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

[Sandy Larsen]

Dr Carrico said that the wound was above the where the tie was.

In Dr. Carrico's WC testimony, he was at first trying to say that the wound was behind the tie knot... till he was lead by Dulles to say what he wanted him to say:

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.

Harold Weisberg wrote that Dr. Carrico told him that the hole was above the shirtline. I dismiss this later testimony because Carrico proved himself to be the type of person who would change his testimony in the face of contradictory evidence. He originally said that JFK had a gaping hole in the back of his head. In 1981 he was shown the Ida Dox drawing that shows the back of Kennedy's head intact. He said then that the drawing was compatible with what he saw on 11/22/63. Which of course is not true.

Roy Kellerman testified before the WC that the wound was below the shirtline:

SPECTER: ...Did you observe any hole in the clothing of the President on the front part, in the shirt or tie area?

KELLERMAN: No, sir.

SPECTER: From your observation of the wound which you observed in the morgue which you have described as a tracheotomy, would that have been above or below the shirtline when the President was clothed?

KELLERMAN: It would have been below the shirtline, sir.

[Sandy Larsen]

Nurse Bowron said that she saw a bullet hole in the throat as she was helping to get the President out of the limo.

What exactly did she say, Ray? I'd like to check this out.

Nurse Hinchcliffe said she saw a bullet hole in the President's throat.

What exactly did she say? I'd like to check this out too.

Spectrographic examination showed that there were traces of copper, from the bullet, on the President's coat and the hole in the back of the shirt, but none on the slits in the collar.

That's true. Or at least that's the official story.

[Sandy Larsen]

Animated GIF showing that the throat wound is located behind the knot of the necktie:

(Posted by Ashton Gray years ago.)

This GIF isn't a perfect registration. The ears align, nothing else does. Put your cursor on the tip of JFK's nose, or on his forehead and watch the discrepancy. No match, it can't prove anything.

The presentation is not perfect, therefore it doesn't prove ANYTHING?

I disagree.

In the alive photo, JFK is upright. In the dead photo he is lying down. Lying down certainly changes the shape of the face. The angles of the photos are close, but not identical. Again, it makes things look different. But these things don't make the presentation useless.

Edited September 2, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

Robert Pruhomme said:-

“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.”

That is totally incorrect as this image taken at Fort Worth that morning demonstrates.

There could be a problem with identifying the location of the Adam's apple in this photo.

When swallowing, the Adam's apple rises. I don't know about most other people, but mine also rises when I talk.

JFK is talking here.

[Sandy Larsen]

[duplicate]

Edited September 2, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

I looked around and found photo's where JFK's adam's apple appears furthest above the shirtline, and nearest the shirtline. Here is what I found:

Nearest:

Furthest:

It's notable that the one where the adam's apple is closest to the shirtline was taken at the 11/22/63 procession.

Edited September 2, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

On 9/2/2016 at 0:18 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

I looked around and found photo's where JFK's adam's apple appears furthest above the shirtline, and nearest the shirtline. Here is what I found:

Nearest:

 

Furthest:

 

It's notable that the one where the adam's apple is closest to the shirtline was taken at the 11/22/63 procession.

I thought I recognized that bottom photo. Sure enough, it is the one Ashton used in this animated GIF.

I think it says something that the photo showing the adam's apple the highest above the shirtline, is the one that was used to show that the wound was low, below the shirtline.

BTW, not only are the ears perfectly aligned in the animated GIF, so are the adam's apples.

Edited September 3, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[James R Gordon]

I looked around and found photo's where JFK's adam's apple appears furthest above the shirtline, and nearest the shirtline. Here is what I found:

Nearest:

Furthest:

It's notable that the one where the adam's apple is closest to the shirtline was taken at the 11/22/63 procession.

I thought I recognized that bottom photo. Sure enough, it is the one Ashton used in this animated GIF.

I think it says something that the photo showing the adam's apple the highest above the shirtline, is the one that was used to show that the wound was low, below the shirtline.

BTW, not only are the ears perfectly aligned in the animated GIF, so are the adam's apples.

Sandy two issues worth considering.

a) The image of JFK on Main Street is taken from above. Therefore it is not clear exactly where his Adam apple is with respect to his shirt collar. From above the Adam's apple appears closer to the shirt's collar than it may be.

The blending of the two images has an inherent problem within it. On the Fox image JFK's head is stretched backwards. This is highlighted by the crinking of his throat muscles which can be seen at the back of his neck before his clothing is imposed. As a consequence the position of the Adam's apple in this gif is not a reliably indicated. This is also a problem for the images themselves. In one image JFK is standing up straight. In the Fox image his head is stretched back. These images - I suggest - are not the same and by blending them you are getting a skewed result.

James

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy two issues worth considering.

....The blending of the two images has an inherent problem within it. On the Fox image JFK's head is stretched backwards. This is highlighted by the crinking of his throat muscles which can be seen at the back of his neck before his clothing is imposed. As a consequence the position of the Adam's apple in this gif is not a reliably indicated. This is also a problem for the images themselves. In one image JFK is standing up straight. In the Fox image his head is stretched back. These images - I suggest - are not the same and by blending them you are getting a skewed result.

James

James,

Yes, it is clear that Kennedy's head in the death shot is unnaturally too far back.

Bringing the head forward would make the tip of the nose line up with the nose on the live shot. But then the backs of the heads wouldn't line up.

I've studied this carefully and I think one or both of the following explain the discrepancy:

1. Ashton may have used the ears sizes when adjusting the pictures so the heads are identical in size. This would be an inherently inaccurate way of doing it given that the ear is much smaller than the overall object... that is, the head.

   Even if Ashton did the adjustment accurately, a potential problem remains. And that is that, apparently, death causes ears to change shape. Compare the two ears and you will see they are not the same. Maybe because of a loss of fluid. Whatever the cause, the change may have warped Kennedy's left ear in a way that made it bigger. And because of this Ashton made the live head too big. (BTW, it's only 5% bigger.)

2. The aspect ratios of the two photos may not be the same. The live shot may be 5% wider than the death shot, from the tip of the nose to the back of the scalp. And Ashton didn't take that possibility into consideration before making the GIF.

Either way, I don't see how fixing the discrepancy would significantly change what can be seen in the GIF, in terms of the location of the wound versus shirtline

[James R Gordon]

Either way, I don't see how fixing the discrepancy would significantly change what can be seen in the GIF, in terms of the location of the wound versus shirtline

Really!!! We will just have to agree to disagree here

[Robert Prudhomme]

James Gordon said:

"a) The image of JFK on Main Street is taken from above. Therefore it is not clear exactly where his Adam apple is with respect to his shirt collar. From above the Adam's apple appears closer to the shirt's collar than it may be."

You have it backwards here, James. Taking the photo from above would actually make the Adam's apple appear higher; right where you want it to be. By shooting the photo on the same level, we would have a more accurate depiction of the tie knot and the Adam's apple, as it would bring them closer together.

In actuality, the camera angle is not high enough to make any real difference here and, as the shirt collar is right up against the neck, changing the perspective of the camera is not going to move the Adam's apple.

This truly is a case of clutching at straws to attempt to prove a point, and I say that in all honesty and without malice, James.

[James R Gordon]

Robert,

Using your image from Main Street, it is clear that JFK's Adam's apple is significantly distanced from the top of his shirt collar. It is not close at all.

If his head were not raised - as it is in Fort Worth - then it is clear the Fort Worth image agrees with the Main Street image. Both make clear that the Adams apple is significantly above the top of his shirt collar.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Once again, there seem to be some misconceptions about the anatomy of the upper respiratory system of the human body. That's okay, though, I don't mind explaining the same things over and over.

Once again, here is the diagram:

In this diagram, we see one section marked the "thyroid cartilage". While we tend to call the thyroid cartilage the Adam's apple, this is really not quite accurate, as it is the projection seen on the throat that is usually referred to as the Adam's apple.

If you look more closely at the diagram, you can see something at the very top of the thyroid cartilage called the "laryngeal prominence". It actually comes to a point at the top of the thyroid cartilage, sticking out into the skin of the neck. It is this prominence that actually protrudes, giving the impression the thyroid cartilage is actually much higher than it really is.

Keeping this in mind when looking at all of the photos of JFK, and looking again at the above diagram, try to imagine how far it is from the laryngeal prominence to the space between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings (or 3rd and 4th tracheal rings, should you happen to believe the autopsy report).

If JFK's laryngeal prominence was barely above his collar and tie knot in these photos, how could the space between the 2nd and 3rd (or 3rd and 4th) tracheal rings be above the collar and tie knot?

[James R Gordon]

Robert,

The problem with this discussion - as I see it - is that the theory you hold is based on the medical drawing. You have given us no idea of the actual distance between these two points. You have compared a series of pictures and compared them with your drawing. The problem is that your drawing does not give an indication of distance between the locations under discussion.

So the first question is what is this distance - in actual fact - between these two points. This is a pointless discussion until we know that value. Only then can we judge whether the images we have support your contention. As it turns out I can find no study focused on this issue. However I have found one study that - with further calculation - is of assistance.

Between the Anterior Commissure and the first tracheal ring the mean distance [ for adults over 40 ] is 31.75mm.

Taking that value the distance between the Thyroid and tracheal ring 3 is around 62mm, I am taking the wound as being between rings 2 and 3,

So in inches this distance is around 2.7 inches.

So now we need to judge whether the wound could be above the collar upper edge or below it. See video link below.

http://vid1187.photobucket.com/albums/z388/jamesg27/throat_zpspxlcbeof.mp4

From what I can judge that distance is more than 2.7mm

[Robert Prudhomme]

Robert,

The problem with this discussion - as I see it - is that the theory you hold is based on the medical drawing. You have given us no idea of the actual distance between these two points. You have compared a series of pictures and compared them with your drawing. The problem is that your drawing does not give an indication of distance between the locations under discussion.

So the first question is what is this distance - in actual fact - between these two points. This is a pointless discussion until we know that value. Only then can we judge whether the images we have support your contention. As it turns out I can find no study focused on this issue. However I have found one study that - with further calculation - is of assistance.

Between the Anterior Commissure and the first tracheal ring the mean distance [ for adults over 40 ] is 31.75mm.

Taking that value the distance between the Thyroid and tracheal ring 3 is around 62mm, I am taking the wound as being between rings 2 and 3,

So in inches this distance is around 2.7 inches.

So now we need to judge whether the wound could be above the collar upper edge or below it. See video link below.

http://vid1187.photobucket.com/albums/z388/jamesg27/throat_zpspxlcbeof.mp4

From what I can judge that distance is more than 2.7mm

Sorry, James, I was following you right up to the point you stated the pointy protrusion at the top of the thyroid cartilage, referred to as the "laryngeal prominence" or "Adam's apple", was 62 millimeters from the space between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal ring. This seems a fair estimation, although 62 mm actually equals 2.44 inches, not 2.7 inches. http://www.onlineconversion.com/

However, I lost you when you stated "From what I can judge that distance is more than 2.7mm". Would you mind elaborating on what distance you were referring to here?

P.S.

I'm not quite sure how to tell you this, James, but I just had my wife measure down 2.44 inches on my neck from my laryngeal prominence or "Adam's apple" and the tape measure stopped just above the suprasternal (jugular) notch of my sternum. Just in case anyone does not know, the suprasternal notch is the point where the anterior neck joins the chest, and there is NO way the top of a shirt collar can be this low.

Now, just to be a good sport, I put on my ambulance uniform shirt and did up the collar button. This shirt has a modest collar roughly similar in shape and height to the collar of JFK's bloodstained shirt. I measured from my Adam's apple (laryngeal prominence) to the top of my shirt collar and found this distance to be 1.5 inches. If the distance from my Adam's apple to the space between my 2nd and 3rd tracheal ring is 2.44 inches, as you have determined, this means there is .94 inches (almost a full inch!) from the top of my collar to the space between my 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings.

Aren't you glad I corrected your figure of 2.7 inches to 2.44 inches?