Robert Prudhomme Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Robert, I am not sure what you are getting at about the right scapula? James. You're just not looking closely enough. There is something drastically wrong with the right scapula in this photo. The scapular spine is horizontal in this photo, contrary to its normal upwardly climbing angle, as seen below. By turning the scapula to put the scapular spine in a horizontal position, the superior border of the scapula has been moved much higher up on the back. This is a very strange depiction of a thoracic skeleton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme 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). The doctors I've spoken with must not have read that book. They all agree with Cliff Varnell, in that the spine is the appropriate landmark to measure back wounds from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Robert, If you are talking about the skeleton in post 271, that is a real skeleton. It may be that adjustments had to be made when it was constructed. James. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) Robert, If you are talking about the skeleton in post 271, that is a real skeleton. It may be that adjustments had to be made when it was constructed. James. If that is a real, untouched photo of a skeleton, why is the scapular ridge (spine) lying horizontal, instead of running upward at an angle to the shoulder, as seen below? 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 have no idea of the cause of it looking like that. I should have added. That although it is a real skeleton it has also been rebuilt. That might be the reason. James. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Compare this very accurate drawing to the drawing you originally posted The superior angle of the right scapula, in your drawing, appears to have been grossly exaggerated, placing it higher than the acromial process (acromion) of the shoulder, when, in fact, it is actually much lower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Robert, I have no idea of the cause of it looking like that. I should have added. That although it is a real skeleton it has also been rebuilt. That might be the reason. James. Is this your way of admitting you are wrong, and that T1 is nowhere near the superior angle of the scapula? 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 adjusting my position. When I entered this conversation it was to suggest that Pat Speer was more correct than you. I am not able to explain the anomalies with regard to that skeleton. The 3D model whose image I used, makes clear that the "superior angle" is indeed close to T1. This model is very accurate. I have no intention of entering into an endless conversation. If you are insistent that you are right - no problem. All I am saying is - from my perspective - it appears to me that Pat was more correct than you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Robert, I am not adjusting my position. When I entered this conversation it was to suggest that Pat Speer was more correct than you. I am not able to explain the anomalies with regard to that skeleton. The 3D model whose image I used, makes clear that the "superior angle" is indeed close to T1. This model is very accurate. I have no intention of entering into an endless conversation. If you are insistent that you are right - no problem. All I am saying is - from my perspective - it appears to me that Pat was more correct than you. James I just CLEARLY demonstrated how GROSSLY exaggerated your diagram's scapula is. Your only response is that you don't understand how ALL of your diagrams and photos are exaggerated, and that now you just don't want to discuss this matter any further? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) Compare this very accurate drawing to the drawing you originally posted The superior angle of the right scapula, in your drawing, appears to have been grossly exaggerated, placing it higher than the acromial process (acromion) of the shoulder, when, in fact, it is actually much lower. Everything in the world looks different when viewed not only from behind, but also from a different angle. --Tommy Edited October 30, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) According to Pat Speer the base of JFK's neck was a quarter inch or so above the bullet hole in the jacket. Could anything be more obviously fallacious? Edited October 31, 2015 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) Compare this very accurate drawing to the drawing you originally posted The superior angle of the right scapula, in your drawing, appears to have been grossly exaggerated, placing it higher than the acromial process (acromion) of the shoulder, when, in fact, it is actually much lower. Everything in the world looks different when viewed not only from behind, but also from a different angle. --Tommy Wrong. The scapula depicted in James' diagram is a gross distortion of the real thing. Period. If you can't see that, I don't know how to help you. Edited November 1, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 I call your attention to the autopsy photographs--You will note the existence of a ruler (which doesn't measure anything) and which covers the location where the back wound (as reported by FBI Agents Sibert and O'Neill) was located. On the chance that there is still interest as to the purpose and location of the ruler in the 'back wound' photographs... Per the HSCA the "centimeter ruler" which overlies the midline of the back" is placed thusly to facilitate measurements of the wound: FWIW Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 According to Pat Speer the base of JFK's neck was a quarter inch or so above the bullet hole in the jacket. Could anything be more obviously fallacious? http://occamsrazorjfk.net/jacket.htm No, I don't think so. I'm baffled by a few other things I've seen recently on this thread, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) DUPLICATE POST Edited October 31, 2015 by Tom Neal 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