The Magic Bullet Theory

[Antti Hynonen]

I did, several times. It is right where I said it is; between my (the end of) clavicle and my back bone, i.e. the bottom of the top 1/3 of my back, I'm roughly 6 ft. Kennedy was even taller, so I don't know how it could be "the middle of the back". 6 feet are 72 inches, right? (I'm European, so I apologize if my US measurements aren't quite accurate) the mastoid process is some 7 inches from the top of my skull, 14 inches from there makes it 21 inches. 21 inches from the top of my head is not quite the middle of my back, it's more like 24 inches.

Nevertheless, my point was that there is a major difference between the alleged location of the entry wound at the top part of the shoulder (as Boswell claims) and the other evidence discussed. Even the photo you posted has the entry wound one or two inches lower than 14 cm from the mp.

The evidence does not add up!

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

I do not believe the WC pushed an "intentional lie" (i.e., the SBT) on the American people. Given the TOTALITY of evidence (and the TOTALITY of what we CAN KNOW FOR CERTAIN, i.e., we can only guess to a certain degree as to exactly where JBC was located when shot with the SBT bullet as compared to JFK's relative position at that time...with that damn road sign making that snafu even more problematic) -- given this totality, the SBT is, IMO the only reasonable, logical, and workable scenario that fits all of this known evidence.

1.) There's a huge proponderance of witnesses who said "3 shots", exactly, were fired -- including all journalists who immediately reported the shooting to the nation and the world.

Rarely does one see so much dubious "fact" in a single sentence. Let's parse it and see what we find.

The majority of earwitnesses deposed by the Commission did hear three shots, but this was not a universally accepted number among bystanders, as those who've plumbed the issue will know. Several deponents claimed to have heard more shots, and bystanders who were not called to testify would have swelled that number somewhat.

As for what "journalists... immediately reported," how does Mr. Von Pein explain the 11/22/63 Dallas [afternoon] newspaper head that five to seven shots were fired? Even if the article was incorrect, its very existence impeaches the claim about the singularity of what was "immediately reported."

Mr. Von Pein seems to suggest that whatever the journalists reported was somehow from first-hand knowledge, which it clearly wasn't. The majority of the journalists were sequestered in a bus to the rear of the motorcade, and could have only reported what eye-witnesses told them. [Hence, "five to seven" shots.]

What we do know from one such journalist who was in Dealey Plaza, and photographed there, doesn't augur well for Mr. Von Pein's point of view. Mary Woodward of the Dallas Morning News wrote an article on the assassination's 20th anniversary for an Albany newspaper [Knickerbocker News], in which she stipulated:

"Over the years I have read the various conspiracy theories and am always asked for my opinion. The truth, of course, is that I possess no more knowledge than another other innocent bystander. I only know what I saw and what I heard. My testimony before all the investigative bodies recounted three shots fired from the direction of the grassy knoll—one shot, a long pause—followed by two more shots in very rapid succession."

In essence, one of the few journalists who was demonstrably present recounted three shots, as cited by Mr. Von Pein, but from a point of origin that argues against his lone-gunman theory, and in a pattern that very precisely undercuts the assumption they were all fired from the Mannlicher Carcano.

Nowhere in Mr. Von Pein's reasoning does one see any consideration given to the employment of silencer-equipped weapons, a hypothesis that would account for two bits of evidence that seem mutually exclusive: the three shots heard by the majority of witnesses, yet more than three pulses indicative of gunfire found upon the DPD dictabelt tape.

2.) Discrepancies aside re. the wound locations on JFK's upper back and lower neck (due in large part to the silly drawings that the WC was forced to utilize instead of having the actual autopsy photos and X-rays at their disposal; incredibly stupid IMO for the Official Govt. investigators to be denied full & constant access to those autopsy items; but that's what we're left to deal with, like it or not) -- the SBT works just fine, with the downward angle through JFK & JBC supporting the SBT conclusion.

"That's what we're left to deal with..." Mr. Von Pein glosses over the anomalies and discrepancies between the photos, X-rays, Parkland doctors' recollections and testimonies, Bethesda doctors' recollections and testimonies, and multiple indications of evidence tampering and fabrication as though they were merely a trival inconvenience. Is it not self-evident that if the evidence itself were straightforward, there would be no need to resort to such subterfuge.

Perhaps Mr. Von Pein would care to read Douglas Horne's learned conclusions regarding two examinations of two differrent brains, and then report back to us just how satisfied he is that there was no monkey business involved in the "investigation" of the President's murder.

3.) If the SBT is wrong, there would have positively been MORE BULLETS RECOVERED and, just as key, MORE BULLET DAMAGE inside JFK's neck and upper back. But no bones were broken or even struck by ANY bullet passing through JFK's body. This item here almost certainly indicates (as the autopsy doctors obviously knew as well) that just ONE bullet went clean through Kennedy's back and neck.

Given that what the Parkland doctors uniformly reported to be an entrance wound in the President's throat had been obliterated prior to the body's arrival in Bethesda, and given that the "finger-tracking" undergone by Bethesda personnel indicated a shallow wound that did not transit the body, one wonders how Mr. Von Pein has arrived at any conclusions about what "the autopsy doctors obviously knew as well."

4.) And since #3 is so obviously true, then that SAME bullet HAD to have gone into the man sitting almost directly in front of JFK. (Why this isn't as obvious as Jimmy Durante's schnozola is anyone's guess....but my guess is because the rabid CTers just flat don't WANT the SBT to work...at all...so, by God, it's not gonna work....for them.)

#3 is not "so obviously true;" hence, any subsequent conclusions are equally open to doubt.

5.) CE399, with a good degree of certainty, was inside JBC's body on 11/22/63.

That "good degree of certainty" is based upon what evidence?

And 399 was found in the same hospital Connally was taken to on 11/22.

Not according to the men who found and handled it. They maintain they found "a" bullet, but not "the" bullet to which you refer. You seem keener to reach conclusions than to study the evidence that should precede any such conclusions.

And since it would have been one "magic" bullet, indeed, for JBC to have been able to be hit by ANY bullet without that missile having FIRST gone through the person sitting almost-directly behind him (given the location of Connally's back {entry} wound and when he was so obviously hit, at Z224)

You are uncritically accepting a trajectory based upon a presumed point of origin for the shot. Eye-witnesses reported seeing men at both the easternmost and westernmost windows on the 6th floor, yet you assume only a single point of origin for gunfire. If one of the victims, Governor Connally, went to his death bed insistent that he and Kennedy were hit by different bullets, on what basis do you ignore his testimony? Was he one of those wacky conspiracy theorists too?

-- this little fact proves beyond much doubt at all that CE399 went through JFK's body too.

Such circular reasoning serves only to leave one dizzy, rather than informed of anything.

Much more on the viability of the SBT (and the absurd multi-shot "replacement" theory that most CTers are forced to actually buy into) can be found, in my own words, below:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...468ba452baf99c0

Edited July 19, 2006 by Robert Charles-Dunne

[Antti Hynonen]

Mr. Von Pein,

As per your request, please find enclosed a photo of my back with 2 markings. The top mark in my neck (not shoulder) is at 14 cm from the mastoid, the bottom marking is at 14 inches - which is clearly not the middle of my back.

photo removed for additional space!

Edited July 21, 2006 by Antti Hynonen

[John Simkin]

David R. Von Pein, what do you make of the testimony of Francis X. O'Neill and James W. Sibert?

Their observations are interesting, indeed. But as far as those observations undercutting the LN/SBT position....no way. They do not.

Surely it is more than interesting that Arlen Specter, the assistant counsel to the Warren Report, interviewed both Sibert and O'Neill on 12th March, 1964. However, as a result of what they told Specter, they were not called to testify before the Warren Commission. Their FD 302 report also became a classified document. This is clear evidence that the WC only wanted people to testify that gave support to the lone gunman theory.

Question -- Do you, John, truly believe that all three autopsy doctors would deliberately sign-off on a false Autopsy Report of the POTUS that each of them KNEW was nothing but a pack of lies??

To believe that ALL THREE autopsy doctors were (to a man) lying rotten cover-up scumbags is to believe in the most preposterous of CT fantasies (IMO).

Harold Rydberg was interviewed by William Matson Law for his book, In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence (2005). See the following thread for more information on Rydberg:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7461

Rydberg worked with Boswell and Humes for many years. He believes that Joseph Humes and Thornton Boswell were forced to give false testimony before the Warren Commission: "Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell were facing retirement. They didn't want to lose their retirement. They both gained another rank, too."

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Mr. Purvis, it seems you're trying to hawk your theory again. While I remain intrigued by your theory that CE399 entered Kennedy's back upside down...there are other elements of your theory which are in opposition to the evidence.

1. If all three shots came from the sniper's nest, as you claim, why did one of the closest witnesses, Bonnie Ray Williams, hear only two clear shots from above him. Why did Jarman note that the last two shots came together? Why did Norman have no clear memory of a third shot, beyond that there was a third shot?

2. I agree with you that the head shot at 313 is the second of the three shots heard by most everyone in the plaza. Where you're off, IMO, is in your contention that the last shot is the shot stiking Connally. This is way way out there, far beyond the body snatcher theory you so love to mock. How, if the bullet came from the right when Connally was laying back to the left with his feet at the right hand side of the car, did the bullet striking Connally head DOWNWARDS in his body? Did it deflect off bone? And where does this happen in the Zapruder film, exactly?

"Mr. Purvis, it seems you're trying to hawk your theory again."

Pat;

The "theory" just so happens to be forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical fact.

Of course, attempting to "hawk" such nonsense where most everyone is chasing myths & monsters, is almost a complete waste of time.

