Where is the exit?

[Cliff Varnell]

3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

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.

 

They didn't specifically say "lead bullet entrance," did they?

Besides, I don't discount the possibility a nervous shooter jumped the gun and fired thru the windshield; the round slowed down and was removed prior to the autopsy.

Not my favorite scenario, but possible...

Edited August 10, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[John Butler]

DiEugenio said,

"Amazing how far afield this has gone.

I guess no one can supply a credible answer to the original question."

I think he is right.  I'm just reading an endless rehash of generations old arguments of Parkland vs. Autopsy.  Some of which is recast as new arguments but, it still comes down to who you believe.

There are two wounds is Kenndy's back of the same shape but, they are different in size.  One represents an entrance wound and one an exit wound.  The larger is the exit wound and it is positioned to be an exit wound for the throat possibly fired from the railroad overpass from the train that was passing through at that time.  The Ghost Train is real.

Look carefully at the .gif.  Can you see the heart shaped black patch covering the occipital wound described by the Parkland Doctors.

Edited August 10, 2018 by John Butler

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, John Butler said:

DiEugenio said,

"Amazing how far afield this has gone.

I guess no one can supply a credible answer to the original question."

I think he is right.  I'm just reading an endless rehash of generations old arguments of Parkland vs. Autopsy.  Some of which is recast as new arguments but, it still comes down to who you believe.

There are two wounds is Kenndy's back of the same shape but, they are different in size.  One represents an entrance wound and one an exit wound.  The larger is the exit wound and it is positioned to be an exit wound for the throat possibly fired from the railroad overpass from the train that was passing through at that time.  The Ghost Train is real.

Look carefully at the .gif.  Can you see the heart shaped black patch covering the occipital wound described by the Parkland Doctors.

I'm fairly certain that's not a 12 inch ruler.

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, Denis Morissette said:

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.

If it's her, there's a problem. When interviewed by the sixth floor museum, Calloway told a quite different story.

I'm sorry I missed you at Lancer. You've shared a lot of material with others over the years. And it's much appreciated.

[Ray Mitcham]

9 hours ago, John Butler said:

DiEugenio said,

"Amazing how far afield this has gone.

I guess no one can supply a credible answer to the original question."

I think he is right.  I'm just reading an endless rehash of generations old arguments of Parkland vs. Autopsy.  Some of which is recast as new arguments but, it still comes down to who you believe.

There are two wounds is Kenndy's back of the same shape but, they are different in size.  One represents an entrance wound and one an exit wound.  The larger is the exit wound and it is positioned to be an exit wound for the throat possibly fired from the railroad overpass from the train that was passing through at that time.  The Ghost Train is real.

Look carefully at the .gif.  Can you see the heart shaped black patch covering the occipital wound described by the Parkland Doctors.

Here is the photo, John.

[Ray Mitcham]

Deleted

 

Edited August 10, 2018 by Ray Mitcham

[Cliff Varnell]

1)  The Fox 5 Phony Ruler photo wasn't produced according to autopsy protocol.

2)  There is no chain of possession for the extant autopsy photos, since the woman on record as developing them told the ARRB they are not the ones she developed.

3)  There is a 2-inch discrepancy between the T1 artifact and the bullet holes in JFK's clothes -- requiring 2 inches of shirt and 2 inches or so of jacket to elevate entirely above the top of the back without doubling over and without pushing up on the jacket collar.  Dale K. Myers found this impossible to animate, much less replicate.

4)  The wound features a lower margin abrasion collar, consistent with a shot from below.

5)  Fox 5 shows an intact back of the head, inconsistent with witness testimony and other autopsy photos.

6) The HSCA singled out Fox 5 as "more confusing than informative" given the fact that the ruler measures nothing.

Fox 5, CE-399, T1, Oswald...y'all obsessed with fake evidence produced by the cover-up, not the murder...just say'n...

[John Butler]

Cliff,

"1)  The Fox 5 Phony Ruler photo wasn't produced according to autopsy protocol."

I've never heard of a Fox 5 Phony Ruler photo.  Apparently, Google hasn't either when I tried looking that up.  So, could you explain that reference further?

I think that photo is the one Ray Meacham added just prior to your post.  It's the photo with the ruler that Ray presents to me which I have copies of and made the crops for greater clarity in the .gif I made to display what I think are back wounds. 

Obviously, the ruler has the metric side turned to the wounds as if measuring their dimensions

[Sandy Larsen]

On 8/9/2018 at 7:28 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

On 8/9/2018 at 7:18 PM, 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.

 

Oh come on Cliff... that was a conclusion made for the HSCA, the same committee that raised the EOP entrance to the crown of the head. And said that that the backyard photos were authentic. And other such nonsense. Everything they reported deserves scrutiny.

Can anybody here explain how "debris" would show up on an x-ray in a way that might be mistaken as bullet fragments? Remember, lead is quite radiation opaque at x-ray wavelengths. (It would even stop superman from using his x-ray vision, for pete's sake.) What's the likelihood of debris in a hospital setting containing lead fragments?

BTW, steel has to be 14 times thicker than lead to exhibit the same amount of x-ray radiation opacity. (That is for an x-ray tube operating at 200 kilovolts. It has to be even thicker at lower voltages, such as the 30-to-160 kV x-ray machines I serviced at one time.) (Source) So to replicated the opacity of a 1 mm thick bullet fragment (debris size), steel would have to be greater than 14 mm thick, which is about 1/2 inch thick.

I'm not buying it. Not till somebody shows me of a way it can happen.

 

Edited August 11, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Cliff Varnell]

9 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Oh come on Cliff... that was a conclusion made for the HSCA, the same committee that raised the EOP entrance to the crown of the head. And said that that the backyard photos were authentic. And other such nonsense. Everything they reported deserves scrutiny.

 

I don't follow, Sandy.

What does the HSCA have to do with the consensus Parkland statements describing the wound as an entrance?

[Sandy Larsen]

On 8/9/2018 at 7:30 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

On 8/9/2018 at 7:26 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

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.

  

They didn't specifically say "lead bullet entrance," did they? 

No, but you know that's what they were thinking it. No need to say it because that was understood by everybody.

 

On 8/9/2018 at 7:30 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

Besides, I don't discount the possibility a nervous shooter jumped the gun and fired thru the windshield; the round slowed down and was removed prior to the autopsy.

Not my favorite scenario, but possible...

I feel the same way.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Oh come on Cliff... that was a conclusion made for the HSCA, the same committee that raised the EOP entrance to the crown of the head. And said that that the backyard photos were authentic. And other such nonsense. Everything they reported deserves scrutiny.

I don't follow, Sandy.

What does the HSCA have to do with the consensus Parkland statements describing the wound as an entrance? 

Cliff,

Here's a summary of our discussion:

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

Sandy: That's what they [the HSCA] 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.

Cliff: 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.

Sandy: Oh come on Cliff... that was a conclusion made for the HSCA, the same committee that raised the EOP entrance to the crown of the head. And said that that the backyard photos were authentic. And other such nonsense. Everything they reported deserves scrutiny.

Cliff: I don't follow, Sandy.

Okay, I see now that you switched the topic from "metal in the neck x-ray being due to debris in the cassette"  to "Sandy's alternative hypothesis (EOP bullet traveling down the neck, etc)." (I think.) And I didn't know you did that. Because in this post you quoted me as saying:

Quote

Sandy said:

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

And you replied as follows:

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.

Which now I know had nothing to do with the metallic debris in the cassette. But naturally I thought you were still talking about the debris in the cassette because you were replying to what I said about that.

Anyway, that explains why your response made little sense to me regarding what I thought we were talking about.

 

(That was my detailed reply to you. My brief reply would have been, "Apparently we had a misunderstanding.")

 

Edited August 11, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Cliff Varnell]

Sandy, yeah I switched up on ya...Just going back to my default position: since the consensus witness statements put the back wound at T3 and describe the throat wound as an entrance, why bash the witnesses by insisting they were wrong?

[Sandy Larsen]

12 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Sandy, yeah I switched up on ya...Just going back to my default position: since the consensus witness statements put the back wound at T3 and describe the throat wound as an entrance, why bash the witnesses by insisting they were wrong?

 

Well, I certainly wouldn't insist that the Parkland doctors were wrong about the throat wound being an entrance. I'd have to consult an expert and see if it's possible for an exit wound to look like an entrance wound. For example, if the velocity of the bullet had been substantially reduced before it exited.

And I wouldn't call that bashing. I'm just saying that maybe they are mistaken about that. Again, I'd have to consult an expert to see if that sort of mistake can be made.

But regardless of all that, I believe that the best reason to simply accept the Parkland doctors' interpretation (i.e. no need to consult an expert) is that it appears that the bullet simply disappeared, just as the bullet to the back disappeared. And we know that the CIA had high tech bullets like that. And we know (well, I know) that Oswald worked for the CIA. So two disappearing bullets should come as no surprise.

However....

In accepting that the throat hole was an entrance, it would be prudent to come up with a hypothesis on how that shot was delivered. For example, explain where the shooter could have gotten off a shot unnoticed. And if the shooter was far away, could the high tech bullet have traveled at a sufficiently high speed to hit the target.

 

 

[Micah Mileto]

Dr. Perry also wrote down on 11/22 that the throat wound was a "fragment wound".