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.

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?

I was genuinely thinking, "Oh no! Greg's gone over to the Dark Side too!"

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

Got the first five words right, anyways.

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.........?

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?

"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?

My thanks to Robert Prudhomme for bringing Warren Commission Document 298 to my attention, and to Jim DiEugenio for putting it in context with the April 27th memo from Redlich to Rankin.

And again thanks to Robert for helping me make sense of it all by posting information gathered from the testimony of Mary Moorman and James Altgens, which places the the limo for the first and final shots (sans Z-film dependency).. If I understand correctly, Moorman's testimony agrees with Altgens' regarding the first shot, and this gives me confidence in their testimony.

But there is one thing I'm not sure I understand correctly. According to both Moorman's and Altgens' testimony, the first shot occurred when the scene was as depicted in Z-frame 255. Okay, so they agree with each other. Problem is, JFK had already been hit prior that. Right? The Z-film has JFK being shot more than 1 1/2 seconds earlier. Of course, the Z-film could be wrong. But if we consider only Moorman's photo, JFK had to have reacted very quickly to the shot.

The problem with this hypothesis is that one has to figure out from where the extant Z-film got its frames depicting Kennedy bringing his hands up toward his throat just before slumping. Moorman shows only the slumping part.

Am I understanding this correctly? (This question is directed only to those who believe the Z-film has been altered.)

(Sorry Greg for going off topic. Though it sounds like you've given up on Pat.)

Altgens corresponds with extant Z-film frame 225. Note Jackie's gloved hand grasping the president's left arm raised to his throat as seen through the limo windshield in Altgens 6. Then note the exact same hand position in the extant Z-film frame 225. It matches to a tee.

The Moorman photo corresponds to extant Z-film frame 312. Both of these can be easily confirmed with distinct corresponding "features" within both the still photos and the film frames respectively. As an example one can draw an imaginary straight line from the Z-lens POV to the Moorman lens that passes directly between the motor cop's torso and his motorcycle's windshield on the way to Moorman's lens. At the same time, one can draw a corresponding straight line from the reverse angle--from the Moorman lens POV to the Z-lens--that also passes directly between the motor cop's torso and his motorcycle windshield on its way to the Zapruder lens.

I hope that helps. I can post a graphic tomorrow if you want.

Thanks Greg, that helped a bunch. (Though you meant Z255, not Z225 for the Altgens 6 shot.)

Now I understand better what Robert's points were, I think.

As I understand it now, there is a question as to when the shots quit, due to Moorman''s statements.

And as for Altgens, his statement (that he was 15 ft from the limo during the fatal head shot) indicates that the head shot really occurred further down the road than where Z313 shows it.

This is better than how I earlier understood Robert's post. Because rather than most the Z-footage being altered, it looks like just the latter part of it was. I assume it was altered to remove the limo-stop. The limo-stop would be pretty damning for the Secret Service.

This is pretty obvious so I'm sure it's been discussed a lot. But it seems that removing frames to speed up the limo during the limo-stop would be the way to go, followed by a good deal of touch-up work to remove jerkiness. By removing the limo-stop that way, the film would be shortened. The effect would be that the final shot on the revised film would occur closer to the TSBD than it really did.

The problem is that this process would also move everything closer to the TSBD. And so, for example, Altgens should be seen in Z313. Which he isn't. Back to the drawing board.

I don't know where Greg got his information from when he stated that the Altgens 6 photo corresponded to frame z225 of the Zapruder film. Most researchers agree it actually corresponds to frame z255.

Here is something to think about. Witnesses along Elm St. all seem to hear roughly 3-4 shots, yet those at the eastern end of Elm St. seem to hear them at different locations than those closer to the Triple Underpass. Anyone venture a guess why that might be?

Why move the head shot from 307 feet from the Sniper's Nest to 265 feet from the Sniper's Nest? Think of it this way. Even from the 6th floor, the advantage of height will diminish eventually. Hint: Why did we never see the Queen Mary (follow up car) immediately behind the limo in any of the reenactments, with SS agents standing on the running boards?

