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

[Ashton Gray]

How did the bullet not rupture one or both of these blood vessels?

Assumes a bullet not in evidence.

Ashton

[Robert Prudhomme]

"It matters completely where Perry made the incision, because it was in the EXACT place where it would destroy any later forensic analysis of what that wound was before he sliced through it.

Damn lucky "shot," if you ask me, that could enter at the EXACT place where a tracheostomy incision would be made—and be able to arrive there without going through six layers of tie material. Now, THAT is the REAL "magic bullet." "

I don't think you quite understand how tracheotomies are performed. Perry was referring to the general area of the lower third of the anterior neck, but there is no one "precise" location where tracheotomy incisions are made. The location ranges from a cricothyrotomy, where the incision is made in the membrane between the cricoid and thyroid cartilages, to any one of the tracheal rings below the larynx. As Tom Neal pointed out, sometimes it is necessary to cut the isthmus of the thyroid gland to gain access to the trachea behind it. So, to say the shot went through the "exact" location for a tracheostomy site is not true at all.

Also, I believe you are overestimating the ability of a scalpel to erase evidence of a wound. Scalpels are rather sharp instruments, and one simple small incision made through a ragged wound in the right side of the trachea is not going to fool anyone at an autopsy.

Besides, we don't even know if Perry made a vertical or horizontal incision through the anterior trachea, nor do we know at which tracheal ring this incision was made, as the incision through the skin left a rather wide gaping wound and Perry had the opportunity to put the tracheostomy in several places.

Now, think about something else here as well. The large ragged wound was on the right side of the trachea. Would it be wise to extend this opening horizontally and further open this ragged wound? At what point do you worry about severing the trachea all together?

[Robert Prudhomme]

The premise of this thread goes as follows:

• Ashton Gray's (AG) theory is that there was no front shot to Kennedy's throat
• Instead, AG's theory is that a bullet hit Kennedy in the lower skull, causing a bullet fragment or piece of bone to fly out of the lower throat causing an exit wound
• AG believes his theory is 100% absolutely, positively accurate
• AG believes that by taking a suit photo and cutting it out and placing it onto a photo of Kennedy's corpse, this proves his theory as being 100% absolutely, positively accurate
• To bolster his belief in the above theory, AG challenges all nay-sayers to "accept the challenge," which is to put on a suit and tie and take your finger and feel around on your throat and trachea; doing so will further prove his theory as 100% absolutely, positively accurate
• AG believes that all nay-sayers to his theory are either wrong or "whiffing" (meaning your opposing theory to his is incorrect)

• An opposing theory to AG's theory such as Michael Walton's (MW) is that there *was* a front shot that entered Kennedy's throat at around Z225 of the Z film
• MW believes that there is no medical evidence as stated in the autopsy face sheet showing any bullet entry wound on the lower rear part of Kennedy's skull
• MW believes that the Z film, an authentic documentary film of the shooting, shows Kennedy react to a front throat shot, then his body jerks forward; this jerk is caused by the rear back shot slamming into him
• MW believes that one hour after Kennedy's death, Dr. Perry, who worked on Kennedy and actually saw the front throat wound, declared that it was a wound of entry at the hospital press conference
• MW believes that based on the above, MW's theory is 100% absolutely, positively accurate
• MW believes that AG's photo compositions showing a cut out photo of a suit pasted onto a photo of JFK's corpse are misleading and inaccurate
• Because MW believes that AG's theory is inaccurate, MW believes it not necessary to accept AG's "challenge" of trying on a suit and tie and feeling around on his throat and trachea because it will prove nothing
• MW believes that all nay-sayers to his theory are wrong, but at the same time, people are entitled to believe in whatever they want

-------------------------

In summary, here are two additional animated GIFs. The first shows a clear photo of Kennedy being in almost the exact same position he was in at Z225. Notice that in the clear photo, there is plenty of room for a sniper in the knoll area to take a shot and hit him in the throat

https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxYXR5WWxkZ05QRkU

The second is a frame-by-frame analysis of the Z film. At Z226, Kennedy starts to react to the front throat shot by throwing up his hands. At 231, you can see Kennedy's head start to bob backward, then in the next frames, it goes forward. His arms and hands remain in the same position and Jackie Kennedy does not shift forward or backward, proving that Kennedy's head bobbing was not cause by a speed change of the limo

