Any prevailing theories on the back wound?

[David Lifton]

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

Thanks for answering my question, Pat.

So Humes raised the back-wound location so that it could be associated with the throat wound. But alas he didn't raise it enough, so the WC had to raise it further.

But why didn't Humes raise it higher to begin with? I suppose because then it wouldn't have jibed at all with what witnesses had seen and were recording about the wound.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Only if you're desperate to claim the autopsy photos are fake. To my way of thinking, the back wound in the photos proves the lie orchestrated by Ball and Specter at Warren's urging. It proves the lie, and disproves the SBT.

DUPLICATE. . SORRY.

Edited October 26, 2015 by David Lifton

[David Lifton]

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

Thanks for answering my question, Pat.

So Humes raised the back-wound location so that it could be associated with the throat wound. But alas he didn't raise it enough, so the WC had to raise it further.

But why didn't Humes raise it higher to begin with? I suppose because then it wouldn't have jibed at all with what witnesses had seen and were recording about the wound.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Only if you're desperate to claim the autopsy photos are fake. To my way of thinking, the back wound in the photos proves the lie orchestrated by Ball and Specter at Warren's urging. It proves the lie, and disproves the SBT.

Pat:

What is this talk about being “desperate” to claim that the autopsy photos are fake?

Is that “desperate” as in “desperate housewives”?

As I recall, you have posted on the net (and perhaps stated in your on-line book) that your entire approach –your explicitly stated approach—has been to prove that there could have been a conspiracy, but without the evidence having been falsified.

May I observe that you are subject to the charge that you are trying to have a platonic affair with conspiracy?

When you appear in Dallas, will you be telling your audience that you believe there was a plot; but the WC’s conclusions are all the result of misunderstanding and innocent error, and nobody attempted to change what lawyers often call the “medical facts” in this case?

DSL

10/26/15 – 345 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited October 26, 2015 by David Lifton

[Sandy Larsen]

...the rule doesn't measure anything, and its location is such that it would conceal the "opening" reported by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill.

David, thanks for the original response, and for the re-do...

The purpose of the ruler in this photo has always eluded me. When a ruler is placed within a photo it either indicates a specific measurement or is used as a scale reference, so its presence here is certainly suspicious. To my eye, the ruler is placed to the left of the mid-line of the back, while the location of the "opening" is described as 1.5" - 2" to the right of the mid-line.

Tom

Tom,

You are saying that the ruler (that measures nothing) apparently cannot be covering the low (original) back wound, because it appears to be located LEFT of mid-line (down around where the low back wound is supposed to be). Yet that wound is located to the RIGHT of mid-line, according to the hole in the shirt. This is problematic because it means there really is no wound at that location. (Assuming it hasn't been erased on the photo.)

I want to offer a potential explanation for this.

I've wondered for a couple years, when looking at back of head photos and drawing, why it is that JFK's cowlick is located on the right side of his crown. Because, you see, a natural part in a person's hair is usually on the same side as the cowlick. And JFK's part most certainly is on his left side, not right. (It's hard to fight a part.)

This got me to wondering if certain of the autopsy photos might have been mirror-imaged, as necessary, for the purpose of showing whatever it is the conspirators wanted us to see, and to help hide what they didn't want us to see.

Look at this photo:

The cowlick and natural part are on the right, and the left side of the head, including the left-rear, is cropped. A mirror image could have been done to make it appear that there is no right-rear damage.

Now, I'm not saying that this trick could have been used to solve everything in the photos problematic to the conspirators. But it could have been one tool used.

Now, back to the photo showing JFK's back and the ruler that measures nothing. Maybe it has been mirror-imaged so that no lower wound is shown, when in reality the wound is now left of mid-line and is being covered by the ruler.

Just a thought. I haven't put a lot of thought into this.

Another possibility, alluded to above: The lower wound could have simply been erased from the photo.

Edited November 29, 2015 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

Something else: if you will look up Robinson's taped testimony before the HSCA (by Andrew Purdy) I am pretty sure you will find a Q and A where Purdy asks him if he saw any wound above the waist and below the head, and Robinson answers in the negative. Purdy --as I recall--then asked the question again; and again, the answer was "no". This testimony, as I recall, suggested that at the time Robinson made this observation (or these observations) there was no back wound on the body.

But Robinson was the embalmer, right? So he should have seen both the lower back wound and the upper back wound. Right?

[David Lifton]

Something else: if you will look up Robinson's taped testimony before the HSCA (by Andrew Purdy) I am pretty sure you will find a Q and A where Purdy asks him if he saw any wound above the waist and below the head, and Robinson answers in the negative. Purdy --as I recall--then asked the question again; and again, the answer was "no". This testimony, as I recall, suggested that at the time Robinson made this observation (or these observations) there was no back wound on the body.

But Robinson was the embalmer, right? So he should have seen both the lower back wound and the upper back wound. Right?

Yes. Retrieve his (HSCA) interview with Andy Purdy--not only the HSCA transcript, but the audio. As I recall, he is asked about seeing any wound on the back (above the waist, and below the head) and he denies it. As I recall, Purdy seemed taken aback by his answer, and asked the question a second time. Check it out.

DSL

10/26/15 -5 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited October 26, 2015 by David Lifton

[David Lifton]

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.

The Parkland Hospital evidence of an injury to the right lung is. . . is what? Are you referring to Perry's request for a chest tube? Also, I have a serious problem with the argument that the circumstantial evidence of a pneumothorax is a "perfect match" for a T-3 rear injury; when:

(a) no one saw any such T-3 injury at Parkland Hospital, in the reports and testimony written at the time

(b ) Admiral Burkley (at Bethesda) referred to the T-3 wound as a wound that "occurred" in the back. As I posted elsewhere on this thread: just consider the implication of the verb "occurred". (To appreciate the absurdity of it: can you imagine any Bethesda doctor--even Humes--stating that a wound "occurred" in Kennedy's head? Just imagine the response if AP or UPI reported Kennedy's fatal head injury that way!).

I'll take it one step further: Can you imagine a police report, about a homicide in any city, being written that way? That the deceased died of a fatal gunshot wound which "occurred" in his head?

(Perhaps its the lateness of the hour here in West Los Angeles, but I can just imagine the dialogue in a police station where such language is used to report a homicide. Really: it belongs on Saturday Night Live. And if Admiral Burkley were still around, perhaps he could play the reporting police officer!)

To recap: I think there is a serious logical problem of attempting to take the T-3 wound--which (in Burkley's report) "occurred" (a wound which no one reports at Parkland Hospital in the contemporary records), and that includes people who washed the body --and then combining that with the inference that, because a chest tube was called for, that justifies a connection between the internal chest injury and an impact at T-3.

The undeniable fact is that the putative rear entry wound was not reported (that weekend) by any Parkland observor.

The language used to describe the wound at Bethesda (that it "occurred") is fishy.

The tension pneumothorax to which you are alluding was apparently not so serious (or obvious) that the chest tube --which was called for--was not pushed all the way in. In fact, according to the autopsy report, it didn't go further in than the epidermis.

So, given the above factors, I do not agree with the notion that one can (or should) "connect the dots" as you do; or that such a nexus constitutes a "perfect match."

Since its clear to me (at least) that JFK's body was intercepted and altered between Dallas and Bethesda, I think it is poor methodology to attempt to combine anything from Bethesda (i.e., post alteration) with data from Parkland (pre-alteration) to draw a reliable inference as to what was going on inside JFK's body.

Anyway, that's where I stand on this issue.

Always willing to change my mind, if there is evidence; but I call your attention again to what I wrote about what happened on the night of December 11, 1963, when reporter Bill Burrus received a call from "higher authority" (my quotes) to lay the groundwork for his story (the next day) that (based on his "authoritative"source) JFK was hit in the back--something not a single medical observer at Parkland Hospital reported on 11/22/63.

Beware. This road is filled with logical and linguistic and anatomical potholes.

DSL

10/26/15 - 5:40 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited October 26, 2015 by David Lifton

[James R Gordon]

David,

I believe there is reasonable evidence that Malcolm Perry believed that the right lung was indeed injured. I agree the evidence is not definitive - after all Parkland only had around 20 minutes with the body - but what they saw during that period led Perry and Carrico to seriously believe the right lung had been damaged. The two chief signs were the deviation of the trachea and air bubbling in the mediastinum. I describe the evidence below.

When JFK reached Trauma Room 1, it was clear to DR. Charles Carrico that JFK was not breathing. Therefore Carrico attempted to insert an Endotracheal tube to ease his breathing. Aside from noting the wound to the trachea, itself, Carrico saw that the trachea was slightly, deviated, bent to the left. 1 HSCA 268. This was also noted by Malcolm Perry after he had carried out the Tracheotomy. H6 10 When the trachea deviates it suggests that there is a collection of air inside the chest, between the chest cavity and the lung. When a lung is damaged, the trachea deviates towards the lung that is not damaged: in this case the left lung. Therefore seeing the trachea having deviated to the left suggested to both Carrico and Perry that the right lung was damaged.

This was not the only evidence that Malcolm Perry had that something was wrong with the right lung. After cutting the tracheotomy he “noted that there was free air and blood in the superior right mediastinum.” H6 10 The “Mediastinum” is another name for the upper chest area. So as he was looking down into right chest area Perry noted that there was blood there which was mixed with air and so Perry ordered the Chest Tubes to be inserted. “I asked that someone put a right chest tube in for seal drainage.” H6 10 The purpose of Chest Tubes is to remove an abnormal collection of air or fluid.

Perry is supported by Dr. Jenkins who, talking about what happened in Trauma Room 1, stated the following: “Doctors Charles Baxter Malcolm Perry and Robert McClelland arrived at the same time and began a tracheotomy and started the insertion of a right chest tube since there was also obvious tracheal and chest damage.” CE 392 14.

James.

[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.

The Parkland Hospital evidence of an injury to the right lung is. . . is what? Are you referring to Perry's request for a chest tube? Also, I have a serious problem with the argument that the circumstantial evidence of a pneumothorax is a "perfect match" for a T-3 rear injury; when:

(a) no one saw any such T-3 injury at Parkland Hospital, in the reports and testimony written at the time

(b ) Admiral Burkley (at Bethesda) referred to the T-3 wound as a wound that "occurred" in the back. As I posted elsewhere on this thread: just consider the implication of the verb "occurred". (To appreciate the absurdity of it: can you imagine any Bethesda doctor--even Humes--stating that a wound "occurred" in Kennedy's head? Just imagine the response if AP or UPI reported Kennedy's fatal head injury that way!).

I'll take it one step further: Can you imagine a police report, about a homicide in any city, being written that way? That the deceased died of a fatal gunshot wound which "occurred" in his head?

(Perhaps its the lateness of the hour here in West Los Angeles, but I can just imagine the dialogue in a police station where such language is used to report a homicide. Really: it belongs on Saturday Night Live. And if Admiral Burkley were still around, perhaps he could play the reporting police officer!)

To recap: I think there is a serious logical problem of attempting to take the T-3 wound--which (in Burkley's report) "occurred" (a wound which no one reports at Parkland Hospital in the contemporary records), and that includes people who washed the body --and then combining that with the inference that, because a chest tube was called for, that justifies a connection between the internal chest injury and an impact at T-3.

The undeniable fact is that the putative rear entry wound was not reported (that weekend) by any Parkland observor.

The language used to describe the wound at Bethesda (that it "occurred") is fishy.

The tension pneumothorax to which you are alluding was apparently not so serious (or obvious) that the chest tube --which was called for--was not pushed all the way in. In fact, according to the autopsy report, it didn't go further in than the epidermis.

So, given the above factors, I do not agree with the notion that one can (or should) "connect the dots" as you do; or that such a nexus constitutes a "perfect match."

Since its clear to me (at least) that JFK's body was intercepted and altered between Dallas and Bethesda, I think it is poor methodology to attempt to combine anything from Bethesda (i.e., post alteration) with data from Parkland (pre-alteration) to draw a reliable inference as to what was going on inside JFK's body.

Anyway, that's where I stand on this issue.

Always willing to change my mind, if there is evidence; but I call your attention again to what I wrote about what happened on the night of December 11, 1963, when reporter Bill Burrus received a call from "higher authority" (my quotes) to lay the groundwork for his story (the next day) that (based on his "authoritative"source) JFK was hit in the back--something not a single medical observer at Parkland Hospital reported on 11/22/63.

Beware. This road is filled with logical and linguistic and anatomical potholes.

DSL

10/26/15 - 5:40 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Malcolm Perry made an observation while performing the tracheostomy on JFK. He observed JFK's trachea to be deviated to the left, so much so that it was necessary for him to sever the left strap (sternohyoid) muscle that lies just outside the trachea, in order to successfully complete the tracheostomy.

Deviation of the trachea to one side or the other is one of the signs of a tension pneumothorax. As air pressure builds in either the right or left pleural cavity, it exerts a strong force on the unaffected side of the chest, displacing everything in the unaffected side.

Just as you do not believe many of the findings from the Bethesda autopsy, I do not believe the chest tube(s) procedure only got as far as shallow incisions in the epidermis of JFK's chest. If you have ever watched the insertion of a chest tube, you will know that, once the tiny incision is made in the intercostal space between the ribs, insertion of a chest tube takes only a few more seconds, and connection of that tube to drainage not much longer than that.

From the Healthline website:

http://www.healthline.com/health/chest-tube-insertion#Procedure4

What Happens During Chest Tube Insertion?

A surgeon or a pulmonary or critical care specialist usually performs a chest tube insertion.

• Your doctor will prep a large area on the side of your chest, from your armpit down to your abdomen and across to your nipple. This will involve sterilizing the area using Betadine and potentially shaving any hair from the site, if necessary.

• An intravenous (IV) and/or local anesthetic may be used to make you more comfortable during the chest tube insertion, which can be painful.

• Using a scalpel, he or she will then make a small (¼ inch to 1½ inch) incision between the ribs near the upper part of your chest (the specific location will depend on the reason for the chest tube).

• Your doctor will gently open a space into your chest cavity using a finger and clamps, and guide in the chest tube. (Chest tubes come in various sizes for different conditions.)

• A small suture keeps the tube in place, and a sterile bandage is applied. The tube is then attached to a special one-way drainage system that only allows air or fluid to flow out. This prevents drainage back into the lung.

While the chest tube is in, a doctor or nurse will continually monitor your breathing, pain, and chest tube status.

Why would the surgeons go so far as to make the shallow incision(s) in JFK's chest, and not take a few more seconds to insert the chest tubes?

Edited October 26, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Tom Neal]

Taking a step back and attempting to look at all of this as a PATTERN...

1. USSS Glen Bennett observed that a shot hit JFK in the location matching the jacket/shirt bullet holes

2. Parkland hospital received an unaltered body direct from the crime scene

a. JFK's shirt was cut and removed

1. DID ANYONE INSPECT THE SHIRT OR JACKET FOR BULLET HOLES AT PARKLAND?

2. WHO MEASURED THE LOCATION OF HOLES IN THE JACKET/SHIRT?

3. WHEN & WHERE WAS THIS MEASUREMENT PERFORMED?

b. a small round wound presumably of entry was observed in the throat

1. a tracheostomy was performed

c. indications of a tension pneumothorax in the right lung were observed by at least 2 doctors

1. chest tubes were ordered inserted

d. a large wound was observed in the right rear of the head

1. JFK was declared dead

e. The body remained on its back and no doctor looked anywhere below the back of the head for a wound

3. Two nurses and an orderly washed the body

a. at that time, apparently no back wound was reported

1. BUT, IF THEY SAW THE WOUND WOULD THEY HAVE REPORTED IT?

a. DID THEY KNOW IF THE DOCTORS WERE ALREADY AWARE OF THE BACK WOUND?

b. The doctors had departed

c. the patient was a corpse no longer in need of treatment

d. the body was on its way to autopsy at Parkland.

e. no report was required regarding the washing of the body

4. Bill Greer received JFK's clothing at Parkland and carried it with him to Bethesda

5. at 5:30pm on the trip back to DC, Glen Bennett recorded his observations at the crime scene

a. Bennett gave testimony on the 23rd stating that he observed a bullet strike JFK's back

6. The autopsy at Bethesda began on an altered body

a. therefore the body was altered between Parkland & the start of the official autopsy

7. Surgery to the head area reported aloud by Humes

8. a large gaping throat wound with irregular edges was reported aloud by Humes

9. a shallow back wound was inspected

a. according to Humes, this wound did NOT penetrate the pleura

b. according to Humes no exit was detected

c. a chest x-ray designated #9 was taken by Ebersole with heart/lungs in place to locate a bullet

1. this x-ray was reported by Ebersole to show many specks of dirt (ARRB included the comment that they appeared to be metal but were not)???!!!

2. per ARRB this chest x-ray is no longer at NARA

d. the lungs (and other organs) where chopped up in an unsuccessful search for a bullet

10. Humes reports that the chest tube incisions did NOT violate the pleura

None of the above information is intended to prove whether the back wound(s) were physically punched into JFK's back or simply relocated by changing their positions within the written reports and oral testimony.

It *IS* however, intended to indicate that Humes et al went to great lengths to ERASE all evidence as to whether the lungs or pleura were, or were NOT violated.

Tom

Edited October 26, 2015 by Tom Neal

[Ron Ecker]

4. Bill Greer received JFK's clothing at Parkland and carried it with him to Bethesda

I have always assumed that the clothes were not made available for the autopsy simply for what they might reveal about a conspiracy. But now I wonder what they could have revealed. A shot exiting the back from the front? But it makes perfect sense not to make the clothes available if there was no wound in the back and they wished to create one. The clothes would be needed for this creation while the autopsy was going on. (If the holes in the clothes were made at the same time as the back wound was created prior to autopsy, then there was no reason not to give the clothes to Humes et al with the body.) Which likely means that the clothes were not taken to a White House locker as alleged, but to some other place first.

