Jump to content

NEW;;''the throat wound ''


Recommended Posts

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.

Where do you come up with this stuff, David?

The guy got shot in the throat and he frantically tried to cough

the projectile into his right hand while grabbing at his collar/tie.

Are you seriously proposing that the foremost thought in Kennedy's

mind was how he looked to a handful of people at the end of a parade?

You gotta be joking!

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.

Sorry, David, but your Vulcan mind-meld with Jack and Jackie is trumped by

the neck x-ray -- nicked trachea, bruised lung-tip, hairline fracture of the right

T1 transverse process, and a subcutaneous air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1.

The damage in the x-ray is inconsistent with a shot from a conventional weapon.

Jackie said JFK's expression was "quizzical," that he looked like he had a

"slight headache," which is also inconsistent with a reaction to a shot from a

conventional weapon.

The fact that the bullet did not exit and could not be found in the body is inconsistent

with a shot from a conventional weapon.

And unless you were present at the CIA testing of blood soluble paralytics you

have no idea what a paralytic reaction would look like.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Drawing lines on paper shows that theoretically it is very possible for a projectile to enter and exit higher in a forward leaning target.

The bullet is on a down ward trajectory, did you not look at the drawing?

Furthermore the difference in impact angle between JFK and JBC is 2 degrees. How would you account for that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And unless you were present at the CIA testing of blood soluble paralytics you

have no idea what a paralytic reaction would look like.

I apologize. I was unaware that you were at the tests the CIA performed on paralytic agents Cliff.

I can now see why you stand by this theory so staunchly. You were there, you saw it for yourself.

pfffffffft.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And unless you were present at the CIA testing of blood soluble paralytics you

have no idea what a paralytic reaction would look like.

I apologize. I was unaware that you were at the tests the CIA performed on paralytic agents Cliff.

This puerile rhetoric is all you've got?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drawing lines on paper shows that theoretically it is very possible for a projectile to enter and exit higher in a forward leaning target.

The bullet is on a down ward trajectory, did you not look at the drawing?

I don't see Connally in your drawing. I don't see the low back entrance or

the throat exit.

You are aware that the Single Bullet Theory involves two people?

You really have no clue what you're doing here, do you?

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drawing lines on paper shows that theoretically it is very possible for a projectile to enter and exit higher in a forward leaning target.

The bullet is on a down ward trajectory, did you not look at the drawing?

I don't see Connally in your drawing. I don't see the low back entrance or

the throat exit.

You are aware that the Single Bullet Theory involves two people?

You really have no clue what you're doing here, do you?

Cliff if you can not manage to negotiate a simple theoretical drawing how much more can I help you?

So are you now telling us that you were not there and directly involved with the CIA testing of paralytics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

It' will always be this way, Don. Lone Nutters have no choice but to deny the

proven location of the back wound -- otherwise they must cease to be Lone Nutters.

On the other hand, there is a legion of CTs who also must deny the prima facie

cases for conspiracy -- the low back wound, the throat entrance wound -- otherwise

the work they've done developing their own iron-clad "Case For Conspiracy" is moot.

There is no better evidence than the bullet holes in JFK's shirt and coat, which line up precisely. Add to that the fact that Boswell's original autopsy face sheet placed the back wound in the same location, Burkley's death certificate located it there, and Sibert and O'Neill described it being in the same location in their FBI report, and you have perhaps the most documented fact in this entire case.

And yet the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community cannot reach

consensus on this issue because there is a significant number of researchers

who have a vested interest in keeping the "Question of Conspiracy" open

so they can answer it.

As a result we've got this "Expert Culture" in JFK research where actual

evidence isn't weighed, but the opinions of "experts" trumps all.

Demolishing Nutter assertions isn't nearly as interesting as popping

the balloon of a self-elected CT "expert."

"Experts" cannot answer "The Question of Conspiracy" because the answers

to that are self-evident.

It doesn't take an expert to figure out that with a back wound at T3 the SBT

is impossible.

That's why so many deny it -- what's the use of being an expert if an expert is

not required?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And unless you were present at the CIA testing of blood soluble paralytics you

have no idea what a paralytic reaction would look like.

I apologize. I was unaware that you were at the tests the CIA performed on paralytic agents Cliff.

This puerile rhetoric is all you've got?

No actually I have a question.

You earlier claim that since I was not involved with the CIA testing of the paralytics, then I could have no idea what they would do. Is that not the case?

How then can you be so sure about what they do? Hence, I ask if you were involved in the testing.

Additionally you are correct in that I did not see the body, neither did you. So we are both interpreting the evidence based on what we have.

We are both coming to different conclusions.

Obviously some are far more based on speculation than others.

(poison darts...I kinda like to type it just to get a laugh)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And unless you were present at the CIA testing of blood soluble paralytics you

have no idea what a paralytic reaction would look like.

I apologize. I was unaware that you were at the tests the CIA performed on paralytic agents Cliff.

This puerile rhetoric is all you've got?

No actually I have a question.

You earlier claim that since I was not involved with the CIA testing of the paralytics, then I could have no idea what they would do. Is that not the case?

How then can you be so sure about what they do?

Because I can read the historical record.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/New_Scans/flechette.txt

According to top CIA officials blood soluble paralytics took 2 seconds

to take effect.

Roughly two seconds after being shot JFK went from frantically

grabbing at his throat/collar/tie to being seized up and barely

moving and certainly NOT grabbing at his throat/collar/tie.

Jackie said the look on his face was "quizzical," as if he were

suffering from a "slight headache."

Is that what people look like when they're shot in the throat with convention

ammo -- they look like they have a slight headache?

Hence, I ask if you were involved in the testing.

Additionally you are correct in that I did not see the body, neither did you. So we are both interpreting the evidence based on what we have.

And what we have are 3 trained doctors who came to a preliminary conclusion

that JFK was struck with blood soluble rounds, a conclusion supported by the

neck x-ray, the Zapruder film, the testimonies of the witnesses with the best

view of JFK, and the research of Tom Wilson and Steve Kober.

We are both coming to different conclusions.

\

False equivalency. I cite evidence. You cite nothing.

Obviously some are far more based on speculation than others.

(poison darts...I kinda like to type it just to get a laugh)

And I guess you think Oswald's intelligence community connections

were a real hoot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And unless you were present at the CIA testing of blood soluble paralytics you

have no idea what a paralytic reaction would look like.

I apologize. I was unaware that you were at the tests the CIA performed on paralytic agents Cliff.

This puerile rhetoric is all you've got?

No actually I have a question.

You earlier claim that since I was not involved with the CIA testing of the paralytics, then I could have no idea what they would do. Is that not the case?

How then can you be so sure about what they do?

Because I can read the historical record.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/New_Scans/flechette.txt

According to top CIA officials blood soluble paralytics took 2 seconds

to take effect.

Roughly two seconds after being shot JFK went from frantically

grabbing at his throat/collar/tie to being seized up and barely

moving and certainly NOT grabbing at his throat/collar/tie.

Jackie said the look on his face was "quizzical," as if he were

suffering from a "slight headache."

Is that what people look like when they're shot in the throat with convention

ammo -- they look like they have a slight headache?

Hence, I ask if you were involved in the testing.

Additionally you are correct in that I did not see the body, neither did you. So we are both interpreting the evidence based on what we have.

And what we have are 3 trained doctors who came to a preliminary conclusion

that JFK was struck with blood soluble rounds, a conclusion supported by the

neck x-ray, the Zapruder film, the testimonies of the witnesses with the best

view of JFK, and the research of Tom Wilson and Steve Kober.

We are both coming to different conclusions.

\

False equivalency. I cite evidence. You cite nothing.

Obviously some are far more based on speculation than others.

(poison darts...I kinda like to type it just to get a laugh)

And I guess you think Oswald's intelligence community connections

were a real hoot?

Please show me ANYWHERE where a Doctors final conclusion was that JFK was hit with a paralytic. Anywhere at all.

You claim you are citing the "historical Record" then it should be easy enough to show me exactly where this record says that.

No I think Oswalds intel connections are supposition, just like everything else you cite, however if you come up with those records id sure love to jump on this band wagon with ya.

Yes someone could have a quizzical look from being shot. I have seen many people have just this look, not knowing what the hell just happened to em. I know this maybe a bit logical for you, but its very true.

By the way Cliff that link you posted is to historical nothing.

You cite your interpretation of the evidence based on your obvious lack of understanding of said such.

Ill be waiting for those official doctors reports of the poison, but I aint holdin my breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Educating you is a waste of time, Mr. Williams.

No Sir,

Trying to convince me with such garbage is a waste of time.

By the way. I note there was no "historical" report from any Doctor verifying a toxin has been used as you postulated.

Somehow, I figured this is where you would chose to disengage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I think Oswalds intel connections are supposition, just like everything else you cite, however if you come up with those records id sure love to jump on this band wagon with ya.

Ill be waiting for those official doctors reports of the poison, but I aint holdin my breath.

Mike/Cliff

I don't wish to hijack this thread but I'm assuming that it's ran out of steam through sheer frustration.

The fact that you suggest "Oswald's intel connections" are supposition got me thinking Mike. First off, have you read John Newman's book "Oswald and the CIA"?

We all, unfortunately, have to suppose and pre-suppose things in relation to the JFK evidence because so much of it is missing, tainted, or contradicted by other evidence. I'm sure you live your life supposing and pre-supposing things just to get through each day. I pre-suppose that if I don't look left and right each time I cross the road I could get hit by a truck. It serves me well.

I have just finished reading Hugh Murray's article from Volume 1, Number 5 of the Fourth Decade (available at the Mary Ferrell Foundation) and the question of "suppositions" has me thinking along these lines Mike.

Murray's article, entitled 'Surveillance State Louisiana - Coming of Age in New Orleans in the 1950's and 60's', goes some way in explaining who Lee Harvey Oswald was to the "leftist" organisations in New Orleans during this time period. The answer, unfortunate as it is to Warren Commission defenders, is no one. Not a dicky-bird. Not a sausage. Nada. Zip. Zero.

To an organisation like the FPCC LHO was a nobody. To an organisation like CORE Lee Harvey Oswald was a nobody. To an organisation like the NAACP Lee Harvey Oswald was a nobody. To "leftist" affiliated students in the NO area universities Lee Harvey Oswald was a nobody. In other words, in New Orleans in 1963, anybody who was a socialist, had socialist leanings, any liberal democrats or anybody who was an out and out communist - no one knew who the hell this kid was.

So let's flip this:

Who did know him in New Orleans or knew he was in New Orleans?

Guy Banister knew who he was, the Friends of Democratic Cuba knew who was, David Ferrie knew who he was, Clay Shaw knew who he was, Dean Andrews knew who he was, Gerard F. Tujague knew who he was, the Civil Air Patrol knew who he was, the White Russian (anti-bolshevik) community of Dallas knew who he was and that he was in NO, Sergio Arcacha Smith knew who he was, Antonio Veciana knew who he was, Carlos Bringuier knew who he was, Celso Hernandez knew who he was, James Hosty knew who he was, John Quigley knew who was, Ed Butler knew who he was, Bill Slatter knew who he was, the CRC knew who he was, the DRE knew who he was, Georger Joannides probably knew who he was, Marvin Gheesling probably knew who and where he was, Ann Goodpasture knew who he was, Ann Egerton knew who he was, Win Scott probably knew who he was and JJ Angelton probably knew who he was, where he was, why he was there and what he had for breakfast each morning...

So, in summary - people on the left who knew him in New Orleans, erm...virtually no-one...

...and people on the right who knew him in New Orleans, erm...virtually everyone.

Am I cool to "suppose" certain things from this?

Lee

P.S. If you want to start a new thread give us a nod...

Lee,

Finally some sanity and your points are not lost on me.

As I have said, and will continue to say I have not ruled out the thought of a conspiracy. The problem with me is I am more of a ballistics person than anything else. I guess its a case of go with what you know.

At any rate, If the truth were told today and I found out that LHO was a part of a conspiracy I would not be shocked at all. I believe there was one shooter, and I believe there is an exceptionally high likelihood it was Oswald. I would not be shocked to find some one had put him up to it.

I have no doubt there was much in the way of CYA after the assassination. I believe this is because JFK had many enemies, many of whom, I am sure were planning against him. Even if they had no part of the assassination, it would still never do to have this come to light.

My main area of interest is the HOW it was done. I figure the HOW will lead me to the who.

There is not one bit of any evidence here that leads to a complex professional hit. It was a simplistic ugly and, by my standards a horribly botched job.

I would be willing to read anything you offer and could certainly stand to learn more about Oswald. I really know little about him beyond his Marine life and abilities. I mean I know the basics, Russia, etc. But I lack info on the Walker shooting for example.

I am not as closed minded as I may seem, however, I am certainly no ones fool and do not suffer fools well. I am much like Tom Purvis in this regard and have no issue with that as Tom is certainly someone I think very highly of.

I would be glad to participate in a new thread with you Lee, just have a bit O' patience with me as I said I have much to learn about LHO.

I think you kindly for extending the offer.

Best to you Lee,

Mike

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Mike, didn't i tell you that your drawing is plain wrong?

Have you not you read it?

You have so much time to post all around but no time to educate yourself when it comes to trajectories.

Thats not your homeland but you're not hesitate to spread your wrong guesswork.

Mike, Mike...what shall we do with you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Mike, didn't i tell you that your drawing is plain wrong?

Have you not you read it?

You have so much time to post all around but no time to educate yourself when it comes to trajectories.

Thats not your homeland but you're not hesitate to spread your wrong guesswork.

Mike, Mike...what shall we do with you?

Well you could start off by telling me HOW it is wrong. Its a simple drawing. 21*impact through a 30* forward leaning target.

Prove the drawing wrong Martin. Anyone can recreate it and see that it is exactly correct.

Why is where or how I post such a concern to you? Does my posting create issues for your theories as well as so many others?

One thing at a time Martin, prove the drawing wrong.

Is this your typical M.O. to just simply say someone is wrong without proving it?

Edited by Mike Williams
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...