Things Don't Add Up : A Novel of Kennedy Assassination Research

[David Josephs]

Mr. Lamson

Yes, I am familiar with the Croft photo. There is a small wrinkle in the material of his suit coat on the right hand side, likely from his right arm being raised. However, the wrinkle is not seen on the left side, indicating that it is far too small to allow for a bullet entering JFK at the collar line to leave a hole in his jacket and shirt 5-6" below the collar line.

However, if the wrinkle is as large as you claim it is, the inside fold of the wrinkle would extend down JFK's back quite a ways. Are you not concerned that the C7/T1 juncture would be somewhat higher than the bottom fold of the wrinkle?

You don't have the first clue bobby. Do your research and get back to me when you have.

Pot calling kettle black

that's it buddy - defend your three little inches to the death...

Edited May 18, 2013 by David Josephs

[Craig Lamson]

Mr. Lamson

Yes, I am familiar with the Croft photo. There is a small wrinkle in the material of his suit coat on the right hand side, likely from his right arm being raised. However, the wrinkle is not seen on the left side, indicating that it is far too small to allow for a bullet entering JFK at the collar line to leave a hole in his jacket and shirt 5-6" below the collar line.

However, if the wrinkle is as large as you claim it is, the inside fold of the wrinkle would extend down JFK's back quite a ways. Are you not concerned that the C7/T1 juncture would be somewhat higher than the bottom fold of the wrinkle?

You don't have the first clue bobby. Do your research and get back to me when you have.

Pot calling kettle black

that's it buddy - defend your three little inches to the death...

No need to defend it davie Jo, it's unimpeachable.

And that's what scares you...REALITY...

[Robert Prudhomme]

Mr. Lamson

Yes, I am familiar with the Croft photo. There is a small wrinkle in the material of his suit coat on the right hand side, likely from his right arm being raised. However, the wrinkle is not seen on the left side, indicating that it is far too small to allow for a bullet entering JFK at the collar line to leave a hole in his jacket and shirt 5-6" below the collar line.

However, if the wrinkle is as large as you claim it is, the inside fold of the wrinkle would extend down JFK's back quite a ways. Are you not concerned that the C7/T1 juncture would be somewhat higher than the bottom fold of the wrinkle?

You don't have the first clue bobby. Do your research and get back to me when you have.

Mr. Lamson

Care to get into a discussion about the real reason the SBT won't work? I noticed you and Mr. Von Pein have completely ignored the post I made with the anatomical diagram.

[Craig Lamson]

Mr. Lamson

Yes, I am familiar with the Croft photo. There is a small wrinkle in the material of his suit coat on the right hand side, likely from his right arm being raised. However, the wrinkle is not seen on the left side, indicating that it is far too small to allow for a bullet entering JFK at the collar line to leave a hole in his jacket and shirt 5-6" below the collar line.

However, if the wrinkle is as large as you claim it is, the inside fold of the wrinkle would extend down JFK's back quite a ways. Are you not concerned that the C7/T1 juncture would be somewhat higher than the bottom fold of the wrinkle?

You don't have the first clue bobby. Do your research and get back to me when you have.

Mr. Lamson

Care to get into a discussion about the real reason the SBT won't work? I noticed you and Mr. Von Pein have completely ignored the post I made with the anatomical diagram.

Nope, I could care less about the SBT.

[David Von Pein]

Mr. Von Pein...completely ignored the post I made with the anatomical diagram.

I couldn't care less about your diagram. Draw as many of those things as you want. I always ignore them. And that's because those diagrams can never change these words written in JFK's Official Autopsy Report in November 1963:

"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body."

The above conclusion was arrived at by Dr. Humes after he talked with Dr. Perry, with Dr. Humes coming to the only logical conclusion he could possibly come to (while also considering the fact there were NO BULLETS in Kennedy's body at all).

Yes, Dr. Humes made some mistakes. But should I think he was a totally incompetent boob about all of his bottom-line conclusions relating to his 3-hour-long autopsy on the body of the President?

No, I don't think I should. Especially since he was the one who really got the "SBT" rolling with his perfectly logical and accurate determination about the bullet making "its exit through the anterior surface of the neck".

I'll always admire Joseph Humes for putting those words in the autopsy report. Which really makes Dr. Humes one of the original authors of the SBT (at least the first half of the SBT, at any rate).

And even Cyril "The SBT Is Impossible" Wecht thinks the bullet went clean through JFK's body. Imagine that.

http://Bugliosi-Vs-Wecht.blogspot.com

Edited May 18, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

Mr. Von Pein...completely ignored the post I made with the anatomical diagram.

I couldn't care less about your diagram. Draw as many of those things as you want. I always ignore them. And that's because those diagrams can never change these words written in JFK's Official Autopsy Report in November 1963:

"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body."

The above conclusion was arrived at by Dr. Humes after he talked with Dr. Perry, with Dr. Humes coming to the only logical conclusion he could possibly come to (while also considering the fact there were NO BULLETS in Kennedy's body at all).

Yes, Dr. Humes made some mistakes. But should I think he was a totally incompetent boob about all of his bottom-line conclusions relating to his 3-hour-long autopsy on the body of the President?

No, I don't think I should. Especially since he was the one who really got the "SBT" rolling with his perfectly logical and accurate determination about the bullet making "its exit through the anterior surface of the neck".

I'll always admire Joseph Humes for putting those words in the autopsy report. Which really makes Dr. Humes one of the original authors of the SBT (at least the first half of the SBT, at any rate).

And even Dr. Cyril "The SBT Is Impossible" Wecht thinks the bullet went clean through JFK's body. Imagine that.

http://Bugliosi-Vs-Wecht.blogspot.com

Mr. Von Pein

For your information, I did not draw that diagram. If I was that talented, I wouldn't be chatting with the likes of you on an Internet forum.

Unfortunately for you, and the Single Bullet Theory, that diagram is quite accurate and presents several problems for you.

As the veterbrae in the region of C7/T1 are stacked quite closely together (see diagram), there is no way a 6.5 mm bullet can go beween the right transverse processes of C7 and T1. Rather, it is required to go outside of the transverse process of C7. This presents you with two problems. First, the point of entry in JFK's back, to accomodate this and still allow the bullet to strike the right side of JFK's trachea, becomes much further to the right of JFK's spine than the 1.5-2" generally accepted. Second, the angle of at LEAST 25° has the bullet travelling towards the middle of the limo, not Connally's right armpit. Third, the right carotid artery and jugular vein are directly in the path of a bullet traversing this course. A hit on either one would have instantly produced copious amounts of blood; not seen, of course.

Dr. Humes may have hypothesized that the bullet passed from back to front and exited JFK's throat, but I must have missed the part where Humes said it then made a sharp right turn and headed for Connally's right armpit.

[David Von Pein]

Oh, good Lord! There are STILL CTers, in the 21st century, who think the bullet had to make a "sharp right turn" after exiting Kennedy in order to hit Connally.

Unbelievable.

Welcome to the Dark Ages, Bob.

[Pat Speer]

So, how 'bout it, David? Is there even the slightest chance, in your opinion, that they lied?

Or do you really think the chalk mark was added onto the jacket in the location of the wound in CE 386?

Conspiracy theorists are just dying to call people "liars", aren't they? It never ends.

And in this instance, it's even sillier than usual--a lot sillier--because the chalk mark that was placed on the stand-in's back is unquestionably closer to the true and accurate location of where the bullet entered JFK's back than are the Rydberg drawings.

So, Pat, I have a difficult time labelling someone a xxxx who, in effect, is making something more accurate (even though you want to call it a "lie").

Plus, there's also this testimony about the coat of JFK to be considered [at 5 H 133]:

ARLEN SPECTER -- "What marking, if any, was placed on the back of...the stand-in for President Kennedy?"

THOMAS J. KELLEY -- "There was a chalk mark placed on his coat, in this area here."

MR. SPECTER -- "And what did that chalk mark represent?"

MR. KELLEY -- "That represented the entry point of the shot which wounded the President."

MR. SPECTER -- "And how was the location for that mark fixed or determined?"

MR. KELLEY -- "That was fixed from the photographs of a medical drawing that was made by the physicians...and an examination of the coat which the President was wearing at the time."

Therefore, it would seem as if the chalk mark was also based (at least in part) on the hole in JFK's jacket, which IMO is just totally ridiculous, since we know that the hole in the coat is located well BELOW the hole in JFK's skin (due to the fact that Kennedy's coat was bunched up higher than normal when the shooting occurred).

Which means that if the jacket on the JFK stand-in in the photo below were to be "bunched up" a little bit (and we can see it isn't bunched up at all in this photograph), it would make the chalk mark rise a little higher on the back of the stand-in, which would mean it would almost perfectly line up with where Arlen Specter is holding the metal rod in this picture:

That "bunching up" of the jacket could very well be the answer as to why the chalk mark is located below the level of Specter's pointer. If we bunch up the jacket a little bit (like JFK's coat was bunched, per the Croft photo), it's a perfect alignment.

Also:

You don't deny, do you Pat, that the chalk mark on the JFK stand-in is more accurate in its placement than the obviously-inaccurate placement (particularly laterally) that we find in Rydberg's drawing?

Therefore--again--what's there to gripe about here?

In the final analysis, the WC got it right. But you'd rather call the people who got it right "liars" anyway. Right, Pat?

That's a peculiar hobby you CTers have.

Footnote----

I'll also add this important note:

The picture we see in CE903 is based on merely the AVERAGE angle between Z-Film frames 210 and 225, which means in order for the CE903 angle to be PRECISELY accurate, it would mean that the SBT bullet hit JFK & Connally at exactly Z217.5 (which is the halfway point between Z210 and 225). But it's very unlikely and improbable that the WC managed to hit the SBT Z-frame squarely on the head at Z217.5. The bullet, IMO, is obviously striking the victims a little later than that--at Z224.

So a tiny little bit of slack and margin-of-error needs to be given to Mr. Specter and the Commission and the angle seen in CE903. Because, let's face it, if Kennedy and Connally weren't hit at exactly Z217.5 (and they very likely were not hit at that precise moment), then the angle and other measurements are going to be just slightly off (which is something I also talk about HERE in one of my "CE903" articles).

Based on the obvious truth about the angles that I just mentioned above, is there any chance that Pat Speer (or any other conspiracy theorist) would be willing to cut Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission just a tiny bit of slack when it comes to the Single-Bullet Theory?

And if not....tell me why not?

You know darn well, David, that my beef is not with the location of the chalk mark used during the re-enactment, but with Specter's pretending the chalk mark used during the re-enactment was in the location of the wound in the Rydberg drawings.

So let's try again. What is your take on Kelley's testimony about the re-enactment?

1. Do you believe CE 386 was the basis for the chalk mark on the stand-in's back?

2. Do you believe it was just a coincidence that NO PHOTOS showing the chalk mark were entered into evidence?

As far as the L word, Arlen Specter repeatedly called the wound in question a "back wound" before he saw the photo proving it to have been a back wound, and then started claiming it was a "neck wound" or a "wound at the base of the neck." To me, this marks him as the worst kind of xxxx.

But, to you, I suppose, it marks him as a dedicated public servant, with an unquenchable passion for truth.

[David Von Pein]

As far as the L word, Arlen Specter repeatedly called the wound in question a "back wound" before he saw the photo proving it to have been a back wound, and then started claiming it was a "neck wound" or a "wound at the base of the neck." To me, this marks him as the worst kind of xxxx.

That's just dumb, Pat.

Why?

Because we know that if the wound is placed way up in the "neck", it RUINS the SBT...it doesn't strengthen it.

The bullet just does not need to enter the "neck" to make the SBT work. And CE903 proves it. Specter's rod isn't positioned in the "neck" in that photo. It's in the UPPER BACK.

So--again--what's the beef? Merely the semantics between "neck" and "back"?

All of your arguments on this subject are meaningless and hollow -- because the WC and Specter GOT IT RIGHT, regardless of what CE386 shows and regardless of where that chalk mark is located.

Edited May 18, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

As far as the L word, Arlen Specter repeatedly called the wound in question a "back wound" before he saw the photo proving it to have been a back wound, and then started claiming it was a "neck wound" or a "wound at the base of the neck." To me, this marks him as the worst kind of xxxx.

That's just dumb, Pat.

Why?

Because we know that if the wound is placed way up in the "neck", it RUINS the SBT...it doesn't strengthen it.

The bullet just does not need to enter the "neck" to make the SBT work. And CE903 proves it. Specter's rod isn't positioned in the "neck" in that photo. It's in the UPPER BACK.

So--again--what's the beef? Merely the semantics between "neck" and "back"?

All of your arguments on this subject are meaningless and hollow -- because the WC and Specter GOT IT RIGHT, regardless of what CE386 shows and regardless of where that chalk mark is located.

You're still running, David.

Was Kelley telling the truth when he testified that CE 386 provided the basis for the chalk mark?

And, if not, why didn't Specter, who was in a position to know better, correct him?

[David Von Pein]

Was Kelley telling the truth when he testified that CE 386 provided the basis for the chalk mark?

And, if not, why didn't Specter, who was in a position to know better, correct him?

I can think of a pretty decent explanation, Pat.

If, in fact, Specter looked at an autopsy photo to help determine the placement of the back wound on 5/24/64, then it's quite likely that that "under the table" and secretive look that Specter had of that autopsy picture would most certainly NOT have been a part of Thomas Kelley's testimony for the official WC volumes.

The policy of the Commission, as you no doubt know, was to MAKE PUBLIC all of the Commission exhibits and testimony and evidence -- which the WC did (except for the stuff that the Natl. Archives, via their old "75 years" rule, locked up until the JFK Records Act freed them up in the 1990s).

And since the autopsy pictures were obviously not going to be made "public" by the WC, any mention of Specter (or anyone) viewing the photos during a witness' official testimony would probably not be deemed proper by Earl Warren & Company--even if Specter DID see one of them.

Therefore, Kelley said that the horribly inaccurate CE386 Rydberg drawing was really one of the sources for the re-enactment on May 24th, which I suppose it might have been, at least in part, but it seems clear to me that something ELSE was also utilized to determine the accuracy of the location of the wound.

I have no proof of this, but I think it was probably a combination of things that actually determined where Specter was going to place that metal rod in that garage on the 24th of May. With that combination probably being: the "14 cm. from mastoid" measurement seen in the autopsy report (and testified to by Dr. Humes) and the autopsy photo of JFK's back.

And why on Earth WOULDN'T Specter have utilized those "14 cm" measurements anyway? He knew where to look to get those detailed figures about the wounds. It makes no sense at all to utilize only CE386 and the jacket of the President (of all things!) to try and determine the true back-wound location, when all the while those autopsy photos AND the "14 cm" measurements were available to use. It would have been plain dumb to rely ONLY on the Rydberg drawings and the obviously-too-low hole in JFK's coat to try and determine the true wound location. Don't you agree, Pat?

So, if you want to call Specter a dirty xxxx by merely making things clearer and more precise, then feel free to do so. Because I do, indeed, think he DID make things more precise and accurate in CE903. And it's obvious to me that Specter did NOT rely on the hole in the jacket either (despite Kelley's testimony). Relying on the jacket hole would have been, of course, just plain stupid.

Edited May 18, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

Oh, good Lord! There are STILL CTers, in the 21st century, who think the bullet had to make a "sharp right turn" after exiting Kennedy in order to hit Connally.

Unbelievable.

Welcome to the Dark Ages, Bob.

Mr. Von Pein

Your remarks are typical of a Lone Nut; all bluster and no substance.

You can say what you want about the rest of the case, as, with so little evidence available, everything comes down to supposition but, the fact remains that the anatomy of the human body is a constant and cannot be denied, not even by the great David Von Pein.

Look again at the diagram of the human neck at the level of cervical vertebra C7. And then look at the photo of the cervical vertebrae and see how tightly they all sit atop each other and how tightly C7 sits atop T1.

There is no denying that the bullet could NOT pass between the transverse process of C7 and the transverse process of T1. Therefore, the only path left open is AROUND the outside tip of the C7 transverse process. Unfortunately, for you, in order for the bullet to then go on to hit the right side of JFK's trachea, it had to follow a very sharp angle that pointed AWAY from Connally's right armpit and towards the centre of the limo.

I understand it is your job to convince the reading public, at any cost, that Oswald was a lone assassin but, I am not going to allow you to bluster your way through this one. You are dead wrong. Arlen Specter was not a doctor, and he relied heavily upon the ignorance of the American public to pull this fraud off. The time has come to let the truth out.

Edited May 18, 2013 by Robert Prudhomme

[David Von Pein]

True, Arlen Specter wasn't a doctor, but James Humes was. And so was Pierre Finck, and so was J. Boswell. And Humes, Finck, and Boswell said the bullet transited. And ALL NINE members of the HSCA's FPP said the bullet transited.

That's TWELVE doctors right there who said the bullet went through JFK's body.

They're ALL liars (or boobs)? ALL 12?

Now, I've got a choice here:

Believe some guy named Bob Prudhomme....or accept the conclusions of TWELVE professional pathologists (who certainly know a LITTLE something about anatomy).

Now, Bob, if you were in my shoes -- who should I believe?

Edited May 18, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

True, Arlen Specter wasn't a doctor, but James Humes was. And so was Pierre Finck, and so was J. Boswell. And Humes, Finck, and Boswell said the bullet transited. And ALL NINE members of the HSCA's FPP said the bullet transited.

That's TWELVE doctors right there who said the bullet went through JFK's body.

They're ALL liars (or boobs)? ALL 12?

Now, I've got a choice here:

Believe some guy named Bob Prudhomme....or accept the conclusions of TWELVE professional pathologists (who certainly know a LITTLE something about anatomy).

Now, Bob, if you were in my shoes -- who should I believe?

Not one of these men ever drew a diagram showing how the bullet made it through the neck, past the transverse process, vertebra, and blood vessels.

Gee, why was that, David?

Do you really think they thought this unimportant?

As far as twelve doctors agreeing on something, blah blah blah...I'm sure you're well aware that Big Tobacco had dozens if not hundreds of qualified doctors on their payroll ready and willing to say there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer.

Now, why was that?

Because the opinions of a few isolated doctors doesn't necessarily mean all that much.

And we know this because YOU have told us so...

The HSCA FPP unanimously proclaimed that the back wound was BELOW the throat wound.

And yet you'll fight that to the death...

Edited May 18, 2013 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

Was Kelley telling the truth when he testified that CE 386 provided the basis for the chalk mark?

And, if not, why didn't Specter, who was in a position to know better, correct him?

I can think of a pretty decent explanation, Pat.

If, in fact, Specter looked at an autopsy photo to help determine the placement of the back wound on 5/24/64, then it's quite likely that that "under the table" and secretive look that Specter had of that autopsy picture would most certainly NOT have been a part of Thomas Kelley's testimony for the official WC volumes.

The policy of the Commission, as you no doubt know, was to MAKE PUBLIC all of the Commission exhibits and testimony and evidence -- which the WC did (except for the stuff that the Natl. Archives, via their old "75 years" rule, locked up until the JFK Records Act freed them up in the 1990s).

And since the autopsy pictures were obviously not going to be made "public" by the WC, any mention of Specter (or anyone) viewing the photos during a witness' official testimony would probably not be deemed proper by Earl Warren & Company--even if Specter DID see one of them.

Therefore, Kelley said that the horribly inaccurate CE386 Rydberg drawing was really one of the sources for the re-enactment on May 24th, which I suppose it might have been, at least in part, but it seems clear to me that something ELSE was also utilized to determine the accuracy of the location of the wound.

I have no proof of this, but I think it was probably a combination of things that actually determined where Specter was going to place that metal rod in that garage on the 24th of May. With that combination probably being: the "14 cm. from mastoid" measurement seen in the autopsy report (and testified to by Dr. Humes) and the autopsy photo of JFK's back.

And why on Earth WOULDN'T Specter have utilized those "14 cm" measurements anyway? He knew where to look to get those detailed figures about the wounds. It makes no sense at all to utilize only CE386 and the jacket of the President (of all things!) to try and determine the true back-wound location, when all the while those autopsy photos AND the "14 cm" measurements were available to use. It would have been plain dumb to rely ONLY on the Rydberg drawings and the obviously-too-low hole in JFK's coat to try and determine the true wound location. Don't you agree, Pat?

So, if you want to call Specter a dirty xxxx by merely making things clearer and more precise, then feel free to do so. Because I do, indeed, think he DID make things more precise and accurate in CE903. And it's obvious to me that Specter did NOT rely on the hole in the jacket either (despite Kelley's testimony). Relying on the jacket hole would have been, of course, just plain stupid.

You're still running, David.

You know I think Specter was trying to do the right thing when he used the back wound photo to create the chalk mark.

You know as well that the evidence is he turned chicken once he saw the wounds didn't align with a shot from the sniper's nest.

Why else fail to present any photos showing the chalk mark?

Why else have Kelley testify they'd used CE 386 to create the chalk mark?

Why else have Shaneyfelt testify that the trajectory in CE 903 approximated the location of the chalk mark, when photos were available showing just how close (or NOT close) it came?

Why else claim, in the Warren Report, that the trajectory observed supported the accuracy of CE 385?

He was hiding that the Rydberg drawings were inaccurate, and it should be obvious to everyone, even you.

P.S. In answer to a question from Dulles, not Specter, Frazier told the commission they'd used the measurements at autopsy to create the chalk mark. The chalk mark, as you've admitted, suggest this was true. It follows, then, that Specter was trying to conceal not only that the autopsy photos proved the back wound was on the back, inches below its location in the Rydberg drawings already entered into evidence, but that the measurements similarly proved the Rydberg drawings to have been inaccurate.

Now, to be clear, I don't take from this that Specter KNEW or even thought this proved Oswald innocent. I suspect that he, as prosecutor, realized this weakened his case, and thus weakened his ability to use his experience on the commission as a stepping stone to the greatness Specter undoubtedly envisioned for himself.

He had a choice between admitting he'd put misleading depictions of the shooting into evidence, or lying, and hoping it wouldn't come back to haunt him. And chose the latter.

Edited May 18, 2013 by Pat Speer