P.S.

Tom Purvis' research and ballistics "calculations" were a joke and, unfortunately, his nonsense still seems to be polluting this forum.

I corrected my typo from Z-225 to Z-255 in the original post. Sorry for the confusion.

LOL Okay, Greg, I was beginning to wonder about that. No problem.

This diagram shows something that has always troubled me about JFK's throat wound.

See the carotid artery snuggled in so cozily behind the thyroid gland, with the jugular vein snuggled up to it? How did the bullet not rupture one or both of these blood vessels?

Here is a diagram showing a typical tracheostomy tube inserted into a patient's trachea. Note first how much lower the tracheostomy site is than the larynx (vocal cords).

Note also the cuff on the lower end of the inserted tube. This cuff is inflated and prevents air from the tube escaping upward and possibly out the trach site or through a wound in the trachea, as well as to prevention liquid secretions from the tracheostomy site from entering the lungs. As this cuff is obviously much lower than where the incision would be made, it is conceivable a surgeon could make the trach incision between the 1st and 2nd tracheal rings, insert the tube and still have the cuff make a seal below the 3rd/4th tracheal ring site.

If the wound in the trachea was between the 3rd and 4th tracheal ring, did Perry make the incision in the trachea at this same level?

TESTIMONY OF PERRY:

Dr. PERRY: I . . . began the tracheotomy making a transverse incision right through the wound in the neck.

Ashton

Well, you see, this is where I wish Perry had gone into a little more detail. I know he wanted the tracheotomy tube to go below the wound in the trachea, in order to inflate the cuff below the wound and prevent leakage of air through the wound but, while he definitely tells us he made a transverse incision in the neck between the 3rd and 4th tracheal rings, he does not tell us exactly where he made the incision in the trachea itself. We are left to assume he made it between the 3rd and 4th tracheal rings, and that the ragged wound in the trachea was between the 3rd and 4th tracheal rings, but I have not seen anything to verify this.

You realize, of course, that if the wound was between the 3rd and 4th tracheal rings, this places this wound at least as low as the C7 cervical vertebra, if not even lower (possibly at thoracic vertebra T1), accepting, of course, the trachea begins at the level of the C6 cervical vertebra.

I suppose it really does not matter all that much where Perry made the incision in the trachea. The important thing is he identified the throat wound at the 3rd/4th tracheal rings.

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)

AUTOPSY REPORT:

Situated in the low anterior neck at approximately the level of the third and fourth tracheal rings is a 6.5 cm. long transverse wound with widely gaping irregular edges.

That is entirely consistent with the autopsy photos.

for the simple fact he wanted to make the incision below the wound in the right side of the trachea.

TESTIMONY OF PERRY:

Dr. PERRY: I . . . began the tracheotomy making a transverse incision right through the wound in the neck.

Mr. SPECTER: Why did you elect to make the tracheotomy incision through the wound in the neck, Dr. Perry?

Dr. PERRY: The area of the wound, as pointed out to you in the lower third of the neck anteriorly, is customarily the spot one would electively perform the tracheotomy.

This isn't complicated. It's merely made complicated.

Ashton

Perhaps you could clear this up for us, Ashton. If the wound in the trachea was between the 3rd and 4th tracheal ring, did Perry make the incision in the trachea at this same level? I guess it goes without saying now that whatever wounded the trachea passed below the thyroid gland.

Bob,

I don't see how any of this proves the bullet wound was well below the collar.

I'm out the door to spend the day at the hospital with my son. I'll return after midnight, and post several diagrams depicting the isthmus of the thyroid gland, and how it must be undermined and retracted to reveal the 1st and 2nd tracheal rings. Additionally, I will post the procedure for retraction and when necessary cutting through the Isthmus.

Tom

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) for the simple fact he wanted to make the incision below the wound in the right side of the trachea.

This brings up another interesting point. Perry did not mention the thyroid gland being damaged by the passage of a projectile, nor did he mention having to cut through the isthmus of the thyroid to gain access to the trachea. If the wound was behind the thyroid gland, why was it so easy to observe?

I don't know where you buy your dress shirts, Tom, but, when I do up the collar on a shirt, the top of the collar is touching my Adam's Apple, also known as the "Laryngeal Prominence" of the thyroid cartilage.

If Perry made the incision between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings, would that not place the incision (and the wound in the trachea) well below the top of the collar?

Diagram showing more details of relationship between thyroid and cricoid cartilages, trachea, thyroid gland and relative location in regards to cervical vertebrae C3, C4 and C6..

Tom Neal, on 25 Mar 2016 - 1:55 PM, said:

... even the upper edge of [JFK's throat] wound is FAR too low to be located at ring2-3, and there's no way to know the location of the trach hole relative to the horizontal center line of that wide wound.

If you feel for the rings in your trachea yourself, you have to start counting at ring 3, because the thyroid covers rings 1 and 2 and frequently 3 as well. Anyone who tries this and counts the first ring they can feel as #1 will place the wound too low.

As this diagram clearly shows, the trachea, made up of tracheal rings, starts below the cricoid cartilage, and that is below the thyroid cartilage. The thyroid gland does cover the trachea but, as this diagram shows, the thyroid actually is below the cricoid cartilage, still placing an incision between the 2nd and 3rd (or 3rd and 4th) tracheal rings very low in the neck.

Ashton Grey said:

"Meanwhile, neither you nor anyone in this forum has accepted my challenge and done it, and that's because it can't be done."

The reason I have not accepted your challenge is that I have been aware for many years the throat wound was well below the top of JFK's collar, and to try this out would only prove to me something I already knew.

Bob,

What reason(s) has convinced you for many years that the wound is WELL below the collar?

Tom

Show me in this diagram where the thyroid cartilage covers any of the tracheal rings (tracheal cartilage). If you look closely, you will see the thyroid cartilage above the cricoid cartilage, and the cricoid cartilage above the tracheal rings or cartilage.

A cricothyrotomy is performed in the notch between the thyroid cartilage and the cricoid cartilage. If there were tracheal rings behind the thyroid cartilage, this would be impossible.

The purpose of a cricothyrotomy is to allow an air tube to be inserted in order to ventilate a patient. I have actually assisted a doctor in performing this procedure in an emergency setting.

My thanks to Robert Prudhomme for bringing Warren Commission Document 298 to my attention, and to Jim DiEugenio for putting it in context with the April 27th memo from Redlich to Rankin.

And again thanks to Robert for helping me make sense of it all by posting information gathered from the testimony of Mary Moorman and James Altgens, which places the the limo for the first and final shots (sans Z-film dependency).. If I understand correctly, Moorman's testimony agrees with Altgens' regarding the first shot, and this gives me confidence in their testimony.

But there is one thing I'm not sure I understand correctly. According to both Moorman's and Altgens' testimony, the first shot occurred when the scene was as depicted in Z-frame 255. Okay, so they agree with each other. Problem is, JFK had already been hit prior that. Right? The Z-film has JFK being shot more than 1 1/2 seconds earlier. Of course, the Z-film could be wrong. But if we consider only Moorman's photo, JFK had to have reacted very quickly to the shot.

The problem with this hypothesis is that one has to figure out from where the extant Z-film got its frames depicting Kennedy bringing his hands up toward his throat just before slumping. Moorman shows only the slumping part.

Am I understanding this correctly? (This question is directed only to those who believe the Z-film has been altered.)

(Sorry Greg for going off topic. Though it sounds like you've given up on Pat.)

Altgens corresponds with extant Z-film frame 225. Note Jackie's gloved hand grasping the president's left arm raised to his throat as seen through the limo windshield in Altgens 6. Then note the exact same hand position in the extant Z-film frame 225. It matches to a tee.

The Moorman photo corresponds to extant Z-film frame 312. Both of these can be easily confirmed with distinct corresponding "features" within both the still photos and the film frames respectively. As an example one can draw an imaginary straight line from the Z-lens POV to the Moorman lens that passes directly between the motor cop's torso and his motorcycle's windshield on the way to Moorman's lens. At the same time, one can draw a corresponding straight line from the reverse angle--from the Moorman lens POV to the Z-lens--that also passes directly between the motor cop's torso and his motorcycle windshield on its way to the Zapruder lens.

I hope that helps. I can post a graphic tomorrow if you want.

Thanks Greg, that helped a bunch. (Though you meant Z255, not Z225 for the Altgens 6 shot.)

Now I understand better what Robert's points were, I think.

As I understand it now, there is a question as to when the shots quit, due to Moorman''s statements.

And as for Altgens, his statement (that he was 15 ft from the limo during the fatal head shot) indicates that the head shot really occurred further down the road than where Z313 shows it.

This is better than how I earlier understood Robert's post. Because rather than most the Z-footage being altered, it looks like just the latter part of it was. I assume it was altered to remove the limo-stop. The limo-stop would be pretty damning for the Secret Service.

This is pretty obvious so I'm sure it's been discussed a lot. But it seems that removing frames to speed up the limo during the limo-stop would be the way to go, followed by a good deal of touch-up work to remove jerkiness. By removing the limo-stop that way, the film would be shortened. The effect would be that the final shot on the revised film would occur closer to the TSBD than it really did.

The problem is that this process would also move everything closer to the TSBD. And so, for example, Altgens should be seen in Z313. Which he isn't. Back to the drawing board.

I don't know where Greg got his information from when he stated that the Altgens 6 photo corresponded to frame z225 of the Zapruder film. Most researchers agree it actually corresponds to frame z255.

Here is something to think about. Witnesses along Elm St. all seem to hear roughly 3-4 shots, yet those at the eastern end of Elm St. seem to hear them at different locations than those closer to the Triple Underpass. Anyone venture a guess why that might be?

Why move the head shot from 307 feet from the Sniper's Nest to 265 feet from the Sniper's Nest? Think of it this way. Even from the 6th floor, the advantage of height will diminish eventually. Hint: Why did we never see the Queen Mary (follow up car) immediately behind the limo in any of the reenactments, with SS agents standing on the running boards?

P.S.

Tom Purvis' research and ballistics "calculations" were a joke and, unfortunately, his nonsense still seems to be polluting this forum.

So, who can see JFK's brains flying skyward in Moorman's Polaroid? Don't be shy, now.

Ashton Grey said:

"Meanwhile, neither you nor anyone in this forum has accepted my challenge and done it, and that's because it can't be done."

The reason I have not accepted your challenge is that I have been aware for many years the throat wound was well below the top of JFK's collar, and to try this out would only prove to me something I already knew.

According to Mary Ann Moorman, she heard the first shot as she took her famous photo. She then heard two more shots after she took her photo.

James "Ike" Altgen, an experienced journalistic photographer, testified to the Warren Commission he was no more than 15 feet from JFK at the moment of the fatal head shot, yet he is not seen in this position until z350.

He is nowhere near JFK at z313.

Assuming the limo was travelling 12 mph or 17.6 feet per second, we should be able to calculate the distance between z313 and z350, also assuming Zapruder's camera was exposing 18.3 frames per second.

350 - 313 = 37 frames.

37 / 18.3 = 2.02.

2.02 x 17.6 = 35.52

This is not the additional 42 feet further down Elm St. claimed by the FBI in WCD 298, but Altgens definitely places the limo much further down than the Zapruder film shows us. Altgens also heard the first shot at almost the precise moment he took the famous Altgens 6 photo below, which corresponds to frame z255 of the Zapruder film.

Here is the full testimony of James Altgens to the WC.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/altgens.htm

"The autopsy face sheet shows absolutely no wound to the lower skull area. It does show the shot to the head, the one that pushes his head downward in the Z film."

The autopsy face sheet also does not show a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head, in spite of such a wound being reported by almost every single doctor present in Trauma Room One. Do you consider the autopsy face sheet to be accurate?

