The Warren Commission

[James R Gordon]

So how about it, Mr. Von Pein...bone up on your anatomy and physiology, and then explain why Mr. Gordon is wrong in his conclusions. I can hardly wait. [Odds are, Von Pein will instead attack me for suggesting this, and continue to ignore Mr. Gordon's quite logical arguments. But then, I'm a much easier--and most likely larger--target to attack.]

Mark,

That has been my opinion for some time. I had thought David would enter the "Dismantling the Single Bullet" thread. After all that thread is at the heart of David's beliefs on the SBT and I, and others including yourself, were attacking the credibility of the SBT very seriously. I am sure he read the thread, but he refused to enter it.

Like you I had noticed this same point in this thread. I believe one thing this absence does highlight is the weakness of Davis's understanding of the case. He knows the generalities and quotes from the report, but the details of the medical information he has little understanding about.

James.

[David Von Pein]

Did anyone besides me notice that Mr. Von Pein hasn't attempted to refute the information cited by Mr. Gordon? I believe he can't do it and maintain any credibility...which is why he instead chooses to argue with Pat Speer, Jim DiEugenio, and everyone else instead of Mr. Gordon.

So how about it, Mr. Von Pein...bone up on your anatomy and physiology, and then explain why Mr. Gordon is wrong in his conclusions. I can hardly wait. [Odds are, Von Pein will instead attack me for suggesting this, and continue to ignore Mr. Gordon's quite logical arguments. But then, I'm a much easier--and most likely larger--target to attack.]

Mark (and Mr. Gordon),

The obvious answer to your elaborate charts and analysis is this:

The bullet which struck JFK in the upper back on 11/22/63 did not strike any bony structures or lungs inside the President's body. That is an ironclad fact that even one of "your own" -- Cyril Wecht -- agrees with 100%.

And the autopsy report and all three autopsy surgeons (who each signed-off on that autopsy report written by Dr. Humes) confirm the above fact as well.

And whether you believe ONE or TWO (or 22) bullets struck JFK in Dealey Plaza, the above fact will still be true -- no bony structures or lungs in JFK's back and neck regions were struck by any bullets.*

* = And the damaged trachea is obviously not considered a "bony structure". It's a cartilaginous structure. But, amazingly, even Dr. Wecht, in June 2007, insisted that "no cartilaginous structure" was even struck by the bullet that he does think went clean through JFK, exiting the throat. But--somehow--Wecht insists that that bullet missed Governor Connally. ... And the damaged vertebra wasn't actually struck by the bullet either. The HSCA concluded that the passage of the single bullet near the vertebra is what caused the damage to the vertebra.

We know where the bullet entered JFK's back (5.5 in. below the mastoid). We know where the bullet exited (as confirmed by autopsy photos). And this photo proves for all time (IMO) that the HSCA was wrong about the throat wound being anatomically higher than the back wound:

Therefore, given the above known facts about JFK's wounds and the lack of internal damage, where do conspiracy theorists think they can go with this information to support some murky and unproven theory about multiple gunmen and/or some type of "anti-SBT" theory?

Regardless of whether the SBT is true or not, the above facts I stated about JFK's wounds (and the lack of any substantial damage inside Kennedy's back and neck which could have possibly accounted for the stoppage of any bullet--let alone TWO separate bullets) will still be the facts.

So where do you anti-SBT guys want to go with these facts?

Did Humes lie about pretty much everything?

Is the autopsy report a total fraud?

Are the autopsy photos supposedly "fakes"?

Are the X-rays also frauds and forgeries?

Was the HSCA a complete sham regarding the SBT? Were the HSCA investigators and FPP members all liars too? Or were they just too stupid to know they were being "misled" about some things (as Pat Speer postulated)?

Spell out your theory that replaces the SBT. HOW did it happen? And where was that frontal shooter located that could have possibly accounted for the throat wound being an "entry" wound (as almost all Internet CTers believe)?

It would be nice if a CTer could provide at least some solid evidence to back up a valid, workable, and (above all) reasonable "anti-SBT" theory. To date, I've never seen such a theory. And I doubt one will ever be forthcoming.

Most CTers will say, in return: Well, why can't you provide some solid evidence that the SBT is true?

I, however, think that has been done. Many times over, in fact. Starting with the autopsy report, then the WC's re-creation in Dealey on 5/24/64, then Dr. Lattimer's tests which support the general workings of the SBT in the 1970s, then the HSCA's work in the late '70s (although, as mentioned, I do disagree with some points the HSCA & FPP made--like the silly Z190 SBT timeline and the "throat wound is higher" conclusion, but they utilized some common sense in concluding--in general--that ONE BULLET definitely did strike both Kennedy and Connally), and then the FAA simulation, and then Dale Myers' exacting computer work.

All of the above things provide good, solid underpinnings for the validity of the Single-Bullet Theory. Are they ALL dead wrong? From the WC, to the HSCA, to Lattimer, to FAA, to Myers? If the CTers think they are all wrong, I beg to differ.

Addendum Re: Perry----

And the main reason I posted Dr. Malcolm Perry's "It could have been either" WC testimony was, quite obviously, to counter this wholly inaccurate statement made by James DiEugenio:

"And no one will ever impeach Dr. Perry on this."

Fact is, of course, that Dr. Perry himself pretty much impeached his initial 11/22/63 statement about the throat wound being one of entrance. And he did so by admitting to the Warren Commission that the throat wound could have been "either" an entry or an exit.

Edited June 13, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Gil Jesus]

PS: As someone who's studied the writings of the Warren Commission and its counsel more than most, I would concede that it's not clear if the Warren Commission, as an entity, KNEW that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. I would even concede that the majority of its members PROBABLY believed Oswald had acted alone.

By mid December the outline was in.

Well, based on the Hoover Report.

THey had decided Oswald did it according to Rankin's investigative outline.

You are speculating - they were nowhere near a decision in 12/63

The Commission predetermined Oswald's guilt. Its outlines from January 1964 prove that it determined Oswald to be guilty before it heard from its first witness or saw its first piece of evidence.

http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/outlines.htm

That's not opinion, conjecture or interpretation, that's documented FACT.

The Commission emphasized evidence that pointed to Oswald's guilt, while ignoring evidence that pointed towards his innocence. A whole series of conclusions were based on carefully selected evidence, while the full body of evidence did not point to those conclusions. They chose to ignore a great deal of evidence which not only didn't prove their case, but actually disproved it. In addition, there was evidence that the Commission never saw, evidence the FBI never brought to its attention and evidence the Commission did not think worth hearing.

One purpose of the due process of law is to protect the rights of the accused. A second purpose is to ascertain the truth. Each one insures the other: the rights of the accused are guaranteed by the fair presentation of all of the pertinent evidence. Some rules of evidence do not pertain to the truth alone. For example, a wife cannot testify against her husband in most jurisdictions. In this case, the Commission overlooked this rule.

It is generally improper during the examination of a witness in an ordinary trial for counsel to pose leading questions. But Commission counsel regularly and persistently asked leading questions in order to develop a favorable record consistent with Oswald's guilt. Some witnesses were intimidated while others were prepared by the FBI, Secret Service, Commission counsel or all three.

A rule against hearsay evidence, that which a witness has heard and repeats without knowing it to be true, exists in every jurisdiction. Yet nearly all of the 552 witnesses who gave testimony to the Commissioners and their counsel contained hearsay, not to mention the thousands of FBI and Secret Service reports which were entirely comprised of hearsay.

There is no more serious threat to the truth than an attempt to tamper with a witness. The integrity of any judicial or administrative proceeding is predicated on the ability of a witness to testify freely. Powerful influences from local police, the FBI, Secret Service and Commission counsel tended to discourage testimony that did not conform to the accepted conclusion.

The Commission ignored witnesses who had unique evidence to offer, like Walter Kirk Coleman, the 14 year old neighbor of General Walker, who said that he heard a shot and ran outside to see two men in the church parking lot next to Walker's house and neither man resembled Oswald.

Reasons of relevance and/or economy alone cannot account for this type of omission.

The Commission called and took testimony from Dr. Revilo P. Oliver, a right wing author and speaker. Dr. Oliver had no relevant information about the assassination to give the Commission, yet his testimony covers 35 pages ----- more than the combined testimonies of Jacqueline Kennedy, Gov. Connally and Mrs. Connally !!!!!

The witness list, the list of those witnesses who would give testimony for the record, was completely controlled by the FBI. Witnesses were often available to the Commission only after they had been questioned, sometimes repeatedly, by the Dallas Police, FBI or the Secret Service.

As a result, hearsay evidence was admitted, while crucial eyewitness testimony was excluded. Opinions were sought and published, while important facts were rejected, distorted or ignored. Friendly witnesses gave testimony without fear of cross-examination and were led through their paces by lawyers who helped to prepare their testimony in advance and asked them leading questions, while those who challenged the government's case were often harassed. Important witnesses with invaluable evidence to give, like those who stood on the overpass, were never called.

Not only was the FBI's selection of witnesses slanted towards Oswald's guilt, the Commission ignored evidence that indicated that witnesses had signed affidavits identifying Oswald from a police lineup before they had even seen the lineup !!! This didn't happen once, but three times !!! ( Whaley, Guinyard and Callaway )

How did the Commission handle the affidavit issue ? It concluded in its Report:

"Guinyard and Callaway viewed the same lineup of four men from which Mrs. Markham had earlier made her identification of Lee Harvey Oswald. Both men picked Oswald as the man who had run south on Patton with a gun in his hand." ( Report, pg. 169 )

What the Commission did not report was that the three other men in those two lineups with Oswald were police employees. Unlike Oswald, none of them were battered and bruised.

The Commission's approach to physical evidence was also unsatisfactory. Federal authorities mutilated, destroyed, suppressed and reconstructed evidence.

The Commission ignored it.

An example of mutilated evidence was the brown paper "gunsack" allegedly found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. It was chemically discolored by the FBI before any of the witnesses could see it and was ruined as evidence. An example of reconstructed evidence was the brown paper gunsack the FBI constructed in its place, which was the bag shown to witnesses.

An example of destroyed evidence included the original Kennedy autopsy notes first prepared and then burned by Commander Humes. Another example is the premature destruction by the Dallas Post Office of the third part of Oswald's post office box application.

An example of suppressed evidence included the X-rays and photographs of the President's autopsy. It is shocking to note that although medical evidence of such importance was not published in the 26 volumes or in its Report, the Commission found the room to include a dental chart for Jack Ruby's mother revealing the condition of her teeth in 1938.

The Commission ignored the testimony of its own witnesses, some of them experts, in order to conclude that Oswald was guilty as charged. Tests conducted at the Commission's request were often inconclusive, irrelevant or proved the opposite of the Commission's position. In addition, the Commission flat out lied in its Report about what the witnesses said.

Can any of the Commission's supporters give an innocent explanation to all of these ?

Edited June 13, 2012 by Gil Jesus

[Dawn Meredith]

Did anyone besides me notice that Mr. Von Pein hasn't attempted to refute the information cited by Mr. Gordon? I believe he can't do it and maintain any credibility...which is why he instead chooses to argue with Pat Speer, Jim DiEugenio, and everyone else instead of Mr. Gordon.

So how about it, Mr. Von Pein...bone up on your anatomy and physiology, and then explain why Mr. Gordon is wrong in his conclusions. I can hardly wait. [Odds are, Von Pein will instead attack me for suggesting this, and continue to ignore Mr. Gordon's quite logical arguments. But then, I'm a much easier--and most likely larger--target to attack.]

I am curious why people here even bother to argue with lone nutters. All your logic and detail of the known facts is never going to convert them. They are here for other reasons.

I do note that the one who began this topic has left. (He posed asking to be deleted, post now gone.)

Dawn.

[James R Gordon]

David,

I am aware that you and I are on “opposite sides of the fence” regarding this case. And I may be on my own on this point, but I have a high respect for your understanding of the position of the Warren Commission. Your ability to cite a wide variety of opinions and views from the Commission is impressive. Your web site is an astonishing piece of work and a major resource to all researchers whatever their opinion of this case. Until I began this study of the SBT, in the spring, I knew nothing about the anatomy of the human body. I had no means to verify whether, what any medical person stated was true or not. It has been a difficult process and I openly admit I have made numerous errors, which fellow members have been kind enough to point out to me. But most important I am learning and I am beginning to be able to see what medical statements are likely to be valid and what cannot be valid. And that is solely down to analysis. I do not take anything anyone says at face value, I check to see whether it is possible and probable. And that something I do not see you doing. You appear to simply cite quotes and state whether they are or are not facts, without any analysis or refection.

As can be seen in your post, which I will reply to below, you simply quote one witness and state that is a fact and by the same token that I am wrong.

Let me go on record here. My position regarding Commander Humes testimony, drawings and autopsy report is that, unless I can establish reasons dispute, I consider them fact. That is not the view of everyone on this forum but it is my view.

And now I will address your post. I will place your quotes in italics. My comments will be in blue.

Point 1:-

The bullet which struck JFK in the upper back on 11/22/63 did not strike any bony structures or lungs inside the President's body. That is an ironclad fact that even one of "your own" -- Cyril Wecht -- agrees with 100%.

And the autopsy report and all three autopsy surgeons (who each signed-off on that autopsy report written by Dr. Humes) confirm the above fact as well.

And whether you believe ONE or TWO (or 22) bullets struck JFK in Dealey Plaza, the above fact will still be true -- no bony structures or lungs in JFK's back and neck regions were struck by any bullets.*

See Image 1 below:-

It is here that lack of analysis really lets you down. I do not dispute anything you say there. But by stating these points [ a) No bones were damaged; the lung was not damaged ] you restrict your options on where the bullet entry point can be.

