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

[Cliff Varnell]

Robert Prudhomme:

<quote on>

The part I have a problem with is the frontal throat shot. I believe Sandy and I have conclusively proven the throat wound was well below the top of the collar, behind the tie knot.

<quote off>

From the WC testimony of Dr. Charles Carrico:

<quote on, emphasis added>

Dr. CARRICO - At that time the endotracheal tube was inserted, using a curved laryngoscopic blade, inserting an endotracheal tube, it was seen there were some contusions, hematoma to the right of the larynx, with a minimal deviation of the larynx to the left, and rugged tissue below indicating tracheal injury.

<quote off>

The tracheal injury was reported below the wound entrance.

Cr. Carrico didn't say the tracheal injury was located below the wound. He said the injury was below the larnyx.

The tracheal rings are located just below the larnyx.

Indeed.

And there was injury to the area above the trachea -- "hematoma to the right of the larnyx" -- which means there was significant deflection of the round, which entered above the shirt collar about where the tie knot was, on the right.

Right where Carrico put it in his WC testimony.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

[Cliff Varnell]

I've finally figured out why Cliff is here. Any time someone has a reasonable theory posted, Cliff immediately attacks everyone and distracts readers from the main topic

I'm here to demo the weaponized fact of conspiracy: the bullet holes in JFK's clothes are too low to have been associated with the throat wound, which establishes a wound of entrance in his back at T3 -- no corresponding exit -- and a wound of entrance in his throat with no corresponding exit.

Bang!

[Sandy Larsen]

Robert Prudhomme:

<quote on>

The part I have a problem with is the frontal throat shot. I believe Sandy and I have conclusively proven the throat wound was well below the top of the collar, behind the tie knot.

<quote off>

From the WC testimony of Dr. Charles Carrico:

<quote on, emphasis added>

Dr. CARRICO - At that time the endotracheal tube was inserted, using a curved laryngoscopic blade, inserting an endotracheal tube, it was seen there were some contusions, hematoma to the right of the larynx, with a minimal deviation of the larynx to the left, and rugged tissue below indicating tracheal injury.

<quote off>

The tracheal injury was reported below the wound entrance.

Cr. Carrico didn't say the tracheal injury was located below the wound. He said the injury was below the larnyx.

The tracheal rings are located just below the larnyx.

Indeed.

And there was injury to the area above the trachea -- "hematoma to the right of the larnyx" -- which means there was significant deflection of the round, which entered above the shirt collar about where the tie knot was, on the right.

Right where Carrico put it in his WC testimony.

That must have been quite a low-energy round to have been so easily deflected by cartilage. Nevertheless I think it would be worthy of consideration and study if it weren't for the fact that the wound by most or all accounts was located at around the 3rd tracheal ring, not the larynx.

Perhaps hematoma can occur adjacent to a wound.

In not, my and Robert's theories could still account for the hematoma. The projectile came from the back of the neck, deflected off the cartilage of the larynx, ripped through the trachea and exited the throat. Either that or there were two projectiles caused by a single bullet, one that hit the larynx and the other that ripped through the trachea and out the throat.

[Cliff Varnell]

Robert Prudhomme:

<quote on>

The part I have a problem with is the frontal throat shot. I believe Sandy and I have conclusively proven the throat wound was well below the top of the collar, behind the tie knot.

<quote off>

From the WC testimony of Dr. Charles Carrico:

<quote on, emphasis added>

Dr. CARRICO - At that time the endotracheal tube was inserted, using a curved laryngoscopic blade, inserting an endotracheal tube, it was seen there were some contusions, hematoma to the right of the larynx, with a minimal deviation of the larynx to the left, and rugged tissue below indicating tracheal injury.

<quote off>

The tracheal injury was reported below the wound entrance.

Cr. Carrico didn't say the tracheal injury was located below the wound. He said the injury was below the larnyx.

The tracheal rings are located just below the larnyx.

Indeed.

And there was injury to the area above the trachea -- "hematoma to the right of the larnyx" -- which means there was significant deflection of the round, which entered above the shirt collar about where the tie knot was, on the right.

Right where Carrico put it in his WC testimony.

That must have been quite a low-energy round to have been so easily deflected by cartilage.

Consistent with a non-conventional round as per the Prosectors' Scenario.

Nevertheless I think it would be worthy of consideration and study if it weren't for the fact that the wound by most or all accounts was located at around the 3rd tracheal ring, not the larynx.

There were contusions and hematoma of the larnyx and below that damage to the tracha all the way down between the 3rd and 4th trach ring and at that point the round took a path to the right T1 transverse process where it left a hairline fracture and air air-pocket overlaying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes.

From the HSCA x-ray analysis:

<quote on>

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse

processes. There is disruption of the integrity of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the opposite side

and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a fracture inthat area. There is some soft tissue

density overlying the apex of the right lung which may be hematoma in that region or other soft tissue swelling.

<quote off>

Perhaps hematoma can occur adjacent to a wound.

And contusions? Researcher, puh-leeze!

In not, my and Robert's theories could still account for the hematoma. The projectile came from the back of the neck,

Sandy, seriously?

There was no entrance in the back of the neck.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

It seems to me that you have confirmed what Jim Garrison argued in 1968 -- almost 50 years ago. "Back and to the left" was his phrase, explaining the Zapruder film, and also explaining why the back of JFK's head was blown away.

So -- you agree with Jim Garrison (and so with Oliver Stone, and so with most of us here) on the basics.

So, I'm not really sure why Robert would criticize your work, since Robert also agrees with a frontal shot to the head, as I read him.

Now, the author of this thread, Ashton Gray (*), says that he might consider a theory for a shot from the back of the head -- but it seems that hes still working out his details.

I think that almost everybody here -- except for the LNers -- agree with the premise of a frontal head shot.

I would like to hear from anybody with the opposite theory, actually -- who here thinks that JFK was shot in the back of the head -- and upon what evidence (aside from Arlen Specter's relentless insistence)?

--Paul Trejo

Paul:

There is a funny, ridiculous version. It was brought to us by Bob Harris. He is a well know CTer who claims that all the shots originated from behind (the Grassy Knoll and all frontal locations were devoid of shooters), and therefore -in that sense- he is a faithful member of the Church of Posner:

While I appreciate Bob's admirable degree of dedication (apparently, the only degree he possesses), he could use reading some textbooks and taking some classes of Physics and related disciplines.

-Ramon

(*): Unless he has a lot of time to dedicate to proving the impossible, I would recommend Ashton Gray to stay clear from that path. Then again, if he has access to world-class research scientists, experts in Finite Element Analysis and Computational Fluid Dynamics, Biomechanics PLUS plenty of supercomputer time to burn ... I strongly encourage him to go down that path. He would be welcome with standing ovations -not unlike the Soviet Union in the late 80s-

"Attention, world! This is NOT the way"

Edited September 24, 2016 by Ramon F. Herrera

[Robert Prudhomme]

Carrico said hematoma and contusion to the RIGHT of the larynx, NOT a hematoma and contusion on the larynx itself.

For those who don't know, a hematoma is a collection of blood outside of a blood vessel while a contusion is bruising of tissue.

It would be perfectly normal for a bullet passing beneath the level of the larynx to cause localized bleeding and bruising beside the larynx. However, Cliff, the main injury was still the tear the projectile made passing through the right side of the trachea, between the SECOND and THIRD tracheal rings.

Bruising beside the larynx but "rugged (sic should read ragged) tissue below indicating tracheal injury".

Bruising to the tissue adjacent to the larynx but the main injury was below in the trachea.

Do you see now what Carrico was saying, Cliff, or do we get to listen to your madness for a few more pages now?

[Robert Prudhomme]

It seems to me that you have confirmed what Jim Garrison argued in 1968 -- almost 50 years ago. "Back and to the left" was his phrase, explaining the Zapruder film, and also explaining why the back of JFK's head was blown away.

So -- you agree with Jim Garrison (and so with Oliver Stone, and so with most of us here) on the basics.

So, I'm not really sure why Robert would criticize your work, since Robert also agrees with a frontal shot to the head, as I read him.

Now, the author of this thread, Ashton Gray (*), says that he might consider a theory for a shot from the back of the head -- but it seems that hes still working out his details.

I think that almost everybody here -- except for the LNers -- agree with the premise of a frontal head shot.

I would like to hear from anybody with the opposite theory, actually -- who here thinks that JFK was shot in the back of the head -- and upon what evidence (aside from Arlen Specter's relentless insistence)?

--Paul Trejo

Paul:

There is a funny, ridiculous version. It was brought to us by Bob Harris. He is a well know CTer who claims that all the shots originated from behind (the Grassy Knoll and all frontal locations were devoid of shooters), and therefore -in that sense- he is a faithful member of the Church of Posner:

While I appreciate Bob's admirable degree of dedication (apparently, the only degree he possesses), he could use reading some textbooks and taking some classes of Physics and related disciplines.

-Ramon

(*): Unless he has a lot of time to dedicate to proving the impossible, I would recommend Ashton Gray to stay clear from that path. Then again, if he has access to world-class research scientists, experts in Finite Element Analysis and Computational Fluid Dynamics, Biomechanics PLUS plenty of supercomputer time to burn ... I strongly encourage him to go down that path. He would be welcome with standing ovations -not unlike the Soviet Union in the late 80s-

"Attention, world! This is NOT the way"

Aww, great!! Ramon and Paul Trejo together on a thread. Now we get to learn the true meaning of the word nonsense.

[Sandy Larsen]

I liked your videos, Ramon -- yet they seem to agree with most of the people here, IMHO -- namely, they imply that JFK was shot in the head from the front, and was pushed "back and to the left" by the force of this bullet.

It made no difference whether it was a full-metal-jacket bullet, or a frangible bullet -- the effect would be the same, as I interpret your Physics videos.

Just for the record Paul, and this is EXTREMELY important. I cannot stress the importance of what follows enough. It should be obvious and yet it must be repeated again, and again, and again:

In an ideal world, we mere mortals would debate and discuss our theories and eventually some superior beings (Doctor Spock or "Data", etc.) will come down to earth, solve all those complex equations, and voila!: the biggest unresolved problem in the history of Physics is solved. Everybody is satisfied (well, a large percentage). However, since those perfect (non-opinionated) beings do no exist are not available, we are forced to wear TWO hats. I don't know of many intelligent, informed people who remain neutral in this polarized case, not even in Switzerland.

[Assume for a second that I am spokesperson for Science, if there is such a thing]

Therefore, given that my goal is to persuade as many as 320+ million American (and the rest of the world) I am OBLIGATED to consider all possibilities:

Official Effect:

https://goo.gl/6gtvbb

Parkland Effect:

https://goo.gl/RCLmy3

Take a look inside both folders and you will see that the 2 main theories must be considered. At the end, the definite solution will be dictated by this principle:

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/arthurcona134512.html

Q.E.D.

-Ramon

Ramon,

For you models to conclude opposing scenarios to be correct or incorrect, you are going to have to feed them known correct data. How are you going to be able to do that if the data has been altered unbeknownst to you? It's the same old garbage-in, garbage-out problem that we all have to deal with.

Computer simulations are suitable for some things, but not all.

If your simulation for the official story finds it is possible, but for the Parkland story finds it is not possible, you will conclude that the official story is correct. In contrast I will conclude that your simulations were fed faulty data. Why? Because of the overwhelming evidence against the official story. In the case of the SBT, the hole in the shirt (among other things) conclusively proves that the SBT is wrong. In the case of the HSCA tangential head wound, the overwhelming testimony for a back-of-the-head blowout proves that that is where the wound initially was.

I applaud your efforts because simulations can most useful. But I won't let them override convincing man-made arguments.

Another potential problem is that it is possible for a simulator to make mistakes. Because they are only as good as their human designers make them. And humans 1) make mistakes, and 2) don't take everything into account, as there are far too many possibilities to consider. An infinite number, really. A simple example is that there are likely weaker and strong areas of bone within a skull that vary from person-to-person. In the case of JFK those areas will never be known as deterioration has already occurred.

In summary, I applaud what you are doing. Simulations can be very useful. But they are not the be-all end-all in solving the JFK assassination. And in fact they can prove harmful if the wrong conclusion is made.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

I have NEVER seen a bullet, be it a FMJ (illegal for hunting), soft point or hollow point bullet leave an animal headless. This is the stuff cartoons and documentaries from Australia are made of, and anyone who believes it possible to remove a deer's (or a man's) head with a bullet is a complete and utter fool.

There you go, Bob:

Minute 7'10"

... brought to you by:

T&E Systems, Proud Suppliers of the Military Industrial Complex:

http://www.tnesystems.com/fbh.html

-Ramon

Edited September 25, 2016 by Ramon F. Herrera

[Paul Trejo]

I want to get back to the theme of Ashton Gray's thread here -- namely -- the debate over a frontal shot to JFK's throat.

The theme of JFK's necktie was discussed here, but not JFK's shirt, so far.

Yet FBI ballistics analyst Robert Frazier testified that there was a double hole in the collar of JFK's shirt -- one hole in the buttonhole side, and a corresponding hole in the button side.

So -- how do you analysts explain this set of collar holes in JFK's shirt -- except by postulating an entry wound or an exit wound in the throat of JFK?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Ramon F. Herrera]

In summary, I applaud what you are doing. Simulations can be very useful. But they are not the be-all end-all in solving the JFK assassination. And in fact they can prove harmful if the wrong conclusion is made.

Thanks, Sandy, but I am afraid that I have to ask you to hold your applauses because I am not worthy of a fraction of them.

You see, of all those things that you mentioned I am doing NONE. There is no "Ramon's simulations" for starters. It is all a Wish List, "I Have a Dream" sort of stuff.

Just to avoid confusion, I placed the following caveat in my post above:

"Assume for a second that I am spokesperson for Science, if there is such a thing"

When I show the 2 ANIMATIONS (not simulations!) I must hurry to add the following ...

"These are the 2 scenarios that I would love QUALIFIED INSTITUTIONS AND RESEARCHERS TO STUDY"

... I am explicitly excluding myself.

Incidentally and moving to your other, very important point, here's my stock reply:

The one, the only, the definite solution to the crime, from a scientific point of view (*) goes through the following path:

https://goo.gl/XOJpSA

Every product you use, every car/airplane you enter is designed using those techniques -not to mention the Mars rovers. If those simulations wouldn't work, airplanes would not take off, your iPhone would overheat in under a minute, etc., etc., etc.

This is how they do it:

Step 1: Perform a Simulation

Step 2: If the simulation does not work, they make a better model (perhaps using real-life data)

Step 3: Go to Step 1 (maybe years, or decades later)

-Ramon

(*) In my humble evangelism (rooting and cheerleading for my God, which is Science) I assume that we cannot:

• Break into the National Archives or CIA, undetected in the middle of the night.

• Hire the folks who liberated El Chapo, to dig a tunnel under certain grave in Arlington National Cemetery (Lot 45, Section 30), stealing its corpse and running with it to our trusted medical school (Boston University is definitely out from consideration - they know why).

• Get an Ouija board and summon, let's say, David A. Phillips or some cohort.

• Kidnap a big shot (president?), take them to a dark basement with a bright light in their face, twist their arm, rough them up a little, record their confession and somehow broadcast it to the world.

IOW: Only the material publicly available is available to us (and by us, I mean the universities).

Edited September 25, 2016 by Ramon F. Herrera

[Robert Prudhomme]

I have NEVER seen a bullet, be it a FMJ (illegal for hunting), soft point or hollow point bullet leave an animal headless. This is the stuff cartoons and documentaries from Australia are made of, and anyone who believes it possible to remove a deer's (or a man's) head with a bullet is a complete and utter fool.

There you go, Bob:

Minute 7'10"

... brought to you by:

T&E Systems, Proudly Suppliers of the Military Industrial Complex:

http://www.tnesystems.com/fbh.html

-Ramon

Ramon

As I said, documentaries such as this are made for the benefit of complete and utter fools, such as you.

Show me a video of a REAL head, human or animal, that gets blown into utter oblivion by being shot with a soft point hunting bullet.

[Robert Prudhomme]

God, this forum has gone downhill lately.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

I want to get back to the theme of Ashton Gray's thread here -- namely -- the debate over a frontal shot to JFK's throat.

--Paul Trejo

Paul: After a while, threads become unwieldy and it is best to start new ones.

-Ramon