(PART 1290)


Where is the exit? ....

Here is something that I think most of us have thought about before but have not debated openly I think in awhile.

If the anterior neck wound is an entrance, where is the exit hole?

IMO, this issue had driven some people to theorize it's not an entrance.


Probably the bullet went into the chest.


It's a fake issue.

A false mystery spread by those who don't know the first thing about the murder of JFK.


But if it went into the chest, did it deflect off something? It must have, right?

The other point I wanted to air is this:

Is JFK's reaction with his hands going up, is that really an indication about his neck wound? Other people, like Don Thomas and Martin Hay, have argued it's actually not.


It's an indication of something. It looks to me like he freezes at that moment, as if he's been hit with something that partially paralyzed him. His hands never get to his throat. I'm one of those that think he was hit in the throat from in front first.


There is some evidence that there was a bullet recovered (e.g., the receipt for missile thing). And the late Robert Morrow said that he knew one of the doctors at the morgue and he told him that there was a bullet taken out of Kennedy's back.

That is something that I think is explainable.

But the no exit for the throat wound is a real puzzler to me.


But that "puzzler" completely disappears if you and other CTers would just face the obvious fact --- i.e., one bullet went clean through JFK's upper body, entering his upper back and exiting just where the autopsy doctors concluded it did exit---the front of the throat at the site of the tracheotomy.

All the mysteries about disappearing bullets totally vanish if conspiracy theorists would simply accept the SBT truth.

And, Jim, you do realize (don't you?) that it's not just "no exit for the throat wound" that should have you bewildered. It's the OTHER bullet that didn't exit too (i.e., the one that you claim entered the upper back and also disappeared). Where's THAT bullet as well? You said earlier that you think the back wound bullet disappearing is "explainable". But is it reasonable to think that BOTH of those bullets that you say entered JFK's upper body BOTH just disappeared without a trace (whether it be in a sinister or non-sinister manner)? To me, that explanation isn't reasonable at all, especially when we consider all these knowable factors....

Don't CTers ever step back and look at the following four things in tandem with one another (and all 4 of these things do, indeed, exist---simultaneously!---in this case)....

1. There's a bullet hole of ENTRY in JFK's upper back.

2. There's a bullet hole in JFK's throat (which, according to Dr. Perry, could have been "either" an entry or an exit wound; and Dr. Carrico said the very same thing).

3. There's a bullet hole of ENTRY in John Connally's upper right back.

4. There were NO BULLETS in John F. Kennedy's body.

Now, based upon the above 4 basic facts, how can anyone maintain that the bullet which caused Connally's upper-back wound could not possibly have been the same bullet which also caused President Kennedy's upper-back wound --- especially when factoring in the additional fact that Governor Connally was sitting in a position in the limousine that most certainly placed him in the path of any bullet that would have exited from JFK's throat?

When evaluating all these variables (and others not discussed here), it's simply impossible (IMO) for the Single-Bullet Theory to not be the truth.


DVP Sez: "but, but, but,..... The Warren Commission! The Warren Commission!"


And heaven forbid somebody should actually have the gall to agree with something the Warren Commission said, right? (Oh, the horror of it!)

But I don't really need the Warren Commission to figure out the SBT at all. All of those individual factors I talked about in my previous post---when combined---pretty much seal the deal on the validity of the SBT. And anybody can easily evaluate those things. You don't need to be a doctor or a physicist or a person with an extraordinary IQ.

Just add up all the things that make the SBT the ONLY possible reasonable conclusion. When you perform that kind of math, it's a piece of cake. But CTers refuse to total up the facts surrounding the SBT. That's why they've been lost in the woods on this issue for more than 50 years and are forced to ask unanswerable questions like this one that James DiEugenio asked in his thread-starting post (which, of course, is just the type of question I've been trying to get the CTers to answer for years) ---- "If the anterior neck wound is an entrance, where is the exit hole?"


If the autopsy pathologists lied about how much they knew about the throat wound -- what did they have to lie about?


You're inventing lies that never existed, Micah.


What do you think Admiral Galloway meant when he told Arlen Specter that during the autopsy it was an "assumption" that the bullet had emerged from the President's throat, or later to the HSCA when he said the doctors "suspected this [a tracheotomy made over a bullet hole] during the autopsy, but couldn't prove it"?


Sure, the conclusion about the bullet exiting JFK's throat was an "assumption" on the part of the autopsy surgeons. Of course it was. But it was also the only REASONABLE assumption the doctors could reach given all the knowable factors involved.

Do you really think they should have reached the same conclusions that CTers have reached over the years? Such as, two separate bullets entering JFK's body but neither bullet exiting and then both bullets disappearing or being dug out of the body by conspirators who stole Kennedy's corpse before the "real" autopsy began?

Come now. Let's keep our heads here, shall we?

After all, Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck were medical pathologists, not fiction writers.


The Humes WC Deposition and the Sibert-O'Neill report give the misleading impression that the autopsy pathologists did not seriously conceive of the throat wound as a bullet wound during the body examination. Something must have happened off the record.


What if we drop the "Assumption" all together. Perry said the phone call came [on] Friday night. Ebersole and Stringer remember the phone call during the body examination. Humes said there was only one phone call while Perry always remembered two.


Jenkins, Lipsey and other witnesses remembering discussion about the throat wound referring to it as a bullet hole. Plus, you probably agree that the perimeter of a bullet hole may be visible in the autopsy photographs showing the tracheotomy. They knew all about the throat wound way earlier.


I disagree. But even if the autopsy doctors DID think the tracheotomy wound masked a bullet hole DURING the autopsy examination---where are you going to go with such a revelation?

Do you think that if the doctors fudged on the exact time of when they realized the trach wound was also a bullet hole, this alleged "fudging" somehow bolsters the conspiracy theory that has JFK being shot in the throat from the front? Is that it?

But how would such "fudging" by Dr. Humes (et al) benefit and aid any type of multi-shooter conspiracy theory in the JFK case?

Whether the doctors found out about the bullet hole in the throat on Friday night or Saturday morning, the wound would still have been declared in the autopsy report to be the wound of exit for the bullet that entered JFK's upper back.

Or do you think that Dr. Humes deliberately fudged (lied) about the time of the Perry phone call in order to give the autopsists a more valid excuse for having not dissected the neck wound completely? Is that the underlying "conspiracy" theory buried within this discussion?


Oh my God, seriously? "It doesn't matter if the autopsy pathologists lied about forensic evidence, I have gifs of both JFK and Connally's arm twitching at z225"???


This has got nothing to do with the Zapruder Film. The autopsy surgeons, of course, knew nothing about the existence of that film when the autopsy was going on. So why did you even bring up the Z-Film at all? Just to jab a dagger in my eye regarding my belief in the SBT? I was talking about what Humes & Co. would have concluded even if they had known about the bullet hole in the throat on Friday night. And the answer is: They most certainly would have concluded the very same thing they ultimately did conclude---that the throat wound was a wound of EXIT for a bullet that had entered President Kennedy's upper back.


Are you willing at the very least to admit that Humes' WC testimony is intentionally misleading? If the autopsy pathologists had every reason to think the tracheotomy was originally a bullet wound during their body examination, do you think they may have fudged the time to cover for their incompetence? Too lazy to dissect the throat wound or didn't have the guts to tell the officials breathing down their necks they needed to wait another hour to excavate further?


Well, Micah, since I don't think Dr. Humes talked to Dr. Perry on Friday night at all (and, therefore, Humes didn't confirm that the trach wound also masked a bullet hole on Friday), then I don't think Humes' WC testimony was "intentionally misleading" either.

I do think that Dr. Humes did exhibit a bit of "incompetence" on Friday night during JFK's autopsy at Bethesda when he did not contact Parkland Hospital that very night while JFK was still on the autopsy table, so he could confirm the information about the trach/bullet hole in a much more timely manner. That, in my opinion, was a very stupid delayed decision on Humes' part, and I've said so in the past as well....

"The biggest and most stupid mistake, IMO, made at the autopsy was when Dr. Humes refused to call Parkland Hospital in Dallas WHILE JFK WAS STILL IN THE MORGUE. Instead...he waited until 10 AM the next morning to call Dr. Perry at Parkland. (I guess Humes was worried he would interrupt Perry's slumber or something by calling late on Friday night. Just silly.)" -- DVP; April 16, 2010


Addendum regarding Dr. Humes (from 2015)....

"Everything Dr. Humes did during the autopsy on 11/22/63 at Bethesda, while President Kennedy's body was lying on the autopsy table, indicates that Dr. Humes did not positively know that there was a bullet hole in JFK's throat. And we don't have to take just Dr. Humes' word for this. We also have the Sibert/O'Neill report to guide us, too. In that report...it states the following
on Page 4:

"Inasmuch as no complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other area of the body as determined by total body X-Rays and inspection revealing there was no point of exit, the individuals performing the autopsy were at a loss to explain why they could find no bullets."

Therefore, via the above excerpt that comes from the report written by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill, it's quite clear that the autopsy doctors (including James J. Humes) were not fully aware during the course of the autopsy of the existence of the bullet hole in the lower part of President Kennedy's throat."

-- DVP; June 17, 2015


C'mon, David. You embarrass yourself when you try to claim the SBT is the only possible conclusion fitting the facts. The reality is that virtually every fact related to the SBT suggests it's basically Bigfoot...a scarcely believed myth for whom the "evidence" is largely missing and/or discredited.


Then what's the alternative scenario, Pat?

I challenge you to come up with a reasonable, sensible, and believable anti-SBT theory which is based on the actual evidence (and wounds) in the case. Can you do that without using the words "fake", "manipulated", or "cover up"?

Good luck.


The trajectory from the back wound to the throat wound passes right through bone.


Dead wrong. But I guess you think you know more about these things than the four doctors on the Clark Panel who signed off on this conclusion in February 1968 (emphasis DVP's)....

"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. There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea described in the Autopsy Report. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck." -- Clark Panel Report


Do guilty people try and hide and/or destroy the evidence of their crime? Yes or no please?


Yes, usually they do.

In this case, for whatever unknown reason, Oswald (who is the only truly "guilty" person associated with the murders of JFK and J.D. Tippit, IMO), didn't even attempt to hide and/or destroy the bullet shells and the 38-inch brown paper bag he left lying right in the Sniper's Nest. And he could certainly have taken those easy-to-conceal items with him when he left the TSBD. But he didn't. Why, you might ask? I haven't the slightest idea. We'd have to dig Lee up and ask him to find out the reason. (He tried his best to "hide" the rifle though.)


Do you concede that even if the SBT was correct, that it is possible LHO was not the shooter? Yes or no please?



There's too much stuff on the "Oswald Did It" table (including Oswald's own guilty-like actions following the assassination---which includes the Tippit murder, which was undeniably committed by LHO) to even consider answering your last question with a "Yes".


Do you concede that there is a possibility that the medical evidence was altered, tampered with, lost, or destroyed?


Altered? --- No way.

Tampered with? --- No way. 

Lost? --- Perhaps.

Destroyed? --- Yes. Three items specifically come to mind --- 

....The Hosty note. (Obviously done for CYA purposes by the FBI. Certainly NOT done to cover-up any "plot" relating to the actual assassination.)

....Dr. Humes' blood-stained autopsy notes. (Destroyed by Humes for the exact reason he stated in his testimony---because they were stained with the President's blood. Perfectly reasonable.)

....And Humes' first draft of the autopsy report. (Burned by Humes because the first draft was inaccurate in some respects and therefore should not be relied upon. Hence, it was an expendable item. A perfectly reasonable thing to do, IMO. Similarly, the FBI agents usually "destroy" their original notes after they transfer their notes to a final, formal report. Should that practice of the FBI routinely destroying their own notes also be looked upon as being suspicious or sinister in some fashion? If so, why?)


Do you concede there is a possibility that the shot angles could be from different point or points other than the TSBD?


No. There is no reliable enough evidence to indicate that any shots came
from any non-TSBD location. And I do not think the many witnesses who said they heard shots coming from the Grassy Knoll are "reliable enough". Here's
why ----> http://jfk-archives/dealey-plaza-earwitnesses


Where is the exit wound?


Thanks for trying to get this back on track.

But whenever DVP jumps in rooting his single bullet fantasy stuff, forget it.


Oh, I can easily answer your "Where is the exit?" question, Jim....

There is no "exit" wound for the alleged "entrance" wound in the throat---because the alleged entry wound in the throat was really an exit wound---just as the three autopsists said in the official autopsy report.

But, of course, as far as most conspiracy theorists are concerned, this Official Autopsy Report of President Kennedy might as well have "Charmin" written across the top of it. That's how it's treated by CTers anyway. They think it's a worthless and useless document, worthy only of being flushed. (A pathetic way to treat such an important document, to be sure. But that's the way it is in Conspiracy Fantasy Land.)


The story of finding the bullet at the autopsy is confirmed here, page 76.


You need to back up to Page 75 of that ARRB deposition of Edward Reed, because you, Cory, have totally misrepresented what Reed was talking about when he mentioned a "bullet". He was clearly talking about being aware during the autopsy that a bullet had been found in Dallas. He wasn't referring to any bullet being recovered from JFK's body during the autopsy.

In fact, when discussing whether any bullet was found by the autopsy surgeons during the autopsy, Reed specifically said these words on Page 77 of his 1997 ARRB deposition --- "But there was no bullet."

And to show how bad Mr. Reed's memory was about some things in 1997, he stated he was pretty certain that President Kennedy's body arrived at Bethesda at about 4:30 PM on November 22nd. (Mr. Reed apparently was not even aware of the fact that JFK's body didn't even land in Washington on Air Force One until 5:58 PM on 11/22/63, which means his "4:30" body arrival time is impossible.)

With blatant errors like that "4:30" mistake on display in Mr. Reed's deposition, it makes you wonder what other things Reed might have misremembered 34 years after the assassination.

ARRB Footnote....

Interestingly (and humorously) enough, according to that document issued by the ARRB which features the testimony of Edward Reed, apparently little 2-year-old "John F. Kennedy, Jr." was the President who was really assassinated in Dallas.

Well, I guess this means that even an Assassination Records Review Board can make an honest mistake every now and then. :)


You only discount evidence of people who were actually at the autopsy because they make a simple mistake over the time and add "Jnr" to the end of the President's name, if you are DVP. He consider these "blatant errors" because they disagree with his arguments.


Oh brother. The Pot/Kettle irony is so thick in that last quote of Ray's, you could slice it with O.J.'s knife.

The fact is, of course, that conspiracy theorists will constantly "discount evidence of people who were actually at the autopsy...because they disagree with [their] arguments". Like, say, the following extremely important conclusions reached by three people who "were actually at the autopsy":

"It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds. .... The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased. .... The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance. .... The other missile...made its exit through the anterior surface
of the neck."
-- Page 6 of JFK's Autopsy Report [Warren Report, Page 543]

Conspiracists own the patent on "discounting evidence because they disagree" with it. Don't they, Ray?


The complete 1992 JAMA interview with Dr. James Humes can be found HERE.

David Von Pein
July 24-31, 2018