No, it most certainly was not in the "low neck." The autopsy photo alone refutes this myth.
Even Google AI knows that T1 is not in the neck:
The "T" stands for Thoracic: This means T1 is the first vertebra of the thoracic spine (the upper and middle back section).
"This wound is located approximately at the point where the bullet would be expected to exit, given the nature of the entrance wound in the upper right back and the damage to the transverse process of the lower cervical and first thoracic vertebras, which are situated on a line between the entrance and exit points."- HSCA Volume VII, page 175
That may be why they said this:
"the entrance perforation is medial to the scapula and superior to the ribs." - HSCA Volume VII, page 87
T1 being the uppermost vertebra for the ribs.
And there's this from the HSCA photographic analysis panel:
168. "the evidence indicates that the bullet passed near, but did not strike, the right lateral processes of the seventh cervical and first thoracic vertebrae (nor any other bony matter) (59)"- HSCA Volume VI, page 56
(59) sources paragraphs 272-289 of the FPP report.
Even partially acknowledging the autopsy photo of the back wound and mislocating the wound at C7 does not work, because C7 would have been only very slightly above the throat wound, if not level with it, whereas the downward angle from the sixth-floor window to JFK would have been between 20 and 21.5 degrees. Humes knew this, and this is why he purposely falsified the back wound's location in CE 385, and this is why the WC assumed the back wound was in the neck and that it was visibly above the throat wound.
When factoring in the 3 degree slope of the street, the angle through Kennedy was about 17.25 degrees.
This X-Ray below was not of someone with a hunchback physique like that of Kennedy's.
And using this HSCA drawing, we can see that T1 is above the throat wound as well.
Of course, you continue to cling to the absurd bunched-clothing theory to explain away the fact that the bullet holes in the back of JFK's coat and shirt were 5 inches below the collar, even though Croft 3 and Willis 5 plainly refute the theory, not to mention the severely far-fetched notion that the shirt could have bunched in nearly perfect correspondence with the coat.
BTW, do you still stand by your bizarre claim that the 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment on the AP skull x-ray are the same object, even though both are plainly visible on the x-ray and look nothing like each other?
My claim is not bizarre. It is a factual claim that you have thus far been unable to address in a cogent and honest manner. You will no doubt continue to avoid addressing the bullet fragment that is imbedded in the frontal skull bone.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,5194.msg186604.html#msg186604
Recent Posts
