Tom Neal Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 (edited) Well said, Roy. These guys are moving in to Cinqueland. Ray, Since Ashton stated he is very busy with his book but still took the time to provide a thorough response to my question, since I've read the entire thread, and you may be referring directly to me in your statement, I'll jump in here and make a few comments. First, earlier in the thread he was asked 'what' could have caused the throat wound if it was not a bullet. He speculated that it could have been a large-bore needle. In response to a question from me, he indicated that he didn't think that this actually happened, but he was trying to answer a question and was speculating. In response to a question of mine, Ashton: "Seriously, I don't have any "belief" about the throat wound having been created with a large-bore needle." Later, he clearly stated that "If, and that's a big 'if' a needle was used..." so he is not stating that actually happened. If your statement that "These guys are moving in to Cinqueland." includes me, at no time have I stated that I believe or disbelieve in the 'needle' theory. If you are referring to something other than the needle you'll have to clarify... Tom Edited January 22, 2016 by Tom Neal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Do you recall your source for Burkley's arrival time in the TR ahead of Carrico? Tom, I wish I had more time to devote to this, but I'm under extreme pressures right now related to the publication of the Watergate book, so I have to do drive-by postings when I can. Please forgive me for not being more thorough in this, but this is what I was able to throw together.Ashton, thank you for the response. I think it is QUITE thorough and it indicates testimony that I need to read. Good luck with your book, and since you are very busy at this time, your response is *especially* appreciated. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 It is quite obvious that Ashton Gray has no basic medical knowledge, and has never consulted a physician regarding his "injection of poison via a large bore needle into the throat theory". Quite simply put, the throat, just below the larynx, is possibly the worst place to attempt to introduce a poisonous substance into the body via injection. The subcutaneous layers of the skin are extremely thin at this point, and the trachea is made up of tough cartilagenous rings that do not readily absorb foreign substances. The three main types of needle injection are intravenous (directly into a vein), intramuscular (into a large muscle such as the buttocks, thighs, back of arms, etc.) or subcutaneous. Subcutaneous means the upper layers of the skin, and the injected product, such as insulin, is absorbed by blood flow through that area of the skin. However, subcutaneous injections are usually reserved for areas such as the mid-abdomen, where the subcutaneous layer is far thicker on the human body. Unfortunately for Mr. Gray, the throat, just over the trachea at a level just below the larynx, does not qualify well for any of these types of injection, and it is highly doubtful any doctor would attempt to utilize this site for injecting poison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Bob, the throat, just over the trachea at a level just below the larynx Since you mentioned the larynx and trachea... My research has indicated that the trachea begins immediately below the Larynx, and in an adult male that would occur at the juncture of C6 and C7. Would you agree with that? Carrico and Perry describe the 'throat wound' as just below the larynx. I'm attempting to find a statement as to how far below the larynx the wound/tear in the trachea was actually located. I have a vague memory of it being located at the "3rd ring" in the trachea, but I can't seem to find that statement. Any thoughts? Thanks, Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 (edited) Well said, Roy. These guys are moving in to Cinqueland. Ray, Since Ashton stated he is very busy with his book but still took the time to provide a thorough response to my question, since I've read the entire thread, and you may be referring directly to me in your statement, I'll jump in here and make a few comments. First, earlier in the thread he was asked 'what' could have caused the throat wound if it was not a bullet. He speculated that it could have been a large-bore needle. In response to a question from me, he indicated that he didn't think that this actually happened, but he was trying to answer a question and was speculating. In response to a question of mine, Ashton: "Seriously, I don't have any "belief" about the throat wound having been created with a large-bore needle." Later, he clearly stated that "If, and that's a big 'if' a needle was used..." so he is not stating that actually happened. If your statement that "These guys are moving in to Cinqueland." includes me, at no time have I stated that I believe or disbelieve in the 'needle' theory. If you are referring to something other than the needle you'll have to clarify... Tom Seriously, Tom? With a title thread such as "There was no Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat", Mr. Ashton is now claiming he doesn't really believe his own theory about a large bore needle? Then why propose it in the first place? He seemed quite comfortable defending this theory when he first proposed it. Is he a little uncomfortable with it, now that I have begun to show it as being a little ridiculous? This is the diagram Mr. Ashton first posted in support of his theory. Note the diameter of this needle is shown as .2320 inches. This is the size of 1/4 inch copper tubing, and is not the size of needle used to inject substances into the human body. I have horses, and even when giving one of them a large I.M. injection of penicillin, I have never used a needle anywhere near that big. The reason the needle above is called a "piercing" needle is that needles such as this are used to pierce the pleural cavity of the chest in cases of tension pneumothorax, in order to relieve built up air pressure. The large bore of this needle allows for rapid decompression of a tension pneumothorax. Edited January 22, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 (edited) Tom, apologies for not answering your question on Bowron's interview. I have been trying to remember where it was. It is in "Killing the `Truth" by Livingstone. To answer your question about when Hinchcliffe saw the throat wound, according to her testimony, it was before they started removing the President's clothes. You appear to doubt that there was a bullet wound in JFK's throat, despite the evidence from the people who were there. Regarding "Cinqueland", the needle idea is so ridiculous as to be travelling in "Cinqueland". Edited January 22, 2016 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 (edited) Tom, apologies for not answering your question on Bowron's interview. I have been trying to remember where it was. It is in "Killing the `Truth" by Livingstone.Thank you. That is an edited version of the interview. I was hoping that you had the full version. To answer your question about when Hinchcliffe saw the throat wound, according to her testimony, it was before they started removing the President's clothes.Please point out to me where in the testimony she states that she observed it BEFORE the clothing was removed. You appear to doubt that there was a bullet wound in JFK's throat, despite the evidence from the people who were there.I absolutely do believe that there was *a* wound in JFK's throat. But, was it a *bullet* wound? IMO the most likely cause of this wound was an exiting bullet *FRAGMENT*. It could also have been a bone fragment. If you believe I'm saying that there was *no* wound, or *only* a needle puncture then I'll *repeat* my earlier statement: I've not stated an opinion one way or another regarding the "needle" - until now. I don't believe he was poisoned with an injection from a needle. *IF* you think that I doubt there was *any* wound in his neck then I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. To summarize, my only doubt is: was it a bullet fragment or bone fragment that created the neck wound. I do find it EXTREMELY interesting that per Ashton's post, Burkley apparently (I have to do some more reading prior to deciding when he arrived) arrived in TR-1 ahead of Carrico and examined JFK. If true then he certainly saw JFK prior to his clothing being removed, and he would have known whether or not the neck wound was above JFK's collar or not. I believe this wound was *most likely* behind the collar, but just below the top of the collar. It is possible it was above the collar, but no one has stated that in their testimony. I realize we don't agree on this point. If you can point out to me the specific words Henchliffe uses to state this, I will gladly change my opinion. If the wound was visible while dressed then the exiting fragment be it bullet or bone would not have damaged the shirt or tie. I don't think that it is certain that the nurses used scalpels to remove his clothing. If not, what caused the vertical slit in JFK's shirt? Does an exiting bullet fragment create a clean slit much longer than the diameter of the wound itself? I know we are talking about exit v. entrance wounds here, but the hole in the back of JFK's shirt is not a slit it is round or elliptical but not a clean slit. Spectrographic analysis of the hole in the back of the shirt revealed traces of the bullet. Was the shirt *slit* ever tested this way? I don't think so, but I do NOT know, and I would like to... UPDATE: I have posted an FBI memo stating that the slit in the front of the shirt just below the collar actually was subjected to spectrographic analysis. NO TRACES of a bullet were detected. The same test on the hole in the back of this shirt revealed traces of a copper-jacket bullet. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11340&page=16#entry324008 (Post #236) Regarding "Cinqueland", the needle idea is so ridiculous as to be travelling in "Cinqueland".If you think that I believe in the needle/poison theory you're going to have to show me where I state this, because I have never believed it. Tom Edited January 22, 2016 by Tom Neal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 (edited) Seriously, Tom? Bob, As is clearly stated in the post, I quoted Ashton. If you don't believe that he was not serious despite his statement that he was not, that is your prerogative. IF you think that I am agreeing with any needle/poisoning theory then I have no idea why you think this. See my post to Ray... Tom Edited January 22, 2016 by Tom Neal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Tom said: "Spectrographic analysis of the hole in the back of the shirt revealed traces of the bullet." This is interesting, Tom, and I was not aware the shirt had been tested in this manner. Could you provide more details on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Tom said: "Spectrographic analysis of the hole in the back of the shirt revealed traces of the bullet." This is interesting, Tom, and I was not aware the shirt had been tested in this manner. Could you provide more details on this? I'll provide the source, but it will probably take me a while to find it and I will be away until tonight. PS Did you see my post #229? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11340&page=16#entry323994 After the ed forum top of the page appears, give it a few seconds to go to the actual post...eventually, it gets there. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Well once again, my post vanished when I tried to post it!!! One more try... Hey Bob, I was able to find the source. Glad you asked because I either hadn't read the entire memo, or I had forgotten that as well as stating that a spectrographic analysis on the hole in the back of the shirt that revealed traces from a jacketed bullet, it also states that the slit in the front of the shirt was tested in the same manner and there were no traces of a bullet. Here's a link to the document. The results of the tests are indicated in the last sentence of paragraphs 1 and 2: http://s166.photobucket.com/user/ed_mccauley/media/spectrographic%20analysis%20if%20JFK%20shirt%20slit%20and%20back%20bullet%20hole_zpscrmwctem.jpg.html?filters[user]=142410050&filters[recent]=1&sort=1&o=0 Do I get a "You really hit one out of the park for that one"? Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 (edited) Bob, the throat, just over the trachea at a level just below the larynx Since you mentioned the larynx and trachea... My research has indicated that the trachea begins immediately below the Larynx, and in an adult male that would occur at the juncture of C6 and C7. Would you agree with that? Carrico and Perry describe the 'throat wound' as just below the larynx. I'm attempting to find a statement as to how far below the larynx the wound/tear in the trachea was actually located. I have a vague memory of it being located at the "3rd ring" in the trachea, but I can't seem to find that statement. Any thoughts? Thanks, Tom Hi Tom Yes, the trachea begins at the base of the larynx. The third ring (cartilege) of the trachea can be seen below, and is at about the juncture of C5/C6. The base of the larynx can be seen at the juncture of C4/C5. I seem to recall the wound being described as at the 3rd ring of the trachea, too, but also cannot recall where I saw this. The next diagram shows the trachea again, and the last panel shows what Malcolm Perry was referring to. As he stated, it was coincidental that the throat wound was in exactly the precise location preferred as a tracheostomy site. Whether this is merely another of the bizarre coincidences that seem to plague this case, or it points to something more sinister, is still worth investigating. Edited January 22, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Well once again, my post vanished when I tried to post it!!! One more try... Hey Bob, I was able to find the source. Glad you asked because I either hadn't read the entire memo, or I had forgotten that as well as stating that a spectrographic analysis on the hole in the back of the shirt that revealed traces from a jacketed bullet, it also states that the slit in the front of the shirt was tested in the same manner and there were no traces of a bullet. Here's a link to the document. The results of the tests are indicated in the last sentence of paragraphs 1 and 2: http://s166.photobucket.com/user/ed_mccauley/media/spectrographic%20analysis%20if%20JFK%20shirt%20slit%20and%20back%20bullet%20hole_zpscrmwctem.jpg.html?filters[user]=142410050&filters[recent]=1&sort=1&o=0 Do I get a "You really hit one out of the park for that one"? Tom LOL of course. My Ed Forum sluggers, Tom and Ray! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 That is an amazing find, though, Tom. How could anyone support the SBT after reading this memo? Was this kept hidden for many decades? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Do I get a "You really hit one out of the park for that one"? LOL of course. My Ed Forum sluggers, Tom and Ray! I didn't realize Canadians used baseball metaphors. Hockey was always my favorite sport (and I have the collapsed vertabrae to prove it!) and I imagine you also prefer hockey to baseball. Tom 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