Dismantling the Single Bullet Theory Pt 5

[Cliff Varnell]

Why would you think Humes' account has more credibility?

I am not giving Humes more credibility per sea. It is about the position I have taken to argue this issue and others. The position I have taken is to accept the ground rules established by the Commission, in this instance the Autopsy report and Humes testimony. It is my belief that if I can break down their arguments as established under their ground rules then I believe that gives my arguments an added strength.

And your argument is that the final autopsy report and Humes testimony should be accepted as historical fact? Or is this merely an intellectual exercise, using Humes/Boswell post-autopsy work product to actually debunk the SBT?

Because it seems to me that by establishing the amount of lying that went on why would anyone accept the final autopsy report and Humes testimony?

I am happier doing that than questioning whether the Autopsy report is right about strap muscle etc. It allows me to seriously undermine their argument under their rules. For example:-

Fine, you undermine their argument by their rules -- that's even more reason not to accept their view of anything after 11/22/63.

How does undermining Humes and Boswell make their work more acceptable?

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

You're the first person to show the trajectory of the C7 - T1 air-pocket pointing right at the nicked trachea entrance. This is a major new analysis of the neck x-ray.

But you don't even want to acknowledge this breakthrough?

Yes, hematoma means damaged blood vessels -- the presence of blood vessels is not an argument against the brutally obvious A-B-C trajectory.

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

But as a matter of historical fact we have no reason to believe there was any actual damage to the lung or strap muscle.

The x-rays show damage to blood vessels, more than likely.

With the 3D model I have shown that no trajectory can account for the T1 Transverse Process.

But your computer model showed a near-perfect trajectory from the 3rd/4th trach rings to the angle of overlay between C7 and T1. The x-ray shows damaged blood vessels. What more do you need?

Not only that I have demonstrated that the jugular and other arteries are directly in its path.

See above...sigh...

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

But they did get a lot of stuff wrong. Why are these men you show to be serial liars being promoted by you and Pat Speer as the unchallengable authorities regarding JFK's wounds?

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

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

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

Check. It didn't hit the lung or the strap muscle -- it hit blood vessels. The x-ray got it right and Jenkins got it right and Humes was a xxxx. James, have you fallen in love with the post-autopsy work product of men you've shown to be serial liars?

I don't get it, frankly.

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

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

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

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

The words of serial liars over-rule all other forms of evidence?

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

Hematoma, damaged blood vessels. Check.

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

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

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

James.

What "answer" are you looking for? The "answer" to your intellectual exercise using H/B to undermine H/B, or the "answer" to the historical truth of the matter?

The two are not the same, James.

Edited May 2, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Nick Bartetzko]

This is an excellent thread. One additional piece solidifies the neck wound as one of entrance. Dr Perry confirmed to Weisberg in 1966 that the wound had a "ring of bruising". It's in Weisberg's book, Post Mortem

[James R Gordon]

The Bullet/Missile’s impact on the C7 Transverse Process

and the placement of the Back Wound

This is not the contribution I had initially intended. I had been going to write about how the T1 transverse process could not be injured by a bullet traversing the neck. My argument was going to conclude by demonstrating that T1 could only have been damaged by a strike on the back around the T1 vertebrae. By highlighting the T1 transverse process I felt I was, after all on sound ground. In HSCA Vol 7 Pages 181, 186, 230 and 235; they had concluded exactly the same thing. Before starting to write I glanced over my images to acquaint myself with my argument and it was then I noticed something that threw that argument right out the window. And for a couple of days it was back to my books and model to try and understand just what it was I was now seeing.

I may have miss-read the X-Rays, and if so I apologise. I am a novice at this, however I do not think I have miss-read the X-Rays.

See Image below:-

What you are seeing:-

a) Image 1:- is X-Ray X-AUT-9. This X-Ray was taken prior to the autopsy beginning.

Image 2:- Model A which focus’s on the C7 Transverse Process.

c) Image 3:- is X-Ray X-AUT-8. This X-Ray was taken after the major organs had been removed from the body of JFK.

d) Image 4:- Model B which depicts the most logical trajectory for the bullet/missile.

Argument 1:- So what Transverse process was actually struck?

The image I was looking at was John Lattimer’s version of X-AUT-8 in his book “Kennedy and Lincoln” P. 203 which is a very good enlargement. Looking at his comment I read “the x-rays of Kennedy’s lower neck region shows fragmentation of the tip of the transverse process of one of his lower neck vertebrae in the track of bullet 399.”

First I had believed that the C 7 vertebrae had not been damaged. After all that is what Gary Aguilar and Kathy Cunningham stated in “How Five investigations into JFK’s medical/Autopsy Evidence Got It Wrong.” In the HSCA Appendix volume 7 the committee had also said the same on pages 170, 175, 219 and 224. I therefore wondered whether this damage was a consequence of removing the organs from the body. In other words the damage was caused by Humes examination of the body. But that is not the case because X-AUT-9 also shows it and that X-Ray was taken before the examination of the body started.

Both X-AUT-8 + 9 also show something else about this damaged process. As can be clearly seen in Model a or Model b the normal position for these processes is horizontal. But if you look at either of the X-Rays, the C7 process is slightly slanted upwards. It now appears that one consequence of the bullet’s impact is to make the process slope slightly upwards. That suggests that the bullet hit the C7 Process from the underneath edge, thereby forcing the bone slightly upwards. Hitting the bone face-on would be unlikely to force the bone upwards. It might force it forwards but not up. Only a strike on the lower edge would be the most likely explanation to cause it to move up.

We know that no major arteries or veins were damaged. If you look at Model a, you can see the serious obstacles in front of this bullet’s trajectory, including the jugular. Now we know the bullet/missile missed them and therefore the only way it could have done so is to strike in that small area to the right of these vessels: an area that is clear of any obstacles. And since we now know this bullet/missile did strike bone, the C7 Process, that strike can now be argued to have moved the bullet slightly left downwards towards the lung. How can we say that, because the lung was damaged. And therefore the bullet had to find a way to get there. The advantage of the bullet/missile having to strike the bone in this small area, in order to avoid the arteries and veins, is this area is just right of the Apex of the lung. And it was the Apex that was damaged.

The changed trajectory that now takes the bullet towards the lung’s Apex, also takes the bullet/missile away from the T1 Transverse Process. Although it is roughly at the same height as the Apex it is also about 60º degrees to the right of the Apex. There is nothing in the bullet/missile’s present trajectory that could force a change of that kind until it meets Costa IR. At that point it would be impossible to create a trajectory back to the T1 Transverse Process.

So the logical conclusion is that, if the T1 Process was damaged, it could not be this bullet that did so.

If you look at Model b I can now describe the likely route of this bullet.

Point A:- This suggests that the bullet/missile entered at the level of Trachea rings 3&4. It would seem impossible for the bullet to miss the small vein at the front of the throat, best seen Model a. This is the Thyroidea Inferior vein. Damaging this vein would be in keeping with the evidence. Parkland doctors mentioned blood and air coming out of the bullet wound. And this vein is right next to the entrance hole and could well be responsible for that blood.

Point B:- The bullet/missile grazes the right hand side of the Right Strap Muscle as it passes on its way towards the C7 Process.

Point C:- It continues along that narrow channel highlighted in Model a and strikes on the lower inside edge of C7. It doing that two things happen:-

a) C7 is raised slightly upwards as a consequence of the strike.

The bullet is deflected downwards and leftwards.

Point D:- The bullet/missile is now able to graze and damage the lung.

Where the bullet ends up I have no idea and what happens to it I have no idea.

But what is described above adheres to the evidence as we know it. It gives an explanation for what we see on the X-Rays that is both logical and correctly reasoned.

Argument 2:- Where did the bullet strike the back?

See the image below:-

What do you see?

There are two images.

Image 1 is a copy of BE 5, which I believe is also known as Fox 5.

Image 2 is a model that is positioned as close to the angle of JFK’s body.

So how can I suggest we can accurately place the wound?

On BE 5 two aspects of Scapula can clearly be seen on the body of JFK. These same features can also be seen on the model. Labels A1 and B1 are placed on both.

A straight line is drawn on the model and a copy is placed on BE 5. This creates a base line by which to judge the height of the wound above this line.

After that it is a bit of a gestimate. Looking at the distance of the wound from the line I suspect it is the yellow dot. That places the wund in the upper area between T2 & T3. But it could be the green dot thus placing it over T2, and between T2 & T1.

The features of the Scapular define clearly the rough area when the bullet struck. That is why the bullet cannot be between T3 & T4 because the wound is above point A1 and not below it. The position of the Scapula does not move and therefore the wound must be positioned with reference to these absolute points in the human body.

James.

Edited May 6, 2012 by James R Gordon

[Cliff Varnell]

We know that no major arteries or veins were damaged.

And how do we know that?

[Cliff Varnell]

How can we say that, because the lung was damaged. And therefore the bullet had to find a way to get there. The advantage of the bullet/missile having to strike the bone in this small area, in order to avoid the arteries and veins, is this area is just right of the Apex of the lung. And it was the Apex that was damaged.

The x-ray likely shows hematoma. That's damaged blood vessels. Your evidence that the lung was damaged rests with the testimony of a man you've shown to be a serial xxxx. How you can regard his testimony as historical fact is beyond me, frankly, especially in the light of abundantly redundant evidence of the T3 back wound. .

Humes created four distinct bullet paths.

The highest trajectory was the Rydberg drawing; next highest was the 14cm below mastoid "measurement," putting the wound around C7/T1; then the bullet that bruised the lung-tip and the strap muscle; then the wound just above the upper margin of the scapula, roughly T2.

All are fiction, of course.

Edited May 5, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[James R Gordon]

We know that no major arteries or veins were damaged.

And how do we know that?

Cliff,

True I am accepting Humes word as reflected in his testimony and what was said in the Autopsy report. However lets, just for a moment, consider that one of these arteries such as the Jugular had indeed been damaged. Are you suggesting that this is something those at Parkland would not have noticed?? I doubt it.

James.

[James R Gordon]

How can we say that, because the lung was damaged. And therefore the bullet had to find a way to get there. The advantage of the bullet/missile having to strike the bone in this small area, in order to avoid the arteries and veins, is this area is just right of the Apex of the lung. And it was the Apex that was damaged.

The x-ray likely shows hematoma. That's damaged blood vessels. Your evidence that the lung was damaged rests with the testimony of a man you've shown to be a serial xxxx. How you can regard his testimony as historical fact is beyond me, frankly, especially in the light of abundantly redundant evidence of the T3 back wound. .

Hummus created four distinct bullet paths.

The highest trajectory was the Rydberg drawing; next highest was the 14cm below mastoid "measurement," putting the wound around C7/T1; then the bullet that bruised the lung-tip and the strap muscle; then the wound just above the upper margin of the scapula, roughly T2.

All are fiction, of course.

Cliff,

I never said that Humes was a serial xxxx. The one area I established where he deliberately distorted the truth was in the creation of CE 385 and the position of the lung. And I know exactly why he did that, it was to convinced the Commission that the SBT was possible.

You suggest that the anomaly was a "hematoma", well that won't wash. This distortion of the C7 transverse process is still seen in X-AUT-8. The lung had been removed by this time. So, if as you say it was a hematoma, that was no longer in the body, because the lung had been removed and was no longer in the body when that X-Ray was taken. And how do we know that X-Ray was taken after the organs of the body had been removed, that was evidence from the ARRB. See "Inside the ARRB" Vol 2 P. 413.

Humes may well have created multiple trajectory paths, this one is different. This path was created to link areas that we know were damaged, as well as avoid areas we know were not damaged. Given the evidence we know, this is a "logical" path.

T3 as an entry point for the back wound is impossible. BE 5 shows definite points in the Scapula. These are not speculative and therefore establish what is a possible entry point and what is not? The Scapula does not move its position in the body.

James.

[Cliff Varnell]

We know that no major arteries or veins were damaged.

And how do we know that?

Cliff,

True I am accepting Humes word as reflected in his testimony and what was said in the Autopsy report.

I find this approach to the medical evidence intellectually unsupportable, especially since you disregard what Humes said during the autopsy, and then find him in a provable lie after the autopsy.

How did Humes gain credibility in your eyes by being proved a xxxx? It should be obvious that once Humes found out about the Magic Bullet his job was to connect the back and throat wounds, for the final autopsy report. He came up with two different back wound locations -- 14cm below the mastoid (C7/T1), and just above the upper margin of the scapula (T2). Both of those designations violate proper autopsy protocol.

As Pierre Finck told the ARRB:

"JFK's spine, a fixed landmark, was the correct and only point of reference to determine the accurate location of this posterior wound."

Burkley's death certificate was filled out correctly, placing the wound about the level of the third thoracic vertebra.

James, by what alchemy of logic do you favor improperly recorded wound locations over the properly prepared document?

However lets, just for a moment, consider that one of these arteries such as the Jugular had indeed been damaged. Are you suggesting that this is something those at Parkland would not have noticed?? I doubt it.

James.

The round didn't have to hit the jugular -- it could easily have hit smaller vessels...and didn't Perry observe blood in the wound?

Hematoma is damaged blood vessels, James. That's a fact.

Edited May 5, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

How can we say that, because the lung was damaged. And therefore the bullet had to find a way to get there. The advantage of the bullet/missile having to strike the bone in this small area, in order to avoid the arteries and veins, is this area is just right of the Apex of the lung. And it was the Apex that was damaged.

The x-ray likely shows hematoma. That's damaged blood vessels. Your evidence that the lung was damaged rests with the testimony of a man you've shown to be a serial xxxx. How you can regard his testimony as historical fact is beyond me, frankly, especially in the light of abundantly redundant evidence of the T3 back wound. .

Hummus created four distinct bullet paths.

The highest trajectory was the Rydberg drawing; next highest was the 14cm below mastoid "measurement," putting the wound around C7/T1; then the bullet that bruised the lung-tip and the strap muscle; then the wound just above the upper margin of the scapula, roughly T2.

All are fiction, of course.

Cliff,

I never said that Humes was a serial xxxx. The one area I established where he deliberately distorted the truth was in the creation of CE 385 and the position of the lung. And I know exactly why he did that, it was to convinced the Commission that the SBT was possible.

James, you also posted part of his ARRB interview where he lied his ass off about the proper procedure for locating a back wound. And since he had no problem telling the Commission a whopping lie in order to "convince" them of the SBT -- as you put it -- why do you accept his WC testimony where he obviously attempted the same thing?

You're promoting a proven xxxx with an obvious agenda to the level of infallible authority!

You suggest that the anomaly was a "hematoma", well that won't wash. This distortion of the C7 transverse process is still seen in X-AUT-8.

According to the analysis for the HSCA it was the T1 transverse process which suffered the fracture.

The lung had been removed by this time. So, if as you say it was a hematoma, that was no longer in the body, because the lung had been removed and was no longer in the body when that X-Ray was taken.

The analysis for the HSCA said swelling overlaying the apex of the lung. You ASSUME this resulted from damage to the lung, but no such assumption can be made. Hematoma results from damaged blood vessels, consistent with your stipulation to many blood vessels in the A-B-C path.

And how do we know that X-Ray was taken after the organs of the body had been removed, that was evidence from the ARRB. See "Inside the ARRB" Vol 2 P. 413.

Humes may well have created multiple trajectory paths, this one is different.

Oh? So you acknowledge Humes' serial lying about trajectory paths but you're going to pick one "analysis" out of this garbage and announce it gold?

That doesn't make any sense, frankly. You're trying to turn the words of a proven xxxx with an agenda into historical fact, James. It doesn't work that way, with all due respect.

This path was created to link areas that we know were damaged, as well as avoid areas we know were not damaged.

But you don't "know" any of that because you're relying on Humes! Can't you see the circular logic of this?

Given the evidence we know, this is a "logical" path.

Again, by what alchemy of logic does a man gain credibility the more he lies? You say you "know" the lung was hit because Humes said so. But Humes is a proven serial xxxx! But that doesn't matter because, when it comes to the lung only, he's telling the truth? And how do you know he was telling the truth? Because this proven serial xxxx said so under oath?

T3 as an entry point for the back wound is impossible. BE 5 shows definite points in the Scapula. These are not speculative and therefore establish what is a possible entry point and what is not? The Scapula does not move its position in the body.

Your case rests on the Fox 5 "back of the head" autopsy photo which the HSCA singled out as of especially poor quality, as more confusing than informative, and difficult or impossible to gain accurate measurements therefrom.

There is no chain of possession for this photo, and you have no proof that the subject of the photo was JFK.

Your case is based on the words of a proven serial xxxx with an obvious agenda, and an improperly prepared autopsy photo that's inadmissible in court.

Meanwhile, the physical evidence of the clothing holes, the consensus witness testimony, and the properly prepared documents confirm the historical fact that JFK's back wound was at T3.

James.

Edited May 5, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[James R Gordon]

The round didn't have to hit the jugular -- it could easily have hit smaller vessels...and didn't Perry observe blood in the wound?

Hematoma is damaged blood vessels, James. That's a fact.

Cliff,

I mentioned that it seemed unlikely that this bullet could escape hitting the vein at the front of the throat. See image below:-

The red line points to this vein which is called the Thyroidea Inferior.

I went on to mention that maybe the blood that was noticed oozing from the throat wound may well have come from this damaged vein.

What I was at pains to point out is that one thing this bullet did not do was hit any major arteries. Had it done so that would have been bound to have been seen at Parkland.

That is why I point out that there only is one trajectory this bullet could have used in order to avoid striking arteries like the Jugular. That is shown and described in the first image I posted.

James.

Edited May 6, 2012 by James R Gordon

[Cliff Varnell]

The round didn't have to hit the jugular -- it could easily have hit smaller vessels...and didn't Perry observe blood in the wound?

Hematoma is damaged blood vessels, James. That's a fact.

Cliff,

I mentioned that it seemed unlikely that this bullet could escape hitting the vein at the front of the throat. See image below:-

The red line points to this vein which is called the Thyroidea Inferior.

I went on to mention that maybe the blood that was noticed oozing from the throat wound may well have come from this damaged vein.

What I was at pains to point out is that one thing this bullet did not do was hit any major arteries. Had it done so that would have been bound to have been seen at Parkland.

That is why I point out that there only is one trajectory this bullet could have used in order to avoid striking arteries like the Jugular. That is shown and described in the first image I posted.

James.

The damage was to the T1 transverse process, not C7. And since there was an air-pocket overlaying the right T1 and C7 transverse processes, the round had to go over the top of the transverse processes.

I believe there is a clear path to the right of those major veins you have in the way of the A-B-C trajectory.

And what the Parkland personnel should have or should not have seen is strictly speculation.

[James R Gordon]

How can we say that, because the lung was damaged. And therefore the bullet had to find a way to get there. The advantage of the bullet/missile having to strike the bone in this small area, in order to avoid the arteries and veins, is this area is just right of the Apex of the lung. And it was the Apex that was damaged.

The x-ray likely shows hematoma. That's damaged blood vessels. Your evidence that the lung was damaged rests with the testimony of a man you've shown to be a serial xxxx. How you can regard his testimony as historical fact is beyond me, frankly, especially in the light of abundantly redundant evidence of the T3 back wound. .

Hummus created four distinct bullet paths.

The highest trajectory was the Rydberg drawing; next highest was the 14cm below mastoid "measurement," putting the wound around C7/T1; then the bullet that bruised the lung-tip and the strap muscle; then the wound just above the upper margin of the scapula, roughly T2.

All are fiction, of course.

Cliff,

I never said that Humes was a serial xxxx. The one area I established where he deliberately distorted the truth was in the creation of CE 385 and the position of the lung. And I know exactly why he did that, it was to convinced the Commission that the SBT was possible.

James, you also posted part of his ARRB interview where he lied his ass off about the proper procedure for locating a back wound. And since he had no problem telling the Commission a whopping lie in order to "convince" them of the SBT -- as you put it -- why do you accept his WC testimony where he obviously attempted the same thing?

You're promoting a proven xxxx with an obvious agenda to the level of infallible authority!

This is quite clearly an area we are unlikely to agree on. You are quite right I have indeed referred to Commander Humes as a xxxx, especially with reference to CE 385. Where I believe we differ is that I agree with David Lifton that much of what he said was truthful. Lifton's central point was that what Parkland said and what was said at Bethesda were accurate. It was that which led him to suggest that something had taken place in between.

Another area, where we clearly disagree, is that I am prepared to fight against the Warren Commission on their ground. By that I mean I accept their evidence such as Humes' testimony and the Autopsy report. That is why I do not want to dismiss Commander Humes evidence I prefer to demonstrate that it is clearly wrong. It is my personal feeling that stronger ground to argue against the Warren Commission. I appreciate, that is not your point of view.

You suggest that the anomaly was a "hematoma", well that won't wash. This distortion of the C7 transverse process is still seen in X-AUT-8.

According to the analysis for the HSCA it was the T1 transverse process which suffered the fracture.

You are quite right, that is indeed their view. You will have noticed that at the beginning of that posting I listed all four references to their view on T7 being injured.

However, they are wrong, if it is their view that it was injured internally in the throat. I have shown on numerous graphics that T1 is behind Costa IR. There is no way any missile could get to it, through the throat area, without first damaging Costa IR.

The physical position of the bones within the human body make it impossible for any bullet to damage T1 without first damaging Costa iR.

The lung had been removed by this time. So, if as you say it was a hematoma, that was no longer in the body, because the lung had been removed and was no longer in the body when that X-Ray was taken.

The analysis for the HSCA said swelling overlaying the apex of the lung. You ASSUME this resulted from damage to the lung, but no such assumption can be made. Hematoma results from damaged blood vessels, consistent with your stipulation to many blood vessels in the A-B-C path.

Yes it was a bruise which was caused by damage to blood vessel(s). However Humes does state that damage was 5cm in diameter and was wedged shape. I have shown you an image of this damage from one of the X-rays.

Humes is quite clear that it is damage to the lung, because he states that this lump, to use that term, was attached and on top of the lung.

And the cause of this "lump" being there was the passage of the bullet through the throat area.

And how do we know that X-Ray was taken after the organs of the body had been removed, that was evidence from the ARRB. See "Inside the ARRB" Vol 2 P. 413.

Humes may well have created multiple trajectory paths, this one is different.

Oh? So you acknowledge Humes' serial lying about trajectory paths but you're going to pick one "analysis" out of this garbage and announce it gold?

That doesn't make any sense, frankly. You're trying to turn the words of a proven xxxx with an agenda into historical fact, James. It doesn't work that way, with all due respect.

I have addressed this point at the beginning. I acknowledge this is an area we are not going to agree on.

This path was created to link areas that we know were damaged, as well as avoid areas we know were not damaged.

But you don't "know" any of that because you're relying on Humes! Can't you see the circular logic of this?

That is probably poor language on my part here. What I was saying is there is clear pathway from the throat to C7 that is to the right of the major arteries. The point I was trying to make is that any other trajectory path would have the bullet impact major arteries like the jugular. The logic of my argument is this: we know these arteries were not damaged and we know certain organs were damaged. What was behind the point of the path creating a link between what was damaged and what was not is the overwhelming logic that, that is the only path the bullet could take. That is the advantage of 3D models. It allows me to set up criteria, such as a trajectory through the throat area, and see what is possible as opposed to what is not possible. That is the advantage of these models. Buy yourself one of these models an see for yourself what is possible and what is not.

Given the evidence we know, this is a "logical" path.

Again, by what alchemy of logic does a man gain credibility the more he lies? You say you "know" the lung was hit because Humes said so. But Humes is a proven serial xxxx! But that doesn't matter because, when it comes to the lung only, he's telling the truth? And how do you know he was telling the truth? Because this proven serial xxxx said so under oath?

Again, this stems from my decision to fight against the Warren Commission by choosing their ground to do so. I accept that we differ on this.

T3 as an entry point for the back wound is impossible. BE 5 shows definite points in the Scapula. These are not speculative and therefore establish what is a possible entry point and what is not? The Scapula does not move its position in the body.

Your case rests on the Fox 5 "back of the head" autopsy photo which the HSCA singled out as of especially poor quality, as more confusing than informative, and difficult or impossible to gain accurate measurements therefrom.

Actually it is no poorer quality than the others of the set. As I mentioned earlier in this thread I have attempted to get them restored and it is neigh impossible because of the damage to the images.

There is no chain of possession for this photo, and you have no proof that the subject of the photo was JFK.

I have addressed this question. But let me ask you, what evidence have you that it is not JFK??

Your case is based on the words of a proven serial xxxx with an obvious agenda, and an improperly prepared autopsy photo that's inadmissible in court.

Meanwhile, the physical evidence of the clothing holes, the consensus witness testimony, and the properly prepared documents confirm the historical fact that JFK's back wound was at T3.

Yes I agree the clothing is a problem. Why I place the wound where I do on the body is that we clearly see physical identifying features of the Scapula. About that there is no doubt. I am sure any medical person will agree that I have identified on the body clear and definite aspects of the Scapula.

I drew a line over the upper point. Now in BE 5/ Fox 5 the wound on the body is above this line. And this line is above T3.

On that basis, I suggest the jacket evidence, however powerful and I agree it is powerful, has to be wrong.

Now why it is wrong, I do not have an answer to.

james.

James.

[John Dolva]

The Bullet/Missile’s impact on the C7 Transverse Process

and the placement of the Back Wound

This is not the contribution I had initially intended. I had been going to write about how the T1 transverse process could not be injured by a bullet traversing the neck. My argument was going to conclude by demonstrating that T1 could only have been damaged by a strike on the back around the T1 vertebrae. By highlighting the T1 transverse process I felt I was, after all on sound ground. In HSCA Vol 7 Pages 181, 186, 230 and 235; they had concluded exactly the same thing. Before starting to write I glanced over my images to acquaint myself with my argument and it was then I noticed something that threw that argument right out the window. And for a couple of days it was back to my books and model to try and understand just what it was I was now seeing.

I may have miss-read the X-Rays, and if so I apologise. I am a novice at this, however I do not think I have miss-read the X-Rays.

See Image below:-

What you are seeing:-

a) Image 1:- is X-Ray X-AUT-9. This X-Ray was taken prior to the autopsy beginning.

Image 2:- Model A which focus’s on the C7 Transverse Process.

c) Image 3:- is X-Ray X-AUT-8. This X-Ray was taken after the major organs had been removed from the body of JFK.

d) Image 4:- Model B which depicts the most logical trajectory for the bullet/missile.

Argument 1:- So what Transverse process was actually struck?

The image I was looking at was John Lattimer’s version of X-AUT-8 in his book “Kennedy and Lincoln” P. 203 which is a very good enlargement. Looking at his comment I read “the x-rays of Kennedy’s lower neck region shows fragmentation of the tip of the transverse process of one of his lower neck vertebrae in the track of bullet 399.”

First I had believed that the C 7 vertebrae had not been damaged. After all that is what Gary Aguilar and Kathy Cunningham stated in “How Five investigations into JFK’s medical/Autopsy Evidence Got It Wrong.” In the HSCA Appendix volume 7 the committee had also said the same on pages 170, 175, 219 and 224. I therefore wondered whether this damage was a consequence of removing the organs from the body. In other words the damage was caused by Humes examination of the body. But that is not the case because X-AUT-9 also shows it and that X-Ray was taken before the examination of the body started.

Both X-AUT-8 + 9 also show something else about this damaged process. As can be clearly seen in Model a or Model b the normal position for these processes is horizontal. But if you look at either of the X-Rays, the C7 process is slightly slanted upwards. It now appears that one consequence of the bullet’s impact is to make the process slope slightly upwards. That suggests that the bullet hit the C7 Process from the underneath edge, thereby forcing the bone slightly upwards. Hitting the bone face-on would be unlikely to force the bone upwards. It might force it forwards but not up. Only a strike on the lower edge would be the most likely explanation to cause it to move up.

We know that no major arteries or veins were damaged. If you look at Model a, you can see the serious obstacles in front of this bullet’s trajectory, including the jugular. Now we know the bullet/missile missed them and therefore the only way it could have done so is to strike in that small area to the right of these vessels: an area that is clear of any obstacles. And since we now know this bullet/missile did strike bone, the C7 Process, that strike can now be argued to have moved the bullet slightly left downwards towards the lung. How can we say that, because the lung was damaged. And therefore the bullet had to find a way to get there. The advantage of the bullet/missile having to strike the bone in this small area, in order to avoid the arteries and veins, is this area is just right of the Apex of the lung. And it was the Apex that was damaged.

The changed trajectory that now takes the bullet towards the lung’s Apex, also takes the bullet/missile away from the T1 Transverse Process. Although it is roughly at the same height as the Apex it is also about 60º degrees to the right of the Apex. There is nothing in the bullet/missile’s present trajectory that could force a change of that kind until it meets Costa IR. At that point it would be impossible to create a trajectory back to the T1 Transverse Process.

So the logical conclusion is that, if the T1 Process was damaged, it could not be this bullet that did so.

If you look at Model b I can now describe the likely route of this bullet.

Point A:- This suggests that the bullet/missile entered at the level of Trachea rings 3&4. It would seem impossible for the bullet to miss the small vein at the front of the throat, best seen Model a. This is the Thyroidea Inferior vein. Damaging this vein would be in keeping with the evidence. Parkland doctors mentioned blood and air coming out of the bullet wound. And this vein is right next to the entrance hole and could well be responsible for that blood.

Point B:- The bullet/missile grazes the right hand side of the Right Strap Muscle as it passes on its way towards the C7 Process.

Point C:- It continues along that narrow channel highlighted in Model a and strikes on the lower inside edge of C7. It doing that two things happen:-

a) C7 is raised slightly upwards as a consequence of the strike.

The bullet is deflected downwards and leftwards.

Point D:- The bullet/missile is now able to graze and damage the lung.

Where the bullet ends up I have no idea and what happens to it I have no idea.

But what is described above adheres to the evidence as we know it. It gives an explanation for what we see on the X-Rays that is both logical and correctly reasoned.

Argument 2:- Where did the bullet strike the back?

See the image below:-

What do you see?

There are two images.

Image 1 is a copy of BE 5, which I believe is also known as Fox 5.

Image 2 is a model that is positioned as close to the angle of JFK’s body.

So how can I suggest we can accurately place the wound?

On BE 5 two aspects of Scapula can clearly be seen on the body of JFK. These same features can also be seen on the model. Labels A1 and B1 are placed on both.

A straight line is drawn on the model and a copy is placed on BE 5. This creates a base line by which to judge the height of the wound above this line.

After that it is a bit of a gestimate. Looking at the distance of the wound from the line I suspect it is the yellow dot. That places the wund in the upper area between T2 & T3. But it could be the green dot thus placing it over T2, and between T2 & T1.

The features of the Scapular define clearly the rough area when the bullet struck. That is why the bullet cannot be between T3 & T4 because the wound is above point A1 and not below it. The position of the Scapula does not move and therefore the wound must be positioned with reference to these absolute points in the human body.

James.

James, I wonder if on the image (model) a trajectory can be drawn with dots (to get a 3d sense of what you are getting at) and not just the location of the back wound?

[James R Gordon]

James, I wonder if on the image (model) a trajectory can be drawn with dots (to get a 3d sense of what you are getting at) and not just the location of the back wound?

John,

That is a fair point. I'll create a movie tomorrow highlighting what I have been arguing. In 3D it should be easier to follow what I am talking about than in 2D. I should be able to post it tomorrow.

James

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

I never said that Humes was a serial xxxx. The one area I established where he deliberately distorted the truth was in the creation of CE 385 and the position of the lung. And I know exactly why he did that, it was to convinced the Commission that the SBT was possible.

James, you also posted part of his ARRB interview where he lied his ass off about the proper procedure for locating a back wound. And since he had no problem telling the Commission a whopping lie in order to "convince" them of the SBT -- as you put it -- why do you accept his WC testimony where he obviously attempted the same thing?

You're promoting a proven xxxx with an obvious agenda to the level of infallible authority!

This is quite clearly an area we are unlikely to agree on. You are quite right I have indeed referred to Commander Humes as a xxxx, especially with reference to CE 385. Where I believe we differ is that I agree with David Lifton that much of what he said was truthful.

Lifton doesn't agree with anything Humes said about the back wound. One of the things I appreciate about David Lifton is his steady regard of the T3 location as an historical fact. A base-of-the-neck wound would be massively convenient for his body mutilation theory, but David knows better.

I think its the head wound(s) where Lifton gives Humes a pass, not the back wound.

Lifton's central point was that what Parkland said and what was said at Bethesda were accurate. It was that which led him to suggest that something had taken place in between.

Parkland didn't say anything about the back wound. The only guy who said anything about the back wound was SS SA Glen Bennett, who accurately described the location of the wound before the body left Dallas.

Another area, where we clearly disagree, is that I am prepared to fight against the Warren Commission on their ground. By that I mean I accept their evidence such as Humes' testimony and the Autopsy report. That is why I do not want to dismiss Commander Humes evidence I prefer to demonstrate that it is clearly wrong. It is my personal feeling that stronger ground to argue against the Warren Commission. I appreciate, that is not your point of view.

Your view is ahistorical. You show no glimmer of acknowledgement that a coup d'etat had taken place and that Commander Humes was a military man acting under orders. The final autopsy report was a political document, designed to satisfy specfiic political requirements of the cover-up. Too easily do you grant legitimacy where it was never earned.

You suggest that the anomaly was a "hematoma", well that won't wash. This distortion of the C7 transverse process is still seen in X-AUT-8.

According to the analysis for the HSCA it was the T1 transverse process which suffered the fracture.

You are quite right, that is indeed their view. You will have noticed that at the beginning of that posting I listed all four references to their view on T7 being injured.

However, they are wrong, if it is their view that it was injured internally in the throat. I have shown on numerous graphics that T1 is behind Costa IR. There is no way any missile could get to it, through the throat area, without first damaging Costa IR.

The physical position of the bones within the human body make it impossible for any bullet to damage T1 without first damaging Costa iR.

That's not what your A-B-C trajectory showed! There was a near perfect straight line from the nicked trachea to the T1 transverse process by way of the C7 transverse process on the same line of trajectory.

James, with all due respect, repeating your assertions over and over isn't the same as making a case for them. Humes was a proven xxxx, the autopsy photos are inadmissible in court.

Garbage in...Garbage out...