The Warren Commission

[Pat Speer]

I take it that all of that went right over your head.

But what hasn't gone over my head is the fact that BOTH of the official investigations (14 years apart) concluded that one bullet (CE399) passed through JFK's body.

That's a lot of people that have got to be dead wrong about a pretty important fact, James.

Doesn't it bother you that all of those investigators who were tasked with arriving at the truth regarding the assassination of an American President would come to a conclusion that Bullet CE399 passed through JFK's body and wounded Governor Connally? How could they have come to that one-bullet conclusion if there weren't ample reasons for them to do so?

Am I supposed to really just toss the SBT conclusions of both the WC and HSCA right in the garbage can because of your analysis? Really?

You're supposed to use your head. Really! The SBT was disputed by one member of the HSCA (Wecht) and has been called into dispute by many other "experts." More problematic, however, is that, as I've already pointed out, the bulk of the WC and HSCA panels supposedly signing off on the SBT were misled about the location of the back wound in relation to the throat wound.

Your argument is then really this-- "Am I supposed to believe that a jury fed false information could come to an incorrect conclusion?"

YES, David, YES.

[David Von Pein]

The bulk of the WC and HSCA panels supposedly signing off on the SBT were misled about the location of the back wound in relation to the throat wound.

Total nonsense.

The HSCA utilized the photos, the X-rays, the "14 cm." autopsy measurements, and the testimony of the autopsists. And the Warren Commission staff knew where the wounds were located too (even without full access to the autopsy pictures and X-rays). They had the face sheet, and the WC also had this important testimony of Dr. Humes:

"The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly."

Yes, it's true that the HSCA did come to the stupid conclusion about the throat wound being higher than the back wound (which is a conclusion that is in complete contradiction with the sworn WC testimony that I just quoted above of JFK's leading autopsy surgeon, Dr. Humes), but that wasn't a situation where anyone ELSE was "misleading" the FPP on that issue. They came to that stupid conclusion themselves.

But the bottom-line is: BOTH the WC and HSCA concluded that one single bullet did go through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally. And that is a conclusion that is buttressed by a bunch of other stuff, including the Zapruder Film, the lack of any other bullets (besides CE399) to account for any of the wounds in either victim, the detailed re-enactment of the crime done by the WC in May '64, plus just plain ordinary "Where Could The Bullet Have Gone?" common sense.

Toss all of that in the trash if you want to. I won't do it. Because the SBT is so obviously the truth.

The SBT was disputed by one member of the HSCA (Wecht)...

But Cyril Wecht doesn't dispute the first half of the Single-Bullet Theory. That is, Wecht thinks just a single bullet DID pass through Kennedy's body, with that bullet exiting JFK's throat. And that's the main topic being dissected by James R. Gordon in this thread.

Mr. Gordon doesn't think it was possible for a bullet to have traversed JFK's body via the entry & exit wounds that we now have on the table via the autopsy face sheet, CE903, etc. But Dr. Wecht disagrees. He thinks a bullet did go through JFK.

The remainder of Wecht's anti-SBT analysis is nothing but pure guesswork, plus there are his continued illogical efforts to prop up the WC test bullets as some kind of proof that the SBT is baloney, even though Wecht has got to know that none of those test bullets even attempted to duplicate the SBT at all -- with none of those bullets travelling through TWO bodies. It's still amazing to me, to this day, that Dr. Wecht cannot see the pitfalls and illogic of his theory concerning the test bullets. But, evidently he doesn't see those things.

Edited June 17, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

Responses in bold.

The bulk of the WC and HSCA panels supposedly signing off on the SBT were misled about the location of the back wound in relation to the throat wound.

Total nonsense.

The HSCA utilized the photos, the X-rays, the "14 cm." autopsy measurements, and the testimony of the autopsists.

The HSCA Pathology Panel concluded that the SBT was feasible provided Kennedy was leaning sharply forward when hit. They thought this could have happened when Kennedy was behind the sign in the Zapruder film. The HSCA itself concluded it occurred when Kennedy was sitting erect, before he went behind the sign. They did this because Blakey hired a "trajectory expert" from NASA to claim Kennedy was hit in accordance with the photo and acoustic evidence and move the wounds where he needed them to be for the trajectory to work. This led him, furthermore, to claim Kennedy was leaning sharply forward BEFORE he went behind the sign, and sat up afterwards, only to be hit in the head. Not even you believe this is true. As stated, the HSCA Panel, as the WC before them, was LIED to, and this LIE led them to sign off on the single-bullet theory. Their support of the theory, then, is as irrelevant as the conclusions of a jury for a trial in which mass perjury can be proved. MEANINGLESS.

And the Warren Commission staff knew where the wounds were located too (even without full access to the autopsy pictures and X-rays). They had the face sheet, and the WC also had this important testimony of Dr. Humes:

"The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly."

The Warren Commission (as a whole) was LIED to as well. The back wound in the Rydberg drawings is 2 inches higher than it was on the body. Humes testified that the autopsy measurements were used in the creation of these drawings. Specter, however, admitted this wasn't true in an internal WC memo. He begged that Humes be allowed to double-check his work. After viewing the autopsy photos himself, Warren made sure this never happened, deceiving the other Commissioners in the process. Specter, too, saw the back wound photo, and kept this to himself.

Yes, it's true that the HSCA did come to the stupid conclusion about the throat wound being higher than the back wound

So, tell us why this was a "stupid" conclusion. If it was a "stupid" conclusion, wouldn't one pathologist or expert on anatomy have come forward in the last 30 years to say they were mistaken? You have, what? ONE emergency room doctor, Artwohl, briefly appear and make the silly claim they were mistaken, and this then becomes your gold standard? Artwohl himself ran off years ago. I proved his simulation a hoax years ago.

(which is a conclusion that is in complete contradiction with the sworn WC testimony that I just quoted above of JFK's leading autopsy surgeon, Dr. Humes),

Really? That's just embarrassing. You know full well Humes never compared the levels of the back and throat wounds when the body was in front of him, and was subsequently forbidden from viewing the photos that proved his testimony incorrect by Warren, even though Specter admitted he was worried that such a mistake had been made.

but that wasn't a situation where anyone ELSE was "misleading" the FPP on that issue. They came to that stupid conclusion themselves.

But the bottom-line is: BOTH the WC and HSCA concluded that one single bullet did go through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally.

NO, that's not the bottom line. The bottom line is that conclusions based on inaccurate information are meaningless.

And that is a conclusion that is buttressed by a bunch of other stuff, including the Zapruder Film

The film does not portray two men shot at the exact same time. It portrays two men shot within a few seconds of each other, and YOU extrapolate from that--because you refuse to accept the possibility there was more than one shooter--that this means they were hit by the same shot.

, the lack of any other bullets (besides CE399) to account for any of the wounds in either victim, the detailed re-enactment of the crime done by the WC in May '64, plus just plain ordinary "Where Could The Bullet Have Gone?" common sense.

Toss all of that in the trash if you want to. I won't do it. Because the SBT is so obviously the truth.

To YOU, and maybe 10% of the people who've really looked at it.

The SBT was disputed by one member of the HSCA (Wecht)...

But Cyril Wecht doesn't dispute the first half of the Single-Bullet Theory. That is, Wecht thinks just a single bullet DID pass through Kennedy's body, with that bullet exiting JFK's throat. And that's the main topic being dissected by James R. Gordon in this thread.

Mr. Gordon doesn't think it was possible for a bullet to have traversed JFK's body via the entry & exit wounds that we now have on the table via the autopsy face sheet, CE903, etc. But Dr. Wecht disagrees. He thinks a bullet did go through JFK.

You are correct in that Wecht has offered the alternate solution that a bullet may have passed through Kennedy and landed outside the car. But I don't recall his ever stating that the evidence clearly suggests a bullet passed through Kennedy's neck from back to front. If you have a citation, I'd appreciate the refresher. I do recall, moreover, that Wecht told Bugliosi he thought the throat wound could have been caused by a bullet heading up the neck, and exiting the skull. I think you know where to find that.

The remainder of Wecht's anti-SBT analysis is nothing but pure guesswork,

Guesswork? He said that in his vast experience, he'd never seen a similar case, where a bullet passed through two men, breaking numerous bones, and was found without a scratch on its nose. He then CHALLENGED his fellow pathologists to find such a case...This challenge was NEVER met.

plus there are his continued illogical efforts to prop up the WC test bullets as some kind of proof that the SBT is baloney, even though Wecht has got to know that none of those test bullets even attempted to duplicate the SBT at all -- with none of those bullets travelling through TWO bodies. It's still amazing to me, to this day, that Dr. Wecht cannot see the pitfalls and illogic of his theory concerning the test bullets. But, evidently he doesn't see those things.

Why should he, when he knows from his vast experience that the SBT is baloney, and his fellow pathologists have never met his challenge?

[James R Gordon]

David Von Pein said:-

“Am I supposed to really just toss the SBT conclusions of both the WC and HSCA right in the garbage can because of your analysis? Really?”

Yes, I suppose the answer to that is “Yes”. But the operative word in that sentence is “analysis.” It is through analysis that I have come to understand that, on this issue, they are indeed wrong. Unlike you who agree with the WC and HCSA just because they say so, I have analysed whether what they have said stands up to scrutiny. And on this issue it does not stand up.

I returned to this debate with regard to the location of the back wound, and so I will restrict myself to that issue only.

See image below:-

You are quite right the WC + HCSA and Cyril Wecht have pronounced on this issue. However there is another witness in this case: the body of JFK. Unless it has been tampered with, the body does not lie.

On the model there are two yellow labels: A1 + A2 point out the edge of the Scapular Spline. There seems no argument that we can clearly see the outline of the right Scapular on JFK’s body. There also seem to be no argument that the yellow A2 is the edge of the same Scapular spline identified as A1 on the model.

The blue dashed line is drawn to create a lower point of reference. It would appear to be just above T4.

The red A2 highlight's the position of Boswell’s hand. I assume it is his hand and it is Humes doing the measuring.

Although there is flesh and muscle above the bones, his hand is over Costa IR and Clavical R. I concede the positions of the arrow points are judgements, but they won’t be far out – if at all. The red dashed line has been drawn to indicate the position of this hand as well as an upper limit in the body.

Between these two lines is the wound. Even looking at the autopsy image on its own, it is clear the wound is very nearly lower than Boswell’s hand. It is at the level of the nail of the pinkie of Boswell’s right hand.

O.k. my analysis is not what the WC says or indeed what the HCSA say. Unless you are disputing the Autopsy image, please point out where this analysis is wrong.

It is clear to me that the wound is lower than Costa IR, I’ll leave it at that, and therefore the bullet is a clear danger to the lung.

James.

Edited June 17, 2012 by James R Gordon

[Cliff Varnell]

How could the jacket collar drop if there were 4+ inches of clothing bunched up at that location?

Can you answer the question, David?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

You know exactly what I'm talking about. It's your photo and your theory. It was you, David Von Pein, who put this photo into evidence.

Why did you put that photo into evidence? Because of the size and location of the fabric folds at the back of JFK's neck.

This ain't rocket science, David. You know I'm talking about your theory that JFK's shirt and jacket were bunched up in the manner of the above photo.

But that's not possible, obviously. The folds in the photo above are above the bottom of the shirt collar!

In Dealey Plaza the jacket collar rode in a normal position. How could the jacket collar and 4+ inches of shirt/jacket fabric occupy the same physical space at the same time?

David?

All pictures of JFK at about the time he was shot show his coat to be bunched-up in the back, including the Croft picture taken at circa Z161.

So what? We know the jacket had to bunched. The hole in shirt is 4" below the bottom of the collar; the hole in the jacket is 4.125" below the bottom of the collar.

The jacket was bunched up 1/8th inch the moment of the back shot, and bunched up about 3/4s of an inch in Croft.

The visible shirt collar in Croft kills your theory, David.

So, given the pictures which verify some degree of "bunching", I can't understand the beef that CTers still have regarding this issue.

"Some degree of bunching" doesn't cut it. Your theory requires a very specific set of events -- 2+" of jacket fabric moving in near-tandem with 2+" of shirt fabric entirely above the SBT in-shoot without pushing above the bottom of the jacket collar.

No way. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this incredible event -- an event the SBT so crucially requires.

[David Von Pein]

The Very Bottom Line---

No one will ever be able to fight the overall logic and common sense of the Single-Bullet Theory. That logic and common sense will always be there, even after the members of this forum are long gone from this world.

And even with the craziness of the HSCA's "throat wound is higher" declaration; and even with the wholly inaccurate CE386 staring us in the face (and I'll readily admit that the wounds depicted in CE386 below are not accurate at all--including the head entry wound)....the SBT is still by far the most logical and reasonable solution to the double-man wounding of JFK and John Connally on 11/22/63. And that logic and reasoned thinking is expressed very nicely in the Walter Cronkite quote shown at the bottom of this post.

Therefore, seeing as how there were indeed some men on the Warren Commission and HSCA who knew how to utilize a tiny bit of common sense when asking themselves the key question of "Where could that bullet have gone?", then both of those committees (the WC and the HSCA) were pretty much forced, via common sense and logic alone, to arrive at the following conclusions (with CBS News mirroring the WC's common sense regarding the SBT in 1967):

-------------------------

"The forensic pathology panel concluded that President Kennedy was struck by two, and only two, bullets, each of which entered from the rear. The panel further concluded that the President was struck by one bullet that entered in the upper right of the back and exited from the front of the throat, and one bullet that entered in the right rear of the head near the cowlick area and exited from the right side of the head, toward the front. .... There is no medical evidence that the President was struck by a bullet entering the front of the head, and the possibility that a bullet could have struck the President and yet left no evidence is extremely remote. .... Based on the evidence available to it, the panel concluded that a single bullet passing through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally would support a fundamental conclusion that the President was struck by two, and only two, bullets, each fired from behind. Thus, the forensic pathology panel's conclusions were consistent with the so-called single bullet theory advanced by the Warren Commission." -- HSCA Final Report; Pages 43-44

-------------------------

"Our own view on the evidence is that it is difficult to believe the Single-Bullet Theory. But, to believe the other theories is even MORE difficult. If the Governor's wounds were caused by a separate bullet, then we must believe that a bullet passed through the President's neck, emerged at high velocity on a course that was taking it directly into the middle of the automobile, and then vanished without a trace. Or, we can complicate matters even further--as some do--by adding a second assassin, who fires almost simultaneously with Oswald and whose bullet travels miraculously a trajectory identical with Oswald's and that second assassin, too, vanishes without a trace. Difficult to believe as the Single-Bullet Theory may be, it seems to be the LEAST difficult of all those that are available. In the end, like the Commission, we are persuaded that a single bullet wounded both President Kennedy and Governor Connally." -- Walter Cronkite; "A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report"; June 1967

Edited June 17, 2012 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

You know full well Humes never compared the levels of the back and throat wounds when the body was in front of him...

And yet we find Humes saying this to the Warren Commission anyway, don't we Pat?:

"The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly."

Do you think Humes just made that up--just to make Specter and McCloy happy?

Here's the same quote by Dr. Humes, with other comments surrounding it, which puts the quote in better context [at 2 H 368]:

Mr. McCLOY - Now directing your attention to the flight of the bullet, quite apart from the evidence given by the President's clothing, you, I believe, indicated that the flight of the bullet was from the back, from above and behind. It took roughly the line which is shown on your Exhibit 385.

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY - I am not clear what induced you to come to that conclusion if you couldn't find the actual exit wound by reason of the tracheotomy.

Commander HUMES - The report which we have submitted, sir, represents our thinking within the 24-48 hours of the death of the President, all facts taken into account of the situation. The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly, sir.

Mr. McCLOY - That is what I wanted to bring out.

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir.

Edited June 17, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Mark Knight]

I believe that Mr. Gordon has proven Mr. Von Pein to be a bit uninformed on the subject of anatomy and physiology...and is using the autopsy photographs to prove his point. It's starting to be funny watching Mr. Von Pein try to escape the fact that he's been "gunned down," if you will, by the very evidence he attempts to use to bolster his own position. Since he cannot refute the work of Mr. Gordon, he tries to escape by either setting up straw men, or by ignoring Mr. Gordon's work entirely.

He's apparently more of a weasel that I ever imagined. But he has yet to prove, demonstrate, or illustrate where and why ANY of Mr. Gordon's work is incorrect, wrong, or misleading. It's certainly fun to watch him squirm.

I would LIKE to see Mr. Von Pein use the medical evidence, in the fashion that Mr. Gordon has, in an attempt to prove Mr. Gordon wrong...but I simply don't believe it can be done. It's as if Mr. Von Pein is falling back on his own version of the old Chico Marx question: Who you gonna believe, me [and, by extension, the Warren Commission] or your own eyes?

I think this time, it's Mr. Von Pein who is swimming in the Duck Soup.

[David Von Pein]

It is clear to me that the wound is lower than Costa IR, I’ll leave it at that, and therefore the bullet is a clear danger to the lung.

I'm not arguing that the bullet didn't come darn close to the lung. Of course it came awfully close to it. The lung itself was bruised by the passage of the bullet. That's a fact. And another fact is this: That lung was not penetrated or damaged beyond just "bruising". And the pleura cavity was also bruised, but it was not struck or torn open by the bullet either.

Those are facts. Undeniable facts. (Unless you want to call the autopsy doctors liars.)

In my own opinion (which you are free to ignore if you wish), you, Mr. Gordon, are very likely attempting to micro-analyze the President's wounds (and their precise location in relation to the major organs of the body) in a fashion that probably cannot be done via standard schematics and charts and diagrams, etc.

I'm not saying that JFK's bodily organs and ribcage weren't located in the general locations where the standard anatomical charts place those organs and ribs, but I think we probably can agree that every human being is physically different in one way or another from other human beings.

One such example being: the precise location of JFK's mastoid process behind his right ear. When compared to another human being with a slightly different physique and build and neck length (etc.), if we were to measure 14cm. down from the tip of the mastoid process, we would likely get different results from person to person, with any "wound" located in the upper back being slightly lower or higher on the back depending upon that person's physical features.

Would you agree with me, James, on the above evaluation?

Each individual is unique in many ways. And attempting to make JFK's specific wound locations fit into the mold of a standard anatomical chart is, in my opinion, a potential mistake on the part of the person performing such an evaluation.

Now, yes, James, maybe JFK's body perfectly fits and matches every anatomy chart and diagram you'd care to post at this forum. Could be. I don't know for sure. But human beings being what they are--different from one another in a variety of very subtle ways--don't you think there might be room for some doubt about your conclusion that there was no way for a single bullet to have passed through President Kennedy's body in the manner suggested by the Single-Bullet Theory?

And my last question is particularly relevant and logical since we know for a fact that the lung that you say would be hit by the SBT bullet was in fact bruised by the passage of a bullet that was inside JFK's body.

So we're really only talking about a very small difference in the measurements here. I.E., the small difference between a bullet actually hitting JFK's right lung vs. a bullet passing so close to that lung that it caused bruising of the lung.

Is that very small difference enough to make you totally discount the notion that the bullet didn't strike the right lung of John Kennedy, but merely passed very close to it?

In Summary:

Regardless of your charts and diagrams and supreme knowledge of anatomy, this FACT remains:

The bullet that went into JFK's upper back did not directly strike the lungs and did not strike any other bony structure within the body.

And this additional fact also remains (which is a very important fact that deserves to be pointed out at least once a day to the anti-SBT crowd on the Internet):

No bullets or large bullet fragments were found inside JFK's body.

So, James, since you think the SBT is bunk, please tell me what you think happened with regards to the bullet(s) that entered John F. Kennedy's upper torso on 11/22/63? How did one or more bullets manage to enter JFK's upper body, never exit, and yet cause no major damage (other than bruises) to the areas of the body that were violated by the bullet or bullets?

After all, even without a "Single-Bullet Theory" and even without a "CE399", President Kennedy was injured by at least one rifle bullet in the upper back and neck regions on November 22nd, 1963. And in my view, the SBT fits like a glove. Whereas, any non-SBT theory reeks with far more speculation and uncertainties (and, of course, vanishing bullets) than does the single-bullet scenario.

Edited June 18, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

You know full well Humes never compared the levels of the back and throat wounds when the body was in front of him...

And yet we find Humes saying this to the Warren Commission anyway, don't we Pat?:

"The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly."

Do you think Humes just made that up--just to make Specter and McCloy happy?

Here's the same quote by Dr. Humes, with other comments surrounding it, which puts the quote in better context [at 2 H 368]:

Mr. McCLOY - Now directing your attention to the flight of the bullet, quite apart from the evidence given by the President's clothing, you, I believe, indicated that the flight of the bullet was from the back, from above and behind. It took roughly the line which is shown on your Exhibit 385.

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY - I am not clear what induced you to come to that conclusion if you couldn't find the actual exit wound by reason of the tracheotomy.

Commander HUMES - The report which we have submitted, sir, represents our thinking within the 24-48 hours of the death of the President, all facts taken into account of the situation. The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly, sir.

Mr. McCLOY - That is what I wanted to bring out.

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir.

Thanks, David, for confirming my point. Humes' testimony confirms that his claim the neck wound was below the back wound represents his thinking 24-48 hours after the death of the President, and not his thinking (or observations) during the autopsy itself. Here it is again:

Commander HUMES - The report which we have submitted, sir, represents our thinking within the 24-48 hours of the death of the President, all facts taken into account of the situation. The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly, sir.

P.S. Since you seem unaware of it, here is Specter's memo, which blows your little fantasy apart. He wrote off Humes' testimony as hazy recollections, and claimed it was necessary they review the photos.

April 30, 1964

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mr. J. Lee Rankin

FROM: Arlen Specter

SUBJECT: Autopsy Photographs and X-rays of President John F. Kennedy

In my opinion it is indispensable that we obtain the photographs and x-rays of President Kennedy's autopsy for the following reasons:

1. THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY WHETHER THE SHOTS CAME FROM THE REAR. Someone from the Commission should review the films to corroborate the autopsy surgeons' testimony that the holes on the President's back and head had the characteristics of points of entry. None of the doctors at Parkland Hospital in Dallas observed the hole in the President's back or the small hole in the lower portion of his head. With all the outstanding controversy about the direction of the shots, there must be independent viewings of the films to verify testimony which has come only from Government doctors.

2. THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY WHETHER THE SHOTS CAME FROM ABOVE. It is essential for the Commission to know precisely the location of the bullet wound on the President's back so that the angle may be calculated. The artist's drawing prepared at Bethesda (Commission Exhibit #385) shows a slight angle of declination. It is hard, if not impossible, to explain such a slight angle of decline unless the President was farther down Elm Street than we have heretofore believed. Before coming to any conclusion on this, the angles will have to be calculated at the scene; and for this, the exact point of entry should be known.

3. THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY THAT THERE ARE NO MAJOR VARIATIONS BETWEEN THE FILMS AND THE ARTIST'S DRAWINGS. Commission Exhibits Nos. 385, 386, and 388 were made from the recollections of the autopsy surgeons as told to the artist. Some day someone may compare the films with the artist's drawings and find a significant error which might substantially affect the essential testimony and the Commission's conclusions. In any event, the Commission should not rely on hazy recollections, especially in view of the statement in the autopsy report (Commission Exhibit #387) that:

"The complexity of those fractures and the fragments thus produced tax safisfactory verbal description and are better appreciated in the photographs and roentgenograms which are prepared."

When Inspector Kelly talked to Attorney General Kennedy, he most probably did not fully understand all the reasons for viewing the films. According to Inspector Kelly, the Attorney General did not categorically decline to make them available, but only wanted to be satisfied that they were really necessary. I suggest that the Commission transmit to the Attorney General its reasons for wanting the films and the assurances that they will be viewed only by the absolute minimum number of people from the Commission for the sole purpose of corroborating (or correcting) the artist's drawings, with the film not to become a part of the Commission's records.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Pat Speer

[David Von Pein]

Humes' testimony confirms that his claim the neck wound was below the back wound represents his thinking 24-48 hours after the death of the President, and not his thinking (or observations) during the autopsy itself.

So?

Humes knew where the location of the back wound was. And he also knew where the location of the trach incision was. He can, therefore, make a good judgment (even 24-48 hours later) as to whether the upper-back wound was higher or lower than the throat wound.

And, btw, I've always stated that the biggest (and stupidest) error made by the Warren Commission was when they decided to not make the autopsy pictures and X-rays readily available for the staff members to properly see and evaluate.

But even without full access to those photos and X-rays, the WC did a fine job at arriving at the truth in the case -- including the "SBT truth".

Edited June 18, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

It is clear to me that the wound is lower than Costa IR, I’ll leave it at that, and therefore the bullet is a clear danger to the lung.

I'm not arguing that the bullet didn't come darn close to the lung. Of course it came awfully close to it. The lung itself was bruised by the passage of the bullet. That's a fact.

Here's a challenge, David. Find us a citation in a medical text (not written by some quack pushing the single-bullet theory) suggesting that the passage of a bullet which has not struck bone will bruise lung tissue inches away from its path. I looked for such a citation. And here's what I found...

From patspeer.com, chapter 11:

The bruise on the President's lung also raises some questions. When one considers that Dr. Humes told the Warren Commission that the magic bullet did not pierce the President’s lung but that it nevertheless left a 5 cm wide “pyramid-shaped” bruise at the lung’s tip, it should seem obvious that the damage stretched an inch and a half or more below the presumed bullet path. This is a wider bullet path than one would expect. Single-bullet theorists will explain this by insisting that the bruised lung was caused by the temporary cavity created by the supersonic passage of the bullet. They’ll claim this same cavity caused the damage to the transverse process of the first thoracic vertebrae apparent on the x-rays.

But there are severe problems with this. For one, the ballistics experts of the Warren Commission and HSCA testified that the bullets fired by Mannlicher-Carcano rifles were among the most stable they ever tested, and, as a result, could pass through one man and hit another with relative ease. Unspoken but implicit in their testimony, however, is that these bullets transmit less energy into the surrounding tissue than other bullets of their class and leave a narrower wound track. (This characteristic of Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition was not exactly unnoticed by those who make it their business to notice such things. As far back as 1897, The Columbus Medical Journal noted that "In the Abyssinian campaign of the Italians, the disabling effect of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle of 6.5 millimeters, with which they were armed, was so slight that it was thought that the ammunition had been tampered with: for the natives overcame them with frightful slaughter.")

A second problem is that, even if a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet was able to create such a cavity, since the bullet would presumably be at the center of this cavity, the temporary cavity would be around 3 inches wide. A study by the Biophysics Division of the Army's Chemical Warfare Laboratory published in Military Medicine in 1957 correlates the size of temporary cavities to permanent cavities and demonstrates that a bullet creating a 3 inch wide temporary cavity would be likely to leave a permanent cavity 15mm wide or better. When one considers that the passage of this particular bullet was impossible to probe at autopsy, left the major vessels of the neck unharmed, and left only a 3-5 mm round hole upon exit, it seems highly unlikely such a large cavity was created.

Ab even bigger problem is that lung is, according to the dozens of articles I’ve read on wound ballistics, among the least dense tissues in the body, and, as a result, “little energy transfer occurs, and temporary cavities are small.” Michael S. Owen Smith made this lack of lung density and how it relates to the Kennedy assassination breathtakingly clear in the 1988 book Management of Gunshot Wounds. He said “The thorax behaves differently from the abdomen because it is largely filled with air owing to the large volume of the chest that is occupied by the lungs. Therefore, since the tissues are not mainly liquid-like, the conditions for the formation of the temporary cavity are not met. The heart and great vessels, which are filled with fluid, are extremely susceptible to damage from cavitation, and such injuries from a rifle bullet are fatal. The lung itself is remarkably resistant to damage from high-velocity bullets. Indeed, it is true to say that the lung and the skin are the two tissues that are most resistant to damage from cavitation.” Hmmm.

[Pat Speer]

Humes' testimony confirms that his claim the neck wound was below the back wound represents his thinking 24-48 hours after the death of the President, and not his thinking (or observations) during the autopsy itself.

So?

Humes knew where the location of the back wound was. And he also knew where the location of the trach incision was. He can, therefore, make a good judgment (even 24-48 hours later) as to whether the upper-back wound was higher or lower than the throat wound.

And, btw, I've always stated that the biggest (and stupidest) error made by the Warren Commission was when they decided to not make the autopsy pictures and X-rays readily available for the staff members to properly see and evaluate.

But even without full access to those photos and X-rays, the WC did a fine job at arriving at the truth in the case -- including the "SBT truth".

Hogwash. The WC and its counsel asked the doctors for help in establishing that the back wound was above the throat wound. The doctors then created drawings showing the back wound above the throat wound. One commissioner (Warren) and one Jr. counsel (Specter) then checked this against the autopsy photos, and failed to tell their cohorts that "Oh yeah, by the way, the photos prove the back wound to be at or below the level of the back wound, and not above."

And we know the inaccuracy of the SBT (at least as proposed by those claiming the back wound was well above the throat wound) to be a fact because...because... the measurements that even these people (meaning YOU and Artwohl and MCAdams) propose are accurate, prove it so. Yep, the measurements Humes and Boswell etc stood by till the end PROVE the back wound was on the back well below where it was depicted on the Rydberg drawings, and well below where the WC PRETENDED it was.

[James R Gordon]

My comments in blue

I'm not arguing that the bullet didn't come darn close to the lung. Of course it came awfully close to it. The lung itself was bruised by the passage of the bullet. That's a fact. And another fact is this: That lung was not penetrated or damaged beyond just "bruising". And the pleura cavity was also bruised, but it was not struck or torn open by the bullet either.

Those are facts. Undeniable facts. (Unless you want to call the autopsy doctors liars.)

Yes we are in agreement here.

In my own opinion (which you are free to ignore if you wish), you, Mr. Gordon, are very likely attempting to micro-analyze the President's wounds (and their precise location in relation to the major organs of the body) in a fashion that probably cannot be done via standard schematics and charts and diagrams, etc.

I'm not saying that JFK's bodily organs and ribcage weren't located in the general locations where the standard anatomical charts place those organs and ribs, but I think we probably can agree that every human being is physically different in one way or another from other human beings.

The use of 3D anatomical software is of use in this kind of conversation. Unless the body of President Kennedy were to be exhumed [ a total impossibility ] we have no means to verify what has been said by Commander Humes et al. And even if we were allowed to exhume the body, only the skeleton structure would be left. And therefore a lot of the possible information that could be gathered is now lost to us. These models allow us to examine propositions in the way the body would have, had it been available to us.

You are absolutely right about every human bone structure having its own unique structures. These models create a generalized [ but highly accurate ] representation of the human body. There may be subtle difference with every human being, but those difference would not invalidate the findings of the model. Medical professionals use these models in teaching and learning.

So I disagree as to pertinence of using such models to converse on this topic.

One such example being: the precise location of JFK's mastoid process behind his right ear. When compared to another human being with a slightly different physique and build and neck length (etc.), if we were to measure 14cm. down from the tip of the mastoid process, we would likely get different results from person to person, with any "wound" located in the upper back being slightly lower or higher on the back depending upon that person's physical features.

Would you agree with me, James, on the above evaluation?

If it is your position, as I know it is, that the bullet transversed the upper chest area without piercing the lung and being able to exit through the throat, then there is only one area it could enter the body and that is above Costa IR.

See image below:-

That is why Commander Humes place the entry wound above Costa IR. The entry point is probably still lower than the throat wound, but for the sake of argument lets say it is high enough.

However, as I understand it, CE 386 is not your position. Your position is CE 903. And that is where you have a problem. It is a gestimate, but I reckon than the entry point in CE 903 is just above T2 or just below it.

From that position any entry in that part of the body has to travel through the lung. There is no other route available.

While you maintain CE 903 is your position, it defies rational logic to maintain that a bullet entering at that point would not inflict grievous damage on the lung.

I think you get my drift by now, right? Each individual is unique in many ways. And attempting to make JFK's specific wound locations fit into the mold of a standard anatomical chart is, in my opinion, a potential mistake on the part of the person performing such an evaluation.

Now, yes, James, maybe JFK's body perfectly fits and matches every anatomy chart and diagram you'd care to post at this forum. Could be. I don't know for sure. But human beings being what they are--different from one another in a variety of very subtle ways--don't you think there might be room for some doubt about your conclusion that there was no way for a single bullet to have passed through President Kennedy's body in the manner suggested by the Single-Bullet Theory?

I accept that there may be subtle differences between the model and a particular human being. By that I mean, where I indicate T3 is might be actually slightly higher or lower in the body. But the inaccuracy would not be sufficient to argue that CE 903 could avoid damaging the lung. The inaccuracies are not as large as that.

And my last question is particularly relevant and logical since we know for a fact that the lung that you say would be hit by the SBT bullet was in fact bruised by the passage of that SBT bullet.

So we're really only talking about a very small difference in the measurements here. I.E., the small difference between a bullet actually hitting JFK's right lung vs. a bullet passing so close to that lung that it caused bruising of the lung.

Is that very small difference enough to make you totally discount the notion that the bullet didn't strike the right lung of John Kennedy, but merely passed very close to it?

My contention that any bullet had to strike the lung is based on your position in supporting CE 903. Again it is a gestimate, but the entry wound, at CE 903, must be around 3 inches lower than Costa IR.

In Summary:

Regardless of your charts and diagrams and supreme knowledge of anatomy, this FACT remains:

The bullet that went into JFK's upper back did not directly strike the lungs and did not strike any other bony structure within the body.

That is absolutely right. However your position in supporting CE 903 makes it certain that the bullet has to strike the lung as it moves towards the throat.

And this additional fact also remains (which is a very important fact that deserves to be pointed out at least once a day to the anti-SBT crowd on the Internet):

No bullets or large bullet fragments were found inside JFK's body.

So, James, since you think the SBT is bunk, please tell me what you think happened with regards to the bullet(s) that entered John F. Kennedy's upper torso on 11/22/63? How did one or more bullets manage to enter JFK's upper body, never exit, and yet cause no major damage (other than bruises) to the areas of the body that were violated by the bullet or bullets?

This is by far your strongest argument. I accept that with the absence of a bullet there is a clear logic that allows an argument to be made to support the SBT. And it is an argument I do not have an answer for.

The only way I am able to counter this argument is to point out the weakness in placing the entry wound at CE 903. As I have pointed out throughout this thread, CE 903 invalidates the SBT.

After all, even without a "Single-Bullet Theory" and even without a "CE399", President Kennedy was injured by at least one rifle bullet in the upper back and neck regions on November 22nd, 1963. And in my view, the SBT fits like a glove. Whereas, any non-SBT theory reeks with far more speculation and uncertainties (and, of course, vanishing bullets) than does the single-bullet scenario.

Well this is an area we will just have to disagree on.

James.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Let's make this very straight forward:

Did the Warren Commission perpetrate a cover-up?

!) Yes? About what?

2) Is the implication that they knew there was something fishy going on?

3) If so - what - exactly - were they aware of?

No doubt I would extend these questions. A fair approach of those who oppose this view would be to prove me otherwise - right?

In my view it's essential to sort out what the WC knew or did not know. What they were hiding and what the reasons for such an action might have been.

And yes, please don't give me that old crap about Dulles. I'm well aware of his hiding certain facts from the commission and more.

My question today, is this:

Did the WC knowingly cover up a conspiracy?

One simple question.

The Warren Commission was an absolute and irrefutable attempt (by certain members) to obscure and obfuscate the facts of the assassination.

Which I might add, has to date been relatively successful.

Tom

P.S. The rational/reason for this obfuscation also has absolutely nothing to do with some hypothetical conspiracy, to include the mythological theories of multiple assassins, body snatchers; wound alteration specialists; etc;etc; etc.