David Josephs Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) Oh, yes, David. I agree that some of the Rydberg drawings are worthless. They're a mess. And the photo on the right that you posted above is totally wrong (of course). It's not even close to representing the correct location of either wound. According to that silly drawing, the wound in the upper back is so far right of the spine, it almost misses JFK entirely. Please try to follow David. The image on the right is Ford's movement of the wound on Ryberg. I agree, it is totally wrong. Why do you suppose Ford had him draw it like that when the shirt shows exactly where the entry wound was? When you look at the hole's location in the Fox image - notice the shoulder blade... is the hole above or below the top of the shoulder blade? Why then does the Ryberg I posted earlier in my composite next to my shirt overlay also have that hole in the exact same incorrect spot? You know the side view with the bullet path from that incorrectly placed hole to the front As I've asked you - simply download the image with the skeleton and shirt overlay and put and "X" where you think the WCR says the entry was... I'll post it again for you... just show us what you believe to be true Edited July 2, 2015 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Oh, yes, David. I agree that some of the Rydberg drawings are worthless. They're a mess. And the photo on the right that you posted above is totally wrong (of course). It's not even close to representing the correct location of either wound. According to that silly drawing, the wound in the upper back is so far right of the spine, it almost misses JFK entirely. Please try to follow David. The image on the right is Ford's movement of the wound on Ryberg. I agree, it is totally wrong. Why do you suppose Ford had him draw it like that when the shirt shows exactly where the entry wound was? When you look at the hole's location in the Fox image - notice the shoulder blade... is the hole above or below the top of the shoulder blade? Why then does the Ryberg I posted earlier in my composite next to my shirt overlay also have that hole in the exact same incorrect spot? You know the side view with the bullet path from that incorrectly placed hole to the front As I've asked you - simply download the image with the skeleton and shirt overlay and put and "X" where you think the WCR says the entry was... I'll post it again for you... just show us what you believe to be true The hole is below the center of the shoulder blade on that photo, but everyone realizes this doesn't represent reality at all. This whole thing is fiction to support a magic bullet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Oh, yes, David. I agree that some of the Rydberg drawings are worthless. They're a mess. And the photo on the right that you posted above is totally wrong (of course). It's not even close to representing the correct location of either wound. According to that silly drawing, the wound in the upper back is so far right of the spine, it almost misses JFK entirely. Please try to follow David. The image on the right is Ford's movement of the wound on Ryberg. I agree, it is totally wrong. Why do you suppose Ford had him draw it like that when the shirt shows exactly where the entry wound was? When you look at the hole's location in the Fox image - notice the shoulder blade... is the hole above or below the top of the shoulder blade? Why then does the Ryberg I posted earlier in my composite next to my shirt overlay also have that hole in the exact same incorrect spot? You know the side view with the bullet path from that incorrectly placed hole to the front As I've asked you - simply download the image with the skeleton and shirt overlay and put and "X" where you think the WCR says the entry was... I'll post it again for you... just show us what you believe to be true The hole is below the center of the shoulder blade on that photo, but everyone realizes this doesn't represent reality at all. This whole thing is fiction to support a magic bullet. See that spot to the left of the S in Scapula? That is NOT the bullet hole. See that spot down about 5 inches below the S. That's the bullet hole. Or at least it used to be, it may have been moved several times depending on which magic bullet story you're trying to support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 (edited) Why do you suppose Ford had him draw it like that when the shirt shows exactly where the entry wound was? The shirt doesn't tell anybody where the wound was. The autopsy photo and the "14 cm. below tip of right mastoid process" measurement from the autopsy report and the face sheet are the things that tell us where the wound was located on the body of John F. Kennedy. You think the SHIRT is BETTER information than the "14 cm. below the mastoid" measurement? Why would anyone other than Cliff Varnell think that? The Rydberg drawings are pretty much worthless. I never use them. I use CE903 instead. It's much more accurate. And no "Neck" entry required (or even WANTED) here.... Edited July 3, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 In relation to the back, the mastoid process is a moveable point...depending on how the neck is, or is not, bent. Lean the head to the left, and the right mastoid process is further from a selected point on the right half of the back. Lean the head to the right, and the right mastoid process is closer to a selected point on the right half of the back. Same with leaning the head backwards or forwards...the relationship between the right mastoid process and the back wound changes with movement of the head. This, in turn, calls the entire measuring process into question. Why was the back wound location not measured from a FIXED point, in relation to the back itself? Relating the back wound to the position of the right mastoid process--ironically, the very place RFK was shot--seems to be an attempt to obfuscate the actual position of the wound. It is a somewhat ambiguous reference. Now, if we were referencing a particular HEAD wound, the right mastoid process might be a perfect reference. On a BACK wound, it would be much more logical to reference the wound location to a particular vertebra, and the distance [in this case, to the right] from that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 (edited) Tell all that to Dr. Cyril Wecht, Mark. If I remember Dr. Wecht's comments about this topic correctly, he thinks all wounds should be referenced FROM THE TOP OF THE HEAD DOWNWARD, which, of course, means it would ALSO be a "movable" body part, because it still is, after all, being referenced in relation to the HEAD, which is movable.The mastoid measurement is perfectly fine. CTers just like to gripe about everything the autopsists did. If the measurement was taken from the mastoid when the body was in an anatomic posture (i.e., the "autopsy" position)--and why would Humes be doing such a measurement with the body of JFK in any other position?--then measuring from the mastoid process is a perfectly good place to measure from. Certainly AS GOOD as Dr. Wecht's preferred starting point of the top of the head. Edited July 3, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 (edited) The face sheet shows where the bullet wound was (drawn in) but the written detail was added later. The drawn spot matches the holes in the jacket and the shirt. It also ties in with Burkley's written statement that the wound was at the third thoracic Vertabrae. The only persons who said the wound was in the neck were the "under orders"" autopsy surgeons. Believe them if you want. Why was JFK's body unlawfully spirited away by the Secret Service under threat of armed force? Why was the autopsy performed by the military? Why do the autopsy photographs differ markedly from recollections of the Parkland Doctors? Edited July 3, 2015 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Oh, yes, David. I agree that some of the Rydberg drawings are worthless. They're a mess. And the photo on the right that you posted above is totally wrong (of course). It's not even close to representing the correct location of either wound. According to that silly drawing, the wound in the upper back is so far right of the spine, it almost misses JFK entirely. Please try to follow David. The image on the right is Ford's movement of the wound on Ryberg. I agree, it is totally wrong. Why do you suppose Ford had him draw it like that when the shirt shows exactly where the entry wound was? When you look at the hole's location in the Fox image - notice the shoulder blade... is the hole above or below the top of the shoulder blade? Why then does the Ryberg I posted earlier in my composite next to my shirt overlay also have that hole in the exact same incorrect spot? You know the side view with the bullet path from that incorrectly placed hole to the front As I've asked you - simply download the image with the skeleton and shirt overlay and put and "X" where you think the WCR says the entry was... I'll post it again for you... just show us what you believe to be true The hole is below the center of the shoulder blade on that photo, but everyone realizes this doesn't represent reality at all. This whole thing is fiction to support a magic bullet. See that spot to the left of the S in Scapula? That is NOT the bullet hole. See that spot down about 5 inches below the S. That's the bullet hole. Or at least it used to be, it may have been moved several times depending on which magic bullet story you're trying to support. Kenneth, there was only one hole in his back and that was the hole... Here is an extreme close-up of it... if you can corroborate another hole (and not Lipsey or Kellerman) O'Connor's drawing of the wounds from the ARRB... only Lipsey puts a wound where Ryberg shows it... 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