Dismantling the Single Bullet Theory Pt 5

[James R Gordon]

John,

I am not clear what point you are making.

Could you elaborate please.

James.

[James R Gordon]

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.

The flechette scenario fits the damage seen on the x-ray like a glove. The round entered between the 3rd and 4th trach rings with a straight shot to the right T1 transverse process right over the C7 transverse process, accounting for the T1 fracture and the air-pocket overlaying those structures. Significant possible hematoma noted on the x-ray, consistent with damaged blood vessels in the flechette's wake.

Cliff,

You say the bullet went right over the C7 TP. In the model, you are using, it is going under. We're the bullet to be above C7 it would totally miss T1.

This air pocket, that you refer to, was created long after the bullet completed its journey. After all the air had to have come from the damage to the lung.

And if this bullet, had completely missed C7, that leaves the problem of the C6 muscle above it that is shown to be severly damaged. In case you are tempted to suggest that that muscle is not a muscle, but actually a hematoma, remember that when x-ray 8 was taken the lung had been removed and therefore so had the hematoma, which was attached to it.

James

[John Dolva]

Sure James. I'm interpreting the finger as the sunlit part of a deliberately gripping fist of both lapels to pull them apart. The thumb is behind the left lapel and the other three fingers in shadow.

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

The flechette scenario fits the damage seen on the x-ray like a glove. The round entered between the 3rd and 4th trach rings with a straight shot to the right T1 transverse process right over the C7 transverse process, accounting for the T1 fracture and the air-pocket overlaying those structures. Significant possible hematoma noted on the x-ray, consistent with damaged blood vessels in the flechette's wake.

Cliff,

You say the bullet went right over the C7 TP. In the model, you are using, it is going under.

That's not what I see in the model. In the model I see your red arrow pointing directly at the tip of the C7 TP. Don't you have to account for a small percentage of variation between your model and JFK? A millimeter here or there and the path is straight-line to the T1 TP.

We're the bullet to be above C7 it would totally miss T1.

This air pocket, that you refer to, was created long after the bullet completed its journey. After all the air had to have come from the damage to the lung.

Factually incorrect. Are you saying that all such subcutaneous air-pockets in the body are related to the lungs?

And if this bullet, had completely missed C7, that leaves the problem of the C6 muscle above it that is shown to be severly damaged. In case you are tempted to suggest that that muscle is not a muscle, but actually a hematoma, remember that when x-ray 8 was taken the lung had been removed and therefore so had the hematoma, which was attached to it.

You're begging the question as to the veracity of Humes testimony. Humes lied when he said that the bullet transited the body -- the wound was probed and there was no transit. To back up this bald-faced lie, Humes added another lie about the bruised lung-tip so that he could describe a plausible bullet path.

It's all a lie, but you have to regard it as historical truth, evidently.

James

[Malcolm Ward]

James,I came across this while looking up neurology and the JFK neck wound.I don't know if you have come across it before but thought it worth posting.

