Cliff Varnell Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 (edited) 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. Factually incorrect. The tie was used as a landmark on a horizontal plane, the shirt-line a landmark on the vertical plane. Carrico's WC testimony: <quote on> 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. 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. Mr. Dulles: Yes; to the right. Dr. CARRICO: Yes. And this wound was fairly round, had no jagged edges, no evidence of powder burns, and so forth. <quote off> Edited September 20, 2016 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 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? You are correct, Robert. The narrow end of the tie -- the "tail" -- coming out the bottom of the knot can indeed be turned around. I have kept a mockup of Kennedy's tie around for the last 9 months and when I looked at it just now, I found the tail to be rotated by 180 degrees. Note, however, that a guy wearing a tie will generally try to make the tail come out the correct way. Well, a neat guy will. Even so, I can still envision one coming out sideways and then held straight further down with a tie clip or by pulling the tail through the keeper loop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 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? You are correct, Robert. The narrow end of the tie -- the "tail" -- coming out the bottom of the knot can indeed be turned around. I have kept a mockup of Kennedy's tie around for the last 9 months and when I looked at it just now, I found the tail to be rotated by 180 degrees. Note, however, that a guy wearing a tie will generally try to make the tail come out the correct way. Well, a neat guy will. Even so, I can still envision one coming out sideways and then held straight further down with a tie clip or by pulling the tail through the keeper loop. The tail could be facing forward, but with the sides folded in where it enters the base of the knot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 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. Both Robert and I have told you where to go to see where we each pretty much prove -- independent of one another -- that the throat wound is below the shirtline. Using the physical evidence (photos, and some statistics dug up by James Gordon, and also Robert). Ashton has done the same using an animated GIF. (I believe Robert rejects Ashton's GIF, but I think it's valid.) But you simply ignore it. You're the one with the Pet Theory. (Though I know you will say it is Humes's.) Certainly not I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 (edited) 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. Factually incorrect. The tie was used as a landmark on a horizontal plane, the shirt-line a landmark on the vertical plane. Carrico's WC testimony: <quote on> 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. 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. Mr. Dulles: Yes; to the right. Dr. CARRICO: Yes. And this wound was fairly round, had no jagged edges, no evidence of powder burns, and so forth. <quote off> Dulles cut off Carrico when he (Carrico) attempted correct him by saying for the second time just about where your tie would be. And the physical evidence corroborates this. Edited September 20, 2016 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 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? You are correct, Robert. The narrow end of the tie -- the "tail" -- coming out the bottom of the knot can indeed be turned around. I have kept a mockup of Kennedy's tie around for the last 9 months and when I looked at it just now, I found the tail to be rotated by 180 degrees. Note, however, that a guy wearing a tie will generally try to make the tail come out the correct way. Well, a neat guy will. Even so, I can still envision one coming out sideways and then held straight further down with a tie clip or by pulling the tail through the keeper loop. The tail could be facing forward, but with the sides folded in where it enters the base of the knot. That is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 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. Factually incorrect. The tie was used as a landmark on a horizontal plane, the shirt-line a landmark on the vertical plane. Carrico's WC testimony: <quote on> 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. 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. Mr. Dulles: Yes; to the right. Dr. CARRICO: Yes. And this wound was fairly round, had no jagged edges, no evidence of powder burns, and so forth. <quote off> Dulles cut off Carrico when he (Carrico) attempted correct him by saying for the second time just about where your tie would be. And the physical evidence corroborates this. just about where your tie would be. "Just about where your tie would be" isn't the same as "exactly where your tie would be." Mr. Dulles: I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is? Dr. CARRICO: Yes, sir; just where the tie-- According to Dulles Carrico pointed to a location above the shirt collar and Carrico agreed -- "Yes sir." Carrico had the opportunity to place his hand on his tie but obviously put his hand right above the tie. What part of "just about" and "Yes sir" is elusive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 (edited) 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. Both Robert and I have told you where to go to see where we each pretty much prove -- independent of one another -- that the throat wound is below the shirtline. Using the physical evidence (photos, and some statistics dug up by James Gordon, and also Robert). Ashton has done the same using an animated GIF. (I believe Robert rejects Ashton's GIF, but I think it's valid.) But you simply ignore it. You're the one with the Pet Theory. (Though I know you will say it is Humes's.) Certainly not I. Humes? Humes wasn't in Dealey Plaza and Humes wasn't at Parkland. The witnesses in Dealey described JFK reacting to a throat shot and you can't come up with a cogent explanation for JFK reflexively placing his hands in front of his throat. The observations of Linda Willis, Nellie Connally, Clint Hill and Glenn Bennett put the lie to your claims. Edited September 21, 2016 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 (edited) 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> Secret Service Special Agents Clint Hill and Glenn Bennett both stated they heard a sound like a firecracker and then they looked at "the Boss." Hill said he saw JFK "grab at himself." Bennett said he saw JFK hit in the back right before a head shot. The Pet Theorists on this thread insist on a first-strike back shot -- so how did Clint Hill not see something as obvious as a bullet hole in JFK's back when he was looking right at it? Is it a Pet Theory that JFK was holding his hands in front of his throat? No, it's an observable fact right there in Altgens 6. Edited September 21, 2016 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 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. Factually incorrect. The tie was used as a landmark on a horizontal plane, the shirt-line a landmark on the vertical plane. Carrico's WC testimony: <quote on> 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. 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. Mr. Dulles: Yes; to the right. Dr. CARRICO: Yes. And this wound was fairly round, had no jagged edges, no evidence of powder burns, and so forth. <quote off> Dulles cut off Carrico when he (Carrico) attempted correct him by saying for the second time just about where your tie would be. And the physical evidence corroborates this. just about where your tie would be. "Just about where your tie would be" isn't the same as "exactly where your tie would be." Nor is it the same as "above the collar." Mr. Dulles: I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is? Dr. CARRICO: Yes, sir; just where the tie-- According to Dulles Carrico pointed to a location above the shirt collar and Carrico agreed -- "Yes sir." After which Carrico attempted to correct Dulles's assessment of where he was pointing... but was cut off by Dulles. Carrico had the opportunity to place his hand on his tie.... Carrico's initial statement indicates that he did just that. It certainly doesn't indicate he put his hand above the top of his collar. ....but obviously put his hand right above the tie. No. The obvious thing is that that is merely what Dulles said. Not Carrico. What part of "just about" and "Yes sir" is elusive? Dulles was clearly leading the witness. And now he is leading you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 Both Robert and I have told you where to go to see where we each pretty much prove -- independent of one another -- that the throat wound is below the shirtline. Using the physical evidence (photos, and some statistics dug up by James Gordon, and also Robert). Ashton has done the same using an animated GIF. (I believe Robert rejects Ashton's GIF, but I think it's valid.) But you simply ignore it. And you're still ignoring it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 You're the one with the Pet Theory. (Though I know you will say it is Humes's.) Certainly not I. Humes? Humes wasn't in Dealey Plaza and Humes wasn't at Parkland. Cliff, Every time someone says that the poison dart is your Pet Theory, you respond by saying it is not your theory... it was Humes's. Why the sudden change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 Both Robert and I have told you where to go to see where we each pretty much prove -- independent of one another -- that the throat wound is below the shirtline. Using the physical evidence (photos, and some statistics dug up by James Gordon, and also Robert). Ashton has done the same using an animated GIF. (I believe Robert rejects Ashton's GIF, but I think it's valid.) But you simply ignore it. The witnesses in Dealey described JFK reacting to a throat shot and you can't come up with a cogent explanation for JFK reflexively placing his hands in front of his throat. Who says I can't? At the very least, JFK was reacting to a collapsed lung. In addition, there may have been bullet fragments racing down through his neck muscles, and a projectile out his throat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 (edited) Carrico: just about where your tie would be. CV: "Just about where your tie would be" isn't the same as "exactly where your tie would be." SL: Nor is it the same as "above the collar." CV: And the cricoid cartilage is not the same as the thyroid cartilage. Carrico said the wound was below the thyroid cartilage. Why didn't he say the wound was below the cricoid cartilage, instead? Did he forget his anatomy? Mr. Dulles: I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is? Dr. CARRICO: Yes, sir; just where the tie-- CV: According to Dulles Carrico pointed to a location above the shirt collar and Carrico agreed -- "Yes sir." SL: After which Carrico attempted to correct Dulles's assessment of where he was pointing... but was cut off by Dulles. CV: That is your convenient interpretation. So Dulles was hallucinating when he asked -- "and you put your hand right above where your tie is?" Was Carrico hallucinating when he said -- "Yes, sir." Only among Pet Theorists does "Yes, sir" actually mean "no." CV: Carrico had the opportunity to place his hand on his tie.... SL: Carrico's initial statement indicates that he did just that. It certainly doesn't indicate he put his hand above the top of his collar. CV: Dulles described Carrico's hand location and asked for an affirmative, which Carrico gave. How you can pretend otherwise is amazing. CV:....but obviously put his hand right above the tie. SL: No. The obvious thing is that that is merely what Dulles said. Not Carrico. CV: What part of "you put your hand right above where your tie is" escapes you? Unless you want to say Dulles was imagining things Carrico agreed to. CV: What part of "just about" and "Yes sir" is elusive? SL: Dulles was clearly leading the witness. And now he is leading you. CV: He was leading the witness to describe the wound as an entrance! Edited September 21, 2016 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 (edited) You're the one with the Pet Theory. (Though I know you will say it is Humes's.) Certainly not I. Humes? Humes wasn't in Dealey Plaza and Humes wasn't at Parkland. Cliff, Every time someone says that the poison dart is your Pet Theory, you respond by saying it is not your theory... it was Humes's. No, that's not what I say. All 3 of the doctors' speculated JFK was hit with a round which wouldn't show up in the autopsy. The FBI men took this scenario seriously. What does that have to do with me? Why the sudden change? What are you talking about? Edited September 21, 2016 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now