NEW;;''the throat wound ''

[Craig Lamson]

Again: where in the Dealey Plaza photos does JFK's jacket elevate 2 inches?

Poor Cliff, his false reality shattered....Betzner....unimpeachable.

[Craig Lamson]

The location of the back wound should be beyond dispute at this point. I'm sure Cliff must be tired of belaboring the point, and I'm tired of supporting him every time he does, while many here ignore the imporance of it.

Too bad you can't deal honestly with this simpe fact. There was a fold of fabric large enough to obscure the JFK's jacket collar in Betzner. That is unimpeachable. Varnell is wrong. That too is unimpeachable.

[Pat Speer]

Cliff, virtually every "point" you make is discussed and dismissed in chapter 11 on my webpage. You might want to read it sometime.

You have the ability to cut and paste your rebuttals, if you had any. We've had

this discussion before and you never move beyond repeating the same assertions.

Again: where in the Dealey Plaza photos does JFK's jacket elevate 2 inches?

Again: how does a tucked-in custom-made dress shirt ride up two inches when

none of them have 2 inches of slack?

Please feel free to quote from your website.

FWIW, I give you some well-deserved props in chapter 12. You are right. The clothing entrance proves the back wound was too high to support a single-bullet scenario. You are wrong, however, to push that the wound was at T3.

Clint Hill was wrong? How so? The man was sworn to do a solemn task -- bear witness

to the nature and location of John F. Kennedy's wounds.

But instead of honoring Clint Hill for magnificently performing his duty to his country

we have the likes of a thousand pet theorists who insist the guy screwed the pooch

and didn't know the difference between 6 inches and 4 inches.

The man was a trained observer and he nailed the location of the wound

within 1/4 of the bullet holes in the clothes -- the clothes you can't show were

bunched up two inches.

As far as Kennedy receiving his throat wound before 312/313... who said it came at 312/313?

I guess I don't follow your argument. I thought you said you've concluded that

the throat wound was related to the head wound, which, last I looked, occurred

around Z313...?

Cliff, you are being ridiculous. You are the one who repeats the same arguments and never takes the time to lean anything new, not me.

That your pet theory is wafer-thin and based entirely on your cherry-picking one or two pet witnesses is exposed by your embarrassing assertion that Clint Hill was a "trained witness." Please explain what "training" would prepare Hill to recall the exact location of a wound he saw but for a few seconds, and why his "training" should lead us to believe the presumably "untrained" autopsy doctors, who photographed and measured the location of this wound, would be incorrect.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Cliff - of course he's grabbing at his throat. I believe he's hit there, frontally, just after the Stemmons sign. Why are his fists clenched, instead of clutching the throat? Possibly a near-simultaneous back wound.

My point is that he is not paralyzed as if by curare. His hands descend, he turns toward Jackie. The hands go back up to throat level. Upon the head wound, the right hand flails forward, resembling a reach forward (it isn't one). I don't find these motions, nor his head and body movements, showing what others describe as paralysis.

Let's not forget that this was the leader of a country, on parade. Dignity in movement would have been self-programmed in him. This was also a brave man, who knew the dangers he was heading into. Did he fail to shield his wife? So did Connally. Kennedy's throat and back wounds were more traumatic - thus more shocking to him - and the throat wound more debilitating, causing him to fight for consciousness and forget all but his duty before the public.

He stopped grabbing for his throat because he was losing consciousness. That's when the right arm descends, and the wrist begins to go limp. Fighting for consciousness, both hands come up as if to protect the throat, and he turns to Jackie for support and attention.

Consciously, and perhaps more unconsciously than even he might have predicted, he bore his wounds with dignity, and held himself upright until the fading of sensation. That's the only "paralysis" that I see. The hand and body motions demonstrate not only continued ability to move, but also a reticence to move too much as the bullets struck him in front of a crowd.

Dave,

Excellent post. I do not believe he is grabbing his throat at all, but other than that I agree 100%. I must have misunderstood your previous post, about the toxin, I thought you were subscribing to this madness.

Best,

Mike

All this, in regards to a subject matter which was long ago "beat to death".

In event that one will actually review the testimony of Lyndal Shaneyfelt, they will find that he clearly states that JFK is clutching/grasping/holding the lapel of his coat.

Not that it does much good to repeat here (or for that matter anywhere else), as in a short time, someone else who does not wish to conduct research, will be again jumping onto this bandwagon and asking the same old antiquated questions.

Does anyone actually do their "homework" prior to entering these forums?

[John Dolva]

Tom, you taught me this one some 4 years ago. It's an Education Forum after all. No doubt the issue will surface again and again, so really the teaching continues. As it does the number who can teach various things grow. I emphathise with the annoyance felt though, but I figure the more who focus on it and get exposed to the teachings the better.

[Lee Forman]

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.

Not a medical professional and no training - but in reading through what Carrico had to say, and the general atmosphere and line of questioning - seems plausible that a shot from the front penetrated the throat - front to back - damaged the trachea and was then deflected downwards into the chest - damaging the respiratory system - which resulted in additional medical procedures and observations - for which Carrico - and rightly so, would not confirm - however if you consider - he was not asked either - instead, he was presented with a 'is it possible' question by Specter the Deflecter.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb...tml/Image24.htm

As to your way of thinking - somewhat at a loss for words and see no point in continuing on this thread.

- lee

[Lee Forman]

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

Hi John.

Here's another item for consideration - the small entrance wound the lack of an entry given that the wound was a point of entry, and the absence of normal behavior [ballistics, physics, etc.] which have led some to outside-the-box thinking [generous way of putting it]. One more possibility - which would depend strongly on your perspective of the info provided to Garrison by Hicks. His account has a sign being removed - I think we've covered this before - not the actual Stemmons sign - but one of the associated road signs. We have only what Hicks said.

As Garrison would say here - can you point out where that was Hicks? Ayep. And you were standing right there, right? Ayep. And the suspicious individuals were .....right there - correct? Can you point that out - errrrrrrrrrrr....got it. Can you see where he pointed folks? Thanks Hicks.

So as opposed to assuming that Kennedy is shot in the throat intentionally - if you were to couple the location of such a sign as potentially being one alongside the Stemmons Freeway sign [thanks Jim] - what you could end up with may look like a botched xxxx that clipped a roadsign - or even passed through it - resulting in a reduced velocity, and a reduction to the size of the round - being fired from somewhere back in the parking area - if the sign in question was associated with the Stemmons sign [not necessarily] and if you credit Jim Hicks.

Just a thought.

[Don Bailey]

Hi Lee,

There were "No Parking" signs removed on Houston St. as seen in one of the pictures of the three hobos. Hicks was standing in the area of the removed sign.

Don

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

Hi John.

Here's another item for consideration - the small entrance wound the lack of an entry given that the wound was a point of entry, and the absence of normal behavior [ballistics, physics, etc.] which have led some to outside-the-box thinking [generous way of putting it]. One more possibility - which would depend strongly on your perspective of the info provided to Garrison by Hicks. His account has a sign being removed - I think we've covered this before - not the actual Stemmons sign - but one of the associated road signs. We have only what Hicks said.

As Garrison would say here - can you point out where that was Hicks? Ayep. And you were standing right there, right? Ayep. And the suspicious individuals were .....right there - correct? Can you point that out - errrrrrrrrrrr....got it. Can you see where he pointed folks? Thanks Hicks.

So as opposed to assuming that Kennedy is shot in the throat intentionally - if you were to couple the location of such a sign as potentially being one alongside the Stemmons Freeway sign [thanks Jim] - what you could end up with may look like a botched xxxx that clipped a roadsign - or even passed through it - resulting in a reduced velocity, and a reduction to the size of the round - being fired from somewhere back in the parking area - if the sign in question was associated with the Stemmons sign [not necessarily] and if you credit Jim Hicks.

Just a thought.

[David Andrews]

All this, in regards to a subject matter which was long ago "beat to death".

In event that one will actually review the testimony of Lyndal Shaneyfelt, they will find that he clearly states that JFK is clutching/grasping/holding the lapel of his coat.

Not that it does much good to repeat here (or for that matter anywhere else), as in a short time, someone else who does not wish to conduct research, will be again jumping onto this bandwagon and asking the same old antiquated questions.

Does anyone actually do their "homework" prior to entering these forums?

Mr. Purvis,

I am sorry to have wasted your time and that of anyone else who loathes to see a "dead horse" suffer.

