Vincent Bugliosi Vs. Cyril Wecht (Radio Debate)(From June 14, 2007)
David Von Pein
Vincent Bugliosi engages in a live debate with Dr. Cyril Wecht on
Pittsburgh's WPTT-Radio on June 14, 2007.....
There are two segments to this radio debate, as Vince and Cyril do
battle over the Single-Bullet Theory:
First Segment (43 minutes):
http://www.pluggd.com/episode/show/doug_hoerth_show_6_14_07_hour_2
Second Segment (only the first 12 minutes have Bugliosi & Wecht):
http://www.pluggd.com/episode/show/doug_hoerth_show_6_14_07_hour_3
============================
A couple of comments re. the very interesting Bugliosi/Wecht debate
linked above:
Why in the world Mr. Bugliosi didn't mention the fact that the test
bullets fired for the WC at Edgewood Arsenal were NOT FIRED THROUGH
TWO BODIES OR ANIMALS (to properly simulate the SBT flight path) is
somewhat of a large oversight on Vincent's part.
Plus: When speaking on the topic of "Has The SBT Ever Been
Duplicated?" -- Vince, IMO, should have also mentioned the Discovery
Channel program ("Beyond The Magic Bullet") from 2004, which did,
indeed, properly simulate the shooting by firing a MCC/WC bullet
THROUGH TWO BODIES, with the results being similar in character to the
SBT, including the test bullet emerging in a COMPLETELY-UNFRAGMENTED
CONDITION. Here's that test bullet:
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/6735.jpg
I don't know why Vince didn't mention these important factors after
Wecht started talking about how the WC test bullets were "mushroomed"
and more flattened, etc.; but Vince should have talked about those
things I mentioned to bolster his pro-SBT argument substantially.
Here are some related SBT comments (culled from my review of
Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History")......
===================
CHAPTER 4 (63 PAGES) -- "THE MOST FAMOUS HOME MOVIE EVER, THE 'MAGIC
BULLET', AND THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY":
DVP: Vincent Bugliosi's Single-Bullet Theory timeline has me puzzled a
little bit. I, myself, believe beyond all reasonable doubt that the
specific "SBT" point-of-impact Zapruder Film frame can be
established....and that frame is almost certainly Z224 (and not
"somewhere between Z frames 210 and 222", as Mr. Bugliosi says in his
book on page 463).
Although, VB says in an endnote on the CD-ROM (on page 25 of the
notes) that the SBT shot occurs "at Z223-Z224"; so I'm not quite sure
which exact Z-Film frame Vince totally endorses, if any.
Plus, on pages 325 to 327 of the CD's endnotes, Bugliosi acknowledges
the very real possibility (via Dr. John Lattimer's 1994 "lapel bulge"
tests) that a single bullet could have passed through both Kennedy and
Connally at Z224.
Vince actually mentions a three-frame range of Zapruder frames in this
"lapel" regard, which seems a little strange to me....but at least VB
admits the possibility of the bullet striking at the correct frame
(IMO) of Z224, when he says this on endnote page #325: "A bulging of
the right lapel of the governor's suit coat may pinpoint the moment
Governor Connally is hit to be at Z222-224".
Another oddity is that even though Vince supports a "Z223-Z224" and/or
a "Z222-Z224" SBT hit at various stages in the book's endnotes, in
other portions of the main text he also seems to be endorsing the
notion that Governor Connally was reacting to already having been hit
by a gunshot as early as Z222, which I totally disagree with.
I can't detect any such Connally "reaction" at Z222 at all. The first
firm "reaction" on Connally's behalf comes later, at Z225, just after
having been struck at Z224....again, that's in my own personal opinion
on the matter.
However, there's another indication in the book that VB advocates the
exact same frame for the SBT that I, too, endorse (Z224). That occurs
on page 40, when Vince says the second shot (the SBT shot) occurs "3.5
seconds" after the first shot which missed the limousine, a first shot
which, elsewhere in the book, VB says comes at Z-Film frame #160.*
And the only frame that is precisely "3.5" seconds after Z160 is Z224
(given the "round-off" mathematics that VB is utilizing on pages 40
and 41 and Mr. Zapruder's camera speed of 18.3 frames-per-second).
* = A "First-Shot Footnote" -- I completely agree with VB's "Z160
first shot" timing. However, I disagree with him on the exact scenario
of how bystander James Tague was wounded by this first bullet fired by
Lee Oswald on November 22.
Vince thinks the probability is high that the Z160 missed shot hit the
concrete on Elm Street and then the bullet (or a portion thereof) went
on to strike yet another hunk of street pavement over on Main Street,
which resulted in a bullet fragment or concrete fragment slightly
injuring Tague's cheek. (See page 471.)
I just cannot quite believe such a scenario myself. I think it's much
more likely that Oswald's first shot struck a portion of the nearby
oak tree, with the bullet then probably fragmenting (at least
partially), sending the majority of the lead portion of the bullet out
to Main Street, resulting in Tague's wounding, while the metal jacket
of the missile possibly struck the pavement on Elm near JFK's car,
resulting in the "sparks" that a few witnesses reported observing.
But, of course, realistically, the only thing that can be done with
respect to any "missed" shot is to simply guess about what happened,
since no physical bullet was recovered with regard to the shot that
missed the limousine's victims.
Another possibility concerning Tague's injury is that he was struck by
a fragment of the bullet that hit JFK in the head (shot #3 from
Oswald's rifle). I, however, don't like that theory much either, since
that bullet would have probably been pretty much spent and out of gas
by the time it travelled the many additional yards from the
President's car to Main Street to meet Tague.
Back to the subject of the SBT:
Many things begin to happen to Governor Connally beginning at Zapruder
frame #224 -- TOO many things, in my opinion, to believe that the SBT
bullet passed through both Connally and JFK at any other time.
Obviously, Vince is simply placing on the table ALL potential "SBT"
possibilities throughout his immense publication. I, however, would
have preferred more consistency in this book with regard to the timing
of the SBT bullet strike.
But Bugliosi evidently feels that the precise "impact" frame cannot be
definitively established on the Zapruder Film for the SBT shot. But I
believe it can be established on the film, via John Connally's sudden
"right shoulder drop" at exactly Z224. .....
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4540.gif
But even with a bit of ambiguity in his SBT timeline, at least Mr.
Bugliosi knows (as do I) that a "Single-Bullet Theory" Z-Film frame
DOES exist somewhere within Mr. Zapruder's 26-second home movie.
The exact moment when the controversial "SBT" shot struck John Kennedy
and John Connally has been debated for many, many years, of course.
Even the two major U.S. Government inquiries into the assassination
had differing views on this important matter, with the 1964 Warren
Commission offering up a 15-frame range of Zapruder Film frames when
they said the single bullet struck JFK and Connally (Z210 to Z225).
But the House Select Committee in 1977-1978 placed the SBT strike at
approximately Z190, which, by the way, is the timing that was
seemingly endorsed by Bugliosi at the TV Docu-Trial in which he served
as prosecutor in 1986; although I strongly suspect that the reason for
such a VB endorsement in '86 was due to the fact that Bugliosi's main
"SBT" witness/expert at the London mock trial (Cecil Kirk) was a
member of the HSCA panel, which itself endorsed the absurdly-early
Z190 SBT timeline.
So, as we can see from the pages of "Reclaiming History", Vincent T.
Bugliosi, in the intervening years, has gotten closer to the Z224 SBT
hit.
It turns out that I disagree (for the most part) with Vince with
respect to the exact timing of the Single-Bullet Theory, but certainly
not by very much; so I'm not inclined to call a "2-frame" difference
of opinion a major or all-important disagreement.
And, as I mentioned, there are references in this book that seem to
indicate VB's possible belief in a "Z223-Z224-Z225" SBT hit too (which
will no doubt have conspiracists attacking Bugliosi's credibility and
lack of consistency throughout the book on this "SBT timing" point,
which, indeed, appears to be warranted criticism when you read the
whole tome, plus the endnotes).
However, in my opinion, as stated previously, the most important point
is the fact that Vince Bugliosi supports the SBT, regardless of
exactly when on the Z-Film the SBT is occurring. And this SBT support
is due in large part to plain ol' common sense....because the sum
total of all the evidence in this case makes the Single-Bullet Theory
a virtual certainty.
Or, to use Vincent's own words (from page 482 of this book) -- "The
overwhelming evidence is that whenever Kennedy and Connally were hit,
or first reacted to being hit, they were both struck by the same
bullet." -- V. Bugliosi
~~~~~~~
"When you can establish the single-bullet theory by reference to
evidence other than the {Zapruder} film, you necessarily know that the
film itself cannot, by definition, show something else. .... Since we
KNOW Kennedy and Connally were not hit by separate bullets, we know,
before we even look at the film, that it CANNOT show otherwise." --
VB; Pages 457-458 of "RH"
~~~~~~~
"With respect to the second shot fired in Dealey Plaza, the "single-
bullet THEORY" is an obvious misnomer. Though in its incipient stages
it was but a theory, the indisputable evidence is that it is now a
proven FACT, a wholly supported conclusion. .... And no sensible mind
that is also informed can plausibly make the case that the bullet that
struck President Kennedy in the upper right part of his back did not
go on to hit Governor Connally." -- VB; Pages 489-490 of "RH"
===================
WhiskyJoe
******************************
******************************
Dr. Wecht:
Dr. Wecht said that the bullet's base was bent by the rifle's firing
mechanism? If that happened, the bullet would not have made it out the
barrel. It wasn't that pristine. While along one axis it is narrower,
along the other it is wider, and won't fit down the barrel. Of course,
since he seems to believe this bullet was magical, maybe that's not
such a big problem.
******************************
Then Dr. Wecht said the bullet continued on out JFK's throat, was not
deflected, and exited the limousine without hitting anything?
Absolutely no way, no matter where the shot came from.
This is a necessary belief if one is going to hold that the SBT was
false and the bullet was not deflected. But no way can this belief be
true.
The only Anti SBT argument that works is that the bullet was
deflected. And accepting this removes from the Anti SBT argument it's
main punch, the notion that the SBT is impossible because bullets
can't be deflected.
Of course, as Dr. Wecht said, he is no longer the naïve and callow
fellow he was back in 1986. He won't fall for any of Bugliosi's tricks
next time. From now on, he will keep his proofs that the straight line
alignment of the wounds for the SBT is impossible limited to verbal
arguments.
He will verbally assure us that Connally's right arm pit was over a
foot away from a straight line path from the sniper's nest through
JFK's throat. He will verbally assure us that this path will totally
miss Connally, indeed will totally miss everything and pass harmlessly
over the left side of the limousine.
But even if he was to debate Bugliosi on TV, Wecht will not make use
of any diagrams demonstrating these points. He learned his lesson in
1986, a lesson I'm surprised he needed to learn in the first place.
Did it never occur to Dr. Wecht that Bugliosi would simply use
photographs to prove Wecht's diagrams were wrong?
******************************
******************************
Bugliosi:
Bugliosi stated that the bullet that wounded JFK and Connally occurred
at Frame 210.
