Antti Hynonen

Mr. Heidenheimer, Lee Oswald lived in New Orleans in the summer of 1963, not 1962.

JP Hosty sure seems to be someone whom you will easily misunderstand....

Thanks Cliff. Sounds reasonable.

Mr. David, You may have seen some of the Kennedy autopsy photos, which are available on the internet. See link: http://www.celebritymorgue.com/jfk/jfk-autopsy.html Are any of these (wounds) the same or similar to what you saw with Mr. Pitzer that day, do you recall? Are the head wounds the only difference? Thank you.

Cliff: How many inches below the wound as depicted in the "autopsy" photo of Kennedy's back, do you say the actual back wound was? Why do you think the Rydberg drawings were drawn to show the wound in the neck, when the autopsy photo shows it 2 inches lower, and the clothing supports yet a third location? Why the excess confusion, and not just one altered location? Antti

Mr. Gray you may want to add the alleged "pot shot" by Oswald at Gen Edwin A. Walker to your time line, this occurred on April 10th 1963, if I recall correctly. Great time line by the way. Also I find it interesting that the Camp & Lafayette St. corner comes around again.

Finck probably said "I don't remember" 20 times in his testimonies also " I can not answer that" was one favorite of his. Such type of "amnesia" is common when one is lying. It merely reinforces the cover-up in Bethesda that night.

As I recall Mr. Dennis David has told us, the Pitzer photos of Kennedy showed what Mr. David and Mr. Pitzer concluded to be an entry wound in the (right?) temple. The photos shown by Pitzer to David were not necessarily taken by Pitzer. From what I have read, two sets of photos of the dead President exist (pre-autopsy and after autopsy, if I recall correctly), the ones discussed here could have been from either set, or a combination of the two.

The timing as remembered by O'Connor may be wrong. However, the key issue in his recollection of the events is that the President's body was delivered in a casket and bodybag, much different to the one the body was placed in earlier that day, for shipment to the DC area. Further, in TMWKK, O'Connor tells us that the neck wound looked like it had been cut open and mangled more than what is needed for a tracheotomy. I do not recall all the information that Mr. O'Connor tells in TMWKK but I do recall the key discrepancies compared to the "official" documentation of events.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...751C0A965958260 Catalogue of Accusations Against J. Edgar Hoover, Anthony Summers. This book apparently discusses the very issue. Perhaps Mr. Summers has details regarding this?

Ok, if you so wish. However, I already mentioned the general flaws regarding this scenario in my earlier posts regarding the position of the body and the line drawn. You may be satisfied with the line drawn in the photo on the left, I am not. At quick glance it does look like your theory would be sound. Deeper analysis of it shows it has some shortcomings. I do not wish to repeat the same issues covered earlier. I still maintain that the (alleged) entry wound and the (alleged) exit wounds were roughly at the same level (horizontally). In fact, it could be that the entry wound was lower than the exit, which implies that your claims and the SBT are wrong. For a better demonstration, I recommend using a similar demo as I did of myself earlier (however, having someone sitting would be even better). This will show that the entry and exit wounds are relatively close in horizontal position, too close to allow for a 15 degree or more, downward angle. At this time I am unable to perform a similar demonstration. Perhaps in the near future I can, however. Using similar techniques as presented by you, is how the WC was able to convince many of its critics. I think it is time to take a fresh look and bring to light the flaws in their theories. Drawing lines on photos to make a point is a rather vague way of going about making a point. At best the results can be conflicting. Again, I doubt it would suffice in a court of law as evidence. The key problems with using photos this way are with obtaining proper perspective, angles and positioning of the body and so forth.

Ok, good luck to you sir. I hope your research leads you to where ever you desire to go.

Wrong. This is what you say. Not I. I believe the photos are real, I have no reason to believe otherwise. However, if the body were more upright, the scenario would show that at a descending angle of 15 degrees (starting from the back wound IN THE NECK! as drawn by Rydberg and as altered by Ford et al), would indeed support the exit location in the trach area. However, the actual wound, as portrayed in the autopsy photos, is some 2 inches lower in reality. This automatically results in an exit wound (had the bullet penetrated through the body) 2 inches lower as well.

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/sibert.htm The information gathered onto the (Wim Dankbaar) site above shows the holes in the Presidents clothing and the article regarding fmr. President Ford's actions regarding the back wound among other things. I think it is very dishonest to alter evidence in that manner. If the evidence were self explanatory, supportive of a single assassin, there would be no need to alter anything. I have questioned and will continue questioning the motives of the WC! No. The back wound and the throat wound were at best at the same level. Add to this the downward angle of the bullet and you have an "impossible bullet theory" a la Arlen Specter. I'm afraid Pat Speer is right about the wounds. The picture you posted contains an arbitrary line drawn to help promote a fantasy. The key problem remains: a bullet on a downward path, on a left to right trajectory, will not become a bullet on an upward right to left trajectory or anything else of the sort. It defies all logic.

I was able to achieve the same point as you with the 14cm but only by tilting my head back (this hardly was the idea!) From your earlier post it sure seemed like you were willing to "swallow" everything official, therfore the question. But it didn't. (Fact) You got that part right skipper! We have discussed the shortcomings of this experiment in some earlier posts. My view is that the re-creation was only 50% successful - since, despite the teams efforts, the path of the bullet was different from the actual and it did not penetrate the same bones and tissues as in the actual event. Furthermore the JFK exit wound was in a different location (proving once again the SBT impossibility) etc. etc. This is a good question (must be from someone rather intelligent). I can not say, for I haven't studied other murders nor do I have any official training or experience as a homicide investigator. I would assume that a fairly high degree of accuracy is needed (in order for "beyond a reasonable doubt" to occur). After all in murder cases the perpetrator will face the death penalty, correct? I think it would be common courtesy to get the evidence straight before excecuting someone, no? First off, if you say: "which, naturally, is absolutely impossible to accomplish and everybody knows it", so why do you ask? I can now see how the Warren Commission members were thinking. They had to make the evidence prove that Lee harvey Oswald was the only guilty party, even by taking liberties such as tampering with the evidence. See Mr. Ford's involvement in altering the location of the back wound....

You may believe in what you wish. Meanwhile I will rely on the findings in the measurements and facts presented above. Everything "official" isn't always the truth, unfortunately, also fiction in this case. Do you believe in everything "official" even if it is wrong? I fear the Australian documentary was pretty accurate with their shot and angle in their simulation, as the bullet exited some 2-3 inches lower than JFK's trach wound. This is further proof of the obfuscation in the autopsy report. Furthermore had their bullet hit the same number of bones and tissue the condition of CE399 would also be cleared as total BS. In fact their experiment only strenghthens my opinion regarding a frontal neck wound, and utter falsification of the autopsy report. Oh, so now my body is so different from JFK's that my measurements are completely false. I'm sorry Mr. Von Pein, your arguments become weaker and weaker by the dozen.... Let's stick to the facts shall we? Somehow my body measurements arrived at the same point with Mr. Rydbergs drawing. Must be pure coincidence! No doubt Rydberg was instructed to draw an entry wound at 14 cm below the right mastoid process. The 14 cm is convenient, because it will allow for an exit at the tracheotomy point.... (with the appropriate angle of decent) whereas the 20cm entry does not quite fit!

To help Mr. Von Pein compare the point I made earlier (Gosh, he has a hard time understanding!). Here's the photo with my measurements from earlier. This clearly shows my 14 cm marking from the mastoid process is in the same spot as in Mr. Rydberg's drawing. The photographic evidence changes everything and shows the bullet entry at some 20cm from the right mastoid process. This evidence suggests (considering the angle of the bullet) an exit wound in the upper part of the chest. Definitely not just below the Adam's apple, where the tracheotomy was performed. Conclusion: Tampering of evidence to conceal the conspiracy and a frontal shot! "So what?" You say... You're missing the whole point! If the bullet entry is indeed where it is on the photo, it will not exit where Humes, Boswell and Finck claimed it did. Sorry.

