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

[Tom Neal]

Perhaps I sensed a hostile attitude where there was none. If so, I apologize.

I did my best to AVOID that, AND I went out of my way to further avoid what you are calling a miscommunication.

If you choose to answer my questions I will respond...

Okay, good. I'm truly sorry.

I have to leave, but might have time to respond before leaving.

To say what you have said requires you to know the answers to these two question, and I have asked for ONLY yes or no answers with no elaboration. Both questions can be answered yes or no without a hint of a "Do you still beat your wife?"

my answers:

1. yes

2. no

Edited March 25, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Sandy Larsen]

According to your explanation, you HAVE TO believe that my c2-c3, is 1.4" or more higher than JFK's.

You said you believed that Baxter was correct as to the c2-c3 location. I know what I mean when I say "BELIEVE" but I don't speak whatever language "BELIEVE" means to you...

Miscommunication???

So...Lose the word "believe":

1. Is Baxter correct with the c2-c3 location? Answer Yes or No.

I can't answer honestly with a simple yes or know. But based upon what you've said (that Baxter and three other docs placed the wound there), C2-C3 seems pretty definitive. So yes, that looks like it's correct.

2. Is the throat wound in the morgue photos located at c2-c3? Answer Yes or No.

Yes, it must be. Based on my answer to #1.

[Sandy Larsen]

Perhaps I sensed a hostile attitude where there was none. If so, I apologize.

I did my best to AVOID that, AND I went out of my way to further avoid what you are calling a miscommunication.

If you choose to answer my questions I will respond...

Okay, good. I'm truly sorry.

I have to leave, but might have time to respond before leaving.

To say what you have said requires you to know the answers to these two question, and I have asked for ONLY yes or no answers with no elaboration. Both questions can be answered yes or no without a hint of a "Do you still beat your wife?"

my answers:

1. yes

2. no

Hmmmm...

No for #2? You mean because the trachea moved some time after the tracheostomy?

Edited March 25, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Tom Neal]

DUPE!

Edited March 25, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Tom Neal]

I did my best to AVOID that, AND I went out of my way to further avoid what you are calling a miscommunication.

If you choose to answer my questions I will respond...

Okay, good. I'm truly sorry.

I have to leave, but might have time to respond before leaving.

To say what you have said requires you to know the answers to these two question, and I have asked for ONLY yes or no answers with no elaboration. Both questions can be answered yes or no without a hint of a "Do you still beat your wife?"

my answers:

1. yes

2. no

Hmmmm...

No for #2? You mean because the trachea moved some time after the tracheostomy?

No. Because even the upper edge of the 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.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Robert Prudhomme]

I'm not sure why folks on this thread think that a bullet entered his back and terminated with no more than a half finger's worth of depth as stated

by the autopsy doctors and somehow hit either a piece of bone (where?) or (alas!) broke up and had enough energy to travel through dense tissue, muscle,

and clothes to pop out of his throat.

I personally believe a bullet struck quite low on the base of the rear of JFK's skull, after being fired from an upper floor of the TSBD or the Dal-Tex

Building, and that this bullet was a frangible bullet; designed to fragment and disintegrate while travelling through flesh or organs. This bullet either

grazed the base of JFK's skull or entered the rear of his skull and passed through the floor of the skull before contacting the vertebrae at about C3/C4,

where it broke up. The exit wound in the throat would have been caused by a small particle of bone that likely broke off of one of the vertebrae.

This bone particle travelled through the so called "slits" in the collar and nicked the left side of JFK's tie as it passed through.

Michael,

Directly above, is a cut and paste from his post in this thread. Robert is stating that the bullet entered low in the skull, and propelled a piece of bone

through the throat creating an exit wound.

Robert,

I too, have considered this possibility, but...

1. What evidence is there that an entry wound exists at the base of the skull?

2. the angle of depression of a shot from a building would have to increase greatly to follow the steep trajectory line between your entry point to C3/C4

if it's even possible to achieve this great of an angle change, there would be only a small fraction of its velocity remaining

3. the bullet would fragment after traveling a short distance within the neck

considering the low mass of the fragments they would decelerate rapidly

Referring specifically to this throat wound, Perry states that 'Secondary missiles do not normally acquire enough velocity to cause this kind of damage.'

4. if a fragment was traveling vast enough to break off a piece of C3/C4; this bone fragment would lose most of its velocity as it would depart at a sharp angle from the trajectory of the bullet fragment

5. in your proposed trajectory wouldn't the bullet fragment encounter the undamaged C1 and C2 prior to reaching C3 and do considerable damage traveling down through the neck?

6. your bone fragment would require enough velocity to tear the tracheal cartilage through 1/3 of its circumference, pass through multiple layers of skin, tear a slit in the shirt that is aligned with the tie's mid-line and exit without damaging the back of the tie. The nick in the tie is on the left side of the front, not the side

7. the 1/4" exit hole is round with a clean or mostly clean edge

this would require a circular bone fragment 1/4" in diameter and sharp enough to cut through the tracheal cartilage and skin

8. before they were "gotten to" the Parkland Doctors including Perry and Baxter who performed the trach, stated this was an entry for a bullet wound, and the two nurses have always stood by their id as a bullet entry wound

the exit of bone fragments of JBC's shirt do not look like a bullet entry wounds, IMO it seems unlikely that they would all mistake a bone exit for a bullet entry

Tom

Pardon the formatting this DAMN editor keeps adding additional terminating quote tags...

Hi Tom

In all fairness, the 1/4 inch wound in JFK's throat was described by some Parkland doctors as having ragged edges. Although many of them might not have seen it prior to the tracheotomy, I believe it is a myth that the tracheotomy incision would have "obliterated" this wound, as some believe. Scalpel blades are quite thin, and the two halves of the circular wound were still visible, as some of the autopsy photos clearly demonstrate.

From Lipsey's HSCA interview, it is not possible to determine if the autopsy doctors believed the bullet entered the back of the skull and exited the base, or, rather, grazed the bottom of the skull as it passed underneath the skull. All Lipsey was able to relate is that he understood the bullet to have penetrated at the hair line at the rear of the head. Such an impact point would allow a projectile to pass under the skull, possibly deflecting off of the skull, on its way to the cervical vertebrae.

Would a projectile lose an appreciable amount of velocity doing what I just described? It might, it might not. It all depends on how much resistance it encountered. However, even losing half of its likely velocity of 2000 fps would still have it travelling at 1000 fps; a more than adequate velocity to still do some serious damage. Many pistol rounds have a muzzle velocity of 1000 fps, and I most certainly wouldn't want to be shot by one of these at point blank range. Just ask LHO about that.

While it is true that modern frangible bullets are composed entirely of compressed metal powder, and the cloud of disintegrated powder does decelerate rapidly once the bullet disintegrates in soft tissue, we must remember that such modern bullets were not available in 1963. What was available in 1963 (coincidentally made for the 6.5mm Carcano since the 1930's) was the M37 Magistri 6.5mm Carcano frangible range bullet. This bullet was designed as a "safe" bullet that could be used in the Carcano at indoor ranges, without fear of ricochets. It literally could be fired at a concrete wall, where it would disintegrate harmlessly into a bit of bullet jacket and some powdered lead.

As I've written in several other threads (possibly even this one?) the construction of this bullet was quite interesting. The jacket was composed of two sections as seen below:

I have been unable to find out if the two jacket sections were soldered or compressed together. Inside the nose of this jacket was a tiny lead or "maillechort" pellet. Behind this nose pellet was powdered lead. Whether it was loose or compressed into a solid is also unclear. Finally, the rear portion of the jacket was filled with sand.

The most interesting thing about this bullet can be seen in the nose, where it appears there is an opening in the jacket nose that allows us to see the lead/maillechort pellet. It clearly is not deep enough to make this a hollow point bullet, and the exact purpose of this opening is unclear. I can only assume it served to facilitate the rapid disintegration of this bullet when it struck a concrete surface.

The reason I find this opening so interesting is because this is very close to how a modern frangible bullet, designed not for the range but, rather, as an extremely lethal hunting bullet, is designed. However, instead of just a small nose opening as seen in the M37, the opening goes much deeper into the bullet and makes a true hollow point; the essential ingredient in a lethal frangible bullet that will make that bullet disintegrate while travelling through soft tissue.

So, if frangible bullets were used on JFK, what did they look like? Did they use some variation of the M37 with a solid nose pellet, but with a hollow point drilled into this nose pellet? Could the M37 have been used, its lethality increased by drilling a hollow point into its nose? It is hard to say. If they did, though, we must try to imagine what would happen to this bullet when it struck JFK's vertebrae. As this bullet would have to travel through a couple of inches of soft tissue, as it grazed its way under his skull, there is a possibility this bullet was in the process of breaking up before it reached C3/C4, and the fragments seen by Jerrol Custer were merely where the cloud of powdered metal came to rest. However, if there was a solid nose pellet inside the jacket, would it (or a fragment of it) still contain enough mass to continue on through the vertebrae, and exit JFK's throat? Remember, one Parkland doctor conceded, in his WC testimony, that if the throat wound was a wound of exit, he felt the projectile that caused it had to be nearly spent when it exited JFK's throat.

Now back to the shirt collar, and the test for metals conducted on the slits in the collar that came back as showing no traces of metal. What if, the jacket of this exotic frangible bullet was made of copper or another metal, but the lead/maillechort nose pellet was replaced with hard plastic, ceramic or some other material that would leave no trace of metal, and would also disintegrate if it hit a hard surface, leaving nothing solid to be found? Could this have been what went through JFK's collar, nicking the edge of the tie knot on the way through?

Edited March 25, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Michael Walton]

I'm just not seeing a shot hitting him low in the skull at Z225 or anywhere for that matter. His arms flay up to the throat/face area from the frontal throat shot, his head bobs back and forth from the force of the back shot hitting immediately after that, and then he stays there until Z313.

If he's shot low in the skull and a piece of bone or bullet pops out causing the throat wound, when is he then shot in the back? I just watched an extreme close up of the Z film frame by frame. This is 60's technology but you can actually see his hair fluffing in the wind. So that level of detail would show *something* other than what I see - throat, back, pause, double head shot. I think taking a shot low in the skull and exiting the throat would have caused a very different physical reaction from him, too. We're talking a bullet shattering bone in there and possibly severing nerves. I think if that had happened, his head would have just dropped down with his chin landing on his chest. But from Z225 to 313, he's still conscious enough where he's startled and frozen in place until his head is destroyed, where everything goes limp. Keep in mind, too, that his back brace was essentially propping him up the whole time.

I just read Lipsey's testimony and quite frankly he's all over the place in what he says. He says "front face" "front right" talks about a neck / skull shot, then when the interviewer leads him a little ("you mean back"?) he answers that yes, it's the back. This was the first time he's ever witnessed an autopsy (that's what he says) and though I'm sure it was a traumatic experience for him, there was 14 years distance from when he experienced it. He was also no medical doctor, so his descriptions seem off at best.

At one point he says, "There's no question that the shots came from one direction." I'm sorry to say, but doesn't this sound like a person who may have been coached to say that? I mean how does he know that and would know that so early in the game? Remember, the autopsy was just 7 hours after the assassination - nothing was set in stone at that time. You have a doctor 1,000 miles away who was a *medical doctor* saying he saw a throat shot that was one of entry.

You have a lay person 7 hours later, probably shaking in his boots, hearing higher ups mumble and grumble, and then he's suddenly pushed into the autopsy room. And the so-called single bullet theory had not even been established at that time (it wouldn't be until early 1964). So how would he know all the shots came in the same direction? He wouldn't.

Then, 14 years after the fact, he says, "There's no question that the shots came from one direction." Give me a break. Keep in mind too that the tracheotomy that Dallas performed obscured the throat wound. Humes and the others didn't even know the wound in the throat was a bullet wound until Dallas told them.

