John Connally And His Right Wrist
David Von Pein
Something just occurred to me today (8/11/11) that I don't think I
have ever seen discussed in the past regarding Governor Connally and
his wrist injury.
Here's a question I have for conspiracy theorists who don't believe
that John Connally was shot in the wrist as early as approximately
Zapruder frame #224:
If Connally hasn't been shot through the wrist just a split-second
prior to the time when we can see him jerk his right arm upward
starting at Z226, then where on the Z-Film DOES Connally show signs of
having been shot with a bullet through his right wrist?
Yes, I know that Governor Connally said that he didn't even realize he
had been shot in the wrist at all until the next day in the hospital,
but if conspiracy theorists want to use Connally's memory of this
event as a guide, I think that's a weak argument, and that's because
even though Connally had no memory of being hit in the wrist, his
involuntary reactions to the wrist injury are almost certainly going
to show up SOMEWHERE in Mr. Zapruder's home movie.
In other words, Mr. Connally can't control his INVOLUNTARY movements
after he had just been struck by a bullet.
Upon looking for signs of any other type of "jerky" or sudden
movements of John Copnnally's right arm AFTER approximately Z226-Z230,
I can see no signs whatsoever of the Governor reacting (involuntarily)
to the bullet that struck his right wrist.
Conspiracists can, of course, tell me I'm all wet and that I don't
know what the hell I'm talking about when it comes to "voluntary" vs.
"involuntary" type of reactions to external stimulus, etc., but I
think my question is still a pretty good one -- because if a man's arm/
wrist has just suffered severe damage due to a rifle bullet smashing
into it, I would certainly think that we would see evidence of such
"jerky" or awkward movements of that damaged arm/wrist on the Zapruder
Film.
And, in fact, that's just exactly what we ARE seeing in the Z-Film,
starting at Z226 (see toggling clip below), when Governor Connally's
right arm suddenly flies into the air and then back down again in the
short space of just a few Z-Film frames.
And this jerky movement of the SAME RIGHT ARM that was struck by a
rifle bullet on 11/22/63 is, in my opinion, one of the best pieces of
Z-Film evidence that we have to indicate that Mr. Connally was hit by
THE ONLY BULLET THAT HIT HIM just a split-second prior to Z226:
Many conspiracists, however, firmly believe that Connally wasn't
struck by a bullet until several Z-frames later, at around Z236 or
Z238 or so. These CTers always completely ignore the earlier Z224-Z230
signs on the film of Connally having been hit, with these conspiracy
theorists opting instead to believe that Connally's "puffed cheeks" at
about Z238 is the best indicator of Connally having been hit in the
Z230s.
But, again, WHERE is the movement of JBC's right arm in the Z230s that
would indicate that his wrist had just been struck by a bullet?
Or do the anti-SBT conspiracists want to believe that Connally would
have had NO INVOLUNTARILY REACTION whatsoever to his right wrist
having just been smashed by a rifle bullet?
Well, I suppose the CTers can make that argument. But I'm a little bit
dubious about accepting such a "no reaction" explanation -- especially
when we DO find a "wrist reaction" elsewhere on the very same Zapruder
Film, right here:
David Von Pein
August 11, 2011
David Von Pein
ADDENDUM #1 (links I meant to put in my original post above):
http://www.box.net/shared/7n9bertqjo
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/single-bullet-theory-in-action.html
===============================
ADDENDUM #2:
I guess the CTers could also argue that Governor Connally was hit in
the wrist during the one frame when he was hidden by a street light
pole at Z270. Or maybe he was hit in the wrist as late as the Z280s
when JBC's right arm completely disappears from view in the Zapruder
Film.
But when faced with Mr. Connally's sudden and jerky movement of his
right arm at Z226, I think the above arguments that could be made by
conspiracy theorists look very silly.
David Von Pein
ADDENDUM #3:
Naturally, something is broken at Google. ~sigh~
I guess the Google Usenet forums are rejecting Photobucket links now,
because mine won't work in any posts, for some reason (although they
did work for about two seconds when I checked them just a minute ago
on Aug. 11, but now they won't work again; must be a conspiracy plot
against me!).
So, I'll add this link (again), to illustrate the Z225-226 toggling
clip. Maybe it'll work (Google willing):
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/single-bullet-theory-in-action.html
Herbert Blenner
> Something just occurred to me today (8/11/11) that I don't think I
> have ever seen discussed in the past regarding Governor Connally and
> his wrist injury.
>
> Here's a question I have for conspiracy theorists who don't believe
> that John Connally was shot in the wrist as early as approximately
> Zapruder frame #224:
A shot at Z224 cannot explain the sharp leftward turn of Governor
Connally’s torso at Z-223/Z-224. In fact this sharp turn is the reason
why some people place the shot around Z-222 or Z-223.
>
> If Connally hasn't been shot through the wrist just a split-second
> prior to the time when we can see him jerk his right arm upward
> starting at Z226, then where on the Z-Film DOES Connally show signs of
> having been shot with a bullet through his right wrist?
>
> Yes, I know that Governor Connally said that he didn't even realize he
> had been shot in the wrist at all until the next day in the hospital,
> but if conspiracy theorists want to use Connally's memory of this
> event as a guide, I think that's a weak argument, and that's because
> even though Connally had no memory of being hit in the wrist, his
> involuntary reactions to the wrist injury are almost certainly going
> to show up SOMEWHERE in Mr. Zapruder's home movie.
Jerking an arm with a broken wrist is painful and excruciating when
the radius has a comminuted fracture.
>
> In other words, Mr. Connally can't control his INVOLUNTARY movements
> after he had just been struck by a bullet.
In other words the evidence suggests that the wounding occurred after
the jerk of the wrist.
>
> Upon looking for signs of any other type of "jerky" or sudden
> movements of John Copnnally's right arm AFTER approximately Z226-Z230,
> I can see no signs whatsoever of the Governor reacting (involuntarily)
> to the bullet that struck his right wrist.
A bullet that strikes a wrist that was below the right nipple and
above the left thigh is driven downward and is hidden from view.
>
> Conspiracists can, of course, tell me I'm all wet and that I don't
> know what the hell I'm talking about when it comes to "voluntary" vs.
> "involuntary" type of reactions to external stimulus, etc., but I
> think my question is still a pretty good one -- because if a man's arm/
> wrist has just suffered severe damage due to a rifle bullet smashing
> into it, I would certainly think that we would see evidence of such
> "jerky" or awkward movements of that damaged arm/wrist on the Zapruder
> Film.
I think the conspiracists are being generous by calling you “all wet.”
>
> And, in fact, that's just exactly what we ARE seeing in the Z-Film,
> starting at Z226 (see toggling clip below), when Governor Connally's
> right arm suddenly flies into the air and then back down again in the
> short space of just a few Z-Film frames.
>
> And this jerky movement of the SAME RIGHT ARM that was struck by a
> rifle bullet on 11/22/63 is, in my opinion, one of the best pieces of
> Z-Film evidence that we have to indicate that Mr. Connally was hit by
> THE ONLY BULLET THAT HIT HIM just a split-second prior to Z226:
>
> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS...
Perhaps Connally heard a shot and thought they were going to kill us
all.
>
> Many conspiracists, however, firmly believe that Connally wasn't
> struck by a bullet until several Z-frames later, at around Z236 or
> Z238 or so. These CTers always completely ignore the earlier Z224-Z230
> signs on the film of Connally having been hit, with these conspiracy
> theorists opting instead to believe that Connally's "puffed cheeks" at
> about Z238 is the best indicator of Connally having been hit in the
> Z230s.
Nonsense, I have fully considered a bullet striking Connally during
the early Z-220s and based upon the science of deflection rejected the
premise.
>
> But, again, WHERE is the movement of JBC's right arm in the Z230s that
> would indicate that his wrist had just been struck by a bullet?
>
> Or do the anti-SBT conspiracists want to believe that Connally would
> have had NO INVOLUNTARILY REACTION whatsoever to his right wrist
> having just been smashed by a rifle bullet?
>
> Well, I suppose the CTers can make that argument. But I'm a little bit
> dubious about accepting such a "no reaction" explanation -- especially
> when we DO find a "wrist reaction" elsewhere on the very same Zapruder
> Film, right here:
>
> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS...
>
The involuntary mechanical reaction is directed away from the shooter
and modified by the attachment of the arm to the torso.
> David Von Pein
> August 11, 2011
>
> http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
>
> ADDENDUM #3:
>
> Naturally, something is broken at Google. ~sigh~
>
> I guess the Google Usenet forums are rejecting Photobucket links now,
I repeat unless you didn't get it the first time Photobucket is for weak
sisters. Don't rely on the links to exist after a few weeks.
> because mine won't work in any posts, for some reason (although they
> did work for about two seconds when I checked them just a minute ago
> on Aug. 11, but now they won't work again; must be a conspiracy plot
> against me!).
>
> So, I'll add this link (again), to illustrate the Z225-226 toggling
> clip. Maybe it'll work (Google willing):
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/single-bullet-theory-in-action.html
>
Please look at frame 225 and tell everyone that YOU can not see that
JFK's right hand is up in front of his throat. How are you going to get
your bullet exiting JFK's throat to hit Connally's back without going
through JFK's hand?
How many times will you duck this question because you can't think of an
honest answer?
Anthony Marsh
>
>
Nice try, but you are being too wimpy in your strawman arguments. I had
one kook tell me that when JFK was hidden by the sign all the SS agents
jumped off the Queen Mary and shot JFK in the head. Then Walt Disney had
painted the rest of the film to move the head shot to Z-313.
Anthony Marsh
>
> Something just occurred to me today (8/11/11) that I don't think I
> have ever seen discussed in the past regarding Governor Connally and
> his wrist injury.
>
> Here's a question I have for conspiracy theorists who don't believe
> that John Connally was shot in the wrist as early as approximately
> Zapruder frame #224:
>
> If Connally hasn't been shot through the wrist just a split-second
> prior to the time when we can see him jerk his right arm upward
> starting at Z226, then where on the Z-Film DOES Connally show signs of
> having been shot with a bullet through his right wrist?
>
> Yes, I know that Governor Connally said that he didn't even realize he
> had been shot in the wrist at all until the next day in the hospital,
> but if conspiracy theorists want to use Connally's memory of this
> event as a guide, I think that's a weak argument, and that's because
> even though Connally had no memory of being hit in the wrist, his
> involuntary reactions to the wrist injury are almost certainly going
> to show up SOMEWHERE in Mr. Zapruder's home movie.
>
YOUR argument is a weak argument. You can't see his wrist in frame #224.
And you can't see any reaction or his wrist being hit at frame #224.
> In other words, Mr. Connally can't control his INVOLUNTARY movements
> after he had just been struck by a bullet.
>
Huh? Who proved that?
No, name one. Some used to cite the shoulder drop not realizing it was
an optical illusion.
What's wrong with listening to the person who was actually shot and
personally examined much better copies of the Zapruder frames than you
ever have?
> But, again, WHERE is the movement of JBC's right arm in the Z230s that
> would indicate that his wrist had just been struck by a bullet?
>
You're looking in the wrong place.
Matt
David, Since CT'ers don't rely on a single bullet theory then
Conally's wrist could have been hit anywhere in Zapruder even well
before z200. I don't believe your assertion that Conally's arm must
have gone flying through the air when it was hit.
David Von Pein
>>> "In other words the evidence suggests that the wounding occurred after the jerk of the wrist." <<<
Then why did Connally jerk his right arm upward at the exact same time
JFK was being hit by a bullet?
Any ideas, Herb?
Would it kill you to admit the obvious? -- i.e., Connally & Kennedy
were hit by the same bullet.
David Von Pein
>>> "You're looking in the wrong place." <<<
OK, Tony. Tell me when YOU think Connally was struck by a bullet? At
what Z-frame?
David Von Pein
>>> "Please look at frame 225 and tell everyone that YOU can not see that
JFK's right hand is up in front of his throat. How are you going to get
your bullet exiting JFK's throat to hit Connally's back without going
through JFK's hand?" <<<
The bullet has already passed through Kennedy and Connally by the time
Z225 was exposed in Zapruder's camera. You know that, Tony. You just want
to be difficult.
:)
markusp
> If Connally hasn't been shot through the wrist just a split-second
> prior to the time when we can see him jerk his right arm upward
> starting at Z226, then where on the Z-Film DOES Connally show signs of
> having been shot with a bullet through his right wrist?
There is not a clear frame where we can be precise. If there were
clear indicators, at least on the Z-film, this would have been more
firmly established long ago.
> Yes, I know that Governor Connally said that he didn't even realize he
> had been shot in the wrist at all until the next day in the hospital,
> but if conspiracy theorists want to use Connally's memory of this
> event as a guide, I think that's a weak argument, and that's because
> even though Connally had no memory of being hit in the wrist, his
> involuntary reactions to the wrist injury are almost certainly going
> to show up SOMEWHERE in Mr. Zapruder's home movie.
Those reactions you seek are either not visible, not there at all, or
indeterminate. Perhaps you're assuming that a wrist being impacted by
a medium-velocity bullet would exhibit a greater physical reaction due
to its lighter mass, versus the human torso.
> Many conspiracists, however, firmly believe that Connally wasn't
> struck by a bullet until several Z-frames later, at around Z236 or
> Z238 or so.
I'm not sure if I'd go so far as to say "many" CT's stick to a
Connally chest strike during the Z-230's. I think the debate regarding
Connally exhibiting signs of duress for his chest wound can be
concluded. Something happened to Connally, and we see it starting at
Z-224.
These CTers always completely ignore the earlier Z224-Z230
> signs on the film of Connally having been hit, with these conspiracy
> theorists opting instead to believe that Connally's "puffed cheeks" at
> about Z238 is the best indicator of Connally having been hit in the
> Z230s.
We haven't heard from the "puffed cheek" folks for some time now.
Sure, it sounds plausible at first consideration, but then we have to
allow for Connally to say, "oh no, no, no" and "They're going to kill
us all." Now, if his cheeks were puffed, we can assume it was from the
missile impact knocking the wind out of him. When that happens, nobody
can talk.
> But, again, WHERE is the movement of JBC's right arm in the Z230s that
> would indicate that his wrist had just been struck by a bullet?
In the Z-230's, if we can't determine with accuracy, then it's
possible that his wrist wasn't damaged at that point. If it was not,
then by default, his wrist injury occurred after the headshot.
> Or do the anti-SBT conspiracists want to believe that Connally would
> have had NO INVOLUNTARILY REACTION whatsoever to his right wrist
> having just been smashed by a rifle bullet?
This medium-velocity missile was "medium velocity" prior to impacting
anyone. Per the SBT, this velocity must diminish after allegedly
transiting JFK's chest, and Connally's chest. Would the expected
diminished velocity at the time of impacting the wrist still be
considered "medium"? Would a relatively faster or slower missile
affect the wrist in a way where we would expect to see evidence of it?
Also, I've encountered persons claiming that Connally was still
physically grasping his hat when the limo arrived at PH, yet this is
not determined photographically to my knowledge. I went to .John's
website where he posted Nellie's comments to the Texas Monthly
periodical. In those comments, Nellie STILL insisted that John
Connally was NOT hit by the first bullet. The SBT swirls down the
toilet right there, because I remain convinced that she and John were
both correct in their adamance regarding shots & impacts. She mentions
that the hat was held against the chest wound in such a way that it
likely saved his life. At no point did I see where she claimed he was
able to grasp it. A hat can be held against the chest using an arm,
not necessarily a grasping hand.
I noted that in the excerpt of Nellie on .John's website, he concludes
with his own remarks regarding Nellie's comments, referring to her
"testimony". The excerpt is from an interview for a magazine, and was
not testimony under oath.
Dr. Gregory operated on Connally's wrist. The diagram he was shown by
Specter, had been created by the WC, and not Gregory himself. When
shown, Gregory reversed the ENTRY and EXIT notations. He insisted that
those were not correct. Apparently Specter had decided ahead of time
that 399 had to enter the wrist on the underside (palm), and exit out
the top for his SBT to hold up. Gregory told us that missile entered
from on top, smashed the radius, and exited out the bottom side.
Unless you're seriously double-jointed, to get your wrist into that
position for SBT alignment, it would be quite painful.
~Mark
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "Please look at frame 225 and tell everyone that YOU can not see that
> JFK's right hand is up in front of his throat. How are you going to get
> your bullet exiting JFK's throat to hit Connally's back without going
> through JFK's hand?"<<<
>
So, explain the hand eventually.
You constantly duck questions because you know you can't give an honest
answer.
> The bullet has already passed through Kennedy and Connally by the time
> Z225 was exposed in Zapruder's camera. You know that, Tony. You just want
> to be difficult.
>
> :)
>
So I was correct. You can't admit any simple fact. Such as the fact that
most of the doctors agreed that Kennedy was already hit by the time we see
him frames 224 and 225. Unless JFK had superhuman reflexes that means the
bullet hit him no later than 220.
The Shifting Sands Of The Single-Bullet Theory
Michael T. Griffith, 2001
?All Rights Reserved
Second Edition
(Posted by permission of the author)
The single-bullet theory (SBT) has been forced to undergo a number
of changes over the years. What is the SBT? Basically, it is that a bullet
allegedly struck Kennedy in the back and then exited his throat, then
struck Gov. Connally near the right armpit, coursed through his chest,
smashing a rib in the process, exited Connally's chest, struck his right
wrist, breaking a hard radius bone, and then zipped over to Connally's
left thigh, with half the bullet penetrating the thigh and the other half
sticking out. According to the SBT, this bullet, which is allegedly the
bullet labeled CE 399, did all this damage yet somehow emerged with all of
its lands and grooves intact, with no damage to its nose, and with less
than 4 grains of substance lost from its mass. The bullet is somewhat
deformed at its base, but this damage is not even noticeable from certain
angles.
The SBT is an absurd theory that was belatedly invented to avoid a
conspiracy conclusion. Why was the theory conceived? Because the Warren
Commission had two sets of non-fatal wounds to explain but only one shot
with which to explain them because the Commission would not allow that
more than three shots were fired. To put it another way, if the SBT is
false, then there must have been more than one gunman. Or, if Kennedy and
Connally's non-fatal wounds were not caused by the same bullet, then there
was more than one shooter, and hence a conspiracy.
The SBT was later rejected by two members of the WC itself. It's a
theory that defies common sense, that ignores Gov. Connally's own clear
testimony, that ignores the Zapruder film, and that is in conflict with
the vast majority of the eyewitness descriptions of the shooting.