I merely recounted that, in watching a stabilized Zapruder and consulting the Costella edit frames for the original topic of this thread, I became most convinced that JFK was not paralyzed by a toxin, at least not in the sense of our common experience of paralytic toxins. Doped by a chemo slug? I'd consider it. But this paralysis that people think of is actually dignity, bravery, and responsibility to the office; Kennedy was going to hold himself upright as long as he was conscious. He does not clutch his throat, but involuntarily defends it. Another rifle hit, shocking pain, or nervous system trauma clench his fists, but his hands clearly drop and relax, only to rise and re-clench as pain brings him back to consciousness.

Before I joined this forum, I saw some verbal punch-ups here, and some low blows and snide cutting - none of it as divisive as in several recent threads. I swore to myself - being among the unpublished - that I would back away diplomatically and deferentially from anyone who sought a quarrel, even from low comments by middling players with agendas, in order to maintain some dignity beside people whose work I respect.

In this case, however, I am going to suspend those fine considerations.

Lyndal Shaneyfelt, FBI, Warren Commission? JFK reaching for his lapels with fists clenched in pain?

Tripe, all of it. Have it for your own supper.

"Antiquated questions' is an able description of the interests that you have promoted over years of posts.

I apologize, however, to anyone who thinks that I have diverted this thread.

Edited April 18, 2010 by David Andrews

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff, you are being ridiculous.

Pat, you are being evasive. I addressed 3 points but you sort of responded

only to 1.

Again: please post your fact-based argument that JFK's clothing was elevated

two inches in any of the Dealey Plaza films/photos.

You have concluded that JFK's throat wound was related to the head wound.

Again: did JFK start reacting to throat trauma before he was actually

wounded in the throat, OR did the round which entered his throat circa Z190

take 6 seconds to exit?

You are the one who repeats the same arguments and never takes the time to lean anything new, not me.

That your pet theory is wafer-thin and based entirely on your cherry-picking one or two pet witnesses is exposed by your embarrassing assertion that Clint Hill was a "trained witness." Please explain what "training" would prepare Hill to recall the exact location of a wound he saw but for a few seconds, and why his "training" should lead us to believe the presumably "untrained" autopsy doctors, who photographed and measured the location of this wound, would be incorrect.

Wow.

Your rhetoric here, Pat, is worthy of Len Colby: contentless dismissal, check;

grotesque misrepresentation of my argument, check; parlaying a mis-quote into

a non sequitur, check; implied witness-bashing, check; feigned ignorance of the

facts in the case, check!

Let's take these points one at a time.

Pat Speer: You are the one who repeats the same arguments and never takes

the time to learn anything new, not me.

I repeat the same arguments over and over while relying on the facts of

the case -- you never mount a fact-based rebuttal, ever, so why should I

change?

Pat Speer: That your pet theory is wafer-thin and based entirely on your cherry-picking

one or two pet witnesses is exposed by your embarrassing assertion that Clint Hill was a

"trained witness."

This is a two parter, let's take the second part first.

I cited Clint Hill as a "trained observer," not a "trained witness." Are you denying

that Secret Service agents are "trained observers"?

Do you seriously propose that Clint Hill didn't know the difference between

6 inches and 4 inches? He probably wouldn't have made that mistake in

kindergarten! Surely after being trained to make accurate observations as

a Secret Service agent it's highly unlikely that he'd have made that mistake

while given the solemn task of observing JFK's wounds.

I find your attempt to attribute this to some "pet theory" of mine amusing,

and not a little desperate.

As far as "cherry picking one or two pet witnesses" goes, I'm genuinely suprised that

you are so unaware of the witness testimony in regard to the back wound.

To wit:

1) Dr. Admiral George Burkley, JFK's personal physician and the man

who observed the body at both Parkland and Bethesda, wrote on the Death

Certificate that the back wound was "about the level of the third thoracic vertebra."

This was signed off as "verified," according to proper autopsy protocol.

2) Dr. Thornton Boswell prepared the autopsy face sheet diagram which shows

a wound location consistent with the holes in the clothes. The diagram was filled out

in pencil and marked "verified," also in pencil, also in accordance to proper autopsy

protocol. The "14cm from the mastoid" notation was made in pen, which is a

violation of proper autopsy protocol.

http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/autopdescript1.gif

Only in the JFK assassination would anyone insist that improperly prepared material

trumps properly prepared material. But then, here we are...

