Jump to content
The Education Forum

NEW;;''the throat wound ''


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

JFK-11/22/63

The Throat Wound: Where Was It Altered?

by

James V. Rinnovatore

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Throat-Wound/

b

I took a quick look and noticed he cited Joe O'Donnell.

How many times do I have to repeat this? O'Donnell was a fraud. The ARRB apparently took him at his word, and did nothing to try and establish whether he even knew Knudsen. After his death, however, it was revealed that O'Donnell had suffered from dementia, and had made many false claims about his role in history, including his having taken the photos of John-John saluting his father's casket.

Besides supposedly being shown the entirely mythical set of photos taken by Knudsen, O'Donnell also claimed to have provided Jackie Kennedy a private showing of the Zapruder film.

Does ANYONE believe this? If not, then why do people keep citing his almost certainly bogus claim he saw autopsy photos as a revealing piece of the puzzle?

O'Donnell story in NY Times

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JFK-11/22/63

The Throat Wound: Where Was It Altered?

by

James V. Rinnovatore

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Throat-Wound/

b

That's a solid piece B - thanks for sharing. What could be useful would be a visual - 5mm and the incision vs the autopsy photo. A good start by James for sure and kudos - and worthy of his continuing along these same lines in other areas. Nicely done.

As per Pat's comments - as opposed to tossing out the baby with the bathwater - maybe a recommendation to lose the weak link to the argument - although that water seems murky on it's own. Could potentially be bolstered with additional input? Even by present day Doctors and their perspective on the 'trach' - so called.

What I don't like are theories that this wound was related to the back injury - seems very clear that this was a point of entry - and James does a nice job of shoring that up - despite the madness. What's a more likely type of scenario is a shooter from the front for this wound - I think there's potential - not for a South Knoll shooter and a 'through-the-windshield shot' [more of a decent into madness], but instead for 2 separate individuals - one at the top of the underpass at the storm grate area, and another in the GKS location. Fouls up the 'triangulation of fire scenario - aw! :blink: Whether a shot to the throat was intentional may remain a mystery. Quite a pitch to that road and a windy day, considering the distance - but also has the making of a different caliber - lightweight. Not consistent with other 'evidence' - taking into account the 'pellet' that went without retrieval, etc. etc. etc. Gotta wonder about that Savage 22 LOL.

- lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The speculation that this was a wound of entry is lacking in any kind of credible sense.

It would only be supported by someone who has done little study of the trajectories of this shot, but that is just the beginning.

How does one resolve that a projectile hits nothing but soft tissue, and does not exit?

Further, how does anyone resolve this as a point of exit for a known projectile, and still have entry wound like characteristics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The speculation that this was a wound of entry is lacking in any kind of credible sense.

It would only be supported by someone who has done little study of the trajectories of this shot, but that is just the beginning.

How does one resolve that a projectile hits nothing but soft tissue, and does not exit?

Further, how does anyone resolve this as a point of exit for a known projectile, and still have entry wound like characteristics?

Mike,

I beg to differ in that the throat wound was small - and in CSI 101 you learn that with gunshot wounds - little in big out is the standard, and the hole in the throat was considered by the doctors at Parkland to be so small that it had to be an entry wound.

Now the lack of an exit wound is an entirely different question, and I can't answer that.

But there is a big bone there, you can feel it, so maybe the bone directed it downward or upwards, but that's just speculation.

The bottom line is that the throat wound as described by the medical personal at Parkland was that it was very small and had all the appearances of an entry wound.

The only real way to learn the truth is to dig up the body and have a proper forensic autopsy, as a president deserves no less.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The speculation that this was a wound of entry is lacking in any kind of credible sense.

It would only be supported by someone who has done little study of the trajectories of this shot, but that is just the beginning.

How does one resolve that a projectile hits nothing but soft tissue, and does not exit?

Further, how does anyone resolve this as a point of exit for a known projectile, and still have entry wound like characteristics?

Mike,

I beg to differ in that the throat wound was small - and in CSI 101 you learn that with gunshot wounds - little in big out is the standard, and the hole in the throat was considered by the doctors at Parkland to be so small that it had to be an entry wound.

Now the lack of an exit wound is an entirely different question, and I can't answer that.

But there is a big bone there, you can feel it, so maybe the bone directed it downward or upwards, but that's just speculation.

