Plausibility & Ramifications of a Throat Wound?

[ThomZajac]

Yes, many, many times. Was it you who posted it here a few months ago? I like it very much and think Gil makes a great case for the first shot striking JFK in the front of the throat.Why do you think JFK was struck from the rear as well? I realize that we Liftonites are in the minority on therehaving been no shots striking JFK from behind, but I am curious what evidence you find compelling to support the majority view.

[ThomZajac]

steve manning wrote:Dealey Joe wrote:If there was in fact a throat wound I think it was a shrapnel wound.and if there was a second shot from the front it most likely came from the street drain which might explain the damage to the windsheild?Hey Joe,The storm drain theory has been debunked for some time now; I realize Gary Mack has no credibility on this forum, and I'm not sure he should? All questions about his personal views aside, even he had the good sense to place a camera in the drain to reveal the view from there. A shooter couldn't see far enough down the street to make such a shot, particularly prior to the Stemmons freeway sign where JFK was first hit.Did you watch the Youtube videos in my first post? The trajectory of the windsheild hole and the neck wound obviously traces back via a certain trajectory, which apparently is best fit by the south knoll (I've never been there). Check it out if you haven't yet.SteveI'm not so sure I agree with the statement that the storm drain theory has been debunked FOR the fatal head shot, True, prior to that moment such a shot would have been impossible, but the view would have been excellent for the fatal head shot- and maybe that is why it didn't come sooner. Perfect escape route- and many witnesses said one of shots sounded as if it were fired from inside a cannon, or some such thing. Thomas (can't remember his last name) the photo expert who worked with Jack White for a while certainly believed the fatal head shot came from the drain (he's on a segment of the Men Who Killed Kennedy). Doesn't seem to me that you can safely rule it out.

[kenmurray]

Gil Jesus was on Black Op Radio tonight. Although he didn't talk about the throat wound, he did talk about his thesis on why Oswald never got any legal representation while in custody. The archive show should be up by saturday. Gil is a great researcher and has compiled well over 200 videos on his you tube channel:http://www.youtube.com/GJJdude

[steve manning]

ThomZajac wrote:Yes, many, many times. Was it you who posted it here a few months ago? I like it very much and think Gil makes a great case for the first shot striking JFK in the front of the throat.Why do you think JFK was struck from the rear as well? I realize that we Liftonites are in the minority on therehaving been no shots striking JFK from behind, but I am curious what evidence you find compelling to support the majority view.Wim and I agree on this part at least; the film shows him thrust forward as his arms flail about. I don't think that was all just a result of the throat shot. The secret service drivers both claim JFK said "I'm hit" and I might be wrong but I doubt he could have said that after a throat hit (assuming of course he really even said that to begin with?). Anyway, among all the things they must have done to alter his body, I tend to believe that firing a shot into his back might have been too messy? We know there were shooters back there, the target was moving away from them, so if they missed, theres a good chance it would have been low. Also, the first shot typically is referred to as a fire cracker, and I've always kind of thought it was a miss fire of some kind, perhaps from a piece of shit Manlicar Carcano? Perhaps this is why that wound was less than an inch deep...which might be a little suspicious for a planted wound, only being that deep.ThanksSteve

[steve manning]

ThomZajac wrote:steve manning wrote:Dealey Joe wrote:If there was in fact a throat wound I think it was a shrapnel wound.and if there was a second shot from the front it most likely came from the street drain which might explain the damage to the windsheild?Hey Joe,The storm drain theory has been debunked for some time now; I realize Gary Mack has no credibility on this forum, and I'm not sure he should? All questions about his personal views aside, even he had the good sense to place a camera in the drain to reveal the view from there. A shooter couldn't see far enough down the street to make such a shot, particularly prior to the Stemmons freeway sign where JFK was first hit.Did you watch the Youtube videos in my first post? The trajectory of the windsheild hole and the neck wound obviously traces back via a certain trajectory, which apparently is best fit by the south knoll (I've never been there). Check it out if you haven't yet.SteveI'm not so sure I agree with the statement that the storm drain theory has been debunked FOR the fatal head shot, True, prior to that moment such a shot would have been impossible, but the view would have been excellent for the fatal head shot- and maybe that is why it didn't come sooner. Perfect escape route- and many witnesses said one of shots sounded as if it were fired from inside a cannon, or some such thing. Thomas (can't remember his last name) the photo expert who worked with Jack White for a while certainly believed the fatal head shot came from the drain (he's on a segment of the Men Who Killed Kennedy). Doesn't seem to me that you can safely rule it out.Sorry Joe, didn't realize you were talking about the head shot. Now that you mention it, I actually have problems with the trajectory of that shot even from behind the picket fence. While I think the drain would help with the lateral angle, I'm not sure how it would work from the ground up to JFK's head...never been there? Perhaps theres something to it.ThanksSteve

[steve manning]

Dealey Joe wrote:If there was in fact a throat wound I think it was a shrapnel wound.and if there was a second shot from the front it most likely came from the street drain which might explain the damage to the windsheild?Hey Joe,On that shrapnel concept, I've gave that quite a bit of consideration and find myself leaning away from it mainly because those doctors at Parkland knew what they were talking about when it came to gunshot wounds. Think about it, they live in Dallas TX, and spotting an entry wound without confusing it with another type of wound was just normal everyday business for them. I'm sure you're familiar with all their testimony...anyway, that is my two cents worth on that.Steve

[Dealey Joe]

The reason for my thinking shrapnel is if it was actually a whole bullet I think there would be an exit wound and his neck would have been shattered? Just don't seem to show the kind of dammage a bullet would produce. It looked like it most likely one of the first shots.

[ThomZajac]

According to Lifton, the bullet for the neck wound did not exit; it descended down his throat into the right lung region where Humes noted bruising. It was removed prior to autopsy (not at Parkland), which would explain why the throat wound drew so much in size since leaving Parkland. No bullets were found anywhere inside the president's body at autopsy.

[neab]

Good thread, im surprised some of you give any credit to the shot from the drain, i mean seriously. It's not even lined up well for the head shot. Been debunked everywhere I've read.

[steve manning]

ThomZajac wrote:According to Lifton, the bullet for the neck wound did not exit; it descended down his throat into the right lung region where Humes noted bruising. It was removed prior to autopsy (not at Parkland), which would explain why the throat wound drew so much in size since leaving Parkland. No bullets were found anywhere inside the president's body at autopsy. Hi Thom,I am aware of Liftons position about the neck shot, and I do agree. I also knew about the lack of lead at the "offical autopsy;" we'll stay away from the topic of the pre-autopsy for now. The only problem I might have with the downward deflection of the bullet would be if we could corroberate the pathologist/mortician who tracked the neck wound from inside the skull. In fact, I'm not sure Humes notes on this were even corroberated? But if we could corrobarate either, that is the direction I would be inclined to believe the bullet must have defected. If it was the brain, the bullet would have been removed (along with the brain) during the pre-autopsy. Furthemore, bruising in the lung could have been caused by other things; such as a round in the back, etc. Besides, I would give little credibility to Humes findings anyway. He really wasn't very qualified to make a call like that, considering the overall situation. I failed to mention previously, that I've read iftons book twice, and a few of the chapters several times over the years. We might start another thread about Lifton, but suffice it to say, my confidence in his work has been shaken...especially the basis of his reasoning for claiming the casket was left unattended in Air Force One, which supposedly left enough time for the body to be removed from the casket. He never followed through with his fact checking and based the hypothesis on the uncorroberated statements of someone else. He was confronted about it and recanted the speculation offered in his book. He had 15 years to check that out and failed to do so. Thanks for the feedback Thom!Steve