James R Gordon

The Role Of Commander Humes In Giving Authority To The SBT

Towards the end of his presentation on the Single Bullet Theory, Dale Myers comments:

“So it is not a Magic Bullet at all. It is not even a Single Bullet theory, in my opinion. It is a Single Bullet fact.”

To a very large extent, the reason many consider the SBT to be a “fact”, is in due in no small part to the contribution of Commander James Humes. In what is close to fifty years since the assassination, during that time Commander Humes has been the subject of considerable criticism; much of it, in my opinion, undeserved. I do not see him as an active participant in the cover-up like Douglas Horne sees him. I tend to agree with David Lifton that he was someone caught up in a situation that was way over his head. I think Lifton is right when he suggests that Humes tried, on occasions, to send signals that would lead to the truth. On a number of occasions he suggests that the actual photographs taken at the autopsy might be more accurate than the three drawings he brings. WCH Vol 2 P. 369 + WCH Vol 2 P. 371 + WCH Vol 2 P. 372

However, whatever his reasons may have been, that does not erase the part he played in ensuring that this “theory” would be seen by all as a “fact.” And for that he is solely and totally responsible.

Commander Humes was, first and foremost, a surgeon and most of all he was the surgeon who carried out the autopsy on President Kennedy. He knew very well the condition of the throat and the position of all the veins and arteries therein, because he had examined them and pronounced them to be intact. WCH Vol 2 P. 363 It did not help that he had also not traced the throat wound because he was unaware there was even one there at all. And unable to own up to that he wrote into the Autopsy Report, a report that declares the had indeed thoroughly examined the body. Like it or not, that is now the official autopsy record. It does not matter that Commander Humes did not examine the throat wound, the report says he did. And that is now the official document of the autopsy of President Kennedy.

Commander Humes, better than anyone else, clearly knew what difficulties any bullet would have had to traverse if it had, indeed, travelled from the back to the front of the body. Knowing, and declaring, that there was no damage to the upper arteries of the body he will have known how unlikely it was that any bullet could have travelled through that area of body from back to front and yet cause no damage.

Although it was Harold Rydberg who drew the drawings for the Warren Commission, it was Commander Humes who gave him all the data. Although Commander Humes had no part in the actual drawing, the finished drawings were as much his drawings, just as though he had drawn them himself. No data got on these drawings that had not been supplied to Rydberg by Commander Humes himself. That includes the position of the right lung. When asked about the data that was provided to Harold Rydberg, Humes said “We had made certain physical measurements of the wounds, and of their position on the body of the late President, and we provided these and supervised directly Mr. Rydberg in making these drawings.” (emphasis added) WCH Vol 2 P. 350 So he suggests that what we see in CE 385 is a careful replication of what was seen on the body of the president. Re-positioning the lung was crucial. It had already been noted in the autopsy as having been damaged and if that could not be explained by the SBT, then it meant something else had to have caused it. That is why CE 385 has a cutaway: to explain not just the path of the bullet, but how the lung could have been damaged.

The line of trajectory, in CE 385, is the only one that Commander Humes could create that would allow a bullet to strike the back and exit between the 3rd and 4th trachea rings. And here is the problem about the lung. In its natural position this bullet’s trajectory would not have come in contact with the right lung. If it is essential to the SBT that the lung is bruised, and it is, then that is why the lung had to be moved up from its normal position. But since, in its natural position, the lung could not have been damaged then that means that whatever did damage the lung, it was not the SBT.

In addition, CE 385 does not illustrate the numerous veins and arteries that are in this bullet’s path. The “lie” of CE 385 is that this bullet had no obstacles to overcome as it makes its way from the back to the front. When in fact it has significant and impossible obstacles to overcome. The exclusion of this data was the responsibility of Commander Humes. Nothing got into these drawings or was omitted from these drawing that had not first been decided by Commander Humes. In that sense Commander Humes had total ownership of these drawings.

And this is the criticism of Commander Humes. When these drawings were presented to the Commission and taken into evidence on Monday 14th March 1964, Commander Humes knew that he had moved the position of the lung in order to ensure that it could be damaged by the bullet as it passed through the body. He knew if the SBT was not responsible for this damage, then something else was. And that would have to be explained. He also knew that, by excluding the circulatory structure from the diagram he was hiding the impossibility of the SBT. Had any of the Commission seen the vein and artery structures in that part of the throat they would have been bound to comment on it. And those questions and comments would have led to the downfall of The Single Bullet Theory.

And so with these drawings, especially CE 385, Commander Humes is responsible for creating the “lie” of the Single Bullet Theory. A lie, that many years later, Dale Myers was able to refer to as a “fact.”

The Criteria Governing The SBT Internal Trajectory

The Videos (

Comment on Photobucket:- I used Photobucket to upload the videos and had considerable problems with size. However when I fixed that I went and forgot about the 10 minute restriction. I breach that on some and loose some of the end of the videos. Videos 3 + 4 appears to have suffered the greatest cut, however the main information is still there. I will leave these versions at present but will re-do them and link the new versions to this document. Sorry about that.

Video 3 introduces the circulatory structures and highlights the increased impossibility of an already impossible task.

Video 4 Summarizes what has been attempted through the videos as well as highlighting the difference between the external trajectories and internal ones.

The Criteria Governing The SBT Internal Trajectory

The Videos (a)

Comment on Photobucket:- I used Photobucket to upload the videos and had considerable problems with size. However when I fixed that I went and forgot about the 10 minute restriction. I breach that on some and loose some of the end of the videos. Videos 3 + 4 appears to have suffered the greatest cut, however the main information is still there. I will leave these versions at present but will re-do them and link the new versions to this document. Sorry about that.

This section includes the four videos that explore the “Single Bullet Theory” from within a 3D model of the human body. It is my understanding that these programs are very accurate. I even bought a second one to be sure that what I was seeing in the first is exactly what I was seeing on the other. I was concerned that I was getting a false image. I understand that what these programs do is to ensure that aspect of the body is in its correct size and proportion. What I mean is that although my body is different from that model as well as being different from the body of JFK the proportional size of, lets say my lung, is the same as in the model. Also where the lung is in my body is the same as where the lung is in the model. It is in that sense these are highly accurate models.

I am not a trained medical practitioner and I may have made mistakes through these presentations, although I have tried very hard not to. For that I apologise. However I firmly believe that the central concern of the videos: the complexity and impossibility of any missile traversing the body AND doing the damage to the specific organs it is required to AS WELL as missing any other organs, I believe the videos verify that point.

Video 1 looks at structures in the body and relate those structures to what we see in CE 385 and CE 386.

Video 2 looks at the various trajectories for the SBT and outlines their pitfalls. Specifically it also introduces the difficulty that the right strap muscle creates for the Single Bullet theory.

The Criteria for the Single Bullet theory (

Because of image limitation I am having to break this part up

c) it then damaged the Right Strap muscle

d) it then entered the trachea. Although he does not document how it does so or where, he does state that it exited through the trachea.

So to summarise, the bullet must damage 4 areas within the upper body of President Kennedy. These four areas are the criteria that define what this bullet is allowed to do and must do. If when examining the path this bullet took it can’t be shown to be able to damage any one of the 4 criteria, then by definition something else did and that also means that the SBT is invalid. This is so, because in his testimony and in the Autopsy report Commander Humes laid down the criteria that defined this bullet and its path and what this bullet had to damage.

What is the bullet not allowed to damage?

Answer: everything else.

That includes the bones, the arteries, the blood vessels, any muscle other than the Right strap muscle.

So to summarise, if in a 3D analysis it is clear that the bullet would have to damage one of these in its attempt to get from the back to exiting the trachea then that would invalidate the theory. This is so because in his testimony and the autopsy report Commander Humes stated that these area were undamaged.

This is a view of the skeleton from the angle of the bullets entry. The brown strap is the right strap muscle. The bullet must damage this as well as entering and exiting the trachea. I can’t see how it can do that.

See image below. This is a similar view with the vein structure in place.

Although in the first image there was a line of sight to the trachea, that line of sight is now blocked.

The problem for the SBT is that the bullet cannot damage anything other than the four criteria listed above. Nor is the argument that the bullet hit a bone and was deflected on to is correct course. That is forbidden because Commander Humes stated that no bones were damaged. Other than the four criteria listed nothing else can be damaged. If the bullet damages something else that invalidates the theory.

So what in essence is the problem? It is this. On its journey from the back to the front must must damage the four criteria and it must not damage any other organ in that area.

So looking specifically:-

i) If the bullet is able to find a trajectory to be able to bruise the top of the lung, how can it (from the trajectory) then go on to damage the right strap muscle?

OR

ii) If the bullet able to find a trajectory to be able to bruise the right strap muscle, how can (from that trajectory) then go on to damage the lung?

OR

iii) What trajectory would the bullet have to find to be able to miss all the veins and arteries?

The SBT glosses over all of this. It is only when you look at it in detail that you see the impossibility of the theory. All attention has been on the external trajectories. The internal trajectory has been all but ignored.

The Criteria for the Single Bullet theory

If I may be pardoned, the simple view of the SBT theory is that the bullet entered at X point. Where on the back it enters varies depending on who presenting their views. Dale Myers uses the definition accepted by HCSA, the 14cm measure that Commander Humes defined. Then it travels through the body and exits at Y point. Again where point Y is depends on who is presenting. Of course each demonstrates how the trajectory does, or does not, leads onto John Connally and also leads back to the sixth floor window of the TSBD.

In simplistic terms that is how the theory is generally presented. What I have not seen is a presentation of what happens when the bullet travels through the back and neck and what obstacles face it. If you look at CE 385, it is a simple entry passage and exit, that is all it describes. There is no indication as to the problems that faced the bullet as it purportedly travelled through the neck.

So what are the 7 criteria for this bullet in order to satisfy the SBT?

1) That it enters higher than the exit point. CE 385 has it just above Costa 1 R bone.

WCH Vol 2 P. 361

“We ascertained physical measurements at the time of autopsy that this wound was 14cm from the tip of the mastoid process and 14 cm from the acromion was its central point.”

2) On its journey through the throat it must scrape the top of the right lung.

MD 3 Autopsy Report P. 5

“A 5cm diamater area of purplish red discoloration and increased firmness to palpation is situated in the apical portion of the right upper lobe.” + WCH Vol 2 P. 363 “As depicted in figure 385, in the apex of the right pleural cavity there was a bruise or contusion or eccmymosis of the parietal pleura as well as a bruise of the upper portion, the most apical portion of the right lung”

3) The bullet bruised the Strap muscles on the Right Hand Side.

MD 3 Autopsy Report P. 6

“there is considerable ecchymosis of the strap muscles of the right side of the neck”

4) The bullet did not damage any other organ as it made its way through the throat.

WCH Vol 2 P. 363

“it is our opinion that the missile traversed the neck and slid between these muscles and other vital structures with a course in the neck such as the carotid artery, the jugular vein and other structures because there was no massive hemmorhage or other massive in this portion of the neck.”

5) The bullet enter the Trachea.

WCH Vol 2 P. 363

“I am unable to say how much of the defect in the trachea was made by the knife of the surgeon, and how much of the defect was made by the missile wound.”

6) To exit the body between Trachea rings 3 and 4.

MD 3 Autopsy Report P. 3

“Situated on the anterior neck at approximately the level of the third and fourth tracheal rings is 6.5cm long transverse with widely gaping irregular edges.”

+ WCH Vol 2 P. 363

“I am unable to say how much of the defect in the trachea was made by the knife of the surgeon, and how much of the defect was made by the missile wound.”

7) To have caused no damage to any other bones in that region of the body.

MD 3 Autopsy Report P. 5

“Aside from the above described skull wounds there are no significant gross skeletal abnormalities,”

+ WCH Vol 2 P. 364

“The missile, to the best of our ability to ascertain, struck no bone protuberances, no bony prominences, no bones as it traversed the Presidents body.

In his autopsy report and testimony Commander Humes listed a series of items that had been damaged and linked them to the SBT. Therefore he defined exactly what damage the bullet created in the upper body of President Kennedy. They were:-

a) an entry hole in the upper back. Taking his testimony and the chart CE 386 it would appear that position had to be above the bone Costa IR

it created a bruise on the top of the right lung

Dismantling The Single Bullet Theory” Pt 1:- An Introduction

Why this posting:-

Like many researchers I have often looked at the “Single Bullet Theory” (hereafter referred to as SBT ). I am in the middle of a major project creating a 3D model of the Plaza, similar to that of Dale Myers. I am hoping to unveil my model next year. However, because of the model, I have spent many hours looking at the SBT, knowing that at some time I am going to have to address it with the model.

A few weeks ago I realised there could be another approach to the theory. The more I looked into it, the more I began to see the potential it offered to “dismantle” this theory. Although this is an adjunct to my model, I realised it was also a “stand alone” project and so I have decided to post it now. I am sure I will return to this when I have completed the model.

What is the posting comprised of:-

The posting is in four/five parts because I felt posted in one posting might be overkill and the structure of the project lends itself to separate sections.

The five sections are:-

a) Section 1:- an introduction.

Section 2:- a description of the medical issues involved of the single bullet passing through the body of JFK. Here I will define the criteria of what the bullet must do and what it is not allowed to do. The issues that are defined in this section will be further explored in the four movies in Section 3.

c) Section 3:- This section comprises of 4 10 minute videos using a professional 3D program to examine, in detail, the complex problems and issues that any bullet would have to contend with had it actually done what the theory suggests it had to. Why up to 4 videos? It will take around 20+ minutes to cover the detail I want to cover and a single video files came in over 2GB. Luckily this aspect of the project also lends itself to division into parts. One document I would suggest you have with you when you are looking at these videos is CE 385 + CE 386, the colour versions. I will be posting them in Section 2 and you might want to take a copy and keep it handy for I will be referring to them quit a bit.

d) Section 4:- This section is a criticism of Commander Humes. Once I compared my 3D models (and I have purchased 2 versions and now know that they are highly accurate representations of the human anatomy) with CE 385 I could see exactly the deliberate errors ( and yes I do believe they were deliberate ) Commander Humes introduced into the JFK human structure in order to persuade the Commission about the validity of the SBT. This section criticizes the role he took to give authority to the SBT.

e) Section 5:- “So where did the bruise on the Lung and the Right Strap come from?” The title of this section reflects my feeling, and hopefully you will feel the same, that section 3 is devastating to the SBT. That is why I have deliberately called this project “Dismantling the Single Bullet Theory.” However if the SBT did not cause the bruise on the lung and the right strap, then something else had to have done so. I have no conclusion here but I do have a few ideas to suggest for others to look into.

James, you may want to check out chapters 11-12C of my webpage, which totally dismantles the SBT. The internal trajectories are discussed in chapter 11.

Chapter 11: Single-Bullet Theory

Thanks Pat, I knew of your work but I had forgotten about this chapter. I will look at this.

James

I contend it does not matter what angles & trajectories you have outside the body, if those trajectories create violations of the criteria inside the body then that invalidates the theory.

At that point, I suggest, it is an irrelevance what the trajectories outside the body are and indeed where the line of trajectory leads to. It is an irrelevance because body organs have been compromised that were specified in the Autopsy report as being o.k.

I'm curious as to how you can achieve this given that the path of the bullet was never established and the wound never dissected as it should have been.

Martin,

Excellent point.

However it is not required. That is because although the neck was not dissected in the actual autopsy, it was described in the Autopsy report. You are absolutely right that this area was not examined. However, Humes, and therefore the Warren Commission, have then gone and boxed themselves in by declaring in the Autopsy Report and in Humes Testimony what was and what was not damaged by the bullet as it passed through the neck area.

Although the path of the bullet was not established in the actual autopsy what the bullet had to do and what it could not do as it passed through the throat was established.

The supporters of the SBT are going to have to challenge the Autopsy Report and Humes Testimony if they want out of the fix I am about to place them.

James.

[One of the problems in much of the JFK research is the lack of solid information. This is not the case in the SBT.

We have the exact dimensions of the Limo; the positions of the occupants can be checked against several pictures and films; a timing mechanism in the Z Film; the exact location of several sequential events; the exact location of the lone shooter; the exact number of bullets fired in the WC/ SBT; known wound locations on the 3 wounded men; ... ect.

Richard,

You are absolutely right about that. However that is not the subject of my study.

My study, with the aid of a professional 3D program on the human anatomy, looks at what goes on inside the body. I am examining whether the Criteria laid down by Commander Humes in his Autopsy report and testimony hold up when we see the bullets path and trajectory within the neck and upper chest area.

Put simply. Do the organs that are damage, do they still get damaged? And equally important, do the organs that should not be damaged, does the bullet avoid them.

The outside trajectories are relevant only in so far as they describe the exact path that the bullet takes inside the body. It is those paths that are being examined: not the outside trajectories. I know this may sound silly but the outside trajectories are irrelevant if the inside trajectory violates the conditions of the autopsy report.

If the bullet cannot do inside the body what the criteria laid down by Commander Humes states they should, then the SBT is invalid.

I contend it does not matter what angles & trajectories you have outside the body, if those trajectories create violations of the criteria inside the body then that invalidates the theory.

At that point, I suggest, it is an irrelevance what the trajectories outside the body are and indeed where the line of trajectory leads to. It is an irrelevance because body organs have been compromised that were specified in the Autopsy report as being o.k.

I have probably said too much already and I am concerned about getting egg on my face and I am delaying to double and triple check, however what I am seeing so far is going to cause some headaches and maybe the use of the term “Dismantling” in the title may well be appropriate.

I am adding some new videos to section 3. They will look at the application of the theory by a number of modern proponents of the SBT and by that I mean I take their theories inside the body and examine the implication of the said trajectory to the organs within the upper chest area.

Thanks for the comment on video codecs. I will try MPG and see how that works.

James.

Thanks for your comments. My mind had been working along the same lines of posting in sections.

I hope to post around the middle of next week. The topic is entitled “Dismantling the Single Bullet Theory.” Although this is ground that has been gone over hundreds and possibly thousands of times in the 48 years since JFK died, I believe this will be a very different approach. I use the phrase “hope to post” very deliberately because, aside from the fact I don’t want mega “egg on my face”, I am conscious that there are very powerful interests that will not want this theory dismantled, even after 48 years. I expect them to “tag my tail” in a very serious way, because if I am right, I am well a ware it will not just be this theory I will be dismantling. Therefore I have to be sure I have correctly understood my facts. Even if I am wrong, and I don’t think I am, I believe there are going to be very serious questions raised that those supporting the SBT have never addressed - I am not even sure they are aware of them. I am not sure they will be even able to do so. I came across, last night, an issue that I had been aware of but had not fully appreciated that on its own is going to prove such a headache. I now have to re-do the videos today in order to introduce it. Sorry for being so oblique here but I am being ultra careful.

My study is in Four/Five parts. Part three comprises of around 4 short videos that examine in 3D the crucial elements of the theory. Luckily part 3 lends itself to being divided into sections and it might be better to divide that section rather than in one video.

On the issue of the video, does anyone know what codec should it be, flash, mov, quicktime?? As a Mac guy I always use Quicktime, but should I use another form.

Thank you.

James Gordon

I have been working on a major research item and I am ready to post one element of it.

However I am concerned how to go about it. Aside from significant text there are numerous images and a video of around 10 minutes.

With regard to video, what is the best format to use?

I don't want to cause bandwidth problems to the site and I am not sure whether I should break the post into its 4 recognisable sections

OR post as one item

OR how to post?

Not to criticise members, I have noticed some members replying to the complete initial thread and I imagine that takes up considerable space.

So what would be the best way for me to post this.

Thank you.

James.

On page 365 of his Warren Commission testimony, James Humes is asked to look at JFK's jacket. He mentions that attached to the garment was a memo from the FBI stating that they had taken a fragment of the jacket for a control area.

Does anyone have access to that document. If so could they please post it.

Thank you.

James.

Craig,

I absolutely agree. I thought I had mentioned that, but I appear to have forgotten to do so.

The real problem is whether taking CE 893 Zapruder 210 (though I understand this frame was really Z208 and not Z210 according to Tom Purvis) the angle from JFK's body to the rifle in the window was taken from this camera instrument. CE893 says this angle was 21º 34'.

Whatever the reason for the position of the camera, if the angle was taken from this instrument then clearly that angle was too high.

Since I initially posted I have noticed that this figure is in Robert West's original sheet of figures. I am now hoping the figure is his and all that was created by the camera instrument were the pictures and not the measurements.

James.

The rifle on the tripod, as shown in the photo, is NOT in the position the rifle would've been in had the alleged assassin been using the boxes as a rifle rest.

That is exactly my point. There is no point in arranging the boxes under the window if the gunman was going to fire as the image shows. And if he was, then the boxes behind him may no longer be sufficient to hide him.

O.k. so that may not seem so important. What is important to me is did the angles from JFK's body to the rifle also come from this instrument. If so those angles are wrong.

The angle, for the Commission's SBT, from the gun to JFK's back is stated to be 21º14'. If all these angles were taken from this instrument then they are wrong because the gun is too high.

I would also bet this is the same angle that Dale Myers used in his 3D model.

My model is coming close to finish. I had intended to use these measurements as a validation of my model's accuracy. I can use some of the data such as distance to overpass, since that is unlikely to have originated from this instrument,

But the angle from JFK's body to the gun in the window look like they did, I'm sure they are wrong and I am now going to have to see what the angle actually is as opposed to verifying that my model agrees with this data.

James

I was doing some work today that required me to refer to Commission Exhibit’s CE 886 – 902. That is the document that includes the various images of the Re-enactment. CE 887 is an image of the pictures being taken. See image below. I happen to look at the data for Frame 185 (CE 890) and noticed that data for the angle to the rifle in the window was 24º14’ which is the exact same value in CE884.

What I am wondering is where did that value came from. Did it come from a different survey or did it come from the instrument in the image of CE 887 above.

If it was from that instrument then surely the value has to be wrong. One thing the Commission were clear about ( and I agree with them ) is that the arrangement of the boxes by the sixth floor east window served two purposes. First it helped to protect the shooter. Second, the lower boxes were used to support the rifle by the window as it was being fired. To use these boxes to support the position of the rifle, the the rifle would have to be much lower, and I suspect maybe even be positioned in a different angle than what we see in the picture above. It seems clear to me, that having set out the rifle support boxes by the window, the gunman would not then just ignore them and be poised to fire the gun like we see in the above picture. If the gunman was poised as in CE 887 then there would be no purpose for the arranging the boxes in the first place to support the rifle as he carried out the assassination. Looking at the image it appears to me that the tripod would not get any lower and that is what determined the position and angle of the gun.

It seems to me that the position of that instrument is far too high to replicate the true angle from JFK's back to the rifle as the actual shooter would have used it through the window. It seems to me that real angle would have to be lower, maybe by around 2º - 4º.

What do others think?

James.

I was looking through some assassination images and looked at this McIntire image that we are all familiar with.

Suddenly I saw this image which I wonder if it is a person. At first I dismissed the image because the building is behind the Records building. I do not know what the name of this building is. But then I noticed that the building is to the left of the Records building. And then I realised that actually although further back from the Records building a person in that position would have a clear line of sight to Elm Street.

So do fellow members think this a person and if so what are they doing on the roof of this building?

James.

I'm still trying to figure out Gary Mack. He's a member of the forum, but won't post anything publicly. When I was seeking information about Dallas police radio transmission tapes--from which the transcriptions come, made by the FBI from the original Dictabelt recordings--he was very quick to help send me in what seemed to be the right direction. [Never did locate them, or copies of them.]

Mark,

I understand Gary's position with the Sixth Floor Museum forbids him from directly posting on sites such as this. You are right he is a member of the site, but I believe you will not seem directly posting.

He will privately reply to individuals who have posted making comments to them. As you say he is helpful when asked about aspects of the case. But that appears to be the limits of his public contributions on these kinds of sites.

James.

In the past, I have posted my conversions for the original WC CE884 document.

If interested, I can repost with explanations, but I believe the previous description is easy to understand.

chris

Chris,

Speaking for myself that would be helpful. It is clear you fully understand what you are saying, but quite often I have no idea what you are saying.

Earlier, you showed a portion of the Drommer plat with your annotations. If that that plat is completed annotated, posting that would also help. It would provide a reference to refer your figures back to.

I am sure others follow very easily. but I am finding it very difficult and these kinds of support would certainly help.

James.

Hi James,

Now would be an appropriate time to post the partial plat.

chris

Thanks Chris. That is helpful. Would it be possible, at some time, for you to post your complete amended Drommer plat.

That would also be helpful.

Thanks.

James.

Chris,

If you could bear with me, I am not clear on all you say and this table.

1. I don't follow how you can say the end of the film is 644. How do you come to that figure when you also say the film has 486 frames

2. The table talks about "station A". What is that and where was it. I have no idea where that is and how to reference it.

3. Column 2 has these strange numbers e.g. 3*29.2. What do they mean.

If you could explain it would help me better understand this table.

Thanks

James.

Cinque to Gordon (and, in my opinion, what could be more obvious?):

But, if you can’t find any other such examples, then you can take your composite theory and shove it in the same place I told Lamson to shove his angle of incidence. Is that clear enough? Are we communicating?

And regarding the mismatch of the pants, here is the Weigman man alone. I dare say that if he was wearing black pants, some portion of it would show in this picture, notwithstanding your claim about another woman being there.

Forget Unger. The one you need to be listening to is Fetzer. And Fetzer says that that white splotch is not a towel or garment draped over the shoulder of Headless Man, but rather it is the obfuscation of the face of the man who is standing in front of Headless Man.

Ralph,

I understand that you are a doctor. I hope you do not talk to your patients like that. It is hardly the language of an educated adult.

You say that you would expect to see something of the dark trousers, even if another was blocking him. Not necessarily so. This blow-up of this part of the frame is a poor resolution image. In addition the sun is streaming into the area, evidenced by the number of people covering their eyes from the glare of the sun to see the procession. If we had a better resolution and, IF, we still could not see the dark trousers then I would agree with you.

Robin Unger may not be a university Professor but he is one of the most educated and skilled researchers regarding the images of the assassination. His service to other researchers in gaining a better understanding of what happened is outstanding. It does not assist your credibility in the research community to so easily dismiss him. Many of the images you are using both on this site and on Lancer have been provided to researchers at some point by Robin Unger.

James

James:

Not from Robin this time. I take full responsibility for the lettered collage.

Allan

Allan,

Sorry, I thought it was Robin.

Good piece of work though. It clears up a lot of ambiguity in Altgens.

James

Cinque replies to MacRae:

You’ll notice that Headless Man looks considerably stockier than Weigman Man.

You’ll notice that Headless Man is wearing black pants, whereas Weigman Man is dressed in white from top to bottom. Oops!

Ralph,

I can see how you could be persuaded that "Headless man" is stockier. However Robin Unger, whose image is below, has pointed out that that figure B is obscuring this mans righthand side.

The image of "headless man" is a composite of what how much of this man Altgens can see + the image of B. In Altgens you do not see just "Headless man." You see both and you are suggesting that it is only "Headless man" whereas it is a composite of two figures.

Therefore it is impossible to say whether he is, or is not, stockier.

I can also see how you could be persuaded that this man is dressed all in white. But that is probably also a mistake.

If you look at the image above you will see a row of people standing in front of him.

On the right is a woman with a white top and behind her is another woman. And behind that woman appears to be part of the shape of someone else. This person is in front of "Headless man." That shape is in white and it that which is obscuring the man legs and suggesting that he is wearing white trousers.

Because the image of this person is blocking the lower part of "Headless man" you cannot see the colour of his trousers.

James.

I don't know if this adds anything to the debate but at the time of the assassination Oswald was 1 inch higher than Lovelady at 5 foot 9 inches.

However Lovelady was 20 lbs heavier than Oswald at 170 lbs compared to oswalds 150.

That means that at the time of the assassination Lovelady was around 2.5 stones heavier than Oswald.

James.

James has a point, Craig. When one looks at the shape outlined in his rectangle, one can make out what appears to be a pocket with a flap. Seeing as the dimensions of this "pocket" are huge, and cover the entire left side of the shirt, however, I suspect this is just an illusion. Perhaps you can post your illustration of the "open" pocket you see next to James' image, so people can better judge which "pocket" looks more like a pocket.

Pat,

I agree, it is an illusion. The half moon curve fooled me into believing I was seeing the flap of the pocket. Looking at some of the Hughes frames as well as the images in the Dallas Police station I can see that actually the pocket fabric is stretched and is gaping.

It looked like the flap of a pocket, and looking at it I can still it as that, but it is not. I was wrong. I accept that the pocket does not have a flap.

James.