OK, let's get past the personal attacks. You say trajectories should be elementary, yet you offer no explanation to support your assertion. Explain to us how a bullet cannot possibly make the appropriate angle if traversing from front to back and yet can quite logically make the same angle if traversing from back to front, bearing in mind that it is the same angle in either direction and also bearing in mind that redirected paths within the body are a lot different from flight trajectories. If this is not a general question, then explain to us the special circumstances known to exist in this case. Let's talk facts.
In article <fQIo4.37128$ox5.9199...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>, "John Hunt" <jm...@efortress.com> wrote:
> Cakehauz <cakeh...@aol.com> wrote in message > news:20000208235657.23419.00000345@ng-ce1.aol.com... > > >Subject: Re: Croft Trajectory through the throat for Walt (graphic) > > >From: bytemas...@my-deja.com > > >Date: 2/8/00 6:42 PM EST > > >Message-id: <87q9l9$af...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> > >What kind of argument is this? The holes match up one direction, but > > >not the other? I don't think so.
> > An excellent point sir....The LNer's would have us believe that the shot > from > > the back to front makes more sense than the shot from front to back, but > when > > it is examined logically, the front to back shot is much more reasonable. > > Thank you for pointing out, that they will argue that the wounds were > made by > > one bullet, if that bullet went from back to front, but they will argue > > vociferiously against the wounds being made by the same bullet, if it > suggested > > that the bullet went from front to back....
> You disregard the wound locations because your "theory", such as it is, > requires it. You would not know a trajectory if it bit you in your doughy > non-researching ass. "Believe me, 'cause I say it is so" is your battle > cry. Are you and Varnell twins separated at...."birth" is the words that > comes to mind, yet seems, somehow, inappropriate.
> You know what would be fun, Wart.... and this goes for Varnell too 'cause I > know the lying asshole is fond of your brand of logic, and is lurking as we > speak...
> Getting you to present ANY of your "theories" in front of a panel of your > peers! That would be a gas. You would be humiliated so badly even I would > pity you. Same goes for Varnell and his "sweat" article.
>Subject: Re: Croft Trajectory through the throat for Walt (graphic) >From: "John Hunt" jm...@efortress.com >Date: 2/10/00 7:36 PM EST >Message-id: <fQIo4.37128$ox5.9199...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>
>"Believe me, 'cause I say it is so" is your battle >cry.
Dear Mr. Runt....You could not be more full of sh.....Yourself.....I would NEVER want anybody to accept something I say without checking the facts...Since you are an egotist and a liar, I doubt that you will admit it ...but you have to know that I always give reference to check against my posts.....And even if you won't admit it most lurkers know that this is a fact...
>Subject: Re: Croft Trajectory through the throat for Walt (graphic) >From: "John Hunt" jm...@efortress.com >Date: 2/10/00 7:41 PM EST >Message-id: <yUIo4.37140$ox5.9201...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com> >How fun it will be to mutilate your name in >the same manner as you have mine(Mr. Runt),
Oh I'm sorry Mr Hunt.... I use word association to remember a person, and since your posts indicate your not yet an adult, I guess my subconscious mind inadvertantly took over.
When you grow up.... perhaps I'll remember you with a different word association ...
> OK, let's get past the personal attacks. You say trajectories should be > elementary, yet you offer no explanation to support your assertion. > Explain to us how a bullet cannot possibly make the appropriate angle > if traversing from front to back and yet can quite logically make the > same angle if traversing from back to front, bearing in mind that it is > the same angle in either direction and also bearing in mind that > redirected paths within the body are a lot different from flight > trajectories. If this is not a general question, then explain to us the > special circumstances known to exist in this case. Let's talk facts.
My ISP lost this thread, so I can only reply to what I see here. You have a false premise. People who argue for a throat entrance wound do not assume the bullet would take the same path as a bullet which hit the back. Some even argue for two separate shots, with both bullets miraculously stopping within an inch or so.
