James R Gordon

Ok David, lets have another go, hopefully I might make more progress this time.

On post 132 of this thread you made the following point.

"Since there was positively NO MAJOR DAMAGE inside Kennedy's neck and upper back, it means that NO BULLETS (no matter how many you think struck the President) hit the lungs or punctured the chest cavity of John F. Kennedy on November 22nd.

What evidence do you have that the lung was not compromised? And by saying that I accept that there was a bruise on the apex of the lung. The bruise does not signify the lung was compromised.

That is an excellent summary Robert.

The position and size of the spine is the real problem. The fracture - if indeed there was one because three of the four doctors the HSCA brought in to examine the X-rays were not convinced there was a crack. John Nichol's 28º is just devastating to the SBT. As you have so eloquently pointed out the bullet has to create a path through the spine in order to get to its exit point.

If the bullet did strike T1, and did no more damage, like a snooker ball it is likely it will have veered off to the right as a consequence of the strike. Just creating a crack on T1 does not help. And the suggestion that T1 was cracked in the first place is very selective use of evidence.

"No one said the bullet did not enter JFK's back and exit his throat. On the contrary, I think it is quite possible for the bullet to have gone through JFK's upper chest without hitting any bones. Unfortunately, as James has pointed out, in order to do so and miss the vertebrae, it had to be travelling at a lateral angle of 26-28° from right to left. Viewed from the rear of the limo, this would have placed the path of the bullet WAY to Connally's left."

Robert you are quite right. I had not been previously aware of John Nichols research. I was stunned at the reported power of the rifle. I intend to check just how powerful that rifle is. Nichol's point was that the power of the bullet was such that there was no way it would not have smashed into the partition. So, if the SBT were legitimate, there should be damage to the partition.

Dr. Nichol's had confirmed what I already worked out which was that when the bullet struck 4.5cm right of the spine and moving towards the centre of the body it had no option but to impact with the spine. What I did not know, and which has not been reported by supporters of the WC was that between the entry wound and the spine was a difference of only 10cm. And since the bullet is traveling towards the centre of the body it is closing that distance as it is travelling. It takes a unique mind not to see the importance of that.

What was also a surprise to me was how far right the entry point has to be before the spine can be missed. The entry point has to be adjusted by around 18º before the spine will not be affected.

There is a lot of important information I am going to have to think about.

David,

I was looking through the 11 pages of this thread. I noted the many times Pat, Robert, Pat, Mark to name a few had asked you to address issues. In each and everyone you ignored the request and quite often in your response asked the member to answer your question. Ray had to ask three times before you even responded and when you did you ignored what he had to say.

Your interest in what anyone has to say is well illustrated in the response you have just made. "You can show me all the charts you want to, but YOU are the one who who no choice but to try and wiggle your way out of all six of the following things that make the Single-Bullet Theory (by far!) the most reasonable conclusion to explain the double-man wounding of JFK & JBC...."

Then you go on and list six issues that, for you, prove the SBT. They are all irrelevant if the bullet cannot pass through JFK's upper chest. The SBT has ended if the bullet cannot avoid the spine. As John Nichols has demonstrated it cannot avoid hitting the spine.

I have got to the point where I am now going to ignore you and anything you have to say. For me your contributions to this thread are irrelevant. You are not the least bit interested in anything anyone has to say. This is demonstrated by your responses which bear no resemblance to legitimate questions asked of you.

It is not a matter of hoping to change your mind - you are not even listening.

James

"The more I thought about it, the more I realized it [the bullet that hit JFK in the upper back] had to go out from the neck. It was the only place it could go, after it was not found anywhere in the X-rays." -- Dr. Humes; 1996

David, I take it that quote is from the infamous JAMA articles. In this quote Dr. Humes is making a judgement: he says we found no bullet so what could have happened to it. The only answer we could come to was that the bullet went right through the body.

What you have not bothered to point out is that, Humes comment, is not the only conclusion to those conditions. The other conclusion is that no bullet was found because no bullet traveled through the body. If one conclusion can be deemed to be correct, so can the other. Both statements meet Humes 1996 conditions.

Pat Speer made me aware of the work of Dr. John Nichols. The article is “Assassination of President Kennedy” by John Nichols M.D, Ph.D., F.A.C.P. It was published in “The Practitioner” in November 1973.

