>> On 11/12/2012 8:05 PM, John Canal wrote:
>>> In article <50a061a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>> Why the Hell are you responding to my message?

> Did you forget that you responded to my repl to Speer's post?

>> I asked you politely three
>> times to killfile me again.

> When you attack me I need to repond...even though most here know about
> your wacky theories....just in case there's an odd one here that believes
> your nonsense.

>> What is this, a protection racket and you
>> expect me to PAY you off so that you won't reply to my messages?

> How about another CIA orchestrated conspiracy?

>> It's
>> clear that you never do so to comply with my requests for you to prove
>> your wacky theories or explain what you are babbling about.

> It's difficult to tutor someone like you who knows so little about the
> medical evidence.

> You're wrong...as usual. I'm looked down upon by most LNs here...they hate
> my theories, like you do.

>>>> On 11/11/2012 5:46 PM, John Canal wrote:
>>>>> In article <5c92338f-946d-4801-a8a9-b00d72d72c5c@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> pjspe...@AOL.COM says...

>>>>>> On Saturday, November 10, 2012 7:11:55 PM UTC-8, John McAdams wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10 Nov 2012 22:08:37 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com>

>>>> That was one of the first theories advanced by the LNers before they
>>>> knew what was in the autopsy report.

>>> If ANYONE came up with a theory like that before the autopsy results were
>>> known, no one should have paid any attention to them.

>>> Just like I shouldn't be wasting my time paying any attention to you.

>> Where is your letter to the editor of the Boston Globe pointing out their
>> stupidity?

> Wow, you wrote a letter? So what? Anyway, you should have been doing
> research instead of trying to draw more attention to yourself....if you'd
> done more research maybe you wouldn't have conjured up your wacky theory
> that a bullet hit him above his right eye and most of it blew back towards
> the shooter.

> I'd vote for a toss-up.

>> You knew nothing and said nothing the week after the assassination. You
>> waited for the WC and endorsed it when it came out. Even the ridiculous
>> EOP entrance wound.

> I was serving my country when JFK was assassinated...we went to high
> alert....most all of our bombers were airborn....we couldn't be sure there
> was no Soviet or Cuban conspiracy.

> You've said some pretty wacky things, but that's near the top. It shows
> just how little you've researched the medical evidence.

> Most of the CTs as well as the LNs here wish I'd go away...I wonder if
> that's because they know I'm right?

>> I know I am wasting my time replying to you, but no one else is brave
>> enough to do it.

> You're not being brave...you just want the attention.

>>>> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Globe11-23-63.jpg

>>>>> Are you so desperate that you have to propose such silliness as that?

>>>>> And you post on the Education Forum?

>>>>> As far as bone fragments go, the autopsists completed the partial
>>>>> circumference by fitting a bone piece (see the one Boswell drew at the
>>>>> bottom of his face sheet) so there wasn't a piece of bone from the skull
>>>>> around the entry that could have traveled the wacky path you propose.

>>>> So? There would still be a HOLE after fitting in that piece. What
>>>> happened to that plug of skull bone that was where that hole was
>>>> created? Didn't think of that, did you?

>>> Sure, but I laughed that off too....you think a plug of bone could have
>>> blasted through the floor of the skull and continued on to exit the
>>> throat?

>> What is it about you WC defenders? Did you all flunk out of the same
>> kindergarten? When I explain someone else's theory you claim it is my
>> theory.

> I lump all the CT theories into one wacky group...it's hard to distinguish
> one from another.

>>> Tell me even you don't think that.

>> Don't try to dump other people's theories on me.

>>> Do you think the lunar landing was staged too?

>> No, I believe you are Bigfoot.

>>> How about the 9-11 attacks?

>> How about them?
>> 5 seconds after the second plane hit I said it was Osama bin Laden. 18
>> years before that I was proposing that we sponsor military action
>> against the Taliban, while you and the other Reagan conservatives were
>> praising al Qaeda as "freedom fighters." Disgusting.

> And with all that insight you still believe a bullet hit JFK above the
> right eye and most of it blew back towards the shooter?

> Did you have a relapse or something after you proposed military action
> against al Qaeda?

>>>> Because they didn't even know about the throat wound yet.

>>> If you were even a tiny bit familiar with the medical evidence you'd know
>>> they all admitted later knowing about the throat wound and that the bullet
>>> [that hit him in the bacK] transited that night.....and don't even ask for
>>> citations...I'll not do your research for you.

>> Not true and you have never cited anything to prove your wacky theory.
>> You can't do any research.

> If there was a way to make you pay up I'd bet you the ciations are there.

>>>>> You should realize that there was so much evidence the bullet that entered
>>>>> his back exited his throat you, yes you, could have concluded that night
>>>>> with 100% certainty it did.

>>>> No one did. YOU didn't.

>>> They said they did...did they lie?

>> They didn't. You didn't.

> How would you know?...you haven't read what they said.

>>> Marsh, you need for them to be lying or for them to be dumber than a bag
>>> of hammers for your wacky theories to float.....but if they were that dumb
>>> then practically all the medical evidence must be thrown out.

>> Why the false dichotomy? There were both at the same time. Morons and
>> liars. And under military orders.

> Again, that's just an excuse for you not reading what they said or any of
> the other medical evidence...that's why you hink I'm the only one who
> supports the autopsists' near-EOP entry.

> Did you forget about Zimmerman, Sturdivan, and Joe Davis...for starters?

> Gee how did I gues what you were thinking?

>>> How is anyone supposed to argue with someone who supports that position?

>>> I'd much rather argue with some guy who claimed he was abducted by aliens
>>> than someone like you who esentally throws out virtually all the medical
>>> evidence discovered during the autopsy.

>> Wrong. I am the one who argues that all the medical evidence is genuine.

> Except the autopsy report....gee, that's just a trivial part of the medical
> evidence anyway, right?

> Well I guess I couldn't say you're lying, just fantasizing.

>>>>>> This was proposed
>>>>>> within days of the shooting by members of the media

>>>>> Oh, the media...then that makes your proposal a slam dunk....yikes.

>>>>>> and the FBI.

>>>>> The FBI wasn't told about any bullet wound in the throat where the
>>>>> tracheostomy was performed.

>>>> Then how do you conclude that ANYONE could have figure it out that night?
>>>> YOU didn't.

>>> Read man read...for a change istead of trying to draw attention to
>>> yourself by posting your wacky theories and silly comments.

>> YOU didn't. You waited for the WC Report.

> I pretty much wanted to read the autopsy report...too bad you skipped that
> part.

>>>>> Who's next...the janitors?

>>>>> Moe, Larry, and Curly?

>>>> Yes, the Three Stooges were Humes, Boswell, and Fink.
>>>> "Hey Moe, I thought you were supposed to section the brain."

>>> You need for them to be that dumb or incompetent so your wacky theories
>>> work.

>> No. Others can cover up their mistakes.

>  "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote:

> > On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 6:50:12 PM UTC-7, John Reagor King wrote:

> > > In article <bda93db2-b35b-4d09-9668-bf37842350f8@googlegroups.com>,

> > >  "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote:

> > > > On Monday, October 15, 2012 9:58:33 PM UTC-7, John Reagor King wrote:

> > > > > Of course all this ignores the fact that if Specter hadn't come up with

> > > > > the single bullet theory someone else would have eventually done so

> > > > > anyway, given that it is even more implausible to believe that there

> > > > > were separate shots which entered his throat and his back with neither

> > > > > of them exiting even though neither of them struck any bone directly to

> > > > > slow them down enough to not exit, than it is to believe that simply

> > > > > one

> > > > > is an entrance and one is an exit for the same bullet.  To not accept

> > > > > furthermore that the throat wound was an exit ignores the obvious fact

> > > > > that the bullet that entered Connally's back did not enter nose first,

> > > > > because of the elongated entry.  Unless the bullet strikes or passes

> > > > > through something else first, it is extremely implausible for Connally

> > > > > to be hit by a bullet that is already obviously tumbling prior to

> > > > > hitting him if his body is the first thing it hits after being fired.  

> > > > > On top of that we have Connally's own statements which remained

> > > > > unchanged during his life that he turned to his right first upon

> > > > > hearing

> > > > > the first shot, and that it was in the midst of a turn to look in the

> > > > > other direction, the left, when he felt himself to be hit only halfway

> > > > > to that turn, right at the point when he was facing straight forward.  

> > > > > This is precisely when we plainly see him jerk violently in the

> > > > > Zapruder

> > > > > film, which is also precisely when we see JFK jerk violently; the

> > > > > motions of both men begin at exactly the same instant, Z226.  And that

> > > > > is precisely when Connally has just turned from his right to facing

> > > > > forward, exactly as he said.  As the only surviving victim of the

> > > > > shooting (besides James Tague) one would think Connally would know

> > > > > better than anyone else exactly when he was hit.

> > > > > All this would have eventually been noticed sooner or later, especially

> > > > > after the film became widely available.

> > > > You're missing something. The FBI and Secret Service both investigated

> > > > the

> > > > case, and studied the films, and came to conclude there had been three

> > > > separate hits. Connally believed this. Johnson believed this. Many of

> > > > those

> > > > thinking Oswald acted alone believed this.

> > > Oh no, I'm not missing that, as I've been aware of it for many years.  

> > > That was an *early* conclusion.  I do not believe for a moment that that

> > > conclusion would have stood up very long under close scrutiny once the

> > > Zapruder film became widely available to the general public and could be

> > > compared by many more people than ever before to Connally's statements

> > > about the shooting.

> > That's my point. It would have stood up for a few years, before the public

> > got wise.

> Your point is invalid.  What at least *some* of the public got wise to

> *after* the Zapruder film became much more widely available than ever

> before, most especially with it appearing in the movie "JFK," and later

> being released on the MPI video, and then becoming easily viewed on the

> Internet, is that JFK and Connally both jerk violently at precisely the

> same instant.  Also what they could become wise to is the absolute

> *fact* that Connally almost *always* said that he turned to the right

> *first*, and then, just as he was about halfway through a turn to the

> left, but only got as far as facing about straight forward, that's

> exactly when he felt himself to be hit.  And it is precisely when he

> faces forward after being continuously turned to the right for many

> frames, that we see him jerk violently.  Many more of the general public

> than ever before can now also see on the Internet many postings on many

> different websites of CE 399 shown from the base, and obviously severely

> flattened, demolishing the obvious myth or factoid that the bullet was

> "nearly pristine" or other similar hogwash.  With the advent of the

> Internet many more people than ever before were also able to read for

> themselves what Connally *really* said about when he was hit, and could

> see for themselves how it matches the Zapruder film to absolute

> perfection.

> > Then the government would have been forced to come up with a new

> > theory. But, in the meantime, until it became "official," assuming it

> > would have become "official", the SBT would have been seen as a challenge

> > to the Johnson Administration's credibility, and denounced by the same

> > people who so ardently embraced it.

> The Johnson administration's credibility, or lack of it, is irrelevant

> to what I said.  Sooner or later, whether it was before or after

> Johnson's presidency, or even before or after his death, people would

> have eventually started to notice how perfectly Connally's statements

> match the instant when he and JFK are plainly seen in the film to jerk

> violently at precisely the same instant.  It happens at the exact

> instant when Connally turns his head forward, just as he said.

> > This is precisely what happened, BTW, with the moving head wounds and

> > ever-changing time for the SBT.

> The only reason there was an "ever-changing time" for the SBT is that

> both the WC and the HSCA failed to come down firmly on exactly when in

> the film it happens.  The WC especially failed to watch the film nearly

> enough times.  But now that the film is available to us in much clearer

> versions than the WC or HSCA ever had the opportunity to see, it is

> plain as day that both men jerk violently starting at exactly the same

> instant, frame 226.  I alone have probably seen the film more times than

> anyone in the WC or HSCA did, and I'm hardly unique in that regard.  I

> would think you've seen it more times than they did too.

> > The government tossed off some stuff,

> > waited for it to be successfully called into question, then tossed off

> > more stuff.

> Sure, but the obvious fallacies in what they tossed off would still have

> eventually been noticed.

> > > > Without Specter's input, it seems pretty clear the WC would have just

> > > > rubber-stamped the work of the FBI and Secret Service.

> > > Possibly so.  But my point in the article to which you were here

> > > responding, and is still the same point in this present article that I'm

> > > now typing, is that *sooner* or *later* this conclusion would have

> > > *eventually* have come to be seen as seriously flawed by many people

> > > after the film became widely available to the general public, even if

> > > that had not happened until many years after the WC issued its

> > > conclusions.

> > And my point is that those detecting these flaws would have been denounced

> > and hounded by the FBI, just as the early critics of the WC were denounced

> > and hounded by the FBI. A bit ironic, don't you think?

> Oh?  I've never been denounced and hounded by the FBI, or any government

> agency.  Neither have the vast majority of people I've seen say that the

> FBI's initial conclusions about three separate hits were wrong.

> > > > The SBT, which may

> > > > have crossed someone's mind years later, then, would have been seen as a

> > > > challenge to the "official" story and rejected as unscientific by many of

> > > > those currently defending it to the death.

> > > I don't see how it is even slightly "unscientific."  The elongated entry

> > > in Connally's back alone proves that the bullet was tumbling, which would

> > > be extremely unlikely if the bullet had not struck something or gone

> > > through something prior to entering his back.

> > As pointed out by Tony, the head wound entrance was purportedly just as

> > elongated,

> Excuse me, purported by whom, exactly?  I cannot at this moment think of

> even *one* person who claimed that the entrance in his head was

> elongated.  Please quote such a person, along with the original source,

> who said that.

> > and yet no one claims that bullet hit something first.

> Since the entrance in JFK's head wasn't elongated, that is not

> surprising.

> > You

> > neglect as well that Dr. Shaw insisted that the bullet hitting Connally

> > had not hit something first.

> Please quote him verbatim, along with the original source, saying

> exactly that.  I'm looking right now at him saying exactly the

> *opposite* to the WC:

> **********

>John:

>He seems to be so much happier calling men of integrity "liars."

>Geez, I hate that word unless it's merited.

>"John Canal" <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:k7u061024qf@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <540f5eb1-b46a-45d6-8442-f1533eb47b7e@googlegroups.com>,
>> pjspe...@AOL.COM says...

