Neoromuscular ?

[Charles Black]

I "think" that it is acknowledged by most who have seen the Zapruder film even a minimum number of times, that something "unusual" occurred as the view of JFK is hidden as he travels behind the Stemmons Freeway sign. Prior to approaching the sign, he is waving to the crowd as he had been waving all along the motorcade route.

However, as he emerges from behind the sign, it is clearly evidenced that he is reacting immediately and violently to something that has occured while the view of him has been blocked while behind the sign.

To my unmedically trained perception, I was under the impression that he was reacting to throat trauma. As I have expressed in prior posts, the only similar reactions that I had ever observed, were exact similar reactions by my young children while being fed and when something apparently went down the wrong way. The only similar reaction that I have observed in an adult, was from a similar cause.

Since during this exact period of time the sound of firecrackers / gunshots were being heard throuughout Dealey Plaza, I, perhaps wrongly concluded, that the President was reacting to being struck in the throat by a missle fired from a weapon.

I have since heard of numerous attempted explanations, but since the well trained Trauma Room personnel, on that aftenoon of 11/22/63, had proclaimed in Parkland Hospital, that there was a wound in the anterior mid throat region that appeared to be a wound of bullet entrance, I considered this as "expert" a source of testimony that could EVER be found. I STILL DO !

In my amateurish mind, I immediately related the sound of gunfire, JFK throat trauma at this exact time, and the medical staff's proclamation of a bullet entrance wound in the anterior mid throat region of The President, that it did not take Sherlock Holmes to "presume" that "one of the things which had occurred in Dealey Plaza, was that one of the several bullets which were known to have struck both JFK and JBC, had struck JFK in the throat and caused the perceived trauma.

There have been many attempts, by I assume, " rear shot only" advocates, to misinterpret what is the obvious, into a scenario, regardless of how unlikely and stretched is their explanation. They have used the "Identical Means" of preventing factual conclusion, by the age old, childish but reasonable explanation, that if one cannot prove that a fired missile struck JFK in the throat, that this cannot be proven since neither a bullet has been found, nor is there a photograph showing this missile, at the moment of impact with JFK's throat.

I suppose that this may be taken as an accusation, but I consider it as only a personal theory, since I cannot verify it with documentation....I personally very strongly feel that "many" who lead us down these paths which are very divergent, from what most on this planet perceive, after considerable study, to be "the truth", are doing so to further confuse the issue, and maintain in a state of limbo, the research and investigation of this most hideous crime against both JFK and the entire world.

Now ! To my very simple question to those who claim that the reaction to throat trauma, which I consider a bullet wound to the throat, is not that at all. It has been referred to as a "neuromuscular reaction". My question is simple.

A neuromuscular reaction to what ? An inch deep wound to the upper back and to the right of the spinal column ?

You may call me insane, but I perceive that there have recently been a great increase in a form of forum participation, which contributes only to wasting time and diverting the course of this investigation. An attempt to divert the forum to questions that can only lead to a path of concentric circles which finally merely swallow themselves.

If no one else views what I perceive as the blatantly obvious, perhaps it is me that is "certifiable" !

Charlie Black

[Jack White]

Charlie...you are correct. Everything you said can be summed up in one sentence:

This forum (and others) are heavily infiltrated by government goons who are paid

to attack and obfuscate any information which disputes official govt myths. I consider

them lowlife accessories to high crimes.

Thanks.

Jack

[Charles Black]

Hello Jack

Amazing aint it ! No one will TOUCH this thread !

They will however spend hundreds of hours and thousands of words on subjects such as "the assassin Doctors and staff of Trauma One".....and the murderous William Greer.

I suppse that I must learn to post in the form of Super Market Tabloids ! Or just not bother !

Charlie Black

[Michael Hogan]

Amazing aint it ! No one will TOUCH this thread !

They will however spend hundreds of hours and thousands of words on subjects such as "the assassin Doctors and staff of Trauma One".....and the murderous William Greer.

I suppse that I must learn to post in the form of Super Market Tabloids ! Or just not bother !

There are plenty of good and worthwhile discussions on this Forum that receive active participation. Each person has the right to participate in what interests them. I seriously doubt much will change if you learn to post in "tabloid" fashion. Besides, your question was confined to a very narrowly defined group:

Now ! To my very simple question to those who claim that (bold added) that the reaction to throat trauma, which I consider a bullet wound to the throat, is not that at all. It has been referred to as a "neuromuscular reaction". My question is simple.