3) Dr. John Ebersole attended the autopsy and told David Mantik in a 1992

interview that the back wound was at T4. (Harrison Livingstone's Killing the Truth,

pg 721)

4) James Curtis Jenkins was a lab tech at the autopsy and made this statement to

David Lifton:

(quote on)

I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe...through the pleura

[the lining of the chest cavity]...You could actually see where it was making an indentation...

where it was pushing the skin up...There was no entry into the chest cavity...it would have

been no way that that could have exited in the front because it was then low in the chest

cavity...somewhere around the junction of the descending aorta [the main artery carrying

blood from the heart] or the bronchus in the lungs.

(quote off)

5) Chester H. Boyers was the chief Petty Officer in charge of the

Pathology Department at Bethesda November 1963. This is from Boyers'

signed affidavit:

(quote on)

Another wound was located near the right shoulder blade, more specifically just

under the scapula and next to it.

(quote off)

The location just below the upper margin of the scapula is consistent with T3:

6) SSA Will Greer in his WC testimony (Vol 2 pg 127) placed the back wound

“in the soft part of that shoulder,” consistent with the testimony of Boyers.

7) SSA Roy Kellerman testified before the WC (Vol. 2 pg 93) that the wound

in the back was “the hole that was in his shoulder.” Kellerman expanded on this for

the HSCA with a diagram which placed the back wound in the vicinity of T-3.

8) FBI SA Francis O'Neill said that the first location for the back wound that

Humes gave was "below the shoulder." Here's O'Neill's HSCA wound diagram:

http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/oneill1.gif

9) FBI SA James Sibert also diagrammed a lower back wound:

http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/sibert1.gif

10) Autopsy photographer Floyd Reibe stated that the back wound was a lower

marking on the Fox 5 autopsy photo (Killing the Truth, pg 721).

11) Parkland nurse Diana Bowron stated the same thing to Livingstone: the back

wound was lower than the "official" wound in the autopsy photo (KTT, pg 183).

12) Bethesda lab assistant Jan Gail Rudnicki told Livingstone that he saw

"what appeared to be an entry wound several inches down on the back." (Livingstone's

High Treason 2, pg 206). This location is consistent with T3, not the base of the

neck.

13) Bethesda x-ray tech Edward Reed reported seeing a back wound "right

between the scapula and the thoracic column," although he thought it was an exit

(KTT, pg 720). This location is also consistent with T3.

Now, let's get to my favorite testimony, that which Pat Speer refers to as "one or two

pet witnesses":

14) Secret Service Agent Glen Bennett wrote in a note the evening of 11/22/63:

(quote on)

I saw a shot hit the Boss about four inches down from the right shoulder.

(quote off)

4 inches below the right shoulder. Fact: the bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 4" below the

bottom of the collar. Glen Bennett nailed the back wound.

15) Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, tasked with bearing witness to the location of JFK's

wounds, testified before the Warren Commission:

(quote on)

...I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the

spinal column.

(quote off)

6 inches below the neckline. Fact: the bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 5 & 3/4" below the top

of the collar. Clint Hill nailed the back wound.

Which brings us to the next point in your analysis, Pat, where you wrote:

"Please explain what "training" would prepare Hill to recall the exact location of a wound he

saw but for a few seconds, and why his "training" should lead us to believe the presumably

"untrained" autopsy doctors, who photographed and measured the location of this wound,

would be incorrect.

First off, I said nothing about "untrained" autopsy doctors, Len Pat. While it's

true that the prosectors had no hands-on experience conducting an autopsy on a

gunshot victim, they were still trained, competent pathologists.

Second, the autopsists initial descriptions of the wound were accurate:

the autopsy face sheet properly filled out in pencil, and Humes' observation recorded

by the FBI agents (see above).

After 11/22/63 the back wound was moved up three times. The final

autopsy report has two separate wound locations:

1) "just above the upper border of the scapula" (consistent with T2).

2) "14cm below the right tip of the mastoid process" (consistent with C7/T1).

Gerald Ford famously moved the back wound up again for the Warren Commission.

None of this nonsense follows proper autopsy protocol, however.

Col. Pierre Finck to the ARRB:

(quote on)

JFK's spine, a fixed landmark, was the correct and only point of reference to

determine the accurate location of this posterior wound.

(quote off)

The most competent member of the autopsy team disputed the propriety

of their own conclusions!

