Robert Prudhomme

"Carrico: ""there were some contusions, [comma!] hematoma to the right of the larynx, [another comma!] with a minimal deviation of the larynx to the left"

Cliff

Would you please tell us where you obtained this quote of Dr. Carrico's? Is this from his Warren Commission testimony of March 25, 1964?

Anyone with any reading skills at all would interpret Carrico's statement as saying there were contusions and hematoma adjacent to the larynx, Cliff.

So you are unfamiliar with the common "comma" punctuation?

Carrico: ""there were some contusions, [comma!] hematoma to the right of the larynx, [another comma!] with a minimal deviation of the larynx to the left"

BUT, do you know what you are REALLY missing, Cliff?

A FRICKIN' ENTRANCE WOUND IN THE LARYNX! WHY DID PERRY NOT REPORT AN ENTRANCE WOUND IN THE LARYNX?

Carrico saw it first and reported a wound below the Adams apple above the shirt-line just about where the tie knot was, to the right.

The round deflected down from the larnyx and ended up creating a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process.

It didn't take a straight-line path, Bob. Get over it.

One last time, Cliff. If a round "deflected down from the larynx", that would mean that round had to HIT the larynx, and at a pretty good velocity in order to do all of the tricks you claim it did.

If that round hit the larynx, why did it not wound the larynx?

Ray,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://

Compare this diagram above to the one below:

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

"SPECTER: ...Did you observe any hole in the clothing of the President on the front part, in the shirt or tie area?

KELLERMAN: No, sir.
SPECTER: From your observation of the wound which you observed in the morgue which you have described as a tracheotomy, would that have been above or below the shirtline when the President was clothed?
KELLERMAN: It would have been below the shirtline, sir."

bump

Anyone with any reading skills at all would interpret Carrico's statement as saying there were contusions and hematoma adjacent to the larynx, Cliff.

BUT, do you know what you are REALLY missing, Cliff?

A FRICKIN' ENTRANCE WOUND IN THE LARYNX! WHY DID PERRY NOT REPORT AN ENTRANCE WOUND IN THE LARYNX?

"They reported wounds to the larnyx."

Citation, please.

Dissolving rounds or rounds removed prior to autopsy.

Sure, Cliff, no wonder no one takes you seriously here.

Look at this diagram, Cliff.

The larynx can be seen just under the jawbone. The bottom vertebra we can see here is the C7 cervical vertebra. The next one below C7, if it were shown, would be the T1 thoracic vertebra.

Before we begin, I should point out there was no visible wound to JFK's throat at the level of his larynx, nor did any doctor at Parkland report a wound to JFK's throat at the level of his larynx.

That being said, Cliff would have us believe a bullet struck JFK's larynx and, instead of penetrating the larynx as one would expect a bullet to do with soft cartilage, this piece of cartilage managed to deflect the bullet almost 90° downward. It then travelled down to the T1 vertebra and fractured its right transverse process.

Where it went after it magically fractured the transverse process, only Cliff knows, and he's not telling.

P.S.

I forgot to mention, Dr. Malcolm Perry observed a tear in the trachea, between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings (seen below larynx), that would have been going downhill from left to right in this diagram; exactly the opposite direction of Cliff's "magical" deflection.

"Yes indeed! You have characterized the location of the tracheal wound as "well below" the larnyx, but now it's not so "well below," is it?"

Far enough below the larynx to place the throat wound below the top of JFK's shirt collar.

Ok, you're right, Cliff, it was a diagonal wound. However, it was diagonal on a downward path from back to front of the trachea; exactly the opposite of the "deflected" bullet path you claim the bullet took from the larynx to T1 vertebra.

Explain that one for us, Einstein.

Carrico said hematoma and contusion to the RIGHT of the larynx, NOT a hematoma and contusion on the larynx itself.

For those who don't know, a hematoma is a collection of blood outside of a blood vessel while a contusion is bruising of tissue.

It would be perfectly normal for a bullet passing beneath the level of the larynx to cause localized bleeding and bruising beside the larynx. However, Cliff, the main injury was still the tear the projectile made passing through the right side of the trachea, between the SECOND and THIRD tracheal rings.

Bruising beside the larynx but "rugged (sic should read ragged) tissue below indicating tracheal injury".

