Why I believe the SBT is nothing but BS

[James R Gordon]

David,

You comment to the forum that you do not require to respond to my post because you have already “hashed out all of this stuff.” Gosh! if only that were true. Then you link to pages on your web site.

You have not, whatever you may believe, debated these issues with me. The issue is very simple and it is one you have consistently avoided and ignored. My argument has nothing to do with all the images and quotes that are listed on the web page you directed us to. All that evidence has little, if anything, to do with the issue.

My question is how could a bullet pass through JFK’s upper chest area, without causing massive damage to his body. For example:-

Here, put simply, the bullet had to do the following.

1. The bullet had to enter above T1. Entering any lower and the bullet would have had to pass through the lung. We know that did not happen.

2. The bullet had to travel in a forward direction so that it could pass over the apex of the lung, indicated by the cyan circle.

3. The bullet has to exit out the throat. We both agree, for the SBT, the bullet exited through the throat.

4. So we get to the point where the star is.

5. At this point something has to happen. It is agreed the bullet has to exit through the throat yet the bullet is no where near the throat.

6. The yellow arrows indicate the kinds of directional changes the bullet must make.

7. We know the trachea was damaged. Charles Carrico saw that damage as indeed did Malcolm Perry.

8.Therefore if the trachea was damaged, by the bullet exiting, then at some point the bullet had to enter the trachea in order to exit it.

You tell the forum that you have, to used your words, “hashed” this out with me. You have replied to posts I have made but you have NEVER, NEVER, debated the issue.

Here is the issue. I can accept the SBT getting as far as the star. Thereafter I can see no way the bullet can find a way to exit the throat. All the hundreds of words detailed on your web site does not answer this pertinent question. How does the bullet find a path from the point with the star to exiting the throat.

My issue is that I can see no natural path from entrance to exit. I can get as far as the star but no further. And that problem is the weakness in the SBT. There is no way to get from the star to the throat. A direct line, which is theoretically possible will severely damage the spine.

James.

[David Von Pein]

"I have what I think is a sensible and logical question for conspiracy theorists who do not believe in the Single-Bullet Theory (which is almost all conspiracists in the world, of course):

If the SBT is wrong (and particularly in the case of the theories which have JFK hit by TWO separate bullets to replace the one bullet of the SBT), then how can you account for those TWO bullets not hitting any bony structures or the lungs of President Kennedy, and yet STILL those two bullets inexplicably stopped inside JFK's back/neck?

James [Gordon], you DO accept the autopsy report with respect to the lungs and the pleura cavity and all "bony structures" not being struck directly by any bullet that passed through JFK's upper body....do you not?

Or do you really think that JFK's lung was hit by a bullet? Did the autopsists lie about that?

The reason I'm stressing this question again is to get back to this basic fact (whether you believe in the SBT or not):

The bullet (or bullets) that struck JFK in the upper back and neck areas did not produce any significant damage to the areas of the body that conspiracy theorists think would have had to sustain such damage if the SBT is true.

Which means, of course, that whatever bullets DID go into JFK's back and neck on 11/22/63 also did not produce any significant damage to Kennedy's lungs or ribs or other bony structures in his body.

Which means that the anti-SBT conspiracists are left with this conundrum (not even factoring in the wounds to Governor Connally):

Two bullet wounds in JFK's body (back and throat)....no bullets in his body to account for either wound....and no significant "bony" or "lung" damage which could possibly account for the stoppage of the bullet(s) that entered the body of John Kennedy.

Don't conspiracy theorists ever give some serious thought to the "conundrum" I just stated above?"

-- DVP; June 2012

[David Von Pein]

So, now, REALLY. Whose "theory" is preposterous?

Yours, of course. It's not even a close call as to whose theory is "preposterous". Yours is.

And all other anti-SBT theories are without foundation or reason (or bullets!) too.

Knowing the JFK case as I know you do know it, you should be embarrassed by these two quotes repeated below, Pat. Even I feel embarrassed for you when reading this type of tommyrot....

"CE 399 could be from the back wound." -- Pat Speer

"The throat wound could have been a fragment wound from the head shot." -- Pat Speer

Edited May 28, 2014 by David Von Pein

[James R Gordon]

David,

You really do go out of your way to avoid the issue. I raised the issue how anatomically is the SBT possible. I point out those parts of the theory I can follow and where - for me - there is a serious problem.

And what do you do???

You ask whether I accept the autopsy report and question me whether I believed the autopsy surgeons lied. I never raised either of these questions.

However, and here is a question, if the autopsy report cannot explain how the bullet got from the position of the star to exiting the throat then maybe there is an issue with the credibility of the report.

The simple point - about which there can be no argument - the bullet has to find a way from the star position to exiting the throat. If a path cannot be found, then everything else is moot. Everything else amounts to nothing is a path cannot be found..

James

[Stephen Roy]

Not to jump in the middle of this, where I have no skin in the game, but...

Despite certain reservations about the SBT, I do not concur that JFK is clearly hit before he goes behind the sign, and that JBC is clearly not hit until after he emerges from the sign. There are some good arguments against the SBT, but this is not one of them.

[David Von Pein]

You're right, Stephen -- JFK was not hit "before he goes behind the sign". He was hit at Z224.

The HSCA disagrees with the Z224 hit. But, then again, they made several mistakes, didn't they? (e.g., they said the throat wound was HIGHER than JFK's back wound; and they concluded that 4 shots had been fired.)

Edited May 28, 2014 by David Von Pein

[Mark Knight]

Mr. Von Pein...are you saying that Mr. Gordon's depictions of the parts of the human body beneath the skin are false?

If so, please produce evidence that contradicts Mr. Gordon's explanation of what the bullet must do between its entrance to and exit from JFK's body. You can refer to any medical textbook you like. Don't simply ridicule his explanation; demonstrate, with facts, where he is mistaken about the structure of the human body, within the context of the description of the back and neck wounds. Could you please do the MEDICAL research, and then get back to us? [i'm sure you won't invest the time...] Just saying that something "must've" happened doesn't count as evidence...no matter how many times you use that device to "prove" your point.

I believe Mr. Gordon's explanation of why the SBT is flawed is much more medically sound than your explanation of why the SBT is true. But what I believe is immaterial, other than the fact that I believe you haven't proven your case as well as Mr. Gordon has.

[David Von Pein]

Mark,

Do you really think TWO separate bullets entered JFK's body and both bullets then failed to exit the other side of the body? (Not to mention the "vanishing" act those bullets performed after entering JFK.)

Am I really being an unreasonable person to ask the above question--even with Mr. Gordon's expert medical analysis and body charts staring me in the face? Don't you think that question I just asked is one that should have a good, solid answer from conspiracy theorists? If not, why not?

And since I'm not a medical student (or an M.D.), my basic response to Mr. Gordon's analysis is that I have a very difficult time believing that BOTH the Warren Commission and (especially) the HSCA, which had nine forensic pathologists on its panel!, would have arrived at the conclusion that Bullet CE399 definitely DID go through both JFK and John Connally if the SBT is really the P.O.S. theory that so many airchair detectives think it is.

And a key point that is often missed (or ignored) is that the AUTOPSY DOCTORS THEMSELVES did conclude that one bullet went clean through JFK's body. So, obviously, Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck wouldn't think very highly of James Gordon's analysis, would they? Were those doctors ALL just wrong? Or liars? Or just plain boobs (even though they were all trained medical professionals who should know all about basic anatomy and skeletal structures of the human body)?

Edited May 28, 2014 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Question for Pat Speer....

Why did JFK raise his arms up to a place near his throat/neck if he had not yet suffered a wound in his throat/neck yet? Because according to your theory, the hole in the President's throat wasn't even there yet when we see him jerk his hands up toward the area of his neck.

Do you think it was "Thorburn's" that caused the sudden rise of Kennedy's arms starting at Z226 of the Zapruder Film?

Edited May 28, 2014 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

David, quit dodging. You want to run with the big dogs, sometimes you have to put up or shut up.

One more time. Please explain the path of the Magic Bullet from just before it entered the back of Connally's right wrist to it entering Connally's left thigh.

If you refuse to do that, it is proof that you have NO answers.

[Mark Knight]

"Do you really think..." is not evidence. You didn't provide any evidence, Mr. Von Pein.

Use some 3D--hell, even 2D would be an improvement for you--evidence to explain why Mr. Gordon is wrong.You cite the same old drivel every time. And when you refuse to answer a question, you counter with a question.

Now, if you don't allow for the structure of the human body under the skin--that is, if you use a mannequin--you MIGHT get the SBT to work. Except that, by acknowledging what the pathologists noticed...that T1 was nicked at worst, that the lung was bruised but not punctured, and that the "exit" was at or near the center of the throat to have damaged the trachea...you MUST account for the "turn" of the bullet that Mr. Gordon shows MUST have happened if the SBT is true.

You haven't done that. I don't think you CAN do that, based upon the evidence...not ONLY the medical testimony in the WC report, but the very construction of the human body. And answering a question with a question isn't evidence. I suggest that the reason you do this is because you're afraid that you might prove your pet theory to be flawed...or, heaven forbid, flat-out wrong.

I don't believe in fantasy gunmen firing from 47 different points in Dealy Plaza. I don't believe everything I read, from either the government OR from conspiracy theorists. But I believe that Mr. Gordon's analysis of bullet paths has validity, based upon the condition of T1 and the bruising, but lack of puncture to the lung.

I'm asking you something that SHOULD be simple: use actual human physiology to prove Mr. Gordon wrong. Do some study; do some research; find the flaw in Mr. Gordon's work. I've done some preliminary research, and I don't find the flaw...if it exists.

"Where did the bullet go?" is NOT research. For the discussion at hand, let's forget the final destination of the bullet/bullets and concentrate on how the bullet traversed JFK's body. Just show me that the path of a single bullet, as told by the SBT, is possible, traversing the torso and creating ONLY that damage acknowledged by the pathologists in the WC report, the Clark Panel, and even the HSCA investigation.

Don't TELL me; show me. Mr. Gordon is showing me [and you] how the SBT simply CAN'T be true. Show me how it CAN. Don't tell me what "must've" happened; show me how it happened, using actual human physiology. If you believe Mr. Gordon is wrong, as you obviously do, SHOW us where he is in error.

I'm betting that you won't. I'm betting that you can't. If you can prove Mr. Gordon is mistaken, or that his evidence is in error...PROVE IT.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Mark Knight

[David Von Pein]

You really don't understand why I asked my last questions, do you Mark?

Edited May 28, 2014 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

DR. JAMES HUMES - As depicted in figure 385, in the apex of the right pleural cavity there was a bruise or contusion or eccmymosis of the parietal pleura as well as a bruise of the upper portion, the most apical portion of the right lung. It, therefore, was our opinion that the missile while not penetrating physically the pleural cavity, as it passed that point bruised--either the missile itself or the force of its passage through the tissues--bruised both the parietal and the visceral pleura.

[...]

Mr. McCLOY - Quite apart from the President's clothing, now directing your attention to the flight of the bullet, quite apart from the evidence given by the President's clothing, you, I believe, indicated that the flight of the bullet was from the back, from above and behind. It took roughly the line which is shown on your Exhibit 385.

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY - I am not clear what induced you to come to that conclusion if you couldn't find the actual exit wound by reason of the tracheotomy.

Commander HUMES - The report which we have submitted, sir, represents our thinking within the 24-48 hours of the death of the President, all facts taken into account of the situation. The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly, sir.

Mr. McCLOY - That is what I wanted to bring out.

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY - May I ask this: In spite of the incision made by the tracheotomy, was there any evidence left of the exit aperture?

Commander HUMES - Unfortunately not that we could ascertain, sir.

Mr. McCLOY - I see.

[...]

Senator COOPER - Considering the location of the bruise at the apex of the pleural sac...and of the tissue or muscles around it, was there any other factor which you could think of that might have caused that bruise other than the passage of a missile?

Commander HUMES - It was so well localized that I truthfully, sir, can't think of any other way.

Senator COOPER - That is all.

Mr. McCLOY - May I ask you one question which. perhaps, the answer is quite obvious. If, contrary to the evidence that we have here. that anterior wound was the wound of entry, the shot must have come from below the President to have followed that path.

Commander HUMES - That course, that is correct, sir.

[Robert Prudhomme]

David, do you know what the transverse process of a vertebra looks like? Have you seen a photo or diagram of the cervical vertebrae stacked upon the thoracic vertebrae?

[Mark Knight]

You really don't understand why I posed the question to you as I did, do you, Mr. Von Pein? [And once again, you avoid answering a question by asking a question.]

My point--which you clearly seem to be avoiding--is that the esteemed Commander Humes was explaining someone else's theory [specter's] to a group of people who have a VERY limited understanding of anatomy and physiology. Therefore, simply digging up Humes's [possibly rehearsed?] answers, without trying to prove that his theory actually works, is no less disingenuous than a CT'er repeating Garrison's theories over and over without critically examining them.

I once thought you were a researcher; I thought wrong. You merely quote others, as many of the CT'ers do, and apparently investigate NOTHING on your own. That makes you little more than a glorified librarian, or an archivist.You may be a GREAT librarian/archivist/WC advocate, but you're a damn poor researcher. [i, at least, have the decency to call myself a "student" of the assassination, rather than a researcher.]

At least the late Tom Purvis sought out the surveyors' plats, and bought his own 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano, for research purposes.

OK...now answer my question with another question, please...so you won't disappoint me.