JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on September 16, 2025, 12:49:59 PM
-
I have web-published a new article titled "JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible" on my JFK website. The article is about a 12-minute read. Half of the article consists of photos and diagrams. Here's the link to the article:
JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view
I show that JFK's tie alone refutes the SBT. There was no hole through the tie knot, nor through any other part of the tie. I present a number of photos of JFK just before and during the motorcade that prove JFK's tie knot was centered in the middle of his collar. I note that these photos, along with the photo of the front shirt slits, prove that at least half of the knot would have been centered over the slits, which proves that any bullet exiting the slits could not have avoided tearing through the knot and could not have magically weaved around the body of the knot to nick the knot's outer surface.
I also show that the holes in the back of JFK's shirt and coat refute the SBT. In the process, I address the ludicrous bunched-clothing theory that most WC apologists have offered to try to explain how a bullet that allegedly struck at the base of the neck could have made clothing holes that were more than 5 inches below the collar. I address two photos that WC defenders cite that they say prove JFK's shirt could have bunched in nearly perfect correspondence with the coat, never mind that in those photos JFK is not wearing a coat, is not sitting back against a seat, and has his arms on his legs!
I address other issues as well, including the autopsy face sheet, blood stains on the collar that contradict the SBT, confirmation that the Parkland nurses made the slits and nicked the tie knot while hurriedly removing JFK's clothing, Chuck Marler's experiments that refute the bunched-clothing theory, photographic evidence that refutes the bunched-clothing theory, the Sibert and O'Neill HSCA wound diagrams that place the back wound well below the throat wound, the death certificate's location for the back wound (T3), the HSCA's admission that there was no damage to the fabric lining below the nick in the tie knot and that the nick is only on the outer surface of the knot, the autopsy photo of the back wound, and Dr. Josiah Thompson's microscopic examination of the original color Willis Slide 5.
-
I'm sure it's a well-done article for what it is - essentially a CT legal brief - but this is what I call the Cliff Varnell Syndrome. Too many qualified experts have examined the evidence and reached different conclusions to use the term "IMPOSSIBLE." I'm not going to dive into an endless debate, but there are just too many variables to be using the term impossible. The emergency tracheotomy seems to me enough of a variable to make all speculation about the tie little more than a guessing game. As I always used to say to the medical and forensic pseudo-experts at the Ed Forum, if you're confident of the quality of your work, submit it to a peer-reviewed forensic journal.
I also see that you don't even mention JFK's brace, which seems a curious omission.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRFSJXNK3f4MqPG4TMQrvJrSmqhq0CBWDdZYA&s)
-
I would just add, and then I'll go away ...
Let's think about all the conspirators did: Two caskets, two autopsies, alter the body, fake x-rays, fake photos, lose the brain, fabricate CE 399, threaten and intimidate doctors, lie under oath, and so on and so forth.
But they did NOTHING with the clothes? How difficult would it have been to alter THEM? If nothing else, simply tear them a bit so they are of no evidential value and say it occurred during the frantic efforts at Parkland or at the laboratory. Isn't this the "Three Stooges at Step 5" thing again?
We also have the problem of a back entry and a throat entry that just happen to line up very closely but no bullet to go with either one - not a problem?
Having been through the peer-review process for law review articles, I can tell that you that sloppy thinking and obvious unanswered questions don't just slide through.
-
I'm sure it's a well-done article for what it is - essentially a CT legal brief - but this is what I call the Cliff Varnell Syndrome. Too many qualified experts have examined the evidence and reached different conclusions to use the term "IMPOSSIBLE."
Name a single pro-WC expert who has explained how a bullet exiting the shirt slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot or how it could have magically weaved around the knot and nicked the knot's outer surface. Name one. We both know you can't. JFK's clothing does indeed prove the SBT is impossible, but you just won't admit it.
You guys have been ducking this fact for decades, just like you keep ducking other major facts, such as the drastic conflict between the autopsy brain photos and the skull x-rays, the drastic conflict between the autopsy report and the skull x-rays and photos, the markedly different drafts of the autopsy report, the fragments on the rear outer table of the skull on the skull x-rays, etc., etc.
I'm not going to dive into an endless debate, but there are just too many variables to be using the term impossible. The emergency tracheotomy seems to me enough of a variable to be make all speculation about the tie little more than a guessing game.
A lame dodge and copout. There is no "guessing" or "speculation" here. We know where the slits were. We know where the tie knot was during the motorcade. We know where the nick on the knot was. We know the nick was superficial and that the fabric lining below the nick was undamaged. We know there was no hole through the tie in any part of the tie. We have photographic evidence that establishes all of these facts.
The problem is you simply can't bring yourself to face cold, hard physical evidence that destroys your version of the shooting.
As I always used to say to the medical and forensic pseudo-experts at the Ed Forum, if you're confident of the quality of your work, submit it to a peer-reviewed forensic journal.
Another lame dodge and copout. As I said before when you made this argument, you guys still reject the clear evidence that JFK was hit before Z190, even though Olson and Turner established this in an article published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences, and even though their finding was confirmed by the HSCA's photographic experts.
Furthermore, you don't need to be a medical or forensic expert to readily and easily see that there is no way on this planet that a bullet exiting the shirt slits could have missed tearing through the tie knot, and that there is no way such a bullet could have magically weaved around the knot like a guided missile and nicked the outer surface of the knot. You just need two functioning eyes, common sense, and objectivity.
I also see that you don't even mention JFK's brace, which seems a curious omission.
A very curious argument. More reaching and straining. What does the back brace have to do with the throat wound, the clothing holes, and the tie, and the fact that there was no hole through the tie? The brace was nowhere near his back wound and was even farther from his throat wound. Explain to me how the back brace could possibly explain the fact that JFK's tie was centered in the middle of his collar band, that at least half of the tie knot was centered directly over the shirt slits, and that no hole was made through the tie knot or through any other part of the tie.
You guys are almost as bad as Flat Earthers or 9/11 Truthers or Moon-landing deniers. Like them, none of you can bring yourselves to face cold, hard physical evidence that destroys your theory. Your desperate excuses and evasions are just about as absurd as theirs are.
-
I dont see any proof. Just opinion.
But if it wasnt a single bullet from Oswalds rifle and there was another bullet - where did it come from?
-
I dont see any proof. Just opinion.
But if it wasnt a single bullet from Oswalds rifle and there was another bullet - where did it come from?
Even more to the point, where did it go? (Hint: CIA-issued melting ice bullet. :D)
"NO WAY ON EARTH!!!" says Michael - again, CT hyperbole. If you want to be taken seriously, you can't just write CT legal briefs. You have to deal with reality, as per below. (Oh, I know, Frazier was on the CT payroll - which is presumably why Michael's article doesn't even mention him.)
Sorry to intrude. Over and out.
ARLEN SPECTER -- What did you note, if anything, with respect to the tie, Mr. Frazier?
ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- When the tie was examined by me in the laboratory, I noted that the neck portion had been cut from one side of the knot. However, the knot remained in apparently its original condition. The only damage to the tie other than the fact that it had been cut, was a crease or nick in the left side of the tie when you consider the tie as being worn on a body. As you view the front of the tie, it would be on the right side. This nick would be located in a corresponding area to the area in the shirt collar just below the button.
[...]
MR. SPECTER -- Does the nick in the tie provide any indication of the direction of the missile?
MR. FRAZIER -- The nick is elongated horizontally, indicating a possible horizontal direction, but it does not indicate that the projectile which caused it was exiting or entering at that point. The fibers were not disturbed in a characteristic manner which would permit any conclusion in that connection.
MR. SPECTER -- Is the nick consistent with an exiting path?
MR. FRAZIER -- Oh, yes.
MR. SPECTER -- Is there any indication from the nature of the nick as to the nature of the projectile itself?
MR. FRAZIER -- No, sir.
MR. SPECTER -- Is the nick consistent with a 6.5 millimeter bullet having caused the nick?
MR. FRAZIER -- Yes. Any projectile could have caused the nick. In this connection, there was no metallic residue found on the tie, and for that matter there was no metallic residue found on the shirt at the holes in the front. However, there was in the back.
-
I dont see any proof. Just opinion.
But if it wasnt a single bullet from Oswalds rifle and there was another bullet - where did it come from?
He thinks Babushka Lady (who he says was really CIA officer June Cobb) possibly used a gun camera. That "possibly" covers a lot of ground in conspiracy world.
My guess is he thinks the bullet came from that gun. Well, "possibly".
-
I dont see any proof.
Because you don't want to see any proof. Because you are determined to believe in the SBT myth, no matter what, since otherwise you'd have to admit that more than one gunman fired at JFK, and you're not willing to do that.
Just opinion.
Oh, "just opinion"?! The photos showing JFK's tie knot during the motorcade are not "just opinion." The photo of the shirt slits is not "just opinion." The photos of the tie are not "just opinion." They are hard physical evidence.
I would just add, and then I'll go away ... Let's think about all the conspirators did: Two caskets, two autopsies, alter the body, fake x-rays, fake photos, lose the brain, fabricate CE 399, threaten and intimidate doctors, lie under oath, and so on and so forth. But they did NOTHING with the clothes? How difficult would it have been to alter THEM? If nothing else, simply tear them a bit so they are of no evidential value and say it occurred during the frantic efforts at Parkland or at the laboratory. Isn't this the "Three Stooges at Step 5" thing again?
In other words: "Gee, I'm not going to let myself face the reality of the hard physical evidence of JFK's clothing because I'm going to theorize that if there had been a conspiracy, it would have been a conspiracy that was perfect and all-controlling, a conspiracy that overlooked nothing, that left no evidence behind, and that anticipated every potential problem. Yeah, who ever heard of a complex criminal operation that did not go according to plan and that failed to cover every trace of its actions?!"
This is the silliness you must embrace to justify your refusal to face the hard physical evidence of JFK's clothing.
We also have the problem of a back entry and a throat entry that just happen to line up very closely but no bullet to go with either one - not a problem?
Seriously? This nonsense again? Never mind that the clothing proves that no bullet exited the throat and the shirt slits?
The wounds do not "line up very closely." Canning couldn't get them to line up. Baden had to assume JFK was leaning some 60 degrees forward to get them to line up. The Knott Lab SBT trajectory analysis, the most sophisticated ever done, proves they don't line up.
There was no direct path from the back wound to the throat wound without smashing through the spine, as Dr. Nichols and Dr. Mantik have documented. That's why the WC had to move the back wound at least 1 inch to the right and at least 1 inch upward.
We now know that the autopsy doctors positively, absolutely, definitively established at the autopsy that the back wound had no exit point--they and others around the table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity, which is why the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. The throat wound only suddenly became the exit point for the back wound after Oswald was killed and they knew there would be no trial.
Having been through the peer-review process for law review articles, I can tell that you that sloppy thinking and obvious unanswered questions don't just slide through.
This is the kind of sophistry and posturing that come from desperately wanting to believe in a theory and being unwilling to face clear, obvious, self-evident physical evidence that destroys it.
Notice that you have not said one blessed word to try to explain the physical evidence under discussion--not a syllable. You've danced around and around and around it with strawman arguments and spurious claims. You know that you can't dispute the fact, obvious to all, that JFK's tie was centered between the collar band. You know you can't deny that at least half of the tie knot was centered directly over the shirt slits. You know you can't deny that no bullet exiting the slits could have missed the tie knot. You know you can't deny that no bullet exiting the slits could have magically weaved around the knot and nicked the outer surface of the knot.
You know you can't deny these things because they are self-evident to anyone with two working eyes and a modicum of intelligence and common sense. So, rather than face these facts, you wave them aside and fall back on erroneous assumptions and strawman arguments that don't lay a finger on the physical evidence.
-
He thinks Babushka Lady (who he says was really the CIA agent June Cobb) possibly used a gun camera. That "possibly" covers a lot of ground in conspiracy world.
My guess is he thinks it came from that gun. Well, "possibly".
Precisely. Griffith and others have no explanation for where all these extra bullets came from and absconded off to other than waving the whole issue away by claiming that the evidence was instead tampered with or faked.
-
Precisely. Griffith and others have no explanation for where all these extra bullets came from and absconded off to other than waving the whole issue away by claiming that the evidence was instead tampered with or faked.
How does this evasive polemic explain the hard physical evidence of the tie, the shirt slits, and the rear clothing holes? Your argument amounts to saying,
"I'm not going to deal with the actual physical evidence itself because WC skeptics can't explain--to my satisfaction--where the extra bullets came from or what happened to them."
You're falling back on theory and assumption to avoid dealing with hard physical evidence that you can't explain, even though that physical evidence refutes your theory and assumption.
We both know you have no idea how a bullet exiting the throat and then the slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot, or how the bullet could have magically managed to nick the top surface of the knot without going through the knot. It is obvious to any rational, objective person that no bullet exiting the slits could have done these things. There's no way it could have missed the knot, and there's no way it could have navigated around the knot and nicked the knot's top surface, especially since the nick was not on the edge of the knot.
We all know this, but you guys won't admit it because doing so would require you to ditch the lone-gunman theory.
Incidentally, you might want to read my article "Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza":
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view
Quote from Lance Payette on Today at 02:19:46 PM
I also see that you don't even mention JFK's brace, which seems a curious omission.
Actually, I do in fact mention JFK's back brace in the article, but not in relation to the tie or the shirt slits. I mention it when discussing Sibert's HSCA interview by noting that Sibert said he rejected the bunched-clothing theory because the back brace would have helped to prevent JFK's shirt from bunching substantially:
Sibert said he rejected the theory that the shirt and coat bunched high enough to account
for the location of the clothing holes, observing that the shirt would not have moved markedly
even if Kennedy had raised his arm and that the president's back brace would have helped
to hold the shirt in place (Sibert deposition, p. 162). (p. 16)
I guess you missed that when you skimmed through the article.
-
Actually, I do in fact mention JFK's back brace in the article, but not in relation to the tie or the shirt slits. I mention it when discussing Sibert's HSCA interview by noting that Sibert said he rejected the bunched-clothing theory because the back brace would have helped to prevent JFK's shirt from bunching substantially:
Sibert said he rejected the theory that the shirt and coat bunched high enough to account
for the location of the clothing holes, observing that the shirt would not have moved markedly
even if Kennedy had raised his arm and that the president's back brace would have helped
to hold the shirt in place (Sibert deposition, p. 162). (p. 16)
I guess you missed that when you skimmed through the article.
Actually, the Google "find" feature missed it and continues to do so, but I do see it now. I simply say the brace is a variable that has to be factored in. It may cut the way Sibert suggests or it may not.
What happened, one wonders, to the theory, which I believe even you were promoting, that Dr. Carrico was the only real witness, he said the wound was "above the collar," and the slits were all caused by the nurses with a scalpel as they removed the shirt and tie? Supposedly Carrico acknowledged to Weisberg that the nurses had used a scalpel, Mantik and others said all the slits "aligned perfectly," and Mantik and Weisberg said the slits when examined were more indicative of a scalpel than a bullet. I have no dog in the fight, but how would this help the CT cause or damage the LN cause?
I found a much earlier article by CTer Jerry McKnight that was not unlike yours, followed by a respectful colloquy with LN advocate Todd Vaughan which fell far short of McKnight (or Vaughan, for that matter) claiming anything was "impossible." It's these exaggerated claims that any lawyer would tell you greatly undercut the force of your argument. There are simply too many variables and unknowns to be claiming this sort of certainty.
Even your fellow CTer John Orr (yes, I am now on his payroll, which at least adds to the paltry stipend I receive from Langley) agrees with the WC view that the exiting bullet nicked the tie. See page 11: http://www.mountainrivercabins.com/JohnOrrReport.pdf. How does that factor into your analysis of impossibility? Is Orr as stupid as Lance and the others here? The HSCA likewise didn't seem to find the impossibility that you do.
FWIW to anyone who cares, here is an interesting photo of JFK's necktie (earlier on 11-22-63) on the left with the damaged knot superimposed on the right. I have no idea how accurate this is or isn't.
(https://scontent-phx1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/484192041_660168886591182_3046642285097365389_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=aa7b47&_nc_ohc=y1jzZd9tdhwQ7kNvwELqhED&_nc_oc=AdmutdNlKju723EPgCZfqP6gMtnBuUlwX_ztgLAUv84ZbHmYcbFjx8ebWoBwts2Z04U&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent-phx1-1.xx&_nc_gid=DLnK21wzna7AUKfrV5oXSA&oh=00_AfZhWbEuzHBt0M5hhOYzYEwlSCK8dirfROuL1w9GW7aKdA&oe=68CF7531)
-
Actually, the Google "find" feature missed it and continues to do so, but I do see it now. I simply say the brace is a variable that has to be factored in. It may cut the way Sibert suggests or it may not.
What happened, one wonders, to the theory, which I believe even you were promoting, that Dr. Carrico was the only real witness, he said the wound was "above the collar," and the slits were all caused by the nurses with a scalpel as they removed the shirt and tie? Supposedly Carrico acknowledged to Weisberg that the nurses had used a scalpel, Mantik and others said all the slits "aligned perfectly," and Mantik and Weisberg said the slits when examined were more indicative of a scalpel than a bullet. I have no dog in the fight, but how would this help the CT cause or damage the LN cause?
I found a much earlier article by CTer Jerry McKnight that was not unlike yours, followed by a respectful colloquy with LN advocate Todd Vaughan which fell far short of McKnight (or Vaughan, for that matter) claiming anything was "impossible." It's these exaggerated claims that any lawyer would tell you greatly undercut the force of your argument. There are simply too many variables and unknowns to be claiming this sort of certainty.
Even your fellow CTer John Orr (yes, I am now on his payroll, which at least adds to the paltry stipend I receive from Langley) agrees with the WC view that the exiting bullet nicked the tie. See page 11: http://www.mountainrivercabins.com/JohnOrrReport.pdf. How does that factor into your analysis of impossibility? Is Orr as stupid as Lance and the others here? The HSCA likewise didn't seem to find the impossibility that you do.
FWIW to anyone who cares, here is an interesting photo of JFK's necktie (earlier on 11-22-63) on the left with the damaged knot superimposed on the right. I have no idea how accurate this is or isn't.
(https://scontent-phx1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/484192041_660168886591182_3046642285097365389_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=aa7b47&_nc_ohc=y1jzZd9tdhwQ7kNvwELqhED&_nc_oc=AdmutdNlKju723EPgCZfqP6gMtnBuUlwX_ztgLAUv84ZbHmYcbFjx8ebWoBwts2Z04U&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent-phx1-1.xx&_nc_gid=DLnK21wzna7AUKfrV5oXSA&oh=00_AfZhWbEuzHBt0M5hhOYzYEwlSCK8dirfROuL1w9GW7aKdA&oe=68CF7531)
LP-- “I have no dog in the fight”
Oh, but you do. We all do. Individuals like M Griffith are trying to rewrite history by claiming our government was overthrown that day. They believe a shadow government was installed in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 and is still running things today. He simply makes up what he needs to, in order to sell the narrative. Walking the tight rope between the opposing views accomplishes nothing. There are no partially correct answers. MG realizes this fact. It is why he is so unyielding about admitting the truth instead opting to create his own fantasy fact filled world.
-
Well, predictably, the labored, strained replies of SBT believers are a sight to behold.
This is not rocket science. We're not talking about speculation or theory, but about plainly observable facts. We have JFK's clothing. We have the photos that show where JFK's tie knot was positioned, the photo of the shirt slits, the photos that show there was no hole through JFK's tie, and the photo that shows the superficial nick on the outer surface of the knot. A child can comprehend the self-evident fact that no bullet exiting the slits could have missed the tie knot, much less magically weaved around the knot to nick the knot's outer surface.
Sometimes small things destroy convoluted theories. In this case, a theory that was conceived in desperation and was controversial and disputed from the outset has been destroyed by a tie, two small shirt slits, a small hole in the back of JFK's shirt, and a small hole in the back of JFK's coat. This destruction happened in the 1990s when Weisberg gained access to high-quality photos of the tie, but, as they have with so many other inconvenient facts, WC apologists have refused to admit it.
History is full of examples of carefully planned criminal schemes that were discovered because seemingly minor items of damning evidence were overlooked. Yet, we have WC true believers in this very thread making the silly argument that we can ignore the hard physical evidence of the clothing because any JFK murder plot would have been perfect, all-knowing, and all-powerful, and would not have left behind any evidence that could expose it.
Of course, we should keep in mind that in 1964, the WC believed its unpublished records would remain sealed for 75 years. The FBI did not anticipate that researchers would file lawsuits that would eventually force the disclosure of high-quality photos of JFK's tie and of unpublished reports/paragraphs about the clothing evidence.
We should also remember that early on the FBI published a misleading photo of the tie knot that gave the false impression that there was a hole in the middle of the knot (FBI Exhibit 60). When Weisberg tried to gain access to high-quality photos of the tie, the FBI fought him tooth and nail. Now we know why.
The JFK assassination plot began to unravel the split second that Connally was hit, which was not supposed to happen. Yet, even then, for weeks the FBI and the WC did their best to pretend that all of JFK's and Connally's wounds were caused by only three bullets.
But then along came the recognition of the timing problem and the Tague wounding. The FBI did their level best to ignore the Tague wounding but were finally forced to deal with it. The timing problem and then the Tague wounding forced Specter to concoct the SBT. We now know that even three WC members scoffed at the zany theory.
-
Well, predictably, the labored, strained replies of SBT believers are a sight to behold.
This is not rocket science. We're not talking about speculation or theory, but about plainly observable facts. We have JFK's clothing. We have the photos that show where JFK's tie knot was positioned, the photo of the shirt slits, the photos that show there was no hole through JFK's tie, and the photo that shows the superficial nick on the outer surface of the knot. A child can comprehend the self-evident fact that no bullet exiting the slits could have missed the tie knot, much less magically weaved around the knot to nick the knot's outer surface.
Sometimes small things destroy convoluted theories. In this case, a theory that was conceived in desperation and was controversial and disputed from the outset has been destroyed by a tie, two small shirt slits, a small hole in the back of JFK's shirt, and a small hole in the back of JFK's coat. This destruction happened in the 1990s when Weisberg gained access to high-quality photos of the tie, but, as they have with so many other inconvenient facts, WC apologists have refused to admit it.
History is full of examples of carefully planned criminal schemes that were discovered because seemingly minor items of damning evidence were overlooked. Yet, we have WC true believers in this very thread making the silly argument that we can ignore the hard physical evidence of the clothing because any JFK murder plot would have been perfect, all-knowing, and all-powerful, and would not have left behind any evidence that could expose it.
Of course, we should keep in mind that in 1964, the WC believed its unpublished records would remain sealed for 75 years. The FBI did not anticipate that researchers would file lawsuits that would eventually force the disclosure of high-quality photos of JFK's tie and of unpublished reports/paragraphs about the clothing evidence.
We should also remember that early on the FBI published a misleading photo of the tie knot that gave the false impression that there was a hole in the middle of the knot (FBI Exhibit 60). When Weisberg tried to gain access to high-quality photos of the tie, the FBI fought him tooth and nail. Now we know why.
The JFK assassination plot began to unravel the split second that Connally was hit, which was not supposed to happen. Yet, even then, for weeks the FBI and the WC did their best to pretend that all of JFK's and Connally's wounds were caused by only three bullets.
But then along came the recognition of the timing problem and the Tague wounding. The FBI did their level best to ignore the Tague wounding but were finally forced to deal with it. The timing problem and then the Tague wounding forced Specter to concoct the SBT. We now know that even three WC members scoffed at the zany theory.
MD "pretend that all of JFK's and Connally's wounds were caused by only three bullets."
There were only two shots. Courtesy of Eye Witness statements, recovered bullets, and the observation of non-other than Josiah Thompson in Six Seconds in Dallas. It kind of wrecks the whole foolish conspiracy narrative.
How do you live with yourself to come up with a story of two entrance wounds and no exit wounds? They teach children in Hunter Safety here about the dangers of bullets passing through the deer and hitting another deer on the other side, but grown men struggle with this simple understanding as it relates to the JFKA. Maybe I could get one of these 12 year olds to explain it to you in words you can understand. The whole idea that the bullet did not travel through JFK and strike JBC is just ridiculous. That it could somehow stop before the knot is beyond goofy.
-
LP-- “I have no dog in the fight”
Oh, but you do. We all do. Individuals like M Griffith are trying to rewrite history by claiming our government was overthrown that day. They believe a shadow government was installed in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 and is still running things today. He simply makes up what he needs to, in order to sell the narrative. Walking the tight rope between the opposing views accomplishes nothing. There are no partially correct answers. MG realizes this fact. It is why he is so unyielding about admitting the truth instead opting to create his own fantasy fact filled world.
Well, yes, in the broad sense I suppose. I think I've made abundantly clear that I think Michael is pretty much a CT crank who plays fast and loose with the truth for reasons known only to him. In some respects, CTers as over-the-top as Michael are the truth's best friend. If I were going to invent a disinformation agent, he'd look more like Michael than Posner.
I simply meant that my involvement with the JFKA really hasn't involved obsessing over this sort of stuff in this level of detail. I can acknowledge problematical aspects of the case - the SBT, CE 399, the necktie, etc. - without coming unglued because I am satisfied the LN narrative is fundamentally correct. With all of the somewhat problematical aspects, there are simply too many unknowns and variables in all of these supposed problem areas to use dogmatic terms like "impossible" and declare everyone who disagrees with you an uninformed dolt.
I do think it's interesting to play around with possible refinements to the LN narrative - a much earlier missed shot, Andrew's non-SBT three-shot scenario, your Phantom Shot, Orr's idea of a head shot fragment causing JBC's wrist wounds, perhaps the holes in the shirt and tie actually being scalpel cuts because the exit wound was above the collar.
Exactly what occurred is always going to remain something of a Rorschach test, but the LN meta-narrative remains solid.
-
(https://scontent-phx1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/484192041_660168886591182_3046642285097365389_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=aa7b47&_nc_ohc=y1jzZd9tdhwQ7kNvwELqhED&_nc_oc=AdmutdNlKju723EPgCZfqP6gMtnBuUlwX_ztgLAUv84ZbHmYcbFjx8ebWoBwts2Z04U&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent-phx1-1.xx&_nc_gid=DLnK21wzna7AUKfrV5oXSA&oh=00_AfZhWbEuzHBt0M5hhOYzYEwlSCK8dirfROuL1w9GW7aKdA&oe=68CF7531)
Thanks for posting this image of Kennedy's tie knot nick which perfectly corresponds to where the tracheotomy wound was located and as we know was where the bullet(CE399) exited.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sDPNGmxM/jfk-tie-height-c.gif)
Using the folds on Kennedy's lower neck as a landmark, the bullet entrance on the rear of Kennedy is higher than where CE399 exited. BTW what are the chances that the front and behind professional assassins both missed Kennedy's head by almost the same amount and gee willikers the two wounds when aligned lead directly back to Oswald's Sniper's Nest!!
(https://i.postimg.cc/nLVrf3jB/JFK-SBF-side-on-back-autopsy.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/PrGmnktD/Myers-SBTx.jpg)
And as for Griffith's absurd Jacket hole evidence, Kennedy's jacket on Elm street was clearly bunched.
(https://i.postimg.cc/C5TcznVC/jacket-bunch-elm-love-field.gif)
JohnM
-
History is full of examples of carefully planned criminal schemes that were discovered because seemingly minor items of damning evidence were overlooked. Yet, we have WC true believers in this very thread making the silly argument that we can ignore the hard physical evidence of the clothing because any JFK murder plot would have been perfect, all-knowing, and all-powerful, and would not have left behind any evidence that could expose it.
Nice try, but you have this exactly backwards. I have stated that forensic accident and crime scene reconstruction is full of improbabilities, inconsistencies and things that don't quite fit. It's to be expected.
YOU have these "seemingly minor items of damning evidence" being overlooked by conspirators who had two caskets and two autopsies, altered the body, faked x-rays, faked photos, destroyed the brain, fabricated CE 399, threatened and intimidated doctors, lied under oath, and engaged in a massive cover-up that sounds more like science fiction than real life. Indeed, YOU posit conspirators who are pretty much "all-knowing and all-powerful" - except when they conveniently (for CTers) turn into the Three Stooges again and again.
These damn near omnipotent conspirators FORGOT ABOUT THE HOLES IN THE CLOTHING while they were switching caskets, altering the body and whatnot!!! Is that plausible, given YOUR OWN scenario? With possibly the most obvious and easy to manipulate evidence - the clothing - the conspiratorial geniuses just had a massive brain fart and completely overlooked it, all the way from the FBI Lab to the National Archives? They left it right there in the open for CT geniuses like Michael T. Griffith and Cliff Varnell to recognize it was IMPOSSIBLE to square with the LN narrative (even though an awful lot of experts and even some of their fellow CTers disagree). Ya think? (Well, yes, you do - that's the scary part.)
I have no problem with the holes in the clothing raising questions. It's to be expected and casts no real doubt on the LN narrative. The more you and Cliff shout IMPOSSIBLE, the less credible you appear.
-
IN 2017, SANDY LARSEN SAID:
I haven't yet encountered an LNer who gives a damn about the question, "HOW DID THE MAGIC BULLET PASS THROUGH THE KNOT OF THE TIE WITHOUT MAKING A HOLE?"
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But don't you have the exact same problem if the bullet ENTERED the throat (versus it EXITING the throat)?
Don't the CTers who think JFK's throat wound was an ENTRANCE wound still have to ask themselves the very same question you just asked me? I.E.,
"HOW DID THE BULLET PASS THROUGH THE KNOT OF THE TIE WITHOUT MAKING A HOLE?"
How does the belief that the throat wound was a wound of entry make the above question go away for the conspiracy theorists? Do they think if the bullet entered the Adam's Apple area of JFK's throat, it somehow was able to miss the tie knot area entirely? But if it exited there, it had no choice but go through the tie knot and create a hole? Is that it?
Much More:
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1244.html#JFK's-Necktie
-
IN 2017, SANDY LARSEN SAID:
I haven't yet encountered an LNer who gives a damn about the question, "HOW DID THE MAGIC BULLET PASS THROUGH THE KNOT OF THE TIE WITHOUT MAKING A HOLE?"
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But don't you have the exact same problem if the bullet ENTERED the throat (versus it EXITING the throat)?
Don't the CTers who think JFK's throat wound was an ENTRANCE wound still have to ask themselves the very same question you just asked me? I.E.,
"HOW DID THE BULLET PASS THROUGH THE KNOT OF THE TIE WITHOUT MAKING A HOLE?"
How does the belief that the throat wound was a wound of entry make the above question go away for the conspiracy theorists? Do they think if the bullet entered the Adam's Apple area of JFK's throat, it somehow was able to miss the tie knot area entirely? But if it exited there, it had no choice but go through the tie knot and create a hole? Is that it?
Nope, not at all. You again show that your research is decades behind the information curve.
Your question is easy to answer: The throat wound was above the tie knot/collar, just as Dr. Carrico, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Goldstrich said it was. JFK's tie and shirt slits confirm this. They confirm that Carrico was correct and truthful when he told and showed Dulles, and later Weisberg, that the throat wound was above the tie. This explains why the Parkland doctors described damage behind the throat wound that was larger than the throat wound itself, a dead giveaway and textbook indicator that the wound was an entry wound. This is a great example of evidence powerfully coming together to form a clear picture.
Dr. Ronald Jones saw JFK's body before the clothes were removed. Interviewed for the 2023 Paramount documentary JFK: What the Doctors Saw, Dr. Jones said the throat wound was "visible" and that it was "just above where the shirt and tie was":
The first thing I noticed was a very small wound in his neck in the front. . . .
We could tell that the wound was in the front of the neck just above
where the shirt and tie was. So it was visible to you.
(18:12-18:19, 18:32-18:39)
Also, this was not the first time Jones said the throat wound was above the tie and visible before the clothing was removed. He said the same thing in an interview years earlier, in 2014:
“I noticed a small wound in the midline of the neck just above the
tie knot that was approximately a quarter of an inch or 6 mm in diameter.”
(“The President’s Been Shot and They Are Bringing Him to the Emergency Room,”
Journal of the American College of Surgeons, Volume 218, Issue 4, April 2014,
pp. 856-868, http://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515(14)00108-2/abstract)
In the Paramount documentary, Dr. Joe D. Goldstrich, a fourth-year medical student at Parkland Hospital at the time, said he could see the neck wound when JFK's clothes were still on:
I do remember that very early on, even when his clothes were
still on, I saw the wound in his neck. (18:20-18:28)
He would not have been able to see the throat wound if it had been under/behind the tie knot and the front shirt slits.
Dr. Carrico told the WC that the throat wound was above the tie:
Dulles: Will you show us about where it was?
Dr. Carrico: Just about where your tie would be.
Dulles: Where did it enter?
Dr. Carrico: It entered?
Dulles: Yes.
Dr. Carrico: At the time we did not know --
Dulles: I see.
Dr. Carrico: The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.
Dulles: I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is?
Dr. Carrico: Yes, sir. (3 H 361-362)
When Carrico spoke with Harold Weisberg in 1975, he confirmed that the throat wound was above the collar; he was “definite on this” (Weisberg, Never Again, 2007 edition, p. 241). Weisberg continued:
When I asked him if he saw any bullet holes in the shirt or tie, he was
definite in saying “No.” I asked if he recalled Dulles’s question and his
own pointing to above his own shirt collar as the location of the bullet hole.
He does remember this, and he does remember confirming that the hole
was above the collar. . . . (Never Again, p. 242)
Carrico also told Weisberg that the nurses used scalpels to remove the president’s shirt and tie because they were, understandably, in a big hurry, and that it was “likely” that the nurses made the slits and the nick in the tie, adding, “I saw neither the nick in the tie nor the cuts in the shirt before the nurses started cutting” (Weisberg, Post Mortem, pp. 375-376; http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/N%20Disk/New%20York%20Times/Item%2093.pdf, p. 4; https://www.google.com/books/edition/Matrix_for_Assassination/SC-wBAAAQBAJ?q=&gbpv=1#f=true, pp. 95-96; http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Book Images/Never Again - Draft/Never Again Draft.pdf (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Book Images/Never Again - Draft/Never Again Draft.pdf), p. 14)
Rockefeller Foundation fellow Henry Hurt, in his book Reasonable Doubt, notes that one of the nurses confirmed that nurses made the shirt slits when they hurriedly cut away JFK’s tie and shirt (p. 60).
Dr. Malcolm Perry diagnosed the throat wound as an entrance wound because it was small (3-5 mm in diameter), neat (no ragged edges), and punched-in, and because of the damage he saw beneath the throat wound. He believed the missile had entered the throat and then ranged downward into the chest.
Dr. Kemp Clark said that Dr. Perry discovered that the trachea was deviated, and that Perry believed the missile had ranged downward into the chest:
He discovered that the trachea was deviated so he felt that the
missile had entered the President's chest. (6 H 22)
Dr. Clark said that Dr. Perry also saw blood in the strap muscles of the neck and that Perry believed this was another indication that the bullet had entered the chest:
The part pertaining to the bullet entering the President's chest rests
on the reasons for the placing of the chest tubes which were being
inserted when I arrived. It was the assumption, based on the previously
described deviation of the trachea and the presence of blood in the
strap muscles of the neck that a wound or missile wound might have
entered the President's chest. (6 H 28)
Dr. Perry explained that in addition to the damage to the trachea and the blood in the strap muscles, he also found “free air and blood” in the “superior right mediastinum” (the upper-right part of the central compartment of the chest cavity), which further led him to believe the missile had entered the chest:
I made a transverse incision right through this wound and carried
it down to the superficial fascia, to expose the strap muscles overlying
the thyroid and the trachea. There was an injury to the right lateral
aspect of the trachea at the level of the external wound. The trachea
was deviated slightly to the left and it was necessary to divide the
strap muscles on the left side in order to gain access to the trachea.
At this point, I recall. Dr. Jones right on my left was placing a catheter
into a vein in the left arm because he handed me a necessary
instrument which I needed in the performance of the procedure.
The wound in the trachea was then enlarged to admit a cuffed
tracheotomy tube to support respiration. I noted that there was
free air and blood in the superior right mediastinum. Although I saw
no injury to the lung or to the pleural space, the presence of this free
blood and air in this area could be indicative of a wound of the right
hemithorax, and I asked that someone put a right chest tube in for
seal drain age. At the time I did not know who did this, but I have
been informed that Dr. Baxter and Dr. Paul Peters inserted the chest
tube and connected it to underwater drainage. (6 H 10)
Dr. Perry also noted there was considerable bruising in “the right lateral portion of the neck” and also the right upper mediastinum:
Mr. Specter. What did you observe, if anything with respect to bruising
in the interior portion of the President's neck?
Dr. Perry. There was considerable hematoma in the right lateral portion
of the neck and the right superior mediastinum, as I noted. (6 H 11)
The fact that this damage was on the righthand side of the superior (upper) mediastinum is important because the nick on the tie knot was in the left half of the knot, an obviously impossible trajectory given the thickness of the knot and the fact that the knot was neatly centered in the middle of the collar band.
Mortician Tom Robinson told the HSCA that he believed the autopsy doctors found a bullet fragment in the chest (HSCA interview, 1/12/77, p. 10).
All of these facts enable us to more fully appreciate the ARRB disclosures about the back wound. We now know that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors were absolutely, completely, and totally certain that the back wound had no exit point. They established this with prolonged probing, both with fingers and with surgical probes, and even removed the chest organs and positioned the body “every which way” to facilitate and observe the probing. Men standing near the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity and that there was no exit point.
This explains another fact that we now know thanks to ARRB disclosures: the first draft of the autopsy report said the throat wound was caused by a fragment from the head shot.
-
Well, yes, in the broad sense I suppose. I think I've made abundantly clear that I think Michael is pretty much a CT crank who plays fast and loose with the truth for reasons known only to him. In some respects, CTers as over-the-top as Michael are the truth's best friend. If I were going to invent a disinformation agent, he'd look more like Michael than Posner.
I simply meant that my involvement with the JFKA really hasn't involved obsessing over this sort of stuff in this level of detail. I can acknowledge problematical aspects of the case - the SBT, CE 399, the necktie, etc. - without coming unglued because I am satisfied the LN narrative is fundamentally correct. With all of the somewhat problematical aspects, there are simply too many unknowns and variables in all of these supposed problem areas to use dogmatic terms like "impossible" and declare everyone who disagrees with you an uninformed dolt.
I do think it's interesting to play around with possible refinements to the LN narrative - a much earlier missed shot, Andrew's non-SBT three-shot scenario, your Phantom Shot, Orr's idea of a head shot fragment causing JBC's wrist wounds, perhaps the holes in the shirt and tie actually being scalpel cuts because the exit wound was above the collar.
Exactly what occurred is always going to remain something of a Rorschach test, but the LN meta-narrative remains solid.
Where we differ is the concept of the assassination being a Rorschach test. There is an answer, it has no variables, and it is provable. I know you believe in a LN scenario. Absolutely no doubt, but it is a problem that 70% of America believes the JFKA is a conspiracy. Not because they know anything about the JFKA, but because no coherent explanation has ever been put forward. Providing no answer will not change that at all.
The three-shot scenario is the problem. No evidence supports the three-shot scenario in its entirety. Don’t just insinuate what happened but actually prove what took place and there will no longer be 70% of America believing there was a conspiracy. The HSCA and WC both stated the witnesses inflated the number of shots due to media influence. That is not a passing footnote. That is a big piece of the puzzle.
If 70% of America believes it is a conspiracy it is because the loudest noise comes from people like M Griffith making unfounded unproven outrageous claims. Who could believe that jacketed bullets at their max velocity can come to a screeching halt after only traveling several inches inside soft tissue? Not once but twice? 70% of America can believe that is even possible? MG certainly does.
Who also look like the crackpots in this are the LN’ers. Not because they are wrong, but because the three-shot scenario is so full of inconsistencies and holes that are too easy to point out. How can you have three shots where one shot has no proof at all of ever having occurred? A shot that is alternately described as an early missed shot, a really early missed shot, a shot in the middle in three different places, and a shot after the headshot, and finally a shot way after the headshot. Again, all with no proof it even ever existed.
The oddest part of the whole JFKA discussion is just this one faulty belief. The two opposing views both rely on a shot that never happened as the lynch pin of their respective arguments.
-
Where we differ is the concept of the assassination being a Rorschach test. There is an answer, it has no variables, and it is provable. I know you believe in a LN scenario. Absolutely no doubt, but it is a problem that 70% of America believes the JFKA is a conspiracy. Not because they know anything about the JFKA, but because no coherent explanation has ever been put forward. Providing no answer will not change that at all.
The three-shot scenario is the problem. No evidence supports the three-shot scenario in its entirety. Don’t just insinuate what happened but actually prove what took place and there will no longer be 70% of America believing there was a conspiracy. The HSCA and WC both stated the witnesses inflated the number of shots due to media influence. That is not a passing footnote. That is a big piece of the puzzle.
If 70% of America believes it is a conspiracy it is because the loudest noise comes from people like M Griffith making unfounded unproven outrageous claims. Who could believe that jacketed bullets at their max velocity can come to a screeching halt after only traveling several inches inside soft tissue? Not once but twice? 70% of America can believe that is even possible? MG certainly does.
Who also look like the crackpots in this are the LN’ers. Not because they are wrong, but because the three-shot scenario is so full of inconsistencies and holes that are too easy to point out. How can you have three shots where one shot has no proof at all of ever having occurred? A shot that is alternately described as an early missed shot, a really early missed shot, a shot in the middle in three different places, and a shot after the headshot, and finally a shot way after the headshot. Again, all with no proof it even ever existed.
The oddest part of the whole JFKA discussion is just this one faulty belief. The two opposing views both rely on a shot that never happened as the lynch pin of their respective arguments.
I think the vast majority of Americans under 60 or so really don't care squat about the JFKA. When I was a kid in, say, 1960, I wasn't even vaguely interested in conspiratorial theories about events in 1875 or 1900. As you say, the CT community has, with the assistance of the MSM, kept a pretty consistent conspiracy drumbeat going for 62 years. But I don't think the polls reflect any genuine interest or understanding - just more of a "Yeah, I've heard so many theories I guess there must have been some sort of conspiracy, yawn." The basic historical narrative is never going to change. The history books 100 years from now will say that LHO, acting alone, killed JFKA. Whether there were really two or three shots is, and will always be, irrelevant to most people - and increasingly so as the years go by. I agree that the two-shot theory is plausible and should receive more attention - just as I think other possible "improvements" to the LN Gospel are worth considering - but it's Inside Baseball stuff that isn't going to interest most people. As for people like Michael - well, he's pretty clearly recognized as the crank he is even over at the distinctly cranky Ed Forum. I doubt Michael has made a dent in anyone's thinking this side of Crankville.
-
Not only does JFK's clothing prove that no bullet exited the throat and the shirt slits, and that no bullet nicked the tie knot, but it also proves that Dr. Carrico and Dr. Jones were truthful and correct when they said the throat wound was above the tie knot. The clothing further proves that Dr. Perry was correct when he identified the throat wound as an entrance wound, and that the nurses were the ones who nicked the tie and made the shirt slits, just as Dr. Carrico indicated and just as one of the nurses confirmed to Henry Hurt.
In addition, this all comes together to explain why the damage behind the throat wound was larger than the wound itself, why the wound was small and punched-in, and why there was more blood on the outside of the collar band than on the inside.
Furthermore, this explains the fact that, as we now know, at the autopsy the autopsy doctors absolutely, positively, and conclusively established that the back wound had no exit point, why they and others around the table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity, and why the rear clothing holes were over 5 inches below the collar.
-
Because I just love it when CTers get into an internecine cat fight, I have continued to monitor the identical thread that Michael started at the Ed Forum. Cliff Varnell, who is the godfather of the Impossible Clothing Argument, says "Forget the damn necktie, willya??? We don't need it!"
I had failed to appreciate the subtlety of Cliff's argument. I thought he was positing a CIA melting ice bullet for the frontal throat wound and a dud Carcano round falling out of the shallow back wound. Cliff wisely points out that the back wound wasn't THAT shallow and a Carcano bullet wouldn't have simply fallen out.
For the back wound - and perhaps the throat wound as well - Cliff now posits a "blood soluble" bullet as developed for the CIA at the Army Biological Laboratory at Fort Detrick (MD) in connection with something called MKNAOMI, which you can read about here: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/178-10004-10087.pdf. (Any document with "shellfish toxin" and "hand-launchers loaded with dog incapacitant" in it is worth reading, no?)
Wow, huh? Bad guys with blood-soluble bullets at both the front and rear! I had previously thought Lin Soo Mknaomi was just a South Korean professional golfer on the LPGA Tour, but now I'm starting to come around to Cliff's way of thinking on this.
-
If anyone has any questions about the arguments being made by SBT defenders in this thread, please message or email me and I'll address them. Unless something changes, I'm probably not going to spend any more time responding to their strained, evasive arguments.
You'll notice that not one of them is explaining how a bullet exiting the throat wound and shirt slits could have missed the tie knot, and how such a bullet could have weaved around the body of the knot to nick its outer surface on the left area of the bottom half of the knot (and not on the edge).
Sherlock Holmes famously said, "When you eliminate the impossible, however improbable, whatever remains must be the truth." To put it another way, once all impossible scenarios are removed from consideration, the only remaining explanation, even if it seems unlikely, must be the correct one.
In this case, the remaining explanation is eminently probable on its face, and it is proven beyond any rational doubt by JFK's shirt, coat, and tie.
Less than two hours after JFK died, the Parkland Hospital doctors held a press conference. During the presser, Dr. Malcolm Perry identified the throat wound as an entrance wound three times. Dr. Perry, who had much more experience with gunshot wounds than Humes or Boswell, diagnosed the throat wound as an entry wound because it was small (3-5 mm), neat, circular, and punched-in, and because of the damage he saw behind the wound.
We have the transcript of the press conference, but not any film footage of it. Why? How could this be? Because the Secret Service confiscated all film footage of the presser, and it has not surfaced since then.
Moreover, the Secret Service lied to the WC and said they could not locate the films or the transcript of the press conference. Thanks to the ARRB, we now know that the Secret Service had the transcript in their possession by 11/26, four days after the shooting.
With no film or transcript of the press conference, the WC claimed that press reports that quoted Perry as saying the wound was a neat puncture wound were inaccurate, and that all the journalists at the presser somehow misunderstood what Perry said. The Commission even pressured Perry into endorsing this claim.
The Church Committee discovered in the 1970s that the Secret Service pressured Dr. Perry to change his story long before he testified before the WC.
It gets worse. Journalist Martin Steadman and two other journalists spoke with Dr. Perry about a week after the assassination. Steadman knew that Perry had identified the throat wound as an entrance wound at the 11/22 press conference. Steadman wrote that Dr. Perry said he thought the throat wound was an entrance wound because the hole was small, circular, and clean (not ragged). Perry added that he had treated hundreds of patients with gunshot wounds and knew the difference between an exit wound and entrance wound.
Steadman reported that Dr. Perry then told him that during the night of the assassination, he got several phone calls from the doctors at Bethesda. He said they were very upset about his statement that the neck wound was an entry wound.
Let me pause to note that this debunks the autopsy doctors' lie that they knew nothing about the throat wound until the morning after the autopsy. The Parkland press conference had been widely reported on by major news outlets. Even without Dr. Perry's disclosure, it would be hard to believe that the autopsy doctors heard nothing about the throat wound until the morning after the autopsy.
Anyway, to continue. Steadman reported that Perry said that the autopsy doctors asked him if he or another Parkland doctor had turned over the body to see the wound in Kennedy’s back. Perry said they had not. They then argued that he could not therefore be certain about the throat wound, that there was no evidence of a shot from the front, and that he should stop saying the throat wound was an entrance wound.
Moreover, Steadman said that Dr. Perry told him that when he insisted he could only say what he believed to be true, one or more of the autopsy doctors told him he would be brought before a medical board if he continued to insist on his story. Perry said they even threatened that he would lose his medical license.
Crucially, Parkland nurse Audrey Bell confirmed in her 1997 ARRB interview that Dr. Perry told her that he received several calls on the night of the assassination from Bethesda Naval Hospital pressuring him to change his story about the throat wound:
Saturday morning, when I got over there, Dr. Perry came up to
the office. I said, "You look awful. Did you get any sleep last night?"
He said, "Well, not too much, between the calls from Bethesda
that came in during the night." ["Bethesda" refers to Bethesda Naval
Hospital, where the autopsy was performed.]
I said, "What about?"
He said, "Oh, whether that was an entrance wound or an exit wound
in the throat."
He said, "They were wanting me to change my mind."
(https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_interviews/audio/ARRB_Bell.htm)
All of this makes perfect sense when we acknowledge the hard physical evidence that no bullet could have exited the throat and shirt slits without tearing through the tie, that no such bullet could have magically flown around the knot and nicked its outer surface, which facts in turn confirm that the throat wound was above the tie knot and could have only been an entry wound.
-
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-115.html#The-Clark-Perry-Press-Conference-At-Parkland-Hospital-On-November-22-1963
-
If anyone has any questions about the arguments being made by SBT defenders in this thread, please message or email me and I'll address them. Unless something changes, I'm probably not going to spend any more time responding to their strained, evasive arguments.
You'll notice that not one of them is explaining how a bullet exiting the throat wound and shirt slits could have missed the tie knot, and how such a bullet could have weaved around the body of the knot to nick its outer surface on the left area of the bottom half of the knot (and not on the edge).
Sherlock Holmes famously said, "When you eliminate the impossible, however improbable, whatever remains must be the truth." To put it another way, once all impossible scenarios are removed from consideration, the only remaining explanation, even if it seems unlikely, must be the correct one.
In this case, the remaining explanation is eminently probable on its face, and it is proven beyond any rational doubt by JFK's shirt, coat, and tie.
Less than two hours after JFK died, the Parkland Hospital doctors held a press conference. During the presser, Dr. Malcolm Perry identified the throat wound as an entrance wound three times. Dr. Perry, who had much more experience with gunshot wounds than Humes or Boswell, diagnosed the throat wound as an entry wound because it was small (3-5 mm), neat, circular, and punched-in, and because of the damage he saw behind the wound.
We have the transcript of the press conference, but not any film footage of it. Why? How could this be? Because the Secret Service confiscated all film footage of the presser, and it has not surfaced since then.
Moreover, the Secret Service lied to the WC and said they could not locate the films or the transcript of the press conference. Thanks to the ARRB, we now know that the Secret Service had the transcript in their possession by 11/26, four days after the shooting.
With no film or transcript of the press conference, the WC claimed that press reports that quoted Perry as saying the wound was a neat puncture wound were inaccurate, and that all the journalists at the presser somehow misunderstood what Perry said. The Commission even pressured Perry into endorsing this claim.
The Church Committee discovered in the 1970s that the Secret Service pressured Dr. Perry to change his story long before he testified before the WC.
It gets worse. Journalist Martin Steadman and two other journalists spoke with Dr. Perry about a week after the assassination. Steadman knew that Perry had identified the throat wound as an entrance wound at the 11/22 press conference. Steadman wrote that Dr. Perry said he thought the throat wound was an entrance wound because the hole was small, circular, and clean (not ragged). Perry added that he had treated hundreds of patients with gunshot wounds and knew the difference between an exit wound and entrance wound.
Steadman reported that Dr. Perry then told him that during the night of the assassination, he got several phone calls from the doctors at Bethesda. He said they were very upset about his statement that the neck wound was an entry wound.
Let me pause to note that this debunks the autopsy doctors' lie that they knew nothing about the throat wound until the morning after the autopsy. The Parkland press conference had been widely reported on by major news outlets. Even without Dr. Perry's disclosure, it would be hard to believe that the autopsy doctors heard nothing about the throat wound until the morning after the autopsy.
Anyway, to continue. Steadman reported that Perry said that the autopsy doctors asked him if he or another Parkland doctor had turned over the body to see the wound in Kennedy’s back. Perry said they had not. They then argued that he could not therefore be certain about the throat wound, that there was no evidence of a shot from the front, and that he should stop saying the throat wound was an entrance wound.
Moreover, Steadman said that Dr. Perry told him that when he insisted he could only say what he believed to be true, one or more of the autopsy doctors told him he would be brought before a medical board if he continued to insist on his story. Perry said they even threatened that he would lose his medical license.
Crucially, Parkland nurse Audrey Bell confirmed in her 1997 ARRB interview that Dr. Perry told her that he received several calls on the night of the assassination from Bethesda Naval Hospital pressuring him to change his story about the throat wound:
Saturday morning, when I got over there, Dr. Perry came up to
the office. I said, "You look awful. Did you get any sleep last night?"
He said, "Well, not too much, between the calls from Bethesda
that came in during the night." ["Bethesda" refers to Bethesda Naval
Hospital, where the autopsy was performed.]
I said, "What about?"
He said, "Oh, whether that was an entrance wound or an exit wound
in the throat."
He said, "They were wanting me to change my mind."
(https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_interviews/audio/ARRB_Bell.htm)
All of this makes perfect sense when we acknowledge the hard physical evidence that no bullet could have exited the throat and shirt slits without tearing through the tie, that no such bullet could have magically flown around the knot and nicked its outer surface, which facts in turn confirm that the throat wound was above the tie knot and could have only been an entry wound.
MG ”Sherlock Holmes famously said, "When you eliminate the impossible, however improbable, whatever remains must be the truth." To put it another way, once all impossible scenarios are removed from consideration, the only remaining explanation, even if it seems unlikely, must be the correct one.”
Where does Sherlock say if lacking evidence for your grand proclamation, it is OK to fabricate your own evidence? Must be in a different nugget of wisdom.
MG “In this case, the remaining explanation is eminently probable on its face, and it is proven beyond any rational doubt by JFK's shirt, coat, and tie.”
Great explanation, except the autopsy photos do not support this nonsense and show the bullet hole lower on JFK’s throat and then there is the problem of the bullet went on to strike JBC in the back. Other than that, a very inspirational observation.
-
I think this is a good time to quote some of Dr. Jerry McKnight's research on the shirt slits and the tie. This comes from his article "Bugliosi Fails to Resuscitate the Single-Bullet Theory":
-----------QUOTE-------------
The first FBI laboratory reports on Kennedy’s clothes revealed that the holes in his coat and shirt submitted to both X-ray and spectrographic analysis showed traces of copper (bullet metal) around the edges of the holes. This was forensically consistent with JFK having been shot in the back with copper-jacketed ammunition. The same tests run on Kennedy’s collar and tie showed no bullet metal was found in the surrounding fabric. Rather than admit that the slits in the President’s collar and nick in his tie were not caused by an assassin’s bullet, the FBI lab report noted that the slits had the “characteristics of an exit hole for a bullet fragment.”
The FBI knew that the origin of the slits and the nick in the tie were not caused by a bullet fragment, but it was essential to stay on message: The official story decided upon over the weekend of the assassination was locked into all three shots originating from above and to the rear of the presidential limo, so the FBI was willing to go the extra mile and pretend that a fragment from the bullet that struck Kennedy from the rear caused the “holes” (the report’s description) in the collar and the nick in the tie. . . .
Dr. Charles J. Carrico was the first physician to examine the agonal Kennedy, whose breathing was spasmodic and his color cyanotic (bluish gray), symptoms associated with a terminal patient. Because time was critical the attending nurses took scalpels and cut off Kennedy’s clothes. In their haste to free the patient from his clothes one of the nurses nicked the tie and left two slits in his shirt collar. As Carrico explained to Specter the use of scalpels was “the usual practice” in a medical emergency of this nature. Allen Dulles, who accompanied Specter to Dallas, asked Carrico twice to show him the location of the hole in Kennedy’s anterior neck. The Parkland doctor responded on both occasions locating a point above the collar line. So Specter had unimpeachable first-hand testimony that would have persuaded any good faith investigation to have ruled out the Commission’s single-bullet explanation.
Bugliosi attempts to validate the Commission’s single-bullet construction is really a fatuous exercise in trying to make the worst appear the better case. He cites a 1965 memorandum from Dr. Pierre A. Finck, one of the Bethesda Naval Hospital prosectors, to his commanding officer in which the Army pathologist contends that there was a "bullet hole perforating both flaps of the [Kennedy] shirt, right and left." It is necessary to point out that Finck and the other prosectors did not see Kennedy’s clothes until March 1964 when Specter made them available in preparation for their appearances before the Commission. Even more to the point, according to Finck when he attempted to examine the President’s clothes during the Bethesda autopsy he was blocked by an "officer who outranked me told me that my request was only of academic interest". . . .
If the FBI had a reasonable doubt or even a fleeting suspicion that the “holes” or perforations in JFK's collar were caused by a bullet or a missile fragment, it would have subjected the collar to testing to determine whether the “holes” or slits overlapped or coincided and whether the fibers around the perforations were pointing in or out. The specialist who would have conducted these tests was SA Paul M. Stombaugh, the FBI’s chief hair and fiber expert. Stombaugh did appear before the Commission but during his lengthy testimony not a single question was asked about an examination of JFK’s collar and whether in his expert opinion the slits or “holes” in the collar overlapped or coincided.
Was Stombaugh ever tasked to make an examination of JFK’s collar and tie? According to Robert A. Frazier, the FBI’s firearms expert, Stombaugh ran tests on JFK’s collar and tie at Frazier’s request. In 1977 Frazier was deposed in a FOIA suit brought by prominent JFK assassination researcher Harold Weisberg. Frazier was under oath and admitted that Stombaugh ran tests on the collar and tie. He also admitted that Stombaugh made a report of his findings. Whatever the results, that report is not in the Warren report or the 26 volumes of testimony and exhibits. . . .
Harold Weisberg interviewed both Carrico and Perry at Parkland Hospital on 12/1/1971. His notes on the conversation that Carrico acknowledged that he was talking about a scalpel when he told Specter “... I proceeded with the examination and the nurses removed his clothing as is the usual procedure” (3 H 359). Nurse Diane Bowron told Specter “... Miss Henchliffe and I cut off his clothing” (6 H 136). The instrument used was a scalpel, Carrico told Weisberg. The record of this conversation can be found in the Weisberg Subject Index File under “Dr. Carrico,” items 02 and 03. (https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bugliosi_Fails_to_Resuscitate_the_Single-Bullet_Theory.html)
-----------------------END QUOTE---------------------
We should keep in mind that the claim that the shirt slits' fibers were pushed outward was not made in the FBI lab report on the clothing. This claim was only made later by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover in a letter to the WC's chief counsel, J. Lee Rankin.
Also, neither Frazier nor Stombaugh nor Hoover nor Finck ever tried to explain how a bullet that exited the shirt slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot or how a bullet could have performed like a guided missile and weaved around the body of the knot to nick the knot's outer surface. And, again, it should noted that the nick was not on the edge of the knot but visibly inward from the edge.
In fact, in FBI Exhibit 60, the FBI twisted the knot to make it appear that the nick was in the center of the knot, giving the false impression that there was a hole through the knot. The HSCA, to its great credit, admitted that the nick was only on the "outer facing" of the knot and that the lining under the nick was not damaged.