See image A in the image below. If, as we agree, both the lung and bones were not damaged then the only entry point for that bullet would have to be above CostaIR, the bone that is labeled 1. Image B, CE385, the Humes drawing [even though Harold Rydberg drew it] has the bullet placed there. If you place the bullet at 2 [Costa IIR] you then place the bullet between T2 & T1. There are problems with such a position, as I have pointed out to you. One problem you have is that you support CE 903, and that is where it places the entry wound.

See Image C (which I copied from your website) I know it is not CE 903 but a variant but one where you can see the positioning of the bullet wound, which you can see in CE 903. Now, as I understand it you support that image as being a valid description of the bullet’s entry point. Well if you look at image A you can see that position has to be around T2.

The importance about this point is this. If it is your position that CE 903 correctly describes the bullet’s entry position then the only passage for that bullet to get to the throat is through the lung. There is no other option. It is an anatomical impossibility for it to do otherwise.

That is why Commander Humes drew the position of the entry wound in CE 385 + 386 above Costa IR. He knew what you have failed to recognize. He knew that placing it any lower would require the lung to be damaged. Hunt through all the Warren Commission documents and you will not find anywhere where Commander Humes states that CE 903 describes the bullet’s entry point.

Point 2:-

* = And the damaged trachea is obviously not considered a "bony structure". It's a cartilaginous structure. But, amazingly, even Dr. Wecht, in June 2007, insisted that "no cartilaginous structure" was even struck by the bullet that he does think went clean through JFK, exiting the throat. But--somehow--Wecht insists that that bullet missed Governor Connally. ... And the damaged vertebra wasn't actually struck by the bullet either. The HSCA concluded that the passage of the single bullet near the vertebra is what caused the damage to the vertebra.

I am not sure what vertebra you are talking about. If it is T1 there is serious doubt that it was damaged. Between February 27^th and August 23^rd 1978 the HCSA contacted four doctors. The first two decided that T1 was undamaged. The third was ambivalent, and only the fourth was prepared to state T1 was damaged. This fourth David Davis in his report on X-Rays says “there is evidence of a right T1 transverse process fracture.” P. 225 Addendum D. He can see clearly something nobody else saw, and the very feature, whose absence, determined Professor Chase, the first doctor to be contacted, to declare there was no damage to T1, makes me think that T1 was not damaged.

The process by which the HCSA went about contacting these experts leaves open the interpretation that they wanted someone to agree T1 was damaged, and therefore I suspect had David Davis not agreed the Panel would have contacted a fifth expert.

However if you are talking about C7, it was not damaged as far as I can see. However, the support muscle between C7 and C6 appears seriously damage according to X-rays 8 + 9. Indeed in 9 we can see that the neck has moved to the right.

See image D. In the first image A1 is C7. It does not appear damaged. A2 is the support muscle above. It is quite clear that something strange is happening there. Below X-Ray 8 is a drawing showing how these muscles and Cervical vertebras should be. On the bottom right hand side is X-Ray 9. This was taken before the autopsy had begun. It is clear that the neck has shifted to the right. You can also see the damage to C6/C7 muscle. The movement in the neck is exactly where the C6/C7 muscle was. The clear reason is that the C7/C6 muscle has been destroyed and can no longer support the neck and that is why the neck has fallen.

Point 3:-

We know where the bullet entered JFK's back (5.5 in. below the mastoid). We know where the bullet exited (as confirmed by autopsy photos). And this photo proves for all time (IMO) that the HSCA was wrong about the throat wound being anatomically higher than the back wound:

Again you are wrong. Using the mastoid as the reference the position changes according to body position. Lets make it easier. Is the entry wound, according to your understanding, as described by CE 385 or CE 903?

If you agree with CE 903, then the HCSA are indeed correct. The throat wound is indeed higher than the back wound. If you agree with CE 385, then you are right that the back wound is higher, or at least level, with the throat wound.

So which do you agree with?

See Image 2 below:-

With regard to your use of BE 1 [best Evidence 1, I don’t know its Fox number] I have used a better copy of the image to demonstrate. I have placed your line back in exactly. I understand what you are trying to do, but that line is meaningless. There is no way in a 2D image you can recreate a 3D position.

See image A. If you look at JFK you will see his head is bent backwards. JFK’s posture is such that there is no way anyone can judge where the Tracheotomy exactly is on the body. We need a body fully standing up to judge positions better. Now anatomical models vary slightly and everyone’s bone structure is unique: i.e. everyone’s bone structure have slight differences unique to them. However, in general terms, anatomical models accurately display the human body in general terms.

Label 1 points to trachea rings 3&4: the known point of entry.

Image C is CE 386. Looking at the dot, Humes appears to have placed the entry wound around C7 & C6. Being generous lets say the entry would is level with Trachea 3&4

Label 2 points to the point identified by CE 903, which is between T2 & T1.

