The Single Bullet Theory

[claviger]

Single-bullet theory

Warren Commission staff lawyer Norman Redlich was asked by author Vincent
Bugliosi in 2005 whether Specter was the sole author of the Single Bullet
Theory and he said "No, we all came to this conclusion simultaneously."
When asked whom he meant by "we", he said "Arlen, myself, Howard Willens,
David Belin, and Mel Eisenberg." Specter did not respond to Bugliosi's
request for a clarification on the issue. Reclaiming history: the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Vincent Bugliosi (W.W. Norton
& Company, New York, 2007) Endnotes, pp. 301-6.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-bullet_theory#Notes

[Walt]

On Friday, May 2, 2014 9:01:52 AM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> Single-bullet theory
>
>
>
> Warren Commission staff lawyer Norman Redlich was asked by author Vincent
>
> Bugliosi in 2005 whether Specter was the sole author of the Single Bullet
>
> Theory and he said "No, we all came to this conclusion simultaneously."

PREPOSTEROUS!!..... That's akin to saying that Thomas Edison, Elmer Fudd,
Mr Magoo, Bugs Bunny, and Felix all discovered the incandesent light bulb
at the same time.

[mainframetech]

So now we know who to blame for that misbegotten WC wacky theory.

Chris

[OHLeeRedux]

Walt

On Friday, May 2, 2014 9:01:52 AM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> Single-bullet theory
>
>
>
> Warren Commission staff lawyer Norman Redlich was asked by author Vincent
>
> Bugliosi in 2005 whether Specter was the sole author of the Single Bullet
>
> Theory and he said "No, we all came to this conclusion simultaneously."

PREPOSTEROUS!!..... That's akin to saying that Thomas Edison, Elmer Fudd,
Mr Magoo, Bugs Bunny, and Felix all discovered the incandesent light bulb
at the same time.

- show quoted text -




Elmer Fudd had nothing to do with the JFK assassination. You are being
ridiculous.

[claviger]

On Friday, May 2, 2014 4:20:10 PM UTC-5, Walt wrote:
> On Friday, May 2, 2014 9:01:52 AM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>
> > Single-bullet theory
> > Warren Commission staff lawyer Norman Redlich was asked by author Vincent
> > Bugliosi in 2005 whether Specter was the sole author of the Single Bullet
> > Theory and he said "No, we all came to this conclusion simultaneously."
>
> PREPOSTEROUS!!..... That's akin to saying that Thomas Edison, Elmer Fudd,

> Mr Magoo, Bugs Bunny, and Felix all discovered the incandesent [sic] light bulb
> at the same time.

Walt,

Thank you for this response. You just put your ignorance of history on
display for all the world to see. This now goes into the Newsgroup
archive permanently, unless you can bribe McAdams to remove it. However,
all is not lost. This impulsive statement has educational value. Future
generations will delight in this amusing gaffe while learning something
about real history.

_________________________________________________________________________

Thomas Edison
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison

Electric light
Main article: History of the light bulb
Thomas Edison's first successful light bulb model, used in public
demonstration at Menlo Park, December 1879

Edison did not invent the first electric light bulb, but instead invented
the first commercially practical incandescent light.[45] Many earlier
inventors had previously devised incandescent lamps, including Alessandro
Volta's demonstration of a glowing wire in 1800 and inventions by Henry
Woodward and Mathew Evans. Others who developed early and commercially
impractical incandescent electric lamps included Humphry Davy, James
Bowman Lindsay, Moses G. Farmer,[46] William E. Sawyer, Joseph Swan and
Heinrich Göbel. Some of these early bulbs had such flaws as an extremely
short life, high expense to produce, and high electric current drawn,
making them difficult to apply on a large scale commercially.[47]:217-218

_________________________________________________________________________

[Jason Burke]

On 5/2/2014 2:20 PM, Walt wrote:
> On Friday, May 2, 2014 9:01:52 AM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>> Single-bullet theory
>>
>>
>>
>> Warren Commission staff lawyer Norman Redlich was asked by author Vincent
>>
>> Bugliosi in 2005 whether Specter was the sole author of the Single Bullet
>>
>> Theory and he said "No, we all came to this conclusion simultaneously."
>
> PREPOSTEROUS!!..... That's akin to saying that Thomas Edison, Elmer Fudd,
> Mr Magoo, Bugs Bunny, and Felix all discovered the incandesent light bulb
> at the same time.
>

Uh, no it isn't, Walt.

[Jason Burke]

I'm thinking Mr. Magoo was involved - at least if you believe Ralph's
version of things.
Every picture I've seen from ol' Ralph looks like it was through about a
20 / 400 set of eyes.

[Walt]

Well he is a gun nut, ya know.

[Walt]

On Friday, May 2, 2014 8:21:24 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> On Friday, May 2, 2014 4:20:10 PM UTC-5, Walt wrote:
>
> > On Friday, May 2, 2014 9:01:52 AM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Single-bullet theory
>
> > > Warren Commission staff lawyer Norman Redlich was asked by author Vincent
>
> > > Bugliosi in 2005 whether Specter was the sole author of the Single Bullet
>
> > > Theory and he said "No, we all came to this conclusion simultaneously."
>
> >
>
> > PREPOSTEROUS!!..... That's akin to saying that Thomas Edison, Elmer Fudd,
>
> > Mr Magoo, Bugs Bunny, and Felix all discovered the incandesent [sic] light bulb
>
> > at the same time.
>
>
>
> Walt,
>
>
>
> Thank you for this response. You just put your ignorance of history on
>
> display for all the world to see. This now goes into the Newsgroup
>
> archive permanently, unless you can bribe McAdams to remove it. However,
>
> all is not lost. This impulsive statement has educational value. Future
>
> generations will delight in this amusing gaffe while learning something
>
> about real history.

Go for it....I could not care less. I made my point, and you recognized
the point which is:.. that several men all arrived at an absurd theory
simultaneously. I'll repeat PREPOSTERIOUS!!

[OHLeeRedux]

Walt
- hide quoted text -

On Friday, May 2, 2014 7:43:43 PM UTC-5, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> Walt
>

> On Friday, May 2, 2014 9:01:52 AM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>
> > Single-bullet theory
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Warren Commission staff lawyer Norman Redlich was asked by author Vincent
>
> >
>
> > Bugliosi in 2005 whether Specter was the sole author of the Single Bullet
>
> >
>
> > Theory and he said "No, we all came to this conclusion simultaneously."
>
>
>
> PREPOSTEROUS!!..... That's akin to saying that Thomas Edison, Elmer Fudd,
>

> Mr Magoo, Bugs Bunny, and Felix all discovered the incandesent light bulb
>
> at the same time.
>

> - show quoted text -
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Elmer Fudd had nothing to do with the JFK assassination. You are being
>
> ridiculous.

Well he is a gun nut, ya know.

I'm gonna get you, you wascally pwesident!

[FELIX LEITER]

Was this groupthink?

[FELIX LEITER]

Preposterious? You had it spelled correctly the first time. Walt, you just
invented a new word.

[claviger]

On Friday, May 2, 2014 9:45:44 PM UTC-5, Walt wrote:
> On Friday, May 2, 2014 8:21:24 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> > On Friday, May 2, 2014 4:20:10 PM UTC-5, Walt wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 2, 2014 9:01:52 AM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> > > > Single-bullet theory
> > > > Warren Commission staff lawyer Norman Redlich was asked by author Vincent
> > > > Bugliosi in 2005 whether Specter was the sole author of the Single Bullet
> > > > Theory and he said "No, we all came to this conclusion simultaneously."
> > > PREPOSTEROUS!!..... That's akin to saying that Thomas Edison, Elmer Fudd,
> > > Mr Magoo, Bugs Bunny, and Felix all discovered the incandesent [sic] light bulb
> > > at the same time.
> > Walt,
> > Thank you for this response. You just put your ignorance of history on
> > display for all the world to see. This now goes into the Newsgroup
> > archive permanently, unless you can bribe McAdams to remove it. However,
> > all is not lost. This impulsive statement has educational value. Future
> > generations will delight in this amusing gaffe while learning something
> > about real history.
> Go for it....I could not care less. I made my point, and you recognized
> the point which is:.. that several men all arrived at an absurd theory
> simultaneously. I'll repeat PREPOSTERIOUS!!

Ever heard the expression "Great minds think alike"? So do intelligent
minds, common sense, and experience. The Aussies proved the SBT in
scientific field testing. Experienced hunters, soldiers, medics, police
officers and ballistics experts could have figured this out based on
experience. There is no other explanation. CTs have had 50 years to come
up with a rational alternative. What do you have so far? Zero, zip,
nada.

A rugged FMJ military slug with a thick copper jacket penetrated soft
tissue in the first victim and tumbled into the second victim sideways.
That is why the rounded nose was still intact and why impact with hard
bone bent the projectile longways. This has been discussed many times
before and is the only rational explanation.

If you want a magic bullet try explaining how a shot from the GK can enter
the right temple and then exit the right side of the posterior skull.
Does it do a U-turn inside the brain cavity and if so how? Even more
amazing, a bullet from nowhere penetrates the windshield hits the
President and then disappears. Now you have some real magic to work with.

[Herbert Blenner]

According to the Warren Commission a bullet entered the posterior skull to
the right of the midline and exited the right side of the head slightly to
the rear and superior to the right temple. Did this bullet make a U-turn
inside the brain cavity?

[Walt]

Is this the one where they declared that they had sucessfully duplicated
the feat attributed to Lee Oswald, but never revealed the fact the the
bullet was a mangled mass of metal that looked NOTHING like CE 399?

Experienced hunters, soldiers, medics, police
>
> officers and ballistics experts could have figured this out based on
>
> experience. There is no other explanation. CTs have had 50 years to come
>
> up with a rational alternative. What do you have so far? Zero, zip,
>
> nada.
>
>
>
> A rugged FMJ military slug with a thick copper jacket penetrated soft
>
> tissue in the first victim and tumbled into the second victim sideways.
>
> That is why the rounded nose was still intact and why impact with hard
>
> bone bent the projectile longways. This has been discussed many times
>
> before and is the only rational explanation.
>
>
>
> If you want a magic bullet try explaining how a shot from the GK can enter
>
> the right temple and then exit the right side of the posterior skull.

Do you know what a tangential strike is? Do you know that a bullet
striking at a tangent at JFK right temple ( see Malcolm Kilduff pointing
to the spot in a photo on page 408 POTP)would likely start to tumble and
create a huge exit hole at the rear of the skull?

[Lanny]

On Friday, May 2, 2014 10:45:44 PM UTC-4, Walt wrote:

>
>

> Go for it....I could not care less. I made my point, and you recognized
>
> the point which is:.. that several men all arrived at an absurd theory
>
> simultaneously. I'll repeat PREPOSTERIOUS!!
>

What is far more preposterous is the notion that two different bullets
wounded President Kennedy and Governor Connally WITHOUT striking the other
individual on the same trajectory.

From the very first refutation of the single bullet theory, CTs defined a
trajectory that, absent the widely mocked "right and left turns," SHOULD
have struck Connally in the LEFT back or shoulder. Why did it not?

Irrespective of the President's wounds, Governor Connally was struck in
the back by a bullet that exited his right chest wall at an angle of 10
degrees and on a trajectory that passed through the President's body.
Why was the President not wounded by that bullet?

Conspiracy theorists have never persuasively answered either question.

[claviger]

On Saturday, May 3, 2014 12:16:28 PM UTC-5, Herbert Blenner wrote:

> According to the Warren Commission a bullet entered the posterior skull to
> the right of the midline and exited the right side of the head slightly to
> the rear and superior to the right temple. Did this bullet make a U-turn
> inside the brain cavity?

No of course not. The source of that bullet was not the Grassy Knoll
which was to the right of the Limousine. The WCR source of the head shot
was from behind the Limousine, so the entrance wound and exit wound are in
alignment with the position of the rifle in the 6th floor window. The
trajectory from the rifle to the exit wound is basically a straight line.

If the rifle that fired the head shot was behind the wooden fence where
Marsh places the sniper it would be 9' west from the corner of the fence
near the sidewalk that leads to the parking area behind the pergola. The
angle of the trajectory from that position to the backseat of the
Limousine would be approximately 45º. If the bullet maintained this
trajectory it would exit the left side of the skull. Mainframetech claims
there was a massive exit wound in the back of the skull where Dr
McClelland approved a sketch. That would be the right side of the
posterior skull in the occipital bone.

At the time of the head shot the President was leaning forward and his
head was slightly turned to the left. That means the profile of the right
side of his head was basically facing where the GK sniper was supposedly
positioned.

If the bullet entered the temple or right side of the forehead and exited
where McClelland indicated it would need to make a 90º turn to the left
inside the skull. Otherwise if it stayed on trajectory it would have
blown out a hole somewhere on the left side of the skull. There was no
exit wound on the left side of the skull. There was no exit wound on the
back of the skull. There was a massive exit wound on the top right side
of the skull.

[mainframetech]

It doesn't matter. If the WC said it, then LNs believe it. No matter
how silly.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Ah. The old phony LN story. Nothing new has come up in 50 years.
What a crock! Just since the ARRB there have been any number of new
pieces of information and some have led to proof of the cover up done at
Bethesda with damaging the body to look lie it was a shot from behind and
above that did the job.

From just one man there have come all kinds of new proofs of various
cover ups and evidence of murder by conspiracy. That's Douglas Horne.
The proof of that is how the LNs run when they hear his name and refuse to
read a single thing he has written. They're afraid that they will be
drawn away from their hidebound faith in the WC wacky theories.

Horne is not alone in his finding new paths of evidence and cover up
wither.

Be careful when you use phrases like "There is no other explanation",
since many other scenarios have been presented here. It's just that LNs
have a blank spot in the mind that all evidence other than WC theories
goes to and then can't be remembered.

Chris

[Herbert Blenner]

It is not proper to snip your remarks to which I replied in order to hide
failure to specify the location of the limousine and the orientation of
President Kennedy's head when they fired the hypothetical grassy knoll
shot. I quote you.

[mainframetech]

Why do you insist that 2 bullets had to have the "same trajectory"?
There were many bullets raining down on Dealey Plaza that day, and 2 or
more shooters are going to produce many bullets. A bullet fired at JFK by
a shooter at a different location from the first one will arrive at a
slight angle and could easily hit Connally without hitting JFK.

If (that's IF) all shots were fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD,
from that vantage point, you could hit each person in the limousine
separately if you chose and if you were a decent marksman.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, May 3, 2014 9:30:15 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:

Amazing denial of evidence that has NO opposition. 39+ people SAW the
'large hole' in the BOH of JFK, and yet to hug the WC report to their
chests, the LNs will ignore anything! Find me ANY person except a couple
of the prosectors (who were under orders) that saw ONLY a small hole in
the BOH of JFK. And yet even though no one will come forward with info on
a small hole in the BOH, the 39+ people that saw a large hole are ignored!
Pure madness!

Now let's go further into Oz. If a bullet came from the 6th floor of
the TSBD and struck the BOH of JFK, where did it exit? Out the side?
Doesn't this drawing strike anyone as odd?

http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/6615/wcvshsca.jpg

The angle of the bullet path is nowhere near coming from that high in
the street. The angle has to be greater, yet the figure looks stupid
already, and even the altered Z-film says the head wasn't that far forward
when struck by the kill shot! Talk about 90 degree angles, if the bullet
struck the rear of the head, then popped out the side, that's a 90 degree
angle. Of course, there's no one (except 2 prosectors) that will state
that they saw ONLY a small bullet hole in the BOH...:)

It's just foolishness. We need to clear our mind of all the
prepackaged scenarios that have been shoved at us for 50 years and take
our cue from real evidence and sense.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/4/2014 8:56 AM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
> On Saturday, May 3, 2014 9:30:15 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 3, 2014 12:16:28 PM UTC-5, Herbert Blenner wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> According to the Warren Commission a bullet entered the posterior skull to
>>
>>> the right of the midline and exited the right side of the head slightly to
>>
>>> the rear and superior to the right temple. Did this bullet make a U-turn
>>
>>> inside the brain cavity?
>>
>>
>>
>> No of course not. The source of that bullet was not the Grassy Knoll
>>
>> which was to the right of the Limousine. The WCR source of the head shot
>>
>> was from behind the Limousine, so the entrance wound and exit wound are in
>>
>> alignment with the position of the rifle in the 6th floor window. The
>>
>> trajectory from the rifle to the exit wound is basically a straight line.
>>
>>
>>
>> If the rifle that fired the head shot was behind the wooden fence where
>>
>> Marsh places the sniper it would be 9' west from the corner of the fence
>>
>> near the sidewalk that leads to the parking area behind the pergola. The
>>
>> angle of the trajectory from that position to the backseat of the
>>

>> Limousine would be approximately 45�. If the bullet maintained this

>>
>> trajectory it would exit the left side of the skull. Mainframetech claims
>>
>> there was a massive exit wound in the back of the skull where Dr
>>
>> McClelland approved a sketch. That would be the right side of the
>>
>> posterior skull in the occipital bone.
>>
>>
>>
>> At the time of the head shot the President was leaning forward and his
>>
>> head was slightly turned to the left. That means the profile of the right
>>
>> side of his head was basically facing where the GK sniper was supposedly
>>
>> positioned.
>>
>>
>>
>> If the bullet entered the temple or right side of the forehead and exited
>>

>> where McClelland indicated it would need to make a 90� turn to the left

>>
>> inside the skull. Otherwise if it stayed on trajectory it would have
>>
>> blown out a hole somewhere on the left side of the skull. There was no
>>
>> exit wound on the left side of the skull. There was no exit wound on the
>>
>> back of the skull. There was a massive exit wound on the top right side
>>
>> of the skull.
>
> It is not proper to snip your remarks to which I replied in order to hide
> failure to specify the location of the limousine and the orientation of
> President Kennedy's head when they fired the hypothetical grassy knoll
> shot. I quote you.
>

I diagrammed it for you. Claviger probably did not see my diagram.

> " If you want a magic bullet try explaining how a shot from the GK can
> enter the right temple and then exit the right side of the posterior
> skull. Does it do a U-turn inside the brain cavity and if so how? Even
> more amazing, a bullet from nowhere penetrates the windshield hits the
> President and then disappears. Now you have some real magic to work
> with."
>

He seems to be paraphrasing someone else's theory.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/3/2014 9:30 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Saturday, May 3, 2014 12:16:28 PM UTC-5, Herbert Blenner wrote:
>
>> According to the Warren Commission a bullet entered the posterior skull to
>> the right of the midline and exited the right side of the head slightly to
>> the rear and superior to the right temple. Did this bullet make a U-turn
>> inside the brain cavity?
>
> No of course not. The source of that bullet was not the Grassy Knoll
> which was to the right of the Limousine. The WCR source of the head shot
> was from behind the Limousine, so the entrance wound and exit wound are in
> alignment with the position of the rifle in the 6th floor window. The
> trajectory from the rifle to the exit wound is basically a straight line.
>
> If the rifle that fired the head shot was behind the wooden fence where
> Marsh places the sniper it would be 9' west from the corner of the fence
> near the sidewalk that leads to the parking area behind the pergola. The
> angle of the trajectory from that position to the backseat of the

> Limousine would be approximately 45�. If the bullet maintained this

> trajectory it would exit the left side of the skull. Mainframetech claims
> there was a massive exit wound in the back of the skull where Dr
> McClelland approved a sketch. That would be the right side of the
> posterior skull in the occipital bone.
>

Why does the bullet have to exit?

> At the time of the head shot the President was leaning forward and his
> head was slightly turned to the left. That means the profile of the right
> side of his head was basically facing where the GK sniper was supposedly
> positioned.
>
> If the bullet entered the temple or right side of the forehead and exited

> where McClelland indicated it would need to make a 90� turn to the left

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/3/2014 9:28 PM, Lanny wrote:
> On Friday, May 2, 2014 10:45:44 PM UTC-4, Walt wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Go for it....I could not care less. I made my point, and you recognized
>>
>> the point which is:.. that several men all arrived at an absurd theory
>>
>> simultaneously. I'll repeat PREPOSTERIOUS!!
>>
>
>
> What is far more preposterous is the notion that two different bullets
> wounded President Kennedy and Governor Connally WITHOUT striking the other
> individual on the same trajectory.
>
> From the very first refutation of the single bullet theory, CTs defined a
> trajectory that, absent the widely mocked "right and left turns," SHOULD
> have struck Connally in the LEFT back or shoulder. Why did it not?
>

Myers cartoons and Arlen Specter showed that there was room for a bullet
to go above Kennedy's right shoulder and hit Connally in the back.
So, going with your theory do you think that the bullet which you think
hit JFK's head in the rear and exited the front then hit Connally's
wrist? You'd better copyright it before I steal it.

> Irrespective of the President's wounds, Governor Connally was struck in
> the back by a bullet that exited his right chest wall at an angle of 10
> degrees and on a trajectory that passed through the President's body.
> Why was the President not wounded by that bullet?
>

How do you get YOUR 19 degrees? SHOW ME.

> Conspiracy theorists have never persuasively answered either question.
>

I have, many times. You refuse to pay attention.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/4/2014 7:25 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, May 3, 2014 9:30:15 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 3, 2014 12:16:28 PM UTC-5, Herbert Blenner wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> According to the Warren Commission a bullet entered the posterior skull to
>>
>>> the right of the midline and exited the right side of the head slightly to
>>
>>> the rear and superior to the right temple. Did this bullet make a U-turn
>>
>>> inside the brain cavity?
>>
>>
>>
>> No of course not. The source of that bullet was not the Grassy Knoll
>>
>> which was to the right of the Limousine. The WCR source of the head shot
>>
>> was from behind the Limousine, so the entrance wound and exit wound are in
>>
>> alignment with the position of the rifle in the 6th floor window. The
>>
>> trajectory from the rifle to the exit wound is basically a straight line.
>>
>>
>>
>> If the rifle that fired the head shot was behind the wooden fence where
>>
>> Marsh places the sniper it would be 9' west from the corner of the fence
>>
>> near the sidewalk that leads to the parking area behind the pergola. The
>>
>> angle of the trajectory from that position to the backseat of the
>>

>> Limousine would be approximately 45�. If the bullet maintained this

>>
>> trajectory it would exit the left side of the skull. Mainframetech claims
>>
>> there was a massive exit wound in the back of the skull where Dr
>>
>> McClelland approved a sketch. That would be the right side of the
>>
>> posterior skull in the occipital bone.
>>
>>
>>
>> At the time of the head shot the President was leaning forward and his
>>
>> head was slightly turned to the left. That means the profile of the right
>>
>> side of his head was basically facing where the GK sniper was supposedly
>>
>> positioned.
>>
>>
>>
>> If the bullet entered the temple or right side of the forehead and exited
>>

>> where McClelland indicated it would need to make a 90� turn to the left

>>
>> inside the skull. Otherwise if it stayed on trajectory it would have
>>
>> blown out a hole somewhere on the left side of the skull. There was no
>>
>> exit wound on the left side of the skull. There was no exit wound on the
>>
>> back of the skull. There was a massive exit wound on the top right side
>>
>> of the skull.
>
>
>
> Amazing denial of evidence that has NO opposition. 39+ people SAW the
> 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK, and yet to hug the WC report to their
> chests, the LNs will ignore anything! Find me ANY person except a couple
> of the prosectors (who were under orders) that saw ONLY a small hole in
> the BOH of JFK. And yet even though no one will come forward with info on
> a small hole in the BOH, the 39+ people that saw a large hole are ignored!
> Pure madness!
>
> Now let's go further into Oz. If a bullet came from the 6th floor of
> the TSBD and struck the BOH of JFK, where did it exit? Out the side?
> Doesn't this drawing strike anyone as odd?
>
> http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/6615/wcvshsca.jpg
>
> The angle of the bullet path is nowhere near coming from that high in
> the street. The angle has to be greater, yet the figure looks stupid
> already, and even the altered Z-film says the head wasn't that far forward
> when struck by the kill shot! Talk about 90 degree angles, if the bullet
> struck the rear of the head, then popped out the side, that's a 90 degree
> angle. Of course, there's no one (except 2 prosectors) that will state
> that they saw ONLY a small bullet hole in the BOH...:)
>

The Rydberg drawing was a hoax by Humes.
The Dox drawing was a hoax by Baden to make the wound point back to the
TSBD.

[Lanny]

On Sunday, May 4, 2014 11:36:14 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

>
> Myers cartoons and Arlen Specter showed that there was room for a bullet
>
> to go above Kennedy's right shoulder and hit Connally in the back.
>
> So, going with your theory do you think that the bullet which you think
>
> hit JFK's head in the rear and exited the front then hit Connally's
>
> wrist? You'd better copyright it before I steal it.
>
>

I believe Governor Connally had already fallen (or been pulled) out of the path of the bullet at the time of the head strike to the President, and that said bullet did not cause the Governor's wrist wound.

>
>
> How do you get YOUR 19 degrees? SHOW ME.
>

389. Dr. Baden's report comments on the angle of the trajectory:

Positioning the Governor while erect in the anatomic posture shows the
missile track to proceed from back to front. downwards at approximately a
10 degree angle, for a distance inches through the body. (68)

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/hscv7c.htm#conback

[Anthony Marsh]

But that's not what you said originally.
So you snip out the context so that people can not see your gaff. I cut

and paste what you originally said:

Irrespective of the President's wounds, Governor Connally was struck in
the back by a bullet that exited his right chest wall at an angle of 10
degrees and on a trajectory that passed through the President's body.
Why was the President not wounded by that bullet?

You were talking about about Connally's wound.
Now you changed it to JFK's wound.
But eveb your latest quote was wrong. Because you don't actually have
the HSCA volumes and you aren't smart enough to find them online for
yourself you have to rely on MacAdams disformation page.

Here is the real quote:

389. Dr. Baden's report comments on the angle of the trajectory:

Positioning the Governor while erect in the anatomic posture shows the
missile track to proceed from back to front. downwards at approximately

a 10 degree angle, for a distance of 12-1/2 inches through the body. (68)

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0080b.htm

First, stop relying on the McAdams disinformation page.
Second, learn how to cut and paste.
Third, learn English.
Fourth, stop misrepresenting historical documents to push a political
agenda.
You intentionally left out the qualifier "approximately" to mislead
people and prop up your weak argument.


And finally you ASSuME what you need to prove.
Both Myers and Specter showed that a bullet could go over JFK's right
shoulder and then hit Connally's back.
Various WC defenders and conspiracy believers have put forth theories
which have JFK hit in the back and the bullet exiting from his throat
without hitting Connally. Hoover didn't need no damn stinkin SBT.
The FBI report said three shots, three hits.
Explain EXACTLY how THAT could work.
Once again you FAIL. Because you rely on WC defender disinformation.

[Lanny]

On Monday, May 5, 2014 8:12:54 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> But that's not what you said originally.
> So you snip out the context so that people can not see your gaff. I cut
> and paste what you originally said:

> Irrespective of the President's wounds, Governor Connally was struck in
> the back by a bullet that exited his right chest wall at an angle of 10
> degrees and on a trajectory that passed through the President's body.
> Why was the President not wounded by that bullet?

Let's start with the fact that I snip text from earlier posts for one
reason and one reason only - to focus on the particular issue that I am
discussing and eliminate the burden of scrolling through pages upon pages
of irrelevant text which is often displayed as a single line separated by
four or five lines of blank space. At least that's how it is displayed in
the Google Groups. It is a pain in the ass, and I'm sorry my efforts at
manual formatting don't meet with your approval.

But I assure you I have no interest in hiding or avoiding proper context
or arguing something that is not true. I WANT ACCURATE CONTEXT. Always.
Contextual fallacy is what's wrong with the vast majority of the
assassination debate.

> You were talking about about Connally's wound.
> Now you changed it to JFK's wound.

I'm not changing anything. My point (since you obviously missed it) is
that those who reject the single bullet theory have to be prepared to
account for certain implications with regard to JFK and Governor Connally
being wounded by separate gunshots.

A through-and-through gunshot wound to President Kennedy had obvious
potential implications for wounds to Governor Connally depending on the
trajectory of the shot and the physical orientation and position of the
two men relative to each other.

A through-and-through gunshot wound to Governor Connally also had obvious
potential implications for wounds to President Kennedy depending on the
trajectory of the shot and the physical orientation and position of the
two men relative to each other.

> But eveb your latest quote was wrong. Because you don't actually have
> the HSCA volumes and you aren't smart enough to find them online for
> yourself you have to rely on MacAdams disformation page.

> Here is the real quote:
> 389. Dr. Baden's report comments on the angle of the trajectory:

> Positioning the Governor while erect in the anatomic posture shows the
> missile track to proceed from back to front. downwards at approximately
> a 10 degree angle, for a distance of 12-1/2 inches through the body. (68)

> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/ HSCA_Vol7_0080b.htm

Exactly why is McAdams' attempt at copying and consolidating the full HSCA
panel reports "disinformation"? Because he apparently made a cut and
paste error that left out the "12-1/2 inches through the body" reference?
Really? You actually think he did that intentionally to fool sharp-eyed
sleuths like yourself?

> First, stop relying on the McAdams disinformation page.
> Second, learn how to cut and paste.
> Third, learn English.
> Fourth, stop misrepresenting historical documents to push a political
> agenda.

Normally I would snip your needless condescension, but I wouldn't want
you to think I was hiding from some critically relevant "context."

> You intentionally left out the qualifier "approximately" to mislead
> people and prop up your weak argument.

How do you know what I "intentionally" do? Frankly, this pisses me off,
and I would ask McAdams to admonish you publicly in this thread. You have
no right whatsoever to make that claim.

Yes, Dr. Baden's report cited a trajectory of APPROXIMATELY 10 degrees
through 12 and 1/2 inches of Connally's body from back to front. And the
fact that the downward angle was an approximation or that Baden referenced
it to a specific length of 12 and a half inches in no way materially
affects the implication of wounds to President Kennedy of such a
trajectory line passing through his body.

> And finally you ASSuME what you need to prove.
> Both Myers and Specter showed that a bullet could go over JFK's right
> shoulder and then hit Connally's back.

But apparently NEITHER Myers or Specter believed that a bullet ACTUALLY
flew over JFK's right shoulder and struck Connally in the back.

Exactly what do you see as the significance of a theoretical possibility
that neither man believes actually happened?

> Various WC defenders and conspiracy believers have put forth theories
> which have JFK hit in the back and the bullet exiting from his throat
> without hitting Connally.

So what? Am I supposed to be impressed by the many ways that people
on either side of this debate can be wrong?

> Hoover didn't need no damn stinkin SBT.
> The FBI report said three shots, three hits.
> Explain EXACTLY how THAT could work.

I suppose it could work if Oswald used the ammo clip and was firing on
semi-automatic, or if there were two different shooters, or if JFK and
Connally were aligned differently or if their wounds were in different
locations than they, in fact, were.

The point is, I don't think the FBI came up with "three shots, three
hits" on the basis of particularly cunning investigative work which
negates what the Zapruder film shows - two men reacting simultaneously,
or nearly enough so to have been wounded by the same round.

Or, as Dr. Michael Baden wrote near the end of Part III in Vol. VII of the
HSCA Appendix to Hearings: "The medical evidence alone does not provide
the panel with sufficient information to state with absolute certainty
that the bullet which struck Governor Connally was that same one which had
previously struck President Kennedy in the upper right back, exiting
through his neck. The majority believes, however, that the medical
evidence is consistent with this hypothesis and much less consistent with
other hypotheses. Further, the panel considered other nonmedical evidence
that strongly indicates that a single bullet injured both men."

I copied that from the *History Matters* version of the HSCA material, but
I'm guessing McAdams' "disinformative" copy reads the same. And it isn't
me "assuming what I need to prove." It is my reporting of what the HSCA
is alleged to have considered as evidence in forming an opinion with
respect to how the wounds to President Kennedy and Governor Connally were
inflicted.

I don't think the fact that I happen to agree with it lessens the
probability of it being true, but I wouldn't be surprised if you disagree.

[John McAdams]

On 6 May 2014 10:28:47 -0400, Lanny <lak...@twc.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 5, 2014 8:12:54 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>
>> But eveb your latest quote was wrong. Because you don't actually have
>> the HSCA volumes and you aren't smart enough to find them online for
>> yourself you have to rely on MacAdams disformation page.
>
>> Here is the real quote:
>> 389. Dr. Baden's report comments on the angle of the trajectory:
>
>> Positioning the Governor while erect in the anatomic posture shows the
>> missile track to proceed from back to front. downwards at approximately
>> a 10 degree angle, for a distance of 12-1/2 inches through the body. (68)
>
>> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/ HSCA_Vol7_0080b.htm
>
>
>Exactly why is McAdams' attempt at copying and consolidating the full HSCA
>panel reports "disinformation"? Because he apparently made a cut and
>paste error that left out the "12-1/2 inches through the body" reference?
>Really? You actually think he did that intentionally to fool sharp-eyed
>sleuths like yourself?
>

Huh? Is there an error in that file?

I copied that entire from the old CD ROM of the HSCA. If there is an
error, please point it out and I'll fix it.

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

[Anthony Marsh]

The error was not YOURS. When you bought the CD at the COPA conference I
warned you about its inaccuracy. They used a defective cheapo OCR program.
I've had the same problems with dozens of OCR programs. It sounds
laborious, but you have to proofread the text from the CD against the
actual HSCA volumes which you probably do not have. Luckily I do and that
is why I am here, to correct errors.

Most are very minor like mistaking one letter in one word on one page.
Usually something like mistaking a lowercase "l" for a "1."

But in this case it skipped two important words. You can see which ones by
comparing my quote directly from the HSCA volume 7 to yours from the CD.
So it is not your fault in copying and pasting. You did not do any copying
and pasting. All you did was buy the CD. The CD is full of errors. So when
you upload it as text files you have to proofread read it extremely
carefully. That failure is your RA not doing due diligence. That is also
why I post a GIF of the page as proof for those idiots who refuse to
believe me and resent being helped.

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

[doctorw]

Myers (deliberately or not - yet - no surprize - he has never corrected
himself) very incorrectly sized JFK larger than Connally in his cartoon,
when, in fact, JFK (6' 0.5") was actually 1.5" shorter than Connally (6'
2"), and, JFK's body was not as large nor as bulky.

Myers very incorrect relative sizings are clearly documented here http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx306/Hinrichs7/myersfraud1-2.gif

and here
http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx306/Hinrichs7/myersfraud3.gif
thanks to the superb comparison's completed by Martin Hinrichs

[Lanny]

On your link under the Appendix VII HSCA Index, Vol. VII Sec. V "Report of
the Forensic Pathology," "Description of Governor Connally's Wounds,"
paragraph 389 under the first bullet ("Entrance [inshoot] wound of the
right lateral back and neck") reads: (389) Positioning the Governor while

erect in the anatomic posture shows the missile track to proceed from back
to front. downwards at approximately a 10 degree angle, for a distance

inches through the body. (68)

The words "of 12 1/2 " between the words "distance" and "inches" were
somehow lost in transition. I don't know what the hell else he could be
talking about.

Apparently you make so few mistakes that every time your adversaries catch
you in one they feel compelled to dismiss your entire writings on the
subject as "disinformation."

Yeah, nothing "over the top" here.

[John McAdams]

On 6 May 2014 17:52:59 -0400, Lanny <lak...@twc.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 10:32:09 AM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 6 May 2014 10:28:47 -0400, Lanny <lak...@twc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>On your link under the Appendix VII HSCA Index, Vol. VII Sec. V "Report of
>the Forensic Pathology," "Description of Governor Connally's Wounds,"
>paragraph 389 under the first bullet ("Entrance [inshoot] wound of the
>right lateral back and neck") reads: (389) Positioning the Governor while
>erect in the anatomic posture shows the missile track to proceed from back
>to front. downwards at approximately a 10 degree angle, for a distance
>inches through the body. (68)
>

OK, I think you will find it's fixed now.

.John

--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

Don't use Photobucket. It is garbage.

Some people have watched his cartoons on TV shows and he starts by showing
what he says is the conspiracy crowd fiction of the jump seat being at the
same height as the back seat and then moves it down 3 inches. But if you
look carefully Connally's head starts out at the same height as JFK's.
Myers is a WC defender but he never bothered to actually read it. Kelley
covered this height difference.

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/31.png

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/6/2014 6:06 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 6 May 2014 17:52:59 -0400, Lanny <lak...@twc.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 10:32:09 AM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 6 May 2014 10:28:47 -0400, Lanny <lak...@twc.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On your link under the Appendix VII HSCA Index, Vol. VII Sec. V "Report of
>> the Forensic Pathology," "Description of Governor Connally's Wounds,"
>> paragraph 389 under the first bullet ("Entrance [inshoot] wound of the
>> right lateral back and neck") reads: (389) Positioning the Governor while
>> erect in the anatomic posture shows the missile track to proceed from back
>> to front. downwards at approximately a 10 degree angle, for a distance
>> inches through the body. (68)
>>
>
> OK, I think you will find it's fixed now.
>

Excellent. I hope the newbies learned something from this.

[claviger]

On Friday, May 2, 2014 9:45:44 PM UTC-5, Walt wrote:
> On Friday, May 2, 2014 8:21:24 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> > On Friday, May 2, 2014 4:20:10 PM UTC-5, Walt wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 2, 2014 9:01:52 AM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> > > > Single-bullet theory
> > > > Warren Commission staff lawyer Norman Redlich was asked by author Vincent
> > > > Bugliosi in 2005 whether Specter was the sole author of the Single Bullet
> > > > Theory and he said "No, we all came to this conclusion simultaneously."
> > > PREPOSTEROUS!!..... That's akin to saying that Thomas Edison, Elmer Fudd,
> > > Mr Magoo, Bugs Bunny, and Felix all discovered the incandesent [sic] light bulb
> > > at the same time.
> > Walt,
> > Thank you for this response. You just put your ignorance of history on
> > display for all the world to see. This now goes into the Newsgroup
> > archive permanently, unless you can bribe McAdams to remove it. However,
> > all is not lost. This impulsive statement has educational value. Future
> > generations will delight in this amusing gaffe while learning something
> > about real history.

> Go for it....I could not care less. I made my point, and you recognized
> the point which is:.. that several men all arrived at an absurd theory
> simultaneously. I'll repeat PREPOSTERIOUS!!

As in mysteriously not serious? I think the word you're looking for is:
preposterous - contrary to nature, reason, or common sense: absurd.

OK, what is contrary to the natural laws of physics, logic, or experience
that a lead projectile surrounded by a copper casing moving in excess of
2,000 feet per second with a rounded aerodynamic nose or pointed cone
shaped leading edge can penetrate soft tissue of a human being and keep
right on going until it crashes into something hard enough to interfere
with its momentum and deflect its trajectory? The answer is nothing. All
these factors obey dynamics of the natural world on planet Earth. Physics
is the Law and bullets must obey. Animal and human anatomy must submit to
these same laws. Nothing absurd about that.

[mainframetech]

And nothing is proved by that statement.

Chris

[claviger]

On Friday, May 9, 2014 9:18:54 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, May 9, 2014 5:07:39 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > On Friday, May 2, 2014 9:45:44 PM UTC-5, Walt wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 2, 2014 8:21:24 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> > > > On Friday, May 2, 2014 4:20:10 PM UTC-5, Walt wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, May 2, 2014 9:01:52 AM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> > > > > > Single-bullet theory

> > > Go for it....I could not care less. I made my point, and you recognized
> > > the point which is:.. that several men all arrived at an absurd theory
> > > simultaneously. I'll repeat PREPOSTERIOUS!!
>
> > As in mysteriously not serious? I think the word you're looking for is:
> > preposterous - contrary to nature, reason, or common sense: absurd.
>
> > OK, what is contrary to the natural laws of physics, logic, or experience
> > that a lead projectile surrounded by a copper casing moving in excess of
> > 2,000 feet per second with a rounded aerodynamic nose or pointed cone
> > shaped leading edge can penetrate soft tissue of a human being and keep
> > right on going until it crashes into something hard enough to interfere
> > with its momentum and deflect its trajectory? The answer is nothing. All
> > these factors obey dynamics of the natural world on planet Earth. Physics
> > is the Law and bullets must obey. Animal and human anatomy must submit to
> > these same laws. Nothing absurd about that.
> >
> And nothing is proved by that statement.
>
> Chris

It proves the Single Bullet Theory is in compliance with and obeys
Newton's First Law of Motion. The human body is basically a bag of liquid
60% water held up by tissues connected to an internal skeletal coat
hanger. If a high velocity missile with a high ballistic coefficient like
the 6.5 Carcano punctures a soft substance it will slow somewhat but tend
to keep on going. If this missile hits a hard object it will often
destabilize and deflect from incoming trajectory.

_______________________________________________________________________

SHOOTING THE 6.5 X 52 mm, 7.35 x 51mm CARTRIDGES AND THE CARCANO RIFLES
Dave Emary October 2002
_______________________________________________________________________

The 6.5 X 52 mm cartridge has taken a great deal of criticism as being
underpowered and anemic. From a ballistic standpoint this is a little hard
to justify. The Swedish 6.5 X 55 mm cartridge is considered an outstanding
cartridge yet it is only able to produce 100 fps more velocity with a
156-grain bullet in the M96 rifle. The 6.5 X 55 requires a maximum average
pressure of 55,000 psi and approximately 6 more grains of powder to
produce this meager gain in performance. The .30-30 Winchester, regarded
as an adequate deer rifle and known to have killed many moose and bear
produces 2,220 fps in a 24" barrel with a 170 grain bullet. The 6.5 X 52
mm fires a bullet with a higher ballistic coefficient, at a higher
velocity, shoots flatter and has far more penetration capability than the
.30-30. From the standpoint of a service rifle cartridge the 6.5 X 52
with its relatively low operating pressure, coupled with its modest powder
charge would result in much less barrel throat erosion and wear. This
would equate to longer barrel life and decreased operating cost. In fact,
much of what was done in the Carcano rifle/ammunition system was aimed at
long barrel life, as will be shown later. From my point of view the 6.5 X
52 is a very efficient cartridge, offering adequate performance for what
it was intended.

The only fault that one might level against the 6.5 X 52 as a military
cartridge is that it had relatively humane terminal ballistics. The very
long, blunt nosed bullet coupled with the fast twist rate of the gun
resulted in a bullet that was very stable with a very high resistance to
tumbling. The cartridge was known to have inflicted many "through and
through" wounds, just leaving a small wound channel. The bullet typically
would not tumble inside its' target unless it encountered something hard
such as bone. When it did tumble the wounding effect is well known'

For those wishing to do their own trajectory calculations the ballistic
coefficient for the Italian 162 grain FMJ RN bullet is approximately .275.

_______________________________________________________________________

The Single Bullet Theory is based on ballistic science and Newtonian
physics. The wounding of two human beings sitting close together in tandem
would be predictable based on these Laws of Physical Science. Todays CSI
would quickly determine what happened and why. A committee of combat
medics, police detectives, and hunters would have come to the same
conclusion much quicker than the Warren Commission lawyers.

[Anthony Marsh]

Dave Emary is an excellent source, but unfortunately you didn't bother
to actually read what he said and understand it.
YOU need a tumbling bullet for your SBT.
Dave Emary says, "very high resistance to tumbling."
But if you make the mistake if agreeing the the bullet hit a vertebra,
which none of your fellow WC defenders will admit, then you have to
admit that hitting a vertebra would cause the bullet to be deflected.
There goes your perfectly straight line trajectory.

> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> The Single Bullet Theory is based on ballistic science and Newtonian
> physics. The wounding of two human beings sitting close together in tandem
> would be predictable based on these Laws of Physical Science. Todays CSI
> would quickly determine what happened and why. A committee of combat
> medics, police detectives, and hunters would have come to the same
> conclusion much quicker than the Warren Commission lawyers.
>

JFK and Connally never line up correctly for YOUR SBT. The only way that
WC defenders can get it to work is by lying about their positions and
lying about the wound locations. A theory is automatically invalid when
you have to lie about the data.


>
>
>
>
>

[mainframetech]

You mean they would have come up with a wacky 'single bullet theory'
too?

All you've shown is that the MC rifle bullets would have tumbled if they
hit bone, and IF they were used to hit JFK or Connally, then they would
have hit bone in Connally twice. But you haven't proved anything relevant
to this case. You haven't proved that the MC rifle fired at JFK, and you
haven't proved that an MC type bullet hit JFK or Connally. There is no
bullet recovered from the bodies of either victim. As was planned.

The CE399 bullet was found on the WRONG stretcher and so is a phony.
The fragments found (maybe) in the limousine front seat and right side of
front seat weren't found by the SS after many hours of being in the limo
and then later in the W.H. garage searches they made. THEN Frazier of the
FBI finds both fragments with a nighttime search he makes! What a
surprise!

Chris

[claviger]

On Sunday, May 11, 2014 7:27:55 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 5/11/2014 8:42 AM, claviger wrote:
> > On Friday, May 9, 2014 9:18:54 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> >> On Friday, May 9, 2014 5:07:39 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> >>> On Friday, May 2, 2014 9:45:44 PM UTC-5, Walt wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, May 2, 2014 8:21:24 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, May 2, 2014 4:20:10 PM UTC-5, Walt wrote:
> >>>>>> On Friday, May 2, 2014 9:01:52 AM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Single-bullet theory
>
> >>>> Go for it....I could not care less. I made my point, and you recognized
> >>>> the point which is:.. that several men all arrived at an absurd theory
> >>>> simultaneously. I'll repeat PREPOSTERIOU

You're a day late and a dollar short. This was discussed this on the "HSCA Exhibit F-294" thread on May 8.

> But if you make the mistake if agreeing the the bullet hit a vertebra,
> which none of your fellow WC defenders will admit, then you have to
> admit that hitting a vertebra would cause the bullet to be deflected.
>
> There goes your perfectly straight line trajectory.

My understanding is the bullet did not hit a vertebra, but may have rubbed against one as it passed through the neck.

> > _______________________________________________________________________
>
> > The Single Bullet Theory is based on ballistic science and Newtonian
> > physics. The wounding of two human beings sitting close together in tandem
> > would be predictable based on these Laws of Physical Science. Todays CSI
> > would quickly determine what happened and why. A committee of combat
> > medics, police detectives, and hunters would have come to the same
> > conclusion much quicker than the Warren Commission lawyers.
>
> JFK and Connally never line up correctly for YOUR SBT.

Yes they do.

> The only way that WC defenders can get it to work is by lying about their
> positions and lying about the wound locations.

How so?

> A theory is automatically invalid when you have to lie about the data.

I agree.

[Anthony Marsh]

Are you a forensic pathologist? Dr. Baden said the bullet grazed T-1.

>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>
>>> The Single Bullet Theory is based on ballistic science and Newtonian
>>> physics. The wounding of two human beings sitting close together in tandem
>>> would be predictable based on these Laws of Physical Science. Todays CSI
>>> would quickly determine what happened and why. A committee of combat
>>> medics, police detectives, and hunters would have come to the same
>>> conclusion much quicker than the Warren Commission lawyers.
>>
>> JFK and Connally never line up correctly for YOUR SBT.
>
> Yes they do.
>
>> The only way that WC defenders can get it to work is by lying about their
>> positions and lying about the wound locations.
>
> How so?
>

By claiming that the back wound was above the top of the shoulders.
By claiming that Connally was sitting very far to Kennedy's left.
By Claiming that Connally was sitting 6 inches lower than Kennedy.

[claviger]

On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 4:22:31 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 5/13/2014 12:48 AM, claviger wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 11, 2014 7:27:55 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 5/11/2014 8:42 AM, claviger wrote:
> >>> On Friday, May 9, 2014 9:18:54 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, May 9, 2014 5:07:39 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, May 2, 2014 9:45:44 PM UTC-5, Walt wrote:
> >>>>>> On Friday, May 2, 2014 8:21:24 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, May 2, 2014 4:20:10 PM UTC-5, Walt wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Friday, May 2, 2014 9:01:52 AM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Single-bullet theory

> >> Dave Emary is an excellent source, but unfortunately you didn't bother
> >> to actually read what he said and understand it.
> >> YOU need a tumbling bullet for your SBT.
>
> >> Dave Emary says, "very high resistance to tumbling."
>

> > You're a day late and a dollar short. This was discussed on the

> > "HSCA Exhibit F-294" thread on May 8.
>
> >> But if you make the mistake if agreeing the the bullet hit a vertebra,
> >> which none of your fellow WC defenders will admit, then you have to
> >> admit that hitting a vertebra would cause the bullet to be deflected.
> >> There goes your perfectly straight line trajectory.
>
> > My understanding is the bullet did not hit a vertebra, but may have rubbed > > against one as it passed through the neck.
> Are you a forensic pathologist?

No, are you?

