The Magic Bullet Theory

[David Von Pein]

13 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:

If we are to debate the relative positions of the back wound to the throat wound, let's do so with the best evidence available.

Hi James.

I don't think I have the shirt photo you speak of. (But I'll check my computer to make sure.)

But I totally disagree with your assertion that the SHIRT of JFK is "the best evidence available", regardless of where the bullet hole is on that shirt.

You surely must agree with me that by far the BEST evidence for where the back wound was located is the ACTUAL BODY (skin) of John F. Kennedy. Right? And this photo montage below shows clearly that the back wound was anatomically HIGHER than the throat/neck/trach wound, using the crimps in JFK's neck as a good guide to show relative height. (The angled line on the left photo was not put there by me, btw.) ....

 

Edited July 26, 2022 by David Von Pein

[James R Gordon]

David,

The image that I posted showed just how low the entrance wood was. It showed the entrance was in the area T3.

David I am prepared to debate with you, but I am not going to be instructed what in your opinion is - or is not - best evidence. I will decide that for myself.

Your images which you claim are best evidence are nothing of the sort.They are 2D pictures - taken from different vantage positions - onto which you are claiming 3D conclusions. There is no way anyone can verify - or not - what you claim. If you feel that is Best Evidence - then prove it. Do not display and assert.

Your image of the back wound is a case in point. As you point out it could be argued that the back entrance wound is close to the neck exit wound. As the image of the shirt I am talking about demonstrates - and this piece of evidence is beyond argument - the hole is close to T3. Your pictures are an assumption created by you to fit your beliefs.

I hope the quality of your evidence improves. I am happy to accept your position if you can prove and establish it. But if I am to debate this issue with you then I am going to call out your unfounded assertions each and every time I see them.

James

[David Von Pein]

4 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:

But if I am to debate this issue with you then I am going to call out your unfounded assertions each and every time I see them.

I don't think my assertion is "unfounded" regarding the heights of the wounds in relation to each other. It's a comparison of 2D photos, that's true enough. But even without the use of photogrammetry (which would be the ideal method of comparison), I think it's obvious that the back wound is higher on JFK's body than is the exit/trach wound. And author Vincent Bugliosi agreed with me:

• "Perhaps the clearest visual evidence of the fact that the entrance wound in the [President's] back was definitely above the exit wound in the throat appears in one of [the autopsy] photos taken of the left side of the president's head as he is lying on his back, his head on a metal headrest. Only the wound to the throat is visible, not the wound to his upper right back. However, it couldn't be clearer from this photo that the wound to the back was definitely above the exit wound in the throat." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 424 of "Reclaiming History"

 

[James R Gordon]

So - accoring to you - The back entrance wound is higher on JFK's body than is the exit/trach wound,

Here is a clearer copy of the back wound image you were using. Can you explain how the back wound is higher than the throat exit wound.

Take a copy of my image and demonstrate where the throat exit wound is.

[David Von Pein]

13 hours ago, James R Gordon said:

So - accoring to you - The back entrance wound is higher on JFK's body than is the exit/trach wound,

Here is a clearer copy of the back wound image you were using. Can you explain how the back wound is higher than the throat exit wound.

Take a copy of my image and demonstrate where the throat exit wound is.

I've already done that very thing, James, via the side-by-side photo comparison I provided in my earlier posts. But I'll try it again by copying all of the text from this webpage of mine:

[DVP Quote On:]

I think everyone would probably agree that part of the problem that
exists with respect to lining up President Kennedy's upper-back wound
and his throat wound is the fact that there is no specific autopsy
photograph in existence that can readily illustrate the relationship
between those two key wounds at the same time.

But I think that the autopsy photo shown below of President Kennedy,
which has been turned sideways for proper orientation, does a pretty
good job of accomplishing that task (although, of course, we still can't
physically see the hole in JFK's upper back here):



Via the above photo, it's very easy to illustrate the fact that the wound
in President Kennedy's upper back was certainly well ABOVE the wound
in the front of the neck/throat. Because if a line is drawn straight across
from the throat wound toward JFK's back in the above photograph (even
allowing for the limitations of such crude line-drawing on a two-dimensional
photograph, which really cannot be done and expect complete accuracy
regarding specific measurements), where would that place a wound on
the "back" portion of John Kennedy's body? Certainly not anywhere near
the "neck". And also nowhere near where we find the actual upper-back
wound via the autopsy photo of Kennedy's back.

And if you want to buy the HSCA junk about the back wound being
anatomically LOWER than the throat wound, there's even a bigger
differential, which would place the back wound practically in the
MIDDLE portion of JFK's back...which is just silly.

Just compare it to this picture:



The "crimp" in JFK's neck is a good guide to use in both of the above
autopsy photographs. The "crimp" appears to me to be located
approximately three inches above the wound. So we need to estimate
about three inches below the "neck crimp" in this photo:



Where would the wound be located based on that crimp estimate?
Certainly not anywhere NEAR the very BOTTOM of that picture (which
is where the wound would have to be located in order for it to be at
"throat wound level").

This isn't exactly rocket science.

Here's a side-by-side comparison of the two autopsy photographs:



The Single-Bullet Theory works. Period.

Related Article -- The SBT Perfection Of Commission Exhibit No. 903.

David Von Pein
January 2007
July 2010

 

Edited July 26, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

I've already done that very thing, James, via the side-by-side photo comparison I provided in my earlier posts. But I'll try it again by copying all of the text from this webpage of mine:

[DVP Quote On:]

I think everyone would probably agree that part of the problem that
exists with respect to lining up President Kennedy's upper-back wound
and his throat wound is the fact that there is no specific autopsy
photograph in existence that can readily illustrate the relationship
between those two key wounds at the same time.

But I think that the autopsy photo shown below of President Kennedy,
which has been turned sideways for proper orientation, does a pretty
good job of accomplishing that task (although, of course, we still can't
physically see the hole in JFK's upper back here):



Via the above photo, it's very easy to illustrate the fact that the wound
in President Kennedy's upper back was certainly well ABOVE the wound
in the front of the neck/throat. Because if a line is drawn straight across
from the throat wound toward JFK's back in the above photograph (even
allowing for the limitations of such crude line-drawing on a two-dimensional
photograph, which really cannot be done and expect complete accuracy
regarding specific measurements), where would that place a wound on
the "back" portion of John Kennedy's body? Certainly not anywhere near
the "neck". And also nowhere near where we find the actual upper-back
wound via the autopsy photo of Kennedy's back.

And if you want to buy the HSCA junk about the back wound being
anatomically LOWER than the throat wound, there's even a bigger
differential, which would place the back wound practically in the
MIDDLE portion of JFK's back...which is just silly.

Just compare it to this picture:



The "crimp" in JFK's neck is a good guide to use in both of the above
autopsy photographs. The "crimp" appears to me to be located
approximately three inches above the wound. So we need to estimate
about three inches below the "neck crimp" in this photo:



Where would the wound be located based on that crimp estimate?
Certainly not anywhere NEAR the very BOTTOM of that picture (which
is where the wound would have to be located in order for it to be at
"throat wound level").

This isn't exactly rocket science.

Here's a side-by-side comparison of the two autopsy photographs:



The Single-Bullet Theory works. Period.

Related Article -- The SBT Perfection Of Commission Exhibit No. 903.

David Von Pein
January 2007
July 2010

 

David's theory here is discussed in detail by Pat Speer in chapter 11 and chapter 12 of his online book. The sections in question are titled "Hunchback Analysis" and "Artwohl Analysis", respectively. Basically, there is certainly reason to doubt David's interpretation of these autopsy photos. 

I am basically the same size and have very similar proportions to JFK, and have pretty muscular shoulders. When viewed from the side and positioned in certain ways - and it's very sensitive to shoulder movement - my upper trapezius creates the illusion of a near-identical "hump" to that shown in JFK's profile view. If the hump in the side-view represent's JFK's upper-trap, the wound location would be a couple inches lower and about at the level of the throat wound. I'm not entirely convinced that's what's going on here, nor am 100% convinced that David is wrong to be honest, but it's hardly a settled issue IMO. I don't think that the HSCA FFP can be written off strictly from a comparison of two 2-dimensional photographs, and Speer makes a pretty compelling argument for why the panel was correct on this point.  

[Pat Speer]

17 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Well, in the JFK case, that simply did not happen---as the side-by-side autopsy photo comparison below clearly demonstrates. It's quite clear (despite what the HSCA determined) that the wound in JFK's upper back was located ABOVE the exit wound in his throat:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/jfk-back-wound-location.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2018/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1270.html

 

As discussed on my website and on numerous forums, what, twelve years ago? the image above comparing the back wound location in the two photos (which is believed to have originated with Jean Davison) is grossly deceptive, and deliberately so. .

