The Clean Cut Throat Wound

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

We can agree on this. The "shored" wound argument pushed by Lattimer and propped up by Baden et al was a hoax. While it is true "shored" exit wounds are exits that look a lot like entrances, I found a top textbook with a section on how to tell a shored exit apart from its corresponding entrance. According to this textbook, the entrance wound leading to a shored exit is inevitably smaller than the shored exit. Well, hell, JFK's back wound was, by all estimates, larger than his throat wound. If one assumes they are connected, then, one is forced to assume the back wound is the exit, and not the throat wound.

P.S. I'll save the SBT-lovers out there their next post where they claim whoever wrote this textbook was an idiot, etc. It was Dr. Charles Petty-THE top gunshot wounds expert among the members of the HSCA Pathology Panel. Even Worse, he wrote his chapter on gunshot wounds while serving on the HSCA Pathology Panel. So he damned well knew the throat wound was not a shored wound of entrance, even while signing onto a report pretending his throat wound was a shored wound of exit. .

FWIW, I had a meeting with Dr. Wecht at the 2014 Bethesda conference that focused on this issue. He was disgusted by Petty's subterfuge.  I sent him the following slide, and half-expected him to add it or at least add the info provided into his presentations. But he never did. For whatever reason, he was reluctant to call out his colleagues on their obvious deceptions, and instead chose to pretend they were simply mistaken. I believe he should have taken the other route. 

PS-

One problem I have always had with the JFK throat shot---where was the shooter? What about the limo front window? 

BTW, I believe, beyond reasonable doubt, that a lone gunman armed with a single-shot bolt action, could not have fired the shots as rapidly as seen in the Z-film, or heard by many witnesses (the bang...bang-bang).

I am open from a shot from the GK-pergola area, though hardly necessary to prove a conspiracy. There was, at least, an intentional likely diversionary smoke-and-bang show there. 

But a shot from the front? Where? How? 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Are you positively concluding, before pondering the matter, that Boris Badanov was not involved with a Russian frozen dart that was fired 100 meters into the wind at a moving target, likely at a subsonic speed, and then penetrated two inches into JFK (through two layers of clothing), and then disappeared? 

I’ve presented my research.  You can’t make a counter argument so you make faces.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

If you look at the Altgens photo...you have nearly the proof you need....

I’ve presented a variety of proofs indicating that blood soluble weapon technology existed in different applications.

All that leaves you is contentless dismissals.

[Benjamin Cole]

Just now, Cliff Varnell said:

I’ve presented my research.  You can’t make a counter argument so you make faces.

I’ve presented a variety of proofs indicating that blood soluble weapon technology existed in different applications.

All that leaves you is contentless dismissals.

Do you believe you see a shooter in the Altgens photo? 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

PS-

One problem I have always had with the JFK throat shot---where was the shooter? What about the limo front window? 

BTW, I believe, beyond reasonable doubt, that a lone gunman armed with a single-shot bolt action, could not have fired the shots as rapidly as seen in the Z-film, or heard by many witnesses (the bang...bang-bang).

I am open from a shot from the GK-pergola area, though hardly necessary to prove a conspiracy. There was, at least, an intentional likely diversionary smoke-and-bang show there. 

But a shot from the front? Where? How? 

Black Dog Man.  The HSCA study of Betzer 3 identified a  "very distinct straight line feature...near the region of his hands".

Rosemary Willis describes BDM as a “conspicuous” person who suddenly disappeared.

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Do you believe you see a shooter in the Altgens photo? 

Why don’t you check out Tom Wilson’s book before you dismiss him?

[Pat Speer]

32 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

Does the slide show a gunshot through living or dead tissue? Dead tissue would be less elastic and so would be less susceptible to the effects of shoring.

Petty was a well-respected forensic pathologist. He did not conduct experiments on cadavers. The photos in his book were of actual gunshot victims. 

The "shored" wound explanation is a myth, like most of what's been published on the JFK medical evidence, from people residing on both sides of the fence. I spent years combing through the UCLA medical archives, and reading all I could find on gunshot wounds, forensic pathology, forensic radiology, etc. And most of what has been published and written on this forum have been second-hand myths scraped together to push a particular viewpoint. 

