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

[Benjamin Cole]

7 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

I definitely don't believe it happened that way.

10 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

Thats not what he believes. Doesn't even make sense "LN lite".

Thanks for your comment. 

For sure, the back and front wounds to JFK are puzzling. I said I "suspect" my scenario is correct. 

One problem I have with the JFK front throat wound is direction---from through the windshield? Tink Thompson has the same problem.  

The literature says usually exit wounds are larger than entrance wounds, but not always. In some cases, they are confused. 

We know beyond reasonable doubt JBC was shot from behind. That indicates at least one gunsel to the rear, armed with ordinary ammo. 

The autopsy, as all agree, was hopelessly bungled.  This makes drawing conclusions...well, a challenge. 

That is why I focus on the timing of the visible shots that struck JBC and JFK, which I contend are in too-rapid succession for a lone gunsel armed with a single-shot bolt-action rifle to  accomplish. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Thanks for your comment. 

For sure, the back and front wounds to JFK are puzzling. I said I "suspect" my scenario is correct. 

“Strongly suspect” 

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

One problem I have with the JFK front throat wound is direction---from through the windshield? Tink Thompson has the same problem.  

So the dozen throat entrance wound witnesses all got it wrong.  Check.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The literature says usually exit wounds are larger than entrance wounds, but not always. In some cases, they are confused. 

Ah, which allows you to arbitrarily dismiss all witness testimony inconvenient to your pet theory.  Good show, Ben.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

We know beyond reasonable doubt JBC was shot from behind. That indicates at least one gunsel to the rear, armed with ordinary ammo. 

How does that support a Single Bullet creating both the back and throat wounds?

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The autopsy, as all agree, was hopelessly bungled.  This makes drawing conclusions...well, a challenge. 

Allowing you to arbitrarily dismiss anything that doesn’t fit your pet theory.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

That is why I focus on the timing of the visible shots that struck JBC and JFK, which I contend are in too-rapid succession for a lone gunsel armed with a single-shot bolt-action rifle to  accomplish. 

How does that establish a Single Bullet creating the back and throat wounds?

 

[Benjamin Cole]

24 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

“Strongly suspect” 

So the dozen throat entrance wound witnesses all got it wrong.  Check.

Ah, which allows you to arbitrarily dismiss all witness testimony inconvenient to your pet theory.  Good show, Ben.

How does that support a Single Bullet creating both the back and throat wounds?

Allowing you to arbitrarily dismiss anything that doesn’t fit your pet theory.

How does that establish a Single Bullet creating the back and throat wounds?

 

CV-

We have different perspectives. So it goes. 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

CV-

We have different perspectives. So it goes. 

I find yours amusing.  Lemme get this straight — a bullet strikes JFK in the back to the right of T3 on a downward angle, then without hitting anything solid the bullet immediately changed course to run a couple of inches alongside the spine to T1 where it hairline fractures the right T1 transverse process, somehow leaves an air pocket overlaying the right T1 and C7 TPs, then changes direction again to move forward to damage a couple of inches of trachea and exit his throat leaving a small exit wound a dozen medical pros thought was an entrance.

Do I have that right?

Edited May 15, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Benjamin Cole]

32 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I find yours amusing.  Lemme get this straight — a bullet strikes JFK in the back to the right of T3 on a downward angle, then without hitting anything solid the bullet immediately changed course to run a couple of inches alongside the spine to T1 where it hairline fractures the right T1 transverse process, somehow leaves an air pocket overlaying the right T1 and C7 TPs, then changes direction again to move forward to damage a couple of inches of trachea and exit his throat leaving a small exit wound a dozen medical pros thought was an entrance.

Do I have that right?

Like I said, each to his own. 

[Cliff Varnell]

7 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

CV-

We have different perspectives. So it goes. 

I think we live in different material universes.  Good luck in yours.

[Pat Speer]

On 5/13/2023 at 3:37 PM, Charles Blackmon said:

 

For the benefit of us lurkers who aren't as well versed in the autopsy, is this the image of which you speak? It actually looks like a rendering of a photo by I. Dox.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're correct. That's a tracing of the photo. It was entered into evidence in the HSCA hearings. 

When I said the photo has been entered into evidence I meant metaphorically, in that Humes Boswell Finck and Stringer have all testified to its authenticity, and that it was therefore a piece of evidence before the court of public opinion. Some would like to pretend that it would never be brought before a court, but it already has, metaphorically. 

It's important, moreover, that we realize that the HSCA's tracing was made public before the bootleg copy given to Mark Crouch by Fox was published by Lifton. Fox is presumed to have made his prints within days of the shooting. These prints were not shown to the commissioners or its staff, outside Warren and Specter, and were not published by the WC, as they basically disproved the SBT and in turn damaged the single assassin theory. 

