Why I believe the SBT is nothing but BS

[Robert Prudhomme]

Oh, that explains EVERYTHING, Davey!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!

[Robert Prudhomme]

P.S. I see nothing in the excerpts you quoted from Bugsy that explains how a bullet made it through the neck bones without breaking any of them.

Once again, you da BIG loser, Dave!

[David Von Pein]

I just want to keep you guessing, Bobby.

[David Von Pein]

"These bruises, which lay along a path between the president's back and his throat wound, could only have occurred prior to the incisions that were made at Parkland Hospital...and hence, the damage found there had to have been the result of a bullet entering the president's back and exiting the throat."

-- Vincent T. Bugliosi

Question---

Can bullets that have completely stopped their forward progress through a human body possibly cause bruises in areas of that human body which have NOT been punctured or torn (such as President Kennedy's pleura and lung)?

Food for thought anyway.

Edited May 31, 2014 by David Von Pein

[James R Gordon]

Pat Speer wrote:-

I think you're wrong about this, James. Dr. John Nichols' article in which he pointed out that the bullet would have to hit the spine was published in a prestigious medical journal just as the HSCA pathology panel was preparing to inspect the autopsy evidence. It's clear that the HSCA FPP knew about Nichols' conclusion.

Thanks Pat, I had not been aware of that. I was a little surprised no one had pointed this out before. It is no surprise that he was ignored. Do you have a link to the article?

James.

[James R Gordon]

Can bullets that have completely stopped their forward progress through a human body possibly cause bruises in areas of that human body which have NOT been punctured or torn (such as President Kennedy's pleura and lung)?

Yes the right strap muscle was bruised by the bullet. But the damage to the lung was much more than a bruise. BTW are you aware where on the bullet's path from entrance to exit the right strap muscle actually is and what that tells us?

[Pat Speer]

Pat Speer wrote:-

I think you're wrong about this, James. Dr. John Nichols' article in which he pointed out that the bullet would have to hit the spine was published in a prestigious medical journal just as the HSCA pathology panel was preparing to inspect the autopsy evidence. It's clear that the HSCA FPP knew about Nichols' conclusion.

Thanks Pat, I had not been aware of that. I was a little surprised no one had pointed this out before. It is no surprise that he was ignored. Do you have a link to the article?

James.

I found it both in the Weisberg Archive and in John Armstrong's papers at Baylor. See if this works...

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-jones/id/1770

[James R Gordon]

Thanks Pat got it.

According to John Nichols it requires a 28º turn to the right for the bullet to miss T1, which moves the source away from the Oswald window. I had not thought about where the source would have to be in order to miss T1. Of course in changing the source you also change the bullet's point of entry.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hi James

Oh, I hope you are going where I think you are going when you said the damage to the right lung was much worse than a bruise. I'm just waiting for someone to open this topic up so we can talk about JFK's trachea deviated to the left, and the real reason chest tubes were being inserted into JFK's right pleural cavity.

[David Von Pein]

Of course in changing the source you also change the bullet's point of entry.

So, James, does that comment mean that you don't think the entry wound shown in this autopsy photo is the place where the bullet actually entered? Is this a fake picture? .....

[Robert Prudhomme]

Fake picture or grossly distorted, Dave? Look at the wrinkles on the back of JFK's neck. How far back is his head tilted? If the collar touches the hairline on a normal man, do you not think it could be 5.75 inches from JFK's hairline in that photo to the wound, if his head wasn't tilted so far back?

[James R Gordon]

So, James, does that comment mean that you don't think the entry wound shown in this autopsy photo is the place where the bullet actually entered? Is this a fake picture? .....

David,

You may well begin to wish the FOX image were indeed a fake. It does your case no good at all. Yes your oft quoted Humes 14cm measurement might persuade some, however when compared with the physical identity of the wound on the body – as described by FOX – then one has to question what on earth Humes was saying.

The FOX image clearly describes certain geographical points on the Scapula. Points that simply cannot be disputed. A2 describes where A1 is on the anatomical model. A2 – in Red - on FOX describes where Costa IR is on the model.

From those two specific definitive anatomical points shown in in the FOX image it is clear that the wound is below T1 and above T3.

The consequence if that is “your SBT entry point” then the bullet is significantly lower that the corresponding exit point. But even more important the bullet has no alternative that to pierce and travel through the lung. Something that utterly destroys the SBT.

Do you deny that the FOX image does not show these anatomical points on the human body. If you agree FOX does describe these anatomical points then I do not see how you can begin to argue in favour of the SBT.

The position of the Back wound:-

James

[David Von Pein]

JFK'S BACK WOUND:

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/jfk-back-wound-location.html

Edited May 31, 2014 by David Von Pein

[James R Gordon]

Oh, I hope you are going where I think you are going when you said the damage to the right lung was much worse than a bruise. I'm just waiting for someone to open this topic up so we can talk about JFK's trachea deviated to the left, and the real reason chest tubes were being inserted into JFK's right pleural cavity.

Robert, there is little doubt that the lung was seriously compromised. The evidence is not in the autopsy report but in the supplemental. Humes description of the damage in H2 369 describes just how compromised it was. This was not what he had said earlier or even what he intended to say. Humes was interrupted by Senator Cooper and his description was in response to his question. Most commentators refer to Humes first description of the bruise to the lung. However this response - which I am sure had never intended to describe - totally destroys the idea that it was only a bruise. You will see a full description of the comment on pages 20-21 of the PDF I linked to earlier in this thread.

[James R Gordon]

Even on your image, David, can you not see the Scapula and the Costa IR points?

Your line cannot be demonstrated to originate from the wound. Your problem is this:-

If the wound, as per my post above, is below T1 and above T3 then its entry point is lower than the top of the lung. That means the bullet has to go through the lung. There is no other conclusion if my description above is right. Your only way to contradict my conclusion is to prove that what I contend are geographical pointers on the human body are not the pointers I say they are.

Are you able to do that?