CLIFF VARNELL SAID:
JFK was shot in the back at T3 -- the round didn't exit and no round was found there during the autopsy.
He was shot in the throat from the front -- the round didn't exit and no round was found there during the autopsy.
What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?
James DiEugenio could apparently care less, so obsessed with the patsy as he is.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I haven't encountered a conspiracy theorist yet who gives a damn about the question of "WHERE DID THOSE TWO BULLETS GO?" They just don't care, and I usually get raked over hot coals for even having the gall to ASK such an obviously pertinent question. What I usually get from the clueless CTers is: Well, Davey, what happened to the third bullet that you say missed the whole limousine? -- as if that's even remotely similar to asking about TWO separate bullets that the silly CTers insist went into JFK's body but never exited and yet were never to be seen again.
The "Two Bullets Never Exited And Yet They BOTH Disappeared Off The Face Of The Earth" fantasy is reason enough--all by itself!--to accept the SBT. But no conspiracist on the planet (that I have encountered) will even entertain the idea of the SBT, despite the implausibilities that reside within their own "Two Bullets Never Exited" hogwash. (Go figure.)
PAUL TREJO SAID:
DVP,
C'mon, I've read plenty of theories about what happened to the throat bullet and to the back bullet. Are you kidding? There are so many.
One says the back bullet fell out during heart massage at Parkland Hospital, and was even reported, but the FBI hushed it up.
Another says the throat wound was made by a frangible bullet. Another says it was made by a missle other than a bullet. Another says an ice bullet.
There are so many.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And every one of them is too silly to consider for more than two seconds.
SANDY LARSEN SAID:
I haven't yet encountered an LNer who gives a damn about the question, "HOW DID THE MAGIC BULLET PASS THROUGH THE KNOT OF THE TIE WITHOUT MAKING A HOLE?" They just don't care.
(And BTW Davey, we do indeed care where those bullets went and have discussed the possibilities in great detail. So what you said about CTers is just plain wrong.)
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Well, Sandy, my memory isn't as good as it once was (I'll admit that), so maybe I have encountered a few CTers over the years who are willing to put on the table their theory(ies) about where the two bullets went. But I normally just get the usual CT runaround and dodging of the question.
I have heard of the theories Paul Trejo mentioned earlier, but the CTers I have argued with in the past usually prefer to scold me for even asking the question, rather than be embarrassed by placing their absurd "ice bullet" or "low-powered bullet" theories on the table for consideration.
"The assassins choose bullets that inflict non-lethal, 1-inch-deep wounds? Instead of feeding JFK to lions, they decided to nibble him to death by ducks?" -- Bud; April 1, 2006
MICAH MILETO SAID:
One of the great aspects of the mystery behind the back wound is, if it was as shallow as perceived during the autopsy, it could've just naturally fallen out of the body.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Sure. But then we'd have to believe that that bullet just GOT LOST somehow, plus yet ANOTHER bullet GETS LOST too, don't forget. What are the odds? A billion to one against?
Isn't it time for conspiracy advocates to just accept the obvious truth? I.E., one bullet went clear through the man named John F. Kennedy and then went on to hit the man who was sitting in front of him (who was a man who also just happened to be wounded in the UPPER BACK by a bullet during the shooting that day).
And then there's the Zapruder Film evidence of the two victims reacting at precisely the same instant in time.
When all these factors are added together and assessed reasonably, what other logical conclusion can a sensible person come to other than: The SBT Is Correct?
I, for one, can't think of a single other "logical conclusion". Can you?
REPRISE....
SANDY LARSEN SAID:
I haven't yet encountered an LNer who gives a damn about the question, "HOW DID THE MAGIC BULLET PASS THROUGH THE KNOT OF THE TIE WITHOUT MAKING A HOLE?"
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But don't you have the exact same problem if the bullet ENTERED the throat (versus it EXITING the throat)?
Don't the CTers who think JFK's throat wound was an ENTRANCE wound still have to ask themselves the very same question you just asked me? I.E.,
"HOW DID THE BULLET PASS THROUGH THE KNOT OF THE TIE WITHOUT MAKING A HOLE?"
How does the belief that the throat wound was a wound of entry make the above question go away for the conspiracy theorists? Do they think if the bullet entered the Adam's Apple area of JFK's throat, it somehow was able to miss the tie knot area entirely? But if it exited there, it had no choice but go through the tie knot and create a hole? Is that it?
~shrug~
And "for the record"....
Although Sandy is correct when he says there was no "hole" in President Kennedy's necktie, there was, in fact, some damage done to that tie by the passage of Lee Harvey Oswald's "SBT" bullet #CE399. That damage was in the form of a "nick" on the left side of the President's tie, which the FBI's Robert Frazier said was caused by some kind of a "projectile". (See the passages below from Page 92 of the Warren Report and Robert Frazier's testimony [at 5 H 62].)
"When the President's clothing was removed at Parkland Hospital, his tie was cut off by severing the loop immediately to the wearer's left of the knot, leaving the knot in its original condition. The tie had a nick on the left side of the knot. The nick was elongated horizontally, indicating that the tear was made by some object moving horizontally, but the fibers were not affected in a manner which would shed light on the direction or the nature of the missile." -- Warren Report; Page 92
------------------------
ARLEN SPECTER -- What did you note, if anything, with respect to the tie, Mr. Frazier?
ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- When the tie was examined by me in the laboratory, I noted that the neck portion had been cut from one side of the knot. However, the knot remained in apparently its original condition. The only damage to the tie other than the fact that it had been cut, was a crease or nick in the left side of the tie when you consider the tie as being worn on a body. As you view the front of the tie, it would be on the right side. This nick would be located in a corresponding area to the area in the shirt collar just below the button.
[...]
MR. SPECTER -- Does the nick in the tie provide any indication of the direction of the missile?
MR. FRAZIER -- The nick is elongated horizontally, indicating a possible horizontal direction, but it does not indicate that the projectile which caused it was exiting or entering at that point. The fibers were not disturbed in a characteristic manner which would permit any conclusion in that connection.
MR. SPECTER -- Is the nick consistent with an exiting path?
MR. FRAZIER -- Oh, yes.
MR. SPECTER -- Is there any indication from the nature of the nick as to the nature of the projectile itself?
MR. FRAZIER -- No, sir.
MR. SPECTER -- Is the nick consistent with a 6.5 millimeter bullet having caused the nick?
MR. FRAZIER -- Yes. Any projectile could have caused the nick. In this connection, there was no metallic residue found on the tie, and for that matter there was no metallic residue found on the shirt at the holes in the front. However, there was in the back.
SANDY LARSEN SAID:
David,
Yes, that problem does exist for both the SBT and an entrance bullet.
And I think you are probably right that most CTers ignore or avoid this inescapable fact.
However, there is one possibility that can explain the fact that the tie knot wasn't destroyed. And it's not that WC nonsense that somehow the bullet sneaked by the knot and only nicked it. The knot would have had to be pulled way to the side for that to happen. (Funny side note... The Zapruder film shows Kennedy's tie and knot to be in their normal positions early on before the shots. But they both disappear just before the shot that made the throat wound! Check it out some time.)
The only answer to this problem is that the throat wound was 1) one of exit; and 2) the kinetic energy of the exiting projectile was nearly exhausted upon exiting the wound. So exhausted that it became fully depleted upon hitting the back of the knot and pulling it away from the neck.
I challenge anyone to offer any other feasible possibility.
(Note: What I've said here is based on the holes through the shirt, near the collar, being true bullet or projectile holes. The physical evidence indicates that to be the case.)
SANDY LARSEN LATER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Sounds like a reasonable hypothesis to me, Sandy. Thank you.
Also keep in mind that Oswald's SBT bullet was moving in a slightly right-to-left direction as it sliced through President Kennedy's upper back and neck. Thusly, it makes sense to me that the bullet could have conceivably "nicked" only the LEFT portion of the tie knot as it made its exit through JFK's throat. And it was, indeed, the left side of the tie knot that was damaged (or "nicked") during the shooting (from the tie wearer's POV).
BTW, I was just now looking through some of the very good NARA color photos of JFK's clothing at the Mary Ferrell website (including Kennedy's necktie), and I noticed this close-up picture of the tie (also shown below). And after I asked myself: Isn't that a HOLE in the tie?, I then did a little more refreshing of my memory by looking up this topic in Vincent Bugliosi's book, and I had my complete answer -- it's only a "tear" in the cloth, not a thru-and-thru "hole" (see the excerpt from "Reclaiming History" underneath the photo):
“Dr. Finck reported that the tie worn by Kennedy showed "a tear of the cloth to the left side of the knot and corresponding to the two anterior holes in the shirt. The tie knot was not perforated but GLANCED by the bullet, which is indicated by the fact that the white padding of the tie is visible and . . . the blue cloth on the internal aspect of the knot is intact, which indicates a tangential path of the left side in relation to the knot." (AFIP Record 205-10001-10002, Memorandum, Finck to Blumberg, p.7; also ARRB MD 28)
The tear to the tie was described by the FBI laboratory as a "small elongated nick" on the "left side of the knot of the tie" (CD 205, p.154; 5 H 62, WCT Robert A. Frazier; 7 HSCA 89).
An FBI examination found no metallic residue on this nick in the tie, and unlike the shirt, the FBI could not find any characteristic disturbance in the fabric around the tie hole "that would permit any conclusion" as to the direction of the missile (5 H 62, WCT Robert A. Frazier; 7 HSCA 89–90; FBI Record 124-10024-10173; Gallagher Exhibit No. 1, 20 H 2).” -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 401 of "Reclaiming History" (footnote)
JAMES R. GORDON SAID:
David Von Pein quoted:
"An FBI examination found no metallic residue on this nick in the tie, and unlike the shirt, the FBI could not find any characteristic disturbance in the fabric around the tie hole "that would permit any conclusion" as to the direction of the missile." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 401 of "Reclaiming History" (footnote)
I had not been aware that Bugliosi had made that comment. All credit to him, the usual description is a through-and-through hole. However, it does raise a problem that I would like you to address, David.
The slit in the shirt - which I understand is the exit point for the bullet - is actually behind the tie. It is just slightly to the right of the shirt's top button when the shirt is buttoned up - as JFK's top shirt button was at the time of impact. (I am referring to JFK's right.)
My point is that this slit is behind the knot in the tie. And so, if there is no through-and-through hole in the tie (as you have reported Vincent Bugliosi stating), then how can this bullet continue its exit path after the tear in the shirt if it does not continue its path through the knot in the tie?
I can see no means for it to do that.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I have a feeling that the mystery could be cleared up quickly if we could (somehow) see the configuration of the tie damage while the tie was still in a knot, rather than only being able to examine the tie in an unknotted condition, like in this NARA photograph. The picture of the tie in Commission Exhibit No. 395, however, isn't very clear and doesn't really help to clear up this "mystery" very much.
In a quote I presented earlier, Dr. Pierre Finck said that the tie was only "GLANCED by the bullet", and that a "tangential path" was taken by the bullet in order to cause that kind of damage, rather than going straight through the fabric of the necktie.
I think that Dr. Finck's explanation makes sense when we view this composite photo I created today (also seen below), which helps us to envision such a "nick" (or maybe "grazing" would be an even better word to use) on the far left side of the knot in President Kennedy's tie while JFK is wearing that tie (blue circle). When the tie is in a tied and knotted configuration, I can now easily envision the type of non-penetrating "nick" (or "grazing") damage being done to the tie that the FBI's Robert Frazier testified about.
Note --- When looking at the area within the blue circle in the picture below, I don't want anyone to jump to the conclusion that I am saying that I know for certain that the tie damage was located in that exact area of the tie knot. I cannot possibly know that for sure. But I do think that the area I have circled is very close to the damaged area we can see in the NARA color photo on the right side of this composite photograph:
JAMES R. GORDON SAID:
David,
From what I can see, your blue circle is way out. As I remember it, the cut is on the button side of the shirt - not the button hole side. Your circle - if anything - should be on the other side.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
That's not correct, James. It's very clear from the testimony and statements made by Dr. Finck and Robert Frazier (the ones I previously posted) that the "nick" in the tie was positively on the LEFT SIDE of the knot in the tie, from the perspective of the person wearing the tie. So my blue circle is in the perfect position, based on the testimony of Finck and Frazier (repeated below, with emphasis added by me).
And also don't forget about the slight (but important) RIGHT-to-LEFT trajectory of Oswald's bullet, which he fired into Kennedy's body from the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building:
DR. PIERRE A. FINCK -- "...a tear of the cloth to the left side of the knot and corresponding to the two anterior holes in the shirt...indicates a tangential path of the left side in relation to the knot."
ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "The only damage to the tie other than the fact that it had been cut, was a crease or nick in the left side of the tie when you consider the tie as being worn on a body. As you view the front of the tie, it would be on the right side."
JAMES R. GORDON SAID:
I acknowledge that DVP has a wide encyclopedic knowledge of the evidence. However, I sometimes find he does not always analyse the implications of evidence he cites -- like CE 903.
He has yet to respond to my inital post about the SBT trajectory through JBC [John B. Connally] and I hold no hope that he will, even though he will still argue that the SBT exited through JBC's chest. He does not always think through the consequence of points he makes. Citing the damage to the tie, he comments that it was caused by the bullet as it passed on its way through. I know it was the result of damage caused by nurses as they cut JFK's clothing off him.
[...]
The back wound is right of centre and the nick on the tie is left of center. At guess, I would think the angle would be between 5-10ยบ. That might actually miss JBC altogether or at best strike his left side. And that ignores the problems of the entrance wound being lower than the exit woind or how a bullet moving between these two points is able to avoid damaging the spine.
DVP is able to quickly cite all sorts of evidence, but I am not sure he understand the implications of the points he sometimes makes. I had not--until now--realised the implication of the nick on the tie with regard to trajectory analysis. If DVP continues to stand by this aspect of the SBT, I will be interested how this bullet was able to return to a left-to-right trajectory.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It's very unlikely that the small "slit"-like tear in JFK's tie was caused by the nurses cutting off the tie at Parkland.
And given the way Governor Connally was turned to his RIGHT when the SBT bullet struck him, I don't see anything magical about the bullet proceeding on a slight Right-to-Left trajectory and being able to strike all three items in question----
1.) JFK's upper right back (14 cm. below the tip of his mastoid process),
2.) the left side of JFK's necktie,
3.) and John Connally's far-right upper back.
JAMES R. GORDON SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Oh, for Pete sake, James, you know you can't just draw lines on a 2D image and expect to extract 3D information. Why did you even try? Can't be done.
In short, the blue and red lines on your image are pretty much worthless.
In addition, you don't have Connally turned to his right at all in that image. Your picture is depicting a point in time which is several frames AFTER the bullet struck both victims. Why on Earth did you choose that Z-Film frame for your worthless line-drawing demonstration? Connally was turned to his RIGHT when the bullet struck him, as the Zapruder Film shows....
JEFF CARTER SAID:
Simply look at [this] photo and the position of the blue circle and it's so obvious that it is simply amazing anyone would try to argue a passing bullet nicked the tie -- but how does the supposed bullet not put a corresponding hole in JFK's shirt? It necessarily must pass through the shirt. The shirt in evidence does not feature such damage, therefore a bullet did not nick the tie.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Well then, Jeff, how did the bullet that CTers think came from the FRONT manage to get into Kennedy's throat without going through the same shirt and tie? Do you think the alleged "bullet from the front" completely missed the entire shirt and tie? How did that happen?
And, btw, the bullet did very likely leave behind a bullet hole in the front of the shirt. [Warren Report, p.92]
JEFF CARTER SAID:
The alleged bullet hole was created by a nurse's scalpel. As is clearly seen, this defect is directly below the top button of the shirt. The position of the top button of the shirt, between the right and left collar, can be located in the photo you posted with the blue circle. Not only does this not correspond with the defect on the tie, but if it was a bullet it would have carried forth directly through the centre of the knot in the tie. The tie does not have that damage.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I disagree. But even if you're correct, I don't see where conspiracy theorists can go with that conclusion, because CTers are still in the same boat that I (as an LNer) am in --- that is, LNers and CTers alike think there was, indeed, a bullet hole in the lower portion of JFK's throat. And apparently you, Jeff, must believe the bullet (regardless of where it came from) completely missed both JFK's shirt and tie. (Correct?) Therefore, from my LN POV, why couldn't the bullet have also missed the shirt and tie if the wound had been an EXIT wound as well?
Let's have a look at a photo montage I created. Do you think a bullet (regardless of directionality) could have possibly missed the entire shirt and necktie of John F. Kennedy given the location of the wound seen on the right? My answer to that question would be --- No, it could not have. ....
JEFF CARTER SAID:
It is impossible for a presumed bullet to exit directly below the top button of the shirt and then only nick the outside edge of the tie knot. That is the physical evidence, and therefore a bullet did not pass through the front of the shirt or nick the tie. Whatever Dr Perry observed was therefore above the upper edge of JFK’s shirt. No matter how “magic”, a bullet passing through clothing must leave a corresponding track, and what you think you see in a photograph does not cancel that out.
The alleged correspondence of defects in the shirt and tie was a piece of semantic trickery by Hoover, bought into by the Warren Commission and later the HSCA because it allowed a better argument for the trajectory of the SBT. This demonstrates that the need to construct a particular argument overwhelmed the observable features of the physical evidence.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And you KNOW with 100% certainty that such a tie/shirt configuration is "impossible", eh Jeff? (You've done tests on it, have you?)
A tie is a MOVABLE object, you know. You can easily move it back and forth to the left and right when it is tied. Maybe JFK's tie was situated a little bit askew and off-center to the right when the bullet struck him, which would have placed a smaller amount of the necktie in the path of the bullet, causing the bullet to just nick the left side of the tie instead of hitting squarely in the center of the tie knot.
But such a scenario involving a SLIGHTLY OFF-CENTER NECKTIE is not even on a conspiracy theorist's radar, is it Jeff? You like the "semantic trickery" explanation much better, don't you?
David Von Pein
April 22-24, 2017
July 2-3, 2018
