The 'Other' Wounds

[Cliff Varnell]

I think Pat Speer is one of the best posters Simkin ever had. And, just as important, he comes off as a damn good human being.

So an easily debunked lie becomes compelling when it comes from a nice guy?

Even if I don't always agree with the guy, he brings quite a lot of data per post and pretty compelling arguments.

Sure, if you buy the notion every witness to JFK's back and throat wounds got it wrong -- all in the same way!

Do you find it compelling to argue that the best way to locate the back wound is a photograph where it's "difficult or impossible" to accurately locate the back wound.

The worst evidence is the best -- all the witnesses have it wrong -- evidence improperly prepared trumps evidence properly prepared.

This is a horror show, I don't care if you raise Mr. Rogers from the dead...

His strange position in the research community only enhances his credibility in my book - I can't fathom how you have to have the same interpretation over reams of complicated data to be considered an equal in the critical community.

Pat sez the back wound was at the base of the neck. Same as LNers.

"Reams of complicated data." That's the hand of the cover-up. Keep us busy, as Vincent Salandria warned.

Busy as beavers while the central issue of the case is never seriously addressed in its entirety -- what happened to the bullets that caused the throat and back wounds?

Lifton and Horne have their answers, but their scenarios are far from the only ones.

The night of the autopsy the docs had the body right in front of them and speculated he was struck with a round that didn't show up on x-ray, a high tech weapon.

The supporting evidence for this conclusion is hefty, but I won't get into it now.

Problem is members of the Boomer Generation automatically equate high-tech weaponry with James Bond, Get Smart, Dick Tracy...can't see the evidence in front of them because they are afraid they won't be taken seriously.

Few Boomers are capable of understanding the first thing about the JFK assassination because the evidence leads them somewhere their pop cultural conditioning won't allow them to go.

[Bob Prudhomme]

EDIT: I am moving the posts in the Education Forum closing again ... thread having to do with the forensics. I chose this title, but other possible options were Conflicting Medical Evidence and Conflicting Forensic Evidence. Easy to change. Also, I excluded the posts about the head wounds. It seems like the direction was toward neck and torso wounds. --Lauren

I think Pat Speer is one of the best posters Simkin ever had. And, just as important, he comes off as a damn good human being.

So an easily debunked lie becomes compelling when it comes from a nice guy?

Even if I don't always agree with the guy, he brings quite a lot of data per post and pretty compelling arguments.

Sure, if you buy the notion every witness to JFK's back and throat wounds got it wrong -- all in the same way!

Do you find it compelling to argue that the best way to locate the back wound is a photograph where it's "difficult or impossible" to accurately locate the back wound.

The worst evidence is the best -- all the witnesses have it wrong -- evidence improperly prepared trumps evidence properly prepared.

This is a horror show, I don't care if you raise Mr. Rogers from the dead...

His strange position in the research community only enhances his credibility in my book - I can't fathom how you have to have the same interpretation over reams of complicated data to be considered an equal in the critical community.

Pat sez the back wound was at the base of the neck. Same as LNers.

"Reams of complicated data." That's the hand of the cover-up. Keep us busy, as Vincent Salandria warned.

Busy as beavers while the central issue of the case is never seriously addressed in its entirety -- what happened to the bullets that caused the throat and back wounds?

Lifton and Horne have their answers, but their scenarios are far from the only ones.

The night of the autopsy the docs had the body right in front of them and speculated he was struck with a round that didn't show up on x-ray, a high tech weapon.

The supporting evidence for this conclusion is hefty, but I won't get into it now.

Problem is members of the Boomer Generation automatically equate high-tech weaponry with James Bond, Get Smart, Dick Tracy...can't see the evidence in front of them because they are afraid they won't be taken seriously.

Few Boomers are capable of understanding the first thing about the JFK assassination because the evidence leads them somewhere their pop cultural conditioning won't allow them to go.

Well said, Cliff.

[Cliff Varnell]

[quote=Cliff Varnell]


How many times was JFK shot in the head?

If you think about it

I don't waste much time thinking about it, no thanks.


the correct answer is "As many times as they needed to do a pre-autopsy to cover it up". Cliff, don't fall for the Von Pein, Amazon book review troll demand for perfect evidence.


I have no idea what you're talking about, Albert. The evidence of conspiracy is absolutely perfect -- the bullet holes in the clothes are too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

Albert, turn your head to the right, glance down upon the shirt fabric on your right shoulder-line, and slowly raise your right hand and wave, as if JFK waving on Elm St.

Observe the fabric of your shirt INDENT. This is the opposite action of the shirt required by the SBT, which therefore stands debunked.

See how easy that is, Albert?


I keep telling people once you have reasonable evidence of government malfeasance the standard for evidence drops significantly in your favor.


