Dismantling the Single Bullet Theory Pt 5

[Malcolm Ward]

James,I have a neck fracture at C5,also a couple of prolapsed discs in my back.The one thing that does cause excruciating pain,and I am talking from experience,is nerve entrapment.If the bones on JFK's neck trapped the nerve,then he would get a pain like a electric shock going through his neck.I get sciatica from the prolapsed discs and no amount of pain relief stops that pain completely.It is a pain that is so bad that its hard to sleep.Unless you dope yourself up enough that it forces sleep.

[James R Gordon]

James,I have a neck fracture at C5,also a couple of prolapsed discs in my back.The one thing that does cause excruciating pain,and I am talking from experience,is nerve entrapment.If the bones on JFK's neck trapped the nerve,then he would get a pain like a electric shock going through his neck.I get sciatica from the prolapsed discs and no amount of pain relief stops that pain completely.It is a pain that is so bad that its hard to sleep.Unless you dope yourself up enough that it forces sleep.

Malcolm,

Thank you for your contribution. I am sorry you have such pain. I am sure JFK will also have been in significant pain. I have no way of knowing whether a nerve was trapped, but I do believe I have established that the muscle between C7 and C6 was very severely damaged.

This morning I wondered if the detail in my posting was just too much to follow. So today I have added a video that goes over what I had to say yesterday.

Hopefully it will be easier to follow.

James.

[Malcolm Ward]

James,I would think by looking at your latest video,the extensive damage to the neck would have more than likely caused nerve compression.Take a look here for notes on nerve compression.

A brief passage posted.

The hallmark of acute or chronic nerve root compression is PAIN. Pain due to nerve root compression has certain characteristics:

* it tends to follow a dermatomal distribution

* it may be accompanied by paresthesia (para, abnormal + aisthesis, sensation, abnormal sensation such as pricking or tingling; heightened sensitivity) or sensory loss in a dermatomal distribution

* a loss of power in the muscles innervated by the root

Source:

http://www.neuroanat...diculopathy.htm

Edited May 13, 2012 by Malcolm Ward

[Cliff Varnell]

So, to sum up. It seems clear to me that the doctors LIED about the back wound location, but not on the night of 11-22-63, and only after their arms were twisted by the WC and Justice Department.

Pat, these are the guys who signed off on the authenticity of the autopsy photos. That's the core of your case for their authenticity. The core of your case is testimony by men you've proven to be serial liars.

And what's up with the abrasion collar on the lower margin of that T1 wound of yours?

Shot from below?

When the forward slope of the shoulder is greater than the angle of descent of a bullet, the bottom part of the bullet will hit the shoulder first and create the illusion the bullet headed upwards in the body, even if it did not.

And what authority does Pat Speer rely upon to reach this conclusion?

(emphasis added)

Let's see if I can explain it a little better, Richard. If a bullet is in descent and hits a flat wall standing straight up, the top part of the bullet will hit first, correct?

Now, if you curl the top of this wall away from the bullet, and the bullet hits near the top of the wall, at a place where it's curling forward to a significant degree, what part of the bullet will hit first?

It depends. If the angle of descent of the bullet is less than the forward tilt near the top of the wall (or shoulder) the bottom of the bullet could very well hit first.

I looked into this some years ago, and concluded that a bullet descending from the sniper's nest circa 190-224 and impacting on Kennedy's shoulder from behind would in fact leave an abrasion collar (an indication of which part of the bullet hit first) along the bottom of the entrance, not the top.

Pat, you initially stated as a fact what now appears to be pure supposition on your part.

The abrasion collar in that location is more consistent with a flawed fake job than with your weak rationale.

[Cliff Varnell]

The face sheet and measurements are in complete accord, and both support the location of the back wound in the autopsy photos.

The factual inaccuracy of this comment has been pointed out repeatedly. The dot on the face sheet written in pencil matches the location of the holes in the clothes. The measurements were recorded in pen -- violation of autopsy protocol -- so obviously the placement of the dot and the recording of the measurements did not occur at the same time.

How can someone caught in so many lies as Humes be regarded as so infallible, Pat?

The dot on the face sheet matches the clothing holes when measuring from the back of the head, Cliff.

Yes, and since it was recorded in pencil it also follows proper autopsy protocol, a significant detail you like to pretend never matters.

Well, the outline on the face sheet is not an accurate outline for Kennedy's anatomy.

Of course not. That's why measuring to the mastoid and acromion processes from the dot is ridiculous. The fact is the properly filled out portion of the face sheet agrees with the holes in the clothes, the death certificate, and the clear testimonies of more than a dozen people who got a good look at the wound.

When one measures down from the shoulder tip--not back of the head--the dot is actually a bit higher than placed by the HSCA on Figure 24.

As you just pointed out, the diagram is not anatomically accurate. The measurements from the head and shoulder-tip were recorded in pen, and their use violated a couple of other autopsy protocols.

