The Magic Bullet Theory

[David Von Pein]

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

1.) A bullet hole of entry in JFK's upper back. (That showed no signs of penetrating beyond the outer layer, which is unthinkable if this was high-velocity bullet, as pushed by the single-bullet HOAX.)

And, naturally, Pat Speer knows WAY more about these things than do the THREE professional pathologists who attended JFK's autopsy at Bethesda.

Let me remind you, Pat, what Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck concluded:

"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck."

Let me guess----all three doctors who signed off on the above conclusions were rotten l i a r s, right?

And here's what the Clark Panel said five years later (more l i a r s here? Yes, I know you can't stand the Clark Panel either, but their conclusions are in black-&-white for all time anyway, whether you like it or not)....

"There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea described in the Autopsy Report. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck."

Instant Replay....

"There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds..."

But CTers like Patrick Speer know WAY more than the four members of Ramsey Clark's panel. Right? (Phooey.)

 

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

2.) A bullet hole in the very lowest part of JFK's neck/throat. (That was recorded as being too small to be the exit of a high-velocity bullet, particularly one that had been tumbling, as pushed by the single-bullet HOAX.)

It wasn't "recorded" at all, since Perry's trach obliterated all but a very small part of it. If by "recorded" you mean the testimony of Dr. Perry, et al, I guess you're convinced that when Perry told the WC that the throat wound could have been "either" an entry or an exit, he was being coerced or forced to do so? I, of course, would disagree. He was merely telling the truth as he saw it---i.e., that bullet hole could have a been either an entrance wound or an exit. No coercion necessary to tell a truth like that.

 

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

3.) Not a single bullet located in JFK's body. (No argument here.)

And this fourth item needs to be tacked on here as an extra bonus in the "common sense" department, which is something that nobody (not even a CTer) can possibly think is wrong):

4.) Anybody wanting to kill President Kennedy would have to be a complete moron/idiot to have fired two very low-powered, non-lethal bullets into Kennedy's throat and upper back, which would result in both of those bullets penetrating JFK's body only a few inches (each) and causing virtually no damage to the President's body whatsoever. Buit, hey, maybe the killers just wanted to give JFK a fighting chance to survive those TWO shots, huh? (Please get real!!)  (Yes, let's get real. This is a straw man argument. I never said the throat wound only penetrated a few inches, or even that it was an entrance. And you're also wrong. The CIA's Manual on Assassination recommended the use of subsonic ammunition in assassination attempts. Are you, David, Von Pein, telling me you don't think the CIA knows how to kill people?)

Is the "Official CIA Manual On How To Commit A Presidential Assassination" currently for sale at Amazon? I'd like to get a copy.

And your above comment isn't supposed to suggest that you, yourself, think that the Central Intelligence Agency might have had a hand in Mr. Kennedy's demise....is it Pat? Or is it?

 

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The thought occurs that you suffer from a lack of imagination.

And the thought has occurred to me that most conspiracy theorists (including even you, Pat) suffer from an overabundance of imagination. (With the "discovery" of your make-believe entry wound in the back of JFK's head* being a prime example of your very fertile imagination, plus your willingness to "see" things that simply aren't there.*)

* http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Head-Entry-Wound-According-To-Pat-Speer

 

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The SBT HOAX makes sense to you because you were told it was logical by a singularly illogical man, Bugliosi.

Get real (again), Pat!!

You're nuts if you think it was Vincent Bugliosi who convinced me the SBT is true. I was thoroughly convinced that the SBT was correct years before Vince's book came out. And it wasn't Bugliosi's participation in the London mock trial that convinced me of the SBT either. In fact, as you know, Vince supported the silly Z190 SBT timeline at that television trial in 1986, which he later had to revise for his book because he knew, as did I, that Z190 was simply absurd because it's way too early.

And calling Vincent Bugliosi "illogical" is akin to calling Donald J. Trump "sane".

 

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

But have you ever read a book on wound ballistics?

Try this one. It's excellent. (I'm sure all CTers despise it, but it's very good nonetheless.)

 

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Or gunshot wounds? Or anatomy? I suspect not. Because if you had, you would know that the trajectory of the bullet and the nature of the wounds outlined by the SBT HOAX make no sense, and that a better solution is required. 

That must be why EVERY panel/commission that has looked into the JFK murder has endorsed the SBT. And the autopsy doctors started it off with the first two-thirds of the SBT by saying that one bullet definitely did pass through Kennedy's upper body. And that was a conclusion that was reached five days before Mr. Specter and the WC were ever tasked with their Warren Commission duties. (So why did Humes, et al, tell that big fat lie, Pat? Why did they want or NEED to do that? Please tell me.)

 

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Now, I've always been open to a single-assassin solution, but the single-bullet theory is junk, propped up by deliberate deceptions regarding the nature of Kennedy's wounds, and the position of the men in the limousine. I have been waiting, for years now, for someone to come up with an SBT not reliant upon Specter's lies and deceptions and Myers' inaccurate animation. But, alas, none has been proposed. Instead we get the same ole arguments. And this has led me to believe that single-bullet theorists are a modern day Flat Earth Society, with an emotional attachment to nonsense.

I don't need Specter and I don't need Myers to help me decide whether to believe the SBT. The autopsy report, the Zapruder Film, and the basic knowledge about what a bullet can (and will) do when it is slowed down significantly are the main things needed for me to decide whether the SBT is a fact vs. being bullshit. Specter and Myers (and others) have helped solidify and firm up my pro-SBT opinions, yes. I don't deny that. But to quote Mr. Bugliosi --- "From the first moment that I heard that Specter had come up with the single-bullet theory, it made very little sense to me since the theory was so obvious that a child could author it."

 

Edited July 30, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Denny Zartman]

More "playing pretend with the LN's."

It's funny that the LN's are absolutely incredulous at the very idea of the possible existence of a dud bullet, but a magic bullet that causes seven wounds on two men, smashing two bones and embedding itself in a thigh, then working itself out of that thigh, climbing under the mat on an unrelated hospital gurney, changing itself from a pointed tip to a rounded tip, cleaning itself of all blood, flesh, fibers, and bone, and then emerging virtually unscathed compared to other test bullets fired into the wrists of cadavers... no problem at all.

Dud bullets exist. Magic bullets do not.

[David Von Pein]

There's so much fantasy and anti-SBT garbage in Denny Zartman's last post, I'd need a bulldozer to get rid of it all.

Edited August 1, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Denny Zartman]

I think I'm developing a Lone Nut allergy. Symptoms include rolling of eyes, shaking of head, and busting of gut.

[Bill Brown]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I didn't say that a high-velocity round entered Kennedy's back. I'm saying that since the doctors found no evidence the bullet penetrated beyond the outer layer, that it was almost certainly not a high-velocity round. 

Okay.  So your position is that one of the assassins from behind used a weapon other than a high-powered one.  I cannot get on board with that.  I don't think that would ever happen from beyond the distance we know it to be.

 

 

[Pat Speer]

27 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

Okay.  So your position is that one of the assassins from behind used a weapon other than a high-powered one.  I cannot get on board with that.  I don't think that would ever happen from beyond the distance we know it to be.

 

 

No that's not my position. The weapon itself may have been high-powered, but the ammunition was not. Snipers and assassins are known to remove just enough gunpowder from high-velocity cartridges to make them subsonic. I suspect too many grains were removed from the bullet creating the back wound. The fatal bullet was clearly not subsonic. As to the bullet or bullets creating the other wounds, I think there may have been one high-velocity bullet or two subsonic bullets. I'm on the fence. 

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

And, naturally, Pat Speer knows WAY more about these things than do the THREE professional pathologists who attended JFK's autopsy at Bethesda.

Let me remind you, Pat, what Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck concluded:

"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck."

Let me guess----all three doctors who signed off on the above conclusions were rotten l i a r s, right?

And here's what the Clark Panel said five years later (more l i a r s here? Yes, I know you can't stand the Clark Panel either, but their conclusions are in black-&-white for all time anyway, whether you like it or not)....

"There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea described in the Autopsy Report. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck."

Instant Replay....

"There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds..."

But CTers like Patrick Speer know WAY more than the four members of Ramsey Clark's panel. Right? (Phooey.)

 

It wasn't "recorded" at all, since Perry's trach obliterated all but a very small part of it. If by "recorded" you mean the testimony of Dr. Perry, et al, I guess you're convinced that when Perry told the WC that the throat wound could have been "either" an entry or an exit, he was being coerced or forced to do so? I, of course, would disagree. He was merely telling the truth as he saw it---i.e., that bullet hole could have a been either an entrance wound or an exit. No coercion necessary to tell a truth like that.

 

Is the "Official CIA Manual On How To Commit A Presidential Assassination" currently for sale at Amazon? I'd like to get a copy.

And your above comment isn't supposed to suggest that you, yourself, think that the Central Intelligence Agency might have had a hand in Mr. Kennedy's demise....is it Pat? Or is it?

 

And the thought has occurred to me that most conspiracy theorists (including even you, Pat) suffer from an overabundance of imagination. (With the "discovery" of your make-believe entry wound in the back of JFK's head being a prime example of your very fertile imagination, plus your willingness to "see" things that simply aren't there.)

 

Get real (again), Pat!!

You're nuts if you think it was Vincent Bugliosi who convinced me the SBT is true. I was thoroughly convinced that the SBT was correct years before Vince's book came out. And it wasn't Bugliosi's participation in the London mock trial that convinced me of the SBT either. In fact, as you know, Vince supported the silly Z190 SBT timeline at that television trial in 1986, which he later had to revise for his book because he knew, as did I, that Z190 was simply absurd because it's way too early.

And calling Vincent Bugliosi "illogical" is akin to calling Donald J. Trump "sane".

 

Try this one. It's excellent. (I'm sure all CTers despise it, but it's very good nonetheless.)

 

That must be why EVERY panel/commission that has looked into the JFK murder has endorsed the SBT. And the autopsy doctors started it off with the first two-thirds of the SBT by saying that one bullet definitely did pass through Kennedy's upper body. And that was a conclusion that was reached five days before Mr. Specter and the WC were ever tasked with their Warren Commission duties. (So why did Humes, et al, tell that big fat lie, Pat? Why did they want or NEED to do that? Please tell me.)

 

I don't need Specter and I don't need Myers to help me decide whether to believe the SBT. The autopsy report, the Zapruder Film, and the basic knowledge about what a bullet can (and will) do when it is slowed down significantly are the main things needed for me to decide whether the SBT is a fact vs. being bullshit. Specter and Myers (and others) have helped solidify and firm up my pro-SBT opinions, yes. I don't deny that. But to quote Mr. Bugliosi --- "From the first moment that I heard that Specter had come up with the single-bullet theory, it made very little sense to me since the theory was so obvious that a child could author it."

 

DVP: And, naturally, Pat Speer knows WAY more about these things than do the THREE professional pathologists who attended JFK's autopsy at Bethesda.

Let me remind you, Pat, what Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck concluded:

"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck."

Let me guess----all three doctors who signed off on the above conclusions were rotten l i a r s, right?

PS: No, I don't think they were necessarily lying on this point. They said the strap muscles were on the neck, which they are, and not the back of the neck. It was Specter who then told lie after lie indicating the strap muscles were on the back of the neck. The doctors, by their own admission, and in violation of standard autopsy protocol, failed to track the wound from the back wound to the throat wound. They essentially GUESSED that the bullet creating the back wound exited the throat. And they needed to make this GUESS because without making this anti-scientific leap of faith, they thought they would have to acknowledge Kennedy was hit by three bullets. And since the SBT had not yet been developed this would have meant Connally's wounds were caused by a fourth bullet. So they needed to subtract a bullet from the scenario, and voila! the back wound now connected to the throat wound. They may very well have believed this to be true. But what is undoubtedly true is that the first draft of the autopsy report was destroyed and that the finished product connecting the two wounds was created after Oswald had been fingered as the sole assassin. 

Your outrage over this point, moreover, is obviously for show. You yourself believe these men were  gross incompetents and mistakenly believed a bullet entrance at the top of the head near the midline was actually a bullet entrance low on the back of the head an inch from the midline.

And here's what the Clark Panel said five years later (more l i a r s here? Yes, I know you can't stand the Clark Panel either, but their conclusions are in black-&-white for all time anyway, whether you like it or not)....

"There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea described in the Autopsy Report. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck."

Instant Replay....
"There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds..."

But CTers like Patrick Speer know WAY more than the four members of Ramsey Clark's panel. Right? (Phooey.)

PS: Thanks for posting this, because it helps make my point. The Clark Panel said there was a shadow on the x-rays that ended at the throat wound. This shadow represented the bullet's path. And I suspect they were right. Lattimer and Sturdivan have also mentioned this shadow. But here's the problem. This shadow BEGINS far up the neck, and not on the back. This was what led Lattimer to claim Kennedy was a hunchback. That the Clark Panel was bluffing when they said this shadow traced back to the back wound seems certain, moreover, because they simultaneously affirmed the measurements taken at autopsy, which presented the wound at the level of the shoulder tips, and not high up on the neck.That the HSCA FPP saw the folly of their thinking, and feared where it would lead, furthermore, is demonstrated by their treatment of this "emphysema". They said it did not represent a bullet track, but was simply air trapped in the neck when the hole in the president's throat got blocked off by his tie. 

 

It wasn't "recorded" at all, since Perry's trach obliterated all but a very small part of it. If by "recorded" you mean the testimony of Dr. Perry, et al, I guess you're convinced that when Perry told the WC that the throat wound could have been "either" an entry or an exit, he was being coerced or forced to do so? I, of course, would disagree. He was merely telling the truth as he saw it---i.e., that bullet hole could have a been either an entrance wound or an exit. No coercion necessary to tell a truth like that.

PS: Nope, I think it was an exit wound. A missile traveling at a low velocity will leave a small hole resembling an entrance wound. As far as Perry, he and others often specified that while the wound may have been an exit wound it was a small wound and was most certainly not what one would expect to be the exit of a high velocity bullet.

 

Is the "Official CIA Manual On How To Commit A Presidential Assassination" currently for sale at Amazon? I'd like to get a copy.

PS: I bought it years ago from a company that packaged up documents from the archives, and sold them on CD-Roms. The CIA Manual was written by someone involved in the training of the Guatemalans who overthrew Arbenz, quite possibly David Morales and/or Rip Robertson. Numerous articles have been written on it since the archives let it surface in the 90's. If you actually studied this case as opposed to regurgitating long-debunked arguments, you would know about it and have it in your collection. 

And your above comment isn't supposed to suggest that you, yourself, think that the Central Intelligence Agency might have had a hand in Mr. Kennedy's demise....is it Pat? Or is it?And the thought has occurred to me that most conspiracy theorists (including even you, Pat) suffer from an overabundance of imagination. (With the "discovery" of your make-believe entry wound in the back of JFK's head being a prime example of your very fertile imagination, plus your willingness to "see" things that simply aren't there.)

Get real (again), Pat!!

PS: I think the CIA may have had a hand, but consider it more likely that the assassins were CIA-trained. As far as my "make-believe wound," I don't know what you mean. You mean the one described in the autopsy report and confirmed by the doctors after reviewing the autopsy photos? Well, this wound is not a product of my imagination. It is the historical record your boy Bugliosi claimed to love. Do I really need to remind you that not one person who actually saw Kennedy's body said the wound was in the cowlick, and that the cowlick entry has been almost universally rejected by everyone (CT or LN) to view the autopsy materials over last 40 years?

You're nuts if you think it was Vincent Bugliosi who convinced me the SBT is true. I was thoroughly convinced that the SBT was correct years before Vince's book came out. And it wasn't Bugliosi's participation in the London mock trial that convinced me of the SBT either. In fact, as you know, Vince supported the silly Z190 SBT timeline at that television trial in 1986, which he later had to revise for his book because he knew, as did I, that Z190 was simply absurd because it's way too early.

PS: Yes, but that Z190 time was confirmed by the photography panel, working independently from the acoustics panel. And it's easy to see why. It's quite obvious the Kennedy jerks to his left before he goes behind the sign in the film. 

And calling Vincent Bugliosi "illogical" is akin to calling Donald J. Trump "sane".

PS: No. I say Bugliosi is illogical because was hellbent on proving Oswald the sole assassin and answering all the questions, but couldn't keep his story straight from chapter to chapter. As you know, he presented two different shooting scenarios, two different back wound locations, and two different versions of Kennedy's position within the limo at the time he was first shot.

Try this one. It's excellent. (I'm sure all CTers despise it, but it's very good nonetheless.)

PS: Yes, I've read and dissected Larry's book, but it's not an actual textbook, is it? It's propaganda, as demonstrated by his changing the loss of velocity associated with the various wounds from Olivier's 1964 testimony and even his own 1978 testimony. 

That must be why EVERY panel/commission that has looked into the JFK murder has endorsed the SBT. And the autopsy doctors started it off with the first two-thirds of the SBT by saying that one bullet definitely did pass through Kennedy's upper body. And that was a conclusion that was reached five days before Mr. Specter and the WC were ever tasked with their Warren Commission duties. (So why did Humes, et al, tell that big fat lie, Pat? Why did they want or NEED to do that? Please tell me.)

PS: As stated elsewhere, the HSCA FPP endorsed the SBT under the belief Guinn's NAA proved it (which it didn't) and under the belief it occurred after Kennedy had bent over while behind the sign in the Z-film. They had thereby most definitely NOT endorsed the SBT as proposed by the HSCA. As one of their leading lights (Wecht) was at that time and this time perhaps the greatest critic of the SBT, it is not exactly honest to claim they endorsed it. As far as why the doctors would say the bullet passed through the neck from back to front, its' really quite simple. They'd been told three shots were fired, and were trying to make it add up. 

I don't need Specter and I don't need Myers to help me decide whether to believe the SBT. The autopsy report, the Zapruder Film, and the basic knowledge about what a bullet can (and will) do when it is slowed down significantly are the main things needed for me to decide whether the SBT is a fact vs. being bullshit. Specter and Myers (and others) have helped solidify and firm up my pro-SBT opinions, yes. I don't deny that. But to quote Mr. Bugliosi --- "From the first moment that I heard that Specter had come up with the single-bullet theory, it made very little sense to me since the theory was so obvious that a child could author it."

PS: Have you actually looked at the velocity loss associated with the various wounds? Because if you did you would see that they have never added up, and that they actually suggested--strongly suggested--that the bullet creating these wounds was traveling at a subsonic velocity. As far as your last statement, yes, I know, Your hero Bugliosi routinely boasted that he was bit of a simpleton in that he liked things to be simple. Well, this should have disqualified him from engaging in a massive study of perhaps the most complex crime in U.S. history. But no, he sought to simplify the case not by doing the homework necessary, but by substituting what should have been serious analysis with hyperbole and vitriol. 

Edited July 30, 2022 by Pat Speer

[David Von Pein]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

DVP: And, naturally, Pat Speer knows WAY more about these things than do the THREE professional pathologists who attended JFK's autopsy at Bethesda.

Let me remind you, Pat, what Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck concluded:

"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck."

Let me guess----all three doctors who signed off on the above conclusions were rotten l i a r s, right?

PS: No, I don't think they were necessarily lying on this point. They said the strap muscles were on the neck, which they are, and not the back of the neck. It was Specter who then told lie after lie indicating the strap muscles were on the back of the neck. The doctors, by their own admission, and in violation of standard autopsy protocol, failed to track the wound from the back wound to the throat wound. They essentially GUESSED that the bullet creating the back wound exited the throat. And they needed to make this GUESS because without making this anti-scientific leap of faith, they thought they would have to acknowledge Kennedy was hit by three bullets. And since the SBT had not yet been developed this would have meant Connally's wounds were caused by a fourth bullet. So they needed to subtract a bullet from the scenario, and voila! the back wound now connected to the throat wound. They may very well have believed this to be true. But what is undoubtedly true is that the first draft of the autopsy report was destroyed and that the finished product connecting the two wounds was created after Oswald had been fingered as the sole assassin. 

Your outrage over this point, moreover, is obviously for show. You yourself believe these men were  gross incompetents and mistakenly believed a bullet entrance at the top of the head near the midline was actually a bullet entrance low on the back of the head an inch from the midline.

And here's what the Clark Panel said five years later (more l i a r s here? Yes, I know you can't stand the Clark Panel either, but their conclusions are in black-&-white for all time anyway, whether you like it or not)....

"There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea described in the Autopsy Report. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck."

Instant Replay....
"There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds..."

But CTers like Patrick Speer know WAY more than the four members of Ramsey Clark's panel. Right? (Phooey.)

PS: Thanks for posting this, because it helps make my point. The Clark Panel said there was a shadow on the x-rays that ended at the throat wound. This shadow represented the bullet's path. And I suspect they were right. Lattimer and Sturdivan have also mentioned this shadow. But here's the problem. This shadow BEGINS far up the neck, and not on the back. This was what led Lattimer to claim Kennedy was a hunchback. That the Clark Panel was bluffing when they said this shadow traced back to the back wound seems certain, moreover, because they simultaneously affirmed the measurements taken at autopsy, which presented the wound at the level of the shoulder tips, and not high up on the neck.That the HSCA FPP saw the folly of their thinking, and feared where it would lead, furthermore, is demonstrated by their treatment of this "emphysema". They said it did not represent a bullet track, but was simply air trapped in the neck when the hole in the president's throat got blocked off by his tie. 

 

It wasn't "recorded" at all, since Perry's trach obliterated all but a very small part of it. If by "recorded" you mean the testimony of Dr. Perry, et al, I guess you're convinced that when Perry told the WC that the throat wound could have been "either" an entry or an exit, he was being coerced or forced to do so? I, of course, would disagree. He was merely telling the truth as he saw it---i.e., that bullet hole could have a been either an entrance wound or an exit. No coercion necessary to tell a truth like that.

PS: Nope, I think it was an exit wound. A missile traveling at a low velocity will leave a small hole resembling an entrance wound. As far as Perry, he and others often specified that while the wound may have been an exit wound it was a small wound and was most certainly not what one would expect to be the exit of a high velocity bullet.

 

Is the "Official CIA Manual On How To Commit A Presidential Assassination" currently for sale at Amazon? I'd like to get a copy.

PS: I bought it years ago from a company that packaged up documents from the archives, and sold them on CD-Roms. The CIA Manual was written by someone involved in the training of the Guatemalans who overthrew Arbenz, quite possibly David Morales and/or Rip Robertson. Numerous articles have been written on it since the archives let it surface in the 90's. If you actually studied this case as opposed to regurgitating long-debunked arguments, you would know about it and have it in your collection. 

And your above comment isn't supposed to suggest that you, yourself, think that the Central Intelligence Agency might have had a hand in Mr. Kennedy's demise....is it Pat? Or is it?And the thought has occurred to me that most conspiracy theorists (including even you, Pat) suffer from an overabundance of imagination. (With the "discovery" of your make-believe entry wound in the back of JFK's head being a prime example of your very fertile imagination, plus your willingness to "see" things that simply aren't there.)

Get real (again), Pat!!

PS: I think the CIA may have had a hand, but consider it more likely that the assassins were CIA-trained. As far as my "make-believe wound," I don't know what you mean. You mean the one described in the autopsy report and confirmed by the doctors after reviewing the autopsy photos? Well, this wound is not a product of my imagination. It is the historical record your boy Bugliosi claimed to love. Do I really need to remind you that not one person who actually saw Kennedy's body said the wound was in the cowlick, and that the cowlick entry has been almost universally rejected by everyone (CT or LN) to view the autopsy materials over last 40 years?

You're nuts if you think it was Vincent Bugliosi who convinced me the SBT is true. I was thoroughly convinced that the SBT was correct years before Vince's book came out. And it wasn't Bugliosi's participation in the London mock trial that convinced me of the SBT either. In fact, as you know, Vince supported the silly Z190 SBT timeline at that television trial in 1986, which he later had to revise for his book because he knew, as did I, that Z190 was simply absurd because it's way too early.

PS: Yes, but that Z190 time was confirmed by the photography panel, working independently from the acoustics panel. And it's easy to see why. It's quite obvious the Kennedy jerks to his left before he goes behind the sign in the film. 

And calling Vincent Bugliosi "illogical" is akin to calling Donald J. Trump "sane".

PS: No. I say Bugliosi is illogical because was hellbent on proving Oswald the sole assassin and answering all the questions, but couldn't keep his story straight from chapter to chapter. As you know, he presented two different shooting scenarios, two different back wound locations, and two different versions of Kennedy's position within the limo at the time he was first shot.

Try this one. It's excellent. (I'm sure all CTers despise it, but it's very good nonetheless.)

PS: Yes, I've read and dissected Larry's book, but it's not an actual textbook, is it? It's propaganda, as demonstrated by his changing the loss of velocity associated with the various wounds from Olivier's 1964 testimony and even his own 1978 testimony. 

That must be why EVERY panel/commission that has looked into the JFK murder has endorsed the SBT. And the autopsy doctors started it off with the first two-thirds of the SBT by saying that one bullet definitely did pass through Kennedy's upper body. And that was a conclusion that was reached five days before Mr. Specter and the WC were ever tasked with their Warren Commission duties. (So why did Humes, et al, tell that big fat lie, Pat? Why did they want or NEED to do that? Please tell me.)