Two points are germane to this present discussion.

The First Point. After testing the rifle John Nichols judged the speed the bullets left the gun was at a speed of 1,960 feet per second. He also calculated that the bullet had an energy of 1,373 foot pounds of energy. That is sufficient energy to penetrate 47 inches of laminated pine. As you will recollect that point has been corroborated by Michael and Lucien Haag in the Nova program “Cold Case.”

The value of the energy of this bullet was something I had been unaware of. The Warren Commision on P.93 of the Report comment that by the time John Connally’s thigh wound was inflicted the bullet had effectively lost all energy. John Nichols makes clear that this complete and utter nonsense. The omission of this point undermines the integrity of FBI’s examination of this rifle. 1.373 foot pounds of energy is the same as 1861.5 Newton-metres. A newton metre is a unit of torque in the SI system. It is equal to the torque resulting from a force of one newton applied perpendicularly to a moment arm which is one metre long.

The power of this gun, which is not something the Warren Commission appeared to recognized, was also emphasized by the Haag’s in the above program. What I had not appreciated was just how powerful this bullet was. This bullet would not have dissipated all that energy traveling through JFK and JBC’s bodies and accomplishing the damage ascribed to it. Such a bullet with 1,373 foot pounds of energy should have smashed into the upholstered partition between the Connally’s and Roy Kellerman. There was no damage to that partition. But the point is, there should have been. The amount of energy left in this bullet would not have allowed the bullet to veer left and embed itself in Connally’s left leg. Which now raises the question as to whether John Connally’s thigh wound should be considered part of the SBT.

The amateur medical commentator and the role of Geometry:-

Throughout this conversation – if indeed your contributions can be attributed to that word – there has been the constant refrain about the qualifications and experience of Dr. Humes to myself. You have referred to the autopsy report and that the points I have described are not contained within that report. You have pointed out that the autopsy report was signed by three doctors. And so on.

I may not have the experience or the knowledge of the three surgeons but, unlike you, I have enough understanding of human anatomy to understand what the autopsy report describes. I am not required to undertake a formal autopsy, just understand what is being said.

And this discussion is not just about medical experience: it is also about geometry. Through the middle of every human being is a spine. The trajectory from the Oswald window to JFK’s throat exit point is no difficult matter to point out whether that trajectory will impact with the spine or not. To determine whether the bullet will come into contact with the spine, is not a medical matter: it is a mathematical one. It is not difficult to identify whether a trajectory would endanger the human spine. E.g.

Cold Case:-

Behind the tie is the trachea and behind the trachea is the spine. In order for the bullet to exit JFK at that point the bullet has had to compromise the spine. There are two further difficulties. Cold case has the bullet exit just below where John Connally’s heart would be. For John Connally, this would most likely be a fatal wound. In addition the wound to John Connally’s wrist is wrong.

Then there is Dale Myers:-

Dale Myers:-

Unlike Cold Case you can plot this trajectory backwards and establish – beyond debate – that the spine would be compromised here. Like Cold Case the trajectory line would impact with John Connally’s heart. On this occasion Myers does not account for the injury to John Connally’s wrist.

In the Myers image is a yellow double arrowed line. That is the correct trajectory for the Connally injury as described by the testimony of Robert Shaw. If the outgoing trajectory from JFK has any chance of merging with John Connally’s wound trajectory, then John Connally needs to be seated facing forward. If John Connally is facing to his right, - as he is at 223/4 - then the SBT trajectory has to go through John Connally’s chest cavity. It is a matter of simple geometry.

The Second Point:- Although CE 884 records most of the relevant data during the May 1964 recreation, one data item that appears to be missing is the lateral angles. John Nichols calculated that the lateral angle for Z 222 was 9º 21’. Such an angle would mean that the bullet would have had to impact with the spine and the vertebra’s. He calculated that in order to avoid damaging the vertebra this lateral angle has to be increased to 28º.

John Nichols:-

The Autopsy Report and Geometric Reality:-

David, including todays post, keeps stressing the importance of the Autopsy report. Fair point, BUT – and this is an important “But” – whoever’s autopsy report it is, that autopsy report must reflect geometric reality. It is not excused the implications of geometric reality.

