David Von Pein

James, Nine pathologists far more qualified than James R. Gordon (including even Cyril Wecht) have concluded that one single bullet DID go through the body of John F. Kennedy. The three autopsy surgeons who had their hands on President Kennedy's body on the night of 11/22/63 also concluded (via their signed autopsy report) that a bullet went through the upper portion of John F. Kennedy's body. Quite obviously, James thinks that ALL TWELVE of those medical professionals were completely wrong (or they were just boobs). James, have you ever taken your analysis to anyone connected with the HSCA's FPP to see if they agree with you? If not, why not? Yes, I *am* trusting the HSCA's FPP and the three autopsy doctors concerning this matter. I have no reason to believe that ALL 12 of those individuals got it all screwed up. And furthermore, I have no reason to believe that all twelve of those individuals would be so corrupt and dishonest that they would endorse the conclusion of one bullet transiting JFK's body if, in fact, they really knew for a fact that such a journey was a physical impossibility, as James Gordon seems to believe it is. In short, it is my opinion that those 12 pathologists trump James R. Gordon. So we'll just have to agree to disagree. (Nothing new about that, of course.) And if you, James, still refuse to see the implausibility of your "Two Bullets" theory that must replace the SBT, then I believe you need to re-think the situation. Because whether the SBT is true or not, John Kennedy WAS struck by gunfire in the upper body on 11/22/63. You cannot escape that fact. Which HAS to mean that if the SBT is a fairy tale, some OTHER conclusion must be correct. And from my vantage point, as I said before, ANY "2 bullet" scenario is far more improbable and unbelievable than is the SBT (from a variety of viewpoints too).

In other words, not a single person participating in this Education Forum thread can provide any type of reasonable explanation at all for how two separate bullets could go into those known bullet holes in President Kennedy's body and then have those two bullets cause no substantial damage to the internal organs of JFK and then have those two bullets just vanish into thin air. Thank you, Ray, for confirming my suspicions.

Robert Prudhomme doesn't either. That's quite obvious.

Walter Cronkite summed things up very well in 1967 when he said this.... "If all three shots hit, then one of them would have had to pass through the President's neck, emerge at 1,800 feet per second, headed on a downward path toward the midst of the Presidential car and the six people in it, and vanish in mid-air, hitting nothing, and leaving no mark. Well, this was more than the Commission could stomach. Despite its own words, the Single-Bullet Theory IS essential to its findings. [...] Our own view on the evidence is that it is difficult to believe the Single-Bullet Theory. But, to believe the other theories is even MORE difficult. If the Governor's wounds were caused by a separate bullet, then we must believe that a bullet passed through the President's neck, emerged at high velocity on a course that was taking it directly into the middle of the automobile, and then vanished without a trace. Or, we can complicate matters even further--as some do--by adding a second assassin, who fires almost simultaneously with Oswald and whose bullet travels miraculously a trajectory identical with Oswald's and that second assassin, too, vanishes without a trace. Difficult to believe as the Single-Bullet Theory may be, it seems to be the LEAST difficult of all those that are available. In the end, like the Commission, we are persuaded that a single bullet wounded both President Kennedy and Governor Connally."

Ray, How did your TWO bullets manage to enter JFK's upper body and yet CAUSE NO MAJOR DAMAGE at all? Plus, since those TWO bullets of yours caused NO major damage, maybe you can explain to me how **BOTH** of those bullets managed to lose 100% of their velocity and just STOPPED inside Kennedy's soft tissue without exiting? Any ideas, Ray?

Robert, The bullet merely changed course slightly between the entry and exit points in Connally's body. After exiting JFK's throat, CE399 begins to tumble and lose velocity (and it loses some of its stability). And then it hits its first hard object -- Connally's rib. It's not unreasonable, therefore, to think that that bullet would change direction somewhat after entering John Connally's back.

