The Trach Incision -

[Robert Prudhomme]

"

And he changed his tune, along with most of the other doctors, after seeing the autopsy photos...

If, 15 years after your high school graduation, you were asked what shirt you wore to your graduation, and said the shirt was green, would you change your mind about this if someone showed you a picture of the ceremony in which you were wearing a blue shirt? I know I would. And most of the key staff at Parkland did something quite similar...

While some might choose to believe they were duped, that's really beside the point, isn't it?. You can't build a case when your best witnesses. e.g. Carrico, Perry, Jenkins, Baxter, changed their mind about what they saw. Or rather, you can, but you'll lose most of those you've hooked once they realize your rock-hard evidence has turned to mush..."

Uh, no, Pat. Please spare us your circular logic. I believe we received enough of that already from the Trump campaign.

First day testimony, statements and reports are the most valuable. Next would be WC testimony. The LAST thing I would rely on is a 15 year old statement, not just because of memory problems, but because someone has had the chance to intimidate these witnesses in that time.

 

Edited December 13, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Micah Mileto]

4 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Pat's theory uses as a premise that the autopsy photos and x-rays have not been altered, and that lost photos and x-rays have innocent explanations. Because of this he is forced to cherry pick testimonies to bolster his case. He has to drastically downplay the early testimonies of the medical personnel at Parkland Hospital, the vast majority of whom reported a gaping wound on the lower right part of the back of the head.

A number of those witnesses changed their testimony as they learned that the WC report conflicted with it, and particularly when they discovered that the back-of-head autopsy photo shows absolutely no sign of a gaping wound on the back of the head. That's to be understood.

 

As a matter of fact, the BOH photo also shows no gaping wound nearer the top of the head, nor on the right side behind the ear. So even those witnesses who said that the wound was higher up or on the right side were shown to be wrong. That is, if one accepts that the photos are unaltered.

Looking at the above photo, one has to wonder how it is that so many witnesses at Parkland (nearly twenty) saw the gaping wound in the back. And how some saw cerebral brain matter oozing from the wound. Keeping in mind that these are medical professionals trained to see things like that.

Pat is forced to come up with excuses as to how all those medical professionals saw something that didn't exist. (Or he ignores anybody who asks.)

Those who oppose Pat accept what I think is obvious, that the photos have indeed been altered. The back-of-head  photo in particular. Many of us also believe that the massive hole at the top was created by the cover-up artists, perhaps with a blunt instrument.

In order to support his theory, Pat has to choose primarily late-date testimony. Testimony that most of us realized changed because the witnesses discovered that their early testimonies were contradicted by the photos. And then, IMO, he leaves it up to his readers to find out for themselves that the testimony had changed over time.

 

This brightened back wound photo posted by Robin Unger does show a hole on the back of the head, it's just above the level of the ears.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hi Sandy

" And how some saw cerebral brain matter oozing from the wound"

I think you meant to say "cerebellar", right?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Just now, Robert Prudhomme said:

Here is a great example of the silliness Pat has to deal when choosing witnesses to defend his theory:

Pat said:

This brings us to Midgett. While Dr. William Midgett's presence in the emergency room was confirmed by the Warren Commission testimony of several nurses, his impressions were not recorded until decades later....

See how Pat chooses a late-testimony witness to support his theory? This one seems perfect because Dr. Midgett's early testimony cannot be checked.

....when he was interviewed first by Gerald Posner and then Wallace Milam.

Yes, Posner is certainly a good source for finding witnesses who believe that the autopsy evidence and WC testimony are reliable.

He is reported to have told Posner the wound was "more parietal than occipital" and to have told Milam it was an approximately 6 cm wound in the parietal area behind the ear. While this is not the wound shown in the autopsy photos it is also NOT the wound on the far back of the head in the occipital bone oozing cerebellum so many claim as the one true wound."

Things are so bad for Pat that he provides a witness who doesn't even support his theory, but at least seems to contradict his opposition's theory. (Though, as I show below, doesn't really do so.)

Another oddity is that Pat chooses a witness whose testimony is proved wrong by the autopsy photos that Pat has so much faith in. Dr. Midgett said that the wound was "more parietal than occipital." Well, look at Robert's diagram of a skull to see where a wound that is more parietal than occipital would be.

 

 

Note that "more parietal than occipital" would be pretty much where Dr. McClelland (or whomever Pat believes) drew the gaping wound.

So Dr.Midgett's testimony doesn't really contradict the early testimonies of the Parkland witnesses, does it. In fact it is in line with with the early testimony. It's just that there was some minor variation in the Parkland testimony.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Just now, Robert Prudhomme said:

Hi Sandy

" And how some saw cerebral brain matter oozing from the wound"

I think you meant to say "cerebellar", right?

Ha! Of course, yes. (It seems my cerebral activity is a bit off tonight.  )

Thanks.

