Dismantling the Single Bullet Theory Pt 5

[James R Gordon]

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.

Cliff, can you give me your references for that for the idea that Lifton does not agree with anything Humes said about the back wound. Maybe I miss-read him.

Recently Pat made clear that the 14cm dimensions took you to T3.

I certainly concur with the head 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.

I was referring to the Head wound really.

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.

I have said a number of times that my position in this thread is to work at dismantling the SBT from within the ground rules set by the WC. I know this is not your view, but if I can dismantle the SBT using their ground rules then they have nowhere to go. The criteria I am using to dismantle it are the very criteria they used to create it. That is why I accept, in the main what Humes says and why I accept the Autopsy Report.

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.

That is not quite true Cliff. I believe my arguments, along with the supporting images, are what has made my case. I have shown numerous images that support the point that the T1 transverse process is behind as well as below Costa IR. That is why it cannot be damaged. In addition, to be fair, if I am just repeating assertions then is that not also what you are doing?

Humes was a proven xxxx, the autopsy photos are inadmissible in court.

I agree Humes lied with respect to CE 385. He knew very well that the position of the lung was wrong. You seem to be suggesting that everything he said was a lie. I can't go along with that.

Garbage in...Garbage out...

I am somewhat surprised that you consider everything I have been doing is "Garbage", that certainly is not my view.

James.

[James R Gordon]

John,

Here are the two movies that go over the post I made yesterday about the damage to C7 and the placing of the back wound.

I am quite new at doing movies and so I recognise they are not as professional as I would like them to be. I need a lot more practice.

One thing you will recognise is just how astonishing it is that, given the area the bullet travelled in, it did not hit any major arteries or veins. As I point out there is only one line of trajectory to the C7 Transverse Process that is free from obstacles.

I have spent a little time commenting on how, from an internal perspective, there is little chance the T1 Transverse Process could be damaged.

On a general note, today I was organising all my image files and I see, as a consequence, I have deleted the links. I will attempt to restore the links tomorrow.

Here is the link to the video on damaging C7:-

Here is the link to identifying the location of the back wound:-

James.

[Malcolm Ward]

This is a very interesting topic.I wondered if you considered this in relation to bruising in parts.It might be helpful.Were a bullet may travel in a straight line the damage can go of track so as to speak.

"The picture is radically different in the case of a high-velocity missile. As the bullet enters the body, there is a "tail splash," or the backward hurling of injured tissue. The bullet passes through the target, creating a large temporary cavity whose maximum diameter may be up to 30 times the diameter of the original bullet. The maximum diameter of the cavity occurs at the point at which the maximum rate of loss of kinetic energy occurs. This cavity will undulate for 5 to 10 msec before coming to rest as a permanent track. In high-velocity centerfire rifles, the expanding walls of the temporary cavity are capable of doing severe damage. Local pressures on the order of 100 to 200 atm may develop. This pressure may produce injuries to blood vessels, nerves, or organs that are a considerable distance from the path of the bullet. Fractures can occur even without direct contact between the bone and a rifle bullet. Positive and negative pressures alternate in the wound, with resultant sucking of foreign material and bacteria into the wound from both entrance and exit.

Source.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/scientific_topics/wound_ballistics/how_a_high-speed.html

[James R Gordon]

Malcolm,

Thank you, I had not considered that. I will study the references. Thank you.

James

[Malcolm Ward]

Some interesting reading here James on Penetrating Trauma.

https://docs.google....swRhPGMt1ia_SVw

[James R Gordon]

Malcolm,

Thanks very much. I am conscious this is an area of the study I have not paid a great deal of attention to. I am going to spend time studying this and see what way it contributes to my study.

I have ignored this area so far and I can see that was wrong.

Again thank you.

James.

[Cliff Varnell]

green it

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.

Cliff, can you give me your references for that for the idea that Lifton does not agree with anything Humes said about the back wound. Maybe I miss-read him.

Best Evidence, pg 155:

There was just too much evidence indicating the wound was "low."

Recently Pat made clear that the 14cm dimensions took you to T3.

No, that's not what Pat was aiming at. 14cm takes you to C7/T1, even though the properly filled out part of the face sheet shows a wound consistent with T3. Pat's trying to pull a fast one.

...