See the difference?

David von Pein: I used the mastoid process as a starting point for my measurement. Your reply is pretty unconvincing too. I provided you with the measurements you suggested, to prove a point, which I did. It remains with you to show that my measurements were off. The ball is in your court. If you like we can skip the entire measurement issue if it is too much for you to handle. Instead, the declining angle of the bullet and the location of the entry wound in the autopsy photo at the back suggests an exit wound just above the nipple. I can not fathom how the exit wound could be at a point higher than the entry, when the bullet is descending at an angle of 10-15 degrees. How does that compute in your book?

Mr. Von Pein, As per your request, please find enclosed a photo of my back with 2 markings. The top mark in my neck (not shoulder) is at 14 cm from the mastoid, the bottom marking is at 14 inches - which is clearly not the middle of my back. photo removed for additional space!

I did, several times. It is right where I said it is; between my (the end of) clavicle and my back bone, i.e. the bottom of the top 1/3 of my back, I'm roughly 6 ft. Kennedy was even taller, so I don't know how it could be "the middle of the back". 6 feet are 72 inches, right? (I'm European, so I apologize if my US measurements aren't quite accurate) the mastoid process is some 7 inches from the top of my skull, 14 inches from there makes it 21 inches. 21 inches from the top of my head is not quite the middle of my back, it's more like 24 inches. Nevertheless, my point was that there is a major difference between the alleged location of the entry wound at the top part of the shoulder (as Boswell claims) and the other evidence discussed. Even the photo you posted has the entry wound one or two inches lower than 14 cm from the mp. The evidence does not add up!

Sorry, no joke. I prefer not to joke about issues relating to the murder of a President. You are wrong. Actually 35 cm below the right mastoid process is between the clavicle and the backbone, which is the same location as described in the Sibert/O'Neill testimony. There were 35 cm or some 14 inches of clear space on the back of the President (measuring from the mp), when riding in the limousine, consider that he was tilted slightly forward too. I definitely disagree with you. See link below. Measurements show that 14 cm is at the top of the shoulder above any bones, some 5-7 cm below the hairline. Even the (autopsy???) photo presented by you, shows that the wound is lower than 14 cm from the mp, albeit not 35 cm. Judging from the photo, the distance between the bullet entry and the right mp, the distance is probably around 20cm. Take this and the angle of the bullet and you ought to have it exiting close to the nipple. However, the back wound was probed and it was less than one inch deep. So the exit wound at the base of the throat does not add up with the back wound and the angle of the shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Sorry. When trying to make sense of this, I am trying to look at all the evidence. Too bad the evidence is so conflicting. To show you there was at least 14 inches from the mastoid process to the top of the seat, please have another look: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/MC11.htm The motorcade photo shows that roughly 1/3 of Kennedy's back is exposed or some 15-16 inches of distance to the mastoid process. If you still unsure, why don't you take a ruler and see how far 14 inches down your back extends (start from your ear, that'll be close enough) or if you're not limber enough ask someone to help. You will find that 14 inches is abosolutely doable.

Boswell may have meant 14 inches (roughly 35,5 cm), not centimeters, which would be closer to the would as observed by eye witnesses and supported by other evidence.

Yes, the path of the bullet can not be explained, if you take into account all of the primary evidence and the single bullet theory. The Wound in Kennedy's back (according to the autopsy photos) is located around the bottom half of the shoulder blade on the right side of his back. The alleged exit wound is in the centerline of the throat, below the Adams apple (thus indicating an upward path) unless Kennedy was bent down and over considerably (which I don't recall from the photos or footage seen from that day). When comparing to the actual photos displaying the back wound, the Rydberg drawings are inaccurate, and so is the WC drawing posted by John Simkin.