Mark Knight

Good info, Greg.

The article doesn't plow any new ground, but nice to see it in a major magazine.

Now, I haven't seen the drawings of JBC's back wound. But here's a thought regarding vertical vs. horizontal: With Connally in a sitting position, let's say the wound actually WAS a horizontal opening. When Connally was on the table in the ER and the OR, CONNALLY himself was horizontal, and when viewed from a standing position, the wound would appear vertical in relation to the plane of those surgeons standing on the floor of the ER and the OR. So at the time the wound was sutured, it could be described as vertical as well. Later, when examining Connally in a sitting position, the scar would then be horizontal. Yeah, I know that's probably a bit more simplistic an explanation than anyone wants to hear. But perhaps that may be the way Shaw meant his answers. Maybe it's not nearly as convoluted an answer than the one we've been seeking. And maybe what's been argued here is actually no argument at all.

Mr. Mady, I think your four-shot theory is somewhat in line with the late Tom Purvis' deductions from the original Secret Service survey done by Robert West shortly after the assassination. West's initial survey showed a shot prior to Z-210, the second shot was Z-313, and if I recall, the third shot surveyed was around Z-345...when the limo was directly in front of Altgens. Since the SS didn't have West survey in a point for a fourth shot, that's as far as Purvis' suggested maximum number of shots went. If the SS hadn't thought there was a shot as late as Z-345, why would they have had West survey in that point? It was only after the WC got involved that the shot at Z-345 got "erased."

Robert, this forum has a 708 pages as of today, each with a multitude of threads. Believe it or not, you are NOT "plowing new ground" here. The late Tom Purvis based a lot of his theory on what the early surveys by Robert West showed, that the FBI and SS initially believed that shot #1 was prior to Z210, that shot #2 was at Z312, and that shot #3 was around Z345-Z347. Research some of the pages here on this forum. You will learn much about what is and isn't new, and what has and hasn't been discussed in the past.

Thanks for sharing this.

That's a great find, Robert. Raises a lot of questions...especially on the source(s) of the information it contains.

As an auto buff, I know my cars of that era, especially Ramblers. The car behind the man in the light-colored trousers is NOT a Rambler. It appears to be a 1963 Mercury Colony Park station wagon. Whether the man is "the big Indian," Morales, I can't say.

I disagree. I see the possible parallels in the two cases, in the manner John Simkin has suggested.

Could the site be set up to run off member donations and ad revenue? While $1500 a year might be a considerable sum for one or two persons to bear, when divided by a couple hundred members the individual costs would seem QUITE bearable.

I second that.

re: Tom Purvis, he and I had several private but very spirited discussions on conspiracy. While he was at first an "LHO-did-it," three shots and three hits from the SE window of the 6th floor of the TSBD believer, I was able to get him to admit that NO ONE could convincingly place Oswald in THAT window, with THAT rifle, at the moment the assassination occurred. Purvis in turn convinced me that Oswald was CAPABLE of hitting objects with a rifle at 100 yards or less, which made the idea of him being "the" shooter somewhat possible, and therefore a patsy who "could have" done the deed...had he been in that window, etc. Purvis' idea was that the cover-up was a conspiracy, and that there was a conspiracy which put Oswald in place at the TSBD [possibly military intelligence]. So there's where his "conspiracy theory" comes in...in case you didn't understand his position. I hope I'm stating it correctly. And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming...

Mr. Von Pein, as a journalism student I took an advertising course or two in college. So I can see the techniques you're using to "sell" your point of view. Bandwagon/peer pressure, loaded words, emotional words, appeal to authority ["Nine out of ten doctors prefer Camels"], the use of false alternatives, ridicule, and especially repetition. [interesting that most of the same approaches are used in propaganda as well.] Yet you refuse to demonstrate that your belief is possible. A simple demonstration, using a model of the human body, would be sufficient. Mr. Gordon isn't afraid to go that route to make his point. In fact, I'm pretty sure that Mr. Gordon's beliefs have changed over time precisely BECAUSE of what he discovered while using a model of the human body to prove/disprove his beliefs. Based upon my own research of the physiology of the human body, I find Mr. Gordon's work to be extraordinarily illuminating. To fire up the "bandwagon" approach, I would highly recommend that you do some similar research, Mr. Von Pein...and decide for yourself AFTER doing your research. Nine out of ten forum members believe you won't risk your treasured beliefs by exposing them to such an examination.

Back in the day, there were rational arguments that the Earth was flat, and that the sun revolved around the Earth, too. And back in the day, many, many people believed those premises. BUT once more accurate evidence was brought to light, the tide began to turn...and those who actually examined the newer evidence discovered that they might need to reconsider the conclusions that they had held dear for so many, many years. And there were many in those days who clung to their cherished beliefs despite the new, more accurate evidence. SURELY the great thinkers of years gone by COULDN'T have been wrong...SURELY not. But the evidence, upon careful examination, showed that those great thinkers of old were mistaken. A new day has dawned, Mr. Von Pein. Now mere mortals, with the aid of their home computers, can construct three-dimensional models of the human body, with accurately placed skeletal structures and internal organs. Now the man on the street can explore what lies beneath the skin of the human being without the aid of a biology textbook with those clever-but-deceiving overlays. And it's rather eye-opening. While I don't endorse a particular product, this link illustrates how simple it is to find such 3D software: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=3d+human+anatomy+software Enlightenment...it's actually a GOOD thing, because it leads us to the truth.

I won't resort to personal insults when I talk about Mr. Von Pein. But he's apparently a man of tremendous faith...in the Warren Commission. In his mind, it's a matter of "They said it, I believe it, that settles it." Never mind that their "solution" is in conflict with basic human physiology; to Mr. Von Pein, as long as the WC report supports the conclusion, facts [such as human physiology] are immaterial. And apparently statements by his revered experts are "The Gospel," even if they fail the tests of simple human anatomy and physiology. It must be a blessing to have that kind of faith. But to continue the religious tone, I was taught to "Prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good." I would think that human anatomy and physiology would trump ANYONE's statement, because a knowledge of anatomy and physiology--even the bare basics--would fall under the "prove all things" banner...and if the basic structure of the human body proves the statements of "experts" to be wrong, then it would logically make the statements of those "experts" something one would NOT "hold fast." Unless you're Mr. Von Pein. [Wonder if he prays to St. Arlen?]

OK, Mr. Von Pein...since word games is your forte, apparently...allow me this once to turn the tables and play the same game. QUESTION: If it can be PROVEN, by the position of bones, muscles, and organs in the human body, that the SBT cannot possibly have occurred as described by Humes, et al...then isn't it wise to first ACCEPT that the SBT is false, PRIOR to developing alternate scenarios to either prove or disprove? You may answer either "yes" or "no" to the question. Any other answer will be considered another attempt to avoid the question. [i ask this question in this manner precisely because you usually construct "straw-man" alternate scenarios that you can destroy BEFORE considering whether the SBT is possible, from a purely physiological standpoint regarding the bullet traversing JFK's torso. So let's examine THAT SINGULAR ASPECT first. DON'T tell me what Humes said; don't tell me what Bugliosi said; I can read those myself. DEMONSTRATE, from the physiology of the human body, that the SBT is possible, strictly concentrating on the path of the bullet through JFK's torso. If you cannot do that, then what you THINK or BELIEVE the bullet allegedly did afterward is all fluff and nonsense. I think Mr. Gordon has presented a formidable argument. I think that Mr. Prudhomme is hinting that there are questions about the veracity of Humes' testimony, regarding lung bruising vs. lung damage. I think both raise some serious points that you cannot refute by merely citing testimony. Remember...in Dealy Plaza, if testimony was all that was necessary to reconstruct the assassination, the services of a surveyor would never have been involved. What Mr. Gordon is doing is using the physiology of the human body to reconstruct one of the aspects of the assassination...and he's finding that the accepted story is in conflict with the structure of the human body.] So...Mr. Von Pein, is your answer "YES," or is it "NO"?

It appears that Mr. Von Pein's beliefs are somewhat religious; they're apparently based upon faith, and not on whether they can be proven or not. In my high school physics lab, we conducted experiments in order to prove certain concepts to be true. Acceleration of gravity was one, and we proved, within the limits of our equipment, that it truly was approximately 32 feet per second, per second. Mr. Gordon is simply using the physiology of the human body to determine whether the conclusions of the Warren Commission, among others, can be true regarding a single bullet traversing JFK's torso, given the entrance and exit points we have and the internal damage, or lack thereof. Mr. Gordon's conclusion is that the SBT cannot be accepted as fact, based upon the physiology of the human body...which is the same in every human body. Mr. Von Pein's response is that it MUST be true, because these "authorities" say it is true. Even the late Tom Purvis, who believed in the scenario three shots/three hits originating from the southeast corner window of the 6th floor of the TSBD by a single shooter/lone gunman, thought that the SBT was fiction. Purvis believed that the throat wound was an exiting fragment of CE399, from the lead core of the bullet...which he believed was tumbling when it hit JFK in the back. And of course such a fragment was unable to account for the wounds on Connally's body. Even that scenario makes more sense than the SBT. But if nothing else, Mr. Von Pein is a man of faith. "The Warren Commission said it, I believe it, that settles it" seems to be his mantra. My advice to him is to put less faith in the statements of men, and more faith in that which can be proven...and the SBT fails the very first test, that of passing through JFK's torso in a straight line, relatively intact, without inflicting damage to tissues, bone, or organs. And unless it can be proven that the bullet can pass through JFK's torso in the manner described by the doctors and the WC conclusions, then the rest of the allegations of where the bullet went and what it did are moot, for the purposes of this discussion...as Mr. Gordon has stated so well. Mr. Gordon has pretty much proven the WC's conclusion wrong, from a physiological standpoint. Once again, I challenge Mr. Von Pein to prove the WC correct, ALSO using physiological evidence and not merely falling back on rhetorical devices. I will bet that he won't...because he can't.

You really don't understand why I posed the question to you as I did, do you, Mr. Von Pein? [And once again, you avoid answering a question by asking a question.] My point--which you clearly seem to be avoiding--is that the esteemed Commander Humes was explaining someone else's theory [specter's] to a group of people who have a VERY limited understanding of anatomy and physiology. Therefore, simply digging up Humes's [possibly rehearsed?] answers, without trying to prove that his theory actually works, is no less disingenuous than a CT'er repeating Garrison's theories over and over without critically examining them. I once thought you were a researcher; I thought wrong. You merely quote others, as many of the CT'ers do, and apparently investigate NOTHING on your own. That makes you little more than a glorified librarian, or an archivist.You may be a GREAT librarian/archivist/WC advocate, but you're a damn poor researcher. [i, at least, have the decency to call myself a "student" of the assassination, rather than a researcher.] At least the late Tom Purvis sought out the surveyors' plats, and bought his own 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano, for research purposes. OK...now answer my question with another question, please...so you won't disappoint me.

"Do you really think..." is not evidence. You didn't provide any evidence, Mr. Von Pein. Use some 3D--hell, even 2D would be an improvement for you--evidence to explain why Mr. Gordon is wrong.You cite the same old drivel every time. And when you refuse to answer a question, you counter with a question. Now, if you don't allow for the structure of the human body under the skin--that is, if you use a mannequin--you MIGHT get the SBT to work. Except that, by acknowledging what the pathologists noticed...that T1 was nicked at worst, that the lung was bruised but not punctured, and that the "exit" was at or near the center of the throat to have damaged the trachea...you MUST account for the "turn" of the bullet that Mr. Gordon shows MUST have happened if the SBT is true. You haven't done that. I don't think you CAN do that, based upon the evidence...not ONLY the medical testimony in the WC report, but the very construction of the human body. And answering a question with a question isn't evidence. I suggest that the reason you do this is because you're afraid that you might prove your pet theory to be flawed...or, heaven forbid, flat-out wrong. I don't believe in fantasy gunmen firing from 47 different points in Dealy Plaza. I don't believe everything I read, from either the government OR from conspiracy theorists. But I believe that Mr. Gordon's analysis of bullet paths has validity, based upon the condition of T1 and the bruising, but lack of puncture to the lung. I'm asking you something that SHOULD be simple: use actual human physiology to prove Mr. Gordon wrong. Do some study; do some research; find the flaw in Mr. Gordon's work. I've done some preliminary research, and I don't find the flaw...if it exists. "Where did the bullet go?" is NOT research. For the discussion at hand, let's forget the final destination of the bullet/bullets and concentrate on how the bullet traversed JFK's body. Just show me that the path of a single bullet, as told by the SBT, is possible, traversing the torso and creating ONLY that damage acknowledged by the pathologists in the WC report, the Clark Panel, and even the HSCA investigation. Don't TELL me; show me. Mr. Gordon is showing me [and you] how the SBT simply CAN'T be true. Show me how it CAN. Don't tell me what "must've" happened; show me how it happened, using actual human physiology. If you believe Mr. Gordon is wrong, as you obviously do, SHOW us where he is in error. I'm betting that you won't. I'm betting that you can't. If you can prove Mr. Gordon is mistaken, or that his evidence is in error...PROVE IT.

Mr. Von Pein...are you saying that Mr. Gordon's depictions of the parts of the human body beneath the skin are false? If so, please produce evidence that contradicts Mr. Gordon's explanation of what the bullet must do between its entrance to and exit from JFK's body. You can refer to any medical textbook you like. Don't simply ridicule his explanation; demonstrate, with facts, where he is mistaken about the structure of the human body, within the context of the description of the back and neck wounds. Could you please do the MEDICAL research, and then get back to us? [i'm sure you won't invest the time...] Just saying that something "must've" happened doesn't count as evidence...no matter how many times you use that device to "prove" your point. I believe Mr. Gordon's explanation of why the SBT is flawed is much more medically sound than your explanation of why the SBT is true. But what I believe is immaterial, other than the fact that I believe you haven't proven your case as well as Mr. Gordon has.

Even the late Tom Purvis, who was a lone gunman advocate, called the SBT a piece of fantasy. And Tom believed that there were only 3 shots, from the 6th floor of the TSBD. [Tom admitted that the shooter might or might not have been Oswald, but that Oswald was capable of making those shots, in a 7-8 second timeframe rather than the 5.6 seconds the WC allowed.] Mr. Von Pein is operating from the conclusion that the SBT is "fact," and then examining which evidence to keep and which to discard based upon the conclusion. The rest of us are examining the facts, and then drawing conclusions based upon our interpretation of those facts. Which way is based upon science?

Reading through this thread and especially the part regarding George HW Bush's whereabouts/alibi on November 22, one name jumped out at me: Wendell Cherry. Is this the Wendell Cherry, who in 1963 was a lawyer/law professor at the University of Louisville, and who in 1961 was a partner with David Jones in a business then called Extendicare...which later became insurance giant Humana? In 1963, this Wendell Cherry would have been 28 years old. But at the time, all his teaching and business concerns were located primarily in Kentucky. If it's the same Wendell Cherry...what [allegedly] brought him to Tyler, Texas that day?

I hadn't heard. Sorry to hear the news. Whether you agreed with Tom's conclusions or not, I have to say that the man did his research. How many others do you know who actually went out and purchased a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5mm rifle and actually used it, when trying to prove/disprove his theories? I have to respect that level of dedication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Grapp http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/latimes/obituary.aspx?pid=154533094