The bottom line is that the throat wound as described by the medical personal at Parkland was that it was very small and had all the appearances of an entry wound.

The only real way to learn the truth is to dig up the body and have a proper forensic autopsy, as a president deserves no less.

BK

Bill,

It is that very lack of an exit that bothers me so. Its all soft tissue, according to the reports. Neck wounds are epic and horrific. I have seen a few. Something else to consider is the description itself. Smallish and circular. If that dog gone thing was round Bill it had to hit at almost 90 degrees which makes no trajectory sense at all.

On the flip side of the coin, I have never ever witnessed an exit of the neck that could be called small and circular. NEVER. The secondary wound path of a bullet in soft tissue does not allow for that. I will further say that I have little experience witnessing wounds created by round nosed bullets. Almost always pointed FMJ, and a few shot guns. Perhaps the occasional round nose of a .45, but this is comparing apples to oranges, and I discount it.

I agree completely on a redig. But then that would make sense and why would the Gov. do anything that makes logical sense?

Best to you Sir,

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The speculation that this was a wound of entry is lacking in any kind of credible sense.

It would only be supported by someone who has done little study of the trajectories of this shot, but that is just the beginning.

How does one resolve that a projectile hits nothing but soft tissue, and does not exit?

Further, how does anyone resolve this as a point of exit for a known projectile, and still have entry wound like characteristics?

Mike,

I beg to differ in that the throat wound was small - and in CSI 101 you learn that with gunshot wounds - little in big out is the standard, and the hole in the throat was considered by the doctors at Parkland to be so small that it had to be an entry wound.

Now the lack of an exit wound is an entirely different question, and I can't answer that.

But there is a big bone there, you can feel it, so maybe the bone directed it downward or upwards, but that's just speculation.

The bottom line is that the throat wound as described by the medical personal at Parkland was that it was very small and had all the appearances of an entry wound.

The only real way to learn the truth is to dig up the body and have a proper forensic autopsy, as a president deserves no less.

BK

Bill,

It is that very lack of an exit that bothers me so. Its all soft tissue, according to the reports. Neck wounds are epic and horrific. I have seen a few. Something else to consider is the description itself. Smallish and circular. If that dog gone thing was round Bill it had to hit at almost 90 degrees which makes no trajectory sense at all.

On the flip side of the coin, I have never ever witnessed an exit of the neck that could be called small and circular. NEVER. The secondary wound path of a bullet in soft tissue does not allow for that. I will further say that I have little experience witnessing wounds created by round nosed bullets. Almost always pointed FMJ, and a few shot guns. Perhaps the occasional round nose of a .45, but this is comparing apples to oranges, and I discount it.

I agree completely on a redig. But then that would make sense and why would the Gov. do anything that makes logical sense?

Best to you Sir,

Mike

Hi Mike.

Factor this in: Marion Jenkins noted chest damage.

Doctors Charles Baxter, Malcolm Perry, and Robert McClelland arrived at the same time and began a tracheostomy and started the insertion of a right chest tube, since there was also obvious tracheal and chest damage. Doctors Paul Peters and Kemp Clark arrived simultaneously and immediately thereafter assisted respectively with the insertion of the right chest tube and with manual closed chest cardiac compression to assure circulation.

"The first day I had thought that the one bullet must have...gotten into the lung cavity. I mean, from what you say now, I know it did not go that way. I thought it did."

Couple that with a point blank range shot to Oswald's gut - that round never exited either.

"The bullet passed through Oswald's liver, spleen, and aorta..."

- lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The speculation that this was a wound of entry is lacking in any kind of credible sense.

It would only be supported by someone who has done little study of the trajectories of this shot, but that is just the beginning.

How does one resolve that a projectile hits nothing but soft tissue, and does not exit?

Further, how does anyone resolve this as a point of exit for a known projectile, and still have entry wound like characteristics?

Mike,

I beg to differ in that the throat wound was small - and in CSI 101 you learn that with gunshot wounds - little in big out is the standard, and the hole in the throat was considered by the doctors at Parkland to be so small that it had to be an entry wound.

Now the lack of an exit wound is an entirely different question, and I can't answer that.

But there is a big bone there, you can feel it, so maybe the bone directed it downward or upwards, but that's just speculation.

The bottom line is that the throat wound as described by the medical personal at Parkland was that it was very small and had all the appearances of an entry wound.