I'll give you a CT myth. Many have argued and continue to argue that it would be impossible for ALL the Parkland witnesses to be wrong, etc. This misrepresents the facts in two ways. One is that it holds, incorrectly as it turns out, that the Parkland witnesses were uniform in their impressions. And the other is that even if they were in agreement, they could still be wrong, as people are routinely and uniformly wrong about a lot of things, for a lot of reasons. When I was looking into this, I contacted two of the top cognitive psychologists in the country, and they assured me that people often misinterpret events or objects in a uniform manner. It's not remotely surprising to them. Now I know some like to quote Gary Aguilar on this, in which he cites Elizabeth Loftus, as support for the "fact" people don't make uniform mistakes. But Gary, a friend, screwed up, and totally misrepresented the substance of Loftus' findings. and the findings of those who've engaged in similar research. 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

Just now, Cliff Varnell said:

Why don’t you check out Tom Wilson’s book before you dismiss him?

Am I allowed to look at the Altgens photo first, and then rely on my pretty solid understanding of resolution in photos? 

[Gerry Down]

10 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Petty was a well-respected forensic pathologist. He did not conduct experiments on cadavers. The photos in his book were of actual gunshot victims. 

The "shored" wound explanation is a myth, like most of what's been published on the JFK medical evidence, from people residing on both sides of the fence. I spent years combing through the UCLA medical archives, and reading all I could find on gunshot wounds, forensic pathology, forensic radiology, etc. And most of what has been published and written on this forum have been second-hand myths scraped together to push a particular viewpoint. 

I'll give you a CT myth. Many have argued and continue to argue that it would be impossible for ALL the Parkland witnesses to be wrong, etc. This misrepresents the facts in two ways. One is that it holds, incorrectly as it turns out, that the Parkland witnesses were uniform in their impressions. And the other is that even if they were in agreement, they could still be wrong, as people are routinely and uniformly wrong about a lot of things, for a lot of reasons. When I was looking into this, I contacted two of the top cognitive psychologists in the country, and they assured me that people often misinterpret events or objects in a uniform manner. It's not remotely surprising to them. Now I know some like to quote Gary Aguilar on this, in which he cites Elizabeth Loftus, as support for the "fact" people don't make uniform mistakes. But Gary, a friend, screwed up, and totally misrepresented the substance of Loftus' findings. and the findings of those who've engaged in similar research. 

 

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.

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

. I'll give you a CT myth. Many have argued and continue to argue that it would be impossible for ALL the Parkland witnesses to be wrong, etc. 

No, Pat, it is the totality of evidence which proves the throat wound was an entrance.

The physical evidence, the contemporaneous records of witnesses in position of authority, the properly produced medical evidence, and consensus witness testimony — all corroborate the T3 and throat entrances.

 

Edited June 2, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Am I allowed to look at the Altgens photo first, and then rely on my pretty solid understanding of resolution in photos? 

No, you are not allowed to assume Wilson’s methodology prior to investigation.

Now be a good sport and do some open minded research on Tom Wilson.

Btw, someone has a patent on technology you pretend doesn’t exist.

Edited June 2, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Ron Bulman]

Clean cut.  Yes. Why waste my time.  it's simple in my mind.  Perry said a small entry wound, wasn't it 3-5 cm? the size of a pencil.  He sliced across, with a scalpel, about an inch.

Speculation is all that is possible at this point about how it wound up 3" wide and butchered.  Two, maybe combined possibilities imho.  

Widened in the search for and removal of a bullet prior to the autopsy and/or creation of the appearance of an exit wound.  I discount the second at that point.  The SBT fantasy was not yet created.

[Cliff Varnell]

https://www.amazon.com/Deeper-Darker-Truth-Wilsons-Assassination-ebook/dp/B002Y284R8

This stuff is way over my head.

Wilson aside, the important point is the patent on blood soluble weaponry.

[Benjamin Cole]

Remember all JFKA researchers (LN or CT):  When faced with a welter of clues, you are obligated to form rigid, resolute, unbending convictions, then chisel your sacred insights into granite at your homesteads. 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Remember all JFKA researchers (LN or CT):  When faced with a welter of clues, you are obligated to form rigid, resolute, unbending convictions, then chisel your sacred insights into granite at your homesteads. 

Textbook case of projection.

[Michael Crane]

On 5/31/2023 at 11:51 AM, Bill Brown said:

 

"There was more weight in bullet fragments contained in Governor Connally's wrist than what was lost from Commission number 399."

 

This simply is not true.

 

One hundred test bullets from the four lots were weighed.  It was determined (weighed on a precision balance) that the average of these test bullets weighed 160.8 grains.

 

399 weighed 158.6 grains, 2.2 grains of lost weight (assuming for a moment that 399 was the median).

 

Let me ask you, how many grains do you feel were "contained in Governor Connally's wrist"?

 

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