It boils down to this.... By my rough count, the conspiracy theorists have TWO "magic bullets". The LNers have ONE so-called "magic bullet", which isn't magic at all, of course. The LN/SBT bullet at least EXISTS in the form of Commission Exhibit 399, whereas neither of the CT magic bullets exist at all. And yet CTers like Jim Gordon are so sure that TWO bullets did enter JFK's upper body. Seems to me like there's some "faith" going on there too, wouldn't you say, Mark Knight? James doesn't think it's reasonable for me to ask him why there's no substantial damage inside JFK's upper body as a result of being hit by TWICE as many (supposedly) high-powered rifle bullets as the LNers postulate struck the President in the upper back and neck. I'm supposed to be able to explain how ONE bullet managed to sneak through JFK's upper body without striking various organs, but James (who obviously DOES think JFK was struck by TWO bullets in the upper body versus just ONE bullet, with the entry points for each bullet being in just exactly the SAME place on Kennedy's body where I and all other LNers think they were!) doesn't think he's required to explain the ALTERNATIVE OPTION to the SBT, which would have him explaining to the world in a reasonable fashion how TWO bullets went into those SAME bullet holes in Kennedy's body and yet somehow caused NO major damage in that body, all the while vanishing from sight immediately after they entered. Call me goofy if you'd like to, but James' scenario seems JUST AS HARD (or HARDER) to reconcile than the Single-Bullet Theory which features just one (non-vanishing) bullet going through JFK & JBC and ending up on Connally's stretcher. I think maybe James WOULD be better off to just theorize that JFK wasn't shot AT ALL on November 22, 1963. That theory would be easier to reconcile than the one he has forced himself to try and reconcile--but he refuses to do so (and that's because he cannot reconcile it, because such a silly multiple-bullet theory is far more unbelievable than any "SBT").

Well, Ray, the O'Neill interview doesn't get into the "surgery" remark at all. I just threw that one in as a bonus. But O'Neill does confirm that ONLY "fragments" were taken from JFK's head at the autopsy--not a whole "missile". Sibert talks about the "surgery" remark (which was not made by Sibert himself, of course, it was made by Dr. Humes) in this audio at about 9:00 ----> https://app.box.com/shared/v7pzrliv56

Ray, 1979 Interview With Francis X. O'Neill 2005 Interview With James W. Sibert

But your **TWO** bullets that must replace the SBT somehow COULD get into JFK's body, and then just stop on a dime, and yet not cause any major damage. (Yeah, right. Take that one in front of a jury. I'd love to see the rolling eyes of the jurors after hearing that argument, coupled with their exasperated reaction after James Gordon tells the jurors that all the bullets somehow inexplicably disappeared, to boot.) "And I agree, with reservation regarding the lung and C7, that there was no major damage inside the body." -- James R. Gordon You've got TWO "magic bullets" there, James. And the funny thing is--you don't even seem to realize it.

James, Yeah, just as I thought. Lots of missing bullets for the CTers. And you need TWO such vanishing missiles. (Three if you count the Connally bullet that you think hit JBC separately, and if you think the Connally bullet WASN'T CE399. But maybe you're willing to believe that 399 really was in a victim's body on Nov. 22. But if you are, watch out for the wrath of your fellow CTers, because in the last few years, I've encountered very few conspiracy advocates who actually think 399 was inside JFK or JBC.) But just go blame the evil Government. They must have deep-sixed all the non-Oswald missiles. That usually works for the CT crowd. After all, everybody in Officialdom jumped on the "Let's Frame Oswald" bandwagon immediately after the assassination, didn't they?

I guess it never occurred to Ray Mitcham to ask James Gordon this question--- Well, Jim, if the SBT is untrue and TWO (presumably) high-speed bullets entered JFK's upper back and throat, then how can you account for a total lack of damage to President Kennedy's vital structures within his upper body? Sounds pretty odd to me. But, you see, I'm never allowed to pose that type of question to conspiracy theorists like James Gordon. Because if I do ask it, I'm accused of totally avoiding the analysis of people like Gordon. Even though it is a perfectly reasonable question to ask, and is a question that James has been ducking, because he will never be able to answer it in a reasonable and satisfactory manner. I think the words "Pot" and "Kettle" come to mind now.

