JFK x-ray for Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

One shooter (as I also believe) the bullet that entered the back(JFK) had to exit the throat. If it didn't the go on to hit JBC, where did it go?

Aren't you making an unsupported assumption that the back shot

was a conventional round?

When you start your argument with the assumption your conclusion is

correct -- it's circular logic, Richard.

And keep in mind, as you push your pet theories, that you dismiss out of

hand the testimony of the half-dozen people who described the throat wound

as an entrance and the 15 who put the back wound at T3 or below.

20 different people got a hands on view of these wounds (Parkland nurse Bowron

saw both) and they all got it wrong?

Mass hallucination?

Mass incompetence?

Mass prevarication?

[Evan Marshall]

In the Eye Of History

William Matson Law

Interview with James Sibert

Sibert: Well I - that single bullet theory - when they had me come up to the AARB deposition there at College Park, I said, "Well before I come up there, I want you to know one thing. I'm not an advocate of the single-bullet theory." I said, "I don't believe it because I stood there two foot from where that bullet wound was in the back, the one that they eventually moved up to the base of the neck. I was there when Boswell made his face sheet and located that wound exactly as we described it in the FD 302." And I said, "Furthermore, when they examined the clothing after it got into the Bureau, those bullet holes in the shirt and the coat were down 5 inches there. So there is no way that bullet could have gone that low then rise up and come out the front of the neck, zigzag and hit Connally and then end up pristine on a stretcher over there in Dallas."

Law: You don't believe in the single bullet theory. Period.

Sibert: There is no way I will swallow that. They can't put enough sugar on it for me to bite it. That bullet was too low in the back.

And from Paul O'Connor in the same book:

O’Connor: When we started an autopsy, the first thing we always did…was to weigh and measure the body. We’d check for any scars, contusions, any abnormalities, and so on. But in this case, we didn’t turn the body over to look at the back while we were doing that. Finally we turned the body over, and there was a bullet wound—an entrance wound—in his back, on the right side of his spinal column. To emphasize where it was in proximity to the rest of his body: if you bend your neck down and feel back, you feel a lump and that’s the seventh cervical vertebra. This bullet wound was about 3 inches down and an inch or two to the right of the seventh cervical vertebra. I remember there was a big gush of surprise that nobody actually thought about turning him over right away, you know after we had done our initial investigation of the president’s body. Dr Humes took his finger and poked it in the hole---the bullet wound hole, the entrance wound hole---and said it didn’t go anywhere. There was a very big argument, a lot of consternation, that he shouldn’t have stuck his finger in the hole.

Law: What difference would it make?

O’Connor: Well, when you take your finger and stick it into a bullet wound, you avulse the wound.

Law: You think that happened when he stuck his finger in the back?

O’Connor: Yes

Law: It could have create a false track:

O’Connor: Well, not necessarily a false track as much as a false impression of the entrance of the missile that went into his back.

Law: Who was arguing”

O’Connor: Dr Finck strongly objected to Commander Humes doing what he did. He(Finck) took a sound, which is a probe, a metal malleable, non rigid probe. We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in so far. I’d say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn’t go in any further than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostals muscles---the muscles between the ribs. The bullet went in through the muscles, didn’t touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit the back of the pleural cavity and stopped. So we didn’t know the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That’s what happened at the time. We traced the bullet path down and found that it didn’t traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other side of the body.

Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?

O’Connor: Absolutely

Law: And these doctors knew that?

O’Connor: Absolutely

Law: While it happened?

O’Connor: Absolutely. And another thing we found out while the autopsy was proceeding, that he was shot from a high building, which meant the bullet had to be traveling in a downward trajectory and we also realized that this bullet is what we call in the military a “short shot”. It didn’t have the power to push the projectile clear through the body. If it had…it would have come out through his heart and through his sternum.

O’Connor: We were told(in the report of the Warren Commission) that he was shot in the back and it came out his throat. That didn’t jibe with what we saw, and when I say we, I’m talking about Dr. Boswell and myself.

When shown the photo of the back by Law:

O’Connor: That’s a very accurate portrayal of the entrance wound to his back, which as you know, is quite a ways down from his neck. At the angle he was shot…the laws of physics will not let a bullet strike there and go up and go out his throat…I helped roll him over…one of these arms might have been mine, because I was at the head of the body and helped roll him over. It wasn’t rolled over until quite a ways into the autopsy, and that’s when they discovered the bullet wound.

