JFK RFK MLK Assassination Forum

If the trach was done at Parkland and no photo's taken there then this picture is a fake.That hole does not look large enough for a trach do you think?I am sorry to be such a pain but this bugs me.guess being lied to so much makes me skepticalthanks again for your help.

"If the trach was done at Parkland and no photo's taken there then this picture is a fake."I'm not 100% sure that no photos were taken at Parkland. If none were, it would seem the photo is a fake, but I'd sure like to know more about it."That hole does not look large enough for a trach do you think?"Tracheotomy holes are very small, just large enough to insert a small tube. Half to three quarter inch diameter is the usual if I remember correctly."I am sorry to be such a pain but this bugs me.guess being lied to so much makes me skepticalthanks again for your help."Well, when it comes to this stuff it makes great sense to be skeptical- from all perspectives. I don't think, though, that Gil Jesus would be purposely misleading, and the photo is not central to his case- in fact, it is irrelevant. No one disputes that JFK had a small wound in his throat when brought to Parkland and that a tracheotomy was performed there. The dispute regards whether that small wound was one of entry or exit, and the odd photo in question does not provide any (false) evidence one way or the other. My guess is that Jesus was just sloppy in looking for something to show the smallness of the wound.

I do not know Gil Jesus. have only heard of him recently.I understand that he is on the same side we are. but I see no evidence of what he is claiming.I also know that the Dr.s at Parkland say there was a throat wound.I am not sure what the explanation actually is.Joe

Hey Joe,Regardless of the photo Jesus shows, I didn't for one second think his thesis was based on the photo...I noticed it but didn't give it any weight in my thought process at all. To be honest, I recall thinking he perhaps touched it up himself just to demonstrate what it must have looked like hypothetically; which I'm sure is close to accurate anyway. The thesis is based primarily (but not exclusively) on the uniform testimony of all the Parkland Doctors. I'm a historian myself; both Biblical and non-biblical. I have studied the science of hermenutics (the science of interpreting historical evidence)...and one thing I've learned about studying historical evidence and testimony is that if it's based on a close proximity in time (particularly by multiple people 20 doctors within just a few minutes of the event) to an historical event, such testimony is much more valuable, and should be given considerably more weight. Furthermore, when you consider the Doctors training and background in gunshot wounds, their testimony should be given the utmost consideration. Again, the Doctors at Parkland Hospital had estensive experience with gunshot wounds and their observations should be heeded very very closely, especially when they are so uniform. Please don't take this the wrong way, and pardon me for suggesting, but it seems like you're having a little difficulty keeping all the various segments of information straight in your thinking? Believe me this is understandable, I've been thinking about this for 46 years and still catch myself looking through tinted lenses when examining all the evidence! This is obviously a complicated case; and for what it might be worth, I formulated this position long before I ever saw the photo in question; I still don't know where it came from and don't really care. In terms of the position on the throat wound, there is, much weightier evidence to be considered; again the Parkland Doctors. Hope this helps.Thanks Steve

Thanks Steve, no offence taken. it takes different inputs of knowledge to come to logical conclusions. since I am not a trained professional historian or investigator I have to fly by the seat of my pants and from gut fealings ocasionally and go from what I see. I usually ignore or suspect most of what I hear.I have to depend on you other reaserchers to keep me in line on the facts.can we find any pictures of JFK's body from Parkland?I do not accept as truth the doctored photos of JFK's head wounds.Therefore I have the same problem accepting another doctored one as evidence.I see enough testinony to beleive there was some sort of throat wound.I know Gil beleives what he is saying but he does not convince me that he has enough factsto make it a probability.Another aspect is that beeing in Dealey Plaza almost on a monthly basis I cannotbeleive that there was a second shooter from the front.philosophys does not put a shooter there but facts might.Thanks again for your input.Joe

The whole autopsy and medical traject off the body was as we know now, the most bizar and unbelieveble part off the whole case.I have lately watched a lot off old vhs material about the autopsy and i must sadly conclud that this part is an even greater feak than all other parts off the conspiracyDoctor,s can be magnificient crooks Most rumours talk about an entry wound in the throath even prominent names but this again conflicts with some other important aspects .

if he used a retouched photo, he should have announced it rather than trying to pass it off as an original. it only decreases his credibility even if he is correct in his philosophy.

On the "OSWALD" thread on this forum they are using another video of Mr. Jesustalking about two Carcano's. he is comparing the gun suposedly found in the TSBDto the photo of LHO holding a different rifle. Guess he has not heard about the fake picture there either?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq25loEpBroGil seems so sincere about his findings but don't seem to get all his ducks in a row.

tom jeffers wrote:if he used a retouched photo, he should have announced it rather than trying to pass it off as an original. it only decreases his credibility even if he is correct in his philosophy.I was thinking the exact same thing, I was going to try and google him to see if he could be asked what the deal was. He did such other great work Im inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt for the time being. I dont place any weight on it anyway. Good point nonetheless!Steve

ThomZajac wrote:Perhaps we can find out the origin of the photo Jesus used. More importantly, I don't see how the photo matters all that much anyway; No one disputes the size of the original wound.Touche' another great point Tom!Steve