James R Gordon Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 It is a preposterous idea that the wound is at the level of T1/C7. The image itself may be vague, but the geography of the body is very clear where the hole is located. I suspect it is slightly above T3, but it would be perfectly possible to argue it was at the level of T3 Object 2 is the blood spot. On the back of JFK you will see two labels in yellow A1 + B1. Between these two labels and below the B1 label you will see an outline shape underneath the skin. The shape that is being seen is the outline of part of JFK’s right Scapula. If you look at the anatomical model that is to the right of the image you will see the complete Scapula on the skeleton. The two labels A1 + B1 in cyan on the skeleton point to these same parts that can be seen through JFK’s body that are labelled A1 + B1 in yellow. The A1 point is at the Medial edge of the Scapular spine. The Scapula spine is that ridge crossing the Scapula and the Medial edge is the edge of the Scapula nearest the vertebral column. In order to gain a reference by which to judge the location of the wound, I have drawn a blue line across the model as well as the body from this A1 point. Having done that I now have a base line on the body. This base line is midway between T3 and T4. If you look at the upper right corner of BE 5, you will see the right hand of Commander Boswell holding JFK’s shoulder. I am assuming that it is Humes doing the measuring. I have tried to guess where Costa IR is on the JFK’s body and have drawn a red line across the body, as well as on the model, signifying where I believe Costa IR is. I accept that, this line signifying the position of Costa IR might be slightly out, but it will not be very far out. This red line now gives me an upper limit beyond which this wound is not located. What can be said, for certain, is that the wound lies between those two lines. If you look at Boswell’s right hand [ I assume it is Humes that is measuring ] you will see that the nail of his pinkie, just to the right of the label A1, is roughly on the same plane as the wound. I suspect the position of this wound is above T3 but below T2. One thing is for certain it is nowhere near C7/T1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lifton 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. I am curious as to why you "do not believe" the back wound was created post-mortem. I'm sure you are aware that no one at Dallas reported such a wound, in the records created that day (or in the testimony given in March 1964). But, in addition, we have the statement made by Perry, under oath. Perry said that when Humes called him (late that night or early the next day, it matters not which date), Humes asked him (i.e., asked Perry) if he had made any wounds in the back. Why would Humes ask such a question, if he did not have a question about the legitimacy of the wound? Also, why --in the written autopsy report--were modifiers added, so that the typed version reads that the wound was "presumably of entry." My question: are you taking these factors into account, in stating that you "do not believe" the back wound was made post-mortem? DSL 10/26/15 - 3:40 PM PDT Los Angeles, California 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. 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? I suffer from C7/T1 Derangement Syndrome, I must confess. It's the most mild of JFK-related maladies, imho... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted October 27, 2015 Author Share Posted October 27, 2015 "I suffer from C7/T1 Derangement Syndrome, I must confess. It's the most mild of JFK-related maladies, imho..." Hey, that's okay, buddy, love ya anyways! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted October 27, 2015 Author Share Posted October 27, 2015 It is a preposterous idea that the wound is at the level of T1/C7. The image itself may be vague, but the geography of the body is very clear where the hole is located. I suspect it is slightly above T3, but it would be perfectly possible to argue it was at the level of T3 Object 2 is the blood spot. On the back of JFK you will see two labels in yellow A1 + B1. Between these two labels and below the B1 label you will see an outline shape underneath the skin. The shape that is being seen is the outline of part of JFK’s right Scapula. If you look at the anatomical model that is to the right of the image you will see the complete Scapula on the skeleton. The two labels A1 + B1 in cyan on the skeleton point to these same parts that can be seen through JFK’s body that are labelled A1 + B1 in yellow. The A1 point is at the Medial edge of the Scapular spine. The Scapula spine is that ridge crossing the Scapula and the Medial edge is the edge of the Scapula nearest the vertebral column. In order to gain a reference by which to judge the location of the wound, I have drawn a blue line across the model as well as the body from this A1 point. Having done that I now have a base line on the body. This base line is midway between T3 and T4. If you look at the upper right corner of BE 5, you will see the right hand of Commander Boswell holding JFK’s shoulder. I am assuming that it is Humes doing the measuring. I have tried to guess where Costa IR is on the JFK’s body and have drawn a red line across the body, as well as on the model, signifying where I believe Costa IR is. I accept that, this line signifying the position of Costa IR might be slightly out, but it will not be very far out. This red line now gives me an upper limit beyond which this wound is not located. What can be said, for certain, is that the wound lies between those two lines. If you look at Boswell’s right hand [ I assume it is Humes that is measuring ] you will see that the nail of his pinkie, just to the right of the label A1, is roughly on the same plane as the wound. I suspect the position of this wound is above T3 but below T2. One thing is for certain it is nowhere near C7/T1. Hi James Well done! I couldn't have explained things any better than that. I'm finding it a bit difficult to believe how many years we have been looking right at a photo of a bullet hole near the level of T3, and have believed it to be at C7/T1, simply because that is where Humes told us it was. As you say, the spine of the scapula is the only really prominent landmark in that area, and there is no mistaking it in that photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 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. I am curious as to why you "do not believe" the back wound was created post-mortem. I'm sure you are aware that no one at Dallas reported such a wound, in the records created that day (or in the testimony given in March 1964). But, in addition, we have the statement made by Perry, under oath. Perry said that when Humes called him (late that night or early the next day, it matters not which date), Humes asked him (i.e., asked Perry) if he had made any wounds in the back. Why would Humes ask such a question, if he did not have a question about the legitimacy of the wound? Also, why --in the written autopsy report--were modifiers added, so that the typed version reads that the wound was "presumably of entry." My question: are you taking these factors into account, in stating that you "do not believe" the back wound was made post-mortem? DSL 10/26/15 - 3:40 PM PDT Los Angeles, California You said: "Humes asked him (i.e., asked Perry) if he had made any wounds in the back." Humes didn't really use the word "wounds," did he? I would think he'd use a word like "incisions." That's probably what you meant to say. My guess as to why Humes asked Perry if he had made wounds/incisions in the back is because he couldn't figure the back wound out. If I'm right, that would support either David's theory, that the wound was man-made, or Robert's theory, that the bullet was frangible and had disintegrated If James Jenkins is to be believed -- that the pleural membrane was intact -- then David's "man-made" theory gets the thumbs up. But if Lt. Lipsey is to be believed -- that among other things the organs were cut up looking for the bullet -- then Robert's "frangible bullet" theory gets the thumbs up. Both Jenkins and Lipsey seem to be reliable witnesses. The only way I can think of to square their respective testimonies is to conclude that Hume's search for the bullet, including cutting up organs, was a charade. On the other hand, if it were an act, surely Jenkins would have wondered why they were looking for a bullet in the chest cavity given that the pleural membrane was intact. I'm rather stumped by all this. The problem boils down to whose testimony to believe, Jenkins's or Lipsey's. If Lipsey is still alive this would be a good question to ask him... about the search for the back-wound bullet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 David Lifton, I'm inclined to believe the shooters deliberately shot JFK in the back in order to establish he was shot from behind. I admit that even if I'm correct about establishing there was a shot from behind, the back wound could have been caused post-mortem. I would not bet, however, the shooters' plan was to let the back wound be caused post-mortem. There was too much riding on a provable shot from behind. It's interesting to me that the back wound, however caused, is the only unambiguous wound of entrance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 James Gordon, You assume the figure in the photo is that of JFK. On what do you base this assumption? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 Robert Prudhomme, This diary of yours, about autopsy landmarks, goes to the heart of the matter. The photo you present is outrageous. It has been offered up many times. What does it tell a reasonable observer? Nothing. Yet it has been marched out out over 50 years as proving something. It proves nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted October 28, 2015 Author Share Posted October 28, 2015 (edited) Robert Prudhomme, This diary of yours, about autopsy landmarks, goes to the heart of the matter. The photo you present is outrageous. It has been offered up many times. What does it tell a reasonable observer? Nothing. Yet it has been marched out out over 50 years as proving something. It proves nothing. This may very well be true. On the other hand, this may actually be a photo of JFK's back. The only alteration may be the hiding of the large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head. The entrance wound in the back may be genuine. When this photo was taken, there may not have been a need yet to move the back wound up to the level of C7/T1, from the real location at T3, to accommodate the throat wound as an exit wound. However, when this need arose, a careful study of this photo would tell the conspirators all they had to do was tell the public they were looking at a C7/T1 entrance wound, and the public would believe it. Why not? It seems to have worked quite well for all of these decades. Are you able to look at a photo of someone's back, especially one such as this with the head bent backwards, and pinpoint precisely where C7/T1 is located? If the entrance wound is genuine, and that is JFK, this photo tells us a world of information. Edited October 28, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 It is a preposterous idea that the wound is at the level of T1/C7. The image itself may be vague, but the geography of the body is very clear where the hole is located. I suspect it is slightly above T3, but it would be perfectly possible to argue it was at the level of T3 I suspect the position of this wound is above T3 but below T2. One thing is for certain it is nowhere near C7/T1. James, Excellent post! Really great graphic of the skeleton. Did you create that with an anatomy simulation program (or whatever it's actually called)? Is there any chance you could overlay the graphic on the Fox photo so that JFK's body is still visible? Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Tom, Thanks for your kind words. Here is my first attempt to blend the two images. The black line is my means to find a common position by which to link the two files. I used the point where Dr Boswell has his hand on JFK’s right Clavicle as the position to run the line. In order to make it easier to see I coloured the wound in red. I made one error in my original post. It appears the medial edge of the Scapular ridge is at the same level as T3. Originally I suggest that ridge was between T3 and T4. The lighter coloured vertebra is T3. I feel the wound is just slightly above T3, but T3 is as good as any definition of its position. There may be some errors in the image, but I feel it is pretty close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 The black line is my means to find a common position by which to link the two files. I used the point where Dr Boswell has his hand on JFKs right Clavicle as the position to run the line. I made one error in my original post. It appears the medial edge of the Scapular ridge is at the same level as T3. Originally I suggest that ridge was between T3 and T4. There may be some errors in the image, but I feel it is pretty close. Many years ago I used Photoshop to do something similar, but I had to use cutouts of vertebra, ribs, clavicle and scapula. The up side of this method was that I could make slight adjustments in the angle of each bone to account for posture. The down side was my concern that the sum of my "slight" changes had reduced the overall accuracy of my attempt. My recollection is that the resultant wound location was just low enough to pass below the 3rd rib, which is close to Paul O'Donnor's sketch which depicts a wound exactly between the 3rd and 4th ribs: The Fox photo that I had at the time was quite dark and with such high contrast, I wasn't certain which of the circular 'spots' was the actual wound, and which were blood clots, so I decided to make my composite. At first glance I had thought that the largest spot was NOT the wound because it appeared too high relative to the shoulder. Once I began to overlay the bone structure it was obvious that it was at least very close to T3 as was stated in Burkley's Death Certificate dated 11-23-1963. IMO, the position of JFK's head has fooled many into believing the wound was considerably higher on his back than it actually is. To my eye his head is rotated to the right, tilted quite a bit to the right, and based upon the wrinkling of the flesh on his neck, his head has been elevated as far as was possible. This of course would shorten the distance between the hairline on the back of his neck and the back wound that HAD to be depicted as a "shoulder wound." "They" needed to connect this back wound to the much higher throat wound, so I doubt the manipulation of his head is coincidental. I've stated the above many times over the years without convincing anyone, so I am pleased to see that our efforts have produced the same result. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 (edited) deleted - wrong thread Edited October 28, 2015 by Chris Newton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted October 28, 2015 Author Share Posted October 28, 2015 The black line is my means to find a common position by which to link the two files. I used the point where Dr Boswell has his hand on JFKs right Clavicle as the position to run the line. I made one error in my original post. It appears the medial edge of the Scapular ridge is at the same level as T3. Originally I suggest that ridge was between T3 and T4. There may be some errors in the image, but I feel it is pretty close. Many years ago I used Photoshop to do something similar, but I had to use cutouts of vertebra, ribs, clavicle and scapula. The up side of this method was that I could make slight adjustments in the angle of each bone to account for posture. The down side was my concern that the sum of my "slight" changes had reduced the overall accuracy of my attempt. My recollection is that the resultant wound location was just low enough to pass below the 3rd rib, which is close to Paul O'Donnor's sketch which depicts a wound exactly between the 3rd and 4th ribs: The Fox photo that I had at the time was quite dark and with such high contrast, I wasn't certain which of the circular 'spots' was the actual wound, and which were blood clots, so I decided to make my composite. At first glance I had thought that the largest spot was NOT the wound because it appeared too high relative to the shoulder. Once I began to overlay the bone structure it was obvious that it was at least very close to T3 as was stated in Burkley's Death Certificate dated 11-23-1963. IMO, the position of JFK's head has fooled many into believing the wound was considerably higher on his back than it actually is. To my eye his head is rotated to the right, tilted quite a bit to the right, and based upon the wrinkling of the flesh on his neck, his head has been elevated as far as was possible. This of course would shorten the distance between the hairline on the back of his neck and the back wound that HAD to be depicted as a "shoulder wound." "They" needed to connect this back wound to the much higher throat wound, so I doubt the manipulation of his head is coincidental. I've stated the above many times over the years without convincing anyone, so I am pleased to see that our efforts have produced the same result. Tom I am somewhat late with my findings but, I have also come to the conclusion that manipulation of JFK's head made it possible for us to believe the back wound was higher than it actually was. There seems to be a great deal of discrepancy between anatomical drawings of the back of the human thorax. While many show the scapular ridge (spine) beginning at about the level of T4/T5 vertebrae, many others show it beginning at the level of T3 vertebra. I will try to find out which is accurate. 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