VIDEO - The Back Wound

[Gil Jesus]

Personally, I believe the video. I believe that the holes in the shirt and coat at the level of T3 is genuine. I believe that they match the death certificate and Boswell's face sheet. I believe that the autopsy photos show the bullet hole well BELOW the top of the shoulders.

There is no evidence, short of the Rydberg drawings, that indicate the bullet hole was in the base of the neck. THAT's the purpose of the video, to show that there was no bullet hole in the base of the neck as the Warren Commission reported there was.

Dr. Humes LIED when he had those drawings made and he LIED when he testified before the Commission. The Rydberg drawings, IMO, are the evidence of his perjury. He lied to coverup the evidence that proved there was a frontal shot that hit Kennedy in the throat because he missed the throat wound at the autopsy. He thought it was just a tracheostomy.

After the autopsy was completed, he spoke with the Dallas doctors and found out there had been a wound of entry in the throat and that Dr. Perry had performed a tracheostomy through the wound. This posed a problem for Dr. Humes until something happened:

The murder of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Once Oswald was dead, the autopsy revisions began. Humes destroyed his original notes of the autopsy and rewrote it. In his revision, he called the back wound "presumably of entrance" and the throat wound "presumably of exit". He couldn't be sure because the back wound never penetrated the chest cavity and he never even saw the throat wound.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Gil and Cliff, if I'd have had more time last night, I'd have listed the errors in the video. Perhaps I should have withheld commentary till I had the time. The errors in the video I referred to had nothing to do with my contention that the back wound entrance is at T1--based on the autopsy measurements, autopsy face sheet, and autopsy photos--nor the video (and Cliff's) contention that the back wound entrance is at T3 (based on Burkley's death certificate).

There you go again.

Right on cue.

I point to the holes in the clothes, you ignore it.

Tom Purvis is doing this exact same thing on another thread -- when

presented with hard, physical evidence of the T3 back wound you guys

recoil in speechless horror like vampires before garlic.

Your citation of the "autopsy face sheet" is disingenuous.

The "14cm below mastoid process" notation on the face sheet

was made in pen.

That was a violation of autopsy protocol, which requires everything

to be filled out on the face sheet in pencil.

The part of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil shows the back

wound a bit below the location of the holes in the clothes. The diagram

was signed off in pencil as "verified."

The meassurement from the mastoid process violated two other

autopsy protocols -- it used a cranial landmark to locate a thoracic

wound, and the landmark it used was movable.

Pat, you choose to tout improperly taken and recorded measurements

over the verified and verifiable evidence -- the death certificate, the

face sheet diagram, the holes in the clothes.

Even the HSCA declared the Fox 5 autopsy photo "perhaps" inadmissible

in court due to its questionable authenticity.

And, of course, there's the more than dozen witnesses who got a

prolonged look at the back wound and placed it at T3.

JFK's T3 back wound is a fact.

Those who promote notions contrary to this are (unwitting) participants in

the cover-up of his death, imo.

Tom Purvis is doing this exact same thing on another thread -- when

presented with hard, physical evidence of the T3 back wound you guys

recoil in speechless horror like vampires before garlic.

Actually!

Tom is doing as he has done througout most of his life. That being ignoring the ignorance of someone who in fact has never conducted any personal research in the subject matter, and quite apparantly has little or no understanding as to what constitutes either "hard" or "physical" evidence.

Those who promote notions contrary to this are (unwitting) participants in

the cover-up of his death, imo.

And, those who continue to promote the "T-3" back entry location are merely (dimwitted) participants in continuation of the confusion of the subject matter.

Lastly, I long ago found that it is completely useless to attempt to present facts to those who do not have the intellectual capacity for understanding said facts, or for conducting their own seperate and factual research.

About like attempting to argue the "Bunch Theory" with you Cliff.

If one takes your interpretation then:

1. First it was bunched just as JFK entered Dealy Plaza, just prior to turning onto Elm St.

2. Then, it suddenly became "un-bunched" just prior to the first shot.

3. Then, it suddenly "re-bunched" itself, as the fold/bunch in JFK's jacket can be clearly seen after he is observed leaning forward after the first shot.

So, if you are a proponent of the "Bunch/Then Unbunch/Then Rebunch" theory of Cliff, then good luck to all.

Lastly, if I wanted to argue with someone who is completely hard-headed and frequently apparantly stupid, then I would merely argue with myself.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Gil and Cliff, if I'd have had more time last night, I'd have listed the errors in the video. Perhaps I should have withheld commentary till I had the time. The errors in the video I referred to had nothing to do with my contention that the back wound entrance is at T1--based on the autopsy measurements, autopsy face sheet, and autopsy photos--nor the video (and Cliff's) contention that the back wound entrance is at T3 (based on Burkley's death certificate).

There you go again.

Right on cue.

I point to the holes in the clothes, you ignore it.

Tom Purvis is doing this exact same thing on another thread -- when

presented with hard, physical evidence of the T3 back wound you guys

recoil in speechless horror like vampires before garlic.

Your citation of the "autopsy face sheet" is disingenuous.

The "14cm below mastoid process" notation on the face sheet

was made in pen.

That was a violation of autopsy protocol, which requires everything

to be filled out on the face sheet in pencil.

The part of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil shows the back

wound a bit below the location of the holes in the clothes. The diagram

was signed off in pencil as "verified."

The meassurement from the mastoid process violated two other

autopsy protocols -- it used a cranial landmark to locate a thoracic

wound, and the landmark it used was movable.

Pat, you choose to tout improperly taken and recorded measurements

over the verified and verifiable evidence -- the death certificate, the

face sheet diagram, the holes in the clothes.

Even the HSCA declared the Fox 5 autopsy photo "perhaps" inadmissible

in court due to its questionable authenticity.

And, of course, there's the more than dozen witnesses who got a

prolonged look at the back wound and placed it at T3.

JFK's T3 back wound is a fact.

Those who promote notions contrary to this are (unwitting) participants in

the cover-up of his death, imo.

Tom Purvis is doing this exact same thing on another thread -- when

presented with hard, physical evidence of the T3 back wound you guys

recoil in speechless horror like vampires before garlic.

Actually!

Tom is doing as he has done througout most of his life. That being ignoring the ignorance of someone who in fact has never conducted any personal research in the subject matter, and quite apparantly has little or no understanding as to what constitutes either "hard" or "physical" evidence.

Those who promote notions contrary to this are (unwitting) participants in

the cover-up of his death, imo.

And, those who continue to promote the "T-3" back entry location are merely (dimwitted) participants in continuation of the confusion of the subject matter.

Lastly, I long ago found that it is completely useless to attempt to present facts to those who do not have the intellectual capacity for understanding said facts, or for conducting their own seperate and factual research.

About like attempting to argue the "Bunch Theory" with you Cliff.

If one takes your interpretation then:

1. First it was bunched just as JFK entered Dealy Plaza, just prior to turning onto Elm St.

2. Then, it suddenly became "un-bunched" just prior to the first shot.

3. Then, it suddenly "re-bunched" itself, as the fold/bunch in JFK's jacket can be clearly seen after he is observed leaning forward after the first shot.

So, if you are a proponent of the "Bunch/Then Unbunch/Then Rebunch" theory of Cliff, then good luck to all.

Lastly, if I wanted to argue with someone who is completely hard-headed and frequently apparantly stupid, then I would merely argue with myself.

[Gil Jesus]

And, those who continue to promote the "T-3" back entry location are merely (dimwitted) participants in continuation of the confusion of the subject matter.

I guess then you can count me among the "dimwitted" ones, then.

[Cliff Varnell]

Gil and Cliff, if I'd have had more time last night, I'd have listed the errors in the video. Perhaps I should have withheld commentary till I had the time. The errors in the video I referred to had nothing to do with my contention that the back wound entrance is at T1--based on the autopsy measurements, autopsy face sheet, and autopsy photos--nor the video (and Cliff's) contention that the back wound entrance is at T3 (based on Burkley's death certificate).

There you go again.

Right on cue.

I point to the holes in the clothes, you ignore it.

Tom Purvis is doing this exact same thing on another thread -- when

presented with hard, physical evidence of the T3 back wound you guys

recoil in speechless horror like vampires before garlic.

Your citation of the "autopsy face sheet" is disingenuous.

The "14cm below mastoid process" notation on the face sheet

was made in pen.

That was a violation of autopsy protocol, which requires everything

to be filled out on the face sheet in pencil.

The part of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil shows the back

wound a bit below the location of the holes in the clothes. The diagram

was signed off in pencil as "verified."

The meassurement from the mastoid process violated two other

autopsy protocols -- it used a cranial landmark to locate a thoracic

wound, and the landmark it used was movable.

Pat, you choose to tout improperly taken and recorded measurements

over the verified and verifiable evidence -- the death certificate, the

face sheet diagram, the holes in the clothes.

Even the HSCA declared the Fox 5 autopsy photo "perhaps" inadmissible

in court due to its questionable authenticity.

And, of course, there's the more than dozen witnesses who got a

prolonged look at the back wound and placed it at T3.

JFK's T3 back wound is a fact.

Those who promote notions contrary to this are (unwitting) participants in

the cover-up of his death, imo.

Tom Purvis is doing this exact same thing on another thread -- when

presented with hard, physical evidence of the T3 back wound you guys

recoil in speechless horror like vampires before garlic.

Actually!

Tom is doing as he has done througout most of his life.

Yes, most of your life you've refused to do actual research on clothing fit.

If you researched how tucked-in custom-made dress shirts are

designed, you'd know that they only need a fraction of an inch

of slack for the wearer to move comfortably and look good.

Your theory requires 3 inches of shirt movement, in tandem with

the European (slender) cut Brooks Brothers suit jacket -- with

padded shoulders.

Tucked-in custom-made dress shirts and suit jackets with padded

shoulders don't move the same.

You claim JFK's did, because you'd prefer to remain ignorant of

the facts than face the fact you're wrong.

That being ignoring the ignorance of someone who in fact has never conducted any personal research in the subject matter, and quite apparantly has little or no understanding as to what constitutes either "hard" or "physical" evidence.

And yet you run in fright from doing research on clothing fit.

Nothing more measurable or observable than clothing.

CV:

Those who promote notions contrary to this are (unwitting) participants in

the cover-up of his death, imo.

TP:

And, those who continue to promote the "T-3" back entry location are merely

(dimwitted) participants in continuation of the confusion of the subject matter.

CV:

What is more dim-witted than claiming every movement of clothing involves

3 inches of fabric?

What is more dim-witted than claiming JFK's shirt was riding up

3 inches while the jacket can be observed to have dropped?

TP:

Lastly, I long ago found that it is completely useless to attempt to present facts

to those who do not have the intellectual capacity for understanding said facts,

or for conducting their own seperate and factual research.

CV:

And yet you make claims about clothing movement with no understanding

whatsoever of how clothing moves.

You couldn't bother researching the real physical evidence -- it runs counter

to your little histrionic notions.

About like attempting to argue the "Bunch Theory" with you Cliff.

If one takes your interpretation then:

1. First it was bunched just as JFK entered Dealy Plaza, just prior to turning onto Elm St.

By "bunched" you mean the jacket was elevated the 3 inches your

theory requires?

What is your methodology for making the determination that JFK's jacket

was elevated more than one inch at any time in Dealey Plaza?

Chad Zimmerman can only identify a one-inch elevation of the jacket

in this photo.

Your theory requires the jacket and shirt to have been elevated 3 inches.

Identify this three-inch fold in ANY of the Dealey Plaza photo evidence.

You can't, of course, which is why you usually duck this issue.

2. Then, it suddenly became "un-bunched" just prior to the first shot.

You are unable to grasp the fact that clothing fabric commonly moves

in fractions of an inch?

As Chad Zimmerman's analysis confirms, the jacket was elevated about

an inch BEFORE the jacket dropped.

There were folds in JFK's jacket on Elm St. that involved fractions

of an inch of fabric movement.

The jacket could not have dropped in Dealey Plaza if there were 3 inches

of his shirt bunched up entirely above YOUR C7 wound.

This is the sort of fact a Forrest Gump could instantly grasp, while the

Tom Purvis' of the world cannot.

3. Then, it suddenly "re-bunched" itself, as the fold/bunch in JFK's jacket can be clearly seen after he is observed leaning forward after the first shot.

So what? The jacket was bunched up 1/8" above the shirt. How

does that get you the 3 inches your theory requires?

So, if you are a proponent of the "Bunch/Then Unbunch/Then Rebunch" theory of Cliff, then good luck to all.

This is just nonsense you dribble out because you can't reconcile

the observable drop of the jacket in Dealey Plaza with your insistence

that the shirt was elevated 3 inches.

How does the jacket drop if there were three inches of bunched up shirt

pushed up entirely above the inshoot at C7?

This is absurd.

Lastly, if I wanted to argue with someone who is completely hard-headed and frequently apparantly stupid, then I would merely argue with myself.

You haven't presented your methodology for making the

claim that JFK's jacket was bunched up 3" instead of 3/4".

The burden of proof is on you.

Edited June 13, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Pat Speer:

Gil and Cliff, if I'd have had more time last night, I'd have listed the errors in the video.

Perhaps I should have withheld commentary till I had the time. The errors in the video

I referred to had nothing to do with my contention that the back wound entrance is at

T1--based on the autopsy measurements, autopsy face sheet, and autopsy photos--nor

the video (and Cliff's) contention that the back wound entrance is at T3 (based on

Burkley's death certificate).

Cliff Varnell:

There you go again.

Right on cue.

I point to the holes in the clothes, you ignore it.

Tom Purvis is doing this exact same thing on another thread -- when

presented with hard, physical evidence of the T3 back wound you guys

recoil in speechless horror like vampires before garlic.

Your citation of the "autopsy face sheet" is disingenuous.

The "14cm below mastoid process" notation on the face sheet

was made in pen.

That was a violation of autopsy protocol, which requires everything

to be filled out on the face sheet in pencil.

The part of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil shows the back

wound a bit below the location of the holes in the clothes. The diagram

was signed off in pencil as "verified."

The meassurement from the mastoid process violated two other

autopsy protocols -- it used a cranial landmark to locate a thoracic

wound, and the landmark it used was movable.

Pat, you choose to tout improperly taken and recorded measurements

over the verified and verifiable evidence -- the death certificate, the

face sheet diagram, the holes in the clothes.

Even the HSCA declared the Fox 5 autopsy photo "perhaps" inadmissible

in court due to its questionable authenticity.

And, of course, there's the more than dozen witnesses who got a

prolonged look at the back wound and placed it at T3.

JFK's T3 back wound is a fact.

Those who promote notions contrary to this are (unwitting) participants in

the cover-up of his death, imo.

Pat Speer:

Cliff, I totally agree with you that the WC lied about the back wound location.

Cliff Varnell

Not just the WC.

The final autopsy report also lied about the back wound location.

Twice.

The WC lied to cover up the deficiencies of the two lies in the autopsy report.

Here's the final autopsy report (WCR pg 540):

(quote on)

Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border

of the scapula there is a 7 X 4 millimeter oval wound. This wound is

measured to be 14cm from the right acromion process and 14cm below

the right mastoid process.

(quote off)

There are 2 separate wound locations described here -- T2 and C7/T1.

The 14cm measurement from the movable mastoid process is consistent

with C7/T1.

As this diagram shows, however, the upper margin of the scapula is around T2/T3.

The vertebra "just above" the upper margin of the scapula is T2.

Just to be on the safe side, Humes supervised the Rydberg drawing for the WC,

putting the wound above C6.

Above C6, C7/T1, and T2 -- throw enough xxxx on the wall and hope something

sticks.

However, the back wound was widely described by eye witnesses as BELOW the

upper margin of the scapula.

The FBI autopsy report noted the wound as "below the shoulder."

Chester H. Boyers, the Chief Petty Officer in charge of the Pathology Department

at Bethesda in November 1963, wrote in a sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

Another wound was located near the right shoulder blade, more

specifically just under the scapula and next to it.

(quote off)

This description is identical to the wound location in the diagram above.

Dr. John Ebersole attended the autopsy and told Dr. David Mantik in a 1992 interview

that the back wound was at T-4. (Harrison Livingstone's KILLING THE TRUTH pg 721)

Bethesda x-ray tech Edward Reed reported seeing a back wound "right between

the scapula and the thoracic column." (KTT pg 720)

James Curtis Jenkins described the low back wound in graphic detail (in David Lifton's

BEST EVIDENCE).

(quote on, emphasis added)

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

the pleura [the lining of the chest cavity]...You could actually see where it was

making an indentation...where it was pushing the skin up...There was no entry

into the chest cavity...it would have been no way that that could have exited in

the front because it was then low in the chest cavity...somewhere

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

from the heart] or the bronchus in the lungs.

(quote off)

Secret Service Agent Glen Bennett reported, "I saw a shot hit the Boss about

four inches down from the right shoulder."

Not co-incidently, the bullet holes in the clothes are 4 inches below

the collar-bottoms

Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, who went to the morgue specifically to view

the wounds, testified before the Warren Commission:

(quote on)

Yes, sir; I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the

neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column.

(quote off)

Not co-incidently, the bullet holes in the clothes are almost 6 inches below the

top of the collars.

Here's the autopsy face sheet:

http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/autopdescript1.gif

The verified wound location is corroborated by diagrams prepared by

autopsy attendees FBI SAs James Sibert and Francis O'Neill:

http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/sibert1.gif

http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/oneill1.gif

It's telling that you only list the Death Certificate as evidence of

the T3 back wound.

Pat Speer:

In fact, if you take a look at part 2 of my video series you'll see that I pretty much prove it.

Cliff Varnell:

Bully for you. The JFK Mystery Industry may have a slot for you, yet.

Pat Speer:

That the doctors lied about the 14 cm however is less clear, and less logical.

Cliff Varnell:

You read BREACH OF TRUST without grasping the fact that the autopsy report

was fixed to the pre-determined conclusion that only 3 shots were fired.

Pat Speer:

If they were gonna make up a measurement, then why didn't they make up a

measurement that would place the back wound above the throat wound?

Cliff Varnell:

That's what the Rydberg drawing was for. The two locations in the autopsy

report were guesses.

The autopsy report was fixed around the Lone Nut scenario ordered by Johnson.

That you don't grasp that fact amazes me.

As demonstrated in my videos the 14 cm measurement places the wound at the same

level as the throat wound (if not slightly below) and far lower than the wound in the

Rydberg drawings

The 14cm measurement is a lie. You keep assuming that JFK's tucked-in custom-made

dress shirt moved in tandem with his padded-shoulder Brooks Brothers suit jacket.

But suit jackets and shirts don't move the same. You couldn't get them to move

2 inches together if you reached around and grabbed your shirt and pulled.

Tucked-in custom made dress shirts only have a fraction of an inch of slack.

You posit a movement of 2 inches of shirt -- even though the motorcade photos

show the jacket dropping.

Your position is intellectually indefensible.

--which is probably why they denied Rydberg the use of the measurements and is probably why Humes lied in his testimony about providing Rydberg' the measurements. If all they needed to do was change the 14 to a 10 I suspect they would have done so.

As far as the "they used the wrong landmark" argument... Both the Clark Panel and HSCA measured the distance from the right mastoid. The HSCA said the back wound was clearly on the back TWO INCHES lower than the wound in the Rydberg drawings, but was nevertheless but 13.5 cm below the right mastoid. This means that they concluded the 14 cm measurement was basically correct but that the Rydberg drawings were incredibly (and suspiciously) inaccurate.

The final autopsy report is as suspicious as the Rydberg drawing.

The same guy who wrote up the 14cm-from-mastoid measurement is the

same guy who engineered the creation of the Rydberg drawing.

Humes came up with 3 separate wound locations just to be on the safe side,

none of them accurate.

You base your entire argument on an LN talking point that was obviously a lie.

I've read a lot of stuff on anatomy and forensic pathology and I don't recall reading any that said using the skull to triangulate a back wound location was a bozo no no. I believe Weisberg was the first to jump on this, and while it makes sense, I'm not sure it makes a difference, as autopsy measurements are supposed to reflect the body in the anatomic position, and a 14 cm measurement from the mastoid in the anatomic position is way below the entrance on the Rydberg drawings.

As far as the holes on the clothing lining up at T3...I inserted a pin in my clothing 5 3/4 inches below the collar.

What "clothing"?

A tucked in custom-made dress shirt?

Are you doing the Zimmerman cop-out, saying it doesn't matter if the shirt is tailored or not?

I then raised my right arm as if in a wave. My girlfriend then pushed the pin in till it pricked my skin. When I removed the shirt the pin mark was around T1, not C7/T1 a la Zimmerman, but T1, just below the shoulder line.

So what? The motorcade photos show JFK's jacket dropping in Dealey Plaza.

You're claiming the jacket was riding up.

The photo on the left is JFK on Main St. -- his shirt collar wasn't visible

at the back of his neck.

The photo on the right above was taken while JFK spoke in Fort Worth.

The jacket laid flat and the shirt collar was visible.

Here's JFK on Houston St, his shirt collar wasn't visible at the back of

his neck.

Another shot of JFK on Houston -- his shirt collar not readily visible.

Then a fraction of a second later, his shirt collar is clearly visible.

Here's JFK on Elm St., the shirt collar clearly visible.

A close-up of JFK in Betzner #3 (Z186), same posture as the Towner frame above

with the shirt collar clearly visible.

The jacket dropped -- the exact opposite of your claim that it was riding up.

Since my analysis of the Z film leads me to believe Kennedy is hit around Z-190, as he is waving,

I find no discrepancy between the autopsy photos and clothing holes. I'm sorry this annoys you so.

On the contrary, I find non-sequiturs amusing.

Who doesn't?

Here's the non sequitur you're pushing here, Pat:

1) The T1 Back Wound Theory requires 2" of JFK's tucked-in custom-made

dress shirt and 2 & 1/8" of his Brooks Brothers European-cut suit jacket

to elevate in tandem on Elm St.

2) Pat Speer managed to get not quite 2 inches of his shirt to elevate.

3) Therefore, 2 inches of both JFK's shirt and jacket elevated on Elm St.

Absurd.

The motorcade photos trump your "home experiment."

While you have repeatedly accused me of intellectual dishonesty

Your "home experiment" is yet another example.

for calling it as I see it (and have studied it),

I guess your study somehow missed this, HSCA Vol 7:

(quote on)

AUTHENTICATION OF AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS

The issue

Among the JFK assassination materials in the

National Archives is a series of negatives and

prints of photographs taken during autopsy.

The deficiencies of these photographs as

scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy

have been described elsewhere (Wilbur, 1968).

Here it is sufficient to note that:

1. They are generally of rather poor photographic

quality.

2. Some, particularly closeups, were taken in

such a manner that it is nearly impossible to

anatomically orient the direction of view.

3. In many, scalar references are entirely

lacking, or when present, were positioned in

such a manner to make it difficult or impossible

to obtain accurate measurements of critical

features (such as the wound in the upper back)

from anatomical landmarks.

4. None of the photographs contain information

identifying the victim; such as his name, the

autopsy case number, the date and place of

the examination.

In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of

haste, inexperience and unfamiliarity with the

understandably rigorous standards generally

expected in photographs to be used as scientific

evidence. In fact, under ordinary circumstances,

the defense could raise some reasonable and,

perhaps, sustainable objections to an attempt

to introduce such poorly made and documented

photographs as evidence in a murder trial.

Furthermore, even the prosecution might have

second thoughts about using certain of these

photographs since they are more confusing than

informative. Unfortunately, however, they are the

only photographic record of the autopsy.

Not all the critics of the Warren Commission

have been content to point out the obvious

deficiencies of the autopsy photographs as

scientific evidence. Some have questioned their

very authenticity. These theorists suggest that

the body shown in at least some of the

photographs is not President Kennedy, but

another decedent deliberately mutilated to

simulate a pattern of wounds supportive of

the Warren Commission's interpretation of

their nature and significance. As outlandish

as such a macabre proposition might appear,

it is one that, had the case gone to trial,

might have been effectively raised by an

astute defense anxious to block the

introduction of the photographs as evidence.

In any event, the onus of establishing the

authenticity of these photographs would

have rested with the prosecution.

(quote off)

They singled out the Fox 5 "back wound" photo as especially questionable.

You base your theories on the weakest evidence, Pat.

until you come up with a rational explanation why the doctors would change their measurements to reflect a wound much lower on the body than would be supportive of their contention that the bullet creating the back wound exited the throat, I will hold my ground.

Because they were making it up as they went along.

The 3 shot scenario came first, and the evidence had to fit that, so Humes

eventually came up with 3 different locations.

None of them accurate.

Since the autopsy photos, X-rays, and Z-film suggest a conspiracy, I fail to see how we are

advancing the case by stomping our feet and insisting this evidence has been faked.

Ah, the famous Pat Speer strawman. I said nothing about any fakery other

than the Fox 5 photo.

Even the HSCA had a big problem with it.

This just gives the "Oswald didiots" of the world another excuse to not look at the accepted evidence.

The mastoid measurement is as much a lie as the Rydberg drawing.

Humes lied. He was ordered to.

[cue Joe Pesci]

Don't you GET it??

[Michael Hogan]

You keep assuming that JFK's tucked-in custom-made

dress shirt moved in tandem with his padded-shoulder Brooks Brothers suit jacket.

But suit jackets and shirts don't move the same. You couldn't get them to move

2 inches together if you reached around and grabbed your shirt and pulled.

Tucked-in custom made dress shirts only have a fraction of an inch of slack.

You posit a movement of 2 inches of shirt -- even though the motorcade photos

show the jacket dropping.

Your position is intellectually indefensible.

Well, for an opening bid of little more than two million, you might get the shirt President Kennedy wore to his inauguration and conduct the appropriate tests, assuming he retained the same tailor.

http://cgi.ebay.com/John-F-Kennedy-JFK-Ina...ihZ020QQcategor

Edited June 13, 2007 by Michael Hogan

[Pat Speer]

The mastoid measurement is as much a lie as the Rydberg drawing.

Humes lied. He was ordered to.

[cue Joe Pesci]

Don't you GET it??

No, I don't get it. I don't get how you assume when someone says "shoulder" they mean "scapula," etc. In my world people say shoulder to mean the line between the shoulder tip and the neck; this may or may not include the trapezius muscles angling to the neck. One of the major factors in the confusion surrounding the medical evidence is undoubtedly the imprecision of language, IMO.

Pat's view:

1. Autopsy measurements are basically accurate.

2. Rankin sought help form the doctors when he realized the back wound was below the throat wound on the face sheet.

3. The Rydberg drawings were created to deliberately distort the relationship between the wounds. No measurements were used because they would prove that the back wound was at the same level as the throat wound, or slightly below.

4. Humes lied about the use of these measurements.

5. Specter got worried and asked Humes be given the chance to double-check his work.

6. Warren approved.

7. Warren looked at the photos by himself, and when he saw that the photos were in obvious disagreement with the drawings, he refused to let Humes look at them and made up the lamest excuse ever. (They were so horrible that I couldn't bear for the autopsy surgeon to look at them, and if he had we'd have had to have made them public.)

8. Specter convinced Kelley to show him the back wound photo.

9. Specter saw that the back wound was in the shoulder, and used this photo to confirm the placement of the entrance wound on the JFK stand-in during the re-enactment.

10.When the trajectory using this entrance failed to align, Specter and Kelley decided to lie about it.

11.Specter elicited testimony from Kelley that the Rydberg drawings were used to place the back wound on the stand-in, an obvious lie.

12. Ford, from his recollection of the Rydberg drawings, changed the wound location in the Warren Report.

For me, this answers just about all the questions and explains the behavior of most everyone involved. If the doctors were lying from the beginning they would have picked a lot more convenient measurement than 14 cm below the mastoid. When they performed the autopsy they had no suspicions that a bullet had exited the throat, and so there was no need to lie about the throat wound's location. If Burkley confirmed the face sheet then he confirmed the measurements, correct?

[Dawn Meredith]

I also think you should be more selective about which vids you upload.....

As far as me plugging my own vids......Since the goal is to expose people to as much info as possible, so they can reach informed decisions, I fail to see why this is a problem.

You are one perceptive fellow Mike Hogan.

It's a gift.

To the forum.

To answer your question, your perspective fellow Mike Hogan and I don't see eye-to-eye on ANYTHING, anything other than JFK was assassinated in Dallas Nov 22nd 1963 of course. You call it a gift, some see it as other things....

My but you get so personal in your comments David.

Is there some reason why you can't just stick with the facts of this case instead of making ad hominem attacks?

Myra, facts of the case? First you'll have to demonstrate YOU have command of case facts....

I and others do tire of the petty ad hominen complaint. You're a relative new comer to this board and other boards I know you post to. A few of us have been around for over 30+ years (15 of those on the internet boards, where else could John Simkin find us, yes?). We need no hand holding and long ago become quite sick of Lone Nut whining. Just enjoy the show, take what you need, then write your book, we all what to know the latest who did it, even Hogan.

When this board is gone, Hogasn and i are gone and you are gone, the CT crowd will be out there... much to Bugliosi and his supporters chagrin....Does that sound like ad hominen to you?

Actually, David, it sounds like you're saying that no one on a forum has the right to expect civil behavior from other forum members if they haven't been a member of the forum a certain length of time.

Actually Myra,

Did I say that Myra? Why do you insist you know what CT's think, Bad habit, girl! What I AM saying is quite simple, your futile (and Lone Nutters) ad hom argument doesn't work, you want to fall on your alleged CT sword, by all means DO! Hogan, I suspect will hold it for you! -- Add to that, nobody likes a pushy-controlling Lady Myra, especially one who doesn't have intellectual command of the evidence.....

Bet in 2 more posts we'll have every forum hall monitor present.... what say you?

David:

Why are you being so crude and insulting to two of the forum members? Both Mike and Myra are very respected here and both have done their homework. Calling Mrya "pushy, controlling" does a real lot to advance this case! Usually you're a good fellow, from what I have seen in the past, (unless you get into it with someone about the Z film), so why these personal attacks?

Dawn

[Cliff Varnell]

The mastoid measurement is as much a lie as the Rydberg drawing.

Humes lied. He was ordered to.

[cue Joe Pesci]

Don't you GET it??

No, I don't get it. I don't get how you assume when someone says "shoulder" they mean "scapula," etc.

The phrase used in the FBI autopsy report was "below the shoulder."

You may be the only person on the planet who thinks "below the shoulder"

means the base of the neck.

In this instance, the FBI SAs who observed the wound as "below the shoulder"

filled out diagrams placing the wound very near the location of the wound on

the autopsy face sheet.

http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/sibert1.gif

http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/oneill1.gif

In my world people say shoulder to mean the line between the shoulder tip and

the neck; this may or may not include the trapezius muscles angling to the neck.

One of the major factors in the confusion surrounding the medical evidence is

undoubtedly the imprecision of language, IMO.

That's your problem, Pat. Your "world" keeps intruding, and you ignore

the facts of the case in order to maintain your cherished little interpretations,

which you regard as more solid than the actual evidence in the case.

Pat's view:

1. Autopsy measurements are basically accurate.

The 14cm-to-movable-mastoid measurement was improperly taken,

and then added to the autopsy face sheet in pen -- itself a violation of

autopsy protocol.

Only to LNers and Vichy CTs does evidence improperly recorded trump evidence

properly recorded.

These measurements were cited in the final autopsy report -- and are contradicted

by another wound location cited in the same autopsy report!

Humes describes 3 different back wound locations -- T2 and C7/T1 in the autopsy

report, and above C6 in the Rydberg drawing.

Of course, this doesn't send off any alarm bells with Pat Speer, who loves

to ignore the clothing evidence, the eye-witness testimony, and the properly

produced contemporaneous documents of the T3 back wound.

2. Rankin sought help form the doctors when he realized the back wound was below the throat wound on the face sheet.

3. The Rydberg drawings were created to deliberately distort the relationship between the wounds. No measurements were used because they would prove that the back wound was at the same level as the throat wound, or slightly below.

4. Humes lied about the use of these measurements.

5. Specter got worried and asked Humes be given the chance to double-check his work.

6. Warren approved.

7. Warren looked at the photos by himself, and when he saw that the photos were in obvious disagreement with the drawings, he refused to let Humes look at them and made up the lamest excuse ever. (They were so horrible that I couldn't bear for the autopsy surgeon to look at them, and if he had we'd have had to have made them public.)

8. Specter convinced Kelley to show him the back wound photo.

9. Specter saw that the back wound was in the shoulder, and used this photo to confirm the placement of the entrance wound on the JFK stand-in during the re-enactment.

10.When the trajectory using this entrance failed to align, Specter and Kelley decided to lie about it.

11.Specter elicited testimony from Kelley that the Rydberg drawings were used to place the back wound on the stand-in, an obvious lie.

12. Ford, from his recollection of the Rydberg drawings, changed the wound location in the Warren Report.

You read BREACH OF TRUST. If you don't understand that the Lone Nut scenario

was ordered down from on high 11/22/63 you understand nothing about this case.

For me, this answers just about all the questions and explains the behavior of most everyone involved. If the doctors were lying from the beginning they would have picked a lot more convenient measurement than 14 cm below the mastoid. When they performed the autopsy they had no suspicions that a bullet had exited the throat, and so there was no need to lie about the throat wound's location. If Burkley confirmed the face sheet then he confirmed the measurements, correct?

No, Pat, the measurements were added later IN PEN.

Burkley signed off on the autopsy face sheet IN PENCIL.

The autopsy face sheet, which showed the wound in the vicinity of T3 or

lower, was properly filled out IN PENCIL.

All the contemporaneous recording of the back wound put it at T3.

It's only the JFK Mystery Game players, like you Pat, who keep these

"high back wound" lies alive.

[David G. Healy]

I also think you should be more selective about which vids you upload.....

As far as me plugging my own vids......Since the goal is to expose people to as much info as possible, so they can reach informed decisions, I fail to see why this is a problem.

You are one perceptive fellow Mike Hogan.

It's a gift.

To the forum.

To answer your question, your perspective fellow Mike Hogan and I don't see eye-to-eye on ANYTHING, anything other than JFK was assassinated in Dallas Nov 22nd 1963 of course. You call it a gift, some see it as other things....

My but you get so personal in your comments David.

Is there some reason why you can't just stick with the facts of this case instead of making ad hominem attacks?

Myra, facts of the case? First you'll have to demonstrate YOU have command of case facts....

I and others do tire of the petty ad hominen complaint. You're a relative new comer to this board and other boards I know you post to. A few of us have been around for over 30+ years (15 of those on the internet boards, where else could John Simkin find us, yes?). We need no hand holding and long ago become quite sick of Lone Nut whining. Just enjoy the show, take what you need, then write your book, we all what to know the latest who did it, even Hogan.

When this board is gone, Hogasn and i are gone and you are gone, the CT crowd will be out there... much to Bugliosi and his supporters chagrin....Does that sound like ad hominen to you?

Actually, David, it sounds like you're saying that no one on a forum has the right to expect civil behavior from other forum members if they haven't been a member of the forum a certain length of time.

Actually Myra,

Did I say that Myra? Why do you insist you know what CT's think, Bad habit, girl! What I AM saying is quite simple, your futile (and Lone Nutters) ad hom argument doesn't work, you want to fall on your alleged CT sword, by all means DO! Hogan, I suspect will hold it for you! -- Add to that, nobody likes a pushy-controlling Lady Myra, especially one who doesn't have intellectual command of the evidence.....

Bet in 2 more posts we'll have every forum hall monitor present.... what say you?

David:

Why are you being so crude and insulting to two of the forum members? Both Mike and Myra are very respected here and both have done their homework. Calling Mrya "pushy, controlling" does a real lot to advance this case! Usually you're a good fellow, from what I have seen in the past, (unless you get into it with someone about the Z film), so why these personal attacks?

Dawn

Dawn,

call it intuition, I don't believe Hogan, PERIOD! You want to rush to his side and support him, which obviously is yours and Myra's decision, fine. I'm not going to lose sleep over it.... in fact, I've never lost sleep over who is and who is not a Lone Nutter. If they have an argument to make, GREAT, I haven't seen one from either yet....

I haven't been crude for a long while, Dawn -- your forum membership defense is admirable.

So in closing, please don't tell me ALL posting to this board seek to solve this unmitigated disaster, eh...

David

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Final Comments on the "Bunch".

1. Anyone who has taken the time to do so and study the shirt worn by JFK during the assassination, would recognize that the shirt had a complete "fold" in the fabric, located up near the collar.

This is totally obvious when one looks at the blood stain transfer (& lack thereof) through a given area, as well as the reminents of the "butterfly" effect of a portion of the blood stain.

2. Anyone who has taken the time to do so and study the Z-film, would recognize that JFK's coat did not have a "bunch".

In fact, it had a complete and large "FOLD" in the fabric and this fold can still be clearly seen in the fabric in those frames of the film prior to the headshot, when in fact the fold should be decreasing due to the forward leaning actions of JFK.

3. Anyone who has taken the time to do so, would have read the draft of the autopsy report in which the wound of the upper shoulder/lower neck region was clearly described as being "SUPRA" Scapular. Those who did not understand the word "SUPRA", would hopefully then gained a FUNK & Wagnall's, and learned that the term means being above.

With this gained knowledge, a good researcher would/should thereafter look an any anatomy book and found that as far as is known, no human has ever been born with the T3 vertebra being above the level of scapula.

4. Anyone who truly wanted to research the subject matter of the location of the back/shoulder/lower neck entrance wound of JFK, would have found that the President's Physician, who initially made this claim, was not engaged in any part of the physical autopsy and/or taking of measurements of wounds to JFK.

5. Anyone who truly wanted to follow up on this purported T3 entrance located wound, would have then gone to the HSCA testimony of Dr. Humes in which he clearly, and as militarily politely as possible, stated that the President's physician did not know what he was talking about in having made this statement.

6. Anyone who truly wanted to evaluate the factual location of this wound, would have then reviewed both the HSCA and Clark Panel comments, which ultimately demonstrate that the bullet which caused this wound also was responsible for damage to the right transverse process of either the C7 or the T1 vertebrae, with what was potentially either small minute metallic fragments or small bone fragments embedded into the neck of JFK, just lateral to the damaged area of the vertebrae.

7. With this information, one should thereafter recognize that the first rib connects to the T1 vertebrae at that point of the transverse process, and it is most unlikely that damage to the right transverse process could have occurred without also having created damage to the actual rib. Of which none was observed.

8. Thereafter, a prudent researcher would have found that the projectile which entered the back of JFK was also responsible for having created a contusion in the right plueral cavity, with this contusion/bruised area of the right lung being found in the apical

(top) of the lung as well as a corresponding area in the paretial pluera which surrounds the lung.

All of which would have been physically impossible to have been created by a T3 entry.

9. In carrying out the research regarding the location of the wound in the back of JFK, a prudent researcher would have also found that although the autopsy surgeons did not trace the pathway of the bullet through the neck of JFK, they did in fact push a metal/wire probe into the back wound.

This resulted in what was deemed as being a 45-degree to 60-degree downward angle of entry, with the point of the probe being clearly seen pushing against the parietal pluera in the apical portion of this membrane, where the damage existed.

10. Although certainly not "last" in the long listing of defining the location of the back/shoulder/lower neck wound, it will nevertheless be the last here.

A truly prudent researcher would have found that although the wound was not traced/tracked/ through the entire neck of JFK, it was nevertheless "excised" with cross-cut samples having been taken and slides prepared from these samples. And, with such procedures, one must assume that three separate Medical Doctors present during this sectioning of the wound, that they, more so than any other individual, have the clearest and most accurate knowledge as to exactly where on the body of JFK this wound existed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those who have no true capability to grasp and understand the factual evidence have frequently had to resort to calling the autopsy surgeons as well as other witnesses "Liars" in order to convince themselves that they are not merely incapable of correlating and understanding the factual evidence of the assassination.

Failure to grasp and/or understand the evidence is not indicative that the autopsy surgeons were liars.

It merely means that one can not grasp and/or understand the physical; pathological; and forensic evidence.

[Cliff Varnell]

Final Comments on the "Bunch".

Tom, if you knew anything about "bunch" you'd know that it isn't the

accepted nomenclature in clothing design.

The term of art in clothing design is "ease."

Fabric can ease vertically (in which case it creates horizontal folds),

or it can ease horizontally (in which case it creates vertical folds),

or it can ease diagonally (in which case it creates diagonal folds).

