The Warren Commission

[David Von Pein]

Just because these bullets were not found, does not make the SBT right as a consequence.

But it sure as heck makes the SBT much more likely to be true (particularly when we factor in the common-sense observation of John Connally ALSO having been hit by a rifle bullet in his UPPER BACK at just about the exact same time that Kennedy was being hit by one).

Can you deny the logic of my last statement, James? If you do deny or sidestep its built-in garden-variety logic, then maybe Occam should pay you a visit and show you his Razor.

It is an illogical position to say that just because we could not find these bullets that has to mean that the SBT is the answer.

It doesn't have to mean it's the answer...but, as I just said above, the lack of ANY bullets (or even fragments of bullets) in JFK's upper body sure as heck makes it much more likely that one single bullet tore through JFK's body, leaving behind very little damage and leaving behind, of course, no bullets at all.

In fact, the #1 factor for Arlen Specter (as he has said in televised interviews) in arriving at a single-bullet conclusion was that same troublesome fact that CTers have no reasonable or logical answer for -- there were no bullets in Kennedy's body.

It stands to reason, therefore, that one single bullet passed cleanly through the President's upper back and neck, exiting his throat.

And when you then factor in the Connally back wound, the math becomes even simpler. Connally was sitting in a direct line to accept any bullet that would have exited JFK's throat.

Given these variables, where can logic take a reasonable person? Should it take me to MULTIPLE DISAPPEARING BULLETS hitting Kennedy from opposite directions -- even though I know that CONNALLY too was struck in his UPPER BACK with a bullet at nearly the very same instant on Elm Street?

Or should logic take me in the direction where Dr. Cyril Wecht has travelled -- i.e., the bullet does go through Kennedy, but it totally misses Connally (and the limo). And Wecht purports such a theory even though he knows full well that the man sitting almost directly in front of John F. Kennedy also sustained a bullet wound to his upper back at an almost identical point in time in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.

I mean, come on. Let's be sensible. (That is allowed in a SBT debate, isn't it?)

The SBT can only become a legitimate solution when you can answer the number of criticisms laid against it. So far I have not seen you do that.

But I have far more criticisms of any "anti-SBT" theory that might be used to substitute for the SBT.

Any anti-SBT theory must contain several aspects that are So Close, But Not Quite Close Enough to the SBT.

E.G.:

1.) The wounds on JFK's body in any anti-SBT theory are Close, but not close enough to where the wounds are really located in JFK's upper body (per the autopsy pictures and the Boswell Face Sheet measurements and in Commission Exhibit No. 903).

2.) John Connally is positioned Close, but not close enough to the position he needs to be in to make the SBT work. (CTers like Tony Marsh like to micro-analyze this aspect of their anti-SBT theory down to the exact number of inches, practically centimeters, that separated JFK & JBC, as if that figure can be established with 100% accuracy; it cannot be established with pinpoint precision, which is something I've always said since the first day I ever started talking about the JFK case on the Internet.)

3.) The reactions we see exhibited by JFK and Connally in the Zapruder Film are Close, but not close enough to support the notion that both men were reacting to severe external stimulus at the very same time.

In the final analysis, it is my opinion that the Single-Bullet Theory is (to quote my favorite author, Vincent Bugliosi):

"So obvious that a child could author it." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 302 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

Edited June 13, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Cliff Varnell]

David, how could the jacket fabric indent if there were multiple inches of shirt fabric bulging up at that location?

I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

The indentation in JFK's jacket on the corner of Main and Houston a minute before the shooting.

You are able to see the indentation of fabric along JFK's right shoulder-line, no?

How could the jacket indent if there were multiple inches of shirt fabric bunched up at that location?

How could the jacket collar drop to a normal position at the upper margin of the base of the neck if there

were 4+" of clothing fabric bunched up entirely above the lower margin of the base of the neck?

This is your theory, David. After all. The burden of proof is one you to demonstrate how any of this is possible.

[David Von Pein]

Show it [CE903] from the other side.

I have, and I discuss those opposite-angle photos here.

Edited June 14, 2012 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

1. The Mauser shell that disappeared from Dealey Plaza and we only found out about because of the ARRB.

2. The Bob Barret photo in Dealey Plaza. (And this is backed up by another source.)

3. The bullet strike in the street as noted in Barry Ernest's book.

4. The Day bullet as described in the local papers.

What a weak and crappy batch of conspiratorial proof.

