Mili Cranor on the Wide Tracheotomy

[Ron Bulman]

2 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Still waiting Andrej...

Is this a pissing contest or a discussion trying to ascertain facts?

[James DiEugenio]

From Mili's diagram, I don't see how a small incision like what Perry described to Lifton could give you a good look at those arteries.

[Ron Bulman]

On ‎3‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 12:00 AM, David Lifton said:

Andre - - post whatever you wish, and whatever you deem necessary to make your points.  Walton's  objections (and many of his statements) are pure rubbish. When it comes to photo evidence and "truth," this is a guy who changed his avatar from a true picture (he's just under 50) and tries to pose as a teenager. Enough said.   FYI: when (in 1988) I made the decision to publish the autopsy photos (in the Carrol & Graf edition of Best Evidence), I had to face the possibility of offending certain partisans of the Kennedy family, if not Kennedy family members themselves. I wrote an Epilogue making the point that the publication of these photos raised "competing interests."  Specifically, that while, in an ideal world, everyone would want sensitivity towards the living, we should also pursue the goal of justice for the dead. And that's the key: truth in history, and justice for the dead are closely related. Some people just don't "get it." They can't even be relied to tell the truth about their own age, much less answer simple questions about their education. They'd rather pose as someone they're not, and raise a bunch of disingenuous objections about how "oh so upset" they are, by autopsy photos.  This is the kind of pretentious phony that might appear as a fringe character in a novel, but is not to be taken seriously in a discussion of the most important evidence in this murder case: the body of President John F. Kennedy. Carry on.

DSL

3/13/2018 - 10 PM PDT

Orange County, California

Mr. Lifton.  Thank you for your Historical work.  After reading about the assassination in Fort Worth/Dallas papers and magazines in the 70's and early 80's I jumped on the mob did it bandwagon of books though I never read Blakey's I guess "official" version (though he changed his opinion regarding the CIA a few years back).   Then I read Crossfire by Jim Marrs and your "Best Evidence", I'm not sure in what order, but my mind was exposed to other possibilities.  They led me to "In the Eye of History" many years later.  Two helicopters, two caskets, two hearse's, realistic possibilities.  I have to say I have come to doubt the possibility of body movement, switching or alteration on Air Force One.  Alteration/(?) misinterpretation(?) of the head/throat/chest after that is still an unsettled question imho.  Bethesda is a subject I've read much of and still I fear understand little about.

Your questioning of Power, specifically, Allen Dulles about the "snap back" at UCLA in December 1965 is still and always will be admirable and Historic.  His reaction was classic and revealing..  

Edited March 16, 2018 by Ron Bulman

[Andrej Stancak]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

From Mili's diagram, I don't see how a small incision like what Perry described to Lifton could give you a good look at those arteries.

Jim:

the collar incision in the drawing shown in Mrs. Cranor article appears lower in the neck than the incision/gash seen in the autopsy photograph.

[Michael Walton]

9 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Is this a pissing contest or a discussion trying to ascertain facts?

Pissing contest? My questions are at the heart of Lifton's theory yet no one is willing to at least address them.

Andrej is clued in on the cart before the horse here. He keeps talking  about Perry and the incision  yet HOW was the body even squirreled  away in the  first place?

You  can't  have B if A never  happened  yet it seems  like everyone  is so in awe of Lifton here that no one  is willing  to  dig and really  question  his thrumming  copter theory.

And have  you  not noticed  what he's  done now? He's  actually  trying  to  twist  the  words of Dr Perry - 55 freaking  years later - as something  "new" for  his theory!

Yet instead of facing the truth that  maybe this theory could just possibly  be off, everyone  is congratulating him and telling  him how  wonderful  he is.

Meanwhile folks like me are fighting  the  good fight in getting  to  the  real  truth of this case.

[Ron Bulman]

16 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Pissing contest? My questions are at the heart of Lifton's theory yet no one is willing to at least address them.

Andrej is clued in on the cart before the horse here. He keeps talking  about Perry and the incision  yet HOW was the body even squirreled  away in the  first place?

You  can't  have B if A never  happened  yet it seems  like everyone  is so in awe of Lifton here that no one  is willing  to  dig and really  question  his thrumming  copter theory.

