You realize that T1 was below the throat wound, right? Right? Look at the FPP's SBT diagram

Here's an FPP drawing that helps to illustrate my point that T1 was above the throat wound:

You again blunder over information that has been known for decades. First off, you realize that the term "several" can refer to as many as nine or 10, right? You can Google it.

If a majority of the FPP disagreed with the upward-trajectory finding, why does the FPP's SBT diagram (7 HSCA 100, Figure 12) show the bullet traveling upward through the neck and show JFK leaning substantially forward? Why did Dr. Baden, the FPP chairman, demonstrate an upward trajectory through the neck with a wooden pointer in his filmed interview for NOVA's 1988 JFKA documentary, and why did Baden then lean markedly forward, still holding the pointer, to show how an upward trajectory through the neck could line up with the sixth-floor window? And, why does the FPP's report say that the back wound's abrasion collar is "evidence that the bullet's trajectory at the instant of penetration was slightly upward in relation to the body"? Let's read what the FPP said on this issue:

A red-brown to black area of skin surrounds the wound, forming what is called an abrasion collar. It was caused by the bullet's scraping the margins of the skin on penetration and is characteristic of a gunshot wound of entrance. The abrasion collar is larger at the lower margin of the wound, evidence that the bullet's trajectory at the instant of penetration was slightly upward in relation to the body. (7 HSCA 175)

Of course, one major problem is that no photo or frame shows JFK leaning as far forward as the FPP and Baden had to assume he was.

When there were no dissenting views, the report says "the panel". When there were dissenting views but still a majority view, the report says "a majority of the panel". "Several members of the panel" is several members, not the panel as a whole. Not even a majority. Baden was one of the several. He used his influence to have those drawings published in the report as "possible trajectories through the neck". In his later interviews in which he leans markedly forward, Baden was representing his view and that of two or three others of the panel.

On edit: The report, in at least one entry, does say "Most panel members".

Uh, yes, I already pointed this out. You realize that T1 was below the throat wound, right? Right? Look at the FPP's SBT diagram (7 HSCA 100, Figure 12). Here's a link to it:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:HSCA-JFK-neck2-6-43.jpg

Notice that the diagram shows the bullet entering slightly below the throat wound. Why do you suppose that not a single pro-SBT diagram acknowledges the FPP's location for the back wound and the FPP's depiction of an upward trajectory through the neck? Humm? Why do you suppose that is?   

You already pointed what out? What does "superior" mean? T1 was not below the throat wound.



No single pro-SBT diagram acknowledges that the bullet made an upward trajectory through the neck because not even the "several members of the FPP" believed that the bullet made an upward path through the neck. I'm not aware of a single maker of a Pro-SBT diagram who agreed, or agrees, with the 11 degree angle belief of those several members of the HSCA FPP.

The FPP placed the "back wound" about 6 cm below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck. That skin fold is also visible in the left lateral view. The wound in the throat is also visible in that left lateral view. The Clark Panel measured the wound in the throat to be 9 cm below that fold in the skin of the neck.

What?! The drawing was made under Humes's direction and instruction. The medical artist, Harold Rydberg, only drew what Humes told him to draw; Humes presented the drawing to the WC as an accurate depiction of the SBT's trajectory through the neck; and the WC cited the drawing three times in the Warren Report and published it as an exhibit. The drawing, CE 385, shows the back wound above the throat wound and has the bullet traveling downward through the neck.

Humes was not standing over Rydberg's shoulder as Rydberg made his drawings. He was not responsible for how the drawings turned out.

And every single pro-SBT trajectory illustration, from Lattimer's diagrams to Myers' fraudulent animation, erroneously has the mythical magic bullet traveling downward through JFK's neck. 

T1 is not in the "low neck." The neck ends at C7. The "C" stands for "cervical." The "T" stands for "thoracic." The FPP correctly referred to the T1 location as being "in the back area" and noted it was "a few inches lower" than where Humes placed it in CE 385 (1 HSCA 256).

It is just incredible that you guys still refuse to deal with the fact that the only way to make the T1 location and its upward trajectory work for the SBT is to make the demonstrably false assumption that JFK was leaning markedly forward when the bullet struck.

Every single pro-SBT trajectory illustration has the single bullet traveling downward through JFK's neck because Humes said that it did in his sworn WC testimony. That same testimony that both Boswell and Finck said that they concurred with in their own sworn WC testimonies.

Low neck is the low neck. Humes testified that the wound was in the low neck.

Commander HUMES - The wound in the low neck of which I had previously begun to speak is now posteriorly--is now depicted in 385, in 386 and in 388.
....
Commander HUMES - You will note that the wound in the posterior portion of the occiput on Exhibit 388 is somewhat longer than the other missile wound which we have not yet discussed in the low neck.
.....
Commander HUMES - I--our previously submitted report, which is Commission No. 387, identified a wound in the low posterior neck of the President.
.....
Commander HUMES - In attempting to relate findings within the President's body to this wound which we had observed low in his neck, we then opened his chest cavity, and we very carefully examined the lining of his chest cavity and both of his lungs.
.....
Commander HUMES - The angle which we observed in measuring, in comparing the point of entrance, our point of entrance labeled "C" on 385 and "D" point of exit is one that the point of exit is below the point of entrance compared with the vertical.
.....
Commander HUMES - The report which we have submitted, sir, represents our thinking within the 24-48 hours of the death of the President, all facts taken into account of the situation.
The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly, sir.

Both Boswell and Finck concurred with Humes in their own sworn WC testimonies.

JFK's physique gave the impressive that he was hunched forward. Using the Croft photo, Thomas Canning estimated him to be hunched forward between 11 and 18 degrees.

Your denial of obvious reality here is akin to your long-standing refusal to acknowledge the fact that JFK's clothing clearly, self-evidently refutes any notion that the back-wound bullet exited the throat. Objective people can read your grasping replies in my threads "JFK's Clothing Refutes the Single-Bullet Theory" and "JFK's Throat Wound Was an Entrance Wound: Refuting the Shored-Wound Theory" and see that you guys have no tenable, sensible explanation for the clothing evidence.

JFK's jacket can clearly be seen to be bunched up as the motorcade made it's way through Dallas. Considering that the hole in the shirt matches up with the hole in the jacket, we can safely assume that it was bunched up as well. 1 inch of bunch-up raises the material below a little more than 2 inches. 1.5 inches of bunch-up raises the material below a little more than 3 inches. That's factoring in the crown.

If you guys were dealing rationally and credibly with the evidence, you would have abandoned the SBT way back when we learned (1) that there was no hole through JFK's tie and no nick on either edge of the tie knot, and (2) that the bullet holes in the back of JFK's shirt and coat were over 5 inches below the collar.

If you were dealing rationally and credibly with the evidence you would accept that the single bullet theory should be known as the single bullet fact. You would not be denying the evidence. You would accept that the autopsy photos and x-Rays are genuine and unaltered. You would accept that the entry wound on Kennedy was between 5 and 6 cm below a transverse fold in the skin on the back of the neck.

To follow up on these evidences, I should mention the fact that Lee Bowers saw three cars separately recon the parking lot behind the knoll during the 25 minutes leading up to the assassination. This "probing" caught Bowers' attention because the area had been sealed off and there had been no movement in the area since around 11:00. Bowers said the driver of the second car seemed to be speaking into a microphone. The HSCA rightly cited Bowers' account as evidence of conspiracy. The following video includes segments of an interview with Bowers in which he discusses the three suspicious cars:

The Suspicious Death of Lee Bowers

Cars in a parking lot don't equate to a gunman behind the fence. There is no hard evidence of a gunman anywhere on the GK.

Lee Bowers testified under oath that he did not see a gunman behind the fence and never recanted that testimony.

I am agnostic about the circumstances of Bowers' death, but it is worth noting that Bowers reportedly told friends that he feared for his life. Anyway, most of the video deals with Bowers' account of the three cars' recon of the parking lot behind the knoll.

Reportedly? Everything the CTs come up with is always reportedly. Nothing on the record.

There is nothing suspicious about cars doing a recon in the parking lot if that is what they were doing. In 1992, George H. W. Bush was campaigning by train and the train was scheduled to pass by my home golf course. Our fifth hole was right alongside the tracks and we saw both a helicopter and an inspection car doing a recon over the tracks. A little while later, the helicopter made a second pass. It was about an hour later when we were on the back nine that we saw the train going past our course. Doing a recon along a presidential route is due diligence.

Can you ever deal with evidence in an honest, credible way? We've had this very discussion before, yet you just keep repeating your argument and ignoring the counter-arguments.

When someone disagrees with one of your claims, they are not ignoring your arguments.

So, again, as I've explained to you before, Bowers was not watching the two men he saw walk to a point behind the fence after he saw them go there, but later, during the shooting, he said his attention was drawn to that spot because he saw a "flash of light" or "smoke" from that location and this this caused him to think something unusual was going on there.

Surely you're aware of Bowers' account, but you ignore it and falsely imply that Bowers didn't see anything suspicious behind the fence during the shooting.

A flash of light could be nothing more than sun reflecting off the chrome or glass of a passing vehicle. If a shot had been fired from GK, Bowers would not have seen the muzzle flash because the gun would have been pointing in the opposite direction. It's rather far fetched to think Bowers would see a muzzle flash but not the shooter that fired the gun.

Oh my goodness. What about the witnesses, including a policeman, who said men flashing SS badges prevented them from going farther into the parking lot? Or have you never read about these witnesses? Surely you have. Yet, again, you just brush aside contrary evidence and make misleading arguments based on your deceptive omission.

Furthermore, although dozens of people ran toward and up the knoll after the shooting, they did not do so immediately after the last shot, so the gunman and his accomplice had time to run into the parking lot.

OH WOW! Not only do you have an imaginary gunman, you've given him an accomplice as well.

Bowers indicated that his attention was -- naturally -- drawn to the pandemonium that broke out in Dealey Plaza after the shooting, which would explain why he would not have noticed one or two men running into the parking lot. J.C. Price saw a man who was running into the parking lot after the shooting because Price was watching events from the roof of the Terminal Annex Building. And Price was not the only one who saw a man running from the fence area into the railyard after the shooting.

It's always fun to see the excuses CTs come up with for why they have no real evidence of a second shooter.

Of course you wave aside Ed Hoffman's account of seeing two men, one with a rifle, behind the fence on the knoll, but his story is credible.

Gee, why would anyone doubt Ed Hoffman. He only waited until 1967 to tell it and then changed it several times. I didn't think even you were gullible enough to take Ed Hoffman seriously.

I would direct interested readers to Mark Arnold's article "Eyewitness to Tragedy: The Ed Hoffman Story" Arnold shows that Hoffman's account has been subject to deliberate misrepresentation and faulty sign-language interpretation. Arnold looks at Hoffman's story in detail and concludes,

The one constant in the whole Ed Hoffman narrative is that if one takes the time and care necessary to understand him, his story has never changed: that on Friday, November 22, 1963, he was standing on Stemmons Freeway with an excellent view east, into the area behind the picket fence atop the grassy knoll, and there saw two men work together, one of them shooting at the President with a rifle, the other breaking it down and making his getaway through the railyard.

I would also direct interested readers to Casey Quinlan and Brian K. Edwards' book Beyond the Fence Line: The Eyewitness Account of Ed Hoffman and the Murder of President John F. Kennedy. Quinlan and Edwards refute every objection that critics have raised against Hoffman's account.

I encourage people to read all about Ed Hoffman. They should get a good laugh from it.

Uh, they thought it was gun smoke. 

Utter nonsense. This myth was answered was decades ago, but of course you're decades behind the information curve. For starters, take a look at the footage of the 1966 Charles Whitman shooting: you can see obvious clouds of gun smoke hang in the air from his rifle firings, and they obviously do not dissipate "almost immediately." Innumerable wartime and other shooting photos and footage show that gun smoke can hang in the air for 5-10 minutes.

As long as you have brought up Charles Whitman, it should be pointed out that his best recorded shooting in the USMC was only two points higher the Oswald's, yet he managed to shoot 45 people from a much higher elevation and far greater distances than Oswald shot JFK from. He killed 17 people that day although two were his wife and mother earlier in the day and a few more as he got to the observation deck. I believe 11 of his kills were from his elevated position.

Furthermore, your side only has two explanations for the smoke in the Wiegman frame, and both of them are untenable. Your side says the smoke is either motorcycle exhaust or smoke from the steam pipe in the railroad yard. The patrol bikes weren't emitting any smoke, and the steam pipe was over 100 feet from the area where six witnesses said they saw gun smoke. 

You continue to refer to the smoke as gun smoke even though you have never established what the smoke was.

LOL! Here's what led them: they heard gunshots coming from the grassy knoll!

They heard shots which they THOUGHT came from the GK. Other people heard those same shots and said it sounded like they came from the TSBD. Those people were corroborated by physical evidence and eyewitnesses. No corroboration for those who though the shots came from the GK.

Let's start with the scientifically established fact that there was a gunman firing from behind the fence on the grassy knoll. The gunman's location was determined by a refined sonar analysis done by Queens College acoustical scientists Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy. They found that all 26 of the echo patterns of the grassy knoll test shot matched the 26 echo patterns of the dictabelt’s 144.9 impulse pattern (8 HSCA 27-29). The scientists conservatively calculated the probability of the grassy knoll shot as 95% or higher, i.e., at least 95%. In statistics, that is a virtual certainty; moreover, it was later shown that the 95+% probability figure was too conservative, that the actual probability is virtually 100%.   

Even after introducing two outright errors in their calculations, the NRC/NAS panel could only reduce the grassy knoll shot's probability to 77.7%.

Junk science.

Dozens of witnesses heard the grassy knoll gunman firing; six of them saw gun smoke from his rifle; and the Wiegman film captured some of that smoke. One of the gunman's bullets came so close to combat veteran Bill Newman that he could hear the bullet whiz by him. Go talk to any veteran who has experienced rifle bullets coming close enough that he could hear the bullets whiz by him. 

LOL! Yeah, you bet. Never mind that Curry and Decker were both riding in the lead car and were perfectly positioned to hear gunfire from the knoll, which was right next to the triple underpass and right in front of the railroad yard. Yeah, just never mind that.

And never mind that they both ordered their men to secure and search the triple underpass-railyard area. Yeah, just a "coincidence," right?

One deployed his men to the railroad yard and one to the overpass. Both were guessing. [/quote]

You surely know this is misleading. Decker ordered his officers to seal off the area of the railroad yard behind the knoll and the triple underpass. Curry ordered his officers to check the area of the triple underpass and said to get a man on top of the underpass to see what happened there. Anyone who looks at a map of Dealey Plaza and understands English can see that Decker and Curry sent their men to essentially the same area. [/quote]

Of course they would want to seal off the area until they were able to determine where the shots had come from. That doesn't mean they knew where the shots had come from.

Uh-huh. Of course. I'm sure Newman, a combat veteran, just dreamed he heard a bullet whiz by him from behind. Again, go talk to any veteran who has experienced hearing bullets whiz by him.

He was in close proximity to the headshot.

And never mind that Zapruder initially categorically stated that the gunman was behind him, and that there was strong "reverberation" all around him, right? He was standing nearly 250 feet from the sixth-floor window, nearly a football field away. Only gunfire that was fired near Zapruder could have caused physically discernible reverberation on the pergola on which he was standing.

Zapruder didn't categorically state any such thing. He had an impression the shots came from behind him. He was wrong.

Are you bothered at all by the fact the earwitnesses said all the shots they heard came from the GK but your cherished acoustic evidence only identified one shot from the GK?

Corbett is a typical Lone Nutter denier and his excuse-making reference doesn't do anything close to disproving the claim...

I don't need to disprove anything. The people making the claim have the burden of proof.

The deniers who made that excuse-making article don't list where Ruby was and what he was doing that exposed him to the broadcasts of Oswald's sheep-dipped membership in Fair Play For Cuba - which just about everyone on the planet knows was an Intel attempt to paint Oswald as a sincere Castro supporter...Truth is, if you trace Ruby's doings that Friday he was too busy trying to monitor Oswald for the conspiratorial underground to be watching TV...Being part of the conspiracy, Ruby knee-jerked "Fair Play For Cuba" because he knew the danger of Oswald being seen as the real anti-Castro false flag provocateur he was...Like many in the conspiracy, he was anxious to keep the set-up in order and on script...The same guy who was seen in photos with Richard Nixon knew he was connected all the way to the top with high powered politics...


The Dallas Police all knew Oswald was CIA...It is part of the reason why Oswald was handled in the overtly corrupted manner he was at the Police Station...As a matter of fact, Wade's reference to the Free Cuba Committee was probably a Freudian Slip because he knew CIA Oswald was on the side of the anti-Castro people being an agent provocateur...Oswald had already presented himself that way to Bringuier...We know Ruby got caught there because Ruby himself never explained where he heard it...

The regulars on this forum all know you are nuts. You choose to believe things for which there is zero evidence.

I've been saying it for years.  If you want to believe there was some sort of a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy in Dealey Plaza, then go ahead, we can discuss.  But it's a fact that Oswald shot Tippit.

It's amazing how often people call something "a fact" when in reality it's only their own belief.

Since when can it be "a fact" when you need to misrepresent the evidence and claim that Callaway was mistaken about what happened when the ambulance arrived?