"subjective facts"

[David Emerling]

Let me get a little philosophical for a moment. Indulge me if you're so
inclined. If not, just ignore this.

Is there such a thing as a "subjective fact"? Most people would probably
say, no. They would probably state, "How can anything that is subjective
be a fact? By definition, anything that is subjective cannot qualify as a
fact." And, I guess, there's some truth to that. But that's not how we run
our lives. That's not how reality works.

Imagine if the ONLY things we accepted as facts were things that were
objective and that we have personally observed or calculated. For instance
- how would you answer the question: Do you have a brain? Is it a FACT
that you have a brain?

Have you actually ever SEEN your brain? Probably not.

Here are some things that are probably true for you, however.

You've probably read that people have brains. You were probably taught
that very early in life. You have even seen a photograph of a brain in a
biology textbook. But it wasn't YOUR brain. You may have even seen a TV
program/documentary where doctors were performing surgery on somebody's
brain. You SEE the brain! But, again, it's not YOUR brain. You probably
know about concussions and can intelligently describe what it is - damage
to the brain usually caused by a jolt where the brain bounces against the
skull. You can look it up on WebMD. Headaches, nausea, blurred vision and
even death can result. But, even if you know somebody who has been
diagnosed with a concussion /or/ even if YOU have had a concussion /still/
you have never seen YOUR brain.

"But I saw it on x-rays!" That's just an IMAGE, however. Are you a trained
radiologist? You may have been told that it was your brain by a
radiologist; but, still - you are not actually SEEING your brain.

"A person cannot live without a brain. I'm alive. Therefore, I MUST have a
brain," you say. How do you know that's true? And STILL, you have not SEEN
your brain despite all this knowledge that you've accumulated.

Silly? Of course it's all silly. But my point should be obvious. We make
decisions about the world around us all the time based on nothing more
than common sense and the opinions of people who are smarter than us in
many areas.

The study of the Kennedy assassination is much like that. I have never
claimed to be a medical expert, ballistics expert, handwriting expert, nor
am I a forensics expert. I did not witness the Kennedy assassination. But
I have availed myself of the OPINIONS of people who are experts in these
fields and have read the testimony of those who DID witness the
assassination and other events related to the assassination.

"But, Dave - not all experts agree!"

True! But there are common sense methods of resolving such matters. This
is a "skill" that most people learn as they go through life when
confronted with conflicting conclusions about matters on which they are
not an expert. That's why we often get a second opinion on serious medical
issues. Experts DO make mistakes. But not often - that's what makes them
experts.

There is a thing called the "Baloney Detection Kit" - a catchy (and maybe
a bit goofy) title for a very serious matter - derived by Carl Sagan.
There actually IS a way of navigating through conflicting conclusions made
by experts (especially non-experts).

1. How reliable is the source of the claim?
2. Does the source make similar claims?
3. Have the claims been verified by somebody else?
4. Does this fit with the way the world works?
5. Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?
6. Where does the preponderance of evidence point?
7. Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?
8. Is the claimant providing positive evidence?
9. Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?
10. Are personal beliefs driving the claim?

You can take just about any wacky conspiracy belief and run it through the
above checklist and, although you may hit on several of the key points,
there is invariably one (usually many more) glaring FAIL. Unique to the
Kennedy case is that I always ask: Is the person working with the ACTUAL
evidence? For instance, is somebody discrediting a
photograph/film/recording, claiming that it is altered, and that person is
NOT working with a first generation photo/film/recording? Sometimes they
ARE. But then there are many OTHER things that have to fit into their
alteration theory that usually do NOT fit.

This is how I have always tried to look at the many issues in the Kennedy
assassination. I accept many of my beliefs as FACTS. Are they "subjective
facts"? Yes! Of course. But that's how the real world works. If we didn't
accept "subjective facts" as facts we would go through our lives in a
state of confused paralysis, doubting everything ... taking NOTHING as a
fact ... never capable of drawing conclusions and BUILDING on those
conclusions to create greater understanding.

For instance, I accept the "Single Bullet Theory" as a FACT because it
conforms quite nicely with all aspects of the Baloney Test. Alternate
theories that account for all of Kennedy's and Connally's wounds fail
miserably in many categories. Yet, those wounds DO exist. It happened.
There MUST be an explanation. There cannot be numerous explanations. As
Dale Myers says quite succinctly, "You can talk about all the theories you
want. This thing happened only ONE way ... it's not a magic bullet at all.
It's not even a single bullet theory, in my opinion. It's a single bullet
FACT."

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[John McAdams]

On 12 Jan 2017 12:36:24 -0500, David Emerling

<davide...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Let me get a little philosophical for a moment. Indulge me if you're so
>inclined. If not, just ignore this.
>
>Is there such a thing as a "subjective fact"? Most people would probably
>say, no. They would probably state, "How can anything that is subjective
>be a fact? By definition, anything that is subjective cannot qualify as a
>fact." And, I guess, there's some truth to that. But that's not how we run
>our lives. That's not how reality works.
>
>Imagine if the ONLY things we accepted as facts were things that were
>objective and that we have personally observed or calculated. For instance
>- how would you answer the question: Do you have a brain? Is it a FACT
>that you have a brain?
>
>Have you actually ever SEEN your brain? Probably not.
>
>Here are some things that are probably true for you, however.
>

I think, therefore I am.

Since my brain is, by definition, the part of me that thinks, I think,
therefore I have a brain.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 12 Jan 2017 12:36:24 -0500, David Emerling
<davide...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>For instance, I accept the "Single Bullet Theory" as a FACT because it
>conforms quite nicely with all aspects of the Baloney Test.

Just a semantic quibble: I would insist that the Single Bullet Theory
is a *theory* and not a fact.

A "fact" is that Kennedy was hit in the back at the level of T1. A
fact is that the fibers on the front of his shirt were displaced
outward. A fact is that Connally was well inboard of Kennedy in the
limo.

The single bullet *theory* explains these *facts* well.

People who don't believe in evolution say that evolution is "just a
theory." It's true that it's "just a theory." A proper response is
that "evolution is a very good theory." A *fact* is that there are
fossils of a creature called homo erectus. The *theory* of evolution
makes sense of that fact.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[David Emerling]

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 11:45:31 AM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:

> A "fact" is that Kennedy was hit in the back at the level of T1. A
> fact is that the fibers on the front of his shirt were displaced
> outward. A fact is that Connally was well inboard of Kennedy in the
> limo.
>
> The single bullet *theory* explains these *facts* well.

This is why I why I started this with the qualifier SUBJECTIVE fact.

You have outlined the facts very well. Those facts build upon themselves
until you have eliminated all other possibilities other than the only
plausible possibility - that one bullet passed through Kennedy and caused
all of Governor Connally's wounds.

Yes - semantics, perhaps. But, my guess is that that, to your way of
thinking, the Single Bullet Theory IS a fact. I would venture to say that
you leave about as much room for the Single Bullet Theory being false as 2
plus 2 equaling 4 as being false. In some alternate universe, perhaps 2
plus 2 does equal 5 ... just not in the universe in which YOU live.

> People who don't believe in evolution say that evolution is "just a
> theory." It's true that it's "just a theory." A proper response is
> that "evolution is a very good theory." A *fact* is that there are
> fossils of a creature called homo erectus. The *theory* of evolution
> makes sense of that fact.

I'm not saying that some ideas are still only theories. I'm certainly not
making the argument that a definitive decision has to be made on EVERY
theory as being true or false.

Evolution is far more complex, spanning millions (billions?) of years. One
could say the same thing for the Big Bang Theory. It's hardly fair to
compare theories like THOSE to the Single Bullet Theory.

I know you weren't making a direct comparison of Theory of Evolution to
the Single Bullet Theory - so, I don't want to be unfair. You were just
giving an example of what would be a TRUE theory. And, on that matter, I
agree.

Kennedy was assassinated only 53 years ago. It happened at 12:30pm on
November 22, 1963. Evidence was gathered immediately. Almost all of that
evidence still exists. People are still alive who witnessed and
investigated the assassination. Nobody was around for the Big Bang. The
evolutionary process is not observable in our lifetime - nor in multiple
generations - nor even in a several thousand years.

The Single Bullet Theory is quite simple. There are no competing theories
that stand up to the evidence in nearly the same way. The Single Bullet
Theory has all the hallmarks or rising to the level of a fact.

If there had been another row of seats between Kennedy and Connally within
the presidential limousine, I wonder how many conspiracy theorists would
have felt safe sitting between them? I invite them to get into a time
machine and test their Multiple Bullets Theory. :)

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edward Bauer]

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 12:36:27 PM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:
> If we didn't
> accept "subjective facts" as facts we would go through our lives in a
> state of confused paralysis, doubting everything ... taking NOTHING as a
> fact ... never capable of drawing conclusions and BUILDING on those
> conclusions to create greater understanding.
>

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN

Good thinking, David.

“...confused paralysis, doubting everything”
– yes, just like every JFK assassination debate group that has ever
existed.

“...drawing conclusions and BUILDING on those conclusions to create
greater understanding.”
Yes, the Scientific Method. The foundations upon which to BUILD on those
conclusions are assumption and speculation, the linchpins of scientific
progress. Yet they are ridiculed by most on these groups in an effort to
prevent the case from being solved so they can keep on arguing.


http://www.thefinaltruth.net

[GKnoll]

You are both ignoring the facts which which do not support the single
bullet theory and, instead, show that there were two closely spaced
bullets and not a single bullet. You are ignoring the evidence that points
to two, closely spaced shots and not a single shot. You neglect the
evidence which indicates that the shot which passed through JFK's back and
neck exited at a very slow velocity.

1)The bullet ricocheted off of the T1. It exited the neck at a point
higher than where it entered. Ricochet off a bone is normally an
indication of a low speed bullet.

https://goo.gl/photos/9TVQRFWfSjFDPvmj6

2)The exit wound in the neck was small and circular. It was so small and
circular that several doctors thought it was an entrance wound. This is
also evidence the bullet exited JFK's body at a very low speed.

3)CE399 does not look like a bullet that passed through one person and
then did all the damage to a second person.

4)John Connally and JFK react simultaneously to one shot, the first shot.
Connally reacts separately to a second shot. https://youtu.be/wEwbtP_9lPY

All of the evidence is consistent with one theory and one theory alone,
There were two bullets, separated by about 1 second. The first bullet
passed through JFK and exited at a velocity that was to slow to do
anything other than startle Connally ( as we see in the video when he
flips his hat to the left in synchronicity with JFK raising his hands to
his throat). The second bullet missed JFK completely and struck Connally
under his right armpit. That is the scenario that is supported by all of
the evidence.

[Robert Harris]

The problem is with the English language. A photo of what
appears to be a cow, might be consider objective proof that a
cow was standing where we see it in the picture.

But it is also a subjective opinion that what we see is a
cow. That may be a bit of an exaggeration, but it is the same
kind of thing we see in many JFK theories.

For example, I believe we see a partially broken window on
the third floor of the Daltex building. Is the Altgens photo
objective proof of that or is it only a subjective opinion?

http://jfkhistory.com/window.png

The bottom line here, is that as usual, we cannot generalize.
Every issue must be considered on its individual merits -
whether we believe it is objective or subjective.



Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

John McAdams wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2017 12:36:24 -0500, David Emerling
> <davide...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> For instance, I accept the "Single Bullet Theory" as a FACT because it
>> conforms quite nicely with all aspects of the Baloney Test.
>
> Just a semantic quibble: I would insist that the Single Bullet Theory
> is a *theory* and not a fact.
>
> A "fact" is that Kennedy was hit in the back at the level of T1.

Nonsense.

The lower of the two defects we see, is much more consistent
with Humes' measurements. Consider the dimensions of the
wound itself.

Humes testified, "The size of this wound was 4 by 7 mm., with
the long axis being in accordance with the long axis of the
body."

http://jfkhistory.com/backmeasurements.png

The shape of the upper defect is also totally inconsistent
with what bullet entry wounds normally look like and it is
obvious that the lower defect is what is being measured with
the ruler.


Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

John McAdams wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2017 12:36:24 -0500, David Emerling
> <davide...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> For instance, I accept the "Single Bullet Theory" as a FACT because it
>> conforms quite nicely with all aspects of the Baloney Test.
>
> Just a semantic quibble: I would insist that the Single Bullet Theory
> is a *theory* and not a fact.
>
> A "fact" is that Kennedy was hit in the back at the level of T1.

As you look at the image I just posted, consider that JFK's
anatomy is different than other men (something I've been
preaching to Speers for a decade).

In fact, on JFK, T1 is at EXACTLY the location of the lower
defect.

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/diagrams/spine.jpg





Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/12/2017 12:45 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2017 12:36:24 -0500, David Emerling
> <davide...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> For instance, I accept the "Single Bullet Theory" as a FACT because it
>> conforms quite nicely with all aspects of the Baloney Test.
>
> Just a semantic quibble: I would insist that the Single Bullet Theory
> is a *theory* and not a fact.
>

Ok, I can respect that. But some of your Nazi friends call it the Single
Bullet Fact.
Which one do you believe in? The Specter version, the WC version, the
Bugliosi version, the Nyers version, the Bugliosi versiom, the HSCA
version, etc.?

> A "fact" is that Kennedy was hit in the back at the level of T1. A

Close enough for a WC defender. ABOVE T1.

> fact is that the fibers on the front of his shirt were displaced
> outward. A fact is that Connally was well inboard of Kennedy in the
> limo.
>

So what?

> The single bullet *theory* explains these *facts* well.
>

Nope.
Which Single Bullet Theory?
Whose diagram?

> People who don't believe in evolution say that evolution is "just a
> theory." It's true that it's "just a theory." A proper response is

Well, in fact there are competing theories of evolution just as there
are competing SBTs.

> that "evolution is a very good theory." A *fact* is that there are

Which one?

> fossils of a creature called homo erectus. The *theory* of evolution
> makes sense of that fact.
>

That alone does not prove it.
A radical creationist can claim that God made several versions on man to
see which worked best. And Homo Sapiens slaughtered the Neanderthals.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

You only think you have a brain. We call that self-delusion.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 12:36:27 PM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:

You can make anything sound rational if it's said well. Doesn't mean
it's true. Here's Sworn testimony from an X-ray technician during the
autopsy of JFK:

"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."

From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf

Page 53

Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.

If the bullet was what they call a 'short shot', it may not penetrate
very deeply, and be near the surface and be squeezed out by the raising of
the body. To Further back that up, the autopsy team opened up the body
and examined the pleura which is the covering on the lungs. One of the
team stated the following in an interview:

" O'Connor: Now, there are high-powered weapons that will drive a bullet
straight through a body and a rigid probe will trace its path all the way
through. We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in
so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further than
that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found out
that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."

From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law Pages 40-41

http://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf


So they found the reason for the bullet that went into the upper back to
stop when only an inch or so into the body. It caused bruising on the
pleura and right lung, but did NOT tear or puncture any other tissues.
The bullet did NOT go past the pleura. Therefore the bullet could not
come out of the throat wound and then go on to hit Connally so many times.
The SBT is dead.

We've heard the testimony of 2 of the autopsy team. Their statements
fit with each other and make sense. At one point during the autopsy, ALL
the prosectors said "There's NO EXIT" for that bullet. When they opened
the body they saw the verification of their conclusion.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/12/2017 12:36 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> Let me get a little philosophical for a moment. Indulge me if you're so
> inclined. If not, just ignore this.
>
> Is there such a thing as a "subjective fact"? Most people would probably
> say, no. They would probably state, "How can anything that is subjective

It depends on how you define fact. What your bias is. You are free to
think that gravity does not exist. But gravity does not care if YOU exist.

> be a fact? By definition, anything that is subjective cannot qualify as a
> fact." And, I guess, there's some truth to that. But that's not how we run

How do you define subjective?

> our lives. That's not how reality works.

How do you know how reality works? Maybe you're not real.

>
> Imagine if the ONLY things we accepted as facts were things that were
> objective and that we have personally observed or calculated. For instance
> - how would you answer the question: Do you have a brain? Is it a FACT
> that you have a brain?
>

Huh? Can YOU see GRAVITY?

> Have you actually ever SEEN your brain? Probably not.
>

Sure, why not? MRI.

> Here are some things that are probably true for you, however.
>
> You've probably read that people have brains. You were probably taught

I've heard that rumor. Can your prove it.

> that very early in life. You have even seen a photograph of a brain in a
> biology textbook. But it wasn't YOUR brain. You may have even seen a TV

God, we hope not.
Have you ever held a brain in your hands? Hopefully not your own.

> program/documentary where doctors were performing surgery on somebody's
> brain. You SEE the brain! But, again, it's not YOUR brain. You probably

You've been watching too many horror movies. Frankenstein, Son of
Frankenstein, Ghost of Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein, Brother in
law of Frankenstein.

> know about concussions and can intelligently describe what it is - damage
> to the brain usually caused by a jolt where the brain bounces against the

Countrecoup. Guess what, this relates directly to the JFK assassination.
Way to keep it on topic!!!

> skull. You can look it up on WebMD. Headaches, nausea, blurred vision and
> even death can result. But, even if you know somebody who has been
> diagnosed with a concussion /or/ even if YOU have had a concussion /still/
> you have never seen YOUR brain.
>
> "But I saw it on x-rays!" That's just an IMAGE, however. Are you a trained
> radiologist? You may have been told that it was your brain by a
> radiologist; but, still - you are not actually SEEING your brain.
>

Have you ever heard of an MRI? Do you want to see mine?

> "A person cannot live without a brain. I'm alive. Therefore, I MUST have a
> brain," you say. How do you know that's true? And STILL, you have not SEEN
> your brain despite all this knowledge that you've accumulated.
>

Not exactly true.
Define living.

> Silly? Of course it's all silly. But my point should be obvious. We make
> decisions about the world around us all the time based on nothing more
> than common sense and the opinions of people who are smarter than us in
> many areas.
>
> The study of the Kennedy assassination is much like that. I have never
> claimed to be a medical expert, ballistics expert, handwriting expert, nor
> am I a forensics expert. I did not witness the Kennedy assassination. But
> I have availed myself of the OPINIONS of people who are experts in these
> fields and have read the testimony of those who DID witness the
> assassination and other events related to the assassination.
>

No.

> "But, Dave - not all experts agree!"
>
> True! But there are common sense methods of resolving such matters. This
> is a "skill" that most people learn as they go through life when
> confronted with conflicting conclusions about matters on which they are
> not an expert. That's why we often get a second opinion on serious medical
> issues. Experts DO make mistakes. But not often - that's what makes them
> experts.
>

Wrong.

> There is a thing called the "Baloney Detection Kit" - a catchy (and maybe
> a bit goofy) title for a very serious matter - derived by Carl Sagan.
> There actually IS a way of navigating through conflicting conclusions made
> by experts (especially non-experts).
>
> 1. How reliable is the source of the claim?
> 2. Does the source make similar claims?
> 3. Have the claims been verified by somebody else?
> 4. Does this fit with the way the world works?
> 5. Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?
> 6. Where does the preponderance of evidence point?
> 7. Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?
> 8. Is the claimant providing positive evidence?
> 9. Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?
> 10. Are personal beliefs driving the claim?
>
> You can take just about any wacky conspiracy belief and run it through the
> above checklist and, although you may hit on several of the key points,

No, you can't. You are biased. You will say black is white just to
support the WC.

> there is invariably one (usually many more) glaring FAIL. Unique to the
> Kennedy case is that I always ask: Is the person working with the ACTUAL
> evidence? For instance, is somebody discrediting a

YOU destroyed the evidence.
I am the person who proved that the Zapruder film is authentic.
So in your biased zeal to attack me you have to claim that the Zapruder
film is fake.

> photograph/film/recording, claiming that it is altered, and that person is
> NOT working with a first generation photo/film/recording? Sometimes they
> ARE. But then there are many OTHER things that have to fit into their
> alteration theory that usually do NOT fit.
>
> This is how I have always tried to look at the many issues in the Kennedy

Because you are biased.

> assassination. I accept many of my beliefs as FACTS. Are they "subjective
> facts"? Yes! Of course. But that's how the real world works. If we didn't
> accept "subjective facts" as facts we would go through our lives in a
> state of confused paralysis, doubting everything ... taking NOTHING as a
> fact ... never capable of drawing conclusions and BUILDING on those
> conclusions to create greater understanding.
>

Gobbledygook.

> For instance, I accept the "Single Bullet Theory" as a FACT because it
> conforms quite nicely with all aspects of the Baloney Test. Alternate

No, because you have no evidence and it matches your bias.

> theories that account for all of Kennedy's and Connally's wounds fail
> miserably in many categories. Yet, those wounds DO exist. It happened.
> There MUST be an explanation. There cannot be numerous explanations. As
> Dale Myers says quite succinctly, "You can talk about all the theories you
> want. This thing happened only ONE way ... it's not a magic bullet at all.
> It's not even a single bullet theory, in my opinion. It's a single bullet
> FACT."
>

Even McAdams of all people says that is the wrong way to argue it.
Maybe that is the best solution you could come up with given your lack
of facts.

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/12/2017 9:10 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 11:45:31 AM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
>
>> A "fact" is that Kennedy was hit in the back at the level of T1. A
>> fact is that the fibers on the front of his shirt were displaced
>> outward. A fact is that Connally was well inboard of Kennedy in the
>> limo.
>>
>> The single bullet *theory* explains these *facts* well.
>
> This is why I why I started this with the qualifier SUBJECTIVE fact.
>
> You have outlined the facts very well. Those facts build upon themselves
> until you have eliminated all other possibilities other than the only
> plausible possibility - that one bullet passed through Kennedy and caused
> all of Governor Connally's wounds.
>

It's called a house of cards.

> Yes - semantics, perhaps. But, my guess is that that, to your way of
> thinking, the Single Bullet Theory IS a fact. I would venture to say that
> you leave about as much room for the Single Bullet Theory being false as 2
> plus 2 equaling 4 as being false. In some alternate universe, perhaps 2
> plus 2 does equal 5 ... just not in the universe in which YOU live.
>
>> People who don't believe in evolution say that evolution is "just a
>> theory." It's true that it's "just a theory." A proper response is
>> that "evolution is a very good theory." A *fact* is that there are
>> fossils of a creature called homo erectus. The *theory* of evolution
>> makes sense of that fact.
>
> I'm not saying that some ideas are still only theories. I'm certainly not
> making the argument that a definitive decision has to be made on EVERY
> theory as being true or false.
>
> Evolution is far more complex, spanning millions (billions?) of years. One
> could say the same thing for the Big Bang Theory. It's hardly fair to
> compare theories like THOSE to the Single Bullet Theory.
>
> I know you weren't making a direct comparison of Theory of Evolution to
> the Single Bullet Theory - so, I don't want to be unfair. You were just
> giving an example of what would be a TRUE theory. And, on that matter, I
> agree.
>
> Kennedy was assassinated only 53 years ago. It happened at 12:30pm on
> November 22, 1963. Evidence was gathered immediately. Almost all of that

Evidence was destroyed immediately. The cover-up took a few hours later.

> evidence still exists. People are still alive who witnessed and

Sure, but we are not allowed to see it. Once we are, GAME OVER.
Even a child can see the bullet hole in the forehead. But not a WC defender.

> investigated the assassination. Nobody was around for the Big Bang. The

That's not a fair way to say it. Are you saying that God did not exist
yet or he was busy somewhere else?

> evolutionary process is not observable in our lifetime - nor in multiple
> generations - nor even in a several thousand years.
>

We see evolution every day.

> The Single Bullet Theory is quite simple. There are no competing theories
> that stand up to the evidence in nearly the same way. The Single Bullet
> Theory has all the hallmarks or rising to the level of a fact.
>

How would you know when you don't listen to any.
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Don't be a Harris.

> If there had been another row of seats between Kennedy and Connally within
> the presidential limousine, I wonder how many conspiracy theorists would
> have felt safe sitting between them? I invite them to get into a time
> machine and test their Multiple Bullets Theory. :)

Silly. So now you're talking about time machines. How soon before you
bring up UFOs?

>
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
>
>
>
>
>

[David Emerling]

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 9:28:09 PM UTC-6, GKnoll wrote:
> The second bullet missed JFK completely and struck Connally
> under his right armpit. That is the scenario that is supported by all of
> the evidence.

Then why was the entry wound in Connally's black so elliptical? It's hard
to construct a trajectory of a bullet that is fired from behind the
limousine and manages to COMPLETELY misses Kennedy and hits Governor
Connally. I'd like to see a graphic depiction of that trajectory. I'll bet
THAT bullet will have to do more zigging and zagging than what the
conspiracy theorists contend with the Single Bullet Theory.

Where did the bullet go that exited Kennedy's throat if it did not
continue on and hit neither the limousine nor Connally?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/12/2017 10:32 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> John McAdams wrote:
>> On 12 Jan 2017 12:36:24 -0500, David Emerling
>> <davide...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> For instance, I accept the "Single Bullet Theory" as a FACT because it
>>> conforms quite nicely with all aspects of the Baloney Test.
>>
>> Just a semantic quibble: I would insist that the Single Bullet Theory
>> is a *theory* and not a fact.
>>
>> A "fact" is that Kennedy was hit in the back at the level of T1.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> The lower of the two defects we see, is much more consistent with Humes'
> measurements. Consider the dimensions of the wound itself.
>
> Humes testified, "The size of this wound was 4 by 7 mm., with the long
> axis being in accordance with the long axis of the body."
>

That's a good guess, but it's wrong.

Humes, the author of the Ice Bullet Theory.

> http://jfkhistory.com/backmeasurements.png
>
> The shape of the upper defect is also totally inconsistent with what
> bullet entry wounds normally look like and it is obvious that the lower
> defect is what is being measured with the ruler.
>

What defect? You mean the round blood clot? Don't try to be a mainframe
tech.

[Mitch Todd]

Bob, would you please show us where in the photo that the back wound
appears? You seem to be getting ahead of yourself here.

[Anthony Marsh]

Logical error. 2 closely spaced shots does not prove or rule out a
Single Bullet Theory.

> points to two, closely spaced shots and not a single shot. You neglect
> the evidence which indicates that the shot which passed through JFK's
> back and neck exited at a very slow velocity.

False. They tested it and the bullets only lost about 129 fps.

>
> 1)The bullet ricocheted off of the T1. It exited the neck at a point

Yes. I don't think ricocheted is the right word. Glanced off of, grazed
the top of. Baden said the bullet GRAZED the T-1 vertebra.

> higher than where it entered. Ricochet off a bone is normally an

Yes, unless they lie and show JFK leaning over by 18 degrees.

> indication of a low speed bullet.
>

No.

> https://goo.gl/photos/9TVQRFWfSjFDPvmj6
>
> 2)The exit wound in the neck was small and circular. It was so small and
> circular that several doctors thought it was an entrance wound. This is
> also evidence the bullet exited JFK's body at a very low speed.
>

Yeah, and like all ER doctors they are wrong about half the time.

> 3)CE399 does not look like a bullet that passed through one person and
> then did all the damage to a second person.
>

Exactly. Some of the damage. Not all.

> 4)John Connally and JFK react simultaneously to one shot, the first
> shot. Connally reacts separately to a second shot.
> https://youtu.be/wEwbtP_9lPY
>

I like the concept, but I can't accept the math.
JFK was hit at frame 210 and Connally said he was hit at frame 230.

> All of the evidence is consistent with one theory and one theory alone,
> There were two bullets, separated by about 1 second. The first bullet

Yes. But we need more details. It's like saying that JFK was hit
somewhere on his head. Duh!

> passed through JFK and exited at a velocity that was to slow to do
> anything other than startle Connally ( as we see in the video when he
> flips his hat to the left in synchronicity with JFK raising his hands to
> his throat). The second bullet missed JFK completely and struck Connally
> under his right armpit. That is the scenario that is supported by all of
> the evidence.
>

Maybe you think that the bullet was traveling so slowly that he reached
out and caught it in his hand. Bullets don't do that.

[BOZ]

I agree with Emerling and Myers. I disagree with Professor Mcadams. The
single bullet theory is a fact. Go to David Von Pein's website and watch
the single bullet theory in action. You imply in your debate with Rossley
that the single bullet theory is a fact.

[BOZ]

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 1:45:31 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:

Trees, worms, and blue whales evolved from the same distant ancestor?
Prove it Professor.

[BOZ]

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 1:45:31 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:

Which came first THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG?

[mainframetech]

he back wound bullet was closer to striking the T3-T4 area, but no
bullet hit JFK and went through to the throat. There was proof of that in
the autopsy, which was seen by ALL autopsy team members. Few seem to have
the courage or tenacity to examine the sworn testimonies in the ARRB
files, where much of these answers reside.

> 2)The exit wound in the neck was small and circular. It was so small and
> circular that several doctors thought it was an entrance wound. This is
> also evidence the bullet exited JFK's body at a very low speed.
>

Slow speed mean a more ragged exit, but the throat was indeed an entry
wound as many Parkland doctors thought. Once it was proved during the
autopsy that the back wound bullet never left the body of JFK, it
eliminated the silly 'single bullet' theory. Here's a quote from the
Sworn testimony of James Sibert, FBI agent who observed the complete
autopsy:

"But when they raised him up, then they
found this back wound. And that’s when they
started probing with the rubber glove and the
finger, and - and also with the chrome probe.
And that’s just before, of course, I made
this call, because they were at a loss to explain
what had happened to this bullet. They couldn’t
find any bullet.
And they said, ‘There's no exit.” Finck,
in particular, said, "There’s no exit.” And they
said that you could feel it with the end of the
finger - I mean, the depth of this wound."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf
Page 111


Later in the autopsy they got verification of their earlier conclusion
that there was NO EXIT for the back wound bullet. It was proven once they
had opened the body, that the bullet had stopped at the pleura (covering
of the lungs) and had NOT torn or punctured any tissue and did not leave
that area. However, now that they had proof of the bullet being a 'short
shot', we can add the sworn testimony of Jerrol Custer, X-ray Technician
who early on raised the body and caused a bullet in the back to squeeze
out:

"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."

From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf

Page 53

Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.

> 3)CE399 does not look like a bullet that passed through one person and
> then did all the damage to a second person.
>

True, see above.

> 4)John Connally and JFK react simultaneously to one shot, the first shot.
> Connally reacts separately to a second shot. https://youtu.be/wEwbtP_9lPY
>
> All of the evidence is consistent with one theory and one theory alone,
> There were two bullets, separated by about 1 second. The first bullet
> passed through JFK and exited at a velocity that was to slow to do
> anything other than startle Connally ( as we see in the video when he
> flips his hat to the left in synchronicity with JFK raising his hands to
> his throat). The second bullet missed JFK completely and struck Connally
> under his right armpit. That is the scenario that is supported by all of
> the evidence.

See above, the 'single bullet' theory is dead.

Chris

[David Emerling]

On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 12:08:52 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:

> " O'Connor: Now, there are high-powered weapons that will drive a bullet
> straight through a body and a rigid probe will trace its path all the way
> through. We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in
> so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further than
> that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found out
> that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
> muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
> through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
> the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
> back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
> stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
> the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
> happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
> didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
> side of the body.
> Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
> O'Connor: Absolutely.

By all means, let's get the opinions from doctor and wounds expert Paul K.
O'Connor, who was an enlisted medical technician. Certainly O'Connor's
opinion would carry more weight than a trained pathologist or a wounds
expert - Dr. Pierre Finck was BOTH.

O'Connor says, "Now, there are high-powered weapons that will drive a

bullet straight through a body and a rigid probe will trace its path all
the way through."

Really? According to O'Connor, you can usually trace the path of a
through-and-through bullet with a rigid probe. I have researched this
matter, reading the opinions of pathologists, and there is a wide
consensus that tracking the path of a bullet is not as easy as sticking in
a "rigid probe". This is complicated by two main factors: If the body, on
the autopsy table, is not in the exact same position it was in at the time
the bullet transited, the path is likely to be curved and any attempt to
trace the path with a rigid probe (as concerned Dr. Humes) runs the risk
of making a FALSE passageway. Secondly, and more importantly, the wound
usually closes down with the onset of rigor mortis and complicates matters
even further. The longer the path of the bullet, the more these become
complicating factors.

If the bullet had entered high on Kennedy's back and exited his throat
(which there is every indication that happened), the length of the path
would have been greater than 6-inches, mostly through muscle tissue that
tends to twist and contort as the body moves. Kennedy was not shot while
lying down on an autopsy table.

But, don't take my word for it. Ask a pathologist (a doctor)! Or, you can
rely on the selective interpretations of the equivalent of a lab
technician who has a clear desire to get his 15 minutes of fame by making
statements to draw the attention of conspiracy theorists with whom his
(O'Connor's) stories resonate loudly.

Would you call an interior decorator to fix your plumbing problems?

Paul O'Connor, like so many others who attended the Bethesda autopsy and
had nothing more to do with it after that evening, are recalling only what
happened that evening. It's true that Dr. Humes (and the other two
pathologists) were puzzled about the nature of the back wound and
expressed some opinions that they would later change when they got
additional information. Of course, we now know that this puzzlement all
stemmed from the fact that they were completely unaware that the surgical
incision in Kennedy's throat obliterated a bullet wound. That would have
changed EVERYTHING!

Dr. Humes found out about that wound the next morning when speaking with
Dr. Perry of Parkland Hospital. That was the first time Perry knew about
the back wound - because the president's body was never turned over at
Parkland. This was the first time Dr. Humes knew about the throat wound.
Each doctor had a piece of the puzzle that the other didn't have. Now,
what didn't seem to make a lot of sense during the autopsy - that a bullet
would only travel a short distance in the neck and then work itself out -
made PERFECT sense.

If the throat wound was ALSO an entry wound - then where in the hell did
THAT bullet disappear to? The notion that Kennedy had two entry wounds,
one in the back and one in the throat, where NEITHER bullet transited the
body and NEITHER bullet remained embedded in the body, is so silly that it
can be dismissed out-of-hand. Further, NEITHER of those bullets were ever
recovered - making it even more preposterous.

In any case, bullet wounds cannot always be tracked with a rigid (or even
a malleable) probe. Any pathologist would tell you that if you asked. But,
instead, this was the opinion of a lab technician. Excellent research!
Pfft.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[OHLeeRedux]

You only think you are smarter than everyone else. We call that
preposterous.

[Anthony Marsh]

Physically impossible. If a bullet could not eben penetrate the skin it
would not even be able to leave the barrel.

> very deeply, and be near the surface and be squeezed out by the raising of
> the body. To Further back that up, the autopsy team opened up the body

Raising of the body? When? In the limo? Then it would be found on the
limo floor.
Why don't we bring back that kook theory that JFK coughed out the bullet?

> and examined the pleura which is the covering on the lungs. One of the
> team stated the following in an interview:
>
> " O'Connor: Now, there are high-powered weapons that will drive a bullet
> straight through a body and a rigid probe will trace its path all the way
> through. We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in
> so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further than
> that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found out
> that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
> muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
> through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
> the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
> back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
> stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
> the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
> happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
> didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
> side of the body.

Amateurs.
You MUST dissect the wound.

> Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
> O'Connor: Absolutely.
> Law: It was just from the probe then?
> O'Connor: Oh yes.
> Law: And these doctors knew that?
> O'Connor: Absolutely.
> Law: While it happened?
> O'Connor: Absolutely."
>
> From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law Pages 40-41
>
> http://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
>
>
> So they found the reason for the bullet that went into the upper back to
> stop when only an inch or so into the body. It caused bruising on the
> pleura and right lung, but did NOT tear or puncture any other tissues.
> The bullet did NOT go past the pleura. Therefore the bullet could not
> come out of the throat wound and then go on to hit Connally so many times.
> The SBT is dead.
>
> We've heard the testimony of 2 of the autopsy team. Their statements
> fit with each other and make sense. At one point during the autopsy, ALL
> the prosectors said "There's NO EXIT" for that bullet. When they opened
> the body they saw the verification of their conclusion.
>

Great. So you just believe everything the autopsy doctors say.
So you believe in the Ice Bullet Theory.

> Chris
>
>

[GKnoll]

Did you look at the video clip that I presented?
If not, please watch it. When watching the first part try to see both
JFK and Connally's reaction. They are synchronous. Connally's attention
is obviously drawn to his left. Why? Because the bullet that exited
JFK's throat hit, or grazed Connally on his LEFT side. It caused no
damage, and the evidence strongly suggests, that bullet became CE399.

You slipping into a defensive mode, exactly what you argued against in
your original post. Look at the video.

[mainframetech]

That has been answered but the reply hasn't been posted yet and is in
the hands of McAdams.



> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN

[Anthony Marsh]

Between the 7 and the 1.
Are you accepting the accuracy of Seaton's exhibit? Is that JFK?

[Anthony Marsh]

Sorry, I don't remember the GPS coordinates. About 1/4 mile west of the
underpass.
Are you even aware of Mark Furhman's theory that it hit the chrome topping?

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[Anthony Marsh]

The Rooster.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/13/2017 9:03 PM, BOZ wrote:

Wrong. WHo said that?

[Anthony Marsh]

Nonsense. Baden says the bullet grazed T-1. It caused a hairline
fracture of T-1. Grow up.

> the autopsy, which was seen by ALL autopsy team members. Few seem to have
> the courage or tenacity to examine the sworn testimonies in the ARRB
> files, where much of these answers reside.
>

You mean the ones who said it was an Ice Bullet?

>
>
>
>> 2)The exit wound in the neck was small and circular. It was so small and
>> circular that several doctors thought it was an entrance wound. This is
>> also evidence the bullet exited JFK's body at a very low speed.
>>
>
>
> Slow speed mean a more ragged exit, but the throat was indeed an entry

Nonsense. You are not a forensic pathologist and have never talked to
one. Stop guessing.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/13/2017 10:13 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 12:08:52 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
>
>> " O'Connor: Now, there are high-powered weapons that will drive a bullet
>> straight through a body and a rigid probe will trace its path all the way
>> through. We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in
>> so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further than
>> that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found out
>> that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
>> muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
>> through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
>> the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
>> back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
>> stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
>> the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
>> happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
>> didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
>> side of the body.
>> Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
>> O'Connor: Absolutely.
>
> By all means, let's get the opinions from doctor and wounds expert Paul K.
> O'Connor, who was an enlisted medical technician. Certainly O'Connor's

No.

> opinion would carry more weight than a trained pathologist or a wounds
> expert - Dr. Pierre Finck was BOTH.
>

No.

> O'Connor says, "Now, there are high-powered weapons that will drive a
> bullet straight through a body and a rigid probe will trace its path all
> the way through."
>

CAN.

> Really? According to O'Connor, you can usually trace the path of a
> through-and-through bullet with a rigid probe. I have researched this

Yeah, so what? You can also create a false path by using a metal rod.
And it can stop at a vertebra.

> matter, reading the opinions of pathologists, and there is a wide
> consensus that tracking the path of a bullet is not as easy as sticking in
> a "rigid probe". This is complicated by two main factors: If the body, on
> the autopsy table, is not in the exact same position it was in at the time
> the bullet transited, the path is likely to be curved and any attempt to

Ever read the HSCA? A Metal Probe is the STUPID way to do it.
You MUST dissect the wound path.

Nope.

> THAT bullet disappear to? The notion that Kennedy had two entry wounds,
> one in the back and one in the throat, where NEITHER bullet transited the
> body and NEITHER bullet remained embedded in the body, is so silly that it
> can be dismissed out-of-hand. Further, NEITHER of those bullets were ever
> recovered - making it even more preposterous.
>

Physically impossible.

> In any case, bullet wounds cannot always be tracked with a rigid (or even
> a malleable) probe. Any pathologist would tell you that if you asked. But,
> instead, this was the opinion of a lab technician. Excellent research!
> Pfft.
>

Unless they are sworn to secrecy and threatened.

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
>
>

[Robert Harris]

No, you just failed to look my previous post in this thread,
to which this was a followup.




Robert Harris

[mainframetech]

On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 10:13:19 PM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:
> On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 12:08:52 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > " O'Connor: Now, there are high-powered weapons that will drive a bullet
> > straight through a body and a rigid probe will trace its path all the way
> > through. We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in
> > so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further than
> > that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found out
> > that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
> > muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
> > through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
> > the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
> > back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
> > stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
> > the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
> > happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
> > didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
> > side of the body.
> > Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
> > O'Connor: Absolutely.
>
> By all means, let's get the opinions from doctor and wounds expert Paul K.
> O'Connor, who was an enlisted medical technician. Certainly O'Connor's
> opinion would carry more weight than a trained pathologist or a wounds
> expert - Dr. Pierre Finck was BOTH.
>

Ah! We struck a nerve with the information. Paul O'Connor had been team
member for 50-60 autopsies before the one in question (see his
statements), and the indications that the bullet had NOT torn or punctured
tissue beyond the pleura is not something so arcane and so complicated
that he could not see what THE WHOLE TEAM SAW. The pleura and right lung
were bruised, but NOT broken, and remember, Pierre Finck was present and
doing the autopsy with all the team, and he was as qualified as anyone
could be. Since there was a couple observers that told of whatever they
saw or heard, if Finck had any problems with what they saw in the body, he
certainly would have said something.

> O'Connor says, "Now, there are high-powered weapons that will drive a
> bullet straight through a body and a rigid probe will trace its path all
> the way through."
>
> Really? According to O'Connor, you can usually trace the path of a
> through-and-through bullet with a rigid probe. I have researched this
> matter, reading the opinions of pathologists, and there is a wide
> consensus that tracking the path of a bullet is not as easy as sticking in
> a "rigid probe". This is complicated by two main factors: If the body, on
> the autopsy table, is not in the exact same position it was in at the time
> the bullet transited, the path is likely to be curved and any attempt to
> trace the path with a rigid probe (as concerned Dr. Humes) runs the risk
> of making a FALSE passageway. Secondly, and more importantly, the wound
> usually closes down with the onset of rigor mortis and complicates matters
> even further. The longer the path of the bullet, the more these become
> complicating factors.
>

Sorry! Wrong again. In this case they found that the depth of the
bullet hole in the back was about an inch or so. Just through the strap
muscles. That explains why the X-ray Technician dislodged the bullet and
saw it fall from the back. Humes foolishly also tried his little finger
in the wound and got the same result as the probe, a depth of an inch or
so. The entire autopsy team saw the verification of their previous
conclusion when they opened the body and found that the bullet had not
penetrated past the pleura.

> If the bullet had entered high on Kennedy's back and exited his throat
> (which there is every indication that happened), the length of the path
> would have been greater than 6-inches, mostly through muscle tissue that
> tends to twist and contort as the body moves. Kennedy was not shot while
> lying down on an autopsy table.
>

True, he was shot while sitting up wearing a brace that kept him
somewhat straight up. However, when they opened the body, the proof was
there for them all to see. There was no path beyond the pleura for the
bullet. And there was no bullet because the X-ray Technician saw it fall
out of the back and be recovered, never to be seen again. When the probe
was used the body was raised into a sitting position, and another team
member (Jenkins) was looking in through the chest cavity as the probe was
used from the back side, and he saw the probe rubbing against the pleura
from the chest side, and there was no hole for it to pass through.

> But, don't take my word for it. Ask a pathologist (a doctor)! Or, you can
> rely on the selective interpretations of the equivalent of a lab
> technician who has a clear desire to get his 15 minutes of fame by making
> statements to draw the attention of conspiracy theorists with whom his
> (O'Connor's) stories resonate loudly.
>

Amazing how many facts that were given to you that you managed to
pretend never were said! The statements of the X-ray Technician, and the
group of the prosectors who ALL said that "There's NO EXIT" from the body
of JFK for the back wound bullet!

> Would you call an interior decorator to fix your plumbing problems?
>
> Paul O'Connor, like so many others who attended the Bethesda autopsy and
> had nothing more to do with it after that evening, are recalling only what
> happened that evening. It's true that Dr. Humes (and the other two
> pathologists) were puzzled about the nature of the back wound and
> expressed some opinions that they would later change when they got
> additional information. Of course, we now know that this puzzlement all
> stemmed from the fact that they were completely unaware that the surgical
> incision in Kennedy's throat obliterated a bullet wound. That would have
> changed EVERYTHING!
>

The only change that the tracheostomy did was to give Humes an excuse
for pretending that he only heard about it in the morning. In reality
there are at least 2 witnesses that Humes and therefore the autopsy team
got the word from Perry at Parkland DURING the autopsy that the trach and
the bullet wound in the throat were at the same place. The witnesses were
John Ebersole, Radiologist at Bethesda and Nurse Audrey Bell at Parkland.
There is also Dr. Robert Livingston:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma8aqkr-0Tg

> Dr. Humes found out about that wound the next morning when speaking with
> Dr. Perry of Parkland Hospital. That was the first time Perry knew about
> the back wound - because the president's body was never turned over at
> Parkland. This was the first time Dr. Humes knew about the throat wound.

Humes lied, as the video above states, but to give you further
information on that score, here's John Ebersole, Radiologist and officer:

"After a telephone interview with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole,
MD, David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. reported that, “Ebersole had told me
during our first conversation that they had learned about the throat wound
from Dallas that night. In prior conversations, he had also stated that he
had learned of the projectile wound to the throat during the autopsy
– that, in fact, he had stopped taking X-rays after that
intelligence had arrived, because the mystery of the exit wound –
corresponding to the back entrance wound – was
solved.”[51] Moreover, Ebersole told the HSCA that the two
hospitals had communicated by phone during the autopsy."

From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm

Next we have Nurse Audrey Bell from Parkland hospital:

"“Saturday morning when I got over there, Dr. Perry came up to the
office. He looked like pure hell. Of course he had been primary until Dr.
Clark came … He sat down in a chair. I said, ‘You look
awful. Did you get any sleep last night?’ And he said,
‘Well, not too much between the calls from Bethesda that came in
during the night.’ I said, ‘What about?’ He said,
‘Oh. Whether that was an entrance wound or an exit wound in the
throat.’ He said, ‘They were wanting me to change my mind
that it was an entrance wound.’” [31] Nurse Bell clarifies
that her exchange with Dr. Perry occurred in the morning, before he
decamped just after the Saturday press conference, during which he was
silent after telling Dr. Kemp Clark what Humes had told him, and asking
Clark to take over for him to avoid having to lie at the Saturday
afternoon press conference. Chalk up another perjury for Humes, who
testified that he did not discuss the results of the autopsy with Dr.
Perry."

From: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html


So we have shown that Humes lied, and it wasn't his only lie in this
tale.

> Each doctor had a piece of the puzzle that the other didn't have. Now,
> what didn't seem to make a lot of sense during the autopsy - that a bullet
> would only travel a short distance in the neck and then work itself out -
> made PERFECT sense.
>

The back wound bullet was NOT in the "neck". If you look at the
autopsy photos, you see it's more like the upper back.

> If the throat wound was ALSO an entry wound - then where in the hell did
> THAT bullet disappear to? The notion that Kennedy had two entry wounds,
> one in the back and one in the throat, where NEITHER bullet transited the
> body and NEITHER bullet remained embedded in the body, is so silly that it
> can be dismissed out-of-hand. Further, NEITHER of those bullets were ever
> recovered - making it even more preposterous.
>

Well, of course! The reason the body was stolen along with the limo
and flown out of Dallas and on to Washington DC was so that they could do
the autopsy in a military hospital where they controlled what the officers
said and reported. When the body reached Bethesda it had been
helicoptered over and was far in advance of the motorcade that included
the family and the FBI and SS agents. The body arrived at the Bethesda
morgue at exactly 6:35pm (documented) and Humes and Boswell were there
waiting for it. They went into the morgue with the body and they had 42
minutes to do clandestine work on the body (witnesses) to remove bullets
(to avoid talk of multiple shooters) and to make any changes they could to
make it look more like the shots came from above and behind. They did
this, and the dummy casket that went with the family from the airport
arrived at the morgue at 7:17pm.

When the scheduled autopsy began at 8:00pm, Humes made some joke about
the body to cover their work on it earlier, but the gallery of admirals
and generals had to have picked up some of the problem they were having
because to some it was obvious that there had been some clandestine work
done on the body. No one complained though.