A neuromuscular reaction to what ? An inch deep wound to the upper back and to the right of the spinal column.

If no one else views what I perceive as the blatantly obvious, perhaps it is me that is "certifiable" !

Charlie, much of what you posted has been blatantly obvious for forty years. It might be difficult for many to make an original comment on those issues. The persons that you addressed your question to have posited their theories in many other previous threads.

Respectfully,

Mike

[Bill Miller]

Charlie...you are correct. Everything you said can be summed up in one sentence:

This forum (and others) are heavily infiltrated by government goons who are paid

to attack and obfuscate any information which disputes official govt myths. I consider

them lowlife accessories to high crimes.

Thanks.

Jack

With all due respect, Jack ... the same can be said about people posing as conspiracy believers who make the most ridiculous claims based on the poorest research imaginable so to make all CT's look like babbling idiots ... I think it could fall under "counter-intelligence". But who cares - either the claims made are vaild or they are not .... that is the issue.

Bill Miller

Edited January 6, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Charles Black]

Hello Mike and Bill

At least you guys did respond.

Mike there is something which I question in your post. You said "...your question was confined to a very narrowly defined group"

I disagree. I was simply attempting to re-introduce some logic into a subject, in a different thread, which I, and I know that many others thought, was absolutely absurd.

That thread, which intimated that the Parkland Trauma Staff were a part of the assassination team,

very definitely IS the type of discussion that brings great discredit to those who believe that a conspiracy existed and exists. I feel that "this" is the type of discussion to which Bill Miller referred, that paints conspiracy theorists as a "far out" group rather than serious researchers.

Michael, you also stated that I was asking questions of a particular group. What group?

I feel that the scenario that I expressed in my opening thread, is what is generally acknowledged as having happened.

Do you believe that many doctors or researchers truly believe that he was suffering a neuronuscular reaction to, at most a very shallow back wound that struck nothing vital ?

Do you believe that those persons who have delved deeply into this case, over a number of years, truly believe that the theory of the Parkland Medical Staff being assassins, is truly viable and worthy of lengthy discussion.

If many people do place credence in this theory of the medical staff as murderers, I very well might belong to a forum which is so out of alignment with what I consider "simple common sense", that I should not wonder why certain posts, which I feel significant, are not addressed.

Regardless, your interest in the subject has been appreciated.

Charlie Black

[Michael Hogan]

Michael, you also stated that I was asking questions of a particular group. What group?

Perhaps I am missing something Charlie. It appears to me that you addressed your question to: "those who claim that that the reaction to throat trauma, which I (Charlie) consider a bullet wound to the throat, is not that at all."

I feel that the scenario that I expressed in my opening thread, is what is generally acknowledged as having happened.

I do too. That is why I said this:

Charlie, much of what you posted has been blatantly obvious for forty years. It might be difficult for many to make an original comment on those issues.

Do you believe that many doctors or researchers truly believe that he was suffering a neuronuscular reaction to, at most a very shallow back wound that struck nothing vital ?

Do you believe that those persons who have delved deeply into this case, over a number of years, truly believe that the theory of the Parkland Medical Staff being assassins, is truly viable and worthy of lengthy discussion?

With due respect Charlie, I do not understand why you ask me those questions. There was nothing in my response to you that indicated that I entertained either possibility.

[Brian Smith]

I am the one who referred to "Thorburns position" as a possible explanation for Kennedy's reaction at Z-frame 224. I am not saying I believe that it is the true explanation. I only mentioned it in passing. I do not in any way endorse the theory that anyone on the Parkland medical staff intentionally created the throat wound. What would be the reason for anyone to do that? It couldn't have been to make sure Kennedy would die, as that was already a foregone conclusion given the massive loss of brain. It also wouldn't have been to create a phony exit wound for the bullet that entered the back. I don't see how anyone at that early stage would have realized the problem they had with a bullet entering Kennedy's back and not exiting. I do wonder if the throat wound could have been accidentally made when the tie was cut away before the tracheotomy. It is probably not what happened, but as far as I know, it is not entirely outside the realm of possibility. I have also heard the theory that the throat wound was caused by an exiting fragment from the head shot (the rear one, not the frontal one). Your theory of it having been fired from someone in the crowd, with a silencer fitted pistol, is a very interesting possibility also.

Edited January 7, 2007 by Brian Smith