Where is the exit?

[Sandy Larsen]

29 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

US Army Special Operations Division -- who developed the technology -- briefed the FBI that such technology would come from outside the US.

Blaming Kostikov was set up on a T.

Interesting observation, Cliff. I think you may be right.

(Even though I have an alternative explanation for the throat bullet hole, where it is an exit wound for a bullet or bone fragment resulting from the so-called skidding EOP bullet as testified to by Humes for the HSCA, I've always felt that you may be right about the high tech weapon shot from the front. I'm now leaning more to that point of view, and thinking that the skidding bullet idea was merely a hypothesis used by Humes to explain how the throat bullet hole got there.)

 

[Cliff Varnell]

4 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Interesting observation, Cliff. I think you may be right.

(Even though I have an alternative explanation for the throat bullet hole, where it is an exit wound for a bullet or bone fragment resulting from the so-called skidding EOP bullet as testified to by Humes for the HSCA,

Sandy, how does that account for the T1 fracture?  The back shot didn't fracture the right T1 transverse process -- how could an EOP fragment fracture bone at T1 and then exit the throat?

Quote

 

I've always felt that you may be right about the high tech weapon shot from the front. I'm now leaning more to that point of view, and thinking that the skidding bullet idea was merely a hypothesis used by Humes to explain how the throat bullet hole got there.)

 

You bet.

Edited August 9, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

On 8/7/2018 at 8:26 PM, Denis Morissette said:

A rarely, if ever, discussed Parkland staff member was interviewed by the HSCA. She claimed that she saw a huge cavity at the back of the head, big enough for two fists to fit int. She also told the HSCA that she saw a bullet. I obtained this audio at NARA II. This is just an excerpt.
 

 

Hey, Denis. Was intern Sharon Thuoy the same person as x-ray intern Sharon Calloway, who gave an interview to the Sixth Floor Museum?

[Cliff Varnell]

On 8/5/2018 at 6:55 PM, Ron Bulman said:

Nah Cliff.  It brings up three important points.  No exit wound for the throat/frontal/ entry wound shot.  No exit wound for the one back shot proven by his clothing.  I don't buy the it fell out idea.  The two wounds weren't connected.  No probe from one to the other, neither dissected.  Impossible angle.  

From your mouth to God's ear...er, or from your keyboard to DiEugenio's eyes...

[Sandy Larsen]

33 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

37 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Interesting observation, Cliff. I think you may be right.

(Even though I have an alternative explanation for the throat bullet hole, where it is an exit wound for a bullet or bone fragment resulting from the so-called skidding EOP bullet as testified to by Humes for the HSCA,

Sandy, how does that account for the T1 fracture?  The back shot didn't fracture the right T1 transverse process -- how could an EOP fragment fracture bone at T1 and then exit the throat?

Cliff,

Let me briefly explain my (alternative) hypothesis for the benefit of others who may not have read my posts on it. The latter part explains how T1's transverse process was fractured. I will make the text bold for the part that you are asking about.

Humes et. al. discussed for the HSCA how a bullet broke through the scalp, but not skull, at the EOP site. They said it tunneled under the skin (between the skin and the bone). That testimony is the basis for my hypothesis.

My hypothesis is that, when the limo was behind the Stemmons sign in the Z film, a gunman shot a rifle from one of the 6th floor windows located near the south-west corner. Maybe Kennedy looked down for a moment. Either of these two things would cause the bullet to hit near the EOP at an obtuse angle. Obtuse hits are more likely than straight-on hits to deflect. In any case, the bullet did not penetrate the skull but rather tunneled under the skin and skidded along the back of the skull.

At some point the bullet breaks up and the fragments travel down through the neck. (One of the technicians stated that he saw fragments in the neck. And now that x-ray is missing.) The largest fragment has more momentum than the others (as dictated by a law of physics) and travels further down the neck, and toward the front of the neck.

That bullet fragment continues down and hits one of the cervical vertebrae. A couple shards of bone break away at high velocity, the larger of which is sent out the the front of the neck. Along the way it goes through and damages the trachea. The smaller shard  shoots up and stops to the right side of the larynx, causing contusion and hematoma there.

Meanwhile the bullet fragment continues down and fractures the transverse process of T1. The fragment then penetrates the pleural lining and apex of the right lung, thus bruising the apex and collapsing the lung (pneumothorax). It then travels down past the soft tissue of the lung, which is why it can’t be seen on the chest x-ray.

