Jump to content
The Education Forum

Need single bullet theory diagram

Recommended Posts

Why was there no fracture of the transverse process?

More from Mantik: "At the conclusion of the autopsy, only a shallow right back wound had been identified.  The FBI autopsy report stated that it entered, "A short distance...the end of the opening could be felt with the finger."  At the 1969 Clay Shaw trial, Finck testified that its depth was "the first fraction of an inch." (p. 98)

This is why of course that Specter did not want to hear from Sibert and O'Nneill.  They would have blown up the Single Bullet Fantasy.

Its also why he did not want to bear from Burkley.  Since his death certificate placed the entry wound too low.  That also blows up the Single Bullet Fantasy.

Robert Karnei, who was there that night, said that the back wound was clearly below the anterior neck wound.(Jim DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, p. 140)  Both O'Connor and Jenkins, who were also there, said the probe into the back had a steeply downward angle.  Jenkins told William Law that it was impossible to connect the two. And there were reportedly photos of this which, no surprise, do not exist today.   At least six witnesses who were there said the probe could not find an exit point. (ibid, p. 141)

All of these liabilities for the official story would not be there if Humes dissected the back wound.  In a really surprising break with standards, he did not trace the back wound.   FInck was asked about why this was so through a  direct question at the Shaw trial. He refused to answer.  Garrison's ADA Alvin Oser had to pose the question EIGHT TIMES! He even had to ask the judge to order the witness to reply. Finally, Finck said he was ordered not to. (Jim DIEugenio, Second Edition, Destiny Betrayed, p. 302)

Now, if the two wound holes met, why would the probes not connect?  If the two wound holes connected, why would the miltary brass, who FInck said controlled the autopsy, stop the dissection from happening?

As attorney Allard Lowenstein once said about the RFK case, in his experience as a lawyer, people who don't have anything to hide don't hide things.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 263
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Over the years, 16 different doctors (mostly forensic pathologists, not counting the Rockefeller Commission physicians) have said the bullet transited JFK's body. That includes the 3 autopsy doctors, plus the 4 Clark Panel physicians, and all 9 members of the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel (including, incredibly, even Cyril Wecht).

If you, James DiEugenio, want to ignore all 16 of those doctors and sweep their "transiting bullet" conclusion into the gutter, go ahead. (You already have, many times, of course.) But pardon me if I don't join you.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Can I teach you something about evidence?

See, contrary to what Jason Ward said about me, I am using people who were there on the scene that night at Bethesda.  These are called eyewitnesses.  They were all medical professionals who worked there.  Therefore they were experienced.  Kennedy was on the morgue table for about three hours.  That is how long they had to look at the body.  Now, when you get that many people saying the same thing--the probes did not connect--then as most lawyers will tell you, well, that is pretty darn good.

Now, you want to quote the autopsy report.  But you never answered my question: The autopsy report would not have a problem with this if Humes, FInck or Boswell had dissected the back wound.  Something that is SOP in a death by gunshot case.  FInck told us that he was ordered not to do so after being asked the question 8 times.  Under oath. Something else you wish to ignore.

If you buy Specter, Humes and Boswell and their Single Bullet Fantasy that means you also buy the Rydberg drawings.  Those were drawn on the orders of Specter, with the guidance of Humes and Boswell.  They are provably a fabrication, which even you are skeptical of. (DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, pp.144-46)

Do you take notice of the fact that the autopsy report was written in its final draft by Humes AFTER Oswald was killed? Do you also note that Humes lied about the destruction of the first draft and where and why it happened?   Do you note that the final draft appears to have been done in Admiral Galloway's office?  Do you then link up the violation of standard autopsy practice through the brass in the morgue with these end results? (Ibid, p. 147)

Do you also know that Humes told Dan Rather that the back and neck wounds were precisely located by the Rydberg drawings? And do you know that those replies were scripted by the Justice Department?  (ibid, p. 150)

How many times does a witness have to lie and show he is open to intimidation for that witness to be discredited?

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That Davey brings up the Clark Panel is kind of humorous.

As many writers, like Pat Speer, have discovered, the Clark Panel was constructed for the direct purpose of attacking Thompson's book Six Seconds in Dallas. Because he had done for the head shot, what people like Salandria and Fred Cook  had done for the Single Bullet Fantasy.  He exposed it as a hoax.  And they got the right man to do it in good ole pathologist Russ Fisher, who would be the CIA's pal in the Paisley case; he was right down there in Baltimore. I mean Fisher himself said he was hired in order to refute the "junk" in Thompson's book. (DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination, p 150)  Which shows you what they were up to.  Because Thompson's book is a careful and exact rendering of the problems in the case through primary exhibits like the Z film and CE 399.  And also by direct testimony with people like Connally, Gregory and Shaw.

But Thompson had done something that the Power Elite did not like.  He showed that the trajectory of the rear head shot was pretty bizarre. It actually rose on its way through Kennedy's skull even though it was shot from sixty feet up.

No problem for Russ Fisher.  We are going to show that Thompson guy who is in charge.   Good ole Russ raised the rear skull wound by four inches to the cowlick area. (ibid, p. 151) But now the problem was those fragments that Humes wrote about connecting the low entry to the high exit.  Well, guess what?  Even though he wrote about them, today they are not on the x rays!  More Russ Fisher magic. (pp. 152, 53) Oh, and did I say Russ lowered the back wound?

See, in the real world this kind of magic stuff does not happen.  Only in the politically charged Kennedy case, on which so much rides. 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

 Because Thompson's book is a careful and exact rendering of the problems in the case through primary exhibits like the Z film and CE 399. 

In Six Seconds in Dallas Josiah Thompson blew pixie dust over both the T3 back wound and the throat entrance wound in order to elevate the significance of his studies of the Z film and CE399.

He actually did a good job listing the T3 back wound evidence -- then he refused to weigh that evidence, said the location of the back wound was unknown.

Thompson also came up with some nonsense about a fragment-exit wound in the throat.

The T3 back wound was too low to have caused the hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process -- which could only have been caused by a shot to the throat from the front.

SSID -- The Pet Theorists' Handbook.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

If you buy Specter, Humes and Boswell and their Single Bullet Fantasy that means you also buy the Rydberg drawings.  

Not at all, as I talk about HERE and HERE and HERE.

"The Rydberg drawings are awful. I've said that for years. The biggest mistake made by the Warren Commission was their failure to examine (in detail) the autopsy photographs and X-rays. That was a huge blunder on their part, no doubt about it. And that's why we have to be satisfied (as far as the Warren Report and the 26 volumes are concerned anyway) with those awful Rydberg drawings, which have caused more harm than good for decades, prompting even more people to scream "Cover Up" at the top of their lungs. But when the autopsy photos did finally become available to the masses (albeit in bootleg form), we can see that the WC was right anyway --- i.e., JFK was shot only from BEHIND --- just as the autopsy said." -- DVP; July 2017


"It's silly to rely too heavily on only the drawings....either Dox's or the ultra-crappy Rydberg ones done for the WC, which only serve to confuse more than clarify. And Dox's, while much better than Rydberg's are still off a little, and the Dox drawings weren't even necessary at all. The HSCA had full access to the actual pictures of JFK....why they needed some drawings on top of the pics I have never understood. I guess to supposedly provide better clarity of the inshoots/outshoots...but, as mentioned, all they did was muddy waters that would have been much less muddy if the WC and HSCA had kept the damn artist renderings out of the official record (IMHO)." -- DVP; July 2008



Do you take notice of the fact that the autopsy report was written in its final draft by Humes AFTER Oswald was killed? Do you also note that Humes lied about the destruction of the first draft and where and why it happened? Do you note that the final draft appears to have been done in Admiral Galloway's office?


Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes Davey sound like John McCloy.  When the credibility of the WR was crumbling in 1967, CBS gave McCloy all kinds of face time to pile on further lies with the public about how these critics were poking holes in their Swiss Cheese case against Oswald.  One of the pieces of BS he used was that the Warren Commission did not have the autopsy  materials.  That is the pics and x rays.  This was false.  They did. (Gerald McKnight, Breach of Trust, p. 171)

Now according to Davey, these would have been the salvation of the case, right?  But Specter arranged the Rydberg drawings to be drawn up without those materials, and without even the pathologists'  notes. Why?

Maybe because Specter knew that the real pics showed the entrance in the back, and not the neck?  And the face sheet was even worse in that regard? Therefore, this would create an "artistic" problem for Rydberg?

Unlike what Davey insinuates above, the ultimate printing of some of the pics through the Ida Dox illustrations, and the eventual black market copies, did not at all rid the case of problems with the forensic pathology evidence.  Far from it.  I mean this was when books like High Treason and Best Evidence were published.   Whatever one thinks of those books today, they  declared that it was now open season on the medical evidence in this case. And with the birth of the ARRB and the visits to the Archives by people like Mantik and Aguilar, things just got worse and worse.  To the point that today, as Martin Hay wrote in his critique of the Ayton/ Von Pein opus, these guys really don't even want to deal with this aspect because it is a veritable mine field, with detonations going off everywhere.

The autopsy photos strongly suggest that there was a frontal head shot at the right temple just inside the hair line.  And Don Thomas has shown this with very good photos at seminars. This coincides with what the attendant from Grawler's, Tom Robinson, said he saw when he went over  to pick up the body.  (DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, p. 137) We also know through the ARRB testimony of Stringer that those are not his photos of the brain. (ibid, p. 164) Let us also not forget that Perry said three times on the day of the assassination that the anterior neck wound was one of entrance. And at the mock trial in Houston, Chesser certified that, privately, Perry never went back on that. Just use simple logic: the anterior neck wound was much smaller than the back wound. 

But again, we would not have these problems if the pathologists had done their jobs of 1.) Tracking the back wound and 2.) Dissecting the brain.

They did not do either.  Again, I quote Lowenstein.  In his experience as a lawyer, people who have nothing to hide don't hide things. 

There was a lot of stuff to hide with the autopsy of John Kennedy.  And Arlen Specter knew it. 


Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

But Specter arranged the Rydberg drawings to be drawn up without those materials, and without even the pathologists' notes. Why? Maybe because Specter knew that the real pics showed the entrance in the back, and not the neck?  

And the CE903 picture---with Specter right there in the photo!---shows the entry wound where again??


In the BACK (not the neck).

Therefore, Specter obviously didn't need the wound to be raised up into JFK's neck, did he? (When will that myth ever croak?)


Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please, David, Specter was the worst kind of fibber. I track his comments in chapter 10 at patspeer.com and demonstrate his dishonesty a hundred times over. HE changed the description of the back wound from a wound on the back to a wound on the back of the neck AFTER studying a photo you know shows the wound to be on the back. And then fibbed his face off for forty years hoping no one would notice.

Since I know you can't bear to read anything that goes into detail, here's an excerpt...


When Specter discussed his being shown the autopsy photo before the 1964 re-enactment in his 2000 memoir Passion for Truth, for example, he described it as “a small picture of the back of a man’s body, with a bullet hole in the base of the neck, just where the autopsy surgeons said Kennedy had been shot.” Oh, my! Base of the neck? This once again steered clear of the fact that a tracing of this photo had been released by the government in 1979. This steered clear, moreover, of the incredibly inconvenient fact that this tracing PROVED the bullet hole to have been inches below the base of the neck. And what did he mean when he said "just where the autopsy surgeons said Kennedy had been shot?" Was he once again referring to the autopsy report, to hide that the exhibits he'd presented to the Warren Commission had been misleading?

In any event, Specter not only admitted in his memoirs that he'd failed to tell anyone on the commission he'd taken a look at the back wound photo, but he tried to excuse his cowardice by adding “an unauthenticated photo was no way to establish facts for the record.” Well, this was too much. By Specter's own admission, he was shown the photo by Thomas Kelley, the Secret Service inspector responsible for conducting its investigation of the assassination. Specter knew, moreover, that the Secret Service had possession of the photos. It would have been a simple matter then of his stopping by Bethesda for ten minutes and talking to Dr. Humes, to verify the wounds, and John Stringer, the photographer, to verify it was one of the photos he took on the night of the autopsy. He would then have had an authenticated photo.

That Specter's claiming the wound was at the base of the neck was not a one-time slip, whereby he accidentally repeated inaccurate information he'd grown used to telling, was made clear, for that matter, by his book's other references to the wound.

He first mentioned the wound in relation to his work for the commission.

  • "To nail down both the direction and the location of the bullet that struck the president's back, we wanted all possible indicators." p.68

Notice how he calls it a back wound. He then discussed his meeting with the autopsy doctors in preparation for their testimony.

  • "At Bethesda, Ball and I tried to clear up some confusion over how far the bullet that struck Kennedy's neck had traveled through his body." p.79
  • "they surmised that the bullet on the stretcher might have been pushed out the back of Kennedy's neck by the massage." p.79
  • "As the autopsy progressed, the surgeons realized that the bullet had passed farther through the president's neck." p.79

Now this last bit was just strange. The official story, of which Specter was presumably aware, was that the doctors didn't realize a bullet passed through Kennedy's neck until the morning after the autopsy, after Dr. Humes spoke to Dr. Perry and discovered that the tracheotomy incision had been cut through a bullet wound. So what does Specter cite as evidence for them learning of this the night before?

Read on and be amazed:

  • "They saw that the muscles in the front of the neck had been damaged at about the same time the wound was inflicted on the top of the chest cavity."

Yes, truth is truly stranger than fiction. Here, in Specter's own book, was an accurate representation of Dr. Humes' testimony--that is, that the bruises on the strap muscles at the front of the neck had led him to suspect the neck wound pre-dated the tracheostomy. This, then, was as much as an admission he'd misled the public in his chapter in the Warren Report, and numerous interviews and articles, when he'd claimed the bullet slipped between these muscles upon entrance on the back of Kennedy's neck.

Or was it? Specter had a co-writer on his memoirs, Charles Robbins. Perhaps Robbins had caught Specter's mistake, and had added this bit into the book for the sake of accuracy.

This mystery only gets more curious, however, as we progress through Specter's book.

  • "When all the facts came in, it became clear that the neck shot had exited Kennedy's throat." p.80

Notice how what was formerly a back wound has now become a neck wound. Specter then discussed his being shown the back wound photo by Agent Kelley in 1964. As discussed, he presents this photo as:

  • "a small picture of the back of a man’s body, with a bullet hole in the base of the neck, just where the autopsy surgeons said Kennedy had been shot.” p.88

He then describes a second viewing of the photo by him in 1999 in the company of Dr. Boswell. 

  • "The entrance wound on the neck was about an inch below the shoulder line in the president's back . The exit wound at the site of the tracheotomy in his throat, was lower." p.88

Well, how can a wound be "on the neck below...the shoulder line in the...back? Does that make any sense? Was he trying to have it both ways? And have the wound be on the back where everyone who's seen the back wound photo knows it to be? Whilst simultaneously being on the neck, where his single-bullet theory needs it to be?

Not surprisingly, Specter then insisted that he and Boswell had convinced themselves the President’s back and neck wounds were “consistent with the Single Bullet Conclusion.” As if at this point we should take their word on anything...

Unfortunately, it seems the closest thing to an acknowledgment of error we’ll ever get from Specter is his related acknowledgement that the Rydberg drawings were “rough” and that he would never have had them created if he knew that people would credit them “with more precision than was intended.”

Specter then discusses the Parkland witnesses, and repeats much of his nonsense.

  • "They never saw the bullet entrance wounds in the back of his head and the back of his neck." p.100
  • "The Parkland doctors saw the clean, round, quarter-inch hole in the front of the president's neck but didn't know about the wound in the back of his neck." p.101
  • "Once the Parkland doctors were informed of the wound on the back of the president's head and neck..." p.101

Specter then slips up again (at least presumably).

