Dismantling the Single Bullet Theory Pt 5

[Cliff Varnell]

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

Who's Chris?

Anyway, James, I think your model's are fantastic and I'll take Humes-during-the-autopsy and the A-C-D frontal trajectory, and you can have Humes post-autopsy and two arteries the exact location of which in JFK's throat I don't think you can state with certainty.

[Richard Hocking]

My responses in purple

...

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.

Absolutely Agree. A significant number of witnesses thought the first shot was either a firecracker or a backfire, including Greer, Kellerman, and most of the SS in the followup car. A few witnesses made it crystal clear that the first shot sounded different from the later shots. It's a pity the WC skipped in-depth questioning on this issue in most of the witness interviews.

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.

True.

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.

This was a crucial element. And we have undeniable evidence that none of the SS attempted to intervene or take protective action until it was over. Between 5 and 9 seconds from the first shot noise until the Head shot. More than enough time to react, yet, no one did. The proof is in the pudding. The Z film and other photos give us the definitive answer.

JFK was left on his own. It was up to him to save his own life. Under those circumstances, using a paralytic for the first shot makes perfect sense. If the SS does nothing, his only defense was to duck. The paralytic shot would have removed that option. JFK was upright and immobile as the Limo creeped into the Kill Zone.

How could that be guaranteed?

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

Bingo.

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...

The "Test" idea is interesting.

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

[Cliff Varnell]

The A-B-C trajectory above...That's one hell of a "coincidence", innit?

[James R Gordon]

Who's Chris?

Anyway, James, I think your model's are fantastic and I'll take Humes-during-the-autopsy and the A-C-D frontal trajectory, and you can have Humes post-autopsy and two arteries the exact location of which in JFK's throat I don't think you can state with certainty.

Sorry about the Chris, Cliff.

Thank you for your comment on the models.

I accept that the trajectory A-B-C does appear to meet the criteria of how T1 could have been injured.

However, as I point out, the right strap muscle and the lung are not able to be damage by this trajectory.

That means some other means need to account for them. A couple of posts earlier I drew a trajectory to account for all the criteria. I.m sure you agree it was a very clumsy trajectory.

There is the problem. A-B-C gives you the C7 and T1 but not the lung or strap. A trajectory for the strap and lung, I drew earlier gives the strap and lung, but does not give you C7 and T1. Only a very clumsy, and unrealistic, trajectory gives you all the criteria. And that is the reason I am moving away from the idea that T1 was injured internally to the position that it may have been injured externally.

Now looking again at this A-B-C trajectory for C7 and T1 as I pointed out there are two important arteries in front of them.

The big red one in front of C7 is the Vertebralis R. The smaller one in front of T1 is the Cirvical Profunda R. That A-B-C line has got to come into contact with, at least, one of them. Nor is it me arbitrarily placing them there. That is their position in the body.

So to sum up, not only does the A-B-C trajectory miss damaging the strap muscle and the lung, it is in severe danger of cutting major arteries.

The advantage of the T1 wound being damaged from outside, e.g. from the back, is that now these arteries are behind the bones and therefore unlikely to be injured, as indeed they were not.

James.

Edited April 28, 2012 by James R Gordon

[James R Gordon]

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.

Pat,

Thank you for your contribution. It is helpful. As a consequence of this debate and the creation of the various models I have made to illustrate my points I have firmly come to your opinion.

The 3D models I have created make it clear that the path of the SBT is too high to be able to damage the lung and create the injury claimed by Humes. That is why in CE 385, Humes raised the position of the lung in order to suggest that the SBT path could, indeed, damage the top of the lung. With my 3D models I have established quite clearly that Humes deliberately placed the lung in its wrong position. As you point out the path of the SBT would not be able to damage the lung, moving the lung is how Humes was able to prove it did do it.

You are absolutely right about the injury to T1. What I find astonishing is the carelessness of the researchers and so the called authorities on JFK research. These people have uncritically gone along with the WC views without bothering in slightest to examine the credibility of such a view.

Cliff Varnell first brought to my attention the T1/C7 problem. I initially thought that it was a simple matter of identifying where these bones were in the body and establishing how the throat wound could also damage them. When I studied it I realised it was just impossible. The location of T1/C7 is far too far removed to be able to be injured by the same bullet that also damaged the lung and right strap muscle. It is just not possible. In order to force a common trajectory, as I have shown, you have to create an impossible realistic trajectory.

The consequence of this discovery is that it has changed my view on the back wound. Up till then I was in agreement with Cliff on the position back wound. But now seeing that it was impossible to injure C7/T1 internally the only alternative was that they were damaged externally. The consequence of this is that the back wound has to be around the T1 area, just as BE 3 shows.

It was a logical process. If T1 could not be damaged internally, the only alternative is that it was damaged externally. As you point out, and as others have pointed out, T1 was damaged, that fact cannot be ignored. The damage cannot be accounted for internally, and that therefore means it can only be accounted for externally.

I don't know when you wrote your chapters Pat, but it is clear to me that you were onto this truth long before I was. Exploring this issue has been a learning process for me. Although I was never a WC supporter, I sometimes wondered whether the SBT had credibility. Exploring this issue, as I have, I have been able to identify the impossibility of the SBT. I now know where I was wrong in thinking the SBT had any credibility. That is why I am so disappointed in these so called authorities whose voices "of authority" can be heard all over the place. They have never explored the issue. They have never examined the facts of the case, for if they had they would come upon the same problems I have.

James.

[Cliff Varnell]

Who's Chris?

Anyway, James, I think your model's are fantastic and I'll take Humes-during-the-autopsy and the A-C-D frontal trajectory, and you can have Humes post-autopsy and two arteries the exact location of which in JFK's throat I don't think you can state with certainty.

Sorry about the Chris, Cliff.

Thank you for your comment on the models.

I accept that the trajectory A-B-C does appear to meet the criteria of how T1 could have been injured.

However, as I point out, the right strap muscle and the lung are not able to be damage by this trajectory.

So?

That means two things:

1)The swelling of the tissue the round penetrated extended to overlay the apex of the lung, and we don't know the impact of the paralytic chemical (when we're dancing with Flechette!)

2) Commander Humes -- let's give him the benefit of the doubt -- was a military man ordered to lie about the medical evidence.

There's nothing in the FBI report about bruised lungs or strap muscles, is there? No contemporaneous notes -- he burned them.

That means some other means need to account for them.

It does? All of a sudden the WC testimony of a major figure in the cover-up becomes the sole basis for evaluating evidence -- while chucking his credible contemporaneous accounts?

I don't see the logic here, frankly.

A couple of posts earlier I drew a trajectory to account for all the criteria. I.m sure you agree it was a very clumsy trajectory.

You're right, absolutely. But you cannot assume even with the near-perfect line up of A-B-C that the round won't do the dipsy-doodle cutting through the soft tissue of JFK's neck. Those veins are NOT that wide, near as I can tell, and evidently the round missed the veins, because everything else lines up.

Or you can chalk it up to yet another incredible co-incidence like 16 people observing a back wound matching the location of the holes in the clothes. More incredible co-incidences?

There is the problem. A-B-C gives you the C7 and T1 but not the lung or strap. A trajectory for the strap and lung, I drew earlier gives the strap and lung, but does not give you C7 and T1. Only a very clumsy, and unrealistic, trajectory gives you all the criteria. And that is the reason I am moving away from the idea that T1 was injured internally to the position that it may have been injured externally.

Now looking again at this A-B-C trajectory for C7 and T1 as I pointed out there are two important arteries in front of them.

The big red one in front of C7 is the Vertebralis R. The smaller one in front of T1 is the Cirvical Profunda R. That A-B-C line has got to come into contact with, at least, one of them.

I don't buy it. Are you telling me those veins were as wide as the transverse processes? And C7 wasn't struck, there is an airpocket from there to T1, which was struck.

Sure looks to me, taking a view from the front, like there's a path to the left of both of those veins.

Nor is it me arbitrarily placing them there. That is their position in the body.

So to sum up, not only does the A-B-C trajectory miss damaging the strap muscle and the lung, it is in severe danger of cutting major arteries.

The advantage of the T1 wound being damaged from outside, e.g. from the back, is that now these arteries are behind the bones and therefore unlikely to be injured, as indeed they were not.

James.

Who's Chris?

Anyway, James, I think your model's are fantastic and I'll take Humes-during-the-autopsy and the A-C-D frontal trajectory, and you can have Humes post-autopsy and two arteries the exact location of which in JFK's throat I don't think you can state with certainty.

Sorry about the Chris, Cliff.

Thank you for your comment on the models.

I accept that the trajectory A-B-C does appear to meet the criteria of how T1 could have been injured.

However, as I point out, the right strap muscle and the lung are not able to be damage by this trajectory.

That means some other means need to account for them. A couple of posts earlier I drew a trajectory to account for all the criteria. I.m sure you agree it was a very clumsy trajectory.

There is the problem. A-B-C gives you the C7 and T1 but not the lung or strap. A trajectory for the strap and lung, I drew earlier gives the strap and lung, but does not give you C7 and T1. Only a very clumsy, and unrealistic, trajectory gives you all the criteria. And that is the reason I am moving away from the idea that T1 was injured internally to the position that it may have been injured externally.

Now looking again at this A-B-C trajectory for C7 and T1 as I pointed out there are two important arteries in front of them.

The big red one in front of C7 is the Vertebralis R. The smaller one in front of T1 is the Cirvical Profunda R. That A-B-C line has got to come into contact with, at least, one of them. Nor is it me arbitrarily placing them there. That is their position in the body.

So to sum up, not only does the A-B-C trajectory miss damaging the strap muscle and the lung, it is in severe danger of cutting major arteries.

The advantage of the T1 wound being damaged from outside, e.g. from the back, is that now these arteries are behind the bones and therefore unlikely to be injured, as indeed they were not.

James.

Edited April 28, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

James,

Engaging in this dialectic with you has been a great pleasure. Bravo for the models!

Check this out:

Analysis the neck x-ray for the HSCA (emphasis added):

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows thatthere 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.

From MedicineNet.com

http://www.medicinen...rticle.htm#what

What is a hematoma?

By definition, a hematoma is a collection of blood outside of a blood vessel. It occurs because the wall of a blood vessel wall, artery, vein or capillary, has been damaged and blood has leaked into tissues where it does not belong. The hematoma may be tiny, with just a dot of blood or it can be large and cause significant swelling.

So according to the x-ray it was likely damage to a blood vessel which caused the swelling.

Edited April 28, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[James R Gordon]

Cliff,

I have found this discussion with you a great pleasure. Your constant challenging my position has encouraged me to evaluate my positions. The progress in my learning curve is due, in no small part, to your contributions and challenges. For that you have my sincere thanks.

I have a new idea that I hope to post tomorrow.

Again thanks for your encouragement and challenge. It has been invigorating.

James

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

I have found this discussion with you a great pleasure. Your constant challenging my position has encouraged me to evaluate my positions. The progress in my learning curve is due, in no small part, to your contributions and challenges. For that you have my sincere thanks.

I have a new idea that I hope to post tomorrow.

Again thanks for your encouragement and challenge. It has been invigorating.

James

I'll say! This has been a blast!

[Cliff Varnell]

Seeing the T1 to C7 air-pocket trajectory point toward the 3rd and 4th trach rings has left Flechette feeling mighty frisky today.

Steve Kober's analysis of Tom Wilson's work on Altgens 6 (not Altgens 5 as mis-identified)

http://educationforu...16

Posted 22 February 2010 - 01:53 PM

I have just reread A Deeper, Darker Truth by Donald Phillips which presents the work of Photonic expert Tom Wilson. In one chapter, Tom analysed an enlargement of Atlgens photograph #5. Tom Wilson's conclusion of the Dal-Tex second floor open window shows a man with a beard looking with his left eye through a device described as follows: " the device has a small oval tube at the end nearest the window. There are two small protrusions coming out of the device on the side away from the man. The device is aprx 6 to 9 inches in diameter and is aprx 36 to 48 inches long with a 90 degree eyepiece. Tom finishes the paragraph with his need to investigate this device further. I thought I might give it a try. After researching through the United States Patent Files, I think I may have found a device that matched Wilson's description.

Under Patent US 6705194B2 , issued on March 16, 2004 a patent was issued for a device for firing " a traceless gun firing lethal or non-lethal bullets . After impacting the surface of the substrate the ice bullet is melted and no traces of the bullet remains. The Patent is for " A Self Rechargeable Gun and Firing Procedure and the assignee is named as "Jet Energy Inc. NJ.

