That SBT thing again
Robert Harris
thought of yet.
Since 1995, I have been firmly convinced that one bullet passed through
JFK and Connally at frame 223 - perhaps not exactly the way you see it,
but the way I believe, makes sense.
But after some long winded debates in another forum, I have developed
some nagging doubts that perhaps some of you can allay.
I have always believed that though it might not be probable, it was
certainly possible that a bullet could enter JFK's back and then emerge
from the lower neck, leaving behind a very tiny exit wound.
But it would seem, that for such a thing to happen, the bullet would
have to pass through in a very straight line, with no deviations.
But JFK's back wound was was nearly twice as tall as it was high - 4x7mm
and we see this same vertical, elongation in the hole in his jacket.
http://www.subversivehistory.com/
Of course, a tumbling bullet is entirely consistent with the notion that
the shot at 223 was fired from a suppressed weapon, which was causing
bullets to go astray.
But, it is not consistent with a bullet leaving behind such a tiny exit
wound. Connally, who also had an elongated entry wound in his back,
suffered a very large exit wound in the chest, which blew out a great
deal of blood and matter.
The short version of the question I guess, is - is it possible for a
tumbling bullet to have exited so cleanly and left behind such a tiny
exit wound?
Robert Harris
pjfk
How do you know for sure what the shape of the exit wound was?
Here is a link to my article THE PRETTY PIG'S SATURDAY NIGHT
which will give you some insight into the different SB scenarios:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2372&hl=pretty+pig%27s+saturday+night
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
John Blubaugh
Let me help you with that. No, it is not possible.
JB
WhiskyJoe
The best book for these questions is "The JFK Myths"
by Larry Sturdivan. He is a ballistic expert who has
run lots of experiments.
Larry said the bullet through JFK's neck went pretty
much straight through. Bullets go nose first,
holding a very straight course, through the air,
as they are designed to do and have to do to be
accurate. But most bullets, including the WCC
bullets, start to tumble when they hit a body.
That is because a body, about the same density
as water, is 800 time denser than air. So the
bullet "wants" to travel heavy end first, which,
because of the shape of bullets, is the back end
first. So upon entry, the bullet starts to tumble.
It takes several feet of traveling through
ballistic gel for a bullet to end up going
base first.
In JFK's case, the bullet entered the neck and
started to tumble. But by the time it exited
the neck, six inches down range, it was still
mostly traveling nose first. Larry doesn't
guess a figure, but maybe it's out of alignment
by five degrees (just a guess of mine). But
this is still straight enough to leave a small
exit wound.
Traveling pretty straight and having the skin
shored up by the buttoned collar and tie make
the exit wound small.
**************************************************
While traveling through the air between JFK and
Connally, the bullet still has some angular
momentum it acquired in JFK's neck and during
the next two feet and a half feet it tumbles
an additional 25 degrees. Meaning by the time
it hits Connally's back, the bullet could be
30 degrees off from traveling nose first
(again, just a guess of mine).
So the short answer is that, yes, a tumbling
bullet could leave a small exit wound in JFK's
throat, provided it hadn't tumbled much.
And if the bullet tumbled 5 degrees for every
6 inches it travels, it would be tumbled
5 degrees by the time it exits JFK's throat
and 30 degrees by the time it hits Connally's back.
**************************************************
I don't know about the cause of JFK's oblong
back wound. Of course, the back slopes there
so I don't think the bullet hit the skin at
a 90 degree angle. I would imagine that even
in cases where the bullet hits an a 90 degree
angle, the wound might not always be round.
But I don't recall if Mr. Sturdivan addressed
this.
**************************************************
And if the bullet that went through JFK's neck
did not cause Connally's wounds, how could that
bullet have missed Connally and everything in
the limousine?
**************************************************
I think there is a good chance Mr. Sturdivan
would answer questions you sent him via email.
Ken Rahn would have his email address.
Jason Burke
Obviously it is, since that's what happened.
Herbert Blenner
> thought of yet.
>
> Since 1995, I have been firmly convinced that one bullet passed through
> JFK and Connally at frame 223 - perhaps not exactly the way you see it,
> but the way I believe, makes sense.
>
> But after some long winded debates in another forum, I have developed
> some nagging doubts that perhaps some of you can allay.
>
> I have always believed that though it might not be probable, it was
> certainly possible that a bullet could enter JFK's back and then emerge
> from the lower neck, leaving behind a very tiny exit wound.
A small exit wound from the throat requires three things. The bullet
emerges without tumble at nearly a right angle to the surface of the
throat that is firmly supported by clothing.
>
> But it would seem, that for such a thing to happen, the bullet would
> have to pass through in a very straight line, with no deviations.
Agreed. A deflection of the bullet by any degree (a bad pun intended)
would disrupt the alignment between the long axis and direction of
travel.
>
> But JFK's back wound was was nearly twice as tall as it was high - 4x7mm
> and we see this same vertical, elongation in the hole in his jacket.
>
> http://www.subversivehistory.com/
The autopsy reported a 4 mm by 7 mm oval bullet hole with nearly
longitudinal alignment of the longer axis with the long axis of the body.
However, the FPP described a 10 mm by 7 mm surrounding abrasion with a
nearly transverse longer axis. This conflict excludes a single bullet
event since both wounds place the bullet entering the back at a
substantial angle from a course toward exit at the throat.
>
> Of course, a tumbling bullet is entirely consistent with the notion that
> the shot at 223 was fired from a suppressed weapon, which was causing
> bullets to go astray.
>
> But, it is not consistent with a bullet leaving behind such a tiny exit
> wound. Connally, who also had an elongated entry wound in his back,
> suffered a very large exit wound in the chest, which blew out a great
> deal of blood and matter.
>
> The short version of the question I guess, is - is it possible for a
> tumbling bullet to have exited so cleanly and left behind such a tiny
> exit wound?
A tumbling bullet travels many feet while making a complete tumble. As a
result a tumbling bullet enters or exits a victim with a practically
unchanging yaw angle. Under these conditions the shape of an elongated and
simple wound is a rectangle with rounded corners. So the short and
misleading answer to your question is no.
My short answer is misleading because it accepts without challenging the
report of the 15 mm elliptical entry wound on Governor Connally's back.
Herbert
bigdog
Excellent reply. I started to answer the question but then figure,
WhiskyJoe will do it much better than me. I was right.
John Fiorentino
That deviation was precipitated by the transit through the President's
body.
It's really not that complicated Robert.
John F.
"Robert Harris" <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bobharris77-88DE...@earthlink.us.supernews.com...
Walt
Sure....And it's possible that a frog could fly. You need to wake up
and realize that the throat wound was an ENTRANCE wound.
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
Bingo!
*All* of the available direct medical evidence shows that it was an ENTRANCE
wound.
Until people realize that the evidence was tampered with, they'll continue to
draw the wrong conclusions.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Robert Harris
wrote:
Jeopardy question: What is an example of circular reasoning?
Robert Harris
bigdog
>
> Sure....And it's possible that a frog could fly. You need to wake up
> and realize that the throat wound was an ENTRANCE wound.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
OK, I'll play along. If the throat wound was an entrance, where was it
fired from and where did the bullet go. Do you think it exited his back
which would mean the bullet was fired from a position in front of and
slightly below the throat wound since it passed through JFK's neck on an
upward trajectory. Or do you think it remained lodged in JFK's body which
would be real curious given that it didn't show up on any x- rays.
bigdog
> On 20 Apr 2010 00:48:14 -0400, Jason Burke <jason-bu...@comcast.net>
>
> - Show quoted text -
If we're going to play Jeopardy, you're supposed to provide the answer
and the respondent is supposed to phrase the question.
Example:
A: Lee Harvey Oswald.
Q: Who assassinated JFK?
Alex Trebek: Correct.
WhiskyJoe
To Robert Harris
I suggested email Larry Sturdivan about any
questions you have. Before doing that, I would
recommend you read his book, "The JFK Myths".
It's no good emailing him questions he has
already covered in his book. And some of your
questions are definitely covered, and others
may be.
**************************************************
> Excellent reply. I started to answer the
> question but then figure, WhiskyJoe will
> do it much better than me. I was right.
Thank you bigdog. And everything I got,
I got from Larry Sturdivan's "The JFK Myths".
Who else has as much experience as Sturdivan
with ballistics?
**************************************************
Jason Burke
Let's see here.
1) Something happened. Empirical evidence shows it happened.
2) Bobby asks if that something is possible, even after it's been shown
to happen experimentally.
3) Bobby accuses ME of using circular reasoning!
No wonder you're considered a laughingstock on both sides of this
argument, Bobby.
robcap...@netscape.com
> Ok, I am looking for some answers - perhaps something that I have not
> thought of yet.
>
> Since 1995, I have been firmly convinced that one bullet passed through
> JFK and Connally at frame 223 - perhaps not exactly the way you see it,
> but the way I believe, makes sense.
YOU are already off-track as the evidence shows JFK and JBC where
never hit with the same bullet. Even JBC said he was NOT hit with the
same bullet as JFK.
> But after some long winded debates in another forum, I have developed
> some nagging doubts that perhaps some of you can allay.
YOU should have complete faith in the fact the SBT NEVER happened!
> I have always believed that though it might not be probable, it was
> certainly possible that a bullet could enter JFK's back and then emerge
> from the lower neck, leaving behind a very tiny exit wound.
LOL!! Sure it could and a LNer could tell the truth too!! There would
have been a nick in the spinal column if a bullet transvered the neck
area, and there is none.
> But it would seem, that for such a thing to happen, the bullet would
> have to pass through in a very straight line, with no deviations.
The bullet would have been going left to right in a hard fashion, so
please explain to us how it could come out he front of the thoat so
perfectly.
> But JFK's back wound was was nearly twice as tall as it was high - 4x7mm
> and we see this same vertical, elongation in the hole in his jacket.
They had TO MOVE JFK's back wound to make the silly SBT even seem
remotely possible and that should tell you all you need to know about
the SBT! IF you have to move the wounds post mortem you are up to NO
good.
> http://www.subversivehistory.com/
>
> Of course, a tumbling bullet is entirely consistent with the notion that
> the shot at 223 was fired from a suppressed weapon, which was causing
> bullets to go astray.
Some bullets are designed to "tumble" to cause the maxim damage too!
> But, it is not consistent with a bullet leaving behind such a tiny exit
> wound. Connally, who also had an elongated entry wound in his back,
> suffered a very large exit wound in the chest, which blew out a great
> deal of blood and matter.
OF course, ONLY a person looking to get nowhere in this case would
even waste their time debating this topic with folks who are not
honest about the actual evidence!
Let's look at what they don't have!
1) They have NO probe picture showing us they tracked the back and
neck/throat wounds to prove they connected in the first place!
2) They have NO forensic evidence on the magic bullet (CE-399) and the
two limo fragments that could be tied to the victims. IN fact, in
Frazier's testimony he ADMITTED to wiping evidence (i.e. blood and
tissue) OFF the fragments!
Mr. EISENBERG - Getting back to the two bullet fragments mentioned,
Mr. Frazier, did you alter them in any way after they had been
received in the laboratory, by way of cleaning or otherwise?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; there was a very slight residue of blood or
some other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the
examination. ***It was wiped off to clean up the bullet for
examination, but it actually would not have been necessary.***
Mr. EISENBERG - Is that true on both fragments?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. (Robert Frazier, Vol. III., p. 437)
First he answered "No sir" to having tampered with the fragments, then
he goes on and admits he wiped blood and "some other material adhering
(to them)" off of them! Then he says it was NOT necessary to do so!
He is admitting he TAMPERED WITH THE EVIDENCE and there is NO
penalty! How can anyone take what is said as the Gospel when there is
NO penalty of perjury or a defense attorney cross-examining is beyond
me, but it happens all the time!
3) NO firm agreement on the wound placement for the back and head!
Both were later changed to fit the silly SBT theory, so how can we be
sure it is correct. We can't of course as wounds don't need to be
MOVED if the claim is correct.
4) The location of the shooter, allegedly, and the placement of JFK's
body does NOT allow for the SBT to have occured. The shooter would
have been firing from a RIGHT TO LEFT angle, NOT a straight on one
UNLESS HE WAS FIRING FROM THE DAL-TEX BUILDING!
When a LNer steps forward and says the shooter could have fired from
the Dal-Tex building I will then give this theory some attention, but
it will never happen. Of course it still won't prove it happened due
to the above reasons.
> The short version of the question I guess, is - is it possible for a
> tumbling bullet to have exited so cleanly and left behind such a tiny
> exit wound?
YOU still need an answer to this question in 2010??? OF course NOT!
bigdog
wrote:
>
> 2) They have NO forensic evidence on the magic bullet (CE-399) and the
> two limo fragments that could be tied to the victims. IN fact, in
> Frazier's testimony he ADMITTED to wiping evidence (i.e. blood and
> tissue) OFF the fragments!
>
> Mr. EISENBERG - Getting back to the two bullet fragments mentioned,
> Mr. Frazier, did you alter them in any way after they had been
> received in the laboratory, by way of cleaning or otherwise?
> Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; there was a very slight residue of blood or
> some other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the
> examination. ***It was wiped off to clean up the bullet for
> examination, but it actually would not have been necessary.***
> Mr. EISENBERG - Is that true on both fragments?
> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. (Robert Frazier, Vol. III., p. 437)
>
> First he answered "No sir" to having tampered with the fragments, then
> he goes on and admits he wiped blood and "some other material adhering
> (to them)" off of them! Then he says it was NOT necessary to do so!
> He is admitting he TAMPERED WITH THE EVIDENCE and there is NO
> penalty! How can anyone take what is said as the Gospel when there is
> NO penalty of perjury or a defense attorney cross-examining is beyond
> me, but it happens all the time!
>
hardly amounts to tampering with evidence. The blood had no
evidentiary value. DNA testing was not even an option in 1963. In
order to do the work he was assigned, ballistic matching, it was
necessary to have a clean surface on the bullet so the markings could
be examined. DUH!!!
> 3) NO firm agreement on the wound placement for the back and head!
> Both were later changed to fit the silly SBT theory, so how can we be
> sure it is correct. We can't of course as wounds don't need to be
> MOVED if the claim is correct.
>
The placement of the head wound has nothing to do with the SBT. DUH!!!
> 4) The location of the shooter, allegedly, and the placement of JFK's
> body does NOT allow for the SBT to have occured. The shooter would
> have been firing from a RIGHT TO LEFT angle, NOT a straight on one
> UNLESS HE WAS FIRING FROM THE DAL-TEX BUILDING!
>
The SBT works perfectly with the slight right to left trajectory.
> When a LNer steps forward and says the shooter could have fired from
> the Dal-Tex building I will then give this theory some attention, but
> it will never happen. Of course it still won't prove it happened due
> to the above reasons.
>
Why would we propose something for which there is no evidence?
> > The short version of the question I guess, is - is it possible for a
> > tumbling bullet to have exited so cleanly and left behind such a tiny
> > exit wound?
>
> YOU still need an answer to this question in 2010??? OF course NOT!
It is as possible today as it was in 1963. A FMJ bullet passing
through soft tissue will not deform and therefore can make a very
small exit wound which could easily be mistook for an entrance wound.
Herbert Blenner
wrote:
> There is no reason to believe the bullet was tumbling when it entered JFK.
> That deviation was precipitated by the transit through the President's
> body.
There is no evidence that a tumbling bullet made a virtually
rectangular 15-mm. wound on Governor Connally's back. The
documentation of the elliptical wound is evidence of a tangential
entry by a bullet that was not tumbling.
>
> It's really not that complicated Robert.
