Need single bullet theory diagram

[Cliff Varnell]

5 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Addendum for Cliff....

I guess, therefore, Cliff, that you must think the assassins who fired the "high tech" shots into JFK's throat and upper back were not even intending to kill President Kennedy with those two rifle shots, correct?

First shot paralytic, second shot toxin.

The second shot in the back was the kill shot.  The head shots were for show.

Or so I'd speculate.

Quote

 

And that's why they didn't aim at JFK's head with either of those shots, right? They merely wanted to wing him with TWO separate non-fatal blows to the upper body (and, as a bonus, they wanted to give the Secret Service a little bit of a heads-up about what was to come a few seconds later), is that it?

Since there was no 100% guarantee of a first-shot/kill-shot, they paralyzed the target first and then hit him with a toxin.

They could hit him anywhere in his body, no chance of JFK getting winged by a conventional round then hitting the floor.

Quote

That was mighty nice of the "high tech" assassins to give Mr. Kennedy and the Secret Service a fighting chance that way.

First-shot paralysis would give the target no fighting chance at all.

Edited July 5, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[David Von Pein]

Oh, brother.

Thanks for the "paralysis" laugh, Cliff.

[Micah Mileto]

6 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Addendum for Cliff....

I guess, therefore, Cliff, that you must think the assassins who fired the "high tech" shots into JFK's throat and upper back were not even intending to kill President Kennedy with those two rifle shots, correct? And that's why they didn't aim at JFK's head with either of those shots, right? They merely wanted to wing him with TWO separate non-fatal blows to the upper body (and, as a bonus, they wanted to give the Secret Service a little bit of a heads-up about what was to come a few seconds later), is that it?

That was mighty nice of the "high tech" assassins to give Mr. Kennedy and the Secret Service a fighting chance that way.

How do you know the EOP wound in the head wasn't created around z190-224?

[David Von Pein]

Just now, Micah Mileto said:

How do you know the EOP wound in the head wasn't created around z190-224?

This is getting sillier by the minute.

[Cliff Varnell]

3 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Oh, brother.

Thanks for the "paralysis" laugh, Cliff.

JFK acted paralyzed in the limo after he was hit in the throat circa Z190.

Occam's Razor -- what's the most likely explanation for a man acting paralyzed?

He was paralyzed.

[Micah Mileto]

4 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

This is getting sillier by the minute.

What's silly? Are you aware that Dr. Finck arrived at the autopsy AFTER the brain had already been removed from the top of the damaged skull, and yet always reported that he could examine the EOP wound as an unbroken perforation in the occipital bone? How do you do that if the only small wound in the back of the head was right beside the large defect 4-5 inches above the EOP? Wouldn't your entry wound be among the portions of skull removed to facilitate the removal of the brain if that were the case? Or do you concede that the EOP wound existed?

 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Micah Mileto

[David Von Pein]

Hi Micah....

It's my opinion that there was only ONE bullet wound of entry in JFK's head....and that wound was located where the Clark Panel (and HSCA) said it was --- 100mm. above the EOP....

"On one of the lateral films of the skull (#2), a hole measuring approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can be seen in profile approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance." -- Clark Panel Report

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

"It is the firm conclusion of the [HSCA's FPP] panel members...that beyond all reasonable medical certainty, there is no bullet perforation of entrance any place on the skull other than the single one in the cowlick. .... It is the firm conclusion of the panel that there is no bullet perforation of entrance beneath that brain tissue [near JFK's hairline]...and we find no evidence to support anything but a single gunshot wound of entrance in the back of the President's head." -- Dr. Michael Baden

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

And since the lone entry hole in the head obviously caused the large EXIT wound to the right/front/top part of JFK's head too, then that wound could not have occurred as early as Z190. Impossible.

Edited July 5, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Micah Mileto]

6 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Hi Micah....

It's my opinion that there was only ONE bullet wound of entry in JFK's head....and that wound was located where the Clark Panel (and HSCA) said it was --- 100mm. above the EOP....

"On one of the lateral films of the skull (#2), a hole measuring approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can be seen in profile approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance. The bone of the lower edge of the hole is depressed. Also there is, embedded in the outer table of the skull close to the lower edge of the hole, a large metallic fragment which on the anteroposterior film (#1) lies 25 mm. to the right of the midline. This fragment as seen in the latter film is round and measures 6.5 mm. in diameter." -- Clark Panel Report

And since the entry hole in the head obviously caused the large EXIT wound to the right/front/top part of JFK's head too, then that wound could not have occurred as early as Z190. Impossible.

Your opinion is simply wrong. See Finck's Clay Shaw testimony where he tears into anybody believing that there was an entry wound 100 mm above the EOP. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/finckshaw.htm

(2/24/1969) [...]

 

BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, Doctor, with respect to wounds in body matter such as skull, would you tell me whether the terms coning, cratering, beveling and shelving are synonymous?

A: In the field of describing wounds by projectiles through structures such as bones, the terms are synonymous, I would say it is cratering and not crating.

Q: I thought I said "cratering."

A: C-R-A-T-E-R-I-N-G, cratering, from a crater.

Q: Now, Doctor, in connection with the autopsy performed on our late President Kennedy, did you have occasion to examine and analyze a head wound which appeared upon his remains?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Would you describe for the benefit of the Jury the extent and nature of the examination which you made on this part of the remains of President Kennedy.

A: I saw in the back of the head of President Kennedy, at the right side at approximately 1 inch, 25 millimeters, from a bony prominence you can all feel in the back of your head, it's called the external occipital protuberance, I saw that wound slightly above this protuberance.

Q: Doctor, if I come forward, will you be able to point on my head the approximate location of the wound which you have just described?

A: Yes, I will be.

Q: I won't ask you to mark this one.

A: This is the approximate position of that wound which was in the scalp on the right side at approximately 1 inch to the right of that protuberance and slightly above it.

Q: Now, Doctor, will you describe to the Jury the nature of this wound which you found on President Kennedy's head and the location of, which you have pointed out on my head?

A: This wound had slightly irregular edges in contrast to the first wound I described in the back of the neck, and I would like to explain at this time the reason for that. The tissue underlying the skin, I have described in the back of the neck is soft tissue, and when the bullet strikes the skin in such an area it does not meet the resistance it meets when there is bone underneath, and this explains the difference in character of those two wounds of entry. The wound in the back of the head showed irregular edges because there was bone close to the scalp corresponding to that scalp wound in the back of the head I just demonstrated, there was a hole in the bone, in the skull of President Kennedy, and I examined it, that hole, from outside the skull and from inside the skull. When examining from outside the skull, I did not see a crater, I saw a hole but there was no crater around it. When I looked at that wound from inside the skull, I saw a definite crater, C-R-A-T-E-R, and this is a certain factor to identify positively the direction of a projectile going through a flat bone such as the skull. To take a practical example, I have seen similar craters in wood, when a bullet goes through and through a pane of wood, and in glass, and it is the difference of the examination between the outer surface and the inner surface that allows the examiner to determine the direction of the bullet. Police officers do that all the time when they examine panes of wood or panes of glass, and I have done so myself. It is an accepted fact.

Q: Doctor, I show you a sketch which has been marked for identification "D-28," and I ask you what this represents?

A: This letter-sized black and white illustration labeled "Delta-28," entitled "Perforating, P-E-R-F-O-R-A-T-I-N-G, Missile, M-I-S-S-I-L-E, Perforating Missile Wound of the Skull" shows a scheme, S-C-H-E-M-E, prepared at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology according to my instructions and based on the factors I just described.

Q: Doctor, was this prepared under your instructions before or after the assassination of President Kennedy?

A: It was prepared before the assassination of President Kennedy to demonstrate the pattern of wounds in bones in a through and through wound by a projectile. I did this for teaching purposes because I have to give many lectures in this field.

MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, in connection with the testimony of this witness, we would like to offer, file, and introduce into evidence the exhibit marked for identification "D-28."

MR. OSER: No objection.

BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, Doctor, with the aid of Exhibit D-28, could you better explain to the Jury what you mean by coning, cratering, beveling or shelving of the bone?

A: Yes.

Q: Would you kindly let me get the microphone and step down and do it, please.

A: This is A, Alpha in white, the cavity within the skull, what we call the cranial cavity, C-R-A-N-I-A-L, labeled B as in Bravo, and the cavity shown in black, C as in Charlie is the wound of entry, D as in Delta is the wound of exit, and you see the title of this, "Perforating Missile Wound of the Skull," perforating is synonymous with through and through, it means the projectile goes all the way through a structure producing a wound of entry and a wound of exit. There may be fragments left by the projectile in between, but as far as the wounds are concerned, it is still a through and through or perforating missile wound by a missile, here a bullet or any projectile. You will notice that at the level of C, Charlie, when you examine this wound from outside you see a hole which is smaller than the hole observed when you look at that wound from inside the skull. You see the diameter outside in Charlie is smaller than the inside diameter of Charlie. When you look at this wound from inside, you see a crater, C-R-A-T-E-R, or cone, and this finding is called cratering, coning, shelving, or beveling. When that projectile goes through the bony structure of the skull, it produces a wound of exit, and here again by looking at the wound from inside of Delta and outside of Delta, you will see a larger diameter when examined from outside as compared to the diameter of the wound when examined from inside the skull. It is on the basis of such factors that the direction of the bullet path, P-A-T-H, is determined.

MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, at this time in connection with the testimony of this witness, we would like to offer, file, and produce into evidence "D-28." I think it has been offered already.

MR. OSER: No objection.

MR. DYMOND: May we show this to the Jury at this time?

THE COURT: Yes.

BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Dr. Finck, in addition to what you have described as a bullet hole of entrance, the location of which you have indicated on my head, would you describe any other damage which you might have found to the skull of the late President Kennedy?

A: In addition to the wound of entry I have discussed in the back of the head, there was a very large wound, irregular, star-shaped, what we call stellate, s-t-e-l-l-a-t-e, approximately five inches in diameter. It was 13 centimeters in diameter, which is approximately five inches and one-eighth. During the course of the autopsy we received from Dallas portions of bone which have the same appearance as the general appearance of the remaining skull of President Kennedy, and on one of the fragments which we could match inside this wound, approximately five inches in diameter, occupying the right side and the top of the head of the President, I saw the beveling I described to you. First identified the outer aspect of the specimen and the inner aspect, I-n-n-e-r, of the specimen to orient the specimen in relation to the wound. After having oriented the specimen as far as the outer and inner surfaces are concerned, I saw this crater when the specimen was viewed from outside which identifies a portion of the wound of exit. You realize that when you have a bullet going through a head at high velocity, the wound of entry may be entire, complete, as in this case, but because of the shattering, s-h-a-t-t-e-r-i-n-g, shattering and explosive force produced by that bullet, the wound of exit is very irregular and very often you don't have all the portions of bone to make a complete skull, some portions are missing, so you cannot do what you do with a complete puzzle, to take the complete pieces and make a complete image. In that case the fragments were matching the wound in a general way, and I could make a positive determination of a wound of exit, of a portion of a wound of exit, in a bone fragment submitted to us during the course of the autopsy, and it was, I would say, between approximately 11:00 o'clock at night -- I can give you the time, it was during the course of the autopsy this fragment was brought to us and allowed us to determine that this was the wound of exit.

Q: Approximately 11:00 o'clock on what date?

A: On the 22nd of November, 1963, the date of the assassination.

Q: Now, Doctor, were any skull fragments delivered to you which were incompatible with your opinion as to the exit area having been on the side of the head?

A: There were none.

Q: There were none. Now, having examined the skull particle which you have testified contained evidence as to which direction the bullet was traveling, and as an expert in the field of Pathology, do you have a definite opinion as to whether the projectile which caused the bone damage exhibited by that particle entered from the front or from the back?

A: I have a definite opinion. I would like to add that that bony specimen brought to us was X-rayed and contained metallic fragments which corroborates the finding of metallic fragments seen at the time of the autopsy on the X-ray film of the head of the President, and the X-ray film was taken before the autopsy of the head, I saw the X-ray film, there were metallic fragments on the X-ray, there were metallic fragments in that bony fragment brought to us during the course of the autopsy, and I have a firm opinion that the bullet entered in the back of the head and exited on the right side of the top of the head producing a very large wound.

Q: Doctor, did you find any evidence which would indicate that the President was hit by more than one shot in the head?

A: No.

Q: Doctor, as a result of your examination of the head, the head of the late President, what, if you have one, is your opinion as to the direction from which the bullet which inflicted the head wound came?

A: The bullet definitely struck in the back of the head, disintegrated, which is often the case when such a bullet at high velocity goes through bone, producing numerous fragments, many of them seen on X-ray of the head, and of the bony portion of the exit, and also recovered by us, we found fragments in the brain of the President, and that projectile produced that wound of exit on the right side and top of the head.
 

Q: Doctor, having examined the entire body of the late President Kennedy, did you detect other than the two wounds which you have described to me any other wounds on the body of the late President?
 

A: I did not, no other bullet wounds.
 

Q: Doctor, I exhibit to you a sketch which has been marked for identification "D-29," and I ask you whether you drew this sketch or whether it was drawn by someone else?
 

A: It was drawn by someone else.
 

Q: I further ask you whether this sketch depicts the path of the bullet into and out of the head of the late President Kennedy in accordance with the professional opinions which you have given.
 

A: It does.
 

MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, in connection with the testimony of the witness, I would like to offer, file, and produce into evidence the sketch marked for identification "D-29."
 

MR. OSER: No objection.
 

THE COURT: Let it be received.
 

BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, at this time, Dr. Finck, we will ask that you step down, step before the Jury and with the aid of this sketch demonstrate to them what in your professional opinion happened when the President was hit in the back of the head with the bullet?
 

A: Gentlemen, you are looking at a letter-sized paper reproduction of a drawing labeled here "D-29," D as in Delta. It represents the right side of the head and the right shoulder and upper chest of President Kennedy. For demonstration purposes, the drawing shows the wounds in a general way, arrows indicate the direction of the missile, the arrow behind the back of the head has the word "in," i-n, and the arrow you see in front of the wound on the right side and top of the head is labeled "out," o-u-t. You see a relatively small wound of entry in the back of the head and you see a much larger wound of exit irregular on the right side of the head. This indicates the direction of the bullet striking the back of the head coming out on the right side. If you take the middle of this wound of exit, the general direction of this missile path, p-a-t-h, is from the rear to the front going downward.
 

Q: Please return to the stand, Doctor.
 

MR. DYMOND: We now ask that we be permitted to exhibit this to the Jury.
 

BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Now, Doctor, in view of the small size, what was according to your testimony the hole of entrance in the President's skull and the relatively large size of the hole of exit, was it possible to determine with any degree of preciseness the angle at which this projectile struck the head of the President?
 

A: Not with precision because the wound of exit is quite large, and this is very difficult, a very difficult thing to do, determine the angle based on such findings. It is the best interpretation we could make based on such large wound of exit and the small wound of entry.
 

Q: Now, what was the best interpretation that you could make in view of the relative sizes of these wounds, Doctor?
 

A: That the bullet, that the projectile entered in the back, came out on the right side, and that the direction was from above down.
 

Q: Now, Doctor, is your opinion, is it not a firm one as to the direction of this projectile?
 

A: My opinion regarding the direction of the projectile is firm.
 

Q: Now, Doctor, from the --
 

A: As far as the entry and exit are concerned.
 

Q: Do you have any doubt about that?
 

A: I have no doubt that the bullet entered in the back of the head, disintegrated, came out on the right side of the head.
 

Q: Doctor, have you seen the Zapruder film?
 

A: I did.
 

Q: From the standpoint of a Pathologist, would it be possible to render a proper or accurate pathological opinion as to the point of entrance and the point of exit of this bullet without having viewed the remains of President Kennedy and by only having seen the Zapruder film and conducted some independent experiments with cadavers or bodies other than that of President Kennedy?
 

A: I would not do so.
 

Q: Why, Doctor.
 

A: As I said, the film was of a great value because of the motion aspect of it, because it was of a great value to determine the sequence of shots, it showed the position of the body, it showed the movements of the body during the shooting, I have seen on the movie President Kennedy moving forward, rising his hand to his throat, and then he was struck by the second bullet that hit in the back of the head.

 

[...]

 

Q: What time did you arrive at Bethesda Naval Hospital in regard to the autopsy? By that I mean was the autopsy already begun?
 

A: When I arrived, X-rays had been taken of the head. I had been told so over the phone by Dr. Humes when he called me at home, and I arrived, I would say, a short time after the beginning of the autopsy, I can't give you an exact time, it was approximately 8:00 o'clock at night.
 

Q: Had any work been done on President Kennedy's body in regard to the performing of the autopsy by the time you got there?
 

A: As I recall, the brain had been removed. Dr. Humes told me that to remove the brain he did not have to carry out the procedure you carry out when there is no wound in the skull. The wound was of such an extent, over five inches in diameter, that it was not of a great difficulty for him to remove this brain, and this is the best of my recollection. There were no removals of the wound of entry in the back of the neck, no removal of the wound of entry in the back of the head prior to my arrival, and I made a positive identification of both wounds of entry. At this time I might, for the sake of clarity, say that in the autopsy report we may have called the first wound the one in the head and the second wound the one in the neck, because we did not know the sequence of shots at that time. Again, the sequence of shots was determined by the Zapruder film, so what we did, we determined the entry of the bullet wound and stated that there were two bullet wounds, one in the back of the neck and the other in the back of the head, without giving a sequence.
 

[...]

 

Q: The description on State Exhibit 68 of the head wound indicated here says, correct me if I am wrong "Ragged 15 x 6 millimeters." Is that correct as you found them?

A: For practical purposes to show the approximate -- yes, for practical purpose ragged means the edges were irregular and I testified this morning that when a bullet strikes soft tissue with underlying bone close to it that bone offers a great resistance and the appearance of the edge of the wound, and I have seen this repeatedly in many cases, the appearances of the edge of the wound is different than when there is bone close to the skin or when there was a soft tissue beneath the skin, and that explains the differences of the characteristics of those two wounds. One the wound in the neck, no immediate underlying bone and with very irregular edges and the other in the back of the head with the skull under the scalp and offering immediate resistance to the projectile.

Q: Colonel, can you give me the angle of entrance of this particular wound on a horizontal plane downward?

A: The angle of -- of the wound in the head?

Q: Yes, sir.

A: In the head. Again, this is difficult to determine because the wound of exit is very large and the best we could do is to take the approximate center of this very irregular wound and draw a line between this approximate center and the smaller wound of entry in the back of the head and draw a general direction. The --

Q: What was the angle you calculated, if you calculated one? A: Again I have that figure "within 45 degrees," an approximate measure, but the degree of 45 degrees I remember is better to quote for the neck wound than for the head wound for the reasons I mentioned. The head wound was so large, the exit, it is difficult, extremely difficult to give an angle for this.

