JFK Assassination Forum
The JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & 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
-
MTG-
Thanks for posting, but I have always had reservations about the "JFK was shot from the front" narratives.
Have you read the ARRB materials? One of the many historic disclosures from the ARRB-released documents is Dr. Ebersole's statement to the HSCA FPP that by around 10:00 or 10:30 Humes knew about the throat wound from communications with Dallas ("Testimony of John H. Ebersole," HSCA, 3/11/1978, p. 5). This is crucial because we know from the released transcript of the WC's 1/27/64 executive session that one of the first two drafts of the autopsy report said the back wound bullet had no exit, and that the other draft said the throat wound was the exit point for a fragment from the head shot, proving that Humes knew about the throat wound long before he claimed he did.
This, in turn, is very important because we know from the ARRB materials that by the end of the autopsy the autopsy doctors knew for an absolute fact that the back wound had no exit point, that they had done prolonged and repeated probing, that they had even removed the chest organs so they could see where the probe went inside the chest cavity, and that the autopsy doctors and the men standing near the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity. Jenkins told Lifton the same thing years before the ARRB.
The long-standing myth had been, and among WC apologists still is, that Humes did not know about the throat wound until the following morning and that this was why he did not identify the throat wound as a possible exit point for the back wound. The 1/27/64 WC executive session transcript alone destroys that myth because it reveals that one of the first drafts of the autopsy report said the throat wound was the exit point for a head-shot fragment. Yet, to this day, lone-gunman theorists continue to repeat the myth that Humes knew nothing about the throat wound until the morning after the autopsy.
The very notion that the autopsy doctors did not know about the throat wound before the autopsy is doubtful on its face. The throat wound had been discussed at the televised press conference with the Dallas doctors held shortly after JFK died. News reports about the press conference were carried on radio stations and appeared in evening-edition newspapers all over the country. For that matter, the autopsy photo that shows JFK's neck clearly shows the bottom half of the circular throat wound; a first-year med student would not have missed it. Anyway, the issue has long since been settled by the 1/27/64 WC executive session transcript and later by Ebersole's disclosure to the FPP that Humes know about the throat wound by no later than 10:30 that night (no wonder Ebersole's FPP testimony was sealed--thank goodness the ARRB released it).
Since the throat wound could not have been caused by the back-wound bullet, and since the throat wound could not have resulted from a head-shot fragment (such a fragment would have had to tear a path from the inner skull to the throat), this is strong evidence that the Dallas doctors and nurses were correct in identifying the throat wound as an entry wound, and this, in turn, explains why the throat wound was small, neat, circular, and punched inward, and why the damage behind and below the throat wound was larger than the wound itself.
I cover this historic evidence in some detail in the research notes that I linked in the OP: “Research Notes on the Shored-Wound Theory to Explain JFK’s Throat Wound,” https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h48FpT89KrC0rNrl4XC3MDePLDFEBBHb/view.
As for the evidence of a head shot from the front, I would refer you to three articles that are good introductions on the subject:
Dr. Michael Chesser, “A Review of the JFK Cranial x-Rays and Photographs,” Assassination of JFK website, 2015, http://assassinationofjfk.net/a-review-of-the-jfk-cranial-x-rays-and-photographs/
Dr. Michael Chesser, “The Application of Forensic Principles for the Analysis of the Autopsy Skull X-Rays of President Kennedy and a Review of the Brain Photographs,” 2017, Kennedys and King website, https://kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/michael-chesser-houston-2017.pdf
"The Head Shot from the Front"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19GwhnIVGHlrffoyM_T242fF_J9v4QeQl/view
Just one point on a frontal head shot: Mortician Tom Robinson told the HSCA that there was a small hole in JFK's right temple, and that he filled it with wax to keep embalming fluid from leaking out of it. This is telling because shortly after JFK died, Malcolm Kilduff pointed to his own right temple to show reporters how JFK had been shot. In addition, there is a suspicious lesion in this same spot on the stare-of-death autopsy photo that surely looks like it could be an entry wound--and there is also a notch in this same area on the autopsy skull x-rays, as Dr. Chesser discusses. I think one of the best discussions on the implications of Robinson's disclosure is Dr. Don Thomas's analysis in Hear No Evil, pp. 247-279.
1. The windshield.
This is not a problem for a frontal shot to the throat. This issue has already been covered by a number of scholars. Rather than repeat what they've observed, I would just refer you to their research: Dr. Mantik, Doug Weldon, and Doug Horne.
2. Witnesses. JBC and wife believe the shots came from the rear. There are indisputable bullet wounds in JFK's and JBC's back.
I agree, and we both agree that JFK and Connally were hit by separate non-fatal bullets.
But keep in mind that many witnesses also said shots came from the front, and several witnesses saw gun smoke or smelled gun powder on and near the knoll. In addition, the Wiegman film shows a small cloud of smoke hanging in the air in an area near the fence on the knoll, and that smoke could not have come from the steam pipe over 100 feet away or from patrol bike exhaust, not to mention that the acoustical evidence proves that a shot came from the knoll--and from the same area that Lee Bowers saw two men hanging around and then saw a flash of light or smoke during the shooting. The acoustical evidence for a grassy knoll shot is so strong that even the abjectly biased NAS panel was forced to admit that their own research showed there was a 77.7% probability that the 144.9 impulse pattern was caused by gunfire from the knoll.
I should add that the NAS panel was only able to reduce the probability of the grassy knoll shot from 95%-plus to 77.7% by introducing two outright errors into their analysis, as Dr. Scheim, Dr. Chambers, and Dr. Thomas have discussed. Even then, 77.7% is a high probability.
3. Where did the bullets from the front go?
I'm a bit surprised by this question, but I would answer it by saying we should first consider what we have long known about the FBI's and the DPD's handling of evidence, what we have long known about the evidence of extra bullets and missed shots in Dealey Plaza, what we now about the finding of an extra bullet--a misshapen bullet--in the limo during the autopsy, and what we now know from ARRB and other disclosures about the amount of bullet fragments found during the autopsy and the finding of a bullet in the sheets that were wrapped around JFK at the autopsy.
I would refer you to my article "Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza," https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view?usp=sharing.
The front head-shot bullet was a frangible missile that exploded after penetrating the skull. This bullet's fragments remained in the skull, as is typical for frangible ammo. This is why we see a "snowstorm" of dozens of tiny fragments in the right-frontal region on the autopsy skull x-rays. Humes said nothing about this obvious cluster of fragments in the autopsy report because he knew he could not associate it with the EOP entry wound.
The FPP's radiology consultants acknowledged the right-frontal fragment snowstorm, but the FPP themselves merely acknowledged that the x-rays show "numerous minute fragments widely distributed throughout the skull" (7 HSCA 11), and then later in their report they blandly acknowledged that they considered the "small particles of radiopaque materials" at the right coronal suture "to be missile fragments" (7 HSCA 120)--and the FPP obscured the right-frontal lead snowstorm in their "enhanced" versions of the skull x-rays by virtually washing it out of the images.
The "enhanced" skull x-rays fooled Dr. Sturdivan into believing there was no right-frontal cluster of numerous small fragments on the skull x-rays, which cluster he said would be there if a frangible bullet had struck in the right front. (Yet, when he became aware that the unenhanced x-rays show the right-frontal snowstorm, he forgot all about what he told the FPP on the issue and still says the rear head shot was the only head shot.)
We have good evidence that JFK's body arrived about 40-45 minutes before its officially recorded arrival time, and we have at least two witnesses who saw Humes working on the body before the autopsy began. It is entirely possible that Humes removed the throat-wound bullet from the upper chest during this pre-autopsy surgery (the Dallas doctors believed the bullet had ranged downward into the chest).
Another possibility has been raised by several scholars, namely, that a fragment of glass from the bullet that made a hole in the windshield hit the throat and ranged downward into the chest.
The gashed appearance of the throat wound in the autopsy photos could have resulted from pre-autopsy surgery to the wound to remove the projectile that caused it (several Dallas medical witnesses said the throat wound did not look so large and gashed after the tracheostomy).
Those who find the idea of pre-autopsy surgery or another type of suppression of the throat bullet unacceptable need to explain the fact that the throat wound could not have been made by the back-wound bullet or by a head-shot fragment, and the fact that the throat wound had every major textbook characteristic of an entry wound. Fact must govern theory, not the other way around.
It's always a pleasure talking with you, Ben.
-
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.
I was going to make all of these points but you saved me the trouble.
You make far more sense when you are wearing your LN cap. Maybe you should 86 all the CT caps. You must have a collection of those. One LN cap is all that is needed.
-
What's revealing is that Michael Griffith said he believes in the HSCA acoustic evidence. That is four shots: three from the TSBD (or behind JFK) and one shot from the fence/GK (or to his right side.)
That alone disproves a entrance shot to the throat. That's if, as he does, believe the acoustic analysis.
He also believes there was a shooter on top of the linen truck and that Babushka Lady was a CIA agent, June Cobb, and that she "possibly" shot JFK with a camera gun. That's two more shots. And he believes that Oswald conspired with Shaw and Ferrie in a triangulated assassination of JFK. That's another shooter, at least.
He has shooters all over Dealey Plaza shooting from various angles and locations. But he also believe the HSCA acoustic analysis of two shooters and two locations.
He believes in things that contradict other things that he believes. It's a mishmash of claims that are at odds with other claims. Day after day, week after week, month after month. For decades. It's the classic example of a disordered conspiracy obsessed mind.
-
What's revealing is that Michael Griffith said he believes in the HSCA acoustic evidence. That is four shots: three from the TSBD (or behind JFK) and one shot from the fence/GK (or to his right side.) That alone disproves a entrance shot to the throat. That's if, as he does, believe the acoustic analysis.
Apparently you haven't read my article on the acoustical evidence nor my posts in this forum on the subject. I've pointed out many times that the acoustical evidence does not automatically require one to believe that only four shots were fired and that three of them came from the alleged Oswald window, since the HSCA's Dealey Plaza test firing only fired shots from the sixth-floor window and from one spot behind the fence on the grassy knoll, and since, as the HSCA acoustical experts noted, a shot fired from several feet back from a window would not be recorded by the dictabelt (at least not recorded enough to detect). And, needless to say, shot fired by a gunman using a silencer would not have been recorded by the dictabelt.
Now, are you going to address the evidence that the throat wound was an entrance wound?
He also believes there was a shooter on top of the linen truck and that Babushka Lady was a CIA agent, June Cobb, and that she "possibly" shot JFK with a camera gun. That's two more shots. And he believes that Oswald conspired with Shaw and Ferrie in a triangulated assassination of JFK. That's another shooter, at least.
I'm not sure where you're getting half of this stuff. I've never said anything about a shooter on top of the linen truck, and I've never said that Oswald conspired with Shaw and Ferrie in a triangulated shooting of JFK (although I do believe there was triangulation, but not involving Oswald).
Yes, I do believe that June Cobb was a CIA agent, based on Mary Haverstick's ground-breaking research in her recent book A Woman I Know. I'm guessing you haven't read the book. And, yes, I do believe it's possible that the Babushka Lady, whether or not she was June Cobb, may have used a gun camera to fire a shot at JFK--again, based on Haverstick's research. Gun cameras were definitely a thing by 1963, and the Babushka Lady's actions seem odd and suspicious. See Haverstick's research.
Now, are you going to address the evidence that the throat wound was an entrance wound?
He has shooters all over Dealey Plaza shooting from various angles and locations. But he also believe the HSCA acoustic analysis of two shooters and two locations.
I don't have shooters "all over Dealey Plaza," and the acoustical evidence does not mean that only four shots were fired, as explained above.
Now, are you going to address the evidence that the throat wound was an entrance wound?
He believes in things that contradict other things that he believes. It's a mishmash of claims that are at odds with other claims. Day after day, week after week, month after month. For decades.
The supposed "contradictions" are in your mind and are based on your lack of knowledge of my research and of other scholarly research.
Now, are you going to address the evidence that the throat wound was an entrance wound?
It's the classic example of a disordered conspiracy obsessed mind.
Well, of course. Anyone who disagrees with your minority view of the JFK case simply must have "a disordered conspiracy obsessed mind." It just can't be that your view on the case is a decidedly minority view because your version of the assassination is implausible and untenable. No, that just can't be.
At least I'm in good company, since 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world believes JFK was killed by a conspiracy, and since the last official federal investigation into the assassination concluded that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, that two gunmen were involved, that a shot came from the grassy knoll, that there is credible evidence that anti-Castro Cubans were trying to frame Oswald weeks before the assassination, that Jack Ruby had significant Mafia ties, that Ruby lied about how he entered the basement to shoot Oswald, that Ruby lied about why he shot Oswald, and that someone was moving boxes in the sixth-floor window within 2 minutes after the shooting when Oswald could not have been there.
Now, are you going to address the evidence that the throat wound was an entrance wound?
-
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.
The person who dreamed that one up must have seen the movie Three Days of the Condor.
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.
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
That's also a good reason for dismissing the bogus claim that CE399 was planted (by Jack Ruby according to Oliver Stone's BS movie). Why would these imaginary plotters go to the trouble of planting a bullet that had been fired by Oswald's rifle? It makes zero sense. If there was one or more gunmen not named Lee Harvey Oswald, one of two things is true.
1. That person used Oswald's rifle to kill JFK.
2. That person(s) used one or more rifles other than Oswald's Carcano.
If #1 is true, why bother planting another bullet from the Carcano? Why not just let the bullets that actually killed JFK do the talking.
If #2 is true, why would someone plant a bullet from the Carcano if another rifle was used and the plan was to set up a lone patsy to take the fall. If you plant a bullet from the Carcano and use another rifle(s) to do the killing, that introduces the likelihood that bullets from more than one rifle are going to be found which would pretty much destroy the attempt to have a patsy take the fall.
However, it should be noted that there has never been a rule that says JFKA conspiracy theories have to make sense.
-
The back shot entered low enough to graze K's first thoracic vertebra as seen from the X-ray. This would put the entrance much lower than picture indicated. First, Oswald could NOT have made that shot from six stories up. My belief is that the back shot came from the storm drain at the corner of Elm and Houston that was later removed by the city of Dallas to remove the chance of an accurate reconstruction of the shooting as Dallas removed other evidence in the plaza also.
-
The back shot entered low enough to graze K's first thoracic vertebra as seen from the X-ray. This would put the entrance much lower than picture indicated. First, Oswald could NOT have made that shot from six stories up. My belief is that the back shot came from the storm drain at the corner of Elm and Houston that was later removed by the city of Dallas to remove the chance of an accurate reconstruction of the shooting as Dallas removed other evidence in the plaza also.
OMG. There's still somebody who believes in a storm drain shooter.
Just how many different ways was JFK assassinated?
-
When yer right, yer right.
-
When yer right, yer right.
Yes I am.
And when yer FUBAR, yer FUBAR.
-
Even if Oswald had hit K through the back, he was much higher than even this
bs photo. From the sixth floor the angle would have been 60 or 70 degrees downward. All reports that the back shot was 20 or 30 degrees is impossible. Back shot was even at an upward angle. Where could an upward shot have come from? Think about it.
-
The back shot entered low enough to graze K's first thoracic vertebra as seen from the X-ray. This would put the entrance much lower than picture indicated. First, Oswald could NOT have made that shot from six stories up. Back shot was even at an upward angle.
Bullseye. The HSCA FPP, to their credit, acknowledged that the autopsy photo of the back wound shows that the bullet entered and then tunneled at an upward angle. The FPP's chairman, Dr. Michael Baden, was nice enough to actually demonstrate on camera the only way he could get the wound's upward trajectory to fit with the single-bullet theory (SBT), namely, by assuming that JFK was leaning well over 50 degrees forward when the bullet hit. When Baden demonstrated this mythical forward lean for the cameras, he leaned forward by over 50 degrees.
And, actually, the fact that the back-wound bullet hit and then tunneled at an upward angle was established before the FPP came along: it was established in 1975 by the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel that consisted of three forensic pathologists (Dr. Werner Spitz, Dr. James Weston, and Dr. Russell Fisher). I quote from Dr. Spitz's report:
There is no doubt that the bullet which struck the President’s back penetrated the skin in a sharply upward direction, as is evident from the width of the abrasion at the lower half of the bullet wound of entrance. The term "sharply upward direction" is used because it is evident from this injury that the missile traveled upwards within the body. (Report of Werner Spitz, 4/24/75, p. 1, Rockefeller Commission papers)
This is the one of the few issues on which Dr. Spitz and Dr. Cyril Wecht agreed when the two served together on the FPP, and it was one of the few FPP findings that Dr. Wecht did not dispute. In his lectures on the medical evidence, Dr. Wecht would demonstrate why the back-wound's upward trajectory destroys the SBT.
Yet, the fraudulent SBT trajectory analyses done by John Lattimer and Dale Myers both have the bullet hitting the back at a noticeably downward angle. So do John Mytton's bogus SBT reconstructions.
Another fact that the FPP acknowledged, again to their credit, is that the WC's wound diagram places the back wound at least 1 inch higher than the autopsy photo shows it. The FPP moved the back wound downward by about 1.4 inches, placing it even with or slightly below the throat wound.
Obviously, that makes a huge difference for any trajectory analysis, which is why Lattimer's and Myers' fraudulent SBT reconstructions assume the back wound was a good 1 inch above the throat wound. This is also why the WC's SBT diagram (CE 385) erroneously puts the back wound about 1 inch above the throat wound.
You can see screencaps/photos from Lattimer's and Myers's SBT trajectory analyses in two of Pat Speer's chapters on the SBT:
https://www.patspeer.com/chapter11thesingle-bullettheory
https://www.patspeer.com/chapter12canimania
BTW, there have been many demolitions of Myers' bogus SBT simulations, but Speers' critique is probably the best one ever done. Myers' simulations also change JFK's body shape and change Connally's body size to make the SBT "work." Speers discusses the fact that Myers' simulations have contradicted themselves in their depiction of JFK's clothing and posture. Here is just a little bit of what Speers says about Myer's SBT simulation:
. . . his deception regarding the single-bullet theory is simply inexcusable. He would have to know that when people see computer simulations they believe the proportions are consistent from angle to angle—otherwise it’s just a cartoon. By changing the body shape of Kennedy to accommodate the bullet trajectory through his body, and by shrinking Connally 20% or more to accommodate the bullet trajectory in the car, Myers moved on up to the high rent neighborhood of Thomas Canning: deliberate deceptionville.
In 2023, the forensic engineering firm Knott Laboratory conducted the most data-intensive SBT trajectory analysis ever done and proved the SBT is impossible because JFK and Connally were never in a position to allow a trajectory back to the sixth-floor window.
Knott Lab's experts conducted a high-definition laser scan of Dealey Plaza to generate a point cloud of up to 2 million points per second, to accurately measure point-to-point anywhere in the scene. Using a 3D laser scanner (Leica RTC360), Knott Lab's experts did 36 laser scans of Dealey Plaza, producing a digital reconstruction of the plaza that has 851 million data points. No other SBT trajectory analysis has included such a detailed, accurate digital model of the plaza and of JFK's and Connally's positions in the limousine.
BTW, Knott Lab's SBT trajectory analysis has been endorsed by the the Henry C. Lee Institute of Forensic Science and the journal Forensic. In fact, Forensic did their own documentary on the JFK case using Knott Lab's SBT trajectory study.
Finally, it bears repeating ad nauseum that we now know that the back wound had no exit point, that there was no hole through JFK's tie, that there was no nick on either edge of the tie knot, and that numerous photos show that JFK's tie knot was neatly centered in the middle of the collar band during the Dallas motorcade.
JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view
-
If MTG wants to argue that the frontal neck wound is an entrance wound, he needs to explain why there are two entrance wounds, no exit wounds, and no bullets found in the body. If he can't do that, there is no point in even discussing the other issues he has raised.
My guess is he will simply do what he always does when confronted with inconvenient truths. He will simply dodge the question and move on to other silly arguments.
-
The first image comes from the HSCA analysis and they have the SBF happening at about Z190 but modern Scholars have the SBF occurring as Kennedy emerges from behind the Stemmons sign from Zapruder's POV.
(https://i.ibb.co/jZMqTCwW/HSCA-single-bullet-fact.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/mCMfqdxV/Z224-Z225.gif)
(https://i.ibb.co/0Rk6WbF1/Z225-Z226.gif)
(https://i.ibb.co/gFHB8g2H/JFK-SBF-side-on-back-autopsy.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/Lh1w3Rg0/Myers-SBTm.jpg)
JohnM
".....modern Scholars"? :D
-
The first image comes from the HSCA analysis and they have the SBF happening at about Z190 but modern Scholars have the SBF occurring as Kennedy emerges from behind the Stemmons sign from Zapruder's POV.
Just to quibble a bit, but both men were hit while JFK was behind the sign but didn't react until both men were in full view. The timepiece, which is Zapruder's camera, shows us 1/18 second slices of time doesn't allow greater precision than that, but I feel confident in saying the shot struck +/- within one frame of Z222.
-
This is my favorite factoid about the throat wound: (Taken from Trauma Room 1 testimony). When the tube which was pushed through the wound to create an airway was removed, the "wound closed" up on itself.
-
So where did the back shot come from smart Bahookie?
-
So where did the back shot come from smart Bahookie?
It came from behind JFK.
-
The first image comes from the HSCA analysis and they have the SBF happening at about Z190 but modern Scholars have the SBF occurring as Kennedy emerges from behind the Stemmons sign from Zapruder's POV.
"Modern scholars" do no such thing. You're talking about "modern" believers in the single-bullet theory (SBT), not "modern scholars" in general, because plenty of modern scholars view the SBT as a silly myth, and for good reason.
For one thing, in 2023, the most sophisticated, data-intensive SBT trajectory analysis ever done proved the SBT is impossible. It proved that JFK and Connally were never in a position to allow a trajectory back to the sixth-floor window. I refer, of course, to the 2023 SBT trajectory study done by the respected forensic engineering firm Knott Laboratory.
Knott Lab's experts conducted a high-definition laser scan of Dealey Plaza to generate a point cloud of up to 2 million points per second, to accurately measure point-to-point anywhere in the scene. Using a 3D laser scanner (Leica RTC360), Knott Lab's experts did 36 laser scans of Dealey Plaza, producing a digital reconstruction of the plaza that has 851 million data points. No other SBT trajectory analysis has included such a detailed digital model of the plaza and of JFK's and Connally's positions in the limousine.
FYI, Knott Lab's SBT trajectory analysis has been endorsed by the the Henry C. Lee Institute of Forensic Science and the journal Forensic. Indeed, Forensic did their own documentary on the JFK case using Knott Lab's SBT trajectory study.
Finally, it bears repeating that we now know that the back wound had no exit point, that there was no hole through JFK's tie, that there was no nick on either edge of the tie knot, and that numerous photos show that JFK's tie knot was neatly centered in the middle of the collar band during the Dallas motorcade.
JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view
The SBT was destroyed way back when we learned that there was no hole through the tie and no nick on the tie knot's left edge. Poof, there went the SBT up in smoke right then and there. But you SBT believers, acting curiously like Flat Earthers or 9/11 Truthers, simply refuse to process cold hard fact that abjectly refutes your theory.
-
"Modern scholars" do no such thing. You're talking about "modern" believers in the single-bullet theory (SBT), not "modern scholars" in general, because plenty of modern scholars view the SBT as a silly myth, and for good reason.
For one thing, in 2023, the most sophisticated, data-intensive SBT trajectory analysis ever done proved the SBT is impossible. It proved that JFK and Connally were never in a position to allow a trajectory back to the sixth-floor window. I refer, of course, to the 2023 SBT trajectory study done by the respected forensic engineering firm Knott Laboratory.
Knott Lab's experts conducted a high-definition laser scan of Dealey Plaza to generate a point cloud of up to 2 million points per second, to accurately measure point-to-point anywhere in the scene. Using a 3D laser scanner (Leica RTC360), Knott Lab's experts did 36 laser scans of Dealey Plaza, producing a digital reconstruction of the plaza that has 851 million data points. No other SBT trajectory analysis has included such a detailed digital model of the plaza and of JFK's and Connally's positions in the limousine.
FYI, Knott Lab's SBT trajectory analysis has been endorsed by the the Henry C. Lee Institute of Forensic Science and the journal Forensic. Indeed, Forensic did their own documentary on the JFK case using Knott Lab's SBT trajectory study.
Finally, it bears repeating that we now know that the back wound had no exit point, that there was no hole through JFK's tie, that there was no nick on either edge of the tie knot, and that numerous photos show that JFK's tie knot was neatly centered in the middle of the collar band during the Dallas motorcade.
JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view
The SBT was destroyed way back when we learned that there was no hole through the tie and no nick on the tie knot's left edge. Poof, there went the SBT up in smoke right then and there. But you SBT believers, acting curiously like Flat Earthers or 9/11 Truthers, simply refuse to process cold hard fact that abjectly refutes your theory.
Hey, Einstein. If the back wound had no exit and the throat wound had no exit, there should have been two bullets in the body. There were zero.
-
Hey, Einstein. If the back wound had no exit and the throat wound had no exit, there should have been two bullets in the body. There were zero.
You don't know that. That's just what you want to believe. Since I know it would be a waste of time with you, I won't bother to cite all the evidence of illicit pre-autopsy surgery, of two extra bullets being found during the autopsy (one in the sheets wrapped around JFK's head and on in the limo), and of the receipt for a "missile" found during the autopsy (which missile later disappeared and was covered up with the explanation that the federal agents used the word "missile" to refer to fragments--sure, happens all the time).
For those who would like to read some of the evidence of extra bullets and missed shots, please see my article on the subject:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view?usp=sharing
BTW, why haven't any of the SBT wound ballistics tests, even some of the markedly rigged ones, been able to duplicate the SBT, i.e., produce a bullet that did the same amount of damage that CE 399 allegedly did and emerged in the same virtually pristine condition as CE 399? What's up with that?
Oh, sorry, I forgot that you reject the science of wound ballistics testing when it comes to the JFK case.
I feel confident in saying the shot struck +/- within one frame of Z222.
Yeah, never mind that Connally said he was certain he was not hit before Z229. Never mind that his visible reactions that start in Z238--the right shoulder drop, the puffing of cheeks, and the pained expression--were involuntary reactions that would not have taken more than four frames to occur after he was hit.
And are you ever going to explain how you can still believe in the SBT when we know there was no hole through the tie and no nick on the tie knot's left edge?
-
You don't know that. That's just what you want to believe. Since I know it would be a waste of time with you, I won't bother to cite all the evidence of illicit pre-autopsy surgery, of two extra bullets being found during the autopsy (one in the sheets wrapped around JFK's head and on in the limo), and of the receipt for a "missile" found during the autopsy (which missile later disappeared and was covered up with the explanation that the federal agents used the word "missile" to refer to fragments--sure, happens all the time).
OMG!!! I didn't even think you were gullible enough to believe that ridiculous story of post-mortem surgery concocted by David Lifton. That is probably the nuttiest conspiracy theory anyone has ever come up with. No one who takes that story seriously should themselves be taken seriously. That includes you. You seem willing to swallow just about any BS story as long as it claims there was a conspiracy.
For those who would like to read some of the evidence of extra bullets and missed shots, please see my article on the subject:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view?usp=sharing
BTW, why haven't any of the SBT wound ballistics tests, even some of the markedly rigged ones, been able to duplicate the SBT, i.e., produce a bullet that did the same amount of damage that CE 399 allegedly did and emerged in the same virtually pristine condition as CE 399? What's up with that?
Oh, sorry, I forgot that you reject the science of wound ballistics testing when it comes to the JFK case.
Yeah, never mind that Connally said he was certain he was not hit before Z229. Never mind that his visible reactions that start in Z238--the right shoulder drop, the puffing of cheeks, and the pained expression--were involuntary reactions that would not have taken more than four frames to occur after he was hit.
Never mind JBC flipping his arm upward at Z226 which coincided with JFK starting to raise his arms in reaction to being shot. You dodge this inconvenient fact every time it is brought up because you have no explanation for it.
And are you ever going to explain how you can still believe in the SBT when we know there was no hole through the tie and no nick on the tie knot's left edge?
Whether the bullet did or did not nick the tie upon exiting JFK's throat is not an essential element of the SBT. I believe it did, but the SBT works either way.
-
It bears repeating that the only way lone-gunman theorists can explain the throat wound's appearance is the shored-wound theory. This has been their explanation for decades now. My experience has been that they are quite surprised to learn that their theory is not only refuted by the location of the shirt slits but that forensic science tells us that shored wounds will not be small and neat.
One of the historic contributions that Doug Horne has made to our knowledge of the JFK case is his confirmation of the fact that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit wound for the back wound.
Another historic development came along with the ARRB materials, which reveal, among other things, that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors positively established through prolonged, extensive probing that the back wound was a shallow wound with no exit point. The pathologists even removed the chest organs and positioned the body "every which way" to facilitate the probing and to enable them to see where the probe was going. The disclosed materials reveal that men around the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity. As mentioned, James Jenkins told David Lifton the same thing long before the ARRB came along.
-
It bears repeating that the only way lone-gunman theorists can explain the throat wound's appearance is the shored-wound theory.
We get to decide why the throat wound looked the way it did to Dr. Perry. You don't get to limit our choices. The reason the throat wound was a neat, round hole is because FMJ bullets don't expand when passing through soft tissue. The will make a neat round hole both entering and exiting a body.
This has been their explanation for decades now. My experience has been that they are quite surprised to learn that their theory is not only refuted by the location of the shirt slits but that forensic science tells us that shored wounds will not be small and neat.
I have heard that explanation but it was never my belief so I was never surprised. The reason exit wounds are usually larger than entrance wounds is because lead bullets and hollow points will expand while passing through a body. That doesn't happen with FMJ bullets.
One of the historic contributions that Doug Horne has made to our knowledge of the JFK case is his confirmation of the fact that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit wound for the back wound.
Nobody who recycled David Lifton's theory of post-mortem surgery is somebody who should be taken seriously. q[uote]
Another historic development came along with the ARRB materials, which reveal, among other things, that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors positively established through prolonged, extensive probing that the back wound was a shallow wound with no exit point. The pathologists even removed the chest organs and positioned the body "every which way" to facilitate the probing and to enable them to see where the probe was going. The disclosed materials reveal that men around the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity. As mentioned, James Jenkins told David Lifton the same thing long before the ARRB came along.
[/quote]
It is absolutely ridiculous to think a bullet would have only penetrated a few inches into JFK's back and then fallen out. Even lower velocity handgun ammo has far more penetration than that.
-
That picture is incorrect, you know that right? Entrance back wound was much lower as it grazed the first thoracic vertebrae. This slug went on upward to make the dent by the mirror, you know that, right? How else could the dent have been made??
-
That picture is incorrect, you know that right? Entrance back wound was much lower as it grazed the first thoracic vertebrae. This slug went on upward to make the dent by the mirror, you know that, right? How else could the dent have been made??
The dent and the cracked windshield were made by fragments of the bullet that struck JFK's head. Not hard to figure.
Explain how your storm drain shooter could have fired a shot into JFK's back and exit from the middle of his throat. The geometry doesn't line up.
-
OMG!!! I didn't even think you were gullible enough to believe that ridiculous story of post-mortem surgery concocted by David Lifton. That is probably the nuttiest conspiracy theory anyone has ever come up with.
And this coming from the guy who insists that the Warren Report is still "the definitive account" of the JFK assassination, a fantasy that was shredded by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1979.
We've already seen in spades that you know so little about the JFK case that you're in no position to be deciding what is "nutty."
No one who takes that story seriously should themselves be taken seriously. That includes you. You seem willing to swallow just about any BS story as long as it claims there was a conspiracy.
Uh-huh. We both know you haven't read any of the hundreds of pages of research that supports the case for pre-autopsy surgery, research done by the former Chief Analyst for Military Records for the ARRB, Doug Horne.
I'm fairly certain you don't know, for example, that we now know that Tom Robinson, one of the autopsy morticians, saw Humes sawing on the skull before the autopsy. Robinson added that the top-of-head damage seen in the autopsy photos "was what the doctors did."
Never mind JBC flipping his arm upward at Z226 which coincided with JFK starting to raise his arms in reaction to being shot. You dodge this inconvenient fact every time it is brought up because you have no explanation for it.
You know this is false. You seem to be melting down. I've answered your silly argument at least twice. But, you ignore the contrary facts and counterarguments I've presented and then repeat your argument as if it has not been answered.
Whether the bullet did or did not nick the tie upon exiting JFK's throat is not an essential element of the SBT. I believe it did, but the SBT works either way.
If this forum had a minimum-knowledge requirement for posting, this comment would get you disqualified. The SBT foundationally requires that the supposed magic bullet at least nicked the left edge of the tie knot.
Even the WC acknowledged that the tie knot was positioned directly over the shirt slits. So, if a bullet exited the shirt slits, as claimed by the SBT, it would have had to tear through the tie knot. This is why the FBI produced an evidence photo of the tie knot that gave the false impression that there was a hole in the knot.
If this bullet did not tear through the tie knot, then it would have had to at least nick the knot's left edge, which is what the WC claimed, but (1) the nick was not on the knot's left edge, and (2) the knot was centered squarely in the middle of the shirt's collar band before and during the motorcade, as we know from numerous photos.
I've documented all of these facts in "JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible":
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view?usp=sharing
It's interesting: You claim that the WC gave us "the definitive account" of the assassination, but you contradict what the WC said on this issue because you've done so little reading on the JFK case.
-
And this coming from the guy who insists that the Warren Report is still "the definitive account" of the JFK assassination, a fantasy that was shredded by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1979.
We've already seen in spades that you know so little about the JFK case that you're in no position to be deciding what is "nutty."
Uh-huh. We both know you haven't read any of the hundreds of pages of research that supports the case for pre-autopsy surgery, research done by the former Chief Analyst for Military Records for the ARRB, Doug Horne.
I'm fairly certain you don't know, for example, that we now know that Tom Robinson, one of the autopsy morticians, saw Humes sawing on the skull before the autopsy. Robinson added that the top-of-head damage seen in the autopsy photos "was what the doctors did."
You know this is false. You seem to be melting down. I've answered your silly argument at least twice. But, you ignore the contrary facts and counterarguments I've presented and then repeat your argument as if it has not been answered.
I remember you dodging it many times. I don't recall you addressing it even once. "I've already answered that" was a favorite dodge of Tony Marsh's on John McAdams' forum. He resorted to it whenever presented with inconvenient facts. He would invariably follow it with "Learn to Google".
If this forum had a minimum-knowledge requirement for posting, this comment would get you disqualified. The SBT foundationally requires that the supposed magic bullet at least nicked the left edge of the tie knot.
Even the WC acknowledged that the tie knot was positioned directly over the shirt slits. So, if a bullet exited the shirt slits, as claimed by the SBT, it would have had to tear through the tie knot. This is why the FBI produced an evidence photo of the tie knot that gave the false impression that there was a hole in the knot.
If this bullet did not tear through the tie knot, then it would have had to at least nick the knot's left edge, which is what the WC claimed, but (1) the nick was not on the knot's left edge, and (2) the knot was centered squarely in the middle of the shirt's collar band before and during the motorcade, as we know from numerous photos.
I've documented all of these facts in "JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible":
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view?usp=sharing
It's interesting: You claim that the WC gave us "the definitive account" of the assassination, but you contradict what the WC said on this issue because you've done so little reading on the JFK case.
Dr. Cyril Wecht scoffed at the theory presented by David Lifton. I can't find the exact quote but it essentially said that you could take a team of the best surgeons in the world and they couldn't perform post-mortem surgery that wouldn't be instantly recognizable by a first year medical student.
-
I remember you dodging it many times. I don't recall you addressing it even once.
Really? I wonder aloud again if you suffer from bouts of amnesia. Go back and read our exchanges about when Connally was hit.
And, I'm still waiting for you to explain how a bullet whose impact Connally said felt like someone pounded him hard with their fist would have caused "JBC flipping his arm upward at Z226" but would not have driven his shoulder downward, would not have caused his cheeks to puff, and would not have caused a pained expression to appear on his face until Z238, when we know from forensic science that the pained expression alone would have occurred no more than 250 milliseconds after the moment of impact.
Of course, it's interesting and telling that Connally himself, the guy who actually experienced the wounding, identified Z234 as the moment of impact, which dovetails perfectly with what forensic science tell us about how long it would have taken for his shoulder to be driven downward, for the air forced from his lungs to cause his cheeks to puff, and for a pained expression to appear on his face.
But you guys have to ignore this plain, obvious evidence because it destroys your SBT fantasy.
"I've already answered that" was a favorite dodge of Tony Marsh's on John McAdams' forum. He resorted to it whenever presented with inconvenient facts. He would invariably follow it with "Learn to Google".
It wasn't a dodge. McAdams would constantly repeat claims that had been thoroughly answered, just as you and other WC believers do here all the time.
Dr. Cyril Wecht scoffed at the theory presented by David Lifton. I can't find the exact quote but it essentially said that you could take a team of the best surgeons in the world and they couldn't perform post-mortem surgery that wouldn't be instantly recognizable by a first year medical student.
It's funny how you cite Wecht when you like what he said, which is rarely, but then you turn around and trash him the rest of the time.
Anyway, you obviously don't know that Dr. Wecht changed his mind about pre-autopsy surgery once he read Horne's research and discussed the matter with Horne and Mantik. In fact, Dr. Wecht strongly endorsed Dr. Mantik's 2014 book JFK's Head Wounds, which, among many other things, lays out the essentials of the evidence for pre-autopsy surgery.
It's worth repeating for the sake of our readers that you have such a poor handle on JFKA research that just a few weeks ago you erroneously claimed that Dr. Wecht concurred with all but one of the FPP's major conclusions. This statement proves you had not even read his FPP dissent.
I notice you ignored the point that mortician Tom Robinson saw Humes sawing on the skull and that Robinson specified that the damage to the top of the skull was done by the autopsy doctors. None of the medical technicians at the autopsy recalled seeing this, because Robinson arrived before the autopsy began and because the med techs had not arrived yet.
Why do you suppose Humes suspiciously asked aloud, during the autopsy, if there had been surgery done to the head in Dallas?
Before you blunder and embarrass yourself again, you might, just this once, just for once, want to read some of the research that's been done on this issue before you comment on it again. The following article is a good introduction on the subject:
https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/dominick-armentanos-fallacious-disagreement-with-doug-hornes-new-jfk-documentary/
The article was written by Jacob Hornberger, who holds degrees in economics and law, is a former university professor, and is now the president of the Future of Freedom Foundation.
I see you're predictably trying to dismiss Doug Horne's historic research on this issue by claiming that anyone who posits pre-autopsy surgery should not be taken seriously. Yeah, never mind that Horne was the Chief Analyst for Military Records for the ARRB, that he took part in nearly all of the ARRB's historic interviews with the autopsy witnesses, and that he holds a degree in history.
Unlike you, Washington Post editor George Lardner was impressed with Horne's research and even found Horne's evidence that the autopsy brain photos do not show JFK's brain to be credible:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1998/11/10/archive-photos-not-of-jfks-brain-concludes-aide-to-review-board/53b0858e-d0ed-4d9c-9d30-eda5ae71a84a/
It is amusing that you so fervently dismiss the idea of pre-autopsy surgery, without having read any of the research that supports it, and then you turn around and defend the preposterous SBT, a ludicrous theory (1) that has been refuted by every single wound ballistics test that was intended to duplicate it, and (2) that was definitively debunked by the 2023 Knott Laboratory SBT trajectory analysis, the most sophisticated and data-intensive SBT trajectory analysis ever done.
It is absolutely ridiculous to think a bullet would have only penetrated a few inches into JFK's back and then fallen out. Even lower velocity handgun ammo has far more penetration than that.
Phew! This nonsense is further proof that you have no business pretending to know enough about the JFK case to comment on it. The forum needs to create a sub-forum for people who know little about the case and who want to learn more. That's where you belong.
Now, no, it is certainly not "absolutely ridiculous" to think that a bullet could have only penetrated a few inches into Kennedy's back. The bullet could have been a squib load, i.e., a bullet with a defective cartridge that contained too little gunpowder. This would explain why so many witnesses said one of the shots sounded different than the others.
It is unfortunate that you routinely use adamant verbiage when making erroneous claims. You keep pretending that you have enough knowledge to be making categorical assertions, when you have no business doing so.
I notice you didn't say one word about the disclosed evidence that the autopsy doctors determined with absolute certainty that the back wound had no exit point, that they even probed the wound after removing the chest organs, and that the pathologists and the other men around the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity. BTW, this is the same thing that medical technician James Jenkins stated in a recorded interview in the 1970s.
I notice you said nothing about the fact that we know from the released transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session alone that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. One draft said the back wound had no exit point and said nothing about the throat wound as any kind of exit point. The other draft said that a fragment from the head shot caused the throat wound and said nothing about any exit point for the back wound.
The ARRB materials shed historic light on this vital disclosure by revealing that the autopsy doctors, along with the medical technicians and others who were near the autopsy table, could see with their own eyes that the back wound had no exit point.
These facts have been known since the late 1990s, but you guys have refused to face them and are still peddling the SBT myth.
-
Really? I wonder aloud again if you suffer from bouts of amnesia. Go back and read our exchanges about when Connally was hit.
And, I'm still waiting for you to explain how a bullet whose impact Connally said felt like someone pounded him hard with their fist would have caused "JBC flipping his arm upward at Z226" but would not have driven his shoulder downward, would not have caused his cheeks to puff, and would not have caused a pained expression to appear on his face until Z238, when we know from forensic science that the pained expression alone would have occurred no more than 250 milliseconds after the moment of impact.
Of course, it's interesting and telling that Connally himself, the guy who actually experienced the wounding, identified Z234 as the moment of impact, which dovetails perfectly with what forensic science tell us about how long it would have taken for his shoulder to be driven downward, for the air forced from his lungs to cause his cheeks to puff, and for a pained expression to appear on his face.
But you guys have to ignore this plain, obvious evidence because it destroys your SBT fantasy.
It wasn't a dodge. McAdams would constantly repeat claims that had been thoroughly answered, just as you and other WC believers do here all the time.
It's funny how you cite Wecht when you like what he said, which is rarely, but then you turn around and trash him the rest of the time.
Anyway, you obviously don't know that Dr. Wecht changed his mind about pre-autopsy surgery once he read Horne's research and discussed the matter with Horne and Mantik. In fact, Dr. Wecht strongly endorsed Dr. Mantik's 2014 book JFK's Head Wounds, which, among many other things, lays out the essentials of the evidence for pre-autopsy surgery.
It's worth repeating for the sake of our readers that you have such a poor handle on JFKA research that just a few weeks ago you erroneously claimed that Dr. Wecht concurred with all but one of the FPP's major conclusions. This statement proves you had not even read his FPP dissent.
I notice you ignored the point that mortician Tom Robinson saw Humes sawing on the skull and that Robinson specified that the damage to the top of the skull was done by the autopsy doctors. None of the medical technicians at the autopsy recalled seeing this, because Robinson arrived before the autopsy began and because the med techs had not arrived yet.
Why do you suppose Humes suspiciously asked aloud, during the autopsy, if there had been surgery done to the head in Dallas?
Before you blunder and embarrass yourself again, you might, just this once, just for once, want to read some of the research that's been done on this issue before you comment on it again. The following article is a good introduction on the subject:
https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/dominick-armentanos-fallacious-disagreement-with-doug-hornes-new-jfk-documentary/
The article was written by Jacob Hornberger, who holds degrees in economics and law, is a former university professor, and is now the president of the Future of Freedom Foundation.
I see you're predictably trying to dismiss Doug Horne's historic research on this issue by claiming that anyone who posits pre-autopsy surgery should not be taken seriously. Yeah, never mind that Horne was the Chief Analyst for Military Records for the ARRB, that he took part in nearly all of the ARRB's historic interviews with the autopsy witnesses, and that he holds a degree in history.
Unlike you, Washington Post editor George Lardner was impressed with Horne's research and even found Horne's evidence that the autopsy brain photos do not show JFK's brain to be credible:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1998/11/10/archive-photos-not-of-jfks-brain-concludes-aide-to-review-board/53b0858e-d0ed-4d9c-9d30-eda5ae71a84a/
It is amusing that you so fervently dismiss the idea of pre-autopsy surgery, without having read any of the research that supports it, and then you turn around and defend the preposterous SBT, a ludicrous theory (1) that has been refuted by every single wound ballistics test that was intended to duplicate it, and (2) that was definitively debunked by the 2023 Knott Laboratory SBT trajectory analysis, the most sophisticated and data-intensive SBT trajectory analysis ever done.
Phew! This nonsense is further proof that you have no business pretending to know enough about the JFK case to comment on it. The forum needs to create a sub-forum for people who know little about the case and who want to learn more. That's where you belong.
Now, no, it is certainly not "absolutely ridiculous" to think that a bullet could have only penetrated a few inches into Kennedy's back. The bullet could have been a squib load, i.e., a bullet with a defective cartridge that contained too little gunpowder. This would explain why so many witnesses said one of the shots sounded different than the others.
It is unfortunate that you routinely use adamant verbiage when making erroneous claims. You keep pretending that you have enough knowledge to be making categorical assertions, when you have no business doing so.
I notice you didn't say one word about the disclosed evidence that the autopsy doctors determined with absolute certainty that the back wound had no exit point, that they even probed the wound after removing the chest organs, and that the pathologists and the other men around the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity. BTW, this is the same thing that medical technician James Jenkins stated in a recorded interview in the 1970s.
I notice you said nothing about the fact that we know from the released transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session alone that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. One draft said the back wound had no exit point and said nothing about the throat wound as any kind of exit point. The other draft said that a fragment from the head shot caused the throat wound and said nothing about any exit point for the back wound.
The ARRB materials shed historic light on this vital disclosure by revealing that the autopsy doctors, along with the medical technicians and others who were near the autopsy table, could see with their own eyes that the back wound had no exit point.
These facts have been known since the late 1990s, but you guys have refused to face them and are still peddling the SBT myth.
M Griffith: "Of course, it's interesting and telling that Connally himself, the guy who actually experienced the wounding, identified Z234 as the moment of impact, which dovetails perfectly with what forensic science tell us about how long it would have taken for his shoulder to be driven downward, for the air forced from his lungs to cause his cheeks to puff, and for a pained expression to appear on his face."
According to JBC he did not feel any pain. Can you ask Dr Mantik how that could be when he suffered so horrific injuries, no doubt he can make up some BS to cover it.
Senator COOPER. That is when you heard the first rifleshot?
Governor CONNALLY. This was after I heard the first rifleshot. There was no pain connected with it. There was no particular burning sensation. There was nothing more than that. I think you would feel almost the identical sensation I felt if someone came up behind you and just, with a short jab, hit you with a doubled-up fist just below the shoulder blade.
Now, no, it is certainly not "absolutely ridiculous" to think that a bullet could have only penetrated a few inches into Kennedy's back. The bullet could have been a squib load, i.e., a bullet with a defective cartridge that contained too little gunpowder. This would explain why so many witnesses said one of the shots sounded different than the others.
A squib load is a firearm malfunction where a bullet does not have enough force to exit the barrel, becoming lodged and creating a dangerous obstruction.
Exactly how do you aim to place a shot that has to little of powder to achieve a proper trajectory. Can you ask lame brain DR Mantik, maybe he knows something about rifle rounds unlike his medical opinions.
The only thing that is still puzzling is who is the bigger con artist, M Griffith or Dr Mantik.
-
Really? I wonder aloud again if you suffer from bouts of amnesia. Go back and read our exchanges about when Connally was hit.
And, I'm still waiting for you to explain how a bullet whose impact Connally said felt like someone pounded him hard with their fist would have caused "JBC flipping his arm upward at Z226" but would not have driven his shoulder downward, would not have caused his cheeks to puff, and would not have caused a pained expression to appear on his face until Z238, when we know from forensic science that the pained expression alone would have occurred no more than 250 milliseconds after the moment of impact.
Of course, it's interesting and telling that Connally himself, the guy who actually experienced the wounding, identified Z234 as the moment of impact, which dovetails perfectly with what forensic science tell us about how long it would have taken for his shoulder to be driven downward, for the air forced from his lungs to cause his cheeks to puff, and for a pained expression to appear on his face.
But you guys have to ignore this plain, obvious evidence because it destroys your SBT fantasy.
It wasn't a dodge. McAdams would constantly repeat claims that had been thoroughly answered, just as you and other WC believers do here all the time.
It's funny how you cite Wecht when you like what he said, which is rarely, but then you turn around and trash him the rest of the time.
I have great respect for Cyril Wecht's professional credentials and his opinion regarding the medical evidence. He concurred with the FPP finding that JFK was shot twice from behind. His disagreement with the FPP consensus was not based on his area of expertise. He disputed the SBT because he thought the geometry was impossible which it would be if JBC had been directly in front of JFK and facing straight ahead and at the same level. None of those are true. His belief in a frontal shot to the head was not based on his medical expertise but on his viewing of the Z-film. He was entitled to his opinion on that but that is not his area of expertise. I read yesterday that in his career Cyril Wecht had participated in over 17,000 autopsies. In how many of those do you suppose he was aided by a film of the murder. I'd be surprised if the number was > 0.
Anyway, you obviously don't know that Dr. Wecht changed his mind about pre-autopsy surgery once he read Horne's research and discussed the matter with Horne and Mantik. In fact, Dr. Wecht strongly endorsed Dr. Mantik's 2014 book JFK's Head Wounds, which, among many other things, lays out the essentials of the evidence for pre-autopsy surgery.
Cite Wecht endorsing either Horne or Lifton's goofy theory. In every comment I've read from Wecht, he adamantly dismissed it.
It's worth repeating for the sake of our readers that you have such a poor handle on JFKA research that just a few weeks ago you erroneously claimed that Dr. Wecht concurred with all but one of the FPP's major conclusions. This statement proves you had not even read his FPP dissent.
I notice you ignored the point that mortician Tom Robinson saw Humes sawing on the skull and that Robinson specified that the damage to the top of the skull was done by the autopsy doctors. None of the medical technicians at the autopsy recalled seeing this, because Robinson arrived before the autopsy began and because the med techs had not arrived yet.
I am not obligated to comment on every silly issue your raise. I could spend an afternoon replying to every silly statement you make in your long-winded diatribes.
Why do you suppose Humes suspiciously asked aloud, during the autopsy, if there had been surgery done to the head in Dallas?
I don't suppose. If you want to know the answer to that, you'd have to ask Humes.
Before you blunder and embarrass yourself again, you might, just this once, just for once, want to read some of the research that's been done on this issue before you comment on it again. The following article is a good introduction on the subject:
https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/dominick-armentanos-fallacious-disagreement-with-doug-hornes-new-jfk-documentary/
The article was written by Jacob Hornberger, who holds degrees in economics and law, is a former university professor, and is now the president of the Future of Freedom Foundation.
I see you're predictably trying to dismiss Doug Horne's historic research on this issue
Historically goofy and hilarious
by claiming that anyone who posits pre-autopsy surgery should not be taken seriously.
Yeah, pretty much.
Yeah, never mind that Horne was the Chief Analyst for Military Records for the ARRB, that he took part in nearly all of the ARRB's historic interviews with the autopsy witnesses, and that he holds a degree in history.
No medical training whatsoever.
Unlike you, Washington Post editor George Lardner was impressed with Horne's research and even found Horne's evidence that the autopsy brain photos do not show JFK's brain to be credible:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1998/11/10/archive-photos-not-of-jfks-brain-concludes-aide-to-review-board/53b0858e-d0ed-4d9c-9d30-eda5ae71a84a/
Is that supposed to make Horne's rehash of David Lifton's goofy idea more credible? It didn't work.
It is amusing that you so fervently dismiss the idea of pre-autopsy surgery, without having read any of the research that supports it, and then you turn around and defend the preposterous SBT, a ludicrous theory (1) that has been refuted by every single wound ballistics test that was intended to duplicate it, and (2) that was definitively debunked by the 2023 Knott Laboratory SBT trajectory analysis, the most sophisticated and data-intensive SBT trajectory analysis ever done.
Phew! This nonsense is further proof that you have no business pretending to know enough about the JFK case to comment on it. The forum needs to create a sub-forum for people who know little about the case and who want to learn more. That's where you belong.
Now, no, it is certainly not "absolutely ridiculous" to think that a bullet could have only penetrated a few inches into Kennedy's back. The bullet could have been a squib load, i.e., a bullet with a defective cartridge that contained too little gunpowder. This would explain why so many witnesses said one of the shots sounded different than the others.
It is unfortunate that you routinely use adamant verbiage when making erroneous claims. You keep pretending that you have enough knowledge to be making categorical assertions, when you have no business doing so.
I notice you didn't say one word about the disclosed evidence that the autopsy doctors determined with absolute certainty that the back wound had no exit point, that they even probed the wound after removing the chest organs, and that the pathologists and the other men around the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity. BTW, this is the same thing that medical technician James Jenkins stated in a recorded interview in the 1970s.
I notice you said nothing about the fact that we know from the released transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session alone that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. One draft said the back wound had no exit point and said nothing about the throat wound as any kind of exit point. The other draft said that a fragment from the head shot caused the throat wound and said nothing about any exit point for the back wound.
The ARRB materials shed historic light on this vital disclosure by revealing that the autopsy doctors, along with the medical technicians and others who were near the autopsy table, could see with their own eyes that the back wound had no exit point.
These facts have been known since the late 1990s, but you guys have refused to face them and are still peddling the SBT myth.
-
I remember you dodging it many times. I don't recall you addressing it even once. "I've already answered that" was a favorite dodge of Tony Marsh's on John McAdams' forum. He resorted to it whenever presented with inconvenient facts. He would invariably follow it with "Learn to Google".
Dr. Cyril Wecht scoffed at the theory presented by David Lifton. I can't find the exact quote but it essentially said that you could take a team of the best surgeons in the world and they couldn't perform post-mortem surgery that wouldn't be instantly recognizable by a first year medical student.
In addition to my previous reply to these comments, I should add that I notice that you snipped and ignored the facts I presented regarding the tie knot and the SBT. Just to refresh your memory:
The SBT foundationally requires that the supposed magic bullet at least nicked the left edge of the tie knot.
Even the WC acknowledged that the tie knot was positioned directly over the shirt slits. So, if a bullet exited the shirt slits, as claimed by the SBT, it would have had to tear through the tie knot. This is why the FBI produced an evidence photo of the tie knot that gave the false impression that there was a hole in the knot.
If this bullet did not tear through the tie knot, then it would have had to at least nick the knot's left edge, which is what the WC claimed, but (1) the nick was not on the knot's left edge, and (2) the knot was centered squarely in the middle of the shirt's collar band before and during the motorcade, as we know from numerous photos.
I've documented all of these facts in "JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible":
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view?usp=sharing
It's interesting: You claim that the WC gave us "the definitive account" of the assassination, but you contradict what the WC said on this issue because you've done so little reading on the JFK case.
Also, it cannot be emphasized enough that the SBT collapsed the moment we learned that the tie had no hole through it, not through the knot and not through any other part of the tie. The FBI doggedly resisted allowing researchers to view or obtain high-quality images of the tie.
As mentioned, at one point the FBI produced a misleading evidence photo that showed the knot twisted in such a way as to make it appear that the nick was in the middle of the knot in order to lead the viewer to think that a bullet had gone through the knot and had exited in the middle of it.
As my above-linked article proves, abundant photographic evidence shows that Kennedy's tie knot was squarely centered in the middle of the collar band before and during the motorcade. Thus, any bullet that exited the shirt slits could not have avoided tearing through the middle part of the knot.
The SBT also collapsed when it was established that the nick on the tie knot was not on the edge of the knot but was visibly inward from the knot's left edge. This makes perfect sense because we have known for years that the nick was made by one of the Parkland ER nurses while the nurses hurriedly cut away JFK's clothing. Dr. Carrico noted that he saw no nick in the tie or slits in the shirt below the collar band when the nurses began to cut away Kennedy's clothing.
Of course, the fact that no bullet could have exited the shirt slits without tearing a hole through the tie also makes perfect sense in light of the ARRB and other disclosures that reveal that the autopsy doctors determined for an absolute fact that the back wound had no exit point and that men around the autopsy table could see the back-wound probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity.
Dr. Finck, a board-certified forensic pathologist, did the probing. The idea that he ram-rodded the probe so hard and so ineptly that he tore a false passage to the lining of the chest cavity, as one WC apologist has speculated, is beyond absurd. The probe had a blunt end, a rounded end. It was not sharp at all. Even if Finck had blunderingly pushed the probe with all of his strength, it is doubtful he could have torn such a passage, even if he had been trying to do so. Moreover, as James Jenkins noted, the probe was pushing up against the chest-cavity lining at a point well below the throat wound.
These facts have been known for many years, but once again you guys simply refuse to face them because they destroy the preposterous SBT myth.
Are you ever going to address the facts I present in my article "JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible"?
-
In addition to my previous reply to these comments, I should add that I notice that you snipped and ignored the facts I presented regarding the tie knot and the SBT. Just to refresh your memory:
The SBT foundationally requires that the supposed magic bullet at least nicked the left edge of the tie knot.
Even the WC acknowledged that the tie knot was positioned directly over the shirt slits. So, if a bullet exited the shirt slits, as claimed by the SBT, it would have had to tear through the tie knot. This is why the FBI produced an evidence photo of the tie knot that gave the false impression that there was a hole in the knot.
If this bullet did not tear through the tie knot, then it would have had to at least nick the knot's left edge, which is what the WC claimed, but (1) the nick was not on the knot's left edge, and (2) the knot was centered squarely in the middle of the shirt's collar band before and during the motorcade, as we know from numerous photos.
I've documented all of these facts in "JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible":
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view?usp=sharing
It's interesting: You claim that the WC gave us "the definitive account" of the assassination, but you contradict what the WC said on this issue because you've done so little reading on the JFK case.
Also, it cannot be emphasized enough that the SBT collapsed the moment we learned that the tie had no hole through it, not through the knot and not through any other part of the tie. The FBI doggedly resisted allowing researchers to view or obtain high-quality images of the tie.
As mentioned, at one point the FBI produced a misleading evidence photo that showed the knot twisted in such a way as to make it appear that the nick was in the middle of the knot in order to lead the viewer to think that a bullet had gone through the knot and had exited in the middle of it.
As my above-linked article proves, abundant photographic evidence shows that Kennedy's tie knot was squarely centered in the middle of the collar band before and during the motorcade. Thus, any bullet that exited the shirt slits could not have avoided tearing through the middle part of the knot.
The SBT also collapsed when it was established that the nick on the tie knot was not on the edge of the knot but was visibly inward from the knot's left edge. This makes perfect sense because we have known for years that the nick was made by one of the Parkland ER nurses while the nurses hurriedly cut away JFK's clothing. Dr. Carrico noted that he saw no nick in the tie or slits in the shirt below the collar band when the nurses began to cut away Kennedy's clothing.
Of course, the fact that no bullet could have exited the shirt slits without tearing a hole through the tie also makes perfect sense in light of the ARRB and other disclosures that reveal that the autopsy doctors determined for an absolute fact that the back wound had no exit point and that men around the autopsy table could see the back-wound probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity.
Dr. Finck, a board-certified forensic pathologist, did the probing. The idea that he ram-rodded the probe so hard and so ineptly that he tore a false passage to the lining of the chest cavity, as one WC apologist has speculated, is beyond absurd. The probe had a blunt end, a rounded end. It was not sharp at all. Even if Finck had blunderingly pushed the probe with all of his strength, it is doubtful he could have torn such a passage, even if he had been trying to do so. Moreover, as James Jenkins noted, the probe was pushing up against the chest-cavity lining at a point well below the throat wound.
These facts have been known for many years, but once again you guys simply refuse to face them because they destroy the preposterous SBT myth.
Are you ever going to address the facts I present in my article "JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible"?
I've already told you I have no obligation to respond to each and every statement you make. Your posts are so long winded and your nonsense so voluminous that refuting every bit of it would be a full time job. I'm retired and I don't allow anyone to assign me work. I'll pick and choose what I respond to and a lack of response to any point you've tried to make should not be interpreted as acceptance.
Your strategy seems to be swamp post so much crap and claim victory if someone chooses not to take the time to refute each and every item. What your posts lack in quality you try to make up for with quantity. It's just not working for you.
-
In addition to my previous reply to these comments, I should add that I notice that you snipped and ignored the facts I presented regarding the tie knot and the SBT. Just to refresh your memory:
The SBT foundationally requires that the supposed magic bullet at least nicked the left edge of the tie knot.
Even the WC acknowledged that the tie knot was positioned directly over the shirt slits. So, if a bullet exited the shirt slits, as claimed by the SBT, it would have had to tear through the tie knot. This is why the FBI produced an evidence photo of the tie knot that gave the false impression that there was a hole in the knot.
If this bullet did not tear through the tie knot, then it would have had to at least nick the knot's left edge, which is what the WC claimed, but (1) the nick was not on the knot's left edge, and (2) the knot was centered squarely in the middle of the shirt's collar band before and during the motorcade, as we know from numerous photos.
I've documented all of these facts in "JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible":
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view?usp=sharing
It's interesting: You claim that the WC gave us "the definitive account" of the assassination, but you contradict what the WC said on this issue because you've done so little reading on the JFK case.
Also, it cannot be emphasized enough that the SBT collapsed the moment we learned that the tie had no hole through it, not through the knot and not through any other part of the tie. The FBI doggedly resisted allowing researchers to view or obtain high-quality images of the tie.
As mentioned, at one point the FBI produced a misleading evidence photo that showed the knot twisted in such a way as to make it appear that the nick was in the middle of the knot in order to lead the viewer to think that a bullet had gone through the knot and had exited in the middle of it.
As my above-linked article proves, abundant photographic evidence shows that Kennedy's tie knot was squarely centered in the middle of the collar band before and during the motorcade. Thus, any bullet that exited the shirt slits could not have avoided tearing through the middle part of the knot.
The SBT also collapsed when it was established that the nick on the tie knot was not on the edge of the knot but was visibly inward from the knot's left edge. This makes perfect sense because we have known for years that the nick was made by one of the Parkland ER nurses while the nurses hurriedly cut away JFK's clothing. Dr. Carrico noted that he saw no nick in the tie or slits in the shirt below the collar band when the nurses began to cut away Kennedy's clothing.
Of course, the fact that no bullet could have exited the shirt slits without tearing a hole through the tie also makes perfect sense in light of the ARRB and other disclosures that reveal that the autopsy doctors determined for an absolute fact that the back wound had no exit point and that men around the autopsy table could see the back-wound probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity.
Dr. Finck, a board-certified forensic pathologist, did the probing. The idea that he ram-rodded the probe so hard and so ineptly that he tore a false passage to the lining of the chest cavity, as one WC apologist has speculated, is beyond absurd. The probe had a blunt end, a rounded end. It was not sharp at all. Even if Finck had blunderingly pushed the probe with all of his strength, it is doubtful he could have torn such a passage, even if he had been trying to do so. Moreover, as James Jenkins noted, the probe was pushing up against the chest-cavity lining at a point well below the throat wound.
These facts have been known for many years, but once again you guys simply refuse to face them because they destroy the preposterous SBT myth.
Are you ever going to address the facts I present in my article "JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible"?
Pointing out that the SBT does not require that the bullet passed through the knot is not a refutation of the WCR, although the probability is that the bullet did get a piece of that knot. Your silly interpretation of the evidence does not trump the WCR.
The fact the probe could not pass through the bullet channel is not an indication that the bullet only penetrated a few inches into the back, which is ludicrous on the face of it. Only amateurs such as yourself would conclude that. You ignore the fact that the position JFK was in on the autopsy table was not the position he was in when the bullet struck. His elbow was on the side of the car which changes the position of the muscle group of the shoulders. You also ignore the effects that rigor mortis would have on the body.
AI definition of rigor mortis:
Rigor mortis is the postmortem stiffening of muscles caused by the depletion of cellular energy (ATP), which prevents muscle relaxation.
Rigor mortis occurs after death when the body can no longer produce adenosine triphosphate (ATP), the energy molecule required for muscles to relax. In living muscles, contraction happens when actin and myosin filaments slide together, and relaxation requires ATP to detach these filaments. After death, ATP production ceases, calcium ions flood the muscle fibers, and actin-myosin cross-bridges remain locked, causing the muscles to stiffen.
.
Onset and Progression
Rigor mortis typically begins in the small muscles of the face, particularly around the eyes and mouth, within 1–2 hours after death. It then spreads to the hands, arms, and larger muscles of the legs and torso. Peak stiffness usually occurs 6–12 hours postmortem, and the process gradually resolves over 24–48 hours as muscle tissue decomposes through autolysis, where enzymes break down the actin-myosin complexes
.
-
While reviewing some footage of the Dallas motorcade this morning, I came across more footage that shows JFK's tie knot was centered in the middle of the collar band. I'm referring to the AMIPA slow-motion version of the Yeargan film, from 00:53 to 00:56 in the film.
This is important evidence because Yeargan filmed JFK's limo shortly before it turned onto Houston Street and only about 80 seconds before it turned onto Elm Street.
His tie knot comes into clear view in the Yeargan film starting at 00:53 in the AMIPA version, after he has finished looking and waving to his left. Notice that the turning and the waving did not cause his tie knot to move from being centered in the middle of the collar band.
The issue of the position of JFK's tie knot is crucial, actually do-or-die, for the single-bullet theory (SBT). The SBT says that its alleged magic bullet exited the shirt slits below the inside collar band of JFK's shirt. The Warren Commission (WC) claimed that the SBT bullet exited “immediately behind” the tie. Any number of photos prove that the top of the shirt slits was at least at the level of 1/3 of the way up the tie knot from the bottom of the knot. Thus, there is no way the bullet could have avoided tearing through the bottom half of the tie knot if it had exited the shirt slits.
Given the position of the tie knot in the collar band, there is also no way the alleged SBT bullet could have magically, like a guided missile, weaved its way around the body of the knot and nicked the top surface of the knot inward[/u] from the knot's left edge.
I have added screencaps from the Yeargan film to my article "Why JFK's Tie and Shirt Slits Destroy the Single-Bullet Theory," which is a supplement to my article "JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible."
"Why JFK's Tie and Shirt Slits Destroy the Single-Bullet Theory"
https://sites.google.com/view/jfkshirtandtiedestroysbt/home
"JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view
Here's a link to the AMIPA slow-motion version of the Yeargan film's segment showing JFK in the limo before the limo starts to turn:
-
Let me see if I understand the point MTG is trying to make. The wound in the center of JFK's throat could not be an exit wound because it didn't go through the knot in his tie but it could be an entrance wound without having gone through the knot in his tie.
-
Of course the neck wound looked like an entrance because of the subsonic round fired. Was it an entrance, NO!
-
Of course the neck wound looked like an entrance because of the subsonic round fired. Was it an entrance, NO!
It had to be an entrance wound because the back wound had no exit point, because the back wound was too low to have exited the throat anyway unless JFK had been leaning forward by nearly 60 degrees, because there was no hole through JFK's tie (as there would have been if a bullet had exited the shirt slits), and because the nick on the tie knot was not on the edge of the knot (and we have ample photographic evidence that JFK's tie knot was neatly centered in the middle of the collar band before and during the motorcade).
The SBT died when we learned there was no hole through JFK's tie, neither through the knot nor through any part of the rest of the tie. The tie knot was directly over the shirt slits. Any bullet exiting those slits could not have avoided tearing through the tie, nor could any such bullet have magically performed like a guided missile and weaved around the body of the knot and nicked the top surface of the knot inward from the left edge. Not on this planet anyway.
-
It had to be an entrance wound because the back wound had no exit point, because the back wound was too low to have exited the throat anyway unless JFK had been leaning forward by nearly 60 degrees, because there was no hole through JFK's tie (as there would have been if a bullet had exited the shirt slits), and because the nick on the tie knot was not on the edge of the knot (and we have ample photographic evidence that JFK's tie knot was neatly centered in the middle of the collar band before and during the motorcade).
The SBT died when we learned there was no hole through JFK's tie, neither through the knot nor through any part of the rest of the tie. The tie knot was directly over the shirt slits. Any bullet exiting those slits could not have avoided tearing through the tie, nor could any such bullet have magically performed like a guided missile and weaved around the body of the knot and nicked the top surface of the knot inward from the left edge. Not on this planet anyway.
We are supposed to disregard the unanimous opinion of the FPP that the bullet that entered JFK's back exited his throat because some bozo doesn't think the nick in the tie was caused by the exiting bullet. That is laughable on the surface.
-
It had to be an entrance wound because the back wound had no exit point, because the back wound was too low to have exited the throat anyway unless JFK had been leaning forward by nearly 60 degrees, because there was no hole through JFK's tie (as there would have been if a bullet had exited the shirt slits), and because the nick on the tie knot was not on the edge of the knot (and we have ample photographic evidence that JFK's tie knot was neatly centered in the middle of the collar band before and during the motorcade).
The SBT died when we learned there was no hole through JFK's tie, neither through the knot nor through any part of the rest of the tie. The tie knot was directly over the shirt slits. Any bullet exiting those slits could not have avoided tearing through the tie, nor could any such bullet have magically performed like a guided missile and weaved around the body of the knot and nicked the top surface of the knot inward from the left edge. Not on this planet anyway.
Knott Lab and their forensic science found the SBT to be, "Impossible" back in late 2023. Their work is routinely admitted as "evidence" in courtrooms across the USA on a daily basis. We frequently hear the cry, "where is the Proof?", "where is the Evidence?". Knott Lab hammered that home a few years ago. The SBT has scientifically been proven to be a nonstarter.
-
Knott Lab and their forensic science found the SBT to be, "Impossible" back in late 2023. Their work is routinely admitted as "evidence" in courtrooms across the USA on a daily basis. We frequently hear the cry, "where is the Proof?", "where is the Evidence?". Knott Lab hammered that home a few years ago. The SBT has scientifically been proven to be a nonstarter.
I'd be willing consider the Knott Lab conclusion the SBT is impossible if they would tell us why it is impossible but the CTs who cite their work always leave that part out.
-
The back shot at an upward angle went on to make the dent by the mirror. Perfect straight line from dent through K's body toward the ground. Where else could it have come from? Dallas later removed the drain as well as removing the location of the head shooter. Someone in Dallas knew where the shooters were to be, making removal of evidence necessary.
-
The back shot at an upward angle went on to make the dent by the mirror. Perfect straight line from dent through K's body toward the ground. Where else could it have come from? Dallas later removed the drain as well as removing the location of the head shooter. Someone in Dallas knew where the shooters were to be, making removal of evidence necessary.
I suppose you could have nuttier beliefs but it is hard to imagine how.
-
I'd be willing consider the Knott Lab conclusion the SBT is impossible if they would tell us why it is impossible but the CTs who cite their work always leave that part out.
Can YOU explain the splitting of the Atom and Nuclear Fission? Or do you believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were simply a hoax? Try to be consistent.
-
Can YOU explain the splitting of the Atom and Nuclear Fission? Or do you believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were simply a hoax? Try to be consistent.
I guess I'm just supposed to blindly accept the Knott Lab conclusion without them explaining how they arrived at their conclusion.
-
What storm drain are you referring to? Not by the GK as shots from there were impossible. I'm saying the one removed by Dallas at the corner of Elm and Houston. That's the only place a upward angle shot could have come from. On one was laying on the ground obviously.
-
I guess I'm just supposed to blindly accept the Knott Lab conclusion without them explaining how they arrived at their conclusion.
HUH??? I guess you haven't read the Knott Lab articles on their SBT trajectory analysis nor watched any of the videos on their analysis.
We all know that if the Knott Lab analysis had found the SBT to be possible, WC apologists would be endlessly pointing out that Knott Lab is a respected forensic reconstruction engineering firm and that their analysis dwarfed all previous analyses in the amount of data collected for it.
The SBT died when we learned there was no hole through JFK's tie and no nick on either edge of the tie knot. It also died when we learned that the autopsy doctors determined beyond any doubt that the back wound had no exit point, and that men around the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity. It also died when we learned from the released transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound (yeah, because they knew for an absolute fact that the back wound had no exit point).
But SBT believers still cannot bring themselves to face these cold, hard facts.
-
HUH??? I guess you haven't read the Knott Lab articles on their SBT trajectory analysis nor watched any of the videos on their analysis.
We all know that if the Knott Lab analysis had found the SBT to be possible, WC apologists would be endlessly pointing out that Knott Lab is a respected forensic reconstruction engineering firm and that their analysis dwarfed all previous analyses in the amount of data collected for it.
The SBT died when we learned there was no hole through JFK's tie and no nick on either edge of the tie knot. It also died when we learned that the autopsy doctors determined beyond any doubt that the back wound had no exit point, and that men around the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity. It also died when we learned from the released transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound (yeah, because they knew for an absolute fact that the back wound had no exit point).
But SBT believers still cannot bring themselves to face these cold, hard facts.
Your factoids are not facts.
-
Just a reminder that the only theory that WC apologists can offer to explain the throat wound's small size and entry-like appearance is the impossible shored-wound theory. We know from Humes' own notes that Dr. Perry told him the wound was only about 5 mm in diameter. In his 11/22/63 notes, Dr. Perry
The Parkland doctors said the throat wound had “no jagged edges or stellate lacerations” (6 WH 3), had “relatively smooth edges (6 WH 54), and was “rather clean” (3 WH 372).
In addition, two of the Parkland doctors seemed to indicate the wound had an abrasion collar; one of them specifically said it had bruising around its edges (7 HSCA 302; 6 WH 42). When Dr. Perry was interviewed by Harold Weisberg, he specified that the throat wound had an abrasion collar. Entry wounds usually have abrasion collars, while exit wounds usually do not.
Again, the only theory that WC defenders have offered to explain the throat wound's small size and entry-like appearance is the impossible shored-wound theory. Even today, some WC apologists still cite the theory to explain the throat wound, unaware the theory has been debunked.
-
Just a reminder that the only theory that WC apologists can offer to explain the throat wound's small size and entry-like appearance is the impossible shored-wound theory. We know from Humes' own notes that Dr. Perry told him the wound was only about 5 mm in diameter. In his 11/22/63 notes, Dr. Perry
You really show your ignorance with this one. The reason exit wounds are usually larger than entrance wounds is because lead bullets will deform when striking a body whether they hit bone or soft tissue. A deformed bullet will not make a nice neat round exit wound. Oswald was firing a FMJ bullet. These bullets do not deform when striking soft tissue. They make the same size hole going out as they do coming in when they don't strike bone. Lead or lead nosed bullets are more common and an experienced ER doctor like Perry would have seen more exit wounds caused by soft lead bullets than FMJ bullets. It's amazing that somebody who has been at this as long as you have needs that explained to you.
The Parkland doctors said the throat wound had “no jagged edges or stellate lacerations” (6 WH 3), had “relatively smooth edges (6 WH 54), and was “rather clean” (3 WH 372).
In addition, two of the Parkland doctors seemed to indicate the wound had an abrasion collar; one of them specifically said it had bruising around its edges (7 HSCA 302; 6 WH 42). When Dr. Perry was interviewed by Harold Weisberg, he specified that the throat wound had an abrasion collar. Entry wounds usually have abrasion collars, while exit wounds usually do not.
Again, the only theory that WC defenders have offered to explain the throat wound's small size and entry-like appearance is the impossible shored-wound theory. Even today, some WC apologists still cite the theory to explain the throat wound, unaware the theory has been debunked.
You don't get to dictate what options WC defenders have. We get to decide that. The back wound was unquestionably an entrance wound. If the throat wound was also an entrance wound, there was no exit for either wound. That means there should have been two bullets in the body. There were none. These bullets apparently vanished inside JFK's body. That requires not one but two Magic Bullets.
-
You really show your ignorance with this one.
Given your obvious lack of education, as evidenced by your repeated junior-high-level writing and grammatical errors, you really should avoid using the word "ignorance," especially toward others.
The reason exit wounds are usually larger than entrance wounds is because lead bullets will deform when striking a body whether they hit bone or soft tissue. A deformed bullet will not make a nice neat round exit wound. Oswald was firing a FMJ bullet. These bullets do not deform when striking soft tissue. They make the same size hole going out as they do coming in when they don't strike bone. Lead or lead nosed bullets are more common and an experienced ER doctor like Perry would have seen more exit wounds caused by soft lead bullets than FMJ bullets. It's amazing that somebody who has been at this as long as you have needs that explained to you.
Yeah, uh-huh. Blah, blah, blah. You have no clue what you're talking about. ALL of the exit wounds in the WC's SBT wound ballistics test were larger than the entry wounds -- every single one of them. Not even the HSCA FPP floated your ridiculous claim that FMJ bullets make entry and exit wounds that are the same size if they don't hit bone. Instead, the FPP majority appealed to the impossible shored-wound theory to explain the entry-like appearance of the throat wound.
Plus, we've known since the 1990s via CT scans of males with the same torso dimensions as JFK that there was no path from the back wound to the throat wound that could have missed striking the vertebrae or missed tearing through the right lung. As usual, you are years behind the information curve.
I notice you are still in denial about the 1970s to 1990s disclosures that the autopsy doctors established for an absolute, observable fact that the back wound had no exit point. We've known for years from the released transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. The first draft correctly stated that the back wound had no exit point, which is also what the 11/26/63 Sibert and O'Neill report on the autopsy says ("Autopsy of Body of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy," 11/26/63, p. 4). Sibert and O'Neill both emphatically confirmed this in their ARRB testimony. Two witnesses at the autopsy independently confirmed that men around the autopsy table could see the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity -- it was at this point that Finck declared, "this wound has no exit."
I also notice you are still in denial about the fact that JFK's clothing proves concretely that no bullet exited the throat, as I document in "JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view?usp=sharing).
Oswald was firing a FMJ bullet.
You mean you believe he was firing "an FMJ bullet." English 101 again. I recommend you take a grade-school-level online course in basic English so you can learn how to properly use indefinite articles ("a" and "an"), among other things.
You don't get to dictate what options WC defenders have. We get to decide that.
You don't get to decide anything. You're not even qualified to be talking about the JFK case in a public forum. You don't even know all the important claims that your side has made, much less the evidence that WC skeptics have presented, as you have proven over and over again.
The list of inexcusable gaffes you have made just in the last four months would fill at least one page, such as your howlers that Wecht agreed with everything the FPP majority said except for the SBT, that the HSCA FPP identified one of the skull fragments as frontal bone, that the SBT does not require that the alleged magic bullet nicked JFK's tie knot, that the back wound was above the throat wound, that Olivier's head-shot wound ballistics test proves that FMJ bullets can both shatter into dozens of tiny fragments and break into a number of sizable fragments after striking skull bone, that wound ballistics tests are useless in the JFK case, that trajectory analyses are useless in the JFK case, that moving a wound 4 inches would have no meaningful impact on the trajectory of the bullet that caused it, etc., etc., etc.
The back wound was unquestionably an entrance wound. If the throat wound was also an entrance wound, there was no exit for either wound. That means there should have been two bullets in the body. There were none. These bullets apparently vanished inside JFK's body. That requires not one but two Magic Bullets.
I've answered this argument twice now, but you just keep repeating it. Once again:
(1) We have several credible reports from personnel at the autopsy that two bullets and over 10 bullet fragments were found during the autopsy but were never entered into evidence.
(2) If a glass fragment from the windshield shot caused the throat wound, which is an entirely plausible scenario, the fragment would have been easy to miss and would have been hard to see on the x-rays.
(3) We've known for years that the official collection of autopsy x-rays is missing a number of x-rays, including x-rays of the chest and neck. The evidence of this fact is compelling.
(4) We've known for years that Humes and Boswell performed illicit surgery on the body before the autopsy began. Two witnesses, including one of the morticians, saw this pre-autopsy surgery. The mortician, Tom Robinson, said that during the surgery at least 10 fragments were removed and placed in a container, and Navy corpsman Dennis David prepared a receipt for four of the larger fragments of those fragments. Yet, the official autopsy record says that only two fragments were removed from the body.
(5) Bullets do not always leave a body but sometimes expend their energy and come to a stop in the body. Dr. Perry believed that the throat-wound bullet ranged downward into the chest, as evidenced by the damage that he saw behind and below the wound -- and that damage, BTW, was larger than the throat wound itself, a textbook indication of an entry wound.
And I notice you said nothing about the presence of an abrasion collar around the throat wound, another good indication that it was an entry wound, even though I noted this fact in the paragraph that you quoted and to which you were supposedly responding.
-
Given your obvious lack of education, as evidenced by your repeated junior-high-level writing and grammatical errors, you really should avoid using the word "ignorance," especially toward others.
This is the dictionary definition of the word "ignorance".
ig·nor·ance
[ˈɪɡnər(ə)n(t)s]
noun
ignorance (noun)
lack of knowledge or information
This is exactly what you exhibit when you argue that the only possible explanation for the neat round exit wound in JFK's throat could be it was shored up by JFK's shirt collar and tie. You seem not to know that FMJ bullets do not deform when striking soft tissue and as a result, will make small neat exit wound similar to an entrance wound. That lack of knowledge on your part is ignorance.
Your continued focus on my typos, which we all make, shows how lacking you are in substantive arguments. You think you score points with this petty practice of yours. All you accomplish with such childish observations is that you prove horse's asses outnumber horses.
Yeah, uh-huh. Blah, blah, blah. You have no clue what you're talking about. ALL of the exit wounds in the WC's SBT wound ballistics test were larger than the entry wounds -- every single one of them. Not even the HSCA FPP floated your ridiculous claim that FMJ bullets make entry and exit wounds that are the same size if they don't hit bone. Instead, the FPP majority appealed to the impossible shored-wound theory to explain the entry-like appearance of the throat wound.
Now you are proving that one can be a smartass and a dumbass at the same time. Of course all the other wounds caused by the single bullet did not make neat round holes because the bullet yawed upon exiting JFK's throat. I guess you were ignorant of that fact as well.
Plus, we've known since the 1990s via CT scans of males with the same torso dimensions as JFK that there was no path from the back wound to the throat wound that could have missed striking the vertebrae or missed tearing through the right lung. As usual, you are years behind the information curve.
Oh, I'm the one who is behind the information curve? That's funny coming from someone making the same lame arguments you were making on the Prodigy forum back in 1991. Your objections to the WCR are the same ones you and your cohorts were making back then. Those objections have been explained and refuted countless times on many forums since. But you continue to make the same stale arguments over and over as if your fallacies haven't been pointed out to you countless times. Your arguments were lame back in 1991 and they haven't improved with age.
I notice you are still in denial about the 1970s to 1990s disclosures that the autopsy doctors established for an absolute, observable fact that the back wound had no exit point. We've known for years from the released transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. The first draft correctly stated that the back wound had no exit point, which is also what the 11/26/63 Sibert and O'Neill report on the autopsy says ("Autopsy of Body of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy," 11/26/63, p. 4). Sibert and O'Neill both emphatically confirmed this in their ARRB testimony. Two witnesses at the autopsy independently confirmed that men around the autopsy table could see the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity -- it was at this point that Finck declared, "this wound has no exit."
I guess you are ignorant of Finck's testimony in the Clay Shaw trial that the failure of the probe to pass through the bullet channel is not proof the bullet had no exit. Not that this will do you any good because you will simply ignore it, but I post this passage just to expose your ignorance......again:
Q: Did you attempt to probe this wound in the back of the neck?
A: I did.
Q: With what?
A: With an autopsy room probe, and I did not succeed in probing from the entry in the back of the neck in any direction and I can explain this. This was due to the contraction of muscles preventing the passage of an instrument, and if I had forced the probe through the neck I may have created a false passage.
Q: Isn't this good enough reason to you as a pathologist to go further and dissect this area in an attempt to ascertain whether or not there is a passageway here as a result of a bullet?
A: I did not consider a dissection of the path.
Q: How far did the probe go into the back of the neck?
A: Repeat the question.
Q: How far did the probe go into this wound?
A: I couldn't introduce this probe for any extended depth. I tried and I can give explanations why. At times you cannot probe a path, this is because of the contraction of muscles and different layers. It is not like a pipe, like a channel. It may be extremely difficult to probe a wound through muscle.
What sense does it make to cite the observers of the autopsy instead of the ones performing the autopsy? Why do you choose to ignore the unanimous finding of the FPP, including that of Dr. Cyril Wecht, that the bullet that entered JFK's back exited from his throat? Do you think you are more knowledgeable of forensic medicine than they were? Do you think you have better information than they did? These are of course rhetorical question that answer themselves. Of course you don't. You are just an amatuer hack pretending you know more than people who are qualified to make these judgements.
I also notice you are still in denial about the fact that JFK's clothing proves concretely that no bullet exited the throat, as I document in "JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view?usp=sharing).
The clothing proves no such thing. That is just a conclusion reached by a know nothing such as yourself. The fibers in the back of JFK's shirt and jacket were pushed inward in the back and pushed outward in the front collar of the shirt. How does that happen if the throat wound was caused by a frontal shot?
You mean you believe he was firing "an FMJ bullet." English 101 again. I recommend you take a grade-school-level online course in basic English so you can learn how to properly use indefinite articles ("a" and "an"), among other things.
I know he was firing FMJ bullets because two FMJ bullets were recovered and they were both matched to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. Another fact you are either unaware of or choose to ignore.
You don't get to decide anything. You're not even qualified to be talking about the JFK case in a public forum.
The funny part is that you think you are.
You don't even know all the important claims that your side has made, much less the evidence that WC skeptics have presented, as you have proven over and over again.
I don't have a side. I am only interested in the truth. That doesn't obligate me to defend every claim ever made by LNs. We have at least one LN on this forum who has posted a whole lot of nonsense which I have refuted countless times.
The list of inexcusable gaffes you have made just in the last four months would fill at least one page, such as your howlers that Wecht agreed with everything the FPP majority said except for the SBT, that the HSCA FPP identified one of the skull fragments as frontal bone, that the SBT does not require that the alleged magic bullet nicked JFK's tie knot, that the back wound was above the throat wound, that Olivier's head-shot wound ballistics test proves that FMJ bullets can both shatter into dozens of tiny fragments and break into a number of sizable fragments after striking skull bone, that wound ballistics tests are useless in the JFK case, that trajectory analyses are useless in the JFK case, that moving a wound 4 inches would have no meaningful impact on the trajectory of the bullet that caused it, etc., etc., etc.
Just because you dispute the statements I have made does not make them gaffes. The fact that you dispute them indicates they are most likely correct. I would have to rethink some of my positions if you actually agreed with any of them.
I've answered this argument twice now, but you just keep repeating it. Once again:
(1) We have several credible reports from personnel at the autopsy that two bullets and over 10 bullet fragments were found during the autopsy but were never entered into evidence.
Oh really. Just what is your evidence for that fantastic claim?
(2) If a glass fragment from the windshield shot caused the throat wound, which is an entirely plausible scenario, the fragment would have been easy to miss and would have been hard to see on the x-rays.
OMG. Your nonsense has reached a new low. You don't think a FMJ bullet could make a neat round exit wound in the throat, but you think a glass shard could make a neat round entrance wound. That is dumb and dumber.
(3) We've known for years that the official collection of autopsy x-rays is missing a number of x-rays, including x-rays of the chest and neck. The evidence of this fact is compelling.
You seem to have a vast knowledge of things that simply aren't true. Where do you get these ideas from? The voices in your head?
(4) We've known for years that Humes and Boswell performed illicit surgery on the body before the autopsy began. Two witnesses, including one of the morticians, saw this pre-autopsy surgery. The mortician, Tom Robinson, said that during the surgery at least 10 fragments were removed and placed in a container, and Navy corpsman Dennis David prepared a receipt for four of the larger fragments of those fragments. Yet, the official autopsy record says that only two fragments were removed from the body.
You just keep making shit up. It isn't helping your cause.
(5) Bullets do not always leave a body but sometimes expend their energy and come to a stop in the body. Dr. Perry believed that the throat-wound bullet ranged downward into the chest, as evidenced by the damage that he saw behind and below the wound -- and that damage, BTW, was larger than the throat wound itself, a textbook indication of an entry wound.
So once again you pretend to be an expert in forensic medicine. Every time you do, you make a fool of yourself. The autopsy team originally thought the bullet that entered the back did not exit because they were unaware that a tracheostomy had been performed over the throat wound. They took x-rays of the body and found no bullet which puzzled them until they spoke with Dr. Perry the next morning.
And I notice you said nothing about the presence of an abrasion collar around the throat wound, another good indication that it was an entry wound, even though I noted this fact in the paragraph that you quoted and to which you were supposedly responding.
The throat wound was obliterated by the tracheostomy. There is no evidence of an abrasion collar. Just another one of your many factoids. It's amazing somebody who has studied the JFKA as long as you have could know so little about it.
-
Dr. Joseph Dolce was never called to testify to the Warren Commission (WC), even though he was one of the WC's wound ballistics consultants and was the Army's most knowledgeable expert on wound ballistics at the time. Dr. Dolce was a battlefield surgeon in the Pacific, so, needless to say, he had dealt with hundreds of gunshot victims. In 1964, he was the chairman of the Army's Wound Ballistics Board. Dr. Dolce's experience and expertise were so highly regarded that if a VIP or member of Congress were injured, Dr. Dolce was asked to review the case. He had much more experience than the WC's two other wound ballistics consultants, Dr. Alfred Olivier and Dr. Arthur Dziemian. WC staff attorney Arlen Specter never arranged for Dr. Dolce to testify because Dolce had already told him that the single-bullet theory (SBT) was "impossible" and that the wound ballistics test proved this. Michael Green explains:
When Dr. Dolce informed the WC that the tests proved the SBT was "impossible," they ignored him and began to rely on the more compliant and less qualified Olivier and Dziemian. That's why Olivier and Dziemian were asked to testify but Dolce was not.
Because it was impossible to avoid consulting him on the matter of CE 399 after the autopsy report had been completed, Joseph Dolce, M.D., was part of a staff conference April 21, 1964, chaired by WC counsel Melvin Eisenberg and attended by Dr. Alfred Olivier, chief of the Wound Ballistics Branch of the Biophysics Division at Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland; Dr. F. L. Light of the Wound Assessment Branch at Edgewood Arsenal; Drs. Charles Gregory and Robert Shaw from Parkland Hospital; and later in the conference, Governor John Connally and his wife, J. Lee Rankin, and Warren Commission member John J. McCloy.
Dr. Dolce told the Commission personnel emphatically that it was impossible for CE 399 to have made those wounds. The Commission lawyers and staff tried to muscle him into changing his professional opinion, but he refused, so he was never called as a witness and the test findings were distorted and suppressed.
Dolce advised Chip Selby in 1986,
“The disturbing feature at this conference was that the lawyer [Specter] says, ‘Now Doctor, we want you to tell us exactly how this bullet traveled, the velocity traveled, the velocity lost during the period of travel. And why it came out as a pristine bullet, unmarked bullet.’ I said, ‘Sorry, it doesn’t happen that way. This bullet should have been deformed.’ … they wanted this [CE 399] to be the bullet that caused all of the damage and I did not go along with that". . . .
In fact, after Dr. Dolce told the Commission principals that “This is impossible. It doesn’t work that way,” his group was told to conduct tests at the Edgewood Arsenal using Oswald’s alleged rifle. Dr. Dolce told Selby “that our experiments have shown beyond any doubt, that merely shooting the wrist deformed the bullet drastically [even without it also smashing a rib]. . . in every instance [of 10 bullets] the front, or the tip of the bullet, was smashed. This was not so with [with CE 399]. They did not accept this.” (Harold Weisberg, Never Again, pp.298-299) (Green, "Besmirching History: Vincent Bugliosi Assassinates Kennedy Again -- The Military and Warren Commission Cover-up," https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html#ref4)
Green continues by discussing the fraud that Specter committed in leading Olivier through his testimony, and that even then Olivier provided some damaging information:
Instead of Dr. Dolce, Arlen Specter called as his expert witness Alfred G. Olivier, D.V.M, and a supervisory research veterinarian at Edgewood Arsenal. Specter had Dr. Olivier compare CE 399 with a test bullet, CE 853, which was fired through a goat, x-rays of which showed a broken rib. I note that Specter fails to establish that CE 853 broke the rib shown in the x-ray of the goat only because he immediately engages in two other forensic frauds. The first fraud is to have Olivier compare a bullet that testimony implies broke a goat rib with a bullet that allegedly broke both a rib and a radius as though that were a relevant comparison. Even so, Olivier testified that CE 853 was much more badly damaged than CE 399, and was “quite flattened throughout [its entire length, with] lead core extruding somewhat from the rear.” The extruded core looked like a nipple at the base of the bullet. By contrast, Dr. Olivier noted that CE 399 showed only “a suggestion of flattening” and only at its base. The FBI concealed how much more badly damaged CE 853 was by photographing it only along its side, with the flattening symmetrically distributed along its axis so that no damage can be observed. Dr. Olivier testified of CE 399, “Also, the lead core has extruded from the rear in the same fashion, and it appears that some of it has even broken from the rear” (5H80).
Arlen Specter’s second fraud, with Dr. Olivier’s complicity, is to pretend that the base of CE 399 has been damaged. The “extrusion” and the part “broken from the rear” is merely the divot that the FBI cut out to perform its analysis of the bullet core. No forensic expert could testify about a bullet that is the basis for comparison for all its tests and not know that the FBI cut a tiny nick from the tip and a substantial divot from the base for its tests. The divot is visible in the National Archives photo of CE 399 above, and a very clear photo of the divot will be given later in this essay. FBI agent Robert Frazier testified that visual inspection of CE 399 did not demonstrate loss of material from the base. Henry Hurt’s Reasonable Doubt, 1985, provides a pre-divot photograph of CE 399 without extrusion or loss of material, which is one of many reasons why the honest Dr. Dolce stated that the Edgewood Arsenal tests proved it could not have smashed both rib and wrist bones.
Specter and Dr. Olivier address the capacity of a single bullet to cause all the damage done to Kennedy and Connally, and they address a possible bullet flight pattern. In between we see a bullet that shattered a radius bone, and it is “very severely flattened on the end,” looking like a cigarette stubbed out hard in a glass ashtray (5H82, see also CE 856). Specter leads Olivier to testify that CE 399 was “capable” of producing all the wounds – but in that context they ignore whether breaking the bones would leave CE 399 so little blemished (5H90).
Specter never asks the obvious:
“Dr. Olivier, is CE 853 the bullet that broke the goat’s rib shown in this x-ray?”
“How many times did you have to fire bullets through goats’ ribs to obtain a bullet so little damaged as CE 853?”
“Did you ever break a goat’s rib with a bullet that was as little damaged from the impact as CE 399?”
“Dr. Olivier, let us put aside the pretense that the FBI divot was actual damage to CE 399. Even assuming it were possible that CE 399 had been so considerably less damaged after breaking Governor Connally’s rib than CE 853 was after breaking the goat’s rib, would you expect its going on to shatter a radius bone to leave it no more deformed?”
Neither Specter nor Olivier ever alluded to the other nine bullets from the Edgewood Arsenal tests that were grossly deformed from smashing only a radius bone. ("Besmirching History: Vincent Bugliosi Assassinates Kennedy Again -- The Military and Warren Commission Cover-up," https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html#ref4)
-
Dr. Joseph Dolce was never called to testify to the Warren Commission (WC), even though he was one of the WC's wound ballistics consultants and was the Army's most knowledgeable expert on wound ballistics at the time. Dr. Dolce was a battlefield surgeon in the Pacific, so, needless to say, he had dealt with hundreds of gunshot victims. In 1964, he was the chairman of the Army's Wound Ballistics Board. Dr. Dolce's experience and expertise were so highly regarded that if a VIP or member of Congress were injured, Dr. Dolce was asked to review the case. He had much more experience than the WC's two other wound ballistics consultants, Dr. Alfred Olivier and Dr. Arthur Dziemian. WC staff attorney Arlen Specter never arranged for Dr. Dolce to testify because Dolce had already told him that the single-bullet theory (SBT) was "impossible" and that the wound ballistics test proved this. Michael Green explains:
When Dr. Dolce informed the WC that the tests proved the SBT was "impossible," they ignored him and began to rely on the more compliant and less qualified Olivier and Dziemian. That's why Olivier and Dziemian were asked to testify but Dolce was not.
Whenever MTG quotes a single word out of context rather than a complete quote, it's a safe bet he is misrepresenting that the person he cited actually said.
Because it was impossible to avoid consulting him on the matter of CE 399 after the autopsy report had been completed, Joseph Dolce, M.D., was part of a staff conference April 21, 1964, chaired by WC counsel Melvin Eisenberg and attended by Dr. Alfred Olivier, chief of the Wound Ballistics Branch of the Biophysics Division at Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland; Dr. F. L. Light of the Wound Assessment Branch at Edgewood Arsenal; Drs. Charles Gregory and Robert Shaw from Parkland Hospital; and later in the conference, Governor John Connally and his wife, J. Lee Rankin, and Warren Commission member John J. McCloy.
Dr. Dolce told the Commission personnel emphatically that it was impossible for CE 399 to have made those wounds. The Commission lawyers and staff tried to muscle him into changing his professional opinion, but he refused, so he was never called as a witness and the test findings were distorted and suppressed.
Dolce advised Chip Selby in 1986,
“The disturbing feature at this conference was that the lawyer [Specter] says, ‘Now Doctor, we want you to tell us exactly how this bullet traveled, the velocity traveled, the velocity lost during the period of travel. And why it came out as a pristine bullet, unmarked bullet.’ I said, ‘Sorry, it doesn’t happen that way. This bullet should have been deformed.’ … they wanted this [CE 399] to be the bullet that caused all of the damage and I did not go along with that". . . .
At last, an in context quote. Dolce says the bullet should have been deformed. The fact is, it was deformed. There was a flattening of the base and the bullet was also bent. The nose was not severely deformed because the nose never struck a solid object. It only hit soft tissue before it yawed.
There are a few questions a critical thinker would apply to Dolce's observations.
1.In treating wounded soldiers during WWII, had Dolce ever come across a FMJ rifle bullet that struck only soft tissue but remained in the body?
2. If so, was such a bullet deformed?
3. Did Dolce ever come across a bullet in a soldier's body that he knew had first passed through another soldier's body first?
If the answers to these questions are no, then who is Dolce to say what would happen to a FMJ military round that had passed through one soldier and gone on to wound another?
In fact, after Dr. Dolce told the Commission principals that “This is impossible. It doesn’t work that way,” his group was told to conduct tests at the Edgewood Arsenal using Oswald’s alleged rifle. Dr. Dolce told Selby “that our experiments have shown beyond any doubt, that merely shooting the wrist deformed the bullet drastically [even without it also smashing a rib]. . . in every instance [of 10 bullets] the front, or the tip of the bullet, was smashed. This was not so with [with CE 399]. They did not accept this.” (Harold Weisberg, Never Again, pp.298-299) (Green, "Besmirching History: Vincent Bugliosi Assassinates Kennedy Again -- The Military and Warren Commission Cover-up," https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html#ref4)[/font]
Not pertinent because Oswald did not fire one of his rounds directly into JBC's wrist, striking it nose first. The bullet that struck JBC's wrist had first been slowed by passing through the torsos of two men and had yawed so that it was no longer traveling nose first when it struck the wrist.
In the Australian produced documentary Inside the Target Car, the team used animal carcasses to simulate the bodies of JFK and JBC. It took them several tries before they got a bullet to strike bone as Oswald's shot would have, but they did get a round to pass through soft tissue, strike rib cage, and then a bone simulating the wrist. It came out looking very much like CE399. The bullet's nost was intact and there was a bend to the bullet, similar to CE399, thus disproving Dolce's contention that it was impossible for CE399 to have caused all the wounds and emerge as it did. '
Green continues by discussing the fraud that Specter committed in leading Olivier through his testimony, and that even then Olivier provided some damaging information:
Instead of Dr. Dolce, Arlen Specter called as his expert witness Alfred G. Olivier, D.V.M, and a supervisory research veterinarian at Edgewood Arsenal. Specter had Dr. Olivier compare CE 399 with a test bullet, CE 853, which was fired through a goat, x-rays of which showed a broken rib. I note that Specter fails to establish that CE 853 broke the rib shown in the x-ray of the goat only because he immediately engages in two other forensic frauds. The first fraud is to have Olivier compare a bullet that testimony implies broke a goat rib with a bullet that allegedly broke both a rib and a radius as though that were a relevant comparison. Even so, Olivier testified that CE 853 was much more badly damaged than CE 399, and was “quite flattened throughout [its entire length, with] lead core extruding somewhat from the rear.” The extruded core looked like a nipple at the base of the bullet. By contrast, Dr. Olivier noted that CE 399 showed only “a suggestion of flattening” and only at its base. The FBI concealed how much more badly damaged CE 853 was by photographing it only along its side, with the flattening symmetrically distributed along its axis so that no damage can be observed. Dr. Olivier testified of CE 399, “Also, the lead core has extruded from the rear in the same fashion, and it appears that some of it has even broken from the rear” (5H80).
CE853 did not fully mimic what CE399 had done which was to pass through the soft tissue of two men's bodies before striking rib bone and then wrist. The aforementioned Australian team was able to achieve that and the test bullet sustained damage very similar to CE399.
Arlen Specter’s second fraud, with Dr. Olivier’s complicity, is to pretend that the base of CE 399 has been damaged. The “extrusion” and the part “broken from the rear” is merely the divot that the FBI cut out to perform its analysis of the bullet core. No forensic expert could testify about a bullet that is the basis for comparison for all its tests and not know that the FBI cut a tiny nick from the tip and a substantial divot from the base for its tests. The divot is visible in the National Archives photo of CE 399 above, and a very clear photo of the divot will be given later in this essay. FBI agent Robert Frazier testified that visual inspection of CE 399 did not demonstrate loss of material from the base. Henry Hurt’s Reasonable Doubt, 1985, provides a pre-divot photograph of CE 399 without extrusion or loss of material, which is one of many reasons why the honest Dr. Dolce stated that the Edgewood Arsenal tests proved it could not have smashed both rib and wrist bones.
It proved no such thing. It didn't mimic what CE399 had done.
Specter and Dr. Olivier address the capacity of a single bullet to cause all the damage done to Kennedy and Connally, and they address a possible bullet flight pattern. In between we see a bullet that shattered a radius bone, and it is “very severely flattened on the end,” looking like a cigarette stubbed out hard in a glass ashtray (5H82, see also CE 856). Specter leads Olivier to testify that CE 399 was “capable” of producing all the wounds – but in that context they ignore whether breaking the bones would leave CE 399 so little blemished (5H90).
Specter never asks the obvious:
“Dr. Olivier, is CE 853 the bullet that broke the goat’s rib shown in this x-ray?”
“How many times did you have to fire bullets through goats’ ribs to obtain a bullet so little damaged as CE 853?”
“Did you ever break a goat’s rib with a bullet that was as little damaged from the impact as CE 399?”
“Dr. Olivier, let us put aside the pretense that the FBI divot was actual damage to CE 399. Even assuming it were possible that CE 399 had been so considerably less damaged after breaking Governor Connally’s rib than CE 853 was after breaking the goat’s rib, would you expect its going on to shatter a radius bone to leave it no more deformed?”
Neither Specter nor Olivier ever alluded to the other nine bullets from the Edgewood Arsenal tests that were grossly deformed from smashing only a radius bone. ("Besmirching History: Vincent Bugliosi Assassinates Kennedy Again -- The Military and Warren Commission Cover-up," https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html#ref4)[/font]
Of course bullets that smashed only radius bone would be much more deformed than CE399. That's a no-brainer. Again I reference the tests done for the documentary Inside the Target Car. No shooting can be perfectly replicated because there are so many variables, but the tests done showed it was possible for a Carcano bullet to have passed through as much flesh and bone as CE399 did and emerge in the condition it did.
-
Whenever MTG quotes a single word out of context rather than a complete quote, it's a safe bet he is misrepresenting that the person he cited actually said.
Anyone can check the sources of my quotes and see that I am not misrepresenting them. You'd know this if you'd ever bother to read the sources I cite. I guess that just didn't occur to you.
At last, an in context quote. Dolce says the bullet should have been deformed. The fact is, it was deformed. There was a flattening of the base and the bullet was also bent.
This is so ridiculous. Good grief, this nonsense was debunked literally decades ago.
Dolce's point, which he made clear, was that CE 399 would have been far more damaged if it had caused all the wounds it allegedly caused. CE 399 is virtually undamaged. Many experts have described CE 399 as non-deformed because its deformation is so minimal, which is why even the lands and grooves are intact, and which is why it lost no more than 4 grains of its substance.
There are plenty of photos available of CE 399. Anyone not brainwashed by the single-bullet theory (SBT) can see that the missile is virtually undamaged. But here you are trying to mislead people into believing that CE 399 suffered more than just minimal/slight damage. The damage is virtually imperceptible unless you look at the base of the bullet.
Let's read FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier's description of the minimal/slight damage done to CE 399 -- indeed, notice that Frazier said the bullet may not have even lost any of its substance, among other points:
Mr. EISENBERG. In your opinion, was there any weight loss?
Mr. FRAZIER. There did not necessarily have to be any weight loss to the bullet. There may be a slight amount of lead missing from the base of the bullet, since it is exposed at the base, and the bullet is slightly flattened; there could be a slight weight loss from the end of the bullet, but it would not amount to more than 4 grains, because 158.6 is only a grain and a half less than the normal weight, and at least a 2 grain variation would be allowed. So it would be approximately 3 or 4 grains.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were the markings on the bullet at all defaced?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they were, in that the bullet is distorted by having been slightly flattened or twisted.
Mr. EISENBERG. How material would you call that defacement?
Mr. FRAZIER. It is hardly visible unless you look at the base of the bullet and notice it is not round.
Mr. EISENBERG. How far does it affect your examination for purposes of identification?
Mr. FRAZIER. It had no effect on it at all.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why?
Mr. FRAZIER. Because it did not mutilate or distort the original microscopic marks beyond the point where you could recognize the pattern and find the same pattern of marks on one bullet as were present on the other. (3 H 429, emphasis added)
The nose was not severely deformed because the nose never struck a solid object. It only hit soft tissue before it yawed.
You just keep repeating the same gibberish, the same debunked claims, over and over and over, even though you know they have been refuted.
How many times have I pointed out to you that you don't have a shred of evidence that the Connally back-wound bullet was yawing or tumbling? Connally's back wound was only 1.5 cm wide, the same width as JFK's rear head wound, yet no one has ever claimed that the JFK rear-head-shot bullet was yawing or tumbling. JFK's head wound was 1.5 x 0.6 cm, while Connally's back wound was 1.5 x 0.8 cm. Yet, again, not a soul has ever suggested that the JFK rear-head-shot bullet was yawing or tumbling.
How many times have I pointed out to you that Dr. Shaw noted that the bullet that transited Connally's chest did not yaw or tumble but created a narrow wound track through the chest, so much so that it stripped out ribbed bone while doing minimal damage to the surrounding muscles? Dr. Shaw observed that the bullet created a "small tunneling wound" (7 HSCA 149), and he noted "the neat way in which it stripped the rib out without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it" (4 H 116).
How many times have I pointed out to you Dr. Shaw's point that the bullet that hit Connally's wrist deposited fibers in the wound but that the bullet that hit Connally's back deposited zero fibers, even though it had supposedly torn through four layers of JFK's clothing and two layers of Connally's clothing?
How many times have I pointed out to you that we've known for years now that the autopsy doctors determined for an absolute, observable fact that the back wound had no exit point, that personnel around the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity, that this definitive view of the probing was possible because the pathologists removed the chest organs to facilitate the probing and to be able to see where the probe went? They could see that the back-wound bullet did not go beyond the lining of the chest cavity.
It is laughable that you would cite Finck's bogus testimony at the Clay Shaw trial in response to the disclosures about the probing. Why do you suppose Finck did not mention in his testimony that he stated during the autopsy that he had determined the back wound had no exit point? Why do you suppose he failed to mention that they removed the chest organs and manipulated the body "every which way" precisely to loosen the muscles and to facilitate the probing? Why do you suppose he failed to mention the crucial, all-important fact that the probe reached the end of the bullet's path and that the path did not penetrate the lining of the chest cavity because the end of the probe could be seen pushing up against the chest cavity lining?
But, no, none of these key facts occurred to you when you ignorantly cited Finck's false testimony as some kind of answer to the disclosures about the back-wound probing. The disclosures prove that Finck was lying through his teeth about the probing. Contrary to his lies, the disclosures prove that he was able to probe "from the entry in the back of the neck in any direction," and that "the contraction of the muscles" did not prevent the probing but was overcome by manipulating the body and removing the chest organs.
Again, for the umpteenth time, we now know that personnel standing near the autopsy table could see where the wound path ended because they could see the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity, and that it was at this point that Finck himself declared that the back wound had no exit point.
How many times have I pointed out to you that we've known for years that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound, and that Sibert and O'Neill's report on the autopsy noted that the pathologists determined that the back wound was shallow and had no exit point?
You just keep dishonestly ignoring these facts and repeating SBT claims that you know are false.
There are a few questions a critical thinker would apply to Dolce's observations.
1. In treating wounded soldiers during WWII, had Dolce ever come across a FMJ rifle bullet that struck only soft tissue but remained in the body? 2. If so, was such a bullet deformed? 3. Did Dolce ever come across a bullet in a soldier's body that he knew had first passed through another soldier's body first?
If the answers to these questions are no, then who is Dolce to say what would happen to a FMJ military round that had passed through one soldier and gone on to wound another?
LOL! So according to you, Dr. Dolce, the Army's best expert on wound ballistics at the time, the expert whom the Army recommended when the WC asked for a wound ballistics expert, the expert who chaired the Army's Wound Ballistics Board, the expert who was so highly regarded that all cases involving members of Congress and others VIPs were submitted to him for review -- according to you, he was not qualified to pass judgment on the SBT! This is just clown material.
Not pertinent because Oswald did not fire one of his rounds directly into JBC's wrist, striking it nose first. The bullet that struck JBC's wrist had first been slowed by passing through the torsos of two men and had yawed so that it was no longer traveling nose first when it struck the wrist.
In the Australian produced documentary Inside the Target Car, the team used animal carcasses to simulate the bodies of JFK and JBC. It took them several tries before they got a bullet to strike bone as Oswald's shot would have, but they did get a round to pass through soft tissue, strike rib cage, and then a bone simulating the wrist. It came out looking very much like CE399. The bullet's nose was intact and there was a bend to the bullet, similar to CE399, thus disproving Dolce's contention that it was impossible for CE399 to have caused all the wounds and emerge as it did.
CE853 did not fully mimic what CE399 had done which was to pass through the soft tissue of two men's bodies before striking rib bone and then wrist. The aforementioned Australian team was able to achieve that and the test bullet sustained damage very similar to CE399.
It proved no such thing. It didn't mimic what CE399 had done.
Of course bullets that smashed only radius bone would be much more deformed than CE399. That's a no-brainer. Again I reference the tests done for the documentary Inside the Target Car. No shooting can be perfectly replicated because there are so many variables, but the tests done showed it was possible for a Carcano bullet to have passed through as much flesh and bone as CE399 did and emerge in the condition it did.
Once again you prove you have no business commenting on the JFK case in a public forum. Obviously, you went running to some pro-WC websites and copied and pasted, or paraphrased, this stuff from them. I'm guessing you were unaware that these claims have been refuted many times over. Let's do a brief summary of the information you don't know regarding the SBT and wound ballistics tests:
-- Contrary to your false claim, the Australian SBT wound ballistics test, which was rebroadcast on the Discovery Channel, did not produce a bullet with as minimal damage as CE 399. I quote John Hunt:
The results of that test bear out of the notion that CE-399 could not have inflicted Connally’s injuries. Below is a screen shot of the bullet that passed through “JFK” and went through “Connally’s” rib and wrist. (See Figure 3.)
The Discovery Channel’s “Single Bullet” went through less rib than the bullet that went through Connally and was grossly distorted in comparison to CE-399. (See Figure 4.)
Some might argue that because the Discovery Channel bullet went through two ribs while traveling sideways, the results of the test cannot tell us anything about the JFK assassination.
This viewpoint would be wrong for a simple, logical reason: CE-399 hit whatever it hit with its side and so did the Discovery Channel bullet. And even though the Discovery Chanel bullet struck two ribs, it did not pulverize nearly 10 cm of bone, as was the case with the bullet that went through Connally’s chest.
Despite the Australian marksman’s claim that their tests validated the SBT, anyone with functioning eyes and at least two working brain cells can see that was not the case at all. Despite the on-camera proclamation, the Discovery Channel bullet produced less damage and incurred significantly more deformity than the SBT can tolerate. ("Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory" (https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm))
Anyone can look at the bullet from the Australian test and see that it was much more deformed than CE 399. Hunt provides a side-by-side comparison of the Australian test bullet and CE 399.
-- In the WC's SBT test, FMJ bullets that were merely fired into cotton wadding emerged with the same deformity or more deformity than CE 399. See CE 572.
-- In the WC's SBT test, an FMJ bullet that was fired through a goat carcass and broke one rib emerged with more deformity than CE 399, even though the goat rib was smaller than Connally's fifth rib. That bullet is shown in CE 853.
CE 572 shows the two bullets that were merely fired into cotton wadding in the WC's SBT test. One bullet shows the same amount of deformation as CE 399, while the other bullet shows more deformation than CE 399. To see this clearly, look at JFK Exhibit F-294 (see link below), which Dr. Cyril Wecht presented during his HSCA testimony. F-294 shows CE 399 beside the two CE 572 bullets, CE 583, and CE 856.
I also recommend looking at F-102 (see link below), which shows CE 399 from the side and from the bottom, to see just how minimally/slightly CE 399 was deformed.
Here's a link to Dr. Wecht's testimony, which includes F-294 and F-102:
https://share.google/DVlT9F239tY7dOt9c
Dr. Wecht pointed out that the CE 572 bullets were traveling at the same speed at which CE 399 would have been traveling before it allegedly hit JFK, and that CE 853, the goat-carcass bullet, was traveling at a speed very close to the speed at which CE 399 would have been traveling if it had transited JFK's neck before tearing through Connally's chest:
With regard to Commission Exhibit 572, the two bullets fired in the cotton wadding, that muzzle velocity was exactly the same as 399 initially, and CE 853, through the carcass of a goat, would have been reduced, it is estimated, about one-tenth, 10 percent of the original velocity, not terribly substantial. (1 HSCA 353)
-- In the Failure Analysis SBT wound ballistics test, bullets were fired into cadaver wrists at a reduced velocity, but no effort was made to simulate passing through a human neck, passing through a human chest, smashing 5 inches of rib bone, and penetrating a human thigh.
-- None other than Dr. Martin Fackler has observed that one layer of human skin has the approximate resistance strength of 4 inches of muscle tissue (https://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-19). This means that three layers of human skin have the resistance strength of 12 inches of muscle tissue, which means that CE 399 would have had to pass through the equivalent of 18 inches of muscle tissue before it even hit the wrist (three layers of skin = 12 inches of muscle tissue, plus at least 6 inches of muscle tissue in JFK's neck and Connally's back).
-- Dr. Milton Helpern, one of the greatest forensic pathologists of the 20th century, who supervised over 10,000 gunshot-wound autopsies, noted that human skin is tough, elastic, and resistant, and that this was one of the reasons he did not buy the SBT:
I cannot accept the premise that this bullet [CE 399] thrashed around in all that bony tissue and lost only 1.4 to 2.4 grains of its original weight. I cannot believe, either, that this bullet is going to emerge . . . with its lands and grooves intact.
Mr. Specter and the Commission have asked too much from this bullet. You must remember that next to bone, the skin offers the greatest resistance to a bullet in its course through the body than any other kind of tissue. The energy of the bullet is sometimes so spent that it can't quite get out through the final layer of skin, and it comes to rest just beneath the outside layer of skin. If it does get through the skin, it may not have enough energy to penetrate even an undershirt or a light cotton blouse. . . .
This single-bullet theory requires us to believe that this bullet went through seven layers of skin—tough, elastic, resistant skin. . . . In addition to these seven layers of tough human skin, this bullet [CE 399] passed through other layers of soft tissue; and then these shattered bones!
I just can’t believe that this bullet had the force to do what Mr. Specter and the Commission have demanded of it; and I don't think they have really stopped to think out carefully what they have asked of this bullet for the simple reason that they still do not understand the resistant nature of human skin to bullets. (Where Death Delights, pp. 62-63)
-- If you're thinking about citing the Haags' SBT research, Dr. Gary Aguilar discusses just a couple of the problems with the junk science behind the Haags' SBT claims:
To buck up the controversial SBT, Lucien Haag “proved” that the bullet that struck Governor Connally had passed through JFK first. His evidence? Haag said that the missile didn’t leave a small, puncture-type wound in the Governor’s back, like a typical entrance wound. Instead, it left an oval, 3-cm long, “yawed” entry wound, the full length of Commission Exhibit, #399, the so-called “magic bullet.” The ovality of that back wound was forensic proof, Haag asserted, that the bullet had been destabilized by passing through JFK and was traveling sideways, not point forward, when it hit Connally’s back. As we pointed out, this particular myth has long been debunked. Connally’s back wound was no more oval than JFK’s skull wound, and no one has ever argued JFK’s fatal missile had been destabilized and was yawing when it took the President’s life. (https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/nova-s-cold-case-jfk-junk-science-pbs)
The Haags should have known that Dr. Shaw said Connally's back wound was 1.5 cm wide, the same width as JFK's head wound. The 3-cm size was the size of the wound after Shaw debrided and cleaned it, as Shaw himself explained. This is JFK 101 stuff, and the Haags couldn't even get this simple stuff right. They used the misleading 3-cm size to support their assumption that the bullet that allegedly exited JFK's throat was traveling sideways when it hit Connally, even though Dr. Shaw said the bullet created a narrow wound track through Connally's chest. How does a 6.5 mm bullet traveling sideways create a 1.5-cm wide entry wound and a narrow wound track through a torso?
-- The 1967 CBS SBT wound ballistics test provided further evidence against the SBT. FMJ bullets that merely penetrated a 12-inch gelatin block before hitting a cadaver radius bone were unable to penetrate the simulated thigh, and many of them never even exited the cadaver radius bone. One of the expert forensic consultants for the CBS test, Dr. William F. Enos, said the CBS test proved the SBT was "highly improbable" (Mal Jay Hayman, Burying the Lead: The Media and the JFK Assassination, Trine Day LLC, 2019, pp. 214, 218).
CBS hired Dr. Alfred Olivier to conduct its SBT test. In a televised interview, Olivier admitted that his CBS test did not include striking a rib: "Of course, we have no rib here [in the test], but it still simulates passing through the flesh."
Olivier further admitted that even without simulating the damage to Connally's rib, some the bullets failed to exit the wrist: "In some cases, it passed through the wrist; in other cases it lodged in the wrist."
Crucially, as mentioned, not a single bullet in the CBS test managed to lodge in the simulated thigh.
By failing to put a simulated rib bone within the 12-inch block of ballistics gelatin, Olivier ensured that the test bullets would not become badly deformed while passing through the simulated chest. But this led to another complication: It meant the bullets would strike the simulated wrist at a greater velocity than the bullet presumed to have struck Connally's wrist -- yet, even so, not one of the bullets lodged in the simulated thigh.
-- Dr. John Lattimer's SBT test was actually fairly realistic, but, as was his habit, he misrepresented the results by falsely claiming that his test produced a bullet with the same minimal damage as CE 399.
For his SBT test, Lattimer used animal tissue to simulate Kennedy's neck, a rib cage to simulate Connally's torso, and radius bones wrapped in simulated forearms to simulate Connally's forearm. Lattimer said four bullets out of 20 struck all three objects. A picture of one of the test bullets shows it was split at the nose in several places and was markedly deformed, much more deformed than CE 399. When Stewart Galanor asked Lattimer, in a filmed interview, if he could examine the bullets that struck all three simulation objects, Lattimer said he had thrown them away (Galanor, Cover-Up, New York: Kestrel Books, 1998, p. 42).
-
Anyone can check the sources of my quotes and see that I am not misrepresenting them. You'd know this if you'd ever bother to read the sources I cite. I guess that just didn't occur to you.
Like when you cited Di Maio rejecting his earlier position that he believed Oswald was the assassin. Then I find out that the book you cited was a textbook a wound ballistics that didn't even mention the JFK assassination.
This is so ridiculous. Good grief, this nonsense was debunked literally decades ago.
Dolce's point, which he made clear, was that CE 399 would have been far more damaged if it had caused all the wounds it allegedly caused. CE 399 is virtually undamaged.
That's a lie and you know it. If you don't know that, you even more ignorant about the facts of the JFKA than I thought.
Many experts have described CE 399 as non-deformed because its deformation is so minimal, which is why even the lands and grooves are intact, and which is why it lost no more than 4 grains of its substance.
Keep doubling down on your lies. What you mean is your fellow liars have described CE399 as non-deformed. The truth is there is a flattening at the base and the bullet has a noticeable bend in it. Liars like to show photos of the bullet taken from a perspective that hides the bend, but a proper perspective shows the bend clearly.
There are plenty of photos available of CE 399. Anyone not brainwashed by the single-bullet theory (SBT) can see that the missile is virtually undamaged.
It speaks to the weakness of your position that you have to tell such bald faced lies.
But here you are trying to mislead people into believing that CE 399 suffered more than just minimal/slight damage.
Here is a perspective of CE399 the CTs never want you to see:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=99RyzIxM&id=1FD79F8347681E399A9B1024A91B9838400B6648&thid=OIP.99RyzIxMZywFH3fvM8Af5AHaEK&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2Fpoi2LOStwcU%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg&cdnurl=https%3A%2F%2Fth.bing.com%2Fth%2Fid%2FR.f7d472cc8c4c672c051f77ef33c01fe4%3Frik%3DSGYLQDiYG6kkEA%26pid%3DImgRaw%26r%3D0&exph=720&expw=1280&q=warren+commission+exhibit+showing+photos+of+CE399&FORM=IRPRST&ck=A5A660563ABC77CC151869632C602ABD&selectedIndex=9&itb=0&cw=1375&ch=659&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0
Undamaged my aching Bahookie.
The damage is virtually imperceptible unless you look at the base of the bullet.
This is along the lines of "Other than that, how did you like the play, Mrs.Lincoln?". Yes, if you don't look at the bullet from the side that shows the damage, one might believe the bullet is undamaged. Looking at it from the perspective I posted, the damage is quite clear.
Let's read FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier's description of the minimal/slight damage done to CE 399 -- indeed, notice that Frazier said the bullet may not have even lost any of its substance, among other points:
Mr. EISENBERG. In your opinion, was there any weight loss?
Mr. FRAZIER. There did not necessarily have to be any weight loss to the bullet. There may be a slight amount of lead missing from the base of the bullet, since it is exposed at the base, and the bullet is slightly flattened; there could be a slight weight loss from the end of the bullet, but it would not amount to more than 4 grains, because 158.6 is only a grain and a half less than the normal weight, and at least a 2 grain variation would be allowed. So it would be approximately 3 or 4 grains.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were the markings on the bullet at all defaced?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they were, in that the bullet is distorted by having been slightly flattened or twisted.