I have said a number of times that my position in this thread is to work at dismantling the SBT from within the ground rules set by the WC. I know this is not your view, but if I can dismantle the SBT using their ground rules then they have nowhere to go. The criteria I am using to dismantle it are the very criteria they used to create it. That is why I accept, in the main what Humes says and why I accept the Autopsy Report.

This is the Pat Speer approach, as well. But neither of you are able to provide any intellectual justification for accepting the post-autopsy work product of proven liars. You think that buying into the fraudulent talking points of Lone Nuttery allows you the rhetorical upper hand against WC defenders, as if historical truth serves solely at the convenience of a public relations campaign? You guys accept the words of proven liars because it fits your pet theories, nothing more and nothing less.

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.

That is not quite true Cliff. I believe my arguments, along with the supporting images, are what has made my case. I have shown numerous images that support the point that the T1 transverse process is behind as well as below Costa IR.

This excellent graphic shows an obvious path from the nicked trachea to T1 with just the right angle to leave an air pocket overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes -- and given the likely presence of hematoma on the x-ray, damaged blood vessels in that part of the neck are a given.

That is why it cannot be damaged. In addition, to be fair, if I am just repeating assertions then is that not also what you are doing?

Frankly, no. I'm making a fact-based argument as to why the Humes-Boswell work product is illegitimate, due to the lack of proper autopsy procedures, and the conflicts with the physical evidence, the properly prepared documents, and the consensus witness testimony.

You say the final autopsy report/Humes testimonies are acceptable because all of that fits in with your strategy of rhetorical combat with WC defenders. You offer no logical argument for why anyone else should accept it.

Humes was a proven xxxx, the autopsy photos are inadmissible in court.

I agree Humes lied with respect to CE 385. He knew very well that the position of the lung was wrong. You seem to be suggesting that everything he said was a lie.

Everything in the final autropsy report concerning the back wound is a lie. "14cm below the mastoid process" is not the same location as "just above the upper border of the scapula".

I can't go along with that.

Well, the upper border of the scapula is clearly below the base of the neck, is it not? That's why Gerald Ford moved the back wound from that location in the WCR up to the back of the neck. Upper border of the scapula is too low. The final autopsy report was a pack of lies in regards to the back wound, pure and simple.

Garbage in...Garbage out...

I am somewhat surprised that you consider everything I have been doing is "Garbage", that certainly is not my view.

Please do not mis-understand. Your models are wonderful! It's the data base and conclusions you draw from that data base which are garbage. The final autopsy report and James Humes testimony are rubbish, and cannot be intellectually defended.

[James R Gordon]

green it

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.

Cliff, can you give me your references for that for the idea that Lifton does not agree with anything Humes said about the back wound. Maybe I miss-read him.

Best Evidence, pg 155:

There was just too much evidence indicating the wound was "low."

My responses in Blue:-

Yes, I see that. However I also note that on Page 501 of the hardback edition and P. 584 in paperback he also wrote "I trusted Humes and his ability to observe and report what he has seen" That is my position also.

Recently Pat made clear that the 14cm dimensions took you to T3.

No, that's not what Pat was aiming at. 14cm takes you to C7/T1, even though the properly filled out part of the face sheet shows a wound consistent with T3. Pat's trying to pull a fast one.

I don't agree. I checked his measurements and I found they worked perfectly. I posted that earlier in this thread. I checked his figures and they stood up. Pat's argument as to where that 14cm starts and ends takes you to T3.

I have said a number of times that my position in this thread is to work at dismantling the SBT from within the ground rules set by the WC. I know this is not your view, but if I can dismantle the SBT using their ground rules then they have nowhere to go. The criteria I am using to dismantle it are the very criteria they used to create it. That is why I accept, in the main what Humes says and why I accept the Autopsy Report.

This is the Pat Speer approach, as well. But neither of you are able to provide any intellectual justification for accepting the post-autopsy work product of proven liars. You think that buying into the fraudulent talking points of Lone Nuttery allows you the rhetorical upper hand against WC defenders, as if historical truth serves solely at the convenience of a public relations campaign? You guys accept the words of proven liars because it fits your pet theories, nothing more and nothing less.

I do not understand why you are so critical that I have decided to accept the Warren Commission position as a basis by which to attack them. I am not a Warren Commission supporter, far from it. I am using their own arguments and facts to destroy their findings. I do not see why that is so wrong.

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.

That is not quite true Cliff. I believe my arguments, along with the supporting images, are what has made my case. I have shown numerous images that support the point that the T1 transverse process is behind as well as below Costa IR.

This excellent graphic shows an obvious path from the nicked trachea to T1 with just the right angle to leave an air pocket overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes -- and given the likely presence of hematoma on the x-ray, damaged blood vessels in that part of the neck are a given.

The are a number of problems with that graphic. First it does not include the arteries and veins that are in that area. Second the trajectory is far too high to be able to damage the lung. Third, the position of the body is not upright. It therefore gives the impression that T1 can indeed be damaged, should the bullet even be able to reach it and avoid damaging the veins and arteries. Fourth, in the video I posted yesterday on C7 I show exactly why T1 could not be damaged.

That is why it cannot be damaged. In addition, to be fair, if I am just repeating assertions then is that not also what you are doing?

Frankly, no. I'm making a fact-based argument as to why the Humes-Boswell work product is illegitimate, due to the lack of proper autopsy procedures, and the conflicts with the physical evidence, the properly prepared documents, and the consensus witness testimony.

You say the final autopsy report/Humes testimonies are acceptable because all of that fits in with your strategy of rhetorical combat with WC defenders. You offer no logical argument for why anyone else should accept it.

Now this is a little unfair of you. Is it your position that all the graphics I have created have no logical basis?

Is there not an element of truth that much of what you have said throughout this thread is assertion. Where is the evidence that Fox 5 is fake. And the operative word is "evidence." I note that on P. 505 of Best Evidence (Hardback Edition) Lifton wonders about the legitimacy of Fox 5. The problem he is not stating it is a fake, he is wondering whether that would answer the problems he was facing.

Even Lifton trusts that Humes has observed and written down what he has seen. That would suggest that the Autopsy report has some authority to it.

The video I posted yesterday on the locating the back wound gives real reasons why T3 may not be the location for the back wound. You talk about Humes not using correct body positions to measure from, well what is more stable than the Scapula to measure the position of the back wound. I have shown very clearly where on Fox 5 it can be seen we can therefore draw a base line from which to judge where the wound ended up. I have given my reasons that it was between T2 and T3.

I am a little surprised that you can suggest my work offers no "logical argument." Given the body of work I have produced here I feel that is unfair.

Humes was a proven xxxx, the autopsy photos are inadmissible in court.

I agree Humes lied with respect to CE 385. He knew very well that the position of the lung was wrong. You seem to be suggesting that everything he said was a lie.

Everything in the final autropsy report concerning the back wound is a lie. "14cm below the mastoid process" is not the same location as "just above the upper border of the scapula".

As I point out above, even David Lifton disagrees with this point.

I can't go along with that.

Well, the upper border of the scapula is clearly below the base of the neck, is it not? That's why Gerald Ford moved the back wound from that location in the WCR up to the back of the neck. Upper border of the scapula is too low. The final autopsy report was a pack of lies in regards to the back wound, pure and simple.

I suspect you have not looked at the video I posted yesterday. The model says differently.

Garbage in...Garbage out...

I am somewhat surprised that you consider everything I have been doing is "Garbage", that certainly is not my view.

Please do not mis-understand. Your models are wonderful! It's the data base and conclusions you draw from that data base which are garbage. The final autopsy report and James Humes testimony are rubbish, and cannot be intellectually defended.

Aside from CE 385 and the spurious decision to choose the 14cm measurement where is the "rubbish" in both his testimony and autopsy report. I have not found reasons to believe that he lied either in that document or in his testimony. I do not see what foundation you have to describe them as rubbish. Aside from the Rydberg drawings and the 14cm measurement for the back wound, could you point out one area where Humes has deliberately lied about what he saw and described?

James.

[John Dolva]

Thanks James. That pic really helps.

Obviously I would then consider jfk's posture aand orientation at the time of the shot.

Great topic btw

edit add This deals with wound ballistics.

http://www.defencejournal.com/april98/bulletwound.htm

here is an interesting article (among many. It may show that the us mil article on extensive tests and high speed missile behaviour is helpful (very) but in cases not applicable) (can a tumble explain things?) on that also mentions exterior ballistics. which is different. and may be harder to speculate about but I suspect not impossible.

Edited May 7, 2012 by John Dolva

[Cliff Varnell]

Burgundy

green it

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.

Cliff, can you give me your references for that for the idea that Lifton does not agree with anything Humes said about the back wound. Maybe I miss-read him.

Best Evidence, pg 155:

There was just too much evidence indicating the wound was "low."

My responses in Blue:-

Yes, I see that. However I also note that on Page 501 of the hardback edition and P. 584 in paperback he also wrote "I trusted Humes and his ability to observe and report what he has seen" That is my position also.

Lifton was referring to the head wound(s), but we're discussing the back wound. So Lifton won't help you here.

Recently Pat made clear that the 14cm dimensions took you to T3.

No, that's not what Pat was aiming at. 14cm takes you to C7/T1, even though the properly filled out part of the face sheet shows a wound consistent with T3. Pat's trying to pull a fast one.

I don't agree. I checked his measurements and I found they worked perfectly. I posted that earlier in this thread. I checked his figures and they stood up. Pat's argument as to where that 14cm starts and ends takes you to T3.

The bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 5.75" below the top of the collar. That's a shade over 14cm. Did JFK wear his shirt collar up around his ears? Of course not. There is a 2+ inch difference between T3 and the 14cm-below-mastoid measurement.

I have said a number of times that my position in this thread is to work at dismantling the SBT from within the ground rules set by the WC. I know this is not your view, but if I can dismantle the SBT using their ground rules then they have nowhere to go. The criteria I am using to dismantle it are the very criteria they used to create it. That is why I accept, in the main what Humes says and why I accept the Autopsy Report.

This is the Pat Speer approach, as well. But neither of you are able to provide any intellectual justification for accepting the post-autopsy work product of proven liars. You think that buying into the fraudulent talking points of Lone Nuttery allows you the rhetorical upper hand against WC defenders, as if historical truth serves solely at the convenience of a public relations campaign? You guys accept the words of proven liars because it fits your pet theories, nothing more and nothing less.

I do not understand why you are so critical that I have decided to accept the Warren Commission position as a basis by which to attack them.

Because you are promoting lies as historical fact -- no matter what good your intent may be. The T1 back wound is just one of the lies in which Humes took part.

I am not a Warren Commission supporter, far from it. I am using their own arguments and facts to destroy their findings. I do not see why that is so wrong.

Because they based their case on the lies Humes and Boswell were ordered to make so that the medical evidence could fit the 3-shot scenario. You are covering up the cover-up when you promote weak, agenda driven testilmony as historical fact.

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.

That is not quite true Cliff. I believe my arguments, along with the supporting images, are what has made my case. I have shown numerous images that support the point that the T1 transverse process is behind as well as below Costa IR.

This excellent graphic shows an obvious path from the nicked trachea to T1 with just the right angle to leave an air pocket overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes -- and given the likely presence of hematoma on the x-ray, damaged blood vessels in that part of the neck are a given.

The are a number of problems with that graphic. First it does not include the arteries and veins that are in that area.

And since the x-ray shows hematoma -- damaged blood vessels -- this round would be expected to strike blood vessels.

Second the trajectory is far too high to be able to damage the lung.

There is no evidence the lung was damaged. The words of proven liars carry no weight.

Third, the position of the body is not upright. It therefore gives the impression that T1 can indeed be damaged, should the bullet even be able to reach it and avoid damaging the veins and arteries.

I don't follow you. JFK was seated upright when he was struck in the throat.

Fourth, in the video I posted yesterday on C7 I show exactly why T1 could not be damaged.

The A-B-C graphic indicates otherwise.

That is why it cannot be damaged. In addition, to be fair, if I am just repeating assertions then is that not also what you are doing?

Frankly, no. I'm making a fact-based argument as to why the Humes-Boswell work product is illegitimate, due to the lack of proper autopsy procedures, and the conflicts with the physical evidence, the properly prepared documents, and the consensus witness testimony.

You say the final autopsy report/Humes testimonies are acceptable because all of that fits in with your strategy of rhetorical combat with WC defenders. You offer no logical argument for why anyone else should accept it.

Now this is a little unfair of you. Is it your position that all the graphics I have created have no logical basis?

The graphics are great. It's your reliance of the post-autopsy work product of Humes/Boswell that's the problem.

Is there not an element of truth that much of what you have said throughout this thread is assertion. Where is the evidence that Fox 5 is fake.

Where is the evidence that it's genuine? It wasn't prepared according to proper autopsy protocol and there is no chain of possession for it. According to the HSCA it was prima facie inadmissible in court, and that was before we found out it had no chain of possession.

And the operative word is "evidence."

You have no evidence that JFK was the subject of the Fox 5 photo.

I note that on P. 505 of Best Evidence (Hardback Edition) Lifton wonders about the legitimacy of Fox 5. The problem he is not stating it is a fake, he is wondering whether that would answer the problems he was facing.

Even Lifton trusts that Humes has observed and written down what he has seen. That would suggest that the Autopsy report has some authority to it.

Not as far as the back wound goes. 14cm below the mastoid is roughly C7/T1; just above the upper border of the scapula is consistent with T2. And neither designation is according to proper autopsy protocol -- using the spine as a fixed landmark.

And this is the mess you would have us believe is historical truth?

The video I posted yesterday on the locating the back wound gives real reasons why T3 may not be the location for the back wound. You talk about Humes not using correct body positions to measure from, well what is more stable than the Scapula to measure the position of the back wound. I have shown very clearly where on Fox 5 it can be seen we can therefore draw a base line from which to judge where the wound ended up. I have given my reasons that it was between T2 and T3.

I am a little surprised that you can suggest my work offers no "logical argument." Given the body of work I have produced here I feel that is unfair.

Humes was a proven xxxx, the autopsy photos are inadmissible in court.

I agree Humes lied with respect to CE 385. He knew very well that the position of the lung was wrong. You seem to be suggesting that everything he said was a lie.

Everything in the final autropsy report concerning the back wound is a lie. "14cm below the mastoid process" is not the same location as "just above the upper border of the scapula".

As I point out above, even David Lifton disagrees with this point.

I can't go along with that.

Well, the upper border of the scapula is clearly below the base of the neck, is it not? That's why Gerald Ford moved the back wound from that location in the WCR up to the back of the neck. Upper border of the scapula is too low. The final autopsy report was a pack of lies in regards to the back wound, pure and simple.

I suspect you have not looked at the video I posted yesterday. The model says differently.

Garbage in...Garbage out...

I am somewhat surprised that you consider everything I have been doing is "Garbage", that certainly is not my view.

Please do not mis-understand. Your models are wonderful! It's the data base and conclusions you draw from that data base which are garbage. The final autopsy report and James Humes testimony are rubbish, and cannot be intellectually defended.

Aside from CE 385 and the spurious decision to choose the 14cm measurement where is the "rubbish" in both his testimony and autopsy report.

Anything to do with the trajectory of a bullet through JFK's body is rubbish. He knew the night of the autopsy, as soon as he found out about the Magic Bullet, that he was going to have to make that bullet account for both the back and the neck wounds. So he came up with four different bullet paths. Gerald Ford rejected the lowest one and moved it up to the back of the neck.

Even though the back wound was probed twice and found shallow, Humes had to turn it into a transiting round.

Rubbish.

I have not found reasons to believe that he lied either in that document or in his testimony.

But you have noted the discrepancies between the back wound locations described in the final autopsy report, have you not?

I do not see what foundation you have to describe them as rubbish.

The wound was probed. It was shallow. Humes lied when he indicated the round exited the throat. He made up 4 different bullet paths. He didn't follow proper autopsy protocol. He was utterly inexperienced at the work he was given...Good enough?

Aside from the Rydberg drawings and the 14cm measurement for the back wound, could you point out one area where Humes has deliberately lied about what he saw and described?

The non-transiting bullet that Humes turned into a transiting one.

James.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Here is the link to the video on damaging C7:-

Here is the link to identifying the location of the back wound:-

James.

James, your assumptions haven't changed. You insist that the lung must be damaged, while there is no credible evidence of damage to the lung.

You ignore the air-pocket overlaying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. How could the air-pocket "overlay" the C7 transverse process if it struck underneath?

Your reliance on the authenticity of Fox 5 is misplaced, given its poor quality and lack of a chain of possession.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[James R Gordon]

Here is the link to the video on damaging C7:-

Here is the link to identifying the location of the back wound:-

James.

James, your assumptions haven't changed. You insist that the lung must be damaged, while there is no credible evidence of damage to the lung.

Yes, my assumptions have not changed. They cannot change because they are the criteria for the SBT. The purpose of that video was to establish how a shot from the front could do exactly what the supporters of the Warren Commission state the SBT did. In showing that a shot from the front can do exactly what the SBT can do was another attempt to undermine the SBT. I cannot change any of the assumptions/criteria, because they are the criteria of the Commission. If I did so, e.g left one out, the supporters of the Commission would immediately accuse me of changing the criteria. That is why those criteria have not, and cannot, change. Otherwise any attempt to demonstrate that a bullet from the front can do exactly the same as the SBT would be invalid.

The credibility of the evidence is Humes testimony and the Autopsy report. Earlier today I quoted David Lifton’s support for the authority of Humes observations and Autopsy report and you said I can’t use that when referring to the back wound. Well, in this case, I am not referring to the back wound and I do now cite it.

The evidence for the damage of the lung is the Autopsy report.

You ignore the air-pocket overlaying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes.

When do you think this “air-pocket” was created that apparently overlay C7? Where, on earth, could such air come from I wonder? The answer has to be the damaged lung. Now the bullet could never have come into contact with this air pocket. That is because the speed of the bullet meant that the bullet had long since finished its journey before that pocket was created. The air pocket did not just instantaneously appear. It had to take time, though I have no idea how much time it required to settle there. And certainly if it travelled as far as T1, which is some distance from C7 it would take quite a bit of time.

How could the air-pocket "overlay" the C7 transverse process if it struck underneath?

As I pointed out the air pocket was not created when C7 was damaged. It was created after the lung was damaged. The video describes the sequence of the bullet’s entry into the throat. The lung was last organ to be damaged. You cannot create a credible trajectory if the lung is damaged before C7 so it had to be the last organ to be damaged.

Your reliance on the authenticity of Fox 5 is misplaced, given its poor quality and lack of a chain of possession.

I grant you the quality of Fox 5 is poor, but it is not so poor so as not to be able to identify features of the scapula. Being able to identify the edge of the spline allowed me to draw a base line. From there it was a matter of judging where above that line the bullet’s entry point was.

James.

[Pat Speer]

As you no doubt have discovered, James, Cliff has no interest in what the widely-accepted evidence shows, only in what he can conjure up once he throws out the evidence he doesn't accept. The problem, unfortunately, is that virtually everyone--and almost certainly everyone who will seriously study this case in the future--fails to share his impression of what should be thrown out. He dismisses the autopsy report and autopsy photos in favor of Burkley's notation and HIS (Cliff's) interpretation of a few witness statements--and acts as though all should do the same--when he has not uncovered a single instance of an autopsy report or autopsy photos being dismissed or rejected in a court of law in favor of a note by the victim's doctor, and the recollections of a few witnesses.

In other words, his argument is weak sauce, and has no chance of leading anywhere.

P.S. Cliff, you're still running from the fact the face sheet has a mark at T-1. If not, then why not show us where a wound at T-1 ought to have been markedt?

[Cliff Varnell]

As you no doubt have discovered, James, Cliff has no interest in what the widely-accepted evidence shows, only in what he can conjure up once he throws out the evidence he doesn't accept.

Widely accepted by whom? Lone Nutters? The mainstream media? Since Humes lied about the back wound location and about the bullet transiting, he has no credibility. That you cannot make a fact-based case for him is telling.

The problem, unfortunately, is that virtually everyone--and almost certainly everyone who will seriously study this case in the future--fails to share his impression of what should be thrown out.

And you took his inventory of what "virtually everyone" thinks...when, exactly? What was your methodology for taking this extensive survey of what "virtually everyone" thinks?

He dismisses the autopsy report and autopsy photos in favor of Burkley's notation and HIS (Cliff's) interpretation of a few witness statements

This is an egregious misrepresentation of the case for the T3 back wound, of course. Pat likes to pretend that 15 people are only "a few" and that the clothing evidence doesn't exist.

The burden of proof is on YOU, Pat -- show us how you get 2 inches of indented shirt fabric to ride up.

Show us how you get multiple inches of shirt and jacket fabric to ride up entirely above a base-of-the-neck inshoot without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base of the neck.

You can't reconcile the clothing evidence with your pet theories, so you pretend it doesn't exist. You can't reconcile the clear statements of 15 people with your pet theories, so you say it's only a "a few."

You don't have an argument beyond the words of serial liars and photos for which you have no chain of possession.

--and acts as though all should do the same--when he has not uncovered a single instance of an autopsy report or autopsy photos being dismissed or rejected in a court of law in favor of a note by the victim's doctor, and the recollections of a few witnesses.

In other words, his argument is weak sauce, and has no chance of leading anywhere.

Show us where a court of law accepted autopsy reports that weren't properly filled out and autopsy photos without a chain of possession. Do something more than repeat your baseless claims over and over, Pat.

P.S. Cliff, you're still running from the fact the face sheet has a mark at T-1. If not, then why not show us where a wound at T-1 ought to have been markedt?

T1 is at the base of the neck, Pat. The dot on the autopsy face sheet is not at the base of the neck.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Here is the link to the video on damaging C7:-

Here is the link to identifying the location of the back wound:-

James.

James, your assumptions haven't changed. You insist that the lung must be damaged, while there is no credible evidence of damage to the lung.

Yes, my assumptions have not changed. They cannot change because they are the criteria for the SBT.

And what establishes that criteria as historical fact? That an assertion is convenient to a pet theory hardly seems like a logical measure of validity. Is your argument self-validating? JFK's back wound was at T1 because the pet theories of Pat Speer and James Gordon depend on it?

I don't think things work that way...

The purpose of that video was to establish how a shot from the front could do exactly what the supporters of the Warren Commission state the SBT did. In showing that a shot from the front can do exactly what the SBT can do was another attempt to undermine the SBT. I cannot change any of the assumptions/criteria, because they are the criteria of the Commission.

But by what leap of logic do you conclude that the criteria/assumptions of the Commission were based in fact? Because your pet theory requires it?

If I did so, e.g left one out, the supporters of the Commission would immediately accuse me of changing the criteria.

So what? I mean, I doubt if they will pay much attention to you, and if it comes down to it they'll find something else to throw at you. They are well versed in just making stuff up.

That is why those criteria have not, and cannot, change. Otherwise any attempt to demonstrate that a bullet from the front can do exactly the same as the SBT would be invalid.

[

The criteria of the Warren Commission is invalid, and neither you or Pat has made a fact-based argument otherwise.

With Pat it's all rhetoric.

The credibility of the evidence is Humes testimony and the Autopsy report.

That evidence has no credibility. Humes lied about the back wound location and Humes lied about the bullet transiting.

Earlier today I quoted David Lifton’s support for the authority of Humes observations and Autopsy report

Hold it. Lifton supports the observations Humes made during the autopsy, the observations you dismiss. The final autopsy report contains too many lies for Lifton to support, such as the "base of the neck wound" and the "transiting bullet."

and you said I can’t use that when referring to the back wound. Well, in this case, I am not referring to the back wound and I do now cite it.

The evidence for the damage of the lung is the Autopsy report.

You ignore the air-pocket overlaying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes.

When do you think this “air-pocket” was created that apparently overlay C7?

From the throat shot, as the obvious trajectory indicates.

Where, on earth, could such air come from I wonder?

It comes from an object tapping on the tissue.

The answer has to be the damaged lung.

No, it doesn't.

Now the bullet could never have come into contact with this air pocket.

It created the air-pocket when it came to rest at T1.

That is because the speed of the bullet meant that the bullet had long since finished its journey before that pocket was created.

That doesn't follow. A flechette lodging at that location would tap the tissue and create the air-pocket.

The air pocket did not just instantaneously appear.

Yes, it did. As soon as the round came to rest at T1 there was an air-pocket.

It had to take time, though I have no idea how much time it required to settle there. And certainly if it travelled as far as T1, which is some distance from C7 it would take quite a bit of time.

Okay, it took a period of time. Fine.

How could the air-pocket "overlay" the C7 transverse process if it struck underneath?

As I pointed out the air pocket was not created when C7 was damaged.

There is no evidence C7 was damaged. The x-ray shows T1.

It was created after the lung was damaged.

More self-validating assertions based on the words of a proven, serial xxxx.

The video describes the sequence of the bullet’s entry into the throat. The lung was last organ to be damaged. You cannot create a credible trajectory if the lung is damaged before C7 so it had to be the last organ to be damaged.

Garbage in, Garbage out...

Your reliance on the authenticity of Fox 5 is misplaced, given its poor quality and lack of a chain of possession.

I grant you the quality of Fox 5 is poor, but it is not so poor so as not to be able to identify features of the scapula. Being able to identify the edge of the spline allowed me to draw a base line. From there it was a matter of judging where above that line the bullet’s entry point was.

No, from there you have to identify the person who developed the photo and when they did it, and you have to find something in the photo which identifies the subject as JFK. Without a chain of possession those photos are worthless.

James.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Cliff Varnell