And, if any of the above junk was actually true, what a worthless gang of Presidential assassins you had there in Dealey Plaza that day. Were all of the shooters blindfolded, Jimbo? Is that why there are so many bullet strikes in the grass and in the street that apparently didn't come within a country mile of hitting their target?

Geez.

Edited June 14, 2012 by David Von Pein

[James R Gordon]

Just because these bullets were not found, does not make the SBT right as a consequence.

But it sure as heck makes the SBT much more likely to be true (particularly when we factor in the common-sense observation of John Connally ALSO having been hit by a rifle bullet in his UPPER BACK at just about the exact same time that Kennedy was being hit by one).

Can you deny the logic of my last statement, James? If you do deny or sidestep its built-in garden-variety logic, then maybe Occam should pay you a visit and show you his Razor.

You may have read my post above, but it is clear you have not listened to what I said. Yes, one advantage of the SBT is that it does answer what happened to the bullet [provided you accept that CE 399 was that bullet, which I do not] but it does not answer the more serious questions both I and others have levelled about the theory. You clearly [although you have skilfully sidestepped the question] accept CE 903 as your position.

Although this is not CE 903 it is an opposite angle view of that picture. On your web site you make the following comment about it.

“this photo is just about spot-on perfect, in that the angle being depicted (if it is exactly the same 17-43-30 angle that we see depicted in CE903) would be TOO STEEP of an angle for any shot at precisely Z224. The angle in the photo below would, therefore, have to be lessened slightly to accommodate a shot going through both victims at exactly Z224.”

So aside from the trajectory angle adjustment, this is exactly the same as CE 903. That means with regard to the placing of the wound on the back, this is exactly the same as CE 903.

And there is your problem. If your stance regarding the position of the wound on JFK's back is CE 903, as you have stated on your web site it is, then by implication the SBT is impossible.

That position for the wound on JFK's back would require the bullet to pass through the lung in order to get to Trachea rings 3&4. It is anatomically impossible for any bullet entering the back as described by CE 903 to find any way to the Trachea except through the lung. That is an anatomical indisputable fact.

It is an illogical position to say that just because we could not find these bullets that has to mean that the SBT is the answer."

It doesn't have to mean it's the answer...but, as I just said above, the lack of ANY bullets (or even fragments of bullets) in JFK's upper body sure as heck makes it much more likely that one single bullet tore through JFK's body, leaving behind very little damage and leaving behind, of course, no bullets at all.

In fact, the #1 factor for Arlen Specter (as he has said in televised interviews) in arriving at a single-bullet conclusion was that same troublesome fact that CTers have no reasonable or logical answer for -- there were no bullets in Kennedy's body.

It stands to reason, therefore, that one single bullet passed cleanly through the President's upper back and neck, exiting his throat.

I concede there is a logic to this argument, but it falls and must fail if your position is as described by CE 903. CE 903 trajectory demands that the bullet has to pass through the lung and thereby damage it. For as long as your position is that of CE 903, your arguments for the SBT are meaningless.

And when you then factor in the Connally back wound, the math becomes even simpler. Connally was sitting in a direct line to accept any bullet that would have exited JFK's throat.

And here you jump to another point before dealing with the issue of CE 903.

It is an interesting factor that you appear oblivious to the point that the wounds to John Connally are irrelevant to the SBT if the wound to JFK do not adhere to its principles. Put simply, if the wounds to JFK do not adhere to the criteria of the the SBT, then the wounds of John Connally are of no importance. The wounds to John Connally are only important if the wounds to JFK meet the criteria of the SBT.

And so far they do not, because your position is CE 903 and because CE 903 demands that the lung has to be damaged the SBT fails at that point.

Given these variables, where can logic take a reasonable person? Should it take me to MULTIPLE DISAPPEARING BULLETS hitting Kennedy from opposite directions -- even though I know that CONNALLY too was struck in his UPPER BACK with a bullet at nearly the very same instant on Elm Street?

Or should logic take me in the direction where Dr. Cyril Wecht has travelled -- i.e., the bullet does go through Kennedy, but it totally misses Connally (and the limo). And Wecht purports such a theory even though he knows full well that the man sitting almost directly in front of John F. Kennedy also sustained a bullet wound to his upper back at an almost identical point in time in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.

