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?
 
MicahJava said:
From my understanding, the official story is that the doctors thought the throat wound was a bad tracheotomy during the entire autopsy. No?
Click to expand...

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:
 
Axxman300 said:
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:
Click to expand...

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:
MicahJava said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Axxman300 said:
The doctors at Parkland measured the throat wound at 6.5cm, they also did the tache.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying the throat wound was an entry wound.
 
MicahJava said:
Centimeters, not millimeters? Where does it say this?
Click to expand...


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?
Click to expand...


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

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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
MicahJava said:
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?
Click to expand...


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]
Click to expand...


(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
 
HSienzant said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
MicahJava said:
Any other witness to the autopsy would tell you the same thing as the Sibert and O'Neil report.
Click to expand...

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:
HSienzant said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
HSienzant said:
3 centimeters is about 1.2 inches.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

Oh Jesus, Perry is lying too?
 
MicahJava said:
Okay, well the throat wound in the photographs and autopsy report is 6.5 centimeters (about 2.5 inches) with widely gaping, irregular edges.
Click to expand...

According to whom?


MicahJava said:
What gives? If someone tried to probe it...
Click to expand...

The throat wound? Who suggested that? You?


MicahJava said:
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.
Click to expand...

Paul Krassner has a theory about that.


MicahJava said:
Oh Jesus, Perry is lying too?
Click to expand...

Don't put words in my mouth.

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
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?
Click to expand...

That's your problem. You're assuming someone is lying. Maybe you should try resolving the conflicts without assuming what you need to prove.

Hank
 
Why do CTists always want somebody to be lying.
"Perry is lying too?"

No. People just don't remember in forensic detail. Hence why we have photographs and xrays taken at the autopsy. Measurements and details. (Which, as we have no evidence for alteration or fakery, prove MichaJava is peddling nonsense.)
 
MicahJava said:
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.
Click to expand...

Something tells me that Any other witness = worlds best snipers, but carry on.

It's fun watching someone dig a hole to nowhere.
 
MicahJava said:
Nice try. David Lifton interviewed Dr. Perry in 1966, and he specifically said the trach incision was "2-3 centimeters".
Click to expand...


No. You claimed that "everybody knows . . . the tracheotomy was just a tiny slit." Perry's testimony proves that "everyone knows" no such thing. He gives a cogent explanation of why the incision would have been larger than might normally be expected, but you ignore that because it doesn't fit your theory.

Also, why do you uncritically accept Lifton's claim of what Perry said?

MicahJava said:
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.
Click to expand...


Did it occur to you that some of the damage and/or enlargement could have been caused by the insertion and/or removal of the tracheotomy tube?

Further, considering that the incision was made through a bullet wound, wouldn't you expect it to be at least somewhat irregular?
 
MicahJava said:
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.
Click to expand...


Begging the question. You have not established that it was probed before the photos were taken; that's simply speculation on your part.

MicahJava said:
Oh Jesus, Perry is lying too?
Click to expand...


You are attempting the age-old conspiracist gambit of posing a false dichotomy where either your interpretation is correct, or a witness is lying through his teeth, in an effort to shame your critics into accepting your interpretation of that witness's statement. Believe me, we've all seen it countless times, and it never works.

Perry could have been mistaken or misunderstood the question, Lifton could have misinterpreted Perry's response, or Lifton could have heard what he wanted to hear. The possibility also exists that Lifton asked leading questions, or simply badgered Perry to give the answer Lifton was expecting.
 
Let's say the tracheotomy slit was 6.5 CM, and not half the size like everybody remembers. What on earth kind of trach tube were they using? I know it was a hectic situation like Perry said to the ARRB, but he still used a scalpel. These things are still designed for alive people who hope to one day breath through their mouths without a giant scar on their neck. Look at the photographs, there's some meat coming out of that throat wound. Meat! It's kind of hard for a person without an agenda to think that wasn't created by something a little more blunt than a scalpel or a trach tube.
 
MicahJava said:
Let's say the tracheotomy slit was 6.5 CM, and not half the size like everybody remembers.
Click to expand...


Again with the "everybody remembers." :rolleyes:

From the Journal of the American Medical Association:

Dr. Perry - and three physicians who observed the tracheostomy - Drs. Baxter, Carrico, and Jenkins - all say that the autopsy photos of the throat wound are "very compatible" with what they saw in Parkland Trauma Room 1. Dr. Baxter says, "I was right there and the tracheostomy I observed and the autopsy photos look the same - very compatible." Dr. Carrico says, "I've seen the autopsy photos and they are very compatible to the actual tracheostomy." Dr. Jenkins adds "They're the same." Dr. Perry concludes, "Of course, tissues sag and stretch after death, but any suggestion that this wound was intentionally enlarged is wrong. . . .

Perry says, "The President's pupils were widely dilated, his face was a deep blue, and he was in agonal respiration, with his chin jerking. Jim [Carrico] was having trouble inserting the endotracheal tube because of the wound to the trachea and I didn't even wipe off the blood before doing the 'trach.' I grabbed a knife and made a quick and large incision; it only took two or three minutes."[bolding mine]
Click to expand...


Source

MicahJava said:
What on earth kind of trach tube were they using?
Click to expand...


You'd know that if you'd bothered to read the quotation in my earlier post.

At that time we used old metal flange tracheotomy tubes and quite large [sic] with a cuff on them.
Click to expand...


Further, a point you apparently also missed, Perry said he made the incision larger than was strictly necessary for the tracheotomy in case they needed to make an additional examination.

MicahJava said:
I know it was a hectic situation like Perry said to the ARRB, but he still used a scalpel. These things are still designed for alive people who hope to one day breath through their mouths without a giant scar on their neck.
Click to expand...


Again, this is explained in the quotation.

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.
Click to expand...


I know two people who've had tracheotomies. One had hers because she'd had an allergic reaction, and she has a short, narrow scar. The other had his because he'd been struck by a car, and he has a long, jagged scar.

MicahJava said:
Look at the photographs, there's some meat coming out of that throat wound. Meat! It's kind of hard for a person without an agenda to think that wasn't created by something a little more blunt than a scalpel or a trach tube.
Click to expand...


Such as a bullet.
 
Well, here's the information I'm going off of.

An emergency is one thing, but autopsy witness Paul O'Connor suggested that performing the "tracheotomy" like what he saw could possibly kill the subject:

From In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence by William Matson Law (free ebook here):

Law: Now you've seen tracheotomies before. You've dealt with them. What was your thought when you saw that? The hole in the president's throat that was said to be a tracheotomy?

O'Connor: It looked very sloppy, very nasty, very ugly. Usually a tracheotomy is made with a very sharp, pointed knife and it's very clean. This tracheotomy, or so called tracheotomy was all macerated and torn apart, and it went this way, both sides, which is very dangerous. If you do a tracheotomy across the throat, you stand a chance of killing a person, because you have on each side of the trachea two large arteries, the carotid arteries, and right beside them are the jugular veins. Arteries run the blood up into the brain and the jugular veins run the blood down back into the heart and lungs. If you make a horizontal incision, you stand a good chance of severing those arteries, which would make a person bleed to death immediately.


Here is the interview with Dr. Malcoln Perry from David Lifton's Best Evidence:

It was October 27, 1966. Alone in the quiet of my apartment in West Los Angeles, I placed the call. When Dr. Perry came on the line, I went through my whole pitch. The student wrestling with a research paper. The meticulous professor with a penchant for detail. He even wanted the size of the tracheotomy incision.

Dr. Perry was friendly and sympathetic.
I asked, "So do you recall, perhaps, how large the incision was?"
Dr. Perry didn't hesitate a moment.
"Two to three centimeters," he replied.
As I talked to Dr. Perry, I had opened volume 3 of the twenty-six volumes, containing his Warren Commission testimony. As Perry replied, I scrawled "2-3cm" in the margin.

Trying to remain calm, I asked, "Dr. Perry, might it be possible that the incision you made was three and a half centimeters?" Yes, he replied, it could have been. I paused, then went for the next increment. Could it have been four centimeters? Perry hesitated a bit, then said yes. He explained that it was not good to make an incision larger than necessary. That was a basic tenet of surgery, he said. As innocently as possible, I asked Perry if his incision could have been 4 1/2 centimeters. He said he really doubted it was that large. It just wasn't necessary. Perry sounded distinctly uneasy.

I pressed the matter no further. The conversation established to my satisfaction that Dr. Perry remembered a tracheotomy incision much shorter than the one that Humes described in his sworn Warren Commission testimony. For the first time, I had reason to suspect that unauthorized surgery had been performed not only to the head, but on the neck as well. I had the beginnings of an explanation for the absence of bullets.

Shortly afterwards, Lifton also interviewed Dr. Charles Carrico.

"Dr. Perry testified that he made this incision in the neck... you were there when this happened, correct?"
"Right."
"Could you tell me approximately the length of the tracheotomy incision that was made?"
"Gee. It's been a while. Probably-it would just be a guess-between two and three centimeters, which is close to an inch."
"Between two and three centimeters?"
"Yes."
I asked: "Do you think the incision that Dr. Perry made might have been, let's say, four centimeters?"
Replied Carrico: "Oh, I really don't know. But it, that would probably be the upper limit. I doubt if it was that large."
As with Perry, the confident tone of Dr. Carrico carried the message that he did not need more than an inch to insert the tracheotomy tube.

He also interviewed Dr. Charles Baxter.

The next doctor was Charles Baxter, who assisted Perry with the tracheotomy.
I posed the question:

LIFTON: Now, about what was the length of the incision?
BAXTER: Oh, it's roughly an inch and a half.
LIFTON: ...you could see the incision before they placed the tracheotomy tube into the incision?
BAXTER: Oh, yes. Yes.
LIFTON: So at that time you remember it as being an inch and a half [3.8cm]?
BAXTER: Yeah, roughly.

I'll go ahead and leave out Dr. Crenshaw, since there are some reasonable questions about his honesty. But still, we all know he claimed to have remembered the same short, neat slit, calling Dr. Perry "a master with the blade". Some have accused Crenshaw of intentionally trying to be a darling of the conspiracy community, however we must also acknowledge that most don't want that. I'm sure we've all heard of the WTC collapse witness Barry Jennings, who withdrew permission for his interview to be featured in Loose Change: Final Cut because of the unwanted attention he was getting once news hit the internet that he was "the man who experienced an explosion in Building 7". With that in mind, please acknowledge the possibility that Dr. Perry chose to use vague language in the JAMA article about the tracheotomy being "larger than necessary" (although obviously he didn't put a number on what he was talking about there like he did with Lifton). What I'm trying to say is, be weary of anybody who may be intentionally trying to discredit (or corroborate) information pointing to monkey business after the time that Best Evidence or Oliver Stone's JFK came out.

From what I understand, vertical trach incisions are more common than horizontal ones, and while apparently 6cm+ trach incisions do happen, information seems all over the place. So we must look at what the people who were there said, not somebody saying "I knew a guy who had a big scar from a trach" or quoting "we used old metal flange tracheotomy tubes with a cuff on them" like that turns a tried-and-true medical instrument into a chainsaw.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
So we must look at what the people who were there said,
Click to expand...

Like how the instrument they used was larger than other types and needed more room for clearance?

MicahJava said:
not somebody saying "I knew a guy who had a big scar from a trach" or quoting "we used old metal flange tracheotomy tubes with a cuff on them" like that turns a tried-and-true medical instrument into a chainsaw.
Click to expand...

Oh... So we should look at what the people who were there said... except for when they give specific details like the equipment, that you find inconvenient?

Once again: We use objective and documentary evidence to validate what people said. Not the other way around. We know your analysis of wounds seems to be off, because we can see many of your claims fall flat when we look at photos and xrays.
 
MicahJava said:
Well, here's the information I'm going off of.

An emergency is one thing, but autopsy witness Paul O'Connor suggested...
Click to expand...

How many decades after the fact is the O'Connor interview you're quoting from? Is O'Connor a forensic pathologist? Does he have any background in medicine?


MicahJava said:
Here is the interview with Dr. Malcoln Perry from David Lifton's Best Evidence:

It was October 27, 1966.
Click to expand...

Three years after the fact. Perry wasn't there first and didn't perform the first actions on the trachea. Carrico did. You also seem to be confusing, as did Lifton, the trachea incision with the incision in the neck.

Here's the Warren Commission testimony of Perry:
Mr. SPECTER - Upon your arrival in the room, where President Kennedy was situated, what did you observe as to his condition?
Dr. PERRY - At the time I entered the door, Dr. Carrico was attending him. He was attaching the Bennett apparatus to an endotracheal tube in place to assist his respiration.
...
Mr. SPECTER - Would you describe, in a general way and in lay terms, the purpose for the tracheotomy at that time?
Dr. PERRY - Dr. Carrico had very judicially placed an endotracheal but unfortunately due to the injury to the trachea, the cuff which is an inflatable balloon on the endotracheal tube was not below the tracheal injury and thus he could not secure the adequate airway that you would require to maintain respiration.
(At this point, Mr. McCloy entered the hearing room.)
Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, you mentioned an injury to the trachea.
Will you describe that as precisely as you can, please?
Dr. PERRY - Yes. Once the transverse incision through the skin and subcutaneous tissues was made, it was necessary to separate the strap muscles covering the anterior muscles of the windpipe and thyroid. At that point the trachea was noted to be deviated slightly to the left and I found it necessary to sever the exterior strap muscles on the other side to reach the trachea. I noticed a small ragged laceration of the trachea on the anterior lateral right side. I could see the endotracheal tube which had been placed by Dr. Carrico in the wound, but there was evidence of air and blood around the tube because I noted the cuff was just above the injury to the trachea.

Perry is pointing out the external incision is larger than the tracheal incision. Tell me you understand this. He quite clearly said he had to sever muscles to the side of the trachea to reach the trachea. He also quite clearly differentiated between the incision to the skin and subcutaneous tissue, and the trachea incision. He made the first incision to expose the trachea, couldn't see it well, cut through the strap muscles to expose it better, and then, and only then, made the incision in the trachea.


MicahJava said:
Shortly afterwards, Lifton also interviewed Dr. Charles Carrico.

"Could you tell me approximately the length of the tracheotomy incision that was made?"
"Gee. It's been a while. Probably-it would just be a guess-between two and three centimeters, which is close to an inch."
Click to expand...

Lifton is asking about the incision in the trachea. Not the incision in the neck.


MicahJava said:
He also interviewed Dr. Charles Baxter.

The next doctor was Charles Baxter, who assisted Perry with the tracheotomy.
I posed the question:

LIFTON: Now, about what was the length of the incision?
BAXTER: Oh, it's roughly an inch and a half.
LIFTON: ...you could see the incision before they placed the tracheotomy tube into the incision?
BAXTER: Oh, yes. Yes.
LIFTON: So at that time you remember it as being an inch and a half [3.8cm]?
BAXTER: Yeah, roughly.
Click to expand...

In context, he's still asking about the tracheal incision. I'm going to repeat my question you never did answer, which is how do you know the size of the trache incision from the photos of the external neck in the autopsy photos?

If you're drawing a comparison, and saying the sizes don't match, you need to tell us how you computed the size of the trache incision relative to the external neck incision visible in the autopsy photos.

Now let's look at Humes testimony:

Commander HUMES - Now, as the President's body was viewed from anteriorly in the autopsy room, and saying nothing for the moment about the missile, there was a recent surgical defect in the low anterior neck, which measured some 7 or 8 cm. in length or let's say a recent wound was present in this area.

You can see Humes is NOT talking about the trachea. He's talking about the size of the external incision visible in the neck.

Repeat after me: The trachea is not the neck. The neck is not the trachea.

You're looking at the external incision [in the autopsy photos] in the skin of the neck, are you not? And you're quoting the doctors on the size of the incision in the trachea, are you not? You're ignoring the fact that Dr. Perry said to reach the trachea, he had to make an incision in the skin and the subcutaneous tissue, and then sever the strap muscles, ergo, the external cut was larger than the incision in the trachea. And that's precisely what we see in the autopsy photos - the large external incision to the neck, not the incision to the trachea.

The relative sizes of each comes from Dr. Perry's & Humes testimony from 1964. No need to resort to Lifton interviews confusing the neck with the trachea in his questions. No need to cite Law's four-decade later interview with O'Connor.

You appear to be comparing two different things and asking why they aren't the same size. Aren't you?

It's not your fault. Conspiracy theorists have been confusing the neck incision with the trachea incision for about 53 years. The two have never been shown to be synonymous. Conspiracy theorists - like yourself - simply assume the two terms are synonymous, and they are not. Dr. Perry said they were not back in 1964. That's a long time for conspiracy theorists to ignore the testimony of the doctor who actually performed the trachea incision, don't you think?

Hank
 
Last edited:
If this interpretation is true, that this is merely a confusion over the incision of the neck skin and the incision of the trachea, than I could totally see this being a null issue. Especially with Dr. Perry talking about severing the strap muscles, the strap muscles in diagrams are basically shown on the sides of the level of the chin, and my chin is at least 5 centimeters across. Definitely not an unambiguous issue I want to spend my time on if the answer could be that simple. I only tried bringing this up as one of the possibilities that showed that the autopsy doctors didn't always think the throat wound was a tracheotomy, detouring from what Lipsey and other reports were saying about the autopsy doctors thinking the throat wound was some kind from an exit for a bullet that entered low in the head.
 
Last edited:
It's this way with every conspiracy theorist issue.

It's always an erroneous interpretation, a fact wrenched out of context, a logical fallacy, a supposition turned into a fact, or something similar.

It's really simple. JFK was not invulnerable. He could die from gunfire as well as the next man, and he wasn't immune to a punk with a rifle and a grudge.

The evidence points to Oswald for a simple reason - not because Oswald is the victim of a massive plot to frame him for killing Kennedy - but because he really did kill Kennedy with his rifle from the sixth floor of the Depository. That's why the evidence points to Oswald. To believe otherwise, you'd have to believe that framing Oswald was the goal of the conspiracy from the beginning, and killing JFK just a by-product of that goal.

Why'd "they" bother planting a WWII surplus weapon in the Depository and faking paperwork to make it look like Oswald bought it? Why'd "they" go to the trouble of altering wounds to make it look like Oswald did the shooting? Why'd "they" alter the autopsy photos and x-rays? Why'd "they" kill a policeman at 10th and Patton to make Oswald look more guilty? Why'd "they" swap the nearly whole bullet recovered in Parkland for another fired from Oswald's rifle? Why'd "they" plant Oswald's fingerprints on the triggerguard and a palmprint on the barrel? Why'd "they" kill witnesses years after the fact? Why'd "they" give Oswald a history as a political serial killer, shooting at General Walker in April of that year?

Think about it - all of that was supposedly done after killing Kennedy was already accomplished. "They" had gotten the deed done. Yet they kept at it for years, merely to frame a loser with a menial job filling book orders in a warehouse. And to hear some people talk, we're - oops - "they" are still at it, sending shills to argue misinformation on web forums more than five decades after the fact.

You don't need me or anyone else here to point out the correct interpretations of the evidence. The evidence is available online. Read it. I've directed you there before. You could have found online the Perry statement I quoted back to you. So can any conspiracy theorist. But in the 52+ years since Perry gave his testimony, not one conspiracy theorist has read that and understood what it meant? And stood up, and said, "Wait a minute, guys, Lifton is wrong about this, and here's why". Not one?

Why not?

Remember what Lifton himself said about the supposed throat wound discrepancy - that it was the seminal moment in his thinking that got him to consider body alteration as a viable alternative. So we get a 747-page guide on How to Misinterpret Evidence.

Hank
 
Last edited:
So anyway,

What's your opinion on Richard Lipsey? What's up with him and what he says he recalls at the autopsy? Why did he tell the HSCA the things that he told them?
 
Asked and answered above.

Lifton calls it the FBI autopsy report (non-transit) vs the Navy autopsy report (transit).

The transit vs non-transit terminology comes from the path of the first bullet that struck JFK from behind. Did it transit and exit his throat or did it not exit his throat?

He traces the genesis and the paths of the two reports quite well.

Remember, Humes himself admitted the conclusion of the pathologists changed when he learned after the autopsy from a telephone conversation with Doctor Perry that the tracheal incision was made through an existing bullet wound.

That change in conclusion would not be something the FBI agents, nor Lipsey, would be privy to, as it came after the conclusion of the autopsy. So the FBI agents, and Lipsey were left with one impression, while the autopsy doctors came to another.

So Lipsey goes forward with one story, while the autopsy pathologists go forward with another.

And the Boston Globe story of 11/23/63 you mention obviously comes from an FBI source.

As I said, Lifton traces all this quite well. His book was published in 1980. I'm curious what books or websites you're using as a resource that don't mention these material facts.

Hank
________________

[EDIT] Footnote: Lipsey told Lifton in 1979 something new - that there were actually two ambulances - one transporting Jackie Kennedy and another transporting the body of the late President. If you can find documentary evidence of this in the video of Andrews Air Force base, or of Bethesda, you could break the case. Lifton, after hearing about the recollection of two ambulances, starts calling one a 'decoy' ambulance, although neither is. And based on differing recollections of what the casket looked like by various witnesses, this also eventually becomes two CASKETS, a real one with the body of JFK inside, and another one, without the body.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom