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

[Ashton Gray]

watch the Z film carefully and it's obvious Kennedy is reacting to a frontal throat shot.

I've watched the Z film carefully, repeatedly, and it's not even slightly "obvious" to me. That's your opinion. It is not a fact.

You wrote: "So I just don't see how the title of this thread is valid."

That's because you've studiously ignored in wholesale lots the material facts that I have carefully laid out in the beginning of this thread, and you have supplanted them all with your opinion that Kennedy was reacting to a frontal shot. So how about you accept the challenge that I issued on the previous page to Jon G. Tidd, in this post:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11340&page=37#entry325386

He whiffed. So have all the other "frontal throat shot" faithful. Not one of them has stepped up to the challenge. Let's see how you do with it:

If the "frontal throat shot" is possible, then I'm sure you will have no problem proving it once and for all. Therefore, please:

1. Locate the point between your third and fourth tracheal ring, 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.)

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. I 'm looking forward to seeing it.

Here's my prediction: You'll whiff, too, because it's patently impossible. And 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, won't you?

Ashton

Edited March 21, 2016 by Ashton Gray

[Michael Walton]

I've watched the Z film carefully, repeatedly...

You can take photos, cut them out, and make animated GIFs and then call them "facts." I can do the same as seen in the short video I made below. Neither of us were there so no matter how "factual" we think our work is, it's still supposition.

If you don't see what I see in the Z film, or don't *want* to see what I see, then there's nothing I can do about it. To each their own.

I wouldn't rely on the WC testimony of the people who testified. We all know that entire body of work is fraudulent and was not the vigorous pursuit of the truth. Even Ken O'Donnell, one of Kennedy's closest friends, said:

“I told the FBI what I had heard [two shots from behind the grassy knoll fence], but they said it couldn’t have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn’t want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family.”

Question - who in the hell is the FBI to tell a person who was 30 feet away from the event, and who was in an excellent vantage point, that "...it couldn't have happened that way?"

The same goes for Perry's WC testimony. Look how Dulles pulls a lawyerly interruption to Perry just as he starts talking about the neck entrance wound:

I asked Dr. Carrico if the wound on the neck was actually a wound or had he begun a tracheotomy and he replied in the negative, that it was a wound, and at that point--

Mr. DULLES - I am a little confused, I thought Dr. Carrico was absent. That was an earlier period.

Dr. PERRY - No, sir; he was present.

Mr. DULLES - He was present?

Dr. PERRY - Yes; he was present when I walked in the room and, at that point, I asked someone to secure a tracheotomy tray but there was one already there. Apparently Dr. Carrico...

These people on the WC and their lawyers had no business conducting interviews about the medical portion of the case. All they were there for is to get as much as they could out of the witnesses, cajoling and interrupting and prepping before they appeared, so it all dovetailed to the preconceived conclusions they were ordered to achieve.

I put great stock in Perry's press conference quotes as seen in the video below. They were fresh - right after the event - and with no fudging, whitewashing, or staring him down saying, "It didn't happen that way." And they came from a person who'd witnessed dozens of gunshot wounds as a medical doctor.

I notice in your post here you use flippant remarks about other people's opinions. Stuff like "whiff" and "you'll whiff." And things like spending "hundreds of hours of their lives" trying to figure things out about the case. Whether right or wrong - or a little bit of both - all of us here are passionate about the case (aren't you?) Nobody's trying to win a prize here for best, most arrogant and 100% perfect post on this forum.

It's a place to share ideas, thoughts, and theories. And after all, no matter how right we think we are, we'll never get it 100% right.

No Bullet Wound in Throat is Not Possible

[Ashton Gray]

You can take photos, cut them out, and make animated GIFs and then call them "facts." ...I wouldn't rely on the WC testimony of the people who testified. ...I notice in your post here you use flippant remarks about other people's opinions.

You know, Michael, you've written 564 words here, but haven't advanced your case one whit. Yes, I'm flippant, because everybody, without exception, who insists (as you do) that there was a frontal shot will not perform the simple dispositive test I've described in my challenge to you that will prove it for all time one way or the other.

Don't rely on my animated GIFs; ignore them. All they do is prove conclusively exactly what you would prove to yourself conclusively if you simply would accept the challenge. It's simple physics, and I'm afraid that physics is indifferent to your opinion. At this point, so am I.

Don't rely on the WC testimony; throw it out. Perform the test. Either you can do it, or you can't. It's simple physics. Why won't you just do it and prove that what you claim for a frontal throat shot actually is possible?

You can come back here and throw another 564 words of opinion at me, or another 1,064, but it won't change the physics of the question, and the physics of the question prove conclusively that there is no possible way that a bullet from the front could have entered JFK's throat between third and fourth tracheal ring.

Of course, it will be very easy for you to prove me wrong. Just do it as described in my challenge. If you do, I will admit you have done it and will stand down.

Until you or somebody does, the "case" for a frontal throat shot is closed forever as far as I'm concerned. It's a religion, not forensics, so enjoy your faith-based beliefs.

Ashton

[Michael Walton]

Whatever you say, Ashton. Whatever you say...

Edited March 21, 2016 by Michael Walton

[Ashton Gray]

I think it at least should be mentioned in passing here that in the exact hour that JFK was shot, a CIA agent was in Paris “passing an assassination weapon, a ballpoint pen rigged with a hypodermic needle for Black Leaf 40 poison, to Rolando Cubela, AMLASH–1.” That's according to U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XXXII, Dominican Republic; Cuba; Haiti; Guyana, Document 315.

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v32/d315

Edited March 21, 2016 by Ashton Gray

[Robert Prudhomme]

When Ashton Grey began this thread, he made each of us take a much harder look at the evidence surrounding the throat wound than I believe we (at least myself, anyways) had ever done before. For this I thank him. While I may not agree with him on every single point, we need independent thinkers like him to make us look at "accepted" facts and begin to question them.

I am now convinced there was no bullet entrance wound in JFK's throat, although there is still no way of ruling out a non-metallic projectile. The main reason I am convinced of this is that the holes in JFK's shirt (one on the back 5.75" below the collar line and the "slits" in the collar beneath the tie knot) were tested for traces of metal (ie. copper and lead). While traces of metal were found in the hole in the back of the shirt, no traces of metal were found in the slits in the collar.

Some of you might be quick to say that the metal test results on the collar slits were falsified but, here is a very difficult question for you. If you were trying to promote the Single Bullet Theory, wouldn't you want there to be traces of metal on the only possible place that bullet could have gone through JFK's shirt, as it exited 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.

In my next post, I will put forth the evidence that supports this belief.

Edited March 21, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Sandy Larsen]

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.

That is precisely what I believe as well, with the possible exception of how the nick in the tie was made.

[Sandy Larsen]

In my list of "Early Throat Wound Testimonies" (Version 4, Post 556 above), I removed what Harold Weisberg wrote about Dr. Carrico telling him that the throat wound was above the shirtline.

I wish to make clear my reasons for removing Weisberg's comment about Carrico:

• Ashton Gray objected to it on the grounds that it was hearsay. His point was good IMO.
• In Carrico's testimony before the WC, it seems that he's trying to say that the wound was behind the tie, whereas Allen Dulles is attempting to lead his testimony elsewhere. That's my opinion.
• Weisberg Carrico had a history of changing his testimony to meet the official story. (He did that with his back-of-head gaping wound testimony.) Therefore, I concluded, he very well could have done the same with his throat wound testimony.
• Nobody reading this thread has asked me to put Weisberg's comment back.

If anybody feels strongly about putting Weisberg's comment back on the list, let me know.

I corrected a mistake I made in my earlier post.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[David Andrews]

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.

In my next post, I will put forth the evidence that supports this belief.

Robert - Can you pick an approximate Zapruder frame where this bullet strike occurred? I ask because JFK seems rather conscious and mobile (despite the "paralyzed" arms) for a head wound victim in most of the frames between Z-225 and Z-313.

Edited March 23, 2016 by David Andrews

[Robert Prudhomme]

I do not understand your question, David. Why would it have to occur between z225 and z313?

[Sandy Larsen]

Copied from Post 49 on this page of another thread:

Tom Neal, on 23 Mar 2016 - 12:52 PM, said:

My height and weight match JFK quite closely. My neighbor and good friend of 25 years who has been a Board Certified ENT and Plastic Surgeon for 30 years has confirmed the location of my 3rd Tracheal ring for me. Depending upon WHICH dress shirt I wear (I have NO PROBLEM relocating the 3rd ring myself) the 3rd ring is either just above, right at, or just below my collar line at a point slightly to the right of the midline. In some photos, JFK's tie appears to be just below his Larynx, and in others quite a bit lower.

It is important to remember that the midline of the shirt collar is lower than the sides.

IMO, an above the collar wound location is reasonable.

Tom

Tom,

That (what I highlighted in red) being the case, why don't you take Ashton Gray's challenge. Because he believes that what you are describing is "patently impossible."

Tom,

I don't disbelieve what you said. I believe you. I was just suggesting that you take Ashton's challenge. Because he says he's been waiting a long time for somebody to prove him wrong about the location of the throat wound (which he believes is behind the tie), and what you said appears to do just that.* (Or, more accurately, it proves that he could be wrong.)

I don't understand what you meant in the other thread when you said, "Ashton and I have no disagreement as to this statement." It seems to me that Ashton feels quite strongly about the wound being below the shirtline. You clearly don't feel the same way.

*Other than for the discrepancy in tracheal ring number.

[Robert Prudhomme]

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.

In my next post, I will put forth the evidence that supports this belief.

Robert - Can you pick an approximate Zapruder frame where this bullet strike occurred? I ask because JFK seems rather conscious and mobile (despite the "paralyzed" arms) for a head wound victim in most of the frames between Z-225 and Z-313.

After some consideration, it is my understanding that you are saying JFK must have experienced the throat wound by z225, simply because his hands are up near his throat at that point. Am I correct?

The answer is quite obvious. There is no proof whatsoever that JFK had a throat wound prior to z313. In fact, there is evidence to support this. Nellie Connally was looking directly at JFK following z225, saw his hands up near his throat and yet claimed there was no blood. Wouldn't a bullet passing through the neck have a tendency to bleed, and wouldn't that blood be very obvious on a light coloured shirt?

Just the way JFK's arms were raised is quite odd. Below is a photo of a choking patient displaying what is known as the Universal Choking Signal. While some choking victims will consciously assume this position, as a bid for help, many choking victims will automatically assume this position, without realizing they have done so.

Does this bear any resemblance to JFK post-z225? JFK was not clutching his throat. Rather, his hands appeared to be balled into fists. Also, JFK's arms were not resting against his chest but were, instead, held almost horizontally out from his body.

There is a distinct possibility that JFK's leaned forward, arms raised position had nothing to do with a throat wound, and actually had to do with pain and respiratory distress brought on by a disintegrating bullet having just entered the top of his right lung. Not only would the raised arms be a response to the sudden and unexpected pain of being shot in the back, the raised arms and lean forward stance would also be a natural response to reduced lung capacity, similar to the "tripod stance" seen in chronic emphysema patients, only greatly exaggerated. See photos of emphysema patients in "tripod" position below:

There are additional photos but for some reason I cannot post them. Here are the links to them

http://images.slideplayer.com/24/7392382/slides/slide_28.jpg

https://www.netterimages.com/images/vpv/000/000/013/13539-0550x0475.jpg

Edited March 24, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[David Andrews]

Robert - I was asking if you thought it was between Z-225 and Z-313. I only had a minute to ask, as I was PAW (Posting At Work), so not the best questions were available. I couldn't wait to read more, though.

Edited March 25, 2016 by David Andrews

[Tom Neal]

Copied from Post 49 on this page of another thread:

Tom Neal, on 23 Mar 2016 - 12:52 PM, said:

My height and weight match JFK quite closely. My neighbor and good friend of 25 years who has been a Board Certified ENT and Plastic Surgeon for 30 years has confirmed the location of my 3rd Tracheal ring for me. Depending upon WHICH dress shirt I wear (I have NO PROBLEM relocating the 3rd ring myself) the 3rd ring is either just above, right at, or just below my collar line at a point slightly to the right of the midline. In some photos, JFK's tie appears to be just below his Larynx, and in others quite a bit lower.

It is important to remember that the midline of the shirt collar is lower than the sides.

IMO, an above the collar wound location is reasonable.

Tom

Tom,

That (what I highlighted in red) being the case, why don't you take Ashton Gray's challenge. Because he believes that what you are describing is "patently impossible."

Tom,

I don't disbelieve what you said. I believe you. I was just suggesting that you take Ashton's challenge. Because he says he's been waiting a long time for somebody to prove him wrong about the location of the throat wound (which he believes is behind the tie), and what you said appears to do just that.* (Or, more accurately, it proves that he could be wrong.)

I don't understand what you meant in the other thread when you said, "Ashton and I have no disagreement as to this statement." It seems to me that Ashton feels quite strongly about the wound being below the shirtline. You clearly don't feel the same way.

*Other than for the discrepancy in tracheal ring number.

Ashton and I have discussed this and agree that due to the multiple conditions required, it would be impractical. See my post regarding all the conditions necessary. Most of which are totally subjective. e.g. JFK's collar wasn't that loose - he wore his tie higher than that. We don't know the answers there, so any results would be argumentative at best.

Ashton and I get along just fine. If he wanted to discuss this again, he would simply ask me himself. What I asked was, why are YOU asking me to do this? Especially since you now say you "believe me."

To be clear, are you saying that you believe:

• the wound was located between tracheal ring 2 and ring 3 as stated by Dr. Charles Baxter
• I have correctly located the area between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal ring
• that in a dress shirt and tie placed where they are in the JFK photo with the yellow dot that I posted, the wound is either slightly above the collar line, or slightly below the collar line depending upon the shirt I select - variance is 3/8"

Again, I do NOT claim that this wound was POSITIVELY above the collar; I do however believe it is a reasonable theory.

Question: What would you estimate the distance to be from "behind the tie knot" to above the collar line?

This magnitude is the difference between the two competing theories of above vs. below the collar.

Tom

[Sandy Larsen]

Copied from Post 49 on this page of another thread:

Tom Neal, on 23 Mar 2016 - 12:52 PM, said:

My height and weight match JFK quite closely. My neighbor and good friend of 25 years who has been a Board Certified ENT and Plastic Surgeon for 30 years has confirmed the location of my 3rd Tracheal ring for me. Depending upon WHICH dress shirt I wear (I have NO PROBLEM relocating the 3rd ring myself) the 3rd ring is either just above, right at, or just below my collar line at a point slightly to the right of the midline. In some photos, JFK's tie appears to be just below his Larynx, and in others quite a bit lower.

It is important to remember that the midline of the shirt collar is lower than the sides.

IMO, an above the collar wound location is reasonable.

Tom

Tom,

That (what I highlighted in red) being the case, why don't you take Ashton Gray's challenge. Because he believes that what you are describing is "patently impossible."

Tom,

I don't disbelieve what you said. I believe you. I was just suggesting that you take Ashton's challenge. Because he says he's been waiting a long time for somebody to prove him wrong about the location of the throat wound (which he believes is behind the tie), and what you said appears to do just that.* (Or, more accurately, it proves that he could be wrong.)

I don't understand what you meant in the other thread when you said, "Ashton and I have no disagreement as to this statement." It seems to me that Ashton feels quite strongly about the wound being below the shirtline. You clearly don't feel the same way.

*Other than for the discrepancy in tracheal ring number.

Ashton and I have discussed this and agree that due to the multiple conditions required, it would be impractical. See my post regarding all the conditions necessary. Most of which are totally subjective. e.g. JFK's collar wasn't that loose - he wore his tie higher than that. We don't know the answers there, so any results would be argumentative at best.

I'm sorry Tom... when you say "it would be impractical," what are you referring to? What would be impractical?

Ashton and I get along just fine. If he wanted to discuss this again, he would simply ask me himself. What I asked was, why are YOU asking me to do this? Especially since you now say you "believe me."

I asked you to do it because you reported your finding in the other thread, and I don't know if Ashton reads that thread.

I'd like to see how Ashton responds. I've wondered if he is correct in believing that the mark on the neck could not be above the neckline. I know it wouldn't be on me. (The neckline touches the bottom of my adam's apple.) Yet, looking at several guys in Google images, I found some with long necks where it looked like that mark may indeed may appear above the shirtline.

To be clear, are you saying that you believe:

• the wound was located between tracheal ring 2 and ring 3 as stated by Dr. Charles Baxter
• I have correctly located the area between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal ring
• that in a dress shirt and tie placed where they are in the JFK photo with the yellow dot that I posted, the wound is either slightly above the collar line, or slightly below the collar line depending upon the shirt I select - variance is 3/8"

When I said I believed you, I was referring to the fact that you could locate the third ring of your trachea, and that it was located above your shirtline. (My apologies if my description of what you said isn't quite right.) So #3 in your list is what I believe.

But regarding #1, Baxter's recollection of the wound being between rings 2 and 3, I would like to see you and Ashton discuss that because, IIRC, he has it between 3 and 4. It would be useful if that discrepancy could be resolved.

I just looked again at your post on the other thread and see that you have three other doctors who agree with Dr. Baxter's locating the wound between rings 2 and 3. So that seems pretty definitive.

Again, I do NOT claim that this wound was POSITIVELY above the collar; I do however believe it is a reasonable theory.

Question: What would you estimate the distance to be from "behind the tie knot" to above the collar line?

1.4 inches. (That includes the radius of a bullet so that it doesn't touch the shirtline.)

This magnitude is the difference between the two competing theories of above vs. below the collar.

Tom