Oh for Pete sake, Pat, the "lack of any damage is consistent with the SBT" remark is perfectly obvious. I mean: If a bullet had gone clean through JFK's body and struck only soft tissue and hit no bones (as both the WC and HSCA said it did), then what was found inside JFK's body (i.e., no substantial damage to any vital structures) is, indeed, exactly what one would expect to find in the body given such a circumstance. (Did I really need to explain that?)

I don't think you're correct on this point, Pat. Although, yes, Vince does say in some parts of the book (endnotes I think) that the Z224 hit could be "possible". But it seems to me that the very first time Vince mentions any specific frames for the SBT in the hardcover book (not the endnotes) is on page 463, when he says the SBT happened "somewhere between Z frames 210 and 222". That statement certainly isn't endorsing a "Z224" SBT hit. From a brief search of Vincent's SBT chapter, I can't see anywhere in there where he is specifically endorsing a Z224 SBT hit. Can you point me to such an endorsement by Vince in the hardcover volume, Pat? Unless you're referring to the place on page 40, where Vince says the second shot occurs "3.5 seconds" after the first shot. Is that what you meant? Related excerpts from my "Reclaiming History" book review: "VB [Vincent Bugliosi] says in an endnote (on page 25 of the notes) that the SBT shot occurs at "Z223-224"; so I'm not quite sure which exact Z-Film frame Vince totally endorses, if any. Plus, on pages 325 to 327 of the CD's endnotes, Bugliosi acknowledges the very real possibility (via Dr. John Lattimer's 1994 "lapel bulge" tests) that a single bullet could have passed through both Kennedy and Connally at Z224. Vince actually mentions a 3-frame range of Zapruder frames in this "lapel" regard, which seems a little strange to me; but at least VB admits the possibility of the bullet striking at the correct frame (IMO) of Z224, when he says this on endnote page 325: "A bulging of the right lapel of the governor's suit coat may pinpoint the moment Governor Connally is hit to be at Z222–224". [...] There's another indication in the book that VB advocates the exact same frame for the SBT that I, too, endorse (Z224). That occurs on page 40, when Vince says the second shot (the SBT shot) occurs "3.5 seconds" after the first shot which missed the limousine, a first shot which, elsewhere in the book, VB says comes at Z-Film frame 160. And the only frame that is precisely "3.5" seconds after Z160 is Z224 (given the "round-off" mathematics that VB is utilizing on pages 40 and 41 and Zapruder's camera speed of 18.3 frames-per-second). [MAY 2008 ADDENDUM: In his follow-up paperback book, "Four Days In November", Bugliosi has amended the "3.5 seconds" figure that is found in "Reclaiming History". On page 61 of the "Four Days" volume, VB has changed the "3.5 seconds" statistic to "2.7 seconds", which would be consistent with the SBT shot occurring right at frame 210 of the Zapruder Film.]" -- DVP

The damage (or the LACK of damage would be a better way to say it) that we find in President Kennedy's upper back and neck is exactly what we would expect to find if the Single-Bullet Theory is true. And the number of bullets found in JFK's body is also exactly what we would expect to find if the SBT is a reality. And that number is ZERO. The same cannot be said of any theory that is postulated by conspiracy theorists to replace the SBT, particularly the theorists who insist that TWO bullets entered JFK's body from opposite sides, with neither bullet exiting the body, and somehow these TWO bullets cause no substantial damage at all in Kennedy's upper body. (And the bullets disappear too, which is always nice.) Such a theory is just simply NOT a reasonable one to believe. Moreover, we've got John Connally also being struck in his UPPER BACK too. Plus, the Zapruder Film is showing the two victims reacted to external stimulus at precisely the same time (despite the protests of the CTers). And then we've got a bullet found in the hospital which links directly to a rifle that was found in the Book Depository on Elm Street. Plus we have what SHOULD be an eye-opener for the conspiracists: The fact that from the point-of-view of the assassin on the sixth floor of the Depository, the two victims inside the Presidential limousine are lined up--one in front of the other--just an instant prior to the time on the Zapruder Film when those two victims are reacting to being hit by gunfire [see Commission Exhibit No. 894]. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0052a.htm All of the above points tell a reasonable person evaluating this "sum total" of facts surrounding the shooting that it is very likely (if not nearly a certainty) that one single bullet did, indeed, go through the bodies of JFK and John B. Connally in Dallas' Dealey Plaza. A half-dead goldfish could probably figure this out. But after fifty years, no conspiracy theorist can seem to do it. ~big shrug~

Isn't it fairly obvious what happened there, Pat? (It's obvious to me anyway.) Bugliosi was pretty much stuck with a Z190 timestamp for the SBT at the 1986 TV docu-trial in London, and that's because his ONE expert who was going to testify about the validity of the SBT was from the HSCA--Cecil Kirk. And the HSCA had concluded (for some silly reason) that JFK was reacting to being shot prior to going behind the Stemmons Freeway sign. Therefore, what was Mr. Bugliosi supposed to do considering those restrictions? Just toss his whole case and the SBT out the window? It's also very possible (even likely, given the early stage of Bugliosi's research into the JFK case as of 1986) that Mr. Bugliosi totally concurred and accepted as fact the HSCA's loony Z190 timing for the Single-Bullet Theory. But after more study and examination of the facts, Bugliosi on his own (and in his book) refined his own thoughts about when the SBT took place. Vince is still a little bit off, of course, with Bugliosi favoring an SBT hit closer to Z210 than the true frame of Z224, but Vince does not want to put a SPECIFIC frame number on his evaluation. He played it safe, and says that the SBT bullet is striking "within a fraction of a second of Z210", which is, of course, correct. The Warren Commission did the same thing, bracketing the SBT at anywhere from Z210 to Z225. And they were right too, since Z224 falls within that span. As a footnote to the Kirk/Mock Trial subject..... I suppose Bugliosi could have utilized Lyndal Shaneyfelt as his "SBT" witness at the mock trial. Shaneyfelt, after all, did testify about other matters at that same television trial. But instead, Vince had Cecil Kirk tell the cockeyed story of the SBT striking at around Z190, which is totally ridiculous when we look at WHERE KENNEDY'S HANDS ARE LOCATED many frames later, at Z224. Now THAT'S a long delayed reaction.

On this point, I tend to agree with you .... JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/jfk-arm-raising.html

And yet YOU, Pat, ARE allowed to pretend that YOU know "what happened", via your theories about head-shot fragments exiting the throat and CE399 coming from Kennedy's back wound and a bullet hole of entry in JFK's head that nobody else in the world can see, right? (Even though absolutely NONE of those theories is supported by any of the official investigations that looked into the case.) The irony abounds (yet again).

Okay. Therefore, how did the bullet (or bullets) that YOU say must have hit JFK (within the confines of any anti-SBT theory you might want to present) manage to completely MISS all of his vital structures, like the lungs, the spine, the chest cavity, etc.? In case you missed it, THAT was my whole point when I said this.... "And since there was positively NO MAJOR DAMAGE inside Kennedy's neck and upper back, it means that NO BULLETS (no matter how many you think struck the President) hit the lungs or punctured the chest cavity of John F. Kennedy on November 22nd." -- DVP I assume you DO believe President Kennedy WAS struck by at least one bullet in the region of the upper back and neck, correct James? And you DO also accept Dr. Humes' conclusions that none of JFK's vital structures were punctured or directly struck by any bullet in his neck and upper back and chest, correct? Or was Humes lying about that fact? Do you think when they opened up Kennedy, there was a TON of damage to his chest and lungs that the three autopsy doctors just kept quiet about? Is that the explanation? Because lacking that kind of speculation on your part, I can't see where you can go with any of your charts and skeletal graphs. Because SOME bullet (even if it wasn't CE399) DID strike JFK in those upper regions of his body, right? You surely don't want to posit a theory that has JFK hit by NO bullets at all in his back and neck regions, do you? From your past posts, it almost comes across as if you do want to believe such a theory. Good heavens, even Dr. Cyril Wecht, one of the most vocal of all SBT critics, has no problem with a bullet transiting Kennedy's body. I wonder why Wecht hasn't seen the roadblocks that would have prevented a bullet from going all the way through JFK's upper back and neck? If anyone on this planet would want to use such an argument, you'd think it would be Cyril Wecht, who hates the SBT with a passion. And yet he's never once utilized any of the arguments presented in this thread by James R. Gordon. I wonder why not?

James, CE385 is an approximation of the wounds and of the body structures of JFK. It's a DRAWING, for Pete sake. And it's not 100% accurate, and anybody can tell that it's not spot-on accurate by the angle of the bullet path in the drawing, which is not steep enough. But it's FAIRLY close. And therein lies a big problem with the Warren Commission and its incredibly STUPID, DUMB, and IDIOTIC decision to not fully and extensively utilize the autopsy photos and X-rays during its investigation and during the testimony of witnesses like Dr. Humes. Instead of relying on the BEST evidence available in the whole case for the medical testimony--which would be, of course, the autopsy pictures and X-rays--Earl Warren decides he cannot possibly bend his rule regarding the autopsy pictures even when Dr. Humes is on the stand, with Warren insisting that EVERY exhibit HAD to be made available to the public, and therefore he would not even make an exception with the autopsy pictures. And Warren stuck to that ridiculous decision even though a very reasonable explanation could have quite easily been written into the final Warren Report to the public, stating that the Commission and the pertinent witnesses HAD seen and made proper use of the autopsy photographs and X-rays, but for reasons of good taste [and out of deference to the Kennedy family too], we, the Commission, are not publishing the gory autopsy pictures in these 26 volumes. Why the above type of explanation could not have been written is a huge mystery to me, but Chief Justice Warren wouldn't hear of such a thing evidently, so we're left with those crappy Rydberg drawings, which have done much more harm than good to the finders of fact and truth in the JFK assassination than just about anything else I can think of, creating huge controversy over the wound locations where none would likely have existed at all if only the autopsy pictures would have been utilized by the Commission and by Dr. Humes during his testimony. But, with that rant aside, the fact remains that President Kennedy's lungs and chest were NOT violated or punctured by any bullets. There were only BRUISES in those areas of JFK's body. You surely aren't DENYING that fact of "BRUISING ONLY" of those areas, are you James? And since there was positively NO MAJOR DAMAGE inside Kennedy's neck and upper back, it means that NO BULLETS (no matter how many you think struck the President) hit the lungs or punctured the chest cavity of John F. Kennedy on November 22nd. Ergo, your fancy charts and detailed analysis in the JFK case are totally moot and meaningless. Unless you really want to believe that TWO bullets (or more?) went into JFK from different directions and yet caused NO major damage at all, and yet both of those bullets (or more?) somehow stopped on a dime inside the President's upper body -- and then disappeared, to boot! Can ANY sensible person give any credence to such a multi-bullet theory? If so, please explain HOW you can do so with a straight face? If I haven't made my point by now, should I try for a fourth time tomorrow?

For the record, I have never ONCE referred to myself as a "researcher". Never once. And you'll never find a post of mine where I use that word to refer to myself. Because, like you, I do not consider myself to be a "researcher". I'm not. I merely have a keen interest in JFK and his murder. And just because somebody claims something is "impossible" or an "imaginary creation" (as many conspiracy theorists like to label the SBT), it doesn't mean I have to believe it's impossible too. And given the ALTERNATIVES to the single-bullet scenario, it's my opinion (not as a "researcher", but merely as a person with a little bit of ordinary common sense) that the SBT is the only conceivable correct conclusion to reach when evaluating the sum total of evidence surrounding the wounding of JFK and Governor Connally on Elm Street in Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63. The Warren Commission said CE399 hit both victims. The HSCA said CE399 hit both victims. Does James R. Gordon's analysis trump BOTH of the above-named organizations? I'm doubting it very much.

DR. JAMES HUMES - As depicted in figure 385, in the apex of the right pleural cavity there was a bruise or contusion or eccmymosis of the parietal pleura as well as a bruise of the upper portion, the most apical portion of the right lung. It, therefore, was our opinion that the missile while not penetrating physically the pleural cavity, as it passed that point bruised--either the missile itself or the force of its passage through the tissues--bruised both the parietal and the visceral pleura. [...] Mr. McCLOY - Quite apart from the President's clothing, now directing your attention to the flight of the bullet, quite apart from the evidence given by the President's clothing, you, I believe, indicated that the flight of the bullet was from the back, from above and behind. It took roughly the line which is shown on your Exhibit 385. Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. Mr. McCLOY - I am not clear what induced you to come to that conclusion if you couldn't find the actual exit wound by reason of the tracheotomy. Commander HUMES - The report which we have submitted, sir, represents our thinking within the 24-48 hours of the death of the President, all facts taken into account of the situation. The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly, sir. Mr. McCLOY - That is what I wanted to bring out. Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. Mr. McCLOY - May I ask this: In spite of the incision made by the tracheotomy, was there any evidence left of the exit aperture? Commander HUMES - Unfortunately not that we could ascertain, sir. Mr. McCLOY - I see. [...] Senator COOPER - Considering the location of the bruise at the apex of the pleural sac...and of the tissue or muscles around it, was there any other factor which you could think of that might have caused that bruise other than the passage of a missile? Commander HUMES - It was so well localized that I truthfully, sir, can't think of any other way. Senator COOPER - That is all. Mr. McCLOY - May I ask you one question which. perhaps, the answer is quite obvious. If, contrary to the evidence that we have here. that anterior wound was the wound of entry, the shot must have come from below the President to have followed that path. Commander HUMES - That course, that is correct, sir.

You really don't understand why I asked my last questions, do you Mark?

Question for Pat Speer.... Why did JFK raise his arms up to a place near his throat/neck if he had not yet suffered a wound in his throat/neck yet? Because according to your theory, the hole in the President's throat wasn't even there yet when we see him jerk his hands up toward the area of his neck. Do you think it was "Thorburn's" that caused the sudden rise of Kennedy's arms starting at Z226 of the Zapruder Film?

Mark, Do you really think TWO separate bullets entered JFK's body and both bullets then failed to exit the other side of the body? (Not to mention the "vanishing" act those bullets performed after entering JFK.) Am I really being an unreasonable person to ask the above question--even with Mr. Gordon's expert medical analysis and body charts staring me in the face? Don't you think that question I just asked is one that should have a good, solid answer from conspiracy theorists? If not, why not? And since I'm not a medical student (or an M.D.), my basic response to Mr. Gordon's analysis is that I have a very difficult time believing that BOTH the Warren Commission and (especially) the HSCA, which had nine forensic pathologists on its panel!, would have arrived at the conclusion that Bullet CE399 definitely DID go through both JFK and John Connally if the SBT is really the P.O.S. theory that so many airchair detectives think it is. And a key point that is often missed (or ignored) is that the AUTOPSY DOCTORS THEMSELVES did conclude that one bullet went clean through JFK's body. So, obviously, Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck wouldn't think very highly of James Gordon's analysis, would they? Were those doctors ALL just wrong? Or liars? Or just plain boobs (even though they were all trained medical professionals who should know all about basic anatomy and skeletal structures of the human body)?