JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on June 25, 2026, 11:34:59 PM
-
From the outset, the Dallas doctors’ and nurses’ descriptions of JFK’s throat wound have posed a problem for the lone-gunman theory. All the descriptions of the throat wound described it as an entrance wound. They said it was a small wound (about 5 cm in diameter), that it was punched inward, and that it was neat and circular, all of which are textbook indications of an entry wound. In addition, the descriptions of the damage behind the wound described damage that was larger than the wound itself, another textbook indication of an entry wound.
This explains why Dr. Malcolm Perry diagnosed the throat wound as an entry wound (both in his written report and in his comments to newsmen later in the afternoon), and why Nurse Margaret Hinchliffe, who had seen numerous bullet wounds, was certain it was an entry wound.
It is important to note that the fact that the throat wound was 5 mm in diameter means it was smaller than the back wound, which was 6 x 4 mm in size.
In addition, we now know that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. Indeed, we also know that one of those drafts said the back wound had no exit point.
In order to explain the throat wound’s entry-wound appearance, lone-gunman theorists have had to resort to theorizing that the wound was so small and neat because the skin behind and around the wound was “shored” by the fabric of JFK’s collar band.
There are two fatal problems with this shored-wound theory:
-- One, the throat wound was not behind the collar band. Even if one assumes the front shirt slits were made by an exiting bullet, those slits were clearly below the collar band, as proved by the evidence photo of the slits (see Figure 8 in “JFK’s Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible,” https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view).
-- Two, shored exit wounds, far from being small and neat, typically have wide and irregular abrasion collars. Dr. Vincent Di Maio, considered one of the leading forensic experts of the modern era, noted that shored exit wounds produce “very wide, irregular abrasion collars” (Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques, Second Edition, CRC Press, 1999, p. 112).
Dr. Gary Aguilar and RN Kathy Cunningham have said the following about the problems with the shored-wound theory:
Lattimer has theorized that Kennedy’s throat wound was so small because it was “shored.” That is, Kennedy’s tight shirt collar confined the skin around Kennedy’s throat, and so kept the tissues from gaping irregularly as the bullet exited. . . . However, the slits in JFK’s shirt are below the level where the collar button is, and so below the spot where the shoring pressures would have had maximal effect in limiting the gaping of skin.
Information from experiments on more analogous living pigs, and from experience with living gunshot victims, reveals that there are key features of shored exit wounds that are notable by their absence in JFK’s throat. Anesthetized pigs shot through their “shored” bellies had abrasions (scratches) at the margins of the shored exit wounds 100% of the time; contusions (bruises) 63% of the time; and radiating lacerations around the wound margins 33% of the time (D.S. Dixon, “Characteristics of Shored Exit Wounds,” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 26(4), 1981, p. 694). Forensic pathologist Josephino Aguilar (no relation to either author) reported that, in humans, shored exit wounds have “abrasion collars” much like entrance wounds do, and they tend to have “radiating lacerations” at the wound margins. “In contrast to the entrance wound,” Aguilar wrote, “the supported exit wound shows a scalloped or punched-out abrasion collar and sharply contoured skin in between the radiating skin lacerations marginating the abrasion” (Josephino C. Aguilar, “Shored Gunshot Wounds of Exit,” American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology , vol. 4(3), September 1983, p. 199). (“How Five Investigations Into JFK’s Medical/Autopsy Evidence Got It Wrong,” https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm)
For more information on this issue, see “Research Notes on the Shored-Wound Theory to Explain JFK’s Throat Wound,” https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h48FpT89KrC0rNrl4XC3MDePLDFEBBHb/view.
-
Of course, then we have the minor problems of where the bullet from the throat wound went, where the bullet from the back wound went, and the "rather" unusually close alignment of the back and throat wounds - so close that one bullet causing both wounds is by far the accepted theory. Hence Cliff Varnell's reliance on melting CIA-issued ice bullets, which frankly strikes most people as "just a bit" unlikely. Even a dud back wound that only penetrated an inch with a melting CIA ice bullet from the front seems "rather" unlikely - and what the hell would be the point of using a melting ice bullet from the front if it wasn't going to disguise a frontal shot anyway? I believe there are legitimate issues with the SBT, but to still try to be arguing that the throat would is an entrance is far-lunatic-fringe stuff.
Is it just me, or does MTG seem to be in near-desperation mode, flooding the forum with his nonsense? He is the very antithesis of my point that CTers who wish to be taken seriously should focus on plausibility, in terms of both evidence and theory, instead of shoveling loads of far-fetched and internally inconsistent poop and hoping some of it sticks. For all of his relentless self-promotion over umpteen years, MTG seems to have scarcely made a dent in the JFKA community; he strikes me as the proverbial legend in his own mind.
-
MTG-
Thanks for posting, but I have always had reservations about the "JFK was shot from the front" narratives.
1. The windshield.
2. Witnesses. JBC and wife believe the shots came from the rear. There are indisputable bullet wounds in JFK' and JBC's back.
3. Where did the bullets from the front go?
-
Of course, then we have the minor problems of where the bullet from the throat wound went, where the bullet from the back wound went, and the "rather" unusually close alignment of the back and throat wounds - so close that one bullet causing both wounds is by far the accepted theory. Hence Cliff Varnell's reliance on melting CIA-issued ice bullets, which frankly strikes most people as "just a bit" unlikely. Even a dud back wound that only penetrated an inch with a melting CIA ice bullet from the front seems "rather" unlikely - and what the hell would be the point of using a melting ice bullet from the front if it wasn't going to disguise a frontal shot anyway? I believe there are legitimate issues with the SBT, but to still try to be arguing that the throat would is an entrance is far-lunatic-fringe stuff.
Is it just me, or does MTG seem to be in near-desperation mode, flooding the forum with his nonsense? He is the very antithesis of my point that CTers who wish to be taken seriously should focus on plausibility, in terms of both evidence and theory, instead of shoveling loads of far-fetched and internally inconsistent poop and hoping some of it sticks. For all of his relentless self-promotion over umpteen years, MTG seems to have scarcely made a dent in the JFKA community; he strikes me as the proverbial legend in his own mind.
Once again you show the shallow, one-sided nature of your research. And, of course, you obviously didn't bother to read the research notes I linked in my OP, which explain that the Dallas doctors deduced from the damage behind the wound that the bullet had ranged downward into the chest. Here's the link again for your convenience.
“Research Notes on the Shored-Wound Theory to Explain JFK’s Throat Wound,” https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h48FpT89KrC0rNrl4XC3MDePLDFEBBHb/view.
And I'm by no means the first researcher to point out that the Dallas doctors saw indications that the bullet that hit the throat ranged downward into the chest. Sylvia Meagher made this point way back in 1967 in her book Accessories After the Fact. Many other scholars have also discussed this evidence.
But, obviously, this is all news to you. This shows you haven't read any of the best-selling scholarly books that posit a conspiracy in the JFK shooting.
-
Once again you show the shallow, one-sided nature of your research. And, of course, you obviously didn't bother to read the research notes I linked in my OP, which explain that the Dallas doctors deduced from the damage behind the wound that the bullet had ranged downward into the chest. Here's the link again for your convenience.
“Research Notes on the Shored-Wound Theory to Explain JFK’s Throat Wound,” https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h48FpT89KrC0rNrl4XC3MDePLDFEBBHb/view.
And I'm by no means the first researcher to point out that the Dallas doctors saw indications that the bullet that hit the throat ranged downward into the chest. Sylvia Meagher made this point way back in 1967 in her book Accessories After the Fact. Many other scholars have also discussed this evidence.
But, obviously, this is all news to you. This shows you haven't read any of the best-selling scholarly books that posit a conspiracy in the JFK shooting.
which explain that the Dallas doctors deduced from the damage behind the wound that the bullet had ranged downward into the chest
Where would a shot that entered JFK's neck and travelled downward into his chest have come from?
What location, other than a helicopter, would allow such a shot?
-
Of course, then we have the minor problems of where the bullet from the throat wound went, where the bullet from the back wound went, and the "rather" unusually close alignment of the back and throat wounds - so close that one bullet causing both wounds is by far the accepted theory. Hence Cliff Varnell's reliance on melting CIA-issued ice bullets, which frankly strikes most people as "just a bit" unlikely. Even a dud back wound that only penetrated an inch with a melting CIA ice bullet from the front seems "rather" unlikely - and what the hell would be the point of using a melting ice bullet from the front if it wasn't going to disguise a frontal shot anyway? I believe there are legitimate issues with the SBT, but to still try to be arguing that the throat would is an entrance is far-lunatic-fringe stuff.
Is it just me, or does MTG seem to be in near-desperation mode, flooding the forum with his nonsense? He is the very antithesis of my point that CTers who wish to be taken seriously should focus on plausibility, in terms of both evidence and theory, instead of shoveling loads of far-fetched and internally inconsistent poop and hoping some of it sticks. For all of his relentless self-promotion over umpteen years, MTG seems to have scarcely made a dent in the JFKA community; he strikes me as the proverbial legend in his own mind.The
Are you questioning Aragorn? Do you see that sword in his hand? It was reforged from the shards of CT lore 40 years ago and it has returned to reclaim the glory of the days of Mark Lane. :)
-
Wow, at least, Varnell understood the evidence of no bullets or bullet fragments inside of JFK's torso and made up the loony "ice bullet" theory.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you search the body to determine if there was any bullet inside the body?
Commander HUMES - Before the arrival of Colonel Finck we had made X-rays of the head, neck and torso of the President, and the upper portions of his major extremities, or both his upper and lower extremities. At Colonel Finck's suggestion, we then completed the X-ray examination by X-raying the President's body in toto, and those X-rays are available.
Mr. SPECTER - What did those X-rays disclose with respect to the possible presence of a missile in the President's body?
Commander HUMES - They showed no evidence of a missile in the President's body at any point. And these were examined by ourselves and by the radiologist, who assisted us in this endeavor.
Mr. SPECTER - What conclusion, if any, did you reach as to whether point "D" on 385 was the point of entrance or exit?
Commander HUMES - We concluded that this missile depicted in 385 "C" which entered the President's body traversed the President's body and made its exit through the wound observed by the physicians at Parkland Hospital and later extended as a tracheotomy wound.
(https://i.postimg.cc/GhmSYMF4/CE-385.jpg)
BTW, how many times do you people need to be told that when you are trying to set up a lone patsy who was high and behind, that a sniper in the front would NEVER have been considered, it's totally absurd!
JohnM