Mr. EISENBERG. How material would you call that defacement?
Mr. FRAZIER. It is hardly visible unless you look at the base of the bullet and notice it is not round.
Mr. EISENBERG. How far does it affect your examination for purposes of identification?
Mr. FRAZIER. It had no effect on it at all.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why?
Mr. FRAZIER. Because it did not mutilate or distort the original microscopic marks beyond the point where you could recognize the pattern and find the same pattern of marks on one bullet as were present on the other. (3 H 429, emphasis added)
A strawman argument. Nobody has said the bullet lost a lot of its material. There were the few flakes of lead that ended up in JBC's wrist and thign.
You just keep repeating the same gibberish, the same debunked claims, over and over and over, even though you know they have been refuted.
You are so full of it. I have never seen you make a claim that hasn't been debunked many, many times.
How many times have I pointed out to you that you don't have a shred of evidence that the Connally back-wound bullet was yawing or tumbling
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat your BS, it's still BS.
Connally's back wound was only 1.5 cm wide, the same width as JFK's rear head wound, yet no one has ever claimed that the JFK rear-head-shot bullet was yawing or tumbling. JFK's head wound was 1.5 x 0.6 cm, while Connally's back wound was 1.5 x 0.8 cm. Yet, again, not a soul has ever suggested that the JFK rear-head-shot bullet was yawing or tumbling.
JFK's head was tilted forward when the bullet struck creating a tangential angle of entry. That was not the case with the back wound. It was elongated because the bullet was yawing.
How many times have I pointed out to you that Dr. Shaw noted that the bullet that transited Connally's chest did not yaw or tumble but created a narrow wound track through the chest, so much so that it stripped out ribbed bone while doing minimal damage to the surrounding muscles? Dr. Shaw observed that the bullet created a "small tunneling wound" (7 HSCA 149), and he noted "the neat way in which it stripped the rib out without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it" (4 H 116).
Which is an indication the bullet was tumbling through JBC's torso. There is no reason to think that the bullet would suddenly stabilize after entering JBC's back.
How many times have I pointed out to you Dr. Shaw's point that the bullet that hit Connally's wrist deposited fibers in the wound but that the bullet that hit Connally's back deposited zero fibers, even though it had supposedly torn through four layers of JFK's clothing and two layers of Connally's clothing?
So what are you trying to say? Are you claiming the bullet that entered JBC's back hadn't first going through his clothing? I'd love to see your explanation for that.
How many times have I pointed out to you that we've known for years now that the autopsy doctors determined for an absolute, observable fact that the back wound had no exit point, that personnel around the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity, that this definitive view of the probing was possible because the pathologists removed the chest organs to facilitate the probing and to be able to see where the probe went? They could see that the back-wound bullet did not go beyond the lining of the chest cavity.
I don't count how many times you repeat the same lies.
It is laughable that you would cite Finck's bogus testimony at the Clay Shaw trial in response to the disclosures about the probing. Why do you suppose Finck did not mention in his testimony that he stated during the autopsy that he had determined the back wound had no exit point?
Since you don't quote him nor cite a source, I can only conclude you are misrepresenting what Finck said. Finck recognized the probe only a short distance. Unlike you, he knew that didn't mean the bullet did not transit through JFK's torso. He explained why in his Clay Shaw testimony and you ignored his explanation. You do that a lot when faced with inconvenient truths.
Why do you suppose he failed to mention that they removed the chest organs and manipulated the body "every which way" precisely to loosen the muscles and to facilitate the probing? Why do you suppose he failed to mention the crucial, all-important fact that the probe reached the end of the bullet's path and that the path did not penetrate the lining of the chest cavity because the end of the probe could be seen pushing up against the chest cavity lining?
Finck explained all that in his testimony in the Clay Shaw trial and you continue to ignore his explanation. Because Finck knew what he was talking about and you obviously don't, he understood that the fact a probe won't pass through a bullet channel is not an indication the bullet did not transit. Only a know-nothing such as yourself would believe something so silly. There's nothing wrong with not being able to understand principles of highly technical fields that require years of training. You go astray when you pretend you do understand them.
But, no, none of these key facts occurred to you when you ignorantly cited Finck's false testimony as some kind of answer to the disclosures about the back-wound probing. The disclosures prove that Finck was lying through his teeth about the probing. Contrary to his lies, the disclosures prove that he was able to probe "from the entry in the back of the neck in any direction," and that "the contraction of the muscles" did not prevent the probing but was overcome by manipulating the body and removing the chest organs.
It's funny how the only people who dispute Finck's explanation of why the probe wouldn't pass through the bullet channel are know-nothings such as yourself who think reading a few articles qualifies you as an expert in forensic pathology.
Again, for the umpteenth time, we now know that personnel standing near the autopsy table could see where the wound path ended because they could see the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity, and that it was at this point that Finck himself declared that the back wound had no exit point.
No, WE don't know that. YOU think you know that. The list of things you don't know but think you do is quite extensive.
How many times have I pointed out to you that we've known for years that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound, and that Sibert and O'Neill's report on the autopsy noted that the pathologists determined that the back wound was shallow and had no exit point?
Again, I don't keep a tabulation of your BS. It is true that the autopsy team was puzzled by the lack of an apparent exit wound and no bullet in the body. I don't know when it occurred to them that the tracheostomy might have been performed over the exit wound but they had to speak to Dr. Perry the next morning to confirm that. It's not important what was in their early drafts. What matters is their final conclusion an they got that right. The entire FPP concurred with their final answer that the bullet that entered JFK's back exited from his throat. It would be pretty silly of the rest of us to reject that finding simply because a know-nothing like you disagrees with the people who are trained to make such judgements.
You just keep dishonestly ignoring these facts and repeating SBT claims that you know are false.
Your factoids are not facts no matter how fervently you believe them.
LOL! So according to you, Dr. Dolce, the Army's best expert on wound ballistics at the time, the expert whom the Army recommended when the WC asked for a wound ballistics expert, the expert who chaired the Army's Wound Ballistics Board, the expert who was so highly regarded that all cases involving members of Congress and others VIPs were submitted to him for review -- according to you, he was not qualified to pass judgment on the SBT! This is just clown material.
I don't base my beliefs on my own knowledge because unlike you, I understand I am not qualified to make such judgements. Only Cyril Wecht from the FPP dissented on the SBT. All of them agreed the bullet that entered JFK's back exited from his throat, your silly opinions notwithstanding. When Vincent Bugliosi cross examined Wecht at the mock trial in London, he asked Wecht where that bullet could have gone if it didn't strike Connally. Wecht's answer made him look extremely foolish.
Once again you prove you have no business commenting on the JFK case in a public forum. Obviously, you went running to some pro-WC websites and copied and pasted,
That's the easiest way to quote a source and also the surest way because it eliminates the possibility of misquoting the source. Since you rarely quote the people you cite and when you do, you select a single word or phrase out of context, it's easy for you to just type in the cherry picked word(s).
or paraphrased, this stuff from them. I'm guessing you were unaware that these claims have been refuted many times over. Let's do a brief summary of the information you don't know regarding the SBT and wound ballistics tests:
They have been disputed, not refuted.
-- Contrary to your false claim, the Australian SBT wound ballistics test, which was rebroadcast on the Discovery Channel, did not produce a bullet with as minimal damage as CE 399. I quote John Hunt:
The results of that test bear out of the notion that CE-399 could not have inflicted Connally’s injuries. Below is a screen shot of the bullet that passed through “JFK” and went through “Connally’s” rib and wrist. (See Figure 3.)
The Discovery Channel’s “Single Bullet” went through less rib than the bullet that went through Connally and was grossly distorted in comparison to CE-399. (See Figure 4.)
The main difference between the Australian test bullet and CE399 is the test bullet had a little bit more bend in it but otherwise was very much the same. It is ludicrous to expect a perfect reproduction because of the variables involved. The test did show that the bullet could pass through similar tissue and emerge in a very similar condition without the nose of the bullet being damaged.
Some might argue that because the Discovery Channel bullet went through two ribs while traveling sideways, the results of the test cannot tell us anything about the JFK assassination.
This viewpoint would be wrong for a simple, logical reason: CE-399 hit whatever it hit with its side and so did the Discovery Channel bullet. And even though the Discovery Chanel bullet struck two ribs, it did not pulverize nearly 10 cm of bone, as was the case with the bullet that went through Connally’s chest.
Only a moron would expect an exact replication of the actual shooting.
Despite the Australian marksman’s claim that their tests validated the SBT, anyone with functioning eyes and at least two working brain cells can see that was not the case at all. Despite the on-camera proclamation, the Discovery Channel bullet produced less damage and incurred significantly more deformity than the SBT can tolerate. ("Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory" (https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm))[/font]
As I was saying...
Anyone can look at the bullet from the Australian test and see that it was much more deformed than CE 399. Hunt provides a side-by-side comparison of the Australian test bullet and CE 399.
-- In the WC's SBT test, FMJ bullets that were merely fired into cotton wadding emerged with the same deformity or more deformity than CE 399. See CE 572.
-- In the WC's SBT test, an FMJ bullet that was fired through a goat carcass and broke one rib emerged with more deformity than CE 399, even though the goat rib was smaller than Connally's fifth rib. That bullet is shown in CE 853.
Of course it did. It hadn't passed through two bodies before hitting bone and had not started to yaw. CE399 yawed upon exiting.
CE 572 shows the two bullets that were merely fired into cotton wadding in the WC's SBT test. One bullet shows the same amount of deformation as CE 399, while the other bullet shows more deformation than CE 399. To see this clearly, look at JFK Exhibit F-294 (see link below), which Dr. Cyril Wecht presented during his HSCA testimony. F-294 shows CE 399 beside the two CE 572 bullets, CE 583, and CE 856.
I also recommend looking at F-102 (see link below), which shows CE 399 from the side and from the bottom, to see just how minimally/slightly CE 399 was deformed.
So what do you think that proves? That bullets fired into different materials will end up looking different. There's a real discovery.
Here's a link to Dr. Wecht's testimony, which includes F-294 and F-102:
https://share.google/DVlT9F239tY7dOt9c
Isn't it amazing that after hearing from Wecht, the HSCA chose to concur with the conclusions of the rest of the panel.
Dr. Wecht pointed out that the CE 572 bullets were traveling at the same speed at which CE 399 would have been traveling before it allegedly hit JFK, and that CE 853, the goat-carcass bullet, was traveling at a speed very close to the speed at which CE 399 would have been traveling if it had transited JFK's neck before tearing through Connally's chest:
With regard to Commission Exhibit 572, the two bullets fired in the cotton wadding, that muzzle velocity was exactly the same as 399 initially, and CE 853, through the carcass of a goat, would have been reduced, it is estimated, about one-tenth, 10 percent of the original velocity, not terribly substantial. (1 HSCA 353)
What is mind boggling is that anyone would expect bullets fired into wadding or a goat carcass would emerge looking like CE399.
-- In the Failure Analysis SBT wound ballistics test, bullets were fired into cadaver wrists at a reduced velocity, but no effort was made to simulate passing through a human neck, passing through a human chest, smashing 5 inches of rib bone, and penetrating a human thigh.
-- None other than Dr. Martin Fackler has observed that one layer of human skin has the approximate resistance strength of 4 inches of muscle tissue (https://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-19). This means that three layers of human skin have the resistance strength of 12 inches of muscle tissue, which means that CE 399 would have had to pass through the equivalent of 18 inches of muscle tissue before it even hit the wrist (three layers of skin = 12 inches of muscle tissue, plus at least 6 inches of muscle tissue in JFK's neck and Connally's back).
-- Dr. Milton Helpern, one of the greatest forensic pathologists of the 20th century, who supervised over 10,000 gunshot-wound autopsies, noted that human skin is tough, elastic, and resistant, and that this was one of the reasons he did not buy the SBT:
I cannot accept the premise that this bullet [CE 399] thrashed around in all that bony tissue and lost only 1.4 to 2.4 grains of its original weight. I cannot believe, either, that this bullet is going to emerge . . . with its lands and grooves intact.
Mr. Specter and the Commission have asked too much from this bullet. You must remember that next to bone, the skin offers the greatest resistance to a bullet in its course through the body than any other kind of tissue. The energy of the bullet is sometimes so spent that it can't quite get out through the final layer of skin, and it comes to rest just beneath the outside layer of skin. If it does get through the skin, it may not have enough energy to penetrate even an undershirt or a light cotton blouse. . . .
This single-bullet theory requires us to believe that this bullet went through seven layers of skin—tough, elastic, resistant skin. . . . In addition to these seven layers of tough human skin, this bullet [CE 399] passed through other layers of soft tissue; and then these shattered bones!
I just can’t believe that this bullet had the force to do what Mr. Specter and the Commission have demanded of it; and I don't think they have really stopped to think out carefully what they have asked of this bullet for the simple reason that they still do not understand the resistant nature of human skin to bullets. (Where Death Delights, pp. 62-63)
Just how much experience do you think anyone has had seeing how a bullet would deform after passing through two bodies and then striking a wrist. The people you cite are simply making SWAGs (Scientific Wild Bahookie Guesses)
-- If you're thinking about citing the Haags' SBT research, Dr. Gary Aguilar discusses just a couple of the problems with the junk science behind the Haags' SBT claims:
Dr. Gary Aguilar? Another long time JFKA quack. Birds of a feather....[
For those who care, Dr. Gary Aquilar is an ophthalmologist. Just the kind of "expert" we'd expect MTG to turn to in a discussion of ballistics.
In fairness, I'm guessing Aguilar is a competent eye doctor.
To buck up the controversial SBT, Lucien Haag “proved” that the bullet that struck Governor Connally had passed through JFK first. His evidence? Haag said that the missile didn’t leave a small, puncture-type wound in the Governor’s back, like a typical entrance wound. Instead, it left an oval, 3-cm long, “yawed” entry wound, the full length of Commission Exhibit, #399, the so-called “magic bullet.” The ovality of that back wound was forensic proof, Haag asserted, that the bullet had been destabilized by passing through JFK and was traveling sideways, not point forward, when it hit Connally’s back. As we pointed out, this particular myth has long been debunked. Connally’s back wound was no more oval than JFK’s skull wound, and no one has ever argued JFK’s fatal missile had been destabilized and was yawing when it took the President’s life. (https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/nova-s-cold-case-jfk-junk-science-pbs)
The Haags should have known that Dr. Shaw said Connally's back wound was 1.5 cm wide, the same width as JFK's head wound. The 3-cm size was the size of the wound after Shaw debrided and cleaned it, as Shaw himself explained. This is JFK 101 stuff, and the Haags couldn't even get this simple stuff right. They used the misleading 3-cm size to support their assumption that the bullet that allegedly exited JFK's throat was traveling sideways when it hit Connally, even though Dr. Shaw said the bullet created a narrow wound track through Connally's chest. How does a 6.5 mm bullet traveling sideways create a 1.5-cm wide entry wound and a narrow wound track through a torso?
-- The 1967 CBS SBT wound ballistics test provided further evidence against the SBT. FMJ bullets that merely penetrated a 12-inch gelatin block before hitting a cadaver radius bone were unable to penetrate the simulated thigh, and many of them never even exited the cadaver radius bone. One of the expert forensic consultants for the CBS test, Dr. William F. Enos, said the CBS test proved the SBT was "highly improbable" (Mal Jay Hayman, Burying the Lead: The Media and the JFK Assassination, Trine Day LLC, 2019, pp. 214, 218).
CBS hired Dr. Alfred Olivier to conduct its SBT test. In a televised interview, Olivier admitted that his CBS test did not include striking a rib: "Of course, we have no rib here [in the test], but it still simulates passing through the flesh."
Olivier further admitted that even without simulating the damage to Connally's rib, some the bullets failed to exit the wrist: "In some cases, it passed through the wrist; in other cases it lodged in the wrist."
Crucially, as mentioned, not a single bullet in the CBS test managed to lodge in the simulated thigh.
By failing to put a simulated rib bone within the 12-inch block of ballistics gelatin, Olivier ensured that the test bullets would not become badly deformed while passing through the simulated chest. But this led to another complication: It meant the bullets would strike the simulated wrist at a greater velocity than the bullet presumed to have struck Connally's wrist -- yet, even so, not one of the bullets lodged in the simulated thigh.
-- Dr. John Lattimer's SBT test was actually fairly realistic, but, as was his habit, he misrepresented the results by falsely claiming that his test produced a bullet with the same minimal damage as CE 399.
For his SBT test, Lattimer used animal tissue to simulate Kennedy's neck, a rib cage to simulate Connally's torso, and radius bones wrapped in simulated forearms to simulate Connally's forearm. Lattimer said four bullets out of 20 struck all three objects. A picture of one of the test bullets shows it was split at the nose in several places and was markedly deformed, much more deformed than CE 399. When Stewart Galanor asked Lattimer, in a filmed interview, if he could examine the bullets that struck all three simulation objects, Lattimer said he had thrown them away (Galanor, Cover-Up, New York: Kestrel Books, 1998, p. 42).
None of these tests replicate Oswald's shooting of JFK. That would be impossible. They can't prove what did happen. They can only show what could have happened. What we know if we are willing to listen to qualified people is that a Carcano bullet will yaw upon exiting from soft tissue as the Haag experiments demonstrated conclusively. JBC was directly in line with a bullet exiting JFK's throat. It would have been amazing if the bullet hadn't hit him. The entrance wound on his back was elongated as would be expected with a yawing bullet. The flattening at the base of CE399 is what we would expect to see if a bullet had yawed before striking bone. Had it been a stable bullet that hit JBC's wrist, the expectation is the nose would have been deformed. Carcano bullets don't yaw unless they are strike an object first. In fact, due to the cylindrical construction, it is an extremely stable round.
-
Like when you cited Di Maio rejecting his earlier position that he believed Oswald was the assassin. Then I find out that the book you cited was a textbook a wound ballistics that didn't even mention the JFK assassination.
One, I never cited DiMaio's Gunshot Wounds handbook as evidence that he rejected the lone-assassin theory. I cited it to prove that FMJ ammo could not have produced the bullet fragmentation seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. To refresh your memory, DiMaio said that if a skull x-ray shows numerous tiny fragments, this rules out FMJ ammo; and that when FMJ bullets do fragment after striking skull bone, they will only leave a few fragments. You still refuse to face these facts.
Two, toward the end of his life, DiMaio told British physiologist Russell Kent, after corresponding extensively with Kent, that he no longer believed in the single-bullet theory.
That's a lie and you know it. If you don't know that, you even more ignorant about the facts of the JFKA than I thought.
Keep doubling down on your lies. What you mean is your fellow liars have described CE399 as non-deformed. The truth is there is a flattening at the base and the bullet has a noticeable bend in it. Liars like to show photos of the bullet taken from a perspective that hides the bend, but a proper perspective shows the bend clearly.
It speaks to the weakness of your position that you have to tell such bald faced lies.
Here is a perspective of CE399 the CTs never want you to see:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=99RyzIxM&id=1FD79F8347681E399A9B1024A91B9838400B6648&thid=OIP.99RyzIxMZywFH3fvM8Af5AHaEK&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2Fpoi2LOStwcU%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg&cdnurl=https%3A%2F%2Fth.bing.com%2Fth%2Fid%2FR.f7d472cc8c4c672c051f77ef33c01fe4%3Frik%3DSGYLQDiYG6kkEA%26pid%3DImgRaw%26r%3D0&exph=720&expw=1280&q=warren+commission+exhibit+showing+photos+of+CE399&FORM=IRPRST&ck=A5A660563ABC77CC151869632C602ABD&selectedIndex=9&itb=0&cw=1375&ch=659&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0
Undamaged my aching Bahookie.
This is along the lines of "Other than that, how did you like the play, Mrs.Lincoln?". Yes, if you don't look at the bullet from the side that shows the damage, one might believe the bullet is undamaged. Looking at it from the perspective I posted, the damage is quite clear.
A strawman argument. Nobody has said the bullet lost a lot of its material. There were the few flakes of lead that ended up in JBC's wrist and thign.
You are so full of it. I have never seen you make a claim that hasn't been debunked many, many times.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat your BS, it's still BS.
JFK's head was tilted forward when the bullet struck creating a tangential angle of entry. That was not the case with the back wound. It was elongated because the bullet was yawing.
Which is an indication the bullet was tumbling through JBC's torso. There is no reason to think that the bullet would suddenly stabilize after entering JBC's back.
So what are you trying to say? Are you claiming the bullet that entered JBC's back hadn't first going through his clothing? I'd love to see your explanation for that.
I don't count how many times you repeat the same lies.
Since you don't quote him nor cite a source, I can only conclude you are misrepresenting what Finck said. Finck recognized the probe only a short distance. Unlike you, he knew that didn't mean the bullet did not transit through JFK's torso. He explained why in his Clay Shaw testimony and you ignored his explanation. You do that a lot when faced with inconvenient truths.
Finck explained all that in his testimony in the Clay Shaw trial and you continue to ignore his explanation. Because Finck knew what he was talking about and you obviously don't, he understood that the fact a probe won't pass through a bullet channel is not an indication the bullet did not transit. Only a know-nothing such as yourself would believe something so silly. There's nothing wrong with not being able to understand principles of highly technical fields that require years of training. You go astray when you pretend you do understand them.
It's funny how the only people who dispute Finck's explanation of why the probe wouldn't pass through the bullet channel are know-nothings such as yourself who think reading a few articles qualifies you as an expert in forensic pathology.
No, WE don't know that. YOU think you know that. The list of things you don't know but think you do is quite extensive.
Again, I don't keep a tabulation of your BS. It is true that the autopsy team was puzzled by the lack of an apparent exit wound and no bullet in the body. I don't know when it occurred to them that the tracheostomy might have been performed over the exit wound but they had to speak to Dr. Perry the next morning to confirm that. It's not important what was in their early drafts. What matters is their final conclusion an they got that right. The entire FPP concurred with their final answer that the bullet that entered JFK's back exited from his throat. It would be pretty silly of the rest of us to reject that finding simply because a know-nothing like you disagrees with the people who are trained to make such judgements.
Your factoids are not facts no matter how fervently you believe them.
I don't base my beliefs on my own knowledge because unlike you, I understand I am not qualified to make such judgements. Only Cyril Wecht from the FPP dissented on the SBT. All of them agreed the bullet that entered JFK's back exited from his throat, your silly opinions notwithstanding. When Vincent Bugliosi cross examined Wecht at the mock trial in London, he asked Wecht where that bullet could have gone if it didn't strike Connally. Wecht's answer made him look extremely foolish.
That's the easiest way to quote a source and also the surest way because it eliminates the possibility of misquoting the source. Since you rarely quote the people you cite and when you do, you select a single word or phrase out of context, it's easy for you to just type in the cherry picked word(s).
They have been disputed, not refuted.
The main difference between the Australian test bullet and CE399 is the test bullet had a little bit more bend in it but otherwise was very much the same. It is ludicrous to expect a perfect reproduction because of the variables involved. The test did show that the bullet could pass through similar tissue and emerge in a very similar condition without the nose of the bullet being damaged.
Only a moron would expect an exact replication of the actual shooting.
As I was saying...
Of course it did. It hadn't passed through two bodies before hitting bone and had not started to yaw. CE399 yawed upon exiting.
So what do you think that proves? That bullets fired into different materials will end up looking different. There's a real discovery.
Isn't it amazing that after hearing from Wecht, the HSCA chose to concur with the conclusions of the rest of the panel.
What is mind boggling is that anyone would expect bullets fired into wadding or a goat carcass would emerge looking like CE399.
Just how much experience do you think anyone has had seeing how a bullet would deform after passing through two bodies and then striking a wrist. The people you cite are simply making SWAGs (Scientific Wild Bahookie Guesses)
Dr. Gary Aguilar? Another long time JFKA quack. Birds of a feather....[
For those who care, Dr. Gary Aquilar is an ophthalmologist. Just the kind of "expert" we'd expect MTG to turn to in a discussion of ballistics.
In fairness, I'm guessing Aguilar is a competent eye doctor.
None of these tests replicate Oswald's shooting of JFK. That would be impossible. They can't prove what did happen. They can only show what could have happened. What we know if we are willing to listen to qualified people is that a Carcano bullet will yaw upon exiting from soft tissue as the Haag experiments demonstrated conclusively. JBC was directly in line with a bullet exiting JFK's throat. It would have been amazing if the bullet hadn't hit him. The entrance wound on his back was elongated as would be expected with a yawing bullet. The flattening at the base of CE399 is what we would expect to see if a bullet had yawed before striking bone. Had it been a stable bullet that hit JBC's wrist, the expectation is the nose would have been deformed. Carcano bullets don't yaw unless they are strike an object first. In fact, due to the cylindrical construction, it is an extremely stable round.
This is just so much comedy and nonsense. I see that you simply refuse to deal with evidence honestly and credibly. Even when you're caught in bald-faced error, you won't admit it, and then, amazingly, you repeat your error more emphatically, as if that somehow makes it correct, such as your fiction that Connally's back wound was elongated.
I literally burst out laughing when I read your argument that JFK's rear head entry wound was not elongated because his head was tilted forward but that Connally's back wound was elongated because he was sitting upright. Holy cow. Never mind that both wounds were 1.5 cm wide! Yeah, just ignore that fact!
Every other SBT defender who has claimed Connally's back wound was elongated has done so by citing the wound's post-surgery width of 3.0 cm. Why? Because they've recognized that a wound that is only 1.5 cm wide is hardly an "elongated" wound and could not have been caused by a tumbling or severely yawing bullet. But, here you are making this silly argument, an argument that every one of your fellow SBT defenders has known better than to make.
I guess you didn't know that the official version, which you supposedly accept, says the head-shot bullet hit the head virtually straight on in its horizontal angle. Have you not seen the WC's and the HSCA FPP's wound diagrams of the rear head entry wound? Apparently you're unaware that your side, in order to explain the right-parietal exit wound, has claimed that the head-shot bullet magically veered to the right and upward after it entered at the EOP site.
An even bigger howler is your argument that the narrow wound track through Connally's chest "is an indication the bullet was tumbling through JBC's torso." Umm, no, it is not. It indicates the exact opposite. If the bullet had been tumbling through the chest, the wound track would not have been narrow. How on Earth can you not understand this? I mean, do you have a lick of common sense when it comes to the JFK case? Do you have any clue how silly you look here?
You can't admit that the Connally chest-wound bullet was not tumbling when it hit and did not tumble through the chest because admitting this would debunk the SBT, so you resort to abject nonsense instead.
For those who may be new to this subject, the tumbling-bullet myth is an attempt to explain the fact that CE 399, the alleged magic bullet in the single-bullet theory (SBT), is slightly deformed in a way that proves that whatever it hit, it hit while traveling sideways. So the SBT fundamentally requires that when the bullet hit Connally's back, it hit while flying sideways -- not just markedly yawing, but sideways, because the deformation could have only occurred by hitting an object sideways.
Comically, you again resort to appealing to the FPP's conclusion that the back-wound bullet exited the throat! Oh, so you're back to this line, huh?! Did you forget that the FPP also said the back wound was nearly 2 inches lower than where Humes and the WC placed it, that the back wound was actually slightly below the throat wound, and that the bullet that hit the back struck at an upward angle? Did you forget all that?
Did you forget that the only explanation the FPP offered for the throat wound's entry-like appearance was the impossible shored-wound theory, and that the only way that Baden could explain the bullet's upward trajectory was to assume that JFK was leaning well over 50 degrees forward when the bullet struck? Did you forget all that? Surely you didn't think I would forget all that, did you? Don't you get tired of being proven to be so incompetent, inaccurate, and contradictory all the time?
I'm still waiting for you to explain how your magic bullet could have exited the throat without tearing a hole through the tie knot or without at least nicking the right or left edge of the knot. You keep dodging the fact that we have ample photographic evidence that JFK's tie knot was neatly centered in the middle of his collar band. Any bullet exiting the throat/shirt slits would have had to tear through the tie knot or at least nick its left edge. For years the FBI created the false impression with a manipulated evidence photo that there was a hole in the middle of the tie knot, but we now know there was no hole through the knot and no nick on either edge of the knot.
Incredibly, you claim that the first two drafts of the autopsy report are "not important," and that what really matters is "their final conclusion"! To support this odd argument, you repeat the long-debunked myth that Humes didn't talk with Perry until the following morning, when we have known for years that Humes was in contact with Perry well before the autopsy ended. I documented this fact earlier in this thread, and I have documented it in greater detail in other recent threads, but you continue to ignore it.
I'm trying to fathom the thought process behind the unserious, vacuous claim that the first two drafts of the autopsy report are "not important," especially given how contradictory they were, given that we've known for years that Humes knew about the throat wound long before the autopsy ended, and given the disclosures about the back-wound probing.
As for your claim that the Australian SBT test bullet and CE 399 have virtually the same amount of deformation, people are going to see what a total clown you are when they look at the test bullet and CE 399. CE 399 is clearly far less deformed than the test bullet. I'm guessing you're just hoping that most readers won't bother to look at the side-by-side comparison of the two bullets, or else you're legally blind. Here's the link again:
"Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory" (https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm) (See Figure 4.)
It says volumes about your honesty and credibility that you would claim that the only difference between CE 399 and the Australian test bullet is that the test bullet has "a little bit more bend in it." Oh! A "little bit more bend," huh?! What do you suppose people will think of you when they look at Figure 4 in Hunt's article and see the obvious difference between the two bullets? It seems you will tell any lie and dismiss any fact rather than just admit the SBT is fiction.
In response to my quoting of Frazier on CE 399's "slight" deformity and virtually zero loss of substance, you falsely label this "a strawman argument" because "nobody has said the bullet lost a lot of its material." You completely avoided Frazier's comments about the minimal amount of deformity to CE 399, including the fact that its lands and grooves were intact and that the deformation is barely visible unless you view the bullet from the base.
You just whiffed on all that and focused on his remark about the loss of substance with the inane argument that "nobody has said the bullet lost a lot of its material." Can you read? I didn't say that anyone had ever said the bullet lost "a lot of its substance." The argument has always been that the bullet should have lost a lot of its substance if it did all the damage claimed for it.
The fragments in Connally's wrist were not "flakes." Good grief, even Humes and Finck noted this to the WC in explaining why they did not think CE 399 could have caused Connally's wrist wound. How can you not know this? The "flakes" myth was buried for good in the 1990s with the ARRB disclosures. Nurse Bell, who assisted with the wrist surgery, handled the fragments from the wrist -- she noted they were definitely not flakes. But of course you know nothing about any of this because you won't read anything that disagrees with you.
In reply to my point that Dr. Shaw noted that the bullet that hit Connally's wrist deposited fibers in the wound but that the bullet that hit Connally's back deposited zero fibers, even though it had supposedly torn through four layers of JFK's clothing and two layers of Connally's clothing, you said,
So what are you trying to say? Are you claiming the bullet that entered JBC's back hadn't first going through his clothing? I'd love to see your explanation for that.
Huh? Just Huh? How does this address the point that the bullet that hit Connally's wrist deposited fibers in the wrist wound but that the bullet that hit Connally's back deposited no fibers in the back wound? Huh? How does that work, especially if we assume the bullet was tumbling when it hit?! Sheesh, is there no end to your silliness?
If the Connally back-wound bullet only tore through two layers of clothing, i.e., Connally's coat and shirt, one could understand why the bullet did not deposit fibers in the back wound; but if the bullet tore through six layers of clothing before hitting the back, surely it would have deposited some fibers in the wound, given that fibers were deposited in the wrist wound.
You say you find it "mind boggling" that anyone "would expect bullets fired into wadding or a goat carcass would emerge looking like CE399." Umm, well, nobody says that. Do you just not have the mental capacity to grasp the point that since those bullets did less damage than CE 399, they should have emerged less deformed than CE 399? Again, you seem to lack even a modicum of common sense when it comes to the JFK case.
I notice you dismissed the 1967 CBS SBT wound ballistics test and Lattimer's SBT wound ballistics test, both of which failed to support the SBT, with the lame, evasive argument that they did not "duplicate" the shooting of JFK. One, Lattimer's test actually did duplicate every part of the SBT's alleged journey, but the resulting bullets were badly damaged. Two, the CBS test, as you surely already knew, was not designed to duplicate every part of CE 399's supposed journey but only part of its alleged journey through Connally's chest and then through his wrist and into his thigh -- yet, even then, not one of the test bullets managed to penetrate the simulated thigh, and many of them failed to leave the wrist at all. But you just dismiss these facts with another one of your lame evasions.
Finally, I come to your repetition of your bogus argument that Finck's Clay Shaw trial testimony "explains" the disclosures about the back-wound probing, the early versions of the autopsy report, and the Sibert and O'Neill report on the autopsy. You must be kidding.
You simply ignored my point that the disclosures prove that Finck was indeed able to find the end of the wound, not to mention that it was at that point that Finck himself announced for all to hear that the back wound had no exit point. You just ignored all that and repeated your previous nonsense that Finck "explained all that" in his Shaw trial testimony. No, he did not. He did no such thing. He falsely claimed he could not probe the wound path because of the "contraction of muscles." The ARRB disclosures alone prove this was not true. Go read Sibert and O'Neill's ARRB interviews, for starters.
I again ask you, why do you suppose Finck failed to mention that they removed the chest organs and then manipulated the body in order to complete the probing? Why do you suppose he failed to mention that he himself declared right after the probing that the back wound had no exit point? Why did not a single autopsy witness recall Finck expressing any doubt whatsoever about his no-exit declaration? (Answer: Because he had no doubt about it, since he could see the same thing that the other men around the autopsy table could see, as we now know.)
You complained that I didn't "quote him [Finck] nor cite a source" regarding Finck's "this wound has no exit" statement during the autopsy. Given that I have quoted Finck and provided documentation for the quote in many other replies on the subject in this forum, your complaint is both misleading and pointless.
If you had read the ARRB materials, which have been available for over 20 years now, you would have already known about Finck's statement and the nature and results of the back-wound probing. Sheesh, med-tech Jenkins disclosed this in the late 1970s in a recorded interview, and the ARRB-era disclosures confirmed his account. Yet, this is all still news to you in 2026. Pathetic.
You see, the main problem here, in addition to your woeful lack of research, is that you can't bring yourself to be honest about this crucial issue because you know that if you admit the back wound had no exit point, your entire theory of the shooting collapses. So, rather than judge your theory by the facts, you dismiss the facts because they refute your theory.
-
One, I never cited DiMaio's Gunshot Wounds handbook as evidence that he rejected the lone-assassin theory.I cited it to prove that FMJ ammo could not have produced the bullet fragmentation seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. To refresh your memory, DiMaio said that if a skull x-ray shows numerous tiny fragments, this rules out FMJ ammo; and that when FMJ bullets do fragment after striking skull bone, they will only leave a few fragments. You still refuse to face these facts.
Not all FMJ bullets are alike. Most homicides committed with FMJ ammo are with handguns which have a much lower velocity. What matters is how Carcano 6.5mm FMJ ammo reacts when striking a skull. I doubt Di Maio ever addressed that point in his textbook.
Two, toward the end of his life, DiMaio told British physiologist Russell Kent, after corresponding extensively with Kent, that he no longer believed in the single-bullet theory.
Tell us what your source for that claim is. A direct quote would be nice, not your typical spin on what somebody else has said.
This is just so much comedy and nonsense. I see that you simply refuse to deal with evidence honestly and credibly.
You don't present evidence, you present your spin. You have no qualifications as a forensic pathologist or a ballistics expert yet you pontificate as if you do. No court in the land would allow you to testify as an expert in either of these fields and as such, your opinions do not constitute evidence.
Even when you're caught in bald-faced error, you won't admit it, and then, amazingly, you repeat your error more emphatically, as if that somehow makes it correct, such as your fiction that Connally's back wound was elongated.
Even using your figures of a wound 1.5cm by 0.8cm, that is an elongated wound. If it were a round entry, it would have a single diameter.
I literally burst out laughing when I read your argument that JFK's rear head entry wound was not elongated because his head was tilted forward but that Connally's back wound was elongated because he was sitting upright. Holy cow. Never mind that both wounds were 1.5 cm wide! Yeah, just ignore that fact!
Aside form the fact your reading comprehension on this point is amazingly poor, the fact you reject the point I made makes it more credible. I would have to rethink my position if you ever agreed with me on anything.
Every other SBT defender who has claimed Connally's back wound was elongated has done so by citing the wound's post-surgery width of 3.0 cm. Why? Because they've recognized that a wound that is only 1.5 cm wide is hardly an "elongated" wound and could not have been caused by a tumbling or severely yawing bullet. But, here you are making this silly argument, an argument that every one of your fellow SBT defenders has known better than to make.
It doesn't matter how elongated the wound was, the fact is it was elongated. A stable bullet is not going to make an elongated entrance wound unless it has a tangential angle of entry. That would not have been the case with JBC's back wound. It is elongated because the bullet yawed.
I guess you didn't know that the official version, which you supposedly accept, says the head-shot bullet hit the head virtually straight on in its horizontal angle. Have you not seen the WC's and the HSCA FPP's wound diagrams of the rear head entry wound? Apparently you're unaware that your side, in order to explain the right-parietal exit wound, has claimed that the head-shot bullet magically veered to the right and upward after it entered at the EOP site.
I don't have a side. I am only interested in the truth.
An even bigger howler is your argument that the narrow wound track through Connally's chest "is an indication the bullet was tumbling through JBC's torso." Umm, no, it is not. It indicates the exact opposite. If the bullet had been tumbling through the chest, the wound track would not have been narrow. How on Earth can you not understand this? I mean, do you have a lick of common sense when it comes to the JFK case? Do you have any clue how silly you look here?
You can't admit that the Connally chest-wound bullet was not tumbling when it hit and did not tumble through the chest because admitting this would debunk the SBT, so you resort to abject nonsense instead.
Rather than the two of us continuing to put our lack of expertise about wound ballistics on full display, suffice it to say that the flattening at the base of the bullet is prima facie evidence that the bullet was yawing when it struck JBC's wrist. Had it been a stable bullet, it would have struck the wrist nose first and the flattening would be on the nose of the bullet, not the base. It's also unlikely the bullet would have deposited lead flakes into JBC's wrist because the lead was only exposed at the base.
For those who may be new to this subject, the tumbling-bullet myth is an attempt to explain the fact that CE 399, the alleged magic bullet in the single-bullet theory (SBT), is slightly deformed in a way that proves that whatever it hit, it hit while traveling sideways. So the SBT fundamentally requires that when the bullet hit Connally's back, it hit while flying sideways -- not just markedly yawing, but sideways, because the deformation could have only occurred by hitting an object sideways.
It almost seems like you are finally catching on. The flattening on one side of the base is an indication the bullet struck a hard object, probably the wrist bone, while traveling sideways. We can safely say the bullet did not smash nose first into his wrist because that would have flattened the nose of the bullet. The bullet had to be yawing when it struck the wrist bone.
Comically, you again resort to appealing to the FPP's conclusion that the back-wound bullet exited the throat! Oh, so you're back to this line, huh?! Did you forget that the FPP also said the back wound was nearly 2 inches lower than where Humes and the WC placed it, that the back wound was actually slightly below the throat wound, and that the bullet that hit the back struck at an upward angle? Did you forget all that?
Since I wasn't at the autopsy nor was I present when the autopsy evidence was presented to the FPP, I'm not going to quibble about which of them correctly placed the wound. It is enough to know that the bullet that entered his back exited from his throat. That is the only explanation that makes the least bit of sense. A bullet exiting JFK's throat on a downward angle would have been heading directly toward the right side of JBC's back given that he was sitting approcimately half a body width inboard from JFK. It could hardly have missed him.
Did you forget that the only explanation the FPP offered for the throat wound's entry-like appearance was the impossible shored-wound theory, and that the only way that Baden could explain the bullet's upward trajectory was to assume that JFK was leaning well over 50 degrees forward when the bullet struck? Did you forget all that? Surely you didn't think I would forget all that, did you? Don't you get tired of being proven to be so incompetent, inaccurate, and contradictory all the time?
I don't have the expertise to judge whether JFK's collar and tie contributed to the neat round exit wound or if the fact it was an FMJ bullet is enough to explain that. Since neither the original autopsy team nor the FPP saw the wound as it appeared before the tracheostomy, they were left to speculate regarding its appearance. That doesn't change the fact they were able to determine, without dissent, that the bullet that entered his back exited from his throat. We can accept that finding or we can go with your goofball interpretation of the medical evidence. That's not a difficult choice at all.
I'm still waiting for you to explain how your magic bullet could have exited the throat without tearing a hole through the tie knot or without at least nicking the right or left edge of the knot. You keep dodging the fact that we have ample photographic evidence that JFK's tie knot was neatly centered in the middle of his collar band. Any bullet exiting the throat/shirt slits would have had to tear through the tie knot or at least nick its left edge. For years the FBI created the false impression with a manipulated evidence photo that there was a hole in the middle of the tie knot, but we now know there was no hole through the knot and no nick on either edge of the knot.
