Things Don't Add Up : A Novel of Kennedy Assassination Research

[David Von Pein]

The HSCA pathology panel...insisted the SBT only made sense if Kennedy was hit while behind the sign.

Well, Pat, Kennedy WAS hit while behind the sign--at Z224. Kennedy IS still "behind the sign" at Z224 (or Z223, or at EVERY frame, except the last one, during the WC's bracketed series of "SBT" frames from Z210 to 225).

So, what's the complaint here? Kennedy is definitely behind the sign when hit with the SBT bullet.

Edited May 16, 2013 by David Von Pein

[David Josephs]

But David, you KNOW the chalk mark on the stand-in's jacket fails to align with Specter's trajectory rod, and you KNOW the photos proving this were not introduced into evidence or published by the WC, and you know Specter got agent Thomas Kelley to testify that this chalk mark was established by the Rydberg drawings, when, most obviously, it was established by the autopsy photo Kelley showed Specter before the re-enactment.

And yet, you still like to pretend this exhibit shows the true path of the bullet. I mean, wha? Specter didn't believe it--or he'd have published the photos taken from the other side. And the HSCA pathology panel didn't believe it--or they wouldn't have insisted the SBT only made sense if Kennedy was hit while behind the sign.

It's just you, David. You're all alone on this one.

the difference between's DVP's position being FLAWED and FRAUD.

as of 12/9/63, 2 weeks and three days after the assassination... the USFBI, even though "leads are still being covered" can conclude:

that the data developed strongly indicates that he acted on his own initiative or impulse with little advance planning.

A. Assassin in Building

As the motorcade was traveling through downtown Dallas on Elm Street about

fifty yards west of the intersection with Houston Street, three shots rang

out. Two bullets struck President Kennedy, and one wounded Governor

Connally. The President, who slumped forward in the car, was rushed to

Parkland Memorial Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 1:00 p.m.

XI. Scope of Investigation

Since the assassination of President Kennedy, more than 2,000 people have

been interviewed by the FBI in the investigation of Lee Harvey Oswald

....

In addition, investigation has included a detailed examination and analysis

of Oswald's personal effects and correspondence, and analyses of his

finances and connections with other persons and organizations

Investigation has (1) developed detailed background information concerning

Oswald from his birth to his death; (2) strengthened the evidence that

Oswald was the assassin of the President although no clear-cut motive has

been established; and (3) despite numerous allegations which have been

investigated, developed no sound evidence indicating that he received any

financial assistance or that any other person, group, or foreign government

inspired or directed the assassination or was cognizant of his plan to

assassinate President Kennedy. On the contrary, the data developed strongly

indicates that he acted on his own initiative or impulse with little

advance planning. Also, investigation has disclosed no evidence that

Oswald, while residing in Russia, was recruited by the Soviet intelligence

services or received any assignment or training from the intelligence

services. Further, investigation has developed no proof of any prior

contact or association between Oswald and his murderer, Jack Leon Ruby.

Leads are still being covered, and the FBI will continue to check out any

additional allegations or information which come to its attention

and I was sure the investigation was of the assassination of JFK.

[David Von Pein]

Specter got agent Thomas Kelley to testify that this chalk mark was established by the Rydberg drawings, when, most obviously, it was established by the autopsy photo Kelley showed Specter before the re-enactment.

Yes, it could have possibly been established by the autopsy photo. But if that's the case, WHAT'S THE COMPLAINT now? The autopsy photo most certainly aligns itself with the autopsy face sheet and the autopsy report itself (i.e., the "14 cm. from mastoid & shoulder joint" measurements).

You actually think you're making a BETTER case for the SBT being bunk by saying that Specter based his decision on where to place the metal rod in CE903 on the BEST EVIDENCE there is when it comes to determining the actual location of the wound--the autopsy photo?!! Come now, Pat. You must be joking.

Plus, there's this in Thomas Kelley's WC testimony too (re: the jacket):

Mr. SPECTER. And how was the location for that mark fixed or determined?

Mr. KELLEY. That was fixed from the photographs of a medical drawing that was made by the physicians...and an examination of the coat which the President was wearing at the time.

Point being: If the chalk mark on the JFK stand-in was being based (even in PART) on the hole in Kennedy's jacket, it would certainly mean that Specter's "rod" would need to be placed ABOVE that point in the jacket, because we all know (and can easily see) that the bullet hole in the jacket does not align itself with the bullet hole in the SKIN of JFK's upper back. So maybe that's another reason why Mr. Specter's rod is a little ABOVE the actual chalk mark on the stand-in's back in those other (opposite angle) pictures similar to CE903.

In any event, your attacks on the SBT and Specter and CE903 are mighty weak, Pat. And they always have been.

You're smarter than most of the CTers in this place, Pat. You know darn well the SBT works. But for some reason, you want to be stubborn about it. You know that all of the bullets didn't just vanish. And you know that TWO bullets didn't just stop dead in their tracks inside President's Kennedy's throat and upper back.

When eliminating the obviously ridiculous explanations associated with JFK's and Connally's wounds, tell me what's left -- other than to accept the only logical conclusion--that being the Single-Bullet Theory?

Edited May 16, 2013 by David Von Pein

[David Josephs]

When eliminating the obviously ridiculous explanations associated with JFK's and Connally's wounds, tell me what's left -- other than to accept the only logical conclusion, which is the S.B.T.?

Logical?

JFK was bending over to tie his shoes at z224?

the right transverse process of the vertebrae DONT get in the way

THE BULLET HAS TO TRAVEL UP to get from the wound to the throat even though is was shot from above

This same bullet is supposed to turn right then down at a steeper angle than it was shot

IF the bullet made it from back to front, the wounds suggest it simply fell out of the front of his neck

Mr. SPECTER - We have been asked by the FBI that the missile not be handled by anybody because it is undergoing further ballistic tests, and it now appears, may the record show, in a plastic case in a cotton background.

Now looking at that bullet, Exhibit 399, Doctor Humes, could that bullet have gone through or been any part of the fragment passing through President Kennedy's head in Exhibit No. 388?

Commander HUMES - I do not believe so, sir.

Mr. SPECTER - And could that missile have made the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?

Commander HUMES - I think that that is most unlikely. May I expand on those two answers?

Mr. SPECTER - Yes, please do.

Commander HUMES - The X-rays made of the wound in the head of the late President showed fragmentations of the missile. Some fragments we recovered and turned over, as has been previously noted. Also we have X-rays of the fragment of skull which was in the region of our opinion exit wound showing metallic fragments.

Also going to Exhibit 392, the report from Parkland Hospital, the following sentence referring to the examination of the wound of the wrist is found:

"Small bits of metal were encountered at various levels throughout the wound, and these were, wherever they were identified and could be picked up, picked up and submitted to the pathology department for identification and examination."

The reason I believe it most unlikely that this missile could have inflicted either of these wounds is that this missile is basically intact; its jacket appears to me to be in tact, and I do not understand how it could possibly have left fragments in either of these locations.

One of the main players in the conspiracy cannot even be convinced that the SBT was possible....

Can you offer us any evidence whereby a bullet RISES from back to front while entering JC on a DOWNWARD trajectory...

or fromt right to left and still be in a position to hit JC?

the WCR apologists have been trying this for 50 years.... and still can't do it... care to add anything to their failures?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Here is a simple explanation of why the Single Bullet Theory does not work. Please look at the following photos and diagrams.

The first diagram shows a cross section of the human neck at cervical vertebra C7. The back of the neck is at the bottom of the diagram. C7 can be seen in the lower pat of the diagram with the transverse processes projecting out to each side. The trachea (windpipe) can be seen in the upper part of the diagram with the vertical black opening in the centre of it.

As we all know, it is held that JFK was shot, from behind, at the level of the C7 - T1 vertebrae; T1 being the first thoracic vertebra directly below C7, and that the bullet passed through JFK's neck and travelled through the right side of his trachea before exiting.

It is not possible for the bullet to have travelled BETWEEN C7 and T1, as the two posterior skeletal photos clearly show. The vertebrae are tightly packed in this region of the spine, and a bullet, especially one travelling at a downward angle from the 6th floor of the TSBD, would have to pass on the outside of the extreme tip of the right transverse process on its way to JFK's trachea. If it had passed between C7 and T1, it would have done a great amount of damage, none of which is visible on the x-rays of JFK.

So, referring again to the cross-sectional diagram, place a straight edge or protractor outside of the tip of the right transverse process and also in contact with the right side of the trachea. The last time I tried this, I came up with an angle of 26°. John Connally would have had to have been sitting in the middle of the limousine in order to be hit under the right armpit by the SBT.

P.S. When you laid your straight edge on the diagram, did you notice the red circle about halfway from the tip of the right transverse process to the right side of the trachea? That is one of the two carotid arteries that are the main blood supply to the brain. The SBT could not have traversed the claimed route without damaging the right carotid artery. There would have been an unmistakable spurting of blood from this wound that would have been quite noticeable in the Zapruder film.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Robert Prudhomme

[David Von Pein]

Bulletin!! James DiEugenio of Los Angeles has deemed the SBT unworthy of discussion (on any level). Therefore, nobody is allowed to discuss it. Period. Remember that, folks. DiEugenio the Great has spoken. No more "distracting nonsense".

Jimbo would rather discuss that make-believe paper bag that he thinks Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle just made up from whole cloth. Yeah, that theory isn't "distracting nonsense", is it Jimmy?

