Plausibility & Ramifications of a Throat Wound?

[Lofty]

I have thought long and hard about the throat shot, and i have to say that i dont concur with the throat shot theory because,Kennedy's hands were up in front of his throat but clenched, indicating a trauma to the muscles /nerves in the mid upper back.He could not have spoken at all with a bullet in his throat.There would have been evidence of an exit wound and deformation of the neck and tissues within it at the point of entry and then from the track of the bullet, of which there were none as far as i know that indicate a bullets path from that direction.A shot from the front that early in the assassination would detract completely from the plan , which was to prove all shots were from behind.A shot from the front through the windscreen left to much to chance, with bullet deflection and posed a danger to the other passengers in the vehicle, and therefore it could not have been an acceptable risk to even consider a shot to that area.The throat of Kennedy was not a good enough target throughout the journey down the plaza.James Files as far as i am concerned was the only shooter placed with a view to the front of the vehicle and he was supposed to shoot only, as a last resort, if the other shooters failed to get a clean headshot.The fact he did shoot albeit in a synchronised fashion with the guys in the Dal Tex building, is the only credible evidence to prove a shot from the front right side.The Files shot, using a frangible mercury loaded bullet would in all probability cause the wounds to the throat, as an exit, as the bullet exploded as it was designed to do, and given the high velocity of it, it is not unreasonable to beleive the throat wounds were an exit of the load from the bullet.Anyway thats my two bob on the subject.

[steve manning]

Lofty's comments quoted right below:I have thought long and hard about the throat shot, and i have to say that i dont concur with the throat shot theory because,Kennedy's hands were up in front of his throat but clenched, indicating a trauma to the muscles /nerves in the mid upper back.He could not have spoken at all with a bullet in his throat.There would have been evidence of an exit wound and deformation of the neck and tissues within it at the point of entry and then from the track of the bullet, of which there were none as far as i know that indicate a bullets path from that direction.A shot from the front that early in the assassination would detract completely from the plan , which was to prove all shots were from behind.A shot from the front through the windscreen left to much to chance, with bullet deflection and posed a danger to the other passengers in the vehicle, and therefore it could not have been an acceptable risk to even consider a shot to that area.The throat of Kennedy was not a good enough target throughout the journey down the plaza.James Files as far as i am concerned was the only shooter placed with a view to the front of the vehicle and he was supposed to shoot only, as a last resort, if the other shooters failed to get a clean headshot.The fact he did shoot albeit in a synchronised fashion with the guys in the Dal Tex building, is the only credible evidence to prove a shot from the front right side.The Files shot, using a frangible mercury loaded bullet would in all probability cause the wounds to the throat, as an exit, as the bullet exploded as it was designed to do, and given the high velocity of it, it is not unreasonable to beleive the throat wounds were an exit of the load from the bullet.Anyway thats my two bob on the subject.Lofty Deat Lofty,I would encourage you to read or re-read my opening thread which I pasted below: Please let us know what you think about the issues which clash or rub with what you're saying here...Thanks Steve[quote="steve manning"]I just watched a 2 part youtube defense by Gil Jesus regarding the alledged throat wound. Look I don’t know anything about this guy Gil Jesus, but the simple fact is, he presents a very sound argument for a throat shot from the front. I would only ask anyone concerned to watch it at least few times if necessary, without interuption, because some of the details require and demand our full attention! Up to this point I will say that Wim has come the closest to persuade me otherwise, with the argument that they wouldn’t have fired a shot from the front that soon, because it basically destroys the patsy argument that shots only came from behind. In a perfect world I have to say this makes a great deal of sense, but I believe there were signs that the ideal plan was starting to unravel and I wonder if some of those ideas got bumped in the last hour? Incidentally, I do believe the back wound was most likely the one JFK reacted to by throwing his arms and elbows in the air, which of course was early in the sequence; perhaps the very first shot, unless he was hit in the throat just before this. Either way both those shots simply can’t be very far apart in time. Perhaps, his elbows and arms were reacting to the throat shot? I do not know the answer, but either way, it doesn’t rule out a wound of entry in the throat. Furthermore, Gil Jesus presents evidence about the hole in the windshield which I would dare say (with perhaps a few exceptions) is just as solid as most of the other evidence we have in this case. The theory of Wim and Jimmy which states that mercury from the round he fired might have came down from the brain area through the neck and out the front of the throat, while plausible, simply seems less likely. I realize the wound was tracked by a pathologist or mortician, but I think more likely the throat wound was the point of entry, and perhaps it deflected off the spinal column in his neck and went upward into his brain? But in order for the throat wound to be some kind of exit and nick the front of the tie (instead of the back of it), it would have MOST LIKELY looked more like an exit of some kind. I don't think this discounts Jimmy's involvement, he is already admitted to having limited knowledge about the overall plan. I would only be able to guess as to why a shooter would have fired so soon. I do think it is fair to say there was some confusion as to whether the plan was even going to be carried out at that point. There was at least one aborted plan prior to Dallas (Miami and maybe Chicago?). Perhaps talk of an abort mission caused one of the shooters (probably a south knoll team) to become more concerned the job got completed this time as opposed to worrying about another aborted mission, which again, probably happened twice before (Chicago and Miami). Another aborted effort at this point would mean the equivalent of reelecting JFK. Perhaps these were some of the same men posted as shooters? If so, perhaps they were getting tired of being called off?I do believe that Dallas would have been percieved to be the last place to really pull this off; and as it may have seemed to be slipping away, perhaps concern about how it looked became less of a priority in the last hour? In another 39 days it would have been 1964, the final stretch of the reelection campaign. JFK wouldn't have been able to go to the toilet without press coverage, and I have to believe the forces of darkness would want to get the dirty deed over with while it was still relatively dark by comparison.Moreover, I can only imagine how such a shot would have looked through a scope from the south knoll area? I bet it may have looked like one of those now or never type scenarios? I would also have to admit he would have been aiming through the windshield at his target; a more difficult shot yes, but not implausible. In fact, the more I think about it, I would also guess the shooter wouldn't have been aiming at his throat either; he was probably more likely aiming right between his eyes? This seems to be one way the windshield would have interfered; by forcing the round to hit lower? I really don’t know, but I’m certainly open to suggestions. Apparentlhy the round was moving with enough velocity to penatrate the windshield cleanly; if so, it is doubtful there would have been much of a drop in elevation from that distance? I believe under 200 yards? I will paste both links below for your review. Thanks for reading!

[ThomZajac]

Lofty wrote:I have thought long and hard about the throat shot, and i have to say that i dont concur with the throat shot theory because,Kennedy's hands were up in front of his throat but clenched, indicating a trauma to the muscles /nerves in the mid upper back.He could not have spoken at all with a bullet in his throat.There would have been evidence of an exit wound and deformation of the neck and tissues within it at the point of entry and then from the track of the bullet, of which there were none as far as i know that indicate a bullets path from that direction.A shot from the front that early in the assassination would detract completely from the plan , which was to prove all shots were from behind.A shot from the front through the windscreen left to much to chance, with bullet deflection and posed a danger to the other passengers in the vehicle, and therefore it could not have been an acceptable risk to even consider a shot to that area.The throat of Kennedy was not a good enough target throughout the journey down the plaza.James Files as far as i am concerned was the only shooter placed with a view to the front of the vehicle and he was supposed to shoot only, as a last resort, if the other shooters failed to get a clean headshot.The fact he did shoot albeit in a synchronised fashion with the guys in the Dal Tex building, is the only credible evidence to prove a shot from the front right side.The Files shot, using a frangible mercury loaded bullet would in all probability cause the wounds to the throat, as an exit, as the bullet exploded as it was designed to do, and given the high velocity of it, it is not unreasonable to beleive the throat wounds were an exit of the load from the bullet.Anyway thats my two bob on the subject.Lofty, you make some good points and you may be right on how you view things, but I would like to ask you a question-If the idea was pin the shooting on a patsy (Oswald) firing from behind, and the real shooters shot from behind, what did the plotters plan to do with the bullets and bullet fragments that those shots would leave behind (in JFK and/or other places)? Those shots would have obviously been fired from riffles other than Oswald's- wouldn't that have proven more than one gunman?My point is this; it would seem that the plotters planned to retrieve the bullets before the autopsy was to be performed- how else could they have hidden such obvious evidence of a conspiracy? (I suppose they could have rigged the autopsy completely, but in that case it wouldn't have mattered what direction the shots had come from). And if the plotters had planned to retrieve the bullets, which I think they did, then it would have made more sense to shoot only from the FRONT because extracting the bullets would have required going in through the entrance wounds, making them bigger and making them appear more consistent with exit wounds.And so while it may be counterintuitive that shooting only from the front was the plan, it may very well be what the plan was- and that would explain why the very first shot may have entered the president's throat.Lastly; no one at Parkland observed anything that indicated a shot entering from behind- all had thought on November 22, 1963 that the president had been hit from the front only.

[Lofty]

Good points Thom, and i dont presume to have an answer, but as you said yourself the bullets, however many were fired , were retreived pretty damn quickly. As noted the limo, which was the best evidence in the crime scene, was cleaned out without a proper investigation into the contents of it, no true ballistic evidence was recorded from the limo and it is likely that the true ballistic evidence from Kennedy's body and that of Conally was hidden or misrepresented.I can see your side of the argument, and that of Steve Manning, but i cannot subscribe to an entry wound at the throat, because there is no evidence of any hydroscopic damage that an entry wound there would leave, it would certainly leave a track, and would have, depending on the type of bullet left damage to the spinal column in the neck. Besides that the Z film only shows Kennedy after being hit from one of the shots fired from behind, and my main argument here is that Kennedy is not holding his throat, and there is no evidence as far as i can see that indicates a throat shot at that point, also why aim for a very limited target from the front first,? It makes no sense, the back of Kennedy and the back of his head were a far more constant target, than that of his throat.That aside a frontal throat shot at the outset would be too risky , unless the shooter was elevated so as to completely avoid going through the windscreen, which leaves the overpass, and possibly the bank on the South Knoll as elevated postions, the overpass was too exposed and the South Knoll unproven as far as i am concerned with no evidence of a shooter there.However it is clear we all subcribe to the fact there was more than one gunman, which means more or less we are singing from the same sheet.The fact is, an obvious front shot could not have been the foremost priority in the plan.He was not to leave that limo alive,and the front shot from Files, was a last resort to ensure a certain, kill shot.The problems that a shot from the front caused were nowhere as significant as the problems that would have arisen had he survived the ambush.

[Dealey Joe]

I can't get this clear in my mind.maybe someone can help?where did the photo of the throat wound come from?it looks out of place to me.when would the trach have been put in?My wife an RN says that the trach would have been the VERY FIRST thing done.When was this picture taken? looks like his hair is cleaned up and some replacement work done.I am begining to suspect this photgs veracity.Joe

[ThomZajac]

Dealey Joe wrote:I can't get this clear in my mind.maybe someone can help?where did the photo of the throat wound come from?it looks out of place to me.when would the trach have been put in?My wife an RN says that the trach would have been the VERY FIRST thing done.When was this picture taken? looks like his hair is cleaned up and some replacement work done.I am begining to suspect this photgs veracity.JoeFirst, which photo are your referring to?Yes, the tracheotomy was the essentially the first thing done at Parkland, Very small incisions (1/2 inch) were made, using the throat wound as the starting point, thereby altering the wound but NOT obliterating it.When the body arrived on the autopsy table the small, precise surgical extension of the throat wound had grown into the large, grotesque, irregular shaped wound depicted in many photos- in my view proof of body alteration between Parkland and Bethesda. This changed nature of the throat wound at Bethesda is seldom addressed.

[Dealey Joe]

At the begining of this series there is a video by Gil Jesus that contains a picture of JFK with a small neat hole in his throat. I am uncomfortable with this picture.Nothing about this wound fits anywhere for me.Joe

[ThomZajac]

Good question.I don't think any photos of JFK were taken at Parkland, and the wound didn't look like that at Bethesda.My guess is that the photo was taken at Bethesda and retouched, but I'd love to know the answer for sure.

[Dealey Joe]

well that says to me that Mr. Jesus' video is built around something that does not exist.i will fall back to my original beleif that if there actually was a throat wound it was shrapnel from the head shot.Thanks for you helpJoe

[ThomZajac]

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.