Robert Prudhomme Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 (edited) The photo below has been shown on JFK assassination forums thousands of times, and it is widely accepted that the upper "spot" is an entry wound, presumably made by a bullet, at about the level where cervical vertebra C7 comes into contact with thoracic vertebra T1. Now, outside of the fact the autopsy results from Bethesda told us this wound was at the level of C7/T1, how could we actually prove this was the level the bullet entered the back at, simply by looking at this photo? Edited October 26, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 The photo below has been shown on JFK assassination thousands of times, and it is widely accepted that the upper "spot" is an entry wound, presumably made by a bullet, at about the level where cervical vertebra C7 comes into contact with thoracic vertebra T1. Now, outside of the fact the autopsy results from Bethesda told us this wound was at the level of C7/T1, how could we actually prove this was the level the bullet entered the back at, simply by looking at this photo? You can't. The properly prepared medical evidence -- Burkley's death certificate, the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil -- as well as the holes in the clothes and the overwhelming witness testimony put the wound at T3. JFK was shot in the back at T3. Period. The bullet holes in the clothes are definitive landmarks for the T3 back wound. Improperly prepared autopsy photos with no chain of possession do not count as evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted October 26, 2015 Author Share Posted October 26, 2015 The photo below has been shown on JFK assassination thousands of times, and it is widely accepted that the upper "spot" is an entry wound, presumably made by a bullet, at about the level where cervical vertebra C7 comes into contact with thoracic vertebra T1. Now, outside of the fact the autopsy results from Bethesda told us this wound was at the level of C7/T1, how could we actually prove this was the level the bullet entered the back at, simply by looking at this photo? You can't. The properly prepared medical evidence -- Burkley's death certificate, the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil -- as well as the holes in the clothes and the overwhelming witness testimony put the wound at T3. JFK was shot in the back at T3. Period. The bullet holes in the clothes are definitive landmarks for the T3 back wound. Improperly prepared autopsy photos with no chain of possession do not count as evidence. Hi Cliff I, too, believe the entry wound was at T3. However, I believe this photo actually is showing us an entry wound at T3, and we have just believed it was showing us an entry wound at C7/T1 because that is what the autopsy results told us. There are anatomical landmarks that are faintly visible in this photo that will back up what I am putting forward here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 (edited) The photo below has been shown on JFK assassination thousands of times, and it is widely accepted that the upper "spot" is an entry wound, presumably made by a bullet, at about the level where cervical vertebra C7 comes into contact with thoracic vertebra T1. Now, outside of the fact the autopsy results from Bethesda told us this wound was at the level of C7/T1, how could we actually prove this was the level the bullet entered the back at, simply by looking at this photo? You can't. The properly prepared medical evidence -- Burkley's death certificate, the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil -- as well as the holes in the clothes and the overwhelming witness testimony put the wound at T3. JFK was shot in the back at T3. Period. The bullet holes in the clothes are definitive landmarks for the T3 back wound. Improperly prepared autopsy photos with no chain of possession do not count as evidence. Hi Cliff I, too, believe the entry wound was at T3. However, I believe this photo actually is showing us an entry wound at T3, and we have just believed it was showing us an entry wound at C7/T1 because that is what the autopsy results told us. Bob, I must respectfully and fundamentally disagree. There are two kinds of autopsy evidence -- that which was properly prepared, and that which was not. The C7/T1 wound rationale was based on measurements which violated 3 different autopsy protocols. They used a movable landmark, the mastoid process, instead of a fixed landmark; they used a cranial landmark for a thoracic wound; the measurements were recorded in pen, not in pencil as per proper autopsy protocol. The BOH autopsy photo violates numerous protocols -- there's no evidence it's Jack Kennedy in that photo; the use of the ruler is anti-scientific, and there is no chain of possession for any of the extant autopsy photos. There are anatomical landmarks that are faintly visible in this photo that will back up what I am putting forward here. You can polish this turd all you want but it's still a turd. And a fake debate. That JFK was shot in the back at T3 should be the subtext for ANY discussion of the murder of JFK. Edited October 26, 2015 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 (edited) What is the ruler there for. It doesn't appear to be measuring anything. What is it hiding underneath it? Note that two different people are holding it. I wonder why. Edited October 26, 2015 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Does the blue line intersecting the bullet hole and chalk mark represent the same location in both photos? chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Does the blue line intersecting the bullet hole and chalk mark represent the same location in both photos? chris That's a big ol' YESSIR, it does...T3...the true foundation of any discussion relating to the murder of JFK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted October 26, 2015 Author Share Posted October 26, 2015 The photo below has been shown on JFK assassination thousands of times, and it is widely accepted that the upper "spot" is an entry wound, presumably made by a bullet, at about the level where cervical vertebra C7 comes into contact with thoracic vertebra T1. Now, outside of the fact the autopsy results from Bethesda told us this wound was at the level of C7/T1, how could we actually prove this was the level the bullet entered the back at, simply by looking at this photo? You can't. The properly prepared medical evidence -- Burkley's death certificate, the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil -- as well as the holes in the clothes and the overwhelming witness testimony put the wound at T3. JFK was shot in the back at T3. Period. The bullet holes in the clothes are definitive landmarks for the T3 back wound. Improperly prepared autopsy photos with no chain of possession do not count as evidence. Hi Cliff I, too, believe the entry wound was at T3. However, I believe this photo actually is showing us an entry wound at T3, and we have just believed it was showing us an entry wound at C7/T1 because that is what the autopsy results told us. Bob, I must respectfully and fundamentally disagree. There are two kinds of autopsy evidence -- that which was properly prepared, and that which was not. The C7/T1 wound rationale was based on measurements which violated 3 different autopsy protocols. They used a movable landmark, the mastoid process, instead of a fixed landmark; they used a cranial landmark for a thoracic wound; the measurements were recorded in pen, not in pencil as per proper autopsy protocol. The BOH autopsy photo violates numerous protocols -- there's no evidence it's Jack Kennedy in that photo; the use of the ruler is anti-scientific, and there is no chain of possession for any of the extant autopsy photos. There are anatomical landmarks that are faintly visible in this photo that will back up what I am putting forward here. You can polish this turd all you want but it's still a turd. And a fake debate. That JFK was shot in the back at T3 should be the subtext for ANY discussion of the murder of JFK. Cliff Can you not comprehend when someone is agreeing with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 That JFK was shot in the back at T3 should be the subtext for ANY discussion of the murder of JFK. I take it that you reject the idea (discussed elsewhere) that the back wound was created, with corresponding holes created in the clothes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 I agree with Cliff, and I do not believe the back wound was created post-mortem. The photo, as Robert Prudhomme might say, is garbage in. Any conclusions drawn from the photo are garbage out. I especially agree with the statement that there's no proof whatsoever the photo is a picture of JFK's remains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 I think the lesson of the ruler is that you can't rule anything out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Rulers are meant for measuring. The ruler in the photo measures nothing. It is a ruler without portfolio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Can't it be argued that the ruler is measuring the distance between the base of the neck (wherever that is) and the back wound? The problem is we can't see the numbers on the ruler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Ron, Answer your own question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Ron, Answer your own question. Then the answer is yes, it's conceivable, given the fact, known from other autopsy photos, that Humes et al didn't care if their autopsy photos made any sense or not. In the case of the ruler, they couldn't care less if the numbers on the ruler are completely invisible in the photo. 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