The reason I have a bone chard exiting the throat rather than the fragment itself it that the projectile pierced the shirt as it exited, yet no trace of metal was detected around the holes it made. Thus, bone exited, not a bullet fragment. (Though maybe it's possible for the bullet to pierce the shirt and not leave a trace of metal.)

 

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

All but one or two of the medical professionals at Parkland -- approximately 20 of them -- placed the wound at the back of the head, to the right of center. If Pat is saying that they didn't place it at the very bottom (the "base"), that is correct. But they didn't place it at the top of the head either.

 

 

Besides what Dr. Aguilar said, there's another argument to be made for excluding the spectator witnesses to the shooting. They were not anticipating the shot and watching intently so that they could see exactly what happens. They were taken by surprise by the shot. It happened so fast that their recollections cannot be trusted.

In contrast, the medical professionals spent several minutes focusing on the damage done to the president. They are much better witnesses.

 

 

Look who's showing their bias now. 15 to 50 year old memories? Ha! Saw Kennedy for a second? Ha!

Here are just a few examples of statements made by Parkland Hospital doctors:

• In a hand written note dated 11-22-63, Dr. Clark wrote, "a large 3 x 3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present....there was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also....There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region....Much of the skull appeared gone at the brief examination...." (Exhibit #392: WC V17:9-10)
• In testimony at Parkland taken before Arlen Specter on 3-21-64, [Dr.] McClelland described the head wound as, "...I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out...." (WC--V6:33)
• In a contemporaneous note dated 11-22-63, [Dr.] Jenkins described "a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (WC--Exhibit #392)
• On the day of the assassination [Dr. Carrico] hand wrote, " (the skull) wound had avulsed the calvarium and shredded brain tissue present with profuse oozing... attempts to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted..." (CE 392--WC V17:4-5)
• In a note written at Parkland Hospital and dated, 11-22-63 Dr. Perry described the head wound as, "A large wound of the right posterior cranium..." (WC--V17:6--CE#392)

And the list goes on.

See Dr. Aguilar's list here :  http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

 

 

 

 

Thanks for proving my point, Sandy. Aguilar's list is grossly misleading. Dr. Jenkins, Dr. Carrico and Dr. Perry would come to claim they'd been mistaken about seeing cerebellar tissue. While Dr. Clark never admitted he was mistaken, he befriended single-assassin theorists such as Lattimer, and complained to the press about conspiracy theorists. This makes it hard to believe he felt sure there was a huge blowout on the back of the head.

This brings us to McClelland, whose initial statement claimed the wound was "of the left temple." It's not a mistake that Gary skipped over this statement. Gary was compiling statements at odds with the official story, yes, but he gave the mistaken impression these statements were consistent and suggested a wound low on the back of the head. When asked to point out the location of this wound, however, very few of the witnesses pointed to a wound low on the back of the head.

It didn't add up. This led me to take a closer look, and eventually write the chapters on my webpage which blew up this myth (the myth of a blow-out wound low on the back of the headl.

 

Edited August 10, 2018 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

The fact that there were (at least) two bullet holes with no trace of a bullet and no exit hole gives credence to the high-tech weapon hypothesis IMO. I mean, it would be unusual for that to happen at one location... how much more unusual for it to happen at two locations?

If the odds that a victim has a missing bullet is 1000 to 1, then the odds for two missing bullet would be 1 million to 1.

Here's the math:

1/1000  x  1/1000  =  1/1,000,000

 

[Cliff Varnell]

8 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Cliff,

Let me briefly explain my (alternative) hypothesis for the benefit of others who may not have read my posts on it. The latter part explains how T1's transverse process was fractured. I will make the text bold for the part that you are asking about.

Humes et. al. discussed for the HSCA how a bullet broke through the scalp, but not skull, at the EOP site. They said it tunneled under the skin (between the skin and the bone). That testimony is the basis for my hypothesis.

My hypothesis is that, when the limo was behind the Stemmons sign in the Z film, a gunman shot a rifle from one of the 6th floor windows located near the south-west corner. Maybe Kennedy looked down for a moment. Either of these two things would cause the bullet to hit near the EOP at an obtuse angle. Obtuse hits are more likely than straight-on hits to deflect. In any case, the bullet did not penetrate the skull but rather tunneled under the skin and skidded along the back of the skull.

At some point the bullet breaks up and the fragments travel down through the neck. (One of the technicians stated that he saw fragments in the neck. And now that x-ray is missing.) The largest fragment has more momentum than the others (as dictated by a law of physics) and travels further down the neck, and toward the front of the neck.

That bullet fragment continues down and hits one of the cervical vertebrae. A couple shards of bone break away at high velocity, the larger of which is sent out the the front of the neck. Along the way it goes through and damages the trachea. The smaller shard  shoots up and stops to the right side of the larynx, causing contusion and hematoma there.

