@monstra @Thanius @delta.m@Groucho Im Autopsiebericht wird nur eine Angabe zur Position der Rückenwunde in Bezug zu einem Fixpunkt gemacht:
nd 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process
http://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/kennedy,%20john_report.pdfAber der Warzenforstsatz "mastoid process" ist, wie Finck eingestand, kein zuverlässiger Orientierungspunkt für Messungen:
Q: Dr. Finck, are you familiar with the term "fixed body landmark"?
A: Yes.
Q: For example, would the midline in the cranium be considered to be a fixed body landmark?
A: No.
Q: When one is attempting to determine the location of a wound, we'll say, in the thoracic cavity; would it be appropriate to use as a fixed body landmark a mastoid process?
A: No.
Q: For purposes of identifying the wound in the back, the thoracic cavity.
A: An immobile bony structure is a fixed body landmark.
Q: Well, for the identification of the location of a wound in the thoracic cavity -
A: Thoracic cavity.
Q: Is a mastoid process a standard and understood fixed body landmark?
A: For the thoracic cavity, no. Because it is part of the head, and the head is moving, could move.
Q: So that the mastoid process would not be a standard fixed body landmark for the purposes of identifying the location of a wound in the thoracic region, is that fair to say?
A: Yes.
Q: Dr. Finck, I would like to show you a document that has been marked as Exhibit 6, and I would like to ask you whether you have ever seen the document marked Exhibit 6? [Handing document to witness]
MR. GUNN: I will state for the record that Exhibit 6 appears on its face to be a certificate of death, signed it appears by Rear Admiral George Gregory Burkley, dated November 23rd, 1963. [Witness perusing document]
Q: Again, my question to you, Dr. Finck, is whether you previously have seen the document before that is now marked Exhibit 6?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Do you know who George Burkley was?
A: Physician to the President. Yes, I recall now that I see this.
Q: Do you recall whether Admiral Burkley was in the autopsy room at the night of the autopsy of President Kennedy?
A: I think he was.
Q: I would like to draw your attention to the second page of the document, the fourth line down. Do you see the reference there to the third thoracic vertebra?
A: I do.
Q: For the purpose of locating a wound in the back, would the third thoracic vertebra be considered to be a fixed body landmark?
A: Yes.
Q: Was Dr. Burkley correct in identifying the posterior back wound as being at the level of the third thoracic vertebra?
A: I don't know.
Q: Did you make any attempt during the night of the autopsy to locate the upper back entry wound with any vertebra?
A: I don't recall.
Q: Is there any reason that you would not have attempted to locate the back wound in connection with a vertebra?
A: No.
Q: During the course of an autopsy, what was the standards practice in the 1960's for recording measurements and information gathered during the course of an autopsy?
A: To locate the wound in reference to anatomic landmarks.
Q: Was it the general practice for somebody to record the measurements in writing during the autopsy?
A: Yes.
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKfinck.htm
Die Angabe "third thoracic vertebrae" ist die EINZGE zuverlässige Positionsangabe, die wir zur Rückenwunde haben, da die Rückenwirbel Fixpunkte sind...
Die Autopsieskizze ist folglich in dieser Hinsicht relativ präzise
Die Rückenwunde war also eher bei B
Original anzeigen (0,2 MB)
Groucho schrieb am 02.06.2018:Da dezidiert über eine Fragmentspur zu diskutieren erinnert mich an einen großartigen Film von John Carpenter: The Fog - Der Nebel des Grauens
Die Fragmentspurverlauf ist auf den Röntgenbildern gut zu erkennen- folglich kann man über sie dezidiert diskutieren
Groucho schrieb am 02.06.2018:Der Autopsiebericht stellt fest, dass der Kopftreffer von hinten kam.
Der Kopftreffer des Autopsieberichts ist aber falsch
1. falscher Eintrittspunkt (von Röntgenbildern falsifiziert)
2. falscher Verlauf der Fragmentspur (von Röntgenbildern falsifiziert)
Groucho schrieb am 02.06.2018:Der Zapruder Film bestätigt, dass der Treffer von hinten kam.
Bestenfalls, dass EIN Treffer von hinten kam, von wo genau ist unklar
Groucho schrieb am 02.06.2018:'Hinten' (also im TSBD) gab es ein Snipers Nest.
Laut FBI-Bericht war der Schusswinkel des Rückenschusses zwischen 45 und 60 Grad abwärts- das ist nicht mit dem offiziellen Sniper´s Nest zu vereinbaren.
“one of the bullets had entered just below his shoulder to the right of his spinal column at an angle of 45 to 60 degrees downward … there was no point of exit” (p.18).
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=327202"Hinten" bietet immer noch andere Möglichkeiten:
Original anzeigen (0,2 MB)
Original anzeigen (1,5 MB)Groucho schrieb am 18.05.2018:Bei Kennedy gibt es zwei Einschusslöcher von zwei Kugel.
Da ist nichts magic
Dr. Burkley, der bei Autopsie zugegen war hielt zwei Kopftreffer für möglich
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25088-where-is-the-exit/?page=6&tab=comments#comment-383390
McMurdo schrieb:Und es “gibt“ viele direkte Verbindungen? Das bezweifel ich mal stark.