> In article <fQIo4.37128$ox5.9199...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>, > "John Hunt" <jm...@efortress.com> wrote:
> > Cakehauz <cakeh...@aol.com> wrote in message > > news:20000208235657.23419.00000345@ng-ce1.aol.com... > > > >Subject: Re: Croft Trajectory through the throat for Walt (graphic) > > > >From: bytemas...@my-deja.com > > > >Date: 2/8/00 6:42 PM EST > > > >Message-id: <87q9l9$af...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> > > >What kind of argument is this? The holes match up one direction, > but > > > >not the other? I don't think so.
> > > An excellent point sir....The LNer's would have us believe that the > shot > > from > > > the back to front makes more sense than the shot from front to > back, but > > when > > > it is examined logically, the front to back shot is much more > reasonable. > > > Thank you for pointing out, that they will argue that the wounds > were > > made by > > > one bullet, if that bullet went from back to front, but they will > argue > > > vociferiously against the wounds being made by the same bullet, if > it > > suggested > > > that the bullet went from front to back....
> > You disregard the wound locations because your "theory", such as it > is, > > requires it. You would not know a trajectory if it bit you in your > doughy > > non-researching ass. "Believe me, 'cause I say it is so" is your > battle > > cry. Are you and Varnell twins separated at...."birth" is the words > that > > comes to mind, yet seems, somehow, inappropriate.
> > You know what would be fun, Wart.... and this goes for Varnell > too 'cause I > > know the lying asshole is fond of your brand of logic, and is > lurking as we > > speak...
> > Getting you to present ANY of your "theories" in front of a panel of > your > > peers! That would be a gas. You would be humiliated so badly even I > would > > pity you. Same goes for Varnell and his "sweat" article.
In article <20000211003842.14138.00002...@ng-fb1.aol.com>, cakeh...@aol.com (Cakehauz) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Croft Trajectory through the throat for Walt (graphic) > >From: "John Hunt" jm...@efortress.com > >Date: 2/10/00 7:41 PM EST > >Message-id: <yUIo4.37140$ox5.9201...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>
> >How fun it will be to mutilate your name in > >the same manner as you have mine(Mr. Runt),
> Oh I'm sorry Mr Hunt.... I use word association to remember a
person,
Yeah, me, too ....what do we associate with Walt?
Walt -->asphalt! .as in Cement-Head,
Walt -->halt! ....as in his brain has halted and it can't get up!
Walt -->assault .. he is a nasty rascal with the badmouth at the ready.
>Subject: Re: Croft Trajectory through the throat for Walt (graphic) >From: Jerry jerr...@my-deja.com >Date: 2/11/00 12:57 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <881t3l$r0...@nnrp1.deja.com> >> Oh I'm sorry Mr Hunt.... I use word association to remember a >person,
>Yeah, me, too ....what do we associate with Walt? >Walt -->asphalt! .as in Cement-Head,
Oh c'mon .....you can do better than that...no on the second thought perhaps you can't ...considering the source.
Asphalt....cement head?? Isn't asphalt some kind of a rectal problem ?
> > OK, let's get past the personal attacks. You say trajectories should be > > elementary, yet you offer no explanation to support your assertion. > > Explain to us how a bullet cannot possibly make the appropriate angle > > if traversing from front to back and yet can quite logically make the > > same angle if traversing from back to front, bearing in mind that it is > > the same angle in either direction and also bearing in mind that > > redirected paths within the body are a lot different from flight > > trajectories. If this is not a general question, then explain to us the > > special circumstances known to exist in this case. Let's talk facts.
> My ISP lost this thread, so I can only reply to what I see here. You > have a false premise. People who argue for a throat entrance wound do > not assume the bullet would take the same path as a bullet which hit the > back. Some even argue for two separate shots, with both bullets > miraculously stopping within an inch or so.
