VIDEO - The Back Wound

[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! Bumped Again!

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff, "the autopsy measurements were improperly taken" story started somewhere. Do you know where?

Wilber, Charles G.: Medicolegal Investigation of the President John F. Kennedy Murder. 1978.

Do you have any sources for your statement that the mastoid should not have been used?

See above.

Does it make sense to use a movable landmark to locate a wound?

No, of course not.

If it was improper, then why did the Clark Panel and HSCA also use the mastoid for their measurements?

They were covering up the assassination, obviously. The HSCA was ready to conclude

Oswald acted alone until the acoustic evidence turned up.

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.

Closer to T4, actually.

If you compare the wound to the shoulder tip it's at T1 or so.

So the base of the neck is about 4 inches below the neck?

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

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!!!!!)

Look again.

The wound is equidistant between the shoulder tip and the top of the collar.

Here's the real co-inky-dink....

A list of the people who have described a wound consistent with T3:

1) FBI SA James Sibert

2) FBI SA Francis O'Neill

3) SS SA Glen Bennett

4) SS SA Clint Hill

5) SS SA Roy Kellerman

6) Doctor George Burkley

7) Parkland Nurse Diana Bowron

8) Autopsy Doctor John Ebersole

9) Autopsy witness Chester Boyers

10) Autopsy witness Floyd Reibe

11) Autopsy witness Jan Gail Rudnicki

12) Autopsy witness James Curtis Jenkins

13) Autopsy witness Edward Reed

14) Autopsy witness Paul O'Connor

Isn't it amazing, Pat, how everyone who got a good look at JFK's

wounds all suffered the same mass hallucination?

And this hallucination matched 3 contemporaneous documents

and the holes in the clothes!

Amazing!

The measurements and drawings on the face sheet were created in good faith.

The 3-shot scenario was dictated to the autopsists by the highest levels

of the US gov't (Johnson, Hoover) -- they were forced to make the evidence

fit the scenario.

Anyone who claims that the Oswald-acted-alone scenario was the result

of an actual forensic investigation is, imo, akin to a Holocaust-denier.

Boswell's lies about the back wound location came later.

de Gaulle

So even though Humes/Boswell gave us three different wound

locations -- we're supposed to find any one of them credible?

The physical evidence trumps any conclusions forced upon the autopsists.

The holes in the clothes are too low. Tucked-in custom-made dress

shirts only have a fraction of an inch of slack -- and the motorcade

photographic evidence clearly shows the jacket dropping in Dealey.

[Cliff Varnell]

dupe post delete

Edited June 16, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

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

Bumped to head of line! Bumped Again!

The Case for a Bunched Jacket!

Wow! I bet this settles the case!

Gee, what exactly is the fact-based argument for JFK's

shirt and jacket to have elevated 2" to 3" inches on Elm St?

Here are the golden words of John Hunt, my emphasis:

[M]y research indicates that the difference between the impact point of

a "smoothly oriented" jacket shot and a "bunched up" jacket shot is little

more than two inches. The reader is invited to contact me via e-mail if

he or she is curious as to how I arrived at the aforementioned figure.

That essay, explaining in detail my methodology, is not yet finished.

...Not yet finished?

The actual "case" for the jacket being bunched 2+ inches -- is not yet finished???

Hunt wrote this in 1999!

Here's his description of a photo taken at Z186 (Betzner #3), my emphasis:

JFK's left shoulderline drops away from the neck at a shallow, relatively constant,

angle. In stark contrast, the right shoulderline intersects the neck at a higher level

than the left, and unlike the left shoulderline, has a distinctly arched shape.

"A distinctly arched shape" is, by definition, of convex curvature.

Here's JFK at Z202 (Willis #5):

Does the intersection of JFK's neck and right shoulder in Willis #5 make a convex

curve, or a concave curve?

If you answer "yes" to the latter, you are an astute individual.

If you answer "yes" to the former -- you are an LNer/Vichy CT.

There is a word for articles like John Hunt's -- fraud.

Edited June 15, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Miles Scull]

-- you are an LNer/Vichy CT.

As a maquisard, I noticed here:

that in addition to tinkering around with the wound evidence, Ford, the meddler, also strikes out "in order to see the President."

"We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right

shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt.So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back.

Mr. SPECTER. What is the best estimate that you have as to the time span between the sound of the first shot and the feeling of someone hitting you in the back which you just described?

Governor CONNALLY. A very, very brief span of time. Again my trend of thought just happened to be, I suppose along this line, I immediately thought that this--that I had been shot. I knew it when I just looked down and I was covered with blood, and the thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three people involved or more in this or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle. These were just thoughts that went through my mind because of the rapidity of these two, of the first shot plus the blow that I took, and I knew I had been hit, and I immediately assumed, because of the amount of blood, and in fact, that it had obviously passed through my chest. that I had probably been fatally hit.

So I merely doubled up, and then turned to my right again and began to--I just sat there, and Mrs. Connally pulled me over to her lap. She was sitting, of course, on the jump seat, so I reclined with my head in her lap, conscious all the time, and with my eyes open; and then, of course, the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President. I heard it hit. It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear.

Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see on the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain tissue, which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my trousers there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my thumb, thumbnail, and again I did not see the President at any time either after the first, second, or third shots, but I assumed always that it was he who was hit and no one else.

I immediately, when I was hit, I said, "Oh, no, no, no." And then I said, "My God, they are going to kill us all." Nellie, when she pulled me over into her lap----

"...but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt." --Connally

assassination attempt? Connally makes it clear that in looking over his shoulder he was aware that the President might have been hit by the shot he had heard. (As indeed JFK had been shot by Z-224) Thus by expunging "in order to see the President" from the WCR, Ford rubs out the sense & implication of the evidence. Why? Well, taken together both instances of tinkering (the wound & Connally's testimony) strongly indicate that there is a trend pointing to intent to mislead & cover up. This refutes the SBT. (in addition to everything else)

Question on "bunching": If there was a bunching, would there not have been a folding or doubling over of cloth such that there would have been more that one area of puncture? Even two or three distinct loci of damage (holes) caused by a single bullet penetration of layered (bunched) cloth?

Edited June 15, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Pat Speer]

Cliff, Willis is at 202, correct? Kennedy's sudden jerk in the Z-film, the Z-film blurs, and eyewitness evidence all lead me to conclude he was first hit around 190. The Z-film shows him jerking around just after. As a result, I don't think you can use Willis to establish the bunch or no-bunch question of a half-second before. Additionally, jackets are not rigid, and can be bunched slightly in the middle without the collar rising up over the top of someone's head.

As far as the other stuff... The tip of the mastoid is roughly the bottom of the ear. If you draw a line from the level of the bottom of the ear on the face sheet, and then project this line to the right on the face sheet, you'll be at the tip of the shoulder. I ask again, is this some incredible coincidence--that the measurements you assert were an irrational lie just so happened to match the drawing you assert is the gospel truth?

I agree that it's possible someone got to Humes on Sat or Sun and said that he had to have as few bullets as possible. He may very well have been pressured into concluding the throat wound was the exit for the back wound. But they didn't know diddly on Friday night when they created the face sheet. (Humes never even knew Burkley had "confirmed the face sheet till the ARRB showed it to him, so any conjecture that he added the measurements after Burkley had "confirmed" the face sheet would seem unlikely." Besides, what kind of half-assed conspiracy would include Humes, but not Burkley? Burkley--who never told Humes about the throat wound observed in Dallas nor the Harper fragment and who is at the center of the disappearing brain controversy?)

It makes no sense at all that they would make up random measurements to further a lie without establishing that this lie helps their cause. A wound at T1 is a strong argument against the SBT. If the autopsy report was designed to sell that the same bullet hitting Kennedy in the back exited his throat the doctors could have easily reported that the lung was punctured, or that there was substantial damage within the neck. They failed to do so.

As far as the mastoid measurement controversy--I meant that you should find a source in a medical book, not in the conspiracy literature. (I think Wecht also complains about the use of the mastoid in one of his books.) If the HSCA FPP was part of a cover-up, it makes no sense for them to use the mastoid measurement, as it only confirmed that the Rydberg Drawing was a fraud. By stating that the wound was 13.5 cm below the mastoid, but on the back, they were opening the door to speculation that the wound measured at the autopsy was even lower, and even further out of alignment than is necessary for the SBT to occur.

As far as your list of witnesses whose statement were consistent with a wound at T3, the term "shoulder" in popular usage is incredibly vague. How many of these men have said that the autopsy photo of the back wound is fake? How many have said that the lower smudge in the photo is the real wound? And WHY, if the back wound photo is fake, did the alterationists leave the original wound on the photo? It's a heck of a lot easier to remove something from a photo than add something in and make it look real. The "lower smudge is the real wound" theory--which I at one time thought possible, is with further reflection, nonsense.

[Cliff Varnell]

post duplicated below

Edited June 16, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff, Willis is at 202, correct? Kennedy's sudden jerk in the Z-film, the Z-film blurs, and eyewitness evidence all lead me to conclude he was first hit around 190. The Z-film shows him jerking around just after. As a result, I don't think you can use Willis to establish the bunch or no-bunch question of a half-second before.

I cited the Willis photo in critique of Hunt's article, which Tom Purvis

was, at the time, very happy to put into evidence. (He doesn't appear

willing to defend Hunt's piece -- no surprise, since Hunt is also unwilling

to defend it.)

John Hunt wrote in his article:

(quote on)

As we have seen, none of JFK's actions in the Zapruder film could alleviate

the bunching of the jacket. If we watch the Zapruder film between Croft (Z-161)

and Betzner (Z-186) and Willis (Z-202) and Z-225, we see that JFK does nothing

in the intervening 3.50 seconds to force the jacket back down.

(quote off)

As we have seen, there is no "distinctly arched shape" at the right

base of JFK's neck in Willis.

John Hunt is an obfuscationist of the first order.

All Vichy CTs are, in my book.

Additionally, jackets are not rigid, and can be bunched slightly in the middle

without the collar rising up over the top of someone's head.

If you did any actual research into clothing fit, you would find that

a 2-inch ease of a tucked in custom-made shirt is anything but "slight."

None of you "high back wound" fellows have ever replicated this event

you claim happened.

And please explain how the jacket DROPPED into an ELEVATED position.

Was the shirt and jacket elevated 3" to 4" on Main St. BEFORE the jacket

dropped?

That dog don't hunt -- even Chad Zimmerman can only identify 1" of jacket

elevation BEFORE the jacket dropped on Houston St.

Step up to the plate, Pat.

Show us in this Betzner close up where this 2" fold at the base

of JFK's neck was.

This is Z186 -- less than a quarter of a second before you say

he was shot.

The red box highlights JFK's 1/2" exposed shirt collar.

The yellow box highlights the fold in JFK's jacket.

According to your analysis, the fold involves 2" of fabric.

1" up and 1" down -- for a 2" fold.

So why isn't the fold twice the size of the exposed shirt collar?

As far as the other stuff... The tip of the mastoid is roughly the bottom of the ear. If you draw a line from the level of the bottom of the ear on the face sheet, and then project this line to the right on the face sheet, you'll be at the tip of the shoulder.

If you draw a line to the right of the bottom of the ear you'll be

at the tip of the shoulder?

Since when does the shoulder-tip occupy the same horizontal plane

as the bottom of the ear?(??)

And if the 14cm-mastoid measurement was taken at the time the diagram

was filled out IN PENCIL, why does it appear IN PEN, a violation of autopsy

protocol?

Why didn't they write the measurements down in PENCIL if the diagram

was intended to match those measurements?

I ask again, is this some incredible coincidence--that the measurements you assert were an irrational lie just so happened to match the drawing you assert is the gospel truth?

Get your ruler fixed, Pat.

The wound is not equidistant from the bottom of the ear to the shoulder-tip.

I agree that it's possible someone got to Humes on Sat or Sun and said that

he had to have as few bullets as possible.

It's "possible"??

It's "possible" that the 3-shot scenario was pre-determined before

the autopsy ever began?

This is an assertion of staggering ignorance.

Re-read BREACH OF TRUST, Pat. You didn't get it the first time around.

He may very well have been pressured into concluding the throat wound

was the exit for the back wound.

Ya think?

Pat Seer:

But they didn't know diddly on Friday night when they created the face sheet.

(Humes never even knew Burkley had "confirmed the face sheet till the ARRB

showed it to him, so any conjecture that he added the measurements after Burkley

had "confirmed" the face sheet would seem unlikely."

Cliff Varnell:

Or more likely Humes conveniently forgot that Burkley signed off on

the face sheet.

You admit Humes lied in the preparation of the Rydberg drawing.

And yet this proven xxxx's word carries more weight than the physical evidence

and the statements of more than a dozen other people?

You bend over backwards to defend the credibility of people you admit

were liars, and you attack the credibility of more than a dozen people who

got a prolonged look at the wound.

Tell us, Pat: Why were those measurements recorded in pen if the diagram

was filled out in pencil to reflect the measurements?

At the same time you posit a movement of the clothing that is contradicted

by the motorcade photos -- and you posit a mass hallucination among more

than a dozen people.

As I say, your position is intellectually indefensible.

Pat Seer:

Besides, what kind of half-assed conspiracy would include Humes, but not Burkley?

Cliff Varnell:

Burkley was ignored, never interviewed by the FBI, the Secret Service,

or the Warren Commission.

As the lead autopsist, Humes was another story. The standard line

used in the cover-up was that the lives of millions of Americans were

at stake unless the players in the post-assassination drama played ball.

Until you understand the historical context of the assassination,

you won't get the fact that the cover-up was IMPROVISED.

The original cover-up was designed to pin the conspiracy on Castro.

Humes (like Warren and others) was gang-pressed into the cover-up by the

dictates of Lyndon Johnson, who dangled the spectre of nuclear holocaust if

the facts of a conspiracy came out.

Pat Seer:

Burkley--who never told Humes about the throat wound observed in Dallas nor the Harper fragment and who is at the center of the disappearing brain controversy?)

It makes no sense at all that they would make up random measurements to further a lie without establishing that this lie helps their cause.

Cliff Varnell:

And that's why they came up with multiple lies. Humes was assigned to make

the evidence fit the 3-shot scenario. He did so by positing 3 different wound

locations. T2, C7/T1, and above C6.

Of course, the original wound location on the face sheet was the accurate one.

Humes didn't mastermind the cover-up -- he was acting under orders for

reasons he couldn't possibly understand.

Pat Seer:

A wound at T1 is a strong argument against the SBT.

Cliff Varnell:

It's a vile historical lie. The case cannot be understood without the FACT

that JFK's back wound was at T3, and a coved-up ensued at the highest

levels of the US gov't.

Pat Seer:

If the autopsy report was designed to sell that the same bullet hitting Kennedy

in the back exited his throat the doctors could have easily reported that the lung

was punctured, or that there was substantial damage within the neck. They failed

to do so.

Cliff Varnell:

The x-ray of the neck region DID SHOW DAMAGE. Bruised lung-tip, tiny fracture

of the T1 transverse process, air pocket overlaying C7 and T1.

All consistent with a shot from the front.

Pat Seer:

As far as the mastoid measurement controversy--I meant that you should find

a source in a medical book, not in the conspiracy literature.

Cliff Varnell:

Wilbur's book was based on an examination of military autopsy protocol.

I'd suggest you look into before making any more assertions you can't

back up.

Pat Seer:

(I think Wecht also complains about the use of the mastoid in one of his books.)

If the HSCA FPP was part of a cover-up, it makes no sense for them to use the

mastoid measurement, as it only confirmed that the Rydberg Drawing was a fraud.

By stating that the wound was 13.5 cm below the mastoid, but on the back, they

were opening the door to speculation that the wound measured at the autopsy was

even lower, and even further out of alignment than is necessary for the SBT to occur.

Cliff Varnell:

You need to quit putting into evidence your own sense of what "should"

have occured.

The autopsists were given the task of reconciling the evidence with a

3-shot scenario.

They did their "best" with what was given them.

Pat Seer:

As far as your list of witnesses whose statement were consistent with a

wound at T3, the term "shoulder" in popular usage is incredibly vague.

Cliff Varnell:

What part of "below the shoulder" don't you understand?

You've got 14 different descriptions of the wound, only a few referring

to "the shoulder."

Pat Seer:

How many of these men have said that the autopsy photo of the back wound is fake?

How many have said that the lower smudge in the photo is the real wound?

Cliff Varnell:

Bowron and Reibe put the wound as the lower mark on the

autopsy photo.

Pat Seer:

And WHY, if the back wound photo is fake, did the alterationists leave the

original wound on the photo?

Cliff Varnell:

Why did they put a wound consistent with a shot from below?

Because when you've got the full weight of the US gov't behind

you, your lies don't have to be meticulous.

Pat Speer:

It's a heck of a lot easier to remove something from a photo than add something in and make it look real. The "lower smudge is the real wound" theory--which I at one time thought possible, is with further reflection, nonsense.

Cliff Varnell:

Keep reflecting and the facts of the case may finally dawn on you.

Otherwise, Pat, get a different hobby.

You ain't helping out here.

[Pat Speer]

Cliff, the location of the back wound in the autopsy photo is on a curved part of the back. The angle of the curve is greater than the angle of declination from the TSBD, so that a bullet fired from above would appear to be heading upwards. I write about this in the SBT section of my webpage made under YOUR suggestion. In this same section, I criticize John Hunt's "bunching" article, and show how his use of the black and white Croft led to a misunderstanding of the degree of "bunch." It's bizarre to me that you see me as your enemy, when we agree on most everything of importance, except for T1 vs. T3.

If the bullet entrance at T1, which is the OFFICIAL entry location of the U.S. Govt., actually supports the SBT, then why does every depiction of the SBT--Lattimer's, Canning's, Myers'. Zimmerman's, Court TV's, etc--misrepresent the location of this wound? Please show us HOW an entrance at T1 fits the single-assassin scenario. Was Kennedy leaning forward from Z-190--Z-224, a la the HSCA FPP? Definitely not. So how does it work? Before you call me anymore names, DEMONSTRATE how my conclusions help the SBT.

As far as the lower smudge, please post a close up view of that supposed entrance, so that readers can see for themselves that there is no hole in your entrance...

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff, the location of the back wound in the autopsy photo is on a curved part of the back. The angle of the curve is greater than the angle of declination from the TSBD, so that a bullet fired from above would appear to be heading upwards. I write about this in the SBT section of my webpage made under YOUR suggestion. In this same section, I criticize John Hunt's "bunching" article, and show how his use of the black and white Croft led to a misunderstanding of the degree of "bunch." It's bizarre to me that you see me as your enemy, when we agree on most everything of importance, except for T1 vs. T3.

Sorry, Pat, that's the ball game for me.

You CANNOT understand the nature of the cover-up and the nature of

the crime until you grasp the easily established FACT that JFK was shot

in the back "about the level of the third thoracic vertebra."

Right where the Death Certificate -- marked "verified -- put it.

If the bullet entrance at T1, which is the OFFICIAL entry location of the U.S. Govt.,

The crime was covered up at the highest levels of the US Gov't.

The OFFICIAL entry location has ranged from "just above the

upper margin of the scapula" (T2) to "14cm below the mastoid

process" (C7/T1), to the "above C6" location of the Rydberg

drawing.

If you don't understand that the autopsists were ordered to make

the evidence fit the 3-shot scenario, then you'll just have to put up

with insults from the likes of me.

I don't have the patience anymore to abide intellectual dishonesty,

to be frank.

actually supports the SBT, then why does every depiction of the SBT--Lattimer's, Canning's, Myers'. Zimmerman's, Court TV's, etc--misrepresent the location of this wound?

Because mis-representing the location of the back wound keeps the

bogus JFK Mystery Game alive.

Acknowledging the FACT that JFK was shot about the level of T3

puts an end to the Game.

And you guys just don't want the Game to end, do you?

Please show us HOW an entrance at T1 fits the single-assassin scenario.

It puts the throat wound "into play" as a wound of exit.

Ask John McAdams and Ken Rahn. They both insist T1 works for the SBT.

And you enable their obfuscation, to be brutally honest.

Was Kennedy leaning forward from Z-190--Z-224, a la the HSCA FPP? Definitely not.

So how does it work? Before you call me anymore names, DEMONSTRATE how my

conclusions help the SBT.

I have demonstrated that T1 is NOT where he was shot.

Here, let's do it again because it's so easy.

Red box: 1/2" of exposed shirt collar.

Yellow box: a fraction of an inch of bunched jacket, less than 1/2",

no where near the 2" your pet theory requires, Pat.

T3 is an unambiguous location. We need no further analysis to dismiss

the SBT.

An argument AGAINST the SBT using T1 requires further complicated

analyses of how JFK was leaning (or not), the relation of T1 to the

throat wound, etc blah blah blah.

T3 ends the discussion. Which is why so few CTs cite it.

The JFK Mystery Industry won't stand for it -- how can you sell books

if the "Question of Conspiracy" is so readily answered?

As far as the lower smudge, please post a close up view of that supposed entrance, so that readers can see for themselves that there is no hole in your entrance...

I have no idea if "the lower smudge" is a bullet entrance.

There is NO PROOF that it's JFK in that photo.

None.

You can't tell me who shot the photo, you can't tell me who

developed it, and according to the HSCA the burden of proof

for authentication is on those who put it into evidence.

This is a burden you cannot carry.