Tom Neal

I am not a hack... I know what I'm doing.

The reason I asked about your engineering degrees/experience has NOTHING to do with your anatomy or ability to locate it.

If you read my post 622, you can see that it has to do with math/engineering/science experience in the following:

tensors

Calculus

vector analysis

matrix rotations

CAD experience

Photoshop experience

Did you read my post 622?

You didn't answer any of the 3 questions I asked - do you intend to?

Oh, so that's why you were asking for a high definition death-stare photo.

I did read post 622. I feel completely unqualified to say almost anything about the wound in that photo. Not only that, but one of my weaknesses is 3D visualization. As well as I did in college, I actually froze up when taking a test in a drafting class that covered the drawing of three sides of an object projected onto a plane.I failed the test... didn't even get past the first problem. (Good thing it was only a 0.5 credit hour class... otherwise it would have ruined my GPA and I would have lost my scholarship.)

I don't know if you want me to comment of my experience or understanding on each of those six items. But here goes:

tensors

Though I had heard the term before, I had to look it up. I recall having a high level math class that covered something that looked like that. But I don't believe the word tensor was even used. Just a mathematical concept. I didn't understand the need for learning it. And I never used it. But then, I never used most the stuff I learned in graduate level math classes.

Calculus

Naturally I learned high-school level differential and integral calculus. And Laplace and Fourier transforms which are based on integral calculus. And how to solve homogeneous linear differential equations with constant coefficients. (That one is very important for analog engineers.) But I've hardly touched any of that in thirty years.

vector analysis

Nope. RF engineers learn this because they need to understand Maxwell's equations. (I've often wondered how James Clerk Maxwell went about predicting the existence of electromagnetic waves twenty years before they were actually discovered.by Heinrich Hertz. I mean, why did it even enter his mind. Brilliant!)

matrix rotations

Nope. Never had a need for that in my profession.

CAD experience

Yep, a ton of experience with CAD. Problem is, I'm sure you're thinking of mechanical design. I've only done printed circuit design.

Photoshop experience

Never used Photoshop. But I've used some cheap substitutes.

I must say, after writing my resume for you I was feeling rather smart. But now I'm feeling rather stupid! I am very impressed If you are capable of doing these things.

BTW, I decided to go with the "stare-of-death" photo from Robin Unger's site. The trachea should be visible in the photo, but in my opinion the wound area was darkened in the original. There are simply not enough pixels there to provide information, so enhancement will not help.

OK. Thanks for the elaboration on those subjects, but unfortunately for me, you're not the guy I was looking for. I was hoping for someone who could independently do the same calculations I have performed and compare the end results. Especially since you are NOT going to like results one bit!

BUT, the three questions I referred to were at the bottom of post 622, and refer DIRECTLY to what's happening in that post. It would be helpful if you would read that post and answer Q1-Q3...they don't require any of the skills I asked about.

The same way I created 3x the frame count for this extant zfilm span.

There were more to begin with.

Chris,

Excellent job! I can pick out details that I couldn't see in any of the online Z-films or the DVD. Will you be applying this process to additional sections of the Z-film?

Tom

Tom:

What happened here is that Abrams wanted to get in on the front end of a new frequency.

Ah so... Any idea if Hulu provided the financing? Or if King refused to allow the miniseries unless they followed his 1964 version of Lee Harvey Oswald?

When you have the time, I'd appreciate an opinion on my post:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11340&page=42#entry327805

Thanks!

Tom

Pat, Tom's description was:

"1. One Shooter.

2. All shots from sixth floor window of TSDB.

3. Extremely high probability (beyond reasonable doubt) that LHO was the shooter.

4. Three shots fired, three hits.

5. First shot struck tree limb, tumbled in flight, struck in base first attitude, and small 4.5mm lead protrusion out base of bullet sheared off and came out the anterior neck of JFK.

6. Second shot at Z312/313 (some 5.6 to 5.9 seconds later) struck JFK just in the top rear/cowlick of the head. Sheared portion of skull over to side, bullet severely fragmented due to manner in which it exited the skull parallel against the skull bone, fragment from this headshot went forward to strike JBC in the wrist.

7. Third shot down in front of Altgens. Bullet went through coat collar at edge of colllar, struck at edge of hairline at base of JFK's neck, tunneled through soft flesh of he neck due to the well forward and almost head down position of JFK, struck in the EOP vicinity of the skull, passed through the mid-brain of the skull and exited in the frontal lobe.

Then continued forward to strike JBC in the right shoulder as JBC lay across the open area between the jump seats with his body pulled up into the fetal position.

The bullet penetrated through JBC's chest, exited the chest, and went on to strike and enter the left inner thigh of JBC."

Mr. Purvis also believed that it was CE-399 that struck JFK in the back.

Tom

I am not a hack... I know what I'm doing.

If you read my post 622, you can see that it has to do with math/engineering/science experience in the following:

tensors

Calculus

vector analysis

matrix rotations

CAD experience

Photoshop experience

Did you read my post 622?

You didn't answer any of the 3 questions I asked - do you intend to?

Below is the throat wound as shown in one the "stare-of-death" photos:

This crop has been rotated to align the start and end points of the incision with the horizontal plane as indicated by the RED line.

This photo was NOT taken from directly above the incision. Therefore the photo is 'distorted' by the angles between the camera and wound. To properly measure the 'real' dimensions of this wound would require correction by rotating this image in 3 dimensions. Relative to JFK's body the camera is to the right (LEFT relative to the photo) of the wound's BLUE vertical centerline, and below the wounds RED horizontal centerline and the photo represents this angular 'distortion'.

Note the width of the GREEN upper and lower wound margins relative to the RED line and their respective YELLOW lines located at their extremities.

Look at the photograph as displayed on you screen and imagine it as 3-dimensional:

Note the curvature of the GREEN line representing the UPPER margin of the wound. Malcolm Perry cut a straight incision through the essentially round neck. We see it as a curved line due to the below-center location of the camera.

Imagine a horizontal plane through the RED line and a 2nd horizontal plane through the UPPER of the YELLOW lines. Consider the YELLOW line as an axis and rotate the associated plane until it touches the RED horizontal plane. The angle between these two planes is EQUAL to the angle of the camera relative to the wound.

This assumes of course that the wound margins have returned to their immediate post-incision locations. That is when they were separated only by the width of Perry's scalpel blade.

We know the camera is BELOW the Red line. Any rotation of the GREEN upper margin along the RED axis-line toward the camera will decrease the distance between the RED line, and UPPER YELLOW line. Rotating (in the opposite direction) a line from the camera to the center of the wound would achieve the same result. If we knew the exact angle of this line from camera to wound and corrected the GREEN UPPER margin accordingly, whatever distance, IF ANY, remaining between the RED LINE and the UPPER YELLOW line would indicate how close the UPPER MARGIN has returned to its location the instant Perry removed the scalpel from the incision.

Which margin appears CLOSER to its ORIGINAL location?

Q1: Does the shape of this throat opening give anyone the IMPRESSION that the wound is located LOWER than it actually is?

Q2: IF the UPPER margin has been retracted UPWARD from its ORIGINAL location, where are the wrinkle lines that should be visible?

Q3: IF the LOWER margin has been retracted DOWNWARD from its ORIGINAL location, are any wrinkle lines visible in the darkness below the wound?

Note that at no time have I attempted to determine the location of the wound as above or below the collar. I have no dog in this fight. I don't care whether the wound was above or below the shirt collar. Because its relative location is MANDATORY to understanding multiple facets of the shooting, I would like to gather all extant evidence for evaluation. Until this is done I have no OVERALL opinion on this matter.

With regard ONLY to the above statements, and including NO OTHER FACTORS:

IMO the UPPER wound margin has returned to its original position, and is only 'distorted' by the camera angle. The LOWER margin has been retracted (pulled) SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER to create the appearance of a LOWER wound location. I agree that it was ALSO WIDENED to create the appearance of an exit wound, but it has ONLY been widened by LOWERING the LOWER INCISION MARGIN.

Tom

Sandy,

Please provide a link to the HIGHEST RES photo of the JFK "star-of-death" photo that you can find. The one that is almost looking straight down at the throat wound.

BTW, IIRC you mentioned that you are an engineer. If so, what field is your degree in?

The location of tracheal rings is apparently highly variable from person to person.

This is where we always butt heads. We draw VASTLY different conclusion from the same data. Using YOUR information ONLY, I draw the conclusion that either:

1. your anatomy differs GREATLY from the norm

2. you are misidentifying the organs

I choose option 2.

Nowhere in your description do you state that you can feel any of your tracheal rings. i.e. You have no idea as to their actual location relative to any of your anatomy. Your conclusion is that the rings are in a different place. However, you are actually stating that your cricoid cartilage and thyroid are in the wrong place compared with the diagrams. Yet your conclusion is that the rings, although you have no idea of their location are in the wrong place. Shouldn't you be saying, the thyroid and cartilage don't match the diagrams?

This is not semantics or splitting hairs. This is an example of "Critical Thinking" and why we constantly disagree.

So your conclusion is that the location of the tracheal rings is "highly variable" in individuals. You are comparing yourself to medical diagrams, and possibly me. My anatomy matches the diagrams. YOUR anatomy ALONE is different from the norm thus you draw the conclusion that the location of the rings varies greatly in individuals. Inductive reasoning dictates that one example CANNOT produce a rule applicable to all human beings. Whether you are aware of it, and whether you will admit it or not, that is exactly what you have just done.

OTOH, my conclusion is that you are simply misidentifying the organs in your neck.

The cricoid cartilage btw is immediately above tracheal ring 1. This locates your ideal tracheostomy location below your suprasternal notch.

Please post a medical diagram that fits your description of your anatomy... Or consider the possibility that your are misidentifying your thyroid and cricoid cartilage.

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

Here's a couple more LHO 'factoids' Stephen King has slipped into his supposedly 'historically accurate' mini-series, Tom:

King's got George de Mohrenschildt attending LHO's 24th birthday party & being choked to near death by main character, Jake, near the front entrance of the TSBD at a time when the real G. de M. had moved to Haiti, last seeing the Oswalds in late spring or early summer of 1963 (OTTOMH, I believe it was June 1963).

FBI agent Jim Hosty introduces himself to LHO outside the TSBD front entrance the day LHO lands his job there. The real James Hosty had no idea where LHO worked in Dallas.

LHO, fueled by alcohol, slow dances with his mother at his 24th birthday party as pregnant Marina suffers pre-birth pains in a corner of the apartment the Oswalds lived at. This scene was too weird for me to try & guess where King was going with it & what exactly King was insinuating about LHO.

Jake's assistant friend, Bill, tells Jake that he loves Marina & she loves him.

As before, LHO has the MC in his possession & he shows it to Bill on front porch of the Oswald's Neely St. apartment. Jake walks up & sees Bill dry firing the empty weapons & mutters, "second shooter". This is just after LHO's birthday party, one month shy of the assassination of JFK.

As before, LHO is cruel to his wife when he discovers one of the eavesdropping 'bugs' Jake & Bill placed in a table lamp.

There's more in there....I'll update this list after I watch the last two episodes again this weekend. When the mini-series concludes, I expect Jim DiEugenio, Pat Speer and perhaps a couple other noted JFK researchers to delve into King's snake oil drenched mini-series in depth.

I believe it's always good to keep an eye on what flavor 'LHO did it' kool aid the global public is being waterboarded with this year.

Best always & thank you for authoring this important thread & allowing me to comment within it.

Brad

Brad,

I agree this type of propaganda is something we need to keep an eye on, focusing on who is "responsible" for bringing it to the screen. I don't know who financed it, but JJ Abrams and James Franco sold it to Hulu. Given his Star Trek, Star Wars and other Blockbusters, why is Abrams doing a mini-series for Hulu? Does Hulu invest in their own shows?

All of your comments regarding specific lies are correct. The drunken wife-beater, who didn't drink or beat his wife, even according to Ruth Pains, who sent so much obviously false evidence to the FBI they returned it, testified that he neither drank nor beat Marina. These lies were promoted by Bugliosi, Posner, and others, but the gun range thing which was totally gratuitous was brand new. Even the FBI admitted they couldn't find any evidence that LHO ever went to a shooting range for practice. Except for the people who ID'd a guy shooting at other people's targets and creating a scene while proclaiming his name was Oswald. If he hadn't been at work while this was happening, it would have been quite damaging for him.

