Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory

[Michael T. Griffith]

Here is a very helpful graphic that shows that a bullet going from the HSCA-established back wound to the throat wound would have had to smash through the transverse process:



This also debunks Jerry Organ's fanciful theory that, like a laser-guided bullet, CE 399 could have gone through the small roundish opening between C7 and T1.

Dr. Carrico's interview with Weisberg makes it clear that Dr. Carrico told the WC that the throat wound was above the collar. Whatever "ambiguity" some WC apologists claim to see in Carrico's exchange with Dulles about the throat wound's location should be completely cleared up by Carrico's interview with Weisberg. Carrico even noted that he recalled his exchange with Dulles on the subject, and he repeated that the wound was above the collar. Significantly, Carrico added that he saw no slits in JFK's shirt and no nick in the tie before the nurses (Bowron and Henchliffe) began cutting away JFK's clothing.

It is really very simple:

* The bullet that struck the back was a misfire, which is why it only penetrated a short distance and stopped. Numerous witnesses from all over the plaza recalled that one of the early shots sounded like a firecracker--that is exactly how a misfire can sound.

* The throat wound was either made by a fragment of glass from the windshield bullet or it was made by the windshield bullet itself, and, as Dr. Perry initially said, the projectile ranged downward into the chest. That's why the wound was a small, neat wound--it was an entrance wound, just as Dr. Perry repeatedly said on 11/22/63.

* The tie nick and the slits in the front of JFK's shirt were made by the nurses as they hurriedly cut away the clothing. That's why no copper traces were found around the edges of the slits, unlike the holes in the back of the coat and shirt. That's why the tie nick does not line up with the slits. That's why there's no hole through the tie knot or any other part of the tie.

* Connally was hit by a separate bullet, which is plainly evident in the Zapruder film.

* The Connally bullet broke into fragments as it smashed several inches of rib bone, and some of those fragments exited close together and made the H-shaped tears in the front of Connally's shirt; one of those fragments shattered Connally's wrist, leaving at least three sizable fragments, according to Dr. Gregory and Nurse Bell; and the thigh wound was made by one of the fragments from the chest or from the wrist.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Michael T. Griffith:

• "It's like you guys are stuck in a time warp. You need to beam back to at least the early 2000s."
• "When are you going to beam yourself into at least the mid-2000s and start dealing with the
  scientific and research developments that began to occur in the case in the mid-1990s?"
• "Have you set your computer's calendar to 1992 or something?"
• "You are many years behind the information curve."

Graphics example offered by Griffith:



Recent sample graphics showing what LNers/Truth-Seekers are actually doing:

Humm, why didn't you mention that you and Mytton have recently cited the HSCA's contradictory SBT trajectory graphics? Did that slip your mind? Just look at your and Mytton's replies from the last few weeks and you'll see that you did this, in case you just can't recall doing so right now.

And should I mention that just a few weeks ago you were on this board defending Lattimer's bogus SBT diagram? Did that slip your mind too?

Are you guys ever going to address the fact that the ARRB's forensic pathologist, Dr. Robert Kirschner, rejected the SBT? Here is the ARRB interview summary of Dr. Kirschner's comments about CE 399 and the SBT:

Dr. Kirschner examined CE 399 at his own request He was very dubious about the possibility of the single bullet theory being true for two reasons:

(A) Lack of deformation of the nose of the bullet was incompatible, he felt, with a medium-high velocity rifle projectile inflicting the bone damage known to have been inflicted on Governor Connally.

(B) In order for the bullet to remain pristine and undeformed after performing the described bone damage to Connally, he opined that its velocity would have to have been slowed considerably prior to striking Governor Connally; this, however, would have ensured a massive cavity and very large wound track and an unmistakable large gaping exit wound in the anterior throat as well, which is not consistent with what was observed at Parkland, namely a small, neat nearly circular 3-6 mm wound Almost certainly a breached carotid artery and massive hemorrhaging would have accompanied this kind of exit wound. (ARRB meeting report, 4/11/96, pp. 3-4)

We know from Humes's notes on his phone call with Dr. Perry, that Perry told him that the throat wound was only 3-5 mm in diameter: "only a few mm in size, 3-5 mm" (ARRB, MD 5, 000088). I am still waiting for you guys to explain how a non-tumbling/non-yawing bullet could have made the irregular front shirt slits and how it could have nicked the tie at a point that was *not* on the edge of the knot, and yet how a tumbling/yawing bullet could have made the small, neat entry-like wound in the throat.

Part of the problem is that you need two different bullets for different parts of the SBT's alleged journey: for some parts you need a non-tumbling/non-yawing bullet, but for other parts you need a tumbling/yawing bullet.

I am also still waiting for you guys to explain how a bullet shaped like CE 399 could have made the H-shaped tears in the front of Connally's shirt. You can't explain this, because it is impossible, but you don't care.

[Michael T. Griffith]

You're always initiating discussion of things from past decades. Yet those who respond are the ones grounded in the past. Never you.

You guys talk about the large head wound but never deal with the duplicated OD measurements of the autopsy skull x-rays, which prove that a sizable chunk of occipital bone is missing in the skull x-rays.

You guys talk about the 6.5 mm fragment but dismiss or ignore the duplicated OD measurements that prove that it is a ghosted object, which explains why there is no corresponding object on the lateral skull x-rays and why the autopsy doctors said nothing about the object.

You guys still claim that the autopsy x-rays and photos are all pristine and authentic but refuse to deal with the hard scientific evidence that they have been altered, e.g., the impossible white patch on the lateral skull x-rays, the non-metallic 6.5 mm object, the emulsion issues, the conflict between the skull x-rays and autopsy photos F3 and F5, the conflict between autopsy photos F3 and F5 vs. F8, the conflicts between the autopsy report and the skull x-rays (such as the magically disappearing low fragment trail in the skull x-rays), etc., etc.

You guys still refuse to accept the HSCA's acoustical analysis of the DPD dictabelt, even though it has been confirmed and even though its critics have been soundly refuted. Why? Because you can't accept that more than three shots were fired.

You guys still cling to the 1964 claim that only three shots were fired, which is why you must come up with pathetic excuses for rejecting the later credible accounts of extra bullets and bullet fragments being found in the limo and at the autopsy, even though one of them was confirmed by a doctor at the autopsy and by the petty officer who found the deformed extra bullet. Nah, they were "all" just "mistaken" or "lying." Right. . . .

You guys still peddle the SBT even after all the evidence from ARRB-released documents that the autopsy doctors positively, absolutely determined that the back wound had no exit point because they and others could see that the wound tract did not penetrate the chest cavity, because they could see this after pathologists removed the chest organs, angled the body, and probed again, because they could see the probe pushing against the lining of the chest cavity. But, "nah," you say, "somehow, someway, by a process we can't explain, they were all mistaken, and never you mind that we now know that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said the back wound had no exit point, which was why the second draft said the throat wound was caused by a fragment from the head shot!"

And on and on we could go.

I guess Kirschner believes the collar had nothing to do with restricting the size of the throat wound.

This old, ridiculous yarn?! This is exactly the kind of stuck-in-the-past nonsense that I'm talking about. Let's just skip over the fact that the back wound had no exit point and observe that unless JFK's tailor-made collar had a choke hold on his throat, it would not have constricted the skin even remotely enough to affect the size of an exit wound made by a bullet that would have transited the neck in a tiny fraction of a second. Even assuming the collar was uncomfortably, unusually tight, the bullet would have exited the throat before the collar had a chance to react in any meaningful way to the bullet’s split-second passage.

And of course you are dismissing Dr. Carrico's report that the throat wound was above the collar, even though his placement is supported by his 11/22/63 admission note, even though he told the WC that it was above the collar, and even though he told Weisberg the same thing. You must assume he was "mistaken" or that he was lying.

Must be one of those "above the collar" experts. Maybe he believes scalpels were used to cut off the clothing and that a nurse "confirmed" it to Henry Hurt.

So in other words, any witness who says anything that you can't accommodate is either mistaken or lying. So the nurse lied to Henry Hurt, or she just erred. Dr. Carrico erred or lied when he said the nurses used scalpels to cut the clothing because they were in a desperate hurry. Dr. Carrico erred or lied when he said he saw no slits on the shirt and no nick on the tie before the nurses began cutting away the clothing. Dr. Gregory and Nurse Bell both erred or lied when they said they removed at least three sizable fragments from Connally's wrist. You see, you can't admit any of these things without destroying your entire theory of the case.

Now, Dr. Kirschner knew every little about the JFK case when he worked for the ARRB. I seriously doubt that he had even heard of the controversy over whether the throat wound was above the collar or how the front shirt slits were made. Doug Horne had to bring Dr. Kirschner up to speed on the basics of the single-bullet theory before he examined CE 399.

What "parts"? The SBT only has a non-tumbling bullet for the neck transit.

LOL! How did it do the damage to T1 that even the HSCA FPP acknowledged without starting to yaw? How? I've asked this question several times, but still have received no answer.

And what about the other parts of the bullet's mythical journey? Frazier acknowledged that the slits were not what you would normally expect to occur with a bullet's exit and that they could have been made by a smaller projectile such as a bone fragment:

The hole in the front of the shirt does not have the round characteristic shape caused by a round bullet entering cloth. It is an irregular slit. It could have been caused by a round bullet, however, since the cloth could have torn in a long slit-like way as the bullet passed through it. But that is not specifically characteristic of a bullet hole to the extent that you could say it was to the exclusion of being a piece of bone or some other type of projectile.

As you know, because I pointed this out to you, the FBI lab experts did not say the slits could have been made by a whole bullet but said they could have been made by a fragment. But Frazier decided to go beyond the lab analysis.

When are you going to admit you were wrong about the shirt slits' length? You said they were both the same length, but even the HSCA said they were not.

And how about the nick on the tie knot? The nick is visibly inward from the left edge of the knot, so how could it have been nicked by an exiting bullet?

Furthermore, unless JFK's tie knot was severely off-center, an exiting bullet would have had to make a hole through the knot. Just look at the photo of the shirt slits; look where the slits would be located if the collar were buttoned; and you'll see that if a bullet exited those slits, it would have had to go through the tie knot. But the only defect on the tie knot is a tiny nick on the left side of the knot, and, again, the nick is not even on the edge of the knot. This fact alone destroys the SBT.

This cold, hard physical evidence has been around for decades, ever since Harold Weisberg obtained photos of the tie, but you guys still will not deal with it honestly and credibly.

And I notice that you have once again, for about the fifth time, ignored the fact that no metallic traces of any kind were found on the edges of JFK's shirt slits, not even when the HSCA subjected the slits to super-sensitive spectrographic and x-ray testing. The holes in the back of the coat and shirt had such traces, but, gee, surprise, surprise, the front shirt slits had none, not even a tiny speck.

Passing through soft tissue like the neck will probably cause the bullet to tumble. No "magic" or "Golden Plates" miracle. The Haags demonstrated tumbling in the NOVA documentary.

The Haags are quacks who don't even know many of the basics of the case. The original size of Connally’s back wound, before debridement, was only 1.5 cm—the same size as the entrance wound in Kennedy’s head. It was 3 cm after cleaning and enlarging—as Connally’s surgeon, Robert Shaw, M.D., testified (4 H 104, 107; 6 H 85-86, 88). In his operative report, Shaw simply described the wound’s size after surgery, but in his testimony he said the original size was only 1.5 cm. And the holes in the back of Connally’s shirt and jacket were also 1.5 cm, per the FBI (5 H 64). Shaw also noted that the bullet created a “small tunneling wound” (7 HSCA 149), and he noted “the neat way in which it stripped the rib out without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it” (4 H 116). So, obviously, at that point the bullet had not yet begun to tumble or yaw to any significant degree, if at all.

The vertical tears were more likely, IMO, caused by the forward punching out of the shirt fabric by the 6.5mm bullet. The jacket is a coarser material and wouldn't tear the same way. You seem to comically think the shirt tears must be caused by a H-shaped bullet or multiple fragments.

SMH. Umm, did you not notice that your ridiculous GIF shows a tear that looks nothing like the H-shaped tears in Connally's shirt? Did you somehow overlook this? And did you just not notice that your GIF has the bullet exiting at neither a horizontal nor vertical angle but at a diagonal angle in relation to the shirt?

You keep embarrassing yourself with these clownish GIFs and diagrams, such as the HSCA SBT trajectory diagram that had the bullet entering above the throat wound and entering at a downward angle, and that put the exit point well below the throat! I mean, do you think that people cannot see these things or something? I just don't get it.

You still have not explained how a bullet could create two uneven vertical tears that have a horizontal tear between so that they form an H. It is not enough to simply insist that "oh, yeah, this could have happened." Okay, HOW could it have happened? HOW? Show me a single case where an exiting bullet created tears shaped like that. Describe the geometry and the movement that would have been involved in creating those tears with a whole bullet exiting the way your GIF shows, or exiting any other way for that matter.

Look, let's be honest: We both know that you can't explain how a bullet shaped like CE 399 could have made those tears. You just can't, and you know it. You won't admit it, but we both know it.

[Michael T. Griffith]

On the other hand, you've shown yourself willing to believe anything however far-fetched as long as it intrigues your obsession for conspiracy.

If you were willing to be honest and cared about credibility, you would not resort to such dismissive rhetoric to ignore scientific evidence developed by numerous recognized medical experts who've been widely published in peer-reviewed journals. But, since you have no answer for that evidence, you call it "far fetched" and wave it aside.

OD measurements are not "far fetched." OD measurements are used all the time in radiation oncology and in physics. Fortunately for history, Dr. Mantik happens to be a radiation oncologist and also a physicist, so he knew that OD measurements of the autopsy x-rays could conclusively, scientifically settle several issues about the x-rays. His OD research on the 6.5 mm object in Assassination Science was proof-read by Dr. Arthur G. Haus, Director of Medical Physics at Kodak.

Two other medical doctors, including Dr. Michael Chesser, have done their own OD measurements on the autopsy x-rays at the National Archives and have confirmed Dr. Mantik's measurements. Those measurements prove beyond any rational doubt that the autopsy x-rays have been altered.

Sort of proves the base-of-the-back-of-the-neck wound wasn't anywhere near T3.

Another dodge. What it proves is that you can't even get the SBT to hold up against the damage that the HSCA FPP was willing to acknowledge in the neck x-ray.

Baden could not always get every panel member and every consultant to say everything he wanted them to say and to ignore everything he wanted them to ignore, and this is one example of that. He could get them to either ignore the fragments that both the Clark Panel (and even Lattimer) identified in the x-rays or to say they were artifacts, but he could not get them to ignore or deny the damage at T1. (Nor could he get McDonnel and Angel to deny that a significant amount of frontal bone is missing in the autopsy x-rays, so he just ignored them, even though Angel showed that the largest of the late-arriving skull fragments, the triangular fragment, was frontal bone, which of course destroys at least three of the autopsy photos.)

The damage at T1, assuming that damage was present during the autopsy, could have been caused by a bullet that struck at T3. Bullets can cause damage via shock to surrounding areas in all directions, even if those areas are several inches away from the bullet's point of impact or path. The HSCA FPP was nice enough to point out this fact--about the range of shock damage from a bullet--to explain how T1 could have been damaged without being grazed (7 HSCA 171).

T1, by the way, is well below the location for the back wound claimed by the WC and by Lattimer's bogus SBT diagram.

Failure to probe. Ever hear tell of rigor mortise? And muscle groups at autopsy can be in a different position than when the wounding occurred.

LOL and SMH. And you pretend to be a credible researcher and repeat this long-debunked nonsense? We now know that the autopsy doctors did probe the wound, with fingers and with a probe, that they removed the chest organs so they could see where the tract went, that they turned the body several ways and angles to facilitate the probing, that they could see the probe pushing against the lining of the chest cavity, and that they could see that obviously the wound tract did not penetrate the chest cavity. ARRB-released documents confirm and shed more light on the early reports (e.g., Sibert and O'Neill) that the autopsy doctors determined that the back wound had no exit point.

I must confess that I've never heard of "rigor mortise." Perhaps "Mr. SPECTOR" told you about "rigor mortise," but I've never heard of it. However, I have heard of rigor mortis.

Rigor mortis does not prohibit pathologists from probing wounds during an autopsy. If it has been a number of hours since death, they have to remove certain organs to get a better view, and they have to manipulate the body to facilitate the probing, and we now know that that is exactly what the autopsy doctors did.

Lattimer's tests prove otherwise.

Oh, yeah! Good ole Doc Lattimer! His tests "proved" all kinds of things that no other tests proved or found. Are you just unaware of all the documentation that Lattimer rigged tests, misrepresented test results, etc., etc.? Are we talking about the same John Lattimer who claimed that every single skull in his FMJ head-shot tests blew backward, toward the rifle? Why do you suppose that the three other FMJ ballistics tests abjectly failed to duplicate that alleged result? Are we talking about the same John Lattimer who produced the SBT diagram shown below?



That John Lattimer? Yeah, thanks for sharing.

Again, any bullet transiting JFK's neck would have done so in a tiny fraction of a second. Basic common sense should tell you that even if JFK's collar was unusually tight (which it was not), it would not have had enough time to react in any meaningful way to affect the exit wound, never mind that the wound was above the collar, never mind that the back wound had no exit point, never mind that Lattimer mislocated the back wound, etc., etc., etc.

Only Dulles says above the collar, but twice Carrico says the tie in reference to the level of the wound.

So we're back to not being able to read English again? Let's read their exchange again:

Dulles: Will you show us about where it was?
Dr. Carrico: Just about where your tie would be.
Dulles: Where did it enter?
Dr. Carrico: It entered?
Dulles: Yes.
Dr. Carrico: At the time we did not know --
Dulles: I see.
Dr. Carrico: The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.
Dulles: I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is?
Dr. Carrico: Yes, sir; just where the tie...
Dulles: A little bit to the left.
Dr. Carrico: To the right.

Of course, you guys make the illogical assumption that Carrico was about to change his answer/contradict what he had just said when he started to say "just where the tie." That makes no sense. I'm pretty sure Carrico knew the difference between the tie itself and the area of his throat just above the tie. Plus, we have Carrico's 11/22/63 admission note, which you keep ignoring, where he said the throat wound was "immediately below the larynx." A wound "immediately below" the larynx would clearly be above the collar and would be far above the front shirt slits.

We don't know what Carrico said to Weisberg or what questions were put to him; we only have a brief vaguely-worded memo about it. That means I think Weisberg may be applying his own bias, not that either one is lying. That's where your mind goes.

What do you mean we "don't know" what Carrico said to Weisberg? So you're saying Weisberg lied about what Carrico told him? Of course. A former Senate investigator known for being one of the most sober, serious, and objective researchers on the case just made up Carrico's answers. Yes, that must be it, because otherwise your whole theory of the case collapses.

There's a nurse who spoke to Henry Hurt? And she "confirmed" they used scalpels to remove the clothing? Cite for this historic interview, please.

Carrico said he didn't see the slits, but he also said he was looking at the head wound and not the clothing, and that he first saw the throat wound after the clothing was removed.

That is not what he said.

He said they never examined the clothing, period, even after the life-saving efforts had been done.

You're twisting his words once again to avoid what you don't want to accept. He said he did not see the actual cutting of the clothing because he looked down to focus on the wounds, but that before he did so he did not notice any slits in the shirt or any nick in the tie.

Nobody said that he examined the clothing afterward.

When Carrico spoke with Weisberg, he confirmed that the throat wound was above the collar; he was “definite on this” (Weisberg, Never Again, 2007 edition, p. 241). Weisberg continued:

When I asked him if he saw any bullet holes in the shirt or tie, he was definite in saying “No.” I asked if he recalled Dulles’s question and his own pointing to above his own shirt collar as the location of the bullet hole. He does remember this, and he does remember confirming that the hole was above the collar. . . . (Never Again, p. 242; the interview was done in 1975)