O’Connor: Now I had this drawing made at the University of Florida showing the back wound and this is exactly what happened. The bullet struck him in the back, it passed through the outer layer of muscle and through the inner layer of muscle between the vertebrae. These are intercostals muscles and they connect the spinal column together. This bullet came in, arched downward, and bulged against the pleural cavity, which is the protective cavity around both lungs. It did not penetrate that lung area. It just bruised it real badly. I had it highlighted showing there was bruising on the right lung. The back if the right lung was bruised, but wasn’t torn. It was bruised badly enough to hemorrhage in the tissues, but not enough to tear the lung or the cavity.

I find it hard to believe that anyone these days, with the amount of information out there, would STILL believe in the SBT.

RJS

Richard;

An excellent article, and far closer to the facts and truths than most will ever realize.

I find it hard to believe that anyone these days, with the amount of information out there, would STILL believe in the SBT.

In this regards, who would win the " Most Ignorant Prize"?

A. Those who fully accept the WC shooting and injury sustain scenario?

B. Those who believe the "Multiple Assassin" scenario?

C. Those who believe the "Body Kidnapping/Wound Alteration" scenario?

As regards the statements which you have attributed to Paul O'Connor:

1. As most should be aware by now, he is absolutely correct in his statements regarding the lateness in the autopsy as to when the back/shoulder wound was found.

Preliminary examinations were complete, as were the X-rays, and the examination of the head injury was also virtually complete when this ENTRY wound was first located.

Additionally, the fact that there was no exit path for the bullet, convinced ALL of those present at the time, that the bullet which struck, had penetrated only an extremely short distance and stopped.*

And, this was the FINAL conclusion when the autopsy ended and the body of JFK was removed for burial preparation.

*Although initial examination (the finger into the wound) had given this indication, the final conclusion and acceptance of this was not accepted until after the chest cavity had been opened.

When no bullet could be found, yet the ending pathway of the bullet could be observed in the parietal pluera damage as well as the apex of the right lung, this was accepted as the facts.

This was also borne out by the fact that the metal rod/probe was inserted down into the entry wound and when one viewed the internal (emptied) chest cavity, the tip of this probe could be observed pushing against the parietal pluera in the identified area of bruising.

At the time that the autopsy ended, the following conclusions were reached:

A. A bullet struck JFK in the upper back/lower neck, and penetrated only a short distance, ultimately, to have apparantly fallen out of the body at Parkland Hospital and thereafter to be found.

B. A bullet struck JFK at the edge of the hairline, and through some unknown means, deflected upwards to strike the skull in the vicinity of the EOP, and thereafter exit in the frontal lobe of the brain.

C. A tracheotomy in the anterior neck, at approximately the third tracheal ring had been performed at Parkland Hospital in attempt to save the life of JFK.

Now!

As far as the bullet pathway having been between the ribs?????????????

Dr. Humes clearly placed the entrance wound as being slightly above the scapular, and although not exactly stated, he thereafter referenced the wound as being 14cm from the tip of the acromion process of the scapula.

Which, (in error or not) would lead one to believe that Dr. Humes referenced the wound as being slightly above the highest point of the scapula, that being the spine of the scapula on which the acromonion process is located.

Secondly, Dr. Humes clearly places the bruising of the right lung as being "supra-clavicular" and as being in the "extreme apical portion" of the right upper lobe of the lung.

All of which would require the bullet pathway to have been above the first thoracic vertebrae/first rib.

*It is specifically noted that these notes, as written by Dr. Humes, are in fact the "second generation" notes.

Any "First Generation" notes which would have been taken at the autopsy, would have had the upper back/lower neck entrance having only gone in the short distance and thereafter stopped, just as they would have had reference to only a tracheotomy incision of the anterior neck, as this was in fact the conclusion when the autopsy ended.

Therefore, Dr. Humes "excuse" as to why he burned the original notes, appears to have been as much a result of the later decision (by all three autopsy surgeons) that they had been in error, which was only decided the next day after Dr. Humes had spoken with Dr. Perry in Dallas and found that the anterior neck tracheotomy also contained a wound.

Nevertheless, ALL information tends to support that the entrance wound was in the vicinity of the C7/T1 vertebrae, which was reinforced considerably when the Clark Panel first told us of the minor damage to the right transverse process of either the C7 or T1 vertebrae, as well as the probability of minute metallic fragments located in the neck of JFK adjacent to this damage to the bone.

In that regards, there are additional extenuating factors which it would appear have not been taken fully into consideration in an attempt to finally place this into perspective.

1. The upper back/lower neck entrance wound was fully excised, down to the base/bottom of the wound.

Slides were made of this, and although not examined until later, these slides demonstrated the nature of the wound, as well as the critical element of information that considerable fabric from the coat and shirt of JFK had been carried down into the wound by the penetrating bullet/projectile.

Had the ending point of this wound actually been deep enough that it penetrated between the posterior space between ribs, one would have hoped that Dr. Humes/Boswell/& or Finck would have seen such and brought this into consideration when determining the entrance location for the projectile.

2. Dr. Humes clearly identified the entrance angle into the back of JFK as having been on a downward angle of between 45 degrees to 60 degrees downward.

An entry of anywhere near this angle, working backwards from the bruising to the supra-clavicular/extreme apical bruising of the lung, absolutely could not place the entrance wound down among the thoracic vertebrae.

3. Lastly, without a full re-examination of the skeletal structure of JFK, this can never be resolved.

Everyone tends to assume that we are all built the same. Not so!.

Although rare, there are those who possess an 8th cervical vertebral bone, which of course is lower than would be a C7.

And although this condition is considered rare, it can not be totally eliminated from consideration.

Likewise, and even more common, is what is known as a "Cervical Rib" which in fact extends from the C7 vertebrae.

Therefore, with the chest opened and the lungs removed, a probe pushing through from the back side could, when viewed from the interior chest cavity, appear to be pushing between two ribs, yet actually be pushing between a C7 cervical rib and the T1 first true rib.

Who Knows???

What we have are the known and presented measurements as given by Dr. Humes, as well as their later revelations, along with the now known damage to what appears as either a C7/T1 vertebrae, coupled with the damage to the anterior throat which was located at approximately the third tracheal ring.

let's remember after decades of denials, Humes finally admitted destroying critical evidence-I don't think he was incompetant just morally corrupt.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

In the Eye Of History

William Matson Law

Interview with James Sibert

Sibert: Well I - that single bullet theory - when they had me come up to the AARB deposition there at College Park, I said, "Well before I come up there, I want you to know one thing. I'm not an advocate of the single-bullet theory." I said, "I don't believe it because I stood there two foot from where that bullet wound was in the back, the one that they eventually moved up to the base of the neck. I was there when Boswell made his face sheet and located that wound exactly as we described it in the FD 302." And I said, "Furthermore, when they examined the clothing after it got into the Bureau, those bullet holes in the shirt and the coat were down 5 inches there. So there is no way that bullet could have gone that low then rise up and come out the front of the neck, zigzag and hit Connally and then end up pristine on a stretcher over there in Dallas."

Law: You don't believe in the single bullet theory. Period.

Sibert: There is no way I will swallow that. They can't put enough sugar on it for me to bite it. That bullet was too low in the back.

And from Paul O'Connor in the same book:

O’Connor: When we started an autopsy, the first thing we always did…was to weigh and measure the body. We’d check for any scars, contusions, any abnormalities, and so on. But in this case, we didn’t turn the body over to look at the back while we were doing that. Finally we turned the body over, and there was a bullet wound—an entrance wound—in his back, on the right side of his spinal column. To emphasize where it was in proximity to the rest of his body: if you bend your neck down and feel back, you feel a lump and that’s the seventh cervical vertebra. This bullet wound was about 3 inches down and an inch or two to the right of the seventh cervical vertebra. I remember there was a big gush of surprise that nobody actually thought about turning him over right away, you know after we had done our initial investigation of the president’s body. Dr Humes took his finger and poked it in the hole---the bullet wound hole, the entrance wound hole---and said it didn’t go anywhere. There was a very big argument, a lot of consternation, that he shouldn’t have stuck his finger in the hole.

Law: What difference would it make?

O’Connor: Well, when you take your finger and stick it into a bullet wound, you avulse the wound.

Law: You think that happened when he stuck his finger in the back?

O’Connor: Yes

Law: It could have create a false track:

O’Connor: Well, not necessarily a false track as much as a false impression of the entrance of the missile that went into his back.

Law: Who was arguing”

O’Connor: Dr Finck strongly objected to Commander Humes doing what he did. He(Finck) took a sound, which is a probe, a metal malleable, non rigid probe. We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in so far. I’d say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn’t go in any further than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostals muscles---the muscles between the ribs. The bullet went in through the muscles, didn’t touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit the back of the pleural cavity and stopped. So we didn’t know the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That’s what happened at the time. We traced the bullet path down and found that it didn’t traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other side of the body.

Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?

O’Connor: Absolutely

Law: And these doctors knew that?

O’Connor: Absolutely

Law: While it happened?

O’Connor: Absolutely. And another thing we found out while the autopsy was proceeding, that he was shot from a high building, which meant the bullet had to be traveling in a downward trajectory and we also realized that this bullet is what we call in the military a “short shot”. It didn’t have the power to push the projectile clear through the body. If it had…it would have come out through his heart and through his sternum.

O’Connor: We were told(in the report of the Warren Commission) that he was shot in the back and it came out his throat. That didn’t jibe with what we saw, and when I say we, I’m talking about Dr. Boswell and myself.

When shown the photo of the back by Law:

O’Connor: That’s a very accurate portrayal of the entrance wound to his back, which as you know, is quite a ways down from his neck. At the angle he was shot…the laws of physics will not let a bullet strike there and go up and go out his throat…I helped roll him over…one of these arms might have been mine, because I was at the head of the body and helped roll him over. It wasn’t rolled over until quite a ways into the autopsy, and that’s when they discovered the bullet wound.

O’Connor: Now I had this drawing made at the University of Florida showing the back wound and this is exactly what happened. The bullet struck him in the back, it passed through the outer layer of muscle and through the inner layer of muscle between the vertebrae. These are intercostals muscles and they connect the spinal column together. This bullet came in, arched downward, and bulged against the pleural cavity, which is the protective cavity around both lungs. It did not penetrate that lung area. It just bruised it real badly. I had it highlighted showing there was bruising on the right lung. The back if the right lung was bruised, but wasn’t torn. It was bruised badly enough to hemorrhage in the tissues, but not enough to tear the lung or the cavity.

I find it hard to believe that anyone these days, with the amount of information out there, would STILL believe in the SBT.

RJS

Richard;

An excellent article, and far closer to the facts and truths than most will ever realize.

I find it hard to believe that anyone these days, with the amount of information out there, would STILL believe in the SBT.

In this regards, who would win the " Most Ignorant Prize"?

A. Those who fully accept the WC shooting and injury sustain scenario?

B. Those who believe the "Multiple Assassin" scenario?

C. Those who believe the "Body Kidnapping/Wound Alteration" scenario?

As regards the statements which you have attributed to Paul O'Connor:

1. As most should be aware by now, he is absolutely correct in his statements regarding the lateness in the autopsy as to when the back/shoulder wound was found.

Preliminary examinations were complete, as were the X-rays, and the examination of the head injury was also virtually complete when this ENTRY wound was first located.

Additionally, the fact that there was no exit path for the bullet, convinced ALL of those present at the time, that the bullet which struck, had penetrated only an extremely short distance and stopped.*

And, this was the FINAL conclusion when the autopsy ended and the body of JFK was removed for burial preparation.

*Although initial examination (the finger into the wound) had given this indication, the final conclusion and acceptance of this was not accepted until after the chest cavity had been opened.

When no bullet could be found, yet the ending pathway of the bullet could be observed in the parietal pluera damage as well as the apex of the right lung, this was accepted as the facts.

This was also borne out by the fact that the metal rod/probe was inserted down into the entry wound and when one viewed the internal (emptied) chest cavity, the tip of this probe could be observed pushing against the parietal pluera in the identified area of bruising.

At the time that the autopsy ended, the following conclusions were reached:

A. A bullet struck JFK in the upper back/lower neck, and penetrated only a short distance, ultimately, to have apparantly fallen out of the body at Parkland Hospital and thereafter to be found.

B. A bullet struck JFK at the edge of the hairline, and through some unknown means, deflected upwards to strike the skull in the vicinity of the EOP, and thereafter exit in the frontal lobe of the brain.

C. A tracheotomy in the anterior neck, at approximately the third tracheal ring had been performed at Parkland Hospital in attempt to save the life of JFK.

Now!

As far as the bullet pathway having been between the ribs?????????????

Dr. Humes clearly placed the entrance wound as being slightly above the scapular, and although not exactly stated, he thereafter referenced the wound as being 14cm from the tip of the acromion process of the scapula.

Which, (in error or not) would lead one to believe that Dr. Humes referenced the wound as being slightly above the highest point of the scapula, that being the spine of the scapula on which the acromonion process is located.

Secondly, Dr. Humes clearly places the bruising of the right lung as being "supra-clavicular" and as being in the "extreme apical portion" of the right upper lobe of the lung.

All of which would require the bullet pathway to have been above the first thoracic vertebrae/first rib.

*It is specifically noted that these notes, as written by Dr. Humes, are in fact the "second generation" notes.

Any "First Generation" notes which would have been taken at the autopsy, would have had the upper back/lower neck entrance having only gone in the short distance and thereafter stopped, just as they would have had reference to only a tracheotomy incision of the anterior neck, as this was in fact the conclusion when the autopsy ended.

Therefore, Dr. Humes "excuse" as to why he burned the original notes, appears to have been as much a result of the later decision (by all three autopsy surgeons) that they had been in error, which was only decided the next day after Dr. Humes had spoken with Dr. Perry in Dallas and found that the anterior neck tracheotomy also contained a wound.

Nevertheless, ALL information tends to support that the entrance wound was in the vicinity of the C7/T1 vertebrae, which was reinforced considerably when the Clark Panel first told us of the minor damage to the right transverse process of either the C7 or T1 vertebrae, as well as the probability of minute metallic fragments located in the neck of JFK adjacent to this damage to the bone.

In that regards, there are additional extenuating factors which it would appear have not been taken fully into consideration in an attempt to finally place this into perspective.

1. The upper back/lower neck entrance wound was fully excised, down to the base/bottom of the wound.

Slides were made of this, and although not examined until later, these slides demonstrated the nature of the wound, as well as the critical element of information that considerable fabric from the coat and shirt of JFK had been carried down into the wound by the penetrating bullet/projectile.

Had the ending point of this wound actually been deep enough that it penetrated between the posterior space between ribs, one would have hoped that Dr. Humes/Boswell/& or Finck would have seen such and brought this into consideration when determining the entrance location for the projectile.

2. Dr. Humes clearly identified the entrance angle into the back of JFK as having been on a downward angle of between 45 degrees to 60 degrees downward.

An entry of anywhere near this angle, working backwards from the bruising to the supra-clavicular/extreme apical bruising of the lung, absolutely could not place the entrance wound down among the thoracic vertebrae.

3. Lastly, without a full re-examination of the skeletal structure of JFK, this can never be resolved.

Everyone tends to assume that we are all built the same. Not so!.

Although rare, there are those who possess an 8th cervical vertebral bone, which of course is lower than would be a C7.

And although this condition is considered rare, it can not be totally eliminated from consideration.

Likewise, and even more common, is what is known as a "Cervical Rib" which in fact extends from the C7 vertebrae.

Therefore, with the chest opened and the lungs removed, a probe pushing through from the back side could, when viewed from the interior chest cavity, appear to be pushing between two ribs, yet actually be pushing between a C7 cervical rib and the T1 first true rib.

Who Knows???

What we have are the known and presented measurements as given by Dr. Humes, as well as their later revelations, along with the now known damage to what appears as either a C7/T1 vertebrae, coupled with the damage to the anterior throat which was located at approximately the third tracheal ring.

let's remember after decades of denials, Humes finally admitted destroying critical evidence-I don't think he was incompetant just morally corrupt.

Actually, a "Career Ending" event had transpired.

Due to a variety of oversights as well as extenuating circumstances during the progress of the autopsy, the three autopsy surgeons had completely overlooked the anterior throat wound.

Had they not thereafter "corrected" their autopsy report to include this now known injury to JFK (of course not known during and for the initial autopsy conclusion), the career of each and every one of them would have been for all practical purposes terminated immediately.

Therefore, when forced to accept the fact that they had failed to account for the anterior neck wound, they were left with little choice (other than self-administered career suicide) other than to change the original conclusion of the shallow entrance back wound to a thru & thru wound which exited in the anterior neck.

And, since the original 3mm to 5mm anterior neck wound was in fact a "gash" when they observed it, there was nothing there to add additional doubt to this after the fact hypothesis.

And, although I personally have found no evidence of intentional lies, and/or complete misrepresentations of the facts, it certainly appears as if certain aspects of the autopsy results were re-written in a manner as to make a "vagueness" to certain portions of the wound locations and descriptions.