The Magic Bullet Theory

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

The jacket moved DOWN in Dealey Plaza -- an irrefutable fact.

JFK on Houston St: no visible shirt collar at the back of the neck.

http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri3/altgens2.jpg

JFK at Z186: the shirt collar is visible at the back of the neck -- the jacket DROPPED.

http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri4/Betzner_Large.jpg

The physical evidence is consistent with the documentary evidence and the witness

testimony putting JFK's back wound at T3.

Larry M. Sturdivan, in his excellent book, "The JFK Myths", totally agrees on this point.

Larry Sturdivan knows nothing about how clothing fits.

Ask him to replicate the feat -- 6 inches of clothing fabric bunched up entirely above the

SBT inshoot at C7 and entirely below the jacket collar at C6.

Hell, you couldn't replicate that using both hands to pull!

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.

How could the jacket collar occupy the same physical space at the same time as 6 inches

of bunched up clothing fabric?

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.

Why did you snip out the HSCA conclusions that the Fox 5 photo was "deficient," and

"difficult or impossible" to use to determine the location of the wound?

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).

It's a measure of your intellectual dishonesty that you snipped out the HSCA conclusions I cited.

The HSCA also concluded that the Fox 5 autopsy photo would have been prima facie

inadmissable in court.

From HSCA Vol 7:

(quote on, emphasis added))

In the main, these shortcomings [of the autopsy photos] bespeak of haste,

inexperience and unfamiliarity with the understandably rigorous standards generally

expected in photographs tobe used as scientific evidence. In fact, under ordinary circumstances, the defense could raise some reasonable and, perhaps, sustainable

objections to an attempt to introduce such poorly made and documented photographs

as evidence in a murder trial. Furthermore, even the prosecution might have second

thoughts about using certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than informative. Unfortunately, they are the only photographic record of the autopsy.

Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been content to point out the

OBVIOUS DEFICIENCES OF THE AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS AS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

Some have questioned their very authenticity. These theorists suggest that the body

shown in at least some of the photographs is not President Kennedy, but another

decedent deliberately mutilated to simulate a pattern of wounds supportive of the

Warren Commissions' interpretation of their nature and significance. As outlandish as

such a macabre proposition might appear, it is one that, had the case gone to trial, might

have been effectively raised by an astute defense anxious to block the introduction of the photographs as evidence. IN ANY EVENT, THE ONUS OF ESTABLISHING THE

AUTHENTICITY OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS WOULD HAVE RESTED WITH THE

PROSECUTION.

(quote off)

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?

Because the mastoid process is not a fixed anatomical landmark, it is moveable. It is

NEVER used to measure the location of a back wound.

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

Does this diagram show a wound in the back of the neck?

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?

That face sheet shows a low back wound. Do your homework.

The face sheet diagram was filled out in pencil according to autopsy protocol, and

was marked "verified." The measurements from the mastoid process were recorded

in pen, a violation of autopsy protocol, using a moveable anatomical landmark, also

a violation of autopsy protocol.

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

Since they could move it around, what difference does it make?

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.

Burkley recorded the back wound at T3!!

Do your homework, Von Pein. You cite the HSCA as verifying the authenticity

of the autopsy photos, but the HSCA clearly questioned the authenticity of

the autopsy photos.

You cite the autopsy face sheet, but the autopsy face sheet diagram put the wound

at T3 or below.

You cite the autopsy report, but the autopsy report but the wound in the back, not the neck.

You can't cite one piece of medical evidence for the SBT that isn't self-contradictory or

produced against proper protocol.

Not...one...piece.

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).

Oh goody -- more of Von Pein wilting in the face of the physical evidence.

No rebuttal at all -- just an appeal to the authority of Larry Sturdivan, that noted

clothes horse.

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

I do care to, but not in any conversation with the likes of you.

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."

Nothing wrong with guessing, as long as one can discern speculation from proven fact.

Edited July 19, 2006 by Cliff Varnell

[Antti Hynonen]

Boswell may have meant 14 inches (roughly 35,5 cm), not centimeters, which would be closer to the would as observed by eye witnesses and supported by other evidence.

[Cliff Varnell]

Larry Sturdivan knows nothing about how clothing fits.

Yeah, poor guy. He has to walk around naked every day.

Yeah, poor guy wouldn't know a custom made dress shirt from a hole in the ground.

Because the mastoid process is not a fixed anatomical landmark, it is moveable. It is NEVER used to measure the location of a back wound.

How many back wounds have you ever measured (or ever researched as being measured by autopsists)? Not many, I'll bet.

How many autopsies had Humes ever conducted -- not any, I bet.

And the Mastoid IS considered a "fixed" landmark. Or is Humes lying again here (via his 1996 ARRB testimony)?:

Q -- When you recorded it a being from the right mastoid process, was it your understanding that the right mastoid process was a fixed body landmark?

HUMES -- Oh, sure. It doesn't move around in most people. You're really in trouble if it does.

Q -- Well, is it a fixed landmark, fixed body landmark with respect to the thoracic cavity?

HUMES -- It's fixed with regard to respect anything you want it respected to.

Q -- Well, if your head turns to the right or to the left, does the mastoid process distance vary with relationship to--

HUMES -- Well, maybe a millimeter or two. Not significantly.

Yes, Humes is lying. The ARRB took him to task for using a movable cranial

landmark to measure a thoracic wound.

What vertebra is 14cm below the mastoid process, Von Pein?

You can't tell us, because you don't know.

Does this diagram show a wound in the back of the neck?

Oh puh-leeeease! Not the "Boswell Dot" thing (again)!

Is the "dot" MORE important to you CT people than the WRITTEN-IN ANATOMICAL MEASUREMENTS RIGHT BESIDE THE STICK MAN??

You're losing credibility...fast...with this argument.

The dot was recorded in pencil -- according to autopsy protocol.

The meaningless measurements from the mastoid were recorded in pen, a violation

of autopsy protocol.

What is the best evidence, that which was properly recorded, or that which was improperly

recorded?

I do care to {tell about those "Mystery Bullets" that replace the SBT}, but not in any conversation with the likes of you.

Yeah, that's what I figured. You haven't the slightest idea where the bullets went. Must have been Kreskin's handiwork. No other sleight-of-hand genius could have managed that trick.

I'm not going to waste my time with you any more than it takes to underscore your

inherent dishonesty.

[Bill Miller]

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.

The Official Autopsy Report trumps O'Neill and Sibert and always shall. Those two FBI men weren't doing the autopsy -- Humes, Finck, and Boswell were. And whose signatures are attached to that Report (the most important report any of them would ever sign in their lives)? -- Certainly not the sigs of the two FBI men. It was Humes, Finck, and Boswell.

That's an interesting way of looking at the evidence, as well. The autopsy doctors in their report do not mention the large hole on the back of JFK's head, yet the medical personnel at Parkland, the SS agents who saw the President's head, Sibert and O'Neill, several of the Bethesda witnesses, and the guy who prepared the body for burial all described a wound that your autopsy report did not. So your trump card seems to not be as definitive as you would like to believe. In fact, if what Tannenbaum said in a televised interview is true, it seems that all those autopsy doctors in question did indeed admit to the large rear head wound despite it not being part of their autopsy report. And while we are talking about the autopsy doctors and the SBT ... did not Humes say that the bullet that hit JFK in the back did not transit the body? If so - what does that "trump" in your view?

Bill Miller

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).

This came up a long time ago and at that time it was pointed out to you that Robert Tannenbaum said in "TMWKK" interview that despite a written report saying one thing .... there was a HSCA sheet where each and every person at Bethesda signed-off as seeing the large hole on the right rear side of JFK's head. That sign-off sheet included the autopsy doctors. My question to you, David is this ... What have you done since that time to obtain the said sign-off sheet so to be able to better offer an honest opinion on this matter?

Bill Miller

Edited July 19, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Cliff Varnell]

The dot was recorded in pencil -- according to autopsy protocol. The meaningless measurements from the mastoid were recorded in pen, a violation of autopsy protocol.

Ah....so it's the Pencil vs. Pen Conspiracy now.

Boy, you're desperate. That's fairly obvious.

Boy, you're dishonest. That's *real* obvious.

[Cliff Varnell]

Plus -- Please explain why the assassins would shoot JFK with a bean-shooter instead of a hi-velocity rifle? (And TWO BB shots like this too...what are the odds?)

They wanted to paralyze him first, fearing that a first-shot/kill-shot was not 100% certain.

[Bill Miller]

Bill's using the "Psychology Of Unobtainable Documents" now to debunk the LN position. I'm lovin' it!

Well, Bill, have YOU yourself seen this sign-off sheet?

If not, why haven't YOU obtained a copy?

David, I don't need to do your research for I believe there is evidence that the SBT is bunk without the sign-off sheet, but you are the one promoting the SBT, thus it is you who should have done his homework so not to be pushing a known falsehood. You were made aware of Tannebaum's comments well over a year ago or more. So once again, what have you done since then to confirm Tannenbaum's statements on the televised interview? If the answer is "nothing", then just say you have made no attempt to validate your position.

Bill Miller

Edited July 19, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Cliff Varnell]

They wanted to paralyze him first, fearing that a first-shot/kill-shot was not 100% certain.

LOL. Now I know you must be joking here.

What a gloriously-inept plot.

JFK acted paralyzed in the motorcade. He was an ex-military man hit with a non-fatal

round, his training was to hit the deck -- but he didn't.

Kellerman testified that Jackie cried out -- "What are they doing to you?"

What they did was very effective -- JFK remained paralyzed until the head shot.

Gen. Maxwell Taylor was right, in the fall of 1963, when he told top military journalist

Richard Starnes that the CIA was ready, willing and able to mount a coup to overthrow

the Kennedy Administration.

http://home.earthlink.net/~jkelin1/krock.html

Until you understand the significance of America's top military man telling

the country's top military journalist that the CIA was an out of control,

rogue Agency -- you're stuck positing the impossible and playing the fool.

Edited July 19, 2006 by Cliff Varnell

[Bill Miller]

Got it, guys? Remember, no KILL SHOT until AFTER the TWO warning BB shots. No slip-ups now guys. We don't want to kill him right away and be done with it. We only want to hurt him at first.

I agree with you on this one, David. If one shot could have been fired to fatally hit the President, then it would have been done in that way. There wouldn't then have been a bullet seen sparking off the street, no bullet would have hit the curb by Tague, no flurry of shots would have been reported by Kellerman to have come into the car at the time of the fatal shot to the President. Yes, the shooting did not go off in a planned methodical manner.

Bill Miller

[Cliff Varnell]

Got it, guys? Remember, no KILL SHOT until AFTER the TWO warning BB shots. No slip-ups now guys. We don't want to kill him right away and be done with it. We only want to hurt him at first.

I agree with you on this one, David. If one shot could have been fired to fatally hit the President, then it would have been done in that way. There wouldn't then have been a bullet seen sparking off the street, no bullet would have hit the curb by Tague, no flurry of shots would have been reported by Kellerman to have come into the car at the time of the fatal shot to the President. Yes, the shooting did not go off in a planned methodical manner.

Bill Miller

How do you guarantee -- 100% -- a first shot/kill-shot?

I think the shooting went off as planned. They didn't care if it looked

like a conspiracy -- it was SUPPOSED to look like a conspiracy.

A Castro conspiracy.

Edited July 19, 2006 by Cliff Varnell

[Bill Miller]

JFK acted paralyzed in the motorcade. He was an ex-military man hit with a non-fatal

round, his training was to hit the deck -- but he didn't.

What they did was very effective -- JFK remained paralyzed until the head shot.

Cliff, had JFK had been paralyzed from a bullet, then he wouldn't have then raised his hands to his mouth and made such a coughing motion. Was he stunned - probably, but he leaned towards his wife for only a few quick seconds, thus he didn't react much differently than anyone else in the limo before having been fatally shot in the head.

Bill

How do you guarantee -- 100% -- a first shot/kill-shot?

One cannot guarantee such a single shot and that is why I don't believe that anyone first shot with the sole purpose of renedering the President paralyzed so the next shot could kill him.

Bill Miller

Edited July 20, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Cliff Varnell]

JFK acted paralyzed in the motorcade. He was an ex-military man hit with a non-fatal

round, his training was to hit the deck -- but he didn't.

What they did was very effective -- JFK remained paralyzed until the head shot.

Cliff, had JFK had been paralyzed from a bullet, then he wouldn't have then raised his hands to his mouth and made such a coughing motion. Was he stunned - probably, but he leaned towards his wife for only a few quick seconds, thus he didn't react much differently than anyone else in the limo before having been fatally shot in the head.

Bill

The M-1 weapons system developed for the Army and the CIA by Charles

Senseney delivered paralytic rounds that acted in two seconds.

I argue a strike at JFK's throat at Z199 -- his arms were up within two seconds,

and he acted paralyzed thereafter until the head shot.

[Bill Miller]

I figured as much. You have no idea whether this thing exists or not. Nice backward logic there, Bill.

I'm, therefore, supposed to verify the unreliability of something YOU say exists. And if I don't do this, then your assertion that it DOES exist (and is reliable in your CT world) stands firm. Brilliant.

No, jackass .... not what I claim to exist, but what Robert Tannenbaum claim's to exist. You do know who Tannenbaum is - right? So I will assume that you have done absolutely nothing to obtain a copy of that document.

Bill Miller

[Cliff Varnell]

How do you guarantee -- 100% -- a first shot/kill-shot?

One cannot guarantee such a single shot and that is why I don't believe rthat anyone first shot with the sole purpose of renedering the President paralyzed so the next shot could kill him.

Bill Miller

I don't follow you. How could the plotters not consider the possibility that

a non-fatal round would inspire the President to hit the deck?

The only way to INSURE an easy kill shot is paralyze the target first.

[Antti Hynonen]

David R. von Pein: Oh come now! LOL!

You can't be serious here!

14 INCHES below the tip of the Mastoid would place the wound in the MIDDLE (or lower) of JFK's back. A shooter couldn't have possibly even hit JFK in such a low location, given his seated position.

Sorry, no joke. I prefer not to joke about issues relating to the murder of a President.

You are wrong. Actually 35 cm below the right mastoid process is between the clavicle and the backbone, which is the same location as described in the Sibert/O'Neill testimony. There were 35 cm or some 14 inches of clear space on the back of the President (measuring from the mp), when riding in the limousine, consider that he was tilted slightly forward too. I definitely disagree with you. See link below.

Measurements show that 14 cm is at the top of the shoulder above any bones, some 5-7 cm below the hairline. Even the (autopsy???) photo presented by you, shows that the wound is lower than 14 cm from the mp, albeit not 35 cm. Judging from the photo, the distance between the bullet entry and the right mp, the distance is probably around 20cm. Take this and the angle of the bullet and you ought to have it exiting close to the nipple. However, the back wound was probed and it was less than one inch deep. So the exit wound at the base of the throat does not add up with the back wound and the angle of the shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Sorry.

When trying to make sense of this, I am trying to look at all the evidence. Too bad the evidence is so conflicting.

To show you there was at least 14 inches from the mastoid process to the top of the seat, please have another look:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/MC11.htm

The motorcade photo shows that roughly 1/3 of Kennedy's back is exposed or some 15-16 inches of distance to the mastoid process.

If you still unsure, why don't you take a ruler and see how far 14 inches down your back extends (start from your ear, that'll be close enough) or if you're not limber enough ask someone to help. You will find that 14 inches is abosolutely doable.