  • "...before the doctors there knew about the entrance wounds on Kennedy's back and head..." p.103

The strangeness of Specter's book reaches a climax, however, when he discusses a conversation he had with Chief Justice Earl Warren, in which he convinced Warren of the soundness of the single-bullet theory. He claims he explained to Warren that:

  • "The autopsy showed that a bullet had struck Kennedy near the base of his neck on the right side and passed between two large strap muscles in his neck, striking only soft tissue as it continued in a slightly right-to-left, downward, and forward path..." p.109
  • "The president's garment had holes and tears showing that a missile entered the back in the vicinity of his lower neck..." p.110
  • "The wounds on the president and governor supported the Single-Bullet Conclusion. The first bullet would retain most of its high velocity after passing through the two large strap muscles in the back of the president's neck, slicing the pleural cavity, striking nothing solid, and then exiting from the front of his neck, nicking the left side of his tie." p.111
Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Pat notes above, Specter was stuck with the WC verdict on the neck.  Even though he himself says he saw the actual photo and it was not in the neck.

The scary thing about Davey is he ignores all of this muddled and compromised thinking by Specter.  Like it did not happen. Just like he ignores all the evidence at autopsy that the back wound did not transit. Or FInck's testimony about why the back wound was not tracked.

Instead, he relies on that phony photo.

But to show you just how bad he is, he already got knocked  out of the box on this at another forum.  So what he does is he reruns the whole thing, CUTTING OUT the part where he got knocked out.

See, in that phony photo--of which DVP never shows the reverse angle--Specter did two things to make it work.  He adjusted the pointer in both the horizontal and vertical planes.  Then Davey says, well what did you want him to do, actually poke the guy through with the pointer.  

But Davey, in the Discovery Channel special, they actual did do it: they shot the model.  The bullet exited out the chest.   Which shows what?  That Specter knew what he was doing with those adjustments.  BTW, this is the part that Davey censored when he reproduced the debate.  In other words, he left out the left hook to his head.

Look, this fantasy never happened.  The eyewitness testimony about the probes at autopsy, FInck's testimony about the depth of the hole in the back, the FBI report on that same subject, and the failure to dissect the back wound all demonstrate that this is just hocus pocus.  It was a forensic invention, pure and simple. Done in order to pin the crime on Oswald. And as Pat has indicated elsewhere, it appears to have begun even earlier than we expected.  In late January at an 8 hour meeting between the WC, the FBI and SS.  Some people on the WC realized that early that they were going to have to go with one bullet through two victims.  Even though that is not what the FBI decided. Which is one reason the FBI report got cut out of the volumes. 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent summation by Mr. Speer and Mr. DiEugenio.  I appreciate their thoroughness and reason.

One aspect in my mind of the impossibility of the SBT that is overlooked sometimes is what was said in the car.  JFK said "My God, I'm hit!" (I think according to Kellerman) after the shallow back wound. How could he say anything at all if this shot ripped through his neck and caused all the damage attributed to it?

Another is the fact of the "through and through" bullet hole in the windshield that entered JFK's throat (according to Dr. Perry that day) - in addition to the glass shards in his face that leaked embalming fluid.  

Finally, Governor Connally doesn't react to being shot at the same time JFK does.

These seem to be reasonable factors in disproving the SBT.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought that Thompson's book was the best on the last point.

He did interviews with Connally, Shaw and Gregory and they all said that Connally was hit somewhere around Z 231-236.  I mean these are doctors and the actual victim.

And then you have that great quote by Connally through Doug Thompson that is in McBride's book.  When journalist Thompson asked Connally if he thought Oswald fired the gun that killed Kennedy, this was JBC's reply:

"Absolutely not.  I do not, for one second, believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission." (McBride, Into the Nightmare, p. 418)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Please, David, Specter was the worst kind of fibber. .... HE changed the description of the back wound from a wound on the back to a wound on the back of the neck AFTER studying a photo you know shows the wound to be on the back. And then fibbed his face off for forty years hoping no one would notice.

The bottom-line FACT is....Specter didn't need the wound to be raised up into the "NECK" --- and CE903 proves that fact for all time.

I, too, have wondered why Specter constantly said the word "neck" when referring to the place on JFK's body where Oswald's CE399 bullet entered. But, as CE903 shows, the bullet doesn't enter through the "neck"; it enters the upper back.


Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites


So WHY did members of the Warren Commission's staff claim the wound was in the neck, after viewing photos proving it to have been in the back?

And WHY did the Johnson Justice Dept., after viewing the photos and knowing full well the wound was in the back, pressure the autopsy doctors into telling the media and the country they'd reviewed the autopsy photos and that this review had proved the wound was where it is shown in the Rydberg drawings, in the neck?

It's one thing to suspect Oswald acted alone, but it's another thing entirely to pretend there was no deliberate deception regarding the location of the back wound.


I don't "pretend," Pat, and I resent that implication.

I don't know what you're referring to that you're interpreting as "pressure," but that's your interpretation. I doubt that Ford, for one, knew the exact location of the back/neck wound. I think he recognized that the sentence as written couldn't possibly be right since there's nothing "in the back slightly above the shoulders." By definition, above the shoulders is "neck." Ford tried to correct it and made matters worse.

One thing I feel certain of is that there was no rational motive for anyone to "raise" the back wound. Moving it to the neck doesn't support the SBT, no matter what suspicion may tell you. An entry in the neck would destroy the SBT trajectory.

This reminds me of the old claim that Z frames 314 and 315 were reversed in the WC exhibits deliberately. "They" were trying to make the backward head movement disappear, some writers said. Except that the reversal did no such thing, and it was immediately obvious that the two frames were simply out of order.

Imo, it often seems that CTs don't allow for human error or Murphy's law or Hanlon's razor ("Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity [or incompetence].")


When you study the history of the back wound, Jean, it's 100% clear to anyone not named Pollyanna that a number of people, from Humes and Boswell to Specter and Lattimer, have lied about the back wound location.


What you call "lies", I would classify as merely semantics. And I truly believe that, too.


Because there was simply no reason for anyone to want to start telling a bunch of lies regarding the true location of John F. Kennedy's upper-back wound. And CE903, once again, proves my point here....


Exhibit 903, like it or not, does NOT show the wound of entry to be in the "neck" of JFK. It is positively in the UPPER BACK. And as such, any future references made by people such as Arlen Specter or Gerald Ford (or anyone else) to a wound in the "neck" are merely careless misstatements when attempting to describe the location of where the wound was. It's a semantics problem, in my opinion, and nothing more.

We see it over and over again in the Warren Commission volumes and in the Warren Report itself---references to a wound in the "neck" of President Kennedy....

"During the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital another bullet wound was observed near the base of the back of President Kennedy's neck..."
-- WR; Page 87

"The position of President Kennedy's car when he was struck in the neck..."
-- WR; Page 97

"A surveyor then placed his sighting equipment at the precise point of entry on the back of the President's neck..."
-- WR; Page 106

And it's fairly obvious that those references to "neck" in the Warren Report that I just cited above are references that were put on paper by the Commission AFTER the assassination reconstruction was performed in a Dallas garage on May 24, 1964, that resulted in Lyndal Shaneyfelt taking the picture seen in Commission Exhibit 903.

And since that photograph in CE903 does not indicate that there was a bullet wound of entrance in the "neck" of John Kennedy, where does that really leave any of the conspiracy theorists who want to still insist that the Warren Commission (and other people) "lied" about the true location of JFK's upper-back wound?

Do those conspiracists think Arlen Specter, et al, had a strong desire to look like idiots when they continued to refer to the "back" wound as a "neck" wound in various places within the WCR, even though Specter knows that CE903 is ALSO going to be part of the public record, which clearly shows the wound to be in the BACK of the JFK stand-in?

In other words, why would Specter (et al) lie when Commission Exhibit 903 proves forever and for always that there was absolutely NO NEED to lie about this matter at all?

It seems to me as if some of the people describing the location of that wound, including the person or persons who were responsible for writing the words we find on those three pages of the final Warren Commission Report that I quoted above, were in a bit of a quandary about how to precisely describe the part of the body where the bullet entered due to the fact that it entered at a place on JFK's body where the "neck" and the "back" are merging. So we sometimes got differing descriptions.

But it's pretty clear that even though CE903 is providing solid VISUAL confirmation that the bullet entered in the upper BACK of JFK, the people in charge of writing up the 888-page Warren Report still, for the most part, favored the use of the word "neck" instead. (Go figure.)

David Von Pein
December 7, 2014



In my opinion, Oswald was not only guilty, he was obviously guilty, but I wouldn't tell anyone, "One can only avoid that conclusion by refusing to look at the evidence." If you don't see it, you don't see it. I don't interpret the evidence the same way you do. When you end up with a large number of people "lying" for no apparent reason, that's a red flag, imo.

I'm no Pollyanna, I'm a Doubting Thomas. Can you show me a SBT trajectory of c. 18 degrees that works when the wound is raised to the neck -- specifically, a trajectory from the SN [Sniper's Nest] exiting at the tie knot and hitting Connally where it did? Without that, there's no motive for anyone to lie about the wound's location.

As I recall, Boswell told a Baltimore newspaper that the wound was where the autopsy measurements placed it: c. 5 1/2 inches below the mastoid process. Isn't that in the upper back?

I think a part of the confusion came from "semantics," as David suggests. The bullet entered the upper back but since the throat extends below the shoulders on the front of the body, the bullet also passed through and exited a part of the neck. It was a "back/neck wound," literally.

IMO, the "Pollyanna" view of the assassination is thinking that Kennedy was killed by his political enemies. This gives his death significance and makes it understandable. It suggests an orderly universe where things happen for a reason. But if you're stuck with believing as I do that the assassination was a senseless random event with JFK and LHO arriving on Elm St. on the same day entirely by chance, that's a very bleak view. Pollyanna would curl up and die.


Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of the worst aspects of the Krazy Kid Oswald Crowd.    They refuse to acknowledge that a certain personage has been discredited.

See, on our side, we do not blindly accept every book that comes down the pike because it advocates Oswald as innocent and Kennedy was killed in a plot. With their side, with few exceptions, that is usually the case.  

Jean Davison is a stellar example of this.  This is a woman who wrote a pathetic biography of Oswald.  It broke every rule that a biographer should follow.  There is no new research in the book.  In examining her footnotes, there is no evidence she ever went anywhere or even called anyone. I mean she makes Bugliosi look peripatetic.

She began her book with a deception.  She said that somehow, because Jack Ruby passed his lie detector test, Mark Lane was wrong to say that Ruby was hiding something. Its important to note that this was four years after the HSCA exposed the Warren Commission polygraph as  deliberately rigged by the FBI.  Let me repeat that:  It was Four YEARS after it was exposed as being rigged.  In other words, the  truth is that the FBI covered up Ruby's lies!  And anyone could see that if they read the volumes.  I don't know what is worse.  If she didn't read them or if she did and decided to ignore them to fool the reader.  With Davison it could be either one.  Why?

Because she has an aversion to primary documents.  Again, four years after the HSCA, she said that the witnesses in Clinton/Jackson confused Banister for Shaw and therefore they could not be trusted identifying Oswald.  This was another misrepresentation of the facts. And all that Davison had to do was track down the investigators of the HSCA who did the work up there. None of the witnesses identified Banister. This was pure James Phelan BS. The witnesses all identified Shaw, mainly because of his height which they said was well over six feet. Shaw was 6' 4" and Banister was 5' 10".  But this is the kind of phony research this woman does.

When my review of her cruddy book appeared, she said that somehow I was not accurate about what she said about Oswald acquiring the Russian language. Not true. But obviously someone had gotten to her and told her she screwed up back then by implying that Oswald learned Russian in the service.  That is in her book.  But once she was alerted to this screw up, probably by McAdams, she now said that Oswald learned Russian through his Intourist Guides.  Oh really Jean?  Then if that was the case, why did he speak fluent Russian to Rosaleen Quinn before he left the USA?  :stupid


This is what happens when one is so steeped in disinfo that you actually forget what the facts are.  In your denial of those facts, you trip over yourself and then have to be coached by your allies.

Even though I took  her book apart almost chapter by chapter, showing it had no credibility, Von Pein still uses her.  

What a disgrace.  For them both.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...