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

[Cliff Varnell]

Let us now say, Ashton, that you are correct -- what then? WHAT ARE WE ACTUALLY SEEING IN THESE FRAMES OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM? How do you interpret these frames, Ashton?

Well, to me, Paul, it isn't about me being correct or not; it's about having the correct facts.

My interpretation of these Zapruder frames is what seems obvious to me: JFK was shot in the back while behind or just emerging from being blocked by the sign.

Because that's what people do when they're struck in the back with a sharp object -- their hands reflexively fly up in front of their throat/chin.

The same way people bang a knee and reach for an elbow.

His arms flew up and his fists clenched in response to sudden intense pain in his back—his response constrained by the back brace he was wearing.

Yes, facts matter -- the brace was around his waist and held in place with an Ace bandage.

He was shot in the back at T3, well above his waist.

There were no constraints on him reacting to a strike in the back.

That's it. It isn't complicated.

The neurological scenario of a man struck in the back reacting by bringing his hands up to his throat is so complicated it cannot be explained.

As the Altgens 6 photo shows, JFK was holding his fists in front of his throat/chin in a defensive position.

His left forefinger clearly flexes in and out in front of his throat.

There is nothing in these frames or the Dealey Plaza witness testimony consistent with a first-strike shot in the back.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

This is what happens when you're hit in the back with a 95 mile an hour fastball: back arched, head snaps back, hands go to the back.

JFK's reaction was the opposite: chin down, fists in defensive posture in front of chin/throat.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

JFK's reaction is consistent with a frontal strike by an MKNAOMI-style blood soluble paralytic.

Especially the paralysis.

[Paul Trejo]

My interpretation of these Zapruder frames is what seems obvious to me:

[1] JFK was shot in the back while behind or just emerging from being blocked by the sign. His arms flew up and his fists clenched in response to sudden intense pain in his back—his response constrained by the back brace he was wearing.

That's it. It isn't complicated. That is what I observe in these frames. What follows here is gratuitous opinion, which I may or may not renege on:

[2] I believe that the same shooter who shot him in the back then very soon blew off part of his head.

[3] I do not believe either of those shots came from Oswald.

Ashton

Very interesting, Ashton. I'm interested in all three of your provocative points, but rather than get side-tracked, I will remain on the first point -- the theme of this thread that you started.

You believe the Zapruder film frames #225 through #258 portray JFK getting shot in the back.

Yet we have already agreed that nobody ever found any bullet in JFK's throat -- so I must now ask about JFK's back.

What do you say about the fact that nobody ever reported a bullet in JFK's back? A hole -- yes -- but not a bullet.

Nor did the bullet emerge from JFK's chest, as a bullet emerged from Governor Connally's chest.

If (and only if) JFK was shot in the back in those Zapruder frames -- what happened to that bullet?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 16, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Michael Walton]

Cliff,

You might as well throw in the towel with this. You're never going to persuade the guy who started this thread that Kennedy was shot in the throat. We've not agreed on a lot on this forum (when you disagree with me and others you tend to call our own theories pet ones). But I agree with you 100% about the throat shot. You can see it in the Z film, and Perry said so.

I heard through the grapevine that the guy who started this thread is writing a book about this "no shot in the throat" theory that he says is "factual." If that's not proof of someone believing in something for ulterior reasons, I don't know what is.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Cliff and Michael

I believe there was a throat wound but, I also believe I have proven beyond a doubt that this wound could not have been above JFK's shirt collar. Unfortunately, a wound below the shirt collar cannot have been an entrance wound, unless someone was shooting from the floor of the limo.

Rather than going over the same tired arguments, why don't you go to this thread

JFK's "SHALLOW" BACK WOUND REVISITED (FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME)

and, toward the end of the tread, read how I explain it is impossible for the throat wound to have been above the shirt collar.

[Cliff Varnell]

Robert.

You guys ignore the possibilities of significant subcutaneous deflection of this possibly exotic round.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Robert.

You guys ignore the possibilities of significant subcutaneous deflection of this possibly exotic round.

What, precisely, are you getting at with this notion, Cliff?

[Cliff Varnell]

Michael,

I'm a terrible snob when it comes to 2 subjects -- rocknroll and the JFK murder case.

No offense intended.

[Cliff Varnell]

Robert.

You guys ignore the possibilities of significant subcutaneous deflection of this possibly exotic round.

What, precisely, are you getting at with this notion, Cliff?

Bullets don't necessarily take straight line paths in the body.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Robert.

You guys ignore the possibilities of significant subcutaneous deflection of this possibly exotic round.

What, precisely, are you getting at with this notion, Cliff?

Bullets don't necessarily take straight line paths in the body.

This is true, Cliff.

However, not all bullets are created equally. Some bullets are designed intentionally to deviate from a straight path in tissue, and to even begin tumbling in a wound.

Other bullets (the long narrow round nosed 6.5mm Carcano bullet for example) will travel remarkable distances, as much as 50 cm. (19.7 inches) or more, through flesh without deviating or yawing; barring contact with large bones, of course.

http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Fackler_Articles/wounding_patterns_military_rifles.pdf

(see Page 5)

You do realize the subcutaneous layer of the skin is just below the upper layer of the skin, and it is doubtful any bullet would be deflected in that tiny distance? Your argument is almost as pointless as those pushing the SBT, who claimed a 6.5mm Carcano bullet would be tumbling after passing through the small amount of tissue in a human neck.

BTW, HAVE you read the medical argument I made in

JFK's "SHALLOW" BACK WOUND REVISITED (FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME)

for the throat wound being below the top of JFK's shirt collar, or are you one of those researchers who only reads things that agree with your beliefs?

Edited September 17, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

LOL "Significant Subcutaneous Deflection" You just made that up, right, Cliff?

[Cliff Varnell]

Mr. Specter:

Will you describe, as specifically as you can then, the neck wounds which you heretofore

mentioned briefly?

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.

How do you guys know a dart didn't strike the cricoid cartilage -- right below the thyroid cartilage as per Carrico's testimony -- and deflect down ripping the trachea?

[Cliff Varnell]

LOL "Significant Subcutaneous Deflection" You just made that up, right, Cliff?

Well justified.

From the HSCA report on the neck x-ray, emphasis added

<quote on>

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse

processes. There is disruption of the integrity of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the opposite side

and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a fracture in that area. There is some soft tissue

density overlying the apex of the right lung which may be hematoma in that region or other soft tissue swelling.

<quote off>

[Robert Prudhomme]

Mr. Specter:

Will you describe, as specifically as you can then, the neck wounds which you heretofore

mentioned briefly?

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.

How do you guys know a dart didn't strike the cricoid cartilage -- right below the thyroid cartilage as per Carrico's testimony -- and deflect down ripping the trachea?

For the simple fact that Dr. Malcolm Perry did not observe a wounding of the cricoid cartilage; situated just below the thyroid cartilage and just above the beginning of the tracheal rings. The wound observed by Perry was a tear in the right side of the trachea between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings (tracheal cartilages). As observed from JFK's right side, the tear was on a downward angle from the back of the trachea to the front; further nullifying your guess of a projectile first striking the cricoid cartilage.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme