The Clean Cut Throat Wound

[Michael Crane]

On 5/31/2023 at 10:56 AM, Bill Brown said:

 

"It penetrated less than a fingers depth."

 

Nonsense.

 

This is not how bullets work in the real world.

 

What kind of weapon and/or ammunition do you suppose was used which would result in a bullet penetrating less than three inches into soft tissue?

 

I stand by my statement.

Keep researching.

Edited June 2, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Pat Speer]

16 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

If the photos are of a gunshot wound through a living victim, then this would have been out in the real world and so there would have been no way to verify that the exit wound was correctly shored. So I can't see how this could have been used as an example of shoring.

As regards the Parkland witnesses, I think we should believe them. Those witnesses were there, we were not.

??? He presented a photo of a small wound that would normally be considered an entrance, then pointed out that IF the corresponding wound--the wound with which it connects--is an even smaller wound, well, then, THAT wound must be the entrance. This is a textbook by a prestigious doctor in collaboration with a number of other prestigious doctors. He was pointing out medical facts to people responsible for determining medical facts. 

And yet what he reported was 100% at odds with what he concluded as part of the HSCA FPP. 

As far as the Parkland witnesses, on what issue should we believe them?

They nearly unanimously claimed the wound they saw was above the ear and thus not a large wound on the occipital bone. And yet, even so, most everyone saying they "believe" them assumes they were wrong about this.

They also claimed they saw one large wound. And yet many of those supposedly "believing" them say there were two large wounds--one at the front of the head and one on the back of the head. Even more absurdly, those making this claim say these witnesses saw the large head wound on the back of the head while JFK was lying on his back, but failed to notice the large wound on the front of the head that was right out in the open. Balderdash. 

 

Edited June 2, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

The holes in the back of JFK's coat and shirt are hard physical evidence that refutes the SBT. However, WC apologists dismiss this concrete evidence with the farcical bunched-clothing theory.

To his credit, even WC apologist Jim Moore does not buy the bunched-clothing fantasy. Moore concedes that "the odds against this millimeter-for-millimeter correspondence boggle the imagination" (Conspiracy of One, p. 155). Moore also notes that the photographic evidence refutes the idea that Kennedy's clothing was markedly bunched when the shooting began; he points out that the Willis and Betzner pictures both show JFK's white shirt collar, "which would not be visible were his jacket bunched" (p. 155).

When I mentioned in another forum that the holes in the back of JFK’s coat and shirt overlap and align with each other, one longtime WC apologist called this factual statement “kooky.” But the fact that the holes overlap and align almost exactly has been known for decades. 

The hole in the coat is 5.375 inches (5 and 3/8th inches) from the top of the coat’s collar and 1.75 inches (1 and 3/4th inches) from coat’s midline. The hole in the back of the shirt is 5.75 inches from the top of the shirt’s collar and 1.125 inches from the shirt’s midline. 

FBI firearms and ballistics examiner Robert Frazier explained to the WC that the two holes lined up vertically after factoring in the fact that the shirt collar was about half an inch above the coat collar. Frazier made this observation after Alan Dulles asked him if the position of the holes indicated that they were made by the same bullet. Frazier said yes, and explained why:

          Mr. Dulles. Is the hole in the shirt and the hole in the coat you have just described in a position that indicates that the same instrument, whatever it was, or the same bullet, made the two? 

          Mr. Frazier. Yes, they are. 

          They are both—the coat hole is 5 and 3/8th inches below the top of the collar. The shirt hole is 5 and 3/4 inches, which could be accounted for by a portion of the collar sticking up above the coat about a half inch. (5 H 60)

As for the horizontal position of the holes, Frazier said that both holes are “approximately the same distance” from the middle of both garments:

          Mr. Frazier. And they are both located approximately the same distance to the right of the midline of both garments. (5 H 60)

Finally, the Croft photo, cited endlessly by WC apologists, is overruled by the Betzner 3 and Willis 5 photos, which were taken closer to the start of the shooting. But, even if we ignore this crucial fact, there are two fatal problems with the Croft photo as support for the bunched-clothing theory:

One, the bunch is not high enough to account for the location of the rear clothing holes. Two, it is simply ludicrous to suppose that JFK's tailor-made shirt, which he was sitting back against, could have bunched in virtually perfect correspondence--in both degree and shape--with the coat. 

[Bill Brown]

15 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

Well,it's been awhile but,my information comes from Cyril Wecht.

 

Okay but that isn't an answer.

 

[Michael Crane]

5 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Okay but that isn't an answer.

 

Others besides Cyril have mentioned more weight in Connally's wrist than what's missing from the 399 magic bullet.Keep in mind that fragments were also taken from Connally's wrist for neutron activation tests.

 

As far as what type of bullet...David Lifton believe's that the wound was man made & others have said that the shot might have hit a tree branch and lost velosity.After all,a shot in the back is not a kill shot.Something happened,maybe a short shot.

Edited June 3, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

After all,a shot in the back is not a kill shot.Something happened,maybe a short shot.

Or a paralysis shot — scorpion logic.

Or a blood soluble toxin.

 

Edited June 2, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Michael Crane]

Educate this man Cliff.

Humes probed the wound with his finger & the wound was also probed with a stainless steel probe without success.

*In my mind,this bullet was removed pre autopsy at a funeral home other than O'Neal's.

**This funeral home is where the Secret Service got the black hearse to transport the body in a shipping casket.

Edited June 3, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Michael Crane said:

Educate this man Cliff.

Humes probed the wound with his finger & the wound was also probed with a stainless steel probe without success.

*In my mind,this bullet was removed pre autopsy at a funeral home other than O'Neil's.

**This funeral home is where the Secret Service got the black hearse to transport the body in a shipping casket.

That is a possible scenario.

My question is what round creates such a shallow wound?

[Michael Crane]

2 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

That is a possible scenario.

My question is what round creates such a shallow wound?

I have to admit that I am baffled by this scenario & have no answer Cliff.

Edited June 3, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Bill Brown]

30 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

I have to admit that I am baffled by this scenario & have no answer Cliff.

 

Typical.

 

"The bullet hit the back but only entered a couple inches in the soft tissue.  No, I can't support my silly nonsense but conspiracy authors said it, so..."

 

[Michael Crane]

12 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Typical.

 

"The bullet hit the back but only entered a couple inches in the soft tissue.  No, I can't support my silly nonsense but conspiracy authors said it, so..."

 

The wound was so "SHALLOW" that the pathologists thought that a "MASSAGE" could have made it fall back out.

That my friend is less than finger deep.

 

 

So the pathologists claimed that during the time they had access to JFK’s remains, they only knew that JFK had what they believed was an entrance wound in the back with no exit wound, and a tracheotomy wound in the throat. They were also convinced that the bullet must have come out somewhere, because X-rays had shown there was no whole bullet left anywhere inside JFK’s body. Given that JFK’s personal physician, Admiral George Burkley, had made retrieving bullet evidence one of the primary goals of the autopsy, the absence of any bullets in JFK’s body posed a huge problem. The only explanation that they said had occurred to them during the autopsy was that perhaps a bullet had entered JFK’s back shallowly and was later massaged back out the back wound during cardiopulmonary resuscitation at Parkland Hospital.

 

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm

 

Edited June 3, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Typical.

 

"The bullet hit the back but only entered a couple inches in the soft tissue.  No, I can't support my silly nonsense but conspiracy authors said it, so..."

 

The autopsists thought JFK was hit with a high tech weapon, rounds that wouldn’t show up on x-Ray or in the body.

Why isn’t that the most likely scenario?

[Michael Crane]

On 6/2/2023 at 6:40 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

The autopsists thought JFK was hit with a high tech weapon, rounds that wouldn’t show up on x-Ray or in the body.

Why isn’t that the most likely scenario?

A high tech weapon for the throat & the back wound?

IMHO the bullets were removed prior to autopsy.This work was not completed by Dr Humes or Boswell.

James Jenkins was in the autopsy room from 3:30 pm to around 8:30 am.He would have seen Humes remove bullets prior to the 8:00 start time.Same with O'Connor.Jenkins only left the morgue for a short time ( not for the x-rays) I believe the same thing with O'Connor,but he was asked to leave more than Jenkins.

Walter Reed is also a possible place for the pre autopsy.Maybe the black hearse came from Walter Reed.

No way in hell would the pathologists think that there was a pre autopsy.

Humes tried to give us a clue when he blurted out that there was surgery of the head area.

When Reed & Robinson seen Humes using the saw,that was DURING the autopsy and not before (they never gave a time)

*Mortician Robinson was not an early arrival at Bethesda.

Edited June 4, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Michael Crane said:

A high tech weapon for the throat & the back wound?

That’s what Humes et al speculated with the body in front of them.

1 hour ago, Michael Crane said:

IMHO the bullets were removed prior to autopsy.This work was not completed by Dr Humes or Boswell.

That’s a live scenario.  But it leaves a question hanging — what weapon leaves a shallow wound in soft tissue?

[Michael Crane]

I'm not comfortable with any answer to tell you the truth.

If I had a gun to my head...I would say a defective bullet from the manufacturer.

* If the conspirators were so comfortable with their "special weapon" they would have left the body alone.

Edited June 3, 2023 by Michael Crane