Sandy Larsen

Notice the large white blotch on the back of the seat where JFK sat. That is presumably reflected sunlight. Why would it be reflected that way in that place? Could the blotch have been put there to hide a bullet hole?

I don't think so, Ron. The bullet had to be much higher up than that, up in the black area or even above that. For SS agent Glen Bennett to have witnessed the hole in Kennedy's jacket, it would have had to be above the top of the seat back.

Still, this photo is useful. Look how thick that back cushion is.

Suppose the back wound was located just slightly above the top of the back cushion. If so, it would be possible for the bullet to enter the cushion at an angle from its top.

The "throat-to-back trajectory" theory isn't dead after all.

SUMMARY:

1. "determined there were no large wounds which would be an immediate threat to life there".

Clearly, Carrico is stating that he was looking for LARGE wounds only. Does a 1/4" bullet hole count as a LARGE wound?

2. Replying to Specter's question as to where the blood originated: it certainly could have been a back wound, but there was no way to tell whether this blood would have come from a back wound[/u]

Based on the above statements, it is my strong opinion that Carrico believes a back wound could easily have gone undetected at Parkland.

Opinions, please...

I'm inclined to believe the back wound was real. I mean, so what if no bullet for it was found? Same is true of the throat wound, and we know that wound is real.

This would have had to occur on the plane -- or else Secret Service Special Agent Glenn Bennett was one of the master-minds of the cover-up.

This is his contemporaneous notes written while flying back on AF1:

The chain of possession for the clothing is clear, not so for the autopsy photos.

Hi Cliff,

I mentioned this a ways back in this thread. A number of responses were that Bennett "wasn't even looking at JFK" when the shot occurred; I was told to "see 'this'" photo and the Z-film. So I again looked at the indicated photos and as I already knew, GB who is sitting on the right side of the rear seat, is staring into the right rear quadrant EXACTLY as he should be according to all the SS testimony. i.e. That is their operating procedure. Personally I can't tell where he's looking from the Z-film as Zap is attempting to center JFK in the frame. Now if someone will tell me exactly WHEN the back shot was fired relative to these photos I can form an opinion.

As I wrote earlier in this thread, GB states that he was looking to the right, heard a shot, immediately looked at the Boss and saw a shot hit him 4" below the shoulder, etc. ...

o

o

o

Well, now there is some evidence -- which I'd missed -- against the "throat-to-back trajectory" theory. I had assumed SS Glenn Bennett was one of those standing on the side rails. It's a whole new ballgame now that I know he was sitting. The bullet hole, four inches down from the top of the shoulder, had to have been above the top of the seat's back for Bennett to have seen it. Meaning the bullet couldn't have disappeared into the seat. It would have likely hit the trunk lid. And that would have left a dent, if not a hole.

Does anybody know of any good photos of the trunk lid after the shots were fired?

The back seat was indeed reupholstered.

No offense intended, but take it as you will:

Was it reupholstered BEFORE it was examined? Yes, I know, you've stated repeatedly that everyone lied about everything, and I agree, but where we disagree, is that particular fact doesn't prove or disprove anything. As I have been repeating here, like virtually EVERY piece of evidence in this case someone could have lied and the evidence is worthless, so that fact can't be used to cherry pick evidence in support of a specific theory only.

Is it surprising that the entire bloody interior was replaced? IF ONLY that rear seat was reupholstered, that would be circumstantial evidence of a bullet hole.

Even considering the above, has anyone actually reported that a bullet hole was seen in the seat?

And yes, IMO it is possible that a bullet hole existed in the seat back, but with no evidence to support it, doesn't it seem unlikely?

Well, I wouldn't phrase it as "everybody lied about everything." In fact I give the benefit of the doubt to most witnesses, and accept their testimonies if there is corroboration.

I think Humes lied only because he was ordered to do so by a superior officer.

Some of the autopsy photos are obvious fakes. I don't know enough about the x-rays to doubt them.

Many things tell me that somebody in the Secret Service was complicit in the crime. And it is my firm belief that stripping the car down right away was intentionally done to suppress evidence. I thought that long before this "throat-to-back theory" entered my mind. So, for a bullet hole in the rear seat not to have been reported wouldn't come as a big surprise to me. It is precisely what I would expect.

