Interesting story by Rolling Stone?

[James DiEugenio]

Whew.  hang on to your hats.

 

Matt Crumpton is in this film, one of our contributors to the Chokeholds book.

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-news/jfk-assassination-parkland-hospital-doctors-entrance-wound-two-gunmen-1234876218/

[Pat Speer]

8 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Whew.  hang on to your hats.

 

Matt Crumpton is in this film, one of our contributors to the Chokeholds book.

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-news/jfk-assassination-parkland-hospital-doctors-entrance-wound-two-gunmen-1234876218/

This isn't remotely new. The Parkland doctors, including those who changed their minds or clarified their positions about the head wound location, have always said the throat wound LOOKED like an entrance wound. That doesn't mean much in itself. Emergency room doctors are not forensic pathologists and are frequently wrong in their initial impressions. What is important though is WHY they thought it looked like an entrance--because it was so small. This is incompatible with its being an exit for a high velocity bullet. While some have taken Dr. Lattimer's cue and have insisted it was small as a result of its being a shored wound (cause it was restricted by the tie) they ignore that the HSCA's DR. Petty made clear that such an exit would nevertheless be larger than the entrance associated with it, when this wound was not.

Well, this suggests McClelland, ironically, was correct in his assessment, when he said the wound appeared to be either an entrance or an exit for a LOW-VELOCITY projectile. That's it. That's the key, IMO. Whatever exited the throat was not traveling at a high-velocity. When one adds up the results from the tests performed by Olivier, etc, it's clear the bullet impacting Connally was similarly not traveling at a high-velocity. IOW, the evidence exists and has been clear from the beginning that these men were struck by subsonic ammunition--which is much more suggestive of a planned hit by men with military experience than a near-spontaneous attack by the likes of Oswald. 

From chapter 11 at Patspeer.com:

 

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

This isn't remotely new. The Parkland doctors, including those who changed their minds or clarified their positions about the head wound location, have always said the throat wound LOOKED like an entrance wound. That doesn't mean much in itself. Emergency room doctors are not forensic pathologists and are frequently wrong in their initial impressions. What is important though is WHY they thought it looked like an entrance--because it was so small. This is incompatible with its being an exit for a high velocity bullet. While some have taken Dr. Lattimer's cue and have insisted it was small as a result of its being a shored wound (cause it was restricted by the tie) they ignore that the HSCA's DR. Petty made clear that such an exit would nevertheless be larger than the entrance associated with it, when this wound was not.

Well, this suggests McClelland, ironically, was correct in his assessment, when he said the wound appeared to be either an entrance or an exit for a LOW-VELOCITY projectile. That's it. That's the key, IMO. Whatever exited the throat was not traveling at a high-velocity. When one adds up the results from the tests performed by Olivier, etc, it's clear the bullet impacting Connally was similarly not traveling at a high-velocity. IOW, the evidence exists and has been clear from the beginning that these men were struck by subsonic ammunition--which is much more suggestive of a planned hit by men with military experience than a near-spontaneous attack by the likes of Oswald. 

From chapter 11 at Patspeer.com:

 

PS-

Why would military men use "subsonic" ammo? (<1128 fps). 

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

PS-

Why would military men use "subsonic" ammo? (<1128 fps). 

The same reason the CIA suggested the use of such ammo in its Manual on Assassination--to mute the sound of the rifle and disguise the location of the sniper. 

[Benjamin Cole]

21 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The same reason the CIA suggested the use of such ammo in its Manual on Assassination--to mute the sound of the rifle and disguise the location of the sniper. 

Do you mean this:

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/ciaguat2.html

 

[Pat Speer]

10 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Do you mean this:

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/ciaguat2.html

 

That's the substance. 

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

That's the substance. 

Interesting. Of course silencers are a possibility to muffle sounds. 

Also, snubnose .38's are known for their loud report, despite firing a subsonic bullet, due to the minimal barrel length. 

An exotic possibility is a pneumatic weapon.