[Ben Holmes]

The SBT absolutely requires that a bullet transited JFK's body.

The evidence has always been against this medical speculation. A speculation that according to testimony, was arrived at the following day, after Dr. Humes spoke with Dr. Perry. The following evidence argues against transit:

• The depth of the wound.
  
• The location of the wound.
  
• The missing interior chest photo.
  
• The original description of the throat wound.
  
• The original autopsy describing a different explanation for the throat wound. (Rankin)
  
• The size of the wound in comparison to it's supposed "exit".
  
• The complete lack of any metal found on the front of the shirt & tie.
  
• The missing report & testimony of Stombaugh.
  
• The earliest attempts to explain the frontal shot (Life Magazine, Mandel's article)

Believers are forced to base their theory on speculation supported only by more speculation, and not based on actual evidence.

[Patrick C]

How do you account for the bruising Ben......?


Myers....

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2.htm">http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2.htm</a><!-- m -->

"The autopsy pathologists ultimately determined that the bullet had entered the back, passed between the muscles of the upper back and neck, crossed over the top of the right lung, and exited at the throat just below the Adams apple. (2H363) The pathologists cited some bruising of the muscles on the right side of the neck, a bruising of the pleura cavity (encompassing the right lung), and a wedge shaped bruise (approximately 2 inches in diameter) on the upper portion of the right lung as evidence of the bullet's path. (2H363) The point of exit was also located on the computer model representing JFK's body."

[Garry Puffer]

Patrick C Wrote:How do you account for the bruising Ben......?


Myers....

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2.htm">http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2.htm</a><!-- m -->

"The autopsy pathologists ultimately determined that the bullet had entered the back, passed between the muscles of the upper back and neck, crossed over the top of the right lung, and exited at the throat just below the Adams apple. (2H363) The pathologists cited some bruising of the muscles on the right side of the neck, a bruising of the pleura cavity (encompassing the right lung), and a wedge shaped bruise (approximately 2 inches in diameter) on the upper portion of the right lung as evidence of the bullet's path. (2H363) The point of exit was also located on the computer model representing JFK's body."

Hilarious. Go to the site linked above and see where Myers puts JFK's back entrance wound. GIGO. I'd reproduce it here, but Myers won't allow use of his images.

I might point out that the following statement is completely false. The autopsy could not have determined any such thing. It may SAY this in the report, and the HSCA may have written this, but the autopsy work that would determine this was not done. Therefore, the statement is sheer speculation.

STATEMENT:
"The autopsy pathologists ultimately determined that the bullet had entered the back, passed between the muscles of the upper back and neck, crossed over the top of the right lung, and exited at the throat just below the Adams apple."

I appreciate Patrick's effort in providing a citation for his claim, but I hope in future that he can do better than this.

Here is a photo showing essentially what the Myers diagram shows, except in this one we can see by the mark on the suit jacket where the back shot actually entered, so the song and dance with the neck location is quite apparent.


  bullet_path_7.jpg (Size: 7.6 KB / Downloads: 237)

And here's another. You can see how blatant the cheating is concerning the entry point.


  pufflogo2.gif (Size: 12.61 KB / Downloads: 209)


  SBT path.jpg (Size: 23.46 KB / Downloads: 231)

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:How do you account for the bruising Ben......?

Since the only corroboration for this bruise disappeared while under government control, it's reasonable to presume that there was a REASON for it's disappearance.

The logical reason was that the interior chest photo made clear that no bullet had transited.

The bruising would be accounted for by THE ORIGINAL THINKING OF THE PARKLAND DOCTORS - that the bullet entering the throat had ranged downward and not exited.

See how easy that was?

A "bruise" can equally be caused by a bullet traveling in one direction as the other direction.

Now, would you like to address the evidence that there was no transit?

Here's the list again:

• The depth of the wound.
  
• The location of the wound.
  
• The missing interior chest photo.
  
• The original description of the throat wound.
  
• The original autopsy describing a different explanation for the throat wound. (Rankin)
  
• The size of the wound in comparison to it's supposed "exit".
  