You can't spin enough rhetoric to cover the smell of this stuff, Pat.

The dot on Fig 24 is at T-1. The dot on both the face sheet and Fig 24 is, moreover, a bit higher in comparison to the shoulder tip than the hole on the jacket. Well, this has an explanation as well. Kennedy's back wasn't flat.

It was as flat as anyone else's. And look -- a raised right arm with an INDENTATION in the fabric at the right base of his neck! Kills two Speerisms with one photo!

Of course, you're referring to the fleshy pads on the back of JFK's neck, a steroid-induced condition called "buffalo hump". This doesn't help your case at all, Pat.

The material stretching down from his neck did not stretch straight down, but at a significant angle, which served to lift the hole on the clothing in comparison to the shoulder tip, and bring it closer to the level of the back wound.

Please show us a photo of the Hunchback of Camelot. You're just making this stuff up, Pat. You need 2+ inches of both shirt and jacket fabric to ride up entirely above a T1 in-shoot, just below the base of the neck, without pushing up on the jacket collar resting just above the base of the neck.

You can't do it. So you make up stuff about your own shirt bunching up and JFK's hunchback, but it's all contentless assertion. And nothing more.

But is it close enough? It seems clear there was some bunching of the clothing.

Show us! Once and for all -- when will one of you T1 theorists show us this clothing movement you insist occurred?

When? And remember -- JFK's jacket collar was in a normal position just above the base of his neck. Which is why all you'll ever do is spin rhetoric about the T1 back wound. You have no reliable witnesses to the wound. You have no properly prepared documents to support the conclusion. And you can't do anything with your shirt but make it indent when you raise your arm.

In short, Pat, you have nothing.

I suspect there was enough bunching to lift the hole on the clothing in line with the hole on the body, but not enough to lift it in line with a trajectory from the sniper's nest. You think there was not enough bunching to lift the clothing in line with a hole at T-1.

But you also think the wound was at T-3.

It's where the irrefutable weight of evidence places it. I know this is inconvenient to your pet theories, Pat. Tough breaks.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Malcolm Ward]

James,when I referred to the neurological aspect in post 215,I was meaning to infer,what with the collapse of his neck that nerve compression was likely.Has you have pointed out,the damage was quite severe.

So in my mind,he would have been in a lot of pain through nerve entrapment.I have busted a few bones and its the nerves that give you the acute pain.Also I believe his body would have gone into shock.And that would naturally explain the lack of movement afterwards,and cervical neurological damage can cause paresthesia in certain areas.

[James R Gordon]

James,when I referred to the neurological aspect in post 215,I was meaning to infer,what with the collapse of his neck that nerve compression was likely.Has you have pointed out,the damage was quite severe.

So in my mind,he would have been in a lot of pain through nerve entrapment.I have busted a few bones and its the nerves that give you the acute pain.Also I believe his body would have gone into shock.And that would naturally explain the lack of movement afterwards,and cervical neurological damage can cause paresthesia in certain areas.

Malcolm,

After posting this revised position as well as the video, I began to have doubts and went back to my work to check it again. I wondered if I had gone a little too far. However the more I study it and particularly the damage to Intervertebral Disc C06 C07, that damaged muscle, I am convinced I am right. The slope of the movement of the whole neck towards this damaged muscle suggests only one conclusion: the neck moved downwards as a consequence of the throat shot and the consequential damage to the said muscle. I can find no other explanation why the neck is at a different angle to the spline. The only explanation I can arrive at is that the whole neck collapsed down onto C7 because of this damaged muscle.

In the video, I looked at his arm movements as well as his movement to the left and tried to explain them as a consequence of the change in the neck's position.

However you may well be right that a further consequence of this change in the neck position was that JFK was incapable of movement. Many researchers have wondered why he never made any attempt to move. You may well have highlighted the reason. I think you have raised an important point here.

James

Edited May 14, 2012 by James R Gordon

[John Dolva]

It's great to see this evolving. Two things.

Someone in the SS car said at the time of the headshot Kennedy was upright.

Wasn't he already pretty tanked up and to what extent does not shock but the natural immediate response of the body in flooding the system with endorphines need to be considered?

[James R Gordon]

John,

Thank you the positive comment.

Whoever said he JFK was upright at the moment of the head shot is absolutely wrong. It would appear to me that he had sloped to his left somewhere around 20 degrees, maybe even more.

You have highlighted an important point. Little research has been devoted to the combined affect of his daily medications along with such injuries as the neck wound. I have no idea what the combined effect of that would be. It would, of course, only be momentary. A few seconds later he would effectively be dead.

James.

[John Dolva]

You're welcome, James.

On the first point. I know you are right as stated.

I think from this persons perspective perhaps he meant that his head was perched upright on his shoulders and not leaning anymore than his body. I don't know. I read something about it some years ago. I've always taken it as far as he could see and how he desvibed it he may have stated an opposite to slumped. It seems a small point but if so then he is really saying his musculature was sufficiently functional to hold the head up. If so it means something in the context of this analysis (imo)

edittypo

Edited May 14, 2012 by John Dolva

[Richard Hocking]

John,

Thank you the positive comment.

Whoever said he JFK was upright at the moment of the head shot is absolutely wrong. It would appear to me that he had sloped to his left somewhere around 20 degrees, maybe even more.

...

James.

Since this jab appears to be directed at something I posted, let's look at the original post, in the context of that post.

In Post #92 of this thread, I wrote:

"... This was a crucial element. And we have undeniable evidence that none of the SS attempted to intervene or take protective action until it was over. Between 5 and 9 seconds from the first shot noise until the Head shot. More than enough time to react, yet, no one did. The proof is in the pudding. The Z film and other photos give us the definitive answer.

JFK was left on his own. It was up to him to save his own life. Under those circumstances, using a paralytic for the first shot makes perfect sense. If the SS does nothing, his only defense was to duck. The paralytic shot would have removed that option. JFK was upright and immobile as the Limo creeped into the Kill Zone. "

Now there are several things I would emphasize:

1. The context was that JFK could either "duck", as in dive down to the floor of the limo or alternately remain sitting "upright". Between those two choices, it is obvious he remained seated in an upright position. He was not hidden from view. He remained as an easy target for snipers. He took no evasive action.

2. You have introduced the concept of "degrees" of upright where you say that he sloped to his left some 20°. Assuming for the moment that you may be close with your 20° estimate, you are implying that he sloped 20° from pure vertical (90°). IOW JFK was 70° upright as opposed to 0° upright if he had been laying on the floor. He was a completely visible target sitting basically upright in his seat.

3. I wrote "as the limo creeped into the kill zone". You wrote "at the time of the head shot". See any difference in those statements?

No James, I was not "absolutely wrong". The statement I made in the context of that post is accurate.

[James R Gordon]

Richard,

I would like to make very clear, that I was not directing my response at you. I had no idea who was being referred to in the comment. I read the comment to be referring to the moment of the head shot.

Reading the full quote, I fully understand your point and agree with your description of what happened.

Sorry for the confusion.

James

[Pat Speer]

So, to sum up. It seems clear to me that the doctors LIED about the back wound location, but not on the night of 11-22-63, and only after their arms were twisted by the WC and Justice Department.

Pat, these are the guys who signed off on the authenticity of the autopsy photos. That's the core of your case for their authenticity. The core of your case is testimony by men you've proven to be serial liars.

And what's up with the abrasion collar on the lower margin of that T1 wound of yours?

Shot from below?

When the forward slope of the shoulder is greater than the angle of descent of a bullet, the bottom part of the bullet will hit the shoulder first and create the illusion the bullet headed upwards in the body, even if it did not.

And what authority does Pat Speer rely upon to reach this conclusion?

(emphasis added)

Let's see if I can explain it a little better, Richard. If a bullet is in descent and hits a flat wall standing straight up, the top part of the bullet will hit first, correct?

Now, if you curl the top of this wall away from the bullet, and the bullet hits near the top of the wall, at a place where it's curling forward to a significant degree, what part of the bullet will hit first?

It depends. If the angle of descent of the bullet is less than the forward tilt near the top of the wall (or shoulder) the bottom of the bullet could very well hit first.

I looked into this some years ago, and concluded that a bullet descending from the sniper's nest circa 190-224 and impacting on Kennedy's shoulder from behind would in fact leave an abrasion collar (an indication of which part of the bullet hit first) along the bottom of the entrance, not the top.

Pat, you initially stated as a fact what now appears to be pure supposition on your part.

The abrasion collar in that location is more consistent with a flawed fake job than with your weak rationale.

It's not weak supposition at all. Draw a line on a piece of paper reflecting the forward slope of the upper shoulder. Lean it forward a few degrees. Draw another line reflecting the trajectory of the bullet from the sniper's nest circa Z-190--Z-224. If you do this correctly you'll see that the bullet enters the shoulder while heading upwards in relation to the slope.

[Pat Speer]

James, the x-ray on post 219 was taken with Kennedy laying on his back at the beginning of the autopsy. He'd been dead for 7 hours or so. Rigor mortis head already set it. As a result, I don't think you can assume the spine had collapsed as a reaction to the bullet. The alignment of the spine to one side may simply reflect that his head was not aligned while in the coffin. This would only make sense, moreover, as the right back side of his skull was smashed.

[Cliff Varnell]

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

What are the odds of the back shot coming from the sniper's nest?

You're begging the question as to the veracity of the official story, Pat. Savvy "begging the question"?

Edited May 15, 2012 by Cliff Varnell