From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Lattimer, Questions six and seven
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 04:49:09 GMT

>> & >>>> Bruce Schuck (me)
> & >>> Tom Warner 
>>>>> Joel Grant

>>>	Looking at the autopsy photograph of the back, the entry wound appears
>>>quite high on the back (certainly not 5 1/2" below the shirt collar
>>>line, where the hole in the shirt is).

>>The 5 1/2 inches figure is from the top of the collar.

>Oooops. You're right, and that makes much more sense. That puts the hole
>more like 4 inches below the lower line of the shirt collar. If the shirt
>was riding a little high at the time, that lower collar line could have
>been an inch above the level of the back neck skin fold in JFK's autopsy
>back photo, assuming that skin was being pulled up as he was lifted by his
>shoulders from the table (and maybe a little scale distortion due to the
>camera angle as well). So I think the shirt hole probably did line up with
>the hole we see in JFK's back in the photo, and I definitely reject
>Livingstone's silly idea that the slight recession seen several inches lower
>is the "real" hole or a hole at all. I also doubt the photo is faked,
>especially in that area.

I don't buy the recession as being a wound either.

>Here's a thought: what if the first hit to Kennedy was the frontal neck hit,
>which caused him to hunch his shoulders, after which he was hit in the back?

Thats a good theory and is the one I'm leaning towards.


>>The big question is: Are you measuring the right hole?
>>There are two obvious dark spots on JFK's back in the autopsy
>>photgraphs. One is bigger and closer to the neck. Its the one left in
>>the autopsy drawings and appears to be 1cm in diameter.

>>The other one is lower down, smaller, about .5cm in diameter.
>>Some say it was a blood spot.

>>The question is, do 6.5mm bullets make 10mm holes or 5mm holes,
>>since wounds can close up a little.

>It looks like a blood spot -- I don't see any break of the skin. The higher,
>further right hole obviously breaks the skin. (Note that your proposed hole
>is not the same as either the obvious hole or Livingstone's recession. I'm not
>saying you can't be right, just that I've never heard that spot referred to
>as a hole before.)

I can't tell either from the black and white photos in Lifton.
However, there are no other blood spots , the ruler seems to be closer
to the small one, although to be honest it appears uninterested in
either spot. Also the larger one seems too big, unless it was photgraphed
after the wound was probed and the guy stuck his finger into it.
[Which only went in 2 inches]

>(By the way, very interesting stuff about the abrasion and tunneling
>that I didn't know, Bruce. I hope everyone read that part of your post.
>Geez, they think someone shot Kennedy at frame 210 from the sixth floor
>of the TSBD and yet the bullet entered his back travelling *upward*?
>Just goes to show how hard the HSCA stretched things when it was the only
>way to make the facts fit the dogma. So what else is new.)

Whats interesting is how the WC and HSCA worked so hard at fudging the
location of the back wound to make it appear in the neck so the
trajectory works. The trouble is, the higher the back wound, the less
likely a bullet travelling upwards could have exitted from the throat,
unless of course JFK was leaning backwards. :)

-- 
===============================================================================
        "We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin -- Split Second

schuck@sfu.ca                                           Vote No on October 26th
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk