The Magic Bullet Theory

[Cliff Varnell]

But it's nevertheless informative to know that something as obvious as a fake drawn-in foot could be shown to millions of people and be accepted by millions of people, and only now 42 + years later be revealed as a fake.

Point taken. And very well-stated, Pat. I agree with you on this point. Sorry if I got testy before.

By the way, I agree with you on something. The wound in the autopsy photo is 14cm from the mastoid. On the back. This proves that Humes lied when he said the Rydberg drawing depicting the wound at the base of Kennedy's neck was created with the help of the measurements. Mr. DVP, why do you think he lied?

I don't think he was "lying", Pat. The phrase "with the help of the measurements" is still rather non-exacting...and doesn't prove much of anything one way or another. And the Rydberg drawing is certainly non-exacting (in that it's NOT REALLY THE VICTIM IN THE DRAWING).

Those damn drawings have caused way more harm than good, IMO. They should have never been created. They've just caused confusion and (like most everything else) have merely given the CTers something else to latch onto.

It's also interesting to note that many CTers seemingly can't make up their minds as to WHAT Dr. Humes was. He's lying one minute; and yet the next minute he's saying stuff that via a conspiracy & "cover-up" operation he would have probably been very smart to keep his yap shut about (e.g., burning stuff in fireplaces and probing wounds that have no apparent exits and that have "45 to 60-degree" downward angles to them).

That stuff can't be good for the overall "plot", can it?

So why did he ever say these things?

Either Humes is a xxxx or he isn't. Which do you want to pick?

Or would some CTers rather just be wishy-washy about this and have Dr. Humes swing both ways?

It's an interesting "double standard", if you ask me.

First of all, Humes was a military man acting under orders.

Secondly, it was Humes who swung both ways on the location of the back wound,

after all.

The Final Autopsy Report describes a wound in two different locations:

"upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula,"

consistent with T2; and "14cm below the mastoid process," consistent with C7.

The Autopsy face sheet also records two wound locations -- the dot properly

recorded in pencil and signed off as "verified" by Adm Burkley shows a wound

at T3 or lower, and then the same "14cm from the mastoid" measurements

recorded in pen.

Two official medical documents, both "officially" recording different locations.

The Fox 5 autopsy photo is in even worse shape as a piece of evidence,

especially since Saundra Kay Spencer broke the chain of possession

with her ARRB testimony (see recent thread on this Forum.)

Although the HSCA concluded the wound was located at C7/T1, Vol. 7 of

the HSCA findings dismiss Fox 5 as "difficult or impossible" to use for the

purpose of locating the wound.

There isn't a single piece of uncompromised evidence for this silly "back-wound-

at-the-back-of-the-neck" fantasy of Bugliosi & Co.

[Antti Hynonen]

See the difference?

[David G. Healy]

Humes was a military man acting under orders.

I guess that was Order No. 1122.5-B, which ordered Humes to tell SOME lies and SOME truths (when he probably should have also been lying) during his testimony. That's logical (for the CT-Kook Brigade, that is).

And, naturally, nobody's "conscience" could ever overtake those proverbial "military orders" no matter what, right? Humes, etc., were nothing but walking, talking military pawns, doing whatever their "Master" says. Right?

Why doesn't anyone (besides LN advocates) use common sense when evaluating this murder case? This especially applies to the throat wound to JFK, which nobody in Washington even knew existed until 11/23.

I guess maybe they should have just pretended that that wound didn't exist at all....that way Humes wouldn't have needed his fireplace.

Thank goodness 2,100 pages of common sense re. this case shall arrive soon.

Of course, we do already have some CS&L re. the ballistics end of the case from Mr. Sturdivan, via his recent book. Mr. Bugliosi will only build (greatly) on that, however.

One example of a top-notch piece of common sense being exhibited by Larry Sturdivan is this:

"The totality of reliable physical evidence, supported by eyewitness accounts of his doing what the physical evidence shows he did, makes the case against Lee Harvey Oswald an open and shut case. He murdered John Kennedy and Officer Tippit and gravely wounded John Connally. The {Mark} Lane myth of 'Oswald as Patsy' and all similar conspiracy myths merit no serious consideration." -- Larry M. Sturdivan; "The JFK Myths" (c.2005); Page #246

David Von Pein is the only person in America that feels Vin Bugliosi's book is forthcoming sometime this millenia. David Von Pein apparently knows more than Vince's publisher... A 2,000 page, buffed up, alternate WCR

[Antti Hynonen]

To help Mr. Von Pein compare the point I made earlier (Gosh, he has a hard time understanding!). Here's the photo with my measurements from earlier.