It's hard to teach an old dog new tricks. Bugliosi started studying
the assassination in the mid 1980's. Back then, a shot at frame 210
was, perhaps, as good a guess as any. They didn't know the exact
angles from the sniper's nest back then nor carefully study the
positions of JFK and Connally.
But now, the evidence is much stronger for a shot in the Z221-224
range, most likely Z221 or Z222. From Bugliosi's other statements, he
clearly knows about Z224 being the approximate time of this shot, but
he keeps forgetting and states from time to time that the shot
occurred at Z210, an old 1980's scenario which said the shot occurred
between Z210 and Z224.
If it was established that a shot occurred at Z210:
* We have to toss out some of the best evidence for the SBT.
** the "Coat Bulge" at frame 224 must be irrelevant, just a chance
gust of wind that just happened to correspond to the apparent
reactions of JFK and Connally at frame 226 and a Zapruder camera
jiggle.
** the camera jiggle at frame 227 must have been a coincidence that
just happened to correspond to the apparent reactions of JFK and
Connally at frame 226 and the "Coat Bulge".
** the simultaneous movements of JFK and Connally starting at frame
226 must be a coincidence, because it doesn't make sense for both to
be hit at frame 210, and start reacting 0.9 seconds later, during the
same frame at Z226.
And that's not all:
* The Dale Myers simulation of JFK and Connally's movements would no
longer support the LN side but would now support the CT side since the
wounds line up at Z221-Z223 but not at Z210. Dale Myers would probably
become a CTer again and one could only hang on as a LNer by one of two
ways:
A. Go with the theory that Oswald fired the first two shots with his
handgun using his left hand before dropping it to free up this hand to
steady the rifle he held ready with his right for the Z222 SBT shot.
B. Use the CT tactic of verbally assuring everyone that the wounds do
line up at Z210, but don't use any diagrams to back this up.
This Z210 error could really be exploited, at least on TV, with Dale
Myer's animation showing the view from the sniper's nest at frame 210.
******************************
******************************
David Von Pein
<<<
Indeed. Also....
If I could ever get Vince Bugliosi to look at this Z-Film clip over & over
a few times, I truly think he might join me in the "Z224" SBT camp.....
http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/222-262%20full-small.gif
And one of the main reasons (possibly THE main reason) I think I could
convince Vince of a circa Z224 SBT timeline is the ultra-fast arm movement
of John Connally, which doesn't even begin until about Z226, which
correlates much better with a Z224 SBT hit than it does with a circa Z210
SBT strike.
I ask:
What are the odds of Connally being hit by the SBT bullet as early as
Z210, but not having the right arm of JBC (the same arm containing the
wrist that was fractured by a bullet during the shooting) moving up and
down VERY rapidly until Z226-Z230?
If Vince is right re. a Z210 SBT hit.....the bullet goes through
Connally's wrist at circa Z210, but his injured wrist/arm doesn't do it's
little "Hat Dance" until almost a full one second later, starting at Z226.
Yes, I know it's still less than ONE single second in real time....but I'm
going to maintain that that one second is still too long an interval for
the involuntary wrist/arm movement if he was hit at Z210. It's just too
long of an involuntary delay (and we're certainly looking at an
INVOLUNTARY arm movement here, not a voluntary one controlled by Connally
himself):
http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/222-262%20full-small.gif
In addition:
There's the in-unison right-arm movements of both victims here:
http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/225-226%20Full.gif
The SBT occurs at Z224. I'd bet Arlen Specter's next paycheck on it. ;)
==============
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/88cd14ec6de230eb
==============
bigdog
Excellent point, Whisky Joe, about the problem with Wecht's claim that the
bullet was damaged by the firing mechanism. That one went right past me.
It is so obvious that if the bullet was already out of round when fired,
it couldn't make it through the rifle barrell. When I read that, I thought
to myself, "DUH"!
I don't know why VB has a problem accepting Z224 as the point the single
bullet hit. Maybe because he wasn't the one who came up with it. I have a
lot of respect for VB but it is also obvious he has a big ego and maybe he
doesn't want to share the credit. Or maybe he had already written that
chapter of the book when the lapel flip came to light and didn't want to
revise it. Does anyone know who first noticed the lapel flip and theorized
this is when the single bullet hit. When did this come to light. I first
heard about it in the early 1990s but my impression was it had been around
a few years before that.
I was glad to see that VB recognized the SBT is essential to the finding
of a lone assassin. One of the weakest points made by the Warren Commision
is that it was not essential. On the contrary, it is the lynchpin of the
report. If it collapses, so does the lone assassin finding. JFK and JBC
react virtually simulatneously to their wounds. If they were hit by
separate bullets, they were hit by separate shooters.
Anthony Marsh
> ******************************
> ******************************
>
> Dr. Wecht:
>
> Dr. Wecht said that the bullet's base was bent by the rifle's firing
> mechanism? If that happened, the bullet would not have made it out the
> barrel. It wasn't that pristine. While along one axis it is narrower,
> along the other it is wider, and won't fit down the barrel. Of course,
> since he seems to believe this bullet was magical, maybe that's not
> such a big problem.
>
Who said WHAT? I notice that you don't provide any quotes or source. Maybe
your tape was garbled at that point. Maybe you didn't understand what he
said.
> ******************************
>
> Then Dr. Wecht said the bullet continued on out JFK's throat, was not
> deflected, and exited the limousine without hitting anything?
>
No, Wecht never says anything like that. Your only tactic is to invent
straw man arguments.
> Absolutely no way, no matter where the shot came from.
>
> This is a necessary belief if one is going to hold that the SBT was
> false and the bullet was not deflected. But no way can this belief be
> true.
>
No, that is not the only suggested solution. Others have suggested that
the bullet only went in about an inch or so and then stopped. Others have
suggested that the bullet lost all its energy and fell out of the throat
into his clothes.
> The only Anti SBT argument that works is that the bullet was
> deflected. And accepting this removes from the Anti SBT argument it's
> main punch, the notion that the SBT is impossible because bullets
> can't be deflected.
>
That is my theory, and also Mark Fuhrman's.
> Of course, as Dr. Wecht said, he is no longer the naïve and callow
> fellow he was back in 1986. He won't fall for any of Bugliosi's tricks
> next time. From now on, he will keep his proofs that the straight line
> alignment of the wounds for the SBT is impossible limited to verbal
> arguments.
>
> He will verbally assure us that Connally's right arm pit was over a
> foot away from a straight line path from the sniper's nest through
> JFK's throat. He will verbally assure us that this path will totally
> miss Connally, indeed will totally miss everything and pass harmlessly
> over the left side of the limousine.
>
Who said anything about Connally's right arm pit being a foot away? Please
quote Wecht. And please be careful not to make slips like admitting that
Connally's wound was actually in his right arm pit. You damage the WC
defender cause by admitting the truth.
> But even if he was to debate Bugliosi on TV, Wecht will not make use
> of any diagrams demonstrating these points. He learned his lesson in
> 1986, a lesson I'm surprised he needed to learn in the first place.
> Did it never occur to Dr. Wecht that Bugliosi would simply use
> photographs to prove Wecht's diagrams were wrong?
>
So you claim that Bugliosi's SBT diagram is 100% accurate?
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Bugliosi-Z210.gif
But he doesn't even have his line hitting Connally's arm pit. It hits
about halfway on his back.
WhiskyJoe
David:
> The SBT occurs at Z224. I'd bet
> Arlen Specter's next paycheck
> on it. ;)
To me Z222 is a much better bet. Larry Sturdivan makes a very good
case for it in "The JFK Myths". I just don't see how a 1/3 of an ounce
bullet can push the side of a coat that weights more than 10 times as
much instantly. There has got to be some delay.
And Vincent's excellent website:
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/SBT-eng.htm#sommet
shows there seems to be things happening as soon as between Z222 and
Z223. Like Connally's right wrist being driven down or dropped down
between Z222 and Z223.
******************************
Bigdog:
> Excellent point, Whisky Joe,
> about the problem with Wecht's
> claim that the bullet was
> damaged by the firing mechanism.
Thank you.
> I don't know why VB has a
> problem accepting Z224 as
> the point the single
> bullet hit.
I don't think he has a problem accepting it. My impression is that
when he started this book in the 1980's, a common scenario was that
the bullet struck at Z210-224. And this has stuck in his mind. And
even worst than believing the bullet struck between Z210 to Z224, is
he states this as a bullet occurring at Z210.
I'm certain you would have no problem reminding him that it was at
about Z224 and he would agree, but tomorrow, in the middle of a
conversation, he would be stating Z210 again. It's not so much that he
really believes it was a Z210, it's just that the 210 number if stuck
in his mind.
Bugliosi is not really an expert on the narrow technical details of
the assassination, like the most probable frame each of the three
shots occurred. He's more an expert on the overall picture, why this
and that conspiracy story is false. The best expert on the technical
details is Larry Sturdivan and he provides this information in "The
JFK Myths".
> I was glad to see that VB recognized
> the SBT is essential to the finding
> of a lone assassin. One of the
> weakest points made by the Warren
> Commission is that it was not
> essential. On the contrary, it is
> the linchpin of the report.
> If it collapses, so does the
> lone assassin finding. JFK and JBC
> react virtually simultaneously to
> their wounds. If they were hit by
> separate bullets, they were hit
> by separate shooters.
Basically I agree. Although the Warren Commission did not have a
stabilized version of the Zapruder film, so it's not surprising they
did not recognize the simultaneous reactions starting at Z226. I think
it's a lot harder to see with the picture dancing all over the place.
And it's hard to see in the still frames as well.
Of course, if CTers can deny that either JFK or Connally starts
reacting at Z226, I don't know why LNers couldn't do the same. If
LNers abandon the SBT, we could still have a scenario no more
implausible than any CT scenario. JFK was hit at Z200, Connally at
Z250, something like that.
But you could throw away the Zapruder film and you still have to have
a SBT of some sort. First, Carcano/WCC bullets go through over 40
inches of wood with no damage to the bullet. And you got six people
sitting in an area of about 30 square feet. If multiple bullets hit
one of them, others are bound to be others hit as well. It would take
a minor miracle to avoid this.
Plus, we have what I will call five wounds"
* JFK's neck
* Connally's chest
* Connally's wrist
* Connally's thigh
* JFK's head
(and we won't even count Mr. Tague, who was likely wounded by a
fragment from the head shot)
But only two bullets (an intact one at the hospital plus two fragments
from another).
Five wounds, two bullets. Anyone can do the math. Some of these wounds
have to be caused by the same bullet. We can't have three bullets dive
into the limousine, make one wound and then pull up like dive bombers,
missing the other people, even missing the limousine.
******************************
Me:
>> Dr. Wecht said that the bullet's
>> base was bent by the rifle's firing
>> mechanism? If that happened,
>> the bullet would not have made
>> it out the barrel. It wasn't
>> that pristine. While along one
>> axis it is narrower,
>> along the other it is wider,
>> and won't fit down the barrel.
>> Of course, since he seems to
>> believe this bullet was magical,
>> maybe that's not such a big problem.
Anthony:
> Who said WHAT? I notice that
> you don't provide any quotes
> or source. Maybe your tape
> was garbled at that point.
> Maybe you didn't understand
> what he said.
Here's the link:
http://www.pluggd.com/episode/show/doug_hoerth_show_6_14_07_hour_2
While this tape is 42 minutes long, you can skip ahead to:
21:26
Where Dr. Wecht says:
"This bullet has some deformation only at it's base
from the impact of the firing mechanism."
******************************
A final thought on Dr. Wecht, I guess one is suppose to assume that
the spokesmen for the other side are honest, just mistaken. But for
Dr. Wecht, it's a real stretch to believe this is true.
In 1986, he was saying a bullet from the sniper's nest that hit JFK in
the back would miss Connally's right arm pit wound, miss Connally
altogether and even miss the limousine, heading above the left side of
the limousine. And it would do this without any deflection. And he had
a diagram to demonstrate this.
Bugliosi, of course, showed that this diagram had no basis in reality,
by using photographs of the limousine and it's occupants and of Dealey
Plaza. And then Wecht says he can't remember where he got this map,
this "proof" that the SBT was false, from!
Now at this time, one would expect Dr. Wecht would go get another
diagram made, by carefully studying the photographs. If the new
diagram showed the SBT didn't work, the bullet still misses the wound,
Connally and the limousine, very good. He can use it. If it doesn't,
he can drop this argument.
But he doesn't do either. He still makes the same argument. The bullet
will miss the Connally's wound, miss Connally, miss the limousine,
with no deflection. The only difference between his 1986 argument and
his 2007 version, is that this time, he goes with no diagram. This lie
is much easier to maintain if one tells it with words, not with a
diagram.
I can't come up with any scenario where this is somehow an honest
mistake by Dr. Wecht. He clearly knows how valuable a diagram is to
this argument. He must know that if his argument has any validity, one
can make a diagram that demonstrate it. But he doesn't want to
strengthen his argument this way? No, I don't believe it. He knows the
geometry just doesn't work for his argument. But that doesn't matter.
He can still verbally make his claims and most listeners are too
ignorant to realize he's full of hot air.
David Von Pein
so and then stopped." <<<
LOL.
Soft flesh...
A bullet moving at thousands of feet per second (or did the pro killers
use a toy gun/slingshot?)...
No bony structures hit inside Kennedy's neck or back...
Voila! The bullet miraculously acts as if it hit an invisible brick wall!
And then that bullet (naturally) disappears off the face of the planet
(EVEN THOUGH IT WENT INTO KENNEDY BUT DID NOT GO THROUGH HIM, per this
idiotic theory).
If THAT'S not a "magic bullet", what WOULD qualify as one?
>>> "Others have suggested that the bullet lost all its energy and fell
out of the throat into his clothes." <<<
LOL reprise.
Magic Bullet #2.
IOW -- Believe anything and everything except what's most likely to be
true -- i.e., the SBT.
Pathetic. As always.
Andrew Mason
Why not try it! You seem to be admitting that the zfilm analysis of JBC
and JFK's reaction is not an ironclad way to determine when the bullet
strikes. Why not, then, look at the rest of the evidence.
You may think that the witness evidence is not reliable. And you are
right. It is not. Sometimes it is accurate. Sometimes it is not. BUT there
is a way to tell the difference: When the vast majority of witnesses
confidently recall something they observed, AND they all recall it the
same way, there is no other reasonable conclusion but that they actually
observed something in common.
If you forget about analysing the details of the zfilm - what caused JBC
or JFK to do this or that - and look at the strong convergences of large
bodies of witness evidence, you will be able to figure it out. It is
really not that difficult:
1. JFK hit by the first bullet (easy)
2. JBC hit by the second (easy)
3. no missed shot (easy)
4. second shot close to the third and closer than to the first, but not
too close to be fired by one shooter (easy) - so second shot is much
later than z224.
5. where did the first bullet go after passing through JFK? (a little
harder, but answerable).
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
> David:
>
>> The SBT occurs at Z224. I'd bet
>> Arlen Specter's next paycheck
>> on it. ;)
>
> To me Z222 is a much better bet. Larry Sturdivan makes a very good
> case for it in "The JFK Myths". I just don't see how a 1/3 of an ounce
> bullet can push the side of a coat that weights more than 10 times as
> much instantly. There has got to be some delay.
>
It's not the bullet which pushes the coat. The theory involves the
debris from the chest wound and possibly the shock wave of the bullet as
well.
> And Vincent's excellent website:
>
> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/SBT-eng.htm#sommet
>
> shows there seems to be things happening as soon as between Z222 and
> Z223. Like Connally's right wrist being driven down or dropped down
> between Z222 and Z223.
>
Yeah, you are on the right track. Keep moving you SBT back by a few
frames each day. Some theory!
Anthony Marsh
bigdog wrote:
> On Jul 7, 1:35 am, WhiskyJoe <j...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> ******************************
>> ******************************
>>
>> Dr. Wecht:
>>
>> Dr. Wecht said that the bullet's base was bent by the rifle's firing
>> mechanism? If that happened, the bullet would not have made it out the
>> barrel. It wasn't that pristine. While along one axis it is narrower,
>> along the other it is wider, and won't fit down the barrel. Of course,
>> since he seems to believe this bullet was magical, maybe that's not
>> such a big problem.
>>
>> ******************************
>>
>> Then Dr. Wecht said the bullet continued on out JFK's throat, was not
>> deflected, and exited the limousine without hitting anything?
>>
>> Absolutely no way, no matter where the shot came from.
>>
>> This is a necessary belief if one is going to hold that the SBT was
>> false and the bullet was not deflected. But no way can this belief be
>> true.
>>
>> The only Anti SBT argument that works is that the bullet was
>> deflected. And accepting this removes from the Anti SBT argument it's
>> main punch, the notion that the SBT is impossible because bullets
>> can't be deflected.
>>
> Excellent point, Whisky Joe, about the problem with Wecht's claim that =
the=20
> bullet was damaged by the firing mechanism. That one went right past me=
.=20
Stupid point. That is not what Wecht said. I asked for a quote and a
citation and none have been been produced. That tells you something. You
WC defenders have a bad habit of making up something and then blindly
passing around the rumor without doing any fact checking.
> It is so obvious that if the bullet was already out of round when fired=
,=20
> it couldn't make it through the rifle barrell. When I read that, I thou=
ght=20
> to myself, "DUH"!
>=20
No one said that the bullet was already out of round when fired. A bullet
can go out of round simply by being fired into a barrel of water.
> I don't know why VB has a problem accepting Z224 as the point the singl=
e=20
> bullet hit. Maybe because he wasn't the one who came up with it. I have=
a=20
Bugliosi? He simply doesn't know when the SBT is supposed to have
happened. Could be Z-210. Could be Z-224. Could be anywhere in between.
> lot of respect for VB but it is also obvious he has a big ego and maybe=
he=20
> doesn't want to share the credit. Or maybe he had already written that=20
> chapter of the book when the lapel flip came to light and didn't want t=
o=20
The supposed lapel slip came out a long time ago. Maybe you are correct
that Bugliosi wrote the bulk of the book before new theories came out.
> revise it. Does anyone know who first noticed the lapel flip and theori=
zed=20
> this is when the single bullet hit. When did this come to light. I firs=
t=20
> heard about it in the early 1990s but my impression was it had been aro=
und=20
> a few years before that.
>=20
Google it.
> I was glad to see that VB recognized the SBT is essential to the findin=
g=20
> of a lone assassin. One of the weakest points made by the Warren Commis=
ion=20
> is that it was not essential. On the contrary, it is the lynchpin of th=
e=20
> report. If it collapses, so does the lone assassin finding. JFK and JBC=
=20
> react virtually simulatneously to their wounds. If they were hit by=20
> separate bullets, they were hit by separate shooters.
>=20
You are not supposed to say things like that if you want to remain a good
little WC defender in good standing.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Others have suggested that the bullet only went in about an inch or
> so and then stopped." <<<
>
> LOL.
>
> Soft flesh...
>
> A bullet moving at thousands of feet per second (or did the pro killers
> use a toy gun/slingshot?)...
>
> No bony structures hit inside Kennedy's neck or back...
>
> Voila! The bullet miraculously acts as if it hit an invisible brick wall!
>
Well, don't argue with me. It's not my wacky theory. Argue with the
chief autopsist, Commander James Humes. It was HIS theory.
> And then that bullet (naturally) disappears off the face of the planet
> (EVEN THOUGH IT WENT INTO KENNEDY BUT DID NOT GO THROUGH HIM, per this
> idiotic theory).
>
Some might think it was CE 399.
> If THAT'S not a "magic bullet", what WOULD qualify as one?
>
How about Posner's bullet which hits a tree branch which strips off the
jacket entirely allowing the lead core to go on to hit the curb near
Tague?
David Von Pein
Not even remotely possible, of course (and Tony knows this full
well...he just wants to argue the obvious), because Kennedy's
stretcher was never even close to that corridor where CE399 was found
by Tomlinson. Why this major fact is totally ignored by many CTers can
only elicit a shoulder shrug from yours truly.
>>> "How about Posner's bullet which hits a tree branch which strips off the jacket entirely allowing the lead core to go on to hit the curb near Tague?" <<<
That's what I certainly believe happened--although, admittedly, it's
just a guess...but I think it's by far the best guess, and it's a
guess that solves two problems.
One, if the bullet hit the tree and separated the jacket from the lead
core....the lead can go on out to hit Main St. and then Tague; hence,
no copper tracing on the curb. Perfectly reasonable, IMO.
Two, with the bullet now split into two parts, the copper jacket can
strike Elm St., resulting in the "sparks" that some witnesses said
they saw near JFK's limo. While the other portion of the bullet can
separately go on out to meet Mr. Tague without having to perform any
hopping, skipping, or jumping from one curbstone to yet another.
I completely disagree with Vince Bugliosi's explanation re. the first-
shot miss and the Tague wounding...which, btw, Vince only briefly
mentions in his book. He gives the whole matter two short paragraphs
on pages 471 and 472.
Vince thinks that the first Oswald (missed) shot hit the Elm pavement
on the fly, and then the same bullet somehow finds its way (at grass
level all the way?) over to Main Street to hit the Main curb and cause
Tague's cheek injury.
I, myself, find that scenario hard to swallow, although I cannot
disprove it, of course; nor can anyone else. Since we're talking about
a shot that missed the limo occupants completely and was never
recovered, all we can do is guess. But I find Posner's "guess" to be
the best guess....in that it can explain multiple questions
surrounding the shooting -- e.g., the sparks on the Elm pavement and
the non-copper tracings on the Main curb and Tague's wounding.
I respect Vince Bugliosi's opinion re. the first shot at Z160...I just
don't agree with his complete scenario of the path that bullet
followed on November 22. (At least we agree about one thing about the
first shot though -- when it was fired by Oswald -- Z160. I agree with
VB on that 100%.)
As a footnote to the above discussion re. the Tague wounding --- I
must also point out that Mr. Bugliosi does mention in "Reclaiming
History" (in an endnote on the CD-ROM disc that comes with the book)
that Gerald Posner's tree-branch deflection theory "is possible" (VB;
footnote on page 315 of endnotes).
bigdog
I'm throwing this out just for sake of discussion, not because I
necessarily believe it but because I think it is worth considering and I
have never heard it discussed. Since no one, including Tague, seems
positive which shot caused Tague's wounds, how can we be certain a bullet
caused the wound at all. Has any thought been given to the possibility
that a passing vehicle could have thrown up a small stone which may have
struck him. I know from experience that such a stone can shatter a
windshield. The problem with that scenario is that I'm assuming with the
motorcade coming down Main St, traffic would have been stopped in both
directions, but what about from adjacent Commerce St. Had traffic been
stopped on that street as well? I'm not saying this is the probable
explaination, but all possibilities should be considered until there is
sufficient reason to rule them out.
Gerry Simone (O)
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1183701110....@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
Well, here come the official WC defender deniers again. Someone did this a
few years ago, claiming that maybe Tague only cut himself shaving. Another
WC defender opined that the mark on the curb was caused by a wheel weight
from a passing car.
Wake up people. Can't you figure out what they are up to?
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Some might think it was CE 399 {that went into JFK but never exited}." <<<
>
> Not even remotely possible, of course (and Tony knows this full
> well...he just wants to argue the obvious), because Kennedy's
> stretcher was never even close to that corridor where CE399 was found
> by Tomlinson. Why this major fact is totally ignored by many CTers can
> only elicit a shoulder shrug from yours truly.
>
Well, it's not my theory. It came from the autopsy doctor Humes.
>
>
>>>> "How about Posner's bullet which hits a tree branch which strips off the jacket entirely allowing the lead core to go on to hit the curb near Tague?" <<<
>
> That's what I certainly believe happened--although, admittedly, it's
> just a guess...but I think it's by far the best guess, and it's a
> guess that solves two problems.
>
Physically impossible.
Why don't you try out Holland's theory that it hit the traffic light
support bar?
David Von Pein
Oh, that's right. You've taken a Carcano and shot that oak tree with a
MC/WCC bullet in order to prove that it's "physically impossible" for
a bullet to fragment in such a fashion.
How silly of me to forget that test you performed from the Sniper's
Nest in 1981 to prove it's impossible.
Andrew Mason
If someone suggests that it happened, it is up to that person to establish
that it is possible. Posner has never done that.
Wood can destablise a 2000 fps bullet and cause it to veer off course over
a long distance, but it is not possible for wood to apply the kind of
force needed to cause the bullet to fragment.
There have been many studies done of bullets being put off course by
striking hardwood. This study done for the American Rifleman in 1968 used
1 and 1.5 inch hardwood dowlings. The bullets destablised and drifted off
course, but not by much:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/american_rifleman_sept68_brush_tests.PDF
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>> "Physically impossible." <<<
>>
>>
>> Oh, that's right. You've taken a Carcano and shot that oak tree with a
>> MC/WCC bullet in order to prove that it's "physically impossible" for
>> a bullet to fragment in such a fashion.
>>
>> How silly of me to forget that test you performed from the Sniper's
>> Nest in 1981 to prove it's impossible.
>>
>>
>
> If someone suggests that it happened, it is up to that person to
> establish that it is possible. Posner has never done that.
>
> Wood can destablise a 2000 fps bullet and cause it to veer off course
> over a long distance, but it is not possible for wood to apply the kind
> of force needed to cause the bullet to fragment.
>
Wood can sometimes cause a bullet to fragment. But not peel off the
jacket of the WCC bullet the way Posner has in mind.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Physically impossible." <<<
>
> Oh, that's right. You've taken a Carcano and shot that oak tree with a
> MC/WCC bullet in order to prove that it's "physically impossible" for
> a bullet to fragment in such a fashion.
>
In that fashion.
Andrew Mason
> Andrew Mason wrote:
>
>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>>>>>> "Physically impossible." <<<
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, that's right. You've taken a Carcano and shot that oak tree with a
>>> MC/WCC bullet in order to prove that it's "physically impossible" for
>>> a bullet to fragment in such a fashion.
>>>
>>> How silly of me to forget that test you performed from the Sniper's
>>> Nest in 1981 to prove it's impossible.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If someone suggests that it happened, it is up to that person to
>> establish that it is possible. Posner has never done that.
>>
>> Wood can destablise a 2000 fps bullet and cause it to veer off course
>> over a long distance, but it is not possible for wood to apply the
>> kind of force needed to cause the bullet to fragment.
>>
>
> Wood can sometimes cause a bullet to fragment. But not peel off the
> jacket of the WCC bullet the way Posner has in mind.
I meant to say: a 2000 fps 6.5 mm jacketed WC/MC bullet. A non-jacketed
bullet will fragment and flatten on hitting jsut about anything. But
the yield pressure of a jacketed bullet at 2000 fps is greater than the
yield pressure of live oak, so the wood gives way before the bullet.
Andrew Mason
David Von Pein
jacket of the WCC bullet the way Posner has in mind." <<<
But why would the ENTIRE metal jacket have to necessarily be peeled off,
Tony?
Why couldn't just a portion of the jacket have been torn free from the
rest of the bullet? Why is that totally impossible?
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>> Andrew Mason wrote:
>>
>>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> "Physically impossible." <<<
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, that's right. You've taken a Carcano and shot that oak tree with a
>>>> MC/WCC bullet in order to prove that it's "physically impossible" for
>>>> a bullet to fragment in such a fashion.
>>>>
>>>> How silly of me to forget that test you performed from the Sniper's
>>>> Nest in 1981 to prove it's impossible.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If someone suggests that it happened, it is up to that person to
>>> establish that it is possible. Posner has never done that.
>>>
>>> Wood can destablise a 2000 fps bullet and cause it to veer off course
>>> over a long distance, but it is not possible for wood to apply the
>>> kind of force needed to cause the bullet to fragment.
>>>
>>
>> Wood can sometimes cause a bullet to fragment. But not peel off the
>> jacket of the WCC bullet the way Posner has in mind.
>
> I meant to say: a 2000 fps 6.5 mm jacketed WC/MC bullet. A non-jacketed
> bullet will fragment and flatten on hitting jsut about anything. But
> the yield pressure of a jacketed bullet at 2000 fps is greater than the
> yield pressure of live oak, so the wood gives way before the bullet.
>
OK, that's slight better. But there are very many variables at work.
Look at some of the bullets which have mushroomed.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Wood can sometimes cause a bullet to fragment. But not peel off the
> jacket of the WCC bullet the way Posner has in mind." <<<
>
> But why would the ENTIRE metal jacket have to necessarily be peeled off,
> Tony?
>
Because the mark showed no signs of copper, only of the lead core.
> Why couldn't just a portion of the jacket have been torn free from the
> rest of the bullet? Why is that totally impossible?
>
>
Could happen. But that is not Posner's theory.
>
David Von Pein
>>> "Because the mark showed no signs of copper, only of the lead core."
<<<
So? It only means that a lead portion of the bullet hit the curb, while no
copper struck the curb.
So what? And why is this impossible?
>>> "Could happen {i.e., only a portion of the metal jacket tore free}.
But that is not Posner's theory." <<<
Well, consider it my theory then.
tomnln
Another "Tumbling Bullet"???
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1184303910.2...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Because the mark showed no signs of copper, only of the lead core."
> <<<
>
>
> So? It only means that a lead portion of the bullet hit the curb, while no
> copper struck the curb.
>
You can't have an intact bullet hit the curb and only lead be deposited.
I would remind you that the smaller of the fragments found in the front
seat was only the base portion of the copper jacket with its entire lead
core missing? Where did that go? It wasn't found in the limo as far as
we know. Maybe it went on to hit the curb.
David Emerling
> O M G
>
> Another "Tumbling Bullet"???
That's what bullets do - especially if their flight is disturbed. You
find that preposterous enough for an "O M G" characterization?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
> tomnln wrote:
>> O M G
>>
>> Another "Tumbling Bullet"???
>
> That's what bullets do - especially if their flight is disturbed. You
> find that preposterous enough for an "O M G" characterization?
>
You might also remember that some bullets keyhole. Especially in the case
of some Mannlicher-Carcanos where the barrel was cut short so that it
loses its tight twist at the end.
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/ammo/reload.html
Just about any commercially available bullet weight will work with any
Carcano with the exception of the M91/24 Moschetto T.S. The M91/24
Moschetto T.S. was made by cutting down the barrels of M91 Fucile. This
would not have been a problem except that the M91 uses gain rate rifling.
Simply put, the the twist rate of the rifling is not as great at the
chamber end as it was at the muzzle end ... the rifling twists more as the
bullet travels down the barrel. As a result of cutting off the section of
barrel off with the greatest twist rate, military standard weight bullets
(162 gr.) do not receive enough angular velocity to be stabilized. Dave
Emary of Hornady has witnessed standard weight bullets going through
targets sideways at 25 yards! He suggests a bullet of no heavier than 100
or so grains for this application. The military standard bullet weight for
a 7.35x52 Carcano round is 128 gr.
So, can you dismiss Dave Emary as a kook, as per standard WC defender
protocol?
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
tomnln
Entrance wound"
Do you believe it Tumbled inside JBD & gave JBC's chest the appearance of
Entrance?
Do you believe 399 continued to Tumble & entered JBC's wrist Backwards?
That sounds more like a "Joe Isuzu" commercial.
"David Emerling" <davidemer...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:z4KdncsPVJ9XNQLb...@comcast.com...
Anthony Marsh
> Do you believe that 399 Tumbled to give JBC's back the appearance of an
> Entrance wound"
An entrance wound does not have to indicate a tumbling bullet.
> Do you believe it Tumbled inside JBD & gave JBC's chest the appearance
> of Entrance?
>
Huh? Who is JBD?
How can tumbling inside indicate what is the entrance wound?
> Do you believe 399 continued to Tumble & entered JBC's wrist Backwards?
>
Nah.
David Emerling
> Do you believe that 399 Tumbled to give JBC's back the appearance of an
> Entrance wound"
> Do you believe it Tumbled inside JBD & gave JBC's chest the appearance
> of Entrance?
Did any medical examiner state that Connolly's chest wound looked like
an ENTRANCE wound?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
tomnln
It's perfectly ROUND.
Would you like me to post it on my website?
"David Emerling" <davidemer...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:NeadnVJ6CPnEIDrb...@comcast.com...
David Emerling
That's not what I asked.
I asked if any medical personnel expressed the opinion that Connally's
chest wound was an entry wound?
Not that it would matter. If it *was* an entry wound, then where did the
bullet go? Where would such a bullet have been fired from in order to
hit Connally in the chest?
There was not much mystery about the wounds on Connally. He lived.
Kennedy was placed in a coffin and buried making reexamination and
verification of disputed locations impossible (except for exhumation -
which was NEVER going to happen.)
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
Likewise the Connally family refused to have John Connally exhumed to
examine the amount of lead remaining in his body.