So how do you explain the conflict between the striking angles of the
bullet inferred from the documented description of the entry wound and
the transit angles of the bullet demanded by the locations of the exit
and entry wounds?
My explanation is simple. Doctor Shaw believed that a bullet that
struck an intervening obstacle would make an elliptical wound
otherwise a first strike would make a round wound.
So, John, what uncomplicated explanation do you have?
Herbert
>
> John F.
>
> "Robert Harris" <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Robert Harris
<b0973769-52e2-4a8f...@x7g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Oswald could have been the one to fire the fatal shot, but I am not at
all sure about that and there is no way you can be either.
Just wanting it to be that way, isn't enough.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
"John Fiorentino" <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
> There is no reason to believe the bullet was tumbling when it entered JFK.
> That deviation was precipitated by the transit through the President's
> body.
John, I think you have things a bit out of order. Before the bullet
transits the body, it has to first enter the body. There is a standard
formula for calculating the incoming angle of a bullet, based on the
dimensions of a bullet wound, assuming there is zero wobble. It is
-sin(w/h) which comes out to about 55 degrees above horizontal (-35
degrees off the vertical axis).
That's three times steeper than it would have been if the shot came from
the depository and nearly five times steeper than a shot from the third
floor of the Daltex building.
Obviously, the bullet did not enter at such a steep angle. That tells us
that it was indeed, tumbling. The hole in the coat further confirms the
elongated angle.
http://www.subversivehistory.com/
Like it or not, that's the way it is. Frankly, I was pretty comfortable
with my own explanation of events, which included a bullet from the
Daltex, passing through both men. But the evidence does not exist for
our convenience or satisfaction.
And I just cannot understand how a bullet could have exited so cleanly
if it was already tumbling or wobbling when it entered the back.
Robert Harris
John Blubaugh
>
Alex could say that difinitively because two commissions found that.
A: The grassy knoll
Q: Where did a fourth shot at JFK in Dallas come from?
Alex could also affirm this one too.
JB
Herbert Blenner
> In article <4bcdf80...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > There is no reason to believe the bullet was tumbling when it entered JFK.
> > That deviation was precipitated by the transit through the President's
> > body.
>
> John, I think you have things a bit out of order. Before the bullet
> transits the body, it has to first enter the body. There is a standard
> formula for calculating the incoming angle of a bullet, based on the
> dimensions of a bullet wound, assuming there is zero wobble. It is
> -sin(w/h) which comes out to about 55 degrees above horizontal (-35
> degrees off the vertical axis).
The equation you cite applies to an elliptical droplet of blood on a
horizontal surface and gives the impact angle between the incoming
droplet and the surface of the target.
ftp://mysite.verizon.net/temps/impact.jpg
This analysis does not work on an inclined surface were running of the
blood would distort the shape of the deposited droplet. So they
require that the surface be horizontal.
When calculating the impact angle of the bullet upon Governor
Connally's back one must recognize that the direction of the surface
varies from the vertical by their angle of lean or recline. They
measue the 55-degree angle of impact from a direction closer to the
vertical for an upright victim.
>
> That's three times steeper than it would have been if the shot came from
> the depository and nearly five times steeper than a shot from the third
> floor of the Daltex building.
A proper analysis recognizes that the direction of the struck surface
measures an orientation angle of the victim. In each pair of planes
the orientation angle and the impact and trajectory angles of the
bullet always satisfies a simple relationship in which one angle
equals the sum of the other two angles. These identities are the basis
for analysis.
>
> Obviously, the bullet did not enter at such a steep angle. That tells us
> that it was indeed, tumbling. The hole in the coat further confirms the
> elongated angle.
>
> http://www.subversivehistory.com/
The shape of a 15-mm. hole made by a tumbling MC bullet is
rectangular, not elliptical. Ironically, Lattimer illustrated this in
one of his experiments.
ftp://mysite.verizon.net/temps/tumbling.jpg
Herbert
John Fiorentino
it was already tumbling or wobbling when it entered the back."
You are welcome to your beliefs Robert. I realize no amount of evidence or
common sense will ever change them.
John F.
"Robert Harris" <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bobharris77-4F91...@earthlink.us.supernews.com...
lazu...@webtv.net
JFK-there is a slight possibility the throat wound was caused by an
exiting wound from just below the EOP, but that would have to have been
fired from the roof on the County records Bldg. on a real steep
trajectory...the weight of the evidence though is the throat wound was
one of entrance.....not one of the nurses or Doctors ever described the
wound as looking anything but entrance, this was half the size of the
back wound... so, like the cerebellum, and the avulsive wound stretching
into the back of the head, and the back wound at t-3..there is way too
many good, early witnesses to get around it...laz
bigdog
Right. A bullet entered JFK's throat and just fucking disappeared. A
magic fucking bullet if ever there was one.
Jason Burke
But Johnny. Just for giggles, let's assume there was a fourth shot. Even
YOU admit that it missed. Must've been a darn magic bullet to BOTH miss
and force JFK "back and to the left", eh?
Herbert Blenner
> On Apr 21, 1:38 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <4bcdf80...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > There is no reason to believe the bullet was tumbling when it entered JFK.
> > > That deviation was precipitated by the transit through the President's
> > > body.
>
> > John, I think you have things a bit out of order. Before the bullet
> > transits the body, it has to first enter the body. There is a standard
> > formula for calculating the incoming angle of a bullet, based on the
> > dimensions of a bullet wound, assuming there is zero wobble. It is
> > -sin(w/h) which comes out to about 55 degrees above horizontal (-35
> > degrees off the vertical axis).
>
> The equation you cite applies to an elliptical droplet of blood on a
> horizontal surface and gives the impact angle between the incoming
> droplet and the surface of the target.
>
> ftp://mysite.verizon.net/temps/impact.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/impact.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/tumbling.jpg
>
> Herbert
David Von Pein
>>> "Right. A bullet entered JFK's throat and just fucking disappeared. A magic fucking bullet if ever there was one." <<<
Indeed.
And not only did the JFK throat bullet completely vanish off the
planet (according to the conspiracy theorists), but the bullet that
entered President Kennedy's upper back ALSO completely disappeared
right after the shooting too.
Plus -- To make CT matters even worse (and infinitely more laughable),
since the conspiracy theorists don't believe for even one second that
Stretcher Bullet CE399 touched either JFK or Governor Connally on
11/22/63, the CTers have yet ANOTHER disappearing bullet in this case
-- the bullet that hit Connally.
Plus -- To make this topic soar off the radar screen in terms of
"magic disappearing bullets" (and "CT-Kook hilarity and conjecture"),
some conspiracy nuts (like James H. Fetzer, to name just one) have
actually increased their number of vanishing missiles to FOUR, or
maybe even FIVE.
How so?
Because some conspiracy kooks (like Fetzer) actually think Governor
Connally was struck by more than one bullet in Dealey Plaza. And,
naturally, since those same kooks (like Fetzer) don't believe for a
second that Commission Exhibit 399 touched any human victim on
November 22nd, this would mean that every bullet that was inside the
body of John B. Connally somehow miraculously disappeared off the
globe before any of those missiles could get placed into the official
record of this case.
And this current "Missing Bullets" inventory I'm talking about here
doesn't even take into account any of the JFK head-shot bullets (or
bullet fragments) that Fetzer and other assorted conspiracy-happy
clowns probably also think disappeared at the hands of conspirators
and cover-up operatives right after the assassination.
The fantasy-prone Professor Fetzer, by the way, thinks JFK was hit in
the head by two separate bullets, thus increasing Fetzer's total
number of shots fired to at least six, and probably even more than
that when any missed shots are added in.
It's interesting (and hilarious) to hear kooks like Fetzer and James
DiEugenio, et al, talk about the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE portions of the JFK
and J.D. Tippit murder cases. They perform their "Anybody But Oswald"
act much better when they stay about a thousand miles away from that
pesky physical evidence.
Because once the conspiracy kooks start talking about the PHYSICAL
aspects of the case, including any of their imaginative and
unsupportable scenarios about the number of bullets that hit the
victims and where those bullets entered the bodies of JFK & JBC, then
the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy promoters begin to look downright
silly (and very, very desperate in their zeal to exonerate a double-
murderer named Lee Harvey Oswald). Even sillier than they already
were, that is.
And this "downright silly" point about the bullet evidence is
something I wish author Vincent Bugliosi had stressed even more in his
book "Reclaiming History" (and especially during the various radio and
television interviews that Vince did in 2007).
During his radio and TV spots, whenever Bugliosi would talk about the
"WHERE DID THE BULLET GO?" aspect of the Single-Bullet Theory, Vince
would always present just one of the anti-SBT theories that have been
suggested by conspiracists over the years, with that being the one
that the FEWEST conspiracy theorists (by far) actually believe in --
i.e.:
The anti-SBT theory that Dr. Cyril Wecht promotes as the truth, which
is a theory that has a single bullet going through JFK's upper back
and neck (without deviating from its original course at all, per
Wecht).
Then the bullet that exited Kennedy's throat somehow manages to
completely miss the person sitting in front of JFK (Governor
Connally), and that bullet, according to Dr. Wecht, doesn't hit any
part of the limousine or any other person in the limousine. The
bullet, after leaving Kennedy's neck, somehow manages to disappear
completely, leaving no trace of its existence.
Wecht, at the 1986 TV docu-trial ("On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"), said
that the bullet could have easily missed everyone in the car and
missed hitting the car itself after exiting JFK. But the diagram he
used to demonstrate that theory is a diagram that shows the lateral
(right-to-left) trajectory of the bullet to be much too great of an
angle.
And that's because Wecht has conveniently moved the location of the
Depository gunman to a point much further WEST than the killer
actually was. Plus, Wecht also conveniently moved the shooter down to
a lower floor of the Depository, instead of keeping the gunman on the
floor where every reasonable person knows he was located, which was
the sixth floor.
But Vince Bugliosi, in my opinion, would have made an ever better
"Where Did The Bullet(s) Go?" point if he would have also mentioned in
his radio interviews the theory that most CTers seem to actually
accept -- the theory that has TWO separate bullets entering John
Kennedy's body (one in the upper back and another one in the throat),
with neither of these bullets exiting his body. Hence, that theory
must include TWO MAGIC, DISAPPEARING BULLETS.
And then, as I mentioned earlier, Vince (during his radio/TV
interviews and personal speaking appearances in 2007) could have also
added at least one Connally bullet to the absurd mix of vanishing
projectiles that conspiracists have created for themselves, for a
total of a minimum of THREE magic bullets that all did a disappearing
act on November 22, 1963.
When the chance presents itself to ridicule the absurd and literally
impossible things that a large number of conspiracy theorists place
their faith in, then I say it makes sense to take advantage of such a
golden opportunity to demonstrate the illogic of the CTers' beliefs --
such as the TRIPLE craziness of having as many as THREE bullets (and
maybe even more!) entering the bodies of two men (with ZERO of those
three bullets EXITING either of the victims, keep in mind!) and then
having all of these bullets going AWOL right after the assassination.
Such silliness would be more at home on "Ripley's Believe It Or Not".
David Von Pein
April 22, 2010
Herbert Blenner
> The best book for these questions is "The JFK Myths"
> by Larry Sturdivan. He is a ballistic expert who has
> run lots of experiments.
During his HSCA testimony, Larry Sturdivan stated a falsehood. He
said, "If it indeed had the (elliptical) shape that was described,
then it would have to have been yawed and having been yawed, it would
require that it struck something else before it struck the Governor."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0214a.htm
This statement has caused considerable confusion since the Forensic
Pathology Panel expressed a conflicting view. They reported,
"If a missile strikes an intervening target, its normal yaw* may be
exaggerated, or it may begin to tumble.* The entry wound in a
subsequent target might reflect this distortion in trajectory by
anything from a very slight asymmetry to an ovoid or virtually
rectangular reentry wound. The latter would be the case if the missile
were to strike sideways and is somewhat similar to what was described
in some of the initial medical reports on the wound in the posterior
thorax of Governor Connally."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0088b.htm
.
In part the FPP bears some liability for the confusion since self-
contradictory graphics accompanied their conflicting viewpoint of the
relationship between a virtually rectangular wound and a yawed bullet.
Nevertheless, I ask has Sturdivan corrected his incorrect testimony?
Herbert
Robert Harris
"John Fiorentino" <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "And I just cannot understand how a bullet could have exited so cleanly if
> it was already tumbling or wobbling when it entered the back."
>
> You are welcome to your beliefs Robert. I realize no amount of evidence or
> common sense will ever change them.
John, I think you have that reply hotkeyed and you just automatically
use it whenever you cannot answer an important issue.
I assure you john, that I am not closed minded on this issue. And I also
assure you that it is not my fault that the damned bullet was tumbling.
If I had my way, it would not .
This is not about my "beliefs". It is about a significant question, that
any honest person should want to address.
Robert Harris
John Blubaugh
> >> Example:
>
> >> A: Lee Harvey Oswald.
>
> >> Q: Who assassinated JFK?
>
> >> Alex Trebek: Correct.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Alex could say that difinitively because two commissions found that.
>
> > A: The grassy knoll
>
> > Q: Where did a fourth shot at JFK in Dallas come from?
>
> > Alex could also affirm this one too.
>
> > JB
>
> But Johnny. Just for giggles, let's assume there was a fourth shot. Even
> YOU admit that it missed. Must've been a darn magic bullet to BOTH miss
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, it is obvious that I do not think that shot missed.
JB
John Fiorentino
I had numerous discussions with John Lattimer about this. Perhaps you
should consult "Kennedy and Lincoln" for a good overview, if you haven't
already.
There is a very satisfactory explanation as to how a "tumbling" bullet.
(That is a bullet whose deviation is caused by transit through the body)
could in fact leave a very neat exit wound.
There is no supportable evidence that the bullet which transited JFK was
tumbling in it's course through the body. It's not impossible, it's just
not supportable.
In any event, it's quite obvious that upon exit that bullet did indeed
begin it's deviation as evidenced by the wound of entrance on Connally's
back and the wound of exit after transit through JBC.
However, theoretically, it would have been *possible* for the wound of
exit on JBC to be "neat." More or less the luck of the draw, and the
evidence shows that was not the case. In Lattimer's experience this action
was essentially a universal observation during his tests.
Moreover, the history of the Mannlicher Carcano round points to great
stability in flight. So, a direct hit on JFK's back was unlikely to be
caused by a "tumbling" bullet.
And of course the flight path through JBC was substantially different than
the transit through the President.
John F.
"Robert Harris" <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bobharris77-2612...@earthlink.us.supernews.com...
Herbert Blenner
wrote:
> Robert:
>
> I had numerous discussions with John Lattimer about this. Perhaps you
> should consult "Kennedy and Lincoln" for a good overview, if you haven't
> already.
>
> There is a very satisfactory explanation as to how a "tumbling" bullet.
> (That is a bullet whose deviation is caused by transit through the body)
> could in fact leave a very neat exit wound.
>
> There is no supportable evidence that the bullet which transited JFK was
> tumbling in it's course through the body. It's not impossible, it's just
> not supportable.
A tangential collision with a solid obstacle within President Kennedy
was the only mechanism capable of imparting an angular speed to the
bullet that is inaccurately called tumbling.
The yaw angle of the exiting bullet being equal to the angular speed
multiplied by the very small interval between the collision and the
exit is itself a small angle even for a substantially large angular
speed. This consideration is the correct explanation of how a
"tumbling" bullet can make an elliptical exit wound that becomes
roundish for a small angle of incidence.
>
> In any event, it's quite obvious that upon exit that bullet did indeed
> begin it's deviation as evidenced by the wound of entrance on Connally's
> back and the wound of exit after transit through JBC.
Air can only tumble a bullet fitted with a flap or a rudder.
Show us the evidence of a 15 mm virtually rectangular wound on
Connally's back.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/tumbling.jpg
Without this demonstration you have no basis to claim an entry by a
"tumbling" bullet.
>
> However, theoretically, it would have been *possible* for the wound of
> exit on JBC to be "neat." More or less the luck of the draw, and the
> evidence shows that was not the case. In Lattimer's experience this action
> was essentially a universal observation during his tests.
Tests by the Edgewood Arsenal show that a simulated torso consumed 400
ft-lb of kinetic energy from a bullet that transited with negligible
angle of yaw. These experiments enable placing a lower bound on the
kinetic energy consumed from a bullet that transits with a given angle
of yaw. Calculations show that 1200 ft-lb is lost by a bullet with a
30-degree yaw angle that would have produced a 15 mm rectangular entry
wound. However this lower bound on the loss is far in excess of the
required energy to have transited Kennedy and inflict the other wounds
upon Connally.
>
> Moreover, the history of the Mannlicher Carcano round points to great
> stability in flight. So, a direct hit on JFK's back was unlikely to be
> caused by a "tumbling" bullet.
So what caused Kennedy's scalp wound that had the same elliptical
shape and the same 15-mm elongation as Connally's back wound?
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/holegeometry.jpg
Knowledgeable people attribute elliptical wounds to a tangential entry
by a bullet with a negligible yaw angle.
>
> And of course the flight path through JBC was substantially different than
> the transit through the President.
>
> John F.
Herbert
>
> "Robert Harris" <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:bobharris77-2612...@earthlink.us.supernews.com...
>
>
>
> > In article <4bcf4ee...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >> "And I just cannot understand how a bullet could have exited so cleanly
> >> if
> >> it was already tumbling or wobbling when it entered the back."
>
> >> You are welcome to your beliefs Robert. I realize no amount of evidence
> >> or
> >> common sense will ever change them.
>
> > John, I think you have that reply hotkeyed and you just automatically
> > use it whenever you cannot answer an important issue.
>
> > I assure you john, that I am not closed minded on this issue. And I also
> > assure you that it is not my fault that the damned bullet was tumbling.
> > If I had my way, it would not .
>
> > This is not about my "beliefs". It is about a significant question, that
> > any honest person should want to address.
>
> > Robert Harris- Hide quoted text -
Robert Harris
John, you seem to be totally obvlivious to the evidence.
Obviously, the bullet was tumbling. There is no other explanation for
why the wound was nearly twice as tall as it was wide.
Ask any forensics expert. This is just a given.
And if a MC rifle fires as straight as Latimer claimed, then that is
just more proof that it was not the rifle that fired that particular
shot.
But we already know that, since a high powered rifle shot then would
have provoked startle reactions by the limo passengers, as we see
following the shot at 285 and 312.
But not only did that shot fail to provoke startle reactions, it went
totally unheard by pretty much every one in DP that day.
If you want to understand the attack, you have to let go of this
ancient dogma you've had pounded into your head. It's BS, just like
much of what the old school conspiracy people believe.
Robert Harris
On 22 Apr 2010 22:57:41 -0400, "John Fiorentino"
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's even more magical. A bullet hit JFK in the front right side of
his head without leaving an entrance wound that was recognizable to
any forensic pathologist, that didn't lodge in JFK's head, and didn't
exit the back left side of his head, even though JFK's head was
rotated to the left when struck. I'd love to see the diagram of that
bullet trajectory.
lazu...@webtv.net
perfect little round hole as described by all the witnesses, and as a
puncture by Dr. Carrico, for a supposed exit in JFK's throat in soft
tissue, then becoming an elongated entrance in Connaly , thus changing
direction and going several inches to the right near JBC's armpit...no
way Jose..laz
lazu...@webtv.net
the single bullet theory) 1. The back wound was at T-3 how can anyone
honestly overide-the autopsy face sheet-the death certificate-the 2 fbi
agents report, and the main X-Ray Tech and radiologist who both put it
at least T-3 and closer to T-4? 2. The back wound did not
penetrate-there is no evidence whatsoever Connally was hit by the same
bullet as JFK-after Agents Sibert And O'Neill left the morgue-Capt.
Richard Lipsey and Embalmer Robinson knew the back wound didn't
penetrate-the back wound was thus moved up to the neck, and the neck
wound in the hairline became the eop headshot as per the Warren
report...Laz
Jason Burke
Oh, good. Another rocket scientist - from webtv, no less - who thinks he
has just proven EVERYTHING from the last 46+ years is wrong
Not to mention that his grammar, spelling, and punctuation skills are
barely at a fifth grade level.
When will these people ever learn?
Walt
Ah...An arrogant elitist who thinks he's the smartest bastard in the
world....Jason, you're Just like every sucker ever born.....You
BELIEVE you know all the answers because your an arrogant bastard who
has been spoon fed piles of bullshit. In your arrogance you gobbled
it all up and you're now full FOS and too danmed dumb to realize that
your not as smart as you think you are.
David Von Pein
Jason properly responded to Ol' Laz' usual pile of excrement,
including this piece of disinformation, which all conspiracy-happy
kooks love to drag out of their stale closets every five seconds:
"...the back wound was thus moved up to the neck..." -- Ol' Laz
The above quote is nothing but horseshit, and CE903 PROVES it is
horseshit.
So, even when we have a PICTURE to prove that the WC did not require
the wound to be "moved" up into the "NECK" of John F. Kennedy (and
CE903 is that picture), the conspiracy whack jobs still try to say
that the wound had to be moved up into the neck for the SBT to work.
You kooks should all be locked in a room together and forced to read
the WCR 24/7 until you realize what a very good document it is.
Walt
> Jason properly responded to Ol' Laz' usual pile of excrement,
> including this piece of disinformation, which all conspiracy-happy
> kooks love to drag out of their stale closets every five seconds:
>
> "...the back wound was thus moved up to the neck..." -- Ol' Laz
>
> The above quote is nothing but horseshit, and CE903 PROVES it is
> horseshit.
>
> So, even when we have a PICTURE to prove that the WC did not require
> the wound to be "moved" up into the "NECK" of John F. Kennedy (and
> CE903 is that picture), the conspiracy whack jobs still try to say
> that the wound had to be moved up into the neck for the SBT to work.
>
> You kooks should all be locked in a room together and forced to read
> the WCR 24/7 until you realize what a very good document it is.
THAT my dear Dumbass is the problem....YOU believe the WCR is
gospel...even though you know that it is NOT. If you'd examinme your
"gospel againmst the actual records you "may" be smart enough to
realize what a cleverly created pile of bullshit it really is.
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/119.+CE903?gda=yNxkiDw...
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On Apr 25, 8:42=A0am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Jason properly responded to Ol' Laz' usual pile of excrement,
>> including this piece of disinformation, which all conspiracy-happy
>> kooks love to drag out of their stale closets every five seconds:
>>
>az
>>
>> The above quote is nothing but horseshit, and CE903 PROVES it is
>> horseshit.
>>
>> So, even when we have a PICTURE to prove that the WC did not require
>> the wound to be "moved" up into the "NECK" of John F. Kennedy (and
>> CE903 is that picture), the conspiracy whack jobs still try to say
>> that the wound had to be moved up into the neck for the SBT to work.
>>
>> You kooks should all be locked in a room together and forced to read
>> the WCR 24/7 until you realize what a very good document it is.
>
>THAT my dear Dumbass is the problem....YOU believe the WCR is
>gospel...even though you know that it is NOT. If you'd examinme your
>"gospel againmst the actual records you "may" be smart enough to
>realize what a cleverly created pile of bullshit it really is.
It's revealing that LNT'ers want you to read the WCR, but aren't interested in
the underlying evidence that the WCR so miss-represented. They can't explain the
outright lies the WCR told about the evidence - and if the WCR were *ALL* you
read, of course you'd tend to agree with their position.
