Robert Prudhomme

I would like to re-open the discussion regarding JFK's throat wound, the nick in his tie and the slits in his shirt, just below the collar button.

I attempted to open a new thread on these matters but was told a thread already existed on these topics.

I hope I have chosen the correct thread to continue this discussion and, if I have not, I pray the Administration will be so good as to tell me what the correct thread is.

The other interesting thing no one seems to notice, Thomas, is that the landscape in the photo on the right is not exactly on the level. In order to get the gate and the posts in this photo to be plumb (vertically) it is necessary to rotate the photo several degrees to the left; further exaggerating the lean.

I believe the person in this photo was originally photographed standing on the side of a hill, and his figure was cut out from that photo. When I worked as a logger, we often took photos of each other standing on the sides of hills, and I have seen this extended foot stance before.

Interesting

I'm quite certain there is no other thread with on this topic, so this thread should be safe.

In this thread, in the following days, I will discuss certain items of evidence from the JFK assassination along with the topics of unicorns, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, and demonstrate where I believe we have been taken in.

Wow! Am I still actually on a JFK assassination research forum? I've just basically confirmed that the throat wound was below the top of JFK's shirt collar, and not a peep out of a single member.

Have I scared you all away? Can I take your silence as affirmation of my conclusions?

I know you're out there, I can hear you breathing.

Ever thought it might have looked suspicious if Oswald wasn't outside, Thomas? Everyone else was (except Dougherty).

It is very difficult to talk with a closed mind and I prefer an open mind.

My mind is closed, James? I'm sorry, sir, but I believe I have used the best evidence available here to clearly present an infallible argument.

Before you accuse someone of having a closed mind, perhaps you should counter his arguments with facts.

....Another element of the problem is defined by Carico who when asked Alan Dulles about the throat wound physically pointed on his person where it was. At this point no-one else was in Trauma room1. The other staff enter very shortly. So no-one else was able to say where the wound was or what it looked light.

Mr. DULLES. Will you show us about where it was?

Dr. CARRICO. Just about where your tie would be.

Mr. DULLES. Where did it enter?

Dr. CARRICO It entered?

Mr. DULLES Yes.

Dr. CARRICO At the time we did not know -

Mr. DULLES I see

Dr. CARRICO. The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.

Mr. DULLES. I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is?

Dr. CARRICO. Yes, sir; just where the tie -

Mr. DULLES. A little bit to the left.

Dr. CARRICO. To the right.

Mr. DULLES.. Yes; to the right.

Dr. CARRICO. Yes. And this wound was fairly round, had no jagged edges, no evidence of powder burns, and so forth. H3 361-362

Note that It was Dulles who said the wound was above the tie, not Carrico. Carrico said it was where the tie would be. He later appears to be correcting Dulles when again he mentions the tie, but Dulles cuts him off.

It all depends on how badly you want the throat wound to be above the collar, Sandy.

Allen Dulles and the other scoundrels desperately wanted the throat wound above the collar, for the simple fact JFK's tie knot did not have a bullet hole through it. Without a bullet hole through the tie knot, there was no way to get a bullet from JFK's throat to John Connally's right armpit, as their Single Bullet Theory would have us believe happened.

Locating the throat wound above JFK's collar makes the SBT possible.

Robert,

On post 149 - I believe - I quoted the fact that to Weisberg Carrico said these slits were created by a scalpel which he witnessed happening. The fact that no-one else said that means nothing because no-one asked any witnessed what caused the slits and was it a scalpel. In addition, at the point this happened only Carrico and the nurses were in the Trauma room 1. It was shortly after that everyone else entered. At that point his shirt had been removed. Carrico was the only doctor who witnessed this. One member pointed out that no-one else confirmed this. Of course not: no-one else was in the room when it happened.

Another element of the problem is defined by Carico who when asked Alan Dulles about the throat wound physically pointed on his person where it was. At this point no-one else was in Trauma room1. The other staff enter very shortly. So no-one else was able to say where the wound was or what it looked light.

Mr. DULLES. Will you show us about where it was?

Dr. CARRICO. Just about where your tie would be.

Mr. DULLES. Where did it enter?

Dr. CARRICO It entered?

Mr. DULLES Yes.

Dr. CARRICO At the time we did not know -

Mr. DULLES I see

Dr. CARRICO. The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.