You ask, "... with no evidence to support [a bullet hole in the back seat], doesn't it seem unlikely?" Absolutely not. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, as Carl Sagan used to say. Sure, I cannot conclude out of thin air that a bullet went through the back seat of the car. Just like you (or I) can't conclude out of thin air that a frangible bullet was used. But if the evidence leads us to no other choice, then of course we can conclude either of these.

With what I know now, this latest theory (latest in this thread) seems just as likely, or maybe even more so, than the frangible bullet theory. On the other hand it hasn't been thoroughly criticized. I see no reason at this time to count it out.

Maybe I'm misreading your post, but you seem to be hostile to this neck-to-back trajectory theory. Nearly all the objections and points you make could likewise be applied to the theories you're seriously considering yourself. I didn't see you making these objections about those.

Sandy,

I'm not hostile to the "neck to back" trajectory. I'm stating that you and others are dismissing the back to front trajectory by stating evidence that allows EITHER to be true. For example, as I said, no one has come up with a believable path for a wound from back to throat, but you are perfectly content that a track exists in the opposite direction. There are pros and cons for each, so I do not understand why you are immediately accepting a back exit as a revelation. Where did the bullet go if it exited the back?

And yes, AFTER your immediate acceptance of the back wound as exit, you asked where the bullet went. Isn't this a considerable weight of evidence AGAINST a back exit?

But there is a huge difference between a front-to-back trajectory and a back-to-front trajectory that eliminates the latter from consideration. And that is, for the back-to-front trajectory to occur, the shooter would have had to shoot into the back of the limo (and hope it hits Kennedy). Isn't that right? In addition, I think he'd have to be lying on the ground, or at least kneeling.

I suppose there could have been a shooter inside the trunk of the vehicle.

As for where the bullet went after the throat-to-back shot, I suggested elsewhere that it went through the back of the seat into the trunk of the car.

At the moment I rate GB's testimony as reasonable, while I continue to explore the statement that "if the back wound was real, it HAD to have been observed at Parkland." Really? The doctors did NOT have the opportunity to see it, so their lack of confirmation means nothing. The nurses may have had the opportunity to see it, but I've heard no reason as to why they would be looking for additional wounds, and in their Q&A testimony with Specter, the only time it's certain that he specifically asks is in reference to removing JFK from the limo.

Margaret Hinchcliffe/Henchcliffe stated in an interview 30 years later, that she observed the back wound. Now due to the time interval this may be questionable, IF it's counter to any statements she previously made. I have yet to find anything in her Q&As where she was specifically asked if she saw any additional wounds when they cleaned blood off the body. This statement is not conclusive, but is evidence favoring the back wound. It shouldn't be totally dismissed as some are doing.

I'm with you on this Tom. I agree that we shouldn't discount the back wound as being real just because those preparing the body for transport either didn't see it, or saw it but didn't make it a point to bring it to the authorities' attention.

Thank you, Ron Ecker #338. "...military man who told David Lifton..." When I read that, I knew it was at the back of Best Evidence, and my copy fell open to one of the many dog-eared pages. Chapter 29, The Assertion of Adm. David P. Osborne, p 645. 2nd P: "The HSC reported Osborne's assertion that he 'thought he recalled seeing an intact slug roll out from the clothing of President Kennedy and onto the autopsy table; at the outset of the autopsy.'" The next page Osborne stated, "I had that bullet in my hands."

p590 is the first appearance of "The Osborne Allegation." I believe; haven't had time to go over it much.

Whenever I hear of an intact bullet just falling or rolling out of JFK or his clothing, or Connally, the phrase "planted evidence" flashes in my mind. What are the odds that a bullet cleanly pierces the flesh (or clothing) on the way out and just happens to stop right there. I'm sure it happens... but how often?

Count me as skeptical.

I think it's more likely, in this throat-to-back trajectory theory, that the bullet exited Kennedy's jacket, went through the back of his seat, into the trunk. Where it could hit something much more likely to stop it... steel.

