David Von Pein

No CTer can prove that Bullet CE399 did not transit JFK's body, and you know it. Based on the six items I discussed earlier, there is every reason to believe a bullet went clear through John Kennedy's body in Dealey Plaza. From the Z-Film, to the 5/24/64 re-creation done by the WC, to CE903, to the autopsy report, to the testimony of the three autopsists, to the total lack of any bullets in JFK's body, to the WC's conclusions, to the HSCA's conclusions, to Dale Myers' exacting SBT study and computer simulation, to the FAA simulation, and to the 2004 SBT re-creation done in Australia by the Discovery Channel. EVERY single thing, in total, corroborates the idea that one bullet (CE399) went through both Kennedy and Connally. CTers here say it was impossible. Too much skeletal structure in the way. I contend your analysis is inaccurate and the bullet just BARELY missed several structures in the President's body, coming within a whisker of hitting the lung and the T1 vertebra, but not striking them. And the autopsy doctors--who had THEIR HANDS ON THE PRESIDENT on Nov. 22--agree with that assessment. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/jfk-beyond-magic-bullet.html

So where, then, does YOUR make-believe bullet exit JFK's body, Bob? "I think it is quite possible for the bullet to have gone through JFK's upper chest without hitting any bones." -- R. Prudhomme; 6/1/2014 Are you going to just PRETEND there was another hole somewhere on JFK's body for that bullet to exit? And from this comment, Bob is implying that the Secret Service (and others?) spirited the limo away from Dallas in order to hide critical evidence. And he's implying that a bullet somehow exited a bullet hole in Kennedy that never existed, of course, and plunged into the limo, where it was deep-sixed by the evil Government. On May 27, Pat Speer was talking about the LNers' "imaginary creations". And now, five days later, it's another exciting episode of "Pot Meets Kettle".

Why couldn't the bullet have passed slightly to the RIGHT of the T1 fracture (vs. having to pass OVER or UNDER it)? Also: Is Dr. Baden lying his ass off here? ----> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0102a.htm

You're dodging as many logical questions as you say I am, Bob. (See my last post for verification of that fact.)

Bob, Are you disputing where the two wounds in question are located in JFK's throat and upper back? Do you think the autopsy pictures showing the wounds are fakes? Just wondering. Also: Can you explain how a bullet that has stopped all or nearly all of its forward motion through Kennedy's body could do the damage that we've been discussing (i.e., the bruises and the "shock wave" type of fracture to T1)? How would EITHER injury be possible via the cockeyed conspiracy scenario that has TWO bullets entering JFK's body and then just stopping dead? You did say earlier that you CAN envision a single bullet passing through Kennedy's body, which would indicate (I would assume) that you must be disputing the actual physical LOCATION of BOTH the wound in the upper back and in the throat. Right? So, there were really two DIFFERENT bullet holes in JFK's body to allow for YOUR kind of passage of a bullet through the body, but the autopsy pictures are showing wounds in places that you're saying cannot line up for an SBT to work? Is that about it in a nutshell? Or is your theory something else?

Only my first, Bobby? I'm surprised you're letting me off so easy. Because I would have thought you considered all of my posts to be one great-big "mistake". But I guess not. I'd say it's more in line with just exactly what I said twice previously in this thread.... Everything is always close but never quite close enough for conspiracy theorists. Common sense ALONE dictates that the fracture (but not the breaking into pieces) of the T1 vertebra had to have been caused by a high-speed projectile. A bullet that's just about SPENT (i.e., STOPPED) inside Kennedy's neck isn't going to cause such a "shock wave" to damage the vertebra. Correct? Ergo, a HIGH-SPEED PASSING MISSILE is what must have caused that slight T1 fracture. Just as that same high-speed passing missile is what must have caused the bruises on top of the lung and pleura. How could any SPENT bullet or bullets account for such "shock wave" type of damage OR the bruises that were found inside JFK's neck? And since we all know exactly WHERE on Kennedy's body that high-speed missile entered his body (via the autopsy photos and the Boswell face sheet and the autopsy report too), your conclusion about the path of the bullet must be in error -- because T1 WAS fractured slightly and we KNOW where that bullet entered---14 cm. below the right mastoid process.

