|
|
 October 14, 2011, 06:23:54 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 6715
|
Most people know that the three autopsy doctors at Bethesda were incompetent and that is why they made so many mistakes. One huge mistake was not realizing that the throat wound was a bullet wound. They assume it was just a tracheotomy wound from Parkland doctors trying to save the President's life. If they had considered it a bullet wound they could have instantly seen that the bullet that hit Kennedy's back exited his throat. Maybe even figure out the downward angle to within a few degrees. I've seen claims that they had experience with combat wounds from WWII so they should have known better and known it was a bullet wound. While searching for examples of other brands of 6.5 mm bullets for someone I stumbled onto an ARMY web page devoted to wound ballistics from WWII. WARNING: Many of the graphics are extremely horrifying. One example shows a throat wound. To me it looks like a tangential bullet strike. It is very similar to how JFK's throat wound looked in the autopsy photos. I think if an autopsy doctor really had a lot of experience with war wounds he would suspect that JFK's throat wound was from a bullet. I will try to place the photos side by side, but don't know if the forum software will do it properly. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginAs a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login 
-------------------------
|
|
|
 Reply |
|
|
|
|
October 15, 2011, 08:59:08 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 9143
|
Most people know that the three autopsy doctors at Bethesda were incompetent and that is why they made so many mistakes. One huge mistake was not realizing that the throat wound was a bullet wound. They assume it was just a tracheotomy wound from Parkland doctors trying to save the President's life. If they had considered it a bullet wound they could have instantly seen that the bullet that hit Kennedy's back exited his throat. Maybe even figure out the downward angle to within a few degrees. I've seen claims that they had experience with combat wounds from WWII so they should have known better and known it was a bullet wound. While searching for examples of other brands of 6.5 mm bullets for someone I stumbled onto an ARMY web page devoted to wound ballistics from WWII. WARNING: Many of the graphics are extremely horrifying. One example shows a throat wound. To me it looks like a tangential bullet strike. It is very similar to how JFK's throat wound looked in the autopsy photos. I think if an autopsy doctor really had a lot of experience with war wounds he would suspect that JFK's throat wound was from a bullet. I will try to place the photos side by side, but don't know if the forum software will do it properly. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginAs a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginBesides laughing at the comparison you are trying to make, I also find it extremely funny that you would claim that the autopsy doctors were incompetent. How can that be? Anthony, are you aware that every single pathologist that has looked at this case has agreed with them?
-------------------------
-------------------------
Marsh can not even comprehend a simple time stamp. How will he ever comprehend the evidence?
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
October 15, 2011, 09:41:07 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2201
|
Most people know that the three autopsy doctors at Bethesda were incompetent and that is why they made so many mistakes.
One huge mistake was not realizing that the throat wound was a bullet wound. They assume it was just a tracheotomy wound from Parkland doctors trying to save the President's life.
If they had considered it a bullet wound they could have instantly seen that the bullet that hit Kennedy's back exited his throat.
Maybe even figure out the downward angle to within a few degrees.
The Bethesda doctors recognized that a bullet made the throat wound. So they noted damages along a path through the upper torso of President Kennedy and photographed a lung injury. This association of the throat wound with a bullet also explains why Commander Humes called Doctor Perry and asked if Parkland made a hole in the back of President Kennedy. Herbert
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
October 15, 2011, 10:33:34 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 9143
|
The Bethesda doctors recognized that a bullet made the throat wound. So they noted damages along a path through the upper torso of President Kennedy and photographed a lung injury.
This association of the throat wound with a bullet also explains why Commander Humes called Doctor Perry and asked if Parkland made a hole in the back of President Kennedy.
Herbert
Herbert, Interesting. Where does it say that this is what Humes asked Perry?
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
October 15, 2011, 10:56:50 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1093
God knows
|
I assume the soldier in the top photo was shot from the back?
-------------------------
-------------------------
Let justice be done, or the heavens fall.
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
October 15, 2011, 11:28:37 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2201
|
Herbert,
Interesting.
Where does it say that this is what Humes asked Perry?
Source: As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginMr. SPECTER. And what did he ask you, if anything? Dr. PERRY. He inquired about, initially, about the reasons for my doing a tracheotomy, and I replied, as I have to you, during this procedure, that there was a wound in the lower anterior third of the neck, which was exuding blood and was indicative of a possible tracheal injury underlying, and I did the tracheotomy through a transverse incision made through that wound, and I described to him. the right lateral injury to the trachea and the completion of the operation. He subsequently called back-at that time he told me, of course, that he could not talk to me about any of it and asked that I keep it in confidence, which I did, and he subsequently called back and inquired about the chest tubes, and why they were placed and I replied in part as I have here. It was somewhat more detailed. After having talked to Drs. Baxter and Peters and I identified them as having placed it in the second interspace, anteriorly, in the midclavicular line, in the right hemithorax, he asked me at that time if we had made any wounds in the back. I told him that I had not examined the back nor had I knowledge of any wounds of the back. End of quotation. Herbert
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
October 15, 2011, 11:35:44 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 9143
|
Source: As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginMr. SPECTER. And what did he ask you, if anything? Dr. PERRY. He inquired about, initially, about the reasons for my doing a tracheotomy, and I replied, as I have to you, during this procedure, that there was a wound in the lower anterior third of the neck, which was exuding blood and was indicative of a possible tracheal injury underlying, and I did the tracheotomy through a transverse incision made through that wound, and I described to him. the right lateral injury to the trachea and the completion of the operation. He subsequently called back-at that time he told me, of course, that he could not talk to me about any of it and asked that I keep it in confidence, which I did, and he subsequently called back and inquired about the chest tubes, and why they were placed and I replied in part as I have here. It was somewhat more detailed. After having talked to Drs. Baxter and Peters and I identified them as having placed it in the second interspace, anteriorly, in the midclavicular line, in the right hemithorax, he asked me at that time if we had made any wounds in the back. I told him that I had not examined the back nor had I knowledge of any wounds of the back. End of quotation. Herbert Thanks Herbert. I had not read this before, at least not that I recall.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
October 16, 2011, 01:58:49 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 589
|
Most people know that the three autopsy doctors at Bethesda were incompetent and that is why they made so many mistakes. One huge mistake was not realizing that the throat wound was a bullet wound. They assume it was just a tracheotomy wound from Parkland doctors trying to save the President's life. If they had considered it a bullet wound they could have instantly seen that the bullet that hit Kennedy's back exited his throat. Maybe even figure out the downward angle to within a few degrees. I've seen claims that they had experience with combat wounds from WWII so they should have known better and known it was a bullet wound. While searching for examples of other brands of 6.5 mm bullets for someone I stumbled onto an ARMY web page devoted to wound ballistics from WWII. WARNING: Many of the graphics are extremely horrifying. One example shows a throat wound. To me it looks like a tangential bullet strike. It is very similar to how JFK's throat wound looked in the autopsy photos. I think if an autopsy doctor really had a lot of experience with war wounds he would suspect that JFK's throat wound was from a bullet. I will try to place the photos side by side, but don't know if the forum software will do it properly. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginAs a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or Loginanthony: if there was a frontal shot, wouldn't jfk have a huge hole in the back of his neck? (i am ignoring the obvious logistical problems of such a shot, i.e.where would it come from, how would the shot not hit, say, the windshield, connaly, etc. but, please convince me otherwise. )
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
October 16, 2011, 06:30:08 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 6715
|
I assume the soldier in the top photo was shot from the back?
The Web page did not specify. Could be a tangential wound. Or it could be an exit wound from a head shot. I think they are hinting that it was the only wound when they use the word "single." PS I found the report that came from and here is how they described that wound: Case No. 970.-Pfc., 362d Infantry, 5 Nov. 1944; missile: shell fragment; single wound in the neck (fig. 237). A wound, 1.3 x 2.5 cm., penetrated the anterior side of the neck immediately to the right of the midline and immediately inferior to the larynx. The trachea was perforated and the body of the C7 vertebra was crushed. The wound bled profusely. FIGURE 237.-Single neck wound.
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 16, 2011, 10:57:42 PM by Anthony Marsh »
|
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
October 16, 2011, 06:46:03 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 6715
|
anthony:
if there was a frontal shot, wouldn't jfk have a huge hole in the back of his neck?
(i am ignoring the obvious logistical problems of such a shot, i.e.where would it come from, how would the shot not hit, say, the windshield, connaly, etc. but, please convince me otherwise. )
No, that is not true. James Brady was shot in the forehead and the bullet did not exit. In fact there were only a few fragments which went into the head. Hinckley's missed shot hit a window in the building across the street. The bullet exploded as advertised and deposited several fragments into the hallway inside along with the broken glass, but the base of the bullet was blown backwards and fell to the sidewalk below. The base of the Devastator bullet which hit James Brady was never found. In many suicides and executions the bullet does not exit. There are many different factors. Remember that when Oswald was shot the bullet did not exit. Leavelle said he could feel the bullet just under Oswald's skin and could roll it around with his fingers. If it had exited it would have hit Leavelle as well. There was a huge exit wound on the top of JFK's head which went from the frontal bone back to the occipital bone. Some have described it as a tangential wound. Like taking a slice off an apple from the side. The specific angle from the position identified by the HSCA as 8 feet west of the corner of the fence will miss any intervening objects. The angle misses the windshield, the side glass partition and Connally. It is a clear shot.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
October 16, 2011, 06:50:45 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 6715
|
Thanks Herbert. I had not read this before, at least not that I recall.
That's my point. You are totally unfamiliar with the evidence in this case. And still you pretend to lecture me.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
October 16, 2011, 07:03:40 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 6715
|
The Bethesda doctors recognized that a bullet made the throat wound. So they noted damages along a path through the upper torso of President Kennedy and photographed a lung injury.
This association of the throat wound with a bullet also explains why Commander Humes called Doctor Perry and asked if Parkland made a hole in the back of President Kennedy.
Herbert
Not on the night of the autopsy. The autopsy doctors thought that there was only a shallow back wound. They thought the throat wound was a tracheotomy done at Parkland to help the President breath. It was only after Humes talked to Perry on Saturday morning that he learned that Perry had made the trache incision right on top of the bullet wound, which BTW almost everyone in Parkland thought was an entrance wound. Maybe you aren't aware that Greer was also present during the autopsy and witnessed everything the doctors did. Greer was interviewed by Vince Palamara and said that on the night of the autopsy the doctors knew about the back wound, but believed the throat wound was only a tracheotomy. He said that the doctors believe the back wound was shallow and the bullet did not exit. And he thought the same thing. <![CDATA[As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
<a href="http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?action=register">Register</a> or <a href="http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?action=login">Login</a>]]>
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
| 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
|