I mean, come on. Let's be sensible. (That is allowed in a SBT debate, isn't it?)

Of course sense is appreciated in this discussion. However while you are in denial that CE 903 has to invalidate the SBT, sense appears to have left the conversation. In an earlier conversation I commented about the need for analysis. Why, do you think Humes had CE 386 created? Why would he place the back wound in that position in CE 386 and not as described in CE903? The answer is very simple: he needed the bullet's trajectory to miss damaging the lung. I have very serious questions about CE 386, as indeed I have about CE 385, but I understand why he had them drawn that way. Unlike you, at least Humes was being rational about the requirements of the SBT. Although there were questions that could be made about it, it had a major advantage over your position: Humes position ensured that the wounds to JFK met the criteria for the SBT. Your position does not meet those criteria.

The SBT can only become a legitimate solution when you can answer the number of criticisms laid against it. So far I have not seen you do that.

But I have far more criticisms of any "anti-SBT" theory that might be used to substitute for the SBT.

Any anti-SBT theory must contain several aspects that are So Close, But Not Quite Close Enough to the SBT.

E.G.:

1.) The wounds on JFK's body in any anti-SBT theory are Close, but not close enough to where the wounds are really located in JFK's upper body (per the autopsy pictures and the Boswell Face Sheet measurements and in Commission Exhibit No. 903).

David, CE 903 is going to have a bullet pass through JFK's lung and collapse it. Now where is that in the SBT?

2.) John Connally is positioned Close, but not close enough to the position he needs to be in to make the SBT work. (CTers like Tony Marsh like to micro-analyze this aspect of their anti-SBT theory down to the exact number of inches, practically centimeters, that separated JFK & JBC, as if that figure can be established with 100% accuracy; it cannot be established with pinpoint precision, which is something I've always said since the first day I ever started talking about the JFK case on the Internet.)

As I have said above, the wounds to John Connally are irrelevant while the wounds to JFK do not meet the criteria of the SBT.

3.) The reactions we see exhibited by JFK and Connally in the Zapruder Film are Close, but not close enough to support the notion that both men were reacting to severe external stimulus at the very same time.

have you not noticed that JFK is already reacting to the wound in Z224, which is the frame you suggest he was wounded?

James

In the final analysis, it is my opinion that the Single-Bullet Theory is (to quote my favorite author, Vincent Bugliosi):

"So obvious that a child could author it." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 302 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

[David Von Pein]

Sure, Oswald missed with his first shot. But according to people like DiEugenio and Groden, the supposedly "pro" assassins missed with a whole bunch of shots. (Groden's latest count was up to 15 gunshots, btw, as of April 2011.)

At least Oswald's batting average was .667. But if we're to believe Oliver Stone, the "professional" killers only managed a .500 average (3 hits on JFK out of 6 shots), with two complete misses of the limo.

Some pros.

Edited June 14, 2012 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Are we now going to have to repost the results of the "tests" that were conducted by "pros" to see if Oswald could have done what you believe he did do?

Oh, you mean the several gunmen who equalled or bettered Oswald's performance while firing a Carcano at a moving target in 1967?

Still think Oswald's "feat" was impossible?

(Let me guess -- Those tests don't count because they were conducted by CBS.)

Edited June 14, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Ian Kingsbury]

Can you show is the out-takes from that broadcast Dave?.

Or do you wish to cherry pick like a good editor would?.

[Cliff Varnell]

David, how could the jacket fabric indent if there were multiple inches of shirt fabric bulging up at that location?

I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

The indentation in JFK's jacket on the corner of Main and Houston a minute before the shooting.

You are able to see the indentation of fabric along JFK's right shoulder-line, no?

How could the jacket indent if there were multiple inches of shirt fabric bunched up at that location?

How could the jacket collar drop to a normal position at the upper margin of the base of the neck if there

were 4+" of clothing fabric bunched up entirely above the lower margin of the base of the neck?

This is your theory, David. After all. The burden of proof is one you to demonstrate how any of this is possible.

David?

[Peter McGuire]

Are we now going to have to repost the results of the "tests" that were conducted by "pros" to see if Oswald could have done what you believe he did do?

Oh, you mean the several gunmen who equalled or bettered Oswald's performance while firing a Carcano at a moving target in 1967?

Still think Oswald's "feat" was impossible?

(Let me guess -- Those tests don't count because they were conducted by CBS.)

It does not matter who fired the shots, the Secret Service still enabled them.

[Pat Speer]

Are we now going to have to repost the results of the "tests" that were conducted by "pros" to see if Oswald could have done what you believe he did do?

Oh, you mean the several gunmen who equalled or bettered Oswald's performance while firing a Carcano at a moving target in 1967?

Still think Oswald's "feat" was impossible?

(Let me guess -- Those tests don't count because they were conducted by CBS.)

Au contraire. I think they do count, particularly since they show how unlikely it would be for Oswald to hit the shots as proposed by the Warren Commission.

From patspeer.com chapter 3c:

In 1967, CBS News, realizing the Warren Commission's error in not conducting these tests, conducted some tests of their own. While the shooters used by CBS were all well-practiced rifleman, their over-all skill level was roughly that of Oswald at his best. (Of course, Oswald hadn’t been at his best since his first years in the Marines, a half a dozen years before the assassination.)

There were still other problems with the test. For one, the rifle used by these shooters was in prime operating condition, and was in no need of the adjustments performed by those test-firing Oswald's rifle for the Warren Commission. For two, the CBS shooters, unlike the man firing Oswald's rifle in Dealey Plaza, who was firing cold, were given NINE practice shots before making their attempts. For three, the target upon which these men fired, unlike the limousine in Dealey Plaza, moved at a constant speed away from the shooter, and at a constant angle.

Now, all these problems should have worked to the advantage of CBS' shooters, and have led to their easily replicating the shots purported for Oswald... That is, if the shots have been indeed easily replicable...

But let the test results speak for themselves…

1. Col. Jim Crossman, ret. (expert rifleman). First attempt--3 near misses in 6.54 seconds. Best attempt (of 6) ---2 hits and 1 near miss in 6.20 seconds. 2 hits or more in 3 of 6 attempts. (6.34, 6.44, and 6.2 seconds)

2. Douglas Bazemore (ex-paratrooper). First attempt—unable to operate bolt effectively to fire the shots. Best attempt (of 4)—unable to operate stiff bolt action; gives up. 2 hits or more in 0 of 4 attempts.

3. John Bollendorf (ballistics technician). First attempt—2 hits and 1 near miss in 6.8 seconds. Best attempt (of 4)—the same. 2 hits or more in 1 of 4 attempts. (6.8 seconds)

4. John Concini (Maryland State Trooper). First attempt—no record of where shots went in 6.3 seconds. Best attempt (of 2)—1 hit and 2 near misses in 5.4 seconds. 2 hits or more in 0 of 2 attempts.

5. Howard Donahue (weapons engineer). First attempt—too fast with bolt—gun jammed. Best attempt (of 3)—3 hits in 5.2 seconds. 2 hits or more in 1 of 3 attempts. (5.2 seconds)

6. Somersett Fitchett (sportsman). First attempt—gun jammed at 3^rd shot. Best attempt (of 3)—2 hits and 1 near miss in 5.5 seconds. 2 hits or more in 2 of 3 attempts. (5.9 and 5.5 seconds)

7. William Fitchett (sporting goods dealer). First attempt—3 borderline hits in 6.5 seconds. Best attempt (of 3)—the same. 2 hits or more in 1of 3 attempts. (6.5 seconds)

8. Ron George (Maryland State Trooper). First attempt—gun jammed at 2^nd shot. Best attempt (of 3)—2 hits and 1 near miss in 4.9 seconds. 2 hits or more in 1 of 3 attempts. (4.9 seconds)

9. Charles Hamby (shooting range employee). First attempt—gun jammed. Best attempt (of 3)—2 near misses and 1 complete miss in 6.5 seconds. 2 hits or more in 0 of 3 attempts.

10. Carl Holden (shooting range employee). First attempt—gun jammed with first shot. Best attempt (of 3)—3 near misses in 5.4 seconds. 2 hits or more in 0 of 3 attempts.

11. Sid Price (shooting range employee). First attempt—1 hit, 1 near miss, and 1 complete miss in 5.9 seconds. Best attempt (of 4)—the same. 2 hits or more in 0 of 4 attempts.