Well, Bob, there WAS a fracture of the first thoracic vertebra. In an earlier post, I quoted from Vincent Bugliosi's book regarding this fracture. I'll repeat that quote below.... "The autopsy finding as to the track of the bullet that entered the president’s back was buttressed by the HSCA forensic pathology panel’s 1978 examination of the X-rays taken during the autopsy. The panel agreed, based largely on consultation with four radiologists, that X-rays of the president’s neck and chest showed evidence of air and gas shadows in the right side of the neck (likely a result of air seeping into the bullet track after the tracheotomy incision was made), as well as a fracture of the right transverse process (a bony knob protrusion) of the first thoracic vertebra, located at the base of the neck (1 HSCA 199; JFK Exhibit F-32, 1 HSCA 202–203; JFK Exhibit F-33, 1 HSCA 206; JFK Exhibit F-34, 1 HSCA 211). The panel concluded that the fracture of the first thoracic vertebra could have been caused by the bullet striking it directly or by the force of the bullet passing very near to it, and the majority of the panel concluded that the bullet did not strike the vertebral bone (1 HSCA 305, 317). Dr. Baden testified that the X-rays showed “no evidence of any metal or bone . . . fragments in the neck area” (1 HSCA 305)." -- Excerpt from "Reclaiming History" by Vincent T. Bugliosi (c.2007) [End quote.] Therefore, we have the single bullet coming so close to T1 that it actually results in a "fracture" of T1, however the bullet itself did not directly strike the vertebra (per the HSCA). Do you, Robert P., think you can fine-tune the path of the single bullet even MORE closely, so that you're confident enough to say that CE399 would have had to do MORE damage to T1 (or some other vertebra), even though the quote I just re-posted above verifies that T1 WAS "fractured", but by the PASSAGE of the bullet coming so close to the vertebra? Sounds to me like a bullet CAN (and DID) pass through the President's upper body AND produce a slight bit of vertebra damage (just as you seem to think would need to have occurred if the SBT is accurate), but yet still not impede the forward progress of the bullet. Or isn't the slight fracture of T1 (based on the mere PASSAGE of the missile) nearly good enough for you, Robert Prudhomme? Or should I chalk this one up as yet another time when the conspiracy theorists think something is CLOSE, BUT NOT QUITE CLOSE ENOUGH?

Mark, You should send some of that anatomy software to Dr. Wecht too. He needs it as much as I do--and he's on your side of the fence in believing the SBT is a crock of feces. And yet he still thinks a bullet DID go through JFK's body--and it went through the two known and documented bullet holes we see in the autopsy photographs. It's amazing how many totally blind "faith-based" people there are in the world of the JFK debate, isn't it Mark? Even Dr. Cyril Wecht is among that group it would seem.

Mark Knight speaks as if I am the *ONLY* person in the world who believes in the SBT, even though virtually every "LNer" to be found on the planet, plus the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations, thinks the SBT is true (save Mark Fuhrman). The SBT isn't some off-the-wall theory that I scraped up by myself one day last week. It's been here and believed by MANY people since 1964. If you choose to sidestep the logic that I've presented in my posts in this thread, Mark, you are, of course, free to sidestep all you want. But my arguments are rational ones nonetheless (even with the great Jim Gordon's analysis staring me in the face).

My, how original, Bob. First, the "Von Pain" remark. Now, the "Happy Meal". When's recess in your kindergarten class?

CTers love that word--"Impossible". (Even more than they love the "Close but not quite close enough" argument.) But only a fool would TOTALLY IGNORE what BOTH official investigations concluded regarding the SBT. And only a person with no ability at all to properly evaluate the Zapruder Film could possibly believe that Kennedy and Connally are NOT reacting at the very same time here:

Here again we are confronted with a situation where a conspiracy theorist can get SO CLOSE to accepting the official version of some part of the JFK investigation, but that CTer just can't quite allow himself to accept the EXACT official version. In this instance, we know we've got three bullet holes in two men that generally line themselves up pretty well to permit the passage of one bullet through those three holes -- Kennedy's back wound, Kennedy's throat wound, and Connally's back wound. But the CTers don't think it's quite GOOD ENOUGH. They'd rather change the locations just a WEE bit; or change the trajectory just a TAD bit, like Cyril Wecht does when he says that his "analysis" has led him to believe the sniper wounded JFK in the upper back from a SECOND-floor window of the Book Depository, rather than the sixth floor (which is the only verified location for ANY assassin throughout Dealey Plaza). So, there again, Wecht can't QUITE bring himself to accept the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper causing the damage to Kennedy's neck and back, so he conveniently moves the assassin to a place where there is NO evidence a sniper was ever situated. And this "CLOSE BUT NO CIGAR" tactic employed by conspiracy theorists manifests itself in other ways in the JFK and Tippit murders too (which is something I credit an LNer named Bud at the aaj forum for bringing up, and it's a good point too), e.g.: The CTers say that Oswald couldn't quite make it from the sixth floor down to the second floor in time for his encounter with Marrion Baker. CLOSE, but not CLOSE ENOUGH, it would seem, per CTers. Oswald couldn't quite make it to Tenth Street to kill Tippit. Again, CLOSE, but just a very few minutes off, per CTers. Oswald didn't have enough time to fire his three shots. CLOSE, but no cigar. He would have needed just a LITTLE BIT more time to do it. And, per the Italians in 2007, it would have taken Oswald NINETEEN seconds to get off the three shots. (The people doing the tests must have been 110 years old.) And then we've got CTers like Bob Harris who DO accept the notion of ONE bullet going clean through both Kennedy and Connally...but Harris has decided (with no evidence to back him up whatsoever) that the gunman who fired the SBT shot did so from another building entirely. The sniper wasn't even in the Depository, per Harris. "So close....and yet not quite close enough." The above is a CTer motto.

All I know, James, is that we've got two competing theories at play here, and one of them must be correct: One is the SBT. And one is a theory which has TWO separate bullets going into JFK's body, not exiting, and causing very little damage to the internal parts of Kennedy's body. (And that 2-bullets theory is, of course, one that you refuse to talk about, but it MUST be a theory that you surely DO endorse at the end of the day, correct? Because you don't think just ONE bullet could successfully navigate JFK's upper back and emerge from the throat.) Given these options (and despite James' analysis of what Bullet CE399 would have no choice in hitting if the SBT is correct), and coupled with so many OTHER factors, I place my support in the Single-Bullet Theory. Among those "other factors" are --- The Zapruder Film; Connally being wounded in the UPPER BACK too; The bullet going into Connally at an ANGLE; The total lack of any bullets to explain these wounds other than CE399; The fact that the two victims are generally lined up in a straight line to accept one bullet from the viewpoint of the ONLY KNOWN LOCATION FOR AN ASSASSIN in Dealey Plaza at the precise point in time when the two men WERE struck by rifle fire (per the Z-Film analysis); The WC's and HSCA's conclusions of CE399 being the bullet that traversed both JFK & JBC. The above list of things provides a combination of facts and circumstances that, in my opinion, CORROBORATE the single-bullet hypothesis, and at the same time that combination of facts and factors makes ANY other hypothesis virtually impossible to accept or believe. You disagree. Well, so be it. In short, I am forced to believe that somewhere along the line, your analysis that has led to your conclusion that one bullet could not possibly have travelled clear through President Kennedy's upper back and neck HAS to be flawed. Ten-four. That's fine by me. Good luck in proving your anti-SBT theory, James. Did you contact Dr. Wecht yet? Here again is his contact info.... http://www.cyrilwecht.com/services.php Adios.

BTW, the Humes' quote I used previously is not from Humes' JAMA interview. It's from Humes' 1996 ARRB testimony.... http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humesa.htm

James, You can show me all the charts you want to, but YOU are the one who who no choice but to try and wiggle your way out of all six of the following things that make the Single-Bullet Theory (by far!) the most reasonable conclusion to explain the double-man wounding of JFK & JBC.... 1.) The positioning of the two victims in the Presidential limousine (one in front of the other) as they appeared to the assassin in the sixth-floor window of the Book Depository during the period of time when both President Kennedy and Governor Connally are first hit by the gunfire. (This very important fact of the victims being situated ONE IN FRONT OF THE OTHER from the POV of the sixth-floor assassin is invariably downplayed or ignored altogether by most conspiracy advocates.) 2.) The fact that EACH victim was struck in THEIR RESPECTIVE UPPER BACKS by a bullet on 11/22/63. 3.) The fact that Kennedy also happened to have a bullet hole in his lower throat too. 4.) The complete lack of any bullets in JFK's neck and upper back. 5.) The Zapruder Film shows the two men being hit at the same time: 6.) And there is the oft-overlooked fact that it was the AUTOPSY doctors who really got the SBT rolling....for it was THOSE guys who declared that the bullet that entered JFK's upper back MUST have "made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck". ALSO SEE: Where Is The Logical Alternative To The Single-Bullet Theory? The SBT Perfection Of Commission Exhibit No. 903

Silly, Pat (as usual). The autopsy photo trumps Humes' "low near the EOP" bullet entry hole in the head. You know that as well as I do, Pat. Why? Because you have EYES too. (Don't you?) Humes (or somebody at the autopsy) was dumb for not specifically measuring the distance north of the EOP for the head entry wound. If that measurement had been provided, there would be no controversy at all (except any that might be manufactured by the conspiracy theorists, of course). And there's no escape hatch for the CTers regarding these determinations made during the autopsy: "The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body." There's a whole lot of detailed data in the above paragraph that the CTers are forced to think is 100% wrong (or merely LIES spouted by the evil autopsy surgeons) if theories like the one proposed by James R. Gordon are to be accepted as fact. E.G., "The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea..." --- Not NEARLY correct. MUCH more damage was clearly done by that bullet (or bullets) (per CTers). "...and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck." --- A bald-faced lie (per CTers). "As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body." --- Another blatant falsehood (per CTers). That's a lot of lying (and/or utter incompetence beyond belief), don't you think Pat? But keep ignoring that autopsy report, guys. After all, it's only THE OFFICIAL AUTOPSY REPORT. That's all. It's only worthy of being set on fire, right? (And Pat Speer calls ME "silly". Hilarious.) ------------ ADDENDUM (VIA A FACEBOOK GROUP I BELONG TO): GLENN VIKLUND SAID: David, still, you would have to agree that the conclusion to place the entrance several inches lower than apparently was correct - is nothing but, well - hilarious? I don't know what to make of such a mistake. How do you explain this David? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I can't explain it, Glenn. It's nothing short of incompetence in that instance, IMO. And I would guess that the dozen or so pathologists who looked at the photos would agree with me on that one, because every one of the doctors on the Clark Panel and the HSCA put the wound high on the head, not low. Why on Earth the autopsists would mark the LATERAL measurement (2.5 cm.), but not the north/south measurement is beyond me. But the autopsy picture isn't lying. And the Clark people said the X-ray too lines up with a hole 100 millimeters above the EOP. That is CONFIRMATION of the higher entry point, IMO. But CTers disagree. And, yes, the CTers can slap me around for calling Humes "incompetent" on this head-wound issue but yet believing he was not incompetent in other areas. But I really have no choice, as I see it. And that's because so many OTHER things tell me that the SBT is right AND that the cowlick entry is correct too. So, Humes must be RIGHT on one issue but WRONG on another. Oh, if only life were simpler. https://www.facebook.com/groups/449371715190297/permalink/517699585024176/

Come to think of it, the statement I just quoted above just might be part of the reason as to why James Gordon's analysis is incorrect.

In this instance*, I'd say yes. Unless you also think he can't be believed about finding NO BULLETS inside JFK's whole body too. Do you believe Humes when he said that? * Footnote --- Before some CTer jumps down my throat with an accusation about how I'm selectively "picking and choosing" what I will believe and what I won't when it comes to the testimony and statements of Dr. Jim Humes.... Yes, I do think Dr. Humes was dead wrong about the location of JFK's head entry wound. He places it much lower on the head than it is, IMO. (And the BOH autopsy photo proves the wound was near the cowlick, IMO.) But now I'm "choosing" to believe Dr. Humes without reservation regarding this statement: "It's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung. Of course, the more I thought about it, the more I realized it had to go out from the neck. It was the only place it could go, after it was not found anywhere in the X-rays." -- Dr. James Humes But let's face the reality of the real world of JFK debate and discussion -- everybody "picks and chooses" to some extent whenever they take a "side" regarding the JFK murder case. It's as inevitable as the sun rising in the east. Plus, in order to think Humes was a xxxx when he made the above-quoted statement, we'd also have to believe that BOTH of the other autopsy surgeons were rotten liars too, wouldn't we James? Because BOTH Dr. Finck and Dr. Boswell signed off on Dr. Humes' autopsy report too. Here are their signatures: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0284a.htm And on that very same page of the autopsy report that also has the written signatures of all three of JFK's autopsy physicians, it also says this, plain as day: "The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body." So, it really boils down to this decision: Who should I believe --- The THREE autopsy doctors, who each signed off on the autopsy report of the President of the United States, which was undoubtedly the most important document that any of those three men would ever be signing in their whole lives? Or: James R. Gordon, who was NOT present at the autopsy of JFK at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the night of November 22, 1963, and who did NOT have the responsibility of reporting to the world the details of President Kennedy's wounds, and who did NOT sign the autopsy report? For many people, the above decision might be a head-scratcher indeed. For this writer, however, it's not even close.

Probably so. But James Gordon is still left to wrestle with James Humes, who said..... "The more I thought about it, the more I realized it [the bullet that hit JFK in the upper back] had to go out from the neck. It was the only place it could go, after it was not found anywhere in the X-rays." -- Dr. Humes; 1996

Robert P., My comment about "inherent limitations" doesn't apply JUST to the picture that I posted in that one particular post. It applies ALL the time, and to EVERY two-dimensional photograph. And I never said it didn't. The best we can do with ANY 2D picture is GUESS as to precise measurements and angles. That's why it makes Dale Myers so boiling mad when CTers like Robert Harris think they can just walk up to their computer screens and draw lines on the screen and expect to extract perfect 3D information from such crude methods (as explained in the article below). http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-310.html

Maybe that's why I qualified my statement when I said this in an earlier post (adding emphasis).... "And this photo (turned sideways from its original orientation, of course) pretty much disproves the HSCA's conclusion of the throat wound being HIGHER on the body anatomically than the back wound (even though the back wound is not visible in this picture). That fact couldn't be more obvious from this photograph (even when taking into account the inherent limitations of being able to measure 3-dimensional space within a two-dimensional image)."

I think James Gordon sank his own ship when he said this earlier tonight: "So what point are you making with this image David? You cannot make any serious comment. JFK's head is leaning backwards and so wound positions are distorted." -- James Gordon I, however, do NOT agree with the above "distorted" assessment endorsed by James Gordon. But I'm not the one who said it. James did.

Oh, and the trach incision is supposedly ABOVE the backward leaning of the head when discussing the turned-sideways photo? I don't think so, Jim. Fair point. But I'm going to once again refer you to that Humes' ARRB testimony: "It's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung." -- Dr. Humes And I again want you to think about my other question regarding ANY anti-SBT theory, which you MUST think includes TWO separate bullets going into Kennedy's body, instead of just the one Bullet CE399: Doesn't the lack of a logical or sensible explanation bother you at all, James? Or are you only concerned about dismantling the Single-Bullet Theory? Shouldn't you have SOME questions about what REALLY happened (and how it could possibly have occurred) if the SBT is to be thrown out the window? Is a TWO-bullet scenario really MORE believable (and workable) than the SBT is?

And yet it was DOCTOR JAMES JOSEPH HUMES, not JAMES R. GORDON, who opened up the President's chest on the night of 11/22/63 and saw for himself a condition that existed inside the body of John F. Kennedy which made Dr. Humes reach this conclusion when he spoke in front of the ARRB in 1996 (and yes, I know this was 33 years after the autopsy, but these words are in the record nevertheless; ignore them if you so choose; but I'll also remind you that these words are pretty much the VERY SAME THING Humes was saying in the autopsy report and in his testimony in front of the Warren Commission just a few months after the assassination).... "There was no defect in the pleura anyplace. So it's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung."

Excuse me, James, but aren't you the same person who just a few posts back said something about how the wound positions were somehow "distorted" due to the "backward" leaning position of the President's head in the turned-sideways autopsy photo showing the left side of JFK's head? You said: "So what point are you making with this image David? You cannot make any serious comment. JFK's head is leaning backwards and so wound positions are distorted." -- J. Gordon Does that same "distorted" conclusion only apply to the turned-sideways photo? Or does it apply to this picture too? .... Therefore, could your analysis about exactly WHERE the wound is located in JFK's upper back possibly be skewed by your OWN admission that the "wound positions are distorted" in the autopsy photos?