Edited May 17, 2013 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

No, I would like to talk about who killed Kennedy.

Then you should want to talk about Oswald. Because Oswald killed Kennedy.

But, naturally, everybody else is a suspect except the man who is connected to every speck of evidence in the TWO murders you say he didn't commit. (Remarkable, isn't it?)

DiEugenio probably thinks I'm more guilty than Oswald. (In fact, check Jimbo's next comment, which leads in that very direction.)

And you, like them, are part of the ongoing cover up.

Oh, that's right! Anybody who disagrees with DiEugenio the Great is part of the "ongoing cover up". How silly of me to forget Jimbo's "cover-up" rules.

Edited May 17, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

Specter got agent Thomas Kelley to testify that this chalk mark was established by the Rydberg drawings, when, most obviously, it was established by the autopsy photo Kelley showed Specter before the re-enactment.

Yes, it could have possibly been established by the autopsy photo. But if that's the case, WHAT'S THE COMPLAINT now? The autopsy photo most certainly aligns itself with the autopsy face sheet and the autopsy report itself (i.e., the "14 cm. from mastoid & shoulder joint" measurements).

You actually think you're making a BETTER case for the SBT being bunk by saying that Specter based his decision on where to place the metal rod in CE903 on the BEST EVIDENCE there is when it comes to determining the actual location of the wound--the autopsy photo?!! Come now, Pat. You must be joking.

Plus, there's this in Thomas Kelley's WC testimony too (re: the jacket):

Mr. SPECTER. And how was the location for that mark fixed or determined?

Mr. KELLEY. That was fixed from the photographs of a medical drawing that was made by the physicians...and an examination of the coat which the President was wearing at the time.

Point being: If the chalk mark on the JFK stand-in was being based (even in PART) on the hole in Kennedy's jacket, it would certainly mean that Specter's "rod" would need to be placed ABOVE that point in the jacket, because we all know (and can easily see) that the bullet hole in the jacket does not align itself with the bullet hole in the SKIN of JFK's upper back. So maybe that's another reason why Mr. Specter's rod is a little ABOVE the actual chalk mark on the stand-in's back in those other (opposite angle) pictures similar to CE903.

In any event, your attacks on the SBT and Specter and CE903 are mighty weak, Pat. And they always have been.

You're smarter than most of the CTers in this place, Pat. You know darn well the SBT works. But for some reason, you want to be stubborn about it. You know that all of the bullets didn't just vanish. And you know that TWO bullets didn't just stop dead in their tracks inside President's Kennedy's throat and upper back.

When eliminating the obviously ridiculous explanations associated with JFK's and Connally's wounds, tell me what's left -- other than to accept the only logical conclusion--that being the Single-Bullet Theory?

Here is Kelley's testimony, David.

Mr. SPECTER. What marking, if any, was placed on the back of President Kennedy--the stand-in for President Kennedy?

Mr. KELLEY. There was a chalk mark placed on his coat, in this area here.

Mr. SPECTER. And what did that chalk mark represent?

Mr. KELLEY. That represented the entry point of the shot which wounded the President.

Mr. SPECTER. And how was the location for that mark fixed or determined?

Mr. KELLEY. That was fixed from the photographs of a medical drawing that was made by the physicians and the people at Parkland and an examination of the coat which the President was wearing at the time.

Mr. SPECTER. As to the drawing, was that not the drawing made by the autopsy surgeons from Bethesda Naval Hospital?

Mr. KELLEY. Bethesda Naval.

Mr. McCLOY. Not Parkland, as I understand it?

Mr. SPECTER No, sir; not Parkland, because as the record will show, the President was not turned over at Parkland.

Mr. KELLEY. I was shown a drawing of--that was prepared by some medical technicians indicating the point of entry.

Mr. SPECTER. Permit me to show you Commission Exhibit No. 386, which has heretofore been marked and introduced into evidence, and I ask you if that is the drawing that you were shown as the basis for the marking of the wound on the back of the President's neck.

Mr. KELLEY. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. And the record will show, may it please the Commission, that this was made by the autopsy surgeons at Bethesda.

Kelley had thereby testified that Exhibit 386--which shows a wound at the base of the neck--was used to mark the stand-in's jacket at a point several inches below the base of the neck.

He had either made a completely bizarre mistake, or lied.

It's clear to me he lied, and that Specter had suborned this lie.

Here's why:

1. Specter later admitted that Kelley showed him the back wound photo before the re-enactment.

2. The mark on the jacket was consistent with the back wound photo, and not CE 386.

3. Specter failed to introduce a photo showing the chalk mark into evidence--and instead put into evidence a photo showing the presumed trajectory in which the chalk mark was not shown.

4. While showing Kelley CE 386, Specter asked if this was the basis for the mark on the back of the president's neck, knowing FULL WELL that the mark used in the re-enactment was on the back, and not on the neck.

5. The HSCA FPP, and all credible doctors to study the autopsy photos in recent years, agree that the back wound in the autopsy photo studied by Specter shows a wound two inches or so lower on the body than the wound in CE 386, and proves the trajectory depicted in CE 385 to be nonsense.

The evidence that Specter and Kelley lied to support your beloved SBT, David, is thus far stronger and far clearer than that Oswald lied about...well, let's say the curtain rods.

Their having lied on this issue, moreover, does NOT prove Oswald to have been innocent.

And yet, I'm betting you will bend over backwards and twist yourself into a pretzel in order to deny what is obvious to everyone but everyone I've ever discussed this case with--that Kelley lied about using CE 386 to establish the chalk mark.

I mean, c'mon, it's just one little lie, David. Specter and Kelley might have figured "Ah heck Oswald was guilty, SO WHAT if we can't get the wounds to align with a shot from the sniper's nest... Let's just say it all added up and avoid the trouble we'll get into if we admit we looked at the back wound photo before the re-enactment, and that this raised questions about the trajectory..."

So, how 'bout it, David? Is there even the slightest chance, in your opinion, that they lied?

Or do you really think the chalk mark was added onto the jacket in the location of the wound in CE 386?

Edited May 17, 2013 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

Here is a simple explanation of why the Single Bullet Theory does not work.

Nothing simple about that, Robert, with all due respect.

JFK's back wound was at T3, not C7/T1. The properly prepared medical documents, the clothing defects, and the overwhelming consensus eye-witness testimony puts the back wound at T3.

Simply put, the bullet holes in the back of JFK's clothing are too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

Period.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Cliff Varnell

[Don Jeffries]

And DVP tries to hijack another thread. This book is harmless- it's apparently self-published. For once, it seems that an LNer was not given an undeserved nice contract to recycle the official story.

[Craig Lamson]

Here is a simple explanation of why the Single Bullet Theory does not work.

Nothing simple about that, Robert, with all due respect.

JFK's back wound was at T3, not C7/T1. The properly prepared medical documents, the clothing defects, and the overwhelming consensus eye-witness testimony puts the back wound at T3.

Simply put, the bullet holes in the back of JFK's clothing are too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

Period.

Except for that pesky folded jacket.....cliffy avoids reality once again.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Here is a simple explanation of why the Single Bullet Theory does not work.

Nothing simple about that, Robert, with all due respect.

JFK's back wound was at T3, not C7/T1. The properly prepared medical documents, the clothing defects, and the overwhelming consensus eye-witness testimony puts the back wound at T3.

Simply put, the bullet holes in the back of JFK's clothing are too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

Period.

Mr. Varnell

Yes, indeed, that is the other fly in the ointment; one which drives Mr. Lamson insane, in case you haven't noticed.

My explanation of why the SBT will not work is directed mainly at the diehards who insist the entry wound was at C7/T1 and cannot accept the reality that most witnesses saw a wound 5-6" below the collarline, placing the wound at thoracic vertebra T3.

By placing the entry wound at T3, the impossible becomes even more impossible, if that is possible.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Robert Prudhomme

[Craig Lamson]

Here is a simple explanation of why the Single Bullet Theory does not work.

Nothing simple about that, Robert, with all due respect.

JFK's back wound was at T3, not C7/T1. The properly prepared medical documents, the clothing defects, and the overwhelming consensus eye-witness testimony puts the back wound at T3.

Simply put, the bullet holes in the back of JFK's clothing are too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

Period.

Mr. Varnell

Yes, indeed, that is the other fly in the ointment; one which drives Mr. Lamson insane, in case you haven't noticed.

My explanation of why the SBT will not work is directed mainly at the diehards who insist the entry wound was at C7/T1 and cannot accept the reality that most witnesses saw a wound 5-6" below the collarline, placing the wound at thoracic vertebra T3.

By placing the entry wound at T3, the impossible becomes even more impossible, if that is possible.

Whats the matter bob, the truth just too hard for you to handle? The fold just to hard for you to refute?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Mr. Lamson

Has it ever occurred to you that, if the back of the jacket (plus the shirt, by necessity) was "folded" or "bunched" (or whatever verb it is you are using this week), there is an excellent chance the bullet would have passed through this bunch (or fold), producing two or possibly three bullet holes in the jacket (and shirt) instead of the single bullet hole seen?

[Craig Lamson]

Mr. Lamson

Has it ever occurred to you that, if the back of the jacket (plus the shirt, by necessity) was "folded" or "bunched" (or whatever verb it is you are using this week), there is an excellent chance the bullet would have passed through this bunch (or fold), producing two or possibly three bullet holes in the jacket (and shirt) instead of the single bullet hole seen?

Of course I've considered it and I also did a bit of work that shows that does not have to be the case. Have you?