Throat Wound

[Robin Unger]

NARA photo

More photo's here:

[Ashton Gray]

Laughter is of course great! Resolving what this "shell game" is all about is even better though.

It won't ever be done with serious mien poised expertly and ponderously over a pack of conflicting lies trying to decide which lie to agree with. Ever. Guaranteed. May as well flip a coin that always lands on its edge. And be very, very serious about it.

The only value in contrary facts and glaring omissions is that wherever there is the greatest concentration there is always the most to hide. So smile.

Ashton

Edited January 6, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Laughter is of course great! Resolving what this "shell game" is all about is even better though.

Since, as some would claim, no one will ever figure out/resolve what all of the obfuscation was about, this too is probably another waste of time.

Nevertheless, for those of us who have taken the time to find the items, as well as research their motives, then do not be suprised if we may also understand pretty well what it was all about as well.

Not all of us have our heads stuck down rabbit holes or up our arse!

[Nick Bartetzko]

The ONLY FBI Agent from the Lab who is known to have examined the clothing of JFK, has stated:

1. Recalls absolutely no damage to the front of the shirt in the vicinity of the collar button, and conducted absolutely no examination of this area.

That is the fall-down funniest thing I have read in ages.

Can't thank you enough. This has gotten my new year off to a rollicking start.

(I think the dry delivery is what brought it to laugh-to-tears-level. Priceless. I hope the Brits are paying attention.)

Ashton

Here you go, starting mid paragraph on page 377. This is Weisberg, in his unique writing style, speaking of Perry. I have skipped a few paragraphs of Perry's comments about Connally's wounds and the President's head wounds.

From my interviews with him, I am without doubt that, had he not been subjected to powerful and improper pressures, there would have been no word he would have said that would not have been completely dependable.

From time to time embarrassment showed. He began defensively, going back to the anterior neck wound. He does not deny telling the press that it was one of entrance. He does say that he has been given a tape of one of his interviews in which he hedged the statement by saying it was, to a degree, conjectural. Most doctors, under these circumstances, great urgency, the President as the patient and without their having turned the body over, would have said something like "appeared to be" in describing the wound as one of entrance. While superficially maintaining the position in which Spector put him under oath, of saying he did not really know whether the wound was one of entrance or exit, Perry readily admits that Humes correctly understood him to describe it as a wound of entrance. He also admits that federal agents showed him and the other doctors the autopsy report before their testimony.

As I led him over these events and his participation, what he did and the sequence, he recalled that he first looked at the wound, then asked for a "trake" (short for tracheotomy) tray, wiped off the wound, saw a ring of bruising around it, and started cutting. In describing the wound and ring of bruising, he used the words, "as they always are". Pretending not to notice the significance of this important fact he had let bubble out, I retraced the whole procedure with him again. When he had repeated the same words, I asked him if he had ever been asked about the ringed bruise around the wound in the front of the neck. The question told the experienced hunter and the experienced surgeon exactly what he had admitted, one description of the entrance wound. He blushed and improvised the explanation that there was blood around the wound. I did not further embarrass him by pressing him, for we both knew he had seen the wound clearly. He had twice said he had wiped the blood off and had seen the wound clearly, if briefly, before cutting.

The official representation and that of an unofficial apologist to which we shall come would have us believe that bruising is a characteristic of entrance wounds only. This is not the case. The reader should not be deceived on this or by Perry's admission that there was bruising. Exit wounds also can show bruising. One difference is that exit wounds do not have to show bruising. That in this case there was bruising by itself need not be taken as an expression of Perry's professional opinion that it was a wound of entrance. The definitive answer is in those words he twice used, quoted directly above, "as they always are". It is entrance wounds only that always are of this description. Thus, Perry had said again and in a different way that this was a shot from the front. In context, this also is the only possible meaning of what Carrico had said.

Perry was unwilling to express criticism of the autopsy doctors. Humes had told Spector that the bruise on the President's pleura might have been caused by Perry's surgery. Perry was affronted by the suggestion. He said that they never cause such bruising in tracheotomies in adults and are exceedingly careful to avoid it in the smaller bodies of children. When Perry learned of this bruising, he had wondered if the cause was fragmentation. If he then had no way of knowing it, on the basis of my "new evidence", that today does seem to be the most reasonable explanation.

Having learned what Spector suppressed, that Perry is an amateur expert in ammunition.......

I am done typing as I couldn't figure out how to cut and paste what I had scanned. This is the relevant text and I hope you and other members found this helpful.

Nick

[Ashton Gray]

Here you go, starting mid paragraph on page 377.

[Etc.]

This is the relevant text and I hope you and other members found this helpful.

Well, Nick...

I...

Well, I really, genuinely, and deeply appreciate all that typing—by both you and Weisberg.

It's one of the great tragedies of literature that after all the time invested in interviewing, Malcolm Perry wasn't allowed to wedge a single word of his own into all that Weisbergian paraphrasing other than "as they always are."

But at least that was quoted twice. That's very nice, and was a generosity on the part of Mr. Weisberg.

