They did have the body--trying to sit it up and trying to get that probe to go. . . .
Q: Why didn't they turn the body over?
A: Well, they did. They tried every which way to go ahead, and try to move it around. . . .
Q: But this was after the Y incision?
A: Yes. The men described being able to see the end of the finger and the probe from inside the empty chest.
They were working all night long with probes trying to make out where that bullet was going on the back there. (p. 10)
Commander Humes put his finger in it, and, you know, said that ... he could probe the bottom of it with his finger. . . . I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe . . . through the pleura. You could actually see where it was making an indentation. . . . It was pushing the skin up. . . . There was no entry into the chest cavity.
Q: Was the probe put into the neck, or did it come of the neck?
A: It was put into the back part.
Q: The back of the body. And then did the probe come out the neck?
A: No. (p. 73)
There was not the slightest doubt when we left there that the bullet found on the stretcher in Dallas was the bullet which worked its way out through external cardiac massage. And the doctor said, since the body had not been turned over in Dallas, “External cardiac massage was conducted on the president, and the bullet worked its way out."
There was not the slightest doubt, not a scintilla of doubt whatsoever, that this is what occurred. In fact, during the latter part of it and when the examination was completed, the doctor says, "Well, that explains it.” Because Jim [Sibert] had gone out, called the laboratory, learned about the bullet, came back in.
Because I was closer to the President’s body than I am to you, and you’re only about a foot and a half away or two feet away. And viewing them with the surgical probe and with their fingers, there was absolutely no point of exit and they couldn’t go any further. And that presented a problem, one heck of a problem. And that’s why Jim went out and called. . . .
Q: You previously made reference to attempts to probe that wound. Did you ever see any kind of metal object used to probe that wound?
A: Yes. They used a metal probe, in addition to their fingers. . . . In the back, they probed it to a point where they could not probe any further. In other words, it did not go any further. (pp. 30-31)
Q: Can you tell me, was the phone call made to Mr. Killion before or after the body was unloaded from the casket?
A: Oh, that was after the body was removed; it was on the autopsy table, and the autopsy was in progress. Because the reason I made that call was that the pathologists said, "There’s no exit to this back wound,” and probed it with rubber glove and a chrome probe. (p. 59)
But when they raised him up, then they found this back wound. And that’s when they started probing with the rubber glove and the finger, and also with the chrome probe.
And that’s just before, of course, I made this call, because they were at a loss to explain what had happened to this bullet. They couldn’t find any bullet.
And they said, "There's no exit.” Finck, in particular, said, "There's no exit.” And they said that you could feel it with the end of the finger. I mean, the depth of this wound. (p. 111)
Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger, inasmuch as a complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other areas. An inspection revealed there was no point of exit. The individuals performing the autopsy were at a loss to explain why they could find no bullets. (p. 57)
We probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it.
But when we opened the chest and we got at—the lung extends up under the clavicle and high just beneath the neck here, and the bullet had not pierced through into the lung cavity but had caused hemorrhage just outside the pleura. (pp. 75-76)
Dr. Boswell said that the autopsy doctors assumed that the anterior neck wound was a wound of exit, saying the hole is not that big and that it was "far bigger than a wound of entry." He said the doctors didn't explicitly discuss the possibility of a tracheotomy having been performed but said it was assumed this was a possibility. . . . Dr. Boswell said he remembered seeing part of the perimeter of a bullet wound in the anterior neck. ( p. 8 )
DR. BOSWELL indicated that "we had gotten ourselves in dutch [in trouble] with the neck and throat wounds with regard to the Secret Service." DR. BOSWELL indicated that one of the agents (he wasn't sure if FBI or Secret Service) was on the phone most of the time. (He seemed to be implying they were on the phone that was in the main autopsy room.) (p. 4) (the parenthetical statement is Purdy’s)
"The paranoid mentality is far more coherent than the real world, since it leaves no room for mistakes, failures or ambiguities... It believes it is up against an enemy who is as infallibly rational as he is totally evil, and it seeks to match his imputed total competence with its own, leaving nothing unexplained and comprehending all of reality in one overreaching consistent theory."
The characteristics of the paranoid style are "Heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy....a heroic striving for 'evidence' to prove that the unbelievable is the only thing that can be believed."
Richard Hofstadter: "The Paranoid Style in American Politics"
"The paranoid mentality is far more coherent than the real world, since it leaves no room for mistakes, failures or ambiguities... It believes it is up against an enemy who is as infallibly rational as he is totally evil, and it seeks to match his imputed total competence with its own, leaving nothing unexplained and comprehending all of reality in one overreaching consistent theory."
The characteristics of the paranoid style are "Heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy .... a heroic striving for 'evidence' to prove that the unbelievable is the only thing that can be believed."
Richard Hofstadter: "The Paranoid Style in American Politics"
If this were any other case, if you had so many witnesses independently saying the same thing and mutually corroborating each other, this would be taken as very strong evidence that their accounts were accurate. But, LNers cannot accept this logical conclusion because it destroys their position on the JFK case, even though CT scans of comparable male torsos prove there was no path from the back wound to the throat wound without smashing through the spine.
You can easily have the bullet transit the neck without striking bone.
The bullet entered C7-level, not T-1. So it didn't encounter the lung, only passing over and near to it.
If this were any other case, if you had so many witnesses independently saying the same thing and mutually corroborating each other, this would be taken as very strong evidence that their accounts were accurate. But, LNers cannot accept this logical conclusion because it destroys their position on the JFK case, even though CT scans of comparable male torsos prove there was no path from the back wound to the throat wound without smashing through the spine.
And you people still refuse to come to grips with the hard scientific evidence that the autopsy skull x-rays have been altered. Your abject refusal to deal credibly with this evidence is on full display in the thread "Clear Evidence of Alteration in the JFK Autopsy Skull X-Rays."
Oh, and so just sweep aside all the evidence that the back wound was shallow and had no exit point, right? All those accounts, given independently and at different times, were all just "mistaken," right?
Leaving aside the powerful evidence that the back wound had no exit point, you can only get the bullet from the back wound to the throat wound if you ignore the autopsy photo of the wound (it shows the wound tract went upward, not downward, as even the HSCA medical panel admitted), ignore the rear clothing holes, buy the ludicrous theory that the coat and tailor-made shirt bunched in nearly perfect correspondence, ignore the certified death certificate, ignore the back-wound dot on the autopsy face sheet, and ignore the description of the wound's location given by numerous witnesses at the autopsy.
(https://i.postimg.cc/pL7v26BF/jacket-bunch-elm-st-love-field.gif) John Mytton |
So you're still lying about this. And you're never going to stop, are you?
We established earlier in this thread that Boswell admitted that the autopsy doctors could not see a tract from the back wound to the throat wound during the autopsy, even after they removed the chest organs and probed the wound extensively. The people standing around the autopsy table could see the probe pushing against the lining of the chest cavity;
they could also see that the back wound was well below the throat wound.
The first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat.
The tie knot has no hole through it and no nick on its edge. The front shirt slits look nothing like a bullet exit point, have no fabric missing, tested negative for metallic traces, and are clearly at a spot that would have been behind the very bottom part of the tie knot. Etc., etc., etc.
| (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RZwyFeFP3mI/UoqSlfP-yVI/AAAAAAAADjg/WW67IRz_w9g/s1600/JFK+TIE+BULHOLE.jpg) | (http://www.vidiars.com/jfkwatergate/JFK-Love-Field-TIE-NICK-COMPARE-ANIM.gif) Robert Prudhomme CT Version | (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YMUTss087d8/WP3j6pAg0wI/AAAAAAABLts/G6D2_4H_C-oNRflzA5Q4_RMRDm4urLbIgCLcB/s530/JFK-And-His-Necktie.jpg) David Von Pein Version |
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_cKSUbL_Hg4/WzrpWJome-I/AAAAAAABPQU/Gvlor7yf6pURHds6eBq3kfEjyZjFooj6ACLcBGAs/s530/JFK-Shirt.png) Bullet holes in Kennedy's shirt; compare with nick site in Prudhomme and Von Pein Versions | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/11371.jpg) In the motorcade, was the tie knot slightly off to the left? | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1H6KILBVsxDlbnX0Z-mpaIY35iPPv-Np8) |
| (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/collar.jpg) | (https://images2.imgbox.com/50/e4/QaT0aRsf_o.jpeg) |
But you just don't care. You will never acknowledge these facts, and many others, because you are determined to peddle the lone-gunman theory no matter what.
You know that the WC said the back wound was at C6, right? The autopsy photo of the back wound seems to show it was no higher than T1, and Dr. McDonnel identified a fracture at T1. The certified death certificate, the rear clothing holes, and the back-wound dot on the autopsy face sheet all place the wound at T3. The death certificate actually specified T3 as the location.
Let's review just some of the other evidence for the lower location of the back wound, shall we? I quote from my article "Where Was President Kennedy's Back Wound?":
* Dr. John Ebersole, who got a look at the back wound during the autopsy, said the wound was near the fourth thoracic vertebra (63:721). This is even slightly lower than where the death certificate places the wound.
* Secret Service agent Clint Hill, who was called to the morgue for the specific purpose of viewing Kennedy's wounds, said the entrance point was "about six inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column" (18:77-78). Hill's placement of the wound corresponds closely to the location of the holes in the President's shirt and coat.
* The FBI's 9 December 1963 report on the autopsy, which was based on the report of two FBI agents who attended the autopsy (James Sibert and Francis O'Neill), located the wound below the shoulder (i.e., below the top of the shoulder blade) (18:83, 149-168).
* Three Navy medical technicians who assisted with the autopsy, James Jenkins, Paul O'Connor, and Edward Reed, have stated that the wound was well below the neck. Jenkins and O'Connor have also reported that it was probed repeatedly and that the autopsy doctors determined that it had no point of exit (10:260, 262, 302-303; 63:720).
* Floyd Riebe, one of the photographers who took pictures at the autopsy, recalls that the back wound was probed and that it was well below the neck (10:162-163, 302).
* Former Bethesda lab assistant Jan Gail Rudnicki, who was present for much of the autopsy, says the wound was "several inches down on the back" (10:206).
* Former Parkland nurse Diana Bowron, who washed the President's body before it was placed in the casket, has indicated that the back wound was an inch or two below the hole shown in the autopsy photo of JFK's back, and this hole, by the HSCA's own admission, is about two inches lower than where the WC placed the wound. In other words, Nurse Bowron located the wound five to six inches below the neck.
* In the transcript of the 27 January 1964 executive session of the Warren Commission, we read that chief counsel J. Lee Rankin said the bullet entered Kennedy's back below the shoulder blade (63:632). Rankin even referred to a picture which he said showed that "the bullet entered below the shoulder blade" (68:78-79).
* Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, who got a very good look at the President's body, said the wound was "in the shoulder."
* Three released HSCA wound diagrams place the wound well below the neck, and in fact in almost the exact same spot shown on the autopsy face sheet. The diagrams were drawn for the HSCA investigators by Kellerman, Sibert, and O'Neill, each of whom got a very good, prolonged look at the body. This shows that when Kellerman said the wound was "in the shoulder," he meant it was visibly below the top of the right shoulder blade. Each agent placed the wound well below the neck, and visibly below the throat wound.
Kennedy was one of the best-tailored presidents ever to occupy the White House, and if it is possible--but not probable--that he was wearing a suit jacket baggy enough to ride up five or six inches in the back when he waved his arm, it is inconceivable that a tightly buttoned shirt could have done the same thing.(The Last Investigation, p. 27).
Is it reasonable to believe that the pathologists were ignorant of JFK’s throat wound that horrid night? There had been ample coverage of the President’s wounds, including his throat wound [see below] in contemporaneous television and radio reports that were monitored by virtually the entire nation. Moreover, JFK’s personal physician, Admiral George Burkley, had remained with JFK from the shooting, to the frenzied, futile efforts at the hospital and on through the grim vigil in the morgue. By all accounts, the admiral worked closely with the emergency surgeons in Dallas, conferring with Malcolm Perry, MD, who performed the tracheotomy, and Kemp Clark, MD, the physician who pronounced JFK dead.[35] He also dwelt at length with his fellow Navy physicians who labored in the morgue.
Is it reasonable to assume that neither Dallas doctor told Burkley about one of JFK’s wounds, or that the admiral kept the autopsists in the dark about one of JFK’s wounds? To do so would have been a violation of one of the most uniformly observed, time-honored practices in medicine: a physician’s providing pertinent medical information to his consulting colleague. And even if Burkley had kept mum, would everyone in the crowded morgue, including the three Secret Service agents [Kellerman, Greer and Hill, who had been with JFK throughout] have neglected to mention what everyone else in the country had been told about JFK’s throat wound? Improbably, Kennedy’s autopsists have steadfastly insisted that they were, in fact, oblivious of the throat wound until the next morning’s call to a doctor in Dallas, Malcolm Perry, MD. . . .
The absence of word about Kennedy’s throat wound in the FBI report is far from proof of the surgeons’ ignorance. . . .
Manchester discovered that the course of events that makes the most sense to us today is in fact what actually happened: that the autopsy team had indeed heard Perry’s comments on the afternoon of the murder, and that they had dutifully communicated with Dallas during the post mortem.
“They had heard reports of Mac Perry’s medical briefing for the press, and to their dismay they had discovered that all evidence of what was being called an entrance wound in the throat had been removed by Perry’s tracheotomy. . . ." [Manchester, The Death of a President, pp. 432-433)
. . . Parkland witness, Paul Peters, MD, told Boston Globe journalist, Ben Bradlee, that “We did find out almost immediately after President Kennedy was taken to Bethesda that there was a hole in the neck that we had not seen a the time. . . . But it was only a few hours later when we began to get calls back from Bethesda. . . ."
Author Harrison Livingstone reported another Parkland source for nighttime contact between the morgue and Dallas. In a 1991 interview, Livingstone said that Parkland Hospital nurse Audrey Bell told him, “Dr. Perry was up all night. He came into my office the next day and sat down and looked terrible, having not slept. I never saw anybody look so dejected! They called him from Bethesda two or three times in the middle of the night to try to get him to change the entrance wound in the throat to an exit wound.”
. . . By the later stages of the autopsy, Admiral Burkley was apparently talking to others about a wound in JFK’s throat, according to a Bethesda witness reported by author David Lifton. On 11/29/63, Coast Guardsman George Barnum wrote up a memo that concerned a conversation he had had with Admiral Burkley at Bethesda Hospital on the night of the autopsy. Barnum reported that Burkley had told him Kennedy had been hit twice, “The first striking him in the lower neck and coming out near the throat … .”[53] Barnum’s account is incomprehensible without accepting that Burkley’s remark suggests that either there was knowledge of the throat wound or, as per Boswell and Karnei, that a throat wound had been inferred by the autopsy team. Either way, Humes’ assertion to the Warren Commission to the effect a throat wound only dawned on him the next day, after a call to Dallas, seems open to dispute. Other witnesses add to the doubts. . . .
A case can be made for either knowledge or ignorance of Kennedy’s throat wound during the autopsy. The preponderance of evidence, and the weight of commonsense, however, seem to tip the scales toward there having been knowledge(https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm#_ednref41)
Dr. George Burkley, JFK's personal physician, provided key evidence that the back wound was at around the level of T3 (third thoracic vertebra), well below the throat wound. Burkley was the only medical professional who was at both Parkland Hospital and the autopsy, giving him a unique knowledge of Kennedy’s wounds.
-- Burkley signed the official death certificate, which said the back wound was "at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra." This position is confirmed by the holes in the back of JFK's coat and shirt and by the back-wound dot on the autopsy face sheet.
-- Burkley marked as "verified" the autopsy sheet, which includes a dot for the back wound that places the wound well below the neck and at around T3. We should keep in mind that the Warren Commission (WC) suppressed this "verified" version of the autopsy face sheet--it did not surface until the ARRB released it in the mid-1990s.
| (https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1472020b8278718328d0ec8d055b8b07-lq) | (https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-9e1c8d2128bddbb3f6d19e4353a8c8d2) |
"At about the level of the third thoracic vertebra" does not mean it was exactly on the T3 vertebra. It could mean it was slightly above the T3 vertebra or halfway in between T2 and T3, or even just slightly below T2. Any of these locations corresponds very closely with the holes in the back of JFK's coat and shirt and with the descriptions of the back wound given by numerous witnesses; in fact, they also are arguably consistent with the location of the wound seen in the back-wound autopsy photo.
Since we have such strong evidence that the back wound had no exit point, the location of the back wound is not as crucial as it used to be, but it is still very important. Why? Because the only way the WC could get its silly single-bullet theory (SBT) to work was to assume the back wound was actually in the neck, visibly above the shoulder blade and the neck line, as we see in CE 386. However, even the problematic autopsy photo of the back wound clearly refutes that placement and shows the wound 2-3 inches lower.
One reason the back-wound photo is problematic is that it was taken with JFK's head tilted substantially backward. You can see two lines of folded skin on the neck. As a result, the photo does not show the neck in its normal position, which obscures the spatial relationship between the back wound and the neck and between the back wound and the hairline. However, you can clearly see in the photo that the back wound is below the neck and below the top of his right shoulder--a hand is resting on the right shoulder, and the back wound is undeniably below the shoulder line. This location is consistent with a wound at around T3.
No one can honestly conclude that the back-wound photo shows the wound at C6 or C7. As any good anatomy diagram will show (e.g., https://basicmedicalkey.com/surface-anatomy-of-the-back-and-vertebral-levels-of-clinically-important-structures-2/), C7 is right at the base of the neck, and the back-wound photo undeniably shows the wound was below the base of the neck and below the shoulder line of the right shoulder.
| (https://basicmedicalkey.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/B9780323079549000013_f01-01-9780323079549.jpg) | (https://basicmedicalkey.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/B9780323079549000013_f01-03a-9780323079549.jpg) |
Some might ask, "Don't the rear clothing holes provide clear, compelling evidence that the back wound was below the neck?"
Well, you would think so. But, since admitting this fact would destroy the SBT, virtually all WC apologists adhere to the ludicrous theory that JFK's coat and his tailor-made shirt were both bunched upward by about 5 inches and in nearly perfect correspondence with each other, so that when the bullet allegedly struck at C6 or C7, it made holes in the coat and shirt that were at least 3 inches lower than the back wound's alleged C6/C7 location. This nutty theory makes the accidental-erasure explanation for the 18-minute gap in the Watergate tape seem downright credible by comparison.
| (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/hunt/towner.jpg) | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1HiIxSAjaFM_BT1eGJkarbdr_EZd10m2A) |
Even WC apologist Jim Moore doesn't buy the bunched-clothing fantasy. Moore concedes that "the odds against this millimeter-for-millimeter correspondence boggle the imagination" (Conspiracy of One, p. 155). Moore also notes that the photographic evidence refutes the idea that Kennedy's clothing was markedly bunched; he points out that the Willis and Betzner pictures both show JFK's white shirt collar, "which would not be visible were his jacket bunched" (p. 155).
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/alt5Groden.jpg) There is no white shirt collar visible. | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Skaggs%234_Rose_mary_Willis.jpg) Connally's jacket collar has a shadow but Kennedy's jacket collar does not, because the jacket collar is obscured by the inch-high bunch at the nape. |
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/9599335719_9020009fc7_o.jpg) Probably the last moment the right-top of the jacket collar is visible. | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=16Ysu8jhHcGKAs7dbsx7v06pRuFjOg7bl) And there it is. From Love Field to Main to Houston to Elm. |
(https://i.postimg.cc/pL7v26BF/jacket-bunch-elm-st-love-field.gif) John Mytton |
Former HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi noted the utter absurdity of the idea that JFK's shirt bunched along with the coat:QuoteKennedy was one of the best-tailored presidents ever to occupy the White House, and if it is possible--but not probable--that he was wearing a suit jacket baggy enough to ride up five or six inches in the back when he waved his arm, it is inconceivable that a tightly buttoned shirt could have done the same thing.(The Last Investigation, p. 27).
| (https://www.history.com/.image/ar_16:9%2Cc_fill%2Ccs_srgb%2Cfl_progressive%2Cg_faces:center%2Cq_auto:good%2Cw_768/MTg2NTM2OTgxMzY5NDY0NDk0/gettyimages-872442016.jpg) I can see the start of bunch and the tops of collars at hairline. | (https://scpr.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/d74ed50/2147483647/strip/true/crop/1200x739+0+50/resize/880x542!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fa.scpr.org%2F28177_5ea3fe3fdf924a325bc18ca05a364c24_original.jpg) Jacket bunching in the Johnson White House. |
Some might also ask, "Doesn't the back-wound dot on the autopsy face sheet, verified by Dr. Burkley, provide additional strong evidence that the wound was below the neck?" Well, here, too, you would think so.
But, WC apologists cite the measurements for the back wound's location written on the autopsy face sheet. The written measurements say the wound was 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the top of the right mastoid process. This could support placing the wound at C6.
However, the written measurements are penned in ink, whereas the other notations are in pencil--they are clearly darker than any other notation. Of course, this indicates the measurements were not written at the same time as the other notations, which in turn suggests they were added later.
Furthermore, the two features used as reference points in the measurements--the acromion process of the shoulder and the mastoid process of the skull--are not fixed reference points and can produce different measurements, depending on the body’s position.
If one uses those written measurements as evidence for the accuracy of CE 386, which shows the wound no lower than C6, one must ignore the back-wound photo, the rear clothing holes, the back-wound dot on the autopsy face sheet, the death certificate, and numerous eyewitness accounts that put the wound well below the neck.
It appears the clothing hung on a clothes hanger might have been the basis for Burkley's T3 level, or one of the Secret Service supplied an opinion.
“It appears” that this thing I completely made up with no basis whatsoever is what happened.
(https://i.postimg.cc/x1Q0xpjZ/big-collar.jpg)
Apparently Kennedy wore a tent earlier in the parade
There are none so blind as those who will not see. :D
The bunch was persistent through the motorcade.
Here's one from 1961. His right arm's yet to go out over the car rail.
Maybe he could ease his back pain a bit by slouching.
It is odd and rather humorous that you so frequently include photos that refute your argument. Not one of those photos shows JFK's coat bunched more than an inch or two. Surely you can see this. Of course you can.
To account for the rear clothing holes, his coat would have had to bunch far more than what we see in the photos you included. You know this. I know you do. You and others have posted these same photos before, and I and other skeptics have pointed out to you many times the obvious fact that not one of those photos shows the coat was bunched nearly enough to account for the location of the rear bullet holes in the coat and shirt. But you just keep posting those photos because you don't have any photos that show the coat bunched more than an inch or two.
I notice you said nothing about the Willis and Betzner photos, which were taken much later in the motorcade and much closer to the time of the shooting than the photos you included. What do those photos show? Hey? We both know the answer. I've pointed this out to you before. We've had this exact same discussion several times. But, you just keep lying about this over and over and over again.
And what about the tailor-made shirt? The shirt would have had to miraculously bunch in nearly perfect millimeter-for-millimeter correspondence with the coat, both vertically and depth-wise. Given that JFK's shirt was tailor-made, given that his shirt collar was buttoned, and given that he was sitting back against a seat, how in the world could his shirt have bunched more than a fraction of an inch?
This bunched-clothing theory is just ridiculous. If this were any other case, no rational, honest person would entertain such an absurd, demonstrably erroneous theory for a second. It would be dismissed as a lame, desperate attempt to avoid the obvious. The rear clothing holes are hard physical evidence that the back wound was below the throat wound, but you guys just keep lying about this because it destroys your version of the shooting.
It is odd and rather humorous that you so frequently include photos that refute your argument. Not one of those photos shows JFK's coat bunched more than an inch or two. Surely you can see this. Of course you can.
To account for the rear clothing holes, his coat would have had to bunch far more than what we see in the photos you included. You know this. I know you do. You and others have posted these same photos before, and I and other skeptics have pointed out to you many times the obvious fact that not one of those photos shows the coat was bunched nearly enough to account for the location of the rear bullet holes in the coat and shirt. But you just keep posting those photos because you don't have any photos that show the coat bunched more than an inch or two.
One inch of bunch actually uses up a little more than two inches of clothing. Two inches of bunch uses a little more than four inches of clothing.
On edit: I see that Jerry has already posted the graphic. Why have you ignored it? Do you not understand it?
(https://i.imgur.com/WbkTlrW.png)
One inch of bunch actually uses up a little more than two inches of clothing. Two inches of bunch uses a little more than four inches of clothing.
On edit: I see that Jerry has already posted the graphic. Why have you ignored it? Do you not understand it?
Organ's graphic is ridiculous, as usual. Did you happen to notice that his graphic does not include the location of the rear clothing holes?! Look where the holes are actually located in the coat and shirt, and then look at Organ's silly graphic. The photo in his graphic does not even come close to showing a bunch that would move a hole located 5 inches from the top of the collar to the base of the neck. This isn't even a close call.
Anyone who says Organ's graphic shows a large enough bunch to account for the rear clothing holes is either dissembling or suffering from bad eyesight. Again, go look, actually look, at those holes and see how far down they are from the base of the neck.
I include photos of the JFK rear clothing holes in my article "Where Was President Kennedy's Back Wound?": https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fT_tqslENprGmxm18J5zSL9QUNxjh5sH/view.
And I notice that you and Organ once again ducked Willis 5 and Betzer 3, both of which seem to show the coat virtually flat on JFK's back. One of the few halfway honest WC apologists, Jim Moore, rejects the bunched-clothing theory partly because he acknowledges that Willis 5 and Betzer 3 refute it.
Also, none of you has yet explained how the buttoned, tailor-made shirt could have bunched to any significant degree, especially with JFK sitting back against the seat, not to mention how it could have bunched vertically and horizontally in nearly perfect correspondence with the coat. No thinking person can swallow such fantasy.
And, finally, let it be noted that you guys are simply brushing aside (1) the powerful eyewitness evidence that the back wound had no exit point, (2) the compelling evidence that the shirt slits were not made by a bullet, and (3) the undeniable fact that the nick in the tie knot could not have been made by an exiting bullet because it is not on either edge of the knot. Let's just recap the facts about the shirt slits, shall we?
1. They do not correspond with each other in shape, thickness, or location. Indeed, 1/5 of the slit under the buttonhole extends into the neckband, whereas no part of the other slit does so.
2. The FBI found no metallic traces on the shirt slits, but did find such traces on the rear clothing holes.
3. No fabric was missing from the shirt slits, but fabric was missing from the JFK rear clothing holes and from all of the Connally clothing holes.
4. Even the first FBI lab report on the shirt slits said only that the slits could have been made by a bullet fragment. So, clearly, the FBI experts, before they knew what they were supposed to say, recognized that the slits were not bullet holes.
To any rational, honest person, these facts prove that the shirt slits were not, and could not have been, made by a bullet. But you guys can't admit this because it destroys your theory of the shooting.
You can't even understand the simple concept laid out in that graphic. No wonder you have such a hard time with this stuff. Perhaps you should take up a hobby that's less of a strain on your mental faculties.
This is your answer to the points I made in my reply to you?!
As I said, Organ's graphic is absurd, like most of his other graphics. Oh, I understand the "simple concept" presented in his graphic, but the concept is erroneous, as usual for this guy. It would take a few pages to list all of the embarrassing gaffes that Organ has made in this forum.
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Skaggs%234_Rose_mary_Willis.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/alt5Groden.jpg) | (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/hunt/betzner-close.jpg) |
| (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184649/m1/1/med_res/) | (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/hunt/towner.jpg) | (https://i.postimg.cc/pL7v26BF/jacket-bunch-elm-st-love-field.gif) |
I realize now that you are another hardcore brainwashed WC apologist, immune to fact and logic. But, I nevertheless invite you to look at the location of the rear clothing holes and see how far down they are from the base of the neck and from the top of the respective collars. It is pitifully silly for anyone to believe that the modest bunch that Organ shows in his graphic could explain the location of those holes. Humm, could this be why Organ did not include those clothing holes in the graphic, because anyone with functioning eyes would take one look at them and see that the rest of Organ's graphic is ludicrous?
| (https://i.postimg.cc/x1Q0xpjZ/big-collar.jpg) | (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/hunt/towner.jpg) |
| (https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cVI0tXjsCEo/VIueBMskNwI/AAAAAAABCCk/da9VKiLOZXw/s1600/JFK-Shirt-Bunched.jpg) | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1ne8vzUangxlcREOHYJ5mnqpCY-yPyuNL) |
This is your answer to the points I made in my reply to you?!
As I said, Organ's graphic is absurd, like most of his other graphics. Oh, I understand the "simple concept" presented in his graphic, but the concept is erroneous, as usual for this guy. It would take a few pages to list all of the embarrassing gaffes that Organ has made in this forum.
I realize now that you are another hardcore brainwashed WC apologist, immune to fact and logic. But, I nevertheless invite you to look at the location of the rear clothing holes and see how far down they are from the base of the neck and from the top of the respective collars. It is pitifully silly for anyone to believe that the modest bunch that Organ shows in his graphic could explain the location of those holes. Humm, could this be why Organ did not include those clothing holes in the graphic, because anyone with functioning eyes would take one look at them and see that the rest of Organ's graphic is ludicrous?
What would be the height of the bunch in inches in order for the holes in the jacket and shirt to match up with the entry wound as seen in the autopsy photo(s)?
What difference does it make? The LN-faithful will just declare that they both bunched up by whatever was necessary to make the holes match where they want the wounds to be, in order to alleviate their cognitive dissonance.
One inch of bunch actually uses up a little more than two inches of clothing. Two inches of bunch uses a little more than four inches of clothing.
On edit: I see that Jerry has already posted the graphic. Why have you ignored it? Do you not understand it?
(https://i.imgur.com/WbkTlrW.png)
One inch of bunch actually uses up a little more than two inches of clothing. Two inches of bunch uses a little more than four inches of clothing.
On edit: I see that Jerry has already posted the graphic. Why have you ignored it? Do you not understand it?
Readers will note that Griffith and you have countered non-subjective photographic evidence with vapid platitudes like "LN faithful" and "brainwashed WC apologist, immune to fact and logic."
Is line C supposed to be 17 degrees from horizontal? How would you know from your oblique graphic? Ans: you can't know because you are not a photogrammetrist and your graphic is worse than misleading.
The entry hole should be at the bottom of C6 and out the throat at the bottom of C7.
The entry wound must be above the exit wound by 17 degrees. No amount of jacket bunching or slouching is going to change that fact. There were no holes anywhere near C6 on the jacket or the body. The jacket would not have been bunching that high on the collar. The jacket bunching is a red herring.
Show us a graphic in skeletal profile showing the correct trajectory thru JFK or concede the MB was truly magical. Use some simple geometry for a change.
Let's address this nonsense from a different angle. For now let's put aside the crucial points that no photo or footage shows JFK's coat bunched enough to account for the location of the rear clothing holes, that the back-wound mark on the certified autopsy face sheet and the death certificate's placement of the back wound match the location of the rear clothing holes, that the back-wound location described (and in some cases drawn) by federal agents who saw the body matches the location of the rear clothing holes, etc. Let's just put those inconvenient facts aside and approach this issue from a different angle.
First of all, not all clothing bunches overlap. Plenty of coat and shirt bunches simply bunch upward without overlapping or with only a partial overlap. But, of course, you are talking about a bunch that overlaps, and, yes, 1 inch of an overlapping bunch would use about 2 inches of fabric.
Second, let's assume that the modest overlapping bunch seen in Organ's graphic existed when the bullet struck JFK's back (never mind that Willis 5 shows no such bunch). And we'll leave aside the point that the bunch in his graphic is not big enough and not in the right location to explain the location of the rear hole in the coat, much less in the shirt. Never mind that problem.
Okay, the bunch in Organ's graphic is an overlapping bunch (as is the bunch in one of the other photos that he's posted). The photo in his graphic shows about 1 inch of coat bunched up in such a way that it is an overlapping bunch. Now, what would have happened if a bullet had struck that bunched part of the coat? Answer: You would have had three holes in the coat, two through the two overlapping layers of the bunch and another through the fabric that lay under the overlapping layers.
Surely this is such a self-evident point that it needs no further discussion. Even most young children can grasp this obvious fact. But, just in case you doubt this, go get a coat that you no longer want, create a bunch on the back of the coat similar to the one in Organ's graphic, and then take a nail and puncture the coat at the point of the bunch. I can positively assure you that you will see that when you flatten the coat, there will be three holes in it, two through the overlapping layers and one through the fabric that lay under the overlapping layers.
Moreover, a bullet that went through such a fanciful, impossible overlapping shirt bunch would have made three holes in the shirt, two through the overlapping layers and one through the fabric under the overlapping layers. If you doubt this self-evident point, go get an old shirt and perform the same experiment recommended for the coat. I can absolutely guarantee you that you will see three holes in the shirt after you penetrate the bunch and flatten the shirt.
To help you visualize this fact, just grab a piece of your shirt and pull it up in a bunch so that it overlaps the part of the shirt beneath it--the top part of the bunch has two layers, naturally, while the fabric that it overlaps has just one layer.
It seems like you guys just repeat each other's arguments without pausing to really think about them. Any objective thinking person will realize that it is preposterous to assume that JFK's tailor-made shirt could have bunched in nearly perfect correspondence with the coat, in both location and shape, especially given the fact that the shirt was buttoned and that JFK was sitting against most of the back of the shirt.
Similarly, even most young children can comprehend the self-evident fact that if a sharp object punches a hole through an overlapping bunch in a coat and shirt, there will be three holes in the coat and three holes in the shirt.
And, holy smokes, please do explain how the back of the buttoned, tailor-made shirt, with JFK sitting back against most of it, would have bunched in such a way that it formed virtually the same shape as the coat bunch and formed directly under the coat bunch. That's just bonkers ludicrous.
Where is Caprio now that we need him? He used to claim that because JFK wore expensive suits from Brooks Brothers that they would never "bunch" to rebut the evidence visible with his own eyes. If a time machine were invented to allow some of these kooks to sit in Oswald's lap as he pulled the trigger, they would gouge their own eyes out to avoid acknowledging his guilt and proclaim his innocence while the shots were still ringing in their ears.
For now let's put aside the crucial points that no photo or footage shows JFK's coat bunched enough to account for the location of the rear clothing holes,
What would be the height in inches that JFK's coat would need to be bunched up in order for the hole in it to match up with the entry wound as seen in the autopsy photo(s) or as described on the Facesheet (14 cms below the tip of the rt. mastoid process)?
I can't believe that this would have to be pointed out to you but , neither Jerry nor I have the bullet passing through the bunched up portions of the clothing.
| (https://www.paullee.com/jfk/JFK_trajectory.jpg) | (https://www.paullee.com/jfk/bunched.JPG) |
| (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1avE4tHGOigP0nmfFzyLhweR4yzDR5jYe) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_croft~0.jpg) |
| (https://i.postimg.cc/x1Q0xpjZ/big-collar.jpg) (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/hunt/towner.jpg) | (https://images2.imgbox.com/e1/39/4KAbAvI2_o.png) "Can't you see the bunch on the rightward side of the jacket nape?" |
Just go look at the rear coat and shirt holes and then look where C6/C7 is on JFK's neck. Both of the clothing holes are over 5 inches below their respective collars. We have plenty of photos that show a side or rear view of JFK's coat and shirt collars on his neck. Anyone not blinded by bias can see that the coat alone would have had to bunch far, far higher/more than we see it bunched in any photo or footage taken during the motorcade.
Been trying to figure that one out, Tim. Some CTs seem to think along these lines:The throat wound was above the shirt collar and tie. These medical marvels believe the necktie knot wasn't scraped by a bullet, but rather Parkland nurses (get this) caused the nick on the tie-knot and the "slits" in the short collar by using sharp-pointed scissors to remove the clothing (I'm not kidding; they believe this). That allows them to have the throat wound higher than it really is.
(https://www.paullee.com/jfk/JFK_trajectory.jpg) (https://www.paullee.com/jfk/bunched.JPG)
So with the throat wound artificially higher, these CTs then project backward the angle to the window (the guy above in the Jefferies film-grab used 22° that he pulled out of his a-zz). From this, they "determine" where the "brainwashed WC apologist" back wound would have to enter. And it's through the "bunch" like Griffith contends.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1avE4tHGOigP0nmfFzyLhweR4yzDR5jYe) (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_croft~0.jpg)
The slope is about 20° to the horizon (about 17° through the body relative to street level). I'm not saying the SBT occurred at Z223-225; it could be a few frames earlier.
If you make a more full-profile outline of JFK's body in the Jefferies film, it would look like this,. I have added a 17° slope and nape creases.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/7a/39/brbOGF8h_o.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/x1Q0xpjZ/big-collar.jpg)
(https://www.jfk-assassination.net/hunt/towner.jpg)
"Can't you see the bunch on the rightward side of the jacket nape?"
I don't think that the shot occured after Z223. I say between Z222 and Z223. Maybe as early as Z221.
Nice compilation of photos and graphics, btw.
Graphically, it's good to depict the SBT near Z225 because that's when both men come into view. The next-generation 3D artists will be able to make the darn highway sign transparent and go to the more viable-frame.
(https://i.imgur.com/SC5hr14.png)
Alas, the next-generation 3D is here and they're screwing it up big-time. Nice hair, though.
Where is Caprio now that we need him? He used to claim that because JFK wore expensive suits from Brooks Brothers that they would never "bunch" to rebut the evidence visible with his own eyes. If a time machine were invented to allow some of these kooks to sit in Oswald's lap as he pulled the trigger, they would gouge their own eyes out to avoid acknowledging his guilt and proclaim his innocence while the shots were still ringing in their ears.
Since the following image won't display, I can only provide the link showing the alleged entrance and exit wounds. This one is easy. If the shot was taken from the 6th floor of the TSBD, and it is known approximately where on Elm that the MB struck JFK, then the bullet's trajectory thru JFK can be determined with simple geometry. The bottom line is that the alleged exit wound can be easily referenced to the C7 vertebrae. Therefore, if the MB travels downward 17 degrees from horizontal and enters JFK and exits at C7, then it must have entered the back at C6. No amount of slouching or jacket bunching would affect this trajectory thru JFK.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_Entrance_Exit_Wounds.jpg (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_Entrance_Exit_Wounds.jpg)
So does the alleged entrance wound on the back look like it is entering at C6? No way. Yet it must have, therefore it must be magic. You just can't argue with geometry unless you identify the false assumptions that led to the wrong conclusion. All I see here are a bunch of irrelevant graphics that have no geomatics applied to them.
Here is a simple way to prove to yourself that the MB was impossible. Get in between 2 lasers pointed at each other @ 17 degrees and try to match JFK's entrance/exit wounds http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_2lasers.png (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/JFK_2lasers.png) If any LNer posts their results, I will eat a bug.
The bullet entered at about the level of C7 and exited at about the level of C7.You placed the entrance wound at the bottom of C6 and the exit wound at the middle of C7. But even if I give it to you, look how far above the shoulders you put the entrance wound. Now look at how far down the shoulders the entrance wound was in JFK's autopsy photo. Do you really think the MB is entering at C7? How far does your denial go?
(https://i.imgur.com/Uv5R4i8.png)
You placed the entrance wound at the bottom of C6 and the exit wound at the middle of C7. But even if I give it to you, look how far above the shoulders you put the entrance wound. Now look at how far down the shoulders the entrance wound was in JFK's autopsy photo. Do you really think the MB is entering at C7? How far does your denial go?
How far does Nickerson's and Organ's denial go? A long, long ways, to infinity and beyond. I've made the same point about C6/C7 and the autopsy photo several times. You can see that C7 is above the entrance wound in the photo. I can see it. Anyone with two working eyes and a willingness to acknowledge reality can see it. Heck, I know they can see it. But, they will never admit it, because doing this would mean that the SBT is bogus and that the lone-gunman theory is wrong.
Similarly, anyone with two working eyes can see that there's just no way that the modest bunch in JFK's jacket seen in the motorcade photos and films could account for JFK's rear clothing holes (never mind the fact that Willis 5 shows his jacket virtually flat). It's obvious, plainly obvious. I know they can see it, unless their eyesight is just bad. But, here, too, they'll never admit it, because if JFK's jacket didn't bunch enough to account for the rear clothing holes, those holes destroy the SBT and the lone-gunman theory.
You placed the entrance wound at the bottom of C6 and the exit wound at the middle of C7.
But even if I give it to you, look how far above the shoulders you put the entrance wound. Now look at how far down the shoulders the entrance wound was in JFK's autopsy photo. Do you really think the MB is entering at C7? How far does your denial go?
Wrong. I placed the entrance wound at C7.
First of all, that's not an X-Ray of Kennedy, who had a bit of a hunchback physique. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, at the time of the autopsy, Kennedy's shoulders were greatly elevated due to rigor mortis.
Ok, so your entrance wound was placed on the back of a tilted C7 vertebrae. Then put a spot on JFK's rigored back where you think his C7 vertebrae was and show me how it matches the back wound on the autopsy photo.
Use 2 lasers on yourself like I described upthread and match JFK's back wound, then post a photo and show us all that the MB was possible or continue with your denial. Otherwise, you need to produce something more substantial to make your case than anything you've provided so far, which is nothing.
I put the entrance wound on the back of a C7 vertebrae. You call C7 tilted because you need to for some reason. The wound on Kennedy was at the level of C7.
I'm not interested in doing your worthless laser experiment. If you're so interested in seeing it done then do it yourself. Quit flapping your gums. Put up or shut up. The single bullet trajectory has been presented in this forum by me and others. It works. That you're too damn stupid to see it is not my problem.
Somebody is pretty damned stupid if they think what they've presented in this forum "works". Of course I have done the laser experiment but if I posted my results would it change your mind? Let's see. I'm holding a mirror to show where the laser in front strikes me at C7. Note where the rear laser strikes my neck, which is where C7/C6 actually is, not on the back, like JFK's alleged entrance wound.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/MB2lasers2.png (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/MB2lasers2.png)
You must do the experiment yourself to be convinced, which is why you definitely won't do it. You wouldn't want to burst your dufus bubble by knowing the truth and having wasted decades on this forum defending the magic bullet. How stupid would that be? :-*
| (https://images2.imgbox.com/7a/39/brbOGF8h_o.png) | (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QfsQW0gVsl8/UolUnPbdgII/AAAAAAAAw3k/YzyrV14nCX4/s1600/00e.+JFK+Autopsy+Photo.jpg) |
Kennedy was slouching. You're upright, maybe leaning backwards a bit. You also need to have the laser at the necktie knot level.
The problem with this sort of experimentation is that it's a unique moment in time that has to be duplicated. On either side of that mirco-second immediately begins a million different ways that depart from the unique moment. Kennedy and you have different physiques. The odds are astronomically in favor of the duplication being a failure.
The "back wound" autopsy photo was taken as if from above the level of the wound. The lower back recedes and the head towards the top of the picture is noticeably larger. This oblique view, along with the shoulders raised up due to rigor mortis, make the wound seem lower than it was.
The lower part of the ruler rises away from the back. If the wound was in the back, the whole length of the ruler would be flat against the surface. Instead the ruler is pressed against the area where the back curves towards the neck. The level of the skin bump caused by the scapular spine (the scapula bone is raised along with the shoulders due to rigor mortis) support the entry wound at C7 level.
If you say so. Your superimposed skull and spine graphic was scaled incorrectly and cannot be used as a reference. I also have a photo showing the laser dot on my bare neck at C6/C7.
I also tried flipping the reference to the back wound and putting the laser at T1 to see where it exited with the front laser. You guessed it, below T1 and well below the knot. And the magic bullet definitely went as low as T1.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/x-ray_mb.gif (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/Images/x-ray_mb.gif)
I repeated the experiment for every conceivable position and the only way I could match the wounds was when I was bent forward almost to my knees. The front laser barely cleared my chin. Only then could it have struck JFK in the back at T1 and exited at C7, but JFK wasn't bent forward, let alone to his knees.
You can't fold your spine by slouching
and you can only rotate your spine away from the MB's trajectory to have the entry wound lower on your back than the throat wound.
Not sure what your graphics are supposed to show but they can't show you what the the lasers can, which is an accurate 3D rendering of the experiment which even a layman like you can take to the bank.
The WC reenactment, done back when laser technology was still in it’s infancy, gives us better information than Jack’s laser experiment.
https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=4231&fullsize=1 (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=4231&fullsize=1)
It has the 17-degree angle depicted by the string near the wall behind them and duplicated with the pointer held by Spector. And the subjects in the limo have similar physiques to JFK and JBC. And one can see just how much the jacket and shirt of JFK needed to be ridden up in order to line up with the trajectory of the bullet.
And denial isn't just a river in Egypt. You are not a photogrammetrist and your graphics are more than misleading. Do the laser experiment for yourself. Only a reenactment will convince you and not my reenactment. You are predisposed to reject it with your LNer layman's analysis. But I knew that, which is why I never bothered to post it before. I was just calling Nickerson's bluff to put up or shut up. Now it's your turn. Find someone that matches JFK and match the wounds with the lasers. My offer still stands to eat a bug if you post your results. Good luck!
Out of curiosity, I tried my hand at the two-laser test. Here are the results:
Here is the set-up, about 5-feet apart and a little over seventeen degrees elevation slope with an eleven degree right to left angle:
The laser level is mounted on a tripod, the front laser is mounted on a boom microphone stand, and they are pointed directly at each other:
The results are shown as follows. I don't have what I think would be a suitable mirror. But you might notice that the image from the rear is a screenshot of a pause in the video at the same time that I took the front photo with a phone camera (I spoke the words "right now" when I took the front photo and, while replaying it, paused the video when I heard me speak those words). This helps to assure that I didn't move between the two photos.
Judging from the location of the laser "crosshair" on the pattern of the shirt, it is about 3-7/8" down from the top of the collar:
This was yet another verification for me that the WC got it right. I thought I would share the details of how I set this experiment up. I triple-checked the aiming of the lasers before and after the test. It appears to me that Jack Trojan might not have set things up properly in his test.
What an outstanding job, Charles. Professional-grade equipment, too. I think Jack was using cheap laser pen-pointers and a protractor. This is how it should be done.
(https://images.dailyhive.com/20220627133633/shutterstock_1281029908.jpg)
I hear crickets over at Jack's place. He has to catch one to eat it.
Out of curiosity, I tried my hand at the two-laser test. Here are the results:
Here is the set-up, about 5-feet apart and a little over seventeen degrees elevation slope with an eleven degree right to left angle:
(https://i.vgy.me/mLu096.jpg)
The laser level is mounted on a tripod, the front laser is mounted on a boom microphone stand, and they are pointed directly at each other:
(https://i.vgy.me/WTmmNv.jpg)
The results are shown as follows. I don't have what I think would be a suitable mirror. But you might notice that the image from the rear is a screenshot of a pause in the video at the same time that I took the front photo with a phone camera (I spoke the words "right now" when I took the front photo and, while replaying it, paused the video when I heard me speak those words). This helps to assure that I didn't move between the two photos.
(https://i.vgy.me/245wZY.png)
(https://i.vgy.me/HHSVTH.jpg)
Judging from the location of the laser "crosshair" on the pattern of the shirt, it is about 3-7/8" down from the top of the collar:
(https://i.vgy.me/JohwGQ.jpg)
This was yet another verification for me that the WC got it right. I thought I would share the details of how I set this experiment up. I triple-checked the aiming of the lasers before and after the test. It appears to me that Jack Trojan might not have set things up properly in his test.
Very nicely done.
(https://i.imgur.com/kRrc7sC.gif)
Charles, is that crosshair on your back supposed to be below the shoulder blade?
Would just like to add to the praise for Charles' experiment.
Brilliantly done.
Diehard sceptics will be left to haggle over micro-details but it is a clear demonstration of the feasibility of the neck transit shot.
Once the bullet exited the neck there is only one place it could go - into Connally.
Have not heard much about probing the anterior neck wound. What were the results of that?
| (https://i.postimg.cc/x1Q0xpjZ/big-collar.jpg) | (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/hunt/towner.jpg) |
(https://images2.imgbox.com/38/ae/Fl03pOcj_o.jpg)
Found a 3D model with somewhat-comparable seated posture. The model has no articulation; the model is as originally-scanned. Back-projecting 17° upwards from Kennedy's throat wound as photographed at Bethesda leads to a "back wound" below any clothing bunch.
The base-of-the-back-of-the-neck wound on the model is about 3" below the top of the blue sweater. The orange outline from the Jeffries film shows the top of Kennedy's clothing at the nape is a little higher than that of the model, so this fits in with JFK's wound being 3½" below the top of his jacket collar ( Link (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3638.msg141918.html#msg141918) ). That leaves two-inches of material to be taken up by a one-inch-high clothing bunch. That's how the bullet holes in Kennedy's clothing (as measured when hung straight on a hanger or spread out evenly on a table) was about 5½" below the top of the clothing.
(https://i.postimg.cc/x1Q0xpjZ/big-collar.jpg) (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/hunt/towner.jpg)
Such a bunch is clearly seen in pictures taken throughout the motorcade. At least those pictures of sufficient resolution, camera angle and with Kennedy having his right arm over the car rail. The color picture above was taken as the limousine turned from Houston Street onto Elm, about seven seconds before Z223. The Zapruder film shows Kennedy had his right arm over the car rail all during the sequence before the limousine when behind the sign.