JAMES R. GORDON SAID:
If it is your position that CE 903 correctly describes the bullet's entry position, then the only passage for that bullet to get to the throat is through the lung. There is no other option. It is an anatomical impossibility for it to do otherwise.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In the time since my original post a few years ago on CE903 (and since I wrote the caption to the photo below), I've added some addendums to my "CE903" pages, which I think are important addendums to understanding some of the limitations that the Warren Commission was restricted to when it came to its re-creation of the assassination on 5/24/64 and its built-in restrictions concerning CE903 (particularly in Part 3 below):
CE903 (PART 1)
CE903 (PART 2)
CE903 (PART 3)
I have what I think is a sensible and logical question for conspiracy theorists who do not believe in the Single-Bullet Theory (which is almost all conspiracists in the world, of course):
If the SBT is wrong (and particularly in the case of the theories which have JFK hit by TWO separate bullets to replace the one bullet of the SBT), then how can you account for those TWO bullets not hitting any bony structures or the lungs of President Kennedy, and yet STILL those two bullets inexplicably stopped inside JFK's back/neck?
James, you DO accept the autopsy report with respect to the lungs and the pleura cavity and all "bony structures" not being struck directly by any bullet that passed through JFK's upper body....do you not?
Or do you really think that JFK's lung was hit by a bullet? Did the autopsists lie about that?
The reason I'm stressing this question again is to get back to this basic fact (whether you believe in the SBT or not):
The bullet (or bullets) that struck JFK in the upper back and neck areas did not produce any significant damage to the areas of the body that conspiracy theorists think would have had to sustain such damage if the SBT is true.
Which means, of course, that whatever bullets DID go into JFK's back and neck on 11/22/63 also did not produce any significant damage to Kennedy's lungs or ribs or other bony structures in his body.
Which means that the anti-SBT conspiracists are left with this conundrum (not even factoring in the wounds to Governor Connally):
Two bullet wounds in JFK's body (back and throat)....no bullets in his body to account for either wound....and no significant "bony" or "lung" damage which could possibly account for the stoppage of the bullet(s) that entered the body of John Kennedy.
Don't conspiracy theorists ever give some serious thought to the "conundrum" I just stated above?
JAMES R. GORDON'S COMPLETE REPLY IS HERE.
MARK KNIGHT SAID:
Did anyone besides me notice that Mr. Von Pein hasn't attempted to refute the information cited by Mr. Gordon? I believe he can't do it and maintain any credibility...which is why he instead chooses to argue with Pat Speer, Jim DiEugenio, and everyone else instead of Mr. Gordon.
So how about it, Mr. Von Pein...bone up on your anatomy and physiology, and then explain why Mr. Gordon is wrong in his conclusions. I can hardly wait. [Odds are, Von Pein will instead attack me for suggesting this, and continue to ignore Mr. Gordon's quite logical arguments.]
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Mark (and Mr. Gordon),
The obvious answer to your elaborate charts and analysis is this:
The bullet which struck JFK in the upper back on 11/22/63 did not strike any bony structures or lungs inside the President's body. That is an ironclad fact that even one of "your own" -- Cyril Wecht -- agrees with 100%.
And the autopsy report and all three autopsy surgeons (who each signed-off on that autopsy report written by Dr. Humes) confirm the above fact as well.
And whether you believe ONE or TWO (or 22) bullets struck JFK in Dealey Plaza, the above fact will still be true -- no bony structures or lungs in JFK's back and neck regions were struck by any bullets.*
* = And the damaged trachea is obviously not considered a "bony structure". It's a cartilaginous structure. But, amazingly, even Dr. Wecht, in June 2007, insisted that "no cartilaginous structure" was even struck by the bullet that he does think went clean through JFK, exiting the throat. But--somehow--Wecht insists that that bullet missed Governor Connally. ... And the damaged vertebra wasn't actually struck by the bullet either. The HSCA concluded that the passage of the single bullet near the vertebra is what caused the damage to the vertebra.
We know where the bullet entered JFK's back (5.5 in. below the mastoid). We know where the bullet exited (as confirmed by autopsy photos). And this photo proves for all time (IMO) that the HSCA was wrong about the throat wound being anatomically higher than the back wound:
Therefore, given the above known facts about JFK's wounds and the lack of internal damage, where do conspiracy theorists think they can go with this information to support some murky and unproven theory about multiple gunmen and/or some type of "anti-SBT" theory?
Regardless of whether the SBT is true or not, the above facts I stated about JFK's wounds (and the lack of any substantial damage inside Kennedy's back and neck which could have possibly accounted for the stoppage of any bullet--let alone TWO separate bullets) will still be the facts.
So where do you anti-SBT guys want to go with these facts?
Did Humes lie about pretty much everything?