-
I think this is a good time to quote some of Dr. Jerry McKnight's research on the shirt slits and the tie. This comes from his article "Bugliosi Fails to Resuscitate the Single-Bullet Theory":
-----------QUOTE-------------
The first FBI laboratory reports on Kennedy’s clothes revealed that the holes in his coat and shirt submitted to both X-ray and spectrographic analysis showed traces of copper (bullet metal) around the edges of the holes. This was forensically consistent with JFK having been shot in the back with copper-jacketed ammunition. The same tests run on Kennedy’s collar and tie showed no bullet metal was found in the surrounding fabric. Rather than admit that the slits in the President’s collar and nick in his tie were not caused by an assassin’s bullet, the FBI lab report noted that the slits had the “characteristics of an exit hole for a bullet fragment.”
The FBI knew that the origin of the slits and the nick in the tie were not caused by a bullet fragment, but it was essential to stay on message: The official story decided upon over the weekend of the assassination was locked into all three shots originating from above and to the rear of the presidential limo, so the FBI was willing to go the extra mile and pretend that a fragment from the bullet that struck Kennedy from the rear caused the “holes” (the report’s description) in the collar and the nick in the tie. . . .
Dr. Charles J. Carrico was the first physician to examine the agonal Kennedy, whose breathing was spasmodic and his color cyanotic (bluish gray), symptoms associated with a terminal patient. Because time was critical the attending nurses took scalpels and cut off Kennedy’s clothes. In their haste to free the patient from his clothes one of the nurses nicked the tie and left two slits in his shirt collar. As Carrico explained to Specter the use of scalpels was “the usual practice” in a medical emergency of this nature. Allen Dulles, who accompanied Specter to Dallas, asked Carrico twice to show him the location of the hole in Kennedy’s anterior neck. The Parkland doctor responded on both occasions locating a point above the collar line. So Specter had unimpeachable first-hand testimony that would have persuaded any good faith investigation to have ruled out the Commission’s single-bullet explanation.
Bugliosi attempts to validate the Commission’s single-bullet construction is really a fatuous exercise in trying to make the worst appear the better case. He cites a 1965 memorandum from Dr. Pierre A. Finck, one of the Bethesda Naval Hospital prosectors, to his commanding officer in which the Army pathologist contends that there was a "bullet hole perforating both flaps of the [Kennedy] shirt, right and left." It is necessary to point out that Finck and the other prosectors did not see Kennedy’s clothes until March 1964 when Specter made them available in preparation for their appearances before the Commission. Even more to the point, according to Finck when he attempted to examine the President’s clothes during the Bethesda autopsy he was blocked by an "officer who outranked me told me that my request was only of academic interest". . . .
If the FBI had a reasonable doubt or even a fleeting suspicion that the “holes” or perforations in JFK's collar were caused by a bullet or a missile fragment, it would have subjected the collar to testing to determine whether the “holes” or slits overlapped or coincided and whether the fibers around the perforations were pointing in or out. The specialist who would have conducted these tests was SA Paul M. Stombaugh, the FBI’s chief hair and fiber expert. Stombaugh did appear before the Commission but during his lengthy testimony not a single question was asked about an examination of JFK’s collar and whether in his expert opinion the slits or “holes” in the collar overlapped or coincided.
Was Stombaugh ever tasked to make an examination of JFK’s collar and tie? According to Robert A. Frazier, the FBI’s firearms expert, Stombaugh ran tests on JFK’s collar and tie at Frazier’s request. In 1977 Frazier was deposed in a FOIA suit brought by prominent JFK assassination researcher Harold Weisberg. Frazier was under oath and admitted that Stombaugh ran tests on the collar and tie. He also admitted that Stombaugh made a report of his findings. Whatever the results, that report is not in the Warren report or the 26 volumes of testimony and exhibits. . . .
Harold Weisberg interviewed both Carrico and Perry at Parkland Hospital on 12/1/1971. His notes on the conversation that Carrico acknowledged that he was talking about a scalpel when he told Specter “... I proceeded with the examination and the nurses removed his clothing as is the usual procedure” (3 H 359). Nurse Diane Bowron told Specter “... Miss Henchliffe and I cut off his clothing” (6 H 136). The instrument used was a scalpel, Carrico told Weisberg. The record of this conversation can be found in the Weisberg Subject Index File under “Dr. Carrico,” items 02 and 03. (https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bugliosi_Fails_to_Resuscitate_the_Single-Bullet_Theory.html)
-----------------------END QUOTE---------------------
We should keep in mind that the claim that the shirt slits' fibers were pushed outward was not made in the FBI lab report on the clothing. This claim was only made later by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover in a letter to the WC's chief counsel, J. Lee Rankin.
Also, neither Frazier nor Stombaugh nor Hoover nor Finck ever tried to explain how a bullet that exited the shirt slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot or how a bullet could have performed like a guided missile and weaved around the body of the knot to nick the knot's outer surface. And, again, it should noted that the nick was not on the edge of the knot but visibly inward from the edge.
In fact, in FBI Exhibit 60, the FBI twisted the knot to make it appear that the nick was in the center of the knot, giving the false impression that there was a hole through the knot. The HSCA, to its great credit, admitted that the nick was only on the "outer facing" of the knot and that the lining under the nick was not damaged.
Did Sherlock Holmes state when your story is shown to be completely bogus, double down on the assertion it is correct and then accuse everyone of being part of the conspiracy? Maybe it was Confucius who stated it.
Just curious but do sparks fly from a bullet that comes to a grinding screeching halt in flesh? Probably not given it was lead and copper, but in this story you never know. To go from 2100 feet/second to zero instantly and leaving no trace of it. That is amazing, considering this would defy all of the laws of physics.
-
Notice that the SBT believers here are still declining to explain how a bullet exiting the throat and the shirt slits could have missed tearing through the tie knot, much less how such a bullet could have miraculously weaved around the body of the knot and nicked the knot's outer surface at point that was not on either edge of the knot. Crickets. Silence. They have nothing to say on this determinative issue.
Mind you, in posing these two questions, I'm assuming for the sake of argument that the throat wound was behind the shirt slits and that the slits were made by the bullet that allegedly exited the throat. If one wants to interpret the autopsy photo of the gaping tracheostomy as indicating the throat wound was low enough to make the shirt slits, then one needs to explain (1) how the alleged exiting bullet could have missed tearing through the tie knot, (2) how the bullet could have nicked the outer surface of the knot inward from the knot's left edge, (3) the Parkland accounts that the nurses nicked the tie and made the shirt slits, and (4) the fact that three Parkland doctors independently said that they saw the throat wound before the clothing was removed and that the wound was immediately above the tie knot.
Finally, SBT believers, incredibly, are still making the downright silly argument that only the SBT can solve the "problem" of the bullet that "went on to strike JBC in the back." This is no problem at all. It's only a "problem" in their minds because they can't unchain themselves from the SBT myth. As many researchers have pointed out many times,
-- Connally himself did not believe he was hit by the same bullet that hit JFK.
-- Since Connally was seated several inches to the left of JFK, a bullet that narrowly missed JFK could have easily hit Connally in the back.
-- Connally's back wound and interior chest wound refute the SBT from the get-go, because the SBT requires that the Connally bullet was traveling sideways when it hit his back and smashed his rib, but his back wound was only 1.5 cm in width, and the wound path through Connally's chest was narrow, so much so that Dr. Shaw noted that when the bullet smashed 5 inches of the fifth rib it did little damage to the surrounding tissue.
-- The initial FBI and Secret Service analyses concluded that JFK and Connally were hit by separate non-fatal bullets.
SBT defenders just keep ignoring these facts, and just keep repeating the nonsense that only the SBT can explain the bullet that hit Connally, while refusing to explain how the bullet that allegedly exited JFK's throat and shirt slits could have missed tearing through the tie knot and nicked the knot's outer surface inward from the knot's left edge. As I've said before, dealing with SBT believers is not much different than dealing with Moon-landing deniers and 9/11 Truthers. When you try to get them to deal with hard physical evidence that destroys their myths, they duck and dodge and bob and weave and refuse to directly confront that hard physical evidence.
-
Notice that the SBT believers here are still declining to explain how a bullet exiting the throat and the shirt slits could have missed tearing through the tie knot, much less how such a bullet could have miraculously weaved around the body of the knot and nicked the knot's outer surface at point that was not on either edge of the knot. Crickets. Silence. They have nothing to say on this determinative issue.
Mind you, in posing these two questions, I'm assuming for the sake of argument that the throat wound was behind the shirt slits and that the slits were made by the bullet that allegedly exited the throat. If one wants to interpret the autopsy photo of the gaping tracheostomy as indicating the throat wound was low enough to make the shirt slits, then one needs to explain (1) how the alleged exiting bullet could have missed tearing through the tie knot, (2) how the bullet could have nicked the outer surface of the knot inward from the knot's left edge, (3) the Parkland accounts that the nurses nicked the tie and made the shirt slits, and (4) the fact that three Parkland doctors independently said that they saw the throat wound before the clothing was removed and that the wound was immediately above the tie knot.
Finally, SBT believers, incredibly, are still making the downright silly argument that only the SBT can solve the "problem" of the bullet that "went on to strike JBC in the back." This is no problem at all. It's only a "problem" in their minds because they can't unchain themselves from the SBT myth. As many researchers have pointed out many times,
-- Connally himself did not believe he was hit by the same bullet that hit JFK.
-- Since Connally was seated several inches to the left of JFK, a bullet that narrowly missed JFK could have easily hit Connally in the back.
-- Connally's back wound and interior chest wound refute the SBT from the get-go, because the SBT requires that the Connally bullet was traveling sideways when it hit his back and smashed his rib, but his back wound was only 1.5 cm in width, and the wound path through Connally's chest was narrow, so much so that Dr. Shaw noted that when the bullet smashed 5 inches of the fifth rib it did little damage to the surrounding tissue.
-- The initial FBI and Secret Service analyses concluded that JFK and Connally were hit by separate non-fatal bullets.
SBT defenders just keep ignoring these facts, and just keep repeating the nonsense that only the SBT can explain the bullet that hit Connally, while refusing to explain how the bullet that allegedly exited JFK's throat and shirt slits could have missed tearing through the tie knot and nicked the knot's outer surface inward from the knot's left edge. As I've said before, dealing with SBT believers is not much different than dealing with Moon-landing deniers and 9/11 Truthers. When you try to get them to deal with hard physical evidence that destroys their myths, they duck and dodge and bob and weave and refuse to directly confront that hard physical evidence.
MG “Notice that the SBT believers here are still declining to explain how a bullet exiting the throat and the shirt slits could have missed tearing through the tie knot, much less how such a bullet could have miraculously weaved around the body of the knot and nicked the knot's outer surface at point that was not on either edge of the knot. Crickets. Silence. They have nothing to say on this determinative issue.”
The autopsy photo speaks for itself. Despite your posting to the contrary, the wound is below the collar. JBC was struck by the bullet passing through JKS’s neck. In your own words:
MG ---“Sherlock Holmes famously said, "When you eliminate the impossible, however improbable, whatever remains must be the truth." To put it another way, once all impossible scenarios are removed from consideration, the only remaining explanation, even if it seems unlikely, must be the correct one.”
-----------------------------------------------------------
MG--" the autopsy photo of the gaping tracheostomy as indicating the throat wound was low enough to make the shirt slits,"
MG “the bullet could have nicked the outer surface of the knot inward from the knot's left edge”
I think you are right. The bullet made the shirt slits and nicked the edge of the tie. Good thinking Michael.
-
Now is a good time to quote Rockefeller Foundation fellow and investigative journalist Henry Hurt's excellent analysis of the throat wound, the tie knot, and the shirt slits:
That front neck wound, of course, was largely believed to have
been one of entry by those experienced observers at Parkland Hospital.
That was the thrust of their initial impressions and was stated
several times at a press briefing conducted at the hospital by a White
House official.
But the official version ruled that it was a wound of exit and
suggested that the exiting bullet caused the nick on the knot
of the President's tie. The government version also suggested
that the slits through the front of the neckband of the President's
shirt were caused by an exiting bullet." The initial difficulty with the
government's case was that the laboratory—after spectrographic
analysis—could find no metal traces on the tie or the neckband of
the collar, traces that should have been there if a bullet had
caused the damage.
The second major problem was one that often plagued the
commission: a highly credible witness who saw and said things that
contradicted the larger picture. Dr. Charles Carrico, the doctor who
examined Kennedy in the emergency room before his shirt and tie
were removed, testified to the Warren Commission (and later confirmed
in an interview) that the anterior neck wound was above the
knot of his tie.'"
A wound location this high in the front would render fatuous the
whole teetering premise of the Warren Commission. (The commission
ignored Dr. Carrico's testimony on this point, even though he was
the doctor in the best position to have any direct knowledge.)
Weisberg pressed his case in court to have the National Archives
release clear photographs of the President's shirt and tie, because
the pictures that had been provided by the FBI to the Warren
Commission were unclear and virtually worthless. The photographs
finally disclosed to Weisberg show that the suggested bullet holes
in the shirt's front neckband are not bullet holes at all. They are
slits made by scalpels used by nurses to cut off the President's
necktie. One nurse who cut off the clothing confirmed this, adding
impressive credence to Weisberg's observations.
The other astonishing confirmation is that the bullet hole in the
back of the shirt is precisely where the first body chart placed it.
That chart had been ignored by the commission and disavowed by
the doctor who prepared it.
The testimony of Dr. Carrico, combined with the revelations in
the photographs, shows with absolute certainty to almost any layman
that the bullet that entered Kennedy's back nearly six inches below
his collar at a sharply downward angle could not possibly have exited
from Kennedy's neck, above the collar, where Dr. Carrico saw the
wound.
Where, then, did the frontal neck wound come from? That is a
question never pursued by the commission. The answer is one the
government seems not to want to know. (Reasonable Doubt: An
Investigation into the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy,
Henry Holt and Company, 1985, p. 60)
This is another good example of the fact that the facts about JFK's clothing and their destruction of the SBT have been known for decades, but WC apologists refuse to face them.
One important contribution of my article is that it proves that the tie knot was centered in the middle of JFK's collar band, which proves that any bullet exiting the shirt slits would have had to tear through the knot and could not have nicked the outer surface of the knot.
-
Now is a good time to quote Rockefeller Foundation fellow and investigative journalist Henry Hurt's excellent analysis of the throat wound, the tie knot, and the shirt slits:
That front neck wound, of course, was largely believed to have
been one of entry by those experienced observers at Parkland Hospital.
That was the thrust of their initial impressions and was stated
several times at a press briefing conducted at the hospital by a White
House official.
But the official version ruled that it was a wound of exit and
suggested that the exiting bullet caused the nick on the knot
of the President's tie. The government version also suggested
that the slits through the front of the neckband of the President's
shirt were caused by an exiting bullet." The initial difficulty with the
government's case was that the laboratory—after spectrographic
analysis—could find no metal traces on the tie or the neckband of
the collar, traces that should have been there if a bullet had
caused the damage.
The second major problem was one that often plagued the
commission: a highly credible witness who saw and said things that
contradicted the larger picture. Dr. Charles Carrico, the doctor who
examined Kennedy in the emergency room before his shirt and tie
were removed, testified to the Warren Commission (and later confirmed
in an interview) that the anterior neck wound was above the
knot of his tie.'"
A wound location this high in the front would render fatuous the
whole teetering premise of the Warren Commission. (The commission
ignored Dr. Carrico's testimony on this point, even though he was
the doctor in the best position to have any direct knowledge.)
Weisberg pressed his case in court to have the National Archives
release clear photographs of the President's shirt and tie, because
the pictures that had been provided by the FBI to the Warren
Commission were unclear and virtually worthless. The photographs
finally disclosed to Weisberg show that the suggested bullet holes
in the shirt's front neckband are not bullet holes at all. They are
slits made by scalpels used by nurses to cut off the President's
necktie. One nurse who cut off the clothing confirmed this, adding
impressive credence to Weisberg's observations.
The other astonishing confirmation is that the bullet hole in the
back of the shirt is precisely where the first body chart placed it.
That chart had been ignored by the commission and disavowed by
the doctor who prepared it.
The testimony of Dr. Carrico, combined with the revelations in
the photographs, shows with absolute certainty to almost any layman
that the bullet that entered Kennedy's back nearly six inches below
his collar at a sharply downward angle could not possibly have exited
from Kennedy's neck, above the collar, where Dr. Carrico saw the
wound.
Where, then, did the frontal neck wound come from? That is a
question never pursued by the commission. The answer is one the
government seems not to want to know. (Reasonable Doubt: An
Investigation into the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy,
Henry Holt and Company, 1985, p. 60)
This is another good example of the fact that the facts about JFK's clothing and their destruction of the SBT have been known for decades, but WC apologists refuse to face them.
One important contribution of my article is that it proves that the tie knot was centered in the middle of JFK's collar band, which proves that any bullet exiting the shirt slits would have had to tear through the knot and could not have nicked the outer surface of the knot.
MG “The testimony of Dr. Carrico, combined with the revelations in
the photographs, shows with absolute certainty to almost any layman
that the bullet that entered Kennedy's back nearly six inches below
his collar at a sharply downward angle could not possibly have exited
from Kennedy's neck, above the collar, where Dr. Carrico saw the
wound.”
Exactly right. The photos clearly show the bullet exit wound was below the collar where it then nicked the tie and wounded JBC.
MG “One important contribution of my article is that it proves that the tie knot was centered in the middle of JFK's collar band, which proves that any bullet exiting the shirt slits would have had to tear through the knot and could not have nicked the outer surface of the knot.”
Could not be more wrong about the tie knot, the exit wound, and any supposed fictional contribution.
-
The fact that JFK's tie proves that no bullet exited the throat and shirt slits also explains the fact that the throat wound was too small to have been an exit wound for a 6.5 mm bullet. Dr. Finck wrote that the throat wound was approximately 5 mm in diameter. Dr. Perry, who obviously saw the throat wound before he did the tracheotomy over it, told Dr. Humes that the throat wound was "only a few mm in size, 3-5 mm.” The alleged lone gunman supposedly used 6.5 mm bullets. A missile of this diameter would have made a much larger wound if it had exited the throat, as the WC's own wound ballistics proved.
In the WC's own wound ballistics test, the smallest exit wound that was created in the simulated human necks was 10 mm in diameter. The exit wounds in the WC's test were also punched-out, whereas JFK's throat wound was punched-in.
Reaching and straining, WC supporters attempt to explain the WC test results and the throat wound's contrastingly small size and punched-in feature by speculating that JFK's collar band restrained the skin of the neck as the bullet transited the neck, thereby enabling the bullet to cause a small punched-in wound. This makes no sense. How would the skin, even if tightly restrained by the collar band, not have been punched outward by an exiting bullet? The edges of the wound might not have been as pronounced, but they would still have been pushed outward. They certainly wouldn't have been punched inward.
Moreover, the restrained-skin argument ignores the fact that the shirt slits, supposedly made by an exiting bullet, were below the inside collar band, so the skin behind the slits would not have been restrained.
Furthermore, it seems very doubtful that even the skin directly behind the collar band would have had time to become significantly restrained. Why? Because the bullet would have transited the neck in no more than 55 milliseconds. To get some idea of just how fast this would have been, consider that an eyeblink takes 100 to 150 milliseconds. What little degree of restraint that the bullet's alleged transit through the neck would have caused in such a microscopic amount of time would have been negligible.
All of this, in turn, helps us appreciate the explanatory power and importance of Dr. Carrico's key information that the throat wound was above the tie knot. Sadly, SBT believers pretend that Carrico's testimony was "unclear," "ambiguous," etc. No, it was not. WC member Allen Dulles specifically asked Carrico to "show" him where the wound was, then asked him to confirm that he was putting his hand just above his tie, and then Carrico said yes. So Carrico was demonstrating where the wound was with his hand; he put his hand just above his tie, and then he confirmed this placement when Dulles asked him to confirm it. Carrico's testimony is only "unclear" and "ambiguous" to those who are so emotionally/ideologically attached to the lone-gunman theory that they refuse to accept evidence that destroys it.
In addition, as has been mentioned several times, when Carrico was interviewed by Harold Weisberg and was asked specifically about his exchange with Dulles, he confirmed that he demonstrated the location of the wound by putting his hand right above his tie knot. See Weisberg's book Never Again, pp. 241-242.
Finally, the throat wound's location just above the tie knot was corroborated by Dr. Ronald Jones, who independently and in two separate interviews, said the wound was above the tie knot.
-
The fact that JFK's tie proves that no bullet exited the throat and shirt slits also explains the fact that the throat wound was too small to have been an exit wound for a 6.5 mm bullet. Dr. Finck wrote that the throat wound was approximately 5 mm in diameter. Dr. Perry, who obviously saw the throat wound before he did the tracheotomy over it, told Dr. Humes that the throat wound was "only a few mm in size, 3-5 mm.” The alleged lone gunman supposedly used 6.5 mm bullets. A missile of this diameter would have made a much larger wound if it had exited the throat, as the WC's own wound ballistics proved.
In the WC's own wound ballistics test, the smallest exit wound that was created in the simulated human necks was 10 mm in diameter. The exit wounds in the WC's test were also punched-out, whereas JFK's throat wound was punched-in.
Reaching and straining, WC supporters attempt to explain the WC test results and the throat wound's contrastingly small size and punched-in feature by speculating that JFK's collar band restrained the skin of the neck as the bullet transited the neck, thereby enabling the bullet to cause a small punched-in wound. This makes no sense. How would the skin, even if tightly restrained by the collar band, not have been punched outward by an exiting bullet? The edges of the wound might not have been as pronounced, but they would still have been pushed outward. They certainly wouldn't have been punched inward.
Moreover, the restrained-skin argument ignores the fact that the shirt slits, supposedly made by an exiting bullet, were below the inside collar band, so the skin behind the slits would not have been restrained.
Furthermore, it seems very doubtful that even the skin directly behind the collar band would have had time to become significantly restrained. Why? Because the bullet would have transited the neck in no more than 55 milliseconds. To get some idea of just how fast this would have been, consider that an eyeblink takes 100 to 150 milliseconds. What little degree of restraint that the bullet's alleged transit through the neck would have caused in such a microscopic amount of time would have been negligible.
All of this, in turn, helps us appreciate the explanatory power and importance of Dr. Carrico's key information that the throat wound was above the tie knot. Sadly, SBT believers pretend that Carrico's testimony was "unclear," "ambiguous," etc. No, it was not. WC member Allen Dulles specifically asked Carrico to "show" him where the wound was, then asked him to confirm that he was putting his hand just above his tie, and then Carrico said yes. So Carrico was demonstrating where the wound was with his hand; he put his hand just above his tie, and then he confirmed this placement when Dulles asked him to confirm it. Carrico's testimony is only "unclear" and "ambiguous" to those who are so emotionally/ideologically attached to the lone-gunman theory that they refuse to accept evidence that destroys it.
In addition, as has been mentioned several times, when Carrico was interviewed by Harold Weisberg and was asked specifically about his exchange with Dulles, he confirmed that he demonstrated the location of the wound by putting his hand right above his tie knot. See Weisberg's book Never Again, pp. 241-242.
Finally, the throat wound's location just above the tie knot was corroborated by Dr. Ronald Jones, who independently and in two separate interviews, said the wound was above the tie knot.
Dr. Carrico's key information that the throat wound was above the tie knot.
It is not complicated. Apparently, you go dumb and blind when you look at the autopsy photo.
-
Clint Hill seems very credible in this interview...
Disavows the SBT...
Check out the interview... at 35:44
Note how his wife, Lisa (at 37:50), refuses leading questions of the interviewer, and insists that Clint Hill be heard on the SBT and etc... love it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdRrcvvAhps (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdRrcvvAhps)
-
Clint Hill seems very credible in this interview...
Disavows the SBT...
Check out the interview... at 35:44
Note how his wife, Lisa (at 37:50), refuses leading questions of the interviewer, and insists that Clint Hill be heard on the SBT and etc... love it!
This is not a bit surprising, since Clint Hill was at the autopsy and knew that the back wound had no exit point.
Secret Service agent Bill Greer, who was also present for the entire autopsy, is yet another witness who heard nothing about the back wound having an exit point during the autopsy:
Specter: Was anything said about any channel being present in the body for the bullet to have gone on through the back?
Greer: No, sir; I hadn't heard anything like that, any trace of it going on through. (2 H 127)
In a moment, I'll quote Sibert and O'Neill's ARRB testimony and O'Neill's HSCA interview, but let's see what they said just four days after the autopsy in their report on the autopsy:
During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders. . . . This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger. (Francis O'Neill and James Sibert, "Autopsy of Body of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy," 11/26/1963, p. 4, http://22november1963.org.uk/sibert-and-oneill-report#sibert-oneill-report)
Well, no wonder the WC ignored this report, did not include it in the published hearings and exhibits, and buried it in the National Archives, where Harold Weisberg discovered it in 1966.
But let's get even closer to the time of the autopsy. Sibert and O'Neill sent a telegram to FBI Director Hoover at 2:00 AM on 11/23/1963, just hours after the autopsy, and therein they said the back wound was located below the shoulder and was a shallow wound that had no exit point:
One bullet hole located just below shoulders to right of spinal column, and hand probing indicated trajectory at angle of 45 to 60 degrees downward and hole of short depth with no point of exit. (O'Neill and Sibert, FBI teletype: Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, 11/23/1963, p. 1, ARRB document MD 149)
Dr. Robert Karnei was a resident surgeon at Bethesda Naval Hospital in 1963 and witnessed the autopsy. In a 1991 recorded interview, Karnei said the autopsy doctors positioned the body in multiple ways to facilitate the probing of the back wound, and that “the men” who saw the probing commented that they could see the end of the finger and then the end of the probe “from inside the empty chest”! He added that the pathologists worked “all night long with the probes” to find the bullet’s path through the body:
A: They did have the body--trying to sit it up and trying to get that probe to go. . . .
Q: Why didn't they turn the body over?
A: Well, they did. They tried every which way to go ahead, and try to move it around. . . .
Q: But this was after the Y incision?
A: Yes. The men described being able to see the end of the finger and the probe from inside the empty chest.
They were working all night long with probes trying to make out where that bullet was going on the back there. (p. 10)
In his 3/10/97 ARRB interview, Karnei said that by around midnight the autopsy doctors "had not found a bullet track through the body, nor had they found an exit wound for the entry in the shoulder" (p. 001476).
In his 8/27/77 HSCA interview, Karnei said that he recalled the autopsy doctors "putting the probe in and taking pictures" (p. 5). Karnei was not the only witness who saw pictures taken of the probing, but those pictures were never included in the official collection of the autopsy materials. I think we all know why.
Karnei also told the HSCA that he saw "the chest cavity opened and watched the removal of the organs," and that after this he saw Finck "working with a probe and arranging for photographs" (p. 6). This is another reference that indicates photos were taken of the probing.
-- Dr. Robert Canada was the commanding officer of the treatment hospital at Bethesda Naval Hospital in 1963, and he witnessed the autopsy. In a 1968 interview with Dr. Michael Kurtz, Canada said that the back wound was at around T3, that the bullet “did not exit,” and that its wound tract ended in the chest near the stomach ((Kurtz, The JFK Assassination Debates: Lone Gunman versus Conspiracy, University Press of Kansas, 2006, p. 91; see also https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/altered-history-exposing-deciet-and-deception-in-the-jfk-assassination-medical-evidence-part-1/, segment on Dr. Canada begins at 1:08:20). Dr. Canada asked Dr. Kurtz not to reveal his account until 25 years after he died, so Kurtz did not write about it until 2006.
-- James Jenkins, a medical technician who assisted Dr. Boswell during the autopsy, stated in his 8/29/1977 HSCA interview that Dr. James Humes, the chief autopsy pathologist, found that the bullet tract had not "penetrated into the chest" and that Humes had been able to "reach the end of the wound." Jenkins specified that the back wound "was very shallow" and that "it didn't enter the peritoneal cavity [the chest cavity]. He noted that there was quite a “controversy” because the doctors “couldn’t prove the bullet came into the chest cavity” even though they probed the back wound “extensively” (pp. 5, 7, 10-11, 13).
Jenkins added that at around the time of the probing "they repeatedly took x-rays of the area” (p. 8 ). For obvious reasons, those x-rays were not included in the official collection of the autopsy materials.
In a 1979 filmed interview, Jenkins said the following:
Commander Humes put his finger in it, and, you know, said that ... he could probe the bottom of it with his finger. . . . I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe . . . through the pleura. You could actually see where it was making an indentation. . . . It was pushing the skin up. . . . There was no entry into the chest cavity.
-- In his 7/16/96 ARRB interview, autopsy photographer John Stringer said that the back wound was probed and that the probe did not come out of the neck:
Q: Was the probe put into the neck, or did it come of the neck?
A: It was put into the back part.
Q: The back of the body. And then did the probe come out the neck?
A: No. (p. 73)
-- O'Neill revealed in his 9/12/97 ARRB interview that at the end of the autopsy, there was no doubt in anyone's mind that the bullet that was found in Dallas had fallen out of the back wound:
There was not the slightest doubt when we left there that the bullet found on the stretcher in Dallas was the bullet which worked its way out through external cardiac massage. And the doctor said, since the body had not been turned over in Dallas, “External cardiac massage was conducted on the president, and the bullet worked its way out."
There was not the slightest doubt, not a scintilla of doubt whatsoever, that this is what occurred. . . .
Because I was closer to the President’s body than I am to you, and you’re only about a foot and a half away or two feet away. And viewing them with the surgical probe and with their fingers, there was absolutely no point of exit and they couldn’t go any further. And that presented a problem, one heck of a problem. . . .
Q: You previously made reference to attempts to probe that wound. Did you ever see any kind of metal object used to probe that wound?
A: Yes. They used a metal probe, in addition to their fingers. . . . In the back, they probed it to a point where they could not probe any further. In other words, it did not go any further. (pp. 30-31)
O'Neill stated in his 11/8/78 HSCA affidavit that "Humes and Boswell couldn't locate an outlet for the bullet that entered the back." He added, "I know for a fact that when the autopsy was complete, there was no doubt in anyone's mind in attendance at the autopsy that the bullet found on the stretcher in Dallas came out of JFK's body," i.e., out of the back wound (p. 000573).
O’Neill also offered this gem of an observation: "I do not see how the bullet that entered below the shoulder could have come out the front of the throat" (p. 000575).
-- Sibert echoed O’Neill in his 9/11/97 ARRB interview. Sibert said he called Killion to see if any bullets had been found because the autopsy doctors said the back wound had no exit point:
Q: Can you tell me, was the phone call made to Mr. Killion before or after the body was unloaded from the casket?
A: Oh, that was after the body was removed; it was on the autopsy table, and the autopsy was in progress. Because the reason I made that call was that the pathologists said, "There’s no exit to this back wound,” and probed it with rubber glove and a chrome probe. (p. 59)
Sibert explained more about the probing and the fact that the autopsy doctors--"Finck, in particular"--said they could feel the end of the back wound:
But when they raised him up, then they found this back wound. And that’s when they started probing with the rubber glove and the finger, and also with the chrome probe.
And that’s just before, of course, I made this call, because they were at a loss to explain what had happened to this bullet. They couldn’t find any bullet.
And they said, "There's no exit.” Finck, in particular, said, "There's no exit.” And they said that you could feel it with the end of the finger. I mean, the depth of this wound. (p. 111)
-- Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, stated in his 3/11/78 testimony to the HSCA’s medical panel that the autopsy doctors determined that the back wound had no exit point:
Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger, inasmuch as a complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other areas. An inspection revealed there was no point of exit. The individuals performing the autopsy were at a loss to explain why they could find no bullets. (p. 57)
-- In discussing the probing of the back wound, autopsy doctor J. Thornton Boswell admitted in his 2/26/96 ARRB interview that after they "opened the chest" they could see that "the bullet had not pierced through into the lung cavity but had caused hemorrhage just outside the pleura”:
We probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it.
But when we opened the chest and we got at—the lung extends up under the clavicle and high just beneath the neck here, and the bullet had not pierced through into the lung cavity but had caused hemorrhage just outside the pleura. (pp. 75-76)
All of this explains why the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. That story only came after Oswald was killed and they knew there would be no trial.
-
The clothing proves nothing significant imo.
The autopsy photo located where the entrance wound was in JFKs back.
That wound could not be that high near the base of the neck in the autopsy photo, if the
the hole in jacket was lower.
Obviously as John Mytton just posted, the resolution of this supposed discrepancy , is that just seconds before JFK was hit in the back at Z223-224, his jacket and his shirt too, were bunched up.
Arguing that the throat wound (“hole”) was an entrance wound above the tie knot, would mean linewise if the wound was an exit wound, that it ALSO must have been above the tie knot.
The assertion therefore, that the “knick” in the tie knot is something that proves or disproves the SBT bullet exiting the throat, is baseless since if the throat wound “hole” is above the tie knot whether entry or exit, there’s no possibility the Knick was cause by a bullet.
So it’s an irrelevant diversionary point to discuss the Knick since it must have been caused by SOMETHING ELSE, and not a bullet entering OR exiting JFKs throat above the tie knot.
So now I guess the CT will assert that if the throat wound is above the tie knot that the SBT trajectory must be impossible
Well I have been thru this same kind of CT jump to erroneous conclusions 25 years ago when CTs presented a ridiculous line sketch of the SBT bullet trajectory line that claimed to prove the SBT was impossible.
It took modern computer graphics analysis of the Z film and an actual experiment firing into replica human torsos to finally prove that the SBT lines up remarkably well with that TSBD 6th floor SN window.
Also I have been thru 25 years of CTs arguing the BYP was fake and that the Z film was altered.
Then there was Lovelady on the steps in the Altgens 6 photo with CTs asserting that Oswalds head had been changed to Lovelady head pasted over top. WHAT A CROCK of $&@.
The last straw for me was the “ Prayerman” scam and I have to regretfully admit I fell for that hook line and sinker until it became obvious that Oswald was only 5’2” tall and was wearing a female dress and had a flowery neckless.
So I will have to remain skeptical of this latest diversionary proposition that the SBT has been made impossible by a Knick in a tie knot or by Knotts Landing Lab pseudo science lasers.
-
This is not a bit surprising, since Clint Hill was at the autopsy and knew that the back wound had no exit point.
Secret Service agent Bill Greer, who was also present for the entire autopsy, is yet another witness who heard nothing about the back wound having an exit point during the autopsy:
Specter: Was anything said about any channel being present in the body for the bullet to have gone on through the back?
Greer: No, sir; I hadn't heard anything like that, any trace of it going on through. (2 H 127)
In a moment, I'll quote Sibert and O'Neill's ARRB testimony and O'Neill's HSCA interview, but let's see what they said just four days after the autopsy in their report on the autopsy:
During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders. . . . This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger. (Francis O'Neill and James Sibert, "Autopsy of Body of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy," 11/26/1963, p. 4, http://22november1963.org.uk/sibert-and-oneill-report#sibert-oneill-report)
Well, no wonder the WC ignored this report, did not include it in the published hearings and exhibits, and buried it in the National Archives, where Harold Weisberg discovered it in 1966.
But let's get even closer to the time of the autopsy. Sibert and O'Neill sent a telegram to FBI Director Hoover at 2:00 AM on 11/23/1963, just hours after the autopsy, and therein they said the back wound was located below the shoulder and was a shallow wound that had no exit point:
One bullet hole located just below shoulders to right of spinal column, and hand probing indicated trajectory at angle of 45 to 60 degrees downward and hole of short depth with no point of exit. (O'Neill and Sibert, FBI teletype: Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, 11/23/1963, p. 1, ARRB document MD 149)
Dr. Robert Karnei was a resident surgeon at Bethesda Naval Hospital in 1963 and witnessed the autopsy. In a 1991 recorded interview, Karnei said the autopsy doctors positioned the body in multiple ways to facilitate the probing of the back wound, and that “the men” who saw the probing commented that they could see the end of the finger and then the end of the probe “from inside the empty chest”! He added that the pathologists worked “all night long with the probes” to find the bullet’s path through the body:
A: They did have the body--trying to sit it up and trying to get that probe to go. . . .
Q: Why didn't they turn the body over?
A: Well, they did. They tried every which way to go ahead, and try to move it around. . . .
Q: But this was after the Y incision?
A: Yes. The men described being able to see the end of the finger and the probe from inside the empty chest.
They were working all night long with probes trying to make out where that bullet was going on the back there. (p. 10)
In his 3/10/97 ARRB interview, Karnei said that by around midnight the autopsy doctors "had not found a bullet track through the body, nor had they found an exit wound for the entry in the shoulder" (p. 001476).
In his 8/27/77 HSCA interview, Karnei said that he recalled the autopsy doctors "putting the probe in and taking pictures" (p. 5). Karnei was not the only witness who saw pictures taken of the probing, but those pictures were never included in the official collection of the autopsy materials. I think we all know why.
Karnei also told the HSCA that he saw "the chest cavity opened and watched the removal of the organs," and that after this he saw Finck "working with a probe and arranging for photographs" (p. 6). This is another reference that indicates photos were taken of the probing.
-- Dr. Robert Canada was the commanding officer of the treatment hospital at Bethesda Naval Hospital in 1963, and he witnessed the autopsy. In a 1968 interview with Dr. Michael Kurtz, Canada said that the back wound was at around T3, that the bullet “did not exit,” and that its wound tract ended in the chest near the stomach ((Kurtz, The JFK Assassination Debates: Lone Gunman versus Conspiracy, University Press of Kansas, 2006, p. 91; see also https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/altered-history-exposing-deciet-and-deception-in-the-jfk-assassination-medical-evidence-part-1/, segment on Dr. Canada begins at 1:08:20). Dr. Canada asked Dr. Kurtz not to reveal his account until 25 years after he died, so Kurtz did not write about it until 2006.
-- James Jenkins, a medical technician who assisted Dr. Boswell during the autopsy, stated in his 8/29/1977 HSCA interview that Dr. James Humes, the chief autopsy pathologist, found that the bullet tract had not "penetrated into the chest" and that Humes had been able to "reach the end of the wound." Jenkins specified that the back wound "was very shallow" and that "it didn't enter the peritoneal cavity [the chest cavity]. He noted that there was quite a “controversy” because the doctors “couldn’t prove the bullet came into the chest cavity” even though they probed the back wound “extensively” (pp. 5, 7, 10-11, 13).
Jenkins added that at around the time of the probing "they repeatedly took x-rays of the area” (p. 8 ). For obvious reasons, those x-rays were not included in the official collection of the autopsy materials.
In a 1979 filmed interview, Jenkins said the following:
Commander Humes put his finger in it, and, you know, said that ... he could probe the bottom of it with his finger. . . . I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe . . . through the pleura. You could actually see where it was making an indentation. . . . It was pushing the skin up. . . . There was no entry into the chest cavity.
-- In his 7/16/96 ARRB interview, autopsy photographer John Stringer said that the back wound was probed and that the probe did not come out of the neck:
Q: Was the probe put into the neck, or did it come of the neck?
A: It was put into the back part.
Q: The back of the body. And then did the probe come out the neck?
A: No. (p. 73)
-- O'Neill revealed in his 9/12/97 ARRB interview that at the end of the autopsy, there was no doubt in anyone's mind that the bullet that was found in Dallas had fallen out of the back wound:
There was not the slightest doubt when we left there that the bullet found on the stretcher in Dallas was the bullet which worked its way out through external cardiac massage. And the doctor said, since the body had not been turned over in Dallas, “External cardiac massage was conducted on the president, and the bullet worked its way out."
There was not the slightest doubt, not a scintilla of doubt whatsoever, that this is what occurred. . . .
Because I was closer to the President’s body than I am to you, and you’re only about a foot and a half away or two feet away. And viewing them with the surgical probe and with their fingers, there was absolutely no point of exit and they couldn’t go any further. And that presented a problem, one heck of a problem. . . .
Q: You previously made reference to attempts to probe that wound. Did you ever see any kind of metal object used to probe that wound?
A: Yes. They used a metal probe, in addition to their fingers. . . . In the back, they probed it to a point where they could not probe any further. In other words, it did not go any further. (pp. 30-31)
O'Neill stated in his 11/8/78 HSCA affidavit that "Humes and Boswell couldn't locate an outlet for the bullet that entered the back." He added, "I know for a fact that when the autopsy was complete, there was no doubt in anyone's mind in attendance at the autopsy that the bullet found on the stretcher in Dallas came out of JFK's body," i.e., out of the back wound (p. 000573).
O’Neill also offered this gem of an observation: "I do not see how the bullet that entered below the shoulder could have come out the front of the throat" (p. 000575).
-- Sibert echoed O’Neill in his 9/11/97 ARRB interview. Sibert said he called Killion to see if any bullets had been found because the autopsy doctors said the back wound had no exit point:
Q: Can you tell me, was the phone call made to Mr. Killion before or after the body was unloaded from the casket?
A: Oh, that was after the body was removed; it was on the autopsy table, and the autopsy was in progress. Because the reason I made that call was that the pathologists said, "There’s no exit to this back wound,” and probed it with rubber glove and a chrome probe. (p. 59)
Sibert explained more about the probing and the fact that the autopsy doctors--"Finck, in particular"--said they could feel the end of the back wound:
But when they raised him up, then they found this back wound. And that’s when they started probing with the rubber glove and the finger, and also with the chrome probe.
And that’s just before, of course, I made this call, because they were at a loss to explain what had happened to this bullet. They couldn’t find any bullet.
And they said, "There's no exit.” Finck, in particular, said, "There's no exit.” And they said that you could feel it with the end of the finger. I mean, the depth of this wound. (p. 111)
-- Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, stated in his 3/11/78 testimony to the HSCA’s medical panel that the autopsy doctors determined that the back wound had no exit point:
Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger, inasmuch as a complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other areas. An inspection revealed there was no point of exit. The individuals performing the autopsy were at a loss to explain why they could find no bullets. (p. 57)
-- In discussing the probing of the back wound, autopsy doctor J. Thornton Boswell admitted in his 2/26/96 ARRB interview that after they "opened the chest" they could see that "the bullet had not pierced through into the lung cavity but had caused hemorrhage just outside the pleura”:
We probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it.
But when we opened the chest and we got at—the lung extends up under the clavicle and high just beneath the neck here, and the bullet had not pierced through into the lung cavity but had caused hemorrhage just outside the pleura. (pp. 75-76)
All of this explains why the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. That story only came after Oswald was killed and they knew there would be no trial.
So... with the curb hit and Teague... I count at least 5 bullets... which means, at least two gunmen... which means... yeah, we know...
-
This is not a bit surprising, since Clint Hill was at the autopsy and knew that the back wound had no exit point.
Secret Service agent Bill Greer, who was also present for the entire autopsy, is yet another witness who heard nothing about the back wound having an exit point during the autopsy:
Specter: Was anything said about any channel being present in the body for the bullet to have gone on through the back?
Greer: No, sir; I hadn't heard anything like that, any trace of it going on through. (2 H 127)
In a moment, I'll quote Sibert and O'Neill's ARRB testimony and O'Neill's HSCA interview, but let's see what they said just four days after the autopsy in their report on the autopsy:
During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders. . . . This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger. (Francis O'Neill and James Sibert, "Autopsy of Body of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy," 11/26/1963, p. 4, http://22november1963.org.uk/sibert-and-oneill-report#sibert-oneill-report)
Well, no wonder the WC ignored this report, did not include it in the published hearings and exhibits, and buried it in the National Archives, where Harold Weisberg discovered it in 1966.
But let's get even closer to the time of the autopsy. Sibert and O'Neill sent a telegram to FBI Director Hoover at 2:00 AM on 11/23/1963, just hours after the autopsy, and therein they said the back wound was located below the shoulder and was a shallow wound that had no exit point:
One bullet hole located just below shoulders to right of spinal column, and hand probing indicated trajectory at angle of 45 to 60 degrees downward and hole of short depth with no point of exit. (O'Neill and Sibert, FBI teletype: Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, 11/23/1963, p. 1, ARRB document MD 149)
Dr. Robert Karnei was a resident surgeon at Bethesda Naval Hospital in 1963 and witnessed the autopsy. In a 1991 recorded interview, Karnei said the autopsy doctors positioned the body in multiple ways to facilitate the probing of the back wound, and that “the men” who saw the probing commented that they could see the end of the finger and then the end of the probe “from inside the empty chest”! He added that the pathologists worked “all night long with the probes” to find the bullet’s path through the body:
A: They did have the body--trying to sit it up and trying to get that probe to go. . . .
Q: Why didn't they turn the body over?
A: Well, they did. They tried every which way to go ahead, and try to move it around. . . .
Q: But this was after the Y incision?
A: Yes. The men described being able to see the end of the finger and the probe from inside the empty chest.
They were working all night long with probes trying to make out where that bullet was going on the back there. (p. 10)
In his 3/10/97 ARRB interview, Karnei said that by around midnight the autopsy doctors "had not found a bullet track through the body, nor had they found an exit wound for the entry in the shoulder" (p. 001476).
In his 8/27/77 HSCA interview, Karnei said that he recalled the autopsy doctors "putting the probe in and taking pictures" (p. 5). Karnei was not the only witness who saw pictures taken of the probing, but those pictures were never included in the official collection of the autopsy materials. I think we all know why.
Karnei also told the HSCA that he saw "the chest cavity opened and watched the removal of the organs," and that after this he saw Finck "working with a probe and arranging for photographs" (p. 6). This is another reference that indicates photos were taken of the probing.
-- Dr. Robert Canada was the commanding officer of the treatment hospital at Bethesda Naval Hospital in 1963, and he witnessed the autopsy. In a 1968 interview with Dr. Michael Kurtz, Canada said that the back wound was at around T3, that the bullet “did not exit,” and that its wound tract ended in the chest near the stomach ((Kurtz, The JFK Assassination Debates: Lone Gunman versus Conspiracy, University Press of Kansas, 2006, p. 91; see also https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/altered-history-exposing-deciet-and-deception-in-the-jfk-assassination-medical-evidence-part-1/, segment on Dr. Canada begins at 1:08:20). Dr. Canada asked Dr. Kurtz not to reveal his account until 25 years after he died, so Kurtz did not write about it until 2006.
-- James Jenkins, a medical technician who assisted Dr. Boswell during the autopsy, stated in his 8/29/1977 HSCA interview that Dr. James Humes, the chief autopsy pathologist, found that the bullet tract had not "penetrated into the chest" and that Humes had been able to "reach the end of the wound." Jenkins specified that the back wound "was very shallow" and that "it didn't enter the peritoneal cavity [the chest cavity]. He noted that there was quite a “controversy” because the doctors “couldn’t prove the bullet came into the chest cavity” even though they probed the back wound “extensively” (pp. 5, 7, 10-11, 13).
Jenkins added that at around the time of the probing "they repeatedly took x-rays of the area” (p. 8 ). For obvious reasons, those x-rays were not included in the official collection of the autopsy materials.
In a 1979 filmed interview, Jenkins said the following:
Commander Humes put his finger in it, and, you know, said that ... he could probe the bottom of it with his finger. . . . I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe . . . through the pleura. You could actually see where it was making an indentation. . . . It was pushing the skin up. . . . There was no entry into the chest cavity.
-- In his 7/16/96 ARRB interview, autopsy photographer John Stringer said that the back wound was probed and that the probe did not come out of the neck:
Q: Was the probe put into the neck, or did it come of the neck?
A: It was put into the back part.
Q: The back of the body. And then did the probe come out the neck?
A: No. (p. 73)
-- O'Neill revealed in his 9/12/97 ARRB interview that at the end of the autopsy, there was no doubt in anyone's mind that the bullet that was found in Dallas had fallen out of the back wound:
There was not the slightest doubt when we left there that the bullet found on the stretcher in Dallas was the bullet which worked its way out through external cardiac massage. And the doctor said, since the body had not been turned over in Dallas, “External cardiac massage was conducted on the president, and the bullet worked its way out."
There was not the slightest doubt, not a scintilla of doubt whatsoever, that this is what occurred. . . .
Because I was closer to the President’s body than I am to you, and you’re only about a foot and a half away or two feet away. And viewing them with the surgical probe and with their fingers, there was absolutely no point of exit and they couldn’t go any further. And that presented a problem, one heck of a problem. . . .
Q: You previously made reference to attempts to probe that wound. Did you ever see any kind of metal object used to probe that wound?
A: Yes. They used a metal probe, in addition to their fingers. . . . In the back, they probed it to a point where they could not probe any further. In other words, it did not go any further. (pp. 30-31)
O'Neill stated in his 11/8/78 HSCA affidavit that "Humes and Boswell couldn't locate an outlet for the bullet that entered the back." He added, "I know for a fact that when the autopsy was complete, there was no doubt in anyone's mind in attendance at the autopsy that the bullet found on the stretcher in Dallas came out of JFK's body," i.e., out of the back wound (p. 000573).
O’Neill also offered this gem of an observation: "I do not see how the bullet that entered below the shoulder could have come out the front of the throat" (p. 000575).
-- Sibert echoed O’Neill in his 9/11/97 ARRB interview. Sibert said he called Killion to see if any bullets had been found because the autopsy doctors said the back wound had no exit point:
Q: Can you tell me, was the phone call made to Mr. Killion before or after the body was unloaded from the casket?
A: Oh, that was after the body was removed; it was on the autopsy table, and the autopsy was in progress. Because the reason I made that call was that the pathologists said, "There’s no exit to this back wound,” and probed it with rubber glove and a chrome probe. (p. 59)
Sibert explained more about the probing and the fact that the autopsy doctors--"Finck, in particular"--said they could feel the end of the back wound:
But when they raised him up, then they found this back wound. And that’s when they started probing with the rubber glove and the finger, and also with the chrome probe.
And that’s just before, of course, I made this call, because they were at a loss to explain what had happened to this bullet. They couldn’t find any bullet.
And they said, "There's no exit.” Finck, in particular, said, "There's no exit.” And they said that you could feel it with the end of the finger. I mean, the depth of this wound. (p. 111)
-- Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, stated in his 3/11/78 testimony to the HSCA’s medical panel that the autopsy doctors determined that the back wound had no exit point:
Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger, inasmuch as a complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other areas. An inspection revealed there was no point of exit. The individuals performing the autopsy were at a loss to explain why they could find no bullets. (p. 57)
-- In discussing the probing of the back wound, autopsy doctor J. Thornton Boswell admitted in his 2/26/96 ARRB interview that after they "opened the chest" they could see that "the bullet had not pierced through into the lung cavity but had caused hemorrhage just outside the pleura”:
We probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it.
But when we opened the chest and we got at—the lung extends up under the clavicle and high just beneath the neck here, and the bullet had not pierced through into the lung cavity but had caused hemorrhage just outside the pleura. (pp. 75-76)
All of this explains why the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. That story only came after Oswald was killed and they knew there would be no trial.
BTW, historian William Manchester, in his famous book The Death of a President, based on dozens of interviews with autopsy personnel and with others at the autopsy or in the hospital, acknowledged that the autopsy doctors heard about Dr. Perry's comments in the press conference before the autopsy:
They had heard reports of Mac Perry’s medical briefing for the
press, and to their dismay they had discovered that all evidence
of what was being called an entrance wound in the throat had
been removed by Perry’s tracheotomy. . . ." [Manchester,
The Death of a President, pp. 432-433)
Yes, of course the autopsy doctors heard about the throat wound before the autopsy. Perry's comments were all over the news that afternoon and evening. We also know that the autopsy doctors were aware of the throat wound before the autopsy from Nurse Audrey Bell's ARRB interview (which was not the first time she had said that Dr. Perry was badgered about the throat wound during the night by one or two of the autopsy doctors) and from Dr. Perry's statements to journalist Martin Steadman when he described the pressure and threats he received from one or two of the autopsy doctors to change his diagnosis of the throat wound.
But after Oswald was killed, everything changed. Humes and his bosses knew there would be no trial, no discovery disclosures to the defense, no judge to worry about, etc., etc. So along came the lie that the autopsy doctors had no idea there was a throat wound until the day after the autopsy, and that only then did they "realize" the back-wound bullet "must" have exited the throat, hence the phrase "presumably of exit" to describe the throat wound in the final draft of the autopsy report (p. 4).
-
BTW, historian William Manchester, in his famous book The Death of a President, based on dozens of interviews with autopsy personnel and with others at the autopsy or in the hospital, acknowledged that the autopsy doctors heard about Dr. Perry's comments in the press conference before the autopsy:
They had heard reports of Mac Perry’s medical briefing for the
press, and to their dismay they had discovered that all evidence
of what was being called an entrance wound in the throat had
been removed by Perry’s tracheotomy. . . ." [Manchester,
The Death of a President, pp. 432-433)
Yes, of course the autopsy doctors heard about the throat wound before the autopsy. Perry's comments were all over the news that afternoon and evening.
Manchester wrote a lot a stuff in that book that wasn't true. I have a first edition print of it. It's obvious in reading the testimonies of Humes that he had not been made aware of the wound in the throat prior to the autopsy.
-
Manchester wrote a lot a stuff in that book that wasn't true.
He was certainly right about this point, as I've documented in previous replies.
It's obvious in reading the testimonies of Humes that he had not been made aware of the wound in the throat prior to the autopsy.
Umm, what about all the evidence I've presented that proves Humes did know about the throat wound before autopsy? Was Bell lying? Was Perry lying? Was Livingston lying? Were the witnesses who said the throat wound was probed lying? Or were they were all just somehow "mistaken"? Were the witnesses who said the throat wound was probed just hallucinating? Were Bell and Perry just hallucinating about the nighttime phone calls from Bethesda pressuring Perry to stop saying the throat wound was an entry wound?
And, what about the fact that JFK's tie and shirt slits prove beyond any rational doubt that no bullet exited the throat and the slits? In case you haven't read the OP and the linked article, that fact is the subject of this thread.
-
He was certainly right about this point, as I've documented in previous replies.
No he wasn't, and no you haven't.
Umm, what about all the evidence I've presented that proves Humes did know about the throat wound before autopsy? Was Bell lying? Was Perry lying? Was Livingston lying? Were the witnesses who said the throat wound was probed lying? Or were they were all just somehow "mistaken"? Were the witnesses who said the throat wound was probed just hallucinating? Were Bell and Perry just hallucinating about the nighttime phone calls from Bethesda pressuring Perry to stop saying the throat wound was an entry wound?
You haven't presented evidence that proves Humes did know about the throat wound before autopsy. Audrey Bell never claimed that he did. Dr Perry never claimed that he did. Livingston was lying or suffering from dementia.
From Pat Speer over on the ED forum:
Livingston's claim he called Humes is clearly bogus. He never came forward until the 90's, when he contacted Lifton. Lifton failed to buy into it, so Livingston then contacted Livingstone. The bottom line is that Livingston claimed the small size of the throat wound was discussed by a nurse on the radio, and that this led him to call Humes. The problem is that those studying the news footage and broadcasts have found no record of such an interview. There's also this. Livingston claimed he was friends with the journalist Richard Dudman, and that Dudman could vouch for him. Well, I contacted Dudman and he verified that he'd known Livingston for decades, and that Livingston had talked to him more than once about the Kennedy assassination. But, get this, he had no recollection of Livingston ever claiming he'd talked to Humes, or some such thing. Now, Dudman was quite an old man at this time, so I chose to not come forward with this for fear Fetzer and others would proceed to attack him. (Fetzer is the main proponent of Livingston's credibility on this issue.) In any event, I never felt the need for confronting Fetzer on this seeing as Fetzer discredited Livingston all by himself when he disavowed the transcript of Livingston's testimony in the Crenshaw case (testimony arranged by Fetzer and put into the record by Doug Horne). You see, I actually read the transcript and spotted some clear problems with it. The one thing that comes to mind is that Livingston said he'd decided to come forward in order to 'save the world". Yikes! A retired man in his seventies who comes forward with a bizarre story without any back-up in order to save the world, and is driven to his court testimony by Dr. James Fetzer, the very same Fetzer who believes the airplanes filmed crashing into the twin towers were holograms, and that Paul McCartney is an imposter impersonating the original Paul McCartney.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22980-dr-humes-knew-about-the-throat-wound-the-day-of-the-autopsy
And, what about the fact that JFK's tie and shirt slits prove beyond any rational doubt that no bullet exited the throat and the slits? In case you haven't read the OP and the linked article, that fact is the subject of this thread.
You haven't convinced anyone but yourself that JFK's tie and shirt slits prove beyond any rational doubt that no bullet exited the throat and the slits.
-
No he wasn't, and no you haven't.
Yes, Manchester was correct. And, yes, I have proven my point. But you're another SBT true believer who can't bring himself to face self-evident facts that refute the SBT myth.
I notice that you still have not explained how a bullet exiting the shirt slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot or could have magically weaved around the knot and nicked the knot's outer surface.
Funny how you keep avoiding this issue, even though it's the subject of this thread.
While you're at it, you might explain why the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound.
You haven't presented evidence that proves Humes did know about the throat wound before autopsy. Audrey Bell never claimed that he did. Dr Perry never claimed that he did.
Bell said that one or two of the autopsy doctors called Dr. Perry that night, the night of the assassination, and tried to pressure him into changing his diagnosis of the throat wound. Dr. Perry confirmed that this happened when he spoke with journalist Martin Steadman, adding that he was even threatened with being brought before a medical board and losing his medical license if he didn't stop saying the throat wound was an entry wound.
So at the bare minimum, this proves that the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound during the autopsy, and that they lied when they said they knew nothing about it until the following day.
After Oswald was killed, the tale was spun that the autopsy doctors had no idea there was a throat wound until the morning after the autopsy. If you could allow yourself to be objective, you would quickly see the absurdity of this cover story. Reports about about Dr. Perry's comments about the throat wound were all over the radio and TV. Most Americans were glued to their TVs or radios anxiously trying to get the latest news on the assassination. But the cover story would have us believe that nobody at the autopsy heard or saw any of the news reports about the throat wound before the autopsy, including the autopsy doctors, JFK's personal doctor (Burkley), the medical technicians, the military officers in attendance, the federal agents in attendance, the morticians--nobody, not a single soul.
When William Manchester was conducting hundreds of interviews for his famous book on JFK's death, The Death of a President, he learned that, yes, the autopsy doctors did hear about the throat wound before the autopsy. Well of course they did. That's why they probed the throat wound during the autopsy, as we now know they did from ARRB and other disclosures.
Livingston was lying or suffering from dementia.
Dr. Livingston, a Nobel Prize winner, a prominent neuroscientist, the founder of the first neuroscience department at a university in the world, and the director of two NIH institutes--he was lying or hallucinating? Oh, okay.
From Pat Speer over on the ED forum: Livingston's claim he called Humes is clearly bogus. He never came forward until the 90's. . . . [SNIP]
Oh, yes, you guys love to quote Pat Speer on those few issues where he agrees with you, but you reject him the rest of the time. I've already answered Speer's arguments in a previous reply. Speer has an ideological bias--some would say an almost pathological bias--against the very idea of evidence alteration and fabrication, and this bias leads him to make weak and sometimes downright ridiculous arguments against solid evidence of alteration and fabrication, even against scientific evidence of tampering and fakery.
