A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.

[Andrew Mason]

I think by "proven" you mean speculation.

No. I meant "proven" in the sense of: a rational conclusion based on evidence.   

The three autopsy doctors reached these conclusions based on the evidence they had. 

First of all, there was abundant evidence that the head shot had entered from the back. This was evident from the examination of the hole in the back of the skull: "Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull." (Autopsy report: CE387 at p. 4). They also observed in the xrays metal particles behind the President's right eye (Humes: 2 H 353).

They observed a similar size hole in the upper back.  They were informed that there had been the tracheostomy done in the same location where there was already a wound in the throat.

There was evidence that the internal damage ("contusion of the parietal pleura and of the extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung.) aligned with the two external wounds in the upper back and throat (Humes: 2 H 369) :

"Senator COOPER. Assuming that we draw a straight line from Point ?C? which you have described as a possible point of entry of the missile, to Point ?D? where you saw an incision of the tracheotomy-
Commander HUMES. Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER. What would be the relation of the bruise at the apex of the pleural sac to such a line?
Commander HUMES. It would be exactly in line with such a line. sir. exactly.

Xrays of this area showed no bullet remained in the President.

The angle to the neck wound was downward. There was no evidence presented to them that there was a shot fired in an upward direction from somewhere in front of the President. There was evidence before them that a similar sized bullet had been fired from the rear and struck him in the head.

That is part of the body of evidence that persuaded all three doctors that the bullet had entered the upper back and exited the throat.

Although you may disagree with their conclusions, they reached their conclusions based on the evidence before them.  So it was not speculation.  If there is other evidence that was not before them that would call into question their conclusions, I have not seen it. 

To suggest that such evidence might exist and, if available, would call into question their conclusions would be speculation.

[John Iacoletti]

No, "proven" would be if they had actually tracked the missile path through the body.

[Andrew Mason]

No, "proven" would be if they had actually tracked the missile path through the body.

That might be what you would require in order to be convinced.  But most people would conclude that the path has been established from the evidence that there were two bullet holes in the body and internal damage on a line between the two but no bullet in the body.

[John Iacoletti]

"Convinced" isn't the same as "proven".  But you'll forgive me if I don't recognize you as a spokesperson for "most people".

[Andrew Mason]

"Convinced" isn't the same as "proven".  But you'll forgive me if I don't recognize you as a spokesperson for "most people".

One cannot divorce the concept of "proven" from the process of convincing human beings. 

In science, theories are never "proven".  In law, proving cases is all about convincing people.

[John Iacoletti]

One cannot divorce the concept of "proven" from the process of convincing human beings. 

In science, theories are never "proven".  In law, proving cases is all about convincing people.

Then why did you claim that "the missile path through the fascia and muscles" was "proven"?

Fair enough, though.  I'm not at all convinced that there was one path through the body from the alleged "neck wound" to the alleged throat wound.

[Andrew Mason]

Then why did you claim that "the missile path through the fascia and muscles" was "proven"?

The evidence persuaded the three autopsy physicians.  And it persuaded the WC, the HSCA, and many CTers, including Cyril Wecht (who rejects the SBT but - at least in his HSCA dissent - does not take issue with the path of the bullet through JFK's neck).   It is only a relatively small group who cannot, for some reason, accept that a bullet was fired from the SN into JFK's upper back and exited his throat.  In fact, there is no evidence that indicates otherwise. There is only doubt in the minds of some who do not accept the evidence that exists and postulate the existence of some other evidence that no one has yet found.

Fair enough, though.  I'm not at all convinced that there was one path through the body from the alleged "neck wound" to the alleged throat wound.

That's fine. The evidence that has persuaded many others does not persuade you.  But that does not mean that bodies responsible for making determinations of fact in this case were wrong to conclude, reasonably and on evidence, that a bullet passed through JFK entering his upper back and exiting his throat.

[John Iacoletti]

The evidence persuaded the three autopsy physicians.  And it persuaded the WC, the HSCA, and many CTers, including Cyril Wecht (who rejects the SBT but - at least in his HSCA dissent - does not take issue with the path of the bullet through JFK's neck).   It is only a relatively small group who cannot, for some reason, accept that a bullet was fired from the SN into JFK's upper back and exited his throat.  In fact, there is no evidence that indicates otherwise. There is only doubt in the minds of some who do not accept the evidence that exists and postulate the existence of some other evidence that no one has yet found.

Of course there is evidence that indicates otherwise.  It all depends on exactly where the back wound was located.  As you know, there seems to be some dispute about that.  And of course, even if there was the bullet path through the body that you are assuming, that tells you nothing about what building the bullet originated from.

That's fine. The evidence that has persuaded many others does not persuade you.  But that does not mean that bodies responsible for making determinations of fact in this case were wrong to conclude, reasonably and on evidence, that a bullet passed through JFK entering his upper back and exiting his throat.

I just take issue with your use of the word "proven" to mean persuaded.