Thank you for your reply. While I realize that many other possibilities exist, the assertion in this thread was that a bullet could not go front to back and exit through the back hole, but a bullet from back to front could exit through the throat hole. It is the same path, the same angle within the body. That is ludicrous and there hasn't been anyone come forward with an explanation. An attempt was made to lay it off on trajectories, which doesn't nearly tell all of the story about angles within the body.
If you're interested, you can review the thread on Deja News.
> > > Cakehauz <cakeh...@aol.com> wrote in message > > > news:20000208235657.23419.00000345@ng-ce1.aol.com... > > > > >Subject: Re: Croft Trajectory through the throat for Walt (graphic) > > > > >From: bytemas...@my-deja.com > > > > >Date: 2/8/00 6:42 PM EST > > > > >Message-id: <87q9l9$af...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> > > > >What kind of argument is this? The holes match up one direction, > > but > > > > >not the other? I don't think so.
> > > > An excellent point sir....The LNer's would have us believe that the > > shot > > > from > > > > the back to front makes more sense than the shot from front to > > back, but > > > when > > > > it is examined logically, the front to back shot is much more > > reasonable. > > > > Thank you for pointing out, that they will argue that the wounds > > were > > > made by > > > > one bullet, if that bullet went from back to front, but they will > > argue > > > > vociferiously against the wounds being made by the same bullet, if > > it > > > suggested > > > > that the bullet went from front to back....
> > > You disregard the wound locations because your "theory", such as it > > is, > > > requires it. You would not know a trajectory if it bit you in your > > doughy > > > non-researching ass. "Believe me, 'cause I say it is so" is your > > battle > > > cry. Are you and Varnell twins separated at...."birth" is the words > > that > > > comes to mind, yet seems, somehow, inappropriate.
> > > You know what would be fun, Wart.... and this goes for Varnell > > too 'cause I > > > know the lying asshole is fond of your brand of logic, and is > > lurking as we > > > speak...
> > > Getting you to present ANY of your "theories" in front of a panel of > > your > > > peers! That would be a gas. You would be humiliated so badly even I > > would > > > pity you. Same goes for Varnell and his "sweat" article.
> > OK, let's get past the personal attacks. You say trajectories should be > > elementary, yet you offer no explanation to support your assertion. > > Explain to us how a bullet cannot possibly make the appropriate angle > > if traversing from front to back and yet can quite logically make the > > same angle if traversing from back to front, bearing in mind that it is > > the same angle in either direction and also bearing in mind that > > redirected paths within the body are a lot different from flight > > trajectories. If this is not a general question, then explain to us the > > special circumstances known to exist in this case. Let's talk facts.
> My ISP lost this thread, so I can only reply to what I see here. You > have a false premise. People who argue for a throat entrance wound do > not assume the bullet would take the same path as a bullet which hit the > back. Some even argue for two separate shots, with both bullets > miraculously stopping within an inch or so.
Another point. Once again, we have an effort to direct the discussion to a particular direction. With the assumption that the back wound and the front wound must be connected by a path, we would therefore have to conclude that they were caused by the same bullet to the exclusion of all other possibilities. There's a lot of people here who would not concede such an argument.
> > > Cakehauz <cakeh...@aol.com> wrote in message > > > news:20000208235657.23419.00000345@ng-ce1.aol.com... > > > > >Subject: Re: Croft Trajectory through the throat for Walt (graphic) > > > > >From: bytemas...@my-deja.com > > > > >Date: 2/8/00 6:42 PM EST > > > > >Message-id: <87q9l9$af...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> > > > >What kind of argument is this? The holes match up one direction, > > but > > > > >not the other? I don't think so.
> > > > An excellent point sir....The LNer's would have us believe that the > > shot > > > from > > > > the back to front makes more sense than the shot from front to > > back, but > > > when > > > > it is examined logically, the front to back shot is much more > > reasonable. > > > > Thank you for pointing out, that they will argue that the wounds > > were > > > made by > > > > one bullet, if that bullet went from back to front, but they will > > argue > > > > vociferiously against the wounds being made by the same bullet, if > > it > > > suggested > > > > that the bullet went from front to back....
> > > You disregard the wound locations because your "theory", such as it > > is, > > > requires it. You would not know a trajectory if it bit you in your > > doughy > > > non-researching ass. "Believe me, 'cause I say it is so" is your > > battle > > > cry. Are you and Varnell twins separated at...."birth" is the words > > that > > > comes to mind, yet seems, somehow, inappropriate.
> > > You know what would be fun, Wart.... and this goes for Varnell > > too 'cause I > > > know the lying asshole is fond of your brand of logic, and is > > lurking as we > > > speak...
> > > Getting you to present ANY of your "theories" in front of a panel of > > your > > > peers! That would be a gas. You would be humiliated so badly even I > > would > > > pity you. Same goes for Varnell and his "sweat" article.
> > > OK, let's get past the personal attacks. You say trajectories > should be > > > elementary, yet you offer no explanation to support your assertion. > > > Explain to us how a bullet cannot possibly make the appropriate > angle > > > if traversing from front to back and yet can quite logically make > the > > > same angle if traversing from back to front, bearing in mind that > it is > > > the same angle in either direction and also bearing in mind that > > > redirected paths within the body are a lot different from flight > > > trajectories. If this is not a general question, then explain to us > the > > > special circumstances known to exist in this case. Let's talk facts.
> > My ISP lost this thread, so I can only reply to what I see here. You > > have a false premise. People who argue for a throat entrance wound do > > not assume the bullet would take the same path as a bullet which hit > the > > back. Some even argue for two separate shots, with both bullets > > miraculously stopping within an inch or so.
> Thank you for your reply. While I realize that many other possibilities > exist, the assertion in this thread was that a bullet could not go > front to back and exit through the back hole, but a bullet from back to > front could exit through the throat hole. It is the same path, the same > angle within the body. That is ludicrous and there hasn't been anyone > come forward with an explanation. An attempt was made to lay it off on > trajectories, which doesn't nearly tell all of the story about angles > within the body.
You can not consider this only in terms of the ability of a bullet being able to transect the same path going from forward to back as hypothesized for back to front. You also need to consider the practical consideration of where such a path would lead back to. In the case of the back to front wound, it could lead back to the TSBD or another building, depending on when it hit and the position of the body at the time. There was room for a bullet to hit the back where it did. But with the throat as an entrance wound, you need to see where such a shot could have come from to complete that trajectory. Depending on whether you believe the WC version or the HSCA version, you still are stuck with a trajectory which would have a very hard time clearing all obstacles in order to be able to hit the throat at all, and then almost impossibly to transect that angle. The windshield is in the way most of the time. After a while when the windshield may not be in the way, it appears that the President has already been hit and his hand is up in front of his neck so that he could not possibly be hit in the throat from the front at any later frame. This limits the time when the President could have possibly received his neck wound. And working out a backward trajectory there is no possible firing location which could clear the windshield.
> > > > Cakehauz <cakeh...@aol.com> wrote in message > > > > news:20000208235657.23419.00000345@ng-ce1.aol.com... > > > > > >Subject: Re: Croft Trajectory through the throat for Walt > (graphic) > > > > > >From: bytemas...@my-deja.com > > > > > >Date: 2/8/00 6:42 PM EST > > > > > >Message-id: <87q9l9$af...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> > > > > >What kind of argument is this? The holes match up one > direction, > > > but > > > > > >not the other? I don't think so.
> > > > > An excellent point sir....The LNer's would have us believe that > the > > > shot > > > > from > > > > > the back to front makes more sense than the shot from front to > > > back, but > > > > when > > > > > it is examined logically, the front to back shot is much more > > > reasonable. > > > > > Thank you for pointing out, that they will argue that the > wounds > > > were > > > > made by > > > > > one bullet, if that bullet went from back to front, but they > will > > > argue > > > > > vociferiously against the wounds being made by the same bullet, > if > > > it > > > > suggested > > > > > that the bullet went from front to back....
