(PART 961)


As I have said before, folks such as Mr. Von Pein will turn down the use of modern technology to examine the evidence of the JFK assassination.


Boy, Mark, what an incredibly stupid (and hilarious) statement you just uttered there. In reality, of course, it's the conspiracy theorists (for the most part) who refuse to accept "modern technology" when examining the JFK case. The latest example being Luke Haag's ballistics experiments. And before that, it was Dale Myers' detailed computer reconstruction of the shooting. Has there been a CTer on the planet who has ever fairly and objectively examined Mr. Myers' "Secrets Of A Homicide" work? I'm doubting it.

And then there's the SBT test done by the Discovery Channel in Australia in 2004 ("JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet"), utilizing high-tech surrogate models. CTers have never given that experiment anything close to a "fair shake". And even though a perfect re-creation of the SBT is never likely to be achieved, it seems as though ANYTHING less than complete "perfection" will be snubbed by the CT crowd, even though those CTers know full well that the Australian experiment, in large measure, DID replicate the general path of the SBT, with the test bullet sustaining fairly little damage.

And the test bullet's nose in the Australian re-enactment was still intact and rounded after going through two mock-up torsos. And that is something almost all CTers have been saying is totally impossible if a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano bullet were to have gone through two bodies and broken multiple bones in one of those bodies. But the Australian test proved the CTers dead wrong in that regard. But that fact doesn't matter a whit to conspiracy hounds like Cyril Wecht. They still act like the Australian test was never even performed. (Go figure.)

But thanks for today's daily pot/kettle laugh from the Conspiracy Brigade, Mark. I enjoyed it.


We can be fairly certain it was Specter who called it a neck wound, even though he'd seen a photo proving it was really on the back.


It makes little difference what WORD was used to describe the point of entry ("back" or "neck" or "base of the back of the neck"), because Commission Exhibit 903 proves that Arlen Specter and Company knew where to place that wound on a human body. And they placed it just where they should have placed it---in the UPPER BACK, just like it shows in the autopsy photo and in the autopsy report. The semantics are secondary next to what the Warren Commission DID when Lyndal Shaneyfelt took this photo in CE903. And the wound is NOT in the "neck". Period.

So maybe it's time for CTers to let go of the 50-year myth labelled "The Warren Commission Lied About The Location Of The Back Wound". Because just one quick glance at Commission Exhibit No. 903 should make every conspiracy theorist who has ever embraced that myth turn six shades of crimson....


Specter's theory looks a bit silly when you put the throat wound where the surgeon said it was, above the tie.


You're kidding, aren't you Ray? That yellow line you drew in there is STILL very close to meeting the SBT requirements. (Looks mighty close to me anyway.)

But, as I said above, will ANY CTer ever accept anything that isn't 100% spot-on and to-the-millimeter when it comes to any of the attempts to replicate the Single-Bullet Theory?

Do conspiracy believers ever allow for any "margin of error" when evaluating the work of the Warren Commission, or the 2004 Australian team of researchers, or Dale Myers, or Gary Mack, or ANYBODY else when discussing the details of the Single-Bullet Theory? If not, why not? We all know that it's not very likely that anyone could ever duplicate the SBT shot right down to the last little detail (and to the millimeter). Seems to me that CTers expect way too much of the people doing any SBT re-enactments.

And with respect to the Warren Commission's 5/24/64 re-enactment of the SBT in Dallas, CTers are also expecting way too much exactitude and pinpoint accuracy from the WC too. As I explained in this article, a little bit of leeway MUST be granted the Warren Commission when evaluating the re-created bullet trajectory we see in CE903. Because that picture actually equates to the bullet hitting President Kennedy at Zapruder Film frame 217.5. And is there a person alive who REALLY thinks the bullet hit at precisely Z217.50? I doubt it. I certainly don't.


I note you have no comment to make about the bullet wound being above the tie.



The bullet didn't exit above the tie. We know that for a fact by the damage to JFK's shirt and tie. It exited right AT the level of the tie knot. Dr. Carrico was obviously off a little bit in his calculations of where the bullet hole was located.


As I said before, the Warren Commission's re-enactment shows the general path the bullet took on November 22. It's not 100% exact. It CAN'T be, as I explained, because CE903 represents only an AVERAGE angle between the range of frames the WC used for the SBT (Z210-Z225). The Commission couldn't pinpoint the exact Z-Film frame when the bullet struck. So they used an average angle between Z210 and 225.

That isn't nearly good enouigh for you, though, is it, Ray? You require so much more.

But what I'd like to see is some kind of CTer re-enactment to show the feasibility of TWO bullets going into JFK's body and striking no bones but not exiting the body, and then both bullets getting lost.

It's no wonder we never see any kind of goofy re-creation like that. I'd be embarrassed to present such a bizarre theory at COPA or the NID conference too.


I'm afraid millimeters count when you are talking about bullet wounds.


You expect too much, Ray. But expecting way too much is always a good way to justify your remaining in the "Single-Bullet Theory Is A Load Of Rubbish" camp.



How did the bullet get through JFK's neck without striking any vertebrae?


You don't KNOW that the bullet would have absolutely HAD to have struck JFK's vertebrae. You're GUESSING. That's all. Nothing more.

You know, of course, that many many doctors (pathologists) have endorsed the idea that one bullet DID transit through JFK's upper back and neck, including the three autopsy surgeons. But you don't care about all those doctors' opinions, do you? You think Bob Prudhomme, MD, is MUCH more qualified to tell the world about this matter. Right, Bob?

Tell me, Bob, what year did you graduate medical school? And why should I toss the entire Warren Commission and the HSCA and the Clark Panel and the Rockefeller Commission and the autopsy doctors under the bus because some self-appointed "expert of the human vertebrae" has posted endless amounts of his anti-SBT opinions at various Internet forums?

In short, you need to dig up John F. Kennedy's body in order to have a chance at proving your anti-SBT theory.

Plus, when we factor in the absurd "Two Bullets Entered & Never Exited & Both Bullets Disappeared" alternative, it then becomes quite clear that the idea of a NON-transiting missile entering JFK's body is an idea not even worth considering---and that's because the CTers need TWO of those non-transiting bullets to make their theory work. And what rational person could possibly even begin to accept such a remote possibility?

David Von Pein
June 22, 2015
June 28, 2015