Even their strongest proponents, authors such as Bugliosi or Posner, had to
simply lie about the evidence to make their case.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
aeffects
> Jason properly responded to Ol' Laz' usual pile of excrement,
> including this piece of disinformation, which all conspiracy-happy
> kooks love to drag out of their stale closets every five seconds:
>
> "...the back wound was thus moved up to the neck..." -- Ol' Laz
>
> The above quote is nothing but horseshit, and CE903 PROVES it is
> horseshit.
you're whining again troll.... good folks of Indiana finally telling
you NO to KFC?
> So, even when we have a PICTURE to prove that the WC did not require
> the wound to be "moved" up into the "NECK" of John F. Kennedy (and
> CE903 is that picture), the conspiracy whack jobs still try to say
> that the wound had to be moved up into the neck for the SBT to work.
>
> You kooks should all be locked in a room together and forced to read
> the WCR 24/7 until you realize what a very good document it is.
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/119.+CE903?gda=yNxkiDw...
lazu...@webtv.net
Pein/Lowry/McAdams/Bigdog..when will they ever learn...apparently
never.....gimme another case where any prominent person had their wounds
moved post mortem in this country twice-the back T-3 to neck- come on it
happens all the time right?, not only by one doctor, but 3 times-the
President Of The United States no less, And then the supposed EOP wound
some 4-5 inches up to the cowick..come on asshole gimme an example...Laz
lazu...@webtv.net
Autopsy Face Sheet-the Death Certificate-the 2 FBI Agents Report-and the
Radiologist and chief X-Ray Tech-to the neck for the Warren
Commission.Gimme one example where even half of this ever occurred on a
prominent person in the U.S.A. ....Laz
lazu...@webtv.net
well known pieces of shit... that infest this board and McAdams...LAZ
Jason Burke
That's right Wally. Let's see, you have absolutely NO evidence of
anything. So go ahead, go on the attack - an attack that has NOTHING to
do with the matter at hand.
Maybe if you deflect enough attention away, it'll make you feel better.
But, once again, 46 1/2 years of absolute nothingness, eh Wally?
Walt
No evidence!!??....Ya stupid arrogant bastard..... READ what the
cpos who were there on the sixth flooor at the time Deputy Eugene
boone found the rifle BURIED beneath a pile of boxes of books. ALL
of them said that the rifle had been carefully HIDDEN by placing boxes
of books over it. THAT my stupid arrogant freind is a FACT!
Your heroes on LBJ's Select Blue Ribbon Committee ( ie; The Warren
Commission) KNEW damned well that the rifle had been hidden by
burying it beneath those boxes of books....But they KNEW that Oswald
would not have had enough time to stop and bury it AFTER the shooting,
so they simply lied and said he ran by and tossed the rifle behind a
stack of boxes as he fled.
Those are the bastards that lied to you and you in your arrogance
believed them....SUCKER!!!
So go ahead, go on the attack - an attack that has NOTHING to
> do with the matter at hand.
>
> Maybe if you deflect enough attention away, it'll make you feel better.
> But, once again, 46 1/2 years of absolute nothingness, eh Wally?- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Apr 21, 10:41 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 2) They have NO forensic evidence on the magic bullet (CE-399) and the
> > two limo fragments that could be tied to the victims. IN fact, in
> > Frazier's testimony he ADMITTED to wiping evidence (i.e. blood and
> > tissue) OFF the fragments!
>
> > Mr. EISENBERG - Getting back to the two bullet fragments mentioned,
> > Mr. Frazier, did you alter them in any way after they had been
> > received in the laboratory, by way of cleaning or otherwise?
> > Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; there was a very slight residue of blood or
> > some other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the
> > examination. ***It was wiped off to clean up the bullet for
> > examination, but it actually would not have been necessary.***
> > Mr. EISENBERG - Is that true on both fragments?
> > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. (Robert Frazier, Vol. III., p. 437)
>
> > First he answered "No sir" to having tampered with the fragments, then
> > he goes on and admits he wiped blood and "some other material adhering
> > (to them)" off of them! Then he says it was NOT necessary to do so!
> > He is admitting he TAMPERED WITH THE EVIDENCE and there is NO
> > penalty! How can anyone take what is said as the Gospel when there is
> > NO penalty of perjury or a defense attorney cross-examining is beyond
> > me, but it happens all the time!
>
> Cleaning the bullet fragments in order to do the ballistic matching
> hardly amounts to tampering with evidence.
YOU are full of crap Bud, why was the BLOOD not tested to see it if at
least MATCHED the types of JFK and JBC before it was removed?? I
realize there was NO DNA testing in 1963, but the type of the blood
and tissue matching was available.
> The blood had no
> evidentiary value.
YOU are lying again Bud.
> DNA testing was not even an option in 1963.
It didn't need to be, they could have tested for the things I
mentioned above.
> In
> order to do the work he was assigned, ballistic matching, it was
> necessary to have a clean surface on the bullet so the markings could
> be examined. DUH!!!
Then why did he say IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO REMOVE THE BLOOD AND
TISSUE LIAR? Did you miss this part of his testimony that I posted??
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; there was a very slight residue of blood or
some other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the
examination. ***It was wiped off to clean up the bullet for
examination, but it actually would not have been necessary.***
> > 3) NO firm agreement on the wound placement for the back and head!
> > Both were later changed to fit the silly SBT theory, so how can we be
> > sure it is correct. We can't of course as wounds don't need to be
> > MOVED if the claim is correct.
>
> The placement of the head wound has nothing to do with the SBT. DUH!!!
>
> > 4) The location of the shooter, allegedly, and the placement of JFK's
> > body does NOT allow for the SBT to have occured. The shooter would
> > have been firing from a RIGHT TO LEFT angle, NOT a straight on one
> > UNLESS HE WAS FIRING FROM THE DAL-TEX BUILDING!
>
> The SBT works perfectly with the slight right to left trajectory.
Prove it liar, show us some research and cites then!
> > When a LNer steps forward and says the shooter could have fired from
> > the Dal-Tex building I will then give this theory some attention, but
> > it will never happen. Of course it still won't prove it happened due
> > to the above reasons.
>
> Why would we propose something for which there is no evidence?
YOU are lying again Bud, there is strong evidence of a shooter being
in the Dal-Tex building, what there is NOT evidence for is the SBT!
> > > The short version of the question I guess, is - is it possible for a
> > > tumbling bullet to have exited so cleanly and left behind such a tiny
> > > exit wound?
>
> > YOU still need an answer to this question in 2010??? OF course NOT!
>
> It is as possible today as it was in 1963. A FMJ bullet passing
> through soft tissue will not deform and therefore can make a very
> small exit wound which could easily be mistook for an entrance wound.
LOL! NOTHING you say will top this for showing YOUR ignorance and
dishonesty in this case! The bullet WOULD have went through MORE
THAN JUST SOFT TISSUE! It would have hit bone in the spinal column
for sure, and who knows what other bones (i.e. ribs) IF it had
actually done what they lied about.
Bud
wrote:
This retard doesn`t even know who he is responding to.
> why was the BLOOD not tested to see it if at
> least MATCHED the types of JFK and JBC before it was removed?? I
> realize there was NO DNA testing in 1963, but the type of the blood
> and tissue matching was available.
Can you show that blood was ever tested for type on recovered
bullets in this time period?
> > The blood had no
> > evidentiary value.
>
> YOU are lying again Bud.
>
> > DNA testing was not even an option in 1963.
>
> It didn't need to be, they could have tested for the things I
> mentioned above.
Syphilis?
> > In
> > order to do the work he was assigned, ballistic matching, it was
> > necessary to have a clean surface on the bullet so the markings could
> > be examined. DUH!!!
>
> Then why did he say IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO REMOVE THE BLOOD AND
> TISSUE LIAR? Did you miss this part of his testimony that I posted??
