Sandy Larsen

Jon, My two cents on a couple of your comments:

Just look at the arms, and see if they make sense if he's laying flat on his belly, or sitting up. More importantly, how have you deduced that that is JFK in that photo? That, of course, is a very good point. After all, we see no blowout in the back of the head. As for me, I'm assuming for now that the photo is of JFK, with the BOH blowout somehow being erased. If a irreconcilable discrepancy shows up that can only be resolved by eliminating this photo, then that's what I'll do.

Robert, First, just to clarify, I neither agree nor disagree with the "T2" location pointed out in the Wikipedia article. I think you bring up valid points countering what is claimed there. But I wish you would have responded to my other comments in the post, about person-to-person variations in anatomical structure, etc. You say: "Suffice it to say, the back wound is roughly 1-1.5 inches above the scapular spine. Think we are getting close to T3?" I don't know. I looked at the backs of several men and couldn't find the scapular spine in any. Well, possibly in one guy. But his weren't oriented at an angle... they were horizontal, or maybe vertical... I forget. But it wasn't what I expected. Maybe he was flexing muscles and I was looking at muscle bumps. (He's skinny and has little muscle mass to flex, but he did have horizontally or vertically oriented bumps where the scapular spines might be.) BTW, for scapular spines to be discernible, I think a person has to have very little body fat AND not a good deal of muscle mass.

Pat, I haven't studied the location of the back wound in great detail. But it's quite obvious to me that the location of the wound on the back photo is significantly higher than the hole location on the shirt. Is it? Or is the fact JF's head is pulled back a great amount creating an illusion in that photo, in which the hairline appears to be much closer to the wound than it would be normally? I don't suffer from that illusion. Because when I compare the location of the back wound to the location of the hole in the shirt, I do so relative to the shirt's horizontal line that is the interface between the yoke and back panels of the shirt. (The yoke panel is the one that spans across the top and back of the shoulders, from shoulder point to shoulder point.) We can easily measure the hole location from the photos of the shirt. Looking at the front of the shirt we see we can determine the line interval of the fabric lines based upon the button diameter. The standard diameter of a shirt button is 7/16". We can see from the cuff buttons that the lines are spaced very close to 7/16" / 2 = 7/32". If 7/32" is correct, then the width of the cuffs is 9 x 7/32" = 1 31/32" which is close to 2". The cuff is clearly wider than 2", so the line spacing must be a bit greater than 7/32". But let's go with the 7/32" just to give a conservative (opposite my contention) location for the hole. Now, looking at the back of the shirt: we can see that the center of the hole is located 11 lines below the yoke line. We calculate that the bullet hole is 11 x 7/32" = 2.4" below the line. Now lets look at Kennedy's back: Mentally draw the yoke line from just below the top of the right shoulder to the other shoulder. (The back yoke line is ALWAYS located below the tops of the shoulders.) The line intersects the top-right corner of the ruler. Using the ruler as a guide, assuming it is a 12 inch ruler I measure the center of the wound to be 1.2" below the line. So I've shown that the hole in the shirt is about 1.2 inches (2.4" - 1.2") lower than the wound in the president. (I measured in one other way and again got close to a 1.2 inch difference.) Granted, 1.2 inches is a fairly small difference. But in determining that difference I made the following conservative assumptions, ones that work against my contention: 1) A smaller line-to-line interval than is likely the case; 2) a higher than likely yoke line on the back.; and 3) it looks to me like the top of the yoke in the photo has been tucked under in a way that brings the bullet hole up toward the collar, something I didn't attempt to account for.

Am I the only person who gets a little nervous with this talk of using parts of the scapula to locate vertebrae? Here are the reasons I do: 1. I've been looking at a lot of men's backs using Google Images and it seems pretty clear to me that the shape and location of the scapulae relative to the vertebrae vary fairly significantly from person to person. 2. The scapulae are rather "free floating," particularly along the axis that is the body's mid-line. I am able to move mine up and down by more than an inch... well more it seems. I can do so either by shrugging or by tensing my shoulder muscles. I assume that when lying down, with muscles relaxed, the scapulae could end up anywhere in their "free floating" range, depending upon a number of factors. Of course, anatomical models make certain assumptions... I imagine one being that the person is standing, straight but with relaxed muscles. But Kennedy's body wasn't bound by those assumptions. And rigor mortis set in at some point, presumably fixing the locations of Kennedy's scapulae. It's interesting to try and locate vertebrae, and therefore Kennedy's back wound, using the scapulae of models and drawings. But I'm not sure that doing so can lead to very conclusive conclusions. Correct me if I'm off base here. I'm certainly no authority on anatomy or physiology. BTW, Wikipedia places the superior angle at T2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_angle_of_scapula

Only if you're desperate to claim the autopsy photos are fake. To my way of thinking, the back wound in the photos proves the lie orchestrated by Ball and Specter at Warren's urging. It proves the lie, and disproves the SBT. Good point. Well, except, the photo in question must have been altered given that the hole in the shirt doesn't line up with the wound shown on the back. I very much doubt that a shirt rises up with a jacket when raising a hand. It doesn't on me. The hole on the back was 14 cm down from the bottom tip of the mastoid process. The hole on the clothing was measured at 14 cm below the top of the collar. So...could the bottom tip of JFK's mastoid process have come into alignment with the top of his collar, while he was sitting against the back seat of a limousine? I don't see why not. I tried this on myself and came away convinced that it makes sense. No one has proven otherwise, that's for sure. For all their bluster, those holding that the clothing measurements prove the autopsy photos a fake have never done a series of re-enactments using clothes marked 14 cm below the top of the collar. There's a reason for that, IMO. It's because the clothing measurements are consistent with a wound at T-1. Now, to my way of thinking, this ought to fill them with delight. This proves the drawings created for the Warren Commission, which moved the wound up to about C-5, even though the simplest of re-enactments involving the clothing would have proved the wound to have been around T-1, to have been a sham. But no, instead of marveling at the hubris of the Warren Commission, and Arlen Specter in particular, those pushing that the bullet entered at T-3 have chosen to act as though my failure to march in lockstep with their theory is the problem. Pat, I haven't studied the location of the back wound in great detail. But it's quite obvious to me that the location of the wound on the back photo is significantly higher than the hole location on the shirt.

On the chance that there is still interest as to the purpose and location of the ruler in the 'back wound' photographs... Per the HSCA the "centimeter ruler which overlies the midline of the back" is placed thusly to facilitate measurements of the wound: FWIW Tom It's a bit hard for me to swallow that the purpose of the ruler here is to allow measurement of the wound. Why on earth would they place the ruler 2.5 cm from the wound if that were the case?? If the reason was to keep the ruler aligned with the mid-line of the back, then why was it placed at an noticeable angle with respect to it? I suppose that the angle I see could be an optical illusion. But, even if so, I can't understand the motivation for placing the ruler in alignment with the mid-line.

What you say here is precisely what occurred to me when I first read about the supposed discrepancy. But I'm willing to listen if someone says there's a reason that wouldn't be the case. (Perhaps, for example, money orders subsequently issued by that post office had the smaller serial numbers... and only Oswald got the high number.)

I read the source for this, CE 1799. Just a report written by some anonymous person. Not exactly impressive evidence when compared to a missing Federal Reserve Bank stamp. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pdf/WH23_CE_1799.pdf I don't know where Bugs got the 7 hour computers-humming information.

Thanks for acknowledging that as a problem. I think you would get a lot more respect from the folks here if you would just admit when the official story has a problem rather than ignoring it and changing the subject.

Naturally. Nothing new or surprising there. Everything is "suspect" to a conspiracy theorist. o o o No David, not everything is suspect. Only those things that defy logic. Especially in cases where the official story is riddled with falsehoods, half-truth's, and contradictions. I really don't have the time to debate this issue with you. My only reason for posting that one question was to make the point that there is indeed compelling evidence that Oswald was framed. And that that is an example of the legitimate reasons CT researchers question parts ofthe official story. They don't do so merely because "everything is suspect to a conspiracy theorist," as you put it. (For the record, I do know that there are plenty of CTers who aren't all that bright or who lack common sense, who do see conspiracy in "everything." But I haven't seen any of those folks here on this forum.)

Huh? When did I ever say that? I never said any such thing. Of course LHO paid for the Carcano with the money order in evidence (CE788). It's got his writing all over it. How did Oswald's handwriting get on this M.O. if LHO never had it in his possession?.... You conceded when you didn't answer my question, even after I had posted it a second time. In both your responses you completely ignored the fact that the money order had not been processed by a Federal Reserve Bank. As though that isn't an important point. So I won the debate by default. That's what happens when one doesn't "show up" for a debate. As for how LHO's handwriting got "all over" the money order, I would suggest the same way my dad's handwriting got all over the excuse notes I wrote to my home-room teacher explaining why I had been absent from school. Forging someone's handwriting isn't necessarily a difficult feat, and isn't an unheard of thing. Given that the money order is evidence that someone was attempting to frame Oswald, as I have demonstrated, it follows that the source of the handwriting be considered suspect as well.

I am curious as to why you "do not believe" the back wound was created post-mortem. I'm sure you are aware that no one at Dallas reported such a wound, in the records created that day (or in the testimony given in March 1964). But, in addition, we have the statement made by Perry, under oath. Perry said that when Humes called him (late that night or early the next day, it matters not which date), Humes asked him (i.e., asked Perry) if he had made any wounds in the back. Why would Humes ask such a question, if he did not have a question about the legitimacy of the wound? Also, why --in the written autopsy report--were modifiers added, so that the typed version reads that the wound was "presumably of entry." My question: are you taking these factors into account, in stating that you "do not believe" the back wound was made post-mortem? DSL 10/26/15 - 3:40 PM PDT Los Angeles, California You said: "Humes asked him (i.e., asked Perry) if he had made any wounds in the back." Humes didn't really use the word "wounds," did he? I would think he'd use a word like "incisions." That's probably what you meant to say. My guess as to why Humes asked Perry if he had made wounds/incisions in the back is because he couldn't figure the back wound out. If I'm right, that would support either David's theory, that the wound was man-made, or Robert's theory, that the bullet was frangible and had disintegrated If James Jenkins is to be believed -- that the pleural membrane was intact -- then David's "man-made" theory gets the thumbs up. But if Lt. Lipsey is to be believed -- that among other things the organs were cut up looking for the bullet -- then Robert's "frangible bullet" theory gets the thumbs up. Both Jenkins and Lipsey seem to be reliable witnesses. The only way I can think of to square their respective testimonies is to conclude that Hume's search for the bullet, including cutting up organs, was a charade. On the other hand, if it were an act, surely Jenkins would have wondered why they were looking for a bullet in the chest cavity given that the pleural membrane was intact. I'm rather stumped by all this. The problem boils down to whose testimony to believe, Jenkins's or Lipsey's. If Lipsey is still alive this would be a good question to ask him... about the search for the back-wound bullet.

You say, "So Klein's was definitely PAID the $21.45 for the rifle..." How so? Postal money orders are, and have always been, processed by Federal Reserve Banks (FRBs). (Since the Federal Reserve System was created in 1913.) Only when a check or money order is cleared by a Federal Reserve Bank is the recipient's account credited. And, when cleared, the back-side of the check or money order is stamped by the FRB. So Klein's definitely wasn't paid $21.45 for the rifle... at least not from the money order supposedly written by Oswald. BTW, all national banks are required, by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, to be members of the Federal Reserve System. And they are required to use the FRB's check clearing system. Klein's bank, First National Bank, was indeed a member of the FRB and so used their check clearing system. FRB Procedures for Processing Postal Money Orders http://tfm.fiscal.treasury.gov/v2/p4/c700.html I'll give you a second chance to answer my question, David. How was it possible for LHO to have paid for the rifle, given that the money order he supposedly used to pay for it was never processed? If you (or anybody else) can't answer this question, then the postal money order is evidence of LHO being framed as the buyer of the rifle. Okay David, so you concede that LHO did not pay for the Carcano with the money order that was used as evidence against him. The mere existence of that money order is strong evidence the LHO was framed as the purchaser of that rifle. Because it is a necessary element of the WC narrative and was presented as evidence, yet we can plainly see that it was never even used to pay for the rifle. It was for show only.... it had no real substance.

You should be thoroughly embarrassed at having written the above nonsense, Sandy. Let's make a deal David. I'll read and study your article if you demonstrate how it was possible for LHO to have paid for the rifle given that the money order he supposedly used to pay for it was never processed. The proof for this is on the money order itself... or rather, not on it. For the money order has no Federal Reserve Bank markings on its back. Or its front. If that can't be explained, then what we have here is evidence Oswald was framed. You say, "So Klein's was definitely PAID the $21.45 for the rifle..." How so? Postal money orders are, and have always been, processed by Federal Reserve Banks (FRBs). (Since the Federal Reserve System was created in 1913.) Only when a check or money order is cleared by a Federal Reserve Bank is the recipient's account credited. And, when cleared, the back-side of the check or money order is stamped by the FRB. So Klein's definitely wasn't paid $21.45 for the rifle... at least not from the money order supposedly written by Oswald. BTW, all national banks are required, by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, to be members of the Federal Reserve System. And they are required to use the FRB's check clearing system. Klein's bank, First National Bank, was indeed a member of the FRB and so used their check clearing system. FRB Procedures for Processing Postal Money Orders http://tfm.fiscal.treasury.gov/v2/p4/c700.html I'll give you a second chance to answer my question, David. How was it possible for LHO to have paid for the rifle, given that the money order he supposedly used to pay for it was never processed? If you (or anybody else) can't answer this question, then the postal money order is evidence of LHO being framed as the buyer of the rifle.

But Robinson was the embalmer, right? So he should have seen both the lower back wound and the upper back wound. Right?

David, thanks for the original response, and for the re-do... The purpose of the ruler in this photo has always eluded me. When a ruler is placed within a photo it either indicates a specific measurement or is used as a scale reference, so its presence here is certainly suspicious. To my eye, the ruler is placed to the left of the mid-line of the back, while the location of the "opening" is described as 1.5" - 2" to the right of the mid-line. Tom Tom, You are saying that the ruler (that measures nothing) apparently cannot be covering the low (original) back wound, because it appears to be located LEFT of mid-line (down around where the low back wound is supposed to be). Yet that wound is located to the RIGHT of mid-line, according to the hole in the shirt. This is problematic because it means there really is no wound at that location. (Assuming it hasn't been erased on the photo.) I want to offer a potential explanation for this. I've wondered for a couple years, when looking at back of head photos and drawing, why it is that JFK's cowlick is located on the right side of his crown. Because, you see, a natural part in a person's hair is usually on the same side as the cowlick. And JFK's part most certainly is on his left side, not right. (It's hard to fight a part.) This got me to wondering if certain of the autopsy photos might have been mirror-imaged, as necessary, for the purpose of showing whatever it is the conspirators wanted us to see, and to help hide what they didn't want us to see. Look at this photo: The cowlick and natural part are on the right, and the left side of the head, including the left-rear, is cropped. A mirror image could have been done to make it appear that there is no right-rear damage. Now, I'm not saying that this trick could have been used to solve everything in the photos problematic to the conspirators. But it could have been one tool used. Now, back to the photo showing JFK's back and the ruler that measures nothing. Maybe it has been mirror-imaged so that no lower wound is shown, when in reality the wound is now left of mid-line and is being covered by the ruler. Just a thought. I haven't put a lot of thought into this. Another possibility, alluded to above: The lower wound could have simply been erased from the photo.

Now, it's MY turn to be confused. I'm not sure what you're asking me... I think we engineers tend to do that to each other. Let me re-state my position and question: Until DSL's recent post I had accepted that the "Back Wound" (the one that matched the jacket/shirt holes) had been confirmed to exist in Dallas. It has been years since I considered the "false wound" theory, so last night I did some research and IMO it is entirely possible that, as DSL contends, no "back wound" existed when the body was in Parkland. Humes lied when he was ordered to, but IMO he did not perform the 'surgery to the (top of the) head area', or the enlargement of the throat wound. Considering the number and scope of the lies he was already telling about the body, was it absolutely necessary to physically punch a hole in the body to create a false wound, or would another lie suffice? I think Humes (or someone else at Behesda) had to have punched another hole. Because the hole we see on the photo is higher than the one on JFK's shirt. So either that hole was punched there, or the hole was drawn in... either on JFK's back or on the photo. The "back wound" that DSL refers to as the "lower" wound is the one that matches the "bullet holes" in the jacket and shirt. Per DSL, the "higher wound" was actually created by Humes because the "lower" false wound was too low to connect to the throat wound. I suspect that any MD would be reluctant to mutilate a body, so I had always assumed that Humes had only moved this lower back wound "on paper", so to speak. By creating the paperwork that stated this wound was located at the base of the neck, he in effect relocated the wound without actually punching a physical hole in the body. I'm still on the fence as to whether or not the back wound was observed at Parkland, so by no means am I saying that this is what actually happened. Humes could CERTAINLY have physically punched a hole in the body, and if he did, it would explain some of the testimony given by others. MUCH work still needs to be done, but based upon current knowledge I believe this scenario AND the False wound scenario are possibilities. Covering the lower back wound with the ruler while the photo was taken is a good idea in theory. But the "bullet holes" in the jacket/shirt are located 1 1/2" - 2" to the RIGHT of the mid-line of the back. To my eye, the ruler appears to be positioned to the LEFT of the mid-line. If that is correct, then the ruler could not cover the lower back wound. This is the part where you are challenging David Lifton. (And challenging me too, which is okay and welcome.) That is, if your eye isn't lying to you. And I don't think it is. That is, the ruler does appear to be on the left side of mid-line at the point where the lower wound is supposed to be. Tom

Only if you're desperate to claim the autopsy photos are fake. To my way of thinking, the back wound in the photos proves the lie orchestrated by Ball and Specter at Warren's urging. It proves the lie, and disproves the SBT. Good point. Well, except, the photo in question must have been altered given that the hole in the shirt doesn't line up with the wound shown on the back. I very much doubt that a shirt rises up with a jacket when raising a hand. It doesn't on me.

You should be thoroughly embarrassed at having written the above nonsense, Sandy. Let's make a deal David. I'll read and study your article if you demonstrate how it was possible for LHO to have paid for the rifle given that the money order he supposedly used to pay for it was never processed. The proof for this is on the money order itself... or rather, not on it. For the money order has no Federal Reserve Bank markings on its back. Or its front. If that can't be explained, then what we have here is evidence Oswald was framed.

I had a feeling you'd like that.

Well, there *is* more evidence that Oswald didn't fire the rifle that day than there is that he did. And there *is* more evidence that Oswald was framed as the buyer of the Carcano than there is that he actually bought it. And for your information, David, it isn't the goal of CTers to clear Oswald's name. It is their goal to find the truth. But deep down you know that, don't you David.

Sandy, That last left should have been a right... You got me -- but not by much. When I finished correcting my dsylexic response, your response popped up! As far as confusing you and others, basically that is my primary function in the world. Tom I kinda suspected you had mis-written that. But I wasn't sure. Partly because, had I been right, then it would appear that you are challenging David Lifton on his assertion that the ruler is covering the lower wound. Something that I've long believed too. Let me know if I'm wrong about that. It really does look like the rule isn't hiding anything. If true, I need to do some rethinking. But I'll wait a while and see if David L. can defend his position.

David, thanks for the original response, and for the re-do... The purpose of the ruler in this photo has always eluded me. When a ruler is placed within a photo it either indicates a specific measurement or is used as a scale reference, so its presence here is certainly suspicious. To my eye, the ruler is placed to the left of the mid-line of the back, while the location of the "opening" is described as 1.5" - 2" to the left of the mid-line. Tom Okay Tom, now you're confusing me. I've always understood that both the lower and the upper back wounds are to the right of mid-line. Yet here you're saying that one of them is to the left. You must mean the one hidden by the ruler is to the left, because the one we can see in the photo -- the upper one -- is to the right. Are you sure of what you're saying here? In any case I'm glad you posted this because, now that I've looked at the photo again, I see that the ruler does indeed look like it's left of mid-line where the lower wound should be.

Reading Lt. Lipsey's testimony sure leaves me with the impression that a bullet did indeed enter the chest cavity. Both Lipsey and Jerrol Custer reported the slicing of the internal organs. Lipsey goes on and on about Humes being determined to find that bullet. I believe the first autopsy report -- the one burned by Humes -- probably reported the (original, lower) back wound and missing bullet. Finally, what Lipsey said supports perfectly Robert's pneumothorax thesis. Yet... why is it they resorted to slicing the organs rather than simply x-raying them? Suppose they did x-ray the organs... upon finding nothing, would they then have resort to slicing? That seems unlikely. Could what Lipsey and Custer (et.al.) witnessed have all been nothing more than a big charade? It's not so easy to conclude that after reading Lipsey's testimony.