A Criticism of DVP

[Robert Prudhomme]

C7 vertebra, showing left and right transverse processes.

Cervical vertebrae, again showing location of transverse process.

Cross section of neck and cervical spine again, showing cervical vertebra. The cervical vertebra includes the "Y" shaped piece of bone pointed out, plus the oblong piece of bone directly above it. Note the location of the trachea (windpipe) as pointed to and labelled in this diagram.

[Paul Baker]

Common sense ALONE practically proves the SBT.

This could be the most amazing statement ever posted on the forum. Just wanted to acknowledge it.

I wholeheartedly agree Ron, I laughed for a whole 30 seconds reading DVP post.

Common sense and the Single Bullet Fantasy.

When you've stopped laughing, could you provide a viable alternative 'common sense' explanation?

[Ron Ecker]

When you've stopped laughing, could you provide a viable alternative 'common sense' explanation?

This is really getting weird. How about "more than one shooter"?

[David Von Pein]

When you've stopped laughing, could you provide a viable alternative 'common sense' explanation?

This is really getting weird. How about "more than one shooter"?

And those multiple shooters fired separate bullets into JFK's upper back and throat----with neither bullet exiting the other side of his body?? And then a third bullet struck John Connally at almost the exact same moment? And then all three bullets disappear?*

Now THAT'S weird, Ron.

* This assumes you believe CE399 touched no victim on Nov. 22. A fairly safe assumption on my part.

Edited May 14, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Paul Baker]

When you've stopped laughing, could you provide a viable alternative 'common sense' explanation?

This is really getting weird. How about "more than one shooter"?

Weirdness prevails in this realm, Ron.

Enlighten me, where was this second shooter that caused separate wounds to Connally?

[Ray Mitcham]

When you've stopped laughing, could you provide a viable alternative 'common sense' explanation?

This is really getting weird. How about "more than one shooter"?

And those multiple shooters fired separate bullets into JFK's upper back and throat----with neither bullet exiting the other side of his body??

Now THAT'S weird, Ray.

I think you meant Ron, David

Never mind, it won't be the first mistake you've ever made.

[David Von Pein]

I think you meant Ron, David.

Yes. Edited above.

Edited May 14, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Ron Ecker]

Enlighten me, where was this second shooter that caused separate wounds to Connally?

How the hell should I know?

[Steven Gaal]

The Harper Fragment Revisited - and JFK's Head Wounds:
A Final Synthesis - Appendices

By David W. Mantik

=

http://www.ctka.net/2014-mantik/essay/Harper4.html

==

But the situation is even more complex than that. The X-ray trail does not fit with several other fundamental facts:
•It cannot explain the large posterior hole that was widely reported, both at Parkland and at Bethesda. The debris trail is far too superior to explain that hole. (Likewise, the EOP shot is an unlikely cause of this hole.)
•It cannot explain the location of the 7x2 mm metal fragment above JFK’s right orbit (the fragment that Humes removed). This 7x2 mm fragment also lies well off the debris trail. (However, this fragment might derive from the EOP shot.)
•It cannot explain the solitary metal fragment in the left scalp (easily visible on the actual X-rays and even visible on most prints in the public domain—see Figure 10, vertical violet arrow). That fragment also lies well off the debris trail. (The EOP shot cannot explain this either.)

A third headshot could resolve this impasse (see Figure 36).[185] What follows next here is a discussion of these three headshots.

Headshot #1. (Yellow in Figure 36).[186] That someone fired a weapon from the rear is nearly universally accepted—after all, James Tague was hit by something. A shot from the rear (e.g., from a lower story of the Dal-Tex building) may have entered at the pathologists’ EOP site. My reconstruction of the Harper fragment, with the lead deposit precisely at the pathologists’ site, may be considered to be an objective proof of their honesty and accuracy on this issue. If additional metal fragments had been deposited inside the skull with this shot, they must have been removed before the official autopsy began (except for the two small particles above JFK’s right orbit).[187]

The autopsy report describes a fragment trail from the EOP to the right parietal bone. Such a trail is not seen in the extant X-rays, but perhaps such a trail did once exist—before these fragments were removed, i.e., perhaps Humes even told the truth in his autopsy report. It is even possible, if not likely, that the 7x2 mm metal fragment (and its very tiny companion) above the right orbit was part of that trail.[188] There is also eye witness evidence for a successful posterior headshot: early viewers of the film described a brief and abrupt leftward “jerk” of JFK’s head (no longer seen in the film).[189] Such a rotation could have been induced by a shot striking the right rear of the skull (the torque would have been appropriately counterclockwise).[190] That fits with the EOP shot.