The most convincing case against Thorburn's position, however,

comes from Dr. Jan E. Leestma, Associate Medical Director and

Neuropathologist for the Chicago Institute of Neurosurgery and

Neuroresearch at Columbus Hospital. In my conversation with Dr. Leestma11,

he adamantly stated that Thorburn's position does not seem a viable outcome

of Kennedy's injury. Dr. Leestma says that when a sudden injury, such as a

bullet wound, is withstood by a victim, the nerve cells and fibers go into

neural shock. The nerves are immediately traumatized; they literally turn

off and result in slumping of the victim. He adds "when you physically

shock any nerve, the last thing it does is fire. It classically becomes

electrically silent. Whether the spinal cord is directly hit or grazed,

the nerve cords extending beyond the actual spine would be affected and

fall silent."12 When presented with what Lattimer contended occurred

during Thorburn's reaction, Dr. Leestma said "it seems to me a reaction as

such would just never occur. I don't care if the sixth cervical segment

was severed or just touched, the nerves in that area would not go into an

immediate neurological reaction with arms flying up, they would fall

limp."13 Dr. Leestma placed C-6 at the base of the neck, just above the

hump at the bottom of the neck. In sum, Dr. Leestma does not believe that

Thorburn's reaction could have occurred. He stated that he thought the

back wound was found to be lower than C-6 and that the upsweep of Kennedy's

arms did not seem to be a neurological reaction. In closing, Dr. Leestma

added that he found it inexcuseable that no forensic pathologist was on the

autopsy scene. He said that in his experience, he had never seen a more

"botched job done by people that were not medically qualified to perform

such an important procedure."

Source;

http://karws.gso.uri...racy/JLDUNN.TXT

[James R Gordon]

John,

Thanks for the link and document. I don't feel it is Thorburn's Position.

As I understand it, this theory suggests that the arms are locked once it takes effect. However between Z 225 to Z 312, JFK's arms constantly change position, even though basically they remain towards the upper part of his body.

I am about to start a massive amount of reading to examine what I have said has merit and what does not before I begin the work of collecting this study together. I believe I am onto something, but I now need to see what has merit and what may not have merit.

Again thanks.

James.

[Malcolm Ward]

I look forward to reading your finished study James.I have found this a very interesting,thought provoking topic.

[John Dolva]

Most welcome, James. I too am following this with interest.

[Cliff Varnell]

John,

Thanks for the link and document. I don't feel it is Thorburn's Position.

As I understand it, this theory suggests that the arms are locked once it takes effect. However between Z 225 to Z 312, JFK's arms constantly change position, even though basically they remain towards the upper part of his body.

I am about to start a massive amount of reading to examine what I have said has merit and what does not before I begin the work of collecting this study together. I believe I am onto something, but I now need to see what has merit and what may not have merit.

Again thanks.

James.

Even as your harshest critic I'm still a big fan! Thanks for the models, James!

[James R Gordon]




Even as your harshest critic I'm still a big fan! Thanks for the models, James!




Cliff,

Since in you previous post to this you were again quite severe I feel it might be worth walking back over previous discussions.

See image below:-

First I need to point out to you, I believe I have already done so, that the model you are so pleased with has incorrect posture. The model [labeled “Incorrect Posture”] is leaning forward. That was my mistake, I did not notice what I had done. The importance of this mistake is that is the only reason that C7 and T1 are reached. If you look at the model [labeled “Correct Posture”] the line can pass over C7 but it is unable to strike T1. Although the images on Elm Street show JFK sitting upright, maybe you will want to change your view as to JFK’s posture when passing down Elm Street.

That aside, lets (for the sake of argument) assume that either models is able to meet with C7 and strike T1. For the sake of this argument I will grant you that.

The problem is that even if the bullet achieves that it leaves major areas unresolved.

a) The position of the lung is too low for it to be damaged, however you want to describe. X-Ray-AUT-9 outlines that damage. However you want to describe it, damage to blood vessels – whatever – it was damaged. It is not just Humes, I believe Fink also mentions it.

The Intervertebral Disc C06 C07, seen in X-AUT-8 would not be damaged to the extent it is by the bullet’s just passing by. The X-Ray shows it is very severely damaged. I agree with Pat, that the change in the posture of the neck was created when the body was placed in the coffin in Dallas. However, the fact that this change in position of the neck could take place at all, indicates the damage to C7.

Your argument is that C7 was not damaged. If so how was the Intervertebral Disc C06 C07 damaged and how could the neck change its position and end up sitting on top of T1 if there had been no damage in this area?

c) Now on this description I grant you that T1 has been damaged. But am I not correct that the damage was on the other side of T1, the external not internal side? How was the damage created on the external side if through this description it is the internal side that has been damaged?

d) With regard to the back wound, although I place the wound nearer T2, it is still close to T3, which is where you want it placed.

It is often your custom to dismiss arguments you disagree with by stating Humes is a xxxx or certain data items are not to be trusted.

I have accepted that the bullet missed C7 and went on to strike T1. Why don’t you do me the curtsey of making an attempt to address these areas? For a shot to enter from the front, it is not just a matter of it missing C7 or striking T1, it must cause major damage to the muscle above C7. It is mandatory that it is damaged, because it is the damage to the muscle and the interconnected cervical nerves that cause the arm movement we see JFK make after the bullet struck. They cannot be ignored.

The lung was also damaged. However your flight path for the bullet, takes it too high to do that kind of damage. If the lung was where Humes places it in CE 385, then yes it probably could be damaged.

So, it would be nice if this time you did not resort to the easy “cop-out” by calling Humes a xxxx or stating that the data evidence is fabricated.

James.

[James R Gordon]

Sure James. I'm interpreting the finger as the sunlit part of a deliberately gripping fist of both lapels to pull them apart. The thumb is behind the left lapel and the other three fingers in shadow.

John,

I have given quite a lot of thought to your suggestion that JFK is grabbing onto the lapels of his jacket. I can see how you came to that idea, but when you look over other frames he does not appear to be doing that. See image below:-

In Z 240 he appears to have left hand fully clenched. And in that frame he is too far away from the jacket to be holding it.

In Z 245, if anything he is even further away from the jacket.

In Z 253, we see the finger. It really does look like his first finger. We can see the fingers join to the knuckle. The finger itself does not appear to be the consequence of reflection.

In Z 258, the finger is even more visual. That said I may be mistaken in suggesting it is the first finger. In this image it looks like that hand is open. What I am suggesting is the finger might actually be the thumb.

Z 260 is the image that you believe the fist is grabbing onto his jacket.

In Z 269 we can clearly see that the hand is partially open and quite a distance from his jacket.

Overall, I understand how you came to your conclusion, but I am not sure it is the case. Looking at these images, what do you now think?

James.

[Cliff Varnell]




Even as your harshest critic I'm still a big fan! Thanks for the models, James!




Cliff,

Since in you previous post to this you were again quite severe I feel it might be worth walking back over previous discussions.

See image below:-

First I need to point out to you, I believe I have already done so, that the model you are so pleased with has incorrect posture. The model [labeled “Incorrect Posture”] is leaning forward. That was my mistake, I did not notice what I had done. The importance of this mistake is that is the only reason that C7 and T1 are reached.

James, your model is merely an approximation of JFK. There has to be a degree of variation, no? The x-ray shows a fracture at the T1 TP and an air-pocket overlaying the right C7 and T1 TPs. That air pocket points in the general direction of the nicked trachea. Co-incidence? You cannot presume that the round would take a perfectly straight line while damaging blood vessels, can you? No change of posture is going to significantly alter the trajectory from C7 TP to T1 TP.

If you look at the model [labeled “Correct Posture”] the line can pass over C7 but it is unable to strike T1. Although the images on Elm Street show JFK sitting upright, maybe you will want to change your view as to JFK’s posture when passing down Elm Street.

He was seated up-right. How does that significantly change the angle between C7 TP and T1 TP?

That aside, lets (for the sake of argument) assume that either models is able to meet with C7 and strike T1. For the sake of this argument I will grant you that.

The problem is that even if the bullet achieves that it leaves major areas unresolved.

a) The position of the lung is too low for it to be damaged, however you want to describe. X-Ray-AUT-9 outlines that damage. However you want to describe it, damage to blood vessels – whatever – it was damaged. It is not just Humes, I believe Fink also mentions it.

Finck mentions it, where? We're talking about tissue swelling, correct? There is nothing in the x-ray that precludes the swelling having resulted from damaged blood vessels rather than a damaged lung. The ONLY evidence of bruised lung is found in the testimony of a proven serial xxxx.

The Intervertebral Disc C06 C07, seen in X-AUT-8 would not be damaged to the extent it is by the bullet’s just passing by. The X-Ray shows it is very severely damaged.

