JFK's "SHALLOW" BACK WOUND REVISITED (FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME)

[Chris Newton]

Could the nick have been on JFK's anatomical right, as seen 3 inches up from where the tie was cut, and the blood really did run down?

Well if I follow where you are coming from... and that is blood... and that is a splatter pattern it could only have either dripped down by chance exactly on the defect or have been carried through from a wound in the throat area. I am not a blood spatter tech -just making speculation.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Could the nick have been on JFK's anatomical right, as seen 3 inches up from where the tie was cut, and the blood really did run down?

Well if I follow where you are coming from... and that is blood... and that is a splatter pattern it could only have either dripped down by chance exactly on the defect or have been carried through from a wound in the throat area. I am not a blood spatter tech -just making speculation.

Hi Chris

I don't think you see what I mean. Look again at this photo:

In the photo at right, look at the left side of this section of tie, on the opposite side from the nick. See the tiny drops of blood? The main patch of them is directly opposite the nick, with a few more to our upper left and none of them below a line drawn straight across the tie from the nick.

If we turn this photo 180° and place the nick on the right, could this be the spray pattern from a bullet on a downward trajectory? Did the bullet carry this blood from the wound with it, leaving the largest deposit at the nick where it ran down the tie slightly? Did this coating of blood prevent the bullet from leaving metal deposits on the shirt material?

[Robert Prudhomme]

bump

[Robert Prudhomme]

Ray,

The only answer you got regarding your statement that you don't understand how a bone fragment made a 6mm round hole was something like "it may be 4mm" and "because it has to be." If you find this less than an actual answer, I sympathize. Since we are BOTH perplexed, possibly you can help me follow this theory. It goes something like this, I won't attempt to quote it because the bullet path only has a beginning and an end, but does include the "bone fragment" so at least you can see how it came to be. Personally, I don't have a theory for the throat wound that I found entirely satisfactory, so I have tried in vain to comprehend this incomplete theory. This makes me a bad person who is only bitching because this theory disagrees with the theory that I don't have. I don't understand this either....

Rather than wait until Mr. Larsen posts his "theory" I will show how it was explained to me.

Mr. Larsen's speculation originates with a bullet that enters the skull at the EOP (External Occipital Protuberance). It may or may not fragment, that is not clear. It then travels along the bottom of the skull until it somehow exits the skull and somehow finds its way to the vertebra adjacent to the throat wound. Upon impact with this vertebra a "long slender bone fragment" is broken off. It is propelled by the momentum transferred from the bullet/fragment along a horizontal path, tears the trachea, the skin and the shirt, but not the necktie...

After punching through the skull, skidding along the bottom of the skull, colliding with I don't know what, but it turns the bullet/frag trajectory from horizontal to almost vertical, vertical, or more than vertical. It then passes through the majority of the cervical vertabrae, or maybe it is supposed to have passed through muscle and tissue to the side and behind them until it strikes C6(?). IMO, it would hit at least several vertebra. Note that this "long slender bone fragment" must be lucky enough to break off with its pointed end facing forward, and its long axis precisely aligned with the path to the throat wound. If not it can't create the horizontal tear in the trachea nor leave a small round exit hole. After the collision, this bullet/fragment still retains enough momentum to transfer to the bone fragment adequate energy for it to tear the tough cartilage of the trachea through half of its circumference, pass through subcutaneous tissue, the skin and the shirt. At this point the bone fragment has enough energy to completely exit the wound as it pushes the tie upward and disappears. The latest revision is that this fragment made a "nick" in the tie. IMO, the odds of the many highly unlikely events required for the bone fragment to do what it is alleged to do are astronomical.

I have asked where this alleged nick is located, and I was promptly informed that I "already knew" and that I was just "playing dumb." I always say, "Some guy on the internet that I barely know, obviously knows what I think better than I do." so he must be right...

So here are the paths that I have selected in an attempt to get this bullet from the EOP to the throat wound. Trajectories between these paths don't work any better than the ones I depict. The green line is the path of the missile as determined by the doctors at parkland. Unless something has changed again, this path is not in dispute.

To me, if the path from EOP to throat wound can't be proven then this alleged "long slender bone fragment" can not exist. But no one on this thread agrees with me at all, so any support you may provide would be GREATLY appreciated. If you can come up with a working trajectory, please describe it. Despite all my efforts I can't make it work, so I have only comments against it. I doubt anyone will believe me, but I'd be just as happy if this theory was workable, as I would if it wasn't. All I want to do is learn what happened...

http://

Compare this diagram above to the one below:

One of them is badly out of proportion. Can you tell which one?

[Sandy Larsen]

I dunno Bob. The only thing that struck me when I saw each of these photos is that the larynx on the top photo looks awfully large while the larynx on the bottom photo looks awfully small. The bottom one doesn't seem to have a cricoid cartilage and the thyroid cartilage looks puny.

But then, I see only drawings. Never the real thing.

P.S. No wonder the top one is nothing but a skeleton.... look at the size of his esophagus.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hi Sandy

In the top diagram, notice how many tracheal rings there are extending above the part of the ribcage known as the suprasternal notch. I count at least 7 or 8 visible, with several more just out of view. Also, look at the horizontal gap between the trachea and the suprasternal notch at the top of the sternum.

My trachea is actually in contact with my suprasternal notch, and wasn't it you who said all of your tracheal rings are concealed by your suprasternal notch?

As you observed, the larynx in this diagram is massive, and totally disconnected from reality.

Next, look at the upper vertebrae. What is that gap at the top of the vertebral column?

It seems the neck has been stretched out in this diagram, and the various components put out of place.

The top diagram is a gross exaggeration of reality and, if I cultivated paranoid thoughts, I would almost say someone intentionally posted this joke of a diagram just to throw us off the trail.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

Now, if I was prone to paranoia, I would almost think the person who posted that bogus diagram knew it was out of proprtion.

[Sandy Larsen]

Hi Sandy

In the top diagram, notice how many tracheal rings there are extending above the part of the ribcage known as the suprasternal notch. I count at least 7 or 8 visible, with several more just out of view. Also, look at the horizontal gap between the trachea and the suprasternal notch at the top of the sternum.

My trachea is actually in contact with my suprasternal notch, and wasn't it you who said all of your tracheal rings are concealed by your suprasternal notch?

As you observed, the larynx in this diagram is massive, and totally disconnected from reality.

Next, look at the upper vertebrae. What is that gap at the top of the vertebral column?

It seems the neck has been stretched out in this diagram, and the various components put out of place.

The top diagram is a gross exaggeration of reality and, if I cultivated paranoid thoughts, I would almost say someone intentionally posted this joke of a diagram just to throw us off the trail.

It's a good thing we have someone on the forum who has an aptitude and keen eye for anatomy and anatomical structures. I for one would have never noticed some of those things.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hi Sandy

In the top diagram, notice how many tracheal rings there are extending above the part of the ribcage known as the suprasternal notch. I count at least 7 or 8 visible, with several more just out of view. Also, look at the horizontal gap between the trachea and the suprasternal notch at the top of the sternum.

My trachea is actually in contact with my suprasternal notch, and wasn't it you who said all of your tracheal rings are concealed by your suprasternal notch?

As you observed, the larynx in this diagram is massive, and totally disconnected from reality.

Next, look at the upper vertebrae. What is that gap at the top of the vertebral column?

It seems the neck has been stretched out in this diagram, and the various components put out of place.

The top diagram is a gross exaggeration of reality and, if I cultivated paranoid thoughts, I would almost say someone intentionally posted this joke of a diagram just to throw us off the trail.

It's a good thing we have someone on the forum who has an aptitude and keen eye for anatomy and anatomical structures. I for one would have never noticed some of those things.

LOL Sandy. I think there are certain parties who prefer we do not look too closely at some of their "evidence".

[Micah Mileto]

On 9/4/2016 at 2:55 PM, James R Gordon said:

Robert,

 

On post 149 - I believe - I quoted the fact that to Weisberg Carrico said these slits were created by a scalpel which he witnessed happening. The fact that no-one else said that means nothing because no-one asked any witnessed what caused the slits and was it a scalpel. In addition, at the point this happened only Carrico and the nurses were in the Trauma room 1. It was shortly after that everyone else entered. At that point his shirt had been removed. Carrico was the only doctor who witnessed this. One member pointed out that no-one else confirmed this. Of course not: no-one else was in the room when it happened.

 

Another element of the problem is defined by Carico who when asked Alan Dulles about the throat wound physically pointed on his person where it was. At this point no-one else was in Trauma room1. The other staff enter very shortly. So no-one else was able to say where the wound was or what it looked light.

 

Mr. DULLES. Will you show us about where it was?

Dr. CARRICO. Just about where your tie would be.

Mr. DULLES. Where did it enter?

Dr. CARRICO It entered?

Mr. DULLES Yes.

Dr. CARRICO At the time we did not know -

Mr. DULLES I see

Dr. CARRICO. The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.

Mr. DULLES. I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is?

Dr. CARRICO. Yes, sir; just where the tie -

Mr. DULLES. A little bit to the left.

Dr. CARRICO. To the right.

Mr. DULLES.. Yes; to the right.

Dr. CARRICO. Yes. And this wound was fairly round, had no jagged edges, no evidence of powder burns, and so forth. H3 361-362

 

http://i1187.photobucket.com/albums/z388/jamesg27/Shirt_zpsucuuqedg.jpeg

 

As I understand it buttons of the kind worn on JFK’s shirt were around 1cm in circumference, That means the - inside slit and smaller slit - would be around 1.484cm. Whereas the - outside slit and larger slit - would be around 1.883cm. There may well be a definitive reference to the size of each - which I do not have.

 

Most important Carrico says that the wound “was fairly round, had no jagged edges, no evidence of powder burns.” So a small round object creates two vertical slits. In addition the first slit is smaller than the second - something that does not normally happen.

 

If you look at the FOX 1 image you will still see the lower half of this wound. The upper half has been destroyed by the tracheotomy. The shape and size of this shape supports what Carrico says. So whatever it was that created this small round hole went on to create two fabric damages on JFK’s shirt that are both vertical and different in size. In addition the outer slit - aside from being larger than the inner one - starts above the point where the inner one starts.

 

 

 

The use of scissors was mentioned in a Philadelphia Bulletin article from 11/31/1963, which included some exclusive quotes from Parkland’s Dr. William Kemp Clark. The article stated “Mrs. Kennedy watched from the doorway as nurses and doctors scissored away his coat, shirt and undershirt and struggled to reverse what Dr. Clark called the “irreversible process of death”” (Philadelphia Bulletin, 11/31/1963, Assassination Day–Step by Step by Adrian I. Lee and Hugh E. Flaherty [link 2] [link 3]). A t-shirt was also mentioned in Jimmy Bresin's LA Times article with Perry from 11/24/1963, and the New York Times on 11/30/1963 also mentioned an undershirt. However, no shirt besides the dress shirt was noted in the inventory of Kennedy's clothing, and a 11/23/1963 FBI document stated "there was no undershirt". Arlen Specter reportedly asked many relevant witnesses if they had knowledge of an undershirt worn by Kennedy, to which they said no.

Edited September 28, 2023 by Micah Mileto