+- Forums (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com)
+-- Forum: Main JFK Forums (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Forum-Main-JFK-Forums)
+--- Forum: JFK Conspiracy Main Forum (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Forum-JFK-Conspiracy-Main-Forum)
+--- Thread: Throat Wound (/Thread-Throat-Wound)
Re: Throat Wound - Patrick C - 06-07-2016
Is this storm drain on Elm St or over to Main...?
Is there a line of fire to JFK's neck from such a low location.......?
[attachment=3]
Re: Throat Wound - Patrick C - 06-07-2016
"Neither is it based on conjecture."
Perry did not have the means nor time to determine if the anterior neck wound was an entry. He made what was effectively an educated guess which he later regretted. You have seen his TV interviews.
The wound could have been either entry or exit or words to that effect.
"Only by the wildest of imagination can the opinions of medical doctors on a medical issue be labeled "conjecture"."
Ref Perry in Trauma 1, I totally disagree.
"Indeed! Why would anyone make up the fact that the earliest opinion based totally and only on what the doctors saw was mere "conjecture?"....."
The doctors did not examine the entry wound to determine the precise nature of the wound ref shot direction. Perry is on record as stating he never thought about obliterating an existing wound - he just did the trach as required.
"Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, and Dr. Finck would not agree with you on the location of the large head wound. So what?"
Sorry you are talking double Dutch there, I have no clue what you mean. I accept that the head wound is where the autopsy report puts it over which there is no disagreement. Bullet entry yes - that seems to be less clear.
Re: Throat Wound - Ben Holmes - 06-07-2016
Patrick C Wrote:"Neither is it based on conjecture."
Perry did not have the means nor time to determine if the anterior neck wound was an entry. He made what was effectively an educated guess which he later regretted. You have seen his TV interviews.
The wound could have been either entry or exit or words to that effect.
This was AFTER the massive intimidation of the Parkland doctors... The EARLIEST opinion was that the throat wound was an entry wound. Henry Sienzant even went so far as to blatantly lie on this point - claiming that they'd stated it could have been either an entry or exit at the Parkland Press Conference.
But this simply isn't true.
The Parkland doctors were "convinced" that their opinion was incorrect on the basis of an Autopsy Report THAT NEVER DISSECTED OR EVEN KNEW ABOUT the throat wound during the autopsy.
That's a fact.
One that you cannot get around.
Quote:Only by the wildest of imagination can the opinions of medical doctors on a medical issue be labeled "conjecture". Indeed! Why would anyone make up the fact that the earliest opinion based totally and only on what the doctors saw was mere "conjecture?"
Absolutely true.
Patrick C Wrote:The doctors did not examine the entry wound to determine the precise nature of the wound ref shot direction. Perry is on record as stating he never thought about obliterating an existing wound - he just did the trach as required.
The prosectors never knew about the bullet wound in the throat. Shot direction can also be determined by the appearance of the wound.
Ben Holmes Wrote:Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, and Dr. Finck would not agree with you on the location of the large head wound. So what?
Patrick C Wrote:Sorry you are talking double Dutch there, I have no clue what you mean. I accept that the head wound is where the autopsy report puts it over which there is no disagreement. Bullet entry yes - that seems to be less clear.
It's quite simple. You made an argument that I disagreed with other critics:
Patrick C Wrote:Tony Summers would not agree with you, nor would Henry Hurt and nor would Mary Ferrell to name but three heavy weight researchers.
I merely pointed out that this isn't unusual at all - and indeed, YOU are 'guilty' of the same thing - against far more credible and knowledgeable witnesses.
If you'll quote the entire post you're responding to - it would have been obvious what I meant.
Re: Throat Wound - Ben Holmes - 06-07-2016
Patrick C Wrote:Is this storm drain on Elm St or over to Main...?
Is there a line of fire to JFK's neck from such a low location.......?
Drains DP .jpg
Was it your intention to misplace the limo so dramatically? Why not redo this graphic, with the limo placed where the frontal shot was actually made?
Re: Throat Wound - Patrick C - 06-07-2016
Ben Holmes Wrote:Was it your intention to misplace the limo so dramatically?
Not interested in the limo ref that pic and NO - I wanted to ask which storm drain you believed the picture you posted was....
Re: Throat Wound - Patrick C - 06-07-2016
PC "The wound could have been either entry or exit or words to that effect."
BH "This was AFTER the massive intimidation of the Parkland doctors... The EARLIEST opinion was that the throat wound was an entry wound. Henry Sienzant even went so far as to blatantly lie on this point - claiming that they'd stated it could have been either an entry or exit at the Parkland Press Conference.
But this simply isn't true.
The Parkland doctors were "convinced" that their opinion was incorrect on the basis of an Autopsy Report THAT NEVER DISSECTED OR EVEN KNEW ABOUT the throat wound during the autopsy.
That's a fact.
One that you cannot get around."
Perry stated later that he regretted making what was after all a rash judgement...you can't be certain of that wound being an entry in the trauma room situation. Any reliable surgeon would tell you that.
Perry was not bullied. There was no frontal entry to be bullied about.
So the neck wound as an entry for me is a NON STARTER....always has been. It is truly a big a red herring as the Phantom GK Gunman.......
Why on earth you guys can't position some sensible simple rear sourced shot scenario is utterly astonishing.
