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

[Robert Prudhomme]

Ashton Grey said:

"Meanwhile, neither you nor anyone in this forum has accepted my challenge and done it, and that's because it can't be done."

The reason I have not accepted your challenge is that I have been aware for many years the throat wound was well below the top of JFK's collar, and to try this out would only prove to me something I already knew.

[Sandy Larsen]

... even the upper edge of [JFK's throat] wound is FAR too low to be located at ring2-3, and there's no way to know the location of the trach hole relative to the horizontal center line of that wide wound.

If you feel for the rings in your trachea yourself, you have to start counting at ring 3, because the thyroid covers rings 1 and 2 and frequently 3 as well. Anyone who tries this and counts the first ring they can feel as #1 will place the wound too low.

Tom,

The location of tracheal rings is apparently highly variable from person to person.

If I probe my trachea and locate my cricoid cartilage, then "touch" the bottom (inferior edge) of the cricoid with my fingernail, my finger is located in my suprasternal notch. This is when I am sitting up straight. Even if my finger pushes down hard on the skin covering my suprasternal notch, it is still above (superior to) tracheal ring 1.

If I tilt my head back as far as possible (still in a sitting position), in the suprasternal notch area I feel soft tissue, which I'm sure is thyroid. When doing this, the distance between the top of my suprasternal notch and bottom of my cricoid is about 1.5 inches. (This measurement does not include skin tissue... that is, it is the distance that would be measured if all flesh were removed from that area.) I cannot feel any tracheal rings because my throat skin is stretched too tight. If I allow my throat skin to relax a bit, all I feel is thyroid tissue.

BTW, here is a link showing an actual tracheostomy being performed. The incision is made either between rings 1 and 2, or 2 and 3. My guess is the latter. (The instructions on the page say to choose one of those two locations, but the location chosen by the surgeon isn't given as far as I can tell.) Even with the man's head tilted back, the location of the incision is quite low. I estimate about an inch above the suprasternal notch.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Tom Neal]

Ashton Grey said:

"Meanwhile, neither you nor anyone in this forum has accepted my challenge and done it, and that's because it can't be done."

The reason I have not accepted your challenge is that I have been aware for many years the throat wound was well below the top of JFK's collar, and to try this out would only prove to me something I already knew.

Bob,

What reason(s) has convinced you for many years that the wound is WELL below the collar?

Tom

Edited March 26, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Tom Neal]

The location of tracheal rings is apparently highly variable from person to person.

Based on your description of your own anatomy, you are saying that your cricoid cartilage is in, or almost in the suprasternal notch, and your thyroid is actually in the notch.

This is where we always butt heads. We draw VASTLY different conclusion from the same data. Using YOUR information ONLY, I draw the conclusion that either:

1. your anatomy differs GREATLY from the norm

2. you are misidentifying the organs

I choose option 2.

Nowhere in your description do you state that you can feel any of your tracheal rings. i.e. You have no idea as to their actual location relative to any of your anatomy. Your conclusion is that the rings are in a different place. However, you are actually stating that your cricoid cartilage and thyroid are in the wrong place compared with the diagrams. Yet your conclusion is that the rings, although you have no idea of their location are in the wrong place. Shouldn't you be saying, the thyroid and cartilage don't match the diagrams?

This is not semantics or splitting hairs. This is an example of "Critical Thinking" and why we constantly disagree.

So your conclusion is that the location of the tracheal rings is "highly variable" in individuals. You are comparing yourself to medical diagrams, and possibly me. My anatomy matches the diagrams. YOUR anatomy ALONE is different from the norm thus you draw the conclusion that the location of the rings varies greatly in individuals. Inductive reasoning dictates that one example CANNOT produce a rule applicable to all human beings. Whether you are aware of it, and whether you will admit it or not, that is exactly what you have just done.

OTOH, my conclusion is that you are simply misidentifying the organs in your neck.

The cricoid cartilage btw is immediately above tracheal ring 1. This locates your ideal tracheostomy location below your suprasternal notch.

Please post a medical diagram that fits your description of your anatomy... Or consider the possibility that your are misidentifying your thyroid and cricoid cartilage.

[Tom Neal]

Sandy,

Please provide a link to the HIGHEST RES photo of the JFK "star-of-death" photo that you can find. The one that is almost looking straight down at the throat wound.

BTW, IIRC you mentioned that you are an engineer. If so, what field is your degree in?

[Paul Brancato]

Michael Walton - I'm pretty much with you on your more minimalist approach. I think it's just obvious that JFK was hit in the throat first, and agree that the early reports from Parkland are more reliable. I also agree that the Z film is not altered, and believe that its authenticity has been the subject of a concerted attack precisely because it is our best evidence of multiple shooters. I likewise had a lot of trouble with Lifton's theories of body alteration for the same general reason it takes a lot of twisting and turning. But that one at least has the benefit of loads of eyewitness testimony over the years that support his theory, so I have come to accept it.

I don't generally post on threads dealing with the re-enactments of what happened during those 6-8 seconds because I think it is a distraction. No one will ultimately win arguments like these, though they may be convinced they are right. And no one will ever convince me that a proven exactly correct sequence will bring us any closer to Who done it. I want to know Who and Why. The only thing this minute examination of wounds and ballistics and trajectories proves is that there were multiple shooters. Duh!

[Tom Neal]

Below is the throat wound as shown in one the "stare-of-death" photos:

This crop has been rotated to align the start and end points of the incision with the horizontal plane as indicated by the RED line.

This photo was NOT taken from directly above the incision. Therefore the photo is 'distorted' by the angles between the camera and wound. To properly measure the 'real' dimensions of this wound would require correction by rotating this image in 3 dimensions. Relative to JFK's body the camera is to the right (LEFT relative to the photo) of the wound's BLUE vertical centerline, and below the wounds RED horizontal centerline and the photo represents this angular 'distortion'.

Note the width of the GREEN upper and lower wound margins relative to the RED line and their respective YELLOW lines located at their extremities.

Look at the photograph as displayed on you screen and imagine it as 3-dimensional:

Note the curvature of the GREEN line representing the UPPER margin of the wound. Malcolm Perry cut a straight incision through the essentially round neck. We see it as a curved line due to the below-center location of the camera.

Imagine a horizontal plane through the RED line and a 2nd horizontal plane through the UPPER of the YELLOW lines. Consider the YELLOW line as an axis and rotate the associated plane until it touches the RED horizontal plane. The angle between these two planes is EQUAL to the angle of the camera relative to the wound.

This assumes of course that the wound margins have returned to their immediate post-incision locations. That is when they were separated only by the width of Perry's scalpel blade.

We know the camera is BELOW the Red line. Any rotation of the GREEN upper margin along the RED axis-line toward the camera will decrease the distance between the RED line, and UPPER YELLOW line. Rotating (in the opposite direction) a line from the camera to the center of the wound would achieve the same result. If we knew the exact angle of this line from camera to wound and corrected the GREEN UPPER margin accordingly, whatever distance, IF ANY, remaining between the RED LINE and the UPPER YELLOW line would indicate how close the UPPER MARGIN has returned to its location the instant Perry removed the scalpel from the incision.

Which margin appears CLOSER to its ORIGINAL location?

Q1: Does the shape of this throat opening give anyone the IMPRESSION that the wound is located LOWER than it actually is?

Q2: IF the UPPER margin has been retracted UPWARD from its ORIGINAL location, where are the wrinkle lines that should be visible?

Q3: IF the LOWER margin has been retracted DOWNWARD from its ORIGINAL location, are any wrinkle lines visible in the darkness below the wound?

Note that at no time have I attempted to determine the location of the wound as above or below the collar. I have no dog in this fight. I don't care whether the wound was above or below the shirt collar. Because its relative location is MANDATORY to understanding multiple facets of the shooting, I would like to gather all extant evidence for evaluation. Until this is done I have no OVERALL opinion on this matter.

With regard ONLY to the above statements, and including NO OTHER FACTORS:

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.

Tom

Edited March 28, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Sandy Larsen]

Tom,

The anatomical structure around my trachea may indeed be far from the norm. I don't know because my sample size is only two... three if you include Kennedy. It certainly is different from the diagrams I see on the Internet.

But no, I am not misidentifying body parts. I certainly know what cartilage feels like and I can easily make out my thyroid and cricoid cartilages

As for my credentials (I assume that's the reason you ask about my degree)... well, I obviously am not a doctor. But I believe the following count toward my credibility in this matter:

• I took an anatomy class in college which was quite tough. (Lots of memorizing.) We learned not only bones, muscles, and organs, but detailed features like articulations, projections, and depressions on bones. We had a lab with cadavers, which we used both for learning and for tests. I got high nineties on all my tests and led the class with the highest total score.
• I graduated with a masters degree in electrical engineering. My GPA was 3.9 on a 4.0 scale.
• I was a top MRI surface coil designer in the early1990s. I designed coils for several regions of the body (neck, wrist, shoulder, TMJ, breast, and others). If you do a google search on my given name, Sanford Larsen, along with keywords like MRI surface coils, you may find remnants of my work. The relevance of this is not only the fact that I had to be precise with anatomical structures, but also with complex three dimensional mechanical design.
• I had my own manufacturing business (New Wave Instruments) for which I did my own design work including both electronic and mechanical. I sold precision instrumentation to Fortune 500 companies and government agencies worldwide. (I am now all but retired due to health issues.)

I am not a hack... I know what I'm doing. And I have no trouble with critical thinking. If I am imprecise in some of my posts it's because I am a bit cavalier in my speech and mannerisms. Plus, I'm not here to write a dissertation. I AM very careful when I feel its important and if I'm up to it. (Poor health.)

The cricoid cartilage btw is immediately above tracheal ring 1. This locates your ideal tracheostomy location below your suprasternal notch.

That is correct. Though an ideal tracheostomy (between rings 2 and 3) may be possible with my head tilted all the way back. I don't know because, as I said, I couldn't feel any rings with my skin stretched tight.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Tom Neal]

I am not a hack... I know what I'm doing.

The reason I asked about your engineering degrees/experience has NOTHING to do with your anatomy or ability to locate it.

If you read my post 622, you can see that it has to do with math/engineering/science experience in the following:

tensors

Calculus

vector analysis

matrix rotations

CAD experience

Photoshop experience

Did you read my post 622?

You didn't answer any of the 3 questions I asked - do you intend to?

Edited March 27, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Sandy Larsen]

I am not a hack... I know what I'm doing.

The reason I asked about your engineering degrees/experience has NOTHING to do with your anatomy or ability to locate it.

If you read my post 622, you can see that it has to do with math/engineering/science experience in the following:

tensors

Calculus

vector analysis

matrix rotations

CAD experience

Photoshop experience

Did you read my post 622?

You didn't answer any of the 3 questions I asked - do you intend to?

Oh, so that's why you were asking for a high definition death-stare photo.

I did read post 622. I feel completely unqualified to say almost anything about the wound in that photo. Not only that, but one of my weaknesses is 3D visualization. As well as I did in college, I actually froze up when taking a test in a drafting class that covered the drawing of three sides of an object projected onto a plane.I failed the test... didn't even get past the first problem. (Good thing it was only a 0.5 credit hour class... otherwise it would have ruined my GPA and I would have lost my scholarship.)

I don't know if you want me to comment of my experience or understanding on each of those six items. But here goes:

tensors

Though I had heard the term before, I had to look it up. I recall having a high level math class that covered something that looked like that. But I don't believe the word tensor was even used. Just a mathematical concept. I didn't understand the need for learning it. And I never used it. But then, I never used most the stuff I learned in graduate level math classes.

Calculus

Naturally I learned high-school level differential and integral calculus. And Laplace and Fourier transforms which are based on integral calculus. And how to solve homogeneous linear differential equations with constant coefficients. (That one is very important for analog engineers.) But I've hardly touched any of that in thirty years.

vector analysis

Nope. RF engineers learn this because they need to understand Maxwell's equations. (I've often wondered how James Clerk Maxwell went about predicting the existence of electromagnetic waves twenty years before they were actually discovered.by Heinrich Hertz. I mean, why did it even enter his mind. Brilliant!)

matrix rotations

Nope. Never had a need for that in my profession.

CAD experience

Yep, a ton of experience with CAD. Problem is, I'm sure you're thinking of mechanical design. I've only done printed circuit design.

Photoshop experience

Never used Photoshop. But I've used some cheap substitutes.

I must say, after writing my resume for you I was feeling rather smart. But now I'm feeling rather stupid! I am very impressed If you are capable of doing these things.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Tom Neal]

I am not a hack... I know what I'm doing.

The reason I asked about your engineering degrees/experience has NOTHING to do with your anatomy or ability to locate it.

If you read my post 622, you can see that it has to do with math/engineering/science experience in the following:

tensors

Calculus

vector analysis

matrix rotations

CAD experience

Photoshop experience

Did you read my post 622?

You didn't answer any of the 3 questions I asked - do you intend to?

Oh, so that's why you were asking for a high definition death-stare photo.

I did read post 622. I feel completely unqualified to say almost anything about the wound in that photo. Not only that, but one of my weaknesses is 3D visualization. As well as I did in college, I actually froze up when taking a test in a drafting class that covered the drawing of three sides of an object projected onto a plane.I failed the test... didn't even get past the first problem. (Good thing it was only a 0.5 credit hour class... otherwise it would have ruined my GPA and I would have lost my scholarship.)

I don't know if you want me to comment of my experience or understanding on each of those six items. But here goes:

tensors

Though I had heard the term before, I had to look it up. I recall having a high level math class that covered something that looked like that. But I don't believe the word tensor was even used. Just a mathematical concept. I didn't understand the need for learning it. And I never used it. But then, I never used most the stuff I learned in graduate level math classes.

Calculus

Naturally I learned high-school level differential and integral calculus. And Laplace and Fourier transforms which are based on integral calculus. And how to solve homogeneous linear differential equations with constant coefficients. (That one is very important for analog engineers.) But I've hardly touched any of that in thirty years.

vector analysis

Nope. RF engineers learn this because they need to understand Maxwell's equations. (I've often wondered how James Clerk Maxwell went about predicting the existence of electromagnetic waves twenty years before they were actually discovered.by Heinrich Hertz. I mean, why did it even enter his mind. Brilliant!)

matrix rotations

Nope. Never had a need for that in my profession.

CAD experience

Yep, a ton of experience with CAD. Problem is, I'm sure you're thinking of mechanical design. I've only done printed circuit design.

Photoshop experience

Never used Photoshop. But I've used some cheap substitutes.

I must say, after writing my resume for you I was feeling rather smart. But now I'm feeling rather stupid! I am very impressed If you are capable of doing these things.

BTW, I decided to go with the "stare-of-death" photo from Robin Unger's site. The trachea should be visible in the photo, but in my opinion the wound area was darkened in the original. There are simply not enough pixels there to provide information, so enhancement will not help.

OK. Thanks for the elaboration on those subjects, but unfortunately for me, you're not the guy I was looking for. I was hoping for someone who could independently do the same calculations I have performed and compare the end results. Especially since you are NOT going to like results one bit!

BUT, the three questions I referred to were at the bottom of post 622, and refer DIRECTLY to what's happening in that post. It would be helpful if you would read that post and answer Q1-Q3...they don't require any of the skills I asked about.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Robert Prudhomme]

Ashton Grey said:

"Meanwhile, neither you nor anyone in this forum has accepted my challenge and done it, and that's because it can't be done."

The reason I have not accepted your challenge is that I have been aware for many years the throat wound was well below the top of JFK's collar, and to try this out would only prove to me something I already knew.

Bob,

What reason(s) has convinced you for many years that the wound is WELL below the collar?

Tom

Show me in this diagram where the thyroid cartilage covers any of the tracheal rings (tracheal cartilage). If you look closely, you will see the thyroid cartilage above the cricoid cartilage, and the cricoid cartilage above the tracheal rings or cartilage.

A cricothyrotomy is performed in the notch between the thyroid cartilage and the cricoid cartilage. If there were tracheal rings behind the thyroid cartilage, this would be impossible.

The purpose of a cricothyrotomy is to allow an air tube to be inserted in order to ventilate a patient. I have actually assisted a doctor in performing this procedure in an emergency setting.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Sandy Larsen]

... unfortunately for me, you're not the guy I was looking for. I was hoping for someone who could independently do the same calculations I have performed and compare the end results. Especially since you are NOT going to like results one bit!

LOL, well if you prove that the wound was above the shirtline, that's perfectly fine with me. After all, I am interested in knowing the truth, not in being right. Though I am a bit worried that I won't be able to understand your proof, or whatever it is you have. Anyway, good luck with it. Make it easy to understand.

BUT, the three questions I referred to were at the bottom of post 622, and refer DIRECTLY to what's happening in that post. It would be helpful if you would read that post and answer Q1-Q3...they don't require any of the skills I asked about.

Yes, those are the questions I was referring to when I said:

I feel completely unqualified to say almost anything about the wound in that photo. [because I think medical knowledge is needed to comment intelligently.] Not only that, but one of my weaknesses is 3D visualization. As well as I did in college, I actually froze up when taking a test in a drafting class that covered the drawing of three sides of an object projected onto a plane. I failed the test... didn't even get past the first problem. (Good thing it was only a 0.5 credit hour class... otherwise it would have ruined my GPA and I would have lost my scholarship.)

Actually, Tom, it is your two-dimensional rendition of the three-dimensional wound that I have a hard time with. I'm not saying it's wrong, only that when I look at it I don't see that it tells me anything. Regarding your three questions... if they are referring to the 3D wound and not your 2D version, maybe I can answer them. I'll look at them again.

[Sandy Larsen]

Ashton Grey said:

"Meanwhile, neither you nor anyone in this forum has accepted my challenge and done it, and that's because it can't be done."

The reason I have not accepted your challenge is that I have been aware for many years the throat wound was well below the top of JFK's collar, and to try this out would only prove to me something I already knew.

Bob,

What reason(s) has convinced you for many years that the wound is WELL below the collar?

Tom

Show me in this diagram where the thyroid cartilage covers any of the tracheal rings (tracheal cartilage).

Robert,

I think what Tom said was that thyroid tissue (part of the gland) covers the first and second tracheal rings. Not thyroid cartilage.

I may have said something like "thyroid covering the rings" in one of my posts and caused this confusion. If so, what I meant was "thyroid gland tissue covering the rings.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Robert Prudhomme]

Tom Neal, on 25 Mar 2016 - 1:55 PM, said:

... even the upper edge of [JFK's throat] wound is FAR too low to be located at ring2-3, and there's no way to know the location of the trach hole relative to the horizontal center line of that wide wound.

If you feel for the rings in your trachea yourself, you have to start counting at ring 3, because the thyroid covers rings 1 and 2 and frequently 3 as well. Anyone who tries this and counts the first ring they can feel as #1 will place the wound too low.

As this diagram clearly shows, the trachea, made up of tracheal rings, starts below the cricoid cartilage, and that is below the thyroid cartilage. The thyroid gland does cover the trachea but, as this diagram shows, the thyroid actually is below the cricoid cartilage, still placing an incision between the 2nd and 3rd (or 3rd and 4th) tracheal rings very low in the neck.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme