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

[Sandy Larsen]

The hypothesis has to create the "evidence" where there is none to go by. I'm pretty sure you know that.

This is true only in your universe, not mine.

Then you don't understand theoretical science.

hy·poth·e·sis

hīˈpäTHəsəs/

noun

noun: hypothesis; plural noun: hypotheses

a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

The "supposition" or "proposed explanation" is 100% speculation! By definition! As long as the supposition 1) conforms to the known evidence; and 2) is scientifically sound, then it is a scientific hypothesis. Look it up in Wikipedia.

If you don't understand this, and refuse to understand this, then you're out of your league and you don't even care. But I think you just want to pester me. Well, stop it!

Tom Neal says:

I don't know anyone else who presents sheer speculation as more than an unsupported guess.

And I don't do that either. My speculation is designed to 1) conform to the known evidence; and 2) be scientifically sound.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Tom Neal]

Ray,

The only answer you got regarding your statement that you don't understand how a bone fragment made a 6mm round hole was something like "it may be 4mm" and "because it has to be." If you find this less than an actual answer, I sympathize. Since we are BOTH perplexed, possibly you can help me follow this theory. It goes something like this, I won't attempt to quote it because the bullet path only has a beginning and an end, but does include the "bone fragment" so at least you can see how it came to be. Personally, I don't have a theory for the throat wound that I found entirely satisfactory, so I have tried in vain to comprehend this incomplete theory. This makes me a bad person who is only bitching because this theory disagrees with the theory that I don't have. I don't understand this either....

Rather than wait until Mr. Larsen posts his "theory" I will show how it was explained to me.

Mr. Larsen's speculation originates with a bullet that enters the skull at the EOP (External Occipital Protuberance). It may or may not fragment, that is not clear. It then travels along the bottom of the skull until it somehow exits the skull and somehow finds its way to the vertebra adjacent to the throat wound. Upon impact with this vertebra a "long slender bone fragment" is broken off. It is propelled by the momentum transferred from the bullet/fragment along a horizontal path, tears the trachea, the skin and the shirt, but not the necktie...

After punching through the skull, skidding along the bottom of the skull, colliding with I don't know what, but it turns the bullet/frag trajectory from horizontal to almost vertical, vertical, or more than vertical. It then passes through the majority of the cervical vertabrae, or maybe it is supposed to have passed through muscle and tissue to the side and behind them until it strikes C6(?). IMO, it would hit at least several vertebra. Note that this "long slender bone fragment" must be lucky enough to break off with its pointed end facing forward, and its long axis precisely aligned with the path to the throat wound. If not it can't create the horizontal tear in the trachea nor leave a small round exit hole. After the collision, this bullet/fragment still retains enough momentum to transfer to the bone fragment adequate energy for it to tear the tough cartilage of the trachea through half of its circumference, pass through subcutaneous tissue, the skin and the shirt. At this point the bone fragment has enough energy to completely exit the wound as it pushes the tie upward and disappears. The latest revision is that this fragment made a "nick" in the tie. IMO, the odds of the many highly unlikely events required for the bone fragment to do what it is alleged to do are astronomical.

I have asked where this alleged nick is located, and I was promptly informed that I "already knew" and that I was just "playing dumb." I always say, "Some guy on the internet that I barely know, obviously knows what I think better than I do." so he must be right...

So here are the paths that I have selected in an attempt to get this bullet from the EOP to the throat wound. Trajectories between these paths don't work any better than the ones I depict. The green line is the path of the missile as determined by the doctors at parkland. Unless something has changed again, this path is not in dispute.

To me, if the path from EOP to throat wound can't be proven then this alleged "long slender bone fragment" can not exist. But no one on this thread agrees with me at all, so any support you may provide would be GREATLY appreciated. If you can come up with a working trajectory, please describe it. Despite all my efforts I can't make it work, so I have only comments against it. I doubt anyone will believe me, but I'd be just as happy if this theory was workable, as I would if it wasn't. All I want to do is learn what happened...

http://

[Robert Prudhomme]

In actuality, Tom, this is not quite how it is. The term "tracheal cartilage" is actually another term for "tracheal ring". During the performance of a tracheotomy, the only thing necessary to retract, in order to access the tracheal rings, is the thyroid gland itself which, in many cases, overlies the upper trachea.[/font][/color]

Bob,

I don't believe I ever said the tracheal cartilage had to be retracted. I was speaking of the Adam's Apple and used the word "cartilage" referring to the cartilage immediately below the Adam's Apple. This is what has to be retracted. I pointed this out myself not too far back.

If I DID say the tracheal cartilage had to be retracted, please point it out to me and I'll correct the statement. I DO know the difference between the two.

""The first one you can feel - possibly. In most tracheostomy procedures the tracheal cartilage must be retracted to allow access to the upper tracheal rings. How can anyone feel them through this cartilage?"

The cartilage immediately below the thyroid cartilage (Adam's apple) is the cricoid cartilage, and it does not need to be retracted to perform a tracheotomy, as the tracheal rings start below the cricoid cartilage. Were you possibly thinking of the thyroid gland, which in many cases must be cut and retracted to expose the space between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings?

[Tom Neal]

hy·poth·e·sis

hīˈpäTHəsəs/

noun

noun: hypothesis; plural noun: hypotheses

a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

The "supposition" or "proposed explanation" is 100% speculation! By definition! As long as the supposition 1) conforms to the known evidence; and 2) is scientifically sound, then it is a scientific hypothesis. Look it up in Wikipedia.

If you don't understand this, and refuse to understand this, then you're out of your league and you don't even care.

Hypothesis:

"made on the basis of limited evidence"

Says the guy who can't read. "My hypothesis is only speculation, and I never claimed otherwise." "When did I use the word hypothesis?" he indignantly asked. In the title for example... I responded.

Speculation is a guess - it is NOT evidence. Of course you want everything BOTH ways.

Out of YOUR league? What league is that? The league who can't accept anything that doesn't agree with your very own speculation? The one who posts dictionary definitions and ignore the parts that say he's wrong? The one that states SPECULATION = EVIDENCE, after denying this yourself? The one that loves to dish it out, but can't take heat when you're on the receiving end?

You finally said something I can agree with, I am WAY out whatever league you are in, and PROUD of it!

But I think you just want to pester me. Well, stop it!

Stop it? What was that really clever comeback you used on me? "You're not my boss." I'll do what I want. I don't take orders from you. You just gave me an order, but me ASKING when you were gonna post your "sound hypothesis" in your world IS an order. Why don't you wikipedia "hypocrisy?"

Yes, you are SO (self)important that you can believe I only live to disagree with you. The fact that you have disagreed with every word I've said is completely lost on you, because it is fine when you do it.

Pester you? Stop posting nonsense as facts and I'll be the happiest guy ever when I can stop reading your nonsense and either let it stand unchallenged or post something sensible. You're only bringing this on yourself, so why don't you take your own orders, and *you* stop it.

[Robert Prudhomme]

If the tracheal wound was between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings, and the top of JFK's shirt collar was against the bottom of his thyroid cartilage (Adam's apple), I really do not have a problem seeing a projectile either entering or exiting JFK's throat, passing through his shirt collar and nicking his tie on the way by.

"...through his shirt collar..." Semantics?

There is no hole through his shirt collar. The slits are below it. Are you saying the slit is located at the same level as the throat wound?

The word "collar" is deceiving. You're right, the slits are just below the narrow collar band, but well above the actual bottom of the collar itself.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I do not believe it was ever adequately demonstrated where the nick in JFK's tie actually was when the tie was knotted

Not only has it never been located with any degree of certainty, but what is traditionally referred to as the "nick" is much more likely to be the piece of cloth removed by the FBI Lab for testing. So where is this "nick" on the tie? There are a large number of white areas on the HIGHLY overexposed photo of the tie. Are they ALL nicks that penetrated the exterior cloth but not the lining?

I do not believe for one second the "slits" in the shirt collar were made with a scalpel, and that anyone could put that large of a slit in a shirt collar, with a scalpel, without cutting the tissue beneath it.

I presume this is not directed at me, but if so, I have made the above statement many times along with the fact that Carrico demonstrated using scissors and Head Nurse if the TR Audrey Bell STATED that she used scissors. And yes the fact that "Blunt-nosed" scissors are used to remove clothing has been stated here on this forum, long before you, me or Mr. Larsen mentioned this fact.

There is only one nick on the tie that has what appears to be a bloodstain directly adjacent to it. Such a coincidence. Perhaps one of the FBI technicians cut his finger while obtaining a sample of the tie material?

Edited September 1, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Tom Neal]

In actuality, Tom, this is not quite how it is. The term "tracheal cartilage" is actually another term for "tracheal ring". During the performance of a tracheotomy, the only thing necessary to retract, in order to access the tracheal rings, is the thyroid gland itself which, in many cases, overlies the upper trachea.[/font][/color]

Bob,

I don't believe I ever said the tracheal cartilage had to be retracted. I was speaking of the Adam's Apple and used the word "cartilage" referring to the cartilage immediately below the Adam's Apple. This is what has to be retracted. I pointed this out myself not too far back.

If I DID say the tracheal cartilage had to be retracted, please point it out to me and I'll correct the statement. I DO know the difference between the two.

""The first one you can feel - possibly. In most tracheostomy procedures the tracheal cartilage must be retracted to allow access to the upper tracheal rings. How can anyone feel them through this cartilage?"

The cartilage immediately below the thyroid cartilage (Adam's apple) is the cricoid cartilage, and it does not need to be retracted to perform a tracheotomy, as the tracheal rings start below the cricoid cartilage. Were you possibly thinking of the thyroid gland, which in many cases must be cut and retracted to expose the space between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings?

Bob,

You are absolutely correct on all counts. I was thinking of the thyroid cartilage. I know better than to have made any of these mistakes, but I sure did.

I will correct them tomorrow when hopefully old age will permit me to get it right. Thanks for pointing these errors out.

What I should do is stop posting here at all - a far too frustrating and irritating experience, when it USED to be rewarding! I was wondering why I've been making so many mistakes in my posts lately, and I just now realized I no longer care enough to take the time to get it right.

So it IS time to go...

Edited September 1, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Robert Prudhomme]

Something we all should consider is that while we seem to be in agreement that the "slits" below the collar band were not made by a scalpel, they certainly had to be made by something, and I find it highly coincidental they are roughly in alignment with a nick in the tie that is adjacent to what appears to be a bloodstain.

[Sandy Larsen]

You just like to bitch when someone else's theory contradicts yours.

Pot calls kettle black. Brilliant defense.

No Tom. I don't ridicule people and their presentations just because I disagree with them. You do. Like saying I use WC tactics. Like relentlessly hammering me because of my speculation comments.

What theory do I claim as mine? You yourself have commented more than once that I don't attach myself to any theory.

I've never said that. Never.

Presenting actual evidence in support of a theory that someone else ridicules doesn't make it "my theory." It only means I disagree with the "ridicule" - something that people do when they can't actually provide a reason to refute the theory.

I don't understand what you're talking about. All I know is that I never ridicule you. But you do me.

In your universe stating facts and evidence contrary to wild speculation and irrelevant responses is bitching. Not in mine.

No.... bitching is when you say that I use WC tactics. Snide comments like that.

Using the "quote name" feature AND putting your responses in larger font and in color does nothing to make your answers correct and my answers wrong. So what are you trying to prove?

Oh my lord. I'm differentiating your text from mine. I make my text more prominent because it is the newer message. I do it this way with everybody and I've been doing it since I became a member. Do you think I'm trying to bully everybody with my big text? (Which, BTW, on my monitor is only slightly larger than yours.)

[Sandy Larsen]

http://

I'm no longer reading Tom's posts. But what he has here is very close to my hypothesis. The bullet travels down the blue line. Hits a transverse process in a way that splits off a piece of bone that exits the throat. (Not sure if it's the one Tom's blue line is pointing to.) Bullet continues down and makes the fracture seen in the x-ray.

Actually the bullet fragments along the way. A technician said he saw bullet fragments in the neck x-ray. That x-ray conveniently disappears. There are reports that Humes was told not to bother with the throat.

One or more pieces of shattered bone hit the top of the lung, bruising it AND perforating the pleura. This leads to the collapsed lung.

Something like that. A hypothesis in progress. There's more.

The bullet originated in the west window of the TSBD, which gave it the steep angle required for it to skid off the EOP area. Also, maybe Kennedy's head was tilted forward/down at the time. Again, making the skid possible. It actually hit the skull and tunneled under the skin for a ways, as shown by the blue line in the figure. This part is not just speculation... the tunneling was reported by more than one doc.

Humes strongly suspected that the EOP bullet caused the throat damage. Lt. Lipsey reported that the docs connected the EOP wound to the throat wound.

Humes found the EOP hole in the scalp, but not in the underlying bone because it was gone. But of course he lied about that. There is evidence to support this too.

It will be a big job getting all the testimony supporting this hypothesis put together.

[Robert Prudhomme]

In regards to the speculative theory of a bullet striking the EOP, and continuing in whole or in part on to the vertebrae, and ultimately exiting the throat at a level between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal ring, I would like to add to the discussion.

First, humour me and have a look at this vintage Italian issue 6.5mm Carcano rifle cartridge:

I have explained this cartridge in previous posts but it is worth describing again. Pictured above is a 6.5mm Carcano M37 "Magistri" rifle cartridge, commonly referred to as a "frangible" bullet cartridge. While we nowadays associate frangible bullets with great stopping and killing power in game (and terrorists), frangible bullets were originally designed as "safe" bullets that could be fired in indoor 200 metre ranges. The bullet seen above will disintegrate into powder (except for the jacket) when it strikes something very hard, such as steel, stone or concrete. Because of this, the backstops in these indoor ranges, behind the targets, was simply a concrete wall.

As can be seen, this bullet's jacket is constructed of two pieces that join just below the nose of the bullet. The two sections overlap, although what actually holds them together is unknown to me. They could be soldered together. At the neck of the cartridge can be seen a very deep cannelure groove in the bullet jacket; so deep, in fact, I would venture to guess there was very little bullet jacket left at this point. I would imagine this deep cannelure groove contributed in some way to the easy disintegration of this bullet. Finally, it is possible to see, in the lower photo, that the inner core of the bullet is exposed in the nose of the jacket, possibly another feature contributing to rapid disintegration of this bullet.

Inside this bullet jacket, up in the nose, is a tiny metal pellet made from lead or "maillechort", and this is likely what is visible through the opening in the nose of the bullet jacket. As it is inside the bullet jacket it is, of course, smaller in diameter than 6.8 mm (actual diameter of a 6.5mm Carcano bullet). The jacket walls of a regular 6.5mm Carcano bullet are 1 mm thick, meaning the pellet in the frangible bullet could be 4.8 mm thick, but the jacket of a Carcano frangible bullet may not be quite as thick as a standard jacket, although the very deep cannelure groove seen above certainly suggests a 1 mm thick jacket wall.

Behind the lead/maillechort pellet, in the mid-section of the bullet jacket, is powdered lead. From the mid-section to the base of the bullet the remainder of the jacket is filled with sand. Naturally, this bullet did not weigh as much as a standard 162 grain Carcano bullet, and a reduced amount of gunpowder was loaded into these cartridges to give the frangible bullets a muzzle velocity equal to standard bullets.

There are several differences between these frangible range bullets and modern lethal frangible bullets used to kill game.

1. Instead of the nose of the bullet being exposed through the jacket, as in the M37, modern frangible bullets have a cavity opening in the nose referred to as a "hollow point". This allows the modern frangible bullet to penetrate bone, such as skull. Inside the body, liquid and semi-liquid matter (ie. brain) quickly fills this hollow point and begins to build a tremendous hydraulic pressure. This pressure exerts tremendous stress on the core of the frangible bullet and causes it to disintegrate; often within a couple of inches of the point of penetration, into a lethal cloud of metal dust that creates a wound cavity up to 4 inches in diameter.

2. The cores of modern frangible bullets are not made from powdered lead and sand. Rather, they are made from metal powder (not always lead) that has been compressed or sintered into a solid before insertion into the bullet jacket.

3. Not all frangible bullets, especially handgun bullets, are jacketed bullets meaning that, upon disintegration, nothing is left but powder. These bullets are so safe, it is actually possible to fire a 9 mm frangible bullet at concrete between one's feet without fear of injury from ricochet.

So, what is the point of my story? Well, it seems everyone has forgotten that no one at Parkland ever actually measured the throat wound, and it was described by Parkland staff as being from 3-8 mm in diameter.

I have no idea of the penetrating power of the M37 bullet in flesh or skull bone but, knowing that modern frangible hunting bullets also disintegrate when they impact steel, stone or concrete, I imagine the M37 had no trouble penetrating a skull bone or flesh. What would happen to it after that is anyone's guess.

However, as the lead/maillechort pellet occupies a good portion of the nose of this bullet, how difficult would it be to drill a small hollow point through the nose of this bullet into the pellet beneath, stopping just before the drill bit went into the powdered lead?

Now, with the modified nose, we might actually have something capable of doing some damage. If the M37 made it through the skull bone, it should perform in an identical fashion as any other hollow point frangible bullet; filling the nose with liquid until the hydraulic pressure caused complete disintegration of the bullet.

As I have said before, this would have been a crude adaptation, and the results might not even have been acceptable by today's standards, and a frangible bullet from 1963 might have had limited effect on a bony structure such as the vertebrae. If the bullet struck the base of JFK's skull, just below the EOP, and continued on until it struck the vertebrae in the region of C3/C4, it may very well be that most of this bullet broke up by hitting the vertebrae without doing a great deal of damage, leaving only the lead/maillechort pellet to carry on and exit the throat. As you should be able to see, this type of bulet is most effective when travelling through semi-liquid matter such as the brain or organs.

Counting the dorsals up from C7 vertebra, seen at the bottom of the neck in this diagram, C4 vertebra can be found right in the middle of the cervical stack of vertebrae. Now, take a straightedge and connect the EOP at the base of the back of the skull with the tracheal membrane between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings. C3 and C4 vertebrae will be on this line, just as Jerrol Custer suggested to the HSCA, when he told them the x-rays he recalled taking of JFK's neck showed "many fragments" in the vicinity of C3/C4.

As the Parkland doctors only reported one large wound in the back of JFK's head, presumably a wound of exit, it has sometimes puzzled me how a bullet could enter the base of the rear of the skull, just to the right of the EOP, and not either exit JFK's face or take part of his face off. Could Humes' report of a skull entry wound to the right of the EOP be just another "slight" modification of an actual wound, such as the back wound that became a neck wound? Could a frangible bullet have grazed and followed the base of the skull, only to break up when it struck the vertebrae at C3/C4?

Edited September 1, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Sandy Larsen]

Oh my gosh... yet one more possibility.

BTW Bob, there's a reason why in my EOP theory above I chose the EOP bullet to be the one that caused the collapsed lung. and not the back bullet. It is just one of the possibilities.

The way I see it, if a frangible bullet were used for the back shot, then the intention surely was to mess up Kennedy's organs badly. The official story says that that didn't happen. Here are the possibilities:

1. A frangible bullet was used. Humes lied, Kennedy's insides were indeed messed up badly and caused a collapsed lung.

2. A frangible bullet was used and it failed. But a few particles made it to the lungs and caused the collapsed lung.

3. A frangible bullet was used and it failed. No collapsed lung.

4. Cliff's poison dart was used. No collapsed lung.

For my hypothesis I am tentatively assuming that #3 or #4 occurred. I kinda like the theory because it explains a lot of things plus it simplifies the matter with the non messed up internal organs. It explains the bruised lung and the fracture (of T1, was it?).

Of course your theory could do the very same... if you have your custom bullet do the same damage that I described.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hi Sandy

Well, this is the great thing about theories; they explain a lot of things and everyone can own one. Experience has taught me to try to keep an open mind on this forum, as sometimes what seems crazy one day turns out to be entirely plausible the next day.

I'm sorry to see Tom leave the forum today, and I sincerely hope his absence is temporary. I was not trying to "get on his case" about the finer details of the upper airway; I merely saw a mistake he had made and was trying to point it out to him before it led him even further away from grasping the concept.

I like both you and Tom, and admire both of your abilities to grasp what to many are difficult concepts. I would prefer not to lose contact with either of you, and I hope we can go back to discussing things as we did before.

[James R Gordon]

Robert Prudhomme said:

“The word "collar" is deceiving. You're right, the slits are just below the narrow collar band, but well above the actual bottom of the collar itself.” Post 140

I have no idea what you are saying here Robert. The fabric underneath the “collar strap” - as you put it - lies beneath the neck. But you say that beneath the “collar strap” is also part of the collar: as you say it is the “bottom of the collar.” Can you point out where that part of the collar is on the shirt? My understanding is that what is referred to as the “collar strap” is the collar of a shirt.

Robert Prudhomme said:

“Something we all should consider is that while we seem to be in agreement that the "slits" below the collar band were not made by a scalpel, they certainly had to be made by something, and I find it highly coincidental they are roughly in alignment with a nick in the tie that is adjacent to what appears to be a bloodstain.” Post 143

On page 598 of “Post Mortem” Harold Weisberg makes the following comment about the slits on the shirt. He says that Carrico said “that this damage to the shirt was done when the necktie was cut off by nurses under his supervision during the emergency treatment.”

We know Weisberg interviewed Charles Carrico and this comment makes clear that Weisberg clearly asked Carrico about these slits. Carrico makes stated that the damage was created by a scalpel. He also makes clear he was in the room when these cuts were made. If you disagree with this evidence from Carrico what evidence have you got that he is not telling the truth or that he did not see Diana Bowron - who I believe was one of the two nurses - use a scalpel to cut the tie and shirt off.

It is a common complaint that no one else said this. Well maybe the answer is that no other researcher asked that specific question to Charles Carrico: no one bothered to ask him how these slits were made. In addition the state of the front of the shirt supports the notion that a scalpel rather than scissors were used to cut the shirt off JFK.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Okay, James, then let's see if we can all get our heads together and solve this little puzzle.

There seems to be no doubt amongst us that JFK had a small wound in his throat. Perry placed this wound between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings, while Humes placed it between the 3rd and 4th tracheal rings which is not surprising, considering how Humes misplaced other wounds.

As this diagram shows, there is considerable distance between the "laryngeal prominence" of the thyroid cartilage (Adam's apple) and the space between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings (or 3rd and 4th). This "laryngeal prominence", situated at the top of the thyroid cartilage (Adam's apple), is the actual visual part seen protruding from the neck. We know from looking at photos of JFK from earlier on 22/11/63 that the top of his shirt collar was resting against the bottom of his thyroid cartilage (Adam's apple), placing the wound in his throat well below the top of his shirt collar and, coincidentally, almost exactly where the "slits" in his shirt were.

Regardless of whether the throat wound was an entrance or exit wound, how did it come to pass that a projectile could make this wound without also passing through the shirt, either before or after making the wound? Are you seriously proposing the shirt arrested this projectile?

Edited September 1, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme