Barber Proving Simultaneous Reaction

[BOZ]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrgWo3WJY0M

[bigdog]

On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 5:23:25 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrgWo3WJY0M

DVP's web page shows the same thing and allows us to toggle between
critical frames.

223-224. This shows the bulging of JBC's right lapel, the result of the
single bullet passing through it an instant earlier.

224-225. Although JFK's face is still hidden in 224, his right hand is
not. That allows us to see that his right hand was still moving DOWNWARD
at 225. This indicates that although he has been hit by 225, he hasn't
started reacting. For a long time it was believed JFK was already reacting
to being shot when he reappeared but there is actually a one frame lag
between when he reappeared and when he reacted.

225-226. Here we see JFK's right hand/arm reverse direction and suddenly
raise upward along with the left arm. In 226, JBC's arm also suddenly
jerks upward. Coincidence? I think not.

[19efppp]

On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 5:23:25 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrgWo3WJY0M

Steve discovered that? But he comes to the wrong conclusion. The
trajectory of the shot from the north end of the overpass into JFK's
throat, goes right by Connally's right ear. I have never had the pleasure,
by I take it that the shock wave from such a supersonic projectile buzzing
one's ear will cause one to jump a bit. And since it is the same bullet
which impacted JFK's throat, then of course, both Connally and JFK seem to
react simultaneously. Where would you Nutters be without me here to
explain stuff?

[Anthony Marsh]

Make up your mind. How can you see one reaction at frames 224-225 and
then at 225-226 if it was a single bullet?


For the record Connally said that he was not shot by the same shot. He
was time to react and saw that JFK had already been hit. You'd need an
extremely slow bullet to do that.

[Steve Barber]

DVP didn't know about the two sudden up and down movements of Connally's
shoulders when the bullet struck him in the back.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Excuse me, where in John Connally's testimonies, e.g., WC, HSCA does he
say he saw JFK had been hit?

Here's his HSCA account (in part): "I immediately had, frankly, had fear
of an assassination because I thought it was a rifle shot. I didn't think
it was a blowout or explosion of any kind. I didn't see the President out
of the corner of my eye, so I was in the process of, at least I was
turning to look over my left shoulder into the back seat to see if I could
see him. I never looked, I never made the full turn. About the time I
turned back where I was facing more or less straight ahead, the way the
car was moving, I was hit."

He said he turned to his right after hearing the first shot to see JFK but
couldn't see him - "I didn't see the President out of the corenr of my
eye...". He then tried to turn back to his left - was in the process of
turning back - when he was hit. But he said he never saw JFK after hearing
that first shot.

[BOZ]

You said we cannot believe eyewitness testimony. Make up your mind.

[bigdog]

On Saturday, May 25, 2019 at 10:38:25 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> On 5/24/2019 10:37 AM, bigdog wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 5:23:25 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrgWo3WJY0M
> >
> > DVP's web page shows the same thing and allows us to toggle between
> > critical frames.
> >
> > 223-224. This shows the bulging of JBC's right lapel, the result of the
> > single bullet passing through it an instant earlier.
> >
> > 224-225. Although JFK's face is still hidden in 224, his right hand is
> > not. That allows us to see that his right hand was still moving DOWNWARD
> > at 225. This indicates that although he has been hit by 225, he hasn't
> > started reacting. For a long time it was believed JFK was already reacting
> > to being shot when he reappeared but there is actually a one frame lag
> > between when he reappeared and when he reacted.
> >
> > 225-226. Here we see JFK's right hand/arm reverse direction and suddenly
> > raise upward along with the left arm. In 226, JBC's arm also suddenly
> > jerks upward. Coincidence? I think not.
> >
>
>
>
> Make up your mind. How can you see one reaction at frames 224-225 and
> then at 225-226 if it was a single bullet?
>

If you would have bothered to read the post, you wouldn't think I had said
that.

>
> For the record Connally said that he was not shot by the same shot.

And he was wrong. Probably because he knew he had been hit by the second
shot and Nellie had said JFK had been hit by the first shot. She was wrong
too. Connally had no first hand knowledge of which bullet first hit JFK
because he had his back to JFK.

> He
> was time to react and saw that JFK had already been hit. You'd need an
> extremely slow bullet to do that.

The Z-film clearly shows that Connally did not turn around far enough to
see JFK until after both of them had been hit. We know all about your
silly theory that in the one second Connally was hidden behind the sign he
turned and saw JFK had been hit and then turned back to the facing forward
position he had been in before he went behind the sign. I guess if that's
the only way you can get your theories to hold water, you go with it no
matter how silly it sounds. Several years ago I went into a detailed
explanation of why that would be physically impossible. Do you want me to
embarrass you again with that?

[gkno...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 4:23:25 PM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrgWo3WJY0M

I beat Barber to that by at least two years...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEwbtP_9lPY

But Barber did not go far enough. Connally is reacting to TWO shots.

[Anthony Marsh]

So you think that Connally was hit before frame 223?
Can you SHOW us this shoulder movement you are talking about? Two
movements? What frames? Are saying that Connally was shot twice?
Name your frames.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 10:37:11 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:

Re 223-224: I disagree. The bullet did not go through the lapel causing it
to bulge.

The bullet hole is located well below the lapel:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jaynes2/jbcjackt.jpg

[bigdog]

Those were simultaneous with the flip of Connally's right arm. In essence,
it shows the same thing. JFK and JBC reacting at the same instant.

[David Von Pein]

On Saturday, May 25, 2019 at 4:04:35 PM UTC-4, Steve Barber wrote:

I have no idea why you're saying this. I've been discussing Connally's
jerky shoulder movements with conspiracy theorists for years....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html#Connally-Shoulder-Flinching

[BOZ]

The bullet that passed through the Governor could have created a shock
wave that moved up his jacket.

[19efppp]

That really is very good, Steve! I never noticed that the hole location
disproves the Lapel Theory. You have taught me something! Thank you!

[Anthony Marsh]

Excuse me? If you are too afraid tp read the articles on my Web site.
I'll have to start a massive copy and paste to upload them here.

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Connally.htm


Did Connally turn left or right?
One of the problems with the book Assassination Science is that some
authors misuse or misquote eyewitness testimony. It is bad enough that
eyewitness testimony is already acknowledged to be the most unreliable
form of evidence. But it is made worse when sloppy researchers misquote
eyewitness testimony to support insupportable conclusions. But it is even
worse when a researcher simply makes up an eyewitness statement from his
imagination in order to support his pre-conceived conclusion. On page 214
Jack White lists his observations of the Zapruder film which he thinks
prove that the film is a fake. In Observation 5, Jack White states that,
"Connally said he turned to his left to look at the President, then turned
to his right. The film does not show this." Jack White does not provide
any footnotes for his chapter, so the reader can not find out where this
statement came from. After repeated questioning Jack finally admitted that
he had based that on an article by Milicent Cranor. He did not bother to
fact check it himself.
Throughout his life John Connally had always testified consistently
that he heard a shot, turned to his right to look at the President, then
started to turn to his left when he was hit facing approximately forward.
The only account that differs from that is his bedside interview from
November 27, 1963. Milicent Cranor, one of Jack's defenders, points out in
her article in The Fourth Decade (July 1994, pages 3839) that CBS and
later NOVA cut several words out of the rebroadcast of Connally's
statement, specifically Connally's reference to turning left. She points
out that Martin Agronsky of the New York Times preserved the reference to
the left turn in his November 28, 1963 report. But does she faithfully
quote what the New York Times wrote? I doubt it. Here is what she wrote:

We heard a shot. I turned to my left and the President had slumped.

He had said nothing. Almost simultaneously, as I turned I was hit . . .

But according to the account in Josiah Thompson's book Six Seconds in
Dallas on page 65, the New York Times quote was longer.
Compare that to the NOVA version:

So, can we then rely on Josiah Thompson's version? Not exactly. Look at
the second sentence. Does it make any sense for Connally to say, "I turned
to my left in the back seat." when Connally was not in the back seat, but
was in the jump seat? Hardly. It appears that Josiah Thompson made a
copying error and left out the words, "to look". I really doubt that he
would have done so in order to bolster the SBT as CBS and NOVA did. If we
can't rely on other researchers for the authoritative version, then on
whom can we rely? We need to go back to the original source. Not just the
New York Times, but also the original recording of Connally's statement.
Here is how the New York Times transcribed Connally's statement on page 23
of the November 23, 1963 edition:

New York Times, November 28, 1963, p. 23, col. 1.

This scan from a microfilm copy is hard to read so I will type in the
text below:

We had just turned the cor-
ner. we heard a shot. I turned
to my left, and the President
had slumped. He said noth-
ing. As I turned, I was hit,
and I knew I had been hit
badly.

But can we even rely on this official transcript provided by the New York
Times? Not exactly.
As Cranor had pointed out, both CBS and NOVA used edited versions of
Connally's bedside interview in an attempt to preserve the SBT.
Fortunately, other researchers have pointed out that this segment of the
original statement was preserved in toto on other videotapes, such as the
Italian documentary "The Two Kennedys" and "Kennedy in Texas." "The Two
Kennedys" is rare and hard to find now, but I was able to find a copy at a
small video store called Hollywood Express. I was going to record that
segment into my computer, but I found that someone had already done so and
posted it to the Web as a . WAV file. "Kennedy in Texas" can be ordered
from JFK Lancer. I transcribed verbatim the original Connally bedside
statement. And you can also listen to the original statement to compare it
to my transcription:


We heard a shot. I turned to my left -- I was sitting in the jump seat
--

I turned to my left to look in the back seat. The President was
slumped.

Ah, he had said nothing. Almost simultaneously, as I turned, I was
hit,

and I knew I'd been hit badly.

So, where is the left, then right turn which Jack White cites? Nowhere to
be found. It is always best to go back to the original statement of an
eyewitness, but it does no good when the researcher misquotes the original
statement. Never in his life did Connally say that he first turned to his
left and then turned to his right. Jack simply made it up from his
imagination. Many of the researchers who are promoting bizarre theories
feel that they need to claim that the Zapruder film is a fake and will do
anything, including making up fictitious eyewitness statements, to bolster
their claims.
In every other statement Connally made, he consistently reported
that he turned to his right and then started to turn to his left. In his
Warren Commission testimony , Connally stated:

Governor Connally.
We had--we had gone, I guess, 150 feet, maybe 200 feet, I don't recall
how far it was, heading down to get on the freeway, the Stemmons
Freeway, to go out to the hall where we were going to have lunch and, as
I say, the crowds had begun to thin, and we could--I was anticipating
that we were going to be at the hall in approximately 5 minutes from the
time we turned on Elm Street.

We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I
heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I
instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from
over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder,
and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not
catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because
once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and
I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an
assassination attempt.

So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left
shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got
about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the
left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back.

In his testimony before the HSCA , Connally repeated essentially the
same sequence of events:


Mr. CORNWELL. Thank you, very much. Governor, let me ask you the same
question. What is your memory of the events? What did you see and
hear? What happened after the limousine started down Elm Street and passed
underneath the Texas School Book Depository?
Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. Cornwell, we had just turned to Elm. We had gone, I
suspect, oh, 150, 200 feet when I heard what I thought was a rifle shot
and I thought it came from--I was seated right, as you know, the jump seat
right in front of the President, and they have a fairly straight back on
them so I was sitting up fairly erect. I thought the shot came from back
over my right shoulder, so I turned to see if I could catch a sight of the
President out of the corner of my eye because I immediately had, frankly,

had fear of an assassination because I thought it was a rifle shot.
I didn't think it was a blowout or explosion of any kind. I didn't
see the President out of the corner of my eye, so I was in the process of,
at least I was turning to look over my left shoulder into the back seat to
see if I could see him. I never looked, I never made the full turn. About
the time I turned back where I was facing more or less straight ahead, the

way the car was moving, I was hit. I was knocked over, just doubled over
by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about
2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet
drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could
see I was just drenched with blood. So, I knew I had been badly hit and I
more or less straightened up. At about this time, Nelly reached over and
pulled me down into her lap.

Connally was interviewed for the 1992 CBS episode of "48 Hours" entitled
"Who Killed JFK?: Facts Not Fiction," but CBS intertwined the interview
with a previous interview, circa 1963. In the transcription below I have
used normal text for the 1992 portion and italicized text for the
flashback interview:

"I heard the shot and I turned, thinking that the shot had come
from back over my right shoulder. And I turned to look in that direction.
And I was in the process of turning to the left to look in the
back seat and I had no more than straightened up and I felt a blow, as
if someone had just hit me in the back, a sharp blow, with a doubled-up
fist. Again, I heard the first shot. I had time to try to see what had
happened. I was in the process of turning again before I felt the impact
of a bullet. And I was lying there and heard the third shot. I assume
that it hit the President."

Again, Connally was consistent in testifying that he heard a shot,
turned to his right to look at the President, then started to turn to
his left when he was hit. This may seem like a minor point, but it is
important for three reasons. First, every author must be willing to
defend what he writes and back up his statements with sources and
references. Second, this is how myths are generated and perpetuated when
no one challenges unproved statements. Third, no researcher should rely
on eyewitness testimony to impeach physical evidence. Eyewitness
testimony is the most unreliable form of evidence. It is even worse when
the sloppy researcher simply makes up fictitious quotes to support his
pre-conceived conclusion that the Zapruder film is a fake. More likely
the researcher is a fake.