Ashton

Edited January 6, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Charles Black]

Sorry / double post !

Edited January 8, 2007 by Charles Black

[Charles Black]

SORRY AGAIN ! another double post

Edited January 8, 2007 by Charles Black

[Charles Black]

Ashton Gray

I find your innuendo's, which are meant to cast a shadow on Mr. Weisberg's work, insulting to the research community in general; not only to Mr. Weisberg !

I (me personally), feel that you are a "hack" journalist who craves attention to such an extreme,

that you, for the most part, are willing to lend your "fingers" ( I certainly hope not your brain ),

to creating forum threads of such a controversial, although always "unproveable", nature that the forum is is led away from the discusion of items which may be more pertinent to the case. Some call this "trolling".....however I, as a fishing enthusiast, refer to it as "bottom feeding".

It is YOUR posts that I frequently refer to as "tabloid quality" and very disingenuous. They are meant to be "irritants" and "attention getters".

Since you are both a "professional" journalist and quite bright, I do not mistake the consistency of this "type" of input as accidental !

I feel it a "duty", and not amusing, to enter this post, which I feel is more degrading to me, than it is to you.

Since I am neither personally acquainted with you, nor do I know anything about you other than what is included in your forum bio., this is an attack upon your "methods"......for whatever reason these methods are employed! I understand also that you have the forum right to "attempt to be controversial". I have not found you to be a "xxxx". But "extrmely" disingenuous.....which is even more dangerous. Outright lies can be disproven!

Charlie Black

Edited January 8, 2007 by Charles Black

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Any objections to a continuation of the research into how Specter & Company, with the assistance of cronie JEH, managed to obscure and confuse the facts related to the examination of the clothing of JFK?

[Ashton Gray]

Any objections to a continuation of the research into how Specter & Company, with the assistance of cronie JEH, managed to obscure and confuse the facts related to the examination of the clothing of JFK?

Not at all. It only proves the obvious: the only possible reason there is paragraph after paragraph, page after page of rhetorical sword dancing around this issue by all concerned is for the very simple reason that no bullet had passed through either shirt or tie.

If one had, the literature would say: "There's the bullet hole."

Since there isn't a bullet hole where there absolutely has to be a bullet hole, then of course there has to be endless shuck and jive explaining why everybody responsible managed somehow to miss out on finding a bullet hole or any evidence that any bullet had been anywhere in the vicinity.

By all means, post all the shuck and jive you can find till you get just worn out and have to lie down.

There still won't be a bullet hole.

Can you guess why?

Ashton

[Dawn Meredith]

Ashton Gray

I find your innuendo's, which are meant to cast a shadow on Mr. Weisberg's work, insulting to the research community in general; not only to Mr. Weisberg !

I (me personally), feel that you are a "hack" journalist who craves attention to such an extreme,

that you, for the most part, are willing to lend your "fingers" ( I certainly hope not your brain ),

to creating forum threads of such a controversial, although always "unproveable", nature that the forum is is led away from the discusion of items which may be more pertinent to the case. Some call this "trolling".....however I, as a fishing enthusiast, refer to it as "bottom feeding".

It is YOUR posts that I frequently refer to as "tabloid quality" and very disingenuous. They are meant to be "irritants" and "attention getters".

Since you are both a "professional" journalist and quite bright, I do not mistake the consistency of this "type" of input as accidental !

I feel it a "duty", and not amusing, to enter this post, which I feel is more degrading to me, than it is to you.

Since I am neither personally acquainted with you, nor do I know anything about you other than what is included in your forum bio., this is an attack upon your "methods"......for whatever reason these methods are employed! I understand also that you have the forum right to "attempt to be controversial". I have not found you to be a "xxxx". But "extrmely" disingenuous.....which is even more dangerous. Outright lies can be disproven!

Charlie Black

Charlie:

I don't see that post- or any other made by Mr. Gray- as "disingenuous". Just because you and Ashton disagree on some matters I fail to see how this makes him "dangerous". Mind telling me the exact difference between "xxxx" and "extremely disingenuous"?

Dawn

[Antti Hynonen]

The information below is from:

http://209.85.129.104/search?q=cache:76-ue...t=clnk&cd=2

"Report of Richard Lindenberg, MD to the Rockefeller Commission,

signed May 9, 1975, p. 3. Retrieved from the Gerald R. Ford Library."

"Excerpt of letter from Hoover to Warren Commissioner General

Counsel J. Lee Rankin reproduced by HSCA in Report of the Forensic

Pathology Panel, Vol. 7:90."

In his report, Dr. Lindenberg wrote that, "In the front of [JFK's]

shirt the bullet produced 1.2cm vertical slits in the overlapping

parts of the collar just below the collar button. The stumps of torn

fibers of the material point to the outside."30 In 1964, J. Edgar

Hoover had advised the Warren Commission that the FBI lab had found

the same thing: "The hole in the front of the shirt was a ragged,

slit-like hole and the ends of the torn threads around the hole were

bent outward. These characteristics are typical of an exit hole for a

projectile."31

(emphasis mine)

Quote Ashton Gray, Posted Today, 12:58 PM:

If one had, the literature would say: "There's the bullet hole." Quote off.

