A Critique of a Critique [Editor's Note: I received a critique of "THE LONE-NUTTER CHALLENGE!" that might look plausible on its face but which, on careful consideration, cannot withstand critical inspection. It may therefore be worthwhile to explain why it doesn't add up so others will be less likely to take for granted that it undermines my views.]
I shall refer to the author as "BS", while my comments will be identified with "JF" and appear in CAPS. The ">" passages are extracted from THE CHALLENGE!
BS: First things first. I believe Kennedy was assassinated as the result of a conspiracy, that he was fired upon from two locations, that the true nature of his assassination was covered up by the FBI, CIA, Warren Commission, HSCA. Still, the issue of the location of the back wound has not been settled. JF: NOTICE THAT SOMEONE COULD HOLD THESE POSITIONS AND STILL ACCEPT THE SBT. THAT, AFTER ALL, IS THE POSITION OF THE HSCA. IF THE SBT IS BASED UPON FALSE PREMISES--SUCH AS THAT THE BULLET ENTERED AT THE BASE OF THE BACK OF THE NECK, THAT IS PASSED THROUGH THE NECK WITHOUT HITTING ANY BONY STRUCTUES, OR THAT IT EXITED THE THROAT AT THE KNOT IN HIS TIE, THEN IT CANNOT BE CORRECT AND ANY ACCOUNT THAT IMPLIES IT--SUCH AS The Warren Report (1964), The HSCA Report (1979), or Case Closed (1993)--IS FATALLY FLAWED. IN SPITE OF HIS ALLEGED COMMITMENT TO CONSPIRACY, THIS GUY IS DEFENDING THE SBT. > The physicians who conducted the autopsy at Bethesda did not actually dissect the > neck to determine the trajectory that this bullet is supposed to have taken but > determined it as a matter of "inference". Thus, on page 4 of the autopsy report, which > may be found in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), p. 433, the following critical > sentences may be found: > > > "2. The second wound presumably of entry is that described above in the upper > right posterior thorax. . . . The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot > be easily probed. The wound presumably of exit was that described by Dr. Malcolm > Perry in the low anterior cervical region." > > Notice, in particular, that the entry and exit locations were matters of "presumption", > which Humes defended on the basis of an "inference" drawn AFTER THE BODY HAD > BEEN REMOVED FROM THE MORGUE for preparation for the funeral. BS: That sentance is inaccurate is two ways. 1) The Gawlers folks did there work in the morgue. Kennedy left the Bethesda morgue dressed and in a casket. JF: BUT THE FUNERAL WAS AN AFFAIR OF STATE CONDUCTED AT THE ROTUNDA AND AT ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY. HUMES USED THE ABSENCE OF THE BODY AS AN EXCUSE FOR NOT HAVING CONDUCTED A DISSECTION. THE ORIGINAL MORE COMPLETE VERSION OF "THE CHALLENGE" MAKES THIS MORE EXPLICIT THAN BS'S VERSION, WHICH APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN EDITED FOR EFFECT BY CREATING AN INCOMPLETE RECORD OF THE ENTIRE "CHALLENGE". BS: 2) If Humes had no idea the hole in the back was an entry as you imply, how could Sibert and O'Neill possibly write "Medical examination of the President's body revealed that one of the bullets had entered just below his shoulder to the right of the spinal column." As I'm sure you are aware, they merely wrote down what they heard. JF: THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER IT WAS AN "ENTRY" BUT WHETHER IT WAS RELATED TO THE WOUND IN THE NECK AS A WOUND OF ENTRY IN RELATION TO A WOUND OF EXIT. THAT IS THE QUESTION, NOT WHETHER THE HOLE IN THE BACK WAS AN ENTRY. INDEED, BOTH THE ANTI-SBT POSITION I DEFEND AND THE SBT POSITION ITSELF AGREE THAT THERE WAS A HOLE IN THE BACK. THE QUESTIONS CONCERN ITS PRECISE LOCATION AND WHETHER IT WAS CAUSALLY CONNECTED (VIA ITS TRAJECTORY) TO THE THROAT WOUND. IT IS QUITE RIDICULOUS TO ATTRIBUTE TO ME THE POSITION THAT "Humes has no idea the hole in the back was an entry"! SO WHY IS HE DOING IT? BS: In fact, Humes did know the hole was an entry as evidenced by the fact that he told Andy Purdy in August 17, 1979 "Regarding his assertion in the Warren Commission testimony that the bullets entered at a 45 degree to 60 degree angle, Dr. Humes said it was a "guesstimate. He said he came to that conclusion because of the nature of the ABRASION COLLAR." 180-10093-10429 [Emphasis added] JF: AGAIN HE MISREPESENTS THE QUESTION (ABOVE). AT LEAST HE IS NOT DISPUTING THE EXISTENCE OF A WOUND TO THE BACK OR TO THE BACK OF THE NECK, AS HAVE SOME MEMBERS OF THIS FORUM. HE APPEARS TO BE DISTRACTING ATTENTION FROM THE REAL QUESTIONS IN AN EFFORT TO CONFUSE AND MISLEAD READERS. > After conversations with Parkland that allegedly only took place on Saturday, > he belatedly realized that the wound to the back must have been the entry for > the wound to the throat as its exit! Also notice that the description of "the upper > right posterior thorax", which is the upper-right portion of the chest cavity, does > not quite place the wound where it has to be if the "magic bullet" hypothesis is > true. Yet that is the basis for the theory! > > Fortunately, we have other reports from physicians who were in the position to > make the relevant observations, including George Burkley, Admiral, the President's > personal physician, who was with the body in Dallas, accompanied it on the flight > back, and was present during the autopsy. According to his death certificate, which > has also been reprinted in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, p. 439, "a second wound > occurred in the posterior back at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra." BS: "at ABOUT the level of the third thoracic vertebra"?? Tell us, did Burkely mean "about" higher up the spine, or "about" lower down the spine?? "About one vertebra?? Two?? Three?? JF: TOO CUTE BY HALF. BERKLEY WAS AN EXPERIENCED PHYSICIAN, THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL PHYSICIAN, AND AN ADMIRAL IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY. IT IS A SAFE PRESUMPTION THAT HE KNEW THE ELEMENTS OF ANATOMY. IF IT HAD BEEN CLOSER TO THE 2ND THORACIC VERTEBA OR TO THE 4TH THORACIC VERTEBRA, NO DOUBT BERKLEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO. WHY NOT? IT WOULD HAVE BEEN JUST AS EASY AND MORE ACCURATE THAN TO SPECIFY THE 3RD THORACTIC VERTEBRA! THIS IS PLAYING GAMES WITH WORDS THAT WE WOULD ONLY EXPECT FROM LIARS AND OTHER DISSEMBLERS. BS: How did Burkely arrive at his "guesstimate"?? JF: HE WAS PRESENT AT THE AUTOPSY AND OBSERVED IT. HE WAS QUALIFIED TO MAKE THIS OBSERVATION, WHICH HE REPORTED IN HIS DEATH CERTIFICATION FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. WHY WOULD HE NOT KNOW? AND WHY SHOULD THIS BE CALLED A "GUESSTIMATE"? HE KNEW ELEMENTARY ANATOMY. IT WAS NOT HARD TO JUDGE. > Burkley's death certificate may also be found in Gary Shaw, COVER-UP (1976/1992), > p. 65, and in Stewart Galanor, COVER-UP (1998), Document 8, which both include > most of the evidence that matters here. > > The third thoracic vertebra, however, is too low to have been the entry location for a > bullet fired from above and behind that could possibly have exited from the President's > throat at the level of the knot of his tie. BS: This is interesting. You wrote that the LNers "simply take their position for granted as though it were obviously true." Now, Burkely said "about" T-3 and you just implied that T-3 was the definative location. Do you realize that the distance being argued is on the order of 2.25 inches on the back of a 6 foot man?? JF: ONE BEGINS TO FORM THE IMPRESSION THAT THIS FELLOW SIMPLY DOES NOT KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT. IF IT WAS ABOUT THE 3RD THORACIC VERTEBA, SURELY THAT IS A SUITABLE POINT OF REFERENCE FOR DISCUSSING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE OBSERVED POINT OF ENTRY AND THE ALLEGED POINT OF EXIT IN THE THROAT. > Anyone who may be in doubt should consult Gary Shaw, COVER-UP (1976/1992), > p. 65, which includes a diagram that identifies that location specifically and, on p. 4, > provides a diagram of the trajectory that the "magic bullet" had to have taken if it > entered at the location specified by Admiral Burkely and exited at the location > specified by Commander Humes, which has been widely ridiculed in the conspiracy > literature. So which of them is right? Did the bullet enter high enough for the hypothesis > to be true? > > Many books on the assassination, including Josiah Thompson, SIX SECOND IN > DALLAS (1967), Gary Shaw, COVER-UP (1976/1992), and many others have > observed that damage may be found in the President's shirt and jacket that > substantiate the lower entry point. Photographs of the shirt and jacket may be > found, for example, in Thompson's SIX SECONDS, p. 48, Shaw's COVER-UP, p. 64, > and many other sources, including Stewart Galanor, COVER-UP (1998), Documents > 6 and 7. As Gary Shaw observes, moreover, the claim that the shirt and jacket were > bunched (as described on his p. 65) appears to be rather difficult to sustain. BS: That is patently untrue. There is a collection of Dallas Motorcade photographs that show Kennedy's jacket bunched up. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched2.htm I offer you a direct challenge. I defy you to come up with ONE motorcade photograph that shows the back of the jacket to be flat and in the same position and configuration as when Kennedy was standing at Love Field. Just one, Jim. That should be a snap, right?? JF: WHY THIS GUY SHOULD BE ACTING AS THOUGH WE KNOW EACH OTHER IS BEYOND ME. BUT A VISIT TO THIS SITE DISPLAYS A BATCH OF PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS THAT SHOW BUNCHING. BUT OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN ON THE OCCASION OF THE ASSASSINATION DO NOT. I PULLED GRODEN'S The Killing of a President (1993) OFF OF THE SHELF, FOR EXAMPLE, AND FOUND SEVERAL THAT DO NOT APPEAR TO SHOW BUNCHING ON PAGE 15, PAGE 24, AND PAGE 35, FOR EXAMPLE. SO I GUESS IT IS "A SNAP"! BUT THE CHALLENGE POSED IS JUST A BIT DISINGENUOUS, BECAUSE HE INSISTS THE BACK OF THE JACKET MUST BE AS FLAT AND IN THE SAME POSITION AND CONFIGURATION AS WHEN JACK WAS STANDING AT LOVE FIELD. THAT SOUNDS LIKE A VIRTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY, UNLESS HE WAS LYING FLAT ON THE GROUND. THE QUESTION IS NOT THIS, BUT WHETHER BUNCHING OCCURRED AT THE TIME AND CREATED A FALSE IMPRESSION OF THE LOCATION OF THE BACK WOUND. > One reason is that photographs and films taken during the assassination do not > show the jacket to be bunched-up as this defense requires. BS: 100% wrong. Why you would write something as demonstrably incorrect as that is beyond me. Go to http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched2.htm and wait for the compilation of bunch photos to load. It is the last one at the bottom. JF: THIS APPEARS TO BE THIS GUY'S DESIGNATED AREA OF SPECIALIZATION WITHIN THE MCADAMS ORGANIZATION. BUT EVEN IF THE CLAIM OF BUNCHING WERE GOOD AS GOLD, IT WOULD NOT OVERRIDE THE OTHER EVIDENCE OF WHERE THE WOUND WAS LOCATED. ON THE CONTRARY, IT APPEARS INEXPLICABLE--GIVEN THE OTHER EVIDENCE OF THE WOUND'S LOCATION-- WHY THEY WOULD CORRESPOND VIRTUALLY EXACTLY TO THE LOCATION ON THE JACKET AND SHIRT IF THAT WAS NOT THE LOCATION AT WHICH THE WOUND OCCURRED. MOREOVER, THIS GUY OVERLOOKS THE PRINCPLE OF LAW REGULATING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE REQUIRING THAT EYEWITNESSES VOUCH FOR OR VERIFY THE ACCURACY OF ANY PHOTOS OR FILMS THAT ARE TO BE INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE, WHERE EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY, SUCH AS ADMIRAL BURKLEY'S, TAKES PRECEDENCE OF PHOTOGRAPHS AND FILMS, PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY ARE KNOWN TO BE SUBJECT TO ALTERATION. > More importantly, however, other evidence from observations of the wound itself > provide independent confirmation for the location supported by the shirt and jacket. > This includes the diagram drawn by J. Thornton Boswell, Hume's assistant, which > may be found in Shaw's COVER-UP, p. 62, and in Galanor's COVER-UP, Document > 5, which, like the shirt and jacket, show the wound to be about 5 or 6 inches too > low to be the point of entry for a bullet that exited at the President's throat. Boswell's > diagram, moreover, was verified by Admiral Burkley! > > Another diagram was prepared by FBI Special Agent James W. Sibert, who > observed the autopsy at Bethesda, and may be found in Noel Twyman, BLOODY > TREASON (1997), p. 100. It plainly demonstrates the paradox confronted by the > "magic bullet" hypothesis even in relation to its most elementary assumptions, > since the back wound is clearly too low to be the entry point for a wound that exited > from the throat,... BS: You mean the very same drawing where he draws a tiny little egg shaped hole on the very center of the back of the head?? Obviously, Sibert is no artist. Do you think that part of the problem is that Sibert used a drawing that was not a scale drawing of a body?? Hard to get an accurate wound pattern from a cartoon, don't you think?? JF: CONTEXT MAKES A DIFFERENCE, SINCE SIBERT MAY HAVE ONLY BEEN ASKED TO IDENTIFY THE LOCATIONS OF THESE WOUNDS RATHER THAN THEIR PRECISE SHAPES AND SIZES. BUT ALL OF THE EVIDENCE THAT I CITE CONVERGES ON THE SAME LOCATION, INCLUDING SIBERT'S DIAGRAM, WHICH MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT THE WOUND WAS TOO LOW TO HAVE BEEN THE POINT OF ENTRY FOR A WOUND THAT COULD POSSIBLY HAVE EXITED AT THE THROAT. > ...if the bullet was fired from a position above and behind the President. So, unless > Lee Oswald was actually, say, firing from inside the trunk of the Lincoln limousine, > this trajectory cannot be sustained. It also shows that Warren Commission diagrams > of this wound are hopelessly inaccurate. > > Sibert attended the autopsy with another agent, Francis X. O'Neill, subsequently > submitting a report of observations they had made at the time. Dated 9 December > 1963, it reads, in part, as follows: > "Medical examination of the President's body revealed that one of the bullets had > entered just below his shoulder to the right of the spinal column at an angle of 45 > to 60 degrees downward, that there was no point of exit, and that the bullet was not > in the body." > > An excerpt from their report, which includes this passage, may be found in Mark > Lane, RUSH TO JUDGEMENT (1966), Appendix IV. Further discussion of this > wound, including a diagram that illustrates the actual trajectory versus the alleged > trajectory, may be found in Robert Groden, THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT (1993), > pp. 78-79. BS: Offering that horrobly inaccurate drawing from Groden as "the actual trajectory" is troubling. You do understand that that illustration is not accurate, right?? JF: HE SHOULD HAVE NAILED ME ON THIS ONE, BECAUSE IN USING THE TERM "ACTUAL" I APPARENTLY IMPLIED THAT THERE WAS SUCH A TRANSIT, WHICH OF COURSE IS A POSITION THAT I DENY! IF HE WERE JUST A LITTLE BIT SMARTER, HE MIGHT HAVE SCORED HERE. IN FACT, WHAT I MEANT TO SAY IS THAT GRODEN PROVIDES A DIAGRAM THAT SHOWS THE TRAJECTORY THAT THIS BULLET WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE TAKEN IF IT HAD ENTERED AT THE LOCATION SUPPORTED BY THE JACKET, THE SHIRT, BOSWELL'S DIAGRAM, SIBERT'S DIAGRAM, BERKLEY'S AUTOPSY REPORT, SIBERT AND O'NEILL'S AUTOPSY SUMMARY, AND ALL THE REST--A CLARIFICATION THAT I LONG-SINCE MADE TO THE ARCHIVED "CHALLENGE!" > No doubt, the estimate of the degree of downward trajectory as falling between 45 > and 60 degrees should not be taken to be exact, since it was done by an autopsy > physician using his finger to probe the wound! A precise determination of the location > from which the missile had been fired would also require knowledge of the position > of the body in the vehicle, of the vehicle in the street, and of the inclination of the > street as relevant variables. But this report nevertheless clearly substantiates that > the wound was at a downward angle, that there was no point of exit, and that the > bullet was not in the body. > > As though this evidence left any room for doubt, reconstruction photographs > demonstrate that the location they support was in fact TAKEN TO BE CORRECT > for the purpose of reenactment of the crime. A photograph from the FBI reenactment, > for example, may be found in Galanor's COVER-UP as Document 4. Observe where > the large round white patch is located! BS: The jacket is not bunched because the stand-in's elbow is not hiked up as far as Kennedy's was at the time he was shot. As you stated earlier, knowing the variables is important. That silly FBI recreation is worthless no matter what side of the issue you're on. JF: WHERE OTHER EVIDENCE INCLUDES SEVERAL REENACTMENT PHOTOGRAPHS THAT PROVE THE LOCATION SUPPORTED BY THE OTHER EVIDENCE I HAVE CITED WAS ACCEPTED AS CORRECT BY THE WARREN COMMISSION STAFF IN REENACTING THESE EVENTS. THIS HAS TO BE SOME OF THE MOST DAMNING EVIDENCE CONTRADICTING THE SBT POSITION. THE IDEA THAT THESE REENACTMENT PHOTOS--INCLUDING SPECTER DEMONSTRATING THE SBT, WHEN THE SPOT ON THE STAND-IN CLEARLY CONTRADICTS IT. INDEED, THIS PHOTOGRAPH, PRESUMABLY INTENDED TO SUPPORT THE SBT, ACTUALLY REFUTES IT! > And a similar photograph even appears on the inside front cover of THE NEW YORK > TIMES Bantam paperback edition of THE WARREN REPORT (1964)! The best of > all is a photograph of the author of the "magic bullet" hypothesis, Arlen Specter, > using a pointer to demonstrate the trajectory that the bullet had to have taken, when > the marking patch is visible several inches below his hand, which may be found in > ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, p. 34! > > Readers who are unfamiliar with this case may wonder how in the world, given all of > this evidence, THE WARREN REPORT (1964) could have concluded that JFK was > hit at the back of the base of the neck. But, thanks to the good work of the ARRB, > we know the answer to that question. Gerald Ford, a member of the commission, > had the description of the wound changed from "his uppermost back" to "the back > of his neck", BS: Sematics. Pure and simply. JF: HOW ANYONE COULD DISMISS CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT IMPUGNS THE OFFICIAL ACCOUNT AND SUPPORTS THOSE WHO DENY THE SBT IS BEYOND ME. BY THIS POINT, IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS THAT THIS IS NOT A SERIOUS STUDENT OF THE ASSASSINATION BUT SOMEONE WITH AN AGENDA OTHER THAN A SEARCH FOR TRUTH. > a discovery that was among the first of the ARRB's important releases, which came > in time for me to include parts of THE NEW YORK TIMES (3 July 1997) story in > ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, p. 177. THE TIMES considered it important enough to > print on p. A8, insuring that most readers would miss it! > > Under these circumstances, it appears to be "piling on" to note that David W. Mantik, > M.D., Ph.D., has now demonstrated that no bullet could have entered the President's > neck at the location alleged and exited at the location alleged without impacting > cervical vertebra, as Galanor's COVER-UP, Document 45, and MURDER IN DEALEY > PLAZA (2000), pp. 3-4, explain. BS: You do understand that the head is not rotated to the right, the vertebra is not twisted to the right, the esophagus is not twisted to the right. These variable mitigate and are not addressed in Mantik's work. I would love to see the same CT scan with the head rotated 45-60 degrees to the right. BTW, expert forensic anthropologist and nice guy, Dr. Clyde Snow performed tests for the HSCA in June of 1978. He reports in his study, entitle DISPLACEMENT OF CUTANEOUS LANDMARKS OF ANTERIOR NECK WITH HEAD ROTATION. In that report based upon averages derived from measurements taken from ten subjects, the hole in the throat moved 1-2 centimeters to the right with the head turned to the right. [180-10104-10487] Dr. Mantik does not account for that possibility. As Kennedy may have been shot through the tneck and throat while his head was cocked to the right, the variables become important and need to be accounted for. So far, they have not. JF: DAVID AND I DISCUSSED THIS POINT EARLIER TODAY AND HE POINTED OUT TO ME THAT THIS WAS AN ANCIENT ISSUE THAT HAD BEEN THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED BY THE HSCA, WHICH HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE POSSIBLE VARIATION INVOLVED HERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO MORE THAN 5 DEGREES, WHICH IS CONSIDERABLY LESS THAT THE EXAGGERATED 45-60 DEGREE ROTATION HE SUGGESTS. (THE USE OF THE VERY SAME NUMBERS AS THE DEGREE OF INCLINATION OF THE WOUND REPORTED BY SIBERT AND O'NEILL IS PECULIAR AND PUZZLING. PERHAPS THIS GUY HAS LOST TRACK OF WHICH ISSUE IS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND HAS RUN HIS ARGUMENTS TOGETHER.) A DIFFERENCE OF 1-2 CM, BY THE WAY, WOULD BE TINY, CERTAINLY NOT ENOUGH TO DEFEAT MANTIK'S ANALYSIS. > Nor does it appear necessary to add that Malcolm Perry, M.D., who performed a > tracheostomy in a vain attempt to save the President's life, described the wound to > the throat as an entry wound three times during a press conference held at Parkland BS: PERRY: Yeah. I previously pointed out that they were neither ragged nor clean-cut. I suppose that's a misnomer because, actually, I didn't inspect it that well. What I meant to infer by that initial description was the fact that I couldn't see a clean punched wound; it was roughly round, the edges were bruised and a little blurred because, as I mentioned, there was several big drops of old blood, and some of it coagulated, of course, on and about the wound, so I didn't really inspect the margins carefully. I think the terms I used before was neither ragged nor clean-cut 'and that may not have been appropriate. I should have probably said I couldn't see them that well -- it might have been a better answer. 7HSCA302 JF: THIS IS ACTUALLY EMBARRASSING. HE APPARENTLY HAS NOT EVEN READ PERRY'S PRESS CONFERENCE REPORTS, WHERE THREE TIMES HE ASSERTS THAT THE WOUND WAS A WOUND OF ENTRY. (THE WHOLE TRANSCRIPT, WHICH WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO THE WARREN COMMISSION AND WHICH THIS GUY APPEARS TO HAVE NEVER READ, MAY BE FOUND IN ITS ENTIRETY IN Assassination Science (1998), Appendix C. HERE ARE A FEW EXTRACTS FROM THAT TRANSCRIPT: Q: Can you describe his neck wound? . . . DR. PERRY: The neck wound, as visible on the patient, revealed a bullet hole almost in the mid line. Q: What was that? DR. PERRY: / bullet hole almost in the mid line. Q: Would you demonstrate? DR. PERRY: In the lower portion of the neck, in front. Q. Can you demonstrate, Doctor, on your own neck? DR. PERRY: Approximately here (indicating). Q. Below the Adam's apple? DR. PERRY: Below the Adam's apple. Q. Doctor, it is the assumption that it was through the head? DR. PERRY: That would be on(ly) conjecture on my part. There are two wounds, as Dr. Clark noted, one of the neck and one of the head. Whether they are directly related or related to two bullets, I cannot say. Q. Where was the entrance wound? DR. PERRY: There was an entrance wound in the neck. As regards the one in the head, I cannot say. Q. Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? At him? DR. PERRY: It appeared to be coming at him. . . . Q. Doctor, describe the entrance wound. You think from the front in the throat? DR. PERRY: The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes, that is correct. The exit wound, I don't know. It could have been the head or there could have been a second wound of the head. There was not time to determine this at the particular instant. Q. Would the bullet have had to travel up from the neck wound to exit through the back? DR. PERRY: Unless it was deviated from its course by striking bone or some other object. . . . MANY WITNESSES, INCLUDING PERRY, WERE INTIMIDATED INTO ALTERING THEIR TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMISSION. THE EARLIER THEIR REPORTS, THE MORE TRUSTWORTHY. THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS CONSIDERED SO DAMAGING TO THE SBT THAT IT WAS NOT EVEN PROVIDED TO THE COMMISSIONERS! CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE AND JUDGE FOR YOURSELVES. > beginning at 3:16 PM, a report that was widely broad case over radio and television > that day -- the transcript of which may now be found in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE > as Appendix C -- and even published in THE NEW YORK TIMES (23 November 1963), > p. 2, which may also be found in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, p. 15, and which has > been confirmed by Charles Crenshaw, M.D., in his work and diagrams that may also > be found there. So to simplify the challenge for lone nutters, let me merely ask: > > WHERE DID THE BULLET THAT HIT THE PRESIDENT IN THE BACK ENTER? BS: Nobody knows with surety because the autopsy report was horribly devoid of important information. One thing is a certainty. Every photograph of the motorcade, including the Dealey plaza photographs shows the jacket was bunched when Kennedy was shot in the back. Thus, the wound was higher than the clothing indicates. Have you ever heard of the Croft #3 photograph that correlates to Z-161?? JF: THE JACKET AND SHIRT EVIDENCE ARE SUPERCEDED BY THE EYEWITNESS REPORTS, WHICH, REMARKABLY, PLACE THE WOUND AT PRECISELY THE SAME LOCATION AS THE JACKET AND THE SHIRT. THAT HAS TO BE ONE OF THE MOST AMAZING COINCIDENCES IN THE HISTORY OF THIS CASE OR AN OBVIOUS MANIFESTATION OF THE ACTUAL ENTRY POINT. WHY THIS GUY WOULD DISMISS ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE TO PRETEND THE LOCATION IS UNKNOWN IS SUSPICIOUS. (THE CROFT PHOTOGRAPH TO WHICH HE ALLUDES, OF COURSE, IS ON THE WEB SITE TO WHICH HE REFERS. I AM NOT A PHOTOANALYST--AND I WOULD APPRECIATE JACK'S OPINION--BUT IT APPEARS TO ME TO HAVE BEEN ALTERED.) BS: All you have really shown us is: *the clothing holes (the bunched jacket brings the holes up), *imprecise descriptions that are open to a wide range of interpretations, *a selective reading of the record regarding what Perry testified to, *a CT scan that does not account for three important variables, *inaccurate illustrations purporting to show the reality of the wound pattern, *and a an artful bit of semantic massaging by a clumsy FBI shill/Future President. You have not made your case. JF: WHAT I HAVE SHOWN IS THAT THERE IS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT THE SHOT TO THE BACK DID NOT HIT AT THE BACK-OF-THE-NECK, WHICH FALSIFIES THE SBT. IF THE SBT IS FALSE, MOREOVER, THEN EVERY POSITION THAT IMPLIES IT--INCLUDING The Warren Report (1964), The HSCA Report (1979), and Case Closed (1993)--IS FATALLY FLAWED. THE ABSENCE OF A BULLET THAT TRANSITED THE NECK AND EXITED FROM HIS THROAT MEANS THAT THE THROAT SHOT AND THE DAMAGE SUSTAINED BY JOHN CONNALLY HAD TO HAVE BEEN FIRED BY PERSONS OTHER THAN THE ALLEGED LONE GUNMAN. THE ANSWER TO THIS SIMPLE QUESTION THUS REFUTES THE OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT POSITION AND DEMONSTRATES THAT "CONSPIRACY THEORISTS" HAVE BEEN RIGHT ALL ALONG ABOUT CONSPIRACY AND COVER-UP IN THE DEATH OF THE 35TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Q.E.D. THE BEST THIS GUY CAN DO IS REITERATE--OVER AND OVER--THE BUNCHING OF THE JACKET AND SHIRT, WHICH, EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE, DOES NOT OVERRIDE THE EYEWITNESS REPORTS OF THE LOCATION OF THE WOUND. MOREOVER, THE LOCATION OF THE WOUND IDENTIFIED BY THE EYEWITNESSES CORRESPONDS TO THAT INDICATED BY THE JACKET AND THE SHIRT! SO WHO DOES THIS GUY THINK HE IS KIDDING? AND HIS DESCRIPTION OF THE CHANGE THAT JERRY FORD MADE TO THE FINAL REPORT (CHANGING THE DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCATION OF THIS WOUND) AS "an artful bit of semantic massaging by a clumsy FBI shill/Future President" BETRAYS HIS TRUE MOTIVATION: JUST WHOSE SIDE DOES HE THINK FORD WAS ON, ANYWAY? I HAVE BEEN TEACHING AND EVALUATING ARGUMENTS PROFESSIONALLY FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS, WHERE THIS IS AS BAD AS IT GETS. THIS CRITIQUE ONLY MAKES THE CASE STRONGER!