Meanwhile the bullet fragment continues down and fractures the transverse process of T1. The fragment then penetrates the pleural lining and apex of the right lung, thus bruising the apex and collapsing the lung (pneumothorax). It then travels down past the soft tissue of the lung, which is why it can’t be seen on the chest x-ray.

The reason I have a bone chard exiting the throat rather than the fragment itself it that the projectile pierced the shirt as it exited, yet no trace of metal was detected around the holes it made. Thus, bone exited, not a bullet fragment. (Though maybe it's possible for the bullet to pierce the shirt and not leave a trace of metal.)

 

Sandy, all of that just to impeach the consensus witness testimony from Parkland that the wound was an entrance?

The metal in the neck on x-ray was cassette debris.

[Cliff Varnell]

4 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The fact that there were (at least) two bullet holes with no trace of a bullet and no exit hole gives credence to the high-tech weapon hypothesis IMO. I mean, it would be unusual for that to happen at one location... how much more unusual for it to happen at two locations?

If the odds that a victim has a missing bullet is 1000 to 1, then the odds for two missing bullet would be 1 million to 1.

Here's the math:

1/1000  x  1/1000  =  1/1,000,000

 

Thank you, much appreciated Sandy.

[Sandy Larsen]

11 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Thanks for proving my point, Sandy. Aguilar's list is grossly misleading. Dr. Jenkins, Dr. Carrico and Dr. Perry would come to claim they'd been mistaken about seeing cerebellar tissue. While Dr. Clark never admitted he was mistaken, he befriended single-assassin theorists such as Lattimer, and complained to the press about conspiracy theorists. This makes it hard to believe he felt sure there was a huge blowout on the back of the head.

 

No Pat, Aguilar's list is not misleading. Read the list for yourself... he documents how some of the doctor's later changed their story.

Dr. Aguilar's list :  http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

And why did those doctors change their story? I explained why in the post you quoted... though you left that part out when you quoted me. Here it is again:

Your statement:

"A number of the most prominent Parkland witnesses--e.g. Carrico, Perry, Baxter, Jenkins--spent the last 20 years of their lives claiming they were mistaken in their suggestions the back of the head was missing."

My response:

"Sure... after they discovered that their belief was contradicted by the Warren Commission or HSCA, or they discovered that the autopsy photo showed no rear blowout. All of which were designed to cover up a shot from the front."

They were afraid of looking like fools if they didn't change their stories.

 

11 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

This brings us to McClelland, whose initial statement claimed the wound was "of the left temple." It's not a mistake that Gary skipped over this statement. Gary was compiling statements at odds with the official story, yes, but he gave the mistaken impression these statements were consistent and suggested a wound low on the back of the head. When asked to point out the location of this wound, however, very few of the witnesses pointed to a wound low on the back of the head.

 

As you said, people make mistakes.  But 20+ professionals don't make the very same mistake as each others'.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

19 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The metal in the neck on x-ray was cassette debris.

 

That's what they said, but I don't believe it. How would metallic debris get into the cassettes? Tiny debris made of most other materials would be x-ray transparent. Maybe tiny rocks would show up.

 

[David Von Pein]

7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

As you said, people make mistakes.  But 20+ professionals don't make the very same mistake as each others'.

Yes, they can. And these 3 images prove that they can---because there is no "BOH" wound anywhere to be found in these THREE different examples of photographic evidence. (Were ALL of these pictures faked?)....

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

25 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Sandy, all of that just to impeach the consensus witness testimony from Parkland that the wound was an entrance?

 

My intention wasn't to impeach their testimony. My intention was to explain all the evidence that was found.

The Parkland doctors thought that a conventional lead bullet entered the throat of the president. So if I was impeaching them for thinking it might have been an exit wound, then you are impeaching them for saying it wasn't a lead bullet.

 

[Denis Morissette]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Hey, Denis. Was intern Sharon Thuoy the same person as x-ray intern Sharon Calloway, who gave an interview to the Sixth Floor Museum?

Hi Pat. The last time I saw you was when you did a presentation at Lancer. After the presentation, there were too many people around you asking questions. You were too popular.

i think it is the same Sharon. I can’t prove it, though.

[Cliff Varnell]

7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

That's what they said, but I don't believe it. How would metallic debris get into the cassettes?

Is it unheard of?

I don't see any reason to dispute the consensus witness testimony on the throat entrance.

Denying them is a form of witness bashing in my book, to be brutally honest.