Jump to content
The Education Forum

What bullet trajectory created the back-of-head blowout wound?


Sandy Larsen
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

As I said before, the decoy ambulance appeared to actually happen.  However, it did NOT occur because the body was taken somewhere else to be altered to cover up or hide some as yet unknown cover-up of the body's wounds.

 

So why then was JFK's body snatched, Michael? Do you honestly believe it was hidden to protect it from the crowds?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

8 hours ago, David Lifton said:

 

Now that you are here, I want to ask if you've ever come across an answer for when exactly the autopsy ended and the reconstruction began in relation to when Sibert and O'Neill departed. I find it strange that while Sibert and O'Neill always swore that they thought the end of the autopsy was when the morticians arrived, the actual morticians Joe Hagan, Tom Robinson and John Van Hoesen only made statements indicating that they viewed the entire autopsy from the beginning of the head examination.

Edited by Micah Mileto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

So why then was JFK's body snatched, Michael? Do you honestly believe it was hidden to protect it from the crowds?

Sandy, according to David L's story, they [meaning the military and medico and intel personnel] wanted to get the body away from the family so they could see the wounds and cover up all manner of conspiracy, meaning shots from the front or shots that would show that someone more than Oswald, the designated patsy, was the sole assassin. That's the BE story.

The real reason for them putting an empty coffin in one of the ambulances and taking the real coffin with the real body and the real family was simply a matter of not creating a media storm in the front of the hospital. However, according to the news article about this, BNH was a secure site with no mob of reporters.

Does all of this make sense?  I don't know, nor do I know the reason why they'd want to have a decoy. However, what I'm confident about is this decoy story does not prove, nor do I think it happened, that BE story was the reason, that they hurriedly took the body through the back and had military and medico personnel in there doing head and other alterations.

You have to ask yourself - what would they be covering up? Think a moment about the back wound, the one that's supposedly the entry point for the SBT. The wound terminated at Humes' pinky finger when he stuck it in; in other words, there was no exit point and proving that there had to be more than one shooter in order to create the throat wound.

So then you have to ask yourself - if the planners snuck the body in to do this alteration, why didn't they poke a hole from the back to perhaps the throat wound so they could then say that the back shot exited from the throat, thus validating the SBT?

Of course we know that they didn't do this. This type of story is similar to those who believe the Z film was faked.  What did they fake in it? The film proves conspiracy...did they forget to do those alterations after going through this elaborate faking of the film?

The same with the body alteration in DL's BE story. It flies against all reason and plausibility, similar to the Hardly story and the Z film alteration story. Like another researcher said recently, it wasn't all that complicated to murder Kennedy and once the deed was done, it was easy to control the story afterward, which is exactly what they did when they came out with the Warren Report. Why go through an elaborate deception of faking the Z film when it was easier to keep it from the public for 12 years; why alter the wounds when it was easier to just pencil in "back of neck" like Ford did before the WR was released?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, David Lifton said:

1. The original alteration of JFK's body (bullet retrieval, wound alteration, etc) was planned to take place in Dallas, and within 30 minutes of the shooting.

2. It did not happen because, among other unexpected events, Governor Connally was unexpectedly shot. (You can take this statement to the bank--the shooting of Governor Connally was completely unexpected, and was not in anyone's scenario. It completely upset a reasonably well-designed apple cart.)

3. As a consequence of an out-of-control situation that developed, i.e., as a result of unexpected events (such as the shooting of JC), President Kennedy's body left Parkland Hospital without an autopsy, and basically in the same condition as it was immediately after the shooting.

I cannot wait to read the Final Charade which will shed light on what happened at Parkland just before President's body was illegally transferred out of the state of Texas. It was my understanding thus far that the good guy was Dr. Earl Rose who would deliver a perfect forensic autopsy and not allow tampering with the body, bullets etc. According to this scenario, Dr. Rose was not allowed to do the autopsy because the pre-planned cover-up dictated that the body needed to be in full and complete possession of Washington and in no case could remain in Dallas. Should the body remain in Parkland and were it subject to a forensic autopsy by Dr. Rose, Parkland doctors would be able to liaise with Dr. Rose and it would be difficult for Dr. Rose to suppress the large defect in the parieto-occipital region of the head which miracously disappeared in the official autopsy report. With the body a thousand miles away, there was no way for Parkland doctors to confront Dr. Rose because he did not do the autopsy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

I cannot wait to read the Final Charade which will shed light on what happened at Parkland just before President's body was illegally transferred out of the state of Texas.

Hi Andrej, there's a pretty good record of what happened and it's been out in the open for years.  Why wait for yet another book to come out? Here's a pretty good retelling of what happened in the trauma room:

https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2008/november/the-day-kennedy-died/

And here's what happened about the fight over getting JFK's body out of the hospital.  According to Ken O'Donnell, one of JFK's closest friends and part of his Irish Mafia, he pretty much explained that it was Jackie who didn't want to leave the body:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/removing-body-of-jfk-from-dallas.html

Since we already know what happened then after 54 years, I can't imagine anything Earth-shattering coming out of this new book unless it's some kind of new conspiracy theory.