With so much blood all over, I can see how nobody spotted the hole in the seat.

The throat to back wound suffers from the same problem as the SBT's back to throat wound; that being the vertebrae are in the path of such a trajectory.

That seems reasonable, but I'm not so sure after looking for a clear path using this online three-dimensional skeleton:

http://www.3dtoad.com/human_skeleton_torso.php

If you rotate the torso just right, you can see a clear path from between the second and third ribs of the back to the throat area above the sternum. It appears to me that there is even a larger path between the third and fourth ribs.

I think I can read CENTIMETER on the left. Prob can count the divisions. Might be possible to actually identify the ruler by the markings.

edit add: I counted the divisions and found 5 measured as 2.5 cm (WYSIWYG) 100% zoom on my screen. So, scaling up the image to 200% gives an image pretty much to scale at 100% zoom. So saving it as PDF using PosteRazor enables printing a full scale poster.

Counting the marks on here, I find there are roughly 30 markings made in centimeters. As there are 2.54 cm. to the inch, 30 cm. divided by 2.54 = 11.81 inches.

John D., thanks for posting this photo of the ruler. It will come in very handy.

Robert, your count of 30 divisions corroborates my belief that it's a 30 cm ruler. We can also see a chamfer on each corner that needs to be taken into account. In addition, I believe there is a tiny margin from the point of chamfer to the zeroth division mark.

Be careful using the ruler as a guide, though. The center of the picture is at the middle of the four fingers. The further away from that you get, the more the divisions will be compressed due to perspective.

There can be no doubt that the markings are spaced a centimeter apart and not an inch. The problem is that I cannot see the marks well enough on the left half of the ruler to count them all. And distortion due to perspective prevents me from extrapolating over the left half.

I'm pretty sure the ruler is a 30 cm one.

I think my analysis stands.

I have come to the same conclusion that it is likely a 30cm ruler.

Can you re-state your results as to how far apart the 'bullet hole' in the back (per the photo) and the holes in the jacket and shirt are?

IF you are interested in further measurements you MAY find the reference points stated in Boswell's HSCA testimony of interest:

Tom: I'll redo my analysis, taking this new information into account, when I can find the time. BTW, your link appears to be broken.

I'm also going to try and find what the standard metric size is for shirt buttons. The collar is unusually narrow... did somebody say it is a French design? That same person had a name for this style of shirt. Does anyone recall that? (I will look for it if nobody recalls.)

If the bullet DID exit at T3 it would have done so at a downward angle and would have likely ended up in the seat back. I haven't heard that happened.

Yes, that's an important point. I made the same point in post #334. It would be helpful to know if the back seat were reupholstered when the car was cleaned up.

The back seat was indeed reupholstered.

A piece of the original leather was up for auction a couple years ago. Here is the item description:

"Original piece of leather from President Kennedy's limousine that drove him through Dealey Plaza and down Elm Street where he was fatally shot on 22 November 1963. A haunting item, literally cut from the limousine in which the President sat when he was assassinated. Known as the ''SS-100-X'', the limousine from that day was customized by the Cincinnati company Hess & Eisenhardt, which began customizing presidential cars during the Truman administration. The company went to great lengths with Kennedy's convertible, lengthening it and reinforcing it, and even raising the seat so there could be a better view of the President. After the assassination, the limo was taken back to the White House garage where it was inspected for evidence. Eventually, it was sent back to Hess & Eisenhardt where it was refurbished for future use by Presidents Johnson and Nixon. Today, the limo is on display at the Henry Ford museum in Dearborn, Michigan. Leather piece is midnight blue in color and measures 9'' x 11.75'', with uneven edges as it was clearly cut away from the seat. ''P.R.C.P'' is written on back suede in pen in unknown hand. Leather has two circular holes most likely from a fastener or bolt to hold the leather in place. With two signed letters of provenance, one from the car upholsterer's daughter, another from his nephew, to whom he gifted the leather. LOA from his daughter reads in part, ''...The limousine in which he was riding was returned to Hess and Eisenhardt to be completely refurbished. My father was one of the two men who reupholstered the interior of the car. Though most of the leather interior had been removed, some of the leather on the back of the back seat just below the boot remained. As the remainder of the interior was removed and discarded, my father asked and was given the small piece of leather...'' The second letter, written by his nephew, reads in part, ''...it was my uncle's job to remove what remained of the old leather upholstery, as the secret service had basically cut away almost all the carpeting and leather as a large portion of both were blood stained. However, the leather attached to the boot of the car was still intact. Rather than throw this away, my uncle saved it...'' Also with a copy of the obituary of the upholsterer, stating his employment with Hess & Eisenhardt. Overall, near fine." [Emphasis added.]

