David Von Pein

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?

Quoting from Dr. Humes' ARRB testimony in 1996 [emphasis is DVP's].... DR. HUMES -- "My problem is, very simply stated, we had an entrance wound high in the posterior back above the scapula. We didn't know where the exit wound was at that point. I'd be the first one to admit it. We knew in general in the past that we should have been more prescient than we were, I must confess, because when we removed the breast plate and examined the thoracic cavity, we saw a contusion on the upper lobe of the lung. There was no defect in the pleura anyplace. So 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."

This side-by-side comparison that I posted previously should answer your question, Pat. Use the crimp in the neck as a guide....and then find any possible way to get that bullet hole in his back to be situated LOWER on his body anatomically than the visible hole in his throat on the left. If you find a way to do that, you're a magician:

Are you referring to the part in the Supplementary Autopsy Report (WR; Page 545) that says (re: the lungs): "Disruption of alveolar walls"? http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0285a.htm Now we need to know exactly what is meant by "disruption". But at 2 H 369, Humes is talking ONLY about "bruising" to the lung. And his measurement of the bruise in his WC testimony is certainly not new, because Humes says exactly the same thing ("5 centimeters") when describing the size of each of the two bruises in JFK's upper body on page 5 of the autopsy report (WR; page 542). http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0283b.htm

Yeah. Langley just called on my hot line BatPhone. They want to see how many posts it'll take to finally get a reasonable and sensible answer to this question: "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, [James R. Gordon's] 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?" -- DVP; CIA Disinfo Agent; Langley, VA 22101 I told my CIA boss in Virginia that it will probably take at least six more months to get a reasonable answer out of any conspiracy buff. Maybe a year. Perhaps even eighteen years. Looks like a lot of sleepless nights from here on in.

How can he be leaning backwards when he's lying flat on his back on a table, with his head slightly ELEVATED in a headrest? But, anyway, your point about "distorted" wound locations doesn't make sense even if his head IS leaning backwards. How on Earth would a slight "lean" backwards cause the wound in his throat to be "distorted"? Distorted in what sense?

Sure it does, James. Because if the SBT is wrong, then another scenario is right. So what is that "other scenario"? Any chance you'll give it a shot and tell me? Or is your scenario too embarrassing and laughable to put in print? My guess is that it is quite laughable--not to mention wholly unsupportable. But give it a shot anyway.

Kennedy's head isn't "leaning backwards" in this autopsy photo. Just the opposite. His head is elevated off the table slightly by way of his head resting on a metal headrest. 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'm not running anywhere, Robert P. As any reasonable person examining this thread can easily see (although all CTers will fervently disagree, but what's new there?), this particular debate regarding the damage inside JFK's upper back and neck is pretty much a stalemate. Why? Because every time a conspiracy believer asks me this.... "How could a bullet pass through JFK’s upper chest area without causing massive damage to his body?" -- James R. Gordon; May 28, 2014 ....I'm going to counter with this (which is a perfectly reasonable counter-question to the one asked by Mr. Gordon on May 28th).... "If the SBT is wrong (and particularly in the case of the theories which have JFK hit by TWO separate bullets to replace the one bullet of the SBT), then how can you account for those TWO bullets not hitting any bony structures or the lungs of President Kennedy, and yet STILL those two bullets inexplicably stopped inside JFK's back/neck?" -- David R. Von Pein; May 28, 2014

FYI, I didn't draw the trajectory line on that autopsy photo. I downloaded that picture years ago from the JFK Lancer site. But this version is "clean", with no line, and much bigger....

JFK'S BACK WOUND: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/jfk-back-wound-location.html

So, James, does that comment mean that you don't think the entry wound shown in this autopsy photo is the place where the bullet actually entered? Is this a fake picture? .....

"These bruises, which lay along a path between the president's back and his throat wound, could only have occurred prior to the incisions that were made at Parkland Hospital...and hence, the damage found there had to have been the result of a bullet entering the president's back and exiting the throat." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi Question--- Can bullets that have completely stopped their forward progress through a human body possibly cause bruises in areas of that human body which have NOT been punctured or torn (such as President Kennedy's pleura and lung)? Food for thought anyway.

I just want to keep you guessing, Bobby.

Some "SBT"-related excerpts from Vincent Bugliosi's book: Assassination Arguments (Part 714) / Vince Bugliosi Quotes

Good luck to you, James. A good place for you to start your "The Bullet Path Was Impossible" campaign would be by contacting Dr. Cyril H. Wecht. Cyril should be very eager to see some new evidence to show that the SBT is nothing but a fantasy ----> http://www.cyrilwecht.com Contact and e-mail information ----> http://www.cyrilwecht.com/services.php

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.