The Fundamental Problem

[Royell Storing]

14cm x 14cm location measured on the actual body
Yet you jump on the (generic) drawing itself. Again.

Kennedy's haberdashery, post shots: A bunch of problems for CTers unable to do the math.

     Try as you might, you are Not going to get away from the corroborated Location of the JFK BACK WOUND.

[Jack Trojan]

14cm x 14cm location measured on the actual body
Yet you jump on the (generic) drawing itself. Again.

Kennedy's haberdashery, post shots: A bunch of problems for CTers unable to do the math.

How about you do some math for a change. For starters, what vertebrae does the back wound correspond to?

[Tim Nickerson]

      The JFK Autopsy Face Sheet shows the JFK Back Wound in the same location as: (1) Autopsy Photo(s), (2) JFK Dress Jacket, (3) JFK Dress Shirt. This Multiple Corroboration disproves your contention that there was no attention to detail regarding the JFK Autopsy Face Sheet.  The JFK Back Wound as notated on the Autopsy Face Sheet was as Mona Lisa Vito would say, "Dead on balls accurate".

"Examination of photographs of anterior and posterior views of thorax, and anterior, posterior and lateral views of neck (Photographs 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 38, 39, 40, 41). There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the skin of the back located approximately 15 cm. medial to the right acromial process, 5 cm. lateral to the mid-dorsal line and 14 cm. below the right mastoid process. This wound lies approximately 5.5 cm. below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck. This fold can also be seen in a lateral view of the neck which shows an anterior tracheotomy wound. This view makes it possible to compare the levels of these two wounds in relation to that of the horizontal plane of the body. A well defined zone of discoloration of the edge of the back wound, most pronounced on its upper and outer margins, identifies it as having the characteristics of the entrance wound of a bullet. The wound with its marginal abrasion measures approximately 7 mm. in width by 10 mm. in length. The dimensions of this cutaneous wound are consistent with those of a wound produced by a bullet similar to that which constitutes exhibit CE 399. At the site of and above the tracheotomy incision in the front of the neck, there can be identified the upper half of the circumference of a circular cutaneous wound the appearance of which is characteristic of that of the exit wound of a bullet. The lower half of this circular wound is obscured by the surgically produced tracheotomy incision which transects it. The center of the circular wound is situated approximately 9 cm. below the transverse fold in the skin of the neck described in a preceding paragraph. This indicates that the bullet which produced the two wounds followed a course downward and to the left in Its passage through the body."

http://www.jfklancer.com/ClarkPanel.html

[Bill Chapman]

     Try as you might, you are Not going to get away from the corroborated Location of the JFK BACK WOUND.

Corroborated by whom? You lot? LOL

14x14cm 'balls on' the junction where the neck meets the back

[Dillon Rankine]

      The JFK Autopsy Face Sheet shows the JFK Back Wound in the same location as: (1) Autopsy Photo(s), (2) JFK Dress Jacket, (3) JFK Dress Shirt. This Multiple Corroboration disproves your contention that there was no attention to detail regarding the JFK Autopsy Face Sheet.  The JFK Back Wound as notated on the Autopsy Face Sheet was as Mona Lisa Vito would say, "Dead on balls accurate".

None of that is specific enough to make inferences regarding its relation to a particular vertebra. The measurements are the most important?T1 is the most consistent (see Pat Speer?s replication using a man of JFK?s measurements). 

[Bill Chapman]

How about you do some math for a change. For starters, what vertebrae does the back wound correspond to?

14x14cm

[Dillon Rankine]

Dillon,

A rather decent post overall. Though, I do take issue with one of your assertions. You refer to "the infamous pseudosciences perpetrated by Thomas Canning and Vincent Guin." I have no idea as to what Canning's pseudoscience might be but I suspect with Guinn that you are alluding to Neutron Activation Analysis. NAA is not a pseudoscience. Guinn's use of it is questionable but the science itself is not. At least, not that I'm aware of.

The language is admittedly dramatic. NAA as a method isn?t pseudoscience, but Guin?s usage of it in the JFK and other cases seems to fit the citeria?mainly overblown statements of certainty/accuracy and erroneously stating the extent to which the results were sknficant and specific to individual samples. Canning?s trajectory analysis was based two big faulty premises: bullets travel in straight lines and the SBT happened at Z190?he also overstated the significance of his tests.   

[Dillon Rankine]

You've either got the wrong forum or you have a very skewed way of looking at it. In a nutshell, CTs hold the WC's feet to the fire while LNers merely deny everything that hints at conspiracy. CTs are AOK with Oswald taking token shots at JFK, but he was not a lone nut, simple as that.

LNers are actually Conspiracy Deniers, Coincidence Theorists and WC shills. Painting LHO as a LN is a WC conspiracy. To what degree LHO was involved is still up for debate but the LN hypothesis is effectively dead. Only the Chapmans remain to troll the forum.

All I did here was talk about the general epistemologies held by each of the debate. For instance, give me an argument favouring the CT side that doesn?t follow the basic rules I outlined (I know there are some).

Your sense of certainty seems to be decidedly inflated; what makes you quite so sure that the LN theory is dead in the water, and only CT explanations?