It is quite possible that early viewers of the film took this jerking motion as evidence for a successful shot.[191] On the other hand, a shot from the South Knoll (i.e., opposite the Grassy Knoll) could not have caused such a rotation unless it struck the left skull, e.g., behind the left ear, but no evidence supports such a shot.

Another posterior shot (one that first struck the street) is strongly implied—by four clues: (a) the metallic fragment in the left scalp, ( the metallic fragment in the posterior scalp (visible on the lateral skull X-ray—see Figure 14, orange arrow), © an unknown projectile that caused the superficial back wound, and (d) five witnesses (including three cited by the WC) who recalled a shot that struck the street (an event that may have produced ricochet fragments that hit JFK).[192] Another argument for a successful posterior shot is the presence of debris on the inside of the windshield and on the hood ornament.[193] (The chrome strip that surrounded the windshield was also dented.) Forward spatter from a posterior shot might explain this debris, but a frontal shot almost certainly cannot. In other words, a posterior shot is required to explain this debris. According to Fiester,[194] debris from a frontal shot cannot travel more than 3-4 feet; the hood ornament is well beyond that distance.[195] In short, the evidence for a posterior shot does not rely only on the word of the pathologists. On the contrary, several lines of evidence support such a shot—but the strongest and most objective evidence is the debris on the hood ornament. Also recall that the limousine was traveling into a head wind of 15-20 mph, which would have further decreased the probability that a frontal shot could have deposited debris that far forward (from backspatter).

Headshot #2. (Red in Figure 36). A frontal (forehead) shot most likely produced the particle trail now seen in the X-rays. (Even if the debris is attributed to a posterior shot, this trail must still count as a separate shot; it is far too high to derive from a posterior EOP shot.) This bullet entered high on the right forehead, near the hairline (where the incision is seen in the autopsy photographs—an incision that was not seen at Parkland). The metallic trail on the AP X-ray goes nearly straight back; therefore this shot should not be called “tangential,” as some writers have mistakenly done.[196]

For a shot from anywhere on the triple overpass, the observed particle trail is really only possible when JFK’s head is nearly erect, i.e., it cannot occur with the forward head orientation seen in Z-312 (or in Z-313).[197] If JFK’s head had been rotated far enough to the left, then this particle trail might derive from a South Knoll shot, although not too close to Z-312. On the other hand, since the moment of this shot is not precisely known, so also is JFK’s head orientation unknown at this moment. That leaves open the possibility that this shot might have come from elsewhere, e.g., the north side of the overpass (e.g., the storm drain there). However—and this is critical—this shot cannot explain the large hole at JFK’s right rear (the one that so many witnesses recalled)—after all, the particle trail is far superior to that large defect.

Robert McClelland, MD, who believes the (single frontal) headshot came from the Grassy Knoll, said the president had been struck "…around the hairline near the middle of his forehead."[198] Like many others, though, McClelland has conflated the forehead shot (#2) with the temple shot (#3); the Grassy Knoll shot was #3, not #2. The forehead shot (#2) produced the metallic trail on the X-rays, but not the occipital blowout. Another possible example of this confusion shows Dennis David pointing to his right lateral eyebrow and Malcolm Kilduff pointing (vaguely) toward his right forehead.[199]

However, at least one other Parkland witness, Charles Crenshaw, MD, has recalled (on video) a bullet entry in the high right forehead, near the hairline.[200]

About a week after the assassination, Robert Knudsen (a White House photographer) showed JFK photographs to Joe O’Donnell; one showed a hole in the right forehead, above the right eye. This was round and about 3/8” in diameter; O’Donnell interpreted this as a gunshot wound.[201]

Jerrol Custer, the radiology technologist recalls an entry wound above the mid-right eyebrow.[202] And Dennis David (also at the autopsy) made this statement:

But there was a small hole that looked like an entry wound. It was about the size of the tip of my finger. Maybe a little over a quarter of an inch [6 mm], 5/16 of an inch in diameter. It was located right in this area here (LAW: indicates a point at the hairline above the pupil of the right eye).[203]

Tom Robinson, the embalmer (while before the HSCA) also recalled a small wound in the right forehead, near the hairline:[204]

Purdy: Did you notice anything else unusual about the body…?
Robinson: Probably, a little mark at the temples in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small, it could be hidden by the hair. It didn’t have to be covered with make-up. I thought it probably [was] a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet that caused it.

Purdy: In other words, there was a little wound.
Robinson: Yes.

Purdy: Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on?
Robinson: I believe it was on the right side.

Purdy: On his right side?
Robinson: That’s an anatomical right, yes.

Purdy: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hairline?
Robinson: Yes.

Purdy: Would you say it was closer to the top of the hair?
Robinson: Somewhere around the temples.

Purdy: Approximately what size?
Robinson: Very small, a quarter of an inch [6 mm].

Purdy: Quarter of an inch is all the damage. Had it been closed up by the doctors?
Robinson: No, he didn’t have to close it. If anything I just would have probably put a little wax on it.

In the final inning of this essay (which was written during the baseball playoffs), an astounding witness (for this right forehead shot) emerged. After he heard my interview on Black Op Radio (October 8, 2014),[205] he telephoned and e-mailed me. See Appendix L for details and for his sketch of the entry site (in the high right forehead). He had seen an apparent JFK autopsy photograph (not present in the Archives). His entry site matches the metallic trail on the X-rays very closely indeed, and also matches the recollections of Crenshaw, O’Donnell, David and Robinson. McClelland’s recollection is only modestly different, and Custer may even be in the ballpark.

Headshot #3. (Green in Figure 36). Another frontal bullet struck obliquely[206] (possibly from the Grassy Knoll),[207] entered anterior to the right ear, and then exited to produce the large hole at the right rear. Witnesses to a wound near the right ear have already been cited: both Newmans, Zapruder, Kellerman, Thomas Robinson, and James Jenkins. The Belmont report (discussed below) may also be an echo of this wound. There is, in fact, a very old tradition for such a wound near the right ear; Josiah Thompson lists several important witnesses.[208] These include Herschel Jacks[209] (“it appeared the bullet had struck him above the right ear or near the temple”); Seth Kantor[210] (“intered [sic] right temple”); the early NBC broadcast (“the President was struck in the right temple…”); an NBC broadcast 30 minutes later (“…the right temple…”); and the New York Times (“…a massive gaping wound in the back and one on the right side of the head”). Douglas Jackson (the motorcycle cop at the right rear) also stated: “…hit just above the right ear [and] the top of his head flew off away from me.”[211]

This oblique shot could not have deposited the metallic trail seen on the X-rays; this trail extends too far forward, and also too superior. In addition, though, it is quite unlikely that such an oblique headshot could have deposited the 7x2 mm fragment (above the right orbit). Such an oblique shot would have entered too far posterior (as well as too far inferior) to leave that fragment behind. On the other hand, this shot (#3) could well have produced the spatter that Hargis encountered. However, shot #2 (i.e., the one that deposited the metallic trail) is an unlikely candidate for the Hargis spatter (because those bullet remnants mostly—or completely— stopped inside the skull). But if shot #2 had come from the rear, and deposited the metallic trail (not my belief), then it is even less likely that it could account for the Hargis spatter. (That would require a remarkably energetic backspatter.) And if shot #2 had come from the South Knoll, then that forward spatter should have gone to the right rear, which does not match the witness reports. Another key point is Clint Hill’s recollection[212] which implies that this shot (that produced the large posterior hole, i.e., #3) was the last shot.

I cannot emphasize strongly enough that this oblique shot cannot explain the trail of metallic debris seen on the skull X-rays—that trail is much too anterior for such an oblique shot. For far too long now, this oblique shot has been conflated with the (forehead) shot that produced the metallic trail. After 50 years, this muddle must stop.

Surprisingly many witnesses recall a left [sic] temple entry. Horne cites the Parkland physicians—Marion Jenkins, Robert McClelland, Ronald Jones, and Lito Puerto (aka Porto)[213]—who reported a small wound in the left temple. Others include Dr. Adolph Giesecke,[214] Dr. David Stewart,[215] Father Oscar Huber,[216] photographers Altgens[217] and Similas[218] and, more recently, Hugh Huggins (aka Hugh Howell),[219] who was RFK’s emissary to the autopsy. This is one of the stranger facets of the JFK assassination; after all, no one at Bethesda saw such a left temple wound. I can only conclude that each of them had reversed left for right, an error that I myself have made often enough in this case—and I have definitely seen others, including Robert Blakey on television, do it as well. (For another, rather striking, example, see footnote 36 here.) On the other hand, I am quite struck by the persistent reports of a temple wound, which I interpret as lying on the right side rather than on the left.

Finally, most witnesses quite specifically recall that JFK’s last movement was to “slump” forward.[220] (Virtually none of the Dealey Plaza witnesses recalled a posterior “head snap.” Early viewers of the Z-film, including Dan Rather and Deke DeLoach,[221] also agreed with this.)

In summary, no single headshot can encompass all of the data. Even a two-headshot scenario fails to do so (as in Thompson’s scenario—see footnote 127). Also note, however, that even the three-headshot scenario does not explain the solitary left scalp particle. (Actually, even more metallic debris is visible than that one—see Figure 9, where I have sketched several more such particles.) Most likely at least one more (posterior) shot is required to explain these odd particles (i.e., the EOP headshot by itself is not enough). Such an additional posterior shot might explain the following items: (1) the left scalp fragment, (2) the fragment on the back of the head on the lateral skull X-ray, (3) the superficial back wound, and (4) additional small particles visible in Figure 9. These four items may have arisen from a shot that struck Houston Street (as recalled by at least five witnesses) and then ricocheted upwards.
During the AARC meeting in Washington, DC (September 26-28, 2014), Robert Groden introduced more evidence for precisely such a ricochet shot. At Z-143 and Z-144 a small white spot suddenly appears in the street, near the south curb of Elm St. As further corroboration, Groden recalls that several witnesses, including Jean Newman, reported seeing a shot strike at that same site.[222]

I told SAC Shanklin that Secret Service had one of the bullets that struck President Kennedy and that the other is lodged behind the President’s ear [DM: emphasis added] and we are arranging to get both of these.[227]

.........

Table 1. Summary of three headshots and at least one ricochet shot. Forward flying debris could have arisen from forward spatter from #1 as well as backspatter from #3. Humes may have removed bullet fragments from both shots #1 and #3. Figure 10 shows the metal fragment in the left scalp (violet arrow). For the metal fragment on the back of the head, see Figure 14 (orange arrow). See the text just above for a discussion of Z-143 and Z-144; cf. footnote 222.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hi Steve

Interesting information on JFK's head wound.

Ever think about starting your own thread, and putting this info there?

[Steven Gaal]

Hi Steve

Interesting information on JFK's head wound.

Ever think about starting your own thread, and putting this info there? // Prudhomme

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry I'll leave the SBT to you. Just when I see DVP I plan to see "LONE NUT" time and my eyes glaze over. OVEROUT THIS THREAD sg

In summary, no single headshot can encompass all of the data.// MANTIK

Edited May 14, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Robert Prudhomme]

Everyone had a chance to study all of the medical diagrams?

[James R Gordon]

Robert,

This chart you have used is at the heart of any criticism of the SBT. It is what distinguishes theory - as proposed by the Warren Commission - and reality. I believe your chart may not be completely accurate, but it is more than sufficient for this debate.

As you suggest, assuming a straight line from entrance ( the red dot ) to exit ( the blue dot), then this bullet has to accomplish massive damage to JFK lower head.

Updated SBT apologists do accept that some damage was done to either C7 or T1. But this is just nonsense. If the bullet followed this path it could cause considerable damage to the spine.

Link CAT Scan

John Nichols chart that I have posted a number of times - and was pointed out to me by Pat Speer - is so important.

In order for the bullet to avoid such damage the bullet would need to enter either 3 inches or 28º to the right. It would not avoid all damage a number of the important arteries would still be likely to be in its direct path.

And of course as this bullet exited it would be traveling in the direction of Nellie Connally and not John Connally.

Link to John Nichols Chart

Your chart is important because it distinguishes the difference between theory and reality.

James.

[Greg Burnham]

Common sense ALONE practically proves the SBT.

This could be the most amazing statement ever posted on the forum. Just wanted to acknowledge it.

I wholeheartedly agree Ron, I laughed for a whole 30 seconds reading DVP post.

Common sense and the Single Bullet Fantasy.

When you've stopped laughing, could you provide a viable alternative 'common sense' explanation?

And there it is. One of the favorite lone nut apologist's fallacies being employed once again. It's colloquially called, "The Burden of Proof" fallacy. Let me first say that even IF the conclusion being asserted were true the argument given to support it would remain fallacious. However, in this case, the conclusion is false. The case has not been made. The argument does not persuade.

The rules of logic apply to all rational argumentation, not just in a courtroom. So please don't duck out of this by exclaiming, "We aren't in a courtroom!" -- Where we are is irrelevant. Logic is logic.

The SBT is a "claim" advanced by those who insist that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, assassinated JFK. It is an assertion of alleged facts. Therefore, the Burden of Proof rests on those making that assertion. It does not rest on those disputing the assertion.

A similar example of this type of fallacious argumentation takes the following form:

Person A claims that:

"During the middle of the night I heard a loud sound resembling a motor in my backyard, from around the edges of the curtains I saw a very bright light apparently descending in my yard and the next morning I noticed what appeared to be a perfectly round area of yellowed grass in my otherwise green lawn. That means a spacecraft landed in my backyard, but by the time I went out to check, it had already taken off..."

Person B then disputes the claim, by telling Person A:

"Your explanation of the evidence is much too farfetched ON ITS FACE to be true." (Just like the SBT is too farfetched on its face to be true). Person B then lists the items in the claim that are most unbelievable.

Rather than adequately addressing the criticisms of the claim as raised by Person B, instead Person A says:

"Common sense alone practically PROVES that a spaceship landed in my backyard last night."

Person B says:

"I can barely stop laughing at your illogical approach."

Person A then commits the Burden of Proof fallacy by saying:

"If it wasn't a spaceship that landed in my backyard last night, when you've stopped laughing, could you provide a viable alternative 'common sense' explanation?"

-------

No. The BURDEN is on he who made the claim, not on he who disputes it!

Of course, this sets up yet another fallacy, known as the "False Dichotomy" which implies, by an inappropriate inference, that if Person B cannot come up with an alternate theory to explain the evidence, then Person A's spaceship theory must be true. This is obviously fallacious.

Paul, in all due respect, resorting to this type of sloppy (deliberate or not) reasoning is rather abusive. It is an assault on a thinking mind.

Serious conspiracy researchers need not take the bait to become "conspiracy theorists." My job has never been to offer speculation about exactly how what happened occurred. I need not prove that any one of the hundreds of "possible theories" might be true. I only need to show that one single theory, the WCR, cannot possibly be true. Until the BURDEN of PROOF by those making the case for the SBT is met, my job is complete. I don't claim to have the resources to solve the case. I claim that those who had and/or have those resources (the WC and HSCA) got it wrong and they deliberately obstructed justice.

Put another way, to show the absurdity in the argument advanced by Paul, since the BURDEN of PROOF--by Person A who is making the case for a spaceship landing in his backyard--has not been met, Person B's inability to explain the evidence (by substituting a different explanation than the "spaceship") does not give weight to the validity of Person A's claim.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[Kenneth Drew]

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

You want to 'prove' the SBTheory is fact and you still don't even know where the shot in the back entered? You're still arguing that it was in or near the neck when there has 'never' been any evidence of that.