Tom,

Maybe I'm misreading your post, but you seem to be hostile to this neck-to-back trajectory theory. Nearly all the objections and points you make could likewise be applied to the theories you're seriously considering yourself. I didn't see you making these objections about those. Please see my comments below:

The fibers around the circumference of the holes in the Jacket/Shirt were pushed into the wound. If you choose to believe the jacket and shirt, then it's an entrance wound. If not...

According to whom?

WC, HSCA and Doug Horne...who could be lying or mistaken, so that leaves you with no theory at all.

I had more in mind the source of the information when I asked "according to whom." I'm certainly not gonna believe something just because the WC or HSCA said it.

WC, HSCA and Doug Horne...who could be lying or mistaken, so that leaves you with no theory at all.

That wouldn't leave me "no theory at all." In all of our theories there is some evidence or testimony that we question.

Couldn't somebody have simply reversed the direction of the threads? Or lied about it?

Of course they could. That's the problem with this case. We KNOW they were ordered to lie.

We don't KNOW if it's JFK in the photos.
We don't KNOW if that's HIS shirt.
We don't KNOW when the holes were first observed.
We don't KNOW if the holes are fake.
We don't KNOW if they line up with the back wound.
We don't KNOW if the back wound is real.

Do you see the point? All we can do is look at the probabilities of each and rate them accordingly.

Of course I see the point. We have to use our best judgment when deciding what is more likely to be true. But why are you picking right now -- with me asking if we can believe the reported thread direction -- to make this point? Why not any time before now, when other things have been questioned?

If the shot entered the throat and passed out the back wound, they would have been able to probe it from either direction. But they couldn't. But of course they could be lying about that, also...

But you don't know that the doctors couldn't probe (find a path) between the throat and back wounds. If such a path existed, that is something they most certainly would have kept to themselves. For such a path would have destroyed the official narrative. I remember reading testimony from a witness who said that those who were in charge the autopsy would tell the doctors, "No, don't do that." Probing for a path from the T3 wound to the neck wound would certainly have been a good time for them to say, "No, don't do that."

If that is the actual path then what about the probable fracture up around C7/T1? It would require an additional shot. One to damage T1 and another to exit at T2 or T3.

That's a good point. Have you asked yourself this same question regarding the theories you are seriously considering? Like a frangible bullet entering the back wound at T3?

If the bullet DID exit at T3 it would have done so at a downward angle and would have likely ended up in the seat back. I haven't heard that happened.

Yes, that's an important point. I made the same point in post #334. It would be helpful to know if the back seat were reupholstered when the car was cleaned up.

Everything about the back wound is a guess. Every theory has several reasons to reject it. If that's your criteria to dismiss a theory then you have to dismiss ALL of the theories regarding this wound...

Huh? Are you directing that at me? The only back-wound theory I have dismissed is the bullet-hit-a-tree-limb theory.

At the moment I favor the frangible bullet theory. I am now considering the throat-to-back trajectory theory. And I've put the fabricated-wound theory on hold.

Can it be seen on the photos of the jacket and shirt?

On the closeup photos I'd say, yes. Is it 100%? Of course not.

I don't THINK that it's as easy to alter the direction of those holes as you think. Especially if you think they are real, and were made by the passage of a supersonic bullet.

I believe that I personally could reverse the direction of those threads, if I had something that could momentarily liquefy coagulated blood. It would no doubt have the forensic experts scratching their heads, but I could do it.

Is the evidence that the shot was an exit wound more likely than the evidence that it was an entrance wound?

