Sat Nite bomb shell ? Discovery Channel .. proof that the
fastpi...@aol.com
analysis... showing that the single bullet theory ..was indeed correct.
I have no idea if it is true...but it was fascinating.
borings
vince palamara
jim....@fuse.net
the provenance of CE399 which cannot be forensically nor ballistically
connected to the wounding of JFK and JBC. FBI ballistic expert Robert
Frazier examined C1-CE399 did not find any blood, muscle tissue, bone, nor
fiber residue on that bullet when he prepared it for his ballistic
examination. He stated during his WC testimony that he didn't have to
clean it before he examined it under magnification because it WAS ALREADY
clean. Therefore, there is NO PROOF that C1-CE399 wounded anyone in Dealey
Plaza much less cause the 7 wounds in the two victims. The only thing
Frazier could conclude was CE399 was fired from the CE139 rifle(Oswald's
rifle) but could not say when that bullet was fired. And the NAA tests
conducted by Dr. Guinn to try to connect CE842(Connally' wrist fragment)
to CE399 have now been PROVEN to be not only inaccurate but dead wrong.
Based on the newest scientific research, Blakey and others have called
Guinn's methodology 'JUNK SCIENCE." In other words Guinn was wrong, so
there is no connection proving once and for all the SBT is a hoax.
Also the Discovery Channel's test you refer to DID NOT replicate the
wounding of the two victims. You obviously missed the location of the EXIT
point on the FRONT OF THE JFK dummy torso which was nowhere near the front
of the neck wound on the real JFK. You also didn't notice the Discovery
Channel "research team's" assiduous avoidance of showing the exit wound
location on the front of their JFK dummy torso because it was so far off
the mark. And yet you cite this experiment as convincing in some
unexplainable way. What the Discovery "research team" actually proved,
which you have obviously missed, was the SBT is still a hoax in spite of
their best efforts to prove otherwise. If you'll pardon the pun, they gave
it their best shot and couldn't repeat what actually happened in Dealey
Plaza on 11-22-63.
But the most glaring of all in the so called "official evidence" in this
case is the autopsy and the report of the findings by Humes. HBF guessed
at the connection between the back wound and the wound in the front of the
neck that Dr. Perry used to make a tracheostomy incision over. The
autopists DID NOT PROVE A CONNECTION between the front of the neck wound
and the back wound by dissecting those sites and tracks as they were
required to do by law. This mistake is so egregious it has to be
considered as a deliberate deception in the most important autopsy in the
history of our nation. This outrageous mistake that has unbelievably gone
unchallenged by anyone in the government allowed the SBT hoax to be
introduced into the investigation of the murder of the president of the
United States.
And all that I take it is good enough for you? if your answer is yes it
would appear that both you and Gerald Ford use similiar techniques in
handling the truth. Regards, Jim
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
borings wrote:
> Probably Sturdivan, Myers, or that Jennings ABC garbage
>
> vince palamara
***I was thinking the Discovery Channel show, JFK: Beyond the Magic
Bullet". Their scientific test came very close to duplicating the single
bullet shot. A few more test shots using additional replicas, particularly
hitting the mark dead on, and i think the margin of error would have been
practically eliminated.
***Ron Judge
Joop Bluemink
I am new to this newsgroup, but the assasination of JFK has always
fascinated me. Having read various documents/books/articles, it is my
opinion that the single bullit theory is impossible to maintain. I never
understood how the Warren Commission could have accepted such a
conclusion.
regards
Pamela McElwain-Brown
Well, it gave a fairly decent scenario where a SB inflicted some of
the wounds. However, there is no one SB scenario in the JFK
assassination; there are different ones, and none has been 'proven'.
In addition, just about everything having to do with CE 399 is fishy.
So the bottom line is that Specter, creater of the first SB scenario,
also pushed CE 399 onto the WC as supposedly being connected to the
assassination, when, in fact, it was not.
Pamela
Jim Shannon
"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:g82lo1dpqn9f0j3bj...@4ax.com...
Not being a JFK assassination researcher and having no official position on
the case, I must admit that the SBT is nothing more then WC damage control.
I don't think that LN supporters insecurely need the SBT to support a LN
theory
but WC supporters probably do.
Jim
atlasrecrd
It seems to me this issue could have been solved long ago by using
mannequins and the correct seating and angle of JFK and Connally.
Put a sniper up high, a target on the backwound of the mannequin
that's supposed to be JFK, and recreate the 7 wounds.
Of course, that would depend on if such a thing is even possible in
the first place. ;)
YM
>
> I am new to this newsgroup, but the assasination of JFK has always
> fascinated me. Having read various documents/books/articles, it is my
> opinion that the single bullit theory is impossible to maintain. I never
> understood how the Warren Commission could have accepted such a
> conclusion.
Many smart people who have investigated the matter DO believe that
it was possible. Close analysis of the Zapruder film shows that
the wounds in Presidnent Kennedy and Gov Connally do line up
in a straight line. The wound in Gov Conally's back shows the
bullet was tumbling and, from what I have read (I am no ballistics
expert), could happen only if the bullet had passed through someone
else (the President) first.
Texextra
The program asserted that CE399 was found on Connolly's stretcher,
which is undeniably false. Any television program that makes such a
huge error of fact loses my trust immediately.
Chad Zimmerman
I think it is more interesting to note that the Discovery Channel bullet
destroyed two ribs, instead of one. It also broke the simulated wrist. The
additional loss of velocity by the impact to two ribs prevented it from
imbedding in the mock thigh. However, several things can be garnered by
watching what happened:
1. The bullet did indeed exit and hit the Connally torso.
2. The bullet did tumble upon exit, indicated by the impact marks on the
bullet- which I examined personally.
3. The resultant bullet, having broken 3 bones, maintained a weight within
.6 grains of CE 399.
4. The bullet did not break into numerous pieces, as conventional wisdom
predicts.
Now, you make some interesting arguments. However, no one has shown that
blood and matter must be found on a bullet after it has penetrated to
people, ended up on a stretcher, fell to the floor and was put in
someone's pocket. Imagine how many other surfaces that bullet touched
before getting into Frazier's hands. So, that demand is predicated upon an
unproven ideal.
Only scant traces of metal are noted on the Connally films, completely
consistent with the mass missing from CE 399. The rib impact was most
closely associated with a brush-by impact where the rib is tangentially
struck, instead of a direct impact. This was tested in 1964 at the
Edgewood Proving Grounds, and I've seen the resultant x-rays confirming
this type of impact to a goat rib.
The x-rays to President Kennedy do not show a direct osseous impact, so
the bullet entered and exited intact. Connally's entrance suggests a
bullet that has tumbled. Tangential impact to the rib would cause a
flattening deformity on the side of the bullet, causing lead to be
squeezed from the jacket. The first known metal to show up were in the
form of a few tiny flakes found in Connally's wrist. The wound was noted
to be caused by a bullet that entered backwards, due to the amount of
foreign debris carried in and through the wound, and is completely
consistent with CE 399. The puncture to the left thigh was caused by a
bullet traveling at a severely reduced velocity, just as CE 399 would have
been.
But, let's contemplate that CE 399 didn't cause the wounds and was a
plant, as the lack of human tissue matter suggests. So, basically, the
conspirators had the forsight to plant a bullet missing just the right
amount of metal. Not only that, but it fit the wounds and wounding
patterns perfectly. Now, just how can that be done? Why wouldn't the
conspirators simply have fired a bullet into something, deforming it so
that the American public would buy the SBT wounding scenario, but leaving
enough of it intact to match it to Oswald's rifle? Why did the Discovery
Channel bullet show a very similar amount of metal lost, yet it created a
lot more damage to the Connally thorax? Heck, why was the Connally model
hit if the SBT is laughable?
I find most opinions on the SBT to be highly uneducated and heavily
weighted on a large volume of circumspect analysis:
1. A rifle bullet has to deform tremendously when it hits something dense,
such as bone.
This idea is correct if the bullet first hits something dense, but does
not comply when the bullet's velocity is slowed significantly prior to the
impact with the bone.
2. There is more metal left in Connally than was missing from the magic
bullet.
This is another idea without much basis, only conjecture. The mass of
metal left behind in Connally is subject to speculation because it wasn't
weighed. However, very small amounts of lead are necessary to create the
images seen on the x-rays. Given the size of the recovered fragments, it
is well within the realm of possibility that an appropriate amount of lead
is missing from CE 399 to explain all metal traces seen in the x-rays.
3. Guinn's NAA is absolutely and positively wrong.
This has not been proven. What HAS happened is that a study concluded that
current bullet lead cannot be traced using that methodology because of the
relative uniformity of bullet lead in and between lots. HOWEVER, this has
not been proven with WCC rounds, whose composition with the Guinn rounds
shows contrast between a couple of elements that is not seen in today's
ammunition. Nevertheless, unless Stu Wexler and others test and prove that
there is enough similarity between bullets of the same lots, then the
argument is circumstantial at best. It simply hasn't been documented and
proven to be wrong.
4. Humes and Boswell did not prove a wound track through the neck, hence
did not prove the shot trajectory.
An attempt to probe did occur. However, due to the shifting of overlying
muscle tissue, the probe would not pass. Therefore, the wound was
correlated by analyzing the adjacent tissue damage. This CAN be reasonably
associated without a metal probe because no evidence of two shots existed.
No bullet matter was found in the neck or torso. Therefore, in order to
have two shots, you have two dissintegrating bullets without exit wounds.
Also, you have to remember that it wasn't until the next morning when
Humes found out about the anterior neck wound. Since they didn't know
exactly what was going on at autopsy, they did not dissect for fear of
losing a wound tract by aimlessly cutting.
Of course, if one bullet didn't do all that damage to the neck as the WC
suggested, you have:
Two bullets without exits and without mass.
One bullet hitting the front, going upwards and fired from some unknown
lower position, missing the windshield and all the occupants.
Any OTHER scenario is far more magical than the Magic Bullet. It requires
much more inventive thought and more problems.
5. The Discovery Channel's marksman greatly missed the actual entry point.
Yes, he did. In fact, I think it was also probably marked incorrectly.
Nevertheless, the bullet did transit intact (no kidding), it did tumble
(no kidding) and it did hit the Connally torso (no kidding). It did break
twice as many ribs with a direct and tilted hit (no kidding). It did break
the simulated wrist bone (no kidding).
It did not penetrate the leg, as mentioned, and this is also expected due
to the impact to two ribs.
It also weighed in at .6 grains less than CE 399...which isn't much. In
fact, it was only .4% less in weight compared with the magic bullet.
Although the bullet didn't hit the exact mark, it did confirm much of what
CE 399 was said to have done.
Science is proving that CE 399 did just what they say it did...which was
their second choice of scenarios. Yet, those against the SBT have never
shot such ammuntion, never tested the theories they propose and blatantly
ignore the ballistic facts regarding the situation, preferring instead to
invent their own analysis so they can be the next History Channel
exclusive.
Chad
<jim....@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:1133119453.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
>>I am new to this newsgroup, but the assasination of JFK has always
>>fascinated me. Having read various documents/books/articles, it is my
>>opinion that the single bullit theory is impossible to maintain. I never
>>understood how the Warren Commission could have accepted such a
>>conclusion.
>
>
> Many smart people who have investigated the matter DO believe that
> it was possible. Close analysis of the Zapruder film shows that
> the wounds in Presidnent Kennedy and Gov Connally do line up
That is not true. All the wounds do not line up in a straight line. Even
the latest SBTs allow for a non-straight line path.
> in a straight line. The wound in Gov Conally's back shows the
> bullet was tumbling and, from what I have read (I am no ballistics
> expert), could happen only if the bullet had passed through someone
> else (the President) first.
No, that is not true. Part of the fiction comes from the LIE that the
wound was 1.2 inches long. It was not. It was only 15 mm long, exactly as
long as some claim JFK's head wound was and they do no argue that his head
wound bullet had to go through someone else first. Consistency please.
>
>
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Anthony Marsh
The problem is that anyone attempting such a simulation could achieve
whatever results wished simply by lying about the locations of the wounds
and the positions of the men, as several have before. Such as the Peter
Jennings special which was rebroadcast this past weekend. They said that
Connally was three inches lower than Kennedy. LIE. His jump seat was three
inches lower than Kennedy's seat, but he was two and a half inches TALLER
than Kennedy, especially high waisted, so that the real difference in the
top of the heads was between one and a half inches and two inches lower.
Not three inches. If they really claimed that the three inches (when no
one ever claimed that both men were at the same height)was vitally
important, then why didn't they bother to get the distance correct?
Or the made up controversy about conspiracy authors showing Connally
directly in front of JFK. Then the false data that Connally was 6 inches
to the left of JFK. Conspiracy authors have almost always shown that
Connally's midline was to the left of JFK's. But Connally's seat was not 6
inches to the left of right side of JFK's seat. The distance was actually
about 5 inches. Again, if they think that a 6 inch difference makes their
theory work, then wouldn't the actual distance cause their reenactment to
fail?
Jean Davison
Nice work, Chad. Bravo!
Jean
"Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:438b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Anthony Marsh
> "Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:g82lo1dpqn9f0j3bj...@4ax.com...
>
>>On 26 Nov 2005 23:10:58 -0500, fastpi...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>single bullet theory was correct ?? Looked pretty damned important new
>>>analysis... showing that the single bullet theory ..was indeed correct.
>>>I have no idea if it is true...but it was fascinating.
>>>
>>
>>Well, it gave a fairly decent scenario where a SB inflicted some of
>>the wounds. However, there is no one SB scenario in the JFK
>>assassination; there are different ones, and none has been 'proven'.
>>
>>In addition, just about everything having to do with CE 399 is fishy.
>>So the bottom line is that Specter, creater of the first SB scenario,
>>also pushed CE 399 onto the WC as supposedly being connected to the
>>assassination, when, in fact, it was not.
>>
>>Pamela
>
>
> Not being a JFK assassination researcher and having no official position on
> the case, I must admit that the SBT is nothing more then WC damage control.
Just a reminder. The WC did not even think of the SBT until April 1964.
Before that they were satisfied with the FBI's conclusion of three
shots, three hits. Then several problems popped up which they could no
longer ignore and the SBT was the only way out of thinking of conspiracy.
> I don't think that LN supporters insecurely need the SBT to support a LN
> theory
> but WC supporters probably do.
>
I'd also remind you that the HSCA's conspiracy finding also had its own
SBT. There is a SBT of the month club. Pick a frame number at random.
Anthony Marsh
A SBT is theoretically possible, but no one has yet devised one which
works. The WC had a problem which might lead to the inescapable
conclusion that there was a conspiracy, so the SBT was their only way
out of that problem.
Anthony Marsh
They might have been able to duplicate it precisely if only they had
lied a little mote about the wound locations and the positions of the men.
Frank Gerber
I think that what we can learn from Myer´s animation is, that the SBT simply
is not impossible but plausible.
Every assertion, that the SBT doesn´t work, is wrong.
If I might ask another question:
As far as I remember the story, a bullet (= CE399, but I didn´t want some
CTs to complain about the chain of evidence or whatsoever) was found on a
stretcher (= JBC´s stretcher, but I didn´t want some CTs to complain about
this topic) and rolled out of the sheets when Darrel Tomlinson pushed the
stretcher against the wall.
If you would plant the bullet, where would you put it?
Would you put it inside the limousine - maybe onto the floor - so the
probability of beeing found would be 100%? And what would be the best result
of this option: nobody would ask why it was found in the car! Well, the
president was in the car, he was shot in the car, the bullet must be found
to make the story work - so let´s just put the bullet were they must find
it. I think, that this could be called "reasoned".
Or would you place the bullet onto a stretcher, wrap it in sheets so nobody
can see it at first glance and hope, that somebody will push the stretcher
so that the bullet rolls out. Wouldn´t that be very risky? What if nobody
finds the bullet? What if the bullet just drops from the stretcher and is
lost? Maybe you should have some more bullets as a reserve!
And what bothers me most:
How the hell do I know, that a planted bullet is needed to make the story
work? What if the surgeons find one or two bullets in the bodies of the
victims? Too many bullets certainly would blow my conspiracy. Damn - how
many bullets should I plant?
At this point in time, I don´t know the exact condition of the wounds. So
how do I know, that the planted bullet must be in "pristine" condition (with
a flattened rear) to fit the wounds?
I think, planting a bullet at this point in time makes no sense.
Frank
jim....@fuse.net
written but your
assertions that support the SBT are not on the mark. For instance,
you must
have seen the red trajectory line superimposed over the image of the
video showing the two dummy torsos more from the rear side view and
where the bullet
exited the front of the JFK dummy torso , right? I strongly recommend
you replay
your Discovery Channel test shot video and when it comes to the red
bullet trajectory
line press the pause-advance frame button and get a straight edge ruler
or yardstick
and place it directly on the red line. You will see immediately that
the
trajectory line is coming out of the chest of the JFK dummy
not the lower neck. That's why the producers of this failed
experiment didn't show a close up of the exit wound in the
lower neck as proof of their accuracy and success at replicating the
actual event.
What happened after the bullet exited the front of the JFK
dummy torso far below the actual JFK neck wound location really
doesn't make any difference when the trajectory is so obviously wrong
when compared to the actual wounds on JFK and JBC.
Connally himself swore under oath that he was hit by a different shot
than JFK.
It should come as no surprise to you that Connally was not hit by the
same
bullet that JFK was. The Discovery Channel's Australian team proved
that
with their failed experiment no matter what they say about how close it
was.
Close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades. Close is not good
enough
in this murder. This very blatant and fatal flaw in the Discovery
Channel's
experiment shows clearly that there was no Single Bullet that
caused the 7 wounds in the two men. The SBT is still just a THEORY
devised to support the Lone Nut scenario that was being
developed by the official investigators. BTW would you mind posting a
link to the science
that is proving the SBT is no longer a theory but a fact. Regards,
Jim
Anthony Marsh
> Hi - just interfering without being asked:
>
> I think that what we can learn from Myer´s animation is, that the SBT simply
> is not impossible but plausible.
> Every assertion, that the SBT doesn´t work, is wrong.
>
> If I might ask another question:
>
As long as you are only talking theoretically I will answer.
> As far as I remember the story, a bullet (= CE399, but I didn´t want some
> CTs to complain about the chain of evidence or whatsoever) was found on a
> stretcher (= JBC´s stretcher, but I didn´t want some CTs to complain about
> this topic) and rolled out of the sheets when Darrel Tomlinson pushed the
> stretcher against the wall.
>
Actually Ronnie Fuller's stretcher. Which had bloodied sheets on it.
> If you would plant the bullet, where would you put it?
It would be difficult to plant it inside the President's body.
> Would you put it inside the limousine - maybe onto the floor - so the
> probability of beeing found would be 100%? And what would be the best result
Not likely. It is unlikely that a bullet would go through someone and
just stop on the floor of the limousine. You should also be aware of the
rumor that there was a hole in the floor.
> of this option: nobody would ask why it was found in the car! Well, the
I would be suspicious if CE 399 was found intact on the floor.
> president was in the car, he was shot in the car, the bullet must be found
> to make the story work - so let´s just put the bullet were they must find
> it. I think, that this could be called "reasoned".
> Or would you place the bullet onto a stretcher, wrap it in sheets so nobody
> can see it at first glance and hope, that somebody will push the stretcher
> so that the bullet rolls out. Wouldn´t that be very risky? What if nobody
I doubt that anyone wrapped it in the sheets. Someone could have just
placed it on the stretcher which he assumed to have been the President's
judging by the bloody sheets. Then the autopsy doctors could later claim
that it fell onto that stretcher during the cardiac massage and was
overlooked by everyone.
> finds the bullet? What if the bullet just drops from the stretcher and is
> lost? Maybe you should have some more bullets as a reserve!
>
Good point, but it cuts both ways. If you think CE 399 was genuine, it
could have been lost. Or maybe another genuine bullet was lost in the
same method you postulate.
> And what bothers me most:
> How the hell do I know, that a planted bullet is needed to make the story
> work? What if the surgeons find one or two bullets in the bodies of the
It's not the story which must work. They would need an intact bullet to
ballistically link the shooting to Oswald's rifle. No guarantees that
the actual bullets fired during the shooting would be recovered or
intact enough to link to Oswald. Maybe that is why the first shot was an
intentional miss, missing everything in the planet, to allow for
planting CE 399.
> victims? Too many bullets certainly would blow my conspiracy. Damn - how
> many bullets should I plant?
>
Too many bullets will always be explained away. Especially if the first
shot is an intentional miss and the FBI officially concludes three
shots, three hits.
> At this point in time, I don´t know the exact condition of the wounds. So
> how do I know, that the planted bullet must be in "pristine" condition (with
> a flattened rear) to fit the wounds?
>
It does not have to be in pristine condition, but needs to be intact to
link it to Oswald. Are sure it had a flattened rear when found?
> I think, planting a bullet at this point in time makes no sense.
>
Can you think of any other case where someone planted evidence? Like
maybe the police framing someone for murder?
> Frank
Anthony Marsh
> Amen.
>
> I would dare say that the vast majority of people that doubt the SBT
> have never fired a rifle (guns are evil).
>
> As the crime-solving saying goes, "When all else has been eliminated,
> whatever remains, however improbable, is the truth."
>
> Critics of the SBT never reflect logically on their own set of problems
> with multiple bullets supposedly hitting Kennedy and Connally from
> different angles and from different locations in Dealey Plaza. CT'ers
> don't or can't wrap their minds around the plausibility of one bullet
> causing all of that mayhem.
>
I tend to doubt that one bullet caused all of JFK's torso wounds, and
all of Connally's wounds AND JFK's head wound. Can you explain how that
would work?
I do not remember the name of it, but in science there is some rule that
it is not necessary to prove an alternative theory just to reject the
proposed theory. You can reject the null hypothesis without having to
prove the actual cause.
> How ironic is it that the same SBT critics that doubt the ability of
> LHO to get those rounds off in 8.3 seconds have no problem believing
No SBT critic ever doubted the ability of Oswald to get off three shots
in 8.3 seconds.
The problem stemmed from the WC timing of three shots within 5.6
seconds. I might remind you that the HSCA found that three shots were
fired within about 9 seconds and they likewise had a SBT.
> that a "frangible bullet" was fired from the knoll at JFK and hit him
> at the EXACT SAME TIME AND PLACE THAT SHOT Z313 BLEW OUT THE FRONT OF
> HIS SKULL!!!
>
The shot at Z-313 WAS the explosive bullet from the grassy knoll, not a
second head shot. Even Josiah Thompson now realizes that and he and many
others have abandoned the two head shot theory.
> Talk about a magic bullet!!! What timing!!!
>
> The Beyond The Magic Bullet program was great. It certainly should
> prove to any open minded person out there that the shot at Z223
> certainly could've have caused those injuries, and, just as
> importantly, that the bullet could've remained in relatively good
> shape.
>
I like the way you phrase it as "could've." A probability. So, because
you can not claim that it is proven 100% you nevertheless accept it as a
fact. Yet the acoustical evidence is a probability, about 99.99%, and
you probably reject it.
> Good post, Chad.
>
>
Back to his old habits.
Moving around wounds.
Anthony Marsh
> I think it is more interesting to note that the Discovery Channel bullet
> destroyed two ribs, instead of one. It also broke the simulated wrist. The
Yes, that is an important difference. Proving that no simulation can be
100% perfect.
> additional loss of velocity by the impact to two ribs prevented it from
> imbedding in the mock thigh. However, several things can be garnered by
> watching what happened:
>
> 1. The bullet did indeed exit and hit the Connally torso.
Not in the correct location though.
> 2. The bullet did tumble upon exit, indicated by the impact marks on the
> bullet- which I examined personally.
Yes, a bullet can tumble upon exit. But there is no evidence that the
bullet which hit Connally was tumbling.
> 3. The resultant bullet, having broken 3 bones, maintained a weight within
> .6 grains of CE 399.
Which means little when you consider that CE 399 was not missing ANY
lead and was not deformed when it was found.
> 4. The bullet did not break into numerous pieces, as conventional wisdom
> predicts.
>
No one claimed that such a bullet must always break into numerous pieces.
> Now, you make some interesting arguments. However, no one has shown that
> blood and matter must be found on a bullet after it has penetrated to
> people, ended up on a stretcher, fell to the floor and was put in
> someone's pocket. Imagine how many other surfaces that bullet touched
> before getting into Frazier's hands. So, that demand is predicated upon an
> unproven ideal.
>
True that there does not have to be blood or debris on such a bullet.
OTOH, Sturdivans' argument that such a thing is physically impossible is
a carefully crafted lie.
> Only scant traces of metal are noted on the Connally films, completely
> consistent with the mass missing from CE 399. The rib impact was most
Wrong. There is more lead still remaining in Connally's body than could
possibly have come from CE 399. It seems more likely that he was hit by
two bullets, one of which could have been CE 399.
> closely associated with a brush-by impact where the rib is tangentially
> struck, instead of a direct impact. This was tested in 1964 at the
> Edgewood Proving Grounds, and I've seen the resultant x-rays confirming
> this type of impact to a goat rib.
>
> The x-rays to President Kennedy do not show a direct osseous impact, so
> the bullet entered and exited intact. Connally's entrance suggests a
> bullet that has tumbled. Tangential impact to the rib would cause a
No, it does not. If you think that a 15 mm long entrance wound indicates
a tumbling bullet, then explain your 15 mm long entrance wound on
Kennedy's head!
> flattening deformity on the side of the bullet, causing lead to be
> squeezed from the jacket. The first known metal to show up were in the
> form of a few tiny flakes found in Connally's wrist. The wound was noted
> to be caused by a bullet that entered backwards, due to the amount of
> foreign debris carried in and through the wound, and is completely
Finding lead fragments in a wound does not indicate that the bullet
entered backwards. You claim that there are minute lead fragments in
JFK's head wound, but do not claim this proves that the bullet entered
backwards. Consistency please.
> consistent with CE 399. The puncture to the left thigh was caused by a
> bullet traveling at a severely reduced velocity, just as CE 399 would have
> been.
>
Or a fragment. Do you believe that an intact bullet struck the thigh and
penetrated only an inch or so and then fell out later?
> But, let's contemplate that CE 399 didn't cause the wounds and was a
> plant, as the lack of human tissue matter suggests. So, basically, the
> conspirators had the forsight to plant a bullet missing just the right
> amount of metal. Not only that, but it fit the wounds and wounding
No, they planted a bullet missing no lead. And just the act of creating
a test bullet can result in the loss of some lead, duplicating the
condition of CE 399.
> patterns perfectly. Now, just how can that be done? Why wouldn't the
> conspirators simply have fired a bullet into something, deforming it so
> that the American public would buy the SBT wounding scenario, but leaving
> enough of it intact to match it to Oswald's rifle? Why did the Discovery
That is exactly what they did. But they needed to produce an intact
bullet which could be ballistically linked to Oswald's rifle.
> Channel bullet show a very similar amount of metal lost, yet it created a
> lot more damage to the Connally thorax? Heck, why was the Connally model
> hit if the SBT is laughable?
>
The problem is not in hitting Connally somewhere. The problem is hitting
Connally where his wound actually was and at the corresponding angle.
How do you change the 18 degrees downward into 25 degrees downward. That
is one of the problems.
> I find most opinions on the SBT to be highly uneducated and heavily
> weighted on a large volume of circumspect analysis:
>
> 1. A rifle bullet has to deform tremendously when it hits something dense,
> such as bone.
>
Conspiracy believers have been debunking that for a long time. There are
many variables at work.
> This idea is correct if the bullet first hits something dense, but does
> not comply when the bullet's velocity is slowed significantly prior to the
> impact with the bone.
>
> 2. There is more metal left in Connally than was missing from the magic
> bullet.
>
> This is another idea without much basis, only conjecture. The mass of
> metal left behind in Connally is subject to speculation because it wasn't
> weighed. However, very small amounts of lead are necessary to create the
It is subject to investigation. There is right now more metal left in
Connally's body than could have come from CE 399.
> images seen on the x-rays. Given the size of the recovered fragments, it
> is well within the realm of possibility that an appropriate amount of lead
> is missing from CE 399 to explain all metal traces seen in the x-rays.
>
> 3. Guinn's NAA is absolutely and positively wrong.
>
> This has not been proven. What HAS happened is that a study concluded that
> current bullet lead cannot be traced using that methodology because of the
> relative uniformity of bullet lead in and between lots. HOWEVER, this has
> not been proven with WCC rounds, whose composition with the Guinn rounds
> shows contrast between a couple of elements that is not seen in today's
We are not talking about today's hardened rounds. We are talking about
WWII and 50s ammo. I seriously doubt that you could tell the difference
between a WCC bullet from an SMI bullet or a Norma bullet lead back in 1963.
> ammunition. Nevertheless, unless Stu Wexler and others test and prove that
> there is enough similarity between bullets of the same lots, then the
> argument is circumstantial at best. It simply hasn't been documented and
> proven to be wrong.
>
> 4. Humes and Boswell did not prove a wound track through the neck, hence
> did not prove the shot trajectory.
>
> An attempt to probe did occur. However, due to the shifting of overlying
> muscle tissue, the probe would not pass. Therefore, the wound was
Due to interference from the military, who ordered the autopsy doctors
to not dissect the wound as must be done in all gunshot cases.
> correlated by analyzing the adjacent tissue damage. This CAN be reasonably
> associated without a metal probe because no evidence of two shots existed.
But it does exist.
> No bullet matter was found in the neck or torso. Therefore, in order to
The fact that no bullet was found in the neck or torso does not mean
that a bullet did not transit the neck or torso.
And you might remember Humes's only way out was to guess that the bullet
fell out during cardiac message.
> have two shots, you have two dissintegrating bullets without exit wounds.
> Also, you have to remember that it wasn't until the next morning when
> Humes found out about the anterior neck wound. Since they didn't know
> exactly what was going on at autopsy, they did not dissect for fear of
> losing a wound tract by aimlessly cutting.
>
100% wrong. Humes had no such logic. He was military and under military
orders to not dissect the wound.
> Of course, if one bullet didn't do all that damage to the neck as the WC
> suggested, you have:
>
> Two bullets without exits and without mass.
>
Why do you say "without mass"? You need mass to cause the wounds.
And surely you must know of some real live cases where there is an
entrance wound without a corresponding exit wound. And maybe of a bullet
which enters and later works itself out. Come to think of it, you
probably believe that explains the Connally thigh wound. Entrance, no
exit, bullet works itself out.
> One bullet hitting the front, going upwards and fired from some unknown
> lower position, missing the windshield and all the occupants.
>
Don't know where you get that idea. Are you thinking up a new conspiracy
theory for the throat wound or citing someone's theory?
If the bullet were fired from the front there are a very few possible
locations which would avoid hitting the windshield and all the occupants.
> Any OTHER scenario is far more magical than the Magic Bullet. It requires
> much more inventive thought and more problems.
>
Like the FBI's guess about an ice bullet?
> 5. The Discovery Channel's marksman greatly missed the actual entry point.
>
> Yes, he did. In fact, I think it was also probably marked incorrectly.
GIGO.
> Nevertheless, the bullet did transit intact (no kidding), it did tumble
> (no kidding) and it did hit the Connally torso (no kidding). It did break
> twice as many ribs with a direct and tilted hit (no kidding). It did break
> the simulated wrist bone (no kidding).
>
> It did not penetrate the leg, as mentioned, and this is also expected due
> to the impact to two ribs.
>
> It also weighed in at .6 grains less than CE 399...which isn't much. In
> fact, it was only .4% less in weight compared with the magic bullet.
>
> Although the bullet didn't hit the exact mark, it did confirm much of what
> CE 399 was said to have done.
>
> Science is proving that CE 399 did just what they say it did...which was
> their second choice of scenarios. Yet, those against the SBT have never
> shot such ammuntion, never tested the theories they propose and blatantly
> ignore the ballistic facts regarding the situation, preferring instead to
> invent their own analysis so they can be the next History Channel
> exclusive.
>
CE 399 is capable of doing some of what is required, but not all.
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***I don't think so. The Muchmore film shows Connally sitting well
inboard of Kennedy.
Another film shows Kennedy leaning to his right against the side of the
car after he leaned to his left seeming to talk to Mrs. Connally as the
limo turned onto Elm.
A few more test shots into additional replicas with the bullet hitting
amost precisely the back entrance position and minute changes in the
positon of the test replicas and there would be a slight margin of
error in the result. The single bullet theory is clearly plausable.
***Ron Judge
Bud
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> YM wrote:
>
> >>I am new to this newsgroup, but the assasination of JFK has always
> >>fascinated me. Having read various documents/books/articles, it is my
> >>opinion that the single bullit theory is impossible to maintain. I never
> >>understood how the Warren Commission could have accepted such a
> >>conclusion.
> >
> >
> > Many smart people who have investigated the matter DO believe that
> > it was possible. Close analysis of the Zapruder film shows that
> > the wounds in Presidnent Kennedy and Gov Connally do line up
>
> That is not true. All the wounds do not line up in a straight line. Even
> the latest SBTs allow for a non-straight line path.
The wounds can be accounted for by the path of a single bullet.
> > in a straight line. The wound in Gov Conally's back shows the
> > bullet was tumbling and, from what I have read (I am no ballistics
> > expert), could happen only if the bullet had passed through someone
> > else (the President) first.
>
> No, that is not true. Part of the fiction comes from the LIE that the
> wound was 1.2 inches long. It was not. It was only 15 mm long,
Still indicating the bullet didn`t enter straight. Not entering
straight indicates it struck something prior to striking Connally. What
object behind Connally also showed signs of being struck by a bullet? The
curb?
> exactly as
> long as some claim JFK's head wound was and they do no argue that his head
> wound bullet had to go through someone else first. Consistency please.
There isn`t much consistancy between apples and oranges. A large mass
of bone wasn`t struck, causing it to explode, on Connally`s back. Anyone
else notice that the tide has turned? The SBT only gets stronger the more
it is examined, while CT objections like Marsh`s here are getting weaker
and weaker. They just want to cling to any objections they can devise
about the SBT, thier eagerness to do this betrays any objectivity they
might claim (speaking solely about CT who don`t post here, mind you).
Bud
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> atlasrecrd wrote:
>
> > It seems to me this issue could have been solved long ago by using
> > mannequins and the correct seating and angle of JFK and Connally.
> >
> > Put a sniper up high, a target on the backwound of the mannequin
> > that's supposed to be JFK, and recreate the 7 wounds.
> >
> > Of course, that would depend on if such a thing is even possible in
> > the first place. ;)
> >
> >
>
>
> The problem is that anyone attempting such a simulation could achieve
> whatever results wished simply by lying about the locations of the wounds
> and the positions of the men, as several have before. Such as the Peter
> Jennings special which was rebroadcast this past weekend. They said that
> Connally was three inches lower than Kennedy. LIE. His jump seat was three
> inches lower than Kennedy's seat, but he was two and a half inches TALLER
> than Kennedy, especially high waisted,
If he was "high waisted", wouldn`t that put most of his additional
height below his waist, in his legs, where the additional height
wouldn`t impact how high he rose in his seat.
> so that the real difference in the
> top of the heads was between one and a half inches and two inches lower.
Ok, prove what the exact difference between the two men`s heads was
at the time of the shot. How high exactlly was the wound on Connally
back up from his seat in the limo, and how high was Kennedy`s wound up
from his seat in the limo.
> Not three inches. If they really claimed that the three inches (when no
> one ever claimed that both men were at the same height)was vitally
> important, then why didn't they bother to get the distance correct?
The bottom line is that if people want to disregard these findings,
any reason can be found.
> Or the made up controversy about conspiracy authors showing Connally
> directly in front of JFK. Then the false data that Connally was 6 inches
> to the left of JFK. Conspiracy authors have almost always shown that
> Connally's midline was to the left of JFK's. But Connally's seat was not 6
> inches to the left of right side of JFK's seat. The distance was actually
> about 5 inches.
That would be significant, if we were examing who shot the seat, not
the men sitting in them.
> Again, if they think that a 6 inch difference makes their
> theory work, then wouldn't the actual distance cause their reenactment to
> fail?
Unless they meet your requirements, you flunk the reenactments. So
what? They can only try to show people what occurred, they can`t make
people accept it.
Lab4man
"chuck schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
news:1133244371.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Then I guess that bullet truly WAS a magic bullet...it either jumped to
> a different stretcher, or was 'planted' by someone...before any of the
> plotters knew how the remaining evidence was going shake out.
>
> There you have it, fans...in addition to the Magic Bullet theory, I
> postulate the Magic Plotter theory...a group of plotters blessed with
> ESP obtained from the aliens at Roswell plant evidence just minutes
> after the crime of the century with no thought that their actions may
> expose the very plot they are trying to cover up.
Or A bullet ws found on the stretcher....not necessarily CE399.
>
> Wow!!!
>
>
Pamela McElwain-Brown
>
>>
>> I am new to this newsgroup, but the assasination of JFK has always
>> fascinated me. Having read various documents/books/articles, it is my
>> opinion that the single bullit theory is impossible to maintain. I never
>> understood how the Warren Commission could have accepted such a
>> conclusion.
>
>Many smart people who have investigated the matter DO believe that
>it was possible. Close analysis of the Zapruder film shows that
>the wounds in Presidnent Kennedy and Gov Connally do line up
>in a straight line.
That's really not good enough. You need to supply at least a Z-frame
for your assertion; or, better yet, state which SB scenario you are
pushing.
>The wound in Gov Conally's back shows the
>bullet was tumbling and, from what I have read (I am no ballistics
>expert), could happen only if the bullet had passed through someone
>else (the President) first.
>
A number of things could have caused a bullet to tumble.
Pamela
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
I disqagree. Seems to me the LNTs are the ones who are helpless
without there precious 'SBT' and CE 399.
Pamela
Pamela McElwain-Brown
Agreed. They were simply jumping on the WC's deliberate creation of
'evidence'. The WC knew the bullet was not found on a stretcher connected
to either JFK or JBC. But then they 'decided' it was. Guess dealing with
the facts just wasn't comfortable for them.
Unfortunately, now we have Warranistas claiming the NAA 'proves' the early
provenance of CE 399. That is ridiculous, and insidious. Again, they are
simply trying to capitalize on the WC's fabrication of an early provenance
for CE 399 by claiming it in reverse.
In fact, CE 399 having any sort of NAA match to any fragment, much less
coming from LHO's M/C, is a clear indication of a conspiracy (planting the
bullet) and a coverup (the WC).
Pamela
Texextra
stretcher?
If not, then accept that the program presented a false statement. My
guess is that they understood exactly what they were doing, presenting
a false image.
Texextra
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>>r2bz...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>>borings wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Probably Sturdivan, Myers, or that Jennings ABC garbage
>>>>
>>>>vince palamara
>>>
>>>
>>>***I was thinking the Discovery Channel show, JFK: Beyond the Magic
>>>Bullet". Their scientific test came very close to duplicating the single
>>>bullet shot. A few more test shots using additional replicas, particularly
>>>hitting the mark dead on, and i think the margin of error would have been
>>>practically eliminated.
>>>
>>>***Ron Judge
>>>
>>>
>>
>>They might have been able to duplicate it precisely if only they had
>>lied a little mote about the wound locations and the positions of the men.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Anthony Marsh
>>The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
>
>
>
> ***I don't think so. The Muchmore film shows Connally sitting well
> inboard of Kennedy.
> Another film shows Kennedy leaning to his right against the side of the
> car after he leaned to his left seeming to talk to Mrs. Connally as the
> limo turned onto Elm.
>
That has nothing to do with what I said. In my drawings I also show
Connally sitting well inboard of Kennedy (whatever you think that means).
But we are talking about very specific distances and Connally does not get
far enough to the left of Kennedy to make the SBT work.
> A few more test shots into additional replicas with the bullet hitting
> amost precisely the back entrance position and minute changes in the
> positon of the test replicas and there would be a slight margin of
> error in the result. The single bullet theory is clearly plausable.
>
As I said before a SBT is theoretically possible. No one has yet
produced one which works.
> ***Ron Judge
doc
> single bullet theory was correct ?? Looked pretty damned important new
> analysis... showing that the single bullet theory ..was indeed correct.
> I have no idea if it is true...but it was fascinating.
Fascinating, indeed.
Puts the ball back in the court of those who say "no way, no how."
No doubt, we'll hear more.
Best,
doc
tomnln
"Frank Gerber" <frank....@12move.de> wrote in message
news:438c4d4f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
===========================================================
Unless of course you have Total Control over ALL of the Evidence/Witnesses.
THAT in itself allows you to reach ANY Conclusion you CHOOSE.
===========================================================
tomnln
"chuck schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
news:1133242814....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> What's the Conspiracy Theory of the Month, Tony?
>
> At least we have you on record as saying that the SBT is theoretically
> possible.
>
> You'll be a Lone Nutter in no time!
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> Tony wrote:
>
> It's not the story which must work. They would need an intact bullet to
> ballistically link the shooting to Oswald's rifle. No guarantees that the
> actual bullets fired during the shooting would be recovered or intact
> enough to link to Oswald. Maybe that is why the first shot was an
> intentional miss, missing everything in the planet, to allow for planting
> CE 399.
>
> Tony, the above paragraph is sheer nonsense. Why not just lie and say
> they have a match? *They* control events so *they* can manipulate things
> however *they* want to.
>
It is certainly possible if THEY control everything. I do not argue that
THEY control everything. Certainly not the FBI which was not in on the
assassination as far as I am concerned, although others such as John
Hunt seem to think that they were.
THEY could be top military or CIA and yet not have perfect control over
all the government. Which might be why they wanted to perform the coup
d'etat. To gain complete control.
> And why an 'intentional miss' with the first shot? That's ridiculous!!!!
> The best scenario is one shot, one kill. So, in addition to wanting to
> kill the POTUS, they wanted to get all tricky and deliberately miss with
> the first shot!?
>
Not with that rifle. Remember that Oswald thought he had one shot, one
kill, when he shot at General Walker. And he missed. Equipment malfunction.
> HA, HA, you thought it was a firecracker!!!
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!
Anthony Marsh
> Tony:
>
> You are not as irresponsible as some of the CT'ers that post here are, but
> c'mon...Can't you agree-as a reasonable, thinking, rational person-that
> the tests and the methodology used in Beyond The Magic Bullet was
> interesting and well thought out? Didn't it show to your satisfaction that
I don't think I used the word "interesting" but perhaps a similar word.
I can't go so far as saying "well thought out." Again, it is a case of
fudging the data to try to prove a preconceived conclusion. They were
testing to see if their idea was at least possible. I applaud their
effort to at least actually do some real live tests.
> CE399 really could've done the damage to JFK and JBC? What was wrong with
> their testing? What was so off in their results that would lead you to
> reject seven wounds in two people?
>
You have not been here long enough to read my old messages. For a few
years (circa 1985) I have proposed a Modified Single Bullet Theory (now
public domain) in which CE 399 is genuine and indeed did everything to
Connally. But without having to go through JFK first. I even interested
Josiah Thompson in the idea for a few seconds. He may yet realize it is
theoretically possible.
I see nothing unusual about seven wounds in two people. And yes there
have been other cases of two people shot with the same bullet. That is
not an issue. The specific angles and wounds for both men make any SBT
extremely problematic. No one has solved those problems. They always
need to lie about some data point, which spoils their neat little theories.
> Is it possible, Tony, that admitting the viability of CE399 puts a huge
> dent in the armor of the Conspiracy House of Cards you've constructed all
> of these years?
No, I have always said that it is possible that CE 399 is genuine. But I
know if did not go through both me. And I remind you that the HSCA found
conspiracy and yet needed its own SBT.
>
> Face it, Tony...science is increasingly squeezing the CT'ers like bad puss
Science is coming to the aid of conspiracy believers. The WC had no way
to visualize the acoustical work done by BBN. Had it not been for the
Kent State Massacre, maybe the HSCA would not have realized that such
tests could be conclusive.
> from a big red pimple. Thanks to you, we know that the Z-film is the real
> deal. Science has shown the plausibility of the SBT through computer
> programs and real time testing with real bullets. Badgeman has been shown
Again, GIGO. I can prove that there were twenty shots if I lie about the
physical evidence.
> to be nothing, thanks to modern computer programs that can enhance shadows
> and light and photogrammetrical analysis. Steve Barber almost single
> handedly tore apart the phony acoustical studies, and animators like Dale
> Myers easily have shown through the Dealey film footage montaged together
> that officer McClain was half a block away from where the HSCA experts
> said he was.
>
No, Dale Myers has not proven that McLain was a half a block away. In
one documentary he tried to argue that McLain was actually a whole block
away, when obviously we can see him farther along in the Hughes film
than Myers place him at the time of the shots. Even Myers on his own Web
site has had to admit that he needed to change his original work.
I don't want to get too technical here, but my line up of the shots
makes it slightly easier for McLain to have time to get to the proper
location. And most people do not remember that the actual location of
the cycle does not have to be at the start of the circle from the test
or even within it. The travel path of the cycle can span adjacent test
circles.
> You may not LIKE the SBT, but to dismiss it so casually after the good
> faith effort put forward to honestly examine it in Beyond The Magic Bullet
> just doesn't seem intellectually honest.
>
>
I have no problem with the concept of a SBT. It happened in other cases.
I do have a big problem with the government and their stooges lying
about the evidence.
Anthony Marsh
> Aren't you missing the point, Tony?
>
> This, honest, interesting experiment does indeed prove that a bullet
> could transit through two men and cause wounds similar to what the SBT
> postulates.
>
You can prove whatever you want if you are willing to lie about the
evidence, as many have.
> If you claim to be interested in the truth here, can't you agree that
> it is possible that CE399-much maligned by the CT community-really did
> do what Specter said it did?
>
No, not what Specter said.
tomnln
#1. TV is Designed to Entertain.
#2. The Warren Commission Report is their "Conclusions.
#3. The 26 Volumes Prove the Authorities Destroyed Evidence in Over a Dozen
Instances.
American Juris Prudence is Based on Evidence/Testimony subject to the
"Adversary Procedure".
Please tell us exactly What Country's Legal System You Advocate?
"chuck schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
news:1133326692....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Tony:
>
> You are not as irresponsible as some of the CT'ers that post here are, but
> c'mon...Can't you agree-as a reasonable, thinking, rational person-that
> the tests and the methodology used in Beyond The Magic Bullet was
> interesting and well thought out? Didn't it show to your satisfaction that
> CE399 really could've done the damage to JFK and JBC? What was wrong with
> their testing? What was so off in their results that would lead you to
> reject seven wounds in two people?
>
> Is it possible, Tony, that admitting the viability of CE399 puts a huge
> dent in the armor of the Conspiracy House of Cards you've constructed all
> of these years?
>
> Face it, Tony...science is increasingly squeezing the CT'ers like bad puss
> from a big red pimple. Thanks to you, we know that the Z-film is the real
> deal. Science has shown the plausibility of the SBT through computer
> programs and real time testing with real bullets. Badgeman has been shown
> to be nothing, thanks to modern computer programs that can enhance shadows
> and light and photogrammetrical analysis. Steve Barber almost single
> handedly tore apart the phony acoustical studies, and animators like Dale
> Myers easily have shown through the Dealey film footage montaged together
> that officer McClain was half a block away from where the HSCA experts
> said he was.
>
tomnln
Dale Myers offered a "Computerized Cartoon".
GIGO Garbage In Garbage Out.
"doc" <docfa...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:20051129232455.984$Z...@newsreader.com...
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***As was demonstrated in the Discovery Channel program, the test bullet
was more deformed than CE399 because it struck 2 ribs instread of 1.
Having struck 2 ribs, it did not have the energy to penetrate the leg
block. No bullewt was found in JBC's leg, which means it worked its way
out of the wound, probrably into the pants leg.
If the bullet wound up on another stretcher, it would have been because
the clothing wound up on another stretcher and at some point during the
handling of the clothing, CE399 came loose from the pants and wound up on
that other stretcher, if indeed the bullet was found on a stretcher other
than JBC's.
***Ron Judge
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***The wound was nearly replicated, however. The bullet did not enter at
the same point the wound was identified on JFK. The bullet therefore
performed differntly to some degree than CE399 would have.
The fact is that the bullet was close to to what CE399 is alleged to have
done. No critic of the WC has ever even attemped to duplicate the single
bullet shot- for the very reason demonstrated by the Discovery Channel
program. They would have proven it was plausable.
Your criticism seems to be that since they didn't exactly reproduce the
SBT, the test is therefore false. By performiing more test shots,
particularly getting the JFK entrance point correct, with some minor
repositioning of the test replicas, i believe the wounds will line up
within a slight margin of error.
***Ron Judge
David Wimp
> single bullet theory was correct ?? Looked pretty damned important new
> analysis... showing that the single bullet theory ..was indeed correct.
> I have no idea if it is true...but it was fascinating.
>
>
the feasibility of the SBT is the placement of the two men in the limo.
As far as I know, nobody had effectively done that previously. Perhaps
they did this time, but previous presentations did not.
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>>atlasrecrd wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It seems to me this issue could have been solved long ago by using
>>>mannequins and the correct seating and angle of JFK and Connally.
>>>
>>> Put a sniper up high, a target on the backwound of the mannequin
>>>that's supposed to be JFK, and recreate the 7 wounds.
>>>
>>> Of course, that would depend on if such a thing is even possible in
>>>the first place. ;)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>The problem is that anyone attempting such a simulation could achieve
>>whatever results wished simply by lying about the locations of the wounds
>>and the positions of the men, as several have before. Such as the Peter
>>Jennings special which was rebroadcast this past weekend. They said that
>>Connally was three inches lower than Kennedy. LIE. His jump seat was three
>>inches lower than Kennedy's seat, but he was two and a half inches TALLER
>>than Kennedy, especially high waisted,
>
>
> If he was "high waisted", wouldn`t that put most of his additional
> height below his waist, in his legs, where the additional height
> wouldn`t impact how high he rose in his seat.
>
It mitigates the effect of his being taller. If Connally were three
inches taller and most of that in his upper torso, then seated three
inches lower would bring his head up to the same height as Kennedy's.
But Connally's head was about 1-1/2 inches lower than Kennedy's. Not 3
inches. Not the same height.
>
>>so that the real difference in the
>>top of the heads was between one and a half inches and two inches lower.
>
>
> Ok, prove what the exact difference between the two men`s heads was
> at the time of the shot. How high exactlly was the wound on Connally
That depends on when you think the shot hit and how Connally was seated
at that particular instant. I think Connally was hit at about frame
Z-230. Facing the front. His back wound was 35.5 inches above the
ground. JFK's back wound was 41 inches above the ground.
> back up from his seat in the limo, and how high was Kennedy`s wound up
> from his seat in the limo.
>
>
>>Not three inches. If they really claimed that the three inches (when no
>>one ever claimed that both men were at the same height)was vitally
>>important, then why didn't they bother to get the distance correct?
>
>
> The bottom line is that if people want to disregard these findings,
> any reason can be found.
>
The bottom line is that for the WC defenders facts merely get in the way.
If the precise details were not important then why would the show bring
up the controversy at all? Have Dale Myers start with what he calls the
false assumptions of the conspiracy crowd and I am sure that he can
fudge his data to make a SBT work.
>
>>Or the made up controversy about conspiracy authors showing Connally
>>directly in front of JFK. Then the false data that Connally was 6 inches
>>to the left of JFK. Conspiracy authors have almost always shown that
>>Connally's midline was to the left of JFK's. But Connally's seat was not 6
>>inches to the left of right side of JFK's seat. The distance was actually
>>about 5 inches.
>
>
> That would be significant, if we were examing who shot the seat, not
> the men sitting in them.
>
That is part of the problem. We need to go beyond just the differences
in the seats.
>
>>Again, if they think that a 6 inch difference makes their
>>theory work, then wouldn't the actual distance cause their reenactment to
>>fail?
>
>
> Unless they meet your requirements, you flunk the reenactments. So
> what? They can only try to show people what occurred, they can`t make
> people accept it.
>
I don't know if I would flunk all reenactments. Maybe a C-.
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>>YM wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I am new to this newsgroup, but the assasination of JFK has always
>>>>fascinated me. Having read various documents/books/articles, it is my
>>>>opinion that the single bullit theory is impossible to maintain. I never
>>>>understood how the Warren Commission could have accepted such a
>>>>conclusion.
>>>
>>>
>>>Many smart people who have investigated the matter DO believe that
>>>it was possible. Close analysis of the Zapruder film shows that
>>>the wounds in Presidnent Kennedy and Gov Connally do line up
>>
>>That is not true. All the wounds do not line up in a straight line. Even
>>the latest SBTs allow for a non-straight line path.
>
>
> The wounds can be accounted for by the path of a single bullet.
>
Baloney.
>
>>>in a straight line. The wound in Gov Conally's back shows the
>>>bullet was tumbling and, from what I have read (I am no ballistics
>>>expert), could happen only if the bullet had passed through someone
>>>else (the President) first.
>>
>>No, that is not true. Part of the fiction comes from the LIE that the
>>wound was 1.2 inches long. It was not. It was only 15 mm long,
>
>
> Still indicating the bullet didn`t enter straight. Not entering
> straight indicates it struck something prior to striking Connally. What
Wrong. It doesn't matter how many times you guys regurgitate this fiction,
it is wrong. Striking something else first is not the only possible cause
of an elongated wound. This is Forensics 101. What do think the bullet
causing Kennedy's supposed 15 mm long head wound hit prior to hitting
Kennedy's head? You are not even being consistent in your own arguments.
> object behind Connally also showed signs of being struck by a bullet? The
> curb?
>
Not my claim, but Posner did say something about a bullet hitting the
tree.
>
>>exactly as
>>long as some claim JFK's head wound was and they do no argue that his head
>>wound bullet had to go through someone else first. Consistency please.
>
>
> There isn`t much consistancy between apples and oranges. A large mass
> of bone wasn`t struck, causing it to explode, on Connally`s back. Anyone
> else notice that the tide has turned? The SBT only gets stronger the more
5 inches of Connally's rib was pulverized.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
>Aren't you missing the point, Tony?
>
>This, honest, interesting experiment does indeed prove that a bullet
>could transit through two men and cause wounds similar to what the SBT
>postulates.
>
>If you claim to be interested in the truth here, can't you agree that
>it is possible that CE399-much maligned by the CT community-really did
>do what Specter said it did?
>
You have pointed to the heart of the issue, Chuck, in asking if CE 399
could do 'what Specter said it did'. Specter insinuated his SB thinking
into the WC, despite the fact that PH testimony, especially that of
Tomlinson, supported the bullet being found UNDER the pad of a stretcher
that had nothing to do with either JBC or JFK.
So the real question, if you're ready for it, is why it was so important
to Specter that CE 399 be entered into evidence? And why was it so
important that no questions be asked about where it came from?
Pamela
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
>...The conspiracy grows!!!!
>
No, it's just beiing defined.
Pamela
Pamela McElwain-Brown
Agreed. It was Specter who was pushing the WC to admit CE 399 as valid
evidence and to use it in his SB scenario.
Why? What would have been lost if he had just stuck to the facts?
Pamela
Pamela McElwain-Brown
Hilarious. After all the discussions, you still think all the SB
scenarios were/are alike? LOL
Pamela
tomnln
Read JBC's "Memoirs"
While in Trauma room at Parkland he "Heard a Bullet fall to the floor".
THAT, in itself Nullifies the SBT.
==================
It appears that WCR Supporters "Accept" a Report they haven't even READ.
===================
<r2bz...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1133367721.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Cigarettes WITHOUT WRITING on them are "Illegal".
<r2bz...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1133368382....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
jim....@fuse.net
wound locations on JFK and tweak it until it fits your version of the
right trajectory. The fact is the Australian team proved what the critics
of the SBT have been saying all along, ie: JFK's back shot and the front
of the neck shot do not line up to hit Connally the way Connally was
actually wounded. Meyers faked the alignment in his animation version of
the shooting. The basic rule of animation is you can make anything do
anything you choose. But the animator does the choosing. Meyers made his
hypothesis work the only way he could, through animation. The shooting in
Dealey Plaza happened only one way.
This fact remains intact, JFK's back wound and his front of the neck
wound do not line up with the shot(s) that hit Connally. For those who
want to accept the Australian team's failed experiment to make the SBT
plausable and even possible you have to 1) ignore the fact that the JFK
wounds DO NOT LINE UP to hit Connally exactly the way he was wounded and
2) Ignore the witness in the limo John Connally himself who has stated
many times, over an over, THAT HE WAS NOT WOUNDED BY THE SHOT THAT HIT
JFK. The Discovery Channel apparently doesn't understand what they are
promoting; a failed experiment to prove the SBT is feasable by the
Australian team. The sad part about this whole episode is the Australian
team knew the experiment didn't work as soon as they SAW the bullet exit
location WAS NOT IN THE LOWER NECK on the JFK dummy torso but was actually
in the chest. With some slick editing they fraudulently focused our
attention on the Connally dummy torso wounds even though the Connally
dummy torso wounds DID NOT LINE UP WITH THE JFK WOUNDS and produced and
distributed the show anyway. What does that say about their ethics? And
the viability of the SBT which they have disproved. Regards, Jim
Anthony Marsh
How do you know that no bullet was found in JBC's leg? Maybe it was and
then was removed.
> If the bullet wound up on another stretcher, it would have been because
> the clothing wound up on another stretcher and at some point during the
> handling of the clothing, CE399 came loose from the pants and wound up on
> that other stretcher, if indeed the bullet was found on a stretcher other
> than JBC's.
>
> ***Ron Judge
>
>
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
>
>Ron:
>
>You are right. And Tony, you are missing the point. In the test, we have a
>sniper firing a round and attempting to duplicate what CE399 did...and the
>results show that the MC rifle and ammo are quite capable of inflicting
>similar wounds on very realistic test figures. Additionally, the bullet is
>not much more damaged than CE399, despite hitting two ribs in the JBC test
>figure.
>
>Why don't you just admit that there is no result from any test, however
>rigorously put together, that will change your mind that LHO, acting
>alone, killed JFK.
>
>The computer work that Failure Analysis did in the early 90's, and that
>Dale Myers did in the late 90's, and rigorous tests performed in Beyond
>The Magic Bullet is exactly the kind of testing and scientific inquiry
>that should lay any doubts of conspiracy aside.
>
>CT'ers have nothing more than nameless boogiemen, hiding behind a fence on
>a knoll, firing 'frangible' bullets and dissapearing into thin air without
>a trace on a clear November day.
>
>Oh. That and Umbrella Man.
>
And, Oh, which SB scenario at which Z-frame is it you're pushing
again? :-)
Pamela
Pamela McElwain-Brown
Wild speculation; the kind LNTs accuse CTs of regularly.
The bullet came from under the mat of a stretcher that had nothing to
do with JBC. Acknowledge the possibility that it was planted, perhaps
even by the person Tomlinson describes as moving the cart against the
wall. You have read the H&E on this, haven't you?
Pamela
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
Your statements lack orientation to the Z-film. Not only were they
misplaced in terms of the two different limos (100x/679X) the two men
were differently aligned at different Z-frames.
No SB scenario has yet been proven.
Pamela
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
tomnln wrote:
> "Here come de (udder) Judge"
>
> Read JBC's "Memoirs"
>
> While in Trauma room at Parkland he "Heard a Bullet fall to the floor".
>
> THAT, in itself Nullifies the SBT.
>
***As he was laying flat on his back, how would JBC have known that
what he heard fall on the floor was a bullet?
> ==================
> It appears that WCR Supporters "Accept" a Report they haven't even READ.
>
> ===================
>
***I have my own reprint copy of the report.
***Ron Judge
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***The test proved the SB was plausable. That the wound in the front
of the kennedy duplicate was lower and not rounded does not prove that
the SBT is fatally flawed. It only proves that the test did not have
the subjects in the exact position they were in and strike the Kennedy
replica in the back at the precise position the bullet struck.
The position of the replicas was based on a photo taken a few seconds
prior to the shot.
A two dimentional photo. The photo is good guide, but there are
nuances of positioning at about Z223 that would not be captured by that
photo.
Harold Norman heard the shots as coming from directly above him. While
it is not the consensus LN opinion, i find that the first shot struck
Kennedy in the back.
The Zapruder film shows both men reflexivley reacting in a manner
consistent with their non fatal gunshot wounds. This indicates that
one shot hit both men. With Norman hearing the shots from above him,
the indication is that the shot was fired from the window above Norman.
I believe that the imperfect nature of the Discovery Channel test was
due to technicalities which do not negate the SBT.
***Ron Judge
Lab4man
"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:6vfpo1liqokli0ufq...@4ax.com...
> On 28 Nov 2005 15:52:28 -0500, "YM" <bar_ko...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> I am new to this newsgroup, but the assasination of JFK has always
>>> fascinated me. Having read various documents/books/articles, it is my
>>> opinion that the single bullit theory is impossible to maintain. I never
>>> understood how the Warren Commission could have accepted such a
>>> conclusion.
>>
>>Many smart people who have investigated the matter DO believe that
>>it was possible. Close analysis of the Zapruder film shows that
>>the wounds in Presidnent Kennedy and Gov Connally do line up
>
> That's really not good enough. You need to supply at least a Z-frame
> for your assertion; or, better yet, state which SB scenario you are
> pushing.
>
>>The wound in Gov Conally's back shows the
>>bullet was tumbling and, from what I have read (I am no ballistics
>>expert), could happen only if the bullet had passed through someone
>>else (the President) first.
>>
Like stiking a twig in an oak tree
>
> Pamela
>
Bud
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Bud wrote:
>
> > Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >
> >>YM wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>I am new to this newsgroup, but the assasination of JFK has always
> >>>>fascinated me. Having read various documents/books/articles, it is my
> >>>>opinion that the single bullit theory is impossible to maintain. I never
> >>>>understood how the Warren Commission could have accepted such a
> >>>>conclusion.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Many smart people who have investigated the matter DO believe that
> >>>it was possible. Close analysis of the Zapruder film shows that
> >>>the wounds in Presidnent Kennedy and Gov Connally do line up
> >>
> >>That is not true. All the wounds do not line up in a straight line. Even
> >>the latest SBTs allow for a non-straight line path.
> >
> >
> > The wounds can be accounted for by the path of a single bullet.
> >
>
> Baloney.
Missed the show, did you?
> >>>in a straight line. The wound in Gov Conally's back shows the
> >>>bullet was tumbling and, from what I have read (I am no ballistics
> >>>expert), could happen only if the bullet had passed through someone
> >>>else (the President) first.
> >>
> >>No, that is not true. Part of the fiction comes from the LIE that the
> >>wound was 1.2 inches long. It was not. It was only 15 mm long,
> >
> >
> > Still indicating the bullet didn`t enter straight. Not entering
> > straight indicates it struck something prior to striking Connally. What
>
> Wrong. It doesn't matter how many times you guys regurgitate this fiction,
> it is wrong. Striking something else first is not the only possible cause
> of an elongated wound.
Are you saying the wound on Connally`s back wasn`t caused by a
bulley entering sideways, rather than straight on?
> This is Forensics 101. What do think the bullet
> causing Kennedy's supposed 15 mm long head wound hit prior to hitting
> Kennedy's head? You are not even being consistent in your own arguments.
I would hope Forensics 101 would cover the different effects of
bullets striking different parts of the body. Skull is different than
tissue.
> > object behind Connally also showed signs of being struck by a bullet? The
> > curb?
> >
>
> Not my claim, but Posner did say something about a bullet hitting the
> tree.
Probably a lot of people uttered words about bullets striking trees.
What does that have to do with what I asked you?
> >>exactly as
> >>long as some claim JFK's head wound was and they do no argue that his head
> >>wound bullet had to go through someone else first. Consistency please.
> >
> >
> > There isn`t much consistancy between apples and oranges. A large mass
> > of bone wasn`t struck, causing it to explode, on Connally`s back. Anyone
> > else notice that the tide has turned? The SBT only gets stronger the more
>
> 5 inches of Connally's rib was pulverized.
How much force did that require, exactly?
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
>Pamela:
>
>Because CE399 is the bullet that caused the injuries in JFK and JBC at
>Z223.
So you are attempting to support the Posner SB scenario? Don't try to
pull up the 'lapel flip', though, as that was just a shadow. However,
Posner's FA recreation used incorrect limo measurements, creating false
positioning for JFK and JBC...
>
>Look, CT'ers...even had the test been a perfect match, you'd still say
>Garbage in, Garbage out, so there's no winning.
Why don't you research the disconnect between Tomlinson's testimony and
the WCR on this issue and then come back to us. Or are you just
comfortable with the creation of evidence?
> Heck, you all still
>believe there was some guy standing behind the knoll fence in a
>policeman uniform with dirty hands, firing a rifle and vanishing into
>thin air moments later.
>
I suppose it's not easy to analyze the WCR for what it really is -- a
great big troll.
Pamela
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>>Bud wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>YM wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I am new to this newsgroup, but the assasination of JFK has always
>>>>>>fascinated me. Having read various documents/books/articles, it is my
>>>>>>opinion that the single bullit theory is impossible to maintain. I never
>>>>>>understood how the Warren Commission could have accepted such a
>>>>>>conclusion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Many smart people who have investigated the matter DO believe that
>>>>>it was possible. Close analysis of the Zapruder film shows that
>>>>>the wounds in Presidnent Kennedy and Gov Connally do line up
>>>>
>>>>That is not true. All the wounds do not line up in a straight line. Even
>>>>the latest SBTs allow for a non-straight line path.
>>>
>>>
>>> The wounds can be accounted for by the path of a single bullet.
>>>
>>
>>Baloney.
>
>
> Missed the show, did you?
>
Missed which show? The one I recorded twice or the one I recorded three
times?
>
>>>>>in a straight line. The wound in Gov Conally's back shows the
>>>>>bullet was tumbling and, from what I have read (I am no ballistics
>>>>>expert), could happen only if the bullet had passed through someone
>>>>>else (the President) first.
>>>>
>>>>No, that is not true. Part of the fiction comes from the LIE that the
>>>>wound was 1.2 inches long. It was not. It was only 15 mm long,
>>>
>>>
>>> Still indicating the bullet didn`t enter straight. Not entering
>>>straight indicates it struck something prior to striking Connally. What
>>
>>Wrong. It doesn't matter how many times you guys regurgitate this fiction,
>>it is wrong. Striking something else first is not the only possible cause
>>of an elongated wound.
>
>
> Are you saying the wound on Connally`s back wasn`t caused by a
> bulley entering sideways, rather than straight on?
>
Yes, I am saying that the bullet which struck Connally's back could not
have been entering sideways. It struck at an angle.
>
>>This is Forensics 101. What do think the bullet
>>causing Kennedy's supposed 15 mm long head wound hit prior to hitting
>>Kennedy's head? You are not even being consistent in your own arguments.
>
>
> I would hope Forensics 101 would cover the different effects of
> bullets striking different parts of the body. Skull is different than
> tissue.
>
The skull wound was never measured at 15 mm. The 15 mm comes from the
measurement of the wound on the scalp. The scalp is skin.
>
>>>object behind Connally also showed signs of being struck by a bullet? The
>>>curb?
>>>
>>
>>Not my claim, but Posner did say something about a bullet hitting the
>>tree.
>
>
> Probably a lot of people uttered words about bullets striking trees.
> What does that have to do with what I asked you?
>
You asked what object was between the rifle and Connally besides
Kennedy. And I did not even mention the traffic light support bar.
>
>>>>exactly as
>>>>long as some claim JFK's head wound was and they do no argue that his head
>>>>wound bullet had to go through someone else first. Consistency please.
>>>
>>>
>>> There isn`t much consistancy between apples and oranges. A large mass
>>>of bone wasn`t struck, causing it to explode, on Connally`s back. Anyone
>>>else notice that the tide has turned? The SBT only gets stronger the more
>>
>>5 inches of Connally's rib was pulverized.
>
>
> How much force did that require, exactly?
>
I haven't calculated that, but the loss of velocity would be about 400
fps (120 meters/second). I think that would equal depositing about 58
foot-pounds (78 joules). I don't remember if the Edgewood data specified
foot-pounds.
There is an online calculator for energy.
http://www.pyramydair.com/site/articles/formulas/
Anthony Marsh
> Pamela:
>
> Let's acknowledge that whether you believe in a conspiracy or not,
> planting evidence just minutes after the event-when NOBODY can POSSIBLY
> know how all of the evidence is going to shake out, whether the 'patsy'
> Oswald is going to blab something, whether some do-gooder citizen
> photographed the 'shot' from behind the knoll etc. is ridiculous and
> makes no sense. Let's agree that there was no bullet 'planted' at
> Parkland, just as we can all agree that Umbrella Man wasn't firing
> poison darts and that the Tramps really were just tramps and that JFK's
> coffin wasn't switched.
>
> It's akin to believing that Fuhrman planted O.J.'s 'bloody glove'
> without the detectives having any clue yet as to whether O.J. had an
> ironclad alibi or not.
>
Mistake in logic. Fuhrman did not plant the glove thinking that OJ was
innocent. He planted the glove KNOWING that OJ was guilty, but had not
left behind enough evidence to be able to prove the case.
> Rather than logically conclude that there are some reasonable
> explanations, CT'ers rise en masse and shout PLANTED!
Anthony Marsh
> Pamela:
>
> Because CE399 is the bullet that caused the injuries in JFK and JBC at
> Z223.
>
> Look, CT'ers...even had the test been a perfect match, you'd still say
> Garbage in, Garbage out, so there's no winning. Heck, you all still
> believe there was some guy standing behind the knoll fence in a
> policeman uniform with dirty hands, firing a rifle and vanishing into
> thin air moments later.
>
>
"You all"? Naughty, naughty.
Anthony Marsh
> "Here come de (udder) Judge"
>
> Read JBC's "Memoirs"
>
> While in Trauma room at Parkland he "Heard a Bullet fall to the floor".
>
Actually heard a cufflink fall to the floor.
Anthony Marsh
> Ron:
>
> You are right. And Tony, you are missing the point. In the test, we have a
> sniper firing a round and attempting to duplicate what CE399 did...and the
> results show that the MC rifle and ammo are quite capable of inflicting
> similar wounds on very realistic test figures. Additionally, the bullet is
> not much more damaged than CE399, despite hitting two ribs in the JBC test
> figure.
>
Being capable does not prove it was the exact event.
> Why don't you just admit that there is no result from any test, however
> rigorously put together, that will change your mind that LHO, acting
> alone, killed JFK.
>
Why don't you try reading what I actually write for a change? I have
always said that I leave open the possibility that Oswald was part of
the conspiracy.
> The computer work that Failure Analysis did in the early 90's, and that
> Dale Myers did in the late 90's, and rigorous tests performed in Beyond
> The Magic Bullet is exactly the kind of testing and scientific inquiry
> that should lay any doubts of conspiracy aside.
>
Junk science.
> CT'ers have nothing more than nameless boogiemen, hiding behind a fence on
> a knoll, firing 'frangible' bullets and dissapearing into thin air without
> a trace on a clear November day.
>
Who disappeared into thin air? The grassy knoll gunman was confront by a
cop and let go.
> Oh. That and Umbrella Man.
>
>
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***There was no report of the doctors removing the bullet, as far as I
am aware.
***Ron Judge
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
> > On 26 Nov 2005 23:10:58 -0500, fastpi...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >>single bullet theory was correct ?? Looked pretty damned important new
> >>analysis... showing that the single bullet theory ..was indeed correct.
> >>I have no idea if it is true...but it was fascinating.
> >>
> > the wounds. However, there is no one SB scenario in the JFK
> > assassination; there are different ones, and none has been 'proven'.
> >
> > In addition, just about everything having to do with CE 399 is fishy.
> > So the bottom line is that Specter, creater of the first SB scenario,
> > also pushed CE 399 onto the WC as supposedly being connected to the
> > assassination, when, in fact, it was not.
> >
> > Pamela
>
> Not being a JFK assassination researcher and having no official position on
> the case, I must admit that the SBT is nothing more then WC damage control.
> I don't think that LN supporters insecurely need the SBT to support a LN
> theory
> but WC supporters probably do.
>
> Jim
***The hard evidence pointed to a single shooter. When it became
obvious that a third person had been wounded, it was believed that a
bullet other than one which had struck the occupants of the limo had
caused his slight injury. Threrefore it was reasoned that one of the
bullets struck both Kennedy and Connally.
At the current time, it is not that the SBT is needed for Oswald to be
the only shooter.
It is that the photographic evidence shows both men reflexively
reacting simultaneously in a manner consistent with their non fatal
wounds, indicating that one bullet hit both men.
***Ron Judge
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
>The conspiracy gets defined!!!
>
>(*Finally*)
>
>By the way, what is the conspiracy, now that it is finally defined.
>Can't wait to learn more about it.
>
I'm not sure if you're referencing my post, but since I used that word
--The conspiracy was directed by JJA. It included a script to which
there were various elements. 3 shots, 3 bullets, lone gunman (psyco),
high building. It was plug-and-play -- it could be used in any city
JFK traveled to which had a motorcade. Ironically, the design flaw of
the Presidential limo, which the SS had acknowledged upon delivery in
June, 1961, resulting in the removal of the permanent privacy window,
making the metal frame over the center partition removable, etc.
However, the SS failed to acknowledge that the limo was unsafe in an
open configuration, because of the 41" that had been added to the 61
LCC, making it a stretch limo. Although there was a two-way radio in
the passenger area, near the rear door, it had to be turned on. The
car had several variations of partial and complete plexiglas roof
sections which, though not bulletproof, would have been a deterrent
against an assassination attempt in a motorcade. These were not used
in Dallas and tragedy ensued.
Another part of the assassination script was that all evidence that
could be removed from the scene of the crime be done so, and taken
back to DC, where it could be controlled. That meant the best
evidence, JFK's body, and the 2nd-best evidence, the limo, were
spirited out of Dallas before the DPD could get there hands on the car
or an autoposy performed.
The evidence script was that one full-sized bullet would be retrieved
from the crime scene, and the rest of the evidence scuttled. CE 399
was planted under a stretcher mat at PH, and knocked out when an
unnamed person moved it to use the Men's room. That person may have
planted it. It was retrieved early enough to end up on AF1, and was
the first piece of evidence at the FBI lab.
The patsy was not supposed to escape. LHO was aware as soon as DPD
Baker questioned him that he was in danger, if for no other reason
than having lived in the USSR. By leaving the TSBD, LHO through the
conspiracy into plan B. The killing of JDT, while LHO was in the
area, was done to alert the DPD to LHO's going to Oak Cliff.
The SS kept the limo to themselves for 12 hours, during which time
they conducted numerous 'informal' searches. When it was in a
condition with which they were comfortable, they turned it over to the
FBI for a forensic exam.
The FBI operated on its own agenda, looking for evidence that would
confirm the patsy as the lone gunman, and ignoring other evidence and
leads.
LHO proved to be a greater problem than expected. He was a loose
cannon. If LHO lived and the case went to trial in Texas, the
conspirators would have little control over what evidence came out.
LHO would be cross-examined, and the defense would present
incriminating evidence leading up the chain to the conspirators. In
addition, there was no provenance for the single bullet that had been
found -- a defense lawyer would make sure to have it thrown out in
court. As the problems began to mount, including the knowledge of the
FBI early on that David Ferrie was connected to LHO, it became clear
that a trial could not be risked.
So another conspiracy ensued. Chief Curry was told to allow chaos to
reign when LHO was transferred. It wouldn't be hard to do. Silencing
LHO was easy.
The investigation then was also returned to DC, and placed into the
hands of the WC. Some of them were well-intended. One lawyer was
not. When issues arose, he found creative solutions. Despite the
conflicting evidence, he made sure to use his lawyerly skills and
intellectual superiority to shame and push the WC to 'decide' things
that would keep their beloved thesis intact.
All the while JJA was holding hostage a man who may have had answers
for the WC. Nosenko was imprisoned and tortured by the CIA, and not
allowed to testify for the WC. In addition, CIA and FBI withheld
vital information from the WC to make sure they stayed on course --
only info about LHO acting alone was validated.
And thus the merry mess we have today...;-)
Pamela
Jean Davison
But the bullet wasn't found under a mat, Pamela. Tomlinson was
speculating about where it came from.
Jean
> Pamela
>
Texextra
defend the WCR until you are faced with its content.
Bud
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >
> >>Bud wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>YM wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>I am new to this newsgroup, but the assasination of JFK has always
> >>>>>>fascinated me. Having read various documents/books/articles, it is my
> >>>>>>opinion that the single bullit theory is impossible to maintain. I never
> >>>>>>understood how the Warren Commission could have accepted such a
> >>>>>>conclusion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Many smart people who have investigated the matter DO believe that
> >>>>>it was possible. Close analysis of the Zapruder film shows that
> >>>>>the wounds in Presidnent Kennedy and Gov Connally do line up
> >>>>
> >>>>That is not true. All the wounds do not line up in a straight line. Even
> >>>>the latest SBTs allow for a non-straight line path.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The wounds can be accounted for by the path of a single bullet.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Baloney.
> >
> >
> > Missed the show, did you?
> >
>
> Missed which show? The one I recorded twice or the one I recorded three
> times?
You sure you didn`t tape "Secrets of the CIA" over it, because
that show clearly showed that the wounds can be accounted for by the
path of one bullet.
> >>>>>in a straight line. The wound in Gov Conally's back shows the
> >>>>>bullet was tumbling and, from what I have read (I am no ballistics
> >>>>>expert), could happen only if the bullet had passed through someone
> >>>>>else (the President) first.
> >>>>
> >>>>No, that is not true. Part of the fiction comes from the LIE that the
> >>>>wound was 1.2 inches long. It was not. It was only 15 mm long,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Still indicating the bullet didn`t enter straight. Not entering
> >>>straight indicates it struck something prior to striking Connally. What
> >>
> >>Wrong. It doesn't matter how many times you guys regurgitate this fiction,
> >>it is wrong. Striking something else first is not the only possible cause
> >>of an elongated wound.
> >
> >
> > Are you saying the wound on Connally`s back wasn`t caused by a
> > bulley entering sideways, rather than straight on?
> >
>
> Yes, I am saying that the bullet which struck Connally's back could not
> have been entering sideways. It struck at an angle.
The bullet entering at such an extreme angle is not supported by
the path the bullet took.
> >>This is Forensics 101. What do think the bullet
> >>causing Kennedy's supposed 15 mm long head wound hit prior to hitting
> >>Kennedy's head? You are not even being consistent in your own arguments.
> >
> >
> > I would hope Forensics 101 would cover the different effects of
> > bullets striking different parts of the body. Skull is different than
> > tissue.
> >
>
> The skull wound was never measured at 15 mm. The 15 mm comes from the
> measurement of the wound on the scalp. The scalp is skin.
Yah, stretched tight over bone, that shatters like china when struck
by bullets.
> >>>object behind Connally also showed signs of being struck by a bullet? The
> >>>curb?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Not my claim, but Posner did say something about a bullet hitting the
> >>tree.
> >
> >
> > Probably a lot of people uttered words about bullets striking trees.
> > What does that have to do with what I asked you?
> >
>
> You asked what object was between the rifle and Connally besides
> Kennedy. And I did not even mention the traffic light support bar.
No wonder you couldn`t answer the question, you didn`t read all of
it. You neglected to address this part... "showed signs of being struck
by a bullet".
> >>>>exactly as
> >>>>long as some claim JFK's head wound was and they do no argue that his head
> >>>>wound bullet had to go through someone else first. Consistency please.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> There isn`t much consistancy between apples and oranges. A large mass
> >>>of bone wasn`t struck, causing it to explode, on Connally`s back. Anyone
> >>>else notice that the tide has turned? The SBT only gets stronger the more
> >>
> >>5 inches of Connally's rib was pulverized.
> >
> >
> > How much force did that require, exactly?
> >
>
> I haven't calculated that,
When you have that information, then you can move on to how much
energy was expended from the bullet by the rib being hit, and how much
deformation would be caused to a bullet from such an impact.
Bud
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >
> >>Bud wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>YM wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>I am new to this newsgroup, but the assasination of JFK has always
> >>>>>>fascinated me. Having read various documents/books/articles, it is my
> >>>>>>opinion that the single bullit theory is impossible to maintain. I never
> >>>>>>understood how the Warren Commission could have accepted such a
> >>>>>>conclusion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Many smart people who have investigated the matter DO believe that
> >>>>>it was possible. Close analysis of the Zapruder film shows that
> >>>>>the wounds in Presidnent Kennedy and Gov Connally do line up
> >>>>
> >>>>That is not true. All the wounds do not line up in a straight line. Even
> >>>>the latest SBTs allow for a non-straight line path.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The wounds can be accounted for by the path of a single bullet.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Baloney.
> >
> >
> > Missed the show, did you?
> >
>
> Missed which show? The one I recorded twice or the one I recorded three
> times?
You sure you didn`t tape "Secrets of the CIA" over it, because
that show clearly showed that the wounds can be accounted for by the
path of one bullet.
> >>>>>in a straight line. The wound in Gov Conally's back shows the
> >>>>>bullet was tumbling and, from what I have read (I am no ballistics
> >>>>>expert), could happen only if the bullet had passed through someone
> >>>>>else (the President) first.
> >>>>
> >>>>No, that is not true. Part of the fiction comes from the LIE that the
> >>>>wound was 1.2 inches long. It was not. It was only 15 mm long,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Still indicating the bullet didn`t enter straight. Not entering
> >>>straight indicates it struck something prior to striking Connally. What
> >>
> >>Wrong. It doesn't matter how many times you guys regurgitate this fiction,
> >>it is wrong. Striking something else first is not the only possible cause
> >>of an elongated wound.
> >
> >
> > Are you saying the wound on Connally`s back wasn`t caused by a
> > bulley entering sideways, rather than straight on?
> >
>
> Yes, I am saying that the bullet which struck Connally's back could not
> have been entering sideways. It struck at an angle.
The bullet entering at such an extreme angle is not supported by
the path the bullet took.
> >>This is Forensics 101. What do think the bullet
> >>causing Kennedy's supposed 15 mm long head wound hit prior to hitting
> >>Kennedy's head? You are not even being consistent in your own arguments.
> >
> >
> > I would hope Forensics 101 would cover the different effects of
> > bullets striking different parts of the body. Skull is different than
> > tissue.
> >
>
> The skull wound was never measured at 15 mm. The 15 mm comes from the
> measurement of the wound on the scalp. The scalp is skin.
Yah, stretched tight over bone, that shatters like china when struck
by bullets.
> >>>object behind Connally also showed signs of being struck by a bullet? The
> >>>curb?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Not my claim, but Posner did say something about a bullet hitting the
> >>tree.
> >
> >
> > Probably a lot of people uttered words about bullets striking trees.
> > What does that have to do with what I asked you?
> >
>
> You asked what object was between the rifle and Connally besides
> Kennedy. And I did not even mention the traffic light support bar.
No wonder you couldn`t answer the question, you didn`t read all of
it. You neglected to address this part... "showed signs of being struck
by a bullet".
> >>>>exactly as
> >>>>long as some claim JFK's head wound was and they do no argue that his head
> >>>>wound bullet had to go through someone else first. Consistency please.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> There isn`t much consistancy between apples and oranges. A large mass
> >>>of bone wasn`t struck, causing it to explode, on Connally`s back. Anyone
> >>>else notice that the tide has turned? The SBT only gets stronger the more
> >>
> >>5 inches of Connally's rib was pulverized.
> >
> >
> > How much force did that require, exactly?
> >
>
> I haven't calculated that,
When you have that information, then you can move on to how much
energy was expended from the bullet by the rib being hit, and how much
deformation would be caused to a bullet from such an impact.
> but the loss of velocity would be about 400
Bud
jim....@fuse.net wrote:
> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
> > I think it is more interesting to note that the Discovery Channel bullet
> > destroyed two ribs, instead of one. It also broke the simulated wrist. The
> > additional loss of velocity by the impact to two ribs prevented it from
> > imbedding in the mock thigh. However, several things can be garnered by
> > watching what happened:
> >
> > 1. The bullet did indeed exit and hit the Connally torso.
> > 2. The bullet did tumble upon exit, indicated by the impact marks on the
> > bullet- which I examined personally.
> > 3. The resultant bullet, having broken 3 bones, maintained a weight within
> > .6 grains of CE 399.
> > 4. The bullet did not break into numerous pieces, as conventional wisdom
> > predicts.
> >
> > Now, you make some interesting arguments. However, no one has shown that
> > blood and matter must be found on a bullet after it has penetrated to
> > people, ended up on a stretcher, fell to the floor and was put in
> > someone's pocket. Imagine how many other surfaces that bullet touched
> > before getting into Frazier's hands. So, that demand is predicated upon an
> > unproven ideal.
> >
> > Only scant traces of metal are noted on the Connally films, completely
> > consistent with the mass missing from CE 399. The rib impact was most
> > closely associated with a brush-by impact where the rib is tangentially
> > struck, instead of a direct impact. This was tested in 1964 at the
> > Edgewood Proving Grounds, and I've seen the resultant x-rays confirming
> > this type of impact to a goat rib.
> >
> > The x-rays to President Kennedy do not show a direct osseous impact, so
> > the bullet entered and exited intact. Connally's entrance suggests a
> > bullet that has tumbled. Tangential impact to the rib would cause a
> > flattening deformity on the side of the bullet, causing lead to be
> > squeezed from the jacket. The first known metal to show up were in the
> > form of a few tiny flakes found in Connally's wrist. The wound was noted
> > to be caused by a bullet that entered backwards, due to the amount of
> > foreign debris carried in and through the wound, and is completely
> > consistent with CE 399. The puncture to the left thigh was caused by a
> > bullet traveling at a severely reduced velocity, just as CE 399 would have
> > been.
> >
> > But, let's contemplate that CE 399 didn't cause the wounds and was a
> > plant, as the lack of human tissue matter suggests. So, basically, the
> > conspirators had the forsight to plant a bullet missing just the right
> > amount of metal. Not only that, but it fit the wounds and wounding
> > patterns perfectly. Now, just how can that be done? Why wouldn't the
> > conspirators simply have fired a bullet into something, deforming it so
> > that the American public would buy the SBT wounding scenario, but leaving
> > enough of it intact to match it to Oswald's rifle? Why did the Discovery
> > Channel bullet show a very similar amount of metal lost, yet it created a
> > lot more damage to the Connally thorax? Heck, why was the Connally model
> > hit if the SBT is laughable?
> >
> > I find most opinions on the SBT to be highly uneducated and heavily
> > weighted on a large volume of circumspect analysis:
> >
> > 1. A rifle bullet has to deform tremendously when it hits something dense,
> > such as bone.
> >
> > This idea is correct if the bullet first hits something dense, but does
> > not comply when the bullet's velocity is slowed significantly prior to the
> > impact with the bone.
> >
> > 2. There is more metal left in Connally than was missing from the magic
> > bullet.
> >
> > This is another idea without much basis, only conjecture. The mass of
> > metal left behind in Connally is subject to speculation because it wasn't
> > weighed. However, very small amounts of lead are necessary to create the
> > images seen on the x-rays. Given the size of the recovered fragments, it
> > is well within the realm of possibility that an appropriate amount of lead
> > is missing from CE 399 to explain all metal traces seen in the x-rays.
> >
> > 3. Guinn's NAA is absolutely and positively wrong.
> >
> > This has not been proven. What HAS happened is that a study concluded that
> > current bullet lead cannot be traced using that methodology because of the
> > relative uniformity of bullet lead in and between lots. HOWEVER, this has
> > not been proven with WCC rounds, whose composition with the Guinn rounds
> > shows contrast between a couple of elements that is not seen in today's
> > ammunition. Nevertheless, unless Stu Wexler and others test and prove that
> > there is enough similarity between bullets of the same lots, then the
> > argument is circumstantial at best. It simply hasn't been documented and
> > proven to be wrong.
> >
> > 4. Humes and Boswell did not prove a wound track through the neck, hence
> > did not prove the shot trajectory.
> >
> > An attempt to probe did occur. However, due to the shifting of overlying
> > muscle tissue, the probe would not pass. Therefore, the wound was
> > correlated by analyzing the adjacent tissue damage. This CAN be reasonably
> > associated without a metal probe because no evidence of two shots existed.
> > No bullet matter was found in the neck or torso. Therefore, in order to
> > have two shots, you have two dissintegrating bullets without exit wounds.
> > Also, you have to remember that it wasn't until the next morning when
> > Humes found out about the anterior neck wound. Since they didn't know
> > exactly what was going on at autopsy, they did not dissect for fear of
> > losing a wound tract by aimlessly cutting.
> >
> > Of course, if one bullet didn't do all that damage to the neck as the WC
> > suggested, you have:
> >
> > Two bullets without exits and without mass.
> >
> > One bullet hitting the front, going upwards and fired from some unknown
> > lower position, missing the windshield and all the occupants.
> >
> > Any OTHER scenario is far more magical than the Magic Bullet. It requires
> > much more inventive thought and more problems.
> >
> > 5. The Discovery Channel's marksman greatly missed the actual entry point.
> >
> > Yes, he did. In fact, I think it was also probably marked incorrectly.
> > Nevertheless, the bullet did transit intact (no kidding), it did tumble
> > (no kidding) and it did hit the Connally torso (no kidding). It did break
> > twice as many ribs with a direct and tilted hit (no kidding). It did break
> > the simulated wrist bone (no kidding).
> >
> > It did not penetrate the leg, as mentioned, and this is also expected due
> > to the impact to two ribs.
> >
> > It also weighed in at .6 grains less than CE 399...which isn't much. In
> > fact, it was only .4% less in weight compared with the magic bullet.
> >
> > Although the bullet didn't hit the exact mark, it did confirm much of what
> > CE 399 was said to have done.
> >
> > Science is proving that CE 399 did just what they say it did...which was
> > their second choice of scenarios. Yet, those against the SBT have never
> > shot such ammuntion, never tested the theories they propose and blatantly
> > ignore the ballistic facts regarding the situation, preferring instead to
> > invent their own analysis so they can be the next History Channel
> > exclusive.
> >
> >
> > Chad
> >
> >
> Chad, let me echo Jean's accolade of your post. It was very well
> written but your
> assertions that support the SBT are not on the mark. For instance,
> you must
> have seen the red trajectory line superimposed over the image of the
> video showing the two dummy torsos more from the rear side view and
> where the bullet
> exited the front of the JFK dummy torso , right? I strongly recommend
> you replay
> your Discovery Channel test shot video and when it comes to the red
> bullet trajectory
> line press the pause-advance frame button and get a straight edge ruler
> or yardstick
> and place it directly on the red line. You will see immediately that
> the
> trajectory line is coming out of the chest of the JFK dummy
> not the lower neck. That's why the producers of this failed
> experiment didn't show a close up of the exit wound in the
> lower neck as proof of their accuracy and success at replicating the
> actual event.
> What happened after the bullet exited the front of the JFK
> dummy torso far below the actual JFK neck wound location really
> doesn't make any difference when the trajectory is so obviously wrong
> when compared to the actual wounds on JFK and JBC.
> Connally himself swore under oath that he was hit by a different shot
> than JFK.
> It should come as no surprise to you that Connally was not hit by the
> same
> bullet that JFK was. The Discovery Channel's Australian team proved
> that
> with their failed experiment no matter what they say about how close it
> was.
> Close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades. Close is not good
> enough
> in this murder.
Why not? Prosecutors would only need to convince a jury that Oz shot
those people, not the exact trajectory, or account for how deformed the
bullet looked. I`ve never heard of, say, a murder trial where the victim
was stabbed 30 times, and the defense said something like "You can`t prove
my client inflicted the 7th stab wound, so therefore he is innocent" The
bar set for this case is ridiculously high, when you are quibbling over
how many inches someone sat from the door, or whatever. If the bullet in
these tests exited lower, so what? Who thought the crude use of geletin
could exactlly replicate tendons and tissue? Kennedy was struck in the
back, and it did exit his throat, that much should be obvious to everyone.
Kennedy leaning a few more degrees forward, or the bullet going through
Kennedy`s neck being acted upon differently by neck muscles and tendons
causing the path to differ could account for where it exited in reality,
and that wasn`t faithfully reflected in the simulation (if it really did
go out the upper chest in the simulation). In any case, a question for the
naysayers in the CT camp. Why did the bullet in the simulation visit all
the points of interest (generally, not perfectly)? Shouldn`t it have hit
the Connally dummy in the elbow and struck his toe, or one of the
thousands of other possible paths? Why were the results so close to the
actual event?
Anthony Marsh
Exactly. You are not aware. There was an interview in which the doctor
said that there was still a bullet in Connally's thigh which he would
remove later.
Kenneth A. Rahn
A+ for imagination!
Ken Rahn
"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ginvo1lb3rf0gk1b0...@4ax.com...
Kenneth A. Rahn
"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:r4gpo19kmefr7ebtp...@4ax.com...
>
> On 28 Nov 2005 20:28:08 -0500, "Texextra" <texe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>fastpi...@aol.com wrote:
>>> single bullet theory was correct ?? Looked pretty damned important new
>>> analysis... showing that the single bullet theory ..was indeed correct.
>>> I have no idea if it is true...but it was fascinating.
>>
>>The program asserted that CE399 was found on Connolly's stretcher,
>>which is undeniably false. Any television program that makes such a
>>huge error of fact loses my trust immediately.
>>
>
> Agreed. They were simply jumping on the WC's deliberate creation of
> 'evidence'. The WC knew the bullet was not found on a stretcher connected
> to either JFK or JBC. But then they 'decided' it was. Guess dealing with
> the facts just wasn't comfortable for them.
>
> Unfortunately, now we have Warranistas
If you're going to call me a "Warrenista," please at least spell it right!
:-)
claiming the NAA 'proves' the early
> provenance of CE 399. That is ridiculous, and insidious.
Call me, ridiculious,
Call me, insidulious,
Call me, ...
:-)
Ken Rahn (put in a musical mood by your creative post)
Pamela McElwain-Brown
<walter.jeff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Neat dip and dive, Jean.
Tomlinson: I bumped the wall and a spent cartridge or bullet rolled out
that apparently had been lodged under the edge of the mat.
6H130
Tomlinson is describing the first sighting of CE399.
Pamela
Jean Davison
I'm aware of his testimony, Pamela, but notice the word
"apparently." When he first saw it, it was not under the mat.
Jean
> Pamela
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
>
>I don't defend the WCR in its entirety. I think I accepted-years ago-that
>in a case this complicated that we are not going to understand every piece
>of the story. The report has many, many strengths...something the
>Unreachables-CT'ers-never admit.
>
>The difference is that I'm looking for logical explanations for events
>without shouting "Planted!" or "GIGO!" every time something crops up that
>doesn't immediately have an easy answer.
>
>CE399-where it was found-is a prime example. Doesn't it make more sense to
>attach a less conspiratorial theory to its whereabouts than assume that
>just minutes after the shooting-before the blood has dried, if you
>will-that some yahoo is sticking it on a stretcher at Parkland?
Facts need to be dealt with and leads examined. There are many questions
remaining regarding how that bullet happened to appear in PH. The WC
chose not to ask them, and Specter chose not to ask follow-up questions of
Tomlinson, who was the first to notice the bullet. I think that speaks
volumes about the coverup.
>
>What was the 'contingency' plan if JFK had been only slightly wounded and
>treated somewhere else? Parkland was the closest hospital, but Dallas-Ft.
>Worth is full of clinics and hospitals, and he traveled with his own
>physician. Was somebody with a deformed bullet lurking outside other
>hospitals waiting to sneak in if needed and plant a bullet? What if Jackie
>had been hit? Or Greer? I could go on and on.
Perhaps you don't have a CI mindset. Doesn't mean you can't look
objectively at the disconnects between what the WCR says and what actually
happened.
>
>LHO did this by himself.
The WC looked no further. Call it what you want.
> The WCR is far from perfect, but it beats the
>heck out of dart firing umbrellas, planted deformed bullets, switched
>coffins and ghosts on a knoll.
>
Or reasoning objectively? :-)
Pamela
Pamela McElwain-Brown
<walter.jeff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
You rather pounced on 'apparently'. He had not seen the bullet on top of
the stretcher. He saw it roll from some unknown place on the stretcher.
So apparently it came from under the mat. That was his observation.
Prior to that he mentions the man going into the men's room and moving the
stretcher. This man could have planted the bullet.
Pamela
Pamela McElwain-Brown
>Pamela,
>
>"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:r4gpo19kmefr7ebtp...@4ax.com...
>>
>> On 28 Nov 2005 20:28:08 -0500, "Texextra" <texe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>fastpi...@aol.com wrote:
>>>> single bullet theory was correct ?? Looked pretty damned important new
>>>> analysis... showing that the single bullet theory ..was indeed correct.
>>>> I have no idea if it is true...but it was fascinating.
>>>
>>>The program asserted that CE399 was found on Connolly's stretcher,
>>>which is undeniably false. Any television program that makes such a
>>>huge error of fact loses my trust immediately.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed. They were simply jumping on the WC's deliberate creation of
>> 'evidence'. The WC knew the bullet was not found on a stretcher connected
>> to either JFK or JBC. But then they 'decided' it was. Guess dealing with
>> the facts just wasn't comfortable for them.
>>
>> Unfortunately, now we have Warranistas
>
>If you're going to call me a "Warrenista," please at least spell it right!
>:-)
>
Picky, picky, picky...:-)
>claiming the NAA 'proves' the early
>> provenance of CE 399. That is ridiculous, and insidious.
>
>Call me, ridiculious,
>Call me, insidulious,
>Call me, ...
>
>:-)
>
>Ken Rahn (put in a musical mood by your creative post)
>
You say potato... :-)
Pamela
Anthony Marsh
> Pamela:
>
> Thank you for your post. You are the first CT'er that has laid out a
> detailed scenario of your version of the events that day...I've been
> posting here for a few months, and I haven't seen any detailed scenarios
> from any other CT'ers.
>
> As a Nutter, obviously I disagree with your view. The Ruby 'hit' is one
> example. He had his gun with him the night of the famous press briefing,
> and didn't take out Oswald, and when Oswald was due to be transfered on
Not for lack of wanting to hit Oswald. Ruby explained to a reporter that
the only reason why he did not shoot Oswald on Friday night was that
there were too may reporters in the way and he could not get off a clear
shot.
> the morning of the 24th, Ruby was still at his apartment. He didn't wire
> the money to Little Lynn until 1117AM, walked a block or less to the
> Dallas jail, and arrived just as LHO was being escorted away. The shot was
> fired at 1121am. Ruby literally was in place less than a minute before the
> LHO transfer.
>
> The topper was that it was LHO, asking to change his shirt, that delayed
> his encounter with Ruby. Otherwise, LHO would've been wisked away with no
> incident. Remember, he orginally was due to be moved at around 10am. What
> the heck was Ruby still doing at his apartment at 10am?
>
> I know, I know...the car 'honking' in the backround of the LHO slaying
> footage was a 'signal' to begin moving him because Ruby was now in place.
>
> Slick....
>
> Any thoughts as to how many of dozens of FBI agents, CIA and SS personnel,
> Dallas cops, etc. would need to be involved to pull this off? I estimate
> hundreds, minimum.
>
Patriotism?
> By the way, why didn't anyone think that Ruby might blab?
>
>
Ruby did try to blab and then died.
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://users.rcn.com/puzzlepalace/
Anthony Marsh
No it didn't. You can produce such an effect on two other people, not
JFK and Connally.
>
>>>>>>>in a straight line. The wound in Gov Conally's back shows the
>>>>>>>bullet was tumbling and, from what I have read (I am no ballistics
>>>>>>>expert), could happen only if the bullet had passed through someone
>>>>>>>else (the President) first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, that is not true. Part of the fiction comes from the LIE that the
>>>>>>wound was 1.2 inches long. It was not. It was only 15 mm long,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Still indicating the bullet didn`t enter straight. Not entering
>>>>>straight indicates it struck something prior to striking Connally. What
>>>>
>>>>Wrong. It doesn't matter how many times you guys regurgitate this fiction,
>>>>it is wrong. Striking something else first is not the only possible cause
>>>>of an elongated wound.
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you saying the wound on Connally`s back wasn`t caused by a
>>>bulley entering sideways, rather than straight on?
>>>
>>
>>Yes, I am saying that the bullet which struck Connally's back could not
>>have been entering sideways. It struck at an angle.
>
>
> The bullet entering at such an extreme angle is not supported by
> the path the bullet took.
>
Of course it is. When Connally is seated almost perfectly straight
forward at Z-230 as he said he was when hit.
>
>>>>This is Forensics 101. What do think the bullet
>>>>causing Kennedy's supposed 15 mm long head wound hit prior to hitting
>>>>Kennedy's head? You are not even being consistent in your own arguments.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would hope Forensics 101 would cover the different effects of
>>>bullets striking different parts of the body. Skull is different than
>>>tissue.
>>>
>>
>>The skull wound was never measured at 15 mm. The 15 mm comes from the
>>measurement of the wound on the scalp. The scalp is skin.
>
>
> Yah, stretched tight over bone, that shatters like china when struck
> by bullets.
>
Two things. First you tried to claim it was only the bone. But the
measurement was made on the scalp, not the bone. Second, you seem to be
proposing a theory here that the difference is in whether the skin was
loose or tight. I'd like to see your experiments to prove that theory. And
I might remind you that the Connally skin was tight over the rib.
>
>>>>>object behind Connally also showed signs of being struck by a bullet? The
>>>>>curb?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not my claim, but Posner did say something about a bullet hitting the
>>>>tree.
>>>
>>>
>>> Probably a lot of people uttered words about bullets striking trees.
>>>What does that have to do with what I asked you?
>>>
>>
>>You asked what object was between the rifle and Connally besides
>>Kennedy. And I did not even mention the traffic light support bar.
>
>
> No wonder you couldn`t answer the question, you didn`t read all of
> it. You neglected to address this part... "showed signs of being struck
> by a bullet".
>
No one examined the objects mentioned to see if they were struck by a
bullet.
>
>>>>>>exactly as
>>>>>>long as some claim JFK's head wound was and they do no argue that his head
>>>>>>wound bullet had to go through someone else first. Consistency please.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There isn`t much consistancy between apples and oranges. A large mass
>>>>>of bone wasn`t struck, causing it to explode, on Connally`s back. Anyone
>>>>>else notice that the tide has turned? The SBT only gets stronger the more
>>>>
>>>>5 inches of Connally's rib was pulverized.
>>>
>>>
>>> How much force did that require, exactly?
>>>
>>
>>I haven't calculated that,
>
>
> When you have that information, then you can move on to how much
> energy was expended from the bullet by the rib being hit, and how much
> deformation would be caused to a bullet from such an impact.
>
I believe that has been done in general.
>
>>but the loss of velocity would be about 400
>>fps (120 meters/second). I think that would equal depositing about 58
>>foot-pounds (78 joules). I don't remember if the Edgewood data specified
>>foot-pounds.
>>
>>There is an online calculator for energy.
>>http://www.pyramydair.com/site/articles/formulas/
>>
>>
>>>>>it is examined, while CT objections like Marsh`s here are getting weaker
>>>>>and weaker. They just want to cling to any objections they can devise
>>>>>about the SBT, thier eagerness to do this betrays any objectivity they
>>>>>might claim (speaking solely about CT who don`t post here, mind you).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>Anthony Marsh
>>>>>>The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Anthony Marsh
>>>>The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>--
>>Anthony Marsh
>>The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
>
>
>
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://users.rcn.com/puzzlepalace/