I say "deliberately so" because it's clear NO attempt has been made to match the photos up properly. In reality, the photo at right is grossly undersized compared to the photo at left. This deliberate deception serves to make the "hump" on Kennedy's back appear to be in the same location in each photo.

But in reality they are not. In the photo at right, the back wound is slightly below the level of the shoulders. In the photo at left the shoulders are below the bottom of the photo, that is, BELOW the throat wound. Ergo, the photo at right shows JFK's corpse with its shoulders hunched up. 

When one properly sizes the photos and "unhunches" the shoulders, that is, tries to place them in their proper position, it's clear the back wound is at or even slightly below the throat wound. 

This is so elementary, in fact, that even the HSCA pathology panel, prone to push all sorts of nonsense, saw that this was true. 

So, yeah, on this issue some LNs, most tellingly you, David, have taken to pushing something completely at odds with the expert opinions of the wonderful HSCA FPP.

IOW, on this issue you have taken to pushing a completely whack-a-doodle theory based on a gross misunderstanding of the evidence...that is, based on a HOAX. 

This is the sin for what most of us on this forum have been regularly accused. It must feel weird to have the shoe on the other foot, right? 

 

Edited July 27, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Micah Mileto]

15 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

I don't think my assertion is "unfounded" regarding the heights of the wounds in relation to each other. It's a comparison of 2D photos, that's true enough. But even without the use of photogrammetry (which would be the ideal method of comparison), I think it's obvious that the back wound is higher on JFK's body than is the exit/trach wound. And author Vincent Bugliosi agreed with me:

• "Perhaps the clearest visual evidence of the fact that the entrance wound in the [President's] back was definitely above the exit wound in the throat appears in one of [the autopsy] photos taken of the left side of the president's head as he is lying on his back, his head on a metal headrest. Only the wound to the throat is visible, not the wound to his upper right back. However, it couldn't be clearer from this photo that the wound to the back was definitely above the exit wound in the throat." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 424 of "Reclaiming History"

 

Apparently Bulio failed at editing, because he accidentally left in a part in Reclaiming History where he states as a fact the HSCA's conclusion of a back wound lower than the throat wound.

[Ron Bulman]

Let's not forget it' the Pristine Magic Bullet. With more of it left in John Connaly's wrist and leg than is missing from it.  The one that didn't do what test bullets did when fired into a wrist only, end up with a smashed nose.  The one found on the hospital cart of a kid brought in for a cut foot suffered from a broken coke bottle in his driveway.  With a questionable chain of custody, not recognized by those who found it.  The one that went down, then up, inside JFK's throat, then down again in mid air.  Like Dr. Wecht said, you want a magic bullet, this is it, it will do whatever you want. 

[Micah Mileto]

1 minute ago, Ron Bulman said:

Let's not forget it' the Pristine Magic Bullet. With more of it left in John Connaly's wrist and leg than is missing from it.  The one that didn't do what test bullets did when fired into a wrist only, end up with a smashed nose.  The one found on the hospital cart of a kid brought in for a cut foot suffered from a broken coke bottle in his driveway.  With a questionable chain of custody, not recognized by those who found it.  The one that went down, then up, inside JFK's throat, then down again in mid air.  Like Dr. Wecht said, you want a magic bullet, this is it, it will do whatever you want. 

Is the official story that 10 centimeters of Connally's rib was literally pulverized by the bullet? Because I have hear David Lifton say that portion of rib was possibly secretly removed by surgery. As pointed out by Millicent Cranor, even the Discovery Channel bullet didn't go through that much bone.

[David Von Pein]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

As discussed on my website and on numerous forums, what, twelve years ago? the image above comparing the back wound location in the two photos (which is believed to have originated with Jean Davison) is grossly deceptive, and deliberately so. .

I say "deliberately so" because it's clear NO attempt has been made to match the photos up properly. In reality, the photo at right is grossly undersized compared to the photo at left. This deliberate deception serves to make the "hump" on Kennedy's back appear to be in the same location in each photo.

But in reality they are not. In the photo at right, the back wound is slightly below the level of the shoulders. In the photo at left the shoulders are below the bottom of the photo, that is, BELOW the throat wound. Ergo, the photo at right shows JFK's corpse with its shoulders hunched up. 

When one properly sizes the photos and "unhunches" the shoulders, that is, tries to place them in their proper position, it's clear the back wound is at or even slightly below the throat wound. 

This is so elementary, in fact, that even the HSCA pathology panel, prone to push all sorts of nonsense, saw that this was true. 

So, yeah, on this issue some LNs, most tellingly you, David, have taken to pushing something completely at odds with the expert opinions of the wonderful HSCA FPP.

IOW, on this issue you have taken to pushing a completely whack-a-doodle theory based on a gross misunderstanding of the evidence...that is, based on a HOAX. 

This is the sin for what most of us on this forum have been regularly accused. It must feel weird to have the shoe on the other foot, right?

Yes, like you said, it does feel weird to be at odds so strongly with something the HSCA determined to be a fact. But that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it based on the two comparison autopsy photos that are clearly telling me (even without photogrammetry being applied) that the back wound was above the throat wound.

And I'm not using the "hump" on JFK's back in my comparison at all. I'm using the CRIMPS in JFK's neck as the main guide. Try doing that yourself, Pat. Utilize those crimps in the neck and then envision (in just a "ballpark" fashion if nothing else) where you think that bullet hole would be located in the photo on the left.

Even when accounting for some distortion and inexactness due to the distance from the camera or whatever other limitations you can think of....do you really think that bullet hole could have been BELOW the trach/throat wound (as the HSCA said)?

In other words, can there really be THAT much distortion of reality when comparing these two photographs? Even if you're right about the shoulders of JFK being "hunched up" in the photo on the right, can there possibly be ENOUGH "shoulder hunching distortion" in the right-hand picture to enable that wound to actually, in "reality", be located all the way to the BOTTOM (or even LOWER, per the HSCA!) of the left-hand photo? I just can't envision THAT much distortion.

Plus, how do you go about determining just exactly HOW MUCH Kennedy's shoulders are "hunched up" in the photo on the right? Just how do you KNOW the shoulders are "hunched", Pat? How is that determined?

Edited July 27, 2022 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

11 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Apparently Bulio [Vincent Bugliosi] failed at editing, because he accidentally left in a part in Reclaiming History where he states as a fact the HSCA's conclusion of a back wound lower than the throat wound.

Yeah, he sure did, Micah. And I talk about that very odd "have it both ways" determination made by Vince Bugliosi in my "RH" review blog below. (If you click this link, wait a few seconds for the page to load, then refresh the page again to allow the anchor link to "settle in" to the proper place on the page.)....

http://reclaiminghistory.blogspot.com/#JFK-Wounds-Pages-423-And-424

 

Edited July 27, 2022 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

BTW / FWIW....

Dr. James Humes told the Warren Commission in no uncertain terms that "the wound in the anterior [front] portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly [to the rear], sir".

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

Let's not forget it' the Pristine Magic Bullet. With more of it left in John Connaly's wrist and leg than is missing from it.  The one that didn't do what test bullets did when fired into a wrist only, end up with a smashed nose.  The one found on the hospital cart of a kid brought in for a cut foot suffered from a broken coke bottle in his driveway.  With a questionable chain of custody, not recognized by those who found it.  The one that went down, then up, inside JFK's throat, then down again in mid air.  Like Dr. Wecht said, you want a magic bullet, this is it, it will do whatever you want. 

Bump.

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

BTW / FWIW....

Dr. James Humes told the Warren Commission in no uncertain terms that "the wound in the anterior [front] portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly [to the rear], sir".

He said that based on a drawing created after he'd met with Joe Ball, who was tasked with explaining how a bullet fired from above could go upwards in the body. Voila! Humes claimed the face sheet was in error and that it was all an optical illusion. Specter, who'd seen the photos and knew the wound was on the back and not the back of the neck, similarly played "ball" and changed the wound from being a back wound to being a back of the neck wound in the report. He then performed interviews in which he said that if the back wound was lower than the throat wound than the autopsy doctors should be prosecuted. When the HSCA FPP determined as much, moreover, instead of complaining about the doctors, or demanding their prosecution, he forced his son onto the HSCA as an assistant to one of its members, and then lawyered up before providing any testimony.

The historical record is clear, then, that these guys all lied and obstructed justice through the falsification of evidence. If your hero Bugliosi had a lick of common sense he would have uncovered this fact over his years and years of "research." But, no, instead he insisted that Oswald killed Kennedy because he was just filled with hate, and that the black warehouse workers were "stockboys".

His book is a travesty, and your treating it like it's some kind of Bible is an embarrassment.  

Not as if I have an opinion on this, or anything...

Edited July 27, 2022 by Pat Speer