Why I believe the SBT is nothing but BS

[David Von Pein]

Robert P.,

My comment about "inherent limitations" doesn't apply JUST to the picture that I posted in that one particular post. It applies ALL the time, and to EVERY two-dimensional photograph. And I never said it didn't.

The best we can do with ANY 2D picture is GUESS as to precise measurements and angles. That's why it makes Dale Myers so boiling mad when CTers like Robert Harris think they can just walk up to their computer screens and draw lines on the screen and expect to extract perfect 3D information from such crude methods (as explained in the article below).

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-310.html

Edited May 31, 2014 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

So, do you agree, Dave, that James is using a much more accurate method by locating the wound's spatial relation to known landmarks on the human anatomy?

[David Von Pein]

So, do you agree, Dave, that James is using a much more accurate method by locating the wound's spatial relation to known landmarks on the human anatomy?

Probably so.

But James Gordon is still left to wrestle with James Humes, who said.....

"The more I thought about it, the more I realized it [the bullet that hit JFK in the upper back] had to go out from the neck. It was the only place it could go, after it was not found anywhere in the X-rays." -- Dr. Humes; 1996

Edited May 31, 2014 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

...but can Dr. Humes be believed?

In this instance*, I'd say yes. Unless you also think he can't be believed about finding NO BULLETS inside JFK's whole body too. Do you believe Humes when he said that?

* Footnote --- Before some CTer jumps down my throat with an accusation about how I'm selectively "picking and choosing" what I will believe and what I won't when it comes to the testimony and statements of Dr. Jim Humes....

Yes, I do think Dr. Humes was dead wrong about the location of JFK's head entry wound. He places it much lower on the head than it is, IMO. (And the BOH autopsy photo proves the wound was near the cowlick, IMO.)

But now I'm "choosing" to believe Dr. Humes without reservation regarding this statement:

"It's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung. Of course, the more I thought about it, the more I realized it had to go out from the neck. It was the only place it could go, after it was not found anywhere in the X-rays." -- Dr. James Humes

But let's face the reality of the real world of JFK debate and discussion -- everybody "picks and chooses" to some extent whenever they take a "side" regarding the JFK murder case. It's as inevitable as the sun rising in the east.

Plus, in order to think Humes was a xxxx when he made the above-quoted statement, we'd also have to believe that BOTH of the other autopsy surgeons were rotten liars too, wouldn't we James? Because BOTH Dr. Finck and Dr. Boswell signed off on Dr. Humes' autopsy report too. Here are their signatures:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0284a.htm

And on that very same page of the autopsy report that also has the written signatures of all three of JFK's autopsy physicians, it also says this, plain as day:

"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body."

So, it really boils down to this decision:

Who should I believe ---

The THREE autopsy doctors, who each signed off on the autopsy report of the President of the United States, which was undoubtedly the most important document that any of those three men would ever be signing in their whole lives?

Or:

James R. Gordon, who was NOT present at the autopsy of JFK at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the night of November 22, 1963, and who did NOT have the responsibility of reporting to the world the details of President Kennedy's wounds, and who did NOT sign the autopsy report?

For many people, the above decision might be a head-scratcher indeed.

For this writer, however, it's not even close.

Edited May 31, 2014 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

The best we can do with ANY 2D picture is GUESS as to precise measurements and angles. That's why it makes Dale Myers so boiling mad when CTers like Robert Harris think they can just walk up to their computer screens and draw lines on the screen and expect to extract perfect 3D information from such crude methods.

Come to think of it, the statement I just quoted above just might be part of the reason as to why James Gordon's analysis is incorrect.

[Pat Speer]

...but can Dr. Humes be believed?

In this instance*, I'd say yes. Unless you also think he can't be believed about finding NO BULLETS inside JFK's whole body too. Do you believe Humes when he said that?

* Footnote --- Before some CTer jumps down my throat with an accusation about how I'm selectively "picking and choosing" what I will believe and what I won't when it comes to the testimony and statements of Dr. Jim Humes....

Yes, I do think Dr. Humes was dead wrong about the location of JFK's head entry wound. He places it much lower on the head than it is, IMO. (And the BOH autopsy photo proves the wound was near the cowlick, IMO.)

But now I'm "choosing" to believe Dr. Humes without reservation regarding this statement:

"It's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung. Of course, the more I thought about it, the more I realized it had to go out from the neck. It was the only place it could go, after it was not found anywhere in the X-rays." -- Dr. James Humes

But let's face the reality of the real world of JFK debate and discussion -- everybody "picks and chooses" to some extent whenever they take a "side" regarding the JFK murder case. It's as inevitable as the sun rising in the east.

Plus, in order to think Humes was a xxxx when he made the above-quoted statement, we'd also have to believe that BOTH of the other autopsy surgeons were rotten liars too, wouldn't we James? Because BOTH Dr. Finck and Dr. Boswell signed off on Dr. Humes' autopsy report too. Here are their signatures:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0284a.htm

And on that very same page of the autopsy report that also has the written signatures of all three of JFK's autopsy physicians, it also says this, plain as day:

"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body."

So, it really boils down to this decision:

Who should I believe ---

The THREE autopsy doctors, who each signed off on the autopsy report of the President of the United States, which was undoubtedly the most important document that any of those three men would ever be signing in their whole lives?

Or:

James R. Gordon, who was NOT present at the autopsy of JFK at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the night of November 22, 1963, and who did NOT have the responsibility of reporting to the world the details of President Kennedy's wounds, and who did NOT sign the autopsy report?

For many people, the above decision might be a head-scratcher indeed.

For this writer, however, it's not even close.

Silly, as usual. The determination of the truth of a situation (or even the likelihood of a truth of situation) is not as simple as "who you gonna believe?"

Let's expose this for what it is.

A bullet wound low on the back of the head observed and studied by the doctors does not exist because David Von Pein has briefly looked at some autopsy photos and concluded these doctors were wrong.

The trajectory of a bullet GUESSED AT by these very same doctors after the body was long gone, on the other hand, is GOLDEN, and a clear fact, because...because...David Von Pein wants to believe them on this one...

That's not critical thinking, David. That's desperate grasping...

[David Von Pein]

Silly, Pat (as usual).

The autopsy photo trumps Humes' "low near the EOP" bullet entry hole in the head. You know that as well as I do, Pat. Why? Because you have EYES too. (Don't you?)

Humes (or somebody at the autopsy) was dumb for not specifically measuring the distance north of the EOP for the head entry wound. If that measurement had been provided, there would be no controversy at all (except any that might be manufactured by the conspiracy theorists, of course).

And there's no escape hatch for the CTers regarding these determinations made during the autopsy:

"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body."

There's a whole lot of detailed data in the above paragraph that the CTers are forced to think is 100% wrong (or merely LIES spouted by the evil autopsy surgeons) if theories like the one proposed by James R. Gordon are to be accepted as fact.

E.G.,

"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea..." --- Not NEARLY correct. MUCH more damage was clearly done by that bullet (or bullets) (per CTers).

"...and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck." --- A bald-faced lie (per CTers).

"As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body." --- Another blatant falsehood (per CTers).

That's a lot of lying (and/or utter incompetence beyond belief), don't you think Pat?

But keep ignoring that autopsy report, guys. After all, it's only THE OFFICIAL AUTOPSY REPORT. That's all. It's only worthy of being set on fire, right?

(And Pat Speer calls ME "silly". Hilarious.)

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

ADDENDUM (VIA A FACEBOOK GROUP I BELONG TO):

GLENN VIKLUND SAID:

David, still, you would have to agree that the conclusion to place the entrance several inches lower than apparently was correct - is nothing but, well - hilarious? I don't know what to make of such a mistake. How do you explain this David?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I can't explain it, Glenn. It's nothing short of incompetence in that instance, IMO. And I would guess that the dozen or so pathologists who looked at the photos would agree with me on that one, because every one of the doctors on the Clark Panel and the HSCA put the wound high on the head, not low.

Why on Earth the autopsists would mark the LATERAL measurement (2.5 cm.), but not the north/south measurement is beyond me. But the autopsy picture isn't lying. And the Clark people said the X-ray too lines up with a hole 100 millimeters above the EOP. That is CONFIRMATION of the higher entry point, IMO. But CTers disagree.

And, yes, the CTers can slap me around for calling Humes "incompetent" on this head-wound issue but yet believing he was not incompetent in other areas. But I really have no choice, as I see it. And that's because so many OTHER things tell me that the SBT is right AND that the cowlick entry is correct too. So, Humes must be RIGHT on one issue but WRONG on another.

Oh, if only life were simpler.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/449371715190297/permalink/517699585024176/

Edited June 1, 2014 by David Von Pein

[Mark Knight]

OK, Mr. Von Pein...since word games is your forte, apparently...allow me this once to turn the tables and play the same game.

QUESTION: If it can be PROVEN, by the position of bones, muscles, and organs in the human body, that the SBT cannot possibly have occurred as described by Humes, et al...then isn't it wise to first ACCEPT that the SBT is false, PRIOR to developing alternate scenarios to either prove or disprove?

You may answer either "yes" or "no" to the question. Any other answer will be considered another attempt to avoid the question.

[i ask this question in this manner precisely because you usually construct "straw-man" alternate scenarios that you can destroy BEFORE considering whether the SBT is possible, from a purely physiological standpoint regarding the bullet traversing JFK's torso. So let's examine THAT SINGULAR ASPECT first. DON'T tell me what Humes said; don't tell me what Bugliosi said; I can read those myself. DEMONSTRATE, from the physiology of the human body, that the SBT is possible, strictly concentrating on the path of the bullet through JFK's torso. If you cannot do that, then what you THINK or BELIEVE the bullet allegedly did afterward is all fluff and nonsense. I think Mr. Gordon has presented a formidable argument. I think that Mr. Prudhomme is hinting that there are questions about the veracity of Humes' testimony, regarding lung bruising vs. lung damage. I think both raise some serious points that you cannot refute by merely citing testimony. Remember...in Dealy Plaza, if testimony was all that was necessary to reconstruct the assassination, the services of a surveyor would never have been involved. What Mr. Gordon is doing is using the physiology of the human body to reconstruct one of the aspects of the assassination...and he's finding that the accepted story is in conflict with the structure of the human body.]

So...Mr. Von Pein, is your answer "YES," or is it "NO"?

[James R Gordon]

"The more I thought about it, the more I realized it [the bullet that hit JFK in the upper back] had to go out from the neck. It was the only place it could go, after it was not found anywhere in the X-rays." -- Dr. Humes; 1996

David, I take it that quote is from the infamous JAMA articles. In this quote Dr. Humes is making a judgement: he says we found no bullet so what could have happened to it. The only answer we could come to was that the bullet went right through the body.

What you have not bothered to point out is that, Humes comment, is not the only conclusion to those conditions. The other conclusion is that no bullet was found because no bullet traveled through the body. If one conclusion can be deemed to be correct, so can the other. Both statements meet Humes 1996 conditions.

Pat Speer made me aware of the work of Dr. John Nichols. The article is “Assassination of President Kennedy” by John Nichols M.D, Ph.D., F.A.C.P. It was published in “The Practitioner” in November 1973.

Two points are germane to this present discussion.

The First Point. After testing the rifle John Nichols judged the speed the bullets left the gun was at a speed of 1,960 feet per second. He also calculated that the bullet had an energy of 1,373 foot pounds of energy. That is sufficient energy to penetrate 47 inches of laminated pine. As you will recollect that point has been corroborated by Michael and Lucien Haag in the Nova program “Cold Case.”

The value of the energy of this bullet was something I had been unaware of. The Warren Commision on P.93 of the Report comment that by the time John Connally’s thigh wound was inflicted the bullet had effectively lost all energy. John Nichols makes clear that this complete and utter nonsense. The omission of this point undermines the integrity of FBI’s examination of this rifle. 1.373 foot pounds of energy is the same as 1861.5 Newton-metres. A newton metre is a unit of torque in the SI system. It is equal to the torque resulting from a force of one newton applied perpendicularly to a moment arm which is one metre long.

The power of this gun, which is not something the Warren Commission appeared to recognized, was also emphasized by the Haag’s in the above program. What I had not appreciated was just how powerful this bullet was. This bullet would not have dissipated all that energy traveling through JFK and JBC’s bodies and accomplishing the damage ascribed to it. Such a bullet with 1,373 foot pounds of energy should have smashed into the upholstered partition between the Connally’s and Roy Kellerman. There was no damage to that partition. But the point is, there should have been. The amount of energy left in this bullet would not have allowed the bullet to veer left and embed itself in Connally’s left leg. Which now raises the question as to whether John Connally’s thigh wound should be considered part of the SBT.

The amateur medical commentator and the role of Geometry:-

Throughout this conversation – if indeed your contributions can be attributed to that word – there has been the constant refrain about the qualifications and experience of Dr. Humes to myself. You have referred to the autopsy report and that the points I have described are not contained within that report. You have pointed out that the autopsy report was signed by three doctors. And so on.

I may not have the experience or the knowledge of the three surgeons but, unlike you, I have enough understanding of human anatomy to understand what the autopsy report describes. I am not required to undertake a formal autopsy, just understand what is being said.

And this discussion is not just about medical experience: it is also about geometry. Through the middle of every human being is a spine. The trajectory from the Oswald window to JFK’s throat exit point is no difficult matter to point out whether that trajectory will impact with the spine or not. To determine whether the bullet will come into contact with the spine, is not a medical matter: it is a mathematical one. It is not difficult to identify whether a trajectory would endanger the human spine. E.g.

Cold Case:-

Behind the tie is the trachea and behind the trachea is the spine. In order for the bullet to exit JFK at that point the bullet has had to compromise the spine. There are two further difficulties. Cold case has the bullet exit just below where John Connally’s heart would be. For John Connally, this would most likely be a fatal wound. In addition the wound to John Connally’s wrist is wrong.

Then there is Dale Myers:-

Dale Myers:-

Unlike Cold Case you can plot this trajectory backwards and establish – beyond debate – that the spine would be compromised here. Like Cold Case the trajectory line would impact with John Connally’s heart. On this occasion Myers does not account for the injury to John Connally’s wrist.

In the Myers image is a yellow double arrowed line. That is the correct trajectory for the Connally injury as described by the testimony of Robert Shaw. If the outgoing trajectory from JFK has any chance of merging with John Connally’s wound trajectory, then John Connally needs to be seated facing forward. If John Connally is facing to his right, - as he is at 223/4 - then the SBT trajectory has to go through John Connally’s chest cavity. It is a matter of simple geometry.

The Second Point:- Although CE 884 records most of the relevant data during the May 1964 recreation, one data item that appears to be missing is the lateral angles. John Nichols calculated that the lateral angle for Z 222 was 9º 21’. Such an angle would mean that the bullet would have had to impact with the spine and the vertebra’s. He calculated that in order to avoid damaging the vertebra this lateral angle has to be increased to 28º.

John Nichols:-

The Autopsy Report and Geometric Reality:-

David, including todays post, keeps stressing the importance of the Autopsy report. Fair point, BUT – and this is an important “But” – whoever’s autopsy report it is, that autopsy report must reflect geometric reality. It is not excused the implications of geometric reality.

We know the following:-

a) The position of the source of the shot.

b)The position of the entry point into the body which is 4.5 cm right of centre.

c) The position of the exit point on the body.

It is point “b” that gives us the lateral angle of 9º 21”. Unless there is good reason not to do so we should be able to draw a line from “a” to “c.” Any line that is drawn between “a” and “c” appears to compromise the spine.

Nine Degrees Lateral

The angle reads 99º. That is because 0º in this case is 90º, therefore 9º lateral reads 99º. X, the exit point, is forward of the center of the spine and the source of the Single Bullet [ Oswald’s lateral angle from his target ] is 9º 21” lateral to JFK who is sitting straight and looking forward. The entry point to the body “b” is 4.5 cm right of center. 4.5 cm is 45 mm. The human spine is 35 mm in diameter. Therefore the bullet enters the body 1 cm right of the spine and moves towards its exit point which is at the center of the spine. Geometrically the bullet has to impact with the spine. The laws of geometry demand that it does so.

In order to miss the spine John Nichols says the entrance point needs to be 28º right of center. Therefore the bullet needs to enter the body 3 inches from center or 7.62 cm instead of 4.5 cm. However to do that requires moving the wound entry point on the body as well as on JFK’s clothing. The diagram below confirms John Nichols estimate. Arrow labeled “C” does indeed appear to miss the spine. “A” is the right strap muscle.

Nine and Twenty Eight Degrees

Whatever the authority that an autopsy report has, it is not divorced from mathematical reality. We know the following:-

a) The Oswald window is just over 60ft high.

The angle of deflection of his rifle is 20º 23”

c) Oswald’s target is 188.6 feet away.

d) The exit target is in the centre of his neck.

e) The bullet enters JFK’s body 1 cm right of the edge of the spine’s circumference making its way towards the body’s center.

f) The lateral angle from source to target is 9º 21”

Given those figures mathematically there is no way that any shot could avoid hitting the spine.

We are left with a contradiction.

David basis his belief of the validity of the SBT on speculation "It's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung. Of course, the more I thought about it, the more I realized it had to go out from the neck. It was the only place it could go, after it was not found anywhere in the X-rays." -- Dr. James Humes

Well mathematics out trumps speculation. Mathematics makes clear that the SBT could not have occurred. The autopsy report to be taken seriously must concur with Mathematical and Anatomy and Physiological reality. The simple fact of life is that inside, and at the center, every human body is a spine that has a diameter of 35 mm. Any bullet that enters a body 10mm from right hand edge of the spine and traveling towards a center point in that body has to impact with the spine.

That is anatomical and mathematical reality and any autopsy report that does not recognize that has to be suspect.

Edited June 1, 2014 by James R Gordon

[David Von Pein]

James,

You can show me all the charts you want to, but YOU are the one who who no choice but to try and wiggle your way out of all six of the following things that make the Single-Bullet Theory (by far!) the most reasonable conclusion to explain the double-man wounding of JFK & JBC....