Clearly, Burkley followed proper autopsy protocol when he used the

third thoracic vertebra as a point of reference for the back wound.

As far as the autopsy photos go, Pat, you appear blissfully unaware of the

controversies surrounding them: they were NOT prepared according to

proper protocol and there is NO chain of possession for them.

Lastly, your snide dismissal of Clint Hill's brave service to our country as merely

lasting "a few seconds" is par for your course. What proof do you have that Hill

only took "a few seconds" to study JFK's wounds?

Edited June 27, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Again: where in the Dealey Plaza photos does JFK's jacket elevate 2 inches?

Poor Cliff, his false reality shattered....Betzner....unimpeachable.

More photo analysis sans photos.

Lamson's Folly is examined here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry188704

[Cliff Varnell]

The location of the back wound should be beyond dispute at this point. I'm sure Cliff must be tired of belaboring the point, and I'm tired of supporting him every time he does, while many here ignore the imporance of it.

Too bad you can't deal honestly with this simpe fact. There was a fold of fabric large enough to obscure the JFK's jacket collar in Betzner. That is unimpeachable. Varnell is wrong. That too is unimpeachable.

Right off the bat, attacking someone's honesty, eh Craig?

You've produced 2 "proof of concept" photos. One photo shows fabric which

had been rolled. The second photo shows fabric which had been pulled up.

Neither of these involve "bunched" fabric, which eases. "Ease" is the term

of art in clothing design for fabric when it bunches.

Imagine this: a "bunch theorist" who doesn't even know what "bunch" is!

[Cliff Varnell]

But instead of honoring Clint Hill for magnificently performing his duty to his country

we have the likes of a thousand pet theorists who insist the guy screwed the pooch

and didn't know the difference between 6 inches and 4 inches.

This may be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.

So if the man was off by 2 inches then his magnificent performance of his duty is lessened?

When was the last time you ever saw Clint Hill congratulated for the

work he did at the Bethesda morgue? He isn't congratulated for that

work -- in fact, he's dismissed as having been way off.

&That you or any other normal adult doesn't know the difference between

6 and 4 inches is THE most ridiculous nonsense I've come across in

some time, Mr. Williams.

How many kindergartners would make that mistake?

How absolutely ridiculous.

If contentless dismissals were currency you'd be well off on that alone.

Im sorry Cliff you tend to be a bit to "as the world turns" for me.

I guess there are drama queens and then there are DRAMA queens.

Wow. You went from "nice to meet you" to heavy insults in no time flat.

Self-project much?

Edited April 18, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

The location of the back wound should be beyond dispute at this point. I'm sure Cliff must be tired of belaboring the point, and I'm tired of supporting him every time he does, while many here ignore the imporance of it.

Too bad you can't deal honestly with this simpe fact. There was a fold of fabric large enough to obscure the JFK's jacket collar in Betzner. That is unimpeachable. Varnell is wrong. That too is unimpeachable.

Right off the bat, attacking someone's honesty, eh Craig?

You've produced 2 "proof of concept" photos. One photo shows fabric which

had been rolled. The second photo shows fabric which had been pulled up.

Neither of these involve "bunched" fabric, which eases. "Ease" is the term

of art in clothing design for fabric when it bunches.

Imagine this: a "bunch theorist" who doesn't even know what "bunch" is!

No "theory" here Cliff, just unimpeachable fact.

HOW the fabric got to the shape seen in Betzner is truly meaningless. The unimpeachable fact remains that there is a fold of fabric in Betzner large enough to obscure the jacket collar. The unbendable laws of light and shadow and angle of incidence will allow no other solution.

What is also unimpeachable is that Varnell simply can't refute the the truth, desipe his endless strawmen arguments. But that's all he has left....meaningless bloviation.

[Craig Lamson]

Again: where in the Dealey Plaza photos does JFK's jacket elevate 2 inches?

Poor Cliff, his false reality shattered....Betzner....unimpeachable.

More photo analysis sans photos.

Lamson's Folly is examined here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry188704

Sorry, you mistated your own post, its VARNELLS FOLLY!

The unimpeachable fact remains.

There is fold of fabric large enough to obscure JFK's jacket collar in Betzner.

Try as you might you STILL can't refute this fact. Your FALSE REALITY is in the dumpster cliffy!