David Von Pein

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

12 hours ago, James R Gordon said:

David,

I am surprised no one has picked you up on CE 903.

In your montage - which I do not have a real problem with - more an irritation. However you have stated that you accept that back entry wound as shown on the FOX image and you further state the back wound was higher than the throat wound. You explain that incongruity with the position of body posture.

With CE 903 I believe adjustments were made for using the Queen Mary.

However that pointer is in the wrong position. The back entrance was a few centimeters from the spine. Further the wound was around T3, You know that the pointer is lying on the Clavicle and the entrance wound was no where near the Clavicle. I have not read up on this. Can you link me to the WC documentation that justified this? I would like to read their argument that this proves the SBT.

And that is before we talk about Connally which is a problem yet to be discussed.

And you think CE 903 accurately describes the Line of trajectory fro JFK to JBC?

I am aware this is WC politics to persuade people that Oswald commited the crime - and it succeeded in doing so for quite some time. And I know you support th WC. But can you not honestly admit that this fails on two points.

a) It does not replicate the SBT either for the JFK  and JBC wounds

and

b) The points of origin for JFK and JBC are utterlly wrong.

James

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)....
 

15 hours ago, John Butler said:

OBTW, how do you explain the nice heart shaped black patch.  From the assassins with love?

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

........

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

So where is the throat wound compared to the back wound?

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:

Quote

You do not need to tread on eggshells. I am happy you have returned. I have always been concerned about the way I deleted your membership. We live in worlds that are universes apart, but I recognise you are one of the foremost WC supporters.  I have called you a fraud. That is permitted because I defined precisely what I meant by that. So do not worry if you wish to make a comment about me, be sure you clarify what you mean and why you mean it. You are wrong that I am hostile towards you. I am not. But I am severely frustrated that you cannot argue your case.

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:

Quote

If you agree the entry wound is in the back then how is that wound higher on the body than the throat. I know the answer if it's because JFK was leaning forward thereby allowing the back wound to appear higher. Rather than that twin image with its line why don't you establish how JFK's body position was such as to allow such a shot.

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:

Quote

Your point about the back entrance wound being higher than the throat wound is utter nonsense - with one exception. I imagine it might - MIGHT - be possible if JFK were bent down far enough that - SOMEHOW - there is a path from the back to the throat.

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?

1 minute ago, Ian Lloyd said:

CE903 does not depict the true bullet path (as you have conceded).

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.

14 minutes ago, Ian Lloyd said:

CE903 does not show the true path of the bullet.

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?

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

The question was for you to point out where on the back view the throat wound is.

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!)

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

your images are appalling. You compare images in different postures.

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.

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

As I said yesterday I will not play your game. I asked you where on the image of the back - in which you say the wound we see is above the throat wound - where is the throat wound and I got in return your comment above.

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?

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

I have no idea how anyone can involve themselves in a discussion with you on what happened to JFK.

And yet you're doing exactly that right now. Most curious indeed.

And your next insult is?......

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

In order to promote a political argument - I.e. What happened to JFK - you are prepared to trash and distort established medical science.

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.

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

You post the above image and you draw a line out of the throat...

I told you yesterday---in this post---that that line angling out of the throat wound was NOT put there by me.

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

But the wound you reference as the entrance wound is not up in the neck. It is down the back near the Scapular.

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.

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

In order to make your argument you attempt to distort established anatomy. To support your theory you claim that a wound  that is adjacent to the “Spine of the Scapular” is actually above the throat wound and it appears you are not embarrassed in saying that.

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

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

Your argument is also fraudulent because you have not balanced the images like so:
https://next.photobucket.com/u/jamesg27/a/1ed543ab-ff1a-4ef5-9093-033f8f96a9b9/p/ec35206d-263a-4aba-acbb-2191366b7dbb

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~

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

Once the images are balanced we see a line pointing upwards whereas the wound is actually below.

You've lost me completely here. I have no idea what you're talking about here.

"Line pointing upwards..." ???

~another shrug~

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

I will stay in this debate. I do so even though I know what you are doing to convince this forum of your position is fraudulent. I say that because your argument deliberately distorts established medical knowledge in order to prove a political theory.

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

On 7/27/2022 at 2:20 AM, Pat Speer said:

He [Dr. Humes] said that based on a drawing created after he'd met with Joe Ball, who was tasked with explaining how a bullet fired from above could go upwards in the body. Voila! Humes claimed the face sheet was in error and that it was all an optical illusion. Specter, who'd seen the photos and knew the wound was on the back and not the back of the neck, similarly played "ball" and changed the wound from being a back wound to being a back of the neck wound in the report. He then performed interviews in which he said that if the back wound was lower than the throat wound [then] the autopsy doctors should be prosecuted. When the HSCA FPP determined as much, moreover, instead of complaining about the doctors, or demanding their prosecution, he forced his son onto the HSCA as an assistant to one of tis members, and then lawyered up before providing any testimony.

The historical record is clear, then, that these guys all lied and obstructed justice through the falsification of evidence. If your hero Bugliosi had a lick of common sense he would have uncovered this fact over his years and years of "research." But, no, instead he insisted that Oswald killed Kennedy because he was just filled with hate, and that the black warehouse workers were "stockboys".

His book is a travesty, and your treating it like it's some kind of Bible is an embarrassment.  

Not as if I have an opinion on this, or anything...

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".

11 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Apparently Bulio [Vincent Bugliosi] failed at editing, because he accidentally left in a part in Reclaiming History where he states as a fact the HSCA's conclusion of a back wound lower than the throat wound.