We know the following:-

a) The position of the source of the shot.

b)The position of the entry point into the body which is 4.5 cm right of centre.

c) The position of the exit point on the body.

It is point “b” that gives us the lateral angle of 9º 21”. Unless there is good reason not to do so we should be able to draw a line from “a” to “c.” Any line that is drawn between “a” and “c” appears to compromise the spine.

Nine Degrees Lateral

The angle reads 99º. That is because 0º in this case is 90º, therefore 9º lateral reads 99º. X, the exit point, is forward of the center of the spine and the source of the Single Bullet [ Oswald’s lateral angle from his target ] is 9º 21” lateral to JFK who is sitting straight and looking forward. The entry point to the body “b” is 4.5 cm right of center. 4.5 cm is 45 mm. The human spine is 35 mm in diameter. Therefore the bullet enters the body 1 cm right of the spine and moves towards its exit point which is at the center of the spine. Geometrically the bullet has to impact with the spine. The laws of geometry demand that it does so.

In order to miss the spine John Nichols says the entrance point needs to be 28º right of center. Therefore the bullet needs to enter the body 3 inches from center or 7.62 cm instead of 4.5 cm. However to do that requires moving the wound entry point on the body as well as on JFK’s clothing. The diagram below confirms John Nichols estimate. Arrow labeled “C” does indeed appear to miss the spine. “A” is the right strap muscle.

Nine and Twenty Eight Degrees

Whatever the authority that an autopsy report has, it is not divorced from mathematical reality. We know the following:-

a) The Oswald window is just over 60ft high.

The angle of deflection of his rifle is 20º 23”

c) Oswald’s target is 188.6 feet away.

d) The exit target is in the centre of his neck.

e) The bullet enters JFK’s body 1 cm right of the edge of the spine’s circumference making its way towards the body’s center.

f) The lateral angle from source to target is 9º 21”

Given those figures mathematically there is no way that any shot could avoid hitting the spine.

We are left with a contradiction.

David basis his belief of the validity of the SBT on speculation "It's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung. Of course, the more I thought about it, the more I realized it had to go out from the neck. It was the only place it could go, after it was not found anywhere in the X-rays." -- Dr. James Humes

Well mathematics out trumps speculation. Mathematics makes clear that the SBT could not have occurred. The autopsy report to be taken seriously must concur with Mathematical and Anatomy and Physiological reality. The simple fact of life is that inside, and at the center, every human body is a spine that has a diameter of 35 mm. Any bullet that enters a body 10mm from right hand edge of the spine and traveling towards a center point in that body has to impact with the spine.

That is anatomical and mathematical reality and any autopsy report that does not recognize that has to be suspect.

But I'm going to once again refer you to that Humes' ARRB testimony:
"It's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung." -- Dr. Humes

Fair point, but can Dr. Humes be believed. You comment about the position of the trachea. Here you are on sounder ground. There is no reference point by which to establish its position. If we were discussing the position of the trachea it would be my word against yours and no way to determine who is right or who is wrong.

However the back wound is different. Here we have geographical body points to reference the position of the wound. Although I cannot be precise I can give an area: below T1 and above T3. Now if you know your anatomy you will be aware that the apex of the lung is at the T1 level. Therefore the wound, as described by FOX, is below the apex of the lung and had the bullet traveled through JFK's body it would have had to go through the lung.

So now we are back to Dr. Humes. He says the bullet went above the lung. The Fox image says it had to go through the lung. The only question remaining is whether FOX is an authentic image. If the answer is yes then Dr. Humes, irrespective of who he is, has got to be wrong.

Really, I had hoped for a higher level of argument.

That said you have indeed brought this discussion to the critical point: the credibility of Dr. Humes testimony.

I agree he is better qualified than myself. Yes, he was the surgeon who undertook the autopsy and, that ought to be unchallengeable.

However there is a basis by which to question the veracity of Dr. Humes. He says, using your quote, that the wound was above the scapula. FOX shows us the scapula. We see Dr. Boswell's hand. Any anatomy book will tell you the name of the bone his hand is resting on. We see outlines of parts of the Scapula. I say point A is the edge of the spine of the scapula. Again any reputable anatomy book will tell where that position is on the body. It is at T3.

So we know the wound - as described in the FOX image - is below T1 and above T3.

