(PART 714)


Why I believe the SBT is nothing but BS:

You can't have a transiting bullet without a bullet track through the body.


Why I believe the SBT is NOT B.S. ----> Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com


Just a thought, David. Since you believe in this tooth fairy, can you please tell us his real name and where he lives?

Just kidding, but seriously. When does the bullet strike Kennedy? Where does it impact? How does it pass through the back/neck without striking bone? At what velocity was it traveling? At what velocity did it exit the neck? And strike Connally? At what velocity did it hit the wrist? And strike the thigh?

All the "official" answers to these questions smell to high heaven. They don't add up. Your hero Vince couldn't make them add up. At the mock trial he pushed that Kennedy was shot before he went behind the sign. In his book, he hid this from his readers and acted as if it never happened. If I recall, he also cited Sturdivan's testimony before the HSCA. Y'know, the testimony that Sturdivan disavowed in 2005?

No one needs to "debunk" the single-bullet theory. You can't debunk imaginary creations. I mean, if someone said PROVE to me that my invisible rabbit friend Harvey--that you can't see-- isn't really here--you wouldn't take them seriously, would you?

And so it goes with the single-bullet theory... There's no there there...


I believe the most ignored yet vulnerable portion of the SBT is Connally's wrist wound, simply for the fact the bullet had to enter the back of the wrist and exit the palm side of the wrist; passing through the narrow space between the ulna and radius bones without so much as scratching the ulna bone. To make things worse for Specter, this bullet also first squarely strikes the radius bone with the side of the bullet, a good inch away from where it penetrated the flesh between the two bones.

The alignment of the wrist, in order to accommodate the bullet path exiting JBC's chest, requires JBC to have his wrist rotated backwards at an impossible angle, something I defy any of the readers to do. This problem is usually dealt with quietly in re-enactment cartoons, such as PBS Nova's "Cold Case", by either having the bullet enter the palm side of the wrist (and hoping no one notices) or by relying on a sketchy drawing, in two dimensions, and having everyone's attention drawn to other aspects of the SBT.

Even if the bullet path had somehow lined up with the gap between the two bones, and the bullet had somehow struck the radius side on, reversed itself, moved laterally an inch and found new energy to re-start itself and pass between the radius and the ulna, it still is not pointing at JBC's thigh. At least, not without ricocheting off of the ulna bone and leaving a mark noticeable on x-rays.

David von Pain, I would dearly love to hear your opinion on this minor yet crucial aspect of the SBT unless, of course, you are fearful of being embarrassed.


The basic facts and the shooting scenario (as a WHOLE) practically make the Single-Bullet Theory an absolute CERTAINTY, not a mere "possibility" (and far from the "BS" fairy tale that all conspiracists make it out to be).

And it defies all belief that a very smart man like Patrick J. Speer cannot see that my above paragraph is accurate re: the SBT.

And by "the shooting scenario as a whole", I'm talking about the following things, of course....

1.) The positioning of the two victims in the Presidential limousine (one in front of the other) as they appeared to the assassin in the sixth-floor window of the Book Depository during the period of time when both President Kennedy and Governor Connally are first hit by the gunfire. (This very important fact of the victims being situated ONE IN FRONT OF THE OTHER from the POV of the sixth-floor assassin is invariably downplayed or ignored altogether by most conspiracy advocates.)

2.) The fact that EACH victim was struck in THEIR RESPECTIVE UPPER BACKS by a bullet on 11/22/63.

3.) The fact that Kennedy also happened to have a bullet hole in his lower throat too. (Was this just an extremely fortunate COINCIDENCE for Specter & Co., to have this bullet hole in Kennedy's throat too, to make some kind of "single bullet" hypothesis feasible?)

4.) The complete lack of any bullets in JFK's neck and upper back. (More tremendous luck, it would seem, for those plotters/shooters.)

5.) The Zapruder Film shows the two men being hit at pretty much the same time. (And even CTers, if they have eyes and are "reasonable" CTers, cannot possibly think there's very much separation in time between the JFK & JBC hits. So, again, the luck of those multiple shooters never runs dry, does it?)

6.) And there is the oft-overlooked fact that it was the AUTOPSY doctors who really got the SBT rolling....for it was THOSE guys who declared that the bullet that entered JFK's upper back MUST have "made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck".

And WHY did Humes and Company reach that conclusion? Because there were NO BULLETS in JFK's body, plus NO significant enough damage in JFK's body that could possibly account for TWO bullets just stopping on a dime in Kennedy's neck AND upper back.

Now, Pat Speer, with all of the above facts in mind, come back in here and tell me that EVERY one of those points I just raised adds up to an "imaginary creation" known as the SBT.

CTers get sick of LNers asking the "WHERE DID THE BULLETS GO?" question, but that's just tough--because it IS an excellent question that needs to always be asked when arguing with JFK conspiracy theorists about the Single-Bullet Theory, and it's a question that no CTer has ever answered in a believable and reasonable fashion. And the proverbial answer of, "Well, DVP, somebody must have dug those two bullets out of JFK's body before his autopsy", just doesn't even pass the laugh test.


Mr. von Pain [sic],

You have, quite predictably, completely ignored the small matter of the magic bullet transiting Connally's wrist. Are you truly afraid of discussing this matter?


And how many things in my laundry list are you going to ignore, Robert P.? All six of them?


Don't deflect attention from the topic of Connally's wrist wound, Mr. von Pain [sic]. Address that topic, unless you have nothing to offer on the subject of the wrist wound. Is that your problem, Davie?


The great David von Pein [sic] can't explain how the Magic Bullet went through the back of Connally's wrist and exited the palm side. Pathetic.


What difference does it make, Robert?

Or are you suggesting that Connally's wrist was REALLY hit by TWO different bullets, instead of just the ONE bullet that everybody knows did hit that wrist?

Or are you saying you think Connally was hit in the wrist from the FRONT by a separate bullet, different from the one that got him in the upper back....even though there is no indication that more than just ONE bullet struck the Governor's body on 11/22? (Gov. Connally himself, in every interview he ever gave, always said he was hit by ONE bullet--not more than one.)

And we do not know the EXACT (to-the-millimeter) location of John Connally's wrist at the instant it was hit by Oswald's CE399 bullet. Nobody can possibly know that detail (to the millimeter). So your argument (whatever it is) regarding Connally's wrist is dead in the water based on that undeniably-true "We Can't Know" fact alone.

In addition, why couldn't Oswald's bullet from behind have struck the back side of the wrist after exiting the chest and then exited the other side of his wrist before hitting his left thigh? I can easily envision such a flight path for Oswald's bullet that would meet all those requirements without it destroying the validity of the SBT. I see nothing unusual about it at all. I wonder why no CTer can envision such a thing?

Any more excuses to keep from accepting the obvious truth re: the SBT?

(BTW, Bob, thanks for joining the ranks of W. Anthony Marsh in deciding for yourself how to spell my last name. I always enjoy it when people think they know how to spell it better than I do. And the "Pain" thing is so cute too. And oh so original. Congrats!)


David von Pain [sic],

Glad you like the way we spell your name. It suits you to a tee.

So, you think it's easy to line up the back of the wrist with the bullet exiting Connally's chest, do you? If so, why not have someone pose in this position, with the back of the wrist perpendicular to the path of the bullet exiting the chest? Ask a friend, if you have any.

P.S. While you're at it, maybe you could explain how the whole intact bullet passed neatly between the ulna and radius bones of Connally's right wrist, after it came sideways through Connally's shirt cuff and squarely ran into Connally's radius bone, side on. Are we sure it wasn't just a fragment that went into Connally's left thigh? Humes seemed to think so.



Your shopping list means nothing if you cannot explain how the bullet transited from back to front in JFK’s body. Nor are you alone in ignoring inconvenient facts. .... Dale Myers has set up a clear trajectory line from the Oswald window through JFK and through John Connally. I do not dispute his trajectory analysis, it is a clear demonstration of the feasibility of the SBT.

However, what I do dispute [are] the medical implications of such a trajectory analysis. In order to have the bullet penetrate John Connally, he has the bullet travel through John Connally’s chest. The bullet never entered John Connally’s chest cavity – even though the HSCA decided that it had to. In addition, Dale Myers has the bullet exit close to where the heart would be….making that wound for John Connally most likely a fatal wound.

When Robert Prudhomme reminded you about the wrist wound, you [replied] “What difference does it make?” Really!!! It makes all the difference in the world, and you know it does.


You are just like Dale Myers, Vincent Bugliosi and Gerald Posner: they are happy to draw pretty straight lines without explaining how such lines are able to create a viable path through the human body. For you, proof is -- the bodies aligned correctly; each was struck in their upper back; the fact JFK had a wound in his lower throat – actually it was between trachea rings 3 & 4; your favourite – missing bullets; and so on.

Your problem is that unless it can be explained how a bullet could medically transit through JFK’s upper chest area – none of that makes any difference. Unless you can explain what is medically impossible, your shopping list is meaningless.


CE 399 could be from the back wound.


So, you think somehow the bullet dropped out of Kennedy's back and then someone picked it up and hand-carried it to another part of the hospital where this person deposited it on a stretcher in the hallway? Is that about it?

Or did the bullet just ROLL down the corridor and then JUMP onto the stretcher by itself?

Or do you think that KENNEDY'S stretcher was really in the area of Parkland where the bullet was found? Which, if true, would really confuse a whole lot of people, and would probably mean a bunch of people were liars as well.

In short --- Pat Speer's theory about CE399 possibly being from JFK's "back wound" is completely preposterous. And yet Pat thinks it is people like myself--the believers in the SBT--who believe in "imaginary creations" [Pat's quote].

Once more, it's irony at its finest when discussing the JFK assassination with the conspiracy theorists of planet Earth.


The throat wound could have been a fragment wound from the head shot.


Pat, it seems, will accept ANY farfetched notion rather than belief the most obvious (and true) scenario, which is a scenario that has one bullet passing through the TWO bullet holes in John F. Kennedy's upper back and throat.

Instead, Pat thinks it's MORE likely that the nice neat little hole in JFK's throat (which could definitely have been an EXIT for a bullet, as Dr. Perry clearly indicated in his WC testimony) was caused by a fragment from the head shot which somehow steered itself down into Kennedy's throat.

And Pat's oddball theory above also means that it's yet more incredible luck for those conspirators/assassins/plotters/patsy-framers. To get THAT lucky with so much stuff on the VERY SAME DAY is indeed remarkable, don't you think?

A brief "Luck" inventory (even though most CTers insist that ALL of this stuff was pre-arranged and/or "manipulated" in order for things to look the way they do today to simple-minded goofs like David Von Pein and John McAdams, et al):

....The unknown "they" shoot the President while trying to frame only Lee Oswald, using various guns all over Dealey Plaza (per most Internet CTers' beliefs anyway), and then got lucky when ONLY "Oswald" evidence is left behind to find (and in THREE different locations too!---the Depository, the hospital, and in the limousine itself). The angels were with the assassination team that day, that's for sure.

....And "they" just got lucky when a fragment from the head shot miraculously worked its way down to JFK's throat (per Patrick J. Speer), which meant that Arlen Specter and his team of cover-up agents with the Warren Commission could utilize that throat wound as the exit point for the bullet that entered JFK's upper back.

....And then the plotters plucked another angel out of heaven and received the incredible blessing of having John Connally hit in his UPPER BACK TOO, so that the Connally back wound could "line up" to the JFK throat wound, which was REALLY (per Speer) caused by that fragment coming out of President Kennedy's HEAD. Such luck is rarely seen even at the Vegas crap tables. (But "crap" is the best word to describe these nonsensical theories I'm discussing here, that's for sure.)

....The assassins then get MORE help with their plot when EVERY investigative agency in the country decides that THEY TOO want to start framing Oswald for TWO murders he never committed! From the autopsy physicians, to the DPD, to the Sheriff's Department, to the FBI, to the WC, and then (14 years later) to the HSCA. They ALL blew it, big-time, when ALL of those agencies and committees declared that one bullet passed through JFK's body (which the autopsy doctors did declare) and/or that Oswald was the only gunman who struck any victims with any bullets on November 22, 1963.

And I'm supposed to totally trash BOTH the Warren Commission Report AND the HSCA Report, which BOTH came to the conclusion that BULLET CE399 WAS THE EXACT BULLET THAT WOUNDED BOTH PRESIDENT KENNEDY AND GOVERNOR CONNALLY, due to the fact that some conspiracy theorists here in 2014, such as James Gordon and Robert Prudhomme, think it was impossible for CE399 to have wounded Connally's wrist.

Sorry, guys, I'm afraid that given the choice here -- Warren Commission & HSCA vs. Gordon & Prudhomme & Assorted CTers -- I've got to go with the WC and HSCA.

There can be little doubt that William of Ockham is spinning is his grave right now.


Mr. Von Pein is operating from the conclusion that the SBT is "fact," and then examining which evidence to keep and which to discard based upon the conclusion. The rest of us are examining the facts, and then drawing conclusions based upon our interpretation of those facts.


And you, therefore, are saying I have not drawn any kind of reasonable conclusion concerning the SBT based on THIS LIST of facts I already discussed earlier? Are you saying that my list of "facts" aren't really "facts" at all? Is that correct?

And I should just totally ignore ALL SIX of those important things I mentioned in that post because a self-appointed medical analyst has decided that the bullet could not possibly have transited John Kennedy's body or hit Governor Connally's wrist (even though BOTH official investigative committees that were assigned the task of determining the facts of the assassination said that Bullet CE399 did, in fact, do both of those allegedly "impossible" things)?

You must be joking.


I've hashed out all of this stuff with James R. Gordon two years ago. HERE'S my archived discussion.


David, does that translate to "I have NO answers to your questions about the wrist wound on Connally"?

Run away, Davey boy, run away!!


No, Bobby boy, it translates to this ----> CLICK THE LINK I JUST PROVIDED.


Mr. Von Pein...are you saying that Mr. Gordon's depictions of the parts of the human body beneath the skin are false?

If so, please produce evidence that contradicts Mr. Gordon's explanation of what the bullet must do between its entrance to and exit from JFK's body. You can refer to any medical textbook you like. Don't simply ridicule his explanation; demonstrate, with facts, where he is mistaken about the structure of the human body, within the context of the description of the back and neck wounds. Could you please do the MEDICAL research, and then get back to us? [I'm sure you won't invest the time...] Just saying that something "must've" happened doesn't count as evidence...no matter how many times you use that device to "prove" your point.

I believe Mr. Gordon's explanation of why the SBT is flawed is much more medically sound than your explanation of why the SBT is true. But what I believe is immaterial, other than the fact that I believe you haven't proven your case as well as Mr. Gordon has.



Do you really think TWO separate bullets entered JFK's body and BOTH bullets then failed to exit the other side of the body? (Not to mention the "vanishing" act those bullets performed after entering JFK.)

Am I really being an unreasonable person to ask the above question--even with Mr. Gordon's expert medical analysis and body charts staring me in the face? Don't you think that question I just asked is one that should have a good, solid answer from conspiracy theorists? If not, why not?

And since I'm not a medical student (or an M.D.), my basic response to Mr. Gordon's analysis is that I have a very difficult time believing that BOTH the Warren Commission and (especially) the HSCA, which had nine forensic pathologists on its panel!, would have arrived at the conclusion that Bullet CE399 definitely DID go through both JFK and John Connally if the Single-Bullet Theory is really the P.O.S. theory that so many airchair detectives think it is.

And a key point that is often missed (or ignored) is that the AUTOPSY DOCTORS THEMSELVES did conclude that one bullet went clean through JFK's body. So, obviously, Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck wouldn't think very highly of James Gordon's analysis, would they? Were those doctors ALL just wrong? Or liars? Or just plain boobs (even though they were all trained medical professionals who should know all about basic anatomy and skeletal structures of the human body)?


[Quoting from Dr. James Humes' Warren Commission testimony....]

DR. JAMES HUMES - As depicted in figure 385, in the apex of the right pleural cavity there was a bruise or contusion or eccmymosis of the parietal pleura as well as a bruise of the upper portion, the most apical portion of the right lung. It, therefore, was our opinion that the missile while not penetrating physically the pleural cavity, as it passed that point bruised--either the missile itself or the force of its passage through the tissues--bruised both the parietal and the visceral pleura.


Mr. McCLOY - Quite apart from the President's clothing, 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.

Mr. McCLOY - May I ask this: In spite of the incision made by the tracheotomy, was there any evidence left of the exit aperture?

Commander HUMES - Unfortunately not that we could ascertain, sir.

Mr. McCLOY - I see.


Senator COOPER - Considering the location of the bruise at the apex of the pleural sac...and of the tissue or muscles around it, was there any other factor which you could think of that might have caused that bruise other than the passage of a missile?

Commander HUMES - It was so well localized that I truthfully, sir, can't think of any other way.

Senator COOPER - That is all.

Mr. McCLOY - May I ask you one question which. perhaps, the answer is quite obvious. If, contrary to the evidence that we have here. that anterior wound was the wound of entry, the shot must have come from below the President to have followed that path.

Commander HUMES - That course, that is correct, sir.


My point--which you clearly seem to be avoiding--is that the esteemed Commander Humes was explaining someone else's theory [Specter's] to a group of people who have a VERY limited understanding of anatomy and physiology. Therefore, simply digging up Humes's [possibly rehearsed?] answers, without trying to prove that his theory actually works, is no less disingenuous than a CT'er repeating Garrison's theories over and over without critically examining them.

I once thought you were a researcher; I thought wrong. You merely quote others, as many of the CT'ers do, and apparently investigate NOTHING on your own. That makes you little more than a glorified librarian, or an archivist. You may be a GREAT librarian/archivist/WC advocate, but you're a damn poor researcher. [I, at least, have the decency to call myself a "student" of the assassination, rather than a researcher.]


For the record, I have never ONCE referred to myself as a "researcher". Never once. And you'll never find a post of mine where I use that word to refer to myself. Because, like you, I do not consider myself to be a "researcher". I'm not. I merely have a keen interest in JFK and his murder.

And just because somebody claims something is "impossible" or an "imaginary creation" (as many conspiracy theorists like to label the SBT), it doesn't mean I have to believe it's impossible too. And given the ALTERNATIVES to the single-bullet scenario, it's my opinion (not as a "researcher", but merely as a person with a little bit of ordinary common sense) that the SBT is the only conceivable correct conclusion to reach when evaluating the sum total of evidence surrounding the wounding of JFK and Governor Connally on Elm Street in Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63.

The Warren Commission said CE399 hit both victims.
The HSCA said CE399 hit both victims.

Does James R. Gordon's analysis trump BOTH of the above-named organizations? I'm doubting it very much.




I am beginning to see why you might want to refuse to answer any questions on the medical evidence: you have no idea what it means.

Did you really think I would not notice this nonsense you have just posted about Commander Humes?



Commission Exhibit No. 385 is an approximation of the wounds and of the body structures of JFK. It's a DRAWING, for Pete sake. And it's not 100% accurate, and anybody can tell that it's not spot-on accurate by the angle of the bullet path in the drawing, which is not steep enough. But it's FAIRLY close.

And therein lies a big problem with the Warren Commission and its incredibly STUPID, DUMB, and IDIOTIC decision to not fully and extensively utilize the autopsy photos and X-rays during its investigation and during the testimony of witnesses like Dr. Humes.

Instead of relying on the BEST evidence available in the whole case for the medical testimony--which would be, of course, the autopsy pictures and X-rays--Earl Warren decides he cannot possibly bend his rule regarding the autopsy pictures even when Dr. Humes is on the stand, with Warren insisting that EVERY exhibit HAD to be made available to the public, and therefore he would not even make an exception with the autopsy pictures.

And Warren stuck to that ridiculous decision even though a very reasonable explanation could have quite easily been written into the final Warren Report to the public, stating that the Commission and the pertinent witnesses HAD seen and made proper use of the autopsy photographs and X-rays, but for reasons of good taste [and out of deference to the Kennedy family too], we, the Commission, are not publishing the gory autopsy pictures in these 26 volumes.

Why the above type of explanation could not have been written is a huge mystery to me, but Chief Justice Warren wouldn't hear of such a thing evidently, so we're left with those crappy Rydberg drawings, which have done much more harm than good to the finders of fact and truth in the JFK assassination than just about anything else I can think of, creating huge controversy over the wound locations where none would likely have existed at all if only the autopsy pictures would have been utilized by the Commission and by Dr. Humes during his testimony.

But, with that rant aside, the fact remains that President Kennedy's lungs and chest were NOT violated or punctured by any bullets. There were only BRUISES in those areas of JFK's body. You surely aren't DENYING that fact of "BRUISING ONLY" of those areas, are you James?

And since there was positively NO MAJOR DAMAGE inside Kennedy's neck and upper back, it means that NO BULLETS (no matter how many you think struck the President) hit the lungs or punctured the chest cavity of John F. Kennedy on November 22nd.

Ergo, your fancy charts and detailed analysis in the JFK case are totally moot and meaningless. Unless you really want to believe that TWO bullets (or more?) went into JFK from different directions and yet caused NO major damage at all, and yet both of those bullets (or more?) somehow stopped on a dime inside the President's upper body -- and then disappeared, to boot!

Can ANY sensible person give any credence to such a multi-bullet theory? If so, please explain HOW you can do so with a straight face?

If I haven't made my point by now, should I try for a fourth time tomorrow?


The point is that there should have been damage. A bullet traveling at 2000 ft per second should have created damage.



Therefore, how did the bullet (or bullets) that YOU say must have hit JFK (within the confines of any anti-SBT theory you might want to present) manage to completely MISS all of his vital structures, like the lungs, the spine, the chest cavity, etc.?

In case you missed it, THAT was my whole point when I said this....

"And since there was positively NO MAJOR DAMAGE inside Kennedy's neck and upper back, it means that NO BULLETS (no matter how many you think struck the President) hit the lungs or punctured the chest cavity of John F. Kennedy on November 22nd." -- DVP

I assume you DO believe President Kennedy WAS struck by at least one bullet in the region of the upper back and neck, correct James?

And you DO also accept Dr. Humes' conclusions that none of JFK's vital structures were punctured or directly struck by any bullet in his neck and upper back and chest, correct? Or was Humes lying about that fact? Do you think when they opened up Kennedy, there was a TON of damage to his chest and lungs that the three autopsy doctors just kept quiet about? Is that the explanation? Because lacking that kind of speculation on your part, I can't see where you can go with any of your charts and skeletal graphs. Because SOME bullet (even if it wasn't CE399) DID strike JFK in those upper regions of his body, right?

You surely don't want to posit a theory that has JFK hit by NO bullets at all in his back and neck regions, do you? From your past posts, it almost comes across as if you do want to believe such a theory.

Good heavens, even Dr. Cyril Wecht, one of the most vocal of all SBT critics, has no problem with a bullet transiting Kennedy's body. I wonder why Wecht hasn't seen the roadblocks that would have prevented a bullet from going all the way through JFK's upper back and neck? If anyone on this planet would want to use such an argument, you'd think it would be Cyril Wecht, who hates the SBT with a passion. And yet he's never once utilized any of the arguments presented in this thread by James R. Gordon. I wonder why not?


The earlier hit on Kennedy--a centerpiece of the HSCA's conclusions and a centerpiece of Vincent Bugliosi's case against Oswald in the 1986 mock trial--was made to DISAPPEAR. POOF.


Isn't it fairly obvious what happened there, Pat? (It's obvious to me anyway.)

Bugliosi was pretty much stuck with a Z190 timestamp for the SBT at the 1986 TV docu-trial in London, and that's because his ONE expert who was going to testify about the validity of the SBT was from the HSCA--Cecil Kirk. And the HSCA had concluded (for some silly reason) that JFK was reacting to being shot prior to going behind the Stemmons Freeway sign.

Therefore, what was Mr. Bugliosi supposed to do considering those restrictions? Just toss his whole case and the SBT out the window?


It's also very possible (even likely, given the early stage of Bugliosi's research into the JFK case as of 1986) that Mr. Bugliosi totally concurred and accepted as fact the HSCA's loony Z190 timing for the Single-Bullet Theory. But after more study and examination of the facts, Bugliosi on his own (and in his book) refined his own thoughts about when the SBT took place.

Vince is still a little bit off, of course, with Bugliosi favoring an SBT hit closer to Z210 than the true frame of Z224, but Vince does not want to put a SPECIFIC frame number on his evaluation. He played it safe, and says that the SBT bullet is striking "within a fraction of a second of Z210", which is, of course, correct. The Warren Commission did the same thing, bracketing the SBT at anywhere from Z210 to Z225. And they were right too, since Z224 falls within that span.

As a footnote to the Kirk / Mock Trial subject.....

I suppose Bugliosi could have utilized Lyndal Shaneyfelt as his "SBT" witness at the mock trial. Shaneyfelt, after all, did testify about other matters at that same television trial. But instead, Vince had Cecil Kirk tell the cockeyed story of the SBT striking at around Z190, which is totally ridiculous when we look at WHERE KENNEDY'S HANDS ARE LOCATED many frames later, at Z224. Now THAT'S a long delayed reaction.


I never said that when the body was opened up there was a ton of damage. And I agree, with reservation regarding the lung and C7, that there was no major damage inside the body. But that is the critical point and that is the weakness of the SBT. There should have been significant damage had CE 399 traveled through JFK’s upper chest area.


The damage (or the LACK of damage would be a better way to say it) that we find in President Kennedy's upper back and neck is exactly what we would expect to find if the Single-Bullet Theory is true.

And the number of bullets found in JFK's body is also exactly what we would expect to find if the SBT is a reality. And that number is ZERO.

The same cannot be said of any theory that is postulated by conspiracy theorists to replace the SBT, particularly the theorists who insist that TWO bullets entered JFK's body from opposite sides, with neither bullet exiting the body, and somehow these TWO bullets cause no substantial damage at all in Kennedy's upper body. (And the bullets disappear too, which is always nice.) Such a theory is just simply NOT a reasonable one to believe.

Moreover, we've got John Connally also being struck in his UPPER BACK too.

Plus, the Zapruder Film is showing the two victims reacting to external stimulus at precisely the same time (despite the protests of the CTers).

And then we've got a bullet found in the hospital which links directly to a rifle that was found in the Book Depository on Elm Street.

Plus we have what SHOULD be an eye-opener for the conspiracists: The fact that from the point-of-view of the assassin on the sixth floor of the Depository, the two victims inside the Presidential limousine are lined up--one in front of the other--just an instant prior to the time on the Zapruder Film when those two victims are reacting to being hit by gunfire [see Commission Exhibit No. 894].

All of the above points tell a reasonable person evaluating this "sum total" of facts surrounding the shooting that it is very likely (if not nearly a certainty) that one single bullet did, indeed, go through the bodies of JFK and John B. Connally in Dallas' Dealey Plaza.

A half-dead goldfish could probably figure this out. But after fifty years, no conspiracy theorist can seem to do it.

~big shrug~


As James has previously said, please show how the magic bullet could have travelled through his back and out of his throat without hitting any bones.

Just saying it didn't, doesn't mean a carrot, David and you know it.


I guess it never occurred to Ray Mitcham to ask James Gordon this question---

Well, Jim, if the SBT is untrue and TWO (presumably) high-speed bullets entered JFK's upper back and throat, then how can you account for a total lack of damage to President Kennedy's vital structures within his upper body? Sounds pretty odd to me.

But, you see, I'm never allowed to pose that type of question to conspiracy theorists like James Gordon. Because if I do ask it, I'm accused of totally avoiding the analysis of people like Gordon. Even though it is a perfectly reasonable question to ask, and is a question that James has been ducking, because he will never be able to answer it in a reasonable and satisfactory manner.

I think the words "Pot" and "Kettle" come to mind now.


How could the bullet pass through JFK’s body without doing any serious damage? It could not pass through that maze of arteries, veins and nerves without causing major damage.


But your TWO bullets that must replace the SBT somehow COULD get into JFK's body, and then just stop on a dime, and yet not cause any major damage. (Yeah, right. Take that one in front of a jury. I'd love to see the rolling eyes of the jurors after hearing that argument, coupled with their exasperated reaction after James Gordon tells the jurors that all the bullets somehow inexplicably disappeared, to boot.)

"And I agree, with reservation regarding the lung and C7, that there was no major damage inside the body." -- James R. Gordon

You've got TWO "magic bullets" there, James. And the funny thing is--you don't even seem to realize it.


It boils down to this....

By my rough count, the conspiracy theorists have TWO "magic bullets". The LNers have ONE so-called "magic bullet", which isn't magic at all, of course. The LN/SBT bullet at least EXISTS in the form of Commission Exhibit 399, whereas neither of the CT magic bullets exist at all. And yet CTers like James Gordon are so sure that TWO bullets did enter JFK's upper body.

Mr. Gordon doesn't think it's reasonable for me to ask him why there's no substantial damage inside JFK's upper body as a result of being hit by TWICE as many (supposedly) high-powered rifle bullets as the LNers postulate struck the President in the upper back and neck.

I'm supposed to be able to explain how ONE bullet managed to sneak through JFK's upper body without striking various organs, but James (who obviously DOES think JFK was struck by TWO bullets in the upper body versus just ONE bullet, with the entry points for each bullet being in just exactly the SAME place on Kennedy's body where I and all other LNers think they were!) doesn't think he's required to explain the ALTERNATIVE OPTION to the SBT, which would have him explaining to the world in a reasonable fashion how TWO bullets went into those SAME bullet holes in Kennedy's body and yet somehow caused NO major damage in that body, all the while vanishing from sight immediately after they entered.

Call me goofy if you'd like to, but James' scenario seems JUST AS HARD (or HARDER) to reconcile than the Single-Bullet Theory which features just one (non-vanishing) bullet going through JFK & JBC and ending up on Connally's stretcher.

I think maybe James WOULD be better off to just theorize that JFK wasn't shot AT ALL on November 22, 1963. That theory would be easier to reconcile than the one he has forced himself to try and reconcile--but he refuses to do so (and that's because he cannot reconcile it, because such a silly multiple-bullet theory is far more unbelievable than any "SBT").

Walter Cronkite summed things up very well in 1967 when he said this....

"If all three shots hit, then one of them would have had to pass through the President's neck, emerge at 1,800 feet per second, headed on a downward path toward the midst of the Presidential car and the six people in it, and vanish in mid-air, hitting nothing, and leaving no mark. Well, this was more than the Commission could stomach. Despite its own words, the Single-Bullet Theory IS essential to its findings. ....

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 Commission, we are persuaded that a single bullet wounded both President Kennedy and Governor Connally."


David does not have an answer, partly because there is no answer. The only way the bullet can find a path from entrance to exit is to smash through the spinal column. There is no way he can admit that. What I find depressing is his inability to even debate and argue. Every time he contributes, he veers the debate in any direction but the SBT. It is really ironic, because he [is] usually quite vocal on the merits of the SBT.


It is almost as if he has no choice in the matter, James, and is obligated to argue the SBT, regardless of how foolish he looks.


He has no choice, Robert. I am sure he has realised as I and others - like yourself - have suddenly realised that this issue is the achilles heel of the JFK assassination. To be fair, it was not until I was well into this thread that I fully realised the implications of this issue. True, I had mentioned it before, but had never thought the issue through.

The WC and the HSCA never addressed this issue..... well they addressed very few issues. This is an issue that has got legs. Where to go from here I am not yet sure, but this might be a way to seriously dismantle the SBT.

I can see why David is so terrified and brings into the conversation as many red herrings as he can. He may be an extraordinary [sic] poor researcher, but he is not blind to where this debate is going.



Nine pathologists far more qualified than James R. Gordon (including even Cyril Wecht) have concluded that one single bullet DID go through the body of John F. Kennedy.

The three autopsy surgeons who had their hands on President Kennedy's body on the night of 11/22/63 also concluded (via their signed autopsy report) that a bullet went through the upper portion of John F. Kennedy's body.

Quite obviously, James thinks that ALL TWELVE of those medical professionals were completely wrong (or they were just boobs).

James, have you ever taken your analysis to anyone connected with the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel to see if they agree with you? If not, why not?

Yes, I am trusting the HSCA's FPP and the three autopsy doctors concerning this matter. I have no reason to believe that ALL 12 of those individuals got it all screwed up. And furthermore, I have no reason to believe that all twelve of those individuals would be so corrupt and dishonest that they would endorse the conclusion of one bullet transiting JFK's body if, in fact, they really knew for a fact that such a journey was a physical impossibility, as James Gordon seems to believe it is.

In short, it is my opinion that those 12 pathologists trump James R. Gordon. So we'll just have to agree to disagree. (Nothing new about that, of course.)

And if you, James, still refuse to see the implausibility of your "Two Bullets" theory that must replace the SBT, then I believe you need to re-think the situation. Because whether the SBT is true or not, John Kennedy WAS struck by gunfire in the upper body on 11/22/63. You cannot escape that fact. Which HAS to mean that if the SBT is a fairy tale, some OTHER conclusion must be correct. And from my vantage point, as I said before, ANY "two bullet" scenario is far more improbable and unbelievable than is the SBT (from a variety of viewpoints too).


And these 12 pathologists, can you point me to their descriptions of how the bullet traveled from entrance to exit in JFK's upper chest area. I suspect you will not be able to do so, because none of these twelve eminent men ever considered this issue. All twelve ignored the issue, not wilfully [sic], but because not one of them ever thought about it. I have read most of the medical documents for both the WC and the HSCA and I know very well - just as you do - this issue was never examined or discussed.

I doubt you even thought about it until this thread. Like so much about the SBT, a great deal is based on assumption. Until this thread, neither did I think about it. My focus had been on the impossibility of the JFK throat exit trajectory to line up with John Connally's entrance trajectory.

I may not have the reputation of any of these 12 eminent men, but I am onto this now and I know this is the fatal flaw in the JFK assassination and I won't stop until I can prove it beyond dispute. The entire SBT hinges on the bullet successfully passing through JFK's upper chest. If that can be proved to be impossible - and I believe it can - then you have no single bullet theory.

I do not expect you to agree, but I do not doubt for one moment you do not also see the danger this issue presents.

I am happy, for the moment, to agree to disagree. But I will be back with this issue later.


Good luck to you, James.

A good place for you to start your "The Bullet Path Was Impossible" campaign would be by contacting Dr. Cyril H. Wecht. Cyril should be very eager to see some new evidence to show that the Single-Bullet Theory is nothing but a fantasy ----> http://www.cyrilwecht.com

Contact and e-mail information ----> http://www.cyrilwecht.com/services.php


Below are some "SBT"-related and "wound"-related excerpts from Vincent Bugliosi's comprehensive 2007 book, "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy":

"The autopsy finding as to the track of the bullet that entered the president’s back was buttressed by the HSCA forensic pathology panel’s 1978 examination of the X-rays taken during the autopsy. The panel agreed, based largely on consultation with four radiologists, that X-rays of the president’s neck and chest showed evidence of air and gas shadows in the right side of the neck (likely a result of air seeping into the bullet track after the tracheotomy incision was made), as well as a fracture of the right transverse process (a bony knob protrusion) of the first thoracic vertebra, located at the base of the neck (1 HSCA 199; JFK Exhibit F-32, 1 HSCA 202–203; JFK Exhibit F-33, 1 HSCA 206; JFK Exhibit F-34, 1 HSCA 211).

The panel concluded that the fracture of the first thoracic vertebra could have been caused by the bullet striking it directly or by the force of the bullet passing very near to it, and the majority of the panel concluded that the bullet did not strike the vertebral bone (1 HSCA 305, 317). Dr. Baden testified that the X-rays showed “no evidence of any metal or bone . . . fragments in the neck area” (1 HSCA 305).

Although the 1968 Clark Panel and one member of the 1975 Rockefeller Commission stated that X-rays showed radiopaque particles (believed to be metal fragments) left behind by the bullet that passed through the president’s neck, the HSCA forensic pathology panel concluded that these white particles were, in fact, artifacts caused by dirt getting into the X-ray cassette or produced during the developing process—a rather common occurrence (1 HSCA 304–305; ARRB MD 59, Clark Panel Report, pp.13, 15)."

-- Pages 244-245 (endnotes section)


"Based on the testimony of Dr. Humes, which was agreed upon by fellow pathologists Boswell and Finck in the autopsy report, the Warren Commission concluded that the bullet that entered the president 's back "proceeded in a straight line" on a "downward angle" through the "soft tissue of the neck," moving in a "slight right to left lateral direcon," hitting "no bony structure" before emerging in the front area of the president's neck "that had been cut away by the tracheotomy."

This conclusion of the Warren Commission on the track of the bullet was "unanimously" confirmed by all nine of the HSCA' s panel of forensic pathologists, who noted that the straight path of the bullet was "adjacent to the spine," though not touching it."


The 1968 Clark Panel also agreed with the autopsy surgeons on the path of the bullet, adding that "the possibility that this bullet might have followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous [skin] wounds [upper back wound and wound in front of throat] would almost surely have been intercepted by bone, and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck." "

-- Page 402


"After talking to Dr. Perry, something else that Humes had observed the night of the autopsy suddenly made sense too. Late in the autopsy, Humes had made a standard Y incision in the chest and pulled back the skin and tissues in order to examine the interior of the chest and neck. Humes recalled that while examining the area of the tracheotomy incision, he noted that there was "some bruising of the muscles of the neck in the depths of this wound as well as [a] laceration or defect in the trachea," perhaps caused, he thought at the time of the autopsy, by Dr. Perry' s knife. (He had also found bruising on the apex [top] of the right pleural cavity containing the right lung.)

Yet, the incisions in the president's chest, left arm, and ankle at Parkland (for the purpose of administering bodily fluids) showed "no evidence of bruising or contusion," leading the autopsy doctors to conclude that these incisions were made during the death throes of the late president, when blood circulation had virtually ceased.

Thirty minutes after his first conversation, Humes telephoned Dr. Perry again and asked him about the chest tube incisions. Perry doesn't recall the conversation but he would have informed Humes that the tracheotomy and chest incisions were performed at about the same time.

The bruises in the neck region, then, couldn't have been caused by the tracheotomy because the circulation of blood in the body was nearly nonexistent at that point. Without blood, there could be no bruise—that is, there could only be damage to tissue, not discoloration of the tissue. The bruising of the neck muscles and right lung had to have been caused while the president's heart and lungs were still operating sufficiently to permit a bruise to occur.

In short, these bruises, which lay along a path between the president's back and his throat wound, could only have occurred prior to the incisions that were made at Parkland Hospital (i.e., they had to have been made at the time of the shooting), and hence, the damage found there had to have been the result of a bullet entering the president's back and exiting the throat." [Bugliosi's emphasis.]

-- Page 402


"Warren Commission critics have pointed out that Dr. Perry told Dr. Humes that the wound in the throat was "3 to 5 millimeters" in size (CE 397, 17 H 29), and a 6.5-millimeter bullet that did not fragment (as we know Commission Exhibit No. 399, as opposed to the later bullet that struck the president in the head, did not) could not exit through a 3- to 5-millimeter hole (Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas, p.51).

But clearly, Perry had to be wrong in his estimate of the size of the wound, since there is no evidence the bullet that entered the president's back exited anywhere else, and no bullet was found inside the president's body. Moreover, Perry, who later told the Warren Commission that the wound was "perhaps 5 millimeters in diameter," admitted that he "did not examine [the wound] minutely," giving it and the head exit wound a "cursory examination" (6 H 15, 3 H 368, 375).

The critics never mention, naturally, that Dr. James Carrico, the first Parkland doctor to see the president, estimated the throat wound to be "5 to 8 millimeters in size" (3 H 361), which would be consistent with the exit wound of a 6.5-millimeter bullet."

-- Page 401 (footnote)


"Not seen by the three [autopsy] pathologists until they testified to the Warren Commission in 1964, the president's clothing would have confirmed that the bullet had exited at the throat. In a 1965 memorandum describing his examination of the clothing, [Dr. Pierre] Finck wrote that "immediately below the upper button of the front [of the president's shirt] is a bullet hole perforating both flaps of the shirt, right and left. There is dry blood on the margins of both holes. The innermost hole reveals fibers directed outward, which indicates an exit perforation. The outermost hole also shows this outward orientation of the bloody shirt fibers, but to a lesser extent."

In the FBI's laboratory examination of the hole in the shirt shortly after the assassination, investigators too found that the "fibers of the cloth" were "protruding outward," characteristic of an exit hole for a projectile, but did not find any bullet metal in the fabric surrounding the hole."

-- Pages 400-401


"Arlen Specter...has been the recipient of endless vitriol and condemnation by conspiracy theorists. The story of one of them is instructive. Andrew Purdy, the law student at the University of Virginia who brought conspiracy theorist Robert Groden to speak at his school in 1976, told me, "Groden told us the single-bullet theory was a complete fraud perpetrated by Arlen Specter, and most of us bought what Groden said hook, line, and sinker. I was convinced Specter was a liar and could never pass a polygraph test. In fact, I became the head of a group of around a hundred law students who lobbied Congress, by letters and actually knocking on their doors, to reopen the investigation [of the assassination]."

When Congress, by its House Select Committee on Assassinations, did so in 1977, Purdy got a plum assignment as one of the leading assistant counsels to the committee, ready to expose the fraud and get the truth out. "But amazingly and astonishingly," he said, "when I closely looked at and examined all the evidence, I came around full circle. I am now certain the single-bullet theory is correct. And if I ever see Arlen Specter, I will apologize to him." "

-- Page 462


"A question I have for the anti–single-bullet conspiracy theorists is that if Connally did not receive the wound to the upper right part of his back in the way that the Warren Commission and HSCA concluded he received it, then just how in the world did Connally receive a wound to his back from a bullet fired from his rear without the bullet having struck Kennedy (whose upper body completely covered, looking from the rear, the right upper part of Connally's back, where he was hit) first? Who was it, if not Oswald, who fired this bullet that they say only hit Connally, and from what conceivable position in Dealey Plaza did he fire it?"

-- Page 462


"Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in Governor Connally's back was not circular, but oval. Drs. Charles Gregory and Robert Shaw, who attended Connally at Parkland Hospital, described the wound as "linear" and "elliptical" in shape, indicating that the bullet was out of alignment with its trajectory just before striking Connally's body. The HSCA said that a factor which "significantly" influenced its conclusion that the bullet that struck Connally had first struck and passed through Kennedy "was the ovoid shape of the wound in the Governor's back, indicating that the bullet had begun to tumble or yaw before entering. An ovoid wound is characteristic of one caused by a bullet that has passed through or glanced off an intervening object." "

-- Page 463


"The Parkland doctors...by their own admission...did not even attempt to make a determination of whether the wound to the president's throat was an entrance or exit wound. They were only trying to save his life. Among the later pathologists who did attempt to determine whether it was an entrance or exit wound, all fifteen of them not only concluded that it was an exit wound, but that it was the exit wound of the bullet that entered the president's upper right back.

And as I pointed out in my cross-examination of Dr. Cyril Wecht at the docu-trial in London, even Wecht, a member of the nine-doctor HSCA panel and the leading medical voice for years for the conspiracy theorists, agreed in his testimony before the HSCA that the throat wound was a wound of exit when he conceded, by necessary implication, that no bullet that struck the president entered from the front. "The president was struck definitely twice," Wecht said, "one bullet entering in the back, and one bullet entering in the back of [his] head." " [Bugliosi's emphasis.]

-- Pages 411-412


Oh I love how Davey boy scampers away when someone has him cornered. Unfortunately, David, you have nowhere to run to this time.


I'm not running anywhere, Robert.

As any reasonable person examining this discussion can easily see (although all CTers will fervently disagree, but what's new there?), this particular debate regarding the damage inside JFK's upper back and neck is pretty much a stalemate.


Because every time a conspiracy believer asks me this....

"How could a bullet pass through JFK’s upper chest area without causing massive damage to his body?" -- James R. Gordon; May 28, 2014

....I'm going to counter with this (which is a perfectly reasonable counter-question to the one asked by Mr. Gordon on May 28th)....

"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?" -- David R. Von Pein; May 28, 2014


Dave's on overtime tonight. Never seen him posting this late before.

Got orders to quell this thing?


Yeah. Langley just called on my hot line BatPhone. They want to see how many posts it'll take to finally get a reasonable and sensible answer to this question:

"Since there was positively NO MAJOR DAMAGE inside Kennedy's neck and upper back, it means that NO BULLETS (no matter how many you think struck the President) hit the lungs or punctured the chest cavity of John F. Kennedy on November 22nd. Ergo, [James R. Gordon's] fancy charts and detailed analysis in the JFK case are totally moot and meaningless. Unless you really want to believe that TWO bullets (or more?) went into JFK from different directions and yet caused NO major damage at all, and yet both of those bullets (or more?) somehow stopped on a dime inside the President's upper body -- and then disappeared, to boot! Can ANY sensible person give any credence to such a multi-bullet theory? If so, please explain HOW you can do so with a straight face?" -- DVP; CIA Disinfo Agent; Langley, VA 22101

I told my CIA boss in Virginia that it will probably take at least six more months to get a reasonable answer out of any conspiracy buff. Maybe a year. Perhaps even eighteen years.

Looks like a lot of sleepless nights from here on in.


There is little doubt that the lung was seriously compromised. The evidence is not in the autopsy report but in the supplemental. Humes' description of the damage in H2 369 describes just how compromised it was. This was not what he had said earlier or even what he intended to say. Humes was interrupted by Senator Cooper and his description was in response to his question. Most commentators refer to Humes' first description of the bruise to the lung. However, this response - which I am sure [he] had never intended to describe - totally destroys the idea that it was only a bruise.


Are you referring to the part in the Supplementary Autopsy Report (WR; Page 545) that says (re: the lungs): "Disruption of alveolar walls"?

Now we need to know exactly what is meant by "disruption".

But at 2 H 369, Humes is talking ONLY about "bruising" to the lung. And his measurement of the bruise in his WC testimony is certainly not new, because Humes says exactly the same thing ("5 centimeters") when describing the size of each of the two bruises in JFK's upper body on page 5 of the autopsy report (WR; page 542).


Quoting from Dr. Humes' ARRB testimony in 1996 [emphasis is DVP's]....

DR. HUMES -- "My problem is, very simply stated, we had an entrance wound high in the posterior back above the scapula. We didn't know where the exit wound was at that point. I'd be the first one to admit it. We knew in general in the past that we should have been more prescient than we were, I must confess, because when we removed the breast plate and examined the thoracic cavity, we saw a contusion on the upper lobe of the lung. There was no defect in the pleura anyplace. So it's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung. Of course, the more I thought about it, the more I realized it had to go out from the neck. It was the only place it could go, after it was not found anywhere in the X-rays."


That is complete nonsense. We can see where Dr. Boswell has his hand. If you know anything about anatomy, you know the bone there is called the Clavicle. Look up any anatomy book and it will tell you where the clavicle is in relation to the spine. The wound is clearly below that position.

If you disagree that A is not the edge of the scapula spine on the medial edge, please tell me what we are seeing. The medial edge is at T3, and the wound is above that:

So the wound is below T1 and above T3. Dr. Humes may have said what he did to the ARRB, but the FOX image makes clear he is in error.


Excuse me, James, but aren't you the same person who just a few posts back said something about how the wound positions were somehow "distorted" due to the "backward" leaning position of the President's head in the turned-sideways autopsy photo showing the left side of JFK's head?

You said:

"So what point are you making with this image David? You cannot make any serious comment. JFK's head is leaning backwards and so wound positions are distorted." -- J. Gordon

Does that same "distorted" conclusion only apply to the turned-sideways photo? Or does it apply to this picture too? ....

Therefore, could your analysis about exactly WHERE the wound is located in JFK's upper back possibly be skewed by your OWN admission that the "wound positions are distorted" in the autopsy photos?


Fair point David. However there is a difference here.

First, the area in question is below the backward leaning of the head. And so distortion that I was talking about is not pertinent here.


Oh, and the trach incision is supposedly ABOVE the backward leaning of the head when discussing the turned-sideways photo?

I don't think so.


Second, and much more important, we have standard geographical points on the body through which to reference the position of the wound.


Fair point.

But I'm going to once again refer you to that Humes' ARRB testimony:

"It's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung." -- Dr. Humes

And I again want you to think about my other question regarding ANY anti-SBT theory, which you MUST think includes TWO separate bullets going into Kennedy's body, instead of just the one Bullet CE399:

Doesn't the lack of a logical or sensible explanation bother you at all, James? Or are you only concerned about dismantling the Single-Bullet Theory?

Shouldn't you have SOME questions about what REALLY happened (and how it could possibly have occurred) if the SBT is to be thrown out the window?

Is a TWO-bullet scenario really MORE believable (and workable) than the SBT is?


Really, I had hoped for a higher level of argument.

That said, you have indeed brought this discussion to the critical point: the credibility of Dr. Humes' testimony.

I agree he is better qualified than myself. Yes, he was the surgeon who undertook the autopsy and that ought to be unchallengeable.

However, there is a basis by which to question the veracity of Dr. Humes. He says, using your quote, that the wound was above the scapula. FOX shows us the scapula. We see Dr. Boswell's hand. Any anatomy book will tell you the name of the bone his hand is resting on. We see outlines of parts of the Scapula. I say point A is the edge of the spine of the scapula. Again, any reputable anatomy book will tell where that position is on the body. It is at T3.

So we know the wound - as described in the FOX image - is below T1 and above T3.

So the question now is:

Do you believe Dr. Humes, who is saying something an image of the body taken before the autopsy is telling us is wrong?

If you can establish the FOX image is a forgery, then o.k., Dr. Humes ought to be believed. However, if you believe that the FOX image is authentic, then it clearly casts doubt on Dr. Humes' veracity.


I think James Gordon sank his own ship when he previously said this:

"So what point are you making with this image David? You cannot make any serious comment. JFK's head is leaning backwards and so wound positions are distorted." -- James Gordon

I, however, do NOT agree with the above "distorted" assessment endorsed by James Gordon. But I'm not the one who said it. James did.


But can Dr. Humes be believed?


If we were discussing the position of the trachea, it would be my word against yours and no way to determine who is right or who is wrong.

However, the back wound is different. Here we have geographical body points to reference the position of the wound. Although I cannot be precise, I can give an area: below T1 and above T3. Now if you know your anatomy you will be aware that the apex of the lung is at the T1 level. Therefore, the wound, as described by FOX, is below the apex of the lung and had the bullet traveled through JFK's body it would have had to go through the lung.

So now we are back to Dr. Humes. He says the bullet went above the lung. The Fox image says it had to go through the lung. The only question remaining is whether FOX is an authentic image. If the answer is yes, then Dr. Humes, irrespective of who he is, has got to be wrong.


In this instance, I'd say yes, Dr. Humes can be believed. Unless you also think he can't be believed about finding NO BULLETS inside JFK's whole body too. Do you believe Humes when he said that?

Footnote --- Before some CTer jumps down my throat with an accusation about how I'm selectively "picking and choosing" what I will believe and what I won't when it comes to the testimony and statements of Dr. Jim Humes....

Yes, I do think Dr. Humes was dead wrong about the location of JFK's head entry wound. He places it much lower on the head than it is, IMO. (And this autopsy photo proves the wound was near the cowlick, IMO.)

But now I'm "choosing" to believe Dr. Humes without reservation regarding this statement:

"It's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung. Of course, the more I thought about it, the more I realized it had to go out from the neck. It was the only place it could go, after it was not found anywhere in the X-rays." -- James Humes

But let's face the reality of the real world of JFK debate and discussion -- everybody "picks and chooses" to some extent whenever they take a "side" regarding the JFK murder case. It's as inevitable as the sun rising in the east.

Plus, in order to think Humes was a liar when he made the above-quoted statement, we'd also have to believe that BOTH of the other autopsy surgeons were rotten liars too, wouldn't we James? Because BOTH Dr. Finck and Dr. Boswell signed off on Dr. Humes' autopsy report too. Here are their signatures.

And on that very same page of the autopsy report that also has the written signatures of all three of JFK's autopsy physicians, it also says this, plain as day:

"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body."

So, it really boils down to this decision:

Who should I believe ---

The THREE autopsy doctors, who each signed off on the autopsy report of the President of the United States, which was undoubtedly the most important document that any of those three men would ever be signing in their whole lives?


James R. Gordon, who was NOT present at the autopsy of JFK at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the night of November 22, 1963, and who did NOT have the responsibility of reporting to the world the details of President Kennedy's wounds, and who did NOT sign the autopsy report?

For many people, the above decision might be a head-scratcher indeed.

For this writer, however, it's not even close.


Silly, as usual. The determination of the truth of a situation (or even the likelihood of a truth of situation) is not as simple as "who you gonna believe?"

Let's expose this for what it is.

A bullet wound low on the back of the head observed and studied by the doctors does not exist because David Von Pein has briefly looked at some autopsy photos and concluded these doctors were wrong.

The trajectory of a bullet GUESSED AT by these very same doctors after the body was long gone, on the other hand, is GOLDEN, and a clear fact, because...because...David Von Pein wants to believe them on this one...

That's not critical thinking, David. That's desperate grasping.


Silly, Pat (as usual).

The autopsy photo trumps Humes' "low near the EOP" bullet entry hole in the head. You know that as well as I do, Pat. Why? Because you have EYES too. (Don't you?)

Humes (or somebody at the autopsy) was dumb for not specifically measuring the distance north of the EOP for the head entry wound. If that measurement had been provided, there would be no controversy at all (except any that might be manufactured by the conspiracy theorists, of course).

And there's no escape hatch for the CTers regarding these determinations made during the autopsy:

"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body."

There's a whole lot of detailed data in the above paragraph that the CTers are forced to think is 100% wrong (or merely LIES spouted by the evil autopsy surgeons) if theories like the one proposed by James R. Gordon are to be accepted as fact.


"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea..." --- Not NEARLY correct. MUCH more damage was clearly done by that bullet (or bullets) (per CTers).

"...and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck." --- A bald-faced lie (per CTers).

"As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body." --- Another blatant falsehood (per CTers).

That's a lot of lying (and/or utter incompetence beyond belief), don't you think Pat?

But keep ignoring that autopsy report, guys. After all, it's only THE OFFICIAL AUTOPSY REPORT. That's all. It's only worthy of being set on fire, right?

(And Pat Speer calls ME "silly". Hilarious.)


David, still, you would have to agree that the conclusion to place the entrance several inches lower than apparently was correct - is nothing but, well - hilarious? I don't know what to make of such a mistake. How do you explain this David?


I can't explain it, Glenn. It's nothing short of incompetence in that instance, IMO. And I would guess that the dozen or so pathologists who looked at the photos would agree with me on that one, because every one of the doctors on the Clark Panel and the HSCA put the wound high on the head, not low.

Why on Earth the autopsists would mark the LATERAL measurement (2.5 cm.), but not the north/south measurement is beyond me. But the autopsy picture isn't lying. And the Clark people said the X-ray too lines up with a hole 100 millimeters above the EOP. That is CONFIRMATION of the higher entry point, IMO. But CTers disagree.

And, yes, the CTers can slap me around for calling Humes "incompetent" on this head-wound issue but yet believing he was not incompetent in other areas. But I really have no choice, as I see it. And that's because so many OTHER things tell me that the SBT is right AND that the cowlick entry is correct too. So, Humes must be RIGHT on one issue but WRONG on another.

Oh, if only life were simpler. :)


You list six issues that, for you, prove the SBT. They are all irrelevant if the bullet cannot pass through JFK's upper chest. The SBT has ended if the bullet cannot avoid the spine. As John Nichols has demonstrated, it cannot avoid hitting the spine.

I have got to the point where I am now going to ignore you and anything you have to say. For me your contributions to this thread are irrelevant. You are not the least bit interested in anything anyone has to say. This is demonstrated by your responses which bear no resemblance to legitimate questions asked of you.

It is not a matter of hoping to change your mind - you are not even listening.


All I know, James, is that we've got two competing theories at play here, and one of them must be correct:

One is the SBT. And one is a theory which has TWO separate bullets going into JFK's body, not exiting, and causing very little damage to the internal parts of Kennedy's body. (And that "two bullets" theory is, of course, one that you refuse to talk about, but it MUST be a theory that you surely DO endorse at the end of the day, correct? Because you don't think just ONE bullet could successfully navigate JFK's upper back and emerge from the throat.)

Given these options (and despite James' analysis of what Bullet CE399 would have no choice in hitting if the SBT is correct), and coupled with so many OTHER factors, I place my support in the Single-Bullet Theory.

Among those "other factors" are ---

The Zapruder Film;

Connally being wounded in the UPPER BACK too;

The bullet going into Connally at an ANGLE;

The total lack of any bullets to explain these wounds other than CE399;

The fact that the two victims are generally lined up in a straight line to accept one bullet from the viewpoint of the ONLY KNOWN LOCATION FOR AN ASSASSIN in Dealey Plaza at the precise point in time when the two men WERE struck by rifle fire (per the Z-Film analysis);

The WC's and HSCA's conclusions of CE399 being the bullet that traversed both JFK & JBC.

The above list of things provides a combination of facts and circumstances that, in my opinion, CORROBORATE the single-bullet hypothesis, and at the same time that combination of facts and factors makes ANY other hypothesis virtually impossible to accept or believe.

You disagree. Well, so be it.

In short, I am forced to believe that somewhere along the line, your analysis that has led to your conclusion that one bullet could not possibly have travelled clear through President Kennedy's upper back and neck HAS to be flawed.


No one said the bullet did not enter JFK's back and exit his throat. On the contrary, I think it is quite possible for the bullet to have gone through JFK's upper chest without hitting any bones.


Here again we are confronted with a situation where a conspiracy theorist can get SO CLOSE to accepting the official version of some part of the JFK investigation, but that CTer just can't quite allow himself to accept the EXACT official version.

In this instance, we know we've got three bullet holes in two men that generally line themselves up pretty well to permit the passage of one bullet through those three holes -- Kennedy's back wound, Kennedy's throat wound, and Connally's back wound.

But the CTers don't think it's quite GOOD ENOUGH. They'd rather change the locations just a WEE bit; or change the trajectory just a TAD bit, like Cyril Wecht does when he says that his "analysis" has led him to believe the sniper wounded JFK in the upper back from a SECOND-floor window of the Book Depository, rather than the sixth floor (which is the only verified location for ANY assassin throughout Dealey Plaza).

So, there again, Wecht can't QUITE bring himself to accept the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper causing the damage to Kennedy's neck and back, so he conveniently moves the assassin to a place where there is NO evidence a sniper was ever situated.

And this "CLOSE BUT NO CIGAR" tactic employed by conspiracy theorists manifests itself in other ways in the JFK and Tippit murders too (which is something I credit an LNer named Bud at the aaj forum for bringing up, and it's a good point too), e.g.:

The CTers say that Oswald couldn't quite make it from the sixth floor down to the second floor in time for his encounter with Marrion Baker. CLOSE, but not CLOSE ENOUGH, it would seem, per CTers.

Oswald couldn't quite make it to Tenth Street to kill Tippit. Again, CLOSE, but just a very few minutes off, per CTers.

Oswald didn't have enough time to fire his three shots. CLOSE, but no cigar. He would have needed just a LITTLE BIT more time to do it. And, per the Italians in 2007, it would have taken Oswald NINETEEN seconds to get off the three shots. (The people doing the tests must have been 110 years old.)

And then we've got CTers like Bob Harris who DO accept the notion of ONE bullet going clean through both Kennedy and Connally...but Harris has decided (with no evidence to back him up whatsoever) that the gunman who fired the SBT shot did so from another building entirely. The sniper wasn't even in the Depository, per Harris.

"So close....and yet not quite close enough."

The above is a CTer motto.


I won't resort to personal insults when I talk about Mr. Von Pein. But he's apparently a man of tremendous faith...in the Warren Commission. In his mind, it's a matter of "They said it, I believe it, that settles it." Never mind that their "solution" is in conflict with basic human physiology; to Mr. Von Pein, as long as the WC report supports the conclusion, facts [such as human physiology] are immaterial. And apparently statements by his revered experts are "The Gospel," even if they fail the tests of simple human anatomy and physiology.

It must be a blessing to have that kind of faith. But to continue the religious tone, I was taught to "Prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good." I would think that human anatomy and physiology would trump ANYONE's statement, because a knowledge of anatomy and physiology--even the bare basics--would fall under the "prove all things" banner...and if the basic structure of the human body proves the statements of "experts" to be wrong, then it would logically make the statements of those "experts" something one would NOT "hold fast."

Unless you're Mr. Von Pein. [Wonder if he prays to St. Arlen?]


Mark Knight speaks as if I am the ONLY person in the world who believes in the Single-Bullet Theory, even though virtually every "LNer" to be found on the planet, plus the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations, thinks the SBT is true (save Mark Fuhrman).

The SBT isn't some off-the-wall theory that I scraped up by myself one day last week. It's been here and believed by MANY people since 1964.

If you choose to sidestep the logic that I've presented in my posts in this thread, Mark, you are, of course, free to sidestep all you want. But my arguments are rational ones nonetheless (even with the great Jim Gordon's analysis staring me in the face).



If the SBT is such a wonderful theory, and so many believe in it, why can not one single one of you show us the path the bullet took through JFK's vertebrae to avoid breaking any of them?

We're all ears, Dave.


Well, Bob, there WAS a fracture of the first thoracic vertebra. In an earlier post, I quoted from Vincent Bugliosi's book regarding this fracture. I'll repeat that quote below....

"The autopsy finding as to the track of the bullet that entered the president’s back was buttressed by the HSCA forensic pathology panel’s 1978 examination of the X-rays taken during the autopsy. The panel agreed, based largely on consultation with four radiologists, that X-rays of the president’s neck and chest showed evidence of air and gas shadows in the right side of the neck (likely a result of air seeping into the bullet track after the tracheotomy incision was made), as well as a fracture of the right transverse process (a bony knob protrusion) of the first thoracic vertebra, located at the base of the neck (1 HSCA 199; JFK Exhibit F-32, 1 HSCA 202–203; JFK Exhibit F-33, 1 HSCA 206; JFK Exhibit F-34, 1 HSCA 211).

The panel concluded that the fracture of the first thoracic vertebra could have been caused by the bullet striking it directly or by the force of the bullet passing very near to it, and the majority of the panel concluded that the bullet did not strike the vertebral bone (1 HSCA 305, 317). Dr. Baden testified that the X-rays showed “no evidence of any metal or bone . . . fragments in the neck area” (1 HSCA 305)."
-- Excerpt from "Reclaiming History" by Vincent T. Bugliosi (c.2007)

[End quote.]

Therefore, we have the single bullet coming so close to T1 that it actually results in a "fracture" of T1, however the bullet itself did not directly strike the vertebra (per the HSCA).

Do you, Robert P., think you can fine-tune the path of the single bullet even MORE closely, so that you're confident enough to say that CE399 would have had to do MORE damage to T1 (or some other vertebra), even though the quote I just re-posted above verifies that T1 WAS "fractured", but by the PASSAGE of the bullet coming so close to the vertebra?

Sounds to me like a bullet CAN (and DID) pass through the President's upper body AND produce a slight bit of vertebra damage (just as you seem to think would need to have occurred if the SBT is accurate), but yet still not impede the forward progress of the bullet.

Or isn't the slight fracture of T1 (based on the mere PASSAGE of the missile) nearly good enough for you, Robert Prudhomme? Or should I chalk this one up as yet another time when the conspiracy theorists think something is CLOSE, BUT NOT QUITE CLOSE ENOUGH?


Okay, YES the bullet grazed the transverse process of thoracic vertebra T1 BUT, it missed the transverse process of cervical vertebra C7.

The cervical vertebrae sit in a stack above the thoracic vertebrae, with C7 sitting atop T1. The transverse processes are the projections that stick out to the sides of the vertebrae. The transverse processes of T1 project out to the sides much further than those of C7. The vertebrae are stacked so tightly together, there is NO room for a bullet to pass between the transverse processes of adjacent vertebrae. In other words, if the Magic Bullet grazed the top of the transverse process of T1, it had to pass WAY to the right of the end of the transverse process of C7 or it would have hit C7's transverse process too.

The vertebra Mr. Gordon shows in his diagram is, I believe, C7, and depicts the required 28° angle of passage required to miss the C7 transverse process AND still pass through the right side of JFK's trachea.

Now, it makes no difference if the bullet actually hit T1's transverse process OR the shock of it passing through fractured it. The undeniable fact is that it MISSED all of the cervical vertebrae and, in order to do so, had to pass far enough to the right of them to make the angle of passage so great, the bullet could not have hit Connally in the right armpit.

Honestly, Dave, the crap you're coming up with proves how desperate you're getting.


I'd say it's more in line with just exactly what I said twice previously in this thread....

Everything is always close but never quite close enough for conspiracy theorists.

Common sense ALONE dictates that the fracture (but not the breaking into pieces) of the T1 vertebra had to have been caused by a high-speed projectile. A bullet that's just about SPENT (i.e., STOPPED) inside Kennedy's neck isn't going to cause such a "shock wave" to damage the vertebra. Correct?

Ergo, a HIGH-SPEED PASSING MISSILE is what must have caused that slight T1 fracture. Just as that same high-speed passing missile is what must have caused the bruises on top of the lung and pleura. How could any SPENT bullet or bullets account for such "shock wave" type of damage OR the bruises that were found inside JFK's neck?

And since we all know exactly WHERE on Kennedy's body that high-speed missile entered his body (via the autopsy photos and the Boswell face sheet and the autopsy report too), your conclusion about the path of the bullet must be in error -- because T1 WAS fractured slightly and we KNOW where that bullet entered---14 cm. below the right mastoid process.


So where, then, does YOUR make-believe bullet exit JFK's body, Bob Prudhomme?

"I think it is quite possible for the bullet to have gone through JFK's upper chest without hitting any bones." -- R. Prudhomme; 6/1/2014

Are you going to just PRETEND there was another hole somewhere on JFK's body for that bullet to exit?


Where did this bullet go? Why don't you ask the folks who disappeared the limo from Dallas to Washington, DC in such a panic on 22/11/63?


And from this comment, Bob is implying that the Secret Service (and others?) spirited the limo away from Dallas in order to hide critical evidence. And he's implying that a bullet somehow exited a bullet hole in Kennedy that never existed, of course, and plunged into the limo, where it was deep-sixed by the evil Government.

Pat Speer was talking earlier about the LNers' "imaginary creations". And now, a few days later, it's another exciting episode of "Pot Meets Kettle".


David, [you] are clearly demonstrating that you do not have a clue what you are talking about.


And does that same sentiment apply to experienced pathologist Dr. Michael Baden, in this testimony, too?

Was Baden just one more boob and/or liar in a long succession of boobs and/or liars who all endorsed the notion of one bullet transiting JFK's body, starting with Dr. Humes?


What evidence do you have that the lung was not compromised?


Dr. Humes' WC testimony in 1964 [emphasis DVP's]....

"In attempting to relate findings within the President's body to this wound which we had observed low in his neck, we then opened his chest cavity, and we very carefully examined the lining of his chest cavity and both of his lungs. We found that there was, in fact, no defect in the pleural lining of the President's chest. It was completely intact. However, over the apex of the right pleural cavity, and the pleura now has two layers. It has a parietal or a layer which lines the chest cavity and it has a visceral layer which is intimately in association with the lung. As depicted in figure 385, in the apex of the right pleural cavity there was a bruise or contusion or eccmymosis of the parietal pleura as well as a bruise of the upper portion, the most apical portion of the right lung. It, therefore, was our opinion that the missile while not penetrating physically the pleural cavity, as it passed that point bruised--either the missile itself or the force of its passage through the tissues--bruised both the parietal and the visceral pleura."


Dr. Humes' ARRB testimony in 1996 (previously posted in this thread, btw) [emphasis DVP's]....

"We saw a contusion on the upper lobe of the lung. There was no defect in the pleura anyplace. So it's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung. Of course, the more I thought about it, the more I realized it had to go out from the neck. It was the only place it could go, after it was not found anywhere in the X-rays."


Dr. Finck's testimony at the Clay Shaw trial in 1969 [emphasis and added commentary by DVP]....

"This creates a great deal of mutilation to dissect, and we limited our examination in that respect, not to create unnecessary mutilation of the cadaver. I was satisfied with the aspect of the wound of entry in the back of the neck, a bruise in the upper part of the lung and the lining of the chest cavity which is called the pleura [but no mention of the lung or pleura being torn or seriously damaged], and I did not do any extensive dissection along the bullet path."


Dr. Boswell's ARRB testimony in 1996 [emphasis DVP's]....

"We probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it. But when we opened the chest and we got at--the lung extends up under the clavicle and high just beneath the neck here, and the bullet had not pierced through into the lung cavity but had caused hemorrhage just outside the pleura."


If you think [Dr. Cyril Wecht] believes a bullet passed from back to front through Kennedy, without striking bone or suffering serious damage, you are mistaken.


You're wrong. Go to 13:13 of this audio.

So, has Dr. Wecht changed his mind since 2007?


I think I finally understand you, Dave. You've been running on pure BS and rhetoric all these years, and when someone finally presses you on the finer details of the medical evidence, your complete ignorance is revealed.


No conspiracy believer can prove that Bullet CE399 did not transit JFK's body, and you know it.

Based on the six items I discussed earlier, there is every reason to believe a bullet went clear through John Kennedy's body in Dealey Plaza. From the Z-Film, to the 5/24/64 re-creation done by the WC, to CE903, to the autopsy report, to the testimony of the three autopsists, to the total lack of any bullets in JFK's body, to the WC's conclusions, to the HSCA's conclusions, to Dale Myers' exacting SBT study and computer simulation, to the FAA simulation, and to the 2004 SBT re-creation done in Australia by the Discovery Channel. EVERY single thing, in total, corroborates the idea that one bullet (CE399) went through both Kennedy and Connally.

CTers here say it was impossible. Too much skeletal structure in the way. I contend your analysis is inaccurate and the bullet just BARELY missed several structures in the President's body, coming within a whisker of hitting the lung and the T1 vertebra, but not striking them. And the autopsy doctors--who had THEIR HANDS ON THE PRESIDENT on November 22--agree with that assessment.

David Von Pein
May/June 2014