The SBT And The Importance Of CE903
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bf3ae3c6c0993e13
====================================
WHY DID GERALD FORD "MOVE" ONE OF JOHN KENNEDY'S WOUNDS?
WAS FORD ATTEMPTING TO CLARIFY THINGS? OR WAS HE PART OF SOME MASSIVE
"COVER-UP" (AS MANY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS SEEM TO BELIEVE)?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The subject of Warren Commissioner Gerald Ford "moving" the location of
President Kennedy's back wound has come up quite a bit in the wake of Mr.
Ford's death on December 26, 2006; with, of course, the CTers of the world
highlighting how Ford supposedly "moved" the wound for some conspiratorial
or "cover-up" purposes.
But if CTers were to examine the WHOLE record of the JFK back wound (and
the genesis of the Single-Bullet Theory), they'd realize that Ford's
moving of the wound (on paper) actually tends to do the SBT more HARM than
it does good!
I hadn't really realized that fact until just recently....with this fact
coming to the forefront via some JFK Forum postings written by Jean
Davison (the author of the 1983 book "Oswald's Game").
Why does the "Ford Move" do the SBT more harm than good, you ask?
Well, for starters, there's this photo of CE903 (showing Arlen Specter
with a probe/rod being held up for the cameraman to photograph)....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
....We can easily see that the metal rod does not indicate that JFK's back
wound is in the "neck". It's definitely in the upper back; with an exit
point JUST EXACTLY at the tie knot, perfectly matching the SBT's flight
path.
This CE903 evidence is something that I had seen many times before; but I
hadn't really thought about its significance too much. Most CTers, in
their usual "Everything Must Be Faked/Phony" style, scoff at CE903,
claiming it proves the SBT is "impossible", for some reason....which is
obviously a kooky notion, because it proves no such thing.
In some recent postings at "The Education Forum", Jean Davison was
highlighting the significance of CE903, and reminding everyone who would
listen that the photo that is seen in CE903 actually does, indeed, visibly
show the general path/trajectory of the SBT, just exactly how Specter (et
al) purported it as happening.
And the CE903 photo is also is general agreement (location-wise) with the
autopsy photo showing John F. Kennedy's back wound....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/sbt/hsca.jpg
To quote Jean herself:
"Both Morningstar and Kurtz claim that the entry wound HAD to be raised to
the "back of the neck" in order to make the Warren Commission's single
bullet theory work. But the assertion isn't supported, it's simply a
claim.
Furthermore, the claim is false, since there was no need to raise the
wound into the nape of the neck. Here's the official WC illustration of
the SBT, Commission Exhibit 903:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
Whether one agrees with it or not, that IS the WC's trajectory for the
single bullet, and as you can see, it doesn't require an entry in "the
back of the neck".
I respectfully ask that you take another look at this issue. My question
is still, what evidence is there that Ford made his revision in order to
support the SBT?" -- Jean Davison; 12/31/2006
~~~~~~
"To my knowledge, {nobody} has ever explained how moving the back wound up
to THE NECK supports the SBT. Nobody CAN support it, because moving the
entry to the neck would destroy the WC's SBT trajectory, not strengthen
it.
Again I'll refer you to CE 903. Although Specter didn't drill a hole in
the stand-in's body and drive the rod through it, had he done so, the
entry would be in the upper back, not in the neck. There's a string on the
wall above his hand that shows an angle of about 18 degrees -- that's the
approximate angle measured by a surveyor during the re-enactment and the
one the WC used for its SBT. If the rod is moved up to the neck, the
bullet will exit well above the exit wound under JFK's Adam's apple.
Or take a look at this photo of JFK:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/sbt/hsca.jpg
Try drawing a line of c. 18 degrees backward from the knot in JFK's tie.
Where does it come out? Upper back, right?
The claim that Ford's change "strengthens" the WC's SBT is simply not
true.
If I haven't made my point by now, I give up." -- Jean Davison; 01/02/2007
~~~~~~
Is it any wonder why I've always loved the woman named "Jean" who wrote
the above common-sense-filled remarks re. Gerald Ford and the SBT?
Just excellent!
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8861&st=60
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/252be5dd0610a57b
Anthony Marsh
That is a misrepresentation. The rod is above the top of the stand-in's
shoulder. But JFK's wound was below the top of his shoulder.
> This CE903 evidence is something that I had seen many times before; but I
> hadn't really thought about its significance too much. Most CTers, in
> their usual "Everything Must Be Faked/Phony" style, scoff at CE903,
> claiming it proves the SBT is "impossible", for some reason....which is
> obviously a kooky notion, because it proves no such thing.
>
CE903 is a deliberate lie, propaganda.
> In some recent postings at "The Education Forum", Jean Davison was
Typical WC defender.
> highlighting the significance of CE903, and reminding everyone who would
> listen that the photo that is seen in CE903 actually does, indeed, visibly
> show the general path/trajectory of the SBT, just exactly how Specter (et
> al) purported it as happening.
>
It shows a perfectly straight line, but that line does not go through
the actual wounds.
> And the CE903 photo is also is general agreement (location-wise) with the
> autopsy photo showing John F. Kennedy's back wound....
>
No.
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/sbt/hsca.jpg
>
> To quote Jean herself:
>
> "Both Morningstar and Kurtz claim that the entry wound HAD to be raised to
> the "back of the neck" in order to make the Warren Commission's single
> bullet theory work. But the assertion isn't supported, it's simply a
> claim.
>
It is a proven fact.
> Furthermore, the claim is false, since there was no need to raise the
> wound into the nape of the neck. Here's the official WC illustration of
> the SBT, Commission Exhibit 903:
>
They had to. Even Rankin knew that the back wound was below the throat
wound.
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
>
> Whether one agrees with it or not, that IS the WC's trajectory for the
> single bullet, and as you can see, it doesn't require an entry in "the
> back of the neck".
>
That's where the rod is.
> I respectfully ask that you take another look at this issue. My question
> is still, what evidence is there that Ford made his revision in order to
> support the SBT?" -- Jean Davison; 12/31/2006
>
Because the WC discussed the problem.
> ~~~~~~
>
> "To my knowledge, {nobody} has ever explained how moving the back wound up
> to THE NECK supports the SBT. Nobody CAN support it, because moving the
> entry to the neck would destroy the WC's SBT trajectory, not strengthen
> it.
>
> Again I'll refer you to CE 903. Although Specter didn't drill a hole in
> the stand-in's body and drive the rod through it, had he done so, the
> entry would be in the upper back, not in the neck. There's a string on the
No, that is a misrepresentation.
> wall above his hand that shows an angle of about 18 degrees -- that's the
> approximate angle measured by a surveyor during the re-enactment and the
> one the WC used for its SBT. If the rod is moved up to the neck, the
> bullet will exit well above the exit wound under JFK's Adam's apple.
>
Actually it isn't, but even they they did not know the exact frame and
hence the exact angle.
> Or take a look at this photo of JFK:
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/sbt/hsca.jpg
>
> Try drawing a line of c. 18 degrees backward from the knot in JFK's tie.
> Where does it come out? Upper back, right?
>
The point is that the WC knew that the back wound was actually lower
than the throat wound. They had a problem and they knew it. Ford solved
it for them.
> The claim that Ford's change "strengthens" the WC's SBT is simply not
> true.
>
> If I haven't made my point by now, I give up." -- Jean Davison; 01/02/2007
>
We gave up on Jean a long time ago. She simply refuses to look at the
evidence.
> ~~~~~~
>
> Is it any wonder why I've always loved the woman named "Jean" who wrote
> the above common-sense-filled remarks re. Gerald Ford and the SBT?
>
> Just excellent!
>
Pure nonsense.
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8861&st=60
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/252be5dd0610a57b
>
>
Gerry Simone (O)
wrong to do in the first place.
2. If you could swing Spectre's rod across to the left like cutting
through with a knife, at a constant 18 degree angle (I see the surveyor's
string), the position of that rod should still be at the level of the top
of the stand-in's right shoulder. However, the back wound in the autopsy
photo is BELOW the top of JFK's right shoulder line.
3. Similarly, would that rod shifted across to the left be 5 3/8 inches
below the top of the suit jacket's collar?
4. The stand-in for Connally is leaning down and turned too much to the
right if you compare to JBC's position at Z224 (assuming that Z224 is the
moment of the SB strike, but same difference with either Z222 or Z223).
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1190330663.7...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
stand-in's shoulder. But JFK's wound was below the top of his shoulder."
<<<
Yeah, Specter should have impaled the stand-in instead. (He was only a
stand-in for JFK anyway; so why not just drill the bastard in the back
with a real MC bullet, right?)
Tony Marsh is a "misrepresentation" of reality, folks. But CE903 isn't.
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/34899bb8b457348f
>>> "But even they {the WC} did not know the exact {SBT} frame and hence
the exact angle." <<<
Yeah. So, instead, they should have just ignored the whole problem and
tossed the SBT-favoring common sense out the nearest window, right Tony?
Or maybe they should have printed this in their final Warren Report
instead:
"Instead of the Single-Bullet Theory (a scenario which has the only bullet
[CE399] that can be connected with the wounds of EITHER Kennedy or
Connally being recovered and placed into evidence for further study), we
members of the Commission believe that three bullets actually struck these
two men, with the majority of these missiles simply vanishing into thin
air, and (somehow) leaving no trace of bodily damage inside President
Kennedy's back or neck. This three- bullet stance seems a bit complicated
and far-reaching on the "doability" and "reasonable" scales--especially
when compared to the wholly-reasonable SBT explanation (which has EVERY
LAST QUESTION ANSWERED WITHIN THAT THEORY)--but we have been told by
expert assassination analyst Anthony Marsh and others like him that the
SBT just cannot work and will not work....so, we're tossing our hands in
the air and accepting the three-bullet scenario instead. Signed....Yours
very truly (but also truly confused), Earl Warren."
>>> "We gave up on Jean {Davison} a long time ago. She simply refuses to
look at the evidence." <<<
And you simply refuse to accept the logic of the reasonable and non-
conspiracy-slanted arguments she makes.
>>> "Pure nonsense." <<<
Yeah...you are.
>>> "The point is that the WC knew that the back wound was actually lower
than the throat wound." <<<
They never "knew" any such thing, because it's just flat-out not so....and
anyone who spends just 20 seconds examining the following two photographs
(in tandem) can easily see that JFK's back wound was certainly not
anatomically LOWER than the throat wound......
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/jfk_zeroang.jpg
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/sbt/hsca.jpg
"Perhaps the clearest visual evidence of the fact that the entrance wound
in the {President's} back was definitely above the exit wound in the
throat appears in one of {the} autopsy photos taken of the left side of
the president's head as he is lying on his back, his head on a metal
headrest. Only the wound to the throat is visible, not the wound to his
upper right back. However, it couldn't be clearer from this photo that the
wound to the back was definitely above the exit wound in the throat." --
Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 424 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3200858
Gerry Simone (O)
I said the same thing. Just use your imagination.
By preserving the angle of declination that the WC claims is more or less
accurate, the rod will be at the top of the shoulder line.
The bullet hole in the autopsy photo is below JFK's shoulder line.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1190434505.2...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
Gerry Simone (O)
Your first autopsy photo (lateral view) MAY show that the throat wound was
lower but I don't think that your trajectory angle drawn is 18 degrees or
even close.
Your second autopsy back wound photo with a photo of a live JFK to the
left is not necessarily to scale and too simplistic a comparison to prove
anything.
The SBT is not just a function of the location of the wounds but also of
the trajectory angle.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1190436094....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/34899bb8b457348f
>
>>>> "But even they {the WC} did not know the exact {SBT} frame and hence
> the exact angle." <<<
>
> Yeah. So, instead, they should have just ignored the whole problem and
> tossed the SBT-favoring common sense out the nearest window, right Tony?
>
The SBT was not common sense. It was a hodge podge dreamed up to avoid a
finding of conspiracy.
> Or maybe they should have printed this in their final Warren Report
> instead:
>
> "Instead of the Single-Bullet Theory (a scenario which has the only bullet
> [CE399] that can be connected with the wounds of EITHER Kennedy or
> Connally being recovered and placed into evidence for further study), we
> members of the Commission believe that three bullets actually struck these
> two men, with the majority of these missiles simply vanishing into thin
> air, and (somehow) leaving no trace of bodily damage inside President
> Kennedy's back or neck. This three- bullet stance seems a bit complicated
> and far-reaching on the "doability" and "reasonable" scales--especially
> when compared to the wholly-reasonable SBT explanation (which has EVERY
> LAST QUESTION ANSWERED WITHIN THAT THEORY)--but we have been told by
> expert assassination analyst Anthony Marsh and others like him that the
> SBT just cannot work and will not work....so, we're tossing our hands in
> the air and accepting the three-bullet scenario instead. Signed....Yours
> very truly (but also truly confused), Earl Warren."
>
Until Specter dreamed up his SBT the WC Report was going to say three
shots three hits ala the FBI report.
As late as April 27, 1964 Redlich wrote a memo to Rankin stating that as
of that moment their report would say three shots, three hits.
> Our report presumably will state that the President was hit by
> the first bullet, Governor Connally by the second, and the President
> by the third and fatal bullet. The report will also conclude that the
> bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast
> corner window of the TSBD building.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGappD.html
>
>>>> "We gave up on Jean {Davison} a long time ago. She simply refuses to
> look at the evidence." <<<
>
> And you simply refuse to accept the logic of the reasonable and non-
> conspiracy-slanted arguments she makes.
>
What the hell is non-conspiracy about her myth of Oswald making a
Communist salute? You have a knee-jerk reaction to always misrepresent the
evidence to attack conspiracy believers.
>
>>>> "Pure nonsense." <<<
>
> Yeah...you are.
>
>
>>>> "The point is that the WC knew that the back wound was actually lower
> than the throat wound." <<<
>
>
> They never "knew" any such thing, because it's just flat-out not so....and
> anyone who spends just 20 seconds examining the following two photographs
> (in tandem) can easily see that JFK's back wound was certainly not
> anatomically LOWER than the throat wound......
>
Rankin said so in the meeting.
Barb covered this before. Pay attention.
Barb wrote:
In the Jan 27, 1964 executive session, Rankin tells the commissioners
there is still work to be done as regards the throat wound and mentions
that "there in the autopsy" it says a fragment probably came out the
throat. Other tantalizing info in there too ... and of particular note
because the autopsy report, so we are told, was already FINAL.
I have posted on this transcript many times ... it's fascinating in that
the autopsy was supposedly signed sealed and delivered long before this
and yet there are questions about where wounds were, what caused them and
plans to have assorted people work on the problem, etc.
Once the autopsy report is complete, there ARE NO more questions about the
location or cause of wounds . ... this transcript, along with the poluuted
and contorted medical evidence overall, is largely why I think it is
entirely possible ... perhaps even more probable than not ... that the
autopsy report we know and love in officialdom just may not have been
written and signed the weekend of the assassination ... or by December
when the supplemental report was done.
Rankin also states that the back wound was to the right of the spine and
below the shoulder blade ... and located lower than the throat wound. It's
a problem, as he notes, because of the angle of declination from the 6th
floor window ... quite a lot of stuff to chew on in here.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0127/html/WcEx0127_0069a.htm
As usual for a WC defender you will refuse to look at the evidence.
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/jfk_zeroang.jpg
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/sbt/hsca.jpg
>
> "Perhaps the clearest visual evidence of the fact that the entrance wound
> in the {President's} back was definitely above the exit wound in the
> throat appears in one of {the} autopsy photos taken of the left side of
> the president's head as he is lying on his back, his head on a metal
> headrest. Only the wound to the throat is visible, not the wound to his
> upper right back. However, it couldn't be clearer from this photo that the
> wound to the back was definitely above the exit wound in the throat." --
> Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 424 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
>
> http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3200858
>
I am not talking about YOUR opinion. I am talking about what the WC
thought and the problem it posed.
>
Anthony Marsh
You can't even admit that the rod goes above the top of his shoulder.
David Von Pein
degrees or even close." <<<
I didn't draw that line on that photo. I don't know who did. It's imported
from the Lancer/(Conway) archives. Mr. McAdams also has a nice (bigger)
version of that turned-sideways autopsy picture.
And the angle of descent, to be technical, is 17.43 degrees.
Anyway, as VB also says, it's as obvious as can be that the photo of JFK's
left side while he is lying on the slab is as proof-positive as
proof-positive can get that the throat wound was undeniably ANATOMICALLY
LOWER than the back wound.
Because if we're to believe that the back wound had really been LOWER
(anatomically) than the throat wound (as most CTers still believe to this
day and was also the crazy-as-all-get-out conclusion of the HSCA as well),
then via this photo below, if the back wound was visible in this picture,
the back wound would have to be literally OFF THE BOTTOM EDGE OF THE
PHOTOGRAPH.
And JFK is certainly (without doubt) in a NEUTRAL, ANATOMICALLY-ERECT
position in this photo (can anyone argue he isn't?)......
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/left.jpg
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Your first autopsy photo (lateral view) MAY show that the throat
> wound was lower, but I don't think that your trajectory angle drawn is 18
> degrees or even close." <<<
>
> I didn't draw that line on that photo. I don't know who did. It's imported
> from the Lancer/(Conway) archives. Mr. McAdams also has a nice (bigger)
> version of that turned-sideways autopsy picture.
>
> And the angle of descent, to be technical, is 17.43 degrees.
>
> Anyway, as VB also says, it's as obvious as can be that the photo of JFK's
> left side while he is lying on the slab is as proof-positive as
> proof-positive can get that the throat wound was undeniably ANATOMICALLY
> LOWER than the back wound.
>
That's YOUR opinion. The WC knew that the back wound was lower than the
throat wound.
> Because if we're to believe that the back wound had really been LOWER
> (anatomically) than the throat wound (as most CTers still believe to this
> day and was also the crazy-as-all-get-out conclusion of the HSCA as well),
> then via this photo below, if the back wound was visible in this picture,
> the back wound would have to be literally OFF THE BOTTOM EDGE OF THE
> PHOTOGRAPH.
>
Nonsense.
> And JFK is certainly (without doubt) in a NEUTRAL, ANATOMICALLY-ERECT
> position in this photo (can anyone argue he isn't?)......
>
Ask Chad. He would say it is the neutral anatomical position.
pjsp...@aol.com
David, I show you exactly where the back wound was in my video
series. I also show you the inaccuracy of CE 903 etc. If you watched
the videos, and came away from them still believing the back wound was
up at the base of the neck, you'd be the only one.
David Von Pein
series. I also show you the inaccuracy of CE 903 etc." <<<
As if I need Pat's "video series" to determine where the back wound was.
<large chuckle>
And CE903 is spot-on, dead-on accurate when comparing it (903) with the
autopsy photo and measurements done at autopsy by Boswell, et al.
But keep pretending this picture here isn't a beautiful illustration of
how the SBT WORKS (and always has WORKED). It's better for CTers and their
unsupportable theories if they just forget this photo below even exists.
Because with it in existence, it totally demolishes a good chunk of their
Anti-SBT rhetoric.....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
>>> "If you watched the videos..." <<<
I didn't. Not interested. I don't need any silly "video" to inform me as
to where the back wound was. Duh. I know where it's is located -- right
here in this picture (which equates nicely with JUST where Boswell's 11/22
Face Sheet places it; "14cm. below tip of Mastoid..."; EXACTLY there, in
fact, unless you think Dr. Boswell doesn't know his measurement stick from
his asshole):
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "David, I show you exactly where the back wound was in my video
> series. I also show you the inaccuracy of CE 903 etc." <<<
>
> As if I need Pat's "video series" to determine where the back wound was.
> <large chuckle>
>
> And CE903 is spot-on, dead-on accurate when comparing it (903) with the
> autopsy photo and measurements done at autopsy by Boswell, et al.
>
> But keep pretending this picture here isn't a beautiful illustration of
> how the SBT WORKS (and always has WORKED). It's better for CTers and their
> unsupportable theories if they just forget this photo below even exists.
> Because with it in existence, it totally demolishes a good chunk of their
> Anti-SBT rhetoric.....
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
>
>
Here's yet another WC defender who can't tell the difference between
ABOVE the top of the shoulder and BELOW the top of the shoulder.
>
>>>> "If you watched the videos..." <<<
>
> I didn't. Not interested. I don't need any silly "video" to inform me as
As I said before, you refuse to look at the evidence.
> to where the back wound was. Duh. I know where it's is located -- right
> here in this picture (which equates nicely with JUST where Boswell's 11/22
> Face Sheet places it; "14cm. below tip of Mastoid..."; EXACTLY there, in
> fact, unless you think Dr. Boswell doesn't know his measurement stick from
> his asshole):
>
14 cm. below tip of Mastoid is an inexact reference. One of the many
defects of the autopsy report.
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
>
>
Jean Davison
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:OY-dnaAuaujFHWjb...@comcast.com...
I've never said that Oswald's gesture was a "Communist salute.
Jean
<SNIP>
Gerry Simone (O)
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:OY-dnaAuaujFHWjb...@comcast.com...
David Von Pein
Bullshit.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "14 cm. below tip of Mastoid is an inexact reference." <<<
>
> Bullshit.
>
>
It's what every forensic pathologist who has reviewed this case has
said. Go talk to Dr. Henry Lee.
Here's what the HSCA FPP said. See point #4.
# The measures essential to a thorough medicolegal autopsy that the
pathologists failed to take are
1. Conducting the autopsy in an atmosphere free from the presence of
individuals not necessary to any medical or investigative aspects of the
autopsy. Aside from the Secret Service and FBI agents, it was not
necessary for other military personnel to be in the autopsy room who
were not performing a medical function.
2. Consulting the Parkland Hospital doctors who administered
emergency treatment to the President before initiating the autopsy.
According to the medical panel of the committee, such consultation is
normal procedure.
3. Acquiring the assistance of an experienced pathologist engaged in
the full-time practice of forensic pathology, as opposed to the
consulting capacity Dr. Finck possessed. Such experienced assistance
might have prevented several errors.
4. Recording precisely the locations of the wounds according to
anatomical landmarks routinely used in forensic pathology. The medical
panel of the committee stated that the reference points used to document
the location of the wound in the upper back--the mastoid process and the
acromion--are movable points and should not have been used.
5. Dissecting the wound that traversed the upper back of the
President. The medical panel stated that probing a wound with a finger
is hardly sufficient; to ascertain the actual track, the wound must be
dissected.
6. Examining all organs and documenting the results of such
examinations. Although the pathologists did examine most organs, they
made no reference to the adrenal glands, part of the anatomy routinely
examined during the autopsy.
7. Sectioning the brain coronally. Such documentation could have
provided additional insight into the destructive impact of the missile
in the brain.
# The committee recognizes that the inadequacies of the autopsy
originated in part from the unique and hectic circumstances surrounding
the death of the President, and not with any one source. Whatever the
cause, however, these inadequacies have continued to feed the confusion
and mistrust so long associated with the autopsy of President Kennedy
and have reduced the effectiveness of the committee's review of the
medical evidence. These problems reinforce the necessity for
establishing substantive and procedural guidelines to be followed in the
performance of any autopsy stemming from the assassination of a national
political official.
Anthony Marsh
> Yes, I'm aware of the 17.43 degrees.
>
> BTW, I didn't have a protractor and only estimated.
>
> Now, using my protractor, the angle comes up to 15 degrees based on the
> line drawn into the sketch but that line could be incorrect.
>
> I'm not convinced though that one can assume just by looking at this
> lateral view with the back autopsy photo in mind, as Bugliosi does, that
> the throat wound is below the back wound.
>
> (Some assassination critics say that autopsy photo of the back wound is
> slightly distorted by the method in which the body was propped for the
> photo too).
>
> The back wound was to the left of the right shoulder blade near the top of
> it.
>
> Look at this pic attached and imagine the bullet hole at the back.
>
> To me that neck wound (at the tracheotomy) would be BELOW the back wound.> news:1190520515.6...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
That's not JFK.