(PART 843)


I think it's quite possible that the chalk mark on the back of President Kennedy's stand-in (as seen in the top picture below, which is an opposite-angle view of Warren Commission Exhibit 903) has been placed too low.

When compared with the actual bullet hole in JFK's upper back, it sure looks to me as though the chalk mark has been placed too low on the stand-in's back:

This makes me think that it's possible that the FBI and Warren Commission marked the stand-in's jacket based on the bullet hole in KENNEDY'S COAT, rather than the hole in the actual body (skin) of his upper back.

However, I can't find any specific documentation in the Warren Commission testimony of the FBI's Lyndal Shaneyfelt or Robert Frazier to support my theory regarding the chalk marks.

Bob Frazier did say this in his WC testimony (which would tend to refute my above theory about the chalk mark):

"They had marked on the back of the President's coat the location of the wound, according to the distance from the top of his head down to the hole in his back as shown in the autopsy figures." -- Robert A. Frazier

The above comment by Frazier, however, is a bit puzzling, since the official autopsy measurements performed by the doctors at Bethesda did not utilize the "FROM THE TOP OF HIS HEAD" method for determining where Kennedy's wounds were located. Dr. Humes, et al, instead used the "mastoid process" as the body landmark for calculating where the upper-back bullet hole was located.

So, I'll confess that Frazier's "from the top of his head" testimony has me scratching my head a little bit.

[EDIT -- In May 2013, three years after writing the above words, I discovered that there is something in the official record that might indicate I was at least partially correct after all when I said this in 2010: "...it's possible that the FBI and Warren Commission marked the stand-in's jacket based on the bullet hole in KENNEDY'S COAT, rather than the hole in the actual body (skin) of his upper back." --- CLICK HERE.]

Anyway, if the JFK stand-in's suit jacket were to be "bunched up" a little bit (as Kennedy's jacket was when he was shot in the back), the chalk mark on the stand-in's back would be elevated slightly higher than it is in this photo and this photo, and therefore the chalk mark representing the bullet hole almost certainly would merge with Arlen Specter's pointer in the opposite-angle photographs.


I recently realized something else that is quite important (IMO) regarding Warren Commission Exhibit #903.....

CE903 [seen below] provides very good circumstantial evidence to buttress the conclusion that the entry wound in President Kennedy's upper back was most certainly located HIGHER (anatomically-speaking) than the exit wound in JFK's throat (despite an opposite conclusion being reached on that subject by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s).

ZOOMED-IN VERSION (Click To Enlarge):

Of course, I fully realize that the person standing in for JFK in CE903 is not the real John Kennedy. And I also realize that you cannot extract three-dimensional information from a two-dimensional picture.

But even with those two stipulations in place, I think it's fairly obvious that Arlen Specter's pointer, in CE903, is being placed in a position that definitely mirrors the true and accurate location of the throat wound sustained by JFK in Dallas (i.e., the pointer is located at the location of the JFK stand-in's TIE KNOT, which has been determined to be the precise spot where a bullet exited President Kennedy's throat).

And it's also fairly obvious (via just a casual evaluation of CE903) that the location representing the ENTRY WOUND on the stand-in's upper back is in a place that is most definitely ANATOMICALLY HIGHER than the location representing the throat wound.

And: it's also quite obvious (to my eyes anyway) that the man who is substituting for JFK in CE903 is NOT LEANING FORWARD to any great extent whatsoever. He is pretty much sitting straight and upright and relatively erect in the back seat of the car in Commission Exhibit 903.

Hence, the math isn't too difficult here -- the upper-back bullet wound was ANATOMICALLY HIGHER than the bullet hole in the throat.

This kind of garden-variety photo analysis, of course, is far from being "scientific" in nature. But I think it's just basic common sense (coupled with the things that anybody with at least one working eyeball can easily see in Commission Exhibit No. 903).

And as far as the REAL John F. Kennedy's body is concerned, the two side-by-side autopsy pictures below provide further photographic indicators that can only lead to one reasonable conclusion. And that is: JFK's upper-back wound was located HIGHER than the wound in his throat. (The HSCA's conclusion to the contrary notwithstanding.)


See, this is what fascinates/bothers me, David. You KNOW I have chapter after chapter debunking all those programs and all those re-enactments you described in a previous post [THIS POST].


So what?

You actually think that I am going to think you have "debunked" anything connected with the Single-Bullet Theory? You must be kidding, Pat. You've debunked NOTHING. Least of all the viability of the SBT.

You and I both have a lot of written material on our respective websites. And we're both in the same boat (so to speak).


I will never convince you that ANYTHING relating to the SBT is true. And, conversely, and knowing what I know about the SBT, you are never going to be able to convince me that the SBT is false or that the Warren Commission was a pack of liars with respect to the SBT.

That's the way it is. And that's the way it likely always will be.


You continue to pretend that a picture taken from the front, and showing a trajectory rod passing over the shoulder, lines up with a chalk mark inches below the shoulder line. Bizarre.



Here is the thing that makes your anti-CE903 rant unworthy of consideration (and you know this is true, but you seem to forget it every time I bring it up)....

CE903 represents the AVERAGE ANGLE between Z210 and Z225.

So THAT'S why the chalk mark doesn't quite "line up" perfectly.

Yes, I do have an article entitled "The SBT Perfection Of CE903". But I've added an addendum near the bottom of that article to talk about that "average trajectory angle" thing. But, in general terms of proving the workability and doability of the SBT, I do still think that CE903 does equal "SBT Perfection".

Let's see a CTer produce an anti-SBT re-enactment of the bullet wounds sustained by JFK and Governor Connally that comes within ten miles of CE903. No CTer ever has. And they never will (even if they try). And that's mainly because the SBT is so obviously true. And it's a heck of a lot more difficult to try and re-create a fantasy than it is to try and re-create something that actually happened.

And that's why the Warren Commission was able to get so close to perfection when re-creating the Single-Bullet Theory in that Dallas garage on May 24, 1964. Because they were re-creating something that the sum total of the evidence indicates actually happened on Elm Street on November 22, 1963.

David Von Pein
January 24, 2010
November 19, 2014
June 22, 2015