> In any case, bullet wounds cannot always be tracked with a rigid (or even
> a malleable) probe. Any pathologist would tell you that if you asked. But,
> instead, this was the opinion of a lab technician. Excellent research!
> Pfft.
>

I can appreciate how the facts look to a person using opinion and
belief. You have done what you yourself would find abhorrent by using
your beliefs rather than your logic. I have answered your comments above,
try to look at them objectively. Careful thinking went into this coup.
There are areas above that are not documented completely. If you
encounter them, let me know and I will fill in the other proofs and
documentation.

Chris

[mainframetech]

You might want to try arguing against the explanation given in a post
above where sworn testimony defeats the junk called 'single bullet'
theory. This was done during the autopsy when they opened the body and
saw the proof that the back wound bullet never went past the body of JFK.

Chris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

What caused the bullet that exited JFK's throat to stop? What did it hit?

If I understand the ballistics correctly (I have no idea; this is what
I've read), the bullet was still traveling at supersonic speeds, probably
over 1500 fps.

You say it "caused no damage." Then how did it stop? If it ended up in the
limo - or on Connally - then how did it get there?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/13/2017 5:09 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 9:28:09 PM UTC-6, GKnoll wrote:
>> The second bullet missed JFK completely and struck Connally
>> under his right armpit. That is the scenario that is supported by all of
>> the evidence.
>
> Then why was the entry wound in Connally's black so elliptical? It's hard

Because it wasn't SO elliptical. Someone lies to you. GUnshot wounds can
be ellipitical for several reasons. You think it mean the bullet was
tumbling. But it is more likely because the bullet struck at an angle onto
a cureved surface, Connally's ribcage.

> to construct a trajectory of a bullet that is fired from behind the
> limousine and manages to COMPLETELY misses Kennedy and hits Governor
> Connally. I'd like to see a graphic depiction of that trajectory. I'll bet

No, you wouldn't. Because there is not one proven theory about the exact
path.

> THAT bullet will have to do more zigging and zagging than what the
> conspiracy theorists contend with the Single Bullet Theory.
>

Nonsense. Myers shows that there was plenty of room for a bullet to hit
Connally's right armpit without having to go through JFK first.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Toaster94.jpg


The white dot above JFK's right shoulder is where the bullet hit
Connally. Plenty of room to miss JFK.

> Where did the bullet go that exited Kennedy's throat if it did not
> continue on and hit neither the limousine nor Connally?
>

What don't you like about Furhman's theory?
Do you even know about the hole in the floor?

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[Mitch Todd]

There's nothing there that addresses my question,
either. Try again, Bob.

BTW, the light illuminating the photo is coming from
above and to the left. Your "bullet wound" has a specular
highlight in the upper left quadrant. That indicates that
the "wound" is something raised up above the skin, like a
little blob of coagulated blood, not a concave feature
like a bullet wound.

[bigdog]

On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 8:53:10 PM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:

I would stop short of calling it a proven fact based on scientific method.
Essentially, the evidence is circumstantial. That evidence strongly
suggests that the same bullet went through both men but there is no piece
of evidence which tells us that conclusively. The fact that no one has
ever been able to present a plausible alternative to the SBT which fits
the available evidence is a strong indication the SBT is the correct
explanation, but it stops short of proving it to a scientific certainty.
As for me, I will continue to accept the SBT as the correct explanation
for JFK's torso wounds and all of Connally's wounds until someone can
offer an alternative that is at least equally as compelling.

[bigdog]

On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 10:13:19 PM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:

A spot-on description of the events surrounding the autopsy. Now sit back
and watch the amusing excuses Chris will come up with to dismiss each
every point made. After all, experts aren't needed to analyze forensic
medical evidence. Anyone can do it.

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 11:47:04 AM UTC-5, GKnoll wrote:

> On 1/13/2017 4:09 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 9:28:09 PM UTC-6, GKnoll wrote:
> >> The second bullet missed JFK completely and struck Connally
> >> under his right armpit. That is the scenario that is supported by all of
> >> the evidence.
> >
> > Then why was the entry wound in Connally's black so elliptical? It's hard
> > to construct a trajectory of a bullet that is fired from behind the
> > limousine and manages to COMPLETELY misses Kennedy and hits Governor
> > Connally. I'd like to see a graphic depiction of that trajectory. I'll bet
> > THAT bullet will have to do more zigging and zagging than what the
> > conspiracy theorists contend with the Single Bullet Theory.
> >
> > Where did the bullet go that exited Kennedy's throat if it did not
> > continue on and hit neither the limousine nor Connally?
> >

Well, when the body was brought into the Bethesda morh\gue it was ahead
of the motorcade that was carrying the family and the various agents.
That gave Humes and Boswell time to search the body for bullets, and
finding a wound in the throat, they dug into the wound, which had been
only a small tracheostomy, and expanded it some while they fished the
bullet out and disposed of it. This clandestine work on the body was done
within 42 minutes which is all the time they had. There were witnesses to
the beginning of the clandestine work.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Sometimes the original message expires.

>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

I think it's called gravity. But maybe you don't believe in gravity.
Maybe like Trump you think that's just a Chinese hoax.
It hit the ground.
Gravity tends to cause that.

> If I understand the ballistics correctly (I have no idea; this is what
> I've read), the bullet was still traveling at supersonic speeds, probably
> over 1500 fps.
>

What bullet? No, you don't understand exterior ballistics.

> You say it "caused no damage." Then how did it stop? If it ended up in the

As usual you misrepresent what people say. You leave out the qualifiers
to change the meaning. He said no damage to anyone or the limo. It could
damage the ground.

> limo - or on Connally - then how did it get there?
>

Thrown in? Planted? What ended up in the limo?

[GKnoll]

No, you do not understand the ballistics correctly. What you understand is
that the bullet that struck Connally under his armpit had to be traveling
at least 1500 fps.

What caused the bullet to slow down? We know for a fact that the bullet
passed completely through JFK's body. We know the exit wound was very
small and circular, indicative of a bullet traveling at a very slow
velocity when it exited. We also know that bullet hit JFK in the back and
we know that most witnesses described that shot as sounding like a
firecracker. If the sniper was aiming at the Presidents head, if was a dud
it would have missed the head and entered the back. The true ballistics
for that bullet would be something like this. It was traveling about half
its normal speed when it struck the President, about 1000 fps, which was
about the speed of a projectile fired from a handgun. The bullet
ricocheted off the T1 process and exited the neck. The ricochet is again
evidence the bullet was traveling to slow to break the bone, instead the
bone changed the bullets path through the body. (The probe of the wound
failed because the path through the body involved a ricochet off of bone)

All the evidence, and I mean ALL THE EVIDENCE, is consistent with a bullet
that exited JFK's neck at a very slow velocity, so slow that it almost did
not exit his body. We have that bullet and that bullet is CE399.

Watch the video I linked to.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/14/2017 9:23 PM, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:

Gravity. The ground.

>
> If I understand the ballistics correctly (I have no idea; this is what
> I've read), the bullet was still traveling at supersonic speeds, probably
> over 1500 fps.
>

Wrong. Please don't try to find the facts. You might accidentally learn
something. What if MY web site is the only place to find the original
documents? Then what do you do?

[David Emerling]

On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 8:29:29 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> Because it wasn't SO elliptical. Someone lies to you. GUnshot wounds can
> be ellipitical for several reasons. You think it mean the bullet was
> tumbling. But it is more likely because the bullet struck at an angle onto
> a cureved surface, Connally's ribcage.

That's true that there are other reasons that can cause a wound to be
elliptical - but it can't be for any of the reasons you cite.

We know it was not a tangential wound because we know where the exit wound
is. When we connect those two wounds it is readily obvious that the bullet
went through Connally in a straight forward manner - not tangentially.

Further evidence that it was tumbling is the nature of the damage to the
bullet that was recovered (CE-399).

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[bigdog]

I won't spoil it for you by telling you what Chris's answer to this will
be but I'm sure you will find it amusing.

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 9:23:46 PM UTC-5, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:

The back wound bullet did NOT come out of the throat wound. That was
shown when they opened the body and saw the proof. The bullet had stopped
at the pleura covering the lungs, and there was NO path from that point
onward. And the X-ray Technician gave sworn testimony that the bullet
fell out of the back when he raised the body for a particular X-ray. If
you need the actual words of the autopsy team when they saw that proof,
just say so, and I'll put it out again. That bullet penetrated into the
back only an inch or so.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Wrong. Feet ahead, not minutes.

The family was not present at the autopsy. Leave them out of this.

> Chris
>

[mainframetech]

WRONG! In this case anyone but you can do it. It was really a
mechanical problem. Seeing inside the body, one can se if there is a
further path from where the bullet stopped, or if there is NOT a path from
there. A simple problem for the average person. Present with the
Technician, who had assisted with 50-60 autopsies in the past, was also
the expert Pierre Finck, who also saw the proof, He had nothing to say at
that time, so he must have accepted the proof without complaint. Earlier
in the autopsy Finck and the other prosectors all aid "There is NO EXIT"
for the bullet that came into the upper back of JFK. Here's the text from
James Sibert, FBI agent, who was directed to observe the autopsy all the
way through:

"But when they raised him up, then they
found this back wound. And that’s when they
started probing with the rubber glove and the
finger, and - and also with the chrome probe.
And that’s just before, of course, I made
this call, because they were at a loss to explain
what had happened to this bullet. They couldn’t
find any bullet.
And they said, ‘There's no exit.” Finck,
in particular, said, "There’s no exit.” And they
said that you could feel it with the end of the
finger - I mean, the depth of this wound."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf
Page 111

So they proved the wound was only an inch or so deep, and there was no
bullet. But An X-ray Technician saw a bullet fall from the back of JFK
when he raised up the body to take an X-ray. Cites and links on request.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! What absolute baloney! You're working from opinion, and not
facts, and that doesn't help you a bit. There is complete
incontrovertible proof that the SBT doesn't exist. That proof occurred
when the prosectors began to examine the body after the X-ray Technician
saw a bullet fall from the back of JFK. Later they got verification when
the body was opened and the organs removed. They ALL saw the proof that
the bullet that hit in the upper back penetrated only an inch or so, and
did NOT go past that point. There was NO tearing or puncture past the
pleura, the covering of the lungs.

So the bullet hit and didn't really penetrate, and fell out, then they
found that the bullet had NOT gone past the pleura, which is only an inch
into the body. Cites and links on request so anyone can see the proof.

Chris

[OHLeeRedux]

As I've said before, Anthony, you need to get some software that came out
AFTER the Carter administration. I'm looking at this thread right now, and
I see every one of the posts, from the original right down to the latest
one. No messages have "expired."

You always claim to be some kind of computer expert, but apparently you
are incapable of keeping up with the technology.

[Robert Harris]

I said:

"The lower of the two defects we see, is much more consistent
with Humes' measurements. Consider the dimensions of the
wound itself.

Humes testified, 'The size of this wound was 4 by 7 mm., with
the long axis being in accordance with the long axis of the
body."

http://jfkhistory.com/backmeasurements.png

The shape of the upper defect is also totally inconsistent
with what bullet entry wounds normally look like and it is
obvious that the lower defect is what is being measured with
the ruler."

What is it you aren't getting about that:-)

>
> BTW, the light illuminating the photo is coming from
> above and to the left. Your "bullet wound" has a specular
> highlight in the upper left quadrant.
> That indicates that
> the "wound" is something raised up above the skin, like a
> little blob of coagulated blood, not a concave feature
> like a bullet wound.

First of all, there is a section in the upper defect that is
larger and as light as the one you mentioned in the lower.

And there is no reason why coagulated blood would only
reflect light, if it sat above the level of the skin, or for
that matter, that coagulated blood in an entry wound could
not have risen about the level of the skin.

Humes measured this wound and based on his dimensions, he was
obviously, not measuring the upper defect. The position of
the ruler doubly confirms that he was measuring the lower.

Other measurements he made, also confirmed that the lower
defect was the actual wound.

And finally, we can be certain that the 223 shot did not come
from Oswald. No one or almost no one heard it, including ALL
of the surviving limo passengers.

And there were no visible startle reactions even remotely
similar to the reactions following 285 and 313.

It is a virtual certainty that the 223 shot came from the
third floor of the Daltex. That matches not only the vertical
location of the lower defect, but the horizontal as well.




Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/15/2017 8:30 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 8:29:29 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>> Because it wasn't SO elliptical. Someone lies to you. GUnshot wounds can
>> be ellipitical for several reasons. You think it mean the bullet was
>> tumbling. But it is more likely because the bullet struck at an angle onto
>> a cureved surface, Connally's ribcage.
>
> That's true that there are other reasons that can cause a wound to be
> elliptical - but it can't be for any of the reasons you cite.
>

That's what I just said and you denied the reaon I mentioned.

> We know it was not a tangential wound because we know where the exit wound
> is. When we connect those two wounds it is readily obvious that the bullet
> went through Connally in a straight forward manner - not tangentially.
>

There you go again with that "obvious." In other words you are just
guessing.

> Further evidence that it was tumbling is the nature of the damage to the
> bullet that was recovered (CE-399).
>

False.

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Only through 6 inches in his neck. Tests showed that would slow down the
bullet by about 129 fps. Did you start with a slow bullet?

> small and circular, indicative of a bullet traveling at a very slow
> velocity when it exited. We also know that bullet hit JFK in the back
> and we know that most witnesses described that shot as sounding like a
> firecracker. If the sniper was aiming at the Presidents head, if was a

Maybe, Or maybe the miss shot.

> dud it would have missed the head and entered the back. The true
> ballistics for that bullet would be something like this. It was
> traveling about half its normal speed when it struck the President,

Then what was it's normal speed?

> about 1000 fps, which was about the speed of a projectile fired from a
> handgun. The bullet ricocheted off the T1 process and exited the neck.
> The ricochet is again evidence the bullet was traveling to slow to break
> the bone, instead the bone changed the bullets path through the body.

Ricocheted is the word. It did not ricochet. It grazed off the top.

> (The probe of the wound failed because the path through the body
> involved a ricochet off of bone)
>

One part of the reason.

[David Von Pein]

Boy, what a crock of s**t!

"Saw a bullet fall from the back of JFK"? And yet not a single one of the
autopsy surgeons noticed this or put it in their report or told the Warren
Commission about it? Yeah, right. You must be kidding. (Although I know
you're dead serious, incredibly.)

> the bullet that hit in the upper back penetrated only an inch or so, and
> did NOT go past that point. There was NO tearing or puncture past the
> pleura, the covering of the lungs.
>
> So the bullet hit and didn't really penetrate, and fell out, then they
> found that the bullet had NOT gone past the pleura, which is only an inch
> into the body. Cites and links on request so anyone can see the proof.
>
> Chris

Both the pleural cavity and the right lung were bruised by the passage of
the bullet through the body. (WCR, p.542)

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0283b.htm

You think a bullet that just stopped dead in JFK's body, without actually
striking any vital structures, would have caused the bruising seen in
Kennedy's upper body (pleura and lung)?

And what about the shirt fibers which were pointing *outward* at the front
of JFK's shirt? Did somebody deliberately turn the fibers from INWARD to
OUTWARD in order to fool everybody and perpetuate a cover-up?

And please tell us the likelihood of TWO separate bullets entering John
Kennedy's upper body (hitting only soft tissue remember!) and having both
of those bullets failing to exit the body --- and THEN having *BOTH* of
those bullets falling out of JFK's body and getting lost. That's fantasy
talk there.

Time to get real and face the truth, Chris/Frame. The SBT wins in every
conceivable way. In fact, it's not even a close call.

http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

[bigdog]

Didn't I tell you it would be amusing?

[mainframetech]

Thanks to bd for building the suspense. Surprisingly, no bullet left
the body of JFK and struck anyone else. More correctly, no bullet came
out of the throat wound and hit Connally. That ridiculous theory was born
in the mind of a WC lawyer to explain away that they had only 3 bullets
but many strikes on various things and people. So the doubled up the
victims for that bullet.

In previous posts above in this thread, I've given the proofs with both
cites and links for whoever is interested.

Chris

[mainframetech]

The damage to the CE399 bullet was minor as these things go. But that
bullet did not hit or hurt anyone and can't be proved to have done
anything like that. It was a test bullet, and the proof is in the WC
photo:

http://www.jfk-info.com/Exf294.gif

The first bullet on the left is CE399. The second and third pictures
are a test bullet (CE572). When compared the 2 bullets BOTH have a slight
flattening and a slight bend in the middle, and they BOTH have a slight
bit of material missing from the tail end.

Aside from that comparison, the authorities answered complaints about
the CE399 bullet by having it shown to 4 men who had handled it on the day
of the murder. They all refused to identify it, and one of them stated
that it was the wrong shape for the original bullet that he had handled.

Another interesting fact is that the FBI bullet custodian had been part
of a test firing of the MC rifle the very next day after the murder where
they fired over 60 shots into various materials. That gave the bullet
custodian a large store of bullets fried from the MC rifle. It would not
be difficult for the bullet custodian to replace a placeholder bullet with
the a real test bullet form the MC rifle. It would implicate Oswald
because it came form the MC rifle.

All the signs led to the CE399 bullet being a test bullet from the MC
rifle, and the 'pristine' look about it was because it hadn't been the
bullet that struck 2 men 7 times including 2 bone strikes.

Chris

[mainframetech]

No, we do NOT know that, since it was proved that the bullet did NOT
exit from the body of JFK, which was realized during the autopsy. Here's
the sworn testimony of James Sibert, FBI agent, who observed the complete
autopsy:

"But when they raised him up, then they
found this back wound. And that’s when they
started probing with the rubber glove and the
finger, and - and also with the chrome probe.
And that’s just before, of course, I made
this call, because they were at a loss to explain
what had happened to this bullet. They couldn’t
find any bullet.
And they said, ‘There's no exit.” Finck,
in particular, said, "There’s no exit.” And they
said that you could feel it with the end of the
finger - I mean, the depth of this wound."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf
Page 111

We know the exit wound was very
> small and circular, indicative of a bullet traveling at a very slow
> velocity when it exited. We also know that bullet hit JFK in the back and
> we know that most witnesses described that shot as sounding like a
> firecracker. If the sniper was aiming at the Presidents head, if was a dud
> it would have missed the head and entered the back. The true ballistics
> for that bullet would be something like this. It was traveling about half
> its normal speed when it struck the President, about 1000 fps, which was
> about the speed of a projectile fired from a handgun. The bullet
> ricocheted off the T1 process and exited the neck. The ricochet is again
> evidence the bullet was traveling to slow to break the bone, instead the
> bone changed the bullets path through the body. (The probe of the wound
> failed because the path through the body involved a ricochet off of bone)
>
> All the evidence, and I mean ALL THE EVIDENCE, is consistent with a bullet
> that exited JFK's neck at a very slow velocity, so slow that it almost did
> not exit his body. We have that bullet and that bullet is CE399.
>

That is impossible. CE399 was found on the WRONG gurney, and there
were other factors showing that it was NOT the bullet that hit or hurt
anyone. Moe important is that the EVIDENCE was generated when the
prosectors opened the body of JFK and found the verification of their
earlier conclusion that there was no exit from the body for the back wound
bullet. When they opened the body and removed the organs they saw the
proof that the bullet had stopped at the pleura and had not penetrated
more than an inch or so into the back. There was NO tearing or puncture
for any path to go beyond the pleura. The bullet never left the body as
they had previously concluded.

Since the bullet never left the body, it could not come out of the
throat wound, and so the 'single bullet' theory is dead. There is further
proof with cites and links on request.

Chris

[bigdog]

It didn't exactly require Nostradamus to accurately predict what Chris
would come up with. We've seen this movie before.

[Anthony Marsh]

He heard something fall. He didn't see it fall. He didn't say it was a
bullet.

> the body was opened and the organs removed. They ALL saw the proof that
> the bullet that hit in the upper back penetrated only an inch or so, and
> did NOT go past that point. There was NO tearing or puncture past the
> pleura, the covering of the lungs.
>

Physically impossible. You know nothing about anatomy.
If the bullet only went in an inch or so it would still be sticking out.

> So the bullet hit and didn't really penetrate, and fell out, then they
> found that the bullet had NOT gone past the pleura, which is only an inch
> into the body. Cites and links on request so anyone can see the proof.
>

But you just said it fell out when the janitor was moving the body.

> Chris
>

[mainframetech]

Poor bd has heard this before. He has to try and cover it up as fast
as possible to keep you from thinking about it too much. He still is
chicken to talk directly to me when he needs to cover something up like
this.

Chris

[mainframetech]

LOL! I see you're all at sea again! Thinking about the murder as a
conspiracy is too much pressure on your head. Something you're not used
to. You seem to have made another mistake. If you read the sworn
testimony of the X-ray Technician above, you'll notice that he said that
Pierre Finck, one of the prosectors (autopsy surgeons) did indeed see the
bullet, and picked it up. But since they had strict orders to help cover
up any extra bullets in the body, he scooped it up and it was never seen
again. Just like the sworn testimony says.

> > the bullet that hit in the upper back penetrated only an inch or so, and
> > did NOT go past that point. There was NO tearing or puncture past the
> > pleura, the covering of the lungs.
> >
> > So the bullet hit and didn't really penetrate, and fell out, then they
> > found that the bullet had NOT gone past the pleura, which is only an inch
> > into the body. Cites and links on request so anyone can see the proof.
> >
> > Chris
>
> Both the pleural cavity and the right lung were bruised by the passage of
> the bullet through the body. (WCR, p.542)
>

True as far as bruising. However, the bullet did NOT go through the
body. ALL the autopsy team saw the proof that it did not.

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0283b.htm
>
> You think a bullet that just stopped dead in JFK's body, without actually
> striking any vital structures, would have caused the bruising seen in
> Kennedy's upper body (pleura and lung)?
>

It doesn't matter what I think, what matters is what they saw in the
body when the organs were removed. Here's more of the witnessing from
Paul O'Connor, a Technologist on the autopsy team:

"O'Connor: Now, there are high-powered weapons that will drive a bullet
straight through a body and a rigid probe will trace its path all the way
through. We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in
so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further than
that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found out
that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it

didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one s ide and come out the

other side of the body. Law: You can be reasonably sure of that? O'Connor:

Absolutely. Law: It was just from the probe then? O'Connor: Oh yes. Law:
And these doctors knew that? O'Connor: Absolutely. Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."


So the autopsy team ALL saw the proof that the bullet had stopped at
the pleura. It's called a 'short shot' when a bullet doesn't carry
forward at full speed. But that explains the bullet not penetrating the
back very far (an inch or so) and why it fell out of the back when the
X-ray Technician bent the body forward. It squeezed out the bullet that
had only gone in about an inch or so.

> And what about the shirt fibers which were pointing *outward* at the front
> of JFK's shirt? Did somebody deliberately turn the fibers from INWARD to
> OUTWARD in order to fool everybody and perpetuate a cover-up?
>

Are you speaking of fibers of the shirt at the throat? Because the
throat wound had to be an entrance wound since there was NO passage of a
bullet THROUGH the body of JFK. As they ALL said, "There's NO EXIT" from
the body of JFK for the back wound bullet.

> And please tell us the likelihood of TWO separate bullets entering John
> Kennedy's upper body (hitting only soft tissue remember!) and having both
> of those bullets failing to exit the body --- and THEN having *BOTH* of
> those bullets falling out of JFK's body and getting lost. That's fantasy
> talk there.
>

I don't remember saying anything about 2 bullets doing that. Where'd
you get that crap? Did you make that up? There was a bullet that hit JFK
in the upper back and stopped there without penetrating more than an inch
or so. it fell out in front of an X-ray Technician and was scooped up by a
prosector. There was a bullet that hit JFK in the forehead/temple area
which can be seen by anyone that wants to see it. It left a path of tiny
metal particles as it passed through the skull and blew out the BOH at the
right rear. Obviously it wasn't an FMJ bullet.

> Time to get real and face the truth, Chris/Frame. The SBT wins in every
> conceivable way. In fact, it's not even a close call.
>

Given the solid proof of what the autopsy team saw inside the body
after the organs were removed, I think you better look over your data
again. Check with the real witnesses too. You're obviously wrong.

If you want to see the wound in the right forehead/temple area, go to
the 'stare-of-death' photo and ENLARGE it and look at the right forehead
area at what is behind the hair hanging down. You'll see a bullet hole
there, if you're doing it right. That bullet hole matches the example
that was in "Gunshot Wounds" by Vincent DiMaio, and expert in the
pathology field. The book is here:

http://www.e-reading.club/bookreader.php/135302/Gunshot_wounds._Practical_aspects_of_firearms,_ballistics,_and_forensic_techniques.pdf

Look in chapter 4 at figure 4.16 to se the example bullet wound. The
fleshy rim is present for hours after the shot has hit the victim.

Chris

[Jason Burke]

Dang. You was right!

Some of these dudes should come out here to the desert and run through
comedy routines.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 5:09:07 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:

Better than the Stephen King novel on the assassination.

And a helluva lot shorter.

I should have saved my $20, dammit.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Well, at least he didn't lecture about going to his cockamamie website.

Although the "cites and links on request" is pretty close.

[bigdog]

Have you noticed that I'm not the only one who doesn't buy these silly
explanations you have dreamed up. I don't think there is anybody who does.

[Anthony Marsh]

Frazier logged in the Magic Bullet only a few hours after the
assassination and before he had the rifle.

CE 399 could be a test bullet, but not one fired by the FBI.

> they fired over 60 shots into various materials. That gave the bullet
> custodian a large store of bullets fried from the MC rifle. It would not
> be difficult for the bullet custodian to replace a placeholder bullet with
> the a real test bullet form the MC rifle. It would implicate Oswald
> because it came form the MC rifle.
>

Physically impossible.

> All the signs led to the CE399 bullet being a test bullet from the MC
> rifle, and the 'pristine' look about it was because it hadn't been the
> bullet that struck 2 men 7 times including 2 bone strikes.
>

Only if someone fired it BEFORE the assassination.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Why would they be in the same area with him. Radiation can be dangerous.

>> the bullet that hit in the upper back penetrated only an inch or so, and
>> did NOT go past that point. There was NO tearing or puncture past the
>> pleura, the covering of the lungs.
>>
>> So the bullet hit and didn't really penetrate, and fell out, then they
>> found that the bullet had NOT gone past the pleura, which is only an inch
>> into the body. Cites and links on request so anyone can see the proof.
>>
>> Chris
>
> Both the pleural cavity and the right lung were bruised by the passage of
> the bullet through the body. (WCR, p.542)
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0283b.htm
>
> You think a bullet that just stopped dead in JFK's body, without actually
> striking any vital structures, would have caused the bruising seen in
> Kennedy's upper body (pleura and lung)?
>

Unknown. Depends on how far he has it going in. He change the distance
in every message as needed.

> And what about the shirt fibers which were pointing *outward* at the front
> of JFK's shirt? Did somebody deliberately turn the fibers from INWARD to
> OUTWARD in order to fool everybody and perpetuate a cover-up?
>

How?

> And please tell us the likelihood of TWO separate bullets entering John
> Kennedy's upper body (hitting only soft tissue remember!) and having both
> of those bullets failing to exit the body --- and THEN having *BOTH* of
> those bullets falling out of JFK's body and getting lost. That's fantasy
> talk there.
>

You can't rest any conclusions on the likelihood of something happening.

[Anthony Marsh]

LIE.

> http://jfkhistory.com/backmeasurements.png
>
> The shape of the upper defect is also totally inconsistent with what
> bullet entry wounds normally look like and it is obvious that the lower
> defect is what is being measured with the ruler."
>
> What is it you aren't getting about that:-)
>
>
>>
>> BTW, the light illuminating the photo is coming from
>> above and to the left. Your "bullet wound" has a specular
>> highlight in the upper left quadrant.
>> That indicates that
>> the "wound" is something raised up above the skin, like a
>> little blob of coagulated blood, not a concave feature
>> like a bullet wound.
>
> First of all, there is a section in the upper defect that is larger and
> as light as the one you mentioned in the lower.
>
> And there is no reason why coagulated blood would only reflect light, if
> it sat above the level of the skin, or for that matter, that coagulated
> blood in an entry wound could not have risen about the level of the skin.
>

Good guess, but you can't prove it.

> Humes measured this wound and based on his dimensions, he was obviously,

Not accurately.

> not measuring the upper defect. The position of the ruler doubly
> confirms that he was measuring the lower.
>
> Other measurements he made, also confirmed that the lower defect was the
> actual wound.
>
> And finally, we can be certain that the 223 shot did not come from
> Oswald. No one or almost no one heard it, including ALL of the surviving
> limo passengers.
>

It could have been the miss which no one recognized as a shot.

> And there were no visible startle reactions even remotely similar to the
> reactions following 285 and 313.
>

Not that you can see. But other can make up reactions then, just as YOU
make up reactions for your shot at 285.

> It is a virtual certainty that the 223 shot came from the third floor of
> the Daltex. That matches not only the vertical location of the lower
> defect, but the horizontal as well.

> There is no match in the acoustical evidence for the Dal-Tex.

>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>

[David Von Pein]

What caused the bullet hole in JFK's throat then? And where did that
bullet go? And why wasn't it in JFK's body at autopsy? Take your time.

[mainframetech]

Of course. Facts don't change, which you OBVIOUSLY know. The facts
that I quote are proved and make sense together. You were never able to
cover them up, and you still can't.

Chris

[GKnoll]

No, the SBT does not win. A close examination of the evidence shows that
we are talking about two different bullets not one single bullet.

The bullet which struck JFK left a very small circular hole when it
exited his throat. The bullet which struck Connally under his right
armpit must have been traveling over 1700 fps in order to cause all the
bone damage to Connally. However, a 1700 fps bullet would not leave a
small circular hole in JFK's neck when it exited his neck.

Similarly, the bullet which struck JFK was not traveling fast enough to
do bone damage to JFK. That bullet ricocheted off of JFK's T1 process
because it did not have enough energy to penetrate the bone. Instead,
the path of the bullet was changed when it struck the bone. To believe
that this same bullet, did all the bone damage to Connally is an illusion.

The evidence is clear, and I mean all the evidence, that we are talking
about 2 different bullets, not one single bullet.

[bigdog]

Once again you put your double standards on full display. You allow
yourself to make comments to a third party about something I have said but
if I make a comment to a third party about something you have said, I am
too chicken to talk directly to you. It doesn't bother me at all when you
do this because all you do is embarrass yourself, but I'm sure you're used
to that by now.

[bigdog]

Not only was Custer the only person in the room who claims to have seen a
bullet fall out of JFK's back he is the only person in the room to have
claimed that Finck scooped it up. You think if someone claims something
that is proof their claim is true as long as it is something you want to
believe and you don't give a shit if there is any corroboration for that
person's story or not. If on the other hand a witness tells a story you
don't want to believe no matter how much corroboration there is for their
story, you reject it and will make up whatever excuse necessary to do so,
such as claiming they were ordered to lie.

In this particular case, there isn't a single witness who corroborates
Custer's bullshit story about a bullet falling out of JFK's back while
there were 3 medical examiners who all agreed that the bullet went
completely through JFK's upper body and exited his throat and they all
signed their names to a report that said just that but you choose to
accept the uncorroborated story and claim the three medical examiners were
ordered to falsify their report. Nonsense like this is the reason no one
on this newsgroup takes you seriously. Not even your fellow conspiracy
hobbyists. You are a cult of one.

>
>
> > > the bullet that hit in the upper back penetrated only an inch or so, and
> > > did NOT go past that point. There was NO tearing or puncture past the
> > > pleura, the covering of the lungs.
> > >
> > > So the bullet hit and didn't really penetrate, and fell out, then they
> > > found that the bullet had NOT gone past the pleura, which is only an inch
> > > into the body. Cites and links on request so anyone can see the proof.
> > >
> > > Chris
> >
> > Both the pleural cavity and the right lung were bruised by the passage of
> > the bullet through the body. (WCR, p.542)
> >
>
>
> True as far as bruising. However, the bullet did NOT go through the
> body. ALL the autopsy team saw the proof that it did not.
>

And then they signed a report that said just the opposite.

>
>
>
> > http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0283b.htm
> >
> > You think a bullet that just stopped dead in JFK's body, without actually
> > striking any vital structures, would have caused the bruising seen in
> > Kennedy's upper body (pleura and lung)?
> >
>
>
> It doesn't matter what I think,

No shit, Sherlock.

As you said above, it doesn't matter what you think. Nobody gives a shit
what you think.

>
>
>
> > And what about the shirt fibers which were pointing *outward* at the front
> > of JFK's shirt? Did somebody deliberately turn the fibers from INWARD to
> > OUTWARD in order to fool everybody and perpetuate a cover-up?
> >
>
>
>
> Are you speaking of fibers of the shirt at the throat? Because the
> throat wound had to be an entrance wound since there was NO passage of a
> bullet THROUGH the body of JFK. As they ALL said, "There's NO EXIT" from
> the body of JFK for the back wound bullet.
>

Attaboy. Just ignore the fact the shirt fibers were pushed outward.

>
>
>
> > And please tell us the likelihood of TWO separate bullets entering John
> > Kennedy's upper body (hitting only soft tissue remember!) and having both
> > of those bullets failing to exit the body --- and THEN having *BOTH* of
> > those bullets falling out of JFK's body and getting lost. That's fantasy
> > talk there.
> >
>
>
> I don't remember saying anything about 2 bullets doing that.

You have insisted all along that separate bullets entered JFK's back and
throat and yet according to your silly narrative neither exited. Are you
going to walk that back now or stick with that silly explanation. I don't
envy the choice you have here.

> Where'd
> you get that crap? Did you make that up? There was a bullet that hit JFK
> in the upper back and stopped there without penetrating more than an inch
> or so. it fell out in front of an X-ray Technician and was scooped up by a
> prosector. There was a bullet that hit JFK in the forehead/temple area
> which can be seen by anyone that wants to see it. It left a path of tiny
> metal particles as it passed through the skull and blew out the BOH at the
> right rear. Obviously it wasn't an FMJ bullet.
>

Aren't you forgetting about the bullet hole in JFK's throat. What caused
that wound and where did that bullet go?

>
>
> > Time to get real and face the truth, Chris/Frame. The SBT wins in every
> > conceivable way. In fact, it's not even a close call.
> >
>
> Given the solid proof of what the autopsy team saw inside the body
> after the organs were removed, I think you better look over your data
> again. Check with the real witnesses too. You're obviously wrong.
>
> If you want to see the wound in the right forehead/temple area, go to
> the 'stare-of-death' photo and ENLARGE it and look at the right forehead
> area at what is behind the hair hanging down. You'll see a bullet hole
> there, if you're doing it right. That bullet hole matches the example
> that was in "Gunshot Wounds" by Vincent DiMaio, and expert in the
> pathology field. The book is here:
>

More shit that nobody cares about.

> http://www.e-reading.club/bookreader.php/135302/Gunshot_wounds._Practical_aspects_of_firearms,_ballistics,_and_forensic_techniques.pdf
>
> Look in chapter 4 at figure 4.16 to se the example bullet wound. The
> fleshy rim is present for hours after the shot has hit the victim.
>

Nobody gives a shit what you think that shows.

[David Emerling]

On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 3:41:58 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> > Further evidence that it was tumbling is the nature of the damage to the
> > bullet that was recovered (CE-399).

>
> False.

What's "false"? Are you saying that CE-399 is NOT damaged along it's long
axis, as if it hit something going sideways? The nose of the bullet does
not have the classic "mushrooming" damage that we expect of a bullet that
hits a hard object head-on.

So - I'm not sure what you're saying is "false".

You spend so much time in this forum, responding to just about everything
and everyone on every topic, that you write in unintelligible, obscure,
and obtuse quips.

My advice to you is to take a break - write less - be more selective - and
write with more substance.

You write in these quips and then complain how people don't understand
what you mean. Have you ever considered that the reason you are so often
misunderstood says much more about YOU and not the people who try to
interpret the meaning of your staccato style of discussing matters?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Mitch Todd]

Yep. Then you said:

"As you look at the image I just posted, consider
that JFK's anatomy is different than other men
(something I've been preaching to Speers for a
decade).

"In fact, on JFK, T1 is at EXACTLY the location
of the lower defect.

"http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/diagrams/spine.jpg"

I'm referring to the Paul Seaton image you were
referring to. Please show us *exactly* where in
the image we can find the bullet wound, as you
have stated?

> Humes testified, 'The size of this wound was 4 by 7 mm., with the long
> axis being in accordance with the long axis of the body."
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/backmeasurements.png
>
> The shape of the upper defect is also totally inconsistent with what
> bullet entry wounds normally look like and it is obvious that the lower
> defect is what is being measured with the ruler."

The upper wound looks like a near-classic entry wound
to me. I say this after chasing forensic pathology
texts for a while. Of course, you don't have to just
take my word for it, though The Clark and HSCA panels
saw the original autopsy photos. They said that the
upper wound is the gunshot wound. Also, your 'entry'
is shaped like a comma made by a five-year old wielding
a leaky fountain pen. How does a circular bullet do that?

> What is it you aren't getting about that:-)

It's what *you* don't get, Bob. Do you understand what
you wrote? Not what you might have thought you wrote,
but what your fingers actually committed to the ether.
Go back and look at Paul's image and then re-read what
you wrote about that image, then answer the question
I've asked you about your assertion re: Paul's image.

>> BTW, the light illuminating the photo is coming from
>> above and to the left. Your "bullet wound" has a specular
>> highlight in the upper left quadrant.
>> That indicates that
>> the "wound" is something raised up above the skin, like a
>> little blob of coagulated blood, not a concave feature
>> like a bullet wound.
>
> First of all, there is a section in the upper defect that is larger and
> as light as the one you mentioned in the lower.

Yes, and it is the shape, size, and location that I would expect
to see light reflecting off of the rim of a bullet wound, if
the light source were above and to the left of the wound. Which,
not coincidentally, is where the light source was. There is also
a corresponding dark arc on the other side of the wound, also
what I'd expect to see if the upper object were a hole. Around
both is a darkish area that corresponds well to the expected
abrasion collar, something that the lower area simply lacks.

> And there is no reason why coagulated blood would only reflect light, if
> it sat above the level of the skin, or for that matter, that coagulated
> blood in an entry wound could not have risen about the level of the skin.

If the object of the photo is to show the back wound in detail,
don't you think they would remove any clots that would obscure
the wound?

> Humes measured this wound and based on his dimensions, he was obviously,
> not measuring the upper defect. The position of the ruler doubly
> confirms that he was measuring the lower.

What you see in the photo is two men trying to hold a ruler
against the back of a 170lb corpse well on its way to rigor
mortise while simultaneously holding the body up on its
side steady enough to take a photo, all the while keeping
the body from sliding across (and off of) a bodily-fluid-
lubricated stainless steel surface. You really think that
you can count on the exact placement of the ruler in those
awkward circumstances?

BTW, Bob, why do you think that the ruler is 305mm long?
It's a metric-only job, and I don't think that you can
simply assume that it's a foot long, especially with the
rounded corners.

> Other measurements he made, also confirmed that the lower defect was the
> actual wound.

So confirming that they can't appear here, I guess.


And here comes 10 lbs of flying non-sequitur:

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/17/2017 2:28 PM, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 7:05:33 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>> On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 11:45:50 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>> On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 1:57:34 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>>>> On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 10:13:19 PM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 12:08:52 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> " O'Connor: Now, there are high-powered weapons that will drive a bullet
>>>>>> straight through a body and a rigid probe will trace its path all the way
>>>>>> through. We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in
>>>>>> so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further than
>>>>>> that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found out
>>>>>> that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal

>>>>>> muscles???the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in

>>> found this back wound. And that???s when they

>>> started probing with the rubber glove and the
>>> finger, and - and also with the chrome probe.

>>> And that???s just before, of course, I made

>>> this call, because they were at a loss to explain

>>> what had happened to this bullet. They couldn???t
>>> find any bullet.
>>> And they said, ???There's no exit.??? Finck,
>>> in particular, said, "There???s no exit.??? And they

>>> said that you could feel it with the end of the
>>> finger - I mean, the depth of this wound."
>>> From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf
>>> Page 111
>>>
>>> So they proved the wound was only an inch or so deep, and there was no
>>> bullet. But An X-ray Technician saw a bullet fall from the back of JFK
>>> when he raised up the body to take an X-ray. Cites and links on request.
>>>
>>
>> It didn't exactly require Nostradamus to accurately predict what Chris
>> would come up with. We've seen this movie before.
>

Jeez, you really area slow learner. Something wrong with your kook radar?

> Well, at least he didn't lecture about going to his cockamamie website.
>

Well then point us to YOUR Website.

> Although the "cites and links on request" is pretty close.
>
>
>

He just keeps repeating the same old crap over and over.
It's called SPAM on newsgroups.

[bigdog]

So you really think that because somebody said a bullet fell out of JFK's
back that proves a bullet fell out of JFK's back. What a strange concept.

[bigdog]

Of course it did. It was a FMJ bullet. They don't deform when striking
soft tissue. It would have been roughly the same shape when it left JFK's
throat as it was when it left the muzzle. There is no reason to believe it
wouldn't have made a neat round hole upon exiting.

> The bullet which struck Connally under his right
> armpit must have been traveling over 1700 fps in order to cause all the
> bone damage to Connally. However, a 1700 fps bullet would not leave a
> small circular hole in JFK's neck when it exited his neck.
>

I'm sure you can document that. You wouldn't have just made that up, would
you?

> Similarly, the bullet which struck JFK was not traveling fast enough to
> do bone damage to JFK. That bullet ricocheted off of JFK's T1 process
> because it did not have enough energy to penetrate the bone. Instead,
> the path of the bullet was changed when it struck the bone. To believe
> that this same bullet, did all the bone damage to Connally is an illusion.
>

There is an illusion alright but it ain't the SBT.

> The evidence is clear, and I mean all the evidence, that we are talking
> about 2 different bullets, not one single bullet.

Thank you for your amateurish ballistics analysis.

[Anthony Marsh]

But the kook also claimed the Pierre Finck SAW the bullet falling out of
JFK's back. From 50 feet away?

> claimed that Finck scooped it up. You think if someone claims something
> that is proof their claim is true as long as it is something you want to
> believe and you don't give a shit if there is any corroboration for that
> person's story or not. If on the other hand a witness tells a story you
> don't want to believe no matter how much corroboration there is for their
> story, you reject it and will make up whatever excuse necessary to do so,
> such as claiming they were ordered to lie.
>

He has to rely on witnesses because he rejects all physical evidence.

> In this particular case, there isn't a single witness who corroborates
> Custer's bullshit story about a bullet falling out of JFK's back while
> there were 3 medical examiners who all agreed that the bullet went
> completely through JFK's upper body and exited his throat and they all
> signed their names to a report that said just that but you choose to
> accept the uncorroborated story and claim the three medical examiners were
> ordered to falsify their report. Nonsense like this is the reason no one
> on this newsgroup takes you seriously. Not even your fellow conspiracy
> hobbyists. You are a cult of one.

Not true. There is a small cult out there called the Alterationists.
Since Jack White died they are looking for new recruits.

[Anthony Marsh]

Sure, but maybe just one bullet did not cause all the damage to
Connally. Maybe Connally was hit by 2 bullets.

> Similarly, the bullet which struck JFK was not traveling fast enough to
> do bone damage to JFK. That bullet ricocheted off of JFK's T1 process

It did. It cracked T-1.
Baden confirmed that to me in person.

> because it did not have enough energy to penetrate the bone. Instead,

Because it did not hit the vertebra on the main part, just grazed off
the top.

> the path of the bullet was changed when it struck the bone. To believe

Yes, it's called a deflection.

> that this same bullet, did all the bone damage to Connally is an illusion.
>

That's a polite way of saying LIE.

[Anthony Marsh]

Surely you aren't THAT naive, are you?
You should know after 53 years that the kooks always have a way out.
Don't you remember the Flechette theory? And that's why the conspirators
supposedly had to do emergency secret surgery to remove it before the
body got to Washington. I think one or two of them even said it happened
on the plane.
What did Humes say caused it to pop out? Cardiac massage?
Or it was an Ice Bullet and it melted. And you put your faith in the
autopsy doctors?
Who noted surgery to the top of the head?

[Anthony Marsh]

As I said, between the 7 and the 1.
You can't SEE it on that X-ray because that's not JFK.

>
>
>> Humes testified, 'The size of this wound was 4 by 7 mm., with the long
>> axis being in accordance with the long axis of the body."
>>
>> http://jfkhistory.com/backmeasurements.png
>>
>> The shape of the upper defect is also totally inconsistent with what
>> bullet entry wounds normally look like and it is obvious that the lower
>> defect is what is being measured with the ruler."
>
> The upper wound looks like a near-classic entry wound
> to me. I say this after chasing forensic pathology

No. SHow us what you are calling a wound. You are always vague so that
you can take back what you said.

> texts for a while. Of course, you don't have to just
> take my word for it, though The Clark and HSCA panels
> saw the original autopsy photos. They said that the
> upper wound is the gunshot wound. Also, your 'entry'

Where? Quote?

> is shaped like a comma made by a five-year old wielding
> a leaky fountain pen. How does a circular bullet do that?
>

Who said what kind of a bullet it was?

>
>
>> What is it you aren't getting about that:-)
>
> It's what *you* don't get, Bob. Do you understand what
> you wrote? Not what you might have thought you wrote,
> but what your fingers actually committed to the ether.
> Go back and look at Paul's image and then re-read what
> you wrote about that image, then answer the question
> I've asked you about your assertion re: Paul's image.
>

Why can't YOU answer MY questions?
Always evasive.

>
>
>>> BTW, the light illuminating the photo is coming from
>>> above and to the left. Your "bullet wound" has a specular
>>> highlight in the upper left quadrant.
>>> That indicates that
>>> the "wound" is something raised up above the skin, like a
>>> little blob of coagulated blood, not a concave feature
>>> like a bullet wound.
>>
>> First of all, there is a section in the upper defect that is larger and
>> as light as the one you mentioned in the lower.
>
> Yes, and it is the shape, size, and location that I would expect
> to see light reflecting off of the rim of a bullet wound, if
> the light source were above and to the left of the wound. Which,
> not coincidentally, is where the light source was. There is also
> a corresponding dark arc on the other side of the wound, also
> what I'd expect to see if the upper object were a hole. Around
> both is a darkish area that corresponds well to the expected
> abrasion collar, something that the lower area simply lacks.
>
>
>
>> And there is no reason why coagulated blood would only reflect light, if
>> it sat above the level of the skin, or for that matter, that coagulated
>> blood in an entry wound could not have risen about the level of the skin.
>
> If the object of the photo is to show the back wound in detail,

Why do you ASSuME that?

> don't you think they would remove any clots that would obscure
> the wound?
>

Are you kidding? They didn't know enough to shave around the bullet
wound in the hair. The Three Stooges.

>
>> Humes measured this wound and based on his dimensions, he was obviously,
>> not measuring the upper defect. The position of the ruler doubly
>> confirms that he was measuring the lower.
>
> What you see in the photo is two men trying to hold a ruler
> against the back of a 170lb corpse well on its way to rigor
> mortise while simultaneously holding the body up on its
> side steady enough to take a photo, all the while keeping
> the body from sliding across (and off of) a bodily-fluid-
> lubricated stainless steel surface. You really think that
> you can count on the exact placement of the ruler in those
> awkward circumstances?
>

Boy, you sure do make up a lot of stories.

> BTW, Bob, why do you think that the ruler is 305mm long?

Maybe that's all they could afford.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! Now we've heard your opinion, try backing it up with facts.
Do you have some Sworn testimony for us? I think it's time you stopped
with the opinions of me, and got down to the case and any evidence you can
drum up. Bandying insults back and forth with you reminds me of my
children's little tiffs. It's a waste of valuable time. Especially your
endless opinions which carry no weight.

If on the other hand a witness tells a story you
> don't want to believe no matter how much corroboration there is for their
> story, you reject it and will make up whatever excuse necessary to do so,
> such as claiming they were ordered to lie.
>

More opinion.

> In this particular case, there isn't a single witness who corroborates
> Custer's bullshit story about a bullet falling out of JFK's back while
> there were 3 medical examiners who all agreed that the bullet went
> completely through JFK's upper body and exited his throat and they all
> signed their names to a report that said just that but you choose to
> accept the uncorroborated story and claim the three medical examiners were
> ordered to falsify their report. Nonsense like this is the reason no one
> on this newsgroup takes you seriously. Not even your fellow conspiracy
> hobbyists. You are a cult of one.
>

You're ridiculous and all alone. Now that's out of the way, along
with your silly opinions, we have evidence in the form of sworn testimony,
and it fits with other evidence related to the bullet not traveling far in
the body. The proof of that was also seen by the whole autopsy team,
including the prosectors who started out concluding that "There's NO EXIT"
for the back wound bullet. Later when they saw the validation of that
conclusion, they knew they had decided correctly. Sadly, they had orders
to lie about the proof they saw, and so many people were sucked in by the
false info. As you know, this has all been documented from the official
record, mainly the ARRB files.

> >
> >
> > > > the bullet that hit in the upper back penetrated only an inch or so, and
> > > > did NOT go past that point. There was NO tearing or puncture past the
> > > > pleura, the covering of the lungs.
> > > >
> > > > So the bullet hit and didn't really penetrate, and fell out, then they
> > > > found that the bullet had NOT gone past the pleura, which is only an inch
> > > > into the body. Cites and links on request so anyone can see the proof.
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > >
> > > Both the pleural cavity and the right lung were bruised by the passage of
> > > the bullet through the body. (WCR, p.542)
> > >
> >
> >
> > True as far as bruising. However, the bullet did NOT go through the
> > body. ALL the autopsy team saw the proof that it did not.
> >
>
> And then they signed a report that said just the opposite.
>

True, but that was under orders, and couldn't have been any other
reason, since they all saw the proof earlier and so there couldn't be any
other answer. The plotters never figured on the ARRB files, they thought
the records would be sealed or not seen, and people that saw important
events would never be hard. A terrible mistake.

LOL! I'm glad I don't have to live in your mind. With a little more
creativity you could be Trump.

> >
> >
> >
> > > And what about the shirt fibers which were pointing *outward* at the front
> > > of JFK's shirt? Did somebody deliberately turn the fibers from INWARD to
> > > OUTWARD in order to fool everybody and perpetuate a cover-up?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Are you speaking of fibers of the shirt at the throat? Because the
> > throat wound had to be an entrance wound since there was NO passage of a
> > bullet THROUGH the body of JFK. As they ALL said, "There's NO EXIT" from
> > the body of JFK for the back wound bullet.
> >
>
> Attaboy. Just ignore the fact the shirt fibers were pushed outward.
>

WRONG! You didn't answer the question. And with the different kinds of
material at the throat, tie shirt, etc. There is no telling which way the
fibers were going. Here's an official report on that:

"The first report they were bent outward appeared in Hoover’s
letter. But as Weisberg has noted, even the Bureau was cautious about this
“evidence,” essentially contradicting Hoover. During his
Warren Commission testimony, FBI agent Robert Frazier said that the
outward bend of the shirt fibers was indicative of exit only
“assuming that when I first examined the shirt it was ... it had
not been altered from the condition it was in at the time the hole was
made.”[255] The FBI report and Frazier’s testimony aside,
might Lindenberg have independently noted the outward bent of the fibers?
Perhaps. But even if he had, the HSCA’s forensic experts echoed
Frazier about the dubious value of such evidence: “[T]he panel
itself cannot assess evidentiary significance to the fiber direction
because of the numerous intervening examinations."

From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_4.htm

When JFK was brought into the ER, the nurses had to get rid of the
clothing, and in doing that they used scalpels. They would pull and cut
the material away from the body and there's no telling what changes in the
fibers they may have made while doing that. The fiber direction is not a
positive bit of evidence as per the text above.

> > > And please tell us the likelihood of TWO separate bullets entering John
> > > Kennedy's upper body (hitting only soft tissue remember!) and having both
> > > of those bullets failing to exit the body --- and THEN having *BOTH* of
> > > those bullets falling out of JFK's body and getting lost. That's fantasy
> > > talk there.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I don't remember saying anything about 2 bullets doing that.
>
> You have insisted all along that separate bullets entered JFK's back and
> throat and yet according to your silly narrative neither exited. Are you
> going to walk that back now or stick with that silly explanation. I don't
> envy the choice you have here.
>

Ah, you asked a reasonable question! There's a switch. First, the
throat bullet came in from the front and was probably dug out by Humes and
Boswell during their clandestine work on the body at Bethesda. The path
of the back wound bullet was described for you many times. It was a
'short shot' and did not penetrate more than an inch or so. It was seen
falling out of the back of the body by Jerrol Custer, X-ray Technician,
who told of it in his sworn testimony.

> > Where'd
> > you get that crap? Did you make that up? There was a bullet that hit JFK
> > in the upper back and stopped there without penetrating more than an inch
> > or so. it fell out in front of an X-ray Technician and was scooped up by a
> > prosector. There was a bullet that hit JFK in the forehead/temple area
> > which can be seen by anyone that wants to see it. It left a path of tiny
> > metal particles as it passed through the skull and blew out the BOH at the
> > right rear. Obviously it wasn't an FMJ bullet.
> >
>
> Aren't you forgetting about the bullet hole in JFK's throat. What caused
> that wound and where did that bullet go?
>

See above, I just described that one, though I've doe it for you many
times. When you're wrong you keep repeating over and over and get
nowhere.

> >
> >
> > > Time to get real and face the truth, Chris/Frame. The SBT wins in every
> > > conceivable way. In fact, it's not even a close call.
> > >
> >
> > Given the solid proof of what the autopsy team saw inside the body
> > after the organs were removed, I think you better look over your data
> > again. Check with the real witnesses too. You're obviously wrong.
> >
> > If you want to see the wound in the right forehead/temple area, go to
> > the 'stare-of-death' photo and ENLARGE it and look at the right forehead
> > area at what is behind the hair hanging down. You'll see a bullet hole
> > there, if you're doing it right. That bullet hole matches the example
> > that was in "Gunshot Wounds" by Vincent DiMaio, and expert in the
> > pathology field. The book is here:
> >
>
> More shit that nobody cares about.
>

Hmm. Afraid that someone will see what you were unable to see?

[mainframetech]

Ah, stuck around for a change and didn't head for the hills! Good!
First, the bullet hole in the throat was made by a bullet. Simple. And
like the most of the doctors at Parkland thought, it was an entry and came
from the front, which the conspirators couldn't allow. That would have
proved another shooter and a plot.

The reason the body was stolen from Dallas and flown with the limo to
Washington was so that they could take it to a military hospital where
they could control what reports came out and what was supposedly found.
A call ahead to Humes had him and Boswell standing on the loading dock at
the morgue waiting for the body to arrive. It had been flown from the
airport in a helicopter. That gave them 42 minutes to work on the body
while the motorcade from the airport was still traveling with the family
and all the agents.

The first thing was to search the body for bullets or fragments, and
that is recorded in the sworn testimony of the 2 X-ray Technicians. The
tracheostomy wound in the neck was far larger than it would normally be,
and was called "messy" by some. I believe that was because they had to
dig for the bullet that struck that point. Once they got the bullet out,
it was 'disappeared' like some others in the case.

Humes and Boswell had 42 minutes to get the fragments and bullets from
the body, but to also change the body in the time available to make it
seem more like it had been hit by a bullet from above and behind. They
did that by expanding the large hole in the BOH to go around the right
side and a bit of the top. As they worked on the body, there were
witnesses. Before that in Dallas, the wound at the BOH was at the right
rear and was seen by over 39 people.

> >
> > > Time to get real and face the truth, Chris/Frame. The SBT wins in every
> > > conceivable way. In fact, it's not even a close call.
> > >
> >
> > Given the solid proof of what the autopsy team saw inside the body
> > after the organs were removed, I think you better look over your data
> > again. Check with the real witnesses too. You're obviously wrong.
> >
> > If you want to see the wound in the right forehead/temple area, go to
> > the 'stare-of-death' photo and ENLARGE it and look at the right forehead
> > area at what is behind the hair hanging down. You'll see a bullet hole
> > there, if you're doing it right. That bullet hole matches the example
> > that was in "Gunshot Wounds" by Vincent DiMaio, and expert in the
> > pathology field. The book is here:
> >
> > http://www.e-reading.club/bookreader.php/135302/Gunshot_wounds._Practical_aspects_of_firearms,_ballistics,_and_forensic_techniques.pdf
> >

> > Look in chapter 4 at figure 4.16 to see the example bullet wound. The

[mainframetech]

First, I don't have a site. Second, are you so afraid of documented
evidence of sworn testimony that you'll shy away from it every time you
have a chance to check it out? What are you afraid of? Truth?

Chris

[mainframetech]

You're welcome to your little world of opinion. I'll stick with the
facts and sworn testimony.

Chris

[Robert Harris]

It is impossible to be "exact", but T1 is the best estimate I
can come up with.

>
>
>
>> Humes testified, 'The size of this wound was 4 by 7 mm.,
>> with the long
>> axis being in accordance with the long axis of the body."
>>
>> http://jfkhistory.com/backmeasurements.png
>>
>> The shape of the upper defect is also totally inconsistent
>> with what
>> bullet entry wounds normally look like and it is obvious
>> that the lower
>> defect is what is being measured with the ruler."
>
> The upper wound looks like a near-classic entry wound
> to me.

You are trying to substitute your subjective opinion for
objective, empirical evidence.

> I say this after chasing forensic pathology
> texts for a while.

No, you are arguing this on the basis of what the wound
"looks like" to you. Read your own words.

> Of course, you don't have to just
> take my word for it,

So far, the best statement in your post:-)

> though The Clark and HSCA panels
> saw the original autopsy photos.

Yes, we ALL saw the photos.

But Humes saw the wound and measured it.

> They said that the
> upper wound is the gunshot wound. Also, your 'entry'
> is shaped like a comma made by a five-year old wielding
> a leaky fountain pen. How does a circular bullet do that?

It bleeds and there may have been a small drop of blood
alongside the wound.

>
>
>
>> What is it you aren't getting about that:-)
>
> It's what *you* don't get, Bob. Do you understand what
> you wrote?

Yes. Is there a point you are trying to make with that rather
stupid question:-)

> Not what you might have thought you wrote,
> but what your fingers actually committed to the ether.
> Go back and look at Paul's image and then re-read what
> you wrote about that image, then answer the question
> I've asked you about your assertion re: Paul's image.

I answered your question.

>
>
>
>>> BTW, the light illuminating the photo is coming from
>>> above and to the left. Your "bullet wound" has a specular
>>> highlight in the upper left quadrant.
>>> That indicates that
>>> the "wound" is something raised up above the skin, like a
>>> little blob of coagulated blood, not a concave feature
>>> like a bullet wound.
>>
>> First of all, there is a section in the upper defect that
>> is larger and
>> as light as the one you mentioned in the lower.
>
> Yes, and it is the shape, size, and location that I would expect
> to see light reflecting off of the rim of a bullet wound,

LOL!!

I couldn't possibly care less about what you would expect.

You're wasting time and bandwidth with silly arguments like this.




Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

I believe it was. One of Oswald's WCC bullets. But you ASSuME that, you
did not PROVE it.

> soft tissue. It would have been roughly the same shape when it left JFK's
> throat as it was when it left the muzzle. There is no reason to believe it
> wouldn't have made a neat round hole upon exiting.
>

Unless you are so deluded as to think that it was tumbling.

>> The bullet which struck Connally under his right
>> armpit must have been traveling over 1700 fps in order to cause all the
>> bone damage to Connally. However, a 1700 fps bullet would not leave a
>> small circular hole in JFK's neck when it exited his neck.
>>
>
> I'm sure you can document that. You wouldn't have just made that up, would
> you?
>

It's just one guess, like yours.

[BOZ]

On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 1:36:27 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:
> Let me get a little philosophical for a moment. Indulge me if you're so
> inclined. If not, just ignore this.
>
> Is there such a thing as a "subjective fact"? Most people would probably
> say, no. They would probably state, "How can anything that is subjective
> be a fact? By definition, anything that is subjective cannot qualify as a
> fact." And, I guess, there's some truth to that. But that's not how we run
> our lives. That's not how reality works.
>
> Imagine if the ONLY things we accepted as facts were things that were
> objective and that we have personally observed or calculated. For instance
> - how would you answer the question: Do you have a brain? Is it a FACT
> that you have a brain?
>
> Have you actually ever SEEN your brain? Probably not.
>
> Here are some things that are probably true for you, however.
>
> You've probably read that people have brains. You were probably taught
> that very early in life. You have even seen a photograph of a brain in a
> biology textbook. But it wasn't YOUR brain. You may have even seen a TV
> program/documentary where doctors were performing surgery on somebody's
> brain. You SEE the brain! But, again, it's not YOUR brain. You probably
> know about concussions and can intelligently describe what it is - damage
> to the brain usually caused by a jolt where the brain bounces against the
> skull. You can look it up on WebMD. Headaches, nausea, blurred vision and
> even death can result. But, even if you know somebody who has been
> diagnosed with a concussion /or/ even if YOU have had a concussion /still/
> you have never seen YOUR brain.
>
> "But I saw it on x-rays!" That's just an IMAGE, however. Are you a trained
> radiologist? You may have been told that it was your brain by a
> radiologist; but, still - you are not actually SEEING your brain.
>
> "A person cannot live without a brain. I'm alive. Therefore, I MUST have a
> brain," you say. How do you know that's true? And STILL, you have not SEEN
> your brain despite all this knowledge that you've accumulated.
>
> Silly? Of course it's all silly. But my point should be obvious. We make
> decisions about the world around us all the time based on nothing more
> than common sense and the opinions of people who are smarter than us in
> many areas.
>
> The study of the Kennedy assassination is much like that. I have never
> claimed to be a medical expert, ballistics expert, handwriting expert, nor
> am I a forensics expert. I did not witness the Kennedy assassination. But
> I have availed myself of the OPINIONS of people who are experts in these
> fields and have read the testimony of those who DID witness the
> assassination and other events related to the assassination.
>
> "But, Dave - not all experts agree!"
>
> True! But there are common sense methods of resolving such matters. This
> is a "skill" that most people learn as they go through life when
> confronted with conflicting conclusions about matters on which they are
> not an expert. That's why we often get a second opinion on serious medical
> issues. Experts DO make mistakes. But not often - that's what makes them
> experts.
>
> There is a thing called the "Baloney Detection Kit" - a catchy (and maybe
> a bit goofy) title for a very serious matter - derived by Carl Sagan.
> There actually IS a way of navigating through conflicting conclusions made
> by experts (especially non-experts).
>
> 1. How reliable is the source of the claim?
> 2. Does the source make similar claims?
> 3. Have the claims been verified by somebody else?
> 4. Does this fit with the way the world works?
> 5. Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?
> 6. Where does the preponderance of evidence point?
> 7. Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?
> 8. Is the claimant providing positive evidence?
> 9. Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?
> 10. Are personal beliefs driving the claim?
>
> You can take just about any wacky conspiracy belief and run it through the
> above checklist and, although you may hit on several of the key points,
> there is invariably one (usually many more) glaring FAIL. Unique to the
> Kennedy case is that I always ask: Is the person working with the ACTUAL
> evidence? For instance, is somebody discrediting a
> photograph/film/recording, claiming that it is altered, and that person is
> NOT working with a first generation photo/film/recording? Sometimes they
> ARE. But then there are many OTHER things that have to fit into their
> alteration theory that usually do NOT fit.
>
> This is how I have always tried to look at the many issues in the Kennedy
> assassination. I accept many of my beliefs as FACTS. Are they "subjective
> facts"? Yes! Of course. But that's how the real world works. If we didn't
> accept "subjective facts" as facts we would go through our lives in a
> state of confused paralysis, doubting everything ... taking NOTHING as a
> fact ... never capable of drawing conclusions and BUILDING on those
> conclusions to create greater understanding.

>
> For instance, I accept the "Single Bullet Theory" as a FACT because it

> conforms quite nicely with all aspects of the Baloney Test. Alternate
> theories that account for all of Kennedy's and Connally's wounds fail
> miserably in many categories. Yet, those wounds DO exist. It happened.
> There MUST be an explanation. There cannot be numerous explanations. As
> Dale Myers says quite succinctly, "You can talk about all the theories you
> want. This thing happened only ONE way ... it's not a magic bullet at all.
> It's not even a single bullet theory, in my opinion. It's a single bullet
> FACT."
>
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN

[David Emerling]

On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 10:24:21 PM UTC-6, bigdog wrote:

> In this particular case, there isn't a single witness who corroborates

> Custer's bullshit story about a bullet falling out of JFK's back ...

Plus, there were two FBI agents in attendance at the autopsy. One of their
primary responsibilities was to gather any evidence - in particular, A
BULLET! It's hard to imagine that Agents Sibert and O'Neill wouldn't be
interested in a bullet that fell to the floor.

But, of course, this is where the CTs claim that the FBI was in on the
conspiracy. There really is no winning this argument. The more proof you
give, the larger the conspiracy becomes. They never once pause to consider
how absolutely unwieldy (and implausible) their conspiracy has become. And
yet, they will never articulate the specific nature of this "conspiracy".
All they do is stand on the rooftops and yell "Conspiracy!" - then they
call that research.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[mainframetech]

Bull. There was no bullet that exited from the throat area. That was
proven.

> > The bullet which struck Connally under his right
> > armpit must have been traveling over 1700 fps in order to cause all the
> > bone damage to Connally. However, a 1700 fps bullet would not leave a
> > small circular hole in JFK's neck when it exited his neck.
> >
>
> I'm sure you can document that. You wouldn't have just made that up, would
> you?
>
> > Similarly, the bullet which struck JFK was not traveling fast enough to
> > do bone damage to JFK. That bullet ricocheted off of JFK's T1 process
> > because it did not have enough energy to penetrate the bone. Instead,
> > the path of the bullet was changed when it struck the bone. To believe
> > that this same bullet, did all the bone damage to Connally is an illusion.
> >
>
> There is an illusion alright but it ain't the SBT.
>

Yeah it is.

> > The evidence is clear, and I mean all the evidence, that we are talking
> > about 2 different bullets, not one single bullet.
>
> Thank you for your amateurish ballistics analysis.

That was better than your silly opinion which caries no weight here.

Chris

[mainframetech]

So you really think that when a bullet falls out of the back, that a
bullet DIDN'T fall out of the back...weird mind!

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 11:06:44 PM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 10:24:21 PM UTC-6, bigdog wrote:
>
> > In this particular case, there isn't a single witness who corroborates
> > Custer's bullshit story about a bullet falling out of JFK's back ...
>
> Plus, there were two FBI agents in attendance at the autopsy. One of their
> primary responsibilities was to gather any evidence - in particular, A
> BULLET! It's hard to imagine that Agents Sibert and O'Neill wouldn't be
> interested in a bullet that fell to the floor.
>

While much of the story of the autopsy and the conclusions are recorded
by the FBI agents, why do you assume that they watched EVERY last action
that occurred? At a point where the X-ray Technicians had to take
pictures, they had to have everyone away from the table by 6 feet for
safety, and most of the autopsy team had the experience from many other
autopsies that they now had minutes to do nothing but look at each other.
At those times people are wont to look elsewhere, talk to each other about
what's going on, or even talk about their bowling scores last night. Why
do you ASSUME that the FBI agents watched like hawks at what the X-ray
Technician was doing?

Further, why do you ASSUME that the Technician was lying, when the
opening of the body proved that he was right, that the bullet hadn't
penetrated more than an inch and it fell out when the body was raised?
Why deny that in what was for them an extremely important case, would the
Technician lie about that one little thing, then not go and write a book
or get on TV or something similar? Why did he for the most part go back
to his life without grabbing the spotlight? I see no consideration that
it was sworn testimony, and no consideration that it was an extremely
important autopsy, and he didn't try to make himself the hero of the day.
Let's face reality. What kind of trouble would the Technician get into at
such an important autopsy, if he was caught lying?

> But, of course, this is where the CTs claim that the FBI was in on the
> conspiracy. There really is no winning this argument. The more proof you
> give, the larger the conspiracy becomes. They never once pause to consider
> how absolutely unwieldy (and implausible) their conspiracy has become. And
> yet, they will never articulate the specific nature of this "conspiracy".
> All they do is stand on the rooftops and yell "Conspiracy!" - then they
> call that research.
>

Let's clear that up right now. These 2 FBI agents (Sibert and O'Neill)
did NOTHING to make me think they were one of the bad ones who were caught
(repeat: caught, with evidence) lying in their reporting of witness
statements and doing other nasty things.

Please attempt to respond to the comments above. I'm interested in how
you were able to ignore the other evidence of the 'short shot' where when
opening the body they were able to verify that the bullet did NOT pass the
pleura. That evidence validated the X-ray Technician, and it proved the
bullet didn't leave the body, just as ALL the prosectors said, which
killed the stupid SBT.

Chris

[Ben Holmes]

The actual conspiracy was undoubtedly less than a dozen people. And no
matter how many times this is pointed out, it will never be acknowledged
by those whose faith is better supported by exaggerating what critics
state in order to make criticism of the Warren Commission look ridiculous.

http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-FBI-Involvement-In-The-Conspiracy

[bigdog]

OK. Here's a fact. You've never produced one witness who corroborates
Custer's bullshit story about a bullet falling out of JFK's back and being
scooped up by Finck.

> Do you have some Sworn testimony for us?

You want sworn testimony of people telling us what they didn't see?

> I think it's time you stopped
> with the opinions of me, and got down to the case and any evidence you can
> drum up.

I don't need to dream up evidence. It's all on my side. You on the other
hand...

> Bandying insults back and forth with you reminds me of my
> children's little tiffs. It's a waste of valuable time. Especially your
> endless opinions which carry no weight.
>

The irony runs thick.

>
>
>
> If on the other hand a witness tells a story you
> > don't want to believe no matter how much corroboration there is for their
> > story, you reject it and will make up whatever excuse necessary to do so,
> > such as claiming they were ordered to lie.
> >
>
>
> More opinion.
>

How many examples would you like?

You reject Howard Brennan's identification of Oswald even thought it is
corroborated by the physical evidence.

You reject the conclusions written by the prosectors in their AR even
though every single medical examiner who has reviewed the autopsy
materials has reached the same conclusion they did that JFK was struck
twice from above and behind.

I can come up with more if you like.

>
> > In this particular case, there isn't a single witness who corroborates
> > Custer's bullshit story about a bullet falling out of JFK's back while
> > there were 3 medical examiners who all agreed that the bullet went
> > completely through JFK's upper body and exited his throat and they all
> > signed their names to a report that said just that but you choose to
> > accept the uncorroborated story and claim the three medical examiners were
> > ordered to falsify their report. Nonsense like this is the reason no one
> > on this newsgroup takes you seriously. Not even your fellow conspiracy
> > hobbyists. You are a cult of one.
> >
>
>
>
>
> You're ridiculous and all alone.

Doubling down on the irony?

> Now that's out of the way, along
> with your silly opinions, we have evidence in the form of sworn testimony,
> and it fits with other evidence related to the bullet not traveling far in
> the body. The proof of that was also seen by the whole autopsy team,
> including the prosectors who started out concluding that "There's NO EXIT"
> for the back wound bullet. Later when they saw the validation of that
> conclusion, they knew they had decided correctly. Sadly, they had orders
> to lie about the proof they saw, and so many people were sucked in by the
> false info. As you know, this has all been documented from the official
> record, mainly the ARRB files.
>

There is nothing in the ARRB files which refutes the findings of the WC
that Oswald was the assassin and that there is no credible evidence of any
accomplices.

>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > the bullet that hit in the upper back penetrated only an inch or so, and
> > > > > did NOT go past that point. There was NO tearing or puncture past the
> > > > > pleura, the covering of the lungs.
> > > > >
> > > > > So the bullet hit and didn't really penetrate, and fell out, then they
> > > > > found that the bullet had NOT gone past the pleura, which is only an inch
> > > > > into the body. Cites and links on request so anyone can see the proof.
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > > Both the pleural cavity and the right lung were bruised by the passage of
> > > > the bullet through the body. (WCR, p.542)
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > True as far as bruising. However, the bullet did NOT go through the
> > > body. ALL the autopsy team saw the proof that it did not.
> > >
> >
> > And then they signed a report that said just the opposite.
> >
>
>
> True, but that was under orders,

Orders for which you've produced no evidence. Your idea of evidence is
that the conclusions written in the AR conflict with what you believe so
it must be the AR that they were ordered to lie because it couldn't
possibly be that your beliefs are fucked up.

> and couldn't have been any other
> reason, since they all saw the proof earlier and so there couldn't be any
> other answer. The plotters never figured on the ARRB files, they thought
> the records would be sealed or not seen, and people that saw important
> events would never be hard. A terrible mistake.
>

Thank you for proving what I just wrote above. You do that a lot.

In the old days I could have asked you if you had a dime and if you did
you could call somebody who gives a shit what you think but pay phones
have all but disappeared in this world of cell phones.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > And what about the shirt fibers which were pointing *outward* at the front
> > > > of JFK's shirt? Did somebody deliberately turn the fibers from INWARD to
> > > > OUTWARD in order to fool everybody and perpetuate a cover-up?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Are you speaking of fibers of the shirt at the throat? Because the
> > > throat wound had to be an entrance wound since there was NO passage of a
> > > bullet THROUGH the body of JFK. As they ALL said, "There's NO EXIT" from
> > > the body of JFK for the back wound bullet.
> > >
> >
> > Attaboy. Just ignore the fact the shirt fibers were pushed outward.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! You didn't answer the question.

The only question you asked was addressed to DVP and it was whether he was
speaking about the fibers at the throat. I normally don't try to speak for
other people but I feel safe in saying he was speaking of the fibers at
the throat. And it is noted you refused to address the point he made that
those fibers were pushed outward which is incompatible with an entrance
wound which would have pushed the fibers inward.

> And with the different kinds of
> material at the throat, tie shirt, etc. There is no telling which way the
> fibers were going. Here's an official report on that:
>

So you don't have a reasonable explanation for why the fibers were pushed
outward. That's kind of what we thought.

> "The first report they were bent outward appeared in Hoover’s
> letter. But as Weisberg has noted, even the Bureau was cautious about this
> “evidence,” essentially contradicting Hoover. During his
> Warren Commission testimony, FBI agent Robert Frazier said that the
> outward bend of the shirt fibers was indicative of exit only
> “assuming that when I first examined the shirt it was ... it had
> not been altered from the condition it was in at the time the hole was
> made.”[255] The FBI report and Frazier’s testimony aside,
> might Lindenberg have independently noted the outward bent of the fibers?
> Perhaps. But even if he had, the HSCA’s forensic experts echoed
> Frazier about the dubious value of such evidence: “[T]he panel
> itself cannot assess evidentiary significance to the fiber direction
> because of the numerous intervening examinations."
>

Every examination showed the fibers pushed outward. You are once again
dreaming up excuses for evidence that doesn't fit your silly beliefs.

> From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_4.htm
>
> When JFK was brought into the ER, the nurses had to get rid of the
> clothing, and in doing that they used scalpels. They would pull and cut
> the material away from the body and there's no telling what changes in the
> fibers they may have made while doing that. The fiber direction is not a
> positive bit of evidence as per the text above.
>

It's an inconvenient piece of evidence for those who want to believe the
throat wound was an entrance even though there was no exit wound and no
bullet recovered from the body. Magic bullets are required to get this
turkey to fly.

>
>
> > > > And please tell us the likelihood of TWO separate bullets entering John
> > > > Kennedy's upper body (hitting only soft tissue remember!) and having both
> > > > of those bullets failing to exit the body --- and THEN having *BOTH* of
> > > > those bullets falling out of JFK's body and getting lost. That's fantasy
> > > > talk there.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't remember saying anything about 2 bullets doing that.
> >
> > You have insisted all along that separate bullets entered JFK's back and
> > throat and yet according to your silly narrative neither exited. Are you
> > going to walk that back now or stick with that silly explanation. I don't
> > envy the choice you have here.
> >
>
>
>
> Ah, you asked a reasonable question! There's a switch. First, the
> throat bullet came in from the front and was probably dug out by Humes and
> Boswell during their clandestine work on the body at Bethesda.

So once again you are forced to resort to an explanation completely
unsupported by any evidence. That pretty much describes everything you
choose to believe.

> The path
> of the back wound bullet was described for you many times. It was a
> 'short shot' and did not penetrate more than an inch or so. It was seen
> falling out of the back of the body by Jerrol Custer, X-ray Technician,
> who told of it in his sworn testimony.
>

Silliness ignored.

>
>
> > > Where'd
> > > you get that crap? Did you make that up? There was a bullet that hit JFK
> > > in the upper back and stopped there without penetrating more than an inch
> > > or so. it fell out in front of an X-ray Technician and was scooped up by a
> > > prosector. There was a bullet that hit JFK in the forehead/temple area
> > > which can be seen by anyone that wants to see it. It left a path of tiny
> > > metal particles as it passed through the skull and blew out the BOH at the
> > > right rear. Obviously it wasn't an FMJ bullet.
> > >
> >
> > Aren't you forgetting about the bullet hole in JFK's throat. What caused
> > that wound and where did that bullet go?
> >
>
>
> See above, I just described that one, though I've doe it for you many
> times. When you're wrong you keep repeating over and over and get
> nowhere.
>

Your description was ludicrous, as usual.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > Time to get real and face the truth, Chris/Frame. The SBT wins in every
> > > > conceivable way. In fact, it's not even a close call.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Given the solid proof of what the autopsy team saw inside the body
> > > after the organs were removed, I think you better look over your data
> > > again. Check with the real witnesses too. You're obviously wrong.
> > >
> > > If you want to see the wound in the right forehead/temple area, go to
> > > the 'stare-of-death' photo and ENLARGE it and look at the right forehead
> > > area at what is behind the hair hanging down. You'll see a bullet hole
> > > there, if you're doing it right. That bullet hole matches the example
> > > that was in "Gunshot Wounds" by Vincent DiMaio, and expert in the
> > > pathology field. The book is here:
> > >
> >
> > More shit that nobody cares about.
> >
>
>
> Hmm. Afraid that someone will see what you were unable to see?
>

I hope that people see the silly things you are forced to come up with.
When they do they will be more inclined to believe Oswald was the sole
assassin.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/19/2017 12:13 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 12:21:43 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 7:54:48 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 7:05:33 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>>>> On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 11:45:50 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 1:57:34 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 10:13:19 PM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, January 13, 2017 at 12:08:52 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> " O'Connor: Now, there are high-powered weapons that will drive a bullet
>>>>>>>> straight through a body and a rigid probe will trace its path all the way
>>>>>>>> through. We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in
>>>>>>>> so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further than
>>>>>>>> that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found out
>>>>>>>> that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal

>>>>>>>> muscles???the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in

>>>>> found this back wound. And that???s when they

>>>>> started probing with the rubber glove and the
>>>>> finger, and - and also with the chrome probe.

>>>>> And that???s just before, of course, I made

>>>>> this call, because they were at a loss to explain

>>>>> what had happened to this bullet. They couldn???t
>>>>> find any bullet.

>>>>> And they said, ???There's no exit.??? Finck,

>>>>> in particular, said, "There???s no exit.??? And they

>>>>> said that you could feel it with the end of the
>>>>> finger - I mean, the depth of this wound."
>>>>> From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf
>>>>> Page 111
>>>>>
>>>>> So they proved the wound was only an inch or so deep, and there was no
>>>>> bullet. But An X-ray Technician saw a bullet fall from the back of JFK
>>>>> when he raised up the body to take an X-ray. Cites and links on request.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It didn't exactly require Nostradamus to accurately predict what Chris
>>>> would come up with. We've seen this movie before.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course. Facts don't change, which you OBVIOUSLY know. The facts
>>> that I quote are proved and make sense together. You were never able to
>>> cover them up, and you still can't.
>>>
>>
>> So you really think that because somebody said a bullet fell out of JFK's
>> back that proves a bullet fell out of JFK's back. What a strange concept.
>
>
>
> So you really think that when a bullet falls out of the back, that a
> bullet DIDN'T fall out of the back...weird mind!
>
> Chris
>

When your witness says a bullet fell out of the back, that is absolute
proof that a bullet did not fall out of the back.
Same fot your witness saying there was a bullet hole in the windshield.