Dismantling the Single Bullet Theory Pt 5

[James R Gordon]

Richard,

I have sympathy for point 1. Because if it is not that then I am really forced into taking more seriously David Lifton's body alteration theory. I take David as a JFK researcher very seriously, but I have difficulty with this theory.

Maybe also point 2. It is just such a strange wound.

I absolutely agree that the only logical reason for the strap injury is an entry wound in the throat. I suspect that wound is also responsible for the lung. Because the lung is lower in the chest cavity than CE 385 suggests. Therefore to be injured the bullet/missile would have to be on a downward trajectory.

I seriously doubt point 4. 4 inches below the shoulder has to have the wound somewhere around T2 T1, though not above T1. First it is shallow wound, and that is why I suspect the lung was not damaged (aside from the bruise): the bullet did not go far enough into the body to be able to damage it. Second, it is too low to be able to bruise the top of the lung.

I have been thinking about JFK's reactions after Z225. Aside from his arms rising up, his body does not really move, aside from the lunge forward at z130ff, until he sinks to his left. Whereas prior to Z225 you see quite a it of body movement. This observation may not mean anything, but I have looked at the Z film in the light of the impact of such a missile. I do not know what movement we should expect from someone who has been hit by two missile ( the back and throat wound ), but I would have thought you would have seen more reaction.

James

[Richard Hocking]

...

I do not know what movement we should expect from someone who has been hit by two missile ( the back and throat wound ), but I would have thought you would have seen more reaction.

If the two missiles hit simultaneously, we would only see one apparent reaction. But if Cliff is correct in placing the first missile around Z 190, and if the 2nd hit arrives just before Z 224, the first paralytic would already be taking effect by the time the 2nd one hit. In that scenario, I would not expect to see a "2nd reaction" from JFK, whose visible movements on the Z film would be just the continued "momentum" of the reaction from the first shot.

Either way, you can make a case for only one visible reaction.

[David Josephs]

If the object was to kill him... and there are clear shots available enough to place a tiny "whatever" in his throat...

Why not just take the kill shots first and forego the PRE shooting ....

the theory falls down unless "they" know that no one is going to be throwing themselves over JFK, pulling him down, or simply speeding away after hearing these "shots"

So once again, if the SS driver is slowing the vehicle to allow kill shots... any PRE shooting SHOULD alarm the SS and others into action...

That there was no action taken other than to turn and loate shot origins AGAINST their SOP... (protect the POTUS)

There are numeous ground level sounds that suggested shots fired WELL BEFORE z313... The SS and DPD ignoring these sounds and reacting

as they did HAD to be known ahead of time IF paralyzing shots were to be used. IMO...

Unless Richard or Cliff can explain that thinking to me...

Here are all the frames on which NPIC/LIFE says shots occur... what we do know is that NPIC could not understand how the 1st and 2nd shots were identified to a specific frame OTHER than

counting backward... and NOT looking at THESE frames....

do you see shots in any of these frames?

[David Josephs]

A few possible inferences based on information in this thread:

1. Small throat entry wound may have been caused by blood soluble paralytic round (or flechette).

2. Shallow Lower Back entry (4" below shoulder) wound may also have been caused by a blood soluble paralytic.

3. Strap muscle damage could be the consequence of #1 above.

4. Bruised Rt. Lung Tip could be the consequence of #2 above.

5. Z Film supports this possibility, showing JFK sitting relatively upright and stationary when the final (real) bullets hit Connally and JFK.

It makes sense that if paralyzing the target is a priority, a team might use a backup (two shooters) to make sure the objective is accomplished.

Perry tells us the strap muscle(s) on the right were cut by him...

Dr. PERRY - Yes. Once the transverse incision through the skin and subcutaneous tissues was made, it was necessary to separate the strap muscles covering the anterior muscles of the windpipe and thyroid. At that point the trachea was noted to be deviated slightly to the left and I found it necessary to sever the exterior strap muscles on the other side to reach the trachea.

Humes directly contradicts this testimony.... as I posted earlier... and claims these wounds occurred at the time of the shot...

and we're supposed to believe HUMES as if he was a qualified forensic pathologist....

"Stuck in his thumb, pulled out a plum and said, Where da bullet go?"

DJ

[James R Gordon]

David,

It is a good idea not to distort the record. I mentioned earlier in this thread that the strap Perry cut was the Left one and not the Right.

"The trachea was deviated slightly to the left and it was necessary to divide the strap muscles on the left side in order to gain access to the trachea" H6 P. 18 As I pointed out, in this context "divide" means cut.

I agreed there is a certain ambiguity about your reference, but the quote I have given you above makes it clear, without ambiguity, that Perry cut the left strap and not the right strap. Since only one strap was damaged, then means, however you read your quote, it was the left strap that was cut.

Humes does not contradict the evidence. He says the injury to the right strap occurred while JFK was living because there was a bruise on the strap. Had damage occurred after he was dead, there would be ( and could be ) no bruising. A person needs to be living and blood flowing for bruising to occur.

James.

[Cliff Varnell]

If the object was to kill him... and there are clear shots available enough to place a tiny "whatever" in his throat...

Why not just take the kill shots first and forego the PRE shooting ....

The shooters were committing murder AND treason. Could the plotters be absolutely 100% sure that nerves wouldn't effect a first-shot/kill-shot?

Was a first-shot/kill-shot 100% guaranteed?

No. No way. And they didn't want to risk a trip to the gallows, so they likely wanted to paralyze JFK first.

Scorpion Logic.

the theory falls down unless "they" know that no one is going to be throwing themselves over JFK, pulling him down, or simply speeding away after hearing these "shots"

Let's game this out, shall we?

What is the worst-case scenario if a first-shot/kill-shot only wings JFK and he hits the deck, ex-military man that he was? They take him to the hospital, he's treated for his wound, and the plotters lose the best chance they have since Presidential security would be far tighter after that.

What's the worst case scenario if a blood soluble flechette struck JFK but he instantly hit the deck within the two seconds it took to paralyze him? They rush him to the hospital, by which time he was no longer paralyzed. They have a wound in his neck and some minor internal damage, but no bullet and no exit.

What they have is a mystery. No bullet, no major damage. What kind of assassination attempt is that?

So once again, if the SS driver is slowing the vehicle to allow kill shots... any PRE shooting SHOULD alarm the SS and others into action...

That there was no action taken other than to turn and loate shot origins AGAINST their SOP... (protect the POTUS)

The first two shots occurred over a roughly 4 second sequence. First shot -- paralytic. Second -- toxin. JFK was a dead man in 4 seconds, far too short a time for any SS man interceding.

I'd say the head shots were for show, the beginning of the cover-up.

There are numeous ground level sounds that suggested shots fired WELL BEFORE z313... The SS and DPD ignoring these sounds and reacting

as they did HAD to be known ahead of time IF paralyzing shots were to be used. IMO...

Why would they have to know? And if the shots were sound suppressed it would take a bit longer than four seconds to figure it all out and successfully cover the Boss.

The second shot -- the back wound -- was the kill shot. Or so I'd speculate.

Unless Richard or Cliff can explain that thinking to me...

Here are all the frames on which NPIC/LIFE says shots occur... what we do know is that NPIC could not understand how the 1st and 2nd shots were identified to a specific frame OTHER than

counting backward... and NOT looking at THESE frames....

do you see shots in any of these frames?

Note the posture change between Z242 and Z264. I'd put the back shot between Z55 (Altgens 6) and Z264. Since there wasn't blood sputtering from the throat wound, the plotters could be sure Jackie wouldn't figure out what was happening, so no worry about her pulling her husband down before the kill shot.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

...

I do not know what movement we should expect from someone who has been hit by two missile ( the back and throat wound ), but I would have thought you would have seen more reaction.

If the two missiles hit simultaneously, we would only see one apparent reaction. But if Cliff is correct in placing the first missile around Z 190, and if the 2nd hit arrives just before Z 224, the first paralytic would already be taking effect by the time the 2nd one hit. In that scenario, I would not expect to see a "2nd reaction" from JFK, whose visible movements on the Z film would be just the continued "momentum" of the reaction from the first shot.

Either way, you can make a case for only one visible reaction.

Richard, I defer to Glen Bennett for the timing of the second shot. At Z202 he was looking to the right, as per his official report and Willis 5. He didn't see JFK struck in the back until he turned to face front. Altgens 6 (Z255) shows him turned to the right a bit, but his facial features are blurred, consistent with head movement.

Therefore, I'd put the back shot post-Z255. Having already paralyzed him (according to this scenario), it makes sense to me that they'd go in for the kill with the back shot. Shellfish toxin, perhaps.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[David Josephs]

David,

It is a good idea not to distort the record. I mentioned earlier in this thread that the strap Perry cut was the Left one and not the Right.

"The trachea was deviated slightly to the left and it was necessary to divide the strap muscles on the left side in order to gain access to the trachea" H6 P. 18 As I pointed out, in this context "divide" means cut.

I agreed there is a certain ambiguity about your reference, but the quote I have given you above makes it clear, without ambiguity, that Perry cut the left strap and not the right strap. Since only one strap was damaged, then means, however you read your quote, it was the left strap that was cut.

Humes does not contradict the evidence. He says the injury to the right strap occurred while JFK was living because there was a bruise on the strap. Had damage occurred after he was dead, there would be ( and could be ) no bruising. A person needs to be living and blood flowing for bruising to occur.

James.

"Divide" can just as easily mean "move aside" SEVER means to cut... he SEVERED the strap muscles on the OTHER side. So we have the "Divide" ambiguity and the "OTHER SIDE" ambiguity... yes?

I am not distorting anything James... you are making assumptions about the meaning of words.... "divide" need not mean cut, while "sever" cannot mean anything else.

And HUMES does contracdict the evidence... I posted his response to the question earlier... he specifically states that the wounds and bruises to the strap muscles on the right side were NOT DONE at Parkland as they had to have been done while he was alive...

Talk about distorting the record James... Humes states that the muscle damaged occurred during the shooting and not from what Perry did. Pretty plain and simple to me...

Why are we disagreeing about this?

Commander HUMES - Yes; in essence we have. When examining the wounds in the base of the President's neck anteriorly, the region of the tracheotomy performed at Parkland Hospital, we noted and we noted in our record, some contusion and bruising of the muscles of the neck of the President. We noted that at the time of the postmortem examination.

Now, we also made note of the types of wounds which I mentioned to you before in this testimony on the chest which were going to be used by the doctors there to place chest tubes. They also made other wounds. one on the left arm, and a wound on the ankle of the President with the idea of administering intravenous. blood and other fluids in hope of replacing the blood which the President had lost from his extensive wounds.

Those wounds showed no evidence of bruising or contusion or physical violence, which made us reach the conclusion that they were performed during the agonal moments of the late president, and when the circulation was, in essence, very seriously embarrassed, if not nonfunctional. So that these wounds, the wound of the chest and the wound of the arm and of the ankle were performed about the same time as the tracheotomy wound because only a very few moments of time elapsed when all this was going on. So, therefore, we reached the conclusion that the damage to these muscles on the anterior neck just below this wound were received at approximately the same time that the wound here on the top of the pleural cavity was, while the President still lived and while his heart and lungs were operating in such a fashion to permit him to have a bruise in the vicinity, because that he did have in these strap muscles in the neck, but he didn't have in the areas of the other incisions that were made at Parkland Hospital. So we feel that, had this missile not made its path in that fashion, the wound made by Doctor Perry in the neck would not have been able to produce, wouldn't have been able to produce, these contusions of the musculature of the neck.

[Cliff Varnell]

4 inches below the shoulder has to have the wound somewhere around T2 T1, though not above T1.

James, T1 is just below the base of the neck. The base of the neck is not 4 inches below the shoulder.

The back wound was at T3 -- or maybe T3/T4. Period. Not only do the properly prepared medical documents put the wound there specifically, and not only was there 16 witnesses who placed the wound that low, but the bullet holes in the clothes also correspond to that location.

The evidence is overwhelming and defies speculation.

JFK's posture caused the fabric of his shirt to INDENT along his right shoulder-line. The higher one raises one's arm the greater the indentation of the fabric.

Indentation is not elevation in any way, shape or form.

The T3 back wound is the cardinal fact of the JFK assassination, the prima facie case for conspiracy which requires no expert analysis to grasp.

Just look down on your right shoulder-line; raise your right arm; observe the indentation of the fabric.

This is a universal phenomenon. The term of art in clothing design is "casual horizontal ease" -- the fabric moves sideways as it indents.

Happens every time, and it happened to JFK.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[David Josephs]

Cliff...

Help us understand the T3 conclusion... for as I can tell it appears more like T1... T3 is pretty low on the back Cliff..

I added a few degrees tilt for Elm....

http://www.stockmedi...omy-curves.html

And in this illustration it also seems T3 is well too low...

the hole is ABOVE the notch in the scapula... it seems to me that T3 is much closer to that horizontal notch i the scapula

the bblood mark down and to the left of THE hole seems closer to T3 than the actual hole...

[James R Gordon]

"Divide" can just as easily mean "move aside" SEVER means to cut... he SEVERED the strap muscles on the OTHER side. So we have the "Divide" ambiguity and the "OTHER SIDE" ambiguity... yes?

I am not distorting anything James... you are making assumptions about the meaning of words.... "divide" need not mean cut, while "sever" cannot mean anything else.

And HUMES does contracdict the evidence... I posted his response to the question earlier... he specifically states that the wounds and bruises to the strap muscles on the right side were NOT DONE at Parkland as they had to have been done while he was alive...

Talk about distorting the record James... Humes states that the muscle damaged occurred during the shooting and not from what Perry did. Pretty plain and simple to me...

Why are we disagreeing about this?

Commander HUMES - Yes; in essence we have. When examining the wounds in the base of the President's neck anteriorly, the region of the tracheotomy performed at Parkland Hospital, we noted and we noted in our record, some contusion and bruising of the muscles of the neck of the President. We noted that at the time of the postmortem examination.

Now, we also made note of the types of wounds which I mentioned to you before in this testimony on the chest which were going to be used by the doctors there to place chest tubes. They also made other wounds. one on the left arm, and a wound on the ankle of the President with the idea of administering intravenous. blood and other fluids in hope of replacing the blood which the President had lost from his extensive wounds.

Those wounds showed no evidence of bruising or contusion or physical violence, which made us reach the conclusion that they were performed during the agonal moments of the late president, and when the circulation was, in essence, very seriously embarrassed, if not nonfunctional. So that these wounds, the wound of the chest and the wound of the arm and of the ankle were performed about the same time as the tracheotomy wound because only a very few moments of time elapsed when all this was going on. So, therefore, we reached the conclusion that the damage to these muscles on the anterior neck just below this wound were received at approximately the same time that the wound here on the top of the pleural cavity was, while the President still lived and while his heart and lungs were operating in such a fashion to permit him to have a bruise in the vicinity, because that he did have in these strap muscles in the neck, but he didn't have in the areas of the other incisions that were made at Parkland Hospital. So we feel that, had this missile not made its path in that fashion, the wound made by Doctor Perry in the neck would not have been able to produce, wouldn't have been able to produce, these contusions of the musculature of the neck.

David.

Merriam-Webster Medical dictionary defines divide as:-

transitive verb

: to separate into two or more parts <divide a nerve surgically>

There is no “maybe” about the meaning of the word. When Perry used that term he knew exactly what he was saying. You are wrong when you say ""divide" need not mean cut, while "sever" cannot mean anything else." In medical terms "divide" does mean to cut.

Humes point about the bruising having to happen while JFK was alive is because to be able to bruise the blood needs to be flowing through a persons veins. When a persons dead, or effectively dead, the blood is not flowing and therefore bruising cannot occur. That is exactly what Humes is saying in your red emphasised text above. The bruising is how he is able to distinguish between wounds received while alive and wounds received after death.

James

[David Josephs]

Okay James...

"seperate" does not necessarily have to = "to surgicaly cut" - you can DIVIDE muscles from each other without cutting them.. one would SEPERATE them by moving them aside...

When one SEVERS something, one CUTS it... there is no other definition.

Other than a scapel... which Perry has in his hands as he is doing the tracheotomy... which INSTRUMENT would he need to divide the strap muscles

Dr. PERRY - All right. Well, to regress, then, at the time I began the tracheotomy, I made an incision right through the wound which was present in the neck in order to gain complete control of any injury in the underlying trachea.

I made a transverse incision right through this wound and carried it down to the superficial fascia, to expose the strap muscles overlying the thyroid and the trachea. There was an injury to the right lateral aspect of the trachea at the level of the external wound. The trachea was deviated slightly to the left and it was necessary to divide the strap muscles on the left side in order to gain access to the trachea. At this point, I recall, Dr. Jones right on my left was placing a catheter into a vein in the-left arm because he handed me a necessary instrument which I needed in the performance of the procedure.

The wound in the trachea was then enlarged to admit a cuffed tracheotomy tube to support respiration. I noted that there was free air and blood in the superior right mediastinum.

Although I saw no injury to the lung or to the pleural space, the presence of this free blood and air in this area could be indicative of a wound of the right hemithorax, and I asked that someone put a right chest tube in for seal drainage

Dr. PERRY - Yes. Once the transverse incision through the skin and subcutaneous tissues was made, it was necessary to separate the strap muscles covering the anterior muscles of the windpipe and thyroid. (In other words, since the trach was moved to the left and the LEFT MUSCLES covered the trach, he needed to divide them... MOVE THEM APART - he has a scapel in his hand James... he would not need a NECESSARY INSTRUMENT if all he was to do was CUT. He goes on to say ANOTHER CONDITION kept him from reaching the trachea... the MUSCLES ON THE OTHER SIDE... so he severed them as opposed to dividing the ones on the LEFT) At that point the trachea was noted to be deviated slightly to the left and I found it necessary to sever the exterior strap muscles on the other side to reach the trachea.

James.. not that it matter so much at this point.. I can see you POV - be better to get some clarification right from Perry if possible.

Yet I think you can also appreciate my POV on this as well...

I also do not see how the back wound is so low as to be T3... Didn't Burkley say T1... or did he say T3? I can't remember.

DJ

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff...

Help us understand the T3 conclusion... for as I can tell it appears more like T1... T3 is pretty low on the back Cliff..

I added a few degrees tilt for Elm....

http://www.stockmedi...omy-curves.html

And in this illustration it also seems T3 is well too low...

the hole is ABOVE the notch in the scapula... it seems to me that T3 is much closer to that horizontal notch i the scapula

the bblood mark down and to the left of THE hole seems closer to T3 than the actual hole...

Do you have any proof that that's JFK in that photo?

Nope.

Can you identify the individual who developed the photo?

Nope.

Was the photo prepared according to proper autopsy protocol?

Nope.

Here's what the HSCA concluded about the autopsy photos, from Vol 7 (emphasis added):

Among the JFK assassination materials in the National Archives is a series of negatives and prints of photographs taken during autopsy. The deficiencies of these photographs as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have been described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:

1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.

2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.

3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present, were positioned in such a manner to make it difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements of critical features (such as the wound in the upper back) from anatomical landmarks.

4. None of the photographs contain information identifying the victim; such as his name, the autopsy case number, the date and place of the examination.

In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of haste, inexperience and unfamiliarity with the understandably rigorous standards generally expected in photographs to be used as scientific evidence. In fact, under ordinary circumstances, the defense could raise some reasonable and, perhaps, sustainable objections to an attempt to introduce such poorly made and documented photographs as evidence in a murder trial. Furthermore, even the prosecution might have second thoughts about

using certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than informative. Unfortunately, they are the only photographic record of the autopsy.

Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been content to point out the obvious deficiencies of the autopsy photographs as scientific evidence. Some have questioned their very authenticity. These theorists suggest that the body shown in at least some of the photographs is not President Kennedy, but another decedent deliberately mutilated to simulate a pattern of wounds supportive of the Warren Commissions' interpretation of their nature and significance. As outlandish as such a macabre proposition might appear, it is one that, had the case gone to trial, might have been effectively raised by an astute defense anxious to block the introduction of the photographs as evidence. In any event, the onus of establishing the authenticity

of these photographs would have rested with the prosecution.

Not only was it "difficult or impossible" to get a scientifically adequate measurement from the Fox 5 back-of-the-head photo, but there is no chain of possession for it. The woman on record as having developed the extant autopsy photos, Saundra Kay Spencer, said this to the ARRB on 6/5/97 (emphasis added):

Q: Did you ever see any other photographic material related to the autopsy in addition to what you have already described?

A: Just, you know, when they came out with some books and stuff later that showed autopsy pictures and stuff, and I assumed that they were done in—you know, down in Dallas or something, because they were not the ones that I had worked on.

Q: Do you recall any books that you have seen with autopsy photographs in them?

A: I can't quote the titles of them.

Q: But you have seen commercially published books with what appear to be autopsy photos in them?

A: Yes.

...

Q: Did you have any opportunity to observe the content of the negatives and the prints as you were working on them?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Can you describe for me what you saw as best you can recollect?

A: Briefly, they were very, what I consider pristine for an autopsy. There was no blood or opening cavities, opening or anything of that nature. It was quite reverent in how they handled it.

Q: If I can just ask for some clarification. Do you mean that the body appeared to be clean, had been washed? Is that what you are suggesting?

A: Yes.

Q: And that was different from what you had seen in other autopsy photographs, is that right?

A: Yes. In other autopsies, they have the opening of the cavity and the removing of vital organs for weighing and stuff of this nature....

Poorly made, highly deficient as scientific evidence, no chain of possession, prima facie inadmissible in court.

Worthless.

[Cliff Varnell]

I also do not see how the back wound is so low as to be T3... Didn't Burkley say T1... or did he say T3? I can't remember.

Third thoracic vertebra.

[James R Gordon]

The T3 back wound is the cardinal fact of the JFK assassination, the prima facie case for conspiracy which requires no expert analysis to grasp.

Cliff,

I would suggest that one cardinal fact of the JFK assassination, is the fact that JFK was wounded in the back. The “where” he was wounded, is much more debatable.

You suggest that the wound was certainly as low as T3 and even suggest it might be closer to T4. I accept that Dr Berkley placed it at T3 and the Boswell drawing suggests it is in the same location. However BE 5, the image of the back wound, suggests it was a little higher. I am aware that you have disputed the rising of the jacket and shirt, over this issue, with a fellow forum member. Although I doubt the jacket and shirt rose anything like 3 inches, Croft (and other images) make it clear the jacket and shirt were capable of rising up and did rise up.

I have no idea who created this image, and so I can’t give credit where it is due, but the image suggests that from the shoulder the back hole's distance is around 8cm. That is approximately 3.2 inches.

Looking at the image that would appear about right, by that I mean the wound appears closer to 3 inches than 4. In that case that would take the hole into the T2/T3 area. I am not suggesting that this image is definitive in suggesting the position of the back wound, but it appears to agree with where the image suggests the wound may be.

It is also pertinent to highlight that when measuring from the shoulder downwards, say 4 inches. At the top of the shoulder is flesh and muscle. I don’t know, off hand, what distance it covers but it could be around an inch. T1 is below this area. I have pressed hard on my shoulder and I can hardly feel Costa IR, that is the bone, in that back, that connects with T1. All I feel is flesh and muscle. So if we are measuring the position of the back wound from the top of the shoulder, I believe we need to take into account the amount of flesh and muscle that lie above Costa IR, which gets us to the level of T1 and thereafter to T3.

In a post to David Josephs you cast doubt on whether the individual in BE 5 is actually JFK. Your citation of the HCSA criticisms is pertinent and I agree with all them. The documentation of these images leaves much to be desired. However although the HCSA does raise the issue that some researchers suggest that it is not JFK in some of the images, my reading of their comments suggest that the HSCA do not go along with that. They refer to such a suggestion as “outlandish” and “macabre”. They simply point out that had the case gone to trial the issue of authenticity might well have arisen and the HCSA recognize that, in that event, it would have been the responsibility of the prosecution to establish the images authenticity.

I have no doubt that the individual we see in these images is indeed JFK. I tend to agree with the HCSA that to argue otherwise is, indeed, outlandish and macabre.

James.