Dismantling the Single Bullet Theory Pt 5

[David Josephs]

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.

Thanks for adding to the conversation Richard....

I submit that the FIRST SHOT SOUNDS were assumed to be motorcycle backfies and/or firecrackers AT GROUND LEVEL...( some say thrown from windows yet the SOUND is always desribed AT STREET LEVEL)

and were COMPLETELY IGNORED by the SS as SHOTS.... There is not Altgens z255 reactions seen by any one on the SS agents on JFK's backup car.

Again, these shot sounds were heard by MANY just after the turn at the corner of Elm - no SS reaction

Z190... no SS reaction to yet another sound like a gunshot...

Z255 - SS agents turn around.. and still no protective response from a single SS agent save the VP's follow-up car

I submit that at any point along the way... until z313, The SS, Jackie and/or JFK himself could have gotten him out of the line of fire.... and even a pre-killshot dart would not guarantee he wouldn't be protected.

Are you saying that the chances of JFK receiving protection was BETTER with a pre-killshot "dart" of some sort, or a shot of any kind that may be noticed and cause a reposnse by his protection

than simply waiting for the killzone, which most the shooters did do, and take him out. I think the chances of exposure are MUCH greater with pre-killshot shooting, that with just kill shots...

Yet my point was that the shooters had to be reasonable sure that noone would protect JFK down thru the kill zone of western Elm street prior to the overpass.

How could that be guaranteed?

Maybe ask Emory Roberts, Floyd Boring, Kellerman and Greer....

Either they were under the impression this was a TEST... (can you say Vigilant Guardian?) and they KNEW there would be a test and they simply didn't react cause they believed there would be no danger.

Which in turn would allow the experimentation with an ice dart of toxin...

It would make little sense to try and get all these SS agents to stand down unless there was some external reason like an acknowledged "drill"... IMO... need to talk to Palamara about this....

If it was not a test, a drill, then there has to be some real consideration for complicit behavior on the part of key Agents - minutia notwithstanding...

RE: Parkland, Humes and the srtap muscles....

Yes, Humes knew the difference, I also believe he was part of the cover-up, and helped hide the wounds. That he would attribute wounds to the strap muscles to support the SBT is no real surprise.

More soon

thanks

DJ

[James R Gordon]

Cliff,

I have tried to reflected on and tried to address the points you have made in your 2 responses.

Below is my attempt. I admit it is a bit crude, but it is the best I could do at the moment. What I have tried to do is have the bullet/missile meet all the criteria.

Although Perry noticed damage to the Trachea. Maybe it did not enter the Trachea, maybe it just caused damage as it passed by. Therefore the trajectory angle at A could be steeper making the line to B more acceptable. The journey from A to A2 assumes that the right strap muscle is bruised. A2 is that idea that the bullet does not enter the trachea but continues on its journey to the lung.

According to Humes H2 P. 363 the bruise on the lung measured 5 cm in its greatest diameter. However he goes on to say that it was wedge shaped with the upper part of the wedge moving towards the top of the chest. So there was a swelling and an increase in the size of the lung after being damaged by the bullet/missile.

You mention that, according to the X-Ray, there was a subcutaneous airpocket overlaying C7 and therefore I assume the bullet/missile has to find a trajectory to C. I would imagine the bruising of the lung and the swelling of the lung may well help the bullet/missile finding a path to C.

And finally the bullet/ missile has to find a trajectory to D in order to damage T1.

As you can see the trajectory drawn is clumsy but the best I could devise in order to meet all the criteria. It does not have the logic of just damaging C7 & T1. I suppose that this trajectory may be possible, but I doubt it is probable.

However because of the direction of the path ( moving from the throat towards the back ) There are two arteries it would be unlikely to miss. To the right of C7 is the Vertebralis R and to the right of T1 is Cirvical Profunda R. The bullet/missile would appear having to strike these in order to reach C7 and T1. Maybe, just maybe, it might miss one but I doubt it would miss both.

Now if the T1 injury came from a wound in the back, then the artery would be missed because it would then be on the opposite side of the bone.

If the wound in the throat only had to injure the lung and right strap muscle a persuasive trajectory can be drawn. And the same can be said for just injuring C7 and T1.

It is when we have to combine the criteria that the resulting trajectory looks clumsy and improbable.

As I say, it is the injury to T1 that creates such challenges that make the creation of a logical trajectory neigh impossible.

I appreciate this is not your view, but the more I think about it the more I am persuaded that the injury to T1 may well have been caused by the back wound. There is a persuasive logic to that, that idea that I cannot see in the above description.

James

[Pat Speer]

I'm not sure if this is helpful, but the Warren Commission's pretending the strap muscles were on the back was not something pushed by Humes, but something dreamt up by Specter.

From patspeer.com, chapter 10:

It seems logical, therefore, to assume that Specter’s “crime” was one of rejecting his self-identified “passion” for the benefit of his career. An old story, indeed… and as American as apple pie…

Am I being too harsh? Well, if there had been but one or two misstatements or misrepresentations in Specter's chapter in the Warren Report, and in the testimony introduced by Specter, one might grant he'd simply made a mistake. But, sadly, this is not the case. There is, instead, a whole slew of misstatements and misrepresentations.

Consider the chapter's presentation of the back wound bullet trajectory. On page 90 of the paperback, it claims "The autopsy examination further disclosed that, after entering the President, the bullet passed between two large muscles, produced a contusion on the upper part of the pleural cavity (without penetrating that cavity), bruised the top portion of the right lung and ripped the windpipe (trachea) in its path through the President's neck." On page 91, it appears to build upon this, and relates: "While the autopsy was being performed, surgeons learned that a whole bullet had been found at Parkland Hospital on a stretcher which, at that time, was thought to be the stretcher occupied by the President. This led to speculation that the bullet might have penetrated a short distance into the back of the neck and then dropped out onto the stretcher as a result of external heart massage. Further exploration during the autopsy disproved that theory. The surgeons determined that the bullet had passed between two large strap muscles and bruised them without leaving any channel, since the bullet merely passed between them."

Upon reading this, one would undoubtedly come to believe the two large strap muscles in the second quote are the two muscles mentioned in the first quote, and were on the back of Kennedy's neck. And one would be right. While taking the testimony of Dr.s Baxter and McClelland, Specter made reference to the bullet's passing between the "strap muscles of the shoulder" and "strap muscles on the posterior aspect of the President's body," respectively. But there are no strap muscles in the shoulder or on the posterior aspect of the body. The bruised strap muscles which helped lead the autopsy doctors to conclude the throat wound was an exit were, according to Dr. Humes' testimony, on "the right anterior neck inferiorly" (i.e. the lower right quadrant of the front side of the neck). Dr. Humes testified that the bruising on these muscles by what he initially believed to be a simple tracheotomy incision was far more extensive than the bruising by the incisions on Kennedy's chest created by the Dallas doctors, and that this led him to suspect these neck bruises preceded the emergency procedures performed in Dallas, and were caused by a bullet. He said NOTHING about a bullet sliding between two muscles on the back of Kennedy's neck or shoulder. In fact, when discussing the entrance on Kennedy's neck/back, he said just the opposite, and described a defect in the underlying tissue, but no evidence for a pathway between two muscles. He testified "When the tissues beneath this wound were inspected, there was a defect corresponding with the skin defect in the fascia overlying the musculature of the low neck and upper back;" he later added "We were unable, however, to take probes and have them satisfactorily fall through any definite path at this point."

It should probably be mentioned here that "the musculature of the low neck and upper back" through which Humes could not find a path was the trapezius muscle, a flat sheet of muscular fibers covering the back of the neck and shoulder. A bullet could not slide between two muscles in this area because the area was covered by but one.The trapezius muscle covers so much area, in fact, that anatomists break it up into four parts when describing it in anatomy books. Kennedy's backwound, moreover, was in part three, the thickest and strongestof the four parts of the trapezius muscle.

It follows then that Humes had strong reasons to conclude, as he did on the night of the autopsy, that the bullet creating the back wound had failed to enter the body. Perhaps the cartridge for this bullet was undercharged. Perhaps there was a misfire.

When one digs further, moreover, and reads the Warren Commission testimony of Dr. Malcolm Perry, one finds that Dr. Humes continued to doubt that a bullet had entered the body at the back wound location even after Dr. Perry had told him of the throat wound, which could serve as an exit for the bullet. According to Perry:

"He inquired about, initially, about the reasons for my doing a tracheotomy, and I replied, as I have to you, during this procedure, that there was a wound in the lower anterior third of the neck, which was exuding blood and was indicative of a possible tracheal injury underlying, and I did the tracheotomy through a transverse incision made through that wound, and I described to him the right lateral injury to the trachea and the completion of the operation. He subsequently called back--at that time he told me, of course, that he could not talk to me about any of it and asked that I keep it in confidence, which I did, and he subsequently called back and inquired about the chest tubes, and why they were placed and I replied in part as I have here. It was somewhat more detailed. After having talked to Drs. Baxter and Peters and I identified them as having placed it in the second interspace, anteriorly, in the midclavicular line, in the right hemithorax, he asked me at that time if we had made any wounds in the back. I told him that I had not examined the back nor had I knowledge of any wounds of the back."

So where did Specter get that a bullet slipped between two back muscles? Simple. He either misunderstood Hume's reports and testimony (which would be problem enough), or he completely made it up.

I suspect the former. On March 12, 1964, a few days before Humes testified, Specter stopped by Bethesda Naval Hospital, and discussed the basic facts of the autopsy with Humes and Boswell. Intriguingly, Specter's memo on this meeting portends his inaccurate representation of the strap muscles in the Warren Report. He relates: "Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell were shown the Parkland report which describes the wound of the trachea as 'ragged,' which, they said was characteristic of an exit rather than an entrance wound. Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell further said that it was their current opinion that the bullet passed in between two major muscle strands in the President's back and continued on a downward flight and exited through his throat. They noted, at the time of the autopsy, some bruising of the internal parts of the President's body in that area but tended to attribute that to the tracheotomy at the time. Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell stated that after the bullet passed between the two strands of muscle, these muscle strands would resist any probing effort and would not disclose the path of the bullet to probing fingers, as the effort was made to probe at the time of the autopsy."

Now, some might read Specter's memo and see this as evidence Dr.s Humes and Boswell lied to him, but then retreated from their lies in their testimony. But I suspect instead that Specter latched onto the idea the bruised muscles noted by Humes and Boswell were on Kennedy's back, and then saw everything through this prism. The following sentence reveals his confusion: "They noted, at the time of the autopsy, some bruising of the internal parts of the President's body in that area but tended to attribute that to the tracheotomy at the time." Oh, really? How could back muscles get bruised by a tracheotomy incision?

Still, not all of Specter's "errors" have such an "innocent" explanation.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

I'm not sure if this is helpful, James, but through my research I discovered that the passage of a bullet alone would not bruise the lung in the manner Humes described, and that this bruise most logically came as a result of a bullet's striking bone--in my impression, the first rib.

From patspeer.com, chapter 11:

The bruise on the President's lung also raises some questions. When one considers that Dr. Humes told the Warren Commission that the magic bullet did not pierce the President’s lung but that it nevertheless left a 5 cm wide “pyramid-shaped” bruise at the lung’s tip, it should seem obvious that the damage stretched an inch and a half or more below the presumed bullet path. This is a wider bullet path than one would expect. Single-bullet theorists will explain this by insisting that the bruised lung was caused by the temporary cavity created by the supersonic passage of the bullet. They’ll claim this same cavity caused the damage to the transverse process of the first thoracic vertebrae apparent on the x-rays.

But there are severe problems with this. For one, the ballistics experts of the Warren Commission and HSCA testified that the bullets fired by Mannlicher-Carcano rifles were among the most stable they ever tested, and, as a result, could pass through one man and hit another with relative ease. Unspoken but implicit in their testimony, however, is that these bullets transmit less energy into the surrounding tissue than other bullets of their class and leave a narrower wound track. (This characteristic of Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition was not exactly unnoticed by those who make it their business to notice such things. As far back as 1897, The Columbus Medical Journal noted that "In the Abyssinian campaign of the Italians, the disabling effect of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle of 6.5 millimeters, with which they were armed, was so slight that it was thought that the ammunition had been tampered with: for the natives overcame them with frightful slaughter.")

A second problem is that, even if a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet was able to create such a cavity, since the bullet would presumably be at the center of this cavity, the temporary cavity would be around 3 inches wide. A study by the Biophysics Division of the Army's Chemical Warfare Laboratory published in Military Medicine in 1957 correlates the size of temporary cavities to permanent cavities and demonstrates that a bullet creating a 3 inch wide temporary cavity would be likely to leave a permanent cavity 15mm wide or better. When one considers that the passage of this particular bullet was impossible to probe at autopsy, left the major vessels of the neck unharmed, and left only a 3-5 mm round hole upon exit, it seems highly unlikely such a large cavity was created.

An even bigger problem is that lung is, according to the dozens of articles I’ve read on wound ballistics, among the least dense tissues in the body, and, as a result, “little energy transfer occurs, and temporary cavities are small.” Michael S. Owen Smith made this lack of lung density and how it relates to the Kennedy assassination breathtakingly clear in the 1988 book Management of Gunshot Wounds. He said “The thorax behaves differently from the abdomen because it is largely filled with air owing to the large volume of the chest that is occupied by the lungs. Therefore, since the tissues are not mainly liquid-like, the conditions for the formation of the temporary cavity are not met. The heart and great vessels, which are filled with fluid, are extremely susceptible to damage from cavitation, and such injuries from a rifle bullet are fatal. The lung itself is remarkably resistant to damage from high-velocity bullets. Indeed, it is true to say that the lung and the skin are the two tissues that are most resistant to damage from cavitation.” Hmmm.

There is still another problem with the argument Kennedy’s lungs were bruised by a temporary cavity and it is that, if one is to assume there was a 3” temporary cavity around the bullet as it passed through Kennedy, one should assume there was an equally large or greater cavity around the bullet as it passed though Connally.

Let me explain. Connally’s doctor testified that the bullet passed within an inch of Connally’s heart. While my study of the trajectories indicates this wasn’t so, that it was more like 3 inches, it also shows that for the bullet to have exited where it did from Connally’s lung, it would have to have passed within an inch or so of Connally’s liver. (The lower lung where the bullet made its exit sits atop the upper dome of the liver like a sailor’s cap sits atop your head.) This bullet is also purported to have struck Connally's back and fifth rib at an angle, and to have traveled sideways through his body along his rib until it exploded outwards, leaving a gaping hole in his chest.

There's a problem with this. According to a June 1990 article in the British Journal of Surgery by Dr.s G. J. Cooper and J. M. Ryan, bullets traveling sideways impart more than three times the energy into the surrounding tissue as bullets traveling straight ahead. The reasons for this are explained in 1997's Ballistic Trauma, by Dr.s Jeanine Vellema and Hendrik Johannes Scholtz.

"The greater the angle of yaw when a bullet strikes a body, the greater the retardation of the bullet and consequently the greater the amount of kinetic energy transfer. This explains why unstable projectiles in flight cause larger entrance wounds on impact with the body. Once the bullet enters the denser medium of tissue, its yaw angle increases progressively until the bullet becomes completely unstable, tumbles and rotates by 180 degrees, and ends up traveling base forward. Tumbling of the bullet in tissue increases the presented cross-sectional area of the bullet, resulting in more direct tissue destruction and increased retarding (drag) forces, with consequently greater kinetic energy transfer and larger temporary cavity formation. The sudden increase of the drag force also puts strain on the bullet, which may lead to the break up of the bullet and more tissue destruction."

Now plug this in to the official story. According to the HSCA ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan, the bullet struck Kennedy in the back at 1800 feet per second, met minimal resistance, struck Connally at 1700 feet per second, and blasted out his rib at 1,100 to 1,300 feet per second. This indicates the bullet passed nearest the liver between 1300 and 1500 feet per second, traveling sideways, creating a temporary cavity much larger than the temporary cavity created in Kennedy's neck.

Now consider the damage this would do to Connally's liver.

Once again, Michael S. Owen-Smith in the book Management of Gunshot Wounds: “Direct damage from a high velocity missile is catastrophic, because the liver is extremely susceptible to cavitation damage and the resultant pulping of liver tissue is so extensive that most cases are fatal…Liver and spleen are so sensitive to cavitation and shock effects that they may be damaged even when the rifle bullet passes through the chest…Lesser degree of damage from bullets passing close to the liver would result in damage similar to that from low-velocity bullets or blunt injury." No such damage was reported. The Textbook of Military Medicine, put out by the Surgeon General of the U.S. Army, moreover, confirms: “Liver, spleen, and kidney are highly vascular, friable organs (that is, the tissues lack elasticity, they tear when they are stretched). Temporary cavitation causes severe tissue disruption...Such injuries are rapidly fatal.”

Ironically, the fact that Connally survived raises grave doubts about the manner in which Kennedy died.

From chapter 17 at patspeer.com:

When one compares Lattimer’s drawing of the President’s wounds to a similar drawing created by the HSCA, his distortions become even more clear. The HSCA drawing, for starters, has the bullet entering Kennedy’s back heading slightly upwards through the body while Lattimer’s drawing has the bullet headed sharply downwards. The HSCA, in keeping with the autopsy photographs, moreover, places the back wound on the back while Lattimer lifts it up onto the neck. While the two present the lungs in the same place in comparison to the bullet track, this is not an agreement between the two but is actually a discrepancy, as Lattimer’s bullet track is much higher within the body. While the HSCA presents the lungs as just below the level of exit when the body is erect, but higher than the exit due to Kennedy’s severe forward pitch, Lattimer presents the lungs as being higher than the exit even when erect. Since Lattimer does not dispute that the bullet exited the throat midway between the Adam’s apple and the bony notch at the bottom of the throat, moreover, this suggests that he believed Kennedy’s lungs extended above his rib cage, into his neck.

Of course, this is preposterous. It’s clear then that Lattimer, as Sturdivan, was trying to have it both ways: while his interpretation of the x-rays led him to believe the bullet traveled down the neck, he still wanted to be able to say the passage of this bullet bruised Kennedy’s lung, even though his proposed trajectory would pass approximately three inches away from the nearest lung. While some, including Lattimer, have argued that the confusion around Kennedy’s back wound is related to the fact that Kennedy’s Addison’s disease made him a hunchback, I don’t believe that even one of these men has been foolish enough to suggest Kennedy’s lungs changed position and rose above the level of his ribcage as a result of his affliction.

It was while comparing the lungs in these drawings that I had a bit of a breakthrough. While the HSCA and Dr. Lattimer were in agreement on the shape of the bruise on Kennedy’s lung, which is consistent in relation to the bullet cavity and is thus supportive that the cavity was the cause, I realized that on this issue both drawings were inaccurate. While the photograph of this bruise is one the doctors remembered taking, but never saw again, Dr. Humes’ testimony on the bruise is quite clear, and is in disagreement with the drawings. He told the Warren Commission that the bruise was 5 centimeters at its greatest diameter “and was wedge shaped in configuration, with its base toward the top of the chest and its apex down towards the substance of the lung,” and repeated that it “was a roughly pyramid-shaped bruise with its base toward the surface of the upper portion of the lung, and the apex down into the lung tissue.” Humes was telling them, therefore, that the bruise came to a point. Such a bruise would not be expected from a temporary cavity, which radiates in an oval, but could very well have come as a result of a bullet deflecting from an overlying bone. Articles on pulmonary contusions from gunshot wounds reflect that they are far more prominent when a bullet slaps against a rib or chest wall than when a bullet actually traverses the substance of the lung. One such article, found in a 1944 edition of Surgery, reported on a study by Dr. Rollin Daniel in which dogs were shot and immediately dissected. This study connected the level of pulmonary contusion to the amount of energy released into the adjacent non-lung tissue. The single-bullet scenario, in which a bullet magically slides between muscles and does not damage the arteries, necessitates that the damage to the surrounding tissue was minimal. This suggests then that the lung was bruised through some other mechanism than the temporary cavity of the bullet. The first thoracic vertebrae attaches to the spine just above the uppermost margin of the lung. Did a bullet deflect off this bone from above, and thereby bruise the underlying lung?

The evidence suggests as much.

[Cliff Varnell]

According to Humes H2 P. 363 the bruise on the lung measured 5 cm in its greatest diameter.

If Humes made this observation on 11/22/63 I'd give him credence.

If he said it after he was fully dragooned into the cover-up it has no credibility whatsoever.

If your entire case rests on what Humes said after he turned into a pumpkin at midnight of the autopsy, I don't think you have a case at all.

I'd go strictly by the neck x-ray, which doesn't show anything inconsistent with the conclusion that he was shot from the front, the round nicked the trachea, caused swelling above the apex of the lung, left an airpocket overlaying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes, and a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process.

[Cliff Varnell]

I appreciate this is not your view, but the more I think about it the more I am persuaded that the injury to T1 may well have been caused by the back wound. There is a persuasive logic to that, that idea that I cannot see in the above description.

James

No, that's not my view. What Humes said during the autopsy was gold. What he said 11/23/63 onward has no weight whatsoever.

Why wouldn't he just make up a SBT bullet path? Oh, that's right, he did...

[Cliff Varnell]

I'm not sure if this is helpful, James, but through my research I discovered that the passage of a bullet alone would not bruise the lung in the manner Humes described,

And why would any credibility be ceded Commander Humes after the autopsy? He was a military man subject to obeying orders and had he been ordered to dream up a bullet path I'm sure he would have...Oh, that's right -- he did!

[Cliff Varnell]

I'm not sure if this is helpful, James, but through my research I discovered that the passage of a bullet alone would not bruise the lung in the manner Humes described,

And why would any credibility be ceded Commander Humes after the autopsy? He was a military man subject to obeying orders and had he been ordered to dream up a bullet path I'm sure he would have...Oh, that's right -- he did!

What I don't get is why it is thought among some that what Humes said during the autopsy, (e.g. back wound below the shoulder, apparent surgery to the head) is discounted, disrespected and dismissed -- while the tales he told to the WC are regarded as gold.

He wasn't fully dragooned into the cover-up until he found out about the Magic Bullet. Why would anything he said after that point carry weight?

Pat, James, can you explain?

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

I have tried to reflected on and tried to address the points you have made in your 2 responses.

Below is my attempt. I admit it is a bit crude, but it is the best I could do at the moment. What I have tried to do is have the bullet/missile meet all the criteria.

Although Perry noticed damage to the Trachea. Maybe it did not enter the Trachea, maybe it just caused damage as it passed by. Therefore the trajectory angle at A could be steeper making the line to B more acceptable.

No, that trajectory doesn't look likely. A-C-D is right on the money. Who knows how much swelling would be caused by a passage at that location, or the impact of the paralytic chemical -- should one want a dance with Flechette.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[James R Gordon]

If your entire case rests on what Humes said after he turned into a pumpkin at midnight of the autopsy, I don't think you have a case at all.

Cliff,

You really have misunderstood me if you believe my entire case is based on what Humes said at Warren Commission.

True, I have often used what Humes said at the Commission, but most of that can also be found in MD3 the autopsy report.

Although I am aware there is fiction within that document, my position is to use my models to demonstrate the fiction. I'm endeavouring to have the models highlight the fiction.

That is my position.

James.

[James R Gordon]

Cliff,

I have tried to reflected on and tried to address the points you have made in your 2 responses.

Below is my attempt. I admit it is a bit crude, but it is the best I could do at the moment. What I have tried to do is have the bullet/missile meet all the criteria.

Although Perry noticed damage to the Trachea. Maybe it did not enter the Trachea, maybe it just caused damage as it passed by. Therefore the trajectory angle at A could be steeper making the line to B more acceptable.

No, that trajectory doesn't look likely. A-C-D is right on the money. Who knows how much swelling would be caused by a passage at that location, or the impact of the paralytic chemical -- should one want a dance with Flechette.

I agree that trajectory A-C-D is better for C7 and T1, but then that same trajectory misses the right strap and the lung. From what I can see, no trajectory can cover all the points. And further there are two major arteries that A-C-D will damage. Just on its own, that invalidates A-C-D.

James

[James R Gordon]

What I don't get is why it is thought among some that what Humes said during the autopsy, (e.g. back wound below the shoulder, apparent surgery to the head) is discounted, disrespected and dismissed -- while the tales he told to the WC are regarded as gold.

He wasn't fully dragooned into the cover-up until he found out about the Magic Bullet. Why would anything he said after that point carry weight?

Pat, James, can you explain?

First, as far as I am concerned, I am not focused on surgery of the head area. It is not what my models or this thread is about for me. The damage to the head is not relevant to my focus at the moment. However I agree that it is a very important statement.

Second, I do not dismiss the statement about the back wound below the shoulder. Because I now wonder whether the damage to T1 was a result of the back wound, and my reasons highlighted above I believe are very valid, that does not mean I disrespect other evidence in the case. It appears to me that the damage to T1 could not be created from within the neck and if it were attempted serious damage would be done to major arteries in the area.

If the damage cannot be created from within the neck, the only option left is that the damage had to be created from outside the body: e.g. from the back.

I do not see, why saying that is disrespect.

James.

[David Josephs]

What I don't get is why it is thought among some that what Humes said during the autopsy, (e.g. back wound below the shoulder, apparent surgery to the head) is discounted, disrespected and dismissed -- while the tales he told to the WC are regarded as gold.

He wasn't fully dragooned into the cover-up until he found out about the Magic Bullet. Why would anything he said after that point carry weight?

Pat, James, can you explain?

First, as far as I am concerned, I am not focused on surgery of the head area. It is not what my models or this thread is about for me. The damage to the head is not relevant to my focus at the moment. However I agree that it is a very important statement.

Second, I do not dismiss the statement about the back wound below the shoulder. Because I now wonder whether the damage to T1 was a result of the back wound, and my reasons highlighted above I believe are very valid, that does not mean I disrespect other evidence in the case. It appears to me that the damage to T1 could not be created from within the neck and if it were attempted serious damage would be done to major arteries in the area.

If the damage cannot be created from within the neck, the only option left is that the damage had to be created from outside the body: e.g. from the back.

I do not see, why saying that is disrespect.

James.

I realize that Lipsey's testimony does not confirm a lower neck wound in addition to the back and head wounds... yet Robinson also says in the ARRB that he sees them insert an 18" probe into the LOWER NECK WOUND in the back and sees it come out the troat wound....

This opens up the possibilities for a front to back thru-and-thru shot; a back to front thru and thru shot; or a low neck shot from the rear that creates a fragment that exists the throat area.

You've shown, at least to my eyes, that T1>pleural>Trach3 is not possible... let alone a T3>pleural>Trach3 path....

and finally, since the first time we know about the pleural cavity wound is at Bethesda... it has to be taken with some if not a whole bunch of reservation...

Humes is simply not to be trusted based soley on his autopsy related behavior...

the option you do not like to include is the explanation for JFK being at Bethesda at 6:40, the SS/FBI bringing in JFK at 7:17, and the MDW officially bringing him in at 8pm...

When you reconcile these three events, maybe you will feel less likely to trust ANYTHING that is offered as medical evidence..

DJ

Edited April 28, 2012 by David Josephs

[James R Gordon]

I realize that Lipsey's testimony does not confirm a lower neck wound in addition to the back and head wounds... yet Robinson also says in the ARRB that he sees them insert an 18" probe into the LOWER NECK WOUND in the back and sees it come out the troat wound....

David,

My problem is that I am now no longer certain that there was a lower back wound. Because of Chris's highlighting of the injury to T1, something I should have taken into account much earlier, I am in the process of beginning to believe that the back wound was around T1. As I point out above T1 cannot be damaged internally, partly because of the problems of trajectory but also because two major arteries would be bound to be damaged. Now I fully accept X-ray 8 which shows this damage so there is no question that T1 was damaged. The problem is how. If it could not be done internally, it has to have been done externally, hence the back wound. This means I am beginning to accept BE 3 as being legitimate. Looking at outline of the scapula on JFK's back it is clear the wound is around the T1 position. And an external wound there wound there would impact with T1 and would not come into contact with those two arteries, because they are on the opposite side of the bone. This view is not without its own problems. If the wound was so high up the body, in order to explain the damage to T1, then how does that agree with the damage to the Jacket, or the Boswell drawing or Dr. Berkley's death certificate.

As I explained to Chris, I am aware of the fiction in both MD3 as well as Humes testimony. Through the use of the models I am trying to show the impossibility of statements and theories such as the SBT, by demonstrating what is possible and what is not possible due to the bodies own geography. E.g. Humes in both MD3 and his testimony talks about the path the bullet took through the throat. Obviously no-one questioned his veracity during the Commission. Yet when his various statements are put to the test on a 3D model they don't stand up. Dale Myers and all the others who agree with the SBT and just like those who, for whatever reason, never questioned what Humes said to see whether it actually stood up to the scrutiny of examination. They blindly accept that what he says is true, because he said it.

As you point out, I am reluctant to venture into pre-autopsy etc, partly because I am not sure whether I agree with it. But also partly because it is not relevant to what I am doing. There may well have been a pre-autopsy, I don't know, but it does not affect the logic and reality of whether the SBT can stand the scrutiny of 3D modelling of the theory. For me that is what is relevant, not whether there was pre-autopsy or not.

James

[Cliff Varnell]

What I don't get is why it is thought among some that what Humes said during the autopsy, (e.g. back wound below the shoulder, apparent surgery to the head) is discounted, disrespected and dismissed -- while the tales he told to the WC are regarded as gold.

He wasn't fully dragooned into the cover-up until he found out about the Magic Bullet. Why would anything he said after that point carry weight?

Pat, James, can you explain?

First, as far as I am concerned, I am not focused on surgery of the head area. It is not what my models or this thread is about for me. The damage to the head is not relevant to my focus at the moment. However I agree that it is a very important statement.

Second, I do not dismiss the statement about the back wound below the shoulder. Because I now wonder whether the damage to T1 was a result of the back wound, and my reasons highlighted above I believe are very valid, that does not mean I disrespect other evidence in the case. It appears to me that the damage to T1 could not be created from within the neck and if it were attempted serious damage would be done to major arteries in the area.

If the damage cannot be created from within the neck, the only option left is that the damage had to be created from outside the body: e.g. from the back.

I do not see, why saying that is disrespect.

James.

James, that comment was directed more at Pat than at you. However, a wound below the shoulder doesn't seem

consistent with your conclusions regarding a T1 back wound.

So it seems your argument comes down to the absolute certainty that the A-C-D path wasn't possible because of two major arteries. I hope you are not offended if such assurances do not satisfy. As we've noted, bullets can take unusual paths through the body. Since the x-ray only shows a swelling of tissue "overlaying" the apex of the lung, the fact that A-C-D doesn't strike the lung does not impeach it.

The fact that the nicked trachea between the 3rd and 4th rings lines right up with the air-pocket overlay C7/T1 suggests a relationship between those wounds, no?

Edited April 28, 2012 by Cliff Varnell