Jump to content
The Education Forum

NEW;;''the throat wound ''


Recommended Posts

Mr. V.,

I'm not exactly sure of what you mean by " jaunty hail-fellow-well-met routine".

And certainly we have had this conversation before.

If you look at the Zapruder film you see him desperately grabbing for his throat,

and then he stopped grabbing at his throat roughly two seconds after being

shot there.

Can you show me where this happens?

I did. I'll post it again, but I can only lead the horse to water...

Look at his left index finger, it's working on the collar. This is consistent

with what Linda Kay Willis told the Warren Commission (emphasis added):

(quote on)

Mr. Liebler: Did you hear any shots, or what you later learned to be shots,

as the motorcade came past you there?

Ms. Willis: Yes; I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then

there were two real fast bullets together. When the first one hit, well, the

President turned from waving to the people, and he grabbed at his throat,

and he kind of slumped forward, and then I couldn't tell where the second shot

went.

(quote off)

This is consistent with what Clint Hill told the Warren Commission:

(quote on)

Mr. Specter: Now, what is your best estimate of the speed of the President's

automobile as it turned left off of Houston onto Elm Street?

Mr. Hill: We were running still 12 to 15 miles per hour, but in the curve I

believe we slowed down maybe to 10, maybe to 9...Well, as we came out

of the curve, and began to straighten up, I was viewing the area which

looked to be a park. There were people scattered throughout the entire

park. And I heard a noise from my right rear, which to me seemed to be

a firecracker. I immediately looked to my right and, in so doing, my eyes

had to cross the Presidential limousine and I saw President Kennedy grab

at himself and lurch forward and to the left...

(quote off)

This is consistent with what Nellie Conally told the Warren Commission

(emphasis added):

(quote on)

Mrs. Connally:...I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not

aware that it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the

right. I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President

as he had both hands at his neck.

Mr. Specter: And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing

over gripping your own neck?

Mrs. Connally: Yes; and sit seemed to me there was--he made no utterance,

no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on

his face, and he just sort of slumped down.

(quote off)

I do see his hands come up but I see no grabbing of the throat what so ever. I never

see at any point where his hands go below the plane of the chin.

Look again. It's the left forefinger grabbing at his collar.

That is a reaction to throat trauma which resulted from the first shot,

just as the witnesses described it.

Nellie Connally, Linda Willis, and Clint Hill testified under oath that JFK

was grabbing at his throat, just like we see in the Zap.

Then you should have no problem quickly showing this as it is happening. At no time does JFK "grab" his throat.
Please view the following:

JFK was clearly grabbing or clutching at his throat in the sequence

studied above.

It certainly does not show him grabbing his throat. It does just as Gil has expressed, he is pulling his tie over with one hand, and has his other hand in front of his mouth.

It would appear that your objection is a matter of semantics. There is no difference

between grabbing at his collar and grabbing at his throat. His collar is at

his throat.

Are you seriously proposing that JFK grabbing at the collar at his throat

was unrelated to the throat wound?

Something I might add would be very uncommon for someone who was hit in the throat. Men hit in the throat almost always grab their throat. This is something we never see in the Zapruder film.

And yet the 3 witnesses close to Kennedy described that very thing

happening, and you acknowledge that he was reacting to a strike

in the throat.

Or do you think that the actions Gil described were unrelated to the throat wound?

Unbelievable!

The autopsy doctors also discussed that this may have been an exiting fragment. Which seems to make much more sense.

Again: was JFK reacting to throat trauma several seconds before

he was injured in the throat?

This is an amazing thing to promote, Mr. Williams. I'm not sure how

you manage it, if that's what you're selling here.

I have to admit, I find the whole ice/poison bullet concept to be best left to the "conspiracy elite" and Hollywood.

The prosectors found the ice bullet scenario the best explanation. It's the only

one that fits the x-ray, for instance.

They saw the body, Mr. Williams, you did not.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

David, unless you were present for the CIA testing of blood soluble rounds

you are in no position to rule in or out any kind of shock reaction or

paralysis.

It is a matter of record that the CIA tested many different kinds

of blood soluble technology.

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.

What "others" are you referring to? Did they test with the CIA in the early 60's?

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.

The throat and back wounds were not in themselves debilitating. The back wound

was shallow, hit no bone and no vital organs. Here's the lower cervical x-ray analysis

from the HSCA:

(quote on)

(quote on)

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial

air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. There is disruption of the integrity

of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the opposite side

and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been

a fracture in that area. There is some soft tissue density overlying the apex of the right

lung which may be hematoma in that region or other soft tissue swelling.