As mentioned, it is also a theory that has been forced to undergo
drastic changes:
? At first the back wound was ABOVE the throat wound, now it's level with
or slightly below throat wound.
? At first the alleged magic-bullet hit came at right around frame 210 of
the Zapruder film (Z210), then it was at Z188, but now it's "positively"
at Z224.
? At first the alleged magic-bullet hit was the first shot, now it's
"positively" the second shot.
? At first the theory required that Connally was rotated 20-30 degrees to
the right when the missile struck, but now we're assured the theory can
still work even though many of the theory's defenders admit Connally's
torso was rotated only 10-15 degrees.
? At first the theory assumed Kennedy was sitting normally in his seat
when the missile struck, but now the theory must assume he was leaning so
far forward that most of his back was off the seat (a notion that is not
supported by the photographic evidence).
? At first the conflict between the holes in the back of the coat and
shirt and the official locations for the back wound were explained by
speculating that the coat and shirt "bunched" up to or beyond the collar,
but now, in response to photographic evidence, we're told the coat and
shirt bunched by forming a hump below the collar.
This bizarre theory assumes the shirt?which was tailor-made and on
whose tails Kennedy was sitting?bunched in nearly perfect,
millimeter-for-millimeter correspondence with the coat. However, photos
and footage show that Kennedy's coat was fairly flat, and certainly not
bunched into some hump near the collar, shortly before Kennedy was first
hit with a bullet. Willis slide 5, which was taken moments before the
first hit, shows Kennedy's coat was lying flat or nearly flat on his back
when the slide was taken. Professor Josiah Thompson, author of the highly
acclaimed book SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS, confirmed this fact by studying the
original color slide under a microscope. Even assuming the coat was
significantly bunched, the odds that the shirt would bunch in nearly
perfect correspondence with the coat are astronomically remote.
And let's consider a few other relevant facts:
? No halfway realistic wound ballistics test has produced a bullet as
undamaged as CE 399. The two most realistic tests, the All-American
Television test and Dr. Lattimer's test, produced bullets that were far
more deformed than CE 399.
? In the WC's own wound ballistics tests, bullets that were merely fired
into cotton wadding emerged with the same amount of deformation as CE 399,
and in one case with slightly MORE deformation.
? In the WC's tests, bullets fired into the wrists of cadavers emerged
with significant distortion.
? In the WC's tests, bullets that were fired through simulated human
chests emerged visibly more deformed than CE 399. This shows that if CE
399 had actually gone through Connally's chest, smashing a rib bone in the
process, it would have emerged more deformed than it is now.
? No trajectory reconstruction has ever shown the SBT trajectories to be
possible without assuming degrees of lean that are nowhere to be seen in
the photographic evidence. For example, to get the new SBT's vertical
trajectory to work, lone-gunman trajectory reconstructions have had to
assume that Kennedy was leaning markedly forward when the missile struck.
? As mentioned, the SBT has undergone drastic changes as new evidence has
emerged. At first we were told the bullet traveled DOWNWARD through the
neck, that the wound in the rear was ABOVE the wound in the throat. For
years we were told there was no evidence of damage to any of the cervical
or thoracic vertebra?this was even "confirmed" by the prestigious Clark
Panel. Now we know the bullet would have had to travel slightly upward
from the back wound to the throat wound, and that there is a noticeable
fracture to T1 (some say C7, but that's another issue).
? The narrow slits in the front of the shirt, which were supposedly made
by the magic bullet as it allegedly exited the throat, have no fabric
missing from them, yet bullets normally remove fabric when they tear
through clothing and create holes. When Harold Weisberg examined
high-quality photos of the shirt at the National Archives, he found
evidence that confirmed the belief that the slits were made by the
emergency room nurses as they cut away the president's clothing?he could
see the zigzag mark of a cutting blade on the slits:
The dead giveaway of the fabrication that this is where the magical bullet
must have exited, according to the official story, is the nonmagical, mute
evidence of the slit on the left side. THE IRREGULAR, ZIGZAG MARK OF A
CUTTING BLADE IS VISIBLE WITH AN ENGRAVER'S LENS no more powerful than the
10-power miniature I carry. (POST MORTEM, p. 347, emphasis added)
? Weisberg also noticed there is less blood inside the collar band than
on the outside, which doesn't fit the single-bullet scenario. If a bullet
had exited the throat, one would expect there would be just as much blood,
if not more, on the inside of the collar band as on the outside of it. Not
only did Weisberg find this is not the case, but he also discovered that
where the sides of the shirt overlap, there is no blood at all:
There is less blood inside the collar band than on the outside of the
fabric, not consistent with the bloodstains coming from the body side.
Where the sides of the shirt overlapped in wearing, no blood. (POST
MORTEM, p. 347)
As mentioned, most lone-gunman theorists now insist the alleged
magic-bullet hit occurred at Z223-224. But Kennedy's reaction at Z225
proves he must have been hit well before Z223. Dr. Robert Piziali, an
expert on injuries, admitted under cross examination at the 1992 ABA mock
Oswald trial that if Kennedy began to react to a wound at Z225, this would
mean the bullet could have struck him no later than Z221. He explained
there would have been a delay of 4 frames between the bullet's impact and
Kennedy's reaction to it with his right hand (Livingstone, KILLING THE
TRUTH, p. 224; cf. pp. 235-236). The creates a problem because the current
SBT requires that Kennedy was struck at Z223-224.
Dr. Piziali attempted to solve this problem by denying that Z225
shows Kennedy reacting to a wound with his right hand. In fact, Dr.
Piziali denied Kennedy is reacting to a wound at all, in any way, in Z225.
This is a good example of how SBT defenders will perform an amazing shift
in position when confronted with troublesome facts. It is obvious that in
Z225 Kennedy is reacting to a wound by the action and position of his
right hand, by his left hand, and by the expression on his face, and until
recently there was wide agreement on both sides about this fact:
? Itek concluded Kennedy "is CLEARLY reacting to a wound by frame 225."
? The photographic evidence panel of the House Select Committee on
Assassinations concluded Kennedy is reacting to a wound in Z225.
? Richard Trask, a respected researcher and longtime student of the
Zapruder film, observes that Kennedy "emerges from the behind the sign at
Z225 CLEARLY HAVING BEEN SHOT."
? Dr. John Lattimer, a supporter of the lone-gunman scenario, concluded
Kennedy shows a "reflex reaction" to a wound in Z225 and opined the wound
occurred at about Z220. In fact, in his book KENNEDY AND LINCOLN (New
York: Harcourt, Brace, Johanovich, 1980), Lattimer acknowledges that
Kennedy's elbows are beginning to "fly upward in frame 224" (p. 241).
? Ardent lone-gunman theorist Gerald Posner opines that at Z225 Kennedy
"appears to be reacting to a bullet."
? In fact, we know from the 4/22/64 WC memorandum for the record that
when a group of wound ballistics experts, the autopsy doctors, and
commission staffers reviewed the Zapruder film frame by frame, with the
aid of enlargements, the consensus was that Kennedy "had been DEFINITELY
HIT BY FRAMES 224-225" (p. 1). It should be noted that this group included
Dr. F. W. Light, the deputy chief of the Biophysics Division at Edgewood
Arsenal, and Dr. Alfred G. Olivier, the chief of the Wound Ballistics
Branch of the Biophysics Division at Edgewood Arsenal. The group further
noted that the Z224-225 reaction may have begun as early as Z199, and also
at around Z204-205:
The reaction shown in frames 224-225 may have started at an earlier
point?possibly as early as frame 199 (where there appears to be some
jerkiness in his [JFK's] movement) or, with a higher degree of
possibility, at frames 204-205 (where his right elbow appears to be raised
to an artificially high position). (WC memo, 4/22/64, p. 1)
What do we see in Z225? JFK is clearly in distress. His face is
contorted and his hands are in front of his chest, right hand above left.
Both his forearms are bent inward and his hands are moving up toward his
throat or mouth?they are definitely moving upward.
It is obvious Kennedy's face and hands?especially his right
hand?are reacting to a wound in Z225. This means the bullet could not have
struck him later than Z221. However, the current SBT says the bullet
struck at Z223-224 (because of the seeming flip of Connally's lapel in
Z224). Failure Analysis expert Dr. Roger McCarthy commented on the
problem:
EC: Now, what I'd like to do is, is move to the very next frame, 225. How
much time elapsed on that day between time frame 224 was filmed and the
time that frame 225 was filmed?
DR. ROGER MCCARTHY: About 56 milliseconds. This camera is running at a
shade more than 18 frames/second, so between any 2 frames there's about an
18th of a second or 56 thousandth of a second. . . .
EC: Now, Dr., based upon that, do you have a conclusion or an opinion as
to when the President was hit with the bullet?how much before this point?
RM: Yes, as I think Dr. Piziali accurately indicated, there is a latency
or a delay of about 200 milliseconds between the time that a message is
delivered by either traumatic shock to the spine or by your mind to a
muscle before you can get movement. You've experienced that every time
you've ever grabbed something hot. You've known it was hot and were burned
because of the delay, because you couldn't get?let go or move fast enough
to avoid the damage. You knew it, and you just couldn't make your body
move fast enough. There's nothing wrong with you; it takes about a fifth
of a second to get all the hardware up to full power?to get the muscles to
move.
EC: Now, Dr., if, then, the President was hit 200 milliseconds before the
movement on [frame] 225, how many frames back in the film would that be?
RM: That would be at 221 at a minimum.
EC: And at 221 he's behind the sign, is that correct?
RM: Yes.
EC: Alright. If he was hit at 221 and the Governor was hit at 224
according to the prosecution, then could they have been hit by the same
bullet?
RM: No. (KILLING THE TRUTH, pp. 235-236)
Another strong indication that Kennedy was struck prior to Z223 is
the fact that in this same frame we see Jackie, as she has just reemerged
into view from behind the freeway sign, has stopped waving, has turned her
head toward her husband, and is looking intently at him. Obviously, she
noticed something was wrong with him and turned to look at him. Clearly,
Kennedy had already begun to react to a wound prior to Z223, and the
reaction that we see in Z225 is merely a continuation of that response.
The SBT is impossible. There was more than one gunman firing at
President Kennedy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL T. GRIFFITH is a two-time graduate of the Defense Language
Institute in Monterey, California, and of the U.S. Air Force Technical
Training School in San Angelo, Texas, and has attended Ricks College,
Brigham Young University, Austin Peay State University, Mount Wachusett
Community College, and Haifa University, where his studies centering on
history and foreign languages. He has earned instructor certification
from both the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force. He is the author of four
books on Mormonism and ancient texts and a former research assistant at
the Society for Early Historic Archaeology at Brigham Young University.
His articles on the assassination have appeared in several assassination
research journals, including the JFK/DEEP POLITICS QUARTERLY and THE
ASSASSINATION CHRONICLES. He is also the author of the book COMPELLING
EVIDENCE: A NEW LOOK AT THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY (Grand
Prairie, Texas: JFK-Lancer Productions and Publications, 1996).
Back to SBT
Now, what you got?
Anthony Marsh
Z-229/230. Only in the wrist.
In the back at Z-230. Exactly when he said he was hit. Exactly when the
WC internal memos say he was hit. And exactly when the acoustical
evidence has a shot from the TSBD.
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "In other words the evidence suggests that the wounding occurred after the jerk of the wrist."<<<
>
> Then why did Connally jerk his right arm upward at the exact same time
> JFK was being hit by a bullet?
>
> Any ideas, Herb?
>
> were hit by the same bullet.
>
Obvious to whom?
Not obvious to the FBI.
Not obvious to the WC in April.
Not obvious to all the doctors.
Only obvious to those who want to cover up the conspiracy.
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 12, 9:30 am, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> ADDENDUM #3:
>>
>> Naturally, something is broken at Google. ~sigh~
>>
>> I guess the Google Usenet forums are rejecting Photobucket links now,
>> because mine won't work in any posts, for some reason (although they
>> did work for about two seconds when I checked them just a minute ago
>> on Aug. 11, but now they won't work again; must be a conspiracy plot
>> against me!).
>>
>> So, I'll add this link (again), to illustrate the Z225-226 toggling
>> clip. Maybe it'll work (Google willing):
>>
>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/single-bullet-theory-in-acti...
>
> David, Since CT'ers don't rely on a single bullet theory then
SOME Cters do rely on a SBT, just the HSCA's SBT at Z-190. Talk about
seeing reactions, there's nothing to see at Z-195 in either man.
> Conally's wrist could have been hit anywhere in Zapruder even well
> before z200. I don't believe your assertion that Conally's arm must
> have gone flying through the air when it was hit.
>
I don't think so. I disagree with the HSCA SBT.
Herbert Blenner
> >>> "In other words the evidence suggests that the wounding occurred after the jerk of the wrist." <<<
>
> Then why did Connally jerk his right arm upward at the exact same time
> JFK was being hit by a bullet?
>
> Any ideas, Herb?
If the arm jerk were a physiological reaction to being shot then the
bullet had to strike earlier than the motion of the arm. This
consideration alone invalidates your claim that Connally and JFK were
hit at the exact same time.
>
> Would it kill you to admit the obvious? -- i.e., Connally & Kennedy
> were hit by the same bullet.
JFK's elbows flared outward many frames before Connally jerked his arm
upward. If these contingent arm movements were evidence of being shot
then the rational conclusion would be that the Zapruder film shows the
victims being hit by two different bullets.
Herbert
David Von Pein
>>> "I don't believe your assertion that Connally's arm must have gone
And yet it does just happen to fly into the air starting at Z226.
Amazing coinky there, huh, if the "flying into the air" wasn't caused by a
rifle bullet?
Why did Connally's right arm go flying upward at Z226 if a bullet hadn't
just struck his right wrist (which was a wrist that WAS struck by a bullet
during the shooting)?
Any ideas?
bigdog
> On Aug 11, 7:47 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > If Connally hasn't been shot through the wrist just a split-second
> > prior to the time when we can see him jerk his right arm upward
> > starting at Z226, then where on the Z-Film DOES Connally show signs of
> > having been shot with a bullet through his right wrist?
>
> There is not a clear frame where we can be precise. If there were
> clear indicators, at least on the Z-film, this would have been more
> firmly established long ago.
>
Actually, the clues that tell us when the single bullet struck were missed
by the WC and weren't discovered until after the Z-film had been made
public. I don't know when these events were dicovered or by whom, but they
are the clincher for the SBT. The clues are unmistakable. The bulging of
JBC's jacket at Z224 followed immediately by the simultaneous reflexive
raising of the arms by both JFK and JBC at Z226. The only thing we don't
know is the time lag between the bullet strike and these events although
common sense tells us that would be a few frames at most. This places the
bullet strike early in the Z220s. It would be nice if we could be more
precise than that, but barring another more definitive discovery, it will
have to do.
> > Yes, I know that Governor Connally said that he didn't even realize he
> > had been shot in the wrist at all until the next day in the hospital,
> > but if conspiracy theorists want to use Connally's memory of this
> > event as a guide, I think that's a weak argument, and that's because
> > even though Connally had no memory of being hit in the wrist, his
> > involuntary reactions to the wrist injury are almost certainly going
> > to show up SOMEWHERE in Mr. Zapruder's home movie.
>
> Those reactions you seek are either not visible, not there at all, or
> indeterminate.
Not visible??? Are you serious? You can't see JBC's jacket bulge? You
can't see his right arm jerk upwards at precisely the same frame JFK
jerks his arms upward?
> Perhaps you're assuming that a wrist being impacted by
> a medium-velocity bullet would exhibit a greater physical reaction due
> to its lighter mass, versus the human torso.
>
We know that JBC was shot through the wrist. We know that in a period of a
half a second his right arm jerked suddenly upward and back down and this
action came 2 frames after we saw his jacket bulge. Does it really take
Sherlock Holmes to figure out what happened. Who but a hardcore CT would
deny what these actions tell us?
> > Many conspiracists, however, firmly believe that Connally wasn't
> > struck by a bullet until several Z-frames later, at around Z236 or
> > Z238 or so.
>
> I'm not sure if I'd go so far as to say "many" CT's stick to a
> Connally chest strike during the Z-230's. I think the debate regarding
> Connally exhibiting signs of duress for his chest wound can be
> concluded. Something happened to Connally, and we see it starting at
> Z-224.
>
Yes, he got shot.
> These CTers always completely ignore the earlier Z224-Z230
>
> > signs on the film of Connally having been hit, with these conspiracy
> > theorists opting instead to believe that Connally's "puffed cheeks" at
> > about Z238 is the best indicator of Connally having been hit in the
> > Z230s.
>
> We haven't heard from the "puffed cheek" folks for some time now.
> Sure, it sounds plausible at first consideration, but then we have to
> allow for Connally to say, "oh no, no, no" and "They're going to kill
> us all." Now, if his cheeks were puffed, we can assume it was from the
> missile impact knocking the wind out of him. When that happens, nobody
> can talk.
>
Are you trying to tell us JBC said these things BEFORE he was shot?
> > But, again, WHERE is the movement of JBC's right arm in the Z230s that
> > would indicate that his wrist had just been struck by a bullet?
>
> In the Z-230's, if we can't determine with accuracy, then it's
> possible that his wrist wasn't damaged at that point. If it was not,
> then by default, his wrist injury occurred after the headshot.
>
Do you have a plausible explaination for his sudden up and down arm
movement at Z226?
> > Or do the anti-SBT conspiracists want to believe that Connally would
> > have had NO INVOLUNTARILY REACTION whatsoever to his right wrist
> > having just been smashed by a rifle bullet?
>
> This medium-velocity missile was "medium velocity" prior to impacting
> anyone. Per the SBT, this velocity must diminish after allegedly
> transiting JFK's chest, and Connally's chest. Would the expected
> diminished velocity at the time of impacting the wrist still be
> considered "medium"? Would a relatively faster or slower missile
> affect the wrist in a way where we would expect to see evidence of it?
>
The velocity is irrelevant. It was enough to shatter his wrist and
certainly enough to cause and involuntary reflexive action.
> Also, I've encountered persons claiming that Connally was still
> physically grasping his hat when the limo arrived at PH, yet this is
> not determined photographically to my knowledge. I went to .John's
> website where he posted Nellie's comments to the Texas Monthly
> periodical. In those comments, Nellie STILL insisted that John
> Connally was NOT hit by the first bullet.
She was right about that. He was hit by the second bullet, the same
one that hit JFK.
> The SBT swirls down the
> toilet right there, because I remain convinced that she and John were
> both correct in their adamance regarding shots & impacts.
They were right that JBC was hit by the second shot. Neither knew
which shot hit JFK.
