Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

BTW, here is a Canadian study conducted on 82 patients, male and female, to determine the mean or average distance from the anterior commissure of the larynx to the first tracheal ring. It was found the mean distance for males was 32.67 mm, plus or minus 3.34 mm. This is slightly greater than the figure of 31.75 mm you obtained but still quite close.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4461842/

Interestingly, this study even used the same diagram you did.

ijo-27-193-g001.jpg

Treacheal%20Rings_zpsstgiardr.jpg

Edited by Robert Prudhomme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 218
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Treacheal%20Rings_zpsstgiardr.jpg

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

I'll interpret the location of the wound based on your data, James.

I took the following snapshot from the video you linked to.

post-7237-0-16555100-1472897445_thumb.jpg

I measured the distance from the tip of the adam's apple to the shirtline to be 1 inch. I did that by comparing the adam's-apple-to-shirtline distance to the vertical length of JFK's ear. If I assume the length of JFK's ear to be the same as mine, then I get the 1 inch figure.

You say that the distance from the adam's apple to the wound is 62 mm, which is 2.44 inches. This means that the wound is located 1.44" below the shirtline.

Using one of my shirts as a substitute for Kennedy's, I found that the wound would be about 1/4" below the location of the slits. Assuming the slits were made by the projectile, this tells me that either Kennedy's ears are a bit longer than mine, or the drawing from which you measured the 62 mm is a little longer proportionally than Kennedy's.

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandy,

With respect I suggest you read Robert's post 180 - where he quite correctly corrected one of my calculations. In that post he agreed that there was indeed room for the bullet to enter above the collar line.

The fact that your methodology took the entrance to .25" below the slits should have told you something. Ratioing with respect the ear from a screen dump is not the best way to go about this question.

In my last post I endeavoured to take this argument onto a more scientific level. I was pleased to see that Robert fully engaged in that discussion and even accepted that it was possible that an entrance could have entered above the collar line.

Anatomically I am not sure how accurate it is measure the neck flesh to estimate the location of tracheal rings. If Robert and I am correct that using the tracheal results that we have both posted how have you gained a result that is so different. There is a massive difference - relatively speaking - from a wound being scientifically possible to be above the shirt collar to your calculation that it is actually below the collar structure.

Adams%20Apple_zpsexc49yc7.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandy,

With respect I suggest you read Robert's post 180 - where he quite correctly corrected one of my calculations.

In that post he agreed that there was indeed room for the bullet to enter above the collar line.

You need to read that again James, more carefully this time. Robert did not agree that there was room for the bullet to have hit above the shirtline. His location of the wound is BELOW the shirtline, and is within 1/2" (12 mm) of my location.

The fact that your methodology took the entrance to .25" below the slits should have told you something. Ratioing with respect the ear from a screen dump is not the best way to go about this question.

I believe that my method is one of the best, most accurate ways. When measuring something on a picture you need something to serve as a frame of reference. I chose to use the ear. I can't think of anything else in the picture that would make for a more accurate measurement.

In my last post I endeavoured to take this argument onto a more scientific level. I was pleased to see that Robert fully engaged in that discussion and even accepted that it was possible that an entrance could have entered above the collar line.

Anatomically I am not sure how accurate it is measure the neck flesh to estimate the location of tracheal rings. If Robert and I am correct that using the tracheal results that we have both posted how have you gained a result that is so different. There is a massive difference - relatively speaking - from a wound being scientifically possible to be above the shirt collar to your calculation that it is actually below the collar structure.

Adams%20Apple_zpsexc49yc7.jpg

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandy,

Robert Prudhomme said in post 180:

“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.”

I did not say he accepted my position, but I made clear he was honest enough to agree that theoretically there was space for a wound to occur above the edge of the shirt collar. I am under no illusions that Robert has changed his position, but I respect that he was able go outside his own preferred position and acknowledge a possibility.

As to your methodology we will have to agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandy,

Robert Prudhomme said in post 180:

“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.”

I did not say he accepted my position, but I made clear he was honest enough to agree that theoretically there was space for a wound to occur above the edge of the shirt collar. I am under no illusions that Robert has changed his position, but I respect that he was able go outside his own preferred position and acknowledge a possibility.

As to your methodology we will have to agree to disagree.

James, are you British? I ask because you seem to be interpreting what Robert wrote differently than how I interpret it.

As an American, I suppose I could be the one misinterpreting what Robert wrote, given that he is Canadian.

What I hear Robert saying in your quote of him is that the distance from his adam's apple to the top of his shirt is 1.5 inches. And that your data places the wound 2.44 inches below the adam's apple. Which means the wound on him (Robert) would be 2.44 - 1.5 = 0.94 inches BELOW the top of the shirt. (In comparison, I said 1.44 inches below.)

I don't see anywhere in his paragraph that Robert is allowing for a possible above-the-shirtline wound location.

Maybe the problem is that you do your thinking in centimeters, not inches. I don't know.

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandy,

Robert Prudhomme said in post 180:

“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.”

I did not say he accepted my position, but I made clear he was honest enough to agree that theoretically there was space for a wound to occur above the edge of the shirt collar. I am under no illusions that Robert has changed his position, but I respect that he was able go outside his own preferred position and acknowledge a possibility.

As to your methodology we will have to agree to disagree.

James

Let me make something very clear on this matter.

You have seriously misinterpreted what I said in Post #180. At NO time did I suggest there was even a theoretical possibility the throat wound was above JFK's shirt collar, and I would like you to stop saying this on this forum immediately.

Your own figures clearly demonstrate the throat wound to have been a minimum of .94 inches below the top of JFK's shirt collar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

I have adjusted my diagram. in two ways.

a) I agree that that damage to the trachea was between rings 2 and 3. However in my diagram I had the line below ring 3. So I moved it up a bit. With red lines I have identified what I believe are Trachea rings 1 to 3.

B) I had the upper line at the top of the Thyroid Cartilage. Surely the Adams apple will be nearer the middle rather than at the top of the Cartilage, So I moved that line down.

As a consequence of those changes I get the distance between the Adam's apple and between rings 2 and 3 to be 1.8925 inches.

Treacheal%20Rings%202_zpsvrgmantv.jpg

Given your calculations on yourself and your clothing - however incorrect that will be because all JFK's clothing were bespoke and created for him. His clothing was not off the peg. - this adjusted figure takes the rings above the shirt collar.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

I have adjusted my diagram. in two ways.

a) I agree that that damage to the trachea was between rings 2 and 3. However in my diagram I had the line below ring 3. So I moved it up a bit. With red lines I have identified what I believe are Trachea rings 1 to 3.

B) I had the upper line at the top of the Thyroid Cartilage. Surely the Adams apple will be nearer the middle rather than at the top of the Cartilage, So I moved that line down.

As a consequence of those changes I get the distance between the Adam's apple and between rings 2 and 3 to be 1.8925 inches.

Treacheal%20Rings%202_zpsvrgmantv.jpg

Given your calculations on yourself and your clothing - however incorrect that will be because all JFK's clothing were bespoke and created for him. His clothing was not off the peg. - this adjusted figure takes the rings above the shirt collar.

James

James,

In medical terms, the above diagram is called a sagittal view. It represents what we'd see if the neck were cut in half and we looked at the cross section.

Now, here is what a thyroid cartilage looks like:

lateral_2bthyroid_2bligament-14C8ED9F0F5

The thyroid cartilage shown in your diagram, as a sagittal view, doesn't show the full height of the thyroid cartilage. As a sagittal view, it shows only the part from the "superior thyroid notch" to the "inferior thyroid notch," as labeled in my diagram. The peak of the adam's apple, which in medical terms is the "Laryngeal prominence," as labeled in my diagram, is located at the very top of the thyroid cartilage in the sagittal view.

So your original location for the adam's apple was correct, and your revised one in your diagram above is incorrect.

But I do agree with your revised location for the 2nd/3rd tracheal rings.

Recall that I measured and calculated from your earlier data that the wound would be 1/4" below the slits in the shirt. (Based on the assumption that the length of JFK's ears is close to mine.) Using your now-revised location for the 2nd/3rd tracheal rings serves to raise the wound in my measurement considerably closer to the slits' location. Almost spot on, in fact. (I just did a quick revision on my measurement.)

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

I have adjusted my diagram. in two ways.

a) I agree that that damage to the trachea was between rings 2 and 3. However in my diagram I had the line below ring 3. So I moved it up a bit. With red lines I have identified what I believe are Trachea rings 1 to 3.

B) I had the upper line at the top of the Thyroid Cartilage. Surely the Adams apple will be nearer the middle rather than at the top of the Cartilage, So I moved that line down.

As a consequence of those changes I get the distance between the Adam's apple and between rings 2 and 3 to be 1.8925 inches.

Treacheal%20Rings%202_zpsvrgmantv.jpg

Given your calculations on yourself and your clothing - however incorrect that will be because all JFK's clothing were bespoke and created for him. His clothing was not off the peg. - this adjusted figure takes the rings above the shirt collar.

James

What I've highlighted in red above is simply not true. Even if we allow you to use your incorrect "48.076" measurement, it's not true.

Using your new, incorrect number would change Robert's 0.94" below-the-shirtline number to 0.39" below the shirtline. Which is.... still below the shirtline.

You're grasping at straws James.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

I have adjusted my diagram. in two ways.

a) I agree that that damage to the trachea was between rings 2 and 3. However in my diagram I had the line below ring 3. So I moved it up a bit. With red lines I have identified what I believe are Trachea rings 1 to 3.

B) I had the upper line at the top of the Thyroid Cartilage. Surely the Adams apple will be nearer the middle rather than at the top of the Cartilage, So I moved that line down.

As a consequence of those changes I get the distance between the Adam's apple and between rings 2 and 3 to be 1.8925 inches.

Treacheal%20Rings%202_zpsvrgmantv.jpg

Given your calculations on yourself and your clothing - however incorrect that will be because all JFK's clothing were bespoke and created for him. His clothing was not off the peg. - this adjusted figure takes the rings above the shirt collar.

James

James

No, you did not have the line below the 3rd tracheal ring in your diagram; you had it THROUGH the 3rd tracheal ring. Moving it up to between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal ring is a minor adjustment, and certainly does not reduce your total distance figure from 62 mm to 48.076 mm. BTW, do you have any idea how small .076 mm is? Why not just say 48 mm?)

" B) I had the upper line at the top of the Thyroid Cartilage. Surely the Adams apple will be nearer the middle rather than at the top of the Cartilage, So I moved that line down."

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Wishing the laryngeal prominence (Adam's apple) to be halfway down the thyroid cartilage does not make it so.

screen_shot_2011-11-14_at_3.28.55_am1321

The laryngeal prominence (Adam's apple) can be seen on the left as the small notch at the top of the thyroid cartilage. It is not labelled in this diagram but, it has the only black line pointing to it coming from a small red dot.

To determine the distance from the laryngeal prominence to the bottom of the cricoid cartilage (last structure before the tracheal rings begin), I would like to direct your attention to this brief passage from the book "Physical Diagnosis Secrets" by Salvatore Mangone.

"1. What are the thyroid's landmarks?

They are the laryngeal prominence and the cricoid cartilage. Start your exam by identifying the hyoid bone, a horseshoe mobile structure just under the mandible, so called because of its "upsilon" like shape. Immediately below it, you will find the thyroid cartilage, which can be readily identified by its V shape, the midline notch on its superior edge (laryngeal prominence), and its being the most prominent structure in the anterior neck (Adam's apple). Just below it, separated by a little gap (the cricothyroid recess), is the horizontal ring of the cricoid cartilage. The thyroid isthmus lies immediately below, 4 cm. from the laryngeal prominence. It connects the two lateral lobes of the gland by crossing the trachea over the second, third and sometimes even the fourth tracheal ring. Note that while the distance between isthmus and landmarks (cricoid cartilage and laryngeal prominence) is constant in all individuals, the distance between laryngeal prominence and suprasternal notch is variable. This may result in glands that are either low lying or high lying in the neck. (Italics added by me)"

So, what Salvatore is telling us is that the distance from the laryngeal prominence to the bottom of the cricoid cartilage is constant in all individuals, and that distance is 4 centimeters.

For those not familiar with the Metric System, centimeters is abbreviated to cm. and 4 cm = 40 mm (millimeters).

I measured on the above diagram and found, on my screen, that the distance from the laryngeal prominence to the bottom of the cricoid cartilage is (coincidentally) also 40 mm.

I then measured, on the same diagram above, from the bottom of the cricoid cartilage to the space between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings, and found this measurement to be 20 mm.

40 + 20 = 60 mm or 2.36 inches

Therefore, James, your adjustments have gained you precisely 2 mm (.078 inches) from your original calculation of 62 mm (2,44 inches) and, with the throat wound 2.36 inches below the Adam's apple, I would say it was still well below the top of JFK's collar.

Edited by Robert Prudhomme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, James, as you believe Commander Humes was telling the truth when he stated his probing finger found JFK's back wound to be very shallow, do you also believe he was telling the truth when he stated JFK's tracheal wound was between the 3rd and 4th tracheal rings, instead of between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings as stated by Dr. Malcolm Perry?

This would place the tracheal wound 71 mm (2.79 inches) below the Adam's apple.

Edited by Robert Prudhomme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

Sibbert and O'Neill said that - and yes I believe them,

Like David Lifton I do not disbelieve everything Humes says, however I accept Perry on this occasion. He had no reason to lie about the location, whereas the autopsy is mired in all kinds of mischief.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Observation: Almost everything points to the wound being below the shirtline.

I don't have a pet theory that requires the throat wound to be anywhere in particular. The throat wound would be easier to explain if it were above the shirtline. But there's just so much evidence pointing to a wound below the shirtline that I have to accept that.

That is the reason I reject the simple above-the-shirtline hypotheses and try to explain a wound below the shirtline. Even though it's hard to explain and even though some scoff at some of my theories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...