The Magic Bullet Theory

[David Von Pein]

On 7/27/2022 at 2:20 AM, Pat Speer said:

He [Dr. Humes] said that based on a drawing created after he'd met with Joe Ball, who was tasked with explaining how a bullet fired from above could go upwards in the body. Voila! Humes claimed the face sheet was in error and that it was all an optical illusion. Specter, who'd seen the photos and knew the wound was on the back and not the back of the neck, similarly played "ball" and changed the wound from being a back wound to being a back of the neck wound in the report. He then performed interviews in which he said that if the back wound was lower than the throat wound [then] the autopsy doctors should be prosecuted. When the HSCA FPP determined as much, moreover, instead of complaining about the doctors, or demanding their prosecution, he forced his son onto the HSCA as an assistant to one of tis members, and then lawyered up before providing any testimony.

The historical record is clear, then, that these guys all lied and obstructed justice through the falsification of evidence. If your hero Bugliosi had a lick of common sense he would have uncovered this fact over his years and years of "research." But, no, instead he insisted that Oswald killed Kennedy because he was just filled with hate, and that the black warehouse workers were "stockboys".

His book is a travesty, and your treating it like it's some kind of Bible is an embarrassment.  

Not as if I have an opinion on this, or anything...

Oh brother! Cry me a river, Pat!

Your complaint about how Arlen Specter "changed the wound" totally ignores the fact that the original wording that was going to appear in the WCR made no sense at all---and would have been, in fact, just flat-out WRONG (not to mention stupid). As Jean Davison put it in 2014:

"[Gerald] Ford didn't need to move the back wound up. And in fact he didn't, since the phrase he revised put the wound on "his back at a point slightly above the shoulder."  It can't be above the shoulder and still be in the back. (Except maybe in conspiracyland where apparently anything is possible.) .... 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." -- Jean Davison

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/gerald-ford-and-sbt.html

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

And to verify--IN PHOTOGRAPHIC FORM--that what Jean said back in 2014 is the absolute truth (i.e.: "An entry in the neck would destroy the SBT trajectory"), there's my favorite WC exhibit, No. 903, which Pat & I have hashed and re-hashed the merits of many times over the years, which demonstrates for all time that the WC most certainly DID NOT "raise" the back wound up into the "Neck" of John Kennedy. The wound in CE903 is exactly where it should be and exactly where the autopsy photo shows it to be---in the UPPER BACK. And furthermore, CE903 also demonstrates that the back wound WAS, indeed, anatomically HIGHER than the trach/neck wound, because this JFK stand-in is in the same position in the limo that JFK was in on 11/22. He's not leaning forward, nor was JFK on 11/22. So, of course, any bullet coming downward at an angle of approx. 17 degrees (like CE399 was) is going to result in a back wound that has no choice BUT to be anatomically higher than the exit wound for that missile....

 

 

Edited July 30, 2022 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

I think the following comments I made in 2018 at this forum deserve a replay in this discussion too:

"It doesn't really matter what the awful Rydberg drawings depict, and it doesn't really matter whether Arlen Specter said "neck" 3000 times in his lifetime, because the Rydberg drawings are trumped (and always will be) by the "live action" scene demonstrated in CE903 that you hate so much, which PROVES that Specter & Company did NOT raise the back wound into JFK's "neck".

And I don't see how anyone can say the photo we see in Commission Exhibit 903 is rigged or "phony" in some fashion. It shows the angle that leads back to the 6th floor (17d 43m 30s), and it shows the bullet exiting exactly where everyone agrees a bullet wound was located on JFK's body (the tie knot/trach wound area), and it shows the rod being placed into the known bullet hole in John Connally's jacket.

Pat, don't those THREE things lining up perfectly in an "SBT" fashion (forgetting for the moment the precise "back wound" location seen in CE903) strike you as being rather amazing and incredible IF, as you assert, the Single-Bullet Theory is a pure fairy tale INVENTION of the Warren Commission?

How did Specter manage that amazing SBT-like trickery and how did he manage to manipulate his metal rod (which has no "zig-zag" attachment on it that I can see) so that it could be placed in a 17.72-degree downward angle and have it go straight from Kennedy's throat wound directly into Connally's bullet hole in his jacket?

You must admit that those THREE "SBT"-like things I just talked about are impressively duplicated in CE903. Wouldn't you agree, Pat?" -- DVP; July 1, 2018

Edited July 27, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Micah Mileto]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

 

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27640-the-latest-january-2021-update-on-angelos-leiloglous-3d-model-of-dealey-plaza/

 

Any opinions on this?

[James R Gordon]

David,
First let me apologise for the skuttled remark. I overlooked the time difference.
I left yesterday with a question about the image below. The question was for you to point out where on the back view the throat wound is. It is clear to all where the throat  wound is: it is well above the back wound

https://next.photobucket.com/u/jamesg27/a/1ed543ab-ff1a-4ef5-9093-033f8f96a9b9/p/e33b4824-1d84-428c-b301-0d42b9046cc7
You replied “I've already done that very thing, James, via the side-by-side photo comparison I provided in my earlier posts.

First your images are appalling. You compare images in different postures. The quality of your images is very poor and you do not even rotate the back image so a judgement might be able to be made.

Here is my version of your image:
https://next.photobucket.com/u/jamesg27/a/1ed543ab-ff1a-4ef5-9093-033f8f96a9b9/p/0f8bb4db-6bb1-4cf6-bdcf-30010581979f

As I said yesterday I will not play your game. I asked you where on the image of the back - in which you say the wound we see is above the throat wound - where is the throat wound and I got in return your comment above.
Have you any understanding of basic anatomy?? J Thortnon Boswell’s right hand is steadying JFK’s body. The bone his hand is resting on is called the Clavicle. In normal medical opinion the Clavical is below the throat.

In The Image below to the right and below the back wound can be seen two bumps
https://next.photobucket.com/u/jamesg27/a/1ed543ab-ff1a-4ef5-9093-033f8f96a9b9/p/7cfa39fc-2768-4173-97ed-9ed18f245174

The point labeled “A” is part of the “Spine of the Scapular” The Point labeled “B” is part of the  “Infraspinous Fossa”
I have no idea how anyone can involve themselves in a discussion with you on what happened to JFK. In order to promote a political argument - I.e. What happened to JFK - you are prepared to trash and distort established medical science.
https://next.photobucket.com/u/jamesg27/a/1ed543ab-ff1a-4ef5-9093-033f8f96a9b9/p/8b81f8f8-4cb5-483b-add4-6c4dbb544ae6

You post the above image and you draw a line out of the throat and you tell us that is the exit wound for the wound we see on the image of the back. Your line appears to point in the direction of the back wound. But your flaw - your complete and utter fatal flaw - is that you claim you are suggesting 3D conclusions on a 2D image. Yes it does appear that your line points in the direction of the back wound. You make no mention that this line is above the Clavicle and is pointing leftwards towards JFK’s left shoulder. Your line should be pointing in the opposite direction - but that is not possible with a 2D image.
https://next.photobucket.com/u/jamesg27/a/1ed543ab-ff1a-4ef5-9093-033f8f96a9b9/p/14d5e58f-42fc-476a-9eef-c764323ef6f1

Your argument is illustrated in the above image. But the wound you reference as the entrance wound is not up in the neck. it is down the back near the Scapular. In order to make your argument you attempt to distort established anatomy. To support your theory you claim that a wound  that is adjacent to the “Spine of the Scapular” is actually above the throat wound and it appears you are not embarrassed in saying that.
Your argument is also fraudulent because you have not balanced the images like so:
https://next.photobucket.com/u/jamesg27/a/1ed543ab-ff1a-4ef5-9093-033f8f96a9b9/p/ec35206d-263a-4aba-acbb-2191366b7dbb

Once thee images are balanced we see a line pointing upwards whereas the wound is actually below.
I will stay in this debate. I do so even though I know what you are doing to convince this forum of your position is fraudulent. I say that because your argument deliberately distorts established medical knowledge in order to prove a political theory.
James.

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

The question was for you to point out where on the back view the throat wound is.

Which is, of course, totally impossible for me (or anyone) to do, since it's the BACK VIEW of the President, not the FRONT VIEW. That's why I utilized my composite (side-by-side) images.

(Duh!)

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

your images are appalling. You compare images in different postures.

I only can use what's available. Do you have a photo of the deceased JFK showing the back wound that you think is a BETTER one ("view"-wise) than the one I used?

Didn't think so, since this pic below is the ONLY autopsy picture showing the back wound that's been made available on the Internet (AFAIK). And, btw, there's nothing wrong (or "appalling") whatsoever about the quality of the images I've been using. They are just as good as the ones you've posted. Plus, we don't need Hi-Def type quality to merely attempt to determine where the neck & back wounds are located relative to each other.

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

As I said yesterday I will not play your game. I asked you where on the image of the back - in which you say the wound we see is above the throat wound - where is the throat wound and I got in return your comment above.

Again -- How can I possibly answer that question when the only picture you give me to look at is a picture of President Kennedy's BACK?

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

I have no idea how anyone can involve themselves in a discussion with you on what happened to JFK.

And yet you're doing exactly that right now. Most curious indeed.

And your next insult is?......

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

In order to promote a political argument - I.e. What happened to JFK - you are prepared to trash and distort established medical science.

What on Earth are you talking about here? I'm not promoting any "political argument" at all. Where in heck did that come from?

I gotta tell you, James, it appears to me that you are trying your best these last two days to bait me into a fight of some kind, so that I'll forget about these eggshells that I know I'm being forced to walk on since you and Kathy Becket were nice enough to allow me to re-join this forum on June 29, 2022. (And I do, indeed, appreciate the fact that you have given me the chance to re-join.) But I'm certainly detecting some hostility being directed at me which is coming from your computer during these last two days. And, IMO, it is hostility that I have not deserved.

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

You post the above image and you draw a line out of the throat...

I told you yesterday---in this post---that that line angling out of the throat wound was NOT put there by me.

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

But the wound you reference as the entrance wound is not up in the neck. It is down the back near the Scapular.

Yes, I'm well aware that the entry wound is in JFK's UPPER BACK, not in the NECK. I've been saying it's in the BACK, not NECK, for multiple decades now, James.

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

In order to make your argument you attempt to distort established anatomy. To support your theory you claim that a wound  that is adjacent to the “Spine of the Scapular” is actually above the throat wound and it appears you are not embarrassed in saying that.

Why would I be the slightest bit "embarrassed" by stating something that the photographs, IMO, are most certainly verifying?

And I'm certainly not alone in my belief that the throat wound is located below the upper-back wound. The late Mr. Vince Bugliosi thought so too:

"Perhaps the clearest visual evidence of the fact that the entrance wound in the [President's] back was definitely above the exit wound in the throat appears in one of [the autopsy] photos taken of the left side of the president's head as he is lying on his back, his head on a metal headrest. Only the wound to the throat is visible, not the wound to his upper right back. However, it couldn't be clearer from this photo that the wound to the back was definitely above the exit wound in the throat." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

Your argument is also fraudulent because you have not balanced the images like so:
https://next.photobucket.com/u/jamesg27/a/1ed543ab-ff1a-4ef5-9093-033f8f96a9b9/p/ec35206d-263a-4aba-acbb-2191366b7dbb

I can't really see how your "balancing" of the two images (as you call it) is any better in any substantial way at all than the way I presented the images.

~shrug~

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

Once the images are balanced we see a line pointing upwards whereas the wound is actually below.

You've lost me completely here. I have no idea what you're talking about here.

"Line pointing upwards..." ???

~another shrug~

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

I will stay in this debate. I do so even though I know what you are doing to convince this forum of your position is fraudulent. I say that because your argument deliberately distorts established medical knowledge in order to prove a political theory.

Again with the "political theory" junk, James? Why are you saying such a thing? Just....why?

(And the eggshells grow thinner....)

 

Edited July 27, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Sean Coleman]

On 7/18/2006 at 4:29 PM, Thomas H. Purvis said:

In event that one choses to destroy the CE399 SBT theory, then they should first do so through utilization of the, often "cartoonish" evidence with which the WC as well as the HSCA presented this myth.

And, although the throat exit wound of JFK is, for all practical purposes, accurately demonstrated in the HSCA drawing made by Ida Dox, that is about ALL.

Therefore, one can utilize this somewhat accurate location of the anterior throat wound and thus work backwards to again discredit most of the WC & HSCA SBT theory/myth/aka lie.

Since the apex of the right lung of JFK was bruised, as well as the surrounding parietal pluera, it is most unlikely that a bullet passing through the neck of JFK at an 18-degree downward angle of fire, would have passed close enough to the apex of the lung to have bruised it.

And, with the cross angle of fire, this bullet could not have fractured and fragmented the right transverse process of either the 6th and/or 7th vertebra (as reported by the Clark Panel as well as the HSCA Medical Panel), without having created severe damage throughout the neck of JFK, only to exit at/about the third tracheal ring.

Then, when one throws in the reported 45-degree to 60-degree downward angle of entry, as documented and reported, the impossibility of the CE399 SBT becomes even more obvious and evident.

 

Edited July 27, 2022 by Sean Coleman
Wrong post

[John Butler]

The larger keyhole shaped wound is a wound of exit clearly visible on Kennedy's back, not entrance.  It is too large for an entrance wound.  OBTW, how do you explain the nice heart shaped black patch.  From the assassins with love?

Edited July 27, 2022 by John Butler

[Ian Lloyd]

5 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Oh brother! Cry me a river, Pat!

Your complaint about the "moving" of the wound totally ignores the fact that the original wording that was going to appear in the WCR made no sense at all---and would have been, in fact, just flat-out WRONG (not to mention stupid). As Jean Davison put it in 2014:

"[Gerald] Ford didn't need to move the back wound up. And in fact he didn't, since the phrase he revised put the wound on "his back at a point slightly above the shoulder."  It can't be above the shoulder and still be in the back. (Except maybe in conspiracyland where apparently anything is possible.) .... 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." -- Jean Davison

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/gerald-ford-and-sbt.html

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

And to verify--IN PHOTOGRAPHIC FORM--that what Jean said back in 2014 is the absolute truth (i.e.: "An entry in the neck would destroy the SBT trajectory"), there's my favorite WC exhibit, No. 903, which Pat & I have hashed and re-hashed the merits of many times over the years, which demonstrates for all time that the WC most certainly DID NOT "raise" the back wound up into the "Neck" of John Kennedy. The wound in CE903 is exactly where it should be and exactly where the autopsy photo shows it to be---in the UPPER BACK. And furthermore, CE903 also demonstrates that the back wound WAS, indeed, anatomically HIGHER than the trach/neck wound, because this JFK stand-in is in the same position in the limo that JFK was in on 11/22. He's not leaning forward, nor was JFK on 11/22. So, of course, any bullet coming downward at an angle of approx. 17 degrees (like CE399 was) is going to result in a back wound that has no choice BUT to be anatomically higher than the exit wound for that missile....

 

 

CE903 Shows the path of the bullet above the right shoulder of JFK.

A mannequin should have been used with holes in the bullet hole locations and the rod passed through those holes.

CE903 does not show the true path of the bullet.

[David Von Pein]

14 minutes ago, Ian Lloyd said:

CE903 does not show the true path of the bullet.

But if Specter's metal rod was to be moved just a tiny bit to his left (toward the middle of the body of JFK's stand-in), you would still have the exact same entry and exit wound locations. No different. So CE903 works just fine in showing the positions of the entrance and exit wound locations (without having to impale the Kennedy stand-in).

Technically, yes, the bullet path depicted in CE903 isn't 100% to-the-millimeter accurate laterally, and that's because the WC wasn't willing to sacrifice the life of the man sitting in for JFK in the limousine. But don't you think that at least a few millimeters of lateral slack can be granted Arlen Specter and the WC concerning this matter?

Edited July 27, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Ian Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

But if Specter's metal rod was to be moved just a tiny bit to his left (toward the middle of the body of JFK's stand-in), you would still have the exact same entry and exit wound locations. No different. So CE903 works just fine in showing the positions of the entrance and exit wound locations (without having to impale the Kennedy stand-in).

Technically, yes, the bullet path depicted in CE903 isn't 100% to-the-millimeter accurate laterally, and that's because the WC wasn't willing to sacrifice the life of the man sitting in for JFK in the limousine. But don't you think that at least a few millimeters of lateral slack can be granted Arlen Specter and the WC concerning this matter?

 

That's why I suggested a mannequin be used!?!?...

 

CE903 does not depict the true bullet path (as you have conceded) and would require more than "...a few millimetres..." of movement to match the true bullet path - or the WC interpretation of the true bullet path, I should say.

Edited July 27, 2022 by Ian Lloyd

[James R Gordon]

6 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Which is, of course, totally impossible for me (or anyone) to do, since it's the BACK VIEW of the President, not the FRONT VIEW. That's why I utilized my composite (side-by-side) images.

You are being obtuse. You know as well I do that your argument is that the position of the back entry wound was higher than the throat exit. Of course the Back wound is in on the back. My question - that you are well aware of - if the position of the back wound is higher than the throat exit wound then where below the back wound is the throat wound. The point is the throat wound is above the back wound.

I only can use what's available. Do you have a photo of the deceased JFK showing the back wound that you think is a BETTER one ("view"-wise) than the one I used?

Didn't think so, since this pic below is the ONLY autopsy picture showing the back wound that's been made available on the Internet (AFAIK). And, btw, there's nothing wrong (or "appalling") whatsoever about the quality of the images I've been using. They are just as good as the ones you've posted. Plus, we don't need Hi-Def type quality to merely attempt to determine where the neck & back wounds are located relative to each other.

You might.

Again -- How can I possibly answer that question when the only picture you give me to look at is a picture of President Kennedy's BACK?

Have you forgotton it was you who claimed the Back entry wound was higher than the throat exit wound. Given an image of the back showing the entrance wound why can you not point to where this throat wound that is below the the back wound. You are the one who stated that the back wound was higher than the throat wound. So where is the throat wound compared to the back wound. This is reason I stated you are being faudulant. If the back wound is avtually higher than the throat wound - Prove It. And two pictures with a line drawn does not prove, Nor citing Vincent T. Bugliosi.

And yet you're doing exactly that right now. Most curious indeed.

And your next insult is?......

What on Earth are you talking about here? I'm not "promoting a political argument" at all. Where in heck did that come from?

I gotta tell you, James, it appears to me that you are trying your best these last two days to bait me into a fight of some kind, so that I'll forget about these eggshells that I know I'm being forced to walk on since you and Kathy Becket were nice enough to allow me to re-join this forum on June 29, 2022. (And I do, indeed, appreciate the fact that you have permitted me the chance to re-join.) But I'm certainly detecting some hostility being directed at me which is coming from your computer during these last two days. And, IMO, it is hostility that I have not deserved.

You do not need to tread on eggshells. I am happy you have returned. I have always been concerned about the way I deleted your membership. We live in worldstat are  universes apart, but I recognise you are one of the foremost WC supporters  I have called you a fraud. That is permitted because I defined precisly what I meant by that. So do not worry if you wish to make a comment about me be sure you clarify what you mean and why you mean it.You are wrong that I am hostile towards you. I am not. But I am severly frustrated that you cannot argue your case.

I told you yesterday---in this post---that that line angling out of the throat wound was NOT put there by me.

Yes, I'm well aware that the entry wound is in JFK's UPPER BACK, not in the NECK. I've been saying it's in the BACK, not NECK, for multiple decades now, James.

If you agree the entry wound is in the back then how is that wound higher on the body than the throat. i know the answer if it because JFK was leaing forward thereby allowing the back wound to appear higher. Rather than that twin image with its line why don't you establish how JFK's body position was suxh as to allow such a shot.

Why would I be the slightest bit "embarrassed" by stating something that the photographs, IMO, are most certainly verifying? They only veryfy it in your mind and of course that of Vincent T. Bugliosi

And I'm certainly not alone in my belief that the throat wound is located below the upper-back wound. The late Mr. Vince Bugliosi thought so too:

"Perhaps the clearest visual evidence of the fact that the entrance wound in the [President's] back was definitely above the exit wound in the throat appears in one of [the autopsy] photos taken of the left side of the president's head as he is lying on his back, his head on a metal headrest. Only the wound to the throat is visible, not the wound to his upper right back. However, it couldn't be clearer from this photo that the wound to the back was definitely above the exit wound in the throat." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi

I bought his book - the hardback edition. At the time I was working on Connally and I was shocked at his poor reseach. The problem you and Vincent have is that you are confined by the Warren Commission.

I can't really see how your "balancing" of the two images (as you call it) is any better in any substantial way at all than the way I presented the images.

Really you do not see the point. Why does that not  surprise me. Had you not noticed that the heads are in different locations as indeed are features as the base of the neck and ears.  Balance the images empasises that the Back wound is lower than the throat wound.

You've lost me completely here. I have no idea what you're talking about here.

"Line pointing upwards..." ???

~another shrug~

Shrug if you wish but because the image was 2D image there was nowhere the line could go. But the point you totally missed if the line is going upwards that means it is not going downwards where it need to go to mee the back wound.

Again with the "political theory" junk, James? Why are you saying such a thing? Just....why?

(And the eggshells grow thinner....)

By whom and how JFK was assinated is an political topic and your view is one theory. THough I respect the breadth of your understanding of the case  - my point is that you others who follow this viewpoint trashing anatomy in order to make their point.

Your point about the back entrance wound being higher than the throat wound is utter nonsese - with one exception. I imagination it might - MIGHT - be possible if JFK were bent down far enough that - SOMEHOW - there is a path from the back to the throat.

But one serious criticism of you is if that is your view you have not demonstrated how that is possible. I do not believe it is possible but you have never demonstrated how it coulld be posiible

Ending with your point about your membership. While I am discussing this case with you I am not a moderator or owner. In this threat I am just a member like you. James.

 

6 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

 

 

[David Von Pein]

1 minute ago, Ian Lloyd said:

CE903 does not depict the true bullet path (as you have conceded).

But only laterally. And a very small amount even there. The downward angle through the victims is not affected one bit by the fact that the stand-in wasn't impaled by Mr. Specter's rod. And, as I said, the HEIGHT of the entry and exit wound locations are not affected either.

Anyone who thinks CE903 is nothing but a fraud is, IMO, just looking for reasons to disregard (and nitpick to death) the perfectly reasonable and wholly acceptable SBT re-creation that definitely exists within the Warren Commission exhibit known as CE903.

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

So where is the throat wound compared to the back wound?

James, I truly cannot understand why you're having so much trouble with my photo montage (below), which is a montage that, IMO, answers your inquiry. This montage shows BOTH wounds. The photo you (I guess) want me to mark on does not show both wounds. Hence the reason a montage like the one below is necessary to demonstrate my point about the two wounds in question. Why wouldn't I utilize both of these pictures to make my point? It's the only way (photo-wise) to drive the point home, wouldn't you agree?

 

James R. Gordon said:

Quote

You do not need to tread on eggshells. I am happy you have returned. I have always been concerned about the way I deleted your membership. We live in worlds that are universes apart, but I recognise you are one of the foremost WC supporters.  I have called you a fraud. That is permitted because I defined precisely what I meant by that. So do not worry if you wish to make a comment about me, be sure you clarify what you mean and why you mean it. You are wrong that I am hostile towards you. I am not. But I am severely frustrated that you cannot argue your case.

Thanks for those comments. But I think I am arguing my case. Yes, I'm using 2-dimensional imagery to argue it. But what other type images of the dead President can I use? There are no "3D" pictures or 3D/HD video to study. As I said before, I'm just using what's available. What else is there?

Perhaps some day I can get Dale Myers to do a full-scale study of the autopsy photographs using the preferred method of photogrammetry. That might help (a little bit).

 

James R. Gordon said:

Quote

If you agree the entry wound is in the back then how is that wound higher on the body than the throat. I know the answer if it's because JFK was leaning forward thereby allowing the back wound to appear higher. Rather than that twin image with its line why don't you establish how JFK's body position was such as to allow such a shot.

I think CE903 performs that task very nicely. Almost perfectly in fact. Just pretend that John F. Kennedy is sitting in the back seat instead of this other guy....

 

James R. Gordon said:

Quote

Your point about the back entrance wound being higher than the throat wound is utter nonsense - with one exception. I imagine it might - MIGHT - be possible if JFK were bent down far enough that - SOMEHOW - there is a path from the back to the throat.

No crazy "bent down" position is required at all, James. And, as we all know from watching the Zapruder Film many times, JFK was most certainly NOT leaning forward at the time he was shot with Oswald's SBT bullet around Z224. (Of course, the HSCA thinks the SBT shot occurred around Z190, which is, of course, totally ludicrous. Z190 is way too early. So that makes twice today I've been forced to disagree with the HSCA Officialdom.)

But, again, take another peek at CE903 above. It provides what you seek---"A path from the back to the throat". With that path resulting in a back wound that is most certainly HIGHER anatomically than the throat wound.

Yes, I know that's not good enough for you. You probably want me to also prove that there's an INTERNAL path through JFK's body that connects the back wound to the throat/trach wound without the bullet having to strike bone. Most CTers, of course, think that bullet path was impossible. Well, apparently those conspiracists must think that all of the various pathologists who studied the JFK case for the Warren Commission AND the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel, plus the three autopsy surgeons who physically had their hands on President Kennedy's body on Nov. 22nd, weren't very good at basic anatomy either....because most of those doctors (save Dr. Wecht) have endorsed the Single-Bullet Theory.

Don't you find that kind of strange if the idea of the SBT is utter nonsense? Were all of those doctors complete idiots, James?

 

Edited July 27, 2022 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

........

Edited July 27, 2022 by David Von Pein

[James R Gordon]

David,

I am surprised no one has picked you up on CE 903.

In your montage - which I do not have a real problem with - more an irritation. However you have stated that you accept that back entry wound as shown on the FOX image and you further state the back wound was higher than the throat wound. You explain that incongruity with the position of body posture.

With CE 903 I believe adjustments were made for using the Queen Mary.

However that pointer is in the wrong position. The back entrance was a few centimeters from the spine. Further the wound was around T3, You know that the pointer is lying on the Clavicle and the entrance wound was no where near the Clavicle. I have not read up on this. Can you link me to the WC documentation that justified this? I would like to read their argument that this proves the SBT.

And that is before we talk about Connally which is a problem yet to be discussed.

And you think CE 903 accurately describes the Line of trajectory fro JFK to JBC?

I am aware this is WC politics to persuade people that Oswald commited the crime - and it succeeded in doing so for quite some time. And I know you support th WC. But can you not honestly admit that this fails on two points.

a) It does not replicate the SBT either for the JFK  and JBC wounds

and

b) The points of origin for JFK and JBC are utterlly wrong.

James