Re: Throat Wound - Garry Puffer - 06-07-2016
Patrick C Wrote:Perry was not bullied. There was no frontal entry to be bullied about.
From <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.conspiracy.jfk/NeDdFbUyJNQ">https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... eDdFbUyJNQ</a><!-- m -->
"A graduate student, James Gochenaur, revealed to both the Church Committee
and to the HSCA in the mid-1970s that Secret Service Agent Elmer Moore had
confessed to him in 1970 that he had "leaned on Dr. Perry" shortly after
the Bethesda autopsy to get him to stop describing the bullet wound in
President Kennedy's throat as an entrance wound. (The Bethesda autopsy
report concluded it was an exit wound.) According to Gochenaur, Moore also
told him that the Secret Service had to investigate the assassination in an
expected, predetermined way or they would "get their heads chopped off."
Moore, unfortunately, also told Gochenaur that sometimes he thought
President Kennedy was "a traitor" because he was "giving things away to the
Russians."
[According to Arlen Specter, this same Elmer Moore was present when Chief
Justice Warren, Gerald Ford, and he interviewed Jack Ruby in Dallas; and
Arlen Specter also revealed in 2003 (at a conference in Pittsburgh) that
Elmer Moore was the Secret Service Agent who showed him an undocumented
photograph of President Kennedy's back wound during the May 1964
re-enactment of the Dallas motorcade conducted by the Warren Commission.]
Unfortunately, after Federal officials at Bethesda (on November 22-23,
1963) and Elmer Moore (between November 29-December 11, 1963) "leaned on"
Dr. Perry, he spent the remainder of his life straddling the fence and
saying that the bullet wound in JFK's throat "could have been either" an
entrance or an exit wound.
But that is not what he said on the afternoon of the assassination, before
there was an official explanation for the crime to fall in line with.
White House Transcript 1327-C makes that very clear, as I reveal in my
book, in Chapters 7 and 9.
Former Chief Operating Room nurse Audrey Bell related to me in 1997 that
Dr. Perry was in a state of torment on November 23, 1963, after being
pressured by Federal officials all night long to change his mind, because,
as he put it, "my professional credibility is at stake." Sadly, he appears
to have decided for the remainder of his life that discretion was the
better part of valor."
Re: Throat Wound - Ben Holmes - 06-07-2016
Patrick C Wrote:The wound could have been either entry or exit or words to that effect."
Ben Holmes Wrote:This was AFTER the massive intimidation of the Parkland doctors... The EARLIEST opinion was that the throat wound was an entry wound. Henry Sienzant even went so far as to blatantly lie on this point - claiming that they'd stated it could have been either an entry or exit at the Parkland Press Conference.
But this simply isn't true.
The Parkland doctors were "convinced" that their opinion was incorrect on the basis of an Autopsy Report THAT NEVER DISSECTED OR EVEN KNEW ABOUT the throat wound during the autopsy.
That's a fact.
One that you cannot get around.
Perry stated later that he regretted making what was after all a rash judgement...you can't be certain of that wound being an entry in the trauma room situation. Any reliable surgeon would tell you that.
Again, he said this AFTER the intimidation got him to 'change' his mind.
Patrick C Wrote:Perry was not bullied. There was no frontal entry to be bullied about.
And yet, we have witness statements EXACTLY to that effect.
Patrick C Wrote:So the neck wound as an entry for me is a NON STARTER....always has been. It is truly a big a red herring as the Phantom GK Gunman.......
Why on earth you guys can't position some sensible simple rear sourced shot scenario is utterly astonishing.
The simple truth is still true today as it was on 11/22/63 - on that day - EVERY medical witness who had an opinion based on what they saw stated that the throat wound was an entry.
That's STILL A FACT - and you've done nothing to refute it.
Why you find it amazing that critics recognize and accept the evidence for a frontal shot is simply your dogmatism at work, nothing more...
Re: Throat Wound - Ben Holmes - 06-07-2016
Patrick C Wrote:Ben Holmes Wrote:Was it your intention to misplace the limo so dramatically?
Not interested in the limo ref that pic and NO - I wanted to ask which storm drain you believed the picture you posted was....
The limo location in your graphic makes it quite improbable indeed that a shot was fired.
And surely you aren't telling us that you can't figure out which storm drain is being talked about???
Your photo is HIGHLY misleading - and I'm pointing that out.
Re: Throat Wound - William Charleston - 06-08-2016
If you want to know what happened in the JFK assassination, you START with the witnesses and then you use other evidence that NOBODY could have forged. Then you sort out who said something reasonable, who was asleep and didn't have a clue and who was either lying or manipulated by those who did NOT want the truth to be known by the little people.
![[Image: Limo1.png]](http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/images/Limo1.png)
QUESTION: Is this hypothesized shot trajectory consistent with what these witnesses say they saw?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vClwuJ0yuWM Dr. Glanges, a premed student at that time describes the bullet hole she says she saw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01oaxb00dIE Limo to Detroit, Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stHp1AbPsUw Limo to Detroit Part 2
What the witnesses say they saw PROVES NOTHING but it is a starting point.
Back to the original question: MULTIPLE witnesses in the three YOUTUBE videos say they saw a clean bullet hole through the windshield that looked like it was fired from the front. IF you hypothesize the shot that hit President Kennedy in the neck came through the windshield, then the diagram is a reasonable starting point.