Rubbish. The evidence of government malfeasance is obvious, has been for 50 years, and requires no "experts" to make a case for conspiracy any "vegetable" (as Vincent Salandria put it) could figure out with a mere glance at the location of the bullet holes in the clothes.



You then have to come up with a lot less evidence to make your case. You no longer have to worry about it, the government criminals who murdered Kennedy do.


The bullet holes in the clothes are too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

How much simpler can you get?

All this crap about the head wounds is nothing but busy work to distract from the more telling back and throat wounds.

[Cliff Varnell]

If you think about it

I don't waste much time thinking about it, no thanks.

Albert, as a point of clarification David Lifton and I are research-friends. David is one of the few who understand the central issue in the case -- what happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?

He and Doug Horne have done yeoman's work in this area, and while I do not agree with their conclusions regarding the back/throat wounds I appreciate their exploration of this very small universe I call -- Truly Relevant Issues of the JFK Assassination.

I give a hoot about the headwound/s and I defy your ability to explain it to a five year old.

[Albert Doyle]

I give a hoot about the headwound/s and I defy your ability to explain it to a five year old.

Which should make you worry after saying "I have no idea what you are talking about". lol



I've seen your shirt wound location stuff on the Education Forum. I don't have any problem with it. Though I'm not sure it should then become a monomania used to bash anyone who speaks of any other equally valid conspiracy evidence over the head with. Geesh Cliff, lighten up.

I think Lifton and Horne have made a good enough case that something needed to be covered-up during the pre-autopsy. At that point a five year old would realize you don't need any precise explanations of the exact wounds. I don't think there's any disagreement here.

[Cliff Varnell]

[quote=Cliff Varnell]
I give a hoot about the headwound/s and I defy your ability to explain it to a five year old.

Which should make you worry after saying "I have no idea what you are talking about". lol

Not to worry. What David Von Pein writes in Amazon reviews is nothing I spend any time considering, so no, I don't know what you're talking about when you refer to it.

Should I? Should I be concerned with what DVP writes in Amazon reviews?

You seem to attribute significance to it, although I can't imagine what that could be.



I've seen your shirt wound location stuff on the Education Forum. I don't have any problem with it. Though I'm not sure it should then become a monomania used to bash anyone who speaks of any other equally valid conspiracy evidence over the head with. Geesh Cliff, lighten up.


It isn't equally valid. False equivalence. There is a tremendous amount of conflicting evidence in regards to the headwound/s -- there is tremendous consistency in regard to the back and throat wounds as long as one understands that properly prepared evidence trumps improperly prepared evidence.

Serves the cover-up to direct attention to the most complex data sets.

I think Lifton and Horne have made a good enough case that something needed to be covered-up during the pre-autopsy. At that point a five year old would realize you don't need any precise explanations of the exact wounds. I don't think there's any disagreement here.

My argument is that the headwound/s study, within the JFK Critical Community, has become mono-manical at the expense of the study of the more revealing back/throat wounds.

[Cliff Varnell]

There were three major JFK Critical Community Conferences leading up to the 50th Anniv. -- Wecht, Lancer and COPA.

How many times during the course of those conferences was the following question asked from the podium:

"What happened to the bullets that caused the back and throat wounds?"

To the best of my knowledge (I'd love to stand corrected!), this key question was asked once.

Once.

By Cyril Wecht, who didn't try to answer the question during his presentation, but afterwards went on TV and claimed that one bullet caused both wounds.

The Zombie Lie from Pittsburgh!

What was the hot topic at Wecht?

The headwound/s.

So please tell me who is being mono-manical here, Albert-- me, or all ya'all?
::laughingdog::

[Bob Prudhomme]

There were three major JFK Critical Community Conferences leading up to the 50th Anniv. -- Wecht, Lancer and COPA.

How many times during the course of those conferences was the following question asked from the podium:

"What happened to the bullets that caused the back and throat wounds?"

To the best of my knowledge (I'd love to stand corrected!), this key question was asked once.

Once.

By Cyril Wecht, who didn't try to answer the question during his presentation, but afterwards went on TV and claimed that one bullet caused both wounds.

The Zombie Lie from Pittsburgh!

What was the hot topic at Wecht?

The headwound/s.

So please tell me who is being mono-manical here, Albert-- me, or all ya'all?
::laughingdog::

Perhaps another good question would be: Why did certain bullets not penetrate further or cause more damage than they did?

It is easy to dismiss the back wound, which only penetrated an inch or two (according to Humes), as a "short shot" caused by a defective cartridge, but this is unlikely in the extreme. While Italian 6.5mm Carcano military ammunition was known to be very unreliable, often causing hangfires and misfires, the 6.5mm Carcano ammunition made by the Western Cartridge Co. did not share this reputation. It is believed, in some circles, that the bullet that struck JFK in the back first struck a branch of the Texas live oak that stood between the SN and the limo but this also seems unlikely. This bullet left a round hole, and a bullet striking a large limb should have been tumbling when it struck JFK, and left a "keyhole" type of wound. If it were a small branch, and not big enough to disturb the flight of the bullet significantly, the bullet should have retained much of its original muzzle velocity of 2200 fps, and penetrated well into JFK's pleural cavity.

There are oddities about other bullet strikes in the limo, as well. I will let you respond to my above remarks before I bring them up.

[Cliff Varnell]

There were three major JFK Critical Community Conferences leading up to the 50th Anniv. -- Wecht, Lancer and COPA.

How many times during the course of those conferences was the following question asked from the podium:

"What happened to the bullets that caused the back and throat wounds?"

To the best of my knowledge (I'd love to stand corrected!), this key question was asked once.

Once.

By Cyril Wecht, who didn't try to answer the question during his presentation, but afterwards went on TV and claimed that one bullet caused both wounds.

The Zombie Lie from Pittsburgh!

What was the hot topic at Wecht?

The headwound/s.

So please tell me who is being mono-manical here, Albert-- me, or all ya'all?
::laughingdog::

Perhaps another good question would be: Why did certain bullets not penetrate further or cause more damage than they did?

It is easy to dismiss the back wound, which only penetrated an inch or two (according to Humes), as a "short shot" caused by a defective cartridge, but this is unlikely in the extreme. While Italian 6.5mm Carcano military ammunition was known to be very unreliable, often causing hangfires and misfires, the 6.5mm Carcano ammunition made by the Western Cartridge Co. did not share this reputation. It is believed, in some circles, that the bullet that struck JFK in the back first struck a branch of the Texas live oak that stood between the SN and the limo but this also seems unlikely. This bullet left a round hole, and a bullet striking a large limb should have been tumbling when it struck JFK, and left a "keyhole" type of wound. If it were a small branch, and not big enough to disturb the flight of the bullet significantly, the bullet should have retained much of its original muzzle velocity of 2200 fps, and penetrated well into JFK's pleural cavity.

There are oddities about other bullet strikes in the limo, as well. I will let you respond to my above remarks before I bring them up.

Your remarks are on point, Bob. We have two wounds inconsistent with conventional ammunition -- shallow, minor damage, no exits, and no rounds recovered during the autopsy.

As you say, it's hard to believe that a "short shot" occurred at all much less twice.

[Bob Prudhomme]

Actually, Cliff, I believe there were more than two wounds inconsistent with what should have been produced by a 6.5mm Carcano bullet.

I do not believe the wound to Connally's right wrist could have been caused by the bullet that entered him from behind, under the right armpit. The fact that this bullet was supposed to have struck the back side of his right wrist, hitting the radius bone full on, and exited the palm side of his wrist, excludes this possibility, as it would have been impossible (unless his elbow was double jointed) for Connally to be able to hold his forearm in a position that would have presented the back side of his wrist to the bullet.

That being said, the bullet hole in Connally's shirt cuff was not a neat round hole but, rather, was 2.5 cm. long; the approximate length of a Carcano bullet. This leaves two possibilities; 1) this bullet struck something on its way to Connally's wrist and was tumbling when it hit his wrist or 2) this bullet was travelling at such a low velocity, it de-stabilized and began tumbling before it struck Connally.

Connally's surgeon stated that a rifle wound to the wrist should have destroyed the bones in his wrist and that such a wound would often result in amputation. At the very least, the bullet should have travelled through Connally's radius bone rather than being stopped by it. Even if one subscribes to the SBT, the bullet had not travelled through enough matter to have slowed it this much, especially if one remembers that 6.5mm FMJ bullets were used to kill elephants in Africa; exclusively with head shots.

The other oddities that bother me are the crack in the limo windshield and the bullet dent in the trim above the limo's windshield. It is just remotely possible the crack in the windshield was caused by a tiny piece of shrapnel from JFK's head. The mortician Tom Robinson did report two small shrapnel wounds in JFK's face and it is possible the crack in the windshield was caused this way.

The dent in the windshield trim is another matter, though. It definitely looks as if it was made by a much larger piece of metal and has all of the appearances of an intact bullet striking the trim nose first. Once again, though, there does not seem to be sufficient damage to the windshield trim to account for a rifle bullet hitting it, as a FMJ bullet travelling at just over 2000 fps should have done far more damage. And I cannot see this strike being tied to any of the wounds, including the fatal head shot, as there was no evidence of a bullet exiting JFK's face. Even if one subscribes to the "cowlick" entry wound in JFK's head, its required exit path should have taken it into the back of Connally's jump seat.

So, it seems we now have at least four bullets to be explained away by the "short shot" theory. The odds of this occurring in WCC ammunition are remote, to say the least, and having four "short shots" out of a box of twenty would have to be a record for WCC ammunition.