>>>On Monday, November 12, 2012 5:46:03 PM UTC-8, claviger wrote:
>>>> On Oct 25, 3:12=A0pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> > On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 7:26:59 PM UTC-7, claviger wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> > > It doesn't take a genius to figure out the SBT. =A0Any hunter, cop,
>>>> > > o=
>>>r
>>>>=20

>>>>=20
>>>> > > combat veteran could have told Specter what happened.
>>>> > > Through-and-thr=
>>>ough
>>>>=20

>>>>=20
>>>> > > wounds are nothing new. =A0The SBT has been proved conclusively
>>>> > > using=
>>> the
>>>>=20

>>>>=20
>>>> > > Scientific Method in high tech field testing. CTs lost this argument
>>>> > > =
>>>a
>>>>=20

>>>>=20
>>>> > > long time ago.
>>>>=20

>>>>=20
>>>> > Nonsense. Find us a case history in which a high-velocity bullet
>>>> > entere=
>>>d the back and exited from the middle of the throat in which no bones were
>>>=
>>>struck and no blood vessels torn. I've looked. I've studied the wound
>>>balli=
>>>stics. This doesn't happen.
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> Pat,
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> Do you think it nonsense an aerodynamic missile made of lead weighing
>>>> 160
>>>>=20
>>>> grains moving over 2000 feet per second can penetrate a bag of water
>>>>=20
>>>> inside a soft outer lining only 0.07 inches (2 mm) thick?  The human
>>>> body
>>>>=20
>>>> is basically a bag of fluid with a skeleton inside to act as a coat
>>>>=20
>>>> hanger. Lead is over 10 times more dense than water and the adult human
>>>>=20
>>>> body is 60% water.  If the missile mentioned above misses any hard
>>>>=20
>>>> structure there is little to impede its progress.  It may slow down the
>>>>=20
>>>> missile somewhat but not prevent it from puncturing all the way
>>>>=20
>>>> approximately 8" of this liquid filled balloon.  This is why I find it
>>>>=20
>>>> amazing so many CTs think it impossible for a military FMJ missile to
>>>>=20
>>>> penetrate two human being sitting closely together in tandem.
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> Water properties: The water in you (Water Science for Schools)
>>>>=20
>>>> http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/propertyyou.html

>>>That's not the problem. The problem is that the internal damage to the
>>>neck=
>>> makes no sense. When a high velocity FMJ bullet tears through a neck it
>>> cr=
>>>eates a lot more damage than was done to Kennedy's neck.

>> No, the problem is that you've devoted seemingly half your life trumpeting
>> your wacky theories and you've got too much time invested in writing
>> articles for your website to face up to the fact those theories are
>> debunked.

>> IOW your so far past the point of no return on those wacky theories it's
>> sad.

>> Cripes, that type of round was designed to penetrate enemy soldiers, IOW
>> to cripple vs. kill on the battlefield...where the hell do you think it
>> went after entering JFK's back?

>> Now as far as damage you seek so much goes:

>> 1. There was air in the tissue bewteen the back and throat wounds.

>> 2. The apex of the right lung and pleura were bruised.

>> 3. Slight fracture of the tip of the transverse process of T1.

>> 4. There was debris seen near C7/T1.

>> 5. The right side of his larynx was contused.

>> 6. There was a nick to the right side of his trachea.

>> 7. The strap muscles on the right side of his neck were bruised.

>> 8. "Free air & blood" was observed in the area of the throat wound,
>> indicative of a wound in the upper right hemithorax (mediastinum).

>> ....not to mention the holes/nick in the clothes/tie bent outward as if a
>> bullet exited there causing those holes/that nick.

>> What do you want Pat to believe a bullet entered the back/upper neck,
>> transited, and exited his throat where the tracheostomy was performed....a
>> damn picture of a tunnel like hole through his body there big enough to
>> put your fist through???????

>> Man up Pat and admit you've wasted a kajillion hours trumpeting a debunked
>> theory, and leading newbies down your yellow-brick road!

>> John Canal

>> --
>> John Canal
>> jca...@webtv.net

> And Please provide cites (specific cites that is) when making accusations.

> John F.

> "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote in message

> news:31608ba2-fb45-4d51-8d5c-acfec272735e@googlegroups.com...

> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 11:00:21 AM UTC-8, John Fiorentino wrote:

> > I'll repost this........

> > Your attacks on the now deceased Dr. John K. Lattimer are scurrilous and

> > without merit.

> > As with most assassination critics you get things about 1/2 right and

> > embellish the rest with the fairy dust of incomprehension.

> > I can assure you that the path of the bullet through JFK was DOWNWARD

> > irrespective of Baden's "anatomic position" crapola.

> You can assure me no such thing. Besides, that's not the point. My beef

> with Lattimer is not that he said the path was downward but that he said

> it was sharply downward, and that the grossly inaccurate Rydberg drawings

> presented a much shallower trajectory than the actual trajectory as

> demonstrated by the autopsy photos and x-rays. It seems clear to me he was

> lying.

> In 1974, after viewing the autopsy photos, after all, he'd told Medical

> Times the bullet "had entered the top of the prominent roll of soft tissue

> across the back of President Kennedy's neck..."

> Now, you've seen the autopsy photos. You were even given one by Belin. is

> the bullet wound on Kennedy's back, or "at the top of a roll of soft

> tissue across the back of Kennedy's neck"? Inquiring minds want to know.

> Now, do you believe him?

> > Lattimer conducted all of his experiments with honesty and integrity.

> > John F.

> > "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote in message

> > news:5e884a2f-f1f2-41cc-a492-c3fd482fdd9a@googlegroups.com...

> > On Saturday, November 10, 2012 9:59:19 AM UTC-8, claviger wrote:

> > > Pat,

> > > > No, I am pointing out that the official conclusion of the last medical

> > > > panel to study this matter was that the bullet went upwards in

> > > > Kennedy's

> > > > body. They explained this by suggesting he'd been leaning forward when

> > > > struck. The HSCA determined, however, that he was struck when he

> > > > wasn't

> > > > leaning over to the degree the medical panel indicated. It is an

> > > > historical FACT, then, that the conclusions of the HSCA forensic

> > > > pathology

> > > > panel are at odds with the single-assassin conclusion offered up by

> > > > both

> > > > the HSCA, and the Lattimerites and Posnerites that followed.

> > > > Historians

> > > > will notice this, even if today's single-bullet theorists will not.

> > > You have me confused.  There are only 3 possible choices for the

> > > trajectory of the bullet that entered the back of President Kennedy.

> > > Either it was a downward trajectory as the WCR and HSCA concluded, a

> > > flat trajectory from street level, or an upward trajectory.

> > Not true. You are assuming the bullet exited the throat. I see no reason

> > to assume that. The wound as described does not fit the description of a

> > wound created by a high-velocity bullet.

> > > Where could the last possibly come from?  Only a ricochet could do that.

> > > JFK like any normal human being has a curve in his upper back,

> > > although his appears more pronounced.  If you study the profile photos

> > > I provided to Squinty you can see what I mean.  The human spine is a

> > > long S-curve.  The lower part is concave (Lumbar curve) and the upper

> > > part is convex (Thoratic curve) and the neck is a slight concave shape

> > > (Cervical curve).  The medical names for these curves are Kyphosis and

> > > Lordosis.

> > > Thoracic Spine Anatomy, Spine Curves: Kyphosis and Lordosis

> > > http://www.eorthopod.com/content/thoracic-spine-anatomy

> > > "From the side, the spine forms three curves. The neck, called the

> > > cervical spine, curves slightly inward. The thoracic spine curves

> > > outward. The low back, also called the lumbar spine, curves slightly

> > > inward. An inward curve in the spine is called lordosis. An outward

> > > curve, as in the thoracic spine, is called kyphosis. The kyphosis is

> > > shaped like a "C" with the opening in front."

> > > The bottom of the human throat is well below the top of the back as

> > > these illustrations demonstrate:

> > > File: Gray1195.png  Human neck

> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gray1195.png

> > > FIG. 1194? Anterolateral view of head and neck.

> > > http://education.yahoo.com/reference/gray/illustrations/figure?id=1194

> > > FIG. 1195? Front view of neck.

> > > http://education.yahoo.com/reference/gray/illustrations/figure?id=1195

> > > Muscular system (Male view)

> > > http://www.innerbody.com/anatomy/muscular-male

> > > Posterior Male view

> > > http://www.innerbody.com/anatomy/muscular-male-posterior

> > > Muscles of Chest and Upper Back

> > > http://www.innerbody.com/anatomy/muscular/upper-torso-male

> > > The human neck extends from the external occipital protuberance down

> > > to the bump at C7/T1.  Sitting normally as he was at the time,

> > > approximately 6-8 inches of the curved part of his upper back is above

> > > the seat cushion.  His shirt collar is approximately a 45? downward

> > > angle from back to front. All this geometry proves the upper back is

> > > higher than the lower throat.

> > > http://schools-wikipedia.org/images/572/57284.png.htm

> > > http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/4/40/Photo_jfkl-01_0001-AR-824...

>>   "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote:

>>> On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 6:50:12 PM UTC-7, John Reagor King wrote:

>>>> In article <bda93db2-b35b-4d09-9668-bf37842350f8@googlegroups.com>,

>>>>   "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote:

>>>>> On Monday, October 15, 2012 9:58:33 PM UTC-7, John Reagor King wrote:

>>>>>> Of course all this ignores the fact that if Specter hadn't come up with

>>>>>> the single bullet theory someone else would have eventually done so

>>>>>> anyway, given that it is even more implausible to believe that there

>>>>>> were separate shots which entered his throat and his back with neither

>>>>>> of them exiting even though neither of them struck any bone directly to

>>>>>> slow them down enough to not exit, than it is to believe that simply

>>>>>> one

>>>>>> is an entrance and one is an exit for the same bullet.  To not accept

>>>>>> furthermore that the throat wound was an exit ignores the obvious fact

>>>>>> that the bullet that entered Connally's back did not enter nose first,

>>>>>> because of the elongated entry.  Unless the bullet strikes or passes

>>>>>> through something else first, it is extremely implausible for Connally

>>>>>> to be hit by a bullet that is already obviously tumbling prior to

>>>>>> hitting him if his body is the first thing it hits after being fired.

>>>>>> On top of that we have Connally's own statements which remained

>>>>>> unchanged during his life that he turned to his right first upon

>>>>>> hearing

>>>>>> the first shot, and that it was in the midst of a turn to look in the

>>>>>> other direction, the left, when he felt himself to be hit only halfway

>>>>>> to that turn, right at the point when he was facing straight forward.

>>>>>> This is precisely when we plainly see him jerk violently in the

>>>>>> Zapruder

>>>>>> film, which is also precisely when we see JFK jerk violently; the

>>>>>> motions of both men begin at exactly the same instant, Z226.  And that

>>>>>> is precisely when Connally has just turned from his right to facing

>>>>>> forward, exactly as he said.  As the only surviving victim of the

>>>>>> shooting (besides James Tague) one would think Connally would know

>>>>>> better than anyone else exactly when he was hit.

>>>>>> All this would have eventually been noticed sooner or later, especially

>>>>>> after the film became widely available.

>>>>> You're missing something. The FBI and Secret Service both investigated

>>>>> the

>>>>> case, and studied the films, and came to conclude there had been three

>>>>> separate hits. Connally believed this. Johnson believed this. Many of

>>>>> those

>>>>> thinking Oswald acted alone believed this.

>>>> Oh no, I'm not missing that, as I've been aware of it for many years.

>>>> That was an *early* conclusion.  I do not believe for a moment that that

>>>> conclusion would have stood up very long under close scrutiny once the

>>>> Zapruder film became widely available to the general public and could be

>>>> compared by many more people than ever before to Connally's statements

>>>> about the shooting.

>>> That's my point. It would have stood up for a few years, before the public

>>> got wise.

>> Your point is invalid.  What at least *some* of the public got wise to

>> *after* the Zapruder film became much more widely available than ever

>> before, most especially with it appearing in the movie "JFK," and later

>> being released on the MPI video, and then becoming easily viewed on the

>> Internet, is that JFK and Connally both jerk violently at precisely the

>> same instant.  Also what they could become wise to is the absolute

>> *fact* that Connally almost *always* said that he turned to the right

>> *first*, and then, just as he was about halfway through a turn to the

>> left, but only got as far as facing about straight forward, that's

>> exactly when he felt himself to be hit.  And it is precisely when he

>> faces forward after being continuously turned to the right for many

>> frames, that we see him jerk violently.  Many more of the general public

>> than ever before can now also see on the Internet many postings on many

>> different websites of CE 399 shown from the base, and obviously severely

>> flattened, demolishing the obvious myth or factoid that the bullet was

>> "nearly pristine" or other similar hogwash.  With the advent of the

>> Internet many more people than ever before were also able to read for

>> themselves what Connally *really* said about when he was hit, and could

>> see for themselves how it matches the Zapruder film to absolute

>> perfection.

>>> Then the government would have been forced to come up with a new

>>> theory. But, in the meantime, until it became "official," assuming it

>>> would have become "official", the SBT would have been seen as a challenge

>>> to the Johnson Administration's credibility, and denounced by the same

>>> people who so ardently embraced it.

>> The Johnson administration's credibility, or lack of it, is irrelevant

>> to what I said.  Sooner or later, whether it was before or after

>> Johnson's presidency, or even before or after his death, people would

>> have eventually started to notice how perfectly Connally's statements

>> match the instant when he and JFK are plainly seen in the film to jerk

>> violently at precisely the same instant.  It happens at the exact

>> instant when Connally turns his head forward, just as he said.

>>> This is precisely what happened, BTW, with the moving head wounds and

>>> ever-changing time for the SBT.

>> The only reason there was an "ever-changing time" for the SBT is that

>> both the WC and the HSCA failed to come down firmly on exactly when in

>> the film it happens.  The WC especially failed to watch the film nearly

>> enough times.  But now that the film is available to us in much clearer

>> versions than the WC or HSCA ever had the opportunity to see, it is

>> plain as day that both men jerk violently starting at exactly the same

>> instant, frame 226.  I alone have probably seen the film more times than

>> anyone in the WC or HSCA did, and I'm hardly unique in that regard.  I

>> would think you've seen it more times than they did too.

>>> The government tossed off some stuff,

>>> waited for it to be successfully called into question, then tossed off

>>> more stuff.

>> Sure, but the obvious fallacies in what they tossed off would still have

>> eventually been noticed.

>>>>> Without Specter's input, it seems pretty clear the WC would have just

>>>>> rubber-stamped the work of the FBI and Secret Service.

>>>> Possibly so.  But my point in the article to which you were here

>>>> responding, and is still the same point in this present article that I'm

>>>> now typing, is that *sooner* or *later* this conclusion would have

>>>> *eventually* have come to be seen as seriously flawed by many people

>>>> after the film became widely available to the general public, even if

>>>> that had not happened until many years after the WC issued its

>>>> conclusions.

>>> And my point is that those detecting these flaws would have been denounced

>>> and hounded by the FBI, just as the early critics of the WC were denounced

>>> and hounded by the FBI. A bit ironic, don't you think?

>> Oh?  I've never been denounced and hounded by the FBI, or any government

>> agency.  Neither have the vast majority of people I've seen say that the

>> FBI's initial conclusions about three separate hits were wrong.

>>>>> The SBT, which may

>>>>> have crossed someone's mind years later, then, would have been seen as a

>>>>> challenge to the "official" story and rejected as unscientific by many of

>>>>> those currently defending it to the death.

>>>> I don't see how it is even slightly "unscientific."  The elongated entry

>>>> in Connally's back alone proves that the bullet was tumbling, which would

>>>> be extremely unlikely if the bullet had not struck something or gone

>>>> through something prior to entering his back.

>>> As pointed out by Tony, the head wound entrance was purportedly just as

>>> elongated,

>> Excuse me, purported by whom, exactly?  I cannot at this moment think of

>> even *one* person who claimed that the entrance in his head was

>> elongated.  Please quote such a person, along with the original source,

>> who said that.

>>> and yet no one claims that bullet hit something first.

>> Since the entrance in JFK's head wasn't elongated, that is not

>> surprising.

>>> You

>>> neglect as well that Dr. Shaw insisted that the bullet hitting Connally

>>> had not hit something first.

>> Please quote him verbatim, along with the original source, saying

>> exactly that.  I'm looking right now at him saying exactly the

>> *opposite* to the WC:

>> **********

>> Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Shaw, assume if you will certain facts to be true in

>> hpyothetical form, that is, that the President was struck in the upper

> > On Monday, November 12, 2012 5:46:03 PM UTC-8, claviger wrote:

> >> On Oct 25, 3:12 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote:

> >>> On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 7:26:59 PM UTC-7, claviger wrote:

> >>>> It doesn't take a genius to figure out the SBT.  Any hunter, cop, or

> >>>> combat veteran could have told Specter what happened. Through-and-through

> >>>> wounds are nothing new.  The SBT has been proved conclusively using the

> >>>> Scientific Method in high tech field testing. CTs lost this argument a

> >>>> long time ago.

> >>> Nonsense. Find us a case history in which a high-velocity bullet entered the back and exited from the middle of the throat in which no bones were struck and no blood vessels torn. I've looked. I've studied the wound ballistics. This doesn't happen.

> >> Pat,

> >> Do you think it nonsense an aerodynamic missile made of lead weighing 160

> >> grains moving over 2000 feet per second can penetrate a bag of water

> >> inside a soft outer lining only 0.07 inches (2 mm) thick?  The human body

> >> is basically a bag of fluid with a skeleton inside to act as a coat

> >> hanger. Lead is over 10 times more dense than water and the adult human

> >> body is 60% water.  If the missile mentioned above misses any hard

> >> structure there is little to impede its progress.  It may slow down the

> >> missile somewhat but not prevent it from puncturing all the way

> >> approximately 8" of this liquid filled balloon.  This is why I find it

> >> amazing so many CTs think it impossible for a military FMJ missile to

> >> penetrate two human being sitting closely together in tandem.

> >> Water properties: The water in you (Water Science for Schools)

> >> http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/propertyyou.html

> > That's not the problem. The problem is that the internal damage to the neck makes no sense. When a high velocity FMJ bullet tears through a neck it creates a lot more damage than was done to Kennedy's neck.

> What high velocity bullet? The Carcano was not high velocity. The FMJ is

> designed to not cause horrific wounds.

> And Please provide cites (specific cites that is) when making accusations.

> John F.

> "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote in message

> news:31608ba2-fb45-4d51-8d5c-acfec272735e@googlegroups.com...

> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 11:00:21 AM UTC-8, John Fiorentino wrote:

> > I'll repost this........

> > Your attacks on the now deceased Dr. John K. Lattimer are scurrilous and

> > without merit.

> > As with most assassination critics you get things about 1/2 right and

> > embellish the rest with the fairy dust of incomprehension.

> > I can assure you that the path of the bullet through JFK was DOWNWARD

> > irrespective of Baden's "anatomic position" crapola.

> You can assure me no such thing. Besides, that's not the point. My beef

> with Lattimer is not that he said the path was downward but that he said

> it was sharply downward, and that the grossly inaccurate Rydberg drawings

> presented a much shallower trajectory than the actual trajectory as

> demonstrated by the autopsy photos and x-rays. It seems clear to me he was

> lying.

> In 1974, after viewing the autopsy photos, after all, he'd told Medical

> Times the bullet "had entered the top of the prominent roll of soft tissue

> across the back of President Kennedy's neck..."

> Now, you've seen the autopsy photos. You were even given one by Belin. is

> the bullet wound on Kennedy's back, or "at the top of a roll of soft

> tissue across the back of Kennedy's neck"? Inquiring minds want to know.

> Now, do you believe him?

> > Lattimer conducted all of his experiments with honesty and integrity.

> > John F.

> > "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote in message

> > news:5e884a2f-f1f2-41cc-a492-c3fd482fdd9a@googlegroups.com...

> > On Saturday, November 10, 2012 9:59:19 AM UTC-8, claviger wrote:

> > > Pat,

> > > > No, I am pointing out that the official conclusion of the last
> > > > medical

> > > > panel to study this matter was that the bullet went upwards in

> > > > Kennedy's

> > > > body. They explained this by suggesting he'd been leaning forward
> > > > when

> > > > struck. The HSCA determined, however, that he was struck when he

> > > > wasn't

> > > > leaning over to the degree the medical panel indicated. It is an

> > > > historical FACT, then, that the conclusions of the HSCA forensic

> > > > pathology

> > > > panel are at odds with the single-assassin conclusion offered up by

> > > > both

> > > > the HSCA, and the Lattimerites and Posnerites that followed.

> > > > Historians

> > > > will notice this, even if today's single-bullet theorists will not.

> > > You have me confused.  There are only 3 possible choices for the

> > > trajectory of the bullet that entered the back of President Kennedy.

> > > Either it was a downward trajectory as the WCR and HSCA concluded, a

> > > flat trajectory from street level, or an upward trajectory.

> > Not true. You are assuming the bullet exited the throat. I see no reason

> > to assume that. The wound as described does not fit the description of a

> > wound created by a high-velocity bullet.

> > > Where could the last possibly come from?  Only a ricochet could do
> > > that.

> > > JFK like any normal human being has a curve in his upper back,

> > > although his appears more pronounced.  If you study the profile photos

> > > I provided to Squinty you can see what I mean.  The human spine is a

> > > long S-curve.  The lower part is concave (Lumbar curve) and the upper

> > > part is convex (Thoratic curve) and the neck is a slight concave shape

> > > (Cervical curve).  The medical names for these curves are Kyphosis and

> > > Lordosis.

> > > Thoracic Spine Anatomy, Spine Curves: Kyphosis and Lordosis

> > > http://www.eorthopod.com/content/thoracic-spine-anatomy

> > > "From the side, the spine forms three curves. The neck, called the

> > > cervical spine, curves slightly inward. The thoracic spine curves

> > > outward. The low back, also called the lumbar spine, curves slightly

> > > inward. An inward curve in the spine is called lordosis. An outward

> > > curve, as in the thoracic spine, is called kyphosis. The kyphosis is

> > > shaped like a "C" with the opening in front."

> > > The bottom of the human throat is well below the top of the back as

> > > these illustrations demonstrate:

> > > File: Gray1195.png  Human neck

> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gray1195.png

> > > FIG. 1194? Anterolateral view of head and neck.

> > > http://education.yahoo.com/reference/gray/illustrations/figure?id=1194

> > > FIG. 1195? Front view of neck.

> > > http://education.yahoo.com/reference/gray/illustrations/figure?id=1195

> > > Muscular system (Male view)

> > > http://www.innerbody.com/anatomy/muscular-male

> > > Posterior Male view

> > > http://www.innerbody.com/anatomy/muscular-male-posterior

> > > Muscles of Chest and Upper Back

> > > http://www.innerbody.com/anatomy/muscular/upper-torso-male

> > > The human neck extends from the external occipital protuberance down

> > > to the bump at C7/T1.  Sitting normally as he was at the time,

> > > approximately 6-8 inches of the curved part of his upper back is above

> > > the seat cushion.  His shirt collar is approximately a 45? downward

> > > angle from back to front. All this geometry proves the upper back is

> > > higher than the lower throat.

> > > http://schools-wikipedia.org/images/572/57284.png.htm

> > > http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/4/40/Photo_jfkl-01_0001-AR-824...

>He later specified just how small. In 1978, when contacted by the HSCA and =
>interviewed by its counsel Andy Purdy, he claimed that the laceration "was =
>on the right side of the trachea, and that it was incomplete, and I don't r=
>emember whether it was a third or a quarter of the circumference..."=20

>As you might have guessed, this makes little sense should Kennedy have actu=
>ally been hit by a high-velocity bullet. According to Dr. D.F.N. Dixon in M=
>anagement of Gunshot Wounds, =93Direct impact on larynx or trachea from bul=
>lets fired from high velocity military rifles or carbines will produce seve=
>re damage from their high kinetic energy, tumbling, or cavitation effect.=
>=94  Furthermore, Dr.s Kenneth and Roy Swan in their book Gunshot Wounds: P=
>athophysiology and Management note that "Gunshot injuries of the larynx and=
> trachea are infrequently seen in emergency rooms" due to such injuries usu=
>ally being associated with "fatal exsanguination (bleeding) from injured co=
>mmon carotid arteries and internal jugular veins." =20

>>> On Monday, November 12, 2012 5:46:03 PM UTC-8, claviger wrote:

>>>> On Oct 25, 3:12 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote:

>>>>> On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 7:26:59 PM UTC-7, claviger wrote:

>>>>>> It doesn't take a genius to figure out the SBT.  Any hunter, cop, or

>>>>>> combat veteran could have told Specter what happened. Through-and-through

>>>>>> wounds are nothing new.  The SBT has been proved conclusively using the

>>>>>> Scientific Method in high tech field testing. CTs lost this argument a

>>>>>> long time ago.

>>>>> Nonsense. Find us a case history in which a high-velocity bullet entered the back and exited from the middle of the throat in which no bones were struck and no blood vessels torn. I've looked. I've studied the wound ballistics. This doesn't happen.

>>>> Pat,

>>>> Do you think it nonsense an aerodynamic missile made of lead weighing 160

>>>> grains moving over 2000 feet per second can penetrate a bag of water

>>>> inside a soft outer lining only 0.07 inches (2 mm) thick?  The human body

>>>> is basically a bag of fluid with a skeleton inside to act as a coat

>>>> hanger. Lead is over 10 times more dense than water and the adult human

>>>> body is 60% water.  If the missile mentioned above misses any hard

>>>> structure there is little to impede its progress.  It may slow down the

>>>> missile somewhat but not prevent it from puncturing all the way

>>>> approximately 8" of this liquid filled balloon.  This is why I find it

>>>> amazing so many CTs think it impossible for a military FMJ missile to

>>>> penetrate two human being sitting closely together in tandem.

>>>> Water properties: The water in you (Water Science for Schools)

>>>> http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/propertyyou.html

>>> That's not the problem. The problem is that the internal damage to the neck makes no sense. When a high velocity FMJ bullet tears through a neck it creates a lot more damage than was done to Kennedy's neck.

>> What high velocity bullet? The Carcano was not high velocity. The FMJ is

>> designed to not cause horrific wounds.

> If you read books and articles about wound ballistics circa 1963 you'll find that they routinely describe all super-sonic rifle bullets as high velocity and handgun bullets as low velocity. In this dichotomy, the Carcano fired a high velocity projectile.

> The testimony of the HSCA's wound ballistics expert, Larry Sturdivan, is that the first bullet to strike Kennedy was traveling over 1700 feet/second as it passed through his neck. Later, in his 2005 book, The JFK Myths, he increased this "probable velocity" to somewhere between 2045 feet/second and 1780 feet/second. This bullet was purported to have struck only soft tissue, and done little damage to the neck. And yet, Dr. Gary Ordog, in his book Management of Gunshot Wounds, notes that the mortality rate for high-velocity gunshot wounds to the neck is over 50%. He explains: ?Vascular injury caused by missile wounds from bullets moving faster than 1,000 feet/second has been shown to occur by neat shearing of the vessel without stretching it first, as occurs with low-velocity missiles. This is followed by cavitation that damages a more extensive area of the blood vessel, possibly extending for at least 20 mm on each side of the bullet?s path.? He further explains that ?Cavita

>From patspeer.com, chapter 11:

>The testimony of the HSCA's wound ballistics expert, Larry Sturdivan, is
>that the first bullet to strike Kennedy was traveling over 1700
>feet/second as it passed through his neck. Later, in his 2005 book, The
>JFK Myths, he increased this "probable velocity" to somewhere between
>2045 feet/second and 1780 feet/second. This bullet was purported to have
>struck only soft tissue, and done little damage to the neck. And yet,
>Dr. Gary Ordog, in his book Management of Gunshot Wounds, notes that the
>mortality rate for high-velocity gunshot wounds to the neck is over 50%.
>He explains: Vascular injury caused by missile wounds from bullets
>moving faster than 1,000 feet/second has been shown to occur by neat
>shearing of the vessel without stretching it first, as occurs with
>low-velocity missiles. This is followed by cavitation that damages a
>more extensive area of the blood vessel, possibly extending for at least
>20 mm on each side of the bullet s path. He further explains that
> Cavitation stretches the smaller blood vessels, shearing and rupturing
>them as well as nerves and even bone. He later concludes: "In the
>author's experience, up to 100% of patients with high-velocity bullet
>wounds of the neck have major structural damage requiring surgery."

>Should one think that Ordog was some ill-informed civilian spouting his
>personal impressions, one should know that his statements are built upon
>a study performed by Sturdivan's employer, Edgewood Arsenal, and
>published in the Archives of Surgery in August 1970. This study
>concludes "The high velocity missile neatly shears the arterial wall,
>but the apparent explosive effect of the temporary cavity causes 'blunt'
>trauma in a crushing manner." A chart prepared for this study, moreover,
>shows that a high-velocity bullet just missing an artery will
>nevertheless cause breaks in the artery, even when traveling as slow as
>1,000 fps.

>Now compare those descriptions of the damage one might expect to find
>with what Kennedy's autopsist, Dr. James J. Humes, told the Warren
>Commission he actually found. From his March 16, 1964 testimony: "We
>examined in the region of this incised surgical wound which was the
>tracheotomy wound and we saw that there was some bruising of the muscles
>of the neck in the depths of this wound as well as laceration or defect
>in the trachea...it is our opinion that the missile traversed the neck
>and slid between these muscles and other vital structures with a course
>in the neck such as the carotid artery, the jugular vein and other
>structures because there was no massive hemorrhage or other massive
>injury in this portion of the neck."

>While high-velocity bullets "shear" and "rupture" blood vessels in the
>neck, the bullet traversing Kennedy's neck was reported to have only
>"slid between" these vessels. While Dr. Ordog noted that up to 100% of
>those receiving a high-velocity gunshot wound to the neck have "major
>structural damage requiring surgery" Dr. Humes claimed there was "no
>massive hemorrhage or other massive injury" to Kennedy's neck. Hmmm...

>Okay, you might be thinking, this was just the opinion of one of the
>autopsists, Dr. Humes. Perhaps Dr. Humes had missed something, and the
>other doctors disagreed and hadn't bothered to correct him. But this
>wasn't just Humes' speaking for the others... In 1965, Dr. Finck wrote
>his superior, General Blumberg, and told him not only that "I examined
>the tracheotomy skin wound and the trachea and did not find evidence of
>a bullet wound," but that all three autopsists had examined the
>tracheotomy wound and that "None of us noticed a bullet wound along its
>course." Double hmmm...

>And to close the circle, when discussing the throat wound with the
>HSCA's Andy Purdy on August 17, 1977, Dr. Boswell is reported to have
>claimed he was "certain...no major blood vessel (was) damaged by the
>path of the missile."Triple hmmm...

>When one considers that Dr. Charles Carrico, the emergency room doctor
>who first examined Kennedy, also noted only minor damage to his throat,
>telling the HSCA that he'd observed "some modest amount of hematoma in
>the recesses to the endo right of the trachea" and that Malcolm Perry,
>the Parkland surgeon who performed Kennedy's tracheotomy, not only
>confirmed Carrico's conclusion there was little damage to the neck, but
>initially described the exit wound as being only 3-5 mm wide--smaller
>than the bullets fired by Oswald s rifle--well, then it becomes pretty
>darned clear that something is just wrong with the supposed
>single-bullet "fact". It just doesn't add up. The bullet creating
>Kennedy's throat wound--if it was a bullet--was almost certainly not
>traveling at a high velocity.

>The more one digs, the clearer this becomes. Beyond testifying to his
>observing a small hole in the throat, and a lack of damage to the blood
>vessels, Dr. Perry told the Warren Commission that, before it was
>obscured by a tracheotomy incision, he had observed a small ragged
>laceration of the trachea on the anterior lateral right side. A small
>laceration.

>He later specified just how small. In 1978, when contacted by the HSCA
>and interviewed by its counsel Andy Purdy, he claimed that the
>laceration "was on the right side of the trachea, and that it was
>incomplete, and I don't remember whether it was a third or a quarter of
>the circumference..."

>As you might have guessed, this makes little sense should Kennedy have
>actually been hit by a high-velocity bullet. According to Dr. D.F.N.
>Dixon in Management of Gunshot Wounds, Direct impact on larynx or
>trachea from bullets fired from high velocity military rifles or
>carbines will produce severe damage from their high kinetic energy,
>tumbling, or cavitation effect. Furthermore, Dr.s Kenneth and Roy Swan
>in their book Gunshot Wounds: Pathophysiology and Management note that
>"Gunshot injuries of the larynx and trachea are infrequently seen in
>emergency rooms" due to such injuries usually being associated with
>"fatal exsanguination (bleeding) from injured common carotid arteries
>and internal jugular veins."

>Surgery in World War II, a book released by the Surgeon General of the
>U.S. Army in 1962, confirms this harsh assessment. A chapter written by
>a former surgeon of the Fifth Army, which fought Italian forces in
>Sicily, reports that when treating neck wounds he needed to effect
>"Debridement (the removal of dead and damaged tissue) of all structures"
>as "Multiple involvement was the rule because of the anatomy of the
>area." And it's not as if this understanding was restricted to military
>surgeons; Earl Ubell, Science Editor of the New York Herald-Tribune,
>described Kennedy's wounds on 11-23-63 in a manner suggesting he knew
>something of the destruction brought by a high-velocity bullet's slicing
>through a neck. He wrote "The bullet that crashed through President
>Kennedy's neck and head probably took with it blood vessels and nerves
>leaving his entire body stunned and helpless."

>From this it seems likely there are many military and emergency room
>doctors, and even science editors for daily newspapers, who are aware of
>the single-bullet theory's speeding problem, who opt to say nothing.

>It seems possible, however, that there are many other doctors, including
>experienced forensic pathologists such as Michael Baden, who are simply
>unaware of this problem. In 1980, during a seminar on forensic pathology
>and homicide investigation in Toronto, Ontario, Dr. Baden admitted that
>"less than a tenth of 1% of the gunshot wounds studied by his New York
>coroner's office were by "military rifles," and that almost all the rest
>came from handguns or shotguns. He admitted further that Kennedy was
>killed "by rifle type ammunition which we know very little about."

> If the bullet entered above the clavicula as it appears then YES that is

> STILL considered the NECK by those of us who actually know what we're

> talking about.

> You and Baden should get together. You both seem to have much in common.

> The only thing I can agree with you on is the ammunition used, which you

> alluded to in another post.

> Not that it relates to the wound we are discussing however, just in

> general. (Something I'm still looking into)

> BTW Your stuff is still coming to my inbox.

> John F.

> "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote in message

> news:f4a268af-39ae-467f-a779-094dec3d571b@googlegroups.com...

> On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:45:43 AM UTC-8, John Fiorentino wrote:

> > Yes, Speer, I believe him.

> Are you joking? You believe that the wound shown in the autopsy photos is

> at "the top of the prominent roll of soft tissue across the back of

> President Kennedy's neck" Seriously? If so, can you please show us where

> on Kennedy's body the "back of the neck" ends and "the back" begins?

> As far as "cites," Lattimer wrote but one article for Medical Times in

> 1974. Here it is: ""The Kennedy--Connally One Bullet Theory: Further

> Circumstantial and Experimental Evidence." "Medical Times," November, 1974

> (and Gary Lattimer and Jon Lattimer).

> > And Please provide cites (specific cites that is) when making accusations.

> > John F.

> > "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote in message

> > news:31608ba2-fb45-4d51-8d5c-acfec272735e@googlegroups.com...

> > On Sunday, November 11, 2012 11:00:21 AM UTC-8, John Fiorentino wrote:

> > > I'll repost this........

> > > Your attacks on the now deceased Dr. John K. Lattimer are scurrilous and

> > > without merit.

> > > As with most assassination critics you get things about 1/2 right and

> > > embellish the rest with the fairy dust of incomprehension.

> > > I can assure you that the path of the bullet through JFK was DOWNWARD

> > > irrespective of Baden's "anatomic position" crapola.

> > You can assure me no such thing. Besides, that's not the point. My beef

> > with Lattimer is not that he said the path was downward but that he said

> > it was sharply downward, and that the grossly inaccurate Rydberg drawings

> > presented a much shallower trajectory than the actual trajectory as

> > demonstrated by the autopsy photos and x-rays. It seems clear to me he was

> > lying.

> > In 1974, after viewing the autopsy photos, after all, he'd told Medical

> > Times the bullet "had entered the top of the prominent roll of soft tissue

> > across the back of President Kennedy's neck..."

> > Now, you've seen the autopsy photos. You were even given one by Belin. is

> > the bullet wound on Kennedy's back, or "at the top of a roll of soft

> > tissue across the back of Kennedy's neck"? Inquiring minds want to know.

> > Now, do you believe him?

> > > Lattimer conducted all of his experiments with honesty and integrity.

> > > John F.

> > > "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote in message

> > > news:5e884a2f-f1f2-41cc-a492-c3fd482fdd9a@googlegroups.com...

> > > On Saturday, November 10, 2012 9:59:19 AM UTC-8, claviger wrote:

> > > > Pat,

> > > > > No, I am pointing out that the official conclusion of the last

> > > > > medical

> > > > > panel to study this matter was that the bullet went upwards in

> > > > > Kennedy's

> > > > > body. They explained this by suggesting he'd been leaning forward

> > > > > when

> > > > > struck. The HSCA determined, however, that he was struck when he

> > > > > wasn't

> > > > > leaning over to the degree the medical panel indicated. It is an

> > > > > historical FACT, then, that the conclusions of the HSCA forensic

> > > > > pathology

> > > > > panel are at odds with the single-assassin conclusion offered up by

> > > > > both

> > > > > the HSCA, and the Lattimerites and Posnerites that followed.

> > > > > Historians

> > > > > will notice this, even if today's single-bullet theorists will not.

> > > > You have me confused.  There are only 3 possible choices for the

> > > > trajectory of the bullet that entered the back of President Kennedy.

> > > > Either it was a downward trajectory as the WCR and HSCA concluded, a

> > > > flat trajectory from street level, or an upward trajectory.

> > > Not true. You are assuming the bullet exited the throat. I see no reason

> > > to assume that. The wound as described does not fit the description of a

> > > wound created by a high-velocity bullet.

> > > > Where could the last possibly come from?  Only a ricochet could do

> > > > that.

> > > > JFK like any normal human being has a curve in his upper back,

> > > > although his appears more pronounced.  If you study the profile photos

> > > > I provided to Squinty you can see what I mean.  The human spine is a

> > > > long S-curve.  The lower part is concave (Lumbar curve) and the upper

> > > > part is convex (Thoratic curve) and the neck is a slight concave shape

> > > > (Cervical curve).  The medical names for these curves are Kyphosis and

> > > > Lordosis.

> > > > Thoracic Spine Anatomy, Spine Curves: Kyphosis and Lordosis

> > > > http://www.eorthopod.com/content/thoracic-spine-anatomy

> > > > "From the side, the spine

> If the bullet entered above the clavicula as it appears then YES that is

> STILL considered the NECK by those of us who actually know what we're

> talking about.

> You and Baden should get together. You both seem to have much in common.

> The only thing I can agree with you on is the ammunition used, which you

> alluded to in another post.

> Not that it relates to the wound we are discussing however, just in

> general. (Something I'm still looking into)

> BTW Your stuff is still coming to my inbox.

> John F.

> "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote in message

> news:f4a268af-39ae-467f-a779-094dec3d571b@googlegroups.com...

> On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:45:43 AM UTC-8, John Fiorentino wrote:

> > Yes, Speer, I believe him.

> Are you joking? You believe that the wound shown in the autopsy photos is

> at "the top of the prominent roll of soft tissue across the back of

> President Kennedy's neck" Seriously? If so, can you please show us where

> on Kennedy's body the "back of the neck" ends and "the back" begins?

> As far as "cites," Lattimer wrote but one article for Medical Times in

> 1974. Here it is: ""The Kennedy--Connally One Bullet Theory: Further

> Circumstantial and Experimental Evidence." "Medical Times," November, 1974

> (and Gary Lattimer and Jon Lattimer).

> > And Please provide cites (specific cites that is) when making
> > accusations.

> > John F.

> > "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote in message

> > news:31608ba2-fb45-4d51-8d5c-acfec272735e@googlegroups.com...

> > On Sunday, November 11, 2012 11:00:21 AM UTC-8, John Fiorentino wrote:

> > > I'll repost this........

> > > Your attacks on the now deceased Dr. John K. Lattimer are scurrilous
> > > and

> > > without merit.

> > > As with most assassination critics you get things about 1/2 right and

> > > embellish the rest with the fairy dust of incomprehension.

> > > I can assure you that the path of the bullet through JFK was DOWNWARD

> > > irrespective of Baden's "anatomic position" crapola.

> > You can assure me no such thing. Besides, that's not the point. My beef

> > with Lattimer is not that he said the path was downward but that he said

> > it was sharply downward, and that the grossly inaccurate Rydberg
> > drawings

> > presented a much shallower trajectory than the actual trajectory as

> > demonstrated by the autopsy photos and x-rays. It seems clear to me he
> > was

> > lying.

> > In 1974, after viewing the autopsy photos, after all, he'd told Medical

> > Times the bullet "had entered the top of the prominent roll of soft
> > tissue

> > across the back of President Kennedy's neck..."

> > Now, you've seen the autopsy photos. You were even given one by Belin.
> > is

> > the bullet wound on Kennedy's back, or "at the top of a roll of soft

> > tissue across the back of Kennedy's neck"? Inquiring minds want to know.

> > Now, do you believe him?

> > > Lattimer conducted all of his experiments with honesty and integrity.

> > > John F.

> > > "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote in message

> > > news:5e884a2f-f1f2-41cc-a492-c3fd482fdd9a@googlegroups.com...

> > > On Saturday, November 10, 2012 9:59:19 AM UTC-8, claviger wrote:

> > > > Pat,

> > > > > No, I am pointing out that the official conclusion of the last

> > > > > medical

> > > > > panel to study this matter was that the bullet went upwards in

> > > > > Kennedy's

> > > > > body. They explained this by suggesting he'd been leaning forward

> > > > > when

> > > > > struck. The HSCA determined, however, that he was struck when he

> > > > > wasn't

> > > > > leaning over to the degree the medical panel indicated. It is an

> > > > > historical FACT, then, that the conclusions of the HSCA forensic

> > > > > pathology

> > > > > panel are at odds with the single-assassin conclusion offered up
> > > > > by

> > > > > both

> > > > > the HSCA, and the Lattimerites and Posnerites that followed.

> > > > > Historians

> > > > > will notice this, even if today's single-bullet theorists will
> > > > > not.

> > > > You have me confused.  There are only 3 possible choices for the

> > > > trajectory of the bullet that entered the back of President Kennedy.

> > > > Either it was a downward trajectory as the WCR and HSCA concluded, a

> > > > flat trajectory from street level, or an upward trajectory.

> > > Not true. You are assuming the bullet exited the throat. I see no
> > > reason

> > > to assume that. The wound as described does not fit the description of
> > > a

> > > wound created by a high-velocity bullet.

> > > > Where could the last possibly come from?  Only a ricochet could do

> > > > that.

> > > > JFK like any normal human being has a curve in his upper back,

> > > > although his appears more pronounced.  If you study the profile
> > > > photos

> > > > I provided to Squinty you can see what I mean.  The human spine is a

> > > > long S-curve.  The lower part is concave (Lumbar curve) and the
> > > > upper

> > > > part is convex (Thoratic curve) and the neck is a slight concave
> > > > shape

> > > > (Cervical curve).  The medical names for these curves are Kyphosis
> > > > and

> > > > Lordosis.

> > > > Thoracic Spine Anatomy, Spine Curves: Kyphosis and Lordosis

>> If the bullet entered above the clavicula as it appears then YES that is

>> STILL considered the NECK by those of us who actually know what we're

>> talking about.

> You're just making that up. The wound was indisputably in the shoulder,
> inches below the base of the neck. Although the top few inches of the
> shoulders are above the bottom of the neck in the front, NO ONE calls the
> shoulders the back of the neck.

> Here are some definitions found online:

> neck
> 1. The part of the body joining the head to the shoulders or trunk.

> Definition of NECK
> (1) : the part of an animal that connects the head with the body

> neck
> 1 the part of a person’s or animal’s body connecting the head to the
> rest of the body:

> neck
> 1. the part of the body of an animal or human being that connects the head
> and the trunk.

> and here's one from a medical dictionary, in case you think the standard
> definition of neck shouldn't apply to your buddy Lattimer:

> Definition of Neck

> Neck: The part of the body joining the head to the shoulders.

> Get it? The neck ENDS at the shoulders. Period.

>> You and Baden should get together. You both seem to have much in common.

>> The only thing I can agree with you on is the ammunition used, which you

>> alluded to in another post.

>> Not that it relates to the wound we are discussing however, just in

>> general. (Something I'm still looking into)

>> BTW Your stuff is still coming to my inbox.

>> John F.

>> "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote in message

>> news:f4a268af-39ae-467f-a779-094dec3d571b@googlegroups.com...

>> On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:45:43 AM UTC-8, John Fiorentino wrote:

>>> Yes, Speer, I believe him.

>> Are you joking? You believe that the wound shown in the autopsy photos is

>> at "the top of the prominent roll of soft tissue across the back of

>> President Kennedy's neck" Seriously? If so, can you please show us where

>> on Kennedy's body the "back of the neck" ends and "the back" begins?

>> As far as "cites," Lattimer wrote but one article for Medical Times in

>> 1974. Here it is: ""The Kennedy--Connally One Bullet Theory: Further

>> Circumstantial and Experimental Evidence." "Medical Times," November, 1974

>> (and Gary Lattimer and Jon Lattimer).

>>> And Please provide cites (specific cites that is) when making accusations.

>>> John F.

>>> "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote in message

>>> news:31608ba2-fb45-4d51-8d5c-acfec272735e@googlegroups.com...

>>> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 11:00:21 AM UTC-8, John Fiorentino wrote:

>>>> I'll repost this........

>>>> Your attacks on the now deceased Dr. John K. Lattimer are scurrilous and

>>>> without merit.

>>>> As with most assassination critics you get things about 1/2 right and

>>>> embellish the rest with the fairy dust of incomprehension.

>>>> I can assure you that the path of the bullet through JFK was DOWNWARD

>>>> irrespective of Baden's "anatomic position" crapola.

>>> You can assure me no such thing. Besides, that's not the point. My beef

>>> with Lattimer is not that he said the path was downward but that he said

>>> it was sharply downward, and that the grossly inaccurate Rydberg drawings

>>> presented a much shallower trajectory than the actual trajectory as

>>> demonstrated by the autopsy photos and x-rays. It seems clear to me he was

>>> lying.

>>> In 1974, after viewing the autopsy photos, after all, he'd told Medical

>>> Times the bullet "had entered the top of the prominent roll of soft tissue

>>> across the back of President Kennedy's neck..."

>>> Now, you've seen the autopsy photos. You were even given one by Belin. is

>>> the bullet wound on Kennedy's back, or "at the top of a roll of soft

>>> tissue across the back of Kennedy's neck"? Inquiring minds want to know.

>>> Now, do you believe him?

>>>> Lattimer conducted all of his experiments with honesty and integrity.

>>>> John F.

>>>> "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:5e884a2f-f1f2-41cc-a492-c3fd482fdd9a@googlegroups.com...

>>>> On Saturday, November 10, 2012 9:59:19 AM UTC-8, claviger wrote:

>>>>> Pat,

>>>>>> No, I am pointing out that the official conclusion of the last

>>>>>> medical

>>>>>> panel to study this matter was that the bullet went upwards in

>>>>>> Kennedy's

>>>>>> body. They explained this by suggesting he'd been leaning forward

>>>>>> when

>>>>>> struck. The HSCA determined, however, that he was struck when he

>>>>>> wasn't

>>>>>> leaning over to the degree the medical panel indicated. It is an

>>>>>> historical FACT, then, that the conclusions of the HSCA forensic

>>>>>> pathology

>>>>>> panel are at odds with the single-assassin conclusion offered up by

>>>>>> both

>>>>>> the HSCA, and the Lattimerites and Posnerites that followed.

>>>>>> Historians

>>>>>> will notice this, even if today's single-bullet theorists will not.

>>>>> You have me confused.  There are only 3 possible choices for the

>>>>> trajectory of the bullet that entered the back of President Kennedy.

>>>>> Either it was a downward trajectory as the WCR and HSCA concluded, a

>>>>> flat trajectory from street level, or an upward trajectory.

>>>> Not true. You are assuming the bullet exited the throat. I see no reason

>>>> to assume that. The wound as described does not fit the description of a

>>>> wound created by a high-velocity bullet.

>>>>> Where could the last possibly come from?  Only a ricochet could do

>>>>> that.

>>>>> JFK like any normal human being has a curve in his upper back,

>>>>> although his appears more pronounced.  If you study the profile photos

>>>>> I provided to Squinty you can see what I mean.  The human spine is a

>>>>> long S-curve.  The lower part is concave (Lumbar curve) and the upper

>>>>> part is convex (Thoratic curve) and the neck is a slight concave shape

>>>>> (Cervical curve).  The medical names for these curves are Kyphosis and

>>>>> Lordosis.

>>>>> Thoracic Spine Anatomy, Spine Curves: Kyphosis and Lordosis

>>>>> http://www.eorthopod.com/content/thoracic-spine-anatomy

> The problem with all that is that early FMJ bullets like the Carcano
> 6.5mm do not have the same terminal ballistics as the spire-pointed
> projectiles that superceded them. As Dr Martin Fackler notes in
> "Military Rifle Bullet Wound Patterns":

> "The first full-metal-jacketed bullets (1885-1910) were over four
> calibres long and round-nosed. Typical of this bullet type are the
> 6.5 mm Carcano and the 30-40 Krag bullets; they penetrate tissue
> simulant travelling point-forward for 50 cm or more before
> significant yaw begins (Fackler, M.L., unpublished data, 1987).
> The very minimal wounding effect produced by these early round-
> nosed jacketed bullets was remarked upon by surgeons of the time
> (Kocher, Markins, Brunner, Abbott, LaGarde, etc.). Even those
> soldiers with through-and-through chest wounds in which the bullet
> missed the large vessels (but passed through the lung) would be fit
> to rejoin their units in a few weeks."

> It would be expected, then, that a Carcano wound track through
> JFK's neck wouldn't be as extensive as Pat's sources would
> otherwise imply.

> http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2005/0411/100.html

>> As far as the FMJ bullet's wounding capacity, it appears you've missed
>> out on some important stuff.

>>From patspeer.com, chapter 11:

>> The testimony of the HSCA's wound ballistics expert, Larry Sturdivan, is
>> that the first bullet to strike Kennedy was traveling over 1700
>> feet/second as it passed through his neck. Later, in his 2005 book, The
>> JFK Myths, he increased this "probable velocity" to somewhere between
>> 2045 feet/second and 1780 feet/second. This bullet was purported to have
>> struck only soft tissue, and done little damage to the neck. And yet,
>> Dr. Gary Ordog, in his book Management of Gunshot Wounds, notes that the
>> mortality rate for high-velocity gunshot wounds to the neck is over 50%.
>> He explains: �Vascular injury caused by missile wounds from bullets
>> moving faster than 1,000 feet/second has been shown to occur by neat
>> shearing of the vessel without stretching it first, as occurs with
>> low-velocity missiles. This is followed by cavitation that damages a
>> more extensive area of the blood vessel, possibly extending for at least
>> 20 mm on each side of the bullet�s path.� He further explains that
>> �Cavitation stretches the smaller blood vessels, shearing and rupturing
>> them as well as nerves and even bone.� He later concludes: "In the
>> author's experience, up to 100% of patients with high-velocity bullet
>> wounds of the neck have major structural damage requiring surgery."

>> Should one think that Ordog was some ill-informed civilian spouting his
>> personal impressions, one should know that his statements are built upon
>> a study performed by Sturdivan's employer, Edgewood Arsenal, and
>> published in the Archives of Surgery in August 1970. This study
>> concludes "The high velocity missile neatly shears the arterial wall,
>> but the apparent explosive effect of the temporary cavity causes 'blunt'
>> trauma in a crushing manner." A chart prepared for this study, moreover,
>> shows that a high-velocity bullet just missing an artery will
>> nevertheless cause breaks in the artery, even when traveling as slow as
>> 1,000 fps.

>> Now compare those descriptions of the damage one might expect to find
>> with what Kennedy's autopsist, Dr. James J. Humes, told the Warren
>> Commission he actually found. From his March 16, 1964 testimony: "We
>> examined in the region of this incised surgical wound which was the
>> tracheotomy wound and we saw that there was some bruising of the muscles
>> of the neck in the depths of this wound as well as laceration or defect
>> in the trachea...it is our opinion that the missile traversed the neck
>> and slid between these muscles and other vital structures with a course
>> in the neck such as the carotid artery, the jugular vein and other
>> structures because there was no massive hemorrhage or other massive
>> injury in this portion of the neck."

>> While high-velocity bullets "shear" and "rupture" blood vessels in the
>> neck, the bullet traversing Kennedy's neck was reported to have only
>> "slid between" these vessels. While Dr. Ordog noted that up to 100% of
>> those receiving a high-velocity gunshot wound to the neck have "major
>> structural damage requiring surgery" Dr. Humes claimed there was "no
>> massive hemorrhage or other massive injury" to Kennedy's neck. Hmmm...

>> Okay, you might be thinking, this was just the opinion of one of the
>> autopsists, Dr. Humes. Perhaps Dr. Humes had missed something, and the
>> other doctors disagreed and hadn't bothered to correct him. But this
>> wasn't just Humes' speaking for the others... In 1965, Dr. Finck wrote
>> his superior, General Blumberg, and told him not only that "I examined
>> the tracheotomy skin wound and the trachea and did not find evidence of
>> a bullet wound," but that all three autopsists had examined the
>> tracheotomy wound and that "None of us noticed a bullet wound along its
>> course." Double hmmm...

>> And to close the circle, when discussing the throat wound with the
>> HSCA's Andy Purdy on August 17, 1977, Dr. Boswell is reported to have
>> claimed he was "certain...no major blood vessel (was) damaged by the
>> path of the missile."Triple hmmm...

>> When one considers that Dr. Charles Carrico, the emergency room doctor
>> who first examined Kennedy, also noted only minor damage to his throat,
>> telling the HSCA that he'd observed "some modest amount of hematoma in
>> the recesses to the endo right of the trachea" and that Malcolm Perry,
>> the Parkland surgeon who performed Kennedy's tracheotomy, not only
>> confirmed Carrico's conclusion there was little damage to the neck, but
>> initially described the exit wound as being only 3-5 mm wide--smaller
>> than the bullets fired by Oswald�s rifle--well, then it becomes pretty
>> darned clear that something is just wrong with the supposed
>> single-bullet "fact". It just doesn't add up. The bullet creating
>> Kennedy's throat wound--if it was a bullet--was almost certainly not
>> traveling at a high velocity.

>> The more one digs, the clearer this becomes. Beyond testifying to his
>> observing a small hole in the throat, and a lack of damage to the blood
>> vessels, Dr. Perry told the Warren Commission that, before it was
>> obscured by a tracheotomy incision, he had observed a �small ragged
>> laceration of the trachea on the anterior lateral right side.� A small
>> laceration.

>> He later specified just how small. In 1978, when contacted by the HSCA
>> and interviewed by its counsel Andy Purdy, he claimed that the
>> laceration "was on the right side of the trachea, and that it was
>> incomplete, and I don't remember whether it was a third or a quarter of
>> the circumference..."

>> As you might have guessed, this makes little sense should Kennedy have
>> actually been hit by a high-velocity bullet. According to Dr. D.F.N.
>> Dixon in Management of Gunshot Wounds, �Direct impact on larynx or
>> trachea from bullets fired from high velocity military rifles or
>> carbines will produce severe damage from their high kinetic energy,
>> tumbling, or cavitation effect.� Furthermore, Dr.s Kenneth and Roy Swan

> The problem with all that is that early FMJ bullets like the Carcano

> 6.5mm do not have the same terminal ballistics as the spire-pointed

> projectiles that superceded them. As Dr Martin Fackler notes in

> "Military Rifle Bullet Wound Patterns":

> "The first full-metal-jacketed bullets (1885-1910) were over four

> calibres long and round-nosed. Typical of this bullet type are the

> 6.5 mm Carcano and the 30-40 Krag bullets; they penetrate tissue

> simulant travelling point-forward for 50 cm or more before

> significant yaw begins (Fackler, M.L., unpublished data, 1987).

> The very minimal wounding effect produced by these early round-

> nosed jacketed bullets was remarked upon by surgeons of the time

> (Kocher, Markins, Brunner, Abbott, LaGarde, etc.). Even those

> soldiers with through-and-through chest wounds in which the bullet

> missed the large vessels (but passed through the lung) would be fit

> to rejoin their units in a few weeks."

> It would be expected, then, that a Carcano wound track through

> JFK's neck wouldn't be as extensive as Pat's sources would

> otherwise imply.

> BTW, for a different perspective on Dr Orgdog, see this:

> http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2005/0411/100.html

> >As far as the FMJ bullet's wounding capacity, it appears you've missed

> >out on some important stuff.

> >From patspeer.com, chapter 11:

> >The testimony of the HSCA's wound ballistics expert, Larry Sturdivan, is

> >that the first bullet to strike Kennedy was traveling over 1700

> >feet/second as it passed through his neck. Later, in his 2005 book, The

> >JFK Myths, he increased this "probable velocity" to somewhere between

> >2045 feet/second and 1780 feet/second. This bullet was purported to have

> >struck only soft tissue, and done little damage to the neck. And yet,

> >Dr. Gary Ordog, in his book Management of Gunshot Wounds, notes that the

> >mortality rate for high-velocity gunshot wounds to the neck is over 50%.

> >He explains: “Vascular injury caused by missile wounds from bullets

> >moving faster than 1,000 feet/second has been shown to occur by neat

> >shearing of the vessel without stretching it first, as occurs with

> >low-velocity missiles. This is followed by cavitation that damages a

> >more extensive area of the blood vessel, possibly extending for at least

> >20 mm on each side of the bullet’s path.” He further explains that

> >“Cavitation stretches the smaller blood vessels, shearing and rupturing

> >them as well as nerves and even bone.” He later concludes: "In the

> >author's experience, up to 100% of patients with high-velocity bullet

> >wounds of the neck have major structural damage requiring surgery."

> >Should one think that Ordog was some ill-informed civilian spouting his

> >personal impressions, one should know that his statements are built upon

> >a study performed by Sturdivan's employer, Edgewood Arsenal, and

> >published in the Archives of Surgery in August 1970. This study

> >concludes "The high velocity missile neatly shears the arterial wall,

> >but the apparent explosive effect of the temporary cavity causes 'blunt'

> >trauma in a crushing manner." A chart prepared for this study, moreover,

> >shows that a high-velocity bullet just missing an artery will

> >nevertheless cause breaks in the artery, even when traveling as slow as

> >1,000 fps.

> >Now compare those descriptions of the damage one might expect to find

> >with what Kennedy's autopsist, Dr. James J. Humes, told the Warren

> >Commission he actually found. From his March 16, 1964 testimony: "We

> >examined in the region of this incised surgical wound which was the

> >tracheotomy wound and we saw that there was some bruising of the muscles

> >of the neck in the depths of this wound as well as laceration or defect

> >in the trachea...it is our opinion that the missile traversed the neck

> >and slid between these muscles and other vital structures with a course

> >in the neck such as the carotid artery, the jugular vein and other

> >structures because there was no massive hemorrhage or other massive

> >injury in this portion of the neck."

> >While high-velocity bullets "shear" and "rupture" blood vessels in the

> >neck, the bullet traversing Kennedy's neck was reported to have only

> >"slid between" these vessels. While Dr. Ordog noted that up to 100% of

> >those receiving a high-velocity gunshot wound to the neck have "major

> >structural damage requiring surgery" Dr. Humes claimed there was "no

> >massive hemorrhage or other massive injury" to Kennedy's neck. Hmmm...

> >Okay, you might be thinking, this was just the opinion of one of the

> >autopsists, Dr. Humes. Perhaps Dr. Humes had missed something, and the

> >other doctors disagreed and hadn't bothered to correct him. But this

> >wasn't just Humes' speaking for the others... In 1965, Dr. Finck wrote

> >his superior, General Blumberg, and told him not only that "I examined

> >the tracheotomy skin wound and the trachea and did not find evidence of

> >a bullet wound," but that all three autopsists had examined the

> >tracheotomy wound and that "None of us noticed a bullet wound along its

> >course." Double hmmm...

> >And to close the circle, when discussing the throat wound with the

> >HSCA's Andy Purdy on August 17, 1977, Dr. Boswell is reported to have

> >claimed he was "certain...no major blood vessel (was) damaged by the

> >path of the missile."Triple hmmm...

> >When one considers that Dr. Charles Carrico, the emergency room doctor

> >who first examined Kennedy, also noted only minor damage to his throat,

> >telling the HSCA that he'd observed "some modest amount of hematoma in

> >the recesses to the endo right of the trachea" and that Malcolm Perry,

> >the Parkland surgeon who performed Kennedy's tracheotomy, not only

> >confirmed Carrico's conclusion there was little damage to the neck, but

> >initially described the exit wound as being only 3-5 mm wide--smaller

> >than the bullets fired by Oswald’s rifle--well, then it becomes pretty

> >darned clear that something is just wrong with the supposed

> >single-bullet "fact". It just doesn't add up. The bullet creating

> >Kennedy's throat wound--if it was a bullet--was almost certainly not

> >traveling at a high velocity.

> >The more one digs, the clearer this becomes. Beyond testifying to his

> >observing a small hole in the throat, and a lack of damage to the blood

> >vessels, Dr. Perry told the Warren Commission that, before it was

> >obscured by a tracheotomy incision, he had observed a “small ragged

> >laceration of the trachea on the anterior lateral right side.” A small

> >laceration.

> >He later specified just how small. In 1978, when contacted by the HSCA

> >and interviewed by its counsel Andy Purdy, he claimed that the

> >laceration "was on the right side of the trachea, and that it was

> >incomplete, and I don't remember whether it was a third or a quarter of

> >the circumference..."

> >As you might have guessed, this makes little sense should Kennedy have

> >actually been hit by a high-velocity bullet. According to Dr. D.F.N.

> >Dixon in Management of Gunshot Wounds, “Direct impact on larynx or

> >trachea from bullets fired from high velocity military rifles or

> >carbines will produce severe damage from their high kinetic energy,

> >tumbling, or cavitation effect.” Furthermore, Dr.s Kenneth and Roy Swan

> >in their book Gunshot Wounds: Pathophysiology and Management note that

> >"Gunshot injuries of the larynx and trachea are infrequently seen in

> >emergency rooms" due to such injuries usually being associated with

> >"fatal exsanguination (bleeding) from injured common carotid arteries

> >and internal jugular veins."

> >Surgery in World War II, a book released by the Surgeon General of the

> >U.S. Army in 1962, confirms this harsh assessment. A chapter written by

> >a former surgeon of the Fifth Army, which fought Italian forces in

> >Sicily, reports that when treating neck wounds he needed to effect

> >"Debridement (the removal of dead and damaged tissue) of all structures"

> >as "Multiple involvement was the rule because of the anatomy of the

> >area." And it's not as if this understanding was restricted to military

> >surgeons; Earl Ubell, Science Editor of the New York Herald-Tribune,

> >described Kennedy's wounds on 11-23-63 in a manner suggesting he knew

> >something of the destruction brought by a

> I say................

> You need to do more research especially as it pertains to human anatomy.

> If you think I just made it up, it's because you didn't read and

> comprehend what I said and frankly just don't know what you're talking

> about.

> Try picking on some people who are still alive, ok Speer?

> John F.

> "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote in message

> news:1f08042d-afb7-4512-935d-f398f98bd700@googlegroups.com...

> On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 1:50:09 PM UTC-8, John Fiorentino wrote:

> > Speer:

> > If the bullet entered above the clavicula as it appears then YES that is

> > STILL considered the NECK by those of us who actually know what we're

> > talking about.

> You're just making that up. The wound was indisputably in the shoulder,

> inches below the base of the neck. Although the top few inches of the

> shoulders are above the bottom of the neck in the front, NO ONE calls the

> shoulders the back of the neck.

> Here are some definitions found online:

> neck

> 1. The part of the body joining the head to the shoulders or trunk.

> Definition of NECK

> (1) : the part of an animal that connects the head with the body

> neck

> 1 the part of a person?s or animal?s body connecting the head to the

> rest of the body:

> neck

> 1. the part of the body of an animal or human being that connects the head

> and the trunk.

> and here's one from a medical dictionary, in case you think the standard

> definition of neck shouldn't apply to your buddy Lattimer:

> Definition of Neck

> Neck: The part of the body joining the head to the shoulders.

> Get it? The neck ENDS at the shoulders. Period.

> > You and Baden should get together. You both seem to have much in common.

> > The only thing I can agree with you on is the ammunition used, which you

> > alluded to in another post.

> > Not that it relates to the wound we are discussing however, just in

> > general. (Something I'm still looking into)

> > BTW Your stuff is still coming to my inbox.

> > John F.

> > "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote in message

> > news:f4a268af-39ae-467f-a779-094dec3d571b@googlegroups.com...

> > On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:45:43 AM UTC-8, John Fiorentino wrote:

> > > Yes, Speer, I believe him.

> > Are you joking? You believe that the wound shown in the autopsy photos is

> > at "the top of the prominent roll of soft tissue across the back of

> > President Kennedy's neck" Seriously? If so, can you please show us where

> > on Kennedy's body the "back of the neck" ends and "the back" begins?

> > As far as "cites," Lattimer wrote but one article for Medical Times in

> > 1974. Here it is: ""The Kennedy--Connally One Bullet Theory: Further

> > Circumstantial and Experimental Evidence." "Medical Times," November, 1974

> > (and Gary Lattimer and Jon Lattimer).

> > > And Please provide cites (specific cites that is) when making

> > > accusations.

> > > John F.

> > > "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote in message

> > > news:31608ba2-fb45-4d51-8d5c-acfec272735e@googlegroups.com...

> > > On Sunday, November 11, 2012 11:00:21 AM UTC-8, John Fiorentino wrote:

> > > > I'll repost this........

> > > > Your attacks on the now deceased Dr. John K. Lattimer are scurrilous

> > > > and

> > > > without merit.

> > > > As with most assassination critics you get things about 1/2 right and

> > > > embellish the rest with the fairy dust of incomprehension.

> > > > I can assure you that the path of the bullet through JFK was DOWNWARD

> > > > irrespective of Baden's "anatomic position" crapola.

> > > You can assure me no such thing. Besides, that's not the point. My beef

> > > with Lattimer is not that he said the path was downward but that he said

> > > it was sharply downward, and that the grossly inaccurate Rydberg

> > > drawings

> > > presented a much shallower trajectory than the actual trajectory as

> > > demonstrated by the autopsy photos and x-rays. It seems clear to me he

> > > was

> > > lying.

> > > In 1974, after viewing the autopsy photos, after all, he'd told Medical

> > > Times the bullet "had entered the top of the prominent roll of soft

> > > tissue

> > > across the back of President Kennedy's neck..."

> > > Now, you've seen the autopsy photos. You were even given one by Belin.

> > > is

> > > the bullet wound on Kennedy's back, or "at the top of a roll of soft

> > > tissue across the back of Kennedy's neck"? Inquiring minds want to know.

> > > Now, do you believe him?

> > > > Lattimer conducted all of his experiments with honesty and integrity.

> > > > John F.

> > > > "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote in message

> > > > news:5e884a2f-f1f2-41cc-a492-c3fd482fdd9a@googlegroups.com...

> > > > On Saturday, November 10, 2012 9:59:19 AM UTC-8, claviger wrote:

> > > > > Pat,

> > > > > > No, I am pointing out that the official conclusion of the last

> > > > > > medical

> > > > > > panel to study this matter was that the bullet went upwards in

> > > > > > Kennedy's

> pjspe...@AOL.COM says...

> [....]

> >Dr. Humes claimed there was "no massive hemorrhage or oth=

> >er massive injury" to Kennedy's neck. Hmmm...

> So there was no massive hemorrage other massive injury to JFK's neck....so

> what???????....there was damage there that clearly indicated where the

> bullet passed.

> >Okay, you might be thinking, this was just the opinion of one of the autops=

> >ists, Dr. Humes. Perhaps Dr. Humes had missed something, and the other doct=

> >ors disagreed and hadn't bothered to correct him. But this wasn't just Hume=

> >s' speaking for the others... In 1965, Dr. Finck wrote his superior, Genera=

> >l Blumberg, and told him not only that "I examined the tracheotomy skin wou=

> >nd and the trachea and did not find evidence of a bullet wound," but that a=

> >ll three autopsists had examined the tracheotomy wound and that "None of us=

> > noticed a bullet wound along its course." Double hmmm...

> So weigh what Finck said in 1965 against what Humes told Specter only four

> months after the assassination: "...we saw that there was some bruising of

> the muscles of the neck in the depths of this wound as well as laceration

> or defect in the trachea. [2WCH, p. 363]

> And that makes sense because both Perry and Carrico saw an injury to the

> trachea before Humes did. 7HSCA p. 300 & 301.

> Note that was not the only thing Finck said that made little sense. For

> example, he told the HSCA he couldn't recall whether or not Humes and

> Boswell had discovered the back wound, but that's silly and completely

> conflicts with, not only basic autopsy protocal (perform an external

> examination of the body first...and that happened before Finck arrived),

> but also what both Humes and Boswell stated. [Humes ARRB pp. 114-115,

> Boswell ARRB, p. 96].

> Also, Peters told Ben Bradlee of the Boston Globe (5/1/81) that almost as

> soon as the body arrived at Bethesda we found out about the back wound

> (phone calls between Bethesda and PH).

> "The doctors first examined the entire body..." [Lipsey to the HSCA

> 1/18/78]

> >And to close the circle, when discussing the throat wound with the HSCA's A=

> >ndy Purdy on August 17, 1977, Dr. Boswell is reported to have claimed he wa=

> >s "certain...no major blood vessel (was) damaged by the path of the missile=

> >."Triple hmmm...

> Earth to Speer...who's claiming there was "massive" damage??????