In the JFK Mystery Industry, the word "bunch" has two definitions, which

players of the JFK Mystery Game use interchangably.

One definition of "bunch" is: the amount of shirt and jacket fabric that allegedly

elevated up JFK's upper back in order to satisfy any number of pet theories as

to the location of the back wound -- usually used in defense of the Single Bullet

Theory.

Another definition of "bunch" is: any fold in fabric.

By using separate definitions interchangeably, JFK Mystery Gamers then point

to ANY fold of fabric and claim it consistent with their pet theories.

The hard fact is that the bullet defects in JFK's tailored shirt and jacket

are 4" below the bottom of the collars.

The hard fact is that JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza -- the exact opposite

of what the SBT requires.

[Pat Speer]

Cliff, "the autopsy measurements were improperly taken" story started somewhere. Do you know where? Do you have any sources for your statement that the mastoid should not have been used? If it was improper, then why did the Clark Panel and HSCA also use the mastoid for their measurements?

The face sheet is an inaccurate depiction of the human form. If you compare the wound to the head it's at T3 or so. If you compare the wound to the shoulder tip it's at T1 or so. The autopsy measurements placed the wound equidistant between the mastoid and the tip of the shoulder. If you look at the face sheet you'll see this position is the VERY position marked by Boswell on the face sheet. (NOW AIN'T THAT A COINKY-DINK!!!!!)

The measurements and drawings on the face sheet were created in good faith. Boswell's lies about the back wound location came later.

de Gaulle

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Final Comments on the "Bunch".

1. Anyone who has taken the time to do so and study the shirt worn by JFK during the assassination, would recognize that the shirt had a complete "fold" in the fabric, located up near the collar.

This is totally obvious when one looks at the blood stain transfer (& lack thereof) through a given area, as well as the reminents of the "butterfly" effect of a portion of the blood stain.

2. Anyone who has taken the time to do so and study the Z-film, would recognize that JFK's coat did not have a "bunch".

In fact, it had a complete and large "FOLD" in the fabric and this fold can still be clearly seen in the fabric in those frames of the film prior to the headshot, when in fact the fold should be decreasing due to the forward leaning actions of JFK.

3. Anyone who has taken the time to do so, would have read the draft of the autopsy report in which the wound of the upper shoulder/lower neck region was clearly described as being "SUPRA" Scapular. Those who did not understand the word "SUPRA", would hopefully then gained a FUNK & Wagnall's, and learned that the term means being above.

With this gained knowledge, a good researcher would/should thereafter look an any anatomy book and found that as far as is known, no human has ever been born with the T3 vertebra being above the level of scapula.

4. Anyone who truly wanted to research the subject matter of the location of the back/shoulder/lower neck entrance wound of JFK, would have found that the President's Physician, who initially made this claim, was not engaged in any part of the physical autopsy and/or taking of measurements of wounds to JFK.

5. Anyone who truly wanted to follow up on this purported T3 entrance located wound, would have then gone to the HSCA testimony of Dr. Humes in which he clearly, and as militarily politely as possible, stated that the President's physician did not know what he was talking about in having made this statement.

6. Anyone who truly wanted to evaluate the factual location of this wound, would have then reviewed both the HSCA and Clark Panel comments, which ultimately demonstrate that the bullet which caused this wound also was responsible for damage to the right transverse process of either the C7 or the T1 vertebrae, with what was potentially either small minute metallic fragments or small bone fragments embedded into the neck of JFK, just lateral to the damaged area of the vertebrae.

7. With this information, one should thereafter recognize that the first rib connects to the T1 vertebrae at that point of the transverse process, and it is most unlikely that damage to the right transverse process could have occurred without also having created damage to the actual rib. Of which none was observed.

8. Thereafter, a prudent researcher would have found that the projectile which entered the back of JFK was also responsible for having created a contusion in the right plueral cavity, with this contusion/bruised area of the right lung being found in the apical

(top) of the lung as well as a corresponding area in the paretial pluera which surrounds the lung.

All of which would have been physically impossible to have been created by a T3 entry.

9. In carrying out the research regarding the location of the wound in the back of JFK, a prudent researcher would have also found that although the autopsy surgeons did not trace the pathway of the bullet through the neck of JFK, they did in fact push a metal/wire probe into the back wound.

This resulted in what was deemed as being a 45-degree to 60-degree downward angle of entry, with the point of the probe being clearly seen pushing against the parietal pluera in the apical portion of this membrane, where the damage existed.

10. Although certainly not "last" in the long listing of defining the location of the back/shoulder/lower neck wound, it will nevertheless be the last here.

A truly prudent researcher would have found that although the wound was not traced/tracked/ through the entire neck of JFK, it was nevertheless "excised" with cross-cut samples having been taken and slides prepared from these samples. And, with such procedures, one must assume that three separate Medical Doctors present during this sectioning of the wound, that they, more so than any other individual, have the clearest and most accurate knowledge as to exactly where on the body of JFK this wound existed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those who have no true capability to grasp and understand the factual evidence have frequently had to resort to calling the autopsy surgeons as well as other witnesses "Liars" in order to convince themselves that they are not merely incapable of correlating and understanding the factual evidence of the assassination.

Failure to grasp and/or understand the evidence is not indicative that the autopsy surgeons were liars.

It merely means that one can not grasp and/or understand the physical; pathological; and forensic evidence.

Those who have no true capability to grasp and understand the factual evidence have frequently had to resort to calling the autopsy surgeons as well as other witnesses "Liars" in order to convince themselves that they are not merely incapable of correlating and understanding the factual evidence of the assassination.

Failure to grasp and/or understand the evidence is not indicative that the autopsy surgeons were liars.

It merely means that one can not grasp and/or understand the physical; pathological; and forensic evidence.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched3.htm

Bumped to head of line!

Edited June 15, 2007 by Thomas H. Purvis