How Do LNers Deal With Givens?

[Tim Nickerson]

Why is it that just about every LN constantly wants others to prove his opinion wrong, instead of proving their opinion is the right one?

Actually, IIRC, at the autopsy they initially considered the throat wound to be caused by a tracheotomy. They didn't consider it an exit wound until after receiving information from Parkland after the autopsy has been completed.

How can I be able to come up with any kind of explanation about a bullet the exited the throat when I am not even convinced that a bullet actually exited the throat?

The autopsy pathologists observed a bullet entrance wound on the back of the neck. They noted a contusion on the apex of the right lung, indicating to them that the bullet had passed over the top of that lung. They learned that there was a bullet wound in the throat that had been obliterated by the tracheotomy. X-Rays of the body revealed that no bullets remained inside it.

If the bullet that entered the back of the neck did not exit the throat, what happened to it? If the throat wound was a bullet entrance wound, what happened to that bullet?

As I noted earlier, I could never convince you that the Single Bullet theory should be known as the Single Bullet Fact. If you are unwillingly to address the two questions above, why should I even bother discussing this with you?

[Martin Weidmann]

The autopsy pathologists observed a bullet entrance wound on the back of the neck. They noted a contusion on the apex of the right lung, indicating to them that the bullet had passed over the top of that lung. They learned that there was a bullet wound in the throat that had been obliterated by the tracheotomy. X-Rays of the body revealed that no bullets remained inside it.

If the bullet that entered the back of the neck did not exit the throat, what happened to it? If the throat wound was a bullet entrance wound, what happened to that bullet?

As I noted earlier, I could never convince you that the Single Bullet theory should be known as the Single Bullet Fact. If you are unwillingly to address the two questions above, why should I even bother discussing this with you?

How would an explanation, no matter how speculative, of where a bullet went or could have gone prove the SBT?

The autopsy pathologists observed a bullet entrance wound on the back of the neck. They noted a contusion on the apex of the right lung, indicating to them that the bullet had passed over the top of that lung. They learned that there was a bullet wound in the throat that had been obliterated by the tracheotomy. X-Rays of the body revealed that no bullets remained inside it.

Which led them to the assumption that the bullet that entered in the back must have exited through the throat. They never verified the assumption.

As I noted earlier, I could never convince you that the Single Bullet theory should be known as the Single Bullet Fact.

The problem is that something you believe is not automatically a fact.

A fact can be proven. I have never seen conclusive proof for the SBT.

If you are unwillingly to address the two questions above, why should I even bother discussing this with you?

You are not discussing it with me. You are asking questions. If you only wish to "discuss" this topic with people who either agree with you or are willing to accept your opinions at face value, then you perhaps shouldn't bother.

[Zeon Mason]

The back of the NECK?  Does any JFK autopsy photo show an entrance wound on the back of JFKs NECK?
If so, please post that photo.


 

[John Corbett]

The back of the NECK?  Does any JFK autopsy photo show an entrance wound on the back of JFKs NECK?
If so, please post that photo.

Of course that's ludicrous. That was Gerald Ford's contribution to the discussion of the medical evidence. One more example of why laymen shouldn't insert their opinions into fields which are best left to professionals. Why Gerald Ford decided to make his editorial revision to the conclusions of the autopsy team is anybody's guess. It is not possible the bullet entered the back of his neck and exited where it did.

[Tim Nickerson]

Of course that's ludicrous. That was Gerald Ford's contribution to the discussion of the medical evidence. One more example of why laymen shouldn't insert their opinions into fields which are best left to professionals. Why Gerald Ford decided to make his editorial revision to the conclusions of the autopsy team is anybody's guess. It is not possible the bullet entered the back of his neck and exited where it did.

It's hard to tell if you're being facetious or not. Ford never made an editorial revision to the conclusions of the autopsy team. While the autopsy report does use the word "thorax" for the placement of the wound it also has the bullet traversing downward through the supra-scapular and supra-clavicular portions of the right side of the neck. And Ford heard Humes say the following during his WC testimony:

Commander HUMES - The wound in the low neck of which I had previously begun to speak is now posteriorly--is now depicted in 385, in 386 and in 388.
....
Commander HUMES - You will note that the wound in the posterior portion of the occiput on Exhibit 388 is somewhat longer than the other missile wound which we have not yet discussed in the low neck.
.....
Commander HUMES - I--our previously submitted report, which is Commission No. 387, identified a wound in the low posterior neck of the President.
.....
Commander HUMES - In attempting to relate findings within the President's body to this wound which we had observed low in his neck, we then opened his chest cavity, and we very carefully examined the lining of his chest cavity and both of his lungs.
.....
Commander HUMES - The angle which we observed in measuring, in comparing the point of entrance, our point of entrance labeled "C" on 385 and "D" point of exit is one that the point of exit is below the point of entrance compared with the vertical.
.....
Commander HUMES - The report which we have submitted, sir, represents our thinking within the 24-48 hours of the death of the President, all facts taken into account of the situation.
The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly, sir.

And then Ford heard the following from Dr Boswell and Dr. Finck:

Mr. SPECTER - Have you been present here today during the entire course of Doctor Humes testimony?
Commander BOSWELL - I have, sir; yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have anything that you would like to add by way of elaboration or modification to that which Doctor Humes has testified?
Commander BOSWELL - None, I believe. Doctor Humes has stated essentially what is the culmination of our examination and our subsequent conference, and everything is exactly as we had determined our conclusions.
========

Mr. SPECTER - Were you present here today and did you hear the entire testimony of Doctor Humes?
Colonel FINCK - Yes; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - And do you concur in Dr. Humes' statements and opinions regarding the point of entry C, point of exit D, and general angle on the flight of the missile?
Colonel FINCK - I certainly do.

All that Ford did was recommend wording in their draft report be changed in order to reflect what the three autopsy pathologists told him about the location of the entry wound. All 7 members of the Commission unanimously agreed to make the change.

I believe that the bullet entered at the level of C7. The HSCA FPP said that it entered at the level of T1 and above the level of T1. It seems that they couldn't make up their minds. It not important either way.

[Tim Nickerson]

The back of the NECK?  Does any JFK autopsy photo show an entrance wound on the back of JFKs NECK?
If so, please post that photo.

See my reply above.

[John Corbett]

You can slice it any way you want, the fact is the bullet did not enter the back of JFK's neck and Ford opened up a can of worms by suggesting it be described that way. That's simply wrong.