[Robert Prudhomme]

 

[Tom Neal]

On 12/11/2016 at 1:22 PM, Robert Prudhomme said:

Translated: Tom has nothing to back up his statement.

Not requiring translation:

Bob doesn't follow his own rules, but requires other to, or he tells them to go away.
Bob has nothing to back up his statement.

All Bob has to do is propose any trajectory that would back up his statement, but he can't.

 

[Tom Neal]

On 12/11/2016 at 4:16 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Tom,

You make a good point.

Based on numerous comments made by the autopsy docs, my understanding is that a bullet hole was found in the scalp but not in the skull. IIRC the dimensions of the hole was 6 x 15 mm, and it appeared that the bullet had skidded tangentially along the skull bone near the EOP, and actually appeared to have tunneled under the skin. This was mentioned in some testimony, at which point one of the commented that what they were about to discuss shouldn't be on the record.

The docs reported that the point on the skull where the bullet hit was on the margin of missing bone (what we call the Harper fragment), and the docs said they could see evidence of an entrance wound on that bone. (Yes, they did have the Harper fragment the night of the autopsy.)

Paul Seaton has collected several useful quotes regarding this topic:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/eop_entry/eop_desc.htm

Search for "tunnel" to see what I'm talking about.

This information supports the belief that I, Robert, and Pat share, that the bullet hit the EOP area tangentially, went down through the neck, and resulted in a missile of one kind or another exiting the throat.

 

Well thank you Sandy.

As I have stated repeatedly, a grazing or tunneling bullet MUST be on a tangential trajectory relative to the skull. Taking the EOP area and applying a tangential trajectory, measure the angle of depression. From what location could this trajectory be achieved? Is this a viable trajectory?

This alleged EOP wound was used as "proof" that the back of the head blowout was caused by an entering bullet which I don't think anyone but LNs believe. Where is the evidence of the hole that existed when the now missing skull fragment was placed into the opening? Should we believe the existence of this alleged hole?

Are you proposing that this bullet struck the edge of the opening in the skull and then tunneled? How does it do that? After entering the skull does bullet exit the skull and only then begin to tunnel?

Pat Speer states that the trajectory to the head to throat exit is only 45 degrees downward. He also states it was a "low velocity" bullet. So where was this gunmen firing from, and why would they send a guy with a pistol which would only work at close range (and no one noticed Speer's shooter) to kill JFK?

This -45 deg trajectory would place the tracheal wound ABOVE the throat exit wound. The distance between skin and trachea is enough that it would be noticeable. Did anyone comment about this as evidence of an ascending or descending trajectory? At the time of the tracheotomy they believed the throat wound was an entry wound, and the bullet ranged down into his chest. Does this fit with a shot from behind descending at a 45 degree angle when it exited the throat? How was the damage to the tip of the lung caused with this angle?

As I've already stated, BP fails to support his beliefs, yet insists I have nothing because I won't respond to his *demands* until he answers any of MY questions. By his own logic, he also has "nothing." WHERE is the evidence that the trajectory from trachea to throat wound was at a significant downward angle from back to front?

I'm no longer going to waste my time digging through my files for evidence that has already been ignored. Show me contrary evidence and it would be worth my efforts...

As I have asked many, many times of you EOP enthusiasts, what is the initial trajectory angle of a tangential strike at the EOP site? From what shooting location could this angle be achieved? Both of these questions have been totally and completed ignored, yet you can't have an EOP entrance, throat exit without them.

Edited December 14, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Tom Neal]

On 12/12/2016 at 1:59 AM, Micah Mileto said:

Not if it deflected a lot, which is what you'd expect from a bullet hitting that area.

WHY would it deflect "a lot" rather than punch a hole in the skull? The grazing blow everyone is proposing produces only a small force. A small force is not going to deflect a high speed bullet "a lot."

Anyone care to show the physics involved here? You know, equations and stuff like that. e.g. How much force would be required to deflect a bullet more than a degree, and could a tangential collision provide adequate force to produce a perpendicular component that would deflect a bullet significantly?

Sandy, you have an engineering degree; in a tangential collision, is the majority of the applied force *along* the velocity vector or perpendicular to it?

Edited December 14, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Micah Mileto]

24 minutes ago, Tom Neal said:

WHY would it deflect "a lot" rather than punch a hole in the skull? The grazing blow everyone is proposing produces only a small force. A small force is not going to deflect a high speed bullet "a lot."

Anyone care to show the physics involved here? You know, equations and stuff like that. e.g. How much force would be required to deflect a bullet more than a degree, and could a tangential collision provide adequate force to produce a perpendicular component that would deflect a bullet significantly?

Sandy, you have an engineering degree; in a tangential collision, is the majority of the applied force *along* the velocity vector or perpendicular to it?

