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

[Robert Prudhomme]

LOL Well, that sure stopped everyone in their tracks.

This is so typical of JFK assassination research. There are so many things that everyone just "knows" are true, such as JFK's back wound being a "shallow" wound, and the nick in the tie just having to be in the tie knot itself.

As I said, think for yourselves. The answers are all there if we just apply a little of the old grey matter.

For starters, if the wraps in the tie knot are made up of the "front" or wide part of the tie, what else is in the knot that is not part of the "front" or wide part of the tie? And might only be five icons wide?

[Michael Walton]

Jim - thanks for the face sheet links.

[Sandy Larsen]

Sorry, Sandy, the icons still measure longer, in a group of 5, lengthwise than they do crosswise, and the top of the tie knot is an impossibility, and you know it is.

I know no such thing.

If you would like to prove me wrong, by all means, do a physical demonstration using the sample photos of this tie.

Look... five icons, and no slip-down of the knot face. (You need to zoom way in.)

Is that the best you can do, Sandy? You still have not explained why the top two icons are rectangular and ovoid in the same direction as all of the other icons in the rows below them.

That is a curious thing for which I have no answer.

But I believe that my contention trumps yours. You can't have more icons-in-a-row anywhere in the knot than you have where the tie exits the knot at the bottom.

Edited September 11, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Just to refresh everyone's memory, here is a sample of the tie, and the reason Ashton and Sandy are completely out to lunch about the tie knot:

There is no escaping what I am about to tell you. As seen, the icons on the tie are rectangular and ovoid, and they are longer going lengthwise on the tie than they are crosswise.

Five icons also take up more space on the tie lengthwise than crosswise. Measured above, five icons measured:

Lengthwise = 117 millimeters

Crosswise = 77 millimeters

A difference of 40 mm or 33%.

If what Ashton and Sandy are telling you is true, the top two icons would be part of a section of tie going down behind the face of the tie knot. It would be a bizarre coincidence to have these two icons even come close to aligning with the rows below them and, even if they did, these two top icons would be 33% closer to each other than the icons below them, which they are most definitely not.

Sandy's only explanation for this is that it is a "coincidence". I guess that's what you say when you run out of logical arguments.

Ashton doesn't even attempt to explain the problem but, rather, carries on like a little girl.

Do not be taken in. Think for yourselves, people.

I think you make a good point, Robert.

I said earlier that it must be coincidence that the icons line up. The icon orientation discrepancy is a much tougher thing to explain.

The combination of these two occurring together, in the very same area, seems very unlikely to me.

ON THE OTHER HAND.....

I think it's even more unlikely that a commercially available tie would be made where the tie gets narrower and narrower as you move along it, then widens enough to accommodate an extra icon, and then return to the width it is supposed to be.

But what you point out is certainly an enigma.

[Robert Prudhomme]

The 3rd row of icons below the tie knot is 6 icons wide. Are you able to see this, Sandy? The two rows between this row and the knot show less than 6 icons because the front of the tie is squished in from the sides as it passes through the tie knot.

If the blade (front or widest part) of the tie is 6 icons wide going into the bottom of the tie knot, isn't it likely it is still 6 icons wide going across the front of the tie knot?

"I think it's even more unlikely that a commercially available tie would be made where the tie gets narrower and narrower as you move along it, then widens enough to accommodate an extra icon, and then return to the width it is supposed to be."

What on earth are you talking about, Sandy?

Edited September 11, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

As I stated earlier, it is essential to the Single Bullet Theory that the bullet exited JFK's throat above the tie knot and collar. If the bullet exited JFK's throat below the top of the collar, the SBT is not possible, as the trajectory from JFK's throat to John Connally's right armpit would require the bullet to pass trough the tie knot, and there is no evidence of this happening.

I believe I have proved overwhelmingly that, given the position of JFK's "laryngeal prominence" or Adam's apple in virtually every photo of JFK wearing a shirt and tie, there is no doubt whatsoever the exit wound was below the top of JFK's shirt collar and, coincidentally, in almost perfect alignment with the so called "scalpel slits" below JFK's collar button.

As I believe wholeheartedly that this was a shot from the rear, the next step is to trace a path for the bullet from just below the external occipital protuberance at the base of JFK's rear skull to the left side of the bottom of his tie knot, and to see what evidence there is to support this.

[Cliff Varnell]

As I stated earlier, it is essential to the Single Bullet Theory that the bullet exited JFK's throat above the tie knot and collar. If the bullet exited JFK's throat below the top of the collar, the SBT is not possible, as the trajectory from JFK's throat to John Connally's right armpit would require the bullet to pass trough the tie knot, and there is no evidence of this happening.

I believe I have proved overwhelmingly that, given the position of JFK's "laryngeal prominence" or Adam's apple in virtually every photo of JFK wearing a shirt and tie, there is no doubt whatsoever the exit wound was below the top of JFK's shirt collar and, coincidentally, in almost perfect alignment with the so called "scalpel slits" below JFK's collar button.

As I believe wholeheartedly that this was a shot from the rear, the next step is to trace a path for the bullet from just below the external occipital protuberance at the base of JFK's rear skull to the left side of the bottom of his tie knot, and to see what evidence there is to support this.

So JFK drew his hands up in front of his throat -- consistent with an instinctive defensive reaction to a shot from the front -- before he suffered a wound in the throat?

All the Parkland personnel who described the throat wound as an entrance got it wrong?

Nellie Connally and Linda Willis described JFK as going for his throat -- they got it wrong?

We can't believe the Dealey Plaza photo evidence showing JFK with his hands in front of his throat?

If you bump your knee you instinctively reach for what -- your knee or some other body part?

...Never mind...carry on...

Edited September 11, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Robert Prudhomme]

Here is something to think about. The wound in JFK's throat was described as an almost perfectly round wound of 3-8 mm in diameter. Yet, Perry described the tear in the trachea as not being straight across the trachea. The wound he described was a downward ranging wound that began at the 2nd tracheal ring and left the trachea at the 3rd tracheal ring.

How could a bullet on an obvious downward trajectory make a nice round exit wound?

Skull and cervical vertebrae showing trachea with rings. Rings are counted down from the top.

[Cliff Varnell]

How could a bullet on an obvious downward trajectory make a nice round exit wound?

It was a wound of entrance from a hit circa Z190 as established by ear and eye witnesses Phil Willis and Hugh Betzner.

Betzner said he took his #3 photo (Z186) immediately before a gun shot.

Willis said he took his #5 photo (Z202) in a startle-response to a gun shot.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Cliff

Did you ever read the post I posted showing how a silencer (suppressor) can make it seem to listeners that the source of a shot is actually down in the target area?

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff

Did you ever read the post I posted showing how a silencer (suppressor) can make it seem to listeners that the source of a shot is actually down in the target area?

Makes sense.

[Robert Prudhomme]

As the muzzle blast is eliminated by a silencer, the only sound heard by witnesses is the bullet breaking the sound barrier as it passes by them. Once it passes them, every vertical hard surface the bullet passes also reflects this sound as an echo. Therefore, the majority of sound heard by witnesses close to the source of the shot will be echoes returning to them from the target area of the bullet, giving the impression this is where the bullet originated from.

To grasp the above concept, it must be remembered that a projectile does not just make one sonic boom at the point it breaks the sound barrier but, rather, makes one continuous sonic boom all the time it is travelling faster than the speed of sound.

If a silencer was used, this was one of the main reasons, as well as to conceal the source of the shot and give the shooter a chance to escape. It is small wonder there was so much confusion as to the source of the shots.

[James R Gordon]

How could a bullet on an obvious downward trajectory make a nice round exit wound?

It was a wound of entrance from a hit circa Z190 as established by ear and eye witnesses Phil Willis and Hugh Betzner.

Betzner said he took his #3 photo (Z186) immediately before a gun shot.

Willis said he took his #5 photo (Z202) in a startle-response to a gun shot.

I agree Cliff.I also agree with your post 327. I feel these are question of a fundamental nature to understanding what happened that day.

[Robert Prudhomme]

How could a bullet on an obvious downward trajectory make a nice round exit wound?

It was a wound of entrance from a hit circa Z190 as established by ear and eye witnesses Phil Willis and Hugh Betzner.

Betzner said he took his #3 photo (Z186) immediately before a gun shot.

Willis said he took his #5 photo (Z202) in a startle-response to a gun shot.

I agree Cliff.I also agree with your post 327. I feel these are question of a fundamental nature to understanding what happened that day.

James

As I have clearly demonstrated to you that an above the collar throat wound is an impossibility, perhaps you could show me the trajectory of a bullet that could make an entrance wound in JFK's throat by passing under the collar button.

[Cliff Varnell]

It was impossible for a shot to strike between his adams apple and the top of the tie knot?

Rully...?