Recent Posts61
The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / Re: JFK's Throat Wound Was an Entrance Wound: Refuting the Shored-Wound Theory
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 02:50:42 PM »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.
