JFK's Shallow Back Wound and Knowledge of the Throat Wound at the Autopsy

[John Iacoletti]

It appears the clothing hung on a clothes hanger might have been the basis for Burkley's T3 level, or one of the Secret Service supplied an opinion.

“It appears” that this thing I completely made up with no basis whatsoever is what happened.

[Jerry Organ]

“It appears” that this thing I completely made up with no basis whatsoever is what happened.

I didn't make it up; others have said so.

You seem OK with Griffith claiming Burkley determined the T3 level by his "being" at Parkland and Bethesda.

Admiral Burkley's signature on two documents doesn't prove Buckley Burkley himself saw the back wound nor describe how Burkley determined a T3 level. The autopsists said the "back" wound was at the base of the back of the neck "above the upper border of the scapula".

    "A second certificate of death, signed on December 6 by Theron Ward,
     a Justice of the Peace in Dallas County, stated that Kennedy died
     "as a result of two gunshot wounds (1) near the center of the body and
     just above the right shoulder, and (2) 1 inch to the right center of the
     back of the head."
          -- Wikipedia

[Jerry Organ]

Apparently Kennedy wore a tent earlier in the parade

There are none so blind as those who will not see.



The bunch was persistent through the motorcade.

Here's one from 1961. His right arm's yet to go out over the car rail.



Maybe he could ease his back pain a bit by slouching.

[Bill Chapman]

Picard Maneuver

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=PICARD+MANUEVER&t=h_&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D3ar-eJwgTsM

I wonder how many 'Picard Maneuvers' it would take to
tame this sucker.

I did a search but found no mention of the back brace in any
of Griffin's word salads. Gotta watch out for that e-Coli

Ya just can't make this stuff up

[Michael T. Griffith]

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

The bunch was persistent through the motorcade.

Here's one from 1961. His right arm's yet to go out over the car rail.

Maybe he could ease his back pain a bit by slouching.

It is odd and rather humorous that you so frequently include photos that refute your argument. Not one of those photos shows JFK's coat bunched more than an inch or two. Surely you can see this. Of course you can.

To account for the rear clothing holes, his coat would have had to bunch far more than what we see in the photos you included. You know this. I know you do. You and others have posted these same photos before, and I and other skeptics have pointed out to you many times the obvious fact that not one of those photos shows the coat was bunched nearly enough to account for the location of the rear bullet holes in the coat and shirt. But you just keep posting those photos because you don't have any photos that show the coat bunched more than an inch or two.

I notice you said nothing about the Willis and Betzner photos, which were taken much later in the motorcade and much closer to the time of the shooting than the photos you included. What do those photos show? Hey? We both know the answer. I've pointed this out to you before. We've had this exact same discussion several times. But, you just keep lying about this over and over and over again.

And what about the tailor-made shirt? The shirt would have had to miraculously bunch in nearly perfect millimeter-for-millimeter correspondence with the coat, both vertically and depth-wise. Given that JFK's shirt was tailor-made, given that his shirt collar was buttoned, and given that he was sitting back against a seat, how in the world could his shirt have bunched more than a fraction of an inch?

This bunched-clothing theory is just ridiculous. If this were any other case, no rational, honest person would entertain such an absurd, demonstrably erroneous theory for a second. It would be dismissed as a lame, desperate attempt to avoid the obvious. The rear clothing holes are hard physical evidence that the back wound was below the throat wound, but you guys just keep lying about this because it destroys your version of the shooting.

[Bill Chapman]

It is odd and rather humorous that you so frequently include photos that refute your argument. Not one of those photos shows JFK's coat bunched more than an inch or two. Surely you can see this. Of course you can.

To account for the rear clothing holes, his coat would have had to bunch far more than what we see in the photos you included. You know this. I know you do. You and others have posted these same photos before, and I and other skeptics have pointed out to you many times the obvious fact that not one of those photos shows the coat was bunched nearly enough to account for the location of the rear bullet holes in the coat and shirt. But you just keep posting those photos because you don't have any photos that show the coat bunched more than an inch or two.

I notice you said nothing about the Willis and Betzner photos, which were taken much later in the motorcade and much closer to the time of the shooting than the photos you included. What do those photos show? Hey? We both know the answer. I've pointed this out to you before. We've had this exact same discussion several times. But, you just keep lying about this over and over and over again.

And what about the tailor-made shirt? The shirt would have had to miraculously bunch in nearly perfect millimeter-for-millimeter correspondence with the coat, both vertically and depth-wise. Given that JFK's shirt was tailor-made, given that his shirt collar was buttoned, and given that he was sitting back against a seat, how in the world could his shirt have bunched more than a fraction of an inch?

This bunched-clothing theory is just ridiculous. If this were any other case, no rational, honest person would entertain such an absurd, demonstrably erroneous theory for a second. It would be dismissed as a lame, desperate attempt to avoid the obvious. The rear clothing holes are hard physical evidence that the back wound was below the throat wound, but you guys just keep lying about this because it destroys your version of the shooting.

It would be dismissed as a lame, desperate attempt to avoid the obvious
_ Whats obvious is that Oswald got what he deserved

[Michael T. Griffith]

The utter absurdity of the bunched-clothing theory becomes obvious when we consider just how much the coat and shirt would have had to bunch to account for the location of the rear holes in JFK's coat and shirt.

The rear holes in the coat and shirt were just over 5 inches below the top of the collar (coat: 5.375 inches below the top of the coat collar; shirt: 5.75 inches below the top of the shirt collar). These holes locate the back wound at around T3, the same location established by the back-wound dot on the autopsy face sheet, by the death certificate, by Dr. Ebersole's description, and by the wound diagrams that several witnesses drew for the HSCA. However, the single-bullet theory requires that the magic bullet struck at C6 or C7, that is, at or slightly above the base of the neck.

Leaving aside the fact that the autopsy photo of the back plainly refutes the C6/C7 location, a bullet striking at C7 would have made a hole in the coat that was no more than 0.5 inches below the top of the coat collar, and would have made a hole in the shirt that was no more than 1.0 inch below the top of the shirt collar.

Now, just imagine how much the coat and shirt would have had to bunch for the bullet to have made a hole in the coat that was 5.375 inches below the top of the coat collar and a hole in the shirt that was 5.75 inches below the top of the shirt collar. The coat and shirt would have had to bunch at least 4 inches.

Just to be extra generous and cautious, let's add half an inch to the distances from the tops of the collars. That would mean that the coat and shirt would have had to bunch at least 3.5 inches to make the clothing holes fit the C7 location.

However, no photo or footage of the Dallas motorcade shows JFK's coat bunched 3.5-4 inches. The two photos taken right around the time the shooting started (Betzner 3 and Willis 5) show no large bunch in JFK's coat--indeed, Willis 5 seems to show the coat lying flat on JFK's back. And, how in the world would the tailor-made, buttoned shirt have bunched that much, and how would it have done so in nearly perfect correspondence depth-wise with the coat? It's just preposterous.

[Tim Nickerson]

It is odd and rather humorous that you so frequently include photos that refute your argument. Not one of those photos shows JFK's coat bunched more than an inch or two. Surely you can see this. Of course you can.

To account for the rear clothing holes, his coat would have had to bunch far more than what we see in the photos you included. You know this. I know you do. You and others have posted these same photos before, and I and other skeptics have pointed out to you many times the obvious fact that not one of those photos shows the coat was bunched nearly enough to account for the location of the rear bullet holes in the coat and shirt. But you just keep posting those photos because you don't have any photos that show the coat bunched more than an inch or two.

One inch of bunch actually uses up a little more than two inches of clothing. Two inches of bunch uses a little more than four inches of clothing.

On edit: I see that Jerry has already posted the graphic. Why have you ignored it? Do you not understand it?