This clearly shows my 14 cm marking from the mastoid process is in the same spot as in Mr. Rydberg's drawing. The photographic evidence changes everything and shows the bullet entry at some 20cm from the right mastoid process. This evidence suggests (considering the angle of the bullet) an exit wound in the upper part of the chest. Definitely not just below the Adam's apple, where the tracheotomy was performed.

Conclusion: Tampering of evidence to conceal the conspiracy and a frontal shot!

David R. Von Pein Posted Today, 07:20 AM

Very, very little. Not enough to make me scream "Cover Up". It's a freakin' DRAWING for Pete sake! And, like Boswell's famous "dot", it's not exactly perfect. So what?

"So what?" You say...

You're missing the whole point! If the bullet entry is indeed where it is on the photo, it will not exit where Humes, Boswell and Finck claimed it did. Sorry.

[Pat Speer]

Either Humes is a xxxx or he isn't. Which do you want to pick?

Or would some CTers rather just be wishy-washy about this and have Dr. Humes swing both ways?

It's an interesting "double standard", if you ask me.

In my presentation I demonstrate several Humes "untruths." I believe all of these "untruths" were told under pressure from the Government. While many like to blame the military, the reality is that the so-called "Justice" Department seems far more guilty of mischief re the autopsy evidence than the military.

Humes told two blatant "untruths" which come to mind.

1. He told the Warren Commission the Rydbery drawings were made using the measurements. Specter himself knew this was false but said nothing...

2. He told CBS News in 1967 that the autopsy photos confirmed the wound location in the Rydberg drawings. Humes was given talking points from the Justice Department before this interview, which told this exact "untruth." Consequently, it seems likely Humes told this lie under pressure.

The irony, of course, is that he told the truth 'bout most everything else, only no one would believe him. If you look at my presentation in the "Solving the Great Head Wound Mystery" section you'll see that Humes was right all along about the entrance location on the back of Kennedy's head. If you go to the "Re-inspection of the X-rays" section you'll see that Humes was also correct about the supposedly 6.5 mm fragment. The X-rays show this fragment to be behind Kennedy's right eye, exactly where Humes discovered it.

[Antti Hynonen]

David R. Von Pein Posted Today, 08:03 AM

QUOTE

...shows the bullet entry at some 20cm from the right mastoid process.

Bull. It shows no such "20cm" distance.

Sorry, but I'll stick with what the OFFICIAL AUTOPSY REPORT and Face Sheet say re. the distance, since there's no good enough reason to doubt those two documents at all. (Or to doubt the word of all of the autopsy doctors, who testified to the 14cm measurement.)

You may believe in what you wish. Meanwhile I will rely on the findings in the measurements and facts presented above. Everything "official" isn't always the truth, unfortunately, also fiction in this case. Do you believe in everything "official" even if it is wrong?

I fear the Australian documentary was pretty accurate with their shot and angle in their simulation, as the bullet exited some 2-3 inches lower than JFK's trach wound. This is further proof of the obfuscation in the autopsy report. Furthermore had their bullet hit the same number of bones and tissue the condition of CE399 would also be cleared as total BS. In fact their experiment only strenghthens my opinion regarding a frontal neck wound, and utter falsification of the autopsy report.

David R. Von Pein Posted Today, 08:03 AM

QUOTE

...shows the bullet entry at some 20cm from the right mastoid process.

Bull. It shows no such "20cm" distance. You've invented that number from whole cloth and you know it. Plus, you can't use your OWN Mastoid measurement on YOUR body as the definitive guide. It can only be a very loose, general guide (unless you are built exactly like JFK in these respective bodily areas).

Sorry, but I'll stick with what the OFFICIAL AUTOPSY REPORT and Face Sheet say re. the distance, since there's no good enough reason to doubt those two documents at all. (Or to doubt the word of all of the autopsy doctors, who testified to the 14cm measurement.)

Oh, so now my body is so different from JFK's that my measurements are completely false. I'm sorry Mr. Von Pein, your arguments become weaker and weaker by the dozen.... Let's stick to the facts shall we?

Somehow my body measurements arrived at the same point with Mr. Rydbergs drawing. Must be pure coincidence! No doubt Rydberg was instructed to draw an entry wound at 14 cm below the right mastoid process. The 14 cm is convenient, because it will allow for an exit at the tracheotomy point.... (with the appropriate angle of decent) whereas the 20cm entry does not quite fit!

