The Location of the Back Wound - confirmed by Boswell
Robert Harris
Which apparent wound location was the real one - the upper, as the HSCA
doctors claimed, or the lower.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg
Let's see what Dr. Thornton Boswell said, in sworn testimony for the
ARRB. Keep in mind, that unlike the HSCA guys, this doctor examined the
wound himself and actually probed it.
From Dr. Thornton Boswell's ARRB testimony:
Q. Okay. Now, if we could go to the other wounds there, could you
identify where the entrance wound was in the body of President Kennedy,
outside of the scalp now? Does that wound that you're pointing to
correspond to the larger wound that is to the right of the ruler in the
photograph? Again, assuming President Kennedy were standing erect.
A. Yes.
Q. So it's the wound that comes closer to being towards the tip of the
ruler towards the neck?
A. No, this is blood clot down here. This is not wound.
Q. You're referring to a second marking that is somewhat below--
A. Right.
(...and more)
Q. If you had to match the entrance wound that you can see on the
photograph in View 4 to one of the vertebra, would you be able to give
an approximate location, either C7 or C4 or T3, whatever?
A. Well, it's certainly not as low as T4. I would say at the lowest it
might be T2. I would say around T2.
(...and more)
Q. So is the question now whether it can be identified by the photograph?
A. This is a good wound of entrance. It's indented, almost round. I
think that the photograph is very good for identifying that as a wound
of entrance.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg
Look again, at the candidates and decide for yourself, which one he was
talking about.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
> Which apparent wound location was the real one - the upper, as the HSCA
> doctors claimed, or the lower.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg
>
> Let's see what Dr. Thornton Boswell said, in sworn testimony for the
> ARRB. Keep in mind, that unlike the HSCA guys, this doctor examined the
> wound himself and actually probed it.
>
You are citing a liar. Boswell was the guy who diagrammed the wound well
below the top of the shoulders that night and then years later
"corrected" it to above the top of the shoulders for the Baltimore Sun.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/sun.gif
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Robert Harris wrote:
> > Which apparent wound location was the real one - the upper, as the HSCA
> > doctors claimed, or the lower.
> >
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg
> >
> > Let's see what Dr. Thornton Boswell said, in sworn testimony for the
> > ARRB. Keep in mind, that unlike the HSCA guys, this doctor examined the
> > wound himself and actually probed it.
> >
>
> You are citing a liar. Boswell was the guy who diagrammed the wound well
> below the top of the shoulders that night and then years later
> "corrected" it to above the top of the shoulders for the Baltimore Sun.
>
> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/sun.gif
Yep, you're right. But the alternative was to call his commanding
officer and the WC, liars - not exactly a great career move for a Navy
doctor.
But he was retired when the ARRB interviewed him, so he was free to tell
the truth. And he had NO motive or reason to lie about the location of
that entry wound.
Robert Harris
jas
> In article <4794eeb...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The location of the back entrance wound is 5 1/2 inches below the tip of
the right mastoid process (the bony bump behind the ear.) So, the upper
one is the correct back wound.
BTW Robert, I enjoy watching your videos, although I don't agree with your
conclusions.
For example: I'm so surprised when an intelligent man as yourself would
actually maintain that a second bullet, fired from the right front
(presumably the grassy knoll) struck JFK in the head immediately after
Oswald's third shot from behind when there is no medical evidence of any
entrance wound in the right front, or exit wound in the rear (or rear
left) of the head. JFK's autopsy X-rays reveal a clear path of bullet
splinters travelling from rear to front of the right top of his head with
a larger fragment lodged above his right eye.
But, I suppose when one resorts to calling the doctors "liars," (as A.
Marsh does) and the X-rays somehow altered, well, then that explains it
all away. Sheesh. (As a side note: I often wonder if any of the surviving
pathologists/doctors/experts ever check in on these JFK forums and see
people calling them bald-face liars. If so, I wonder what they think about
that.)
In your video on your alleged 2nd head shot, what you show as proof of
brain matter sticking out of the rear of JFK's head in the Zapruder film
is ridiculously flawed because there's no way anyone with any common sense
can look at that blurry area and say with any certainty that it is, in
fact, brain matter. It looks like a very blurry image of the rear top of
JFK's hair to me, the blur that inevitably appears on again and off again
throughout Zapruder's 8mm film.
Not to be overly graphic, but when Oswald's third shot hit JFK's head
there was an explosion of skull bone and brain matter that went in all
directions, including the rear, some of which landing of the trunk of the
limo. How can you say with certainty that Jackie Kennedy's movements onto
the trunk supports your opinion that there had to be a shot from the
front? That's not only a stretch of the imagination, it's absurd.
This is not a Hollywood plot. There is no "suspension of disbelief" or
"leap of faith" to rely on in explaining anything. There exists only cold,
hard evidence to support the LN side of only one shot striking the head
from the rear. There was absolutely no exit wound found in the rear of
JFK's head in the autopsy. That fact was reaffirmed by the HSCA, the
Rockefeller Committee, and the Clark Panel. There was only a clear entry
wound there, as defined by solid forensic science for gunshot wounds,
affirmed by a total of 17 doctors and pathologists throughout the
investigations.
All you've done is another, and quite ubiquitous, CT tactic: Taken frames
of the Zapruder film completely out of context -- sans all the evidence
together -- and made a wrong conclusion.
Interesting presentation, but no cigar.
Robert Harris
<95652c86-c5e7-485f...@m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
That was Humes' statement and it was a lie, as that autopsy photo
proves.
And Boswell confirmed in his ARRB testimony, what is ridiculously
obvious, that the bullet entry was at the lower of those two locations.
>
> BTW Robert, I enjoy watching your videos, although I don't agree with your
> conclusions.
>
> For example: I'm so surprised when an intelligent man as yourself would
> actually maintain that a second bullet, fired from the right front
> (presumably the grassy knoll) struck JFK in the head immediately after
> Oswald's third shot from behind when there is no medical evidence of any
> entrance wound in the right front, or exit wound in the rear (or rear
> left) of the head. JFK's autopsy X-rays reveal a clear path of bullet
> splinters travelling from rear to front of the right top of his head with
> a larger fragment lodged above his right eye.
The three top non-government experts to examine those Xrays, unanimously
concluded that JFK was hit in the head twice. They travelled to Bethesda
separately, and came to their conclusions independently, at a time when
standard CT lore was that JFK was hit once in the head by a shot from the
front.
And how can you watch that video and conclude that there was no evidence
of an exit wound in the rear??
How do you explain that massive protrusion in the back of the head, that
is visible after about Z330??
Can you offer a better explanation?
>
> But, I suppose when one resorts to calling the doctors "liars," (as A.
> Marsh does) and the X-rays somehow altered, well, then that explains it
> all away.
Humes did lie - repeatedly in fact, which is why he was constantly
contradicting Boswell.
I don't think for a millisecond though, that he or the people who gave him
orders, did so with evil intentions. They genuinely believed at that time,
that Oswald was connected to Castro, and that discovery of a conspiracy
would provoke the Russians into a world war.
> Sheesh. (As a side note: I often wonder if any of the surviving
> pathologists/doctors/experts ever check in on these JFK forums and see
> people calling them bald-face liars. If so, I wonder what they think about
> that.)
Look at Boswell's drawing and compare it with Humes' neckline entry point.
One of them was lying his butt off, or was smoking some really strange
stuff.
Look at Humes' lie, that the front-to-back damage in the large defect was
only 13 cm. If you read Seaton's articles about that, which are
accompanied by some very detailed explanations by Boswell, you will
quickly learn that Humes took his measurement with a large section of the
defect covered up by scalp and bone that was put back in place.
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm#boswell_talks
>
> In your video on your alleged 2nd head shot, what you show as proof of
> brain matter sticking out of the rear of JFK's head in the Zapruder film
> is ridiculously flawed because there's no way anyone with any common sense
> can look at that blurry area and say with any certainty that it is, in
> fact, brain matter. It looks like a very blurry image of the rear top of
> JFK's hair to me, the blur that inevitably appears on again and off again
> throughout Zapruder's 8mm film.
LOL!!
Let me know when you want to get serious.
Robert Harris
Herbert Blenner
> Which apparent wound location was the real one - the upper, as the HSCA
> doctors claimed, or the lower.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg
>
> Let's see what Dr. Thornton Boswell said, in sworn testimony for the
> ARRB. Keep in mind, that unlike the HSCA guys, this doctor examined the
> wound himself and actually probed it.
>
> From Dr. Thornton Boswell's ARRB testimony:
>
> Q. Okay. Now, if we could go to the other wounds there, could you
> identify where the entrance wound was in the body of President Kennedy,
> outside of the scalp now? Does that wound that you're pointing to
> correspond to the larger wound that is to the right of the ruler in the
> photograph? Again, assuming President Kennedy were standing erect.
>
> A. Yes.
The larger object is rounder than the smaller object.
>
> Q. So it's the wound that comes closer to being towards the tip of the
> ruler towards the neck?
>
> A. No, this is blood clot down here. This is not wound.
Down here refers to an object farther from the tip of the ruler. So
Boswell did not answer the asked question.
>
> Q. You're referring to a second marking that is somewhat below--
>
> A. Right.
The blood clot is below the rounder object.
>
> (...and more)
>
> Q. If you had to match the entrance wound that you can see on the
> photograph in View 4 to one of the vertebra, would you be able to give
> an approximate location, either C7 or C4 or T3, whatever?
>
> A. Well, it's certainly not as low as T4. I would say at the lowest it
> might be T2. I would say around T2.
T2 is above T3 as shown on the following graphic.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/t3.jpg
>
> (...and more)
>
> Q. So is the question now whether it can be identified by the photograph?
>
> A. This is a good wound of entrance. It's indented, almost round. I
> think that the photograph is very good for identifying that as a wound
> of entrance.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg
Boswell confirms the wound of entry as the rounder object.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
Of course T2 is always above T3, by definition. So what?
> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/t3.jpg
>
>
That graphic does not show where T2 is.
groov...@gmail.com
Herbert, where did you find that graphic? I've looked in dozens of
anatomy books and have found that the shoulder tips most usually align
around T1.
Herbert Blenner
Anthony Marsh
Again, I believe that some people look at one reference drawing and then
mistakenly believe it shows President Kennedy's physique. But it does not.
Kennedy was exceptionally square shouldered. The location of T1 is
different on different people in different positions when compared to the
top of the shoulders. Sometimes above, sometimes below. Look at the Dox
drawing. T1 is below the top of the shoulders, which is where the autopsy
photos show a bullet wound.
groov...@gmail.com
You're correct, Anthony. From what I can gather, the top of the shoulders
is normally about T1, which explains why Boswell said the wound in the
photo, below the top of the shoulders, was at T2, and why Burkley, looking
at the face sheet, thought it was around T3. For me, T1-T3 is still too
low to support that a bullet fired from the sniper's nest would exit the
throat without piercing the lung.
Anthony Marsh
All correct. I do not attack Boswell or Burkley for their incorrect
guesses. They were not forensic pathologists. And as I have pointed out
any wound lower than C7-T1 would blast through a thoracic vertebra and
smash into the manubrium.
I am curious about one thing though and wonder if you know the answer. Did
Burkley base it ONLY on looking at the face sheet or did he also look at
the body itself?
Anthony Marsh
Lower WHAT? There was only one bullet hole on the back. And why would you
be citing Boswell for anything when he lied to us in the Sun article and
moved the back wound up to above the top of the shoulders? Is that X where
you think the entrance wound really was?
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/sun.gif