And following the creation of a back wound including holes punched in the clothes, it would be nice to have one of the SS agents, for example Glen Bennett, say that he saw JFK shot in the back (even if he was wasn't looking in that direction).

Edited October 26, 2015 by Ron Ecker

[Chris Davidson]

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,

We need the height from "street to the top of the back seat that you sit on".

chris

[David Lifton]

David,

I believe there is reasonable evidence that Malcolm Perry believed that the right lung was indeed injured. I agree the evidence is not definitive - after all Parkland only had around 20 minutes with the body - but what they saw during that period led Perry and Carrico to seriously believe the right lung had been damaged. The two chief signs were the deviation of the trachea and air bubbling in the mediastinum. I describe the evidence below.

When JFK reached Trauma Room 1, it was clear to DR. Charles Carrico that JFK was not breathing. Therefore Carrico attempted to insert an Endotracheal tube to ease his breathing. Aside from noting the wound to the trachea, itself, Carrico saw that the trachea was slightly, deviated, bent to the left. 1 HSCA 268. This was also noted by Malcolm Perry after he had carried out the Tracheotomy. H6 10 When the trachea deviates it suggests that there is a collection of air inside the chest, between the chest cavity and the lung. When a lung is damaged, the trachea deviates towards the lung that is not damaged: in this case the left lung. Therefore seeing the trachea having deviated to the left suggested to both Carrico and Perry that the right lung was damaged.

This was not the only evidence that Malcolm Perry had that something was wrong with the right lung. After cutting the tracheotomy he “noted that there was free air and blood in the superior right mediastinum.” H6 10 The “Mediastinum” is another name for the upper chest area. So as he was looking down into right chest area Perry noted that there was blood there which was mixed with air and so Perry ordered the Chest Tubes to be inserted. “I asked that someone put a right chest tube in for seal drainage.” H6 10 The purpose of Chest Tubes is to remove an abnormal collection of air or fluid.

Perry is supported by Dr. Jenkins who, talking about what happened in Trauma Room 1, stated the following: “Doctors Charles Baxter Malcolm Perry and Robert McClelland arrived at the same time and began a tracheotomy and started the insertion of a right chest tube since there was also obvious tracheal and chest damage.” CE 392 14.

James.

James:

I do not disagree—at all—with the data you are citing. To the contrary, I agree with all of it.

What I take issue with—i.e., where I disagree-is with the inference that some draw from the data.

As I wrote, I do not believe it to be legitimate methodology to link the pneumothorax (and the data you cited to support that) with an impact at T-3.

Again: it’s the notion that the pneumothorax can legitimately be cited as circumstantial evidence of a T-3 impact is where the problem lies.

One other matter: in your very carefully constructed post, you have made one error (but if you disagree, do correct me).

You write:

“When JFK reached Trauma Room 1, it was clear to DR. Charles Carrico that JFK was not breathing.” And then you start your next sentence with the word “therefore.” That sentence reads:

“Therefore Carrico attempted to insert an Endotracheal tube to ease his breathing.”

When Carrico testified, he stated that JFK exhibited “agonal” breathing. He was then asked to define “agonal” and he gave the standard definition. Clearly, according to Carrico, JFK had “agonal” breathing, which is not the same as stating (as your post states) “that JFK was not breathing.”

Again, all the data your are citing about chest damage –and specifically, damage to the right lung—is not disputable. (Certainly, I don’t disagree with any of it; and your post is a fine summary).

Where my disagreement lies, is with the notion that one should use that data to connect that to a T-3 back injury (i.e., a bullet impact at T-3), since no one at Parkland reports any such wound on the back. Rest assured, I have read all that material carefully, and interviewed many of those witnesses.

You might wish to re-examine Carrico’s deposition, when he talked about his thoughts when he first was shown the Bethesda autopsy (on 12/11). He noted that when he saw it, there were “facts” that he had not known of before. Under oath, Carrico made clear that one of the “facts” to which he was referring was the rear entry into JFK’s back (or shoulder or neck, depending on how one reads the data).

DSL

10/26/15 - 8:30 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

[David Lifton]

As an extension of the experiment shooting through live oak branches, it would be interesting to have a chronograph set up on the far side of the branch to measure the velocity of the bullet, once it had passed through the branch.

Robert: The system would not let me post a reply to your prior post (your post # 218 on this thread) so I'm placing it here.

The diagrams you are using are excellent, as is the material you are quoting (from medical reference works) about the procedure for inserting a chest tube.

However. . . : you are jumping from the fact that it takes “only a few more seconds” to the conclusion that because that is so, the tube was (in fact) pushed all the way in.

Not so.

According to the chief autopsy doctor (Humes) who actually examined JFK’s body, neither tube was pushed all the way in.

To repeat: I understand how “easy it is “ (my quotes) to take the final step, and push the tube all the way in. No question about that. The fact is, however, that it was not done. And that “fact” is based on what Humes observed at Bethesda when he examined JFK’s body. The fact: it wasn’t done. It wasn’t pushed all the way in.

Your final statement exposes the problem with this line of reasoning. Quoting:

“Why would the surgeons go so far as to make the shallow incision(s) in JFK's chest, and not take a few more seconds to insert the chest tubes?”

A fair question, but not a substitute for evidence that the tube was pushed all the way in; and it wasn’t.

Indeed, based on the observable facts, at Bethesda (as reported by Commander Humes, who did the examination of JFK’s nbody) neither chest tube was pushed all the way in.

DSL

10/26/15 - 8:50 PM PDT

PS. A small format note. When quoting medical manuals (as you did), and then adding your own commentary (which is fine), either use quotation marks on the former; or use a different font. When reading your post, I had difficulty, at the tail end, distinguishing between the book you were quoting, and your own commentary.

Edited October 27, 2015 by David Lifton

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hi Dave

That font thing is driving me nuts, too. It seems as soon as I cut and paste a text, the rest of my post adopts whatever font the quote was in. I'm not computer savvy enough to correct it.

Anyways, back to the back wound. I'm a relative newcomer to the JFK assassination research scene, having only really started to do any serious investigation into this matter in the late 90's, and even then it took me several years to get over all the nonsense conspiracy theories, and begin to look at the real evidence.

One thing I have noticed, and I am probably just as guilty as anyone in this regard, is that we all have our own pet theories about Parkland and Bethesda, and tend to get defensive when anyone challenges that theory.

I tend to somewhat agree with your idea of alteration to the head wound, but I get deeply puzzled when I read Tom Robinson describing a gaping rear head wound, and a 1/4 inch round hole in the hair just behind the right temple, right where the autopsy report says there was a large wound. This is true of so much of the information in this case. Just when you think you have nailed down something as being valid, another piece of information invalidates the first piece of information. And what is with Tom Robinson, anyways? Had he never, in all his career, seen a gunshot wound from a rifle before? He actually let the ballistics "expert" (FBI?) at the autopsy tell him the gaping rear wound was an entrance wound (caved in from the impact or some such nonsense) and the neat little round 1/4 inch hole up near his forehead was from a piece of shrapnel exiting his head. Were people in 1963 really that much in awe of anyone in authority?

But, I digress...

From reading what you have written, I have deduced three things.

1. You believe serious alterations were done to the head wound between Dallas and Bethesda.

2. You believe the throat wound was the result of a shot from the front.

3. You believe there was no back wound, neither a genuine one inflicted by an assassin's bullet in Dallas, nor one inflicted as part of a cover up between Dallas and Bethesda.

Nos. 1 & 3 require the autopsy doctors to do some serious lying, especially since the altered head wound magically managed to hide the original right posterior cranial wound reported by so many witnesses, including the surgeons at Parkland. You seem to accept that they lied their butts off about these major wound points, but accept as Gospel that the Bethesda doctors saw incisions made to insert chest tubes, but no chest tubes were actually inserted. I don't follow you. If they lied about so many things, why not lie about the chest tubes?

For starters, chest tubes would not have been left in JFK's chest at Parkland. I know this from personal experience, as I am a part time paramedic on our ambulance here, and have been attending on a number of cardiac arrest calls. Once at the hospital with these patients, many devices, ranging from intraosseous infusion devices to intubation devices to chest tubes, are applied in an effort to resuscitate a patient in cardiac arrest. My partner and I inevitably will be there, too, when resuscitation efforts are abandoned, and are often asked by ER staff to assist in getting the patient into a body bag, prior to taking the patient to the morgue. Every single case I have been on, great care is taken by ER staff to remove all of these devices prior to bagging.

The chest tube is actually nothing more than a large bore needle, varying in size depending on the purpose it is being inserted for. In cases where the patient is unconscious or pulseless, the surgical incision step is often omitted, and the needle inserted directly through the epidermis. While my ticket does not allow me to insert a chest tube, for the purpose of relieving a tension pneumothorax, I have seen an emergency chest tube inserted into a conscious patient's pleural cavity in the field, and no scalpel incision was ever made. The patient never complained, either, as he was too busy trying to draw in enough oxygen to make up for what he had not been getting prior to insertion of the chest tube.

As the chest tubes are not that big, and removal of the chest tube would cause the intercostal tissue to close up after it was removed, only someone within a couple of feet of JFK's corpse during the autopsy, and actually looking directly into the incisions, would actually be able to tell whether or not chest tubes had ever been inserted at all. Humes had a perfect opportunity to lie about the chest tubes.

Why lie about the chest tubes? Simple. If JFK was shot at the level of T3 with a FMJ bullet, especially a great penetrator like the 162 grain 6.5mm FMJ bullet, there would have been an exit wound on the front of JFK's chest. No doubt about this in my mind whatsoever. In fact, at that short range, that same FMJ bullet would have had enough energy left to go through the jump seat and Connally, and possibly have made it through the front seat and into Kellerman. Instead, it vanished. It was easier to tell the bubbas in the cheap seats that the bullet only penetrated an inch or so, than to tell everyone that some exotic fragmenting (hell, disintegrating) bullet, likely of CIA origin, had come apart and turned to powder after penetrating JFK's lung for a couple of inches. Know why this was so dangerous? That is simple, too. If you give information like this to the unwashed masses, how long is it before they start to look at the massive head wound, and start to wonder how an FMJ bullet could have had such an explosive effect? Remember, many of these men would have been WWII or Korean War vets that had likely seen many people shot in the head with FMJ bullets.

Finally, I cannot overemphasize the importance of the trachea being deviated to the left, as Perry observed during the tracheostomy procedure. Remember, it was deviated to the point Perry was obligated to sever the left strap muscle, just to gain clear access to the trachea. I have spoken to many ER doctors about this, and they are unanimous in their belief that the only thing that could cause deviation of JFK's trachea to the left would be a tension pneumothorax in the right lung.

And, if a tension pneumothorax was not caused by a bullet wound in JFK's back, what do you think caused it?

Edited October 27, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[David Lifton]

Hi Dave

That font thing is driving me nuts, too. It seems as soon as I cut and paste a text, the rest of my post adopts whatever font the quote was in. I'm not computer savvy enough to correct it.

Anyways, back to the back wound. I'm a relative newcomer to the JFK assassination research scene, having only really started to do any serious investigation into this matter in the late 90's, and even then it took me several years to get over all the nonsense conspiracy theories, and begin to look at the real evidence.

One thing I have noticed, and I am probably just as guilty as anyone in this regard, is that we all have our own pet theories about Parkland and Bethesda, and tend to get defensive when anyone challenges that theory.

I tend to somewhat agree with your idea of alteration to the head wound, but I get deeply puzzled when I read Tom Robinson describing a gaping rear head wound, and a 1/4 inch round hole in the hair just behind the right temple, right where the autopsy report says there was a large wound. This is true of so much of the information in this case. Just when you think you have nailed down something as being valid, another piece of information invalidates the first piece of information. And what is with Tom Robinson, anyways? Had he never, in all his career, seen a gunshot wound from a rifle before? He actually let the ballistics "expert" (FBI?) at the autopsy tell him the gaping rear wound was an entrance wound (caved in from the impact or some such nonsense) and the neat little round 1/4 inch hole up near his forehead was from a piece of shrapnel exiting his head. Were people in 1963 really that much in awe of anyone in authority?

But, I digress...

From reading what you have written, I have deduced three things.

1. You believe serious alterations were done to the head wound between Dallas and Bethesda.

2. You believe the throat wound was the result of a shot from the front.

3. You believe there was no back wound, neither a genuine one inflicted by an assassin's bullet in Dallas, nor one inflicted as part of a cover up between Dallas and Bethesda.

Nos. 1 & 3 require the autopsy doctors to do some serious lying, especially since the altered head wound magically managed to hide the original right posterior cranial wound reported by so many witnesses, including the surgeons at Parkland. You seem to accept that they lied their butts off about these major wound points, but accept as Gospel that the Bethesda doctors saw incisions made to insert chest tubes, but no chest tubes were actually inserted. I don't follow you. If they lied about so many things, why not lie about the chest tubes?

For starters, chest tubes would not have been left in JFK's chest at Parkland. I know this from personal experience, as I am a part time paramedic on our ambulance here, and have been attending on a number of cardiac arrest calls. Once at the hospital with these patients, many devices, ranging from intraosseous infusion devices to intubation devices to chest tubes, are applied in an effort to resuscitate a patient in cardiac arrest. My partner and I inevitably will be there, too, when resuscitation efforts are abandoned, and are often asked by ER staff to assist in getting the patient into a body bag, prior to taking the patient to the morgue. Every single case I have been on, great care is taken by ER staff to remove all of these devices prior to bagging.

The chest tube is actually nothing more than a large bore needle, varying in size depending on the purpose it is being inserted for. In cases where the patient is unconscious or pulseless, the surgical incision step is often omitted, and the needle inserted directly through the epidermis. While my ticket does not allow me to insert a chest tube, for the purpose of relieving a tension pneumothorax, I have seen an emergency chest tube inserted into a conscious patient's pleural cavity in the field, and no scalpel incision was ever made. The patient never complained, either, as he was too busy trying to draw in enough oxygen to make up for what he had not been getting prior to insertion of the chest tube.

As the chest tubes are not that big, and removal of the chest tube would cause the intercostal tissue to close up after it was removed, only someone within a couple of feet of JFK's corpse during the autopsy, and actually looking directly into the incisions, would actually be able to tell whether or not chest tubes had ever been inserted at all. Humes had a perfect opportunity to lie about the chest tubes.

Why lie about the chest tubes? Simple. If JFK was shot at the level of T3 with a FMJ bullet, especially a great penetrator like the 162 grain 6.5mm FMJ bullet, there would have been an exit wound on the front of JFK's chest. No doubt about this in my mind whatsoever. In fact, at that short range, that same FMJ bullet would have had enough energy left to go through the jump seat and Connally, and possibly have made it through the front seat and into Kellerman. Instead, it vanished. It was easier to tell the bubbas in the cheap seats that the bullet only penetrated an inch or so, than to tell everyone that some exotic fragmenting (hell, disintegrating) bullet, likely of CIA origin, had come apart and turned to powder after penetrating JFK's lung for a couple of inches. Know why this was so dangerous? That is simple, too. If you give information like this to the unwashed masses, how long is it before they start to look at the massive head wound, and start to wonder how an FMJ bullet could have had such an explosive effect? Remember, many of these men would have been WWII or Korean War vets that had likely seen many people shot in the head with FMJ bullets.

Finally, I cannot overemphasize the importance of the trachea being deviated to the left, as Perry observed during the tracheostomy procedure. Remember, it was deviated to the point Perry was obligated to sever the left strap muscle, just to gain clear access to the trachea. I have spoken to many ER doctors about this, and they are unanimous in their belief that the only thing that could cause deviation of JFK's trachea to the left would be a tension pneumothorax in the right lung.

And, if a tension pneumothorax was not caused by a bullet wound in JFK's back, what do you think caused it?

Robert:

I would like to dialogue with you, but time is limited, and your post is confusing.

Please clarify your point number 3 (because I never said there was 'no back wound'). What I said is that any back wound on the rear surface of the body was man made. What is not clear is just when these man made wounds were created. Years ago, I wouldhave said "whenever and wherever" the body was altered. But now I know a lot more, and I think that either (or both) were made at the Bethesda morgue, and prior to the arrival of the FBI agents at 7:17 p.m.

Please clarify point # 3. Make clear what you are saying.

Secondly: I never said (or implied) there was not a problem with the right lung. Just read the autopsy report, and Humes testimony. Its all right there. (One does not need the deviated trachea to understand that). Humes spells it out--the bruise, the pyramid shaped scar, the fresh blood etc.

My issue is your (apparent) belief that the cause of it is the impact of real shot fired from the rear. No, that cannot be so if there was no such rear entry at Dallas.

A serious question is: what caused the damage to the right lung, and what became of the missile? Where did it go.

Remember what Dr. Clark told the NY Times: that it "ranged downward and did not exit."

Finally, your argument about the chest tubes baffles me. One cannot substitute a theory about whether this or that person is a xxxx, with genuine anatomic evidence. Three doctors signed an autopsy report which made clear those tubes were not pushed all the way in. That's data which I respect--and certainly more powerful and substantive (as evidence) than a hypothesis as to whether someone who lied about "A" might also have lied about "B" (or not). etc.

Anyway, please clarify, and then maybe we can communicate further.

Again, your diagrams are great. No need to post them anymore.

Thanks.

DSL

10/27/15 - 5:20 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited October 27, 2015 by David Lifton