• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's silly games to point out the photographs and x rays clearly show a wound 100mm higher than you claim? And that you have failed to identify any wound where you claim it would be?

I notice you avoided answering my question about the source of the article.

Here is another: Were the x rays and photographs available to the public, and thus the journalist, at the time the article was written?
 
From my understanding, the official story is that the doctors thought the throat wound was a bad tracheotomy during the entire autopsy. No?

Yes and no.

The Parkland medical team widened the throat injury in preparation for a tracheotomy, but I don't know if they followed through before they called time of death.

The pathologists might have thought it was just a tracheotomy based on the obvious scalpel cuts.

(The Parkland MDs thought the throat wound was an entry wound, but they never saw the wound in the President's back either.):thumbsup:
 
Yes and no.

The Parkland medical team widened the throat injury in preparation for a tracheotomy, but I don't know if they followed through before they called time of death.

The pathologists might have thought it was just a tracheotomy based on the obvious scalpel cuts.

(The Parkland MDs thought the throat wound was an entry wound, but they never saw the wound in the President's back either.):thumbsup:

Okay, so how did we go from that tiny neat throat hole and corresponding flawless tracheotomy to the 6.5 cm. long transverse wound with widely gaping irregular edges? A probe, right? Or someone trying to dig a possible missile out of there? Either are just as bad as having the throat wound altered to look like an exit wound.
 
Last edited:
Okay, so how did we go from that tiny neat throat hole and corresponding flawless tracheotomy to the 6.5 cm. long transverse wound with widely gaping irregular edges? A probe, right? Or someone trying to dig a possible missile out of there? Either are just as bad as having the throat wound altered to look like an exit wound.

The doctors at Parkland measured the throat wound at 6.5cm, they also did the tache.

The fibers from the back of JFK's coat and shirt were bent inward, the fibers from the front of the shirt are blown outward.

It really is that simple.
 
The doctors at Parkland measured the throat wound at 6.5cm, they also did the tache.

Centimeters, not millimeters? Where does it say this?

The fibers from the back of JFK's coat and shirt were bent inward, the fibers from the front of the shirt are blown outward.

It really is that simple.

I'm not saying the throat wound was an entry wound.
 
Centimeters, not millimeters? Where does it say this?


Okay, so how did we go from that tiny neat throat hole and corresponding flawless tracheotomy to the 6.5 cm. long transverse wound with widely gaping irregular edges?


I'm not saying the throat wound was an entry wound.

A probe, right? Or someone trying to dig a possible missile out of there? Either are just as bad as having the throat wound altered to look like an exit wound.

Clarity of thought is important, and you lack this.

I posted the 6th Floor Museum's video of the two surviving ER doctors from Parkland - TWICE - where they discuss in detail their recollections. You obviously have not watched it, and that tells me you are not interested in facts on any kind other than the ones you chose to fabricate.
 
BS. Everybody knows the throat wound at Parkland was less than 6.5 millimeters, and the tracheotomy was just a tiny slit. So, how do we get from that to the giant throat wound at the (official) beginning of the autopsy? Some kind of probing of the wound, right?
 
Who measured the 6.5mm tracheotomy, and where was it recorded at the time?

Does the WC testimony suggest they made a new wound for this, or obscured a wound already there? If the latter, why are you expecting a neat 6.5mm wound?
 
BS. Everybody knows the throat wound at Parkland was less than 6.5 millimeters, and the tracheotomy was just a tiny slit. So, how do we get from that to the giant throat wound at the (official) beginning of the autopsy? Some kind of probing of the wound, right?


Tiny slit, eh?

MR. GUNN: could you describe about how big the tracheostomy wound was that you cut?
DR. PERRY: I've been asked this a lot. Of course, some of them said it was too big for a surgeon but my reply to that was that it was big enough.
There are only two medical emergencies, airway & bleeding. Everything else can wait. This just couldn't wait, and I had no idea how big it was. I made it big enough. At that time we used old metal flange tracheotomy tubes and quite large [sic] with a cuff on them. And when I made the incision through the wound , I made it big enough that I could look to either side of the trachea. There was blood in the trachea through the end - when I looked through the pharyngoscope and attempted to put in the tracheal tube with blood inside the trachea.
There was hair [sic = "air"] in the mediastinum, and I didn't know whether I was going to encounter carotid arteries or whatever. But the path of the bullet clearly put those vessels at risk as well as the trachea, so I made the wound big enough to do that.
How big it was, I don't know. I'm sure Dr. Humes measured it to see when they got there. When he found out it was a tracheostomy, he measured. But since I made the transverse incision, went right through it, I made it big enough to control an underlying bleeding blood vessel if necessary and big enough to do a trach.
How big it was, who knows. Ron might know, but I don't know. Big enough.
DR. JONES: I was busy putting in the left chest tube and doing a cut down on the left arm and I was not paying a lot of attention to that.
DR. PERRY: We were all -
DR. JONES: I thought it was about an average size incision. I didn't see anything abnormally large or abnormal length of the incision.
DR. PERRY: It was bigger than I would make for an elective situation. In a patient that's not in extremis where you're doing an elective tracheostomy you make a nice tiny skin line incision in order to minimize the subsequent scarring. In an emergency situation, you make an incision adequate to accomplish the job, and in this case it was going to take more. After I'd made the incision, Dr. McClelland arrived and his hands came in to help me with the tracheostomy, but I'd made the incision at that time but Bob may recall how big it was because he held the retractors for it. It was big enough for me to control the trachea, and if necessary, to do a little more. [Bolding mine]


(source)
 
Nice try. David Lifton interviewed Dr. Perry in 1966, and he specifically said the trach incision was "2-3 centimeters".

Let's say the incision was 6.5-7 centimeters. I didn't know they used electric turkey knives for tracheotomies on the President. Widely gaping and irregular edges? Yeah, I'm thinking somebody at some point thought that was a bullet hole and tried probing it for whatever reason before the photographs were taken.
 
Last edited:
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Sibert-O'Neill.html

The speculation about the back wound having no exit yet not being found in the body was reported by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill in their report of 11/26/63.

I believe that is where the that false information starts. I further recall that David Lifton devoted a lot of time to exposing the two timelines of the FBI report vs the actual autopsy report in his book BEST EVIDENCE. The FBI report is the source of the erroneous info.

See the chapter entitled "Breakthrough" in Lifton's book (pages 149-180, particularly page 153).

I suggest you obtain and peruse a copy. It should be quite cheap, as it was published 36 years ago (1980).

Hank
 
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Sibert-O'Neill.html

The speculation about the back wound having no exit yet not being found in the body was reported by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill in their report of 11/26/63.

I believe that is where the that false information starts. I further recall that David Lifton devoted a lot of time to exposing the two timelines of the FBI report vs the actual autopsy report in his book BEST EVIDENCE. The FBI report is the source of the erroneous info.

See the chapter entitled "Breakthrough" in Lifton's book (pages 149-180, particularly page 153).

I suggest you obtain and peruse a copy. It should be quite cheap, as it was published 36 years ago (1980).

Hank

It's funny you mention that, because a couple of weeks ago I ordered Best Evidence, but I got the address wrong so it got lost in the mail. Looking forward to a refund soon.

Any other witness to the autopsy would tell you the same thing as the Sibert and O'Neil report.
 
Any other witness to the autopsy would tell you the same thing as the Sibert and O'Neil report.

Well, we know that's not true, don't we, because the official autopsy report is different. So not all the autopsy witnesses would agree with Sibert and O'Neill.

And let's look at what you're doing... you're crediting an FBI report by two non-medically trained FBI agents, and apparently discarding the autopsy report written by three medically-trained autopsy doctors.

Do you appreciate why some people might not think that's the best approach?

Hank
 
Last edited:
Well, we know that's not true, don't we, because the official autopsy report is different. So not all the witnesses would agree with Sibert and O'Neill.

Well, I'm here trying to establish that Humes - or somebody - has been lying about (or omitting) a few things. How did we get that wide, gaping throat wound if not from someone probing it?
 
Last edited:
3 centimeters is about 1.2 inches.

Okay, well the throat wound in the photographs and autopsy report is 6.5 centimeters (about 2.5 inches) with widely gaping, irregular edges. What gives? If someone tried to probe it, that doesn't sound like they thought it was a tracheotomy the whole time. And it contradicts the statements saying that no manipulation of the body was done before those photographs were taken.

The Lifton interview - was that a sworn statement?

Hank

Oh Jesus, Perry is lying too?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom