There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat

[Ray Mitcham]

​Does the gash in the death stare photo look like a "small bullet hole in the thin line of Perry's incision"or 2-3 cms wide to you?

I clearly recall the statements you have produced regarding the incision following the removal of the trach tube. And yet the Parkland doctors after

viewing this photo agreed that the was the same tracheostomy incision they saw at Parkland.

Ray,

Have you read my post #622 in this thread?

I'd like to hear your take on it...

Tom

Hi Tom, I partly agree with your last comment.

"IMO the UPPER wound margin has returned to its original position, and is only 'distorted' by the camera angle. The LOWER margin has been retracted (pulled) SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER to create the appearance of a LOWER wound location. I agree that it was ALSO WIDENED to create the appearance of an exit wound, but it has ONLY been widened by LOWERING the LOWER INCISION MARGIN."

I think they altered the wound for two reasons. The one you state above, but also to try to search for a bullet.

[Michael Walton]

I wanted to add some additional information here as to why I think the "no front throat shot/bullet wound" theory is hogwash.

On another post, a forum member posted a link to a fascinating video script that a man who used to work for CBS produced. This video script revealed the deception and lies that CBS did when they produced their 1960's and 1970's special reports on the assassination. The specials were basically a whitewash and 100% supportive of the Warren Commission. The man who worked on these specials was shocked that CBS did an about face because the original plan was to actually produce a critique of the WC.

You can find a link to this document by doing a search of this forum, but there is a very telling moment in this video script, which I've copied below:

ON THE AFTERNOON OF THE ASSASSINATION, TWO OF THE DOCTORS WHO TRIED TO SAVE PRESIDENT KENNEDY HELD A NEWS CONFERENCE AT PARKLAND HOSPITAL. THE NEWS MEDIA QUOTED THEM AS SAYING A BULLET HAD ENTERED THE PRESIDENT’S THROAT, AN OPINION

INCONSISTENT WITH AN ASSASSIN SHOOTING FROM BEHIND.

TESTIFYING TO THE WARREN COMMISSION, THEY REPUDIATED THESE NEWS REPORTS. FOR YEARS, ASSASSINATION RESEARCHERS WERE UNABLE TO LOCATE A TAPE OR TRANSCRIPT OF THE NEWS CONFERENCE. ONE AUTHOR ALLEGED THAT THE FBI HAD SEIZED ALL AVAILABLE TAPES AND FILMS FROM RADIO AND TELEVISION STATIONS. BUT IN MAY 1967, CBS WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT ROBERT PIERPOINT DISCOVERED AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT IN THE

WHITE HOUSE PRESS OFFICE.

THE IMPORTANT POINT ABOUT THIS TRANSCRIPT IS NOT WHAT THE DOCTORS SAID OR WHETHER THEY WERE CORRECT. IT IS THAT THE WARREN COMMISSION HAD ALSO SOUGHT THIS DOCUMENT. THE COMMISSION ASKED THE SECRET SERVICE FOR A TAPE OR TRANSCRIPT, BUT THE SECRET SERVICE REPLIED THAT THEY COULD NOT LOCATE EITHER AFTER AN EXTENSIVE SEARCH. YET, IT WAS IN THE WHITE HOUSE ALL THE TIME. ON THIS COPY FOUND BY PIERPOINT IN MAY 1967, THE PRESS CONFERENCE IS NUMBERED 1327-C OF THE KENNEDY ADMINISTRATION. IF IT WAS PART OF THE KENNEDY ADMINISTRATION’S RECORDS, ONE MIGHT HAVE REASONABLY EXPECTED IT TO GO TO KENNEDY’S LIBRARY IN MASSACHUSETTS.

BUT IN THIS COPY, WHICH WAS LATER FILED AT THE JOHNSON LIBRARY IN TEXAS, THE ORIGINAL

NUMBER HAS BEEN CROSSED OUT, AND THE PRESS CONFERENCE IS REDESIGNATED NUMBER ONE OF THE JOHNSON ADMINISTRATION. THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THE RENUMBERING HAD TO OCCUR SOMETIME AFTER PIERPOINT DISCOVERED THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IN MAY 1967. SO, THE QUESTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED, WHY WAS THIS DOCUMENT WITHHELD FROM THE WARREN COMMISSION?

INSTEAD OF ASKING THAT QUESTION, CBS REFUSED TO RELEASE THE DOCUMENT OR SAY

WHERE THEY FOUND IT. HERE IS THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE CBS BROADCAST TRANSCRIPT. NOTE THAT DR. PERRY WAS NOT “RUSHED” INTO THE NEWS CONFERENCE. IT BEGAN MORE THAN TWO HOURS AFTER PRESIDENT KENNEDY WAS PRONOUNCED DEAD. THIS IS HOW CBS PROTECTED THE JOHNSON WHITE HOUSE FROM EMBARRASSMENT OVER WHY THE TRANSCRIPT WAS NEVER GIVEN TO THE WARREN COMMISSION.

So think about this for a minute. We have two doctors at Parkland who both said, hours after Kennedy's death and when no lawyers or government officials had any access to them to tell them what to say, and who witnessed his wounds, that the wound they found on President Kennedy on his throat was a wound of entrance. But this press conference was withheld from the WC and basically buried for public consumption. Further, after I'm sure the WC lawyers told them it couldn't have happened that way, both doctors back-tracked on their original conference statements when they testified.

[Tom Neal]

​Does the gash in the death stare photo look like a "small bullet hole in the thin line of Perry's incision"or 2-3 cms wide to you?

I clearly recall the statements you have produced regarding the incision following the removal of the trach tube. And yet the Parkland doctors after

viewing this photo agreed that the was the same tracheostomy incision they saw at Parkland.

Ray,

Have you read my post #622 in this thread?

I'd like to hear your take on it...

Tom

Hi Tom, I partly agree with your last comment.

"IMO the UPPER wound margin has returned to its original position, and is only 'distorted' by the camera angle. The LOWER margin has been retracted (pulled) SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER to create the appearance of a LOWER wound location. I agree that it was ALSO WIDENED to create the appearance of an exit wound, but it has ONLY been widened by LOWERING the LOWER INCISION MARGIN."

I think they altered the wound for two reasons. The one you state above, but also to try to search for a bullet.

They VERY definitely WERE searching, probably desperately, for a bullet. The bullet search had nothing to do with creating an illusion that the "hole" was lower, so I didn't mention it. I'm glad you pointed it out though, because I definitely should have mentioned it. Per Malcolm Perry, the trajectory from the wound in the flesh to the jagged tear in the trachea was very slightly upwards. Yet all the probing and extending of the wound was downwards...

Ray,

We agree that the upper incision margin is as it was when the wound was inflicted. 20% of the wound margin is located within the incision. Perry stated that he made the incision through the wound as confirmed by Baxter. IMO the vertical center of the shirt slit is too low to have been caused by the entry or exit of a missile. And of course there was "no bullet metal" on the edges of the slit. No trajectory has been presented that could produce the exit of a bone fragment through this wound, nor explained how it arrived at the back of the necktie at almost zero velocity, causing no damage whatsoever..

As far as Harold Weisburg stating as a fact that scalpels made the slit, no doctor or nurse present has indicated this, and it is not normal procedure. Much is made of the frantic nature of the attempt to keep JFK alive. Parkland treated multiple gun shot every day. This was a Trauma Room in a big hospital. Everything was already there at hand AND Margaret Henchliffe with 12 years ER experience spent several minutes "setting up" prior to the arrival of JFK and Diana Bowron. Why would they use a scalpel to remove ANY of JFK's clothing when the procedure was to use the scissors MADE SPECIALLY FOR THIS PURPOSE that were available in this well-stocked Trauma Room? As a final comment, the shirt slits overlap when the shirt is buttoned, therefore that's when they were made. Jim Carrico has stated that he personally loosened the tie, unbuttoned AND OPENED the shirt (all the buttons are still attached, and the shirt was not cut along this line) to "listen to JFK's chest." Only then did the nurses remove JFK's clothing. From 1963 to 1997 this statement never changed.

When he asked if he ever saw any hole in the front of JFK's shirt, the verbose and personal Dr. Carrico uncharacteristically responded with a terse and emphatic "No." He made no further comment, and after a long pause, the interview moved on... ??!!! Something there that he doesn't want to talk about, perhaps? Carrico personally unbuttoned and opened JFK's shirt (presumably looking at it while he did so) and failed to notice this slit with at least several long loose threads? This is additional evidence that no exiting bone fragment tore the slits in the shirt, as it appears they did not exist at that time.

Unless someone has evidence to the contrary, the most likely answer is someone, IMO SS, made that slit in support of an exit for the back shot. With apologies to David Lifton, a "Shirt Alteration" if you will...

Edited March 29, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Tom Neal]

Do you have an opinion regarding this exiting bone fragment theory?

My one-word opinion is: Codswollop.

My somewhat longer opinion is that no such bone fragment exists, or ever has existed, in evidence, and not one medical personnel ever testified to seeing any such bone fragment. Just as with the magic "frontal shot" bullet that never existed, it is a no-see-um.

I don't subscribe to no-see-ums. It is a fiction that has to be invented in order to have something to believe in.

I believe in what I see. What I SEE is a condition of the throat that stands, to me, as prima facie evidence that someone went to considerable work to make damned certain that no one would ever have a chance in hell of ever knowing exactly what that original roundish wound in the throat was.

Now, the reason that is my opinion is because that is exactly the result. I believe it was the intended result, which is why it is the result, and which is why we now have 46 pages in this thread alone—and probably 46,000 pages on this subject over the course of the decades. (I'll resort to hyperbole whenever I feel like it.)

When, how, and by whom the throat was put in that condition, or why, can be fodder for endless speculation, but I believe that it was intentional, and that the intent was to render forensic analysis of the original hole in the throat utterly impossible. That intent was accomplished prior to the autopsy. Here's how I know it was accomplished:

BECAUSE IF IT HADN'T BEEN ACCOMPLISHED THE AUTOPSY REPORT WOULD HAVE CONTAINED A DETAILED AND NON-CONTROVERSIAL FORENSIC ANALYSIS OF THE ORIGINAL HOLE IN THE THROAT, AND WE WOULDN'T BE HERE WASTING OUR TIME GUESSING ABOUT IT.

As Prudhomme has pointed out a number of times (but apparently hasn't realized himself, which is why he didn't get my "irony" comment earlier), the place where the tracheostomy was performed was not some "it absolutely has to be right at this exact location" location dictated by the gods of medicine: Perry CHOSE to slice right through the original hole in the throat.

To me, that clearly demonstrates intent.

Bone fragment? <Snort!>

Ashton

Ashton, thanks for the reply, and I hope the process of publishing your book is going well!

Tom

[Tom Neal]

I wanted to add some additional information here as to why I think the "no front throat shot/bullet wound" theory is hogwash.

On another post, a forum member posted a link to a fascinating video script that a man who used to work for CBS produced. This video script revealed the deception and lies that CBS did when they produced their 1960's and 1970's special reports on the assassination. The specials were basically a whitewash and 100% supportive of the Warren Commission. The man who worked on these specials was shocked that CBS did an about face because the original plan was to actually produce a critique of the WC.

You can find a link to this document by doing a search of this forum, but there is a very telling moment in this video script, which I've copied below:

So think about this for a minute. We have two doctors at Parkland who both said, hours after Kennedy's death and when no lawyers or government officials had any access to them to tell them what to say, and who witnessed his wounds, that the wound they found on President Kennedy on his throat was a wound of entrance. But this press conference was withheld from the WC and basically buried for public consumption. Further, after I'm sure the WC lawyers told them it couldn't have happened that way, both doctors back-tracked on their original conference statements when they testified.

CBS was a STRONG element in the ongoing cover-up. Their JFK specials were notoriously biased.

All together now, can we say "Mockingbird!"

Tom

PS -- I keep forgetting to look up the quote, but CBS's Walter Cronkite summarized one of these specials with a comment that I can only paraphrase:

'How do we know that Oswald could have made that shot? Because we know that he did.' And this is the man who actually weeped on the air, calling it "The end of Journalism" when Reagan abolished 'The Truth Act' the genesis of unbiased "news" from the likes of 'The Fox News' Republican Propaganda Channel.

Tom

[Robert Prudhomme]

I would like to re-open the discussion regarding JFK's throat wound, the nick in his tie and the slits in his shirt, just below the collar button.

I attempted to open a new thread on these matters but was told a thread already existed on these topics.

I hope I have chosen the correct thread to continue this discussion and, if I have not, I pray the Administration will be so good as to tell me what the correct thread is.

[Sandy Larsen]

Bob,

I suppose that this would be an appropriate thread to use if you were going argue that the throat wound, shirt slits, and tie nick weren't caused by a bullet. Because that is what the title of the thread states..

Indeed I currently lean toward the projectile being a shard of bone. But I'm still open to the idea that it could have been a bullet fragment, as you recently suggest elsewhere.

I think it makes sense to give this discussion it's own thread. Who told you that there's already such a thread available? I can't find one.

We had some good discussions when I first joined the forum last year that got started in tangentially-related topics. (This topic is one of them.) I wish those would have been started in their own threads as well.

My 2 cents.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I was informed by James Gordon this morning, after I started a new thread regarding the tie nick and the slits in the shirt, that my new thread had been hidden; as there was already a thread regarding these topics, and they didn't want more than one thread on a topic.

I asked James what the title of this thread was but, I received no answer. After much searching, I was able to find only this thread by Ashton Grey, and I assumed it was the one he was referring to.

I realize the title of this thread is the opposite of what I intend to be arguing, but presenting countering arguments to a theory presented in a thread seems to be an accepted practice on this forum. Besides, I believe Ashton Grey's theories are quite without supporting evidence, and I plan to present evidence that will show where he is mistaken as well.

I have no choice in this matter, Sandy, as I have been informed my posting privileges will be suspended if I attempt to start any new threads related to the tie nick or the shirt slits.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Sandy Larsen]

I have no choice in this matter, Sandy, as I have been informed my posting privileges will be suspended if I attempt to start any new threads related to the tie nick or the shirt slits.

Wow.

I think that a thread devoted to just the shirt slits makes a whole lot of sense. As of now, the shirt slits have a a smattering of comments posted here and there on other threads.

The tie nick, likewise.

I did find a topic titled something like "Throat Wound," but discovered on the first post that its focus is on the sloppiness of the wound. (It's an unfortunate choice for the title IMO.) So it seems even the throat would could used a dedicated thread too.

But I understand... you have no say in the matter.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Well, here goes.

Posted below is a section of JFK's tie with a nick in it. As reported by the FBI, the nick only removed the outer coloured fabric of the tie, exposing white material inside the tie. Also visible next to the nick is what appears to be a small bloodstain.

Ashton Gray posted the pre-assassination photo of JFK wearing this tie as seen below, and overlaid the section of tie with the nick over the tie knot; implying this was where this section of tie was when JFK was shot.

Here is another version of this photo, sans overlay.

The red arrow is pointing at what Mr. Gray would have us believe is the top of the tie knot, and that the top of the knot has slipped down, exposing the inner part of the tie knot beneath it.

What Mr. Gray is asking you to believe is impossible. Look at this example of a Windsor tie knot, and I will tell you why.

In fact, I recommend that all of you try to get hold of a tied tie so that you might examine it more closely. I never wear ties, and had to get someone to tie one for me.

If you look closely at the piece of the tie going across the front of the knot, you will see that it goes right around the section that protrudes out the top corner of the knot and then it goes down inside the tie. There is no way the section going across the front of the tie can slip down without dragging the entire tie down with it.

But, there is further proof Mr. Gray is mistaken. If we go back to the first photo, showing the short section of tie with a nick in it, we can see the pattern on the tie is five icons wide at this point. As the tie widens, the number of icons increases, and I have been able to count up to eight icons wide on the lower part of the tie. As can also be seen in this photo, the icons are longer lengthwise on the tie than they are crosswise. Plus, the icons take up much more space on the tie lengthwise than they do crosswise. On my screen, I found that the five icon row crosswise was 78 mm long, while five icons measured lengthwise on the tie measured 117 mm; 33% longer.

The above information may not seem important, until you look again at the two vertical rows of five icons each in the tie knot, and see there is a sixth icon sitting above each vertical row that is supposedly part of the tie that is running in a direction 90° away from the section of tie in the front of the knot.

Given that there is a 33% difference in the spacing of icons from vertical to horizontal, and that the sixth icons are on a section of tie running in a direction 90° away from the section on the front of the tie, how is it these sixth icons line up perfectly with the icons beneath them?

The answer is, someone is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. The section of tie that makes the front of the tie knot has six icons on it, and if the nick really is on a section of tie with five icons wide, the nick is much closer to the tail of the tie, and definitely not on the front or side of the tie knot

More to come......

Edited September 7, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Sandy Larsen]

Robert,

I believe that Kennedy's knot is a "four-in-hand" knot, not a Windsor. The Windsor requires more wraps and thus is a wider knot. The four-in-hand knot is slender, which seems to be the case with Kennedy's knot.

I use the four-in-hand myself. I checked and the front can easily slide down like Kennedy's appears to in the photo.

As for the number of icons in a row....

Look at the tie where it exits the knot at the bottom. I count 5 1/2 icons in a row there. Maybe a fraction less.

The number of icons will be greater than that 5 1/2 if you move along the tie to the wider end. If you move the other direction, the number of icons in a row will be less than that 5 1/2. The tie section that goes horizontally across to make up the front of the knot therefore has to have fewer than 5 1/2 icons across it. Therefore it has to be the 5 we see, and not the 6 that you posit. And therefore the 6th icons we see are actually on a part of the knot that is behind the front of the tie.

It must be coincidence that the "6th icons" line up with the other 5.

As for the icons being longer than wide, I agree that they appear to be shorter in the face of the knot. Could it appear and measure that way because the face of the knot is curved?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Coincidence? Is that what you are calling your brand of research now Sandy?

Watch closely, one more time, and I will show you where you are wrong. Dead wrong.

First, JFK wearing the tie, pre-assassination. Left clicking on this photo makes it much larger.

The row you selected, below the knot, has 5 1/2 icons across it. The one below it is 6 icons wide, and the one above it is 4 icons wide.

Gee, Sandy, could that be because the tie is squished together as it enters the bottom of the knot, or is that just a coincidence? Or would the tie be 6 icons wide if flattened out, and continue to be 6 icons wide right through the front of the knot?

Second, the section of tie with the nick in it:

Take careful note that the "square" icons are not really square but, rather, are rectangular, with their longest axis running lengthwise on the tie. And the same is true with the "round" icons, which are not really round but ovoid on the long axis of the tie.

Next, take a ruler and measure, on your screen, across the tie from the outside of the first icon to the outside of the far icon. Then, do the same for 5 icons lengthwise on the tie. I came up with these measurements:

Across = 77 mm

Lengthwise = 117 mm

A difference of 40 mm or 33%

Therefore, the section of tie showing a single pair of icons, at the top of the knot, should be a vertically aligned section of the tie, and the two icons seen should be 40 mm or 33% closer together than the next pair of icons below them. However, they are in almost perfect alignment with the two rows of icons below them and, if anything, are a millimeter or two further apart.

Do you not agree that these two icons cannot be on a vertically aligned section of tie, or is this just another coincidence?

The front of a four-in-hand tie knot may or may not, as you claim, fall down more easily than the front of a Windsor tie knot but that is not what has happened in this case, as the photos clearly demonstrate.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Sandy Larsen]

Coincidence? Is that what you are calling your brand of research now Sandy?

Watch closely, one more time, and I will show you where you are wrong. Dead wrong.

First, JFK wearing the tie, pre-assassination. Left clicking on this photo makes it much larger.

The row you selected, below the knot, has 5 1/2 icons across it. The one below it is 6 icons wide, and the one above it is 4 icons wide.

Gee, Sandy, could that be because the tie is squished together as it enters the bottom of the knot, or is that just a coincidence? Or would the tie be 6 icons wide if flattened out, and continue to be 6 icons wide right through the front of the knot?

Second, the section of tie with the nick in it:

Take careful note that the "square" icons are not really square but, rather, are rectangular, with their longest axis running lengthwise on the tie. And the same is true with the "round" icons, which are not really round but ovoid on the long axis of the tie.

Next, take a ruler and measure, on your screen, across the tie from the outside of the first icon to the outside of the far icon. Then, do the same for 5 icons lengthwise on the tie. I came up with these measurements:

Across = 77 mm

Lengthwise = 117 mm

A difference of 40 mm or 33%

Therefore, the section of tie showing a single pair of icons, at the top of the knot, should be a vertically aligned section of the tie, and the two icons seen should be 40 mm or 33% closer together than the next pair of icons below them. However, they are in almost perfect alignment with the two rows of icons below them and, if anything, are a millimeter or two further apart.

Do you not agree that these two icons cannot be on a vertically aligned section of tie, or is this just another coincidence?

The front of a four-in-hand tie knot may or may not, as you claim, fall down more easily than the front of a Windsor tie knot but that is not what has happened in this case, as the photos clearly demonstrate.

There's no need to get snarky, Robert.

I'm sorry, I just can't agree with what you're saying. I can see all the icons on the particular row I picked just below the knot, it has 5 1/4 to 5 1/2 icons. I chose that row because I can see the whole row. The number 5 1/2 is verified by the fact that each subsequent row below that one has a little bit more icon to it. It's not until the 8th or 9th row down that there are 6 icons in the row. There is no way that any part of the knot would have more than 5 to 5 1/4 icons across it.

In addition, I can see the edge of the knot at its top (a horizontal line), separating it from the area above it that carries the 6th row of icons. Everything seems to fit what one would expect, other than the fact that the 6th row of icons line up with the other 5. What I believe to be a coincidence.

I have noticed that the icons across any given row are not always all lined up vertically. And that icon size varies slightly (some are a bit larger, some a bit smaller). I cant see that unless I zoom way in. I don't know how to explain this. I had assumed the pattern would be perfectly repeated every-other-row. But I can see it's not. Maybe the pattern was printed on, and the fabric wasn't perfectly stretched when that was done. This apparent manufacuring imperfection may be related to the seeming fact that the icons are generally longer in the part of the tie we see hanging down.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Robert Prudhomme]

Sandy, I get tired of repeating the same childish concepts over and over on this forum, and some days I truly wonder why some posters on this forum have difficulty "grasping" things.

"In addition, I can see the edge of the knot at its top (a horizontal line), separating it from the area above it that carries the 6th row of icons. Everything seems to fit what one would expect, other than the fact that the 6th row of icons line up with the other 5. What I believe to be a coincidence."

Coincidence my butt. The icons are 33% further apart one direction than they are the other. You're going to have to prove those six icons could magically line up perfectly in a vertical line, rather than just trying to pass it off as "coincidence".

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy, I get tired of repeating the same childish concepts over and over on this forum, and some days I truly wonder why some posters on this forum have difficulty "grasping" things.

"In addition, I can see the edge of the knot at its top (a horizontal line), separating it from the area above it that carries the 6th row of icons. Everything seems to fit what one would expect, other than the fact that the 6th row of icons line up with the other 5. What I believe to be a coincidence."

Coincidence my butt. The icons are 33% further apart one direction than they are the other. You're going to have to prove those six icons could magically line up perfectly in a vertical line, rather than just trying to pass it off as "coincidence".

Well, if you're saying that I didn't grasp what you wrote, then you're wrong. I did.

I think the fabric wasn't stretched uniformly during the printing process. And that that resulted in the icon elongation you noted and the non-uniformity of icon size and location I noted.