Talk:Single-bullet theory: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:12, 6 July 2006

Latest revision as of 11:56, 29 March 2025

(476 intermediate revisions by 77 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Talk header}}

{{Controversial}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|1=

{{FAOL|French|fr:Théorie de la balle unique}}

{{WikiProject United States|importance=low|TX=yes|TX-importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Firearms|importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Death|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject History|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=High}}

{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=High}}

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

| algo = old(365d)

| archive = Talk:Single-bullet theory/Archive %(counter)d

| counter = 5

| maxarchivesize = 125K

| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}

| minthreadstoarchive = 1

| minthreadsleft = 5

}}

== Pop Culture section ==

i see that its been tagged for improvement for months. Most of the entries seem to be reaching extremely far in their connection to the Kennedy assassination and have no historical significance to the article at hand. The article would benefit as a whole if the entire section was taken out. [[User:Jill Orly|J.Rly]] ([[User talk:Jill Orly|talk]]) 04:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

----

==Various details==

sorry, i think [[Luis Alvarez|Alvarez]]' theory was separate. I got confused by <cite>[[JFK (movie)|JFK]]</cite>'s "nuclear physicists" line. -- [[User:Kwantus|Kwantus]] 16:16, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

:Done. [[User:Cerulean Depths|Cerulean Depths]] ([[User talk:Cerulean Depths|talk]]) 20:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

re slight wrangle over "conspiracy theory" -- what i'm trying to get at, without actually saying it, is that the WC clearly set out with the idee fixe that LHO acted alone, and then filtered and wrought the facts to fit. They rejected a conspiracy theory (in the literal sense) at all costs, willing to kite this absurd MBT rather than admit the obvious, that multiple persons were involved -- [[User:Kwantus|Kwantus]] 17:18, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

== The latest ref about Cokie Roberts ==

I recall reading that there's another problem with the 3-bullet theory: one of the shells found was damaged in such a way it could not have been the source of a bullet. Thus there's actually only ''two'' bullets available for the official nonconspiracy theory. I must try to refind that -- [[User:Kwantus|Kwantus]] 17:27, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Phillips,

:I found a good page about it.[http://www.conspiracy-net.com/archives/articles/conspiracy/assassinations/CNCka041.txt] Apparently Posner tried to deal with this, but material like [http://roswell.fortunecity.com/angelic/96/pcissu5.htm this] and [http://www.assassinationscience.com/fallacies.html this] and asides like [http://www.rense.com/politics5/zionist.htm this] have convinced me Posner is quite simply full of it. (I'd love to know if there's truth to the claim he rewrote the book to support the WC after Random House rejected it because it didn't.) (Hm. I wonder how long it will be before a WC student says that the dent in the tail of the magic bullet matches the dent in the shell!)

----

==Bullet trajectory==

might need a little correcting: i think the bullet is supposed to have hit JFK in the ''back'' and turned upward, exited at the throat and turning downward -- ie more strange zigzagging. There's also the July 1997 kafuffle about Gerry Ford fudging something to make the path through JFK less crazy.[http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/JFK/ford.html]

Thank you for your addition. However, I don't believe we at Wikipedia accept word of mouth as reliable evidence. If you interviewed Ms. Roberts as you assert, you'll have to produce a published copy of that interview. Otherwise I don't believe your testimony will stand on the page as it is right now. Thank you, [[User:warshy|warshy]] [[User talk:warshy|<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc;">(¥¥)</sup>]] 19:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

:Actually it did nothing of the sort. That ''would'' be the case if Connally had been sitting directly in front of Kennedy but he wasn't. He was sitting in a jump seat right centre in the car, not right, and Connally's seat was lower. In other words Connally's right was in front of Kennedy's left. In addition Connally was not sitting square on his seat but was sitting at an angle. The trajectory through Kennedy's neck to Connally, sitting lower down at an angle on a right centre jump seat, was a straight line, as detailed computer analysis shows. Indeed Connally could not be hit at that stop except through Kennedy's throat. [[User:Jtdirl|FearÉIREANN]] 23:28, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

== SS agent Paul Landis ==

Looks good, Gerd. What I started with was pretty editorial. Looks like you've added (or re-added) in facts but not skewed into opinion, which was th original problem - thanks.

[[User:Skybunny|Skybunny]] 22:11, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

November 2023, Secret Service agent Paul Landis came forward with claims that he actually found bullet CE399 wedged in the limo's seat behind Jackie, and that he pocketed it, then ultimately placed it on JFK's gurney.

----

Someone might want to update this wiki with this info.

==Tague bullet merely fragment or whole==

"one [shot] hit the curb [injuring] Tague" I may have miswritten that. I think it was a full bullet that hit the curb, but the WC--which is the context--may have tried to account for that as a fragment of the head shot.[http://www.conspiracy-net.com/archives/articles/conspiracy/assassinations/CNCka028.txt]

I suppose a question could then be asked:

----

Where then did the bullet in Connelly's leg go? [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:A3D3:8210:EC76:3C30:FFFD:DF0A|2600:1700:A3D3:8210:EC76:3C30:FFFD:DF0A]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:A3D3:8210:EC76:3C30:FFFD:DF0A|talk]]) 06:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

==Magic bullet==

I just added a note about another meaning for "Magic bullet:" Paul Ehrlich's characterization of a goal which he believed was achieved with Salvarsan. It doesn't look right in the table of contents, though. If this article is to be kept under the heading "Magic bullet theory" perhaps a disambiguation page is needed. I hadn't actually checked before writing the note, but I see that the existing entries for [[Paul Ehrlich]], [[Salvarsan]], and [[arsphenamine]] all make specific use of the phrase "magic bullet" buttressing my assertion that the phrase is truly connected with Ehrlich and Salvarsan. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

== Heavy handed ==

:That material belongs on a separate "magic bullet" article which is not the same thing as the "magic bullet theory". I have moved the material accordingly. [[User:BoNoMoJo|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;[[User:BoNoMoJo|B]]|[[User talk:BoNoMoJo|Talk]] 19:36, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

----

== 29+ Years Experience Investigating & Researching This Case ==

The sentence ‘If so…bone’ in paragraph three is a heavy-handed description couched in such a way as to prompt incredulity. In fact one reads on to discover that it’s a non-issue. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C7:3D17:9201:4C25:2995:50E6:C33C|2A00:23C7:3D17:9201:4C25:2995:50E6:C33C]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C7:3D17:9201:4C25:2995:50E6:C33C|talk]]) 08:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Anyone who would, entirely for free, and objectively like to have supplied for themself ANY specific reference you need for any detail, or, anyone who has never read the entire reports, never read the followup evidentiary and testimonies volumes, or never read for yourself the back round investigative files and individual documents performed by the following partial list of investigative agencies/departments/bodies, please, feel free, to contact me privately, anytime, with your specific reference request or constructive, detailed, referenced comments:

: That sentence is also unsourced. [[User:Edward321|Edward321]] ([[User talk:Edward321|talk]]) 11:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Parkland Hospital Doctors Reports, U.S. Navy Bethesda Hospital Autopsists Reports, Dallas Police Department Reports, Dallas County Surveyors Report, U.S. Defense Investigative Service Reports, U.S. Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms Reports, U.S. Navy Investigative Service Reports, U.S. Marine Corps Investigative Reports, U.S. State Department Reports, U.S. F.B.I. Report, U.S. Secret Service Report, U.S. National Security Agency Report, Texas Attorney General Report, Texas Rangers Investigative Reports, U.S. Warren Commission Report, U.S. Warren Commission Volumes of Evidence and Testimonies, U.S. Ramsey Panel Report, U.S. Ramsey Panel Volumes of Evidence and Testimonies, U.S. Hart-Schweiker Intelligence Activities Committee Report, U.S. Hart-Schweiker Intelligence Activities Committee Volumes of Evidence and Testimonies, U.S. Church Committee on U.S. Intelligence Agencies and Assassinations Report U.S. Church Committee on U.S. Intelligence Agencies and Assassinations Volumes of Evidence and Testimonies, U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations Report, U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations Volumes of Evidence and Testimonies, U.S. Committee on Ballistic Acoustics Report, U.S. Assassination Records and Review Board Report, U.S. Assassination Records and Review Board Volumes of Evidence and Testimonies.

As of 2004, I have also spoken directly with Dealey Plaza witnesses and before-and-after assassination-related-events witnesses, still living or now dead, detailed in a personal database of over 4200+ persons.

The vast majority of persons (including historians, and, supposed, historians) who make too-broad, too-generalized comments may not have actually read these entire complete reports, nor actually read the entire supporting volumes, nor actually read publicly available investigative backround files and individual documents (1000's of pages of which are still classified against public availability), nor actually have spoken directly with assassination witnesses nor events observed witnesses. I have 29+ years experience of direct involvement as an investigator for, and research into, the micro-details of the assassination of President Kennedy for anyone who wants to, objectively, understand, and decide for him or herself the details, and truth, of what transpired on November 22, 1963.

When my free time allows, I will be updating with specific primary references of important, often overlooked details, from my 29+ year database.

[[User:JFKtruth|JFKtruth]] 14:14, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

:* Keep in mind, JFKtruth, [[wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox|Wikipedia is not a soapbox]] and edits must comply with its [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Neutral Point of View policy]]. [[User:BoNoMoJo|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;[[User:BoNoMoJo|B]]|[[User talk:BoNoMoJo|Talk]] 19:36, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

:: Unless I missed it, "JFKtruth's" comments above do not contain one, single expression that is not neutral. I, for one, am interested in someone who has stated he/she has a 29+ year backround investigating the case. Almost sounds to me as if "JFKtruth" may have had an official relationship investigating the case, and that could be very enlightening.

:: Just because one person "A" has learned and shared information that a person "B" has not learned '''yet''' does not mean that person "A" is sharing information via a "soapbox."

:: Unless anyone can specifically point out for us what he or she thinks is a biased comment made by "JFKtruth" in "JFKtruth's" comments above, I would suggest that, specifically, "BoNoMoJo" (''a.k.a. "B"'') contain himself or herself to the full-time job the vast majority of us each have of worrying more about himself or herself, rather than being opinionated (''"BoNoMoJo's"'' "soapbox" ''quip''), nor attempting to be psuedo-bossy.

:: Just because the WC and HSCA ''final report'' is each written one way, does not even come close to indicating that when you have ''actually read'' the 1000's of investigatory notes and investigatory reports in the investigatory files that lead to what, ''should have been'', the ''final report'' conclusion. The simple fact is the investigatory notes, the investigatory reports, and the investigatory files information, when actually read and actually understood as a whole, reveals completely different facts that were not printed in the WC and HSCA ''final report'' because the WC and HSCA (albeit ''deliberately''?), and for assassination-illuminating reasons, chose to ignore, omit, etc., from the ''final report'' when the WC and HSCA sealed the files until 2039 trying to hide the micro-detailed investigatory facts from the people.

:: IOW, the ''final report'' and the investigated facts of the case are 2 distinctly separate issues, as anyone who has actually read them can easily read and then understand. -152.163.253.9 12:00 June 15, 2004 (UTC)

:: 152.163.253.9, See my recent comments below. [[User:BoNoMoJo|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;[[User:BoNoMoJo|B]]|[[User talk:BoNoMoJo|Talk]] 16:33, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

----

==Moving this material and redirecting the article==

TO accord with NPOV policy, this article should be at [[single bullet theory]], not <nowiki>[[magic bullet theory]]</nowiki>. [[User:BoNoMoJo|B]] 18:00, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

:In line with my comment of over five months ago, I will be moving this article to [[single bullet theory]]. [[User:BoNoMoJo|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;[[User:BoNoMoJo|B]]|[[User talk:BoNoMoJo|Talk]] 19:36, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

----

==NPOV msg and Controversy message==

My latest edits to NPOV the article have made it sufficiently neutral to remove the NPOV warning at the beginning of the article. I've replaced that warning with the controversy message. [[User:BoNoMoJo|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;[[User:BoNoMoJo|B]]|[[User talk:BoNoMoJo|Talk]] 20:14, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

----

==Controversial because it documents Warren Commission & HSCA documented investigatory backround facts?!?==

The current article as it stands does an outstanding job detailing investigated backround information ''documented'' by the WC and the HSCA, that any/all individuals are free to research for themself. (''as a majority of persons who have'' actually read ''the investigatory backround information can discover, some of the important backround investigatory information'' '''was hidden''' ''when the WC'' (via Lyndon Johnson's order) ''and HSCA tried to seal/hide the records until 2039'')

I disagree that the article is controversial.

It is the WC and HSCA, ''theorized'', "single bullet theory" itself that '''IS''' controversial ''because'' the WC and HSCA ''documented'' investigatory backround facts, much to the chagrin of the WC and HSCA ''apologists'', do not even support what the WC and HSCA printed in their ''final report.''

'''The Wikipedia "single bullet theory" article itself is not controversial''' because it does provide and documents those investigatory backround facts. Some are trying to, imho, mistakenly (accidentally or deliberately?) blend 2 separate and distinct issues.

Of important note is that the WC ''final report'' itself could not even come to a WC agreement as to exactly when the, ''theorized'', so-called "single bullet theory" occured. Additionally, The HSCA ''final report'' did not even agree with '''any''' of the WC ''theorized'' time points on when the, ''theorized'', "single bullet theory" even occurred during the assassination. (''the HSCA claimed the,'' theorized, ''"single bullet theory" occured at Z-190, --even though President Kennedy was hidden by the large live-oak tree from the,'' supposed, ''WC "snipers lair"-- but the WC was so nebulous about it that it, instead, gave the sbt a time frame of seconds during which the WC'' theorized ''it occured because before even'' theorizing ''about the sbt'' --which the WC '''did not''' theorize the sbt until the wounding of [[James Tague]] became more public knowledge '''6 months''' ''after'' the assassination-- ''the WC at its Nov'63 outset --guided by Hoover and the FBI, the WC's main investigatory information'' supplier-- ''narrow-mindedly, was constrained to a time frame because it started its theory from the premise that there was only one assassin''=talk about biased, pre-emptive, circular "logic"!)

As most persons who have read it have learned, the HSCA ''final report'' concluded, '''"that there''' ''was'' '''a probable conspiracy in the assassination of President Kennedy."'''

Much to the chagrin of a minority, the "single bullet," as a majority have learned for themself, really is the "magic bullet" that has been kept out of public view by the U.S. National Archives for going on 41 years. -152.163.253.9 11:41, June 15, 2004 (UTC)

: 152.163.253.9, nearly the entirety of your comments above are irrelevant (not to mention untimely) and appear to be based on a poor understanding of wikipedia policy regarding "controversy", "[[neutral point of view]]" and other article disclaimers. Rather than rant on, please educate yourself about these policies. The issue is not whether such-and-such fact or report is controversial, but whether the subject-matter is controversial...and this article deals with a controversial topic. For that matter it doesn't matter whether the article perfectly complies with the "neutral point of view" (which it arguably does not now comply), it would still be a controversial topic simply because there is more than one point of view on this topic and the differing sides are often divisive. In order to avoid edit wars, a controversy message advises potential editors to proceed with caution when editing to avoid violating the NPOV policy. As the article stands now, it complies well enough with the NPOV policy, but even the most informed person on this topic must present material under the NPOV policy. Contrary to what your grade school teacher told you, facts do NOT speak for themselves. If you have an agenda to prove that the "facts" do "prove" or "disprove" some theory, I suggest you take your soapbox to another forum because the wikipedian community will not accept a POV article. [[User:BoNoMoJo|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;[[User:BoNoMoJo|B]]|[[User talk:BoNoMoJo|Talk]] 16:33, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

----

== description of external links ==

Despite 152.163.253.9's assertion, the external link to [http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/sbtproblems.htm] is NOT a link to "modeling" evidence, nor does the website purport to be so. It is merely an interpretation of the meaning of various pictures and diagrams...which are not models. [[model (abstract)#Modeling: the process of generating a model|Modeling]] is a unique method often requiring technical expertise to create the model. [[User:BoNoMoJo|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;[[User:BoNoMoJo|B]]|[[User talk:BoNoMoJo|Talk]] 16:59, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

----

== who refers to it as "magic bullet theory" ==

It is informative, relevant and NPOV to note who refers to this theory as the "magic bullet theory", namely, skeptics and conspiracy theorists. Censoring this material is inappropriate. [[User:BoNoMoJo|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&mdash;[[User:BoNoMoJo|B]]|[[User talk:BoNoMoJo|Talk]] 17:02, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

==pictures==

I’ve replaced the picture of dubious provenance and a strongly POV caption with two views of the bullet from the National Archives, and thus public ___domain. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] 02:44, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

==New Documented Information on CE399 and its Provenance==

[http://historymatters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm|New Documented Information on CE399 and its Provenance]

[[User:205.188.116.199|205.188.116.199]] 16:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Illustrations ==

Hello.

I am working on this topic in the french wikipedia.

Somebody created recently there a "magic bullet" page that is pure conspiration theory (Garrison type).

Preparing to edit this page, I decided to create some illustrations, as I was not sure about the licence of the various picture you can find on the web.

So I have created 2 graphics that I uploaded to commons.

You can find them [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy#Pictures there], I let you with the decision whether or not they are appropriate to use in this topic. [[User:Alex lbh|Alex lbh]] 6 July 2005 21:02 (UTC)

: More graphics and photos uploaded to Commons. They are now all on a specific [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy JFK assassination graphics page in Commons]. [[User:Alex lbh|Alex lbh]] 09:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

== Harassment documented? ==

"One Parkland Hospital doctor stated at least three times on the day of the assassination that the wound on the front of the President's throat was an "entry" point, who, according to critics, later changed his mind that it was an "exit" wound after being harried and harassed by FBI agents a documented several times in the weeks following the assassination."

This is a bit of a mess. I've cleaned it up to read:

"One Parkland Hospital doctor stated at least three times on the day of the assassination that the wound on the front of the President's throat was an "entry" point, '''but then''', according to critics, later changed his mind '''to claim''' that it was an "exit" wound after being harried and harassed by FBI agents''', as''' documented several times in the weeks following the assassination."

However, I'm not at all sure that this is what was intended.... were the doctor's claims of harrassment documented several times in the weeks following the assassination (it seems unlikely that he'd become so vocal about this if he'd been so successfully intimidated as to "change his mind" about a key piece of evidence)? Or was it his original claim (that the wound was an "entry" point) that was documented several times?

Please review, clarify and cite sources. [[User:TheMadBaron|TheMadBaron]] 00:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

==Discovery Channel?==

An episode on the [[Discovery Channel]] of its series ''Unsolved History'' recreated the angles, ammunition, trajectory, etc. of the Oswald shot and made a case that it is, at least, plausible that a single bullet caused the wounds described in the autopsy records--should any mention be made of this in the article? I don't know how we treat television evidence (although what I saw seemed very well documented and carefully done), and certainly it doesn't lay the matter to rest (because a single bullet ''could'' have done this doesn't mean it ''did''), but I thought it might be a valid inclusion. Any thoughts? [[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]] 06:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey dude, the Discovery Myth Busters replicated the the assassination shot with two manequin made of ballistic gelatin and bones, a car of the same make and model, the Italian rifle, the same distance, direction and angle of the shot. The result was a nearly identical senario--one bullet, multiple wounds (one short of the historic number) and confused a forensics expert, to boot.

-Chin, Cheng-chuan

== JFK: Reloaded ==

I thought that the game was intended to prove a three-bullet theory. The assassination summary lists accuracy of three shots, not one.

:Now with a signature! [[User:Thomas Connor|Miguel Cervantes]] 20:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

==Neck wound ___location==

RPJ has stuck in the following nonsense: "President Kennedy's Death Certificate places the bullet wound to Kennedy's back at the third thoracic vertebra. [http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md6/html/Image0.htm]" If you click on the link to see the death certificate you see it mentions a lumbar SCAR and knee SCAR (the lumbar area is in the lower back-- this is JFK's old back surgery scar) and says NOTHING about the ___location of the neck wound. I am left to the conclusion that RPJ cited this and didn't even bother to read it. Take all the stuff OUT, RPJ.

:The frantic reader above has just made the most basic mistake in doing research: He only read a document until he found something that he thinks supports what he already believes and then doesn't finish reading the document.

:It is not on the first page of Kennedy's Death Certificate that describes the ___location of the bullet wound to the President's back. Instead, it is on the second page of the Death Certificate. On the second page, Dr. Burkely identifies the ___location of the bullet wound to the back being at the third thoracic vertebra.

:The reader should please go back to the Kennedy Death Certificate and turn to page two. [http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md6/html/Image0.htm]

:After over forty years of controversy, the hope is that the political reasons for the secrecy and confusing account surrounding the president's death can be put aside and the documents reviewed in a calm logical manner.

[[User:RPJ|RPJ]] 19:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

'''Answer'''

::Okay, I now see page 2. I don't think I've ever seen a typed addendum to a death certificate, so it's hardly expected. Dr. Berkely must have been confused about what a death certificate is for.

::One of the autopsy photos looks at this wound from behind, and you see basically the entire right upper skull blasted away, However, the scalp is very, very tough (the hair through it acts like re-bar) and it appears that little of JFK's scalp was actually gone, even if he was missing some of the side of his skull and brain. With the scalp sides down, you get the Dallas rear wound if that flap is back. With the rear flap pulled over to show the small entrance hole (as Humes does in another famous photo) you see no big wound in the back of the head at all (this flap is covering a loss of skull underneath, with a beveled half-hole at the edge of what is gone). Put ALL the flaps back, with some artificial support with cement underneath (as the morticians finally did after the autopsy), and you see the head miraculously undamaged, with hair combed normally. Which Admiral Burkely, his doctor, reports. JFK was prepared relatively quickly for open-coffin viewing by all accounts (not just Burkely's-- also the mortician), and nobody needed a toupee to do it with. But all of this has confused many people. It needn't if you remember all or nearly all, of the scalp is there.

::Speaking of which, Dr. Burkely's report in the WC does not discuss wounds anatomically. On page 2 of the death certificate (thanks for that ref) Berkley does indeed locate the back wound at "about" the 3rd thoracic verteba, but I'm afraid the photos from the autopsy and the official autopsy doctors' report (which both show C6) has to take precedent over an informal report. If Dr. Burkely had some big inside knowledge to report, as you suggest in your revisions to the article, he should have included it in his 10 page letter, not stuff like how many flowers he gave to Jackie. In his report he does say he spent a lot of time shuttling between the autopsy and the family, so one supposes he missed the befuddlement of the autopsy doctors about an exit for the back/neck wound. Humes later found out about the trach by talking over the phone to a Dallas doctor, long after the autopsy had concluded. Wups. Dr. Burkely could presumably have put him straight if he knew enough to do it. But he either didn't, or was missing. So he's not in the picture as a big expert on JFK's wounds, no matter what he wrote on the death certificate, and no matter if he was both in Dallas and at Bethesda. He didn't do his main job given two chances at it (in the autopsy room and in his letter to the WC), so why should we assume he had anything real to offer?[[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 21:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

:::If you want to know why the WC and the HSCA placed the neck entry at C6, other than the obvious fact that C6 was fractured in the X-ray, take a look at the JFK autopsy photos yourself (google JFK autopsy photo). In the photo of the back, you'll see the entry wound is in the neck, ie, it's well above the spine of the scapula (which you can feel on your own back if you care to) and well above the pack of muscle above the spine, which is supraspinatus and muscles leading from there [[Rhomboid minor muscle]] to the biggest neck spinus process, which is C7. Feel that largest protruberance in your spine at the base of your neck-- that's C7 ([[vertebra prominens]]). Anything superior to that is your neck, not your back, and it's marked with a dot in the photo because it's a prominant anatomical landmark. (JFK was a bit humpbacked, but C7, the major prominance in his neck, can still be seen as the part where his neck juts out the most, as in all of us). The ruler in the photo shows the bullet hole a bit less than 2 inches to the right and above C7, putting it in the region of C6. The bullet hole is clearly above the scapular spine, which can be seen. It's nowhere near T3.[[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 17:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

::*To: SbHarris

:::**The doctor who signed President Kennedy's official Death Certificate was the President's personal physician who was in the emergency room with the President when he died, and attended the autopsy in Wahington D.C. He was a Rear Admiral in the U.S. Navy at the time. He knew the President well.

:::**I am happy that you read the entire Death Certificate of President Kennedy. The easiest way to tell if a document of any importance is authentic is to check for a signature. As in the case of Kennedy’s Death Certificate the signature is at the end of the document on the second page.

:::**As you were able to see, the second page of the Death Certificate, contains the official summary of facts relating to the death of President Kennedy. It desribes a second bullet wound suffered by the President that struck him in the back, which Dr. Burkely locates at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra.

:::: You do not understand what a death certificate is or what its purpose is. It is not the place for "official summary of facts" in a gunshot death. That comes from the examiner's report and autopsy. Death certificates merely inform the state registrar that somebody has died, and (very generally) how they died. Detail is not wanted or needed, because only secretaries and statisticians will be dealing with the information. Don't make more of this than there is.[[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 20:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

:::**I am surprised that you attack Dr. Burkely in such a manner. He was the personal physician of the President and obviously held both the president and the First Lady in high regard. Besides signing the official Death Certificate, Dr. Burkely did write the ten page statement about the time period around the assassination. It is this document you ridicule. But, Dr. Burkely did not write this for the Warren Commission. I don't believe the Warren Commission had even been formed.

:::**What further surprises me is your advice to the reader to type in autopsy photo on the internet and make some decision where the bullet hit Kenndy in the back. Since there is so much controversy over the authenticity of Kennedy autopsy material, you should direct the readers to a reliable site.

::::The reason there's so much photo controvery is people don't want to believe their own eyes. If you have a "reliable site" for the photos please give it. The [[Assassination Records Review Board]] doesn't have them, because they've never officially been released.

:::I would suggest the reader look at the material assembled by the [[Assassination Records Review Board]] which was created by Congress in 1992 and entrusted with gathering authentic documents relating to President Kenndey's death, especially the medical records. [http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/arrb98/index.html] The Board did collect a large number of previously secret documents and they are being made public often with startling results.[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/conspiracy/newman.html] [[User:RPJ|RPJ]] 06:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

::::All of which is irrelevent. If you don't like the photos, read the autopsy report, where people had time and rulers and could later examine photos. These people placed the back wound 5.5 inches (14 cm) inward from the acromion and 5.5 inches (14 cm) down from the mastoid (that's that bone under your right ear). And over the TOP margin of the right scapula. I suggest you get out cardboard or two rulers and make a hinged bit with two arms 5.5 in long. If you're about 6 ft tall, have somebody line them up on your right ear and shoulder with your head erect, keeping the intersection above your right shoulder blade. You'll find this is nowhere near T3. Furthermore, the autopsy clearly shows the bullet passed over the top of the right lung, never entering the thorax, which would be impossible if it hit at T3. The tip of the right lung comes up above the clavicle into the neck. A bullet which passes over the top of it, bruising it, but not hitting it, must be passing through the throat. So Burkely is wrong. But why should be be right? Careful measurement of the dead president's back was not his job. [[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 20:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

== The bullet hit the back where Dr. Burkley described it ==

The bullet hit Kennedy's back at the third thoracic vertebra just as Dr. Burkely said in the Death Certificate. Look at the autopsy diagram, [http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/autopdescript1.gif] Kennedy's shirt [http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Evidence/Shirt.jpg] and Kennedy's jacket. [http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Evidence/jfkjacket.GIF].

[[User:RPJ|RPJ]] 19:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:The autopsy drawing was freehand, and since it really doesn't reference any other spine landmarks, it's only approximate. The coat and shirt have the problem that a sitting man with his right arm held up to chest level (as JFK's was, in waving at the crowd) will have both ride up a couple of inches relative to the skin. That's especially true of the coat. The hole in the short looks about C7 to me-- just about where the spine is most prominant.

:If you want to see exactly where the bullet hit, you need to look at the autopsy photo: [http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/BE5_HI.JPG]. The dot in the middle of the president's back is C7, the most prominant vertebra. The bullet hole is clearly higher, over the top of the scapula. No thoracic entry would allow a bullet to pass through the body without entering the thoracic cavity and puncturing the lungs. Yet the autopsy shows that something did traverse the president's body, and it traversed it over the TOP of the right lung, bruising it, and knocking off a piece of C6. There was also a hole in his throat at that level. The photograph has the right placement for such a missle striking from the rear.

:Now, you can claim the autopsy photos have been doctored, but all three Bethesda physicans have had the chance to review them, and none of them thinks they've been altered. So you have the work of 3 autopsy doctors vs. Burkely.[[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 21:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

::And by the way, let me ask you for your theory explaining all this, if you don't believe the Bethesda doctors OR the photo? Have you tried taking a 5.5 inch piece of cardboard, putting it at the bone behind your right ear, and seeing where the end winds up, on your "back"? TRY THIS. If you can get it down to L3 in any reasonable sitting position, you're Tom Thumb.

::Now, you don't like the Warren conclusion, so spin YOUR scenario out for me. The rear bullet hits JFK at T3, traveling through coat and jacket to do it, but it doesn't penetrate into the chest cavity because no hole is found through the lung (which it would have to be, at that level). We know JFK gets shot in the throat at essentially the same time, from the Z film, and he has a hole in his tie to show it, and the Dallas doctors saw the wound it made, where they made the tracheotomy. Now that's a coincidence-- two shots at once, nearly in line (but not quite, according to you).

::The throat shot hits at C6 level, travels over the top of the right lung, buising it, knocks off part of the transverse process of C6 in the X-ray, then (according to you) DISAPPEARS. It does not pass through the skin. So you've got two bullets, hitting nearly simultaneously, one of which hits in the rear, and makes it almost into the chest, and the other of which hits in the front, traversing the throat, and nearly makes to out of the chest. Golly. Then they both ''evaporate.'' Magic indeed.

::But if you take autopsy photo and measurments as accurate, of course all the above problems go away, because all wounds here are caused by passage of one bullet passing through from back to front (or of course front to back, but now you have to look at possible angles). Occam's razor, say I. [[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 17:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Yes, let's talk about Occam's razor.

:::* Both the Governor, to his dying day, and his wife to this day, have been adamant that he was not hit by the same bullet that hit JFK.

:That's fine, but the governor may be wrong. It can take a second to register a bullet hit.

:::* JFK was hit at Zapruder frame 224 at the latest. Connally didn't react until 238, 1.4 seconds later. Look at Zapruder 230. JFK has clearly been hit, yet we see Connally siting upright, smiling, with his right hand held to the right of his body at shoulder level, holding his Stetson. The single bullet theory requires you to believe that this is a man who already had a bullet enter his back, break his rib, collapse his lung, exit his chest, shatter the bones in his hat-holding hand (which is not in front of his body) and enter his leg. That's one tough Texan.

:Single frames lie. LOOK at the best image stabalized version of the Z film (it's the second link in the Z film wiki). You'll see that just as JFK emerges from the Stemmons sign, there's an instant where BOTH he and the governor react at the same instant. C's hands both fly up (and yes he keeps hold of his hat), his mouth comes open, and in general he makes exactly the sort of reaction somebody does when they're punched in the ribs without expecting it. WATCH IT. Watch it ten times if you need to. Something happens to Connolly RIGHT THERE. All of his later reactions are a ''slow'' roll into his wife's lap. There's no sharp movement anywhere to indicate a bullet strike later. Analysis of this frame-by-frame isn't nearly as good as what your brain supplies if you watch the movie. Here (wait for it to load-- it takes a few seconds) [http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/film/Zapruderstable.mov]

:::* Bullets do not fall out of wounds. They just don't.

:They do. In the Discovery Channel piece the bullet was moving so slowly it actually bounced off the Connally figure's leg. I saw it in slo-mo. But had it not hit two ribs instead of one, it would have penetrated the ballistic gel, I bet.

:::* A bullet which travels through 2 men breaking several bones will lose some of its mass and be severely blunted.

:Nah, that depends. You really need to see the Beyond the Magic Bullet special.

:::*Then, of course, there are the fragments in Connally's wrist to consider. The Parkland bullet was unblunted and had 99% of its original mass.

We don't know what the mass of the fragments in Connally is/was.

:::* The "cloth movement" stuff is nonsense. When a man is wearing a tailored shirt belted into his pants, and a jacket over it, while sitting down, and he raises his arms to throat level, the shirt cloth near the center of his back does not move at all. Try it. [[User:Joegoodfriend|Joegoodfriend]] 7:05, 06 July 2006 (UTC)

:You may need to move both jacket and shirt to get comfortable. YOU try it. If you look at the really good Kodachrome [[image: JFKmotorcade.jpg]] that begins the [[JFK assassination]] wiki you'll see the back of JFK's jacket is raised quite a ways above the level of his tie knot, simply from having his arm up. Explain it however you like-- it's up there. Really.[[User:Sbharris|Steve]] 19:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

==Stop Reverting Bethesda/Warren Commission data==

Inclusion of Burkely's death certificate is fair game (I only objected when I couldn't see page 2). Removal of Bethesda autopsy findings, just, because you don't agree with them, is not. I have included them without attempting to interpret them in the article itself, and you must do the same with your own primary source findings. Please carefully read [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:NPOV]].

Ultimately, WP needs a "JFK Autopsy" article, gory photos and all, where people can debate all this.[[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 21:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

==Inclusion of Bethesda autopsy data==

I've included more Bethesda autopsy report data from the Warren report. It concludes passage though the neck with bruising of top of right lung, but no penetration into the thorax. That's not consistant with L3, but I let the reader draw his own conclusion. The Bethesda docs thought the bullet went through his neck, and they're the best ones to judge, since they had several hours of disecting and measuring to reach their conclusion.

I've deleted the reference to the death certificate in the heading. If it's death certificate vs autopsy findings, you can read about that in the body of the article. [[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 01:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)