> > > > You disregard the wound locations because your "theory", such as > it > > > is, > > > > requires it. You would not know a trajectory if it bit you in > your > > > doughy > > > > non-researching ass. "Believe me, 'cause I say it is so" is your > > > battle > > > > cry. Are you and Varnell twins separated at...."birth" is the > words > > > that > > > > comes to mind, yet seems, somehow, inappropriate.
> > > > You know what would be fun, Wart.... and this goes for Varnell > > > too 'cause I > > > > know the lying asshole is fond of your brand of logic, and is > > > lurking as we > > > > speak...
> > > > Getting you to present ANY of your "theories" in front of a panel > of > > > your > > > > peers! That would be a gas. You would be humiliated so badly > even I > > > would > > > > pity you. Same goes for Varnell and his "sweat" article.
> >Subject: Re: Croft Trajectory through the throat for Walt (graphic) > >From: "John Hunt" jm...@efortress.com > >Date: 2/10/00 7:36 PM EST > >Message-id: <fQIo4.37128$ox5.9199...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>
> >"Believe me, 'cause I say it is so" is your battle > >cry.
> Dear Mr. Runt....You could not be more full of sh.....Yourself.....I would > NEVER want anybody to accept something I say without checking the facts
What facts?? I couldn't help but notice you avoided discusing the elaborate graphic I made for you. If I were you I would be eger to refute it. Hmmm...??
> you are an egotist and a liar, I doubt that you will admit it ...but you have > to know that I always give reference to check against my posts.....And even if > you won't admit it most lurkers know that this is a fact...
> > > OK, let's get past the personal attacks. You say trajectories > should be > > > elementary, yet you offer no explanation to support your assertion. > > > Explain to us how a bullet cannot possibly make the appropriate > angle > > > if traversing from front to back and yet can quite logically make > the > > > same angle if traversing from back to front, bearing in mind that > it is > > > the same angle in either direction and also bearing in mind that > > > redirected paths within the body are a lot different from flight > > > trajectories. If this is not a general question, then explain to us > the > > > special circumstances known to exist in this case. Let's talk facts.
> > My ISP lost this thread, so I can only reply to what I see here. You > > have a false premise. People who argue for a throat entrance wound do > > not assume the bullet would take the same path as a bullet which hit > the > > back. Some even argue for two separate shots, with both bullets > > miraculously stopping within an inch or so.
> Thank you for your reply. While I realize that many other possibilities > exist, the assertion in this thread was that a bullet could not go > front to back and exit through the back hole, but a bullet from back to > front could exit through the throat hole.
Wrong! The point was that a frontal shot could not go through th eneck and back wounds front to back from the "BM" position. It does not work. You would have to shoot upwards through JFK's throat to have the shot come out the back hole. Was there an assassin lurking between the Governor and his lovely wife??
> Another point. Once again, we have an effort to direct the discussion > to a particular direction. With the assumption that the back wound and > the front wound must be connected by a path, we would therefore have to > conclude that they were caused by the same bullet to the exclusion of > all other possibilities. There's a lot of people here who would not > concede such an argument.
And not one of those people who believe Kennedy was shot once from behind by a bullet which did not transit the body, and once from the front by a bullet which did not transit the body can offer a shred of evidence as to;
Where those alleged bullets went.
Why the resultant internal damage one would expect was not found.
When were the alleged bullets removed and by whom.
If the supposed bullet was removed at the autopsy, everyone involved with that procedure has been lying for 37 years.
That Kennedy was killed as the result of a conspiracy is a certainty. But that does not mean it is OK to engage in wild speculation.
