Greg Doudna Posted July 14, 2020 Author Share Posted July 14, 2020 Cliff I suggested: "It was not that the bullet hit bone at T1, but it was the direct effect of the impact of the Z313 bullet causing violent stress and force sideways that caused it." To which you gave the nuanced response: 17 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said: Impossible! [. . .] absolute rubbish. I don't know about that... you might want to reconsider the dogmatism. From a website called "Medical News Today" which has basic medical information: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/broken-back#causes Transverse process fracture: This type of fracture is relatively common. It happens when the spine rotates or bends sideways. These fractures are not always serious. In other words, this is how approximately 100% of such transverse process fractures happen. Was there a time in the shooting when JFK's spine "rotates or bends sideways" violently? Yes. Take a look at the head shot and see for yourself. Its visual, and it is just obvious that's what probably did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 14, 2020 Share Posted July 14, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said: Cliff I suggested: "It was not that the bullet hit bone at T1, but it was the direct effect of the impact of the Z313 bullet causing violent stress and force sideways that caused it." To which you gave the nuanced response: I don't know about that... you might want to reconsider the dogmatism. <sigh> Why did you edit my response? Read the HSCA analysis. Interstitial air = air pocket. Evaluation of the post-autopsy film shows that there is subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying C7 and T1. The same disruption of T1 right transverse process is still present. Quote Transverse process fracture: This type of fracture is relatively common. It happens when the spine rotates or bends sideways. These fractures are not always serious. In other words, this is how approximately 100% of such transverse process fractures happen. Where does it say this is accompanied by an air pocket overlaying two transverse processes? Quote Was there a time in the shooting when JFK's spine "rotates or bends sideways" violently? Yes. Take a look at the head shot and see for yourself. Its visual, and it is just obvious that's what probably did it. It’s quite obvious you’re married to your pet theory. Edited July 14, 2020 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Doudna Posted July 14, 2020 Author Share Posted July 14, 2020 Cliff V., I would prefer you refer to my holding a reconstruction of an exit on the throat wound, which is the view of probably 95% of persons who study the JFK assassination, as my "theory" rather than "pet theory", which comes across as a putdown. On the cause of the subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying C7 and T1, this from the Mayo Clinic seems to suggest the tracheotomy done on JFK as the likely cause of that, https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/tracheostomy/about/pac-20384673: Tracheostomy (tray-key-OS-tuh-me) is a hole that surgeons make through the front of the neck and into the windpipe (trachea). A tracheostomy tube is placed into the hole to keep it open for breathing. The term for the surgical procedure to create this opening is tracheotomy. [...] Tracheostomies are generally safe, but they do have risks. Some complications are particularly likely during or shortly after surgery. The risk of such problems greatly increases when the tracheotomy is performed as an emergency procedure. Immediate complications include: Bleeding Damage to the trachea, thyroid gland or nerves in the neck Misplacement or displacement of the tracheostomy tube Air trapped in tissue under the skin of the neck (subcutaneous emphysema), which can cause breathing problems and damage to the trachea or food pipe (esophagus) Buildup of air between the chest wall and lungs (pneumothorax), which causes pain, breathing problems or lung collapse A collection of blood (hematoma), which may form in the neck and compress the trachea, causing breathing problems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 14, 2020 Share Posted July 14, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said: Cliff V., I would prefer you refer to my holding a reconstruction of an exit on the throat wound, which is the view of probably 95% of persons who study the JFK assassination, as my "theory" rather than "pet theory", which comes across as a putdown. It is a putdown. Absolutely! I can barely contain my contempt! Quote On the cause of the subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying C7 and T1, this from the Mayo Clinic seems to suggest the tracheotomy done on JFK as the likely cause of that, https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/tracheostomy/about/pac-20384673: Tracheostomy (tray-key-OS-tuh-me) is a hole that surgeons make through the front of the neck and into the windpipe (trachea). A tracheostomy tube is placed into the hole to keep it open for breathing. The term for the surgical procedure to create this opening is tracheotomy. [...] Tracheostomies are generally safe, but they do have risks. Some complications are particularly likely during or shortly after surgery. The risk of such problems greatly increases when the tracheotomy is performed as an emergency procedure. Immediate complications include: Bleeding Damage to the trachea, thyroid gland or nerves in the neck Misplacement or displacement of the tracheostomy tube Air trapped in tissue under the skin of the neck (subcutaneous emphysema), which can cause breathing problems and damage to the trachea or food pipe (esophagus) Buildup of air between the chest wall and lungs (pneumothorax), which causes pain, breathing problems or lung collapse A collection of blood (hematoma), which may form in the neck and compress the trachea, causing breathing problems The trachea is in the front of the neck. The transverse process is at the back of the neck. You have a penchant for making things up. 95% of JFK students believe in a throat exit? Out of which orifice do you pull this stuff? Edited July 14, 2020 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Doudna Posted July 14, 2020 Author Share Posted July 14, 2020 C.V., 95% was a guess which included WC and HSCA as well as non-WC and non-HSCA, never mind, not important, doesn't matter. Could you explain as you see it how you are supposing a bullet entering the throat (or exiting if so, either way) would cause interstitial air anywhere inside the body? Are you supposing that air come from one of the lungs? But if so which bullet are you supposing punctured the lung? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 14, 2020 Share Posted July 14, 2020 Pet theorists smear many witnesses when they claim the throat wound was an exit. Denny Zartman has done excellent work on this: <quote on> Using Vincent Palamara's 2015 book "JFK: From Parkland To Bethesda" as my master source, I find that, in addition to Dr. Malcolm Perry and Nurse Audrey Bell, the following persons at Parkland also characterized JFK's anterior neck wound as one of entrance. Dr. William Clark: "Dr. Kemp Clark...said that there were two wounds, a traumatic wound in the back of the head and a small entrance wound below the Adam's apple..." Pg. 1 Dr. Robert McClelland.: "this [the neck wound] did appear to be an entrance wound." ... "Dr. Robert Mc Clelland ... told me afterward that they still believed it [the neck wound] to be an entry wound." Pgs. 7-8 Dr. Marion Jenkins: saw an entry wound on JFK's neck; would let their 1963 observations stand. Pg. 13 Dr. Charles Carrico: "small penetrating wound of ent. neck" Pg. 14 Dr. Ronald Jones: "The hole [in the throat] was very small and relatively clean cut, as you would see in a bullet that is entering rather than exiting from a patient." ... "compatible with an entrance wound ... I would stand by my original impression." Pgs. 15-16 Dr. Gene Akin: "this [the neck wound] must have been an entrance wound..." Pg. 17 Dr. Paul Peters: "...we saw the wound of entry in the throat..." Pg. 19 Dr. Charles Crenshaw: "There were two wounds to the President that we observed at parkland. The first was a small and neat entrance wound to the throat..." Pg. 22 Dr. Charles Baxter: The wound in the neck was "no more than a pinpoint. It was made by a small caliber weapon. And it was an entry wound." Pg. 24 Dr. Joe Goldstritch: "...I realized how impossible it would have been for the neck wound I saw to have been an exit wound..." Pg. 44 Nurse Diana Bowron: "...the entry wound in his throat...looked like an entry wound." Pg. 33 Nurse Margaret Hinchliffe: "...a little hole in the middle of his neck ... About as big as the end of my little finger...An entrance bullet hole---it looked to me like...I have never seen an exit bullet hole---I don't remember seeing one that looked like that."; "...it was just a small wound and wasn't jagged like most of the exit bullet wounds that I have seen." ... "She also insisted the President had an "entry" wound in his throat." ... "Throat wound---Definitely an entrance wound. Resented Arlen Specter trying to get her to say it might be an exit wound..." Pgs 35-36 In summary, Adding Dr. Perry and Nurse Bell, that seems to total 11 Parkland doctors and 3 nurses characterizing JFK's anterior neck wound as an entrance wound, with only one (Dr. Baxter) once saying that it could have either been entrance or exit, and then later contradicting himself and claiming that he believed it was one of entrance. On the opposite end of this, there seems to be not one medical professional at Parkland who saw JFK's neck wound and consistently said that they believed it could have been either one of entrance or exit, or that they believed it was one of exit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 14, 2020 Share Posted July 14, 2020 1 minute ago, Greg Doudna said: C.V., 95% was a guess which included WC and HSCA as well as non-WC and non-HSCA, never mind, not important, doesn't matter. Could you explain as you see it how you are supposing a bullet entering the throat (or exiting if so, either way) would cause interstitial air anywhere inside the body? Are you supposing that air come from one of the lungs? But if so which bullet are you supposing punctured the lung? A dissolved round would leave an air pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 14, 2020 Share Posted July 14, 2020 13 hours ago, Greg Doudna said: Thanks David Josephs. Unfortunately I read through about the first 3 pages of the 57 and, sad to say, I have no idea what he is talking about. I catch that there is some argument from math about a change in Zapruder film speed from 18 to 46 frames per second or something, but I could not work out what was the argument or point. One or two commenters on those first three pages expressed the same puzzlement. Would it be possible for you to say as simple clear description in a single paragraph what the argument is? I looked on Mary Ferrell re argument for Zapruder being altered and could not find much substantial. Do you know of a single print article (print much preferred by me over video if possible) that best makes whatever case you think is correct on that, such as this math that you mention? Thanks-- Real quick about that throat wound.... Mr. Rankin: Then there‘s a great range of material in regards to the wound and the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the present time. We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent, since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through. So that how it could turn, and -- Rep. Boggs. I thought I read that bullet just went in a finger's length. Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said Now, if you go to the autopsy you will not find this passage anywhere... not the autopsy the public finally sees.... so one has to wonder from what document Rankin is reading... there are other problems with there being 2 autopsy reports but that's not for this thread. What I still have yet to learn is from which Autopsy this unknown info comes.... since Humes supposedly burned everything.... I'd like to address your whole post, which I will, but want to answer this question first.... Chris knows to correct anything I misstate below... he's 3 or 4 levels deeper into the subject... and the originator of the use of Math in quantifying the fraud. === As to what MATH RULES shows.... Shaneyfelt moved the path of the limo off the Robert West surveyor path, to one which enables the limo to appear in the same place yet at the wrong frame # (which were also created by Shaneyfelt) By changing 168 to 161 in CE884 they take a distance of .9 feet over 3 frames or 2.24mph, to 5 frames 161-166 or a little over 3mph... Below is the limo shown both as the Zfilm had him at 161, and superimposed over that is where Shaneyfelt put the limo at 168... The Line of sight from Zapruder to limo would show JFK in the exact same Line... (which was why they messed with the lane markers afterward) yet the frame # would be wrong... 7 more from the start (168-161=7) 5 fewer for the end (171-166=5)... 3 frames for speed adjustment and 18.3 fps.... The red arrows shows the surveyed path, pink is LOS for Zapruder, Green is Zapruder frame 205 when the left front fender clears the sign. Different analysis uses the front bumper, the back bumper and JFK in the limo 15.2 feet from the front as frame locations... This was accomplished by moving the limo - physically moving the stand-in limo.. then, looking thru the camera on the pedestal and matching it to the Zfilm... Chris here shows that due south from Position A is the divergence point for Shaneyfelt and my note explains what he did CE884 changed in a few key areas...This legend and the original work of Robert West secured by Tom Purvis many years ago challenges everythin you may know about the Zfilm. Don't we have all sorts of strangeness with Z207 -z222 on the film? Same places yet new and different frame numbers... The WHY was to sync the scant few images/films of the shooting around 313 and work backward... It was also to remove the correct number of frames between 132 and 133.... The B&W image shows the limo stand-in at Position A... the Queen Mary right on its tail... Not only was this turn removed, but they had to wait until the QM was again right behind the limo... Otherwise, why include a spot the limo supposedly did not move thru... if the limo does Mr. SHANEYFELT. This shows the photograph that was made from the point where Zapruder was standing looking toward the car, and is a point that we have designated as position A because it is in a position that did not appear on the Zapruder filmThe Zapruder film does not start until the car gets farther down Elm Street.Mr. SHANEYFELT. What is that exhibit number?Mr. SHANEYFELT. Exhibit No. 886.Mr. SPECTER. And why was that location selected for the position of the car?Mr. SHANEYFELT. This location was selected as the first point at which a person in the sixth floor window of the Book Building at our control point could have gotten a shot at the President after the car had rounded the corner from Houston to Elm Seems like that limo could roll back up Elm quite a bit and we stil lcould see and hit that spot on his back... Chris also proves why the stand-in car was 10" higher than the limo Note: we have - supposedly - the actual frame by frame film of the assassination from this angle... why recreate it? Why survey and resurvey 4 and 5 times? This is what the turn might have actually looked like. Shaneyfelt refers to the very important Station C as where he WOULD HAVE TURNED... but they simply ignore TRULY's statement about the limo turning wide and almost hitting the little Elm curb. A limo at 11.2 mph travels farther in 3 frames than .9 foot. The speed was averaged and for very good reason... But what we don't see it this massive slowing and accelerating necessary to match CE884's data.... which in turn was designed to all work back to the 6th floor window... The frame rates given for Zapruder and Towner are simply wrong and used to hide the cuts and overlaps.... No camera operates at 22 fps... neither does it operate at 18.3 frames per second (note: the pitch of Elm is exactly 18.3:1 run over rise... so every second of film we should travel 18.3 feet.. makes the math much easier) A theory held for quite some time is that with a flick of his finger, 16fps jumps to 48fps... and Zapruder now has 3x as many frames as regular speed.... Take out 25% of the frames from 48 you have 36 fps.... take 50% of those out of the film and we get 18 frames per second and with a few adjustments we can get 18.3fps... Now, the MATH he uses gets deep into angles, distances and locations... by reading the thread you realize the FBI simply changed the evidence to fit the need... Where have we hear THAT before? DJ FWIW, the dots on the plat from Shaneyfelt align exactly to the frames used by the NPIC Sunday night to create the briefing boards... Coincidence? Doubt it, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Doudna Posted July 14, 2020 Author Share Posted July 14, 2020 (edited) David Josephs, no offense intended but I still have no idea what you are talking about or what all those charts and numbers are supposed to mean or prove. Would it be possible to state in two sentences: sentence #1: what specific point is being claimed or falsified? Sentence #2: what form of evidence or argument is set forth to prove #1? Thanks. Edited July 14, 2020 by Greg Doudna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 14, 2020 Share Posted July 14, 2020 22 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said: David Josephs, no offense intended but I still have no idea what you are talking about or what all those charts and numbers are supposed to mean or prove. Would it be possible to state in two sentences: sentence #1: what specific point is being claimed or falsified? Sentence #2: what form of evidence or argument is set forth to prove #1? Thanks. None taken Greg... yet no one said it would be easy... it's taken me years of working with it to understand, and I still have nowhere near the understanding of the math that Chris does... but I get it once it's down on the paper. There's a lot more to it than just a couple sentences does justice... Point of it all was to show 2 and only 2 shots hitting the limo occupants.. and remove all evidence of other shots despite what the witnesses saw or heard. The Zfilm was altered to remove frames while the FBI/SS falsifies the data. Math proves it... It also strongly supports that the film's assassination sequence (z133 - z486) was taken at 48 frames per second not 16 (he 2 settings are the only options) and then reduced from there to it's current 486 frames at 18.3 frames per second Shaneyfelt moved the limo off its path by moving it 1.1 foot south and .9 foot UP Elm... this makes the MATH work but not the film to the evidence The survey notes, the original notes from WEST prove the FBI and SS removed shots, moved locations and generally ignored the initial survey results... that Z313 was shot #2 and at station 4+96 down by the stairs and Emmett Hudson, another shot is recorded... The yellow curbs are important as in the Zfilm we see the z313 yellow curb just in front of Moorman, and the one further down Elm is by Altgens...Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 14, 2020 Share Posted July 14, 2020 (edited) deleted... Greg, I wish you all the luck and success you can find... I'd only suggest to dig a bit more deeply before offering "conclusions", as opposed to theories or hypotheses. Some thoughts to consider TOMLINSON's bullet is never authenticated as CE399... in fact, CE399 comes into existence when ROWLEY hands it to TODD CE2011 p.2. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140#relPageId=430&tab=page Bullets do enter without exiting... FBI reports a bullet behind the ear IN ADDITION TO the bullet they are calling CE399 Paul O'connor tells us a bullet was removed from the intercostal muscles in the lower right side of JFK's back A Dr. Young tells us corpsmen were sent to retrieve bone pieces and find another fully intact bullet.... Cliff V is mentioning an exotic item that did exist and very possibly was employed to "freeze" JFK in place.... A lower neck wound was described by LIPSEY which exited the throat... LIPSEY also tells us the body was flown by helicopter to Bethesda and brought in the back... Dennis David and a number of others confirm this arrival. Problem again, that creates to many shots from the rear for one man.... You have considered DAL-TEX and COUNTY COURTHOUSE to the East and then the south knoll area....for shot origination ? Ford moved the hole to make it appear it was coming on a downward trajectory and match the other Ryberg image.... when in fact the evidence says it rose in an upward trajectory from back to front... rose up.... And then there are the realities of what a 6.5mm bullet leaves behind as it tunnels thru soft tissue... how JFK was actually sitting, the steep angle of the Connally entrance(s) and finally the right to left movement of the bullet and supposed downward trajectory would have hit the seat after exiting JFK's chest... A scene from a reenactment... 5 1/4 inches down from the collar is where the red line (bullet) enters... JFK is sitting fairly straight up and that entry appears to match the hole in the shirt from the image I posted above... Elm is on a 3 degree slope as well, creating a steeper angle downward... to connect back to front the angle must rise.... so Ford moves the hole.... since adding a second hole there is not possible with 1 shooter... and only 3 bullets used. The backward and to the left particle trail of fragments which originate at the right temple and spread back and to the left from there... here is the entry and the location of the fragments below There has been enough work done to prove these fragments could not have originated from a rear shot. With the larger fragments nears the rear it makes sense since the mass was enough to make it the farthest distances... the "cloud" of fragments which we see at the front were too small to travel that far.... Bottom line Greg, this is a 10,000 piece puzzle of which we only have 2500 pieces 1/3 are blank, 1/3 come from a different puzzle and 1/3 has the evidence offered and found in 5+ years... the picture on the box simply doesn't match the pieces provided... Take care DJ Edited July 15, 2020 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 14, 2020 Share Posted July 14, 2020 (edited) deleted Edited July 14, 2020 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Doudna Posted July 14, 2020 Author Share Posted July 14, 2020 (edited) Cliff V., the list you cite from Vince Palamara 2015 of Parkland doctors' and nurses' identifications of the throat wound is given as: 14 entrance, 0 exit, and 1 either. I did some checking and that is discrepant from other accountings. According to this chart giving quotes of what the various Parkland doctors doctors and nurses testified of the throat wound, very different numbers are produced: 1 entrance, 2 exit, and 9 either. http://www.vidiars.com/jfkwatergate/MedicalTestimonyThroatWound.pdf, The specific discrepancies are rather glaring between the two charts. Two of the names cited in Palamara 2015 as giving "entrance" identifications said they never even saw the throat wound before the tracheotomy! Dr. William Clark ("I was not present when the President arrived and did not see this wound") and Nurse Bowron ("I didn't [have any opportunity to observe his neck]...until after they had pronounced him dead and we cleaned up and removed the trach tube"). And an additional three more of the names cited in Palamara as "entrance" identifications are quoted differently: Dr. Carrico ("it could have been either"); Dr. Baxter ("we could not determine...could well represent either exit or entry wound"); Dr. McClelland ("I would say it would be equally consistent with either type wound. It would be quite difficult to say--impossible"). And I found a sixth name listed as one who identified the throat wound as "entrance" on the Palamaro list, Dr. Marion Jenkins, testified the exact opposite to the Warren Commission! (https://www.jfk-assassination.eu/warren/wch/vol6/page48.php) Mr. SPECTER: Would you describe that wound as specifically as you can? Dr. JENKINS. Well, I'm afraid my description of it would not be as accurate, of course, as that of the surgeons who were doing the tracheotomy, because my look was a quick look before connecting up the endotracheal tube to the apparatus to help in ventilation and respiration for the patient, and I was aware later in the day, as I should have put it in the report, that I thought this was a wound of exit because it was not a clean wound, and by "clean" clearly demarcated, round, punctate wound which is the usual wound of an entrance wound, made by a missile and at some speed. Of course, entrance wounds with a lobbing type missile, can make a jagged wound also, but I was of the impression and I recognized I had the impression it was an exit wound. I am not aware that any of the ballistics and medical panels in the major investigations ruled out an exit wound for the throat wound solely on the basis of the early witness testimony seems somewhat different from the impression given by the Palamaro list. The 2003 study of Aguilar and Cunningham 2003, "How Five Investigations into JFK's Medical/Autopsy Evidence Got it Wrong" (https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm) summarizes on the notion of an entrance throat wound: "any embedded bullets would have been picked up easily on the chest or neck X-rays, which are notable for the absence of bullets. So it (or they) must have exited somewhere. That is, unless the bullet(s) was/were extracted sometime between Dealey Plaza and Bethesda, and no autopsy witnesses noted any wound in JFK’s body through which such a technically difficult retrieval could have been performed. Alternatively, if very improbably, the bullet(s) might have been some sort of self-dissolving missile(s), such as the “ice bullet” Humes had speculated about during the autopsy." I think an explanation of the throat wound of JFK involving a bullet not made of ice (which I have never heard of existing) is more likely than one involving an ice bullet. The absence of an exit wound in the neck, and the absence of any bullet in the neck from the X-rays, means the throat wound cannot have been an entrance. The only issue then is which of the two wounds at the rear of JFK's body was the entrance for the bullet which exited through the throat. The upper back wound has been the WC, HSCA, Donald Thomas et al practically universal solution. But it suffers from objections and arguably was just simply wrong: objections of vertical angle of trajectory; the probe attempts at the autopsy showing no bullet pathway between those two wounds; the upper back wound found at the autopsy to be only ca. 1 inch deep; and the bullet which entered the upper back wound neither exited nor remained in JFK's body but fell back out of its entrance and is the Parkway stretcher bullet. That leaves the rear of the head occipital entrance wound as the only possible entrance wound source for the bullet that exited the throat. I have found prior proposal and argument of this. Pat Speer, while not arguing the full bullet of the rear occipital entrance exited the throat, argues the throat wound was caused by an exit of either a part of that bullet, or bone, from the rear occipital entrance shot. However another researcher named Hasan Yusef, building from the work of Pat Speer, in a 2013 blog post went the full nine yards and argued the same conclusion I have on this point. Excerpts from the blog post of Yusef, "The throat shot: from the front?" (https://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-throat-shot-from-front.html😞 Now believe me, for quite a while, I was also of the firm belief that the wound to the throat was caused by a shot from the front. However, after reading through the highly illuminating and thorough work by researcher Pat Speer on this issue, I have since changed my mind. I am now of the firm opinion that the small neat wound to the throat was caused by either a bullet or bullet fragment from the shot which struck near the President’s EOP [...] Despite the utter bullxxxx and lies by lone gunman kooks, the most credible evidence indicates the throat wound was caused by the bullet or bullet fragment from the shot near the President’s EOP. Keep in mind that Dr Humes’ report on the President’s autopsy contains the following crucial piece of information (obtained from the JFK Lancer website). “Dr. Perry noted the massive wound of the head and a second much smaller wound of the low anterior neck in approximately the midline. A tracheostomy was performed by extending the latter wound. At this point bloody air was noted bubbling from the wound and an injury to the right lateral wall of the trachea was observed.” As we can see, Dr Humes received information from Dr Perry that “bloody air” was observed bubbling from the wound as the tracheostomy was performed [...] Now although the wound from which bloody air was observed “bubbling from” could have been the throat wound, there is evidence that the wound in question was in fact the head wound. As Pat Speer explains on his website, the Parkland hospital Doctors and Nurses involved in the desperate attempt to save the President’s life believed the throat wound and the head wound were connected. In fact, one of the Doctors, Robert McClelland, expressed the belief that the throat wound was caused by a bullet fragment. Furthermore, Speer provided information concerning a video presentation of former Parkland hospital Doctor, Marion Jenkins, who had administered the oxygen to President Kennedy following Dr Perry’s tracheostomy incision. The presentation was provided by Jenkins’ daughter, Christine Jenkins, in 2008. The late Jack White was one of the witnesses to the presentation, and provided the following information. "Each time he [Jenkins] squeezed on his air bag, bubbles of blood came out the brain wound." Jack White’s observation from the presentation corroborates that the wound “bloody air was noted bubbling from” was the head wound – although Speer claims White was mistaken about his observation. Speer also explains that the X-ray of President Kennedy’s neck indicates the presence of air bubbles – which would result from the oxygen supplied from the tracheostomy procedure. For more information, I strongly encourage you to read through Speer’s impressive work on his website here [https://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-throat-shot-from-front.html]. The bottom line is the evidence indicates the wound to the President’s throat was not caused by a shot fired from the front. Edited July 14, 2020 by Greg Doudna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 15, 2020 Share Posted July 15, 2020 52 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said: Cliff V., the list you cite from Vince Palamara 2015 of Parkland doctors' and nurses' identifications of the throat wound is given as: 14 entrance, 0 exit, and 1 either. Wait a minute! Not so fast, pal. You’ve made a claim that the Parkland doctors created an air-pocket over-laying the right C7/T1 transverse processes at the back base of JFK’s neck. You are claiming that instead of inserting a tube into the trachea the Doctors instead shoved the tube all the way thru his neck. You’re making this up as you go along, aren’t you Pet Theorist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Doudna Posted July 15, 2020 Author Share Posted July 15, 2020 (edited) David Josephs, thank you. I understand the math is an argument purportedly proving the Zapruder film was altered, for the purpose of covertly removing one or more shots from the record, established by means of some complex arguments from checkpoints and angles and measurements of distances. I think I may need to wait until someone is able to write an explanation of Chris's work more user-friendly to understand, if this has not been done already. Anyway you answered my question. On C399 I think there is a misunderstanding. I was not referring to C399 in my writeup but only the stretcher bullet as established from the witness accounts. The only mention I made of C399 was in a separate paragraph making the point that there are questions raised over whether C399 is or is not the stretcher bullet and that that issue does not affect my argument because I am talking about the stretcher bullet. I am under no assumption that C399 was the stretcher bullet for all of the reasons you give, and I never said otherwise. On your question: You wrote: “All witnesses report the stretcher bullet was near-pristine, “ which witnesses greg? Sharon Tuohy, Nathan Burgess Pool, and Darrell Tomlinson saw the bullet and Tomlinson turned it in to O.P. Wright. Oddly Tomlinson, despite being the only of these witnesses questioned by the Warren Commission about the find of the stretcher bullet, was never asked to describe what the bullet looked like! However Nathan Burgess Pool, an elevator company repairman who was with Tomlinson and found the bullet did testify as to its description to HSCA: "It looked like any G.I. issue bullet to me. It was a fairly long projectile...out of a high-powered rifle...more round nose than a 303 or a 30.06 or anything like that... Because of the diameter of it, it was small and the length was long, you know... It looked to me like it was in pretty good condition. It wasn't beat up or anything. ... didn't look like it had hit bone or anything like that. It just looked like it probably was a jacketed bullet you know." (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/K Disk/Kurtz Michael L Dr Kansas Wrone Book/Item 17.pdf) Nurse Sharon Tuohy saw the stretcher bullet before Pool and Tomlinson but did not touch it or report it, and remembered later: "it appeared to be a dirty brassy yellow in color, short as I remember it, on the stretcher" (interview available on Utube). O.P. Wright, to whom Tomlinson gave the bullet, later showed a pristine pointed bullet to Josiah Thompson and said the stretcher bullet had looked like the one he was showing (meaning pointed). No one who saw the stretcher bullet said it was damaged or misshapen. If C399 was a secondary substitution for the stretcher bullet as it may well be, C399 was intended to be accepted including by original witnesses as the stretcher bullet and therefore the near-pristine condition of C399 becomes further indirect supporting argument that the stretcher bullet was near-pristine, on the grounds that similar was being substituted for similar. Edited July 15, 2020 by Greg Doudna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now