>
> Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; there was a very slight residue of blood or
> some other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the
> examination. ***It was wiped off to clean up the bullet for
> examination, but it actually would not have been necessary.***
Likely it have been removed when he was handled for the examination
anyway. If they aren`t collecting it, it doesn`t need to be saved.
> > > 3) NO firm agreement on the wound placement for the back and head!
> > > Both were later changed to fit the silly SBT theory, so how can we be
> > > sure it is correct. We can't of course as wounds don't need to be
> > > MOVED if the claim is correct.
>
> > The placement of the head wound has nothing to do with the SBT. DUH!!!
>
> > > 4) The location of the shooter, allegedly, and the placement of JFK's
> > > body does NOT allow for the SBT to have occured. The shooter would
> > > have been firing from a RIGHT TO LEFT angle, NOT a straight on one
> > > UNLESS HE WAS FIRING FROM THE DAL-TEX BUILDING!
>
> > The SBT works perfectly with the slight right to left trajectory.
>
> Prove it liar, show us some research and cites then!
Perhaps an actual bullet fired, like was done on "Beyond the Magic
Bullet".
> > > When a LNer steps forward and says the shooter could have fired from
> > > the Dal-Tex building I will then give this theory some attention, but
> > > it will never happen. Of course it still won't prove it happened due
> > > to the above reasons.
>
> > Why would we propose something for which there is no evidence?
>
> YOU are lying again Bud, there is strong evidence of a shooter being
> in the Dal-Tex building, what there is NOT evidence for is the SBT!
Produce this "strong evidence", retard.
> > > > The short version of the question I guess, is - is it possible for a
> > > > tumbling bullet to have exited so cleanly and left behind such a tiny
> > > > exit wound?
>
> > > YOU still need an answer to this question in 2010??? OF course NOT!
>
> > It is as possible today as it was in 1963. A FMJ bullet passing
> > through soft tissue will not deform and therefore can make a very
> > small exit wound which could easily be mistook for an entrance wound.
>
> LOL! NOTHING you say will top this for showing YOUR ignorance and
> dishonesty in this case! The bullet WOULD have went through MORE
> THAN JUST SOFT TISSUE! It would have hit bone in the spinal column
> for sure, and who knows what other bones (i.e. ribs) IF it had
> actually done what they lied about.
Didn`t hit the spinal column, retard, get up to speed.
Jason Burke
Now Wally. Do you see me calling any one stupid or arrogant? Why, no, I
don't think you do. See, that's your main problem. You have an
indefensible, not to mention wholly incorrect, series of arguments.
As I noted earlier... In almost 47 years the CTers have absolutely
nothing. Probably less than nothing, since every wacky theory on the CT
side has been shown to be, well, wacky.
Unless you call insulting the totality of the evidence stupid and
arrogant. Which is totally your right to do. But it does make you look
even more foolish every time you open your mouth.
Did Warren and the boys get everything 100% correct? Of course not. But
instead of picking on minor errors and omissions, why don't you look at
the overall picture? Give you a hint, and I'll type REALLY slowly and
put each point on a new line to help your comprehension:
Oswald killed Kennedy.
Oswald killed Tippit.
Oswald wounded Connally.
No one else in Dallas fired at the limo.
No one else was involved.
Easy, see?
P.S. Using a spell checker and at least making an attempt to punctuate
correctly *might* make you look a bit less foolish.
Walt
No??!!.... Read THIS asshole....."Oh, good. Another rocket scientist -
from webtv, no less - who thinks he
has just proven EVERYTHING from the last 46+ years is wrong "
"Not to mention that his grammar, spelling, and punctuation skills
are
barely at a fifth grade level. "
"When will these people ever learn?" .... Jason "the asshole" Burke
See, that's your main problem. You have an
> indefensible, not to mention wholly incorrect, series of arguments.
>
> As I noted earlier... In almost 47 years the CTers have absolutely
> nothing. Probably less than nothing, since every wacky theory on the CT
> side has been shown to be, well, wacky.
>
> Unless you call insulting the totality of the evidence stupid and
> arrogant. Which is totally your right to do. But it does make you look
> even more foolish every time you open your mouth.
>
> Did Warren and the boys get everything 100% correct? Of course not. But
> instead of picking on minor errors and omissions, why don't you look at
> the overall picture? Give you a hint, and I'll type REALLY slowly and
> put each point on a new line to help your comprehension:
>
> Oswald killed Kennedy.
> Oswald killed Tippit.
> Oswald wounded Connally.
> No one else in Dallas fired at the limo.
> No one else was involved.
>
> Easy, see?
>
> P.S. Using a spell checker and at least making an attempt to punctuate
> correctly *might* make you look a bit less foolish.- Hide quoted text -
Walt
I'm not the one who appears to be a fool..... You on the other hand
demonstrate that you haven't the braions of a common garden slug.
Ben Holmes
If everything is so clear - why can't LNT'ers explain the evidence in reasonable
and non-conspiratorial ways?
Jason Burke
Okay, so you just don't seem to get much of anything. How about this
one, then - since you don't wish to do anything but insult. (Gee, if you
had any VALID or PERTINENT points to make, maybe we wouldn't have to go
in this direction.)
Want insults, Wally? Well then, here's one for ya! And it's all little
words, so maybe even you can parse and comprehend them!
Kiss your mama with that mouth? Or are you too busy kissing your sister?
Jason Burke
Wally,
What are braions?
Walt
A typo..... Stupid
Walt
Hey asshole....I presented you with FACTS that prove that your gospel
( The Warren Report) is a pile of bullshit, but instead of checking
the facts you just ignore them and continue to present yourself as a
mindless fool.
>
> Want insults, Wally? Well then, here's one for ya! And it's all little
> words, so maybe even you can parse and comprehend them!
>
> Kiss your mama with that mouth? Or are you too busy kissing your sister?- Hide quoted text -
lazu...@webtv.net
people who lean towards the lone nut theory, but when I have given them
just a few of the reasons why the magic bullet is nonsense, or the
overwhelming amount of evidence for at least one grassy knoll
shooter...they have some questions or backtrack...yet, I've never talked
to any lone nut yahoo, that acts as if it is carved into stone Oswald
did it, and it's blasphemy to suggest otherwise...Strange.. this type of
creature only seems to exist in cyber space..Laz
David Von Pein
>>> "This type of creature [THE KOOK/CREEP NAMED LAZ MEANS "LNers" HERE] only seems to exist in cyber space." <<<
Laz better have a look at these stats then. LNers outnumber CTers by a
large margin via these statistics:
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2344.0.html
Ben Holmes
lazu...@webtv.net says...
My experience is the same. I usually try to find out what someone thinks without
giving 'em any clue about what I think, and the most common, *by far*, is that
there was a conspiracy. The rare ones who think Oswald alone did it are amazed
at the evidence I show 'em.
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <1571-4BD94195-7...@storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net>,
> lazuli...@webtv.net says...
>
>
>
> >I've met a lotta people who don't care about the Assassination, I've met
> >people who lean towards the lone nut theory, but when I have given them
> >just a few of the reasons why the magic bullet is nonsense, or the
> >overwhelming amount of evidence for at least one grassy knoll
> >shooter...they have some questions or backtrack...yet, I've never talked
> >to any lone nut yahoo, that acts as if it is carved into stone Oswald
> >did it, and it's blasphemy to suggest otherwise...Strange.. this type of
> >creature only seems to exist in cyber space..Laz
>
> My experience is the same. I usually try to find out what someone thinks without
> giving 'em any clue about what I think, and the most common, *by far*, is that
> there was a conspiracy. The rare ones who think Oswald alone did it are amazed
> at the evidence I show 'em.
What evidence is that Ben?? That LHO ordered, received, owned and
posed with a 40" Carcano?? And that it was high velocity?
Or that he went to Mexico city for sure due to overwhelming evidence?
Did YOU ACTUALLY SHOW THEM THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE you won't show
me?
OR that the FBI had IMMEDIATE jurisdiction?? Etc...
