Sandy Larsen

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.

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.

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

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

Ah, but where was this "back of head" blow-out, Sandy? That's the issue. I have long acknowledged that the Parkland witnesses, when taken as a whole, suggest the wound was on the back of the head. But this would be at the top of the back of the head, in the rear right corner when viewed from above. Mantik's location for the Harper fragment is a good three inches away from this location. It is just as far away from this location, it not more, than the location shown in the autopsy photos. So it's not a simple matter of Pat is probably wrong so Mantik is probably right. Mantik, after all, insists the Harper fragment sprang from the middle of the top half of the occipital bone. This centers it roughly at the level of the ear. This means he believes the back of the head was "blown-out" both an inch below the top of the ear, and an inch to the left of the midline. Here are some pictures of where the so-called "back-of-the-head" witnesses placed the wound. Well, geez, how many of them placed the wound in the middle of the back of the head below the top of the ear? (You can disregard O'Connor and Custer because their photos were taken out of context in order to fool Groden's readers.) So, yeah, Mantik claims the Harper fragment is occipital bone, even though 1) he acknowledges it was found in a location inconsistent with its being occipital bone; 2) it is missing a central ridge that would help identify it as occipital bone, and 3) its being occipital bone is in opposition to the recollections of the vast majority of the so-called "back-of-the-head" witnesses. In short, it's only occipital bone because he desperately wants it to be occipital bone. Pat, It is true that Mantik's placement of the Harper fragment seems somewhat at odds with the "average location" -- if you will -- of the early testimonies of Parkland medical professionals. I would say that the "average" placement by these witnesses would be the right upper-occipital, lower-parietal, area. More parietal bone than occipital. The back-of-head autopsy photo clearly contradicts this. The location you describe also contradicts it. If you believe that the back-of-head photo is authentic, then I believe your view contradicts the testimony of nearly every Parkland medical professional. Their early testimony, that is.

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. I'm sorry Tom... when you say "it would be impractical," what are you referring to? What would be impractical? 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." I asked you to do it because you reported your finding in the other thread, and I don't know if Ashton reads that thread. I'd like to see how Ashton responds. I've wondered if he is correct in believing that the mark on the neck could not be above the neckline. I know it wouldn't be on me. (The neckline touches the bottom of my adam's apple.) Yet, looking at several guys in Google images, I found some with long necks where it looked like that mark may indeed may appear above the shirtline. 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" When I said I believed you, I was referring to the fact that you could locate the third ring of your trachea, and that it was located above your shirtline. (My apologies if my description of what you said isn't quite right.) So #3 in your list is what I believe. But regarding #1, Baxter's recollection of the wound being between rings 2 and 3, I would like to see you and Ashton discuss that because, IIRC, he has it between 3 and 4. It would be useful if that discrepancy could be resolved. I just looked again at your post on the other thread and see that you have three other doctors who agree with Dr. Baxter's locating the wound between rings 2 and 3. So that seems pretty definitive. Again, I do NOT claim that this wound was POSITIVELY above the collar; I do however believe it is a reasonable theory. 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.) This magnitude is the difference between the two competing theories of above vs. below the collar. Tom

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.

Copied from Post 49 on this page of another thread: 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.

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." Quoting him: I copied this from his Post 571 on this page of another thread. P.S. I recognize that his estimated location of the wound relative to tracheal rings is slightly different from yours. Perhaps one of you could persuade the other to change his mind, based on the testimony.

Neither do I. But I feel it has the greatest support. By far. Do you mean popular support, or is supported by testimony and evidence?Tell me how a missile could enter or exit that wound location without damaging the tie. If you can't do that, then the missile entry/exit could only be above the collar. Tom Popular support? I know of only one other person who believes what I believe. The physical evidence and early testimony supports what I believe. A bone fragment could have exited the throat, creating that wound, passed through four layers of shirt fabric, hit the back of the tie knot, lifting it away from the body but not penetrating it before expending the remainder of it's kinetic energy.

Neither do I. But I feel it has the greatest support. By far.

Was it? That is what the physical evidence indicates: (Posted by Ashton Gray years ago.)

I corrected a mistake I made in my earlier post.

That is precisely what I believe as well, with the possible exception of how the nick in the tie was made.

Okay, call me a kook. But when I compare the supposed Hunt character with the people around him (in the large photo linked to by David Andrews), it is clear to me that his face has been obfuscated. Not only is his face more blurry than the others in his vicinity, but the shadow from his hat doesn't match the shadow from a similar hat worn by another guy.

David, Are you saying that Charles Harrelson claimed to have been in Daily Plaza that day? From Mr. Simkin's Spartacus capsule bio of Harrelson: "When he was arrested [for the rifle assassination of a federal judge] he confessed to being one of the gunman who killed President John F. Kennedy. He later withdrew this confession but he was eventually convicted of the murder of Wood and sentenced to two life sentences." http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKharrelson.htm I do not as yet believe Harrelson was one of the shooters. But his own son has given indications in the press that he believes CVH was in Dealey. The reason I asked, David, is because I vaguely recalled Harrelson stating that the tramp did indeed look like him, but that it wasn't him. But now that you mention it, I do recall the incident where he confessed to being one of the JFK gunmen. I'd forgotten that.

David, Are you saying that Charles Harrelson claimed to have been in Daily Plaza that day?

Greg, Are you saying that there was no "back-and-to-the-left" head snap? That the edited Z film just makes it appear there was? Yes. Interesting. Do you disagree with any other evidence of a shot from the front?

