In article <515f5eae$
1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>
> 1. I don't have the CE's in front of me. So I won't comment right now.
Let me help.
Link to CE-385:
http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/9234/ce3852.jpg
Link to CE-388:
http://imageshack.us/a/img861/7946/ce388.jpg
>2. Yes, he did that
>
>3. The photos ARE the evidence.
Look I also believe the photo you posted with JFK's head in the stirrup
appears to definitely show the throat wound is below the back wound....but
just not the angle (very very roughly 27 degrees) that Lattimer
demonstrates in his graphic [Fig. 73].
IMO, the major problem with Figure 73, is that he has the back wound at
the base of the neck. I think even you'll agree it's not that high. It's
possible he was misled by CE-385...I don't think he was trying to be
deceptive.
In any case, I also don't believe JFK was hunched over to the extent that
Baden claims he was.
All that said, however, I haven't seen the originals and Baden et al
have....stereoscopically.
I'm also disappointed that, even though the stirrup shouldn't make a
decisive difference in the matter, I feel those who trot out that photo as
absolute proof the back wound was well above the throat wound, in all
fairness, should point out the photo (because of the stirrup and the fact
JFK's BOH is not touching the table) doesn't "exactly" show JFK in the
100% erect position.
In fact, if the trajectory pointing back were as Lattimer shows in Figure
73 [again very very roughly 27 degrees]....and JFK was hunched over even
one-third the extent Baden claims he was, then, IMO, Lattimer's trajectory
would be pointing probably at the rooftop of the TSBD vs. the sixth floor.
Anyway, because Humes had Rydberg draw the back wound at the base of the
neck (instead in the upper back where it should have been) I can only
conclude he felt that where he saw the wounds [back & throat] on the body,
as far as the trajectory back based on the relative level of those back
and throat wounds, was not consistent with a shot from the SN.
Of course he didn't know if JFK was erect or hunched over when he was
shot.
I think, and this is simply my opinion FWIW, based on CEs 385 & 388,
Ford's changing of the WC's wording, what Baden et al saw on the
originals, plus other things (too numerous to list here), JFK must have
been at least a little hunched over....and that combined with the back
wound being a little to somewhat above the throat wound (erect position)
the back to throat wound trajectory back pointed at the SN.
BTW, regardless of whether or not the record shows G. Ford saw the photos,
I believe he did and that's why he had the language the WC used to
describe the location of the "upper back" wound changed to read "near the
base of the neck".
I don't know if you've read what I wrote...after all the exchanges we've
had over the years I've learned one thing about you...that is that you
hardly ever read any replies to you (at least from me) that are longer
than a few sentences....and this one might be one of those.
If you did read this far and you're willing to go a little bit further
there's one more comment I want to get off my chest.
When I merely present a few facts (e.g. CEs 385 & 388, Baden's take on the
issue, and Ford's adjustment of the WC's wording) in response to DVP's or
your posts I think it's crossing the line for you to suggest I'm
fantasizing.
I've been awarded two Air Force Meritorious Service and several other less
prestigious medals, had one JFK book published and might well have another
on the medical evidence published soon enough, credited with ensuring the
radar that controled many of the B-52s going into and out of Viet Nam in
early 1968 was fully operational at "critical" times [remember Khe
Sanh?..my guess is not, you're probably too young...Bill Clark does], and
am the co-owner of a patent for a video tape timing device. None of that
would have been possible if I was prone to fantasize....so I'll respect
you if you'll show some respect for me if we are to continue to exchange
thoughts re. this case.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net