I don't know what your source is for your claim that there was no nick in the know of the tie and you are the only one I've ever seen make that claim, but whether that is true of not, it in no way invalidates the SBT. The bullet did pass through his shirt collar. Those fibers were pushed outward while the fibers in the back of his shirt and jacket were pushed inward. It doesn't require Sherlock Holmes to figure out what that means. .
Incredibly, you claim that the first two drafts of the autopsy report are "not important," and that what really matters is "their final conclusion"!
Of course it doesn't matter. During a fact finding process, hypotheses are developed and compared to the available evidence to determine their validity. As further evidence is gathered, early hypotheses can be validated or discarded depending on what is found.
In creating the electric light bulb, Edison failed over 1000 times. He said those weren't failures. He said with each of them, he discovered something that didn't work. I doubt the autopsy team discovered over 1000 things that didn't work, but no doubt that had several before they reached the correct answer.
To support this odd argument, you repeat the long-debunked myth that Humes didn't talk with Perry until the following morning, when we have known for years that Humes was in contact with Perry well before the autopsy ended. I documented this fact earlier in this thread, and I have documented it in greater detail in other recent threads, but you continue to ignore it.
Humes talked to Perry several times, some that night and some the next morning. Why do you find that odd?
I'm trying to fathom the thought process behind the unserious, vacuous claim that the first two drafts of the autopsy report are "not important," especially given how contradictory they were, given that we've known for years that Humes knew about the throat wound long before the autopsy ended, and given the disclosures about the back-wound probing.
I gave uo trying to understand your thought process a long time ago. It has never made any sense.
As for your claim that the Australian SBT test bullet and CE 399 have virtually the same amount of deformation, people are going to see what a total clown you are when they look at the test bullet and CE 399. CE 399 is clearly far less deformed than the test bullet. I'm guessing you're just hoping that most readers won't bother to look at the side-by-side comparison of the two bullets, or else you're legally blind. Here's the link again:
I said the Australian test bullet and CE399 had similar damage. If you want to interpret that to mean the same, that's on you. What their experiment showed is a bullet could pass through layers of flesh and bone and emerge largely intact and without a deformed nose. That negates the argument that the single bullet couldn't have caused all those wounds and ended up like CE399.
"Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory" (https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm) (See Figure 4.)
It says volumes about your honesty and credibility that you would claim that the only difference between CE 399 and the Australian test bullet is that the test bullet has "a little bit more bend in it." Oh! A "little bit more bend," huh?! What do you suppose people will think of you when they look at Figure 4 in Hunt's article and see the obvious difference between the two bullets? It seems you will tell any lie and dismiss any fact rather than just admit the SBT is fiction.
in typical CT fashion, Hunt displays CE399 from the perspective that hides the deformation of the bullet. Rotating the bullet a half turn would reveal the true extent of the damage, including the bend and the flattening of the base. Contrary to what CTs have long claimed, CE399 was far from pristine and it's damage is obvious when looked at from the proper angle.
In response to my quoting of Frazier on CE 399's "slight" deformity and virtually zero loss of substance, you falsely label this "a strawman argument" because "nobody has said the bullet lost a lot of its material." You completely avoided Frazier's comments about the minimal amount of deformity to CE 399, including the fact that its lands and grooves were intact and that the deformation is barely visible unless you view the bullet from the base.
What an idiotic argument. Of course you have to view CE399 from the correct perspective to see the true extend of the damage. The damage is there. Yes, the damage can be hidden if the bullet is photographed from the opposite side. So what?
You just whiffed on all that and focused on his remark about the loss of substance with the inane argument that "nobody has said the bullet lost a lot of its material." Can you read? I didn't say that anyone had ever said the bullet lost "a lot of its substance." The argument has always been that the bullet should have lost a lot of its substance if it did all the damage claimed for it.
That's a real dumbass supposition.
The fragments in Connally's wrist were not "flakes." Good grief, even Humes and Finck noted this to the WC in explaining why they did not think CE 399 could have caused Connally's wrist wound. How can you not know this? The "flakes" myth was buried for good in the 1990s with the ARRB disclosures. Nurse Bell, who assisted with the wrist surgery, handled the fragments from the wrist -- she noted they were definitely not flakes. But of course you know nothing about any of this because you won't read anything that disagrees with you.
The flakes were described as having the weight of a postage stamp. Why are Humes and Finck's comments about Connally's wrist wound the least bit relevant. They looked at JFK's body. They never saw Connally. It's pretty moronic to even mention them in a discussion about JBC's wrist wound.
In reply to my point that Dr. Shaw noted that the bullet that hit Connally's wrist deposited fibers in the wound but that the bullet that hit Connally's back deposited zero fibers, even though it had supposedly torn through four layers of JFK's clothing and two layers of Connally's clothing, you said,
Huh? Just Huh? How does this address the point that the bullet that hit Connally's wrist deposited fibers in the wrist wound but that the bullet that hit Connally's back deposited no fibers in the back wound? Huh? How does that work, especially if we assume the bullet was tumbling when it hit?! Sheesh, is there no end to your silliness.
I'm trying to understand what your point was, which isn't an easy task. What is it you are trying to claim by pointing out there were no fibers in JBC's back wound. Are you trying to suggest that the bullet that entered his back hadn't gone through his jacket and shirt first. Why did you even bring that up?
If the Connally back-wound bullet only tore through two layers of clothing, i.e., Connally's coat and shirt, one could understand why the bullet did not deposit fibers in the back wound; but if the bullet tore through six layers of clothing before hitting the back, surely it would have deposited some fibers in the wound, given that fibers were deposited in the wrist wound
Now you are pretending to be an expert on fiber evidence. Is there no end to the fields you will pontificate on in which you have zero expertise? You seem to just pull things out of your Bahookie because they sound good to you. Maybe you should run them by a fifth grader first to find out if they actually make sense.
I notice you dismissed the 1967 CBS SBT wound ballistics test and Lattimer's SBT wound ballistics test, both of which failed to support the SBT, with the lame, evasive argument that they did not "duplicate" the shooting of JFK. One, Lattimer's test actually did duplicate every part of the SBT's alleged journey, but the resulting bullets were badly damaged. Two, the CBS test, as you surely already knew, was not designed to duplicate every part of CE 399's supposed journey but only part of its alleged journey through Connally's chest and then through his wrist and into his thigh -- yet, even then, not one of the test bullets managed to penetrate the simulated thigh, and many of them failed to leave the wrist at all. But you just dishonestly dismiss these facts with another one of your lame evasions.
You continue to operate under the ridiculous premise that a shooting can be perfectly replicated. You could take just about any shooting and try to replicate it 1000 times without reproducing exactly the same result. It is a moronic argument the CTs have floated for years when they claim Oswald's shooting has never been duplicated. Of course it hasn't. That would be impossible. A result only has to happen one time to be possible. It is ludicrous to demand it be duplicated.
Finally, I come to your repetition of your bogus argument that Finck's Clay Shaw trial testimony "explains" the disclosures about the back-wound probing, the early versions of the autopsy report, and the Sibert and O'Neill report on the autopsy. You must be kidding.
I realize this is an inconvenient truth for your silly beliefs.
You simply ignored my point that the disclosures prove that Finck was indeed able to find the end of the wound, not to mention that it was at that point that Finck himself announced for all to hear that the back wound had no exit point. You just ignored all that and repeated your previous nonsense that Finck "explained all that" in his Shaw trial testimony. No, he did not. He did no such thing. He falsely claimed he could not probe the wound path because of the "contraction of muscles." The ARRB disclosures alone prove this was not true. Go read Sibert and O'Neill's ARRB interviews, for starters.
I again ask you, why do you suppose Finck failed to mention that they removed the chest organs and then manipulated the body in order to complete the probing? Why do you suppose he failed to mention that he himself declared right after the probing that the back wound had no exit point? Why did not a single autopsy witness recall Finck expressing any doubt whatsoever about his no-exit declaration? (Answer: Because he had no doubt about it, since he could see the same thing that the other man around the autopsy table could see, as we now know.)
Seriously? You need this explained to you? Again? The muscle groups in JFK's back were in a different position when he was shot than when he was laying on the autopsy table. Add to that the effects of rigor mortis and it is not at all surprising that the probe would not pass through the bullet channel. Finck understood that and he explained that in his trial testimony. Apparently, that explanation sailed way over your head.
You complained that I didn't "quote him [Finck] nor cite a source" regarding Finck's "this wound has no exit" statement during the autopsy. Given that I have quoted Finck and provided documentation for the quote in many other replies on the subject in this forum, your complaint is both misleading and pointless.
Whether Finck said that or not is irrelevant. It was not his final conclusion nor that of the final autopsy report. It was not the conclusion of the FPP which unanimously concurred with the finding that the bullet that entered JFK's back exited from his throat. What reason would I have to care what a dumbass thinks about that conclusion?
If you had read the ARRB materials, which have been available for over 20 years now, you would have already known about Finck's statement and the nature and results of the back-wound probing. Sheesh, med-tech Jenkins disclosed this in the late 1970s in a recorded interview, and the ARRB-era disclosures confirmed his account. Yet, this is all still news to you in 2026. Pathetic.
What is pathetic is your continued practice of always citing the least qualified people available and ignoring the people who have actual know-how. Jenkins was a STUDENT technician when he assisted in the autopsy of JFK. And of course you find his impressions compelling while ignoring the findings of the autopsy team and the entire FPP.
That's comical but expected.
You see, the main problem here, in addition to your woeful lack of research, is that you can't bring yourself to be honest about this crucial issue because you know that if you admit the back wound had no exit point, your entire theory of the shooting collapses. So, rather than judge your theory by the facts, you dismiss the facts because they refute your theory.
I can't dumb his down enough for you to understand. Every qualified person who has seen the medical evidence has concurred with the finding that the bullet tha entered JFK's back exited from his throat. Your dumbass, amateurish analysis of the evidence does nothing to invalidate that finding.
-
Two of the biggest things the autopsy doctors had to cover up were (1) that they had determined for an absolute fact, through prolonged and careful probing, that the back wound had no exit point; and (2) that they were aware of the throat wound before and during the autopsy. This is why the Sibert and O'Neill report on the autopsy, which revealed the back wound had no exit point, was not published with the Warren Commission (WC) volumes but was sealed (and keep in mind that it was supposed to stay sealed for 75 years -- it was released in the 1990s when the ARRB released it).
The Back Wound Had No Exit Point
To his great credit, Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, one of the three autopsy pathologists, admitted to the ARRB that although they were initially unable to probe the back wound because the muscles had closed the path, they were able to probe the wound after they opened the chest, and that they then saw that the bullet "had not pierced through the lung cavity" but had caused bleeding "just outside the pleura," i.e., just outside the lining of the chest cavity:
We probed this hole . . . 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 [chest cavity lining]. (ARRB interview: Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, 2/26/96, pp. 75-76)
When Boswell said "opened the chest," he was referring to the fact that they removed the chest organs in order to be able to probe the back wound and to see where the probe was going.
We know this from the testimony of Dr. Robert Karnei. Dr. Karnei was a resident surgeon at Bethesda Naval Hospital in 1963 and witnessed the autopsy. In his 8/27/77 HSCA interview, Dr. Karnei 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" (HSCA interview: Dr. Robert Karnei, 8/27/77, p. 6). This is one of many references from the autopsy witnesses to the fact that photos were taken of the probing, but no such photos made it into the official record and have disappeared.
In a 1991 recorded interview, Dr. 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”:
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.
(Livingstone interview transcript, p. 10)
James Jenkins confirmed this crucial fact in his HSCA interview nearly 20 years earlier and in his 1979 filmed interview. Jenkins, a medical technician who assisted Dr. Boswell during the autopsy, stated in his 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” (HSCA interview: James Jenkins, 8/29/77, 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 never made it into the official collection of the autopsy materials and have disappeared.
In his 1979 filmed interview, Jenkins explained that he could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity:
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.
Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, stated in his testimony to the HSCA’s medical panel that the autopsy doctors determined 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 not 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. ("Testimony of John H. Ebersole," HSCA, 3/11/78, p. 57)
FBI agent James Sibert confirmed this in his ARRB interview, and added that the autopsy doctors -- "Finck, in particular" -- said during the autopsy, after probing the wound, that the back wound had no exit point, and that the pathologists also said they could feel the end of the back wound:
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. . . .
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. (ARRB interview: James Sibert, 9/11/97, pp. 59, 111)
FBI agent Francis O'Neill told the ARRB the same thing:
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. (ARRB interview: Francis O'Neill, 9/12/97, pp. 30-31)
Let's read what Sibert and O'Neill said about this in their 11/26/63 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. . . . 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.[/i] ("Autopsy of Body of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy," 11/26/1963, p. 4)
As many here know, we have known for years that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. One draft said the back wound had no exit point and said nothing about the throat wound, while the other draft said a fragment from the head shot exited the throat. In both drafts, the back wound had no exit point. This was first revealed with the release of the transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session.
The Autopsy Doctors Knew About the Throat Wound Before the Autopsy, and Humes Talked with Perry by No Later Than 10:30 During the Autopsy
It has become clear that the autopsy doctors were aware of the throat wound before and that Humes talked with Dr. Perry well before the autopsy ended. But, after Oswald was killed, everything changed and along came the lie that Humes had no idea there was a throat wound until the morning after the autopsy, that Humes did not talk with Perry until the morning after the autopsy, and that only then did Humes "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.
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. Malcolm Perry's comments about the throat wound that Perry made in the Parkland press conference several hours 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 at the Parkland press conference were all over the news that afternoon and evening.
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).
One of the many historic disclosures from the ARRB materials is Dr. Ebersole's statement to the HSCA FPP that by around 10:00 or 10:30, Humes knew about the throat wound from communications with Dallas. Ebersole said he recalled that "by ten or ten thirty . . . communication had been established with Dallas and it was learned" that "there had been a wound . . . in the lower neck" ("Testimony of John H. Ebersole," HSCA, 3/11/1978, pp. 4-5.)
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. Steadman also 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. I quote from Steadman's article:
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....(https://web.archive.org/web/20241006184009/http://evesmag.com/jfkassassination.htm; http://evesmag.com/jfkassassination.htm; https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-ordeal-of-malcolm-perry)
Crucially, Parkland supervisory 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)
Nurse Bell told the HSCA the same thing in 1977 (http://www.stickam.com/member/viewMedia.do?mId=184850325&mediaowner=true).
-
Two of the biggest things the autopsy doctors had to cover up were (1) that they had determined for an absolute fact, through prolonged and careful probing, that the back wound had no exit point; and (2) that they were aware of the throat wound before and during the autopsy. This is why the Sibert and O'Neill report on the autopsy, which revealed the back wound had no exit point, was not published with the Warren Commission (WC) volumes but was sealed (and keep in mind that it was supposed to stay sealed for 75 years -- it was not released until the 1990s when the ARRB released it).
The Back Wound Had No Exit Point
To his great credit, Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, one of the three autopsy pathologists, admitted to the ARRB that although they were initially unable to probe the back wound because the muscles had closed the path, they were able to probe the wound after they opened the chest, and that they then saw that the bullet "had not pierced through the lung cavity" but had caused bleeding "just outside the pleura," i.e., just outside the lining of the chest cavity:
We probed this hole . . . 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 [chest cavity lining]. (ARRB interview: Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, 2/26/96, pp. 75-76)
When Boswell said "opened the chest," he was referring to the fact that they removed the chest organs in order to be able to probe the back wound and to see where the probe was going.
We know this from the testimony of Dr. Robert Karnei. Dr. Karnei was a resident surgeon at Bethesda Naval Hospital in 1963 and witnessed the autopsy. In his 8/27/77 HSCA interview, Dr. Karnei 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" (HSCA interview: Dr. Robert Karnei, 8/27/77, p. 6). This is one of many references from the autopsy witnesses to the fact that photos were taken of the probing, but no such photos made it into the official record and have disappeared.
In a 1991 recorded interview, Dr. 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”:
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.
(Livingstone interview transcript, p. 10)
James Jenkins confirmed this crucial fact in his HSCA interview nearly 20 years earlier and in his 1979 filmed interview. Jenkins, a medical technician who assisted Dr. Boswell during the autopsy, stated in his 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” (HSCA interview: James Jenkins, 8/29/77, 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 never made it into the official collection of the autopsy materials and have disappeared.
In his 1979 filmed interview, Jenkins explained that he could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity:
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.
Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, stated in his testimony to the HSCA’s medical panel that the autopsy doctors determined 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 not 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. ("Testimony of John H. Ebersole," HSCA, 3/11/78, p. 57)
FBI agent James Sibert confirmed this in his ARRB interview, and added that the autopsy doctors -- "Finck, in particular" -- said during the autopsy, after probing the wound, that the back wound had no exit point, and that the pathologists also said they could feel the end of the back wound:
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. . . .
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. (ARRB interview: James Sibert, 9/11/97, pp. 59, 111)
FBI agent Francis O'Neill told the ARRB the same thing:
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. (ARRB interview: Francis O'Neill, 9/12/97, pp. 30-31)
Let's read what Sibert and O'Neill said about this in their 11/26/63 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. . . . 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.[/i] ("Autopsy of Body of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy," 11/26/1963, p. 4)
As many here know, we have known for years that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. One draft said the back wound had no exit point and said nothing about the throat wound, while the other draft said a fragment from the head shot exited the throat. In both drafts, the back wound had no exit point. This was first revealed with the release of the transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session.
The Autopsy Doctors Knew About the Throat Wound Before the Autopsy, and Humes Talked with Perry by No Later Than 10:30 During the Autopsy
It has become clear that the autopsy doctors were aware of the throat wound before and that Humes talked with Dr. Perry well before the autopsy ended. But, after Oswald was killed, everything changed and along came the lie that Humes had no idea there was a throat wound until the morning after the autopsy, that Humes did not talk with Perry until the morning after the autopsy, and that only then did Humes "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.
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. Malcolm Perry's comments about the throat wound that Perry made in the Parkland press conference several hours 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 at the Parkland press conference were all over the news that afternoon and evening.
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).
One of the many historic disclosures from the ARRB materials is Dr. Ebersole's statement to the HSCA FPP that by around 10:00 or 10:30, Humes knew about the throat wound from communications with Dallas. Ebersole said he recalled that "by ten or ten thirty . . . communication had been established with Dallas and it was learned" that "there had been a wound . . . in the lower neck" ("Testimony of John H. Ebersole," HSCA, 3/11/1978, pp. 4-5.)
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. Steadman also 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. I quote from Steadman's article:
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....(https://web.archive.org/web/20241006184009/http://evesmag.com/jfkassassination.htm; http://evesmag.com/jfkassassination.htm; https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-ordeal-of-malcolm-perry)
Crucially, Parkland supervisory 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)
Nurse Bell told the HSCA the same thing in 1977 (http://www.stickam.com/member/viewMedia.do?mId=184850325&mediaowner=true).
Once again, random nonsense and unbelievably loose with the facts. How do you explain Gov Connally's wounds if the bullet does not first pass through JFK?
-
Two of the biggest things the autopsy doctors had to cover up were (1) that they had determined for an absolute fact, through prolonged and careful probing, that the back wound had no exit point; and (2) that they were aware of the throat wound before and during the autopsy. This is why the Sibert and O'Neill report on the autopsy, which revealed the back wound had no exit point, was not published with the Warren Commission (WC) volumes but was sealed (and keep in mind that it was supposed to stay sealed for 75 years -- it was released in the 1990s when the ARRB released it).
I'm always amazed by the Loony CTs who claim alls sorts of people went along with the cover up of the JFKA. Do they think they had these people lined up before the JFKA or did they coerce them after the fact. If they believe the latter, how did the plotters know they would get 100% cooperations.
The Back Wound Had No Exit Point
To his great credit, Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, one of the three autopsy pathologists, admitted to the ARRB that although they were initially unable to probe the back wound because the muscles had closed the path, they were able to probe the wound after they opened the chest, and that they then saw that the bullet "had not pierced through the lung cavity" but had caused bleeding "just outside the pleura," i.e., just outside the lining of the chest cavity:
We probed this hole . . . 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 [chest cavity lining]. (ARRB interview: Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, 2/26/96, pp. 75-76)
When Boswell said "opened the chest," he was referring to the fact that they removed the chest organs in order to be able to probe the back wound and to see where the probe was going.
Yes, a perfectly logical approach which explains why the dismissed their initial impression. For some strange reason, MTG wants to cling to that erroneous first impression.
We know this from the testimony of Dr. Robert Karnei. Dr. Karnei was a resident surgeon at Bethesda Naval Hospital in 1963 and witnessed the autopsy. In his 8/27/77 HSCA interview, Dr. Karnei 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" (HSCA interview: Dr. Robert Karnei, 8/27/77, p. 6). This is one of many references from the autopsy witnesses to the fact that photos were taken of the probing, but no such photos made it into the official record and have disappeared.
In a 1991 recorded interview, Dr. 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”:
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.
(Livingstone interview transcript, p. 10)
James Jenkins confirmed this crucial fact in his HSCA interview nearly 20 years earlier and in his 1979 filmed interview. Jenkins, a medical technician who assisted Dr. Boswell during the autopsy, stated in his 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” (HSCA interview: James Jenkins, 8/29/77, 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 never made it into the official collection of the autopsy materials and have disappeared.
In his 1979 filmed interview, Jenkins explained that he could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity:
As is SOP for MTG, he cites the least qualified person in the room and ignores what the people with actual know-how concluded. A truly moronic approach but the only one that will lead MTG to his desired conclusion.
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.
Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, stated in his testimony to the HSCA’s medical panel that the autopsy doctors determined 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 not 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. ("Testimony of John H. Ebersole," HSCA, 3/11/78, p. 57)
MTG clings to the erroneous first impression because that is what he wants to believe and dismisses the final conclusion which made after ALL the information had been gathered during the course of a the autopsy. A truly bassackwards approach.
FBI agent James Sibert confirmed this in his ARRB interview, and added that the autopsy doctors -- "Finck, in particular" -- said during the autopsy, after probing the wound, that the back wound had no exit point, and that the pathologists also said they could feel the end of the back wound:
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. . . .
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. (ARRB interview: James Sibert, 9/11/97, pp. 59, 111)
FBI agent Francis O'Neill told the ARRB the same thing:
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. (ARRB interview: Francis O'Neill, 9/12/97, pp. 30-31)
Let's read what Sibert and O'Neill said about this in their 11/26/63 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. . . . 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.[/i] ("Autopsy of Body of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy," 11/26/1963, p. 4)
As many here know, we have known for years that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. One draft said the back wound had no exit point and said nothing about the throat wound, while the other draft said a fragment from the head shot exited the throat. In both drafts, the back wound had no exit point. This was first revealed with the release of the transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session.
MTG just won't let go of that early "no exit" comment because that is the one that supports his silly beliefs. He won't allow the autopsy team to abandon that early belief once they gathered more and better information. He also beliefs a bullet is only going to penetrate an inch or two into soft tissue. Why does MTG believe such nonsense. One reason. MTG is really, really dumb.
The Autopsy Doctors Knew About the Throat Wound Before the Autopsy, and Humes Talked with Perry by No Later Than 10:30 During the Autopsy
It has become clear that the autopsy doctors were aware of the throat wound before and that Humes talked with Dr. Perry well before the autopsy ended. But, after Oswald was killed, everything changed and along came the lie that Humes had no idea there was a throat wound until the morning after the autopsy, that Humes did not talk with Perry until the morning after the autopsy, and that only then did Humes "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.
Humes talked to Dr. Perry several times before the final report was prepared. That was very sensible approach. He wanted to gather as much information as possible before making that final report. But MTG doesn't want to let Humes do that. MTG wants the autopsy team to stick with their initial erroneous impression based on minimal information. MTG prefers to believe the bullet that hit JFK in the back never exited from his throat. He adopted that position a long time ago and continues to cling to it no matter how much information is gathered to prove him wrong.
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. Malcolm Perry's comments about the throat wound that Perry made in the Parkland press conference several hours 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)
Once again MTG wants to cling to an erroneous first impression based on incomplete information. The autopsy doctors initially believed the back wound had no exit because they were unaware of the bullet wound in the throat. Dr. Perry assumed the throat wound was an entrance because he didn't know about the back wound. MTG insists these people have to stick with their erroneous first impressions no matter what they learned later.
Yes, of course the autopsy doctors heard about the throat wound before the autopsy. Perry's comments at the Parkland press conference were all over the news that afternoon and evening.
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).
One of the many historic disclosures from the ARRB materials is Dr. Ebersole's statement to the HSCA FPP that by around 10:00 or 10:30, Humes knew about the throat wound from communications with Dallas. Ebersole said he recalled that "by ten or ten thirty . . . communication had been established with Dallas and it was learned" that "there had been a wound . . . in the lower neck" ("Testimony of John H. Ebersole," HSCA, 3/11/1978, pp. 4-5.)
By 10:30, the autopsy had been going on for several hours.
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. [/quote
Most exit wounds are ragged because most exit wounds are not caused by FMJ military ammo which is designed not to deform when passing through soft tissue. Perry can be forgiven for his erroneous initial first impression. He later acknowledged it could have been either an entrance or an exit.
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. Steadman also 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.
Exactly what I wrote earlier. Perry was unaware of the entrance wound in the back. If he had been, he might not have been so quick to assume the frontal wound was an entrance.
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. I quote from Steadman's article:
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....(https://web.archive.org/web/20241006184009/http://evesmag.com/jfkassassination.htm; http://evesmag.com/jfkassassination.htm; https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-ordeal-of-malcolm-perry) [/quote]
Funny how Perry never told that to anybody else.
Crucially, Parkland supervisory 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)
Nurse Bell told the HSCA the same thing in 1977 (http://www.stickam.com/member/viewMedia.do?mId=184850325&mediaowner=true).
So the Bethesda team told Perry they had concluded that his erroneous belief of an entrance wound in the throat was wrong.
-
Once again, random nonsense and unbelievably loose with the facts.
"Random"? "Loose with the facts"? I quoted sourced statements from autopsy witnesses, including Dr. Robert Karnei and Dr. John Ebersole, proving that the autopsy doctors established beyond any doubt that the back wound had no exit point. I pointed out that the transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session proves that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound as an exit point for the back wound. And, I quoted sourced statements that prove the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound before the autopsy and that Humes talked to Perry well before the autopsy ended, contrary to Humes's lie that he didn't talk to Perry until the following morning.
How do you explain Gov Connally's wounds if the bullet does not first pass through JFK?
LOL! Are you caught in a time warp where it's still 1964? I mean, is this a serious question? Are you aware that the FBI and Secret Service analyses of the shooting concluded that JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets? Are you aware that Connally himself insisted he was hit by a different bullet than the one that hit JFK in the back? Are you aware that the most sophisticated, advanced SBT trajectory study ever conducted, done by Knott Lab in 2023, determined that JFK and Connally were never in position for the SBT to be possible, proving that they could not have been hit by the same bullet?
The question you should be asking yourself is, "How can I still believe in the SBT when there is so much compelling evidence that the back wound had no exit point, that no bullet exited the throat, and that the throat wound was an entry wound?"
MG:
To his great credit, Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, one of the three autopsy pathologists, admitted to the ARRB that although they were initially unable to probe the back wound because the muscles had closed the path, they were able to probe the wound after they opened the chest, and that they then saw that the bullet "had not pierced through the lung cavity" but had caused bleeding "just outside the pleura," i.e., just outside the lining of the chest cavity:[/size]
We probed this hole . . . 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 [chest cavity lining]. (ARRB interview: Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, 2/26/96, pp. 75-76)
When Boswell said "opened the chest," he was referring to the fact that they removed the chest organs in order to be able to probe the back wound and to see where the probe was going.[/size]
JC: Yes, a perfectly logical approach which explains why the dismissed their initial impression. For some strange reason, MTG wants to cling to that erroneous first impression.
Can you read? You have totally misread what Boswell said. He said nothing about his "initial impression" or "first impression." He said that initially they were unable to probe the back wound because the muscles blocked the wound path, but that after they opened the chest, they were able to probe the wound and determine that the bullet did not enter the lung cavity but merely caused bruising outside the pleura.
As I documented, Dr. Karnei explained that after they removed the chest organs and resumed the probing, the men around the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity. Dr. Ebersole said that "further probing" and "inspection" revealed "there was no point of exit." It was this point, explained Sibert and O'Neill, that the autopsy doctors, particularly Finck, announced that the back wound had no exit point.
People are going to easily see through your dishonest, phony argument that this was just a "first impression." No, this was the final, definitive, visually confirmed finding by the end of the autopsy. That's why Sibert and O'Neill, the two FBI agents at the autopsy, included the "no exit" finding in their report on the autopsy. That's why they told the ARRB that at the end of the autopsy, there was no doubt whatsoever that the back wound had no exit point.
He won't allow the autopsy team to abandon that early belief once they gathered more and better information.
LOL! I again ask, can you read? Do you understand English beyond a grade-school level? How can you make this argument with a straight face?
In a previous reply, you repeated the long-debunked lone-gunman lie that Humes did not know about the throat wound until the morning after the autopsy. I just proved to you that this is false, that Humes talked to Perry at least 90 minutes before the autopsy ended. So there was no "more and better information" to be gathered.
At the end of the autopsy, at least 90 minutes after Humes had talked to Perry about the throat wound, the autopsy doctors were absolutely certain that the back wound had no exit point -- they knew this because they had been able to probe the wound to its end after they removed the chest organs and had seen with their own eyes that the wound path did not enter the lining of the chest cavity.
That's why Dr. Karnei explained that after the doctors opened the chest, removed the chest organs, and resumed the probing, the men around the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity. That's why Dr. Ebersole said that "further probing" and "inspection" revealed "there was no point of exit." That's why Navy medical technician James Jenkins, serving as Dr. Boswell's assistant during the autopsy, observed that he and others around the autopsy table could see the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity and that "there was no entry into the chest cavity." That's why Dr. Boswell himself told the ARRB that the bullet "had not pierced through into the lung cavity." That's why Sibert and O'Neill observed in their 11/26/63 report on the autopsy that "further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance." That's why Sibert and O'Neill confirmed this fact in the plainest possible English to the ARRB, stressing that the autopsy doctors had no doubt whatsoever about this.
It was only after Oswald was murdered that the no-exit finding was suppressed and replaced by the fiction that the back-wound bullet exited the throat. In order to make that tale even theoretically possible, Humes had to relocate the back wound some 2 inches upward so as to put it above the throat wound and to enable a downward trajectory through the neck, a falsehood that the HSCA FPP corrected, to their credit.
-
"Random"? "Loose with the facts"? I quoted sourced statements from autopsy witnesses, including Dr. Robert Karnei and Dr. John Ebersole, proving that the autopsy doctors established beyond any doubt that the back wound had no exit point. I pointed out that the transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session proves that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound as an exit point for the back wound. And, I quoted sourced statements that prove the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound before the autopsy and that Humes talked to Perry well before the autopsy ended, contrary to Humes's lie that he didn't talk to Perry until the following morning.
The only thing you have proven is that you are really, really bad at figuring things out. You want to give more weight to a preliminary hypothesis that to a final conclusion that was based upon all information gathered.
LOL! Are you caught in a time warp where it's still 1964? I mean, is this a serious question? Are you aware that the FBI and Secret Service analyses of the shooting concluded that JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets? Are you aware that Connally himself insisted he was hit by a different bullet than the one that hit JFK in the back? Are you aware that the most sophisticated, advanced SBT trajectory study ever conducted, done by Knott Lab in 2023, determined that JFK and Connally were never in position for the SBT to be possible, proving that they could not have been hit by the same bullet?
Yes, those were the preliminary conclusions. The staff lawyers investigating the shooting later determined that was not what happened and developed the SBT based on solid evidence and logical thinking. Their finding has stood the test of time. Not everyone agrees just as not everyone agrees the earth is round or that American astronauts landed on the moon.
The question you should be asking yourself is, "How can I still believe in the SBT when there is so much compelling evidence that the back wound had no exit point, that no bullet exited the throat, and that the throat wound was an entry wound?"
The question you should be asking is "Why do I continue to dispute the fact that Oswald assassinated JFK given so much compelling evidence that is what happened."
Can you read? You have totally misread what Boswell said. He said nothing about his "initial impression" or "first impression." He said that initially they were unable to probe the back wound because the muscles blocked the wound path, but that after they opened the chest, they were able to probe the wound and determine that the bullet did not enter the lung cavity but merely caused bruising outside the pleura.
It always get's confusing when MTG chooses to reply to multiple people in the same post but I believe this is where he has switched over to me.
Do you really need to be told that was Boswell's initial impression. That impression was made early in the process and is at odds with the final conclusion which all three members of the autopsy team signed. Unlike you, Boswell understood the earlier impression that the bullet had no exit was an erroneous one as they discovered there was a clear bullet path leading from the back entrance to the throat exit. The discovered the bruised pleura, the perforation of the strap muscles, the grazing of the rings of the trachea, which led them to the tracheostomy. We don't know at one point in the process they began to suspect the tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound but they were able to confirm that suspicion when Humes talked to Perry. You, being a silly CT, think the autopsy team should have stuck with that first erroneous impression that there was no exit for the back wound no matter what they learned later in the fact finding process. Somebody on the autopsy teams said early on there was "no exit" and by God, they were stuck with that no matter what they learned afterwards.
As I documented, Dr. Karnei explained that after they removed the chest organs and resumed the probing, the men around the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity. Dr. Ebersole said that "further probing" and "inspection" revealed "there was no point of exit." It was this point, explained Sibert and O'Neill, that the autopsy doctors, particularly Finck, announced that the back wound had no exit point.
They thought there was no exit until they discovered the trail of tissue damage leading to the tracheostomy in the throat. Then they understood why there was no bullet in the body. It had exited from JFK's throat.
People are going to easily see through your dishonest, phony argument that this was just a "first impression." No, this was the final, definitive, visually confirmed finding by the end of the autopsy.
You are a damn liar. You get no respect because you deserve no respect.
That's why Sibert and O'Neill, the two FBI agents at the autopsy, included the "no exit" finding in their report on the autopsy. That's why they told the ARRB that at the end of the autopsy, there was no doubt whatsoever that the back wound had no exit point.
Moronic. Cite the bystanders instead of the people actually conducting the autopsy.
LOL! I again ask, can you read? Do you understand English beyond a grade-school level? How can you make this argument with a straight face?
In a previous reply, you repeated the long-debunked lone-gunman lie that Humes did not know about the throat wound until the morning after the autopsy. I just proved to you that this is false, that Humes talked to Perry at least 90 minutes before the autopsy ended. So there was no "more and better information" to be gathered.
You have never shown any evidence anyone on the autopsy team knew that. You have shown that Perry said it. There is no evidence any of them saw Perry's presser.
At the end of the autopsy, at least 90 minutes after Humes had talked to Perry about the throat wound, the autopsy doctors were absolutely certain that the back wound had no exit point
More lies. Have you no shame?
-- they knew this because they had been able to probe the wound to its end after they removed the chest organs and had seen with their own eyes that the wound path did not enter the lining of the chest cavity.
How do you suppose they were able to document the bruised pleura, the perforated strap muscles, the damaged trachea rings? Do you think they just made that up after the autopsy was over? Why do you suppose every member of the FPP concurred with the finding that the bullet exited from JFK's throat?
That's why Dr. Karnei explained that after the doctors opened the chest, removed the chest organs, and resumed the probing, the men around the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity. That's why Dr. Ebersole said that "further probing" and "inspection" revealed "there was no point of exit." That's why Navy medical technician James Jenkins, serving as Dr. Boswell's assistant during the autopsy, observed that he and others around the autopsy table could see the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity and that "there was no entry into the chest cavity." That's why Dr. Boswell himself told the ARRB that the bullet "had not pierced through into the lung cavity." That's why Sibert and O'Neill observed in their 11/26/63 report on the autopsy that "further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance." That's why Sibert and O'Neill confirmed this fact in the plainest possible English to the ARRB, stressing that the autopsy doctors had no doubt whatsoever about this.
It was only after Oswald was murdered that the no-exit finding was suppressed and replaced by the fiction that the back-wound bullet exited the throat. In order to make that tale even theoretically possible, Humes had to relocate the back wound some 2 inches upward so as to put it above the throat wound and to enable a downward trajectory through the neck, a falsehood that the HSCA FPP corrected, to their credit.
You continue to try to make your case with lies. That says all that needs to be said about your case.
-
"Random"? "Loose with the facts"? I quoted sourced statements from autopsy witnesses, including Dr. Robert Karnei and Dr. John Ebersole, proving that the autopsy doctors established beyond any doubt that the back wound had no exit point. I pointed out that the transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session proves that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound as an exit point for the back wound. And, I quoted sourced statements that prove the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound before the autopsy and that Humes talked to Perry well before the autopsy ended, contrary to Humes's lie that he didn't talk to Perry until the following morning.
LOL! Are you caught in a time warp where it's still 1964? I mean, is this a serious question? Are you aware that the FBI and Secret Service analyses of the shooting concluded that JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets? Are you aware that Connally himself insisted he was hit by a different bullet than the one that hit JFK in the back? Are you aware that the most sophisticated, advanced SBT trajectory study ever conducted, done by Knott Lab in 2023, determined that JFK and Connally were never in position for the SBT to be possible, proving that they could not have been hit by the same bullet?
The question you should be asking yourself is, "How can I still believe in the SBT when there is so much compelling evidence that the back wound had no exit point, that no bullet exited the throat, and that the throat wound was an entry wound?"
Can you read? You have totally misread what Boswell said. He said nothing about his "initial impression" or "first impression." He said that initially they were unable to probe the back wound because the muscles blocked the wound path, but that after they opened the chest, they were able to probe the wound and determine that the bullet did not enter the lung cavity but merely caused bruising outside the pleura.
As I documented, Dr. Karnei explained that after they removed the chest organs and resumed the probing, the men around the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity. Dr. Ebersole said that "further probing" and "inspection" revealed "there was no point of exit." It was this point, explained Sibert and O'Neill, that the autopsy doctors, particularly Finck, announced that the back wound had no exit point.
People are going to easily see through your dishonest, phony argument that this was just a "first impression." No, this was the final, definitive, visually confirmed finding by the end of the autopsy. That's why Sibert and O'Neill, the two FBI agents at the autopsy, included the "no exit" finding in their report on the autopsy. That's why they told the ARRB that at the end of the autopsy, there was no doubt whatsoever that the back wound had no exit point.
LOL! I again ask, can you read? Do you understand English beyond a grade-school level? How can you make this argument with a straight face?
In a previous reply, you repeated the long-debunked lone-gunman lie that Humes did not know about the throat wound until the morning after the autopsy. I just proved to you that this is false, that Humes talked to Perry at least 90 minutes before the autopsy ended. So there was no "more and better information" to be gathered.
At the end of the autopsy, at least 90 minutes after Humes had talked to Perry about the throat wound, the autopsy doctors were absolutely certain that the back wound had no exit point -- they knew this because they had been able to probe the wound to its end after they removed the chest organs and had seen with their own eyes that the wound path did not enter the lining of the chest cavity.
That's why Dr. Karnei explained that after the doctors opened the chest, removed the chest organs, and resumed the probing, the men around the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity. That's why Dr. Ebersole said that "further probing" and "inspection" revealed "there was no point of exit." That's why Navy medical technician James Jenkins, serving as Dr. Boswell's assistant during the autopsy, observed that he and others around the autopsy table could see the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity and that "there was no entry into the chest cavity." That's why Dr. Boswell himself told the ARRB that the bullet "had not pierced through into the lung cavity." That's why Sibert and O'Neill observed in their 11/26/63 report on the autopsy that "further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance." That's why Sibert and O'Neill confirmed this fact in the plainest possible English to the ARRB, stressing that the autopsy doctors had no doubt whatsoever about this.
It was only after Oswald was murdered that the no-exit finding was suppressed and replaced by the fiction that the back-wound bullet exited the throat. In order to make that tale even theoretically possible, Humes had to relocate the back wound some 2 inches upward so as to put it above the throat wound and to enable a downward trajectory through the neck, a falsehood that the HSCA FPP corrected, to their credit.
Wrong answer. A litany of circus act, clown show experts leads you to this tortured understanding of the assassination? You need new experts.
All of this posted ridiculous nonsense and you still cannot explain the wound in JBC's back. Kind of pathetic. How did you ever go so far off the rails? The sad part is it is similar to your understanding of the headshot. Maybe the two shots and subsequent wounds are not your area of expertise.
-
The only thing you have proven is that you are really, really bad at figuring things out. You want to give more weight to a preliminary hypothesis that to a final conclusion that was based upon all information gathered.
Wow, amazing. I've presented sourced evidence from doctors, technicians, and federal agents at the autopsy that the no-exit finding was not preliminary but was the final, visually confirmed finding reached toward the end of the autopsy after the pathologists were able to probe to the end of the back wound after they removed the chest organs. Yet, you simply ignore these facts and repeat your fiction that this was a "first impression," "a preliminary hypothesis."
This reply of yours is the most embarrassing example to date of your refusal to acknowledge documented facts that refute your theory. Even when the evidence is clear and strongly corroborated, you won't acknowledge it if it refutes your theory.
Yes, those were the preliminary conclusions.