I will attach the PDF file ( it's 8 pages and not too technical). Focus on Fig 6 whose look a demensions are a good match for the Wilson device. It also uses an explosive propellant rather than high pressure. Maybe thsi is the "firecracker" sound heard. It was discussed that the first shot should be the kill shot, but maybe that was not case. Maybe the first shot ( in ther back) was to make sure that JFK would not be knocked down thus out of sight for the other teams. Instead , maybe it was thought to paralysis him then he's an easy target for the rifle teams. I propose that this device existed in 1963 and used a paralysising compound in hard ice form. Read the Patent and see the muzzle velocity ( up to 9000 ft/sec) and Fig 8 shows an inpact into 20 mm of plywood. It also had a telescopic sight fitted US_Patent_6705194_Ice_Bullet_Gun.pdf

Do the "co-incidences" ever end...?

Edited April 29, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[James R Gordon]

Who's Chris?

Anyway, James, I think your model's are fantastic and I'll take Humes-during-the-autopsy and the A-C-D frontal trajectory, and you can have Humes post-autopsy and two arteries the exact location of which in JFK's throat I don't think you can state with certainty.

Sorry about the Chris, Cliff.

Thank you for your comment on the models.

I accept that the trajectory A-B-C does appear to meet the criteria of how T1 could have been injured.

However, as I point out, the right strap muscle and the lung are not able to be damage by this trajectory.

So?

That means two things:

1)The swelling of the tissue the round penetrated extended to overlay the apex of the lung, and we don't know the impact of the paralytic chemical (when we're dancing with Flechette!)

2) Commander Humes -- let's give him the benefit of the doubt -- was a military man ordered to lie about the medical evidence.

There's nothing in the FBI report about bruised lungs or strap muscles, is there? No contemporaneous notes -- he burned them.

My point is that the change in direction the missile would have to undertake to injure all the criteria such as the strap muscle is not possible. I suggest the power of the penetration and trajectory, to damage T1, would not be enough to also create the damage definitely on the lung as most likely on the strap muscle. They are too far away from that trajectory. I believe for them to be injured we would need a different trajectory.

I understand your view about the lack of contemporaneous notes, however I believe you will find in my latest posting I have provided proof that with regard to the damage to the lung, Commander Humes did indeed tell the truth.

That means some other means need to account for them.

It does? All of a sudden the WC testimony of a major figure in the cover-up becomes the sole basis for evaluating evidence -- while chucking his credible contemporaneous accounts?

I don't see the logic here, frankly.

You misunderstand my position here. I grant you the importance of the contemporaneous notes. I will try and be a little bit more sensitive on that issue in future.

My position is about the need for the bullet/missile to be much nearer its subject in order to damage the organ. From the medical advice I have received from a medical practitioner in the last few days, I understand that the trajectory A-B-C to T7 is not sufficiently close to the lung and strap muscle to also damage them. Although I accept the power of the impact of any bullet/missile is significant it is unlikely to also create the damage to the strap muscle and lung. For that to occur a different trajectory would be required. And that is where I dispute the possibility of a different trajectory to then go on and damage these two organs.

A couple of posts earlier I drew a trajectory to account for all the criteria. I.m sure you agree it was a very clumsy trajectory.

You're right, absolutely. But you cannot assume even with the near-perfect line up of A-B-C that the round won't do the dipsy-doodle cutting through the soft tissue of JFK's neck. Those veins are NOT that wide, near as I can tell, and evidently the round missed the veins, because everything else lines up.

Or you can chalk it up to yet another incredible co-incidence like 16 people observing a back wound matching the location of the holes in the clothes. More incredible co-incidences?

This is a problem I do not have an answer for. My change of position with regard to the back wound ( to the area of T1 ) and the veracity of BE 3, the autopsy image of the back wound, does conflict with this evidence. I am not so concerned about the witness list, for they could be mistaken. I understand it is more difficult to pin point a wound on a body with flesh and muscle on it, than on a skeleton. However the clothing and Boswell’s diagram is much more difficult to get around. I don’t have an answer on these issues yet and I accept it is unacceptable not to have an answer.

There is the problem. A-B-C gives you the C7 and T1 but not the lung or strap. A trajectory for the strap and lung, I drew earlier gives the strap and lung, but does not give you C7 and T1. Only a very clumsy, and unrealistic, trajectory gives you all the criteria. And that is the reason I am moving away from the idea that T1 was injured internally to the position that it may have been injured externally.

