(PART 231)


>>> "It's simple physics. A downward aimed bullet will deflect upward on impact - Not downward." <<<


Now all you have to do is prove (somehow) that the bullet that went
through John Kennedy's body "deflected" AT ALL....which you, of
course, cannot do. There is no indication that the bullet deflected in
any fashion while travelling through JFK's soft tissue.

Even Dr. Cyril Wecht, one of the fiercest SBT critics the world has
ever known, insists that the bullet did not deviate from its downward
trajectory during its journey into (and then out of) President
Kennedy's body.

What makes you think you can prove the bullet "deflected"?

What makes ANYONE think they can prove the bullet "deflected" after
hitting JFK's body and therefore strayed from its approx. 17-to-20-
degree downward course from Lee Oswald's sniper's perch in the
Depository Building?

>>> "Are you claiming the HSCA never saw this photo?" <<<

I often wonder if they ever turned it sideways for better "SBT"
orientation (like the photo above). Apparently they never
did....because if they had, they would have been able to see (as
anyone who isn't blind as a proverbial bat can easily see) that the
throat wound is positively LOWER (anatomically) than the upper-back
wound--even if the upper-back wound isn't visible in the above

>>> "Meanwhile, the shirt does." <<<

The shirt of JFK is pretty much meaningless in this discussion. CTers
love to harp on the location of the hole in the back of the shirt as
some kind of proof that the SBT introduced by the Warren Commission
is invalid.

But nothing could be much sillier than such a CT argument. The
clothing holes don't trump the photo below, which shows the bullet
hole in Kennedy's upper back. The clothing holes simply CAN'T, and
never will, trump this MUCH BETTER physical evidence:

>>> "Fascinating! You can't see the back wound in the photo, but you know it's higher. You should be playing blackjack in Reno." <<<

As stated a thousand times previously -- a practically-blind person
could easily tell from the two authenticated-as-"unaltered" autopsy
photos shown below that the bullet hole in John F. Kennedy's throat
was substantially lower anatomically than the bullet wound in Kennedy's
upper back.

Why can't you see it, Clark? Or maybe you can, but you just simply
don't want to admit what is obvious when it comes to the question of
"Which Wound Is Anatomically Higher?":

>>> "We are to IMAGINE the HSCA was wrong and, to support that, you post a picture of an imaginary back wound." <<<

You think this wound in JFK's upper back is "imaginary", do you Clark?:

Whether we can physically SEE the upper-back wound or not in the photo
showing the left side of President Kennedy's head, we certainly know
generally where that bullet hole is located as a result of looking at
the photo I just posted above which shows Kennedy's upper-back wound.

To believe the HSCA was correct when it declared that JFK's throat
wound was "anatomically" HIGHER on Kennedy's body than the wound in
his back, we'd have to believe that the back wound was located at the
very BOTTOM of this photo (or even LOWER than that, which would place
the wound off the bottom edge of the picture):

Does anybody in his right mind actually believe that Kennedy's back
wound was located THAT far south on the President's body?

Come now, my good (CT) man! Use your eyes.


>>> "You can't see the back wound in the photo, but you know it's
higher." <<<

Dang straight.

And Vince Bugliosi thinks so too (I'm proud to note):

"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; Page 424 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

JFK Archives.blogspot.com/JFK's Back Wound

>>> "Nice try again. But I can't help but notice that you haven't dealt with the right to left exit wound at JFK's throat. How far to JFK's left does JBC [John B. Connally] have to be for a bullet exiting missing JFK's tie knot to hit JBC's right armpit?" <<<

Answer -- Not a person in the world can answer the above question with
100% accuracy....as is quite obviously the case, since some things in
this murder case will forever remain unknowable -- such as JFK's and
JBC's relative positions to one another at the exact moment when
Oswald's CE399 bullet slammed into both of them. And this is due in
large part, of course, to the fact that we can't even SEE Kennedy in the
Zapruder Film at the precise moment the bullet hit him at Z223-Z224.

>>> "You seem to be wrong in every aspect of your argument. Why is that?" <<<

No, you just THINK I'm wrong.

Most conspiracy theorists have fooled themselves into believing that
the wholly true and logical Single-Bullet Theory is nothing but a
pile of excrement created by the Warren Commission.

A shame indeed. But it's to be expected from the conspiracy-happy
crowd, I suppose. They forever shun Occam's handy Razor in favor
of unsupportable guesswork and a steady diet of their favorite
food -- chaff.

It's always been that way. And my guess is--it will forever remain
that way in the future.

David Von Pein
May 22, 2008