So the question now is:-

Do you believe Dr. Hume who is saying something an image of the body taken before the autopsy is telling us is wrong.

If you can establish the FOX image is a forgery, then o.k. Dr. Humes ought to be believed. However if you believe that that the FOX image is authentic then it clearly casts doubt on Dr. Humes veracity.

Fair point David. However there is a difference here.

First the area in question is below the backward leaning of the head. And so distortion that I was talking about is not pertinent here.

Second, and much more important, we have standard geographical points on the body through which to reference the position of the wound.

DR. HUMES -- "My problem is, very simply stated, we had an entrance wound high in the posterior back above the scapula. We didn't know where the exit wound was at that point. I'd be the first one to admit it. We knew in general in the past that we should have been more prescient than we were, I must confess, because when we removed the breast plate and examined the thoracic cavity, we saw a contusion on the upper lobe of the lung. There was no defect in the pleura anyplace. So it's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung.

That is complete nonsense. We can see where Dr. Boswell has his hand. If you know anything about anatomy you know the bone there is called the Clavicle. Look up any anatomy book and it will tell you where the clavicle is in relation to the spine. the wound is clearly below that position.

If you disagree that A is not the edge of the scapula spine on the medial edge, please tell me what we are seeing. The medial edge is at T3. and the wound is above that.

So the wound in below T1 and above T3. Dr. Humes may have said what he did to the ARRB, but the FOX image makes clear he is in error.

Pat,

I believe we can be a little more accurate as to the position of the back wound. I believe we can get a closer position of the wound when positioning the wound with reference to identifiable Scapula points

C where I believe Boswell has his hand to balance the body is the Clavicle. The Clavicle is at the level of T1

A is the edge of the Scapula spine on the medial border. This point is at the level of T3

B is the inferior angle of the Scapula. This point is at the level of T6

For identifying the position of the wound we really do not need B.

What we can say is that the wound is below point C – or the wound is below T1.

And

The wound is above is above A – or the wound is above T3.

The wound is somewhere between T1 and T2. That means it is below the apex of the lung and if the SBT were credible that to get to the throat the bullet would need to pierce and pass through the right lung.

"If the SBT is wrong (and particularly in the case of the theories which have JFK hit by TWO separate bullets to replace the one bullet of the SBT), then how can you account for those TWO bullets not hitting any bony structures or the lungs of President Kennedy, and yet STILL those two bullets inexplicably stopped inside JFK's back/neck?" -- David R. Von Pein; May 28, 2014

David only you are mentioning a scenario like this. I never made a point like this. And again it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

Kennedy's head isn't "leaning backwards" in this autopsy photo.

Really!! What are those creases on the back of the neck if the head is not leaning backwards?

This is a better version.

So what point are you making with this image David? You cannot make any serious comment. JFK's head is leaning backwards and so wound positions are distorted.

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?

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.

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

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.

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 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.

And these 12 pathologists, can you point me to their descriptions of how the bullet traveled from entrance to exit in JFK upper chest area. I suspect you will not be able to do so, because none of these twelve eminent men ever considered this issue. All twelve ignored the issue, not wilfully, but because not one of them ever thought about it. I have read most of the medical documents for both the WC and the HSCA and I know very well - just as you do - this issue was never examined or discussed.

I doubt you even thought about it until this thread. Like so much about the SBT a great deal is based on assumption. Until this thread, neither did I think about it. My focus had been on the impossibility of the JFK throat exit trajectory to line up with John Connally's entrance trajectory.

I may not have the reputation of any of these 12 eminent men, but I am now onto this now and I know this is the fatal flaw in the JFK assassination and I won't stop until I can prove it beyond dispute. The entire SBT hinges on the bullet successfully passing through JFK's upper chest. If that can be proved to be impossible - and I believe it can - then you have no single bullet theory.

I do not expect you to agree, but I do not doubt for one moment you do not also see the danger this issue presents.

I am happy, for the moment, to agree to disagree. But I will be back with this issue later.

He has no choice Robert. I am sure he has realised as I and others - like yourself - have suddenly realised that this issue is the achilles heel of the JFK assassination. To be fair, it was not until I was well into this thread that I fully realised the implications of this issue. True I had mentioned it before, but had never thought the issue through.

The WC and the HCSA never addressed this issue..... well they addressed very few issues. This is an issue that has got legs. Where to go from here I am not yet sure, but this might be a way to seriously dismantle the SBT.

I can see why David is so terrified and brings into the conversation as many red herrings as he can. He may be an extraordinary poor researcher, but he is not blind to where this debate is going.

Robert,

You are quite right. David does not have an answer, partly because there is no answer. The only way the bullet can find a path from entrance to exit is to smash through the spinal column. There is no way he can admit that. What I find depressing is his inability to even debate and argue. Every time he contributes he veers the debate in any direction but the SBT. It is really ironic, because he usually quite vocal on the merits of the SBT.

James.

David,

The focus of this discussion is how did the bullet recognised as CE 399 and is deemed to have been responsible for the seven no fatal injuries to both JFK and JBC. Whether there were more than three bullets involved in the assassination, is a topic that can be addressed later.

It is clear you believe that this bullet [ CE 399 ] was responsible for these seven injuries. My question is how did the bullet find a way from entrance to exit in JFK's upper chest. Are you able to address that? If you are not able to explain that, it is quite acceptable to say you do not know.

James

David Von Pein wrote:

James,

Yeah, just as I thought. Lots of missing bullets for the CTers. And you need TWO such vanishing missiles. (Three if you count the Connally bullet that you think hit JBC separately, and if you think the Connally bullet WASN'T CE399. But maybe you're willing to believe that 399 really was in a victim's body on Nov. 22. But if you are, watch out for the wrath of your fellow CTers, because in the last few years, I've encountered very few conspiracy advocates who actually think 399 was inside JFK or JBC.)

But just go blame the evil Government. They must have deep-sixed all the non-Oswald missiles. That usually works for the CT crowd. After all, everybody in Officialdom jumped on the "Let's Frame Oswald" bandwagon immediately after the assassination, didn't they?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

But your **TWO** bullets that must replace the SBT somehow COULD get into JFK's body, and then just stop on a dime, and yet not cause any major damage. (Yeah, right. Take that one in front of a jury. I'd love to see the rolling eyes of the jurors after hearing that argument, coupled with their exasperated reaction after James Gordon tells the jurors that all the bullets somehow inexplicably disappeared, to boot.)

"And I agree, with reservation regarding the lung and C7, that there was no major damage inside the body." -- James R. Gordon

You've got TWO "magic bullets" there, James. And the funny thing is--you don't even seem to realize it.

David,

When I first read these posts I started a reply, but soon stopped. I was too shocked and so I decided to sleep on what I should reply. During this thread I noted that you admitted you were not a researcher. It is becoming more evident as this thread proceeds that you have undertaken no serious study of this case and are only able to repeat others ideas.

After a nights sleep I am still stunned by your reply. I take no enjoyment in observing that you are a complete embarrassment to your side of the argument. I cannot believe that from all the issues I have raised all you can respond is to demean me and make fun of the issues I have raised. Those issues, which are at the heart of the case you so passionately believe in, you have no interest in addressing.

It is not an irrelevant issue to point out that from entrance to exit there is no direct path from JFK’s back wound to his throat wound. You reply that because there is no damage in JFK’s upper chest area therefore the SBT is valid. The lack of damage is another issue. The issue is how can a bullet go from entrance to exit without smashing through the spine? Yes I agree, with fellow forum members, that your silence on this issue is irritating. But it is also embarrassing to you, it clearly and publicly demonstrates that you do not have an answer and hence your decision to duck the question. In an endeavor to avoid answering you comment about positions in the car, about JFK and JBC moving at the same time, about Connally also being injured – anything but to address the pertinent point. You appear to be oblivious to this fundamental point: unless you can answer the point about the path from entrance to exit the SBT is dead at that point. It the bullet cannot be demonstrated to be able to pass through JFK’s upper chest area it can go nowhere else. There is no SBT if you cannot establish how the bullet can travel from JFK’s back entrance to his throat exit. And at that point, the Connally wounds are a matter of utter indifference to the SBT.

The Rosetta stone of the SBT is not fancy trajectory analysis or Zapruder film analysis or simultaneous wounding, all of which I acknowledge are important: the kernel of the SBT is whether it is medically possible for a bullet to pass through JFK’s upper chest area. Everything stems from there, and what has stunned me is that this is not an issue you are interested in discussing.

James.

David,

I asked you two questions:

1. How could the bullet pass through JFK’s body without doing any serious damage?

2. How could the bullet find a path from entrance to exit in JFK’s upper chest?

And below is your answer.

“The damage (or the LACK of damage would be a better way to say it) that we find in President Kennedy's upper back and neck is exactly what we would expect to find if the Single-Bullet Theory is true.”

Even though a number of members have prompted you to respond, the only answer received is the robotic kind described above. What is clear is that you have no idea how to respond other than with these empty platitudes. Because there was a lack of damage, in your mind, that means the SBT is true. It appears to me that you are blind to any answer other than the WC was right, is right and will always be right. You clearly do not have an enquiring mind.

So I will answer the questions.

1. How could the bullet pass through JFK’s body without doing any serious damage?

It could not pass through that maze of arteries, veins and nerves without causing major damage.

However because of question 2

2. How could the bullet find a path from entrance to exit in JFK’s upper chest?

A normal bullet, as opposed to CE 399, would travel in a straight line. Therefore, as seen below, the bullet would have to cause massive damage to T1. It would have to go straight through it as shown below.

Cat Scan:-

Using your logic for why the SBT did not cause damage because there was no damage – that logic can be reversed. Because there was no major damage to the upper chest area that means the SBT never happened.

CE 399 did not have satellite navigation and so it could not fine the best route from entrance to exit. CE 399 was compelled to find the direct route and that means smashing T1.

Your normal response at this point is “are you saying that Humes et al were lying and that they covered up the mess they saw?” Answer: No. There was no mess because no bullet had traversed JFK’s upper chest area.

Your next automated question is this. “Well if you say there was no passage through the upper chest what caused the back wound and where is the bullet?” Answer: a bullet and where it is I have no idea. But the preservation of the crime scene was so appalling how are you so sure that there was no bullet found and not recorded?

In a response to Ray Mitcham you comment that since the bullet passed through soft flesh there was no damage done to the body.

You want another pass at that? Below is one of the X-rays taken before the autopsy was begun. It is clear to see something happened to the body, because the neck has collapsed to the right. Now this X-ray was taken before James Humes began his autopsy. Therefore this damage cannot be ascribed to his work on the autopsy.

So how can you say there was no damaged to the upper chest area, when it is clear there was?

X-ray:-

You then have the gall to complain that I do not answer your questions, when you have stonewalled everyone on this forum to answer questions made to you. However I will answer your questions.

You suggested to Ray Mitcham that the questions you wanted answered are:

“Well, Jim, if the SBT is untrue and TWO (presumably) high-speed bullets entered JFK's upper back and throat, then how can you account for a total lack of damage to President Kennedy's vital structures within his upper body? Sounds pretty odd to me.”

First there was damage to JFK’s body.

There was damage to C7/T1 and I document that on pages 15 – 18 in the document linked below.

There was also damage to the right lung and I document that on pages 19-23.

On page 8 I point out that the back wound seen on the autopsy image would have been between T1 and T2. That means that had the SBT actually occurred the bullet would have had to travel through the right lung. Because a bullet did not travel through the right lung is another reason why the SBT did not happen. Now you will comment about James Humes infamous 14cm. You go to page 8. I have identified geographical features the right scapula. I have identified an upper and lower regional limit and have shown that the wound was inside those limits. And in doing that I have shown that the wound has to be between T1 and T2. The body does not lie and therefore Humes 14cm is just wrong. The entry wound was lower than T1 and therefore the SBT would have needed to puncture the lung had it actually happened.

On pages 15 – 18 is also my description of how the wound in the throat occurred. And of course – just like clock work - comes your next question. “So where is that bullet?” The only answer is that it had to have been removed. When and how I have no idea. However some sort of missile had to cause the damage to C6/C7. Something had to cause the damage to the right lung. And the only answer I can come to is that what caused those two examples of damage had to be a missile. The fact that the missile is missing does not erase the damage, it is still able to document. The culprit may have vanished, but the damage still remains.

JFK document:-

https://www.transferbigfiles.com/301333d5-0c91-4778-a0fe-c956e0cc1fce/GLiFUzHJh5B5u1CApE1TvA2

James