As a result, it's drool on the floor stupid to think the print given to Crouch--which matched the HSCA's drawing and disproves the SBT--was a fake. 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

You're correct. That's a tracing of the photo. It was entered into evidence in the HSCA hearings. 

When I said the photo has been entered into evidence I meant metaphorically, in that Humes Boswell Finck and Stringer have all testified to its authenticity, and that it was therefore a piece of evidence before the court of public opinion.

And the court of public opinion may feel skepticism toward testimony from military men acting under orders.

We’re supposed to pretend that Humes & Co weren’t gang-pressed into the cover up?

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Some would like to pretend that it would never be brought before a court, but it already has, metaphorically. 

Some cite the conclusions of the HSCA that the photo in question is of especially poor quality and “more confusing than informative.”

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

It's important, moreover, that we realize that the HSCA's tracing was made public before the bootleg copy given to Mark Crouch by Fox was published by Lifton. Fox is presumed to have made his prints within days of the shooting. These prints were not shown to the commissioners or its staff, outside Warren and Specter, and were not published by the WC, as they basically disproved the SBT and in turn damaged the single assassin theory. 

Saundra Kay Spencer is on record as having developed the extant autopsy photos.  In her 6/4/97 ARRB testimony she stated:

<quote on, emphasis added>

Q: Did you ever see any other photographic material related to the autopsy in addition to what you have already described?

A: Just, you know, when they came out with some books and stuff later that showed autopsy pictures and stuff, and I assumed that they were done in—you know, down in Dallas or something, because they were not the ones that I had worked on.

<quote off>

So the woman on record as having developed the autopsy photos denies having developed them.

The autopsy photos are worthless.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

As a result, it's drool on the floor stupid to think the print given to Crouch--which matched the HSCA's drawing and disproves the SBT--was a fake. 

How would they know it disproved the SBT?  They were making up the cover-up on the fly.  So what if one element of the cover-up contradicts another?

Edited May 15, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

Oh my! To cite Spencer for anything is flat-out ridiculous. You have photos of a famous celebrity wedding. The bride, groom, preacher, and wedding photographer all agree the photos are authentic. But then some "researcher" goes back and finds the employee of the Photomat 30 years later, and asks her if they were the photos she remembered developing. And she says I think the photos I developed were different, in that the bride was wearing a different dress. 

This is not evidence. This is garbage. It's like going back to the hospital where you were born, and finding some old biddy who says she remembers when you were born, but that as she remembers it your mom gave birth to twins. 

So... I hate to tell you, the old biddy is not reliable. if your family says you're not a twin, and the birth records of the hospital say you're not a twin, guess what? You're not a twin. 

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Oh my! To cite Spencer for anything is flat-out ridiculous. You have photos of a famous celebrity wedding. The bride, groom, preacher, and wedding photographer all agree the photos are authentic.

This is analogous to the military cover-up of the JFK assassination?

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

But then some "researcher" goes back and finds the employee of the Photomat 30 years later, and asks her if they were the photos she remembered developing. And she says I think the photos I developed were different, in that the bride was wearing a different dress. 

This is hysterical.  Literally.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/ARRB_Medical_Interviews.html

Saundra Kay Spencer developed photographs from the autopsy of President Kennedy on the weekend following the assassination. She worked at the Naval Photographic Center in Anacostia, in the "White House lab." Her liaison to the White House was Robert Knudsen, and she worked with Vince Madonia. Ms. Spencer, never before interviewed in association with this case, was shown the autopsy photographs held in the National Archives. She told ARRB Chief Counsel Jeremy Gunn that those photographs were not the ones she developed, based both on the content of the pictures (hers were "clean" and unbloody) and the type of film used (color positives as opposed to color transparencies). She appears to have processed photos which were taken after cleanup of the body, but these photos are not to be found in the official record nor the public domain.

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

This is not evidence. This is garbage.

Neither the Warren Commission nor the HSCA interviewed Spencer — no wonder.

https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Spencer_6-5-97/html/Spencer_0002b.htm

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

It's like going back to the hospital where you were born, and finding some old biddy who says she remembers when you were born, but that as she remembers it your mom gave birth to twins. 

So... I hate to tell you, the old biddy is not reliable. if your family says you're not a twin, and the birth records of the hospital say you're not a twin, guess what? You're not a twin. 

Anyone who studies the case for longer than 10 minutes realizes there was a military cover-up of the JFK assassination.

Unless Pat can identify who developed the Fox 5 photo there is a broken chain of possession.

Add that to the pile of deficiencies racked up by Pat Speer’s pet evidence.

Edited May 15, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Michael Griffith]

We do not know that no bullet was found in the shallow back wound. This bullet could have been removed during Humes and Boswell's illicit pre-autopsy surgery on the body. 

The throat wound could have been made by a piece of glass from the windshield, as Dr. Mantik has suggested. 

Dr. Charles Carrico, who saw the throat wound, told the HSCA that the damage he saw beneath the surface of the wound proved that the projectile (whatever it was) must have been traveling from front to back:

          . . . there was some damage to the trachea behind it [the wound], so the
thing must have been going from front to back. (7 HSCA 270)

Another Dallas doctor speculated that the throat missile ranged downward into the chest. 

With so many missing autopsy photos and so many indications of alteration in the autopsy x-rays, we cannot say what was and was not found during the autopsy. There are credible reports that two extra bullets were found at Bethesda on the night of the autopsy. 

Edited May 16, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

We do not know that no bullet was found in the shallow back wound. This bullet could have been removed during Humes and Boswell's illicit pre-autopsy surgery on the body. 

The Lifton Scenario cannot be ruled out.  But the question remains — what weapon leaves a shallow wound in soft tissue?

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

The throat wound could have been made by a piece of glass from the windshield, as Dr. Mantik has suggested. 

In this scenario a piece of glass entered the throat, ripped a couple inches of trachea, burst a bunch of blood vessels, hairline fractured the right transverse process, and left an airpocket overlaying the right T1/C7 TPs.

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

Dr. Charles Carrico, who saw the throat wound, told the HSCA that the damage he saw beneath the surface of the wound proved that the projectile (whatever it was) must have been traveling from front to back:

          . . . there was some damage to the trachea behind it [the wound], so the
thing must have been going from front to back. (7 HSCA 270)

Check.

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

Another Dallas doctor speculated that the throat missile ranged downward into the chest. 

So what caused the hairline fracture and the air pocket at T1?

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

With so many missing autopsy photos and so many indications of alteration in the autopsy x-rays, we cannot say what was and was not found during the autopsy.

Dr. Mantik verified the authenticity of the neck x-ray.

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

 

There are credible reports that two extra bullets were found at Bethesda on the night of the autopsy. 

Do bullets fall out of wounds?

Were these bullets of a caliber that would leave a shallow wound in soft tissue?

Edited May 16, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Q:  Have the extra-cranial X-rays been altered?

Dr. Mantik:  No one has ever suggested this, and I have had no reason to believe so. Why is this an issue at all? After all, the radio-opaque dye from the myelogram is still visible.

[Michael Griffith]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The Lifton Scenario cannot be ruled out.  But the question remains — what weapon leaves a shallow wound in soft tissue?

In this scenario a piece of glass entered the throat, ripped a couple inches of trachea, burst a bunch of blood vessels, hairline fractured the right transverse process, and left an airpocket overlaying the right T1/C7 TPs.

Check.

So what caused the hairline fracture and the air pocket at T1?

Dr. Mantik verified the authenticity of the neck x-ray.

Do bullets fall out of wounds?

Were these bullets of a caliber that would leave a shallow wound in soft tissue?

I'm not talking about Lifton's scenario but about the evidence that Doug Horne has presented regarding illicit surgery about 30-40 minutes before the official autopsy began.

True, bullets do not typically, if ever, fall out of wounds. Nevertheless, there are credible reports that two extra bullets were found at Bethesda on the night of the autopsy. 

Yes, we have the neck x-ray, but what happened to all the photos that several autopsy witnesses, including Humes, said were taken of the chest during the probing of the back wound? There must have been a compelling reason to suppress those photos.

The back wound could have been made by a sizable metal fragment from a bullet that hit the curb near the limousine. We have credible evidence that at least one bullet did strike the curb during the shooting. The two small fragments on the back of his head could only have been ricochet fragments.

Dr. Mantik's last two books, including his most recent one, make a strong case that the skull x-rays have been altered. He has also argued for alteration in his last two video-taped interviews. Yes, early on, he believed the skull x-rays were pristine, but further research caused him to change his mind. 

Edited May 16, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

I'm not talking about Lifton's scenario but about the evidence that Doug Horne has presented regarding illicit surgery about 30-40 minutes before the official autopsy began.

Lifton pioneered the pre-autopsy surgery theory, did he not?  The Horne/Lifton Scenario, call it.

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

True, bullets do not typically, if ever, fall out of wounds. Nevertheless, there are credible reports that two extra bullets were found at Bethesda on the night of the autopsy. 

What kind of bullets leave shallow wounds in soft tissue?

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

Yes, we have the neck x-ray, but what happened to all the photos that several autopsy witnesses, including Humes, said were taken of the chest during the probing of the back wound? There must have been a compelling reason to suppress those photos.

There is no chain of possession for the improperly prepared extant autopsy photos.

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

The back wound could have been made by a sizable metal fragment from a bullet that hit the curb near the limousine.

The fragment left a 7mm X 4mm hole in the jacket then fell out of the wound and was not recovered.

From SS SA Glen Bennett’s 11/23/63 statement:

At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder... </q>

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

 

We have credible evidence that at least one bullet did strike the curb during the shooting. The two small fragments on the back of his head could only have been ricochet fragments.