Bruising to the tissue adjacent to the larynx but the main injury was below in the trachea.

Do you see now what Carrico was saying, Cliff, or do we get to listen to your madness for a few more pages now?

How does Carrico's description preclude the round striking the larnyx?

You insist on putting words in his mouth.

The x-rays showed damage to the right T1 transverse process so obviously the round deflected downward.

I know we're going to keep putting up with your contentless dismissals.

By all means ignore the x-ray.

Cliff Varnell continues to display his complete ignorance of anything connected to medical evidence, and his complete inability to interpret medical evidence.

Do tell, Doctor Prudhomme?

This is not surprising, as he wants so desperately to believe in JFK being shot in the throat with a rocket propelled dart, he is willing to fabricate evidence and see things that are not there to do so.

Fabricating evidence?

Are you accusing me of fabricating the witness testimony of Linda Willis, Nellie Connally, Clint Hill, Glenn Bennett, James Curtis Jenkins, Francis O'Neill, James Sibert and all the Parkland personnel who described a wound of entrance in the throat?

Did I fabricate the neck x-ray, or did I fabricate the HSCA analysis of the x-ray?

Did I fabricate the Zapruder film, which shows JFK reacting to the first shot by reflexively bringing is hands in front of his throat?

Did I fabricate this testimony from Dr. Charles Carrico?

<quote on>

Dr. CARRICO - At that time the endotracheal tube was inserted, using a curved laryngoscopic blade, inserting an endotracheal tube, it was seen there were some contusions, hematoma to the right of the larynx, with a minimal deviation of the larynx to the left, and rugged tissue below indicating tracheal injury.

<quote off>

Carrico says there was a hematoma (collection of blood) and contusion (bruising) to the RIGHT of the thyroid cartilage, in which the larynx is contained.

You are misquoting Dr. Carrico, Doctor Prudhomme.

"there were some contusions, hematoma to the right of the larynx, with a minimal deviation of the larynx to the left"

The hematoma was to the right of the larnyx, not the contusions.

That's ALL he says about the thyroid cartilage, and wishful thinking on your part will not change that.

No, he also said that there was a minimal deviation of the larnyx to the left, consistent with a round which struck the larnyx on the right and deflected down.

Carrico does NOT say there was any evidence whatsoever the larynx was struck with a projectile.

He described damage to the larnyx.

How you can deny that is amazing!

"Dr. CARRICO - At that time the endotracheal tube was inserted, using a curved laryngoscopic blade, inserting an endotracheal tube, it was seen there were some contusions, hematoma to the right of the larynx, with a minimal deviation of the larynx to the left, and rugged tissue below indicating tracheal injury."

Anyone that has ever skinned out a deer and butchered that deer for meat will understand exactly what is going on here. When a bullet, or any other projectile, passes through meaty tissue containing a great number of blood vessels, such as the neck, the shock wave of it passing through has a tendency to rupture many small, and sometimes, some large, blood vessels, leaving very obvious bruising of tissue around the path of the bullet, and collections of blood in that tissue.

But according to Doctor Prudhomme "the path of the bullet" was well below the thyroid.

You keep insisting that the wound in the trachea was too low for the round to have entered at the larnyx -- now you've put the larnyx immediately adjacent to path of the bullet!

Make up your mind, Bob.

How could the "exit" wound be so small if the bullet left so much damage above and below it's path?

That is ALL that Carrico is seeing,

Look who's fabricating testimony!

and he most definitely states the ragged tissue is BELOW the thyroid cartilage (larynx) and is a tracheal injury.

Yes indeed! You have characterized the location of the tracheal wound as "well below" the larnyx, but now it's not so "well below," is it?

Some medical authorities, as shown above, include the cricoid cartilage as part of the larynx. With this in mind, can you see how a projectile passing through the right side of the trachea, at a level between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal cartilages (tracheal rings) could cause bruising of the tissue adjacent to the larynx, and a collection of blood in that tissue?

"Could cause bruising"?

"Could"?

What happened to your iron-clad certainties, Bob?

Bruises on the larnyx, broken blood vessels next to the larnyx, and a deviation of the larnyx are consistent with a strike in the larnyx.

However, Carrico's observation of bruising in the tissue adjacent to the larynx completely destroys the theme of this thread, that being Ashton Gray's claim there was no bullet wound in JFK's throat. The evidence of bruising to surrounding tissue is clear evidence of the traumatic passage of a projectile travelling at a fairly good velocity.

P.S.

Carrico's observation of the larynx being deviated to the left is an indication of a developing tension pneumothorax in JFK's right pleural cavity.

There you go again!

Making up evidence as you go along...

While Carrico observed only "minimal" deviation, once he had intubated JFK and connected him to the positive pressure breathing of a respirator, the tension pneumothorax rapidly developed. By the time Perry performed the tracheotomy, the trachea had deviated so far to JFK's left, it was necessary for Perry to sever JFK's left strap muscle, in order to gain access to the trachea.

I invited you to ignore the x-ray, and you did.

The rounded ended up down at the T1 transverse process, consistent with a significant deflection of the round.

Again, the evidence the Pet Theorists must ignore:

<quote on>

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. There is disruption of the integrity of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the opposite side and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a fracture in that area. There is some soft tissue density overlying the apex of the right lung which may be hematoma in that region or other soft tissue swelling.

<quote off>

Consistent with significant deflection of the round.

If the round ended up down at the T1 transverse process, why did it not show up on the x-ray you are referring to, Cliff? Did it exit JFK's body? Where did it exit?

Your description of the shooting is in many ways very accurate, and I agree with you that JFK seems to be responding to one shot when another shot appears to hit him in the back.

Great, then we agree on something. And because it's plain as day that that's what we're seeing in the Z film, then we're on the right track.

The part I have a problem with is the frontal throat shot. I believe Sandy and I have conclusively proven the throat wound...

Then what do you believe in, Bob, if you're saying that what you see in the Z film is "very accurate," why contradict it and now say you have a problem with it?

conclusively proven the throat wound...

Really, Bob. Conslusively? Wow, a pretty strong statement there.

You have no idea what did or did not exist 53 years ago.

Uh, isn't that like calling the kettle black, Bob?

Michael

You have nothing whatsoever to offer in the way of medical evidence. Therefore, all you can do is to play games with my words.

I am agreeing that JFK may have had a throat injury from a bullet as he emerged from behind the Stemmons sign in the Zapruder film, and that he appears to be shot again, possibly in the upper back, within a few frames of emerging.

However, I am NOT saying I believe the throat wound was caused by a shot from the front of the limo. If you will take the time to read our work, you will see that Sandy Larsen and I were able to demonstrate that the throat wound projectile passed through the upper part of JFK's trachea, between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal cartilages (tracheal rings), placing the throat wound WAY below the top of JFK's shirt collar.

With every possible location for a shooter, in front of the limo, being either level with JFK or above JFK, how did the bullet enter JFK's throat without passing through his tie knot?

Michael

Perhaps I was a bit hasty in writing this post. It occurred to me you might really not understand what I am saying.

Based on the recollections of Lt. Richard Lipsey, who was present at the autopsy and was able to hear the autopsy doctors in discussion, it is very possible a type of bullet hit JFK high up on the back of the neck, just below the base of the skull; impacting the cervical vertebrae at the C3/C4 level and sending either a fragment or a piece of bone out through JFK's throat.

Theoretically, this would be followed immediately by a bullet impacting JFK's upper back, at about the level of the T3 thoracic vertebra, and entering the upper section of his right lung.

Mr Prudhomme obviously sees himself as above answering good evidence. I take it as the concession it is.

The only discussable issue here is the last clear frame showing the woman's face that Davidson isolated from the Wiegman film using Photoshop.

I would like to point out that Mr Prudhomme was one of the main posters who posted endless speculative scenarios on numerous assassination research boards based on Murphy's now-refuted thesis and took up large bandwidth with what is now objectively a bogus theory. I have seen him praised for his entries numerous times.

There's a saying that if you can't attack the facts you attack the poster. If you are calling me an idiot Mr Prudhomme please show so directly via my arguments instead of answering with one liners.

I rest my case, Albert. No need to show something when that person is doing a splendid job of proving my point all by himself.

P.S.

You respond very well to the name Albert, Brian.

Taunting posts should not be allowed. They are obviously a concession of the point by their inability to answer seriously-argued information. It tells you their issuer is here for reasons other than serious debate and consider this forum a place to exert their own personal conceits rather than respecting it as a place for serious discussion.

You're just plain wrong Mr Larsen and my references are precisely correct vs your overly vague "from my memory" offering. If Mr Davidson would defend his very good issue-ending material like it deserves instead of offering his mushy position and disappearing you would see what I wrote is backed-up by the facts.

On disappearing Duncan's site Davidson detailed his methodology entering a screenshot of his Photoshop settings for his animated gif. All he did was adjust the contrast setting to enhance the darker and lighter portions of Wiegman - which any photo expert would tell you does not effect the base image in any way that would constitute altering. I have been watching these threads and there are many persons who suggested Davidson somehow altered his images in his gif process. When Davidson posted his Photoshop methodology showing he did no such thing those same posters did not admit or recognize this and went on suggesting Davidson had somehow used alteration tricks. He had already posted information to show he did not. No one on this site called them on it and this site pretends to call for a high level of rigor. Davidson proved he did not alter his Wiegman images in any fundamental way and the only thing he did was bring out the existing, unaltered features more clearly by adjusting the contrast setting. This is a perfectly acceptable photo analysis practice that no critic of Davidson was honest enough to admit. What it did was bring out the features on Prayer Man a little more clearly from the shadows. It was actually quite brilliant and was the advanced photo analysis pro-Murphy theorists were calling for. They just didn't like the results when they showed they were totally wrong in their supposition it was Lee Harvey Oswald. As you can see here, none of Davidson's accusers were able to show where his methodology was faulty. I'm shocked that this site would be providing the above input as its offering of rigor towards a subject that deserves a higher level of scientific response. I have offered that level and the responses are noticeably lacking in adequate response. That's because Davidson's proof is good.

For those interested in the accurate truth on this, as I wrote above, when Davidson inserted the Wiegman frames into his Photoshop gif it resulted in the images I cited above. As I explained, there is a perfectly understandable, scientific reason why the woman's face showed up in the last frame. Over on Duncan's forum Davidson and Duncan reviewed the individual frames separated by Davidson's Photoshop process. As I cited above, the last frame was exceptionally clearer and sharper than the others because Wiegman's camera - like Zapruder's - took sharp images when the frame landed on a steady camera position. Bart Kamp tried to fool the Education Forum membership by claiming he found a flaw in Davidson that discredited the woman's face. Not so and Kamp was entering a specious claim that was not scientifically connected to the real evidence. And he did so after having it explained to him multiple times on several forums why that was so. The elongated forehead is a technical quirk of Davidson's Photoshop process and is not related in any way to the woman's face. It does not scientifically affect or refute the image with the woman's face. It has a perfectly understandable explanation that Kamp ignored when it was explained to him. Kamp did not return to account for this.

I'm sorry but my input shows why Davidson's image of a woman's face has a perfectly credible methodology and scientific tracing. It is because Wiegman's camera managed to capture a sharp image in that frame because of the luck of landing on a steady camera shot. Davidson's contrast enhancement and MacRae's enlargement assisted in making that face more clear. It has a perfectly valid explanation and shows a woman's face beyond a doubt. By all normal means of analysis it refutes the Murphy theory. That's simply the way it is and this site should examine its actions considering because they have a seriously detrimental effect on the level of rigor the site aspires to in my opinion. I have seen no argument to show otherwise, and personally I think the resistance comes from some researchers not wanting to admit they were wrong on their heavily-backed Murphy theory.

"Never argue with an idiot; they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." ~~ Mark Twain ~~

Isn't that right, Albert?

If that article had been written a few weeks prior to the assassination, you might really have something, Paul.

Yes, I realize that Robert -- that all my documents from General Walker were produced only after the JFK assassination -- and that is the weakest part of my evidence so far. Readers recognize that the Content is interesting -- but they also notice that to prove my theory I must also have the same Content before the JFK assassination.

I know that's a fact -- so here's my usual reply:

(1) Research into General Walker as the mastermind of the JFK assassination is very sparse. Even the HSCA in 1977 thought of General Walker as so insignificant that they neglected to ask him to be a witness for the HSCA.

(2) Researchers like Dr. Jeff Caufield have finally come out in print only in 2015.

(3) The first person to claim that Walker was a leader of the JFK assassination was Harry Dean, who claimed this on the Joe Pyne radio show in January, 1965, after the disappointing results of the WCR.

(3.1) Yet Harry Dean was soon smeared by many, including an imposter who would go around claiming to be Harry Dean and claiming that he was both an FBI agent and a CIA agent. The real Harry Dean never claimed more than being a voluntary informer for the FBI -- unpaid. Harry Dean confirmed that with me personally.

(3.2) Still, Harry Dean's eye-witness account places the knowledge of LHO in General Walker's words in mid-September 1963.

(4) The second person to name General Walker as a major JFK plotter was Gareth Wean, a former LAPD officer, in 1979.

(4.1) For Wean, General Walker had proposed a "false flag" fake assassination attempt on JFK, just to startle the world into awareness -- and then somebody else hijacked his harmless plan. Wean claimed that no less an authority than Sheriff Bill Decker was his source on this.

(5) The third person to claim that Walker was an equal with Guy Banister in the JFK assassination was Ron Lewis in 1993, in his book, Flashback: The Untold Story of Lee Harvey Oswald.

(5.1) It was in the context of the NOLA FPCC that Ron Lewis met and knew LHO in the summer of 1963, and that the Walker shooting was raised as an issue of Guy Banister's blackmail of LHO there in NOLA.

(6) The personal papers of General Walker are scattered throughout the USA, in various Universities. UT Austin is not the only college with a cache of Walker papers.

(6.1) Gary Mack of the 6th Floor Museum asked me personally for my cache of 1,200 pages of Walker's personal papers, because he was busy enhancing his own museum's cache of Walker papers shortly before he died.

In other words, research into General Walker has had a very slow start, and is really only taking root since 2015, and is only now starting to grow. We expect to see further discoveries of Walker's personal papers come to the light of day in the coming year -- all the way up to and including the magic month of October 2017.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Long and interesting post but, it does nothing to change the fact the magazine article came out after the assassination.

The evidence for LHO shooting at Walker is still very weak.

Here is a question for you, Cliff.

If you believe the round entered JFK's larynx, describe the path it took in order to hit the right transverse process of his T1 vertebra.

P.S.

Don't forget to include the almost horizontal wound to his trachea, between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings.

Sandy Larsen posted:

"

Yes, I am serious. There may well have been an entrance to the back of the neck --in a sense -- as I will show here.

A bullet entered the scalp 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP at a tangential angle. It tunneled downward under the scalp. There is little evidence of entry into the skull because the underlying bone was missing (!!) or half missing. (The testimony is conflicting. But there is a good deal of testimony saying that there was no corresponding hole in the skull found at all. Even as pieces of skull were put back into place.)

The tangential nature of the wound was recorded on the autopsy notes, but later crossed off:

Quote

....situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5cm to the right & slightly above the eop is a ['puncture' -- crossed out] (lacerated) wound ['tangential to the surface of the scalp' -- crossed out] measuring 15X6 mm....

Discussion of the tunneling by the HSCA was apparently a sensitive issue that belonged OFF the record:

Quote

Dr. BOSWELL. .. [speaking of the entry ] .... because this bone was all gone and actually the smaller fragment fit this piece down here-there was a hole here, only half of which was present in the bone that was intact. and this small piece then fit right on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface. ..

....
Dr. DAVIS. Because in no. 42 I interpreted that as a wound, and the other lower down in the neck, as just being a contaminant, a piece of brain tissue.
Dr. HUMES. No, that was a wound, and the wound on the skull precisely coincided with it.
Dr. DAVIS. Now it was a tunnel-
Dr. HUMES. Yeah, tunnel for a way.
Dr. BOSWELL. Yeah, it’s longer than it is wide, and tunneled along and actually under here, and then at the actual bone defect was above the - " [Humes cuts him off]...

