Aftermath of the Assassination

[David Lifton]

Hang on there David/Daniel...

Since there is no reliable measurement of the location of the hole on JFK, how can you say the jacket and shirt are so much higher...?

"This wound is measured to be 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion

process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process."

Scroll down for a look at the right acromion process

http://www.aidmyrotatorcuff.com/rotator-cuff-information/rotator-cuff-and-shoulder-anatomy.php

In WHICH DIRECTION 14cms from the acromion? There is a wound 1-2 inches off the spine and they use a landmark at the tip of the right shoulder

and now the Mastoid process... and the other landmark is at the bottom of the MOVEABLE skull...

There is NO WAY to determine where that wound was from this description... when the measuremenat needed to be from one of the Cervical vertebrae down and then a number of cms over.

In fact... if you measure straight down from the acromion you are still on the arm...

STRAIGHT to the left, then go UP to the Mastoid and measure down?

Are you willing to state that holes were put into the jacket and shirt BEFORE there was any wound on JFK (who had the clothes?) and then this information is relayed to the autopsy room where a hole is made prior to Sibert/O'Neill coming back in at 8:15... Maybe you are suggesting this was one fo the things they did on AF-1 to JFK?

Is that more likely than a non-transiting wound from which a bullet is removed and disappeared?

There are three locations for the back (or neck) wound, depending on which evidence one takes seriously--and this is all spelled out in BEST EVIDENCE, in sections that discuss the "low"/"high" conflict.

The three locations are:

(1) the dot on Boswell's diagram (corroborated by what is stated in the S and O report)

(2) The measurement provided by Humes, on that diagram

(3) The position of the wound, as photographed

And. . is one includes the Rydberg drawing. .

(4) The Rybderg drawing (made by the naval artist)

As you no doubt remember, the S and O report describes the wound they are talking about as an "opening" in the back.

Finally, there is the fact--also discussed in B.E.--that a ruler covers the location where that "opening" would have been visible.

It seems obvious that the clothing holes--shirt and jacket--correspond to the "low" location in the plethora of conflicting evidence discussed above (and which is spelled out more accurately in B.E.).

In my opinion, there was a second (false) wound in the back (i.e., an error made as to where it should be located, when it was first made); and so it had to be covered with he ruler. (And yes, this would be revealed at an exhumation, which I'm not sure will ever take place).

Anyway, nothing I have hurriedly written here is as accurate as the discussion(s) that take place in Best Evidence.

Because of the (much stronger) evidence that the head wound was altered, AND the evidence that the throat wound was certainly altered, I do not subscribe to the notion that the multiple locations for the back wound is innocent.

Of course, if I didn't believe the body was altered, then I guess I (too) would be spending my time trying to figure out how the shirt and jacket "rode up" during the shooting, which is the way many folks in fact view the issue.

DSL

3/27/12; 8:10 PM PDT

Los Angles, California