You're just making this up because you won't face the fact that the autopsy doctors found the end of the back wound's path and saw that it did not enter the chest cavity. You can't cite a single, solitary source that says this was a "first impression" or a "preliminary hypothesis." James Sibert didn't hear one word from the autopsy doctors that even implied this, much less said it. Nor did Francis O'Neill. Nor did Dr. Robert Karnei. Nor did Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy. Nor did Dr. Boswell's assistant, medical technician James Jenkins.
In addition, we have the fact that we know from the transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session that the first two drafts of the autopsy report, which Humes wrote early in the morning after the autopsy, said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. Both of the first two drafts said the back wound had no exit point. And, mind you, Humes wrote these drafts hours after he had talked with Perry during the autopsy, as we know from Dr. Ebersole's HSCA testimony.
The only reason Humes suppressed the no-exit finding was that Oswald was suddenly dead and he knew there would be no trial.
The staff lawyers investigating the shooting later determined that was not what happened and developed the SBT based on solid evidence and logical thinking. Their finding has stood the test of time.
LOL! Yeah, uh-huh! Oh, "solid evidence"! Even Humes and Finck told Specter that CE 399 could not have been the bullet that smashed Connally's wrist. Connally himself insisted he and JFK were hit by separate non-fatal bullets. The WC's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Joseph Dolce, told Specter his theory was total bunk. Specter erroneously assumed the back wound was well above the throat wound and that the bullet transited the neck at a downward angle, a myth that the HSCA FPP refuted. Specter ignored the hard physical evidence of the rear JFK clothing holes, the front JFK shirt slits, and JFK's tie. Specter's tale was so ridiculous that we now know that even three of the seven WC members rejected it.
Yet, you get on a public board and claim that the SBT has "stood the test of time"!
Not everyone agrees just as not everyone agrees the earth is round or that American astronauts landed on the moon.
How ironic that a brainwashed SBT peddler would talk about other ludicrous theories. The SBT is right in the ballpark of absurdity with the flat-Earth theory and the fake-Moon-landings theory. The fringe folks who defend those theories behave a lot like you and your fellow SBT believers behave when it comes to dealing with hard facts that refute your theory.
The question you should be asking is "Why do I continue to dispute the fact that Oswald assassinated JFK given so much compelling evidence that is what happened."
People who read your replies on the ammo that hit JFK's head are going to see that you have no clue how to explain the compelling scientific evidence that FMJ ammo was not the ammo that hit Kennedy's skull. This fact alone proves that Oswald did not hit JFK's head with any of his alleged shots.
It always get's confusing when MTG chooses to reply to multiple people in the same post but I believe this is where he has switched over to me.
Well, gee, I'm sorry you have trouble following a reply that responds to two people, even though each person is clearly identified in each quotation.
Do you really need to be told that was Boswell's initial impression.
Do you need to be reminded that Boswell stated that initially they were unable to probe the back wound but that they were later able to probe it after they opened the chest and saw that it did not go into the lung cavity? Do you need to be reminded that not a single person who gave an account of the probing said the doctors had any doubt whatsoever about the no-exit finding? Do you need to be reminded that the no-exit finding came toward the end of the autopsy, after Humes had talked to Perry, and was the final finding on the subject, which is why it was documented in Sibert and O'Neill's report on the autopsy, and which is why it was stated in the first two drafts of the autopsy report, which Humes wrote hours after the autopsy?
I find it hard to believe that you are so uneducated and incompetent that you simply cannot grasp the evidence here, but this is exactly how you are acting.
That impression was made early in the process and is at odds with the final conclusion which all three members of the autopsy team signed.
You know this is false. One, it was not an "impression." It was a visible fact that was observed by everyone around the autopsy table, as Dr. Karnei confirmed. Two, this happened very late in the autopsy, only after the doctors decided to open the chest and remove the chest organs. Sibert and O'Neill emphatically confirmed that at the end of the autopsy, the pathologists had no doubt whatsoever that the back-wound bullet had no exit point. I've quoted some of their statements that prove this. But, you just keep ignoring them and repeating your fictional version of events.
Two, the final autopsy report only emerged after Oswald was killed. There was not a shred of "new information" that supported the changed finding regarding the throat wound. By the end of the autopsy, Humes et al were certain that the back wound had no exit point because they had seen with their own eyes the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity. The no-exit finding was confirmed by Dr. Ebersole, Dr. Karnei, Jenkins, O'Neill, and Sibert, and by the first two drafts of the autopsy report (as proved by the transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session).
Unlike you, Boswell understood the earlier impression that the bullet had no exit was an erroneous one as they discovered there was a clear bullet path leading from the back entrance to the throat exit.
What??!! Well, this is historic news!! What "clear bullet path leading from the back entrance to the throat exit"?! Where do you get that?! If they discovered a clear path from the back wound to the throat wound, why did Humes say the throat wound was only "presumably" an exit wound? Huh?
Please cite a single source that documents that this alleged clear path was supposedly discovered and described. Let's see it. You will make history, because no one has ever claimed that the autopsy doctors observed "a clear path" from the back wound to the throat wound. They could have only seen such a path if they had dissected the throat wound.
BTW, are you aware that we know from the ARRB materials that the throat wound was probed? Why didn't Humes ever mention this? Obviously, because it would have exposed his lie that he knew nothing about the throat wound until the morning after the autopsy.
How do you suppose they were able to document the bruised pleura. . . . Do you think they just made that up after the autopsy was over? They discovered the bruised pleura,
LOL! They detected the bruised pleura after they removed the chest organs and were able to probe to the end of the back wound, as I've already documented for you! Sheesh, again, is there just no end to your blundering?
. . . the perforated strap muscles, the damaged trachea rings? . . . the perforation of the strap muscles, the grazing of the rings of the trachea, which led them to the tracheostomy.
LOL! This is the damage that Dr. Perry identified in Dallas! Good gravy, man! Again, you have no business pretending to know anything about the JFK case. You constantly grasp at any item of information that you erroneously believe supports your view, only to find out that you've blundered yet again.
If you want to educate yourself on the damage that Perry identified, I document it in my article "Research Notes on the Shored-Wound Theory to Explain JFK’s Throat Wound," (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h48FpT89KrC0rNrl4XC3MDePLDFEBBHb/view), which I linked earlier in this very thread.
You see, the problem is that you didn't know enough to realize how badly you were blundering in citing that damage as evidence of a back-to-throat wound path.
If you read the descriptions that Dr. Perry and Dr. Kemp gave of that damage, you'll discover that it was below and to the right (viewer's left) of the throat wound, which does not fit with any back-to-throat trajectory from the back wound. If your alleged magic bullet supposedly exited the throat after traveling downward and leftward through the neck, the damage would have been above or parallel with/to the left of the resulting throat wound, not below and to the right of the wound.
And, again, you are once more ignoring the fact that the throat wound was punched inward and was only about 5 mm in diameter. You're also ignoring the fact that we've known for years now that there was no hole through the tie and no nick on either edge of the tie knot, proving that no bullet exited the throat because we have ample photographic evidence that the tie knot was neatly centered in the middle of the collar band and directly over the shirt slits.
We don't know at one point in the process they began to suspect the tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound but they were able to confirm that suspicion when Humes talked to Perry.
Umm, yes, we do know this -- and you know it, but won't admit it. I've documented for you that Manchester and Levine found that the autopsy doctors were aware of the throat wound before the autopsy, and that Dr. Ebersole revealed to the HSCA that Humes was in contact with Dallas and talked about the throat wound with Dallas by no later than 10:30 PM, at least 90 minutes before the autopsy ended. Let me refresh your memory:
----------
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. Malcolm Perry's comments about the throat wound that Perry made in the Parkland press conference several hours 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)
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).
One of the many historic disclosures from the ARRB materials is Dr. Ebersole's statement to the HSCA FPP that by around 10:00 or 10:30, Humes knew about the throat wound from communications with Dallas. Ebersole said he recalled that "by ten or ten thirty . . . communication had been established with Dallas and it was learned" that "there had been a wound . . . in the lower neck" ("Testimony of John H. Ebersole," HSCA, 3/11/1978, pp. 4-5.)
----------
Why don't you stop lying about this and at least admit that Humes positively knew about the throat wound at least 90 minutes before the autopsy ended? Answer: Because this admission alone would destroy your farcical version of events.
You, being a silly CT, think the autopsy team should have stuck with that first erroneous impression that there was no exit for the back wound no matter what they learned later in the fact finding process. Somebody on the autopsy teams said early on there was "no exit" and by God, they were stuck with that no matter what they learned afterwards.
This false talking point is why you keep lying about when Humes learned of the throat wound. The SBT tale says that Humes didn't know the throat wound existed until the following morning, that he only learned of the wound during his phone call with Dr. Perry that morning, and that he didn't talk with Dr. Perry until after he'd written the first two drafts of the autopsy report. The ARRB disclosures alone destroy this tale.
They thought there was no exit until they discovered the trail of tissue damage leading to the tracheostomy in the throat. Then they understood why there was no bullet in the body. It had exited from JFK's throat.
You can repeat this lie until the Sun burns out, as I'm sure you will, but that won't make it come true. Part of me is almost glad that you are oblivious to how bad and unserious you make yourself look by ignoring Dr. Karnei's statements, Dr. Ebersole's statements, med-tech Jenkins' statements, the Sibert and O'Neill report on the autopsy, and Sibert and O'Neill's ARRB testimony.
This is a good point to discuss Sibert and O'Neill's HSCA interviews, which I haven't yet mentioned.
Sibert said "they probed the wound with a finger and Dr. Finck probed it with a metal probe" and that "the doctors concluded it only went so far" (HSCA interview: James W. Sibert, 8/25/77, p. 3). Sibert added that "nothing was ever mentioned about the anterior neck wound being a possible bullet exit wound" and that "Finck and Humes agreed there was no exit wound of the bullet through the back" (pp. 4, 6).
Furthermore, as part of his HSCA interview, Sibert was asked to do wound diagrams on two face sheets with generic male figures printed on them. On both sheets/both diagrams, Sibert put the back wound about 5 inches below the collar band and clearly below the throat wound, almost exactly where the rear clothing holes place the wound (pp. 8-9).
In O'Neill's HSCA affidavit, O'Neill said, "I do not see how the bullet that entered below the shoulder in the back could have come out the front of the throat" (O'Neill Affidavit for HSCA, 11/8/78, p. 5). He also said this:
"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" (p. 3).
Why? Because "Humes and Boswell couldn't locate an outlet for the bullet that entered the back" (p. 3).
And notice that O'Neill said the certainty about the back wound was "when the autopsy was complete."
To put it simply, by the end of the autopsy, the doctors were certain that the bullet that was found on a stretcher in Dallas must have been the bullet that made the shallow back wound. This was after Agent Killion had heard from Dallas about the stretcher bullet, and at least 90 minutes after Humes had learned of the throat wound from Dr. Perry[/i], as Dr. Ebersole revealed to the HSCA.
O'Neill explained this in more detail in his ARRB interview:
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. (ARRB interview: Francis O'Neill, 9/12/97, pp. 30-31)
You are a damn liar. You get no respect because you deserve no respect. Moronic. Cite the bystanders instead of the people actually conducting the autopsy.
"Bystanders"?! Umm, Dr. Ebersole was the autopsy radiologist. Dr. Karnei was a resident surgeon at Bethesda and helped supervise security for the autopsy before it began, and then watched much of the autopsy from close range. James Jenkins assisted with the autopsy; indeed, he was Boswell's assistant during the autopsy. Sibert and O'Neill were the FBI's official observers at the autopsy; their job was to observe the autopsy and then submit a report on it.
You lie about these witnesses because you know their accounts destroy your farcical version of events.
You have never shown any evidence anyone on the autopsy team knew that. You have shown that Perry said it. There is no evidence any of them saw Perry's presser.
You know this is false. I've documented for you that historian William Manchester and journalist Richard Levine found that the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound before the autopsy. Manchester interviewed dozens of autopsy witnesses and others at the hospital in researching his famous book -- that's when he learned that the autopsy pathologists heard reports about the throat wound before the autopsy. Boswell indicated the same thing to Levine.
But, you just ignore all this and keep falsely pretending there's no evidence the doctors knew about the throat wound before the autopsy.
MG: At the end of the autopsy, at least 90 minutes after Humes had talked to Perry about the throat wound, the autopsy doctors were absolutely certain that the back wound had no exit point.
JC: More lies. Have you no shame?
Let me refresh your memory, yet again:
One of the many historic disclosures from the ARRB materials is Dr. Ebersole's statement to the HSCA FPP that by around 10:00 or 10:30, Humes knew about the throat wound from communications with Dallas. Ebersole said he recalled that "by ten or ten thirty . . . communication had been established with Dallas and it was learned" that "there had been a wound . . . in the lower neck" ("Testimony of John H. Ebersole," HSCA, 3/11/1978, pp. 4-5.)
The autopsy did not end until after midnight. Even if we assume Humes did not talk with Dallas about the throat wound until 10:30, that would still be at least 90 minutes before the autopsy ended.
Will you ever stop lying about this? You can't, because admitting this would destroy your farcical version of events.
Why do you suppose every member of the FPP concurred with the finding that the bullet exited from JFK's throat?
This again?! You don't seem to know that the vast majority of your fellow SBT believers loathe the FPP's version of the SBT because they realize that the back-wound-to-window trajectory is even far more implausible than the WC's trajectory.
As I've explained to you at least three times now, the FPP, to their credit, acknowledged that the back-wound bullet entered and tunneled at an upward angle, but the only way they could make that trajectory line up with the sixth-floor window was to assume that JFK was leaning nearly 60 degrees forward when the bullet hit, a fantasy that is undeniably refuted by the photographic evidence. Dr. Wecht discussed this point in his 2021 book The JFK Assassination Dissected: An Analysis by Forensic Pathologist:
When the panelists tried to insinuate that the single-bullet notion was credible because JFK “could have” bent over, I laughed loudly and reminded them the Zapruder film makes clear that the president was not tying his shoelace or scratching his groin at just that right moment. They all knew that, but that’s how desperate they were to justify their absurd claim. . . .
The other eight doctors were unanimous in their conclusion that JFK was shot by two bullets, both which entered from above and behind him -- corroborating the Warren Commission findings. I, of course, could not hop aboard that bandwagon. I wrote a solo dissenting opinion that the single-bullet concept was impossible and included drawings to illustrate my view. (pp. 368, 371)
Furthermore, the only explanation that the FPP majority offered for the throat wound's entry-like appearance was the impossible shored-wound theory. Those guys had to know this was pure bunk, that shored wounds do not produce exit wounds that are small, neat, and punched inward, as Dr. DiMaio noted. (Indeed, I suspect this is one reason that DiMaio changed his mind about the SBT after extensive consultation with physiologist Russell Kent.)
Earlier, in trying to explain the throat wound's appearance, you claimed that FMJ bullets "make the same size hole going out as they do coming in when they don't strike bone." You apparently forgot that both Lattimer and the HSCA FPP majority appealed to the impossible shored-wound theory to explain the throat wound's appearance. You also appear to have forgotten that in the WC's SBT wound ballistics test, the exit wounds were larger than the entry wound.
Even if an FMJ bullet doesn't strike bone when transiting a body, it is not going to produce an exit wound that is small, neat, and punched inward, and that has an abrasion collar.
You continue to try to make your case with lies. That says all that needs to be said about your case.
I think most people will conclude that you are the one who is continuing to try to make your case with lies.
I think most people will also conclude that you are incapable of admitting when you're wrong, no matter how clearly you are proven to be in error. I recall your recent claim that the HSCA FPP identified one of the skull fragments as frontal bone, a demonstrably false assertion. You refused to admit you were wrong, even when I proved to you that the FPP's wound diagrams showed no missing frontal bone and showed all the skull fragments as coming from the parietal bone.
I think most people will see the same pattern of refusing to admit obvious error in your continued refusal to admit that the Connally back-wound bullet was not tumbling when it hit and was not tumbling when it transited his chest. You are all alone among WC apologists in claiming that the back wound's width of 1.5 cm means the bullet was tumbling. Every other WC apologist who peddles the tumbling-bullet tale misleadingly uses the wound's post-surgery width of 3.0 cm to support the tale.
Ditto for your amazing claim that the Australian SBT test bullet just has "a little bit more bend in it" than CE 399. You made this pitiful claim even after I provided a link that shows a side-by-side comparison of the test bullet and CE 399. Anyone who looks at that photo (Figure 4 (https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/images/figure_4_lrg.jpg)in John Hunt's article (https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm)) can see that the test bullet is far more deformed than CE 399, that the test bullet's lands and grooves are no longer visible in the nose of the bullet, that the test bullet's nose is deformed, that the test bullet has a visible bulge above the ring, and that the test bullet is bent in its middle to such a degree that the bullet is visibly shorter than CE 399, even though the test bullet went through less rib bone than CE 399 allegedly did.
-
Wow, amazing. I've presented sourced evidence from doctors, technicians, and federal agents at the autopsy that the no-exit finding was not preliminary but was the final, visually confirmed finding reached toward the end of the autopsy after the pathologists were able to probe to the end of the back wound after they removed the chest organs. Yet, you simply ignore these facts and repeat your fiction that this was a "first impression," "a preliminary hypothesis."
Another in a long line of your pathetic, bald-faced lies. The final conclusion is in the autopsy report which all three pathologists signed. You get more pathetic with each post you make.
This reply of yours is the most embarrassing example to date of your refusal to acknowledge documented facts that refute your theory. Even when the evidence is clear and strongly corroborated, you won't acknowledge it if it refutes your theory.
There are no documented facts which refute the fact that Oswald alone killed JFK and in nearly 63 years neither you nor any of the army of hard car JFKA CTs has produced a scrap of evidence he acted on behalf of anyone but himself. Over six decades of futility and you bozos are still at it, accomplishing nothing with your feeble efforts. Oswald was known to be the assassin on day one, has remained so every day since and will remains so permanently and there's nothing you clowns can do about that.
You're just making this up because you won't face the fact that the autopsy doctors found the end of the back wound's path and saw that it did not enter the chest cavity. You can't cite a single, solitary source that says this was a "first impression" or a "preliminary hypothesis." James Sibert didn't hear one word from the autopsy doctors that even implied this, much less said it. Nor did Francis O'Neill. Nor did Dr. Robert Karnei. Nor did Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy. Nor did Dr. Boswell's assistant, medical technician James Jenkins.
You're delusional. You think because the probe wouldn't pass through the bullet channel that meant it had reached the end of the channel. Only a know-nothing such as yourself would believe such nonsense. Nobody who knows anything about forensic pathology would make such an idiotic claim. Nobody who knows anything about ballistics would think a bullet striking JFK in the back would only penetrate and inch or two. These are just two of the laughable things you have convinced yourself of.
In addition, we have the fact that we know from the transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session that the first two drafts of the autopsy report, which Humes wrote early in the morning after the autopsy, said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. Both of the first two drafts said the back wound had no exit point. And, mind you, Humes wrote these drafts hours after he had talked with Perry during the autopsy, as we know from Dr. Ebersole's HSCA testimony.
Drafts are not conclusions. I wouldn't expect someone as silly as you to understand that. Humes spoke to Dr. Perry several times during the course of the night, even after the autopsy was completed. It was only then that he wrote the final report which all three prosectors signed.
The only reason Humes suppressed the no-exit finding was that Oswald was suddenly dead and he knew there would be no trial.
There was nothing to suppress. "No exit" was never a finding. At most, it was an early working hypothesis that was discarded as more information was gathered. If you had your way, they would have quit gathering information in the first half hour and written their report on incomplete information. For some idiotic reason, you want to insist that once someone said there was "no exit" they were stuck with that no matter what they learned later. How stupid would that be?
LOL! Yeah, uh-huh! Oh, "solid evidence"! Even Humes and Finck told Specter that CE 399 could not have been the bullet that smashed Connally's wrist. Connally himself insisted he and JFK were hit by separate non-fatal bullets.
How the hell would they know. The never examined Connally. They never saw CE399. It doesn't get any dumber than that. As for JBC, he knew he had been hit by the second shot and had been led to believe erroneously that JFK had been hit by the first. JBC had no way of knowing if JFK was hit by thee first or second shot because he said he couldn't see him when he turned to look over his right shoulder. If he had, he would have seen JFK was still waving to the spectators on Elm St. after the first shot was fired.
The WC's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. Joseph Dolce, told Specter his theory was total bunk. Specter erroneously assumed the back wound was well above the throat wound and that the bullet transited the neck at a downward angle, a myth that the HSCA FPP refuted.
More lies. The back wound was higher than the throat wound and it did go through JFK from back to front. Every member of the FPP agreed with that finding.
Specter ignored the hard physical evidence of the rear JFK clothing holes, the front JFK shirt slits, and JFK's tie. Specter's tale was so ridiculous that we now know that even three of the seven WC members rejected it.
Now you are just making shit up. The fibers in the back of JFK's jacket were pushed inward. The fibers in the front of his shirt collar were pushed outward.
Yet, you get on a public board and claim that the SBT has "stood the test of time"!
It has. It's the only explanation for the wounds to JFK and JBC that is the least bit plausible. You certainly have never come up with a better one nor have any of fellow CTs done so either. You don't have the guts to put forth your own theory because you know it would be instantly shredded. The SBT remains sound to this day.
How ironic that a brainwashed SBT peddler would talk about other ludicrous theories. The SBT is right in the ballpark of absurdity with the flat-Earth theory and the fake-Moon-landings theory. The fringe folks who defend those theories behave a lot like you and your fellow SBT believers behave when it comes to dealing with hard facts that refute your theory.
If the SBT is so absurd, why hasn't anyone been able to come up with a better explanation in 62 years?
People who read your replies on the ammo that hit JFK's head are going to see that you have no clue how to explain the compelling scientific evidence that FMJ ammo was not the ammo that hit Kennedy's skull. This fact alone proves that Oswald did not hit JFK's head with any of his alleged shots.
It only proves it to know-nothings such as yourself. One could fill a thick book with the myths you think are facts.
Well, gee, I'm sorry you have trouble following a reply that responds to two people, even though each person is clearly identified in each quotation.
I doubt you could find your Bahookie with both hands.
Do you need to be reminded that Boswell stated that initially they were unable to probe the back wound but that they were later able to probe it after they opened the chest and saw that it did not go into the lung cavity? Do you need to be reminded that not a single person who gave an account of the probing said the doctors had any doubt whatsoever about the no-exit finding? Do you need to be reminded that the no-exit finding came toward the end of the autopsy, after Humes had talked to Perry, and was the final finding on the subject, which is why it was documented in Sibert and O'Neill's report on the autopsy, and which is why it was stated in the first two drafts of the autopsy report, which Humes wrote hours after the autopsy?
The key word in the above paragraph is the one you continue to ignore. That word is "initially". That is not a finding the autopsy team stuck with. They eventually figured out where the bullet went that hit JFK in the back. It exited from his throat.
I find it hard to believe that you are so uneducated and incompetent that you simply cannot grasp the evidence here, but this is exactly how you are acting.
Your posting were idiotic way back in 1991 when I first started to read them and haven't improved one iota since. If anything, they have only gotten nuttier. You operate on the lunatic fringe of the CT community. I doubt most of you fellow CTs even take you seriously.
You know this is false. One, it was not an "impression." It was a visible fact that was observed by everyone around the autopsy table, as Dr. Karnei confirmed. Two, this happened very late in the autopsy, only after the doctors decided to open the chest and remove the chest organs. Sibert and O'Neill emphatically confirmed that at the end of the autopsy, the pathologists had no doubt whatsoever that the back-wound bullet had no exit point. I've quoted some of their statements that prove this. But, you just keep ignoring them and repeating your fictional version of events.
You really do get dumber with each succeeding post. The harder you try to save your silly beliefs, the worse it ges for you. .
Two, the final autopsy report only emerged after Oswald was killed. There was not a shred of "new information" that supported the changed finding regarding the throat wound. By the end of the autopsy, Humes et al were certain that the back wound had no exit point because they had seen with their own eyes the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity. The no-exit finding was confirmed by Dr. Ebersole, Dr. Karnei, Jenkins, O'Neill, and Sibert, and by the first two drafts of the autopsy report (as proved by the transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session).
Now you go back to making shit up. Humes was never convinced the back wound didn't exit. It's not remotely possible a bullet would have hit JFK in the back and only penetrated an inch or two into soft tissue before stopping. The fact that you think it could have done that shows just how dumb you are. If Jeff Daniels and Jim Carey ever make a sequel to Dumb and Dumber, they should call it Dumb, Dumber, and Dumbest and I know the perfect person to play the Dumbest.
What??!! Well, this is historic news!! What "clear bullet path leading from the back entrance to the throat exit"?! Where do you get that?! If they discovered a clear path from the back wound to the throat wound, why did Humes say the throat wound was only "presumably" an exit wound? Huh?
The bullet path is described in the autopsy report. I doubt you've ever read it. [/quote]
Please cite a single source that documents that this alleged clear path was supposedly discovered and described. Let's see it. You will make history, because no one has ever claimed that the autopsy doctors observed "a clear path" from the back wound to the throat wound. They could have only seen such a path if they had dissected the throat wound. [/quote]
So I was right. You never have read the autopsy report. The following passage is from the conclusions page at the end of the report, signed by Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck:
"The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scap- ular and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck. This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura and of the apical portion of the rightkpper lobe of the lung. The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can bc ascertained this missile struck no bozy structures in its path through the body."
This was the conclusion reached after all information had been gatherred, including conversations with Dr. Perry. It identifies a clear trail of tissue damage from the back entrance to the throat exit.
BTW, are you aware that we know from the ARRB materials that the throat wound was probed? Why didn't Humes ever mention this? Obviously, because it would have exposed his lie that he knew nothing about the throat wound until the morning after the autopsy.
You do love your illogical assumptions.
LOL! They detected the bruised pleura after they removed the chest organs and were able to probe to the end of the back wound, as I've already documented for you! Sheesh, again, is there just no end to your refusal to acknowledge contrary facts?
What the hell difference does it make how they found the contusion to the pleura. They found it and documented it.
LOL! This is the damage that Dr. Perry identified in Dallas! Good gravy, man! Again, you have no business pretending to know anything about the JFK case. You constantly grasp at any item of information that you erroneously believe supports your view, only to find out that you've blundered yet again.
Your problem is you know so many things that just ain't so.
If you want to educate yourself on the damage that Perry identified, I document it in my article "Research Notes on the Shored-Wound Theory to Explain JFK’s Throat Wound," (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h48FpT89KrC0rNrl4XC3MDePLDFEBBHb/view), which I linked earlier in this very thread.
That'll be the day I need to be educated by the likes of you.
You see, the problem is that you didn't know enough to realize how badly you were blundering in citing that damage as evidence of a back-to-throat wound path.
I love when you project your shortcomings onto others.
If you read the descriptions that Dr. Perry and Dr. Kemp gave of that damage, you'll discover that it was below and to the right (viewer's left) of the throat wound, which does not fit with any back-to-throat trajectory from the back wound. If your alleged magic bullet supposedly exited the throat after traveling downward and leftward through the neck, the damage would have been above or parallel with/to the left of the resulting throat wound, not below and to the right of the wound.
That's so idiotic I can't even follow it.
And, again, you are once more ignoring the fact that the throat wound was punched inward and was only about 5 mm in diameter. You're also ignoring the fact that we've known for years now that there was no hole through the tie and no nick on either edge of the tie knot, proving that no bullet exited the throat because we have ample photographic evidence that the tie knot was neatly centered in the middle of the collar band and directly over the shirt slits.
Two more things you know that ain't so.
Umm, yes, we do know this --
Why do you keep saying "we"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
and you know it, but won't admit it. I've documented for you that Manchester and Levine found that the autopsy doctors were aware of the throat wound before the autopsy, and that Dr. Ebersole revealed to the HSCA that Humes was in contact with Dallas and talked about the throat wound with Dallas by no later than 10:30 PM, at least 90 minutes before the autopsy ended. Let me refresh your memory:
----------
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. Malcolm Perry's comments about the throat wound that Perry made in the Parkland press conference several hours 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)
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 knew a tracheostomy had been performed.
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).
One of the many historic disclosures from the ARRB materials is Dr. Ebersole's statement to the HSCA FPP that by around 10:00 or 10:30, Humes knew about the throat wound from communications with Dallas. Ebersole said he recalled that "by ten or ten thirty . . . communication had been established with Dallas and it was learned" that "there had been a wound . . . in the lower neck" ("Testimony of John H. Ebersole," HSCA, 3/11/1978, pp. 4-5.)
10:00 or 10:30 was not BEFORE the autopsy began which is what you have claimed. ----------
Why don't you stop lying about this and at least admit that Humes positively knew about the throat wound at least 90 minutes before the autopsy ended? Answer: Because this admission alone would destroy your farcical version of events.
If you would stop lying, I could ave an hour or more a day refuting your nonsense.
This false talking point is why you keep lying about when Humes learned of the throat wound. The SBT tale says that Humes didn't know the throat wound existed until the following morning,
Really, who said that? Why do you invent these strawman arguments?
that he only learned of the wound during his phone call with Dr. Perry that morning, and that he didn't talk with Dr. Perry until after he'd written the first two drafts of the autopsy report. The ARRB disclosures alone destroy this tale.
I'm sure they had figured out from the trail of tissue damage that the bullet had probably exited from JFK's throat but naturally they would want to confirm that with Dr. Perry. I have no idea on which of the several calls between Humes and Perry that they confirmed the tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound. .
You can repeat this lie until the Sun burns out, as I'm sure you will, but that won't make it come true. Part of me is almost glad that you are oblivious to how bad and unserious you make yourself look by ignoring Dr. Karnei's statements, Dr. Ebersole's statements, med-tech Jenkins' statements, the Sibert and O'Neill report on the autopsy, and Sibert and O'Neill's ARRB testimony.
The CTs have been repeating the same nonsense for the entire 35 years I have dealt with them online and probably a lot longer than that.
This is a good point to discuss Sibert and O'Neill's HSCA interviews, which I haven't yet mentioned.
Of course. Let's cite two guys who never conducted an autopsy in their lives.
Sibert said "they probed the wound with a finger and Dr. Finck probed it with a metal probe" and that "the doctors concluded it only went so far" (HSCA interview: James W. Sibert, 8/25/77, p. 3). Sibert added that "nothing was ever mentioned about the anterior neck wound being a possible bullet exit wound" and that "Finck and Humes agreed there was no exit wound of the bullet through the back" (pp. 4, 6).
Furthermore, as part of his HSCA interview, Sibert was asked to do wound diagrams on two face sheets with generic male figures printed on them. On both sheets/both diagrams, Sibert put the back wound about 5 inches below the collar band and clearly below the throat wound, almost exactly where the rear clothing holes place the wound (pp. 8-9).
In O'Neill's HSCA affidavit, O'Neill said, "I do not see how the bullet that entered below the shoulder in the back could have come out the front of the throat" (O'Neill Affidavit for HSCA, 11/8/78, p. 5). He also said this:
"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" (p. 3).
Why? Because "Humes and Boswell couldn't locate an outlet for the bullet that entered the back" (p. 3).
And notice that O'Neill said the certainty about the back wound was "when the autopsy was complete."
How the hell would O'Neill know what Humes and Boswell had learned. By eavesdropping, they were picking up bits and pieces of information and reaching silly conclusions. Kind of like what you do almost every day.
To put it simply, by the end of the autopsy, the doctors were certain that the bullet that was found on a stretcher in Dallas must have been the bullet that made the shallow back wound. This was after Agent Killion had heard from Dallas about the stretcher bullet, and at least 90 minutes after Humes had learned of the throat wound from Dr. Perry[/i], as Dr. Ebersole revealed to the HSCA.
You have no idea what the prosectors were certain of at the end of the autopsy.
O'Neill explained this in more detail in his ARRB interview:
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."
This is why it is so dumb to cite people with no medical background who were only picking up bits and pieces of information during the autopsy. I don't give a rat's Bahookie what Siebert and O'Neill concluded at the end of the autopsy because they had no medical expertise whatsoever and were only getting bits and pieces of information. Why do you ALWAYS turn to the least qualified people available to get your information from?
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. (ARRB interview: Francis O'Neill, 9/12/97, pp. 30-31)
Oh, he was close to the body. I guess that makes up for a complete lack of medical expertise. If he was as close as he claimed, he was probably a real pain in the Bahookie during the autopsy.
"Bystanders"?! Umm, Dr. Ebersole was the autopsy radiologist. Dr. Karnei was a resident surgeon at Bethesda and helped supervise security for the autopsy before it began, and then watched much of the autopsy from close range. James Jenkins assisted with the autopsy; indeed, he was Boswell's assistant during the autopsy. Sibert and O'Neill were the FBI's official observers at the autopsy; their job was to observe the autopsy and then submit a report on it.
Jenkins? A STUDENT medical technician? That's one of your experts? <chuckle>
You lie about these witnesses because you know their accounts destroy your farcical version of events.
I don't have to lie. Of the people you named, none were trained prosectors. Ebersole's only contribution to the process was taking the x-rays at the direction of the autopsy team.
You know this is false. I've documented for you that historian William Manchester and journalist Richard Levine found that the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound before the autopsy. Manchester interviewed dozens of autopsy witnesses and others at the hospital in researching his famous book -- that's when he learned that the autopsy pathologists heard reports about the throat wound before the autopsy. Boswell indicated the same thing to Levine.
You claim lots of things that aren't so. You claim the autopsy team knew about the throat wound BEFORE the autopsy and later you tell us they found out around "10:00 or 10:30". That's not before the autopsy began.
But, you just ignore all this and keep falsely pretending there's no evidence the doctors knew about the throat wound before the autopsy.
You can't even keep your own BS story straight.
Let me refresh your memory, yet again:
One of the many historic disclosures from the ARRB materials is Dr. Ebersole's statement to the HSCA FPP that by around 10:00 or 10:30, Humes knew about the throat wound from communications with Dallas. Ebersole said he recalled that "by ten or ten thirty . . . communication had been established with Dallas and it was learned" that "there had been a wound . . . in the lower neck" ("Testimony of John H. Ebersole," HSCA, 3/11/1978, pp. 4-5.)
The autopsy did not end until after midnight. Even if we assume Humes did not talk with Dallas about the throat wound until 10:30, that would still be at least 90 minutes before the autopsy ended.
Your claim was the autopsy team knew about the throat wound before the autopsy and now you admit they didn't find out until 10:00 or 10:30. That is not BEFORE the autopsy. That is during the autopsy.
Will you ever stop lying about this? You can't, because admitting this would destroy your farcical version of events.
You're the guy who thinks 10:00 or 10:30 was before the autopsy. <chuckle>
This again?! You don't seem to know that the vast majority of your fellow SBT believers loathe the FPP's version of the SBT because they realize that the back-wound-to-window trajectory is even far more implausible than the WC's trajectory.
All SBT believers know the bullet that hit JFK in the back on a downward angle exited from his throat and struck JBC in the right side of his back near his armpit.
As I've explained to you at least three times now, the FPP, to their credit, acknowledged that the back-wound bullet entered and tunneled at an upward angle, but the only way they could make that trajectory line up with the sixth-floor window was to assume that JFK was leaning nearly 60 degrees forward when the bullet hit, a fantasy that is undeniably refuted by the photographic evidence. Dr. Wecht discussed this point in his 2021 book The JFK Assassination Dissected: An Analysis by Forensic Pathologist:
Why is it you never QUOTE what the FPP actually said rather than giving us your spin on it?
When the panelists tried to insinuate that the single-bullet notion was credible because JFK “could have” bent over, I laughed loudly and reminded them the Zapruder film makes clear that the president was not tying his shoelace or scratching his groin at just that right moment. They all knew that, but that’s how desperate they were to justify their absurd claim. . . .
The other eight doctors were unanimous in their conclusion that JFK was shot by two bullets, both which entered from above and behind him -- corroborating the Warren Commission findings. I, of course, could not hop aboard that bandwagon. I wrote a solo dissenting opinion that the single-bullet concept was impossible and included drawings to illustrate my view. (pp. 368, 371)
Furthermore, the only explanation that the FPP majority offered for the throat wound's entry-like appearance was the impossible shored-wound theory. Those guys had to know this was pure bunk, that shored wounds do not produce exit wounds that are small, neat, and punched inward, as Dr. DiMaio noted. (Indeed, I suspect this is one reason that DiMaio changed his mind about the SBT after extensive consultation with physiologist Russell Kent.)
Earlier, in trying to explain the throat wound's appearance, you claimed that FMJ bullets "make the same size hole going out as they do coming in when they don't strike bone." You apparently forgot that both Lattimer and the HSCA FPP majority appealed to the impossible shored-wound theory to explain the throat wound's appearance. You also appear to have forgotten that in the WC's SBT wound ballistics test, the exit wounds were larger than the entry wound.
Even if an FMJ bullet doesn't strike bone when transiting a body, it is not going to produce an exit wound that is small, neat, and punched inward, and that has an abrasion collar.
I think most people will conclude that you are the one who is continuing to try to make your case with lies.
I think most people will also conclude that you are incapable of admitting when you're wrong, no matter how clearly you are proven to be in error. I recall your recent claim that the HSCA FPP identified one of the skull fragments as frontal bone, a demonstrably false assertion. You refused to admit you were wrong, even when I proved to you that the FPP's wound diagrams showed no missing frontal bone and showed all the skull fragments as coming from the parietal bone.
You don't even understand the concept of proof. Repeating the same BS again and again over the course of several decades is not proof.
I think most people will see the same pattern of refusing to admit obvious error in your continued refusal to admit that the Connally back-wound bullet was not tumbling when it hit and was not tumbling when it transited his chest. You are all alone among WC apologists in claiming that the back wound's width of 1.5 cm means the bullet was tumbling. Every other WC apologist who peddles the tumbling-bullet tale misleadingly uses the wound's post-surgery width of 3.0 cm to support the tale.
Keep repeating the BS. It's all you have.
Ditto for your amazing claim that the Australian SBT test bullet just has "a little bit more bend in it" than CE 399. You made this pitiful claim even after I provided a link that shows a side-by-side comparison of the test bullet and CE 399. Anyone who looks at that photo (Figure 4 (https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/images/figure_4_lrg.jpg)in John Hunt's article (https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm)) can see that the test bullet is far more deformed that CE 399, that the test bullet's lands and grooves are no longer visible in the nose of the bullet, that the test bullet's nose is deformed, that the test bullet has a visible bulge above the ring, and that the test bullet is bent in its middle to such a degree that the bullet is visibly shorter than CE 399, even though the test bullet went through less rib bone than CE 399 allegedly did.
It's short because it was bent a little more than CE399. BFD. You think for the test to be valid, the test bullet would have to look exactly like CE399.
-
Another key fact that Humes withheld in his WC and HSCA testimony was that there were multiple drafts of the autopsy report. Humes claimed he burned the “rough first draft” because it had blood on it, but he said there was no substantive difference between the first draft and the final draft. This lie was exposed with the release of the transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session, which reveals that Rankin discussed two early drafts of the autopsy report, both of which said the back wound had no exit point.
For a detailed discussion on the drafts of the autopsy report, I would refer interested readers to Doug Horne’s 64-minute video presentation The Evolving JFK Autopsy Report. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yEugT91vq8).
As mentioned, the autopsy doctors were careful to conceal the fact that after the chest organs were removed, they were able to probe the back wound to its end point and could see that the wound path did not enter the chest cavity. Their later cover story was that the contracted back muscles prevented them from probing the back wound.
Only Boswell eventually abandoned this story, but he did not do so until his ARRB interview in 1996, when he said that initially the muscles prevented them from probing the back wound but that after they opened the chest, they were able to “get at” it and see that the bullet did not pierce the “lung cavity” but merely caused bleeding “outside the pleura” (the lining of the chest cavity).
In his HSCA interview, Boswell said that he and the other doctors thought the tracheotomy “was a wound.” The interviewer, Andy Purdy, added that Boswell “meant to convey the impression that that the doctors thought it was a bullet wound” (HSCA interview: J. Thornton Boswell, 8/17/77, p. 3).
Later in the interview, Boswell said he remembered “seeing part of the perimeter of a bullet wound in the anterior neck” (p. 8 ).
This brings up the crucial point that the bottom half of a round small bullet hole can be seen fairly easily in the bottom of the throat wound in autopsy photo F1. So, it is not a bit surprising that Boswell spotted this during the autopsy.
But, still later in the interview, perhaps realizing he had said too much, Boswell began to vacillate about knowledge of the throat wound during the autopsy and about when the autopsy doctors concluded that a bullet had fallen out of the back wound (which Boswell usually referred to as a “neck" wound). Toward the very end of the interview, Boswell said that “in the later courses of the autopsy” the doctors thought the tracheotomy “may have included the exit wound of a bullet” (p. 12).
Yet, we know that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for a bullet. The second draft said the throat wound was an exit point for a fragment from the head shot. Both drafts said the back wound had no exit point.
In a very revealing comment, Boswell said the doctors got themselves into trouble (“in dutch”) with the Secret Service over the "neck" (back) and throat wounds:
We had gotten ourselves in dutch with the neck and throat wounds with regard to the Secret Service” (p. 4).
For some reason, the interviewer did not ask Boswell to expand on this statement, and Boswell did not volunteer why they were in trouble with the Secret Service agents over the “neck” and throat wounds.
Boswell added that one of the Secret Service agents was “on the phone most of the time” during the autopsy (p. 4).
Boswell noted that during the autopsy, Dr. Robert Karnei “served in effect as the chief assistant of the autopsy doctors” and that Dr. Karnei assisted with the post-autopsy brain exam (pp. 5, 11).
In his ARRB interview, Boswell said the doctors concluded during the autopsy that the throat wound was the exit point for the back wound! He said their first impression of the throat wound was that it was just a tracheostomy but that after they found the back wound and after they opened the chest and saw blood outside the pleura “we had a track” (i.e., they inferred a track, not that they actually saw it):
Q. When you referred to the wound in the anterior neck, what was your first impression as to what that wound was?
A. I'm not sure what our first impression -- oh, we thought that they had done a tracheostomy, and whether or not that was a bullet wound, we weren't sure, initially. It was after we found an entrance wound and then the blood external to the pleura that we had a track, and that proved to be the exit wound; but it was so distorted by the incision, initially we just assumed it to be a tracheostomy.
Q. Did you reach the conclusion that there had been a transit wound through the neck during the course of the autopsy itself?
A. Oh, yes. (ARRB interview: J. Thornton Boswell, 2/26/96, p. 34)
In other words, Boswell claimed that the autopsy doctors deduced/inferred a back-to-throat track during the autopsy based on the bleeding outside the pleura. At no point did he ever claim they actually saw this alleged track. The only way they could have actually seen such a track would have been to dissect the wound, but they did no dissection because an Army general refused to let Finck dissect the wound, as Finck reluctantly admitted under cross-examination at the Clay Shaw trial.
So we see that on two occasions Boswell contradicted Humes’s tale that they were unaware of the throat wound until the following morning.
A major problem with Boswell’s statements about the back-to-throat conclusion being reached during the autopsy is that they are contradicted by the first two drafts of the autopsy report, by Dr. Karnei’s statements, by Dr. Ebersole’s statements, by med-tech Jenkins’ statements, by FBI agent O’Neill’s statements, by FBI agent Sibert’s statements, and by the Sibert and O’Neill report on the autopsy, not to mention by Humes’s WC and HSCA testimony.
-
Everything MTG presents is either based on opinions of people with zero expertise in the field they are pontificating on, or are outright lies. When he cites Doug Horne to bolster his bogus claim that the final conclusion of the autopsy team was that the bullet that struck JFK in the back did not exit, he does both. The final conclusion of the autopsy team is what they wrote in their report and they all signed. In reaching that conclusion, they developed some ideas during the fact-finding process, some of which turned out to be right and some which turned out to be wrong. The "no exit" observation is a perfect example. Upon initial examination, they could find no exit for the bullet as a probe of the back wound only went a few inches and they were unaware at the start of the autopsy that a tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound in the throat. At that point, somebody uttered the words "There's no exit" or something to that effect. In MTG's world of make believe, that settled the issue. They weren't allowed to move off that initial observation no matter what they learned later. A ridiculous approach for a fact-finding endeavor to follow. Later on, after removing the organs of the chest, they discovered there was a trail of tissue damage leading from the back wound to the tracheostomy wound in the throat. I'll post again their final conclusion on the back wound from their signed report:
"The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scap- ular and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck. This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can bc ascertained this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body."
I don't know at what point they started to suspect the bullet had exited at the point where the tracheostomy had been performed, but after identifying all the above damage and seeing where it was leading, it would have seemed rather obvious. Humes made several phone calls during the course of the night into the wee hours of the morning, and it would be only natural that he would have confirmed that hypothesis with Dr. Perry. Knowing that they had an entry wound in the back, a trail of tissue damage leading to what had been a bullet hole in the throat, and that there were no bullets in the body, the conclusion of an entrance wound in the back and an exit wound in the throat would be obvious to any person with an ounce common sense. That doesn't include MTG because once somebody said "no exit", it doesn't matter to him what was later discovered.
His citing of Doug Horne is even more comical. Doug Horne had ZERO medical training or experience. He was a military man. The ARRB placed him in charge of all records relating to the military and since the autopsy was performed by military personnel, those records fell under his jurisdiction. He was never expected to offer his own opinions on the medical evidence. He took it upon himself to do that. He embraced David Lifton's absurd Invasion of the Body Snatchers theory that between Andrews Air Force base and Bethesda Naval Hospital, the body had been taken to some facility for postmortem surgery to disguise the true nature of the wounds. That theory is completely laughable. Any postmortem surgery would have been instantly recognizable to a first-year medical student, much less an experienced pathologist. Yet Horne is the Bahookie clown MTG cites to bolster his silly beliefs regarding JFK's wounds. Then he gets huffy when people laugh at his ridiculous beliefs which he has clung to for well over three decades. He seems to be forever stuck in the period following Oliver Stone's 1991 movie when JFK conspiracy theories were running rampant and online discussion groups were first becoming a popular place for people to express their opinions. Sadly, he doesn't seem to have learned anything of consequence since.
-
Another key fact that Humes withheld in his WC and HSCA testimony was that there were multiple drafts of the autopsy report. Humes claimed he burned the “rough first draft” because it had blood on it, but he said there was no substantive difference between the first draft and the final draft. This lie was exposed with the release of the transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session, which reveals that Rankin discussed two early drafts of the autopsy report, both of which said the back wound had no exit point.
For a detailed discussion on the drafts of the autopsy report, I would refer interested readers to Doug Horne’s 64-minute video presentation The Evolving JFK Autopsy Report. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yEugT91vq8).
As mentioned, the autopsy doctors were careful to conceal the fact that after the chest organs were removed, they were able to probe the back wound to its end point and could see that the wound path did not enter the chest cavity. Their later cover story was that the contracted back muscles prevented them from probing the back wound.
Only Boswell eventually abandoned this story, but he did not do so until his ARRB interview in 1996, when he said that initially the muscles prevented them from probing the back wound but that after they opened the chest, they were able to “get at” it and see that the bullet did not pierce the “lung cavity” but merely caused bleeding “outside the pleura” (the lining of the chest cavity).
In his HSCA interview, Boswell said that he and the other doctors thought the tracheotomy “was a wound.” The interviewer, Andy Purdy, added that Boswell “meant to convey the impression that that the doctors thought it was a bullet wound” (HSCA interview: J. Thornton Boswell, 8/17/77, p. 3).
Later in the interview, Boswell said he remembered “seeing part of the perimeter of a bullet wound in the anterior neck” (p. 8 ).
This brings up the crucial point that the bottom half of a round small bullet hole can be seen fairly easily in the bottom of the throat wound in autopsy photo F1. So, it is not a bit surprising that Boswell spotted this during the autopsy.
But, still later in the interview, perhaps realizing he had said too much, Boswell began to vacillate about knowledge of the throat wound during the autopsy and about when the autopsy doctors concluded that a bullet had fallen out of the back wound (which Boswell usually referred to as a “neck" wound). Toward the very end of the interview, Boswell said that “in the later courses of the autopsy” the doctors thought the tracheotomy “may have included the exit wound of a bullet” (p. 12).
Yet, we know that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for a bullet. The second draft said the throat wound was an exit point for a fragment from the head shot. Both drafts said the back wound had no exit point.
In a very revealing comment, Boswell said the doctors got themselves into trouble (“in dutch”) with the Secret Service over the "neck" (back) and throat wounds:
We had gotten ourselves in dutch with the neck and throat wounds with regard to the Secret Service” (p. 4).
For some reason, the interviewer did not ask Boswell to expand on this statement, and Boswell did not volunteer why they were in trouble with the Secret Service agents over the “neck” and throat wounds.
Boswell added that one of the Secret Service agents was “on the phone most of the time” during the autopsy (p. 4).
Boswell noted that during the autopsy, Dr. Robert Karnei “served in effect as the chief assistant of the autopsy doctors” and that Dr. Karnei assisted with the post-autopsy brain exam (pp. 5, 11).
In his ARRB interview, Boswell said the doctors concluded during the autopsy that the throat wound was the exit point for the back wound! He said their first impression of the throat wound was that it was just a tracheostomy but that after they found the back wound and after they opened the chest and saw blood outside the pleura “we had a track” (i.e., they inferred a track, not that they actually saw it):
Q. When you referred to the wound in the anterior neck, what was your first impression as to what that wound was?
A. I'm not sure what our first impression -- oh, we thought that they had done a tracheostomy, and whether or not that was a bullet wound, we weren't sure, initially. It was after we found an entrance wound and then the blood external to the pleura that we had a track, and that proved to be the exit wound; but it was so distorted by the incision, initially we just assumed it to be a tracheostomy.
Q. Did you reach the conclusion that there had been a transit wound through the neck during the course of the autopsy itself?
A. Oh, yes. (ARRB interview: J. Thornton Boswell, 2/26/96, p. 34)
In other words, Boswell claimed that the autopsy doctors deduced/inferred a back-to-throat track during the autopsy based on the bleeding outside the pleura. At no point did he ever claim they actually saw this alleged track. The only way they could have actually seen such a track would have been to dissect the wound, but they did no dissection because an Army general refused to let Finck dissect the wound, as Finck reluctantly admitted under cross-examination at the Clay Shaw trial.
So we see that on two occasions Boswell contradicted Humes’s tale that they were unaware of the throat wound until the following morning.
A major problem with Boswell’s statements about the back-to-throat conclusion being reached during the autopsy is that they are contradicted by the first two drafts of the autopsy report, by Dr. Karnei’s statements, by Dr. Ebersole’s statements, by med-tech Jenkins’ statements, by FBI agent O’Neill’s statements, by FBI agent Sibert’s statements, and by the Sibert and O’Neill report on the autopsy, not to mention by Humes’s WC and HSCA testimony.
What a farce. Not one word of explanation about Thomas Cannig or Dr Shaw.
This post doesn't even demonstrate a child's understanding of the medical wounds or trajectory analysis which completely renders this whole post as another ridiculous Michael Griffith fictional accounting of the JFKA. If you cannot explain Gov Connally's wounds in the context of SBT or a separate shot, then this whole oddball theory is just another example of your made-up fictional nonsense. Maybe the question should be was there two JFKA's and only you are aware of the second one?
-
Time for more follow-up. (Yes, I've seen the recent replies by Corbett and Nessan. I think most people will realize that their replies fail to explain the evidence, actually avoid most of the evidence, and are simply not worth answering. If anyone has any questions about their arguments, please let me know.)
By the time Humes got in front of the Warren Commission (WC), he had honed his cover story. He knew he did not dare admit they had been able to probe the back wound to its end point after they opened the chest and removed the chest organs. He knew he could not admit he knew about the throat wound well before the end of the autopsy (much less before it began).
The cover story was essentially this: They were unable to probe the back wound. When they heard about the stretcher bullet found at Parkland Hospital, they entertained the possibility that the bullet had worked its way out of the back wound, but they never formed a firm conclusion about this. They knew nothing about the throat wound until the following day. Humes explained in his HSCA testimony that they learned about the throat wound by no earlier than noon the next day (more on this later).
Let's read from Humes's WC testimony:
Commander HUMES. Attempts to probe in the vicinity of this wound were unsuccessful without fear of making a false passage.
Mr. SPECTER. What do you mean by that, Doctor?
Commander HUMES. Well, the defect in the fascia [connective tissue] was quite similar, which is the first firm tissue over the muscle beneath the skin, was quite similar to this. We were unable, however, to take probes and have them satisfactorily fall through any definite path at this point. . . .
Mr. SPECTER. Now, Doctor Humes, at one point in your examination of the President, did you make an effort to probe the point of entry with your finger?
Commander HUMES. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER. And at or about that time when you were trying to ascertain, as you previously testified, whether there was any missile in the body of the President, did someone from the Secret Service call your attention to the fact that a bullet had been found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital?
Commander HUMES. Yes, sir; they did.
Mr. SPECTER. And in that posture of your examination, having just learned of the presence of a bullet on a stretcher, did that call to your mind any tentative explanatory theory of the point of entry or exit of the bullet which you have described as entering at Point “C” on Exhibit 385?
Commander HUMES. Yes, sir. We were able to ascertain with absolute certainty that the bullet had passed by the apical portion of the right lung producing the injury which we mentioned. (2 H 361, 367)
Let's pause for a second. Humes was blowing smoke here, pretending that this damage suggested a path between the back wound and the throat wound, when in fact this damage was below the throat wound, not above it. The "apical portion of the right lung" is the medical term for the very top part of the right lung. This damage would have been plainly visible once they opened the chest and removed the chest organs, which included the lungs.
Dr. Perry noted damage in this same area in Dallas, without the benefit of having the lungs removed. He detected damage in the "right superior mediastinum," i.e., the very top of the righthand side of the chest compartment, which includes the apical part of the right lung. The apical segment of the right lung is exactly in this area in the chest compartment and is right next to the trachea.
Dr. Perry also saw damage to the right-side strap muscles in the front part of the neck and to the trachea itself, which, along with the hematoma at the top-right part of the chest cavity, logically led him to conclude that the bullet had ranged downward into the chest after entering the throat, since much of the damage was below the throat wound (the rest was parallel to it).
For more information on the damage that Dr. Perry identified on, behind, and under the throat wound, see my article "Research Notes on the Shored-Wound Theory to Explain JFK’s Throat Wound," (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h48FpT89KrC0rNrl4XC3MDePLDFEBBHb/view), which I've linked twice already in this thread.
Let's continue with Humes's cover story to the WC:
I did not at that point have the information from Doctor Perry about the wound in the anterior neck, and while that was a possible explanation for the point of exit, we also had to consider the possibility that the missile in some rather inexplicable fashion had been stopped in its path through the President’s body and, in fact, then had fallen from the body onto the stretcher.
Mr. SPECTER. And what theory did you think possible, at that juncture, to explain the passing of the bullet back out the point of entry; or had you been provided with the fact that external heart massage had been performed on the President?
Commander HUMES. Yes, sir; we had, and we considered the possibility that some of the physical maneuvering performed by the doctors might have in some way caused this event to take place. (2 H 367)
Now, notice Humes said nothing about the removal of the chest organs to facilitate the probing, and nothing about the fact that with the chest organs removed they were able to probe the back wound to its end point and could see that it did not penetrate into the lining of the chest cavity. These were two key facts that Humes and the WC had to conceal at all costs. That's why the Sibert-O'Neill report on the autopsy was suppressed.
In his HSCA testimony, Humes went into more detail about when he supposedly first learned about the throat wound and about when he wrote the final version of the autopsy report:
Dr. HUMES. Having completed the examination and remaining to assist the morticians in the preparation of the body, we did not leave the autopsy room until 5:30 or 6 in the morning. . . .
Dr. BOSWELL. Saturday morning we got together and we called Dallas.
Dr. HUMES. We called Dallas. See we were at a loss because we hadn't appreciated the exit wound in the neck. . . .
Dr. BADEN: Now this was the day after?
Dr. HUMES. The day after, within 6 or 8 hours of having completed the examination assisting Waller's and so forth for the preparation of the President's remains. We got together and discussed our problem. We said we've got to talk to the people in Dallas. . . .
So I called Dr. Perry. Took me a little while to reach him. We had a very nice conversation on the phone in which he described a missile wound what he interpreted as a missile wound in the midline of the neck through which he had created a very quick emergency as you can see from the photographs tracheotomy incision, in effect destroying its value to us and obscuring it very gorgeously for us. Well, of course, the minute he said that to me, lights went on and we said, ah, we have some place for our missile to have gone. (Humes-Boswell Testimony Before HSCA Medical Panel, 9/16/77, pp. 256-257)
Obviously, the last statement refutes any notion that during the autopsy the pathologists saw a path from the back wound to the throat wound. Notice that Humes claimed that as of Saturday morning, they still could not figure out where the back-wound bullet had gone.
Mind you, since Humes said he didn't leave the autopsy room until 5:30 or 6:00 that morning, "6 or 8 hours" after that means he didn't meet with Boswell and Finck and call Perry until noon on Saturday, at the earliest.
Obviously, we're dealing with some fiction here, but it's worth noting the timeline that Humes put forward.
Also, I should note that Humes's conversation with Perry was anything but "very nice." Perry told Nurse Audrey Bell and three journalists that he received several calls from Bethesda during the night, and that they argued with him about the throat wound and tried to persuade him to change his mind about it. Also, thanks to Dr. Ebersole, we know that Humes first spoke with Perry during the autopsy at 10:00 or 10:30, and that that was when he learned about the throat wound.
Keep in mind, too, that Boswell initially told his HSCA interviewer that during the autopsy, the autopsy doctors thought the throat wound was a bullet wound, and that he could see the bottom half of the bullet wound in the throat. The fact that the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound during the autopsy was confirmed by Dr. Ebersole.
Let's continue:
And then, of course, I asked him, much to my amazement, had he or any other physician in attendance upon the President examined the back of the patient, his neck or his shoulder? They said no, the patient had never been moved from his back while they were administering to him.
So the confusion that existed from some of his comments and the comments of other standby people in the emergency room in Dallas had
been in the news media and elsewhere. so that added to the confusion.
So following that, and that discussion, and we having a meeting of minds as to generally what was necessary to be accomplished, and being informed by the various people in authority that our gross report should be delivered to the White House physician no later than Sunday evening the next day, 24 hours later or not quite 24 hours later. Not having slept for about 48 hours, I went home and rested from noon until 8 or 10 that evening Saturday evening, and then I sat down in front of other notes on which I had made minor comments, handwritten notes.
I wrote the report which is present here. (Humes-Boswell Testimony Before HSCA Medical Panel, 9/16/77, p. 257)
Humes then addressed the fact that he had destroyed some of his autopsy notes:
Now we also have here -- and since it's in the record I want to comment about it -- some comments that I destroyed some notes related to this by burning in the fireplace of my home and that is true. However, nothing that was destroyed is not present in this write-up. (Humes-Boswell Testimony Before HSCA Medical Panel, 9/16/77, p. 257)
The transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session alone proves Humes was lying about this. So does the Sibert-O'Neill report on the autopsy. So do the accounts of Dr. Ebersole, Dr. Karnei, and med-tech Jenkins, and the HSCA and ARRB testimony of FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill.
There is yet another witness who confirmed that the autopsy doctors found that the back wound had no exit point: Richard Lipsey, who attended the autopsy on orders from Major General Philip Wehle, the commanding general of the Washington, D.C., military district. Lipsey also described in great detail the removal of the chest organs, and he, too, said the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound during the autopsy. Lipsey was interviewed by the HSCA in early 1978. We'll talk about Lipsey's important testimony in a future reply.
-
Time for more follow-up. (Yes, I've seen the recent replies by Corbett and Nessan. I think most people will realize that their replies fail to explain the evidence, actually avoid most of the evidence, and are simply not worth answering. If anyone has any questions about their arguments, please let me know.)
By the time Humes got in front of the Warren Commission (WC), he had honed his cover story. He knew he did not dare admit they had been able to probe the back wound to its end point after they opened the chest and removed the chest organs. He knew he could not admit he knew about the throat wound well before the end of the autopsy (much less before it began).
The cover story was essentially this: They were unable to probe the back wound. When they heard about the stretcher bullet found at Parkland Hospital, they entertained the possibility that the bullet had worked its way out of the back wound, but they never formed a firm conclusion about this. They knew nothing about the throat wound until the following day. Humes explained in his HSCA testimony that they learned about the throat wound by no earlier than noon the next day (more on this later).
Let's read from Humes's WC testimony:
Commander HUMES. Attempts to probe in the vicinity of this wound were unsuccessful without fear of making a false passage.
Mr. SPECTER. What do you mean by that, Doctor?
Commander HUMES. Well, the defect in the fascia [connective tissue] was quite similar, which is the first firm tissue over the muscle beneath the skin, was quite similar to this. We were unable, however, to take probes and have them satisfactorily fall through any definite path at this point. . . .
Mr. SPECTER. Now, Doctor Humes, at one point in your examination of the President, did you make an effort to probe the point of entry with your finger?
Commander HUMES. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER. And at or about that time when you were trying to ascertain, as you previously testified, whether there was any missile in the body of the President, did someone from the Secret Service call your attention to the fact that a bullet had been found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital?
Commander HUMES. Yes, sir; they did.
Mr. SPECTER. And in that posture of your examination, having just learned of the presence of a bullet on a stretcher, did that call to your mind any tentative explanatory theory of the point of entry or exit of the bullet which you have described as entering at Point “C” on Exhibit 385?
Commander HUMES. Yes, sir. We were able to ascertain with absolute certainty that the bullet had passed by the apical portion of the right lung producing the injury which we mentioned. (2 H 361, 367)
Let's pause for a second. Humes was blowing smoke here, pretending that this damage suggested a path between the back wound and the throat wound, when in fact this damage was below the throat wound, not above it. The "apical portion of the right lung" is the medical term for the very top part of the right lung. This damage would have been plainly visible once they opened the chest and removed the chest organs, which included the lungs.
Dr. Perry noted damage in this same area in Dallas, without the benefit of having the lungs removed. He detected damage in the "right superior mediastinum," i.e., the very top of the righthand side of the chest compartment, which includes the apical part of the right lung. The apical segment of the right lung is exactly in this area in the chest compartment and is right next to the trachea.
Dr. Perry also saw damage to the right-side strap muscles in the front part of the neck and to the trachea itself, which, along with the hematoma at the top-right part of the chest cavity, logically led him to conclude that the bullet had ranged downward into the chest after entering the throat, since much of the damage was below the throat wound (the rest was parallel to it).
For more information on the damage that Dr. Perry identified on, behind, and under the throat wound, see my article "Research Notes on the Shored-Wound Theory to Explain JFK’s Throat Wound," (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h48FpT89KrC0rNrl4XC3MDePLDFEBBHb/view), which I've linked twice already in this thread.
Let's continue with Humes's cover story to the WC:
I did not at that point have the information from Doctor Perry about the wound in the anterior neck, and while that was a possible explanation for the point of exit, we also had to consider the possibility that the missile in some rather inexplicable fashion had been stopped in its path through the President’s body and, in fact, then had fallen from the body onto the stretcher.
Mr. SPECTER. And what theory did you think possible, at that juncture, to explain the passing of the bullet back out the point of entry; or had you been provided with the fact that external heart massage had been performed on the President?
Commander HUMES. Yes, sir; we had, and we considered the possibility that some of the physical maneuvering performed by the doctors might have in some way caused this event to take place. (2 H 367)
Now, notice Humes said nothing about the removal of the chest organs to facilitate the probing, and nothing about the fact that with the chest organs removed they were able to probe the back wound to its end point and could see that it did not penetrate into the lining of the chest cavity. These were two key facts that Humes and the WC had to conceal at all costs. That's why the Sibert-O'Neill report on the autopsy was suppressed.
In his HSCA testimony, Humes went into more detail about when he supposedly first learned about the throat wound and about when he wrote the final version of the autopsy report:
Dr. HUMES. Having completed the examination and remaining to assist the morticians in the preparation of the body, we did not leave the autopsy room until 5:30 or 6 in the morning. . . .
Dr. BOSWELL. Saturday morning we got together and we called Dallas.
Dr. HUMES. We called Dallas. See we were at a loss because we hadn't appreciated the exit wound in the neck. . . .
Dr. BADEN: Now this was the day after?
Dr. HUMES. The day after, within 6 or 8 hours of having completed the examination assisting Waller's and so forth for the preparation of the President's remains. We got together and discussed our problem. We said we've got to talk to the people in Dallas. . . .
So I called Dr. Perry. Took me a little while to reach him. We had a very nice conversation on the phone in which he described a missile wound what he interpreted as a missile wound in the midline of the neck through which he had created a very quick emergency as you can see from the photographs tracheotomy incision, in effect destroying its value to us and obscuring it very gorgeously for us. Well, of course, the minute he said that to me, lights went on and we said, ah, we have some place for our missile to have gone. (Humes-Boswell Testimony Before HSCA Medical Panel, 9/16/77, pp. 256-257)
Obviously, the last statement refutes any notion that during the autopsy the pathologists saw a path from the back wound to the throat wound. Notice that Humes claimed that as of Saturday morning, they still could not figure out where the back-wound bullet had gone.
Mind you, since Humes said he didn't leave the autopsy room until 5:30 or 6:00 that morning, "6 or 8 hours" after that means he didn't meet with Boswell and Finck and call Perry until noon on Saturday, at the earliest.
Obviously, we're dealing with some fiction here, but it's worth noting the timeline that Humes put forward.
Also, I should note that Humes's conversation with Perry was anything but "very nice." Perry told Nurse Audrey Bell and three journalists that he received several calls from Bethesda during the night, and that they argued with him about the throat wound and tried to persuade him to change his mind about it. Also, thanks to Dr. Ebersole, we know that Humes first spoke with Perry during the autopsy at 10:00 or 10:30, and that that was when he learned about the throat wound.
Keep in mind, too, that Boswell initially told his HSCA interviewer that during the autopsy, the autopsy doctors thought the throat wound was a bullet wound, and that he could see the bottom half of the bullet wound in the throat. The fact that the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound during the autopsy was confirmed by Dr. Ebersole.
Let's continue:
And then, of course, I asked him, much to my amazement, had he or any other physician in attendance upon the President examined the back of the patient, his neck or his shoulder? They said no, the patient had never been moved from his back while they were administering to him.
So the confusion that existed from some of his comments and the comments of other standby people in the emergency room in Dallas had
been in the news media and elsewhere. so that added to the confusion.
So following that, and that discussion, and we having a meeting of minds as to generally what was necessary to be accomplished, and being informed by the various people in authority that our gross report should be delivered to the White House physician no later than Sunday evening the next day, 24 hours later or not quite 24 hours later. Not having slept for about 48 hours, I went home and rested from noon until 8 or 10 that evening Saturday evening, and then I sat down in front of other notes on which I had made minor comments, handwritten notes.
I wrote the report which is present here. (Humes-Boswell Testimony Before HSCA Medical Panel, 9/16/77, p. 257)
Humes then addressed the fact that he had destroyed some of his autopsy notes:
Now we also have here -- and since it's in the record I want to comment about it -- some comments that I destroyed some notes related to this by burning in the fireplace of my home and that is true. However, nothing that was destroyed is not present in this write-up. (Humes-Boswell Testimony Before HSCA Medical Panel, 9/16/77, p. 257)
The transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session alone proves Humes was lying about this. So does the Sibert-O'Neill report on the autopsy. So do the accounts of Dr. Ebersole, Dr. Karnei, and med-tech Jenkins, and the HSCA and ARRB testimony of FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill.
There is yet another witness who confirmed that the autopsy doctors found that the back wound had no exit point: Richard Lipsey, who attended the autopsy on orders from Major General Philip Wehle, the commanding general of the Washington, D.C., military district. Lipsey also described in great detail the removal of the chest organs, and he, too, said the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound during the autopsy. Lipsey was interviewed by the HSCA in early 1978. We'll talk about Lipsey's important testimony in a future reply.
MTG would have better luck selling air conditioners to Eskimos than selling this turkey of a theory. According to MTG, once the back wound was probed early on during the autopsy, the probe only passed a few inches into the wound, and somebody uttered the words "no exit", that was the end of the story. Nothing the prosectors learned later on mattered. It didn't matter that once the chest organs were eviscerated, they discovered a trail of tissue damage from the back wound to the tracheostomy incision. It didn't matter that Dr. Perry confirmed to them that he had performed a tracheostomy over the bullet wound in the throat. It didn't matter that it is not remotely possible that a bullet would have only penetrated a few inches into JFK's back. Once somebody uttered the words "no exit", that settled it. That had to be their final answer no matter what else they learned later in the process. The were stuck with that and weren't allowed to change it. The foolishness of that position couldn't be more obvious. Who clings to an early impression once more and better information becomes available? Answer: a JFK conspiracy fanatic. Like MTG. Early on when he read that the words "no exit" were uttered during the probing of the back wound, that became his mantra. He was going to cling to those words no matter what. Since there is no real evidence that somebody other than Oswald took part in the JFKA, he was going to hang on to the magic words "no exit" come hell or high water. There's no reasoning withs somebody that fanatical. It makes me wonder why I even try.
-
The question is the same. How about if you are not able to understand it or answer it, maybe just state why you won't. All of this make-believe information and supposed expert opinion from half-baked pseudo experts is pathetic, not impressive. Apparently not one of them could think past his nose and ask themselves the important question about JBC's wounding.
You want someone to ask you a question. How about just repeat to you the question you are dodging and afraid to answer.
Once again, the same old random nonsense and unbelievably loose with the facts. How do you explain Gov Connally's wounds if the bullet does not first pass through JFK?
-
Now is a good time to discuss the HSCA testimony of Richard Lipsey. Lipsey was an aide to Major General Philip Wehle, the commanding general of the military district of Washington, D.C. Lipsey was ordered by Wehle to monitor JFK's body during the autopsy. Lipsey arrived at the autopsy just before the body was taken out of the casket, and he remained in the autopsy room long after Sibert and O'Neill left. Lipsey noted that he was about 12-15 feet from the autopsy table.
Lipsey confirmed that the autopsy doctors found that the back wound had no exit point. He said the doctors were "bound and determined to find that bullet because it didn't have an exit mark" (HSCA interview: Richard Lipsey, 1/18/78, p. 5). He said they spent some two hours trying to find the back-wound bullet (p. 7). He described how the doctors opened the chest cavity and removed all the chest organs (pp. 8, 13-14). Said Lipsey,
. . . then they cut his chest open, you know, and they got all of his insides out, that was the only gory part, they took them out a piece at a time and laid them up on, I remember, a beautiful clean stainless steel rack. . . .
I remember they were bound and determined to find that bullet because it didn't have an exit mark. . . .
But the one that I remember they spent so much time on, obviously, was the one they found did not come out. There was a bullet -- that's my vivid recollection cause that's all they talked about. For about two hours all they talked about was finding that bullet.
They turned the body up at one point to determine where that bullet that entered back here that didn't have an exit mark. Where was that bullet? And so when it got to down to where they thought it hit his chest cavity, they opened him up and started looking in here. That's why I remember one thing, they took, after they had taken all his organs out, during the autopsy they had them sitting up there: "Now let's see if we can find the bullet". . . .(pp. 5, 7, 8, 14)
In a fascinating twist, Lipsey said the doctors concluded that the bullet that hit low in the back of the head had exited the throat (pp. 7, 20). This is a revealing datum because we know from the 1/27/64 WC executive session transcript that one of the first drafts of the autopsy report said a fragment from the head shot exited the throat, that the throat wound was the exit point for a head-shot fragment. This is also further proof that the pathologists knew about the throat wound during the autopsy.
This datum is also important because it is further evidence that the rear head entry wound was near the EOP/hairline, as the autopsy doctors reported, and not 4 inches higher above the lambda in the parietal bone. Lipsey said the wound was in the "upper neck/lower part of your head" and "in the hairline" (pp. 22). Lipsey several times spoke of the area just above the hairline as being part of the "upper neck," but he clarified this to mean "lower part of your head."
BTW, Lipsey said there was visible damage to JFK's face but that the face looked "great" after the morticians did their reconstruction work. He said the visible facial damage included considerable loss of structure, and that the damaged area included the right eye, the right forehead, and an area slightly beyond the hairline (pp. 6-7).
Now this is mighty interesting because this is the damage you'd expect to see in the "stare of death" autopsy photo, given the frontal-bone damage shown in the skull x-rays. No wonder Smithsonian Institution forensic anthropologist Dr. Doug Ubelaker told the ARRB that "the apparent absence of bone in much of the anterior portion of these x-rays seems inconsistent with the intact appearance of the right forehead in the photos" (ARRB meeting report: Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, 1/26/96, p. 2).
Lipsey's testimony is also crucial because he heard the autopsy doctors talking about a wound scenario after Sibert and O'Neill left the autopsy room that was different from the one the doctors had conveyed shortly before Sibert and O'Neill had departed. Lipsey said the autopsy doctors concluded that three bullets hit JFK: one on the right side of the head, one just above the hairline, and one in the lower part of the neck. Dr. David Mantik:
Horne’s clue to this changing story came from a 1978 HSCA interview with Richard Lipsey, the former military aide to the commanding general of the military district of Washington, General Philip C. Wehle. Horne emphasized that in 1978, Lipsey “was very certain of his recollections—his oral account is noteworthy for the conviction with which he recounted his memories.” He continued: “Mr. Lipsey relayed an account that is different from both the Sibert-O’Neill report, and from the autopsy now present in the Archives, CE 387.” He then stressed the following:
"It is a virtual certainty that the autopsy conclusions he [Richard Lipsey] was privy to were identical with the contents of the first draft of the autopsy which was reviewed by Drs. Humes, Boswell, and [Robert O.] Canada [the commanding officer of the naval medical hospital at Bethesda] on Saturday, November 23rd, and which was destroyed less than twenty four hours later in the fireplace of James J. Humes."
According to Lipsey, sometime after midnight -- and after the two FBI agents had disappeared -- the pathologists declared that JFK had been hit by three shots from behind. That first autopsy draft had concluded that the sole headshot had “entered the back of the head and blew out part of the right side of the skull, creating one large defect that represented both the bullet’s entrance and exit.” It also concluded that a “second bullet entered very high up on the back of the neck, just inside the hairline [i.e., on the back of the head between the hairline and the EOP], and exited from the throat” -- and a “third bullet entered at the bottom of the neck, or high in the back, and did not exit.”
Horne asked a critical question: “Why didn’t the autopsy conclusions, reported by Richard Lipsey, and committed to writing in the first draft of the autopsy report, become the official conclusions?” He elucidated:
"The answer to this question, I believe, is a simple one. By the time Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Canada met and reviewed the draft autopsy report on Saturday, November 23rd, the entire nation, and indeed the world, had become aware that one shot had missed, and had wounded bystander James Tague in the cheek, after striking a curb on Main Street in Dealey Plaza. This account was in the Dallas newspapers Saturday morning, and 'hit the wire' the same day, thus becoming available to newspapers (and radio stations) all across the country. This meant that the autopsy conclusions witnessed by Richard Lipsey could not stand, for the central conclusion reached by the pathologists after midnight was that the President had been hit by three shots.
"It was for this reason that the autopsy conclusions witnessed by Richard Lipsey, and likely memorialized in the first written draft of the autopsy protocol, did not last for even 24 hours. Because any report that postulated that President Kennedy had been hit by three bullets was now contradicted by ‘the facts on the ground.’ James J. Humes destroyed the first draft of the autopsy protocol, along with any notes indicating three shots hit the President, in his fireplace before dawn on Sunday November 24th, 1963. In response to the missed shot that hit James Tague, the autopsy conclusions now evolved back into a two-hit scenario, but one which now accounted for the bullet wound in the anterior neck." [Quoting Doug Horne, Inside the ARRB, Vol. 3, pp. 856-857, 863]
According to Lipsey, sometime after midnight -- and after the two FBI agents had disappeared -- the pathologists declared that JFK had been hit by three shots from behind. That first autopsy draft had concluded that the sole headshot had “entered the back of the head and blew out part of the right side of the skull, creating one large defect that represented both the bullet’s entrance and exit.” It also concluded that a “second bullet entered very high up on the back of the neck, just inside the hairline, and exited from the throat”—and a “third bullet entered at the bottom of the neck, or high in the back, and did not exit.” (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, 2024, pp. 59-61)
-
Now is a good time to discuss the HSCA testimony of Richard Lipsey. Lipsey was an aide to Major General Philip Wehle, the commanding general of the military district of Washington, D.C. Lipsey was ordered by Wehle to monitor JFK's body during the autopsy. Lipsey arrived at the autopsy just before the body was taken out of the casket, and he remained in the autopsy room long after Sibert and O'Neill left. Lipsey noted that he was about 12-15 feet from the autopsy table.
Lipsey confirmed that the autopsy doctors found that the back wound had no exit point. He said the doctors were "bound and determined to find that bullet because it didn't have an exit mark" (HSCA interview: Richard Lipsey, 1/18/78, p. 5). He said they spent some two hours trying to find the back-wound bullet (p. 7). He described how the doctors opened the chest cavity and removed all the chest organs (pp. 8, 13-14). Said Lipsey,
. . . then they cut his chest open, you know, and they got all of his insides out, that was the only gory part, they took them out a piece at a time and laid them up on, I remember, a beautiful clean stainless steel rack. . . .
I remember they were bound and determined to find that bullet because it didn't have an exit mark. . . .
But the one that I remember they spent so much time on, obviously, was the one they found did not come out. There was a bullet -- that's my vivid recollection cause that's all they talked about. For about two hours all they talked about was finding that bullet.
They turned the body up at one point to determine where that bullet that entered back here that didn't have an exit mark. Where was that bullet? And so when it got to down to where they thought it hit his chest cavity, they opened him up and started looking in here. That's why I remember one thing, they took, after they had taken all his organs out, during the autopsy they had them sitting up there: "Now let's see if we can find the bullet". . . .(pp. 5, 7, 8, 14)
In a fascinating twist, Lipsey said the doctors concluded that the bullet that hit low in the back of the head had exited the throat (pp. 7, 20). This is a revealing datum because we know from the 1/27/64 WC executive session transcript that one of the first drafts of the autopsy report said a fragment from the head shot exited the throat, that the throat wound was the exit point for a head-shot fragment. This is also further proof that the pathologists knew about the throat wound during the autopsy.
This datum is also important because it is further evidence that the rear head entry wound was near the EOP/hairline, as the autopsy doctors reported, and not 4 inches higher above the lambda in the parietal bone. Lipsey said the wound was in the "upper neck/lower part of your head" and "in the hairline" (pp. 22). Lipsey several times spoke of the area just above the hairline as being part of the "upper neck," but he clarified this to mean "lower part of your head."
BTW, Lipsey said there was visible damage to JFK's face but that the face looked "great" after the morticians did their reconstruction work. He said the visible facial damage included considerable loss of structure, and that the damaged area included the right eye, the right forehead, and an area slightly beyond the hairline (pp. 6-7).
Now this is mighty interesting because this is the damage you'd expect to see in the "stare of death" autopsy photo, given the frontal-bone damage shown in the skull x-rays. No wonder Smithsonian Institution forensic anthropologist Dr. Doug Ubelaker told the ARRB that "the apparent absence of bone in much of the anterior portion of these x-rays seems inconsistent with the intact appearance of the right forehead in the photos" (ARRB meeting report: Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, 1/26/96, p. 2).
Lipsey's testimony is also crucial because he heard the autopsy doctors talking about a wound scenario after Sibert and O'Neill left the autopsy room that was different from the one the doctors had conveyed shortly before Sibert and O'Neill had departed. Lipsey said the autopsy doctors concluded that three bullets hit JFK: one on the right side of the head, one just above the hairline, and one in the lower part of the neck. Dr. David Mantik:
Horne’s clue to this changing story came from a 1978 HSCA interview with Richard Lipsey, the former military aide to the commanding general of the military district of Washington, General Philip C. Wehle. Horne emphasized that in 1978, Lipsey “was very certain of his recollections—his oral account is noteworthy for the conviction with which he recounted his memories.” He continued: “Mr. Lipsey relayed an account that is different from both the Sibert-O’Neill report, and from the autopsy now present in the Archives, CE 387.” He then stressed the following:
"It is a virtual certainty that the autopsy conclusions he [Richard Lipsey] was privy to were identical with the contents of the first draft of the autopsy which was reviewed by Drs. Humes, Boswell, and [Robert O.] Canada [the commanding officer of the naval medical hospital at Bethesda] on Saturday, November 23rd, and which was destroyed less than twenty four hours later in the fireplace of James J. Humes."
According to Lipsey, sometime after midnight -- and after the two FBI agents had disappeared -- the pathologists declared that JFK had been hit by three shots from behind. That first autopsy draft had concluded that the sole headshot had “entered the back of the head and blew out part of the right side of the skull, creating one large defect that represented both the bullet’s entrance and exit.” It also concluded that a “second bullet entered very high up on the back of the neck, just inside the hairline [i.e., on the back of the head between the hairline and the EOP], and exited from the throat” -- and a “third bullet entered at the bottom of the neck, or high in the back, and did not exit.”
Horne asked a critical question: “Why didn’t the autopsy conclusions, reported by Richard Lipsey, and committed to writing in the first draft of the autopsy report, become the official conclusions?” He elucidated:
"The answer to this question, I believe, is a simple one. By the time Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Canada met and reviewed the draft autopsy report on Saturday, November 23rd, the entire nation, and indeed the world, had become aware that one shot had missed, and had wounded bystander James Tague in the cheek, after striking a curb on Main Street in Dealey Plaza. This account was in the Dallas newspapers Saturday morning, and 'hit the wire' the same day, thus becoming available to newspapers (and radio stations) all across the country. This meant that the autopsy conclusions witnessed by Richard Lipsey could not stand, for the central conclusion reached by the pathologists after midnight was that the President had been hit by three shots.
