Battling A Kook Believer... David Von Pein - Part 2.

[Ben Holmes]

David cited his website, but ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to quote it here and defend it... so I'm happy to do what he's too dishonest to do.

Here's the next one:

>>> "But the best medical evidence is that there WAS NO TRANSIT, isn't it?" <<<

> Certainly not. The "best medical evidence" (coupled with just a small dose of common sense) is -- A thru-and-thru transiting bullet went through JFK's neck. The alternatives to this defy all belief, logic, and common sense. (And everybody should know why.)


The first thing to point out is that David quite dishonesty failed to include the full statement... here it is here:

>>> Why you can't answer it is another. A bullet going in the back around T3 or T4 isn't going to come out of the throat - no matter *how* much you think JFK was leaning.
>>>
>>> It's going to come out of his *chest*. If, of course, there *was* a transit. But the best medical evidence is that there *WAS NO TRANSIT*, isn't it?

Now, by hiding this context, David demonstrates his cowardice and inability to actually ANSWER what I stated.

David makes the claim that the "best medical evidence" was that a "thru-and-thru transiting bullet went through JFK's neck."

But this is a lie on his part - as THERE WAS NO MEDICAL EVIDENCE **WHATSOEVER** for this claim. (Nor will David cite any...)

Indeed, the prosectors claim not to have EVEN KNOWN about the throat wound, and were forbidden from dissecting the track of the wounds... so there's ZERO medical evidence for transit.

David cannot cite any evidence for transit. It doesn't exist.

IT DOESN'T EXIST!!!

What he's able to cite IS OPINION BASED ON SPECULATION MADE AFTER THE AUTOPSY WAS OVER.

Nor can David make a bullet striking T3/T4 come out the neck... it *IS* impossible given what we know about where David alleges the bullet came from, and the position of JFK at the time.

This is why the Warren Commission artificially RAISED the wound... with their God-like powers... "Let the wound be raised... and it was raised..."

David is a coward, and will NOT respond to this post, point by point, as I frequently do with his posts.

He can't.

[David Von Pein]

The mere FACT that there WAS NO BULLET FOUND IN JFK'S WHOLE BODY is a solid indication the bullet transited his body. Ben will deny that obvious assertion forever, I guess. But it's still true.

There's also the OUTWARD-POINTING fibers in JFK's shirt which certainly are indicative of the bullet EXITING the throat, not ENTERING it.


As for the WC "moving" the wound up to the neck....

GERALD FORD AND THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY....

The subject of Warren Commissioner Gerald Ford "moving" the location of President Kennedy's back wound has come up quite a bit in the wake of Mr. Ford's death on December 26, 2006; with, of course, the conspiracy theorists of the world highlighting how Ford supposedly "moved" the wound for some conspiratorial or "cover-up" purposes.

But if CTers were to examine the WHOLE record of the JFK back wound (and the genesis of the Single-Bullet Theory), they'd realize that Ford's moving of the wound (on paper) actually tends to do the SBT more HARM than it does good!

I hadn't really realized that fact until just recently....with this fact coming to the forefront via some JFK Forum postings written by Jean Davison (the author of the 1983 book "Oswald's Game").

Why does the "Ford Move" do the SBT more harm than good, you ask?

Well, for starters, there's this photo of CE903 (showing Arlen Specter with a probe/rod being held up for the cameraman to photograph)....

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cH6TIrBe72w/UomNj_vsNZI/AAAAAAAAw6M/yUNOMnmLfN4/s530/Commission-Exhibit-903.jpg

....We can easily see that the metal rod does not indicate that JFK's back wound is in the "neck". It's definitely in the upper back; with an exit point JUST EXACTLY at the tie knot, perfectly matching the SBT's flight path.

This CE903 evidence is something that I had seen many times before; but I hadn't really thought about its significance too much. Most CTers, in their usual "Everything Must Be Faked/Phony" style, scoff at CE903, claiming it proves the SBT is "impossible", for some reason....which is obviously a kooky notion, because it proves no such thing.

In some recent postings at "The Education Forum", Jean Davison was highlighting the significance of CE903, and reminding everyone who would listen that the photo that is seen in CE903 actually does, indeed, visibly show the general path/trajectory of the SBT, just exactly how Specter (et al) purported it as happening.

And the CE903 photo is also is general agreement (location-wise) with the autopsy photo showing John F. Kennedy's back wound.

To quote Jean herself:

"Both Morningstar and Kurtz claim that the entry wound HAD to be raised to the "back of the neck" in order to make the Warren Commission's single bullet theory work. But the assertion isn't supported, it's simply a claim.

Furthermore, the claim is false, since there was no need to raise the wound into the nape of the neck. Here's the official WC illustration of the SBT, Commission Exhibit 903:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cH6TIrBe72w/UomNj_vsNZI/AAAAAAAAw6M/yUNOMnmLfN4/s530/Commission-Exhibit-903.jpg

Whether one agrees with it or not, that IS the WC's trajectory for the single bullet, and as you can see, it doesn't require an entry in "the back of the neck".

I respectfully ask that you take another look at this issue. My question is still, what evidence is there that Ford made his revision in order to support the SBT?" -- Jean Davison; December 31, 2006

~~~~~~

"To my knowledge, [nobody] has ever explained how moving the back wound up to THE NECK supports the SBT. Nobody CAN support it, because moving the entry to the neck would destroy the WC's SBT trajectory, not strengthen it.

Again I'll refer you to CE 903. Although Specter didn't drill a hole in the stand-in's body and drive the rod through it, had he done so, the entry would be in the upper back, not in the neck. There's a string on the wall above his hand that shows an angle of about 18 degrees -- that's the approximate angle measured by a surveyor during the re-enactment and the one the WC used for its SBT. If the rod is moved up to the neck, the bullet will exit well above the exit wound under JFK's Adam's apple. Or take a look at this photo of JFK.

Try drawing a line of c. 18 degrees backward from the knot in JFK's tie. Where does it come out? Upper back, right? The claim that Ford's change "strengthens" the WC's SBT is simply not true. If I haven't made my point by now, I give up." -- Jean Davison; January 2, 2007

~~~~~~

Is it any wonder why I've always loved the woman named "Jean" who wrote the above common-sense-filled remarks regarding Gerald Ford and the Single-Bullet Theory?

Just excellent!

David Von Pein
January 6, 2007

=============================

2014 ADDENDUM:


JEAN DAVISON SAID:

The downward trajectory of the bullet exiting below Kennedy's Adam's apple was approximately 18 degrees according to surveyors' calculations for the HSCA and WC. Going backward from the exit (at the knot in his tie), 18 degrees puts the entry somewhere in his upper back. Moving the entry up to the neck would make the bullet's angle too steep to have hit Connally where it did, imo. I think this can be seen in almost any side view of JFK:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hunt/croft-love.jpg

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/croft.jpg

The angle from nape of his neck to the tie knot looks closer to 45 degrees, imo. Where could that shot have come from, a helicopter?

Ford didn't need to move the back wound up. And in fact he didn't, since the phrase he revised put the wound on "his back at a point slightly above the shoulder." [Jean's emphasis.] It can't be above the shoulder and still be in the back. (Except maybe in conspiracyland where apparently anything is possible.)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And just one quick look at CE903 tells us that the WC did not "move" the wound up into Kennedy's "neck". Specter's pointer in CE903 places the wound just where the autopsy photo has it--in the upper back--which works perfectly for the SBT bullet, moving downward at an angle of 17.72 degrees, to exit right at the tie knot....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html


JEAN DAVISON SAID:

I've said repeatedly that the wound was in the upper back, below the shoulders. It doesn't matter where the Rydberg drawing put it, or where Ford put it, or where the hole in the jacket was. Kennedy wasn't wounded in any of those places. The entry wound is where it's shown in the autopsy photos, in his UPPER BACK.




PAT SPEER SAID:

So WHY did members of the Warren Commission's staff claim the wound was in the neck, after viewing photos proving it to have been in the back?

And WHY did the Johnson Justice Dept., after viewing the photos and knowing full well the wound was in the back, pressure the autopsy doctors into telling the media and the country they'd reviewed the autopsy photos and that this review had proved the wound was where it is shown in the Rydberg drawings, in the neck?

It's one thing to suspect Oswald acted alone, but it's another thing entirely to pretend there was no deliberate deception regarding the location of the back wound.


JEAN DAVISON SAID:

I don't "pretend," Pat, and I resent that implication.

I don't know what you're referring to that you're interpreting as "pressure," but that's your interpretation. I doubt that Ford, for one, knew the exact location of the back/neck wound. I think he recognized that the sentence as written couldn't possibly be right since there's nothing "in the back slightly above the shoulders." By definition, above the shoulders is "neck." Ford tried to correct it and made matters worse.

One thing I feel certain of is that there was no rational motive for anyone to "raise" the back wound. Moving it to the neck doesn't support the SBT, no matter what suspicion may tell you. An entry in the neck would destroy the SBT trajectory.

This reminds me of the old claim that Z frames 314 and 315 were reversed in the WC exhibits deliberately. "They" were trying to make the backward head movement disappear, some writers said. Except that the reversal did no such thing, and it was immediately obvious that the two frames were simply out of order.

Imo, it often seems that CTs don't allow for human error or Murphy's law or Hanlon's razor ("Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity [or incompetence].")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor


PAT SPEER SAID:

When you study the history of the back wound, Jean, it's 100% clear to anyone not named Pollyanna that a number of people, from Humes and Boswell to Specter and Lattimer, have lied about the back wound location.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What you call "lies", I would classify as merely semantics. And I truly believe that, too.

Why?

Because there was simply no reason for anyone to want to start telling a bunch of lies regarding the true location of John F. Kennedy's upper-back wound. And CE903, once again, proves my point here....



Exhibit 903, like it or not, does NOT show the wound of entry to be in the "neck" of JFK. It is positively in the UPPER BACK. And as such, any future references made by people such as Arlen Specter or Gerald Ford (or anyone else) to a wound in the "neck" are merely careless misstatements when attempting to describe the location of where the wound was. It's a semantics problem, in my opinion, and nothing more.

We see it over and over again in the Warren Commission volumes and in the Warren Report itself---references to a wound in the "neck" of President Kennedy....

"During the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital another bullet wound was observed near the base of the back of President Kennedy's neck..."
-- WR; Page 87


"The position of President Kennedy's car when he was struck in the neck..."
-- WR; Page 97


"A surveyor then placed his sighting equipment at the precise point of entry on the back of the President's neck..."
-- WR; Page 106


And it's fairly obvious that those references to "neck" in the Warren Report that I just cited above are references that were put on paper by the Commission AFTER the assassination reconstruction was performed in a Dallas garage on May 24, 1964, that resulted in Lyndal Shaneyfelt taking the picture seen in Commission Exhibit 903.

And since that photograph in CE903 does not indicate that there was a bullet wound of entrance in the "neck" of John Kennedy, where does that really leave any of the conspiracy theorists who want to still insist that the Warren Commission (and other people) "lied" about the true location of JFK's upper-back wound?

Do those conspiracists think Arlen Specter, et al, had a strong desire to look like idiots when they continued to refer to the "back" wound as a "neck" wound in various places within the WCR, even though Specter knows that CE903 is ALSO going to be part of the public record, which clearly shows the wound to be in the BACK of the JFK stand-in?

In other words, why would Specter (et al) lie when Commission Exhibit 903 proves forever and for always that there was absolutely NO NEED to lie about this matter at all?

It seems to me as if some of the people describing the location of that wound, including the person or persons who were responsible for writing the words we find on those three pages of the final Warren Commission Report that I quoted above, were in a bit of a quandary about how to precisely describe the part of the body where the bullet entered due to the fact that it entered at a place on JFK's body where the "neck" and the "back" are merging. So we sometimes got differing descriptions.

But it's pretty clear that even though CE903 is providing solid VISUAL confirmation that the bullet entered in the upper BACK of JFK, the people in charge of writing up the 888-page Warren Report still, for the most part, favored the use of the word "neck" instead. (Go figure.)

David Von Pein
December 7, 2014


JEAN DAVISON SAID:

Pat,

In my opinion, Oswald was not only guilty, he was obviously guilty, but I wouldn't tell anyone, "One can only avoid that conclusion by refusing to look at the evidence." If you don't see it, you don't see it. I don't interpret the evidence the same way you do. When you end up with a large number of people "lying" for no apparent reason, that's a red flag, imo.

I'm no Pollyanna, I'm a Doubting Thomas. Can you show me a SBT trajectory of c. 18 degrees that works when the wound is raised to the neck -- specifically, a trajectory from the SN [Sniper's Nest] exiting at the tie knot and hitting Connally where it did? Without that, there's no motive for anyone to lie about the wound's location.

As I recall, Boswell told a Baltimore newspaper that the wound was where the autopsy measurements placed it: c. 5 1/2 inches below the mastoid process. Isn't that in the upper back?

I think a part of the confusion came from "semantics," as David suggests. The bullet entered the upper back but since the throat extends below the shoulders on the front of the body, the bullet also passed through and exited a part of the neck. It was a "back/neck wound," literally.

IMO, the "Pollyanna" view of the assassination is thinking that Kennedy was killed by his political enemies. This gives his death significance and makes it understandable. It suggests an orderly universe where things happen for a reason. But if you're stuck with believing as I do that the assassination was a senseless random event with JFK and LHO arriving on Elm St. on the same day entirely by chance, that's a very bleak view. Pollyanna would curl up and die.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/gerald-ford-and-sbt.html

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, April 3, 2017 at 8:38:09 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Monday, April 3, 2017 at 11:29:13 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > David cited his website, but ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to quote it here and defend it... so I'm happy to do what he's too dishonest to do.
> >
> > Here's the next one:
> >
> > >>> "But the best medical evidence is that there WAS NO TRANSIT, isn't it?" <<<
> >
> > > Certainly not. The "best medical evidence" (coupled with just a small dose of common sense) is -- A thru-and-thru transiting bullet went through JFK's neck. The alternatives to this defy all belief, logic, and common sense. (And everybody should know why.)
> >
> >
> > The first thing to point out is that David quite dishonesty failed to include the full statement... here it is here:
> >
> > >>> Why you can't answer it is another. A bullet going in the back around T3 or T4 isn't going to come out of the throat - no matter *how* much you think JFK was leaning.
> > >>>
> > >>> It's going to come out of his *chest*. If, of course, there *was* a transit. But the best medical evidence is that there *WAS NO TRANSIT*, isn't it?
> >
> > Now, by hiding this context, David demonstrates his cowardice and inability to actually ANSWER what I stated.

Notice that David failed to explain his cowardice here...

> > David makes the claim that the "best medical evidence" was that a "thru-and-thru transiting bullet went through JFK's neck."
> >
> > But this is a lie on his part - as THERE WAS NO MEDICAL EVIDENCE **WHATSOEVER** for this claim. (Nor will David cite any...)

My crystal ball was, yep, you guessed it, right AGAIN!

David was completely unable to cite any medical evidence WHATSOEVER for transit.

Nor was he honest enough to publicly admit that he cannot...

> > Indeed, the prosectors claim not to have EVEN KNOWN about the throat wound, and were forbidden from dissecting the track of the wounds... so there's ZERO medical evidence for transit.
> >
> > David cannot cite any evidence for transit. It doesn't exist.
> >
> > IT DOESN'T EXIST!!!
> >
> > What he's able to cite IS OPINION BASED ON SPECULATION MADE AFTER THE AUTOPSY WAS OVER.

Notice that David was too dishonest to admit that this is the simple truth...

> > Nor can David make a bullet striking T3/T4 come out the neck... it *IS* impossible given what we know about where David alleges the bullet came from, and the position of JFK at the time.
> >
> > This is why the Warren Commission artificially RAISED the wound... with their God-like powers... "Let the wound be raised... and it was raised..."
> >
> > David is a coward, and will NOT respond to this post, point by point, as I frequently do with his posts.
> >
> > He can't.

And didn't.

> The mere FACT that there WAS NO BULLET FOUND IN JFK'S WHOLE BODY is a solid indication the bullet transited his body. Ben will deny that obvious assertion forever, I guess. But it's still true.

No David, it's not.

You're making presumptions that you cannot support.

> There's also the OUTWARD-POINTING fibers in JFK's shirt which certainly are indicative of the bullet EXITING the throat, not ENTERING it.

You're lying again, David.

You know quite well that this is not exactly what the testimony says...

I note for the record your fear... often believers who are being schooled on the evidence will 'throw the kitchen sink' into posts... writing book length posts in a matter of minutes...

But I didn't even bother to read it all.

Because you failed to present the medical evidence of transit.

YOU FAILED TO PRESENT ANY MEDICAL EVIDENCE OF TRANSIT!!!

So you both lied, and failed.

You lost!

[David Von Pein]

It would help, Ben, if you possessed just a TINY bit of ability to properly and *reasonably* evaluate the evidence in this case. You have not exhibited any ability to perform such an important task. So until you do garner such ability, you are destined to forever remain lost in a sea of piecemeal and isolated evidence and theories.

Quick Summary....

1. Bullet hits JFK in upper back.

2. No bullet found in JFK's body at autopsy.

3. There's a bullet hole in the front of JFK's throat.

4. The fibers in JFK's shirt are pointing OUTWARD.

5. The bruising pattern in JFK's upper body suggests the PASSAGE of a high-speed missile caused those bruises.

6. The autopsy report, signed by 3 doctors, says this:

"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."

7. Governor Connally's injuries also suggest the high likelihood that the bullet that exited JFK's neck went on to pierce JBC's upper back as well.

[Ben Holmes]

It would help, David, if you possessed just a TINY bit of courage to address and explain the evidence in this case.

But you don't.

TIME AND TIME AGAIN I demonstrate your cowardice and lying.

OVER AND OVER you refuse to defend yourself - you can't!

> You have not exhibited any ability to perform such an important task. So until you do garner such ability, you are destined to forever remain lost in a sea of piecemeal and isolated evidence and theories.

Ad hominem simply demonstrates that you *KNOW* you lost.

If you actually had any evidence on your side, you'd be debating the evidence... instead, you're constantly running from the evidence, and attempting to debate my character.

This shows that you *KNOW* that you've lost.

> Quick Summary....
>
> 1. Bullet hits JFK in upper back.

Yep... T3/T4 is the most credible location.

The Warren Commission quite dishonestly moved it semantically to the lower neck.

> 2. No bullet found in JFK's body at autopsy.

At the official autopsy starting at 8 pm, no.

> 3. There's a bullet hole in the front of JFK's throat.

Indeed there is - one that wasn't known about by the prosectors, and never examined at the autopsy.

And you know quite well that the Warren Commission lied about this wound, as well as Vincent Bugliosi. Believers are just SCARED TO DEATH about the throat wound - since it proves that there was a conspiracy.

> 4. The fibers in JFK's shirt are pointing OUTWARD.

I've already pointed out that you're lying. You CONTINUE to refuse to cite the underlying evidence for this claim - because you *KNOW* that you're lying.

Nor will you dare mention the examination made to find copper - which *WAS* found in the clothing from the back wound... and not found at all in the slit made by a scalpel when removing the tie.

> 5. The bruising pattern in JFK's upper body suggests the PASSAGE of a high-speed missile caused those bruises.

Nope. Simply untrue.

Nor can you cite the photo showing this bruising - it's one of the bits of evidence that simply disappeared while under government control.

Most likely because it would have PROVEN that there wasn't any transit.

If the photo supported transit, there'd have been no reason to make it disappear.

> 6. The autopsy report, signed by 3 doctors, says this:

But you don't *BELIEVE* the autopsy report, do you David?

I've repeatedly pointed this out - AND YOU ABSOLUTELY **REFUSE** TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU ACCEPT THE AUTOPSY REPORT.

You believe it's misleading at best, and an outright lie at worst, don't you?

> "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."

This isn't based on any examination of the body - this is opinion based on speculation formed after the autopsy.

THIS IS A FACT!

And one that you've repeatedly refused to publicly acknowledge.


Until the prosectors 'learned' of the throat wound the following day, the autopsy report would have stated that the bullet striking the back only went in a short distance, then worked it's way back out.

> 7. Governor Connally's injuries also suggest the high likelihood that the bullet that exited JFK's neck went on to pierce JBC's upper back as well.

No, it doesn't. Nor will you dare debate this topic, because you've lost in the past, and you'll *always* end up losing this one.

The evidence simply doesn't support your claim, and you know it.

[David Von Pein]

Bullshit. They did no such thing, and CE903 proves they didn't. Specter places the wound in the upper BACK here, not the NECK. This one exhibit (903) more than anything else, proves the CTers are dead wrong when they insist the WC needed the wound in the NECK....

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm

>
> > 2. No bullet found in JFK's body at autopsy.
>
>
> At the official autopsy starting at 8 pm, no.
>

Which was the ONLY autopsy, of course. Ben is imagining additional autopsies. (What a silly hobby.)

>
> > 3. There's a bullet hole in the front of JFK's throat.
>
>
> Indeed there is - one that wasn't known about by the prosectors, and never examined at the autopsy.
>
> And you know quite well that the Warren Commission lied about this wound, as well as Vincent Bugliosi. Believers are just SCARED TO DEATH about the throat wound - since it proves that there was a conspiracy.
>

Even though the OFFICIAL AUTOPSY REPORT plainly indicates the throat wound was an EXIT wound. Just continue to ignore that fact, Ben. Your hobby requires you to ignore it.

>
> > 4. The fibers in JFK's shirt are pointing OUTWARD.
>
>
> I've already pointed out that you're lying. You CONTINUE to refuse to cite the underlying evidence for this claim - because you *KNOW* that you're lying.
>
> Nor will you dare mention the examination made to find copper - which *WAS* found in the clothing from the back wound... and not found at all in the slit made by a scalpel when removing the tie.
>

Ben is imagining "lies" being told (by me and the WC). Lies that never existed, of course.

The FACT is that the front of JFK's shirt had fibers POINTING OUTWARD, indicating the bullet exited the throat.

ROBERT A. FRAZIER (FBI) -- ...the fibers of the cloth are protruding outward, that is, have been pushed from the inside out. I could not actually determine from the characteristics of the hole whether or not it was caused by a bullet. However, I can say that it was caused by a projectile of some type which exited from the shirt at that point and that is again assuming that when I first examined the shirt it was--it had not been altered from the condition it was in at the time the hole was made.

>
> > 5. The bruising pattern in JFK's upper body suggests the PASSAGE of a high-speed missile caused those bruises.
>
>
> Nope. Simply untrue.
>
> Nor can you cite the photo showing this bruising - it's one of the bits of evidence that simply disappeared while under government control.
>
> Most likely because it would have PROVEN that there wasn't any transit.
>
> If the photo supported transit, there'd have been no reason to make it disappear.
>

The autopsy report and the testimony of the autopsy doctors is enough PROOF for me. But you think everybody connected with JFK's autopsy was a liar, so naturally you aren't able to reasonably evaluate the bruises. Such is the life of a rabid CTer.

>
>
> > 6. The autopsy report, signed by 3 doctors, says this:
>
>
> But you don't *BELIEVE* the autopsy report, do you David?
>
> I've repeatedly pointed this out - AND YOU ABSOLUTELY **REFUSE** TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU ACCEPT THE AUTOPSY REPORT.
>

It's my opinion that just ONE WORD is likely inaccurate in the whole report -- the word "occipital" in the Summary section on Page 3 of the autopsy report:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0282b.htm

More....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1045.html

> You believe it's misleading at best, and an outright lie at worst, don't you?
>
>
> > "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."
>
>
> This isn't based on any examination of the body - this is opinion based on speculation formed after the autopsy.
>

It's a conclusion based on EVERYTHING the autopsy doctors saw on 11/22/63 PLUS the new information obtained by Dr. Humes from Dr. Perry on Saturday morning. The ONLY logical conclusion to reach after assessing EVERYTHING was to conclude exactly what Humes & Co. did conclude --- the bullet went clear through Kennedy's body.

> THIS IS A FACT!
>
> And one that you've repeatedly refused to publicly acknowledge.
>
>
> Until the prosectors 'learned' of the throat wound the following day, the autopsy report would have stated that the bullet striking the back only went in a short distance, then worked it's way back out.
>

So what? More information was obtained on Saturday, which made the answer quite obvious to Humes and his associates.

Why do you think ALL THREE doctors signed off on the transiting bullet? Were they ALL liars (or idiots)? Nonsense.

>
> > 7. Governor Connally's injuries also suggest the high likelihood that the bullet that exited JFK's neck went on to pierce JBC's upper back as well.
>
>
> No, it doesn't. Nor will you dare debate this topic, because you've lost in the past, and you'll *always* end up losing this one.
>
> The evidence simply doesn't support your claim, and you know it.

Bull. The SBT works perfectly from every angle, as I demonstrate here:

http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, April 3, 2017 at 10:30:47 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Monday, April 3, 2017 at 12:59:26 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Monday, April 3, 2017 at 9:29:49 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 3, 2017 at 11:46:08 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

> > > Quick Summary....
> > >
> > > 1. Bullet hits JFK in upper back.
> >
> >
> > Yep... T3/T4 is the most credible location.
> >
> > The Warren Commission quite dishonestly moved it semantically to the lower neck.
>
> Bullshit. They did no such thing, and CE903 proves they didn't.

Unless you can equate the upper back with the lower neck, THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT THEY DID.

Words mean things.

Shall I explain this fact to you?

> Specter places the wound in the upper BACK here, not the NECK. This one exhibit (903) more than anything else, proves the CTers are dead wrong when they insist the WC needed the wound in the NECK....
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm

Is the upper back the same as the lower neck?

> > > 2. No bullet found in JFK's body at autopsy.
> >
> >
> > At the official autopsy starting at 8 pm, no.
> >
>
> Which was the ONLY autopsy, of course. Ben is imagining additional autopsies. (What a silly hobby.)

This is, of course, exactly what the evidence shows.

I've REPEATEDLY asked you to explain what was happening from 6:40-8:00pm, and you've REPEATEDLY RUN AWAY...

Just as you will again this time.

> > > 3. There's a bullet hole in the front of JFK's throat.
> >
> >
> > Indeed there is - one that wasn't known about by the prosectors, and never examined at the autopsy.
> >
> > And you know quite well that the Warren Commission lied about this wound, as well as Vincent Bugliosi. Believers are just SCARED TO DEATH about the throat wound - since it proves that there was a conspiracy.
> >
>
> Even though the OFFICIAL AUTOPSY REPORT plainly indicates the throat wound was an EXIT wound. Just continue to ignore that fact, Ben. Your hobby requires you to ignore it.

The OFFICIAL AUTOPSY REPORT might as well have been the 1923 state budget for Arkansas.

They *BOTH* had no view or examination of the throat wound.

You know this fact, and you must be a MORON to try to assert that the "OFFICIAL AUTOPSY REPORT" is credible on this issue. Just continue to ignore that fact, David. Your dishonesty requires you to ignore it.

> > > 4. The fibers in JFK's shirt are pointing OUTWARD.
> >
> >
> > I've already pointed out that you're lying. You CONTINUE to refuse to cite the underlying evidence for this claim - because you *KNOW* that you're lying.
> >
> > Nor will you dare mention the examination made to find copper - which *WAS* found in the clothing from the back wound... and not found at all in the slit made by a scalpel when removing the tie.

And, as predicted, David ABSOLUTELY REFUSED to discuss the lack of any copper found on the slit that was caused by a scalpel.

And while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it *IS* corroborative of the testimony by Carrico that the bullet entered ABOVE the tie.

> Ben is imagining "lies" being told (by me and the WC). Lies that never existed, of course.

I just keep documenting 'em, and you keep running...

> The FACT is that the front of JFK's shirt had fibers POINTING OUTWARD, indicating the bullet exited the throat.

Twice I've labeled you a liar on this issue - because you KNOW that the citation doesn't prove this to be the case... now that you've cited the underlying evidence, everyone else can see what a liar you are too...

> ROBERT A. FRAZIER (FBI) -- ...the fibers of the cloth are protruding outward, that is, have been pushed from the inside out. I could not actually determine from the characteristics of the hole whether or not it was caused by a bullet.

*** I COULD NOT ACTUALLY DETERMINE ***

> However, I can say that it was caused by a projectile of some type which exited from the shirt at that point and that is again assuming that when I first examined the shirt it was--it had not been altered from the condition it was in at the time the hole was made.

*** ASSUMING THAT ... IT HAD NOT BEEN ALTERED... ***


Caught lying, weren't you David? That's why I wanted *YOU* to produce the citation - because YOU ALREADY KNEW IT DIDN'T SAY WHAT YOU WERE CLAIMING IT SAID.

But liars lie, that's what liars do...

> > > 5. The bruising pattern in JFK's upper body suggests the PASSAGE of a high-speed missile caused those bruises.
> >
> >
> > Nope. Simply untrue.
> >
> > Nor can you cite the photo showing this bruising - it's one of the bits of evidence that simply disappeared while under government control.

Crickets...

> > Most likely because it would have PROVEN that there wasn't any transit.
> >
> > If the photo supported transit, there'd have been no reason to make it disappear.
> >
>
> The autopsy report and the testimony of the autopsy doctors is enough PROOF for me. But you think everybody connected with JFK's autopsy was a liar, so naturally you aren't able to reasonably evaluate the bruises. Such is the life of a rabid CTer.

I note for the record that you didn't address the points I made.

Quite the coward, aren't you David? You claim that you believe the Autopsy Report - YET YOU'VE ASSERTED EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE IN THE PAST.

You **REALLY DON'T** believe the Autopsy Report.


If you did, then you'd admit that there was a large wound in the BACK of JFK's head... and that the photos & X-rays CONTRADICT the Autopsy Report.

I accept the Autopsy Report *OVER* the altered photos... you don't.

> > > 6. The autopsy report, signed by 3 doctors, says this:
> >
> >
> > But you don't *BELIEVE* the autopsy report, do you David?
> >
> > I've repeatedly pointed this out - AND YOU ABSOLUTELY **REFUSE** TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU ACCEPT THE AUTOPSY REPORT.
> >
>
> It's my opinion that just ONE WORD is likely inaccurate in the whole report -- the word "occipital" in the Summary section on Page 3 of the autopsy report:

Then simply find a spot for a five inch hole that is *BEHIND* the coronal suture (that defines the beginning of the frontal bone)... yet fails to extend into the occipital.

But you won't, of course.

Your theory doesn't even MAKE SENSE!!!



> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0282b.htm

>
> > You believe it's misleading at best, and an outright lie at worst, don't you?
> >
> >
> > > "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."
> >
> >
> > This isn't based on any examination of the body - this is opinion based on speculation formed after the autopsy.
> >
>
> It's a conclusion based on EVERYTHING the autopsy doctors saw on 11/22/63 PLUS the new information obtained by Dr. Humes from Dr. Perry on Saturday morning. The ONLY logical conclusion to reach after assessing EVERYTHING was to conclude exactly what Humes & Co. did conclude --- the bullet went clear through Kennedy's body.

Nope... it's *NOT* the only "logical conclusion."

You're simply lying again...

When they learned about a wound they never examined, they were in a jam - they needed to explain away a second wound. They did so by sheer speculation.

That's a fact.

> > THIS IS A FACT!
> >
> > And one that you've repeatedly refused to publicly acknowledge.
> >
> >
> > Until the prosectors 'learned' of the throat wound the following day, the autopsy report would have stated that the bullet striking the back only went in a short distance, then worked it's way back out.
> >
>
> So what? More information was obtained on Saturday, which made the answer quite obvious to Humes and his associates.

Opinion based on speculation isn't evidence.

> Why do you think ALL THREE doctors signed off on the transiting bullet? Were they ALL liars (or idiots)? Nonsense.

They were ordered to... they did as they were ordered.

Of course, never having served in the military, you don't have a clue, do you?


There's even testimony on this matter... check the ARRB.

> > > 7. Governor Connally's injuries also suggest the high likelihood that the bullet that exited JFK's neck went on to pierce JBC's upper back as well.
> >
> >
> > No, it doesn't. Nor will you dare debate this topic, because you've lost in the past, and you'll *always* end up losing this one.
> >
> > The evidence simply doesn't support your claim, and you know it.
>
> Bull. The SBT works perfectly from every angle, as I demonstrate here:

Nope... you're lying again.


And, just as I predicted, you don't dare debate this topic... because you know that the same thing will happen as it has in the past, you'll lose.