Now looking again at this A-B-C trajectory for C7 and T1 as I pointed out there are two important arteries in front of them.

The big red one in front of C7 is the Vertebralis R. The smaller one in front of T1 is the Cirvical Profunda R. That A-B-C line has got to come into contact with, at least, one of them.

I don't buy it. Are you telling me those veins were as wide as the transverse processes?

Although I have checked on the position of the lung in my models, I have not checked the dimensions of the arteries and veins. Remember that for the sake of clarity these images are magnified. However my understanding is, and I will check to be sure, that the width of the arteries and veins is proportional to the other organs. Therefore in these magnified images although the arteries and veins look very large they are, indeed, correctly proportional to the bone structure and organs around them. But I will check.

And C7 wasn't struck, there is an airpocket from there to T1, which was struck.

Yes I am saying the arteries and veins are proportionally that large in these magnified images.

Sure looks to me, taking a view from the front, like there's a path to the left of both of those veins.

There may be “a path”, but is that same the path the bullet is on. Or is that a new path?

Nor is it me arbitrarily placing them there. That is their position in the body.

So to sum up, not only does the A-B-C trajectory miss damaging the strap muscle and the lung, it is in severe danger of cutting major arteries.

The advantage of the T1 wound being damaged from outside, e.g. from the back, is that now these arteries are behind the bones and therefore unlikely to be injured, as indeed they were not.

James.

Who's Chris?

Anyway, James, I think your model's are fantastic and I'll take Humes-during-the-autopsy and the A-C-D frontal trajectory, and you can have Humes post-autopsy and two arteries the exact location of which in JFK's throat I don't think you can state with certainty.

Sorry about the Chris, Cliff.

Thank you for your comment on the models.

I accept that the trajectory A-B-C does appear to meet the criteria of how T1 could have been injured.

However, as I point out, the right strap muscle and the lung are not able to be damage by this trajectory.

That means some other means need to account for them. A couple of posts earlier I drew a trajectory to account for all the criteria. I.m sure you agree it was a very clumsy trajectory.

There is the problem. A-B-C gives you the C7 and T1 but not the lung or strap. A trajectory for the strap and lung, I drew earlier gives the strap and lung, but does not give you C7 and T1. Only a very clumsy, and unrealistic, trajectory gives you all the criteria. And that is the reason I am moving away from the idea that T1 was injured internally to the position that it may have been injured externally.

Now looking again at this A-B-C trajectory for C7 and T1 as I pointed out there are two important arteries in front of them.

The big red one in front of C7 is the Vertebralis R. The smaller one in front of T1 is the Cirvical Profunda R. That A-B-C line has got to come into contact with, at least, one of them. Nor is it me arbitrarily placing them there. That is their position in the body.

So to sum up, not only does the A-B-C trajectory miss damaging the strap muscle and the lung, it is in severe danger of cutting major arteries.

The advantage of the T1 wound being damaged from outside, e.g. from the back, is that now these arteries are behind the bones and therefore unlikely to be injured, as indeed they were not.

James.

[James R Gordon]

Using a Lie to hide a Truth

Much has been made about Commander Humes’ veracity in this thread as well as other threads on this forum. In Part 4 of this series I devoted an entire thread to highlighting a moment where Commander Humes clearly manipulated the truth. My position is that, although in many places Commander Humes deliberately distorted the truth, in many places he also told the truth. I am not yet able to highlight all those moments when he told the truth, but I am able to highlight one. However Commander Humes also deliberately created a lie to hide the very truth that he described both in MD3 as well as in his testimony to the Warren Commission.

What is the “Truth” and what are the references:-

In the autopsy report Commander Humes made the following observation:

“A 5cm. diameter area of purplish red discoloration and increased firmness to palpitation is situated in the apical portion of the right upper lung.” MD3 P. 5

However on Monday, March 16^th 1964 when he appeared before the Warren Commission he elaborated on this observation. He commented:

“The area of discoloration on the apical portion of the right upper lung measured five centimeters in 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. H2 P. 363

We were able to ascertain with absolute certainty that the bullet had passed by the apical portion of the right lung producing the injury which we mentioned. H2 P.367

The bruise here, photographs are far superior to my humble verbal description, but if I let my hand in cup shaped fashion represent the apical parietal pleura, it was an area approximately 5 cm. in greatest diameter of purplish blue discoloration of the parietal pleura. Corresponding exactly with it, with the lung sitting below 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, and the whole thing measured about 5 cm., which is a little - 2 inches in extent, sir. H2 P. 369

So what was it that Commander Humes was saying? As the bullet passed over the top of the lung the impact of its passing caused an injury to the lung. The injury had the following characteristics:-

i) The diameter of the injury was approximately 5cm in diameter

ii) It injury was not flat, it was more like a pyramid in that it had a pointed top

iii) And from the top, the “apex” the body of this injury continued down to the body of the lung.

In essence, Commander Humes is saying that there was a lump on the top of the lung that had a point and whose base was around 5 cm in diameters.

Well that is exactly what “X-AUT-9” shows. See image below

First a description of the image you are seeing.

a) X-AUT-9 Annotated:- In this image I have outlined two important aspects of the X-ray. In green and yellow I have traced the height of the lung within the chest area. In Cyan I have outlined the “lump” caused by the bullet.

X-AUT-9 Clean Copy:- I have included a clean copy for you to compare and reflect on my arguments.

c) Anatomical Model A:- This model is position in as close a perspective as the X-Ray. It allows judgment on what ought to be seen from this angle.

d) CE 385:- I have included a copy of the Humes/Rydberg drawing. This will be discussed in detail later.

e) Anatomical Model B:- This model is position similar to CE 385 and will be used as a reference to CE 385 when it is later discussed.

f) Anatomical Model C:- This model will be used to reference the position of the lung in X-AUT-9 and CE 385.

Important bone structures have been labeled to assist the following with and understanding of the argument.

Note:- There has been question raised as to the veracity of the such models, specifically whether the position of the lung is accurate. I have since spoken with a senior member of the medical profession and have been assured by them that the lung is correctly positioned. And it has to be for reasons that will be highlighted later.

The Argument A:- The Truth

First the height of the lung. This is a critical aspect that will be explored in detail later. However, essentially what was the height of the lung within the chest cavity? If you look at Anatomical Model C, the right upper lobe is slightly below Costa IR. However when examined in X-AUT-9 such a position cannot be seen. Anatomical Model B also agrees with this point. The only aspect of the lung that can be identified is the front of the lung. Anatomical Model C shows us that top of the front of the lung is above the bottom of Costa IR and below the top of it.

That is the point of the Yellow and Green arc lines in X-AUT-9 Annotated. This signifies a minimum and maximum height for this part of the lung in the chest cavity.

The Cyan arced line outlines the defect on the lung that was caused by the bullet as it passed by. To the left and right of this defect highlighted in cyan, between Clavical R and Costa IR, there is space. No part of the lung in those areas can be seen. Essentially they are hidden from view because of the X-Ray perspective. The only part of the lung that can be seen is the defect. This gives us an indication of the height of the defect.

So both in the Autopsy report and in his testimony to the Warren Commission, Commander Humes referred to a defect on the right lung that he stated was created by the bullet as it passed over the right lung. X-AUT-9 verifies that what he reported and testified to was indeed correct.

Argument B:- The Lie

So what is the “Lie”? It is this: the position of the lung inside the body of John F. Kennedy was too low to be affected by the trajectory of the SBT. Anatomical Model B illustrates the exit point for this bullet at Trachea rings 3 &4. The entry point, as defined by Commander Humes, was above Clavical R. Although his reference is very obtuse and vague to get a trajectory to exit at Trachea rings 3&4 the entry has to be around there. With the lung in its proper location such a trajectory would not have such an effect on the lung. This was confirmed to me by the expert I conferred with. To cause such damage the bullet would have to pass much closer to the lung.

This now takes me to CE 385. I have often heard people refer to this document, and indeed dismiss it, as a “cartoon.” It is not that. It is a political document designed to create a lie that will hide a truth.

And the “lie” is in the position of the lung. Compare CE 385 with Anatomical Model B. In doing that you will see just how high the lung has been raised. When I showed CE 385 to my expert, aside from confirming that the lung was positioned too high he went on to explain something I had not been aware of. Had the lungs been this high in the chest area, the lung is even significantly higher than Clavical R, they would have caused major problems in the upper chest area. Serious medical conditions would have occurred had the lungs really been in that position.

The political lie that is being created through this document is that the SBT is possible. And it is possible only because the lung has been raised to the level of the trajectory of the SBT.

It is interesting that in creating this lie, Commander Humes totally ignores what he saw and testified to: that passing over the right lung the bullet had created damage to the lung that created the lump seen in X-AUT-9 Annotated. In CE 385 the defect is not there, it is the whole lung that is raised. The defect to which he testified has been omitted in CE 385.

CE 385 purports to show the creation of the defect. In actual fact the true defect that is noticed in X-AUT-9 Annotated would have been created long after the bullet had passed through the body.

Although Harold Rydberg drew these three documents of which CE 385 is one, the real artist was Commander Humes. Rydberg drew under his explicit instruction. And so the placing and structure of the organs in this document was the sole responsibility of Commander Humes. It was he who decided how high the lung would be. It was he who decided that it would be placed above Clavical R. Commander Humes would have not only have known not just how incorrect this position was, but how dangerous it would have been to the health of John F. Kennedy had his lung actually been positioned there. And he also would have known how wrong this was. For, after all, he had autopsied this body. He knew exactly what had been the real condition of the right lung, because he had seen it. But the truth is not what this document is about.

This “lie” has major consequences for the SBT. Without the re-positioning of the lung the SBT would not have been able to be proved possible.

Looking at Anatomical Model B create a trajectory from the entrance Humes devised ( I am deliberately ignoring at this point the true location of the wound in the back ) which is somewhere above Clavical R and its exit between Trachea rings 3 & 4 and you will see how impossible the SBT is. Or, alternatively, place the lung back into its true position in CE 385 and again you will see how impossible the SBT is.

I have no doubt that Humes was under serious political pressure when creating these drawings and that is why this is a political document. A document whose content is a deliberate “lie” to conceal the truth of the condition of the body of John F. Kennedy. The true extent of that “lie” can be seen in just how high the lung had to be raised in order to satisfy the conditions of SBT and in doing so disguise the truth that Commander Humes had seen on that Friday night.

So what does all this prove?

First, it proves that there were occasions that what Commander Humes did testify to were indeed true, even though he also later deliberately distort that truth.

Second, it proves that Commander Humes knew that the SBT was not possible and his only way to support the theory required him to seriously restructure the position of John F. Kennedy’s lungs. The distance required to move the lungs them would have had serious health consequences had that been their true position.

However, it is more than that. One criteria for the SBT is that it must injure the lung. If that cannot be accomplished the SBT dies because that would mean something else was responsible for the damage to the lung. The only way that Commander Humes was able to make the SBT possible was to seriously distort the lungs true position. Through that “lie”, Commander Humes confirmed a “truth”: the SBT is only possible if the lungs are moved to a position that is dangerous to the health of the individual.

Third, in the X-rays taken during the autopsy it was later discovered that around C7 was an air pocket. The defect the bullet/missile that did enter through the throat caused on the lung, was probably the source of that air pocket.

Fourth, there were political forces behind CE 385. It is unlikely that Commander Humes did this on his own. It is clear pressure, political pressure, was placed on him in order to force him to create such a document that would underpin and prove the SBT. In creating this document Commander Humes will have been aware of how extensive this lie was. That is why this “lie” whose purpose was to hide a “truth” was also politically motivated .

And that is why CE 385 is no “cartoon.”

James.

Edited May 7, 2012 by James R Gordon

[Cliff Varnell]

James, why couldn't the Cyan lump result from the swelling of hematoma?

[Cliff Varnell]

Where does this come in? James Curtis Jenkins was a lab tech at the autopsy and made this statement to

David Lifton:

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

[the lining of the chest cavity]...You could actually see where it was making an indentation...

where it was pushing the skin up...There was no entry into the chest cavity...it would have

been no way that that could have exited in the front because it was then low in the chest cavity...

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

heart] or the bronchus in the lungs.

[James R Gordon]

James, why couldn't the Cyan lump result from the swelling of hematoma?

Cliff,

Although I am not sure Humes used that term, it could very well be that. The definition of a hematoma says that "An ecchymosis tends to be flat while a hematoma has more of a three dimensional character to it. As well, hematomas may occur in any organand not just under the skin."

That is exactly how Humes explains this defect.

So I can accept that as a description of the Cyan lump.

James.