Evaluation of the post-autopsy film shows that there is subcutaneous or interstitial air

overlying C7 and T1. The same disruption of T1 right transverse process is still present.

(quote off)

Nicked trachea, bruised lung tip, hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse

process and and air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1.

Where is the traumatic damage in that, David?

And more importantly -- what happened to the bullet?

It didn't exit. It wasn't recovered during the autopsy. Indeed, the

prosectors were ordered to stay away from the neck wound.

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.

This doesn't square with what Jackie saw (from the WC):

(quote on)

Mrs. Kennedy: ...I was looking this way, to the left, and I heard these terrible noises.

You know. And my husband never made any sound. So I turned to the right, and all

I remember is seeing my husband, he had this sort of quizzical look on his face,

and his hand was up, it must have been his left hand.

(quote off)

Is "quizzical" the look that results from the throat injury you describe?

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Lee Harvey Oswald had connections to the American intelligence

community -- ONI, CIA, FBI.

This is a matter of public record.

Given this fact, why is it "madness" to consider known assassination

technologies of the Central Intelligence Agency?

It's foolish to dismiss it out of hand.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have ALWAYS been interested in the "quizzical look" comment by Jackie. He most likely was hit with something non-conventional if you know what I mean. I have always, always found that statement odd or deeply interesting at best.

P.S - Cliff those were awesome defenses, wow lol. (no sarcasm intended, but definitely a compliment) Love the logical discourses when used in argumentation.

Edited by B. A. Copeland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff,

So many things in this life can be difficult.

One has to appreciate it when things are made easy. :lol:

You cited 3 witnesses in your support of a shot entering the front of the throat, and 3 witnesses in support of the President "grabbing his throat"

In another post just a few posts back you asserted the fact that Clint Hill was a trained observer. I for one could not agree more.

What I do not understand Cliff if how you happened to completely miss the fact, that all 3 of your witnesses tell us that this happened right after they heard a shot. And 2 of your witnesses state the shot was from behind.

In fact, Nellie even tells us that she turned to look BECAUSE of the noise from behind.

But I guess that part of the testimony does not matter much really.

They may have been confused what with all the poison darts flying around and stuff. I would imagine it was a very stressful time.

Not one of your witnesses supports the poison dart theory, which to most people is just nonsense.

All of your witnesses say the Presidents reactions were from a shot.

Poison dart indeed Cliff....Poison dart indeed.

If you would be so kind as to read the Final autopsy report and cite for me where they firmly state the ice bullet struck the throat, I would very much appreciate that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff,

So many things in this life can be difficult.

One has to appreciate it when things are made easy. :lol:

You cited 3 witnesses in your support of a shot entering the front of the throat, and 3 witnesses in support of the President "grabbing his throat"

In another post just a few posts back you asserted the fact that Clint Hill was a trained observer. I for one could not agree more.

What I do not understand Cliff if how you happened to completely miss the fact, that all 3 of your witnesses tell us that this happened right after they heard a shot. And 2 of your witnesses state the shot was from behind.

In fact, Nellie even tells us that she turned to look BECAUSE of the noise from behind.

But I guess that part of the testimony does not matter much really.

And since we know there was more than one shooter what precludes

Nellie responding to a shot fired from behind while JFK was responding

to a shot fired from the front?

They may have been confused what with all the poison darts flying around and stuff. I would imagine it was a very stressful time.

So you are claiming that it isn't possible to fire on a target simultaneously

from both front and back?

I'd say the shots from behind were purposely louder to draw attention from

the shooter in the front.

Not one of your witnesses supports the poison dart theory,

It's not my theory; it's the prosectors' theory. How many times

does this have to be pointed out to you before it sinks in?

which to most people is just nonsense.

Who cares? I wasn't aware you'd canvassed "most people" on this issue.

"Most people" didn't see the body. Humes, Boswell, and Finck saw the body

and thought it quite possible that he was struck with blood soluble rounds.

This analysis is supported by the neck x-ray, another piece of evidence

you like to pretend doesn't exist.

All of your witnesses say the Presidents reactions were from a shot.

So?

Poison dart indeed Cliff....Poison dart indeed.

If you would be so kind as to read the Final autopsy report and cite for me where they firmly state the ice bullet struck the throat, I would very much appreciate that.

The final autopsy report was not prepared according to proper military autopsy

protocol, and thus has no weight as evidence.

You are unaware --or in denial -- of the fact of conspiracy, so we can't expect you

to admit to the fact that the crime was covered up at the highest levels of the US gov't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have ALWAYS been interested in the "quizzical look" comment by Jackie. He most likely was hit with something non-conventional if you know what I mean. I have always, always found that statement odd or deeply interesting at best.

P.S - Cliff those were awesome defenses, wow lol. (no sarcasm intended, but definitely a compliment) Love the logical discourses when used in argumentation.

Thanks, B.A....All I'm doing is citing the credible historical record. Some

people have a hard time with that, evidently...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff,

So many things in this life can be difficult.

One has to appreciate it when things are made easy. :ice

You cited 3 witnesses in your support of a shot entering the front of the throat, and 3 witnesses in support of the President "grabbing his throat"

In another post just a few posts back you asserted the fact that Clint Hill was a trained observer. I for one could not agree more.

What I do not understand Cliff if how you happened to completely miss the fact, that all 3 of your witnesses tell us that this happened right after they heard a shot. And 2 of your witnesses state the shot was from behind.

In fact, Nellie even tells us that she turned to look BECAUSE of the noise from behind.

But I guess that part of the testimony does not matter much really.

And since we know there was more than one shooter what precludes

Nellie responding to a shot fired from behind while JFK was responding

to a shot fired from the front?

They may have been confused what with all the poison darts flying around and stuff. I would imagine it was a very stressful time.

So you are claiming that it isn't possible to fire on a target simultaneously

from both front and back?

I'd say the shots from behind were purposely louder to draw attention from

the shooter in the front.

Not one of your witnesses supports the poison dart theory,

It's not my theory; it's the prosectors' theory. How many times

does this have to be pointed out to you before it sinks in?

which to most people is just nonsense.

Who cares? I wasn't aware you'd canvassed "most people" on this issue.

"Most people" didn't see the body. Humes, Boswell, and Finck saw the body

and thought it quite possible that he was struck with blood soluble rounds.

This analysis is supported by the neck x-ray, another piece of evidence

you like to pretend doesn't exist.

All of your witnesses say the Presidents reactions were from a shot.

So?

Poison dart indeed Cliff....Poison dart indeed.

If you would be so kind as to read the Final autopsy report and cite for me where they firmly state the ice bullet struck the throat, I would very much appreciate that.

The final autopsy report was not prepared according to proper military autopsy

protocol, and thus has no weight as evidence.

You are unaware --or in denial -- of the fact of conspiracy, so we can't expect you

to admit to the fact that the crime was covered up at the highest levels of the US gov't.

And life just keeps getting easier and easier.

So you cant provide any evidence that this was the accepted theory at the conclusion of the autopsy. Fair enough.

Why would we "know" there was more than one shooter? I know no such thing. There was one weapon found, and the only ballistic evidence in this case leads back to that rifle. Do you have some "hidden" evidence that we do not know about? If you do stop being bashful son and bring it forward.

It's not my theory; it's the prosectors' theory.(poison dart/ice bullet) How many times

does this have to be pointed out to you before it sinks in?

A theory that they obviously abandoned. Why else would it not be in the final autopsy report? Oh yes...they altered it. The most common CT sewage expelled when the evidence does not fit the theory.

Who cares? I wasn't aware you'd canvassed "most people" on this issue.

"Most people" didn't see the body. Humes, Boswell, and Finck saw the body

and thought it quite possible that he was struck with blood soluble rounds.

This analysis is supported by the neck x-ray, another piece of evidence

you like to pretend doesn't exist.

I dont have a problem with its existence, I just chose to disregard it, just like the autopsy Doctors did.

Cliff they had nuclear weapons during this time as well, and just to slow you down, they did not use one of them either.

Edited by Mike Williams
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And life just keeps getting easier and easier.

So you cant provide any evidence that this was the accepted theory at the conclusion of the autopsy. Fair enough.

I have posted this information several times.

Why you cannot process this information is a mystery.

I will post it again, as there is value in repetition:

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

(quote off)

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

(quote off)

Why would we "know" there was more than one shooter? I know no such thing.

Probably because you don't appear willing to process information

that runs counter to your preconceived notions.

I'll give you a hint: the back wound was way too low for that round

to have exited the throat on the downward trajectory required by

the Single Bullet Theory.

If you'd done your homework before showing up on this Forum you'd

grasp these things.

Right now it feels like I'm talking to the wall.

There was one weapon found, and the only ballistic evidence in this case leads back to that rifle. Do you have some "hidden" evidence that we do not know about? If you do stop being bashful son and bring it forward.

What good does it do to inform someone who seems impervious to information?

The low back wound and the throat entrance wound are prima facie evidence

of at least two shooters. If you don't understand why that is, I suggest you do

some homework on the basic facts of the case.

It's not my theory; it's the prosectors' theory.(poison dart/ice bullet) How many times

does this have to be pointed out to you before it sinks in?

A theory that they obviously abandoned. Why else would it not be in the final autopsy report? Oh yes...they altered it. The most common CT sewage expelled when the evidence does not fit the theory.

Hilarious coming from you, Mr. Williams. Why don't you actually read the information I cite,

or is it too much to ask of you?

Who cares? I wasn't aware you'd canvassed "most people" on this issue.

"Most people" didn't see the body. Humes, Boswell, and Finck saw the body

and thought it quite possible that he was struck with blood soluble rounds.

This analysis is supported by the neck x-ray, another piece of evidence

you like to pretend doesn't exist.

I dont have a problem with its existence, I just chose to disregard it, just like the autopsy Doctors did.

It's good that you admit to disregarding evidence that fouls your deadender Lone Nut world

view. I've noticed the same thing since you've appeared here.

Cliff they had nuclear weapons during this time as well, and just to slow you down, they did not use one of them either.

And the point of this brilliant comment is...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And life just keeps getting easier and easier.

So you cant provide any evidence that this was the accepted theory at the conclusion of the autopsy. Fair enough.

I have posted this information several times.

Why you cannot process this information is a mystery.

I will post it again, as there is value in repetition:

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

(quote off)

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

(quote off)

Why would we "know" there was more than one shooter? I know no such thing.

Probably because you don't appear willing to process information

that runs counter to your preconceived notions.

I'll give you a hint: the back wound was way too low for that round

to have exited the throat on the downward trajectory required by

the Single Bullet Theory.

If you'd done your homework before showing up on this Forum you'd

grasp these things.

Right now it feels like I'm talking to the wall.

There was one weapon found, and the only ballistic evidence in this case leads back to that rifle. Do you have some "hidden" evidence that we do not know about? If you do stop being bashful son and bring it forward.

What good does it do to inform someone who seems impervious to information?

The low back wound and the throat entrance wound are prima facie evidence

of at least two shooters. If you don't understand why that is, I suggest you do

some homework on the basic facts of the case.

It's not my theory; it's the prosectors' theory.(poison dart/ice bullet) How many times

does this have to be pointed out to you before it sinks in?

A theory that they obviously abandoned. Why else would it not be in the final autopsy report? Oh yes...they altered it. The most common CT sewage expelled when the evidence does not fit the theory.

Hilarious coming from you, Mr. Williams. Why don't you actually read the information I cite,

or is it too much to ask of you?

Who cares? I wasn't aware you'd canvassed "most people" on this issue.

"Most people" didn't see the body. Humes, Boswell, and Finck saw the body

and thought it quite possible that he was struck with blood soluble rounds.

This analysis is supported by the neck x-ray, another piece of evidence

you like to pretend doesn't exist.

I dont have a problem with its existence, I just chose to disregard it, just like the autopsy Doctors did.

It's good that you admit to disregarding evidence that fouls your deadender Lone Nut world

view. I've noticed the same thing since you've appeared here.

Cliff they had nuclear weapons during this time as well, and just to slow you down, they did not use one of them either.

And the point of this brilliant comment is...?

Ok so the docs discussed the possibility of ice bullets? So what. At this point they were looking for reasons to explain an entrance and no exit, this was of course before they contacted Dallas and found out about the wound in the throat.

They quickly dismissed it as any sane person would.

So now you are telling me that the bullet could not have exited higher than it entered? It that the jist of what you are postulating now? Can you or have you done anything to prove that?

Lets see what you have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok so the docs discussed the possibility of ice bullets? So what.

That is the only scenario that explains the neck x-ray and JFK seizing up

paralyzed in two seconds.

That is the only scenario that explains the following facts: JFK was struck

once in the back from behind, once in the throat from the front; two

entrances, no exits; no bullets were recovered.

At this point they were looking for reasons to explain an entrance and no exit, this was of course before they contacted Dallas and found out about the wound in the throat.

They quickly dismissed it as any sane person would.

Anyone with a lick of understanding about the background of Lee Harvey Oswald

knows that the man had intelligence connections, and that assassination weapons

developed and tested by the Central Intelligence Agency thus could never be

summarily discounted.

That your world view sees this as "insane" tells us all we need to know

about your world view, frankly.

So now you are telling me that the bullet could not have exited higher than it entered? It that the jist of what you are postulating now? Can you or have you done anything to prove that?

Lets see what you have.

Your Single Bullet Theory requires a wound in the back of JFK's neck so that

the bullet could exit the throat on a downward trajectory and on into Connally.

You can't have a downward trajectory into Connally if the bullet exits JFK on

an upward trajectory, which would have to happen given the back wound was

several inches below the throat wound.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you can see the left index finger trying to pull at the tie. but then the left fist rises to the level of the right fist, which is in front of his mouth. People choking on food make the same combination of signaling and defensive gestures, as if they're trying to cough up food into their hand.

Jackie takes hold of his left arm and brings it down - and JFK permits this, because he is trying not to violate the decorum of the parade. This is also seems to be among Jackie's concerns.

As he lets her pull his left arm down, the right hand goes limp and drops. I believe that, between the pain and the knowledge that he has Jackie's attention, he is allowing himself to give in to loss of consciousness at this moment.

However, as his head declines, JFK's right hand forms a fist again, and rises to throat level. You can see it just below his cheek in frame 312. I believe that either the struggle to stay conscious, or the declining of the head, brought enough pain to his throat that he raised that hand again defensively.

However you read his motions - JFK is not "paralyzed" in the sense that we understand the word; his arms move and hands change position. We are watching a man struggling for consciousness, life, and dignity.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you can see the left index finger trying to pull at the tie. but then the left fist rises to the level of the right fist, which is in front of his mouth. People choking on food make the same combination of signaling and defensive gestures, as if they're trying to cough up food into their hand.

Jackie takes hold of his left arm and brings it down - and JFK permits this, because he is trying not to violate the decorum of the parade. This is also seems to be among Jackie's concerns.

As he lets her pull his left arm down, the right hand goes limp and drops. I believe that, between the pain and the knowledge that he has Jackie's attention, he is allowing himself to give in to loss of consciousness at this moment.

However, as his head declines, JFK's right hand forms a fist again, and rises to throat level. You can see it just below his cheek in frame 312. I believe that either the struggle to stay conscious, or the declining of the head, brought enough pain to his throat that he raised that hand again defensively.

However you read his motions - JFK is not "paralyzed" in the sense that we understand the word; his arms move and hands change position. We are watching a man struggling for consciousness, life, and dignity.

David,

I would say that is a very accurate assessment. Obviously JFK is not "paralyzed" . He is however struggling for breath and consciousness.

Best,

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your Single Bullet Theory requires a wound in the back of JFK's neck so that

the bullet could exit the throat on a downward trajectory and on into Connally.

You can't have a downward trajectory into Connally if the bullet exits JFK on

an upward trajectory, which would have to happen given the back wound was

several inches below the throat wound.

Cliff,

How very untrue.

Consider.

30vert.jpg

Croft 3 just seconds before the first shot. JFK has his upper body angled at 30*

30croft008.jpg

This drawing replicates a 6.5mm bullet(MC) coming down from a 21* angle (SN)into a 30* forward leaning target (JFK).

Note that the exit is higher than the entry. As the thickness of this target is not as thick as JFK we can then realize that the thicker(front to back) the target the higher the bullet will exit.

Also note that the entry wound would measure 7mm in height.

Anyone can replicate this drawing for themselves and see there is no trickery of numbers.

Mike

Edited by Mike Williams
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your Single Bullet Theory requires a wound in the back of JFK's neck so that

the bullet could exit the throat on a downward trajectory and on into Connally.

You can't have a downward trajectory into Connally if the bullet exits JFK on

an upward trajectory, which would have to happen given the back wound was

several inches below the throat wound.

Cliff,

How very untrue.

Consider.

30vert.jpg

Croft 3 just seconds before the first shot. JFK has his upper body angled at 30*

30croft008.jpg

This drawing replicates a 6.5mm bullet(MC) coming down from a 21* angle (SN)into a 30* forward leaning target (JFK).

Note that the exit is higher than the entry.

How does this line up with a strike on Connally?

Where are you showing an entry point 4 inches below the bottom

of his collar, an exit out of his throat, and a downward trajectory

into Connally?

Drawing lines on a paper means nothing.

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...