Hope this helps.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Description of the throat wound.

 

"Dr. Perry made an incision across the bullet wound, just large enough to accommodate a breathing tube. During a phone conversation in 1966 with author David Lifton, Perry said the incision was "two to three centimeters" wide [4, p. 272]. Drs. Paul Peters and Robert McClelland, also present in trauma room one, said the incision was "sharp" and "smooth," respectively [4, p. 275]. After the breathing tube was removed, the incision closed, revealing the original wound in the throat, as described by Drs. Charles Crenshaw and Malcolm Perry. Dr. Crenshaw recalled, "When the body left Parkland there was no gaping, bloody defect in the front of the throat, just a small bullet hole in the thin line of Perry's incision" [5, p. 54] Dr. Perry described the bullet wound in the throat as "inviolate" [6, pp. 100-101]."

I wonder how "the body wasn't altered" supporters explain how the thin incision in the President's throat became the gash we see in the autopy photos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Now that you are here, I want to ask if you've ever come across an answer for when exactly the autopsy ended and the reconstruction began in relation to when Sibert and O'Neill departed. I find it strange that while Sibert and O'Neill always swore that they thought the end of the autopsy was when the morticians arrived, the actual morticians Joe Hagan, Tom Robinson and John Van Hoesen only made statements indicating that they viewed the entire autopsy from the beginning of the head examination.

Micah, you may want to read this.  The "surgery" claim was found to be incorrect and corrected. At the link, there's another link to MF from the agent:

http://22november1963.org.uk/sibert-and-oneill-report

What you have to ask yourself about the body alteration theory is this...

What would they be covering up? For example, think a moment about the back wound, the one that's supposedly the entry point for the SBT. The wound terminated at Humes' pinky finger when he stuck it in. The above clearly clearly explains this; in other words, there was no exit point and proving that there had to be more than one shooter in order to create the throat wound.

So then you have to ask yourself - if the planners snuck the body in to do alterations, why didn't they poke a hole from the back to perhaps the throat wound so they could then say that the back shot exited from the throat, thus validating the SBT?

Of course we know that they didn't do this. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

I wonder how "the body wasn't altered" supporters explain how the thin incision in the President's throat became the gash we see in the autopy photos.

As it is in life, Ray, it's probably because of a far more normal reason.  Personally, I don't know the reason nor does anyone else. But as I described above, if they cut open the throat more to make the gash, why didn't they then poke a hole through it so it would lead to the back wound, the same back wound that had no exit, thus, completely ruining the single bullet theory.

Wasn't the whole point of altering the body to get rid of any evidence of front shots? This body alteration theory line of thinking is similar to the Zapruder film alteration theory.  The film certainly shows conspiracy. So if it was altered, why didn't they remove that portion of the film that reveals more than one shooter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

I wonder how "the body wasn't altered" supporters explain how the thin incision in the President's throat became the gash we see in the autopsy photos.

Re: the trach incision --- Here's something I pointed out in 2013....

"I loved the [Nov. 2013] Posner/Waldron radio debate [which can be heard here]. .... And here's a piece of advice for Gerald Posner --- The next time some conspiracy buff brings up the "gaping" nature of JFK's trach wound, show them the video on this webpage of Dr. Robert McClelland saying on PBS-TV in 1988 that the trach incision in the autopsy pictures looks "exactly the same size and the same configuration" as it was when he saw it at Parkland. Maybe that will make Waldron flinch a little bit. And even though I think Dr. McClelland is as kooky as a 9-dollar bill with regard to his comments concerning the location of JFK's large head wound, I certainly don't have any reason to think he's kooky about his comments regarding the trach wound -- and that's because I don't believe for a single second that anybody "altered" any of JFK's wounds between Parkland and Bethesda." -- DVP; November 2013

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Hi Andrej, there's a pretty good record of what happened and it's been out in the open for years.  Why wait for yet another book to come out? Here's a pretty good retelling of what happened in the trauma room:

https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2008/november/the-day-kennedy-died/

And here's what happened about the fight over getting JFK's body out of the hospital.  According to Ken O'Donnell, one of JFK's closest friends and part of his Irish Mafia, he pretty much explained that it was Jackie who didn't want to leave the body:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/removing-body-of-jfk-from-dallas.html

Since we already know what happened then after 54 years, I can't imagine anything Earth-shattering coming out of this new book unless it's some kind of new conspiracy theory.

Hope this helps.

 

 

Michael:

the second of the two links is relevant to my post. It appears to be an account based on Vincent Bugliosi's book, and it matches quite well William Manchester's book: The Death of a President, which is my reference. 

The thing is that the removal of President's body was illegal. Dr. Rose, JP Theron Ward and the police officer standing next to Dr. Rose were right. Corrupt Henry Wade's views or his "consent" with the removal of the body out of the state Texas were irrelevant. While Mrs. Kennedy's wish was understandable, it does not justify the violation of the law. In case of a homicide, the spouse's view cannot overcome the legal requirement of the autopsy being performed in the state of Texas. As Dr. Rose commented, it would only take three hours. 

The body was moved illegally, the chain of evidence was broken decisively and there is just no remedy for this. Of course, Dr. Rose could not have been manipulated to produce a botched autopsy as were Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell. The only chance was, and this is what David Lifton seems to propose, that Dr. Rose was actually a part of the conspiracy and he had fought hard to get to the President's body to do all to obfuscate the evidence. This is a novel view, at least to me.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

The only chance was, and this is what David Lifton seems to propose, that Dr. Rose was actually a part of the conspiracy and he had fought hard to get to the President's body to do all to obfuscate the evidence. This is a novel view, at least to me.

Oh boy that sounds like another really far out, far-fetched theory to me. IMO and from what I  read it sounds like Rose was only trying to follow legal protocol.

I  had no idea DL was going  to  try  to  make  it a whole new theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Micah, you may want to read this.  The "surgery" claim was found to be incorrect and corrected. At the link, there's another link to MF from the agent:

http://22november1963.org.uk/sibert-and-oneill-report

What you have to ask yourself about the body alteration theory is this...

What would they be covering up? For example, think a moment about the back wound, the one that's supposedly the entry point for the SBT. The wound terminated at Humes' pinky finger when he stuck it in. The above clearly clearly explains this; in other words, there was no exit point and proving that there had to be more than one shooter in order to create the throat wound.

So then you have to ask yourself - if the planners snuck the body in to do alterations, why didn't they poke a hole from the back to perhaps the throat wound so they could then say that the back shot exited from the throat, thus validating the SBT?

Of course we know that they didn't do this. 

 

I was referring to the late stages of the autopsy, between that and when the Galwer's funeral home crew did their reconstruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/16/2017 at 3:57 PM, Michael Walton said:

Sandy, according to David L's story, they [meaning the military and medico and intel personnel] wanted to get the body away from the family so they could see the wounds and cover up all manner of conspiracy, meaning shots from the front or shots that would show that someone more than Oswald, the designated patsy, was the sole assassin. That's the BE story.

The real reason for them putting an empty coffin in one of the ambulances and taking the real coffin with the real body and the real family was simply a matter of not creating a media storm in the front of the hospital.


Correction:  Jackie, et al. was in the ambulance carrying the empty ornate coffin. The other ambulance carried the body.

 

On 12/16/2017 at 3:57 PM, Michael Walton said:

The real reason for them putting an empty coffin in one of the ambulances and taking the real coffin with the real body and the real family was simply a matter of not creating a media storm in the front of the hospital.


How would a potential media storm be prevented by removing the body from the ambulance carrying Jackie? Obviously the media would continue to believe that the body was in the ornate coffin being moved with Jackie.

So what you believe holds no water. Try again.

 

On 12/16/2017 at 3:57 PM, Michael Walton said:

Does all of this make sense?  I don't know, nor do I know the reason why they'd want to have a decoy.


Yes, you are right. You don't know why there was a decoy.

Nor do you care. Because you absolutely refuse to believe any nefarious reasons. You are satisfied that there was no reason for the body swap.

 

On 12/16/2017 at 3:57 PM, Michael Walton said:

However, what I'm confident about is this decoy story does not prove, nor do I think it happened, that BE story was the reason, that they hurriedly took the body through the back and had military and medico personnel in there doing head and other alterations.

You have to ask yourself - what would they be covering up?


They'd be covering up shots from the front... the best they could in a short period of time.

This hypothesis makes a lot of sense. I don't know why you have a problem with it.

 

On 12/16/2017 at 3:57 PM, Michael Walton said:

Think a moment about the back wound, the one that's supposedly the entry point for the SBT. The wound terminated at Humes' pinky finger when he stuck it in; in other words, there was no exit point and proving that there had to be more than one shooter in order to create the throat wound.

So then you have to ask yourself - if the planners snuck the body in to do this alteration, why didn't they poke a hole from the back to perhaps the throat wound so they could then say that the back shot exited from the throat, thus validating the SBT?

 

Are you kidding? They had no idea at that time that they could possibly explain away Conally's wounds by doing what you propose. Or that it was even necessary to do so.

They were tasked with covering up shots from the front as much as possible.

The shot in the back was consistent with shots from the TSBD... there was no need to cover that up. As for the throat wound, there wasn't much they could do about that. At least it was a somewhat camouflaged by the tracheostomy. Maybe they hoped that by stitching the tracheotomy up they might be able to have that wound overlooked or explained away in some way.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Michael Walton said:
11 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

I cannot wait to read the Final Charade which will shed light on what happened at Parkland just before President's body was illegally transferred out of the state of Texas.

Hi Andrej, there's a pretty good record of what happened and it's been out in the open for years.  Why wait for yet another book to come out? Here's a pretty good retelling of what happened in the trauma room:

https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2008/november/the-day-kennedy-died/


That's right Andrej... just forget about anything new that David Lifton may have discovered about this. Since Michael Walton has declared that Lifton's theory is wrong, and that everything is known about what took place in Parkland, there is no reason to wait and see what Lifton has to say.

 

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...