Jump to content
The Education Forum

James R Gordon

Admin
  • Posts

    1,111
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by James R Gordon

  1. John,

    Here are the two movies that go over the post I made yesterday about the damage to C7 and the placing of the back wound.

    I am quite new at doing movies and so I recognise they are not as professional as I would like them to be. I need a lot more practice.

    One thing you will recognise is just how astonishing it is that, given the area the bullet travelled in, it did not hit any major arteries or veins. As I point out there is only one line of trajectory to the C7 Transverse Process that is free from obstacles.

    I have spent a little time commenting on how, from an internal perspective, there is little chance the T1 Transverse Process could be damaged.

    On a general note, today I was organising all my image files and I see, as a consequence, I have deleted the links. I will attempt to restore the links tomorrow.

    Here is the link to the video on damaging C7:-

    th_C7Damage_a.jpg

    Here is the link to identifying the location of the back wound:-

    th_LocationofBackWound.jpg

    James.

  2. Cliff,

    I never said that Humes was a serial xxxx. The one area I established where he deliberately distorted the truth was in the creation of CE 385 and the position of the lung. And I know exactly why he did that, it was to convinced the Commission that the SBT was possible.

    James, you also posted part of his ARRB interview where he lied his ass off about the proper procedure for locating a back wound. And since he had no problem telling the Commission a whopping lie in order to "convince" them of the SBT -- as you put it -- why do you accept his WC testimony where he obviously attempted the same thing?

    You're promoting a proven xxxx with an obvious agenda to the level of infallible authority!

    This is quite clearly an area we are unlikely to agree on. You are quite right I have indeed referred to Commander Humes as a xxxx, especially with reference to CE 385. Where I believe we differ is that I agree with David Lifton that much of what he said was truthful.

    Lifton doesn't agree with anything Humes said about the back wound. One of the things I appreciate about David Lifton is his steady regard of the T3 location as an historical fact. A base-of-the-neck wound would be massively convenient for his body mutilation theory, but David knows better.

    I think its the head wound(s) where Lifton gives Humes a pass, not the back wound.

    Cliff, can you give me your references for that for the idea that Lifton does not agree with anything Humes said about the back wound. Maybe I miss-read him.

    Recently Pat made clear that the 14cm dimensions took you to T3.

    I certainly concur with the head wound.

    Lifton's central point was that what Parkland said and what was said at Bethesda were accurate. It was that which led him to suggest that something had taken place in between.

    Parkland didn't say anything about the back wound. The only guy who said anything about the back wound was SS SA Glen Bennett, who accurately described the location of the wound before the body left Dallas.

    I was referring to the Head wound really.

    Another area, where we clearly disagree, is that I am prepared to fight against the Warren Commission on their ground. By that I mean I accept their evidence such as Humes' testimony and the Autopsy report. That is why I do not want to dismiss Commander Humes evidence I prefer to demonstrate that it is clearly wrong. It is my personal feeling that stronger ground to argue against the Warren Commission. I appreciate, that is not your point of view.

    Your view is ahistorical. You show no glimmer of acknowledgement that a coup d'etat had taken place and that Commander Humes was a military man acting under orders. The final autopsy report was a political document, designed to satisfy specfiic political requirements of the cover-up. Too easily do you grant legitimacy where it was never earned.

    I have said a number of times that my position in this thread is to work at dismantling the SBT from within the ground rules set by the WC. I know this is not your view, but if I can dismantle the SBT using their ground rules then they have nowhere to go. The criteria I am using to dismantle it are the very criteria they used to create it. That is why I accept, in the main what Humes says and why I accept the Autopsy Report.

    You suggest that the anomaly was a "hematoma", well that won't wash. This distortion of the C7 transverse process is still seen in X-AUT-8.

    According to the analysis for the HSCA it was the T1 transverse process which suffered the fracture.

    You are quite right, that is indeed their view. You will have noticed that at the beginning of that posting I listed all four references to their view on T7 being injured.

    However, they are wrong, if it is their view that it was injured internally in the throat. I have shown on numerous graphics that T1 is behind Costa IR. There is no way any missile could get to it, through the throat area, without first damaging Costa IR.

    The physical position of the bones within the human body make it impossible for any bullet to damage T1 without first damaging Costa iR.

    That's not what your A-B-C trajectory showed! There was a near perfect straight line from the nicked trachea to the T1 transverse process by way of the C7 transverse process on the same line of trajectory.

    James, with all due respect, repeating your assertions over and over isn't the same as making a case for them.

    That is not quite true Cliff. I believe my arguments, along with the supporting images, are what has made my case. I have shown numerous images that support the point that the T1 transverse process is behind as well as below Costa IR. That is why it cannot be damaged. In addition, to be fair, if I am just repeating assertions then is that not also what you are doing?

    Humes was a proven xxxx, the autopsy photos are inadmissible in court.

    I agree Humes lied with respect to CE 385. He knew very well that the position of the lung was wrong. You seem to be suggesting that everything he said was a lie. I can't go along with that.

    Garbage in...Garbage out...

    I am somewhat surprised that you consider everything I have been doing is "Garbage", that certainly is not my view.

    James.

  3. James, I wonder if on the image (model) a trajectory can be drawn with dots (to get a 3d sense of what you are getting at) and not just the location of the back wound?

    John,

    That is a fair point. I'll create a movie tomorrow highlighting what I have been arguing. In 3D it should be easier to follow what I am talking about than in 2D. I should be able to post it tomorrow.

    James

  4. How can we say that, because the lung was damaged. And therefore the bullet had to find a way to get there. The advantage of the bullet/missile having to strike the bone in this small area, in order to avoid the arteries and veins, is this area is just right of the Apex of the lung. And it was the Apex that was damaged.

    The x-ray likely shows hematoma. That's damaged blood vessels. Your evidence that the lung was damaged rests with the testimony of a man you've shown to be a serial xxxx. How you can regard his testimony as historical fact is beyond me, frankly, especially in the light of abundantly redundant evidence of the T3 back wound. .

    Hummus created four distinct bullet paths.

    The highest trajectory was the Rydberg drawing; next highest was the 14cm below mastoid "measurement," putting the wound around C7/T1; then the bullet that bruised the lung-tip and the strap muscle; then the wound just above the upper margin of the scapula, roughly T2.

    All are fiction, of course.

    Cliff,

    I never said that Humes was a serial xxxx. The one area I established where he deliberately distorted the truth was in the creation of CE 385 and the position of the lung. And I know exactly why he did that, it was to convinced the Commission that the SBT was possible.

    James, you also posted part of his ARRB interview where he lied his ass off about the proper procedure for locating a back wound. And since he had no problem telling the Commission a whopping lie in order to "convince" them of the SBT -- as you put it -- why do you accept his WC testimony where he obviously attempted the same thing?

    You're promoting a proven xxxx with an obvious agenda to the level of infallible authority!

    This is quite clearly an area we are unlikely to agree on. You are quite right I have indeed referred to Commander Humes as a xxxx, especially with reference to CE 385. Where I believe we differ is that I agree with David Lifton that much of what he said was truthful. Lifton's central point was that what Parkland said and what was said at Bethesda were accurate. It was that which led him to suggest that something had taken place in between.

    Another area, where we clearly disagree, is that I am prepared to fight against the Warren Commission on their ground. By that I mean I accept their evidence such as Humes' testimony and the Autopsy report. That is why I do not want to dismiss Commander Humes evidence I prefer to demonstrate that it is clearly wrong. It is my personal feeling that stronger ground to argue against the Warren Commission. I appreciate, that is not your point of view.

    You suggest that the anomaly was a "hematoma", well that won't wash. This distortion of the C7 transverse process is still seen in X-AUT-8.

    According to the analysis for the HSCA it was the T1 transverse process which suffered the fracture.

    You are quite right, that is indeed their view. You will have noticed that at the beginning of that posting I listed all four references to their view on T7 being injured.

    However, they are wrong, if it is their view that it was injured internally in the throat. I have shown on numerous graphics that T1 is behind Costa IR. There is no way any missile could get to it, through the throat area, without first damaging Costa IR.

    The physical position of the bones within the human body make it impossible for any bullet to damage T1 without first damaging Costa iR.

    The lung had been removed by this time. So, if as you say it was a hematoma, that was no longer in the body, because the lung had been removed and was no longer in the body when that X-Ray was taken.

    The analysis for the HSCA said swelling overlaying the apex of the lung. You ASSUME this resulted from damage to the lung, but no such assumption can be made. Hematoma results from damaged blood vessels, consistent with your stipulation to many blood vessels in the A-B-C path.

    Yes it was a bruise which was caused by damage to blood vessel(s). However Humes does state that damage was 5cm in diameter and was wedged shape. I have shown you an image of this damage from one of the X-rays.

    Humes is quite clear that it is damage to the lung, because he states that this lump, to use that term, was attached and on top of the lung.

    And the cause of this "lump" being there was the passage of the bullet through the throat area.

    And how do we know that X-Ray was taken after the organs of the body had been removed, that was evidence from the ARRB. See "Inside the ARRB" Vol 2 P. 413.

    Humes may well have created multiple trajectory paths, this one is different.

    Oh? So you acknowledge Humes' serial lying about trajectory paths but you're going to pick one "analysis" out of this garbage and announce it gold?

    That doesn't make any sense, frankly. You're trying to turn the words of a proven xxxx with an agenda into historical fact, James. It doesn't work that way, with all due respect.

    I have addressed this point at the beginning. I acknowledge this is an area we are not going to agree on.

    This path was created to link areas that we know were damaged, as well as avoid areas we know were not damaged.

    But you don't "know" any of that because you're relying on Humes! Can't you see the circular logic of this?

    That is probably poor language on my part here. What I was saying is there is clear pathway from the throat to C7 that is to the right of the major arteries. The point I was trying to make is that any other trajectory path would have the bullet impact major arteries like the jugular. The logic of my argument is this: we know these arteries were not damaged and we know certain organs were damaged. What was behind the point of the path creating a link between what was damaged and what was not is the overwhelming logic that, that is the only path the bullet could take. That is the advantage of 3D models. It allows me to set up criteria, such as a trajectory through the throat area, and see what is possible as opposed to what is not possible. That is the advantage of these models. Buy yourself one of these models an see for yourself what is possible and what is not.

    Given the evidence we know, this is a "logical" path.

    Again, by what alchemy of logic does a man gain credibility the more he lies? You say you "know" the lung was hit because Humes said so. But Humes is a proven serial xxxx! But that doesn't matter because, when it comes to the lung only, he's telling the truth? And how do you know he was telling the truth? Because this proven serial xxxx said so under oath?

    Again, this stems from my decision to fight against the Warren Commission by choosing their ground to do so. I accept that we differ on this.

    T3 as an entry point for the back wound is impossible. BE 5 shows definite points in the Scapula. These are not speculative and therefore establish what is a possible entry point and what is not? The Scapula does not move its position in the body.

    Your case rests on the Fox 5 "back of the head" autopsy photo which the HSCA singled out as of especially poor quality, as more confusing than informative, and difficult or impossible to gain accurate measurements therefrom.

    Actually it is no poorer quality than the others of the set. As I mentioned earlier in this thread I have attempted to get them restored and it is neigh impossible because of the damage to the images.

    There is no chain of possession for this photo, and you have no proof that the subject of the photo was JFK.

    I have addressed this question. But let me ask you, what evidence have you that it is not JFK??

    Your case is based on the words of a proven serial xxxx with an obvious agenda, and an improperly prepared autopsy photo that's inadmissible in court.

    Meanwhile, the physical evidence of the clothing holes, the consensus witness testimony, and the properly prepared documents confirm the historical fact that JFK's back wound was at T3.

    Yes I agree the clothing is a problem. Why I place the wound where I do on the body is that we clearly see physical identifying features of the Scapula. About that there is no doubt. I am sure any medical person will agree that I have identified on the body clear and definite aspects of the Scapula.

    I drew a line over the upper point. Now in BE 5/ Fox 5 the wound on the body is above this line. And this line is above T3.

    On that basis, I suggest the jacket evidence, however powerful and I agree it is powerful, has to be wrong.

    Now why it is wrong, I do not have an answer to.

    james.

    James.

  5. The round didn't have to hit the jugular -- it could easily have hit smaller vessels...and didn't Perry observe blood in the wound?

    Hematoma is damaged blood vessels, James. That's a fact.

    Cliff,

    I mentioned that it seemed unlikely that this bullet could escape hitting the vein at the front of the throat. See image below:-

    FrontVein.png

    The red line points to this vein which is called the Thyroidea Inferior.

    I went on to mention that maybe the blood that was noticed oozing from the throat wound may well have come from this damaged vein.

    What I was at pains to point out is that one thing this bullet did not do was hit any major arteries. Had it done so that would have been bound to have been seen at Parkland.

    That is why I point out that there only is one trajectory this bullet could have used in order to avoid striking arteries like the Jugular. That is shown and described in the first image I posted.

    James.

  6. How can we say that, because the lung was damaged. And therefore the bullet had to find a way to get there. The advantage of the bullet/missile having to strike the bone in this small area, in order to avoid the arteries and veins, is this area is just right of the Apex of the lung. And it was the Apex that was damaged.

    The x-ray likely shows hematoma. That's damaged blood vessels. Your evidence that the lung was damaged rests with the testimony of a man you've shown to be a serial xxxx. How you can regard his testimony as historical fact is beyond me, frankly, especially in the light of abundantly redundant evidence of the T3 back wound. .

    Hummus created four distinct bullet paths.

    The highest trajectory was the Rydberg drawing; next highest was the 14cm below mastoid "measurement," putting the wound around C7/T1; then the bullet that bruised the lung-tip and the strap muscle; then the wound just above the upper margin of the scapula, roughly T2.

    All are fiction, of course.

    Cliff,

    I never said that Humes was a serial xxxx. The one area I established where he deliberately distorted the truth was in the creation of CE 385 and the position of the lung. And I know exactly why he did that, it was to convinced the Commission that the SBT was possible.

    You suggest that the anomaly was a "hematoma", well that won't wash. This distortion of the C7 transverse process is still seen in X-AUT-8. The lung had been removed by this time. So, if as you say it was a hematoma, that was no longer in the body, because the lung had been removed and was no longer in the body when that X-Ray was taken. And how do we know that X-Ray was taken after the organs of the body had been removed, that was evidence from the ARRB. See "Inside the ARRB" Vol 2 P. 413.

    Humes may well have created multiple trajectory paths, this one is different. This path was created to link areas that we know were damaged, as well as avoid areas we know were not damaged. Given the evidence we know, this is a "logical" path.

    T3 as an entry point for the back wound is impossible. BE 5 shows definite points in the Scapula. These are not speculative and therefore establish what is a possible entry point and what is not? The Scapula does not move its position in the body.

    James.

  7. We know that no major arteries or veins were damaged.

    And how do we know that?

    Cliff,

    True I am accepting Humes word as reflected in his testimony and what was said in the Autopsy report. However lets, just for a moment, consider that one of these arteries such as the Jugular had indeed been damaged. Are you suggesting that this is something those at Parkland would not have noticed?? I doubt it.