> Here's his HSCA account (in part): "I immediately had, frankly, had fear
> of an assassination because I thought it was a rifle shot. I didn't think
> it was a blowout or explosion of any kind. I didn't see the President out
> of the corner of my eye, so I was in the process of, at least I was
> turning to look over my left shoulder into the back seat to see if I could
> see him. I never looked, I never made the full turn. About the time I
> turned back where I was facing more or less straight ahead, the way the
> car was moving, I was hit."
>
> He said he turned to his right after hearing the first shot to see JFK but
> couldn't see him - "I didn't see the President out of the corenr of my
> eye...". He then tried to turn back to his left - was in the process of
> turning back - when he was hit. But he said he never saw JFK after hearing
> that first shot.
>
>

I love the way you only quote part of his testimony and ignore his
statements. What is that trick called again? Selective memory?

[Anthony Marsh]

No, it came from him before anyone dreamed up the Single Bullet Theory.
It took months for Specter to come up with that.
Connally said that he could S\EE that JFK had already been hit before he
felt the next bullet hit him.

>> He
>> was time to react and saw that JFK had already been hit. You'd need an
>> extremely slow bullet to do that.
>
> The Z-film clearly shows that Connally did not turn around far enough to
> see JFK until after both of them had been hit. We know all about your

We've been over this thousands of times. Connally could look to his left
and see JFK.
No ned to turn.

> silly theory that in the one second Connally was hidden behind the sign he
> turned and saw JFK had been hit and then turned back to the facing forward
> position he had been in before he went behind the sign. I guess if that's
> the only way you can get your theories to hold water, you go with it no
> matter how silly it sounds. Several years ago I went into a detailed
> explanation of why that would be physically impossible. Do you want me to
> embarrass you again with that?
>
>

Unlike you, I look for the original statements.

[Anthony Marsh]

FYI, minions are not allowed to engage in cat fights.

[Anthony Marsh]

You're not playing along. We know the bullet did not go through the lapel.
We have the jacket. Their idea is that the debris coming out or f the
chest blew the jacket and FLIPPED the lapel.

>
> The bullet hole is located well below the lapel:
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jaynes2/jbcjackt.jpg
>
>

But did you notice the bullet hole in the sleeve?

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/connallyjacketholes.jpg


>
>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

OK, name the frames and what the 2 bullets hit.

[David Von Pein]

On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 6:56:23 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-940.html

[19efppp]

Why does his left shoulder jump when he's supposedly being shot in the
right?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

It's fascinating how you think you can copy and paste a bunch of text and
think it supports your claims.

Where in that mishmash of text does he say he saw JFK after hearing the
first shot and before being hit by the second? All that asks is the
directions that JC turned; it says nothing about him seeing JFK before
being hit.

[bigdog]

On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 7:08:27 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

The shoulders and right arm flip upward at the same instant. The arm flip
is a little more apparent but both are indications of a reaction
simultaneous with JFK's. One of the most important things I learned from
your website was that we can see JFK's right hand was moving downward
between 224-225, indicating that he had not yet begun to react. That would
come one frame later at 226 when it suddenly moved upward. That dispels a
long and widely held misconception that JFK was already reacting to being
shot when he reappeared at 225. That one frame difference between when he
reappeared and when his arms began moving upward is critical to showing
that both men reacted at the exact same instant. There was no delayed
reaction by Connally.

[bigdog]

On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 6:56:23 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:

I could have worded it better. What I meant to say was that the bulging of
the lapel was caused by the bullet passing through the jacket a little
below the lapel. When I said "it" I was referring to the jacket although
after reading what I wrote, it does appear that I was saying the bullet
passed through the lapel.

[bigdog]

He only said that in his hospital interview. In all subsequent accounts he
said he could not see the President. The Z-film shows he could not have
seen the President because he did not turn far enough to his right to see
JFK until after both had been hit.

> >> He
> >> was time to react and saw that JFK had already been hit. You'd need an
> >> extremely slow bullet to do that.
> >
> > The Z-film clearly shows that Connally did not turn around far enough to
> > see JFK until after both of them had been hit. We know all about your
>
> We've been over this thousands of times. Connally could look to his left
> and see JFK.
> No ned to turn.
>

Not unless he had eyes in the back of his head. He didn't turn far enough
to his right or to his left to see JFK until after he had been shot. He
couldn't have even seen him in his peripheral vision.

> > silly theory that in the one second Connally was hidden behind the sign he
> > turned and saw JFK had been hit and then turned back to the facing forward
> > position he had been in before he went behind the sign. I guess if that's
> > the only way you can get your theories to hold water, you go with it no
> > matter how silly it sounds. Several years ago I went into a detailed
> > explanation of why that would be physically impossible. Do you want me to
> > embarrass you again with that?
> >
> >
>
> Unlike you, I look for the original statements.

Unlike you, I don't rely on witness statements, original or otherwise. I
only accept what can be corroborated. The Z-film refutes Connally's
original statement from his hospital bed that he saw JFK with his first
turn. He could not have seen JFK until he twisted hard to his right in
reaction to having been hit. At that point, his head had turned 180
degrees to the rear and that is the first time he could have seen JFK.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

A photo of his shirt is, I think, better evidence: https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/16/article-2462106-18C2437200000578-847_634x422.jpg

According to Shaw, Connally's doctor, the rib was shattered into small
pieces - like buckshot - and were ejected from the body. I'm guessing that
the little specks of blood to the right and above the bullet hole in the
shirt shown above were caused by these "buckshot" particles exiting
through his chest. And that all of this material - the bullet, the
fragments of the ribs, the blood and tissue - forced the jacket to bulge
out. John Lattimer suggested this in the article below.

But I have no idea, though, as to how this caused the lapel to flip over
like it did.

Lattimer's piece is here: https://archive.org/stream/nsia-LattimerJohnKDr/nsia-LattimerJohnKDr/Lattimer%20John%20K%20Dr%20109_djvu.txt

[Anthony Marsh]

UP? No, silly. No one would fall for that. Try OUT. Even PUFFED OUT. I
think Lattimer's theory was that it was the debris from the chest wound
which pushed out his jacket. That is close enough tor a WC defender.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, very good. Even a WC defender can shoot down another WC defender's
kook theory. But if you had been here maybe 20 years ago you would have
seen me do the same thing and with more diagrams. Did you see the photo I
posted showing the bullet hole in the sleeve or did McAdams erase it as
usual?

[19efppp]

Connally is pulling something out from under his jacket, something
attached, but which can be tugged free. That's why his left shoulder is
moving, too. His left hand is under his jacket and he's pulling something
out. Coincidentally, just as JFK is shot in the throat. Connally did not
shoot him in the throat. But he was pulling something out as JFK was being
shot in the throat.

[Steve Barber]

My deepest apologies.

[David Von Pein]

You actually think that just ONE of his two shoulders should be affected
by a reflex (jerky) involuntary reaction? That's really silly.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

I still don't understand - it's my limits I'm sure - the "mechanism" of
how that lapel popped or moved. John Lattimer suggested that the
ejection/exiting of the bullet, flesh/tissue, rib particles through his
chest cause the bulging of the jacket. That makes sense to me. But the
flipping of the lapel is a strange motion.

JC's shirt is more revealing:
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/16/article-2462106-18C2437200000578-847_634x422.jpg

Those specks of blood (I assume) to the above right of the exit hole
would, I assume, cause the jacket to pop out or bulge.

A bullet going through JFK and then striking JC is the only plausible
explanation for me as to what happened. The alternative explanations -
what happened to the bullet that hit JFK in the back? where did it go? -
are very weak.

[gkno...@gmail.com]

The upward movement of the LEFT shoulder caused the lapel flip.

[Anthony Marsh]

False assumption. Maybe his left shoulder looks higher because his right
shoulder was thrust down.

[Anthony Marsh]

That's LITTLE bit better, but the bullet hole was not a LITTLE below the
lapel. It was a LITTLE farther down than you think. Did you even look a
LIITLE bit at the photos and diagrams of the jacket?

> after reading what I wrote, it does appear that I was saying the bullet
> passed through the lapel.
>

Thank GOD. There is no bullet hole in the lapel. Does the design of his
jacket have a small slit above the lapel? Some jackets do. I guess you
could put a pin in it. But some moron might think THAT is a bullet hole.


The traditional men???s suit has become such a classic look, that we
rarely stop to think about all the small details make it so unique. So
today, inspired by our friends at the iconic Italian design house,
Ermenegildo Zegna, we wanted to break down a few of the more distinctive,
and unusual details behind the timeless men???s dress jacket.

Lapel Buttonhole

Ever wonder why your jacket has a buttonhole on the left lapel? Ever
stranger, there???s no matching button to be found on the right lapel. The
most popular explanation is it???s a flower holder inspired by England???s
Prince Albert, who after he was presented with a small bouquet from Queen
Victoria on their wedding day, made the gentlemanly gesture of cutting a
hole in his lapel to hold the flowers.

However, a second theory espoused by GQ Magazine holds that the lapel
buttonhole was designed to keep hats from flying away on a windy day.
These hats included an elastic string with a button on the end, which
could be securely attached to your lapel. Furthermore, GQ says, the
buttonhole was originally paired with a button sewn to the underside of
the right lapel, allowing a man to button all the way up in brisk weather.

Either way, what started as a functional item has become an essential
detail of the contemporary suit. No matter how you use your lapel
buttonhole, the key is to make sure it???s open rather than sealed and
reinforced with a hand-stitched travetta or bar tack. Hand stitching takes
a little longer but it???s sure sign of quality, and our tailor will be
happy to finish off your jacket???s buttonhole if it???s missing either of
these features.

Next time we???ll tackle the button sleeve, a holdover from when men
worked the fields and had to roll up their sleeves from time to time to
get work done.

[19efppp]

If I'd been here 20 years, I might even be worse than you.

[bigdog]

Keep in mind that the bullet was tumbling when it went through JBC's torso
so it struck the inside of the jacket with a broader surface than a bullet
going through nose first. That means there is going to be greater
resistance to the bullet by the jacket which is going to increase the
amount of movement by the jacket in response to the bullet going through
it.

[Anthony Marsh]

Instead of a pendulum motion it's a sea-saw motion. As one shoulder goes
down the other goes up.

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe he was sitting in one of those ejector seats like James Bond had.

[Anthony Marsh]

Some type of Single Bullet Theory is possible, but you just haven't put
enough work into it to get one to work. Start by leaving out the wrist
wound. Then admit that there was hole in the floor of the limo.

[19efppp]

You'll make up any excuse to defend your loony theory.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jaynes2/jbcjackt.jpg

[Anthony Marsh]

That is not true. The doctor elongated the wound when debribing it. That
is where the 5 cm measurement comes from. The post operation notes. POST
means AFTER.

> so it struck the inside of the jacket with a broader surface than a bullet
> going through nose first. That means there is going to be greater
> resistance to the bullet by the jacket which is going to increase the
> amount of movement by the jacket in response to the bullet going through
> it.
>

Nonsense.

[Ace Kefford]

On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 5:23:25 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrgWo3WJY0M

My barber got a simultaneous reaction when he nicked my ear!

[bigdog]

On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 7:19:12 PM UTC-4, 19efppp wrote:
> >
> > Keep in mind that the bullet was tumbling when it went through JBC's torso
> > so it struck the inside of the jacket with a broader surface than a bullet
> > going through nose first. That means there is going to be greater
> > resistance to the bullet by the jacket which is going to increase the
> > amount of movement by the jacket in response to the bullet going through
> > it.
>
> You'll make up any excuse to defend your loony theory.
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jaynes2/jbcjackt.jpg

I didn't see this reply when it first posted so I'll respond now. No
excuses are needed. This is simple science. Science is the study of the
physical world through observation and experimentation. The Haag
ballistics team demonstrated that a Carcano bullet will tumble upon
exiting a block of ballistic gel. The experiment is repeatable and
consistent. They simple placed a story board on the exit side of the
ballistic gel and fired a Carcano bullet through it. In each case the hole
in the story board was oblong, not round, indicating the bullet tumbled
upon exiting the gel. In real life. Connally's back served as the story
board for the bullet that exited JFK's throat. The hole in his back was
oblong too.

[Anthony Marsh]

So what? There is no evidence of a tumbling bullet.
Whoever told you that Connally's wound was elongated was lying.

[bigdog]

Amazing the excuses you will come up with to dismiss inconvenient
evidence. You used to tell us the elongated wound was from a tangential
strike. Now you are telling us there was no elongated back wound. Are you
telling us that Dr. Shaw perjured himself when he testified before the WC?

Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe in as much detail as you can the wound on
the posterior side of the Governor's chest?

Dr. SHAW - This was a small wound approximately a centimeter and a half in
its greatest diameter. It was roughly elliptical. It was just medial to
the auxiliary fold or the crease of the armpit, but we could tell that
this wound, the depth of the wound, had not penetrated the shoulder blade.