And have  you  not noticed  what he's  done now? He's  actually  trying  to  twist  the  words of Dr Perry - 55 freaking  years later - as something  "new" for  his theory!

Yet instead of facing the truth that  maybe this theory could just possibly  be off, everyone  is congratulating him and telling  him how  wonderful  he is.

Meanwhile folks like me are fighting  the  good fight in getting  to  the  real  truth of this case.

Fourth picture from the bottom is David Lifton back then (with description of why it's important).  Sixth picture from the bottom includes Michael Paine who died today.

https://erenow.com/modern/the-devils-chessboard-allen-dulles-the-cia/26.html

[Rob Couteau]

Great piece by Milicent Cranor. Thanks for posting this.

 

[Andrej Stancak]

Dr. Crenshaw on the size of the frontal neck wound, at 4' 55'' :

 

[Andrej Stancak]

Dr. Mantik in his e-book "John F. Kennedy's Head Wounds: A Final Synthesis - And a New Analysis of the Harper Fragment" (2015) in Appendix L reports on an interesting encounter between a Rochester Institute Technology senior photographer Quentin Schwinn and an unknown visitor. The visitor brought several color transparencies pertaining the autopsy, and the pictures appeared to show the state of Kennedy's wounds before alterations happened. One of the pictures showed an entry wound in the right forehead, and what could have been the pre-autopsy appearance of the neck wound. 

The picture below is a reconstruction of Mr. Schwinn's recollections of what he witnessed. The following text refers to the neck wound (Appendix L in Dr. Mantik's book):

"The horizontal one (incision, A.S.) was about an inch long and the vertical was about 1 1/2 inches. The resulting four corners of skin looked thick and were curled back at the tips. There were two clean cuts at right angles to each other. There was no tearing or ripping or missing skin, just curled back corners from the two cuts and a small hole in the middle."

 

 

Edited March 17, 2018 by Andrej Stancak

[James DiEugenio]

On March 16, 2018 at 9:38 PM, Rob Couteau said:

Great piece by Milicent Cranor. Thanks for posting this.

 

Your welcome Rob.

 

She is always tight and logical and she chooses good sources.

 

I mean, geez, I never heard of this Stewart guy.  Why use him?

Edited March 18, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Michael Walton]

On 3/17/2018 at 10:49 AM, Andrej Stancak said:

Dr. Mantik in his e-book "John F. Kennedy's Head Wounds: A Final Synthesis - And a New Analysis of the Harper Fragment" (2015) in Appendix L reports on an interesting encounter between a Rochester Institute Technology senior photographer Quentin Schwinn and an unknown visitor. The visitor brought several color transparencies pertaining the autopsy, and the pictures appeared to show the state of Kennedy's wounds before alterations happened. One of the pictures showed an entry wound in the right forehead, and what could have been the pre-autopsy appearance of the neck wound. 

The picture below is a reconstruction of Mr. Schwinn's recollections of what he witnessed. The following text refers to the neck wound (Appendix L in Dr. Mantik's book):

"The horizontal one (incision, A.S.) was about an inch long and the vertical was about 1 1/2 inches. The resulting four corners of skin looked thick and were curled back at the tips. There were two clean cuts at right angles to each other. There was no tearing or ripping or missing skin, just curled back corners from the two cuts and a small hole in the middle."

Oh Andrej, come on! Unless you have an actual photo that can be proven it was take at the Bethesda morgue on 11/22/63, and not a recreation, surely you don't believe this baloney?!

[Andrej Stancak]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

She is always tight and logical and she chooses good sources.

Jim:

Do you consider Dr. Crenshaw a reliable witness? Similarly, would you think that Dr. Mantik would place into his meticulously prepared book information about an encounter which did not happen?

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Mili replies again:

To Michael Walton: Thank you for your kind remarks. Keep on searching

***

Dr. Stancak treats that which is being questioned as if it were an established fact, and uses it as a basis for his other assumptions. 

This reminds me of how the HSCA treated the location of JFK’s back wound: They said that (paraphrased), because the lung was not penetrated, then the wound could not have been as low as witnesses claimed. As if it was established fact that the bullet went all the way through – as if its depth of penetration was not as much a question as its location!

And remember Hoover’s response to why the Stemmons sign didn’t need to be examined?  He said that, because the sign was never between Oswald and Kennedy, then it could not have had any bullet holes in it.

What I am trying to say is this: never forget what should be questioned. And if an explanation -- no matter how seemingly authoritative it is -- does not satisfy you, do not swallow it. Whether it’s mine, or someone else’s, do not swallow it, or you will get indigestion. You may hear the truth, and not recognize it. Or you may hear bovine feces. But never forget your questions. And beware of people who avoid your more difficult ones.

We have no way of knowing exactly how wide Perry made his throat incision. I do find it fascinating that James Humes gave JAMA a radically revised new width -- even shorter than 3-4 cm.

(Regarding Dr. Stancak’s story about the Rochester Institute of Technology photographer, it is impossible to verify. And I cannot ignore that institute’s alleged connections to the C.I.A., and their alleged Department of Perception Management, their expertise in disinformation, and apparent delight in creating confusion.)

Regarding my own sources, since Dr. Stancak did not provide you with my reasons for believing Perry gave JFK a limited exploratory, I will repeat them below.  

"Since 1957 it has been the policy at Parkland Memorial Hospital to explore virtually all penetrating wounds of the neck regardless of the clinical impression as to the severity of the injury..."  [4]

"The incision was planned to allow full exposure of the tract of injury.  Proximal [near] and distal [far] control of the major vessels was also considered in the length and position of the incision. The sternocleidomastoid ("strap") muscle and/or other neck muscles were taken off the insertion or transected whenever necessary to provide adequate exposure." [4]

From Perry’s WC testimony:

 [“Once the transverse incision through the skin and subcutaneous tissues was made, it was necessary to separate the strap muscles covering the anterior muscles of the windpipe and thyroid. At that point, the trachea was noted to be deviated slightly to the left and I found it necessary to sever the exterior strap muscles on the other side to reach the trachea.” [6 WCH 10]

The textbook book, Principles of Trauma Care contains a chapter written by Malcolm Perry, "Penetrating Wounds of the Neck." [5]  Perry's list of findings that indicate the need for exploration include some that applied to Kennedy:

• Bleeding
• Large hematoma
• Shock
• Respiratory distress
• Subcutaneous emphysema
• Blood in the oropharynx

 

Finally, an exploratory is even appropriate in the absence of these signs because life-threatening damage can hide behind a superficial looking wound. The authors of the 1971 paper discovered the following:

"…one third of the patients with injury to a major structure had no clinical evidence for this. This latter group included one patient with a through and through bullet wound of the carotid artery." [3]

References to the Addendum

1.    Saletta JD, Lowe RJ, Lim LT, Thornton J, Delk S, Moss GS. Penetrating trauma of the neck. J Trauma 1976; 16(7):579-587 (Diagram)

2.    Blass DC, James EC, Reed RJ, Fedde CW, Watne AL. Penetrating wounds of the neck and upper thorax. J Trauma 1978; 18(1):2-7. (Diagram)

3.    Ashworth C, Williams LF, Byrne JJ.  Penetrating wounds of the neck. Re-emphasis of the need for prompt exploration. Am J Surgery 1971;121:387-391 (exploratory since WW II)

4.    Jones RF, Terrell JC, Salyer KE. Penetrating wounds of the neck: an analysis of 274 cases. J Trauma 1967; 7(2):228-237. (Parkland experience) 

5.    Perry, M. Chapter 16. Penetrating Wounds of the Neck. In: Shires, G.T., (Ed.) Principles of Trauma Care, Third Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1985.

Please feel free to contact me personally on any of my work, at this semi-private emails address: milicranor@aol.com

[James P. McGrath]

Doug Horne talks about the origins of the drawing Andrej has uploaded at length in his Future of Freedom Foundation video at the link below.  Advance the video to 27 minutes and listen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip-j4z39m8Y

 

[Andrej Stancak]

James:

Welcome to the Forum. I hope you find your Forum debates useful and enjoyable.

The neck wound was reconstructed by Tom Wilson in the book A Deeper, Darker Truth (2009) written by Don Phillips. While the method is neither trivial nor easy to understand, Tom Wilson's model of the wound clearly shows the bullet entrance in relation to the surgery.  Of note, the bullet entrance wound appeared to be to the right of the opening for the tracheostomy catheter.