> Note that Boswell heard and agreed with Humes' WC testimony in which he

> [Humes] said THEY saw a defect to the trachea.

> >When one considers that Dr. Charles Carrico, the emergency room doctor who =

> >first examined Kennedy, also noted only minor damage to his throat, telling=

> > the HSCA that he'd observed "some modest amount of hematoma in the recesse=

> >s to the endo right of the trachea" and that Malcolm Perry, the Parkland su=

> >rgeon who performed Kennedy's tracheotomy, not only confirmed Carrico's con=

> >clusion there was little damage to the neck, but initially described the ex=

> >it wound as being only 3-5 mm wide--smaller than the bullets fired by Oswal=

> >d=92s rifle--well, then it becomes pretty darned clear that something is ju=

> >st wrong with the supposed single-bullet "fact". It just doesn't add up. Th=

> >e bullet creating Kennedy's throat wound--if it was a bullet--was almost ce=

> >rtainly not traveling at a high velocity.

> There obviously wasn't "massive" damage done along the wound track...but

> more than enough to easily reveal that path, e.g. the air in the tissue

> between the back and throat wounds,

> fracture to the transverse process at T1, bruising to the apex of the

> pleura and lung, etc.

> >The more one digs, the clearer this becomes.

> Only if you're digging in the wrong holes or you cherry pick the record to

> try to support your own theory.

> You should have read the entire record re. the medical evidence with an

> open mind before forming your theory...not the reverse.

> >Beyond testifying to his obser=

> >ving a small hole in the throat, and a lack of damage to the blood vessels,=

> > Dr. Perry told the Warren Commission that, before it was obscured by a tra=

> >cheotomy incision, he had observed a =93small ragged laceration of the trac=

> >hea on the anterior lateral right side.=94 A small laceration.=20

> >He later specified just how small. In 1978, when contacted by the HSCA and =

> >interviewed by its counsel Andy Purdy, he claimed that the laceration "was =

> >on the right side of the trachea, and that it was incomplete, and I don't r=

> >emember whether it was a third or a quarter of the circumference..."=20

> >As you might have guessed, this makes little sense should Kennedy have actu=

> >ally been hit by a high-velocity bullet. According to Dr. D.F.N. Dixon in M=

> >anagement of Gunshot Wounds, =93Direct impact on larynx or trachea from bul=

> >lets fired from high velocity military rifles or carbines will produce seve=

> >re damage from their high kinetic energy, tumbling, or cavitation effect.=

> >=94  Furthermore, Dr.s Kenneth and Roy Swan in their book Gunshot Wounds: P=

> >athophysiology and Management note that "Gunshot injuries of the larynx and=

> > trachea are infrequently seen in emergency rooms" due to such injuries usu=

> >ally being associated with "fatal exsanguination (bleeding) from injured co=

> >mmon carotid arteries and internal jugular veins." =20

> So Perry, Carrico, and Humes lied or collectively misremembered?

> News flash to Speer...what they saw on the body trumps in spades what is

> written in text books or even in the record regarding victims shot with

> other rifles and/or ammo.

> Bullet wounds are like snowflakes, no two are 100% indentical.

> [...]

> John Canal

> --

> John Canal

> jca...@webtv.net

>On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 1:51:09 PM UTC-8, John Canal wrote:
>> In article <0c1e24f7-b65e-4ab6-bb85-8f98b2b43ccc@googlegroups.com>,
>>=20
>> pjspe...@AOL.COM says...
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> [....]
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> >Dr. Humes claimed there was "no massive hemorrhage or oth=3D
>>=20
>> >er massive injury" to Kennedy's neck. Hmmm...
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> So there was no massive hemorrage other massive injury to JFK's neck....s=
>o=20
>>=20
>> what???????....there was damage there that clearly indicated where the=20
>>=20
>> bullet passed.

>Only on the front of the neck...which could very well be why Specter lied i=
>n the WCR and afterwards and pretended the strap muscles were on the back o=
>f the neck.

>??? Peters?  He was at Parkland.

>If a high velocity bullet had traversed Kennedy's neck, as claimed, there w=
>ould have been major damage. Do the reading.

>??? This was observed by the Clark Panel. If true, it suggests a bullet cam=
>e down the neck. Unfortunately, for them, the HSCA FPP determined that the =
>back wound was the other direction. OOOPS.=20

>None of this connects the entrance on the back with the exit on the throat.

>Nonsense. I read the WC reports and testimony and the Clark Panel's report =
>and the HSCA's reports long before I came to any conclusions. Unlike yourse=
>lf, who'd written a book saying the HSCA was right and Oswald did it long b=
>efore reading any of these reports.=20

>>=20
>> >He later specified just how small. In 1978, when contacted by the HSCA a=
>nd =3D
>>=20
>> >interviewed by its counsel Andy Purdy, he claimed that the laceration "w=
>as =3D
>>=20
>> >on the right side of the trachea, and that it was incomplete, and I don'=
>t r=3D
>>=20
>> >emember whether it was a third or a quarter of the circumference..."=3D2=
>0
>>=20

>>=20
>> >As you might have guessed, this makes little sense should Kennedy have a=
>ctu=3D
>>=20
>> >ally been hit by a high-velocity bullet. According to Dr. D.F.N. Dixon i=
>n M=3D
>>=20
>> >anagement of Gunshot Wounds, =3D93Direct impact on larynx or trachea fro=
>m bul=3D
>>=20
>> >lets fired from high velocity military rifles or carbines will produce s=
>eve=3D
>>=20
>> >re damage from their high kinetic energy, tumbling, or cavitation effect=
>.=3D
>>=20
>> >=3D94  Furthermore, Dr.s Kenneth and Roy Swan in their book Gunshot Woun=
>ds: P=3D
>>=20
>> >athophysiology and Management note that "Gunshot injuries of the larynx =
>and=3D
>>=20
>> > trachea are infrequently seen in emergency rooms" due to such injuries =
>usu=3D
>>=20
>> >ally being associated with "fatal exsanguination (bleeding) from injured=
> co=3D
>>=20
>> >mmon carotid arteries and internal jugular veins." =3D20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> So Perry, Carrico, and Humes lied or collectively misremembered?

>About what? The hole in the throat?

>> pjspe...@AOL.COM says...

>> [....]

>>> Dr. Humes claimed there was "no massive hemorrhage or oth=

>>> er massive injury" to Kennedy's neck. Hmmm...

>> So there was no massive hemorrage other massive injury to JFK's neck....so

>> what???????....there was damage there that clearly indicated where the

>> bullet passed.

> Only on the front of the neck...which could very well be why Specter lied in the WCR and afterwards and pretended the strap muscles were on the back of the neck.

>>> Okay, you might be thinking, this was just the opinion of one of the autops=

>>> ists, Dr. Humes. Perhaps Dr. Humes had missed something, and the other doct=

>>> ors disagreed and hadn't bothered to correct him. But this wasn't just Hume=

>>> s' speaking for the others... In 1965, Dr. Finck wrote his superior, Genera=

>>> l Blumberg, and told him not only that "I examined the tracheotomy skin wou=

>>> nd and the trachea and did not find evidence of a bullet wound," but that a=

>>> ll three autopsists had examined the tracheotomy wound and that "None of us=

>>> noticed a bullet wound along its course." Double hmmm...

>> So weigh what Finck said in 1965 against what Humes told Specter only four

>> months after the assassination: "...we saw that there was some bruising of

>> the muscles of the neck in the depths of this wound as well as laceration

>> or defect in the trachea. [2WCH, p. 363]

>> And that makes sense because both Perry and Carrico saw an injury to the

>> trachea before Humes did. 7HSCA p. 300 & 301.

>> Note that was not the only thing Finck said that made little sense. For

>> example, he told the HSCA he couldn't recall whether or not Humes and

>> Boswell had discovered the back wound, but that's silly and completely

>> conflicts with, not only basic autopsy protocal (perform an external

>> examination of the body first...and that happened before Finck arrived),

>> but also what both Humes and Boswell stated. [Humes ARRB pp. 114-115,

>> Boswell ARRB, p. 96].

>> Also, Peters told Ben Bradlee of the Boston Globe (5/1/81) that almost as

>> soon as the body arrived at Bethesda we found out about the back wound

>> (phone calls between Bethesda and PH).

> ??? Peters?  He was at Parkland.

>> "The doctors first examined the entire body..." [Lipsey to the HSCA

>> 1/18/78]

>>> And to close the circle, when discussing the throat wound with the HSCA's A=

>>> ndy Purdy on August 17, 1977, Dr. Boswell is reported to have claimed he wa=

>>> s "certain...no major blood vessel (was) damaged by the path of the missile=

>>> ."Triple hmmm...

>> Earth to Speer...who's claiming there was "massive" damage??????

> If a high velocity bullet had traversed Kennedy's neck, as claimed, there would have been major damage. Do the reading.

>> Note that Boswell heard and agreed with Humes' WC testimony in which he

>> [Humes] said THEY saw a defect to the trachea.

>>> When one considers that Dr. Charles Carrico, the emergency room doctor who =

>>> first examined Kennedy, also noted only minor damage to his throat, telling=

>>> the HSCA that he'd observed "some modest amount of hematoma in the recesse=

>>> s to the endo right of the trachea" and that Malcolm Perry, the Parkland su=

>>> rgeon who performed Kennedy's tracheotomy, not only confirmed Carrico's con=

>>> clusion there was little damage to the neck, but initially described the ex=

>>> it wound as being only 3-5 mm wide--smaller than the bullets fired by Oswal=

>>> d=92s rifle--well, then it becomes pretty darned clear that something is ju=

>>> st wrong with the supposed single-bullet "fact". It just doesn't add up. Th=

>>> e bullet creating Kennedy's throat wound--if it was a bullet--was almost ce=

>>> rtainly not traveling at a high velocity.

>> There obviously wasn't "massive" damage done along the wound track...but

>> more than enough to easily reveal that path, e.g. the air in the tissue

>> between the back and throat wounds,

> ??? This was observed by the Clark Panel. If true, it suggests a bullet came down the neck. Unfortunately, for them, the HSCA FPP determined that the back wound was the other direction. OOOPS.

>> the debris around C7/T1, and the

>> fracture to the transverse process at T1, bruising to the apex of the

>> pleura and lung, etc.

> None of this connects the entrance on the back with the exit on the throat.

>>> The more one digs, the clearer this becomes.

>> Only if you're digging in the wrong holes or you cherry pick the record to

>> try to support your own theory.

>> You should have read the entire record re. the medical evidence with an

>> open mind before forming your theory...not the reverse.

> Nonsense. I read the WC reports and testimony and the Clark Panel's report and the HSCA's reports long before I came to any conclusions. Unlike yourself, who'd written a book saying the HSCA was right and Oswald did it long before reading any of these reports.

>>> Beyond testifying to his obser=

>>> ving a small hole in the throat, and a lack of damage to the blood vessels,=

>>> Dr. Perry told the Warren Commission that, before it was obscured by a tra=

>>> cheotomy incision, he had observed a =93small ragged laceration of the trac=

>>> hea on the anterior lateral right side.=94 A small laceration.=20

>>> He later specified just how small. In 1978, when contacted by the HSCA and =

>>> interviewed by its counsel Andy Purdy, he claimed that the laceration "was =

>>> on the right side of the trachea, and that it was incomplete, and I don't r=

>>> emember whether it was a third or a quarter of the circumference..."=20

>>> As you might have guessed, this makes little sense should Kennedy have actu=

>>> ally been hit by a high-velocity bullet. According to Dr. D.F.N. Dixon in M=

>>> anagement of Gunshot Wounds, =93Direct impact on larynx or trachea from bul=

>>> lets fired from high velocity military rifles or carbines will produce seve=

>>> re damage from their high kinetic energy, tumbling, or cavitation effect.=

>>> =94  Furthermore, Dr.s Kenneth and Roy Swan in their book Gunshot Wounds: P=

>>> athophysiology and Management note that "Gunshot injuries of the larynx and=

>>> trachea are infrequently seen in emergency rooms" due to such injuries usu=

>>> ally being associated with "fatal exsanguination (bleeding) from injured co=

>>> mmon carotid arteries and internal jugular veins." =20

>> So Perry, Carrico, and Humes lied or collectively misremembered?

> About what? The hole in the throat? Of course not, Perry later wrote an article about gunshot wounds supporting that a high-velocity bullet would have damaged the vessels in Kennedy's neck. It was in a book edited by...Carrico.

>> News flash to Speer...what they saw on the body trumps in spades what is

>> written in text books or even in the record regarding victims shot with

>> other rifles and/or ammo.

> News flash to Canal...I have not disputed anyone's observations...

>> Bullet wounds are like snowflakes, no two are 100% indentical.

> So why write books about them?

>> [...]

>> John Canal

>> --

>> John Canal

>> jca...@webtv.net

> pjspe...@AOL.COM says...

> >On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 1:51:09 PM UTC-8, John Canal wrote:

> >> In article <0c1e24f7-b65e-4ab6-bb85-8f98b2b43ccc@googlegroups.com>,

> >>=20

> >> pjspe...@AOL.COM says...

> >>=20

> >>=20

> >>=20

> >> [....]

> >>=20

> >>=20

> >>=20

> >> >Dr. Humes claimed there was "no massive hemorrhage or oth=3D

> >>=20

> >> >er massive injury" to Kennedy's neck. Hmmm...

> >>=20

> >>=20

> >>=20

> >> So there was no massive hemorrage other massive injury to JFK's neck....s=

> >o=20

> >>=20

> >> what???????....there was damage there that clearly indicated where the=20

> >>=20

> >> bullet passed.

> >Only on the front of the neck...which could very well be why Specter lied i=

> >n the WCR and afterwards and pretended the strap muscles were on the back o=

> >f the neck.

> First of all the damage along the bullet's path was not limited to the

> front of the neck, e.g. air in the tissue, the bruising of the apex of the

> pleura and lund, the debris around C7/T1, and the fracture of the T1

> transverse process.

> Second, Specter was not medicall trained, he could have made a dumb

> mistake...he didn't necessarily lie. But I'm sure on your website you

> state as fact that he did lie about that...right?

> >> >Okay, you might be thinking, this was just the opinion of one of the aut=

> >ops=3D

> >>=20

> >> >ists, Dr. Humes. Perhaps Dr. Humes had missed something, and the other d=

> >oct=3D

> >>=20

> >> >ors disagreed and hadn't bothered to correct him. But this wasn't just H=

> >ume=3D

> >>=20

> >> >s' speaking for the others... In 1965, Dr. Finck wrote his superior, Gen=

> >era=3D

> >>=20

> >> >l Blumberg, and told him not only that "I examined the tracheotomy skin =

> >wou=3D

> >>=20

> >> >nd and the trachea and did not find evidence of a bullet wound," but tha=

> >t a=3D

> >>=20

> >> >ll three autopsists had examined the tracheotomy wound and that "None of=

> > us=3D

> >>=20

> >> > noticed a bullet wound along its course." Double hmmm...

> >>=20

> >>=20

> >>=20

> >> So weigh what Finck said in 1965 against what Humes told Specter only fou=

> >r=20

> >>=20

> >> months after the assassination: "...we saw that there was some bruising o=

> >f=20

> >>=20

> >> the muscles of the neck in the depths of this wound as well as laceration=

> >=20

> >>=20

> >> or defect in the trachea. [2WCH, p. 363]

> >>=20

> >>=20

> >>=20

> >> And that makes sense because both Perry and Carrico saw an injury to the=

> >=20

> >>=20

> >> trachea before Humes did. 7HSCA p. 300 & 301.

> >>=20

> >>=20

> >>=20

> >> Note that was not the only thing Finck said that made little sense. For=

> >=20

> >>=20

> >> example, he told the HSCA he couldn't recall whether or not Humes and=20

> >>=20

> >> Boswell had discovered the back wound, but that's silly and completely=20

> >>=20

> >> conflicts with, not only basic autopsy protocal (perform an external=20

> >>=20

> >> examination of the body first...and that happened before Finck arrived),=

> >=20

> >>=20

> >> but also what both Humes and Boswell stated. [Humes ARRB pp. 114-115,=20

> >>=20

> >> Boswell ARRB, p. 96].

> >>=20

> >>=20

> >>=20

> >> Also, Peters told Ben Bradlee of the Boston Globe (5/1/81) that almost as=

> >=20

> >>=20

> >> soon as the body arrived at Bethesda we found out about the back wound=20

> >>=20

> >> (phone calls between Bethesda and PH).

> >??? Peters?  He was at Parkland.

> And you advise me to read? No kidding, of course he was. But he told

> Bradlee that the PH docs were concerned the bullet came from the front and

> waited for a phone call from Bethesda that it came from the rear.

> Got it now?

> >> "The doctors first examined the entire body..." [Lipsey to the HSCA=20

> >>=20

> >> 1/18/78]

> >>=20

> >>=20

> >>=20

> >> >And to close the circle, when discussing the throat wound with the HSCA'=

> >s A=3D

> >>=20

> >> >ndy Purdy on August 17, 1977, Dr. Boswell is reported to have claimed he=

> > wa=3D

> >>=20

> >> >s "certain...no major blood vessel (was) damaged by the path of the miss=

> >ile=3D

> >>=20

> >> >."Triple hmmm...

> >>=20

> >>=20

> >>=20

> >> Earth to Speer...who's claiming there was "massive" damage??????

> >If a high velocity bullet had traversed Kennedy's neck, as claimed, there w=

> >ould have been major damage. Do the reading.

> What, read what experts say should happen when a bullet transits one's

> neck like that?

> While that may be interesting, what trumps all that is the actualy damage

> observed by those who treated of examined the body...and then also by

> those experts who examined the original X-rays.

> >> Note that Boswell heard and agreed with Humes' WC testimony in which he=

> >=20

> >>=20

> >> [Humes] said THEY saw a defect to the trachea.

> >>=20

> >>=20

> >>=20

> >> >When one considers that Dr. Charles Carrico, the emergency room doctor w=

> >ho =3D

> >>=20

> >> >first examined Kennedy, also noted only minor damage to his throat, tell=

> >ing=3D

> >>=20

> >> > the HSCA that he'd observed "some modest amount of hematoma in the rece=

> >sse=3D

> >>=20

> >> >s to the endo right of the trachea" and that Malcolm Perry, the Parkland=

> > su=3D

> >>=20

> >> >rgeon who performed Kennedy's tracheotomy, not only confirmed Carrico's =

> >con=3D

> >>=20

> >> >clusion there was little damage to the neck, but initially described the=

> > ex=3D

> >>=20

> >> >it wound as being only 3-5 mm wide--smaller than the bullets fired by Os=

> >wal=3D

> >>=20

> >> >d=3D92s rifle--well, then it becomes pretty darned clear that something =

> >is ju=3D

> >>=20

> >> >st wrong with the supposed single-bullet "fact". It just doesn't add up.=

> > Th=3D

> >>=20

> >> >e bullet creating Kennedy's throat wound--if it was a bullet--was almost=

> > ce=3D

> >>=20

> >> >rtainly not traveling at a high velocity.

> >>=20

> >>=20

> >>=20

> >> There obviously wasn't "massive" damage done along the wound track...but=

> >=20

> >>=20

> >> more than enough to easily reveal that path, e.g. the air in the tissue=

> >=20

> >>=20

> >> between the back and throat wounds,=20

> >??? This was observed by the Clark Panel. If true, it suggests a bullet cam=

> >e down the neck. Unfortunately, for them, the HSCA FPP determined that the =

> >back wound was the other direction. OOOPS.=20

> Ooops hell. Draw your silly proposed bullet (or skull fragement) path for

> us on a graphic showing a brain in a skull and its stem....We need a few

> laughs.

> You do not care about embarrassing yourself at all, do you Pat?

> >>the debris around C7/T1, and the=20

> >>=20

> >> fracture to the transverse process at T1, bruising to the apex of the=20

> >>=20

> >> pleura and lung, etc.

> >None of this connects the entrance on the back with the exit on the throat.

> Huh? How wacky is that?

> So where did the bullet come from that bruised the apex of the pleura and

> lung?

> >> >The more one digs, the clearer this becomes.

> >>=20

> >>=20

> >>=20

> >> Only if you're digging in the wrong holes or you cherry pick the record t=

> >o=20

> >>=20

> >> try to support your own theory.

> >>=20

> >>=20

> >>=20

> >> You should have read the entire record re. the medical evidence with an=

> >=20

> >>=20

> >> open mind before forming your theory...not the reverse.

> >Nonsense. I read the WC reports and testimony and the Clark Panel's report =

> >and the HSCA's reports long before I came to any conclusions. Unlike yourse=

> >lf, who'd written a book saying the HSCA was right and Oswald did it long b=

> >efore reading any of these reports.=20

> Excuse me...I read literally dozens of books, maybe even a hundred, before

> I wrote mine...but can we get back to your imaginary ficticious and

> shocking bullet path?

> Honestly, I just really want to see that bullet (or skull fragment) path

> shown for us on a diagram of a brain and stem in a skull..to include the

> neck.

> >> >Beyond testifying to his obser=3D

> >>=20

> > On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 1:51:09 PM UTC-8, John Canal wrote:

> >> In article <0c1e24f7-b65e-4ab6-bb85-8f98b2b43ccc@googlegroups.com>,

> >> pjspe...@AOL.COM says...

> >> [....]

> >>> Dr. Humes claimed there was "no massive hemorrhage or oth=

> >>> er massive injury" to Kennedy's neck. Hmmm...

> >> So there was no massive hemorrage other massive injury to JFK's neck....so

> >> what???????....there was damage there that clearly indicated where the

> >> bullet passed.

> > Only on the front of the neck...which could very well be why Specter lied in the WCR and afterwards and pretended the strap muscles were on the back of the neck.

> >>> Okay, you might be thinking, this was just the opinion of one of the autops=

> >>> ists, Dr. Humes. Perhaps Dr. Humes had missed something, and the other doct=

> >>> ors disagreed and hadn't bothered to correct him. But this wasn't just Hume=

> >>> s' speaking for the others... In 1965, Dr. Finck wrote his superior, Genera=

> >>> l Blumberg, and told him not only that "I examined the tracheotomy skin wou=

> >>> nd and the trachea and did not find evidence of a bullet wound," but that a=

> >>> ll three autopsists had examined the tracheotomy wound and that "None of us=

> >>> noticed a bullet wound along its course." Double hmmm...

> >> So weigh what Finck said in 1965 against what Humes told Specter only four

> >> months after the assassination: "...we saw that there was some bruising of

> >> the muscles of the neck in the depths of this wound as well as laceration

> >> or defect in the trachea. [2WCH, p. 363]

> >> And that makes sense because both Perry and Carrico saw an injury to the

> >> trachea before Humes did. 7HSCA p. 300 & 301.

> >> Note that was not the only thing Finck said that made little sense. For

> >> example, he told the HSCA he couldn't recall whether or not Humes and

> >> Boswell had discovered the back wound, but that's silly and completely

> >> conflicts with, not only basic autopsy protocal (perform an external

> >> examination of the body first...and that happened before Finck arrived),

> >> but also what both Humes and Boswell stated. [Humes ARRB pp. 114-115,

> >> Boswell ARRB, p. 96].

> >> Also, Peters told Ben Bradlee of the Boston Globe (5/1/81) that almost as

> >> soon as the body arrived at Bethesda we found out about the back wound

> >> (phone calls between Bethesda and PH).

> > ??? Peters?  He was at Parkland.

> >> "The doctors first examined the entire body..." [Lipsey to the HSCA

> >> 1/18/78]

> >>> And to close the circle, when discussing the throat wound with the HSCA's A=

> >>> ndy Purdy on August 17, 1977, Dr. Boswell is reported to have claimed he wa=

> >>> s "certain...no major blood vessel (was) damaged by the path of the missile=

> >>> ."Triple hmmm...

> >> Earth to Speer...who's claiming there was "massive" damage??????

> > If a high velocity bullet had traversed Kennedy's neck, as claimed, there would have been major damage. Do the reading.

> There was no high velocity bullet fired.

> >> Note that Boswell heard and agreed with Humes' WC testimony in which he

> >> [Humes] said THEY saw a defect to the trachea.

> >>> When one considers that Dr. Charles Carrico, the emergency room doctor who =

> >>> first examined Kennedy, also noted only minor damage to his throat, telling=

> >>> the HSCA that he'd observed "some modest amount of hematoma in the recesse=

> >>> s to the endo right of the trachea" and that Malcolm Perry, the Parkland su=

> >>> rgeon who performed Kennedy's tracheotomy, not only confirmed Carrico's con=

> >>> clusion there was little damage to the neck, but initially described the ex=

> >>> it wound as being only 3-5 mm wide--smaller than the bullets fired by Oswal=

> >>> d=92s rifle--well, then it becomes pretty darned clear that something is ju=

> >>> st wrong with the supposed single-bullet "fact". It just doesn't add up. Th=

> >>> e bullet creating Kennedy's throat wound--if it was a bullet--was almost ce=

> >>> rtainly not traveling at a high velocity.

> >> There obviously wasn't "massive" damage done along the wound track...but

> >> more than enough to easily reveal that path, e.g. the air in the tissue

> >> between the back and throat wounds,

> > ??? This was observed by the Clark Panel. If true, it suggests a bullet came down the neck. Unfortunately, for them, the HSCA FPP determined that the back wound was the other direction. OOOPS.

> >> the debris around C7/T1, and the

> >> fracture to the transverse process at T1, bruising to the apex of the

> >> pleura and lung, etc.

> > None of this connects the entrance on the back with the exit on the throat.

> >>> The more one digs, the clearer this becomes.

> >> Only if you're digging in the wrong holes or you cherry pick the record to

> >> try to support your own theory.

> >> You should have read the entire record re. the medical evidence with an

> >> open mind before forming your theory...not the reverse.

> > Nonsense. I read the WC reports and testimony and the Clark Panel's report and the HSCA's reports long before I came to any conclusions. Unlike yourself, who'd written a book saying the HSCA was right and Oswald did it long before reading any of these reports.

> >>> Beyond testifying to his obser=

> >>> ving a small hole in the throat, and a lack of damage to the blood vessels,=

> >>> Dr. Perry told the Warren Commission that, before it was obscured by a tra=

> >>> cheotomy incision, he had observed a =93small ragged laceration of the trac=

> >>> hea on the anterior lateral right side.=94 A small laceration.=20

> >>> He later specified just how small. In 1978, when contacted by the HSCA and =

> >>> interviewed by its counsel Andy Purdy, he claimed that the laceration "was =

> >>> on the right side of the trachea, and that it was incomplete, and I don't r=

> >>> emember whether it was a third or a quarter of the circumference..."=20

> >>> As you might have guessed, this makes little sense should Kennedy have actu=

> >>> ally been hit by a high-velocity bullet. According to Dr. D.F.N. Dixon in M=

> >>> anagement of Gunshot Wounds, =93Direct impact on larynx or trachea from bul=

> >>> lets fired from high velocity military rifles or carbines will produce seve=

> >>> re damage from their high kinetic energy, tumbling, or cavitation effect.=

> >>> =94  Furthermore, Dr.s Kenneth and Roy Swan in their book Gunshot Wounds: P=

> >>> athophysiology and Management note that "Gunshot injuries of the larynx and=

> >>> trachea are infrequently seen in emergency rooms" due to such injuries usu=

> >>> ally being associated with "fatal exsanguination (bleeding) from injured co=

> >>> mmon carotid arteries and internal jugular veins." =20

> >> So Perry, Carrico, and Humes lied or collectively misremembered?

> > About what? The hole in the throat? Of course not, Perry later wrote an article about gunshot wounds supporting that a high-velocity bullet would have damaged the vessels in Kennedy's neck. It was in a book edited by...Carrico.

> >> News flash to Speer...what they saw on the body trumps in spades what is

> >> written in text books or even in the record regarding victims shot with

> >> other rifles and/or ammo.

> > News flash to Canal...I have not disputed anyone's observations...

> >> Bullet wounds are like snowflakes, no two are 100% indentical.

> > So why write books about them?

> >> [...]

> >> John Canal

> >> --

> >> John Canal

> >> jca...@webtv.net

> That's a CT myth. The medical literature of the time separated bullets
> into two categories, not three, and the M/C bullet fell into the high
> velocity bracket. Many if not most of today's medical books continue to
> present bullets of its approximate velocity as high velocity.