David Von Pein Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 (edited) FYI, I didn't draw the trajectory line on that autopsy photo. I downloaded that picture years ago from the JFK Lancer site. But this version is "clean", with no line, and much bigger.... Edited May 31, 2014 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Oh I love how Davey boy scampers away when someone has him cornered. Unfortunately, David, you have nowhere to run to this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 (edited) This is a better version. So what point are you making with this image David? You cannot make any serious comment. JFK's head is leaning backwards and so wound positions are distorted. Edited May 31, 2014 by James R Gordon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Let me see now. JFK was observed to have his trachea (windpipe) deviated slightly to the left. What was it I was taught in my paramedic training that this indicated? Oh yes, I remember now. A deviated trachea is a sign of a tension pneumothorax in the lung away from the deviation, and that lung is compromised and collapsed. Built up air pressure in the pleural cavity where the collapsed lung resides pushes against the other lung, the heart, bronchi and trachea, and is seen to the observer as a deviated trachea. The critical intervention to relieve this pressure, and allow the lungs and heart to operate, is to relieve the air pressure in the pleural cavity by the insertion of one or more chest tubes in the upper chest area, between the ribs. Correct me if I am wrong but, were they not in the process of inserting chest tubes on the right side of JFK's chest when resuscitation was halted? How did they know to place them in the right side of his chest, if they were unaware of the existence of the back wound? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 (edited) Oh I love how Davey boy scampers away when someone has him cornered. Unfortunately, David, you have nowhere to run to this time. I'm not running anywhere, Robert P. As any reasonable person examining this thread can easily see (although all CTers will fervently disagree, but what's new there?), this particular debate regarding the damage inside JFK's upper back and neck is pretty much a stalemate. Why? Because every time a conspiracy believer asks me this.... "How could a bullet pass through JFK’s upper chest area without causing massive damage to his body?" -- James R. Gordon; May 28, 2014 ....I'm going to counter with this (which is a perfectly reasonable counter-question to the one asked by Mr. Gordon on May 28th).... "If the SBT is wrong (and particularly in the case of the theories which have JFK hit by TWO separate bullets to replace the one bullet of the SBT), then how can you account for those TWO bullets not hitting any bony structures or the lungs of President Kennedy, and yet STILL those two bullets inexplicably stopped inside JFK's back/neck?" -- David R. Von Pein; May 28, 2014 Edited May 31, 2014 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 (edited) JFK's head is leaning backwards and so wound positions are distorted. Kennedy's head isn't "leaning backwards" in this autopsy photo. Just the opposite. His head is elevated off the table slightly by way of his head resting on a metal headrest. And this photo (turned sideways from its original orientation, of course) pretty much disproves the HSCA's conclusion of the throat wound being HIGHER on the body anatomically than the back wound (even though the back wound is not visible in this picture). That fact couldn't be more obvious from this photograph (even when taking into account the inherent limitations of being able to measure 3-dimensional space within a two-dimensional image)..... Edited May 31, 2014 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Kennedy's head isn't "leaning backwards" in this autopsy photo. Really!! What are those creases on the back of the neck if the head is not leaning backwards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 "If the SBT is wrong (and particularly in the case of the theories which have JFK hit by TWO separate bullets to replace the one bullet of the SBT), then how can you account for those TWO bullets not hitting any bony structures or the lungs of President Kennedy, and yet STILL those two bullets inexplicably stopped inside JFK's back/neck?" -- David R. Von Pein; May 28, 2014 David only you are mentioning a scenario like this. I never made a point like this. And again it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 (edited) David only you are mentioning a scenario like this. I never made a point like this. And again it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion. Sure it does, James. Because if the SBT is wrong, then another scenario is right. So what is that "other scenario"? Any chance you'll give it a shot and tell me? Or is your scenario too embarrassing and laughable to put in print? My guess is that it is quite laughable--not to mention wholly unsupportable. But give it a shot anyway. Edited May 31, 2014 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Dave's on overtime tonight. Never seen him posting this late before. Got orders to quell this thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 What are those creases on the back of the neck if the head is not leaning backwards? How can he be leaning backwards when he's lying flat on his back on a table, with his head slightly ELEVATED in a headrest? But, anyway, your point about "distorted" wound locations doesn't make sense even if his head IS leaning backwards. How on Earth would a slight "lean" backwards cause the wound in his throat to be "distorted"? Distorted in what sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 (edited) Dave's on overtime tonight. Never seen him posting this late before. Got orders to quell this thing? Yeah. Langley just called on my hot line BatPhone. They want to see how many posts it'll take to finally get a reasonable and sensible answer to this question: "Since there was positively NO MAJOR DAMAGE inside Kennedy's neck and upper back, it means that NO BULLETS (no matter how many you think struck the President) hit the lungs or punctured the chest cavity of John F. Kennedy on November 22nd. Ergo, [James R. Gordon's] fancy charts and detailed analysis in the JFK case are totally moot and meaningless. Unless you really want to believe that TWO bullets (or more?) went into JFK from different directions and yet caused NO major damage at all, and yet both of those bullets (or more?) somehow stopped on a dime inside the President's upper body -- and then disappeared, to boot! Can ANY sensible person give any credence to such a multi-bullet theory? If so, please explain HOW you can do so with a straight face?" -- DVP; CIA Disinfo Agent; Langley, VA 22101 I told my CIA boss in Virginia that it will probably take at least six more months to get a reasonable answer out of any conspiracy buff. Maybe a year. Perhaps even eighteen years. Looks like a lot of sleepless nights from here on in. Edited May 31, 2014 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 (edited) There is little doubt that the lung was seriously compromised. The evidence is not in the autopsy report but in the supplemental. Humes description of the damage in H2 369 describes just how compromised it was. This was not what he had said earlier or even what he intended to say. Humes was interrupted by Senator Cooper and his description was in response to his question. Most commentators refer to Humes first description of the bruise to the lung. However this response - which I am sure had never intended to describe - totally destroys the idea that it was only a bruise. Are you referring to the part in the Supplementary Autopsy Report (WR; Page 545) that says (re: the lungs): "Disruption of alveolar walls"? http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0285a.htm Now we need to know exactly what is meant by "disruption". But at 2 H 369, Humes is talking ONLY about "bruising" to the lung. And his measurement of the bruise in his WC testimony is certainly not new, because Humes says exactly the same thing ("5 centimeters") when describing the size of each of the two bruises in JFK's upper body on page 5 of the autopsy report (WR; page 542). http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0283b.htm Edited May 31, 2014 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 JFK's head is leaning backwards and so wound positions are distorted. Kennedy's head isn't "leaning backwards" in this autopsy photo. Just the opposite. His head is elevated off the table slightly by way of his head resting on a metal headrest. And this photo (turned sideways from its original orientation, of course) pretty much disproves the HSCA's conclusion of the throat wound being HIGHER on the body anatomically than the back wound (even though the back wound is not visible in this picture). That fact couldn't be more obvious from this photograph (even when taking into account the inherent limitations of being able to measure 3-dimensional space within a two-dimensional image)..... David, will you please point out on this photo where a wound 14 cm below the mastoid process would reside? Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 This side-by-side comparison that I posted previously should answer your question, Pat. Use the crimp in the neck as a guide....and then find any possible way to get that bullet hole in his back to be situated LOWER on his body anatomically than the visible hole in his throat on the left. If you find a way to do that, you're a magician: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now