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

[Robert Prudhomme]

Cliff

Yes, there was room for a bullet to strike his throat beneath the Adam's apple. However, if you have carefully read my thread about the "shallow" back wound, you will see the undeniable medical evidence that clearly demonstrates the tracheal wound was too far below the laryngeal prominence (Adam's apple) for it to be even close to being above the top of the shirt collar. The location of the tracheal wound is based on Dr. Malcolm Perry's observations. He placed this wound between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal ring. If you prefer, we could go with Commander Humes' observations, which placed the tracheal wound between the 3rd and 4th tracheal ring.

Either way, the tracheal wound was a minimum of one inch below the top of JFK's collar.

P.S.

Before denying this statement, please at least look at the medical arguments I have made.

[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.

What, no one has an answer to this question?

[Sandy Larsen]

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?

Click the following photo to enlarge it and count the number of icons across the width of the tie where it is hanging down.

Robert,

On the ninth row down from the knot, there are a complete set of 6 icons. Moving up row-by-row, the number gradually diminishes.

(The top row in this table represents the top row of icons in the tie.)

Row 1: 5.0 icons (extrapolation)

Row 2: 5.1 icons

Row 3: 5.2 icons

Row 4: 5.4 icons

Row 5: 5.5 icons

Row 6: 5.7 icons

Row 7: 5.9 icons

Row 8: 6.0 icons

Row 9: 6.0 icons

So where the tie goes into the knot at its bottom, the number of icons per row is 5.

Furthermore, the tie has to continue decreasing in width so that it fits under the collar going around the neck. I believe that another photo shows that it reduces down to 3 icons wide for the neck.

And yet you want us to believe that the number of icons actually increases to 6 per row where the tie wraps across the front of the knot. So from 9 icons at the widest end of the tie, gradually down to 5, then back up to 6, then gradually down to 3 where it goes around the neck. The "back up to 6" part to accommodate your theory makes no sense. And it is what I was talking about when I said:

"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."

[Sandy Larsen]

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

Rully...?

Cliff,

On Robert's other thread (I think his "Umpteenth Time" one), James Gordon provided some useful measurement data for the trachea. Both Robert and I independently showed that, according to Jame's data, the throat wound had to have been well below the shirtline. Robert and I used different methods of measurement and came up with nearly the same answer. Mine was a measurement on JFK autopsy picture, profile view. Using Jame's data I showed that the wound would have been very close to where the shirt slits are. I had to use something as a frame of reference to make the measurement, and so I used Kennedy's ear. I assumed it to be the same length as my ear.

Even if the length of Kennedy's ear is much different than mine, my measurement would still show the wound to be below the collar.

You really should read that part of Robert's thread.

James Gordon just ignored what we showed. He claimed that what I did is unscientific, IIRC. He's wrong.

[Sandy Larsen]

Cliff,

See what James Gordon posted here (Post 179) and see how Robert and I responded. It's pretty easy reading.

[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?

Click the following photo to enlarge it and count the number of icons across the width of the tie where it is hanging down.

Robert,

On the ninth row down from the knot, there are a complete set of 6 icons. Moving up row-by-row, the number gradually diminishes.

(The top row in this table represents the top row of icons in the tie.)

Row 1: 5.0 icons (extrapolation)

Row 2: 5.1 icons

Row 3: 5.2 icons

Row 4: 5.4 icons

Row 5: 5.5 icons

Row 6: 5.7 icons

Row 7: 5.9 icons

Row 8: 6.0 icons

Row 9: 6.0 icons

So where the tie goes into the knot at its bottom, the number of icons per row is 5.

Furthermore, the tie has to continue decreasing in width so that it fits under the collar going around the neck. I believe that another photo shows that it reduces down to 3 icons wide for the neck.

And yet you want us to believe that the number of icons actually increases to 6 per row where the tie wraps across the front of the knot. So from 9 icons at the widest end of the tie, gradually down to 5, then back up to 6, then gradually down to 3 where it goes around the neck. The "back up to 6" part to accommodate your theory makes no sense. And it is what I was talking about when I said:

"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."

I see what you are saying, Sandy. However, there is another way to interpret what we are seeing.

If I am correct about the tie knot, and the section of tie going across the front of the tie knot is 6 icons wide, there is a similarity between it and the blade of the tie hanging below the knot.

While you see the blade of the tie tapering, and thus presenting a diminishing number of icons (5.0 icons to 6.0 icons in the space of 9 rows), I see a uniform 6 icons per row right up to the tie knot, despite the fact there is a taper. Of course, the first two rows below the tie knot show only 3 and 4 icons, as the blade is severely squeezed as it goes into the tie knot. I believe this "squeezing" effect, to a lesser degree, continues down the blade of the tie for several rows from the knot, giving the impression the blade is only 5 rows wide at this point.

Another interesting phenomenon that can be seen is that, in a row of 6 icons, the icons do not appear to be centred perfectly in the middle of the blade of the tie. There appears to be a wider space between the last icon on his right and the anatomical right of JFK's tie than their is between the last icon on his left and the anatomical left of JFK's tie. If you look at the front of the tie knot, and assume for one second the knot is 6 icons wide, you can see there is no space at all between the top of the row of icons and the top of the knot, while there is a space between the bottom icon and the bottom edge of the knot. It is not as large a space as seen on a row of 6 icons hanging below the tie knot but, after all, the tie is tapering.

The real question is, if the middle of the tie is narrower than the blade or the end of the tail, what is the smallest number of icons in a width of the tie? Does the tie taper uniformly to this narrowest section, or does the taper slow down at a certain point?

Edited September 12, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Ashton Gray]

LOL Well, that sure stopped everyone in their tracks.

“Confidence is the prize given to the mediocre”

—Robert Hughes

Sadly, Robert, the only person you stopped in his tracks is you. Your sly, if insipid, intimation that the nick possibly was otherwise than in the knot of the tie not only argues in a lonely weak voice against the windstorm of evidence in the record, but—more sadly still—argues against your own claims of the nick being in the knot of the tie. Would you like me to trot each one out for you here? I don't wish to embarrass you, but if you insist, I will oblige.

Perhaps the saddest of all is that you think nobody here has anything better to do but to monitor and respond within minutes to your latest flip-flop.

You've stopped nothing but yourself. But very well done, indeed, on that.

Ashton

Edited September 12, 2016 by Ashton Gray

[Ashton Gray]

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.

What, no one has an answer to this question?

I see you're having discussions with yourself again, Robert.

A very plausible answer was given to this on the first page of this thread. Here it is again, done for you graphically this time as a learning aid:

Elementary, my dear Notson.

Ashton

Edited September 12, 2016 by Ashton Gray

[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.

What, no one has an answer to this question?

I see you're having discussions with yourself again, Robert.

A very plausible answer was given to this on the first page of this thread. Here it is again, done for you graphically this time as a learning aid:

Elementary, my dear Notson.

Ashton

Nice try. However, the slope was the opposite of what you are portraying. The tracheal wound sloped downward from back to front; from the 2nd tracheal ring to the 3rd tracheal ring, according to Dr. Malcolm Perry.

P.S.

The tear was also in the right side of the trachea. There was not a through and through wound of the trachea, as you have shown.

P.P.S.

Wouldn't your needle, entering the trachea on an angle, tend to make an oval throat wound, instead of a round wound?

Edited September 12, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

LOL Well, that sure stopped everyone in their tracks.

“Confidence is the prize given to the mediocre”

—Robert Hughes

Sadly, Robert, the only person you stopped in his tracks is you. Your sly, if insipid, intimation that the nick possibly was otherwise than in the knot of the tie not only argues in a lonely weak voice against the windstorm of evidence in the record, but—more sadly still—argues against your own claims of the nick being in the knot of the tie. Would you like me to trot each one out for you here? I don't wish to embarrass you, but if you insist, I will oblige.

Perhaps the saddest of all is that you think nobody here has anything better to do but to monitor and respond within minutes to your latest flip-flop.

You've stopped nothing but yourself. But very well done, indeed, on that.

Ashton

You can trot out all of the old posts and threads of mine you like, little man. I'll be the first to admit I've made mistakes before and, once someone comes up with an explanation that makes more sense than mine, I will drop a theory like a bad habit. I will also constantly put my own theories to the "Crest test" and, if they fail, I will drop them. I believe they call this "learning".

This requires an open mind, Ashton; something I believe you are sadly lacking.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I'll give you another clue. The angle of the tracheal wound downward was much steeper than the angle from the 6th floor to the limo.

[Ashton Gray]

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.

What, no one has an answer to this question?

I see you're having discussions with yourself again, Robert.

A very plausible answer was given to this on the first page of this thread. Here it is again, done for you graphically this time as a learning aid:

Elementary, my dear Notson.

Ashton

Nice try. However, the slope was the opposite of what you are portraying.

You are so disappointingly predictable, Robert. It is lost on you that it is entirely immaterial to the plausibility of the needle making the wound which direction it traveled—which is why I did it both ways to begin with, waiting, tapping my fingers on the desk, for your knee to jerk. Thank you for the predictable opportunity to post the other:

What is equally lost on you is that it wouldn't matter one whit whether it went in at that angle, or at this angle:

It is PLAUSIBLE that such a device could account for the tear in the trachea AS DESCRIBED.

It is also PLAUSIBLE that such a device could account for a wound in the anterior neck/throat AS DESCRIBED.

If you want to sit here and nitpick the practical realities of use of Photoshop to demonstrate such PLAUSIBILITY, entertain yourself until the end of time.

Ashton

Edited September 12, 2016 by Ashton Gray

[Robert Prudhomme]

When you were a child, did the other children bully you frequently? You seem very angry, and it is difficult to communicate with an angry person.

I don't believe you actually knew the tracheal wound was on a downward angle from back to front, just as I have noticed you seem to be unaware of many other medical facts of this case.

One very very VERY glaring defect in your 1/4" hollow needle theory is that the needle is hollow, and a 6.5mm bullet (equating to just a shade over 1/4") is not hollow but, rather, solid.

If a solid projectile passes through tissue, it displaces tissue equal to its diameter. However, a 1/4" needle would be so large, wouldn't it tend to leave a solid core of tissue in the wound, unless an opening was made for it surgically, before the needle was inserted?

And seriously, why would anyone use such a gigantic hypodermic needle to inject poison into JFK, when a much tinier hypodermic needle would be more than adequate for the job, and not leave a ridiculous looking 1/4" hole in JFK's throat that could be confused with a bullet hole?

Surely to God you don't believe someone wanted it to look like a bullet hole? What if the wound track had actually been inspected, and found not only to go only as deep as the rear of the trachea, but also to be lacking in the damage to surrounding tissue typical of bullets passing through flesh?

I am afraid there are some very large holes in your theory.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

While it can be seen that the trachea resides on a forward angle when the neck is erect, the above diagram is not completely fair when referring to JFK. As can be seen in the side view photo, JFK's head had a tendency to jut forward, almost making him appear to be slouching. This "slouch" was greatly exaggerated in the cartoon produced by Dale Myers, to the point JFK appeared to have a deformed neck.

Of course, the effect of such a forward leaning neck would be to place the trachea on an even steeper forward lean. Compare the trachea in the diagram to the front of JFK's neck in this photo, and note the difference in angle.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

JFK's posture compared to more typical posture.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme