the .303 British infantry rifle. I suppose it was considered naming the bullet after this officer but, a "clay bullet" would be a hard thing to sell, although a "Bertie bullet" might be equally difficult to peddle. From Wikipedia:

"Soon after the introduction of smokeless powder to firearms, full metal jacket bullets were introduced to prevent lead fouling in the bore caused by the higher pressures and velocities when used with soft lead bullets.^[14] However, it was soon noticed that such small caliber rounds were less effective at wounding or killing an enemy than the older large caliber soft lead bullets."

The words "less effective" are quite the understatement, and the stopping power problems of the rounds mentioned here go way beyond the bullet having a smaller calibre and a full metal jacket. In the 1890's the bullet fired from the standard .303 British Mk. II cartridge was a long full metal jacket bullet with a round nose; possibly the most stable bullet design at closer ranges; both in the air and in a wound.

When this bullet entered the abdominal or chest cavity, its full metal jacket prevented it from expanding. Because of its round nose, its front end weighed the same as its back end, and this prevented it from tumbling and causing greater damage. If it had a spire point instead of a round nose, this point would help to deviate the point and encourage it to tumble, but this was not the case.

In short, the long round nosed FMJ bullet was the worst design you could imagine if you wanted to cause someone a lot of damage, and the bullets from a .303 Mk. II cartridge often went right through an enemy combatant, causing only minimal damage along a narrow wound track. If any of this sounds familiar, it is because the 6.5mm Carcano bullet was also a long narrow round nosed bullet with a full metal jacket; in fact, it was longer and narrower than the .303 Mk. II and even stabler in a wound. Arlen Specter's description of a 6.5mm Carcano bullet tumbling after passing through the muscle tissue of JFK's neck is one of the greatest exaggerations of all time.

So, how did Capt. Clay make the dum dum bullet? It was rather simple, actually. He merely removed 1 mm of the bullet's copper alloy jacket at the tip of the nose, exposing the lead core beneath. In reality, Capt. Clay created the world's first expanding bullet, plus the world's first jacketed soft point bullet. Without the intact nose of the jacket, these bullets expanded rapidly in a wound, just like any hunting bullet, and it was no longer required to shoot indigenous tribesmen 6 or 7 times just to knock them down.

At about the same time Capt. Clay was developing the simple dum dum, out of desperation, research was going on at the Woolwich Arsenal in Britain, addressing the same problem but with a slightly different approach. Instead of just removing the tip of the bullet jacket to expose the lead nose, they actually made a hole in the nose of the bullet that opened up down into the core of the bullet. Essentially, they made the world's first jacketed hollow point bullet and boy, did they ever work!

Left, .303 British Mk. II dum dum bullet developed by Capt. Clay at Dum Dum Arsenal, India

Right, .303 British Mk. V hollow point bullet developed at Woolwich Arsenal, Britain

The hollow point bullet is a little more difficult to understand but still really very simple. These bullets will make a very small entry wound, even in a skull. Once into soft organ tissue and semi-liquid matter, the hollow point of the bullet fills with this matter creating, due to the velocity of the bullet, a tremendous hydraulic pressure within the hollow nose. As the core is only made of soft lead, the nose very quickly opens up from this pressure, sometimes tearing the bullet into several lethal fragments.

However, the bullets that hit JFK (and possibly Connally) were something else altogether. From the autopsy it was revealed that x-rays of JFK's skull showed hundreds of "dust like" metal fragments. X-ray tech Jerrol Custer reported to the HSCA that the neck x-rays of JFK he recalled showed "many fragments" in the vicinity of cervical vertebrae C3/C4. As I stated, expanding hollow point bullets will, depending on their design, sometimes break into several fragments but they will not turn into dust. Lead is a very malleable metal, and the only thing that could turn to dust in a wound would be something that was extremely brittle, or a bullet that was made from compressed metal dust to begin with, such as a frangible bullet.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

P.S.

The Glaser bullets are called "safety slugs" because they will disintegrate if they hit a very hard surface such as steel, stone or concrete, and will not ricochet. A dum dum or hollow point is not a "safe" bullet as it is more than capable of ricocheting, off of a hard surface, and inflicting collateral damage.

P.P.S.

I seriously doubt that Finck, Humes and the WC lawyers knew a dum dum bullet from a regular bullet, or their butts from their elbows, for that matter.

[Cliff Varnell]

After you read about this bullet, here is a video about it.

Wouldn't it hurt a bit getting hit with one of those?

Just a little bit?

No?

Oh yes.

Not JFK!

According to the theory presented in this thread JFK was shot in the back but he didn't respond to back pain at all.

We've been informed here -- in no uncertain terms! -- that JFK was more concerned with a billowing coat lapel which he sought to smooth out with his left forefinger even though he took a slug in the back, which prompted no reaction at all.

A new Magic Bullet!

Edited September 15, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Paul Trejo]

...However, the bullets that hit JFK (and possibly Connally) were something else altogether. From the autopsy it was revealed that x-rays of JFK's skull showed hundreds of "dust like" metal fragments. X-ray tech Jerrol Custer reported to the HSCA that the neck x-rays of JFK he recalled showed "many fragments" in the vicinity of cervical vertebrae C3/C4. As I stated, expanding hollow point bullets will, depending on their design, sometimes break into several fragments but they will not turn into dust. Lead is a very malleable metal, and the only thing that could turn to dust in a wound would be something that was extremely brittle, or a bullet that was made from compressed metal dust to begin with, such as a frangible bullet.

P.S.

The Glaser bullets are called "safety slugs" because they will disintegrate if they hit a very hard surface such as steel, stone or concrete, and will not ricochet. A dum dum or hollow point is not a "safe" bullet as it is more than capable of ricocheting, off of a hard surface, and inflicting collateral damage.

P.P.S.

I seriously doubt that Finck, Humes and the WC lawyers knew a dum dum bullet from a regular bullet..

Robert, all these technical facts are interesting and helpful. I'm most interested in your consideration of the JFK autopsy, because I had hastily guessed that the "dust-like particles" found in JFK's brain were probably the result of an exploding bullet.

It's surely a loss to assassination science that the brain of JFK has been withheld by authorities, because the autopsy report of the Bethesda doctors has been subjected to criticism by historians such as David Lifton (Best Evidence, 1980).

What is your informed opinion about the bullet that hit JFK in the head, as compared with the bullet that penetrated Governor Connally in so many places?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 15, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Robert Prudhomme]

...However, the bullets that hit JFK (and possibly Connally) were something else altogether. From the autopsy it was revealed that x-rays of JFK's skull showed hundreds of "dust like" metal fragments. X-ray tech Jerrol Custer reported to the HSCA that the neck x-rays of JFK he recalled showed "many fragments" in the vicinity of cervical vertebrae C3/C4. As I stated, expanding hollow point bullets will, depending on their design, sometimes break into several fragments but they will not turn into dust. Lead is a very malleable metal, and the only thing that could turn to dust in a wound would be something that was extremely brittle, or a bullet that was made from compressed metal dust to begin with, such as a frangible bullet.

P.S.

The Glaser bullets are called "safety slugs" because they will disintegrate if they hit a very hard surface such as steel, stone or concrete, and will not ricochet. A dum dum or hollow point is not a "safe" bullet as it is more than capable of ricocheting, off of a hard surface, and inflicting collateral damage.

P.P.S.

I seriously doubt that Finck, Humes and the WC lawyers knew a dum dum bullet from a regular bullet..

Robert, all these technical facts are interesting and helpful. I'm most interested in your consideration of the JFK autopsy, because I had hastily guessed that the "dust-like particles" found in JFK's brain were probably the result of an exploding bullet.

It's surely a loss to assassination science that the brain of JFK has been withheld by authorities, because the autopsy report of the Bethesda doctors has been subjected to criticism by historians such as David Lifton (Best Evidence, 1980).

What is your informed opinion about the bullet that hit JFK in the head, as compared with the bullet that penetrated Governor Connally in so many places?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Hi Paul

Excellent question, and one I have put a great deal of thought into.

I think some of the greatest misconceptions about this case involve the wounds suffered by John Connally, and I believe those misconceptions were cleverly fostered by certain parties, as the true nature of his wounds would stretch the limits of credibility regarding the SBT.

The more I study Connally's wounds, the more I am convinced one bullet could not have made all of his wounds.

The biggest misconception about Connally's wounds is that a bullet entered his back, travelled through his right lung, and exited the right front of his chest. Nothing could be further from the truth. The bullet that hit Connally's "back" struck a tangential blow at the very side of his chest, at the crease of the right armpit, and the bullet was actually travelling at about a 40° angle from right to left across the front of his chest. Of course, this required Connally to be turned quite a ways to his right at the time of the SBT occurring.

This bullet never actually struck anything in Connally's chest head on but, rather, grazed his 5th rib for about 10 cm. (4 inches); ploughing out the upper surface of the rib for this distance and then exiting his chest just below and to the left of his right nipple. The bullet never entered the chest cavity and all of the damage to the right lung was from shards of rib bone broken off by the bullet and entering the chest cavity as secondary missiles.

Despite the SBT, there is ample evidence this bullet was not tumbling but was, rather, travelling straight and true. The slightly oblong entrance wound the bullet made in Connally's side is easily explained by the fact this was a tangential hit. Despite the 2 inch exit wound in Connally's chest. FBI SA Robert A. Frazier testified to the WC that, when he examined Connally's suit coat, he found a round 3/8 inch diameter hole in the front of the coat; certainly not evidence of a tumbling bullet either. Even Connally's surgeon remarked that, while the bullet tore up the 5th rib ploughing through the upper layer of it, the intercostal muscles above and below the 5th rib were almost untouched. A tumbling bullet would have torn up a great deal more tissue passing through.

So, how does this relate to JFK's head wound? Well, as I said, I believe a very special bullet, either a frangible bullet or something similar to the Glaser safety bullet was used in the assassination. It is very easy to see evidence of this in JFK's head wound, a bit more difficult to see evidence of this in his back wound, and a LOT more difficult (though not impossible) to see evidence of this in JFK's throat wound.

To understand these phenomena, let's take another look at the .303 British Mk. V cartridge, seen below on the right:

As I stated before, the Mk. V was a hollow point bullet, and achieved its nasty objectives by the buildup of high pressure tissue and liquid in the hollow nose as it passed through the victim's body, forcing the nose open and, sometimes, tearing the bullet into lethal fragments.

Someone eventually looked at the hollow point bullet and said to himself, "Not nearly nasty enough. I can improve on this." So, what they did was, instead of using a solid lead core, as the MK. V and all other hollow point bullets do, they made a bullet core from metal powder; and not always lead. This metal powder was either compressed into a solid, under great pressure, or "sintered" together using pressure and heat. Some have even used different types of glue to hold the powder together. In the case of the Glaser safety slug, #6 or #12 shotgun shot is compressed into a solid. This core was then placed into a bullet jacket (although there are frangible bullets that have no jacket) and a hollow point nose was incorporated into the nose of the jacket.

As the frangible bullet travels through tissue and semi-liquid organ matter, it collects this matter in its hollow nose in the same way the hollow point bullet does. However, instead of the great buildup of pressure just opening up the nose into a "mushroom" shape, and possibly fragmenting the bullet, as with a standard hollow point, this pressure now acts on the entire compressed metal core and, usually no more than 2-4 inches into a wound, the compressed metal core disintegrates into a lethal 4 inch cloud of metal powder. This cloud comes to an immediate halt and transfers ALL of its energy to surrounding tissue; explaining why the head shot was able to drive JFK back a few inches to the point where he toppled over due to gravity.

The bullet that hit JFK's back and travelled through the top of his right lung, if it was also a frangible bullet, would have behaved in an identical fashion as its nose filled with tissue and liquid, and it would have disintegrated into a cloud of metal powder long before it exited his chest. The throat wound, as I said, is a bit more difficult to explain, and I will reserve comment about that for the moment.

Could a frangible bullet have caused Connally's chest wound? And not have disintegrated? I think it is entirely possible, especially if it was of a design similar to the Glaser safety slug. The bullet that traversed the front of Connally's chest was referred to as a "burrowing" round, in that it stayed just below the surface of the chest. A couple of millimeters further out and it would not have even touched his 5th rib. A few more millimeters, or a slightly less acute angle, and it would never have touched his chest, and left only a small burrowing wound in his upper back.

Most of the damage this bullet did was by the things it grazed passing by, similar to a car running along a guard rail on the highway. Depending on the design of the frangible bullet, and the shallow penetration and, perhaps even a malfunction of this bullet, such as a bone shard from the rib blocking the hollow point, I believe this bullet could have exited Connally's chest quite intact.

The real problem in analyzing these wounds, and the type of bullet that caused them, comes when we look at the damage to Connally's right wrist.

More later.....

Edited September 16, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Ashton Gray]

All perfectly good points, Paul, and thanks for your reasoned analysis. There are several points I'd like to make in response:

1. A larger purpose Specter may have had in relation to the throat wound—and to my mind likely did have—was to prejudice the record with the presumption that the wound in the throat had to have been made by a projectile, so therefore had to have been either an entry or exit wound made by a bullet.

2. If one reasonably rejects Specter's moronic "magic bullet" theory to account for the wound in the throat, yet stays with the prejudiced presumption that the wound in the throat had to have been made by a projectile, one is left staring at the necessity of an even more magic bullet, because all other evidence makes it categorically impossible for any bullet to have caused the hole in JFK's throat.

3. This trick of prejudicing all investigation and questioning using a false primary premise is the exact modus operandi used by the CIA in pulling off the Watergate hoax, as I have covered exhaustively in my book. Every investigator and trier of fact and writer on that subject began with the false belief that a "first break-in" had occurred at the DNC headquarters, and so none ever was able to make sense out of the endless contradictions. That is the exact same operation in play here: a prior foregone conclusion that a bullet, and only a bullet, could have made the hole in JFK's throat. That set up and has created ALL of the contradictions in evidence and testimony concerning the hole. As I say in my book, confusion is the CIA's No. 1 product.

4. If the wound had been clearly and unequivocally a bullet wound, and if the wound had not been destroyed (intentionally, I believe) in terms of forensic purposes by the tracheotomy, no amount of browbeating by Specter would have shaken any competent medical personnel off of stating with certainty that it was a bullet wound, and that it was either an entrance or exit wound. All medical personnel waffled. Dr. Malcolm Perry went so far as to say, "...if this occurred as a result of a missile... ."

5. No projectile has ever been in evidence that could have caused that wound.

6. Jean Hugard said sagely: "The principle of misdirection plays such an important role in magic that one might say that Magic is misdirection and misdirection is Magic."

The assassination of John F. Kennedy was a masterpiece of misdirection. The unquestioned, uninspected, prejudiced belief that a bullet or projectile made the hole that was first seen upon opening JFK's shirt in the trauma room had been made by a bullet is perhaps the ultimate ever in misdirection, and leads only to endless confusion and contradiction.

Confusion is the CIA's No. 1 product.

Ashton Gray

...I do agree with you that we never had any conclusive material evidence of a frontal throat shooting, except the fact that JFK seems to be clutching his throat in the Zapruder film, after JFK's image emerges from behind the road sign there on Elm Street. (Also there was some contradictory Parkland testimony.)

That led Jim Garrison and many others to presume a frontal shot into the throat -- to correspond with the perception of a frontal shot to the right temple, as many claim to perceive in the Zapruder film.

So -- it was a convenience, rather than a perception -- to insist upon a frontal shot into the throat.

Why does JFK apparently clutch his throat? I still need more evidence.

Paul, I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that I cannot comprehend, at all, how or why anyone can possibly interpret JFK's actions when he emerges from behind the sign as "clutching his throat." He doesn't move his hands anywhere near his throat. He doesn't put his hands anywhere near his tie—or his lapel (no matter how many times reading-challenged bozos might gibber on about it).

This claim that he grabs at his throat or his tie or any part of his clothing around his neck is nothing more than an urban legend—and a pretty ridiculous one, at that. A simple, honest, unbiased, unprejudiced LOOK will tell anyone that. At all relevant times, JFK's hands clench into fists, and his arms lift suddenly, spasmodically, at the shoulders, which puts BOTH HANDS UP IN FRONT OF HIS FACE, WITH THE LEFT HAND OUT IN FRONT OF HIS RIGHT HAND.

I have now further edited my tie/lapel animation to outline the hands, and it proves beyond any shade of doubt that he DOES NOT clutch at his throat:

It is utterly clear and inarguable that his RIGHT HAND flies up, spasmodically, in front of his face, and that HIS LEFT HAND AT ALL TIMES IS OUT IN FRONT OF THE RIGHT HAND. Then his right hand sinks down toward his chest (as Jackie takes hold of his left arm), and with his left hand he appears to be pointing—BUT NOT TO HIS THROAT! His left hand is beyond his midline to his RIGHT SIDE, so he has to be pointing down toward his chest on the right side (if he is consciously pointing at all—see below).

It is IMPOSSIBLE that he clutches at or grabs at his throat WHEN BOTH HANDS ARE OUT IN FRONT OF THE MOUTH/NOSE AREA OF HIS FACE. It is ridiculous. The closest his hands come to his throat can't be closer than about 8 inches, or more like 10 inches. Put your own fists out in front of your face, with your elbows raised up to shoulder level, and your head pulled down in toward your chest. You''ll find that it's nonsense that you'd be in that position if "clutching at your throat."

Everything about his sudden reaction is NOT INCONSISTENT with his having just been shot in the back. The assertion by a few blowhards that this cannot possibly be the reaction of a man just shot in the back is patently absurd to me, and without foundation. The man was bound up in a corset-like back brace. This reaction is probably about all his body could manage in reaction to a sudden powerful impact in the back—and I say "his body" advisedly, because it is ridiculous to assume that in those few traumatic seconds or parts of seconds, anything like analytical motor control was in play. By the time the "pointing" motion happens, perhaps some analytical thought and control was behind it, but even that could be an autonomic manifestation. His left forefinger also straightens in a "pointing" gesture very early in the sequence, at Zapruder 228, but that doesn't mean he was consciously "pointing" then.

This entire manic, breathless urban legend apparently is based on nothing more than Mamie Myopic and Nellie Nearsighted having spouted off verbally that they just KNOW that JFK had "clutched at his throat" in those few brief seconds of unprecedented emergency, so half the world (well, at least the half that can't see very well) has been running around in the clutch (pun intended) of that hypnotic command ever since—never bothering to LOOK at the clear, unequivocal visual EVIDENCE that proves conclusively that he did NOT "clutch at his throat" or "grab his tie" or (the best one ever) "try to cough up a bullet."

"He clutched at his throat!" "He clutched at his throat!" "He clutched at his throat!"

"The sky is falling!" "The sky is falling!" "The sky is falling!"

Ashton Gray

[Robert Prudhomme]

All perfectly good points, Paul, and thanks for your reasoned analysis. There are several points I'd like to make in response:

1. A larger purpose Specter may have had in relation to the throat wound—and to my mind likely did have—was to prejudice the record with the presumption that the wound in the throat had to have been made by a projectile, so therefore had to have been either an entry or exit wound made by a bullet.

2. If one reasonably rejects Specter's moronic "magic bullet" theory to account for the wound in the throat, yet stays with the prejudiced presumption that the wound in the throat had to have been made by a projectile, one is left staring at the necessity of an even more magic bullet, because all other evidence makes it categorically impossible for any bullet to have caused the hole in JFK's throat.

3. This trick of prejudicing all investigation and questioning using a false primary premise is the exact modus operandi used by the CIA in pulling off the Watergate hoax, as I have covered exhaustively in my book. Every investigator and trier of fact and writer on that subject began with the false belief that a "first break-in" had occurred at the DNC headquarters, and so none ever was able to make sense out of the endless contradictions. That is the exact same operation in play here: a prior foregone conclusion that a bullet, and only a bullet, could have made the hole in JFK's throat. That set up and has created ALL of the contradictions in evidence and testimony concerning the hole. As I say in my book, confusion is the CIA's No. 1 product.

4. If the wound had been clearly and unequivocally a bullet wound, and if the wound had not been destroyed (intentionally, I believe) in terms of forensic purposes by the tracheotomy, no amount of browbeating by Specter would have shaken any competent medical personnel off of stating with certainty that it was a bullet wound, and that it was either an entrance or exit wound. All medical personnel waffled. Dr. Malcolm Perry went so far as to say, "...if this occurred as a result of a missile... ."

5. No projectile has ever been in evidence that could have caused that wound.

6. Jean Hugard said sagely: "The principle of misdirection plays such an important role in magic that one might say that Magic is misdirection and misdirection is Magic."

The assassination of John F. Kennedy was a masterpiece of misdirection. The unquestioned, uninspected, prejudiced belief that a bullet or projectile made the hole that was first seen upon opening JFK's shirt in the trauma room had been made by a bullet is perhaps the ultimate ever in misdirection, and leads only to endless confusion and contradiction.

Confusion is the CIA's No. 1 product.

Ashton Gray

...I do agree with you that we never had any conclusive material evidence of a frontal throat shooting, except the fact that JFK seems to be clutching his throat in the Zapruder film, after JFK's image emerges from behind the road sign there on Elm Street. (Also there was some contradictory Parkland testimony.)

That led Jim Garrison and many others to presume a frontal shot into the throat -- to correspond with the perception of a frontal shot to the right temple, as many claim to perceive in the Zapruder film.

So -- it was a convenience, rather than a perception -- to insist upon a frontal shot into the throat.

Why does JFK apparently clutch his throat? I still need more evidence.

Paul, I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that I cannot comprehend, at all, how or why anyone can possibly interpret JFK's actions when he emerges from behind the sign as "clutching his throat." He doesn't move his hands anywhere near his throat. He doesn't put his hands anywhere near his tie—or his lapel (no matter how many times reading-challenged bozos might gibber on about it).

This claim that he grabs at his throat or his tie or any part of his clothing around his neck is nothing more than an urban legend—and a pretty ridiculous one, at that. A simple, honest, unbiased, unprejudiced LOOK will tell anyone that. At all relevant times, JFK's hands clench into fists, and his arms lift suddenly, spasmodically, at the shoulders, which puts BOTH HANDS UP IN FRONT OF HIS FACE, WITH THE LEFT HAND OUT IN FRONT OF HIS RIGHT HAND.

I have now further edited my tie/lapel animation to outline the hands, and it proves beyond any shade of doubt that he DOES NOT clutch at his throat:

It is utterly clear and inarguable that his RIGHT HAND flies up, spasmodically, in front of his face, and that HIS LEFT HAND AT ALL TIMES IS OUT IN FRONT OF THE RIGHT HAND. Then his right hand sinks down toward his chest (as Jackie takes hold of his left arm), and with his left hand he appears to be pointing—BUT NOT TO HIS THROAT! His left hand is beyond his midline to his RIGHT SIDE, so he has to be pointing down toward his chest on the right side (if he is consciously pointing at all—see below).

It is IMPOSSIBLE that he clutches at or grabs at his throat WHEN BOTH HANDS ARE OUT IN FRONT OF THE MOUTH/NOSE AREA OF HIS FACE. It is ridiculous. The closest his hands come to his throat can't be closer than about 8 inches, or more like 10 inches. Put your own fists out in front of your face, with your elbows raised up to shoulder level, and your head pulled down in toward your chest. You''ll find that it's nonsense that you'd be in that position if "clutching at your throat."

Everything about his sudden reaction is NOT INCONSISTENT with his having just been shot in the back. The assertion by a few blowhards that this cannot possibly be the reaction of a man just shot in the back is patently absurd to me, and without foundation. The man was bound up in a corset-like back brace. This reaction is probably about all his body could manage in reaction to a sudden powerful impact in the back—and I say "his body" advisedly, because it is ridiculous to assume that in those few traumatic seconds or parts of seconds, anything like analytical motor control was in play. By the time the "pointing" motion happens, perhaps some analytical thought and control was behind it, but even that could be an autonomic manifestation. His left forefinger also straightens in a "pointing" gesture very early in the sequence, at Zapruder 228, but that doesn't mean he was consciously "pointing" then.

This entire manic, breathless urban legend apparently is based on nothing more than Mamie Myopic and Nellie Nearsighted having spouted off verbally that they just KNOW that JFK had "clutched at his throat" in those few brief seconds of unprecedented emergency, so half the world (well, at least the half that can't see very well) has been running around in the clutch (pun intended) of that hypnotic command ever since—never bothering to LOOK at the clear, unequivocal visual EVIDENCE that proves conclusively that he did NOT "clutch at his throat" or "grab his tie" or (the best one ever) "try to cough up a bullet."

"He clutched at his throat!" "He clutched at his throat!" "He clutched at his throat!"

"The sky is falling!" "The sky is falling!" "The sky is falling!"

Ashton Gray

Well, that was a rather refreshing read, Ashton. Sometimes, it occurs to me we are not as far apart as I think we are.

[Cliff Varnell]

All perfectly good points, Paul, and thanks for your reasoned analysis. There are several points I'd like to make in response:

1. A larger purpose Specter may have had in relation to the throat wound—and to my mind likely did have—was to prejudice the record with the presumption that the wound in the throat had to have been made by a projectile, so therefore had to have been either an entry or exit wound made by a bullet.

2. If one reasonably rejects Specter's moronic "magic bullet" theory to account for the wound in the throat, yet stays with the prejudiced presumption that the wound in the throat had to have been made by a projectile, one is left staring at the necessity of an even more magic bullet, because all other evidence makes it categorically impossible for any bullet to have caused the hole in JFK's throat.

3. This trick of prejudicing all investigation and questioning using a false primary premise is the exact modus operandi used by the CIA in pulling off the Watergate hoax, as I have covered exhaustively in my book. Every investigator and trier of fact and writer on that subject began with the false belief that a "first break-in" had occurred at the DNC headquarters, and so none ever was able to make sense out of the endless contradictions. That is the exact same operation in play here: a prior foregone conclusion that a bullet, and only a bullet, could have made the hole in JFK's throat. That set up and has created ALL of the contradictions in evidence and testimony concerning the hole. As I say in my book, confusion is the CIA's No. 1 product.

4. If the wound had been clearly and unequivocally a bullet wound, and if the wound had not been destroyed (intentionally, I believe) in terms of forensic purposes by the tracheotomy, no amount of browbeating by Specter would have shaken any competent medical personnel off of stating with certainty that it was a bullet wound, and that it was either an entrance or exit wound. All medical personnel waffled. Dr. Malcolm Perry went so far as to say, "...if this occurred as a result of a missile... ."

5. No projectile has ever been in evidence that could have caused that wound.

6. Jean Hugard said sagely: "The principle of misdirection plays such an important role in magic that one might say that Magic is misdirection and misdirection is Magic."

The assassination of John F. Kennedy was a masterpiece of misdirection. The unquestioned, uninspected, prejudiced belief that a bullet or projectile made the hole that was first seen upon opening JFK's shirt in the trauma room had been made by a bullet is perhaps the ultimate ever in misdirection, and leads only to endless confusion and contradiction.

Confusion is the CIA's No. 1 product.

Ashton Gray

...I do agree with you that we never had any conclusive material evidence of a frontal throat shooting, except the fact that JFK seems to be clutching his throat in the Zapruder film, after JFK's image emerges from behind the road sign there on Elm Street. (Also there was some contradictory Parkland testimony.)

That led Jim Garrison and many others to presume a frontal shot into the throat -- to correspond with the perception of a frontal shot to the right temple, as many claim to perceive in the Zapruder film.

So -- it was a convenience, rather than a perception -- to insist upon a frontal shot into the throat.

Why does JFK apparently clutch his throat? I still need more evidence.

Paul, I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that I cannot comprehend, at all, how or why anyone can possibly interpret JFK's actions when he emerges from behind the sign as "clutching his throat."

And yet that was the impression of two close proximity witnesses. Grabbing at something is not the same thing as actually grabbing ahold of it.

He doesn't move his hands anywhere near his throat.

His hands were in front of his throat and his chin.

At Z258 his left forefinger was extended and the finger-tip is below the chin.

How is that not in front of his throat?

Maybe this will help.

Taken at Z255, the Altgens 6 photo shows JFK's left hand in front of his throat.

Black line points to the hand, red line to his nose.

He doesn't put his hands anywhere near his tie—or his lapel (no matter how many times reading-challenged bozos might gibber on about it).

You know when someone is taking the worst of a discussion when they can't control the personal insults.

You brought up the subject of billowing lapels, not me.

JFK's hands were in front of his chin and throat with the left forefinger extending and closing starting at Z228.

You outlined a forefinger that moves in front of his throat.

But you can't see what you've clearly outlined?

This claim that he grabs at his throat or his tie or any part of his clothing around his neck is nothing more than an urban legend—and a pretty ridiculous one, at that.

No where near as ridiculous as claiming that a guy was shot in the back and reflexively brought his hands up in front of his "face" -- chin and neck actually.

A simple, honest, unbiased, unprejudiced LOOK will tell anyone that. At all relevant times, JFK's hands clench into fists, and his arms lift suddenly, spasmodically, at the shoulders, which puts BOTH HANDS UP IN FRONT OF HIS FACE, WITH THE LEFT HAND OUT IN FRONT OF HIS RIGHT HAND.

In front of his chin and his throat. How can you deny this with a straight face?

I have now further edited my tie/lapel animation to outline the hands, and it proves beyond any shade of doubt that he DOES NOT clutch at his throat:

At Z228 his left forefinger makes an appearance. It moves throughout the sequence in front of his throat.

You outlined it -- but you can't see it?

If the Prosectors' Scenario was correct JFK was seizing up paralyzed in this sequence.

It is utterly clear and inarguable that his RIGHT HAND flies up, spasmodically, in front of his face, and that HIS LEFT HAND AT ALL TIMES IS OUT IN FRONT OF THE RIGHT HAND. Then his right hand sinks down toward his chest (as Jackie takes hold of his left arm), and with his left hand he appears to be pointing—BUT NOT TO HIS THROAT!

100% equine offal.

His left forefinger moves throughout the sequence in front of his chin and throat.

You show a finger opening and closing -- your graphics!

His left hand is beyond his midline to his RIGHT SIDE,

Not according to Algens 6.

so he has to be pointing down toward his chest on the right side (if he is consciously pointing at all—see below).

Not according to Altgens 6.

It is IMPOSSIBLE that he clutches at or grabs at his throat WHEN BOTH HANDS ARE OUT IN FRONT OF THE MOUTH/NOSE AREA OF HIS FACE.

Not according to Altgens 6.

Do some more homework, Ashton.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Well, that was a rather refreshing read, Ashton. Sometimes, it occurs to me we are not as far apart as I think we are.

Looks to me you guys are on the same page promoting a new Magic Bullet that didn't cause pain in the location of the strike.

Amazing...

Edited September 15, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Robert Prudhomme]

Cliff

Have you ever taken a serious look at the medical argument I presented in the back wound thread that shows why the throat wound had to be below the top of JFK's collar? I've asked you this question several times now.

[Ashton Gray]

I am reposting my last anim, above, showing the positions of JFK's hands (and tie and left coat lapel) in the Zapruder film after he was shot in the back—but this is a RETOUCHED version only to REMOVE BLACK FILM ARTIFACTS from the area of his HANDS ONLY.

Let me state that again clearly: I have RETOUCHED this anim, but ONLY to remove BLACK FILM ARTIFACTS/DIRT FROM THE AREAS OF JFK'S HANDS. This was done ONLY to these frames of the film: Zapruder 232, 233, 238, 255, and 256.

The reason I did it is because the black specks give the OPTICAL ILLUSION of FALSE CONTOURS to his hands. This is exactly what gave rise to the nutty notion that he was cupping his right hand in front of his mouth trying to "cough up a bullet." (Always a gentleman, covering his mouth, don'tcha know, even when just having been shot in the back.)

None of the true shadows in the film are as black as the black specks, so it was relatively easy, using the tools of Photoshop correctly, to identify them and retouch them out. NO RETOUCHING has been done to this other than to REMOVE THE BLACK FILM SPECKS and ONLY THOSE ON HIS HANDS WHICH GAVE THE OPTICAL ILLUSION OF FALSE CONTOURS. With this done, the spasmodically clenched fists show the correct continuity of motion.

Ashton Gray

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that I cannot comprehend, at all, how or why anyone can possibly interpret JFK's actions when he emerges from behind the sign as "clutching his throat." He doesn't move his hands anywhere near his throat. He doesn't put his hands anywhere near his tie—or his lapel (no matter how many times reading-challenged bozos might gibber on about it).

This claim that he grabs at his throat or his tie or any part of his clothing around his neck is nothing more than an urban legend—and a pretty ridiculous one, at that. A simple, honest, unbiased, unprejudiced LOOK will tell anyone that. At all relevant times, JFK's hands clench into fists, and his arms lift suddenly, spasmodically, at the shoulders, which puts BOTH HANDS UP IN FRONT OF HIS FACE, WITH THE LEFT HAND OUT IN FRONT OF HIS RIGHT HAND.

I have now further edited my tie/lapel animation to outline the hands, and it proves beyond any shade of doubt that he DOES NOT clutch at his throat:

<interesting slow-motion film deleted here>

It is utterly clear and inarguable that his RIGHT HAND flies up, spasmodically, in front of his face, and that HIS LEFT HAND AT ALL TIMES IS OUT IN FRONT OF THE RIGHT HAND. Then his right hand sinks down toward his chest (as Jackie takes hold of his left arm), and with his left hand he appears to be pointing—BUT NOT TO HIS THROAT! His left hand is beyond his midline to his RIGHT SIDE, so he has to be pointing down toward his chest on the right side (if he is consciously pointing at all—see below).

It is IMPOSSIBLE that he clutches at or grabs at his throat WHEN BOTH HANDS ARE OUT IN FRONT OF THE MOUTH/NOSE AREA OF HIS FACE. It is ridiculous. The closest his hands come to his throat can't be closer than about 8 inches, or more like 10 inches. Put your own fists out in front of your face, with your elbows raised up to shoulder level, and your head pulled down in toward your chest. You''ll find that it's nonsense that you'd be in that position if "clutching at your throat."

Everything about his sudden reaction is NOT INCONSISTENT with his having just been shot in the back. The assertion by a few blowhards that this cannot possibly be the reaction of a man just shot in the back is patently absurd to me, and without foundation. The man was bound up in a corset-like back brace. This reaction is probably about all his body could manage in reaction to a sudden powerful impact in the back—and I say "his body" advisedly, because it is ridiculous to assume that in those few traumatic seconds or parts of seconds, anything like analytical motor control was in play. By the time the "pointing" motion happens, perhaps some analytical thought and control was behind it, but even that could be an autonomic manifestation. His left forefinger also straightens in a "pointing" gesture very early in the sequence, at Zapruder 228, but that doesn't mean he was consciously "pointing" then.

This entire manic, breathless urban legend apparently is based on nothing more than Mamie Myopic and Nellie Nearsighted having spouted off verbally that they just KNOW that JFK had "clutched at his throat" in those few brief seconds of unprecedented emergency, so half the world (well, at least the half that can't see very well) has been running around in the clutch (pun intended) of that hypnotic command ever since—never bothering to LOOK at the clear, unequivocal visual EVIDENCE that proves conclusively that he did NOT "clutch at his throat" or "grab his tie" or (the best one ever) "try to cough up a bullet."

"He clutched at his throat!" "He clutched at his throat!" "He clutched at his throat!"

"The sky is falling!" "The sky is falling!" "The sky is falling!"

Ashton Gray

Well, Ashton, to be literal about it, you're right.

The Zapruder video does not actually show that JFK even touched his throat.

Yet if a person is not looking at the Zapruder film carefully, in slow-motion as you have done, and combines a superficial gaze with the multiple implications of a "frontal entry wound" in the neck, made at Parkland Hospital, this would be sufficient to create what you called an "urban legend."

Let us now say, Ashton, that you are correct -- what then? WHAT ARE WE ACTUALLY SEEING IN THESE FRAMES OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM? How do you interpret these frames, Ashton?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 16, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Ashton Gray]

Let us now say, Ashton, that you are correct -- what then? WHAT ARE WE ACTUALLY SEEING IN THESE FRAMES OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM? How do you interpret these frames, Ashton?

Well, to me, Paul, it isn't about me being correct or not; it's about having the correct facts.

My interpretation of these Zapruder frames is what seems obvious to me: JFK was shot in the back while behind or just emerging from being blocked by the sign.

His arms flew up and his fists clenched in response to sudden intense pain in his back—his response constrained by the back brace he was wearing.

That's it. It isn't complicated. That is what I observe in these frames. What follows here is gratuitous opinion, which I may or may not renege on:

I believe that the same shooter who shot him in the back then very soon blew off part of his head.

I do not believe either of those shots came from Oswald.

Ashton