Any prevailing theories on the back wound?

[Sandy Larsen]

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

It's a bit hard for me to swallow that the purpose of the ruler here is to allow measurement of the wound. Why on earth would they place the ruler 2.5 cm from the wound if that were the case?? If the reason was to keep the ruler aligned with the mid-line of the back, then why was it placed at an noticeable angle with respect to it?

I suppose that the angle I see could be an optical illusion. But, even if so, I can't understand the motivation for placing the ruler in alignment with the mid-line.

Edited October 31, 2015 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

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,

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.

[Tom Neal]

DUPLICATE POST

[Sandy Larsen]

Am I the only person who gets a little nervous with this talk of using parts of the scapula to locate vertebrae? Here are the reasons I do:

1. I've been looking at a lot of men's backs using Google Images and it seems pretty clear to me that the shape and location of the scapulae relative to the vertebrae vary fairly significantly from person to person.

2. The scapulae are rather "free floating," particularly along the axis that is the body's mid-line. I am able to move mine up and down by more than an inch... well more it seems. I can do so either by shrugging or by tensing my shoulder muscles. I assume that when lying down, with muscles relaxed, the scapulae could end up anywhere in their "free floating" range, depending upon a number of factors.

Of course, anatomical models make certain assumptions... I imagine one being that the person is standing, straight but with relaxed muscles. But Kennedy's body wasn't bound by those assumptions. And rigor mortis set in at some point, presumably fixing the locations of Kennedy's scapulae.

It's interesting to try and locate vertebrae, and therefore Kennedy's back wound, using the scapulae of models and drawings. But I'm not sure that doing so can lead to very conclusive conclusions.

Correct me if I'm off base here. I'm certainly no authority on anatomy or physiology.

BTW, Wikipedia places the superior angle at T2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_angle_of_scapula

Edited October 31, 2015 by Sandy Larsen

[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,

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?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Am I the only person who gets a little nervous with this talk of using parts of the scapula to locate vertebrae? Here are the reasons I do:

1. I've been looking at a lot of men's backs using Google Images and it seems pretty clear to me that the shape and location of the scapulae relative to the vertebrae vary fairly significantly from person to person.

2. The scapulae are rather "free floating," particularly along the axis that is the body's mid-line. I am able to move mine up and down by more than an inch... well more it seems. I can do so either by shrugging or by tensing my shoulder muscles. I assume that when lying down, with muscles relaxed, the scapulae could end up anywhere in their "free floating" range, depending upon a number of factors.

Of course, anatomical models make certain assumptions... I imagine one being that the person is standing, straight but with relaxed muscles. But Kennedy's body wasn't bound by those assumptions. And rigor mortis set in at some point, presumably fixing the locations of Kennedy's scapulae.

It's interesting to try and locate vertebrae, and therefore Kennedy's back wound, using the scapulae of models and drawings. But I'm not sure that doing so can lead to very conclusive conclusions.

Correct me if I'm off base here. I'm certainly no authority on anatomy or physiology.

BTW, Wikipedia places the superior angle at T2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_angle_of_scapula

Look closely at this photo of the anterior surface of the left scapula, seen in the same Wikipedia article you linked to:

Now compare the level of the acromion to the superior angle, in this photo, to the same level of acromion to superior angle in the drawing provided in the same article:

Can you see the difference? In the photo of the scapula, the acromion is much higher than the superior angle, yet, in the drawing, the superior angle is as high as the acromion; placing the superior angle falsely at the level of the T2 vertebra. Further, this discrepancy cannot be explained away as being due to how much the scapula is rotated in relation to the rest of the body, as the scapula in the photo and the scapula in the drawing are essentially shown at the same angle.

The only difference here is that the artist has chosen to portray the superior angle of the scapula incorrectly in the way it relates to the rest of the scapula.

[Tom Neal]

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.

Sandy,

It's time to get out your tape measure, put on that dress shirt and measure the distance to T3!

Tom

[Robert Prudhomme]

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?

Edited October 31, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Pat Speer]

There is a wide misconception that all skeletons are alike. I used to share this misconception. While studying the wounds, I looked at dozens if not hundreds of anatomy drawings of the neck and rib cage, however, and it became readily apparent that there is a surprising amount of differentiation from skeleton to skeleton and drawing to drawing. On the slide below, I include a chart I found in a medical journal which demonstrates just how much differentiation there can be. They used x-rays to locate the level of the suprasternal notch in relation to the spine, and found that it can rest at the level of T-1 on down to T-4 or below. That's quite a difference.

P.S. Cliff keeps pushing that T-1 is at or just below the base of the neck. Consider the lateral photo on the slide above in the context of both the chart included on the slide, and the HSCA's placement of the throat wound at T-1 or slightly above T-1. And then look to the right in the photo to see where this lines up on Kennedy's back. This proves that T-1 is well down the back, IMO.

Now, some will turn around and claim, but oh, the back wound photo shows the wound to be just below the neck. in re-creating that photo, I found that the body is on its side and that, accordingly, the right shoulder is rolled a bit upwards. This is not the anatomic position. A wound in this location would drop an inch or so when the body is held upright.

Edited October 31, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Robert Prudhomme]

Do tell us all, Pat, how you deduced the back wound photo was taken of JFK lying on his side.

[Cliff Varnell]

This proves that T-1 is well down the back, IMO.

Always using the lateral view optical illusion to push a bald-faced absurdity.

Was C7/T1 also "well down the back"??

There was only about a quarter inch difference between C7/T1 and T1 but you insist on making it a mile.

Unbelievable, literally.

Again, the physical facts of the case are clear:

All this noise about skeletons is fake debate.

Pat, you could do the cause of Historical Justice a favor and get another hobby.

Edited October 31, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

David Von Pein admits that the Croft3 photo only shows "a little bit" of jacket-bunch-up given JFK's visible shirt collar.

DVP made an unguarded observation of physical fact which establishes the following:

JFK was shot in the back at T3; he was shot in the throat from the front.

Too bad Jim DiEugenio isn't as advanced as DVP in the study of the root fact of conspiracy...

[Pat Speer]

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.

Edited October 31, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

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?

[Robert Prudhomme]

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.

Seriously, Pat, that's it??