Some Simple Questions About the Single-Bullet Theory

[Cliff Varnell]

8 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

You cannot be serious. How can you say with a straight face that the chalk mark matches the location of the back wound seen in the autopsy photos? How? It is not even close.  

Indeed.  The Fox 5 “wound” is clearly above the shoulder blade.

[Michael Griffith]

17 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Indeed.  The Fox 5 “wound” is clearly above the shoulder blade.

Yes. Also, perhaps Specter was relying on the back-wound dot on the autopsy face sheet, or perhaps he was using the death certificate, or perhaps he was using the same autopsy photo that J. Lee Rankin viewed during the 1/27/64 WC executive session, which Rankin said showed that "the bullet entered below the shoulder blade."

Specter could have used any number of sources that placed the wound at/near the chalk mark, including, of course, the rear clothing holes.

Edited June 26, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

21 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Because he decided to go with the location established by the rear clothing holes? Because he could see that the wound's location in the autopsy photo is unreliable since he could see that JFK's head is tilted backward and the shoulder is raised for the photo? 

We can theorize all day about why Specter put the mark where he did, assuming he's the one who put it there, but the fact remains (1) that the chalk mark is clearly well below the wound seen in the autopsy photo, and (2) that the chalk mark corresponds closely with the rear clothing holes.

It just isn't so, Michael. The wound location in the back wound photo is consistent with its location on the face sheet and the location of the chalk mark used during the re-enactment. Here's something I put together demonstrating that the face sheet and measurements align.

And here' something I put together demonstrating that the HSCA's conclusion regarding the back wound location--which they derived from studying the back wound photo--is far below the location of the wound in LN drawings, and is consistent with the location demonstrated at left above.

 

[Pat Speer]

21 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Indeed.  The Fox 5 “wound” is clearly above the shoulder blade.

 

4 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Yes. Also, perhaps Specter was relying on the back-wound dot on the autopsy face sheet, or perhaps he was using the death certificate, or perhaps he was using the same autopsy photo that J. Lee Rankin viewed during the 1/27/64 WC executive session, which Rankin said showed that "the bullet entered below the shoulder blade."

Specter could have used any number of sources that placed the wound at/near the chalk mark, including, of course, the rear clothing holes.

Rankin never saw a photo. He was clearly referring to the face sheet. As far as Specter...he admitted being shown the autopsy photo on the day of the re-enactment by Kelley. He did so to prop up that the re-enactment was accurate, and that the SBT was in keeping with the autopsy evidence--which people at that time were clamoring to be reviewed. When the HSCA released tracings of the back wound photo, he once again went quiet on this issue, and once again made out that the WC was denied access to the photos by RFK--which even Katzenbach said was nonsense. 

In short, then, Specter's viewing the photo on the day of the re-enactment is proof of the cover-up. When I tried to discuss this with Willens, and later Griffin, they ran into the hills, because they knew just how damaging this was. 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

It just isn't so, Michael. The wound location in the back wound photo is consistent with its location on the face sheet and the location of the chalk mark used during the re-enactment. Here's something I put together demonstrating that the face sheet and measurements align.

And here' something I put together demonstrating that the HSCA's conclusion regarding the back wound location--which they derived from studying the back wound photo--is far below the location of the wound in LN drawings, and is consistent with the location demonstrated at left above.

 

And yet the top of your back isn’t 4 inches below the bottom of your shirt collar.

You can spin this treacle all you want, Pat.  

Edited June 26, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

 

Rankin never saw a photo. He was clearly referring to the face sheet. As far as Specter...he admitted being shown the autopsy photo on the day of the re-enactment by Kelley. He did so to prop up that the re-enactment was accurate, and that the SBT was in keeping with the autopsy evidence--which people at that time were clamoring to be reviewed. When the HSCA released tracings of the back wound photo, he once again went quiet on this issue, and once again made out that the WC was denied access to the photos by RFK--which even Katzenbach said was nonsense. 

In short, then, Specter's viewing the photo on the day of the re-enactment is proof of the cover-up. When I tried to discuss this with Willens, and later Griffin, they ran into the hills, because they knew just how damaging this was. 

All of this is irrelevant, Pat.  JFK’s back wound was at T3.

 

Edited June 26, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

5 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

All of this is irrelevant, Pat.  JFK’s back wound was at T3.

 

And the Earth is flat. Saying it doesn't make it so. I've studied it ad nauseam, and the HSCA's approximation is basically correct--it could be just below T-1, but that's irrelevant. What matters is that these guys--who could have just played along, like the Clark Panel--did not, and placed the wound in a location consistent with the autopsy photos, face sheet, autopsy measurements, chalk mark, etc... This pretty much killed the SBT. Only...Blakey was impressed with Guinn's NAA, and his dishonest conclusion the wrist fragment came from CE 399. So the pathology panel signed off on the SBT under the impression JFK leaned forward while behind the sign in the Z-film. No one told them the photography panel had determined he was hit before this. So, yes, the HSCA was a fluster cluck. But the fact remains that the last medical panel to study the evidence said the back wound location precluded the SBT unless something no one believes happened happened. And this went un-noticed. Because some would rather pretend the photos are fake etc than acknowledge that the medical evidence to which we've gained access proves the WC's conclusions were doo-doo. 

[Michael Griffith]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

And the Earth is flat. Saying it doesn't make it so. I've studied it ad nauseam, and the HSCA's approximation is basically correct--it could be just below T-1, but that's irrelevant. What matters is that these guys--who could have just played along, like the Clark Panel--did not, and placed the wound in a location consistent with the autopsy photos, face sheet, autopsy measurements, chalk mark, etc... This pretty much killed the SBT. Only...Blakey was impressed with Guinn's NAA, and his dishonest conclusion the wrist fragment came from CE 399. So the pathology panel signed off on the SBT under the impression JFK leaned forward while behind the sign in the Z-film. No one told them the photography panel had determined he was hit before this. So, yes, the HSCA was a fluster cluck. But the fact remains that the last medical panel to study the evidence said the back wound location precluded the SBT unless something no one believes happened happened. And this went un-noticed. Because some would rather pretend the photos are fake etc than acknowledge that the medical evidence to which we've gained access proves the WC's conclusions were doo-doo. 

The rear clothing holes prove the wound was at or very near T3, not T1. Substantial eyewitness testimony agrees with this physical-evidence-based placement.

The autopsy photo is not reliable because JFK's head is tilted considerably backward and his right shoulder is also manipulated.

I essentially agree with you about the need to assume that JFK was leaning far forward when the HSCA's alleged SBT hit occurred. Baden demonstrated this for all to see in a documentary, leaning markedly forward to show how the bullet could have entered the back at a slightly upward angle and still have exited the throat and hit Connally. Yes, it is hokum, pure hokum.

And, yes, the HSCA also said, correctly, that this shot was fired at Z186-190, about one second before JFK passed behind the road sign. 

I seriously doubt that Rankin was referring to the dot on the autopsy face sheet.

 

Edited June 26, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

And the Earth is flat.

Which is basically what you’ve been doing for 20 years.  Claiming the top of the back is 4 inches below the clothing collar is just as idiotic.

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Saying it doesn't make it so.

The bullet holes in the clothes make it so.

The contemporaneous written accounts of a half-dozen men in position of authority make it so.

The properly prepared medical evidence makes it so.

The consensus witness statements make it so.

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

I've studied it ad nauseam, and the HSCA's approximation is basically correct--it could be just below T-1, but that's irrelevant.

Nothing could be more relevant.

You obfuscate the fact that JFK had two wounds in soft tissue — in his neck, and his back at T3.  Conventional rounds never leave such wounds.

You obfuscate the role in the cover-up of the fake Fox 5 photo.

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

What matters is that these guys--who could have just played along, like the Clark Panel--did not, and placed the wound in a location consistent with the autopsy photos, face sheet, autopsy measurements, chalk mark, etc...

All elements of a cover-up, Pat.

Why do you pretend the clothing holes don’t exist?  Because it’s inconvenient to your pet theories? 

 

Edited June 26, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Michael Griffith]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

 

Because some would rather pretend the photos are fake etc than acknowledge that the medical evidence to which we've gained access proves the WC's conclusions were doo-doo.

I don't think anyone is "pretending" that "the photos are fake." And the "medical evidence to which we've gained access" is a mixed bag. Some of it supports the WC's conclusions. Some of it does not. Some of it is neutral.

You keep over-simplifying and mispresenting the position of those who question the autopsy evidence. We do not say that it is all fake. We do say that some of the x-rays have been altered, that photos and x-rays are missing, that the brain photos are clearly not of JFK's brain, and that some of the photos do not show how the wounds looked during the autopsy. 

On the other hand, you wave aside hard physical evidence whenever it conflicts with the autopsy photos. You wave aside massive eyewitness evidence whenever it conflicts with the autopsy x-rays and photos. And you wave aside scientific evidence that the skull x-rays have been altered. 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

You keep over-simplifying and mispresenting the position of those who question the autopsy evidence. 

Over and over and over...

Mind-boggling.

Edited June 26, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Michael Griffith]

I note that WC apologists have not provided credible answers to the questions posed in the original post. It is an interesting experience when you know that the other person can see the same thing you see but they either won't admit it or they offer weird, unserious theories to try to explain it.

WC apologists have been unable to explain why Conally's right shoulder is suddenly slammed downward starting in Z238 if he was hit in Z224. Posner's silly claim that Connally himself jerked his shoulder downward is too silly to warrant further comment.

One of them actually said that Connally, the man who experienced the wounding and felt the impact of the bullet, could not tell when he was hit, not even after carefully studying high-quality blowups of the Zapruder film. And, of course, we are asked to believe that it means nothing that both of Connally's doctors agreed that he was not hit before Z231.

They have offered only specious denials of the fact that Jackie starts staring at JFK before he goes behind the freeway sign. They cannot admit this because it means that JFK was hit over 20 frames before Z224, and that this shot was fired at around Z186-190. 

They have basically ignored the fact that JFK's waving motion suddenly freezes starting in Z200, as noted by the HSCA PEP, and they refuse to admit the self-evident fact that JFK started reaching for throat many frames before Z224. 

And what of JFK's dramatic reaction in Z226-232, when his upper body is clearly knocked forward and his hands and elbows are flung upward and forward? This is at least 20 frames after Jackie has already been staring at him with her head frozen in position. This is at least 20 frames after JFK freezes his waving motion and starts to bring his hands toward his throat. Obviously, we are seeing him react to a second bullet strike in Z226-232, but WC apologists cannot admit this because it destroys their theory of the shooting. 

Edited June 27, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

22 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Which is basically what you’ve been doing for 20 years.  Claiming the top of the back is 4 inches below the clothing collar is just as idiotic.

The bullet holes in the clothes make it so.

The contemporaneous written accounts of a half-dozen men in position of authority make it so.

The properly prepared medical evidence makes it so.

The consensus witness statements make it so.

Nothing could be more relevant.

You obfuscate the fact that JFK had two wounds in soft tissue — in his neck, and his back at T3.  Conventional rounds never leave such wounds.

You obfuscate the role in the cover-up of the fake Fox 5 photo.

All elements of a cover-up, Pat.

Why do you pretend the clothing holes don’t exist?  Because it’s inconvenient to your pet theories? 

 

You're entering this conversation a bit late, Michael. When I was a relative newbie, Cliff offered me a few insights. We then became allies in that we both argued here and elsewhere that the clothing holes destroy the single-bullet theory. At a certain point, however, he realized that I didn't think the autopsy photos were fake. And he has been on the attack ever since--a dozen years or more. 

Those claiming the back wound in the photo is inches above the location of the clothing holes simply haven't done the work, IMO. I spent some time on this way back when and it's clear the back wound in the photo is lower than most believe--in line with the shoulder tip, as described in the autopsy report, and as depicted on the face sheet. This destroys the single-bullet theory. It perplexes me that some would rather claim the photo proving a conspiracy is fake than acknowledge their pet impression of the wound in the photo is incorrect. 

Let's refresh. Here's Dr. Baden in his HSCA testimony, pointing out the location of hole on the back of the jacket. Look at where this is in comparison to the shoulder tip. Perhaps an inch below, right? Well, JFK was not a mannequin. He was a swimmer, with strong shoulder muscles, which may very well have lifted the back of the jacket a bit. And he was leaning forward a bit. It is totally disingenuous to pretend that no way no how could the hole in the jacket, when worn by JFK in the motorcade, overlay a wound in line with his shoulder tip. 

Edited June 27, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

You're entering this conversation a bit late, Michael. When I was a relative newbie, Cliff offered me a few insights. We then became allies in that we both argued here and elsewhere that the clothing holes destroy the single-bullet theory. At a certain point, however, he realized that I didn't think the autopsy photos were fake. And he has been on the attack ever since--a dozen years or more. 

Those claiming the back wound in the photo is inches above the location of the clothing holes simply haven't done the work, IMO. I spent some time on this way back when and it's clear the back wound in the photo is lower than most believe--in line with the shoulder tip, as described in the autopsy report, and as depicted on the face sheet. This destroys the single-bullet theory. It perplexes me that some would rather claim the photo proving a conspiracy is fake than acknowledge their pet impression of the wound in the photo is incorrect. 

Let's refresh. Here's Dr. Baden in his HSCA testimony, pointing out the location of hole on the back of the jacket. Look at where this is in comparison to the shoulder tip. Perhaps an inch below, right? Well, JFK was not a mannequin. He was a swimmer, with strong shoulder muscles, which may very well have lifted the back of the jacket a bit. And he was leaning forward a bit. It is totally disingenuous to pretend that no way no how could the hole in the jacket, when worn by JFK in the motorcade, overlay a wound in line with his shoulder tip. 

This is bizarre. What are you seeing? Baden's finger is clearly below the line of the shoulder tip. Can you not see that? How can you not see that? What are you talking about? There is no way, now how, that the rear clothing holes could overlap a wound at T1. 

I might add, for the sake of accuracy, that T1 is slightly above the shoulder tip, unless JFK had a deformed spine and/or deformed shoulders.