The only real way to learn the truth is to dig up the body and have a proper forensic autopsy, as a president deserves no less.

BK

Bill,

It is that very lack of an exit that bothers me so. Its all soft tissue, according to the reports. Neck wounds are epic and horrific. I have seen a few. Something else to consider is the description itself. Smallish and circular. If that dog gone thing was round Bill it had to hit at almost 90 degrees which makes no trajectory sense at all.

On the flip side of the coin, I have never ever witnessed an exit of the neck that could be called small and circular. NEVER. The secondary wound path of a bullet in soft tissue does not allow for that. I will further say that I have little experience witnessing wounds created by round nosed bullets. Almost always pointed FMJ, and a few shot guns. Perhaps the occasional round nose of a .45, but this is comparing apples to oranges, and I discount it.

I agree completely on a redig. But then that would make sense and why would the Gov. do anything that makes logical sense?

Best to you Sir,

Mike

Hi Mike.

Factor this in: Marion Jenkins noted chest damage.

Doctors Charles Baxter, Malcolm Perry, and Robert McClelland arrived at the same time and began a tracheostomy and started the insertion of a right chest tube, since there was also obvious tracheal and chest damage. Doctors Paul Peters and Kemp Clark arrived simultaneously and immediately thereafter assisted respectively with the insertion of the right chest tube and with manual closed chest cardiac compression to assure circulation.

"The first day I had thought that the one bullet must have...gotten into the lung cavity. I mean, from what you say now, I know it did not go that way. I thought it did."

Couple that with a point blank range shot to Oswald's gut - that round never exited either.

"The bullet passed through Oswald's liver, spleen, and aorta..."

- lee

Lee,

Consider.

A .38 caliber bullet it much bigger and much slower. I would not even expect it to exit LHO. Less energy and more mass make it lose energy much quicker. So really we are comparing apples to oranges here.

If this projectile were in the Chest cavity, why is there no xray evidence of such?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The speculation that this was a wound of entry is lacking in any kind of credible sense.

It would only be supported by someone who has done little study of the trajectories of this shot, but that is just the beginning.

How does one resolve that a projectile hits nothing but soft tissue, and does not exit?

Further, how does anyone resolve this as a point of exit for a known projectile, and still have entry wound like characteristics?

Mike,

I beg to differ in that the throat wound was small - and in CSI 101 you learn that with gunshot wounds - little in big out is the standard, and the hole in the throat was considered by the doctors at Parkland to be so small that it had to be an entry wound.

Now the lack of an exit wound is an entirely different question, and I can't answer that.

But there is a big bone there, you can feel it, so maybe the bone directed it downward or upwards, but that's just speculation.

The bottom line is that the throat wound as described by the medical personal at Parkland was that it was very small and had all the appearances of an entry wound.

The only real way to learn the truth is to dig up the body and have a proper forensic autopsy, as a president deserves no less.

BK

Bill,

It is that very lack of an exit that bothers me so. Its all soft tissue, according to the reports. Neck wounds are epic and horrific. I have seen a few. Something else to consider is the description itself. Smallish and circular. If that dog gone thing was round Bill it had to hit at almost 90 degrees which makes no trajectory sense at all.

On the flip side of the coin, I have never ever witnessed an exit of the neck that could be called small and circular. NEVER. The secondary wound path of a bullet in soft tissue does not allow for that. I will further say that I have little experience witnessing wounds created by round nosed bullets. Almost always pointed FMJ, and a few shot guns. Perhaps the occasional round nose of a .45, but this is comparing apples to oranges, and I discount it.

I agree completely on a redig. But then that would make sense and why would the Gov. do anything that makes logical sense?

Best to you Sir,

Mike

Hi Mike.

Factor this in: Marion Jenkins noted chest damage.

Doctors Charles Baxter, Malcolm Perry, and Robert McClelland arrived at the same time and began a tracheostomy and started the insertion of a right chest tube, since there was also obvious tracheal and chest damage. Doctors Paul Peters and Kemp Clark arrived simultaneously and immediately thereafter assisted respectively with the insertion of the right chest tube and with manual closed chest cardiac compression to assure circulation.

"The first day I had thought that the one bullet must have...gotten into the lung cavity. I mean, from what you say now, I know it did not go that way. I thought it did."

Couple that with a point blank range shot to Oswald's gut - that round never exited either.

"The bullet passed through Oswald's liver, spleen, and aorta..."

- lee

Lee,

Consider.

A .38 caliber bullet it much bigger and much slower. I would not even expect it to exit LHO. Less energy and more mass make it lose energy much quicker. So really we are comparing apples to oranges here.

If this projectile were in the Chest cavity, why is there no xray evidence of such?

Exactly. And a good question. Why were photos released showing no damage to the back of Kennedy's head and some kind of nipple or something - mind you, released as genuine and 'official.' Why is there a perfectly round shape in one 'official' x-ray, obviously metallic in nature, exactly 6.5mm in diameter? Fail.

However, in comparing apples to apples - is it your assumption that we are dealing with 6.5mm rounds exclusively? So a .38 = 9.1 mm. But a .22 = 5.7mm.

So when we consider the possibility, for example, of a single shot coming from behind the fence - loud, lot's of smoke, noticed by many - you'd have to assume that was the only shot fired from that location - right? But the wound to the throat came earlier - say z207, use the irregular 18.3fps, 313 for killshot, equals a difference of 106 frames / 18.3 = ~6 seconds. Trajectory for a wound which could puncture the throat, assume strike vertebrae, deflect into the chest cavity - maybe end up in the lungs - where would that shot have needed to come from based upon the position of the Lincoln at z207, the grade of the Elm street, and the availability of a shooter in front of the entourage. If it's not a point of entry - how else is it explained? As a round which was fired down from the 6th floor window of the TSBD - at what angle? And then the throat wound would have been a point of exit - a violent exit - which is part of the point of the research. Didn't happen. And here's the $64K question - is it possible to fire a round - let's use the 6.5mm -

Wiki

"According to the single-bullet theory, a three-centimeter-long copper-jacketed lead-core 6.5-millimeter rifle bullet fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository passed through President Kennedy’s neck and Governor Connally’s chest and wrist and embedded itself in the Governor’s thigh. If so, this bullet traversed 15 layers of clothing, 7 layers of skin, and approximately 15 inches of tissue, struck a necktie knot, removed 4 inches of rib, and shattered a radius bone. The bullet was found on a stretcher in the corridor at the Parkland Memorial Hospital, in Dallas, after the assassination. The Warren Commission found that this stretcher was the one that had borne Governor Connally.[2] This bullet became a key Commission exhibit, identified as CE399. Its copper jacket was completely intact. While the bullet's nose appeared normal, the tail was compressed laterally on one side."

Fail. If only a lie this huge had been the foundation for a new religion - perhaps it would have been more palatable.

Now let's look at a .22/5.7mm - or even a 6.5mm and a 5mm entry wound. Entry wound is going to be smaller - right? Bullet passes through and the tissue parts and then there is - what do you call it - shrinkage? So even if you had a wound from a 6.5mm round, the point of entry would actually end up being smaller - correct? Let's use the top right side [NORTH side] of the underpass. Place the vehicle at about z207 - pitch, angle, position of the President - feasible?

- lee

Edited by Lee Forman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although the Parkland doctors briefly speculated that the bullet creating the throat wound had entered the chest, the consensus was that the head wound was an exit for the bullet entering the throat, i.e. that a bullet traversed the length of the neck.

This was a factor in my acceptance that this was indeed what happened.

As pointed out by Mike-- the small wound in the throat was most definitely NOT the exit of a high-speed bullet.

From patspeer.com, chapter 11:

The testimony of the HSCA's ballistics expert, Larry Sturdivan, is that the bullet was traveling over 1700 feet/second as it passed through Kennedy's neck. Later, in his 2005 book, The JFK Myths, he increased this "probable velocity" to somewhere between 2045 feet/second and 1780 feet/second. And yet, Dr. Gary Ordog, in his book Management of Gunshot Wounds, notes that the mortality rate for high-velocity bullet wounds to the neck is over 50%. He explains: “Vascular injury caused by missile wounds from bullets moving faster than 1,000 feet/second has been shown to occur by neat shearing of the vessel without stretching it first, as occurs with low-velocity missiles. This is followed by cavitation that damages a more extensive area of the blood vessel, possibly extending for at least 20 mm on each side of the bullet’s path.” He notes further that “Cavitation stretches the smaller blood vessels, shearing and rupturing them as well as nerves and even bone.” Ordog later concludes: "In the author's experience, up to 100% of patients with high-velocity bullet wounds of the neck have major structural damage requiring surgery."

