>>> "There is a ton of evidence suggesting there was more than one shooter." <<<


What is this "ton" of evidence you're referring to? Show it to me.
(That's a full 2,000 pounds of evidence, remember. So I hope you can
deliver the CT goods in this regard. And speculation isn't nearly good
enough, BTW.)

In reality, of course, here is the current "tonnage" of physical
evidence to indicate that there was a conspiracy involving more than
one shooter in JFK's murder:

1.) _____________
2.) _____________
3.) _____________

In short, such physical evidence of a multi-gun conspiracy does not
exist. And never did. And I kinda doubt, after 44.5 years, it ever
will. (The brilliant "CT spin" applied to everything connected to the
case at notwithstanding, of course.)

>>> "Your selective use of the autopsy report, and its assertion that two shots impacted from behind, is particularly bizarre." <<<

Did I read that right?!

It's "bizarre" to rely on the BEST MEDICAL EVIDENCE AVAILABLE to
try and discern how many bullets hit President Kennedy??


What's really bizarre is that you would think that relying on the best
evidence available is "bizarre".


>>> "The last panel to look at the evidence claimed the autopsists incorrectly identified the location of the wound on the back of the
head..." <<<

And Dr. Humes, in his testimony in front of the House Select Committee,
fully and readily admitted his error with respect to the location of the
entry wound on the back of President Kennedy's head. But the CTers
of the world apparently just don't want to believe him. Let's take a
gander at that relevant testimony [beginning at 1 HSCA 325]:

GARY CORNWELL -- "There is apparently, from the testimony today, one possible major area of disagreement, and that is with respect to the location of a bullet wound in the back of the President's head or possibly, depending upon the total body of the evidence, whether there was one or more than one bullet holes [sic] in the back of the President's head. That is principally what we wish to discuss with you at this time. Let me ask you first, your autopsy report reflected that there was one and only one bullet wound to the back of the President's head, that it did enter in the rear, exited the front. Is that report accurate on those three points, to the best of your knowledge?"

DR. JAMES HUMES -- "Absolutely."


MR. CORNWELL -- "Now, I would like to ask you today if you have had at least a greater opportunity to look at the photographs...and if, after doing so, you have a more well-considered or a different opinion, or whether your opinion is still the same, as to where the point of entry is [on the back of JFK's head]?"

DR. HUMES -- "Yes, I think that I do have a different opinion. .... I go the original autopsy report which we rendered, in the absence of any photographs, of course. We made certain physical observations and measurements of these wounds. I state now those measurements we recorded then were accurate to the best of our ability to discern what we had before our eyes. We described the wound of entrance in the posterior scalp as being above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance, a bony knob on the back of the head. .... And it is obvious to me as I sit here now with this markedly enlarged drawing, or the photograph, that the upper defect to which you pointed, or the upper object, is clearly in the location of where we said approximately where it was: above the external occipital protuberance. Therefore, I believe that is the wound of entry. .... The object in the lower portion, which I apparently and I believe now erroneously previously identified before the most-recent panel, is far below the external occipital protuberance and would not fit with the original autopsy findings."

Let me re-emphasize the following critical portion of Dr. Humes' HSCA

"It is obvious to me as I sit here now...that the upper clearly in the location of where we said approximately where it was: above the external occipital protuberance. Therefore, I believe that is the wound of entry." -- Dr. James J. Humes

>>> "And yet, you believe we can take their [the autopsists] assertion that only two bullets struck the body to the bank." <<<

Of course we can take that assertion to the bank. And you should know
quite well, even after studying the discrepancies between the autopsy
doctors and the HSCA, the reason WHY we can take that "ONLY TWO
BULLETS STRUCK KENNEDY" conclusion "to the bank".

The reason is:

Because even after wrestling with these various discrepancies regarding
Dr. Humes' original observations, the ultimate conclusion of the HSCA
regarding JFK's wounds WAS THE EXACT SAME CONCLUSION that was
reached by Drs. Humes, Finck, and Boswell.

And the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel also came to the EXACT SAME
BOTTOM-LINE CONCLUSION with respect to the President's wounds that
the Warren Commission came to -- i.e., President Kennedy was struck by
only 2 bullets, with both of those bullets entering the President's body
from above and behind.

Quoting from Page 43 of the Final Report of the House Select Committee
on Assassinations:

"The forensic pathology panel concluded that President Kennedy was struck by two, and only two, bullets, each of which entered from the rear. The panel further concluded that the President was struck by one bullet that entered in the upper right of the back and exited from the front of the throat, and one bullet that entered in the right rear of the head near the cowlick area and exited from the right side of the head, toward the front. .... There is no medical evidence that the President was struck by a bullet entering the front of the head, and the possibility that a bullet could have struck the President and yet left no evidence is extremely remote."

So, tell me again why I shouldn't take that data to the "TWO BULLETS

>>> "David, you always try to weasel out of this question, but I'll ask it again. Admittedly, it's a complicated question. Since the HSCA medical panel felt the original autopsy was inadequate and inaccurate, you have to make a choice: 1) you accept the findings of the HSCA medical panel, and believe the original autopsy was untrustworthy; 2) you don't accept the findings of the HSCA medical panel, and believe the somewhat amateurish autopsists were better informed than the HSCA panel of true "experts"; or 3) you don't believe or accept the findings of either panel, but have inspected the autopsy photos and evidence and have come to your own conclusions (which makes you no different or better than most conspiracy theorists). So, which is it? You've hinted at 3 in the past, but I just want it to be clear." <<<

My last response above this one pretty much answers your question
here, Pat.

The "IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS" conclusion reached by ALL THREE of the
entities/organizations that enter into the basic equation here (i.e., the
three autopsy doctors
; the Warren Commission; and the HSCA's Forensic
Pathology Panel
) is an IDENTICAL conclusion, regardless of the various
discrepancies and disagreements.

And that conclusion was (and still is today) -- John F. Kennedy was
shot just twice, with both shots coming from ABOVE AND BEHIND
the President.

And two of the above entities (the WC and the HSCA) totally agreed
on another important fact regarding the assassination (despite the
problems the HSCA had with Dr. Humes' initial observations and
testimony) -- Lee Harvey Oswald was the one and only gunman who
fired any shots that HIT ANY VICTIMS in the President's limousine on

To summarize:

Despite all the wrangling and the wound-location discrepancies and the
debate over the so-called "6.5mm. opacity" on an X-ray (which is an
object that has never been officially identified as being ANYTHING at
all), the basic bottom-line, end-of-the-discussion conclusion reached
by EVERYBODY in "Officialdom" regarding the critical question of "How
Many Bullets Hit JFK?" is an identical conclusion -- Two bullets struck
President Kennedy from above and behind him.

As of 2008, that "Two Bullets From Behind" conclusion is the official
opinion of both U.S. Government panels that were assigned the task of
determining such important facts (the Warren Commission and the HSCA),
and it most certainly is still (and always was) the opinion of the three
autopsy physicians who had their hands on the physical body of the late
President in November of 1963.

So, if you'll excuse me now, I've got to get to the bank. My account
marked "ONLY TWO BULLETS HIT KENNEDY" is overflowing. I'm going to
make a little withdrawal.

David Von Pein
March 2008
August 2010