[Antti Hynonen]

David R. Von Pein Posted Today, 08:55 AM

QUOTE

Meanwhile I will rely on the findings in the measurements and facts presented above.

Funny, isn't it, though, how a "5.5-inch (14 cm.) Mastoid" measurement on MY body equates just nicely to the upper-back locality in the autopsy photo? How do you account for that? Or do you think I'm a xxxx too? (Sorry, I can't supply a pic.) BTW, did you measure from the "tip" (i.e., BOTTOM TIP) of your Mastoid when you did your self-measurement? Just curious. (No sarcasm intended...that time.)

QUOTE

Do you believe in everything "official" even if it is wrong?

No, I don't. For one example, I don't believe that Rydberg drawing is 100% correct (which is in the OFFICIAL record). Does that count?

QUOTE

I fear the Australian documentary was pretty accurate with their shot and angle in their simulation, as the bullet exited some 2-3 inches lower than JFK's trach wound.

But, however, it just so happens that the Australian test bullet managed to strike the Connally mock torso in just about the same areas where JBC was really hit in '63 (far-right back; rib(s); chest; simulated wrist; and simulated thigh).

And it did all of that AFTER HAVING PASSED THROUGH A MOCK KENNEDY BODY FIRST.

To me, that's a pretty funny coincidence IF the SBT is nothing but a crock of crap.

Don't you think that's at ALL "coincidental", that the JBC body was wounded in virtually the same places as JBC after the bullet definitely travelled completely through a JFK mock-up (even allowing for a plus/minus of exactitude re. the entry/exit points)?

And let me ask this (brought up by another JFK researcher recently) --- How many murder cases do you know of where the crime had to be completely re-created to the Nth degree in order to verify the plausibility/possibility of a certain shooting scenario?

Has there EVER been a case where an EXACT RE-CREATION (to the inch) of the crime was necessary to convict a defendant?

Would a prosecutor EVER get a conviction if this type of "To The Nth Degree" exact re-creation (which, naturally, is absolutely impossible to accomplish and everybody knows it) were required in every murder case?

I wonder.

Haven't you?

Meanwhile I will rely on the findings in the measurements and facts presented above.

Funny, isn't it, though, how a "5.5-inch (14 cm.) Mastoid" measurement on MY body equates just nicely to the upper-back locality in the autopsy photo? How do you account for that? Or do you think I'm a xxxx too? (Sorry, I can't supply a pic.) BTW, did you measure from the "tip" (i.e., BOTTOM TIP) of your Mastoid when you did your self-measurement? Just curious. (No sarcasm intended...that time.)

I was able to achieve the same point as you with the 14cm but only by tilting my head back (this hardly was the idea!)

QUOTE

Do you believe in everything "official" even if it is wrong?

No, I don't. For one example, I don't believe that Rydberg drawing is 100% correct (which is in the OFFICIAL record). Does that count?

From your earlier post it sure seemed like you were willing to "swallow" everything official, therfore the question.

But, however, it just so happens that the Australian test bullet managed to strike the Connally mock torso in just about the same areas where JBC was really hit in '63 (far-right back; rib(s); chest; simulated wrist; and simulated thigh).

But it didn't. (Fact)

To me, that's a pretty funny coincidence IF the SBT is nothing but a crock of crap.

You got that part right skipper!

Don't you think that's at ALL "coincidental", that the JBC body was wounded in virtually the same places as JBC after the bullet definitely travelled completely through a JFK mock-up (even allowing for a plus/minus of exactitude re. the entry/exit points)?

We have discussed the shortcomings of this experiment in some earlier posts. My view is that the re-creation was only 50% successful - since, despite the teams efforts, the path of the bullet was different from the actual and it did not penetrate the same bones and tissues as in the actual event. Furthermore the JFK exit wound was in a different location (proving once again the SBT impossibility) etc. etc.

And let me ask this (brought up by another JFK researcher recently) --- How many murder cases do you know of where the crime had to be completely re-created to the Nth degree in order to verify the plausibility/possibility of a certain shooting scenario?

Has there EVER been a case where an EXACT RE-CREATION (to the inch) of the crime was necessary to convict a defendant?

This is a good question (must be from someone rather intelligent). I can not say, for I haven't studied other murders nor do I have any official training or experience as a homicide investigator. I would assume that a fairly high degree of accuracy is needed (in order for "beyond a reasonable doubt" to occur). After all in murder cases the perpetrator will face the death penalty, correct? I think it would be common courtesy to get the evidence straight before excecuting someone, no?

Would a prosecutor EVER get a conviction if this type of "To The Nth Degree" exact re-creation (which, naturally, is absolutely impossible to accomplish and everybody knows it) were required in every murder case?

First off, if you say: "which, naturally, is absolutely impossible to accomplish and everybody knows it", so why do you ask?

I can now see how the Warren Commission members were thinking. They had to make the evidence prove that Lee harvey Oswald was the only guilty party, even by taking liberties such as tampering with the evidence.

See Mr. Ford's involvement in altering the location of the back wound....

Edited July 21, 2006 by Antti Hynonen

[Antti Hynonen]

David R. Von Pein Posted Today, 09:50 AM

QUOTE

First off, if you say: "which, naturally, is absolutely impossible to accomplish and everybody knows it", why do you ask?

Just for effect (and the fact that it's true as well).

There's not a chance in hell of ever re-creating the SBT with the exactitude CTers require (even though the SBT is the correct shooting scenario, based on the totality of the evidence). It's like trying to place toothpaste back into its tube.

Don't the two autopsy pics I provided side-by-side tell you anything about the positioning of the two JFK wounds in question -- wounds that RCTers say couldn't in a thousand years line up to make the SBT even remotely possible? (Plus, don't those pics tell any reasonable person gazing at them that the back wound was positively HIGHER than the neck wound....regardless of the HSCA Report you'll be citing next?)

Let's look again, OK? .......

OK, looks like the bullet, representing the line you drew, would hit bone on it's path. It doesn't seem quite right, sorry. If you recall Kennedy's position when he was hit, sitting leaning slightly forward, nope I think your angle is wrong and the location in the back is off.

Please comment on the "confession" by former President and WC member Gerald Ford. Can you explain why he directed the Commission to claim the back entry wound to be higher than what it was in fact. (My post above).

[Pat Speer]

First off, if you say: "which, naturally, is absolutely impossible to accomplish and everybody knows it", why do you ask?

Just for effect (and the fact that it's true as well).

There's not a chance in hell of ever re-creating the SBT with the exactitude CTers require (even though the SBT is the correct shooting scenario, based on the totality of the evidence). It's like trying to place toothpaste back into its tube.

Don't the two autopsy pics I provided side-by-side tell you anything about the positioning of the two JFK wounds in question -- wounds that RCTers say couldn't in a thousand years line up to make the SBT even remotely possible? (Plus, don't those pics tell any reasonable person gazing at them that the back wound was positively HIGHER than the neck wound....regardless of the HSCA Report you'll be citing next?)

Let's look again, OK? .......

DVP, in the single-bullet theory section of my presentation, on the "Hunchback Analysis" and "Artwohl Analysis" slides, I show how those photos have been mis-matched for decades, starting with the Clark Panel. The "back wound was not above the throat wound. This is a LN MYTH. On an upright body, the back wound was at approximately the level of T1. On an upright body, the throat wound was at approximately the level of T1, possibly a bit higher. The forensic pathology panel confirmed that the back wound was below the throat wound. When Baden testified, he had Kennedy's clothing on a mannequin. The entrance on the back of Kennedy's clothes was lower than the supposed nick on his tie.

If Kennedy was leaning dramatically forward, or to the left, so that his back was lifted a bit against the location of his throat, then maybe the SBT trajectory could still be made to work. But the Zapruder film fails to demonstrate Kennedy achieving such a position.

[Antti Hynonen]

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/sibert.htm

The information gathered onto the (Wim Dankbaar) site above shows the holes in the Presidents clothing and the article regarding fmr. President Ford's actions regarding the back wound among other things.

I think it is very dishonest to alter evidence in that manner. If the evidence were self explanatory, supportive of a single assassin, there would be no need to alter anything. I have questioned and will continue questioning the motives of the WC!

David R. Von Pein Posted Today, 10:12 AM

But, can I get you to at least concede that the back wound in that photo is positively HIGHER than the throat wound?

No. The back wound and the throat wound were at best at the same level. Add to this the downward angle of the bullet and you have an "impossible bullet theory" a la Arlen Specter. I'm afraid Pat Speer is right about the wounds.

The picture you posted contains an arbitrary line drawn to help promote a fantasy. The key problem remains: a bullet on a downward path, on a left to right trajectory, will not become a bullet on an upward right to left trajectory or anything else of the sort. It defies all logic.

Edited July 21, 2006 by Antti Hynonen

[Antti Hynonen]

David R. Von Pein Posted Today, 10:39 AM

QUOTE

No. The back wound and the throat wound were at best at the same level.

You are then forced to conclude that one or both of the photos I posted previously is/are "faked", correct? Because there is no denying what your own EYES are gazing upon -- that back wound (via that photo) is higher than the throat wound. Without a doubt. Saying it's not is disingenuousness on anyone's part, IMO.

Wrong. This is what you say. Not I.

I believe the photos are real, I have no reason to believe otherwise. However, if the body were more upright, the scenario would show that at a descending angle of 15 degrees (starting from the back wound IN THE NECK! as drawn by Rydberg and as altered by Ford et al), would indeed support the exit location in the trach area.

However, the actual wound, as portrayed in the autopsy photos, is some 2 inches lower in reality. This automatically results in an exit wound (had the bullet penetrated through the body) 2 inches lower as well.

[Antti Hynonen]

David R. Von Pein Posted Today, 10:55 AM

QUOTE

I believe the photos are real, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

So it's your own EYES that are apparently the liars here -- because there can be NO DOUBT that this back wound is higher (by INCHES) than the throat wound (even IF the back-wound photo DOES show a slightly-"tilted" Jack Kennedy).

Better replace those eyes, Antti. The ones you've got are deceiving you...big-time.

Ok, good luck to you sir. I hope your research leads you to where ever you desire to go.

[Bill Miller]

If you recall Kennedy's position when he was hit, sitting leaning slightly forward...

Nobody can prove he was "leaning slightly forward" (despite Dr. Baden's remarks). JFK was hidden completely from view by the road sign when he was struck by CE399 at Z223-Z224.

David, you have just acknowledged that Connally was hit by a bullet between Z223 and Z224 ... Connally's wrist was to the right and above his chest wound exit at that moment in time, thus the SBT cannot be true. I know this because I have posted lightened overlays during that film sequence that show the Governor's wrist and white cuff location as he was hit.

Bill Miller

Ok, good luck to you sir. I hope your research leads you to where ever you desire to go.

You will find that David doesn't research anything - he trolls.

[Antti Hynonen]

David R. Von Pein Posted Today, 11:15 AM

Check my edit above re. the wound levels, Antti ... before you bid me a permanent goodbye. Thanks.

David R. Von Pein Posted Today, 10:55 AM

Tell me where I'm wrong in this basic analysis re. these two photos.

Ok, if you so wish. However, I already mentioned the general flaws regarding this scenario in my earlier posts regarding the position of the body and the line drawn.

You may be satisfied with the line drawn in the photo on the left, I am not. At quick glance it does look like your theory would be sound. Deeper analysis of it shows it has some shortcomings.

I do not wish to repeat the same issues covered earlier. I still maintain that the (alleged) entry wound and the (alleged) exit wounds were roughly at the same level (horizontally). In fact, it could be that the entry wound was lower than the exit, which implies that your claims and the SBT are wrong.

For a better demonstration, I recommend using a similar demo as I did of myself earlier (however, having someone sitting would be even better). This will show that the entry and exit wounds are relatively close in horizontal position, too close to allow for a 15 degree or more, downward angle. At this time I am unable to perform a similar demonstration. Perhaps in the near future I can, however.

Using similar techniques as presented by you, is how the WC was able to convince many of its critics. I think it is time to take a fresh look and bring to light the flaws in their theories.

Drawing lines on photos to make a point is a rather vague way of going about making a point. At best the results can be conflicting. Again, I doubt it would suffice in a court of law as evidence. The key problems with using photos this way are with obtaining proper perspective, angles and positioning of the body and so forth.

[Bill Miller]

I know about your "wrist too high" theory from our Lancer days. And there's no way you can prove that wrist is NOT in a position needed for the SBT to work. You're straining to find ANY little thing to debunk the doability of the ONLY theory that makes the MOST SENSE, the SBT.

Your "wrist" and "cuff" are NOT in view at Z223, which debunks your debunking right there. I've checked your gifs and seen the wrist fall below the level of the window at Z223.

Oh really ... there is 1/18th of a second between those two frames and the white of the shirt cuff can be seen in both, not to mention the skin tone of Connally's hand through the side glass. Is there something else that could account for the white area in Z223 against the cuff in Z224 ... such as there was a white lab rat in the car that somehow got into the picture (Z223) just where the cuff shows up in Z224?

Care to debunk that "official" opinion of the doctors?

Which doctor ... the one who pointed out that there was still more lead in the Governor's wrist than what was ever missing from CE399?

Bill Miller

Edited July 21, 2006 by Bill Miller