Were it not for the few persons here who have demonstrated that they have the ability to review this material, recognize that it is and will remain the known facts, then I would be out in the yard doing something worthwhile.

As regards the third/last/final shot!

When an understanding of the angle of penetration through the skull necessary to achieve a 6mm X 15mm elongated entry is understood, then one just may place into perspective the position of JFK's head at the time of impact of this shot.

That pretty well takes care of JFK.

As regards JBC, I do believe that the handwritten notes of Nellie Connally, as regards the third/last/final shot were provided, and she most certainly described JBC's position far better than could I.

Lastly! And yes, the bullet did glance off the right fifth rib of JBC.

Now, when you also resolve how the bullet which struck JBC in the back, just to the right of the shoulder blade, left an elongated entry wound "horizontally" with the body erect, then you may also come to recognize how this "elongated horizontally" entry becomes an "elongated vertically-down" wound of entry when the torso is laying almost horizontally across the open area in between the two jump seats.

I can see that you apparantly still have a long way to go in evaluation of the wounds incurred by each party.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Then, when one throws in the reported 45-degree to 60-degree downward angle of entry, as documented and reported, the impossibility of the CE399 SBT becomes even more obvious and evident.

Yeah, I always get a huge kick out of that "45-60-degree" stuff. It makes my pro-SBT job so much easier, because of the idiocy of any "45 to 60-degree" downward entry into Mr. Kennedy's back.

IOW -- Where was the airplane or helicopter that must have been flying over DP on 11/22, with an assassin inside, who then fired from this lofty perch so he could create that steep of an entry wound?

Such a steep entry wound is impossible and everybody knows it. Plus, the 45-60-degree thing was just a wild guess on Humes' part. It wasn't even measured.

Plus -- What kind of an assassination "plot" features multiple bullets (neck and back) that only go into JFK a few inches (if that)? It's patently absurd.

These killers would have done just as well to fire upon the President using water pistols, for all the good these low-velocity, non-transiting BB shots were doing.

"Such a steep entry wound is impossible and everybody knows it."

Not unlike the Z-224 episode, one can see that you have been quite "conditioned", and apparantly lack certain self-thinking abilities.

Actually, the angle of entry is quite consistant with ALL other items of evidence which tend to demonstrate the attitude in which CE399 struck JFK in the back.

I must assume that you took no "Physics" and/or "Calculus", or otherwise you just may grasp exactly how the end-over-end inertial force of CE399, striking in a base first attitude, caused the bullet to arc downwards after impact.

As regards the angle as reported by the autopsy surgeons, one will note that they stated the angle was between 45-degrees to 60-degrees down.

Which, happens to be a considerable distance from the 18-degree downward firing angle.

One would also be remiss were they to not also point out that FBI Agents Sibert & Oneill also wrote up this exact 45 to 60 degree downward angle of entry in their report, and, one would have to stretch the imagination considerably to think that of the three autopsy surgeons, that none of them knew enough about angles to have made such a mistake.

Then, when it is considered that after opening of the chest and removal of the lungs of JFK, a wire rod probe was inserted into the back wound.

The tip of this probe could be observed pushing against the parietal pleura in the bruised area of this membrane, which also corresponded with the bruised area of the right lung in the apex.

Now, with this "wire rod/probe" sticking out the back of JFK's back, I do believe that the autopsy surgeons had adequate reference in which to make a relative accurate "estimate".

And, one will not that they did not estimate 18 degrees to 45 degrees down!

They stated: 45 to 60 degrees downward.

So, that you have failed to grasp the significance which this downward angle of entry has, places you in the same category as all of those others who have also failed to grasp the significance that:

1. The back entry wound measured 4mm X 7mm, which also happens to be the exact same measurement as the slightly deformed base to CE399

2. The entry wound in the back of JFK is elongated HORIZONTALLY, with the 7mm distance horizontal, and the 4mm measurement being VERTICAL. When, in fact, on a normal downward angle of fire, the vertical dimension should be the longer of the two measurements.

3. That the bullet which struck JFK in the back, "punched out" considerable amounts of his coat and shirt and carried this fabric down into the wound of entry, when in fact, a normal entering bullet does not do so.

4. That the wound of entry had what was defined as a "puncture" with relatively clean cut edges, when in fact a normal bullet entry into soft flesh tissue does not demonstrate this characteristic.

5. And lastly, that Dr. Boswell in fact "alerted" anyone who pays attention, when he described the wound as being "atypical".

So!

The SBT, as presented by the WC is a complete and intentional lie.

Therefore, the WC itself is a lie.

The only thing which is yet to be resolved, would be the actual purpose of this lie.

P.S. Might I recommend taking the presented information to those persons who possess the required credentials to verify the information.

Such as a few forensic pathologists and a few firearms & toolmark examiners.

Since I did it long ago, I already know the answers.

Gotta love the buffs. Not only was the magic bullet planted, but they left a third empty shell on the sixth floor for the hell of it.

