DVP has a book coming out

[David Von Pein]

Obviously one bullet caused both holes. Again I ask you, do you really believe that the jacket and shirt both bunched up the same amount? Really?

Of course they bunched up the same amount. Why not? You actually think such a thing is a total impossibility? (Geesh.)

The alternative is to believe that this autopsy photo is a fake. And, IMO, that notion is absurd and preposterous (especially in light of what we find at 7 HSCA 41)....

President Kennedy's suit coat is unquestionably hiked up on his back in the Croft picture at circa Z161. That's not even debatable.

Now, given that undeniable FACT (unless someone wants to pretend that Robert Croft's picture has been faked too), it means the suit coat is going to have a hole in it that is lower than the wound in JFK's skin. Correct?

And since there's only one bullet hole in the back of JFK's shirt and only one bullet hole in the upper back (skin) of John F. Kennedy's body too---well, it's pretty obvious to see where I'm going with this, right?

And, to reiterate -- Why on Earth do CTers think it would be an impossible feat to have somebody's shirt and jacket bunched up IN UNISON on a person's back?

But to hear CTers like Cliff Varnell tell it, that "double bunching" thing is more improbable than flying to the moon in a Cessna. ~big shrug~

It only goes to show--once again--the lengths that some conspiracy hounds will go to in order to inject suspicion and doubt and alleged "conspiracy" into every nook and cranny of the JFK murder case---even though there's no need to inject such things into this particular sub-topic regarding the President's clothing whatsoever.

And btw, a picture was produced by Jean Davison a few years ago (the one below) showing JFK wearing a shirt that is "bunched up" near his neck. But according to some CTers, I guess maybe this is merely an illusion I'm seeing here....

And Cliff Varnell and other Education Forum members know about the above picture, too. It was discussed right here in this thread. Naturally, Cliff doesn't think it has any relevance at all. But I think Cliff is all wet, and I set him straight here.

FYI / BTW / FWIW....

Here's another photo, culled from Andre Leche's film (which was discovered in late 2013), showing a pretty significant bunching of JFK's jacket on Main Street....

Edited December 13, 2014 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

Regarding the photo of JFK speaking to the young lad, and showing his shirt bunched up, if he was shot at the collar line, at that moment, you would have three holes in the shirt, once it was laid flat. Just saying....

[Robert Prudhomme]

And the same would apply to the suit coat, if he were shot at the collar line and the coat was bunched up. The bullet would go through the fold, leaving one bullet hole on each side of the fold, and then through the collar of the coat, leaving another hole.

I count three holes, Dave.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Now, here is a real toughie. How did the bullet enter JFK's neck at the collar line, without putting a bullet hole in the collar of his suit coat.

[David Von Pein]

Robert P.,

The simple answer to your first two inquiries above is that JFK's clothes on 11/22/63 were not "bunched" to an extreme degree where "folds" or overlapping of the fabric come into play in the precise locations in the shirt and coat where the bullet penetrated.

Because if such folding of the clothing had occurred at the exact spots where the bullet entered, then--like you suggested--we would have multiple holes in each item (the coat and the shirt). But we've got only ONE hole in each article of clothing. Ergo, no "folding" and no overlapping of fabric.

Also see....

Edited December 13, 2014 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

Okay, smart guy, did the bullet go above the collar, or below the collar?

[David Von Pein]

Okay, smart guy, did the bullet go above the collar, or below the collar?

As far as the SKIN wound in JFK's body, the bullet went into his body just slightly below the level of the top of the shoulders. (At least it looks that way to me.) But it certainly didn't enter way up in the "NECK", and there was no need whatever for Gerald Ford, or any other person connected with the Warren Commission, to want to start "moving" the wound way up into the neck, because, as CE903 demonstrates, a wound way up there in the "neck" of JFK would ruin the SBT trajectory entirely.

As far as the bullet hole in the coat, that hole was located quite a bit down from the collar (due to the bunching of the jacket when the shooting occurred). So, quite obviously, the "collar" isn't involved when discussing the hole in the jacket either.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com / jfk-back-wound-location

Edited December 13, 2014 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Obviously one bullet caused both holes [in JFK's shirt and suit coat].

Then what's your point, Ray?

You readily acknowledge that ONE bullet must have passed through the two holes in the clothing. So aren't you therefore saying the exact same thing I am saying here -- i.e., that the two articles of clothing (the shirt and the jacket) WERE, indeed, elevated to the same level when the bullet struck John Kennedy in the back?

Otherwise, how could the one bullet have managed to travel through both of those clothing holes on November 22, 1963?

Please elaborate on how your position ("Obviously one bullet caused both holes") is any different from mine ("There's only ONE bullet hole in the back of JFK's shirt and only ONE hole in the jacket. So, then, ONE bullet had no choice but to pass through both of those holes.").

We are BOTH stating the obvious--that one bullet went through both clothing holes. Therefore, in order for that basic fact to be true, the two items of clothing had no choice but to be "lined up" in such a manner on JFK's back to allow the one bullet to pass successfully through both of those garments. Correct?

And since everybody (including Mr. Ray Mitcham) can easily see that JFK's jacket WAS definitely "bunched up" when the shooting occurred (as confirmed by Robert Croft's photograph seen below), then where can you possibly go with your argument that the shirt couldn't have been bunched up to the same level as the jacket?

What am I missing here? Please tell me. Because I truly don't think your position on this is any different from my own.

Edited December 13, 2014 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

Are you sure you want to go with "just slightly below the level of the top of the shoulders", Dave?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Just making sure....

[David Von Pein]

Are you sure you want to go with "just slightly below the level of the top of the shoulders", Dave?

That seems to be about right when looking at the autopsy photo.

But to be perfectly technical and spot-on accurate, I'd insist upon the precise language of the autopsy surgeons and the detailed measurements they made. Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck said....

"Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula

there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound. This wound is measured to be 14 cm. from the tip

of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process."

-- Warren Report; Page 540

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0282b.htm

Edited December 13, 2014 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

No, Dave, you stated the bullet was slightly below the level of the top of the shoulders. Is that your final answer? Do you want to call a friend?

[David Von Pein]

Oh, good. Bob has decided to be cute. (He thinks he's setting a cunning little trap for that stupid ol' LNer from the Hoosier State named Davey V.P., doesn't he? How clever that boy is.)

Edited December 13, 2014 by David Von Pein

[Cliff Varnell]

Obviously one bullet caused both holes. Again I ask you, do you really believe that the jacket and shirt both bunched up the same amount? Really?

Of course they bunched up the same amount. Why not? You actually think such a thing is a total impossibility? (Geesh.)

Because you have repeatedly stipulated to the fact there was no significant bunching in any of the Dealey Plaza photos.

The only place you find "significant" bunching is on Main St, which means the jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza.

You described the jacket in Croft as being bunched "a bit".

Your SBT is slain by your own hand.

The alternative is to believe that this autopsy photo is a fake. And, IMO, that notion is absurd and preposterous (especially in light of what we find at 7 HSCA 41)....

Either the Fox 5 photo is fake or the clothes are fake. It's one or the other. You can't have multiple inches of shirt and jacket bunched up entirely above the SBT in-shoot at the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base of the neck.

You disagree-- prove it!

For once in 50+ years when are you high back wound people going to demonstrate this simultaneous clothing movement?

Answer: never.

It's impossible, otherwise you'd demonstrate it.

Instead, all you demonstrate is an aggressively repeated talking point.

President Kennedy's suit coat is unquestionably hiked up on his back in the Croft picture at circa Z161. That's not even debatable.

Hiked up a fraction of an inch -- "slightly," "a bit," "a little bit." Those are your descriptions, David. According to you the only "significant" bunching was on Main St.

Now, given that undeniable FACT (unless someone wants to pretend that Robert Croft's picture has been faked too), it means the suit coat is going to have a hole in it that is lower than the wound in JFK's skin. Correct?

The bullet hole in the shirt is 4" below the bottom of the collar.

Bullet hole in the jacket is 4 & 1/8" below the bottom of the collar.

The jacket was bunched up 1/8 of an inch -- "a bit," "a little bit," "slightly."

All consistent with David Von Pein admitting the jacket was not bunched significantly in Dealey Plaza.

And since there's only one bullet hole in the back of JFK's shirt and only one bullet hole in the upper back (skin) of John F. Kennedy's body too---well, it's pretty obvious to see where I'm going with this, right?

Circles.

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your claims, David.

But you and all the other high back wound people have found it impossible.

It's way past time for you people to put up or shut up.

Edited December 13, 2014 by Cliff Varnell

[David Von Pein]

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your claims, David.

But you and all the other high back wound people have found it impossible.

It's way past time for you people to put up or shut up.

What's not to love about a conspiracy buff with a pet theory to push? Pure entertainment.

Cliff Varnell's dogged refrain, year after year after year, concerning the clothing of JFK is even better than Jack Benny for laughs.

The bottom line is ----

There is no reasonable alternative to the Single-Bullet Theory (Cliff's constant whining about the clothing notwithstanding) -- and even Cliff must surely realize that fact.

So, to use Cliff's own verbiage, maybe it's time for "you [CT] people to put up or shut up" when it comes to demonstrating just exactly how President Kennedy was shot via an anti-SBT theory.

Of course that won't happen---because it CAN'T happen. And that's because the Single-Bullet Theory is rooted in solid ground (and a real bullet too--CE399, which is something the anti-SBT CTers lack completely).

Edited December 13, 2014 by David Von Pein