Brace, Shirt, Blood and Bullet-hole

[John Dolva]

I realise it looks like that, Cliff, but I wonder.

If you look at the image J.William posted you get an idea of the curvature in this area.

Take that into account, plus the head being tilted back in the autopsy photo which shortens the look of the neck.

Then consider the shirt layed on to follow this outline and not flat as in the shirt photo, it's possible that there is actually not such a great separation.

[Cliff Varnell]

I realise it looks like that, Cliff, but I wonder.

If you look at the image J.William posted you get an idea of the curvature in this area.

Take that into account, plus the head being tilted back in the autopsy photo which shortens the look of the neck.

Then consider the shirt layed on to follow this outline and not flat as in the shirt photo, it's possible that there is actually not such a great separation.

There's no need to guess about any of this.

Here's JFK standing with his head tilted slightly forward and turned to the right.

Note the shoulder-blades. Note the top of the shoulder blade was about three

inches below the bottom of the collar -- the jacket collar being 1.25 inches.

A wound 4 inches below the bottom of the collar would be just below the

upper border of the shoulder blade -- right where the eyewitnesses

and the contemporaneous documents put it.

In your analysis above you mention factors such as the tilt of JFK's

head and the curvature of the spine. As the photo I cited shows,

these factors would account for differences measured in millimeters,

not inches.

Edited July 28, 2006 by Cliff Varnell

[Antti Hynonen]

Cliff:

How many inches below the wound as depicted in the "autopsy" photo of Kennedy's back, do you say the actual back wound was?

Why do you think the Rydberg drawings were drawn to show the wound in the neck, when the autopsy photo shows it 2 inches lower, and the clothing supports yet a third location? Why the excess confusion, and not just one altered location?

Antti

[Thomas H. Purvis]

the concept of number of matching points is helpful.

With this scaling and orientation there are a number of matches.

One can see by looking at the ruler that it is fairly flat (what I mean is that the both ends of the ruler are similarly sized), and as it is lying on the body without noticable significant depression one can infer that the body here in the area around the wound is also flattish, so the dimensions are not much distorted by perspective changes. So the matches in this area can be taken seriously (IMO).

The matches that are illustrated here are by no means all in that area.

for checking this suggested orientation and scaling, a big version is here:

http://files.photojerk.com/yanndee/2.png

One can print out and cut out and check on a light box, or with software, cut paste layering with transparency.

then the upper outline of a spread-out shirt is as indicated in the center image.

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/BE1_HI.JPG

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/zeroang.jpg

John;

The wrinkle lines of the neck in relationship to other anotomical features and items, when compared with the back wound photo, provide considerable insight into where the location of the back wound actually was.

[Cliff Varnell]

the concept of number of matching points is helpful.

With this scaling and orientation there are a number of matches.

One can see by looking at the ruler that it is fairly flat (what I mean is that the both ends of the ruler are similarly sized), and as it is lying on the body without noticable significant depression one can infer that the body here in the area around the wound is also flattish, so the dimensions are not much distorted by perspective changes. So the matches in this area can be taken seriously (IMO).

The matches that are illustrated here are by no means all in that area.

for checking this suggested orientation and scaling, a big version is here:

http://files.photojerk.com/yanndee/2.png

One can print out and cut out and check on a light box, or with software, cut paste layering with transparency.

then the upper outline of a spread-out shirt is as indicated in the center image.

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/BE1_HI.JPG

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/zeroang.jpg

John;

The wrinkle lines of the neck in relationship to other anotomical features and items, when compared with the back wound photo, provide considerable insight into where the location of the back wound actually was.

And the Dealey Plaza photos showing JFK's jacket dropping an inch PROVES the back

wound was at T3.

You and John can try to re-invent the wheel all you want by super-imposing

the photo of a bloody shirt on a photo of a corpse, but the photos of the

actual John F. Kennedy in Dealey Plaza trump this exercise.

Millimeters are not inches, gentlemen.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

I realise it looks like that, Cliff, but I wonder.

If you look at the image J.William posted you get an idea of the curvature in this area.

Take that into account, plus the head being tilted back in the autopsy photo which shortens the look of the neck.

Then consider the shirt layed on to follow this outline and not flat as in the shirt photo, it's possible that there is actually not such a great separation.

John;

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0030a.htm

"situated on the upper rt. posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula".

The "upper"/superior border of the scapula, generally lies almost parallel to the transverse process of the T2 vertebrae.

Therefore, merely from this anatomical refence from "GRAY'S ANATOMY", one can see that "slightly above" would place the entry point, as measured in the neutral position, at a point which was at some point higher than the T2 vertebrae.

The position of the upper/superior border of the scapula can also be located in reference to the shoulder and trapezius muscles of the "normal" male.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff:

How many inches below the wound as depicted in the "autopsy" photo of Kennedy's back, do you say the actual back wound was?

Why do you think the Rydberg drawings were drawn to show the wound in the neck, when the autopsy photo shows it 2 inches lower, and the clothing supports yet a third location? Why the excess confusion, and not just one altered location?

Antti

Excellent questions, Annti.

There have been FOUR official wound locations -- first it was at T3 as per the

death certificate/autopsy face sheet/FBI autopsy report.

Then in Humes initial hand-written autopsy report he fudged too little and put the

wound "just above the upper border of the scapula" -- a location consistent with T2.

http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/back_diagram.gif

The third location appeared in pen on the autopsy face sheet -- 14cm below the

mastoid process. Recording a measurement in pen is a violation of autopsy

protocol, whereas the valid, verified, contemporaneous marking on the body

diagram in pencil put the back wound at just below T3.

The 14cm-below-mastoid location is consistent with C7/T1, as Wecht discovered

for the HSCA.

The final autopsy report as published in the WCR lists both the just-above-scapula

and the 14-cm-below-mastoid measurements.

And then there is the Humes-directed Rydberg drawing, which puts the wound

above C7.

Why 4 different locations? Because without an actual re-enactment Humes

and Specter had no idea what location would actually work, short of a

re-enactment.

That's why Specter was so hot to stage a re-enactment in Dallas, they had

3 different options for the SBT (T3 clearly didn't work, and is prima facie

evidence of conspiracy) and couldn't be sure which one was the best sell.

Fox 5 shows a "wound" about the level of C7/T1, and there is another artifact in the

photo a bit more than two inches lower (to answer your

first question), and to the left.

The lower artifact is between the top of the shoulder blade and the

spine -- right where the clothing holes, the autopsy face sheet, the

death certificate, and the witness testimony put it.

The high wound purportedly shows an abrasion collar consistent

with a bullet that entered on an upward trajectory.

That should send up some red flags -- was JFK shot in the back

from someone hiding in the trunk? Of course not.

Also note the intact back of JFK's head in Fox 5. Isn't that inconsistent

with the condition of the back of the head in the autopsy photo below?

Every piece of "official" evidence has two wound locations depicted,

as has been discussed earlier.

Why, you ask, didn't they just settle on one location?

They couldn't be sure which trajectory would work!

That's why Specter was hot to have the Dealey Plaza reenactment in

May of '64. But the FBI marked the "wound" in the jacket consistent

with the actual T3 backwound, thumbing its (Hoover's) nose at the WC

and everyone else -- while Specter looked like an idiot replicating

the Rydberg location.

A majority of the American people have never bought this.

Edited July 28, 2006 by Cliff Varnell

[Thomas H. Purvis]

I realise it looks like that, Cliff, but I wonder.

If you look at the image J.William posted you get an idea of the curvature in this area.

Take that into account, plus the head being tilted back in the autopsy photo which shortens the look of the neck.

Then consider the shirt layed on to follow this outline and not flat as in the shirt photo, it's possible that there is actually not such a great separation.

John;

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0030a.htm

"situated on the upper rt. posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula".

The "upper"/superior border of the scapula, generally lies almost parallel to the transverse process of the T2 vertebrae.

Therefore, merely from this anatomical refence from "GRAY'S ANATOMY", one can see that "slightly above" would place the entry point, as measured in the neutral position, at a point which was at some point higher than the T2 vertebrae.

The position of the upper/superior border of the scapula can also be located in reference to the shoulder and trapezius muscles of the "normal" male.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

I realise it looks like that, Cliff, but I wonder.

If you look at the image J.William posted you get an idea of the curvature in this area.

Take that into account, plus the head being tilted back in the autopsy photo which shortens the look of the neck.

Then consider the shirt layed on to follow this outline and not flat as in the shirt photo, it's possible that there is actually not such a great separation.

John;

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0030a.htm

"situated on the upper rt. posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula".

The "upper"/superior border of the scapula, generally lies almost parallel to the transverse process of the T2 vertebrae.

Therefore, merely from this anatomical refence from "GRAY'S ANATOMY", one can see that "slightly above" would place the entry point, as measured in the neutral position, at a point which was at some point higher than the T2 vertebrae.

The position of the upper/superior border of the scapula can also be located in reference to the shoulder and trapezius muscles of the "normal" male.

Since others have been gracious enough to provide excellent copies of the "Croft" photo which clearly demonstrates the fold/overlap in the coat of JFK at the back of his neck, perhaps this additional drawing from Gray's Anatomy, coupled with the autopsy photo of the back entry wound, may assist those who apparantly have no understanding of exactly how low on the back the T3 vertebrae is located.

[John Dolva]

Tom, I haven't caught up with you (and Cliff) yet. I'm still working on getting the shirt and back/neck profile right. The info you and Cliff are posting will be just the thing to help those who want to work things out for themselves, much gratitude there.

Have you got a better shirt photo. and do you know if shirt size, material, model etc is known? (I'd like to try to reconstruct it with some red paint with the stripes right etc.)

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom, I haven't caught up with you (and Cliff) yet. I'm still working on getting the shirt and back/neck profile right. The info you and Cliff are posting will be just the thing to help those who want to work things out for themselves, much gratitude there.

Have you got a better shirt photo. and do you know if shirt size, material, model etc is known? (I'd like to try to reconstruct it with some red paint with the stripes right etc.)

So far, have found only the front view photo of the shirt which I received from the Archives.

Having dug through the boxes of this stuff so many times and moved stuf around without any accurate way of re-filing it, it long ago became merely a "dig & search" exercise to find any of the stuff.

The one drawing from "GRAY'S ANATOMY" which demonstrates the normal contour of the trapezius muscles of the neck/back/shoulder should be of some interest.

JFK had well developed muscular structure in this region, and as you have stated, a shirt laying flat, as opposed to a shirt covering a contouring mound of muscle, is a completely different thing.

My aplogy for "hijacking" your posting, just wanted to keep it alive with a few facts until such time as you may complete your stain comparison work.

It is recognized that to some, "GRAY'S ANATOMY" would probably be some additional conspiratorial plot to obfuscate the true location of T3, etc.

Nevertheless, one can easily see:

"A"--------Upper/Superior border of the scapula

T3 Location in relationship to back/shoulders

T1 & C7 locations just above the upper border of the scapula.

[John Dolva]

Thank you Tom, that's fine with me. The information provided will a path to follow. Is the front shirt photo in color? The reason is to use as a color reference. Also I'd like to make some precise measurements of the stripes and their separation to confirm scaling etc in order to buttress the findings re the stains (I should say alleged stainfindings at this point, as I have no confirmation beyond my own observations, and theres no reason to base conclusions on just one persons observations. On the other hand, should it be confirmed then it seems reasonable that one must live with the implications)

[Cliff Varnell]

I realise it looks like that, Cliff, but I wonder.

If you look at the image J.William posted you get an idea of the curvature in this area.

Take that into account, plus the head being tilted back in the autopsy photo which shortens the look of the neck.

Then consider the shirt layed on to follow this outline and not flat as in the shirt photo, it's possible that there is actually not such a great separation.

You *say* it's possible but don't you think it'd be a good idea not

to make that assumption?

Occam's Razor, John, strip away the assumptions.

You should be all over this first, before you run some "home tests."

"Home tests" don't trump actual photos of Kennedy.

So, is it possible to make a 2 to 3 inch difference because of "the curvature

in the area," and "the tilt of the head?"

2 to 3 inches? Or a difference of 2 to 3 millimeters?

Here's JFK in Fort Worth 11/22/63 (hit the enlarge):

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/c/c...9-525-16-63.jpg

Notice the folds in his neck? His head was tilted up slightly, and folds

formed in his neck.

Here's a photo of JFK that debunks the assumptions you and Mr. Purvis

make.

Note the top of JFK's shoulder blades. According to you there is an

extreme curvature between the shoulder blades and the bottom of

the collar.

According to Mr. Purvis the base of JFK's neck was just above

those shoulder blades...an egregious absurdity.

And it is noted that neither you, nor Mr. Purvis, care to address

the fact that JFK's jacket dropped an inch in Dealey Plaza.

But the Parlor Game must go on -- hey, I'm playing -- so continue...

[Jack White]

I realise it looks like that, Cliff, but I wonder.

If you look at the image J.William posted you get an idea of the curvature in this area.

Take that into account, plus the head being tilted back in the autopsy photo which shortens the look of the neck.

Then consider the shirt layed on to follow this outline and not flat as in the shirt photo, it's possible that there is actually not such a great separation.

There's no need to guess about any of this.

Here's JFK standing with his head tilted slightly forward and turned to the right.

Note the shoulder-blades. Note the top of the shoulder blade was about three

inches below the bottom of the collar -- the jacket collar being 1.25 inches.

A wound 4 inches below the bottom of the collar would be just below the

upper border of the shoulder blade -- right where the eyewitnesses

and the contemporaneous documents put it.

In your analysis above you mention factors such as the tilt of JFK's

head and the curvature of the spine. As the photo I cited shows,

these factors would account for differences measured in millimeters,

not inches.

That photo cannot be in Fort Worth. JFK made no speech in front

of F.W.Woolworth, which was at Fourth and Houston. His only outdoor

speech was at Eighth and Main.

Jack

[Cliff Varnell]

I realise it looks like that, Cliff, but I wonder.

If you look at the image J.William posted you get an idea of the curvature in this area.

Take that into account, plus the head being tilted back in the autopsy photo which shortens the look of the neck.

Then consider the shirt layed on to follow this outline and not flat as in the shirt photo, it's possible that there is actually not such a great separation.

There's no need to guess about any of this.

Here's JFK standing with his head tilted slightly forward and turned to the right.

Note the shoulder-blades. Note the top of the shoulder blade was about three

inches below the bottom of the collar -- the jacket collar being 1.25 inches.

A wound 4 inches below the bottom of the collar would be just below the

upper border of the shoulder blade -- right where the eyewitnesses

and the contemporaneous documents put it.

In your analysis above you mention factors such as the tilt of JFK's

head and the curvature of the spine. As the photo I cited shows,

these factors would account for differences measured in millimeters,

not inches.

That photo cannot be in Fort Worth. JFK made no speech in front

of F.W.Woolworth, which was at Fourth and Houston. His only outdoor

speech was at Eighth and Main.

Jack

Jack, I didn't cite that photo as being in Forth Worth. I cited this photo as

being in Fort Worth:

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/c/c...9-525-16-63.jpg