Dismantling the Single Bullet Theory Pt 5

[James R Gordon]

Okay James...

"seperate" does not necessarily have to = "to surgicaly cut" - you can DIVIDE muscles from each other without cutting them.. one would SEPERATE them by moving them aside...

David,

I have looked at many on-line medical dictionaries and all agree with the definition below. True they do not say divide means cut. But the definition below gives an example dividing “a nerve surgically.” From that example I can’t see any other meaning for the term than to cut.

: to separate into two or more parts <divide a nerve surgically>

intransitive verb Reference:- Medline Plus

You suggest that divide could simply refer to moving organs etc. The definition uses two important words: "separate" "surgically". Neither words would be appropriate if all that was happening is to move organs etc to a new location.

That said, not one dictionary that I looked up agreed with your definition of what the word divide means to a surgeon. Your definition is not what every medical dictionary believes the term means in medicine.

James.

[Richard Hocking]

If the object was to kill him... and there are clear shots available enough to place a tiny "whatever" in his throat...

Why not just take the kill shots first and forego the PRE shooting ....

the theory falls down unless "they" know that no one is going to be throwing themselves over JFK, pulling him down, or simply speeding away after hearing these "shots"

...

Although I missed a portion of this discussion yesterday, I would like to add a few of my thoughts to what has been stated.

David, your quote above contains a very logical question, namely why would the assassins use a paralytic.

Cliff has given a reply that is just as logical and that I would reinforce. What if the first shot misses or fails to incapacitate? A combat veteran would very quickly "hit the deck" and quite possibly escape with no mortal damage. From the floor of the back seat, JFK would certainly have helped Greer in his decision making process and encouraged him to step on the gas pedal.

And we know from witness testimony that some shots did miss. Some witnesses reported shots hitting the pavement near the Limo or landing in the grass on the South side of Elm. James Tague was very likely wounded by concrete kicked up by a bullet that went a bit high. John Connally was hit by a bullet that was intended for JFK (unless you believe in the SBT). So the evidence itself supports the argument for the use of a paralytic that would provide an immobilized upright target.

Numerous witnesses reported the sound of the first shot to be different than the sounds of the final shots. Very supportive of a different weapon firing a different type of ammo.

Regarding the Medical testimony:

The Parkland witnesses were the only ones to see the unaltered throat wound. They described it as an entry wound.

Humes testimony is very problematic for me. We literally have to pick and choose what to give weight to and what to be suspicious of. I am not certain I am correctly grasping the arguments made, but it sounds like you are saying that the strap muscle damage Humes noticed was actually a surgical cut made by Perry? Certainly Humes would be able to distinguish the difference between damage from a missile as opposed to a surgically cut muscle. Correct me if this is not what you meant.

[Cliff Varnell]

The T3 back wound is the cardinal fact of the JFK assassination, the prima facie case for conspiracy which requires no expert analysis to grasp.

Cliff,

I would suggest that one cardinal fact of the JFK assassination, is the fact that JFK was wounded in the back. The “where” he was wounded, is much more debatable.

It's a fake debate based on egregious mis-readings of the motorcade photos and a reliance on shabby medical evidence for which there is no chain of possession.

Was JFK's jacket "bunched up" when he was shot in the back? Of course -- it's right there in the physical evidence. The bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 4" below the bottom of the collar; the bullet hole in the jacket is 4.125" below the collar.

The jacket was bunched up an eighth of an inch. Pet theorists insist on exaggerating a minor fold into something so large they cannot replicate it.

While a jacket may move around since it isn't tucked in and has padded shoulders, the movement of JFK's shirt is highly predictable. Every time James Gordon raises his right arm in the manner of JFK in the limo -- your shirt fabric indents along your right shoulder-line.

That's a fact.

And we've got 16 witnesses who place the wound in a location consist with T3. To assume these people all suffered the same mis-impression is absurd given the physical corroboration of the clothing holes.

You suggest that the wound was certainly as low as T3 and even suggest it might be closer to T4.

I don't "suggest" anything. I merely point out the location of the holes in the clothes, how shirt fabric responds to a raising of an arm, the properly prepared medical documents, the FBI report on the autopsy, and the statements of some 16 witnesses.

If you want to "suggest" that the properly prepared evidence is trumped by improperly prepared evidence, and 16 people all suffered the same mis-impression, fine. That's your opinion. You're entitled to that. But you're not entitled to your own set of facts in regard to the clothing evidence.

I accept that Dr Berkley placed it at T3 and the Boswell drawing suggests it is in the same location. However BE 5, the image of the back wound, suggests it was a little higher.

C7/T1, to be precise, according to Wecht's measurement for the HSCA.

But where is the proof that it's the body of JFK in that photo?

It's so poorly made the HSCA concluded it was prima facie inadmissible in court.

And the big kicker -- there is no chain of possession for the extant autopsy photos. Please see my up-thread response to David on this issue.

I am aware that you have disputed the rising of the jacket and shirt, over this issue, with a fellow forum member. Although I doubt the jacket and shirt rose anything like 3 inches, Croft (and other images) make it clear the jacket and shirt were capable of rising up and did rise up.

This observation is mis-leading and irrelevent.

Croft was taken at Z161. Using Glen Bennett's well-corroborated contemporaneous notes JFK wasn't shot in the back until soon after Z255. Before the back wound was known to exist (except by Parkland nurse Diana Bowron), Bennett wrote that he saw JFK shot in the back about 4 inches below the shoulder. The bullet holes in the clothes corroborate this. The Willis 5 (Z201) photo shows Bennett looking to his right, which is what he stated in his official report. Altgens 6 (Z255) shows him facing a bit to the right, but his facial features are blurred, indicating movement of the head. He said he turned to the front in time to see "the Boss" shot in the back. That's 5 to 6 seconds after Croft, rendering whatever conclusions you have about that photo moot.

The jacket was elevated a fraction of an inch on Elm St., and was in the process of falling. The shirt could not be elevated at all given JFK's posture. Thus the 1/8" discrepancy between the bullet hole in the jacket and the shirt. Please study the Weaver photo taken on the corner of Main and Houston about a minute before the shooting.

There is a large INDENTATION of the jacket fabric on the right shoulder. The "floor" of this indentation is smooth, indicating that the shirt underneath is flat on the back. How could the jacket indent in that manner if there were multiple inches of shirt fabric bunched up there? Please demonstrate.

Subsequent photos show the jacket collar dropping a fraction of an inch to a normal position at the base of JFK's neck. Lamson acknowledges that the jacket collar was in a normal position. How could two (or three plus) inches of jacket and two (or three plus) inches of shirt fabric bunch up entirely above a base-of-the neck bullet entry without pushing up the jacket collar resting just above the base of the neck?

Please demonstrate. The burden of proof is on YOU.

I have no idea who created this image, and so I can’t give credit where it is due, but the image suggests that from the shoulder the back hole's distance is around 8cm. That is approximately 3.2 inches.

Looking at the image that would appear about right, by that I mean the wound appears closer to 3 inches than 4. In that case that would take the hole into the T2/T3 area. I am not suggesting that this image is definitive in suggesting the position of the back wound, but it appears to agree with where the image suggests the wound may be.

The image was prima facie inadmissible in court BEFORE we found out that it has no chain of possession. By what alchemy of logic do we determine that such inferior evidence trumps the holes in the clothes, the properly prepared medical evidence, the

FBI report on the autopsy, and the lower back wound location indicated by 16 witnesses?

It is also pertinent to highlight that when measuring from the shoulder downwards, say 4 inches. At the top of the shoulder is flesh and muscle. I don’t know, off hand, what distance it covers but it could be around an inch. T1 is below this area. I have pressed hard on my shoulder and I can hardly feel Costa IR, that is the bone, in that back, that connects with T1. All I feel is flesh and muscle. So if we are measuring the position of the back wound from the top of the shoulder, I believe we need to take into account the amount of flesh and muscle that lie above Costa IR, which gets us to the level of T1 and thereafter to T3.

Years ago I got into a protracted argument with a chiropractor named Chad Zimmerman, over at McAdams group. Chad studied the Altgens 5 photo and came to the conclusion that the jacket was elevated only an inch. I said 3/4", he said 1".

But he insisted the the lower margin of the jacket collar rested at C4, and thus the shirt and jacket only had to be elevated one inch for the holes in the clothes to line up with C7/T1.

Chad went on to be the star of a Discovery Channel program called "JFK: Beyond the Magic Bullet." For this program he found a guy named Stan who was JFK's height and weight. In his chiropractic office, Chad placed a small metal disk four inches below Stan's jacket collar and took an x-ray. The disk aligned with T3. The rest of the program was basically rigged to make the clothing ride up so they could support the SBT -- a real fraud considering that Zimmerman admitted off-camera that JFK's clothing wasn't elevated much.

In a post to David Josephs you cast doubt on whether the individual in BE 5 is actually JFK. Your citation of the HCSA criticisms is pertinent and I agree with all them. The documentation of these images leaves much to be desired. However although the HCSA does raise the issue that some researchers suggest that it is not JFK in some of the images, my reading of their comments suggest that the HSCA do not go along with that.

I'm sure they assumed there was a proper chain of possession for that photo. We found out a couple of decades later that there is NO chain of possession, rendering these shabbily produced images irrelevent.

They refer to such a suggestion as “outlandish” and “macabre”. They simply point out that had the case gone to trial the issue of authenticity might well have arisen and the HCSA recognize that, in that event, it would have been the responsibility of the prosecution to establish the images authenticity.

I have no doubt that the individual we see in these images is indeed JFK. I tend to agree with the HCSA that to argue otherwise is, indeed, outlandish and macabre.

James.

Without a chain of possession the evidentiary value of the autopsy photos is zero.

As I say, you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Gil Jesus]

THE most important fact in the dismantling of the Single Bullet theory is the lack of a bullet track through the body. Without the bullet track, there is no proof of a transiting bullet. The evidence indicates that the prosectors attempted to probe the back wound during the autopsy, but that the probe only went in to a depth of 3 inches. The probe did not exit the body in the front of the throat, and therefore, the throat wound was not a wound of exit.

It's not rocket science, folks, FBI agents Siebert and O'Neill noted in their report on the autopsy that there was "no exit" for the back wound.

The attempted probing proved it. The back and throat wounds were not connected, except in the minds of those who believe the BS published by the Warren Commission.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Gil Jesus

[Cliff Varnell]

Numerous witnesses reported the sound of the first shot to be different than the sounds of the final shots. Very supportive of a different weapon firing a different type of ammo.

Excellent point, Richard. I feel that the likelihood of this scenario points to a very specific individual -- assassination weapons-maker extraodinaire Mitchell WerBell III. If the FBI had been on the up and up and had the FBI lab truthfully answered SA Sibert's question about blood soluble rounds (assuming they were privy to its existence, not a given), two guys would have been sweating it out under FBI questioning the morning of 11/23/63 -- WerBell and CIA Technical Services Staff chief Dr. Sidney Gottlieb.

The universe of people who knew about this technology was small, which makes this line of inquiry a genuine lead.

[Cliff Varnell]

THE most important fact in the dismantling of the Single Bullet theory is the lack of a bullet track through the body. Without the bullet track, there is no proof of a transiting bullet. The evidence indicates that the prosectors attempted to probe the back wound during the autopsy, but that the probe only went in to a depth of 3 inches. The probe did not exit the body in the front of the throat, and therefore, the throat wound was not a wound of exit.

Yes, that will do a fine job dismantling the SBT -- but the T3 location has the added significance of helping us correctly interpret the neck x-ray. There are those who insist that the hair-line fracture of the T1 transverse process was caused by the back shot. I read a self-elected expert say as much on another thread recently. The T3 location dismantles that notion.

Also, the argument that the probing of the wound was not competently performed is moot when the T3 location is regarded. The T3 location is THE prima facie case, though I don't want to quibble with your analysis, Gil.

It's not rocket science, folks,

Damn straight!

And thanks for your "Coughing up a Bullet" analysis, Gil. Downright brilliant.

[James R Gordon]

I accept that Dr Berkley placed it at T3 and the Boswell drawing suggests it is in the same location. However BE 5, the image of the back wound, suggests it was a little higher.

C7/T1, to be precise, according to Wecht's measurement for the HSCA.

But where is the proof that it's the body of JFK in that photo?

It's so poorly made the HSCA concluded it was prima facie inadmissible in court.

And the big kicker -- there is no chain of possession for the extant autopsy photos. Please see my up-thread response to David on this issue.

O.k. Chris I begin to see where you are coming from. I have spent some time looking at the evidence for the authenticity of the autopsy images.

Reading Gary Aguilar and Kathy Cunninham's series on the five investigations as well as David Mantik's work on these images has forced me to revise my opinion.

Where once I believed the autopsy images to be reliable and authentic, I now see it now as a very confused area.

You are right the chain of evidence is quite appalling but I am not sure I can question whether it is JFK's body in BE 3.

Looking at the autopsy images tonight what I can say is that in two of the images it appears the same doctor is in BE 3 and BE 4.

If you look at the glove on the hand that is holding the shoulder in BE 3 and the hand in BE 4 it looks like the blooded stained glove is much the same.

I agree that is pretty slim evidence, but the stains an each glove appears much the same and suggest it is the same person.

That aside, I have no idea whether it is JFK's body in BE 3.

What I can say is that you have persuaded me that all may not be kosher with the autopsy images.

However, if it is JFK's body in BE 3 it appears that the back wound is not at the level of T3.

James.

[Cliff Varnell]

However, if it is JFK's body in BE 3 it appears that the back wound is not at the level of T3.

James.

I agree. The physical evidence (clothing holes) trump the autopsy photos. There is a chain of possession for the clothing, but not for the photos.

Keep up your excellent analysis of the throat wound, James.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[James R Gordon]

I was reading Gary Aguilar and Kathy Cunningham’s five part series on the JFK medical evidence. One point that they mention there is the damage to “Transverse Process” of T1. To be fair this damage was already highlighted on page 1 of this thread by Cliff Varnell and I have to admit I took no notice of it. This damage can be seen in the X-Ray X-Aut-9.



In the last few days I have been looking at how a bullet entering the throat at Trachea rings 3 & 4, could damage this bone. After looking at a variety of trajectories, eventually I had to accept that it simply is not possible. The reason is because, looking at the anatomical model below, the Transverse Process for T1 lies behind the bone Costa IR.

To get to the Transverse Process, the bullet would have to first damage Costa IR. And we know that bone structure was not damaged



. That leaves only one alternative. The damage had to be done by the bullet that struck the back. And it is there that the problem is.

If you look at BE 3, the back wound, ( see below ) the wound appears to be at the T1 region. How can I say that? If you look around the wound you will see outlines of the upper part of the Scapula and that aspect of the Scapula is at the T1 level.





So where is the problem?



Well the problem is this. If the bullet did strike at the T1 level and therefore was able to damage the Transverse Process, it contradicts all evidence that the bullet struck at the T3 level. There is a lot of evidence in the literature that it was not the T1 level the bullet struck but actually the T3 level. And to put it simply, the problem is how can we reconcile all that evidence if the bullet actually struck at the T1 level and not the T3 level.



On the other hand if we are to argue that the bullet did not strike at T1, but actually struck at the level of T3 that would allow the entry point to agree with the substantial evidence that accords with such an injury. However, on the other hand, a strike at the T3 level would be unlikely to damage the Transverse Process at T1.



Put very simply. From what I can see these are incompatible entry points. It would appear to me to be an “Either OR” situation. The bullet either strikes at T1 and is able to do the damage to the Transverse Process, but in doing so does not agree with the evidence that it struck at T3 OR it struck at T3 and is able to agree with the evidence of such a strike but is unable to therefore damage the Transverse Process at T1.



It would appear to me that the bullet strike cannot agree with the evidence of an entry at T3 AND ALSO be able to be shown that it can as well damage the Transverse Process at T1.



It would appear that we can only have one option and not both.

And that is where the problem is.




James.

[Cliff Varnell]

James,

According to the x-ray there was a subcutaneous airpocket overlaying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. The missile had to strike the area at C7 for the air pocket to form.

C7 clears Costa IR and the round could easily have deflected down, as the presence of airpocket over the right T1 transverse process indicates, terminal momentum at T1.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[James R Gordon]

James,

According to the x-ray there was a subcutaneous airpocket overlaying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. The missile had to strike the area at C7 for the air pocket to form.

C7 clears Costa IR and the round could easily have deflected down, as the presence of airpocket over the right T1 transverse process indicates, terminal momentum at T1.

Cliff,

Bear with me here. I don't follow your points.

1) You say "According to the x-ray there was a subcutaneous airpocket overlaying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes." How does the X-ray show that?

2) How is the striking in the area of C7 going to form an air pocket. The lung is significantly lower than the position of C7.

3) If there was a air pocket created why would that air pocket deflect the missile down as opposed to up?

I am not arguing your points, I don't follow and am looking for explanation.

James

[Cliff Varnell]

James,

According to the x-ray there was a subcutaneous airpocket overlaying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. The missile had to strike the area at C7 for the air pocket to form.

C7 clears Costa IR and the round could easily have deflected down, as the presence of airpocket over the right T1 transverse process indicates, terminal momentum at T1.

Cliff,

Bear with me here. I don't follow your points.

1) You say "According to the x-ray there was a subcutaneous airpocket overlaying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes." How does the X-ray show that?

From the HSCA analysis of the neck x-ray:

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. There is disruption of the integrity of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the opposite side and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a fracture in that area. There is some soft tissue density overlying the apex of the right lung which may be hematoma in that region or other soft tissue swelling.

2) How is the striking in the area of C7 going to form an air pocket. The lung is significantly lower than the position of C7.

Barb Junkkarinen posted once that this air pocket could be created by so much as a tap on the tissue. The "soft tissue density overlaying the apex of the right lung" indicates the missile track just above the tip of the lung. We cannot assume a perfectly straight-line path for this missile in the neck, can we?

3) If there was a air pocket created why would that air pocket deflect the missile down as opposed to up?

I haven't seen any reason to doubt the authenticity of the neck x-ray, so it doesn't seem to be a question of "if" there was an air pocket. Fact is, there was an air pocket. We know that the missile didn't come in at T1 and deflect up -- Costa IR is in the way of that path, right?

So the missile had to come in high and deflect down, no?

Edited April 27, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[James R Gordon]

Cliff,

I am sorry I don’t want to be annoying and irritating but I am having difficulty with this wound at T1.

First my position on your reply.

Like you I do not doubt the authenticity of the X-Ray. I am not sure how, on an X-ray, one can see “some subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes”, but I accept that is the case. I can clearly see the “disruption of the integrity of the transverse process of T1” in X-Aut-8. It is even clearer in John Lattimer’s enhanced version of the X-Ray.

I don’t doubt Barb Junkkarinen’s expertise and knowledge of the details of the JFK assassination. It was also my understanding that the lung did not have to be struck. The lung could be damaged by being grazed or even impacted by the pressure of the bullet/missile passing very closely may well have caused the damage.

I’ll agree that it is not necessary for a missile to travel in a straight line. Gelatin tests have shown that a missile can veer in different directions when inside a body.

So where are my concerns?

a) We both don’t agree with the SBT.

I understood that we agreed that the criteria for this bullet/missile had to meet were:-

i) Damage to the Trachea. Noted by both Perry and Humes. And yes I know Humes never examined the Trachea. Logic suggests that if the bullet made an entrance into the Trachea, as Perry states in his testimony, it had to also make an exit out of it somewhere.

ii) The bullet/missile had to bruise the right strap muscle.

iii) The bullet had to graze/bruise the top of the right lung.

However, now we have added two further criteria.

iv) The bullet/missile had to strike an area at C7

v) As a consequence of this strike an air pocket was created that deflected it downwards to end up damaging T1 Transverse Process.

From what I can see, in order to meet the new criteria ( the C7 area strike and damage to T1 ) there is no way I can see the bullet also damaging the right strap muscle and the top of the lung.

There has been doubt raised (on the Lancer forum) that the position of the lung in my anatomical model is incorrect with respect to JFK. I now know that the model is correct with respect to the placement of the lungs. How do I know? X-Ray X-AUT-9 shows the position of JFK’s lungs. I have placed the model in exactly the same position as X-AUT-9 and the position and extent of the lungs is exactly the same.

As I have maintained throughout this thread the position of the right lung is much lower than CE 385 suggests. If the bullet has also to impact with an area in C7 and then be deflected to T1, the bullet is far to high to have any impact on the lung. But that is not the only problem. If the bullet/missile has to impact with these two areas, that takes it beyond the position of the lung.

I have prepared a model to show what I mean. See below:-

The point labeled A is where I suggest the bullet/missile exited the Trachea. As I pointed out if the missile damaged the Trachea that suggests it entered the trachea. That is certainly how I read Perry’s comment. So what I have done is create an exit that is appropriate to come into contact with the area of C7. Point B.

At that point an air pocket has been formed and the bullet/missile is deflected onto T1. Point C.

As you can see there is a reasonable trajectory for the missile to meet these two criteria. However once it gets to C the missile is beyond the lung. There is no way it can return to damage the lung.

In order to meet these two criteria ( an area at C7 and T1 ) the bullet/missile now has a new trajectory that is much higher than it was when the bullet/missile only had to damage the right strap muscle and the top of the lung.

As I have pointed out, the position of the lung ( in this model ) is correct and therefore the lung is now far too low to be damaged by such a trajectory.

Also this new trajectory takes the bullet/missile away from the strap muscle. I can’t see how it can now be damaged.

The problem, as I see it, is as follows.

a) I can create ( as I already have done ) a trajectory where the bullet/missile can create the damage to the right strap muscle and the lung.

I can create a trajectory, as I have done above, to impact at the area of C7 and go on to damage T1.

But I can see no way the bullet/missile can damage both.

The advantage of the 3D model ( over a 2D image ) is that the relative positions of all the organs is much clearer. And, in addition, the problems and complexities that the bullet/missile has to overcome are that much clearer.

I’d like to be “on board”, but I can’t see any way the bullet/missile can meet all the criteria. If it meets C7 & T1 criteria, it can’t meet the strap muscle and lung criteria and vice versa. In the model I have not introduced the artery and vein system. I am certain there will be major arteries and vein systems on this trajectory line which I doubt could be avoided being damaged.

As I suggested if bullet/missile cannot damage both "a" and "b" above then the only logical conclusion is that T1 was damaged at a different moment: as a consequence of the back wound.

James.

[Cliff Varnell]

James,

The neck x-ray described swelling in a region "overlaying" the apex of the lung tip. That doesn't mean the lung tip itself was struck.

We both agree that bullet paths can be a bit unpredictable -- what if the missile was deflected upward in passing the lung tip?

And it looks like a pretty good pathway for the overlaying air pocket from C7 transverse process down to the right T1.

What precludes the possibility that, upon causing the swelling above the lung tip. the round deflected up and then deflected down again?

[Cliff Varnell]

James, is it possible you are under-estimating the amount of swelling which occurred above the lung tip?