Jim, Most of the evidence points to the throat wound being located just behind the knot in the tie. Dr. Carrico's later testimony conflicts with that evidence, and also conflicts with the testimony of SSA Roy Kellerman. In Carrico's testimony before the WC, it seems like he is trying to say that the wound is located behind the tie. At the same time it appears that Allen Dulles is leading him to say above the shirtline instead. DR. CARRICO: There was a small wound, 5- to 8-mm. in size, located in the lower third of the neck, below the thyroid cartilage, the Adams apple. 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. Dr. Carrico is one of the few Parkland doctors who changed his testimony regarding the gaping back-of-head wound. This is indicative of the type of person he is -- "go along to get along." It is my opinion that he also changed his opinion on the location of the throat wound when he realized it was incompatible with the official story. (The single bullet theory requires a mangled tie knot if the throat wound is behind the knot. Yet the knot was not mangled.) Anybody interested in quick summaries of the testimony and evidence regarding the location of the throat wound should take a look at: For Testimony: Post 541 on this page. For Evidence: Post 567 on this page. Note that in Post 556 I remove from the Testimony list Weisberg's comment on what Carrico told him. And in Post 569 I explain why. Also in post 569 I offer to put Weisberg's comment back on the list if anybody feels strongly about doing so. BTW, the slits in the shirt do not look like scalpel slits to me and at least two other forum members. And one should ask himself why scalpel slits would have been tested for metal residue, as though the holes might have been caused by a bullet or bullet fragment.

In my list of "Early Throat Wound Testimonies" (Version 4, Post 556 above), I removed what Harold Weisberg wrote about Dr. Carrico telling him that the throat wound was above the shirtline. I wish to make clear my reasons for removing Weisberg's comment about Carrico: Ashton Gray objected to it on the grounds that it was hearsay. His point was good IMO. In Carrico's testimony before the WC, it seems that he's trying to say that the wound was behind the tie, whereas Allen Dulles is attempting to lead his testimony elsewhere. That's my opinion. Carrico had a history of changing his testimony to meet the official story. (He did that with his back-of-head gaping wound testimony.) Therefore, I concluded, he very well could have done the same with his throat wound testimony. Nobody reading this thread has asked me to put Weisberg's comment back. If anybody feels strongly about putting Weisberg's comment back on the list, let me know. EDIT: I corrected an error I made in bullet point three: I changed "Weisberg" to "Carrico."

Greg, Are you saying that there was no "back-and-to-the-left" head snap? That the edited Z film just makes it appear there was?

There is a good deal of evidence supporting the hypothesis that fragments going down through the neck broke off a piece of bone and this bone fragment exited the throat. Let's see where the evidence leads: The throat wound indicates that something entered or exited it. The throat wound was located directly behind the knot of Kennedy's tie. There is no hole in the knot. This indicates that the wound is an exit. (It also indicates that the exiting body didn't have enough kinetic energy to penetrate the knot of the tie.) The exiting body penetrated the shirt, making a pair of holes just below the top button. The holes were tested and it was shown that there were no metal traces left behind. This indicates that the exiting body was not a bullet fragment. A piece of bone is the only other possibility. A bullet or bullet fragment must have hit the bone to make it fragment. It had to have come either from the bullet that made the back wound or a bullet that made a back-of-head wound. There is very little wiggle room in the above conclusions. So which bullet (or fragment thereof) resulted in the bone being fragmented? I don't know of any evidence pointing to the bullet to the back. But there is support for the bullet hitting near the external occipital protuberance. First we have the testimony of Lt. Lipsey (IIRC) who stated that the autopsy doctors were certain that the throat wound was an exit for the bullet hitting near the EOP. (Fragments had apparently deflected off the skull downward.) And second, there was a witness who said he saw bullet fragments making a trail down the neck. I forget who this was, but I believe he was an x-ray technician.

David, I'm not surprised at all that Frazier doesn't remember seeing officer Baker run into the TSBD. Because he didn't... at least not right away. I will be posting proof of that soon.

That's a excellent point, Jim. You're absolutely right, that the Hidell order form was delivered to Klein's physical address. Not picked up at the post office. As you can see here, the address is partly covered up. But you can easily make out enough to see that the address matches their physical address, as can be verified on this 1961 Klein's catalog Here's the address: Klein's Sporting Goods 227 W. Washington Street Chicago 6, Illinois This is looking more like another smoking gun. I don't know about other places, but where I live (Provo/Orem, UT) it takes two days for delivery to your next-door neighbor. It always has, as far back as I can remember (~1980). There is one thing that concerns me, though. And that is the "6" after "Chicago." Does anybody know what that means? Could it mean that Klein's was such a big business that it was assigned a special number for mail collection? I have seen situations where a business is so large that the address is merely Business Name City, State EDIT: There is another address I see in the Klein's catalog on eBay. It is Klein's Sporting Goods 4545 West Madison Street Chicago 24, Illinois This time the number after Chicago is 24. I wonder if these numbers are postal zones. And if they were the forerunner of the now-ubiquitous ZIP code. EDIT: Turns out I was right. I just read the following in the Wikipedia article on ZIP Codes: The early history and context of postal codes began with postal district/zone numbers. The United States Post Office Department (USPOD) implemented postal zones for numerous large cities in 1943. For example: Mr. John Smith 3256 Epiphenomenal Avenue Minneapolis 16, Minnesota The "16" was the number of the postal zone within the specific city.