Cliff Varnell Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) 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. Good point. Well, except, the photo in question must have been altered given that the hole in the shirt doesn't line up with the wound shown on the back. I very much doubt that a shirt rises up with a jacket when raising a hand. It doesn't on me. The hole on the back was 14 cm down from the bottom tip of the mastoid process. This is factually incorrect. The hole on the clothing was measured at 14 cm below the top of the collar. So...could the bottom tip of JFK's mastoid process have come into alignment with the top of his collar, while he was sitting against the back seat of a limousine? No. The only way you can even attempt that argument is to rely on a lateral view optical illusion. I don't see why not. Of course you don't. Your entire Pet Theory Zoo depends on a T1 back wound. I tried this on myself and came away convinced that it makes sense. This isn't the first time you've claimed to replicate your scenario -- and yet you never produce the results of these efforts. We're being asked to take Pat Speer's word as hard evidence. Unbelievable... No one has proven otherwise, that's for sure. So JFK wore his dress shirt up at the level of his ears? Really? Sure about that? For all their bluster, those holding that the clothing measurements prove the autopsy photos a fake have never done a series of re-enactments using clothes marked 14 cm below the top of the collar. The burden of proof is on YOU. The bullet holes in the clothes are 4 inches below the bottom of the collars. That location isn't T1. The base of your neck isn't almost four inches below the bottom of the clothing collars. The assertion is beyond absurd... There's a reason for that, IMO. It's because the clothing measurements are consistent with a wound at T-1. A Zombie Lie. T1 ain't four inches below the bottom of the clothing collars. It just isn't. How can someone assert such a thing with a straight face? Even Von Pein won't go there! Now, to my way of thinking, this ought to fill them with delight. What, that the root fact of the JFK assassination is surrounded in a cloud of pure pixie dust? Tink Thompson started this stuff way back in 1967 and it's been a blight on the research ever since. This proves the drawings created for the Warren Commission, which moved the wound up to about C-5, even though the simplest of re-enactments involving the clothing would have proved the wound to have been around T-1, to have been a sham. We already knew that from the beginning. A bit late to the party, ain'cha? But no, instead of marveling at the hubris of the Warren Commission, and Arlen Specter in particular, those pushing that the bullet entered at T-3 have chosen to act as though my failure to march in lockstep with their theory is the problem. It's not a theory. The bullet holes in the clothes are 4 inches below the bottom of the collars. Period. That is not theoretical. The base of the neck is not nearly 4 inches below the bottom of anyone's collars. How can you claim this is beyond me! Pat, turn your head to the right and keep you eye on your right shoulder-line. Casually raise your right hand and casually wave. Observe the fabric of your shirt indent. That is a fact, sir. A fact you cannot refute on this planet. Edited October 29, 2015 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Baloney! Show me one doctor who would measure a back wound from the top of the head. I've never heard of such nonsense. Why not just measure from the bottom of the heels? Makes about as much sense. Now, look at your diagram, specifically the left hand drawing made by Boswell and showing the back wound well below the collar AND equi-distant from the mastoid and acromion processi. There is a very good chance we are saying the same thing, but just not communicating properly with each other. Do you believe the entrance wound depicted by Boswell in the Autopsy Face Sheet made on 22/11/63 was at the level of T1 or T3? Also, are you saying that the collar of a suit jacket is normally at the level of the earlobes? Plus, how did you know the mark on your back was precisely where the entrance wound was in the photo? What did you use for landmarks? I'm sorry to report, Robert, that you're misinformed regarding autopsy protocol. The currently accepted norm is to measure all wounds from the top of the head. Source (among others): the template provided for wound descriptions on page 354 of Autopsy Pathology: a Manual and Atlas (2009). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Breach of Trust, pg 179: <quote on> In his ARRB interview, Finck stated that "JFK's spine, a fixed landmark, was the correct and only point of reference to determine the accurate location of this posterior wound." <quote off> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Breach of Trust, pg 179: <quote on> In his ARRB interview, Finck stated that "JFK's spine, a fixed landmark, was the correct and only point of reference to determine the accurate location of this posterior wound." <quote off> The current template is to measure vertical distance from the top of the head, and lateral distance from the midline, or spine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 FWIW, Cliff, you really should stop pretending T-1 is at the base of the neck. T-1 is most definitely not at the base of the neck...which is why the HSCA's trajectory panel turned around and moved the wound back up to the base of the neck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) FWIW, Cliff, you really should stop pretending T-1 is at the base of the neck. T-1 is most definitely not at the base of the neck...which is why the HSCA's trajectory panel turned around and moved the wound back up to the base of the neck. What is amusing about this HSCA drawing is how it portrays the T1 vertebra (bottom vertebra in their drawing) as being on the same level as the top of the scapula (shoulder blade). Here is a diagram showing a much more accurate placement of the T1 vertebra and the scapulae: T1 is the first vertebra, below the cervical (neck) vertebra, that has ribs attached to it. The HSCA drawings were created to deceive the public. Edited October 30, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Robert, I am sorry, but Pat's diagram is much more accurate in describing the placement of T1 than your diagram. In your diagram the Superior angle is between T3 and T2 when actually it is between T2 and T1. Essentially T1 is just above the Superior angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) Robert, I am sorry, but Pat's diagram is much more accurate in describing the placement of T1 than your diagram. In your diagram the Superior angle is between T3 and T2 when actually it is between T2 and T1. Essentially T1 is just above the Superior angle. Where did you find that diagram, James? These diagrams below seem to disagree with your diagram. Edited October 30, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Robert, I use an app called “Anatronica.”I find it very helpful and mostly accurate. My main textual reference book is “Principles of Anatomy & Physiology” by Gerrard J Tortora and Bryan Derrickson. The two images below from “The Brief Atlas of the Skeleton” that comes with the set. Link to Skeleton:- The Skeleton – which is clearly a real skeleton – suggests that the “superior angle” may actually be closer to T1 than T2 As regards the Scapular, from what I can see your “superior angle” does seem a little flat and not as sharp as it should be. That may account for some of the difference. Also the atlas appears to use real bones to describe an anatomical feature. Your images appear to be drawings. Link to Scapular:- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 FWIW, Cliff, you really should stop pretending T-1 is at the base of the neck. FWIW Pat, you need to stop pretending that there is more than a quarter inch difference between C7/T1 and T1. Your claim that T1 is four inches below the bottom of the collar is absurd. Patently, egregiously absurd. T-1 is most definitely not at the base of the neck...which is why the HSCA's trajectory panel turned around and moved the wound back up to the base of the neck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) Robert, I use an app called “Anatronica.”I find it very helpful and mostly accurate. My main textual reference book is “Principles of Anatomy & Physiology” by Gerrard J Tortora and Bryan Derrickson. The two images below from “The Brief Atlas of the Skeleton” that comes with the set. Link to Skeleton:- The Skeleton – which is clearly a real skeleton – suggests that the “superior angle” may actually be closer to T1 than T2 As regards the Scapular, from what I can see your “superior angle” does seem a little flat and not as sharp as it should be. That may account for some of the difference. Also the atlas appears to use real bones to describe an anatomical feature. Your images appear to be drawings. Link to Scapular:- Photo of real human skeleton. Note location of the upper borders of scapulae a substantial distance below T1 vertebra. Edited October 30, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 James Look at your photo of the thoracic skeleton. Do you see something odd about the scapula on the right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Robert, It is not the Scapula position but the position of the Superior angle. You cannot tell where the position of the superior angle is? The body of the Scapula is indeed well below T1. However the Superior angle should be quite close. James. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Robert, I am not sure what you are getting at about the right scapula? James. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) Also, look at your diagram and compare the scapula to this photo of a real scapula: Do you see how the artist of your diagram has exaggerated the superior border of the scapula, placing it as high (or higher) as the acromial process? If we use the scapular spine as a guide, we can see the actual superior border is nowhere near as high as your drawing depicts. Edited October 30, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme 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