Robert Prudhomme Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 "Because this "15cm" shot happens at Z313, it couldn't possibly have caused a piece of bone or bullet fragment to fly out of his throat because that would have *had to have happened earlier at Z225* when you see Kennedy throwing his hands up. Only it doesn't happen at all because his reaction is not from a shot in the skull and fragments coming out of this throat; it's from the frontal throat shot hitting him, the same shot that Dr. Perry said was a wound of entrance when he first saw him in the trauma room." Michael Here is a challenge for you. Provide proof to us, photographic or otherwise, that JFK had a wound in his throat prior to frame z313 of the Zapruder film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 "Sandy, for what it's worth, that is a good point. As I've posted photos, GIFs and such here and elsewhere, Bob P. can do the same, so you're right on this point." Thank you ever so much for granting me permission to post photos and diagrams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 Someone needs to post opposing views if and only if the opposing view goes against the theory that the post starts with. In this case, it's "There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat." If I agreed with this post, then I wouldn't even be here arguing against it. But I don't believe this theory is correct and that's why I'm posting in opposition to it. In addition, I'm posting here because I do think that *all* viewpoints need to be expressed... Michael, Don't let those who disagree with you beat you into submission. Specifically those who will not provide supporting evidence, undoubtedly because they CAN NOT, to what they declare as unquestionable, but in reality are only theories. These types are especially abusive and dismissive of other opinions. Because Ashton's name has been brought up so many times, I'd like to say that unlike others, Ashton ALWAYS supplies supporting evidence to his theories, so he and I get along just fine. I don't think you are trying to irritate him, you are simply disagreeing with him. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 Michael, You might want to avoid taking Mr. Prudhommes proffered "challenge." See my post #664. After you do the work and post the results that disagree with HIS position, he will simply ignore your post, and any subsequent requests for a response to the original post that HE demanded. This is an attempt to waste your time and cause you frustration. It is a common tactic on this site. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 Hi Ray I see what you are saying, that the ETT did not allow Perry to examine the inner parts of JFK's neck. However, I do recall reading that it was determined also that the ETT was not effective at sealing the tracheal wound, and preventing the leakage of air from it, and that this was the primary reason for switching from the ETT to a tracheostomy tube. As I said, having personally examined an ETT, and knowing the tip of its tube gets inserted almost to where the bronchi branch, and that the inflatable cuff is just above that tip, I am puzzled as to why the ETT was unsuccessful, if the tracheal wound was just below the 2nd tracheal ring. I have some ideas why it might have been unsuccessful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 Michael, You might want to avoid taking Mr. Prudhommes proffered "challenge." See my post #664. After you do the work and post the results that disagree with HIS position, he will simply ignore your post, and any subsequent requests for a response to the original post that HE demanded. This is an attempt to waste your time and cause you frustration. It is a common tactic on this site. Tom Oh for Chrissakes, Tom. Okay, I will go back and look at your post #664. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashton Gray Posted March 28, 2016 Author Share Posted March 28, 2016 (edited) Because Ashton's name has been brought up so many times, I'd like to say that unlike others, Ashton ALWAYS supplies supporting evidence to his theories,so he and I get along just fine.I don't think you are trying to irritate him, you are simply disagreeing with him. No, Tom, he has grossly misrepresented me a number of times, asserting that I have posited some theory about about a bone fragment causing a hole in the throat. I told him clearly and in no uncertain terms that it was NOT my theory, and never had been, and asked him to QUOTE what I said in the future and not misrepresent me. He turned right around and willfully misrepresented me again with his OWN boneheaded (pun intended) theory, falsely attributing it to me. That's not "disagreeing": That's willful and malicious misrepresentation of what I said. There's no possible excuse for it. It demonstrates an utter lack of integrity, courtesy, and even decency. I've made my record. He'd better stop making a false record for me. As for "theories," he is the one clutching to a baseless THEORY that there was a frontal shot, when there is not now and never has been a bullet in evidence that could have caused any such shot, and when it is physically impossible for any bullet to have penetrated the throat from the front in the indicated location without going through many layers of tie material. No bullet went through many layers of tie material. Period. I'm tired of repeating myself about something that is obvious at a glance to anybody who will actually LOOK. My challenge still stands about the "above the collar" theory, and nobody has done it, because it can't be done. My statement that started this thread stands: There was no bullet wound in John F. Kennedy's throat. Period. Ashton Edited March 28, 2016 by Ashton Gray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 FOR ROBERT PRUDHOMME: Tom I saw this post and, as I agreed with what was presented, I saw no point in replying. However, I should point out that not every tracheotomy is performed in exactly that location, and by performing the tracheotomy below the isthmus of the thyroid, displacing (or severing) the isthmus can be avoided. An incision can also be made in the membrane between the thyroid and cricoid cartilages, just above the top of the trachea. I have seen this performed and actually assisted a doctor with the following intubation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 Because Ashton's name has been brought up so many times, I'd like to say that unlike others, Ashton ALWAYS supplies supporting evidence to his theories,so he and I get along just fine.I don't think you are trying to irritate him, you are simply disagreeing with him. No, Tom, he has grossly misrepresented me a number of times, asserting that I have posited some theory about about a bone fragment causing a hole in the throat. I told him clearly and in no uncertain terms that it was NOT my theory, and never had been, and asked him to QUOTE what I said in the future and not misrepresent me. He turned right around and willfully misrepresented me again with his OWN boneheaded (pun intended) theory, falsely attributing it to me. That's not "disagreeing": That's willful and malicious misrepresentation of what I said. There's no possible excuse for it. It demonstrates an utter lack of integrity, courtesy, and even decency. I've made my record. He'd better stop making a false record for me. As for "theories," he is the one clutching to a baseless THEORY that there was a frontal shot, when there is not now and never has been a bullet in evidence that could have caused any such shot, and when it is physically impossible for any bullet to have penetrated the throat from the front in the indicated location without going through many layers of tie material. No bullet went through many layers of tie material. Period. I'm tired of repeating myself about something that is obvious at a glance to anybody who will actually LOOK. My challenge still stands about the "above the collar" theory, and nobody has done it, because it can't be done. My statement that started this thread stands: There was no bullet wound in John F. Kennedy's throat. Period. Ashton Ashton I would love to hear your thoughts about the "shallow" back wound JFK suffered, supposedly caused by something called a "short shot". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 Michael, You might want to avoid taking Mr. Prudhommes proffered "challenge." See my post #664. After you do the work and post the results that disagree with HIS position, he will simply ignore your post, and any subsequent requests for a response to the original post that HE demanded. This is an attempt to waste your time and cause you frustration. It is a common tactic on this site. Tom Oh for Chrissakes, Tom. Okay, I will go back and look at your post #664. Hostility, Bob? For responding to a demand you made? Yeah, I'm the BAD GUY for expecting SO MUCH of you... ...Don't BOTHER. You've ALREADY given yourself away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 I saw this post and, as I agreed with what was presented, I saw no point in replying.Bull. Do You apply this also to my separate request for a reply? Didn't anyone teach that when you demand someone provide something, that you at the very least acknowledge the effort, and should supply a "thank you"??? However, I should point out that not every tracheotomy is performed in exactly that location, and by performing the tracheotomy below the isthmus of the thyroid, displacing (or severing) the isthmus can be avoided. An incision can also be made in the membrane between the thyroid and cricoid cartilages, just above the top of the trachea. I have seen this performed and actually assisted a doctor with the following intubation. No. You shouldn't point that out. It means nothing from a guy who two days ago was certain the thyroid did not extend over any of the trachea. Now you're an expect correcting doctors. You included this in your reply for the same reason you ignored the information you demanded. You are not about to admit that you had no idea what you were talking about, just like your recent post questioning the doctors decision regarding a tracheotomy. Now you're assisting doctors as well. Sure you are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 (edited) Because Ashton's name has been brought up so many times, I'd like to say that unlike others, Ashton ALWAYS supplies supporting evidence to his theories, so he and I get along just fine. I don't think you are trying to irritate him, you are simply disagreeing with him. No, Tom, he has grossly misrepresented me a number of times, asserting that I have posited some theory about about a bone fragment causing a hole in the throat. I told him clearly and in no uncertain terms that it was NOT my theory, and never had been, and asked him to QUOTE what I said in the future and not misrepresent me. He turned right around and willfully misrepresented me again with his OWN boneheaded (pun intended) theory, falsely attributing it to me. That's not "disagreeing": That's willful and malicious misrepresentation of what I said. There's no possible excuse for it. It demonstrates an utter lack of integrity, courtesy, and even decency. Hello, Ashton What I'm saying is I don't get the impression that he decided to irritate you, and then went about doing so. Clearly, he is NOT following what you have presented. However, there are several individuals here who have strongly misrepresented what you have said, and present THEIR version of what you actually said. This thread has been contaminated by a multitude of misinterpretations. I'm well enough acquainted with your work and theirs and the way you all present it to distinguish your data from theirs. Because of this, I'm not misinformed by their false interpretations. Things that Michael has stated are virtually quotes of OTHER people's false interpretations. It appears that is where he's coming from. He has already stated that he disagrees with a theory that has been falsely attributed to you, and now will only address the theory. Hopefully, the issue had been resolved. My statement that started this thread stands: There was no bullet wound in John F. Kennedy's throat. Period. A question for you if you are interested: There's a theory around here that a bone fragment from a low head shot or base of the skull shot, or high in the neck shot, caused this throat wound which was "well below the collar." I asked how many inches in a "well below" and received no answer. Considering the vagueness of these alleged entry/exit wounds I fail to comprehend their complete faith in this theory. No one has even responded to a post asking one of these "bone fragment" people to describe or better yet draw, a trajectory from the neck or bottom of the head vicinity to a throat wound "well below the collar." The shot from a high building as alleged by these theorists would require a sharp trajectory change to avoid exiting the neck ABOVE their imprecise location of the throat wound. Next, this steep trajectory down the neck has to become a virtually horizontal trajectory to inflict the tracheal damage, punch a hole in the flesh of the neck, exit through a shirt slit with many loose threads sticking out, that James Carrico didn't notice while unbuttoning JFK's shirt, and now exits at a velocity that is so low, it leaves no trace of even touching the vertical center line of the necktie that covers it. There are additional issue that they will not address, but the above should be enough... Do you have an opinion regarding this exiting bone fragment theory? Tom Edited March 28, 2016 by Tom Neal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashton Gray Posted March 28, 2016 Author Share Posted March 28, 2016 (edited) Do you have an opinion regarding this exiting bone fragment theory? My one-word opinion is: Codswollop. My somewhat longer opinion is that no such bone fragment exists, or ever has existed, in evidence, and not one medical personnel ever testified to seeing any such bone fragment. Just as with the magic "frontal shot" bullet that never existed, it is a no-see-um. I don't subscribe to no-see-ums. It is a fiction that has to be invented in order to have something to believe in. I believe in what I see. What I SEE is a condition of the throat that stands, to me, as prima facie evidence that someone went to considerable work to make damned certain that no one would ever have a chance in hell of ever knowing exactly what that original roundish wound in the throat was. Now, the reason that is my opinion is because that is exactly the result. I believe it was the intended result, which is why it is the result, and which is why we now have 46 pages in this thread alone—and probably 46,000 pages on this subject over the course of the decades. (I'll resort to hyperbole whenever I feel like it.) When, how, and by whom the throat was put in that condition, or why, can be fodder for endless speculation, but I believe that it was intentional, and that the intent was to render forensic analysis of the original hole in the throat utterly impossible. That intent was accomplished prior to the autopsy. Here's how I know it was accomplished: BECAUSE IF IT HADN'T BEEN ACCOMPLISHED THE AUTOPSY REPORT WOULD HAVE CONTAINED A DETAILED AND NON-CONTROVERSIAL FORENSIC ANALYSIS OF THE ORIGINAL HOLE IN THE THROAT, AND WE WOULDN'T BE HERE WASTING OUR TIME GUESSING ABOUT IT. As Prudhomme has pointed out a number of times (but apparently hasn't realized himself, which is why he didn't get my "irony" comment earlier), the place where the tracheostomy was performed was not some "it absolutely has to be right at this exact location" location dictated by the gods of medicine: Perry CHOSE to slice right through the original hole in the throat. To me, that clearly demonstrates intent. Bone fragment? <Snort!> Ashton Edited March 29, 2016 by Ashton Gray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 (edited) Tom Neal, Thanks for clarifying my position that I'm not disagreeing with Ashton but the theory itself posted in this thread - "There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat" In summary here is why I disagree with it: Dr. Perry, who I put a lot of faith in - much more so than my opinion or everyone's opinion on this forum - actually touched and saw President Kennedy that day. It's my understanding that he had worked on numerous gunshot wound victims as a medical doctor. This, to me, is even more important. I'm not saying doctors are perfect, but if I had an M.D. standing next to me and he said the throat wound was one of entrance - and knowing he's seen many other wounds of this nature - I sure in the hell am going to take his word for it, much more so than my own and others here's two cents worth. I also believe this theory is not true because there's nothing in the medical record saying that a bullet went into the President's "lower skull" and broke off either bone or a bullet, which flew out of his throat. Recently, Sandy said to check out the "15cm" wound. It sounds like he believes that is the wound that could have caused the fragment flying out of the throat. I explained to him that I disagreed with this because that "15cm" head wound is the one that starts the sequence of head shots beginning at Z313 of the Z film. Therefore, the "15cm" head wound could not have caused the "fragment throat exit wound" and if not, where else in the Z film record could it have occurred? I believe President Kennedy was hit four times in this order: 1. In the throat, causing him to throw up his hands to his throat (frontal shot) 2. In the back, causing his head to bob back and forth (shot from rear) 3. The "15cm" shot in the back of the head, causing his head to be pushed downward (shot from rear) 4. The temple shot, pushing his body backward violently against the car seat (frontal shot) I've often wondered why was Connally shot? I think it was basically to get him out of the way, clearing things for an easy crossfire of President Kennedy at Z313. If they hadn't shot him, it might have been a risky move to leave him unharmed - who knows what he might have done. Look how tight together they are in the photo below so getting him out of the way made it an easy shot at Z313: http://o.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/adam/8ba2499b77614a51fc90945c01a0585e/Kennedy-Dallas-MainSt.jpg Below are some links to some GIFs and a video I've made. You've probably seen them earlier in this thread but I'm trying to keep them together as this thread rolls along for those students of the case who want to see them and judge for themselves. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Hr9Lrku-CxWV9BWXk5M3hxbEk/view?pref=2&pli=1 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxa3NqTEpScWNQZnc/view?pref=2&pli=1 https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxMW9DWWg0RllUUjQ https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxYXR5WWxkZ05QRkU As for Ashton Gray, I'm not attributing this theory or whatever the hell anyone wants to call it, to him. But all you have to do is go to the very first 2007 post he made. Again, it's not his theory (so he says) but his writing of that first post is just dripping with arrogant sarcasm. If he had said back then, "Here's something I read. Sounds pretty intriguing. What do you think?" then, yes, it sounds like it's coming from a reasonably sane and polite individual who's sharing some information with fellow researchers. But it's not. It's all "Ah, all you poor souls of frontal shot beliefs. Oh, you people are so goofy and wrong..." blah blah blah..."Oh just listen to this simply outstanding theory and oh by the way everyone who doesn't buy into is incompetent boors..." blah blah...blah blah and "the Haunted Mansion and Disney" and blah blah. Amazingly, we're all supposed to support the same beliefs here (the CT community) but reading a post like that, even if it's 9 years old, you'd never know that this is a CT community with a single minded purpose and that just bugs the #$%& out of me. Edited March 28, 2016 by Michael Walton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 Do you have an opinion regarding this exiting bone fragment theory? My one-word opinion is: Codswollop. My somewhat longer opinion is that no such bone fragment exists, or ever has existed, in evidence, and not one medical personnel ever testified to seeing any such bone fragment. Just as with the magic "frontal shot" bullet that never existed, it is a no-see-um. I don't subscribe to no-see-ums. It is a fiction that has to be invented in order to have something to believe in. I believe in what I see. What I SEE is a condition of the throat that stands, to me, as prima facie evidence that someone went to considerable work to make damned certain that no one would ever have a chance in hell of ever knowing exactly what that original roundish wound in the throat was. Now, the reason that is my opinion is because that is exactly the result. I believe it was the intended result, which is why it is the result, and which is why we now have 46 pages in this thread alone—and probably 46,000 pages on this subject over the course of the decades. (I'll resort to hyperbole whenever I feel like it.) When, how, and by whom the throat was put in that condition, or why, can be fodder for endless speculation, but I believe that it was intentional, and that the intent was to to render forensic analysis of the original hole in the throat utterly impossible. That intent was accomplished prior to the autopsy. Here's how I know it was accomplished: BECAUSE IF IT HADN'T BEEN ACCOMPLISHED THE AUTOPSY REPORT WOULD HAVE CONTAINED A DETAILED AND NON-CONTROVERSIAL FORENSIC ANALYSIS OF THE ORIGINAL HOLE IN THE THROAT, AND WE WOULDN'T BE HERE WASTING OUR TIME GUESSING ABOUT IT. As Prudhomme has pointed out a number of times (but apparently hasn't realized himself, which is why he didn't get my "irony" comment earlier), the place where the tracheostomy was performed was not some "it absolutely has to be right at this exact location" location dictated by the gods of medicine: Perry CHOSE to slice right through the original hole in the throat. To me, that clearly demonstrates intent. Bone fragment? <Snort!> Ashton Great post, Ashton. We'll continue to fundamentally disagree on a lot of this but I only want to discuss the disagreements I find productive. You write above: "I don't subscribe to no-see-ums. It is a fiction that has to be invented in order to have something to believe in." The night of the JFK autopsy the docs were faced with at least one no-see-um. From the Sibert/O'Neill FBI report on the autopsy: <quote on> Inasmuch as no complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other area of the body as determined by total body X–Rays and inspection revealing there was no point of exit, the individuals performing the autopsy were at a loss to explain why they could find no bullets. <quote off> From FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA: <quote on> Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic] bullet, one which dissolves after contact. <quote off> From FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit for the HSCA: <quote on> The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic] Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that would almost completely fragmentize (sic). <quote off> The autopsists speculated that JFK was struck in the back with a high tech weapon which wouldn't show up in an autopsy. FBI SA James Sibert called the FBI Lab to inquire as to the existence of such weapons. Killion at the FBI Lab knew all about this technology as the FBI had been briefed on the possibility such weapons would come from abroad. But Killion changed the subject, and this investigation died, only to be revived by Pet Theorists for discussions of Umbrella Man and other distractions. Was JFK struck in the throat and/or back with such a high tech weapon? I don't know. But the autopsy docs thought it plausible, and the historical record clearly points to Persons of Interest involved with CIA/FBN/military death squad MKNAOMI. https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now