 

Q: Colonel, could you tell me, using myself as an example, approximately what the loca- tion in my head would be 100 millimeters above my external occipital protuberance?

A: 100 millimeters is approximately 4 inches. This is the external occipital protuberance. My finger is approximately 4 inches and at a place here which is approximately the location here.

Q: About right here, Colonel, 'cause I can't see you.

A: Approximately here, Mr. Oser.

Q: Now, Colonel, I believe you said that you are familiar with the report of Drs. Carns, Fisher, Morgan, and Moritz, as having reviewed and returned in 1968, I ask you whether or not you disagree with their findings, Colonel, that after viewing the X-rays of the President they found a hole in the President's head 100 millimeters above the occipital protuberance?

A: I can't say I agree or disagree with this for the following reasons: This measurement refers to X-ray films. On of this Panel Review -- what is the exhibit number of this?

Q: I now mark it as State-73 -- 72, I am sorry.

A: On of this Panel Review of 1968, which I read for the first time in 1969, I read: "One of the lateral films of the skull" -- and this refers to a general section heading you will find on "Examination of X-ray Films" on Page 9, as I read this, I interpret this statement of as a measurement based on X-ray films. So there was a difference between measurements made on X-ray films and photographs or photograph ual measurements on the cadaver.

Q: Do you disagree with the fact that these four doctors are qualified in the field of Pathology?

A: They are definitely, three of them, three of them are qualified pathologists, and the fourth doctor is a radiologist.

Q: Radiology is in what field of medicine?

A: Radiology is the study of X-rays for diagnostic reasons or for the reasons of treating with radiation.

Q: Would you say, Colonel, that a radiologist is the best qualified person in the field of medicine to read an X-ray?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you find in reading that report any mention by these four gentlemen, or these four doctors, of any hole in the President's head being one inch slightly above the occipital protuberance bone?

A: I do not find the measurement as one inch to the right of the external occipital protuberance in this State-72.

Q: Colonel, could you step down, and using State Exhibit 70, show me the approximate location in correlation to the size of the diagram, or the illustration, where 100 millimeters would be above the occipital protuberance bone.

A: On which one?

Q: I will repeat my question. Using State Exhibit 70, Colonel, would you show me the approximate location of 100 millimeters above the occipital protuberance bone in relation to the size of this particular illustration as it appears in this exhibit.

MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, this exhibit does not purport to be a scale exhibit and as I said before, it is not a three- dimensional photograph. I doubt if the Doctor could locate this bone, and if he could, any estimate of distance would be useless because it does not purport to be to scale.

MR. OSER: If the Court please, the Doctor used this exhibit saying this is the approximate location he found, and I am now asking him the approximate location that four doctors examining X-rays said it was 100 millimeters above the occipital protuberance bone, and I think he can tell the approximate location of that.

THE COURT: Mr. Dymond's objection is that it is not a picture of the rear of the base of the skull, and for that one reason Mr. Dymond doesn't see how the witness could put it any relation with respect to the rear of the skull and moving laterally across the skull.

MR. DYMOND: He has already done this on Mr. Oser's head, which is three dimensional.

MR. OSER: Still and all he used this exhibit showing at least a portion of the back of the skull and a line going over the top of the skull which would indicate at least to me the approximate mid-part of the head, and I fail to see why the Colonel cannot indicate the approximate location 100 millimeters above the occipital protuberance bone. I know it is not drawn to scale, but I am only asking him for the approximate location.

THE COURT: Could he not do it better in the figure in your autopsy sheet there?

MR. OSER: But, Your Honor, that may well be, but since the Doctor has used this exhibit and said this is where he found a hole, I think the State has a right also to show as a result of the testimony where approximately 100 millimeters was.

THE COURT: You understand the question?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do, but I can't see how I can be asked to place a wound that was measured on X-rays, I don't understand how I can be asked to put on a illustrative drawing showing the location of the wound as we approximately saw it and not based on measurements on X-rays. Those 100 millimeters --

BY MR. OSER:
Q: Tell me how did the illustrator do it if he didn't have the X-rays and photographs?

A: He did not.

Q: Then how did he do it?

A: Because he was told by Dr. Humes about the approximate location of that wound in the back of the head on the right side and approximately one inch from the external occipital protuberance and slightly above it.

Q: He was told by Commander Humes that?

A: To my knowledge the illustrator making those drawings made them according to the data provided by Dr. Humes.

Q: Let me ask you this then, Colonel: Am I correct in stating that you said that the area I am pointing to right now is the approximate location where four inches above my protuberance bone is?


A: On your head I agree but the measurement of 100 millimeters was made on an X-ray and that is why I am reluctant to say.

Q: Made by a radiologist, one was a member of the American Board of Radiology?

A: I don't know that. That report is signed by four people, there were four to sign it.

Q: Didn't you say one was a radiologist?

A: To my knowledge.

Q: And a radiologist deals in X-rays?

A: A radiologist deals with X-rays and the interpretation of them.

MR. OSER: Again I call for the witness to put the approximate location because there has been testimony on direct examination as well as cross-examination, and because the Defense introduced a picture of Exhibit 388 in Defense Exhibit 67 and I think the State has a right to use this for further witnesses and further cross-examination of the Doctor. I call for this location.

MR. DYMOND: The Doctor has said that he can't do it.

THE COURT: He already testified that the or that there is somewhat of a difference between locations on there and in X-rays and I am not going to force him to do it.

MR. OSER: Then I ask that he mark it on State-68.

THE COURT: If he can do it.

MR. OSER: Four inches above the external occipital protuberance on the descriptive sheet, State-68, and I, this is the Autopsy Descriptive Sheet, and I presume you have used it before for autopsies and I ask that it be so marked there.

THE COURT: If the Doctor can do it.

THE WITNESS: I don't think I can put a wound on a drawing whereas the distance of that wound on an X-ray was given as 100 millimeters I can't do that on something that is different.

MR. OSER: Your Honor, may I ask the witness --

THE COURT: Let's see if I can clarify it. Dr. Finck, on the drawing of the rear of a human being, male, can you place with some kind of a pen or what have you the correction, if one was made, as a result of the four-man panel, as to what you all originally determined. If you can do it and if you can't, you can't do it.

MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, may I submit the Doctor is trying to explain that the distances --

MR. OSER: I don't want Mr. Dymond to testify.

MR. DYMOND: This is in support of my objection.

THE COURT: I will listen.

MR. DYMOND: That the distances on an X-ray measurement is not compatible at all with the distances on this drawing and would be impossible to transpose.

THE COURT: I will accept that. Take the witness stand.

BY MR. OSER:
Q: Doctor, you are familiar with an autopsy descriptive sheet, have you seen something similar to this before and have you ever used something like this before in an autopsy?

A: It is quite common to use worksheets in autopsies.

Q: I ask you again, that wasn't my question, have you used them before?

A: I have used worksheets in autopsies.

Q: And you are telling the Court that you can't mark 100 millimeters above the occipital protuberance bone on that descriptive sheet that you have used before?

MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, it is repetitious. Your Honor has ruled on the question.

THE COURT: I will let the Doctor answer one more time. The question is -- Please read it, Mr. Reporter.

THE REPORTER: Question: "And you are telling the Court that you can't mark 100 millimeters above the occipital protuberance bone on that descriptive sheet that you say you have used before?"

MR. OSER: What is your answer?

THE WITNESS: I could place a wound higher on that drawing but again I don't understand why I am asked to do that.

MR. OSER: I don't think it is for the witness to determine that.

MR. WEGMANN: Let the witness answer.

THE COURT: If you say you can place it, I suggest you leave the witness stand, step down and go place it.

THE WITNESS: That would not be placed on X-rays, that would be a wound higher and approximately in this location.

MR. OSER: These are approximate and we can cover the matter.

BY MR. OSER:
Q: Initial that, please. Thank you, Doctor.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, at this time I would like to make a comment for the record.

THE COURT: No, sir, you are not running the show. You either answer the question and give an explanation and don't comment.

MR. DYMOND: May we see whether this comment is in the form of an explanation of his answer, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is the statement that you wish to make in further explanation of your answer to this question?

THE WITNESS: Definitely.

THE COURT: You may do so.

THE WITNESS: The mark I have made --

THE COURT: You can't volunteer information just because you wish to tell us about it. You can only give us answers to a question and then an explanation. There is a difference from what you want to volunteer and what you want to explain. If you want to explain you may do it but you can't volunteer a comment and that is the legal situation of the Court. If this is in further explanation, then I will permit it.

THE WITNESS: The mark I just made on -- what is the exhibit number?

MR. OSER: 68.

THE WITNESS: On Exhibit 68 does not correspond to the wound I have seen at the time of the autopsy. The wound as seen at the time of the autopsy was not as high as that. I did so because repeatedly I am asked to show on this drawing what would the position be of a wound approximately four inches or 100 millimeters above the external occipital protuberance, but I don't endorse the 100 millimeters for this drawing. Again the measurement was made on X-rays. I was more or less forced to put that on this exhibit.

MR. OSER: I want the record to reflect the witness was not forced.

THE WITNESS: I was asked to show on this drawing a wound four inches from the external occipital protuberance.

THE COURT: Let's go on to another area.

[...] (2/25/1969)

Q: Now, Doctor, referring to State Exhibit-68, and more particularly the sketch on the lower portion of this, and the red dot which you placed on the right-hand figure of that sketch, does that purport to represent accurately the location of the back head wound as described in the reviewing pathological report of 1968?

A: It does not, and let me explain this. I was asked yesterday by Mr. Oser to place a wound 4 inches or 100 millimeters, approximately, above the external occipital protuberance. The reason for doing so was that in the 1968 panel, P-A-N-E-L, in the chapter entitled "X-rays," this is S-72 on , you will find this figure of 100 millimeters above the external occipital protuberance, but in the first line of that paragraph you see the word "films" on one of the lateral films of the skull, a hole measuring approximately 8 millimeters in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 millimeters on the external surface can be seen in profile approximately 100 millimeters above the external occipital protuberance, so this measurement of 100 millimeters or 4 inches refers to a measurement made on X-ray film and not on the photographs or skull itself. I saw that wound of entry in the back of the head at approximately 1 inch or 25 millimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance, and it was definitely not 4 inches or 100 millimeters above it, so I was asked to put on the drawing a measurement coming from the X-ray measurement.

[...]

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. OSER:
Q: Colonel, in referring to State Exhibit-68, the autopsy descriptive sheet, can you tell me whether or not the mark placed on the rear portion or the rear diagram of a body which is indicated with the arrow and marked ragged, slating 15 x 6 millimeter, can you tell me whether or not this spot on this diagram corresponds to a position on the head of 1 inch, approximately 1 inches above the external occipital protuberand or does it apply to 100 millimeters above the external occipital protuberance?

A: It refers to an approximate location on this drawing and it refers to the wound I saw at 1 inch from the external occipital protuberance.

Q: All right.

A: It was definitely not 4 inches or 100 millimeters above it.
 

There is no evidence that "the entry hole in the head obviously caused the large EXIT wound to the right/front/top part of JFK's head too". How does this work, dude?

Edited July 5, 2018 by Micah Mileto

[James DiEugenio]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Simple Fact --- JFK conspiracy theorists have NEVER (not once) offered up any kind of a valid and reasonable and sensible and believable alternative to the Warren Commission's Single-Bullet Theory....and they never will, since the SBT is the correct solution (by a mile)----with or without the awful Rydberg drawings.

It's easy to criticize something. Everything is always open to criticism. But when it comes to coming up with an explanation for what DID happen (if it wasn't the SBT), the CTers have NOTHING to offer. All they're able to come up with is: The SBT is BS! But I want to hear their "conspiracy" alternative, step by step and bullet by bullet.

And without a bullet exiting JFK's throat (and nearly 100% of Internet CTers don't think any bullet exited from Kennedy's throat), then the CTers have no choice but to offer up the proverbial "Two Bullets Entered JFK But Failed To Exit And Then Disappeared Or Were Dug Out By Evil Plotters" gambit. (Maybe that silly theory is the main reason I never hear any CTer offer up a detailed explanation of what happened. Because who would want to intentionally embarrass themselves by placing such lunacy on the table for anyone's consideration?)

And if anybody thinks that it's the LNer in the equation (meaning: DVP) who suffered the "embarrassment" at the hands of James R. Gordon and other assorted anti-SBTers in this 2015 discussion, then their denial is even more serious and advanced than even I had thought. Because that discussion illustrates---more than I've ever encountered before---the lengths to which some conspiracists will sink in order to avoid the "SBT" signs that exist in the Zapruder Film. 

The lame excuses I heard from various conspiracy theorists were legendary. I heard "Corrupt frames" and "Connally's merely turning to his left" and "It's only Nellie Connally's shadow that you're seeing". Anything to avoid having to admit that the film is showing John B. Connally reacting to a bullet hitting him at circa Z224. Classic Denial at its finest.

As Von Pein was sinking on the ropes, he went ahead and gave himself an eight count.  He threw out the usual, "OK, I cannot defend my position, but hey what is yours?"  

Our side should never fall for this.  Never.

As I have said many times, no one will ever know for certain the precise circumstances of Kennedy's murder.  The reason for that is that the autopsy was a first rate disaster.  Even Baden admitted that.

When a guy dies of gunshot wounds and 1.)  You do not trace the track of the wound through the back, and 2.) You do not dissect the brain to see what the track was through the skull, or if there was more than one, then how can the sinking DVP then turn around and say,

"Well, we got two jokers, what's your hand?"

No Davey.  See, our side is that of research, real thinking, real review.  Our side acknowledges that something really weird happened in Bethesda that night.  In addition to the above, why was the brain not weighed at autopsy?  And why did it then come in at 1500 grams, which is ridiculous for all the brain damage that the witnesses saw at Parkland and Bethesda.  (See, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, by James DiEugenio, pp.160-62)   Why did the particle trail that Humes described in his report as going from low in the back of the skull to the upper front, why did that  disappear in the x rays we have today? (ibid, p, 152) One of the worst parts of Bugliosi's worthless door stop of a book was when he went after Doug Horne for his essay on the two brain autopsy.  I do not agree with everything in Doug's essay, but the thing that Bugliosi would not acknowledge, so he could cheap shot Horne, was that so many witnesses said the brain that Ida Dox depicted from the photographs did not resemble what they saw. 

Also, if the wounds are not dissected, how does one determine directionality and transit?  But further, why were the wounds not dissected?  Well, Finck gave away the game there at Shaw's trial did he not? (ibid, p. 140) And that drove Washington into a mini panic. Maybe because the reports the ARRB recovered from that night said the malleable probe would not connect the back wound to the front? (ibid, pp. 140-42)

See we are the people who review the entire record and analyze it; and we understand why there are these questions and why they cannot be answered. Your side does not acknowledge this. As Gordon says, you stop with the WCR.  And therefore you are stuck with the ludicrous CE 399 and its magical flight path.  Complete BS.

And, as Gordon and Speer just showed, you cannot even defend this farce even when you yourself define the terms of the debate. 

Edited July 6, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

44 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

...and therefore you are stuck with the ludicrous CE 399 and its magical flight path. Complete BS.

There's nothing "magical" about the bullet's flight path in the least. And, again, CE903 proves that fact (regardless of the objections put forth by Pat Speer and James DiEugenio).

CE903 proves that no "zig-zagging" of the bullet needed to occur.

CE903 proves that the bullet's entry definitely did NOT need to be elevated up into the NECK of John Kennedy's body.

And, unless you want to call Lyndal Shaneyfelt a l-i-a-r, CE903 proves that there was a straight-line trajectory path at circa Z210-Z225 that leads straight back to the only known source of gunfire that day---the 6th-floor Sniper's Nest.

Yes, the "Z210-225" angle was just an average angle between those two Z-Film frames, but can a CTer really think that Specter & Company could get THAT CLOSE to mimicking the Single-Bullet Theory and yet still believe the SBT is totally and completely impossible and not worthy of even the tiniest bit of consideration?

Given what we can see in Commission Exhibit 903, I cannot fathom how the above CTer mindset is even remotely possible (or desirable).

 

Edited July 6, 2018 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

Oh please Davey.

Yeah, ignore everything else I said about the non dissection, the disappearing particles, the no weighing of the brain at autopsy, the witnesses who do not recognize the Dox depiction of the brain and hang on to you photo like Linus and his blanket.

Speer just decimated that to pieces with those two photos you will not show.  Ok.

And as Gordon also said, that is not the Single Bullet Fantasy, that is only a part of it.

Here is a good film for you to watch.  Hopefully you can begin  the road to recovery afterwards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_(2016_film)

[David Von Pein]

.......

Edited July 6, 2018 by David Von Pein

[James R Gordon]

David Von Pein Said:-
CTers have NEVER offered up a valid and reasonable alternative to the SBT....and they never will, since the SBT is the correct solution (by a mile)----with or without the awful Rydberg drawings.

The more pertinent question is not about whether CTers have offered up a reasonable alternative to the SBT, you are totally unable to explain the SBT something that you passionately believe in.

When the SBT enters Connolly’s back it changes its trajectory angle from 17.72º to 27º. I am allowing you that that this bullet entered JFK at a lower position to exit at a higher position. When members suggest alternatives you immediately say “where are the bullets, where are the bullets” and in doing so immediately change the subject.

This is your theory. This is what you believe: a single bullet went from the Oswald window to finally embedding a part of itself into Connolly’s left leg. So please explain why does this SBT change its trajectory angle by 9.28º after it enters Connally’s back??

James

 

[David Von Pein]

8 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:

So please explain why does this SBT change its trajectory angle by 9.28º after it enters Connally’s back??

It was deflected by Connally's 5th rib. (Just as explained in the WCR on Page 107.)

Why you think this was impossible is beyond me.

Edited July 6, 2018 by David Von Pein

[James R Gordon]

David Von Pein Said:-
It was deflected by Connolly’s 5th rib. ( Just as explained in the WCR on Page 107.)
Why do you think this was impossible is beyond me.

When the bullet struck the 5th rib it was about half way on its journey down Connally’s chest. If the bullet did not change its trajectory until it reached the 5th rib it would never have reached the 5th rib. It would have come out at the top of Connolly’s shoulder in line with the 17.72º trajectory angle. The 27º trajectory angle does not begin at the 5th rib it begins immediately the bullet enters Connolly’s shoulder.

Why do you think this was impossible is beyond me? You have just demonstrated to this entire forum why it is beyond you.

This is the fatal flaw in the SBT. A bullet cannot change its trajectory by 9.28º without an explanation.There is only one explanation why the trajectory angle changed by 9.28º: that shot was taken from a different location.

James