James R Gordon Posted April 30, 2012 Author Share Posted April 30, 2012 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. Cliff, James Jenkins would appear to have the location right. See below:- The long artery leading downwards is what he refers to as descending aorta. The junction is highlighted by the yellow arrow. I have not put the bone structure back on, but that junction appears to be around the T1 area. James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 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. James, I don't see how a round could hit between the 3rd/4th trach rings, bruise the strap muscle and the lung, and then leave an air-pocket overlaying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes -- I think we've both dismissed that possibility. But I don't see how a round that didn't penetrate the back very far, entering at T3, could bruise the lung-tip and the strap muscle. The graphic, highly specific description I posted above from James Curtis Jenkins -- indicating a back wound consistent with T3 -- certainly wouldn't have left a bruised lung tip and strap muscle, the bullet never entered the chest cavity. Humes was in the habit of playing fast and loose with the particulars of the back wound. In the autopsy report there are two locations listed for the back wound: 1) "just above the upper border of the scapula" -- But this location is more consistent with T2. 2) "14cm below the right tip of the mastoid process" -- But this location is more consistent with the wound in Fox 5 autopsy photo, C7/T1. The Rydberg drawing shows a trajectory much higher than the locations in the autopsy report, and this business about a bruised lung-tip and strap muscle could very well be a fourth bullet track Humes pulled out of his nether regions. Near as I can tell, either Jenkins and 15 others were wrong, or Humes was wrong. My money is on the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 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. Cliff, James Jenkins would appear to have the location right. See below:- The long artery leading downwards is what he refers to as descending aorta. The junction is highlighted by the yellow arrow. I have not put the bone structure back on, but that junction appears to be around the T1 area. James But the apex of the lung was below T1. Looks to me like T3/T4. No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted April 30, 2012 Author Share Posted April 30, 2012 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. James, I don't see how a round could hit between the 3rd/4th trach rings, bruise the strap muscle and the lung, and then leave an air-pocket overlaying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes -- I think we've both dismissed that possibility. But I don't see how a round that didn't penetrate the back very far, entering at T3, could bruise the lung-tip and the strap muscle. The graphic, highly specific description I posted above from James Curtis Jenkins -- indicating a back wound consistent with T3 -- certainly wouldn't have left a bruised lung tip and strap muscle, the bullet never entered the chest cavity. Humes was in the habit of playing fast and loose with the particulars of the back wound. In the autopsy report there are two locations listed for the back wound: 1) "just above the upper border of the scapula" -- But this location is more consistent with T2. 2) "14cm below the right tip of the mastoid process" -- But this location is more consistent with the wound in Fox 5 autopsy photo, C7/T1. The Rydberg drawing shows a trajectory much higher than the locations in the autopsy report, and this business about a bruised lung-tip and strap muscle could very well be a fourth bullet track Humes pulled out of his nether regions. Near as I can tell, either Jenkins and 15 others were wrong, or Humes was wrong. My money is on the latter. But the apex of the lung was below T1. Looks to me like T3/T4. No? Cliff, I placed the ribs onto the image and you are right. The Jenkins comment places the wound between T3 & T4. See below In the earlier post you commented on the impossibly of the SBT. Yes, we are both in agreement there. It is my position that the damage to the lung and the strap muscle was from a shot from the front. To get the downward trajectory it would need to be from a higher position that street level. Grassy knoll, could be a possibility. I have no problems with the back entry at T3/T4, if we can get an explanation for the T1 injury. It would be most convenient if the bullet entering through Trachea 3&4 could be shown to be responsible, but I don't see that as possible. It is asking far too much of that bullet. To do so we have to create all sorts of trajectories that don't seem realistic. That is why a back entry at T1 is so attractive. Not only does it explain the back entry wound, it also explains the T1 injury. Although I believe Humes did tell the truth at points, his 14cm measurement was not one of those occasions. It is my understanding that CE 386 is where Humes 14cm measurement is located on the body. And it is worth bearing in mind that dependant on how the person is positioned the 14cm measurement will end up in different points. This measurement is pure fiction designed to satisfy an explanation of the SBT. James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 I have no problems with the back entry at T3/T4, if we can get an explanation for the T1 injury. It would be most convenient if the bullet entering through Trachea 3&4 could be shown to be responsible, but I don't see that as possible. It is asking far too much of that bullet. To do so we have to create all sorts of trajectories that don't seem realistic. What's more realistic than a nearly straight line between the thrach nick and the air-pocket overlay at C7 and T1? You said there were all sorts of blood vessels in that area -- well, that's what hematoma is, damaged blood vessels. Are there a lot of blood vessels in the apex of the lung? And the probing showed a shallow wound, not something that extended into the chest cavity bruising the lung and the strap muscle. Verdad? That is why a back entry at T1 is so attractive. Not only does it explain the back entry wound, it also explains the T1 injury. Ah, but it doesn't explain the physical evidence, the consensus witness testimony, and two properly prepared medical documents signed off as "verified." Besides, the T1 injury is on a near-straight line to the trach nick thru an area dense with blood vessels. Just like it shows on the x-ray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 James, I spend a good deal of time in my videos demonstrating that the 14 cm measurement supports the wound location on the face sheet, and proves the Rydberg drawings inaccurate. In 1966 and 1967 the doctors dodged the controversy surrounding the face sheet/Rydberg drawings by claiming they stood by the measurements obtained at autopsy. The media reported this as them defending the accuracy of the Rydberg drawings. But this wasn't remotely true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 (edited) James, I spend a good deal of time in my videos demonstrating that the 14 cm measurement supports the wound location on the face sheet, and proves the Rydberg drawings inaccurate. There are two locations indicated on the face sheet. One is the dot on the diagram -- written in pencil, as per proper military autopsy protocol. That diagram was signed off as "verified," also in pencil. Then we have the 14 cm measurement -- written in pen, a violation of autopsy protocol. This measurement uses a moveable landmark, the mastoid process, which violates two more autopsy protocols -- using a moveable landmark and using a cranial landmark for a thoracic wound. Cyril Wecht measured the wound on Fox 5 and said it was 14 cm below the mastoid process -- still a good two inches above the location on the autopsy diagram. They had to keep moving the back wound up until it was a neck wound. Edited April 30, 2012 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 James, I spend a good deal of time in my videos demonstrating that the 14 cm measurement supports the wound location on the face sheet, and proves the Rydberg drawings inaccurate. There are two locations indicated on the face sheet. One is the dot on the diagram -- written in pencil, as per proper military autopsy protocol. That diagram was signed off as "verified," also in pencil. Then we have the 14 cm measurement -- written in pen, a violation of autopsy protocol. This measurement uses a moveable landmark, the mastoid process, which violates two more autopsy protocols -- using a moveable landmark and using a cranial landmark for a thoracic wound. Cyril Wecht measured the wound on Fox 5 and said it was 14 cm below the mastoid process -- still a good two inches above the location on the autopsy diagram. They had to keep moving the back wound up until it was a neck wound. Cliff, please please please stop repeating this inaccurate information. As SHOWN on my slide, the location marked on the diagram is equidistant from the mastoid and shoulder tip. This is its location as measured. And if you don't think so, place a mark on the face sheet equidistant from the mastoid and shoulder that YOU THINK more accurately reflects the wound location as measured and shown in the back wound photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 James, I spend a good deal of time in my videos demonstrating that the 14 cm measurement supports the wound location on the face sheet, and proves the Rydberg drawings inaccurate. There are two locations indicated on the face sheet. One is the dot on the diagram -- written in pencil, as per proper military autopsy protocol. That diagram was signed off as "verified," also in pencil. Then we have the 14 cm measurement -- written in pen, a violation of autopsy protocol. This measurement uses a moveable landmark, the mastoid process, which violates two more autopsy protocols -- using a moveable landmark and using a cranial landmark for a thoracic wound. Cyril Wecht measured the wound on Fox 5 and said it was 14 cm below the mastoid process -- still a good two inches above the location on the autopsy diagram. They had to keep moving the back wound up until it was a neck wound. Cliff, please please please stop repeating this inaccurate information. As SHOWN on my slide, the location marked on the diagram is equidistant from the mastoid and shoulder tip. This is its location as measured. You have a small problem with this approach -- the dot is well below the base of the neck, in a location consistent with the holes in the clothes. Maybe ever lower. The distance from the top of the shirt collar to the bullet hole in the shirt is 5.75" -- that's more than 14cm. What was the distance from the top of the shirt collar to the mastoid process -- a good two inches, no? And if you don't think so, place a mark on the face sheet equidistant from the mastoid and shoulder that YOU THINK more accurately reflects the wound location as measured and shown in the back wound photo. The location of the dot on the face sheet does not match the location of the wound in the Fox 5 photo. Please please please stop putting out mis-information in regard to the back wound, Pat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 The body outline on the face sheet was not anything like Kennedy's, so a mark relating to just one location would be problematic. So they took two measurements (one from the mastoid and one from the shoulder tip) and marked the face sheet EXACTLY where it was on Kennedy. Boswell was later pressured into lying about the accuracy of his mark. But the mark on the face sheet is 100% consistent with the measurements taken at autopsy. It's clear that you agree with this or you'd have shown us by now where they SHOULD have marked the face sheet. They never even saw his clothes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 The body outline on the face sheet was not anything like Kennedy's, so a mark relating to just one location would be problematic. So they took two measurements (one from the mastoid and one from the shoulder tip) and marked the face sheet EXACTLY where it was on Kennedy. Which, according to you, is at the uppermost margin of the back, immediately below the base of the neck. About 3 inches higher than where it's indicated by the dot. IF the 14cm measurement had been written in pencil, we would know it was a contemporaneous notation. But it was written in pen -- and commits 3 (three! count'em) violations of autopsy protocol. And this is ironclad evidence to you? Boswell was later pressured into lying about the accuracy of his mark. But the mark on the face sheet is 100% consistent with the measurements taken at autopsy. It's clear that you agree with this or you'd have shown us by now where they SHOULD have marked the face sheet. That location is not the base of the neck, Pat. No matter how hard you massage it. IF they'd taken the 14cm measurement on 11/22/63 they would have written it down in pencil, like everything that was signed off as "verified.". They did the dot in pencil. The dot corresponds to the holes in the clothes and the consensus witness testimony to the T3 back wound. If you're trying to rehabilitate this phony 14cm measurement -- 3 violations of autopsy protocol! -- be my guest. All you're repeating is the Lone Nut talking points of the cover-up, frankly. They never even saw his clothes. They didn't take the 14cm measurement on 11/22/63. There is a chain of evidence for the clothes. Your case is based on the accounts of men dragooned fully into the cover-up after the autopsy, and reports and photographs which were improperly prepared. Have fun with that, Pat. But it's nonsense, nonetheless.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 James, I spend a good deal of time in my videos demonstrating that the 14 cm measurement supports the wound location on the face sheet, and proves the Rydberg drawings inaccurate. There are two locations indicated on the face sheet. One is the dot on the diagram -- written in pencil, as per proper military autopsy protocol. That diagram was signed off as "verified," also in pencil. Then we have the 14 cm measurement -- written in pen, a violation of autopsy protocol. This measurement uses a moveable landmark, the mastoid process, which violates two more autopsy protocols -- using a moveable landmark and using a cranial landmark for a thoracic wound. Cyril Wecht measured the wound on Fox 5 and said it was 14 cm below the mastoid process -- still a good two inches above the location on the autopsy diagram. They had to keep moving the back wound up until it was a neck wound. Cliff, please please please stop repeating this inaccurate information. As SHOWN on my slide, the location marked on the diagram is equidistant from the mastoid and shoulder tip. This is its location as measured. And if you don't think so, place a mark on the face sheet equidistant from the mastoid and shoulder that YOU THINK more accurately reflects the wound location as measured and shown in the back wound photo. I would never use the mastoid or acromion processes as landmarks -- they are moveable. That's why it's a violation of autopsy protocol to use a moveable landmark. And using the mastoid process is a double violation because you're using a moveable cranial landmark to locate a thoracic wound. And then this mess was recorded in pen who knows when. Steee-rike 3! I'd use the spine as a landmark, just as Dr. Finck told the ARRB. Just like Dr. Burkley in the death certificate -- "third thoracic vertebra" -- according to proper protocol. Why would anyone want to repeat obvious mistakes and hold it up as golden truth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Thanks for the confirmation, Cliff. The mark on the face sheet is equidistant from the mastoid and shoulder tip and confirms the measurements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 (edited) Thanks for the confirmation, Cliff. The mark on the face sheet is equidistant from the mastoid and shoulder tip and confirms the measurements. What measurements? What contemporaneous account do you have of these measurements being taken? No, that dot is no where near the base of the neck where YOU put the back wound. On JFK the mastoid process was moveable -- on the face sheet it isn't. Proper protocol requires a fixed thoracic landmark -- very specifically the spine -- for a thoracic wound. Period. Your attempt to promote horribly degraded evidence as gold is, well, let's just say it's...misguided. Edited April 30, 2012 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Thanks for the confirmation, Cliff. The mark on the face sheet is equidistant from the mastoid and shoulder tip and confirms the measurements. What measurements? What contemporaneous account do you have of these measurements being taken? No, that dot is no where near the base of the neck where YOU put the back wound. On JFK the mastoid process was moveable -- on the face sheet it isn't. Proper protocol requires a fixed thoracic landmark -- very specifically the spine -- for a thoracic wound. Period. Your attempt to promote horribly degraded evidence as gold is, well, let's just say it's...misguided. So, you would have everyone disregard the autopsy photos--which show a wound too low to support the single-bullet theory-- and disregard the autopsy measurements--which depict a wound too low to support the single-bullet theory--and instead embrace YOUR interpretation of the words of a few eyewitnesses, who NEVER disputed the accuracy of the autopsy photos and measurements. And WHY is this, exactly? Oh yeah, to dispute the single-bullet theory. That is anything BUT Occam's Razor, Cliff. You have NEEDLESSLY muddied up an issue that is otherwise crystal clear. Which is EXACTLY what "they" want. I mean, LOOK at the photo. Mark off the measurements. It signifies a wound at a location too low to support the single-bullet theory. Or not. I mean, if you actually think the SBT "works" with a wound at T-1, then why not take the challenge and show us how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now