Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: How Do LNers Deal With Givens?  (Read 1306 times)

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2157
Re: How Do LNers Deal With Givens?
« Reply #35 on: Today at 04:17:19 AM »
You can slice it any way you want, the fact is the bullet did not enter the back of JFK's neck and Ford opened up a can of worms by suggesting it be described that way. That's simply wrong.

I sliced it the way that I sliced it. Please read it again. Ford did not change the location of the entry wound. He did not move it by as much as a mm in any direction. He recommended a change in the wording of the draft report. He did not unilaterally change that wording. His recommendation was valid. Humes et al said that the wound was in the low neck. I'm not interested in defending Ford. I didn't particularly care for him. My interest is for historical accuracy. Your issue is with Humes et al. You may be right. The bullet may not have entered the back of the neck. I usually argue that it did but I don't need it to have. The bullet traversed downward through Kennedy and exited his throat. It honestly makes no difference to me if it entered at the level of C7 or T1. 

« Last Edit: Today at 04:34:31 AM by Tim Nickerson »

Offline Michael Capasse

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
Re: How Do LNers Deal With Givens?
« Reply #36 on: Today at 04:54:55 AM »
The back of the NECK?  Does any JFK autopsy photo show an entrance wound on the back of JFKs NECK?
If so, please post that photo.

That bullet went on one wild ride. Pat yourself on the back, seriously, that is bone/plate.
Look at the autopsy picture with the ruler - that wound is not in the neck.

CE-399 would have to go thru skin at the side of the esophagus/throat  to continue on and do all the damage it did.
It has to go thru the neck without hitting any bone or cartilage to maintain the speed. The so called "exit wound" looks centered in front.
« Last Edit: Today at 04:59:55 AM by Michael Capasse »

Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5232
Re: How Do LNers Deal With Givens?
« Reply #37 on: Today at 07:44:15 AM »
You can slice it any way you want, the fact is the bullet did not enter the back of JFK's neck and Ford opened up a can of worms by suggesting it be described that way. That's simply wrong.

All Ford did was clarify and more accurately reflect the same description that was used in the autopsy report.

Autopsy report


Ford's correction


JohnM


Offline Zeon Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1363
Re: How Do LNers Deal With Givens?
« Reply #39 on: Today at 11:23:35 AM »
I think maybe it would be more accurate to say the BASE of the neck. It still looks lower than that to me but I’m just a layman :)
« Last Edit: Today at 11:24:21 AM by Zeon Mason »

Online Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1932
    • JFK Assassination Website
Re: How Do LNers Deal With Givens?
« Reply #40 on: Today at 12:00:46 PM »
I sliced it the way that I sliced it. Please read it again. Ford did not change the location of the entry wound. He did not move it by as much as a mm in any direction.

Surely you're joking. "Please read it again"? What don't you understand here? You can read it a thousand times, and it's still going to read that Ford replaced "at a point slightly below the shoulder" with "the back of his neck."

Sheesh, even Google AI says that Ford changed the wound's description so that it would "better align" with the single-bullet theory:

Gerald Ford successfully pushed the Warren Commission to change the written description of President John F. Kennedy's back wound from the upper back to the base of the neck to better align with the single-bullet theory. (Google "gerald ford's alteration of the description of jfk's back wound")

I was surprised by this acknowledgment because Google AI usually gives answers that are pro-WC.

And surely you can't look at the autopsy photo of the back wound and claim with a straight face that it shows the wound in "the back of his neck" where Humes put it in his drawing for the WC, can you? The HSCA FPP concluded the photo puts the wound at T1, which is a good 2 inches lower than where Humes placed it in his WC drawing. Indeed, the FPP said they placed the wound "in the back area" and "a few inches lower" than where Humes put it in his drawing:

The panel also places the entrance perforation on the lower, in the back area, a few inches lower than illustrated in this drawing. (1 HSCA 256)

He recommended a change in the wording of the draft report. He did not unilaterally change that wording. His recommendation was valid. Humes et al said that the wound was in the low neck. I'm not interested in defending Ford. I didn't particularly care for him. My interest is for historical accuracy. Your issue is with Humes et al. You may be right. The bullet may not have entered the back of the neck. I usually argue that it did but I don't need it to have. The bullet traversed downward through Kennedy and exited his throat. It honestly makes no difference to me if it entered at the level of C7 or T1.

But Humes's wound diagram for the WC put the wound at C3 or C4, not C7. He put the wound noticeably above the throat wound, as we see in CE 385. Humes had to put the back wound above the throat because he and the WC claimed the bullet traveled a "downward path" from the back wound to the throat wound, a piece of pure fiction that even the HSCA FPP rejected.

A bullet entering at C7 would have struck barely level with or slightly below the throat wound. A bullet entering at T1 would have struck at least 1/3 of an inch below the throat wound, which is one reason the HSCA FPP said the bullet hit the back at an upward angle and that it tunneled upward, a fact that Dr. Werner Spitz had confirmed for the Rockefeller Commission three years earlier:

There is no doubt that the bullet which struck the President’s back penetrated the skin in a sharply upward direction, as is evident from the width of the abrasion at the lower half of the bullet wound of entrance. The term "sharply upward direction" is used because it is evident from this injury that the missile traveled upwards within the body. (Report of Werner Spitz, 4/24/75, p. 1, Rockefeller Commission papers, see https://websites.umich.edu/~ahaq/correspondence.pdf)

This is why the FPP had to assume that JFK was leaning so far forward as to be nearly doubled over when the bullet struck, as Dr. Baden was nice enough to demonstrate in front of TV cameras.

Also, we know the back wound was actually at T3, as documented in the death certificate (marked "verified") and on the autopsy face sheet (also marked "verified"), and as confirmed by the hard physical evidence of the rear JFK clothing holes.

Sibert and O'Neill insisted the back wound was well below the throat wound and could not have exited the throat.

A careful look at the autopsy photo of the back wound shows the photo is consistent with the T3 location, when you take into account the fact that the head is tilted substantially backward, so much so that two lines of folded skin can be seen on the upper part of the neck just below the hairline. With those two lines of folded skin unfolded, the wound could very well be at T3 or more than halfway between T2 and T3.

"JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible"

"Where Was President Kennedy's Back Wound?"
« Last Edit: Today at 12:33:03 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

Online John Corbett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2446
Re: How Do LNers Deal With Givens?
« Reply #41 on: Today at 12:06:50 PM »
I sliced it the way that I sliced it. Please read it again. Ford did not change the location of the entry wound. He did not move it by as much as a mm in any direction. He recommended a change in the wording of the draft report. He did not unilaterally change that wording. His recommendation was valid. Humes et al said that the wound was in the low neck. I'm not interested in defending Ford. I didn't particularly care for him. My interest is for historical accuracy. Your issue is with Humes et al. You may be right. The bullet may not have entered the back of the neck. I usually argue that it did but I don't need it to have. The bullet traversed downward through Kennedy and exited his throat. It honestly makes no difference to me if it entered at the level of C7 or T1.

The wording is what was FUBAR. The bullet did not hit JFK in the back of the neck. I don't know why he proposed that. Perhaps he misunderstood Humes's testimony.

I agree with 99% of what I have read in the WCR. If I could change one thing in the report, that would be it.

If I could change two things, the second one would be their statement that SBT is not essential to the finding that JFK was killed by a lone gunman. If there was no single bullet, there had to be a second shooter.
« Last Edit: Today at 12:18:19 PM by John Corbett »