The "Wound Ballistics Of 6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition" Report

[Glenn Nall]

See, this is what fascinates/bothers me, David. You KNOW I have chapter after chapter debunking all those programs and all those re-enactments you described in a previous post.

So what?

You actually think that I am going to think you have "debunked" anything connected with the SBT? You must be kidding, Pat. You've debunked NOTHING. Least of all the viability of the Single-Bullet Theory.

You and I both have a lot of written material on our respective websites. And we're both in the same boat (so to speak).

I.E.,

I will never convince you that ANYTHING relating to the SBT is true. And, conversely, and knowing what I know about the SBT, you are never going to be able to convince me that the SBT is false or that the WC was a pack of liars with respect to the SBT.

That's the way it is. And that's the way it likely always will be.

Instead you continue to pretend that a picture taken from the front, and showing a trajectory rod passing over the shoulder, lines up with a chalk mark inches below the shoulder line. Bizarre.

Pat,

Here is the thing that makes your anti-CE903 rant unworthy of consideration (and you know this is true, but you seem to forget it every time I bring it up)...

CE903 represents the AVERAGE ANGLE between Z210 and Z225.

So THAT'S why the chalk mark doesn't quite "line up" perfectly.

Yes, I do have an article entitled "The SBT Perfection Of CE903". But I've added an addendum at the bottom of that article to talk about that "average trajectory angle" thing. But, in general terms of proving the workability and doability of the SBT, I do still think that CE903 does equal "SBT Perfection".

Let's see a CTer produce a re-enactment that comes within ten miles of CE903. No CTer ever has. And that's mainly because the SBT is so obviously true. And it's a heck of a lot more difficult to try and re-create a fantasy than it is to try and re-create something that actually happened. And that's why the WC was able to get so close to perfection when re-creating the SBT in that Dallas garage on May 24, 1964. Because they were re-creating something that the sum total of the evidence indicates actually happened on Elm Street on November 22, 1963.

"You and I both have a lot of written material on our respective websites. And we're both in the same boat (so to speak)."

Sorry. You're not. What astounds many is that you present yourself as unable to see the difference between the validity of your material and that of others.

It is frankly not to be believed.

Robert - NOPE. Wouldn't give him enough time to show me the car.

[Kenneth Drew]

As I have said before, folks such as Mr. Von Pein will turn down the use of modern technology to examine the evidence of the JFK assassination.

Boy, Mark, what an incredibly dumb (and hilarious) statement you just uttered there. In reality, of course, it's the conspiracy theorists (for the most part) who refuse to accept "modern technology" when examining the JFK case. The latest example being Luke Haag's ballistics experiments. And before that, it was Dale Myers' detailed computer reconstruction of the shooting. Has there been a CTer on the planet who has ever fairly and objectively examined Mr. Myers' "Secrets Of A Homicide" work? I'm doubting it.

And then there's the SBT test done by the Discovery Channel in Australia in 2004 ("Beyond The Magic Bullet"), utilizing high-tech surrogate models. CTers have never given that experiment anything close to a "fair shake". And even though a perfect re-creation of the SBT is never likely to be achieved, it seems as though ANYTHING less than complete "perfection" will be snubbed by the CT crowd, even though those CTers know full well that the Australian experiment, in large measure, DID replicate the general path of the SBT, with the test bullet sustaining fairly little damage.

And the test bullet's nose in the Australian re-enactment was still intact and rounded after going through two mock-up torsos. And that is something almost all CTers have been saying is totally impossible if a 6.5mm MC bullet were to have gone through two bodies and broken multiple bones in one of those bodies. But the Australian test proved the CTers dead wrong in that regard. But that fact doesn't matter a whit to CTers like Cyril Wecht. They still act like the Australian test was never even performed. (Go figure.)

But thanks for today's daily pot/kettle laugh from the CT Brigade, Mark. I enjoyed it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XlTbRzxO-s

And then there's the SBT test done by the Discovery Channel in Australia in 2004 ("Beyond The Magic Bullet"), utilizing high-tech surrogate models. CTers have never given that experiment anything close to a "fair shake".

That's simple to explain. That 're-creation' like most is based on an assumption that the shots came from the Sniper's nest. Any 'explanation' that starts with that premise is faulty from the get-go, so is largely a waste of time. You do realize that all they are trying to do is prove that the WCR was right. They are never going to furnish that proof without using 'all the evidence' not just what you choose to fit your predetermined supposition.

[Glenn Nall]

"You say it is 'largely a myth' [that Ford moved the wound from his back to his neck] and then to proceed to tell us that, he did, in fact move the location from his back to his neck. "

not sure who said that, but i'd say he's not thinking, just writing and using proper sounding phrases in order to sound credible.

[Kenneth Drew]

Hi Glenn

I think you are beginning to understand how the game is played on this and other forums that have the audacity to question the Government's official interpretation of the JFK assassination, or any other questionable event of the last 50 years; such as whether or not Saddam Hussein really did have WMD's tucked away somewhere in Iraq.

David Von Pein is not here to win debates or arguments with us, and convert us to the pro-Warren Commission side. He knows that this would be a futile endeavour and, if that was all there was to it, he and others like him would have abandoned this site years ago.

Everything DVP writes on here is directed toward the casual Internet browser possessing a very limited knowledge of the assassination of JFK. These are the so called "great unwashed masses". His method for "winning the hearts and minds" is simple, and very similar to that employed to sell used cars. He takes a product of questionable quality (ie. the Warren Commission Report), slaps a coat of cheap shiny paint on it, puts it in a flashy show room and then proceeds to distract you from its deficiencies with a fast paced and non-stop sales pitch. When anyone with any real technical knowledge asks some difficult questions about what he is selling he, just like a salesman, gets very upset that anyone would dare to ask such questions, and falls back on the infallibility of the manufacturers of the product he is selling.

And you will notice that almost every post of his links to his site (which makes him an authority, right?) , which is basically the regurgitation of the WC lies. And he usually tells you that you are 'dumb' to think that the JFK murder was a conspiracy. The tactics haven't changed over the years. And remember, he said he does not have the freedom to believe what he chooses.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Kenneth Drew

[Kenneth Drew]

And, yes, we can be fairly certain it was Specter who called it a neck wound, even though he'd seen a photo proving it was really on the back.

It makes little difference what WORD was used to describe the point of entry ("back" or "neck" or "base of the back of the neck"), because Commission Exhibit 903 proves that Arlen Specter and Company knew where to place that wound on a human body. And they placed it just where they should have placed it---in the UPPER BACK, just like it shows in the autopsy photo and in the autopsy report. The semantics are secondary next to what the Warren Commission DID when Lyndal Shaneyfelt took this photo in CE903. And the wound is NOT in the "neck". Period.

So maybe it's time for CTers to let go of the 50-year myth labelled "The Warren Commission Lied About The Location Of The Back Wound". Because just one quick glance at Commission Exhibit No. 903 should make every conspiracy theorist who has ever embraced that myth turn six shades of crimson....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html

See, this is what fascinates/bothers me, David. You KNOW I have chapter after chapter debunking all those programs and all those re-enactments you described in a previous post. You KNOW that Dale Myers conceded my point that the jump seat was 2 1/2 inches inboard, while his animation shows it 6 inches inboard, and that he tried to explain this by saying he showed it in the wrong place for the purpose of "clarity". You know also that he admitted his animation in Beyond the Magic Bullet was distorted and inaccurate, due to its being filmed at an angle off a monitor. And you know these things because you helped bring them to light after begging him to defend himself against the likes of me.

And yet you continue to pretend--for whose benefit I have no idea--that an honest investigation into the assassination only leads in one direction--that CTs are deceptive and unwilling to look at the "truth" before them, and that all those telling you what you want to hear are somehow honest and scientific.

I mean, Lucien Haag's articles and TV appearances are embarrassingly awful.

But, beyond that, let's go back to Specter.

I have proved, beyond any doubt, using the words of the Bethesda and Warren Commission staff, that:

1) Joseph Ball was assigned the task of explaining how a bullet fired from six floors up could enter on the back and exit the throat.

2) Chief Justice Warren had a melt-down when the witnesses started saying things indicating there had been more than one shooter, and ordered Specter to bring the autopsy in ahead of schedule to testify as soon as possible.

3) Joe Ball accompanied Specter out to Bethesda the next day, and asked the doctors to bring along drawings depicting the back wound trajectory for their testimony the next Monday.

4) The drawings created inaccurately depicted the back wound trajectory, and actually moved the back wound up to the base of the neck.

5) No measurements as to the actual wound location were provided the artist creating these drawings.

6) The artist received a commendation letter for "depicting the situation required."

7) Dr. Humes, in his testimony claimed he'd provided measurements to the artist.

8) Dr. Humes, in his testimony, inaccurately claimed this back wound, as described in the autopsy protocol, was on the "low neck," when it was really on the "upper thorax".

9) Dr. Humes and Specter knew a wound on the "low neck" was out of alignment with the holes on the clothing. but had an emergency meeting on the Sunday before Humes' testimony and decided to get around this by claiming Kennedy (at 6 foot, 170) was "extremely well-muscled, and that this forced his shirt and jacket to bunch up in the back.

10) Even so, Specter had his doubts, and asked to have Humes and/or himself verify the wound location in the drawings before performing a re-enactment of the shooting.

11) On the day of the re-enactment, Specter was shown a photo of the back wound, which showed it to be on the back, below the shoulder line.

12) Specter marked the jacket worn by the Kennedy stand-in accordingly, and used this mark in the re-enactment to check the bullet's trajectory at various points of the Zapruder film.

13) The cross-hairs of the rifle/camera used in the re-enactment showed that a bullet entering this location would exit on a straight line far below Connally's back wound.

14) The re-enactment then moved to a warehouse, for my precise measurements. These measurements showed that a bullet fired from the sniper's nest and entering Kennedy's back at the location of the chalk mark would not be likely to exit his throat and then hit Connally in the armpit.

15) When Thomas Kelley (the Secret Service agent who showed Specter the back wound photo and placed the chalk mark on the jacket) testified about the re-enactment, Specter corrected him and said it was a shoulder wound, and asked him if he meant to say it was a wound on the back of the neck. He then showed Kelley the drawing of the wound at the base of the neck, and asked him if this was what they used to mark the jacket. Kelley, said yes.

16) When Lyndal Shaneyfelt of the FBI testified about the trajectory studies performed in the warehouse, Specter introduced CE 903, showing this trajectory from the front, and failed to enter any photos of the trajectory taken from behind, showing the chalk mark location. He then had Shaneyfelt testify that the the trajectory "approximated" the back wound location--which hid that it was in fact inches away, no matter how they had the stand-in sitting or bending over.

17) Although Specter, in his internal memos, had regularly called the wound a "back" wound over and over, his chapter on the assassination, as submitted after the re-enactment proved a back location didn't work, or at least not as well as a base of the back of the neck location, now called the wound a wound at the base of the neck, or a wound on the back of the neck.

18) While working on his book The Death of a President, William Manchester spoke to Kennedy's (and Johnson's) physician, George Burkley, and Warren Commission counsel Howard Willens, and put in contact with people who'd actually seen the photos, and was similarly told the wound was on the back of the neck.

19) When this issue came to the public's attention in late 1966, Dr. Boswell, who'd been issued an order of silence, suddenly became available to the news media, and told them it was indeed a wound on the back of the neck, as shown in the drawing, and not on the back, as shown on the face sheet. Unmentioned in these interviews was that Boswell had signed an inventory of the photos a few weeks before, in which this wound was described as a shoulder wound.

19) The next year, after receiving talking points from the Justice Dept. telling him what to say, Dr. Humes similarly testified that the drawings created for the Warren Commission, in which the back wound was shown to be on the back of the neck, were accurate.

20) Specter continued for the rest of his life to claim the wound was on the back of the neck.

Now, this is a crystal clear case demonstrating that the back wound was moved upwards for the commission, and that a number of people collaborated in spreading the lie that the back wound was a neck wound. This is as clear as history gets.

But this, supposedly fails to interest you one iota. You could say "Yeah, they lied about it in the beginning, because they didn't know if they could prove it at that time.. So thank God we now can show how it all works without pretending the wound was on the back of the neck." But you don't.

No, instead you continue to pretend that a picture taken from the front, and showing a trajectory rod passing over the shoulder, lines up with a chalk mark inches below the shoulder line. Bizarre.

Note that they consistently use 'drawings' to represent where the shot was when photos showing the truth are readily available so that no 'description' of where the wound was is necessary. That's a major clue that 'they' don't/didn't want you to know the 'truth'.

[Kenneth Drew]

Robert, you've described exactly the pattern of behavior (at the risk of sounding like a psych) i've been seeing here.

It has become obvious that this person KNOWS he has no hope of convincing anyone of anything in line with the WC, et al, yet persists in trying to do so.

It has become obvious to me that he has left the realm of reason -- so obvious that i have to ask why he has made it so obvious. It's as you say, that his goal is not to convert but to just muddy the waters. (i saw a great quote by some great person about just muddying the waters in order to achieve a deception - i'll look it up. or maybe DVP knows it).

I'm not a naturally paranoid person; I cannot but help wonder if activity like this really isn't at the beck of 'someone else'. If not, then this person has in actuality lost the ability to reason, and at the moment i doubt that that's the case - but he sure makes me think twice about that.

Nietzsche said something to the effect of "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep."

[Kenneth Drew]

See, this is what fascinates/bothers me, David. You KNOW I have chapter after chapter debunking all those programs and all those re-enactments you described in a previous post.

So what?

You actually think that I am going to think you have "debunked" anything connected with the SBT? You must be kidding, Pat. You've debunked NOTHING. Least of all the viability of the Single-Bullet Theory.

You and I both have a lot of written material on our respective websites. And we're both in the same boat (so to speak).

I.E.,

I will never convince you that ANYTHING relating to the SBT is true. And, conversely, and knowing what I know about the SBT, you are never going to be able to convince me that the SBT is false or that the WC was a pack of liars with respect to the SBT.

That's the way it is. And that's the way it likely always will be.

Instead you continue to pretend that a picture taken from the front, and showing a trajectory rod passing over the shoulder, lines up with a chalk mark inches below the shoulder line. Bizarre.

Pat,

Here is the thing that makes your anti-CE903 rant unworthy of consideration (and you know this is true, but you seem to forget it every time I bring it up)...

CE903 represents the AVERAGE ANGLE between Z210 and Z225.

So THAT'S why the chalk mark doesn't quite "line up" perfectly.

Yes, I do have an article entitled "The SBT Perfection Of CE903". But I've added an addendum near the bottom of that article to talk about that "average trajectory angle" thing. But, in general terms of proving the workability and doability of the SBT, I do still think that CE903 does equal "SBT Perfection".

Let's see a CTer produce an anti-SBT re-enactment of the bullet wounds sustained by JFK and Governor Connally that comes within ten miles of CE903. No CTer ever has. And they never will (even if they try). And that's mainly because the SBT is so obviously true. And it's a heck of a lot more difficult to try and re-create a fantasy than it is to try and re-create something that actually happened.

And that's why the Warren Commission was able to get so close to perfection when re-creating the Single-Bullet Theory in that Dallas garage on May 24, 1964. Because they were re-creating something that the sum total of the evidence indicates actually happened on Elm Street on November 22, 1963.

Let's see a CTer produce an anti-SBT re-enactment of the bullet wounds sustained by JFK and Governor Connally that comes within ten miles of CE903. No CTer ever has. What an interesting statement. Let me see if I got that right.... produce a re-enactment of something that didn't happen. And get this, it has to be accurate. And if I understand DVP, he doesn't believe it has ever been done. Well, even though DVP doesn't have the freedom to believe as he wishes, I'm gonna give him one here. I'll bet he's right. I'll bet there is no accurate re-enactment of something that has never taken place.

I'm gonna guess that DVP is not suggesting what he is suggesting..;; but is he?

Edited June 22, 2015 by Kenneth Drew

[Glenn Nall]

They muddy the water, to make it seem deep.

that's exactly what i read before - how UTTERLY appropriate.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I really don't understand all of this discussion as to whether or not it is possible to debunk the Single Bullet Theory. For starters, it never rose above the status of theory, for the simple fact the Warren Commission could not recreate the SBT.

However, it is not necessary to debunk a theory that is based on an anatomical impossibility. While not all humans are anatomically precise copies of each other, there is a basic universality to our skeletal structures and, unless JFK was a freak (and nothing was reported from any of his x-rays to indicate this), he would have the same number of vertebrae in his spine as you and I, and they would be very close to ours in size, shape and location.

The SBT does not qualify as a supportable theory because it requires its followers to believe that a bullet passed through JFK's neck at a lateral angle that would have run it right into the right portion of one of JFK's cervical or thoracic vertebrae.

Period. Case closed. Until DVP or the others on his crew can get past this one simple stumbling block, there is no SBT, and nothing to debunk.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Kenneth Drew]

I really don't understand all of this discussion as to whether or not it is possible to debunk the Single Bullet Theory. For starters, it never rose above the status of theory, for the simple fact the Warren Commission could not recreate the SBT.

However, it is not necessary to debunk a theory that is based on an anatomical impossibility. While not all humans are anatomically precise copies of each other, there is a basic universality to our skeletal structures and, unless JFK was a freak (and nothing was reported from any of his x-rays to indicate this), he would have the same number of vertebrae in his spine as you and I, and they would be very close to ours in size, shape and location.

The SBT does not even qualify as a supportable theory because it requires its followers to believe that a bullet passed through JFK's neck at a lateral angle that would have run it right into the right portion of one of JFK's cervical or thoracic vertebrae.

Period. Case closed. Until DVP or the others on his crew can get past this one simple stumbling block, there is no SBT, and nothing to debunk.

Unlike DVP, I have the freedom to believe you..

[Glenn Nall]

i think I gotta differ with you on something here, Bob - because Dr McClelland saw the President's brain right through the open wound - enough so that he states some fell out onto the table - it is my firm belief that, unlike normal people's, JFK's cerebellum was situated anterior to his right ear, where the exit wound was indisputably made by Oswald's third shot from the 6th floor with his most accurate and lethal Mannlicher Carcano EYEtalian High Performance Sports Rifle.

See how nicely that fits now? Explains everything, and we can all go home.

DVP wins.

[Robert Prudhomme]

i think I gotta differ with you on something here, Bob - because Dr McClelland saw the President's brain right through the open wound - enough so that he states some fell out onto the table - it is my firm belief that, unlike normal people's, JFK's cerebellum was situated anterior to his right ear, where the exit wound was indisputably made by Oswald's third shot from the 6th floor with his most accurate and lethal Mannlicher Carcano EYEtalian High Performance Sports Rifle.

See how nicely that fits now? Explains everything, and we can all go home.

DVP wins.

Of course, how silly of me to contest the great David Von Pain. JFK might have been the first living human with no cervical vertebrae in his neck.

[David Von Pein]

Let's see a CTer produce an anti-SBT re-enactment of the bullet wounds sustained by JFK and Governor Connally that comes within ten miles of CE903. No CTer ever has.

What an interesting statement. Let me see if I got that right.... produce a re-enactment of something that didn't happen. And get this, it has to be accurate. And if I understand DVP, he doesn't believe it has ever been done. Well, even though DVP doesn't have the freedom to believe as he wishes, I'm gonna give him one here. I'll bet he's right. I'll bet there is no accurate re-enactment of something that has never taken place.

Looks like it's time to shrug those shoulders once again after reading the above convoluted mess penned by Mr. Drew.

Do you really not know what I meant by an "anti-SBT re-enactment"?

Or do you really think JFK was NOT shot at all in the areas of the upper back and throat and that John Connally suffered NO wounds at all?

~shrug time ensues~

Edited June 22, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Of course, how silly of me to contest the great David Von Pain [sic; as usual].

Why single me out? You've got to contest a whole bunch of people (and committees) a whole lot more important and knowledgeable than some nobody in central Indiana named DVP. You've got to tackle the only two major Government investigations into President Kennedy's death, both of which said the SBT is true.

So I'm the least of your troubles, Bobby.

Edited June 22, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

Of course, how silly of me to contest the great David Von Pain [sic; as usual].

Why single me out? You've got to contest a whole bunch of people (and committees) a whole lot more important and knowledgeable than some nobody in central Indiana named DVP. You've got to tackle the only two major Government investigations into President Kennedy's death, both of which said the SBT is true.

So I'm the least of your troubles, Bobby.

Both investigations turned a blind eye to the fact the bullet could not have travelled from where they placed the entrance wound in the back to where the wound on JFK's throat was located without smashing through either a cervical or thoracic vertebra.

These were not stupid men involved with these investigations. To ignore such a basic point of anatomy is a clear indication, on their parts, of complicity in an ongoing cover up.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme