(PART 1062)


Is it possible for a bullet to exit higher than it entered (as in the case of the SBT)--fired at the target from an elevation, and still exit higher than it entered?



The bullet didn't exit higher than it entered. And these two autopsy photos (when viewed IN TANDEM with one another) prove that fact (the line drawn on the first photo was not drawn in by me):


JFK was most certainly not leaning forward 30 degrees, as Mike Williams is claiming via his incorrect use of the Robert Croft photograph.

You simply cannot start drawing lines on a two-dimensional photo and come up with exacting angles and three-dimensional information. It cannot be done.

"In short, you cannot simply draw or overlay lines on a two-dimensional image and extract three-dimensional information." -- Dale K. Myers

"I don’t know how many ways to say it, but let me try it this way -- no one
can deduce a three dimensional angle in space by holding a ruler or protractor against a two dimensional photograph or computer monitor. The principles of photogrammetry explain why this methodology leads to false results."

-- Dale K. Myers; August 20, 2008


The montage above is a better use of the Croft photo, in direct side-by-side comparison with Warren Commission Exhibit No. 903, illustrating the SBT perfection that exists in Commission Exhibit Number Niner-Zero-Three (while keeping in mind the always present caveat talked about by Dale Myers above, regarding 3D vs. 2D imagery).

And, btw, to be totally fair and above board, that very same caveat needs to also be firmly in place when I talk about comparing the two autopsy pictures shown at the top of this post. Any angles or measurements that are derived from two-dimensional images must have a grain of salt placed beside them, due to the problem of trying to extract 3D info from photographs.

But I don't think there's too much doubt about the fact that JFK's throat wound was physically LOWER on his body than the upper-back wound when you look at both of those pictures IN UNISON.

In order for the back wound to be anatomically LOWER than the throat wound, the location of the back wound would have to be in a place that would be literally LOWER than the very bottom of the autopsy photograph on the left (seen below). And that's just silly. There's no way the back wound was that low on Kennedy's body.


I note with interest to where you placed the back wound entrance -- it is nowhere near where [Gerald] Ford "moved" it, nor where [Arlen] Specter placed the metal rod on the JFK stand-in in the famous "recreation" photos.



What are you talking about? I didn't "place" the back wound ANYWHERE. It IS where it IS -- via the authenticated-as-unaltered autopsy photo [below].

And why you think the autopsy picture and CE903 are way off in terms of the back-wound location is a real mystery. They are, in fact, perfectly compatible with one another. Perfectly.

But by far the most important thing that CE903 proves (beyond any and all possible doubt) is this:

The Warren Commission did not require JFK's upper-back wound to be placed in the NECK of the President in order to make the SBT viable and doable.

And it's a total mystery as to why conspiracy theorists are still enamored with the silly idea that the Warren Commission absolutely had to have JFK's back wound moved up into his NECK to support the SBT, especially in light of what those conspiracy theorists can SEE FOR THEMSELVES in CE903, which is a picture taken in Dallas on 5/24/64 which has the wound on the back side of JFK's body being in a location that is EXACTLY where the autopsy photo shows that wound to be -- in the UPPER BACK, and not in the "NECK". Period.

Also see:
JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/Gerald Ford And The Single-Bullet Theory


I need to look into it [the SBT] further. The hype from the LN's is every bit as heavy as the hype from the CT's.


When looking at the sum total of the evidence connected with the JFK assassination, the Single-Bullet Theory is unquestionably one of the easiest things in the whole case to figure out. Common sense alone makes the SBT true.

The bigger mystery to me is this: Why are so many people (even a few lone-assassin advocates) allergic to accepting the obvious truth that rests within the letters "SBT"?

After all, the conspiracy theorists can still pretend that an invisible Grassy Knoll gunman was firing away at JFK that day....even WITH the SBT firmly in place.

I guess it must be the continuing myth about the bullet being "pristine", plus all of the other misinformation that the CTers still enjoy propping up, that makes most people deny the reality of the SBT.

Another example being: Darrell Tomlinson. To hear conspiracists tell it, Tomlinson was absolutely positive that he did not find a bullet on John Connally's stretcher at Parkland Hospital. But is that what he told the Warren Commission back in 1964? No, it wasn't:

ARLEN SPECTER -- "What did you tell the Secret Service man about which stretcher you took off of the elevator?"

DARRELL TOMLINSON -- "I told him that I was not sure, and I am not--I'm not sure of it, but as I said, I would be going against the oath which I took a while ago, because I am definitely not sure."

MR. SPECTER -- "Do you remember if you told the Secret Service man which stretcher you thought you took off of the elevator?"

MR. TOMLINSON -- "Well, we talked about taking a stretcher off of the elevator, but then when it comes down on an oath, I wouldn't say for sure, I really don't remember." ....

MR. SPECTER -- "You say you can't really take an oath today to be sure whether it was stretcher A or stretcher B that you took off the elevator?"

MR. TOMLINSON -- "Well, today or any other day, I'm just not sure of it, whether it was A or B that I took off."


Other anti-SBT "myths" that CTers still endorse as the truth include:

1.) Governor Connally was seated directly in front of Kennedy (instead of where he was really sitting--to Kennedy's LEFT FRONT and LOWER than the President).

2.) JFK's throat wound was an entrance wound. Which would have to mean that the CTers have TWO "magic" bullets themselves -- i.e., the TWO separate bullets that entered JFK's back and throat and failed to exit, but both disappeared right after the shooting. Talk about silly. This one might take home first prize for silliness.

3.) JFK's throat wound was anatomically HIGHER than his upper-back wound. Yes, this was actually endorsed by the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel, that's certainly true enough. But it's a determination that is easily debunked by taking just one look at Kennedy's autopsy photos.

4.) The Warren Commission (and particularly Gerald Ford) desperately needed JFK's upper-back wound moved up into his neck in order to support the single-bullet scenario. But just one quick glance at CE903 totally destroys this myth for all time.

5.) The number and weight of the bullet fragments that were located in Governor Connally's right wrist and left thigh made it impossible for those fragments to have come from Bullet CE399. This is total nonsense, of course. But it's a myth that never wants to die the death it deserves.

Based on the testimony supplied by one of Connally's surgeons (Dr. Charles Gregory), I can make a very good case for there having been only TWO very small metal fragments being left inside Governor Connally's body following his surgery on 11/22/63 (one fragment in his thigh and one in his wrist).

And of the three bullet fragments that were removed from Connally's body (all coming from his wrist), one of those fragments (CE842) weighed only ONE-HALF OF A GRAIN [5 H 72; WC Testimony of Robert A. Frazier]:

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Now, referring to a fragment heretofore marked as Q9 for FBI record purposes, and now marked as Commission Exhibit No. 842 [a metal fragment removed from the wrist of Governor Connally], will you describe that fragment for us, please?"

ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; this is a small fragment of metal which weighed one-half a grain when I first examined it in the laboratory. It is a piece of lead, and could have been a part of a bullet or a core of a bullet. However, it lacks any physical characteristics which would permit stating whether or not it actually originated from a bullet."

MR. SPECTER -- "Are its physical characteristics consistent with having come from Commission Exhibit 399?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; it could have."


Two other fragments that were removed by Dr. Gregory from Connally's wrist wound (which were examined via NAA tests in 1977 by Dr. Vincent Guinn) were not individually weighed, as far as I am aware.

But Guinn's conclusions, even apart from his specific NAA analysis that all CTers totally disregard nowadays, certainly support the general theory that the THREE bullet fragments he examined as part of his work for the HSCA most certainly did not weigh MORE than the missing weight of CE399.

That's just ordinary common sense. Otherwise, Dr. Guinn, on the basis of just the size of the metal fragments ALONE, would not have been able to say that those three fragments had very likely come from CE399.


I think this for me adds weight to the SBT.



You mean to say that Mike Williams is now going to start endorsing the Single-Bullet Theory (after his hundreds of anti-SBT posts at this forum)?

~big shrug of bewilderment here~


In regard to the SBT, I think there is as much crap out there promoting it, as there is denying it. I chose to disregard both, and make up my own mind. .... [I'm] still looking into it, but certainly no longer ruling it out.


Interesting. Perhaps the number of "suckers" just got a little higher:

"I would submit Sir the only act of SBT ignorance is on the part of those who buy this moronic lot of crap. As WC Fields said: there is a sucker in every crowd." -- Mike Williams; March 25, 2010


Touche! Does not change what I find. And I can and have been wrong before, but I report my thoughts honestly and accurately to the best of my ability. IS this an issue for you?


No. Not really.

I admire the fact you are willing to change your mind, instead of remaining rooted in anti-SBT myth and lore.

Then too, you were never a "conspiracy kook" (at least as far as my conversations with you in 2010), so that's a great-big factor in your favor to begin with.


David Von Pein
April 12, 2010