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

[Ramon F. Herrera]

God, this forum has gone downhill lately.

On a related news, another forum decided to make a drastic change, an upgrade if you will, partially inspired by Yours Truly:

http://jfkfacts.org/jfk-facts-2-0-look-ahead/

Its owner called me at home to elicit recommendations and discuss strategy. Told me:

"Of all the suggestions that I received, yours were the best".

I seem to recall the phrase:

"We should join forces, Ramon"

We had some fun with the fact that I was inspired by the name of his site, and created a little subsidiary site named "jfknumbers.org".

-Ramon "I Have A Dream" Herrera

Edited September 25, 2016 by Ramon F. Herrera

[Sandy Larsen]

....The projectile came from the back of the neck,

Sandy, seriously?

There was no entrance in the back of the neck.

Yes, I am serious. There may well have been an entrance to the back of the neck --in a sense -- as I will show here.

A bullet entered the scalp 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP at a tangential angle. It tunneled downward under the scalp. There is little evidence of entry into the skull because the underlying bone was missing (!!) or half missing. (The testimony is conflicting. But there is a good deal of testimony saying that there was no corresponding hole in the skull found at all. Even as pieces of skull were put back into place.)

The tangential nature of the wound was recorded on the autopsy notes, but later crossed off:

....situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5cm to the right & slightly above the eop is a ['puncture' -- crossed out] (lacerated) wound ['tangential to the surface of the scalp' -- crossed out] measuring 15X6 mm....

Discussion of the tunneling by the HSCA was apparently a sensitive issue that belonged OFF the record:

Dr. BOSWELL. .. [speaking of the entry ] .... because this bone was all gone and actually the smaller fragment fit this piece down here-there was a hole here, only half of which was present in the bone that was intact. and this small piece then fit right on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface. ..

....

Dr. DAVIS. Because in no. 42 I interpreted that as a wound, and the other lower down in the neck, as just being a contaminant, a piece of brain tissue.

Dr. HUMES. No, that was a wound, and the wound on the skull precisely coincided with it.

Dr. DAVIS. Now it was a tunnel-

Dr. HUMES. Yeah, tunnel for a way.

Dr. BOSWELL. Yeah, it’s longer than it is wide, and tunneled along and actually under here, and then at the actual bone defect was above the - " [Humes cuts him off]...

....

Dr. PETTY. May I make a comment on what you just said, Dr. Davis. The problem, as I see it, is that this may be in fact a tunneling situation, with the bullet scooting along the skull here or somewhere, and not entering the skull down below. Is that what you’re saying now?

Dr. DAVIS. What I’m saying-what I’m inferring : in the absence of photographs and specific measurements, we could only conjecture as to how long the tunneling is, but I would envision this as a tunneling first and then entry into the skull.

Dr. LOQUVAM. Gentlemen, may I say something?

Dr. DAVIS. Yes.

Dr. LOQUVAM. I don’t think this discussion belongs in this record.

Dr. PETTY. All right.

Dr. HUMES. I agree....

BTW, there is more discussion of the tunneling than what I have copied here.

I believe that the autopsists initially theorized that the bullet tunneled down into the neck and exited the throat. But backed off that when they decided they needed the throat wound as an exit for the back wound.

Begin theory:

The bullet continues tunneling downward till it enters the neck. It fragments some, thus explaining the fragments seen in the neck x-ray seen by one of the techs. (Sorry, I forget which one. Robert knows.)

A larger fragment continues down and hits one of the cervical vertebrae. A couple shards of bone break away at high velocity, one of which is sent out the the front of the neck. Along the way it goes through and damages the trachea. A smaller shard shoots up and stops to the right of the larynx, causing contusion and hematoma there.

Meanwhile a bullet fragment (perhaps the same one) continues down and fractures the transverse process of T1. The fragment ends up bruising the apex of the right lung. In addition it very well may have penetrated the pleural lining, thus resulting in pneumothorax (collapse) of the right lung.

The bone shard that exited the throat does so behind the necktie knot. It pierces the shirt, hits the back of the tie thus forming a nick, and expends it's remaining kinetic energy pushing the knot away from the neck.

Someone at the FBI undoes the knot, for whatever reason. The knot is then re-tied, but with the tie slightly shifted along its length. This results in the nick appearing on the front of the knot instead of the back.

Edited September 25, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Cliff Varnell]

Carrico said hematoma and contusion to the RIGHT of the larynx, NOT a hematoma and contusion on the larynx itself.

For those who don't know, a hematoma is a collection of blood outside of a blood vessel while a contusion is bruising of tissue.

It would be perfectly normal for a bullet passing beneath the level of the larynx to cause localized bleeding and bruising beside the larynx. However, Cliff, the main injury was still the tear the projectile made passing through the right side of the trachea, between the SECOND and THIRD tracheal rings.

Bruising beside the larynx but "rugged (sic should read ragged) tissue below indicating tracheal injury".

Bruising to the tissue adjacent to the larynx but the main injury was below in the trachea.

Do you see now what Carrico was saying, Cliff, or do we get to listen to your madness for a few more pages now?

How does Carrico's description preclude the round striking the larnyx?

You insist on putting words in his mouth.

The x-rays showed damage to the right T1 transverse process so obviously the round deflected downward.

I know we're going to keep putting up with your contentless dismissals.

By all means ignore the x-ray.

Edited September 25, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Yes, I am serious. There may well have been an entrance to the back of the neck --in a sense -- as I will show here.

The first shot hit him in the head?

[Sandy Larsen]

In summary, I applaud what you are doing. Simulations can be very useful. But they are not the be-all end-all in solving the JFK assassination. And in fact they can prove harmful if the wrong conclusion is made.

Thanks, Sandy, but I am afraid that I have to ask you to hold your applauses because I am not worthy of a fraction of them.

You see, of all those things that you mentioned I am doing NONE. There is no "Ramon's simulations" for starters. It is all a Wish List, "I Have a Dream" sort of stuff.

Just to avoid confusion, I placed the following caveat in my post above:

"Assume for a second that I am spokesperson for Science, if there is such a thing"

When I show the 2 ANIMATIONS (not simulations!) I must hurry to add the following ...

"These are the 2 scenarios that I would love QUALIFIED INSTITUTIONS AND RESEARCHERS TO STUDY"

... I am explicitly excluding myself.

Incidentally and moving to your other, very important point, here's my stock reply:

The one, the only, the definite solution to the crime, from a scientific point of view (*) goes through the following path:

https://goo.gl/XOJpSA

Every product you use, every car/airplane you enter is designed using those techniques -not to mention the Mars rovers. If those simulations wouldn't work, airplanes would not take off, your iPhone would overheat in under a minute, etc., etc., etc.

This is how they do it:

Step 1: Perform a Simulation

Step 2: If the simulation does not work, they make a better model (perhaps using real-life data)

Step 3: Go to Step 1 (maybe years, or decades later)

-Ramon

(*) In my humble evangelism (rooting and cheerleading for my God, which is Science) I assume that we cannot:

• Break into the National Archives or CIA, undetected in the middle of the night.

• Hire the folks who liberated El Chapo, to dig a tunnel under certain grave in Arlington National Cemetery (Lot 45, Section 30), stealing its corpse and running with it to our trusted medical school (Boston University is definitely out from consideration - they know why).

• Get an Ouija board and summon, let's say, David A. Phillips or some cohort.

• Kidnap a big shot (president?), take them to a dark basement with a bright light in their face, twist their arm, rough them up a little, record their confession and somehow broadcast it to the world.

IOW: Only the material publicly available is available to us (and by us, I mean the universities).

Ramon,

Yes, I know that you aren't doing the simulations yourself. I was applauding you for promoting the use of computer simulations.

And I do know that simulations are used in the development of most products these days. I'm an engineer and have been using my favorite simulation program since 1998.

But what I said is true. Garbage in, garbage out. And simulators can and do make mistakes. And be misused.

I have always been amazed how closely my simulator predicted how my design would behave. And it's always been helpful. But it never did give a 100% accurate prediction.

Still, would I buy it again? Absolutely. Would I recommend it? Absolutely. Would I bet the farm on its prediction? Nope.

[Sandy Larsen]

Yes, I am serious. There may well have been an entrance to the back of the neck --in a sense -- as I will show here.

The first shot hit him in the head?

The first or second shot. Right around the Stemmons sign.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

I have always been amazed how closely my simulator predicted how my design would behave. And it's always been helpful. But it never did give a 100% accurate prediction.

Still, would I buy it again? Absolutely. Would I recommend it? Absolutely. Would I bet the farm on its prediction? Nope.

I am pleasantly surprised to learn that you are a daily user of computer simulations, Sandy. Would we be too nosy if we ask the nature of the stuff that you subject to simulations? Is it something physical? You are an engineer, but which flavor?

I say the following with the utmost respect, Sandy. After considering what you wrote, I hope that now you all realize why I insist on this requirement:

Only the top universities need to apply (*).

-Ramon

(*)) Which leaves Dartmouth College and Boston University OUT. I am making the assumption that the more prestigious, the harder to be sell outs. In the limit (for those who took calculus), the top universities are not for sale, at any price. I am betting the farm, heck, my right arm on MIT.

[Sandy Larsen]

I have always been amazed how closely my simulator predicted how my design would behave. And it's always been helpful. But it never did give a 100% accurate prediction.

Still, would I buy it again? Absolutely. Would I recommend it? Absolutely. Would I bet the farm on its prediction? Nope.

I am pleasantly surprised to learn that you are a daily user of computer simulations, Sandy. Would we be too nosy if we ask the nature of the stuff that you subject to simulations? Is it something physical? You are an engineer, but which flavor?

I say the following with the utmost respect, Sandy. After considering what you wrote, I hope that now you all realize why I insist on this requirement:

Only the top universities need to apply (*).

-Ramon

(*)) Which leaves Dartmouth College and Boston University OUT. I am making the assumption that the more prestigious, the harder to be sell outs. In the limit (for those who took calculus), the top universities are not for sale, at any price. I am betting the farm, heck, my right arm on MIT.

Ramon,

I am an electrical engineer and the simulation program I use in analog circuit design is called Multisim. It uses the Berkeley SPICE simulation engine. SPICE stands for Simulation Program with Integrated Circuit Emphasis.

[Michael Walton]

Your description of the shooting is in many ways very accurate, and I agree with you that JFK seems to be responding to one shot when another shot appears to hit him in the back.

Great, then we agree on something. And because it's plain as day that that's what we're seeing in the Z film, then we're on the right track.

The part I have a problem with is the frontal throat shot. I believe Sandy and I have conclusively proven the throat wound...

Then what do you believe in, Bob, if you're saying that what you see in the Z film is "very accurate," why contradict it and now say you have a problem with it?

conclusively proven the throat wound...

Really, Bob. Conslusively? Wow, a pretty strong statement there.

You have no idea what did or did not exist 53 years ago.

Uh, isn't that like calling the kettle black, Bob?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Carrico said hematoma and contusion to the RIGHT of the larynx, NOT a hematoma and contusion on the larynx itself.

For those who don't know, a hematoma is a collection of blood outside of a blood vessel while a contusion is bruising of tissue.

It would be perfectly normal for a bullet passing beneath the level of the larynx to cause localized bleeding and bruising beside the larynx. However, Cliff, the main injury was still the tear the projectile made passing through the right side of the trachea, between the SECOND and THIRD tracheal rings.

Bruising beside the larynx but "rugged (sic should read ragged) tissue below indicating tracheal injury".

Bruising to the tissue adjacent to the larynx but the main injury was below in the trachea.

Do you see now what Carrico was saying, Cliff, or do we get to listen to your madness for a few more pages now?

How does Carrico's description preclude the round striking the larnyx?

You insist on putting words in his mouth.

The x-rays showed damage to the right T1 transverse process so obviously the round deflected downward.

I know we're going to keep putting up with your contentless dismissals.

By all means ignore the x-ray.

Cliff Varnell continues to display his complete ignorance of anything connected to medical evidence, and his complete inability to interpret medical evidence. This is not surprising, as he wants so desperately to believe in JFK being shot in the throat with a rocket propelled dart, he is willing to fabricate evidence and see things that are not there to do so.

Carrico says there was a hematoma (collection of blood) and contusion (bruising) to the RIGHT of the thyroid cartilage, in which the larynx is contained. That's ALL he says about the thyroid cartilage, and wishful thinking on your part will not change that.

Carrico does NOT say there was any evidence whatsoever the larynx was struck with a projectile.

"Dr. CARRICO - At that time the endotracheal tube was inserted, using a curved laryngoscopic blade, inserting an endotracheal tube, it was seen there were some contusions, hematoma to the right of the larynx, with a minimal deviation of the larynx to the left, and rugged tissue below indicating tracheal injury."

Anyone that has ever skinned out a deer and butchered that deer for meat will understand exactly what is going on here. When a bullet, or any other projectile, passes through meaty tissue containing a great number of blood vessels, such as the neck, the shock wave of it passing through has a tendency to rupture many small, and sometimes, some large, blood vessels, leaving very obvious bruising of tissue around the path of the bullet, and collections of blood in that tissue.

That is ALL that Carrico is seeing, and he most definitely states the ragged tissue is BELOW the thyroid cartilage (larynx) and is a tracheal injury.

Some medical authorities, as shown above, include the cricoid cartilage as part of the larynx. With this in mind, can you see how a projectile passing through the right side of the trachea, at a level between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal cartilages (tracheal rings) could cause bruising of the tissue adjacent to the larynx, and a collection of blood in that tissue?

However, Carrico's observation of bruising in the tissue adjacent to the larynx completely destroys the theme of this thread, that being Ashton Gray's claim there was no bullet wound in JFK's throat. The evidence of bruising to surrounding tissue is clear evidence of the traumatic passage of a projectile travelling at a fairly good velocity.

P.S.

Carrico's observation of the larynx being deviated to the left is an indication of a developing tension pneumothorax in JFK's right pleural cavity. While Carrico observed only "minimal" deviation, once he had intubated JFK and connected him to the positive pressure breathing of a respirator, the tension pneumothorax rapidly developed. By the time Perry performed the tracheotomy, the trachea had deviated so far to JFK's left, it was necessary for Perry to sever JFK's left strap muscle, in order to gain access to the trachea.

Edited September 25, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

Your description of the shooting is in many ways very accurate, and I agree with you that JFK seems to be responding to one shot when another shot appears to hit him in the back.

Great, then we agree on something. And because it's plain as day that that's what we're seeing in the Z film, then we're on the right track.

The part I have a problem with is the frontal throat shot. I believe Sandy and I have conclusively proven the throat wound...

Then what do you believe in, Bob, if you're saying that what you see in the Z film is "very accurate," why contradict it and now say you have a problem with it?

conclusively proven the throat wound...

Really, Bob. Conslusively? Wow, a pretty strong statement there.

You have no idea what did or did not exist 53 years ago.

Uh, isn't that like calling the kettle black, Bob?

Michael

You have nothing whatsoever to offer in the way of medical evidence. Therefore, all you can do is to play games with my words.

I am agreeing that JFK may have had a throat injury from a bullet as he emerged from behind the Stemmons sign in the Zapruder film, and that he appears to be shot again, possibly in the upper back, within a few frames of emerging.

However, I am NOT saying I believe the throat wound was caused by a shot from the front of the limo. If you will take the time to read our work, you will see that Sandy Larsen and I were able to demonstrate that the throat wound projectile passed through the upper part of JFK's trachea, between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal cartilages (tracheal rings), placing the throat wound WAY below the top of JFK's shirt collar.

With every possible location for a shooter, in front of the limo, being either level with JFK or above JFK, how did the bullet enter JFK's throat without passing through his tie knot?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Sandy Larsen posted:

"

Yes, I am serious. There may well have been an entrance to the back of the neck --in a sense -- as I will show here.

A bullet entered the scalp 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP at a tangential angle. It tunneled downward under the scalp. There is little evidence of entry into the skull because the underlying bone was missing (!!) or half missing. (The testimony is conflicting. But there is a good deal of testimony saying that there was no corresponding hole in the skull found at all. Even as pieces of skull were put back into place.)

The tangential nature of the wound was recorded on the autopsy notes, but later crossed off:

Quote

....situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5cm to the right & slightly above the eop is a ['puncture' -- crossed out] (lacerated) wound ['tangential to the surface of the scalp' -- crossed out] measuring 15X6 mm....

Discussion of the tunneling by the HSCA was apparently a sensitive issue that belonged OFF the record:

Quote

Dr. BOSWELL. .. [speaking of the entry ] .... because this bone was all gone and actually the smaller fragment fit this piece down here-there was a hole here, only half of which was present in the bone that was intact. and this small piece then fit right on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface. ..

....
Dr. DAVIS. Because in no. 42 I interpreted that as a wound, and the other lower down in the neck, as just being a contaminant, a piece of brain tissue.
Dr. HUMES. No, that was a wound, and the wound on the skull precisely coincided with it.
Dr. DAVIS. Now it was a tunnel-
Dr. HUMES. Yeah, tunnel for a way.
Dr. BOSWELL. Yeah, it’s longer than it is wide, and tunneled along and actually under here, and then at the actual bone defect was above the - " [Humes cuts him off]...

....
Dr. PETTY. May I make a comment on what you just said, Dr. Davis. The problem, as I see it, is that this may be in fact a tunneling situation, with the bullet scooting along the skull here or somewhere, and not entering the skull down below. Is that what you’re saying now?
Dr. DAVIS. What I’m saying-what I’m inferring : in the absence of photographs and specific measurements, we could only conjecture as to how long the tunneling is, but I would envision this as a tunneling first and then entry into the skull.
Dr. LOQUVAM. Gentlemen, may I say something?
Dr. DAVIS. Yes.
Dr. LOQUVAM. I don’t think this discussion belongs in this record.
Dr. PETTY. All right.
Dr. HUMES. I agree...."

Well, I would say that ties everything together, Sandy. A tangential wound that tunneled beneath the scalp, if it entered at the base of the skull travelling on a downward angle, is NOT about to make a turn upward, and enter the skull, as Dr. Davis attempted to interject, with the base of the skull curving away from the path of the bullet.

Small wonder this discussion had to go off the record! The coverup continues.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Your description of the shooting is in many ways very accurate, and I agree with you that JFK seems to be responding to one shot when another shot appears to hit him in the back.

Great, then we agree on something. And because it's plain as day that that's what we're seeing in the Z film, then we're on the right track.

The part I have a problem with is the frontal throat shot. I believe Sandy and I have conclusively proven the throat wound...

Then what do you believe in, Bob, if you're saying that what you see in the Z film is "very accurate," why contradict it and now say you have a problem with it?

conclusively proven the throat wound...

Really, Bob. Conslusively? Wow, a pretty strong statement there.

You have no idea what did or did not exist 53 years ago.

Uh, isn't that like calling the kettle black, Bob?

Michael

You have nothing whatsoever to offer in the way of medical evidence. Therefore, all you can do is to play games with my words.

I am agreeing that JFK may have had a throat injury from a bullet as he emerged from behind the Stemmons sign in the Zapruder film, and that he appears to be shot again, possibly in the upper back, within a few frames of emerging.

However, I am NOT saying I believe the throat wound was caused by a shot from the front of the limo. If you will take the time to read our work, you will see that Sandy Larsen and I were able to demonstrate that the throat wound projectile passed through the upper part of JFK's trachea, between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal cartilages (tracheal rings), placing the throat wound WAY below the top of JFK's shirt collar.

With every possible location for a shooter, in front of the limo, being either level with JFK or above JFK, how did the bullet enter JFK's throat without passing through his tie knot?

Michael

Perhaps I was a bit hasty in writing this post. It occurred to me you might really not understand what I am saying.

Based on the recollections of Lt. Richard Lipsey, who was present at the autopsy and was able to hear the autopsy doctors in discussion, it is very possible a type of bullet hit JFK high up on the back of the neck, just below the base of the skull; impacting the cervical vertebrae at the C3/C4 level and sending either a fragment or a piece of bone out through JFK's throat.

Theoretically, this would be followed immediately by a bullet impacting JFK's upper back, at about the level of the T3 thoracic vertebra, and entering the upper section of his right lung.

[Cliff Varnell]

Carrico said hematoma and contusion to the RIGHT of the larynx, NOT a hematoma and contusion on the larynx itself.

For those who don't know, a hematoma is a collection of blood outside of a blood vessel while a contusion is bruising of tissue.

It would be perfectly normal for a bullet passing beneath the level of the larynx to cause localized bleeding and bruising beside the larynx. However, Cliff, the main injury was still the tear the projectile made passing through the right side of the trachea, between the SECOND and THIRD tracheal rings.

Bruising beside the larynx but "rugged (sic should read ragged) tissue below indicating tracheal injury".

Bruising to the tissue adjacent to the larynx but the main injury was below in the trachea.

Do you see now what Carrico was saying, Cliff, or do we get to listen to your madness for a few more pages now?

How does Carrico's description preclude the round striking the larnyx?

You insist on putting words in his mouth.

The x-rays showed damage to the right T1 transverse process so obviously the round deflected downward.

I know we're going to keep putting up with your contentless dismissals.

By all means ignore the x-ray.

Cliff Varnell continues to display his complete ignorance of anything connected to medical evidence, and his complete inability to interpret medical evidence.

Do tell, Doctor Prudhomme?

This is not surprising, as he wants so desperately to believe in JFK being shot in the throat with a rocket propelled dart, he is willing to fabricate evidence and see things that are not there to do so.

Fabricating evidence?

Are you accusing me of fabricating the witness testimony of Linda Willis, Nellie Connally, Clint Hill, Glenn Bennett, James Curtis Jenkins, Francis O'Neill, James Sibert and all the Parkland personnel who described a wound of entrance in the throat?

Did I fabricate the neck x-ray, or did I fabricate the HSCA analysis of the x-ray?

Did I fabricate the Zapruder film, which shows JFK reacting to the first shot by reflexively bringing is hands in front of his throat?

Did I fabricate this testimony from Dr. Charles Carrico?

<quote on>

Dr. CARRICO - At that time the endotracheal tube was inserted, using a curved laryngoscopic blade, inserting an endotracheal tube, it was seen there were some contusions, hematoma to the right of the larynx, with a minimal deviation of the larynx to the left, and rugged tissue below indicating tracheal injury.

<quote off>

Carrico says there was a hematoma (collection of blood) and contusion (bruising) to the RIGHT of the thyroid cartilage, in which the larynx is contained.

You are misquoting Dr. Carrico, Doctor Prudhomme.

"there were some contusions, hematoma to the right of the larynx, with a minimal deviation of the larynx to the left"

The hematoma was to the right of the larnyx, not the contusions.

That's ALL he says about the thyroid cartilage, and wishful thinking on your part will not change that.

No, he also said that there was a minimal deviation of the larnyx to the left, consistent with a round which struck the larnyx on the right and deflected down.

Carrico does NOT say there was any evidence whatsoever the larynx was struck with a projectile.

He described damage to the larnyx.

How you can deny that is amazing!

"Dr. CARRICO - At that time the endotracheal tube was inserted, using a curved laryngoscopic blade, inserting an endotracheal tube, it was seen there were some contusions, hematoma to the right of the larynx, with a minimal deviation of the larynx to the left, and rugged tissue below indicating tracheal injury."

Anyone that has ever skinned out a deer and butchered that deer for meat will understand exactly what is going on here. When a bullet, or any other projectile, passes through meaty tissue containing a great number of blood vessels, such as the neck, the shock wave of it passing through has a tendency to rupture many small, and sometimes, some large, blood vessels, leaving very obvious bruising of tissue around the path of the bullet, and collections of blood in that tissue.

But according to Doctor Prudhomme "the path of the bullet" was well below the thyroid.

You keep insisting that the wound in the trachea was too low for the round to have entered at the larnyx -- now you've put the larnyx immediately adjacent to path of the bullet!

Make up your mind, Bob.

How could the "exit" wound be so small if the bullet left so much damage above and below it's path?

That is ALL that Carrico is seeing,

Look who's fabricating testimony!

and he most definitely states the ragged tissue is BELOW the thyroid cartilage (larynx) and is a tracheal injury.

Yes indeed! You have characterized the location of the tracheal wound as "well below" the larnyx, but now it's not so "well below," is it?

Some medical authorities, as shown above, include the cricoid cartilage as part of the larynx. With this in mind, can you see how a projectile passing through the right side of the trachea, at a level between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal cartilages (tracheal rings) could cause bruising of the tissue adjacent to the larynx, and a collection of blood in that tissue?

"Could cause bruising"?

"Could"?

What happened to your iron-clad certainties, Bob?

Bruises on the larnyx, broken blood vessels next to the larnyx, and a deviation of the larnyx are consistent with a strike in the larnyx.

However, Carrico's observation of bruising in the tissue adjacent to the larynx completely destroys the theme of this thread, that being Ashton Gray's claim there was no bullet wound in JFK's throat. The evidence of bruising to surrounding tissue is clear evidence of the traumatic passage of a projectile travelling at a fairly good velocity.

P.S.

Carrico's observation of the larynx being deviated to the left is an indication of a developing tension pneumothorax in JFK's right pleural cavity.

There you go again!

Making up evidence as you go along...

While Carrico observed only "minimal" deviation, once he had intubated JFK and connected him to the positive pressure breathing of a respirator, the tension pneumothorax rapidly developed. By the time Perry performed the tracheotomy, the trachea had deviated so far to JFK's left, it was necessary for Perry to sever JFK's left strap muscle, in order to gain access to the trachea.

I invited you to ignore the x-ray, and you did.

The rounded ended up down at the T1 transverse process, consistent with a significant deflection of the round.

Again, the evidence the Pet Theorists must ignore:

<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>

Consistent with significant deflection of the round.

Edited September 25, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Yes, I am serious. There may well have been an entrance to the back of the neck --in a sense -- as I will show here.

The first shot hit him in the head?

The first or second shot. Right around the Stemmons sign.

So he reacted to getting shot in the head by bringing his hands in front of his throat?

And yet no one saw this incredible event -- not even Clint Hill who was looking right at him!

Edited September 25, 2016 by Cliff Varnell