    James.

  8. The Bullet/Missile’s impact on the C7 Transverse Process

    and the placement of the Back Wound

    This is not the contribution I had initially intended. I had been going to write about how the T1 transverse process could not be injured by a bullet traversing the neck. My argument was going to conclude by demonstrating that T1 could only have been damaged by a strike on the back around the T1 vertebrae. By highlighting the T1 transverse process I felt I was, after all on sound ground. In HSCA Vol 7 Pages 181, 186, 230 and 235; they had concluded exactly the same thing. Before starting to write I glanced over my images to acquaint myself with my argument and it was then I noticed something that threw that argument right out the window. And for a couple of days it was back to my books and model to try and understand just what it was I was now seeing.

    I may have miss-read the X-Rays, and if so I apologise. I am a novice at this, however I do not think I have miss-read the X-Rays.

    See Image below:-

    T1C6Transverse.png

    What you are seeing:-

    a) Image 1:- is X-Ray X-AUT-9. This X-Ray was taken prior to the autopsy beginning.

    B)Image 2:- Model A which focus’s on the C7 Transverse Process.

    c) Image 3:- is X-Ray X-AUT-8. This X-Ray was taken after the major organs had been removed from the body of JFK.

    d) Image 4:- Model B which depicts the most logical trajectory for the bullet/missile.

    Argument 1:- So what Transverse process was actually struck?

    The image I was looking at was John Lattimer’s version of X-AUT-8 in his book “Kennedy and Lincoln” P. 203 which is a very good enlargement. Looking at his comment I read “the x-rays of Kennedy’s lower neck region shows fragmentation of the tip of the transverse process of one of his lower neck vertebrae in the track of bullet 399.”

    First I had believed that the C 7 vertebrae had not been damaged. After all that is what Gary Aguilar and Kathy Cunningham stated in “How Five investigations into JFK’s medical/Autopsy Evidence Got It Wrong.” In the HSCA Appendix volume 7 the committee had also said the same on pages 170, 175, 219 and 224. I therefore wondered whether this damage was a consequence of removing the organs from the body. In other words the damage was caused by Humes examination of the body. But that is not the case because X-AUT-9 also shows it and that X-Ray was taken before the examination of the body started.

    Both X-AUT-8 + 9 also show something else about this damaged process. As can be clearly seen in Model a or Model b the normal position for these processes is horizontal. But if you look at either of the X-Rays, the C7 process is slightly slanted upwards. It now appears that one consequence of the bullet’s impact is to make the process slope slightly upwards. That suggests that the bullet hit the C7 Process from the underneath edge, thereby forcing the bone slightly upwards. Hitting the bone face-on would be unlikely to force the bone upwards. It might force it forwards but not up. Only a strike on the lower edge would be the most likely explanation to cause it to move up.

    We know that no major arteries or veins were damaged. If you look at Model a, you can see the serious obstacles in front of this bullet’s trajectory, including the jugular. Now we know the bullet/missile missed them and therefore the only way it could have done so is to strike in that small area to the right of these vessels: an area that is clear of any obstacles. And since we now know this bullet/missile did strike bone, the C7 Process, that strike can now be argued to have moved the bullet slightly left downwards towards the lung. How can we say that, because the lung was damaged. And therefore the bullet had to find a way to get there. The advantage of the bullet/missile having to strike the bone in this small area, in order to avoid the arteries and veins, is this area is just right of the Apex of the lung. And it was the Apex that was damaged.

    The changed trajectory that now takes the bullet towards the lung’s Apex, also takes the bullet/missile away from the T1 Transverse Process. Although it is roughly at the same height as the Apex it is also about 60º degrees to the right of the Apex. There is nothing in the bullet/missile’s present trajectory that could force a change of that kind until it meets Costa IR. At that point it would be impossible to create a trajectory back to the T1 Transverse Process.

    So the logical conclusion is that, if the T1 Process was damaged, it could not be this bullet that did so.

    If you look at Model b I can now describe the likely route of this bullet.

    Point A:- This suggests that the bullet/missile entered at the level of Trachea rings 3&4. It would seem impossible for the bullet to miss the small vein at the front of the throat, best seen Model a. This is the Thyroidea Inferior vein. Damaging this vein would be in keeping with the evidence. Parkland doctors mentioned blood and air coming out of the bullet wound. And this vein is right next to the entrance hole and could well be responsible for that blood.

    Point B:- The bullet/missile grazes the right hand side of the Right Strap Muscle as it passes on its way towards the C7 Process.

    Point C:- It continues along that narrow channel highlighted in Model a and strikes on the lower inside edge of C7. It doing that two things happen:-

    a) C7 is raised slightly upwards as a consequence of the strike.

    B) The bullet is deflected downwards and leftwards.

    Point D:- The bullet/missile is now able to graze and damage the lung.

    Where the bullet ends up I have no idea and what happens to it I have no idea.

    But what is described above adheres to the evidence as we know it. It gives an explanation for what we see on the X-Rays that is both logical and correctly reasoned.

    Argument 2:- Where did the bullet strike the back?

    See the image below:-

    backWound.png

    What do you see?

    There are two images.

    Image 1 is a copy of BE 5, which I believe is also known as Fox 5.

    Image 2 is a model that is positioned as close to the angle of JFK’s body.

    So how can I suggest we can accurately place the wound?

    On BE 5 two aspects of Scapula can clearly be seen on the body of JFK. These same features can also be seen on the model. Labels A1 and B1 are placed on both.

    A straight line is drawn on the model and a copy is placed on BE 5. This creates a base line by which to judge the height of the wound above this line.

    After that it is a bit of a gestimate. Looking at the distance of the wound from the line I suspect it is the yellow dot. That places the wund in the upper area between T2 & T3. But it could be the green dot thus placing it over T2, and between T2 & T1.

    The features of the Scapular define clearly the rough area when the bullet struck. That is why the bullet cannot be between T3 & T4 because the wound is above point A1 and not below it. The position of the Scapula does not move and therefore the wound must be positioned with reference to these absolute points in the human body.

    James.

  9. One of the many problems I have with Humes involves his use of the right mastoid process to locate a wound of the upper back. We all know our heads can move up and down, and side to side at various angles. So the distance between a floating point and and a fixed object can vary.

    Jeremy Gunn and Douglas Horne questioned Dr. Humes about this very issue at a session of the Assassination Records Review Board (link below).

    Unbelievably, Humes tells the board that the right mastoid process is a fixed landmark. He follows up by immediately telling them that he does not want to debate it.

    A few lines later, Humes says it is difficult to use thoracic vertebrae to locate a wound.

    Jerry Ford never had that problem.

    Richard,

    I agree with you. I would like to say Humes was fully aware it was not a fixed landmark, but it is a definition Humes uses in the Autopsy report, which was written two days after the autopsy and months before the SBT came into being. His use of the term to define the location of the back wound may well have to do with his destruction of his first autopsy report and the creation of the second report where he now has to link the back wound and the throat wound. That was most likely not something that was in the first report. I have no evidence to support this, but I feel this was a decision that circumstances forced him into and I suspect he was never happy about it.

    It is surprising as well as illuminating to me that thirty odd years later Humes still sticks to his definition. I would have thought by that time he could have given a bit and suggest maybe he could have used better landmarks. But he does not, instead he gets really defensive which suggests to me that he is still unhappy about the definition he made and that it was one that he was forced into in the second report and that he will stick with it. I agree with your astonishment that Humes would suggest that it was difficult to use the thoracic vertebrae to locate wounds.

    Like everyone else, I would love to see what he said in that first report.

    James.

  10. James, I suspect that the bullet entered around T-1. While Cliff likes to claim this is where LNers place the wound, and that I am therefore supporting the LNers, he refuses to share with you that I've demonstrated, over and over again, in my videos and on my website, that these LNers are lying, and that a wound at T-1 does not support the SBT.

    The HSCA Pathology Panel, for example, depicted the wound at T-1, and presented a drawing of Kennedy leaning sharply forward in order to show how they thought the SBT would have to have happened, while Kennedy was behind the sign in the Zapruder film. Those running the HSCA, however, KNEW that they'd planned on claiming Kennedy was hit before he went behind the sign in the film, when he was sitting fairly upright. This led them to hire a hack from NASA named Thomas Canning, to re-interpret the wound locations, in order to get them to line up for the SBT. He ended up moving the back wound above T-1. I demonstrate this here:

    Pat,

    Thanks for the information. I have been going back and forward with regard to T3 or T1. More and more I am becoming convinced it has to be T1. My reasons have to do with the SBT criteria. According to the medical evidence this bullet had to damage three organs: the right strap, the apex of the right lung and the T1 transverse process.

    This simply isn't true. There is nothing on the x-ray to indicate damage to the strap muscle or the lung tip. It only shows tissue swelling above the lung tip. The business about the strap and the lung come from Humes, a man you regard as a xxxx.

    Look, James, either Humes was lying about the strap, or Jenkins was lying about seeing the probe push against the skin of the chest cavity at a level of T3/T4.

    Those are both graphic descriptions, and only one of them can be correct. Jenkins account is bolstered by the statements of more than a dozen other witnesses.

    Humes is branded a serial xxxx, by yourself and others.

    Why would you think Humes' account has more credibility?

    I am not giving Humes more credibility per sea. It is about the position I have taken to argue this issue and others. The position I have taken is to accept the ground rules established by the Commission, in this instance the Autopsy report and Humes testimony. It is my belief that if I can break down their arguments as established under their ground rules then I believe that gives my arguments an added strength. I am happier doing that than questioning whether the Autopsy report is right about strap muscle etc. It allows me to seriously undermine their argument under their rules. For example:-

    With the 3D model I have established that the throat area is veritable minefield of challenges to any missile trying to traverse the throat.

    With the 3D model I have shown, using their entry and exit points, that this no way that a bullet could damage the lung and strap muscle.

    With the 3D model I have shown that no trajectory can account for the T1 Transverse Process. Not only that I have demonstrated that the jugular and other arteries are directly in its path.

    All of these points are conditions the WC set down. They can't now take them back and say "Oops we're sorry, we got that wrong."

    I just can't get my head around the T1 transverse process. Not only are there two major arteries in front of that bone, it causes utter mayhem to construct a viable trajectory that has logic to it.

    Other than a near-pefect straight line from the nicked trachea? How does it get more viable than a near-perfect straight line?

    True that trajectory line does indeed go from the throat straight to T1 transverse process. However it is way above the lung and there is no way it could be damaged. The lung is too low within the chest structure. In addition, to get to T1, takes the bullet away from the right strap muscle.

    And since there was likely massive swelling from hematoma it shouldn't be a surprise to find damaged blood vessels in that region.

    Other than the post-autopsy work product of Humes/Boswell, serial liars, what do you have to conclude on a T1 back wound?

    The basis for deciding that the T1 transverse process was injured externally, rather than internally was based on the following.

    First, I could find no trajectory that would be realistic and damage T1 as well as the lung and strap muscle.

    Second, I could see no way that any missile would miss both arteries.

    And so I came to the conclusion that if T1 could not be injured internally, then it had to be injured from an external shot. This has the further advantage of ensuring that bullet would not be able to damage the arteries because, this time, they are behind the bone and not in front.

    I was not swayed by who said what. What swayed me was the 3D reality of what was or was not possible.

    As I pointed out there is still the problem of the damage to the jacket. I don't have an answer to that at present.

    James.

  11. James, I suspect that the bullet entered around T-1. While Cliff likes to claim this is where LNers place the wound, and that I am therefore supporting the LNers, he refuses to share with you that I've demonstrated, over and over again, in my videos and on my website, that these LNers are lying, and that a wound at T-1 does not support the SBT.

    The HSCA Pathology Panel, for example, depicted the wound at T-1, and presented a drawing of Kennedy leaning sharply forward in order to show how they thought the SBT would have to have happened, while Kennedy was behind the sign in the Zapruder film. Those running the HSCA, however, KNEW that they'd planned on claiming Kennedy was hit before he went behind the sign in the film, when he was sitting fairly upright. This led them to hire a hack from NASA named Thomas Canning, to re-interpret the wound locations, in order to get them to line up for the SBT. He ended up moving the back wound above T-1. I demonstrate this here:

    Pat,

    Thanks for the information. I have been going back and forward with regard to T3 or T1. More and more I am becoming convinced it has to be T1. My reasons have to do with the SBT criteria. According to the medical evidence this bullet had to damage three organs: the right strap, the apex of the right lung and the T1 transverse process. I just can't get my head around the T1 transverse process. Not only are there two major arteries in front of that bone, it causes utter mayhem to construct a viable trajectory that has logic to it. So what has persuaded me is not what the HCSA has suggested, it is the consequence of the medical criteria inside the human neck. A big advantage to T1 being damaged from outside the body is that these very arteries that are nightmare inside the body are no problem for an outside strike. That is because they are on the opposite of the bones and therefore would be unlikely to be damaged.

    However just moving to an outside strike at T1 does not remove all problems. Cliff has often pointed to the fact that the damage to the shirt and jacket do not support a strike at T1. He is absolutely right and, at present, I don't have answer for him.

    Through this conversation I am beginning to understand what I believed happened in the upper neck area.

    The damage to the right strap muscle and the lung were damaged by a bullet/missile from in front. Because of the angle of decent within the body, the firing position had to be higher than street level. That probably suggests the Grassy Knoll type of area. It is still a very strange shot because the natural areas that should have been damaged is the left side rather than the right. In order for the right side to be damaged JFK's body had to turned to allow such a trajectory. And of course no bullet was found. But from what I can see, the medical evidence from a 3D anatomical model strongly suggest that his how these organs were damaged.

    The back wound at T1 was from an external shot. This is the only explanation I can see that would avoid a nightmare trajectory scenario. In addition such a shot ensures that the arteries, that are now behind T1 transverse process, would be unlikely to be damaged by a strike in that region. Of course there is still the jacket problem and also no bullet was found.

    This continues to be a very educational and instructive conversation. The more I learn the more critical I am of people like Dale Myers and Vincent Bugliosi. They promote the SBT without any critical thinking. I find their lack of critical thinking quite disturbing. They assume that because the external trajectories have no complications and obstructions, so also must the internal trajectories, when actually the internal trajectory is a minefield of obstructions. My criticism of them is that they never address these issues, it is as if they do not exist. Maybe for them they don't. I am curious that a topic that strikes right at the heart of the Warren Commission has not attracted supporters of the Warren Commission. This thread has had over 2,600 views, and I assume many are by members who support the Commission, yet none have entered. Many less vital issues that have been raised on this forum they have readily joined into. Their absence here is quite deafening. Actually I have no idea what they could say even if they did enter. If they feel that if they say nothing it will just go away, well they are in for a rude awakening. Wait till I place all this onto a 3D model.

    And what is worse for them, this is not the worst problem for the Warren Commission supporters. There are two fatal problems for them that they have never been addressed or even envisaged. I am holding back on them at the moment. But still I am surprised that on this critical issue for their cause they have not entered into the conversation.

    James.

  12. James, if the man was a xxxx about one thing why do you hold him to be infallible on something else?

    Cliff,

    No to be pedantic, but was it not Boswell who created the drawing?

