Why I believe the SBT is nothing but BS

[James R Gordon]

Pat,

I believe we can be a little more accurate as to the position of the back wound. I believe we can get a closer position of the wound when positioning the wound with reference to identifiable Scapula points

C where I believe Boswell has his hand to balance the body is the Clavicle. The Clavicle is at the level of T1

A is the edge of the Scapula spine on the medial border. This point is at the level of T3

B is the inferior angle of the Scapula. This point is at the level of T6

For identifying the position of the wound we really do not need B.

What we can say is that the wound is below point C – or the wound is below T1.

And

The wound is above is above A – or the wound is above T3.

The wound is somewhere between T1 and T2. That means it is below the apex of the lung and if the SBT were credible that to get to the throat the bullet would need to pierce and pass through the right lung.

Edited May 31, 2014 by James R Gordon

[David Von Pein]

Quoting from Dr. Humes' ARRB testimony in 1996 [emphasis is DVP's]....

DR. HUMES -- "My problem is, very simply stated, we had an entrance wound high in the posterior back above the scapula. We didn't know where the exit wound was at that point. I'd be the first one to admit it. We knew in general in the past that we should have been more prescient than we were, I must confess, because when we removed the breast plate and examined the thoracic cavity, we saw a contusion on the upper lobe of the lung. There was no defect in the pleura anyplace. So it's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung. Of course, the more I thought about it, the more I realized it had to go out from the neck. It was the only place it could go, after it was not found anywhere in the X-rays."

Edited May 31, 2014 by David Von Pein

[James R Gordon]

DR. HUMES -- "My problem is, very simply stated, we had an entrance wound high in the posterior back above the scapula. We didn't know where the exit wound was at that point. I'd be the first one to admit it. We knew in general in the past that we should have been more prescient than we were, I must confess, because when we removed the breast plate and examined the thoracic cavity, we saw a contusion on the upper lobe of the lung. There was no defect in the pleura anyplace. So it's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung.

That is complete nonsense. We can see where Dr. Boswell has his hand. If you know anything about anatomy you know the bone there is called the Clavicle. Look up any anatomy book and it will tell you where the clavicle is in relation to the spine. the wound is clearly below that position.

If you disagree that A is not the edge of the scapula spine on the medial edge, please tell me what we are seeing. The medial edge is at T3. and the wound is above that.

So the wound in below T1 and above T3. Dr. Humes may have said what he did to the ARRB, but the FOX image makes clear he is in error.

[David Von Pein]

Excuse me, James, but aren't you the same person who just a few posts back said something about how the wound positions were somehow "distorted" due to the "backward" leaning position of the President's head in the turned-sideways autopsy photo showing the left side of JFK's head?

You said:

"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." -- J. Gordon

Does that same "distorted" conclusion only apply to the turned-sideways photo? Or does it apply to this picture too? ....

Therefore, could your analysis about exactly WHERE the wound is located in JFK's upper back possibly be skewed by your OWN admission that the "wound positions are distorted" in the autopsy photos?

Edited May 31, 2014 by David Von Pein

[James R Gordon]

Fair point David. However there is a difference here.

First the area in question is below the backward leaning of the head. And so distortion that I was talking about is not pertinent here.

Second, and much more important, we have standard geographical points on the body through which to reference the position of the wound.

[David Von Pein]

Dr. Humes may have said what he did to the ARRB, but the FOX image makes clear he is in error.

And yet it was DOCTOR JAMES JOSEPH HUMES, not JAMES R. GORDON, who opened up the President's chest on the night of 11/22/63 and saw for himself a condition that existed inside the body of John F. Kennedy which made Dr. Humes reach this conclusion when he spoke in front of the ARRB in 1996 (and yes, I know this was 33 years after the autopsy, but these words are in the record nevertheless; ignore them if you so choose; but I'll also remind you that these words are pretty much the VERY SAME THING Humes was saying in the autopsy report and in his testimony in front of the Warren Commission just a few months after the assassination)....

"There was no defect in the pleura anyplace. So it's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung."

Edited May 31, 2014 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Fair point David. However there is a difference here.

First the area in question is below the backward leaning of the head. And so distortion that I was talking about is not pertinent here.

Oh, and the trach incision is supposedly ABOVE the backward leaning of the head when discussing the turned-sideways photo?

I don't think so, Jim.

Second, and much more important, we have standard geographical points on the body through which to reference the position of the wound.

Fair point.

But I'm going to once again refer you to that Humes' ARRB testimony:

"It's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung." -- Dr. Humes

And I again want you to think about my other question regarding ANY anti-SBT theory, which you MUST think includes TWO separate bullets going into Kennedy's body, instead of just the one Bullet CE399:

Doesn't the lack of a logical or sensible explanation bother you at all, James? Or are you only concerned about dismantling the Single-Bullet Theory?

Shouldn't you have SOME questions about what REALLY happened (and how it could possibly have occurred) if the SBT is to be thrown out the window?

Is a TWO-bullet scenario really MORE believable (and workable) than the SBT is?

Edited May 31, 2014 by David Von Pein

[James R Gordon]

Really, I had hoped for a higher level of argument.

That said you have indeed brought this discussion to the critical point: the credibility of Dr. Humes testimony.

I agree he is better qualified than myself. Yes, he was the surgeon who undertook the autopsy and, that ought to be unchallengeable.

However there is a basis by which to question the veracity of Dr. Humes. He says, using your quote, that the wound was above the scapula. FOX shows us the scapula. We see Dr. Boswell's hand. Any anatomy book will tell you the name of the bone his hand is resting on. We see outlines of parts of the Scapula. I say point A is the edge of the spine of the scapula. Again any reputable anatomy book will tell where that position is on the body. It is at T3.

So we know the wound - as described in the FOX image - is below T1 and above T3.

So the question now is:-

Do you believe Dr. Hume who is saying something an image of the body taken before the autopsy is telling us is wrong.

If you can establish the FOX image is a forgery, then o.k. Dr. Humes ought to be believed. However if you believe that that the FOX image is authentic then it clearly casts doubt on Dr. Humes veracity.

[David Von Pein]

I think James Gordon sank his own ship when he said this earlier tonight:

"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."

-- James Gordon

I, however, do NOT agree with the above "distorted" assessment endorsed by James Gordon. But I'm not the one who said it. James did.

Edited May 31, 2014 by David Von Pein

[James R Gordon]

But I'm going to once again refer you to that Humes' ARRB testimony:
"It's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung." -- Dr. Humes

Fair point, but can Dr. Humes be believed. You comment about the position of the trachea. Here you are on sounder ground. There is no reference point by which to establish its position. If we were discussing the position of the trachea it would be my word against yours and no way to determine who is right or who is wrong.

However the back wound is different. Here we have geographical body points to reference the position of the wound. Although I cannot be precise I can give an area: below T1 and above T3. Now if you know your anatomy you will be aware that the apex of the lung is at the T1 level. Therefore the wound, as described by FOX, is below the apex of the lung and had the bullet traveled through JFK's body it would have had to go through the lung.

So now we are back to Dr. Humes. He says the bullet went above the lung. The Fox image says it had to go through the lung. The only question remaining is whether FOX is an authentic image. If the answer is yes then Dr. Humes, irrespective of who he is, has got to be wrong.

Edited May 31, 2014 by James R Gordon

[Robert Prudhomme]

Holy cow! Davey boy pulled an all-nighter!! And he still isn't able to tell us how the Magic Bullet cleared all of those nasty vertebrae, took out the right side of JFK's windpipe, and managed to make a right turn and head on over to Connally's right armpit.

You're a trooper, Dave!!

[Robert Prudhomme]

BTW, Dave, comparing the autopsy photo from the side to the one from the back is comparing apples to oranges. Your good friend Craig Lamson, the photo expert, has told us many times that foreshortening in a photo, such as the back photo, makes it impossible to determine measurements. To attempt to do so, and to know it is nowhere near accurate, is fraud; something you are very good at.

It is far more accurate to follow James' example and locate the wound through identifiable landmarks.

[David Von Pein]

BTW, Dave, comparing the autopsy photo from the side to the one from the back is comparing apples to oranges. Your good friend Craig Lamson, the photo expert, has told us many times that foreshortening in a photo, such as the back photo, makes it impossible to determine measurements.

Maybe that's why I qualified my statement when I said this in an earlier post (adding emphasis)....

"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)."

[Mark Knight]

Once again, I challenge Mr. Von Pein to prove the WC correct, ALSO using physiological evidence and not merely falling back on rhetorical devices. I will bet that he won't...because he can't.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Completely unrelated to what I was pointing out, Dave. You cannot use the back photo in the manner you are suggesting as the distance from the back wound to the hairline is foreshortened by the camera angle.

James clearly places the wound closer to T3 by using landmarks that are visible in the photo; ie. clavicle and scapula.