The Magic Bullet Theory

[Thomas H. Purvis]

It should be pointed out that three of the members of the Warren Commission, Russell, Bloggs and Cooper did not accept the single-bullet theory. Ford, Dulles and McCoy applied considerable pressure on them and they eventually agreed to sign the report. One wonders if this would have happened if the FBI agents who attended JFK’s autopsy, Francis X. O'Neill and James W. Sibert, were allowed to testify before the WC. We now know that after examining the wounds they both rejected the lone-gunman theory. The same is also true of Jerrol Francis Custer, the man who took the X-rays and Paul O’Connor, the lab technician at the autopsy. The important point is that Arlen Specter interviewed all the witnesses before they were called before the Warren Commission. This was clearly an important part of the cover-up.

At least we can agree on the role played by Arlen Specter in obfuscation of the facts.

Unfortunately, there are far too many others who support the Lone Assassin/Lone Nut, that make excuses for the actions of Specter, and attempt to write them off as some mere coincidences.

The actions of Arlen Specter in covering up the facts of the assassination are as deliberate and intentional as anything which I have ever observed on the part of any Lawyer/Defense Attorney who utilized every means available to keep evidence from being entered into the game.

And of course, for these actions, Specter has been well compensated.

[Dawn Meredith]

Dr. Aguilar (Gary):

Welcome to the forum. Delightful to see you here. Your expertise on the medical evidence in this case is astounding.

Dawn

[Sid Walker]

The actions of Arlen Specter in covering up the facts of the assassination are as deliberate and intentional as anything which I have ever observed on the part of any Lawyer/Defense Attorney who utilized every means available to keep evidence from being entered into the game.

And of course, for these actions, Specter has been well compensated.

When the latest Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was sworn in, Arlen was there to shake his hand.

"Treason doth never prosper. What's the reason? If it prosper, none dare call it treason."

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Dr. Aguilar (Gary):

Welcome to the forum. Delightful to see you here. Your expertise on the medical evidence in this case is astounding.

Dawn

Actually!

I would have expected that the puzzle had all of it's pieces in place by now.

Dr. Aguilar (Gary):

Welcome to the forum. Delightful to see you here. Your expertise on the medical evidence in this case is astounding.

Dawn

Actually!

I would have expected that the puzzle had all of it's pieces in place by now.

[Cliff Varnell]

Pat, I see a dichotomy within the JFK research community, but it isn't between "CTs"

and "LNers." The dichotomy I see is this:

1) There are those of us who grasp the fact that JFK's back wound was at T3 or lower.

2) And there are those who don't.

A LNer *must* move JFK's back wound from T3 to T1 or higher. It's either that or

they stop being LNers. Dr. John McAdams and Dr. Kenneth Rahn argue that a T1 back

wound works for the SBT, requiring you to use weaker evidence to rebut them.

So the motivation to move JFK's proven T3 back wound up to the base of the neck is

understandable for an LNer, but it's a mystery to me why any CT would concede to the

very heart of the cover-up of JFK's murder.

You read BREACH OF TRUST, Pat, can't you recognize this "high back wound" nonsense

as obviously part of the cover-up?

Why on earth would any CT insist on JFK's back wound being significantly higher than it

actually was?

To wit...

You wrote:

> Cliff, the HSCA FPP made many mistakes. They confirmed the high entrance on the back

> of Kennedy's head, for example. But in their analysis of the wound locations, they were

> pretty much dead on.

Their analysis of the BOH Fox 5 photo lead them to conclude that that photo was "difficult

or impossible" to use for the purpose of locating the back wound; they also dismissed it

as "more confusing than informative," "obviously deficient as scientific evidence"; possibly

prima facie inadmissable in court; and of such poor quality that nothing in it identified it

as a Kennedy autopsy photo (HSCA Vol 7).

That's your *primary* evidence, Pat?

> The 14cm measurement by Humes and my own analysis of the photo, using anatomy

> books, (horrors) , confirms that the wound is on the level of T1.

So, according to Pat Speer, the primary evidence of the back wound is this:

1) The measurement of a back wound taken from a movable landmark in the head -- in

violation of autopsy protocol.

2) Pat Speer's analysis of an improperly produced autopsy photo of poor quality and

unestablished authenticity.

Humes and Speer confirm the location of JFK's back wound at T1, according to Speer.

And on the other side of the issue we have the back wound at T3, which is consistent with:

1) The holes in the clothes, and the Dealey Plaza films and photos that show JFK's jacket

dropped an inch right before he was shot. This evidence stands alone to establish the back

wound at T3.

2) The Death Certificate, which was signed off as "verified," described the wound as being

"about the level of the third thoracic vertebra.

3) The autopsy face sheet diagram shows the back wound a bit below T3. This was filled

out in pencil and signed off -- in pencil -- as "verified," by Admiral Burkley, all according

to autopsy protocol. The "14cm" measurement on the face sheet -- which you cite as the

strongest of evidence -- was recorded in pen, not pencil, another violation of autopsy

protocol.

4) The FBI autopsy report put the back wound "below the shoulder," the first location that

Humes gave the FBI men Sibert & O'Neill during the autopsy.

5) The final autopsy report as published on page 540 of the Warren Commission Report

reads as follows:

(quote on)

Situated in the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper margin of the scapula

there is a 7 X 4 millimeter oval wound. The wound is measured to be 14cm from the

right acromion process and 14cm below the right mastoid process.

(quote off)

The first description is consistent with a wound at T2, and uses a thoracic landmark

to locate the wound. The "14cm" measurement is from a movable cranial landmark,

rendering it worthless as forensic evidence, (BREACH OF TRUST, pg 178.)

6) Dr. John Ebersole assisted the autopsy and told David Mantik in a 1992 interview

that the back wound was at T4. (Harrison Livingstone's KILLING THE TRUTH pg 721)

7) Autopsy attendee Chester H. Boyers was the chief Petty Officer in charge of the

Pathology Department at Bethesda in November 1963. This is from Boyers signed affidavit:

(quote on)

Another wound was located near the right shoulder blade, more specifically just under the

scapula and next to it.

(quote off)

T3 lies just below the upper border of the scapula:

http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/back_diagram.gif

8) FBI Special Agents Sibert & O'Neill drew wound diagrams for the HSCA that confirm the

low back wound:

http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/oneill1.gif

http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/sibert1.gif

9) Secret Service SA Glen Bennett testified:

(quote on)

I saw a shot hit the Boss about four inches down from the right shoulder.

(quote off)

This is consistent with the holes in the clothes, 4 inches below the bottom of the

clothing collars.

10) SS SA Clint Hill testifed:

(quote on)

I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side

of the spinal column.

(quote off)

This is consistent with the bullet holes in the shirt and jacket. The bullet defect in

the shirt is almost 6 inches below the top of the shirt collar.

11) Parkland nurse Diana Bowron is the only person to get a good look at both

JFK's throat wound and back wound, and she told Harrison Livingstone that the

back wound was "lower on the back" than the one shown in the Fox 5 autopsy photo.

(KILLING THE TRUTH pg 188)

12) Autopsy photo tech Floyd Reibe also told Livingstone that the back wound was

below the one shown in the Fox 5 autopsy photo (KTT pg 721.)

13) Bethesda x-ray tech Edward Reed reported seeing a back wound "right between

the scapula and the thoracic column." (KTT pg 720)

14) Bethesda lab assisstant Jan Gail Rudnicki told Livingstone that he saw "what

appeared to be an entry wound several inches down on the back." (HIGH TREASON 2,

pg 206)

15) Bethesda lab tech James Curtis Jenkins graphically described the low, non-transiting

wound to David Lifton (BEST EVIDENCE pg. 713)

(quote on, emphasis added)

I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe...through the

pleura [the lining of the chest cavity]...You could actually see where it was making an

indentation...where it was pushing the skin up...There was no entry into the chest cavity...

it would have been no way that that could have exited in the front because it was then

LOW IN THE CHEST CAVITY...somewhere around the junction of the descending aorta

[the main artery carrying blood from the heart] or the bronchus in the lungs.

(quote off)

According to your theory, Pat, Jenkins suffered an amazingly detailed and graphic

hallucination.

Do I need to go on?

> A bullet entering at T1 on a 17 degree descent would not exit from a man's throat unless

> it was deflected by bone.

Why hypothesize about something that clearly did not happen?

All you're doing, Pat, is repeating talking points central to the cover-up, albeit unwittingly

and with the best of intentions.

> If it was deflected by bone the bullet would almost certainly have suffered more damage

> than CE399.

You hang out with John Hunt too much. Instead of impeaching the SBT on evidence a four

year old could grasp, you guys want to concede the "high back wound" and argue the case

on far more complex -- and thus weaker -- evidence.

> The only way for this trajectory to work, therefore, is for the SBTheorist to assert that

> Kennedy was leaning forward when hit. The Zapruder film pretty much rules that out...

So you eschew iron-clad evidence of a wound at T3 to argue for a photo interpretation

that "pretty much" rules out the SBT?

Why pursue such a weak argument when the fact of the T3 back wound is irrefutable?

> people don't lean forward for 1/3 of a second or so and then straighten up for no

> reason. People like DVP who go on and on about "what are the odds" and "where

> is the evidence" know that they'd look pretty foolish to insist that the ONE split second

> Kennedy was obscured in the Zapruder film was the ONE split second Kennedy decided

> to lean forward as rapidly as possible.

"Pretty foolish"?

Your theory posits 4 inches of JFK's shirt and jacket bunched up entirely above T1 at

the base of JFK's neck without pushing up on the jacket collar -- at the base of JFK's

neck.

That's not "pretty foolish" -- it's an egregious absurdity.

> You let them off the hook when you start arguing that the wound was at T3.

How does citing a well-corrborated fact "let them off the hook"?

I'm NOT letting YOU off the hook for this travesty of logic you so glibly posit.

> You allow them to argue whether the wound was at T1 or T3, when it really doesn't

> matter much, as both are too low on Kennedy's back to support their WEAK theory.

It matters a great deal that researchers use the actual evidence and not repeat the

wholly fabricated talking points of the cover-up.

> (Any theory whose proponents refuse to identify what comprises their theory, such as

> how the bullet passed throught the president without striking bone, is a weak theory,

> in my opinion.)

Because you cannot identify 4 inches of bunched clothing fabric in any of the

Dealey Plaza motorcade photos, your T1 entry theory is less than merely WEAK,

it's demonstrably impossible.

> On an earlier post, you mentioned our old friend Dr. Zimmerman. Any idea why his

> website has been taken down? Did he get tired of our using his work defending the SBT,

> to debunk it?

I hate to say this Pat, but since Chad puts the wound at C7/T1, and you put the wound

at T1, I put you and Chad (and John Hunt) on the same team.

Edited July 22, 2006 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

The president's physician, present at both Parkland and Bethesda, said T3.

Jack

Unfortunately, there is no evidence that Burkley did a thorough inspection of Kennedy's wounds. It seems likely his "third thoracic vertebrae" was the position he saw marked on the face sheet. But, as stated, it makes little difference. Whether at the level of T3 or T1, the wound was too low to support the single-bullet theory.

Burkley got a prolonged view of the back wound at Bethesda.

More than a dozen people saw the back wound in the vicinity of T3.

Mass hallucination, Pat?

[Pat Speer]

Burkley got a prolonged view of the back wound at Bethesda.

More than a dozen people saw the back wound in the vicinity of T3.

Mass hallucination, Pat?

Cliff, you know we're on the same side here. Tell me, is there any way, in your opinion, a wound at T3 could appear to be as high on the back as the back wound seen in the autopsy photo? Please recreate it if so. If the autopsy photo was faked, on the other hand, why wouldn't it have been faked to match the Rydberg drawings, which the HSCA FPP admitted showed a wound two inches higher than the wound on the photo? Why tell two GIANT lies that don't even support each other?

You know that my whole approach to the wounds is to accept the photos and see what they show. The back wound photo shows a wound too low on Kennedy's body to support the SBT. To argue that the evidence, the measurements and the photo, should be abandoned in favor of a few selected quotes by people who never measured the wounds is to play into the hands of the LNers, in my opinion. If you argue that so-and-so who saw the back wound for a split second said such and such, and they say so and so who MEASURED the back wound and TOOK this picture said such and such, GUESS WHO most people are gonna believe? Guess who is gonna be painted as a wacko?

Since the autopsy photos can be used to show there was a conspiracy, I suggest we use them.

Edited July 24, 2006 by Pat Speer

[John Dolva]

two questions:: (born of ignorance)

Has the brace and it's possible effect in placing Kennedy's muscles/tissues/skin elsewhere than where they may be without the brace ('bunched' tissue?) ever been considered?

and then

The back photo is presumably a time without rigor mortis, and the photo is taken with Kennedy on his side.

Would this mean tissue without blood and tension would slump to where the photo of the outside of the body does not reflect the trajectory?

[Cliff Varnell]

Burkley got a prolonged view of the back wound at Bethesda.

More than a dozen people saw the back wound in the vicinity of T3.

Mass hallucination, Pat?

Pat responds:

> Cliff, you know we're on the same side here.

Pat, I feel so strongly about this issue that I have to insist we are NOT on the

same side.

I respect your energy and your writing talent, Pat, but generally I hold the

T1-CT position in utmost contempt, to be brutally honest.

I have more respect for the LN -- they HAVE to move JFK's back wound up to the

base of the neck.

You don't.

> Tell me, is there any way, in your opinion, a wound at T3 could appear to be as

> high on the back as the back wound seen in the autopsy photo?

Bethesda photo tech Floyd Reibe stated that the artifact to the lower left of the

"back wound" was the the actual Kennedy wound location.

Note that that lower-left artifact appears to be just below the upper margin of

the scapula, just to the right of the spine -- consistent with all the other evidence.

The fakery in the above photo was a bit sloppy, since they added a "back wound"

with an abrasion collar consistent with a bullet striking on an upward trajectory.

Since you buy into Fox 5 as genuine, care to tell us how the bullet entered

on an upward trajectory?

Care to tell us where that large occipital-parietal head wound is in that photo?

Care to tell us who developed the photo?

Care to tell us who shot the photo?

> Please recreate it if so.

It is *possible* that a photo can be faked. You've embraced this notion yourself,

at least recently.

But it's unthinkable to believe a dozen trained observers all shared the same

hallucination.

Just what was it about JFK's wounds that caused anyone who set their eyes on

them to suffer the exact same delusional episode?

And, most importantly, it is flat-out physically impossible for JFK's clothing to have

behaved in a manner required by your theory.

Since we're getting into recreations, please recreate the movement of clothing

required by your theory. You need 2 inches of jacket and 2 inches of tucked-in

custom made dress shirt elevated in tandem entirely above T1 at the base of

JFK's neck but entirely below the jacket collar at the base of JFK's neck.

You couldn't replicate this using both hands to pull!

Chad Zimmerman couldn't do it without pushing the jacket collar up into

the hairline.

Why?

Because two disparate, solid objects cannot occupy the same physical

space at the same time. Your 4 inches of bunched up fabric cannot occupy

the same physical space at the same time as the jacket collar.

> If the autopsy photo was faked, on the other hand, why wouldn't it have been faked

> to match the Rydberg drawings, which the HSCA FPP admitted showed a wound two

> inches higher than the wound on the photo? Why tell two GIANT lies that don't even

> support each other?

They did exactly that with the autopsy report, citing two different wound locations,

neither of which was accurate.

They pulled the same trick with the autopsy face sheet, and recorded two different

wound locations.

And apparently they did that with the Fox 5 autopsy photo, if Reibe is to be believed.

> You know that my whole approach to the wounds is to accept the photos and see what

> they show.

Why would you accept an improperly produced photo of poor quality and suspect

authenticity over the physical evidence of the clothing, the contemporaneous

documents, and the consistent corroboration of over a dozen witnesses?

This flat-out boggles my mind...

> The back wound photo shows a wound too low on Kennedy's body to support the SBT.

That's not what LNers say. In order to debunk them you need to fall back

on evidence no where near as strong as the evidence of the T3 back wound.

Why buy into the lies of Humes and Specter, Pat? I don't get it...

> To argue that the evidence, the measurements and the photo,

To you "the evidence" consists of an autopsy photo you don't know who developed,

which is of such poor quality it's "difficult or impossible" to accurately locate the wound,

and which contains an alleged abrasion collar inconsistent with any possible shooting

scenario.

The "14cm" measurement you cite was taken from a moveable cranial landmark

to an indistinct posterior location -- absolutely in violation of autopsy protocol, and

common sense.

> should be abandoned in

> favor of a few selected quotes by people who never measured the wounds is to play into

> the hands of the LNers, in my opinion.

A dozen witness statements constitute "a few selected quotes"? What a bizarre

characterization!

The Death Certificate was signed off as "verified," the low wound location on the

autopsy face sheet was signed off as "verified." All of this is heavily corroborated

by the physical evidence and eye-witness statements.

Now, let's get down to the nitty-gritty. Here's Betzner #3 at Z186.

http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri4/Betzner_Large.jpg

Hit the enlarge. Now, point out to us where in this photo there's 4 inches of bunched

up clothing.

You've got two inches of jacket fabric and two inches of shirt fabric elevated

entirely above T1 -- where is the 2-inch horizontal jacket fold your theory

REQUIRES in this photo, Pat?

Enlighten us.

> If you argue that so-and-so who saw the back wound for a split second said such and such,

A split second? I was under the impression that the autopsy lasted longer than

a split second.

Kellerman, Sibert, O'Neill, Burkley, Bowron, Jenkins and the rest spent considerable

time with the body, and had more than ample opportunity to get a real good look at

the back wound.

The only person who saw the wound for a split second was SS SA Glen Bennett -- and

he nailed the location of the back wound accurately to within 1/8 of an inch, judging

from the clothing holes.

> and they say so and so who MEASURED the back wound and TOOK this picture said such and

> such, GUESS WHO most people are gonna believe?

Who took the Fox 5 photo, Pat? Do you know?

Does it make sense to you to measure a wound in the back using a moveable landmark

in the head?

> Guess who is gonna be painted as a wacko?

Anyone who claims that two disparate, solid objects can occupy the same

physical space at the same time is either uninformed or intellectually

dishonest.

> Since the autopsy photos can be used to show there was a conspiracy,

John McAdams and Ken Rahn argue otherwise. When the fact of the T3

back wound is shoved in their faces, they clam up.

> I suggest we use them.

A lie is a lie. I suggest you stop passing them.

[Cliff Varnell]

two questions:: (born of ignorance)

Has the brace and it's possible effect in placing Kennedy's muscles/tissues/skin elsewhere than

where they may be without the brace ('bunched' tissue?) ever been considered?

John, the back brace was around his waist. It had no bearing on his jacket.

The case I make is incredibly simple.

Here's JFK at Love Field:

Note the following in the above:

1) The bottom of the jacket collar rested at the base of his neck.

2) 1/2" of shirt collar was exposed above the jacket collar.

3) The top of the shirt collar was about an inch below the hairline.

Fast forward to Houston St.

Note the postion of JFK's jacket collar in the above.

The shirt collar is not visible, but the jacket collar didn't elevate into

the hairline. The jacket collar was elevated about an inch in this

photo. LNer hero Chad Zimmerman concurred with this analysis.

Now get a good look at JFK at Z186:

http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri4/Betzner_Large.jpg

Hit the enlarge on this and you'll see...the jacket collar dropped!

How could the jacket collar drop to a normal position at the base of

JFK's neck if there were 4 inches of bunched up clothing fabric at the

base of his neck?

Salandria, Fonzi and Weisberg all pointed to the clothing evidence as

definitive 40 years ago!

And a significant portion of the JFJK research community remains oblivious to this?

That's a true measure of the success of the cover-up of Kennedy's murder.

[John Dolva]

I mean the muscle/ tissues etc being bunched by the brace ie shifting same which could shift the entry hole? Or rather: would the removal of the brace shift the entry in relation to interior wound?

Edited July 24, 2006 by John Dolva

[Cliff Varnell]

I mean the muscle/ tissues etc being bunched by the brace ie shifting same which could shift the entry hole? Or rather: would the removal of the brace shift the entry in relation to interior wound?

Like a tube of toothpaste?

C'mon...

[Pat Speer]

I mean the muscle/ tissues etc being bunched by the brace ie shifting same which could shift the entry hole? Or rather: would the removal of the brace shift the entry in relation to interior wound?

Like a tube of toothpaste?

C'mon...

I know this is your passion, Cliff. And I know you've read my presentation. You even sent me a congratulations on my use of the clothing to show the silliness of the single bullet theory. Now, for some reason, you choose to think that everyone who refuses to believe that the autopsy photos are fake is your enemy. Whatever. I wrote about this on another thread. This kind of in-fighting is precisely why the CT community is looked at with disfavor by the public at large.

As far as McAdams and Rahn, since when do they know SQUAT about the medical evidence? They CHOOSE to believe in the SBT for religious reasons, which is no reason at all. In my presentation, I completely discredit Robert Artwohl's work, featured on McAdams' site as strong evidence for the SBT. (You even gave me a tip on how to do this more convincingly, by using the collar as a ruler...Artwohl uses a completely bogus measurement of Kennedy's ear.) In the presentation, I also discredit the incorrect conclusions of Rahn's NAA guru Vincent Guinn, and show how Guinn came to the exact opposite conclusion he should have.

An entrance at T1 is too low for the SBT to work without the bullet's having deflected upwards, and then down again. There is no evidence it did this. There is no evidence it transitted the neck. I've studied this in more detail than anyone else I know. High-speed gunshot wounds are very messy. The trachea is one of the tissues most susceptible to cavitation. The first rib was in the way. Have you noticed how Mr. DVP and Mr. Zimmerman etc, shy away when you ask them how the bullet transitted the neck..."Oh well we can't really say, blah blah blah.".. it's because they have NO idea...they just accept it as an article of faith in their LN religion.

As far as Burkley, you conveniently forget that he signed off on the face sheet, which had the 14 cm measurements. As far as your complaint about the measurement from the mastoid, that's something that Weisberg or Lane picked up on and harped to death. It is a TOTAL red herring. People were so obsessed with "but they shouldn't have measured from the back of the head, waaaaaa" that they missed that for Humes' measurements to have been used on the Rydberg drawings, as testified, Kennedy would have to have had a skull 50% bigger than others. Humes' measurements could have been used to impeach his own testimony; instead people got stuck on "the head moves...how can you measure form the head? The Clark Panel and HSCA FPP, by the way, ALSO measured from the mastoid. Hmmm. Humes' real error, it seems, was in NOT measuring from the spine.

Which brings us back to the face sheet... LOOK at the face sheet. Where is the wound in comparison to the shoulder? Just a little below, right? Where is the wound on the autopsy photo? Just a little below. There is every reason to believe that the imprecise body shape on the face sheet is the root of much of the confusion. Boswell marked it based on the shoulder. Later, in 1966, when it was pointed out to him that this put the wound way down the back, he lifted it up onto the neck. When testifying before the ARRB he even admitted that his logic was "well, we know the bullet headed down within the body, and it exited the throat, so it must have entered up higher." In other words, he had no clear memory of where the bullet entered. And neither did anyone else... which is why they take pictures of these things.

The back wound photo, by the way, was taken by John Stringer. While he expressed doubt about the brain photos, he never expressed any doubt that he'd taken the back wound photos, as far as I recall. I trust you'll correct me if I'm mistaken.

Edited July 24, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

I mean the muscle/ tissues etc being bunched by the brace ie shifting same which could shift the entry hole? Or rather: would the removal of the brace shift the entry in relation to interior wound?

Like a tube of toothpaste?

C'mon...

Pat Speer wrote:

> I know this is your passion, Cliff. And I know you've read my presentation.

> You even sent me a congratulations on my use of the clothing to show the

> silliness of the single bullet theory.

You have since re-written that article, Pat, it's sad to say.

You went from an out-and-out dismissal of "Bunch Theory" to an embrace of its

possiblity.

Very disappointing.

Now you tell us you agree with "Bunch Theory."

Lay down with dogs you get fleas, my friend.

> Now, for some reason, you choose to think that everyone who refuses to believe

> that the autopsy photos are fake is your enemy.

That's "autopsy photo," singular.

I cite only the Fox 5 photo, which the HSCA singled out as "more confusing than

informative," "obviously deficient as scientific evidence," probably inadmissable,

etc.

And I don't regard you as an enemy, I just don't regard us as on the same side.

A back wound at T3 is prima facie evidence of conspiracy. T1 is not.

> Whatever. I wrote about this on another thread. This kind of in-fighting is precisely

> why the CT community is looked at with disfavor by the public at large.

I don't see you shying away from contentious debate on issues you feel

strongly about. Why should I?

Besides, the public at large agrees with the WC critics, always have. It's

the liars-for-hire in the media who paint WC critics as loons, but the public

pays them no notice that I can tell.

> As far as McAdams and Rahn, since when do they know SQUAT about the medical

> evidence? They CHOOSE to believe in the SBT for religious reasons, which is no

> reason at all. In my presentation, I completely discredit Robert Artwohl's work, featured

> on McAdams' site as strong evidence for the SBT. (You even gave me a tip on how to do

> this more convincingly, by using the collar as a ruler...Artwohl uses a completely bogus

> measurement of Kennedy's ear.) In the presentation, I also discredit the incorrect

> conclusions of Rahn's NAA guru Vincent Guinn, and show how Guinn came to the exact

> opposite conclusion he should have.

I know you are a critic of the SBT, Pat, but you argue for it as much as against it,

with this "high back wound" nonsense.

Look, I can demonstrate to a four-year old the impossibility of your "Bunch Theory,"

as even a pre-schooler can understand that solid objects do not occupy the

same physical space at the same time.

But can you explain Guinn's work to a four year old?

My point is that you eschew the easily proven facts in favor of the more complex

and difficult rebuttals, and you mis-state the facts of the case in the process.

> An entrance at T1 is too low for the SBT to work without the bullet's having deflected

> upwards, and then down again. There is no evidence it did this. There is no evidence

> it transitted the neck. I've studied this in more detail than anyone else I know.

> High-speed gunshot wounds are very messy. The trachea is one of the tissues most

> susceptible to cavitation. The first rib was in the way. Have you noticed how Mr. DVP

> and Mr. Zimmerman etc, shy away when you ask them how the bullet transitted

> the neck..."Oh well we can't really say, blah blah blah.".. it's because they have NO

> idea...they just accept it as an article of faith in their LN religion.

And the "high back wound" is another article of faith that posits mass hallucinations

at Parkland and Bethesda, and a movement of JFK's clothing that is impossible to

replicate.

But you've included this bizarre claim into YOUR religion...you just sit a different pew in

the Church of Obfuscation, as far as I'm concerned.

> As far as Burkley, you conveniently forget that he signed off on the face sheet,

> which had the 14 cm measurements.

The dot on the diagram was recorded with a pencil.

Burkley signed off on the face sheet as "verified" in pencil, according to proper

autopsy protocol.

The "14cm" measurement was written in PEN -- a violation of autopsy protocol.

Burkley signed off on the diagram, not the mastoid measurement.

Pat, face it: there is not one shred of un-compromised evidence for this "high back

wound," which you defend so vigorously.

> As far as your complaint about the measurement from the mastoid, that's something

> that Weisberg or Lane picked up on and harped to death.

For good reason. In the final autopsy report Humes first placed the wound just above

the upper border of the shoulder-blade, a location consistent with T2, not T1 or higher.

The "14cm" measurement was not taken or recorded according to autopsy protocol,

and yet you insist its the strongest evidence in the case.

Go figure.

> It is a TOTAL red herring. People were so obsessed with "but they shouldn't have

> measured from the back of the head, waaaaaa" that they missed that for Humes'

> measurements to have been used on the Rydberg drawings, as testified, Kennedy

> would have to have had a skull 50% bigger than others. Humes' measurements could

> have been used to impeach his own testimony; instead people got stuck on "the head

> moves...how can you measure form the head? The Clark Panel and HSCA FPP, by the

> way, ALSO measured from the mastoid. Hmmm. Humes' real error, it seems, was in

> NOT measuring from the spine.

Humes was ordered to make the facts fit the LN scenario, and he did as ordered.

(Cue the Joe Pesci clip -- "Don't you GET it??")

> Which brings us back to the face sheet... LOOK at the face sheet. Where is the

> wound in comparison to the shoulder? Just a little below, right? Where is the wound

> on the autopsy photo? Just a little below.

I disagree most strenuously...

The upper border of the scapula is visible in Fox 5, just to the right of the lower marking

I cited in an earlier post. The alleged T1 wound is well above the upper border of the

shoulder-blade, and thus inconsistent with the first description in the autopsy report.

How can you embrace the measurement from the mastoid but ignore the placement

of the wound in proximity to the shoulder-blade?

The two are not consistent, thus diminishing the evidentiary value of the measurement

from the mastoid, which didn't have much value to start with.

> There is every reason to believe that the imprecise body shape on the face sheet is the

> root of much of the confusion.

No, that these military men were ordered to mis-represent the evidence is the root of

the confusion.

> Boswell marked it based on the shoulder. Later, in 1966, when it was pointed out

> to him that this put the wound way down the back, he lifted it up onto the neck.

In 1964 it was Humes, Specter and Ford who lifted it up to the neck.

And today, at this late date, there are a significant number of "CTs" who insist on

the validity of this obvious deceit...

> When testifying before the ARRB he even admitted that his logic was "well, we know

> the bullet headed down within the body, and it exited the throat, so it must have entered

> up higher." In other words, he had no clear memory of where the bullet entered. And

> neither did anyone else...

Wrong! Many people have expressed a very clear memory of the location of the

back wound. Ebersole, Boyers, Sibert, Kellerman, Greer, O'Neill, Hill, Bowron, Rudnicki,

Reibe, Jenkins all recalled with consistency the lower location of the JFK back wound.

I'm suprised that you haven't seen this in your studies, Pat.

> which is why they take pictures of these things.

And which is why pictures at an autopsy are produced according to a certain

protocol, which the Fox 5 photo somehow avoided.

> The back wound photo, by the way, was taken by John Stringer. While he

> expressed doubt about the brain photos, he never expressed any doubt that

> he'd taken the back wound photos, as far as I recall. I trust you'll correct me

> if I'm mistaken.

From John Stringer's ARRB testimony of June 16, 1996:

(quote on)

Q: I'd like to turn now to the autopsy of President Kennedy and ask some questions

about that. As you're sitting here today, do you recall whether you took any black and

white photographs at the autopsy?

A: To tell you the truth, I don't remember.

(quote off)

Edited July 24, 2006 by Cliff Varnell

[John Simkin]

If anyone is unconvinced that Pierre Antoine Finck was part of the cover-up should read this thread concerning his testimony before the Assassination Records Review Board on 24th May, 1996:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7512