PS: As stated elsewhere, the HSCA FPP endorsed the SBT under the belief Guinn's NAA proved it (which it didn't) and under the belief it occurred after Kennedy had bent over while behind the sign in the Z-film. They had thereby most definitely NOT endorsed the SBT as proposed by the HSCA. As one of their leading lights (Wecht) was at that time and this time perhaps the greatest critic of the SBT, it is not exactly honest to claim they endorsed it. As far as why the doctors would say the bullet passed through the neck from back to front, its' really quite simple. They'd been told three shots were fired, and were trying to make it add up. 

I don't need Specter and I don't need Myers to help me decide whether to believe the SBT. The autopsy report, the Zapruder Film, and the basic knowledge about what a bullet can (and will) do when it is slowed down significantly are the main things needed for me to decide whether the SBT is a fact vs. being bullshit. Specter and Myers (and others) have helped solidify and firm up my pro-SBT opinions, yes. I don't deny that. But to quote Mr. Bugliosi --- "From the first moment that I heard that Specter had come up with the single-bullet theory, it made very little sense to me since the theory was so obvious that a child could author it."

PS: Have you actually looked at the velocity loss associated with the various wounds? Because if you did you would see that they have never added up, and that they actually suggested--strongly suggested--that the bullet creating these wounds was traveling at a subsonic velocity. As far as your last statement, yes, I know, Your hero Bugliosi routinely boasted that he was bit of a simpleton in that he liked things to be simple. Well, this should have disqualified him from engaging in a massive study of perhaps the most complex crime in U.S. history. But no, he sought to simplify the case not by doing the homework necessary, but by substituting what should have been serious analysis with hyperbole and vitriol. 

Pat,

Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed posts today. As usual, you have put up a good fight for your side.

I, like Vince Bugliosi, also think the JFK case is basically a "simple case". Physical evidence-wise, I'd say it's quite simple. (And none of the physical evidence in the case has ever been proven to have been tampered with or planted.)

The rifle that killed the President is Oswald's....the bullets and bullet fragments connected with the case are all from Oswald's rifle....the prints are mostly Oswald's....and Oswald's very own movements and actions on both November 21st and November 22nd (including LHO's obvious guilt in the murder of policeman J.D. Tippit on Tenth Street) are about as incriminating as you could possibly get. Certainly not the movements and actions of a "patsy".

Author Mark Fuhrman made two very good observations in his 2006 book,
"A Simple Act Of Murder", when he said:

"There is no exculpatory evidence that outweighs the accumulated proof against him [Lee Harvey Oswald]."

And:

"A cloud hangs over [President Kennedy's] murder and our nation because we refuse to accept what is so clearly the truth---that his assassination was a simple act of murder, committed by a man [Oswald] who left evidence proving his guilt."

 

Edited July 30, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Denny Zartman]

James Sibert and Francis O’Neill FBI Teletype - November 23, 1963

Quote:

ONE BULLET HOLE LOCATED JUST BELOW SHOULDERS TO RIGHT OF SPINAL COLUMN AND HAND PROBING INDICATED TRAJECTORY AT ANGLE OF FORTY FIVE TO SIXTY DEGREES DOWNWARD AND HOLE OF SHORT DEPTH WITH NO POINT OF EXIT. NO BULLET LOCATED IN BODY.

PATHOLOGIST OF OPINION BULLET WORKED WAY OUT OF BACK DURING CARDIAC MASSAGE PERFORMED AT DALLAS

End Quote

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=680

-

Sibert and O’Neill Report - November 26, 1963

Quote

During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. HUMES located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.

This opening was probed by Dr. HUMES with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger.

Inasmuch as no complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other area of the body as determined by total body X–Rays and inspection revealing there was no point of exit, the individuals performing the autopsy were at a loss to explain why they could find no bullets.

A call was made by Bureau agents to the Firearms Section of the FBI Laboratory, at which time SA CHARLES L. KILLION advised that the Laboratory had received through Secret Service Agent RICHARD JOHNSON a bullet which had reportedly been found on a stretcher in the emergency room of Parkland Hospital, Dallas, Texas. This stretcher had also contained a stethescope [sic] and pair of rubber gloves. Agent JOHNSON had advised the Laboratory that it had not been ascertained whether or not this was the stretcher which had been used to transport the body of President Kennedy. Agent KILLION further described this bullet as pertaining to a 6.5 millimeter rifle which would be approximately a 25 calibre rifle and that this bullet consisted of a copper alloy full jacket.

Immediately following receipt of this information, this was made available to Dr. HUMES who advised that in his opinion this accounted for no bullet being located which had entered the back region and that since external cardiac massage had been performed at Parkland Hospital, it was entirely possible that through such movement the bullet had worked its way back out of the point of entry and had fallen on the stretcher.

End Quote

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=625#relPageId=5

-

Sibert and O’Neill ARRB Memo - June 29, 1966

Quote

Later in the week a telephone call was received from the Bureau supervisor FLETCHER THOMPSON, who advised that he had additional questions pertaining to captioned matter and stated that he desired to know whether or not at least one agent was present in the autopsy room during the time that the autopsy was in progress and until it was completed. He was advised that such was the case and that if one agent was out of the room it was understood and followed that the other agent was present at all times and that at no time were both agents out of this room from the time that the autopsy began until it was terminated.

Mr. THOMPSON also asked if the Pathologist conducting the autopsy had made any mention of a bullet passing out of the neck at the point that the tracheotomy had been preformed [sic] at Parkland Hospital, at Dallas, Texas. He was advised that no such statement was made and that in fact the Pathologist was quite concerned concerning injury in the back and could not find a point of exit for this bullet neither could he find the projectile. Mr. THOMPSON was further advised that at that time Agent SIBERT had telephonically contacted SA CHARLES L. KILLIAN in the Firearms Section at the Bureau at which time it had been ascertained that a bullet had been found on a stretcher in the Parkland Hospital and this information was relayed to the Pathologist conducting the autopsy who stated that in all probability this accounted for no bullet being found in the body in the back region and that such had probably been worked out by cardiac massage which had been performed when the President was on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital.

End Quote

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=688#relPageId=2

-

James Sibert, interviews by William Matson Law
“In The Eye Of History” Second Edition 2015

Quote

Law: Did you notice anything else in Specter’s book?

Sibert: Well, let’s see. On page 79 there’s a statement that’s sort of misleading: “As the autopsy progressed, the surgeons realized that the bullet had passed further through the president’s neck. They saw the muscles.” Now, I was there until midnight, for all practical purposes the autopsy had been completed , and there was nothing mentioned about this going on through the neck and all that, muscles and stuff. I don’t know when that was.

Law: If the didn’t dissect the neck that night, how could they know that?

Sibert: That’s it. They didn’t.

Law: Everybody I’ve talked to said they never touched it.

Sibert: No, they never touched that tracheotomy. As I said, the opinion was that the one in the back had been worked out by cardiac manipulation over at Parkland and fell out on the stretcher, you see?

“In The Eye Of History” Second Edition 2015, Pg. 330

Sibert: …so they found this [back wound] and they started probing it with their rubber-gloved finger. They also used a chrome probe that they pressed in there, and said, “There’s no exit.” Finck and Humes and Boswell all agreed.

IBID, Pg. 349

Law: Do you remember the feeling when they couldn’t find the bullet?

Sibert: Yeah - it was frustration. They said, “There’s no exit!” This was the words that they used probing that, and that’s when I went in and made this call, see? And that’s when Humes assumed that was why there was no exit, because this bullet had just gone in a short ways and cardiac manipulation - when they tried to resuscitate the president, which was an impossibility - it fell out on the stretcher, out of his back.

IBID, Pg. 394

End Quote
-

Paul K. O’Connor, interviews with William Maston Law

Quote

O’Connor: It got very tense. Admiral Galloway started getting very agitated again, because there was a wound in his neck. Now the wound - and of course I had seen tracheotomies, where you make an incision and you make it up and down to put in a tube to help a person breathe - the wound was a big gash and more horizontal - and I remember the doctors were going to check that out when Admiral Galloway told them, “Leave it alone. Don’t touch it. It’s just a tracheotomy.”

Law: So he basically stopped anyone from going further?

O’Connor: He stopped anybody from going further. Drs. Humes and Boswell, Dr. Finck, were told to leave it alone, let’s go to other things..

IBID, Pg. 198

O’Connor: …Dr. Humes took his finger and poked it in the hole - the bullet wound hole, the entrance-wound hole - and said it didn’t go anywhere. There was a very big argument, a lot of consternation, that he shouldn’t have stuck his finger in the hole.

Law: what difference would it make?

O’Connor: Well, when you take your finger and stick it in a bullet wound, you avulse the wound, which means that you make the wound abnormal.

Law: You think that happened when he stuck his finger in the back?

O’Connor: Yes.

Law: Could it have created a false track?

O’Connor: Well, not necessarily a false track as much as a false impression of the entrance of the missile that went into his back.

Law: Who was arguing?

O’Connor: Dr. Finck had come over from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology at Walter Reed Army Hospital. He was a forensic pathologist and he strongly objected to Commander Humes doing what he did. He took a sound. Now a sound is a probe, a metal malleable, non-rigid probe. Malleable means you can move it back and forth and bend it a little bit and trace a bullet path straight through a body and a rigid probe will trace its path all the way through. We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went so far. I’d say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn’t go any further than that. So we used a malleable probe and it bent it a little bit and found out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal muscles, didn’t touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped.

(Photo 10)

O’Connor: [continued] So we didn’t know the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That’s what happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it didn’t traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other side of the body.

Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?

O’Connor: Absolutely.

Law: It was just from the probe then?

O’Connor: Oh yes.

Law: And these doctors knew that?

O’Connor: Absolutely.

Law: While it happened?

O’Connor: Absolutely. And another thing, we found out, while the autopsy was proceeding, that he was shot from a high building, which meant the bullet had to be traveling in a downward trajectory and we realized that this bullet - that hit him in the back - is what we called in the military a “short shot,” which means that the powder in the bullet was defective so it didn’t have the power to push the projectile - the bullet - clear through the body. If it had been a full shot at the angle he was shot, it would have come out through his heart and through his sternum.

IBID, Pgs. 199-200
Photo 10: Pg. 469

End Quote

-

James C. Jenkins, interviews by William Matson Law

Quote:

Law: Giving your opinion based on your experiences would you say that a bullet could enter the back like that and go out the president’s throat?

Jenkins: I wouldn’t think so because it was below that wound. Later in the autopsy I helped Dr. Boswell remove the organs from the body and we were sectioning the organs and weighing them. And Dr. Humes and Dr. Finck were trying to probe that wound.

Law: And what did they probe it with?

Jenkins: Humes probed it, to begin with, with his little finger. Humes has huge hands. Humes is a big man. And then they used a probe. I could see his finger and I could see the probes behind the pleural area in the back and it never did break into the pleural cavity. And the wound actually went down and stopped.

Law: In essence, from what you saw, the wound did not go upwards toward the throat? You feel that it went down?

Jenkins: It seemed to have gone down and stopped. It didn’t break into the pleural cavity.

Law: Did they have a discussion about this?

Jenkins: They were a little upset about it.

IBID, Pgs. 226-227

Law: Now this last thing was something that Paul O’Connor had drawn up (photo 10). Would you agree with that?

Jenkins: I would say that’s probably what happened. I think this is certainly plausible in the fact that there is an entrance wound here, and it goes between the ribs and stops here. The probing that I saw indicated that there was a dead end behind the pleural cavity.

Law: So it did indicate that there was a dead end?

Jenkins: Yes, that there was no entrance into the pleural cavity, which would have been here. And before they were pressing on the pleura with the probes and their fingers.

IBID, Pg. 246

End Quote.
 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Author Mark Fuhrman made two very good observations in his 2006 book,
"A Simple Act Of Murder", when he said:

"There is no exculpatory evidence that outweighs the accumulated proof against him [Lee Harvey Oswald]."

And:

"A cloud hangs over [President Kennedy's] murder and our nation because we refuse to accept what is so clearly the truth---that his assassination was a simple act of murder, committed by a man [Oswald] who left evidence proving his guilt."

 

All this tells us is that Mark Fuhrman was fooled by the coverup. Which is what happens if all you do is read the Warren Report.

 

Edited July 30, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

All this tells us is that Mark Fuhrman was fooled by the coverup. Which is what happens if all you do is read the Warren Report.

 

And yet, even Mark Furhrman--a man fully convinced Oswald was guilty--saw the folly of the magic bullet theory, and refused to embrace it in his best-selling book.  

[Ron Ege]

And the same Mark Furhrman who was convicted of perjury, in the O. J. trial.  Calls credibility into question, yes?  Best-selling or not, his book is not the be-all, end-all - by any stretch, IMHO.

[Guest]

19 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

No that's not my position. The weapon itself may have been high-powered, but the ammunition was not. Snipers and assassins are known to remove just enough gunpowder from high-velocity cartridges to make them subsonic. I suspect too many grains were removed from the bullet creating the back wound. The fatal bullet was clearly not subsonic. As to the bullet or bullets creating the other wounds, I think there may have been one high-velocity bullet or two subsonic bullets. I'm on the fence. 

Pat, just an question, as I know nothing about ammunition etc.. 

If snipers are know to remove some gunpowder, could that have been the cause for a lot of people thinking it was the sound of firecrackers ?   I never really understood that. 

I mean, in the USA a lot of people (in general...) are familar with guns ? 

Yet, when somebody fires a couple (!) of rounds from a gun (or 2 guns... oops.... 😃 )  people were thinking it was the sound of firecrackers ?  I would think (but not know o/c ), the sound of firecrackers to be significantly different from a gun being fired ? Unless it just didn't sound like a "regular" gun (whatever that may be).

  

 

 

Edited July 30, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Pat Speer]

16 minutes ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

Pat, just an question, as I know nothing about ammunition etc.. 

If snipers are know to remove some gunpowder, could that have been the cause for a lot of people thinking it was the sound of firecrackers ?   I never really understood that. 

I mean, in the USA a lot of people (in general...) are familar with guns ? 

Yet, when somebody fires a couple (!) of rounds from a gun (or 2 guns... oops.... 😃 )  people were thinking it was the sound of firecrackers ?  I would think (but not know o/c ), the sound of firecrackers to be significantly different from a gun being fired ? Unless it just didn't sound like a "regular" gun (whatever that may be).

  

 

 

The removal of powder to make a bullet subsonic removes the sound created as high velocity bullets fly past. It also cuts into the bang as the bullet is fired, to such an extent that the sound of a rifle firing subsonic ammo from inside an upper-floor window would be heard at ground level, but would probably not be recognized as a rifle shot. So, yes, I think the many people claiming the first shot or shots sounded like a firecracker or firecrackers supports the possibility subsonic ammunition was used. I am reluctant to say for sure, though, because a lot of the "firecrackers" I grew up with were cherry-bombs and 1/4 sticks, which were roughly as loud as a rifle shot. I am reminded of this every 4th of July and New Years, for that matter, when loud explosions ring out in the distance. My first instinct is always that someone has fired a rifle, but it's just someone having "fun". 

To be clear, though, I have not fired a rifle since I was a kid, and that was a .22. I did accompany my dad on a few hunting trips, however, and the sound of his 30.06 was deafening. 

[Guest]

👍Thanks Pat