What Kind of Weapon Leaves a Shallow Wound in Soft Tissue?

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Michael Crane said:

Well,that is a terrific description (thank you for that) Now I just need to learn more anatomy.

A certain amount of medical evidence study is a must.

2 types of JFK medical evidence — material prepared according to proper autopsy protocol — and material that violated protocol.

Burkley’s death certificate and the part of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil both follow protocol.  

The autopsy photos, the final autopsy report, and the measurements written in pen on the face sheet violated multiple protocols.

Edited May 10, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Michael Crane]

I say this with the opinion that the Umbrella Man's shot would not have been straight on.

How far JFK was looking to his right (if at all) is unknown to me (but it was not straight on)

Edited May 10, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

He testified st the Clay Shaw trial.

“Some people” say a lot of things.

Finck had limited experience?  Why, because “many” means only three?

There is no doubt JFK was shot from the front.

Yes, Finck was a peacetime military autopsy guy for three years in Germany. He said he participated in "many" autopsies involving missile wounds. That could be four or five. Maybe it was 10. I would not call that experienced.

Finck seemed the best of the lot, as Hume and Boswell were actually administrators. Who knows what these guys missed? My guess is certain pathologists in Detroit or Los Angeles see hundreds of gunshots in their careers. That is experienced.  

Finck did testify at the Garrison trial. He did not say he thought an ice-bullet had been used on JFK, as I recall. 

You are among the group dead-certain JFK was shot from the front.

Excellent researcher Pat Speer and others are just as certain as you JFK was only shot from the rear. 

It is remarkable how certain some JFKA researchers are---it is almost as if a certain rigid type takes an interest in the JFKA. 

Really? You are not, say, 90% certain JFK was shot from the front? You are at 100%?

 

 

 

 

 

[Michael Crane]

3 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Really? You are not, say, 90% certain JFK was shot from the front?

I'll say this last opinion of mine and then disappear from the thread.

I believe that JFK was shot two times from the rear & two times from the front.

[Benjamin Cole]

6 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

I'll say this last opinion of mine and then disappear from the thread.

I believe that JFK was shot two times from the rear & two times from the front.

I am unsure how many times JFK was shot. 

I think from the rear and twice. But just IMHO....

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Yes, Finck was a peacetime military autopsy guy for three years in Germany. He said he participated in "many" autopsies involving missile wounds. That could be four or five. Maybe it was 10. I would not call that experienced.

It must be inconvenient to your pet theories.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Finck seemed the best of the lot, as Hume and Boswell were actually administrators. Who knows what these guys missed? My guess is certain pathologists in Detroit or Los Angeles see hundreds of gunshots in their careers. That is experienced.  

By all means make stuff up.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Finck did testify at the Garrison trial. He did not say he thought an ice-bullet had been used on JFK, as I recall. 

You are among the group dead-certain JFK was shot from the front.

Excellent researcher Pat Speer and others are just as certain as you JFK was only shot from the rear. 

Pat Speer is a nice guy who doesn’t understand where the back wound was.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

It is remarkable how certain some JFKA researchers are---it is almost as if a certain rigid type takes an interest in the JFKA. 

Here you go — gotta make it personal...

These people of whom you speak absolutely MUST rely on the following scenario regarding the crucial physical evidence:

In order to have a wound at T1 — the top of the back — 2+ inches of both JFK’s shirt and jacket had to elevate entirely above T1 without pushing up on the jacket collar, which Dealey Plaza photos show in a normal position just above the base of the neck.

This scenario is idiotic.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Really? You are not, say, 90% certain JFK was shot from the front? You are at 100%?

I’m 100% certain JFK’s clothing didn’t move in a manner you could only see on really clean acid.

Edited May 10, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

From Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked, pg 496:

<quote on>

[Former CIA employee Gary] Underhill's concern was that he had become aware of a "clique" within the CIA--a clique dealing with weapons and gun-running and making money. These individuals had Far Eastern connections, narcotics was mentioned, supposedly the clique was manipulating political intrigues to serve their own ends. Underhill believed that these individuals had been involved with JFK's murder; he felt that JFK had become aware of their dealings and
was about to move against them in some fashion. He also believed that members of the clique knew that Underhill was aware of their dealings and that his own life could well be in jeopardy.
<quote off>

I’m looking at people who held sway in Laos at various times.  Carl Jenkins, Paul Helliwell...and W. Averell Harriman.

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

It must be inconvenient to your pet theories.

By all means make stuff up.

Pat Speer is a nice guy who doesn’t understand where the back wound was.

Here you go — gotta make it personal...

These people of whom you speak absolutely MUST rely on the following scenario regarding the crucial physical evidence:

In order to have a wound at T1 — the top of the back — 2+ inches of both JFK’s shirt and jacket had to elevate entirely above T1 without pushing up on the jacket collar, which Dealey Plaza photos show in a normal position just above the base of the neck.

This scenario is idiotic.

I’m 100% certain JFK’s clothing didn’t move in a manner you could only see on really clean acid.

 Pat Speer devoted a lot of his website and serious research to the JFK head wounds. 

I find his arguments re JFK wounds to be solid. 

But yours are more entertaining. 

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

 Pat Speer devoted a lot of his website and serious research to the JFK head wounds. 

I find his arguments re JFK wounds to be solid. 

But yours are more entertaining. 

 

 

So you think it’s possible for 4+ inches of fabric to bunch up above the top of the back without pushing up on the jacket collar just above the base of the neck?

That strikes you as “serious”?

[Cliff Varnell]

Another flaw in Pat’s analyses: he cites medical material not prepared according to autopsy protocol — the Fox 5 Back of the Head photo, the back wound locations in the final autopsy report, and the measurements written in pen on the autopsy face sheet all sport multiple violations of medical protocol.

[Evan Marshall]

Looking at the poor quality of the autopsy phots if I had turned in such photos while assigned to Detroit CSI I would have been out back to patrol.

What kind of bullet can paralyze someone? A rifle bullet hitting something important.

Edited May 10, 2023 by Evan Marshall

[Evan Marshall]

Looking at the poor quality if the autopsy phots if I had turend in such photos while assigned to Detroit CSI I wouls have been out back to patrol.

What kind of bullet can paralyze someone? A rifle bullet that hitts something important.

[Nick Bartetzko]

12 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Yes, Finck was a peacetime military autopsy guy for three years in Germany. He said he participated in "many" autopsies involving missile wounds. That could be four or five. Maybe it was 10. I would not call that experienced.

Finck seemed the best of the lot, as Hume and Boswell were actually administrators. Who knows what these guys missed? My guess is certain pathologists in Detroit or Los Angeles see hundreds of gunshots in their careers. That is experienced.  

Finck did testify at the Garrison trial. He did not say he thought an ice-bullet had been used on JFK, as I recall. 

You are among the group dead-certain JFK was shot from the front.

Excellent researcher Pat Speer and others are just as certain as you JFK was only shot from the rear. 

It is remarkable how certain some JFKA researchers are---it is almost as if a certain rigid type takes an interest in the JFKA. 

Really? You are not, say, 90% certain JFK was shot from the front? You are at 100%?

Some very useful info was gleaned from Dr Perry when Harold Weisberg visited him in his Parkland office and I’m pretty sure that was in 1966. Dr Perry off-handedly mentioned the neck wound had a ring of bruising which is consistent with an entry wound only. This is per Weisberg and is mentioned in the book Post Mortem. All of this is from memory. I have the book somewhere, but I moved some months ago, and things are still a bit in disarray.

 

 

 

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

5 hours ago, Evan Marshall said:

Looking at the poor quality of the autopsy phots if I had turned in such photos while assigned to Detroit CSI I would have been out back to patrol.

What kind of bullet can paralyze someone? A rifle bullet hitting something important.

In this scenario the throat shot induced paralysis — along with broken blood vessels, a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, and an air pocket overlaying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes.  Then the bullet was removed pre-autopsy.

My question is — what caliber rifle creates that kind of damage, no exit?

Edited May 10, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Nick Bartetzko said:

 

As I say, there are 100% devout individuals in favor of either frontal or rear shots to JFK. 

I am not sure what happened. I guess I have a weak, wishy-washy personality.