Label 3 Points to C6, which is the only point that is higher than Trachea rings 3&4.

Now I grant you that anatomical models have slight variations and errors, but not sufficient to invalidate the general point I am making. The point being that when you identify the entry point [trachea rings 3 & 4] you have to be somewhere in the region of C6 to actually be above that point.

Tracing a line like you did (and I understand what you were trying to do) has to create an invalid reference to 3D positions.

So, what I am saying, with your use of BE 1: you have not proved your point at all.

Point 4:-

Therefore, given the above known facts about JFK's wounds and the lack of internal damage, where do conspiracy theorists think they can go with this information to support some murky and unproven theory about multiple gunmen and/or some type of "anti-SBT" theory?

Regardless of whether the SBT is true or not, the above facts I stated about JFK's wounds (and the lack of any substantial damage inside Kennedy's back and neck which could have possibly accounted for the stoppage of any bullet--let alone TWO separate bullets) will still be the facts.

So where do you anti-SBT guys want to go with these facts?

I believe, though you may not agree, that I have shown you that what you have described above as “facts” are indeed not facts. This not because I say so. It is because I have analyzed what was said and pointed out to you where the errors are.

Did Humes lie about pretty much everything?

From what I can see Humes only lied twice. When he created CE 385 he deliberately raised the position of the lung beyond where it should be.

See Image D.

Label 1 points to the position of Costa IR on the model as well as CE 385.

Label 2 points to the position of the Clavical R on the model as well as CE 385.

On the model the position of the lung is around level with Costa IR and below the Clavical. In CE 385 it is well above the Clavical R. I have it on good authority by a senior medical practitioner that had anyone’s lung been in that position in the upper chest area, it would have caused serious medical issues. It is actually encroaching on where the Jugular and the Carotid R arteries are.

Now I understand why he did it…..it was to explain how the bullet when passing through the upper chest area could damage the lung. But when creating this drawing he knew it was a lie. He knew exactly where the lung was positioned.

The second lie is that no arteries were damaged. Malcolm Perry’s testimony I listed earlier today suggests that arteries were indeed damaged.

Is the autopsy report a total fraud?

No.

Are the autopsy photos supposedly "fakes"?

I do not believe so.

Are the X-rays also frauds and forgeries?

I do not believe so.

Was the HSCA a complete sham regarding the SBT? Were the HSCA investigators and FPP members all liars too? Or were they just too stupid to know they were being "misled" about some things (as Pat Speer postulated)?

They were as selective with evidence as was the Warren Commission.

Spell out your theory that replaces the SBT. HOW did it happen? And where was that frontal shooter located that could have possibly accounted for the throat wound being an "entry" wound (as almost all Internet CTers believe)?

First the SBT is invalid. It never happened. What did happen I will show you next year when my model is up and running. And I will look at the SBT, I will show you then why it is an invalid theory.

It would be nice if a CTer could provide at least some solid evidence to back up a valid, workable, and (above all) reasonable "anti-SBT" theory. To date, I've never seen such a theory. And I doubt one will ever be forthcoming.

Have you not read my thread “Dismantling the Single Bullet Theory” Parts 1 – 5? In simple terms I have made two propositions.

1) I have demonstrated that the path of the SBT through JFK’s neck was not possible without seriously damaging the lung as well as arteries.

2) I have, particularly in part 5, suggested how the damage to the upper chest area could have been created by a bullet from the front.

Maybe you should look it over, though I suspect you already have.

And before you start, no I have no idea what happened to the bullet. But having no bullet to show, does not mean it cannot be demonstrated that the shot came from the front.

Most CTers will say, in return: Well, why can't you provide some solid evidence that the SBT is true?

That is not me!!

I, however, think that has been done. Many times over, in fact. Starting with the autopsy report, then the WC's re-creation in Dealey on 5/24/64, then Dr. Lattimer's tests which support the general workings of the SBT in the 1970s, then the HSCA's work in the late '70s (although, as mentioned, I do disagree with some points the HSCA & FPP made--like the silly Z190 SBT timeline and the "throat wound is higher" conclusion, but they utilized some common sense in concluding--in general--that ONE BULLET definitely did strike both Kennedy and Connally), and then the FAA simulation, and then Dale Myers' exacting computer work.

Point 5:-

All of the above things provide good, solid underpinnings for the validity of the Single-Bullet Theory. Are they ALL dead wrong? From the WC, to the HSCA, to Lattimer, to FAA, to Myers? If the CTers think they are all wrong, I beg to differ.

Your fault is not that you are not supremely acquainted with the data of the assassination. You are. My criticism is that you have not analyzed any of the information. Your position, appears to me, to be “Well if these bodies and people say “this” or “that” then they must be right. Commander Humes, when explaining the SBT, said “..the missile traversed the neck and slid between these muscles and other vital structures.” H2 P. 363 (my emphasis) Only when you examine the human anatomy of the human neck do you question such an incredible statement. If you look back at some of my work in “Dismantling the Single Bullet Theory” Pt 5 you will see images of the upper neck area with the vein system in place. It is close on to an impossibility for a high velocity bullet to pass through that region and do minimal damage. I always questioned how these arteries and veins were not damaged. It was not until I looked at Malcolm Perry’s comments the amount of blood that I realized they must have been damaged. Now I would not expect you to agree with me, but I had hoped for a higher level of argument than just the recitation of other peoples comments.

Addendum Re: Perry----

And the main reason I posted Dr. Malcolm Perry's "It could have been either" WC testimony was, quite obviously, to counter this wholly inaccurate statement made by James DiEugenio:

"And no one will ever impeach Dr. Perry on this."

Fact is, of course, that Dr. Perry himself pretty much impeached his initial 11/22/63 statement about the throat wound being one of entrance. And he did so by admitting to the Warren Commission that the throat wound could have been "either" an entry or an exit.

Though I do not agree, I understand your point.

James.

[Cliff Varnell]

Between those dots there is a multitude of X's saying "don't go this way." You opt to go there anyhow. I don't.

Fair enough.

You opt to disbelieve both U.S. Government inquiries which both endorsed the SBT as the truth (the WC and the HSCA). I don't choose that option.

David,

Here's a couple of photos you're familiar with.

The top photo shows the kind of bulging fabric folds the SBT requires for JFK's shirt and jacket. Please note the convex fabric bulge was almost entirely above the bottom of JFK's shirt collar.

The bottom photo was taken a minute before the shooting, on the corner of Main and Houston. Please note that the fold in the jacket was an indentation, a concave curvature.

David, how could the jacket fabric indent if there were multiple inches of shirt fabric bulging up at that location?

[Cliff Varnell]

Did anyone besides me notice that Mr. Von Pein hasn't attempted to refute the information cited by Mr. Gordon? I believe he can't do it and maintain any credibility...which is why he instead chooses to argue with Pat Speer, Jim DiEugenio, and everyone else instead of Mr. Gordon.

So how about it, Mr. Von Pein...bone up on your anatomy and physiology, and then explain why Mr. Gordon is wrong in his conclusions. I can hardly wait. [Odds are, Von Pein will instead attack me for suggesting this, and continue to ignore Mr. Gordon's quite logical arguments. But then, I'm a much easier--and most likely larger--target to attack.]

I am curious why people here even bother to argue with lone nutters.

Hi Dawn

I don't divide the world into LNs vs. CTs. I divide the world into "base-of-the-neck back wound" vs T3-backwound.

The T3 back wound is the prima facie case for conspiracy. It requires no expert interpretation to invalidate the SBT, the wound was obviously too low. Which is why this seemingly obvious conclusion -- that JFK's back wound was at T3 -- is not held by most self-elected JFK experts.

What's the fun in being an expert if one's expertise is moot?

Edited June 13, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

James, I have argued the merits of the SBT with David Von Pein on a number of forums, and the outcome is always the same. He always starts off claiming CTs are obviously wrong, because they dare disagree with "experts," but, by the end, he ends up admitting that, in order for him to believe the SBT, he has decided the last group of "experts" to look at the SBT, the HSCA's experts, were wrong on TWO key points: the moment Kennedy was hit and where he was hit.

You have to keep that in mind when you argue with him. He is not a WC defender, nor an HSCA defender. He only acts as though he is because it gives him someone big to hide behind. He is a theorist, pure and simple, much like the rest of us, only his theories all end up pointing to Oswald's sole guilt.

Here is a slide I created to prove to David the error of his ways. It shows that, in his analysis (and that of his fellow LNers, Tom Lowry and Jean Davidson) there's nothing wrong with claiming Kennedy's shoulder attaches Kennedy's neck above the level of his chin, as long as it helps them create the illusion the back wound was above the throat wound.

While I, too, appreciate much about David and his research, there is no middle ground with someone who won't even admit that Kennedy's shoulder attached his neck below the level of his chin.

Edited June 13, 2012 by Pat Speer

[David Von Pein]

Thank you James Gordon, and thank you, Pat Speer, for your most recent replies.

As for Cliff Varnell's theories about the shirt and coat -- well, his theories are easily debunked by applying just a small dose of regular ol' common sense (which is true of most conspiracy theories, when you come to think about it), such as this.

If it is your position that CE 903 correctly describes the bullet’s entry position then the only passage for that bullet to get to the throat is through the lung. There is no other option. It is an anatomical impossibility for it to do otherwise.

In the time since my original post a few years ago on CE903 (and since I wrote the caption to the photo below), I've added some addendums to my "CE903" pages, which I think are important addendums to understanding some of the limitations that the Warren Commission was restricted to when it came to its re-creation of the assassination on 5/24/64 and its built-in restrictions concerning CE903 (particularly in Part 3 below):

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903-part-2.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/ce903-part-3.html

Edited June 13, 2012 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Follow-Up to my last post.....

I have what I think is a sensible and logical question for conspiracy theorists here who do not believe in the Single-Bullet Theory (which is almost everyone here, of course):

If the SBT is wrong (and particularly in the case of the theories which have JFK hit by TWO separate bullets to replace the one bullet of the SBT), then how can you account for those TWO bullets not hitting any bony structures or the lungs of President Kennedy, and yet STILL those two bullets inexplicably stopped inside JFK's back/neck?

James,

You DO accept the autopsy report with respect to the lungs and the pleura cavity and all "bony structures" not being struck directly by any bullet that passed through JFK's upper body....do you not?

Or do you really think that JFK's lung was hit by a bullet on Nov. 22nd? Did the autopsists lie about that?

The reason I'm stressing this question again is to get back to this basic fact (whether you believe in the SBT or not):

The bullet (or bullets) that struck JFK in the upper back and neck areas did not produce any significant damage to the areas of the body that conspiracy theorists think would have had to sustain such damage if the SBT is true.

Which means, of course, that whatever bullets DID go into JFK's back and neck on 11/22 also did not produce any significant damage to Kennedy's lungs or ribs or other bony structures in his body.

Which means that the anti-SBT conspiracists are left with this conundrum (not even factoring in the wounds to Governor Connally):

Two bullet wounds in JFK's body (back and throat)....no bullets in his body to account for either wound....and no significant "bony" or "lung" damage which could possibly account for the stoppage of the bullet(s) that entered the body of John Kennedy.

Don't conspiracy theorists ever give some serious thought to the "conundrum" I just stated above?

Edited June 13, 2012 by David Von Pein

[James R Gordon]

Follow-Up to my last post.....

I have what I think is a sensible and logical question for conspiracy theorists here who do not believe in the Single-Bullet Theory (which is almost everyone here, of course):

If the SBT is wrong (and particularly in the case of the theories which have JFK hit by TWO separate bullets to replace the one bullet of the SBT), then how can you account for those TWO bullets not hitting any bony structures or the lungs of President Kennedy, and yet STILL those two bullets inexplicably stopped inside JFK's back/neck?

Actually David the bullet not hitting any bony structures in the upper neck area is not so surprising. If you read my work on the SBT you’ll see why a bullet could miss bony structures. What is astonishing is that the bullet did not damage a major vein or artery. As I pointed out in the major post I made today, Perry’s comments about the quantity of blood he noticed in the upper chest area, ten minutes after the assassination, leads to believe that actually major vein(s) were damaged.

With regard to the back wound it was a shallow wound as described by Sibbert and O’Neill. So it is quite possible that, that bullet also did not strike a bone.

James,

You DO accept the autopsy report with respect to the lungs and the pleura cavity and all "bony structures" not being struck directly by any bullet that passed through JFK's upper body....do you not?

David, I put quite a bit of time writing todays post, did you not do me the courtesy of reading it. If you had you would have read my being quite plain that I accept the autopsy report and Humes testimony unless I can offer substantial reasons to doubt it. As I pointed out, Humes description of the SBT, as described in CE 385 is quite clearly a distortion of what happened. In addition I am beginning to doubt Humes statement that no arteries or veins were damaged in the upper chest area.

But at the moment, those are the only two exceptions.

Or do you really think that JFK's lung was hit by a bullet on Nov. 22nd? Did the autopsists lie about that?

You really did not read what I wrote. No, aside from the points above, I have no reasons to distrust the autopsists.

The reason I'm stressing this question again is to get back to this basic fact (whether you believe in the SBT or not):

The bullet (or bullets) that struck JFK in the upper back and neck areas did not produce any significant damage to the areas of the body that conspiracy theorists think would have had to sustain such damage if the SBT is true.

Now you are completely misunderstanding what I am saying. I am clearly on record stating that there will indeed be damage if the SBT were true. The only exception to that is if the entry wound is above Costa IR, as Humes has it in CE 386. Then the lung and bony structures may well not be damaged. Please note I am not saying anything about the rational for a continuing trajectory to John Connally. Also note that if your position for the entry point is, as Humes describes in CE 386, you still need to explain the wound in the upper back. Humes completely ignored that the wound in CE 386 is not the back wound.

If the Entry wound is, as described in CE 903, then there has to be damage and specifically to the lung. Any entry wound for the SBT below Costa IR has to, by definition, cause damage to the lung. There is no way it can be avoided, it is an anatomical necessity.

Which means, of course, that whatever bullets DID go into JFK's back and neck on 11/22 also did not produce any significant damage to Kennedy's lungs or ribs or other bony structures in his body.

Yes, I agree as of now. Later research might make me change my mind. But, as of now, I agree.

Which means that the anti-SBT conspiracists are left with this conundrum (not even factoring in the wounds to Governor Connally):

Two bullet wounds in JFK's body (back and throat)....no bullets in his body to account for either wound....and no significant "bony" or "lung" damage which could possibly account for the stoppage of the bullet(s) that entered the body of John Kennedy.

Fair point. But that does not affect the anatomical restrictions to the viability of the SBT. Just because these bullets were not found, does not make the SBT right as a consequence. The reasons why the SBT is an invalid theory still stand. That has not been changed by the fact these bullets were not found. It is an illogical position to say that just because we could not find these bullets that has to mean that the SBT is the answer.

The SBT can only become a legitimate solution when you can answer the number of criticisms laid against it. So far I have not seen you do that.

Don't conspiracy theorists ever give some serious thought to the "conundrum" I just stated above?

Wow!! is that not a piece of irony.

James.

[James R Gordon]

James, I have argued the merits of the SBT with David Von Pein on a number of forums, and the outcome is always the same. He always starts off claiming CTs are obviously wrong, because they dare disagree with "experts," but, by the end, he ends up admitting that, in order for him to believe the SBT, he has decided the last group of "experts" to look at the SBT, the HSCA's experts, were wrong on TWO key points: the moment Kennedy was hit and where he was hit.

You have to keep that in mind when you argue with him. He is not a WC defender, nor an HSCA defender. He only acts as though he is because it gives him someone big to hide behind. He is a theorist, pure and simple, much like the rest of us, only his theories all end up pointing to Oswald's sole guilt.

Here is a slide I created to prove to David the error of his ways. It shows that, in his analysis (and that of his fellow LNers, Tom Lowry and Jean Davidson) there's nothing wrong with claiming Kennedy's shoulder attaches Kennedy's neck above the level of his chin, as long as it helps them create the illusion the back wound was above the throat wound.

While I, too, appreciate much about David and his research, there is no middle ground with someone who won't even admit that Kennedy's shoulder attached his neck below the level of his chin.

Yes Pat, I see what you mean.

James

[Cliff Varnell]

As for Cliff Varnell's theories about the shirt and coat --

I present no theory. There is nothing "theoretical" about concave and convex curvatures.

You promote a theory regarding JFK's shirt and jacket. According to your theory JFK's shirt and jacket were both elevated 2+ inches above the SBT in-shoot at the lower margin of the base of JFK's neck. What argument do you present for such a conclusion?

well, his theories are easily debunked by applying just a small dose of regular ol' common sense (which is true of most conspiracy theories, when you come to think about it), such as this.

Here's the Altgens photo taken on Houston St. Note that the shirt collar isn't visible at the back and side of JFK's neck.

Here's the Croft photo on Elm St. Note that the shirt collar is clearly visible at the left side of JFK's neck. In Croft the jacket collar rested at the normal position at the upper margin of the base of JFK's neck.

David, how could 2+ inches of jacket fabric and 2+ inches of shirt fabric bunch up entirely above the lower margin of the base of the neck -- the SBT inshoot -- without pushing up on the jacket collar at the upper margin of the base of the neck?

How could the jacket collar fall to a normal position at the upper margin of the base of the neck if there were 4+ inches of clothing fabric bunched up there?

I present no theory, David. I reference easily observed facts. The theories are yours, and the impossible (in this case) burden of proof resides solely with you.

Edited June 13, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Between those dots there is a multitude of X's saying "don't go this way." You opt to go there anyhow. I don't.

Fair enough.

You opt to disbelieve both U.S. Government inquiries which both endorsed the SBT as the truth (the WC and the HSCA). I don't choose that option.

David,

Here's a couple of photos you're familiar with.

The top photo shows the kind of bulging fabric folds the SBT requires for JFK's shirt and jacket. Please note the convex fabric bulge was almost entirely above the bottom of JFK's shirt collar.

The bottom photo was taken a minute before the shooting, on the corner of Main and Houston. Please note that the fold in the jacket was an indentation, a concave curvature.

David, how could the jacket fabric indent if there were multiple inches of shirt fabric bulging up at that location?

David?

[David Von Pein]

David, how could the jacket fabric indent if there were multiple inches of shirt fabric bulging up at that location?

I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Edited June 13, 2012 by David Von Pein