You accept the HSCA FPP placement of the back wound at T1, based the autopsy photo of the back. But this ignores the fact that JFK's head is tilted markedly backward in that photo and that his right shoulder is being manipulated in the photo. I would not be a bit surprised if the wound would appear an inch or so lower if they had not tilted the head backward and manipulated shoulder. 

The rear clothing holes cannot be wished away. They put the back wound in the same place that a number of witnesses placed it. 

Yes, it is very odd that you think that all of the autopsy photos are pristine and accurate, even the brain photos that show a brain that looks nothing like the bran that most witnesses described and that contradicts the skull x-rays. It also odd that you accept as pristine and accurate the photos that show the back of the head intact. I view as ludicrous the idea that the 40-plus witnesses who described a right occipital-parietal wound could not tell the difference between a wound over the right ear and a wound 3-4 inches behind the ear, especially the nurse who packed the wound with gauze and the mortician who reassembled the skull. 

Again, you are in a very tiny minority among researchers who reject the lone-gunman theory. 

Do you at least acknowledge the evidence that a number of autopsy photos and x-rays are missing?

 

Edited June 27, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

You're entering this conversation a bit late, Michael. When I was a relative newbie, Cliff offered me a few insights. We then became allies in that we both argued here and elsewhere that the clothing holes destroy the single-bullet theory.

That alliance lasted 3 e-mails, for maybe a week, back in 2003.

Destroying the SBT isn’t nearly as important as the fact that JFK had two shallow wounds in soft tissue — in the throat and just to the right of T3.

That’s a lead on potential perps.  The only hard lead in the entire case.

Conventional weapons don’t leave shallow wounds in soft tissue.  The autopsists seriously considered the possibility JFK was hit with a high tech weapon which leaves no trace in the body.  They asked the FBI guys if such a weapon existed.  FBI SA Sibert called the FBI Lab to check it out.  At that point the Magic Bullet was introduced — “We have the bullet,” Sibert was told.

Such weapons were developed for the CIA at Fort Detrick, MD.  And that’s where our investigation should logically start.

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

At a certain point, however, he realized that I didn't think the autopsy photos were fake. And he has been on the attack ever since--a dozen years or more. 

Pat put back wound at T1, and we had a falling out over that.  This made no sense to me then, and makes no sense to me now.  

The clothing holes line up with T3, corroborated by a half dozen written contemporaneous accounts and the consensus statements of 15 eye-witnesses.

Did these witnesses suffer the same hallucination?  Did JFK’s clothing move in a manner contrary to the nature of reality?  I put these questions to Pat occasionally for 20 years and he ducks them every time.

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Those claiming the back wound in the photo is inches above the location of the clothing holes simply haven't done the work, IMO.

The top of the back isn’t 4 inches below the bottom of the clothing collars.  The sheer idiocy of this claim is stunning.

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

I spent some time on this way back when and it's clear the back wound in the photo is lower than most believe--in line with the shoulder tip, as described in the autopsy report, and as depicted on the face sheet.

The mark properly made in pencil by James Jenkins on the face sheet is consistent with the clothing holes and all the other witness statements.  

The “wound” in the autopsy photo is clearly above the shoulder blade.  

The final autopsy report lists two locations — just above the upper margin of the scapula (T2) and 14cm below the mastoid process (T1).  None of this follows autopsy protocol.  Burkley’s death certificate followed the proper protocol and put the wound at T3.

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

This destroys the single-bullet theory. It perplexes me that some would rather claim the photo proving a conspiracy is fake than acknowledge their pet impression of the wound in the photo is incorrect. 

Why should anyone obsess on the SBT?  One look at T3 and you know it’s impossible.  It’s like obsessing on proof the Earth isn’t flat.

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Let's refresh. Here's Dr. Baden in his HSCA testimony, pointing out the location of hole on the back of the jacket.

When Pat discusses the back wound he cites Baden or Rankin or Specter or fake autopsy material.

The correct approach is to consider the consistency between the clothing defects and the witness statements.

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

Look at where this is in comparison to the shoulder tip. Perhaps an inch below, right? Well, JFK was not a mannequin. He was a swimmer, with strong shoulder muscles, which may very well have lifted the back of the jacket a bit.

...What?? 

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

And he was leaning forward a bit. It is totally disingenuous to pretend that no way no how could the hole in the jacket, when worn by JFK in the motorcade, overlay a wound in line with his shoulder tip. 

...Leaning forward?  That’s supposed to make the top of the back 4 inches below the jacket collar?

Sorry Pat, Dealey Plaza photos show a normal amount of shirt collar visible at the back of his neck.  The jacket collar was in a normal position just above the base of the neck.  Ergo, there was no significant elevation of the shirt and jacket.

Super Swimmer JFK and the Leaning President arguments were made for the WC and HSCA cover-ups.

 

 

Edited June 27, 2023 by Cliff Varnell