Any prevailing theories on the back wound?

[James R Gordon]

Robert,

If you are suggesting that the source of the shot is the TSBD, then both:-

a) The angle Connally has turned at that point approx 35-40º

AND

The angle of the bullet through the body.

Prohibits it.

Use a map of the plaza. Place Connally as he is positioned in the car and then draw a line along the angle of the 5th rib and project backwards.

That way you will see the source is somewhere between the Daltex and the Records building

[Chris Newton]

I've always thought that the window in the Dal-Tex just below and just underneath the "Fire Escape Man" (who has never been identified) in Altgens #6 is an ideal spot for a shooter. I don't know if it lines up correctly with the shots we are discussing.

[James R Gordon]

Chris,

Such a source is still way off.

Let me explain. Could Connally be hit from that window or indeed the Oswald window. The answer is yes.

Would a strike from those sources replicate the angle of the bullet through Connally's body the answer is no.

It is not a matter whether Connally could be hit. It is a matter could he be hit AND could that strike replicate the wound he received

In this model the car is at Z223/4. One of the yellow lines shows that JFK could be struck. The other arrow which has followed the angle over Connally's 5th rib and been projected back. As you can see it sources somewhere between the Daltext and the Records building. Although it would still fail, had Connally been sitting facing forward it would be much closer.

Also note the angle of Connally's wound is much steeper. That is a consequence of following the path of the 5th rib.

[Chris Newton]

It is not a matter whether Connally could be hit. It is a matter could he be hit AND could that strike replicate the wound he received

I fully agree. There is the matter of practicality. A sniper, one that knows his trade, wants a firing position that that provides the most concealment and best field of fire. Are you suggesting with that graphic that Connally's shooter would need to be on the roof of the Dal-Tex, preferably towards the southeast corner?

My assumption being that a shooter firing from a window on the south east face would have such an extreme angle that concealment might become a real problem.

[James R Gordon]

Chris,

The only moment I could get to replicate the Connally wound was Z 230.

However the source was not the Oswald window but but the 6th floor west window.

[Ron Ecker]

Dallas police officer Jim Bowles told researcher Denis Morrissette that Deputy Sheriff Harry Weatherford was on the roof of the County Records Building "for security" with another deputy and that he had a rifle.

http://jfkassassinationfiles.com/Correspondence.html

As I recall, a shell casing was found on that roof years ago.

[Chris Newton]

James,

I think that you and I were in agreement back in 2012 about the possibilities presented by that window:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19557

But now I'm confused because I thought in post #243 above that we were looking at the Dal-Tex or Records building. Either way, do other wounds also line up to that position?

[Pat Speer]

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. 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? I don't see why not. I tried this on myself and came away convinced that it makes sense.

No one has proven otherwise, that's for sure. 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. There's a reason for that, IMO. It's because the clothing measurements are consistent with a wound at T-1.

Now, to my way of thinking, this ought to fill them with delight. 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. 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.

[Chris Davidson]

Chris,

The only moment I could get to replicate the Connally wound was Z 230.

However the source was not the Oswald window but but the 6th floor west window.

Doodling.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Robert,

If you are suggesting that the source of the shot is the TSBD, then both:-

a) The angle Connally has turned at that point approx 35-40º

AND

The angle of the bullet through the body.

Prohibits it.

Use a map of the plaza. Place Connally as he is positioned in the car and then draw a line along the angle of the 5th rib and project backwards.

That way you will see the source is somewhere between the Daltex and the Records building

Hi James

Below is Frame z223 of the Zapruder film, and below that is Frame z255.

Look closely at these two frames, and then look at the Altgens 6 photo below.

As we know the Altgens photo was taken at the same time as Frame z255 of the Zapruder film, we can make comparisons from it. If you look at z255, you can see that JBC has turned roughly 90° in his seat. In this position, I could believe JBC was shot from a position between the Dal-Tex and the County Records Buildings. However, at z223, I do not see JBC turned 35-40° to his right. I can see him turned very slightly to his right, possibly to look at TUM, but he is barely turned more than Kellerman and, by all accounts, Kellerman was facing forward at this time.

In case I have been misunderstood, it is my contention, understanding what I do about JBC's chest wound, that if JBC was shot from the SE corner of the TSBD, he had to be turned much further to his right than he was at z223. Of course, this completely excludes any firing position further east of the TSBD, such as between the Dal-Tex and the County Records Buildings.