....
Dr. PETTY. May I make a comment on what you just said, Dr. Davis. The problem, as I see it, is that this may be in fact a tunneling situation, with the bullet scooting along the skull here or somewhere, and not entering the skull down below. Is that what you’re saying now?
Dr. DAVIS. What I’m saying-what I’m inferring : in the absence of photographs and specific measurements, we could only conjecture as to how long the tunneling is, but I would envision this as a tunneling first and then entry into the skull.
Dr. LOQUVAM. Gentlemen, may I say something?
Dr. DAVIS. Yes.
Dr. LOQUVAM. I don’t think this discussion belongs in this record.
Dr. PETTY. All right.
Dr. HUMES. I agree...."

Well, I would say that ties everything together, Sandy. A tangential wound that tunneled beneath the scalp, if it entered at the base of the skull travelling on a downward angle, is NOT about to make a turn upward, and enter the skull, as Dr. Davis attempted to interject, with the base of the skull curving away from the path of the bullet.

Small wonder this discussion had to go off the record! The coverup continues.

Your description of the shooting is in many ways very accurate, and I agree with you that JFK seems to be responding to one shot when another shot appears to hit him in the back.

Great, then we agree on something. And because it's plain as day that that's what we're seeing in the Z film, then we're on the right track.

The part I have a problem with is the frontal throat shot. I believe Sandy and I have conclusively proven the throat wound...

Then what do you believe in, Bob, if you're saying that what you see in the Z film is "very accurate," why contradict it and now say you have a problem with it?

conclusively proven the throat wound...

Really, Bob. Conslusively? Wow, a pretty strong statement there.

You have no idea what did or did not exist 53 years ago.

Uh, isn't that like calling the kettle black, Bob?

Michael

You have nothing whatsoever to offer in the way of medical evidence. Therefore, all you can do is to play games with my words.

I am agreeing that JFK may have had a throat injury from a bullet as he emerged from behind the Stemmons sign in the Zapruder film, and that he appears to be shot again, possibly in the upper back, within a few frames of emerging.

However, I am NOT saying I believe the throat wound was caused by a shot from the front of the limo. If you will take the time to read our work, you will see that Sandy Larsen and I were able to demonstrate that the throat wound projectile passed through the upper part of JFK's trachea, between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal cartilages (tracheal rings), placing the throat wound WAY below the top of JFK's shirt collar.

With every possible location for a shooter, in front of the limo, being either level with JFK or above JFK, how did the bullet enter JFK's throat without passing through his tie knot?

Carrico said hematoma and contusion to the RIGHT of the larynx, NOT a hematoma and contusion on the larynx itself.

For those who don't know, a hematoma is a collection of blood outside of a blood vessel while a contusion is bruising of tissue.

It would be perfectly normal for a bullet passing beneath the level of the larynx to cause localized bleeding and bruising beside the larynx. However, Cliff, the main injury was still the tear the projectile made passing through the right side of the trachea, between the SECOND and THIRD tracheal rings.

Bruising beside the larynx but "rugged (sic should read ragged) tissue below indicating tracheal injury".

Bruising to the tissue adjacent to the larynx but the main injury was below in the trachea.

Do you see now what Carrico was saying, Cliff, or do we get to listen to your madness for a few more pages now?

How does Carrico's description preclude the round striking the larnyx?

You insist on putting words in his mouth.

The x-rays showed damage to the right T1 transverse process so obviously the round deflected downward.

I know we're going to keep putting up with your contentless dismissals.

By all means ignore the x-ray.

Cliff Varnell continues to display his complete ignorance of anything connected to medical evidence, and his complete inability to interpret medical evidence. This is not surprising, as he wants so desperately to believe in JFK being shot in the throat with a rocket propelled dart, he is willing to fabricate evidence and see things that are not there to do so.

Carrico says there was a hematoma (collection of blood) and contusion (bruising) to the RIGHT of the thyroid cartilage, in which the larynx is contained. That's ALL he says about the thyroid cartilage, and wishful thinking on your part will not change that.

Carrico does NOT say there was any evidence whatsoever the larynx was struck with a projectile.

"Dr. CARRICO - At that time the endotracheal tube was inserted, using a curved laryngoscopic blade, inserting an endotracheal tube, it was seen there were some contusions, hematoma to the right of the larynx, with a minimal deviation of the larynx to the left, and rugged tissue below indicating tracheal injury."

