The JFK Back Wound

[Robert Harris]

After half a century of quarreling about the location of the back wound on President Kennedy, I think I have stumbled upon a way to resolve this issue once and for all. As is often the case, it is ridiculously simple.

The famous autopsy photo below, has been controversial, because govt. doctors have stated that the upper of two alleged wounds was the actual entry point. Skeptics (including moi) have argued that the ruler is turned in such a way as to be measuring the lower of the two and that there appears to be an abrasion collar around it.

The answer to this controversy is simple. In his testimony, Humes was very specific about both the size of that wound and its location. All we really had to do was take a few measurements. That becomes a relatively simple task, because of the ruler in the photo.

Although its markings are indistinct, we know that it was 12 inches or 305 millimeters long. I made my calculation using a Mac program called Keynote, but there are many CAD or simple drawing programs which can be used to verify my conclusions.

Keynote’s measurements are displayed as pixels. I measured the ruler to be 661 pixels long, which means that 661 pixels = 305 millimeters. Therefore, 1 millimeter is equal to 2.167 pixels.

The first measurement we’ll be considering is what Humes determined to be the size of the wound. That was 7mm tall by 4 mm wide. I did have to round off the number of pixels but the error was negligable. 7mm=15 pixels and 4mm = 9 pixels. I therefore, drew lines of 15 and 9 pixels and placed them alongside the two candidates. This was the result. (The forum software shrunk the image. To see it at full size, just click on it)

The next measurement we’ll look at is about the location of that wound. This is how Humes described it,

“this wound was 14 cm. from the tip of the mastoid process and 14 cm. from the acromion”

Using the same kind of calculations it was quite easy to determine the length of a 14cm (140mm) line. I overlayed two lines on the drawing, one which determines the distance from the apparent wound to the mastoid process and the other, to the acromion. This is the result.

The lower of the two wounds is a virtually perfect match with both the dimensions that Humes reported, and the location. The upper of the two matches none. I would encourage anyone and everyone to do their own measurements to confirm my conclusions.

Edited February 16, 2013 by Robert Harris

[Craig Lamson]

After half a century of quarreling about the location of the back wound on President Kennedy, I think I have stumbled upon a way to resolve this issue once and for all. As is often the case, it is ridiculously simple.

The famous autopsy photo below, has been controversial, because govt. doctors have stated that the upper of two alleged wounds was the actual entry point. Skeptics (including moi) have argued that the ruler is turned in such a way as to be measuring the lower of the two and that there appears to be an abrasion collar around it.

The answer to this controversy is simple. In his testimony, Humes was very specific about both the size of that wound and its location. All we really had to do was take a few measurements. That becomes a relatively simple task, because of the ruler in the photo.

Although its markings are indistinct, we know that it was 12 inches or 305 millimeters long. I made my calculation using a Mac program called Keynote, but there are many CAD or simple drawing programs which can be used to verify my conclusions.

Keynote’s measurements are displayed as pixels. I measured the ruler to be 661 pixels long, which means that 661 pixels = 305 millimeters. Therefore, 1 millimeter is equal to 2.167 pixels.

The first measurement we’ll be considering is what Humes determined to be the size of the wound. That was 7mm tall by 4 mm wide. I did have to round off the number of pixels but the error was negligable. 7mm=15 pixels and 4mm = 9 pixels. I therefore, drew lines of 15 and 9 pixels and placed them alongside the two candidates. This was the result.

The next measurement we’ll look at is about the location of that wound. This is how Humes described it,

“this wound was 14 cm. from the tip of the mastoid process and 14 cm. from the acromion”

Using the same kind of calculations it was quite easy to determine the length of a 14cm (140mm) line. I overlayed two lines on the drawing, one which determines the distance from the apparent wound to the mastoid process and the other, to the acromion. This is the result.

The lower of the two wounds is a virtually perfect match with both the dimensions that Humes reported, and the location. The upper of the two matches none. I would encourage anyone and everyone to do their own measurements to confirm my conclusions.

Only one small problem....no compensation for perspective in your calculations ...

[Robert Harris]

Interesting work Bob.

But as I am sure someone will ask: What is the other mark then?

I honestly don't know what it was.

But I'm quite sure what it was not :-)

[Mark Wengler]

It looks like the back back of the head is tilted back some would this throw off the measurement.

I all always thought the best way to see where the back wound was to measure the shirt from the tip of the collar to the hole in the shirt and the same for the jacket and see were they line up.

[Robert Harris]

It looks like the back back of the head is tilted back some would this throw off the measurement.

I all always thought the best way to see where the back wound was to measure the shirt from the tip of the collar to the hole in the shirt and the same for the jacket and see were they line up.

I realize that the head was tilted back a bit, but click on that second image to blow it up and look at how low on the BOH the mastoid process is . The 14 cm line I overlayed, comes to a point well above that. Also, the dimensions of that lower defect match perfectly with Hume's 7x4 measurement.

I have always believed that the lower of the two alleged wounds was the correct one because the ruler is obviously, turned to measure it and not the higher one. And there seems to be an abrasion collar surrounding it. I have argued for years, that the SBT shot could not have come from the 6th floor of the TSBD because the vertical angle for such a shot was too steep to match the known wounds on the two victims. But both the the vertical and horizontal angles match quite well, with a third floor window in the Daltex building. I explain why I believe that this shot came from there, at the beginning of this video.

[James R Gordon]

Robert,

An interesting study, but I find I cannot agree with you. Being a Macintosh user for more years than I care to remember I am an avid fan of all things Mac. However, assuming I have the correct program, Keynote is Apple’s presentation software. It is excellent software, but I would never use it for measuring. I suggest you think about the Apple app Pixelstick.

You are a reputable researcher and I accept this is an honest piece of work, but I cannot fathom where you have acquired your references. I admit I am not a photographic expert, but I would have thought to be able to reference size – in the way that you are doing – you would need to know about features of the photograph such as distance from object, angle of object etc. I can see nothing in your analysis by which to reference size. For example, if we knew the size of the ruler, then we could ratio the size of other aspects of the image, such as position of objects [ the spots in question ] as well as the distance of location. There would be inaccuracies, but we would at least be in ball park. Without a benchmark, I cannot fathom how you have been able to determine size.

That said, I am in disagreement with your conclusions. Below is my interpretation of what the BE 5 image is telling us. As Craig Lamson so correctly pointed out it is important to account for perspective. I therefore admit that there may be some perspective error in this work. Hopefully it is at a minimum.

See image below:-

True we do not have any size reference by which to judge where an object [ in this case the back wound ] is. But we do have recognizable body features through which we can make judgement. In the image above is a copy of BE 5 and an image of an anatomical model rotated in a similar position to BE 5.

First:- There is a body feature reference that can be worked from. Identified as A2 on BE 5 and A1 on the model is the edge of the scapula spine. Identified as B2 on BE 5 and B1 on the model is the Medial vertebral border which is above the inferior angle. I.e. it is the lower edge of border but above the bottom of the scapula.

Second:- To get some idea of positional reference, I have drawn a line across both scapula spines in both BE 5 and the model. That gives you a base reference. We know that the object in question is not below that point. That line is just above T4’s lessor horn. So the line is below T3.

Third:- Determining the position of the upper line is a bit of a guestamit. Although the Scapula is often referred to as the shoulder bone, where Boswell’s hand is actually above it. Above the Scapula is the Clavicle bone, above which is muscle and flesh. So determining exactly where the hand is a bit subjective, but I have suggested a position with the red line on both the model and BE 5.

So we now have an upper and lower border, within which both these objects reside.

Your argument is that what I have identified as “Object 2” is the real back wound. That has to be wrong.

The Purple double headed arrow indicates the centre of the spine. I admit on BE 5 I am guessing where the middle is between the spine edges of both scapula’s, because the ruler covers the edge of the left spine. But I believe I have the line roughly in place.

If I am right, what you are suggesting is the wound in on the line of the spine, rather than 1.5cm right of the line of the spine. On the other hand, Object 1 would appear to be correctly position as far as distance from the spine is concerned.

Therefore, I submit that what you consider to be the location of the back wound is in error. I believe the real back wound is, what I refer to as Object 1. I suggest what you believe to be the back wound, what I refer to as Object 2, is actually a drop of blood.

James.

Edited February 17, 2013 by James R Gordon

[Robert Harris]

James, I'm not sure I understand your arguments here. There is very little angular distortion in that photo, certainly not enough to invalidate the conclusions. And your argument that Keynote is presentation software is just not relevant, since all we are doing is counting pixels. If Keynote cannot do that, I'm going back PC's :-)

There has been considerable discussion about this in my own forum, between a LN advocate named Kegeshook and myself. If you go to this link and reply #41, you will see a totally different perspective on how far down from the mastoid process, 14cms. really is.

http://jfkhistory.com/forum/index.php?topic=2338.30#lastPost

As to your point that the lower alleged wound is near the center of the back, that is exactly where it needs to be. This is another diagram I made some time ago, calculating angles for the apparent shot at Zapruder frame 223, from the alleged sniper's nest and a window on the third floor of the Daltex building where I feel quite certain that shot came from. In the limo diagram I probably should have turned JFK a few degrees to his right.

At the beginning of this video I explain why I believe one or more shots were fired from that window. From there, all the angles for the 223 shot finally make sense.

[James R Gordon]

Robert,

My first problem, that I appear not to have articulated well, is that on BE 5 you state that the larger object was 15 pixels and that measured 7mm. Yes the ruler may tell you that, but what verification did you have to suggest that these values were valid and not a consequence your use with Keynote on this particular image in that particular resolution and magnification.

You comment that the lower object being by the spine, is exactly where it needs to be. The autopsy is categorical that there was no damage to the spine. Yes the HSCA does have some language on T1, but it has no language on a wound in that area of the body. In addition we now have access to very good high resolution copies of JFK's jacket. There is no damage where this object you say struck JFK. If JFK was wounded in that area of his body, where is the verifying evidence from his jacket and shirt to corroborate your theory?

I am aware that the Daltex may well be a part of the narrative of the Kennedy assassination. I have trajectories leading back to that building. However to suggest that the Connally wound at 225 leads back there is a nonsense. 2D trajectory analysis is a useful tool, but it is open to distorted results. However the serious criticism is your blue dashed line. If that is your understanding of the Connally wound, put simply you are completely wrong. Connally wound was not a through wound, as you appear to suggest. It was a tangential wound. If you plot back the trajectory of the Connally chest wound it would pass to the right of JFK. It would do that because of the tangential angle that it entered Connally body. That is one of the reasons the SBT is an invalid theory.

I have looked at the beginning of your video. I see where you suggest the shot was fired from, but the quality of the image you use does not support your contention. I hear what you say, but you have not - at least to my mind - provided evidence to support it. I do not see this broken window you talk about. I appreciate that you firmly believe that window played a part in the assassination narrative. What you have not done - to my point of view - is to provide evidence of such quality that would lead others to agree with you.

James.

[James R Gordon]

Jim,

Sorry that is an error. Looking from JFK's back it would pass on his left side. This is assuming a Connally position as of Z223/4. If Connally were seated facing forward then the bullet would indeed pass on his right.

How do I know it was a tangential wound? That is what Robert Shaw described it as. In addition a fellow researcher has very kindly given me access to his massive medical research on John Connally. I have access to many of the Connally medical documents. So I know the truth of his wounds. The bullet, was very close to missing Connally altogether. It entered the right of the scapula and below the Axilla. It entered at approximately the position of the 5th rib at the back. It ran down he line of the fith rib. It's point of contact, with the 5th rib, caused the 10cm bone damage. It was these bone fragments, not the bullet, that entered the thorax and caused - among other things - the damage to the lung. Robert Shaws reason why the bullet did not enter the thorax was because - and I have forgotten their name just now - the muscles above and below each rib were not damaged. Specifically he was talking about the muscles between ribs 4 and 5 as well as ribs 5 and 6. His argument was that had the bullet actually entered he thorax, then there would have been damage to these muscles. The angle between the entry wound and the exit wound was measured by Robert Shaw as being 27 degrees when Connally was seated. That is very close the the angle of the fith rib.

There is a Press conference that Robert Shaw and Tom shires conducted on the 23rd. You will find it on YouTube. Half way through that he is asked how near to a vital organ did the bullet come. In his answer Shaw describes how the bullet traveled through his body and how the fragments - created as a result of the bullet striking the rib - created the internal damage.

Many, who do not know the details of the Connally wounds see the wound as a through wound, just like Robert Harris has described above. The bullet did not strike at a right angle, but at an acute angle and running down the line of the 5th rib. That is why I said - although I got it wrong - the bullet would have flown to his right. As pointed above, I should have said to his left.

The pertinent point is that because of the nature of his wond the SBT is invalidated. The only way to create any possibility of success for the SBT is if the Connally wound can be described as a through wound.

James.

Edited February 17, 2013 by James R Gordon

[Craig Lamson]

James, I'm not sure I understand your arguments here. There is very little angular distortion in that photo, certainly not enough to invalidate the conclusions. And your argument that Keynote is presentation software is just not relevant, since all we are doing is counting pixels. If Keynote cannot do that, I'm going back PC's :-)

As usual you prove you simply have no clue.

Lets look at the ruler. Take one end and compare it to the other. Are they the same size?

Your argument is fatally flawed and rendered useless.

[Robert Harris]

Robert,

My first problem, that I appear not to have articulated well, is that on BE 5 you state that the larger object was 15 pixels and that measured 7mm. Yes the ruler may tell you that, but what verification did you have to suggest that these values were valid and not a consequence your use with Keynote on this particular image in that particular resolution and magnification.

You comment that the lower object being by the spine, is exactly where it needs to be. The autopsy is categorical that there was no damage to the spine. Yes the HSCA does have some language on T1, but it has no language on a wound in that area of the body. In addition we now have access to very good high resolution copies of JFK's jacket. There is no damage where this object you say struck JFK. If JFK was wounded in that area of his body, where is the verifying evidence from his jacket and shirt to corroborate your theory?

I am aware that the Daltex may well be a part of the narrative of the Kennedy assassination. I have trajectories leading back to that building. However to suggest that the Connally wound at 225 leads back there is a nonsense. 2D trajectory analysis is a useful tool, but it is open to distorted results. However the serious criticism is your blue dashed line. If that is your understanding of the Connally wound, put simply you are completely wrong. Connally wound was not a through wound, as you appear to suggest. It was a tangential wound. If you plot back the trajectory of the Connally chest wound it would pass to the right of JFK. It would do that because of the tangential angle that it entered Connally body. That is one of the reasons the SBT is an invalid theory.

I have looked at the beginning of your video. I see where you suggest the shot was fired from, but the quality of the image you use does not support your contention. I hear what you say, but you have not - at least to my mind - provided evidence to support it. I do not see this broken window you talk about. I appreciate that you firmly believe that window played a part in the assassination narrative. What you have not done - to my point of view - is to provide evidence of such quality that would lead others to agree with you.

James.

My first problem, that I appear not to have articulated well, is that on BE 5 you state that the larger object was 15 pixels and that measured 7mm.

In Keynote the ruler is 661 pixels long and since we know it to have been 12 inches or 305 mms, we know that 1 mm = 2.167 pixels. Therefore, 7 mms = 15.169 pixels and 4 mms = 8.668 pixels. Of course, I cannot display fractions of pixels, so I did have to round the numbers off to 15 and 9 pixels respectively. I simply drew lines of those lengths and positioned them next to to the two candidates. I invite you or anyone else to verify my results using any valid software on the planet, including Autocad or whatever.

Yes the ruler may tell you that, but what verification did you have to suggest that these values were valid and not a consequence your use with Keynote on this particular image

I'd love to tell you that I am infallible but I certainly am not. OTOH, this is trivial stuff, based on junior high school geometry and I have been playing with this stuff for a long time, going back to the 90's, using Claris Draw under OS 9. I posted this or similar articles in three different forums so far, which are patrolled by ever vigilant nutters and so far, no one (present company excepted) have challenged my math. As I said, this is trivial stuff.

Yes the HSCA does have some language on T1

"Language"?? Why can't we be specific James? They said it was "fractured". And where is T1? This is from Paul Seaton's website

Funny coincidence eh? T1 is a virtually perfect match with the lower of those two alleged wounds.

What do you suppose caused that fracture?

In addition we now have access to very good high resolution copies of JFK's jacket. There is no damage where this object you say struck JFK.

I'm afraid the evidence doesn't support you James.

I do not see this broken window you talk about.

Then you need to explain the irregularly shaped darkened area which BTW, can also be seen in other photos as well, clearly extending only part way across that window. But let's stick with one issue at a time.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Robert Harris

[Craig Lamson]

My first problem, that I appear not to have articulated well, is that on BE 5 you state that the larger object was 15 pixels and that measured 7mm.

In Keynote the ruler is 661 pixels long and since we know it to have been 12 inches or 305 mms, we know that 1 mm = 2.167 pixels. Therefore, 7 mms = 15.169 pixels and 4 mms = 8.668 pixels. Of course, I cannot display fractions of pixels, so I did have to round the numbers off to 15 and 9 pixels respectively. I simply drew lines of those lengths and positioned them next to to the two candidates. I invite you or anyone else to verify my results using any valid software on the planet, including Autocad or whatever.

Yes the ruler may tell you that, but what verification did you have to suggest that these values were valid and not a consequence your use with Keynote on this particular image

I'd love to tell you that I am infallible but I certainly am not. OTOH, this is trivial stuff, based on junior high school geometry and I have been playing with this stuff for a long time, going back to the 90's, using Claris Draw under OS 9. I posted this or similar articles in three different forums so far, which are patrolled by ever vigilant nutters and so far, no one (present company excepted) have challenged my math. As I said, this is trivial stuff.

You total ignorance of the process and basic photographic principal is duly noted.

And your work is still useless.

[Robert Harris]

My first problem, that I appear not to have articulated well, is that on BE 5 you state that the larger object was 15 pixels and that measured 7mm.

In Keynote the ruler is 661 pixels long and since we know it to have been 12 inches or 305 mms, we know that 1 mm = 2.167 pixels. Therefore, 7 mms = 15.169 pixels and 4 mms = 8.668 pixels. Of course, I cannot display fractions of pixels, so I did have to round the numbers off to 15 and 9 pixels respectively. I simply drew lines of those lengths and positioned them next to to the two candidates. I invite you or anyone else to verify my results using any valid software on the planet, including Autocad or whatever.

Yes the ruler may tell you that, but what verification did you have to suggest that these values were valid and not a consequence your use with Keynote on this particular image

I'd love to tell you that I am infallible but I certainly am not. OTOH, this is trivial stuff, based on junior high school geometry and I have been playing with this stuff for a long time, going back to the 90's, using Claris Draw under OS 9. I posted this or similar articles in three different forums so far, which are patrolled by ever vigilant nutters and so far, no one (present company excepted) have challenged my math. As I said, this is trivial stuff.

You total ignorance of the process and basic photographic principal is duly noted.

And your work is still useless.

Hi Craig!

You are correct that I am not a photographic expert.

You were also correct in pointing out that there is angular distortion in that photo. As I'm sure a bright guy like you realizes, ALL two dimensional photos contain angular distortion - no exceptions.

What matters however, is the degree of distortion and whether it is substantial enough to alter our conclusions. Is it your belief that my measurements, adjusted for distortion, would prove that the upper of the two alleged wounds matched Humes measurements better than the lower?

If so, perhaps you could share the math with us that led you to that conclusion. If not, then why would it matter?

[Craig Lamson]

My first problem, that I appear not to have articulated well, is that on BE 5 you state that the larger object was 15 pixels and that measured 7mm.

In Keynote the ruler is 661 pixels long and since we know it to have been 12 inches or 305 mms, we know that 1 mm = 2.167 pixels. Therefore, 7 mms = 15.169 pixels and 4 mms = 8.668 pixels. Of course, I cannot display fractions of pixels, so I did have to round the numbers off to 15 and 9 pixels respectively. I simply drew lines of those lengths and positioned them next to to the two candidates. I invite you or anyone else to verify my results using any valid software on the planet, including Autocad or whatever.

Yes the ruler may tell you that, but what verification did you have to suggest that these values were valid and not a consequence your use with Keynote on this particular image

I'd love to tell you that I am infallible but I certainly am not. OTOH, this is trivial stuff, based on junior high school geometry and I have been playing with this stuff for a long time, going back to the 90's, using Claris Draw under OS 9. I posted this or similar articles in three different forums so far, which are patrolled by ever vigilant nutters and so far, no one (present company excepted) have challenged my math. As I said, this is trivial stuff.

You total ignorance of the process and basic photographic principal is duly noted.

And your work is still useless.

Hi Craig!

You are correct that I am not a photographic expert.

You were also correct in pointing out that there is angular distortion in that photo. As I'm sure a bright guy like you realizes, ALL two dimensional photos contain angular distortion - no exceptions.

What matters however, is the degree of distortion and whether it is substantial enough to alter our conclusions. Is it your belief that my measurements, adjusted for distortion, would prove that the upper of the two alleged wounds matched Humes measurements better than the lower?

If so, perhaps you could share the math with us that led you to that conclusion. If not, then why would it matter?

Wrong again. If there is size change due to perspective, and there is, your calculations are invalid. Period. If your calculations are invalid, your conclusions are invalid. Period.

Your claims fail.

If you want to continue making them YOU need to provide the correct data. PERIOD.

I don't have any "beliefs" nor conclusions here. Only the facts. And the facts are clear and unimpeachable. Your calculations are fatally flawed and your work is useless. Welcome to the real world.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

It looks like Robert Harris has all but proven that the lower mark is the back entrance wound that Humes was describing.