DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:
David - please look at a real skeleton on something that is not being hunched over...
Now find the Scapula (shoulder blade)...
You can see even from that poor photo that the hole is below the top of the scapula.
It's kinda hard to have a bullet hole in the jacket and short at one level and the hole in the man at another...
The shirt hole was 1/4" lower than the jacket hole due to the jacket riding up since it was not tucked into his pants.
You can dance around and misdirect all you'd like... you can't overcome the dishonesty in these images...
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Oh, yes, David. I agree that some of the Rydberg drawings are worthless [such as CE386 and CE388]. They're a mess. And the photo on the right that you posted above is totally wrong (of course). It's not even close to representing the correct location of either wound. According to that silly drawing, the wound in the upper back is so far right of the spine, it almost misses JFK entirely.
WTF? I wonder who invented that fictional entry location? ~shrug~
But there's no "dishonest" intent in those drawings, IMO.
How can I POSSIBLY say such a thing, you ask?
Answer:
Commission Exhibit 903 (again), which shows precisely where the Warren Commission puts the wound on the back side of JFK's body---and it is NOT up in the "neck" (nor does it NEED to be in the "neck" to accommodate the SBT, as CE903 proves for all time)....
But, since we now DO have the ACTUAL autopsy pictures to look at, we can SEE where the real wounds are located. And those two entry wounds are both on the BACK part of JFK's body (in the back and head), perfectly consistent with the conclusion that TWO shots (and only two) struck JFK from BEHIND.
DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:
The image on the right is Ford's movement of the wound on Rydberg. I agree, it is totally wrong.
Why do you suppose Ford had him draw it like that when the shirt shows exactly where the entry wound was?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The shirt doesn't tell anybody where the wound was. The autopsy photo and the "14 cm. below tip of right mastoid process" measurement from the autopsy report and the face sheet are the things that tell us where the wound was located on the body of John F. Kennedy.
You think the SHIRT is BETTER information than the "14 cm. below the mastoid" measurement? Why would anyone other than Cliff Varnell think that?
The Rydberg drawings are pretty much worthless. I never use them. I use CE903 instead. It's much more accurate. And no "Neck" entry required (or even WANTED) here....
MARK KNIGHT SAID:
In relation to the back, the mastoid process is a moveable point...depending on how the neck is, or is not, bent. Lean the head to the left, and the right mastoid process is further from a selected point on the right half of the back. Lean the head to the right, and the right mastoid process is closer to a selected point on the right half of the back. Same with leaning the head backwards or forwards...the relationship between the right mastoid process and the back wound changes with movement of the head.
This, in turn, calls the entire measuring process into question. Why was the back wound location not measured from a FIXED point, in relation to the back itself? Relating the back wound to the position of the right mastoid process--ironically, the very place RFK was shot--seems to be an attempt to obfuscate the actual position of the wound. It is a somewhat ambiguous reference. Now, if we were referencing a particular HEAD wound, the right mastoid process might be a perfect reference. On a BACK wound, it would be much more logical to reference the wound location to a particular vertebra, and the distance [in this case, to the right] from that point.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Tell all that to Dr. Cyril Wecht, Mark. If I remember Dr. Wecht's comments about this topic correctly, he thinks all wounds should be referenced FROM THE TOP OF THE HEAD DOWNWARD, which, of course, means it would ALSO be a "movable" body part, because it still is, after all, being referenced in relation to the HEAD, which is movable.
The mastoid measurement is perfectly fine. CTers just like to gripe about everything the autopsists did. If the measurement was taken from the mastoid when the body was in an anatomic posture (i.e., the "autopsy" position)--and why would Humes be doing such a measurement with the body of JFK in any other position?--then measuring from the mastoid process is a perfectly good place to measure from. Certainly AS GOOD as Dr. Wecht's preferred starting point of the top of the head.
David Von Pein
July 1-3, 2015
