JFK Assassination Forum

What in the world? I will charitably assume you must have a reading problem. I pointed out that Dr. Shaw, who operated on the wound, said it was elliptical, and then I quoted him saying it was elliptical. Let me quote him again:

The wound entrance was an elliptical wound. (6 H 95)

I don't have a reading problem. You have a memory problem and now you are flat out lying about what you wrote in your previous post. I'm going to do a COPY and PASTE to make sure I quote you verbatim, and then I'm going to jam it up your nose. You wrote:

"He said the wound was elliptical because . . . it was elliptical."

And then you turn around and tell me I have a reading problem. Maybe you should use the modify function to go back and erase what you originally wrote and maybe you can fool people into believing you didn't actually write what I quoted you saying.

Nothing makes me laugh more than when you step in it like this.

And, to repeat, he's the guy who operated on the wound. He also explained that he debrided the wound elliptically, around its edges.

You know the wound measured 1.5 x 0.8 cm, right? You know this, right? That's almost identical in size to JFK's rear head entry wound--1.5 x 0.6 cm--yet no one has ever floated the theory that the head-shot bullet was markedly tumbling when it struck.

No one is disputing the entry wound was elliptical. The question is why was it elliptical. Because of your clumsy attempt to quote Shaw out of context, we don't really know what he said. I'm sure he didn't say something as dumb as what you attributed to him. "He said the wound was elliptical because . . . it was elliptical.". That is hilarious.

For newcomers who haven't read the whole thread, I should add that Dr. Shaw also pointed out that Connally's back-wound 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 debunks the idea that the bullet was markedly tumbling--either when it hit or when it tore through Connally.

The scar on JBC's back was 1 1/8" by 3/8". The exit wound was incorporated in the surgical scar so the HSCA could not measure that. The hole in his jacket was smaller than the entry wound. 3/8" by 5/8", a little more than half the length of the entry scar.. Sounds to me like it was tumbling.

BTW, Dr. Shaw was an experienced thoracic surgeon who had operated on over 1,000 gunshot cases, so he had vast experience with bullet wounds. (Ah, but John Corbett says, "That doesn't matter! He wasn't a forensic pathologist!")

Then you'd better quit gambling. Let's see:

Dr. Robert Kirschner, a forensic pathologist and one of the ARRB's three forensic experts, said the the SBT was "very dubious."

Dr. William F. Enos, the forensic pathologist who supervised CBS's SBT wound ballistics test, said the SBT was "highly improbable."

Dr. Milton Helpern, one of the foremost forensic pathologists of the 20th century, said the SBT was impossible, that not even an FMJ bullet could do all the damage claimed for it and emerge with its lands and grooves intact and with such a tiny loss of its substance.

Dr. Joseph Nichols, a professor of pathology at the University of Kansas who trained forensic pathologists, who had numerous articles on pathology published in peer-reviewed medical journals, and who was also a court-certified expert witness in forensic pathology, said the SBT was impossible for a number of reasons: the conflicting angles through JFK and Connally, CE 399's virtually undamaged condition; the lack of an unobstructed path from either of the proposed entry sites to JFK's throat wound; among other reasons.

Dr. Vincent DiMaio, one of the leading forensic pathologists of the 20th and 21st century, initially accepted the SBT but later changed his mind after studying the SBT more closely with medical scientist Russell Kent.

Why is it you can cite all these medical examiners but you can never quote them saying why they thought the SBT was impossible, dubious, or unlikely? Either they didn't give a reason or they did and what they said isn't quite what you have claimed they said. Based on your past history, either seems plausible to me.

BTW, all members of the FPP except Wecht agreed with the SBT and they saw the original autopsy materials.

LOL! Oh, so NOW you're back to citing the FPP majority! Pure comedy. And this after you just recently claimed that you "don't have to explain" the FPP's finding that the brain photos, if authentic, categorically rule out the EOP site; their finding that the skull x-rays do not show the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report; their finding that the only fragment trail on the skull x-rays is the high fragment trail with its cluster of numerous tiny fragments in the right-frontal region; and their finding that JFK's back-wound bullet entered and tunneled at an upward angle--a fact that they could only explain by bogusly assuming JFK was leaning over 50 degrees forward when the bullet hit!

So it's OK for you to cite forensic examiners who never saw the original autopsy evidence and then you chastise me for citing a panel of forensic examiners who did. 

If you would ever bother to actually read the FPP's report, you would discover that the FPP majority made no effort to explain the fact that the projectile 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 is your point. Are you trying to say the bullet that entered JBC's back didn't first go through his shirt and jacket?

The FPP majority also made no effort to explain how the alleged magic bullet could have nicked the top surface of the tie knot inward from the left edge while making no hole through the tie knot nor through any other part of the tie.

They apparently thought no one would be anal enough to think that mattered.

 

And, as mentioned, the only way the FPP majority could explain the JFK back-wound bullet's upward impact angle and upward tunneling was by making the demonstrably false assumption that Kennedy was leaning forward by over 50 degrees.

We've been over this before. It is absurd to argue the shot that entered his back was fired from below him. As I recall, you tried to argue this was evidence the shot came from the Dal-Tex. You never bothered to explain why a bullet could enter his back on that angle from the Dal-Tex but not from the TSBD.

We have known for decades now that there was no hole through JFK's tie and that the nick on the knot was not on the edge of the knot. In fact, in an effort to create the false impression that a bullet passed through the tie knot, the FBI made an evidence photo of the knot with the knot twisted in such a way that the nick appeared to be in the middle of the knot. When Harold Weisberg, through years of FOIA suits, finally gained access to high-quality photos of the tie, he discovered there was no hole through the tie, a fact that the HSCA later quietly admitted.

What difference does it make if the bullet went through the knot, just nicked it, or missed it completely? It came out his throat and went on to go through JBC.

Yet, SBT believers continue to ignore this hard physical evidence and still peddle their debunked theory. You guys are like Flat Earthers who ignore satellite images of the Earth and continue to insist the globe is flat.

The SBT has never been debunked. It remains the only plausible explanation for the two men's wounds that is consistent with the body of evidence. If you dispute that, give us an alternative scenario that explains the wounds. The WC told us where the shot was fired from, the wounds it caused, and where the bullet ended up. It would be nice if your explanation could do the same if by any chance it ever sees the light of day.

JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view?usp=sharing

It does no such thing. That's just CT FUBAR figuring.

Marylin Sitzman
(a 10-25-92 interview with Hal Verb, as recounted by Verb in the 9-30-94 JFK Resource Group Newsletter) "...I recalled an interview I had with Marilyn Sitzman, an eyewitness to the JFK assassination who was standing with Abraham Zapruder (in fact, holding him so that he wouldn't fall as he was filming the motorcade). She and I were standing right near the pedestal which both she and Zapruder stood upon. It was the last day of the Dallas "ASK" conference. Sitzman told me she knew a lot about guns and weapons having grown up with them. She told me the shot that killed the President came from behind and that the gunman must've used a silencer (her emphasis). She said that if it were not a silencer the shot would have knocked down both of them because of where they were so precariously standing. She then told me of the great "reverberation" that was felt. I showed her a map of the Dealey Plaza area (she signed it) and she pointed to the area when she thought the shot was fired from. Curiously enough, it was not from the alleged and traditionally targeted picket fence area but from a location in the direction of the north pergola. This would be to the left of and behind where Charles Hester was standing."

From Pat Speer's website.

Why not base your analysis on the evidence?  Do you really know that JFK is not already reacting in z224?:

Yes, I really know that JFK is not reacting in z224
It's explained in detail in the OP.
JFK's reaction to being shot through the throat is for his hands to reflexively fly upwards towards his throat. His elbows hyper-extend upwards.
His left arm is shown still down by his side as he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign at z224, indicating the reaction is yet to begin.
His right hand moves DOWNWARDS between z224 and z225, also indicating he is yet to reflexively react to being shot.
This is shown in the Z-film.
Why don't you accept this evidence?

How does the bullet miss his hands?  Why do witnesses on Elm St. put it earlier (before the VP security car finished the turn; Linda Willis: while JFK was in her sightline to the Stemmons sign;just before Phil Willis took his z202 photo, as JFK approached the Thornton Freeway sign)?

How does the bullet miss his hands?? 
The Z-film speaks for itself.
Accept this primary evidence.
We have thrashed through this at "The First Shot" thread and your arguments were crushed down to the last detail.
I'll let that record stand rather than get dragged into your endless nonsense again.

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.

The WC dealt with that an gave a very reasonable answer for that. It isn't known whether any of Oswald's  shots missed and it isn't known that all the shells were recovered. His S&W Model 10 had a six round cylinder so he could have fired 5 or 6 shots before reloading. With only 4 bullets and 4 shells recovered, it's very possible there could be a mismatch between the shells and the bullets as to the make of each.

I think this highlights the problem that many people have with your posts. You are cocksure that you are right and anyone who disagrees is wrong, yet your cocksureness includes an awful of "isn't known," "could be," "it's very possible," etc., qualifiers. When CTers - or even fellow LNers - rely on the same sorts of qualifiers, you immediately pooh-pooh what they say and assert that your position is entirely evidence-based.