Wow, they are lucky as they get to see the evidence, but Ben won't
cite it for me!
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Apr 29, 9:33=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <1571-4BD94195-7...@storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net>,
>> lazuli...@webtv.net says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >I've met a lotta people who don't care about the Assassination, I've met
>> >people who lean towards the lone nut theory, but when I have given them
>> >just a
few of the =A0reasons why the magic bullet is nonsense, or the
>> >overwhelming amount of evidence for at least one grassy knoll
>> >shooter...they have some questions or backtrack...yet, I've never talked
>> >to any =A0lone nut yahoo, that acts as if it is carved into stone Oswald
>> >did it, and it's blasphemy to suggest otherwise...Strange.. this type of
>> >creature only seems to exist in cyber space..Laz
>>
>> My experience is the same. I usually try to find out what someone thinks =
>without
>> giving 'em any clue about what I think, and the most common, *by far*, is=
> that
>> there was a conspiracy. The rare ones who think Oswald alone did it are a=
>mazed
>> at the evidence I show 'em.
<moderated>
My stalker looks everywhere for me... I'm expecting him on rec.martial-arts
soon.
Karin
> Ok, I am looking for some answers - perhaps something that I have not
> thought of yet.
>
> Since 1995, I have been firmly convinced that one bullet passed through
> JFK and Connally at frame 223 - perhaps not exactly the way you see it,
> but the way I believe, makes sense.
>
> But after some long winded debates in another forum, I have developed
> some nagging doubts that perhaps some of you can allay.
>
> I have always believed that though it might not be probable, it was
> certainly possible that a bullet could enter JFK's back and then emerge
> from the lower neck, leaving behind a very tiny exit wound.
>
> But it would seem, that for such a thing to happen, the bullet would
> have to pass through in a very straight line, with no deviations.
>
> But JFK's back wound was was nearly twice as tall as it was high - 4x7mm
> and we see this same vertical, elongation in the hole in his jacket.
>
> http://www.subversivehistory.com/
>
> Of course, a tumbling bullet is entirely consistent with the notion that
> the shot at 223 was fired from a suppressed weapon, which was causing
> bullets to go astray.
>
> But, it is not consistent with a bullet leaving behind such a tiny exit
> wound. Connally, who also had an elongated entry wound in his back,
> suffered a very large exit wound in the chest, which blew out a great
> deal of blood and matter.
>
> The short version of the question I guess, is - is it possible for a
> tumbling bullet to have exited so cleanly and left behind such a tiny
> exit wound?
>
Bob,
This question is really beneath you, and I'm not sure why the sbt is
even a possibility in you mind. I just gave my 5 year old son a
little anatomy lesson. He now knows where the cervical and thoracic
vertabra are, and how to approximately locate C6 C7, T1, etc. I'd
strongly suggest you take a few minutes to locate them, too.
The death certificate, signed by the President's personal physician
Dr. Burkley, stated that the wound's entrance was located near T3.
Could he have been wrong? Yeah, maybe it could have been closer to T2
or T4. But remember that this was the physician to the President
of the United States. That suggests that he was at least as competent
at accurately locating anatomical structures as my 5 year old. And
it's not an every day thing to sign the death certificate for the
President of the United States, so we can assume that he would have
taken a minute to get it right. C6 and T3 are located in VERY
DIFFERENT areas of the body. So this isn't a subjective question--If
you don't know where C7 ends and T1 begins then you simply don't have
any business going to medical school.
Bottom line: Unless Dr. Burkley was on a major acid at the time (and
even trippin' physicians know the difference between cervical and
thoracic vertabra), he COULD NOT have mistaken C6 for T3. So the
single bullet theory is utterly ridiculous. And you should have
absolutely NO respect for the intellect of any kook who subscribes to
it. Period.
p.s. Thanks for (most of) your work! :-)
lazu...@webtv.net
sheet, and the diagram by Dr. Boswell where he puts the wound more
like 6 inches down from the neck line...surely, more than 2 or 3,
irregardess that he later tried to move it up to T-2 for his ARRB
deposition....Laz
Herbert Blenner
Of which wound do you speak? The FPP showed us and described a
transverse back wound while Humes documented a longitudinal bullet
hole. Despite efforts of the Clark and the Forensic Pathology Panels
to place these differing objects in the same location on the back,
Fox-5 shows that the longitudinal hole was below and to the left of
the wound described by the FPP.
Jeff
I thought Kennedy was shot in the front of the throat. That's what I
believe.
Jeff Marzano
Ben Holmes
Jeff says...
The medical evidence shows that it did.
Robert Harris is one of the "interesting" CT'ers, in that he believe the Z-film
is unaltered and authentic, (I believe he holds the same position on the Autopsy
photos & X-rays) and asserts that this was a "Mafia Did It" crime.
Many CT'ers here will recognize this as a "limited hang-out" sort of thing.
Karin
Yes, the evidence support*ed* the fact that the throat wound was an
entrance wound. (Which is why they found it necessary to mutilate his
body in that area).
Jason Burke
And just WHERE can I get some of whatever it is you're smoking?
Ben Holmes
tomnln
"Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
news:hrqc4...@drn.newsguy.com...
aggie
> On May 4, 4:16=A0pm, Jeff <rjmarz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 19, 8:50=A0am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Ok, I am looking for some answers - perhaps something that I have not
> > > thought of yet.
> >
> > > Since 1995, I have been firmly convinced that one bullet passed
> > > through JFK and Connally at frame 223 - perhaps not exactly the way
> > > you see it, but the way I believe, makes sense.
> >
> > > But after some long winded debates in another forum, I have developed
> > > some nagging doubts that perhaps some of you can allay.
> >
> > > I have always believed that though it might not be probable, it was
> > > certainly possible that a bullet could enter JFK's back and then
> > > emerge from the lower neck, leaving behind a very tiny exit wound.
> >
> > > But it would seem, that for such a thing to happen, the bullet would
> > > have to pass through in a very straight line, with no deviations.
> >
> > > But JFK's back wound was was nearly twice as tall as it was high -
> m
> > > and we see this same vertical, elongation in the hole in his jacket.
> >
> > >http://www.subversivehistory.com/
> >
> > > Of course, a tumbling bullet is entirely consistent with the notion
> t
> > > the shot at 223 was fired from a suppressed weapon, which was causing
> > > bullets to go astray.
> >
> > > But, it is not consistent with a bullet leaving behind such a tiny
> > > exit wound. Connally, who also had an elongated entry wound in his
> > > back, suffered a very large exit wound in the chest, which blew out a
> > > great deal of blood and matter.
> >
> > > The short version of the question I guess, is - is it possible for a
> > > tumbling bullet to have exited so cleanly and left behind such a tiny
> > > exit wound?
> >
> > > Robert Harris
> >
> > believe.
> >
>
> Yes, the evidence support*ed* the fact that the throat wound was an
> entrance wound. (Which is why they found it necessary to mutilate his
> body in that area).
I have a few questions, if you don't mind.
What was the evidence that established the fact that the throat wound was
an entry wound?
If they didn't want to insert the trach in that wound so they wouldn't
mutilate evidence of an entrance wound, just where would you reasonably say
the tracheostomy should have been done? What is the standard procedure for
performing a tracheostomy on a person with a throat wound like JFK's? Do
emergency room doctors routinely make another throat wound?
Was the Parkland Hospital staff involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the
President of the United States? You said they found it "necessary" to
mutilate him. What was their motive?
Finally, can you answer any of these questions with documented evidence?
All of these are reasonable questions which deserve reasonable answers.
Seven questions, that's all. Give us just four reasonable answers based on
anything but supposition or speculation. The last question is even a
freebie if you can provide documented evidence for any one of three other
questions.
aeffects
Golly gee batman, looks like another lone nut troll begging to be
noticed by .john and company.
So, fess up ya wanker, tell the truth now, ya really want to grow up
and work at KFC right, shithead?