Edited January 9, 2007 by Antti Hynonen

[Ashton Gray]

Hi there Antti.

I really, really appreciate your posting testimonial "evidence" from the official doctor of Rockefeller's little group. Boy: do I feel better already!

Let's see now what this authority you're calling on has to say. Today you wrote:

"Report of Richard Lindenberg, MD to the Rockefeller Commission,

signed May 9, 1975, p. 3. Retrieved from the Gerald R. Ford Library."

Wait, wait! I have to catch my breath. Rockefeller and Ford endorsements. Okay. Okay. Go ahead...

In his report, Dr. Lindenberg wrote that, "In the front of [JFK's]

shirt the bullet produced 1.2cm vertical slits in the overlapping

parts of the collar just below the collar button. The stumps of torn

fibers of the material point to the outside."30 In 1964, J. Edgar

Hoover had advised the Warren Commission that the FBI lab had found

the same thing: "The hole in the front of the shirt was a ragged,

slit-like hole and the ends of the torn threads around the hole were

bent outward. These characteristics are typical of an exit hole for a

projectile."31

(emphasis mine)

Uh-huh. Well, you won't mind if I repeat a section and add some emphasis of my own, will you?

Here's the good Rockefeller-approved doctor in a reprise:

"The stumps of torn fibers of the material point to the outside....the ends of the torn threads around the hole were

bent outward. These characteristics are typical of

an exit hole

for a projectile."

Now, stroking me grey beard, I'm trying to recall what you said just a page earlier in this thread. Hmmm. Yes, it's coming to me now...

Not much to debate in my opinion. Kennedy had a wound in his neck, below the adam's apple, upon arrival at Parkland. This fact is based on the early descriptions of this wound by Parkland staff, it was most likely a bullet wound (entry wound).

Well, darn, Antti, if you're going to argue against yourself, there's not much for me to do but just watch and clap along.

Of course, I could post the conflicting data that says that the "slits" ("nicks," whatever) were not consistent with any bullet damage, but since you're arguing against yourself, maybe you'd like to go ahead and do that, too?

I'll wait and see, and if not I'll help you out. (Of course, I'm not sure that my "authority" will carry as much weight as someone blessed by Rockefeller. But I'll try!)

Ashton

Edited January 9, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Ashton Gray]

Snipe hunts are for kids. Here's an adult game: collar slits hunt!

Okay, there you go. Find as many bullet-caused slits on the top of the collar as you can find in one minute. Use a Boggle timer, and don't cheat.

Finding one slit won't do! The testimony submitted is "slits." That's plural. Don't ask me why there would be more than one slit from one bullet, or how many slits you're supposed to find. There just has to be more than one, and they have to be ragged, with threads pointing out. No "innies." Only "outties." Those are the rules.

Winner gets dinner with Harvey, the invisible rabbit. No, really...

Ashton

HINT: The slits you find have to be on the right side.

Edited January 9, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Evan Marshall]

It's extremely curious to me

Really. Personally, I couldn't care less why people arrive at the conclusions they do.

I think this is a venue of fact based argument, so such personal speculation appears

counter-productive.

that purported proponents of a conspiracy in the murder of John F. Kennedy are yet adament about excluding any and all personnel present at Parkland Hospital, whether employed by the hospital or otherwise, at and around the time that Kennedy was taken there.

You have a strange manner of introducing these ideas. Always with the sleazy insinuations.

It there were, in fact, a conspiracy, and if the planned site for a shooting was Dealey Plaza (with a possible back-up plan at the Trade Mart), then these must have been very confident conspirators indeed if they had no insurance installed at the very hospital where the President would be taken in the event of such a premeditated shooting.

Ashton Gray

Since you put it that way, we have the basis for a discussion.

JFK came into Parkland with a good part of his brains blown out.

If the staff at Parkland had been prepped to finish the dude off, why

did they nick the right side of the trachea, bruise the tip of the lung,

and produce a tiny fracture of the T1 transverse process?

I mean, the guy is laying there with his brains out and they "finished

him off" with a nick and a bruise and a hairline fracture?

No, the throat wound tells a different story.

Small caliber. Did not exit. Left a field of metallic debris at its

point of deepest penetration.

JFK acted paralyzed in the limo -- simplest explanation -- because he WAS

paralyzed.

All consistent with a Mitch WerBell adaptation of Charles Senseney's

blood soluble paralytic technology.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/r..._6_Senseney.pdf

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwerbell.htm

And that is why the plotters felt confident they'd get the job done in Dealey.

while eye and ear witnesses can be problimatical I learned as a Detroit Cop that professionals observations are uniformly valid-the emrgency room personnel at Parkland saw gunshot wounds on a daily basis and unlike the autopsy docs had extensive experience with same.

the poor quality photos has always troubled me-these were professional photographers and I can't believe this was represenative of their work-would like to see the pics from other autopsies they shot-I can't believe the quality was that poor. always thought some amatuer photog shot the photos we have now.