1.) The positioning of the two victims in the Presidential limousine (one in front of the other) as they appeared to the assassin in the sixth-floor window of the Book Depository during the period of time when both President Kennedy and Governor Connally are first hit by the gunfire. (This very important fact of the victims being situated ONE IN FRONT OF THE OTHER from the POV of the sixth-floor assassin is invariably downplayed or ignored altogether by most conspiracy advocates.)

2.) The fact that EACH victim was struck in THEIR RESPECTIVE UPPER BACKS by a bullet on 11/22/63.

3.) The fact that Kennedy also happened to have a bullet hole in his lower throat too.

4.) The complete lack of any bullets in JFK's neck and upper back.

5.) The Zapruder Film shows the two men being hit at the same time:

6.) And there is the oft-overlooked fact that it was the AUTOPSY doctors who really got the SBT rolling....for it was THOSE guys who declared that the bullet that entered JFK's upper back MUST have "made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck".

ALSO SEE:

Where Is The Logical Alternative To The Single-Bullet Theory?

The SBT Perfection Of Commission Exhibit No. 903

Edited June 1, 2014 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

BTW, the Humes' quote I used previously is not from Humes' JAMA interview. It's from Humes' 1996 ARRB testimony....

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humesa.htm

[Robert Prudhomme]

David von Pein has NO answers.

Brilliant bit of work there, James.

[James R Gordon]

David,

I was looking through the 11 pages of this thread. I noted the many times Pat, Robert, Pat, Mark to name a few had asked you to address issues. In each and everyone you ignored the request and quite often in your response asked the member to answer your question. Ray had to ask three times before you even responded and when you did you ignored what he had to say.

Your interest in what anyone has to say is well illustrated in the response you have just made. "You can show me all the charts you want to, but YOU are the one who who no choice but to try and wiggle your way out of all six of the following things that make the Single-Bullet Theory (by far!) the most reasonable conclusion to explain the double-man wounding of JFK & JBC...."

Then you go on and list six issues that, for you, prove the SBT. They are all irrelevant if the bullet cannot pass through JFK's upper chest. The SBT has ended if the bullet cannot avoid the spine. As John Nichols has demonstrated it cannot avoid hitting the spine.

I have got to the point where I am now going to ignore you and anything you have to say. For me your contributions to this thread are irrelevant. You are not the least bit interested in anything anyone has to say. This is demonstrated by your responses which bear no resemblance to legitimate questions asked of you.

It is not a matter of hoping to change your mind - you are not even listening.

James

[David Von Pein]

All I know, James, is that we've got two competing theories at play here, and one of them must be correct:

One is the SBT. And one is a theory which has TWO separate bullets going into JFK's body, not exiting, and causing very little damage to the internal parts of Kennedy's body. (And that 2-bullets theory is, of course, one that you refuse to talk about, but it MUST be a theory that you surely DO endorse at the end of the day, correct? Because you don't think just ONE bullet could successfully navigate JFK's upper back and emerge from the throat.)

Given these options (and despite James' analysis of what Bullet CE399 would have no choice in hitting if the SBT is correct), and coupled with so many OTHER factors, I place my support in the Single-Bullet Theory.

Among those "other factors" are ---

The Zapruder Film;

Connally being wounded in the UPPER BACK too;

The bullet going into Connally at an ANGLE;

The total lack of any bullets to explain these wounds other than CE399;

The fact that the two victims are generally lined up in a straight line to accept one bullet from the viewpoint of the ONLY KNOWN LOCATION FOR AN ASSASSIN in Dealey Plaza at the precise point in time when the two men WERE struck by rifle fire (per the Z-Film analysis);

The WC's and HSCA's conclusions of CE399 being the bullet that traversed both JFK & JBC.

The above list of things provides a combination of facts and circumstances that, in my opinion, CORROBORATE the single-bullet hypothesis, and at the same time that combination of facts and factors makes ANY other hypothesis virtually impossible to accept or believe.

You disagree. Well, so be it.

In short, I am forced to believe that somewhere along the line, your analysis that has led to your conclusion that one bullet could not possibly have travelled clear through President Kennedy's upper back and neck HAS to be flawed.

I have got to the point where I am now going to ignore you and anything you have to say.

Ten-four. That's fine by me.

Good luck in proving your anti-SBT theory, James.

Did you contact Dr. Wecht yet? Here again is his contact info....

http://www.cyrilwecht.com/services.php

Adios.

Edited June 1, 2014 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

I've had more luck discussing Evolution with the Jehovah's Witnesses than trying to have an intelligent discussion with David von Pein.