James R Gordon Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 Robert, On post 149 - I believe - I quoted the fact that to Weisberg Carrico said these slits were created by a scalpel which he witnessed happening. The fact that no-one else said that means nothing because no-one asked any witnessed what caused the slits and was it a scalpel. In addition, at the point this happened only Carrico and the nurses were in the Trauma room 1. It was shortly after that everyone else entered. At that point his shirt had been removed. Carrico was the only doctor who witnessed this. One member pointed out that no-one else confirmed this. Of course not: no-one else was in the room when it happened. Another element of the problem is defined by Carico who when asked Alan Dulles about the throat wound physically pointed on his person where it was. At this point no-one else was in Trauma room1. The other staff enter very shortly. So no-one else was able to say where the wound was or what it looked light. 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. H3 361-362 As I understand it buttons of the kind worn on JFK’s shirt were around 1cm in circumference, That means the - inside slit and smaller slit - would be around 1.484cm. Whereas the - outside slit and larger slit - would be around 1.883cm. There may well be a definitive reference to the size of each - which I do not have. Most important Carrico says that the wound “was fairly round, had no jagged edges, no evidence of powder burns.” So a small round object creates two vertical slits. In addition the first slit is smaller than the second - something that does not normally happen. If you look at the FOX 1 image you will still see the lower half of this wound. The upper half has been destroyed by the tracheotomy. The shape and size of this shape supports what Carrico says. So whatever it was that created this small round hole went on to create two fabric damages on JFK’s shirt that are both vertical and different in size. In addition the outer slit - aside from being larger than the inner one - starts above the point where the inner one starts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 (edited) ....Another element of the problem is defined by Carico who when asked Alan Dulles about the throat wound physically pointed on his person where it was. At this point no-one else was in Trauma room1. The other staff enter very shortly. So no-one else was able to say where the wound was or what it looked light. 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. H3 361-362 Note that It was Dulles who said the wound was above the tie, not Carrico. Carrico said it was where the tie would be. He later appears to be correcting Dulles when again he mentions the tie, but Dulles cuts him off. Edited September 4, 2016 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted September 4, 2016 Author Share Posted September 4, 2016 Robert, On post 149 - I believe - I quoted the fact that to Weisberg Carrico said these slits were created by a scalpel which he witnessed happening. The fact that no-one else said that means nothing because no-one asked any witnessed what caused the slits and was it a scalpel. In addition, at the point this happened only Carrico and the nurses were in the Trauma room 1. It was shortly after that everyone else entered. At that point his shirt had been removed. Carrico was the only doctor who witnessed this. One member pointed out that no-one else confirmed this. Of course not: no-one else was in the room when it happened. Another element of the problem is defined by Carico who when asked Alan Dulles about the throat wound physically pointed on his person where it was. At this point no-one else was in Trauma room1. The other staff enter very shortly. So no-one else was able to say where the wound was or what it looked light. 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. H3 361-362 As I understand it buttons of the kind worn on JFK’s shirt were around 1cm in circumference, That means the - inside slit and smaller slit - would be around 1.484cm. Whereas the - outside slit and larger slit - would be around 1.883cm. There may well be a definitive reference to the size of each - which I do not have. Most important Carrico says that the wound “was fairly round, had no jagged edges, no evidence of powder burns.” So a small round object creates two vertical slits. In addition the first slit is smaller than the second - something that does not normally happen. If you look at the FOX 1 image you will still see the lower half of this wound. The upper half has been destroyed by the tracheotomy. The shape and size of this shape supports what Carrico says. So whatever it was that created this small round hole went on to create two fabric damages on JFK’s shirt that are both vertical and different in size. In addition the outer slit - aside from being larger than the inner one - starts above the point where the inner one starts. James We have used your very own calculations to clearly demonstrate the throat wound was below the top of JFK's collar. Do you actually believe, at this point, an argument about "slits" in the collar is going to convince anyone of it being above the collar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 It is very difficult to talk with a closed mind and I prefer an open mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted September 4, 2016 Author Share Posted September 4, 2016 (edited) ....Another element of the problem is defined by Carico who when asked Alan Dulles about the throat wound physically pointed on his person where it was. At this point no-one else was in Trauma room1. The other staff enter very shortly. So no-one else was able to say where the wound was or what it looked light. 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. H3 361-362 Note that It was Dulles who said the wound was above the tie, not Carrico. Carrico said it was where the tie would be. He later appears to be correcting Dulles when again he mentions the tie, but Dulles cuts him off. It all depends on how badly you want the throat wound to be above the collar, Sandy. Allen Dulles and the other scoundrels desperately wanted the throat wound above the collar, for the simple fact JFK's tie knot did not have a bullet hole through it. Without a bullet hole through the tie knot, there was no way to get a bullet from JFK's throat to John Connally's right armpit, as their Single Bullet Theory would have us believe happened. Locating the throat wound above JFK's collar makes the SBT possible. Edited September 4, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted September 4, 2016 Author Share Posted September 4, 2016 It is very difficult to talk with a closed mind and I prefer an open mind. My mind is closed, James? I'm sorry, sir, but I believe I have used the best evidence available here to clearly present an infallible argument. Before you accuse someone of having a closed mind, perhaps you should counter his arguments with facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted September 5, 2016 Author Share Posted September 5, 2016 Wow! Am I still actually on a JFK assassination research forum? I've just basically confirmed that the throat wound was below the top of JFK's shirt collar, and not a peep out of a single member. Have I scared you all away? Can I take your silence as affirmation of my conclusions? I know you're out there, I can hear you breathing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted September 6, 2016 Author Share Posted September 6, 2016 Where have all the researchers gone? This forum was really something once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted September 6, 2016 Share Posted September 6, 2016 Maybe the above-the-shirt wound location isn't as popular as your thinking, Bob. Here are the only members I'm aware of who believe it, or at least seem to: James Gordon Tom Neal Ray Mitchum On the other hand, there seems to be just the two of us on our side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted September 11, 2016 Author Share Posted September 11, 2016 bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 Where have all the researchers gone? This forum was really something once. I think we all grabbed some popcorn and have settled in to see where this goes. Not to go too far off subject but what do you make of the bloodstain? It seems to bloom upward. Is it possible that the back wound was received as JFK was sprawled on the backseat and at that instant Jackie hadn't yet returned to her seat to cradle him? If that were the case the blood stain might make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted September 12, 2016 Author Share Posted September 12, 2016 Hi Chris Which bloodstain are you referring to? There were so many of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 Which bloodstain are you referring to? There were so many of them. Oh geez. I may have confused this thread with the other (tie/knot thread). I was thinking of the little bloodstain near the slit in the tie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted September 12, 2016 Author Share Posted September 12, 2016 (edited) No matter. It all depends on what was defined as "up" when this tie was worn, as there seems to be a great difference of opinion about where the nick actually was on the tied tie. Ever notice there seems to be a bit of blood spattered on the left hand side of this section of tie, also? Edited September 12, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted September 12, 2016 Author Share Posted September 12, 2016 We always assume the long axis of the nick indicates the direction the bullet was travelling but, is this a fair assumption? If this part of the tie was the tail of the tie, and the part with the nick was folded over as it entered the base of the tie knot, leaving the cease of the fold exposed out to the left, a bullet fragment equal in diameter to the length of the nick could have made the nick. Could the nick have been on JFK's anatomical right, as seen 3 inches up from where the tie was cut, and the blood really did run down? 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