Questioning Dale Myer’s JFK animation

Myers Critiqued

Myerr’s re-creation (left) compared to a photo from a near simultaneous moment in Dealey Plaza.

In WhoWhatWhy, Russ Baker and Milicent Cranor call into question Myer’s animated recreation of the first gunshot to hit President Kennedy. Myer’s work was used by ABC News special that affirmed the unpopular lone gunman theory.

Fair criticism?

 

119 comments

  1. “Fair criticism?”~Jeff Morley

    Yes indeed it is! Dale Myer’s work is trash that doesn’t even come close to representing what he attempts with his goofy cartoon.

    Of course this is going to be a rehash of all the arguments of just a couple months ago on the same subject. We will surely to see a reiteration of Dr Photon’s blithering nonsense about Kennedy’s “Weird Neck”.
    Let the “blablabla” crank up again!!
    \\][//

  2. Photon says:

    Well first off, the photo posted by Baker and Cranor was taken while the limo was on Houston . To claim it is simultaneous with the Myers frame is a lie.The Robert Croft photo taken at approximately Zapruder frame 161 clearly shows that JFK had assumed the position as represented in the Myers animation, at approximately the same time .
    If Baker and Cranor were interested in the truth why claim a photo taken while on Houston is more representative of JFK’s position when shot than one taken on Elm milliseconds before he was actually hit?

    • Jordan says:

      Photon….Clearly you meant to say “…milliseconds before he was allegedly hit?” Am I right…?

    • “Zapruder frame 161 clearly shows that JFK had assumed the position as represented in the Myers animation”~Photon

      No human being could possibly assume the position represented in the Myers animation. Maybe a swan in a business suit.
      \\][//

    • J.D. says:

      The photo by Towner was taken as the limo was turning from Houston onto Elm. Therefore, it is entirely accurate to say that it was taken “just seconds before the shooting began.”

      The Croft photo can be seen here:
      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched3.htm

      While JFK looks to be in a slightly different position in the Croft photo, in neither photo does he resemble Myers’s absurd cartoon.

    • DG Michael says:

      Oh, please…no way! You’re really grasping for straws here. Please take the time to read Pat Speer’s excellent debunking – and total demolishing – of Myers’s cartoon:

      http://www.patspeer.com/chapter12c%3Aanimania

      Myers’s so-called “scientific” animation is so dishonest it’s laugheable and it was done mainly to fit the nutters’ – and the MSM’s – agenda of Krazy Kid doing the deed.

  3. Sandy K. says:

    Dale Myer’s breakthrough animation depicts Mr. Kennedy as a bendable Gumby toy.

  4. Arnaldo M. Fernandez says:

    For clarifying the issue, we don´t need any photo, but just:
    1)JFK’s jacket(FBI Exhibit 59) with a bullet hole 5 3/8″ below the top of the collar
    2)JFK’s shirt (FBI Exhibit 60) with a bullet hole 5 3/4″ from top of collar and about 3/4″ from the center.
    The supporters of the SBT must prove how waving, raising shoulders or any other kind of movement could elevate JFK´s jacket and shirt to align the bullet holes with both an entry wound near the base of the neck on the right side and an exit wound in the throat, id est: how the fabric could bunch about 2 3/4″ up and twisted 1 3/4″ rightwards, because such movements are inconceivable for a shirt buttoned to the neck and tucked into the pants, with a tailored-fit-in jacket pretty snug around shoulders and arms.

  5. kennedy63 says:

    This minutia is totally useless. The trajectories of bullets are irrelevant. The objective here is to debunk the myth of Oswald’s guilt, which this cartoon about JFK’s murder seems to associate with Oswald. Myer’s also tackled the Tippit murder and hooked that on Oswald as well. How is it that Oswald said “Don’t believe the so-called evidence” and “I’m just a Patsy,” but the Warren Omission claimed he wanted fame as his motive. When you take the Omission’s suspect motive out of the equation, you get the distilled version of Oswald’s position. He was totally set up with much coached testimony and altered, fabricated, postmortem evidence, as the Patsy for JFK’s murder.
    Dale Myers’ computer generated cartoon animation was a for profit production.The people surrounding Oswald on the day of the Coup knew Oswald was innocent – hell, Hoover in Washington knew the evidence was not strong enough to convict Oswald. Solution? Kill Oswald – problem solved!!

  6. kennedy63 says:

    The other oddity that the lone gunman seem to ignore: The autopsists claimed they could not locate an exist wound for the entry shoulder wound…how does the “Oswald did-it” crowd account for the single bullet theory and this non-exiting bullet wound?

  7. This exact topic was posted previously on JFKfacts. There were many comments on that article. Where is that comments section now?
    What date was the original published? Why isn’t the search function able to locate the original. Does this mean that original comments section is lost?
    \\][//

  8. Paulf says:

    I never knew JFK was a lizard. There was a guy who could bend like that once on the X-Files.

  9. Tom S. says:

    I received a request to post a link to the November, 2015 article with
    the name of Dale Myers in the title.

    https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/dale-myers-on-the-state-of-the-jfk-case/
    “Dale Myers On the state of the JFK case”

    The topic of the two threads differ. Please stay on topic here, or submit your comment
    to the prior Dale Myers related topic linked above.

    • The photograph under scrutiny in this thread appeared in the whowhatwhy article in late November, 2015 …

      http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/11/24/the-mystery-of-the-constant-flow-of-jfk-disinformation/

      which was embedded in Jeff Morley’s December 3, 2015 thread:

      https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/why-so-many-books-supporting-the-official-theory-of-jfks-assassination/#more-21212

      As noted, there was a lengthy debate on that thread, yet photon is launching into the same argument on this new thread, opening with an almost verbatim statement that he presented in Nov/Dec as if it was never challenged, let alone established as bogus? Anyone studying the conversation will recognize photon’s “abnormal neck” allegations in spite of waiting weeks to reveal any semblance of defence of his argument … and when he did, it was summarily dismissed as without merit.

      • Tom S. says:

        Leslie,
        Now you’ve done it! Can we let sleeping necks lay in place, or at least stir them where they lie, and not here?

        • Touché TomS! except for the fact that photon is inching toward reintroducing the “abnormal neck” meme which is the basis upon which he builds his defence of a magic bullet. Kennedy’s posture created the phenomenon. Tell me I’m wrong, photon? Or we can take this debate back to that original thread as TomS requests. But you can’t have it both ways? or maybe you can.

          • Photon says:

            No one dismissed it. No one has the medical knowledge even to know what I was posting about. I suggested having an internist look at the film I referred too. Nobody has the courage actually to do so.
            It is quite simple -the fact that nobody has figured out why he had an abnormal neck is rather amazing for a group of individuals who claim to be such medical experts.
            But Myers representation ( and Lattimer’s for that matter) is more representative of JFK’s true abnormal neck condition than most other representations. And as I stated it was confirmed by RFK after he saw the autopsy.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            The 11/15 article on here was about a Myers piece on 52 long years/still no proof that Oswald didn’t do it. The article linked in this post by Jeff is about Myers, eh, cartoon of JFK’s head being down to the level of the doors of the limousine.
            It also appears in the 11/15 article courtesy of a link in a post by Gary Aguilar. Both articles are worth reading if you have time. As well as both threads, if you take Photon with a grain of salt.

          • Photon says:

            The abnormal neck condition is certainly not a requirement for the “Magic Bullet” as the validity of that fact is based on the positions of JFK and Connolly in the limo, the placement of the wounds on each victim, the characteristics of the 6.5 mm Italian round and the sequence of events in the Zapruder film.
            What it does is to demonstrate that several CT medical ” experts” have no idea that JFK had the condition, a condition that could lead to confusion interpreting the placement of the wounds, particularly by layman totally unaware of how post -mortem pictures may not accurately represent wound placement in the living victim.

