Dismantling the Single Bullet Theory Pt 5

[James R Gordon]

Thanks for the confirmation, Cliff. The mark on the face sheet is equidistant from the mastoid and shoulder tip and confirms the measurements.

Pat,

I tend to agree with you. I had not considered the measurements on the face sheet.

When you measure these two points they are within a pixel, 80 * 81. But in addition you have made another point I had not considered. The placing of the wound on the face sheet is truly equidistant between the mastoid and the shoulder. It is quite clear that it has been carefully placed on the sheet. It has not been carelessly placed on the sheet.

I had not checked what 14cm actually is in inches. It is 5.511. Yes that is not 5.75 but then the images from that day make clear that the jacket had risen to some degree on the body. And, after all, the difference is only .64 of an inch.

I have often dismissed this 14cm measurement as bogus, you have shown me how relevant it is. Now that I see the placing of the wound in this way, you have highlighted how ridiculous the placing of the back entrance wound is in CE 386. With Humes declaring in both the autopsy report and in in testimony that the 14cm placement is the correct position for the placement of the wound, he then goes and deliberately places it incorrectly in CE 386.

James.

[Cliff Varnell]

let's burgundize

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?

Well, Pat?

If they place the dot in pencil according to those measurements -- why didn't they write the measurements down in pencil?

I take it your non-answer indicates there was no contemporaneous confirmation that Humes and Boswell took the measurements written in pen on the autopsy face sheet.

Humes told the FBI guys that the back wound was "below the shoulder," a location more consistent with T3 than the base of the neck. But what Humes said during the autopsy carries no weight with Pat Speer -- indeed, all credibility is accrued only after Humes was fully dragooned into the cover-up -- and then he has ultimate authority! Except when he was obviously lying...

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

Any evidence not properly prepared and with no chain of possession is useless as evidence.

--which show a wound too low to support the single-bullet theory--

Not according to Single Bullet Theorists. They share your talking points about the T1 back wound. Acknowledging the wound at T3 obviates any need for a Pat Speer to expertly guide us to the impossibility of a T1 SBT.

Thanks anyway, Pat.

Besides, weak evidence is weak evidence -- it doesn't matter what theory it may or may not support.

and disregard the autopsy measurements

Yes, a triple violation of proper autoposy protocol is automatic grounds for dismissal.

--which depict a wound too low to support the single-bullet theory--

See above. More repetitions of lone nut talking points.

and instead embrace YOUR interpretation of the words of a few eyewitnesses,

Nice try. 15 people described the wound in a manner consistent with T3, all well below the base of the neck, and Pat Speer says it's only a few.

You're slandering 15 people, Pat. I think it's disgusting.

When are you going to show us how to bunch up 2 inches of tucked in custom made dress shirt, Pat?

The burden of proof is on YOU.

who NEVER disputed the accuracy of the autopsy photos and measurements.

Their accounts contradict the base of the neck wound you promote. Did James Curtis Jenkins made up that graphic description of a shallow wound about the level of T3/T4?

You're suggesting that he just made it up, aren't you?

And WHY is this, exactly? Oh yeah, to dispute the single-bullet theory.

No, the issue is much bigger than the SBT. It involves both how JFK was killed -- specifically the nature of the throat wound -- as well as how the crime was covered-up -- the dragooning of Humes and Boswell and how all the improperly prepared medical evidence is FAKE.

That is anything BUT Occam's Razor, Cliff. You have NEEDLESSLY muddied up an issue that is otherwise crystal clear.

No Pat, it's only "crystal clear" when we have Pat Speer put on his expert hat and explain to us how a SBT at T1 doesn't work. Otherwsise, Bugliosi, McAdams, Von Pein, Reitzes all insist a T1 back wound works.

Luckily, since the wound was at T3, your services are not required, Pat. Any little kid could see it doesn't work at T3.

Now that is what makes the fact of the T3 back wound crystal clear.

Which is EXACTLY what "they" want.

They want pixie dust thrown over the prima facie case so McAdams can make fake arguments with Speer.

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?

I don't need to. I just point to the T3 back wound and get the discussion over. You obviously want the discussion to go on forever.

Evidence is valid or invalid due to factors beyond convenience to a particular theory. The face sheet measurements written in pen cannot be regarded as a contemporaneous notation. The location of the dot on the back is consistent with a back location

around T4 -- the placement of the shoulder-tip is arbitrary and meaningless.

Edited May 1, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Thanks for the confirmation, Cliff. The mark on the face sheet is equidistant from the mastoid and shoulder tip and confirms the measurements.

