David Von Pein

And this is the kind of unverified and unsupportable mush that Jim DiEugenio actually thinks trumps Dale Myers' intense and decades-long research regarding the murder of J.D. Tippit? Good Lord!

You must be kidding. Of course they looked for bullets. .... Mr. SPECTER - Did you search the body to determine if there was any bullet inside the body? Dr. HUMES - Before the arrival of Colonel Finck we had made X-rays of the head, neck and torso of the President, and the upper portions of his major extremities, or both his upper and lower extremities. At Colonel Finck's suggestion, we then completed the X-ray examination by X-raying the President's body in toto, and those X-rays are available. Mr. SPECTER - What did those X-rays disclose with respect to the possible presence of a missile in the President's body? Dr. HUMES - They showed no evidence of a missile in the President's body at any point.

That's not correct, Richard. There are several photos of JFK in the Dallas motorcade PRIOR to the shooting which depict Kennedy's suit coat bunched up, including the Robert Croft photo (below), which was taken just seconds prior to the first bullet striking JFK: Here's another picture showing Kennedy's hiked-up suit jacket. This was taken by a bystander named Andre Leche on Main Street, just a few blocks east of Dealey Plaza:

http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com / Photos From The May 24, 1964, Assassination Re-Enactment

CLIFF VARNELL SAID: Either the rounds were removed prior to the autopsy, or the autopsists were correct when they speculated JFK was hit with a high tech round that wouldn't show up in the autopsy. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Or.... The bullet simply went right through the victim.** ** And isn't it amazing that there just happened to be another bullet hole on the opposite side of JFK's body to meet the "SBT" needs of Mr. Specter, et al? Has any conspiracy theorist in history ever made this basic observation?.... Boy, those assassins were sure a bunch of lucky sons of bitches when the guy who shot JFK in the throat from the front managed to hit Kennedy in exactly the right spot on his body so that (later on) the official investigators could utilize that entry wound in the throat as the point of exit for the SBT bullet. And then the multiple assassins got even luckier when the upper-back bullet and the bullet that entered the throat both decided not to exit the body and then both of those bullets vanished into puffs of smoke before either of those bullets (which obviously were still inside JFK's body when he was inside Trauma Room No. 1 at Parkland Hospital) could be seen by any non-conspirator. Can anyone truly believe that such incredible good fortune could possibly have existed amongst the (alleged) multiple shooters who were (allegedly) firing bullets at President Kennedy on 11/22/63? (And yet CTers have the gall to tell me that I am the one who believes in "Magic Bullets". Oy vey!)

I'll also add this (from a previously archived discussion).... DVP said: If the bullet that entered JFK's upper back truly had no possible way of exiting the front of his body without hitting some bones (as most conspiracy theorists believe), then I kind of doubt the three autopsy surgeons would have said this in their final report....do you? .... "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." -- JFK's Autopsy Report (Page 6); Warren Report, Page 543 ---------------------------- There is also this conclusion reached by the Clark Panel in 1968.... "The other bullet struck the decedent's back at the right side of the base of the neck between the shoulder and spine and emerged from the front of his neck near the midline. The possibility that this bullet might have followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found. There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea described in the Autopsy Report. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck." -- From Clark Panel Report Replay (for emphasis).... "There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds..." Another interesting part of the 1968 Clark Panel Report is the portion of the report in which the Clark Panel concludes that the bullet hole in President Kennedy's throat was located 3.5 centimeters LOWER (anatomically) than the bullet wound in the President's upper back.... "There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the skin of the back located approximately 15 cm. medial to the right acromial process, 5 cm. lateral to the mid-dorsal line and 14 cm. below the right mastoid process. This wound lies approximately 5.5 cm. below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck. This fold can also be seen in a lateral view of the neck which shows an anterior tracheotomy wound. This view makes it possible to compare the levels of these two wounds in relation to that of the horizontal plane of the body. .... The center of the circular wound [in the front of the neck] is situated approximately 9 cm. below the transverse fold in the skin of the neck described in a preceding paragraph. This indicates that the bullet which produced the two wounds followed a course downward and to the left in its passage through the body." -- From Clark Panel Report http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html

EDDY BAINBRIDGE SAID: You have chosen one line of argument, your argument lends weight to the premise, about the weight of a grain of sand. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: You must be joking with the "grain of sand" comment. Everything points to the SBT being correct. Why CTers refuse to acknowledge this "SBT pattern" only leaves me scratching my head. (After all, as I've said many times before, even WITH the SBT in place, those same CTers can still pretend that their "conspiracy" existed, via their make-believe shot to JFK's head, the "Double Oswalds" all over the place, the "fake" backyard photos, etc., etc. to CT infinity.) ....There's the incredible "SBT-like" pattern of the wounds on the two victims. ....No bullets inside JFK's body. ....CE399 (from LHO's rifle) found on Connally's stretcher. [More on that controversial topic here.] ....The Zapruder Film shows the victims reacting at precisely the same time. ....Both the Warren Commission and the HSCA endorsed the SBT, plus the 3 autopsy surgeons got the ball rolling by concluding, without any hesitation via the wording in the autopsy report, that the bullet "made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck". "Grain of sand" indeed. Don't make me laugh. It's more like a tsunami of pro-SBT common sense and evidence (when assessing ALL of the facts surrounding the shooting of JFK and Governor Connally). --------------------------------------------- Two more links filled with lots more fun CE903/SBT wrangling: https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-843.html http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1133.html

All explained in a reasonable fashion at my "CE903" webpages, beginning here: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html Excerpt from my CE903 Part 1 page: The SBT bullet path is pretty much "explained" right there within CE903. It's right there in the picture. All you have to do is look at it and comprehend what it's telling you. And even though a little "margin of error" must be granted Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission with respect to what we see in CE903 (because the 17.72-degree downward angle is, indeed, just the AVERAGE angle between Zapruder frames 210 and 225, plus there's the fact that the car being used in CE903 is not the SS-100-X limo), there are two things seen in CE903 that don't require any "margin of error" --- the "tie knot" exit wound location in JFK's throat and the entry hole in John Connally's back (with Specter's metal rod being inserted directly into the bullet hole in Connally's jacket---a jacket which the stand-in is wearing in CE903). So, via the CE903 visual demonstration, if a bullet proceeding downward at an angle of 17.72 degrees (aligning perfectly with a "Z210-Z225" angle from the "Oswald window") were to exit JFK's throat at the tie knot, it would then proceed on that same angle directly into the back of Governor Connally in exactly the place where we know a bullet DID enter Connally's upper right back. That's a pretty impressive demonstration if you ask me. I wonder what the odds are of the Warren Commission being able to re-create such a nearly perfect SBT demonstration and yet NOT have such a demonstration represent the truth of what actually happened---even though the angle from the known sniper's window was right where it should be if the shot occurred at around Z217.5 AND the re-created bullet path travelled exactly where a bullet really did strike President Kennedy and John Connally on 11/22/63? I wouldn't want to take those odds to Vegas if I was an anti-SBT conspiracy believer. And yet I'm supposed to believe the CTers who tell me that two (or probably THREE) different bullets lined themselves up beautifully so that Arlen Specter could later present this impressive "one bullet" exhibit to the world. Talk about incredibly good luck for Mr. Specter & Company! .... Below is a high-quality, zoomed-in version of Commission Exhibit 903 (photo credit to Pat Speer).... CLICK TO ENLARGE:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Was The Back Of JFK's Head "Blacked Out"?

........

James, I truly cannot understand why you're having so much trouble with my photo montage (below), which is a montage that, IMO, answers your inquiry. This montage shows BOTH wounds. The photo you (I guess) want me to mark on does not show both wounds. Hence the reason a montage like the one below is necessary to demonstrate my point about the two wounds in question. Why wouldn't I utilize both of these pictures to make my point? It's the only way (photo-wise) to drive the point home, wouldn't you agree? James R. Gordon said: Thanks for those comments. But I think I am arguing my case. Yes, I'm using 2-dimensional imagery to argue it. But what other type images of the dead President can I use? There are no "3D" pictures or 3D/HD video to study. As I said before, I'm just using what's available. What else is there? Perhaps some day I can get Dale Myers to do a full-scale study of the autopsy photographs using the preferred method of photogrammetry. That might help (a little bit). James R. Gordon said: I think CE903 performs that task very nicely. Almost perfectly in fact. Just pretend that John F. Kennedy is sitting in the back seat instead of this other guy.... James R. Gordon said: No crazy "bent down" position is required at all, James. And, as we all know from watching the Zapruder Film many times, JFK was most certainly NOT leaning forward at the time he was shot with Oswald's SBT bullet around Z224. (Of course, the HSCA thinks the SBT shot occurred around Z190, which is, of course, totally ludicrous. Z190 is way too early. So that makes twice today I've been forced to disagree with the HSCA Officialdom.) But, again, take another peek at CE903 above. It provides what you seek---"A path from the back to the throat". With that path resulting in a back wound that is most certainly HIGHER anatomically than the throat wound. Yes, I know that's not good enough for you. You probably want me to also prove that there's an INTERNAL path through JFK's body that connects the back wound to the throat/trach wound without the bullet having to strike bone. Most CTers, of course, think that bullet path was impossible. Well, apparently those conspiracists must think that all of the various pathologists who studied the JFK case for the Warren Commission AND the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel, plus the three autopsy surgeons who physically had their hands on President Kennedy's body on Nov. 22nd, weren't very good at basic anatomy either....because most of those doctors (save Dr. Wecht) have endorsed the Single-Bullet Theory. Don't you find that kind of strange if the idea of the SBT is utter nonsense? Were all of those doctors complete idiots, James?