Tom

The latest episode in this "extensively researched" and "historically accurate" depiction brought to you by Stephen King, J.J. Abrams,

and James Franco includes a scene where the car-less Oswald (after showing off his rifle to his new best bud) somehow arrives at a gun

range. His problem is that he doesn't have any money to pay for the opportunity to hone his skills with THAT specific rifle.

So what does he do? He cuts a deal with the woman in charge to "pick up shells" in exchange for use of the gun range. I wonder how many

hours he is required to spend at this task in exchange for target practice? This would make the always secretive Oswald well-known to the

gun range owner and anyone who observed him picking up shells.

Not even Posner or Bugliosi came up with something as outrageous as this -- and this is saying A LOT! The scene is completely unnecessary

within the confine of the series because at no time does anyone question Oswald's marksmanship. So WHY include it? Especially, when all

involved, particularly King and screenwriter Bridget Carpenter had grave concerns that TOO MUCH of the book had to be discarded.

Just another propaganda piece. How can Abrams, King and Franco not know any better?

Does anyone know WHO is footing the bill for this WC reboot?

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

I did my best to AVOID that, AND I went out of my way to further avoid what you are calling a miscommunication.

If you choose to answer my questions I will respond...

Okay, good. I'm truly sorry.

I have to leave, but might have time to respond before leaving.

To say what you have said requires you to know the answers to these two question, and I have asked for ONLY yes or no answers with no elaboration. Both questions can be answered yes or no without a hint of a "Do you still beat your wife?"

my answers:

1. yes

2. no

Hmmmm...

No for #2? You mean because the trachea moved some time after the tracheostomy?

No. Because even the upper edge of the 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.

DUPE!

Perhaps I sensed a hostile attitude where there was none. If so, I apologize.

I did my best to AVOID that, AND I went out of my way to further avoid what you are calling a miscommunication.

If you choose to answer my questions I will respond...

Okay, good. I'm truly sorry.

I have to leave, but might have time to respond before leaving.

To say what you have said requires you to know the answers to these two question, and I have asked for ONLY yes or no answers with no elaboration. Both questions can be answered yes or no without a hint of a "Do you still beat your wife?"

my answers:

1. yes

2. no

So...Lose the word "believe":

Lose the attitude and I'll respond to your post.

ATTITUDE? I'm preventing what you regard as a mis-communication... Man, I can't BELIEVE how TOUCHY you are.

YOU responded to MY post - not the other way around.

I couldn't care less if you respond or not...

Perhaps I sensed a hostile attitude where there was none. If so, I apologize.

I did my best to AVOID that, AND I went out of my way to further avoid what you are calling a miscommunication.

If you choose to answer my questions I will respond...

I'm not sure why folks on this thread think that a bullet entered his back and terminated with no more than a half finger's worth of depth as stated

by the autopsy doctors and somehow hit either a piece of bone (where?) or (alas!) broke up and had enough energy to travel through dense tissue, muscle,

and clothes to pop out of his throat.

I personally believe a bullet struck quite low on the base of the rear of JFK's skull, after being fired from an upper floor of the TSBD or the Dal-Tex

Building, and that this bullet was a frangible bullet; designed to fragment and disintegrate while travelling through flesh or organs. This bullet either

grazed the base of JFK's skull or entered the rear of his skull and passed through the floor of the skull before contacting the vertebrae at about C3/C4,

where it broke up. The exit wound in the throat would have been caused by a small particle of bone that likely broke off of one of the vertebrae.

This bone particle travelled through the so called "slits" in the collar and nicked the left side of JFK's tie as it passed through.

Michael,

Directly above, is a cut and paste from his post in this thread. Robert is stating that the bullet entered low in the skull, and propelled a piece of bone

through the throat creating an exit wound.

Robert,

I too, have considered this possibility, but...

1. What evidence is there that an entry wound exists at the base of the skull?

2. the angle of depression of a shot from a building would have to increase greatly to follow the steep trajectory line between your entry point to C3/C4

if it's even possible to achieve this great of an angle change, there would be only a small fraction of its velocity remaining

3. the bullet would fragment after traveling a short distance within the neck

considering the low mass of the fragments they would decelerate rapidly

Referring specifically to this throat wound, Perry states that 'Secondary missiles do not normally acquire enough velocity to cause this kind of damage.'

4. if a fragment was traveling vast enough to break off a piece of C3/C4; this bone fragment would lose most of its velocity as it would depart at a sharp angle from the trajectory of the bullet fragment

5. in your proposed trajectory wouldn't the bullet fragment encounter the undamaged C1 and C2 prior to reaching C3 and do considerable damage traveling down through the neck?

6. your bone fragment would require enough velocity to tear the tracheal cartilage through 1/3 of its circumference, pass through multiple layers of skin, tear a slit in the shirt that is aligned with the tie's mid-line and exit without damaging the back of the tie. The nick in the tie is on the left side of the front, not the side

7. the 1/4" exit hole is round with a clean or mostly clean edge

this would require a circular bone fragment 1/4" in diameter and sharp enough to cut through the tracheal cartilage and skin

8. before they were "gotten to" the Parkland Doctors including Perry and Baxter who performed the trach, stated this was an entry for a bullet wound, and the two nurses have always stood by their id as a bullet entry wound

the exit of bone fragments of JBC's shirt do not look like a bullet entry wounds, IMO it seems unlikely that they would all mistake a bone exit for a bullet entry

Tom

Pardon the formatting this DAMN editor keeps adding additional terminating quote tags...

So...Lose the word "believe":

Lose the attitude and I'll respond to your post.

ATTITUDE? I'm preventing what you regard as a mis-communication... Man, I can't BELIEVE how TOUCHY you are.

YOU responded to MY post - not the other way around.

I couldn't care less if you respond or not...

The problem is that I was using the word "believe" to mean one thing, and you were using the word "believe" to mean something else. And that a miscommunication between us resulted from that.

There was no rant. I pointed out that I HAD done everything but the selfie, and that would prove nothing, because I could put the dot anywhere on the my throat, and anyone could deny it, unless I cut my throat open and labeled it.

According to your explanation, you HAVE TO believe that my c2-c3, is 1.4" or more higher than JFK's.

You said you believed that Baxter was correct as to the c2-c3 location. I know what I mean when I say "BELIEVE" but I don't speak whatever language "BELIEVE" means to you...

Miscommunication???

So...Lose the word "believe":

1. Is Baxter correct with the c2-c3 location? Answer Yes or No.

2. Is the throat wound in the morgue photos located at c2-c3? Answer Yes or No.

DUPE!

Man you can be touchy.
Man, you can be aggravating. As I've said before, I don't think you even read the posts you are replying to because you always ask questions that have already been answered. Then when I don't want to repeat and re-repeat the same answer you label me as "touchy."

I am measuring from where in the "shirt slits" I believe a shard of bone cut through (which is roughly the center of the slits vertically) to the center of a
6.5 mm bullet hole just above the shirtline.

By choosing a location at the vertical center of the slit for your measurement, you are stating that is the location of the throat wound.
Can you post the shirt photo you performed these measurements on, and mark the vertical center of the slit you used, and place a horizontal line where you believe the wound is located?

THIS IS YET ANOTHER ONE OF THE MANY ISSUES THAT MAKE A DETERMINATION IMPRACTICAL -- WE HAVE TO AGREE ON THE WOUND LOCATION.

YOU'VE ALREADY STATED YOU BELIEVE BAXTER'S WOUND LOCATION BETWEEN TRACHEAL RING 2 and 3 AND THAT I HAVE PLACED IT AT THAT POSITION ON MYSELF
AND ON THE JFK PHOTO. YOU ALSO BELIEVE ME THAT THIS POSITION IS EITHER SLIGHTLY ABOVE OR SLIGHTLY BELOW MY COLLAR LINE.

IN CONTRAST, YOU NOW LOCATE *THIS SAME WOUND* 1.4" LOWER THAN THE POSITION I GAVE THAT YOU SAID YOU BELIEVED.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE THIS WOUND CAN EXIST IN BOTH LOCATIONS...

DO YOU SEE THE PROBLEM??????????

when you say "it would be impractical," what are you referring to?

I gave two examples in my post that you are responding to, and about a dozen in the other thread.

I'd like to see how Ashton responds.

As I have ALREADY said; don't keep asking me to do it. Ask him yourself.

Question: What would you estimate the distance to be from "behind the tie knot" to above the collar line?

1.4 inches. (That includes the radius of a bullet so that it doesn't touch the shirtline.)

The bullet radius is 6.5mm/2 = 0.128"

1.4" - 0.128" = 1.272" * 2 = 2.544"

Are you measuring from the CENTER of a vertical cross-section of the knot in the necktie, or from the BOTTOM of the knot up to the collar line?

If it's the CENTER, you are proposing a 2.544" diameter knot -- if you're measuring from the BOTTOM of the knot, what evidence indicates the throat wound is THAT low?

I might add that since Mr. McBride seems to have started a hit-and-run thread (posting and then not answering questions), there isn't much harm done in the thread being hijacked.

On that we agree.

Copied from Post 49 on this page of another thread:

Tom Neal, on 23 Mar 2016 - 12:52 PM, said:

My height and weight match JFK quite closely. My neighbor and good friend of 25 years who has been a Board Certified ENT and Plastic Surgeon for 30 years has confirmed the location of my 3rd Tracheal ring for me. Depending upon WHICH dress shirt I wear (I have NO PROBLEM relocating the 3rd ring myself) the 3rd ring is either just above, right at, or just below my collar line at a point slightly to the right of the midline. In some photos, JFK's tie appears to be just below his Larynx, and in others quite a bit lower.

It is important to remember that the midline of the shirt collar is lower than the sides.

IMO, an above the collar wound location is reasonable.

Tom

Tom,

That (what I highlighted in red) being the case, why don't you take Ashton Gray's challenge. Because he believes that what you are describing is "patently impossible."

Tom,

I don't disbelieve what you said. I believe you. I was just suggesting that you take Ashton's challenge. Because he says he's been waiting a long time for somebody to prove him wrong about the location of the throat wound (which he believes is behind the tie), and what you said appears to do just that.* (Or, more accurately, it proves that he could be wrong.)

I don't understand what you meant in the other thread when you said, "Ashton and I have no disagreement as to this statement." It seems to me that Ashton feels quite strongly about the wound being below the shirtline. You clearly don't feel the same way.

*Other than for the discrepancy in tracheal ring number.

Ashton and I have discussed this and agree that due to the multiple conditions required, it would be impractical. See my post regarding all the conditions necessary. Most of which are totally subjective. e.g. JFK's collar wasn't that loose - he wore his tie higher than that. We don't know the answers there, so any results would be argumentative at best.

Ashton and I get along just fine. If he wanted to discuss this again, he would simply ask me himself. What I asked was, why are YOU asking me to do this? Especially since you now say you "believe me."

To be clear, are you saying that you believe:

• the wound was located between tracheal ring 2 and ring 3 as stated by Dr. Charles Baxter
• I have correctly located the area between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal ring
• that in a dress shirt and tie placed where they are in the JFK photo with the yellow dot that I posted, the wound is either slightly above the collar line, or slightly below the collar line depending upon the shirt I select - variance is 3/8"

Question: What would you estimate the distance to be from "behind the tie knot" to above the collar line?

This magnitude is the difference between the two competing theories of above vs. below the collar.

Tom

BTW, how did this go from RFK and McBride to this?

Jim,

It went OT due to a self-serving "False Equivalence" statement in post #4:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22740&page=1#entry327444

Tom

IOW the thread was hijacked when Tom Neal pounced on a comment I made. I'm sure that this sort of thing will continue, at least until this Godawful election is over.

The first sentence in this reply is correct. I DID pounce on Mr. Eckers "False Equivalent" and self-serving comment that had nothing to do with the thread.

The second sentence that refers to the election as causing the OT, is (SURPRISE!) one more "False Equivalence." for me to "pounce" on...