[Tom Neal]

the 1/4 inch wound in JFK's throat was described by some Parkland doctors as having ragged edges. Although many of them might not have seen it prior to the tracheotomy,

Hello Bob,

From WC testimony:

Dr. CARRICO - "It was, as I recall, rather round and there were no jagged edges or stellate lacerations."

Dr. BAXTER - "It did not appear to be a jagged wound."

Dr. PERRY - "It was a rather clean cut" "it was smooth or mostly smooth"

As you said, a scalpel is quite thin and extremely sharp. It would not leave a jagged edge on an incision, yet

upon Perry's initial examination of the neck wound:

Dr. PERRY - "I asked Dr. Carrico if this was a wound in his neck or had he begun the tracheotomy"

These are the guys that actually examined the wound closely, rather than just observed it from their positions around the table. All three when asked described smooth edges as a characteristic of an entry wound, and initially reported it as a bullet entry wound. In the 'round table' post-mortem discussion the consensus was that the throat wound was a bullet entry wound.

We can run down the whole group of Parkland doctors if you want, but I don't recall any of the them describing the wound edges as jagged at any time. Perry and Baxter performed the trach, and Carrico viewed the wound in the trachea through the scope as well as externally. All three described the INJURY TO THE TRACHEA as having JAGGED OR RAGGED EDGES.

Could this be what you are remembering?

Following your reply to this post, I will address your responses individually to assure completeness and avoid confusion.

Tom

Edited March 25, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Robert Prudhomme]

the 1/4 inch wound in JFK's throat was described by some Parkland doctors as having ragged edges. Although many of them might not have seen it prior to the tracheotomy,

Hello Bob,

From WC testimony:

Dr. CARRICO - "It was, as I recall, rather round and there were no jagged edges or stellate lacerations."

Dr. BAXTER - "It did not appear to be a jagged wound."

Dr. PERRY - "It was a rather clean cut" "it was smooth or mostly smooth"

As you said, a scalpel is quite thin and extremely sharp. It would not leave a jagged edge on an incision, yet

upon Perry's initial examination of the neck wound:

Dr. PERRY - "I asked Dr. Carrico if this was a wound in his neck or had he begun the tracheotomy"

These are the guys that actually examined the wound closely, rather than just observed it from their positions around the table. All three when asked described smooth edges as a characteristic of an entry wound, and initially reported it as a bullet entry wound. In the 'round table' post-mortem discussion the consensus was that the throat wound was a bullet entry wound.

We can run down the whole group of Parkland doctors if you want, but I don't recall any of the them describing the wound edges as jagged at any time. Perry and Baxter performed the trach, and Carrico viewed the wound in the trachea through the scope as well as externally. All three described the INJURY TO THE TRACHEA as having JAGGED OR RAGGED EDGES.

Could this be what you are remembering?

Following your reply to this post, I will address your responses individually to assure completeness and avoid confusion.

Tom

Seems I read things a little too quickly and it was the trachea wound with ragged edges to it.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I'm just not seeing a shot hitting him low in the skull at Z225 or anywhere for that matter. His arms flay up to the throat/face area from the frontal throat shot, his head bobs back and forth from the force of the back shot hitting immediately after that, and then he stays there until Z313.

If he's shot low in the skull and a piece of bone or bullet pops out causing the throat wound, when is he then shot in the back? I just watched an extreme close up of the Z film frame by frame. This is 60's technology but you can actually see his hair fluffing in the wind. So that level of detail would show *something* other than what I see - throat, back, pause, double head shot. I think taking a shot low in the skull and exiting the throat would have caused a very different physical reaction from him, too. We're talking a bullet shattering bone in there and possibly severing nerves. I think if that had happened, his head would have just dropped down with his chin landing on his chest. But from Z225 to 313, he's still conscious enough where he's startled and frozen in place until his head is destroyed, where everything goes limp. Keep in mind, too, that his back brace was essentially propping him up the whole time.

I just read Lipsey's testimony and quite frankly he's all over the place in what he says. He says "front face" "front right" talks about a neck / skull shot, then when the interviewer leads him a little ("you mean back"?) he answers that yes, it's the back. This was the first time he's ever witnessed an autopsy (that's what he says) and though I'm sure it was a traumatic experience for him, there was 14 years distance from when he experienced it. He was also no medical doctor, so his descriptions seem off at best.

At one point he says, "There's no question that the shots came from one direction." I'm sorry to say, but doesn't this sound like a person who may have been coached to say that? I mean how does he know that and would know that so early in the game? Remember, the autopsy was just 7 hours after the assassination - nothing was set in stone at that time. You have a doctor 1,000 miles away who was a *medical doctor* saying he saw a throat shot that was one of entry.

You have a lay person 7 hours later, probably shaking in his boots, hearing higher ups mumble and grumble, and then he's suddenly pushed into the autopsy room. And the so-called single bullet theory had not even been established at that time (it wouldn't be until early 1964). So how would he know all the shots came in the same direction? He wouldn't.

Then, 14 years after the fact, he says, "There's no question that the shots came from one direction." Give me a break. Keep in mind too that the tracheotomy that Dallas performed obscured the throat wound. Humes and the others didn't even know the wound in the throat was a bullet wound until Dallas told them.

Many witnesses heard two shots right on top of each other at the moment of the head shot. It is quite possible two bullets hit JFK's head at the same instance, with one entering low in the back of the skull.

[Michael Walton]

Many witnesses heard two shots right on top of each other at the moment of the head shot. It is quite possible two bullets hit JFK's head at the same instance, with one entering low in the back of the skull.

Yes, I agree with you that witnesses heard shots one on top of the other during the head shot sequence. The Z film obviously shows this...but not a shot to the lower skull. It shows his head pushed downward in one frame, then the frontal shot hits him in the temple, throwing him backward. And his arms go limp at that point.

The autopsy face sheet shows absolutely no wound to the lower skull area. It does show the shot to the head, the one that pushes his head downward in the Z film.

The throat shot was obscured due to the tracheotomy. It took the Dallas doctors to talk to the Bethesda doctors to make them understand that yes, there was a gunshot wound to the throat when they first saw him in Dallas.

So yes I agree there was a double shot at Z313 - back-front (both in head). And I also believe there was a double shot at Z225 - front-back (throat-back). I do believe the shooters had practiced this for weeks at an undisclosed location to get the timing right. They were probably using some kind of radio system to get the timing right. They were off slightly at Z225 and almost got it at Z313. Notice how it goes - shots pause shots.

The funny thing though is all they really would have had to do is have one shooter in the back, which would have given them a more plausible case that Oswald did it from the TSBD. But like the Oswald backyard photos - it was almost overkill (no pun intended here) to have rear and front shooters. I guess they didn't want to take any chances on not getting it right or missing.

Which does bring up another interesting dilemma - why was Connally shot? He was obviously shot *after* Kennedy and said so to his dying day. This is pure speculation but did Connally know this was coming but to keep him in his place, they shot him too? He did yell out, "My God, they're going to kill us all!" Could he have meant, "My God, those dirty bastards...they're going to kill us all!"

Watch this clip. Watch when Kennedy gets into the limo, Connally takes his hat off. Everyone's smiling and happy - even the Secret Service agent is smiling when he's shaking hands with people. But look at Connally with hat off and oh, so serious. Speculative, yes. But we all know he was one of the Texas good old boys along with the guy who threw his famous wink at LBJ after he was sworn in. So maybe he knew it was coming but didn't expect to get shot too.

https://youtu.be/NIDiIy3IDEo?t=23m3s

In summary, I'm just not buying the Ashton Gray theory. Cutting out a suit and pasting it onto an autopsy photo and saying he's got it right doesn't work for me. His "accept the challenge" challenge doesn't work for me. There's nothing in the medical evidence that says there was a lower skull rear shot and a chunk of bone or bullet out from the throat. And this autopsy photo below shows it's pretty clear that there's nothing down in that area. Some have said that little speck of white is evidence but I think it's just tissue and debris stuck in his hair.

https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxdm9ZalJTSWU3cms

I'm a minimalist when it comes to this case and like to think the simplest solutions are the most logical. No Judyth Baker and Bev Oliver and the body was whisked away and altered and Jackie did it and the Z film was faked and the Dealey Plaza photos were faked and James Files and the Hunt as a tramp and the poison dart and the lower skull shot and chunk of debris out of throat theories me.

[Robert Prudhomme]

"The autopsy face sheet shows absolutely no wound to the lower skull area. It does show the shot to the head, the one that pushes his head downward in the Z film."

The autopsy face sheet also does not show a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head, in spite of such a wound being reported by almost every single doctor present in Trauma Room One. Do you consider the autopsy face sheet to be accurate?

[Ray Mitcham]

Both what the Parkland doctors reported, and that which was said the autopsy reports, could both be what was seen.

FBI(Sibert&O’Neill)report11/26/63

"...it was also apparent that a tracheotomy had been performed, as well as
surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull…During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column. This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the misssile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees."

​As no surgery to the head was performed at Parkland, and as Dr Humes is reported to have said that there was already surgery to the head at the start of the autopsy, (and Humes would knowthe difference between " surgery" and bullet damage), where and when was this "surgery" performed?

[Ashton Gray]

I'm just not buying the Ashton Gray theory.

What "Ashton Gray theory" are you referring to, Michael? I want you to quote my "theory" here. Here's my prediction—and it will be 100-percent correct, because you're so utterly predictable: You won't quote the "Ashton Gray theory" you're objecting to, because you're making it up as you go, and fiction doesn't leave a paper trail. There is no such "Ashton Gray theory," and you're misrepresenting me.

Cutting out a suit and pasting it onto an autopsy photo and saying he's got it right doesn't work for me.

Here's a clue: I didn't do it for you. I did it for people who can look at obvious physical relationships with their own eyeballs and understand those physical relationships in accordance with simple, elementary physics.

His "accept the challenge" challenge doesn't work for me.

Of course it doesn't, because you can't possibly do it. It's a physical impossibility. This is physics, so if it "doesn't work" for you, join the Flat Earth Society. Meanwhile, neither you nor anyone in this forum has accepted my challenge and done it, and that's because it can't be done. So go right ahead and attempt to discredit me all you want. I could care less, because it only continues to prove that you can't demonstrate in the real world how a frontal shot could have entered the throat at the location clearly indicated in the autopsy photos, which is at the third and fourth tracheal rings—exactly as the autopsy report says, and exactly as my gifs on the first page of this thread show:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11340&page=1#entry123429

So here's my simple challenge again—for you to evade again:

PROVE that a frontal shot to the throat that does not penetrate all layers of the knot of the tie, but instead enters the throat ABOVE the shirt and tie, is even POSSIBLE:

1. Locate the point between your third and fourth tracheal ring [ref: autopsy photos and autopsy report], and mark that location on your skin with a round mark of the appropriate size. (Testimony varies, ranging from 4 to 8 mm. You decide.) Check your location against the autopsy photos.

2. Put on a correctly fitting dress shirt, buttoned at the neck, and a tie, and using only natural motions of your head and neck, position the collar and tie so that a projectile could pass above the tie and collar, and penetrate at the spot you've marked on your skin without hitting the top of the collar or the tie. You may not pull down on the shirt or tie with your hands or by any artificial means.

3. Take a selfie, or have someone photograph you, and post it for us.

This is so simple. All it takes is a Sharpie, a well-fitting dress shirt, and a tie to lay this to rest once and for all. You don't even need a piece of the One True Cross. (Well, it's almost Easter.) I 'm looking forward to seeing it.

There's nothing in the medical evidence that says there was a lower skull rear shot and a chunk of bone or bullet out from the throat.

This is the second time you've attempted to link that "theory" to me, and it has zero to do with me. The first time you tried was in a post of yours on the previous page of this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11340&page=40#entry327710

There you said:

Michael Walton, on 25 Mar 2016 - 06:50 AM, said:

I don't know why people keep saying "I have to check with Ashton Gray on this." I think his fragment theory is very flawed because mainly, his animated GIFs can be misleading.

I don't have a "fragment theory," and never have had a "fragment theory." It's not my theory. So you either can't read and comprehend what I've said, or you haven't bothered to read and comprehend what I've said, or you know very well that it's not my "theory" and are willfully misrepresenting me. Whichever it is, I'm going to ask you politely—once—to stop misrepresenting me. Don't claim I've said anything again without QUOTING what I've said. I've extended that courtesy to you, haven't I?

I also gently urge you to stop misrepresenting others. No one has said they have to "check with Ashton Gray" on anything, and it's ludicrous, but that's between you and them if you want to keep misrepresenting them. But don't misrepresent me any more.

Here's my prediction: You won't take the challenge, because it's patently impossible. If you do, I'm sure you'll demonstrate the integrity to come back here and admit publicly that the title of this thread is entirely valid, and also will apologize for misrepresenting me, won't you?

Ashton

Edited March 26, 2016 by Ashton Gray

[Sandy Larsen]

I'm just not seeing a shot hitting him low in the skull at Z225 or anywhere for that matter. His arms flay up to the throat/face area from the frontal throat shot, his head bobs back and forth from the force of the back shot hitting immediately after that, and then he stays there until Z313.

If he's shot low in the skull and a piece of bone or bullet pops out causing the throat wound, when is he then shot in the back? I just watched an extreme close up of the Z film frame by frame. This is 60's technology but you can actually see his hair fluffing in the wind. So that level of detail would show *something* other than what I see - throat, back, pause, double head shot. I think taking a shot low in the skull and exiting the throat would have caused a very different physical reaction from him, too. We're talking a bullet shattering bone in there and possibly severing nerves. I think if that had happened, his head would have just dropped down with his chin landing on his chest. But from Z225 to 313, he's still conscious enough where he's startled and frozen in place until his head is destroyed, where everything goes limp. Keep in mind, too, that his back brace was essentially propping him up the whole time.

I just read Lipsey's testimony and quite frankly he's all over the place in what he says. He says "front face" "front right" talks about a neck / skull shot, then when the interviewer leads him a little ("you mean back"?) he answers that yes, it's the back. This was the first time he's ever witnessed an autopsy (that's what he says) and though I'm sure it was a traumatic experience for him, there was 14 years distance from when he experienced it. He was also no medical doctor, so his descriptions seem off at best.

At one point he says, "There's no question that the shots came from one direction." I'm sorry to say, but doesn't this sound like a person who may have been coached to say that? I mean how does he know that and would know that so early in the game? Remember, the autopsy was just 7 hours after the assassination - nothing was set in stone at that time. You have a doctor 1,000 miles away who was a *medical doctor* saying he saw a throat shot that was one of entry.

You have a lay person 7 hours later, probably shaking in his boots, hearing higher ups mumble and grumble, and then he's suddenly pushed into the autopsy room. And the so-called single bullet theory had not even been established at that time (it wouldn't be until early 1964). So how would he know all the shots came in the same direction? He wouldn't.

Then, 14 years after the fact, he says, "There's no question that the shots came from one direction." Give me a break. Keep in mind too that the tracheotomy that Dallas performed obscured the throat wound. Humes and the others didn't even know the wound in the throat was a bullet wound until Dallas told them.

Many witnesses heard two shots right on top of each other at the moment of the head shot. It is quite possible two bullets hit JFK's head at the same instance, with one entering low in the back of the skull.

If you watch Kennedy's head movement carefully, you will see that it drops very abruptly by two or three inches (from Z212 to Z313) right before the back-and-to-the-left motion. I believe that that movement was caused by the bullet hitting the base of the skull. And that that was followed quickly by the shot to the temple.

Here are instructions on how to single step through the Zapruder frames with a browser:

• Load this frame, which is frame 311.
• Advance to the next frame by changing 311 in the browser address field to 312 and hitting Enter.
• Advance to frame 313 the same way.
• Now hold your computer's Alt key down and hit the right and left arrow keys to step the frames forward and backward.

Maybe somebody knows of a web page designed for more readily doing this..