12. Al Sherman (Maryland State Trooper). First attempt—2 hits and 1 near miss in 5.0 seconds. Best attempt (of 5)—the same. 2 hits or more in 2 of 5 attempts. (5.0 and 6.0 seconds)

Of the 12 first attempts, only 1 shooter was able to hit the target twice in less than 5.6 seconds. Of the 43 total attempts, moreover, these well-seasoned shooters were able to replicate Oswald’s purported feat—2 hits in less than 5.6 seconds—just 4 times.

In fact, it's even worse. Not counting Crossman, an acknowledged rifle expert, those purportedly of Oswald's skill level landed but 25 hits TOTAL, in their 20 successful attempts at getting off 3 shots. In other words, they hit 25 out of 60 shots--far worse on average than Oswald's purported 2 out of 3.

But it's actually FAR WORSE than that. You see, CBS counted any strike on the FBI silhouettes used as targets--even those far down the back, or out on the shoulders--as a hit. This, in effect, tripled or quadrupled the size of the target for their shooters, in comparison to the small area on the back and head purportedly hit by Oswald. It seems clear then that, of the 60 shots total, and 25 hits, no more than 9 hit the target in the small central area purportedly hit by Oswald, not once but twice. This, then, suggests that, even IF Oswald was a well-practiced shooter, and even IF his rifle were in optimal condition, and even IF he had been provided NINE practice shots, the odds of his hitting the small area he supposedly hit from the sniper's nest on any given shot were less than 1 in 6, and of his hitting this area 2 of 3 times something like 1 in 16.

In other words, Oswald's purported feat was highly unlikely...

(This fact has not escaped the attention of those continuing to argue Oswald acted alone. In his mammoth tome Reclaiming History, Vincent Bugliosi deceives his readers by arguing that, as Oswald was clearly aiming for Kennedy's head, he actually hit but one of three shots. This avoids, of course, that the vast majority of "hits" by the professional shooters attempting to simulate Oswald's purported feat for the Warren Commission, and what one can only assume were the vast majority of "hits" by the amateur shooters attempting to simulate Oswald's purported feat for CBS News in 1967, were torso hits even further from the center of the target as the hit on Kennedy's back.)

In any event, if the Warren Commission had conducted similar tests, they would almost certainly have concluded that Oswald needed more than 5.6 seconds to fire the shots, and that either the first shot or last shot missed. But this was not to be...

[David Von Pein]

The main point, though, regarding the 1967 CBS-TV rifle tests is this (which is something that no conspiracy theorist ever wants to say out loud):

Via tests conducted after the JFK assassination, it WAS physically possible to hit a moving target 2 times out of 3 shots with a manual, bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle from the same height and distances that were experienced by the TSBD sniper on 11/22/63.

Plus:

In 1986, HSCA firearms expert Monty Lutz also duplicated Oswald's shooting performance. He actually beat Oswald's feat by a wide margin, although Lutz did not fire at a moving target (so that means most CTers will toss out Lutz' test right away, of course).

But, nonetheless, in one of Lutz' tests, he hit all three spaced targets with three shots--and in just 3.6 seconds. And Lutz definitely did use a bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle for his tests (although Bugliosi does not stress that point in the book excerpt presented below). But the fact that Lutz did use a Carcano for his 1986 tests does come out during Lutz' televised testimony at the London trial, "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald" (see video at the bottom of this post).

"Reclaiming History" excerpt:

"The feasibility of anyone, including Oswald, firing with the requisite accuracy within a given period of time caused a flap prior to the trial in London. I had asked my firearms expert, Monty Lutz, to see if he could duplicate what Oswald did, and to put his test firing on film with audio.

On June 13, 1986, in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, he fired at stationary targets located fifty-seven, seventy-two, and eighty-seven yards from him, and in one series of shots, and with the clock starting to run with the first shot, he hit all three targets in 3.6 seconds. On two of the series, he was able to squeeze off the second round in only 1.5 seconds after the first shot, though he missed the target.

Associates of his from the Wisconsin Crime Lab filmed his test firing. A few weeks before the trial, the producer, Mark Redhead, called to say that his people had found a military range in Wales where they could substantially approximate the Dealey Plaza firing conditions and he wanted Lutz to attempt to duplicate what Oswald did on film for the jury. He felt the film test would be “sensational” for the trial. I agreed it would be, but I told him I was against it, and the reason was obvious. Lutz might have a bad day, and if he did, his inability to do what Oswald did could itself raise a reasonable doubt of Oswald’s guilt in the jury’s mind. It was just too much of a risk for me to take.

Besides, I told Redhead, I already had a film of Lutz beating Oswald’s time which I intended to present to the jury. Redhead wasn’t too happy with this, wanting Lutz to do it “again” while being filmed by his people. We each agreed to think about the matter.

Two days later he called back and said some union in England wouldn’t permit me to show my film at the trial because it was filmed in Wisconsin with nonunion people (as it turned out, when Redhead saw Lutz’s film he didn’t think it was of sufficient quality to show to the jury anyway), and he asked me again to let Lutz be filmed. I told him the best I could do was this: Let the defense get its own expert to fire over there in Wales. If he couldn’t duplicate what Oswald did, the defense would obviously call him to so testify.

I was confident my cross-examination of the defense expert would neutralize whatever advantage the defense intended to gain by the failure. And I told Redhead that if the defense expert succeeded, the defense just as obviously would not call him as a witness, and I agreed not to call him either. So there was no way for the defense to lose, I said.

But Redhead did not like my proposal. He was persistent and wanted Lutz to try to duplicate Oswald’s marksmanship and timing in Wales for the London jury. In the interim I had been talking to Lutz and he was eager to let London Weekend Television film his effort in Wales, being very confident he could repeat his Wisconsin expertise.

Because of Redhead’s persistence and Lutz’s eagerness and confidence, and because I knew that if Lutz succeeded it would definitely help my case, I told Lutz I would not refuse to let him do it, but in all deference to his marksmanship ability, I was opposed to the British test and it was my professional advice and opinion that he not do it. Lutz said he would follow my advice, and that was the end of that. I did, however, have Lutz testify before the London jury about the test he took in Wisconsin and the results, without the accompanying film. (Testimony of Monty Lutz, Transcript of On Trial, July 24, 1986, pp.456–458)" -- Pages 341-342 of Endnotes in Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1Bh2W2CSJs

Edited June 14, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Michael Hogan]

From CTKA net; Roger Feinman wrote about the CBS tests (see script pages 27-30):

http://ctka.net/Fein...er_assn 2-3.pdf

I think Feinman wrote this:

http://the-puzzle-pa...es/CBS-test.txt

[David Von Pein]

Not one rifleman did what Oswald did for CBS. That is hit two of three direct hits the first time.

I don't care if it was "the first time" or the 21st. The point is: IT CAN BE DONE. Period.

Care to fine-tune things a little more, Jim? Why didn't you mention the fact that the CBS shooters weren't using Oswald's C2766 rifle? (Which, of course, they weren't.) I'm surprised you didn't mention that fact.

Tomorrow's new gripe will be:

The CBS gunmen didn't perform the test in the state of Texas on a Friday at noontime with the temperature 66 degrees.

Edited June 15, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Cliff Varnell]

David, how could the jacket fabric indent if there were multiple inches of shirt fabric bulging up at that location?

I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

The indentation in JFK's jacket on the corner of Main and Houston a minute before the shooting.

You are able to see the indentation of fabric along JFK's right shoulder-line, no?

How could the jacket indent if there were multiple inches of shirt fabric bunched up at that location?

How could the jacket collar drop to a normal position at the upper margin of the base of the neck if there

were 4+" of clothing fabric bunched up entirely above the lower margin of the base of the neck?

This is your theory, David. After all. The burden of proof is one you to demonstrate how any of this is possible.

David?

Pat Speer shares your theories about JFK's back wound. Maybe Pat would like a crack at it.

Tell us, Pat, how could JFK's jacket collar drop to a normal position at the upper margin of the base of his neck when, according to you and DVP et al, there were 4+ inches of shirt/jacket fabric bunched up entirely above the lower margin of the base of JFK's neck?

You both claimed this occurred. Please demonstrate this incredible phenomenon.

Here's the moment in the Nix film which shows the jacket collar dropping.

Edited June 15, 2012 by Cliff Varnell