According to whom?

I agree with Pat, that the change in the posture of the neck was created when the body was placed in the coffin in Dallas. However, the fact that this change in position of the neck could take place at all, indicates the damage to C7.

Your argument is that C7 was not damaged. If so how was the Intervertebral Disc C06 C07 damaged and how could the neck change its position and end up sitting on top of T1 if there had been no damage in this area?

Correct me if I'm wrong -- but disc damage is according to *your* reading of the x-ray? I haven't noticed anything in the medical record about disc damage. Could you provide a citation?

c) Now on this description I grant you that T1 has been damaged. But am I not correct that the damage was on the other side of T1, the external not internal side? How was the damage created on the external side if through this description it is the internal side that has been damaged?

Are you correct?

d) With regard to the back wound, although I place the wound nearer T2, it is still close to T3, which is where you want it placed.

Great! Progress. At T2 the wound is to low to account for the C7/T1 air-pocket.

It is often your custom to dismiss arguments you disagree with by stating Humes is a xxxx or certain data items are not to be trusted.

I have accepted that the bullet missed C7 and went on to strike T1. Why don’t you do me the curtsey of making an attempt to address these areas? For a shot to enter from the front, it is not just a matter of it missing C7 or striking T1, it must cause major damage to the muscle above C7.

Again, is this your reading of the x-ray?

It is mandatory that it is damaged, because it is the damage to the muscle and the interconnected cervical nerves that cause the arm movement we see JFK make after the bullet struck. They cannot be ignored.

Looks to me like he's making very specific movements with his hands -- the left index finger grasps at his collar-line, the right hand is cupped in front of his mouth. Those are conscious actions, not neurological responses.

The lung was also damaged. However your flight path for the bullet, takes it too high to do that kind of damage. If the lung was where Humes places it in CE 385, then yes it probably could be damaged.

So, it would be nice if this time you did not resort to the easy “cop-out” by calling Humes a xxxx or stating that the data evidence is fabricated.

What's changed?

James.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[James R Gordon]




Even as your harshest critic I'm still a big fan! Thanks for the models, James!




Cliff,

Since in you previous post to this you were again quite severe I feel it might be worth walking back over previous discussions.

See image below:-

First I need to point out to you, I believe I have already done so, that the model you are so pleased with has incorrect posture. The model [labeled “Incorrect Posture”] is leaning forward. That was my mistake, I did not notice what I had done. The importance of this mistake is that is the only reason that C7 and T1 are reached.

James, your model is merely an approximation of JFK. There has to be a degree of variation, no? The x-ray shows a fracture at the T1 TP and an air-pocket overlaying the right C7 and T1 TPs. That air pocket points in the general direction of the nicked trachea. Co-incidence? You cannot presume that the round would take a perfectly straight line while damaging blood vessels, can you? No change of posture is going to significantly alter the trajectory from C7 TP to T1 TP.

Cliff, it is true that there is an element of approximation in the models....but only an element. In the essentials they are accurate.

First, the change in posture is going to make very significant difference. By allowing the model to stoop somewhat you allow a direct angle from C7 to T1, that was not possible if the model is sitting up straight. It is the SBT, in reverse. By stooping his model in the car, allowed Dale Myers to create a trajectory between the back wound and the throat. Actually I have no idea how he got a back wound that appears to be around T2 to come out the throat, but that is another argument.

Second, blood vessels and arteries were not damaged. That is clearly stated in testimony and the autopsy report. That was at the heart of my argument that the SBT is not possible. By showing these arteries and vessels in the throat I questioned how any bullet was able to transverse that area and not hit any artery and vessel. I still wonder how a frontal shot is able to do, but seemingly it did. It is nothing short of a miracle.

If you look at the model [labeled “Correct Posture”] the line can pass over C7 but it is unable to strike T1. Although the images on Elm Street show JFK sitting upright, maybe you will want to change your view as to JFK’s posture when passing down Elm Street.

He was seated up-right. How does that significantly change the angle between C7 TP and T1 TP?

I have explained that above. The seated position makes all the difference in the world to trajectory analysis.

That aside, lets (for the sake of argument) assume that either models is able to meet with C7 and strike T1. For the sake of this argument I will grant you that.

The problem is that even if the bullet achieves that it leaves major areas unresolved.

a) The position of the lung is too low for it to be damaged, however you want to describe. X-Ray-AUT-9 outlines that damage. However you want to describe it, damage to blood vessels – whatever – it was damaged. It is not just Humes, I believe Fink also mentions it.

Finck mentions it, where? We're talking about tissue swelling, correct? There is nothing in the x-ray that precludes the swelling having resulted from damaged blood vessels rather than a damaged lung. The ONLY evidence of bruised lung is found in the testimony of a proven serial xxxx.

I'll find the Fink reference. You surely are not saying that the object that is pyramid shape in X-ray-AUT-9 (see in above post) that is outlined in Cyan is a damaged blood vessel. It is a unique shape for a bruised blood vessels. The main blood vessels and arteries, in that area, are inside the lung. What we see, outlined in Cyan, is exactly what Humes described.

The Intervertebral Disc C06 C07, seen in X-AUT-8 would not be damaged to the extent it is by the bullet’s just passing by. The X-Ray shows it is very severely damaged.

According to whom?

Well according to me, I suppose. But all you have to do is look at X-Ray-AUT-8 ( in post above). It is self evident that the C06-C07 muscle has been severely damaged. And what we are looking at is not C7 Transverse process. That can be clearly seen below it, as can C6 above it, although it is a bit blurred.

Unless you are suggesting that is how the muscle ought to look, it is clearly evident that it is damaged.

I agree with Pat, that the change in the posture of the neck was created when the body was placed in the coffin in Dallas. However, the fact that this change in position of the neck could take place at all, indicates the damage to C7.

Your argument is that C7 was not damaged. If so how was the Intervertebral Disc C06 C07 damaged and how could the neck change its position and end up sitting on top of T1 if there had been no damage in this area?

Correct me if I'm wrong -- but disc damage is according to *your* reading of the x-ray? I haven't noticed anything in the medical record about disc damage. Could you provide a citation?

Search for Transverse Process in Vol 7 and you will find references to it. One that caught my attention is P. 170 Vol 7. There is mentions that had a missile been several inches away from C7 (and you suggest it passed close by, and indeed has to to have contact with T1) these muscles would suffer severe damage. Since the bullet was much closer than that it is clear massive damage would occur. HSCA, talking about X-AUT-8, suggest what I indicate is the damage muscle is actually remnants of the bullet. I have gone and lost the reference for it. I admit I am no medical expert, and I am going to have to talk to some to ensure what I think I see is actually that. However I cannot see how the defect in that X-Ray is anything other than the C06-C07 muscle. I was reading yesterday, and again I have lost the reference, how the HSCA stated that what we see in X-ray 8 (the 8:30pm X-Ray) was not seen in X-Ray-9 ( the X-ray before the autopsy began). Unless I have miss-read the X-Ray it is a plain as a pike staff. I posted them in this thread somewhere.

As I mentioned earlier, I am going to have to seriously study this to see what they say, and most important, why they are saying it.

c) Now on this description I grant you that T1 has been damaged. But am I not correct that the damage was on the other side of T1, the external not internal side? How was the damage created on the external side if through this description it is the internal side that has been damaged?

Are you correct?

I assume that came from you. The HSCA state it can be seen in the X-Rays. I don' t see how because X-rays 8 + 9 don't show that part of the body. I'll check again, maybe I missed it.

d) With regard to the back wound, although I place the wound nearer T2, it is still close to T3, which is where you want it placed.

Great! Progress. At T2 the wound is to low to account for the C7/T1 air-pocket.

The HSCA in Vol 7 also talk about this air pocket.However they go on to suggest that it was the wound to the Trachea that created it.

It is often your custom to dismiss arguments you disagree with by stating Humes is a xxxx or certain data items are not to be trusted.

I have accepted that the bullet missed C7 and went on to strike T1. Why don’t you do me the curtsey of making an attempt to address these areas? For a shot to enter from the front, it is not just a matter of it missing C7 or striking T1, it must cause major damage to the muscle above C7.

Again, is this your reading of the x-ray?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. But you can see that X-Ray it is in the above post. You are surely not suggesting the anomaly is a broken blood vessel. It importance is that connected to these muscles are the Cervical nerves. The C7 nerve, I understand has implications for the movement of arms and hands. Now they clearly are not functioning properly which leads to the conclusion that damage was done to the muscle and interconnected nerves.

It is mandatory that it is damaged, because it is the damage to the muscle and the interconnected cervical nerves that cause the arm movement we see JFK make after the bullet struck. They cannot be ignored.

Looks to me like he's making very specific movements with his hands -- the left index finger grasps at his collar-line, the right hand is cupped in front of his mouth. Those are conscious actions, not neurological responses.

This is not serious. You are seriously not suggesting that what JFK does with his hands and arms, after Z 224/5, are conscious actions?

The lung was also damaged. However your flight path for the bullet, takes it too high to do that kind of damage. If the lung was where Humes places it in CE 385, then yes it probably could be damaged.

So, it would be nice if this time you did not resort to the easy “cop-out” by calling Humes a xxxx or stating that the data evidence is fabricated.

What's changed?

Between you and me, probably not a great deal.

James.

[Cliff Varnell]




Even as your harshest critic I'm still a big fan! Thanks for the models, James!




Cliff,

Since in you previous post to this you were again quite severe I feel it might be worth walking back over previous discussions.

See image below:-

First I need to point out to you, I believe I have already done so, that the model you are so pleased with has incorrect posture. The model [labeled “Incorrect Posture”] is leaning forward. That was my mistake, I did not notice what I had done. The importance of this mistake is that is the only reason that C7 and T1 are reached.

James, your model is merely an approximation of JFK. There has to be a degree of variation, no? The x-ray shows a fracture at the T1 TP and an air-pocket overlaying the right C7 and T1 TPs. That air pocket points in the general direction of the nicked trachea. Co-incidence? You cannot presume that the round would take a perfectly straight line while damaging blood vessels, can you? No change of posture is going to significantly alter the trajectory from C7 TP to T1 TP.

Cliff, it is true that there is an element of approximation in the models....but only an element. In the essentials they are accurate.

There still has to be a degree of variation, right? When you're talking about posture changes you're also dealing with degrees of variation. In spite of your repeated insistence that the round could not have damaged T1 that's what the x-ray shows -- damage to T1. Despite your repeated insistence that there was no path from the trachea to T1 TP, there was an air-pocket overlaying the C7 and T1 TPs -- are we supposed to believe that the air-pocket was not related to the T1 TP damage? That it's a co-incidence that such a trajectory points in the general direction of the nicked trachea?

First, the change in posture is going to make very significant difference. By allowing the model to stoop somewhat you allow a direct angle from C7 to T1, that was not possible if the model is sitting up straight.

Doesn't mean it wasn't possible with JFK.

It is the SBT, in reverse. By stooping his model in the car, allowed Dale Myers to create a trajectory between the back wound and the throat. Actually I have no idea how he got a back wound that appears to be around T2 to come out the throat, but that is another argument.

Second, blood vessels and arteries were not damaged. That is clearly stated in testimony and the autopsy report. That was at the heart of my argument that the SBT is not possible. By showing these arteries and vessels in the throat I questioned how any bullet was able to transverse that area and not hit any artery and vessel. I still wonder how a frontal shot is able to do, but seemingly it did. It is nothing short of a mirac

If you look at the model [labeled “Correct Posture”] the line can pass over C7 but it is unable to strike T1. Although the images on Elm Street show JFK sitting upright, maybe you will want to change your view as to JFK’s posture when passing down Elm Street.

He was seated up-right. How does that significantly change the angle between C7 TP and T1 TP?

I have explained that above. The seated position makes all the difference in the world to trajectory analysis.

That aside, lets (for the sake of argument) assume that either models is able to meet with C7 and strike T1. For the sake of this argument I will grant you that.

The problem is that even if the bullet achieves that it leaves major areas unresolved.

a) The position of the lung is too low for it to be damaged, however you want to describe. X-Ray-AUT-9 outlines that damage. However you want to describe it, damage to blood vessels – whatever – it was damaged. It is not just Humes, I believe Fink also mentions it.

Finck mentions it, where? We're talking about tissue swelling, correct? There is nothing in the x-ray that precludes the swelling having resulted from damaged blood vessels rather than a damaged lung. The ONLY evidence of bruised lung is found in the testimony of a proven serial xxxx.

I'll find the Fink reference. You surely are not saying that the object that is pyramid shape in X-ray-AUT-9 (see in above post) that is outlined in Cyan is a damaged blood vessel.

We already discussed this. I cited the fact that massive swelling can occur from hematoma, which is damaged blood vessels. The HSCA x-ray analysis said the swollen tissue was "overlaying" the apex of the lung.

It is a unique shape for a bruised blood vessels. The main blood vessels and arteries, in that area, are inside the lung. What we see, outlined in Cyan, is exactly what Humes described.

The Intervertebral Disc C06 C07, seen in X-AUT-8 would not be damaged to the extent it is by the bullet’s just passing by. The X-Ray shows it is very severely damaged.

According to whom?

Well according to me, I suppose. But all you have to do is look at X-Ray-AUT-8 ( in post above). It is self evident that the C06-C07 muscle has been severely damaged. And what we are looking at is not C7 Transverse process. That can be clearly seen below it, as can C6 above it, although it is a bit blurred.

Unless you are suggesting that is how the muscle ought to look, it is clearly evident that it is damaged.

I'm not a radiologist.

I agree with Pat, that the change in the posture of the neck was created when the body was placed in the coffin in Dallas. However, the fact that this change in position of the neck could take place at all, indicates the damage to C7.

Your argument is that C7 was not damaged. If so how was the Intervertebral Disc C06 C07 damaged and how could the neck change its position and end up sitting on top of T1 if there had been no damage in this area?

Correct me if I'm wrong -- but disc damage is according to *your* reading of the x-ray? I haven't noticed anything in the medical record about disc damage. Could you provide a citation?

Search for Transverse Process in Vol 7 and you will find references to it. One that caught my attention is P. 170 Vol 7. There is mentions that had a missile been several inches away from C7 (and you suggest it passed close by, and indeed has to to have contact with T1) these muscles would suffer severe damage.

Okay. And you're saying they did suffer severe damage, right?

Since the bullet was much closer than that it is clear massive damage would occur. HSCA, talking about X-AUT-8, suggest what I indicate is the damage muscle is actually remnants of the bullet. I have gone and lost the reference for it. I admit I am no medical expert, and I am going to have to talk to some to ensure what I think I see is actually that. However I cannot see how the defect in that X-Ray is anything other than the C06-C07 muscle. I was reading yesterday, and again I have lost the reference, how the HSCA stated that what we see in X-ray 8 (the 8:30pm X-Ray) was not seen in X-Ray-9 ( the X-ray before the autopsy began). Unless I have miss-read the X-Ray it is a plain as a pike staff. I posted them in this thread somewhere.

Okay, so if a round passed close to the C06-07 muscle it would be severely damaged and according to you the x-ray shows this muscle severely damaged.

Great. What's the issue with the A-B-C trajectory given what you say?

As I mentioned earlier, I am going to have to seriously study this to see what they say, and most important, why they are saying it.

c) Now on this description I grant you that T1 has been damaged. But am I not correct that the damage was on the other side of T1, the external not internal side? How was the damage created on the external side if through this description it is the internal side that has been damaged?

Are you correct?

I assume that came from you. The HSCA state it can be seen in the X-Rays. I don' t see how because X-rays 8 + 9 don't show that part of the body. I'll check again, maybe I missed it.

d) With regard to the back wound, although I place the wound nearer T2, it is still close to T3, which is where you want it placed.

Great! Progress. At T2 the wound is to low to account for the C7/T1 air-pocket.

The HSCA in Vol 7 also talk about this air pocket.However they go on to suggest that it was the wound to the Trachea that created it.

Be that as it may, T2 is too low to have caused the air-pocket. The air-pocket had to have been created by the throat shot.

It is often your custom to dismiss arguments you disagree with by stating Humes is a xxxx or certain data items are not to be trusted.

I have accepted that the bullet missed C7 and went on to strike T1. Why don’t you do me the curtsey of making an attempt to address these areas? For a shot to enter from the front, it is not just a matter of it missing C7 or striking T1, it must cause major damage to the muscle above C7.

Again, is this your reading of the x-ray?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. But you can see that X-Ray it is in the above post. You are surely not suggesting the anomaly is a broken blood vessel.

Hematoma involves possibly massive tissue swelling due to damaged blood vessels. The x-ray so indicates tissue swelling, does it not?

It importance is that connected to these muscles are the Cervical nerves. The C7 nerve, I understand has implications for the movement of arms and hands. Now they clearly are not functioning properly which leads to the conclusion that damage was done to the muscle and interconnected nerves.

JFK's initial actions seem quite conscious.

It is mandatory that it is damaged, because it is the damage to the muscle and the interconnected cervical nerves that cause the arm movement we see JFK make after the bullet struck. They cannot be ignored.

Looks to me like he's making very specific movements with his hands -- the left index finger grasps at his collar-line, the right hand is cupped in front of his mouth. Those are conscious actions, not neurological responses.

This is not serious. You are seriously not suggesting that what JFK does with his hands and arms, after Z 224/5, are conscious actions?

His actions were conscious attempts to clear his throat until Z235, roughly.

The lung was also damaged. However your flight path for the bullet, takes it too high to do that kind of damage. If the lung was where Humes places it in CE 385, then yes it probably could be damaged.

So, it would be nice if this time you did not resort to the easy “cop-out” by calling Humes a xxxx or stating that the data evidence is fabricated.

What's changed?

Between you and me, probably not a great deal.

James.

Edited May 18, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Draw a line on a piece of paper reflecting the forward slope of the upper shoulder. Lean it forward a few degrees. Draw another line reflecting the trajectory of the bullet from the sniper's nest circa Z-190--Z-224. If you do this correctly you'll see that the bullet enters the shoulder while heading upwards in relation to the slope.

Pat, JFK wasn't shot in the back Z190-224. SS SA Glen Bennett's tightly corroborated contemporaneous account puts it several seconds later, immediately before the head shot(s).

Let's review:

Bennett wrote the following in his official report of 11/22/63:

"At this point I heard what sounded like a fire-cracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder."

Willis #5 (Z201) shows Bennett turned to the right, as per his statement. Phil Willis said he took the photo as a startle response to gun fire. Bennett was not in a position to see JFK's back during the first shot. Altgens 6 shows Bennett turned slightly to the right but his features are blurred, indicating his head was moving.

He nailed the location of the back wound perfectly -- the bullet defects in the clothes are 4 inches below the bottom of the collars. No one else but Diana Bowron knew about the back wound at the time of Bennett's report. He was dead-on accurate on the back wound location, and his physical movement is corroborated by the photos.

The implications this has for your lower-abrasion-collar-conundrum should be obvious, Pat. In addition to the many deficiencies of Fox 5 already discussed, add the presence of an incongruous artifact, an abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below.

A slight screw-up in the process of faking it?

Edited May 18, 2012 by Cliff Varnell