But only laterally. And a very small amount even there. The downward angle through the victims is not affected one bit by the fact that the stand-in wasn't impaled by Mr. Specter's rod. And, as I said, the HEIGHT of the entry and exit wound locations are not affected either. Anyone who thinks CE903 is nothing but a fraud is, IMO, just looking for reasons to disregard (and nitpick to death) the perfectly reasonable and wholly acceptable SBT re-creation that definitely exists within the Warren Commission exhibit known as CE903.

But if Specter's metal rod was to be moved just a tiny bit to his left (toward the middle of the body of JFK's stand-in), you would still have the exact same entry and exit wound locations. No different. So CE903 works just fine in showing the positions of the entrance and exit wound locations (without having to impale the Kennedy stand-in). Technically, yes, the bullet path depicted in CE903 isn't 100% to-the-millimeter accurate laterally, and that's because the WC wasn't willing to sacrifice the life of the man sitting in for JFK in the limousine. But don't you think that at least a few millimeters of lateral slack can be granted Arlen Specter and the WC concerning this matter?

Which is, of course, totally impossible for me (or anyone) to do, since it's the BACK VIEW of the President, not the FRONT VIEW. That's why I utilized my composite (side-by-side) images. (Duh!) I only can use what's available. Do you have a photo of the deceased JFK showing the back wound that you think is a BETTER one ("view"-wise) than the one I used? Didn't think so, since this pic below is the ONLY autopsy picture showing the back wound that's been made available on the Internet (AFAIK). And, btw, there's nothing wrong (or "appalling") whatsoever about the quality of the images I've been using. They are just as good as the ones you've posted. Plus, we don't need Hi-Def type quality to merely attempt to determine where the neck & back wounds are located relative to each other. Again -- How can I possibly answer that question when the only picture you give me to look at is a picture of President Kennedy's BACK? And yet you're doing exactly that right now. Most curious indeed. And your next insult is?...... What on Earth are you talking about here? I'm not promoting any "political argument" at all. Where in heck did that come from? I gotta tell you, James, it appears to me that you are trying your best these last two days to bait me into a fight of some kind, so that I'll forget about these eggshells that I know I'm being forced to walk on since you and Kathy Becket were nice enough to allow me to re-join this forum on June 29, 2022. (And I do, indeed, appreciate the fact that you have given me the chance to re-join.) But I'm certainly detecting some hostility being directed at me which is coming from your computer during these last two days. And, IMO, it is hostility that I have not deserved. I told you yesterday---in this post---that that line angling out of the throat wound was NOT put there by me. Yes, I'm well aware that the entry wound is in JFK's UPPER BACK, not in the NECK. I've been saying it's in the BACK, not NECK, for multiple decades now, James. Why would I be the slightest bit "embarrassed" by stating something that the photographs, IMO, are most certainly verifying? And I'm certainly not alone in my belief that the throat wound is located below the upper-back wound. The late Mr. Vince Bugliosi thought so too: "Perhaps the clearest visual evidence of the fact that the entrance wound in the [President's] back was definitely above the exit wound in the throat appears in one of [the autopsy] photos taken of the left side of the president's head as he is lying on his back, his head on a metal headrest. Only the wound to the throat is visible, not the wound to his upper right back. However, it couldn't be clearer from this photo that the wound to the back was definitely above the exit wound in the throat." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi I can't really see how your "balancing" of the two images (as you call it) is any better in any substantial way at all than the way I presented the images. ~shrug~ You've lost me completely here. I have no idea what you're talking about here. "Line pointing upwards..." ??? ~another shrug~ Again with the "political theory" junk, James? Why are you saying such a thing? Just....why? (And the eggshells grow thinner....)

I think the following comments I made in 2018 at this forum deserve a replay in this discussion too: "It doesn't really matter what the awful Rydberg drawings depict, and it doesn't really matter whether Arlen Specter said "neck" 3000 times in his lifetime, because the Rydberg drawings are trumped (and always will be) by the "live action" scene demonstrated in CE903 that you hate so much, which PROVES that Specter & Company did NOT raise the back wound into JFK's "neck". And I don't see how anyone can say the photo we see in Commission Exhibit 903 is rigged or "phony" in some fashion. It shows the angle that leads back to the 6th floor (17d 43m 30s), and it shows the bullet exiting exactly where everyone agrees a bullet wound was located on JFK's body (the tie knot/trach wound area), and it shows the rod being placed into the known bullet hole in John Connally's jacket. Pat, don't those THREE things lining up perfectly in an "SBT" fashion (forgetting for the moment the precise "back wound" location seen in CE903) strike you as being rather amazing and incredible IF, as you assert, the Single-Bullet Theory is a pure fairy tale INVENTION of the Warren Commission? How did Specter manage that amazing SBT-like trickery and how did he manage to manipulate his metal rod (which has no "zig-zag" attachment on it that I can see) so that it could be placed in a 17.72-degree downward angle and have it go straight from Kennedy's throat wound directly into Connally's bullet hole in his jacket? You must admit that those THREE "SBT"-like things I just talked about are impressively duplicated in CE903. Wouldn't you agree, Pat?" -- DVP; July 1, 2018

Oh brother! Cry me a river, Pat! Your complaint about how Arlen Specter "changed the wound" totally ignores the fact that the original wording that was going to appear in the WCR made no sense at all---and would have been, in fact, just flat-out WRONG (not to mention stupid). As Jean Davison put it in 2014: "[Gerald] Ford didn't need to move the back wound up. And in fact he didn't, since the phrase he revised put the wound on "his back at a point slightly above the shoulder." It can't be above the shoulder and still be in the back. (Except maybe in conspiracyland where apparently anything is possible.) .... I doubt that Ford, for one, knew the exact location of the back/neck wound. I think he recognized that the sentence as written couldn't possibly be right since there's nothing "in the back slightly above the shoulders." By definition, above the shoulders is "neck." Ford tried to correct it and made matters worse. One thing I feel certain of is that there was no rational motive for anyone to "raise" the back wound. Moving it to the neck doesn't support the SBT, no matter what suspicion may tell you. An entry in the neck would destroy the SBT trajectory." -- Jean Davison http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/gerald-ford-and-sbt.html ----------------- And to verify--IN PHOTOGRAPHIC FORM--that what Jean said back in 2014 is the absolute truth (i.e.: "An entry in the neck would destroy the SBT trajectory"), there's my favorite WC exhibit, No. 903, which Pat & I have hashed and re-hashed the merits of many times over the years, which demonstrates for all time that the WC most certainly DID NOT "raise" the back wound up into the "Neck" of John Kennedy. The wound in CE903 is exactly where it should be and exactly where the autopsy photo shows it to be---in the UPPER BACK. And furthermore, CE903 also demonstrates that the back wound WAS, indeed, anatomically HIGHER than the trach/neck wound, because this JFK stand-in is in the same position in the limo that JFK was in on 11/22. He's not leaning forward, nor was JFK on 11/22. So, of course, any bullet coming downward at an angle of approx. 17 degrees (like CE399 was) is going to result in a back wound that has no choice BUT to be anatomically higher than the exit wound for that missile....

BTW / FWIW.... Dr. James Humes told the Warren Commission in no uncertain terms that "the wound in the anterior [front] portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly [to the rear], sir".

Yeah, he sure did, Micah. And I talk about that very odd "have it both ways" determination made by Vince Bugliosi in my "RH" review blog below. (If you click this link, wait a few seconds for the page to load, then refresh the page again to allow the anchor link to "settle in" to the proper place on the page.).... http://reclaiminghistory.blogspot.com/#JFK-Wounds-Pages-423-And-424

Yes, like you said, it does feel weird to be at odds so strongly with something the HSCA determined to be a fact. But that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it based on the two comparison autopsy photos that are clearly telling me (even without photogrammetry being applied) that the back wound was above the throat wound. And I'm not using the "hump" on JFK's back in my comparison at all. I'm using the CRIMPS in JFK's neck as the main guide. Try doing that yourself, Pat. Utilize those crimps in the neck and then envision (in just a "ballpark" fashion if nothing else) where you think that bullet hole would be located in the photo on the left. Even when accounting for some distortion and inexactness due to the distance from the camera or whatever other limitations you can think of....do you really think that bullet hole could have been BELOW the trach/throat wound (as the HSCA said)? In other words, can there really be THAT much distortion of reality when comparing these two photographs? Even if you're right about the shoulders of JFK being "hunched up" in the photo on the right, can there possibly be ENOUGH "shoulder hunching distortion" in the right-hand picture to enable that wound to actually, in "reality", be located all the way to the BOTTOM (or even LOWER, per the HSCA!) of the left-hand photo? I just can't envision THAT much distortion. Plus, how do you go about determining just exactly HOW MUCH Kennedy's shoulders are "hunched up" in the photo on the right? Just how do you KNOW the shoulders are "hunched", Pat? How is that determined?

