Any prevailing theories on the back wound?

[Sandy Larsen]

You ask why the low back wound was a problem on 22/11/63. [And/or why was it a problem for the WC.]

Thanks for taking time to answer my question Robert. I think I got the gist of what you were saying, but it was complicated by the mixing of multiple wounds.

What I'd like to do is write a simple step-by-step list of what I think happened regarding the back wound, and then ask you (or anybody else who's willing and able) to show me where I'm messed up.

Okay, here's what appears to have happened:

1. JFK gets shot in the back, 5 inches below the collar.
2. Humes wants to connect the back wound to the throat wound, since that would explain both. He does so by raising the back wound to 3 inches below the collar That takes care of both wounds and no bullets need be accounted for.
3. WC is formed.
4. WC determines that only two bullets could have hit JFK. So Specter invents SBT and Ford raises the back wound from 5 inches below the collar to 3 inches below the collar to make the theory work.

Pre-WC, the autopsy already stated that the bullet entered the (high) back wound and exited the throat wound. The only thing Specter did with his SBT is state the the bullet went on to hit Connally. Right:? Right. (Okay, I can see right now that part of my confusion was that I thought that part of the SBT theory was the back-wound to throat-would path. It isn't.)

BUT... why did Gerald Ford have to raise the back wound by 2 inches?? Humes (via the autopsy) had already done so (in step #2 above).

Edited October 23, 2015 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

You ask why the low back wound was a problem on 22/11/63. [And/or why was it a problem for the WC.]

Now, suppose Lifton is right, that the low back wound was faked. What would have been the purpose of faking the wound? If it was to couple it to the throat wound, then why would they have placed the wound so obviously low?

[Sandy Larsen]

Bruising was reported in the top of JFK's right lung. What if this "bruising" was actually more than just bruising?

I hear ya. Jerrol Custer has stated that the autopsists were chopping up all the organs looking for bullet "fragments" rather than seeking bullet paths or trails of minute fragments. Certainly, x-rays would reveal any fragments - so why chop them up? A possible explanation is to destroy evidence of a 'dust cloud' of fragments...

Are you sure it was Custer who said that, Tom? I ask because Lt. Lipsey said precisely the same thing. He did so in HSCA testimony. If they both said it, I'm sure it's true

Excellent point about x-rays revealing the fragments.

[Ron Ecker]

Deleted. I misread something. Never mind.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Ron Ecker

[Tom Neal]

I hear ya. Jerrol Custer has stated that the autopsists were chopping up all the organs looking for bullet "fragments" rather than seeking bullet paths or trails of minute fragments. Certainly, x-rays would reveal any fragments - so why chop them up? A possible explanation is to destroy evidence of a 'dust cloud' of fragments...

Are you sure it was Custer who said that, Tom? I ask because Lt. Lipsey said precisely the same thing. He did so in HSCA testimony. If they both said it, I'm sure it's true

Custer was emphatic, and greatly annoyed as to their actions.

Tom

[Chris Davidson]

How about a back wound at 3.27ft above the pavement. If this photo represented JFK in the limo, would the chalk mark appear to be 3.27ft above the ground? Remember, the top of JFK's head was measured at 52.78 inches above the ground.

Everyone's in bed, and I can't do these measurements accurately without assistance. The only measurement I can take is from the floor to where the chalk mark would be on me while seated (I'm 1" shorter than JFK) is 3' 5" above the floor. So I'd say 3.27" is too low...

So the height you assign the chalk mark would be approx 3ft 6inches = 3.5ft = 42 inches above the ground?

No. Not above the ground -- above the floor. The chalk mark height above the ground would by 3 feet 5 inches or 41" PLUS the height of the floor above the ground. I do NOT know the distance from the floor of the JFK limo to the ground.

Tom

Tom,

What little I could find.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13098

chris

[Robert Prudhomme]

You ask why the low back wound was a problem on 22/11/63. [And/or why was it a problem for the WC.]

Now, suppose Lifton is right, that the low back wound was faked. What would have been the purpose of faking the wound? If it was to couple it to the throat wound, then why would they have placed the wound so obviously low?

I think David Lifton was saying he believed the lower back wound was the original and true back wound, and that the upper back wound, which was actually at the level of the collar (5.75" higher), was created to allow a connection with the throat wound. In the autopsy photo, the ruler is likely covering the lower back wound.

[Tom Neal]

What little I could find.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13098

Thank you Chris. Sorry to make you search for the info. I wrongly assumed that you had this information already.

I just PM'd Pamela with my question.

Tom

[Tom Neal]

I think David Lifton was saying he believed the lower back wound was the original and true back wound, and that the upper back wound, which was actually at the level of the collar (5.75" higher), was created to allow a connection with the throat wound. In the autopsy photo, the ruler is likely covering the lower back wound.

...later that evening, and by the time of autopsy photography of that area occurred--i.e., by the time a permanent photographic record was

being made--there existed (i.e., "was created" --again, my quotes) a higher (and equally false) wound.

Bob & Sandy,

I believe Mr. Lifton is stating that both "wounds", high and low, are "false". See above quote; "a higher (and equally false) wound".

Edited October 23, 2015 by Tom Neal

[Robert Prudhomme]

I think David Lifton was saying he believed the lower back wound was the original and true back wound, and that the upper back wound, which was actually at the level of the collar (5.75" higher), was created to allow a connection with the throat wound. In the autopsy photo, the ruler is likely covering the lower back wound.

...later that evening, and by the time of autopsy photography of that area occurred--i.e., by the time a permanent photographic record was

being made--there existed (i.e., "was created" --again, my quotes) a higher (and equally false) wound.

Bob & Sandy,

I believe Mr. Lifton is stating that both "wounds", high and low, are "false". See above quote; "a higher (and equally false) wound".

Hi Tom

I see what you mean. I mistakenly assumed Mr. Lifton had stated the lower wound was genuine, but didn't match up with the throat wound, and had to be "moved" up to JFK's collar line.

I'm afraid this is where I have to disagree with him. There is simply too much medical evidence from Parkland Hospital that points toward an injury to the right lung causing a tension pneumothorax in that lung, and an entrance wound at the level of the T3 vertebra (5.75" below the collar) is a perfect match for such an injury.

[Tom Neal]

I'm afraid this is where I have to disagree with him. There is simply too much medical evidence from Parkland Hospital that points toward an injury to the right lung causing a tension pneumothorax in that lung, and an entrance wound at the level of the T3 vertebra (5.75" below the collar) is a perfect match for such an injury.

Any chance the throat wound could have caused the pneumothorax? BTW, although Humes insists photographs were taken of the 5 cm bruise at the apex of the eviscerated right pleural cavity (above the apical portion of the removed lung), per Horne that photo is not in the autopsy collection at NARA. I wonder why someone would remove THAT photo???

BTW, the x-ray section of "Inside the ARRB" is ALL about the skull x-rays. Nothing to add to what I wrote earlier regarding the chest x-ray.

And as I mentioned earlier, my suspicions regarding the x-rays were correct. Kennedy Family permission is required to view them.

The autopsy descriptive sheet is included in "Inside the ARRB", and along with the blank space for brain weight, it includes the following:

Right Lung: 320 grams

Left Lung: 290 grams

Obviously the right lung is peppered with 30 grams of bullet fragments!

Tom

Edited October 24, 2015 by Tom Neal

[David Lifton]

You ask why the low back wound was a problem on 22/11/63. [And/or why was it a problem for the WC.]

Thanks for taking time to answer my question Robert. I think I got the gist of what you were saying, but it was complicated by the mixing of multiple wounds.

What I'd like to do is write a simple step-by-step list of what I think happened regarding the back wound, and then ask you (or anybody else who's willing and able) to show me where I'm messed up.

Okay, here's what appears to have happened:

1. JFK gets shot in the back, 5 inches below the collar.
2. Humes wants to connect the back wound to the throat wound, since that would explain both. He does so by raising the back wound to 3 inches below the collar That takes care of both wounds and no bullets need be accounted for.
3. WC is formed.
4. WC determines that only two bullets could have hit JFK. So Specter invents SBT and Ford raises the back wound from 5 inches below the collar to 3 inches below the collar to make the theory work.

Pre-WC, the autopsy already stated that the bullet entered the (high) back wound and exited the throat wound. The only thing Specter did with his SBT is state the the bullet went on to hit Connally. Right:? Right. (Okay, I can see right now that part of my confusion was that I thought that part of the SBT theory was the back-wound to throat-would path. It isn't.)

BUT... why did Gerald Ford have to raise the back wound by 2 inches?? Humes (via the autopsy) had already done so (in step #2 above).

Sorry, but I must butt in here:

JFK was NOT shot in the back. (That's the whole point).

There is not a single Dallas doctor or nurse's account of JFK having a back wound

The strongest evidence proponents have for a "back" wound are the clothing holes. But the true implication --imho-is that if the back wound(s) is/are false, then the clothing was punctured after-the-fact, by the same person (or persons) involved in this general scheme. I believe that the clothing hole/body hole "mismatch"-to the extent that there is one--is further evidence that both are false.

One other comment: Humes (almost certainly) is not the architect of any of this. He simply "follows orders" when presented with this mess.

DSL

Edited October 24, 2015 by David Lifton

[Tom Neal]

There is not a single Dallas doctor or nurse's account of JFK having a back wound

Agreed.

The strongest evidence proponents have for a "back" wound are the clothing holes.

David,

Are you dismissing Glen Bennett's report that he saw a shot strike JFK in the back? If so, what do you believe is his reason for making this false report?

Tom

[Pat Speer]

You ask why the low back wound was a problem on 22/11/63. [And/or why was it a problem for the WC.]

Thanks for taking time to answer my question Robert. I think I got the gist of what you were saying, but it was complicated by the mixing of multiple wounds.

What I'd like to do is write a simple step-by-step list of what I think happened regarding the back wound, and then ask you (or anybody else who's willing and able) to show me where I'm messed up.

Okay, here's what appears to have happened:

1. JFK gets shot in the back, 5 inches below the collar.
2. Humes wants to connect the back wound to the throat wound, since that would explain both. He does so by raising the back wound to 3 inches below the collar That takes care of both wounds and no bullets need be accounted for.
3. WC is formed.
4. WC determines that only two bullets could have hit JFK. So Specter invents SBT and Ford raises the back wound from 5 inches below the collar to 3 inches below the collar to make the theory work.

Pre-WC, the autopsy already stated that the bullet entered the (high) back wound and exited the throat wound. The only thing Specter did with his SBT is state the the bullet went on to hit Connally. Right:? Right. (Okay, I can see right now that part of my confusion was that I thought that part of the SBT theory was the back-wound to throat-would path. It isn't.)

BUT... why did Gerald Ford have to raise the back wound by 2 inches?? Humes (via the autopsy) had already done so (in step #2 above).

The WC staff believed the back wound was below the throat wound until March 1964, when Chief Justice Warren demanded his staff bring him better witnesses, and Joe Ball--who was tasked with explaining how a shot fired from above could enter the back and exit the throat--made a sudden trip to Bethesda hospital and had a long talk with Admiral Galloway, Dr. Humes, and Dr. Boswelll. A few days later, Humes and Boswell testified, only now accompanied by some freshly-made drawings now showing---for the first time ever--a back wound above the throat wound. This is all documented and discussed in my presentation The Single-Bullet Theory, Voodoo Science, and Zombie Lies, which was delivered at the 50th anniversary of the Warren Report conference last fall. This presentation can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFvDw0VSb0

[Ron Ecker]

There is not a single Dallas doctor or nurse's account of JFK having a back wound

In a written statement to Livingstone (Killing the Truth, pp. 181-184), nurse Diana Bowron said that she saw the back wound when she, nurse Henchcliffe, and a black orderly were preparing the body for the coffin. She also said that she saw no other back wounds and that she believes the back of the head photo is not of JFK.