The "Wound Ballistics Of 6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition" Report

[Glenn Nall]

"you've got to tackle the only two major Government investigations into President Kennedy's death, both of which said the SBT is true."

That's funny all by itself - this fact all by itself is enough to make most come down on the side of conspiracy. something like "We're from the government, we're here to help."

in my reading the other day i came across two Watergate Axioms, or something... one being about not believing anything until the government officially denies it.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we can rest comfortably on the theory posited by the government because not one but two major government investigation teams investigated the world's most heinous crime committed within the bowels of the us government.

well, if you put it THAT way, D. I never looked at it like that.

[Pat Speer]

See, this is what fascinates/bothers me, David. You KNOW I have chapter after chapter debunking all those programs and all those re-enactments you described in a previous post.

So what?

You actually think that I am going to think you have "debunked" anything connected with the SBT? You must be kidding, Pat. You've debunked NOTHING. Least of all the viability of the Single-Bullet Theory.

You and I both have a lot of written material on our respective websites. And we're both in the same boat (so to speak).

I.E.,

I will never convince you that ANYTHING relating to the SBT is true. And, conversely, and knowing what I know about the SBT, you are never going to be able to convince me that the SBT is false or that the WC was a pack of liars with respect to the SBT.

That's the way it is. And that's the way it likely always will be.

Instead you continue to pretend that a picture taken from the front, and showing a trajectory rod passing over the shoulder, lines up with a chalk mark inches below the shoulder line. Bizarre.

Pat,

Here is the thing that makes your anti-CE903 rant unworthy of consideration (and you know this is true, but you seem to forget it every time I bring it up)...

CE903 represents the AVERAGE ANGLE between Z210 and Z225.

So THAT'S why the chalk mark doesn't quite "line up" perfectly.

Yes, I do have an article entitled "The SBT Perfection Of CE903". But I've added an addendum near the bottom of that article to talk about that "average trajectory angle" thing. But, in general terms of proving the workability and doability of the SBT, I do still think that CE903 does equal "SBT Perfection".

Let's see a CTer produce an anti-SBT re-enactment of the bullet wounds sustained by JFK and Governor Connally that comes within ten miles of CE903. No CTer ever has. And they never will (even if they try). And that's mainly because the SBT is so obviously true. And it's a heck of a lot more difficult to try and re-create a fantasy than it is to try and re-create something that actually happened.

And that's why the Warren Commission was able to get so close to perfection when re-creating the Single-Bullet Theory in that Dallas garage on May 24, 1964. Because they were re-creating something that the sum total of the evidence indicates actually happened on Elm Street on November 22, 1963.

What? CE 903 shows the angle from Connally to Kennedy to have been too steep, as a bullet projected back through Kennedy's throat would pass well above his back wound. Are you really claiming it all would have lined up perfectly if they'd have used the angle at Z-225?

As much as you cry about no one watching Beyond the Magic Bullet, moreover, you miss the few things they got right. When they lined up Kennedy and Connally and fired at the back wound location, they found that the bullet hit Connally well below his armpit. OOPS! It didn't line up, David. And the tests you rely upon prove it.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

See, this is what fascinates/bothers me, David. You KNOW I have chapter after chapter debunking all those programs and all those re-enactments you described in a previous post.

So what?

You actually think that I am going to think you have "debunked" anything connected with the SBT? You must be kidding, Pat. You've debunked NOTHING. Least of all the viability of the Single-Bullet Theory.

You and I both have a lot of written material on our respective websites. And we're both in the same boat (so to speak).

I.E.,

I will never convince you that ANYTHING relating to the SBT is true. And, conversely, and knowing what I know about the SBT, you are never going to be able to convince me that the SBT is false or that the WC was a pack of liars with respect to the SBT.

That's the way it is. And that's the way it likely always will be.

Instead you continue to pretend that a picture taken from the front, and showing a trajectory rod passing over the shoulder, lines up with a chalk mark inches below the shoulder line. Bizarre.

Pat,

Here is the thing that makes your anti-CE903 rant unworthy of consideration (and you know this is true, but you seem to forget it every time I bring it up)...

CE903 represents the AVERAGE ANGLE between Z210 and Z225.

So THAT'S why the chalk mark doesn't quite "line up" perfectly.

Yes, I do have an article entitled "The SBT Perfection Of CE903". But I've added an addendum near the bottom of that article to talk about that "average trajectory angle" thing. But, in general terms of proving the workability and doability of the SBT, I do still think that CE903 does equal "SBT Perfection".

Let's see a CTer produce an anti-SBT re-enactment of the bullet wounds sustained by JFK and Governor Connally that comes within ten miles of CE903. No CTer ever has. And they never will (even if they try). And that's mainly because the SBT is so obviously true. And it's a heck of a lot more difficult to try and re-create a fantasy than it is to try and re-create something that actually happened.

And that's why the Warren Commission was able to get so close to perfection when re-creating the Single-Bullet Theory in that Dallas garage on May 24, 1964. Because they were re-creating something that the sum total of the evidence indicates actually happened on Elm Street on November 22, 1963.

Okay, David, I'll play.

Which one of the statements below do you dispute? And what information can you provide to support that I am incorrect?

1) Joseph Ball was assigned the task of explaining how a bullet fired from six floors up could enter on the back and exit the throat.

2) Chief Justice Warren had a melt-down when the witnesses started saying things indicating there had been more than one shooter, and ordered Specter to bring the autopsy doctors in ahead of schedule to testify as soon as possible.

3) Joe Ball accompanied Specter out to Bethesda the next day, and asked the doctors to bring along drawings depicting the back wound trajectory for their testimony the next Monday.

4) The drawings created inaccurately depicted the back wound trajectory, and actually moved the back wound up to the base of the neck.

5) No measurements as to the actual wound location were provided the artist creating these drawings.

6) The artist nevertheless received a commendation letter for "depicting the situation required."

7) Dr. Humes, in his testimony claimed he'd provided measurements to the artist.

8) Dr. Humes, in his testimony, inaccurately claimed this back wound, as described in the autopsy protocol, was on the "low neck," when it was really on the "upper thorax".

9) Dr. Humes and Specter knew a wound on the "low neck" was out of alignment with the holes on the clothing. but had an emergency meeting on the Sunday before Humes' testimony and decided to get around this by claiming Kennedy (at 6 foot, 170) was "extremely well-muscled, and that this forced his shirt and jacket to bunch up in the back.

10) Even so, Specter had his doubts, and asked to have Humes and/or himself verify the wound location in the drawings before performing a re-enactment of the shooting.

11) On the day of the re-enactment, Specter was shown a photo of the back wound, which showed it to be on the back, below the shoulder line.

12) Specter marked the jacket worn by the Kennedy stand-in accordingly, and used this mark in the re-enactment to check the bullet's trajectory at various points of the Zapruder film.

13) The cross-hairs of the rifle/camera used in the re-enactment showed that a bullet entering this location would exit on a straight line far below Connally's back wound.

14) The re-enactment then moved to a warehouse, for more precise measurements. These measurements showed that a bullet fired from the sniper's nest and entering Kennedy's back at the location of the chalk mark would not be likely to exit his throat and then hit Connally in the armpit.

15) When Thomas Kelley (the Secret Service agent who showed Specter the back wound photo and placed the chalk mark on the jacket) testified about the re-enactment, Specter corrected him when he said it was a shoulder wound, and asked him if he meant to say it was a wound on the back of the neck. He then showed Kelley the drawing of the wound at the base of the neck, and asked him if this was what they used to mark the jacket. Kelley, said yes.

16) When Lyndal Shaneyfelt of the FBI testified about the trajectory studies performed in the warehouse, Specter introduced CE 903, showing this trajectory from the front, and failed to enter any photos of the trajectory taken from behind, showing the chalk mark location. He then had Shaneyfelt testify that the the trajectory "approximated" the back wound location--which hid that it was in fact inches away, no matter how they had the stand-in sitting or bending over.

17) Although Specter, in his internal memos, had regularly called the wound a "back" wound , his chapter on the assassination, which was submitted after the re-enactment proved a back location didn't work, or at least not as well as a base of the back of the neck location, now called the wound a wound at the base of the neck, or a wound on the back of the neck.

18) While working on his book The Death of a President, William Manchester spoke to Kennedy's (and Johnson's) physician, George Burkley, and Warren Commission counsel Howard Willens, and was put in contact with people who'd actually seen the autopsy photos, and was similarly told the wound was on the back of the neck.

19) When this issue came to the public's attention in late 1966, Dr. Boswell, who'd been issued an order of silence, suddenly became available to the news media, and told them it was indeed a wound on the back of the neck, as shown in the drawing, and not on the back, as shown on the face sheet. Unmentioned in these interviews was that Boswell had signed an inventory of the photos a few weeks before, in which this wound was described as a shoulder wound.

19) The next year, after receiving talking points from the Justice Dept. telling him what to say, Dr. Humes similarly testified that the drawings created for the Warren Commission, in which the back wound was shown to be at the base of the back of the neck, were accurate.

20) Specter continued to claim the wound was on the back of the neck for the rest of his life, even after viewing the back wound photos a second time.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Almost time for Davie to pull one of his disappearing acts.

[David Von Pein]

Pat,

All of the things you mentioned might very well be accurate. But I'll repeat my post from earlier....

"It makes little difference what WORD was used to describe the point of entry ("back" or "neck" or "base of the back of the neck"), because Commission Exhibit 903 proves that Arlen Specter and Company knew where to place that wound on a human body. And they placed it just where they should have placed it---in the UPPER BACK, just like it shows in the autopsy photo and in the autopsy report. The semantics are secondary next to what the Warren Commission DID when Lyndal Shaneyfelt took [the] photo in CE903. And the wound is NOT in the "neck". Period."

Edited June 23, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

How did the bullet make it through JFK's vertebrae, Dave?

Let me guess.... was it....... MAGIC ??????

[Kenneth Drew]

Let's see a CTer produce an anti-SBT re-enactment of the bullet wounds sustained by JFK and Governor Connally that comes within ten miles of CE903. No CTer ever has.

What an interesting statement. Let me see if I got that right.... produce a re-enactment of something that didn't happen. And get this, it has to be accurate. And if I understand DVP, he doesn't believe it has ever been done. Well, even though DVP doesn't have the freedom to believe as he wishes, I'm gonna give him one here. I'll bet he's right. I'll bet there is no accurate re-enactment of something that has never taken place.

Looks like it's time to shrug those shoulders once again after reading the above convoluted mess penned by Mr. Drew.

Do you really not know what I meant by an "anti-SBT re-enactment"?

Or do you really think JFK was NOT shot at all in the areas of the upper back and throat and that John Connally suffered NO wounds at all?

~shrug time ensues~

Well, it's like this DVP. First you say that nobody has ever produced an accurate re-enactment of no shots being fired at JFK and JFK not getting killed. Then you say that you can't believe that has never been done. Then you want us to believe that if it had been done that you would have the freedom to believe what you choose to believe, even though you have repeatedly told us that you don't have the total freedom to believe what you wish to believe. Then you're back to shrugging your shoulders, and I suppose you have your tongue in cheek also. Footnote: were you unable to find emoticons for those two activities? Oh, and you did ask a question, though you don't say if you will be free to believe my answer. But, yes JFK was shot in the back, about 4-6 inches below his neck and he was shot in the throat from the front of the limo. The angle of the back shot seems to match with the DalTex building. The front shot hit the windshield on the drivers side. Don't have a clue where that shooter was located.

Now, Davey, before you start shooting that down, first tell us if you're free to believe what you choose to, then hit the meat of the story.

[Kenneth Drew]

How did the bullet make it through JFK's vertebrae, Dave?

Let me guess.... was it....... MAGIC ??????

MAGIC ??????BULLET-----THEORY............. YEAH! GO, Bob.......

[Glenn Nall]

Let's see a CTer produce an anti-SBT re-enactment of the bullet wounds sustained by JFK and Governor Connally that comes within ten miles of CE903. No CTer ever has.

Tomorrow morning I will announce a casting call to be held at the Fabulous Fox Theater for my new screenplay, agreed to be produced by Oliver "Roger" Stone's third cousin Ruprecht Stone entitled The Never Before Seen Re-enactment of What Might Have Been An Anti-LNer Synopsis Had Anyone Been Able To Come Up With More Than Two Acts - it will be a very short play.

I will be filming the play once its run has ended - should be by Friday - and will provide "edited" copies of the masterpiece as long as I can get the actors to distort themselves into the required positions enough to be convincing.

I anticipate this re-enactment, like the others before it, to be a complete flop, along the lines of Ishtar and Jaws XVIII. I hope you are as excited as we - well, I - are.

You heard it here first, and no, i haven't had a drink in 3 years.

[Pat Speer]

Pat,

All of the things you mentioned might very well be accurate. But I'll repeat my post from earlier....

"It makes little difference what WORD was used to describe the point of entry ("back" or "neck" or "base of the back of the neck"), because Commission Exhibit 903 proves that Arlen Specter and Company knew where to place that wound on a human body. And they placed it just where they should have placed it---in the UPPER BACK, just like it shows in the autopsy photo and in the autopsy report. The semantics are secondary next to what the Warren Commission DID when Lyndal Shaneyfelt took [the] photo in CE903. And the wound is NOT in the "neck". Period."

Wait. So you are saying that the trajectory rod in CE 903 DOES pass through the location of the back wound as shown on the autopsy photos?

And yet the photos taken from behind prove it passes inches about the chalk mark...

Well, this makes no sense, unless... Wait, are you really saying that Specter put the chalk mark inches too low?

And that that was why he hid the chalk mark from the commission, and only placed CE 903, which failed to show the chalk mark, into evidence?

Because he'd screwed up when creating the chalk mark?

Well, if this is so, would you please take one of the pictures of the re-enactment in which the chalk mark is shown, and mark where YOU think the mark should have been placed?

Because it looks pretty good to me. Below the shoulder line, and in keeping with the holes in Kennedy's clothes...

[Kenneth Drew]

Let's see a CTer produce an anti-SBT re-enactment of the bullet wounds sustained by JFK and Governor Connally that comes within ten miles of CE903. No CTer ever has.

Tomorrow morning I will announce a casting call to be held at the Fabulous Fox Theater for my new screenplay, agreed to be produced by Oliver "Roger" Stone's third cousin Ruprecht Stone entitled The Never Before Seen Re-enactment of What Might Have Been An Anti-LNer Synopsis Had Anyone Been Able To Come Up With More Than Two Acts - it will be a very short play.

I will be filming the play once its run has ended - should be by Friday - and will provide "edited" copies of the masterpiece as long as I can get the actors to distort themselves into the required positions enough to be convincing.

I anticipate this re-enactment, like the others before it, to be a complete flop, along the lines of Ishtar and Jaws XVIII. I hope you are as excited as we - well, I - are.

You heard it here first, and no, i haven't had a drink in 3 years.

This is gonna be standing room only......

[David Von Pein]

From my "CE903 -- PART 4" post.....

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

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think it's quite possible that the chalk mark on the back of President Kennedy's stand-in (as seen in the top picture below, which is an opposite-angle view of Warren Commission Exhibit 903) has been placed too low.

When compared with the actual bullet hole in JFK's upper back, it sure looks to me as though the chalk mark has been placed too low on the stand-in's back:






This makes me think that it's possible that the FBI and Warren Commission marked the stand-in's jacket based on the bullet hole in KENNEDY'S COAT, rather than the hole in the actual body (skin) of his upper back.

However, I can't find any specific documentation in the Warren Commission testimony of the FBI's Lyndal Shaneyfelt or Robert Frazier to support my theory regarding the chalk marks.

Bob Frazier did say this in his WC testimony (which would tend to refute my above theory about the chalk mark):

"They had marked on the back of the President's coat the location of the wound, according to the distance from the top of his head down to the hole in his back as shown in the autopsy figures." -- Robert A. Frazier

The above comment by Frazier, however, is a bit puzzling, since the official autopsy measurements performed by the doctors at Bethesda did not utilize the "FROM THE TOP OF HIS HEAD" method for determining where Kennedy's wounds were located. Dr. Humes, et al, instead used the "mastoid process" as the body landmark for calculating where the upper-back bullet hole was located.

So, I'll confess that Frazier's "from the top of his head" testimony has me scratching my head a little bit.

[EDIT -- In May 2013, three years after writing the above words, I discovered that there is something in the official record that might indicate I was at least partially correct after all when I said this in 2010: "...it's possible that the FBI and Warren Commission marked the stand-in's jacket based on the bullet hole in KENNEDY'S COAT, rather than the hole in the actual body (skin) of his upper back." --- CLICK HERE.]

Anyway, if the JFK stand-in's suit jacket were to be "bunched up" a little bit (as Kennedy's jacket was when he was shot in the back), the chalk mark on the stand-in's back would be elevated slightly higher than it is in this photo and this photo, and therefore the chalk mark representing the bullet hole almost certainly would merge with Arlen Specter's pointer in the opposite-angle photographs.


ADDENDUM:

I recently realized something else that is quite important (IMO) regarding Warren Commission Exhibit #903.....

CE903 [seen below] provides very good circumstantial evidence to buttress the conclusion that the entry wound in President Kennedy's upper back was most certainly located HIGHER (anatomically-speaking) than the exit wound in JFK's throat (despite an opposite conclusion being reached on that subject by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s).



Of course, I fully realize that the person standing in for JFK in CE903 is not the real John Kennedy. And I also realize that you cannot extract three-dimensional information from a two-dimensional picture.

But even with those two stipulations in place, I think it's fairly obvious that Arlen Specter's pointer, in CE903, is being placed in a position that definitely mirrors the true and accurate location of the throat wound sustained by JFK in Dallas (i.e., the pointer is located at the location of the JFK stand-in's TIE KNOT, which has been determined to be the precise spot where a bullet exited President Kennedy's throat).

And it's also fairly obvious (via just a casual evaluation of CE903) that the location representing the ENTRY WOUND on the stand-in's upper back is in a place that is most definitely ANATOMICALLY HIGHER than the location representing the throat wound.

And: it's also quite obvious (to my eyes anyway) that the man who is substituting for JFK in CE903 is NOT LEANING FORWARD to any great extent whatsoever. He is pretty much sitting straight and upright and relatively erect in the back seat of the car in Commission Exhibit 903.

Hence, the math isn't too difficult here -- the upper-back bullet wound was ANATOMICALLY HIGHER than the bullet hole in the throat.

This kind of garden-variety photo analysis, of course, is far from being "scientific" in nature. But I think it's just basic common sense (coupled with the things that anybody with at least one working eyeball can easily see in Commission Exhibit No. 903).

And as far as the REAL John F. Kennedy's body is concerned, the two side-by-side autopsy pictures below provide further photographic indicators that can only lead to one reasonable conclusion. And that is: JFK's upper-back wound was located HIGHER than the wound in his throat. (The HSCA's conclusion to the contrary notwithstanding.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-843.html

Edited June 23, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Ray Mitcham]

From my "CE903 -- PART 4" post.....

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

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think it's quite possible that the chalk mark on the back of President Kennedy's stand-in (as seen in the top picture below, which is an opposite-angle view of Warren Commission Exhibit 903) has been placed too low.

When compared with the actual bullet hole in JFK's upper back, it sure looks to me as though the chalk mark has been placed too low on the stand-in's back:

Just because you "think it quite possible" doesn't mean a thing.

This makes me think that it's possible that the FBI and Warren Commission marked the stand-in's jacket based on the bullet hole in KENNEDY'S COAT, rather than the hole in the actual body (skin) of his upper back.

"Makes me think that it's possible.." Really. Arf!

However, I can't find any specific documentation in the Warren Commission testimony of the FBI's Lyndal Shaneyfelt or Robert Frazier to support my theory regarding the chalk marks.

Is anybody surprised?

Bob Frazier did say this in his WC testimony (which would tend to refute my above theory about the chalk mark):

"They had marked on the back of the President's coat the location of the wound, according to the distance from the top of his head down to the hole in his back as shown in the autopsy figures." -- Robert A. Frazier

The above comment by Frazier, however, is a bit puzzling, since the official autopsy measurements performed by the doctors at Bethesda did not utilize the "FROM THE TOP OF HIS HEAD" method for determining where Kennedy's wounds were located. Dr. Humes, et al, instead used the "mastoid process" as the body landmark for calculating where the upper-back bullet hole was located.

So, I'll confess that Frazier's "from the top of his head" testimony has me scratching my head a little bit.

Don't do that, David. You'll get splinters.

[EDIT -- In May 2013, three years after writing the above words, I discovered that there is something in the official record that might indicate I was at least partially correct after all when I said this in 2010: "...it's possible that the FBI and Warren Commission marked the stand-in's jacket based on the bullet hole in KENNEDY'S COAT, rather than the hole in the actual body (skin) of his upper back." --- CLICK HERE.]

Anyway, if the JFK stand-in's suit jacket were to be "bunched up" a little bit (as Kennedy's jacket was when he was shot in the back), the chalk mark on the stand-in's back would be elevated slightly higher than it is in this photo and this photo, and therefore the chalk mark representing the bullet hole almost certainly would merge with Arlen Specter's pointer in the opposite-angle photographs.

Desperation setting in.

ADDENDUM:

I recently realized something else that is quite important (IMO) regarding Warren Commission Exhibit #903.....

CE903 [seen below] provides very good circumstantial evidence to buttress the conclusion that the entry wound in President Kennedy's upper back was most certainly located HIGHER (anatomically-speaking) than the exit wound in JFK's throat (despite an opposite conclusion being reached on that subject by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s).

Of course, I fully realize that the person standing in for JFK in CE903 is not the real John Kennedy. And I also realize that you cannot extract three-dimensional information from a two-dimensional picture.

But even with those two stipulations in place, I think it's fairly obvious that Arlen Specter's pointer, in CE903, is being placed in a position that definitely mirrors the true and accurate location of the throat wound sustained by JFK in Dallas (i.e., the pointer is located at the location of the JFK stand-in's TIE KNOT, which has been determined to be the precise spot where a bullet exited President Kennedy's throat).

Who determined it and where is the evidence. The Surgeon said it was above the tie. Who said it wasn't?

And it's also fairly obvious (via just a casual evaluation of CE903) that the location representing the ENTRY WOUND on the stand-in's upper back is in a place that is most definitely ANATOMICALLY HIGHER than the location representing the throat wound.

And: it's also quite obvious (to my eyes anyway) that the man who is substituting for JFK in CE903 is NOT LEANING FORWARD to any great extent whatsoever. He is pretty much sitting straight and upright and relatively erect in the back seat of the car in Commission Exhibit 903.

Hence, the math isn't too difficult here -- the upper-back bullet wound was ANATOMICALLY HIGHER than the bullet hole in the throat.

This kind of garden-variety photo analysis, of course, is far from being "scientific" in nature. But I think it's just basic common sense (coupled with the things that anybody with at least one working eyeball can easily see in Commission Exhibit No. 903).

And as far as the REAL John F. Kennedy's body is concerned, the two side-by-side autopsy pictures below provide further photographic indicators that can only lead to one reasonable conclusion. And that is: JFK's upper-back wound was located HIGHER than the wound in his throat. (The HSCA's conclusion to the contrary notwithstanding.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-843.html

Keep digging, David.

Eventually you will realise the truth.

[Ian Lloyd]

I would suggest that, if Specter could have stabbed the pointer through the gentleman acting as JFK's stand (or sit)-in in the points and directions of the alleged SBT, as determined by the WC etc., the point of the pointer would be touching the Connally stand (or sit)-in somewhere in the vicinity of his spine.

CE 903 disproves the SBT.

[Robert Prudhomme]

The "investigation" determined that LHO was laterally separated from a line drawn lengthwise through the centre of the limo by 9°. For a bullet to pass through the neck and injure the right side of the trachea (windpipe) and not hit a vertebra, requires the bullet to be travelling at a lateral angle, as measured from a line drawn lengthwise through the limo, of a minimum of 26°.

As seen in the reenactment photos, Dave, do you think Connally's right armpit was 26° to the LEFT of where the bullet exited JFK's throat?

How did LHO's bullet travel through JFK's neck at an angle of 26°, if LHO's shooting position had him lined up at an angle of 9°?

Edited June 23, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme