James R Gordon

Cliff,

I have tried to reflected on and tried to address the points you have made in your 2 responses.

Below is my attempt. I admit it is a bit crude, but it is the best I could do at the moment. What I have tried to do is have the bullet/missile meet all the criteria.

Although Perry noticed damage to the Trachea. Maybe it did not enter the Trachea, maybe it just caused damage as it passed by. Therefore the trajectory angle at A could be steeper making the line to B more acceptable.

No, that trajectory doesn't look likely. A-C-D is right on the money. Who knows how much swelling would be caused by a passage at that location, or the impact of the paralytic chemical -- should one want a dance with Flechette.

I agree that trajectory A-C-D is better for C7 and T1, but then that same trajectory misses the right strap and the lung. From what I can see, no trajectory can cover all the points. And further there are two major arteries that A-C-D will damage. Just on its own, that invalidates A-C-D.

James

If your entire case rests on what Humes said after he turned into a pumpkin at midnight of the autopsy, I don't think you have a case at all.

Cliff,

You really have misunderstood me if you believe my entire case is based on what Humes said at Warren Commission.

True, I have often used what Humes said at the Commission, but most of that can also be found in MD3 the autopsy report.

Although I am aware there is fiction within that document, my position is to use my models to demonstrate the fiction. I'm endeavouring to have the models highlight the fiction.

That is my position.

James.

Cliff,

I have tried to reflected on and tried to address the points you have made in your 2 responses.

Below is my attempt. I admit it is a bit crude, but it is the best I could do at the moment. What I have tried to do is have the bullet/missile meet all the criteria.

Although Perry noticed damage to the Trachea. Maybe it did not enter the Trachea, maybe it just caused damage as it passed by. Therefore the trajectory angle at A could be steeper making the line to B more acceptable. The journey from A to A2 assumes that the right strap muscle is bruised. A2 is that idea that the bullet does not enter the trachea but continues on its journey to the lung.

According to Humes H2 P. 363 the bruise on the lung measured 5 cm in its greatest diameter. However he goes on to say that it was wedge shaped with the upper part of the wedge moving towards the top of the chest. So there was a swelling and an increase in the size of the lung after being damaged by the bullet/missile.

You mention that, according to the X-Ray, there was a subcutaneous airpocket overlaying C7 and therefore I assume the bullet/missile has to find a trajectory to C. I would imagine the bruising of the lung and the swelling of the lung may well help the bullet/missile finding a path to C.

And finally the bullet/ missile has to find a trajectory to D in order to damage T1.

As you can see the trajectory drawn is clumsy but the best I could devise in order to meet all the criteria. It does not have the logic of just damaging C7 & T1. I suppose that this trajectory may be possible, but I doubt it is probable.

However because of the direction of the path ( moving from the throat towards the back ) There are two arteries it would be unlikely to miss. To the right of C7 is the Vertebralis R and to the right of T1 is Cirvical Profunda R. The bullet/missile would appear having to strike these in order to reach C7 and T1. Maybe, just maybe, it might miss one but I doubt it would miss both.

Now if the T1 injury came from a wound in the back, then the artery would be missed because it would then be on the opposite side of the bone.

If the wound in the throat only had to injure the lung and right strap muscle a persuasive trajectory can be drawn. And the same can be said for just injuring C7 and T1.

It is when we have to combine the criteria that the resulting trajectory looks clumsy and improbable.

As I say, it is the injury to T1 that creates such challenges that make the creation of a logical trajectory neigh impossible.

I appreciate this is not your view, but the more I think about it the more I am persuaded that the injury to T1 may well have been caused by the back wound. There is a persuasive logic to that, that idea that I cannot see in the above description.

James

Cliff,

I am sorry I don’t want to be annoying and irritating but I am having difficulty with this wound at T1.

First my position on your reply.

Like you I do not doubt the authenticity of the X-Ray. I am not sure how, on an X-ray, one can see “some subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes”, but I accept that is the case. I can clearly see the “disruption of the integrity of the transverse process of T1” in X-Aut-8. It is even clearer in John Lattimer’s enhanced version of the X-Ray.

I don’t doubt Barb Junkkarinen’s expertise and knowledge of the details of the JFK assassination. It was also my understanding that the lung did not have to be struck. The lung could be damaged by being grazed or even impacted by the pressure of the bullet/missile passing very closely may well have caused the damage.

I’ll agree that it is not necessary for a missile to travel in a straight line. Gelatin tests have shown that a missile can veer in different directions when inside a body.

So where are my concerns?

a) We both don’t agree with the SBT.

I understood that we agreed that the criteria for this bullet/missile had to meet were:-

i) Damage to the Trachea. Noted by both Perry and Humes. And yes I know Humes never examined the Trachea. Logic suggests that if the bullet made an entrance into the Trachea, as Perry states in his testimony, it had to also make an exit out of it somewhere.

ii) The bullet/missile had to bruise the right strap muscle.

iii) The bullet had to graze/bruise the top of the right lung.

However, now we have added two further criteria.

iv) The bullet/missile had to strike an area at C7

v) As a consequence of this strike an air pocket was created that deflected it downwards to end up damaging T1 Transverse Process.

From what I can see, in order to meet the new criteria ( the C7 area strike and damage to T1 ) there is no way I can see the bullet also damaging the right strap muscle and the top of the lung.

There has been doubt raised (on the Lancer forum) that the position of the lung in my anatomical model is incorrect with respect to JFK. I now know that the model is correct with respect to the placement of the lungs. How do I know? X-Ray X-AUT-9 shows the position of JFK’s lungs. I have placed the model in exactly the same position as X-AUT-9 and the position and extent of the lungs is exactly the same.

As I have maintained throughout this thread the position of the right lung is much lower than CE 385 suggests. If the bullet has also to impact with an area in C7 and then be deflected to T1, the bullet is far to high to have any impact on the lung. But that is not the only problem. If the bullet/missile has to impact with these two areas, that takes it beyond the position of the lung.

I have prepared a model to show what I mean. See below:-

The point labeled A is where I suggest the bullet/missile exited the Trachea. As I pointed out if the missile damaged the Trachea that suggests it entered the trachea. That is certainly how I read Perry’s comment. So what I have done is create an exit that is appropriate to come into contact with the area of C7. Point B.

At that point an air pocket has been formed and the bullet/missile is deflected onto T1. Point C.

As you can see there is a reasonable trajectory for the missile to meet these two criteria. However once it gets to C the missile is beyond the lung. There is no way it can return to damage the lung.

In order to meet these two criteria ( an area at C7 and T1 ) the bullet/missile now has a new trajectory that is much higher than it was when the bullet/missile only had to damage the right strap muscle and the top of the lung.

As I have pointed out, the position of the lung ( in this model ) is correct and therefore the lung is now far too low to be damaged by such a trajectory.

Also this new trajectory takes the bullet/missile away from the strap muscle. I can’t see how it can now be damaged.

The problem, as I see it, is as follows.

a) I can create ( as I already have done ) a trajectory where the bullet/missile can create the damage to the right strap muscle and the lung.

I can create a trajectory, as I have done above, to impact at the area of C7 and go on to damage T1.

But I can see no way the bullet/missile can damage both.

The advantage of the 3D model ( over a 2D image ) is that the relative positions of all the organs is much clearer. And, in addition, the problems and complexities that the bullet/missile has to overcome are that much clearer.

I’d like to be “on board”, but I can’t see any way the bullet/missile can meet all the criteria. If it meets C7 & T1 criteria, it can’t meet the strap muscle and lung criteria and vice versa. In the model I have not introduced the artery and vein system. I am certain there will be major arteries and vein systems on this trajectory line which I doubt could be avoided being damaged.

As I suggested if bullet/missile cannot damage both "a" and "b" above then the only logical conclusion is that T1 was damaged at a different moment: as a consequence of the back wound.

James.

James,

According to the x-ray there was a subcutaneous airpocket overlaying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. The missile had to strike the area at C7 for the air pocket to form.

C7 clears Costa IR and the round could easily have deflected down, as the presence of airpocket over the right T1 transverse process indicates, terminal momentum at T1.

Cliff,

Bear with me here. I don't follow your points.

1) You say "According to the x-ray there was a subcutaneous airpocket overlaying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes." How does the X-ray show that?

2) How is the striking in the area of C7 going to form an air pocket. The lung is significantly lower than the position of C7.

3) If there was a air pocket created why would that air pocket deflect the missile down as opposed to up?

I am not arguing your points, I don't follow and am looking for explanation.

James

I was reading Gary Aguilar and Kathy Cunningham’s five part series on the JFK medical evidence. One point that they mention there is the damage to “Transverse Process” of T1. To be fair this damage was already highlighted on page 1 of this thread by Cliff Varnell and I have to admit I took no notice of it. This damage can be seen in the X-Ray X-Aut-9.



In the last few days I have been looking at how a bullet entering the throat at Trachea rings 3 & 4, could damage this bone. After looking at a variety of trajectories, eventually I had to accept that it simply is not possible. The reason is because, looking at the anatomical model below, the Transverse Process for T1 lies behind the bone Costa IR.

To get to the Transverse Process, the bullet would have to first damage Costa IR. And we know that bone structure was not damaged



. That leaves only one alternative. The damage had to be done by the bullet that struck the back. And it is there that the problem is.

If you look at BE 3, the back wound, ( see below ) the wound appears to be at the T1 region. How can I say that? If you look around the wound you will see outlines of the upper part of the Scapula and that aspect of the Scapula is at the T1 level.





So where is the problem?



Well the problem is this. If the bullet did strike at the T1 level and therefore was able to damage the Transverse Process, it contradicts all evidence that the bullet struck at the T3 level. There is a lot of evidence in the literature that it was not the T1 level the bullet struck but actually the T3 level. And to put it simply, the problem is how can we reconcile all that evidence if the bullet actually struck at the T1 level and not the T3 level.



On the other hand if we are to argue that the bullet did not strike at T1, but actually struck at the level of T3 that would allow the entry point to agree with the substantial evidence that accords with such an injury. However, on the other hand, a strike at the T3 level would be unlikely to damage the Transverse Process at T1.



Put very simply. From what I can see these are incompatible entry points. It would appear to me to be an “Either OR” situation. The bullet either strikes at T1 and is able to do the damage to the Transverse Process, but in doing so does not agree with the evidence that it struck at T3 OR it struck at T3 and is able to agree with the evidence of such a strike but is unable to therefore damage the Transverse Process at T1.



It would appear to me that the bullet strike cannot agree with the evidence of an entry at T3 AND ALSO be able to be shown that it can as well damage the Transverse Process at T1.



It would appear that we can only have one option and not both.

And that is where the problem is.




James.

I accept that Dr Berkley placed it at T3 and the Boswell drawing suggests it is in the same location. However BE 5, the image of the back wound, suggests it was a little higher.

C7/T1, to be precise, according to Wecht's measurement for the HSCA.

But where is the proof that it's the body of JFK in that photo?

It's so poorly made the HSCA concluded it was prima facie inadmissible in court.

And the big kicker -- there is no chain of possession for the extant autopsy photos. Please see my up-thread response to David on this issue.

O.k. Chris I begin to see where you are coming from. I have spent some time looking at the evidence for the authenticity of the autopsy images.

Reading Gary Aguilar and Kathy Cunninham's series on the five investigations as well as David Mantik's work on these images has forced me to revise my opinion.

Where once I believed the autopsy images to be reliable and authentic, I now see it now as a very confused area.

You are right the chain of evidence is quite appalling but I am not sure I can question whether it is JFK's body in BE 3.

Looking at the autopsy images tonight what I can say is that in two of the images it appears the same doctor is in BE 3 and BE 4.

If you look at the glove on the hand that is holding the shoulder in BE 3 and the hand in BE 4 it looks like the blooded stained glove is much the same.

I agree that is pretty slim evidence, but the stains an each glove appears much the same and suggest it is the same person.

That aside, I have no idea whether it is JFK's body in BE 3.

What I can say is that you have persuaded me that all may not be kosher with the autopsy images.

However, if it is JFK's body in BE 3 it appears that the back wound is not at the level of T3.

James.

Okay James...

"seperate" does not necessarily have to = "to surgicaly cut" - you can DIVIDE muscles from each other without cutting them.. one would SEPERATE them by moving them aside...

David,

I have looked at many on-line medical dictionaries and all agree with the definition below. True they do not say divide means cut. But the definition below gives an example dividing “a nerve surgically.” From that example I can’t see any other meaning for the term than to cut.

: to separate into two or more parts <divide a nerve surgically>

intransitive verb Reference:- Medline Plus

You suggest that divide could simply refer to moving organs etc. The definition uses two important words: "separate" "surgically". Neither words would be appropriate if all that was happening is to move organs etc to a new location.

That said, not one dictionary that I looked up agreed with your definition of what the word divide means to a surgeon. Your definition is not what every medical dictionary believes the term means in medicine.

James.

The T3 back wound is the cardinal fact of the JFK assassination, the prima facie case for conspiracy which requires no expert analysis to grasp.

Cliff,

I would suggest that one cardinal fact of the JFK assassination, is the fact that JFK was wounded in the back. The “where” he was wounded, is much more debatable.

You suggest that the wound was certainly as low as T3 and even suggest it might be closer to T4. I accept that Dr Berkley placed it at T3 and the Boswell drawing suggests it is in the same location. However BE 5, the image of the back wound, suggests it was a little higher. I am aware that you have disputed the rising of the jacket and shirt, over this issue, with a fellow forum member. Although I doubt the jacket and shirt rose anything like 3 inches, Croft (and other images) make it clear the jacket and shirt were capable of rising up and did rise up.

I have no idea who created this image, and so I can’t give credit where it is due, but the image suggests that from the shoulder the back hole's distance is around 8cm. That is approximately 3.2 inches.

Looking at the image that would appear about right, by that I mean the wound appears closer to 3 inches than 4. In that case that would take the hole into the T2/T3 area. I am not suggesting that this image is definitive in suggesting the position of the back wound, but it appears to agree with where the image suggests the wound may be.

It is also pertinent to highlight that when measuring from the shoulder downwards, say 4 inches. At the top of the shoulder is flesh and muscle. I don’t know, off hand, what distance it covers but it could be around an inch. T1 is below this area. I have pressed hard on my shoulder and I can hardly feel Costa IR, that is the bone, in that back, that connects with T1. All I feel is flesh and muscle. So if we are measuring the position of the back wound from the top of the shoulder, I believe we need to take into account the amount of flesh and muscle that lie above Costa IR, which gets us to the level of T1 and thereafter to T3.

In a post to David Josephs you cast doubt on whether the individual in BE 5 is actually JFK. Your citation of the HCSA criticisms is pertinent and I agree with all them. The documentation of these images leaves much to be desired. However although the HCSA does raise the issue that some researchers suggest that it is not JFK in some of the images, my reading of their comments suggest that the HSCA do not go along with that. They refer to such a suggestion as “outlandish” and “macabre”. They simply point out that had the case gone to trial the issue of authenticity might well have arisen and the HCSA recognize that, in that event, it would have been the responsibility of the prosecution to establish the images authenticity.

I have no doubt that the individual we see in these images is indeed JFK. I tend to agree with the HCSA that to argue otherwise is, indeed, outlandish and macabre.

James.

"Divide" can just as easily mean "move aside" SEVER means to cut... he SEVERED the strap muscles on the OTHER side. So we have the "Divide" ambiguity and the "OTHER SIDE" ambiguity... yes?

I am not distorting anything James... you are making assumptions about the meaning of words.... "divide" need not mean cut, while "sever" cannot mean anything else.

And HUMES does contracdict the evidence... I posted his response to the question earlier... he specifically states that the wounds and bruises to the strap muscles on the right side were NOT DONE at Parkland as they had to have been done while he was alive...

Talk about distorting the record James... Humes states that the muscle damaged occurred during the shooting and not from what Perry did. Pretty plain and simple to me...

Why are we disagreeing about this?

Commander HUMES - Yes; in essence we have. When examining the wounds in the base of the President's neck anteriorly, the region of the tracheotomy performed at Parkland Hospital, we noted and we noted in our record, some contusion and bruising of the muscles of the neck of the President. We noted that at the time of the postmortem examination.

Now, we also made note of the types of wounds which I mentioned to you before in this testimony on the chest which were going to be used by the doctors there to place chest tubes. They also made other wounds. one on the left arm, and a wound on the ankle of the President with the idea of administering intravenous. blood and other fluids in hope of replacing the blood which the President had lost from his extensive wounds.

Those wounds showed no evidence of bruising or contusion or physical violence, which made us reach the conclusion that they were performed during the agonal moments of the late president, and when the circulation was, in essence, very seriously embarrassed, if not nonfunctional. So that these wounds, the wound of the chest and the wound of the arm and of the ankle were performed about the same time as the tracheotomy wound because only a very few moments of time elapsed when all this was going on. So, therefore, we reached the conclusion that the damage to these muscles on the anterior neck just below this wound were received at approximately the same time that the wound here on the top of the pleural cavity was, while the President still lived and while his heart and lungs were operating in such a fashion to permit him to have a bruise in the vicinity, because that he did have in these strap muscles in the neck, but he didn't have in the areas of the other incisions that were made at Parkland Hospital. So we feel that, had this missile not made its path in that fashion, the wound made by Doctor Perry in the neck would not have been able to produce, wouldn't have been able to produce, these contusions of the musculature of the neck.

David.

Merriam-Webster Medical dictionary defines divide as:-

transitive verb

: to separate into two or more parts <divide a nerve surgically>

There is no “maybe” about the meaning of the word. When Perry used that term he knew exactly what he was saying. You are wrong when you say ""divide" need not mean cut, while "sever" cannot mean anything else." In medical terms "divide" does mean to cut.

Humes point about the bruising having to happen while JFK was alive is because to be able to bruise the blood needs to be flowing through a persons veins. When a persons dead, or effectively dead, the blood is not flowing and therefore bruising cannot occur. That is exactly what Humes is saying in your red emphasised text above. The bruising is how he is able to distinguish between wounds received while alive and wounds received after death.

James

David,

It is a good idea not to distort the record. I mentioned earlier in this thread that the strap Perry cut was the Left one and not the Right.

"The trachea was deviated slightly to the left and it was necessary to divide the strap muscles on the left side in order to gain access to the trachea" H6 P. 18 As I pointed out, in this context "divide" means cut.

I agreed there is a certain ambiguity about your reference, but the quote I have given you above makes it clear, without ambiguity, that Perry cut the left strap and not the right strap. Since only one strap was damaged, then means, however you read your quote, it was the left strap that was cut.

Humes does not contradict the evidence. He says the injury to the right strap occurred while JFK was living because there was a bruise on the strap. Had damage occurred after he was dead, there would be ( and could be ) no bruising. A person needs to be living and blood flowing for bruising to occur.

James.

Richard,

I have sympathy for point 1. Because if it is not that then I am really forced into taking more seriously David Lifton's body alteration theory. I take David as a JFK researcher very seriously, but I have difficulty with this theory.

Maybe also point 2. It is just such a strange wound.

I absolutely agree that the only logical reason for the strap injury is an entry wound in the throat. I suspect that wound is also responsible for the lung. Because the lung is lower in the chest cavity than CE 385 suggests. Therefore to be injured the bullet/missile would have to be on a downward trajectory.

I seriously doubt point 4. 4 inches below the shoulder has to have the wound somewhere around T2 T1, though not above T1. First it is shallow wound, and that is why I suspect the lung was not damaged (aside from the bruise): the bullet did not go far enough into the body to be able to damage it. Second, it is too low to be able to bruise the top of the lung.

I have been thinking about JFK's reactions after Z225. Aside from his arms rising up, his body does not really move, aside from the lunge forward at z130ff, until he sinks to his left. Whereas prior to Z225 you see quite a it of body movement. This observation may not mean anything, but I have looked at the Z film in the light of the impact of such a missile. I do not know what movement we should expect from someone who has been hit by two missile ( the back and throat wound ), but I would have thought you would have seen more reaction.

James

David, my comments are in red.

Starting at the bottom and working up...

I only use the Specter tautology as an example as to why the SBT was never a THEORY at all but a reversed engineered conclusion shoved down our throats.

Well that may be what you intended, however it did not read like that. One of the points you were making in that post, as well as the previous post, was that the neck wound was a wound of exit. You had also been using Roy Kellerman as one witness who supported that position. It therefore appeared to me that you were using Kellerman’s reply as support for the idea that the neck wound was an exit wound.

There was no other possibility to those who see that sound in the ER at Parkland... JFK was shot, that looked like a bullet hole from the front. Now unles Cliff is right, there would be no reason to fire a tiny caliber weapon at JFK that would leave a mark... for WHAT PURPOSE? So the toxin idea gains strength as the only reason a frontal, non-lethal shot would be taken...

I am sorry, I have no idea what you are saying here. “Those who see that sound in the ER at Parkland”???? As I understand what Cliff is saying, the notion of that kind of weapon is suggested because there was no missile discovered in the body. What therefore could account for such a wound and leave no trace.

Unless the throat wound creates the rear occipitol blowout. which is what was thought by some initially.

You really ought to know better than make such an illogical point. In such an argument, for the throat wound to cause the occipital wound in the head the line of trajectory would have the shooter firing from a position lower than JFK’s seated position in the car. Are you now suggesting the gunman was in the sewer drains, for that is the only position I can think of that would allow such trajectory.

Bullets will never be found. Which leads me to my point about the evidence... I don't need to find a trajectory... is it not possible fragments bounced around and off of other bone and themselves...

Two points here.

First, examining wounds from the point of view of trajectories allows you to understand how a wound could occur and understand where the gunman would have to be to be able to inflict such a wound. The whole reason I have been able to argue that the SBT is impossible is because of the complexities of the internal trajectory within the neck. I have pointed out that were the entrance point and exit point as stated by the Warren Commission or indeed Dale Myers, a bullet traveling that path through the neck would cause massive injury. And that is why the SBT is impossible, because such injuries never happened.

Second, the autopsy makes clear that there was no damage to the bone structure in the neck and chest area. The only bone damage was in the head area. It is the autopsy report that prohibits SBT supporters from suggesting that the reason the bullet escaped damaging major organs in the neck was that it was deflected from its path by striking a bone. I concur that the autopsy had many deficiencies, however not all of it is invalid. What is invalid is how the findings of the Commission used the autopsy report to support the SBT. It was the Commission that decided to link the back and throat wound. It was the Commission that forced that conclusion on all its witnesses.

Yes, there is a difference between the views of Parkland and Bethesda with regard to the head wound. That is what led David Lifton to suggest that something had to have happened to the body between these two places.

That we do not have a dissected neck, and xrays that cannot be proven authentic but CAN be proven as copies... so how can you say what we do or do not know about that area of the body?

Basing our conclusions on data that is highly suspect only leads to speculation and theories - which are fine... but let's agree that without all the puzzle pieces we will not know what the final picture looked like.

We know a great deal from documents like: the Sibbert and O’Neil report; the autopsy images; the X-rays (areas of the x-rays may have questions about them but not the total x-ray); the Boswell drawings; and yes, much of the the autopsy report itself. It is my contention that these documents are not suspect. And that is before we look at testimony.

Lipsey says what he says... Gen Wehle was his superior... many of those who attended the autopsy were not recorded ....

and I believe he says more than just that James... http://www.paulseato...p_entry/eop.htm

In fact he drew the location on a face sheet - scroll down most the way and you will see it... It's exactly where I said he said it was....

"We next asked Lipsey to recap his description of the wounds. He described thes. as follows:(1) one bullet entered the back of the headand exited resulting in part of the face and head being blown away;

The problem here is that none of the “face” was blown away!!!!

(2) another bullet entered at the top of the neck (rear) which exited in the front portion of the neck;

Parkland were clear that the neck wound was one of entrance. As a trauma hospital they were used to seeing such wounds. Their judgment was made before any theories was constructed. However, suppose they were wrong there is no way bullet traveling through this trajectory could avoid damaging major arteries. There are just too many of them in its path. In addition to that this bullet has to bruise the top of the lung, and that is not possible because the lung is positioned much lower that CE385 would have us believe. In addition to that this bullet has also got to bruise the right strap muscle.

Now how is a bullet going to do all that??

and(3) another bullet entered at the bottom of theneck (rear) or high in the back which did notexit".(Hsca 18/1/78 interview)

That is meaningless. Although I am critical of Humes placing of the back wound, at least he gave a specific reference. Dr. Berkley also gave a specific reference. The jacket and shirt also give a specific reference. Lipsey’s reference is meaningless. It tells us nothing.

James.

David,

Yes I do have page 1. Here it is:-

I was hoping to hear more from you regarding what Kellerman says is a small round entrance wound "to the right of the ear"... unless he is looking at an upside down photo... to the right of the right ear at the hairline is the right temple.

I went back over Kellerman’s testimony. In WCH:2 P. 81 he appears to be describing the head damage created by the “flap.” He says in that area the skull bone had been “removed.” He is actually wrong. The skull bone is still present, it has just folded over.

With regard to the back wound he places it exactly where Humes places it in CE 386: in the “muscle between the shoulder and the neck.”

With regard to the throat wound he says it was underneath the tie. He says he knows that because he read in it Dr. Clark’s report. All Clark says is that the throat wound is in “lower third of the anterior neck” WCR P. 217. That is where Humes places it in CE385. He defines that position as being between trachea rings 3 & 4.

Maybe that's why there is no exhibit. ?? No, not saying this is a back entry... only that there are numerous accounts for wounds in places that were never "officially" recorded. The right temple hole being one of them... the lower neck entrance wound MAY be another.

I am saying that a shot to the lower neck as LIPSEY described would be more likely to create a fragment that exists the throat.

I went over Richard Lipsey’s account. He says nothing that is of any help. All he says is that the neck wound is in “ the lower throat area.” So where is that? And if he means trachea rings 3 & 4 we are back to the autopsy report.

I am NOT connecting these three wounds (back, lung, throat) with this low entrance or the WCR or HSCA entrances - imo these wounds are not connected... If a shot was fired from the South Knoll (high to low) to the neck... it could have been the cause for the pleural bruise... but to be honest... the autopsy doctors saying so does not hold a lot of weight... and since we have no idea if we are looking at authentic autopsy images/x-rays...

who knows...

If you are deciding to dismiss the autopsy report pictures and x-rays, what have you left to support any argument you wish to make.

I accept that Humes was wrong to burn his first report. I am sure in that report he had decided the throat wound was just a result of a tracheotomy. He knew that could not stand and so he re-drafted it with conclusion that this wound was an exit one. So yes I admit in that sense he fabricated that element of the report. But I have no reason to suggest he fabricated everything else in his report. I accept his report for what it is.

Dr. Mantik has closely studied the photos over a series of visits and appears to consider them authentic. True he does have some questions on the x-rays, but even he is not throwing all the x-rays out.

In terms of the damage done by a fragment exiting... since we do not know the condition of the path between the skull and throat with any certainty... how can you say it is impossible?

In 2D imagery, there can be ambiguity as to what we are seeing. In the 3D model a realistic image of missile pathways. Why I say “impossible” to your pathways out the throat is that in order to exit at trachea rings 3 & 4 the missile/fragment has to make trajectory changes that are not realistic and there is nothing in that area of the body that could account for such a change in direction. In the example where the fragment breaks through the floor of the skull, the angle change must be somewhere in the region of 120º. That is why I say it is impossible. Have a go yourself and see if you can find a trajectory that allows an exit through the throat.

Between that explanation and a shot to the throat with ammo that is so small as to leave a 3-5mm hole... Millimeters?

Or the Ice dart / flechette pistol...

and the fact that Rankin and the WC is exposed to an autopsy that offers the fragment conclusion... we just can't know.

In terms of those that saw or didn't see the hole... I can dismiss it not being seen prior to the table due to the size and location of the wound. But can we at least agree that PERRY would have NEVER cut that wound resulting in it looking like that. and you make an interesting point about the top and bottom... we CAN see the bottom of the circle but that would not be half of a 5mm hole as it is much larger than that. and it seems to me that the bottom of this half circle, if the original wound, is much lower on JFK that you suggest.

No, that is the point I am making. In BE3, “Stare of Death” image, JFK's head is bent back slightly. I agree, just looking at that image it is difficult to be certain exactly where this wound is. However the crease marks are like geographical markers that define position on the body. They have not change between 7:30 am when the Fort Worth image was taken and 7:30 pm when the autopsy images were taken. It does not matter what position the head is in, you can trace these land marks on the body and plot exactly where the wound was on the body. These crease marks define the outer neck in a similar way that the trachea rings define the inner neck. Having defined the point of the of the upper wound it is fairly simple to transfer that location to the Fort Worth picture. My problem is that, as yet, I do not have a clear enough image of these lines that is without ambiguity. When I do have then I can definitively place the entrance wound on the flesh of the body as opposed to the trachea rings.

So where are we James? You believe the throat wound was a shot of a regular small calibre bullet with no bullet related to the wound unless

1) it was the wound that transits and blows out the right occipitol - what we see on Z is a fabrication of the wound

2) it lodged just past the pleural cavity creating the hole and bruise and subsequently was removed and has disappeared to history

3) it was an exit wound from a fragment of bone - which shot and how is as mysterious as where the bullet is in your scenario..

4) melting ice darts with paralyzing toxins...

I am not sure where I am on this issue, except to say I don’t think it was an exit wound. There are far too many difficulties and unexplained issues to credibly accept that it was an exit wound.

The absence of a bullet is a real puzzle. I am not adverse to the idea of a dart etc. I have some difficulty with bullet removal, but I am not totally against it. After all it fits the situation as to why no bullet.

I believe that the back wound and the throat wounds are separate wounds that are not connected. And yes, there are serious concerns with both wounds because for neither wound is there a bullet.

With regards to SBT - that game never started... so I see no need to worry about disproving that which has never been proven

Mr. SPECTER - Permit me to supply some additional facts, Dr. Perry, which I shall ask you to assume as being true for purposes of having you express an opinion.

Assume first of all that the President was struck by a 6.5 mm. copper-jacketed bullet fired from a gun having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second, with the weapon being approximately 160 to 250 feet from the President, with the bullet striking him at an angle of declination of approximately 45 degrees, striking the President on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula, being 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process, passing through the President's body striking no bones, traversing the neck and sliding between the large muscles in the posterior portion of the President's body through a fascia channel without violating the pleural cavity but bruising the apex of the right pleural cavity, and bruising the most apical portion of the right lung inflicting a hematoma to the right side of the larynx, which you have just described, and striking the trachea causing the injury which you described, and then exiting from the hole that you have described in the midline of the neck.

Now, assuming those facts to be true, would the hole which you observed in the neck of the President be consistent with an exit wound under those circumstances?

Dr. PERRY - Certainly would be consistent with an exit wound.

Really, David you are not using Specter’s SBT speech to support the exit theory, are you? All the Perry is saying is that given these criteria, yes it could be an exit wound. If I remember Perry’s testimony correctly he never says it was definitely an exit wound. He says it could be and exit wound. He never outright rejects his initial statement from the 22^nd.

James.

David,

I will again attempt to answer your various points.

Again I will place my responses in red.

First point... Alteration.

At Parkland the wound was a 5-7cm hole in the right occipital... and a throat wound.

At Bethesda? The wound was described as a 10x19cm hole with MOST of his skull missing... I think your conclusions related to alteration are premature James.

I see you are using a much copied version of the Boswell drawing. You might find this one more useful.

There are some great threads related to Lifton's and Horne's work on this.... and I think you might take another more detailed look at the documentation that SCREAMS that JFK was in the ER well before the 8pm official start time.

Perry's comment is in his WC testimony. http://mcadams.posc....ny/perry_m1.htm

Do a ctrl "F" to find "pluera," with the comma. It will take you right to it.

Dr. PERRY - Yes. Once the transverse incision through the skin and subcutaneous tissues was made, it was necessary to separate the strap muscles covering the anterior muscles of the windpipe and thyroid. At that point the trachea was noted to be deviated slightly to the left and I found it necessary to sever the exterior strap muscles on the other side to reach the trachea.

So James... I do not know what "P.10 Vol 6" means but this is in Perry's WC testimony and makes it pretty plain that he cut JFK's anatomically RIGHT strap muscles...

Yes this is my fault. The correct reference is WCH: 6 P. 18. At that point you will find this reference from Perry. “The trachea was deviated slightly to the left and it was necessary to divide the strap muscles on the left side in order to gain access to the trachea.” I believe “divide”, in this context means to cut. Because a couple of lines later Perry says “the wound in the trachea was then enlarged………” In the reference I feel there is considerable ambiguity. I can understand your interpretation, but the same passage can be read to also refer to the left strap muscle.

It is true that he says he saw no damage to the pleural cavity, but he does go on to say that “the presence of this free blood and air in this area could be indicative of a wound in the right hemithorax..” Hemithorax is the upper chest area. So although he did not see damage to the pleural cavity this blood and air suggested to him that damage might well be there.

Humes/Boswell, imo, lied their way thru the entire thing in a patriotic trance... which is why I simply cannot believe the autopsy or any of the evidence related to the autopsy. Jsut ask Sandra Spencer or Robert Knudsen.

I don’t think he did lie, but I feel he was expeditious with the truth, and with evidence such as CE 385, he was not adverse to distorting the evidence. The “why” was because of the position he was in. Although he was a Commander, there were numerous much more important officials above him that he did not dare to oppose.

Douglas Horne portrays Humes as one of the villains in the assassination. I can’t go along with that. Although David Lifton also believes in body alteration, he does not accuse Humes of doing it.

Regarding the bruise to the pleural cavity... and the fact that in either direction there is no way that a line connecting the back and throat wounds passes thru the pleural cavity/top of the lung... as we have proven.

Cerebellum - Sorry James, but in my experience there are simply too many redactions of evidence from "impossible it was Oswald" to "I was mistaken, it must have been the way the WCR says it was"

By the sheer law of averages, SOME of the FBI/SS/DPD mistakes had to fall in Oswald's favor. Yet we cannot name one.

So we are left with few options...

1) shallow entrance back and neck shots (back falls out and is found in JFK's clothes at Bethesda - subsequently this disappears... front - well I still believe that bullet, if it was one, would have been removed when the trach incision was enlarged.)

2) shallow back wound... fragment from assassination out the front - and a complete coverup of the pathways creating this hole.

3) There was yet another shot, higher on the neck but lower on the skull that resulted in skull damage and the fragment that exited

Mr. KELLERMAN. To the left of the ear, sir, and a little high; yes. About right in here.

Mr. SPECTER. When you say "removed," by that do you mean that it was absent when you saw him, or taken off by the doctor?

Mr. KELLERMAN. It was absent when I saw him.

Mr. SPECTER. Fine. Proceed.

Mr. KELLERMAN. Entry into this man's head was right below that wound, right here.

Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear about the lower third of the ear? James - where would you place this wound based on this description?

This reference is from WCH: 2 P. 81. The hole that is being talked about is the entrance for the head wound. I rather not speculate here. I don’t know what he means by the “right of the ear” and “the lower third of the ear.” Nor is there any exhibit that relates to this.

While I am on the subject, I am also unhappy is Horne’s description of Kellerman’s role in the assassination.

Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. But it was in the hairline, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. In his hairline?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. Near the end of his hairline?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. What was the size of that aperture?

Mr. KELLERMAN. The little finger.

Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the diameter of the little finger.

Mr. KELLERMAN. Right.

I hope you are not suggesting that this is the back entrance wound. It appears to me to be Kellerman confirming the WC point of entrance for the head wound. The one that is very low down on the back of the head. The HCSA later raised the entry point further up the head.

4) Why didn't others see the bleeding throat wound? It could have been below the collar...

No, the wound was above the shirt. This is an area I am working on. I am not prepared to release my research work so far, but I am happy to discuss my work and show you a tentative conclusion.

Legend has it that the Tracheotomy destroyed the bullet wound into the throat. To a large extent it did destroy most, but not all, of the upper portion of the wound. The importance of the upper part is that gives up position of the entrance of the wound. There may have been some shrinkage of the position of the flesh in the seven hours since the assassination, but to all extents it accurately pinpoints the position. The lower half is more problematic because it has been stretched down because of time and the position of thehead.

In the Fort Worth image taken that morning when JFK was speaking to the crowd, you will see on his neck clear crease marks. In BE 3, (BE stand for “Best Evidence” and 3 the image sequence in that volume) better known as the ‘stare of death you will see these same crease lines. However the use of flash has all but washed the digital evidence off the picture. I am in the process of trying to get a company to restore this image back to its original quality. I have had quite a number of disappointments so far (because of the damage to the original) however there is a company in Australia that is giving me hope that it may be possible to restore this image even with the dirt, distortion and washing out of data.

Work so far does give me outlines of the creases, but they are not sufficient to avoid ambiguity and disagreement.

Even with the quality of the evidence I have so far, it is possible to measure down the creases and calculate the difference between the last crease and the upper remains of the bullet wound. When I am successful, it ought to be game over for the SBT. This time it will throw out the external trajectories, especially the trajectory from JFK to Connally. There is no way Dale Myers will be able to use this definitive location, on the surface of the flesh ( as opposed to trachea rings 3 & 4 which although definitive are difficult to translate to the flesh of the throat ) to link the Single Bullitt from JFK to Connally.

It is tentative but my research suggests the position wound is as seen below.

Senator COOPER. You are saying this, then, that you did not see, yourself, at any time the mark of any wound in his neck front?

Mr. KELLERMAN. When we took him into the hospital in Dallas; that is right.

Senator COOPER. What?

Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right; when we took him in the hospital in Dallas, I did not.

Senator COOPER. Did you ever see it?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Only after he was opened up in the morgue; yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. You saw some indication or some mark of a wound in the front of his neck?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Senator, from the report of the doctor who worked on him in Dallas, that he enlarged the incision here in his throat to perform that tracheotomy, and I believe in his own statement that that wound was there prior to this incision.

Senator COOPER. I know, but I am asking--

Mr. KELLERMAN. I didn't see it, sir.

Senator COOPER. What you saw yourself?

Mr. KELLERMAN. No; I didn't.

Representative FORD. Was that because Hill had thrown his coat over the President, or just didn't see the skin or the body at the time?

Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir. When I--that coat was thrown over, sir, to eliminate any gruesome pictures.

Representative FORD. How far over that body? Did it go over the head only or down the chest?

Mr. KELLERMAN. No; the whole coat went all the way down to the waistline, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. You saw the President's face, though, at a later time as you have described?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, thank you. This I had lost track of, to help you out, Mr. Congressman. While he lay on the stretcher in that emergency room his collar and everything is up and I saw nothing in his face to indicate an injury, whether the shot had come through or not. He was clear.

Representative FORD. But while he was on the stretcher in the emergency room you saw his face?

Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right.

Representative FORD. But he had his tie and his collar still.--

Mr. KELLERMAN. Still on.

Representative FORD. Still on?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.

Representative FORD. You never saw his neck?

Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir.

Representative FORD. At that time?

Mr. KELLERMAN. At that time, I did not observe him.

Representative FORD. The only time you saw him was later at the morgue?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Very much, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any blood on the portion of his body in the neck area or anyplace in the front of his body?

Mr. KELLERMAN. I don't recall any.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any hole in the clothing of the President on the front part, in the shirt or tie area?

Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. From your observation of the wound which you observed in the morgue which you have described as a tracheotomy, would that have been above or below the shirtline when the President was clothed?

Mr. KELLERMAN. It would have been below the shirtline, sir.

As pointed out above, I believe I will be able to disprove this. It is also pertinent to point out that with the shirt off, which is how Kellerman is describing him, it is really difficult to place the wound. That is why the creases are so important. They don’t change their position. By tracking them you can definitely place the wound as it was on the flesh of the body.

I can’t find the reference, but I am sure there is a reference from Carrico that states he saw this wound while Kennedy was still clothed.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, have you described all of the wounds of the President to which you have referred?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. GREER. No, sir. When he was in the emergency room and I was there, I did see his chest expand and move, the movement of the chest a time or so.

Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to observe any wound on the front side of the President?

Mr. GREER. No, sir; I didn't, I never seen any on the front side of the President.

The only thing I saw was on the head. I didn't know at the time of any other injuries on him.

Mr. SPECTER. As to the front side of the President's body, were you able to observe any hole or tear in either his shirt or tie?

Mr. GREER. No, sir; I didn't and I brought them back, those things, and didn't see them at the time. I probably didn't inspect them very closely but they were handed to me in a paper bag to bring back.

The first FBI laboratory reports on Kennedy’s clothes revealed that the holes in his coat and shirt submitted to both X-ray and spectrographic analysis showed traces of copper (bullet metal) around the edges of the holes. This was forensically consistent with JFK having been shot in the back with copper-jacketed ammunition. The same tests run on Kennedy’s collar and tie showed no bullet metal was found in the surrounding fabric. Rather than admit that the slits in the President’s collar and nick in his tie were not caused by an assassin’s bullet, the FBI lab report noted that the slits had the “characteristics of an exit hole for a bullet fragment.” (My italics). [2]

So James, by all indications either a fragment exited the throat as the FBI elude to or even a BONE FRAGMENT that would leave no bullet traces.

Except that you have yet to show how a fragment could cause such damage. I have described just how difficult, if not impossible, such a theory is. I await you showing how it was possible.

If we consider the lower neck shot entrance per Lipsey and Kellerman, I believe the angles work much better for what may have been the REAR head shot at the same time as the frontal one...

Are you saying that this initial Warren Commssion position for the head entrance, for the head wound, also traversed the body and exited in the lower neck? I can’t agree to that.

James.

David,

I’ll try to answer you numerous points as best I can.

Your text I’ll in black and my comments are in red.

I have to start out by saying that whatever was seen and recorded at the 8pm autopsy was NOT the condition of the body laying on the table at Parkland. Given what was described as most of the top and right side of his head was gone... Had he arrived at Parkland in that condition, there would have been no need for any life saving procedures... the body placed on the table at 8pm was not in the same condition as the one that died at 1pm in Dallas.

Again we are probably on different sides of the fence here. I have difficulty in the “body alteration” theories.

So let me ask you... without using the extant autopsy report as a guide for anything... it is possible that a bullet thru the head COULD cause a fragment of bullet or bone to escape thru the neck...

The best way to answer this is to say yes I agree it is possible, but I doubt it is probable. The difficulties I outlined restrict the idea of possibility and tends to suggest it is more likely to be impossible.

Mr. SPECTER - Would you continue to describe your observations of the President?

Dr. CARRICO - His-- the President's color--I don't believe I said--he was an ashen, bluish, grey, cyanotic, he was making no spontaneous movements,

I mean, no voluntary movements at all.

We opened his shirt and coat and tie and observed a small wound in the anterior lower third of the neck, listened very briefly, heard a few cardiac beats, felt the President's back, and detected no large or sucking chest wounds, and then proceeded to the examination of his head.

The large skull and scalp wound had been previously observed and was inspected a little more closely.

There seemed to be a 4-5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue. The pupils were inspected and seemed to be bilaterally dilated and fixed. No pulse was present, and at that time, because of the inadequate respirations and the apparent airway injury, a cuffed endotracheal tube was introduced, employing a larynzo scope. Through the larynzo scope there seemed to be some hematoma around the larynx and immediately below the larynx was seen the ragged tracheal injury. The endotracheal tube was inserted past this injury, the cuff inflated, and the tube was connected to a respirator to assist the inadequate respiration. At about this point the nurse reported that no blood pressure was obtained.

Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Carrico, with respect to this small wound in the anterior third of the neck which you have Just described, could you be any more specific in defining the characteristics of that wound?

Dr. CARRICO - This was probably a 4-7 ram. wound, almost in the midline, maybe a little to the right of the midline, and below the thyroid cartilage. It was, as I recall, rather round and there were no jagged edges or stellate lacerations.

Dr. PERRY - Yes, there was blood noted on the carriage and a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium.

I cannot state the size, I did not examine it at all. I just noted the presence of lacerated brain tissue. In the lower part of the neck below the Adams apple was a small, roughly circular wound of perhaps 5 mm. in diameter from which blood was exuding slowly.

I did not see any other wounds.

I examined the chest briefly, and from the anterior portion did not see any thing.

I pushed up the brace on the left side very briefly to feel for his femoral pulse, but did not obtain any.

I did no further examination because it was obvious that if any treatment were to be carried out with any success a secure effective airway must be obtained immediately.

I asked Dr. Carrico if the wound on the neck was actually a wound or had he begun a tracheotomy and he replied in the negative, that it was a wound, and at that point—

Yes it is an interesting point this one. It leaves open the suggestion that the wound could be confused with surgery or, in your case, a fragment exit.

Dr. PERRY - The area of the wound, as pointed out to you in the lower third of the neck anteriorly is customarily the spot one would electively perform the tracheotomy.

This is one of the safest and easiest spots to reach the trachea. In addition the presence of the wound indicated to me there was possibly an underlaying wound to the neck muscles in the neck, the carotid artery or the jugular vein. If you are going to control these it is necessary that the incision be as low, that is toward the heart or lungs as the wound if you are going to obtain adequate control.

Therefore, for expediency's sake I went directly to that level to obtain control of the airway.

Mr. SPECTER - Would you describe, in a general way and in lay terms, the purpose for the tracheotomy at that time?

Dr. PERRY - Dr. Carrico had very judicially placed an endotracheal but unfortunately due to the injury to the trachea, the cuff which is an inflatable balloon on the endotracheal tube was not below the tracheal injury and thus he could not secure the adequate airway that you would require to maintain respiration.

(At this point, Mr. McCloy entered the hearing room.)

Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, you mentioned an injury to the trachea.

Will you describe that as precisely as you can, please?

Dr. PERRY - Yes. Once the transverse incision through the skin and subcutaneous tissues was made, it was necessary to separate the strap muscles covering the anterior muscles of the windpipe and thyroid. At that point the trachea was noted to be deviated slightly to the left and I found it necessary to sever the exterior strap muscles on the other side to reach the trachea.

I had not noticed this point. It is not clear what side he is talking about, but it reads like he cut the right strap muscle. Humes makes no mention that the muscle has been cut. What he talks about is ecchymosis, which is a bruising. So Humes is saying the right muscle is bruised and Perry appears to be saying that in order to complete the tracheotomy he cut the right Muscle.

If you look to P. 10 Vol 6 you will see that Perry says it was the left muscle that he cut.

I noticed a small ragged laceration of the trachea on the anterior lateral right side. I could see the endotracheal tube which had been placed by Dr. Carrico in the wound, but there was evidence of air and blood around the tube because I noted the cuff was just above the injury to the trachea.

Commander HUMES - Yes; in essence we have. When examining the wounds in the base of the President's neck anteriorly, the region of the tracheotomy performed at Parkland Hospital, we noted and we noted in our record, some contusion and bruising of the muscles of the neck of the President. We noted that at the time of the postmortem examination.

Now, we also made note of the types of wounds which I mentioned to you before in this testimony on the chest which were going to be used by the doctors there to place chest tubes. They also made other wounds. one on the left arm, and a wound on the ankle of the President with the idea of administering intravenous. blood and other fluids in hope of replacing the blood which the President had lost from his extensive wounds.

Those wounds showed no evidence of bruising or contusion or physical violence, which made us reach the conclusion that they were performed during the agonal moments of the late president, and when the circulation was, in essence, very seriously embarrassed, if not nonfunctional. So that these wounds, the wound of the chest and the wound of the arm and of the ankle were performed about the same time as the tracheotomy wound because only a very few moments of time elapsed when all this was going on. So, therefore, we reached the conclusion that the damage to these muscles on the anterior neck just below this wound were received at approximately the same time that the wound here on the top of the pleural cavity was, while the President still lived and while his heart and lungs were operating in such a fashion to permit him to have a bruise in the vicinity, because that he did have in these strap muscles in the neck, but he didn't have in the areas of the other incisions that were made at Parkland Hospital. So we feel that, had this missile not made its path in that fashion, the wound made by Doctor Perry in the neck would not have been able to produce, wouldn't have been able to produce, these contusions of the musculature of the neck.

James - If I am reading this correctly, Humes is saying that the strap muscles were injured at the same time as the pleural cavity - while he was alive...and that the missle path and NOT the doctors caused the contusions in the strap muscles. That the tracheotomy did NOT injure these muscles. When we learn from testimony that they did do the damage to these muscles...

As pointed out above it was the left muscle that was cut. Humes is talking about the right muscle.

Dr. PERRY - There was both blood, free blood and air in the right superior mediastinum. That is the space that is located between the lungs and the heart at that level.

As I noted, I did not see any underlying injury of the pleura, the coverings of the lungs or of the lungs themselves

I see the point you are making. However, although I can’t find the reference I though Perry said he noticed bruising of the lung.

Senator COOPER - Assuming that we draw a straight line from Point "C" which you have described as a possible point of entry of the missile, to Point "D" where you saw an incision of the tracheotomy--

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER - What would be the relation of the bruise at the apex of the pleural sac to such a line?

Commander HUMES - It would be exactly in line with such a line, sir. exactly.

Mr. SPECTER - Aside from the slight differences which are notable by observing those two exhibits, are they roughly comparable to the angle of decline?

Commander HUMES - I believe them to be roughly comparable, sir.

Worth noting Humes language. “roughly comparable.”

Mr. SPECTER - Could you state for the record an approximation of the angle of decline?

Commander HUMES - Mathematics is not my forte. Approximately 45 degrees from the horizontal.

REALLY? Looks to me there is no way to have a bullet enter at T3, travel DOWNWARD at 45 degrees, or even 20 degrees... TOUCH THE PLEURAL CAVITY... and exit at a spot well ABOVE the pleural bruise.

My point James is that the autopsy and the information related to it is pure BS from start to finish... the illustration below makes it obvious as the trachea ring they are pointing to is the 3rd ring... since there is no downward connection between the rear hole and the trach hole AND for a bullet to injure the plureal cavity AND exit the trachea it would have to be moving UPWARD.

Absolutely. And that is why in CE 385 the entry point C is nowhere near T3. In CE 385 point C is actually above the shoulder bones.

If, on the other hand, there was a shot from the front to the throat from above and TO THE SOUTH OF THE LIMO... the bullet would damage the right side of JFK's neck and possibly injure the pleural cavity.

Yes, South is the logical position to be firing from. It is certainly more likely to injure the right lung, than a North location. However I can’t get on board this idea. I can’t get my head around the idea of gunmen in the South plaza.

With the back wound many times the size of the front, is it not possible the bullet went thru front to back?

Again there is a clear logic here. The problem is the position of the back wound. If it is at T3 or even T2, in order to reach it the bullet would have to make a passage through the lung. It has no alternative, there is no other route to get to those points. And that would invalidate the idea because the lung was not damaged.

As you can tell, there is very little resolution to the issue since the data we are working with is so unreliable. That Humes and others rejected the cerebellum damage seen at Parkland and did not dissect the wound, nor perform a complete autopsy I find it hard to conclude that a fragment could NOT have caused the hole.

In the TV program NOVA the Parkland doctors went to the Archives to see the X-rays and Photos. The issue of the cerebellum came up in discussion. They agreed that it was not damaged and they had been wrong when they suggested it had been.

Yet just as possible is a south knoll shot that transits, a SK shot whose bullet is removed prior to 8pm in Bethesda... OR it was indeed a fragment.

Cheers to you James... enjoyable discussion

DJ

David,

Thanks for providing the issue. It is quite a common issue with regard to the throat wound that needs to be addressed and can’t just be ignored.

From the points that you make regarding the moment of the head shot, it is clear that we are on different sides of the question here. However that has no influence on the point you make whether the head shot was at Z 313 or Z 343. For the sake of this argument, the head shot is the head shot irrespective of its time.

There is one criteria that must be met with this issue.

• Whatever exited the throat, it did so between Trachea rings 3 & 4. It is a criteria of the assassination and the Autopsy report. It cannot be avoided or changed. I assume there is no debate about that.
  

That said, I feel there is an issue that you need to address. If the wound to the throat occurred during the head shot, what is happening at Z 225?? I don’t feel it is satisfactory just to leave it unanswered. I feel that is something you ought to explain.

To help me explain why I feel you are wrong, I have created the image below.

a) I have cut away areas of the head in order to make explanation easier. The horizontal purple line represents the position of Trachea rings 3 & 4. The vertical purple line creates some idea of the boundary of the flesh on the body. I know the flesh is not vertical like the line. It is not exact in that sense.

I am assuming that you don’t necessarily accept that the bullet entered the trachea, as Humes states it did. It is not important here, we can let that lie.

a) The yellow lines represent the notion that the fragments broke through the floor of the mouth at A. Now before you chastise me about the idea that the fragment went vertically down and then turned sharp right to exit, that is not what I am saying. The point I am making is that whatever the fragments angle of descent, there is going to have to be a fairly sharp change in direction to exit between these trachea rings. And exiting at trachea rings 3 & 4 is not a a debatable issue. It is an essential criteria. However, as you can see, having the fragment break through the floor of the mouth imposes restrictions on what is possible.

On that point alone I suggest that this fragment did not break through the floor of the mouth. The angle of change is just too great. You are welcome to play about with the image to make your own angles. However I feel you will come to the same conclusion as I. In order to exit between rings 3 & 4 the change in direction is impossible.

The blue lines represents that the fragments broke through the floor of the head at B. This angle is better however there is still a very steep direction change in order to exit between rings 3 & 4. It is also unlikely that it can escape going through the voice box. Now that kind of damage is not described in the autopsy or in the x-rays.

Again you can play around with the lines and see if you can do better.

However let us assume that somehow, I don’t know how, you can create a satisfactory line of exit. In that case your problems have not ended there.

The damage to the lung and right strap muscle have not been accounted for. However this fragment has found a way to exit, two things it has to have done (prior to leaving the body) is damage these two organs. Nor can you say a bullet later entered through trachea rings 3 &4 and created that damage. Your argument is that this hole was created by an exiting bone fragment not a bullet entering the throat.

So, how were these organs damaged? There has to be an explanation. I would suggest it is impossible to devise any trajectory whereby a bone fragment can exit as you argue. However lets suppose there is such a trajectory. To then suggest that not only does this fragment find this path to the 3^rd and 4^th rings, it also finds two different paths that also allow it to damage these two organs prior to exiting. I suggest that stretches credulity beyond its acceptable tolerance.

There is considerable ambiguity in what Rankin says in that quote you use. It is not at all clear what he is referring to. However, lets assume you are right and there was a second autopsy report that Rankin had access to. That does not help you. You have to find a way to:-

a) show how a fragment could exit between 3^rd and 4^th trachea rings.

And also show how this same fragment could also damage the lung and right strap muscle. Note that the damage was that of bruising. Neither are described as having been struck.

Thanks for raising the issue, it allowed me to examine the feasibility of an issue that often comes up. It allowed to see why this suggestion is an impossibility.

James.

I believe I addressed your post but want to clarify...

I am not arguing against the T3 wound - no matter how you slice it the SBT is not possible.

Now, whether the damage you described was actually seen at the autopsy - again, how would we know if they did not write it down?

Check the autopsy report... there is simply no mention of the condition of JFK's head, mouth, sinus, neck, throat... http://jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html

so we could not know whether those areas were damaged or not.

With regards to the findings of the Parkland Doctors and the throat wound... it LOOKED like a small entry wound...

Rankin tells us that AN AUTOPSY REPORT informs them that that hole was caused by a fragment... this HAD to be written somewhere for him to quote it.

And it had to have been changed to what the autopsy says today.

Do you have info that they did look at these areas you name and concluded something from that examination? your #d) no evidence from Bethesda does not mean it was not there, it simply means it was not even looked at... a BIG difference.

Cheers

DJ

David,

O.k. lets discuss this. First can you point me to the Rankin quote. I am not familiar with it.

Lets assume that the throat wound is an exit wound, as you suggest.

So I can think this through, before replying are we agreed that this throat wound occurred before Z 225. Or are you contesting that, that is not the moment.

In which case when do you suggest this wound happened?

James.

Cliff,

I'll give you two reasons which I find very convincing.

1) Why try to shoot the President in the neck - purposely - with something that will not kill him? If someone was going to take a shot at JFK, why not just aim for the President's head with a standard bullet and the likelihood is very strong that it would all be game over?

Because they wanted no shots from in front to be visible? Come on, Cliff? This couldn't be the reason?

Furthermore, the neck is a smaller target and thus more difficult to hit, right? Especially on a moving target. Why risk this?

Because I take it you don't expect those two seconds to still be that short amount of time (which as I understand your theory, is an absolute requirement) if this toxin originated in, say, his chest?

2) I also find it extremely hard to believe that if there were more than a single shooter, one of them would be taking all those enormous risks involved in an endevour like this one - without having the capacity to actually to do the job, which was to kill JFK?

You've got to admit that this idea is somewhat far fetched...?

Glenn,

There is much merit to what you say. It is a serious point to question why a gunman would take such a risk to make a shot for the neck in order just to paralyse.

However Cliff's point, if I understand him correctly, is that any shot from the North Knoll from a distance of around 200 feet would surely pass all the way through the body. And I feel there is not much argument with that. And there lies the problem, there is no exit point for this shot. It is that conundrum that gives rise to question what else could account for this wound, if it was not a bullet. Although it was a much maligned program, Inside the Car demonstrated what could happen to the head from a shot from about 100 feet away. Even 200 feet away, surely with that kind of weapon there would be an exit point? Why someone would be looking at solutions such as these kinds of weapons is because it appears whatever did cause the damage to the neck, it was not a standard rifle shot.

James

James...

That is what they TELL us... Sorry, but the FBI's track record with regards to this case's physical evidence is pathetic.

Does that little crescent look as if anything was taken from there as opposed to the lower hole...

Shouldn't we have seen fibers from the jacket and shirt in his backwound and on the bullet?

And there are those that testify to a hole thru JFK right about at that spot on the jacket.

David I have never examined the jacket, however Humes did examine it on Monday March 16th before he went on to testify. On P. 365 it appears that Specter wanted Humes to say that this upper hole is the back entrance wound through the jacket. There is a superb moment when asked by Specter does this hole go all the way through the jacket, Humes initially says yes. Then he pauses for a moment and says this hole is not quite as clear as the damage to the lower hole. Then, when asked directly by Specter does this hole go all the way through the jacket, Humes says no. The damage does not go all the way through.

However it is not just the appearance of a hole in this region of the jacket, it is that there is no corresponding hole in the body that coincides with this damage to the jacket. I may argue that the back hole seen in the autopsy image is unlikely to be around T3, I feel it may be nearer T2. But what is certain is that this hole is also nowhere near where you believe this damage to the jacket is. Let alone the fact that Humes, who did examine the jacket, is on record stating that it is not a through hole through the complete jacket.

There is little if any reason to shoot JFK in the throat from the front with such a small round.

It is MUCH MORE LIKELY that a fragment of bullet or bone exited there (the embalmers notes include 2-3 small holes in the cheeks where "shrapnel" is said to have exited.

There is a logic to this idea, but it does not stack up. Aside from the fact that the embalmers note refers to small damage to the cheek and not inside the mouth. Putting aside that this happens too early in the assassination it is not possible. It is not just that damage has to be inside the mouth the following have also to be damaged.

a) there has to be a hole in the roof of the mouth to allow these fragments into the mouth.

there also has to be hole in the floor of the mouth to allow these fragments to move into the trachea

c) there also has to be a means whereby these same fragments can now exit the trachea.

d) there is no evidence that this kind of damage was discovered at Bethesda.

AND all this has to be done in such a way as to fool experienced Parkland doctors into thinking what they are seeing is a bullet wound of entrance.

The problems involved for this to happen are so complex, they make it an impossibility.

I concur that there is a logic to your idea but practically speaking the requirements for it to happen far outweigh the possibilities.

James

Gee James...

Where could it have possibly gone?

David,

I probably expressed myself badly. Sorry.

What I meant was that having entered the throat, where on earth did the bullet go to disappear completely.

If you agree with David Lifton, then we know what happened to it. However, if you don't, it is a real mystery.

Something created the wound, but there was nothing in the body to explain it.

With regard to the jacket.

When Humes saw the jacket for the first time on Monday March 16th 1964, there was a note attached to it from the FBI.

It stated that they had taken a sample of the jacket for testing. The upper hole is the sample they took WCH Vol2 P. 365

The lower hole is the damage the bullet made.

He is asked if the upper hole goes all the way through. He agrees it goes all the way through but then pauses and says

"it is not so clearly a puncture wound as the one below."

He is the asked whether the top hole goes all the way through in the way the lower one does. And he says no.

The lower hole is the bullet damage. the upper hole is the work of the FBI.

James

James, it seems to me you're making a mystery here where none need exist. Given a readily proven T3 back wound -- established by the bullet holes in JFK's shirt and jacket + the consensus eyewitness reports of at least 15 people + the wound location indicated in three properly prepared official documents -- isn't it obvious that the damage was caused by a shot to the throat from the front?

Cliff, I am bitterly regretting the way I originally posted this. I will not do this again. It is clear to me that I have lost everyone or else, as you have pointed out, everyone thinks I am making a issue out of nothing.

What I tried to do, with parts 2 - 4 is attempt to dismantle the SBT. The SBT states that the bullet traversed the throat doing virtually no damage. My point is that, that is a complete impossibility. It was clear to me that had a bullet traveled through the neck major damage would have have had to be done. My logic was that if I could establish that this part of the theory is nonsense then, on its own, that is lethal to the SBT theory. If it could be established that major arteries and veins would have to be damaged had a bullet really traversed the neck, then on its own that would also destroy the SBT.

Although few go as low as T3 for the back entry for the SBT, most are looking at T2 or T1 like Myers does. However any one of them would, on its own, would kill the SBT. That is because anyone of those positions would require the bullet to go through the lung to get to the front and it would be bound to damage major vessels as it traveled through.

As you point out the only rational explanation for the back wound at T3 or maybe T2. is a shallow wound. Because of the position of the lung it can be nothing else. I favour T2 because Croft has clearly indicated that the jacket has risen a little.

At Z190 JFK was turned to his right, waving his right arm -- a posture that would cause his tucked-in custom-made shirt to INDENT along his right shoulder-line. So wouldn't a shot from the right front explain the damage indicated on the x-ray?

I agree that Z190 is the most logical moment for the throat wound, because any earlier and we would have seen reaction from JFK. At Z190 JFK's body is in the right position for the strap muscle and the top of the lung to be injured.

However, what on earth happened to the bullet that caused this damage???

James

Six days ago I posted a series on the SBT. From what I can see it has been looked at 347 times and yet there has been no response.

The SBT suggests that, aside from an entry and exit wound, only the top of the lung and a strap muscle was bruised.

The series raised the idea that had a bullet traversed such a path much more damage would have to have been inflicted on the body.

I have the highest respect for my fellow members of this forum, but I am surprised that no one has made any major comment on an issue that I feel is the real weakness of the SBT.

James.

(James, I noticed that the different threads in this series are already scattered over two pages of the forum. If you would like, I will post quotes of your series in the space I have reserved here for them, so that they are in sequence, when I have time to do it, tonight. If not, I will delete all my posts in this thread.)

Tom,

Thank you very much. Please do.

James

So if the Right Lung and Right Strap Muscle were not damaged by the Single Bullet, how were they damaged?

That is the “Sixty Four Thousand Dollar question.” I don’t have ready answers to this question. It is only right and proper to state that there is one argument as how this damage could have occurred. It was put forward by David Lifton in his book “Best Evidence”: his theory is that their damage were partly a consequence of the body being altered and bullets being removed. This argument is further explored by Douglas Horne in his books “Inside the ARRB.” In these books he suggests that Commander Hume’s was a more active participant in the cover-up.

Like the wound to the back, there are no easy explanations to this wound. No bullets were found in the body to explain these wounds, yet the wounds were there all the same.

One problem I see is that if you were shooting at the President from the north side of the plaza, in the “Grassy Knoll” area, you would normally expect that the left lung would be more likely to be damaged because of the trajectory and the position of JFK in the car. You would not expect the right lung to be damaged. Unless JFK were turned to his right, it is more logical that if any lung is to be injured it is more likely to be the left lung.

The natural position to injure the right side of JFK would be if you were shooting from the South Knoll, and the Post Office car park. In the program “Inside the Car”, Gary Mack dismissed this as a potential site for a shooter. Although I tend to agree with his overall decision, he did not position his gunman in the position that gunman would have been in had there been a gunman there. He has his gunman positioned outside the car park and a couple of feet lower than the car park. Had the gunman been in the Post Office car park he would have been in a higher location than Gary Mack has his gunman.

Had there been a gunman there he would most likely have been behind the fence rather than in front. Also there is no evidence that had a gunman been there he would have been lying down, as is suggested by the marksman Gary employed. True the Post Office Car Park did not have a wooden fence, like the railroad one, but there were a few trees, outside the car park, to hide behind. The east corner of the car park seems quite secluded. Also that area of the car park is hidden from windows in the front of the building. It would not be impossible for a gunman to be positioned there.

My model is not completed at the moment so I can’t judge exactly what kind of target such a gunman would have acquired. However, even though there are the above weaknesses in Gary’s argument, I tend to agree that a throat shot from this angle is probably out. Pity, because this position is the natural trajectory and angle to be able to wound the right lung and strap.

That means that the shot which caused this damage, however illogically, had to have come from the south of the plaza and the grassy knoll area there.

So what can we say about these wounds. Well:-

i) They occurred before Z 224

ii) They were not a consequence of the Single Bullet theory. Playing “devil’s advocate” it would be really convenient had they been a consequence of it. But they were not.

iii) They were not a consequence of the head shot, because that had yet to happen.

iv) And these two organs were damaged during the assassination. They are not figments of the imagination. Therefore they have to be explained.

The only suggestion I can offer and I will examine it when the model is up and running. Maybe the shot occurred at a point when Kennedy head was turned to his right. Thereby allowing a side on shot to the throat. The point has to be reasonable close to Z 224/225 otherwise we would have seen his reaction earlier. The only moment I can point to is around the Z 190 area.

As I said at the beginning I can offer no solutions here. All I am able to say is that their damage was not a consequence of the SBT. Yet they were damaged during the assassination. What needs to be done is to determine when they were damaged.