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

[Cliff Varnell]

As for the alleged throat-wound, I think you made your main point, which is that the Zapruder film doesn't really show JFK clutching his throat, but reacting with both fists to his chin, lapel, and so on.

I never said that JFK did anything at all with his lapel. I said that Varnell and his "cough-up-a-bullet" homey claimed that JFK had grabbed his tie with his left forefinger, and that THEY HAD MISTAKEN THE LEFT LAPEL FOR THE TIE—but JFK also DID NOT HOOK HIS LEFT LAPEL WITH HIS FOREFINGER, EITHER.

My what?

That's Gil Jesus' theory.

I cite the video to show the relevant frames.

JFK held his hands in front of his chin/throat as corroborated by Algens 6.

You brought up the lapel -- which has nothing to do with anything.

And this notion that a brace around his waist made him put his hands in front of his chin/throat is an incredible joke.

In short, they were dead wrong on every single point.

It was Varnell who then falsely claimed that I had said anything at all about JFK interacting with his lapel, based either on Varnell's inability to read what I wrote, or on his willful attempt to twist what I said.

Which was nothing of relevance.

Why did you bring it up?

Either way he was dead wrong, and I don't really care. The video shows clearly that JFK's hands never went anywhere near his throat, his tie, OR his lapel.

This is clearly wrong. As corroborated by Altgens 6 his hands were in front of his throat.

That you continue to deny the obvious is amazing!

I'm completely sick of the dishonesty in some people trying to rewrite me. I'm going to say it again to all concerned: IF YOU'RE GOING TO CLAIM THAT I SAID SOMETHING, QUOTE ME, DO NOT REWRITE ME!

Anybody who again tries to twist and misrepresent what I have said will go immediately and permanently into the Kook File. I had some of the people in this thread there once, but changed computers and in doing so tried to wipe the slate clean. With some of them, I won't ever make THAT mistake again. They don't change their spots.

Ashton

[Cliff Varnell]

One more time:

See JFK's left hand?

See JFK's face above the left hand?

Who are you to believe -- Ashton Gray or your own lyin' eyes?

Here's another close proximity witness who saw JFK's back up close after the first shot.

From the WC testimony of Clint Hill.

<quote on, emphasis added>

Mr. Specter: Now, what is your best estimate of the speed of the President's automobile as it turned left off of Houston onto Elm Street?

Mr. Hill: We were running still 12 to 15 miles per hour, but in the curve I believe we slowed down maybe to 10, maybe to 9...Well, as we came out of the curve, and began to straighten up, I was viewing the area which looked to be a park. There were people scattered throughout the entire park. And I heard a noise from my right rear, which to me seemed to be a firecracker. I immediately looked to my right and, in so doing, my eyes had to cross the Presidential limousine and I saw President Kennedy grab at himself and lurch forward and to the left.

<quote off>

[Cliff Varnell]

Ashton Gray and Robert Prudhomme insist on ignoring the possibility JFK was struck below the thyroid cartilage by a non-conventional round which deflected down on the right side of the trachea.

Such is the fruit of witness bashing Pet Theorism.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Ashton Gray and Robert Prudhomme insist on ignoring the possibility JFK was struck below the thyroid cartilage by a non-conventional round which deflected down on the right side of the trachea.

Such is the fruit of witness bashing Pet Theorism.

The area you are referring to, between the thyroid cartilage and the trachea, is occupied by the cricoid cartilage. Perry makes no mention of any damage to the cricoid cartilage, and only says there was a tear in the trachea between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings.

As much as you want to see a projectile enter above JFK's collar, there is no evidence to support this, Cliff. Give up.

[Cliff Varnell]

Ashton Gray and Robert Prudhomme insist on ignoring the possibility JFK was struck below the thyroid cartilage by a non-conventional round which deflected down on the right side of the trachea.

Such is the fruit of witness bashing Pet Theorism.

The area you are referring to, between the thyroid cartilage and the trachea, is occupied by the cricoid cartilage. Perry makes no mention of any damage to the cricoid cartilage, and only says there was a tear in the trachea between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings.

As much as you want to see a projectile enter above JFK's collar, there is no evidence to support this, Cliff. Give up.

Carrico and Henchliffe both stated they saw the throat wound at the same time as the head wound.

Carrico put the wound above the collar.

<quote on>

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.

<quote off>

He didn't locate the wound "below the cricoid cartilage" -- and as you say the cricoid cartilage is "below the thyroid cartilage."

The Dealey witnesses described JFK reacting to throat trauma -- and he brought his hands up in front of his throat in a manner of a defensive reflex.

There is nothing in this to indicate a shot in the back as the first strike, and you dismiss the possibility of significant deflection for no reason other than it is inconvenient.

I'm not going to ask you to give it up, Robert, because I know better than to ask that of any Pet Theorist.

Edited September 20, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Robert Prudhomme]

You're grasping at straws, Cliff, and I'm getting tired of responding to you.

[Cliff Varnell]

You're grasping at straws, Cliff, and I'm getting tired of responding to you.

You haven't responded to anything I've posted other than repeat your conclusions and cite one statement by Perry.

[Sandy Larsen]

Surely a smart guy such as you can figure out how the front of the tail got nicked by a bullet (or projectile) exiting JFK's shirt. It's really not that complicated, if you think about it a bit.

I explained how that could have occurred last winter when we were talking about this. And I've repeated it a few times in various threads. But nobody has commented on it. (Except for Tom Neal, who rejected it out-of-hand because he's an above-the-shirtline man.)

What I said was that the exiting projectile hit the back of the tie knot. The back of the tie knot is actually the side of the tie opposite the seam. (At least that's the case in a four-in-hand knot.)

Later somebody untied the knot for some reason. When the knot was retied, it was done so with the tie shifted just enough in the lengthwise direction that the nick on the back of the knot ended up on the front.

Obviously this is just a hypothesis.

Edited September 20, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Robert Prudhomme]

That is one possible explanation, Sandy.

The other is that the nick was in the "tail" of the tie, not the front or "blade" of the tie.

When a tie is tied, it is the blade that makes the knot around the tail of the tie, The tail runs straight through the knot, and by pulling on it, it is possible to tighten or loosen a tie.

As the bottom of the tie knot is the narrowest, it is necessary for the blade and tail of the tie to be scrunched together as they pass through this narrow opening. In the process, the tail and blade get folded over.

Could one of the folds in the tail not be sticking out as the projectile went by, and get nicked by the projectile?

[Robert Prudhomme]

I have yet to see evidence pinpointing the exact location of the nick on JFK's tie. We do know, though, that the tie was only 5 icons wide at this point.

[Sandy Larsen]

P.S.

Figure out how the projectile made a round exit wound in the throat yet, despite the fact it was likely not following its original straight path, and was likely "tumbling", although tumbling is not a word you would associate normally with this kind of projectile?

I've already given you and everyone else the answer to this one, though I noticed no one has had the savvy to pick up on it yet.

Well I've been assuming that you were going to say that the exiting projectile was one of those tiny balls that were demonstrated in the video you posted. You know, the bullet made up of tiny balls. And that that's one of the differences between my theory and yours. (My theory says that the projectile a bone fragment.)

[Sandy Larsen]

And, as I said earlier, this "projectile" would not leave traces of metal on the tie or shirt. It would, however, leave particles of metal in the vicinity of cervical vertebrae C3/C4, just as x-ray tech Jerrol Custer told the HSCA he recalled seeing in the x-rays he saw of JFK's neck.

The projectile was the plastic plug used to keep the content of the jacket in place? (This thought occurred to me when I watched the video and saw where the plastic plug ended up.) Or, the primary ball contained in the jacket was plastic?

[Sandy Larsen]

Ashton Gray and Robert Prudhomme insist on ignoring the possibility JFK was struck below the thyroid cartilage by a non-conventional round which deflected down on the right side of the trachea.

The reason for that, Cliff, is because the physical evidence shows that the wound in the throat was behind the knot of the necktie. Yet there was no corresponding hole in the necktie's knot So the wound had to be either an exit wound or was made after the tie was removed.

[Sandy Larsen]

Carrico put the wound above the collar.

That's not true. Carrico placed the wound behind the tie in his testimony. It was Dulles who changed his testimony to above-the-collar.

[Cliff Varnell]

Ashton Gray and Robert Prudhomme insist on ignoring the possibility JFK was struck below the thyroid cartilage by a non-conventional round which deflected down on the right side of the trachea.

The reason for that, Cliff, is because the physical evidence shows that the wound in the throat was behind the knot of the necktie.

What physical evidence?

The only extant physical evidence is the clothing and the photos/film.

The photographic evidence shows JFK reacting to what the eye witnesses described -- a shot in the throat from the front.

You guys can dismiss the possibility of significant deflection of the throat shot -- but it's only for the sake of convenience to your Pet Theory.

Yet there was no corresponding hole in the necktie's knot So the wound had to be either an exit wound or was made after the tie was removed.