I'm just not seeing a shot hitting him low in the skull at Z225 or anywhere for that matter. His arms flay up to the throat/face area from the frontal throat shot, his head bobs back and forth from the force of the back shot hitting immediately after that, and then he stays there until Z313.

If he's shot low in the skull and a piece of bone or bullet pops out causing the throat wound, when is he then shot in the back? I just watched an extreme close up of the Z film frame by frame. This is 60's technology but you can actually see his hair fluffing in the wind. So that level of detail would show *something* other than what I see - throat, back, pause, double head shot. I think taking a shot low in the skull and exiting the throat would have caused a very different physical reaction from him, too. We're talking a bullet shattering bone in there and possibly severing nerves. I think if that had happened, his head would have just dropped down with his chin landing on his chest. But from Z225 to 313, he's still conscious enough where he's startled and frozen in place until his head is destroyed, where everything goes limp. Keep in mind, too, that his back brace was essentially propping him up the whole time.

I just read Lipsey's testimony and quite frankly he's all over the place in what he says. He says "front face" "front right" talks about a neck / skull shot, then when the interviewer leads him a little ("you mean back"?) he answers that yes, it's the back. This was the first time he's ever witnessed an autopsy (that's what he says) and though I'm sure it was a traumatic experience for him, there was 14 years distance from when he experienced it. He was also no medical doctor, so his descriptions seem off at best.

At one point he says, "There's no question that the shots came from one direction." I'm sorry to say, but doesn't this sound like a person who may have been coached to say that? I mean how does he know that and would know that so early in the game? Remember, the autopsy was just 7 hours after the assassination - nothing was set in stone at that time. You have a doctor 1,000 miles away who was a *medical doctor* saying he saw a throat shot that was one of entry.

You have a lay person 7 hours later, probably shaking in his boots, hearing higher ups mumble and grumble, and then he's suddenly pushed into the autopsy room. And the so-called single bullet theory had not even been established at that time (it wouldn't be until early 1964). So how would he know all the shots came in the same direction? He wouldn't.

Then, 14 years after the fact, he says, "There's no question that the shots came from one direction." Give me a break. Keep in mind too that the tracheotomy that Dallas performed obscured the throat wound. Humes and the others didn't even know the wound in the throat was a bullet wound until Dallas told them.

Many witnesses heard two shots right on top of each other at the moment of the head shot. It is quite possible two bullets hit JFK's head at the same instance, with one entering low in the back of the skull.

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.

It looks to me like Greg downplays the ridges that apparently should be on occipital bone (by hypothesizing that osteoporosis could have remodeled the skull), and Pat does the opposite (by posting a drawing that emphasizes the ridges).

(I don't believe Pat chose the drawing in order to trick people, but rather because the ridges can be hard to see in a photo.)

As one who had sided with Greg on this issue, I find it it disconcerting that he (or one of his doctor friends) has had to go into apology mode to keep his theory afloat. I think it is a stretch to add to it the hypothetical element of osteoporotic remodeling.

However, my position on this is far from being flipped. Because just as I see Greg in apology mode on the occipital ridge issue, Pat has long been in apology mode on the numerous medical personnel who saw the back-of-head blowout.

I've wondered if the Harper fragment was planted, in front of the limo, in order to support the single shooter theory. If anything, what I've witnessed here makes me consider that possibility more seriously.

That's my opinion, FWIW.

Hi Sandy

The location the Harper fragment was found has always been the fly in the ointment that Lone Nut supporters have used to deny its possibility of being occipital bone. It just makes sense; how could a bone from the back of the head be found in front of the limo's position at z313?

Want to read something REALLY interesting? It's known as Warren Commission Document 298. Here is a link to it:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10699

It seems the FBI believed Connally was shot in the back at about the z313 position, and the fatal head shot occurred when the limo was almost at the steps of the pergola, approximately 45 feet further down Elm St. than the z313 position (see visual aid on Page 26).

Wow, that is crazy!

But maybe not so crazy after all. I mean, didn't the FBI have to watch the Zapruder film to come to these conclusions on when the shots were fired? If so, wouldn't this exhibit be a strong indicator that the Z film has since been altered? I should think so.

Now you're getting it! Remember, crazy is as crazy does, and the only thing limiting us is our ability to be amazed.

NEVER stop thinking outside of the box, my friend.

You missed it, Bob. Thinking the film was altered just because the FBI came to some curious conclusions IS thinking inside the box. The CT box, anyhow. The fact is that the SS, using the Z-film, placed the head shot at its current location within a few days of the shooting...and then MOVED it down the road a few weeks later, once they were tasked with giving specifics to their three shots three hits solution. The FBI then followed suit.

They were then made to retreat from this by the WC's staff, which had come to realize the inconsistency of the SS and FBI re-enactments with the films the re-enactments were purportedly based upon. The SS and FBI, using the same films, helped the WC perform a new re-enactment on 5-24-64 and came to quite different conclusions.

So why were the SS and FBI shooting scenarios so wrong? Well, context is everything. One possibility is that when these re-enactments were performed, in December '63, the SS and FBI were under the impression the WC was just gonna sign off on their reports. They had no idea anyone was gonna double-check their work. They presumed, moreover, that there were three shots three hits. Well, this lowered the shooting sequence down to less than six seconds. It seems possible, then, that in December 1963 the SS and FBI were concerned that the films depicted a shooting sequence at odds with Oswald's being the sole assassin, and chose to conceal this fact by pretending the final shot came when the limousine was much further down the road than it really was.

And then there's another possibility. Many of the early witness statements suggested there was a shot after the head shot. It seems possible, then, that the third shot coming further down the road in these scenarios was originally supposed to represent a third shot miss, but that SS and FBI bureaucrats intervened to change it to being a third shot hit, so that the shooting scenario would not be at odds with the recollections of Governor Connally. (Now that's thinking outside the box!)

This is discussed in great detail in chapters 2 and 2b at patspeer.com.

Suuuure, Pat, that must be the answer. Those pesky FBI and SS devils, what won't they try to get away with when no one is watching?

Let me guess, not enough time for three shots so they moved the first shot back up near the corner and called it 8 seconds, right?

It looks to me like Greg downplays the ridges that apparently should be on occipital bone (by hypothesizing that osteoporosis could have remodeled the skull), and Pat does the opposite (by posting a drawing that emphasizes the ridges).

(I don't believe Pat chose the drawing in order to trick people, but rather because the ridges can be hard to see in a photo.)

As one who had sided with Greg on this issue, I find it it disconcerting that he (or one of his doctor friends) has had to go into apology mode to keep his theory afloat. I think it is a stretch to add to it the hypothetical element of osteoporotic remodeling.

However, my position on this is far from being flipped. Because just as I see Greg in apology mode on the occipital ridge issue, Pat has long been in apology mode on the numerous medical personnel who saw the back-of-head blowout.

I've wondered if the Harper fragment was planted, in front of the limo, in order to support the single shooter theory. If anything, what I've witnessed here makes me consider that possibility more seriously.

That's my opinion, FWIW.

Hi Sandy

The location the Harper fragment was found has always been the fly in the ointment that Lone Nut supporters have used to deny its possibility of being occipital bone. It just makes sense; how could a bone from the back of the head be found in front of the limo's position at z313?

Want to read something REALLY interesting? It's known as Warren Commission Document 298. Here is a link to it:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10699

It seems the FBI believed Connally was shot in the back at about the z313 position, and the fatal head shot occurred when the limo was almost at the steps of the pergola, approximately 45 feet further down Elm St. than the z313 position (see visual aid on Page 26).

Wow, that is crazy!

But maybe not so crazy after all. I mean, didn't the FBI have to watch the Zapruder film to come to these conclusions on when the shots were fired? If so, wouldn't this exhibit be a strong indicator that the Z film has since been altered? I should think so.

Now you're getting it! Remember, crazy is as crazy does, and the only thing limiting us is our ability to be amazed.

NEVER stop thinking outside of the box, my friend.