> She mentions
> that the hat was held against the chest wound in such a way that it
> likely saved his life. At no point did I see where she claimed he was
> able to grasp it. A hat can be held against the chest using an arm,
> not necessarily a grasping hand.
>
> I noted that in the excerpt of Nellie on .John's website, he concludes
> with his own remarks regarding Nellie's comments, referring to her
> "testimony". The excerpt is from an interview for a magazine, and was
> not testimony under oath.
>
> Dr. Gregory operated on Connally's wrist. The diagram he was shown by
> Specter, had been created by the WC, and not Gregory himself. When
> shown, Gregory reversed the ENTRY and EXIT notations. He insisted that
> those were not correct. Apparently Specter had decided ahead of time
> that 399 had to enter the wrist on the underside (palm), and exit out
> the top for his SBT to hold up. Gregory told us that missile entered
> from on top, smashed the radius, and exited out the bottom side.
> Unless you're seriously double-jointed, to get your wrist into that
> position for SBT alignment, it would be quite painful.
>
Nothing about that is incompatible with the SBT.
Herbert Blenner
> On Aug 12, 8:05 pm, markusp <markina...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 11, 7:47 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > If Connally hasn't been shot through the wrist just a split-second
> > > prior to the time when we can see him jerk his right arm upward
> > > starting at Z226, then where on the Z-Film DOES Connally show signs of
> > > having been shot with a bullet through his right wrist?
>
> > There is not a clear frame where we can be precise. If there were
> > clear indicators, at least on the Z-film, this would have been more
> > firmly established long ago.
>
> Actually, the clues that tell us when the single bullet struck were missed
> by the WC and weren't discovered until after the Z-film had been made
> public. I don't know when these events were dicovered or by whom, but they
> are the clincher for the SBT. The clues are unmistakable. The bulging of
> JBC's jacket at Z224 followed immediately by the simultaneous reflexive
> raising of the arms by both JFK and JBC at Z226. The only thing we don't
> know is the time lag between the bullet strike and these events although
> common sense tells us that would be a few frames at most. This places the
> bullet strike early in the Z220s. It would be nice if we could be more
> precise than that, but barring another more definitive discovery, it will
> have to do.
The jacket bulge has been discredited many times and I have added my
contribution to the disproofs.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/jacketbulge.htm
Herbert
> Nothing about that is incompatible with the SBT.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
David Von Pein
>>> "Z-229/230. Only in the wrist. In the back at Z-230." <<<
So, you think Connally was hit by two separate bullets, 1/18th of a
second apart, eh Tony?
Where did the bullets go, Tony? (I say "bullets", plural, because I
can only assume that as a CTer, you refuse to believe that CE399 was
actually inside JBC's body at any point in time on Nov. 22.)
And please don't respond with your standard reply of:
Why can't you tell us where the first-shot bullet went?
It's not the same thing at all. CTers have multiple bullets entering
two victims, and then all the bullets suddenly vanish.
Is that really a reasonable alternative scenario when stacked up
against the WC's wholly reasonable conclusions?
Extra bonus question:
What caused Connally's right arm (which just happened to be the same
arm/wrist that was injured at just about the same time) to jerk itself
skyward at Z226?
It couldn't possibly have been a bullet that caused that arm movement,
could it? Anything but that, right Tony?
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 12, 8:05 pm, markusp<markina...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 11, 7:47 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If Connally hasn't been shot through the wrist just a split-second
>>> prior to the time when we can see him jerk his right arm upward
>>> starting at Z226, then where on the Z-Film DOES Connally show signs of
>>> having been shot with a bullet through his right wrist?
>>
>> There is not a clear frame where we can be precise. If there were
>> clear indicators, at least on the Z-film, this would have been more
>> firmly established long ago.
>>
>
> Actually, the clues that tell us when the single bullet struck were missed
> by the WC and weren't discovered until after the Z-film had been made
Now wait a cotton-pickin minute there. You just got finished telling us
that the WC was perfect and told us everything we need to know. No need
for any further investigation according to you. Now you admit that we
have learned many things since then, sometimes with new technology.
> public. I don't know when these events were dicovered or by whom, but they
> are the clincher for the SBT. The clues are unmistakable. The bulging of
Don't you have a hero of the SBT? Or do you pick and choose which SBT to
believe?
> JBC's jacket at Z224 followed immediately by the simultaneous reflexive
> raising of the arms by both JFK and JBC at Z226. The only thing we don't
WOW! You just admitted that JFK's arms are raised at Z226. That means
that he was hit at Z-221 at the last. You just shot the SBT in the foot.
> know is the time lag between the bullet strike and these events although
> common sense tells us that would be a few frames at most. This places the
> bullet strike early in the Z220s. It would be nice if we could be more
> precise than that, but barring another more definitive discovery, it will
> have to do.
>
How about experts telling you that such a reflex action takes at least
200 milliseconds? You know better like you're a better expert?
>>> Yes, I know that Governor Connally said that he didn't even realize he
>>> had been shot in the wrist at all until the next day in the hospital,
>>> but if conspiracy theorists want to use Connally's memory of this
>>> event as a guide, I think that's a weak argument, and that's because
>>> even though Connally had no memory of being hit in the wrist, his
>>> involuntary reactions to the wrist injury are almost certainly going
>>> to show up SOMEWHERE in Mr. Zapruder's home movie.
>>
>> Those reactions you seek are either not visible, not there at all, or
>> indeterminate.
>
> Not visible??? Are you serious? You can't see JBC's jacket bulge? You
> can't see his right arm jerk upwards at precisely the same frame JFK
> jerks his arms upward?
>
You're seeing things again.
>> Perhaps you're assuming that a wrist being impacted by
>> a medium-velocity bullet would exhibit a greater physical reaction due
>> to its lighter mass, versus the human torso.
>>
>
> We know that JBC was shot through the wrist. We know that in a period of a
> half a second his right arm jerked suddenly upward and back down and this
> action came 2 frames after we saw his jacket bulge. Does it really take
> Sherlock Holmes to figure out what happened. Who but a hardcore CT would
> deny what these actions tell us?
>
So why do you think his arm jerks up towards the gun? Is that the Jet
Effect?
What sudden up and down arm movement? He never made such a movement at
any other time?
>>> Or do the anti-SBT conspiracists want to believe that Connally would
>>> have had NO INVOLUNTARILY REACTION whatsoever to his right wrist
>>> having just been smashed by a rifle bullet?
>>
>> This medium-velocity missile was "medium velocity" prior to impacting
>> anyone. Per the SBT, this velocity must diminish after allegedly
>> transiting JFK's chest, and Connally's chest. Would the expected
>> diminished velocity at the time of impacting the wrist still be
>> considered "medium"? Would a relatively faster or slower missile
>> affect the wrist in a way where we would expect to see evidence of it?
>>
>
> The velocity is irrelevant. It was enough to shatter his wrist and
> certainly enough to cause and involuntary reflexive action.
>
Maybe CE 399 though.
>> Also, I've encountered persons claiming that Connally was still
>> physically grasping his hat when the limo arrived at PH, yet this is
>> not determined photographically to my knowledge. I went to .John's
>> website where he posted Nellie's comments to the Texas Monthly
>> periodical. In those comments, Nellie STILL insisted that John
>> Connally was NOT hit by the first bullet.
>
> She was right about that. He was hit by the second bullet, the same
> one that hit JFK.
>
Oh, so now when it's convenient for you you say she was right.
>> The SBT swirls down the
>> toilet right there, because I remain convinced that she and John were
>> both correct in their adamance regarding shots& impacts.
>
> They were right that JBC was hit by the second shot. Neither knew
> which shot hit JFK.
>
They THOUGHT the first shot hit JFK.
Anthony Marsh
You assume something without proving it.
Why his arm go flying up towards the rifle? Is that the Jet Effect?
Why did JFK's arms go up BEFORE when you think he was hit?
Psychic?
David Von Pein
>>> "If the arm jerk were a physiological reaction to being shot then the bullet had to strike earlier than the motion of the arm." <<<
Gee, that's a brilliant declaration there.
And the last time I checked, Z224 is BEFORE Z226.
(Duh.)
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "Z-229/230. Only in the wrist. In the back at Z-230."<<<
>
> So, you think Connally was hit by two separate bullets, 1/18th of a
> second apart, eh Tony?
>
Nah, just a typo.
Should read Z-329/330.
> Where did the bullets go, Tony? (I say "bullets", plural, because I
> can only assume that as a CTer, you refuse to believe that CE399 was
> actually inside JBC's body at any point in time on Nov. 22.)
>
I have speculated that it is possible that CE 399 only went through
Connally's torso and then fell out.
> And please don't respond with your standard reply of:
>
> Why can't you tell us where the first-shot bullet went?
>
> It's not the same thing at all. CTers have multiple bullets entering
> two victims, and then all the bullets suddenly vanish.
>
WC defenders have Magic Bullet, a Vanishing missed shot, and a Magic
Twig which can strip off the jacket of the bullet.
> Is that really a reasonable alternative scenario when stacked up
> against the WC's wholly reasonable conclusions?
>
Mine is.
> Extra bonus question:
>
> What caused Connally's right arm (which just happened to be the same
> arm/wrist that was injured at just about the same time) to jerk itself
> skyward at Z226?
>
Not documented.
What do you think caused it, the Jet Effect?
> It couldn't possibly have been a bullet that caused that arm movement,
> could it? Anything but that, right Tony?
>
No, because you WC defenders claim that a bullet can not cause any
movement in a body.
Anthony Marsh
Figures 1, 2, and 3 are not showing.
You do know that Verizon is a weak sister, don't you?
>>> both correct in their adamance regarding shots& impacts.
Jason Burke
How about the large number of flies in Texas? In November.
Herbert Blenner
David, do you get down on one knee or both knees when you beg people
to believe that the jerk of Governor Connally’s arm proves the SBT?
Herbert
Herbert Blenner
You asked, “Then why did Connally jerk his right arm upward at the
exact same time JFK was being hit by a bullet?”
I answered, “ If the arm jerk were a physiological reaction to being
shot then the bullet had to strike earlier than the motion of the arm.
This consideration alone invalidates your claim that Connally and JFK
were hit at the exact same time. ”
I am not surprised that you only reply to comments taken out of
context. Any other method of reply would make you look (duh.)
Herbert
bigdog
Looks like we are getting into higher mathematics here, but I have
reviewed your calculations and believe them to be correct.
Herbert Blenner
Here are links to the missing graphics.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/jacketbulge_files/eleven.jpg
Figure 1 - Facing Forward
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/jacketbulge_files/thirty.jpg
Figure 2 - Turned to his Right
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/jacketbulge_files/parabola.jpg
Figure 3 - Curving Wound Track
Herbert
bigdog
I realize this is far too simple a concept for you to follow. You must
make everything unduly complicated. Both JFK and JBC reacted in exactly
the same frame, Z226. That was not the frame in which they were hit. That
happened several frames earlier. How many frames we can't be certain of,
but we know the latest it could have happened was Z224 because that is
when JBC's jacket bulged. It's amazingly simple. JFK and JBC were both hit
in the same frame. Both reacted in the same frame. The frame both reacted
in (Z226) came after the frame in which they were hit. I hope I didn't go
too fast for you.
Herbert Blenner
Who the hell do you think you are talking down to bigdog?
If a bullet caused the jacket to bulge then the wounding had to occur
earlier than the bulge of the jacket. This situation arises because it
takes time for force from the exiting debris to move the mass of the
jacket. However, the half right face of Connally’s torso prohibited a
single bullet event.
I know that analytic geometry is way over your head so I post the
following link for the benefit of readers.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/jacketbulge.htm
Perhaps if I dumb it down you may understand that the half right face
of the torso required a rightward deflection of a transiting bullet
for exit below the right nipple and that this deflection angle had to
exceed the angle of the half right face. These factors would have
placed an exiting bullet on a course away from the right wrist and the
left thigh.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
So your theory is that someone is hit in one frame and then reacts a
couple of frames later? That is a superhuman reaction time.
David Von Pein
>>> "Why his arm go flying up towards the rifle? Is that the Jet Effect?"
<<<
You think a gunman was up in the sky hovering over Connally, do you?
That's a cool new theory indeed.
David Von Pein
>>> "No, because you WC defenders claim that a bullet can not cause any
movement in a body." <<<
The force of the bullet obviously didn't cause Connally's quick arm
movement at Z226. That was an involuntarily reflex action after his wrist
had just been hit at Z224. This fact couldn't be more obvious (to most
reasonable people looking at the Z-Film, that is).
And LNers don't claim that a bullet can't move an object. Oswald's
head-shot bullet definitely did move an object (JFK's head)--it moved
forward a couple of inches between Z312 and Z313 as a result of the bullet
impacting his cranium.
But you'd rather believe that the rapid forward movement of Kennedy's head
at the exact instant a bullet is hitting him in the head is being caused
by other things...like the huge limo slowdown from 10 to 8 MPH (approx.).
Great reasoning there, Tony. I'd love to see you take that theory in front
of a jury. It'd be a riot and a howl.
David Von Pein
>>> "You asked, “Then why did Connally jerk his right arm upward at the
exact same time JFK was being hit by a bullet?” I answered, “If the
arm jerk were a physiological reaction to being shot then the bullet had
to strike earlier than the motion of the arm. This consideration alone
invalidates your claim that Connally and JFK were hit at the exact same
time.” I am not surprised that you only reply to comments taken out of
context. Any other method of reply would make you look (duh.)" <<<
Oh, goodie! Ol' Herb is going to pretend he didn't know what I meant.
But, yes, I guess ol' Herb has got me (technically). That quote of mine
should have said this:
“Then why did Connally jerk his right arm upward at the exact same
time JFK was REACTING to being hit by a bullet?”
But, of course, Herb knew what I meant, because in this very thread I have
indicated my belief that JFK & Connally were hit by the SBT bullet at
precisely Z224.
David Von Pein
Oh, my goodness. Tony Marsh actually thinks Connally was hit by TWO
bullets, with the first one striking him at Z329, AFTER the JFK head
shot.
Tony's further out there in fantasy land than I had thought.
Maybe he should join forces with Prof. Fetzer. (Fetzer thinks THREE
separate bullets hit Connally--and then all of those missiles vanished
off the planet, naturally.)
Anthony Marsh
You don't seem to have any formal training in rhetoric. That is not how
sarcasm works. I am not saying what *I* believe. I am making fun of your
argument by pointing out the obvious conclusion of YOUR argument. You WC
defenders are the ones who came up with the Jet Effect to explain the
backwards motion of JFK's head and you also said that a bullet can not
move a body in any direction.
bigdog
You seem to be operating under the silly assumption that JBC's right wrist
would rotate with the torso instead of remaining in position while
continuing to hold his hat in his lap. While facing forward, his right arm
would be bent but as he rotated his torso rightward, his right arm would
simply extend allowing his right hand and wrist to remain in roughly the
same place. That's the problem you always run into when you try to apply
engineering principles to biomechanics. The human body is not a rigid
piece of steel. Angles change as the body moves, but your analysis fails
to take that into account. If your analysis had any validity, you wouldn't
have to allege film tampering to make it work.
David Von Pein
>>> "So your theory is that someone is hit in one frame and then reacts a
couple of frames later? That is a superhuman reaction time." <<<
Bullshit.
A person can react to an injury "almost simultaneously" to receiving that
injury, per the HSCA:
"The [HSCA's forensic pathology] panel notes the interval between
the observable reactions of the President and the Governor at the time of
their injuries, as seen in the Zapruder film. Some observers have
contended that the interval is too long to permit the conclusion that a
single bullet struck both men. The majority of the panel believes that the
interval is consistent with the single-bullet theory. At issue is the time
delay between bullet impact and the observable reactions of each man to
his injury, which in turn is determined by many factors, including whether
or not their reactions were voluntary or involuntary. If involuntary, they
would have occurred almost simultaneously with the injuries. If voluntary,
there is often a slight delay in reacting." -- HSCA Volume 7; Page 179
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0095a.htm
Herbert Blenner
The jacket bulged at Z224. For this reason intelligent SBTers place
the wounding of JFK & JBC at Z222 or Z223. Now I dare you to tell us
that this is what you meant.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
Your misinterpretation. By slight delay they mean 200 milliseconds. That
is 4 Zapruder frames not one. Do you think you are more of an expert
than Dr. Roger McCarthy?
It is obvious Kennedy's face and hands--especially his right hand--are
reacting to a wound in Z225. This means the bullet could not have struck
him later than Z221. However, the current SBT says the bullet struck at
Z223-224 (because of the seeming flip of Connally's lapel in Z224).
Failure Analysis expert Dr. Roger McCarthy commented on the problem:
EC: Now, what I'd like to do is, is move to the very next frame,
225. How much time elapsed on that day between time frame 224 was filmed
and the time that frame 225 was filmed?
DR. ROGER MCCARTHY: About 56 milliseconds. This camera is running
at a shade more than 18 frames/second, so between any 2 frames there's
about an 18th of a second or 56 thousandth of a second. . . .
EC: Now, Dr., based upon that, do you have a conclusion or an
opinion as to when the President was hit with the bullet--how much
before this point?
RM: Yes, as I think Dr. Piziali accurately indicated, there is a
latency or a delay of about 200 milliseconds between the time that a
message is delivered by either traumatic shock to the spine or by your
mind to a muscle before you can get movement. You've experienced that
every time you've ever grabbed something hot. You've known it was hot
and were burned because of the delay, because you couldn't get--let go
or move fast enough to avoid the damage. You knew it, and you just
couldn't make your body move fast enough. There's nothing wrong with
you; it takes about a fifth of a second to get all the hardware up to
full power--to get the muscles to move.
EC: Now, Dr., if, then, the President was hit 200 milliseconds
before the movement on [frame] 225, how many frames back in the film
would that be?
RM: That would be at 221 at a minimum.
EC: And at 221 he's behind the sign, is that correct?
RM: Yes.
EC: Alright. If he was hit at 221 and the Governor was hit at 224
according to the prosecution, then could they have been hit by the same
bullet?
RM: No. (KILLING THE TRUTH, pp. 235-236)
Herbert Blenner
Look up quick and you may see my argument.
The assumption that JBC’s wrist and thigh had not rotated rightward
with his torso immediately before being shot worsens an impossible
situation. In other words assuming that the wrist and thigh had
rotated with the torso reduces the angle of leftward deflection by the
bullet after exit from the chest by the angle of the right turn when
shot.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>>>> "No, because you WC defenders claim that a bullet can not cause any
> movement in a body."<<<
>
> The force of the bullet obviously didn't cause Connally's quick arm
> movement at Z226. That was an involuntarily reflex action after his wrist
> had just been hit at Z224. This fact couldn't be more obvious (to most
> reasonable people looking at the Z-Film, that is).
>
> And LNers don't claim that a bullet can't move an object. Oswald's
They do when conspiracy believers say a shot from the front moved his
head back.
> head-shot bullet definitely did move an object (JFK's head)--it moved
> forward a couple of inches between Z312 and Z313 as a result of the bullet
> impacting his cranium.
>
No, you are seeing blur and everyone was moving forward. Were they all
shot in the back of the head at the same millisecond?
Herbert Blenner
The egg would be on your face.
A slowing from 10 mph to 8 mph is a decrease in speed by 3 fps. During
the 1/18-second interval between Z312 and Z313 the head would have
moved 1/6 foot that equals the often quoted 2-inch movement of the
head.
Your failure to recognize the head movement independent of torso
motion as the decisive flaw in the deceleration explanation adds cream
to the egg on your face.
Herbert
bigdog
And all this demonstrates that different body parts do not remain in fixed
position relative to one another. Connally's right wrist could be directly
in front of his right nipple as he sat facing straight forward, while off
to the side of it when he rotated rightward. Your objection to the SBT
rests on two invalid assumptions. First you assume where Connally's right
wrist was in relation to his chest at the instant the bullet struck,
something you can't know because he was holding his hat in his lap with
his right hand was was below the side of the car. Second you assume a
straight line path through Connally's body from the entrance on his armpit
to the thigh wound. You fail to allow for the deflection of the bullet as
it slowed, tumbled, and struck various body parts. The bullet could have
had multiple changes of direction as it passed first through his torso,
and then his wrist. There are simply too many unknown variables to draw
the conclusion that you want to reach. What we see is visible evidence of
a bullet strike when JBC's jacket bulged in Z224 followed just two frames
later by the simultaneous involuntary responses by both JFK and JBC. We
also know JFK and JBC were both in a direct line with a shooter firing
from the only location where a shooter was actually seen. It doesn't take
Sherlock Holmes nor a person with a PHD in physics to figure out that both
men were hit by the same shot. All it takes is someone who is willing to
excercise an ounce of common sense.
Anthony Marsh
You are supposed to be a SBT purist and insist that the bullet never
deflected. Deflected off what? Soft tissue? Heavy air?
The moment you say the bullet hit a bone and was deflected you open the
door for me to say that the bullet deflected when it hit the T1
vertebra. And you don't dare do that.
> had multiple changes of direction as it passed first through his torso,
> and then his wrist. There are simply too many unknown variables to draw
> the conclusion that you want to reach. What we see is visible evidence of
> a bullet strike when JBC's jacket bulged in Z224 followed just two frames
> later by the simultaneous involuntary responses by both JFK and JBC. We
> also know JFK and JBC were both in a direct line with a shooter firing
> from the only location where a shooter was actually seen. It doesn't take
> Sherlock Holmes nor a person with a PHD in physics to figure out that both
> men were hit by the same shot. All it takes is someone who is willing to
> excercise an ounce of common sense.
>
You derive this from Lattimer and Lattimer said the jacket bulged in the
same frame as the bullet hit, Z-224. I told you before that your only
chance is to move the SBT much earlier, at least Z-220.
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 14, 10:01 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> exact same time JFK was being hit by a bullet?? I answered, ?If the
>> arm jerk were a physiological reaction to being shot then the bullet had
>> to strike earlier than the motion of the arm. This consideration alone
>> invalidates your claim that Connally and JFK were hit at the exact same
>> context. Any other method of reply would make you look (duh.)"<<<
>>
>> Oh, goodie! Ol' Herb is going to pretend he didn't know what I meant.
>>
>> But, yes, I guess ol' Herb has got me (technically). That quote of mine
>> should have said this:
>>
>> time JFK was REACTING to being hit by a bullet??
>>
>> But, of course, Herb knew what I meant, because in this very thread I have
>> precisely Z224.
>
> The jacket bulged at Z224. For this reason intelligent SBTers place
> that this is what you meant.
>
> Herbert
>
>
>
It originated with Lattimer and Lattimer said the bullet HIT at Z-224.
Herbert Blenner
When Governor Connally came into view during the early Z220s he was
already rotated to the right of facing forward. Frames Z224 through Z226
show the abrupt leftward rotation of his torso. These are the postures to
which one must fit their single bullet event.
> Your objection to the SBT
> rests on two invalid assumptions. First you assume where Connally's right
> wrist was in relation to his chest at the instant the bullet struck,
> something you can't know because he was holding his hat in his lap with
> his right hand was was below the side of the car.
My objection to a single bullet event during the early Z220s is based
upon the excess angle by which the bullet must deflect to exit below
the right nipple. This argument has nothing to do with the position of
the wrist or the thigh.
> Second you assume a
> straight line path through Connally's body from the entrance on his armpit
> to the thigh wound.
Nutdropings. Figure 3 of “Bye Bye Jacket Bulge” shows the bullet
following a curved path through Connally’s torso.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/jacketbulge_files/parabola.jpg
The straight red line labeled AB represents the incoming bullet, BC
stands for the curved path of the bullet as it deflected within
Connally’s torso and CD shows the straight trajectory after exit from
the torso.
Now that I have disproved you claimed assumption of “a straight line
path through Connally’s body from the entrance on his armpit to the
thigh wound”, I give you an opportunity to acknowledge your falsehood
by retraction.
> You fail to allow for the deflection of the bullet as
> it slowed, tumbled, and struck various body parts. The bullet could have
> had multiple changes of direction as it passed first through his torso,
> and then his wrist.
Figure 4 tabulates the necessary deflection angle and excess angle of
a bullet that transited Connally’s torso with a given angle of
rightward rotation.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/jacketbulge_files/broadmaximum.jpg
So again, I catch you misrepresenting my work. Do you plead ignorance
or deliberate deception?
> There are simply too many unknown variables to draw
> the conclusion that you want to reach. What we see is visible evidence of
> a bullet strike when JBC's jacket bulged in Z224 followed just two frames
> later by the simultaneous involuntary responses by both JFK and JBC.
If a bullet caused the jacket to bulge then the transit of the torso
had to occur earlier. So stop trying to delay the single bullet event
to evade the devastating problem caused by the near half right face of
Connally’s torso.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/jacketbulge.htm
> We
> also know JFK and JBC were both in a direct line with a shooter firing
> from the only location where a shooter was actually seen. It doesn't take
> Sherlock Holmes nor a person with a PHD in physics to figure out that both
> men were hit by the same shot. All it takes is someone who is willing to
> excercise an ounce of common sense.
I acknowledge that bigbog and DVP do fine impersonations of rats jumping
from a sinking ship. They meticulously avoid placing the single bullet
event at Z222 or Z223 by implying synchroneity of the shooting with the
bulge of the jacket.
Herbert
David Von Pein
>>> The jacket bulged at Z224. For this reason intelligent SBTers place
No, I meant what I said. The SBT is occurring at Z224 (IMO). Others are
free to disagree, of course.
But I've also said this (and this was two years before I ever saw any part
of VB's book, which I bring up just in case you want to accuse me of
riding Vincent's coattails on this issue):
"Regardless of what exact Z-Film frame the SBT equates to, the point
is: There IS a Z-Frame (somewhere on that film) that DOES equate perfectly
to the SBT. There is no way there's NOT such a Z-Frame given the totality
of the evidence re the initial wounding of both victims." -- DVP; May 23,
2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/7360799fec7f549d
Herbert Blenner
> >>> The jacket bulged at Z224. For this reason intelligent SBTers place
>
> the wounding of JFK & JBC at Z222 or Z223. Now I dare you to tell us that
> this is what you meant." <<<
>
> No, I meant what I said. The SBT is occurring at Z224 (IMO). Others are
> free to disagree, of course.
>
> But I've also said this (and this was two years before I ever saw any part
> of VB's book, which I bring up just in case you want to accuse me of
> riding Vincent's coattails on this issue):
I have never pictured you as ridingVincent's coattails. Instead I have
wondered whether you were VB’s PR man.
>
> "Regardless of what exact Z-Film frame the SBT equates to, the point
> is: There IS a Z-Frame (somewhere on that film) that DOES equate perfectly
> to the SBT. There is no way there's NOT such a Z-Frame given the totality
> of the evidence re the initial wounding of both victims." -- DVP; May 23,
> 2005
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/7360799fec7f...
Herbert
bigdog
and it was during that rotation that he was struck. A force exerted
upon his right back would tend to accelerate the motion that had
already begun.
> > Your objection to the SBT
> > rests on two invalid assumptions. First you assume where Connally's right
> > wrist was in relation to his chest at the instant the bullet struck,
> > something you can't know because he was holding his hat in his lap with
> > his right hand was was below the side of the car.
>
> My objection to a single bullet event during the early Z220s is based
> upon the excess angle by which the bullet must deflect to exit below
> the right nipple. This argument has nothing to do with the position of
> the wrist or the thigh.
>
How do you determine what constitutes "excess angle"?
> > Second you assume a
> > straight line path through Connally's body from the entrance on his armpit
> > to the thigh wound.
>
> Nutdropings. Figure 3 of “Bye Bye Jacket Bulge” shows the bullet
> following a curved path through Connally’s torso.
>
Nice guesswork.
> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/jacketbulge_files/parabola.jpg
>
> The straight red line labeled AB represents the incoming bullet, BC
> stands for the curved path of the bullet as it deflected within
> Connally’s torso and CD shows the straight trajectory after exit from
> the torso.
>
Another invalid assumption. You don't know what the angle of the exit
was. You are guessing.
> Now that I have disproved you claimed assumption of “a straight line
> path through Connally’s body from the entrance on his armpit to the
> thigh wound”, I give you an opportunity to acknowledge your falsehood
> by retraction.
>
You have proven nothing other than your ability to complicate a very
simple concept. Bullet strikes JFK and JBC. JBC's jacket bulges. JFK
and JBC react by jerking their arms upward. All within a span of
APPROXIMATELY 1/4 second.
> > You fail to allow for the deflection of the bullet as
> > it slowed, tumbled, and struck various body parts. The bullet could have
> > had multiple changes of direction as it passed first through his torso,
> > and then his wrist.
>
> Figure 4 tabulates the necessary deflection angle and excess angle of
> a bullet that transited Connally’s torso with a given angle of
> rightward rotation.
>
So in one sentence you tell us the bullet was following a curved path
and in another you tell us it was an excess angle.
> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/jacketbulge_files/broadmaximum.jpg
>
> So again, I catch you misrepresenting my work. Do you plead ignorance
> or deliberate deception?
>
I plead an inability to decypher Blenerese.
> > There are simply too many unknown variables to draw
> > the conclusion that you want to reach. What we see is visible evidence of
> > a bullet strike when JBC's jacket bulged in Z224 followed just two frames
> > later by the simultaneous involuntary responses by both JFK and JBC.
>
> If a bullet caused the jacket to bulge then the transit of the torso
> had to occur earlier. So stop trying to delay the single bullet event
> to evade the devastating problem caused by the near half right face of
> Connally’s torso.
>
I'm not delaying anything. Of course the bullet hit before the jacket
bulged. We are left to guess as to how much before. The bullet could
have hit during any of several frames or during the brief gap between
those frames. We simply don't have enough information to say with
certainty and precision exactly when the bullet hit.
> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/jacketbulge.htm
>
> > We
> > also know JFK and JBC were both in a direct line with a shooter firing
> > from the only location where a shooter was actually seen. It doesn't take
> > Sherlock Holmes nor a person with a PHD in physics to figure out that both
> > men were hit by the same shot. All it takes is someone who is willing to
> > excercise an ounce of common sense.
>
> I acknowledge that bigbog and DVP do fine impersonations of rats jumping
> from a sinking ship. They meticulously avoid placing the single bullet
> event at Z222 or Z223 by implying synchroneity of the shooting with the
> bulge of the jacket.
>
On the contrary, that is where I believe the single bullet did strike
but I also recognize that the data available to us does not allow us
to place the event at any frame with absolute certainty. DVP believes
the jacket bulge occurred during the same frame as the strike and I
wouldn't go so far as to say he is wrong about that. Reasonable people
can disagree about the precise instant the bullet hit. At only 18.3
fps, the Z-film is far too slow to allow precise timing for an event
that would have taken just a few milliseconds. It's like timing a 100
yard dash with an hourglass. We do the best with what we have while
recognizing the limits.
markusp
> Actually, the clues that tell us when the single bullet struck were missed
> by the WC and weren't discovered until after the Z-film had been made
> public. I don't know when these events were dicovered or by whom, but they
> are the clincher for the SBT. The clues are unmistakable. The bulging of
> JBC's jacket at Z224 followed immediately by the simultaneous reflexive
> raising of the arms by both JFK and JBC at Z226.
I believe JFK's arms are in the process of reaching for his throat
prior to the jacket bulge at Z224. If that is true, then the jacket
bulge must be a second missile impact, and mandates a second shooter
from a rearward position.
> > > Yes, I know that Governor Connally said that he didn't even realize he
> > > had been shot in the wrist at all until the next day in the hospital,
> > > but if conspiracy theorists want to use Connally's memory of this
> > > event as a guide, I think that's a weak argument, and that's because
> > > even though Connally had no memory of being hit in the wrist, his
> > > involuntary reactions to the wrist injury are almost certainly going
> > > to show up SOMEWHERE in Mr. Zapruder's home movie.
>
> > Those reactions you seek are either not visible, not there at all, or
> > indeterminate.
>
> Not visible??? Are you serious? You can't see JBC's jacket bulge? You
> can't see his right arm jerk upwards at precisely the same frame JFK
> jerks his arms upward?
I was referring to Connally's wrist only. We're watching for signs of
impact to the wrist.
> We know that JBC was shot through the wrist.
Right, but we have a discrepancy as to the direction of travel of that
missile through the wrist.
> Do you have a plausible explaination for his sudden up and down arm
> movement at Z226?
Yes, he'd just been shot in the chest.
> > Dr. Gregory operated on Connally's wrist. The diagram he was shown by
> > Specter, had been created by the WC, and not Gregory himself. When
> > shown, Gregory reversed the ENTRY and EXIT notations. He insisted that
> > those were not correct. Apparently Specter had decided ahead of time
> > that 399 had to enter the wrist on the underside (palm), and exit out
> > the top for his SBT to hold up. Gregory told us that missile entered
> > from on top, smashed the radius, and exited out the bottom side.
> > Unless you're seriously double-jointed, to get your wrist into that
> > position for SBT alignment, it would be quite painful.
>
> Nothing about that is incompatible with the SBT.
Given the location on his wrist of the damage, and knowing that the
SBT must have this missile then heading toward his left thigh, indeed
the direction of travel through the wrist becomes very important.
Frankly, entering from either side is not compatible with the SBT.
~Mark
bigdog
from the exit wound in the chest to the entry on the wrist. Do you
think it impossible the bullet could travel from the exit wound on the
wrist to his left thigh? Do you assume both of these trajectories
would be in exactly the same direction?
> > Do you have a plausible explaination for his sudden up and down arm
> > movement at Z226?
>
> Yes, he'd just been shot in the chest.
>
So do you believe that he was shot multiple times and flipped his arm
upward when he was shot in the chest but didn't flip it when he was
shot in the wrist. Or does it make more sense that the same bullet
caused both wounds and the arm flip was an involuntary reflex to the
wound to his wrist.
> > > Dr. Gregory operated on Connally's wrist. The diagram he was shown by
> > > Specter, had been created by the WC, and not Gregory himself. When
> > > shown, Gregory reversed the ENTRY and EXIT notations. He insisted that
> > > those were not correct. Apparently Specter had decided ahead of time
> > > that 399 had to enter the wrist on the underside (palm), and exit out
> > > the top for his SBT to hold up. Gregory told us that missile entered
> > > from on top, smashed the radius, and exited out the bottom side.
> > > Unless you're seriously double-jointed, to get your wrist into that
> > > position for SBT alignment, it would be quite painful.
>
> > Nothing about that is incompatible with the SBT.
>
> Given the location on his wrist of the damage, and knowing that the
> SBT must have this missile then heading toward his left thigh, indeed
> the direction of travel through the wrist becomes very important.
> Frankly, entering from either side is not compatible with the SBT.
> ~Mark
You are assuming a constant direction of travel. You fail to take into
account the deflection that the dense wrist bone could cause a to the
path of a bullet that has been both destabilized and signficantly
slowed. Bullets do deflect when striking hard objects. How can you
possibly determine that the bullet could not have deflected from his
right wrist to his left thigh?
Anthony Marsh
How about how the doctor originally wrote entrance and then was ordered
to change that to exit?
>
>> Do you have a plausible explaination for his sudden up and down arm
>> movement at Z226?
>
> Yes, he'd just been shot in the chest.
>
He said he wasn't hit until Z-230.
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 16, 12:50 am, Herbert Blenner<a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Aug 15, 2:17 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 15, 8:49 am, Herbert Blenner<a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Aug 14, 10:39 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Aug 14, 3:12 pm, Herbert Blenner<a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Aug 13, 11:10 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 13, 9:48 pm, Herbert Blenner<a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> On Aug 13, 4:49 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "If the arm jerk were a physiological reaction to being shot then the bullet had to strike earlier than the motion of the arm."<<<
>>
>>>>>>>>> Gee, that's a brilliant declaration there.
>>
>>>>>>>>> And the last time I checked, Z224 is BEFORE Z226.
>>
>>>>>>>>> (Duh.)
>>
>>>>>>>> exact same time JFK was being hit by a bullet??
>>
>>>>>>>> I answered, ? If the arm jerk were a physiological reaction to being
>>>>>>>> shot then the bullet had to strike earlier than the motion of the arm.
>>>>>>>> This consideration alone invalidates your claim that Connally and JFK
>>
>>>>>>>> I am not surprised that you only reply to comments taken out of
>>>>>>>> context. Any other method of reply would make you look (duh.)
>>
>>>>>>>> Herbert
>>
>>>>>>> I realize this is far too simple a concept for you to follow. You must
>>>>>>> make everything unduly complicated. Both JFK and JBC reacted in exactly
>>>>>>> the same frame, Z226. That was not the frame in which they were hit. That
>>>>>>> happened several frames earlier. How many frames we can't be certain of,
>>>>>>> but we know the latest it could have happened was Z224 because that is
>>>>>>> when JBC's jacket bulged. It's amazingly simple. JFK and JBC were both hit
>>>>>>> in the same frame. Both reacted in the same frame. The frame both reacted
>>>>>>> in (Z226) came after the frame in which they were hit. I hope I didn't go
>>>>>>> too fast for you.