~~sigh~~ http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/gerald-ford-and-sbt.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/The False Rumor About A Secret Service Agent Being Killed On 11/22/63

Thanks, Karl. Good catches there. (Heck, I've only watched my KRLD-TV Trade Mart video about 75 times in the past. So I should have found those "Book Depository" mentions earlier---just from memory---but I didn't. So thanks to Karl Hilliard for pointing them out with the approximate timestamps.) Now, FWIW, this would mean that the words "Book Depository" were being uttered on public TV station KRLD-TV in Dallas at approx. 1:06 PM CST (because the above video starts at 12:55 PM CST).

I haven't fled the scene at all. I was just sleeping. (People have to do that every now and then, you know. Give a sleeping person a break, will ya? I was posting here until 5:17 AM EDT this morning.) 🙂 But thanks for that rare Getty image of the shirt, James. It appears to me (based on the photo supplied by James Gordon) that the hole in the back of the shirt is not very far below the level of the cuts (holes) in the front of the shirt (once the front of the shirt is buttoned-up, that is). Which means that if JFK's shirt was elevated just slightly on his back in Dealey Plaza (and we know his jacket WAS elevated via the Croft photo and other photos*), it would mean that the back of the shirt would be RAISED UP slightly during the shooting and, hence, the back wound (and the bullet hole in the shirt too) would be ABOVE the throat wound anatomically. All it takes is a SLIGHT elevation of the back of the shirt to have the bullet holes line up in a DOWNWARD (back-to-front) orientation. And even if you want to argue that the "cuts" on the front of the shirt are not really "bullet holes" at all, but instead they are scalpel cuts, well, OK, that's fine too. Because we know that the TRACH wound does double-duty (in a sense), because we know the trach wound is at the exact level of where the bullet hole was located before the Parkland doctors obliterated it. It amounts to the throat wound being located at the level of the "tie knot". * Awaiting the arrival of Cliff Varnell to inform us all about how impossible it would have been for JFK's tailor-made custom shirt to have become elevated on his back even a fraction of an inch. But the combination of the two photos below most definitely prove Mr. Varnell to be 100% wrong when he makes such a repeated....and repeated....and repeated claim about Kennedy's shirt: Related Discussion: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1244.html#JFK's-Necktie

I've already done that very thing, James, via the side-by-side photo comparison I provided in my earlier posts. But I'll try it again by copying all of the text from this webpage of mine: [DVP Quote On:] I think everyone would probably agree that part of the problem that exists with respect to lining up President Kennedy's upper-back wound and his throat wound is the fact that there is no specific autopsy photograph in existence that can readily illustrate the relationship between those two key wounds at the same time. But I think that the autopsy photo shown below of President Kennedy, which has been turned sideways for proper orientation, does a pretty good job of accomplishing that task (although, of course, we still can't physically see the hole in JFK's upper back here): Via the above photo, it's very easy to illustrate the fact that the wound in President Kennedy's upper back was certainly well ABOVE the wound in the front of the neck/throat. Because if a line is drawn straight across from the throat wound toward JFK's back in the above photograph (even allowing for the limitations of such crude line-drawing on a two-dimensional photograph, which really cannot be done and expect complete accuracy regarding specific measurements), where would that place a wound on the "back" portion of John Kennedy's body? Certainly not anywhere near the "neck". And also nowhere near where we find the actual upper-back wound via the autopsy photo of Kennedy's back. And if you want to buy the HSCA junk about the back wound being anatomically LOWER than the throat wound, there's even a bigger differential, which would place the back wound practically in the MIDDLE portion of JFK's back...which is just silly. Just compare it to this picture: The "crimp" in JFK's neck is a good guide to use in both of the above autopsy photographs. The "crimp" appears to me to be located approximately three inches above the wound. So we need to estimate about three inches below the "neck crimp" in this photo: Where would the wound be located based on that crimp estimate? Certainly not anywhere NEAR the very BOTTOM of that picture (which is where the wound would have to be located in order for it to be at "throat wound level"). This isn't exactly rocket science. Here's a side-by-side comparison of the two autopsy photographs: The Single-Bullet Theory works. Period. Related Article -- The SBT Perfection Of Commission Exhibit No. 903. David Von Pein January 2007 July 2010