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

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

As discussed on my website and on numerous forums, what, twelve years ago? the image above comparing the back wound location in the two photos (which is believed to have originated with Jean Davison) is grossly deceptive, and deliberately so. .

I say "deliberately so" because it's clear NO attempt has been made to match the photos up properly. In reality, the photo at right is grossly undersized compared to the photo at left. This deliberate deception serves to make the "hump" on Kennedy's back appear to be in the same location in each photo.

But in reality they are not. In the photo at right, the back wound is slightly below the level of the shoulders. In the photo at left the shoulders are below the bottom of the photo, that is, BELOW the throat wound. Ergo, the photo at right shows JFK's corpse with its shoulders hunched up. 

When one properly sizes the photos and "unhunches" the shoulders, that is, tries to place them in their proper position, it's clear the back wound is at or even slightly below the throat wound. 

This is so elementary, in fact, that even the HSCA pathology panel, prone to push all sorts of nonsense, saw that this was true. 

So, yeah, on this issue some LNs, most tellingly you, David, have taken to pushing something completely at odds with the expert opinions of the wonderful HSCA FPP.

IOW, on this issue you have taken to pushing a completely whack-a-doodle theory based on a gross misunderstanding of the evidence...that is, based on a HOAX. 

This is the sin for what most of us on this forum have been regularly accused. It must feel weird to have the shoe on the other foot, right?

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?

10 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Gerald Ford admitted he moved the back wound up.

~~sigh~~

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

8 hours ago, Karl Hilliard said:

More than three times there was a mention of a killed Secret Service [agent].

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

8 hours ago, Karl Hilliard said:

About after 11:13 and 19:30 he does say 'book depository'. Thanks for the video and all the compiled work.

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).

13 hours ago, James R Gordon said:

I see DVP has scuttled off the site. I showed him a high quality and rotated image of the back wound and asked him to point out where below the back wound the throat wound was. Below the back entrance wound is the Scapular. Little wonder he fled the scene.

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

13 hours ago, James R Gordon said:

So - accoring to you - The back entrance wound is higher on JFK's body than is the exit/trach wound,

Here is a clearer copy of the back wound image you were using. Can you explain how the back wound is higher than the throat exit wound.

Take a copy of my image and demonstrate where the throat exit wound is.

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

Sean,

Stemmons Freeway wasn't even there in 1952 when that photo was snapped. Stemmons opened in 1959.

4 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:

But if I am to debate this issue with you then I am going to call out your unfounded assertions each and every time I see them.

I don't think my assertion is "unfounded" regarding the heights of the wounds in relation to each other. It's a comparison of 2D photos, that's true enough. But even without the use of photogrammetry (which would be the ideal method of comparison), I think it's obvious that the back wound is higher on JFK's body than is the exit/trach wound. And author Vincent Bugliosi agreed with me:

• "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." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 424 of "Reclaiming History"

On 7/26/2022 at 4:02 AM, Cory Santos said:

She [Ruth Paine] clearly stated she heard of the shooting from the building before it was announced JFK was dead.  So we know she heard of the shooting from the depository before at least 1 but maybe give a few minutes.  She seems to say it was between an hour from when he was shot and it was announced on tv to when he was declared dead.  What time on tv was the declaration?

The JFK death announcement came at 1:38 PM CST on CBS-TV and within a minute or two of that on all the other TV networks.

On 7/26/2022 at 4:02 AM, Cory Santos said:

DVP, in your collection of tapes when did the tv start reporting that someone shot JFK from the book depository?

[...]

Was the depository the shooter location over the tv prior to 1?

Of course we don't know what TV channel/network Marina & Ruth were watching, but if they were watching Channel 4 in Dallas (KRLD-TV / CBS affiliate), they would have heard Eddie Barker tell them at approx. 1:20 PM CST that the shooter "shot from a window in a building that I can best describe as being a factory loft that houses school books". (See video below at the 22:55 mark.) The word "Depository" I don't think was mentioned by Barker during the half-hour video presented below. [EDIT---Boy, was I dead wrong about this. See the next two posts by Karl Hilliard and myself.]

I can't recall if the "Book Depository" was mentioned by name prior to the JFK death announcement at approx. 1:38 to 1:40 PM on any of the other TV networks either. But feel free to check those videos at my YouTube channel if you so desire. But keep in mind that the only LOCAL (Dallas) TV coverage I have is the 30 minutes of KRLD-TV coverage at the video embedded below and the WFAA-TV coverage (and the TSBD is certainly mentioned fairly early on in the WFAA coverage). AFAIK, nobody alive has the WBAP-TV (Ch.5) coverage or the KTVT-TV coverage either.

https://www.youtube.com/user/DavidVonPeinJFK/playlists

13 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:

If we are to debate the relative positions of the back wound to the throat wound, let's do so with the best evidence available.

Hi James.

I don't think I have the shirt photo you speak of. (But I'll check my computer to make sure.)

But I totally disagree with your assertion that the SHIRT of JFK is "the best evidence available", regardless of where the bullet hole is on that shirt.

You surely must agree with me that by far the BEST evidence for where the back wound was located is the ACTUAL BODY (skin) of John F. Kennedy. Right? And this photo montage below shows clearly that the back wound was anatomically HIGHER than the throat/neck/trach wound, using the crimps in JFK's neck as a good guide to show relative height. (The angled line on the left photo was not put there by me, btw.) ....