The JFK Back Wound

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Egad! And of course, if there had been a bulge, then the location of the wound would not have corresponded to the mortician's description of the wound as 5-6 inches below the shoulder and to the right of the spinal column! So how much proof is enough? And he is doing this IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE "MAGIC BULLET" THEORY TURNS OUT TO BE ANATOMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. I don't know whether to admire his courage for falling on his sword again or again or to be dismayed by his stunning irrationality.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Lamson claims that I have not refuted his claim of the existence of that "bulge"; but of course I have:

(1) JFK wore tailored shirts and jackets, which do not bulge. The idea of a bulge is simply a fabrication.

Since he wore custom clothing, there cannot have been a bulge and the photo has been fabricated.

(2) If there had been one, then the holes would not have aligned with the location in Boswell's diagram.

But the holes correspond to Boswell's location; so there was no bulge and the photo is a fabrication.

(3) If there had been one, then the wound's location would not have corresponded to Sibert's diagram.

The holes also correspond to Sibert's location, which means there was no bulge and the photo is fake.

(4) If there had been one, then the wound's location would not have corresponded to Burkley's location.

But the holes correspond to Berkley's location, which means there was no bulge and the photo's fake.

(5) If there had been one, then the wound would not have been shown there in reenactment photographs.

But the reenactments show the wound at the same location, which means no bulge and the photo's fake.

(6) If there had been a bulge, the wound would not have been located where the mortician had located it.

The location was 5-6 inches below the shoulder where the holes occur, which mean no bulge/fake photo.

No one has to have taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years to appreciate all this.

These arguments are of the form known as, Modus Tollens; namely, if p then q; but not-q; therefore, not-p.

If John owns a Honda, then John has a car; John does not have a car; therefore, John does not own a Honda.

Arguments (1) through (6) are valid, which means, if their premises are true, their conclusions cannot be false.

The premises of (1) though (6) are true. So their conclusions--no bulge, photo fake--cannot be false. Q.E.D.

[Craig Lamson]

Lamson claims that I have not refuted his claim of the existence of that "bulge"; but of course I have:

(1) JFK wore tailored shirts and jackets, which do not bulge. The idea of a bulge is simply a fabrication.

Since he wore custom clothing, there cannot have been a bulge and the photo has been fabricated.

We can stop at your very first unproven claim.

Please provide your proof that JFK's 'tailored" jackets and shirt were ALWAYS immune from bunching and folding.

Your wild and unproven handwaving has been duly noted.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[Robert Harris]

Still can't deal HONESTLY with the fact your method of measurement is FATALLY FLAWED. Oh so typical.

I believe I did Craig. I explained to you that ALL 2 dimensional photos contain angular distortion. But the amount is negligible and not nearly enough to alter the fact that the lower of the two wounds matches both the dimensions and the position that Humes described.

If you think otherwise, then show us the math and give us some reason to believe that there is enough distortion to affect my conclusions.

[Robert Harris]

This argument about the coat bunching is a waste of time. The coat undoubtedly did bunch up a bit in the back. In fact, the hole in the jacket is probably an inch or two lower than the back wound in the photo that I described at the top of this thread.

But we get a perfect match with vertebrae T1, which the HSCA confirmed, had been fractured. Just extend the T1 line to the back. Our personal opinions about "tailored" jackets don't mean much. What matters is the empirical, verifiable evidence.

[Craig Lamson]

Still can't deal HONESTLY with the fact your method of measurement is FATALLY FLAWED. Oh so typical.

I believe I did Craig. I explained to you that ALL 2 dimensional photos contain angular distortion. But the amount is negligible and not nearly enough to alter the fact that the lower of the two wounds matches both the dimensions and the position that Humes described.

If you think otherwise, then show us the math and give us some reason to believe that there is enough distortion to affect my conclusions.

What a crock. WHAT is this "negligible" amount? To make this statement you MUST have the figures. So what are they and what correction factors did you apply?

The correct answer is you don't know and you applied no correction factors.

You have no clue and your so called "measurements" are a best a wild azzed guess.

You simply can't be honest. Surprise surprise.

Try again.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Harris says it was at T-1. Burkley placed it at T-3. His only advantage is (a) he was a medical authority and ( he was there. The T-1 is (in my opinion) OBVIOUSLY TOO HIGH. So if that is what Harris derives from his "measurement" of a photograph that we already know has been faked (to conceal the blow-out at the back of JFK's head), what should we make of an analysis that leads to the conclusion that the holes in the shirt and jacket were "too low" and that the mortician's description of the wound as between 5 and 6 inches below the shoulder ARE WRONG? I don't have any trouble inferring that we are dealing with a blood clot, not a real wound. So I don't think Robert's conclusion is supportable. It is contradicted by too much better evidence than his measurement. As I suggested before, this is really a test, not of the location of the wound, but of whether the photo shows it or a blood clot. The answer has now become apparent. And if Harris is trying to create a transit for the "magic bullet", when we know independently that the throat wound was a wound of entry, then I am sorry to say that his entire effort was misguided. We have diagrams before and after the trach from Charles Crenshaw, M.D., and Malcolm Perry, M.D.,'s repeated descriptions of the wound as a result of a bullet coming at him, that it was an entry wound, from the Parkland Press conference. You can find both in the appendices of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998). So I am incredulous if this is an attempt to salvage the "magic bullet".

[James R Gordon]

Jim,

I did reply to you. I sent you a personal message within which was a link to my reply and another link to my source evidence.

I did it this way, since at present I prefer this material to be private.

I note that, for some reason you have blocked receipt of messages from me.

I would prefer not to go public at the present. Hope you are now able to receive my message.

James

[Mark Wengler]

Lamson claims that I have not refuted his claim of the existence of that "bulge"; but of course I have:

(1) JFK wore tailored shirts and jackets, which do not bulge. The idea of a bulge is simply a fabrication.

Since he wore custom clothing, there cannot have been a bulge and the photo has been fabricated.

We can stop at your very first unproven claim.

Please provide your proof that JFK's 'tailored" jackets and shirt were ALWAYS immune from bunching and folding.

Your wild and unproven handwaving has been duly noted.

This would have been JFK's sartorial milieu, and the early photos confirm it. Even after becoming president he continued to wear Harris Tweed sports jackets (made for him by the esteemed Ivy League tailor and haberdasher, Chipp), and a variety of Narragansett and Hyannis Port sailing gear familiar to the New England establishment

http://www.mrporter.com/journal/journal_issue80/3#1

Also Sidney Winston did clothes for the President

[Pat Speer]

Harris says it was at T-1. Burkley placed it at T-3. His only advantage is (a) he was a medical authority and ( he was there. The T-1 is (in my opinion) OBVIOUSLY TOO HIGH. So if that is what Harris derives from his "measurement" of a photograph that we already know has been faked (to conceal the blow-out at the back of JFK's head), what should we make of an analysis that leads to the conclusion that the holes in the shirt and jacket were "too low" and that the mortician's description of the wound as between 5 and 6 inches below the shoulder ARE WRONG? I don't have any trouble inferring that we are dealing with a blood clot, not a real wound. So I don't think Robert's conclusion is supportable. It is contradicted by too much better evidence than his measurement. As I suggested before, this is really a test, not of the location of the wound, but of whether the photo shows it or a blood clot. The answer has now become apparent. And if Harris is trying to create a transit for the "magic bullet", when we know independently that the throat wound was a wound of entry, then I am sorry to say that his entire effort was misguided. We have diagrams before and after the trach from Charles Crenshaw, M.D., and Malcolm Perry, M.D.,'s repeated descriptions of the wound as a result of a bullet coming at him, that it was an entry wound, from the Parkland Press conference. You can find both in the appendices of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998). So I am incredulous if this is an attempt to salvage the "magic bullet".

FWIW, Jim, Mantik and I are in agreement on a number of points, including that the wound in the back wound photo is not at T-3, and that a wound at T-1 (where I think it is, and he thinks it could be) is STILL inconsistent with the single-bullet theory.

The HSCA Pathology Panel, to be clear, claimed a wound at T-1 was consistent with the single-bullet theory provided Kennedy was leaning sharply forward when hit. They could not find any moment in the Z-film when he was leaning that far forward, and assumed he must have been hit while leaning forward while out of sight, behind the sign. The problem with this was that the HSCA photographic panel had concluded Kennedy was hit before going behind the sign. So Blakey et al brought in a NASA hack named Thomas Canning and gave him free reign to move the wounds wherever he wanted in order to get a trajectory to point back to the sniper's nest. Canning availed himself of this opportunity.

So, yes, the evidence for a conspiracy is obvious and no longer needs to be debated.

[Pat Speer]

This argument about the coat bunching is a waste of time. The coat undoubtedly did bunch up a bit in the back. In fact, the hole in the jacket is probably an inch or two lower than the back wound in the photo that I described at the top of this thread.

But we get a perfect match with vertebrae T1, which the HSCA confirmed, had been fractured. Just extend the T1 line to the back. Our personal opinions about "tailored" jackets don't mean much. What matters is the empirical, verifiable evidence.

Seaton's image is LN nonsense, Robert. It was designed to sell the ridiculous lie that a bullet entering at T-1 and exiting from the lower throat would be heading sharply downward in the body. This was in direct contradiction to the conclusions of the HSCA Pathology Panel, and Anatomy 101.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat, I must admit to being a bit baffled. I am glad to hear you are not reviving the "magic bullet" hypothesis and to hear this:

FWIW, Jim, Mantik and I are in agreement on a number of points, including that the wound in the back wound photo is not at T-3, and that a wound at T-1 (where I think it is, and he thinks it could be) is STILL inconsistent with the single-bullet theory.

I will speak with David about it. But it seems to me all the arguments I have given against "bunching" apply here as well. Unless T-1 is consistent with the shirt and jacket, the Boswell diagram, the Sibert sketch, the Berkley death-certificate, the re-enactment photographs, and Thomas Evan Robinson's description of the wound, T-1 cannot possibly be correct. It doesn't look right to me.

[Craig Lamson]

But it seems to me all the arguments I have given against "bunching" apply here as well. y be correct. It doesn't look right to me.

Except that the fold is very well documented. Strike two.

[sarcasm] Oh wait all the evidence is faked except the evidence you want to use. Sorry how could I have forgotten your Fetzering. [/sarcasm]

[Robert Harris]

This argument about the coat bunching is a waste of time. The coat undoubtedly did bunch up a bit in the back. In fact, the hole in the jacket is probably an inch or two lower than the back wound in the photo that I described at the top of this thread.

But we get a perfect match with vertebrae T1, which the HSCA confirmed, had been fractured. Just extend the T1 line to the back. Our personal opinions about "tailored" jackets don't mean much. What matters is the empirical, verifiable evidence.

Seaton's image is LN nonsense, Robert. It was designed to sell the ridiculous lie that a bullet entering at T-1 and exiting from the lower throat would be heading sharply downward in the body. This was in direct contradiction to the conclusions of the HSCA Pathology Panel, and Anatomy 101.

Dr. David Davis came to the following conclusion:

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. There is disruption of the integrity of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the opposite side and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a fracture in that area.

Now you might argue that he lied in order to support the LN cause, but the facts support him. Consider this, from the following website,

http://www.spine-hea...cervical-nerves

C7 controls the Triceps (the large muscle on the back of the arm that allows for straightening of the elbow).

As I have pointed out many, many times over the years, after he was wounded at about 223, JFK did not react to a wound in his throat. His elbows rose high into the air, above his shoulders, which could only have been a neurological reaction to a bullet striking near C7. That bullet fractured T1 and shocked C7. That is where the bullet struck.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Robert Harris

[Pat Speer]

This argument about the coat bunching is a waste of time. The coat undoubtedly did bunch up a bit in the back. In fact, the hole in the jacket is probably an inch or two lower than the back wound in the photo that I described at the top of this thread.

But we get a perfect match with vertebrae T1, which the HSCA confirmed, had been fractured. Just extend the T1 line to the back. Our personal opinions about "tailored" jackets don't mean much. What matters is the empirical, verifiable evidence.

Seaton's image is LN nonsense, Robert. It was designed to sell the ridiculous lie that a bullet entering at T-1 and exiting from the lower throat would be heading sharply downward in the body. This was in direct contradiction to the conclusions of the HSCA Pathology Panel, and Anatomy 101.

Dr. David Davis came to the following conclusion:

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. There is disruption of the integrity of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the opposite side and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a fracture in that area.

Now you might argue that he lied in order to support the LN cause, but the facts support him. Consider this, from the following website,

http://www.spine-hea...cervical-nerves

C7 controls the Triceps (the large muscle on the back of the arm that allows for straightening of the elbow).

As I have pointed out many, many times over the years, after he was wounded at about 223, JFK did not react to a wound in his throat. His elbows rose high into the air, above his shoulders, which could only have been a neurological reaction to a bullet striking near C7. That bullet fractured T1 and shocked C7. That is where the bullet struck.

I'm not saying it didn't, Robert. I'm saying that Seaton's image, which you insist on posting over and over again, is nonsense designed to support McAdams's disingenuous support of Artwohl's pet theory the bullet entered at T-1, AND that T-1 was significantly above the throat wound.

The HSCA FPP claimed the throat wound was slightly above T-1. You seem to support this. So PLEASE stop posting Seaton's misleading image, which he should have taken down years ago.