    I agreed with Pat because I checked what he said to you and found that he was right. He is absolutely right the distance between the two points is equidistant. We cannot avoid that point, Pat is right about it. After I posted, I realised that one measurement refers to the jacket e.g. the 5.7 inches, and one refers to the body, e.g. the 5.5 inches that I posted. I forgot that the jacket does not go up to the mastoid. On the drawing there is a difference of 2.5 inches between where the top of the jacket would be, on the drawing, and the mastoid. Therefore, on the Boswell drawing, from the top of the jacket to the wound is actually 3 inches. I don't know what that means?

    This raises the issue about how authoritative this drawing is. By that I mean yes the drawing has the general shape of a human body and the placing of the dot is around the T3 area. What I am questioning is this, is there in this drawing the kind of precision that there is in the physical measurement of the jacket. For example, assuming that the measurement of 5.5 inches between those points is correct, on that basis the entire figure is actually 55 inches tall. JFK was 77.5 inches tall.

    Pat is absolutely right that the placement is equidistant. According to Humes this 14cm measurement takes you to the bullet's point of entry. Pat appears to believe that the point refers to T3. What I am not sure is how can we say that, that point, specifically points to an area on the body that is as precise as T3, as compared to T4 or T2 or, indeed T1?

    Is the drawing able to be as precise as that? And that point I am not sure about.

    James.

  13. Thanks for the confirmation, Cliff. The mark on the face sheet is equidistant from the mastoid and shoulder tip and confirms the measurements.

    Pat,

    I tend to agree with you. I had not considered the measurements on the face sheet.

    When you measure these two points they are within a pixel, 80 * 81. But in addition you have made another point I had not considered. The placing of the wound on the face sheet is truly equidistant between the mastoid and the shoulder. It is quite clear that it has been carefully placed on the sheet. It has not been carelessly placed on the sheet.

    I had not checked what 14cm actually is in inches. It is 5.511. Yes that is not 5.75 but then the images from that day make clear that the jacket had risen to some degree on the body. And, after all, the difference is only .64 of an inch.

    I have often dismissed this 14cm measurement as bogus, you have shown me how relevant it is. Now that I see the placing of the wound in this way, you have highlighted how ridiculous the placing of the back entrance wound is in CE 386. With Humes declaring in both the autopsy report and in in testimony that the 14cm placement is the correct position for the placement of the wound, he then goes and deliberately places it incorrectly in CE 386.

    James.

  14. James, why couldn't the Cyan lump result from the swelling of hematoma?

    Cliff,

    Although I am not sure Humes used that term, it could very well be that. The definition of a hematoma says that "An ecchymosis tends to be flat while a hematoma has more of a three dimensional character to it. As well, hematomas may occur in any organand not just under the skin."

    That is exactly how Humes explains this defect.

    So I can accept that as a description of the Cyan lump.

    James.

    James, I don't see how a round could hit between the 3rd/4th trach rings, bruise the strap muscle and the lung, and then leave an air-pocket overlaying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes -- I think we've both dismissed that possibility.

    But I don't see how a round that didn't penetrate the back very far, entering at T3, could bruise the lung-tip and the strap muscle.

    The graphic, highly specific description I posted above from James Curtis Jenkins -- indicating a back wound consistent with T3 -- certainly wouldn't have left a bruised lung tip and strap muscle, the bullet never entered the chest cavity.

    Humes was in the habit of playing fast and loose with the particulars of the back wound. In the autopsy report there are two locations listed for the back wound:

    1) "just above the upper border of the scapula" --

    But this location is more consistent with T2.

    back_diagram.gif

    2) "14cm below the right tip of the mastoid process" --

    But this location is more consistent with the wound in Fox 5 autopsy photo, C7/T1.

    The Rydberg drawing shows a trajectory much higher than the locations in the autopsy report, and this business about a bruised lung-tip and strap muscle could very well be a fourth bullet track Humes pulled out of his nether regions.

    Near as I can tell, either Jenkins and 15 others were wrong, or Humes was wrong.

    My money is on the latter.

    But the apex of the lung was below T1. Looks to me like T3/T4. No?

    Cliff,

    I placed the ribs onto the image and you are right.

    The Jenkins comment places the wound between T3 & T4. See below

    AortaJunctionwiththeRibs.png

    In the earlier post you commented on the impossibly of the SBT. Yes, we are both in agreement there.

    It is my position that the damage to the lung and the strap muscle was from a shot from the front. To get the downward trajectory it would need to be from a higher position that street level. Grassy knoll, could be a possibility.

    I have no problems with the back entry at T3/T4, if we can get an explanation for the T1 injury. It would be most convenient if the bullet entering through Trachea 3&4 could be shown to be responsible, but I don't see that as possible. It is asking far too much of that bullet. To do so we have to create all sorts of trajectories that don't seem realistic. That is why a back entry at T1 is so attractive. Not only does it explain the back entry wound, it also explains the T1 injury.

    Although I believe Humes did tell the truth at points, his 14cm measurement was not one of those occasions. It is my understanding that CE 386 is where Humes 14cm measurement is located on the body. And it is worth bearing in mind that dependant on how the person is positioned the 14cm measurement will end up in different points. This measurement is pure fiction designed to satisfy an explanation of the SBT.

    James

  15. Where does this come in? James Curtis Jenkins was a lab tech at the autopsy and made this statement to

    David Lifton:

    I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe...through the pleura

    [the lining of the chest cavity]...You could actually see where it was making an indentation...

    where it was pushing the skin up...There was no entry into the chest cavity...it would have

    been no way that that could have exited in the front because it was then low in the chest cavity...

    somewhere around the junction of the descending aorta [the main artery carrying blood from the

    heart] or the bronchus in the lungs.

    Cliff,

    James Jenkins would appear to have the location right. See below:-

    AortaJunction.png

    The long artery leading downwards is what he refers to as descending aorta.

    The junction is highlighted by the yellow arrow.

    I have not put the bone structure back on, but that junction appears to be around the T1 area.

    James

  16. James, why couldn't the Cyan lump result from the swelling of hematoma?

    Cliff,

    Although I am not sure Humes used that term, it could very well be that. The definition of a hematoma says that "An ecchymosis tends to be flat while a hematoma has more of a three dimensional character to it. As well, hematomas may occur in any organand not just under the skin."

    That is exactly how Humes explains this defect.

    So I can accept that as a description of the Cyan lump.

    James.

  17. Using a Lie to hide a Truth

    Much has been made about Commander Humes’ veracity in this thread as well as other threads on this forum. In Part 4 of this series I devoted an entire thread to highlighting a moment where Commander Humes clearly manipulated the truth. My position is that, although in many places Commander Humes deliberately distorted the truth, in many places he also told the truth. I am not yet able to highlight all those moments when he told the truth, but I am able to highlight one. However Commander Humes also deliberately created a lie to hide the very truth that he described both in MD3 as well as in his testimony to the Warren Commission.

    What is the “Truth” and what are the references:-

    In the autopsy report Commander Humes made the following observation:

    “A 5cm. diameter area of purplish red discoloration and increased firmness to palpitation is situated in the apical portion of the right upper lung.” MD3 P. 5

    However on Monday, March 16th 1964 when he appeared before the Warren Commission he elaborated on this observation. He commented:

    “The area of discoloration on the apical portion of the right upper lung measured five centimeters in greatest diameter, and was wedge shaped in configuration, with its base toward the top of the chest and its apex down towards the substance of the lung. H2 P. 363

    We were able to ascertain with absolute certainty that the bullet had passed by the apical portion of the right lung producing the injury which we mentioned. H2 P.367

    The bruise here, photographs are far superior to my humble verbal description, but if I let my hand in cup shaped fashion represent the apical parietal pleura, it was an area approximately 5 cm. in greatest diameter of purplish blue discoloration of the parietal pleura. Corresponding exactly with it, with the lung sitting below it, was a roughly pyramid-shaped bruise with its base toward the surface of the upper portion of the lung. And the apex down into the lung tissue, and the whole thing measured about 5 cm., which is a little - 2 inches in extent, sir. H2 P. 369

    So what was it that Commander Humes was saying? As the bullet passed over the top of the lung the impact of its passing caused an injury to the lung. The injury had the following characteristics:-

    i) The diameter of the injury was approximately 5cm in diameter

    ii) It injury was not flat, it was more like a pyramid in that it had a pointed top

    iii) And from the top, the “apex” the body of this injury continued down to the body of the lung.

    In essence, Commander Humes is saying that there was a lump on the top of the lung that had a point and whose base was around 5 cm in diameters.

    Well that is exactly what “X-AUT-9” shows. See image below

    X-RayExtended_d.png

    First a description of the image you are seeing.

    a) X-AUT-9 Annotated:- In this image I have outlined two important aspects of the X-ray. In green and yellow I have traced the height of the lung within the chest area. In Cyan I have outlined the “lump” caused by the bullet.

    B)X-AUT-9 Clean Copy:- I have included a clean copy for you to compare and reflect on my arguments.

    c) Anatomical Model A:- This model is position in as close a perspective as the X-Ray. It allows judgment on what ought to be seen from this angle.

    d) CE 385:- I have included a copy of the Humes/Rydberg drawing. This will be discussed in detail later.

    e) Anatomical Model B:- This model is position similar to CE 385 and will be used as a reference to CE 385 when it is later discussed.

    f) Anatomical Model C:- This model will be used to reference the position of the lung in X-AUT-9 and CE 385.

    Important bone structures have been labeled to assist the following with and understanding of the argument.

    Note:- There has been question raised as to the veracity of the such models, specifically whether the position of the lung is accurate. I have since spoken with a senior member of the medical profession and have been assured by them that the lung is correctly positioned. And it has to be for reasons that will be highlighted later.

    The Argument A:- The Truth

    First the height of the lung. This is a critical aspect that will be explored in detail later. However, essentially what was the height of the lung within the chest cavity? If you look at Anatomical Model C, the right upper lobe is slightly below Costa IR. However when examined in X-AUT-9 such a position cannot be seen. Anatomical Model B also agrees with this point. The only aspect of the lung that can be identified is the front of the lung. Anatomical Model C shows us that top of the front of the lung is above the bottom of Costa IR and below the top of it.

    That is the point of the Yellow and Green arc lines in X-AUT-9 Annotated. This signifies a minimum and maximum height for this part of the lung in the chest cavity.

    The Cyan arced line outlines the defect on the lung that was caused by the bullet as it passed by. To the left and right of this defect highlighted in cyan, between Clavical R and Costa IR, there is space. No part of the lung in those areas can be seen. Essentially they are hidden from view because of the X-Ray perspective. The only part of the lung that can be seen is the defect. This gives us an indication of the height of the defect.

    So both in the Autopsy report and in his testimony to the Warren Commission, Commander Humes referred to a defect on the right lung that he stated was created by the bullet as it passed over the right lung. X-AUT-9 verifies that what he reported and testified to was indeed correct.

    Argument B:- The Lie

    So what is the “Lie”? It is this: the position of the lung inside the body of John F. Kennedy was too low to be affected by the trajectory of the SBT. Anatomical Model B illustrates the exit point for this bullet at Trachea rings 3 &4. The entry point, as defined by Commander Humes, was above Clavical R. Although his reference is very obtuse and vague to get a trajectory to exit at Trachea rings 3&4 the entry has to be around there. With the lung in its proper location such a trajectory would not have such an effect on the lung. This was confirmed to me by the expert I conferred with. To cause such damage the bullet would have to pass much closer to the lung.

    This now takes me to CE 385. I have often heard people refer to this document, and indeed dismiss it, as a “cartoon.” It is not that. It is a political document designed to create a lie that will hide a truth.

    And the “lie” is in the position of the lung. Compare CE 385 with Anatomical Model B. In doing that you will see just how high the lung has been raised. When I showed CE 385 to my expert, aside from confirming that the lung was positioned too high he went on to explain something I had not been aware of. Had the lungs been this high in the chest area, the lung is even significantly higher than Clavical R, they would have caused major problems in the upper chest area. Serious medical conditions would have occurred had the lungs really been in that position.

    The political lie that is being created through this document is that the SBT is possible. And it is possible only because the lung has been raised to the level of the trajectory of the SBT.

    It is interesting that in creating this lie, Commander Humes totally ignores what he saw and testified to: that passing over the right lung the bullet had created damage to the lung that created the lump seen in X-AUT-9 Annotated. In CE 385 the defect is not there, it is the whole lung that is raised. The defect to which he testified has been omitted in CE 385.

    CE 385 purports to show the creation of the defect. In actual fact the true defect that is noticed in X-AUT-9 Annotated would have been created long after the bullet had passed through the body.

    Although Harold Rydberg drew these three documents of which CE 385 is one, the real artist was Commander Humes. Rydberg drew under his explicit instruction. And so the placing and structure of the organs in this document was the sole responsibility of Commander Humes. It was he who decided how high the lung would be. It was he who decided that it would be placed above Clavical R. Commander Humes would have not only have known not just how incorrect this position was, but how dangerous it would have been to the health of John F. Kennedy had his lung actually been positioned there. And he also would have known how wrong this was. For, after all, he had autopsied this body. He knew exactly what had been the real condition of the right lung, because he had seen it. But the truth is not what this document is about.

    This “lie” has major consequences for the SBT. Without the re-positioning of the lung the SBT would not have been able to be proved possible.

    Looking at Anatomical Model B create a trajectory from the entrance Humes devised ( I am deliberately ignoring at this point the true location of the wound in the back ) which is somewhere above Clavical R and its exit between Trachea rings 3 & 4 and you will see how impossible the SBT is. Or, alternatively, place the lung back into its true position in CE 385 and again you will see how impossible the SBT is.

    I have no doubt that Humes was under serious political pressure when creating these drawings and that is why this is a political document. A document whose content is a deliberate “lie” to conceal the truth of the condition of the body of John F. Kennedy. The true extent of that “lie” can be seen in just how high the lung had to be raised in order to satisfy the conditions of SBT and in doing so disguise the truth that Commander Humes had seen on that Friday night.

    So what does all this prove?

    First, it proves that there were occasions that what Commander Humes did testify to were indeed true, even though he also later deliberately distort that truth.

    Second, it proves that Commander Humes knew that the SBT was not possible and his only way to support the theory required him to seriously restructure the position of John F. Kennedy’s lungs. The distance required to move the lungs them would have had serious health consequences had that been their true position.

    However, it is more than that. One criteria for the SBT is that it must injure the lung. If that cannot be accomplished the SBT dies because that would mean something else was responsible for the damage to the lung. The only way that Commander Humes was able to make the SBT possible was to seriously distort the lungs true position. Through that “lie”, Commander Humes confirmed a “truth”: the SBT is only possible if the lungs are moved to a position that is dangerous to the health of the individual.

    Third, in the X-rays taken during the autopsy it was later discovered that around C7 was an air pocket. The defect the bullet/missile that did enter through the throat caused on the lung, was probably the source of that air pocket.

    Fourth, there were political forces behind CE 385. It is unlikely that Commander Humes did this on his own. It is clear pressure, political pressure, was placed on him in order to force him to create such a document that would underpin and prove the SBT. In creating this document Commander Humes will have been aware of how extensive this lie was. That is why this “lie” whose purpose was to hide a “truth” was also politically motivated .

    And that is why CE 385 is no “cartoon.”

    James.

  18. Who's Chris?

    Anyway, James, I think your model's are fantastic and I'll take Humes-during-the-autopsy and the A-C-D frontal trajectory, and you can have Humes post-autopsy and two arteries the exact location of which in JFK's throat I don't think you can state with certainty.

    Sorry about the Chris, Cliff.

    Thank you for your comment on the models.

    I accept that the trajectory A-B-C does appear to meet the criteria of how T1 could have been injured.

    However, as I point out, the right strap muscle and the lung are not able to be damage by this trajectory.

    So?

    That means two things:

    1)The swelling of the tissue the round penetrated extended to overlay the apex of the lung, and we don't know the impact of the paralytic chemical (when we're dancing with Flechette!)

    2) Commander Humes -- let's give him the benefit of the doubt -- was a military man ordered to lie about the medical evidence.

    There's nothing in the FBI report about bruised lungs or strap muscles, is there? No contemporaneous notes -- he burned them.

    My point is that the change in direction the missile would have to undertake to injure all the criteria such as the strap muscle is not possible. I suggest the power of the penetration and trajectory, to damage T1, would not be enough to also create the damage definitely on the lung as most likely on the strap muscle. They are too far away from that trajectory. I believe for them to be injured we would need a different trajectory.

    I understand your view about the lack of contemporaneous notes, however I believe you will find in my latest posting I have provided proof that with regard to the damage to the lung, Commander Humes did indeed tell the truth.

    That means some other means need to account for them.

    It does? All of a sudden the WC testimony of a major figure in the cover-up becomes the sole basis for evaluating evidence -- while chucking his credible contemporaneous accounts?

    I don't see the logic here, frankly.

    You misunderstand my position here. I grant you the importance of the contemporaneous notes. I will try and be a little bit more sensitive on that issue in future.

    My position is about the need for the bullet/missile to be much nearer its subject in order to damage the organ. From the medical advice I have received from a medical practitioner in the last few days, I understand that the trajectory A-B-C to T7 is not sufficiently close to the lung and strap muscle to also damage them. Although I accept the power of the impact of any bullet/missile is significant it is unlikely to also create the damage to the strap muscle and lung. For that to occur a different trajectory would be required. And that is where I dispute the possibility of a different trajectory to then go on and damage these two organs.

    A couple of posts earlier I drew a trajectory to account for all the criteria. I.m sure you agree it was a very clumsy trajectory.

    You're right, absolutely. But you cannot assume even with the near-perfect line up of A-B-C that the round won't do the dipsy-doodle cutting through the soft tissue of JFK's neck. Those veins are NOT that wide, near as I can tell, and evidently the round missed the veins, because everything else lines up.

    Or you can chalk it up to yet another incredible co-incidence like 16 people observing a back wound matching the location of the holes in the clothes. More incredible co-incidences?

    This is a problem I do not have an answer for. My change of position with regard to the back wound ( to the area of T1 ) and the veracity of BE 3, the autopsy image of the back wound, does conflict with this evidence. I am not so concerned about the witness list, for they could be mistaken. I understand it is more difficult to pin point a wound on a body with flesh and muscle on it, than on a skeleton. However the clothing and Boswell’s diagram is much more difficult to get around. I don’t have an answer on these issues yet and I accept it is unacceptable not to have an answer.

    There is the problem. A-B-C gives you the C7 and T1 but not the lung or strap. A trajectory for the strap and lung, I drew earlier gives the strap and lung, but does not give you C7 and T1. Only a very clumsy, and unrealistic, trajectory gives you all the criteria. And that is the reason I am moving away from the idea that T1 was injured internally to the position that it may have been injured externally.

    Now looking again at this A-B-C trajectory for C7 and T1 as I pointed out there are two important arteries in front of them.

    C7T1arteries.png

    The big red one in front of C7 is the Vertebralis R. The smaller one in front of T1 is the Cirvical Profunda R. That A-B-C line has got to come into contact with, at least, one of them.

    I don't buy it. Are you telling me those veins were as wide as the transverse processes?

    Although I have checked on the position of the lung in my models, I have not checked the dimensions of the arteries and veins. Remember that for the sake of clarity these images are magnified. However my understanding is, and I will check to be sure, that the width of the arteries and veins is proportional to the other organs. Therefore in these magnified images although the arteries and veins look very large they are, indeed, correctly proportional to the bone structure and organs around them. But I will check.

    And C7 wasn't struck, there is an airpocket from there to T1, which was struck.

    Yes I am saying the arteries and veins are proportionally that large in these magnified images.

    Sure looks to me, taking a view from the front, like there's a path to the left of both of those veins.

    There may be “a path”, but is that same the path the bullet is on. Or is that a new path?

    Nor is it me arbitrarily placing them there. That is their position in the body.

    So to sum up, not only does the A-B-C trajectory miss damaging the strap muscle and the lung, it is in severe danger of cutting major arteries.

    The advantage of the T1 wound being damaged from outside, e.g. from the back, is that now these arteries are behind the bones and therefore unlikely to be injured, as indeed they were not.

    James.

    Who's Chris?

    Anyway, James, I think your model's are fantastic and I'll take Humes-during-the-autopsy and the A-C-D frontal trajectory, and you can have Humes post-autopsy and two arteries the exact location of which in JFK's throat I don't think you can state with certainty.

    Sorry about the Chris, Cliff.

    Thank you for your comment on the models.

    I accept that the trajectory A-B-C does appear to meet the criteria of how T1 could have been injured.

    However, as I point out, the right strap muscle and the lung are not able to be damage by this trajectory.

    That means some other means need to account for them. A couple of posts earlier I drew a trajectory to account for all the criteria. I.m sure you agree it was a very clumsy trajectory.

    There is the problem. A-B-C gives you the C7 and T1 but not the lung or strap. A trajectory for the strap and lung, I drew earlier gives the strap and lung, but does not give you C7 and T1. Only a very clumsy, and unrealistic, trajectory gives you all the criteria. And that is the reason I am moving away from the idea that T1 was injured internally to the position that it may have been injured externally.

    Now looking again at this A-B-C trajectory for C7 and T1 as I pointed out there are two important arteries in front of them.

    C7T1arteries.png

    The big red one in front of C7 is the Vertebralis R. The smaller one in front of T1 is the Cirvical Profunda R. That A-B-C line has got to come into contact with, at least, one of them. Nor is it me arbitrarily placing them there. That is their position in the body.

    So to sum up, not only does the A-B-C trajectory miss damaging the strap muscle and the lung, it is in severe danger of cutting major arteries.

    The advantage of the T1 wound being damaged from outside, e.g. from the back, is that now these arteries are behind the bones and therefore unlikely to be injured, as indeed they were not.

    James.

  19. Cliff,

    I have found this discussion with you a great pleasure. Your constant challenging my position has encouraged me to evaluate my positions. The progress in my learning curve is due, in no small part, to your contributions and challenges. For that you have my sincere thanks.

    I have a new idea that I hope to post tomorrow.

    Again thanks for your encouragement and challenge. It has been invigorating.

    James

  20. I'm not sure if this is helpful, James, but through my research I discovered that the passage of a bullet alone would not bruise the lung in the manner Humes described, and that this bruise most logically came as a result of a bullet's striking bone--in my impression, the first rib.

    From patspeer.com, chapter 11:

    The bruise on the President's lung also raises some questions. When one considers that Dr. Humes told the Warren Commission that the magic bullet did not pierce the President’s lung but that it nevertheless left a 5 cm wide “pyramid-shaped” bruise at the lung’s tip, it should seem obvious that the damage stretched an inch and a half or more below the presumed bullet path. This is a wider bullet path than one would expect. Single-bullet theorists will explain this by insisting that the bruised lung was caused by the temporary cavity created by the supersonic passage of the bullet. They’ll claim this same cavity caused the damage to the transverse process of the first thoracic vertebrae apparent on the x-rays.

    Pat,

    Thank you for your contribution. It is helpful. As a consequence of this debate and the creation of the various models I have made to illustrate my points I have firmly come to your opinion.

    The 3D models I have created make it clear that the path of the SBT is too high to be able to damage the lung and create the injury claimed by Humes. That is why in CE 385, Humes raised the position of the lung in order to suggest that the SBT path could, indeed, damage the top of the lung. With my 3D models I have established quite clearly that Humes deliberately placed the lung in its wrong position. As you point out the path of the SBT would not be able to damage the lung, moving the lung is how Humes was able to prove it did do it.

    You are absolutely right about the injury to T1. What I find astonishing is the carelessness of the researchers and so the called authorities on JFK research. These people have uncritically gone along with the WC views without bothering in slightest to examine the credibility of such a view.

    Cliff Varnell first brought to my attention the T1/C7 problem. I initially thought that it was a simple matter of identifying where these bones were in the body and establishing how the throat wound could also damage them. When I studied it I realised it was just impossible. The location of T1/C7 is far too far removed to be able to be injured by the same bullet that also damaged the lung and right strap muscle. It is just not possible. In order to force a common trajectory, as I have shown, you have to create an impossible realistic trajectory.

    The consequence of this discovery is that it has changed my view on the back wound. Up till then I was in agreement with Cliff on the position back wound. But now seeing that it was impossible to injure C7/T1 internally the only alternative was that they were damaged externally. The consequence of this is that the back wound has to be around the T1 area, just as BE 3 shows.

    It was a logical process. If T1 could not be damaged internally, the only alternative is that it was damaged externally. As you point out, and as others have pointed out, T1 was damaged, that fact cannot be ignored. The damage cannot be accounted for internally, and that therefore means it can only be accounted for externally.

    I don't know when you wrote your chapters Pat, but it is clear to me that you were onto this truth long before I was. Exploring this issue has been a learning process for me. Although I was never a WC supporter, I sometimes wondered whether the SBT had credibility. Exploring this issue, as I have, I have been able to identify the impossibility of the SBT. I now know where I was wrong in thinking the SBT had any credibility. That is why I am so disappointed in these so called authorities whose voices "of authority" can be heard all over the place. They have never explored the issue. They have never examined the facts of the case, for if they had they would come upon the same problems I have.

    James.

  21. Who's Chris?

    Anyway, James, I think your model's are fantastic and I'll take Humes-during-the-autopsy and the A-C-D frontal trajectory, and you can have Humes post-autopsy and two arteries the exact location of which in JFK's throat I don't think you can state with certainty.

    Sorry about the Chris, Cliff.

    Thank you for your comment on the models.

    I accept that the trajectory A-B-C does appear to meet the criteria of how T1 could have been injured.

    However, as I point out, the right strap muscle and the lung are not able to be damage by this trajectory.

    That means some other means need to account for them. A couple of posts earlier I drew a trajectory to account for all the criteria. I.m sure you agree it was a very clumsy trajectory.

    There is the problem. A-B-C gives you the C7 and T1 but not the lung or strap. A trajectory for the strap and lung, I drew earlier gives the strap and lung, but does not give you C7 and T1. Only a very clumsy, and unrealistic, trajectory gives you all the criteria. And that is the reason I am moving away from the idea that T1 was injured internally to the position that it may have been injured externally.

    Now looking again at this A-B-C trajectory for C7 and T1 as I pointed out there are two important arteries in front of them.

    C7T1arteries.png

    The big red one in front of C7 is the Vertebralis R. The smaller one in front of T1 is the Cirvical Profunda R. That A-B-C line has got to come into contact with, at least, one of them. Nor is it me arbitrarily placing them there. That is their position in the body.

    So to sum up, not only does the A-B-C trajectory miss damaging the strap muscle and the lung, it is in severe danger of cutting major arteries.

    The advantage of the T1 wound being damaged from outside, e.g. from the back, is that now these arteries are behind the bones and therefore unlikely to be injured, as indeed they were not.

    James.

  22. I realize that Lipsey's testimony does not confirm a lower neck wound in addition to the back and head wounds... yet Robinson also says in the ARRB that he sees them insert an 18" probe into the LOWER NECK WOUND in the back and sees it come out the troat wound....

    David,

    My problem is that I am now no longer certain that there was a lower back wound. Because of Chris's highlighting of the injury to T1, something I should have taken into account much earlier, I am in the process of beginning to believe that the back wound was around T1. As I point out above T1 cannot be damaged internally, partly because of the problems of trajectory but also because two major arteries would be bound to be damaged. Now I fully accept X-ray 8 which shows this damage so there is no question that T1 was damaged. The problem is how. If it could not be done internally, it has to have been done externally, hence the back wound. This means I am beginning to accept BE 3 as being legitimate. Looking at outline of the scapula on JFK's back it is clear the wound is around the T1 position. And an external wound there wound there would impact with T1 and would not come into contact with those two arteries, because they are on the opposite side of the bone. This view is not without its own problems. If the wound was so high up the body, in order to explain the damage to T1, then how does that agree with the damage to the Jacket, or the Boswell drawing or Dr. Berkley's death certificate.

    As I explained to Chris, I am aware of the fiction in both MD3 as well as Humes testimony. Through the use of the models I am trying to show the impossibility of statements and theories such as the SBT, by demonstrating what is possible and what is not possible due to the bodies own geography. E.g. Humes in both MD3 and his testimony talks about the path the bullet took through the throat. Obviously no-one questioned his veracity during the Commission. Yet when his various statements are put to the test on a 3D model they don't stand up. Dale Myers and all the others who agree with the SBT and just like those who, for whatever reason, never questioned what Humes said to see whether it actually stood up to the scrutiny of examination. They blindly accept that what he says is true, because he said it.

    As you point out, I am reluctant to venture into pre-autopsy etc, partly because I am not sure whether I agree with it. But also partly because it is not relevant to what I am doing. There may well have been a pre-autopsy, I don't know, but it does not affect the logic and reality of whether the SBT can stand the scrutiny of 3D modelling of the theory. For me that is what is relevant, not whether there was pre-autopsy or not.

    James

  23. What I don't get is why it is thought among some that what Humes said during the autopsy, (e.g. back wound below the shoulder, apparent surgery to the head) is discounted, disrespected and dismissed -- while the tales he told to the WC are regarded as gold.

    He wasn't fully dragooned into the cover-up until he found out about the Magic Bullet. Why would anything he said after that point carry weight?

    Pat, James, can you explain?

    First, as far as I am concerned, I am not focused on surgery of the head area. It is not what my models or this thread is about for me. The damage to the head is not relevant to my focus at the moment. However I agree that it is a very important statement.

    Second, I do not dismiss the statement about the back wound below the shoulder. Because I now wonder whether the damage to T1 was a result of the back wound, and my reasons highlighted above I believe are very valid, that does not mean I disrespect other evidence in the case. It appears to me that the damage to T1 could not be created from within the neck and if it were attempted serious damage would be done to major arteries in the area.

    If the damage cannot be created from within the neck, the only option left is that the damage had to be created from outside the body: e.g. from the back.

    I do not see, why saying that is disrespect.

    James.

×
×
  • Create New...