Well the back wound was larger than the throat wound. It was apparently big enough for Humes finger to fit in it. It seems to fit an exit-wound description.

BTW, the fibers in he throat area of the shirt were bent outward, indicating an exit. wound Yet a good majority of researchers, it seems, believe the throat wound is an entrance. So my questioning the validity of reported fiber direction isn't what one should call far-fetched. Don't you believe the throat wound might be an entrance yourself? I do.

Wow, I cannot believe I never considered this possibility -- the throat wound being the entrance and back wound being the exit for the same bullet.

I'd like to hear from others what they see wrong with this theory. Or what they see right. Like you, I can't understand why "everybody" just assumes the back wound is an entrance.

I'll get this started.

Where did the bullet go after it exited the president's back? Into the back seat of the limo? Was there ever any mention of a hole there?

Sandy Larsen #325,

Wow, I cannot believe I never considered this possibility -- the throat wound being the entrance and back wound being the exit for the same bullet.

A potential problem I can think of right away is that the slope of the back wound was reportedly downward from back to front. That's inconsistent with this new (to me) theory.

Sandy,

That is the problem: "reportedly" downward from back to front. I have never seen that any of the autopsists even tried probing in different directions. When the official autopsy began, after 8 pm, over six hours after JFK was dead, it seems that a gunman from behind and high up had already been tried and convicted in everyone's mind. And the rigor mortis in all those different soft tissues could have closed over any bullet path.

As one example of Humes' utter incompetence, he was certain it was a shallow wound. Why? Because his LITTLE FINGER could only go in it to the first knuckle! How scientific is that? The joker probably messed up what evidence there was left. On another site, I fell in love with the simple common sense of a guy named Bob Prudhomme, who just like me notes that Humes was trying to jam something at least 5/8" wide into a 3/8" hole.

The pleural cavity has some kind of tough cartilagenous lining (forget what it's called in Greek). So if the examiner didn't find the exact spot where there was a tear in it, sure, it would appear to be a shallow wound. Which, forcing his durn digit into, he could make go in any direction.

Thanks, Sandy, for that concise re-stating, "...possibility -- the throat wound being the entrance and back wound being the exit for the same bullet." I wish I'd put it that way somewhere.

Roy,

I believe it is entirely possible that Humes was ordered from the get-go to conclude that all shots came from behind and above. In fact, I believe exactly that already.

I remember in Lt. Lipsey's testimony how the doctors were trying to get all the trajectories in the body to be line up in such a way that the bullets all came from the same source

If your theory is right, it would explain a lot. Why no bullet was found. Why the back wound was big enough for Humes finger. (Everybody says the exit wound is bigger than the entrance, and I'm assuming that is also the case with flesh, not just bone.)

At the moment I can't think of any testimony or evidence that contradicts your theory, with the exception of the jacket/shirt fibers pointing the wrong direction, and the "metal dust that isn't metal" found on the lung x-ray.

I'd like to hear from others what they see wrong with this theory. Or what they see right. Like you, I can't understand why "everybody" just assumes the back wound is an entrance.

I think I can read CENTIMETER on the left.

John,

I've done some fiddling with this image myself. I can't read the numerals, but that word is definitely "Centimeters." And Boswell states in his testimony that this is a centimeter ruler.

Tom

There can be no doubt that the markings are spaced a centimeter apart and not an inch.

The problem is that I cannot see the marks well enough on the left half of the ruler to count them all. And distortion due to perspective prevents me from extrapolating over the left half.

I'm pretty sure the ruler is a 30 cm one. Do this to be convinced: In Google, search for the phrase "30 cm metric ruler" including the quotation marks. You'll get over 1500 hits. Now try any other number. Zero hits.

A 12" ruler, which is what I assumed, is only 1.6% longer than 30 cm.

I think my analysis stands. That is to say, I think it is quite reasonable. That is, at the very least, I think it doesn't suck. LOL

P.S. Thanks John D. for posting the closeup of the ruler.

Wow, I cannot believe I never considered this possibility -- the throat wound being the entrance and back wound being the exit for the same bullet.

The fibers around the circumference of the holes in the Jacket/Shirt were pushed into the wound. If you choose to believe the jacket and shirt, then it's an entrance wound. If not...

Tom

According to whom?

Couldn't somebody have simply reversed the direction of the threads? Or lied about it? Can it be seen on the photos of the jacket and shirt?

The back wound is very important, i.e., the lower of the back wounds. I'm talking about the one between T-5 and scapula, from the slug that made the holes in the President's shirt and coat six inches from the top of the (small, Edwardian) collar. The higher right-back wound, the shoulder actually, seen in some photos, seems dubious to me

Muh notes are a mess right now, and I have a few pots boiling on the stove so to speak, but this is my general idea of the T-4, T-5 level back wound and why:

This back wound is an exit wound. The TINY throat wound, the damage to the top right lung, and this LARGER (than the throat puncture) wound in the back between spine and shoulder blade---they all line up like a laser and point to the front-left of JFK, and up at about a 15 degree angle. To the South Grassy Knoll area between the South end of the RR bridge and the Postal Building. Sherry Fiester has done exhaustive, admirable work about shots coming from this area.

More evidence? The SS riding on the front-right running board of the follow-up car, Winston Lawson I believe, stated he saw, very early in the shooting, "a SPRAY of water (liquid) come OUT of the President's back about six inches down." Now, someone may say, "Could be backspatter." But no. That's on bare skin, or maybe with one thin layer of clothing, but never with a quality cotton/linen shirt AND a quality suit jacket. Clint Hill said JFK "was struck six inches down the back on the right side." But Lawson was guarding/looking directly at the Pres, and Hill's duty was Jackie and he was seeing JFK somewhat out of the corner of his eye, so that passive voice (sounding like the bullet ENTERED there) really translates: "a wound appeared" in that spot.

Also, at the Bethesda autopsy fiasco, either Sibert or O'Neill saw an intact, or nearly intact, bullet roll out of the President's clothing, which disappeared of course. Here's what I'm thinking: since the missile hit little or no bone, it stayed close to its original state. And how it could have been wedged in his clothing: the bullet made it through JFK and the clothes on his back, and it was at such a downward angle that it hit the hard leather seat (with metal frame underneath), bounced back, and got tangled in his clothes in his death agony. At Parkland they didn't have time to inspect anything, didn't even see the hole in his back before the corpse was taken away at gunpoint. A nurse could have wrapped up the clothes, put them in a bag, and no one molested THEM at least until much later at the Bethesda circus.

There are more, smaller reasons I believe this, but these are the main ones. It has bugged me the last couple years since I've had this idea that I can find no similar thinking in the community. It seems this back wound as an entry has been accepted as given. Or maybe that would reduce the number of shots in the recounting of the Dallas coup d'etat. Never you fear--- if the throat, lung, and back wounds are due to one bullet, that still makes at least eight shots.

Another thing that bugs me: Two great witnesses, Father Huber at Parkland and the guy who made a list of what he saw at Gawler's in DC, saw a bullet-hole in JFK's LEFT temple, as well as all the other damage. Everyone concentrates on the damage to the right side of our last real President's head. I believe this late shot to JFK's left temple, also from Lucien Sarti on the SGK, is what blew out the right occiput. But that's another story.

Can someone tell me, PLEASE, why the backwound six inches down as an entrance wound has been accepted as doctrine?

Wow, I cannot believe I never considered this possibility -- the throat wound being the entrance and back wound being the exit for the same bullet.

A potential problem I can think of right away is that the slope of the back wound was reportedly downward from back to front. That's inconsistent with this new (to me) theory.

There is one person, not a physician, who likely spent more time with JFK's body (actually handling it) than anyone else on the night of the autopsy. Below is a transcript of a telephone interview with Thomas Evan Robinson, an enbalmer with Gawler's Funeral Home. This interview was conducted by Investigator Joe West on May 26, 1992.

Transcription Thomas Evan Robinson

Personal contact info deleted to protect Mr. Robinson's privacy May 26, 1992 (Phone)

Wounds:

Large gaping hole in back of head.

patched by placing piece of rubber.....over it.

Thinks skull full of Plaster of Paris.

No surprise there.

Smaller wound in right temple.

Crescent shped, flapped down (3")

(approx 2) Small sharpnel wounds in face.

Packed with wax.

Due to a shot from behind? Maybe Humes was right about the bullet wound on the back of the head near the occipital protuberance.

Wound in back (5 to six inches) below shoulder.

To the right of the back bone.

Consistent with T3, right? Inconsistent with back photo, right?

Adrenlin gland and brain removed.

Other organs removed and then put back.

Hmm... Why would adrenal glands be removed?

No swelling or discoloration to face.

(Died instantly)

Dr. Berkley (family physician) came in an ask.....

"How much longer???"

He (Robinson) was told (funeral director)

"Take your time."

Is in favor of exhuming body.....to settle once and....for all.

(Robinson quote) "Good pathologists would know exactly"

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.

Sandy,

If you go back and re-read my post #283, the testimony from HSCA Volume 7, it is stated that it is a CENTIMETER ruler. IIRC, the scale can be read well enough to indicate it's marked in centimeters. You may want to re-do you calculations...

Tom

Thanks for pointing that out, Tom.

Do you know of a back wound photo where I can actually see the marks? Well enough to use the marks to take the measurement? Or well enough to count the number of marks?

Without that, the best I can do is assume the length the ruler and use that to take the measurement. A standard U.S. ruler is slightly longer than 12" / 30.5 cm in length. As for metric, it appears that the standard length is 30 cm. That is only 1.6% shorter than a U.S. ruler. So if that is the length of the ruler in the photo, it barely affects my measurement.

(BTW I didn't take into account the fact that perspective makes the ruler look shorter than it really is. But If I were to take that into account, that would only make my case stronger.)

Jon,

My two cents on a couple of your comments:

How did the plotters know to get Oswald a job in the TSBD, as another commenter has observed. Maybe that was just serendipitous good luck for the plotters.

I just cannot believe that the CIA -- having prepped Oswald as the patsy (including a trip to Mexico that will indicate to some that the KGB was behind his actions) -- would leave to chance Oswald being in the right place at the right time to shoot Kennedy. It is for this reason that I believe that both Ruth Paine and TSBD owner D.H. Byrd must have been CIA controlled. The TSBD might have even been a CIA front.

The cover-up, which continues to this day, is also remarkable. Who is still being protected by the cover-up?

The CIA is protecting itself. Suppose a smoking gun were found, clearly showing that the CIA was responsible for the killing of a president. Don't you think that would threaten the CIA's existence as we/they know it?

Do tell us all, Pat, how you deduced the back wound photo was taken of JFK lying on his side.

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.

Plus, Sandy, if we look at the skeleton diagram from your Wilipedia link again:

It is possible to see the superior angle of the right scapula depicted here is not quite at the level of T2 but, rather, is more at the level of T3. The very upper tip of their falsely portrayed superior angle is just barely near the bottom level of T2.

More importantly, the artist has portrayed the left most portion of the scapular spine (spine of scapula) exactly where I stated it to be; between T4 and T5.

As the scapular spine is quite visible in the back photo, and the back wound appears to be two finger widths (using the upper gloved hand holding down the ruler in the photo) above the scapular spine, it is possible to closely estimate the location of the back wound. My index and middle fingers together, side by side, have a width of 1.5 inches. I am a fairly large person, at over 6 feet tall, so the fingers in the photo are possibly not as wide.

Suffice it to say, the back wound is roughly 1-1.5 inches above the scapular spine. Think we are getting close to T3?

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.

o o o

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

Thanks for answering my question, Pat.

So Humes raised the back-wound location so that it could be associated with the throat wound. But alas he didn't raise it enough, so the WC had to raise it further.

But why didn't Humes raise it higher to begin with? I suppose because then it wouldn't have jibed at all with what witnesses had seen and were recording about the wound.

Yeah, that makes sense.

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.

I call your attention to the autopsy photographs--You will note the existence of a ruler (which doesn't measure anything) and which covers the location where the back wound (as reported by FBI Agents Sibert and O'Neill) was located.

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.