I'd bet money you have not read Dr. Livingston's statements on his phone call with Humes. You're determined to reject them no matter what anyway, but I'm guessing you haven't even read them. Lots of witnesses came forward in the 1990s due to the impact of Oliver Stone's movie JFK and the formation of the Assassination Records Review Board.
Speer says Livingston's story is "bizarre." Humm, now what would be bizarre about a former Navy surgeon and the director of two NIH institutes, which Livingston was at the time, calling one of the two Navy autopsy doctors before the autopsy to discuss news reports about one of JFK's wounds? Hey? What exactly would be "bizarre" about that?
You haven't convinced anyone but yourself that JFK's tie and shirt slits prove beyond any rational doubt that no bullet exited the throat and the slits.
Such a silly statement proves you have no business even discussing the JFK case on a public board. Scholars who reject the lone-gunman theory have been making the point for years that there is no way a bullet exiting the shirt slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot, and no way such a bullet could have magically weaved around the body of the knot and nicked the knot's outer surface. Harold Weisberg--you might have heard of him--devoted large chunks of two of his books to this crucial issue.
The main contribution of my article on JFK's clothing and the SBT is that it presents abundant photographic evidence that just before and during the motorcade, JFK's tie knot was centered in the middle of his collar band, something that no other article on the subject has done.
And I again note that, while adamantly claiming I have not proved my point, you still have not explained how a bullet exiting the shirt slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot or could have magically weaved around the knot and nicked the knot's outer surface.
BTW, I looked at dozens of pre-assassination photos showing JFK wearing a tie, including photos taken in Fort Worth just a few hours before the Dallas motorcade. I found that most of the time he wore his tie the way we would expect a snappy dresser to have worn it: with the tie knot centered in the middle of the collar band. I've compiled some of those photos on a webpage I just published titled More Photos of JFK Wearing a Tie:
https://sites.google.com/view/jfkwearingatie/home
Yes, if you look through all the known photos of JFK wearing a tie, you can find some pictures--a minority of pictures--where the tie knot was slightly off-center, but only slightly, not nearly enough off-center to enable a 1.2 inch x 0.25 inch bullet exiting the shirt slits to weave around the body of the knot and nick the knot's outer surface, even if you want to assume the nick was on the left edge of the knot--never mind that both evidence photos of the tie knot show the nick inward from the left edge.
We are asking lone-gunman theorists to be objective and candid about clear, self-evident evidence that refutes their version of the shooting, and so far we see that none of them can bring themselves to do so.
-
Yes, Manchester was correct. And, yes, I have proven my point. But you're another SBT true believer who can't bring himself to face self-evident facts that refute the SBT myth.
Nope. Manchester was wrong. And no, you have not proven your point.
I notice that you still have not explained how a bullet exiting the shirt slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot or could have magically weaved around the knot and nicked the knot's outer surface.
Funny how you keep avoiding this issue, even though it's the subject of this thread.
You haven't shown why the bullet should have torn through the tie knot.
While you're at it, you might explain why the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound.
Where can one read those first two drafts of the autopsy report?
Bell said that one or two of the autopsy doctors called Dr. Perry that night, the night of the assassination, and tried to pressure him into changing his diagnosis of the throat wound. Dr. Perry confirmed that this happened when he spoke with journalist Martin Steadman, adding that he was even threatened with being brought before a medical board and losing his medical license if he didn't stop saying the throat wound was an entry wound.
So at the bare minimum, this proves that the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound during the autopsy, and that they lied when they said they knew nothing about it until the following day.
Steadman's claim was made 50 years after the fact. Not credible. Audrey Bell said that Perry told her that calls came from Bethesda through the night. He didn't say who it was that made the calls. Nor did he give any specific times. I think that Bell was misremembering. Dr Humes called Perry in the morning. After being informed by Perry about the wound in the throat, he informed Perry that the wound had to have been an exit wound.
-
A crucial point to keep in mind is that the damage behind and below the throat wound described by the Parkland Hospital doctors renders impossible the right-to-left or back-wound-to-throat-wound trajectory required by the SBT. This is a powerful evidentiary convergence with the physical evidence of JFK's tie and shirt.
Dr. Nathan Jacobs pointed out that the damage behind the throat wound described by the Parkland doctors was larger than the throat wound itself, a textbook indicator the wound was an entry wound (Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, p. 158). Moreover, when we read the Parkland descriptions of the damage behind and below the throat wound, we learn there was considerable damage to the right lateral portion of the neck and the right superior mediastinum (i.e., the upper-right part of the central compartment of the chest cavity). This damage is incompatible with the trajectory required by the SBT, especially the trajectory from the back wound to the left edge of the tie knot.
Let's take a minute and read some of what the Parkland doctors said about the damage behind and below the throat wound.
Dr. Malcolm Perry diagnosed the throat wound as an entrance wound because it was small (3-5 mm in diameter), neat (no ragged edges), and punched-in, and because of the damage he saw behind and beneath the throat wound. He believed the missile had entered the throat and then ranged downward into the chest. Recall that Tom Robinson told the HSCA that he believed that the autopsy doctors found a bullet fragment in the chest.
Dr. Kemp Clark said that Dr. Perry discovered that the trachea was deviated, and that Perry believed the missile had ranged downward into the chest:
He discovered that the trachea was deviated so he felt that the
missile had entered the President's chest. (6 H 22)
Dr. Clark said that Dr. Perry also saw blood in the strap muscles of the neck and that Perry believed this was another indication that the bullet had entered the chest:
The part pertaining to the bullet entering the President's chest rests
on the reasons for the placing of the chest tubes which were being
inserted when I arrived. It was the assumption, based on the previously
described deviation of the trachea and the presence of blood in the
strap muscles of the neck that a wound or missile wound might have
entered the President's chest. (6 H 28)
Dr. Perry explained that in addition to the damage to the trachea and the blood in the strap muscles, he also found “free air and blood” in the “superior right mediastinum” (again, the upper-right part of the central compartment of the chest cavity), which further led him to believe the missile had entered the chest:
I made a transverse incision right through this wound and carried
it down to the superficial fascia, to expose the strap muscles overlying
the thyroid and the trachea. There was an injury to the right lateral
aspect of the trachea at the level of the external wound. The trachea
was deviated slightly to the left and it was necessary to divide the
strap muscles on the left side in order to gain access to the trachea.
At this point, I recall. Dr. Jones right on my left was placing a catheter
into a vein in the left arm because he handed me a necessary
instrument which I needed in the performance of the procedure.
The wound in the trachea was then enlarged to admit a cuffed
tracheotomy tube to support respiration. I noted that there was
free air and blood in the superior right mediastinum. Although I saw
no injury to the lung or to the pleural space, the presence of this free
blood and air in this area could be indicative of a wound of the right
hemithorax, and I asked that someone put a right chest tube in for
seal drain age. At the time I did not know who did this, but I have
been informed that Dr. Baxter and Dr. Paul Peters inserted the chest
tube and connected it to underwater drainage. (6 H 10)
Dr. Perry also noted there was considerable bruising in “the right lateral portion of the neck” and also the right upper mediastinum:
Mr. Specter. What did you observe, if anything with respect to bruising
in the interior portion of the President's neck?
Dr. Perry. There was considerable hematoma in the right lateral portion
of the neck and the right superior mediastinum, as I noted. (6 H 11)
Again, the fact that this damage was on the upper righthand side of the central compartment of the chest cavity and the right lateral portion of the neck is important because it destroys any attempt to get the alleged magic bullet to nick the outer surface of the tie knot near or on the knot's left edge. Given the thickness of the tie knot and the fact that the knot was centered in the middle of the collar band, there's no remotely plausible trajectory from this right-side damage to the left side of the tie knot, especially for a bullet that was 1.2 inches long and 0.25 inches wide.
Finally, it is worth mentioning again that both of the evidence photos of the tie knot show that the nick was not on the left edge of the knot. This means the bullet would have had to magically fly around the body of the knot and then make a sharp turn to nick the knot inward from the left edge.
-
Nope. Manchester was wrong.
You're just reflexively saying this because to say otherwise would be to admit that your version of the shooting is wrong. I bet you haven't even read Mancheter's book. Do you have any idea how many dozens of people he interviewed for the book? He based his observation on his interviews. You've said nothing about the fact that Perry's account of the throat wound was naturally all over the news on TV and radio because the whole country was understandably anxious to hear every little bit of information about JFK's death.
But, nah, you declare that Manchester was wrong and imply that not a single soul at the autopsy had heard any of the news reports about the throat wound, while ignoring the ARRB disclosures that the throat wound was probed during the autopsy, dismissing Steadman's account of his conversation with Perry barely a week after the autopsy, and dismissing Nurse Bell's account of her conversation the morning after the autopsy.
And no, you have not proven your point.
Yes, I have proven my point. I've proved that JFK's tie was centered in the middle of his collar band before and during the motorcade. I've proved with the evidence photos of the tie knot that the nick was not on the edge of the knot but inward from the edge. I've proved with the photo of the shirt slits that the bottom half of the tie knot would have been directly over the slits. You've done nothing but duck and dodge and bob and weave around these facts.
I see in the thread on the sighting-in of the alleged murder weapon that you make the bogus claim that Lattimer duplicated CE 399's alleged journey through the shirt slits to the nick on the knot. He did no such thing. The nick on his tie knot was much bigger than the nick on JFK's tie, at least twice as large, and it was also noticeably deeper, extending noticeably below the outer surface, unlike the nick in JFK's tie knot. Moreover, the nick on his tie knot was on the edge of the knot, unlike the nick on JFK's tie knot.
Furthermore, if the exit hole in Lattimer's shirt looked like the JFK shirt slits, let's see a non-washed-out version of Lattimer's photo of his shirt slits. We should keep in mind that Lattimer was caught falsifying his test data on several occasions.
You like to quote Pat Speer on the very few issues where he agrees with you. Okay, how about you quote from Speer's massive demolition of Lattimer's SBT nonsense? Hey? Try these three chapters from his book for starters:
https://www.patspeer.com/chapter11thesingle-bullettheory
https://www.patspeer.com/chapter12bbullspombleprofglidnoctobunsandbeyond
https://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-26
You haven't shown why the bullet should have torn through the tie knot.
To any objective, candid person, yes, I have. Is this why you still have not explained how a bullet exiting the slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot and could have magically weaved around the body of the knot to nick the knot's outer surface inward from the left edge?
Where can one read those first two drafts of the autopsy report?
You don't know??? Your question reveals how shallow and one-sided your research has been. You could start with the released transcript of the WC's January 27 executive session. Then, you could graduate to former ARRB chief analyst Doug Horne's detailed documentation of this fact.
Steadman's claim was made 50 years after the fact. Not credible.
Oh! So Steadman was lying or hallucinating, right?! And just never mind that Nurse Bell's account supports his account, right? They were both lying or "misremembering," right? And just never you mind that we now know from ARRB disclosures that the throat wound was probed during the autopsy, right? (I'm waiting for you to reply, "What?! Where can I read that the throat wound was probed?! This is news to me!")
Let's read some of what Steadman said:
"...But [Dr. Malcolm Perry] told us that throughout that night, he received a series of phone calls to his home from irate doctors at the Bethesda Naval Hospital, where an autopsy was being conducted, and the doctors there were becoming increasingly frustrated with his belief that it was an entrance wound. He said they asked him if the doctors in Dallas had turned the President over and examined the wounds to his back; he said they had not. They told him he could not be certain of his conclusion if he had not examined the wounds in the President’s back. They said Bethesda had the President’s body and Dallas did not. They told Dr. Perry he must not continue to say he cut across what he believed to be an entrance wound when there was no evidence of shots fired from the front. When he said again he could only say what he believed to be true, one or more of the autopsy doctors told him they would take him before a Medical Board if he continued to insist on what they were certain was otherwise. They threatened his license to practice medicine, Dr. Perry said...."
Steadman just made it all up, huh? Or, hallucinating, huh?
Audrey Bell said that Perry told her that calls came from Bethesda through the night. He didn't say who it was that made the calls. Nor did he give any specific times. I think that Bell was misremembering.
You obviously haven't even bothered to read the transcripts of her two interviews, i.e., her 1991 recorded interview and her 1997 ARRB recorded interview. She specified in both interviews that the calls came "from Bethesda," that the calls came "during the night" and "in the middle of the night." Let's read what she said in her 1991 interview:
“Dr. Perry was up all night. He came into my office the next day and sat down and looked terrible, having not slept. I never saw anybody look so dejected! They called him from Bethesda two or three times in the middle of the night to try to get him to change the entrance wound in the throat to an exit wound.”
And from her 1997 ARRB interview:
"Saturday morning when I got over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of course, he had been the primary until Dr. Clark came. He sat down in the chair. I said, 'You look awful. Did you get any sleep last night?' He said, "well, not too much, between the calls from Bethesda that came in during the night.' I said, 'what about?' He said, 'Oh, whether that was an entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat." He said, 'They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance wound.'"
"Misremembering," huh? Never mind that Steadman's account of his conversation with Perry barely a week after the autopsy corroborates Nurse Bell's account, and vice versa? Just a big, whopping coincidence, hey?
Dr. Humes called Perry in the morning. After being informed by Perry about the wound in the throat, he informed Perry that the wound had to have been an exit wound.
LOL! Just repeat the implausible, debunked cover story that was concocted after Oswald was killed, hey? And the Earth is flat, right? If Humes didn't know about the throat wound until the following morning, why did he have the throat wound probed during the autopsy?
For those who want to learn more about these historic disclosures, I recommend the following article as a good starting point:
"The Ordeal of Malcolm Perry"
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-ordeal-of-malcolm-perry
And, again, when are you going to explain how a bullet exiting the shirt slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot and could have magically weaved around the body of the knot to nick the knot's outer surface inward from the left edge, given that we know that JFK's tie was centered in the middle of his collar band and that there was no hole through the tie?
-
You're just reflexively saying this because to say otherwise would be to admit that your version of the shooting is wrong. I bet you haven't even read Mancheter's book. Do you have any idea how many dozens of people he interviewed for the book? He based his observation on his interviews. You've said nothing about the fact that Perry's account of the throat wound was naturally all over the news on TV and radio because the whole country was understandably anxious to hear every little bit of information about JFK's death.
But, nah, you declare that Manchester was wrong and imply that not a single soul at the autopsy had heard any of the news reports about the throat wound, while ignoring the ARRB disclosures that the throat wound was probed during the autopsy, dismissing Steadman's account of his conversation with Perry barely a week after the autopsy, and dismissing Nurse Bell's account of her conversation the morning after the autopsy.
Yes, I have proven my point. I've proved that JFK's tie was centered in the middle of his collar band before and during the motorcade. I've proved with the evidence photos of the tie knot that the nick was not on the edge of the knot but inward from the edge. I've proved with the photo of the shirt slits that the bottom half of the tie knot would have been directly over the slits. You've done nothing but duck and dodge and bob and weave around these facts.
I see in the thread on the sighting-in of the alleged murder weapon that you make the bogus claim that Lattimer duplicated CE 399's alleged journey through the shirt slits to the nick on the knot. He did no such thing. The nick on his tie knot was much bigger than the nick on JFK's tie, at least twice as large, and it was also noticeably deeper, extending noticeably below the outer surface, unlike the nick in JFK's tie knot. Moreover, the nick on his tie knot was on the edge of the knot, unlike the nick on JFK's tie knot.
Furthermore, if the exit hole in Lattimer's shirt looked like the JFK shirt slits, let's see a non-washed-out version of Lattimer's photo of his shirt slits. We should keep in mind that Lattimer was caught falsifying his test data on several occasions.
You like to quote Pat Speer on the very few issues where he agrees with you. Okay, how about you quote from Speer's massive demolition of Lattimer's SBT nonsense? Hey? Try these three chapters from his book for starters:
https://www.patspeer.com/chapter11thesingle-bullettheory
https://www.patspeer.com/chapter12bbullspombleprofglidnoctobunsandbeyond
https://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-26
To any objective, candid person, yes, I have. Is this why you still have not explained how a bullet exiting the slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot and could have magically weaved around the body of the knot to nick the knot's outer surface inward from the left edge?
You don't know??? Your question reveals how shallow and one-sided your research has been. You could start with the released transcript of the WC's January 27 executive session. Then, you could graduate to former ARRB chief analyst Doug Horne's detailed documentation of this fact.
Oh! So Steadman was lying or hallucinating, right?! And just never mind that Nurse Bell's account supports his account, right? They were both lying or "misremembering," right? And just never you mind that we now know from ARRB disclosures that the throat wound was probed during the autopsy, right? (I'm waiting for you to reply, "What?! Where can I read that the throat wound was probed?! This is news to me!")
Let's read some of what Steadman said:
"...But [Dr. Malcolm Perry] told us that throughout that night, he received a series of phone calls to his home from irate doctors at the Bethesda Naval Hospital, where an autopsy was being conducted, and the doctors there were becoming increasingly frustrated with his belief that it was an entrance wound. He said they asked him if the doctors in Dallas had turned the President over and examined the wounds to his back; he said they had not. They told him he could not be certain of his conclusion if he had not examined the wounds in the President’s back. They said Bethesda had the President’s body and Dallas did not. They told Dr. Perry he must not continue to say he cut across what he believed to be an entrance wound when there was no evidence of shots fired from the front. When he said again he could only say what he believed to be true, one or more of the autopsy doctors told him they would take him before a Medical Board if he continued to insist on what they were certain was otherwise. They threatened his license to practice medicine, Dr. Perry said...."
Steadman just made it all up, huh? Or, hallucinating, huh?
You obviously haven't even bothered to read the transcripts of her two interviews, i.e., her 1991 recorded interview and her 1997 ARRB recorded interview. She specified in both interviews that the calls came "from Bethesda," that the calls came "during the night" and "in the middle of the night." Let's read what she said in her 1991 interview:
“Dr. Perry was up all night. He came into my office the next day and sat down and looked terrible, having not slept. I never saw anybody look so dejected! They called him from Bethesda two or three times in the middle of the night to try to get him to change the entrance wound in the throat to an exit wound.”
And from her 1997 ARRB interview:
"Saturday morning when I got over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of course, he had been the primary until Dr. Clark came. He sat down in the chair. I said, 'You look awful. Did you get any sleep last night?' He said, "well, not too much, between the calls from Bethesda that came in during the night.' I said, 'what about?' He said, 'Oh, whether that was an entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat." He said, 'They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance wound.'"
"Misremembering," huh? Never mind that Steadman's account of his conversation with Perry barely a week after the autopsy corroborates Nurse Bell's account, and vice versa? Just a big, whopping coincidence, hey?
LOL! Just repeat the implausible, debunked cover story that was concocted after Oswald was killed, hey? And the Earth is flat, right? If Humes didn't know about the throat wound until the following morning, why did he have the throat wound probed during the autopsy?
For those who want to learn more about these historic disclosures, I recommend the following article as a good starting point:
"The Ordeal of Malcolm Perry"
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-ordeal-of-malcolm-perry
And, again, when are you going to explain how a bullet exiting the shirt slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot and could have magically weaved around the body of the knot to nick the knot's outer surface inward from the left edge, given that we know that JFK's tie was centered in the middle of his collar band and that there was no hole through the tie?
I should add that on 11/24/1966, Richard Levine of the Baltimore Sun conducted an extensive interview with Dr. J. Thornton Boswell. In Levine's article on the interview published the next day, he noted that, before the autopsy, the autopsy doctors were made aware of JFK's wounds and what the Dallas doctors had done:
The pathologists had already been told the probable extent of the injuries and what had been done by the physicians in Dallas ("Pathologist Who Made Examination Defends Commission's Version," Baltimore Sun, November 25, 1966, p. 3; see also Harold Weisberg, Post Mortem, Skyhorse Publishing, 2007, reprint of 1975 edition, p. 37; Never Again, Skyhorse Publishing, 2007, reprint of 1995 edition, p. 217).
Yes, of course the autopsy doctors had been told about, or had heard about, JFK's wounds before the autopsy. Again, Dr. Perry's comments about the throat wound were all over the news on TV and radio.
I should also add that Dr. Perry, in a long interview with Harold Weisberg, said there was a ring of bruising around the throat wound, a ringed bruise, another typical indicator of an entry wound (Never Again, p. 220). When describing the ringed bruise around the wound, Perry twice said "as they always are" (pp. 220-221). This is key because entry wounds are always bruised, but exit wounds are not always bruised. Perry had seen and treated hundreds of gunshot wounds and knew the different traits of entry and exit wounds.
BTW, Perry twice wiped blood off the throat wound and examined it before he began doing the tracheotomy (Never Again, p. 220). As I've noted previously, Dr. Perry and Dr. Clark described damage behind and below the throat wound that was larger than the wound itself, a reliable indicator of an entry wound. Moreover, that damage was on the righthand side of the central compartment of the chest cavity (right superior mediastinum) and the right lateral portion of the neck, whereas no such damage was done to the left side of the superior mediastinum and the left lateral portion of the neck, even though the alleged SBT bullet was supposedly traveling right to left.
This is a powerful convergence of evidence. JFK's tie and shirt slits prove that no bullet exited the slits, so it is no surprise that the throat wound was above the tie knot. This explains why the slits had no fabric missing from them and no metallic traces around them. This explains why Dr. Perry saw damage behind and below the throat wound that was larger than the wound itself, why the damage was on the righthand side of the upper chest area and the right lateral part of the neck, and why the wound was small, neat, punched-in, and had a bruised ring around it. The rear clothing holes prove the back wound was well below the throat wound, rendering the SBT impossible from the get-go, which explains and corroborates the evidence that the throat wound was an entry wound and that no bullet exited the shirt slits.
-
I should add that on 11/24/1966, Richard Levine of the Baltimore Sun conducted an extensive interview with Dr. J. Thornton Boswell. In Levine's article on the interview published the next day, he noted that, before the autopsy, the autopsy doctors were made aware of JFK's wounds and what the Dallas doctors had done:/size]
The pathologists had already been told the probable extent of the injuries and what had been done by the physicians in Dallas ("Pathologist Who Made Examination Defends Commission's Version," Baltimore Sun, November 25, 1966, p. 3; see also Harold Weisberg, Post Mortem, Skyhorse Publishing, 2007, reprint of 1975 edition, p. 37; Never Again, Skyhorse Publishing, 2007, reprint of 1995 edition, p. 217).
Yes, of course the autopsy doctors had been told about, or had heard about, JFK's wounds before the autopsy. Again, Dr. Perry's comments about the throat wound were all over the news on TV and radio.
I should also add that Dr. Malcolm Perry, in a long interview with Harold Weisberg, said there was a ring of bruising around the throat wound, a ringed bruise, another typical indicator of an entry wound (Never Again, p. 220). When describing the ringed bruise around the wound, Perry twice said "as they always are" (pp. 220-221). This is key because entry wounds are always bruised, but exit wounds are not always bruised. Perry had seen and treated hundreds of gunshot wounds and knew the different traits of entry and exit wounds.
BTW, Perry twice wiped blood off the throat wound and examined it before he began doing the tracheotomy (Never Again, p. 220). As I've noted previously, Dr. Perry and Dr. Clark described damage behind and below the throat wound that was larger than the wound itself, a reliable indicator of an entry wound. Moreover, that damage was on the righthand side of the central compartment of the chest cavity (right superior mediastinum) and the right lateral portion of the neck, whereas no such damage was done to the left side of the superior mediastinum and the left lateral portion of the neck, even though the alleged SBT bullet was supposedly traveling right to left.
This is a powerful convergence of evidence. JFK's tie and shirt slits prove that no bullet exited the slits, so it is no surprise that the throat wound was above the tie knot. This explains why the slits had no fabric missing from them and no metallic traces around them. This explains why Dr. Perry saw damage behind and below the throat wound that was larger than the wound itself, why the damage was on the righthand side of the upper chest area and the right lateral part of the neck, and why the wound was small, neat, punched-in, and had a bruised ring around it. The rear clothing holes prove the back wound was well below the throat wound, rendering the SBT impossible from the get-go, which explains and corroborates the evidence that the throat wound was an entry wound and that no bullet exited the shirt slits.
This is a powerful convergence of evidence. JFK's tie and shirt slits prove that no bullet exited the slits, so it is no surprise that the throat wound was above the tie knot.
Unfortunately, the autopsy photos show that the wound was not above the knott, it was much lower.
If they had known there were only two shots what would these people have stated? You seem to not want to prove there even was three shots.
-
This is a powerful convergence of evidence. JFK's tie and shirt slits prove that no bullet exited the slits, so it is no surprise that the throat wound was above the tie knot.
Unfortunately, the autopsy photos show that the wound was not above the knott, it was much lower.
So your answer to all the evidence I've presented is to cite the autopsy photos, which do not show the throat wound when JFK was wearing a shirt and tie and which show the wound after it was substantially enlarged???
If the throat wound was much lower, then how could a bullet exiting that wound and then exiting the shirt slits have avoided tearing through the tie knot, much less magically weaved around the body of the knot to nick the knot's outer surface inward from the left edge, given that we know that JFK's tie knot was centered in the middle of his collar band and that there was no hole through the tie?
Your ongoing refusal to address this crucial issue is revealing.
For further photographic evidence that the tie knot was centered in the middle of the collar band, see "Why JFK's Tie and Shirt Slits Destroy the Single-Bullet Theory," https://sites.google.com/view/jfkshirtandtiedestroysbt/home.
If they had known there were only two shots what would these people have stated? You seem to not want to prove there even was three shots.
Thanks for providing this reminder that you are even on the fringe of the lone-gunman theory. Even most of your fellow lone-gunman theorists reject the ridiculous idea that there were only two shots. All of your leading WC defenders--Posner, Bugliosi, Holland, Down, Von Pein, Litwin, etc.--all of them say there were three shots.
-
So your answer to all the evidence I've presented is to cite the autopsy photos, which do not show the throat wound when JFK was wearing a shirt and tie and which show the wound after it was substantially enlarged???
If the throat wound was much lower, then how could a bullet exiting that wound and then exiting the shirt slits have avoided tearing through the tie knot, much less magically weaved around the body of the knot to nick the knot's outer surface inward from the left edge, given that we know that JFK's tie knot was centered in the middle of his collar band and that there was no hole through the tie?
Your ongoing refusal to address this crucial issue is revealing.
For further photographic evidence that the tie knot was centered in the middle of the collar band, see "Why JFK's Tie and Shirt Slits Destroy the Single-Bullet Theory," https://sites.google.com/view/jfkshirtandtiedestroysbt/home.
Thanks for providing this reminder that you are even on the fringe of the lone-gunman theory. Even most of your fellow lone-gunman theorists reject the ridiculous idea that there were only two shots. All of your leading WC defenders--Posner, Bugliosi, Holland, Down, Von Pein, Litwin, etc.--all of them say there were three shots.
So your answer to all the evidence I've presented is to cite the autopsy photos,
Yes. Your opinion is not considered evidence of anything. One picture is worth a thousand words, and you have not shown one thing to doubt what is seen in the photo.
Thanks for providing this reminder that you are even on the fringe of the lone-gunman theory. Even most of your fellow lone-gunman theorists reject the ridiculous idea that there were only two shots.
You're welcome. Save your opinion though, your leader Josiah Thompson wrote in the book Six Seconds in Dallas that LHO only fire two shots. The most telling thing from this post is your refusal to provide proof of a piece of information that is central to all of your writings and postings.
-
So your answer to all the evidence I've presented is to cite the autopsy photos,
Yes. Your opinion is not considered evidence of anything.
It's not my "opinion." Levine's and Manchester's statements that the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound before the autopsy are not my "opinion"--I've merely quoted what they said. The photos that show JFK's tie knot squarely centered in the middle of his collar band during the motorcade are not my "opinion." Dr. Carrico's, Dr. Jones', and Dr. Goldstrich's statements that the throat wound was above the tie knot are not my "opinion." The evidence photos of JFK's tie and shirt slits are not my "opinion." The fact that no fabric was missing from the shirt slits and that the FBI found no metallic traces around the slits is not my "opinion." And on and on I could go.
One picture is worth a thousand words, and you have not shown one thing to doubt what is seen in the photo.
Then you've had your eyes covered. What about the motorcade photos that prove JFK's tie knot was centered in the middle of the collar band? What about the evidence photos of the tie and shirt slits? What about the fact that the damage behind and below the throat wound was larger than the throat wound itself, an ironclad indicator of an entry wound? What about the rear holes in the JFK's shirt and coat, which prove the back wound was well below the throat wound (and which are corroborated by the death certificate, the autopsy face sheet, and the Sibert and O'Neill HSCA wound diagrams)?
I notice you ignored the point that the autopsy photos do not show the throat wound in its original condition and do not show the wound when JFK was wearing a shirt and tie, not to mention the numerous objections to the autopsy photos' reliability and authenticity (e.g., the drastic conflict between the skull x-rays and the brain photos, which you keep ducking, and the drastic conflict between the skull x-rays and the autopsy report).
I ask again: If the throat wound was much lower, then how could a bullet exiting that wound and then exiting the shirt slits have avoided tearing through the tie knot, much less magically weaved around the body of the knot to nick the knot's outer surface inward from the left edge, given that we know that JFK's tie knot was centered in the middle of his collar band and that there was no hole through the tie?
Thanks for providing this reminder that you are even on the fringe of the lone-gunman theory. Even most of your fellow lone-gunman theorists reject the ridiculous idea that there were only two shots.
You're welcome. Save your opinion though, your leader Josiah Thompson wrote in the book Six Seconds in Dallas that LHO only fire two shots. The most telling thing from this post is your refusal to provide proof of a piece of information that is central to all of your writings and postings.
Once more, you don't know what you're talking about. One, Thompson did not say in Six Seconds in Dallas that "Oswald" fired two shots. He argued that Oswald was not even on the sixth floor during the shooting. Two, Thompson said in Six Seconds in Dallas that at least four shots were fired and that there was more than one gunman--and that is still his position.
-
It's not my "opinion." Levine's and Manchester's statements that the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound before the autopsy are not my "opinion"--I've merely quoted what they said. The photos that show JFK's tie knot squarely centered in the middle of his collar band during the motorcade are not my "opinion." Dr. Carrico's, Dr. Jones', and Dr. Goldstrich's statements that the throat wound was above the tie knot are not my "opinion." The evidence photos of JFK's tie and shirt slits are not my "opinion." The fact that no fabric was missing from the shirt slits and that the FBI found no metallic traces around the slits is not my "opinion." And on and on I could go.
Then you've had your eyes covered. What about the motorcade photos that prove JFK's tie knot was centered in the middle of the collar band? What about the evidence photos of the tie and shirt slits? What about the fact that the damage behind and below the throat wound was larger than the throat wound itself, an ironclad indicator of an entry wound? What about the rear holes in the JFK's shirt and coat, which prove the back wound was well below the throat wound (and which are corroborated by the death certificate, the autopsy face sheet, and the Sibert and O'Neill HSCA wound diagrams)?
I notice you ignored the point that the autopsy photos do not show the throat wound in its original condition and do not show the wound when JFK was wearing a shirt and tie, not to mention the numerous objections to the autopsy photos' reliability and authenticity (e.g., the drastic conflict between the skull x-rays and the brain photos, which you keep ducking, and the drastic conflict between the skull x-rays and the autopsy report).
I ask again: If the throat wound was much lower, then how could a bullet exiting that wound and then exiting the shirt slits have avoided tearing through the tie knot, much less magically weaved around the body of the knot to nick the knot's outer surface inward from the left edge, given that we know that JFK's tie knot was centered in the middle of his collar band and that there was no hole through the tie?
Once more, you don't know what you're talking about. One, Thompson did not say in Six Seconds in Dallas that "Oswald" fired two shots. He argued that Oswald was not even on the sixth floor during the shooting. Two, Thompson said in Six Seconds in Dallas that at least four shots were fired and that there was more than one gunman--and that is still his position.
It's not my "opinion." Levine's and Manchester's statements that the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound before the autopsy are not my "opinion"--I've merely quoted what they said. The photos that show JFK's tie knot squarely centered in the middle of his collar band during the motorcade are not my "opinion." Dr. Carrico's, Dr. Jones', and Dr. Goldstrich's statements that the throat wound was above the tie knot are not my "opinion." The evidence photos of JFK's tie and shirt slits are not my "opinion." The fact that no fabric was missing from the shirt slits and that the FBI found no metallic traces around the slits is not my "opinion." And on and on I could go.
Yes, it is just your opinion. The photo shows you what need to know. J Mytton placed the tie on the photo with his magic. You should remember that I think he did in response to this silly crap currently being posted by you.
I notice you ignored the point that the autopsy photos do not show the throat wound in its original condition and do not show the wound when JFK was wearing a shirt and tie, not to mention the numerous objections to the autopsy photos' reliability and authenticity (e.g., the drastic conflict between the skull x-rays and the brain photos, which you keep ducking, and the drastic conflict between the skull x-rays and the autopsy report).
More of the same nonsense. Is there an end to it. The wound is clearly visible in the photo. Can you not see it in your copy of the photo.
Once more, you don't know what you're talking about. One, Thompson did not say in Six Seconds in Dallas that "Oswald" fired two shots. He argued that Oswald was not even on the sixth floor during the shooting. Two, Thompson said in Six Seconds in Dallas that at least four shots were fired and that there was more than one gunman--and that is still his position.
No that is completely wrong, nice try though.
Six Seconds in Dallas Page page 146
“Thus the cartridge case that had an extra dent in the lip seemed to lack a mark exhibited by every other shell we know to have been in the breech of Oswalds rifle.
The combination of these factors---- the peculiar accorded treatment accorded CE 543 by the Dallas Police, its inexplicable dent on the dented lip, the sets of three marks on the base absent on the other cases while present on CE 543 and finally its lack of the characteristic chambering mark----suggests that although two of the cartridges case may have been ejected from Oswald’s rifle, the third, CE543, is most likely an extra, unfired shell, and possibly a deliberate fake. Such a conclusion would mate perfectly with the description of events earlier laid down, namely, that only two of the shots fired that day in Dealey Plaza came from Oswald's rifle.”
Josiah had absolutely no problem identifying the carcano rifle as having belonged to LHO. He referred to the rifle as belonging to LHO three times in this short excerpt.
Any headway on proving the third shot or just more dodging the issue?
-
Not only is Kennedy's tie off centre in the limo in Dallas, the tie is off centre to Kennedy's right, which perfectly lines up with the nick on the left side. Ouch!
(https://i.postimg.cc/TPc9qpcc/tie-off-center-1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/5NdhfMWV/jfk-tie-height-c.gif)
Edit. Left and right corrections. Thanks Tim.
JohnM
-
Not only is Kennedy's tie off centre in the limo in Dallas, the tie is off centre to Kennedy's left, which perfectly lines up with the nick on the right side. Ouch!
(https://i.postimg.cc/TPc9qpcc/tie-off-center-1.jpg)
I was going to post that image the other day but forgot to. You can clearly see how the bullet was able to pass through where it did and nick the left side of the tie knot. His left.
(https://i.postimg.cc/5NdhfMWV/jfk-tie-height-c.gif)
JohnM
(https://i.imgur.com/kRrc7sC.gif)
-
As we see below, now Mytton, naturally robotically endorsed by Nickerson, is resorting to sheer sophistry or self-delusion, or both, in claiming that the photo in his reply shows "the tie" off-center, ignoring the fact that the photo clearly shows the tie knot was squarely centered in the middle of the collar band. (BTW, that photo is one of the photos in my article!)
Yes, in the photo, the loose-hanging part of the tie below the tie knot is off-center because JFK has turned to his right, but the tie knot is not off-center but is smackdab in the middle of the collar band. We see the same thing in every other motorcade photo that shows the position of JFK's tie knot, as I prove in my article:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view
See also https://sites.google.com/view/jfkshirtandtiedestroysbt/home
Frankly, I am surprised that anyone takes Mytton seriously, given the horrendous gaffes he has been caught committing.
Also, I found another Parkland witness who said the throat wound was visible before the clothing was removed, which means it must have been above the collar: Nurse Margaret Henchliffe. She followed JFK's body into the ER. She said she could see the throat wound when she "first saw him" as they wheeled his body into the room, before the clothing was removed (6 H 141). That makes four Parkland medical staff who said the throat wound was visible before the clothing was removed, and two of them (Carrico and Jones) specified that the wound was above the tie knot.
Not only is Kennedy's tie off centre in the limo in Dallas, the tie is off centre to Kennedy's right, which perfectly lines up with the nick on the left side. Ouch!
(https://i.postimg.cc/TPc9qpcc/tie-off-center-1.jpg)
JohnM
-
Not only is Kennedy's tie off centre in the limo in Dallas, the tie is off centre to Kennedy's right, which perfectly lines up with the nick on the left side. Ouch!
(https://i.postimg.cc/TPc9qpcc/tie-off-center-1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/5NdhfMWV/jfk-tie-height-c.gif)
Edit. Left and right corrections. Thanks Tim.
JohnM
Good photo. It looks as though JFK having his right elbow on the side of the limo raised up the right side of his body which jilted the tie to the right.
And it would appear JFKs elbow was still on the side of the limo at z224.
-
Good photo.
Umm, that photo is in my article (Figure 4). It's in my article because it shows the tie knot squarely centered in the middle of the collar band.
It looks as though JFK having his right elbow on the side of the limo raised up the right side of his body which jilted the tie to the right.
But the tie knot is still centered between the ends of the collar band. Surely you can see this. Of course the loose-hanging part of the tie beneath the knot could easily be moved somewhat by body movements, but not the tie knot. Even the motorcade photo that shows JFK in the act of waving shows the tie knot centered in the middle of the collar band (Figure 3 in my article).
And it would appear JFKs elbow was still on the side of the limo at z224.
Even some of the WC's experts acknowledged that the Zapruder film shows JFK starting to react before he goes behind the freeway sign, long before Z224. The HSCA experts confirmed this, as did Olson and Turner in their Journal of Forensic Science article.
On a related note, two of your side's wound ballistics experts--Lattimer and Piziali-- have admitted that JFK's Z225 reaction proves he must have been hit at least four frames earlier.
-
On a related note, two of your side's wound ballistics experts--Lattimer and Piziali-- have admitted that JFK's Z225 reaction proves he must have been hit at least four frames earlier.
Other experts opine that the fastest possible reaction time could have been as little as .10 to .12 seconds. Two experts I consulted said such a speedy reaction was theoretically possible but they indicated that a slightly slower response was more probable under the circumstances. In any case, .10 seconds equates to 2.1 Zapruder frames. So, if we assume Kennedy reacted in .10 seconds, this means the bullet could have struck him no later than Z222.9. The earliest time given by WC supporters for the alleged magic-bullet, lapel-flipping strike is Z223.19. Thus, Kennedy's Z225 reaction could not have been in response to the same missile that allegedly struck Connally at Z224. - Michael T. Griffith
==================================================================
Note Griffith's concession that a physical reaction such as the one he describes could occur in as short a time span as two frames.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/jfkhit.htm
-
Umm, that photo is in my article (Figure 4). It's in my article because it shows the tie knot squarely centered in the middle of the collar band.
But the tie knot is still centered between the ends of the collar band. Surely you can see this. Of course the loose-hanging part of the tie beneath the knot could easily be moved somewhat by body movements, but not the tie knot. Even the motorcade photo that shows JFK in the act of waving shows the tie knot centered in the middle of the collar band (Figure 3 in my article).
Even some of the WC's experts acknowledged that the Zapruder film shows JFK starting to react before he goes behind the freeway sign, long before Z224. The HSCA experts confirmed this, as did Olson and Turner in their Journal of Forensic Science article.
On a related note, two of your side's wound ballistics experts--Lattimer and Piziali-- have admitted that JFK's Z225 reaction proves he must have been hit at least four frames earlier.
SBT Impossible--- only in fantasy land.
Any headway on proving the third shot or just more dodging the issue? Maybe these quotes from Six Seconds in Dallas about real evidence and not just your opinion will help. It looks like the fact there were only two shots completely nails the lid shut on your whole storyline.
Josiah Thompson from Six Seconds in Dallas pages 140-146:
“Marks found on the dented case indicated that it had been loaded in and extracted from a weapon at least three times (26H449) . In addition, it had "three sets of marks on the base" that were not found on the others or on any of the numerous test cartridges obtained from Oswald's rifle (26H449). A ballistics expert testified that these anomalous marks were possibly caused by a "dry firing" run-that is, by inserting the empty cartridge case in the breech while practicing with the rifle (3H510)”
“All this excites our suspicion with respect to CE 543, the dented cartridge case. What is most surprising-perhaps conclusive-about this cartridge case is that it lacks a characteristic impression along the side exhibited in one form or other by all the other cartridges we know to have been seated in the chamber of Oswald's rifle. I first noticed this characteristic mark while supervising the photographing of the cartridges for Life. I observed on two of the cartridge cases (CE's 544, 545) an impression on the side in the same relative position on each. I examined the third and saw that no such impression was apparent.”
“The anomaly did not excite my interest until I noticed that the live round found in the chamber of Oswald's rifle (CE 141) exhibited a similar impression in the same place. On the live round the mark was not as pronounced-perhaps due to the fact that it had not been fired. The pressure of firing would tend to accentuate any indentation caused by contact with the chamber. I now had three cartridge cases, all of which ostensibly were at one time or other in the chamber of Oswald's rifle and all of which evidenced a characteristic mark. If this mark was caused by a characteristic of the chamber of Oswald's rifle, then the lack of it on CE 543 might indicate that it had never been fired in Oswald's rifle. One way to test my hypothesis was to examine CE 557--- two cartridge cases from the test rounds fired in Oswald’s rifle. Both of these cases displayed the characteristic mark in the same spot.4 Thus the cartridge case that had an extra dent in the lip seemed to lack a mark exhibited by every other case we know to have been in the breech of Oswald's rifle.”
With all of the information supplied by Josiah in addition to the observation of the shells by Josiah, plus the bullet and bullet fragment information, eyewitness testimony, Zapruder Film, HSCA trajectory determination, HSCA Sound Analysis, is all applied to the JFKA, there can only be one conclusion. Two Shots. Which leaves all your conspiracy narratives pretty much useless and dead in the water.
Just trying to help here, but there might be room for a conspiracy in the RFK assassination. I read once there was a possible nine shots fired out of an eight-shot gun. Plus, some possible mind control. Whatever else you need you can make it up as you go.
-
SBT Impossible--- only in fantasy land.
Any headway on proving the third shot or just more dodging the issue? Maybe these quotes from Six Seconds in Dallas about real evidence and not just your opinion will help. It looks like the fact there were only two shots completely nails the lid shut on your whole storyline.
Josiah Thompson from Six Seconds in Dallas pages 140-146:
“Marks found on the dented case indicated that it had been loaded in and extracted from a weapon at least three times (26H449) . In addition, it had "three sets of marks on the base" that were not found on the others or on any of the numerous test cartridges obtained from Oswald's rifle (26H449). A ballistics expert testified that these anomalous marks were possibly caused by a "dry firing" run-that is, by inserting the empty cartridge case in the breech while practicing with the rifle (3H510)”
“All this excites our suspicion with respect to CE 543, the dented cartridge case. What is most surprising-perhaps conclusive-about this cartridge case is that it lacks a characteristic impression along the side exhibited in one form or other by all the other cartridges we know to have been seated in the chamber of Oswald's rifle. I first noticed this characteristic mark while supervising the photographing of the cartridges for Life. I observed on two of the cartridge cases (CE's 544, 545) an impression on the side in the same relative position on each. I examined the third and saw that no such impression was apparent.”
“The anomaly did not excite my interest until I noticed that the live round found in the chamber of Oswald's rifle (CE 141) exhibited a similar impression in the same place. On the live round the mark was not as pronounced-perhaps due to the fact that it had not been fired. The pressure of firing would tend to accentuate any indentation caused by contact with the chamber. I now had three cartridge cases, all of which ostensibly were at one time or other in the chamber of Oswald's rifle and all of which evidenced a characteristic mark. If this mark was caused by a characteristic of the chamber of Oswald's rifle, then the lack of it on CE 543 might indicate that it had never been fired in Oswald's rifle. One way to test my hypothesis was to examine CE 557--- two cartridge cases from the test rounds fired in Oswald’s rifle. Both of these cases displayed the characteristic mark in the same spot.4 Thus the cartridge case that had an extra dent in the lip seemed to lack a mark exhibited by every other case we know to have been in the breech of Oswald's rifle.”
Yes, CE 543, the dented shell, could not have been used to fire a bullet on 11/22/63, but this does not prove that only two shots were fired during the assassination.
With all of the information supplied by Josiah in addition to the observation of the shells by Josiah, plus the bullet and bullet fragment information, eyewitness testimony, Zapruder Film, HSCA trajectory determination, HSCA Sound Analysis, is all applied to the JFKA, there can only be one conclusion. Two Shots. Which leaves all your conspiracy narratives pretty much useless and dead in the water.
HUH???? The HSCA acoustical analysis determined that at least four shots were fired and that one of them came from the grassy knoll. The Zapruder film shows reactions to six shots. Thompson believes that at least five shots were fired. Numerous eyewitnesses heard shots coming from the grassy knoll. The Wiegman film shows a cloud of gunsmoke hanging near some of the trees on the grassy knoll. A number of witnesses on and near the knoll smelled the pungent scent of gun powder. We have the Tague miss, the manhole-cover-grass miss, the Aldredge curb scar miss, and the pavement-strike-near-limo miss. We have the extra bullet handled by Dr. James Young and Chief Mills. How in the world do you get only two shots?
Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nnp3Vch_KMOB_qufAhlQOCLTTS9jqNV0/view
I discuss these reactions in more detail in my book A Comforting Lie: The Myth that a Lone Gunman Killed President Kennedy
The HSCA's Acoustical Evidence: Proof of a Second Gunman
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KvdvH8gTqFgMn-2vTI5ppg_egWxRKg9U/view
-
Yes, CE 543, the dented shell, could not have been used to fire a bullet on 11/22/63, but this does not prove that only two shots were fired during the assassination.
HUH???? The HSCA acoustical analysis determined that at least four shots were fired and that one of them came from the grassy knoll. The Zapruder film shows reactions to six shots. Thompson believes that at least five shots were fired. Numerous eyewitnesses heard shots coming from the grassy knoll. The Wiegman film shows a cloud of gunsmoke hanging near some of the trees on the grassy knoll. A number of witnesses on and near the knoll smelled the pungent scent of gun powder. We have the Tague miss, the manhole-cover-grass miss, the Aldredge curb scar miss, and the pavement-strike-near-limo miss. We have the extra bullet handled by Dr. James Young and Chief Mills. How in the world do you get only two shots?
Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nnp3Vch_KMOB_qufAhlQOCLTTS9jqNV0/view
I discuss these reactions in more detail in my book A Comforting Lie: The Myth that a Lone Gunman Killed President Kennedy
The HSCA's Acoustical Evidence: Proof of a Second Gunman
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KvdvH8gTqFgMn-2vTI5ppg_egWxRKg9U/view
You offer as proof your own personal opinion? Nice. Except it is full of the usual contradictions.
Michael Griffith author of The HSCA's Acoustical Evidence: Proof of a Second Gunman
“Conversely, any fundamental inconsistency in the
evidence would undermine the analysis and the authenticity of the tape.”
MG------“It reasoned that if the timing, number and location of the
shooters, as shown on the tape, were corroborated or independently substantiated in
whole or in part by other scientific or physical evidence--that is, the Zapruder film,
findings of the forensic pathology and firearms panels, the neutron activation analysis
and the trajectory analysis-”=== “Conversely, any fundamental inconsistency in the
evidence would undermine the analysis and the authenticity of the tape.”
There were inconsistencies in the evidence for the dictabelt and it does undermine the authenticity in the tape. Especially because the inconsistencies were provided by the author of the paper--- M Griffith
Not only did you provide the inconsistencies. In fact, you clearly your belief in stated SBT with “that two shots struck the occupants.”
MG--- 2022
+ ”This aspect of the analysis was corroborated or independently
substantiated by three cartridge cases found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book
Depository on November 22, 1963, cartridge cases that had been fired in Oswald”
MG 9/30/25---"Yes, CE 543, the dented shell, could not have been used to fire a bullet on 11/22/63,"
+ “The Zapruder film contains visual evidence that two shots struck the
occupants of the Presidential limousine.(98)
+ “McLain said that he had been riding to the left rear of Vice
President Johnson's car and that just as he was completing his turn from Main onto
Houston Street, he heard what he believed to have been two shots.(67”
MG 9/30/25
“Yes, CE 543, the dented shell, could not have been used to fire a bullet on 11/22/63, but this does not prove that only two shots were fired during the assassination.”
---------------
How in the world do you get only two shots?
That is the belief of your poster boy for your dictabelt tripe, DPD McLain himself states in his interview on September 26, 1977,
“McLain said that he had been riding to the left rear of Vice
President Johnson's car and that just as he was completing his turn from Main onto
Houston Street, he heard what he believed to have been two shots.(67”
Actually, the fact there was only two shots is written into a lot of your papers. You just don’t pay attention to what you are writing.
-
You offer as proof your own personal opinion? Nice. Except it is full of the usual contradictions.
Michael Griffith author of The HSCA's Acoustical Evidence: Proof of a Second Gunman
“Conversely, any fundamental inconsistency in the
evidence would undermine the analysis and the authenticity of the tape.”
MG------“It reasoned that if the timing, number and location of the
shooters, as shown on the tape, were corroborated or independently substantiated in
whole or in part by other scientific or physical evidence--that is, the Zapruder film,
findings of the forensic pathology and firearms panels, the neutron activation analysis
and the trajectory analysis-”=== “Conversely, any fundamental inconsistency in the
evidence would undermine the analysis and the authenticity of the tape.”
There were inconsistencies in the evidence for the dictabelt and it does undermine the authenticity in the tape. Especially because the inconsistencies were provided by the author of the paper--- M Griffith
Not only did you provide the inconsistencies. In fact, you clearly your belief in stated SBT with “that two shots struck the occupants.”
MG--- 2022
+ ”This aspect of the analysis was corroborated or independently
substantiated by three cartridge cases found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book
Depository on November 22, 1963, cartridge cases that had been fired in Oswald”
MG 9/30/25---"Yes, CE 543, the dented shell, could not have been used to fire a bullet on 11/22/63,"
+ “The Zapruder film contains visual evidence that two shots struck the
occupants of the Presidential limousine.(98)
+ “McLain said that he had been riding to the left rear of Vice
President Johnson's car and that just as he was completing his turn from Main onto
Houston Street, he heard what he believed to have been two shots.(67”
MG 9/30/25
“Yes, CE 543, the dented shell, could not have been used to fire a bullet on 11/22/63, but this does not prove that only two shots were fired during the assassination.”
---------------
How in the world do you get only two shots?
That is the belief of your poster boy for your dictabelt tripe, DPD McLain himself states in his interview on September 26, 1977,
“McLain said that he had been riding to the left rear of Vice
President Johnson's car and that just as he was completing his turn from Main onto
Houston Street, he heard what he believed to have been two shots.(67”
Actually, the fact there was only two shots is written into a lot of your papers. You just don’t pay attention to what you are writing.
Oh, boy. I'm not going to waste any more time on this two-shots-only nonsense. I'll just note two things:
One, you are part of a very tiny minority of people who believe only two shots were fired during the assassination. Every leading lone-gunman theorist rejects your two-shots scenario.
Two, I notice you said nothing about the Tague bullet-hole-in-curb-and-cheek-cut miss, the Aldredge curb-scar miss, the manhole-cover-grass miss, the pavement-strike-near-limo miss, the misshapen bullet found in the limousine that was handled by Dr. James Young and Chief Mills, and the six shot reactions in the Zapruder film.
-
Oh, boy. I'm not going to waste any more time on this two-shots-only nonsense. I'll just note two things:
One, you are part of a very tiny minority of people who believe only two shots were fired during the assassination. Every leading lone-gunman theorist rejects your two-shots scenario.
Two, I notice you said nothing about the Tague bullet-hole-in-curb-and-cheek-cut miss, the Aldredge curb-scar miss, the manhole-cover-grass miss, the pavement-strike-near-limo miss, the misshapen bullet found in the limousine that was handled by Dr. James Young and Chief Mills, and the six shot reactions in the Zapruder film.
Oh, boy. I'm not going to waste any more time on this two-shots-only nonsense. I'll just note two things:
You are not wasting your time. You have been proving the point that you have no idea what happened and are clearly wrong.
It does not bother me at all. I do not care what you do. I know the answer. To me your thinking is as low browed and childlike as there is. You simply aren’t clever enough to clue in.
What is and has been missing from your posts is the proof of a third shot. Just like an Ostrich stick your head in a hole and pretend no one can see what a fraud all of your papers and posts really are.
One, you are part of a very tiny minority of people who believe only two shots were fired during the assassination. Every leading lone-gunman theorist rejects your two-shots scenario.
I could care less what everyone else thinks. I would think by now that is obvious. Three shots as an answer has never explained in any way what happened, both as lone gunman and as a conspiracy. It does not work. Nobody wants to actually know the answer it is more interesting to just discuss it. The answer ends it all.
It doesn’t mean it is wrong, it only means you aren’t clever enough to see the obvious. Already you have forgotten most CTs believe in three shots also. You mean for two shots and a shot you cannot prove or even identify. Like you pretending there are three shots is way easier than proving a third shot.
Two, I notice you said nothing about the Tague bullet-hole-in-curb-and-cheek-cut miss, the Aldredge curb-scar miss, the manhole-cover-grass miss, the pavement-strike-near-limo miss, the misshapen bullet found in the limousine that was handled by Dr. James Young and Chief Mills, and the six shot reactions in the Zapruder film.
What a bunch of tripe. I would think you would be embarrassed to trot this nonsense out as if it was real. Eyewitness statements show each and everyone of those theories to be nothing but fantasy.
-
What is and has been missing from your posts is the proof of a third shot.
There is plenty of evidence that three shots were fired. What is missing is the kind of evidence that you find persuasive.
You obviously don't think that the three men on the fifth floor immediately below the SN provide credible evidence of three shots from directly above them. You don't think that the three shells found on the floor or Harold Norman's evidence that he heard three shots, three bolt action sounds and three shells hit the floor is credible. You think that the 132 people who recalled three distinct shots are unreliable but the 17 who recalled just two are much more reliable. You think that the Connallys, who insisted that JBC was hit by the second shot followed by a third that sprayed the car with blood and brain matter were hallucinating. Etc.
-
Michael Griffith believing the Dictabelt evidence proves more than three shots should tell you everything you need to know. It has been proven for decades that the motorcycle policeman with his mic stuck open was nowhere near Dealey Plaza during the assassination.
-
There is plenty of evidence that three shots were fired. What is missing is the kind of evidence that you find persuasive.
You obviously don't think that the three men on the fifth floor immediately below the SN provide credible evidence of three shots from directly above them. You don't think that the three shells found on the floor or Harold Norman's evidence that he heard three shots, three bolt action sounds and three shells hit the floor is credible. You think that the 132 people who recalled three distinct shots are unreliable but the 17 who recalled just two are much more reliable. You think that the Connallys, who insisted that JBC was hit by the second shot followed by a third that sprayed the car with blood and brain matter were hallucinating. Etc.
There is plenty of evidence that three shots were fired. What is missing is the kind of evidence that you find persuasive.
Huh? There is no evidence of a third shot and you have repeatedly failed to provide proof of a third shot. You would think that would be a clue, but you have dramatically shown you are incapable of figuring it out. The fact you bring this up and in these words is all telling about your inability to provide evidence of any kind.
You obviously don't think that the three men on the fifth floor immediately below the SN provide credible evidence of three shots from directly above them.
Not of three shots but definitely there were only two shots. Two of the three are two shot witnesses, Williams two shots in Sheriffs Affidavit, Jarmin second shot was the headshot, both provided statements of just two shots. Norman waited 3 or 4 days before giving a statement. You know Media’s Influence. The different panels stated it.
You don't think that the three shells found on the floor or Harold Norman's evidence that he heard three shots, three bolt action sounds and three shells hit the floor is credible. You think that the 132 people who recalled three distinct shots are unreliable but the 17 who recalled just two are much more reliable.
Three shells mean nothing. In light of Thompson’s observation, they now mean less than nothing.
Your witness analysis, especially BRW, Jarmin, and Norman is as hokey as your theory.
You think that the Connallys, who insisted that JBC was hit by the second shot followed by a third that sprayed the car with blood and brain matter were hallucinating. Etc.
This is new. You are alternately stating JBC was and was not hit by the first bullet. What is this the 10th variation of this weird theory.
AM “The simplest explanation for CE399 is that it caused JFK's neck wound and one of JBC's wounds. CE399's condition is inconsistent with the missile that caused the back and wrist wounds. It has one dent in its base. That is consistent with having struck the femur base-first. We don't have enough evidence to determine what it did after that. All we know is that it ended up on a stretcher in Parkland.”
We have been over the Connolly’s statements endlessly. You admitted he was hit by the first shot because Jackie and Nellie both stated he was cried out after the first shot. JBC himself only heard two shots. In your bizarre theory you have him being struck by the first shot having passed through JFK, but that was meaningless, I guess.
-
There is plenty of evidence that three shots were fired. What is missing is the kind of evidence that you find persuasive.
Huh? There is no evidence of a third shot and you have repeatedly failed to provide proof of a third shot. You would think that would be a clue, but you have dramatically shown you are incapable of figuring it out. The fact you bring this up and in these words is all telling about your inability to provide evidence of any kind.
You don't seem to understand that 132 people stating that they heard three distinct shots is evidence of three shots. Just because you don't think they are accurate or reliable doesn't affect the fact that it is evidence.
You obviously don't think that the three men on the fifth floor immediately below the SN provide credible evidence of three shots from directly above them.
Not of three shots but definitely there were only two shots. Two of the three are two shot witnesses, Williams two shots in Sheriffs Affidavit, Jarmin second shot was the headshot, both provided statements of just two shots. Norman waited 3 or 4 days before giving a statement. You know Media’s Influence. The different panels stated it.
You don't think that the three shells found on the floor or Harold Norman's evidence that he heard three shots, three bolt action sounds and three shells hit the floor is credible. You think that the 132 people who recalled three distinct shots are unreliable but the 17 who recalled just two are much more reliable.
Three shells mean nothing. In light of Thompson’s observation, they now mean less than nothing.
Your witness analysis, especially BRW, Jarmin, and Norman is as hokey as your theory.
Again, you are simply making my point. The witnesses gave evidence that there were three shots. Your suggestion that they really meant they heard only two does not change the fact that they all stated that they heard three shots, so it is evidence that three shots occurred. You just don't attribute any weight to the evidence.
You think that the Connallys, who insisted that JBC was hit by the second shot followed by a third that sprayed the car with blood and brain matter were hallucinating. Etc.
