NEW;;''the throat wound ''

[Cliff Varnell]

That's why I think the greatest engine of obfuscation in the murder of

JFK is not the US government or the mainstream media anymore: it's

the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community itself.

If the Education Forum is any example, there is no such Community.

Just a diverse group of people with arcane interests, connected by the internet,

each with their own individual take on what they think happened.

Michael, I use the phrase with a touch of sarcasm.

I certainly don't feel like I'm part of a "Community"...I think I did at one time,

however. I attended the 2005 "Cracking the Case Conference" with a sense

of being part of the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community.

By the time the conference was over I no longer felt like a member, but more

like a Critic of the Critics, which is where I'm at now.

It seems to me the Experts in the case wage jihad against the evidence -- witnesses

are demonized, Dealey Plaza photos are labeled fakes, properly prepared medical

evidence is dismissed in favor of improperly prepared evidence. And the prima facie

cases for conspiracy are consistently denied.

In the context of the on-going cover-up, why waste time and resources developing

"disinformation agents" when well-meaning, ambitious folks will do all the heavy lifting

for free?

[Mike Williams]

That's why I think the greatest engine of obfuscation in the murder of

JFK is not the US government or the mainstream media anymore: it's

the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community itself.

If the Education Forum is any example, there is no such Community.

Just a diverse group of people with arcane interests, connected by the internet,

each with their own individual take on what they think happened.

Michael, I use the phrase with a touch of sarcasm.

I certainly don't feel like I'm part of a "Community"...I think I did at one time,

however. I attended the 2005 "Cracking the Case Conference" with a sense

of being part of the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community.

By the time the conference was over I no longer felt like a member, but more

like a Critic of the Critics, which is where I'm at now.

It seems to me the Experts in the case wage jihad against the evidence -- witnesses

are demonized, Dealey Plaza photos are labeled fakes, properly prepared medical

evidence is dismissed in favor of improperly prepared evidence. And the prima facie

cases for conspiracy are consistently denied.

In the context of the on-going cover-up, why waste time and resources developing

"disinformation agents" when well-meaning, ambitious folks will do all the heavy lifting

for free?

Cliff,

I could not agree more. You are definitely well meaning, and ambitious, I just hope you have a strong back.

Your doing a magnificent job.

Mike

[Cliff Varnell]

That's why I think the greatest engine of obfuscation in the murder of

JFK is not the US government or the mainstream media anymore: it's

the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community itself.

If the Education Forum is any example, there is no such Community.

Just a diverse group of people with arcane interests, connected by the internet,

each with their own individual take on what they think happened.

Michael, I use the phrase with a touch of sarcasm.

I certainly don't feel like I'm part of a "Community"...I think I did at one time,

however. I attended the 2005 "Cracking the Case Conference" with a sense

of being part of the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community.

By the time the conference was over I no longer felt like a member, but more

like a Critic of the Critics, which is where I'm at now.

It seems to me the Experts in the case wage jihad against the evidence -- witnesses

are demonized, Dealey Plaza photos are labeled fakes, properly prepared medical

evidence is dismissed in favor of improperly prepared evidence. And the prima facie

cases for conspiracy are consistently denied.

In the context of the on-going cover-up, why waste time and resources developing

"disinformation agents" when well-meaning, ambitious folks will do all the heavy lifting

for free?

Cliff,

I could not agree more. You are definitely well meaning, and ambitious, I just hope you have a strong back.

Your doing a magnificent job.

Mike

I have no ambitions whatsoever.

I'm not writing a book -- I don't think it takes a book to get down the essential facts of the case.

I don't associate in any way shape or form with other researchers, although

there are many I admire.

I've got two pieces of original research on the internet and neither has my name

attached to it.

I don't attend conferences (with two exceptions).

I don't consider myself an expert.

I think the case is way more simple than others make it appear.

I like to engage in rhetorical combat, which in itself is obfuscationary

in that it lends the appearance of (false) equivalency between the

prima facie cases for conspiracy and the many baseless assertions

to the contrary.

Which is why I won't be engaging you much, Mike.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Mike Williams]

That's why I think the greatest engine of obfuscation in the murder of

JFK is not the US government or the mainstream media anymore: it's

the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community itself.

If the Education Forum is any example, there is no such Community.

Just a diverse group of people with arcane interests, connected by the internet,

each with their own individual take on what they think happened.

Michael, I use the phrase with a touch of sarcasm.

I certainly don't feel like I'm part of a "Community"...I think I did at one time,

however. I attended the 2005 "Cracking the Case Conference" with a sense

of being part of the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community.

By the time the conference was over I no longer felt like a member, but more

like a Critic of the Critics, which is where I'm at now.

It seems to me the Experts in the case wage jihad against the evidence -- witnesses

are demonized, Dealey Plaza photos are labeled fakes, properly prepared medical

evidence is dismissed in favor of improperly prepared evidence. And the prima facie

cases for conspiracy are consistently denied.

In the context of the on-going cover-up, why waste time and resources developing

"disinformation agents" when well-meaning, ambitious folks will do all the heavy lifting

for free?

Cliff,

I could not agree more. You are definitely well meaning, and ambitious, I just hope you have a strong back.

Your doing a magnificent job.

Mike

I have no ambitions whatsoever.

I'm not writing a book -- I don't think it takes a book to get down the essential facts of the case.

I don't associate in any way shape or form with other researchers, although

there are many I admire.

I've got two pieces of original research on the internet and neither has my name

attached to it.

I don't attend conferences (with two exceptions).

I don't consider myself an expert.

I think the case is way more simple than others make it appear.

I like to engage in rhetorical combat, which in itself is obfuscationary

in that it lends the appearance of (false) equivalency between the

prima facie cases for conspiracy and the many baseless assertions

to the contrary.

Which is why I won't be engaging you much, Mike.

I figured you wouldn't be. And I am ok with that, because we both know why.

I would skeedaddle to if I were in your position.

[Craig Lamson]

I figured you wouldn't be. And I am ok with that, because we both know why.

I would skeedaddle to if I were in your position.

Cliff can't even figure out how sunlight works.....

[Mike Williams]

p.s. there is something that bugs the hell out of me about Oswald and perhaps you can help me resolve it!

What's that Mike? His innocence?

Let's start with this question first and then I'll start a fresh thread...

Lee

Fair enough my friend.

I do not know about your background. Mine was military. That means a lot to me.

In notes that Oswald wrote before giving a lecture he wrote that the agree with Ike in that the USMC should be disbanded.

And yet, when he is arrested we have photos and a property sheet that shows he was wearing his Marine Corp ring.

I guess this would be lost on some, to me it is significant. I know what that ring means to me, and I just can not comprehend making the comment that the USMC should be disbanded.

Perhaps different things hold a different level of significance to some than others, but to me there is something strange about all this.

Mike

Hi Mike

I know aspects of the USMC ring has been discussed on a couple of other threads but your question about the speech he gave is an interesting one. I'll start a new thread once I've got the little ones to sleep.

Regards

Lee

P.S. I believe it was Harry Truman he was agreeing with...

Lee,

I stand corrected and of course you are right! Sorry for the error, I should have consulted my notes. Ike was the one LHO commented should be shot. Chilling really.

Hope you had a great day!

Mike

Edited April 21, 2010 by Mike Williams

[Antti Hynonen]

Ok, what do you suggest Kennedy is reacting to as seen in the Zapruder film as he emerges from behind the Highway sign?

In my opinion there is no doubt that he is reacting to what caused the small round hole in his anterior neck, below the Adam's apple.

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.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Antti Hynonen

[Antti Hynonen]

Ok, what do you suggest Kennedy is reacting to as seen in the Zapruder film as he emerges from behind the Highway sign?

In my opinion there is no doubt that he is reacting to what caused the small round hole in his anterior neck, below the Adam's apple.

Thanks.

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.

Seriously?

So, one of two things occurred prior to the bullet exiting the head:

Either:

1) The round that entered the throat circa Z190 took six seconds to exit,

Or:

2) JFK started reacting to a wound in his throat several seconds before

he was shot in the throat.

Either one is ridiculous...

The Parkland doctors suspected the large head wound was an exit for an entrance in the throat.

The Parkland doctors didn't have the opportunity to view the Zapruder film

or review the witness testimony of Nellie Connally, Jackie Kennedy, Clint Hill,

Linda Willis or Roy Kellerman -- all of whom describe JFK reacting to a hit well

before the head shots.

I suspect the throat wound was an exit for the bullet creating the small entrance near the EOP.

Totally ignoring the neck x-ray, the Zapruder film, Altgens 6, and the testimony of

the folks listed above.

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,

What can be proven is the back wound was at T3.

Show us where JFK's jacket was elevated more than a fraction of an inch

in Dealey Plaza, Pat. Show us how a tucked-in custom-made dress shirt

rides up more than a fraction of an inch.

Tell us how 15 or so witnesses -- most of whom had a good, prolonged view of

the body -- all got the back wound wrong. Was it a mass hallucination, Pat, or

mere incompetence?

it seems likely the X-rays suggest the missile creating the throat wound descended within the neck.

Are you unaware of the damage shown in the neck x-ray?

Bruised lung tip, hair-line fracture of the right T1 transverse process, and a

subcutaneous air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1. That's a straight front to back

path from between the 3rd and 4th trach rings to C7/T1.

There was no exit. There was no bullet recovered. These are irrefutable facts, Pat.

Anyone that would make the conclusion, after examination that this was a wound of entry does one thing. Shows their absolute ignorance of wound ballistics. This is obviously a wound of an exiting fragment.

I am very interested to see what Mr. Varnell surmises in regard to this wound.

Ice bullet? Flachette?

I would be very interested to do a quick run up of the energy transfer required and expected movement of the target.

One thing is for certain, this was no entry of a projectile(bullet) of any type I have ever heard of.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Antti Hynonen

[Cliff Varnell]

Ok, what do you suggest Kennedy is reacting to as seen in the Zapruder film as he emerges from behind the Highway sign?

In my opinion there is no doubt that he is reacting to what caused the small round hole in his posterior neck, below the Adam's apple.

Thanks.

Posterior neck?

Don't you mean anterior neck, since you're citing the adams apple?

[Antti Hynonen]

Ok, what do you suggest Kennedy is reacting to as seen in the Zapruder film as he emerges from behind the Highway sign?

In my opinion there is no doubt that he is reacting to what caused the small round hole in his posterior neck, below the Adam's apple.

Thanks.

Posterior neck?

Don't you mean anterior neck, since you're citing the adams apple?

Yes,

You're quite right. I meant anterior. Sorry.

[Cliff Varnell]

Antti,

You're spot on -- it's obvious that JFK was reacting to a throat wound as he

emerged from behind the Stemmons sign.

How could anyone interpret it otherwise is beyond me.

[Mike Williams]

Antti,

With all due respect I have to disagree. If he were reacting to a wound to the throat, he would be grabbing his throat. We never see this. His hands never go below his chin.

Mike

[Antti Hynonen]

Ok, fair enough.

What (wound or event) do you then suggest he is reacting to?

Please elaborate. Thanks.

Antti,

With all due respect I have to disagree. If he were reacting to a wound to the throat, he would be grabbing his throat. We never see this. His hands never go below his chin.

Mike

[Mike Williams]

Ok, fair enough.

What (wound or event) do you then suggest he is reacting to?

Please elaborate. Thanks.

Antti,

With all due respect I have to disagree. If he were reacting to a wound to the throat, he would be grabbing his throat. We never see this. His hands never go below his chin.

Mike

Antti,

Please forgive the long way around the barn here, but it is needed so please bear with me.

I have once again been looking very strongly at the SBT, and have been commenting on it. However it is not a position I am ready to fully accept yet.

Having said that, and maintaining my original position of the shooting event, I believe JFK is reacting to a very sharp blow to the back, a non-penetrating wound. A wound that went in no more than 2". What I see is a man who has taken a heck of a blow and has had the wind knocked from him. He does seem to be having some issue with breath.

Something to consider here is that the MC bullet when penetrating to a depth of 2" exerts 60 ft lbs of energy to make that penetration, this would be caused by A) the bullet striking something else first, of B ) A short round, one that lacks for what ever reason, the power of a full round.

Tom Purvis, whom I admire greatly believes the round hit something else first, I am not so sure. I think it is possible it is a short load. Tom however makes an excellent point that the bullet base of 399 does seem to fit the wound dimensions well. I chew on this often.

Think of how many witnesses say the first round sounded different. A short round would sound different.

This is the position I have held for quite some time. However, some of the work I have been doing in relation to the SBT brings some SOLID questions and have to be accounted for.

One of them being how in hades do we reconcile the fact that JFK is hit with a 55* impact angle and JBC a 57* impact angle. I do NOT buy the idea of a tumbling bullet, had that been the case then they would have easily probed JFK's wound. A tumbling bullet leaves a horrific wound path.

I also do not buy that the neck wound was one of entry. There is NO exit for it and the wound would have been horrific. We see no such thing.

Mike

Edited April 23, 2010 by Mike Williams

[Glenn Viklund]

Ok, fair enough.

What (wound or event) do you then suggest he is reacting to?

Please elaborate. Thanks.

Antti,

With all due respect I have to disagree. If he were reacting to a wound to the throat, he would be grabbing his throat. We never see this. His hands never go below his chin.

Mike

Antti,

Please forgive the long way around the barn here, but it is needed so please bear with me.

I have once again been looking very strongly at the SBT, and have been commenting on it. However it is not a position I am ready to fully accept yet.

Having said that, and maintaining my original position of the shooting event, I believe JFK is reacting to a very sharp blow to the back, a non-penetrating wound. A wound that went in no more than 2". What I see is a man who has taken a heck of a blow and has had the wind knocked from him. He does seem to be having some issue with breath.

Something to consider here is that the MC bullet when penetrating to a depth of 2" exerts 60 ft lbs of energy to make that penetration, this would be caused by A) the bullet striking something else first, of B ) A short round, one that lacks for what ever reason, the power of a full round.

Tom Purvis, whom I admire greatly believes the round hit something else first, I am not so sure. I think it is possible it is a short load. Tom however makes an excellent point that the bullet base of 399 does seem to fit the wound dimensions well. I chew on this often.

Think of how many witnesses say the first round sounded different. A short round would sound different.

This is the position I have held for quite some time. However, some of the work I have been doing in relation to the SBT brings some SOLID questions and have to be accounted for.

One of them being how in hades do we reconcile the fact that JFK is hit with a 55* impact angle and JBC a 57* impact angle. I do NOT buy the idea of a tumbling bullet, had that been the case then they would have easily probed JFK's wound. A tumbling bullet leaves a horrific wound path.

I also do not buy that the neck wound was one of entry. There is NO exit for it and the wound would have been horrific. We see no such thing.

Mike

Mike,

You are discussing some very interesting possibilities here. A question, when you you state "this is a problem" or something along those lines, are you referring to a problem as far as a specific bullet or as a problem as part of the SBT, if you see what mean? They all need to fit the entirety of the event, is this what you are targeting here?

Glenn