This proves that Kennedy was reacting to the front throat shot, then his body shifts forward from the back shot slamming into him. There is no other evidence of a shot hitting Kennedy in the lower rear of his skull. Although he was seriously wounded from the frontal and back shots as described, his brain is still functioning, holding his arms and hands in place until Z313.

https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxMW9DWWg0RllUUjQ

Do you drink heavily?

[Robert Prudhomme]

How did the bullet not rupture one or both of these blood vessels?

Assumes a bullet not in evidence.

Ashton

If not a bullet, projectile or bone particle, then it must have been a.........?

Edited March 27, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Michael Walton]

The premise of this thread goes as follows:

• Ashton Gray's (AG) theory is that there was no front shot to Kennedy's throat
• Instead, AG's theory is that a bullet hit Kennedy in the lower skull, causing a bullet fragment or piece of bone to fly out of the lower throat causing an exit woun

No, that is NOT MY THEORY!

I have NEVER STATED ANY SUCH THEORY, NOR DO I SUPPORT ANY SUCH THEORY!

There, whatever you are. I've made it now so even a 5-year-old can read and understand it, so I'm hoping that I've finally managed to reach down to a reading level that you can comprehend.

I asked you above to stop misrepresenting me, and to QUOTE anything you claim I said, but I see you haven't got anything even approaching such a level of decency and integrity, so now I'm blocking you, because I don't waste time with wormy, willful dishonesty.

*PLONK*

Ashton

Ok I'm genuinely confused here because you started this post back in 2007. Perhaps it's not your theory but you believe in this theory enough to have started the post 9 years ago. I think it's important for this forum to have opposing viewpoints and that's why I'm posting my own opinions and critiques about this "no shot in the front throat" theory, whether it's yours or not.

[Robert Prudhomme]

"Ok I'm genuinely confused here..."

Got the first five words right, anyways.

[Ashton Gray]

I don't think you quite understand how tracheotomies are performed. Perry was referring to the general area of the lower third of the anterior neck, but there is no one "precise" location where tracheotomy incisions are made.

I don't think you quite understand irony.

Ashton

[Robert Prudhomme]

I don't think you quite understand how tracheotomies are performed. Perry was referring to the general area of the lower third of the anterior neck, but there is no one "precise" location where tracheotomy incisions are made.

I don't think you quite understand irony.

Ashton

That's your complete answer?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Another thing that is often misunderstood about Perry's tracheotomy he performed on JFK is the length of the transverse incision in JFK's throat he made, and the reason he might have made a horizontal incision, as opposed to a vertical incision, in the flesh of JFK's throat.

Many researchers believe the horizontal incision to be much more dangerous than the vertical incision, as they believe the carotid arteries ae so close to the surface, the surgeon will sever them. In reality, the carotid arteries lie much deeper than they think, and can be seen (in red) beside the oesophagus in this cross sectional drawing of the human neck. The vocal cords can be seen in the centre of the thyroid cartilage, likely placing this cross section at about the level of cervical vertebrae C4/C5.

Below, cross sectional drawing of human neck at cervical vertebra C7

Faced with a choice of horizontal, why would Perry choose horizontal?

There are actually two very good reasons. First, there was a 1/4" round wound in the middle of JFK's throat. A transverse incision, somewhat larger than necessary, provided Perry an opportunity to explore the area underneath this wound, and to see what kind of damage there was to the trachea. Knowing the full extent of damage to the trachea was essential, as it would determine the life saving treatment he was about to deploy. Second, JFK's trachea was noted, by Perry, to be deviated slightly to the left, indicating a developing tension pneumothorax in JFK's right chest cavity. The trachea was deviated so far to the left, it was necessary for Perry to sever the left strap (sternothyroid) muscle, in order to gain access to the trachea. As a consequence of these two things, Perry ended up making a larger than usual transverse incision.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Tom Neal]

Have I missed something here? I thought it was pretty much accepted that Perry made the tracheotomy incision

between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings (or 3rd and 4th, I can't quite recall)

Per their own statements Perry and Charles Baxter performed the tracheostomy and Robert McClelland held the retractor. Perry actually made the incision. To the best of my knowledge Perry has not provided a precise location for the cut. Baxter, Assistant Professor of surgery at the time, had this to say in his WC testimony:

"Our tracheostomy incision was made in the second tracheal ring which was immediately above the area of damage."

Perry and Baxter were the only doctors to see precisely where the wound and incision were located relative to the tracheal rings. If the wound was located in ring 3 or below ring 3, would Baxter not state this? He uses the phrase "immediately below." Clearly, the wound was between rings 2 and 3. Every Parkland doctor that has stated the wound location relative to tracheal rings, has stated between rings 2 and 3.

Baxter provides the best description of the wound location, and he and Perry had the best view. I'm convinced.

Perry made the tracheotomy incision between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings for the simple fact he wanted to make the incision below the wound in the right side of the trachea.

Perry et al have stated that the wound was located in the place "where you would normally do a trach incision anyway." The 'best' location is between rings 2 and 3 in every piece of medical info I have found, and that's where Perry cut.

In the "stare-of-death" photograph, the wound margins are clearly visible on the upper and lower incision margins which have been spread WIDELY in this photograph, by retracting the lower neck a considerable distance. The upper neck has not been retracted. How do we know this? In my earlier post, I pointed out the OBVIOUS difference in the curvature of the upper and lower INCISION margins. Remember, this started out as a straight line. Performing a simple rotation of the wound in 3D space around a line (axis) from the pointed ends of the spread incision equal to the angle the camera is offset below the wound, provides an image of the upper incision margin as a straight line. If the upper margin of the incision had been retracted (pulled) upward, this now straight line, would still be curved. Due to this correction for camera location, the lower incision margin is now LOWER and MORE curved than it was in the original photo.

In the original AND the compensated photo, the upper margin of the incision IN THE FLESH OF THE NECK reveals 20% of the circumference of the wound 'hole.' The lower incision margin reveals the other 80%. Thus, Perry's incision was THROUGH the wound itself, but somewhat ABOVE the centerline.

Tom

[Tom Neal]

FOR ROBERT PRUDHOMME:

[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

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

I'm glad we cleared that up.

Tom

[Robert Prudhomme]

Have I missed something here? I thought it was pretty much accepted that Perry made the tracheotomy incision

between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings (or 3rd and 4th, I can't quite recall)

Per their own statements Perry and Charles Baxter performed the tracheostomy and Robert McClelland held the retractor. Perry actually made the incision. To the best of my knowledge Perry has not provided a precise location for the cut. Baxter, Assistant Professor of surgery at the time, had this to say in his WC testimony:

"Our tracheostomy incision was made in the second tracheal ring which was immediately above the area of damage."

Perry and Baxter were the only doctors to see precisely where the wound and incision were located relative to the tracheal rings. If the wound was located in ring 3 or below ring 3, would Baxter not state this? He uses the phrase "immediately below." Clearly, the wound was between rings 2 and 3. Every Parkland doctor that has stated the wound location relative to tracheal rings, has stated between rings 2 and 3.

Baxter provides the best description of the wound location, and he and Perry had the best view. I'm convinced.

Perry made the tracheotomy incision between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings for the simple fact he wanted to make the incision below the wound in the right side of the trachea.

Perry et al have stated that the wound was located in the place "where you would normally do a trach incision anyway." The 'best' location is between rings 2 and 3 in every piece of medical info I have found, and that's where Perry cut.

In the "stare-of-death" photograph, the wound margins are clearly visible on the upper and lower incision margins which have been spread WIDELY in this photograph, by retracting the lower neck a considerable distance. The upper neck has not been retracted. How do we know this? In my earlier post, I pointed out the OBVIOUS difference in the curvature of the upper and lower INCISION margins. Remember, this started out as a straight line. Performing a simple rotation of the wound in 3D space around a line (axis) from the pointed ends of the spread incision equal to the angle the camera is offset below the wound, provides an image of the upper incision margin as a straight line. If the upper margin of the incision had been retracted (pulled) upward, this now straight line, would still be curved. Due to this correction for camera location, the lower incision margin is now LOWER and MORE curved than it was in the original photo.

In the original AND the compensated photo, the upper margin of the incision IN THE FLESH OF THE NECK reveals 20% of the circumference of the wound 'hole.' The lower incision margin reveals the other 80%. Thus, Perry's incision was THROUGH the wound itself, but somewhat ABOVE the centerline.

Tom

Okay, so they did elect to make the incision in the trachea above the tracheal wound, and rely on the length of the inserted tube to put the inflated cuff below the tracheal wound. Makes sense. This is what I was trying to point out to Ashton. He seems to think one slice with a scalpel will remove all traces of a wound but if the tracheal incision was made above the tracheal wound, Perry didn't do a very good job of "obliterating" every trace of wounding in the anterior neck. And, as both of us have pointed out, slicing through the throat wound with a scalpel certainly didn't remove all traces of the throat wound, as the semi-circles of the original wound are still visible.

However, I still maintain that my Adam's Apple (or laryngeal prominence) is within 1/4" of the tops of my shirt collars when I button them up, and a wound at the 3rd tracheal ring (or between the 2nd and 3rd ring) is far below this prominence.

I have to agree with Ashton on this one. Whatever caused the throat wound, the evidence points to it being well below the top of JFK's collar.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Tom Neal]

The JFK "Stare-of-Death" photograph from Robin Unger's fine site. I have added an inset of the throat wound and surrounding neck tissue.

There are a multitude of photos on the web that CLEARLY show the trachea through the tracheotomy incision. Note the bright light on JFK's face and neck...note the interior of the throat incision. The flesh and muscles overlying the unseen trachea are clear and moderately bright. Below the level of flesh and muscles however, where we should see the trachea, there is only blackness. The inset has been brightened and filtered to the extent that the flesh of the neck has disappeared above the white level threshold. Compare the small circular areas within the incision opening in the photo and inset. Note they have turned bright white. The pixels at the level of the trachea are 100% black -- no picture information at all.

Why are the shadows behind his head, neck, and shoulders so dark and IMO oversize? Perhaps to create the illusion that the area within the tracheostomy incision opening SHOULD be this dark?

With the light shining brightly into the open incision, the trachea SHOULD be easily detectable. This area has been deliberately darkened to hide the interior organs of the neck. We should also see indications of the tracheal incision made by Malcolm Perry. Despite all of his many interviews he was never asked what type of incision he made in the trachea to allow insertion of the trach tube. Did he cut a flap, fold it back and sew it down? Did he completely remove an area of trachea which would leave a hole? We should most likely see an actual physical hole. We do not.

If you look carefully, you may detect what appears to me as a VERY jagged portion of the protruding DOWNWARD. It extends 1/2 of the width of the incision opening on JFK's anatomical right, and 1/3 of the width on his left. Is this the end of a completely severed trachea, the jagged wound described on the right side of the trachea or something else entirely?

What is being hidden here? The extent of the actual damage to the trachea and its precise location...I can't think of anything else that would be obliterated by this intentional blackness.

Tom

[Tom Neal]

I have to agree with Ashton on this one. Whatever caused the throat wound, the evidence points to it being well below the top of JFK's collar.

Let's clear up one thing that you have repeated several times. How many inches are in a "well below?"

Robert,

Because you were adamant that the Isthmus of the Thyroid gland in NO WAY WHATSOEVER covered Tracheal Ring 1, 2 or 3, I spent some time assembling what you asked for, and have posted it.

Do you still believe that what I posted regarding the thyroid is impossible?

Tom

Edited March 28, 2016 by Tom Neal