This is new. You are alternately stating JBC was and was not hit by the first bullet. What is this the 10th variation of this weird theory.
I am saying that the Connallys stated that JBC was hit by the second shot. This does not necessarily mean that he was only hit by the second shot because he never felt the thigh wound or the wrist wound.
AM “The simplest explanation for CE399 is that it caused JFK's neck wound and one of JBC's wounds. CE399's condition is inconsistent with the missile that caused the back and wrist wounds. It has one dent in its base. That is consistent with having struck the femur base-first. We don't have enough evidence to determine what it did after that. All we know is that it ended up on a stretcher in Parkland.”
We have been over the Connolly’s statements endlessly. You admitted he was hit by the first shot because Jackie and Nellie both stated he was cried out after the first shot. JBC himself only heard two shots. In your bizarre theory you have him being struck by the first shot having passed through JFK, but that was meaningless, I guess.
JBC yelling "oh, no, no" was not necessarily in response to being hit. Nellie said that he uttered this after the first shot and before the second shot. JBC himself was not entirely sure if it was before or after the second shot but stated that he uttered it not because he was hit but because he realized that a tragic assassination was unfolding (1 HSCA 43). In Life Magazine, Nov. 25/66 Connally stated:
- “Between the time I heard the first shot and felt the impact of the other bullet that obviously hit me, I sensed something was wrong, and said, ‘Oh no, no, no.’ After I felt the impact I glanced down and saw that my whole chest was covered with blood.”
Since he did not feel the thigh wound (and that is not uncommon especially when wounded in an extremity), and since a straight line trajectory through JFK's neck at the time of the first shot just after z186 goes to JBC's left side, I suggest that the first shot could have caused JBC's thigh wound.
-
There is plenty of evidence that three shots were fired. What is missing is the kind of evidence that you find persuasive.
Huh? There is no evidence of a third shot and you have repeatedly failed to provide proof of a third shot. You would think that would be a clue, but you have dramatically shown you are incapable of figuring it out. The fact you bring this up and in these words is all telling about your inability to provide evidence of any kind.
You obviously don't think that the three men on the fifth floor immediately below the SN provide credible evidence of three shots from directly above them.
Not of three shots but definitely there were only two shots. Two of the three are two shot witnesses, Williams two shots in Sheriffs Affidavit, Jarmin second shot was the headshot, both provided statements of just two shots. Norman waited 3 or 4 days before giving a statement. You know Media’s Influence. The different panels stated it.
You don't think that the three shells found on the floor or Harold Norman's evidence that he heard three shots, three bolt action sounds and three shells hit the floor is credible. You think that the 132 people who recalled three distinct shots are unreliable but the 17 who recalled just two are much more reliable.
Three shells mean nothing. In light of Thompson’s observation, they now mean less than nothing.
Your witness analysis, especially BRW, Jarmin, and Norman is as hokey as your theory.
You think that the Connallys, who insisted that JBC was hit by the second shot followed by a third that sprayed the car with blood and brain matter were hallucinating. Etc.
This is new. You are alternately stating JBC was and was not hit by the first bullet. What is this the 10th variation of this weird theory.
AM “The simplest explanation for CE399 is that it caused JFK's neck wound and one of JBC's wounds. CE399's condition is inconsistent with the missile that caused the back and wrist wounds. It has one dent in its base. That is consistent with having struck the femur base-first. We don't have enough evidence to determine what it did after that. All we know is that it ended up on a stretcher in Parkland.”
We have been over the Connolly’s statements endlessly. You admitted he was hit by the first shot because Jackie and Nellie both stated he was cried out after the first shot. JBC himself only heard two shots. In your bizarre theory you have him being struck by the first shot having passed through JFK, but that was meaningless, I guess.
I'm not going to waste time responding to most of your nonsensical, erroneous reply. I will just point out one thing: I have never "admitted" that Connally was hit by the first shot. I would never make such a ridiculous claim.
Connally said that he heard the first shot and then turned around to see if JFK was okay, and that he was only hit after he was in the process of making a second turn.
You keep ignoring the fact that Connally insisted he was not hit before Z231, and that when he was asked about Z228 and the frames immediately preceding it, he said there was no doubt whatsoever that he was not yet hit by Z228.
I take it you're never going to address the physical evidence discussed in my article, which is the subject of this thread. Let me refresh your memory:
The motorcade photos that show JFK's tie knot prove that the knot was centered squarely in the middle of the collar band, and the evidence photos of the tie knot prove the nick on the knot was not on the knot's edge, which facts prove there is no way that a bullet exiting the shirt slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot or could have nicked the outer surface of the tie knot.
The evidence photos of the holes in the back of JFK's shirt and coat prove the back wound was far too low for the bullet to have exited the throat. The rear clothing holes place the wound in the same location specified in the certified death certificate, in the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified'), and in the Sibert and O'Neill HSCA wound diagrams. The autopsy photo of the back wound proves the wound was at least 1 inch lower than where the WC bogusly placed it, as you can see in my article.
JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view
-
So was the “ hole” in the throat of JFK above the tie knot or not?
Myttons diagram looks like the SBT trajectory would have the hole in JFKs throat be at or below the tie knot so this seems to me to be confirming that a bullet exiting the throat had a fair probability of going thru the tie knot if the knot was exactly centered with the bullet hole.
But if the bullet went slightly to one side of the knot, or just above it, or just below it, IDK if the fabric gets torn, clipped or whatever because I have not actually seen a demonstration with a dummy yet.
Was the Knick in the Tie knot caused by the nurse or someone else with a scalpel?
I’m skeptical that the Knick could have been caused by a bullet exiting JFKs throat, but I’m equally skeptical it could have been caused by a bullet entering the throat.
From the footage of Charlie Kirk’s neck wound (I could barely watch because it’s very horrible) the blood immediately was gushing out of the neck.
But I cannot quite see this same blood gush effect from JFKs throat in Z film frames so is this an anomaly or is it because JFKs throat wound did not hit an artery or vein?
-
Was the nick in the tie knot caused by the nurse or someone else with a scalpel?
They were out of scalpels that day, so they had to use machetes.
-
I'm not going to waste time responding to most of your nonsensical, erroneous reply. I will just point out one thing: I have never "admitted" that Connally was hit by the first shot. I would never make such a ridiculous claim.
Connally said that he heard the first shot and then turned around to see if JFK was okay, and that he was only hit after he was in the process of making a second turn.
You keep ignoring the fact that Connally insisted he was not hit before Z231, and that when he was asked about Z228 and the frames immediately preceding it, he said there was no doubt whatsoever that he was not yet hit by Z228.
I take it you're never going to address the physical evidence discussed in my article, which is the subject of this thread. Let me refresh your memory:
The motorcade photos that show JFK's tie knot prove that the knot was centered squarely in the middle of the collar band, and the evidence photos of the tie knot prove the nick on the knot was not on the knot's edge, which facts prove there is no way that a bullet exiting the shirt slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot or could have nicked the outer surface of the tie knot.
The evidence photos of the holes in the back of JFK's shirt and coat prove the back wound was far too low for the bullet to have exited the throat. The rear clothing holes place the wound in the same location specified in the certified death certificate, in the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified'), and in the Sibert and O'Neill HSCA wound diagrams. The autopsy photo of the back wound proves the wound was at least 1 inch lower than where the WC bogusly placed it, as you can see in my article.
JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view
M Giffith:
"I'm not going to waste time responding to most of your nonsensical, erroneous reply. I will just point out one thing: I have never "admitted" that Connally was hit by the first shot. I would never make such a ridiculous claim."
"Connally said that he heard the first shot and then turned around to see if JFK was okay, and that he was only hit after he was in the process of making a second turn."
Oh, but you already have admitted to it. Maybe you did not want to but there is no other conclusion that can be drawn when you realize you stated only two shots came from LHO, and all the occupants of the car refer to the second shot as the headshot and the car accelerated or JBC cried out after being struck by the first shot.
M Griffith--“Yes, CE 543, the dented shell, could not have been used to fire a bullet on 11/22/63, but this does not prove that only two shots were fired during the assassination.”
You can pretend all you want, but these statements from the other occupants explain the actual shooting. Unfortunately JBC’s recollection comes up short.
Governor CONNALLY.... “I immediately, when I was hit, I said, "Oh, no, no, no." And then I said, "My God, they are going to kill us all." Nellie, when she pulled me over into her lap----”
Mr. RANKIN. Yes; if you would, please.
Mrs. KENNEDY. You know, there is always noise in a motorcade and there are always motorcycles, besides us, a lot of them backfiring. So I was looking to the left. I guess there was a noise, but it didn't seem like any different noise really because there is so much noise, motorcycles and things. But then suddenly Governor Connally was yelling, "Oh, no, no, no."
Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any recollection of whether there were one or more shots?
Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, there must have been two because the one that made me turn around was Governor Connally yelling. And it used to confuse me because first I remembered there were three and I used to think my husband didn't make any sound when he was shot. And Governor Connally screamed. And then I read the other day that it was the same shot that hit them both. But I used to think if I only had been looking to the right I would have seen the first shot hit him, then I could have pulled him down, and then the second shot would not have hit him. But I heard Governor Connally yelling and that made me turn around, and as I turned to the right my husband was doing this [indicating with hand at neck]. He was receiving a bullet. And those are the only two I remember.
And I read there was a third shot. But I don't know. Just those two.
Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes; and it seemed to me there was--he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down.
Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John. As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I recall John saying, "Oh, no, no, no." Then there was a second shot, and it hit John, and as he recoiled to the right, just crumpled like a wounded animal to the right, he said, "My God, they are going to kill us all."
Mr. KELLERMAN. Our car accelerated immediately on the time-at the time--this flurry of shots came into it.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you say the acceleration--
Mr. KELLERMAN. Between the second and third shot.
Senator COOPER. Might I ask a question there?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
Senator COOPER. A few minutes ago you said in response to a question that when you spoke to the driver the car leaped forward from an acceleration immediately. Did that acceleration occur before the second shot was fired?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir. Just about the time that it came in.
Senator COOPER. About the time it came in?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER. Not before?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No.
Representative BOGGS. Did you speed up after you heard the first shot?
Mr. GREER. After I heard the second. The first one didn't sink into me, didn't give me the thought that it was a shot. I thought it was the backfire of a motorcycle. But when I heard the second one and glanced over my shoulder, I knew something was wrong then. I didn't know how bad anyone was injured or anything, but I knew there was something wrong, and right away after the second one I accelerated as fast as I could.
Representative BOGGS. And after the first shot, did he say to speed up or what?
Mr. GREER. I believe it was at the second that he and I both simultaneously--he said, "Get out of here fast," and I speeded up as fast as I could then and as fast as the car would go.
What would be the point of reading your biased opinion when it is based on faulty information?
-
You don't seem to understand that 132 people stating that they heard three distinct shots is evidence of three shots. Just because you don't think they are accurate or reliable doesn't affect the fact that it is evidence.
Again, you are simply making my point. The witnesses gave evidence that there were three shots. Your suggestion that they really meant they heard only two does not change the fact that they all stated that they heard three shots, so it is evidence that three shots occurred. You just don't attribute any weight to the evidence.
I am saying that the Connallys stated that JBC was hit by the second shot. This does not necessarily mean that he was only hit by the second shot because he never felt the thigh wound or the wrist wound.JBC yelling "oh, no, no" was not necessarily in response to being hit. Nellie said that he uttered this after the first shot and before the second shot. JBC himself was not entirely sure if it was before or after the second shot but stated that he uttered it not because he was hit but because he realized that a tragic assassination was unfolding (1 HSCA 43). In Life Magazine, Nov. 25/66 Connally stated:
- “Between the time I heard the first shot and felt the impact of the other bullet that obviously hit me, I sensed something was wrong, and said, ‘Oh no, no, no.’ After I felt the impact I glanced down and saw that my whole chest was covered with blood.”
Since he did not feel the thigh wound (and that is not uncommon especially when wounded in an extremity), and since a straight line trajectory through JFK's neck at the time of the first shot just after z186 goes to JBC's left side, I suggest that the first shot could have caused JBC's thigh wound.
You don't seem to understand that 132 people stating that they heard three distinct shots is evidence of three shots. Just because you don't think they are accurate or reliable doesn't affect the fact that it is evidence.
How is it evidence?
Again, you are simply making my point. The witnesses gave evidence that there were three shots. Your suggestion that they really meant they heard only two does not change the fact that they all stated that they heard three shots, so it is evidence that three shots occurred. You just don't attribute any weight to the evidence.
You have no point and no evidence, just pretending this is evidence, nothing more. If you had real evidence, you would present it.
I do not see the difference between you and M Griffith. Maybe you can explain what the difference is.
I am saying that the Connallys stated that JBC was hit by the second shot. This does not necessarily mean that he was only hit by the second shot because he never felt the thigh wound or the wrist wound.
Huh. So, you are now saying he was struck by the first shot in the back and leg. I think this is progress. I have seen so many odd versions of this it is hard to say.
What you are really stating is you really have no idea what is going on. You have officially run out of this weird and bizarre nonsense. This is nothing more than the crap tank running on empty. Really you decide when a person feels being shot. This version of your story has finally gone completely off the rails; it is one of your best.
A Mason:
JBC yelling "oh, no, no" was not necessarily in response to being hit. Nellie said that he uttered this after the first shot and before the second shot. [/b]
Wrong, it was entirely in response to having been shot.
Since he did not feel the thigh wound (and that is not uncommon especially when wounded in an extremity), and since a straight line trajectory through JFK's neck at the time of the first shot just after z186 goes to JBC's left side, I suggest that the first shot could have caused JBC's thigh wound.
Suggest it all you want; this is beyond ridiculous to even post this.
JBC could not have been more clear as to when he was hit. JBC crying out Oh No No No was solely in response to him having been hit. Jackie and Nellie identify it as having been from the first shot.
Governor CONNALLY.... “I immediately, when I was hit, I said, "Oh, no, no, no." And then I said, "My God, they are going to kill us all." Nellie, when she pulled me over into her lap----”
-
You don't seem to understand that 132 people stating that they heard three distinct shots is evidence of three shots. Just because you don't think they are accurate or reliable doesn't affect the fact that it is evidence.
How is it evidence?
Again, you are simply making my point. The witnesses gave evidence that there were three shots. Your suggestion that they really meant they heard only two does not change the fact that they all stated that they heard three shots, so it is evidence that three shots occurred. You just don't attribute any weight to the evidence.
You have no point and no evidence, just pretending this is evidence, nothing more. If you had real evidence, you would present it.
I do not see the difference between you and M Griffith. Maybe you can explain what the difference is.
I am saying that the Connallys stated that JBC was hit by the second shot. This does not necessarily mean that he was only hit by the second shot because he never felt the thigh wound or the wrist wound.
Huh. So, you are now saying he was struck by the first shot in the back and leg. I think this is progress. I have seen so many odd versions of this it is hard to say.
What you are really stating is you really have no idea what is going on. You have officially run out of this weird and bizarre nonsense. This is nothing more than the crap tank running on empty. Really you decide when a person feels being shot. This version of your story has finally gone completely off the rails; it is one of your best.
A Mason:
JBC yelling "oh, no, no" was not necessarily in response to being hit. Nellie said that he uttered this after the first shot and before the second shot. [/b]
Wrong, it was entirely in response to having been shot.
Since he did not feel the thigh wound (and that is not uncommon especially when wounded in an extremity), and since a straight line trajectory through JFK's neck at the time of the first shot just after z186 goes to JBC's left side, I suggest that the first shot could have caused JBC's thigh wound.
Suggest it all you want; this is beyond ridiculous to even post this.
JBC could not have been more clear as to when he was hit. JBC crying out Oh No No No was solely in response to him having been hit. Jackie and Nellie identify it as having been from the first shot.
Governor CONNALLY.... “I immediately, when I was hit, I said, "Oh, no, no, no." And then I said, "My God, they are going to kill us all." Nellie, when she pulled me over into her lap----”
You guys need to realize that having heard Oswald's first missing-everything shot about two seconds earlier (at hypothetical "Z-124"), JBC consciously reacted to it by starting to turn to his right at Z-165, hoping to catch a glimpse of JFK over his right shoulder.
By the time he'd turned far enough to do so, however, JFK had raised his right hand to wave to somebody and had turned his head to his far right, thereby preventing JBC from "seeing" him.
Still wondering if JFK was okay, JBC started turning back to his left to try to catch a glimpse of him over his left shoulder but got less than halfway there when JFK and he were hit by Oswald's second bullet, CE-399.
Bottom line: CE-399, at some point between Z-222 and Z-224, caused seven wounds to the two men and ended up being temporarily embedded in JBC's right thigh.
https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
-
You guys need to realize that. . . . Still wondering if JFK was okay, JBC started turning back to his left to try to catch a glimpse of him over his left shoulder but only got halfway there when he and JFK were both hit by Oswald's second bullet, CE-399. CE-399, at some point between Z-222 and Z-224, caused seven wounds in the two men and ended up being temporarily embedded in JBC's right thigh.
Repeating a debunked myth won't make it come true. I have answered every one of these arguments, several times, yet you keep repeating them while ignoring the facts that contradict them. It is an endless a merry-go-around with you people and your cult-like mentality toward evidence you can't explain.
Did you somehow forget that the subject of this thread is the fact that JFK's clothing proves the SBT is impossible? Did you somehow miss the fact that the motorcade photos prove that JFK's tie knot was neatly centered between the collar band, which proves that no bullet could have exited the slits without tearing through the tie, and that the evidence photos of the tie knot prove the nick was not on the knot's edge, and that the evidence photos of the tie prove there was no hole through the tie? Did you somehow miss all this?
Here are some of the facts I've repeatedly pointed out to you that you continue to ignore:
-- Connally himself said he was not hit before Z231, and he categorically ruled out the idea that he was reacting to a wound in Z228. But, gee, what did he know, right? After all, he was merely the guy who actually experienced the wounding!
-- Connally said the bullet's impact felt like he was hit hard with a doubled fist, which is exactly what we see in Z238-242, which dovetails perfectly with Connally's selection of Z234 as the moment of impact. This means the bullet's impact only took four frames, or 1/4th of a second, to slam down Connally's right shoulder, dishevel his hair, and cause a pained look to come over his face. Your zany theory has these reactions taking four times longer to occur.
-- Two of your side's wound ballistics experts have admitted that JFK's Z225 reaction proves he must have been hit no later than Z221.
-- The HSCA photographic experts determined that JFK was hit just before Z190 and that he starts to react to the wound in right around Z200--and that Jackie starts to notice his reaction shortly thereafter, long before Z224. We now know that even the WC's experts detected signs of wound reaction in JFK's movements at right around Z200, as did Olson and Turner in the Journal of Forensic Science.
I notice you didn't mention the Z224 lapel flip. Is this because you realize that lapels cannot flip up and down in 1/18th of a second, and that the lapel flip is simply an optical illusion caused by reflected light?
-
You don't seem to understand that 132 people stating that they heard three distinct shots is evidence of three shots. Just because you don't think they are accurate or reliable doesn't affect the fact that it is evidence.
How is it evidence?
Do you not consider the sworn testimony before the WC to be evidence? How about the sworn statements of people in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shots? The HSCA compiled the statements of 178 people and 132 said there were 3 shots. If you don't think that is all evidence perhaps you should give us your definition of "evidence".
You have no point and no evidence, just pretending this is evidence, nothing more. If you had real evidence, you would present it.
I have. You just don't think it is reliable.
I do not see the difference between you and M Griffith. Maybe you can explain what the difference is.
I accept the conclusion that Oswald fired all three shots and that there is no persuasive evidence that anyone else was involved. As I understand his position, Mr. Griffith does not.
I am saying that the Connallys stated that JBC was hit by the second shot. This does not necessarily mean that he was only hit by the second shot because he never felt the thigh wound or the wrist wound.
Huh. So, you are now saying he was struck by the first shot in the back and leg. I think this is progress. I have seen so many odd versions of this it is hard to say.
Perhaps reading/comprehension is not your forte. I said that JFK was struck on the first shot and the bullet trajectory was to JBC's left side after it exited JFK's neck. There was no damage to the car, but there was damage to JBC on his left side. I don't see any reason why the bullet could not have caused JBC's left thigh wound with JBC turned to the right as he was prior to disappearing behind the Stemmons sign. The characteristics of the wound are consistent with being struck by the butt-end of CE399.
JBC yelling "oh, no, no" was not necessarily in response to being hit. Nellie said that he uttered this after the first shot and before the second shot. [/b]
Wrong, it was entirely in response to having been shot.
So where does JBC turn around before being hit in response to hearing the first shot? Or was that just another Connally hallucination?
JBC could not have been more clear as to when he was hit. JBC crying out Oh No No No was solely in response to him having been hit. Jackie and Nellie identify it as having been from the first shot.
Governor CONNALLY.... “I immediately, when I was hit, I said, "Oh, no, no, no." And then I said, "My God, they are going to kill us all." Nellie, when she pulled me over into her lap----”
If he was so confident, why was he not sure when he testified before the HSCA? And why, in 1966, did he think he said it before he was hit? And does Nellie's unequivocal, consistent statements that he uttered it before the second shot not deserve consideration?
-
Do you not consider the sworn testimony before the WC to be evidence? How about the sworn statements of people in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shots? The HSCA compiled the statements of 178 people and 132 said there were 3 shots. If you don't think that is all evidence perhaps you should give us your definition of "evidence".
I have. You just don't think it is reliable.
I accept the conclusion that Oswald fired all three shots and that there is no persuasive evidence that anyone else was involved. As I understand his position, Mr. Griffith does not.
Perhaps reading/comprehension is not your forte. I said that JFK was struck on the first shot and the bullet trajectory was to JBC's left side after it exited JFK's neck. There was no damage to the car, but there was damage to JBC on his left side. I don't see any reason why the bullet could not have caused JBC's left thigh wound with JBC turned to the right as he was prior to disappearing behind the Stemmons sign. The characteristics of the wound are consistent with being struck by the butt-end of CE399.
So where does JBC turn around before being hit in response to hearing the first shot? Or was that just another Connally hallucination?
If he was so confident, why was he not sure when he testified before the HSCA? And why, in 1966, did he think he said it before he was hit? And does Nellie's unequivocal, consistent statements that he uttered it before the second shot not deserve consideration?
What a sad exercise in futility and self-delusion. You're both still ignoring the fact that the hard physical evidence of JFK's clothing proves the SBT is impossible. The photos of the clothing prove that no bullet could have exited the shirt slits without tearing through the tie knot, nor could any such bullet have magically weaved around the body of the knot to nick the outer surface of the knot inward from the knot's left edge. Not on this planet.
Dealing with SBT defenders is literally just about the same as dealing with Flat Earthers, 9/11 Truthers, and Moon-landing deniers.
-
Do you not consider the sworn testimony before the WC to be evidence? How about the sworn statements of people in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shots? The HSCA compiled the statements of 178 people and 132 said there were 3 shots. If you don't think that is all evidence perhaps you should give us your definition of "evidence".
I have. You just don't think it is reliable.
I accept the conclusion that Oswald fired all three shots and that there is no persuasive evidence that anyone else was involved. As I understand his position, Mr. Griffith does not.
Perhaps reading/comprehension is not your forte. I said that JFK was struck on the first shot and the bullet trajectory was to JBC's left side after it exited JFK's neck. There was no damage to the car, but there was damage to JBC on his left side. I don't see any reason why the bullet could not have caused JBC's left thigh wound with JBC turned to the right as he was prior to disappearing behind the Stemmons sign. The characteristics of the wound are consistent with being struck by the butt-end of CE399.
So where does JBC turn around before being hit in response to hearing the first shot? Or was that just another Connally hallucination?
If he was so confident, why was he not sure when he testified before the HSCA? And why, in 1966, did he think he said it before he was hit? And does Nellie's unequivocal, consistent statements that he uttered it before the second shot not deserve consideration?
First, let’s evaluate and examine all of the flaws in your theory.
A bullet exited JFK's neck at 1700 fps and entered JBC's thigh and did no damage to the femur.
A bullet exited JBC's wrist backwards and disappeared.
Where is the third bullet? By this theory there should have been two bullets in JBC’s thigh.
LHO only fired twice. Where is the other shooter located?
Why does your first shot conflict with eyewitness statements?
Why does your theory conflict with 70+ eyewitness statements.
Why did the FBI refuse to ask the 80 TSBD employees in March of 1964 about their recollection of the shooting, but their testimonies are part of your HSCA compilation of witness statements.
Do you not consider the sworn testimony before the WC to be evidence? How about the sworn statements of people in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shots? The HSCA compiled the statements of 178 people and 132 said there were 3 shots. If you don't think that is all evidence perhaps you should give us your definition of "evidence".
The HSCA witness compilation is worthless. Totally ignored early statements. I can think of three different compiled statements of the witnesses and they are all different. You have chosen one group over a different group in a suspect evaluation of when the witnesses stated what with no parameters and are now calling it evidence. A lot of people gave sworn testimonies. What did the eyewitness state?
You do not accept the sworn testimonies of the eyewitnesses as to when the first shot was fired, because you have decided your interpretation is better.
I have. You just don't think it is reliable.
No you have not presented anything as evidence. Your opinion is not evidence.
I accept the conclusion that Oswald fired all three shots and that there is no persuasive evidence that anyone else was involved. As I understand his position, Mr. Griffith does not.
No, there is no persuasive evidence of there ever having been a third shot. You both are exactly the same.
Perhaps reading/comprehension is not your forte. I said that JFK was struck on the first shot and the bullet trajectory was to JBC's left side after it exited JFK's neck. There was no damage to the car, but there was damage to JBC on his left side. I don't see any reason why the bullet could not have caused JBC's left thigh wound with JBC turned to the right as he was prior to disappearing behind the Stemmons sign. The characteristics of the wound are consistent with being struck by the butt-end of CE399.
Perhaps it is not. Holding your hand and walking you through it time and time again seems to be the order of the day.
You are practicing self-disillusionment instead of simple reasoning. Where is the other bullet?
There are two huge problems with this scenario. An exit wound from the wrist that is the diameter of the bullet. No damage to the femur from a bullet that would have been traveling at a speed of 1700FPS and ends up striking butt first.
The thigh wound was consistent with a bullet that had nearly run out of energy, not one still traveling at 1700FPS.
At the risk of being dumbfounded by the answer, what happened to the other bullet if it ends up striking JBC’s wrist and exits butt first leaving a small round hole. Where there two bullets in JBC’s thigh?
The butt of the bullet hit his wrist and his thigh. The thigh wound was low velocity or there would have been more damage to the femur.
So where does JBC turn around before being hit in response to hearing the first shot? Or was that just another Connally hallucination?
Which statement? The one where he first turned to the right or the one where he first turned to the left.
He stated it was in response to having been hit. Would it help to post it again for you?
If he was so confident, why was he not sure when he testified before the HSCA? And why, in 1966, did he think he said it before he was hit? And does Nellie's unequivocal, consistent statements that he uttered it before the second shot not deserve consideration
No, he was all over the board as time wore on. Cherry picking later statements is your legacy.
Not only Nellie but Jackie stated the same thing. JBC cried out after the first shot and before the second.
This has been explained to you 100 times. Are you hoping this time Jackie and Nelly changed their mind.
-
What a sad exercise in futility and self-delusion. You're both still ignoring the fact that the hard physical evidence of JFK's clothing proves the SBT is impossible. The photos of the clothing prove that no bullet could have exited the shirt slits without tearing through the tie knot, nor could any such bullet have magically weaved around the body of the knot to nick the outer surface of the knot inward from the knot's left edge. Not on this planet.
Dealing with SBT defenders is literally just about the same as dealing with Flat Earthers, 9/11 Truthers, and Moon-landing deniers.
But practicing self-disillusionment as a JFKA conspiracy nut is somehow better and different.
-
What a sad exercise in futility and self-delusion. You're both still ignoring the fact that the hard physical evidence of JFK's clothing proves the SBT is impossible. The photos of the clothing prove that no bullet could have exited the shirt slits without tearing through the tie knot, nor could any such bullet have magically weaved around the body of the knot to nick the outer surface of the knot inward from the knot's left edge. Not on this planet.
Dealing with SBT defenders is literally just about the same as dealing with Flat Earthers, 9/11 Truthers, and Moon-landing deniers.
I am not defending the SBT. A shot through JFK's neck and entering JBC's left thigh is not the SBT. The SBT requires all of JBC's to have been caused by the bullet through JFK.
-
I am not defending the SBT. A shot through JFK's neck and entering JBC's left thigh is not the SBT. The SBT requires all of JBC's to have been caused by the bullet through JFK.
Actually, you are. Your theory is that obviously implausible.
-
Actually, you are. Your theory is that obviously implausible.
It is not possible at z222-225. I agree. But it is at z190-200:
(https://i.postimg.cc/g0cYmfG8/AM_model3D_z195.jpg)
-
It is not possible at z222-225. I agree. But it is at z190-200:
(https://i.postimg.cc/g0cYmfG8/AM_model3D_z195.jpg)
Still smiling and waving at Z210 despite having been shot through the throat. What a guy. All the eyewitnesses stated he reacted to having been shot. Apparently, they were wrong.
-
Still smiling and waving at Z210 despite having been shot through the throat. What a guy. All the eyewitnesses stated he reacted to having been shot. Apparently, they were wrong.
I am not sure what you are looking at. The HSCA photographic panel concluded that JFK was reacting to a servere external stimulus before disappearing behind the Stemmons sign. I see a marked change between z193 when he is waving and smiling and z198 when he drops his right hand and turns his head forward:
(https://i.postimg.cc/CKXzj8xj/JFK_193_to_198.gif)
You will also note that at this time they have just passed Mary Woodward:"After acknowledging our cheers, he faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-shattering noise coming from behind us and a little to the right. " As we know, a bullet precedes the sound of the muzzle blast. At 200 feet the time difference is almost 2 frames.
-
I am not sure what you are looking at. The HSCA photographic panel concluded that JFK was reacting to a servere external stimulus before disappearing behind the Stemmons sign. I see a marked change between z193 when he is waving and smiling and z198 when he drops his right hand and turns his head forward:
(https://i.postimg.cc/CKXzj8xj/JFK_193_to_198.gif)
You will also note that at this time they have just passed Mary Woodward:"After acknowledging our cheers, he faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-shattering noise coming from behind us and a little to the right. " As we know, a bullet precedes the sound of the muzzle blast. At 200 feet the time difference is almost 2 frames.
“I am not sure what you are looking at. The HSCA photographic panel concluded that JFK was reacting to a servere external stimulus before disappearing behind the Stemmons sign. I see a marked change between z193 when he is waving and smiling and z198 when he drops his right hand and turns his head forward:”
I am sure you do, but that has no value with the Willis Photo and Mary Woodward’s statement contradicting you.
You will also note that at this time they have just passed Mary Woodward:"After acknowledging our cheers, he faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-shattering noise coming from behind us and a little to the right. " As we know, a bullet precedes the sound of the muzzle blast. At 200 feet the time difference is almost 2 frames.
How does that equate to Z193.
She stated JFK was hit after he turned forward which does not occur until after Z207.
JFK disappears behind the sign at Z210 while still waving
JFK is still waving in the Willis photo thought to be Z210 and so is JBC. True campaigners tn your story to ignore having been shot and keep motoring on.
What you fail to post is all of Woodward’s 11/22 statement. Even though she does not think the first shot hit JFK, Mary has JFK reacted to the first shot, and the second shot was the headshot followed by another shot. So much for JBC hit by a separate shot, let alone two shots.
M Woodward “.I don't believe anyone was hit with the first bullet.[b] The President and Mrs. Kennedy turned and looked around,[/b] as if they, too, didn't believe the noise was really coming from a gun...Then after a moment's pause, there was another shot and I saw the President start slumping in the car. This was followed rapidly by another shot. Mrs. Kennedy stood up in the car, turned halfway around, then fell on top of her husband’s body…”
-
“I am not sure what you are looking at. The HSCA photographic panel concluded that JFK was reacting to a servere external stimulus before disappearing behind the Stemmons sign. I see a marked change between z193 when he is waving and smiling and z198 when he drops his right hand and turns his head forward:”
I am sure you do, but that has no value with the Willis Photo and Mary Woodward’s statement contradicting you.
Neither contradict JFK beginning his reaction between z193-198 when he turns from looking hard right to more or less forward. Willis' photo shows JFK from behind so it is hard to tell where he is looking or where his right arm is as it is in front of him. But it is consistent with JFK in the position looking forward as seen in z201-203 (in z202 JFK' head is partially obscured by top of the sign post).
You will also note that at this time they have just passed Mary Woodward:"After acknowledging our cheers, he faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-shattering noise coming from behind us and a little to the right. " As we know, a bullet precedes the sound of the muzzle blast. At 200 feet the time difference is almost 2 frames.
How does that equate to Z193.
She stated JFK was hit after he turned forward which does not occur until after Z207.
He has turned forward by z198. This is apparent despite the resolution of the frames being poor.
JFK disappears behind the sign at Z210 while still waving
JFK is still waving in the Willis photo thought to be Z210 and so is JBC. True campaigners tn your story to ignore having been shot and keep motoring on.
His arm may be elevated in front of him. But he does not initiate any waves.
What you fail to post is all of Woodward’s 11/22 statement. Even though she does not think the first shot hit JFK, Mary has JFK reacted to the first shot, and the second shot was the headshot followed by another shot. So much for JBC hit by a separate shot, let alone two shots.
M Woodward “.I don't believe anyone was hit with the first bullet.[b] The President and Mrs. Kennedy turned and looked around,[/b] as if they, too, didn't believe the noise was really coming from a gun...Then after a moment's pause, there was another shot and I saw the President start slumping in the car. This was followed rapidly by another shot. Mrs. Kennedy stood up in the car, turned halfway around, then fell on top of her husband’s body…”
She also noted that the third shot rapidly followed the second. In 1988 she gave this interview:
At around 1:00 she says:
“The second two shots were immediate --- it was almost as if one were an echo of the other -- they came so quickly. The sound of one did not cease until the second shot.” … “and then the third shot came very, very quickly, on top of the second one”
So her statement is perfectly consistent with simply not being aware that JFK was reacting at least 5 seconds before the last shot. If the last two were so rapid, as she described, this means he was reacting to the first shot.
She was also adamant that there were three shots (see from :48-:59).
-
Neither contradict JFK beginning his reaction between z193-198 when he turns from looking hard right to more or less forward. Willis' photo shows JFK from behind so it is hard to tell where he is looking or where his right arm is as it is in front of him. But it is consistent with JFK in the position looking forward as seen in z201-203 (in z202 JFK' head is partially obscured by top of the sign post).
He has turned forward by z198. This is apparent despite the resolution of the frames being poor.
His arm may be elevated in front of him. But he does not initiate any waves.
She also noted that the third shot rapidly followed the second. In 1988 she gave this interview:
At around 1:00 she says:
“The second two shots were immediate --- it was almost as if one were an echo of the other -- they came so quickly. The sound of one did not cease until the second shot.” … “and then the third shot came very, very quickly, on top of the second one”
So her statement is perfectly consistent with simply not being aware that JFK was reacting at least 5 seconds before the last shot. If the last two were so rapid, as she described, this means he was reacting to the first shot.
She was also adamant that there were three shots (see from :48-:59).
Yes they do contradict it.
You are just seeing what you want to see.
There is a 4K version that shows his face. He is fine going behind the sign.
The Willis Photo is from behind the sign. He is still looking and waving.
Woodward’s 11/22 statement is sufficient. It just doesn’t support this nonsense.
Not really. she had the third shot after the headshot. So much for JBC being hit twice.
-
Yes they do contradict it.
You are just seeing what you want to see.
There is a 4K version that shows his face. He is fine going behind the sign.
The Willis Photo is from behind the sign. He is still looking and waving.
Where is his hand seen in the Willis photo?:
(https://i.postimg.cc/yYtwt6mJ/JFK-Willis2.jpg)
Woodward’s 11/22 statement is sufficient. It just doesn’t support this nonsense.
Not really. she had the third shot after the headshot. So much for JBC being hit twice.
I agree that the first shot did not miss and was after z186 and that Woodward's impression that the first shot missed was wrong. You, however, think she was wrong in her clear recollection of three shots, and that the last shot struck JFK in the head.
So I gather you also reject the Connallys' evidence that JBC was struck by a second shot before the head shot....
-
Where is his hand seen in the Willis photo?:
(https://i.postimg.cc/yYtwt6mJ/JFK-Willis2.jpg)
I agree that the first shot did not miss and was after z186 and that Woodward's impression that the first shot missed was wrong. You, however, think she was wrong in her clear recollection of three shots, and that the last shot struck JFK in the head.
So I gather you also reject the Connallys' evidence that JBC was struck by a second shot before the head shot....
Where is his hand seen in the Willis photo?:
I don't have any problem seeing it in the picture. Where do you think it is?
I agree that the first shot did not miss and was after z186 and that Woodward's impression that the first shot missed was wrong. You, however, think she was wrong in her clear recollection of three shots, and that the last shot struck JFK in the head.
After Z210. The second shot struck him. She is unsure even in her statement.
So I gather you also reject the Connallys' evidence that JBC was struck by a second shot before the head shot....
There is no evidence that JBC was struck by any other shot than the first shot that passed through JFK.
-
Where is his hand seen in the Willis photo?:
I don't have any problem seeing it in the picture. Where do you think it is?
It is in front of his torso and therefore can't be seen in Willis' photo. We can see that in the zfilm.
After Z210. The second shot struck him. She is unsure even in her statement.
So I gather you also reject the Connallys' evidence that JBC was struck by a second shot before the head shot....
There is no evidence that JBC was struck by any other shot than the first shot that passed through JFK.
No evidence? I gather you don't think that:
- Nellie's testimony that she watched JFK react to the first shot and then saw her husband hit by the second qualifies as "evidence"
- Altgens' testimony that his #6 photo (showing JFK reacting to his neck wound) was taken after the first but before any other qualifies as "evidence"
- SA George Hickey's statement that he was turned forward watching JFK for the last two shot qualifies as "evidence"
- the statements of over 20 witnesses that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot qualify as "evidence"
-
It is in front of his torso and therefore can't be seen in Willis' photo. We can see that in the zfilm.
No evidence? I gather you don't think that:
- Nellie's testimony that she watched JFK react to the first shot and then saw her husband hit by the second qualifies as "evidence"
- Altgens' testimony that his #6 photo (showing JFK reacting to his neck wound) was taken after the first but before any other qualifies as "evidence"
- SA George Hickey's statement that he was turned forward watching JFK for the last two shot qualifies as "evidence"
- the statements of over 20 witnesses that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot qualify as "evidence"
JFK's and six other witnesses' conscious reactions to the sounds of Oswald's first, missing-everything, shot were all captured on film between Zapruder frames 142 and 150.
Oswald's three shots were
1) a difficult, a steeply-downward-angled shot at hypothetical "Z-124, i.e., half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming after a 17-second film-saving pause
2) between Z-221 and Z-224 (impossible to determine precisely due to the visual obstruction of the Stemmons Freeway sign)
3) at Z-313
Total elapsed time = 10.2 seconds, more than enough time for former Marine sharpshooter Oswald to fire the second and third shots accurately from his bolt-action short-rifle.
-
JFK's and six other witnesses' conscious reactions to the sounds of Oswald's first, missing-everything, shot were all captured on film between Zapruder frames 142 and 150
...and completely reconcilable with normal head turning when passing along a street with people on both sides:
(https://i.postimg.cc/T16nkDvK/z135-to-z186.gif)
Total elapsed time = 10.2 seconds, more than enough time for former Marine sharpshooter Oswald to fire the second and third shots accurately from his bolt-action short-rifle.
And so is 6.45 seconds. The difference is that according to all the evidence, the first shot was after z186.
-
It is in front of his torso and therefore can't be seen in Willis' photo. We can see that in the zfilm.
No evidence? I gather you don't think that:
- Nellie's testimony that she watched JFK react to the first shot and then saw her husband hit by the second qualifies as "evidence"
- Altgens' testimony that his #6 photo (showing JFK reacting to his neck wound) was taken after the first but before any other qualifies as "evidence"
- SA George Hickey's statement that he was turned forward watching JFK for the last two shot qualifies as "evidence"
- the statements of over 20 witnesses that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot qualify as "evidence"
It is in front of his torso and therefore can't be seen in Willis' photo. We can see that in the zfilm.
Unbelievable, you know JFK was waving at Z210, what again is this post about?
What is interesting is you do know he is waving at Z210, but you thought you would just make up this nonsense in an effort to try and prove this theory? This three shot scenario is not only improbable, but also unbelievable. You never asked yourself if it made sense for two different bullets to strike JBC’s thigh? They would have fractured his thigh in this instance. All you have done is split SBT and create a second shot where there was not one.
Wouldn’t it just be easier to admit you can’t prove a third shot? Now you are proposing some kind of goofy logic to add credibility to opinions you consider are some kind of evidence to support this oddball theory.
Nellie's testimony that she watched JFK react to the first shot and then saw her husband hit by the second qualifies as "evidence"
This is just wrong. Nellie saw JFK react to the first shot, and Nellie along with Jackie acknowledged JBC’s verbal reaction to having been struck by a bullet as having occurred after the first shot but before the second.
Altgens' testimony that his #6 photo (showing JFK reacting to his neck wound) was taken after the first but before any other qualifies as "evidence"
All the eyewitness in total were of the exact same opinion.
SA George Hickey's statement that he was turned forward watching JFK for the last two shot qualifies as "evidence"
SA Hickey saw the bullet impact JFK’s head and make his hair fly forward on the second shot.
The statements of over 20 witnesses that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot qualify as "evidence"
Over 50+ eyewitnesses saw JFK react to the first shot. All of them stated he reacted to the first shot.
What again is the difference between your unproven three shot act and Michael Griffiths? Your theory has two bullets in JBC’s thigh and Michael has shooters everywhere, but no other bullets or fragments except for the ones matched to LHO’s carcano, are ever found.
-
It is in front of his torso and therefore can't be seen in Willis' photo. We can see that in the zfilm.
Unbelievable, you know JFK was waving at Z210, what again is this post about?
What is interesting is you do know he is waving at Z210, but you thought you would just make up this nonsense in an effort to try and prove this theory?
I notice that you are no longer insisting we can see JFK's arm in Willis' photo. Progress.
There is no z210. It was destroyed by Life Magazine. Besides, we can't see JFK's hand after z206. In z206 his hand is aligned with the forearm and it is in front of him. When he was waving (e.g. prior to z193) his hand was up, perpendicular to this forearm.
This three shot scenario is not only improbable, but also unbelievable. You never asked yourself if it made sense for two different bullets to strike JBC’s thigh?
I never asked myself if it made sense because it never occurred to me that he was hit by two bullets in the thigh. There was only one thigh wound.
They would have fractured his thigh in this instance. All you have done is split SBT and create a second shot where there was not one.
The SBT says that all wounds other than the JFK head wound were caused by one bullet. So by definition, there cannot be two SBT shots.
Wouldn’t it just be easier to admit you can’t prove a third shot? Now you are proposing some kind of goofy logic to add credibility to opinions you consider are some kind of evidence to support this oddball theory.
An oddball "theory" observed by 132 witnesses?
Nellie's testimony that she watched JFK react to the first shot and then saw her husband hit by the second qualifies as "evidence"
This is just wrong. Nellie saw JFK react to the first shot, and Nellie along with Jackie acknowledged JBC’s verbal reaction to having been struck by a bullet as having occurred after the first shot but before the second.
Nellie's testimony at 4 H 147:
(https://i.postimg.cc/TYgWrGZy/image.png)
SA George Hickey's statement that he was turned forward watching JFK for the last two shot qualifies as "evidence"
SA Hickey saw the bullet impact JFK’s head and make his hair fly forward on the second shot.
No impact to the head was observed by Hickey on the second shot 18 H 762:
(https://i.postimg.cc/6pDWzGnw/image.png)
The statements of over 20 witnesses that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot qualify as "evidence"
Over 50+ eyewitnesses saw JFK react to the first shot. All of them stated he reacted to the first shot.
What again is the difference between your unproven three shot act and Michael Griffiths? Your theory has two bullets in JBC’s thigh and Michael has shooters everywhere, but no other bullets or fragments except for the ones matched to LHO’s carcano, are ever found.
One bullet in the thigh: CE399 (after exiting from JFK's throat). One bullet through JBC's chest and wrist, fragmenting striking windshield and Tague. Third bullet at z313.
-
I notice that you are no longer insisting we can see JFK's arm in Willis' photo. Progress.
There is no z210. It was destroyed by Life Magazine. Besides, we can't see JFK's hand after z206. In z206 his hand is aligned with the forearm and it is in front of him. When he was waving (e.g. prior to z193) his hand was up, perpendicular to this forearm.
I never asked myself if it made sense because it never occurred to me that he was hit by two bullets in the thigh. There was only one thigh wound.
The SBT says that all wounds other than the JFK head wound were caused by one bullet. So by definition, there cannot be two SBT shots.
An oddball "theory" observed by 132 witnesses?
Nellie's testimony at 4 H 147:
(https://i.postimg.cc/TYgWrGZy/image.png)
No impact to the head was observed by Hickey on the second shot 18 H 762:
(https://i.postimg.cc/6pDWzGnw/image.png)
One bullet in the thigh: CE399 (after exiting from JFK's throat). One bullet through JBC's chest and wrist, fragmenting striking windshield and Tague. Third bullet at z313.
I notice that you are no longer insisting we can see JFK's arm in Willis' photo. Progress.
We? I see it, you never will because you cannot admit it.
This whole story has run its course. Seriously, you thought just adding a bullet to the shot sequence would not require an explanation for what happened to the extra bullet? The bullet breaking into fragments is obviously not any kind of answer. Then to add insult to injury you are denying the Z313 shot fragmented?
AMason three shot theory:
[b]One bullet in the thigh: CE399 (after exiting from JFK's throat). One bullet through JBC's chest and wrist, fragmenting striking windshield and Tague. Third bullet at z313
[/b]
No broken or damaged femur from the first shot. No second bullet anywhere. No fragmentation from the headshot, despite extensive testimony to the contrary
If you are going to drag a theory out of the garbage heap of three shot theories and call it your own, how about selecting one that hasn’t been disproven in so many different ways.
Mr. SPECTER - For the purpose of this consideration, I am interested to know whether the metal which you found in the wrist was of sufficient size so that the bullet which passed through the wrist could not have emerged virtually completely intact or with 158 grains intact, or whether the portions of the metallic fragments were so small that that would be consistent with having Virtually the entire 6.5-mm. bullet emerge.
Dr. GREGORY - Well, considering the small volume of metal as seen by X-ray, and the very small dimensions of the metal which was recovered, I think several such fragments could have been flaked off of a total missile mass without reducing its volume greatly.
Now, just how much, depends of course upon what the original missile weighed. In other words, on the basis of the metal left behind in Governor Connally's body, as far as I could tell, the missile that struck it could be virtually intact, insofar as mass was concerned, but probably was distorted.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you have any idea at all as to what the fragments which you observed in the Governor's wrist might weigh, Doctor?
Dr. GREGORY - No, not really, but it would have been very small---very small.
There is no z210. It was destroyed by Life Magazine. Besides, we can't see JFK's hand after z206. In z206 his hand is aligned with the forearm and it is in front of him. When he was waving (e.g. prior to z193) his hand was up, perpendicular to this forearm.
I never asked myself if it made sense because it never occurred to me that he was hit by two bullets in the thigh. There was only one thigh wound.
Exactly, I wish you would, that is the problem.
The SBT says that all wounds other than the JFK head wound were caused by one bullet. So by definition, there cannot be two SBT shots.
No. Not in your theory. Anything and everything are possible, unexplainable but possible, and that is the problem. Your theory has two bullets striking JBC’s thigh. SBT has one bullet doing all the wounding. You have two with no clear explanation of where the bullets ended up. Now fragments are flying everywhere.
An oddball "theory" observed by 132 witnesses?
Yes, to oddball, no to 132 witnesses
One more time just for you.
Nellie's testimony at 4 H 147:
Nellie: As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I recall John saying, "Oh, no, no, no.
Gov Connally: I immediately, when I was hit, I said, "Oh, no, no, no." And then I said, "My God, they are going to kill us all."
No impact to the head was observed by Hickey on the second shot 18 H 762:
Yes, there was you have to cite a later statement to erase what he originally stated.
In his original after incident 11/22 statement. The 11/22/63 statement you ignore. You know before the “medias influence.” referenced by WC and HSCA panels.
(11-22-63 report, 18H765) “As 100-X made the turn and proceeded a short distance, I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear. I stood partially up and turned to the rear to see if I could observe anything. Nothing was observed and I turned around and looked at the President’s car. The President was slumped to the left in the car. I heard what appeared to be two shots and it seemed as if the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward.”
[/i][/u]
In your 1 week later “media influenced” version, the second shot was the shot that made JFK’s air fly forward.
It is obvious why you are afraid of the 11/22 first report. His head was hit by a shot and then his hair flew forward. A completely different meaning than what you posted. You like and rely on the time altered HSCA version. In your version the second shot is the shot that makes his hair fly forward.
11/30/63 Hickey
“It looked to me as if the president was struck in the right upper rear of the head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn’t seem to be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to his left again”
A Mason:This is consistent with Oswald trying to get the second and third shots off as quickly as possible without having to re-aim because the car was getting away. The first shot occurred as soon as JFK emerged from under the oak tree. This was just after JFK passed the lamp post before the Thornton sign. The second shot occurred as JFK was moving slightly left to right, almost directly away from Oswald. It just missed JFK on the right side and struck JBC in the right armpit and wrist. The third shot fired on the exact same trajectory as the second without having to re-aim, 2.3 seconds later struck him in the head as his head moved to the right. Believe it or not, there is actually uncontradicted evidence that this is what occurred.
For all the reasons stated previous, this is just wrong for so many reasons.
-
I notice that you are no longer insisting we can see JFK's arm in Willis' photo. Progress.
We? I see it, you never will because you cannot admit it.
I would admit it if there was anything in the photo that could be his arm. There isn't. Here: you mark where you think JFK's waving right arm/hand is:
(https://i.postimg.cc/QMpS6hmV/JFK-Willis.jpg)
or just describe how many pixels you think his hand is from some identifiable point.
This whole story has run its course. Seriously, you thought just adding a bullet to the shot sequence would not require an explanation for what happened to the extra bullet?
It would be more accurate to say that you subtracted a shot from the evidence of three shots.
The bullet breaking into fragments is obviously not any kind of answer. Then to add insult to injury you are denying the Z313 shot fragmented?
The bullet breaking into fragments and leaving the car is an answer. And there is evidence that this occurred on the second shot.
I never suggested that the shot at z312-313 did not fragment. The two fragments found in the car (CE567 and CE569) are likely from that head shot. No one in the car said that they sensed an impact within the car (as Greer did on the second shot) and no one outside the car sensed an impact from that shot (as Tague did, on the second shot).
AMason three shot theory:
No broken or damaged femur from the first shot.
There was lead embedded in the femur as seen on two different xrays of the left thigh. The impact was oblique and dented the base of CE399. There is no reason to believe that it would break the femur after passing through JFK and thigh muscle at an oblique angle. You would need a pristine bullet hitting square-on to stand a chance of breaking the femur, one of the strongest bones in the body.
No second bullet anywhere.
There may have been some flecks of lead in the windshield frame and glass and in JBC, possibly on the floor. Most of it appears to have gone over the windshield. I know you find that convenient but that is the evidence. Do you think Tague happened to be hit by the ONLY fragment that left the car?
The SBT says that all wounds other than the JFK head wound were caused by one bullet. So by definition, there cannot be two SBT shots.
No. Not in your theory. Anything and everything are possible, unexplainable but possible, and that is the problem. Your theory has two bullets striking JBC’s thigh. SBT has one bullet doing all the wounding. You have two with no clear explanation of where the bullets ended up. Now fragments are flying everywhere.
In the scenario provided by the evidence: 3 shots, 3 hits, one shooter, there is no SBT. I have no idea why you think I am suggesting 2 bullets striking JBC's thigh.
No impact to the head was observed by Hickey on the second shot 18 H 762:
Yes, there was you have to cite a later statement to erase what he originally stated.
In his original after incident 11/22 statement. The 11/22/63 statement you ignore. You know before the “medias influence.” referenced by WC and HSCA panels.
(11-22-63 report, 18H765) “As 100-X made the turn and proceeded a short distance, I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear. I stood partially up and turned to the rear to see if I could observe anything. Nothing was observed and I turned around and looked at the President’s car. The President was slumped to the left in the car. I heard what appeared to be two shots and it seemed as if the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward.”
[/i][/u]
In your 1 week later “media influenced” version, the second shot was the shot that made JFK’s air fly forward.
In his first statement he referred to two shots and two observations on those shots. In his later statement he clarified what he saw on each shot. On shot 2 he saw JFK's hair fly forward. On shot 3, he saw the right side of his head was hit. I don't know of any report that talked about what happened to JFK on the second shot that suggested that just his hair flew forward. We can see his hair flying forward, by the way. It starts at z273.
-
I would admit it if there was anything in the photo that could be his arm. There isn't. Here: you mark where you think JFK's waving right arm/hand is:
(https://i.postimg.cc/QMpS6hmV/JFK-Willis.jpg)
or just describe how many pixels you think his hand is from some identifiable point.It would be more accurate to say that you subtracted a shot from the evidence of three shots.
The bullet breaking into fragments and leaving the car is an answer. And there is evidence that this occurred on the second shot.
I never suggested that the shot at z312-313 did not fragment. The two fragments found in the car (CE567 and CE569) are likely from that head shot. No one in the car said that they sensed an impact within the car (as Greer did on the second shot) and no one outside the car sensed an impact from that shot (as Tague did, on the second shot).
There was lead embedded in the femur as seen on two different xrays of the left thigh. The impact was oblique and dented the base of CE399. There is no reason to believe that it would break the femur after passing through JFK and thigh muscle at an oblique angle. You would need a pristine bullet hitting square-on to stand a chance of breaking the femur, one of the strongest bones in the body.There may have been some flecks of lead in the windshield frame and glass and in JBC, possibly on the floor. Most of it appears to have gone over the windshield. I know you find that convenient but that is the evidence. Do you think Tague happened to be hit by the ONLY fragment that left the car?
In the scenario provided by the evidence: 3 shots, 3 hits, one shooter, there is no SBT. I have no idea why you think I am suggesting 2 bullets striking JBC's thigh.
In his first statement he referred to two shots and two observations on those shots. In his later statement he clarified what he saw on each shot. On shot 2 he saw JFK's hair fly forward. On shot 3, he saw the right side of his head was hit. I don't know of any report that talked about what happened to JFK on the second shot that suggested that just his hair flew forward. We can see his hair flying forward, by the way. It starts at z273.
------------------
Same nonsense on a different day. Maybe it is time to go back to fantasy land to create a new theory. This time leave Nelly and JBC, Jackie, and SA Hickey out of it.
You now have stated the second shot fragmented and hit the window molding and the curb by Tague. The attending surgeon, Dr Gregory, completely dismisses the whole theory you just presented. The bullet did not fragment. There was no fragmented bullet associated with the wrist, and a bullet did exit the wrist but backwards and in a whole state. The exiting bullet then struck JBC’s thigh backwards and deposited a small amount of lead on the femur. You're always claiming that you follow the evidence. That is what the evidence shows that occurred.
You failed to explain this. Where is the whole bullet that damaged the wrist if it isn’t the one that damaged the thigh? Where is the proof there even being a third shot? You have never presented anything.
-
------------------
Same nonsense on a different day. Maybe it is time to go back to fantasy land to create a new theory. This time leave Nelly and JBC, Jackie, and SA Hickey out of it.
In other words, let's not look at all the evidence.
Is there a particular reason that you are avoiding telling us where you think JFK's waving hand or arm, or part thereof, is in the Willis #5 photo? You are the only person who seems to think it can be seen.
You now have stated the second shot fragmented and hit the window molding and the curb by Tague. The attending surgeon, Dr Gregory, completely dismisses the whole theory you just presented. The bullet did not fragment. There was no fragmented bullet associated with the wrist, and a bullet did exit the wrist but backwards and in a whole state. The exiting bullet then struck JBC’s thigh backwards and deposited a small amount of lead on the femur. You're always claiming that you follow the evidence. That is what the evidence shows that occurred.
Gregory's view was that the wrist wound was caused by an irregular missile but the thigh wound was not (4 H 121-122). :
"Dr. GREGORY. My initial impression was that whatever produced the wound of the wrist was an irregular object, certainly not smooth nosed as the business end of this particular bullet is because of two things. The size of the wound of entrance. and the fact that it is irregular surfaced permitted it to pick up organic debris, materials, threads, and carry them into the wound with it.
Now, you will note that Dr. Shaw earlier in his testimony and in all of my conversations with him, never did indicate that there was any such loss of material into the wrist, nor does the back of this coat which I hare examined show that it lost significant amounts of cloth but I think the tear in this coat sleeve does imply that there were bits of fabric lost. and I think those were resident in the wrist. I think we recovered them.
.... (4 H 124):
Dr. GREGORY, The wound of entrance is characteristic in my view of an irregular missile in this case, an irregular missile which has tipped itself off as being irregular by the nature of itself.
Mr. DULLES. What do you mean by irregular?
Dr. GREGORY. I mean one that has been distorted. It is in some way angular, it has edges or sharp edges or something of this sort. It is not rounded or pointed in the fashion of an ordinary missile. The irregularity of it also, I submit, tends to pick up organic material and carry it into the limb, and this is a very significant takeoff, in my opinion.
...
Dr. GREGORY. There is one additional piece of information that is of pertinence but I don’t know how effectively it can be applied to the nature of the missile.
That is the fact that dorsal branch of the radial nerve, a sensory nerve in this immediate vicinity was partially transected together with one tendon leading to the thumb, which was totally transected.
This could have been produced by a missile entering in the ordinary fashion, undisturbed, undistorted. But again it is more in keeping with an irregular surface which would tend to catch and tear a structure rather than push it aside.
... (4 H 128 after being shown bullet fragments CE567 and CE569 with photos CE568 and CE570):
"Dr. GREGORY. These items represent distorted bits of a missile, a jacket in one case, and part of a jacket and a lead core in the other.
These are missiles having the characteristics which I mentioned earlier, which tend to carry organic debris into wounds and tend to create irregular wounds of entry. One of these, it seems to me, could conceivably have produce the injury which the Governor incurred in his wrist.
Mr. DULLES. In his wrist?
Dr. GREGORY. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. And in his thigh?
Dr. GREGORY. I don’t know about that, sir. It is possible. But the rather remarkably round nature of the wound in the thigh leads me to believe that it was produced by something like the butt end of an intact missile."
You failed to explain this. Where is the whole bullet that damaged the wrist if it isn’t the one that damaged the thigh? Where is the proof there even being a third shot? You have never presented anything.
Why do you think that any fragments that left the car (one of which we know struck Tague and one of which almost made it over the windshield) should have been recovered?