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

[Ray Mitcham]

Again, if it was a sliver of bone, how would it cause a neat 6mm hole in JFK's throat, as described by Dr Perry?

Ray,

I've already heard his explanation for this - I'm eager to hear if your response is similar to mine, which didn't affect his belief at all...

Tom

Tom, I just don't understand how a sliver of bone (If it were such) made a perfectly round hole in The President's neck and yet made rough slits in both layers of his shirt. Common sense says both cannot be true.

[Sandy Larsen]

It was a long, slender shard of bone IMO. It hit the back of the tie knot, pushed the knot out with what little kinetic energy it had left, and then stopped. It nicked the tie where it hit.

No long slender shard of bone was found in the wound or in the vicinity of the wound.

The small shard fell down and was lost.

Therefore even to speculate that one existed requires a reasonable explanation as to how this wound could possibly have been created by a bone, AND how it could have done the things you require it to do. Without this you can say with equal assurance that is was a chicken bone from the snack he had during the limo ride...

A combination of evidence and a process of elimination led me to my hypothesis. Which I will present in due time.

The tie was subsequently loosened by somebody, then re-tied. Doing so relocated the nick from the back of the knot to the side.

This alleged "nick" is a hole with the blue fabric completely removed, exposing the white tie liner. So the "long slender bone fragment" slit the shirt, *removed" a piece of cloth from the tie without leaving a mark in the liner or any blood or tissue, and completely exited the wound.

The bone shard did not remove the tiny piece of cloth.

The FBI Lab states that it tested a sample removed from the necktie.

That's right. The FBI removed it for testing.

Their stated procedure is to remove the sample as close as possible to the suspect area. If this "nick" was caused by a bone fragment, where is the hole created when the fabric was removed from the tie? The evidence photo depicts both sides of the unknotted tie - a hole would be easily visible due to the white fabric lining the interior of the tie that was not removed.

IMO, the alleged nick *is* the removed sample.

That's right. The bone made a tiny nick, and the FBI enlarged it.

Note about the location of of tracheal rings: Tracheal rings are located in different places depending upon the person. For example, my first tracheal ring is located below my sternal notch when I'm holding my head upright.

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 tracheal cartilages ARE the tracheal rings.

The trachea begins at the base of the Adam's apple.

Therefore you are saying your Adam's Apple is located at or below the sternal notch. ???!!!

No. I am saying that my first tracheal ring (the one just inferior to the cricoid cartilage) is located below my sternal notch. It comes out if I tilt my head way back, at which time I can feel it.

Where is your evidence that JFK's 2nd tracheal ring was substernal?

I never said it was.

The stare of death photo clearly depicts the trach incision AND the upper half of the circular bullet wound in the margin of the incision which is located at the 2nd tracheal ring. It is located quite close to the base of the Adam's Apple despite the EXTREME retraction of the lower margin of the incision. The substernal notch is also visible, many inches BELOW the wound.

JFK's 2nd tracheal ring is just below his Adam's Apple. Given the size of tracheal rings, the wound is at most 3/8" below his Adam's Apple - not the cartilage below it. The shirt slits are well below the collar button (supply your own measurements if you like) and therefore below the lower edge of the necktie knot.

The photo I have posted and referenced many times of JFK speaking at a podium on 11-22-1963 wearing the *SAME* shirt and tie that he was wearing when shot clearly shows his entire Adam's Apple and cartilage is above the top of his collar. Verify this with the skin folds in his neck, here, and in the SOD photo. The shirt slits however are below the knot in his tie.

My estimate is the shirt slits are 1 1/2" lower than the throat wound, and if true these slits could not have been created by any missile departing the throat wound.

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

(Posted by Ashton Gray years ago.)

[Sandy Larsen]

Again, if it was a sliver of bone, how would it cause a neat 6mm hole in JFK's throat, as described by Dr Perry?

I've heard 4 mm estimates. The shard had to have been that large.

[Sandy Larsen]

I have a sound hypothesis for the path of the bullet through the body, and how the bone fragment was propelled out the front of the neck. I just haven't presented it yet.

I've asked you to present this "sound hypothesis" for months and months. Haven't heard even the vaguest description of it yet.

You're not my boss, Tom.

I'll get to it when I can.

What reason other than 'it isn't ready for presentation' could there be? If it isn't ready for presentation even now, then you concluded months ago that your theory is correct without any evidence to back it up. Not quite the Scientific Method is it?

Believe whatever you want. I don't care.

You have stated that your previous back wound "hypothesis" is "conjecture' and that "you have never claimed it was anything else." Will this "sound hypothesis" include actual evidence or is it too 'complete conjecture?'

You will no doubt label the above as a "snarky comment", but these are YOUR WORDS I'm using, so it is a legitimate question. If this is also 'complete conjecture' I'm not interested. If it includes what you deem as "evidence" it should prove interesting...

BTW, do you have a response yet to my statement regarding your EOP/Front shot cause for the forward then back movement of JFK's head?

[Sandy Larsen]

Again, if it was a sliver of bone, how would it cause a neat 6mm hole in JFK's throat, as described by Dr Perry?

Ray,

I've already heard his explanation for this - I'm eager to hear if your response is similar to mine, which didn't affect his belief at all...

Tom

Tom, I just don't understand how a sliver of bone (If it were such) made a perfectly round hole in The President's neck and yet made rough slits in both layers of his shirt. Common sense says both cannot be true.

Ray,

I just took my ball point pen and pushed it through a piece of fabric. It made a tear that doesn't look a whole lot different from the ones we see in Kennedy's shirt.

PM me your address and I'll mail it to you.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Tom Neal said:

"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 trachea begins at the base of the Adam's apple. Therefore you are saying your Adam's Apple is located at or below the sternal notch. ???!!!

Where is your evidence that JFK's 2nd tracheal ring was substernal? The stare of death photo clearly depicts the trach incision AND the upper half of the circular bullet wound in the margin of the incision which is located at the 2nd tracheal ring. It is located quite close to the base of the Adam's Apple despite the EXTREME retraction of the lower margin of the incision. The substernal notch is also visible, many inches BELOW the wound.

JFK's 2nd tracheal ring is just below his Adam's Apple. Given the size of tracheal rings, the wound is at most 3/8" below his Adam's Apple - not the cartilage below it. The shirt slits are well below the collar button (supply your own measurements if you like) and therefore below the lower edge of the necktie knot.

The photo I have posted and referenced many times of JFK speaking at a podium on 11-22-1963 wearing the *SAME* shirt and tie that he was wearing when shot clearly shows his entire Adam's Apple and cartilage is above the top of his collar. Verify this with the skin folds in his neck, here, and in the SOD photo. The shirt slits however are below the knot in his tie.

My estimate is the shirt slits are 1 1/2" lower than the throat wound, and if true these slits could not have been created by any missile departing the throat wound."

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.

However, should the patient be suffering from a tension pneumothorax, and the trachea is shifted or deviated away from the affected lung, it is often necessary to sever strap muscles on the side of the trachea away from the affected lung, in order to access the trachea. This was the case with JFK, and explains why Perry severed the left strap muscles in order to perform a tracheotomy.

The trachea is separated from the larynx (contained within the thyroid cartilage or Adam's apple as seen above) by the cricoid cartilage. As the diagram above clearly shows, if JFK's tracheostomy site was between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings, it would have to be substantially more than 3/8" below his Adam's apple.

It is interesting to note another way to access the trachea surgically in an emergency, should the upper airway be blocked. At the junction of the thyroid and cricoid cartilages can be seen a notch where resides the "cricothyroid membrane". Below is a diagram portraying the procedure for intubating a patient via this membrane, the procedure being known as a "cricothyroidotomy".

We had a patient we medevacced out to a larger centre who had an emergency cricothyroidotomy crudely performed on him by a doctor who just happened to be the first person at the scene of the MVA he had been involved in. The impact had broken/dislocated his lower jaw; forcing it upward and inward and completely sealing off his mouth and nose. Needless to say, he was a mess, and now is a quadriplegic.

Judging from the x-ray of JFK's chest, I would say he had an almost freakishly low suprasternal notch, and almost the entirety of his trachea must have been above it. Most people have clavicles that are more or less horizontal but JFK's descend downward at a severe angle. I thought at first it was either an alteration of the x-ray, or an x-ray taken from a perspective somewhere above the top of JFK's head, but perusal of photos of JFK without a shirt on indicate his clavicles may very well have been out of the ordinary.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[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.

I do not believe it was ever adequately demonstrated where the nick in JFK's tie actually was when the tie was knotted, and I still believe it was on the anatomical left side of the knot, and was nicked by a projectile as it passed the outside of the tie knot. I also 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. As Sandy pointed out, blunt nosed scissors are the tool of choice in ER's for removing ties and clothing.

[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.

[Tom Neal]

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?

[Tom Neal]

Again, if it was a sliver of bone, how would it cause a neat 6mm hole in JFK's throat, as described by Dr Perry?

Ray,

I've already heard his explanation for this - I'm eager to hear if your response is similar to mine, which didn't affect his belief at all...

Tom

Tom, I just don't understand how a sliver of bone (If it were such) made a perfectly round hole in The President's neck and yet made rough slits in both layers of his shirt. Common sense says both cannot be true.

I'm with you all the way on this, Ray. I've been stating that for months and all I get is grief and unfounded speculation.

How do you feel about this "long slender bone fragment" that ran out of energy exactly as it completely exited the shirt, and "nicked" the tie? Where is this nick in the tie? As I stated earlier the only damage to the tie is a small rectangular area that was removed by the FBI lab for testing. This nick has been located by various theorists as on the side and on the front, and NOW it was obviously on the back, and the tie has been retied to relocate the "nick" that I don't see. Rather than let the evidence create the theory, the theory now creates the evidence. Sounds very WC to me.

[Tom Neal]

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.

[Tom Neal]

I've asked you to present this "sound hypothesis" for months and months. Haven't heard even the vaguest description of it yet.

You're not my boss, Tom.

I'll get to it when I can.

What reason other than 'it isn't ready for presentation' could there be? If it isn't ready for presentation even now, then you concluded months ago that your theory is correct without any evidence to back it up. Not quite the Scientific Method is it?

Believe whatever you want. I don't care.

My point, which you continue to ignore, is that until you *do* present some evidence all you have is "a secret plan to end the Vietnam war." Edited August 31, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Sandy Larsen]

When I used the words long and slender, I just meant that the shard was longer in the dimension of travel, and more slender perpendicular to that.

And yes, I know this is speculation. But that is exactly what one does when attempting to explain a phenomenon. It's what theoretical scientists do. It's the accepted way of formulating hypotheses.

How do you feel about this "long slender bone fragment" that ran out of energy exactly as it completely exited the shirt, and "nicked" the tie?

In every instance, there has to be a place where a projectile comes to rest. I can think of few more likely places than on the back of a tie knot. The shard would have to have something sharp like a point to snag onto the back of the tie. (So that it wouldn't merely slide off the tie's fabric.) Any energy remaining at that point would be spent pushing the tie away from the body. The energy would be dissipated and the shard would stop.

I'm not definite on the shard hitting the back of the tie anyway. If the knot was shifted to one side when the shard exited, then it could have nicked the tie on the side of the knot and then continued on till it dropped.

Where is this nick in the tie?

It is where the FBI took some material from, of course. Why else would they have taken material from the tie right there and tested it if they didn't think it had been hit with a projectile?

As I stated earlier the only damage to the tie is a small rectangular area that was removed by the FBI lab for testing. This nick has been located by various theorists as on the side and on the front, and NOW it was obviously on the back, and the tie has been retied to relocate the "nick" that I don't see.

Rather than let the evidence create the theory, the theory now creates the evidence. Sounds very WC to me.

The hypothesis has to create the "evidence" where there is none to go by. I'm pretty sure you know that. You just like to bitch when someone else's theory contradicts yours.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

I've asked you to present this "sound hypothesis" for months and months. Haven't heard even the vaguest description of it yet.

You're not my boss, Tom.

I'll get to it when I can.

What reason other than 'it isn't ready for presentation' could there be? If it isn't ready for presentation even now, then you concluded months ago that your theory is correct without any evidence to back it up. Not quite the Scientific Method is it?

Believe whatever you want. I don't care.

My point, which you continue to ignore, is that until you *do* present some evidence all you have is "a secret plan to end the Vietnam war."

Your point is that you're gonna keep hounding me till you get your demands met.

[Tom Neal]

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. I don't know anyone else who presents sheer speculation as more than an unsupported guess. Why do you suppose you can't find any evidence?

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

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

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

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?