> <bytemas...@my-deja.com> wrote in message > news:883t63$596$1@nnrp1.deja.com... > > In article <38A41811.819CF...@quik.com>, > > AnthonyMarsh <ama...@quik.com> wrote: > > > bytemas...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > OK, let's get past the personal attacks. You say trajectories > > should be > > > > elementary, yet you offer no explanation to support your assertion. > > > > Explain to us how a bullet cannot possibly make the appropriate > > angle > > > > if traversing from front to back and yet can quite logically make > > the > > > > same angle if traversing from back to front, bearing in mind that > > it is > > > > the same angle in either direction and also bearing in mind that > > > > redirected paths within the body are a lot different from flight > > > > trajectories. If this is not a general question, then explain to us > > the > > > > special circumstances known to exist in this case. Let's talk facts.
> > > My ISP lost this thread, so I can only reply to what I see here. You > > > have a false premise. People who argue for a throat entrance wound do > > > not assume the bullet would take the same path as a bullet which hit > > the > > > back. Some even argue for two separate shots, with both bullets > > > miraculously stopping within an inch or so.
> > Thank you for your reply. While I realize that many other possibilities > > exist, the assertion in this thread was that a bullet could not go > > front to back and exit through the back hole, but a bullet from back to > > front could exit through the throat hole.
> Wrong! The point was that a frontal shot could not go through th eneck and > back wounds front to back from the "BM" position. It does not work. You > would have to shoot upwards through JFK's throat to have the shot come out > the back hole. Was there an assassin lurking between the Governor and his > lovely wife??
> John Hunt
For the SBT to work, the position that has typically been presented was that a back to front shot went about level through the throat. Many conspiracy theorists assert that the neck wound is above the back wound. Now, when someone starts talking about the throat wound, suddenly the throat wound is below the back wound. Unless JFK was removing his shoes at the time, I don't think his Adam's Apple was below the back wound pictured in autopsy photos. Besides, it is all moot since there is no evidence that the two wounds are connected.
> <bytemas...@my-deja.com> wrote in message > news:883tg2$5bn$1@nnrp1.deja.com... > > In article <38A41811.819CF...@quik.com>, > > AnthonyMarsh <ama...@quik.com> wrote: > > > bytemas...@my-deja.com wrote:
> <snip>
> > Another point. Once again, we have an effort to direct the discussion > > to a particular direction. With the assumption that the back wound and > > the front wound must be connected by a path, we would therefore have to > > conclude that they were caused by the same bullet to the exclusion of > > all other possibilities. There's a lot of people here who would not > > concede such an argument.
> And not one of those people who believe Kennedy was shot once from behind by > a bullet which did not transit the body, and once from the front by a bullet > which did not transit the body can offer a shred of evidence as to;
> Where those alleged bullets went.
> Why the resultant internal damage one would expect was not found.
> When were the alleged bullets removed and by whom.
> If the supposed bullet was removed at the autopsy, everyone involved with > that procedure has been lying for 37 years.
> That Kennedy was killed as the result of a conspiracy is a certainty. But > that does not mean it is OK to engage in wild speculation.
> Joh Hutn
There was no chain of possession of evidence for many of the key pieces of evidence to which you refer, including the bullets and the body. And, we cannot know if there were any bullets that were not recovered or were recovered and not disclosed. The autopsy did not have the back wound transiting the body and the autopsy doctors didn't even know the throat wound existed, so I have a lot of difficulty with being certain there was a back to throat path.
> >Why don't you describe Johnny's post Parrot..... I'm sure it's going to be > >something that will attempt to show that the shot that hit JFK in the throat > >could not have been fired from the front....Of course it's utterly > >ridiculous, > >to think a man could be shot in the throat from anywhere but the front, but > >that doesn't stop the LNers from trying. > >The early frames of the Z film show the same basic scene that a gunman on the > >GK would have seen and it's quite obvious that a gunman on the knoll could > >easily have hit JFK in the throat....
> Its real simple, Walt. The medical evidence shows no exit wound in the back or > back of the neck, and the trajectory absolutely does not work out in any way, > shape, or form for a frontal shot.
> Steve K.
The medical evidence doesn't show the back wound transiting the body. Now, explain the throat wound.
