John Dolva Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 The drain holes on the autopsy table are visible. The body is lying on its left side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 More importantly, how have you deduced that that is JFK in that photo? Whoever that is on the table...they sure used a LOT of 'black paint' to hide the big hole in the back of his head! Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 The drain holes on the autopsy table are visible. The body is lying on its left side. John, Where are the drain holes located in this photo? I can't see them... Also, what is that "structure" adjacent to JFK's right ear and beneath/behind someone's gloved hand? I had assumed that was the autopsy table, but if he's up on his left side what is it? Thanks for any thoughts, Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 If you take this correctly oriented (but negative) photo : http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19936&page=3invert the b/w and look below the finger of the right hand you can see the outline of a drain hole. A better copy should show more. ____ perhaps a fold in the coat of the doc holding the shoulder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 If you take this correctly oriented photo : ...and look below the finger of the right hand you can see the outline of a drain hole. John, Thanks for the photo and info. I presume you are referring to the right hand in the approximate center of the photo that is on the steel ruler and touching or almost touching the back of JFK's head. Should I be looking below his "little" finger in the 6 o'clock position of the full photo? The rectangular area outlined in white has been brightened considerably. Is the outline of the drain hole within this rectangle? Slightly to the left of the middle of the rectangle and just above the bottom edge of the photo I see a highlight that MAY be the inner edge of a circular cutout. Is this what you are referring to? Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 Spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 Spot on. Thank you, John! Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted November 1, 2015 Author Share Posted November 1, 2015 (edited) o o o Pat, I haven't studied the location of the back wound in great detail. But it's quite obvious to me that the location of the wound on the back photo is significantly higher than the hole location on the shirt. Is it? Or is the fact JF's head is pulled back a great amount creating an illusion in that photo, in which the hairline appears to be much closer to the wound than it would be normally? I don't suffer from that illusion. Because when I compare the location of the back wound to the location of the hole in the shirt, I do so relative to the shirt's horizontal line that is the interface between the yoke and back panels of the shirt. (The yoke panel is the one that spans across the top and back of the shoulders, from shoulder point to shoulder point.) We can easily measure the hole location from the photos of the shirt. Looking at the front of the shirt we see we can determine the line interval of the fabric lines based upon the button diameter. The standard diameter of a shirt button is 7/16". We can see from the cuff buttons that the lines are spaced very close to 7/16" / 2 = 7/32". If 7/32" is correct, then the width of the cuffs is 9 x 7/32" = 1 31/32" which is close to 2". The cuff is clearly wider than 2", so the line spacing must be a bit greater than 7/32". But let's go with the 7/32" just to give a conservative (opposite my contention) location for the hole. Now, looking at the back of the shirt: we can see that the center of the hole is located 11 lines below the yoke line. We calculate that the bullet hole is 11 x 7/32" = 2.4" below the line. Now lets look at Kennedy's back: Mentally draw the yoke line from just below the top of the right shoulder to the other shoulder. (The back yoke line is ALWAYS located below the tops of the shoulders.) The line intersects the top-right corner of the ruler. Using the ruler as a guide, assuming it is a 12 inch ruler I measure the center of the wound to be 1.2" below the line. So I've shown that the hole in the shirt is about 1.2 inches (2.4" - 1.2") lower than the wound in the president. (I measured in one other way and again got close to a 1.2 inch difference.) Granted, 1.2 inches is a fairly small difference. But in determining that difference I made the following conservative assumptions, ones that work against my contention: 1) A smaller line-to-line interval than is likely the case; 2) a higher than likely yoke line on the back.; and 3) it looks to me like the top of the yoke in the photo has been tucked under in a way that brings the bullet hole up toward the collar, something I didn't attempt to account for. Edited November 29, 2015 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted November 1, 2015 Author Share Posted November 1, 2015 Plus, Sandy, if we look at the skeleton diagram from your Wilipedia link again: It is possible to see the superior angle of the right scapula depicted here is not quite at the level of T2 but, rather, is more at the level of T3. The very upper tip of their falsely portrayed superior angle is just barely near the bottom level of T2. More importantly, the artist has portrayed the left most portion of the scapular spine (spine of scapula) exactly where I stated it to be; between T4 and T5. As the scapular spine is quite visible in the back photo, and the back wound appears to be two finger widths (using the upper gloved hand holding down the ruler in the photo) above the scapular spine, it is possible to closely estimate the location of the back wound. My index and middle fingers together, side by side, have a width of 1.5 inches. I am a fairly large person, at over 6 feet tall, so the fingers in the photo are possibly not as wide. Suffice it to say, the back wound is roughly 1-1.5 inches above the scapular spine. Think we are getting close to T3? Robert, First, just to clarify, I neither agree nor disagree with the "T2" location pointed out in the Wikipedia article. I think you bring up valid points countering what is claimed there. But I wish you would have responded to my other comments in the post, about person-to-person variations in anatomical structure, etc. You say: "Suffice it to say, the back wound is roughly 1-1.5 inches above the scapular spine. Think we are getting close to T3?" I don't know. I looked at the backs of several men and couldn't find the scapular spine in any. Well, possibly in one guy. But his weren't oriented at an angle... they were horizontal, or maybe vertical... I forget. But it wasn't what I expected. Maybe he was flexing muscles and I was looking at muscle bumps. (He's skinny and has little muscle mass to flex, but he did have horizontally or vertically oriented bumps where the scapular spines might be.) BTW, for scapular spines to be discernible, I think a person has to have very little body fat AND not a good deal of muscle mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted November 1, 2015 Author Share Posted November 1, 2015 Do tell us all, Pat, how you deduced the back wound photo was taken of JFK lying on his side. Just look at the arms, and see if they make sense if he's laying flat on his belly, or sitting up. More importantly, how have you deduced that that is JFK in that photo? That, of course, is a very good point. After all, we see no blowout in the back of the head. As for me, I'm assuming for now that the photo is of JFK, with the BOH blowout somehow being erased. If a irreconcilable discrepancy shows up that can only be resolved by eliminating this photo, then that's what I'll do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 If you take this correctly oriented photo : ...and look below the finger of the right hand you can see the outline of a drain hole. John, Thanks for the photo and info. I presume you are referring to the right hand in the approximate center of the photo that is on the steel ruler and touching or almost touching the back of JFK's head. Should I be looking below his "little" finger in the 6 o'clock position of the full photo? The rectangular area outlined in white has been brightened considerably. Is the outline of the drain hole within this rectangle? Slightly to the left of the middle of the rectangle and just above the bottom edge of the photo I see a highlight that MAY be the inner edge of a circular cutout. Is this what you are referring to? Tom If JFK is on his left side, who is holding his head up? Shouldn't his head be flopping downward to his left? P.S. I can see a drain hole about as much as I can see Badge Man hiding in the bushes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 (edited) Plus, Sandy, if we look at the skeleton diagram from your Wilipedia link again: It is possible to see the superior angle of the right scapula depicted here is not quite at the level of T2 but, rather, is more at the level of T3. The very upper tip of their falsely portrayed superior angle is just barely near the bottom level of T2. More importantly, the artist has portrayed the left most portion of the scapular spine (spine of scapula) exactly where I stated it to be; between T4 and T5. As the scapular spine is quite visible in the back photo, and the back wound appears to be two finger widths (using the upper gloved hand holding down the ruler in the photo) above the scapular spine, it is possible to closely estimate the location of the back wound. My index and middle fingers together, side by side, have a width of 1.5 inches. I am a fairly large person, at over 6 feet tall, so the fingers in the photo are possibly not as wide. Suffice it to say, the back wound is roughly 1-1.5 inches above the scapular spine. Think we are getting close to T3? Robert, First, just to clarify, I neither agree nor disagree with the "T2" location pointed out in the Wikipedia article. I think you bring up valid points countering what is claimed there. But I wish you would have responded to my other comments in the post, about person-to-person variations in anatomical structure, etc. You say: "Suffice it to say, the back wound is roughly 1-1.5 inches above the scapular spine. Think we are getting close to T3?" I don't know. I looked at the backs of several men and couldn't find the scapular spine in any. Well, possibly in one guy. But his weren't oriented at an angle... they were horizontal, or maybe vertical... I forget. But it wasn't what I expected. Maybe he was flexing muscles and I was looking at muscle bumps. (He's skinny and has little muscle mass to flex, but he did have horizontally or vertically oriented bumps where the scapular spines might be.) BTW, for scapular spines to be discernible, I think a person has to have very little body fat AND not a good deal of muscle mass. All that aside, scapulae simply do not look like the ones in that Wikipedia diagram. Period. The superior angles of the scapulae in that drawing have been drawn much too high, as they are shown to be as high as the acromion. Edited November 1, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 (edited) Using the ruler as a guide, assuming it is a 12 inch ruler I measure the center of the wound to be 1.2" below the line. Sandy, If you go back and re-read my post #283, the testimony from HSCA Volume 7, it is stated that it is a CENTIMETER ruler. IIRC, the scale can be read well enough to indicate it's marked in centimeters. You may want to re-do you calculations... Tom Edited November 1, 2015 by Tom Neal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 (edited) There is one person, not a physician, who likely spent more time with JFK's body (actually handling it) than anyone else on the night of the autopsy. Below is a transcript of a telephone interview with Thomas Evan Robinson, an enbalmer with Gawler's Funeral Home. This interview was conducted by Investigator Joe West on May 26, 1992. Transcription Thomas Evan Robinson Personal contact info deleted to protect Mr. Robinson's privacy May 26, 1992 (Phone) Wounds: Large gaping hole in back of head.patched by placing piece of rubber.....over it.Thinks skull full of Plaster of Paris. Smaller wound in right temple.Crescent shped, flapped down (3") (approx 2) Small sharpnel wounds in face.Packed with wax. Wound in back (5 to six inches) below shoulder.To the right of the back bone. Adrenlin gland and brain removed. Other organs removed and then put back. No swelling or discoloration to face.(Died instantly) Dr. Berkley (family physician) came in an ask....."How much longer???"He (Robinson) was told (funeral director)"Take your time." Is in favor of exhuming body.....to settle once and....for all. (Robinson quote) "Good pathologists would know exactly" Edited November 1, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 (edited) (approx 2) Small sharpnel wounds in face. Packed with wax. What would be the possible source for these? Could they be exiting fragments? If they were entrance wounds then I'd speculate they were from the windshield frame hit. Has anyone done a close examination of the one good facial photograph to try to identify these? The phrase "approx 2" is curious. Wouldn't you say 2-3? It has to mean more than 1, it can't be 1 1/2. Edited November 1, 2015 by Chris Newton 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