The JFK Back Wound

[James R Gordon]


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 are


Robert,

Some time ago I looked into this issue and I find, at best the issue clouded in dispute between the four experts brought in by the HCSA. I acknowledge that the HCSA put on the record that in their belief the T1 Transverse process had been damaged.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My conclusion from all this is that it is not certain T1 Transverse Process was damaged. The whole situation is full of ambiguity.

James.

[Pat Speer]


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 are


Robert,

Some time ago I looked into this issue and I find, at best the issue clouded in dispute between the four experts brought in by the HCSA. I acknowledge that the HCSA put on the record that in their belief the T1 Transverse process had been damaged.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My conclusion from all this is that it is not certain T1 Transverse Process was damaged. The whole situation is full of ambiguity.

James.

The early consultants on the x-rays were shown the original x-rays once, and told the HSCA investigators what they thought. Their opinions were not carefully considered by the Pathology Panel. I'm pretty sure they weren't even paid for their opinions. McDonnell was then brought in to both consult and supervise the computer enhancement of the x-rays, which greatly improved the visibility of the area in question. Davis was then consulted, and shown these enhanced images. Unlike the others, McDonnell and Davis wrote extensive reports. It's no surprise whatsoever that their opinions were taken seriously, while the earlier opinions were not.

As far as your contention no outshoot is visible... bullet wounds are not readily identifiable on x-rays. But bullet paths--dark lines depicting air in the tissues--often are. On Kennedy's x-ray, there is a dark vertical line on the right side of his neck, ending (or beginning) at T-1. The Clark Panel, and Lattimer both claimed this represented the bullet path, and proved the bullet descended sharply in the neck. The HSCA FPP, however, realized this path started too high on the neck to have come from the back wound, and decided that it instead represented air backing up in the neck from the exit in the throat, and being trapped in the neck by Kennedy's tie. That is one of the most ridiculous explanations ever offered, and shows how desperate they were to deflect away from where the evidence actually leads--that whatever exited (or entered) Kennedy's throat--bullet or bone fragment--came from (or exited from) his skull.

[Robert Harris]

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.

Yes, of course it's above the throat wound. I've been telling you that for years.

T1 was fractured and there are NO vertebrae below C7 that could have affected anything that was connected to the elbows. JFK's neurological reaction could only have been to a bullet passing very close to C7. JFK's anatomy was different that some other men. The base of his throat sat lower in relation to his vertebrae for example, than the guy you measured in your video on this subject. Measure JFK - not someone else.

[Robert Harris]

My conclusion from all this is that it is not certain T1 Transverse Process was damaged. The whole situation is full of ambiguity.

James.

Yes, well there seems to be a unwritten law that nothing related to this case can be simple :-)

But it appears that there was something there, which at the very least, might have been the result of a bullet strike nearby. And as near as I can tell, T1 is a perfect match with the lower of the two alleged wounds that I measured at the top of this thread. Now, it's important to understand that JFK's anatomy was somewhat different than a lot of other people's. The base of his neck and his vertebrae seemed to be lower in relation to his back. So, when we look at other skeletal models, we get the impression that T1 was higher than it was on Kennedy.

Look at photos of him in profile and then look at photos of others. To his credit, I think Seaton was trying to make that clear in his illustration. Look at how far down the back, his T1 appears.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Lamson claims that I have not refuted his claim of the existence of that "bulge", which he claims has

been proven on the basis of photos that are easily faked, but which he (incredibly) claims are instead

"unimpeachable", which has to be a first for a photograph, which is preposterous; 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.

But of course Lamson has to add some rubbish he has made up about "Fetzering", which, properly defined,

means being obsessively dedicated to establishing the truth about JFK, 9/11, Wellstone and Sandy Hook; or,

the display of determination in ferreting out the truth about complex and controversial cases, especially ones

that involve complicity by the government, including especially the CIA, the NSA, the Joint Chiefs and the FBI.

[Craig Lamson]

Lamson claims that I have not refuted his claim of the existence of that "bulge", which he claims has

been proven on the basis of photos that are easily faked, but which he (incredibly) claims are instead

"unimpeachable", which has to be a first for a photograph, which is preposterous; 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.

Yes Jim, the Betzner photo..and the many others take of JFK theat day offer UNIMPEACHABLE evidence there was a large fold on the back of his jacket.

Now unless you can prove that ALL of these photos were altered, you have not impeach the unimpeachable. And give you don't have the first clue about how photography and your nearly as ignorant sidekick Jack White has pasted, you are up a creek sans paddle. I mean look at the crap you are relegated to pim...er "seeling" now...Oswald inthe doorway! ROFLMAO!

But hey give it your best shot. You can't impeach all the photos showing the fold by saying them MIGHT be altered. Oh wait, thats the very best you have and its useless.

Now, on to your first point where you simply wave your hands and pretend you have made a valid point.

Please show us your proof there there is no way JFK's custom tailored clothing could fold or budge...ever.

This the SECOND time you have been asked. Are you going to answer?

But of course Lamson has to add some rubbish he has made up about "Fetzering", which, properly defined,

means being obsessively dedicated to establishing the truth about JFK, 9/11, Wellstone and Sandy Hook; or,

the display of determination in ferreting out the truth about complex and controversial cases, especially ones

that involve complicity by the government, including especially the CIA, the NSA, the Joint Chiefs and the FBI.

LOL! I made nothing up. Heck its in the urban dictionary. You are INFAMOUS. LOL!

http://www.urbandict...&term=fetzering

Noun: 1. The act of making an unfounded or unsubstantiated claim.

2. In philosophy, a method of debate or discussion based of the premise of: I think, therefore I am. I think you're wrong. therefore you are.

3. The act of disagreeing by employing rancor, name calling, ad hominem attacks or straw man argument.

Etymology: Fetzering began in earnest in the late 1960's, being implemented by a JFK conspiracy theorist and has since expanded it's use in the 9/11 debate arena.

1. Without evidence your claim is simple fetzering.

2. He should rely on his data instead of fetzering.

And there is this one...a gem...

http://bpete1969.blogspot.com/

I suspect the FETZERING will continue...

Edited February 22, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I gave six (6) proofs that Lamson is wrong: there was no "bunching". The best he can to is to play games with proof (1) by making the feeble response that THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOME TINY BUNCHING, EVEN WITH CUSTOM TAILORED CLOTHING. But that cannot salvage his argument. HE CLAIMS THERE IS MASSIVE BUNCHING, WHICH IS SIMPLY ABSURD. Moreover--and this is characteristic of Lamson modus operandi, realizing there is NOTHING HE CAN DO WITH PROOFS (2) through (6), he acts as if they do not exist! How unbelievable is that? Oh, yes, then throw in some ad hominem rubbish about "Fetzering", because if you can't actually defeat the man's argument, you can at least try to smear him verbally. THAT'S THE BEST LAMSON CAN DO!

And of course I have already explained the proper definition. So he commits multiple fallacies: (1) special pleading by focusing only on the evidence in your favor; (2) equivocation by playing word games about "bunching" to provide a trivial response to the first argument; (3) fabricate evidence by claiming that photos cannot have been faked, as though we didn't know that this case is riddled with fake photos and films (the backyard photographs, the Zapruder film, the Altgens6 in the doorway area, Altgens7). Normally, Lamson is on the other side and explaining HOW EASY IT IS TO FAKE PHOTOS AND FILMS. Now he has revered his position IN DEFENSE OF OBVIOUSLY FAKED IMAGES OF A NON-EXISTENT BULGE, as proofs (1) through (6) have shown. I would be reassured to know that others here are not taken in by Lamson's flimflammery, which is indeed THE BEST he can do.

THE DICTIONARY OF PROPER DEFINITIONS:

Fetzering =df obsessively dedicated to establishing the truth about JFK, 9/11, Wellstone and Sandy Hook; or,

the display of determination in ferreting out the truth about complex and controversial cases, especially ones

that involve complicity by the government, including especially the CIA, the NSA, the Joint Chiefs and the FBI.

Alternatively, being unwilling to put up with fallacious arguments by refuting them again and again and again.

[Don Jeffries]

There is no good reason to just accept the HSCA's flawed T-1 location for the back wound. Imho, this concession is akin to all the other unnecessary back tracking that has led to those I define as "neo-cons" dominating the research community.

Boswell didn't "mistakenly" identify the back wound at the precise location where the bullet holes in JFK's coat and shirt happen to be. Burkley didn't "mistakenly" identify it at the T-3 location, again where it happens to line up with the holes in the clothing. Sibert and O'Neill were "mistaken" about this, too. And we are supposed to reject this conclusive evidence because....?

It doesn't matter if the SBT still doesn't work if the back wound was at T-1. Why are so many of you accepting it was at T-1, when the preponderance of the evidence shows it was at T-3, which makes the SBT completely impossible? Jim Fetzer is right.

[Pat Speer]

There is no good reason to just accept the HSCA's flawed T-1 location for the back wound. Imho, this concession is akin to all the other unnecessary back tracking that has led to those I define as "neo-cons" dominating the research community.

Boswell didn't "mistakenly" identify the back wound at the precise location where the bullet holes in JFK's coat and shirt happen to be. Burkley didn't "mistakenly" identify it at the T-3 location, again where it happens to line up with the holes in the clothing. Sibert and O'Neill were "mistaken" about this, too. And we are supposed to reject this conclusive evidence because....?

It doesn't matter if the SBT still doesn't work if the back wound was at T-1. Why are so many of you accepting it was at T-1, when the preponderance of the evidence shows it was at T-3, which makes the SBT completely impossible? Jim Fetzer is right.

It's not back-tracking, Don, but properly analyzing the evidence.

People look at the face sheet and think "YIPPEE it shows a wound on the back below the throat wound; this proves conspiracy." But what they don't understand is that the body outline on the face sheet was not an accurate depiction of the human form in general, and Kennedy's body in particular. What it does show is the wound as measured---a wound equidistant from the base of the skull and the shoulder tip. So the REAL question is where do the measurements prove the wound resided on Kennedy. Well, careful study of human anatomy has convinced me (and others) it was at T-1, two inches BELOW where the Warren Commission's drawings depicted it, and exactly where the HSCA FPP placed it.

As stated---the HSCA FPP--the so-called experts--and the only "experts" on the medical evidence the media tends to take seriously--thought the wound too low on Kennedy's body to match up with the single-bullet trajectory UNLESS Kennedy was hit while leaning forward behind the sign. Blakey and his staff knew this, and brought in a "trajectory expert" to make it all work for the time the HSCA had come to conclude Kennedy had been hit--frame 190, before he went behind the sign. This "expert," Thomas Canning, was given the authority to move the wounds as necessary. As proved on the Portable Hole slide posted earlier, he did just that, and moved the wound BACK TO WHERE IT WAS IN THE WARREN COMMISSION'S DRAWINGS, which Dr. Baden had already testified were inaccurate, and off by two inches.

Well, heck, this is the REAL smoking gun, fellas. Not Burkley's quick appraisal the wound was at T-3. Not some agent's estimation the wound was 6 inches below the "shoulder," or anything equally vague. Here was the HSCA bringing in a hack to undermine the work of their medical panel, and SELL that the single-bullet theory the HSCA was offering was viable, at a time when their medical panel felt it was not. It's plain as day. ANYONE can see it. It's not based upon our "gut feeling" Burkley couldn't be wrong, or that others couldn't be lying, when history, research, and common sense tell us that Burkley and the rest could very well have been wrong.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Pat Speer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat Speer loves to give bad reasons for false conclusions. Here is a nice illustration. Wanting to support the identification of the location of the wound at T-1, he must dismiss the mountain of evidence to the contrary. Ever resourceful, he does what he can:

Well, heck, this is the REAL smoking gun, fellas. Not Burkley's quick appraisal the wound was at T-3. Not some agent's estimation the wound was 6 inches below the "shoulder," or anything equally vague. Here was the HSCA bringing in a hack to undermine the work of their medical panel, and SELL that the single-bullet theory the HSCA was offering was viable, at a time when their medical panel felt it was not. It's plain as day. ANYONE can see it. It's not based upon our "gut feeling" Burkley couldn't be wrong, or that others couldn't be lying, when history, research, and common sense tell us that Burkley and the rest could very well have been wrong.

There isn't a good reason in the world to suppose that Admiral George G. Burkley, the president's personal physician, is going to be wrong about the location of the wound to the back of the president he served. Nor that Boswell was wrong nor the Sibert was wrong. And the idea that Thomas Evan Robinson was wrong is absurd--not to mention the holes in the shirt and jacket.

During one of his (now ten) visits to the National Archives, David W. Mantik had a member of the staff put on the shirt and jacket. He noticed that the hole in the shirt was slightly lower than the hole in the jacket--and that they aligned with the location that we identify from other sources. Egad, man! Even the Warren Commissions own re-enactment photographs confirm this location!

We have here an excellent example of why JFK research has become a quagmire--not generally, but on assassination forums like this one. Someone who is smart, like Pat Speer, GOES OUT OF HIS WAY IN AN ATTEMPT TO DEFEAT THE OBVIOUS. He scrapes the bottom of the barrel for unworthy reasons to discount exceptional evidence WHICH CONVERGES IN ITS PROOF.

It is not as though we had one line of proof--say, the holes in the shirt and jacket--that point to one location and others, such as the diagrams or the death certificate, that point to another. THEY ALL SUPPORT THE SAME CONCLUSION. Proof of this kind and strength means there is no good reason to dispute it: it was 5.5 inches below the collar to the right of the spinal column.

That means--and we also know from Mantik's anatomical impossibility proof by itself--that the "magic bullet" hypothesis is false and that the wound to JFK's throat and the wounds to Connally have to be accounted for on the basis of other shots and other shooters. So the existence of a conspiracy in the death of JFK is established merely by locating where he was hit in the back.

[Craig Lamson]

I gave six (6) proofs that Lamson is wrong: there was no "bunching". The best he can to is to play games with proof (1) by making the feeble response that THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOME TINY BUNCHING, EVEN WITH CUSTOM TAILORED CLOTHING. But that cannot salvage his argument. HE CLAIMS THERE IS MASSIVE BUNCHING, WHICH IS SIMPLY ABSURD. Moreover--and this is characteristic of Lamson modus operandi, realizing there is NOTHING HE CAN DO WITH PROOFS (2) through (6), he acts as if they do not exist! How unbelievable is that? Oh, yes, then throw in some ad hominem rubbish about "Fetzering", because if you can't actually defeat the man's argument, you can at least try to smear him verbally. THAT'S THE BEST LAMSON CAN DO!

You lost at claim ONE.

Its ALL I need to do to defeat your feeble minded argument. The evidence is clear and conclusive that there was a 3"+ fold on the back of JKF's jacket up to and including the last clear frame we can see...Betzner.

That alone makes the rest of your "argument", if it can be called that, moot.

And you can't do anything to refute it. Period.

Except Fetzering...

Noun: 1. The act of making an unfounded or unsubstantiated claim.

2. In philosophy, a method of debate or discussion based of the premise of: I think, therefore I am. I think you're wrong. therefore you are.

3. The act of disagreeing by employing rancor, name calling, ad hominem attacks or straw man argument.

Etymology: Fetzering began in earnest in the late 1960's, being implemented by a JFK conspiracy theorist and has since expanded it's use in the 9/11 debate arena.

1. Without evidence your claim is simple fetzering.

2. He should rely on his data instead of fetzering.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

It takes a special kind of arrogance to fake your way though one refutation after another, as Craig Lamson is doing here.

No one on this forum can possibly taken him seriously after this display of deceit and deception about the back wound.

I think we are making progress as it becomes increasingly apparent who does and doesn't care about the truth re JFK.

In addition, he ignores the appropriate dictionary definition of a key term and perverts its meaning beyond recognition:

THE DICTIONARY OF PROPER DEFINITIONS:

Fetzering =df showing obsessive dedication to establishing the truth about JFK, 9/11, Wellstone and Sandy Hook; or,

the display of determination in ferreting out the truth about complex and controversial cases, especially ones involving

complicity by the government, including especially the CIA, the NSA, the Joint Chiefs and the FBI. Alternatively, being

unwilling to put up with fallacious arguments by refuting them again and again and again, as shown here with Lamson.

[Craig Lamson]

It takes a special kind of arrogance to fake your way though one refutation after another, as Craig Lamson is doing here.

No one on this forum can possibly taken him seriously after this display of deceit and deception about the back wound.

I think we are making progress as it becomes increasingly apparent who does and doesn't care about the truth re JFK.

In addition, he ignores the appropriate dictionary definition of a key term and perverts its meaning beyond recognition:

THE DICTIONARY OF PROPER DEFINITIONS:

Fetzering =df showing obsessive dedication to establishing the truth about JFK, 9/11, Wellstone and Sandy Hook; or,

the display of determination in ferreting out the truth about complex and controversial cases, especially ones involving

complicity by the government, including especially the CIA, the NSA, the Joint Chiefs and the FBI. Alternatively, being

unwilling to put up with fallacious arguments by refuting them again and again and again, as shown here with Lamson.

It takes a special kind of arrogance like that shown by Jim Fetzer to try and deny the existence of the large fold on JFK's jacket.

It is aptly described as FETZERING...properly defined...

Noun: 1. The act of making an unfounded or unsubstantiated claim.

2. In philosophy, a method of debate or discussion based of the premise of: I think, therefore I am. I think you're wrong. therefore you are.

3. The act of disagreeing by employing rancor, name calling, ad hominem attacks or straw man argument.

Etymology: Fetzering began in earnest in the late 1960's, being implemented by a JFK conspiracy theorist and has since expanded it's use in the 9/11 debate arena.

1. Without evidence your claim is simple fetzering.

2. He should rely on his data instead of fetzering.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

There are too many convergent proofs to take the use of a faked photograph seriously.

Only someone of the character of a Craig Lamson would even attempt such a scam!

[Pat Speer]

Pat Speer loves to give bad reasons for false conclusions. Here is a nice illustration. Wanting to support the identification of the location of the wound at T-1, he must dismiss the mountain of evidence to the contrary. Ever resourceful, he does what he can:

Well, heck, this is the REAL smoking gun, fellas. Not Burkley's quick appraisal the wound was at T-3. Not some agent's estimation the wound was 6 inches below the "shoulder," or anything equally vague. Here was the HSCA bringing in a hack to undermine the work of their medical panel, and SELL that the single-bullet theory the HSCA was offering was viable, at a time when their medical panel felt it was not. It's plain as day. ANYONE can see it. It's not based upon our "gut feeling" Burkley couldn't be wrong, or that others couldn't be lying, when history, research, and common sense tell us that Burkley and the rest could very well have been wrong.

There isn't a good reason in the world to suppose that Admiral George G. Burkley, the president's personal physician, is going to be wrong about the location of the wound to the back of the president he served. Nor that Boswell was wrong nor the Sibert was wrong. And the idea that Thomas Evan Robinson was wrong is absurd--not to mention the holes in the shirt and jacket.

During one of his (now ten) visits to the National Archives, David W. Mantik had a member of the staff put on the shirt and jacket. He noticed that the hole in the shirt was slightly lower than the hole in the jacket--and that they aligned with the location that we identify from other sources. Egad, man! Even the Warren Commissions own re-enactment photographs confirm this location!

We have here an excellent example of why JFK research has become a quagmire--not generally, but on assassination forums like this one. Someone who is smart, like Pat Speer, GOES OUT OF HIS WAY IN AN ATTEMPT TO DEFEAT THE OBVIOUS. He scrapes the bottom of the barrel for unworthy reasons to discount exceptional evidence WHICH CONVERGES IN ITS PROOF.

It is not as though we had one line of proof--say, the holes in the shirt and jacket--that point to one location and others, such as the diagrams or the death certificate, that point to another. THEY ALL SUPPORT THE SAME CONCLUSION. Proof of this kind and strength means there is no good reason to dispute it: it was 5.5 inches below the collar to the right of the spinal column.

That means--and we also know from Mantik's anatomical impossibility proof by itself--that the "magic bullet" hypothesis is false and that the wound to JFK's throat and the wounds to Connally have to be accounted for on the basis of other shots and other shooters. So the existence of a conspiracy in the death of JFK is established merely by locating where he was hit in the back.

The idea that Burkley was an authoritative source on the bullet wound's location is ludicrous. He didn't study the body. He never measured the wound. For all we know, he based his appraisal on the face sheet.

BTW, Jim, the bullet wound location used in the WC's re-enactment came from the back wound photo, which Specter studied before the re-enactment. He then tried to hide he'd done so by failing to introduce any photos showing the chalk mark into evidence and accepting testimony from the man who showed him the photo--Thomas Kelley--in which Kelley claimed they'd created their mark based upon the Rydberg drawings.