A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.

[Steve Barber]

I don't think it matters precisely where he put his hands. What matters is why his hands moved from the position they are seen in z193 to the position they are in at z223 and why his facial expression seen when he appears from behind the Stemmons sign is so different from that in z193. Many witnesses said his facial expression changed like that and his hand positions changed like that in respon4se to the first shot.

Well, maybe it doesn't make any difference to you, but to me, it does.  If people are going to point things out in the Zapruder film--or any of the photographic evidence--they need to interpret it  it correctly.  People are constantly using the position of his hands as they "see" them as an excuse to say that a bullet entered the throat from the front as their "proof", when his hands don't go anywhere near his throat.

[Andrew Mason]

Well, maybe it doesn't make any difference to you, but to me, it does.  If people are going to point things out in the Zapruder film--or any of the photographic evidence--they need to interpret it  it correctly.  People are constantly using the position of his hands as they "see" them as an excuse to say that a bullet entered the throat from the front as their "proof", when his hands don't go anywhere near his throat.

Ok. That's a fair point. The hands are not an indication of the precise location of this throat wound. In any event, the hands do not tell us whether the bullet entered from the front or the back. The autopsy tells us that it entered from the back.

[Steve Barber]

Ok. That's a fair point. The hands are not an indication of the precise location of this throat wound. In any event, the hands do not tell us whether the bullet entered from the front or the back. The autopsy tells us that it entered from the back.

Absolutely agreed.

[John Iacoletti]

Ok. That's a fair point. The hands are not an indication of the precise location of this throat wound. In any event, the hands do not tell us whether the bullet entered from the front or the back. The autopsy tells us that it entered from the back.

The autopsy doesn't tell us anything of the kind about the throat wound.

[Andrew Mason]

Not sure why you say that. The autopsy report summary, p. 6, refers to the throat wound as the exit wound from the bullet that entered in the upper back:

"The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right, side of the neck. This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura and of the apical portion of the right Yupper lobe of the lung. 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."

[John Iacoletti]

"The second wound presumably of entry is that described above in the upper right posterior thorax. Beneath the skin there is ecchymosis of subcutaneous tissue and musculature. The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily proved. The wound presumably of exit was that described by Dr. Malcolm Perry of Dallas in the low anterior cervical region."

[Andrew Mason]

"The second wound presumably of entry is that described above in the upper right posterior thorax. Beneath the skin there is ecchymosis of subcutaneous tissue and musculature. The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily proved. The wound presumably of exit was that described by Dr. Malcolm Perry of Dallas in the low anterior cervical region."

That does not mean that they were unable to prove the missile path through the fascia and muscles.  It was proven to their satisfaction. Just not easily . They explained how the wounds were connected:

"The third point of reference in connecting these two wounds is in the apex (supra-clavicular portion) of the right pleural cavity. In this region there is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both instances the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura are intact overlying these areas of trauma."

[John Iacoletti]

That does not mean that they were unable to prove the missile path through the fascia and muscles.  It was proven to their satisfaction. Just not easily . They explained how the wounds were connected:

"The third point of reference in connecting these two wounds is in the apex (supra-clavicular portion) of the right pleural cavity. In this region there is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both instances the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura are intact overlying these areas of trauma."

I think by "proven" you mean speculation.