"It was for this reason that the autopsy conclusions witnessed by Richard Lipsey, and likely memorialized in the first written draft of the autopsy protocol, did not last for even 24 hours. Because any report that postulated that President Kennedy had been hit by three bullets was now contradicted by ‘the facts on the ground.’ James J. Humes destroyed the first draft of the autopsy protocol, along with any notes indicating three shots hit the President, in his fireplace before dawn on Sunday November 24th, 1963. In response to the missed shot that hit James Tague, the autopsy conclusions now evolved back into a two-hit scenario, but one which now accounted for the bullet wound in the anterior neck." [Quoting Doug Horne, Inside the ARRB, Vol. 3, pp. 856-857, 863]
According to Lipsey, sometime after midnight -- and after the two FBI agents had disappeared -- the pathologists declared that JFK had been hit by three shots from behind. That first autopsy draft had concluded that the sole headshot had “entered the back of the head and blew out part of the right side of the skull, creating one large defect that represented both the bullet’s entrance and exit.” It also concluded that a “second bullet entered very high up on the back of the neck, just inside the hairline, and exited from the throat”—and a “third bullet entered at the bottom of the neck, or high in the back, and did not exit.” (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, 2024, pp. 59-61)
MTG remains stuck in neutral. He can't get past the early erroneous observation of "no exit" which the autopsy team abandoned once they opened up the chest as saw that there was a clear trail of tissue damage leading from the back entrance wound to the tracheostomy incision in the throat. When they observed the damaged trachea which was just short of the incision, they only logical conclusion at that point was the bullet had exited there. Of course they would need to confirm that with Dr. Perry which apparently they did. MTG insists they have to stick with the early observation of "no exit" and ignore that trail of tissue damage which led to a much different conclusion than the idea they floated earlier.
As is his custom, MTG turns to the least qualified person in the room to bolster his desired beliefs and ignore what the prosectors discovered during the remaining hours of the autopsy and in their communications with Perry. What an asinine way to analyze the autopsy results but that is what we have come to expect from MTG.
-
One of the biggest problems with the single-bullet theory (SBT) is that there were far too many bullet fragments in Governor John Connally's body to have come from CE 399.
Although Dr. Charles Gregory later said the fragments removed from Connally's wrist were merely "flakes of metal" and that they weighed less than a postage stamp, there didn't seem to be any question about the wrist fragments in the first hours and days after the shooting. Dr. Gregory's own 11/22/63 Parkland Hospital operative record states that "small bits of metal were encountered at various levels" of the wrist wound, and that "wherever they were identified and could be picked up were picked up and have been submitted to the pathology department for identification and examination" (CE 392; 2 H 375).
This squares with Nurse Audrey Bell's account of the wrist fragments. Nurse Bell was the nurse who handled the bullet fragments that were removed from the governor's wrist. She insisted the fragments were not merely flakes but were identifiable pieces of metal anywhere from 3 to 4 mm in length and about 2 mm wide. 3-4 mm x 2 mm fragments are not large fragments, but they are certainly not flakes either. She said there were four or five fragments of this size removed from the wrist.
This, in turn, squares with the recollection of one of Connally's other surgeons, Dr. Robert Shaw. Interviewed for the award-winning 1988 documentary Reasonable Doubt: The Single-Bullet Theory, Shaw said,
I am sure that the bullet that inflicted these wounds on Governor Connally was fragmented much more than this bullet [CE 399] shows.
Dr. Pierre Finck, the only forensic pathologist at the autopsy, told the WC that CE 399 could not have been the bullet that hit Connally's wrist because there were many fragments described as being in the wrist:
Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Finck, have you had an opportunity to examine Commission’s Exhibit 399? . . . And could it have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally’s right wrist?
Colonel FINCK. No; for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist. (2 H 382)
Similarly, Dr. James Humes, the chief pathologist at the autopsy, understood the clear implications of Dr. Gregory's 11/22/63 operative record. Dr. Humes was asked if CE 399 could have been either the missile that struck the head or the one that hit Connally's wrist. He replied in the negative in both cases and cited the operative record as the basis for his conclusion about the wrist bullet, saying he thought it was "most unlikely" that CE 399 could be the bullet that hit the wrist:
Mr. SPECTER. Doctor Humes, I show you a bullet which we have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 399. . . . Now looking at that bullet, Exhibit 399, Doctor Humes, could that bullet have gone through or been any part of the fragment passing through President Kennedy's head in Exhibit No. 388?
Commander HUMES. I do not believe so, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. And could that missile have made the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?
Commander HUMES. I think that that is most unlikely. May I expand on those two answers?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes, please do.
Commander HUMES. The X-rays made of the wound in the head of the late President showed fragmentations of the missile. Some fragments we recovered and turned over, as has been previously noted. Also we have X-rays of the fragment of skull which was in the region of our opinion exit wound showing metallic fragments.
Also going to Exhibit 392, the report from Parkland Hospital, the following sentence referring to the examination of the wound of the wrist is found: "Small bits of metal were encountered at various levels throughout the wound, and these were, wherever they were identified and could be picked up, picked up and submitted to the pathology department for identification and examination."
The reason I believe it most unlikely that this missile could have inflicted either of these wounds is that this missile is basically intact; its jacket appears to me to be intact, and I do not understand how it could possibly have left fragments in either of these locations. (2 H 374-375)
Also, we should keep in mind that there were at least two other fragments left in Connally's body: one was left in his chest and another was left in his thigh. Where in the devil could those fragments have come from CE 399?
Remember, too, that the FBI's Robert Frazier told the WC that CE 399 may not have lost any of its substance, and that at the most it lost less than 4 grains of its substance. To give you some idea of what a microscopic amount of material we're talking about, 4 grains is less than 83/10,000ths of a troy ounce or less than 0.0083 troy ounces.
Finally, notice that Humes acknowledged that CE 399 is "basically intact," and that its jacket "appears to me to be intact." Recall that Frazier told the WC that CE 399 is only "slightly flattened or twisted" and that this slight damage "is hardly visible unless you look at the base of the bullet and notice it is not round" (3 H 429). Yet this bullet supposedly tore through seven layers of skin, shattered a rib bone, and shattered a distal radius bone.
-
One of the biggest problems with the single-bullet theory (SBT) is that there were far too many bullet fragments in Governor John Connally's body to have come from CE 399.
A lie.
Although Dr. Charles Gregory later said the fragments removed from Connally's wrist were merely "flakes of metal" and that they weighed less than a postage stamp, there didn't seem to be any question about the wrist fragments in the first hours and days after the shooting. Dr. Gregory's own 11/22/63 Parkland Hospital operative record states that "small bits of metal were encountered at various levels" of the wrist wound, and that "wherever they were identified and could be picked up were picked up and have been submitted to the pathology department for identification and examination" (CE 392; 2 H 375).
This squares with Nurse Audrey Bell's account of the wrist fragments. Nurse Bell was the nurse who handled the bullet fragments that were removed from the governor's wrist. She insisted the fragments were not merely flakes but were identifiable pieces of metal anywhere from 3 to 4 mm in length and about 2 mm wide. 3-4 mm x 2 mm fragments are not large fragments, but they are certainly not flakes either. She said there were four or five fragments of this size removed from the wrist.
This, in turn, squares with the recollection of one of Connally's other surgeons, Dr. Robert Shaw. Interviewed for the award-winning 1988 documentary Reasonable Doubt: The Single-Bullet Theory, Shaw said,
I am sure that the bullet that inflicted these wounds on Governor Connally was fragmented much more than this bullet [CE 399] shows.
Shaw was a surgeon, not a ballistics expert but MTG doesn't care.
Dr. Pierre Finck, the only forensic pathologist at the autopsy, told the WC that CE 399 could not have been the bullet that hit Connally's wrist because there were many fragments described as being in the wrist:
Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Finck, have you had an opportunity to examine Commission’s Exhibit 399? . . . And could it have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally’s right wrist?
Colonel FINCK. No; for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist. (2 H 382)
Finck was not present at Connally's surgery. How the hell would he know? Did he weigh the fragments and/or CE399? The only way Finck's statement would make sense is if the weight of the fragments plus the weight of CE399 weighed more than an unfired Carcano bullet(160-161 grains).
Similarly, Dr. James Humes, the chief pathologist at the autopsy, understood the clear implications of Dr. Gregory's 11/22/63 operative record. Dr. Humes was asked if CE 399 could have been either the missile that struck the head or the one that hit Connally's wrist. He replied in the negative in both cases and cited the operative record as the basis for his conclusion about the wrist bullet, saying he thought it was "most unlikely" that CE 399 could be the bullet that hit the wrist:
Why would MTG cite Humes when Humes wasn't present at Connally's surgery nor is he a ballistics expert? MTG has never cared about things like that. As long as someone says something that supports his silly narratives, that's good enough for him. No critical thinking involved.
Mr. SPECTER. Doctor Humes, I show you a bullet which we have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 399. . . . Now looking at that bullet, Exhibit 399, Doctor Humes, could that bullet have gone through or been any part of the fragment passing through President Kennedy's head in Exhibit No. 388?
Commander HUMES. I do not believe so, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. And could that missile have made the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?
Commander HUMES. I think that that is most unlikely. May I expand on those two answers?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes, please do.
Commander HUMES. The X-rays made of the wound in the head of the late President showed fragmentations of the missile. Some fragments we recovered and turned over, as has been previously noted. Also we have X-rays of the fragment of skull which was in the region of our opinion exit wound showing metallic fragments.
Nobody has proposed that CE399 was the headshot.
Also going to Exhibit 392, the report from Parkland Hospital, the following sentence referring to the examination of the wound of the wrist is found: "Small bits of metal were encountered at various levels throughout the wound, and these were, wherever they were identified and could be picked up, picked up and submitted to the pathology department for identification and examination."
The reason I believe it most unlikely that this missile could have inflicted either of these wounds is that this missile is basically intact; its jacket appears to me to be intact, and I do not understand how it could possibly have left fragments in either of these locations. (2 H 374-375)[/font]
Humes was not an expert in ballistics. His pathology work was done primally on patients who had died from cancer or heart ailments, not gunshot wounds. ]
Also, we should keep in mind that there were at least two other fragments left in Connally's body: one was left in his chest and another was left in his thigh. Where in the devil could those fragments have come from CE 399? [/quote[
Still doesn't establish that there were more lead fragments in Connally's body than were missing from CE399.
Remember, too, that the FBI's Robert Frazier told the WC that CE 399 may not have lost any of its substance, and that at the most it lost less than 4 grains of its substance. To give you some idea of what a microscopic amount of material we're talking about, 4 grains is less than 83/10,000ths of a troy ounce or less than 0.0083 troy ounces.
The only way to establish if more lead was in Connally's body than was missing from CE399 by weighing both the fragments and CE399. Did anybody do that? Didn't think so.
Finally, notice that Humes acknowledged that CE 399 is "basically intact," and that its jacket "appears to me to be intact." Recall that Frazier told the WC that CE 399 is only "slightly flattened or twisted" and that this slight damage "is hardly visible unless you look at the base of the bullet and notice it is not round" (3 H 429). Yet this bullet supposedly tore through seven layers of skin, shattered a rib bone, and shattered a distal radius bone.
MTG continues to fall back on the same myths he was hawking back in 1991. The reason CE399 is flattened at the base and not the nose is because it had tumbled before striking rib or wrist bone. It had also been slowed by passing through two torsos before striking any bone. Not hard to figure out when you weigh all the available information.
-
I think now is a good time to quote from British physiologist Russell Kent's superb refutation of the single-bullet theory (SBT) in his outstanding 2022 book JFK Medical Betrayal: Where the Evidence Lies. Recall that Dr. Vincent DiMaio changed his mind about his earlier acceptance of the SBT after extensive correspondence with Russell Kent.
Dr. Cyril Wecht wrote the foreword for Kent's book. Here's some of what Dr. Wecht had to say about Kent's research:
Russell Kent does not stop in his excellent research with the autopsy debacle. He proceeds to analyze, dissect, and discuss each of the subsequent medical reviews established and implemented in an official fashion by a US governmental agency, beginning with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the bipartisan Warren Commission in the months after the murder. . . .
JFK Medical Betrayal reviews in a candid, no-nonsense, detailed fashion all of those investigations, leaving no stone unturned in critically exposing the various kinds and levels of a cover-up that the US Government has passively accepted over the past five decades. Anyone who has harbored an interest in the assassination of US President John F Kennedy, including readers with no medical, legal, or forensic science education, will find JFK Medical Betrayal an intriguing, informative, intellectually enjoyable book. (p. 8 )
And now let's read some of what Kent says about the SBT:
The Warren Commission concluded that the single bullet, which it labelled CE399, caused a perforating wound when passing through JFK’s neck entering ‘at the base of the back of his neck’ and exiting his throat. There was, however, nothing to prove the wound in his back and the one in his throat were connected.
Humes tried to claim that a small bruise he described in the top right lung of the President was supportive, but it could not show direction of wounding and could equally have been caused by an entrance in the throat. Furthermore, the photograph he claimed to have of this injury is missing. The autopsy doctors did not dissect the path of the bullet. They did not cut away the skin, muscle and organs of the neck to reveal a bullet track. . . .
‘The base of the back of his neck’ description of the entry wound might also fail legal challenge as these words came not from a doctor, but from Warren Commissioner and future President Gerald Ford. The President’s autopsy report more correctly described it as a back wound and not a neck wound. Furthermore, two other documents supported the back location: The autopsy ‘face sheet’ completed by Dr. Boswell marked ‘verified’ by Admiral Burkley and JFK’s US Navy death certificate, also prepared by Burkley. JFK’s clothing also showed holes in the back and the physical evidence was corroborated by the eyewitness statement of Secret Service Agent Bennett and the testimony of Secret Service Agent Hill. How could a bullet fired from several floors up enter JFK’s back and then exit the midline of his throat? It would have to travel upwards from the lower wound to the higher and its trajectory could not continue into Connally’s back. . . .
Even with all this manipulation of evidence, which would never have gone unchallenged in a legitimate court, the Warren Commission could not make it fit. The lawyers had a theory and a magic bullet, but even some of the commissioners had doubts about it. What they needed was some experimental evidence, and it had to be generated in secrecy in case it was incompatible. Who better to ask than the US Army who had a research centre just up the I-95 from Washington DC at the Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland? Surely, they could clean up for the legal team. . . .
The tests involved the penetration characteristics of only Western Cartridge Company 6.5 mm rounds fired from the Mannlicher-Carcano, the appearance of resulting entrance and exit wounds, whether such rounds could produce the wounds seen in Governor Connally, the integrity of fired rounds and whether the JFK head wound could be ‘recreated’. Olivier dutifully performed the tests he was asked to run and in May 1964 testified to the Warren Commission.
For ‘proving’ the possibility of the single-bullet theory, the experiments were almost worthless. Not only were they unscientific but breaking down a continuous event into discrete episodes will not necessarily prove the whole.
The Edgewood Arsenal Report states that a tissue-retardation study was done to determine the velocity lost when a 6.5 mm bullet passes through an amount of tissue equivalent to the distance travelled in the lower neck of the President. The testers concluded that the bullet that wounded JFK in the neck had sufficient remaining velocity to account for all Connally’s wounds. Apart from there being no hint of the word ‘alleged’, this is entirely the wrong experiment.
There should have been a test to answer the following question: could a shot through the neck exit in the midline of the throat without major damage to the spine? The Edgewood doctors had no answer to this as, remarkably, their experiment contained no bone. If the Commission’s proposed shot could not exit the front of the throat without damaging the spine, the single-bullet theory cannot be the truth. And, indeed, this is the case.
Many years later, using a CAT scan of a body whose upper chest and neck dimensions were the same as those of JFK, Dr. David Mantik (a radiation oncologist with a doctorate in physics) found that the trajectory proposed by the Warren Commission would hit the cervical (neck) vertebrae. Remember too, the passage of a bullet through JFK from back to front was never proven, only presumed. . . .
A third Edgewood Arsenal test involved shooting the wrists of 10 human cadavers to see whether Connally’s wrist wounds could be produced using the alleged assassination rifle and ammunition. Briefly stated, the wounds could not be recreated. The damage done to the cadavers’ wrists was always greater than the damage done to Connally.
Olivier decided this was because the bullet was moving more slowly when it hit Connally’s wrist. He speculated that deceleration had occurred when the bullet perforated Connally’s chest. No consideration was given to whether a different bullet, fired from a different weapon at a different range might also have produced the same results.
The entrance wounds in the tests were always smaller than the exit wounds, whereas the reverse was true in Connally. Olivier concluded this was because in Connally’s case the bullet was yawing (travelling more sideways than end on). But in his tests, the bullet always hit the wrist nose-first. Where were the tests for yawing bullets through cadaver wrists? There were none. . . .
A further test was to see whether a Western Cartridge Company 6.5 mm, copper-jacketed bullet could break a rib and remain unscathed. The testers shot 11 anaesthetised goats, X-rayed their chests, and collected the bullets. Only one such experiment was presented to the Warren Commission, probably because the results most closely matched the desired outcome (fractured rib and intact bullet). Disreputable as this is, even here the intact bullet (CE853) was far more flattened than the alleged single bullet from the JFK assassination (CE399). All the bullets fired should have been exhibits, but we are left to wonder about the condition of the other 10 unfortunate animals and the rounds that injured them. . . .
As the Edgewood Arsenal tests were about to begin in April 1964, to help deal with the incompatible medical conclusions, the Commission convened two conferences. An honest investigation would have noted that the memoranda of these meetings caused more problems for the single-bullet theory than they solved. Instead, they were then hidden and never referred to in the Commission report.
Warren Commission lawyer Norman Redlich and Assistant Counsels Melvin A Eisenberg, and Specter held the meetings on 14 April and 21 April 1964. At the first, according to Eisenberg, a group met, ‘to determine which frames in the Zapruder film portray the instants at which the first and second bullets struck.’ Drs. Boswell, Finck and Humes (JFK’s autopsy surgeons) were there. The FBI was represented by Inspector Leo J. Gauthier, Inspector James R Malley, photography expert Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt and two others whose names are not given. John Howlett (from the Dallas office) and Thomas Kelley (later Assistant Director) appeared on behalf of the Secret Service. Edgewood Arsenal sent along Drs Light and Olivier.
Eisenberg produced a three-page memo destructive of the single-bullet theory. It explained that ‘. . . the bullet recovered from Governor Connally’s stretcher does not appear to have penetrated a wrist.’ The memo also suggested the facts better match a different theory regarding Connally, ‘. . . if he was hit by this (the first) bullet, he was probably also hit by the second bullet.’
Of the 15 people there on 14 April 1964, including five doctors (three of whom were experts in wounds) and two FBI photographic experts, only Specter, the Warren Commission enthusiast of the single-bullet theory, believed JFK’s alleged neck wound and all of Connally’s wounds were caused by the same bullet.
Present at the second meeting on 21 April 1964 were Mr. and Mrs. Connally along with Dr. Charles F Gregory and Dr. Robert R Shaw, the doctors who had treated Connally in Dallas and had the closest look at his wounds. The FBI sent along Gauthier, Shaneyfelt, and one other unidentified agent. Assistant Counsel David W. Belin, Eisenberg, Warren Commissioner John J McCloy, General Counsel J. Lee Rankin, Redlich and Specter represented the Warren Commission. From Edgewood Arsenal, there was Drs. Dolce, Light, and Olivier.
This time, Eisenberg produced a two-page memo which, again, the Warren Commission could not find room to include. Once more, the memo was troublesome for the single-bullet theory, particularly the final paragraph. ‘In a discussion after the conference, Drs. Light and Dolce expressed themselves as being very strongly of the opinion that Connally had been hit by two different bullets, principally on the ground that the bullet recovered from Connally’s stretcher could not have broken his radius without having suffered more distortion.’
Of the 16 people there, including five doctors, all of whom were experts in bullet wounds, Specter alone believed the single-bullet theory. (pp. 40-41, 45, 47-48, 50-53, emphasis added)
-
I think now is a good time to quote from British physiologist Russell Kent's superb refutation of the single-bullet theory (SBT) in his outstanding 2022 book JFK Medical Betrayal: Where the Evidence Lies. Recall that Dr. Vincent DiMaio changed his mind about his earlier acceptance of the SBT after extensive correspondence with Russell Kent.
We only have MTG's word for this since he never provides an actual quote from Di Maio in which he recants his acceptance of the SBT. I suspect he is spinning something Di Maio said about wounds in general and was not speaking to the validity of the SBT.".
Dr. Cyril Wecht wrote the foreword for Kent's book. Here's some of what Dr. Wecht had to say about Kent's research:
Russell Kent does not stop in his excellent research with the autopsy debacle. He proceeds to analyze, dissect, and discuss each of the subsequent medical reviews established and implemented in an official fashion by a US governmental agency, beginning with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the bipartisan Warren Commission in the months after the murder. . . .
JFK Medical Betrayal reviews in a candid, no-nonsense, detailed fashion all of those investigations, leaving no stone unturned in critically exposing the various kinds and levels of a cover-up that the US Government has passively accepted over the past five decades. Anyone who has harbored an interest in the assassination of US President John F Kennedy, including readers with no medical, legal, or forensic science education, will find JFK Medical Betrayal an intriguing, informative, intellectually enjoyable book. (p. 8 )
And now let's read some of what Kent says about the SBT:
The Warren Commission concluded that the single bullet, which it labelled CE399, caused a perforating wound when passing through JFK’s neck entering ‘at the base of the back of his neck’ and exiting his throat. There was, however, nothing to prove the wound in his back and the one in his throat were connected.
Humes tried to claim that a small bruise he described in the top right lung of the President was supportive, but it could not show direction of wounding and could equally have been caused by an entrance in the throat. Furthermore, the photograph he claimed to have of this injury is missing. The autopsy doctors did not dissect the path of the bullet. They did not cut away the skin, muscle and organs of the neck to reveal a bullet track. . . .
‘The base of the back of his neck’ description of the entry wound might also fail legal challenge as these words came not from a doctor, but from Warren Commissioner and future President Gerald Ford. The President’s autopsy report more correctly described it as a back wound and not a neck wound. Furthermore, two other documents supported the back location: The autopsy ‘face sheet’ completed by Dr. Boswell marked ‘verified’ by Admiral Burkley and JFK’s US Navy death certificate, also prepared by Burkley. JFK’s clothing also showed holes in the back and the physical evidence was corroborated by the eyewitness statement of Secret Service Agent Bennett and the testimony of Secret Service Agent Hill. How could a bullet fired from several floors up enter JFK’s back and then exit the midline of his throat? It would have to travel upwards from the lower wound to the higher and its trajectory could not continue into Connally’s back. . . .
Even with all this manipulation of evidence, which would never have gone unchallenged in a legitimate court, the Warren Commission could not make it fit. The lawyers had a theory and a magic bullet, but even some of the commissioners had doubts about it. What they needed was some experimental evidence, and it had to be generated in secrecy in case it was incompatible. Who better to ask than the US Army who had a research centre just up the I-95 from Washington DC at the Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland? Surely, they could clean up for the legal team. . . .
The tests involved the penetration characteristics of only Western Cartridge Company 6.5 mm rounds fired from the Mannlicher-Carcano, the appearance of resulting entrance and exit wounds, whether such rounds could produce the wounds seen in Governor Connally, the integrity of fired rounds and whether the JFK head wound could be ‘recreated’. Olivier dutifully performed the tests he was asked to run and in May 1964 testified to the Warren Commission.
For ‘proving’ the possibility of the single-bullet theory, the experiments were almost worthless. Not only were they unscientific but breaking down a continuous event into discrete episodes will not necessarily prove the whole.
The Edgewood Arsenal Report states that a tissue-retardation study was done to determine the velocity lost when a 6.5 mm bullet passes through an amount of tissue equivalent to the distance travelled in the lower neck of the President. The testers concluded that the bullet that wounded JFK in the neck had sufficient remaining velocity to account for all Connally’s wounds. Apart from there being no hint of the word ‘alleged’, this is entirely the wrong experiment.
There should have been a test to answer the following question: could a shot through the neck exit in the midline of the throat without major damage to the spine? The Edgewood doctors had no answer to this as, remarkably, their experiment contained no bone. If the Commission’s proposed shot could not exit the front of the throat without damaging the spine, the single-bullet theory cannot be the truth. And, indeed, this is the case.
Many years later, using a CAT scan of a body whose upper chest and neck dimensions were the same as those of JFK, Dr. David Mantik (a radiation oncologist with a doctorate in physics) found that the trajectory proposed by the Warren Commission would hit the cervical (neck) vertebrae. Remember too, the passage of a bullet through JFK from back to front was never proven, only presumed. . . .
A third Edgewood Arsenal test involved shooting the wrists of 10 human cadavers to see whether Connally’s wrist wounds could be produced using the alleged assassination rifle and ammunition. Briefly stated, the wounds could not be recreated. The damage done to the cadavers’ wrists was always greater than the damage done to Connally.
Olivier decided this was because the bullet was moving more slowly when it hit Connally’s wrist. He speculated that deceleration had occurred when the bullet perforated Connally’s chest. No consideration was given to whether a different bullet, fired from a different weapon at a different range might also have produced the same results.
The entrance wounds in the tests were always smaller than the exit wounds, whereas the reverse was true in Connally. Olivier concluded this was because in Connally’s case the bullet was yawing (travelling more sideways than end on). But in his tests, the bullet always hit the wrist nose-first. Where were the tests for yawing bullets through cadaver wrists? There were none. . . .
A further test was to see whether a Western Cartridge Company 6.5 mm, copper-jacketed bullet could break a rib and remain unscathed. The testers shot 11 anaesthetised goats, X-rayed their chests, and collected the bullets. Only one such experiment was presented to the Warren Commission, probably because the results most closely matched the desired outcome (fractured rib and intact bullet). Disreputable as this is, even here the intact bullet (CE853) was far more flattened than the alleged single bullet from the JFK assassination (CE399). All the bullets fired should have been exhibits, but we are left to wonder about the condition of the other 10 unfortunate animals and the rounds that injured them. . . .
As the Edgewood Arsenal tests were about to begin in April 1964, to help deal with the incompatible medical conclusions, the Commission convened two conferences. An honest investigation would have noted that the memoranda of these meetings caused more problems for the single-bullet theory than they solved. Instead, they were then hidden and never referred to in the Commission report.
Warren Commission lawyer Norman Redlich and Assistant Counsels Melvin A Eisenberg, and Specter held the meetings on 14 April and 21 April 1964. At the first, according to Eisenberg, a group met, ‘to determine which frames in the Zapruder film portray the instants at which the first and second bullets struck.’ Drs. Boswell, Finck and Humes (JFK’s autopsy surgeons) were there. The FBI was represented by Inspector Leo J. Gauthier, Inspector James R Malley, photography expert Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt and two others whose names are not given. John Howlett (from the Dallas office) and Thomas Kelley (later Assistant Director) appeared on behalf of the Secret Service. Edgewood Arsenal sent along Drs Light and Olivier.
Eisenberg produced a three-page memo destructive of the single-bullet theory. It explained that ‘. . . the bullet recovered from Governor Connally’s stretcher does not appear to have penetrated a wrist.’ The memo also suggested the facts better match a different theory regarding Connally, ‘. . . if he was hit by this (the first) bullet, he was probably also hit by the second bullet.’
Of the 15 people there on 14 April 1964, including five doctors (three of whom were experts in wounds) and two FBI photographic experts, only Specter, the Warren Commission enthusiast of the single-bullet theory, believed JFK’s alleged neck wound and all of Connally’s wounds were caused by the same bullet.
Present at the second meeting on 21 April 1964 were Mr. and Mrs. Connally along with Dr. Charles F Gregory and Dr. Robert R Shaw, the doctors who had treated Connally in Dallas and had the closest look at his wounds. The FBI sent along Gauthier, Shaneyfelt, and one other unidentified agent. Assistant Counsel David W. Belin, Eisenberg, Warren Commissioner John J McCloy, General Counsel J. Lee Rankin, Redlich and Specter represented the Warren Commission. From Edgewood Arsenal, there was Drs. Dolce, Light, and Olivier.
This time, Eisenberg produced a two-page memo which, again, the Warren Commission could not find room to include. Once more, the memo was troublesome for the single-bullet theory, particularly the final paragraph. ‘In a discussion after the conference, Drs. Light and Dolce expressed themselves as being very strongly of the opinion that Connally had been hit by two different bullets, principally on the ground that the bullet recovered from Connally’s stretcher could not have broken his radius without having suffered more distortion.’
Of the 16 people there, including five doctors, all of whom were experts in bullet wounds, Specter alone believed the single-bullet theory. (pp. 40-41, 45, 47-48, 50-53, emphasis added)
I'm not going to spend the next hour doing a point-by-point rebuttal of the nonsense presented in MTG's latest offering. I'll just pick out some of the sillier points made in MTG's new kook book.
Kent says there was nothing to prove the back wound and throat wound were connected. There is a clear trail of tissue damage leading from the back wound, across the pleura, the strap muscles, the trachea, and the exit wound which had been used for the tracheostomy incision. Would any critical thinker need proof that the above damage was caused by the same bullet. At some point, common sense has to be applied. Common sense is not in MTG's toolbox.
Kent says there is no proof which direction the bullet was traveling when it contused the pleura. Seriously. Again, common sense is needed here. Are we supposed to believe the bullet that entered JFK's back was not the one that struck the pleura? Are we supposed to believe another bullet traveling in the opposite direction contused the pleura? What the hell happened to the bullet? Where did it go? Don't expect MTG to reply to these questions. He never does when his silliness is pointed out.
Kent wrote that the Edgewood arsenal "experiments were almost worthless.". Of course they were. No shooting can be duplicated. Even if they had been, the tinfoil hatted kooks would have invented some excuse to dismiss them.
Lastly, he points out that at a meeting of various people in which the SBT was presented, there were people who disagreed. As if that is a litmus test for the validity of the SBT. JBC only knew he had been hit by the second bullet. He had no way of knowing whether it is was the first or second bullet that hit JFK. Nellie also couldn't have known whether both men had been hit by the same bullet. From her position, she couldn't have been looking at both of them at the same time. One or the other would have been in her periphery. He claims that five doctors who were all experts on bullet wounds disagreed with the SBT. Actually, Humes and Boswell were not experts in bullet wounds. They were general pathologist, not forensic medical examiners. Of all the other people who disagreed with the SBT for one reason or another, I doubt any of them considered the possibility of a tumbling bullet smashing into JBC's wrist at the base of the bullet rather than the nose. I'm not sure when the possibility of the bullet that exited JFK's throat yawed upon exit was first raised. I don't remember it being part of the conversation when I first joined the fray in the early 1990s. It has been shown experimentally that a Carcano 6.5mm bullet will yaw predictably when exiting ballistic gel. A tumbling bullet explains why the base of the bullet, not the nose, got flattened. It also explains why lead fragments from the bullet's core got deposited in JBC's wrist. The lead core is only exposed at the base.
-
In February 1992, Dr. Robert Artwohl, who accepts the lone-gunman theory, revealed in an article on Prodigy that he had had a private conversation with Dr. Malcolm Perry in 1986 and that Perry affirmed that the throat wound was an entrance wound. Reported Artohl,
. . . one of the biggest regrets in his life was having to make the incision for the emergency tracheotomy through the bullet wound, because he was certain that it was an entrance wound. He remembered making a very good mental note of the wound since he was cutting through it. . . . Speaking with Dr. Perry that night, one physician to another, Dr. Perry stated he firmly believed the wound to be an entrance wound. (Prodigy, 2/14/92; see also https://www.kennedysandking.com/obituaries/481)
We have a similar recollection from Dr. Donald Miller, a former University of Washington physician and professor. In the 1970s, Miller worked with Perry at the University of Washington School of Medicine. In 2017, Miller reported that Perry told him that the throat wound was an entry wound, and that Perry said he “was pressured by government officials and the Secret Service to back away from the entry wound claim since the official autopsy showed it to be an exit wound" (David Mantik, The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, Post Hill Press, 2024, p. 82).
The Church Committee heard testimony from James Gochenaur, who was working on a master's degree at the University of Washington at the time, that Secret Service agent Elmer Moore pressured Dr. Perry into changing his diagnosis of the throat wound before Perry testified before the WC. Gochenaur knew Moore, having met with him several times. When Church Committee investigators contacted Moore, he admitted he had met with Dr. Perry one week after the assassination but denied he had pressured him to change his diagnosis. Moore also admitted he had met with Gochenaur three or four times, confirming there was indeed a relationship between the two men.
Federal agents conducted numerous interviews with Parkland Hospital staff, but no reports of those interviews were ever entered into the record. After the first interview with Parkland Hospital doctors by two unnamed Secret Service agents sometime before November 29, 1963, additional interviews were conducted with the Parkland doctors, nurses, and orderlies by both the Secret Service and the FBI. There were 24 Secret Service interviews and six FBI interviews, but not a single report on those interviews was included in the Warren Commission (WC) volumes.
In a recorded interview in 1991, Nurse Audrey Bell confirmed the pressure that was placed on Dr. Perry to change his conclusion about the throat wound:
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. . . . They really grilled Perry about it. They hounded him for a long time. (Mantik, pp. 57-58)
Nurse Bell told the ARRB the same thing in 1997.
During a recorded interview in 1991, Dr. Perry insisted the throat wound was an entry wound:
My whole credibility as a trauma surgeon was at stake. I couldn’t have made a mistake like that. It destroys my integrity if I don’t know an entrance wound from an exit wound! (Mantik, p. 58)
-
In February 1992, Dr. Robert Artwohl, who accepts the lone-gunman theory, revealed in an article on Prodigy that he had had a private conversation with Dr. Malcolm Perry in 1986 and that Perry affirmed that the throat wound was an entrance wound. Reported Artohl,
. . . one of the biggest regrets in his life was having to make the incision for the emergency tracheotomy through the bullet wound, because he was certain that it was an entrance wound. He remembered making a very good mental note of the wound since he was cutting through it. . . . Speaking with Dr. Perry that night, one physician to another, Dr. Perry stated he firmly believed the wound to be an entrance wound. (Prodigy, 2/14/92; see also https://www.kennedysandking.com/obituaries/481)
I remember Bob's post well and I also remember at the time, he was in the CT camp. Bob was trying to make the case that the throat wound was an entrance wound. He was wrong as he later acknowledged. He couldn't have converted to the LN camp if he still believed that was an entrance wound. That is incompatible with the LN point of view.
We have a similar recollection from Dr. Donald Miller, a former University of Washington physician and professor. In the 1970s, Miller worked with Perry at the University of Washington School of Medicine. In 2017, Miller reported that Perry told him that the throat wound was an entry wound, and that Perry said he “was pressured by government officials and the Secret Service to back away from the entry wound claim since the official autopsy showed it to be an exit wound" (David Mantik, The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, Post Hill Press, 2024, p. 82).
The Church Committee heard testimony from James Gochenaur, who was working on a master's degree at the University of Washington at the time, that Secret Service agent Elmer Moore pressured Dr. Perry into changing his diagnosis of the throat wound before Perry testified before the WC. Gochenaur knew Moore, having met with him several times. When Church Committee investigators contacted Moore, he admitted he had met with Dr. Perry one week after the assassination but denied he had pressured him to change his diagnosis. Moore also admitted he had met with Gochenaur three or four times, confirming there was indeed a relationship between the two men.
Federal agents conducted numerous interviews with Parkland Hospital staff, but no reports of those interviews were ever entered into the record. After the first interview with Parkland Hospital doctors by two unnamed Secret Service agents sometime before November 29, 1963, additional interviews were conducted with the Parkland doctors, nurses, and orderlies by both the Secret Service and the FBI. There were 24 Secret Service interviews and six FBI interviews, but not a single report on those interviews was included in the Warren Commission (WC) volumes.
In a recorded interview in 1991, Nurse Audrey Bell confirmed the pressure that was placed on Dr. Perry to change his conclusion about the throat wound:
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. . . . They really grilled Perry about it. They hounded him for a long time. (Mantik, pp. 57-58)
Nurse Bell told the ARRB the same thing in 1997.
During a recorded interview in 1991, Dr. Perry insisted the throat wound was an entry wound:
My whole credibility as a trauma surgeon was at stake. I couldn’t have made a mistake like that. It destroys my integrity if I don’t know an entrance wound from an exit wound! (Mantik, p. 58)
I have no doubt Perry believed the throat wound was an entrance and he was wrong. The reason he believed that is because an exit wound is usually larger and more ragged than an entry wound because most ammo is designed to expand on impact, whether it be a solid lead bullet, a lead tipped bullet, or a hollow point. FMJ ammo is designed not to expand on impact and will make a neat, round exit wound.
-
I have no doubt [Dr. Malcolm] Perry believed the throat wound was an entrance, and he was wrong. The reason he believed that is because an exit wound is usually larger and more ragged than an entry wound because most ammo is designed to expand on impact, whether it be a solid lead bullet, a lead tipped bullet, or a hollow point. FMJ ammo is designed not to expand on impact and will make a neat, round exit wound.
Good point.
-
Just jumping back in briefly to point out that WC apologists have no credible, rational explanation for the throat wound's entry-wound characteristics and for the mutually corroborating evidence that the autopsy doctors determined for an absolute fact that the back wound had no exit point.
-
Just jumping back in briefly to point out that WC apologists have no credible, rational explanation for the throat wound's entry-wound characteristics and for the mutually corroborating evidence that the autopsy doctors determined for an absolute fact that the back wound had no exit point.
So MTG doesn't think there is evidence that the bullet that entered JFK's back exited from his throat. The FPP unanimously concluded otherwise. Why would any intelligent person take the opinion of a kook like MTG over that of the FPP?
Time for MTG to retreat back to the Ed Forum.
-
Royell Storing had suggested a 2nd shooter on the roof top of the adjacent garage attached to the TSBD on the west side. It’s crazy but what if a gunman was there behind that sign stuck out above the big gates as Royell speculated?
Would that trajectory align better with the JFK back to throat wound angle? Or wound that be less probable than the TSBD trajectory line for a Z223 shot?
See I’m still having trouble aligning that 6th floor TSBD angle at Z223 with JFKs back and throat wound angle because although Myers computer model seems to show it works their experiment they did with actual firing thru the 2 Torso models , bullet excited BELOW the throat level. ???
So I’m wondering if that 2nd story level location above the big gates is a better matching angle in the vertical plane. Or is the angle in the horizontal plane too far to the right of JFK to align in that plane?
-
Royell Storing had suggested a 2nd shooter on the roof top of the adjacent garage attached to the TSBD on the west side. It’s crazy but what if a gunman was there behind that sign stuck out above the big gates as Royell speculated?
Would that trajectory align better with the JFK back to throat wound angle? Or wound that be less probable than the TSBD trajectory line for a Z223 shot?
See I’m still having trouble aligning that 6th floor TSBD angle at Z223 with JFKs back and throat wound angle because although Myers computer model seems to show it works their experiment they did with actual firing thru the 2 Torso models , bullet excited BELOW the throat level. ???
So I’m wondering if that 2nd story level location above the big gates is a better matching angle in the vertical plane. Or is the angle in the horizontal plane too far to the right of JFK to align in that plane?
Why do people waste time pondering silly scenarios?
-
Why do people waste time pondering silly scenarios?
They can't help it.
When it comes to the anomaly-replete JFK assassination, their paranoiac anti-"Deep State" / anti-"National Security State" / anti-"Administrative State" psyches demand it.
-
Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 11:29:24 PM
Why do people waste time pondering silly scenarios?
They can't help it.
Oh, the abject irony of two believers in the single-bullet theory (SBT) accusing others of "pondering silly scenarios"! This is like two Moon-landing deniers or two Holocaust deniers claiming that people who reject their theory are "pondering silly scenarios."
When it comes to the anomaly-replete JFK assassination, their paranoiac anti-"Deep State" / anti-"National Security State" / anti-"Administrative State" psyches demand it.
LOL! Gee, did the three members of the Warren Commission who rejected the SBT suffer from "paranoiac anti-"Deep State" / anti-"National Security State" / anti-"Administrative State" psyches"?! Mind you, two of those three members were Senator Richard Russell and Congressman Hale Boggs, who were staunch conservatives and were strongly pro-national security and pro-national defense.
It is genuinely amazing that you guys refuse to acknowledge the powerful, mutually corroborating evidence that the autopsy doctors determined for an absolute, observable fact that the back wound had no exit point. I don't know how in your own minds you brush aside this evidence and still cling to the SBT, especially given the fact that the hard physical evidence of JFK's tie and the holes in the back of JFK's coat and shirt prove the SBT is pure fantasy.
"JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view?usp=sharing
"Why JFK's Tie and Shirt Slits Destroy the Single-Bullet Theory"
https://sites.google.com/view/jfkshirtandtiedestroysbt/home
“Research Notes on the Shored-Wound Theory to Explain JFK’s Throat Wound” https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h48FpT89KrC0rNrl4XC3MDePLDFEBBHb/view
-
Oh, the abject irony of two believers in the single-bullet theory (SBT) accusing others of "pondering silly scenarios"! This is like two Moon-landing deniers or two Holocaust deniers claiming that people who reject their theory are "pondering silly scenarios."
MTG thinks the SBT is silly, but neither he nor any other CT has ever been able to come up with a plausible alternative scenario to explain JFK's nonfatal wounds and all of JBC'S wound. MTG won't even try. He can't do anything but parrot long discredited CT dogma.