Mr. DULLES. I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is?

Dr. CARRICO. Yes, sir; just where the tie -

Mr. DULLES. A little bit to the left.

Dr. CARRICO. To the right.

Mr. DULLES.. Yes; to the right.

Dr. CARRICO. Yes. And this wound was fairly round, had no jagged edges, no evidence of powder burns, and so forth. H3 361-362

As I understand it buttons of the kind worn on JFK’s shirt were around 1cm in circumference, That means the - inside slit and smaller slit - would be around 1.484cm. Whereas the - outside slit and larger slit - would be around 1.883cm. There may well be a definitive reference to the size of each - which I do not have.

Most important Carrico says that the wound “was fairly round, had no jagged edges, no evidence of powder burns.” So a small round object creates two vertical slits. In addition the first slit is smaller than the second - something that does not normally happen.

If you look at the FOX 1 image you will still see the lower half of this wound. The upper half has been destroyed by the tracheotomy. The shape and size of this shape supports what Carrico says. So whatever it was that created this small round hole went on to create two fabric damages on JFK’s shirt that are both vertical and different in size. In addition the outer slit - aside from being larger than the inner one - starts above the point where the inner one starts.

James

We have used your very own calculations to clearly demonstrate the throat wound was below the top of JFK's collar. Do you actually believe, at this point, an argument about "slits" in the collar is going to convince anyone of it being above the collar?

Robert,

Sibbert and O'Neill said that - and yes I believe them,

Like David Lifton I do not disbelieve everything Humes says, however I accept Perry on this occasion. He had no reason to lie about the location, whereas the autopsy is mired in all kinds of mischief.

Aren't you glad I corrected your original calculation of 2.7 inches to 2.44 inches?

BTW, James, as you believe Commander Humes was telling the truth when he stated his probing finger found JFK's back wound to be very shallow, do you also believe he was telling the truth when he stated JFK's tracheal wound was between the 3rd and 4th tracheal rings, instead of between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings as stated by Dr. Malcolm Perry?

This would place the tracheal wound 71 mm (2.79 inches) below the Adam's apple.

Robert,

I have adjusted my diagram. in two ways.

a) I agree that that damage to the trachea was between rings 2 and 3. However in my diagram I had the line below ring 3. So I moved it up a bit. With red lines I have identified what I believe are Trachea rings 1 to 3.

I had the upper line at the top of the Thyroid Cartilage. Surely the Adams apple will be nearer the middle rather than at the top of the Cartilage, So I moved that line down.

As a consequence of those changes I get the distance between the Adam's apple and between rings 2 and 3 to be 1.8925 inches.

Given your calculations on yourself and your clothing - however incorrect that will be because all JFK's clothing were bespoke and created for him. His clothing was not off the peg. - this adjusted figure takes the rings above the shirt collar.

James

James

No, you did not have the line below the 3rd tracheal ring in your diagram; you had it THROUGH the 3rd tracheal ring. Moving it up to between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal ring is a minor adjustment, and certainly does not reduce your total distance figure from 62 mm to 48.076 mm. BTW, do you have any idea how small .076 mm is? Why not just say 48 mm?)

" I had the upper line at the top of the Thyroid Cartilage. Surely the Adams apple will be nearer the middle rather than at the top of the Cartilage, So I moved that line down."

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Wishing the laryngeal prominence (Adam's apple) to be halfway down the thyroid cartilage does not make it so.

The laryngeal prominence (Adam's apple) can be seen on the left as the small notch at the top of the thyroid cartilage. It is not labelled in this diagram but, it has the only black line pointing to it coming from a small red dot.

To determine the distance from the laryngeal prominence to the bottom of the cricoid cartilage (last structure before the tracheal rings begin), I would like to direct your attention to this brief passage from the book "Physical Diagnosis Secrets" by Salvatore Mangone.

"1. What are the thyroid's landmarks?

They are the laryngeal prominence and the cricoid cartilage. Start your exam by identifying the hyoid bone, a horseshoe mobile structure just under the mandible, so called because of its "upsilon" like shape. Immediately below it, you will find the thyroid cartilage, which can be readily identified by its V shape, the midline notch on its superior edge (laryngeal prominence), and its being the most prominent structure in the anterior neck (Adam's apple). Just below it, separated by a little gap (the cricothyroid recess), is the horizontal ring of the cricoid cartilage. The thyroid isthmus lies immediately below, 4 cm. from the laryngeal prominence. It connects the two lateral lobes of the gland by crossing the trachea over the second, third and sometimes even the fourth tracheal ring. Note that while the distance between isthmus and landmarks (cricoid cartilage and laryngeal prominence) is constant in all individuals, the distance between laryngeal prominence and suprasternal notch is variable. This may result in glands that are either low lying or high lying in the neck. (Italics added by me)"

So, what Salvatore is telling us is that the distance from the laryngeal prominence to the bottom of the cricoid cartilage is constant in all individuals, and that distance is 4 centimeters.

For those not familiar with the Metric System, centimeters is abbreviated to cm. and 4 cm = 40 mm (millimeters).

I measured on the above diagram and found, on my screen, that the distance from the laryngeal prominence to the bottom of the cricoid cartilage is (coincidentally) also 40 mm.

I then measured, on the same diagram above, from the bottom of the cricoid cartilage to the space between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings, and found this measurement to be 20 mm.

40 + 20 = 60 mm or 2.36 inches

Therefore, James, your adjustments have gained you precisely 2 mm (.078 inches) from your original calculation of 62 mm (2,44 inches) and, with the throat wound 2.36 inches below the Adam's apple, I would say it was still well below the top of JFK's collar.

Everything Humes said prior to the end of the autopsy is gold.

Everything he said after he heard about CE-399 at the conclusion of the autopsy is garbage.

The introduction of the Magic Bullet rendered the prosectors' statements tainted thereafter.

You might be on to something here, Cliff. I can't think of anything that Humes reportedly did or said at the autopsy that is known not to be true.

If I'm wrong, I hope somebody will point it out in this thread.

Actually Robert already pointed out the probing-with-a-finger problem. How does one fit a finger into a small hole? Does flesh stretch?

What other problems are known to exist? (We have to ignore what Humes reported afterward, because clearly that is full of l.i.e.s.)

Hi Sandy. I believe flesh does stretch. Facelifts seem to rely on stretching the skin, and stretch marks likely wouldn't exist if skin didn't stretch to some degree. It would be hard to bend our elbows and legs, and would be difficult to open our mouths or fill our cheeks with air without stretching the skin. For those reasons, I don't feel that I can subscribe to Robert's theory that it wasn't possible for Humes to fit his finger into the back wound.

The JFK medical evidence is easy to sort out.

Materials prepared/maintained/recorded according to proper professional protocols are gold. Includes JFK's clothing, the contemporaneous notes of Parkland doctors, the portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil, Burkley's death certificate, the neck x-ray, and the Sibert/O'Neill report on the autopsy for the FBI.

Materials not prepared/maintained/recorded according to proper professional protocols are garbage. Includes the autopsy report, the autopsy photos, the portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pen, JFK's brain. Since the report for the FBI refers to "surgery to the head area" the cranial x-rays are suspect.

The proper materials lead us to the following conclusions of fact -- JFK was shot in the back at T3, the round didn't exit; he was shot in the throat from the front, the round didn't exit.

JFK 101.

Too bad so many Pet Theorists are enamored with the garbage...

Hi, Cliff, thank you for that analysis. I won't even pretend that I'm not confused by the medical evidence. I think your breakdown is sound.

Do you actually know for a fact that a bullet entrance wound can be stretched to accommodate insertion of a finger, three times its diameter, or is this just your best guess on this matter? If it can stretch, does it stay stretched, or does it snap back to its original diameter?

Sandy,

Robert Prudhomme said in post 180:

“Now, just to be a good sport, I put on my ambulance uniform shirt and did up the collar button. This shirt has a modest collar roughly similar in shape and height to the collar of JFK's bloodstained shirt. I measured from my Adam's apple (laryngeal prominence) to the top of my shirt collar and found this distance to be 1.5 inches. If the distance from my Adam's apple to the space between my 2nd and 3rd tracheal ring is 2.44 inches, as you have determined, this means there is .94 inches (almost a full inch!) from the top of my collar to the space between my 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings.”

I did not say he accepted my position, but I made clear he was honest enough to agree that theoretically there was space for a wound to occur above the edge of the shirt collar. I am under no illusions that Robert has changed his position, but I respect that he was able go outside his own preferred position and acknowledge a possibility.

As to your methodology we will have to agree to disagree.

James

Let me make something very clear on this matter.

You have seriously misinterpreted what I said in Post #180. At NO time did I suggest there was even a theoretical possibility the throat wound was above JFK's shirt collar, and I would like you to stop saying this on this forum immediately.

Your own figures clearly demonstrate the throat wound to have been a minimum of .94 inches below the top of JFK's shirt collar.

BTW, here is a Canadian study conducted on 82 patients, male and female, to determine the mean or average distance from the anterior commissure of the larynx to the first tracheal ring. It was found the mean distance for males was 32.67 mm, plus or minus 3.34 mm. This is slightly greater than the figure of 31.75 mm you obtained but still quite close.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4461842/

Interestingly, this study even used the same diagram you did.

Robert,

The problem with this discussion - as I see it - is that the theory you hold is based on the medical drawing. You have given us no idea of the actual distance between these two points. You have compared a series of pictures and compared them with your drawing. The problem is that your drawing does not give an indication of distance between the locations under discussion.

So the first question is what is this distance - in actual fact - between these two points. This is a pointless discussion until we know that value. Only then can we judge whether the images we have support your contention. As it turns out I can find no study focused on this issue. However I have found one study that - with further calculation - is of assistance.

Between the Anterior Commissure and the first tracheal ring the mean distance [ for adults over 40 ] is 31.75mm.

Taking that value the distance between the Thyroid and tracheal ring 3 is around 62mm, I am taking the wound as being between rings 2 and 3,

So in inches this distance is around 2.7 inches.

So now we need to judge whether the wound could be above the collar upper edge or below it. See video link below.

http://vid1187.photobucket.com/albums/z388/jamesg27/throat_zpspxlcbeof.mp4

From what I can judge that distance is more than 2.7mm

Sorry, James, I was following you right up to the point you stated the pointy protrusion at the top of the thyroid cartilage, referred to as the "laryngeal prominence" or "Adam's apple", was 62 millimeters from the space between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal ring. This seems a fair estimation, although 62 mm actually equals 2.44 inches, not 2.7 inches. http://www.onlineconversion.com/

However, I lost you when you stated "From what I can judge that distance is more than 2.7mm". Would you mind elaborating on what distance you were referring to here?

P.S.

I'm not quite sure how to tell you this, James, but I just had my wife measure down 2.44 inches on my neck from my laryngeal prominence or "Adam's apple" and the tape measure stopped just above the suprasternal (jugular) notch of my sternum. Just in case anyone does not know, the suprasternal notch is the point where the anterior neck joins the chest, and there is NO way the top of a shirt collar can be this low.

Now, just to be a good sport, I put on my ambulance uniform shirt and did up the collar button. This shirt has a modest collar roughly similar in shape and height to the collar of JFK's bloodstained shirt. I measured from my Adam's apple (laryngeal prominence) to the top of my shirt collar and found this distance to be 1.5 inches. If the distance from my Adam's apple to the space between my 2nd and 3rd tracheal ring is 2.44 inches, as you have determined, this means there is .94 inches (almost a full inch!) from the top of my collar to the space between my 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings.

Aren't you glad I corrected your figure of 2.7 inches to 2.44 inches?

In our discussion about the myth of JFK's "shallow" back wound, supporters of this myth repeatedly state that Commander Humes probed the back wound with a finger, and found the wound to be very shallow. This was reported by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill and, somehow, this has turned this into an unquestionable fact.

I was just wondering how much of everything else Humes stated it is necessary to believe, if we are to believe this one observation. We could start with the autopsy report, if you like. It can be read in full at this link:

http://www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html

Once again, there seem to be some misconceptions about the anatomy of the upper respiratory system of the human body. That's okay, though, I don't mind explaining the same things over and over.

Once again, here is the diagram:

In this diagram, we see one section marked the "thyroid cartilage". While we tend to call the thyroid cartilage the Adam's apple, this is really not quite accurate, as it is the projection seen on the throat that is usually referred to as the Adam's apple.

If you look more closely at the diagram, you can see something at the very top of the thyroid cartilage called the "laryngeal prominence". It actually comes to a point at the top of the thyroid cartilage, sticking out into the skin of the neck. It is this prominence that actually protrudes, giving the impression the thyroid cartilage is actually much higher than it really is.

Keeping this in mind when looking at all of the photos of JFK, and looking again at the above diagram, try to imagine how far it is from the laryngeal prominence to the space between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings (or 3rd and 4th tracheal rings, should you happen to believe the autopsy report).

If JFK's laryngeal prominence was barely above his collar and tie knot in these photos, how could the space between the 2nd and 3rd (or 3rd and 4th) tracheal rings be above the collar and tie knot?

James Gordon said:

"a) The image of JFK on Main Street is taken from above. Therefore it is not clear exactly where his Adam apple is with respect to his shirt collar. From above the Adam's apple appears closer to the shirt's collar than it may be."

You have it backwards here, James. Taking the photo from above would actually make the Adam's apple appear higher; right where you want it to be. By shooting the photo on the same level, we would have a more accurate depiction of the tie knot and the Adam's apple, as it would bring them closer together.

In actuality, the camera angle is not high enough to make any real difference here and, as the shirt collar is right up against the neck, changing the perspective of the camera is not going to move the Adam's apple.

This truly is a case of clutching at straws to attempt to prove a point, and I say that in all honesty and without malice, James.

Here is one without the tie clasp. See the Adam's apple?

Animated GIF showing that the throat wound is located behind the knot of the necktie:

(Posted by Ashton Gray years ago.)

This GIF isn't a perfect registration. The ears align, nothing else does. Put your cursor on the tip of JFK's nose, or on his forehead and watch the discrepancy. No match, it can't prove anything.

Besides, things on the body shift after death with the relaxation of muscle tissue, followed by rigor mortis setting in..

Robert,

If you are talking about the B&W image on the left the Adams Apple is significantly above the buttoned area of the collar and therefore the tie. You cannot tell with the Coloured image.

At what Z frame do you contend the injury occurred. It would be helpful to establish the position of JFK's head. If it is similar to the B&W image then I am not sure your point can be upheld.

Finally try not to insult members, it is not a good idea. Whatever a members opinion treat it with respect. It is one of the basic rules of the forum!!!

No insult intended, James. I am merely pointing out the obvious. If you have trouble with that, so be it.

As for the photo of JFK on the left....

anyone with decent vision can see the small point of the Adam's apple just above the tie knot. It is in exactly the same position on his neck as it is in this photo....

Robert,

There are a couple of problems with your image:

a) Your image has a different size collar.

It is also drawn together by a clip.

c) His head is positioned differently

but most of all

d) My images shows the shirt JFK was wearing when he was shot. JFK was not shot when wearing the shirt in your picture.

Wrong again, James. The photo on the left below shows the shirt and tie he was wearing when he was assassinated. And damned if that isn't his Adam's apple just above his tie knot!

The rest of your points are utter nonsense, as usual.

Robert Pruhomme said:-

“We know from looking at photos of JFK from earlier on 22/11/63 that the top of his shirt collar was resting against the bottom of his thyroid cartilage (Adam's apple), placing the wound in his throat well below the top of his shirt collar and, coincidentally, almost exactly where the "slits" in his shirt were.”

That is totally incorrect as this image taken at Fort Worth that morning demonstrates.

Looks like the laryngeal prominence of the thyroid cartilage (Adam's apple) resting on the tie knot to me, James.

Okay, James, then let's see if we can all get our heads together and solve this little puzzle.

There seems to be no doubt amongst us that JFK had a small wound in his throat. Perry placed this wound between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings, while Humes placed it between the 3rd and 4th tracheal rings which is not surprising, considering how Humes misplaced other wounds.

As this diagram shows, there is considerable distance between the "laryngeal prominence" of the thyroid cartilage (Adam's apple) and the space between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings (or 3rd and 4th). This "laryngeal prominence", situated at the top of the thyroid cartilage (Adam's apple), is the actual visual part seen protruding from the neck. We know from looking at photos of JFK from earlier on 22/11/63 that the top of his shirt collar was resting against the bottom of his thyroid cartilage (Adam's apple), placing the wound in his throat well below the top of his shirt collar and, coincidentally, almost exactly where the "slits" in his shirt were.

Regardless of whether the throat wound was an entrance or exit wound, how did it come to pass that a projectile could make this wound without also passing through the shirt, either before or after making the wound? Are you seriously proposing the shirt arrested this projectile?