I do believe that you forgot to include that they first fired the bullet from the assassination weapon, capturing the bullet to have it available for this "planting" scenario.

Too much TV/Mission Impossible watching can make one believe such things.

To claim, as you do, David, that 3" of JFK's jacket and 3" of his shirt bunched up *in tandem* entirely

ABOVE the C7 SBT inshoot at the base of his neck -- but entirely BELOW the jacket collar at the base

of his neck -- is an egregious intellectual dishonesty.

And to base the SBT's "impossibility" on MOVABLE CLOTHING is, in itself, "intellectual dishonesty", IMO. And Larry M. Sturdivan, in his excellent book, "The JFK Myths", totally agrees on this point.

The BODY (SKIN) OF THE PRESIDENT is by far the best measuring stick to the wounds. Not the clothing. And everybody knows it. You're out on a shaky limb with your "clothing" arguments.

David, you cannot tell me who shot the autopsy photo you cite. You cannot tell me who developed the photo. There is nothing in the photo to indicate it's Jack Kennedy.

Yep, that didn't take long -- i.e., didn't take long for the proverbial CTer Motto of "It Must Be Fake" to pop into the proceedings.

That's a cop-out and you know it. Not to mention a totally-debunked notion (by the HSCA, the Clark Panel, and the autopsy doctors themselves from their 1967 Natl. Archives visit).

Your "14cm below the right mastoid process" is at best a guess.

It's not a "guess" at all. Why would you even say such a silly thing?

It comes directly from Boswell's Face Sheet, and all of the doctors' WC testimony (and HSCA testimony).

I suppose ALL of that stuff is "fake" too...right? Including the original Boswell Face Sheet with the "14 cm. from tip of RT. Mastoid Process" written in by hand?

Or is it your contention that Boswell, et al, just lied when they claimed they measured the wound from the Mastoid?

Is there any end in sight for the massive cover-up? I guess everybody must be involved....from Hoover and Burkley...right on down the line.

JFK's jacket dropped an inch in Dealey Plaza, the SBT thus stands debunked.

Oh goodie. The clothing crap again (just for good measure I guess).

Care to tell the world where those 3 or 4 bullets disappeared to that must replace the dreaded SBT?

And "guessing" won't work remember. You hate "guessing", because you said this above (remember?)......

"Your '14cm below the right mastoid process' is at best a guess."

Or is it your contention that Boswell, et al, just lied when they claimed they measured the wound from the Mastoid?

Sorry David!

Can not have it both ways!

I do believe that you just recently made an attempt to discredit Boswell/Finke/Humes in regards to the downward angle of entry.

You truly need to decide whether they are reliable or whether they are not!

[Bill Miller]

So I will assume that you have done absolutely nothing to obtain a copy of that document.

Nope, sure haven't. Never even heard of such a "sheet". So, I guess the entire LN/SBT/LHO scenario is now totally destroyed.

So David, is it your position at this time that if someone was to go over to Lancer's forum and do a search under the name 'Tannenbaum' .... that they would not find exchanges between you and I on this very topic that you now claim you knew nothing about?

I think that someone who posted this amongst the very threads that I am talking about may have been onto something when they said,

"Chuck,

I appreciate your support.

But DVP gets his jollies from people's knee-jerk reactions to him.

I've seen Bill Miller and others try to logically explain things to him. They address him by name and try to explain everything, but he just gets off on it.

I try to refer to him in the third person when I cite his ridiculous positions.

I often like to respond with, "Sorry DVP. I don't feed trolls."

[Thomas H. Purvis]

David R. Von Pein, what do you make of the testimony of Francis X. O'Neill and James W. Sibert?

Their observations are interesting, indeed. But as far as those observations undercutting the LN/SBT position....no way. They do not.

Surely it is more than interesting that Arlen Specter, the assistant counsel to the Warren Report, interviewed both Sibert and O'Neill on 12th March, 1964. However, as a result of what they told Specter, they were not called to testify before the Warren Commission. Their FD 302 report also became a classified document. This is clear evidence that the WC only wanted people to testify that gave support to the lone gunman theory.

Question -- Do you, John, truly believe that all three autopsy doctors would deliberately sign-off on a false Autopsy Report of the POTUS that each of them KNEW was nothing but a pack of lies??

To believe that ALL THREE autopsy doctors were (to a man) lying rotten cover-up scumbags is to believe in the most preposterous of CT fantasies (IMO).

Harold Rydberg was interviewed by William Matson Law for his book, In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence (2005). See the following thread for more information on Rydberg:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7461

Rydberg worked with Boswell and Humes for many years. He believes that Joseph Humes and Thornton Boswell were forced to give false testimony before the Warren Commission: "Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell were facing retirement. They didn't want to lose their retirement. They both gained another rank, too."

Surely it is more than interesting that Arlen Specter, the assistant counsel to the Warren Report, interviewed both Sibert and O'Neill on 12th March, 1964. However, as a result of what they told Specter, they were not called to testify before the Warren Commission. Their FD 302 report also became a classified document. This is clear evidence that the WC only wanted people to testify that gave support to the lone gunman theory.

Quite correct!

Virtually every document which makes reference to the original autopsy findings that the bullet which struck JFK in the upper back/lower neck, and only penetrated a short distance, was suppressed. Along with the testimony of anyone who might reveal this.

As most, who have followed the trangression of the evidence are aware, when the autopsy ended, the bullet in the back a short distance, fall out on the stretcher at Parkland, was the accepted determination/final results of the autopsy.

This is of course also partially why the Sibert & Oneill report, as well as reports made by JEH were kept hidden.

And, as one can see from the other now available documents, it would appear that the "Final" autopsy report may in fact be the third generation report.

The WC quite obviously had some document which stated that a fragment was possibly responsible for the anterior neck wound.

1. The original autopsy had no reference to the anterior neck wound as it's existence was obscured by the tracheotomy incision.

The anterior neck wound was not even known until after the autopsy was completed and JFK's body was removed.

Therefore, the "ORIGINAL" autopsy findings would have made no reference to the anterior neck wound.

2. The autopsy report which we now see, not only makes no reference to a bullet entering only a short distance into the back (which was the original determination at the actual end of the autopsy), but it now references the bullet having passed completely through the neck, with no reference to anything about a fragment.

With the changes from what the initial autopsy disclosed, to the final report which we now see, there would have to have been one additional "change/correction" made.

Rydberg worked with Boswell and Humes for many years. He believes that Joseph Humes and Thornton Boswell were forced to give false testimony before the Warren Commission: "Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell were facing retirement. They didn't want to lose their retirement. They both gained another rank, too."

Sorry John! This one is just make-believe, big/bad/mean ole government BS, which you of course would like to believe.

They could not have lost their retirement unless Court Martialed.

To do so for other than completely legitimate reasons would have risked the publicity associated with the Courts Martial of one of the JFK Autopsy Surgeons, which would have make National News.

The mere fact that they were Military Officers places them in the position that they could be directed that they would not discuss the autopsy with anyone. That was sufficient.

However, once retired from the military service, there is nothing to prevent them from making any statements which they so desire.

When was the last time that you heard any of the three state that their retirement was threatened?

And, despite what either you, or Ryberg think, an Officer can not be "forced" to give false testimony.

David R. Von Pein, what do you make of the testimony of Francis X. O'Neill and James W. Sibert?

Their observations are interesting, indeed. But as far as those observations undercutting the LN/SBT position....no way. They do not.

Surely it is more than interesting that Arlen Specter, the assistant counsel to the Warren Report, interviewed both Sibert and O'Neill on 12th March, 1964. However, as a result of what they told Specter, they were not called to testify before the Warren Commission. Their FD 302 report also became a classified document. This is clear evidence that the WC only wanted people to testify that gave support to the lone gunman theory.

Question -- Do you, John, truly believe that all three autopsy doctors would deliberately sign-off on a false Autopsy Report of the POTUS that each of them KNEW was nothing but a pack of lies??

To believe that ALL THREE autopsy doctors were (to a man) lying rotten cover-up scumbags is to believe in the most preposterous of CT fantasies (IMO).

Harold Rydberg was interviewed by William Matson Law for his book, In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence (2005). See the following thread for more information on Rydberg:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7461

Rydberg worked with Boswell and Humes for many years. He believes that Joseph Humes and Thornton Boswell were forced to give false testimony before the Warren Commission: "Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell were facing retirement. They didn't want to lose their retirement. They both gained another rank, too."

Surely it is more than interesting that Arlen Specter, the assistant counsel to the Warren Report, interviewed both Sibert and O'Neill on 12th March, 1964. However, as a result of what they told Specter, they were not called to testify before the Warren Commission. Their FD 302 report also became a classified document. This is clear evidence that the WC only wanted people to testify that gave support to the lone gunman theory.

Quite correct!

Virtually every document which makes reference to the original autopsy findings that the bullet which struck JFK in the upper back/lower neck, and only penetrated a short distance, was suppressed. Along with the testimony of anyone who might reveal this.

As most, who have followed the trangression of the evidence are aware, when the autopsy ended, the bullet in the back a short distance, fall out on the stretcher at Parkland, was the accepted determination/final results of the autopsy.

This is of course also partially why the Sibert & Oneill report, as well as reports made by JEH were kept hidden.

And, as one can see from the other now available documents, it would appear that the "Final" autopsy report may in fact be the third generation report.

The WC quite obviously had some document which stated that a fragment was possibly responsible for the anterior neck wound.

1. The original autopsy had no reference to the anterior neck wound as it's existence was obscured by the tracheotomy incision.

The anterior neck wound was not even known until after the autopsy was completed and JFK's body was removed.

Therefore, the "ORIGINAL" autopsy findings would have made no reference to the anterior neck wound.

2. The autopsy report which we now see, not only makes no reference to a bullet entering only a short distance into the back (which was the original determination at the actual end of the autopsy), but it now references the bullet having passed completely through the neck, with no reference to anything about a fragment.

With the changes from what the initial autopsy disclosed, to the final report which we now see, there would have to have been one additional "change/correction" made.

Rydberg worked with Boswell and Humes for many years. He believes that Joseph Humes and Thornton Boswell were forced to give false testimony before the Warren Commission: "Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell were facing retirement. They didn't want to lose their retirement. They both gained another rank, too."

Sorry John! This one is just make-believe, big/bad/mean ole government BS, which you of course would like to believe.

They could not have lost their retirement unless Court Martialed.

To do so for other than completely legitimate reasons would have risked the publicity associated with the Courts Martial of one of the JFK Autopsy Surgeons, which would have make National News.

The mere fact that they were Military Officers places them in the position that they could be directed that they would not discuss the autopsy with anyone. That was sufficient.

However, once retired from the military service, there is nothing to prevent them from making any statements which they so desire.

When was the last time that you heard any of the three state that their retirement was threatened?

And, despite what either you, or Ryberg think, an Officer can not be "forced" to give false testimony.

[Gary L. Aguilar]

Von Pein, I ask you for the edification of others. Where did the bullet enter? Where did it exit? At what level did it pass the spine? Did it pass above or below the first rib?

To some, the single-bullet theory is a religion. Surely, you've done actual research on this theory. What tests did you peform and what were your conclusions?

The SBT proves ITSELF in so many ways (mostly of the "common-sense" variety)....and it's remarkable how so many CTers have been duped into thinking it's an LNer's wet dream. It's nothing of the kind. Myers' work proves the SBT is doable, and the Discovery Channel re-creation came so close to replicating the event, at the VERY LEAST CTers should open up an eye and admit to the SBT's "possibility" if nothing else.

Ask yourself (please) -- Could that Australian Discovery Channel re-creation ("JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet") have possibly come that close to a near-perfect (not perfect to the square-inch, true, but very close) duplication of something that CTers say is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE?

Think about that, please, for a moment.

Could ANY true-to-life re-creation (sans the "living bodies" of the victims) -- utilizing an actual WCC/MC bullet fired from an actual MC rifle from a 60-foot-high perch -- have come THAT CLOSE to re-creating a "Wet Dream" invented by Mr. Specter?

The fact that the JBC mock torso (during that re-creation) was struck in just exactly the same general locations on the "body" where the real JBC suffered injuries in 1963 -- all AFTER a bullet had gone cleanly through a mock Kennedy torso -- should tell any reasonable person assessing the SBT's viability that the theory is most-certainly far from "impossible".

Coupled with Mr. Myers' detailed animated work, which hone in in even more detail re. the angles, etc., these two things (Myers & Disc. Channel) prove beyond doubt that the SBT lives & breathes (regardless of Mr. Speer's "above or below the first rib?" inquiries).

An EXACT TO-THE-INCH re-creation of the SBT is not possible and everybody should know why. It's not gonna happen, unless we can somehow get JFK & JBC to come back to life and do the whole nine yards all over again.

But the "No Bullets Left In JFK" thing is just not gonna fly from a CTer POV. No way. No how.

I want Pat to tell the world -- WHERE ARE THE MULTIPLE BULLETS THAT MUST REPLACE THE SBT??

Re. the more-technical questions, there's no question the SBT works re. the angle through JFK and the one through JBC too. JFK was struck 5.5 in. below the right mastoid, which IS above the anterior portion of the neck where the bullet exited (and where the autopsy report unambiguously says the bullet "exited").

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/zeroang.jpg

And if the SBT is wrong -- then SOMETHING ELSE is right. What the heck is it? Not a single CTer has answered that question in a believable way (following any of the known evidence) in 40+ years. Key word there = "believable".

Lots of my other detailed thoughts re. the SBT are in those links above.

If the SBT is false -- I'm a monkey's second cousin (or uncle even). (Mark Fuhrman's crazy anti-SBT, pro-LN theory notwithstanding.)

Von Pein's discussion, as passionate as it is, entirely misses the point. Rather than actually addressing the doubts I raise about the bona fides of Commission Exhibit #399, he accepts as a premise that which is very much in doubt - that 399 was really the bullet found at Parkland.

Perhaps Von Pein is not American, and so assumes one can accept at face value what the FBI says. Pity, that.

Gary

[Jack White]

Von Pain...study this.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Bullet Switch-er-roo #2 ... right?

Boy, what a bunch of incompetent Patsy-Framing boobs you've got there. They apparently can't tell their anal region from a 4-grooved bullet, which really had-oughta been a 6-groove (or is that the other way around?). Aww, doesn't matter, nobody'll notice all these stupid gaffes made made these evidence-manipulators anyway...right?

David ... address Jack's post with actual data. If you feel he is in error, then explain the error for this is an education forum.

Thanks,

Bill Miller

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

We have on display here an interesting spectacle. Mr. Von Pein foregoes the opportunity to respond to each point on which he has been rebutted, and instead cherry-picks two sentences below for which he thinks he can fashion a response. Rather than debate the points raised, he adopts provocative rhetoric about "rabid CT-ers" and their "ultra-stupid" theories, hoping that nobody will notice his evasions. To rely on such sophomoric debating feints, on only those rebuttals he chooses to address, creates much heat, but little light.

He first asserted that we know there were only three shots, because that's what all the "journalists.. immediately reported." When shown this assertion is untrue, Mr. Von Pein has no substantive response. His silence speaks volumes.

When shown that one such journalist who was actually there [and, hence, knew first-hand something that those on the press bus couldn't] has consistently claimed the shots came from the knoll area, Mr. Von Pein has no response. His silence speaks volumes.

Elsewhere, Mr. Von Pein has argued, against the earwitness evidence, that the three shots fired were evenly spaced, that there was no 'double shot' bunching of the final two shots. When the same journalist witness I cited above was quoted in my post - "three shots fired from the direction of the grassy knoll—one shot, a long pause—followed by two more shots in very rapid succession" - Mr. Von Pein remains mums. His silence speaks volumes.

It is far easier to sling empty rhetoric about what is "rabid" and "stupid" than it is to fashion a response to something he cannot refute.

Nowhere in Mr. Von Pein's reasoning does one see any consideration given to the employment of silencer-equipped weapons...

And if YOU give serious consideration to that "silencer" option, you have no choice (as do all other CTers) to then totally jettison your entire argument for ANY witnesses in DP hearing ANY frontal gunshots.

Because if the plotters WERE utilizing silencers and the proverbial "Frame Oswald As The Lone Patsy" plot was also in place (as a huge % of CTers believe), then there would have been ZERO witnesses who could be relied on by the CTers to have actually heard any frontal shots...which has always been a good-sized part of the CT "case for conspiracy" in the first place.

Nowhere have I ever argued that the plotters' aim was to "Frame Oswald As The Lone Patsy." This is your strawman invention. And you're welcome to it.

Those capable of greater nuance realize that the plotters may well have been quite happy to leave behind evidence of conspiracy, so long as the superficially leftist Oswald was identified as being a central part of it. What was later done to that evidence by the Bureau and the Commission, selectively cherry-picked where possible - a la Mr. Von Pein himself - is another matter.

I suppose these same CTers could do a 180 and start thinking (as I do) that many witnesses simply heard "echoes" or "reverberations" through DP, accounting for the sound of shots they thought came from the front.

But if the CTers do that, they'll look weak...and silly. Because, as mentioned, a large part of their case has been being able to "rely" on the witnesses who heard shots from that Knoll -- and not just "echoes" from non-silenced TSBD shots.

Plus....if a CTer wants to use the ultra-stupid argument of "Well, some shots from the front were silenced, while some others weren't" -- I'd have to laugh in their face by presenting such a dumb argument.

For, what type of brain-dead plotters would want to silence only SOME of the "non-Oswald" shots, while not silencing others? It's just....dumb.

So CTers need to decide if they want to actually believe the "frontal-shot" earwitnesses....or if they want to believe that silencers were used and the witnesses heard echoes.

They can't have the cake and eat it as well.

You seem to operate on the mistaken assumption that employing a silencer negates all sound of the weapon being fired. It does not. A bullet bow shockwave will be heard by any witness as long as the bullet speed is faster than the speed of sound. If a bullet is fired from a silenced weapon, a witness can mistake the bullet bow audible shockwave whip-crack for the weapon muzzle blast audible wave, which is a separate, slightly preceding, audible event. Moreover, the use of a silencer-equipped weapon will create confusion about the shot's point of origin, usually about 180 degrees opposite.

I suggest you seek out Dr. D. B. Thomas' study of the dictabelt recording, contrast and compare what it contains with the formidably uniform witness testimony that noted a substantially different sound quality between the first shot ["a firecracker" in most testimony] and then explain how a single weapon emits two substantially different sound patterns. Or, in the alternative, find some Dealey Plaza footage of someone setting off a firecracker.

Given that what the Parkland doctors uniformly reported to be an entrance wound in the President's throat had been obliterated prior to the body's arrival in Bethesda, and given that the "finger-tracking" undergone by Bethesda personnel indicated a shallow wound that did not transit the body, one wonders how Mr. Von Pein has arrived at any conclusions about what "the autopsy doctors obviously knew as well."."

Anybody can arrive at the most-likely-to-be-correct solution to this problem -- if they have any common sense at all.

Once Humes learned of the bullet hole in the front of JFK's neck, everything fell perfectly into place. The X-rays showed no bony damage in JFK that could account for TWO bullets to just stop dead in the water. And no bullets are found in the President at all. This obviously equals a bullet that almost certainly went clean through the body. Humes realized this, and said so in the autopsy report.

Your own example illustrates the shoddy nature of the autopsy process. As I'm sure you know, Humes et al. didn't even know about a throat wound until the day following the autopsy, when Humes discovered this during a phone call with a Parkland doctor. Prior to that time, the "common sense" you so willingly attribute to Dr. Humes was nowhere in evidence, as noted by Sibert and O'Neill in their dictated FBI report of autopsy events:

"During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.

This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger.

Inasmuch as no complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other area of the body as determined by total body X-Rays and inspection revealing there was no point of exit, the individuals performing the autopsy were at a loss to explain why they could find no bullets.

A call was made by Bureau agents to the Firearms Section of the FBI Laboratory, at which time SA Charles L. Killion advised that the Laboratory had received through Secret Service Agent Richard Johnson a bullet which had reportedly been found on a stretcher in the emergency room of Parkland Hospital, Dallas, Texas. This stretcher had also contained a stethoscope and pair of rubber gloves. Agent Johnson had advised the Laboratory that it had not been ascertained whether or not this was the stretcher which had been used to transport the body of President Kennedy. Agent Killion further described this bullet as pertaining to a 6.5 millimeter rifle which would be approximately a 25 caliber rifle and that this bullet consisted of a copper alloy full jacket.

Immediately following receipt of this information, this was made available to Dr. Humes who advised that in his opinion this accounted for no bullet being located which had entered the back region and that since external cardiac massage had been performed at Parkland Hospital, it was entirely possible that through such movement the bullet had worked its way back out of the point of entry and had fallen on the stretcher."

One notices you eschew all mention of Dr. Humes destroying his first set of autopsy notes, the fact that Humes didn't even know there was a throat wound during the autopsy [a rather glaring oversight if the procedure was done properly], the fact that Humes first suspected the bullet fell out of JFK's back [wholly contrary to your assertion that it was obvious to those who employ only "common sense"], and that the majority of those present for the process placed the wound too low in the back to have exited from the throat, absent the bullet being redirected by hitting bone, which was never established.

To believe otherwise is to believe in a scenario that Dr. Humes (et al) obviously couldn't in their right mind imagine -- i.e., TWO bullets and all related large fragments just disappear completely and (more importantly on the Bethesda end), these two bullets that would have had to replace just the one transiting bullet DO NO SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE TO JFK'S INNARDS AT ALL. And that option, as Humes knew, is just flat-out silly.

Humes had some common sense -- something rabid CTers lack evidently.

Dr. Humes was confused enough by the shallow back wound to assume that the bullet had been massaged out in Parkland, as noted by Sibert and O'Neill. Dr. Humes' subsequent conclusions were based on ex-post facto assumptions, rather than what was discovered during the autopsy. Whenever an hypothesis and the evidence for it are in contradiction, one should tread lightly in using terms like "common sense."

Why this is hyped-up to be the Mystery Of The Ages is anybody's guess. But CTers want to muddy the very-clean waters, quite obviously, to push their pro-conspiracy agenda.

In point of fact, it is you who have shied away from actually examining the autopsy evidence that "muddied" the water in the first place. You place greater weight on what Humes concluded after the autopsy than on what he learned during the autopsy, and then seek to pretend this is the way things usually work. I am thankful you do not oversee such procedures, for if you did, we'd all be left solving murders by inspired guesswork that fails to address the actual evidence.

Sorry, it's a dead-end CT journey.

Actually, the only "dead-end" was a back wound so shallow it could only be probed to the first joint of the little finger, and located so far down the back it couldn't have transited via the throat. You'd know this if you spent more time examining the evidence and less time mocking those who have.

That bullet passed through JFK as surely as night follows day.

~Mark VII~

Edited July 20, 2006 by Robert Charles-Dunne

[Ron Ecker]

This is hopeless. How can I ignore Von Pein's posts when people keep quoting them? And why are they doing it? I may have to start calling this the Gluttons for Punishment Forum.

[Antti Hynonen]

David von Pein:

I used the mastoid process as a starting point for my measurement. Your reply is pretty unconvincing too. I provided you with the measurements you suggested, to prove a point, which I did. It remains with you to show that my measurements were off. The ball is in your court.

If you like we can skip the entire measurement issue if it is too much for you to handle.

Instead, the declining angle of the bullet and the location of the entry wound in the autopsy photo at the back suggests an exit wound just above the nipple. I can not fathom how the exit wound could be at a point higher than the entry, when the bullet is descending at an angle of 10-15 degrees. How does that compute in your book?

Edited July 20, 2006 by Antti Hynonen

[John Simkin]

This is hopeless. How can I ignore Von Pein's posts when people keep quoting them? And why are they doing it? I may have to start calling this the Gluttons for Punishment Forum.

It is worth reading his nonsense in order that Robert Charles Dunne can give him a lesson in logic. After all, this is an educational forum.