Is the autopsy report a total fraud?
Are the autopsy photos supposedly "fakes"?
Are the X-rays also frauds and forgeries?
Was the HSCA a complete sham regarding the SBT? Were the HSCA investigators and FPP members all liars too? Or were they just too stupid to know they were being "misled" about some things (as Pat Speer postulated)?
Spell out your theory that replaces the SBT. HOW did it happen? And where was that frontal shooter located that could have possibly accounted for the throat wound being an "entry" wound (as almost all Internet CTers believe)?
It would be nice if a CTer could provide at least some solid evidence to back up a valid, workable, and (above all) reasonable "anti-SBT" theory. To date, I've never seen such a theory. And I doubt one will ever be forthcoming.
Most CTers will say, in return: Well, why can't you provide some solid evidence that the SBT is true?
I, however, think that has been done. Many times over, in fact. Starting with the autopsy report, then the Warren Commission's re-creation in Dealey Plaza on 5/24/64, then Dr. John K. Lattimer's tests in the 1970s which support the general workings of the SBT, then the HSCA's work in the late '70s (although, as mentioned, I do disagree with some points the HSCA and Forensic Pathology Panel made--like the silly Z190 SBT timeline and the "throat wound is higher" conclusion, but they utilized some common sense in concluding--in general--that ONE BULLET definitely did strike both Kennedy and Connally), and then the FAA simulation, and then Dale Myers' exacting computer work.
All of the above things provide good, solid underpinnings for the validity of the Single-Bullet Theory. Are they ALL dead wrong? From the Warren Commission, to the HSCA, to Lattimer, to FAA, to Myers? If the conspiracy theorists think they are all wrong, I beg to differ.
Addendum Regarding Dr. Perry----
And the main reason I posted Dr. Malcolm Perry's "It could have been either" Warren Commission testimony was, quite obviously, to counter this wholly inaccurate statement made by James DiEugenio:
"And no one will ever impeach Dr. Perry on this."
Fact is, of course, that Dr. Perry himself pretty much impeached his initial 11/22/63 statement about the throat wound being one of entrance. And he did so by admitting to the Warren Commission that the throat wound could have been "either" an entry or an exit.
JAMES R. GORDON SAID:
Just because these bullets were not found, does not make the SBT right as a consequence.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But it sure as heck makes the SBT much more likely to be true (particularly when we factor in the common-sense observation of John Connally ALSO having been hit by a rifle bullet in his UPPER BACK at just about the exact same time that Kennedy was being hit by one).
Can you deny the logic of my last statement, James? If you do deny or sidestep its built-in garden-variety logic, then maybe Occam should pay you a visit and show you his Razor.
JAMES R. GORDON SAID:
It is an illogical position to say that just because we could not find these bullets that has to mean that the SBT is the answer.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It doesn't have to mean it's the answer...but, as I just said above, the lack of ANY bullets (or even fragments of bullets) in JFK's upper body sure as heck makes it much more likely that one single bullet tore through JFK's body, leaving behind very little damage and leaving behind, of course, no bullets at all.
And when you then factor in the Connally back wound, the math becomes even simpler. Connally was sitting in a direct line to accept any bullet that would have exited JFK's throat.
Given these variables, where can logic take a reasonable person? Should it take me to MULTIPLE DISAPPEARING BULLETS hitting Kennedy from opposite directions -- even though I know that CONNALLY too was struck in his UPPER BACK with a bullet at nearly the very same instant on Elm Street?
Or should logic take me in the direction where Dr. Cyril Wecht has travelled -- i.e., the bullet does go through Kennedy, but it totally misses Connally (and the limo). And Wecht purports such a theory even though he knows full well that the man sitting almost directly in front of John F. Kennedy also sustained a bullet wound to his upper back at an almost identical point in time in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.
I mean, come on. Let's be sensible. (That is allowed in a SBT debate, isn't it?)
JAMES R. GORDON SAID:
The SBT can only become a legitimate solution when you can answer the number of criticisms laid against it. So far I have not seen you do that.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But I have far more criticisms of any "anti-SBT" theory that might be used to substitute for the SBT.
Any anti-SBT theory must contain several aspects that are So Close, But Not Quite Close Enough to the SBT.
E.G.:
1.) The wounds on JFK's body in any anti-SBT theory are Close, but not close enough to where the wounds are really located in JFK's upper body (per the autopsy pictures and the Boswell Face Sheet measurements and in Commission Exhibit No. 903).
2.) John Connally is positioned Close, but not close enough to the position he needs to be in to make the SBT work. (Conspiracists like Anthony Marsh like to micro-analyze this aspect of their anti-SBT theory down to the exact number of inches, practically centimeters, that separated JFK and JBC, as if that figure can be established with 100% accuracy; it cannot be established with pinpoint precision, which is something I've always said since the first day I ever started talking about the JFK case on the Internet.)
3.) The reactions we see exhibited by JFK and Connally in the Zapruder Film are Close, but not close enough to support the notion that both men were reacting to severe external stimulus at the very same time.
In the final analysis, it is my opinion that the Single-Bullet Theory is (to quote my favorite author, Vincent Bugliosi) -- "So obvious that a child could author it." [V. Bugliosi; Page 302 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)]
PAT SPEER SAID:
The bulk of the WC and HSCA panels supposedly signing off on the SBT were misled about the location of the back wound in relation to the throat wound.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Total nonsense.
The HSCA utilized the photos, the X-rays, the "14 cm." autopsy measurements, and the testimony of the autopsists. And the Warren Commission staff knew where the wounds were located too (even without full access to the autopsy pictures and X-rays). They had the face sheet, and the WC also had this important testimony of Dr. Humes:
"The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly."
Yes, it's true that the HSCA did come to the stupid conclusion about the throat wound being higher than the back wound (which is a conclusion that is in complete contradiction with the sworn WC testimony that I just quoted above of JFK's leading autopsy surgeon, Dr. Humes), but that wasn't a situation where anyone ELSE was "misleading" the FPP on that issue. They came to that stupid conclusion themselves.
But the bottom-line is: BOTH the WC and HSCA concluded that one single bullet did go through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally. And that is a conclusion that is buttressed by a bunch of other stuff, including the Zapruder Film, the lack of any other bullets (besides CE399) to account for any of the wounds in either victim (excluding the JFK head shot, of course), the detailed re-enactment of the crime done by the WC in May '64, plus just plain ordinary "Where Could The Bullet Have Gone?" common sense.
Toss all of that in the trash if you want to. I won't do it. Because the SBT is so obviously the truth.
PAT SPEER SAID:
The SBT was disputed by one member of the HSCA (Wecht)...
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But Cyril Wecht doesn't dispute the first half of the Single-Bullet Theory. That is, Wecht thinks just a single bullet DID pass through Kennedy's body, with that bullet exiting JFK's throat. And that's the main topic being dissected by James R. Gordon in this discussion.
Mr. Gordon doesn't think it was possible for a bullet to have traversed JFK's body via the entry and exit wounds that we now have on the table via the autopsy face sheet, CE903, etc. But Dr. Wecht disagrees. He thinks a bullet did go through JFK.
The remainder of Wecht's anti-SBT analysis is nothing but pure guesswork, plus there are his continued illogical efforts to prop up the WC test bullets as some kind of proof that the SBT is baloney, even though Wecht has got to know that none of those test bullets even attempted to duplicate the SBT at all -- with none of those bullets travelling through TWO bodies. It's still amazing to me, to this day, that Dr. Wecht cannot see the pitfalls and illogic of his theory concerning the test bullets. But, evidently he doesn't see those things.
PAT SPEER SAID:
You know full well Humes never compared the levels of the back and throat wounds when the body was in front of him.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And yet we find Humes saying this to the Warren Commission anyway, don't we Pat?:
"The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly."
Do you think Humes just made that up--just to make Specter and McCloy happy?
Here's the same quote by Dr. Humes, with other comments surrounding it, which puts the quote in better context [at 2 H 368]:
Mr. McCLOY - Now directing your attention to the flight of the bullet, quite apart from the evidence given by the President's clothing, you, I believe, indicated that the flight of the bullet was from the back, from above and behind. It took roughly the line which is shown on your Exhibit 385.
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - I am not clear what induced you to come to that conclusion if you couldn't find the actual exit wound by reason of the tracheotomy.
Commander HUMES - The report which we have submitted, sir, represents our thinking within the 24-48 hours of the death of the President, all facts taken into account of the situation. The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - That is what I wanted to bring out.
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir.
JAMES R. GORDON SAID:
It is clear to me that the wound is lower than Costa IR, I’ll leave it at that, and therefore the bullet is a clear danger to the lung.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I'm not arguing that the bullet didn't come darn close to the lung. Of course it came awfully close to it. The lung itself was bruised by the passage of the bullet. That's a fact. And another fact is this: That lung was not penetrated or damaged beyond just "bruising". And the pleura cavity was also bruised, but it was not struck or torn open by the bullet either.
Those are facts. Undeniable facts. (Unless you want to call the autopsy doctors liars.)
In my own opinion (which you are free to ignore if you wish), you, Mr. Gordon, are very likely attempting to micro-analyze the President's wounds (and their precise location in relation to the major organs of the body) in a fashion that probably cannot be done via standard schematics and charts and diagrams, etc.
I'm not saying that JFK's bodily organs and ribcage weren't located in the general locations where the standard anatomical charts place those organs and ribs, but I think we probably can agree that every human being is physically different in one way or another from other human beings.
One such example being: the precise location of JFK's mastoid process behind his right ear. When compared to another human being with a slightly different physique and build and neck length (etc.), if we were to measure 14cm. down from the tip of the mastoid process, we would likely get different results from person to person, with any "wound" located in the upper back being slightly lower or higher on the back depending upon that person's physical features.
Would you agree with me, James, on the above evaluation?
Each individual is unique in many ways. And attempting to make JFK's specific wound locations fit into the mold of a standard anatomical chart is, in my opinion, a potential mistake on the part of the person performing such an evaluation.
Now, yes, James, maybe JFK's body perfectly fits and matches every anatomy chart and diagram you'd care to post at this forum. Could be. I don't know for sure. But human beings being what they are--different from one another in a variety of very subtle ways--don't you think there might be room for some doubt about your conclusion that there was no way for a single bullet to have passed through President Kennedy's body in the manner suggested by the Single-Bullet Theory?
And my last question is particularly relevant and logical since we know for a fact that the lung that you say would be hit by the SBT bullet was in fact bruised by the passage of a bullet that was inside JFK's body.
So we're really only talking about a very small difference in the measurements here. I.E., the small difference between a bullet actually hitting JFK's right lung vs. a bullet passing so close to that lung that it caused bruising of the lung.
Is that very small difference enough to make you totally discount the notion that the bullet didn't strike the right lung of John Kennedy, but merely passed very close to it?
In Summary:
Regardless of your charts and diagrams and supreme knowledge of anatomy, this FACT remains:
The bullet that went into JFK's upper back did not directly strike the lungs and did not strike any other bony structure within the body.
And this additional fact also remains (which is a very important fact that deserves to be pointed out at least once a day to the anti-SBT crowd on the Internet):
No bullets or large bullet fragments were found inside JFK's body.
So, James, since you think the SBT is bunk, please tell me what you think happened with regards to the bullet(s) that entered John F. Kennedy's upper torso on 11/22/63? How did one or more bullets manage to enter JFK's upper body, never exit, and yet cause no major damage (other than bruises) to the areas of the body that were violated by the bullet or bullets?
After all, even without a "Single-Bullet Theory" and even without a "CE399", President Kennedy was injured by at least one rifle bullet in the upper back and neck regions on November 22nd, 1963. And in my view, the SBT fits like a glove. Whereas, any non-SBT theory reeks with far more speculation and uncertainties (and, of course, vanishing bullets) than does the single-bullet scenario.
The Very Bottom Line---
No one will ever be able to fight the overall logic and common sense of the Single-Bullet Theory. That logic and common sense will always be there. And even with the craziness of the HSCA's "throat wound is higher" declaration; and even with the wholly inaccurate CE386 staring us in the face (and I'll readily admit that the wounds depicted in CE386 are not accurate at all--including the head entry wound)....the SBT is still by far the most logical and reasonable solution to the double-man wounding of JFK and John Connally on 11/22/63. And that logic and reasoned thinking is expressed very nicely in the Walter Cronkite quote shown at the bottom of this post.
Therefore, seeing as how there were indeed some men on the Warren Commission and HSCA who knew how to utilize a tiny bit of common sense when asking themselves the key question of "Where could that bullet have gone?", then both of those committees (the WC and the HSCA) were pretty much forced, via common sense and logic alone, to arrive at the following conclusions (with CBS News mirroring the Warren Commission's common sense regarding the SBT in 1967):
-------------------------
"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. .... Based on the evidence available to it, the panel concluded that a single bullet passing through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally would support a fundamental conclusion that the President was struck by two, and only two, bullets, each fired from behind. Thus, the forensic pathology panel's conclusions were consistent with the so-called single bullet theory advanced by the Warren Commission." -- HSCA Final Report; Pages 43-44
-------------------------
"Our own view on the evidence is that it is difficult to believe the Single-Bullet Theory. But, to believe the other theories is even MORE difficult. If the Governor's wounds were caused by a separate bullet, then we must believe that a bullet passed through the President's neck, emerged at high velocity on a course that was taking it directly into the middle of the automobile, and then vanished without a trace. Or, we can complicate matters even further--as some do--by adding a second assassin, who fires almost simultaneously with Oswald and whose bullet travels miraculously a trajectory identical with Oswald's and that second assassin, too, vanishes without a trace. Difficult to believe as the Single-Bullet Theory may be, it seems to be the LEAST difficult of all those that are available. In the end, like the [Warren] Commission, we are persuaded that a single bullet wounded both President Kennedy and Governor Connally." -- Walter Cronkite; "A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report"; June 1967
David Von Pein
June 2012