Not only must we account for the deflection of a bullet hitting the EOP (which created a 15x6mm elliptical wound for some reason), but there is also evidence that the base of the skull was smashed, which can be interpreted as something of a "long lost exit".

[Tom Neal]

16 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Not only must we account for the deflection of a bullet hitting the EOP (which created a 15x6mm elliptical wound for some reason), but there is also evidence that the base of the skull was smashed, which can be interpreted as something of a "long lost exit".

Why did you quote my post yet not respond to the points I made regarding bullet deflection?

[Micah Mileto]

1 minute ago, Tom Neal said:

Why did you quote my post yet not respond to the points I made regarding bullet deflection?

I'm just saying that the hypothetical EOP-throat wound connection has the bullet hitting a lot of obstacles at certain angles, so it would be difficult to map out if such a deflection is possible. There's evidence on the chest/neck x-rays of a downward track for the throat wound. Weirder things have happened.

[Tom Neal]

16 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

I'm just saying that the hypothetical EOP-throat wound connection has the bullet hitting a lot of obstacles at certain angles, so it would be difficult to map out if such a deflection is possible. There's evidence on the chest/neck x-rays of a downward track for the throat wound. Weirder things have happened.

Yes, it does require a LOT of collisions at certain angles. If you are familiar with the math of probabilities, the greater the number of requirements, the less likely it is to happen. For example, if three requirements exist and each has a 1 in 10 chance of occurring then the event has a 1 in a 1,000 chance of happening.

Also, if any *one* requirement can't be met then the event is impossible.

e.g. Speer's -45 trajectory angle from head to throat. What possible origin exists for a trajectory that would graze the skull at a 45 degree angle? For example the angle from the 6th floor was about -20 degrees. How much higher and/ or farther away would the shooter be to produce a -45 deg trajectory angle? This fact requires a LARGE deflection angle of the bullet. At high velocities this requires a LOT of force. A human skull would be penetrated by much less force. A tangential or grazing wound produces very little total force - the majority of which is along the trajectory. Very little force is available to deflect the bullet.

If you have the math and physics I can show you a force diagram depicting the above issues, and why a deflection angle of the magnitude required is not possible.

If anyone that believes a tangential collision with a skull can produce a deflection greater than a single degree, please jump in and show the math.

Edited December 14, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Micah Mileto]

1 minute ago, Tom Neal said:

Yes, it does require a LOT of collisions at certain angles. If you are familiar with the math of probabilities, the greater the number of requirements, the less likely it is to happen. For example, if three requirements exist and each has a 1 in 10 chance of occurring then the event has a 1 in a 1,000 chance of happening.

Also, if any *one* requirement can't be met then the event is impossible.

e.g. Speer's -45 trajectory angle from head to throat. What possible origin exists for a trajectory that would graze the skull at a 45 degree angle? For example the angle from the 6th floor was about -20 degrees. How much higher and/ or farther away would the shooter be to produce a -45 deg trajectory angle? This fact requires a LARGE deflection angle of the bullet. At high velocities this requires a LOT of force. A human skull would be penetrated by much less force. A tangential or grazing wound produces very little total force - the majority of which is along the trajectory. Very little force is available to deflect the bullet.

If you have the math and physics I can show you a force diagram depicting the above issues, and why a deflection angle of the magnitude required is not possible.

1. Texas sharpshooter

 

2. Speer does not say it was literally 45 degrees, he says it was a strange coincidence that some described the bullet descending 45 degrees while such an angle from the throat leads directly to the EOP. Speer says it may have happened with a few deflections.

[Tom Neal]

12 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

1. Texas sharpshooter

 

2. Speer does not say it was literally 45 degrees, he says it was a strange coincidence that some described the bullet descending 45 degrees while such an angle from the throat leads directly to the EOP. Speer says it may have happened with a few deflections.

1. Relevance? Are you claiming that this shot was planned to occur as you suggest? If not, then degree of skill is not a factor. Why a "Texas" sharpshooter? Are they always better than shooters from elsewhere?

2. Fine. I was giving an example using his angle. Substituting a trajectory of approx 45 degrees changes nothing as 45 degrees is not the only trajectory that fails. Would any trajectory between 35 and 55 degrees be viable?

The only 45 degree statement that I recall was Humes analysis of the back entry wound trajectory. I believe he stated 45-60 degrees downward, but he also agrees that the same entry exited the throat - hardly 45 to 60 degs downward.

"A few deflections." Don't you find that rather vague as evidence that this event occurred or was even probable? Speer certainly indicates that it DID happen this way.

He also stated that it was a "low velocity bullet." How many rifles fire a "low velocity bullet"? Why would anyone who was determined to kill JFK fire a low velocity bullet? This STRONGLY implies the use of a handgun. To guarantee reasonable accuracy requires close range. A close range shot would produce a flatter trajectory and require an even greater deflection of the bullet.

Edited December 14, 2016 by Tom Neal