Robert Prudhomme

I thought you'd never ask! LOL Deviation of the trachea to the left (or the right) is the result of a respiratory emergency known as a "tension pneumothorax", more commonly referred to as a collapsed lung. As is typical of a lung injury, the lung is no longer able to fill and expand with each inspiration (indrawn breath), due to a tear or perforation of the lung tissue itself. However, instead of expanding the lung, air will travel through the lung and fill the pleural cavity the lung occupies. Often, air will enter this cavity but will be unable to return to the trachea when the patient exhales, due to the collapsed lung acting as a check valve. With each breath, the pressure and volume of air in the pleural cavity grows, until pressure begins to be exerted on the heart, superior and inferior vena cavae (large veins), pulmonary veins and arteries and the opposite unaffected lung; severely impairing the function of all these things. The problem is made worse by positive pressure ventilation, such as was administered to JFK with a respirator, once the tracheostomy was in place. One of the external signs of a tension pneumothorax is a trachea visibly deviated away from the side the tension pneumothorax is on. As I said, this is a medical emergency and, if left untreated, has a very good chance of killing a patient. JFK's back wound was much lower than what was reported in the autopsy, and the bullet entered the top of JFK's right lung. The 1/4 inch bullet hole through the flesh of JFK's back either sealed itself, or was sealed when JFK was laid on the gurney in Trauma Room One. Once this entrance wound was sealed, and positive pressure ventilation begun, a tension pneumothorax in the right lung was inevitale; explaining two very important points. 1. Dr. Carrico's observation of diminished breath sounds, especially in the right lung, when he listened to JFK's breathing with a stethoscope; following intubation of JFK with an endotracheal tube. 2. Dr. Perry's request that a chest tube be inserted into JFK's right lung and that this tube be connected to underwater drainage; the standard method for relieving a tension pneumothorax.

"......... I found it necessary to sever the exterior strap muscles on the other side to reach the trachea. " Translated, he only cut the sternothyroid muscle on one side of the trachea. If the trachea was deviated to JFK's left, and was hiding behind the left sternothyroid muscle, and Perry was trying to access the trachea, it would be a safe bet, I believe, that he partially severed the left sternothyroid muscle. Now, aren't you even a little curious as to why JFK's trachea was deviated to his left?

Why would Perry cut through the entire strap muscle if he was only attempting to uncover the slightly deviated trachea? How far do you think the trachea was deviated to JFK's left? Surgically speaking, it would be rather foolish to cut through the entirety of the sternothyroid muscle as, should JFK have lived, this muscle would have to be reattached at some point in time. Far easier to sew a small cut on the side of this muscle than to reattach the entire muscle, and healing would take far less time. P.S. Reading your post again, I get the impression you believe Perry cut the strap muscles on either side of the trachea. Is this what you believe?

Perry was likely severing part of the left sternothyroid muscle. With the trachea deviated to the left, the site on the trachea for making the incision would be covered by the sternothyroid muscle. Why do you think the incision on the neck would have to be 5 cm.? Have you figured out why the trachea was deviated to the left?

Micah " Dr. PERRY - Yes. Once the transverse incision through the skin and subcutaneous tissues was made, it was necessary to separate the strap muscles covering the anterior muscles of the windpipe and thyroid. At that point the trachea was noted to be deviated slightly to the left and I found it necessary to sever the exterior strap muscles on the other side to reach the trachea. " It is necessary, when reading medical evidence regarding the trachea, to be able to distinguish between a "tracheotomy" and a "tracheostomy", in order to avoid confusion. A tracheotomy is the procedure of surgically opening the skin overlying the trachea and then making an opening in the trachea to accommodate the tracheotomy breathing tube. A tracheostomy is the actual site of this opening of the trachea, and the breathing tube inserted therein. In other words, a tracheotomy is performed to establish a tracheostomy. In the quote from Perry above, he clearly states that he made a transverse (horizontal) incision in the skin and subcutaneous tissue overlying the trachea, just as can be observed in the autopsy photos, although the autopsy photos seem to show a much larger incision than the 2-3 cm. (.8-1.2 inches) incision described by Perry et al. If you made a 2-3 cm. incision transversely across the trachea, you would have cut halfway through the trachea. BTW, why do you think the trachea was deviated to the left, so much so that Perry had to "sever the exterior strap muscles on the other side to reach the trachea"?

I don't quite understand what you are getting at.

Call me stupid but. unless there names were on their ballots, how do we know 26% of Latinos and 53% of women voted for Trump? And James D You say HRC voted for the Iraq War. I seem to recall that an awful lot of people voted for that war, given the false evidence they were presented. Your point?

I read the article by Joe Wilson, "What I didn't find in Africa". He made an awful lot of sense, and basically put the lie to Cheney's claim that Saddam was purchasing yellow cake uranium from Niger; which placed the entire reason for going to war in Iraq in serious jeopardy and made prevaricators out of Bush and Cheney. Small wonder they outed his CIA agent wife. I recall that weasel Bob Novak was the "reporter" they broke her outing to.

Hi Cliff I've been reading up on the GW Bush administrstion, the private email server set up for the administration by the RNC and the roughly 22 million "lost" emails that still remain unaccounted for. You seem to know quite a bit on the topic of emails. Would you comment on this, and perhaps draw a parallel to the HRC email controversy? Thanks.

I think he made it up, just like he made up seeing Williams, Jarman and Norman sticking their heads out of the 5th floor window to look up at the 6th floor, and just like he made up having to pound on the driver's back to get him to stop the car, when it is quite obvious from his film his car was sitting still with the rest of the motorcade. Couldn't have that limo stopped on Elm St.

I also forgot to mention that Couch claimed the men directly below the 6th floor window (Williams, Jarman and Norman) were craning their necks out of the window and looking above them. This was adamantly denied by Bonnie Ray Williams in his WC testimony, despite being a claim made by FBI agents. Michael He may have stopped filming and not have been able to catch the rifle being pulled back in on film but, don't you find it suspicious he didn't focus his camera on the window and begin filming, in the hopes that the shooter might reappear? He managed to get his camera operating mere seconds after the last shot, and was able to capture Baker on film running. Why no film of the 6th floor?

What is going to happen if Trump is unable to force corporations to return jobs to America, or if he is unable to bring about all of the other changes he promised? Better yet, what will happen if he IS able to bring these jobs back to America, and bring about all of the "house cleaning" he promised in Washington? Would he not be crossing roughly the same number of powerful people that JFK crossed? Perhaps we will all end up becoming DJT assassination conspiracy theorists.

Something I've always found a bit odd about Couch et al seeing a rifle barrel being withdrawn into a 6th floor window, after hearing shots being fired. If Couch saw a rifle barrel being withdrawn, how did he know it wouldn't be stuck back out the window, and more shots fired? Wouldn't his natural instinct be to point his camera at this window, on the off chance he could get video footage of the shooter, instead of panning the sidewalk in front of the TSBD, and then charging off for the Grassy Knoll? Sorry but, I find Couch's story a bit hard to swallow. Further in his testimony, he claims they had to pound their driver on the back to get him to stop the car, yet the Darnell film clearly shows the entire motorcade halted on Elm St. and Houston St., right about the time Couch jumped out of the car.

Just call me Bob.

I'm not sure the Americans on this forum are aware or not, or if they particularly care but, where I live, to address someone by their last name (unless you are a close personal friend) is considered to be an attempt at demeaning this person. I'm not sure if Thomas is persistently addressing me by my last name because he likes the unusual sound of it, or if he feels it gives him the upper hand in a debate. Either way, I ask that he stop this practice, as well as addressing me as "Cowboy Bob".

But, I like it here in Never-Never Land, Mark.

Sounds like Republican propaganda, Doug. Plant the seed that Obama might pardon Clinton and the subconscious conclusion is drawn that she must have been guilty in the first place and, therefore, all Democrats must be guilty of something. You folks have no idea how comical all of this is from our perspective, north of the 49th Parallel.

" PS Bob, there was a special prosecutor in the Watergate case. For three years. There is a big difference between an FBI inquiry and a special prosecutor." Yes, I imagine there is a big difference, Jim. The most notable difference would be that a special prosecutor would only be appointed if the investigative agencies produced enough verifiable hard evidence to justify assigning a special prosecutor to the case. Hillary was still at the FBI enquiry level and, obviously, the FBI was unable to produce enough evidence against her.

Yes, James, Ford and Nixon. Didn't they have some actual evidence against Nixon in that particular case? They certainly had enough to send several of Nixon's staff to jail. Obama granting a pardon, and Clinton accepting tat pardon, would only serve to confirm, in the eyes of the unwashed Trump masses, that Hillary actually was guilty of the vast array of conspiracy theories set against her. As I requested before, show me the list of indictable offences she could conceivably be convicted of, and supporting evidence.

I find it so odd that people get upset wen asked to list Hillary's actual indictable offences, or verifiable evidence that would convict her on those offences. I get the same reaction when I ask people to compare her email controversy to GW Bush and the 22 million missing emails from his private server, which I see has been completely ignored since I posted it on this thread. Is there really a double standard in the USA; one bar for Republicans, and a much higher bar for Democrats?

Excuse me, Doug but, wouldn't Hillary actually have to be convicted of an offence before Obama was to pardon her? Perhaps I simply do not understand the American judicial system. In Canada, pardons are granted only to those persons convicted of an offence.

Hi Ron I've heard about this. I've also been studying a similar case involving the GW Bush Administration, in which it seems there are 22 million emails on a private server that are unaccounted for. http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html Now, is this worse than Hillary's case, about the same as Hillary's case or not as bad as Hillary's case? Is Bush a "crook" too?