          • This “Neck” business is a snare, a trap to put us on a carousel that will go round and round for the entire thread.

            I refuse to get on that creaking contraption one more time.
            \\][//

          • photon, you persistently assume an adversarial role on a site dedicated to facts, which makes no sense. Why not simply present the medical proof that John Kennedy had an abnormal neck, in good faith? And as I recall, you failed to produce a credible citation that RFK recognized that abnormality in his brother’s neck. Here’s your opportunity to set the record straight, clear and simple.

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Sleeping necks don’t lie. They cannot. They can only be dissected. Or disintegrate. A proper autopsy using forensic pathologists should have been done. In Dallas. But the President did get “special” treatment.

  10. Mike Swanson says:

    It may not be a good representation of reality, but Dale Myers cartoon is colorful and it got him on my television box. It is a cute animation and no one can deny that. Kinda like a coloring book.

  11. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Along the line of the theme here… The first time I saw the Dale Myers bit some years ago I thought ‘of all the Mickey Mouse stuff I’ve seen before’. JFK was sitting up almost strait. When hit in the throat as he raises his hands toward it he straightens up even more. He then rocks slightly forward from the back shot before going back and to the left from the head shot. I know, oversimplification. I don’t claim to be a Zapruder film expert.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Also of note is the similarity of Myers caricature with that of the Rydberg drawing done from Humes description for the Warren Omission.
      The actual article in whowhatwhy is great. Any visitors to the site should be sure and read it.

      • This is like GROUNDHOG DAY to me (which is tomorrow incidentally) But I mean the movie – where the same thing keeps happening each day.
        This thread was posted before! I remember it!! The link to the Russ Baker-Milicent Cranor article, the whole shebang. As a separate article – not something embedded in those other two articles Tom put the links up for.

        I hear the theme to the Twilight Zone rising in the distance.
        \\][//

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        Thinking of the Rydberg drawings made me think of Prayer Man. Rydberg has JFK sitting straight up for the back shot. His depiction of JFK during the head shot has him bent over like he’s praying.

        • Ronnie,

          Rydberg later denounced those drawings himself, and the circumstances they were made in.
          The drawings do not properly represent the postures nor the wound trajectories at all.
          \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Then why do Conspiracy advocates constantly assume that they are more than just schematic drawings to approximate the wounds?

          • Photon,
            I have never “assumed” the Rydberg drawings as anything but the garbage they are.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Humes was apparently the first person to criticize the Rydberg drawings:

            “I must state these drawings are in part schematic. The artist had but a brief period of some 2 days to prepare these. He had no photographs from which to work, and had to work under our description, verbal description, of what we had observed.
            Mr. SPECTER – Would it be helpful to the artist, in redefining the drawings if that should become necessary, to have available to him the photographs or X-rays of the President?
            Commander HUMES – If it were necessary to have them absolutely true to scale. I think it would be virtually impossible for him to do this without the photographs.
            Mr. SPECTER – And what is the reason for the necessity for having the photographs?
            Commander HUMES – I think that it is most difficult to transmit into physical measurements the–by word the exact situation as it was seen to the naked eye.”

            The drawings didn’t appear in the Warren Report.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Willy, and anyone else, Rydberg wrote a book about it as you may already know called Head of the Dog (which I have not read). William Law does an excellent interview of him in In The Eye Of History. He knows everything was not on the up and up.

          • jeffc says:

            Jean D – “Humes was apparently the first person to criticize the Rydberg drawings”

            Humes directed the creation of the drawings. What is happening in this exchange with Specter is less criticism and more a backdoor to escape should the actual photographs be seen by the public and compared to these drawings. In 1967, as has been pointed out to you several times, Humes appeared on national television (when the actual photographs were still tightly held) and claimed the drawings matched the photos. As Gerald McKnight notes in “Breach of Trust”, the Commission did have access to the autopsy photographs and true schematic drawings could have been made but weren’t.

            “The drawings didn’t appear in the Warren Report.”

            The drawings were Commission Exhibits and, more importantly, were used as reference during Commission testimony and discussion of the medical evidence. Both Humes and Specter, and likely others including Warren, knew the drawings were grossly inaccurate.

          • Jean Davison says:

            No matter what Humes said, Jeff, the entry wound was where the photo shows it (upper back). In the WR section on the wounds, the autopsy measurement is used to locate it: approximately 5 1/2 in. below the mastoid process (i.e., upper back):

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946&relPageId=112&search=mastoid_process

          • “the entry wound was where the photo shows it…” ~Jean Davsion

            The photo shows that wound at T-3 Jean.
            I know anatomy and that wound was at a spot near the spine in a straight horizontal line from the junction of the clavical, the spatula, and the humerus bones.

            In that photo with Kennedy’s head pulled back in that unnatural pose, T-1 would be where the deep creases in Kennedy’s neck are.

            The back wound is clearly 3 or more inches below that.

            The photo is Best Evidence in this case.
            \\][//

          • As Gerald McKnight notes in “Breach of Trust”, the Commission did have access to the autopsy photographs and true schematic drawings could have been made but weren’t.

            Not exactly. There are credible accounts that Warren got to look at them, but he was not any sort of doctor, and was merely appalled at the gruesomeness and made no sort of forensic determinations.

            See Shenon.

            Specter wanted the Commission to use the photos, but was rebuffed.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shootft.htm

            It sounds like McKnight gave the wrong impression. At least, if he implied that the Commission had real access and could have used them for forensic determinations, he did.

          • jeffc says:

            Jean D – “the autopsy measurement is used to locate it: approximately 5 1/2 in. below the mastoid process (i.e., upper back)”

            Again, this has been discussed numerous times on this forum. JFK fact: the measurement from the mastoid process, which you repeatedly refer to, has no meaning because it cannot be accurately placed without the body. That is why there remains controversy over where exactly the wound was located. In order to understand the back wound in relation to the Commission’s conclusions, one must identify the wound in relation to the spine (i.e. T1, T2,T3) and the mastoid measurement specifically prevents that.

            John McAdams: “Specter wanted the Commission to use the photos, but was rebuffed.”

            Commission counsel Rankin controlled either the originals or copies of the autopsy photos and x-rays. (McKnight p191) Specter saw at least the back wound photo, as admitted to US News & World Report Oct 10, 1966: “one picture of the back of a body which was represented to be the back of the President, although it was not technically authenticated.” The withholding of these materials was a charade engaged to hide the true facts of the President’s wounds so to present a false non-conspiratorial conclusion.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Jeff, my point was only that the WR didn’t use the Rydberg drawings to locate the wound, it quoted the autopsy report measurement.

            “The withholding of these materials was a charade engaged to hide the true facts of the President’s wounds so to present a false non-conspiratorial conclusion.”

            Suspicion will always ascribe this kind of sinister motive, but other explanations are certainly possible.

            Now that the autopsy photos and x-rays are available for all to see, what “true facts” do they reveal? The entry wound is still in the upper back, which is where the WR’s autopsy measurement put it.

          • In order to understand the back wound in relation to the Commission’s conclusions, one must identify the wound in relation to the spine (i.e. T1, T2,T3) and the mastoid measurement specifically prevents that.

            But the back photo shows the entry defect at T1.

            Also, there is a fracture of the T1 transverse process, and air in the tissues there.

            http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82&relPageId=235

            Commission counsel Rankin controlled either the originals or copies of the autopsy photos and x-rays. (McKnight p191)

            Nonsense. And citing McKnight does not help you, since he’s grossly unreliable.

            A primary source might be good, if you have one.

            Had the Commission had full access to the photos and x-rays, there would have been no point to Specter’s memo (which I linked to).

            “one picture of the back of a body which was represented to be the back of the President, although it was not technically authenticated.”

            Photo, or autopsy face sheet?

            The withholding of these materials was a charade engaged to hide the true facts of the President’s wounds so to present a false non-conspiratorial conclusion.

            But when the materials became available to the House Select Committee, the conclusions were still “two shots from behind.”

            Warren was simply excessively deferential to the sensibilities of the Kennedy family. Had he followed Specter’s advice, he would have been more assertive in demanding full access to the materials.

            See Shenon.

          • “But the back photo shows the entry defect at T1.”~McAdams

            This is absolutely untrue. This claim has been trumpeted over and over again for years. But repetition-repetition does not make it true.

            I invite anyone who still buys this squamous nonsense to see this page:

            https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/sherry-fiester-on-enemy-of-the-truth/#comment-6041

            \\][//

          • “Now that the autopsy photos and x-rays are available for all to see, what “true facts” do they reveal? The entry wound is still in the upper back, which is where the WR’s autopsy measurement put it.”~Jean Davison

            No they did not put the entry wound in the upper back Jean. The C-7/T-1 junction is in the neck.
            The wound was however in the back at the level of the T-3 vertebrata.
            \\][//

          • jeffc says:

            John McAdams: “…citing McKnight does not help you, since he’s grossly unreliable.”

            That is your opinion, based on two or three rather minor quibbles. But it gives people a good chuckle to have you say that.

            And there is a primary source for Rankin’s control of the autopsy photos. It is the January 21, 1964 Warren Commission Executive session:

            McCloy: Let me ask you about this raw material business that is here. What does it consist of? Does it consist of the raw material of the autopsy? They talk about the colored photographs of the President’s body — do we have those?
            Rankin: Yes, it is part of it. A small part of it.
            McCloy: Are they here?
            Rankin: Yes.
            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1326#relPageId=36&tab=page

            JFK Fact: The Warren Commission had access to autopsy photos.
            As McKnight discusses in chapter 7 of “Breach of Trust”, the seven Commission members knew this, but this information was not shared with the staff counsel (thus Specter’s memo). The Commission knowingly allowed its investigation to proceed without access to the most precise material. In this context, the repeated descriptions of the wound in the President’s “neck” can be understood as a conscious fraud, at least as they appear in the final Report.

          • Rankin: Yes, it is part of it. A small part of it.
            McCloy: Are they here?
            Rankin: Yes.
            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1326#relPageId=36&tab=page

            Well good for you posting an actual primary source.

            Assuming that Rankin did not simply misspeak, it’s been well known that Earl Warren (at least) got to look at the autopsy photos. Of course, he could make no forensic determinations.

            Perhaps the WC had the photos at this point. But what I said still remains true:

            It sounds like McKnight gave the wrong impression. At least, if he implied that the Commission had real access and could have used them for forensic determinations, he did.

            Remember, Specter, who wanted to do exactly that, got stiffed.

            The Commission knowingly allowed its investigation to proceed without access to the most precise material.

            Correct. And that had nothing to do with any coverup, but with Warren’s excessive (but well-meaning) deference to the sensibilities of the Kennedy family.

            In this context, the repeated descriptions of the wound in the President’s “neck” can be understood as a conscious fraud, at least as they appear in the final Report.

            In several places the WCR said the “base of the back of the neck.”

            But how can you call it a “conscious fraud” if none of the commissioners, none of the staff, and no medical experts looked at the photos?

            Probably nobody connected to the Commission knew where “14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process was.”

            And if they had, they would have put the wound in the upper back, “at the base of the neck.”

          • Jean Davison says:

            “And there is a primary source for Rankin’s control of the autopsy photos. It is the January 21, 1964 Warren Commission Executive session…”

            I think Rankin either misspoke or wasn’t clear on what material the WC actually had at that point because if he’d had the autopsy photos on Jan. 21, I don’t think he would’ve sounded so confused about the wound locations on Jan. 27:

            “…we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front….,” etc.

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1328&relPageId=69&search=“shoulder_blade”

            I think Lifton was the first to point out that Rankin was referring there to the FBI photos of JFK’s jacket and shirt not to the autopsy photos, but numerous other conspiracy writers still get this wrong. The key is the reference to the “neckband of the shirt.”

            Rankin ended up suggesting they’d probably need to talk to the autopsy doctors to figure it all out.

            FBI photos:
            https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/b/b6/Pict_essay_mcknightsbt_shirt_sml.jpg

          • pat speer says:

            McAdams: “How can you call it a “conscious fraud” if none of the commissioners, none of the staff, and no medical experts looked at the photos?”

            Jeez, John, it’s time you stop reciting from the playbook, and learn some facts. Specter was shown the back wound photo. It showed the wound to be on the back, not back of the neck. And yet he then, and only then, started saying the wound was on the back of the neck, or at the base of the neck. And he then, and only then, submitted his chapter in which the former back wound was described as a neck wound not just once but dozens of times. And he then took the testimony of Thomas Kelley, who showed him the back wound–presumably with Warren’s blessing. And he had Kelley claim they used the Rydberg drawings when making the chalk mark used in the re-enactment (when, in fact, the wound on the Rydberg drawings was inches higher than the location used in the re-enactment.) And he then took the testimony of Lyndal Shaneyfelt, who said the trajectory established during the re-enactment approximated this location (the chalk mark supposedly in the location of the wound in the Rydberg drawings) when they both knew full well that the chalk mark used was actually inches lower than this location, and nowhere near the single-bullet trajectory established at the re-enactment. Specter then entered only one photo of the re-enactment–one taken from the front that did not show the chalk mark–into evidence as support for the single-bullet theory.

            So, yeah, the SBT didn’t line up when one used the actual location of the wound on Kennedy’s back and clothes, and Specter knew it.

        • Jeez, John, it’s time you stop reciting from the playbook, and learn some facts. Specter was shown the back wound photo.

          Evidence? I wouldn’t say that’s impossible, but would like to see a source.

          And yet he then, and only then, started saying the wound was on the back of the neck, or at the base of the neck.

          You need to provide a source for him saying it was in the “back” before he was saying “neck” or “base of the neck.”

          “Base of the neck” is accurate.

          All the rest of your post is just huffing and puffing about the location of the chalk mark in the FBI reenactment.

          We have the Rydberg drawing. And we have the face sheet.

          The mark is clearly where the face sheet shows it, and not where the Rydberg drawing shows it.

          And not where the photo of Kennedy’s back shows it.

          • pat speer says:

            Specter admitted being shown the back wound photo on the day of the re-enactment numerous times. The three sources that come immediately to mind are the 1-14-67 Sat Evening Post, Specter’s 2000 autobio Passion for Truth, and his 2003 appearance at the Wecht Conference. As far as I’m concerned, he hung himself in the process. There is no way to reconcile the Rydberg drawings with the chalk mark used in the re-enactment, and Specter’s pretending the Rydberg drawings were used to mark the chalk mark in the re-enactment, when he had in fact used the autopsy photo, the measurements, and perhaps even the clothing, is unconscionable, and proof of his deception, at the very least.

          • pat speer says:

            As far as Specter saying the wound was a back wound before viewing the photo, and suddenly calling it a neck wound, here are a few examples:

            1-23-64 statement of objectives: “There would seem to be considerable amount of confusion as to the actual path of the bullets which hit President Kennedy, particularly the one which hit the right side of the back.”
            3-16-64 testimony of the doctors: Specter inquires about a wound in the “upper part of the back” or “the President’s back or lower neck” and asks Dr. Finck about a “back wound.”
            4-30-64 memo Specter to Rankin: “It is essential for the Commission to know precisely the location of the bullet wound on the President’s back so that the angle may be calculated. The artist’s drawing prepared at Bethesda (Commission Exhibit #385) shows a slight angle of declination. It is hard, if not impossible, to explain such a slight angle of decline unless the President was farther down Elm Street than we have heretofore believed.”
            5-12-64 memo Specter to Rankin: “The photographs and x-rays confirm the precise location of the wound of entrance in the upper back of the President as depicted in Commission Exhibits 385 and 386.”
            (And then later) “The characteristics of the wounds on the President’s back and on the back of his head should be examined closely in the photographs and x-rays to determine for certain whether they are characteristic of entrance wounds under the criteria advanced by Doctors Finck, Humes, Boswell, Gregory, Shaw, Perry, and Carrico.”
            Specter is shown the back wound photo by Thomas Kelley on 5-24-64. Now look at what happens in Kelley’s testimony: “Permit me to show you Commission Exhibit 386…I ask you if that is the drawing you were shown as the basis for the marking of the wound on the back of the President’s neck?” Kelley answers “Yes.” Later, Kelley slips up and says that “the wound in the throat was lower than the wound in the shoulder” and Specter leaps again “By the wound in the shoulder, do you mean the wound in the back of the President’s neck, the base of his neck?”
            Back had become neck. And look at how Specter presented the wound he knew to be a back wound in the chapters he wrote for the commission… (There’s like fifty references in all, including a few references to the back, but this gives you the general idea…)
            One bullet passed through the President’s neck p. 48
            The autopsy also disclosed a wound near the base of the back of President Kennedy’s neck p.61
            The nature and characteristics of this neck wound p.61
            The President’s Neck Wounds p.87
            another bullet wound was observed near the base of the back of President Kennedy’s neck p.88
            in its path through the President’s neck p.88
            By projecting from a point of entry on the rear of the neck p.88
            Concluding that a bullet passed through the President’s neck p.88
            the doctors at Bethesda Naval Hospital rejected a theory that the bullet lodged in the large muscles in the back of his neck p.88
            the surgeons were unable to find a path into any large muscle in the back of the neck p.88
            This led to speculation that the bullet might have penetrated a short distance into the back of the neck p.88
            Dr. Perry did not know about either the wound on the back of the President’s neck or the small bullet-hole wound in the back of the head p.90
            After reviewing the path of the bullet through the President’s neck p.91
            the experts simulated the neck p.91
            The autopsy disclosed that the bullet which entered the back of the President’s neck p.91
            After the examining doctors expressed the thought that a bullet would have lost very little velocity in passing through the soft tissue of the neck p. 91
            A photograph of the path of the bullet traveling through the simulated neck p. 91
            The clothing worn by President Kennedy on November 22 had holes and tears which showed that a missile entered the back of his clothing in the vicinity of his lower neck p.91
            all the defects could have been caused by a 6.5-millimeter bullet entering the back of the President’s lower neck p. 92

            He was lying, John.

  12. …. Good Day…. My visual report, “Reality Versus C.A.D. : the Real World, versus, Garbage-in-garbage-out”….

    http://i.imgur.com/r8Ga26x.gif

    Thank You and Hat Tip to researcher Martin Hinrichs for providing the following 2 animation’s for our direct comparison detailing that the C.A.D.-fabricator, deliberately, mis-drew his President Kennedy C.A.D. larger than his Connally C.A.D. ….

    http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx306/Hinrichs7/myersfraud1-2.gif

    http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx306/Hinrichs7/myersfraud3.gif

    • President Kennedy was 6′ 0.5″ and weighed 175 pounds, while Connally was substantially bulkier and taller at 6′ 2″, weighing over 205 pounds, IIRC

      • Photon says:

        Don, why don’t you look at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum assession number KN-C17371?

        • Thanks photon, but it is not necessary o look at it, again…. That 3-24-61 photo is 1 of 3 that were taken that day as President Kennedy + Connally strolled together at the White House…. One of those 3 photos has been provided for everyone within my homepages website for many years.

    • Photon says:

      Don, do you still have Cheryl McKinnon on your map?
      And exactly what is a ” plankwalker” anyway?

      • During the recent years since my Dealey Plaza detailed map was most recently 2012 updated publicly, I have read several the public discussions about that woman being DORIS MUMFORD. In pro-active follow-up, I have also privately contacted Mrs. MUMFORD’s daughter, KAREN MOORE, who also confirmed to me in several solid ways that woman who watched the attack bunched shots volley’s from near the Elm Street street lamp post was her mother. The current DP detailed map does highlight MRS. MUMFORD’s precise location during the shots volley’s, and, where she rapidly moved to on the grassy knoll, and the 2016-updated DP detailed map Internet link will be provided publicly in the near future for everyone.

        With respect to your asking what is a plank walker – since you have to ask – you do not know = and since it is a U. S. Navy Veteran long time honored, sorta’ insider tradition, you’ll simply have to research it and (try to) find out for yourself. (slight hints: it is not what a few people might think is how in yee’ olde’ days ship captain’s executed convicted people at sea, and, what it really is has been discussed and opening segment featured on a very popular 1980s-90s TV program 😀 )

  13. …. then there was the 2013 “PBS”-produced “NOVA”-show warrenatti-biased program entitled, “Cold Case JFK,” that created its following blatantly-incorrect C.A.D. —- that deliberately-deceptively also utterly failed, yet again, to try to get The People to swallow the Warren Commission-apologists, supposed, “lone-nut”-fired “single-‘magic’-bullet” “theory” —- in deceptive, attempted (but failed) revise-reality lies when the “PBS-NOVA” C.A.D.-fabricators incorrectly-foisted their, supposed, “lone-nut” bullet entering President KENNEDY’s shirt collar….

    http://oi60.tinypic.com/2h55rva.jpg

    • Photon says:

      Don,what exactly are you trying to say in this post? I realize that you are noted for very long posts loaded with slogans , but usually at some point you get to a point. Are you saying that PBS is in cahoots with conspirators? What are you referring to by “C.A.D.”? Most of the program deals with interviews and demonstrations, not computer recreations.
      And what exactly did you do on CV-67 and during your Navy career? I still would like an explanation for the ” plankwalker” term.

      • photon…. please, First, actually, think about this…. Did the “PBS-NOVA-‘Cold Case JFK'” show C.A.D.-fabricator’s ( btw, “C.A.D.” = “computer-aided-drawing”, a.k.a., “computer-assisted-drawing” = which, is very revealing that you did not know 😀 ) that drew their warrenatti-apologists, supposed, “lone-nut” fired bullet impacting initially into JFK’s shirt collar rear, draw that JFK-collar-impacting location correctly, in your 0-pine?…. Of course not = Despite the wealth of information easily + always widely available for everyone with respect to the found-minorly-deformed, nearly-pristine, but found with no clothing fibers, no threads-etched-onto-its-casing, lost-only-1.5%-of-its-average-weight, found with no skin, no muscle, no bone, nor any blood debris on it “magic”-bullet, a.k.a. “WCE-399”, the “PBS-NOVA-‘Cold Case JFK'” show C.A.D.-fabricator’s flat-out L-I-E-D about it impacting JFK’s shirt collar back, pure + very simple, @ the outset of their program…….. Don’t know about what you (gullibly?) accept, but when anyone L-I-E-S @ the very start of anything they claim, most times, I do not believe much —- if anything —- of what they words-salad try to spew after that.

        I have held many responsible jobs during my U. S. Navy career. USS JFK was very, very early in my career, + I was the ship work center’s leader for 2 key ship work center’s: one of those work center’s that my men + I worked daily for was for the most primary systems that the entire aircraft carrier is built for + built completely around = the systems + sub-systems for all catapults aircrafts-launching, arresting gear wire-landing, jet blast deflectors, and, the “barricade” emergency-landing “net” and all of those systems integrated electrical-electronic-hydraulic-steam-pneumatic controls systems flawless operations, scheduled preventative maintenance, routine repairs, emergency repairs, controls, monitoring, quality assurance inspections, safety systems, and administrative paperwork documentations…….. During our many years, my men + I never missed a single one of several 10,000s of aircrafts “launches” + “catch’s” because of a problem with one of our systems we were responsible for!…. (With respect to the balance of my U. S. Navy career, you can say that the early career USS JFK responsibilities, + very solid performance, launched my career, very much, positively upward)………… + btw, proton —- you can dump your weak-ass attempts at snarkiness right between your feet. I am completely immune to immature, feeble attempts and shananigan’s, and, let me ask you = you really do not want to bring a knife to a gun fight, do you? 😀

        • Photon says:

          So you were an aviation boatswain’s mate with a 5- week A school on a 5,000 man carrier.I also understand that you were a U.S. Navy volunteer. Well Don, who in the U.S. Navy isn’t a volunteer? You still haven’t explained your ” plankwalker” status-couldn’t that describe everybody who has every served on a ship? Perhaps ” non-skidder” would be more descriptive of a carrier sailor. Isn’t it just a made up term that you thought might be impressive to those who don’t know much about the Navy? You see, plank OWNERS might not appreciate your claims. You might as well claim that you had a pet sea bat. Did you make Third Class?
          If your celebrated map was so thorough , how could you possibly know the exact position of and individual who was never in Dealey Plaza and probably never even existed?

        • Photon says:

          I see that Don has no answer to my questions. Again, how could he establish a position for a witness on his celebrated map when that witness was never there and probably never even existed?
          He placed that ” witness” based on a single unverified story in a free local newspaper? How could a United States National Archives Certified Researcher make such an amateur mistake? Well, Don fails to inform that to be a National Archives researcher, all that you have to do is FILL OUT A FORM. But hey, just like the “plankwalker” term it gives an aura of authority and authenticity.
          If you actually read Don’s posts it appears that he is extremely thorough with exact numbers-for in instance the number of witnesses he interviewed and his spreadsheet with 11,107 individuals connected with the assassination. He also states that his timeline for the assassination begins in the 1800s. And yet with all of this fabulous collection of information over forty years his research skills were so poor that his most notable achievement positions a phantom as one of the closest witnesses to the JFK assassination.

          • Tom S. says:

            Photon,
            Will you share how you are so certain uncorroborated witness Cheryl Mckinnon was not where she claimed to be, in Dealey Plaza?

          • Photon says:

            Read the article. In addition to not knowing where Dealey Plaza was located the author didn’t even get descriptions of the Plaza correct;
            Claiming that “hundreds” of people were standing on the Grassy Knoll waiting to see JFK betrays two things-#1. The author wasn’t there on that day because virtually nobody was on the Grassy Knoll at the time-as documented by multiple photographs. # 2. The author had never been to the Grassy Knoll-it is simply too small to accommodate more than a few people. If one’s perception of what the Grassy Knoll looks like comes only from books and pictures of the Knoll it would be easy to make such a claim. It is only after visiting the site does one become aware of how small it actually is-a visit that the author obviously never made.

          • Tom S. says:

            I’m very familiar with the article, in fact, Mr. Lifton, even as he stresses our
            strained relations, encourages me to identify Cheryl McKinnon.:
            http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,8837.msg258672.html#msg258672

            Whether Doris Mumford or McKinnon, you give the impression no identity in contention was
            even present.:
            Front view- http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/stoughton.jpg
            Rear view- http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/CancellareUnger2.jpg

          • Photon says:

            But you never did find McKinnon, did you? And how does a ” staff writer” never publish anther article? And how did Jack White know that she was a student at SMU? And how do you get ” hundreds of people” on the Grassy Knoll when the pictures you refer to show it to be empty?
            You could make the same case for Huey,Dewey and Louie being witnesses-except they never published a story with so many errors to begin with.
            Lifton’s reply begins with him doubling down and doubting the Mumford scenario. The fact that he would take that approach based on a single article in order to protect a CT narrative based on this phantom says as much about his powers of deduction as his body switching fantasy.

          • —- “photon” should read my February 4, 2016 at 3:00 am post again, + she/he should absorb it this time.

            …. The original alert to the original placement of Cheryl McKinnon on our DP Detailed Map came directly from one of many conversations with Gary Mack (RIP), then his referencing the McKinnon-written San Diego newspaper article that he had also written about in his “Coverups!” newsletter.

  14. Anthony says:

    This may not be a popular thought but…
    a) Myers’ trajectory analysis is robust, certainly the best I’m aware of
    b) The evidence that same bullet, fired from the TBSD, hit both Kennedy and Connaly circa Z223-224 is strong
    c) The idea that this ‘single bullet’ is the same as CE399 is absurd. The falsification of the early NAA analyses of the fragments in the limo by the National Livermore laboratories is important, along with simple physics.
    d) I am persuaded that Dr Thomas (cf ‘Hear no Evil, 2013 and references therein) gets the better of the debate concerning the acoustics evidence
    e) I am persuaded that the Zapruder film is genuine
    f) The correlation of the acoustic evidence with the timing of the Z224 and Z313 shots, combined with the lapel flap at Z224 and the trajectory analysis is a persuasively consistent scenario, particularly given the wider order in the acoustics data.
    g) the physical medical evidence (photos and X-rays) are consistent with a Z313 headshot from the knoll using either a hollow cavity or pre-fragmented round ( or similar) and are not consistent with the autopsy result, and certainly not with absurd HSCA model.
    h) Myers’ analysis of the Z313 shot is fair…he struggles to fit the data to his assumption of a shot from the TBSD and says so.

    In short Myers’ trajectory analysis is actually very consistent with what seems to me to be by far the most robust analysis of the physical evidence of the shooting ((Thoma, 2013) although he works from the perspective of the lone gunman theory

  15. From Myers:

    http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm

    Isn’t it true that you blatantly misrepresented the shape of Kennedy’s back in order to get the single bullet to work?

    No. Several critics have pointed out that Kennedy’s posture appears distorted in the animation. One critic wrote, “I still cannot figure out why Myers made JFK a hunchback. Was that the only way to achieve a downward trajectory projection between the back injury and the neck wound?” Another critic wrote, “The blatant misrepresentation of the shape of the back is the sort of thing which makes me dismiss everything that Myers tries to ‘prove’ with his animation. If he’s willing to lie to his audience to make his point, then he deserves no consideration whatsoever.”

    This criticism stems from some modeling and animation issues that were not fully resolved at the time of the ABC Television broadcast. The issue is ultimately a cosmetic one and has nothing to do with the trajectory analysis or its conclusions, as these critics falsely suggest.

    Photographs and films taken during the course of the motorcade show that the president’s suit jacket had ridden or bunched up, making his shoulder line appear to be higher than it actually was. When shot, the president’s elbows rose dramatically, increasing the effect. While animating the shooting sequence, the shoulders and collar of the president’s computer generated “clothing” was raised off the shoulder line of the human model beneath to mimic what is seen in the film. Due to modeling constraints, the collar could not be returned to its proper position without affecting the shoulder line. To get the clothing to “look right,” the model would have to be redone, a luxury I did not have time to complete given the production schedule. That’s showbiz. While the position of the collar was not a perfect match with the film (in fact, it is too high in its current position), the shoulders, as defined by the “clothing,” did fit better with what is seen in the Zapruder film. In the end, because of time constraints, it was decided to leave the “clothing,” including the collar, in the raised position throughout the animated sequence.

    Contrary to the criticism levied by my detractors, the position of the president’s clothing in the recreation has nothing to do with the validity of the single bullet theory. That’s because the human model representing Kennedy, which is position beneath the “clothing,” and therefore hidden from view, has not been moved. Only the “clothing” has been tugged around. As explained elsewhere on this page, it is the location of the wounds on the body, not the “clothing,” that is the basis for defining the trajectory path of the bullets.

    • “That’s showbiz”~Dale Myers

      I think that single phrase sums up Myers’ excuse verbosium.
      \\][//

    • pat speer says:

      Myers: “It is the location of the wounds on the body, not the “clothing,” that is the basis for defining the trajectory path of the bullets.”

      In other words, he couldn’t figure out how to make the entrance holes on the clothing align with his proposed entrance wound on the body. And it’s no wonder. He placed the back wound inches too high.

      http://www.patspeer.com/chapter12c%3Aanimania/Blindedbythelight.jpg

      Of course, John M will claim Myers has it right, and that the back wound photo has been misinterpreted by everyone but a special few. But he disqualified himself from this discussion years ago.

      http://www.patspeer.com/thenutterprof2.jpg

      • Photon says:

        You do realize that the ” nutterprof” photo is of a supine cadaver in early rigor mortis , rending your assumed measurements inaccurate. The wound is not visible and you can see neck folds that would not be present if the individual was sitting or positioned upright.

        • Why do we have to go through this nonsense everytime Kennedy’s back wound comes up?

          1. The autopsy photo shows the wound at T-3.
          2. The bullet hole in Kennedy’s shirt was at T-3
          3. The bullet hole in Kennedy’s coat was at T-3
          4. The mark on Boswell’s facesheet shows the wound at T-3
          5. Sibert and O’Neill said it was at T-3
          6. Dr Burkley’s death certificate for JFK was at T-3

          7. Plus Dr Perry’s first testimony was that the throat wound was one of entry.

          8. There is also the lack of dissection of the track of the back wound and throat wound.

          9. And the trajectory from the 6th floor window proves the back wound and throat wound cannot be from the same bullet.

          10. The entry wound to Kennedy’s head wound was from the front striking him in the left temple just forward and above the ear.

          Slam dunk case for multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza 11/22/1963.
          \\][//

          • Maybe Tom knows how to put a calliope soundtrack on these carousel-like threads here…???
            \\][//

          • T-1 is located at a straight horizontal line from the location of where the clavicle, the scapula, and the humerus meet. T-1 is at the base of the neck, and is not considered part of the back.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Willy, quote one physician aaide from Burkley who stated the back wound was at T3. Quote where Siebert and O’Neill state that it was at T3-as if they were anatomic experts.
            The fact is the only direct source you have for “T3” is the Burkley death certificate, which is not specific and does not mention the throat wound.
            If you have to resort to claiming that the clothes support your “T3” opinions you obviously don’t want to look at the multiple photos showing how JFK’s coat was riding up in the limo. Or maybe those photos were planted-right?

          • “Willy, quote one physician aaide from Burkley who stated the back wound was at T3….”
            ~Photon

            I refer you to my comment of February 2, 2016 at 6:58 pm.

            If you think that there is any real statistical possibility for all of those points concerning the wound at T-3 is mere coincidence; you are certainly welcome to such a preposterous opinion.
            \\][//

        • pat speer says:

          Why do you feel the need to comment, Photon, when you don’t understand the context?

          The nutterprof slide has nothing to do with rigor mortis, etc. It’s a presentation of the location of Kennedy’s back wound, as proposed by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, and a comparison of this exhibit to two different-sized left lateral autopsy photos. Professor McAdams has claimed the larger photo matches up with the HSCA’s exhibit, even though the head in this photo is twice the size of the head in the HSCA’s exhibit. Do you agree?

      • Of course, John M will claim Myers has it right, and that the back wound photo has been misinterpreted by everyone but a special few. But he disqualified himself from this discussion years ago.

        Anybody can get out Photoshop and size things so that things don’t line up. That’s what you have done.

        In other words, you have fiddled with the evidence to support your conclusion, which is what you accuse Myers of doing.

        But the entry in the back was at T1. That’s perfectly consistent with the entry in the throat.

        If you deny that, would you like to claim that Kennedy was hit in the torso with two bullets, neither of which exited?

        • pat speer says:

          I’m surprised Tom let that through, John. You’re accusing of me of “fiddling with the evidence” and “getting out photoshop and sizing things so they don’t line up” when all I did was take an image off your website and set it next to the HSCA’s depiction of the wounds to show that it makes no sense. The Artwohl exhibit is YOUR evidence, not mine. I have demonstrated that the entrance on this exhibit is not where the HSCA placed the entrance, at T-1. And, for whatever reason, you can’t handle it. Whenever I bring this up, you have some sort of meltdown.

          So… My suggestion. Admit Artwohl was wrong, and retreat back to the much more supportable position of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, i.e. that the back wound was not inches above the throat wound, but actually at the same level or below when the body was in the anatomic position.

          P.S. What “entry in the throat”? I thought we agreed that was an exit. Have you suddenly changed your views?

          • You’re accusing of me of “fiddling with the evidence” and “getting out photoshop and sizing things so they don’t line up” when all I did was take an image off your website and set it next to the HSCA’s depiction of the wounds to show that it makes no sense.

            I didn’t say you intentionally misled anybody. But I do think your graphic is misleading.

            You had no way of properly sizing and scaling the images.

            The back photo clearly shows the wound at T1. I don’t think you can get around that.

            P.S. What “entry in the throat”?

            I just misspoke. Of course, it was an exit wound.

          • pat speer says:

            Let’s be clear, John. We agree that the back wound photo presents a wound at T-1. We just disagree about the location of T-1. Dr. Robert Artwohl and presumably yourself believe T-1 was well above the throat wound, when the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel and myself believe T-1 was at or below the level of the throat wound. I know this is unusual territory for you but this is an instance where I have the government’s experts on my side, and where you are pushing a theory at odds with the findings of the government’s experts. Kinda like global warming.

          • I know this is unusual territory for you but this is an instance where I have the government’s experts on my side, and where you are pushing a theory at odds with the findings of the government’s experts.

            But you reject the “government experts” on the location of the entry wound in the skull.

            So don’t pretend that you show huge deference to government experts.

            Kinda like global warming.

            Since you disagree with government experts on a lot of things, you can hardly get bent out of shape at somebody is skeptical of government experts on this, can you?

      • The photograph clearly shows Kennedy’s back wound at T-3.
        T-1 is at the deep neck folds, the wound is some 3 inches below that.
        \\][//

        • Interesting that you think that, but the nine forensic pathologists of the House Select Committee Forensic Pathology Panel thought it was at T1.

          But what do they know, compared to people who comment on a JFK discussion board.

          • “But what do they know, compared to people who comment on a JFK discussion board”~McAdams

            They knew which side of the bread the butter was on — as it is said. You know very well what going along to get along is “professor” that is how you were able to get along in academia, like almost everyone else.

            And I MUST remind you yet again that your response is simply an Appeal to Authority. You should understand that by now “professor”.
            \\][//

          • Ray Mitcham says:

            How many of them saw the actual body rather than dodgy autopsy photos?

            Barkley, the President’s Doctor, did see the wound and said it was at T3.

            Who would you rather believe nine forensic pathologists who didn’t see the body or the doctor who did?

          • Photon says:

            Ray, the physicians who actually did the autopsy obviously saw the body-and none of them stated that the back wound was at T3.
            None of the other physicians in attendance stated that the back wound was at T3. How closely did ” Barkley” actually observe the back wound?
            Apparently not very well as he got the placement wrong according to every other M.D. present who has commented on this.
            As for not trusting the conclusions of the HSCA forensic pathologists and believing that the autopsy photos are faked, be my guest. Only by taking such an extreme and frankly ridiculous position impugning the reputations of the Bethesda Pathology Department and the most respected forensic pathologists in the U.S. in 1978 could your position have any possibility of being valid. From the same viewpoint you could just as easily claim that the body that was autopsied wasn’t even JFK.

          • Photon says:

            Willy, your 6:58 comment mentions 3 physicians:
            Dr. Barkley, who has been discussed.
            Dr. Boswell, who never said it was at T3 and whose face sheet was only a schematic never to be taken as exact and at any rate makes no mention of T3.
            Dr. Perry, who NEVER even saw the wound.
            So where are the physicians beside Burkley that state that the wound was at T3? Or perhaps we should just take your word for it, just like your phantom “DPD planted evidence” proof.

          • Photon,

            Who is Dr Barkley?
            I didn’t say anything about Perry seeing the back wound.
            Boswell’s facesheet clearly has the spot EXACTLY at T-3. If you propose this is happenstance that is your own foolishness.

            We have been through this same argument thread after thread. I do not expect you to accept the obvious Dr Photon – that is not your job here. Your job is to play off key calliope notes.
            \\][//

          • Boswell’s facesheet clearly has the spot EXACTLY at T-3. If you propose this is happenstance that is your own foolishness.

            So you want to ignore the photos, and go with a drawing.

            Both Humes and Boswell insisted that the facesheet was not meant to be drawn to scale.

            Humes said that to Dan Rather.

            Boswell insisted on that to the Baltimore Sun.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sun.gif

            Also, the autopsy said the wound was 14 cm. below the tip of the mastoid process. That’s T1, not T3.

            That measurement is on the facesheet. Why do you folks ignore it?

          • And I MUST remind you yet again that your response is simply an Appeal to Authority.

            An appeal to authority is perfectly legitimate if the issue is a technical one, and the authority is a bona fide expert.

          • McAdams,
            T-1 is located at a straight horizontal line from the location of where the clavicle, the scapula, and the humerus meet. T-1 is at the base of the neck, and is not considered part of the back.

            In that photo, T-1 is where the deep crease in Kennedy’s neck is. The wound is at least 3 inches lower.

            I have pointed this out at least three times in the last 24 hours on this site. Anyone arguing against this point simply does not know human anatomy.

            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Willy, you are the one who doesn’t know anatomy-just like you don’t know the difference between a .380 and a .38 ACP. You think that by looking at a picture you can claim anything.
            If that is the case, why don’t medical schools just use pictures instead of cadavers? Why not just rely on plastic models? Because the only way to accurately learn about human anatomy is to dissect it, study the positions of its parts and their relationship to each other. You and so many CTers simply don’t get that you cannot make accurate anatomic claims for 3-dimensional bodies from 2 dimensional pictures.
            Willy, you wouldn’t last 5 min in a gross anatomy practical.

          • Photon,

            I as an artist I have studied anatomy all of my life. There is no difference between artistic anatomy and medical anatomy — same parts same connections.

            You can boldly assert that I don’t know anatomy but it is clear that I do, because I just pointed out where T1 and T-3 are actually located.

            This is why you try to impeach my knowledge of anatomy – because you cannot defeat the points as to where T-1 is in the photograph – so you take pot shots at the messenger.

            And anyone with the slightest visual acuity can look at a skeleton or a photo of one and see exactly what I am talking about.
            \\][//

          • So Photon,

            Are you denying that T-1 is on the same horizontal plane as from the location of where the clavicle, the scapula, and the humerus meet in a standing human?

            It is right at the base of the neck and where the skin of the neck will fold like an accordion when the head looks up.
            Which is essentially the pose they have Kennedy’s head at in that photograph.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            “Are you denying that T-1 … meet in a standing human? ”
            This reflects the problem that you have with the anatomic issues and your ignorance of those issues. First, JFK’s cadaver was not standing, it was for the most part supine, except for rolling it on its side to evaluate the back wound. As such, comparing it to your illustrations is not pertinent to the actual situation. Second, the 3-dimensional appearance and mesurements of the body cannot be inferred to be exactly the same as seen in the 2-dimensional illustrations that you and other CTers seem to think are all that is necessary to establish anatomic expertise. Third, JFK’s cadaver was a post- mortem specimen in early rigor mortis; none of the CTer “experts” take that into consideration,ie the position of the back wound might appear after death with the resultant changes in muscle tone and tissue contraction to be lower than it actually was in life. As an example, some people claim that fingernails continue to grow for about 24 hours after death. The actual explanation is that the tissues at the tips of the fingers break down , contract and cause the fingertips to recede away from the nail, giving a false appearance of a growing fingernail.

          • “This reflects the problem that you have with the anatomic issues and your ignorance of those issues.”~Photon

            Do you really think that any of what you say following this assertion really counters what I have shown?

            Of course Kennedy was not standing. That is a given. What matters is the C-7/T-1 juncture is clearly in the neck. Even the distorted POV of that autopsy photograph proves the wound is below the neck. That juncture is where the deep folds and crease in Kenndy’s neck are in that photo.

            The skin of the back is also obviously being stretched upward bringing the bullet hole higher than it would be if the skin was not pulled up like that.

            Now ask yourself, WHY is this the ONLY photo of the back wound? Is it really the only one taken? I doubt it, I think there surely more taken of the wound. Proper ones would look straight down from above.

            Still and even so, what we have in that photo shows the landmarks of the shoulder and neck, proving the wound was at least 3 inches farther down than the shoulder. That would be at T-3.

            I dismiss your argument. I will leave it to others to decide for themselves.
            \\][//

          • ed connor says:

            Photon, did JFK’s shirt and coat also experience rigor mortis?
            And how does a missile entering the thoracic spine exit above the knot of the necktie and not damage a cervical or thoracic vertebral body?

          • “This photograph, taken by Phil Willis at the same time as frame 202 of the Zapruder film, shows that the jacket was in its normal position less than half a second before Kennedy came into view from the sixth–floor window.”

            https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/sherry-fiester-on-enemy-of-the-truth/#comment-11764
            See also:
            http://22november1963.org.uk/single-bullet-theory-jfk-assassination
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Actually the shoulder line still rises from left to right in the Willis film, proving that the coat is still bunched up . Aside from that the resolution is too poor to make any conclusions. All of the other near-contemporaneous photos show the coat is bunched; they also show the left to right shoulder line rise seen in the Willis photo.

          • How many of them saw the actual body rather than dodgy autopsy photos?

            That’s what it always comes down to, eh.

            Reject the best evidence, and latch onto something that’s convenient.

          • “That’s what it always comes down to, eh.
            Reject the best evidence, and latch onto something that’s convenient.”~McAdams

            What are you talking about McAdams? You are the one who is rejecting the Best Evidence, which is the photograph from the autopsy that clearly shows the bullet wound in Kennedy’s back at T-3.

            That you have misinterpreted what you are looking at, and claimed the wound is shown at T-1 is certainly “REJECTING” in the worst sense of the word.

            There is little doubt that you will go on spreading this falsehood as you have for so many years.
            The question remains standing:

            Are you sincere?

            Do you really actually believe that photo shows the wound at T-1?

            Because if you do, it means you have a profound ignorance of anatomy, and a great lack of visual acuity.
            \\][//

          • Do you really actually believe that photo shows the wound at T-1?

            Because if you do, it means you have a profound ignorance of anatomy, and a great lack of visual acuity.

            You think you can win a debate by just continually huffing and puffing?

            Every forensic pathologist who has examined the photos says the wound was at T1.

            The x-rays show a fractured transverse process of the T1 vertebra, and air in the tissues at the T1/C7 level.

            And you, a random poster on the Internet with no medical expertise, loudly insist that the wound was at T3.

          • “You think you can win a debate by just continually huffing and puffing?”~McAdams

            Who is huffing and puffing here? Who is making appeals to authority?

            Not me!

            I have provided clear medical imagery of the placement of the C7-T1 juncture which is clearly in the neck – NOT the back.

            By comparing these images with the autopsy photo of Kennedy’s back wound the readers can judge for themselves whether that bullet wound is in the neck or the back some three and a half inches lower than T-1.
            \\][//

  16. Ray Mitcham says:

    Of course none of the autopsy doctors would say that the wound was at T3. . It would have given the game away. As I said which you didn’t answer, Photon, “Who would you believe the President’s doctor, who saw the body, or nine forensic scientists who only saw photos?”

    Sibert’s report stated “”During the later stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below his shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.”

    Maybe that’s why Sibert wasn’t called to testify before the Warren Con.

    • Photon says:

      ” Of course none of the autopsy doctors would say that the wound was at T3. It would have given the game away.” Or just possibly they didn’t say it was at T3 because It wasn’t. No, I do not believe that the President’s doctor (who was in and out of the autopsy suite, not intimately associated with the autopsy, never informed the prosectors that JFK had an anterior neck wound, may not have even been aware of the anterior neck wound despite being only 5 feet away during resusitative efforts at Parkland) would have a better idea of the wound placement. The nine forensic scientists whom you claim “only saw photos” also reviewed radiographs and the testimony of the prosectors and the actual autopsy measurements, which you have conveniently ignored. Having done thousands of autopsies they knew how to correctly interpret standard autopsy protocol of using anatomic landmarks for references , a practice that most CTers seem woefully ignorant of. I interpret Barkley’s (sic) death certificate with as much validity as I do death certificates that are usually signed by the patient’s primary physician, who usually never even sees an autopsy even if one is done. They state the cause of death and associated medical conditions, but are not exact records of locations of lesions or injuries.
      Siebert was not a physician and admitted later that his “surgery of the head” comment was taken out of context and misrepresented Humes initial impression based on the fact that skull bone was missing; instead of jumping to the conclusion that some CTers do that Humes was admitting body alteration apparently Humes thought that JFK had a craniotomy in Dallas. Why would the Warren Commision want his autopsy impressions when they had that of the actual prosectors?

  17. Ray Mitcham says:

    Glen Bennett< Secret Service man.

    “We made a left hand turn and then a quick right. The President’s auto moved down a slight grade and the crowd was very sparse. At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a firecracker. I immediately, upon hearing the supposed firecracker, looked at the boss’s car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder. A second shoot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the boss’s head. I immediately hollered to Special Agent Hickey, seated in the same seat, to get the AR-15. I drew my revolver and looked to the rear and to the left–high left–but was unable to see any one person that could have rendered this terrible tragedy.” (11-23-63 report, 18H760) “The motorcade entered an intersection and then proceeded down a grade. At this point the well-wishers numbered but a few, the motorcade continued on down this grade en route to the trade mart. At this point I heard what sounded like a firecracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible, At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another firecracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President’s head. I immediately hollered “he’s hit” and reached for the AR-15 located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent Hickey had already picked-up the AR-15. We peered towards the rear and particularly the right side of the area. I had drawn my revolver when I saw SA Hickey had the AR-15. I was unable to see anything or one that could have fired the shoots."

    He must have been wrong as well.

    • Photon says:

      The Lone Gunman Myth JFK Assassination 26August 2012 “First Shot Disinformation part 2.
      This conspiracy site completely destroys Bennett’s claims and renders your comment pointless.
      Ray, this is not the Education Forum where nobody challenges your incorrect assumptions.

      • Ray Mitcham says:

        Link required, please Photon. You are welcome to challenge anything I write as are the contributors to the Ed Forum, where I don’t think you can contribute as you have to use your real name.

        • Photon says:

          Ray I posted the source. If you can find evidence that the backyard photos were faked you should be able to find Yusuf’s conspiracy blog.

          • Ray Mitcham says:

            No you didn’t you wrote this.

            “The Lone Gunman Myth JFK Assassination 26August 2012 “First Shot Disinformation part 2.

            What is it? a book, a video a pamphlet? Please supply a proper link.

  18. …. Another point about Mr. Myers C.A.D.’s (that i’ve written about previously)…. When I last spoke with him (for approximately 3.5 hours) and we shared some key ideas some years ago, I specifically asked him, and he detailed for me, many things about his red-colored “Connally wounds cone” that he has C.A.D.-drawn.

    When I asked him if in his C.A.D.’s-collection, does he also have an animation that shows the red-colored “Connally wounds cone” movements as Connally enters and then he wounding-reacts within the Elm Street kill zone (“KZ”), he replied that he did.

    When I followed-up and asked him if after Z-223 did his “Connally wounds cone” intersect, not only, the TSBD, the Dal-Tex Building west face higher floor, + the Dal-Tex Building west face roof line, but, did it also intersect anywhere on the County Records Building, he admitted that it did.

    (sure would like to see those pre and post-223 C.A.D. animation’s and/or drawing’s, some day)

    I do not, at all, subscribe to a Dal-Tex “low floor” suspected assassin(s) firing location (ala’, fired from the Dal-Tex 2nd or 3rd floor that a few persons believe), because of my actually “rubbing work shoulders” over the many years with U. S. Navy S.E.A.L.S. sniper’s + U. S. Marine Corps reconnaissance scout sniper’s = to nearly every man, they all stated they would almost **NEVER** deliberately pre-plan nor choose a low floor —-with the approximately 7′-above-Elm head tops of the 11-22-63 follow-up car Secret Service Agents possibly/probably blocking a clean, unobstructed shot—- if they did not have to, when a higher floor or the much higher Dal-Tex west face roof line would afford him a to-target-line-of-sight that was a much easier shot, that was completely unobstructed, and was a TSBD, WC-apologists, supposed, “lone-nut” “snipers lair”-nearly-duplicating bullet trajectory shot.

    I mentioned this to Mr. Myers, and suggested that, using his DP-C.A.D. measurements data that he already had, he might want to also create and publicly provide us with some C.A.D.’s that also show the follow-up car and its running-boards-standing SSA’s, so to show us the un-feasibility or feasibility of a Dal-Tex “low floor” shot(s)…….. To date I have not seen such a C.A.D.(s) drawn by anyone….

  19. Ray Mitcham says:

    Further comment about the position of the wound in The Presdient’s back.

    “John Ebersole, the morgue described the back wound in a recorded telephone conversation with David Mantik, MD, PhD in 1992, as, “to the right of T-4″, the fourth thoracic vertebra – one vertebral space lower than Burkley’s death certificate placed it.”

    • Photon says:

      Rather misleading,Ray. Mantik suggested the T4 level before Ebersole ever volunteered it. It was an ” ambush” interview over the phone which he obviously was not interested in doing; he referred Mantik to the Humes-Boswell JAMA article for specifics. He also stated that his perception of the back wound was just clinical observation, not based on radio-opaque markings. The thing that you CTers ignore is that he stated that he supported the Humes -Boswell findings “absolutely” … “Across the board”. You don’t mention Ebersole’s more specific comments given 14 years earlier when he testified before the HSCA. Mantik interviewed him only months before his death.
      Ray, it is somewhat dishonest to imply that Ebersole supported anything but the official version of the autopsy findings. He was involved in the radiographic evaluation of JFK’s corpse, not specific wound placement or dimensions . He explained that if that had been an objective they would have moved the corpse to the x-ray suite and used more precise equipment.

      • Ray Mitcham says:

        Did Ebersole not agree with Mantik?

        Ebersole also said when the President’s corpse arrived at Bethesda, the throat wound was neatly sutured. Not the gash that is in the Autopsy photos.

        • Photon says:

          Ray, you don’t even see the irony of impeaching your own witness. Ebersole saw something not noted by anybody else in the autopsy suite. Doesn’t that tell you something about how closely he actually looked at the corpse and how accurate his T4 comment could be?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.