Anyone that has ever skinned out a deer and butchered that deer for meat will understand exactly what is going on here. When a bullet, or any other projectile, passes through meaty tissue containing a great number of blood vessels, such as the neck, the shock wave of it passing through has a tendency to rupture many small, and sometimes, some large, blood vessels, leaving very obvious bruising of tissue around the path of the bullet, and collections of blood in that tissue.

That is ALL that Carrico is seeing, and he most definitely states the ragged tissue is BELOW the thyroid cartilage (larynx) and is a tracheal injury.

Some medical authorities, as shown above, include the cricoid cartilage as part of the larynx. With this in mind, can you see how a projectile passing through the right side of the trachea, at a level between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal cartilages (tracheal rings) could cause bruising of the tissue adjacent to the larynx, and a collection of blood in that tissue?

However, Carrico's observation of bruising in the tissue adjacent to the larynx completely destroys the theme of this thread, that being Ashton Gray's claim there was no bullet wound in JFK's throat. The evidence of bruising to surrounding tissue is clear evidence of the traumatic passage of a projectile travelling at a fairly good velocity.

P.S.

Carrico's observation of the larynx being deviated to the left is an indication of a developing tension pneumothorax in JFK's right pleural cavity. While Carrico observed only "minimal" deviation, once he had intubated JFK and connected him to the positive pressure breathing of a respirator, the tension pneumothorax rapidly developed. By the time Perry performed the tracheotomy, the trachea had deviated so far to JFK's left, it was necessary for Perry to sever JFK's left strap muscle, in order to gain access to the trachea.

There goes the neighbourhood.

God, this forum has gone downhill lately.

I have NEVER seen a bullet, be it a FMJ (illegal for hunting), soft point or hollow point bullet leave an animal headless. This is the stuff cartoons and documentaries from Australia are made of, and anyone who believes it possible to remove a deer's (or a man's) head with a bullet is a complete and utter fool.

There you go, Bob:

Minute 7'10"

... brought to you by:

T&E Systems, Proudly Suppliers of the Military Industrial Complex:

http://www.tnesystems.com/fbh.html

-Ramon

Ramon

As I said, documentaries such as this are made for the benefit of complete and utter fools, such as you.

Show me a video of a REAL head, human or animal, that gets blown into utter oblivion by being shot with a soft point hunting bullet.

Really? Yet you can diagnose bullets that hit JFK in the larynx and then make a magical 90° turn downward to the trachea and another 90° turn back to the horizontal in order to make a horizontal wound on the trachea, and leave no trace of the original impact on the larynx.

It seems to me that you have confirmed what Jim Garrison argued in 1968 -- almost 50 years ago. "Back and to the left" was his phrase, explaining the Zapruder film, and also explaining why the back of JFK's head was blown away.

So -- you agree with Jim Garrison (and so with Oliver Stone, and so with most of us here) on the basics.

So, I'm not really sure why Robert would criticize your work, since Robert also agrees with a frontal shot to the head, as I read him.

Now, the author of this thread, Ashton Gray (*), says that he might consider a theory for a shot from the back of the head -- but it seems that hes still working out his details.

I think that almost everybody here -- except for the LNers -- agree with the premise of a frontal head shot.

I would like to hear from anybody with the opposite theory, actually -- who here thinks that JFK was shot in the back of the head -- and upon what evidence (aside from Arlen Specter's relentless insistence)?

--Paul Trejo

Paul:

There is a funny, ridiculous version. It was brought to us by Bob Harris. He is a well know CTer who claims that all the shots originated from behind (the Grassy Knoll and all frontal locations were devoid of shooters), and therefore -in that sense- he is a faithful member of the Church of Posner:

While I appreciate Bob's admirable degree of dedication (apparently, the only degree he possesses), he could use reading some textbooks and taking some classes of Physics and related disciplines.

-Ramon

(*): Unless he has a lot of time to dedicate to proving the impossible, I would recommend Ashton Gray to stay clear from that path. Then again, if he has access to world-class research scientists, experts in Finite Element Analysis and Computational Fluid Dynamics, Biomechanics PLUS plenty of supercomputer time to burn ... I strongly encourage him to go down that path. He would be welcome with standing ovations -not unlike the Soviet Union in the late 80s-

"Attention, world! This is NOT the way"

Aww, great!! Ramon and Paul Trejo together on a thread. Now we get to learn the true meaning of the word nonsense.