Pat,

I tend to agree with you. I had not considered the measurements on the face sheet.

When you measure these two points they are within a pixel, 80 * 81. But in addition you have made another point I had not considered. The placing of the wound on the face sheet is truly equidistant between the mastoid and the shoulder. It is quite clear that it has been carefully placed on the sheet. It has not been carelessly placed on the sheet.

I had not checked what 14cm actually is in inches. It is 5.511. Yes that is not 5.75 but then the images from that day make clear that the jacket had risen to some degree on the body. And, after all, the difference is only .64 of an inch.

I have often dismissed this 14cm measurement as bogus, you have shown me how relevant it is. Now that I see the placing of the wound in this way, you have highlighted how ridiculous the placing of the back entrance wound is in CE 386. With Humes declaring in both the autopsy report and in in testimony that the 14cm placement is the correct position for the placement of the wound, he then goes and deliberately places it incorrectly in CE 386.

James.

James, if the man was a xxxx about one thing why do you hold him to be infallible on something else?

[James R Gordon]

James, if the man was a xxxx about one thing why do you hold him to be infallible on something else?

Cliff,

No to be pedantic, but was it not Boswell who created the drawing?

I agreed with Pat because I checked what he said to you and found that he was right. He is absolutely right the distance between the two points is equidistant. We cannot avoid that point, Pat is right about it. After I posted, I realised that one measurement refers to the jacket e.g. the 5.7 inches, and one refers to the body, e.g. the 5.5 inches that I posted. I forgot that the jacket does not go up to the mastoid. On the drawing there is a difference of 2.5 inches between where the top of the jacket would be, on the drawing, and the mastoid. Therefore, on the Boswell drawing, from the top of the jacket to the wound is actually 3 inches. I don't know what that means?

This raises the issue about how authoritative this drawing is. By that I mean yes the drawing has the general shape of a human body and the placing of the dot is around the T3 area. What I am questioning is this, is there in this drawing the kind of precision that there is in the physical measurement of the jacket. For example, assuming that the measurement of 5.5 inches between those points is correct, on that basis the entire figure is actually 55 inches tall. JFK was 77.5 inches tall.

Pat is absolutely right that the placement is equidistant. According to Humes this 14cm measurement takes you to the bullet's point of entry. Pat appears to believe that the point refers to T3. What I am not sure is how can we say that, that point, specifically points to an area on the body that is as precise as T3, as compared to T4 or T2 or, indeed T1?

Is the drawing able to be as precise as that? And that point I am not sure about.

James.

[Pat Speer]

James, I suspect that the bullet entered around T-1. While Cliff likes to claim this is where LNers place the wound, and that I am therefore supporting the LNers, he refuses to share with you that I've demonstrated, over and over again, in my videos and on my website, that these LNers are lying, and that a wound at T-1 does not support the SBT.

The HSCA Pathology Panel, for example, depicted the wound at T-1, and presented a drawing of Kennedy leaning sharply forward in order to show how they thought the SBT would have to have happened, while Kennedy was behind the sign in the Zapruder film. Those running the HSCA, however, KNEW that they'd planned on claiming Kennedy was hit before he went behind the sign in the film, when he was sitting fairly upright. This led them to hire a hack from NASA named Thomas Canning, to re-interpret the wound locations, in order to get them to line up for the SBT. He ended up moving the back wound above T-1. I demonstrate this here:

Most LNs are even more overt in their movement of the wound. I've tussled with John McAdams more than once over his friend Dr. Artwohl's moving the wound above T-1. McAdams claims Artwohl didn't move the wound. I demonstrate the lunacy of his position, here:

[James R Gordon]

James, I suspect that the bullet entered around T-1. While Cliff likes to claim this is where LNers place the wound, and that I am therefore supporting the LNers, he refuses to share with you that I've demonstrated, over and over again, in my videos and on my website, that these LNers are lying, and that a wound at T-1 does not support the SBT.