>>
>>>>>> Who the hell do you think you are talking down to bigdog?
>>
>>>>>> If a bullet caused the jacket to bulge then the wounding had to occur
>>>>>> earlier than the bulge of the jacket. This situation arises because it
>>>>>> takes time for force from the exiting debris to move the mass of the
>>>>>> single bullet event.
>>
>>>>>> I know that analytic geometry is way over your head so I post the
>>>>>> following link for the benefit of readers.
>>
>>>>>> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/jacketbulge.htm
>>
>>>>>> Perhaps if I dumb it down you may understand that the half right face
>>>>>> of the torso required a rightward deflection of a transiting bullet
>>>>>> for exit below the right nipple and that this deflection angle had to
>>>>>> exceed the angle of the half right face. These factors would have
>>>>>> placed an exiting bullet on a course away from the right wrist and the
>>>>>> left thigh.
>>
>>>>> You seem to be operating under the silly assumption that JBC's right wrist
>>>>> would rotate with the torso instead of remaining in position while
>>>>> continuing to hold his hat in his lap. While facing forward, his right arm
>>>>> would be bent but as he rotated his torso rightward, his right arm would
>>>>> simply extend allowing his right hand and wrist to remain in roughly the
>>>>> same place. That's the problem you always run into when you try to apply
>>>>> engineering principles to biomechanics. The human body is not a rigid
>>>>> piece of steel. Angles change as the body moves, but your analysis fails
>>>>> to take that into account. If your analysis had any validity, you wouldn't
>>>>> have to allege film tampering to make it work.
>>
>>>> Look up quick and you may see my argument.
>>
>> following a curved path through Connally?s torso.
>>
> Nice guesswork.
>
>> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/jacketbulge_files/parabola.jpg
>>
>> The straight red line labeled AB represents the incoming bullet, BC
>> stands for the curved path of the bullet as it deflected within
>> the torso.
>>
> Another invalid assumption. You don't know what the angle of the exit
> was. You are guessing.
>
>> path through Connally?s body from the entrance on his armpit to the
>> thigh wound?, I give you an opportunity to acknowledge your falsehood
>> by retraction.
>>
> You have proven nothing other than your ability to complicate a very
> simple concept. Bullet strikes JFK and JBC. JBC's jacket bulges. JFK
> and JBC react by jerking their arms upward. All within a span of
> APPROXIMATELY 1/4 second.
>
>>> You fail to allow for the deflection of the bullet as
>>> it slowed, tumbled, and struck various body parts. The bullet could have
>>> had multiple changes of direction as it passed first through his torso,
>>> and then his wrist.
>>
>> Figure 4 tabulates the necessary deflection angle and excess angle of
>> rightward rotation.
>>
> So in one sentence you tell us the bullet was following a curved path
> and in another you tell us it was an excess angle.
>
>> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/jacketbulge_files/broadmaximum.jpg
>>
>> So again, I catch you misrepresenting my work. Do you plead ignorance
>> or deliberate deception?
>>
> I plead an inability to decypher Blenerese.
>
>>> There are simply too many unknown variables to draw
>>> the conclusion that you want to reach. What we see is visible evidence of
>>> a bullet strike when JBC's jacket bulged in Z224 followed just two frames
>>> later by the simultaneous involuntary responses by both JFK and JBC.
>>
>> If a bullet caused the jacket to bulge then the transit of the torso
>> had to occur earlier. So stop trying to delay the single bullet event
>> to evade the devastating problem caused by the near half right face of
Why can't you WC defenders agree on a single Single Bullet Theory?
Why do you have a Single Bullet Theory of the Month Club?
Herbert Blenner
If the radius deflected the bullet to any significant degree then the
probing by Dr. Gregory would have failed to disclose the connection
between the wounds on opposite sides of the wrist.
Dr. GREGORY. The wound of exit was disposed transversely across the wrist
exactly as I have it marked here. It was in the nature of a small
laceration, perhaps a centimeter and a half in length, about a half an
inch long, and it lay in the skin creases so that as you examined the
wrist casually it was a very innocent looking thing indeed, and it was not
until it was probed that its true nature in connection with the remainder
of the wound was evident.
End of quotation.
I suggest that you spend more time reading the evidence than dreaming up
excuses.
Herbert
Herbert Blenner
Doctor Lattimer as an urologist had a piss poor understanding of
physics.
David Von Pein
>>> "I have never pictured you as riding Vincent's coattails. Instead I have wondered whether you were VB’s PR man." <<<
I wish.
Herbert Blenner
Your simple question has a simple answer. They need a different Single
Bullet Theory for each different set of wounds.
Herbert
Herbert Blenner
Prior to Z-223, Connally was slowly rotating leftward at a speed of
one-third degree per frame. Beginning within Z-224 he rotates leftward
at about ten degree per frame.
You now claim that the bullet could have accelerated the torso from
one-third to about ten degrees per frame with the change in speed
being about ten degrees per frame. So in essence you have said nothing
other than to claim that a bullet could have transferred sufficient
momentum to have produced a rotation comparable to the “back and to
the left” motion of President Kennedy.
I am curious as to how you use the word hypocrite?
>
> > > Your objection to the SBT
> > > rests on two invalid assumptions. First you assume where Connally's right
> > > wrist was in relation to his chest at the instant the bullet struck,
> > > something you can't know because he was holding his hat in his lap with
> > > his right hand was was below the side of the car.
>
> > My objection to a single bullet event during the early Z220s is based
> > upon the excess angle by which the bullet must deflect to exit below
> > the right nipple. This argument has nothing to do with the position of
> > the wrist or the thigh.
>
> How do you determine what constitutes "excess angle"?
Excess angle does not refer to a limiting quantity. Instead I define
the excess angle as the deflection angle of the bullet that transited
Connally’s torso minus the rotation angle of that torso from facing
directly forward.
>
> > > Second you assume a
> > > straight line path through Connally's body from the entrance on his armpit
> > > to the thigh wound.
>
> > Nutdropings. Figure 3 of “Bye Bye Jacket Bulge” shows the bullet
> > following a curved path through Connally’s torso.
>
> Nice guesswork.
Are you the same bigdog who said, “you assume a straight line path
through Connally's body from the entrance on his armpit to the thigh
wound?” I ask because all that egg on your face makes recognition
impossible.
>
> >http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/jacketbulge_files/parabola.jpg
>
> > The straight red line labeled AB represents the incoming bullet, BC
> > stands for the curved path of the bullet as it deflected within
> > Connally’s torso and CD shows the straight trajectory after exit from
> > the torso.
>
> Another invalid assumption. You don't know what the angle of the exit
> was. You are guessing.
Obviously you do not understand that the locations of the back and
chest wounds dictate an “angle of exit” for each possible rotation
angle. The table, “Broad Maximum” shows the one-to one correspondence
between the rotation angle, the deflection angle and the excess
angle.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/jacketbulge_files/broadmaximum.jpg
> > Now that I have disproved you claimed assumption of “a straight line
> > path through Connally’s body from the entrance on his armpit to the
> > thigh wound”, I give you an opportunity to acknowledge your falsehood
> > by retraction.
>
> You have proven nothing other than your ability to complicate a very
> simple concept. Bullet strikes JFK and JBC. JBC's jacket bulges. JFK
> and JBC react by jerking their arms upward. All within a span of
> APPROXIMATELY 1/4 second.
You have picked the wrong 1/4 second as the event began with a posture
of Connally which prohibited a single bullet event.
>
> > > You fail to allow for the deflection of the bullet as
> > > it slowed, tumbled, and struck various body parts. The bullet could have
> > > had multiple changes of direction as it passed first through his torso,
> > > and then his wrist.
>
> > Figure 4 tabulates the necessary deflection angle and excess angle of
> > a bullet that transited Connally’s torso with a given angle of
> > rightward rotation.
>
> So in one sentence you tell us the bullet was following a curved path
> and in another you tell us it was an excess angle.
I defy you to explain in plain English the meaning of “it was an
excess angle.”
>
> >http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/jacketbulge_files/broadmaximum.jpg
>
> > So again, I catch you misrepresenting my work. Do you plead ignorance
> > or deliberate deception?
>
> I plead an inability to decypher Blenerese.
Ignorance is no excuse since Myers and I use the language of
science.
>
> > > There are simply too many unknown variables to draw
> > > the conclusion that you want to reach. What we see is visible evidence of
> > > a bullet strike when JBC's jacket bulged in Z224 followed just two frames
> > > later by the simultaneous involuntary responses by both JFK and JBC.
>
> > If a bullet caused the jacket to bulge then the transit of the torso
> > had to occur earlier. So stop trying to delay the single bullet event
> > to evade the devastating problem caused by the near half right face of
> > Connally’s torso.
>
> I'm not delaying anything. Of course the bullet hit before the jacket
> bulged. We are left to guess as to how much before. The bullet could
> have hit during any of several frames or during the brief gap between
> those frames. We simply don't have enough information to say with
> certainty and precision exactly when the bullet hit.
Guessing is unnecessary since earlier and later bounds upon the
striking time can be found from the rotating torso. In particular Z224
and Z-225 show that the torso rotated through a larger angle than the
shown by the previous pair, Z223 and Z224, of frames. This observation
bounds the strike as later than the start of Z222 and earlier than
end of Z223.
Herbert
>
> >http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/jacketbulge.htm
>
> > > We
> > > also know JFK and JBC were both in a direct line with a shooter firing
> > > from the only location where a shooter was actually seen. It doesn't take
> > > Sherlock Holmes nor a person with a PHD in physics to figure out that both
> > > men were hit by the same shot. All it takes is someone who is willing to
> > > excercise an ounce of common sense.
>
> > I acknowledge that bigbog and DVP do fine impersonations of rats jumping
> > from a sinking ship. They meticulously avoid placing the single bullet
> > event at Z222 or Z223 by implying synchroneity of the shooting with the
> > bulge of the jacket.
>
> On the contrary, that is where I believe the single bullet did strike
> but I also recognize that the data available to us does not allow us
> to place the event at any frame with absolute certainty. DVP believes
> the jacket bulge occurred during the same frame as the strike and I
> wouldn't go so far as to say he is wrong about that. Reasonable people
> can disagree about the precise instant the bullet hit. At only 18.3
> fps, the Z-film is far too slow to allow precise timing for an event
> that would have taken just a few milliseconds. It's like timing a 100
> yard dash with an hourglass. We do the best with what we have while
> recognizing the limits.- Hide quoted text -
bigdog
Here's a few for you to ponder.
Do you think more one bullet traveled through his torso, his wrist,
and into his thigh?
If you think that was multiple bullets which caused the ones, where do
you suppose the other bullet ended up.
If it didn't happen the SBT way, it happened another way. Describe in
detail another way JBC's wounds could have been caused, telling us
were the shots were fired from, which wounds they caused, and where
those bullets ended up. I'm sure you can provide us with an
alternative explaination that will fit in with your half vast
understanding of wound ballistics.
Anthony Marsh
Humes had his own SBT. What was wrong with his?
Anthony Marsh
Excuse me? I wasn't endorsing Lattimer. I always make fun of him.
I am holding the WC defenders feet to the fire for constantly changing
frame numbers.
It's just too much damn fun to bash them over the heads with their own
handpicked "experts."
bigdog
>
> > Why can't you WC defenders agree on a single Single Bullet Theory?
> > Why do you have a Single Bullet Theory of the Month Club?
>
> Your simple question has a simple answer. They need a different Single
> Bullet Theory for each different set of wounds.
>
opinion on the exact frame the bullet actually struck, a difference of
a split second, you guys consider this to be differing Single Bullet
Theories. Yes, it would be nice if the evidence was definitive enough
to allow us that level of precision, but the low resolution and slow
speed of the Z-film precludes that level of certainty. We've done
pretty well with what we have to work with. While we have a difference
of opinion amounting to at most a tenth of a second, the CTs can't
even agree on how many shooters there were, where the shooters, were
how many shots there were, and who was behind the shooting. You know.
The real trivial stuff.
bigdog
As opposed to an engineer with a piss poor understanding of forensic
medicine.
Herbert Blenner
Humes discussed a SBT during his WC testimony that was heard before
the Parkland doctors testified on six of the seven wounds attributed
to a single bullet.
Herbert
Herbert Blenner
>
Pardon me for supporting your criticism of Lattimer.
Herbert
bigdog
Again you show your lack of understanding of biomechanics. Any motion is
going to start slowly and accelerate. A golfer after completing his
backswing, reverses his motion and begins his downswing. Because he
changes direction, the downswing starts slowly and gathers speed as he
turns into the hitting area. Connally's torso rotation was similar to a
golfer's. Even though it was a much slower movement the principle is the
same. At the point where the direction of rotation changes, the movement
is zero. The counter rotation begins slowly and gradually picks up speed.
This would have happened whether JBC had been shot or not. The force of
the bullet could have provided some acceleration to the movement he
started on his own, but would not be the primary force.
> You now claim that the bullet could have accelerated the torso from
> one-third to about ten degrees per frame with the change in speed
> being about ten degrees per frame. So in essence you have said nothing
> other than to claim that a bullet could have transferred sufficient
> momentum to have produced a rotation comparable to the “back and to
> the left” motion of President Kennedy.
>
> I am curious as to how you use the word hypocrite?
>
Now you are making shit up. I never stated any such thing nor implied it.
I said just the opposite. My position is and was that the force of the
bullet would have been negligible. Of course Marsh will jump in and say
LNs claim that a bullet can't move a body at all which is also made up
shit. He can't cite a single post where one of us has taken that position
but he keeps right on spouting the bullshit.
>
>
> > > > Your objection to the SBT
> > > > rests on two invalid assumptions. First you assume where Connally's right
> > > > wrist was in relation to his chest at the instant the bullet struck,
> > > > something you can't know because he was holding his hat in his lap with
> > > > his right hand was was below the side of the car.
>
> > > My objection to a single bullet event during the early Z220s is based
> > > upon the excess angle by which the bullet must deflect to exit below
> > > the right nipple. This argument has nothing to do with the position of
> > > the wrist or the thigh.
>
> > How do you determine what constitutes "excess angle"?
>
> Excess angle does not refer to a limiting quantity. Instead I define
> the excess angle as the deflection angle of the bullet that transited
> Connally’s torso minus the rotation angle of that torso from facing
> directly forward.
>
And still you won't tell us how you determine that angle is
excessive.
>
>
> > > > Second you assume a
> > > > straight line path through Connally's body from the entrance on his armpit
> > > > to the thigh wound.
>
> > > Nutdropings. Figure 3 of “Bye Bye Jacket Bulge” shows the bullet
> > > following a curved path through Connally’s torso.
>
> > Nice guesswork.
>
> Are you the same bigdog who said, “you assume a straight line path
> through Connally's body from the entrance on his armpit to the thigh
> wound?” I ask because all that egg on your face makes recognition
> impossible.
>
Yes I made that statement and I stand by it. Are you going to tell us
whether you believe the bullet passed through JBC on a straight line
trajectory or it deflected. There are only two choices, it either was or
was not a straight line. Can you pick one? I'm betting that neither the
words "yes" or "no" will be part of your evasive reply.
>
>
> > >http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/jacketbulge_files/parabola.jpg
>
> > > The straight red line labeled AB represents the incoming bullet, BC
> > > stands for the curved path of the bullet as it deflected within
> > > Connally’s torso and CD shows the straight trajectory after exit from
> > > the torso.
>
> > Another invalid assumption. You don't know what the angle of the exit
> > was. You are guessing.
>
> Obviously you do not understand that the locations of the back and
> chest wounds dictate an “angle of exit” for each possible rotation
> angle. The table, “Broad Maximum” shows the one-to one correspondence
> between the rotation angle, the deflection angle and the excess
> angle.
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/jacketbulge_files/broadmaximum.jpg
>
Leave it to you to complicate a simple issue. You have a table which
declares the excess angle to the difference between the rotation and
deflection. Are we to conclude from that that the only angle that would
not be in excess is 0.0 which would mean the rotation equaled the
deflection. Is this the Blenerese way of saying the bullet should have
gone straight through him?
> > > Now that I have disproved you claimed assumption of “a straight line
> > > path through Connally’s body from the entrance on his armpit to the
> > > thigh wound”, I give you an opportunity to acknowledge your falsehood
> > > by retraction.
>
> > You have proven nothing other than your ability to complicate a very
> > simple concept. Bullet strikes JFK and JBC. JBC's jacket bulges. JFK
> > and JBC react by jerking their arms upward. All within a span of
> > APPROXIMATELY 1/4 second.
>
> You have picked the wrong 1/4 second as the event began with a posture
> of Connally which prohibited a single bullet event.
>
There is nothing in all your crazy calculations that prohibits the
scenario I laid out. A bullet fired from behind JFK passed through the
upper part of his torso on a slightly downward and leftward trajectory.
Without a major deflection as the bullet exited from his throat, that
bullet could not possibly have missed JBC. If you think the SBT requires
an excess angle of deflection, try calulating the angle of deflection that
would be necessary for that bullet to have missed JBC.
>
>
> > > > You fail to allow for the deflection of the bullet as
> > > > it slowed, tumbled, and struck various body parts. The bullet could have
> > > > had multiple changes of direction as it passed first through his torso,
> > > > and then his wrist.
>
> > > Figure 4 tabulates the necessary deflection angle and excess angle of
> > > a bullet that transited Connally’s torso with a given angle of
> > > rightward rotation.
>
> > So in one sentence you tell us the bullet was following a curved path
> > and in another you tell us it was an excess angle.
>
> I defy you to explain in plain English the meaning of “it was an
> excess angle.”
>
Excess angle is the concept you dreamed up. It is not up to me to explain
it. I am not fluent in Blennerese and plain English isn't your strong
suit, so either way, something is likely to be lost in translation.
>
>
> > >http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/jacketbulge_files/broadmaximum.jpg
>
> > > So again, I catch you misrepresenting my work. Do you plead ignorance
> > > or deliberate deception?
>
> > I plead an inability to decypher Blenerese.
>
> Ignorance is no excuse since Myers and I use the language of
> science.
>
It must be a different dialect because I can understand everything
Myers says and I usually have no idea what you are talking about.
Herbert Blenner
The difference between the longitudinal oval and the transverse elliptical
wounds on the back of President Kennedy represents a 90- degree difference
in the tangential component of the striking velocity of the bullet.
The difference between the 15-mm elliptical and the 15-mm oblong wounds on
the back of Governor Connally represents a 30-degree difference in the yaw
angle of the striking missile.
The difference between the fragment in the femur and the fragment just
beneath the surface of the thigh represents the difference between a
plausible and a implausible explanation of the final trek of the single
bullet.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 17, 3:52 pm, Herbert Blenner<a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Aug 16, 11:25 am, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 16, 12:50 am, Herbert Blenner<a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Aug 15, 2:17 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Aug 15, 8:49 am, Herbert Blenner<a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Aug 14, 10:39 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 14, 3:12 pm, Herbert Blenner<a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> On Aug 13, 11:10 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 13, 9:48 pm, Herbert Blenner<a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 13, 4:49 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "If the arm jerk were a physiological reaction to being shot then the bullet had to strike earlier than the motion of the arm."<<<
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Gee, that's a brilliant declaration there.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And the last time I checked, Z224 is BEFORE Z226.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (Duh.)
>>
>>>>>>>>>> exact same time JFK was being hit by a bullet??
>>
>>>>>>>>>> I answered, ? If the arm jerk were a physiological reaction to being
>>>>>>>>>> shot then the bullet had to strike earlier than the motion of the arm.
>>>>>>>>>> This consideration alone invalidates your claim that Connally and JFK
>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am not surprised that you only reply to comments taken out of
>>>>>>>>>> context. Any other method of reply would make you look (duh.)
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Herbert
>>
>>>>>>>>> I realize this is far too simple a concept for you to follow. You must
>>>>>>>>> make everything unduly complicated. Both JFK and JBC reacted in exactly
>>>>>>>>> the same frame, Z226. That was not the frame in which they were hit. That
>>>>>>>>> happened several frames earlier. How many frames we can't be certain of,
>>>>>>>>> but we know the latest it could have happened was Z224 because that is
>>>>>>>>> when JBC's jacket bulged. It's amazingly simple. JFK and JBC were both hit
>>>>>>>>> in the same frame. Both reacted in the same frame. The frame both reacted
>>>>>>>>> in (Z226) came after the frame in which they were hit. I hope I didn't go
>>>>>>>>> too fast for you.
>>
>>>>>>>> Who the hell do you think you are talking down to bigdog?
>>
>>>>>>>> If a bullet caused the jacket to bulge then the wounding had to occur
>>>>>>>> earlier than the bulge of the jacket. This situation arises because it
>>>>>>>> takes time for force from the exiting debris to move the mass of the
>>>>>>>> single bullet event.
>>
>>>>>>>> I know that analytic geometry is way over your head so I post the
>>>>>>>> following link for the benefit of readers.
>>
>>>>>>>> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/jacketbulge.htm
>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps if I dumb it down you may understand that the half right face
>>>>>>>> of the torso required a rightward deflection of a transiting bullet
>>>>>>>> for exit below the right nipple and that this deflection angle had to
>>>>>>>> exceed the angle of the half right face. These factors would have
>>>>>>>> placed an exiting bullet on a course away from the right wrist and the
>>>>>>>> left thigh.
>>
>>>>>>> You seem to be operating under the silly assumption that JBC's right wrist
>>>>>>> would rotate with the torso instead of remaining in position while
>>>>>>> continuing to hold his hat in his lap. While facing forward, his right arm
>>>>>>> would be bent but as he rotated his torso rightward, his right arm would
>>>>>>> simply extend allowing his right hand and wrist to remain in roughly the
>>>>>>> same place. That's the problem you always run into when you try to apply
>>>>>>> engineering principles to biomechanics. The human body is not a rigid
>>>>>>> piece of steel. Angles change as the body moves, but your analysis fails
>>>>>>> to take that into account. If your analysis had any validity, you wouldn't
>>>>>>> have to allege film tampering to make it work.
>>
>>>>>> Look up quick and you may see my argument.
>>
>>>>>> with his torso immediately before being shot worsens an impossible
>>>>>> situation. In other words assuming that the wrist and thigh had
>>>>>> rotated with the torso reduces the angle of leftward deflection by the
>>>>>> bullet after exit from the chest by the angle of the right turn when
>>>>>> shot.
>>
>>>>>> Herbert
>>
>>>>> And all this demonstrates that different body parts do not remain in fixed
>>>>> position relative to one another. Connally's right wrist could be directly
>>>>> in front of his right nipple as he sat facing straight forward, while off
>>>>> to the side of it when he rotated rightward.
>>
>>>> When Governor Connally came into view during the early Z220s he was
>>>> already rotated to the right of facing forward. Frames Z224 through Z226
>>>> show the abrupt leftward rotation of his torso. These are the postures to
>>>> which one must fit their single bullet event.
>>
>>> Yes he was but he was also in the process of rotating back to his left
>>> and it was during that rotation that he was struck. A force exerted
>>> upon his right back would tend to accelerate the motion that had
>>> already begun.
>>
>> Prior to Z-223, Connally was slowly rotating leftward at a speed of
>> one-third degree per frame. Beginning within Z-224 he rotates leftward
>> at about ten degree per frame.
>>
>
> Again you show your lack of understanding of biomechanics. Any motion is
> going to start slowly and accelerate. A golfer after completing his
You think that is true of explosions and bullets in flight?
> backswing, reverses his motion and begins his downswing. Because he
> changes direction, the downswing starts slowly and gathers speed as he
> turns into the hitting area. Connally's torso rotation was similar to a
> golfer's. Even though it was a much slower movement the principle is the
> same. At the point where the direction of rotation changes, the movement
> is zero. The counter rotation begins slowly and gradually picks up speed.
> This would have happened whether JBC had been shot or not. The force of
> the bullet could have provided some acceleration to the movement he
> started on his own, but would not be the primary force.
>
>> You now claim that the bullet could have accelerated the torso from
>> one-third to about ten degrees per frame with the change in speed
>> being about ten degrees per frame. So in essence you have said nothing
>> other than to claim that a bullet could have transferred sufficient
>> momentum to have produced a rotation comparable to the ?back and to
>> the left? motion of President Kennedy.
>>
>> I am curious as to how you use the word hypocrite?
>>
>
> Now you are making shit up. I never stated any such thing nor implied it.
> I said just the opposite. My position is and was that the force of the
> bullet would have been negligible. Of course Marsh will jump in and say
> LNs claim that a bullet can't move a body at all which is also made up
> shit. He can't cite a single post where one of us has taken that position
> but he keeps right on spouting the bullshit.
>
>>
>>
>>>>> Your objection to the SBT
>>>>> rests on two invalid assumptions. First you assume where Connally's right
>>>>> wrist was in relation to his chest at the instant the bullet struck,
>>>>> something you can't know because he was holding his hat in his lap with
>>>>> his right hand was was below the side of the car.
>>
>>>> My objection to a single bullet event during the early Z220s is based
>>>> upon the excess angle by which the bullet must deflect to exit below
>>>> the right nipple. This argument has nothing to do with the position of
>>>> the wrist or the thigh.
>>
>>> How do you determine what constitutes "excess angle"?
>>
>> Excess angle does not refer to a limiting quantity. Instead I define
>> the excess angle as the deflection angle of the bullet that transited
>> Connally?s torso minus the rotation angle of that torso from facing
>> directly forward.
>>
>
> And still you won't tell us how you determine that angle is
> excessive.
>
>>
>>
>>>>> Second you assume a
>>>>> straight line path through Connally's body from the entrance on his armpit
>>>>> to the thigh wound.
>>
>>>> Nutdropings. Figure 3 of ?Bye Bye Jacket Bulge? shows the bullet
>>>> following a curved path through Connally?s torso.
>>
>>> Nice guesswork.
>>
>> Are you the same bigdog who said, ?you assume a straight line path
>> through Connally's body from the entrance on his armpit to the thigh
>> wound?? I ask because all that egg on your face makes recognition
>> impossible.
>>
>
> Yes I made that statement and I stand by it. Are you going to tell us
> whether you believe the bullet passed through JBC on a straight line
> trajectory or it deflected. There are only two choices, it either was or
> was not a straight line. Can you pick one? I'm betting that neither the
> words "yes" or "no" will be part of your evasive reply.
>
>>
>>
>>>> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/jacketbulge_files/parabola.jpg
>>
>>>> The straight red line labeled AB represents the incoming bullet, BC
>>>> stands for the curved path of the bullet as it deflected within
>>>> Connally?s torso and CD shows the straight trajectory after exit from
>>>> the torso.
>>
>>> Another invalid assumption. You don't know what the angle of the exit
>>> was. You are guessing.
>>
>> Obviously you do not understand that the locations of the back and
>> chest wounds dictate an ?angle of exit? for each possible rotation
>> angle. The table, ?Broad Maximum? shows the one-to one correspondence
>> between the rotation angle, the deflection angle and the excess
>> angle.
>>
>> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/jacketbulge_files/broadmaximum.jpg
>>
>
> Leave it to you to complicate a simple issue. You have a table which
> declares the excess angle to the difference between the rotation and
> deflection. Are we to conclude from that that the only angle that would
> not be in excess is 0.0 which would mean the rotation equaled the
> deflection. Is this the Blenerese way of saying the bullet should have
> gone straight through him?
>
>>>> Now that I have disproved you claimed assumption of ?a straight line
>>>> path through Connally?s body from the entrance on his armpit to the
>>>> thigh wound?, I give you an opportunity to acknowledge your falsehood
>>>> by retraction.
>>
>>> You have proven nothing other than your ability to complicate a very
>>> simple concept. Bullet strikes JFK and JBC. JBC's jacket bulges. JFK
>>> and JBC react by jerking their arms upward. All within a span of
>>> APPROXIMATELY 1/4 second.
>>
>> You have picked the wrong 1/4 second as the event began with a posture
>> of Connally which prohibited a single bullet event.
>>
>
> There is nothing in all your crazy calculations that prohibits the
> scenario I laid out. A bullet fired from behind JFK passed through the
> upper part of his torso on a slightly downward and leftward trajectory.
> Without a major deflection as the bullet exited from his throat, that
> bullet could not possibly have missed JBC. If you think the SBT requires
> an excess angle of deflection, try calulating the angle of deflection that
> would be necessary for that bullet to have missed JBC.
>
>>
>>
>>>>> You fail to allow for the deflection of the bullet as
>>>>> it slowed, tumbled, and struck various body parts. The bullet could have
>>>>> had multiple changes of direction as it passed first through his torso,
>>>>> and then his wrist.
>>
>>>> Figure 4 tabulates the necessary deflection angle and excess angle of
>>>> a bullet that transited Connally?s torso with a given angle of
>>>> rightward rotation.
>>
>>> So in one sentence you tell us the bullet was following a curved path
>>> and in another you tell us it was an excess angle.
>>
>> I defy you to explain in plain English the meaning of ?it was an
>> excess angle.?
Herbert Blenner
Nobody said that direction of Connally’s rotation changed. Instead I
wrote, “Prior to Z-223, Connally was slowly rotating leftward at a
speed of one-third degree per frame. Beginning within Z-224 he rotates
leftward at about ten degree per frame.”
Apparently you have trouble comprehending more than a simple
paragraph.
>
> > You now claim that the bullet could have accelerated the torso from
> > one-third to about ten degrees per frame with the change in speed
> > being about ten degrees per frame. So in essence you have said nothing
> > other than to claim that a bullet could have transferred sufficient
> > momentum to have produced a rotation comparable to the “back and to
> > the left” motion of President Kennedy.
>
> > I am curious as to how you use the word hypocrite?
>
> Now you are making shit up. I never stated any such thing nor implied it.
> I said just the opposite. My position is and was that the force of the
> bullet would have been negligible. Of course Marsh will jump in and say
> LNs claim that a bullet can't move a body at all which is also made up
> shit. He can't cite a single post where one of us has taken that position
> but he keeps right on spouting the bullshit.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > Your objection to the SBT
> > > > > rests on two invalid assumptions. First you assume where Connally's right
> > > > > wrist was in relation to his chest at the instant the bullet struck,
> > > > > something you can't know because he was holding his hat in his lap with
> > > > > his right hand was was below the side of the car.
>
> > > > My objection to a single bullet event during the early Z220s is based
> > > > upon the excess angle by which the bullet must deflect to exit below
> > > > the right nipple. This argument has nothing to do with the position of
> > > > the wrist or the thigh.
>
> > > How do you determine what constitutes "excess angle"?
Excess is the name of the angle, you -----!
Herbert
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
Answer my question. What was wrong with the Humes SBT?
> Herbert
>
Herbert Blenner
Understanding my answer is your responsibility. Nevertheless I will
try to communicate with you once again.
The medical reports on Governor Connally’s wounds lacked the necessary
forensic information for Humes to have reached an educated conclusion.
To make matters worse, the later testimonies of the Parkland doctors
contradicted and revised some contents of the medical reports shown to
Humes.
Herbert
Sandy McCroskey
Big problem with your logic here.
If there are many plausible ways something could happen (such as two
men's wounds being caused by the same bullet), even though it may be
impossible after the fact to determine in which particular way it in
fact occurred in that small space of time, that doesn't *decrease* the
probability that this something occurred, in one of those ways. Quite
the contrary. That there are several possible explanations, differing in
detail, is all to the good. In this case, they're all more plausible
than the only alternative explanation, that there was another shooter,
which is simply not feasible; there is no good argument for it.
/sm
bigdog
> On Aug 17, 3:54 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 17, 10:21 am, Herbert Blenner <a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Why can't you WC defenders agree on a single Single Bullet Theory?
> > > > Why do you have a Single Bullet Theory of the Month Club?
>
> > > Your simple question has a simple answer. They need a different Single
> > > Bullet Theory for each different set of wounds.
>
> > You guys are too much. Because there is a miniscule difference of
> > opinion on the exact frame the bullet actually struck, a difference of
> > a split second, you guys consider this to be differing Single Bullet
> > Theories. Yes, it would be nice if the evidence was definitive enough
> > to allow us that level of precision, but the low resolution and slow
> > speed of the Z-film precludes that level of certainty. We've done
> > pretty well with what we have to work with. While we have a difference
> > of opinion amounting to at most a tenth of a second, the CTs can't
> > even agree on how many shooters there were, where the shooters, were
> > how many shots there were, and who was behind the shooting. You know.
> > The real trivial stuff.
>
> The difference between the longitudinal oval and the transverse elliptical
> wounds on the back of President Kennedy represents a 90- degree difference
> in the tangential component of the striking velocity of the bullet.
>
> The difference between the 15-mm elliptical and the 15-mm oblong wounds on
> the back of Governor Connally represents a 30-degree difference in the yaw
> angle of the striking missile.
>
Is that Blennerese for the bullet was tumbling when it hit JBC in the
back?
> The difference between the fragment in the femur and the fragment just
> beneath the surface of the thigh represents the difference between a
> plausible and a implausible explanation of the final trek of the single
> bullet.
>
I think you need to fill in a few blanks on that one.
Anthony Marsh
No. You WC defenders say that there is only one way that something could
happen. And each inventor of the next SBT claims that his solution is
the only possible solution and is perfectly correct.
bigdog
I didn't think anybody needed to say that. It was pretty obvious he
rotated to his right before he rotated back to his left. The change in
direction would result in a gradual acceleration of the leftward rotation.
Or do you think he was already turned to his right when the limo turned
onto Elm St?
bigdog
And apparently, you have trouble giving a direct answer to a direct
question. I asked you the simple question whether you believed the bullet
passed through JBC on a straight line trajectory, and as I predicted
neither the words "yes" or "no" appeared in your reply. Apparently there
is no word in Blennerese for either of those. You also failed to answer
my question as to whether you believe more than one bullet caused JBC's
wounds and also declined my invitation for you to present a viable
alternative to the SBT. If you are going to tell us it didn't happen the
SBT way, it had to happen another way. Why is it you can't explain another
way it could have happened?
Herbert Blenner
>
> - Show quoted text -
.As usual you ask an overly simplified question. I contend that
Connally was not shot during the early Z220s when the bullet would
have needed to sharply deflect rightward to exit below the right
nipple. Earlier I said as much when I wrote the following.
"Perhaps if I dumb it down you may understand that the half right face
of the torso required a rightward deflection of a transiting bullet
for exit below the right nipple and that this deflection angle had to
exceed the angle of the half right face. These factors would have
placed an exiting bullet on a course away from the right wrist and the
left thigh."
Herbert
Sandy McCroskey
It's a sign of desperation when you put words into other people's
mouths and resort to injudicious generalization.
And of course you didn't address the logical point at all.
I could have supplied this reply myself, and saved you the trouble.
"And Marsh will say..."
/sm
Herbert Blenner
You are totally hopeless, mister.
Herbert
bigdog
Asking you whether you think the bullet traveled on a straight line or
deflected is an overly simplified question? I realize you want to make
things as complicated as possible, but tha rather simple question is
central to this issue. Because if the bullet deflected at all, all you
calculations about the possible angles go right out the window. Bullets do
change course as they strike objects. Like all move objects, they take the
avenue of least resistance. They will cause damage to what they strike,
but they will also change course. If the bullet did not travel on the same
vector upon leaving JBC's torso as it did upon entering JBC's torso, your
calculations are meaningless. If the bullet was not traveling on the same
vector from his chest to his wrist as it did from his wrist to his thigh,
you calculations are meaningless.
You fail to explain how the bullet path is more plausible later in the
Z-film than it was in the early Z220s and steadfastly refuse to state a
time frame when you think the bullet path was more plausible. You refuse
to say whether JBC's wounds were caused by one bullet or more than one.
You refuse to say where you think the shot(s) were fired from. It is
understandable why you won't commit to where or when the shots were fired
because you know full well that no alternative explaination could stand up
to the same scrutiny you want to apply to the SBT.
> I contend that
> Connally was not shot during the early Z220s when the bullet would
> have needed to sharply deflect rightward to exit below the right
> nipple.
Brilliant!!! You claim the JBC could not have been shot at the time when
we see his jacket bulge and both JFK and JBC simultaneously jerk their
arms upward but you won't tell us when you think he was shot. If you are
going to dismiss the SBT and expect to be taken seriously, you need to
give us a more plausible way it could have happened. Otherwise all your
verbosity can simply be dismissed as pure filibuster.
> Earlier I said as much when I wrote the following.
>
> "Perhaps if I dumb it down you may understand that the half right face
> of the torso required a rightward deflection of a transiting bullet
> for exit below the right nipple and that this deflection angle had to
> exceed the angle of the half right face. These factors would have
> placed an exiting bullet on a course away from the right wrist and the
> left thigh."
>
So you claim, but it is plain silly to argue how a bullet could or could
not deflect. It is simply an unpredictable event with variables that are
simply to numerous to allow us to restrict the flight of such a bullet to
such narrow constraints as you want to place on it.
Anthony Marsh
A few seconds search would pop up the message from a WC defender which
has said that several times.
Sandy McCroskey
So what
I'm not him, and I didn't say that.
Of course people are attached to their personal theories. That's just
human nature.
But that says nothing about whether the fact that several theories can
be proposed for how a single bullet could cause both men's injuries is
any kind of evidence *against* the probabilty of such an outcome
occurring in one of those ways (or another). And it isn't. Quite the
contrary.
/sm
Herbert Blenner
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/jacketbulge.htm
> If the bullet was not traveling on the same
> vector from his chest to his wrist as it did from his wrist to his thigh,
> you calculations are meaningless.
The successful probing of the wrist wound by Doctor Gregory shows that
the bullet was traveling “on the same vector from his chest to his
wrist as it did from his wrist to his thigh.”
> You fail to explain how the bullet path is more plausible later in the
> Z-film than it was in the early Z220s and steadfastly refuse to state a
> time frame when you think the bullet path was more plausible.
Nutdroppings. I quote from the above link. "A moderate right turn of
Connally's torso is devastating for a single bullet event." So any
time that Connally was nearly facing forward would be a more plausible
time frame.
> You refuse
> to say whether JBC's wounds were caused by one bullet or more than one.
> You refuse to say where you think the shot(s) were fired from. It is
> understandable why you won't commit to where or when the shots were fired
> because you know full well that no alternative explaination could stand up
> to the same scrutiny you want to apply to the SBT.
None of the questions that you raise are relevant to what happens to a
bullet that entered Connally’s back and exited his chest while his
torso was rotated rightward.
>
> > I contend that
> > Connally was not shot during the early Z220s when the bullet would
> > have needed to sharply deflect rightward to exit below the right
> > nipple.
>
> Brilliant!!! You claim the JBC could not have been shot at the time when
> we see his jacket bulge and both JFK and JBC simultaneously jerk their
> arms upward but you won't tell us when you think he was shot. If you are
> going to dismiss the SBT and expect to be taken seriously, you need to
> give us a more plausible way it could have happened. Otherwise all your
> verbosity can simply be dismissed as pure filibuster.
A single bullet event could not have occurred when the missile exited
the chest on a course that would have missed the thigh and possibly
the unseen wrist.
You should know that a single bullet event is akin to pregnancy. In
both cases it’s all or nothing.
>
> > Earlier I said as much when I wrote the following.
>
> > "Perhaps if I dumb it down you may understand that the half right face
> > of the torso required a rightward deflection of a transiting bullet
> > for exit below the right nipple and that this deflection angle had to
> > exceed the angle of the half right face. These factors would have
> > placed an exiting bullet on a course away from the right wrist and the
> > left thigh."
>
> So you claim, but it is plain silly to argue how a bullet could or could
> not deflect. It is simply an unpredictable event with variables that are
> simply to numerous to allow us to restrict the flight of such a bullet to
> such narrow constraints as you want to place on it.
The locations of Connally’s torso wounds when turned toward his right
demanded that a bullet from the sniper’s nest defected. A straight
course through Connally and a deflection while transiting Kennedy is
prohibited by the right side of the limousine that prevented Connally
from being about one foot to the right of Kennedy. So as I said
earlier, a deflection of the bullet while transiting Connally was
necessary for a wounding during the early Z220s.
Herbert
bigdog
> On Aug 19, 8:54 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 19, 11:35 am, Herbert Blenner <a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > .As usual you ask an overly simplified question.
>
> > Asking you whether you think the bullet traveled on a straight line or
> > deflected is an overly simplified question? I realize you want to make
> > things as complicated as possible, but tha rather simple question is
> > central to this issue. Because if the bullet deflected at all, all you
> > calculations about the possible angles go right out the window. Bullets do
> > change course as they strike objects. Like all move objects, they take the
> > avenue of least resistance. They will cause damage to what they strike,
> > but they will also change course. If the bullet did not travel on the same
> > vector upon leaving JBC's torso as it did upon entering JBC's torso, your
> > calculations are meaningless.
> Are you too stupid to understand that the word deflection appears seventeen times in the following link because I have considered deflection of the bullet during
> transit of Governor Connally’s torso?
You may have considered it but there is no way you could calculate it. The
amount and direction of deflection cannot be predicted. It depends on too
many unknown variables. It cannot be calculated unless you know PRECISELY
the positions of the impacted body parts in relation to one another. You
cannot calculate the deflection from the torso entrance to exit because
you would have to assume the bullet traveled in a straight path through
it. Slow motion films of bullets fired through gelatin blocks show that
they curve as they transit and those were bullets that had not yawed prior
to entering and did not strike hard bone. Since you can't know the precise
direction the bullet was traveling on as it exited the chest nor the
position of the wrist in relation to the exit wound, you can't calculate
the amount of deflection. Since you don't know the position of the wrist
in relation to the thigh, you can't calculate the amount of that
deflection either.
> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/jacketbulge.htm
>
> > If the bullet was not traveling on the same
> > vector from his chest to his wrist as it did from his wrist to his thigh,
> > you calculations are meaningless.
>
> The successful probing of the wrist wound by Doctor Gregory shows that
> the bullet was traveling “on the same vector from his chest to his
> wrist as it did from his wrist to his thigh.”
>
Dr. Gregory could tell where the bullet entered and where it exited the
wrist. He would have not be able to determine precisely the direction the
bullet was traveling when it entered or after it exited. At best he could
determine a general direction.
> > You fail to explain how the bullet path is more plausible later in the
> > Z-film than it was in the early Z220s and steadfastly refuse to state a
> > time frame when you think the bullet path was more plausible.
>
> Nutdroppings. I quote from the above link. "A moderate right turn of
> Connally's torso is devastating for a single bullet event." So any
> time that Connally was nearly facing forward would be a more plausible
> time frame.
>
Stating something is not the same as explaining it. You are simply
making an assumption.
> > You refuse
> > to say whether JBC's wounds were caused by one bullet or more than one.
> > You refuse to say where you think the shot(s) were fired from. It is
> > understandable why you won't commit to where or when the shots were fired
> > because you know full well that no alternative explaination could stand up
> > to the same scrutiny you want to apply to the SBT.
>
> None of the questions that you raise are relevant to what happens to a
> bullet that entered Connally’s back and exited his chest while his
> torso was rotated rightward.
>
The discussion is about the validity of the SBT so the question whether or
not JBC was hit by one bullet or more than one is very relevant. If you
can't even figure that part out and take a stance on it, why should we
take anything else you have to say seriously. You also ignored the
question regarding where the shots were fired from. This is also
fundamental to determining the validity of the SBT. All you want to do is
tell us how it couldn't have happened without giving us another way it
could have happened. Why should we dismiss the SBT if you can't give us a
plausible alternative?
>
>
> > > I contend that
> > > Connally was not shot during the early Z220s when the bullet would
> > > have needed to sharply deflect rightward to exit below the right
> > > nipple.
>
> > Brilliant!!! You claim the JBC could not have been shot at the time when
> > we see his jacket bulge and both JFK and JBC simultaneously jerk their
> > arms upward but you won't tell us when you think he was shot. If you are
> > going to dismiss the SBT and expect to be taken seriously, you need to
> > give us a more plausible way it could have happened. Otherwise all your
> > verbosity can simply be dismissed as pure filibuster.
>
> A single bullet event could not have occurred when the missile exited
> the chest on a course that would have missed the thigh and possibly
> the unseen wrist.
>
How can you know what the bullet could or could not have hit unless
you can determine both the angle of deflection and the relative
position of the wounds in relation to each other.
> You should know that a single bullet event is akin to pregnancy. In
> both cases it’s all or nothing.
>
That's easy. It's all. For you its nothing because that is what you have
offered us in the way of an alternative. Hell, you can't even figure out
how many bullets hit JBC or where they were fired from. The simple fact is
the SBT answers all the pertinent questions and you answer none of them.
That's why the choice is easy.
>
>
> > > Earlier I said as much when I wrote the following.
>
> > > "Perhaps if I dumb it down you may understand that the half right face
> > > of the torso required a rightward deflection of a transiting bullet
> > > for exit below the right nipple and that this deflection angle had to
> > > exceed the angle of the half right face. These factors would have
> > > placed an exiting bullet on a course away from the right wrist and the
> > > left thigh."
>
> > So you claim, but it is plain silly to argue how a bullet could or could
> > not deflect. It is simply an unpredictable event with variables that are
> > simply to numerous to allow us to restrict the flight of such a bullet to
> > such narrow constraints as you want to place on it.
>
> The locations of Connally’s torso wounds when turned toward his right
> demanded that a bullet from the sniper’s nest defected. A straight
> course through Connally and a deflection while transiting Kennedy is
> prohibited by the right side of the limousine that prevented Connally
> from being about one foot to the right of Kennedy. So as I said
> earlier, a deflection of the bullet while transiting Connally was
> necessary for a wounding during the early Z220s.
>
The photos produced by the WC recreations show that JFK and JBC were in
the same line of fire for a shot fired from the sniper's nest. A bullet
passed through JFK's upper torso and exited from his throat. There is no
evidence of a bullet striking anywhere directly in front of him other than
JBC's body. That fact alone should tell us the SBT is the only plausible
answer.
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 20, 11:15 pm, Herbert Blenner<a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Aug 19, 8:54 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 19, 11:35 am, Herbert Blenner<a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> .As usual you ask an overly simplified question.
>>
>>> Asking you whether you think the bullet traveled on a straight line or
>>> deflected is an overly simplified question? I realize you want to make
>>> things as complicated as possible, but tha rather simple question is
>>> central to this issue. Because if the bullet deflected at all, all you
>>> calculations about the possible angles go right out the window. Bullets do
>>> change course as they strike objects. Like all move objects, they take the
>>> avenue of least resistance. They will cause damage to what they strike,
>>> but they will also change course. If the bullet did not travel on the same
>>> vector upon leaving JBC's torso as it did upon entering JBC's torso, your
>>> calculations are meaningless.
>
>> Are you too stupid to understand that the word deflection appears seventeen times in the following link because I have considered deflection of the bullet during
>
> You may have considered it but there is no way you could calculate it. The
> amount and direction of deflection cannot be predicted. It depends on too
> many unknown variables. It cannot be calculated unless you know PRECISELY
> the positions of the impacted body parts in relation to one another. You
> cannot calculate the deflection from the torso entrance to exit because
> you would have to assume the bullet traveled in a straight path through
> it. Slow motion films of bullets fired through gelatin blocks show that
> they curve as they transit and those were bullets that had not yawed prior
> to entering and did not strike hard bone. Since you can't know the precise
> direction the bullet was traveling on as it exited the chest nor the
> position of the wrist in relation to the exit wound, you can't calculate
> the amount of deflection. Since you don't know the position of the wrist
> in relation to the thigh, you can't calculate the amount of that
> deflection either.
>
And since YOU can not know it either there is no way that you can prove
YOUR SBT. All you can do is guess.
>> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/jacketbulge.htm
>>
>>> If the bullet was not traveling on the same
>>> vector from his chest to his wrist as it did from his wrist to his thigh,
>>> you calculations are meaningless.
>>
>> The successful probing of the wrist wound by Doctor Gregory shows that
>> the bullet was traveling ?on the same vector from his chest to his
>> wrist as it did from his wrist to his thigh.?
>>
>
> Dr. Gregory could tell where the bullet entered and where it exited the
> wrist. He would have not be able to determine precisely the direction the
> bullet was traveling when it entered or after it exited. At best he could
> determine a general direction.
>
Except that he got the entrance and exit wrong and had to be told to
"correct" his drawing.
>>> You fail to explain how the bullet path is more plausible later in the
>>> Z-film than it was in the early Z220s and steadfastly refuse to state a
>>> time frame when you think the bullet path was more plausible.
>>
>> Nutdroppings. I quote from the above link. "A moderate right turn of
>> Connally's torso is devastating for a single bullet event." So any
>> time that Connally was nearly facing forward would be a more plausible
>> time frame.
>>
>
> Stating something is not the same as explaining it. You are simply
> making an assumption.
>
Connally said that he was nearly facing forward when he was hit.
>>> You refuse
>>> to say whether JBC's wounds were caused by one bullet or more than one.
>>> You refuse to say where you think the shot(s) were fired from. It is
>>> understandable why you won't commit to where or when the shots were fired
>>> because you know full well that no alternative explaination could stand up
>>> to the same scrutiny you want to apply to the SBT.
>>
>> None of the questions that you raise are relevant to what happens to a
>> bullet that entered Connally?s back and exited his chest while his
>> torso was rotated rightward.
>>
>
> The discussion is about the validity of the SBT so the question whether or
> not JBC was hit by one bullet or more than one is very relevant. If you
> can't even figure that part out and take a stance on it, why should we
> take anything else you have to say seriously. You also ignored the
> question regarding where the shots were fired from. This is also
> fundamental to determining the validity of the SBT. All you want to do is
> tell us how it couldn't have happened without giving us another way it
> could have happened. Why should we dismiss the SBT if you can't give us a
> plausible alternative?
>
If you can't even show a perfectly straight line for your SBT, then why
should we take anything else you have to say seriously?
>>
>>
>>>> I contend that
>>>> Connally was not shot during the early Z220s when the bullet would
>>>> have needed to sharply deflect rightward to exit below the right
>>>> nipple.
>>
>>> Brilliant!!! You claim the JBC could not have been shot at the time when
>>> we see his jacket bulge and both JFK and JBC simultaneously jerk their
>>> arms upward but you won't tell us when you think he was shot. If you are
>>> going to dismiss the SBT and expect to be taken seriously, you need to
>>> give us a more plausible way it could have happened. Otherwise all your
>>> verbosity can simply be dismissed as pure filibuster.
>>
>> A single bullet event could not have occurred when the missile exited
>> the chest on a course that would have missed the thigh and possibly
>> the unseen wrist.
>>
>
> How can you know what the bullet could or could not have hit unless
> you can determine both the angle of deflection and the relative
> position of the wounds in relation to each other.
>
>> You should know that a single bullet event is akin to pregnancy. In
>> both cases it?s all or nothing.
>>
>
> That's easy. It's all. For you its nothing because that is what you have
> offered us in the way of an alternative. Hell, you can't even figure out
> how many bullets hit JBC or where they were fired from. The simple fact is
> the SBT answers all the pertinent questions and you answer none of them.
> That's why the choice is easy.
>
Humes did. Two from the sniper's nest.
>>
>>
>>>> Earlier I said as much when I wrote the following.
>>
>>>> "Perhaps if I dumb it down you may understand that the half right face
>>>> of the torso required a rightward deflection of a transiting bullet
>>>> for exit below the right nipple and that this deflection angle had to
>>>> exceed the angle of the half right face. These factors would have
>>>> placed an exiting bullet on a course away from the right wrist and the
>>>> left thigh."
>>
>>> So you claim, but it is plain silly to argue how a bullet could or could
>>> not deflect. It is simply an unpredictable event with variables that are
>>> simply to numerous to allow us to restrict the flight of such a bullet to
>>> such narrow constraints as you want to place on it.
>>
>> The locations of Connally?s torso wounds when turned toward his right
>> demanded that a bullet from the sniper?s nest defected. A straight
>> course through Connally and a deflection while transiting Kennedy is
>> prohibited by the right side of the limousine that prevented Connally
>> from being about one foot to the right of Kennedy. So as I said
>> earlier, a deflection of the bullet while transiting Connally was
>> necessary for a wounding during the early Z220s.
>>
>
> The photos produced by the WC recreations show that JFK and JBC were in
> the same line of fire for a shot fired from the sniper's nest. A bullet
> passed through JFK's upper torso and exited from his throat. There is no
> evidence of a bullet striking anywhere directly in front of him other than
> JBC's body. That fact alone should tell us the SBT is the only plausible
> answer.
>
>
No, you are ignoring the fact that the bullet was deflected when it hit
T1.
Herbert Blenner
> On Aug 20, 11:15 pm, Herbert Blenner <a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 19, 8:54 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 19, 11:35 am, Herbert Blenner <a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > .As usual you ask an overly simplified question.
>
> > > Asking you whether you think the bullet traveled on a straight line or
> > > deflected is an overly simplified question? I realize you want to make
> > > things as complicated as possible, but tha rather simple question is
> > > central to this issue. Because if the bullet deflected at all, all you
> > > calculations about the possible angles go right out the window. Bullets do
> > > change course as they strike objects. Like all move objects, they take the
> > > avenue of least resistance. They will cause damage to what they strike,
> > > but they will also change course. If the bullet did not travel on the same
> > > vector upon leaving JBC's torso as it did upon entering JBC's torso, your
> > > calculations are meaningless.
> > Are you too stupid to understand that the word deflection appears seventeen times in the following link because I have considered deflection of the bullet during
> > transit of Governor Connally’s torso?
>
> You may have considered it but there is no way you could calculate it. The
> amount and direction of deflection cannot be predicted. It depends on too
> many unknown variables. It cannot be calculated unless you know PRECISELY
> the positions of the impacted body parts in relation to one another. You
> cannot calculate the deflection from the torso entrance to exit because
> you would have to assume the bullet traveled in a straight path through
> it.
The “amount and direction” of the deflection was such that the bullet
which entered Connally’s back exited his chest. These two points along
the trajectory enables calculation of the deflection angle and the excess
angle because the rotation angle of the torso and the direction of the
entering bullet are known.
Your method of recognizing too many variables is dependent upon neglecting
the known relationships between the variables. This method ensures that
the number of known relationships could never equal the number of
variables and thereby permit finding values for each variable.
Claiming that “You cannot calculate the deflection from the torso
entrance to exit because you would have to assume the bullet traveled in a
straight path through it.” shows that you do not even understand the
meaning of a deflection angle.
If the bullet traveled through the torso on a straight path then the
deflection angle between the direction of the inshoot and the direction of
the outshoot would be zero. By contrast the directions of the inshoot and
the outshoot differ for a curved trajectory through the torso and gives
rise to a non-zero deflection angle.
> Slow motion films of bullets fired through gelatin blocks show that
> they curve as they transit and those were bullets that had not yawed prior
> to entering and did not strike hard bone. Since you can't know the precise
> direction the bullet was traveling on as it exited the chest nor the
> position of the wrist in relation to the exit wound, you can't calculate
> the amount of deflection. Since you don't know the position of the wrist
> in relation to the thigh, you can't calculate the amount of that
> deflection either.
Again you ignore the known location of the exit wound to pretend that the
deflection angle while transiting the torso is unknowable. Then you
compound neglect of known facts by raising the dead issue of the
successfully probed wrist as a deflector.
>
> >http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/jacketbulge.htm
>
> > > If the bullet was not traveling on the same
> > > vector from his chest to his wrist as it did from his wrist to his thigh,
> > > you calculations are meaningless.
>
> > The successful probing of the wrist wound by Doctor Gregory shows that
> > the bullet was traveling “on the same vector from his chest to his
> > wrist as it did from his wrist to his thigh.”
>
> Dr. Gregory could tell where the bullet entered and where it exited the
> wrist. He would have not be able to determine precisely the direction the
> bullet was traveling when it entered or after it exited. At best he could
> determine a general direction.
You are confusing the straightness of the probed path with
determination of the bullet’s direction.
>
> > > You fail to explain how the bullet path is more plausible later in the
> > > Z-film than it was in the early Z220s and steadfastly refuse to state a
> > > time frame when you think the bullet path was more plausible.
>
> > Nutdroppings. I quote from the above link. "A moderate right turn of
> > Connally's torso is devastating for a single bullet event." So any
> > time that Connally was nearly facing forward would be a more plausible
> > time frame.
>
> Stating something is not the same as explaining it. You are simply
> making an assumption.
I assumed truthfulness of Gregory Exhibit 1 that specified that locations
of Connally’s back and chest wounds. Now shows us that you understand my
work by describing my other assumption. This should be easy since I began
the principal sentence with a give away word.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/jacketbulge.htm
>
> > > You refuse
> > > to say whether JBC's wounds were caused by one bullet or more than one.
> > > You refuse to say where you think the shot(s) were fired from. It is
> > > understandable why you won't commit to where or when the shots were fired
> > > because you know full well that no alternative explaination could stand up
> > > to the same scrutiny you want to apply to the SBT.
>
> > None of the questions that you raise are relevant to what happens to a
> > bullet that entered Connally’s back and exited his chest while his
> > torso was rotated rightward.
>
> The discussion is about the validity of the SBT so the question whether or
> not JBC was hit by one bullet or more than one is very relevant. If you
> can't even figure that part out and take a stance on it, why should we
> take anything else you have to say seriously. You also ignored the
> question regarding where the shots were fired from. This is also
> fundamental to determining the validity of the SBT. All you want to do is
> tell us how it couldn't have happened without giving us another way it
> could have happened. Why should we dismiss the SBT if you can't give us a
> plausible alternative?
Do you understand simple English? The phrase “what happens to a
bullet” makes it crystal clear that I am talking about one bullet. So
try to strict to the particular topic of one bullet making two wounds as
it transited the torso of Governor Connally.
Where the shots were fired from is irrelevant to the direction of the
bullet that entered Connally’s back because Kennedy’s torso could have
deflected the transiting bullet. If you were serious about knowing
“where the shots were fired from” then you would be talking the
striking angles of the bullet upon the back of Kennedy. Clearly all you
want to do is to raise non issues to evade the problems caused the abrupt
front and to the left rotations of Connally’s torso that was comparable
to the back and to the left rotations of Kennedy’s torso.
> > > > I contend that
> > > > Connally was not shot during the early Z220s when the bullet would
> > > > have needed to sharply deflect rightward to exit below the right
> > > > nipple.
>
> > > Brilliant!!! You claim the JBC could not have been shot at the time when
> > > we see his jacket bulge and both JFK and JBC simultaneously jerk their
> > > arms upward but you won't tell us when you think he was shot. If you are
> > > going to dismiss the SBT and expect to be taken seriously, you need to
> > > give us a more plausible way it could have happened. Otherwise all your
> > > verbosity can simply be dismissed as pure filibuster.
>
> > A single bullet event could not have occurred when the missile exited
> > the chest on a course that would have missed the thigh and possibly
> > the unseen wrist.
>
> How can you know what the bullet could or could not have hit unless
> you can determine both the angle of deflection and the relative
> position of the wounds in relation to each other.
I have determined the deflection angle for transit of the torso and the
Warren Commission gave us the position of the thigh wound in relation to
the chest wound. As for the wrist, knowing its position is unnecessary
because we know that the missile transited without deflection.
>
> > You should know that a single bullet event is akin to pregnancy. In
> > both cases it’s all or nothing.
>
> That's easy. It's all. For you its nothing because that is what you have
> offered us in the way of an alternative. Hell, you can't even figure out
> how many bullets hit JBC or where they were fired from. The simple fact is
> the SBT answers all the pertinent questions and you answer none of them.
> That's why the choice is easy.
Yes, bigbog. We know all about your partial pregnancy. I heard that
you are expecting 2.3 pups by the end of the month.
Herbert
bigdog
You speak of the deflection angle as if there was one. Every time the left
one body part and struck another, there would be additional deflections.
To calculate the amount of deflection, you would have to know where each
body part was in relation to the others, something you can't know. You are
also assuming a straight line transit through the torso which is unlikely.
You would need to now the curvature of that path, something you also can't
know. You are simply guessing.
> Your method of recognizing too many variables is dependent upon neglecting
> the known relationships between the variables. This method ensures that
> the number of known relationships could never equal the number of
> variables and thereby permit finding values for each variable.
>
If there are any unknown variables, your calculations are meaningless.
You are proceeding as if there are no variables.
> Claiming that “You cannot calculate the deflection from the torso
> entrance to exit because you would have to assume the bullet traveled in a
> straight path through it.” shows that you do not even understand the
> meaning of a deflection angle.
>
I do understand the difference between curvature and deflection.
> If the bullet traveled through the torso on a straight path then the
> deflection angle between the direction of the inshoot and the direction of
> the outshoot would be zero. By contrast the directions of the inshoot and
> the outshoot differ for a curved trajectory through the torso and gives
> rise to a non-zero deflection angle.
>
Now if you only knew the curvature.
> > Slow motion films of bullets fired through gelatin blocks show that
> > they curve as they transit and those were bullets that had not yawed prior
> > to entering and did not strike hard bone. Since you can't know the precise
> > direction the bullet was traveling on as it exited the chest nor the
> > position of the wrist in relation to the exit wound, you can't calculate
> > the amount of deflection. Since you don't know the position of the wrist
> > in relation to the thigh, you can't calculate the amount of that
> > deflection either.
>
> Again you ignore the known location of the exit wound to pretend that the
> deflection angle while transiting the torso is unknowable. Then you
> compound neglect of known facts by raising the dead issue of the
> successfully probed wrist as a deflector.
>
I don't ignore anything. I'm just smart enough to know what we don't know
and what we don't know precludes the precise calculation of that bullet
path. We know the bullet left his chest and struck his wrist and deflected
into the thigh. What we don't know is exactly where that wrist was in
relation to the chest and in relation to the thigh. We can at best
approximate these things.
>
>
> > >http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/jacketbulge.htm
>
> > > > If the bullet was not traveling on the same
> > > > vector from his chest to his wrist as it did from his wrist to his thigh,
> > > > you calculations are meaningless.
>
> > > The successful probing of the wrist wound by Doctor Gregory shows that
> > > the bullet was traveling “on the same vector from his chest to his
> > > wrist as it did from his wrist to his thigh.”
>
> > Dr. Gregory could tell where the bullet entered and where it exited the
> > wrist. He would have not be able to determine precisely the direction the
> > bullet was traveling when it entered or after it exited. At best he could
> > determine a general direction.
>
> You are confusing the straightness of the probed path with
> determination of the bullet’s direction.
>
You think you can determine precisely how that bullet went from his wrist
to his thigh. You can't know that without knowing where the wrist was in
relation to the thigh. We know the bullet went from this chest, to his
wrist, to his thigh. We don't know exactly where that wrist was, only that
it was in position to receive the bullet.
>
>
> > > > You fail to explain how the bullet path is more plausible later in the
> > > > Z-film than it was in the early Z220s and steadfastly refuse to state a
> > > > time frame when you think the bullet path was more plausible.
>
> > > Nutdroppings. I quote from the above link. "A moderate right turn of
> > > Connally's torso is devastating for a single bullet event." So any
> > > time that Connally was nearly facing forward would be a more plausible
> > > time frame.
>
> > Stating something is not the same as explaining it. You are simply
> > making an assumption.
>
> I assumed truthfulness of Gregory Exhibit 1 that specified that locations
> of Connally’s back and chest wounds. Now shows us that you understand my
> work by describing my other assumption. This should be easy since I began
> the principal sentence with a give away word.
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/jacketbulge.htm
>
I'm supposed to understand your rantings?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > You refuse
> > > > to say whether JBC's wounds were caused by one bullet or more than one.
> > > > You refuse to say where you think the shot(s) were fired from. It is
> > > > understandable why you won't commit to where or when the shots were fired
> > > > because you know full well that no alternative explaination could stand up
> > > > to the same scrutiny you want to apply to the SBT.
>
> > > None of the questions that you raise are relevant to what happens to a
> > > bullet that entered Connally’s back and exited his chest while his
> > > torso was rotated rightward.
>
> > The discussion is about the validity of the SBT so the question whether or
> > not JBC was hit by one bullet or more than one is very relevant. If you
> > can't even figure that part out and take a stance on it, why should we
> > take anything else you have to say seriously. You also ignored the
> > question regarding where the shots were fired from. This is also
> > fundamental to determining the validity of the SBT. All you want to do is
> > tell us how it couldn't have happened without giving us another way it
> > could have happened. Why should we dismiss the SBT if you can't give us a
> > plausible alternative?
>
> Do you understand simple English?
Do you ever speak in simple English?
> The phrase “what happens to a
> bullet” makes it crystal clear that I am talking about one bullet. So
> try to strict to the particular topic of one bullet making two wounds as
> it transited the torso of Governor Connally.
>
Wonderful. We finally got you to commit to one bullet wounding Connally.
Now if we could just get you to commit to where that bullet was fired from
and when it struck him, we will have made real progress.
> Where the shots were fired from is irrelevant to the direction of the
> bullet that entered Connally’s back because Kennedy’s torso could have
> deflected the transiting bullet.
Sounds like an endorsement of the SBT.
> If you were serious about knowing
> “where the shots were fired from” then you would be talking the
> striking angles of the bullet upon the back of Kennedy. Clearly all you
> want to do is to raise non issues to evade the problems caused the abrupt
> front and to the left rotations of Connally’s torso that was comparable
> to the back and to the left rotations of Kennedy’s torso.
>
Clearly, you want to evade the task of giving us a plausible
alternative to the SBT.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > I contend that
> > > > > Connally was not shot during the early Z220s when the bullet would
> > > > > have needed to sharply deflect rightward to exit below the right
> > > > > nipple.
>
> > > > Brilliant!!! You claim the JBC could not have been shot at the time when
> > > > we see his jacket bulge and both JFK and JBC simultaneously jerk their
> > > > arms upward but you won't tell us when you think he was shot. If you are
> > > > going to dismiss the SBT and expect to be taken seriously, you need to
> > > > give us a more plausible way it could have happened. Otherwise all your
> > > > verbosity can simply be dismissed as pure filibuster.
>
> > > A single bullet event could not have occurred when the missile exited
> > > the chest on a course that would have missed the thigh and possibly
> > > the unseen wrist.
>
> > How can you know what the bullet could or could not have hit unless
> > you can determine both the angle of deflection and the relative
> > position of the wounds in relation to each other.
>
> I have determined the deflection angle for transit of the torso and the
> Warren Commission gave us the position of the thigh wound in relation to
> the chest wound. As for the wrist, knowing its position is unnecessary
> because we know that the missile transited without deflection.
>
We do? How do we know that? I think I understand your confusion now.
>
>
> > > You should know that a single bullet event is akin to pregnancy. In
> > > both cases it’s all or nothing.
>
> > That's easy. It's all. For you its nothing because that is what you have
> > offered us in the way of an alternative. Hell, you can't even figure out
> > how many bullets hit JBC or where they were fired from. The simple fact is
> > the SBT answers all the pertinent questions and you answer none of them.
> > That's why the choice is easy.
>
> Yes, bigbog. We know all about your partial pregnancy. I heard that
> you are expecting 2.3 pups by the end of the month.
>
Leave the humor to the late night talk show hosts. It's another field
that seems outside your field of expertise.
Hank Sienzant
Hi Mr. Marsh.
Please cite the evidence that Dr. Gregory got the entrance and exit wrong.
Please cite the evidence that Dr. Gregory was told to correct "his"
drawing. Please cite the evidence it was Dr. Gregory's drawing - that he
actually drew it or had it prepared after consultation with him.
I'll make it easy for you.
#1 - Here's his and Dr. Shaw's testimony:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/gregory1.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/gregory2.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaw1.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaw2.htm
#2 - And here's the drawing you reference:
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0186b.htm
#3 - From the testimony above I see the drawing was prepared after
consultation with Dr. Shaw, not with Dr. Greagory.
Mr. SPECTER - Looking at Commission Exhibit No. 689, is that a drawing
which was prepared, after consultation with you, representing the
earlier theory of all of the Governor's wounds having been inflicted
by a single missile?
Dr. SHAW - That is Correct.
#4 - I see the artist for this exhibit got the entrance and exit wrong
on the drawing, putting the entrance on the palm side of the wrist and
the exit on the back of the hand.
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0186b.htm
#5 - I see Dr. Gregory corrected that, saying the evidence indicated
the palm side was the exit, and the back of the hand was the entrance.
Dr. GREGORY - I did not have an opportunity to examine the wound on
the Governor's wrist until Dr. Shaw had completed his surgical
treatment of the Governor's chest wound.
At that time he was turned to his back and it was possible to examine
both the right upper extremity and the left lower extremity for wounds
of the wrist and left thigh respectively.
The right wrist was the site of a perforating wound, which by
assumption began on a dorsal lateral surface. In lay terms this is the
back of the hand on the thumb side at a point approximately 5
centimeters above the wrist joint.
There is a second wound presumed to be the wound of exit which lay in
the midline of the wrist on its palmar surface about 2 centimeters,
something less than 1 inch above the wrist crease, the most distal
wrist crease.
Mr. SPECTER - You say that the, wound on the dorsal or back side of
the wrist you assume to be the wound of entrance.
What factors, if any, led you to that assumption?
Dr. GREGORY - I assumed it to be a wound of entrance because of the
general ragged appearance of the wound, but for other reasons which I
can delineate in a lighter description which came to light during the
operative procedure and which are also hallmarked to a certain extent
by the X-rays.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you proceed to tell us, even though it is out of
sequence, what those factors, later. determined to be, were which led
you to assume that it was the wound of entrance?
etc. etc. See the link above for the complete testimony on this.
#6 - I further see that Dr. Shaw had much experience with and treated
Governor Connally's chest wound, and Dr. Gregory treated the wrist
wound.
Mr. SPECTER - What experience, if any, have you had, Dr. Shaw, with
bullet wounds?
Dr. SHAW - I have had civilian experience, both in the work at
Parkland Hospital, where we see a great amount of trauma, and much of
this involves bullet wounds from homicidal attempts and accidents.
The chief experience I had, however, was during the Second World War
when I was serving as chief of the thoracic surgery center in Paris,
France. And during this particular experience we admitted over 900
patients with chest wounds of various sort, many of them, of course,
being shell fragments rather than bullet wounds.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate as to the total number of
bullet wounds you have had experience with?
Dr. SHAW - It would be approximately 1,000, considering the large
number of admissions we had in Paris.
...
Mr. SPECTER - Did Dr. Shaw then call upon you to perform operative aid
for Governor Connally?
Dr. GREGORY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - And when did you first see Governor Connally then?
Dr. GREGORY - I first saw Governor Connally after Dr. Shaw had
prepared him and draped him for the surgical procedures which he
carried out on the Governor's chest.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, did you have any opportunity to observe the wound
on the Governor's chest?
Dr. GREGORY - I could see the wounds on the Governor's chest, but I
could see them only through the apertures available in the surgical
drapes, and therefore I had difficulty orienting the exact positions
of the wounds, except for the wound identified as the wound of exit
which could be related to the nipple in the right chest which was
exposed.
Mr. SPECTER - Now what did you observe with respect to the wound on
the Governor's wrist?
Dr. GREGORY - I did not have an opportunity to examine the wound on
the Governor's wrist until Dr. Shaw had completed his surgical
treatment of the Governor's chest wound.
At that time he was turned to his back and it was possible to examine
both the right upper extremity and the left lower extremity for wounds
of the wrist and left thigh respectively.
etc. etc. see the above link for the complete testimony on this
subject.
#7 - And I further see that Dr. Shaw choose not to testify about the
wrist, saying he would defer to Dr. Shaw's testimony on that.
Mr. SPECTER - Then, do you have sufficient information at your
disposal in total, based on your observations and what you know now to
give any meaningful opinion as to which was the wound of entrance and
which the wound of exit on the Governor's wrist?
Dr. SHAW - I would prefer to have Dr. Gregory testify about that,
because he has examined it more carefully than I have.
In conclusion, I see the evidence supports NONE of your claims that
'...he (Dr. Gregory) got the entrance and exit wrong and had to be
told to "correct" his (Dr. Gregory's) drawing"
Do you have any evidence to support your claim?
Hank
aka Joe Zircon
...deletia...
Anthony Marsh
FAIL
That is not the drawing I am talking about. That is Shaw's drawing, not
Gregory's. Don't claim that I said something I didn't.
This is Gregory's diagram and shows the change from exit to entrance and
entrance to exit.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/GREG1A.TIF
You can see where is signed off on the change.
Herbert Blenner
If you cannot understand the geometric language used by the entire
technical world then I am just wasting my time arguing with someone who
pictures bullets traveling straight paths only to instantaneously deflect
upon entering a body then transiting along a straight course in a
differing direction.
In plain English bigdog, you have been duped by the SBT cartoons.
Goodbye.
Herbert
bigdog
>
> If you cannot understand the geometric language used by the entire
> technical world then I am just wasting my time arguing with someone who
> pictures bullets traveling straight paths only to instantaneously deflect
> upon entering a body then transiting along a straight course in a
> differing direction.
>
> In plain English bigdog, you have been duped by the SBT cartoons.
>
> Goodbye.
>
If you are going to dispute the validity of the SBT and not give us a
viable alternative, then you truly have been wasting our time. If you
can't tell us where the shots were fired from, when they were fired, and
whom they hit, you are just playing games and contributing nothing.