Should one think that Ordog was some ill-informed civilian spouting his personal impressions, one should know that his statements are based in large part upon a study performed by Sturdivan's employer, Edgewood Arsenal, and published in the Archives of Surgery in August 1970. This study concludes "The high velocity missile neatly shears the arterial wall, but the apparent explosive effect of the temporary cavity causes "blunt" trauma in a crushing manner." A chart prepared for this study demonstrates that near misses traveling as slow as 1,000 fps were nevertheless likely to cause breaks in the artery.

When one remembers that the surgeon who inspected Kennedy’s throat wound at Parkland, Dr. Malcolm Perry, not only said there was little vessel damage, but initially described the exit wound as being only 3-5 mm wide--smaller than the bullets fired by Oswald’s rifle--then it becomes clear that something is just wrong with the supposed single-bullet "fact". Only making it worse, Dr. Perry testified that behind this small hole in the throat he found a “small ragged laceration of the trachea on the anterior lateral right side.” According to Dr. D.F.N. Dixon in Management of Gunshot Wounds, “Direct impact on larynx or trachea from bullets fired from high velocity military rifles or carbines will produce severe damage from their high kinetic energy, tumbling, or cavitation effect.” Furthermore, Dr.s Kenneth and Roy Swan in their book Gunshot Wounds: Pathophysiology and Management note that "Gunshot injuries of the larynx and trachea are infrequently seen in emergency rooms" due to such injuries usually being associated with "fatal exsanguination (bleeding) from injured common carotid arteries and internal jugular veins."

Surgery in World War II, a book released by the Surgeon General of the U.S. Army in 1962, confirms this harsh assessment and also suggests that a neck wound as simple and survivable as Kennedy's was purported to be was unlikely. In a chapter written by a former surgeon of the Fifth Army, which fought Italian forces in Sicily, it holds that when treating neck wounds they needed to effect "Debridement (the removal of dead and damaged tissue) of all structures" as "Multiple involvement was the rule because of the anatomy of the area." From this, it seems likely that there are many military and emergency room doctors who are aware of this particular problem with the single-bullet theory, who opt to say nothing.

It seems possible, however, that there are many other doctors, including experienced forensic pathologists such as Michael Baden, who are simply unaware of this problem. In 1980, during a seminar on forensic pathology and homicide investigation in Toronto, Ontario, Dr. Baden admitted that "less than a tenth of 1% of the gunshot wounds studied by his New York coroner's office were by "military rifles," and that almost all the rest came from handguns or shotguns. He admitted further that Kennedy was killed "by rifle type ammunition which we know very little about."

While one might assume that thousands of doctors with WW II experience would know more than Baden, and would have been able to assist the HSCA, this is not necessarily true. Surgery in World War II confirms the rarity of Kennedy's wounds. Among its graphs and charts it reveals that intra-cranial head and neck wounds each accounted for but 2% of the wounds seen at the hospital level, and that rifle fire accounted for but 5% of the wounds studied. From this one can estimate that during WW II a U.S. doctor would see someone with a head wound created in the same manner as Kennedy's was purportedly created, oh, once every thousand patients or so, and someone with a neck wound created in the same manner as Kennedy's was purportedly created, also about once every thousand patients or so. This brings up the additional question of why neither the Warren Commission nor the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel consulted with doctors well-familiar with the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and its wounding properties, and instead used doctors affiliated with the U.S. military and/or large research facilities dependent on government grants.

Should one think it unlikely that a layman as myself should recognize this problem with the single-bullet theory bullet's velocity, when so many supposed experts, including those on the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel, have looked the other way, one can take comfort that one of Kennedy's emergency room doctors, Dr. Ronald Jones, mentioned this problem long before I. When asked by Arlen Specter if the throat wound could have been an exit of an M/C rifle bullet, he told the Warren Commission: "If this were an exit wound, you would think that it exited at a very low velocity...to the point that you might think that this bullet barely made it through the soft tissues and just enough to drop out of the skin on the opposite side."

One can also take comfort that at least some of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel's members refused to let themselves believe that the damage to Kennedy's neck and throat was as minor as reported, and presumed instead that Dr. Perry's analysis of Kennedy's wounds was grossly in error. While the Panel kept no publicly-available notes on their discussions, Dr. Baden testified to this dispute, telling the HSCA committee, "The panel could not unanimously agree as to whether or not the gunshot wound through the back and neck would necessarily be fatal because of the failure to examine the bullet track at the time of the autopsy--dissect the track. As a result we do not know whether there was injury to the spine of the President or to major blood vessels." The fact that this was even questioned, after Dr. Humes and Dr. Perry testified before the Warren Commission that there was no damage to the spine or major blood vessels, indicates that there was at least one member of the panel who realized that it didn't make a lot of sense for a high-speed bullet to create so little damage.

Dr. Baden himself quite possibly shared this view. On 8-15-78, barely three weeks before he testified on Kennedy's wounds, he testified before the HSCA on Dr. Martin Luther King's fatal wound. Dr. King had also been killed by a high-velocity rifle bullet; it entered his right cheek, smashed through his jaw bone, re-entered his neck, smashed through his spine and was found beneath the skin on the left side of his back. During his questioning, Dr. Baden was asked by Congressman Sawyer if a high-velocity bullet would cause "extensive damage and severe damage to tissue out beyond its track because of the lines of force it creates within the body." Dr. Baden's answer is most informative; after discussing the bones actually hit by the bullet, he added "If the bullet continued through the spine, it would have severed the spinal cord. If it didn't continue through the spinal canal and sever the spinal cord, the lines of force from the impact would have severely damaged the spinal cord without even touching it; and much of the extensive hemorrhaging and destruction of the tissues in the face and neck area of Dr. King were due to the lines of force that you allude to, sir."

The wound as reported by Perry and Humes was just not severe enough to have been created by a high-velocity rifle bullet. A WW II-era report on the Bougainville Campaign, found online, describes a dozen or so chest wounds caused by 6.5 mm ammunition. The average wound of exit was many times that of the average wound of entrance, with several more than 10 times as large. While the entrance wound in Kennedy’s back is believed to have been larger than the exit in his throat, I found no instances of thoracic wound entrances being larger than their exits, and only one instance where the entrance was more than one third the size of its exit. While these shots were virtually all at closer range than the shots striking Kennedy, and while all these shots were fatal, and therefore automatically more severe than the one striking Kennedy, the small size of the exit in Kennedy’s throat still seems curiously disproportionate. By way of example, one man shot by a sniper from 150 yards, more than twice the length of the shot from the sniper’s nest to Kennedy at Z-224, was found to have a 3 cm by 1.5 cm exit wound on his chest, more than ten times the size of the small wound observed in Kennedy’s throat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although the Parkland doctors briefly speculated that the bullet creating the throat wound had entered the chest, the consensus was that the head wound was an exit for the bullet entering the throat, i.e. that a bullet traversed the length of the neck.

This was a factor in my acceptance that this was indeed what happened.

Not following you. And if you are suggesting that the bullet entered the neck and then ended up inside Kennedy's skull? What head wound are you describing?

First day evidence was the best evidence - supported by a myriad of 'events' connected to the whitewash. Jenkins waffling is an all too familiar approach.

"Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although the Parkland doctors briefly speculated that the bullet creating the throat wound had entered the chest, the consensus was that the head wound was an exit for the bullet entering the throat, i.e. that a bullet traversed the length of the neck.

This was a factor in my acceptance that this was indeed what happened.

Not following you. And if you are suggesting that the bullet entered the neck and then ended up inside Kennedy's skull? What head wound are you describing?

First day evidence was the best evidence - supported by a myriad of 'events' connected to the whitewash. Jenkins waffling is an all too familiar approach.

"Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia."

After studying the medical evidence for several years full time, I came to the conclusion the throat wound was indeed related to the head wound. The Parkland doctors suspected the large head wound was an exit for an entrance in the throat. I suspect the throat wound was an exit for the bullet creating the small entrance near the EOP.

Since the Clark Panel and Lattimer, etc, concluded there was a bullet path visible on the x-rays coming from what they thought was the back wound up above, and since we now know the back wound was really at or below the level of the throat wound, it seems likely the X-rays suggest the missile creating the throat wound descended within the neck. If so, then it's just a matter of time before the medical community comes around to my way of thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could it be that a part of the bullet created the throat wound and most of the momentum went on to destroy the head?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't that then three bullets three hits minimum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...