>>> "Baden said his straight line trajectory was right--Myers said it was wrong (must include a deflection). Who's right, Myers or Baden? Take a can't have both." <<<

Oh, there's no question that Myers is right on this point and Baden
was wrong. No doubt.

I never said I agree with Baden and the HSCA/FPP on every last thing
connected to this case. Of course I disagree with some things the FPP
said -- the most obvious error, of course, being the incredibly silly
declaration by Baden's FPP that the exit wound in JFK's throat was
located anatomically HIGHER on Kennedy's body than the entry wound in
JFK's upper back.

Just one look at these two pictures (in tandem) debunks that crazy FPP
determination for all time:

And for Baden, et al, to think that Oswald's Carcano bullet would have
remained on a straight-line trajectory after entering JFK's head at
full velocity is just a crazy determination too (IMO). And even Dr.
Cyril Wecht of the HSCA's FPP seems to think it's a bit crazy too,
given his testimony reprinted below (at 1 HSCA 342):

"The inescapable fact that unless a bullet--especially one fired from a high-speed weapon, reasonably high-speed, approximately 2,000 feet per second muzzle velocity--unless it strikes something of firm substance, such as bone or something else, that that bullet will travel in a straight line." -- Dr. Cyril H. Wecht

Wecht wasn't actually talking about JFK's head wounds when he made the
above remarks to the HSCA in 1978. He was referring to the proposed
Single-Bullet Theory and his totally incorrect diagram that he utilized
in front of the HSCA [JFK Exhibit F-320; shown below]:

That chart/diagram is wrong in several different ways -- e.g., Wecht
has the bullet entering JFK's back in a place that's way too far right
of the true entry, the lateral (right-to-left) angle shown
in the diagram is way, way off....and Wecht doesn't have Governor
Connally turned to his right in his seat in the diagram. So, essentially,
Wecht's F-320 diagram is worthless, because it isn't an accurate
representation of what Bullet CE399 did on 11/22/63.

Sorry, I got sidetracked into talking about Wecht's strange anti-SBT
theory and his nutty diagram. My apologies.

Back to John Canal's lunacy now......

The "EOP Entry" theory is kind of crazy and illogical from another
point-of-view (purely a garden-variety, common-sense POV):

If the bullet entered JFK's head fairly LOW on his head (near the
EOP), and if the bullet didn't change course after entering the head,
then why wasn't the exit wound much LOWER on JFK's head than where
the exit wound really was?

IOW -- How can Oswald shoot the President from six floors above the
street in the back of the head NEAR THE EOP and have the bullet exit
JFK's head much HIGHER on his head IF THE BULLET DIDN'T CHANGE
COURSE QUITE A BIT after entering the head?

We can see via this still picture of Z-Frame 312....

....that JFK wasn't leaning forward very much. His head certainly
wasn't pitched forward far enough to support a theory that has the
bullet entering the EOP but (without any major deflection) exiting
VERY HIGH on the head in the RIGHT/FRONT/TOP areas of the head.

But per Dale Myers' website and computer images on this webpage, we
can see that the COWLICK entry site makes much more sense when
ALL of the facts are put into the mix -- e.g., the position of JFK's
head just prior to the point of impact (Z312), the angle of trajectory
from the sixth-floor window of the TSBD, the known entry-wound
location (the real location, not the make-believe EOP location), and
the exit location for Oswald's bullet.

Via the "cowlick" entry location, the bullet enters HIGH on the
President's head and it exits HIGH on the President's head.

But via the make-believe "EOP" entry site, the bullet enters much
LOWER on JFK's head, but is exiting HIGH on the head.

So, the cowlick entry site makes more sense from nearly every point-of-
view anyone could think of.

David Von Pein
May 2009