There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat

[Ashton Gray]

Ashton,

Are you angry with me for using the word "theory" as opposed to "hypothesis," or "idea," or "presentation?"

Are you angry with me regarding any of the other things you state above?

None of this has anything whatsoever with my being "angry" with you, Sandy. It has to do with being misrepresented. I make every effort not to misrepresent the statements of others, and I expect the same courtesy in return. If I ever inadvertently misrepresent you, please notify me right away and I will correct it in an instant. I always have been, and always will be, ready and willing to correct any erroneous statement I make about anyone here.

I simply ask that I be properly quoted, and that people don't take the liberty of rewriting me, then attributing statements to me that I didn't make.

Ashton

Edited February 5, 2016 by Ashton Gray

[Ashton Gray]

The autopsy photos are worthless.

Then I'm sorry you've wasted so much of your life responding to them. I'd gently recommend that you not bother.

Meanwhile, as for me: the photos that I used are PRECISELY CONSISTENT with all relevant testimony about the placement of the tracheotomy—about which there is ZERO contradiction—and are PRECISELY CONSISTENT with the testimony that the trach incision was right THROUGH the hole in the throat.

I therefore don't care if they were taken with a Brownie Instamatic by a passing group of tourists from Tokyo. They prove conclusively that the hole in JFK's throat COULD NOT have been made by a projectile fired in Dealey Plaza from the front, which is, and at all times has been, my position.

Perhaps you have proven that a frontal shot could not have created the throat wound seen in the autopsy photos -- but that is the extent of it.

Thank you for stipulating to the fact that I set out to prove, and that I have proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

Ashton

Edited February 5, 2016 by Ashton Gray

[Ashton Gray]

Do you feel better now, Tom? Now that you've put me down for being what I am?

...

Now you're a psychiatrist, too?

...

THIS IS THE LAST RESPONSE I WILL POST REGARDING YOUR ARMCHAIR PSYCHOANALYSIS.

IT IS OT AND HINDERS THE PROGRESS OF THIS THREAD.

"Peacemaker" is probably not my long suit, but I sincerely hope that both of you can set aside personal differences and return to a dispassionate discussion of the facts—rather than of each other—because I value the probative value of the analysis of relevant facts from each of you.

Ashton

Edited February 5, 2016 by Ashton Gray

[Sandy Larsen]

Do you feel better now, Tom? Now that you've put me down for being what I am?

Do you do the same with people who aren't as smart as you expect them to be?

Or as healthy as you expect them to be?

Or as well off as you expect them to be?

etc.?

I suggest you put some thought into this.

Now you're a psychiatrist, too?

I felt fine before, and I feel fine now, Dr. Larsen.

But you OTOH must be feeling QUITE guilty Dr. Larsen, to come up these 'questions'. Possibly you were looking in a mirror when you wrote them.

If I disagree with you, obviously it's MY problem alone, therefore I MUST treat the entire world that way, because the idea that you are responsible for your careless action could not be attributed to you.

I suggest you think about this - don't foist your issues onto others, grow up and OWN it. Using your go-to response "I'm only human" is not owning it. It's saying what I did is OK because no one is perfect, but you use it to excuse behavior that is easily correctable and the average person does not do.

THIS IS THE LAST RESPONSE I WILL POST REGARDING YOUR ARMCHAIR PSYCHOANALYSIS.

IT IS OT AND HINDERS THE PROGRESS OF THIS THREAD.

Yes Tom, I am a terrible person. You have me nailed.

[Tom Neal]

Now you're a psychiatrist, too?

...

Do you feel better now, Tom? Now that you've put me down for being what I am?

...

THIS IS THE LAST RESPONSE I WILL POST REGARDING YOUR ARMCHAIR PSYCHOANALYSIS.

IT IS OT AND HINDERS THE PROGRESS OF THIS THREAD.

"Peacemaker" is probably not my long suit, but I sincerely hope that both of you can set aside personal differences and return to a dispassionate discussion of the factsrather than of each otherbecause I value the probative value of the analysis of relevant facts from each of you.

Ashton,

Your generous response is GREATLY appreciated. Thanks for taking the time away from your book to post this.

Tom

[Tom Neal]

Ashton,

Are you angry with me for using the word "theory" as opposed to "hypothesis," or "idea," or "presentation?"

Are you angry with me regarding any of the other things you state above?

None of this has anything whatsoever with my being "angry" with you, Sandy. It has to do with being misrepresented. I make every effort not to misrepresent the statements of others, and I expect the same courtesy in return. If I ever inadvertently misrepresent you, please notify me right away and I will correct it in an instant. I always have been, and always will be, ready and willing to correct any erroneous statement I make about anyone here.

I simply ask that I be properly quoted, and that people don't take the liberty of rewriting me, then attributing statements to me that I didn't make.

Ashton,

Although I too have protested, I still have this very same issue with Sandy.

You expressed it better and more carefully than I would have -- so I GREATLY appreciate this post!

Tom

[Sandy Larsen]

Ashton,

Although I too have protested, I still have this very same issue with Sandy.

You expressed it better and more carefully than I would have -- so I GREATLY appreciate this post!

Tom

Tom,

Will you please stop?

You asked me to remove the "bio-matter on a bullet" entry and I did.

Then for some reason you complained that it was still there, even though it wasn't.

Now you're saying that you still have this issue with me. Still? What issue??

If you want me to remove, add, or edit something, just ask. Okay?

[Sandy Larsen]

Opposing Throat Wound Testimonies

Dr. Carrico's testimony was posted by Tom earlier. I re-post it here. SSA Kellerman's testimony was posted on this forum by Ashton nearly a decade ago.

1. Behind or Above the Tie?

Dr. Charles Carrico (WC Testimony)

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.

Carrico seems to be saying that the neck wound is behind the tie. And Dulles seems to be attempting to lead his testimony elsewhere... above the tie.

2. Above the Shirtline

Harold Weisberg on his Interview of Dr. Charles Carrico (Post Mortem, pp. 375-376)

"Carrico was the first doctor to see the President. He saw the anterior neck wound immediately. It was above the shirt collar. Carrico was definite on this. . . . when I asked if he saw any bullet holes in the shirt or tie, he was definite in saying ‘No.’ I asked if he recalled Dulles’s question and his own pointing to above his own shirt collar as the location of the bullet hole. He does remember this, and he does remember confirming that the hole was above the collar, a fact hidden with such care from the (Warren) Report."

This seems to contradict what Carrico stated before the WC (above). Could Carrico have been persuaded to change his mind? (Note: The interview took place some time between 1967 and 1975.)

I checked to see if Carrico's testimony changed over the years regarding the gaping wound in the occipital region. I found that it did NOT change up through the HSCA hearings. But some time between then and 1992 it did change... dramatically. Gerald Posner quotes him, in Case Closed, as saying that the wound was on the right side and that he didn't believe they saw any occipital bone. I suspect he change his testimony after seeing or hearing about the autopsy photos, which conflicted with the Parkland consensus on the gaping wound.

I have a very hard time believing Carrico's testimony would have changed for the Weisberg interview. But I also have no explanation for the seeming difference between his WC testimony and his interview with Weisberg.

3. Behind the Tie

SSA Roy Kellerman (WC Testimony)

SPECTER: ...Did you observe any hole in the clothing of the President on the front part, in the shirt or tie area?
KELLERMAN: No, sir.
SPECTER: From your observation of the wound which you observed in the morgue which you have described as a tracheotomy, would that have been above or below the shirtline when the President was clothed?
KELLERMAN: It would have been below the shirtline, sir.

This testimony seems definitive. But could someone really be able to tell where the tracheotomy would be relative to a neck shirtline when there is no shirt in place? (If the death stare photo shows the true location of the tracheotomy, I would say yes.)

(Current Version of The Scenario List: Post 522 on this page.)

Edited February 7, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Cliff Varnell]

The autopsy photos are worthless.

No bother.

I always enjoy the challenge.

Meanwhile, as for me: the photos that I used are PRECISELY CONSISTENT with all relevant testimony about the placement of the tracheotomy—about which there is ZERO contradiction—and are PRECISELY CONSISTENT with the testimony that the trach incision was right THROUGH the hole in the throat.

There's Carrico's testimony the wound was above the collar.

There is more testimony to the wound being an entrance than there is testimony to "precisely" place the tracheotomy.

What about the Dealey Plaza testimony to JFK responding to throat trauma -- and the Z film which shows the same thing?

What about the neck x-ray with an air pocket the trajectory of which points to the wound between the 3rd and 4th trach rings?

There is no proof that we're looking at JFK's neck in those photos.

I therefore don't care if they were taken with a Brownie Instamatic by a passing group of tourists from Tokyo. They prove conclusively that the hole in JFK's throat COULD NOT have been made by a projectile fired in Dealey Plaza from the front, which is, and at all times has been, my position.

Perhaps you have proven that a frontal shot could not have created the throat wound seen in the autopsy photos -- but that is the extent of it.

Thank you for stipulating to the fact that I set out to prove, and that I have proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

Ashton

Ashton, has it ever occurred to you those photos were altered to make it appear the throat wound was an exit?

As far as it being JFK in that photo -- that you cannot prove.

[Ashton Gray]

There's Carrico's testimony the wound was above the collar.

There is no such "testimony" by Carrico. I'm not going to waste a minute discussing fiction. If you're going to claim the existence of "testimony," post it, don't write it yourself.

If you're referring to Weisberg's claim in Post Mortem, it is 100-percent uncorroborated hearsay. There is no recording of any such interview with Carrico. There is no transcript of any such interview with Carrico. There is zero record of what Weisberg might have asked or exactly what Carrico might have said—if anything—and there is no independent witness to any such statement ever having been made by Carrico to Weisberg. As I believe I've pointed out on a number of occasions, fiction doesn't leave a paper trail.

Of course Weisberg always was part of the intel crowd, having come out of OSS, the predecessor to the CIA, so I guess no one should ever question anything he said.

If you're referring to CIA Überführer Dulles inserting his own "testimony" and leading of the witness in the WC questioning of Carrico, then please exhibit the decency and respect for the sake of man's knowledge to name the actual source of your claims, and not falsely attribute them to Carrico.

Please don't make up fiction and present it as "fact," Cliff. It poisons the groundwater of man's knowledge.

VARNELL: There is more testimony to the wound being an entrance than there is testimony to "precisely" place the tracheotomy.

That's more fiction, Cliff, which I demonstrated conclusively in the second post of this thread:

Dr. Perry himself is on record under oath saying: "I then began the tracheotomy making a transverse incision right through the wound in the neck."

Dr. Gene Akin in his testimony, shown in the table above, says: "When I saw the wound, it had been cut across with a knife in the performance of the tracheotomy."

Dr. Conrad Peters in his testimony, shown in the table above, says: "The neck wound had already been interfered with by the tracheotomy at the time I got there."

That's THREE medical doctors, not nurses, who say that the tracheotomy incision was through that wound, including the doctor who performed the operation.

Only ONE person who was in that trauma room, Nurse Margaret Henchliffe, said in sworn testimony that she thought it might be an entrance hole—and even she waffled on it.

VARNELL: What about the Dealey Plaza testimony to JFK responding to throat trauma

The OPINIONS of lay people who had never in their lives seen anyone reacting to any type of bullet wound anywhere are no more relevant to disinterested analysis of the pertinent facts than Goldilocks and the Three Bears.

Here are some rhetorical questions for you, Cliff—and please don't bother to respond to them because they answer themselves:

How many of these witnesses you embrace with such passion had EVER seen anyone responding to throat trauma?

How many of these witnesses you embrace with such passion had EVER seen anyone responding to a bullet slamming into his back?

How many of these witnesses you embrace with such passion had EVER seen anyone responding to a sudden severe attack of gout?

VARNELL: ...and the Z film which shows the same thing?

No, that's YOUR opinion, and it has no more probative value than G. Jesus's opinion or than the opinion of Tweedledee and Tweedledum. It is OPINION, not FACT, yet you peddle it incessantly as though it were incontrovertible fact.

VARNELL: What about the neck x-ray with an air pocket the trajectory of which points to the wound between the 3rd and 4th trach rings?

Thank you for stipulating that the wound, and the tracheotomy, were both exactly where the photos I have used show them, and exactly where the autopsy report says the incision was: "Situated in the low anterior neck at approximately the level of the third and fourth tracheal rings is a 6.5 cm. long transverse wound with widely gaping irregular edges."

Of course, in doing so, you've now begun arguing with yourself on the location of the wound and tracheotomy opening that was cut "right through" it, but that's not my problem.

VARNELL: There is no proof that we're looking at JFK's neck in those photos.

Please allow me to suggest kindly that you re-read this post and the information in it as many times as it takes for you to grasp the evidence and information contained in it before replying and making further statements like that. But you do what you think is best.

VARNELL: Ashton, has it ever occurred to you those photos were altered to make it appear the throat wound was an exit?

What has "occurred" to me is neither here nor there, Cliff. The photos show exactly what the relevant medical testimony taken under oath describes: a lateral incision was made right through the throat wound, making it utterly impossible, post-tracheotomy, for anyone ever to determine exactly what made it, or whether it even was a projectile wound at all—much less whether it might have been an "entrance" or "exit" wound if it had been a projectile.

The location of the tracheotomy and the condition of the tie prove beyond any reasonable doubt that unless the laws of physics were somehow magically suspended for one brief instant in Dealey Plaza, it is categorically impossible for the wound in the throat to have been caused by a projectile shot from the front.

You said in your post above that you "enjoy the challenge." I want you to know without any ambiguity that I am not challenging you, and I have no desire to be engaged in a challenge with any individual. The facts and the disinformation surrounding this horrible history and murder case are challenge enough for all of us, individually, and for mankind at large. Something very dirty was done that day in Dallas, not just to a world leader, but to all of us.

Nothing is to be gained, for anyone, by infighting and personal attacks. Let us all challenge only the dense fog of disinformation in the hopes of one day walking out of these long dark shadows of covert operations and organized deceit committed by the very people who claim to be protecting our security.

Ashton

Edited February 6, 2016 by Ashton Gray

[Jon G. Tidd]

If I'm wearing a shirt and tie and have tilted my head down, my adam's apple is below the top edge of my shirt collar. If I'm standing looking straight ahead, the top edge crosses my adam's apple. If I twist my head to the side or tilt my head upward, the top edge can cross under my adam's apple.

JFK was not static like a dummy. He was waving and turning to look at the crowd.

I believe, therefore, it's possible a bullet fired from somewhere to JFK's front cleared his collar and entered just below his thyroid cartilage.

Possible.

[Tom Hume]

Jon said, “Possible”, and I agree.

In this post I was going to try to bolster Robert Prudhomme’s argument that the knot we see in the photo of JFK that's been posted on this thread contains rows of six icons, not the five icons shown in Ashton’s reconstruction. I don’t know if this is an important distinction, but for some reason I’m not able to upload photos to this post.

I’ll post my argument when I get this problem sorted out.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Tom Hume

[Sandy Larsen]

If I'm wearing a shirt and tie and have tilted my head down, my adam's apple is below the top edge of my shirt collar. If I'm standing looking straight ahead, the top edge crosses my adam's apple. If I twist my head to the side or tilt my head upward, the top edge can cross under my adam's apple.

JFK was not static like a dummy. He was waving and turning to look at the crowd.

I believe, therefore, it's possible a bullet fired from somewhere to JFK's front cleared his collar and entered just below his thyroid cartilage.

Possible.

I agree Jon. And that is one reason I have on "The List" some possible scenarios where the wound is above the shirtline.

Above-the-Shirtline Scenarios:

The biggest hurdle for the above-the-shirtline scenarios imo is the autopsy photo showing the gash in Kennedy's throat. That clearly is Kennedy's face and therefore his body. For this scenario to be viable, it is necessary to conclude that the above-the-shirtline wound AND tracheotomy were covered up since they are below the shirtline. And also that the gash was made in a place lower than the wound/tracheotomy location.

If the photo (or body before the photo) was manipulated in this way, there had to be a reason for doing so.

The only reason that comes to my mind is that it was determined that -- for the neck wound to be an exit wound for the back wound, with the origin of the shot being from the 6th floor of the TSBD -- the neck wound had to be lower than it really was.

But who would have made this alteration? I address the three possibilities here:

1. Not Humes. Why do I say that? Because Lt. Lipsey (who witnessed the autopsy) said that the autopsits were certain that the EOP (external occipital protuberance) wound was the entrance wound for the neck exit wound, and that the autopsists spent half the autopsy looking for the bullet or bullet fragments from the back wound's bullet.

2. Perhaps those who intercepted the body prior to the autopsy. If a frangible bullet were used by the back-wound assassin, and the body snatchers knew it, they may have thought it a good idea to make the neck wound the exit for the back wound. But, realizing it was too high, they decided to lower it.

   While this is a possibility, it makes little sense to me. Because their new neck wound would have been lowered just a bit, and would still have be too high. Better to have faked a wound on the chest had they any desire to provide an exit wound.

3. Perhaps post-autopsy photo alterationists. To make the SBT work, it was necessary to either raise the location of the back wound or lower the location of the neck wound. Or both. We know the did the former, so why not the latter as well?

I think that #3 is the only reasonable scenario left to consider.

If anybody sees problems with my line of reasoning here, please let us know. In the meantime I'm going to add this information as a note on The List.

BTW Jon, this is an example of how pieces of a puzzle can be put together, through reasoning and (simple) statistical analysis, regardless of the fact that evidence is known to have been altered.

(Current Version of The Scenario List: Post 522 on this page.)

Edited February 7, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

Version: 7 Date: 2/4/16

Potential Neck Shot Scenarios

Version: 8 Date: 2/7/16 (Changes shown in red.)

Below The Collar Line

1. A bone fragment from JFK's neck exited his throat.
2. A plastic projectile either entered or exited JFK's throat.

Common Notes:

• The holes/slits in the shirt were made by the projectile.
• The nick in the tie may have been made by the projectile. If it's true that the nick was on JFK's left side of the knot, as reported by the FBI, then it could not have been made by the projectile. (Because in that case the nick would be higher than the shirt holes, due to the knot's structure.) Note, however, that if by "JFK's left" the FBI meant the left side of the front of the knot, that would mean the the nick was unrelated to the wound. (This may be the case as there is extant a photo showing the nick in that very position. Though it is unknown to us if the knot shown is the original knot.) It was unrelated to the wound because the trajectory could not include the knot.
• According to Cliff Varnell, the neck x-ray (declared genuine by Dr. Mantik) conflicts with these scenarios. It shows an air pocket at C7/T1. On the other hand, Jerrol Custer thought the x-ray is fake. (Was he the one who saw bullet fragments or dust in the neck x-ray?) NOTE: The extant x-ray is described as having a couple of "metallic-like" particles in the neck area and are considered by an HSCA witness to be artifacts, even though they have "metallic-like" densities.

Above The Collar Line

1. A bullet/fragment entered or exited JFK's throat above the shirt's collar.
2. A plastic, poisonous projectile entered JFK's throat above the shirt's collar. (Cliff Varnell's Theory.)

Common Notes:

• There seems to be no explanation for the two holes/slits in the shirt or the nick in the tie.
• The true neck wound was successfully covered up, and a lower one faked in its place. It seems that the only reasonable explanation for this cover-up would be to support the SBT. (See the line of reasoning for this in Post 538 on this page.) Due to the SBT's late date, this cover-up had to have been performed by altering the "death stare" autopsy photo, not the body.

Non-Projectile Scenarios

1. Theory Based on Ashton Gray's Hypothesis: Everything (wound in throat, hole in shirt, and possibly nick in tie) was made by an assassin with a 1/4" diameter needle connected to a syringe full of non-traceable poison.

Related Posts

Post 541 on this age: Opposing Throat Wound Testimonies

Useful Animated GIF

(Posted by Ashton Gray years ago. Note that I

believe the arrow should be lowered by about

1/4" to aligned with the holes. But I need to

carefully check this first.)

(Current Version of The Scenario List: Post 539 on this page.)

Edited February 7, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

I now suspect Dr. Carrico of changing his testimony regarding the neck wound location.

See the red text in the following post to see why.

(Current Version of The Scenario List: Post 539 on this page.)

Edited February 7, 2016 by Sandy Larsen