The other problem with JBC being shot at z223 is that his right arm just happens to be covering the mid axillary line of his chest. Once again, I refer you to the interview Dan Rather gave after viewing the Zapruder film on 25/11/63. The part about JBC being hit starts about 1:27.

Dan Rather clearly describes JBC turning back toward JFK with his right hand extended outward toward JFK, and that this was the moment JBC was hit. This was echoed in the WC testimony of Sam Holland, a witness standing atop the Triple Underpass at the time of the shooting:

"Mr. HOLLAND - And she was looking in this direction [indicating].

Mr. STERN - "She," is Mrs. Kennedy?

Mr. HOLLAND - His wife. And about that time---

Mr. STERN - Was looking in a southern direction?

Mr. HOLLAND - In the southern direction.

Mr. STERN - South side of Elm Street?

Mr. HOLLAND - And about that time he went over like that [indicating], and put his hand up, and she was still looking off, as well as I could tell.

Mr. STERN - Now, when you say, "he went like that," you leaned forward and raised your right hand?

Mr. HOLLAND - Pulled forward and hand just stood like that momentarily.

Mr. STERN - With his right hand?

Mr. HOLLAND - His right hand; and that was the first report that I heard.

Mr. STERN - What did it sound like?

Mr. HOLLAND - Well, it was pretty loud, and naturally, underneath this underpass here it would be a little louder, the concussion from underneath it, it was a pretty loud report, and the car traveled a few yards, and Governor Connally turned in this fashion, like that [indicating] with his hand out, and another report.

Mr. STERN - With his right hand out?

Mr. HOLLAND - Turning to his right."

Sam Holland also corroborates Dan Rather's observation that JFK's right hand was raised at the moment the first shot struck him.

Clearly, we do not agree about the nature of JBC's chest wound, or about the moment he received the chest wound. The Zapruder film has also clearly been altered.

What is most interesting about Dan Rather's account is that he claims JBC was knocked over by the shot, and that Nellie Connally immediately covered JBC with her own body. During interviews, JBC is quite adamant that the shot that hit him was powerful enough to knock him over. What a coincidence, and how very strange we do not see JBC knocked over at Frame z223 of the Zapruder film.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Pat Speer]

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

It astounds me that after all these years you still can't understand my position.

1. I never set out to prove anything. I began studying the case at a much later age than most. I was just past 40. I thought I'd read some books and come to a decision. I quickly discerned that those claiming no conspiracy inevitably hid behind the experts, and those claiming there was a conspiracy inevitably came to claim the evidence studied by these experts had been faked. They both failed to examine the third alternative, however: that maybe the experts were wrong. So I spent several years of my life in your footsteps, reading article after article in the UCLA Bio-Med Library. I then came to the conclusion that the experts were indeed wrong and that the evidence strongly suggests conspiracy. I took from this then that the evidence is probably legit. That the government fought to keep this evidence from the public helps support this conclusion.

2. As far as me being a WC apologist, you must be thinking of someone else. Your most famous contribution to the case is the development of a theory in which the autopsy doctors were tricked into coming to an incorrect conclusion, and where the WC and its staff were not party to this deception. My research, on the other hand, includes a point by point analysis of the development of the single-bullet theory, in which I prove, beyond all doubt in my opinion, that Specter and Warren, at the very least, knew full well that the back wound was too low on the body to support the single-bullet theory, but decided to lie about it, and pretend the wound was higher, in order to preserve the single-assassin conclusion. Here is a compressed version of last year's presentation:

Edited October 29, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Robert Prudhomme]

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. 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? I don't see why not. I tried this on myself and came away convinced that it makes sense.

No one has proven otherwise, that's for sure. 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. There's a reason for that, IMO. It's because the clothing measurements are consistent with a wound at T-1.

Now, to my way of thinking, this ought to fill them with delight. 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. 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.

Pat

You're not making sense. One second you are saying the wound was 14 cm. down from the tip of the mastoid process, the next second you are saying the hole in JFK's suit was 14 cm. below the top of his collar. Then you go into something about the mastoid process and the top of his collar lining up during the assassination, and that this somehow proves (in your mind) that the wound was at the level of T1.

Sorry, Pat, it doesn't work that way. First, the use of the mastoid process as a landmark was a complete joke, and several physicians I have spoken to say quite clearly that a landmark on the skull would NEVER be used to pinpoint a back wound. It would make far more sense to use landmarks located on the back itself. The use of the mastoid and acromion processi was clearly done to spread as much confusion as possible.

Second, if the mastoid process was used as a landmark, it would be with JFK's head and body in the anatomically neutral position. This does not mean that, in order to make your theory work, you are allowed to bend JFK's head back until his mastoid process is touching his collar.

Further, do you really believe that a bullet entering JFK's coat (and back) 14 cm. (5.5 inches) below his collar is going to leave an entrance wound at the level of T1 vertebra? SERIOUSLY??

See the mastoid process, just behind and at the same level as the earlobe? Bit high for a suit collar, wouldn't you say?

[Pat Speer]

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. 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? I don't see why not. I tried this on myself and came away convinced that it makes sense.

No one has proven otherwise, that's for sure. 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. There's a reason for that, IMO. It's because the clothing measurements are consistent with a wound at T-1.

Now, to my way of thinking, this ought to fill them with delight. 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. 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.

Pat

You're not making sense. One second you are saying the wound was 14 cm. down from the tip of the mastoid process, the next second you are saying the hole in JFK's suit was 14 cm. below the top of his collar. Then you go into something about the mastoid process and the top of his collar lining up during the assassination, and that this somehow proves (in your mind) that the wound was at the level of T1.

Sorry, Pat, it doesn't work that way. First, the use of the mastoid process as a landmark was a complete joke, and several physicians I have spoken to say quite clearly that a landmark on the skull would NEVER be used to pinpoint a back wound. It would make far more sense to use landmarks located on the back itself. The use of the mastoid and acromion processi was clearly done to spread as much confusion as possible.

Second, if the mastoid process was used as a landmark, it would be with JFK's head and body in the anatomically neutral position. This does not mean that, in order to make your theory work, you are allowed to bend JFK's head back until his mastoid process is touching his collar.

Further, do you really believe that a bullet entering JFK's coat (and back) 14 cm. (5.5 inches) below his collar is going to leave an entrance wound at the level of T1 vertebra? SERIOUSLY??

See the mastoid process, just behind and at the same level as the earlobe? Bit high for a suit collar, wouldn't you say?

Do it yourself, Robert. I placed a sticker 14 cm down from the top of a collar on a jacket, then sat down on a couch, and lifted up my arm. My wife then stuck a toothpick through the sticker. We then went to the bathroom. The red spot on my back was just where the back wound is on JFK's autopsy photo. Now, this was not a scientific test. My jacket was not identical to JFK's jacket, and my body is not identical to his body (although I did play his body in some autopsy scenes filmed for The Commission). But this showed me two things: 1) that the re-enactment of this sort performed for Beyond the Magic Bullet, in which the back wound ended up well above the throat wound, was totally full of beans, and 2) that those holding the clothing measurements "prove" the wound was at T-3 or lower were also full of beans.

As far as the rest of the stuff, I have to disagree. The back wound location in the autopsy report disproves the single-bullet theory...which is why the WC lied about...and is why WC apologists continue to lie about it. While much has been made of the measurement from the mastoid, this is pretty silly, IMO. The "proper" measurement according to some pathologists would have been a measurement from the top of the head--which would have been just as prone to distortion should the head have been leaning forward, etc. To wit, the Clark Panel and HSCA Panel's also measured down from the mastoid. Autopsy measurements are supposed to reflect the anatomic position. It seems clear to me that the doctors measured (or approximated, let's be serious) that wound as 14 cm down from the mastoid process when Kennedy was in the anatomic position. There's also this. By measuring down from the mastoid, and presenting an identical measurement from the acromion, they presented a specific location for the wound equidistant from the two locations, This reflects the precise location of the mark created by Boswell on the face sheet, and proves once again that the doctors were lying when they said this mark was inaccurate and that the drawings created for the Warren Commission were more precise.

[Robert Prudhomme]

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?

Edited October 29, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Tom Neal]

Baloney! Show me one doctor who would measure a back wound from the top of the head.

"Doctor" Pat Speer?

You did say "Show Me"...