• The complete lack of any metal found on the front of the shirt & tie.
  
• The missing report & testimony of Stombaugh.
  
• The earliest attempts to explain the frontal shot (Life Magazine, Mandel's article)

[Patrick C]

There is a persuasive argument ref the shirt fibres that they are pointing out to the front around the hole....

I am persuaded by the tie nicks as well, I probably dont by that a scalpel cut the tie in the knot area.....I am convinced the damage was from an exiting bullet.

Again, all the above require represent and astonishing outcome - far simpler is a bullet strikes the back and transits.

Yes the autopsy doctors would have described the throat wound as a trach because they did not know about the bullet wound until they spoke with Perry in Dallas - I cannot recall the time on Saturday ref that - around 0800 perhaps...?

Dr Gary Aguilar

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm">http://www.history-matters.com/essays/j ... ong_1a.htm</a><!-- m -->

"Despite wide press coverage about it on the day of the murder, the pathologists said that when they began the autopsy later that night, they were completely in the dark that JFK had sustained a throat wound. They said they only learned of it the next day when one of the Dallas doctors told Humes during a phone conversation that he had enlarged a small wound in JFK’s throat in the emergency room in order to insert a tracheotomy tube to help JFK breathe."

I have no issue with the size of the neck wound - it was a shored wound by nature - see Lattimer of course.

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:There is a persuasive argument ref the shirt fibres that they are pointing out to the front around the hole....

That's not a position a person can reasonably hold. Frazier made it quite clear that he could NOT testify to that.

Quote:Mr. FRAZIER - In each instance for these holes, the one through the button line and the one through the buttonhole line, the hole amounts to a ragged slit approximately one-half inch in height. It is oriented vertically, and the fibers of the cloth are protruding outward, that is, have been pushed from the inside out. I could not actually determine from the characteristics of the hole whether or not it was caused by a bullet. However, I can say that it was caused by a projectile of some type which exited from the shirt at that point and that is again assuming that when I first examined the shirt it was--it had not been altered from the condition it was in at the time the hole was made.
Mr. SPECTER - What characteristics differ between the hole in the rear of the shirt and the holes in the front of the shirt which lead you to conclude that the hole in the rear of the shirt was caused by a bullet but which are absent as to the holes in the front of the shirt?
Mr. FRAZIER - The hole in the front of the shirt does not have the round characteristic shape caused by a round bullet entering cloth. It is an irregular slit. It could have been caused by a round bullet, however, since the cloth could have torn in a long slitlike way as the bullet passed through it. But that is not specifically characteristic of a bullethole to the extent that you could say it was to the exclusion of being a piece of bone or some other type of projectile.

Frazier would have been an even weaker witness had he faced any cross-examination. It's clear even from this quote that he was covering himself in case any further evidence came out.

He also admitted that the front of the shirt & the tie had no metal fragments found in it, in contradiction to the back...

And, as I'm sure you know, Dr. Carrico stated that the wound was ABOVE the tie.

A reasonable person would look at this FOREST of evidence, and avoid your conclusion you base on a witness who refused to confidently state anything for the record.

Patrick C Wrote:I am persuaded by the tie nicks as well, I probably dont by that a scalpel cut the tie in the knot area.....I am convinced the damage was from an exiting bullet.

Despite all the contradicting evidence... you are "convinced". I do appreciate that you're willing to list the evidence that "convinces" you... that allows readers to draw their own conclusions.

And despite Frazier's testimony that the nick was on the side, the only photo I know of shows it solidly in the FRONT of the tie.

Patrick C Wrote:Again, all the above require represent and astonishing outcome - far simpler is a bullet strikes the back and transits.

Yet amazingly, leaves all this evidence of a non-transit... Evidence that you simply discount or refuse to address.

Here's the list again:

• The depth of the wound.
  
• The location of the wound.
  
• The missing interior chest photo.
  
• The original description of the throat wound.
  
• The original autopsy describing a different explanation for the throat wound. (Rankin)
  
• The size of the wound in comparison to it's supposed "exit".
  
• The complete lack of any metal found on the front of the shirt & tie.
  
• The missing report & testimony of Stombaugh.
  
• The earliest attempts to explain the frontal shot (Life Magazine, Mandel's article)

Patrick C Wrote:Yes the autopsy doctors would have described the throat wound as a trach because they did not know about the bullet wound until they spoke with Perry in Dallas - I cannot recall the time on Saturday ref that - around 0800 perhaps...?

And has nothing to do with the historical fact that they were forbidden from dissecting that wound? Or the path of the wound?

Quote:Despite wide press coverage about it on the day of the murder, the pathologists said that when they began the autopsy later that night, they were completely in the dark that JFK had sustained a throat wound. They said they only learned of it the next day when one of the Dallas doctors told Humes during a phone conversation that he had enlarged a small wound in JFK’s throat in the emergency room in order to insert a tracheotomy tube to help JFK breathe.

This is just one of those things that takes the faith of a believer to believe... despite the evidence to the contrary.

Patrick C Wrote:I have no issue with the size of the neck wound - it was a shored wound by nature - see Lattimer of course.

Yet again another example of the faith of a believer. Something that in over 50 years, no believer has ever demonstrated.

[Patrick C]

Yes of course I am convinced! Even if the fibre analysis cannot prove the bullet exited the shirt and tie material....

The bullet enters the back at approx 2000ft per second, does not strike the spine and so it WILL exit. Said bullet was fired from Oswald's Carcano the exclusion of all other weapons. No other weapons were found and no other gunman was seen to the rear other than the man in the 6th floor window. It is pretty simple really.

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:Yes of course I am convinced! Even if the fibre analysis cannot prove the bullet exited the shirt and tie material....

This is evidence that there was no bullet... it's not a lack of evidence for one. I'm amused that you'd try to twist this evidence... sort the same way that the DPD duped the public on the paraffin test.

A good defense counsel would have asked ballistics experts to simply duplicate such a shot, and see how much metal was left at the outshoot. The Warren Commission didn't dare try this - since it wasn't the truth that they were after, but the framing of a patsy.

Patrick C Wrote:The bullet enters the back at approx 2000ft per second, does not strike the spine and so it WILL exit. Said bullet was fired from Oswald's Carcano the exclusion of all other weapons. No other weapons were found and no other gunman was seen to the rear other than the man in the 6th floor window. It is pretty simple really.

Speculation always is.

I note for the record that you kept quite silent on the points I raised in the previous post... such as explaining why the prosectors were forbidden from dissecting the path of the bullet.

You also speculated yet again on the rifle & bullet velocity, despite the fact that you've been unable to demonstrate any evidence AT ALL that only the Mannlicher Carcano was fired from behind.

[Patrick C]

Ben Holmes Wrote:I note for the record that you kept quite silent on the points I raised in the previous post...

Nothing deliberate there Ben, I am not avoiding the points. I have limited time in the week and I simply pick the areas of interest to me AND try and introduce something NEW....as per the snippet from Martin today which I thought was rather interesting....more than half the ER deductions on gun shots are wrong.....

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:I note for the record that you kept quite silent on the points I raised in the previous post...

Nothing deliberate there Ben, I am not avoiding the points. I have limited time in the week and I simply pick the areas of interest to me AND try and introduce something NEW....as per the snippet from Martin today which I thought was rather interesting....more than half the ER deductions on gun shots are wrong.....

This is actually quite frequently the case... I can answer ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING you post on this case... yet believers cannot do the same with my posts...

Or Mark Lane - to quote merely one example...

I've posted nearly his entire book, "Rush To Judgment" - and got a handful of responses... which means, of course; that no believer had enough faith in his own case to be able to take on what Mark Lane wrote so long ago...

And if you can't handle material from the mid-60's - you have no chance at all against someone familiar with the Clark Panel, HSCA, and ARRB...

(Then I often hear believers complaining that I'm raising old topics again... despite their inability to cite any credible refutation...)