Dismantling the Single Bullet Theory Pt 5

[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.

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.

OK, I would spend more time pondering the shadow cast by the jacket. It must be off the shirt to cast a shadow.

Also I wonder how much a vehicle turn towards the sun and a progressive collapse which is definitely there towards the end is a reason for the changes?.

I also think Altgens shows this grab.

[James R Gordon]

Was T1 Transverse Process damaged?

This is the first in a series of comments on issues that have arisen out of my posting on the SBT. In this one I examine the issue of the damage to the T1 Transverse Process. Throughout the thread the issue of T1 and whether it was or was not damaged was an issue that constantly arose.

In their work the HCSA stated that in their belief the T1 Transverse process had been damaged.

“The panel noted an interruption in the continuity of the right transverse process of the 1st thoracic vertebra much more clearly delineated in the computer-assisted enhancement of film No 8.” P. 98

They used as their authority the study by Dr. McDonnel whose full report can be found at P. 217 Addendum C

Read in isolation, there appears to be no dubiety about the issue: the T1 Transverse Process appears to have been clearly damage and of that there is no doubt.

However a close study of the report and their references demonstrates not only that this issue is nowhere near as clear as the HCSA would like us to believe, but ( in fact ) it is quite possible that T1 was never damaged.

At the heart of the issue were the X-rays and the interpretation of them.

Initially the Panel interviewed two eminent Professors from New York on the 27^th February 1978.

a) Norman Chase Professor and Chairman of Radiology, New York School of Medicine.

William B. Seaman Professor and Chairman of Columbia Presbyterian Hospital New York.

Their comments can be seen on P. 99. Basically both were of the opinion that the T1 Transverse Process was undamaged.

Professor Chase is doubtful there is any damage to T1. This is because he says that if there was a fracture it was peculiar that there was no displacement of the bone. Basically he is saying that the bone shows no evidence that it has been damaged.

Professor Seaman goes further. He said the T1 Transverse Process appeared normal. In his opinion the T1 was undamaged.

Six months later, on August 4^th 1978, the Panel approached Dr. G.M. McDonnel of the Department of Radiology of the Hospital of the Good Samaraitan.

Note:- I used the date of the report, as the date of contact. I acknowledge the contact was probably earlier but the HCSA don’t give a contact date.

From Dr. McDonnel’s submitted report the Panel were able to make the following statement. “The panel noted an interruption in the continuity of the right transverse process of the 1st thoracic vertebra much more clearly delineated in the computer-assisted enhancement of film No 8.” P. 99 His full report can be found on P. 217 Addendum C

However the above statement that the HSCA report made is not what Dr. McDonnel said. What he said was as follows:

“There is an undisplaced fracture of the proximal portion of the right transverse process of T1 (or the region of the costovertebral junction.)” P. 219 Addendum C.

Unlike Professor Chase who also saw no displacement and concluded that there was no damage, Dr. McDonnel also sees no displacement but does suggest there might be damage.

Grays Anatomy says this of Costovertebral Joints: “Together, the costovertebral joints and related ligaments allow the necks and the ribs to rotate around their longitudinal axes.”

It is clear that the “junction” Dr. McDonnel is referring to is the junction of the cervical vertebrae’s, in particular C7.

With the use of the brackets, it is clear that Dr McDonnel is not prepared to commit himself to stating that the T1 was damaged. In his opinion the damage could be elsewhere which is why he uses parenthesis to highlight this point. However that is not how the HCSA described his finding. There is no mention in the main body of the work that highlights that Dr. McDonnel was unsure of whether T1 was damaged and that he thought that the damage may well have been in the cervical spine. In their report the only point that is highlighted is Dr McDonnel's comment on T1. His doubts are removed from the report.

Nineteen days later, on August 23^rd, the Panel contact their fourth expert: Dr. David O. Davis of The George Washington University Medical Center.

Unlike the previous three he is quite clear that T1 was indeed damaged. As the report states “David O. Davis M.D. professor and chairman of the Department of Radiology at the George Washington University Hospital and Medical School Washington D.C. also observed these same findings both on the original X-ray films and on the computer-assisted enhancement” P. 98/99 The “same findings” described are those of Dr. McDonnel. Dr. Davis’ full report can be found on P. 222 Addendum D

It is interesting that, as has been shown, Dr. McDonnel was not convinced that T1 was indeed damaged, but in the report not only is he portrayed as being convinced he is shown to be supported in this conclusion by Dr. David Davis.

Between February 1978 and late August 1978 the panel contacted four people to assess the X-rays and comment on them. Two of the experts were emphatic that T1 was undamaged. One was uncertain and only one, the last person contacted, was prepared to state that T1 was damaged. It is interesting, that in writing the report, David Davis is not the lead expert on the damage to T1. After all he is the only one who come out in favor of it being damaged. The lead expert, in the report, was Dr. McDonnel, who was not convinced that it was T1 that was damaged and thought it may be C7. David Davis was used to support Dr. McDonnel. See P. 98/99

John Hunt in an essay on JFK’s head wound says this about David Davis determination to show where the bullet’s exit point was “Why it “seem[ed] reasonable” to Davis “to assume that the exit point” was anywhere is left entirely to the imagination of the reader, for Davis never explained the rationale upon which he based his assumption. Davis’ unsupported and equivocal speculation not withstanding, the X-rays did not reveal any outshoot points. That left the FPP with only the photographs to make their determination.”

In the end, four experts examined these X-rays. Two decided that T1 was undamaged. One was ambivalent, and only one was prepared to state T1 was damaged. It is interesting that David Davis in his report on X-Rays says “there is evidence of a right T1 transverse process fracture.” P. 225 Addendum D. He can see clearly something nobody else saw, and the very feature, whose absence, determined Professor Chase to declare there was no damage to T1, makes me think that T1 was not damaged.

The process by which the HCSA went about contacting these experts leaves open the interpretation that they wanted someone to agree T1 was damaged, and therefore I suspect had David Davis not agreed the Panel would have contacted a fifth expert.

My conclusion from all this is that the T1 Transverse Process was not damaged.

James.

Edited May 30, 2012 by James R Gordon

[Malcolm Ward]

James R Gordon said,"My conclusion from all this is that the T1 Transverse Process was not damaged."

On the whole,after following this debate,I am inclined to agree with you James.Its just better done with the 3D Images,a picture paints a thousand words,so as to speak.

[James R Gordon]

James R Gordon said,"My conclusion from all this is that the T1 Transverse Process was not damaged."

On the whole,after following this debate,I am inclined to agree with you James.Its just better done with the 3D Images,a picture paints a thousand words,so as to speak.

Malcolm,

Thank you for your support.

I agree images would have helped and since the argument revolved around the X-Rays 8 + 9, maybe I should have used them.

After the main series of postings I felt I should delve in more detail into the HSCA exhibits and reports. Up until then I had mainly used the WC as my evidence support.

In the case of this posting I was curious what the evidential foundation Cliff had to constantly to state that T1 had been damaged. I knew it came through the HSCA, and so I read Vol 7, along with submitted reports. Cliff's confidence had always been a worry to me, I did see where the evidence was to give Cliff such confidence. Having thoroughly read Vol 7 and the relevant appendixes I now see there is no basis for his position. Although I have greatly enjoyed reading the material, when you delve into the appendix evidence you see that the HSCA were just as selective with their evidence as were the Warren Commission. Having commissioned these experts, they then ignored half of then and were selective with one of them. The one they did fully use appears to be quite an interesting character in himself.

Although I had initially been looking for the basis for the the idea that T1 had been damaged, what was central in my mind was the damage to the C6-C7 cervical muscle. This is an issue I am very interested in. I was deeply interested in what these experts had to say about C6_C7. It was really illuminating. They are all over the place. At the moment I am not sure if it is because they have no idea what they are seeing, or whether they do, and therefore understand the difficulty it places them. This is the subject of a future posting.

I found a superb comment by Commander Humes that has really clarified his thinking on the SBT and in doing so has also clarified mine. In my earlier postings on the SBT I was really adrift as to what path this bullet could have taken. By that I mean the essential paths that both the Single Bullet, itself, as well as the bullet that entered through the throat had to have taken. Humes comment is so clear and so logical that I am shocked I did not see the point before. This will also be the subject of a future posting.

In the follow-up posts I will use images and movies to support my text. I understand, as well as agree, they make the understanding of my argument much clearer.

Again thank you for your support.

James.

[Cliff Varnell]

James R Gordon said,"My conclusion from all this is that the T1 Transverse Process was not damaged."

On the whole,after following this debate,I am inclined to agree with you James.Its just better done with the 3D Images,a picture paints a thousand words,so as to speak.

Malcolm,

Thank you for your support.

I agree images would have helped and since the argument revolved around the X-Rays 8 + 9, maybe I should have used them.

After the main series of postings I felt I should delve in more detail into the HSCA exhibits and reports. Up until then I had mainly used the WC as my evidence support.

In the case of this posting I was curious what the evidential foundation Cliff had to constantly to state that T1 had been damaged. I knew it came through the HSCA, and so I read Vol 7, along with submitted reports. Cliff's confidence had always been a worry to me, I did see where the evidence was to give Cliff such confidence. Having thoroughly read Vol 7 and the relevant appendixes I now see there is no basis for his position.

James

My position is that any damage to T1 is incidental to the salient fact that an air-pocket overlaid the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. The angle of that air-pocket -- from T1 to C7 -- points back in the general area of the nicked trachea.

A path above C7/T1 would account for the damage you see in that area, right?

James, the highest back wound you can justify is T2. That's too low to have created the air-pocket. The air-pocket was the result of a round that entered the throat and stopped in the vicinity of T1. The round did not exit; and no no round was recovered at the autopsy.

If you have a fact based argument to challenge the above, I'd like to hear it, James.

[James R Gordon]




James



My position is that any damage to T1 is incidental to the salient fact that an air-pocket overlaid the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. The angle of that air-pocket -- from T1 to C7 -- points back in the general area of the nicked trachea.

A path above C7/T1 would account for the damage you see in that area, right?



James, the highest back wound you can justify is T2. That's too low to have created the air-pocket. The air-pocket was the result of a round that entered the throat and stopped in the vicinity of T1. The round did not exit; and no no round was recovered at the autopsy.



If you have a fact based argument to challenge the above, I'd like to hear it, James.






Cliff,



When we discussed during this thread, it was my impression that damage to T1 was a fact in your opinion. It certainly was something you often pointed to. As I understood it, creating that image with the ABC trajectory line was important to you since it created a direct path from the Trachea to T1. Are you suggesting now that damage to T1 is not an essential issue.



Having studied HCSA Volume 7, as well as the appendixes, it is clear to me that T1 was not damaged. Even though on P. 99 the Panel state that it was damaged.



I am also less certain that the bullet travelled close to the Trachea. I was always astonished that traveling on that route the bullet did not damage the main arteries, including the jugular, that lie in that area. If you remember there was only one route I could find that would avoid these arteries.



When Humes was being interviewed by the HCSA medical panel he said this about the route the bullet took. "It had to have passed medial to the right carotid bundle." Vol 7 Addendum I P. 256 It made perfect sense. The route had to be to the right of the arteries, or in the case of the model below, to the left of the arteries. Of course he was talking about the SBT. And that is why in CE 386 we see his bullet entry point on the extreme RHS and miles away from the actual position of the back wound. Although Humes never mentions it during the Warren Commission, the reason he places the entry point there is because if it were vertically anywhere near the position of back wound the bullet's trajectory would be bound to damage one or more than one of these arteries. And that is why when Hume created his path for the bullet, it was "to the right carotid bundle." But by the same token, it now means that the bullet that entered the throat from the front must also be "to the right carotid bundle."

 Otherwise it also would have damaged the major arteries.

Dale Myers and the others who use the position of the actual back wound for their entry point are oblivious to the fact that their trajectory places the bullet going right through the "carotid bundle."
 Even if their trajectory for the SBT avoids going through the lung, it cannot avoid hitting one, or more, artery. This is an area I am going to be returning to.




Initially my position had been for the bullet to travel through the path indicated by A. That said I could never understand how traveling on this path the bullet did not damage an artery.

 That is why I now consider path A to be no longer a viable path. It is just too dangerous a path.

Humes' point is that the path had to be B or C. I suspect B would be the preferable one. It still takes the bullet close to the arteries, but nowhere near to them that path A does.



So taking up your point about the path for C7 T1, my revised position is that the bullet did not travel anywhere near C7 or T1.



The other interesting point about these new trajectory paths is, that having included the nervous system ( they are the yellow lines ), the damage to the nerves was caused by the bullet. In that trajectory it is bound to have struck some of these nerves. This is important because the raising of JFK's arms is an involuntary action by him that is caused by damaged nerves. I did post earlier an image showing the areas on the arms that were controlled by specific nerves. The damage to the C6 C7 muscle may well have damaged the nerves, but I suspect that the bullet cut nerves, shown above, on its route.

 It is these nerves that force JFK's arms upwards.

With regard to the air pocket, the various experts who looked at the X-rays all agreed to their being an air pocket. They all were of the opinion that it was created by the damage to the trachea. In that case the air pocket is irrelevant to any discussion. It would not have been created and positioned itself until long after the bullet had completed journey. The bullet was going to fast for any air pocket to have a chance of forming and then impacting on the route and trajectory of the bullet. The air pocket was not there prior to the bullet entering the body. It was created as a consequence of the bullet entering the body and was not in position until after the bullet had completed its journey.

 That is why it played no part on the path and trajectory of the bullet.

The back wound, be it at T3 or T2, had no impact on the creation of the air pocket. The HCSA experts are unanimous that it was the trachea wound that was responsible for the air pocket.




Cliff, you say that the bullet “stopped in the vicinity of T1”. No it did not. As I have pointed out above, the path for the bullet took it nowhere near T1. Yes, I used to think it did travel near T1, but I no longer do. A path such as that, i.e. path A, takes the bullet far too close to the arteries. The bullet would have been bound to damage one or more arteries had it been on that path.

James

[Cliff Varnell]




James



My position is that any damage to T1 is incidental to the salient fact that an air-pocket overlaid the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. The angle of that air-pocket -- from T1 to C7 -- points back in the general area of the nicked trachea.

A path above C7/T1 would account for the damage you see in that area, right?



James, the highest back wound you can justify is T2. That's too low to have created the air-pocket. The air-pocket was the result of a round that entered the throat and stopped in the vicinity of T1. The round did not exit; and no no round was recovered at the autopsy.



If you have a fact based argument to challenge the above, I'd like to hear it, James.






Cliff,



When we discussed during this thread, it was my impression that damage to T1 was a fact in your opinion.

Yes, that's what the HSCA report on the neck x-ray said. You present evidence that it was not a unanimous conclusion.

Fine.

You're not making the same assertion about the air-pocket, are you?

It certainly was something you often pointed to. As I understood it, creating that image with the ABC trajectory line was important to you since it created a direct path from the Trachea to T1. Are you suggesting now that damage to T1 is not an essential issue.



The essential issue is the air-pocket pointing to the nicked trachea given the natural angle of the T1 transverse process to the C7 TP. You cited damage to C7 and I cited the analysis describing damage at T1. These questions are incidental to the presence of the air-pocket. There is no question about the air-pocket, right?

Having studied HCSA Volume 7, as well as the appendixes, it is clear to me that T1 was not damaged. Even though on P. 99 the Panel state that it was damaged.



Okay...

I am also less certain that the bullet travelled close to the Trachea. I was always astonished that traveling on that route the bullet did not damage the main arteries, including the jugular, that lie in that area. If you remember there was only one route I could find that would avoid these arteries.



I think we've been over this one enough. The x-ray shows tissue swelling consistent with hematoma, which means damaged blood vessels no surprise there etc...

When Humes was being interviewed by the HCSA medical panel he said this about the route the bullet took. "It had to have passed medial to the right carotid bundle." Vol 7 Addendum I P. 256 It made perfect sense. The route had to be to the right of the arteries, or in the case of the model below, to the left of the arteries. Of course he was talking about the SBT. And that is why in CE 386 we see his bullet entry point on the extreme RHS and miles away from the actual position of the back wound.

Which is why Humes has no credibility post-autopsy. At the conclusion of the autopsy, with the reporting of the Magic Bullet by the FBI Lab, Hume's work product was strictly political -- a wholly inappropriate data base for a study of the historical truth of these matters.

Although Humes never mentions it during the Warren Commission, the reason he places the entry point there is because if it were vertically anywhere near the position of back wound the bullet's trajectory would be bound to damage one or more than one of these arteries. And that is why when Hume created his path for the bullet, it was "to the right carotid bundle." But by the same token, it now means that the bullet that entered the throat from the front must also be "to the right carotid bundle."

 Otherwise it also would have damaged the major arteries.

Dale Myers and the others who use the position of the actual back wound for their entry point are oblivious to the fact that their trajectory places the bullet going right through the "carotid bundle."
 Even if their trajectory for the SBT avoids going through the lung, it cannot avoid hitting one, or more, artery. This is an area I am going to be returning to.




Initially my position had been for the bullet to travel through the path indicated by A. That said I could never understand how traveling on this path the bullet did not damage an artery.

 That is why I now consider path A to be no longer a viable path. It is just too dangerous a path.

Humes' point is that the path had to be B or C. I suspect B would be the preferable one. It still takes the bullet close to the arteries, but nowhere near to them that path A does.



So taking up your point about the path for C7 T1, my revised position is that the bullet did not travel anywhere near C7 or T1.



And the air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1?

The other interesting point about these new trajectory paths is, that having included the nervous system ( they are the yellow lines ), the damage to the nerves was caused by the bullet. In that trajectory it is bound to have struck some of these nerves. This is important because the raising of JFK's arms is an involuntary action by him that is caused by damaged nerves.

Looks more like a very voluntary attempt to dislodge the projectile in his throat, from where I sit.

I did post earlier an image showing the areas on the arms that were controlled by specific nerves. The damage to the C6 C7 muscle may well have damaged the nerves, but I suspect that the bullet cut nerves, shown above, on its route.

 It is these nerves that force JFK's arms upwards.

With regard to the air pocket, the various experts who looked at the X-rays all agreed to their being an air pocket. They all were of the opinion that it was created by the damage to the trachea. In that case the air pocket is irrelevant to any discussion. It would not have been created and positioned itself until long after the bullet had completed journey. The bullet was going to fast for any air pocket to have a chance of forming and then impacting on the route and trajectory of the bullet. The air pocket was not there prior to the bullet entering the body. It was created as a consequence of the bullet entering the body and was not in position until after the bullet had completed its journey.

 That is why it played no part on the path and trajectory of the bullet.

The back wound, be it at T3 or T2, had no impact on the creation of the air pocket. The HCSA experts are unanimous that it was the trachea wound that was responsible for the air pocket.




I couldn't agree more! The trachea wound is on a close to direct line to the angle of C7 to T1. The air would have to follow the path of the projectile, would it not?

Although, that's not how Barb Junkkarinen has described the way these air-pockets are formed. They are formed upon contact. If Barb reads this and I have it wrong, I'll be happy to stand corrected.

Cliff, you say that the bullet “stopped in the vicinity of T1”. No it did not. As I have pointed out above, the path for the bullet took it nowhere near T1. Yes, I used to think it did travel near T1, but I no longer do. A path such as that, i.e. path A, takes the bullet far too close to the arteries. The bullet would have been bound to damage one or more arteries had it been on that path.

What evidence do you have that these vessels were not damaged? Other than the testimony of a proven serial xxxx, that is.

Don't you see the logical fallacy of cherry-picking the statements of a proven xxxx with a clearly political agenda?

James,

Edited June 1, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[James R Gordon]

Cliff,

To make the argument clearer to follow I have extracted the main points of your post and addressed them separately.

a) What were the experts conclusions on the Air Pocket?

Professor G.M. McDonnel:- “In the pre-autopsy radiograph ( that is X-Ray 9 ) of the chest shows air in the soft tissues of the right supraclavicular area of soft tissues.” That is around the C7 area. Addendum C P. 219

Professor David O Davis:- “In the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial air overlapping the right C7 T1 transverse processes.” Addendum D P. 224

Professor Norman Chase:- “Air was noted in the subcutaneous tissue in this same region caused by the passage of a missile and/or air entering the region due to the tracheostomy incision.” Addendum I P. 228

Professor William Seaman:- “He said the transverse process appears abnormal with air present (possibly by-pro of tracheotomy) calling it "* * * highly suspicious compared with the other side.” Addendum 1 P. 322

The airpocket overlying T1 and C7

So to sum up. All four agree that there was air in this area of the upper chest. One, Professor Davis, observes that this air pocket overlapped the C7 T1 area. Two of the doctors, Chase and Seaman, suggested that the air pocket originated from the wound to the throat.

c) The position of Commander Humes in the argument

This is a point we are just going to have to disagree upon. You appear to consider that everything Humes says is a lie. From what I can see you have no foundation for saying that. Humes certainly was less than truthful with CE 385, the SBT chart, but how can you prove he lied about everything else. Unless I can demonstrate that Humes lied on an issue I have chosen to believe him.

However it would be helpful, in furthering the conversation, rather than you saying Humes is a xxxx all the time, that you provide the evidence that makes you want to contradict Humes statement.

That way we ought to be able to widen and deepen the quality of the conversation. It is difficult to find an appropriate response to Humes is a xxxx.

Supporting image:-

The Hematoma is damaged blood vessels

Humes said this about the damage to the top of the lung:-

“As depicted in figure CE 385, in the apex of the right pleural cavity there was a bruise or contusion or ecomymosis of the parietal pleura as well as a bruise of the upper portion, the most apical portion of the right lung.

It, therefore, was our opinion that the missile while not penetrating physically the pleural cavity, as it passed that point bruised either the missile itself, or the force of its passage through the tissues, bruised both the parietal and the visceral pleura.

The area of discoloration on the apical portion--of the right upper lung measured five centimeters in greatest diameter, and was wedge shaped in configuration, with its base toward the top of the chest and its apes down towards the substance of the lung.”

See Image A

Humes point is that this bruise was around 5 in diameter and was pyramid in shape. As you can see X-Ray 9 shows this shape. So I assume we agree there was a shape on top of the lung similar to what Humes describes. The clear version of the image allows you to inspect whether I have drawn my Cyan line correctly.

Now your point, as I understand it, is that this damage is the consequence of one of the blood vessels in the upper chest are being damaged.

That makes no sense. This shape we are talking about is attached to the lung: it is described as being part of the lung. The X-Ray appears to agree.

I concur that it is a blood vessel that caused this damage, however the vessel responsible was inside the lung, not outside. It was the damage to this vessel that created the swelling within the lung and thereby created the swelling we see outside the lung. As Image B shows there are blood vessels close to the Apex of the lung.

Maybe you can explain how an artery, that is some distance from the lung, when punctured then creates an object that attaches itself onto the top of the lung? I don’t see that.

e) JFK coughing up the projectile

My argument has nothing to do with whether JFK was, or was not, attempting to cough up the projectile.

As image D shows the cervical nerves control the movement of the arms.

JFK may well have been attempting to cough up the projectile, I have no idea whether he was or was not, that is not a concern of mine. What I had suggested is that the movement of his arms were an involuntary action triggered by the damage to his nervous system.

If you look at image C and you will see all the nerve strands the emanate from cervical spine. These nerves all connect with the areas in the arm. You will see them listed in image ??. My point is that the bullet damaged these nerves and the movement in JFK’s arms was involuntary. It was the damage to the nerves that caused the arms to move in the way they did.

f) The speed of the air pocket being created

One of your arguments is that the air pocket around C7 and maybe even T1 had an impact on the missile.

My argument is that the bullet was moving at such speeds it was impossible for the air pocket to be created in the upper chest area.

In Gerald Posner’s paperback version of “Case Closed” Appendix A P. 6 is a diagram purporting to describe the path of the bullet, but more important indicating the speed of the bullet as it struck JFK. It is his view that when the bullet struck it was moving at a speed of 1,750 feet per second. Now I have no idea what gun was being used that fired the bullet that struck him in the throat. Nor have I any idea what speed the bullet was moving.

However, for the sake of argument lets assume it was moving at 1,750 feet per second. For a person of 6 foot it is argued that the circumference of the neck is 12 inches making the diameter 3.819 inches. I feel JFK’s neck was larger so, for the sake of argument, lets assume the circumference was 15 inches. That means the diameter would be 4.774 inches.

Now if the bullet was traveling at 1,750 feet per second it would pass through the throat in 0.0002273 seconds.

I suggest that there is no way the air pocket could be created faster than that.

g) The possibility that arteries were damaged

I understand that the average pressure in the arteries is 80 mm Hg. I have no idea what that means. However having seen images of artery damage on films it is a common sight to see spurts of blood as a consequence. We all know that fluid will always find the easiest route and that would be out of the hole created by the bullet.

It is true that once the head shot took place the pressure of the blood would rapidly decrease. However between the point of the throat shot and the head shot there was 10.75 seconds. That was more than sufficient time for the escaping blood to find its escape route. That would certainly have been visible on the Zapruder film.

Perry was questioned by the HCSA and one question he was asked was whether there was any sign of artery damage in the upper chest area. He replied: “there was no evidence of a major arterial injury. And the artery, the course that's closely applied to the trachea is the common carotid artery at that level But it was not injured” Addendum I P. 304

Taken together, I would argue that there is no evidence that any of the arteries were damaged.

James.

[John Dolva]

Damage that Humes seems to refer to is perhaps better understood by considering the wobbly pulsing tube of force as a bullet passes through tissue

It can be narrow in sections and quiote bulged in others so the damage left behind maay be a wedge with a bulge hence the use of diameter and wedge. The lungs anterior posterior damage pattern if available may be useful.

edittypo

Edited June 2, 2012 by John Dolva

[James R Gordon]

John,

I am beginning to understand that. I am much more aware of the power of the forces a bullet creates as it passes through a body.

When I started this thread, I was mainly focused on physical contact. I did not give much attention to the forces created by a bullet as it passes through an object. Now I am.

Your suggestion is one I will take on board. An area that I am about to start reading about is balstics. I don't, as yet, have a clear idea what happens when a bullet passes through an object like a body.

Thank you for your observation.

James.

[John Dolva]

That's great, James. That's what I particularly applaud in your approach. I'm certainly continually learning. Thank you. I'm following it with interest.

One site that might be interesting is the armymil gov site on wound ballistics. It's replete with tests and photos and very fast films and xrays of varius materials being atruck by various missiles at various speeds. Other parts go into battle field wounds.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

To make the argument clearer to follow I have extracted the main points of your post and addressed them separately.

a) What were the experts conclusions on the Air Pocket?

Professor G.M. McDonnel:- “In the pre-autopsy radiograph ( that is X-Ray 9 ) of the chest shows air in the soft tissues of the right supraclavicular area of soft tissues.” That is around the C7 area. Addendum C P. 219

Professor David O Davis:- “In the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial air overlapping the right C7 T1 transverse processes.” Addendum D P. 224

Professor Norman Chase:- “Air was noted in the subcutaneous tissue in this same region caused by the passage of a missile and/or air entering the region due to the tracheostomy incision.” Addendum I P. 228

Professor William Seaman:- “He said the transverse process appears abnormal with air present (possibly by-pro of tracheotomy) calling it "* * * highly suspicious compared with the other side.” Addendum 1 P. 322

The airpocket overlying T1 and C7

So to sum up. All four agree that there was air in this area of the upper chest. One, Professor Davis, observes that this air pocket overlapped the C7 T1 area. Two of the doctors, Chase and Seaman, suggested that the air pocket originated from the wound to the throat.

c) The position of Commander Humes in the argument

This is a point we are just going to have to disagree upon. You appear to consider that everything Humes says is a lie.

Not during the autopsy. I think Humes told the truth during the autopsy. He noted the wound was "below the shoulder," according to the FBI men. He reported probing the wound with his finger and feeling the shallow end of the cavity. Finck later used a metal probe, concluding that there was no lane of exit.

Let's revisit the graphic account of Bethesda lab tech James Curtis Jenkins:

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.

There was no entry into the chest cavity, James.

Humes had to make one up as soon as he heard about the Magic Bullet, after Sibert talked to the FBI Lab. From that point on his work was political -- he had to link the back and throat wounds to a single bullet. So he came up with three different entrances -- CE385, the 14cm-below-mastoid measurement, and just above the upper border of the scapula. He obviously had to invent a bullet path within the chest cavity, did he not?

From what I can see you have no foundation for saying that. Humes certainly was less than truthful with CE 385, the SBT chart, but how can you prove he lied about everything else.

James, he lied about the bullet transiting. In furtherance of that lie he describes damage within the chest cavity that never occurred. You are touting this testimony as infallible evidence. You don't see the gross abuse of logic in such a position?

Unless I can demonstrate that Humes lied on an issue I have chosen to believe him.

The wound was probed twice and found shallow. Humes lied about that and yet you choose to believe him to the extent that you tout his testimony as the historical truth of the matter. This is my biggest beef with your approach, James.

However it would be helpful, in furthering the conversation, rather than you saying Humes is a xxxx all the time, that you provide the evidence that makes you want to contradict Humes statement.

That way we ought to be able to widen and deepen the quality of the conversation. It is difficult to find an appropriate response to Humes is a xxxx.

I know of an appropriate response. Why you can't "re-frame" your inquiry as an acceptance of the WC criteria for the sake of argument -- over-looking the obvious flaws of said criteria -- to hang the SBT nonetheless!

Turn Humes own testimony against the SBT conclusion, by all means, but don't lose sight of the fact that said testimony was dictated by the politics of the Magic Bullet, and cannot be taken at face value as any kind of proper medical finding.

Supporting image:-

The Hematoma is damaged blood vessels

Humes said this about the damage to the top of the lung:-

“As depicted in figure CE 385, in the apex of the right pleural cavity there was a bruise or contusion or ecomymosis of the parietal pleura as well as a bruise of the upper portion, the most apical portion of the right lung.

It, therefore, was our opinion that the missile while not penetrating physically the pleural cavity, as it passed that point bruised either the missile itself, or the force of its passage through the tissues, bruised both the parietal and the visceral pleura.

The area of discoloration on the apical portion--of the right upper lung measured five centimeters in greatest diameter, and was wedge shaped in configuration, with its base toward the top of the chest and its apes down towards the substance of the lung.”

See Image A

Humes point is that this bruise was around 5 in diameter and was pyramid in shape.

But since Humes himself probed the wound and found it did not enter the chest cavity everything he says about damage within the chest cavity is a lie. James, all you have to do is say that you are going to grant Humes the benefit of the doubt for the sake of argument and continue with your work, which then has value.

Why do you have to promote an obvious lie as historical truth?

As you can see X-Ray 9 shows this shape. So I assume we agree there was a shape on top of the lung similar to what Humes describes. The clear version of the image allows you to inspect whether I have drawn my Cyan line correctly.

Now your point, as I understand it, is that this damage is the consequence of one of the blood vessels in the upper chest are being damaged.

That makes no sense. This shape we are talking about is attached to the lung: it is described as being part of the lung. The X-Ray appears to agree.

According to the HSCA analysis there was swollen tissue "overlaying" the tip of the lung. There is nothing in that description to indicate it was attached to the lung. Hematoma can result in massive swelling.

I concur that it is a blood vessel that caused this damage, however the vessel responsible was inside the lung, not outside. It was the damage to this vessel that created the swelling within the lung and thereby created the swelling we see outside the lung. As Image B shows there are blood vessels close to the Apex of the lung.

Your conclusions are based on Humes testimony. You're begging the question as to its veracity.

Maybe you can explain how an artery, that is some distance from the lung, when punctured then creates an object that attaches itself onto the top of the lung? I don’t see that.[

I see massive tissue swelling which extends down and overlays the tip of the lung.

e) JFK coughing up the projectile

My argument has nothing to do with whether JFK was, or was not, attempting to cough up the projectile.

As image D shows the cervical nerves control the movement of the arms.

JFK may well have been attempting to cough up the projectile, I have no idea whether he was or was not, that is not a concern of mine. What I had suggested is that the movement of his arms were an involuntary action triggered by the damage to his nervous system.[

But if he reacted to the shot to his throat by trying to dislodge the projectile, then his movements were voluntary, purposeful, desperate. You're saying he involuntarily reacted in a manner consistent with voluntary action?

I don't buy that, no...

If you look at image C and you will see all the nerve strands the emanate from cervical spine. These nerves all connect with the areas in the arm. You will see them listed in image ??. My point is that the bullet damaged these nerves and the movement in JFK’s arms was involuntary. It was the damage to the nerves that caused the arms to move in the way they did.

Another amazing co-incidence! Nerve damage made him act like he was trying to dislodge the projectile in his throat...What are the chances of that?

f) The speed of the air pocket being created

One of your arguments is that the air pocket around C7 and maybe even T1 had an impact on the missile.

My argument is that the bullet was moving at such speeds it was impossible for the air pocket to be created in the upper chest area.

And any bullet travelling at the speeds you suggest would have blown right out the back of JFK's neck. This bullet struck nothing significant and did not exit. How does that happen?

In Gerald Posner’s paperback version of “Case Closed” Appendix A P. 6 is a diagram purporting to describe the path of the bullet, but more important indicating the speed of the bullet as it struck JFK. It is his view that when the bullet struck it was moving at a speed of 1,750 feet per second. Now I have no idea what gun was being used that fired the bullet that struck him in the throat. Nor have I any idea what speed the bullet was moving.

However, for the sake of argument

Bingo! See how easy that is? Why can't you frame your work in this manner?

"The criteria used by the WC to arrive at the SBT conclusion is fatally flawed, however, for the sake of argument, let's grant said criteria total credence and see if the SBT still holds up."

lets assume it was moving at 1,750 feet per second. For a person of 6 foot it is argued that the circumference of the neck is 12 inches making the diameter 3.819 inches. I feel JFK’s neck was larger so, for the sake of argument, lets assume the circumference was 15 inches. That means the diameter would be 4.774 inches.

Now if the bullet was traveling at 1,750 feet per second it would pass through the throat in 0.0002273 seconds.

All the way thru, you bet. But that's not what this bullet did.

I suggest that there is no way the air pocket could be created faster than that.

Barb said it could be created by very light pressure, like tapping a pencil (iirc). This air-pocket is consistent with a round that stopped in its tracks over C7/T1.

g) The possibility that arteries were damaged

I understand that the average pressure in the arteries is 80 mm Hg. I have no idea what that means. However having seen images of artery damage on films it is a common sight to see spurts of blood as a consequence. We all know that fluid will always find the easiest route and that would be out of the hole created by the bullet.

It is true that once the head shot took place the pressure of the blood would rapidly decrease. However between the point of the throat shot and the head shot there was 10.75 seconds. That was more than sufficient time for the escaping blood to find its escape route. That would certainly have been visible on the Zapruder film.

Perry was questioned by the HCSA and one question he was asked was whether there was any sign of artery damage in the upper chest area. He replied: “there was no evidence of a major arterial injury. And the artery, the course that's closely applied to the trachea is the common carotid artery at that level But it was not injured” Addendum I P. 304

Taken together, I would argue that there is no evidence that any of the arteries were damaged.

Didn't Perry report there was blood in the throat wound? The x-ray shows tissue swelling consistent with damaged blood vessels. I don't see how we can avoid the conclusion there were damaged blood vessels, frankly.

James.

[Pat Speer]

This might be of interest. From patspeer.com, chapter 11

The Speed Trap

The testimony of the HSCA's wound ballistics expert, Larry Sturdivan, is that the first bullet to strike Kennedy was traveling over 1700 feet/second as it passed through his neck. Later, in his 2005 book, The JFK Myths, he increased this "probable velocity" to somewhere between 2045 feet/second and 1780 feet/second. This bullet was purported to have struck only soft tissue, and done little damage to the neck. And yet, Dr. Gary Ordog, in his book Management of Gunshot Wounds, notes that the mortality rate for high-velocity gunshot wounds to the neck is over 50%. He explains: “Vascular injury caused by missile wounds from bullets moving faster than 1,000 feet/second has been shown to occur by neat shearing of the vessel without stretching it first, as occurs with low-velocity missiles. This is followed by cavitation that damages a more extensive area of the blood vessel, possibly extending for at least 20 mm on each side of the bullet’s path.” He further explains that “Cavitation stretches the smaller blood vessels, shearing and rupturing them as well as nerves and even bone.” He later concludes: "In the author's experience, up to 100% of patients with high-velocity bullet wounds of the neck have major structural damage requiring surgery."

Should one think that Ordog was some ill-informed civilian spouting his personal impressions, one should know that his statements are built upon a study performed by Sturdivan's employer, Edgewood Arsenal, and published in the Archives of Surgery in August 1970. This study concludes "The high velocity missile neatly shears the arterial wall, but the apparent explosive effect of the temporary cavity causes 'blunt' trauma in a crushing manner." A chart prepared for this study, moreover, shows that a high-velocity bullet just missing an artery will nevertheless cause breaks in the artery, even when traveling as slow as 1,000 fps.

Now compare those descriptions of the damage one might expect to find with what Kennedy's autopsist, Dr. James J. Humes, told the Warren Commission he actually found. From his March 16, 1964 testimony: "We examined in the region of this incised surgical wound which was the tracheotomy wound and we saw that there was some bruising of the muscles of the neck in the depths of this wound as well as laceration or defect in the trachea...it is our opinion that the missile traversed the neck and slid between these muscles and other vital structures with a course in the neck such as the carotid artery, the jugular vein and other structures because there was no massive hemorrhage or other massive injury in this portion of the neck."

While high-velocity bullets "shear" and "rupture" blood vessels in the neck, the bullet traversing Kennedy's neck was reported to have only "slid between" these vessels. While Dr. Ordog noted that up to 100% of those receiving a high-velocity gunshot wound to the neck have "major structural damage requiring surgery" Dr. Humes claimed there was "no massive hemorrhage or other massive injury" to Kennedy's neck. Hmmm...

Okay, you might be thinking, this was just the opinion of one of the autopsists, Dr. Humes. Perhaps Dr. Humes had missed something, and the other doctors disagreed and hadn't bothered to correct him. But this wasn't just Humes' speaking for the others... In 1965, Dr. Finck wrote his superior, General Blumberg, and told him not only that "I examined the tracheotomy skin wound and the trachea and did not find evidence of a bullet wound," but that all three autopsists had examined the tracheotomy wound and that "None of us noticed a bullet wound along its course." Double hmmm...

And to close the circle, when discussing the throat wound with the HSCA's Andy Purdy on August 17, 1977, Dr. Boswell is reported to have claimed he was "certain...no major blood vessel (was) damaged by the path of the missile."Triple hmmm...

When one considers that Dr. Charles Carrico, the emergency room doctor who first examined Kennedy, also noted only minor damage to his throat, telling the HSCA that he'd observed "some modest amount of hematoma in the recesses to the endo right of the trachea" and that Malcolm Perry, the Parkland surgeon who performed Kennedy's tracheotomy, not only confirmed Carrico's conclusion there was little damage to the neck, but initially described the exit wound as being only 3-5 mm wide--smaller than the bullets fired by Oswald’s rifle--well, then it becomes pretty darned clear that something is just wrong with the supposed single-bullet "fact". It just doesn't add up. The bullet creating Kennedy's throat wound--if it was a bullet--was almost certainly not traveling at a high velocity.

The more one digs, the clearer this becomes. Beyond testifying to his observing a small hole in the throat, and a lack of damage to the blood vessels, Dr. Perry told the Warren Commission that, before it was obscured by a tracheotomy incision, he had observed a “small ragged laceration of the trachea on the anterior lateral right side.” A small laceration.

He later specified just how small. In 1978, when contacted by the HSCA and interviewed by its counsel Andy Purdy, he claimed that the laceration "was on the right side of the trachea, and that it was incomplete, and I don't remember whether it was a third or a quarter of the circumference..."

As you might have guessed, this makes little sense should Kennedy have actually been hit by a high-velocity bullet. According to Dr. D.F.N. Dixon in Management of Gunshot Wounds, “Direct impact on larynx or trachea from bullets fired from high velocity military rifles or carbines will produce severe damage from their high kinetic energy, tumbling, or cavitation effect.” Furthermore, Dr.s Kenneth and Roy Swan in their book Gunshot Wounds: Pathophysiology and Management note that "Gunshot injuries of the larynx and trachea are infrequently seen in emergency rooms" due to such injuries usually being associated with "fatal exsanguination (bleeding) from injured common carotid arteries and internal jugular veins."

Surgery in World War II, a book released by the Surgeon General of the U.S. Army in 1962, confirms this harsh assessment. A chapter written by a former surgeon of the Fifth Army, which fought Italian forces in Sicily, reports that when treating neck wounds he needed to effect "Debridement (the removal of dead and damaged tissue) of all structures" as "Multiple involvement was the rule because of the anatomy of the area." And it's not as if this understanding was restricted to military surgeons; Earl Ubell, Science Editor of the New York Herald-Tribune, described Kennedy's wounds on 11-23-63 in a manner suggesting he knew something of the destruction brought by a high-velocity bullet's slicing through a neck. He wrote "The bullet that crashed through President Kennedy's neck and head probably took with it blood vessels and nerves leaving his entire body stunned and helpless."

From this it seems likely there are many military and emergency room doctors, and even science editors for daily newspapers, who are aware of the single-bullet theory's speeding problem, who opt to say nothing.

[Malcolm Ward]

That is very interesting Pat,I have been to your site before and read your articles.I think the head-shot likely came from the rear.With what evidence we have at this time and a lot of your conclusions in that area are well presented.Although,I don't think I would have chosen the place were Oswald is supposed to have fired from.It is my understanding,from reading some books that you would have to lean into the wall,so as to speak to fire from there.Giving you limited shots.I would have chose the roof,giving you much more freedom of movement.

I have always thought the Neck shot came from the front.Very interesting article.

Edited June 3, 2012 by Malcolm Ward

[Cliff Varnell]

This might be of interest. From patspeer.com, chapter 11

The Speed Trap

Excellent work, Pat! A low velocity round struck JFK in the throat, caused modest hematoma, left an air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1, and did not exit. No round was recovered during the autopsy.

Sounds like Flechette, to me...