Carrico also told Weisberg that the nurses used scalpels to remove the president’s shirt and tie because they were, understandably, in a big hurry, and that it was “likely” that the nurses made the slits and the nick in the tie, adding, “I saw neither the nick in the tie nor the cuts in the shirt before the nurses started cutting” (Weisberg Subject Index File, under “Dr. Carrico,” items 02 and 03, http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Carrico%20Charles%20J%20Dr/Item%2002.pdf; http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/N%20Disk/New%20York%20Times/Item%2093.pdf, p. 4; https://books.google.com/books?id=SC-wBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=henchliffe+bowron+cut+slits+jfk%27s+shirt+tie+nick&source=bl&ots=ef1P2ARFOz&sig=ACfU3U21sIV4eKHljvOHhXi5T684t1VgZA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiM-bKcnaDrAhVDrVkKHRT6AHcQ6AEwBXoECA0QAQ#v=onepage&q&f=true, pp. 95-96).

And he didn't see them do the cutting because he started to focus on the wounds just before they started cutting.

How much tumbling do you think it would induce with two-or-three inches of soft tissue left to travel and at the speed it was going?

Cite, please. And you're talking about a millimeter difference.

I don't know for sure it was nicked by a bullet, anymore than you can know for sure how the tie knot was oriented by time it got to Dealey Plaza.

Oh, so not only must we believe that JFK's coat and shirt magically bunched at the same time and in almost perfect correspondence, but that his tie knot, held in place by the collar, somehow shifted horizontally and even more magically must have twisted over enough that the exiting magic bullet could nick the knot at a point inward from the left edge! Wow! How does that song go? "Oh, oh, it's magic. . . ."

The cite for the HSCA on the length of the slits is 7 HSCA 89.

"Severely off-center"? Geeze, Tennessee Williams wouldn't exaggerate that much.

Uh, I said "unless it was severely off-center." You repeatedly seem to be challenged with anything beyond basic English. Do you know what conditional words are? I was not arguing that the tie was severely off-center. I was pointing out that the only way a bullet could have avoided making a hole through the knot would have been if the tie had been severely off-center.

My 3D study shows the bullet going by on the left side of the tie knot. Kennedy's tie knot was fairly narrow.

Yeah, uh, except that the nick is not on the edge; it is visibly inward from the edge. You can see that the nick is not on the edge, right?

Please show where bullet holes must necessarily have metallic traces and are not affected by things like saturation of body fluids.

LOL! I should have known this was coming. Honestly, I didn't think you would strain this badly, but, here we are.

Well, I'll just say this: One of the first tests that forensic labs do on clothing holes is a metallic-residue test. Why? Because bullets typically leave metallic traces when they tear through clothing. That is why the FBI tested all the JFK clothing holes for metallic residue. But, of course, you now argue that it means nothing that the bullet that allegedly tore through two overlapping layers in the front of the shirt did not leave a trace of any metallic residue, not even copper, and not even a microscopic trace that could be detected through super-sensitive spectrographic and x-ray analysis. The body fluids somehow magically washed away every microscopic trace of metallic residue from the slits (and from the nick in the tie knot). Yeah, thanks for sharing.

The hole on the back of the jacket was "elongated in a horizontal direction approximately five-eighths of an inch in length and one-fourth of an inch in height". About 1.59 cm x .635 cm.

Those dimensions do not necessarily require a tumbling/yawing bullet. If so, then how did the bullet create a “small tunneling wound” (7 HSCA 149) if it was markedly yawing or tumbling? How would that work? And how did the bullet strip out the rib in such a "neat way" and "without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it” (4 H 116)? Hey? How would that work? 

Ballistics expert Michael t. Griffith reported today that bullets can only travel forward nose-on.

When you float silly strawman arguments like this, it only shows that you are grasping at straws because you have no credible answers.

Hopefully they can see where you think the "throat" is in the HSCA drawing.

I have rarely seen such breathtaking dishonesty. You can't be honest even about things that are plainly visible.  And you are brazenly, and very clumsily, misrepresenting my notes and lines on the diagram. The lines in my diagram show the vertical levels of the entrance and exit wounds; anyone can see that they are not intended to point to any anatomic feature but simply to show the vertical level in relation to the body.

My throat label does not "point" to the left shoulder. It is at the level of the left shoulder, but it is not intended to "point" to the left shoulder. It is pointing at the exit point, the point where the SBT trajectory line is first visible in the front. Do you really think people are so stupid that they can't see this, that they can't see how dishonestly you are characterizing my comments? 

I did not draw the bullet trajectory line on the HSCA SBT diagram. The HSCA did. My lines are the blue line and red line, and they merely highlight what is already readily visible--that the HSCA's trajectory line puts the back wound above the throat wound, has the bullet entering at a substantial downward angle, and puts the exit point below the visible part of the figure's throat and clearly well below the entry point.

I mean, sheesh, just how long do you want to assume Kennedy's throat was? How much farther do you want to assume the throat continued? That's just weird.

The problem is not my description and my lines. The problem is the SBT diagram itself. It has the exit point at the same level where the upper side of the right arm intersects the chest, for crying out loud. What human being's neck goes down that low? Even if you want to assume that JFK's neck continued for another inch, the exit point would be at the very bottom of the throat, which is not what any Parkland doctor described and is not even what the autopsy photos show, not to mention that this would below the front shirt slits.

Fine, go on thinking bullets are H-shaped.

This is another indication that you have no clue how to explain those H-shaped tears. How many times have I said that the most logical, likely explanation is that those tears were caused by multiple fragments or by one markedly deformed projectile? Three? Four? Five?

If we assume that a single deformed fragment/bullet caused those tears, the projectile would not have had to be perfectly H-shaped, but would have had to be severely deformed, and, needless to say, it surely could not have been shaped like CE 399.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Not only did the Warren Commission’s (WC’s) wound ballistics tests contradict the single-bullet theory (SBT), but CBS’s 1967 wound ballistic tests also contradicted the SBT. Moreover, one of CBS’s expert consultants, Dr. W. F. Enos, concluded that the SBT was “highly improbable”:

CBS used a military doctor and former Warren Commission consultant to test whether a bullet could penetrate both Kennedy and Connally. In all four tests the bullet failed to penetrate the equivalent of Connally’s thigh. . . .

He [Alexander Bickel] credited CBS for its retesting of the bullet but noted that the test “disproved” the conclusion and that the CBS expert, Dr. W. F. Enos, had stated “it’s highly improbable.” (Mal Jay Hayman, Burying the Lead: The Media and the JFK Assassination, Trine Day LLC, 2019, pp. 214, 218)

Regarding the location of the back wound on the autopsy face sheet, when you point out that the face sheet shows the back wound to be at right around T3, far too low for the SBT, some WC apologists will reply that the face sheet also contains a measurement for the back wound that says the wound was 14 cm below the tip of the right mastoid process.

However, they never mention the fact that the 14-cm measurement clearly appears to be in pen, whereas all the other markings on the face sheet seem to be in pencil, and that, if nothing else, the measurement is clearly darker than all the other markings on the face sheet. This, of course, suggests that the measurement was added to the sheet after the autopsy.

[Gerry Down]

However, they never mention the fact that the 14-cm measurement clearly appears to be in pen, whereas all the other markings on the face sheet seem to be in pencil, and that, if nothing else, the measurement is clearly darker than all the other markings on the face sheet. This, of course, suggests that the measurement was added to the sheet after the autopsy.

I didn't notice this before. I've heard Bugliosi say this as fact (the 14cm measurement) and when he did it sounded convincing until i read your post.

[Michael T. Griffith]

I didn't notice this before. I've heard Bugliosi say this as fact (the 14cm measurement) and when he did it sounded convincing until i read your post.

Bugliosi would say whatever he thought the government wanted him to say.

The autopsy face sheet was marked "verified." 14 cm below the right mastoid process is not even close to Boswell's mark for the back wound. Boswell stood by every other drawing and mark on the face sheet, but he claimed he goofed when he made the back-wound dot. So every other mark and drawing he made on the face sheet accurate except the back-wound dot. How convenient.

[Gerry Down]

However, they never mention the fact that the 14-cm measurement clearly appears to be in pen, whereas all the other markings on the face sheet seem to be in pencil, and that, if nothing else, the measurement is clearly darker than all the other markings on the face sheet. This, of course, suggests that the measurement was added to the sheet after the autopsy.

I wonder if this specific measurement was added in several weeks, months after the fact to support the SBT.