The HSCA Pathology Panel, for example, depicted the wound at T-1, and presented a drawing of Kennedy leaning sharply forward in order to show how they thought the SBT would have to have happened, while Kennedy was behind the sign in the Zapruder film. Those running the HSCA, however, KNEW that they'd planned on claiming Kennedy was hit before he went behind the sign in the film, when he was sitting fairly upright. This led them to hire a hack from NASA named Thomas Canning, to re-interpret the wound locations, in order to get them to line up for the SBT. He ended up moving the back wound above T-1. I demonstrate this here:

Pat,

Thanks for the information. I have been going back and forward with regard to T3 or T1. More and more I am becoming convinced it has to be T1. My reasons have to do with the SBT criteria. According to the medical evidence this bullet had to damage three organs: the right strap, the apex of the right lung and the T1 transverse process. I just can't get my head around the T1 transverse process. Not only are there two major arteries in front of that bone, it causes utter mayhem to construct a viable trajectory that has logic to it. So what has persuaded me is not what the HCSA has suggested, it is the consequence of the medical criteria inside the human neck. A big advantage to T1 being damaged from outside the body is that these very arteries that are nightmare inside the body are no problem for an outside strike. That is because they are on the opposite of the bones and therefore would be unlikely to be damaged.

However just moving to an outside strike at T1 does not remove all problems. Cliff has often pointed to the fact that the damage to the shirt and jacket do not support a strike at T1. He is absolutely right and, at present, I don't have answer for him.

Through this conversation I am beginning to understand what I believed happened in the upper neck area.

The damage to the right strap muscle and the lung were damaged by a bullet/missile from in front. Because of the angle of decent within the body, the firing position had to be higher than street level. That probably suggests the Grassy Knoll type of area. It is still a very strange shot because the natural areas that should have been damaged is the left side rather than the right. In order for the right side to be damaged JFK's body had to turned to allow such a trajectory. And of course no bullet was found. But from what I can see, the medical evidence from a 3D anatomical model strongly suggest that his how these organs were damaged.

The back wound at T1 was from an external shot. This is the only explanation I can see that would avoid a nightmare trajectory scenario. In addition such a shot ensures that the arteries, that are now behind T1 transverse process, would be unlikely to be damaged by a strike in that region. Of course there is still the jacket problem and also no bullet was found.

This continues to be a very educational and instructive conversation. The more I learn the more critical I am of people like Dale Myers and Vincent Bugliosi. They promote the SBT without any critical thinking. I find their lack of critical thinking quite disturbing. They assume that because the external trajectories have no complications and obstructions, so also must the internal trajectories, when actually the internal trajectory is a minefield of obstructions. My criticism of them is that they never address these issues, it is as if they do not exist. Maybe for them they don't. I am curious that a topic that strikes right at the heart of the Warren Commission has not attracted supporters of the Warren Commission. This thread has had over 2,600 views, and I assume many are by members who support the Commission, yet none have entered. Many less vital issues that have been raised on this forum they have readily joined into. Their absence here is quite deafening. Actually I have no idea what they could say even if they did enter. If they feel that if they say nothing it will just go away, well they are in for a rude awakening. Wait till I place all this onto a 3D model.

And what is worse for them, this is not the worst problem for the Warren Commission supporters. There are two fatal problems for them that they have never been addressed or even envisaged. I am holding back on them at the moment. But still I am surprised that on this critical issue for their cause they have not entered into the conversation.

James.

[Cliff Varnell]

James, if the man was a xxxx about one thing why do you hold him to be infallible on something else?

Cliff,

No to be pedantic, but was it not Boswell who created the drawing?

Yes. But it is the post-autopsy work product of Humes and Boswell that is the basis for your T1 theory. We know these guys were liars once they were fully committed to the cover-up, so for the life of me I can't understand why you elevate them to a position of ultimate authority.

I agreed with Pat because I checked what he said to you and found that he was right. He is absolutely right the distance between the two points is equidistant.

Does the dot on the diagram appear to be at the base of the neck, to you?

We cannot avoid that point, Pat is right about it.

But Pat says this was a just-below-the-base of the neck wound -- again, does the dot on the autopsy face sheet diagram appear to be at the base of the neck?

After I posted, I realised that one measurement refers to the jacket e.g. the 5.7 inches, and one refers to the body, e.g. the 5.5 inches that I posted. I forgot that the jacket does not go up to the mastoid. On the drawing there is a difference of 2.5 inches between where the top of the jacket would be, on the drawing, and the mastoid. Therefore, on the Boswell drawing, from the top of the jacket to the wound is actually 3 inches. I don't know what that means?

It means that if one wants to push for a T1 back wound one must show us how 2" to 3" of JFK's jacket and a near-equal amount of his shirt could ride up entirely above a wound at the base of his neck without pushing up on the jacket collar resting just above the base of the neck.

What you and Pat posit is contrary to the nature of reality. Every time you and Pat raise your arms like JFK the fabric of your shirts indent along the shoulder-line. Every single time, without fail.

The burden of proof is one you to show how you get indented fabric to ride up.

This raises the issue about how authoritative this drawing is. By that I mean yes the drawing has the general shape of a human body and the placing of the dot is around the T3 area. What I am questioning is this, is there in this drawing the kind of precision that there is in the physical measurement of the jacket. For example, assuming that the measurement of 5.5 inches between those points is correct, on that basis the entire figure is actually 55 inches tall. JFK was 77.5 inches tall.

I don't follow you.

Pat is absolutely right that the placement is equidistant.

So? It's a sleight-of-hand to rehabilitate the post autopsy work product of guys committed to the cover-up of the crime.

According to Humes this 14cm measurement takes you to the bullet's point of entry. Pat appears to believe that the point refers to T3.

No! Pat wants the wound to be close to the base of the neck. He's attempting to rehabilitate a phony measurement improperly taken and added later to the face sheet. 14 cm. below the mastoid is the base of the neck, so Pat is attempting to leverage the arbitrary nature of the diagram and the position of the shoulder-tip therein to make a case that Humes and Boswell got it EXACTLY right with the measurements. When you base all your theories on the work of serial liars...any port in the storm...

What I am not sure is how can we say that, that point, specifically points to an area on the body that is as precise as T3, as compared to T4 or T2 or, indeed T1?

Is the drawing able to be as precise as that? And that point I am not sure about.

Again, does that dot look like it's at the base of the neck to you?

James.

Edited May 1, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

James, I suspect that the bullet entered around T-1. While Cliff likes to claim this is where LNers place the wound, and that I am therefore supporting the LNers, he refuses to share with you that I've demonstrated, over and over again, in my videos and on my website, that these LNers are lying, and that a wound at T-1 does not support the SBT.

There's more involved here than the SBT, Pat. Besides, I always make the point that the reason you share this T1 myth with LNers is so that you can show them that they're wrong. You stipulate to their Big Lie so that you can be the expert to prove them wrong.

Doesn't change the fact that the T1-backwound theory was conjured wholly from the post-autopsy work product of men you acknowledge were liars.

[Cliff Varnell]

James, I suspect that the bullet entered around T-1. While Cliff likes to claim this is where LNers place the wound, and that I am therefore supporting the LNers, he refuses to share with you that I've demonstrated, over and over again, in my videos and on my website, that these LNers are lying, and that a wound at T-1 does not support the SBT.

The HSCA Pathology Panel, for example, depicted the wound at T-1, and presented a drawing of Kennedy leaning sharply forward in order to show how they thought the SBT would have to have happened, while Kennedy was behind the sign in the Zapruder film. Those running the HSCA, however, KNEW that they'd planned on claiming Kennedy was hit before he went behind the sign in the film, when he was sitting fairly upright. This led them to hire a hack from NASA named Thomas Canning, to re-interpret the wound locations, in order to get them to line up for the SBT. He ended up moving the back wound above T-1. I demonstrate this here:

Pat,

Thanks for the information. I have been going back and forward with regard to T3 or T1. More and more I am becoming convinced it has to be T1. My reasons have to do with the SBT criteria. According to the medical evidence this bullet had to damage three organs: the right strap, the apex of the right lung and the T1 transverse process.

This simply isn't true. There is nothing on the x-ray to indicate damage to the strap muscle or the lung tip. It only shows tissue swelling above the lung tip. The business about the strap and the lung come from Humes, a man you regard as a xxxx.

Look, James, either Humes was lying about the strap, or Jenkins was lying about seeing the probe push against the skin of the chest cavity at a level of T3/T4.

Those are both graphic descriptions, and only one of them can be correct. Jenkins account is bolstered by the statements of more than a dozen other witnesses.

Humes is branded a serial xxxx, by yourself and others.

Why would you think Humes' account has more credibility?

I just can't get my head around the T1 transverse process. Not only are there two major arteries in front of that bone, it causes utter mayhem to construct a viable trajectory that has logic to it.

Other than a near-pefect straight line from the nicked trachea? How does it get more viable than a near-perfect straight line?

And since there was likely massive swelling from hematoma it shouldn't be a surprise to find damaged blood vessels in that region.

Other than the post-autopsy work product of Humes/Boswell, serial liars, what do you have to conclude on a T1 back wound?

Edited May 1, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Richard Hocking]

... JFK was 77.5 inches tall.

JFK was not 77.5" tall.

[James R Gordon]

... JFK was 77.5 inches tall.

JFK was not 77.5" tall.

Richard,

Sorry, I miss-read the autopsy report. I should have said 72.5 inches. Should have been more careful.

James.

[Richard Hocking]

... JFK was 77.5 inches tall.

JFK was not 77.5" tall.

Richard,

Sorry, I miss-read the autopsy report. I should have said 72.5 inches. Should have been more careful.

James.

No problem. I figured it was a mis-print.

[Richard Hocking]

One of the many problems I have with Humes involves his use of the right mastoid process to locate a wound of the upper back. We all know our heads can move up and down, and side to side at various angles. So the distance between a floating point and and a fixed object can vary.

Jeremy Gunn and Douglas Horne questioned Dr. Humes about this very issue at a session of the Assassination Records Review Board (link below).

Unbelievably, Humes tells the board that the right mastoid process is a fixed landmark. He follows up by immediately telling them that he does not want to debate it.

A few lines later, Humes says it is difficult to use thoracic vertebrae to locate a wound.

Jerry Ford never had that problem.

http://karws.gso.uri...deposition.html

Q. Did the original notes that you took identify the location of the posterior thorax entrance wound with respect to which of the vertebra of the President the wound was closest to?

A. No. The measurements were taken from bony landmarks. As I recall, one was a mastoid process, the bottom of the—behind the ear, and the other was a midline of the vertebral column, not how many vertebrae down it was. So the up-and-down measurement would be the distance from the mastoid process down.

Q. When you recorded it a being from the right mastoid process, was it your understanding that the right mastoid process was a fixed body landmark?

A. Oh, sure. It doesn't move around in most people. You're really in trouble if it does.

Q. Well, is it a fixed landmark, fixed body landmark with respect to the thoracic cavity?

A. It's fixed with regard to respect anything you want it respected to.

Q. Well, if your head turns to the right or to the left, does the mastoid process distance vary with relationship to—

A. Well, maybe a millimeter or two. Not significantly. Are we getting into a big debate as to whether I did anything properly here or not? It's not a debate I want to get involved in.

Q. I'd like to show you a document that's marked Exhibit 6, which appears on its face to be a death certificate for President John F. Kennedy, signed by George Gregory Burkley on November 23, 1963?

A. Right. Never saw it before.

Q. You've never seen Exhibit 6 before?

A. No, sir.

Q. I'd like to draw your attention to the first sentence of text on the second page and ask if you would read that, please.

[Pause.]

THE WITNESS: He's sort of mixing his metaphors. He's mixing the wounds up in here, but I presume when he says the wound was shattering type, it's the wound of the skull.

BY MR. GUNN:

Q. You're welcome to read as much as you would prefer.

A. Whatever.

Q. It's just I have a question for you on the first sentence only.

A. Okay.

Q. You see that Dr. Burkley identifies the posterior back at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra. Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that correct?

A. I don't know. I didn't measure from which vertebra it was. It's sometimes hard to decide which vertebra, to tell you the truth, by palpation. Maybe you can do it accurately because the first and second—did I say the third? Oh, he says third thoracic. I think that's much lower than it actually was. I think it's much lower than it actually—you have seven cervical vertebrae. don't know. I mean, he's got a right to say anything he wants, but I never saw it before, and I don't have an opinion about it.

Q. Did you ever discuss which vertebra—

A. I never discussed anything about it with George Burkley, period, or anybody else. 1 mean, with all due respect, you seem to have come to me from left field. You know, I just— they're not things of which I'm aware. The measurements I made, as far as I'm concerned, were accurate. You could debate whether they were wise choices to be made or not, but they were accurate.

[James R Gordon]

James, I suspect that the bullet entered around T-1. While Cliff likes to claim this is where LNers place the wound, and that I am therefore supporting the LNers, he refuses to share with you that I've demonstrated, over and over again, in my videos and on my website, that these LNers are lying, and that a wound at T-1 does not support the SBT.

The HSCA Pathology Panel, for example, depicted the wound at T-1, and presented a drawing of Kennedy leaning sharply forward in order to show how they thought the SBT would have to have happened, while Kennedy was behind the sign in the Zapruder film. Those running the HSCA, however, KNEW that they'd planned on claiming Kennedy was hit before he went behind the sign in the film, when he was sitting fairly upright. This led them to hire a hack from NASA named Thomas Canning, to re-interpret the wound locations, in order to get them to line up for the SBT. He ended up moving the back wound above T-1. I demonstrate this here:

Pat,

Thanks for the information. I have been going back and forward with regard to T3 or T1. More and more I am becoming convinced it has to be T1. My reasons have to do with the SBT criteria. According to the medical evidence this bullet had to damage three organs: the right strap, the apex of the right lung and the T1 transverse process.

This simply isn't true. There is nothing on the x-ray to indicate damage to the strap muscle or the lung tip. It only shows tissue swelling above the lung tip. The business about the strap and the lung come from Humes, a man you regard as a xxxx.

Look, James, either Humes was lying about the strap, or Jenkins was lying about seeing the probe push against the skin of the chest cavity at a level of T3/T4.

Those are both graphic descriptions, and only one of them can be correct. Jenkins account is bolstered by the statements of more than a dozen other witnesses.

Humes is branded a serial xxxx, by yourself and others.

Why would you think Humes' account has more credibility?

I am not giving Humes more credibility per sea. It is about the position I have taken to argue this issue and others. The position I have taken is to accept the ground rules established by the Commission, in this instance the Autopsy report and Humes testimony. It is my belief that if I can break down their arguments as established under their ground rules then I believe that gives my arguments an added strength. I am happier doing that than questioning whether the Autopsy report is right about strap muscle etc. It allows me to seriously undermine their argument under their rules. For example:-

With the 3D model I have established that the throat area is veritable minefield of challenges to any missile trying to traverse the throat.

With the 3D model I have shown, using their entry and exit points, that this no way that a bullet could damage the lung and strap muscle.

With the 3D model I have shown that no trajectory can account for the T1 Transverse Process. Not only that I have demonstrated that the jugular and other arteries are directly in its path.

All of these points are conditions the WC set down. They can't now take them back and say "Oops we're sorry, we got that wrong."

I just can't get my head around the T1 transverse process. Not only are there two major arteries in front of that bone, it causes utter mayhem to construct a viable trajectory that has logic to it.

Other than a near-pefect straight line from the nicked trachea? How does it get more viable than a near-perfect straight line?

True that trajectory line does indeed go from the throat straight to T1 transverse process. However it is way above the lung and there is no way it could be damaged. The lung is too low within the chest structure. In addition, to get to T1, takes the bullet away from the right strap muscle.

And since there was likely massive swelling from hematoma it shouldn't be a surprise to find damaged blood vessels in that region.

Other than the post-autopsy work product of Humes/Boswell, serial liars, what do you have to conclude on a T1 back wound?

The basis for deciding that the T1 transverse process was injured externally, rather than internally was based on the following.

First, I could find no trajectory that would be realistic and damage T1 as well as the lung and strap muscle.

Second, I could see no way that any missile would miss both arteries.

And so I came to the conclusion that if T1 could not be injured internally, then it had to be injured from an external shot. This has the further advantage of ensuring that bullet would not be able to damage the arteries because, this time, they are behind the bone and not in front.

I was not swayed by who said what. What swayed me was the 3D reality of what was or was not possible.

As I pointed out there is still the problem of the damage to the jacket. I don't have an answer to that at present.

James.

[James R Gordon]

One of the many problems I have with Humes involves his use of the right mastoid process to locate a wound of the upper back. We all know our heads can move up and down, and side to side at various angles. So the distance between a floating point and and a fixed object can vary.

Jeremy Gunn and Douglas Horne questioned Dr. Humes about this very issue at a session of the Assassination Records Review Board (link below).

Unbelievably, Humes tells the board that the right mastoid process is a fixed landmark. He follows up by immediately telling them that he does not want to debate it.

A few lines later, Humes says it is difficult to use thoracic vertebrae to locate a wound.

Jerry Ford never had that problem.

Richard,

I agree with you. I would like to say Humes was fully aware it was not a fixed landmark, but it is a definition Humes uses in the Autopsy report, which was written two days after the autopsy and months before the SBT came into being. His use of the term to define the location of the back wound may well have to do with his destruction of his first autopsy report and the creation of the second report where he now has to link the back wound and the throat wound. That was most likely not something that was in the first report. I have no evidence to support this, but I feel this was a decision that circumstances forced him into and I suspect he was never happy about it.

It is surprising as well as illuminating to me that thirty odd years later Humes still sticks to his definition. I would have thought by that time he could have given a bit and suggest maybe he could have used better landmarks. But he does not, instead he gets really defensive which suggests to me that he is still unhappy about the definition he made and that it was one that he was forced into in the second report and that he will stick with it. I agree with your astonishment that Humes would suggest that it was difficult to use the thoracic vertebrae to locate wounds.

Like everyone else, I would love to see what he said in that first report.

James.