> Dr. Baden said the bullet grazed T-1.

graze - v 1: to touch lightly in passing. 2: ABRADE, SCRATCH : to touch or
rub against something in passing. merriam-webster.com

[claviger]

On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 4:22:31 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

Anthony,

> >> Dave Emary is an excellent source, but unfortunately you didn't bother
> >> to actually read what he said and understand it.
> >> YOU need a tumbling bullet for your SBT.
> >> Dave Emary says, "very high resistance to tumbling."

> > You're a day late and a dollar short. This was discussed on the "HSCA

> > Exhibit F-294" thread on May 8.

I like what this guy said about it:
Sat night bomb shell?... 12/6/05
"We are not talking about the length of the wound on the skull, we are
talking about the length of the wound on the skin. And I have discussed
this many times and pointed out the factors which could explain it (even
if I don't believe in it myself) and tumbling does not have to be one of
the factors, just as tumbling does not have to be one of the factors in
Connally's elongated wound."

Whether the bullet tumbled or not is almost irrelevant. Either way it is
a tangential wound. In the field testing done by the Aussies the
projectiles consistently tumbled. The SBT works either way.

> >> But if you make the mistake if agreeing the the bullet hit a vertebra,
> >> which none of your fellow WC defenders will admit, then you have to
> >> admit that hitting a vertebra would cause the bullet to be deflected.
> >> There goes your perfectly straight line trajectory.
> > My understanding is the bullet did not hit a vertebra, but may have rubbed > > against one as it passed through the neck.
> Are you a forensic pathologist? Dr. Baden said the bullet grazed T-1.

If the projectile grazed T-1 then it didn't affect the trajectory that much.

> >> JFK and Connally never line up correctly for YOUR SBT.
> > Yes they do.
>
> >> The only way that WC defenders can get it to work is by lying about their
> >> positions and lying about the wound locations.
> > How so?
> By claiming that the back wound was above the top of the shoulders.

"249. As is detailed in a late section, "Course of the Missile Through the
Body," the X-rays demonstrate that the missile did not strike the scapula
(wing bone) or ribs and did not remain in the body. This evidence, coupled
with the photographs, indicates that the entrance perforation is radial to
the scapula and superior to the ribs."

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/hscv7c.htm#kenback

> By claiming that Connally was sitting very far to Kennedy's left.

The claim is he was sitting a few inches inboard of the car door, however
the Governor was a big man with a large frame positioned right in front of
the President. It would have to be a magic bullet to miss the Governor.

> By Claiming that Connally was sitting 6 inches lower than Kennedy.

He was lower. The jump-seat was lower as several photos prove while the
President was sitting at maximum elevation on the adjustable backseat.

No matter how hard you look for dispositive evidence the basic fact is the
President was struck by a projectile that penetrated all the way though
his torso. The next object in its path was Governor Connally. If a
separate bullet wounded JBC it had to be a magic bullet to miss the
President and wound the Governor. You've had 50 years to come up with any
proof where a sniper missed the President and hit the Governor. None yet.

The Single Bullet Theory is logical, scientific, and field tested. There
is no other explanation that makes any sense.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yeah, and so what? My diagram shows it 3 inches lower, exactly as the SS
said. But some WC defenders lie about that and YOU never take them to
task for lying abour physical facts.
JFK's seat was NOT raised. so don't even mention adjustable. You've
never seen photos of the seat raised.

> No matter how hard you look for dispositive evidence the basic fact is the
> President was struck by a projectile that penetrated all the way though
> his torso. The next object in its path was Governor Connally. If a
> separate bullet wounded JBC it had to be a magic bullet to miss the
> President and wound the Governor. You've had 50 years to come up with any

Wrong. Specter demonstrated that a bullet could go over Kennedy's right
shoulder and hit Connally. The Dale Myers cartoon shows plenty of room
for a bullet to go above Kennedy's right shoulder and hit Connally.
You are blowing smoke.

> proof where a sniper missed the President and hit the Governor. None yet.
>
> The Single Bullet Theory is logical, scientific, and field tested. There
> is no other explanation that makes any sense.
>
>
>

Junk science.

[mainframetech]

The SBT is wacky, and was needed to reduce the number of shots fired at
JFK. A bunch of lawyers came up with it, with no medical experience
whatsoever. There were bullets raining down on Dealey Plaza and a number
of them were aimed at JFK. Trying to use the information in the WC report
is wasted time. The panel was picked by a politician and was made up of
politicians or of people that knew why they were there, and did the job
they were supposed to do, which was to shut up the public and stop them
from complaining about the lousy cover up of the facts, especially the
medical data.

How can you expect a panel, even with medical people included to come
to any kind of honest decision when the autopsy was dramatically faulty,
the brain wasn't sectioned, and 2 of the prosectors actually intentionally
damaged the body BEFORE the 'official' autopsy to give the wrong
impression of where the bullet came from that was the kill shot? And yet
they came to a conclusion, which was the same one that was begun by Hoover
the day of the murder. The dumb 'lone nut' theory.

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:20:29 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:

A further comment is needed here. Saying things like:

"If a separate bullet wounded JBC it had to be a magic bullet to miss the

President and wound the Governor." This statement depends on the WC
report and wacky theories to be true and accurate. It isn't so. If a
second or umpteenth shooter were located elsewhere than the 6th floor of
the TSBD, then it would be easy to hit Connally without hitting JFK. Bot
only that, but Connally was taller than JFK and so sat almost as tall as
JFK did. Check here at how close in line the two were:

http://stories.illinoisstate.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/JFK_limousine-648x372.png

Notice that Connally's right arm is up against the side of the car, and
his height is slightly taller than JFK. Plug that into your wacky SBT
theories.

As to a "projectile that penetrated all the way though his torso." that
leaves the explanation to be given as to how a bullet went into the back
and came out the throat. That first strike would have slowed a bullet
down, and then the six hits in Connally make it an impossibility to bang
around in Connally and not stop before getting to the thigh. You won't
find any blast of tissue or blood going forward in any films of the
murder, yet a bullet was supposed to have exited to the front!

At the least the SBT is illogical, and at worst, a travesty of
foolishness thrust upon an angry public.

Chris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

This warrants repeating:

"No matter how hard you look for dispositive evidence the basic fact is
the President was struck by a projectile that penetrated all the way
though his torso. The next object in its path was Governor Connally. If a
separate bullet wounded JBC it had to be a magic bullet to miss the
President and wound the Governor. You've had 50 years to come up with any
proof where a sniper missed the President and hit the Governor. None yet."

We say the bullet penetrated through JFK's body and hit Connally.

They say it penetrated JFK and went where? Missed everything? And Connally
was hit by a separate bullet? And somehow it missed JFK?

Who is promoting a magic bullet here?

[claviger]

The May 23, 1964 re-enactment of Nov.22,1963
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/C_oN7nx43Pg/OKSYWs8MdwYJ

> > No matter how hard you look for dispositive evidence the basic fact is the
> > President was struck by a projectile that penetrated all the way though
> > his torso. The next object in its path was Governor Connally. If a
> > separate bullet wounded JBC it had to be a magic bullet to miss the
> > President and wound the Governor. You've had 50 years to come up with any
> Wrong. Specter demonstrated that a bullet could go over Kennedy's right
> shoulder and hit Connally. The Dale Myers cartoon shows plenty of room
> for a bullet to go above Kennedy's right shoulder and hit Connally.
> You are blowing smoke.

You've have 50 years to prove it and this is the best you can do? So where
was this sniper located when he fired this shot and what was the
trajectory angle of declination? What kind of weapon and where is the
bullet?

> > proof where a sniper missed the President and hit the Governor. None yet.
> > The Single Bullet Theory is logical, scientific, and field tested. There
> > is no other explanation that makes any sense.
> Junk science.

You're confused. We're not talking about "acoustic evidence".

The acoustic evidence in the Kennedy assassination
mcadams.posc.mu.edu/odell/

This conclusion was primarily based on acoustic evidence contained in
Dallas Police Department radio recordings. An NRC panel later disputed the
HSCA ...

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/odell/

Supposed Acoustic Evidence of Conspiracy in the Kennedy ...
mcadams.posc.mu.edu/acoustic.htm

The House Select Committee found supposed acoustic evidence of a shooter
on the Grassy Knoll. Does this so-called evidence withstand scrutiny?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/acoustic.htm

[OHLeeRedux]

mainframetech

On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:20:29 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:

- show quoted text -

A further comment is needed here. Saying things like:

"If a separate bullet wounded JBC it had to be a magic bullet to miss the

President and wound the Governor." This statement depends on the WC
report and wacky theories to be true and accurate. It isn't so. If a
second or umpteenth shooter were located elsewhere than the 6th floor of
the TSBD, then it would be easy to hit Connally without hitting JFK. Bot
only that, but Connally was taller than JFK and so sat almost as tall as
JFK did. Check here at how close in line the two were:

http://stories.illinoisstate.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/JFK_limousine-648x372.png

Notice that Connally's right arm is up against the side of the car, and
his height is slightly taller than JFK. Plug that into your wacky SBT
theories.

As to a "projectile that penetrated all the way though his torso." that
leaves the explanation to be given as to how a bullet went into the back
and came out the throat. That first strike would have slowed a bullet
down, and then the six hits in Connally make it an impossibility to bang
around in Connally and not stop before getting to the thigh. You won't
find any blast of tissue or blood going forward in any films of the
murder, yet a bullet was supposed to have exited to the front!

At the least the SBT is illogical, and at worst, a travesty of
foolishness thrust upon an angry public.

Chris

The public isn't angry -- just bored. So they buy into silly body snatcher
theories.

[Anthony Marsh]

More evasion. You don't point out any photos of what the seat looks like
when it is raised. I did, but you refuse to look:

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/STC33616.jpg

>>> No matter how hard you look for dispositive evidence the basic fact is the
>>> President was struck by a projectile that penetrated all the way though
>>> his torso. The next object in its path was Governor Connally. If a
>>> separate bullet wounded JBC it had to be a magic bullet to miss the
>>> President and wound the Governor. You've had 50 years to come up with any
>> Wrong. Specter demonstrated that a bullet could go over Kennedy's right
>> shoulder and hit Connally. The Dale Myers cartoon shows plenty of room
>> for a bullet to go above Kennedy's right shoulder and hit Connally.
>> You are blowing smoke.
>
> You've have 50 years to prove it and this is the best you can do? So where
> was this sniper located when he fired this shot and what was the
> trajectory angle of declination? What kind of weapon and where is the
> bullet?
>

I wasn't there so I did not recover the bullet. Not my job.
I think he was shooting a Carcano from window #10. The angle would be
about 25 degrees.

[doctorw]

That is exactly correct, especially combined with the also documented fact
that Myers (deliberately or not - yet - no surprize - he has never

corrected himself) very incorrectly sized JFK larger than Connally in his
cartoon, when, in fact, JFK (6' 0.5") was actually 1.5" shorter than
Connally (6' 2"), and, JFK's body was not as large nor as bulky.

Myers very incorrect relative sizings are clearly documented here

http://i.imgur.com/LMqBOqI.gif

and here
http://i.imgur.com/0Z5yV1v.gif

thanks to the superb comparison's completed by Martin Hinrichs

>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

No. It's silly. You are ASSUMING what you need to prove.

> We say the bullet penetrated through JFK's body and hit Connally.
>
> They say it penetrated JFK and went where? Missed everything? And Connally
> was hit by a separate bullet? And somehow it missed JFK?
>

YOU say one bullet missed everything. Pot meet kettle.

> Who is promoting a magic bullet here?
>

YOU.

[claviger]

On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 8:05:14 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:20:29 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 4:22:31 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> The SBT is wacky, and was needed to reduce the number of shots fired at
> JFK.

A large majority of eyewitnesses heard only 3 shots. Why did all the other
shots not make loud sounds?

> A bunch of lawyers came up with it, with no medical experience whatsoever.

How do you know that? Maybe some of them did practice medical law.

> There were bullets raining down on Dealey Plaza and a number of them were
> aimed at JFK.

Who were the others aimed at?

> Trying to use the information in the WC report is wasted time. The panel
> was picked by a politician and was made up of politicians or of people that
> knew why they were there, and did the job they were supposed to do, which was > to shut up the public and stop them from complaining about the lousy cover up > of the facts, especially the medical data.

In a democracy politicians are part of the government and expected to look
into matters of national security. It is part of their job description to
serve on panels when requested by the President. The WCR has stood the
test of time and the HSCA basically agreed with most of their findings.
Blakey and Cornwell came into the case with preconceived notions the Mob
was behind the assassination but came up empty, so they latched onto the
now discredited "acoustic" evidence.

> How can you expect a panel, even with medical people included to come
> to any kind of honest decision when the autopsy was dramatically faulty,

It was not a forensic autopsy because of the family's wishes and they
never complained about the report. As a pathology examination it was
fairly simple, there were 4 wounds caused by 2 projectiles, both fired
from behind the Limousine.

> the brain wasn't sectioned,

Family decision.

> and 2 of the prosectors actually intentionally damaged the body BEFORE
> the 'official' autopsy to give the wrong impression of where the bullet
> came from that was the kill shot?

Explain how they did that with the FBI, Secret Service, and other
witnesses watching everything they did. One of the complaints was how
crowded the operating room was.

> And yet they came to a conclusion, which was the same one that was begun by
> Hoover the day of the murder. The dumb 'lone nut' theory.

Yes, a low tech assassin in a building overlooking the parade route made
2/3 shots at close range on passengers in an open limousine with no
protective cover. Didn't take a genius to do that and yes some dumb luck
was involved.

[Anthony Marsh]

I think you missed my point buried in the sarcasm. There was plenty of
room and time for the shooter to first wound JKK and the wound Connally
from the same window. That's not how *I* think t happened, but someone
COULD think that.

> http://stories.illinoisstate.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/JFK_limousine-648x372.png
>
> Notice that Connally's right arm is up against the side of the car, and
> his height is slightly taller than JFK. Plug that into your wacky SBT
> theories.
>

No, it isn't. Don't misstate the facts.

> As to a "projectile that penetrated all the way though his torso." that
> leaves the explanation to be given as to how a bullet went into the back
> and came out the throat. That first strike would have slowed a bullet
> down, and then the six hits in Connally make it an impossibility to bang
> around in Connally and not stop before getting to the thigh. You won't
> find any blast of tissue or blood going forward in any films of the
> murder, yet a bullet was supposed to have exited to the front!
>
> At the least the SBT is illogical, and at worst, a travesty of
> foolishness thrust upon an angry public.
>

But it was a matter of National Security. Without the SBT it MUST be a
conspiracy and that means nuclear war.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

What else could they do? Would you be the guy who pushes the trigger to
start WWIII?

[mainframetech]

Ah, so the way to the truth is through boredom! The body was in a
shipping casket when that casket was opened in front of witnesses, and
that alone proves the switching of the caskets. No matter where along the
route that occurred, it DID occur, and there was every reason for it to be
done. No one has yet to answer the challenge of how did they get the body
in the shipping casket to Bethesda morgue 42 minutes BEFORE the Bronze
casket and the Kennedy party. Take a crack at it instead of making
unsupported comments.

The answer to that question is helicopters...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

Here we go again.

First:

"You've have 50 years to prove it and this is the best you can do? So where
was this sniper located when he fired this shot and what was the
trajectory angle of declination? What kind of weapon and where is the
bullet?"

ANS.
It's the old LN line of '50 years and nothing new'. No matter how many
things you point out to them that are new in the last 50 years, they
forget and go back to their old corny lines. Go check the ARRB
information. The new answers to many of the cover ups are there. One of
the shooter locations was the Grassy Knoll, and there were many other
spots around Dealey Plaza that would suit nicely, and certainly better
than the 6th floor of the TSBD.

And I'm not going to calculate the "trajectory angle of declination"
for you. Common sense will do what's needed. The kill shot was perfectly
possible from the GK, and that would fit with the small entrance wound on
the right forehead and the 'large hole' exit in the BOH that 40 people
saw.

Next:

"You're confused. We're not talking about "acoustic evidence"."

ANS.
The acoustic evidence need not be used to show conspiracy and cover up.

Chris

[mainframetech]

You seem to forget the position of many CTs, that JFK was killed by a
bullet from the GK, and so it could well have gone past the limo and was
lost somewhere behind. The 2 motorcycle cops that were following 'to the
left and behind' the limo were pelted with brains, blood, tissue and
fluids. Check the testimony of Bobby Hargis, one of those cops.

If you want to understand the CT positions, so that you can argue
successfully, you have to walk a mile in their shoes, not just parrot the
usual LN excuses.

Chris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

We don't say it "missed everything" after going through a person sitting
right in front of another.

You guys say it went through JFK and disappeared. Poof.

And that Connally - sitting right in front of JFK - got hit by a bullet
that completely missed JFK.

Two magic bullets.

Even Cyril Wecht doesn't believe that.

[FELIX LEITER]

Tony is the type of guy who wants to ban guns and replace them with
pressure cooker bombs.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/15/2014 10:28 AM, claviger wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 8:05:14 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:20:29 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 4:22:31 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>> The SBT is wacky, and was needed to reduce the number of shots fired at
>> JFK.
>
> A large majority of eyewitnesses heard only 3 shots. Why did all the other
> shots not make loud sounds?
>
>> A bunch of lawyers came up with it, with no medical experience whatsoever.
>
> How do you know that? Maybe some of them did practice medical law.
>
>> There were bullets raining down on Dealey Plaza and a number of them were
>> aimed at JFK.
>
> Who were the others aimed at?
>
>> Trying to use the information in the WC report is wasted time. The panel
>> was picked by a politician and was made up of politicians or of people that
>> knew why they were there, and did the job they were supposed to do, which was > to shut up the public and stop them from complaining about the lousy cover up > of the facts, especially the medical data.
>
> In a democracy politicians are part of the government and expected to look
> into matters of national security. It is part of their job description to
> serve on panels when requested by the President. The WCR has stood the
> test of time and the HSCA basically agreed with most of their findings.

They withheld evidence from th WC and the WC withheld evidence from the
public. Even the original doctors were not allowed to see all the
evidence. The HSCA did and they correcrt some of the errors.
But now we can see some of that evidence for ourselves and we know how
hey lied.

> Blakey and Cornwell came into the case with preconceived notions the Mob
> was behind the assassination but came up empty, so they latched onto the
> now discredited "acoustic" evidence.
>

Blakey was hired o rubberstamp the WC.

>> How can you expect a panel, even with medical people included to come
>> to any kind of honest decision when the autopsy was dramatically faulty,
>
> It was not a forensic autopsy because of the family's wishes and they

Nonsense. It wasn't forensic because they were not forensic
pathologists. And it was an ARMY general who was ordering them around,
not the family.

> never complained about the report. As a pathology examination it was
> fairly simple, there were 4 wounds caused by 2 projectiles, both fired
> from behind the Limousine.
>

SO facts don't matter to you.
How come hey couldn't fin your AR-15 shot?

>
>> the brain wasn't sectioned,
>
> Family decision.
>

No, it was sectioned.

>> and 2 of the prosectors actually intentionally damaged the body BEFORE
>> the 'official' autopsy to give the wrong impression of where the bullet
>> came from that was the kill shot?
>
> Explain how they did that with the FBI, Secret Service, and other
> witnesses watching everything they did. One of the complaints was how
> crowded the operating room was.
>
>> And yet they came to a conclusion, which was the same one that was begun by
>> Hoover the day of the murder. The dumb 'lone nut' theory.
>
> Yes, a low tech assassin in a building overlooking the parade route made
> 2/3 shots at close range on passengers in an open limousine with no
> protective cover. Didn't take a genius to do that and yes some dumb luck
> was involved.
>
>

How could he miss twice at that range?

[Lanny]

On Thursday, May 15, 2014 1:11:26 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

>
> What else could they do? Would you be the guy who pushes the trigger to
>
> start WWIII?

This may be the most irrational cliché of the thoroughly lame attempt to
explain a massive post-assassination government conspiracy; the idea that
"discovery" of a Cuban- or Soviet-backed conspiracy would have resulted in
such public outrage that LBJ would have "no choice" but to respond with an
all-out nuclear strike.

Only a year before the assassination when the United States was as close
to nuclear Armageddon as it has ever been during the Cuban missile crisis,
I don't remember the President, the Joint Chiefs or any other White House
advisors suggesting that "the wishes of the American people" were a
material factor in deciding whether to invade Cuba, enforce a naval
blockade or launch a hellish nuclear first strike against the Soviet
Union.

For that matter, what was in LBJ's governing background that would portray
him as so self-effacing that he would render himself captive to the
desires of his constituents on a matter as grave as that of a nuclear
exchange?

Like hell.

[claviger]

On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 8:06:28 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:20:29 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 4:22:31 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> A further comment is needed here. Saying things like:
> "If a separate bullet wounded JBC it had to be a magic bullet to miss the
> President and wound the Governor." This statement depends on the WC
> report and wacky theories to be true and accurate. It isn't so.
>
> If a second or umpteenth shooter were located elsewhere than the 6th floor
> of the TSBD, then it would be easy to hit Connally without hitting JFK.

So where was the second sniper located? That should be easy too based on
trajectory analysis.

Here's a hint: There were no open windows in the County Records Building
during the parade. So either the Dal-Tex or TSBD are the only logical
options. There were several employees in open windows and one on the fire
escape in the Dal-Tex building. No witness reported hearing a gunshot
from this location.

> Bot only that, but Connally was taller than JFK and so sat almost as tall as
> JFK did. Check here at how close in line the two were:
> http://stories.illinoisstate.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/JFK_limousine-648x372.png

> Notice that Connally's right arm is up against the side of the car, and
> his height is slightly taller than JFK. Plug that into your wacky SBT
> theories.

Not sure what your point is. For a head shot maybe a sniper could shoot
over the in-between passenger, but the wound was lower in the back. Do you
think it just coincidence the body wounds on the President and Governor
line-up on the same trajectory to the 6th floor window of the TSBD?

> As to a "projectile that penetrated all the way though his torso." that
> leaves the explanation to be given as to how a bullet went into the back
> and came out the throat. That first strike would have slowed a bullet
> down, and then the six hits in Connally make it an impossibility to bang
> around in Connally and not stop before getting to the thigh. You won't
> find any blast of tissue or blood going forward in any films of the
> murder, yet a bullet was supposed to have exited to the front!

That is exactly what the bullet did. The ER doctor only found one bullet
and some small fragments.

> At the least the SBT is illogical, and at worst, a travesty of
> foolishness thrust upon an angry public.
>
> Chris

As mentioned before bullets must obey gravity and the laws of Physics. A
lead missile wrapped in a thick copper jacket headed downward at a
velocity of 2,000 fps will keep going until something stops it. It took
two human bodies to slow this one down. This particular bullet was known
for stability and penetration. It was designed that way by international
treaty and was called the "humane bullet" because it punctured small round
holes through enemy soldiers.

Lattimer proved that was the case in his experiments, but it was common
knowledge by military experts on firearms and ammunition as well as big
game hunters. However, hard bone in humans and animals can deflect the
trajectory of even this rugged projectile, so this bullet acted in a
predictable way. Because it did not collide with bone it bored a hole
through soft tissue in the first victim. Whether it tumbled or not between
the two victims it struck bone in the second victim which caused it to
destabilize.

There is nothing unusual about the ballistic performance of this type
projectile. Even soft-nosed hunting bullets are known to penetrate more
than one game animal, such as whitetail deer. The .357 magnum handgun has
been known to puncture through 6 apartments in a row before losing energy,
which is why it is not recommended for home defense in a crowded
neighborhood.

[FELIX LEITER]

Marsh asked, "How could he miss twice at that range?" How in the hell can
anyone answer that. I guess his aim was off. Your question is silly.

[mainframetech]

And we're off again!

First:

"A large majority of eyewitnesses heard only 3 shots. Why did all the other
shots not make loud sounds?

ANS.
Either shots were fired at the same time, or some were muffled by
silencers. The range was short, so silencers were possible. Just the
wind blowing the right way could muffle shots. The proof is the many
bullet strikes that hit around the Plaza. There was the shot that hit
Kennedy in the back (or the throat), the shot that hit him in the head,
one that hit Connally, one that hit NEAR Tague, one that hit a manhole
cover throwing sparks, one that hit the limo overhead chrome. plenty of
bullets flying around. How many shooters did it take to fire that many
bullets?

Next:

"How do you know that? Maybe some of them did practice medical law."

ANS.
Maybe this and maybe that. A bunch of lawyers got together and came
out with the wacky SBT because they had to have just one 'lone nut' and no
conspiracy. They had to make bullets merge into an SBT to reduce the
number of shots fired, which would suggest conspiracy. It doesn't matter
if any of them were medical lawyers, they were acting as regular lawyers
for the WC.

Next:

"Who were the others aimed at?"

ANS.
I haven't a clue, but the shots fired from the TSBD 6th floor weren't
particularly aimed carefully to hit JFK, they just needed to get in the
neighborhood, since there would be a bullet turned up in FBI custody that
would make Oswald the guilty party. And that's the way it was carried
out. A phony bullet acting as a place holder was left at Parkland on the
WRONG stretcher, and it made it's way into FBI hands, and was then
replaced by an MC bullet after test firing of that rifle gave them test
bullets that would match the MC rifle when examined.

Next:

"In a democracy politicians are part of the government and expected to look
into matters of national security. It is part of their job description to
serve on panels when requested by the President. The WCR has stood the
test of time and the HSCA basically agreed with most of their findings."

ANS.
It's nice to describe the responsibilities of politicians, but many of
them don't follow your nice, pat little job description. They do what
they want, they build up their coffers and make deals and grab for power
where they can. When LBJ put someone on a panel, they damn well better do
what he wants them to, or they're in trouble. And the WCR has NOT stood
the test of time. Many over the years have found many errors and plain
one sided gamesmanship in their efforts. That's why 5 panels altogether
had to be put together, and still the public is 61% in favor of conspiracy
to this day!

Next:

"It was not a forensic autopsy because of the family's wishes and they
never complained about the report. As a pathology examination it was
fairly simple, there were 4 wounds caused by 2 projectiles, both fired
from behind the Limousine."

ANS.
You have to be kidding. It's nice that the 'family' didn't want to do
a full autopsy, but there was a murder and a FULL autopsy is the order of
the day. Since the body was stolen from Dallas and put into the hands of
the military, they could order Humes and company to do anything they
wanted and to hell with the public and the law. Was it also 'nice' to
ignore the standard sectioning of the brain to determine the path of the
bullets? That would have solved a lot, since it would show that a bullet
came from the right front and killed JFK. They couldn't have that, it
would give away the whole game. So they damaged the head to look more
like it was hit from behind and above, and left out the brain sectioning,
all to support the wacky 'single bullet theory'.

Don't even begin to pretend that the limitations to the autopsy were
only because of the family's wishes. The family may not have liked a full
autopsy, but if the standards were to be followed, they would have nothing
to say about it. And since the brain was a dangerous piece of evidence,
it had to be put where it couldn't be accessed by just anyone, like much
of the other evidence in the case. And finally it was taken away and
buried to get rid of it altogether, with its secrets still intact.

Next:

"Explain how they did that with the FBI, Secret Service, and other
witnesses watching everything they did. One of the complaints was how
crowded the operating room was."

ANS.
You just don't listen, do you? You're so wrapped up in the faith of
the WC that you can't hear anything said to you. I'll explain all over
again. When they damaged the body and made it look more like a bullet
struck from above and behind, it was done with almost NO ONE in the
Bethesda morgue where the autopsy was to be done. They got the body to
the morgue early at 6:35pm proven by multiple witness testimony. 2 of the
prosectors were waiting for the body in the shipping casket right on the
loading dock. It was taken inside and opened to show JFK inside, and then
the prosectors began working on the body just after 6:35pm, and they
kicked out any naval personnel that was sitting around. Before they did
that 2 witnesses saw them tear into the head with scalpel and saw. The
only person they could not kick out and that had arrived a bit early too
was Tom Robinson, who later stated that they 'damaged' the head beyond the
original wounds. The damaged the head and searched for bullets and
fragments to eliminate the possibility that a bullet would be found and
prove that a different rifle was used than the MMC rifle to kill JFK.
Many thought it was odd that no bullets were found in the body, but that
was the reason. They were so rushed to do what they were doing without
onlookers, that they forgot to weigh the brain, a standard procedure.

In the meantime the Kennedy party arrived with all the SS and FBI
agents all riding with the Bronze casket, which was brought around to the
loading dock and brought in to the morgue. The body was put into that
casket and left ready for the coming 'official' autopsy at 8:00pm. At
that time they opened the casket and took out the body, and all the agents
could say they saw the body come out of the Bronze casket. But there had
been 42 minutes that the body was being worked on by Humes and Boswell
that no one knew about BEFORE that autopsy.

Next:

"Yes, a low tech assassin in a building overlooking the parade route made
2/3 shots at close range on passengers in an open limousine with no
protective cover. Didn't take a genius to do that and yes some dumb luck
was involved."

ANS.
Low tech yes. Assassin, no. He wasn't even on the 6th floor when the
shots rang out. Witnesses saw him too soon after the shots not out of
breath and on the second floor, and the elevator wasn't working. But
that's a whole separate argument, which we've gone over ad nauseum.

All questions answered.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly slander. I own 4 guns. You are accusing me of being a terrorist
like Tsarnaev. You forget how close to home the Patriots Day bombing was
for me.

Why does McAdams allow you to get away with vicious slander like this?
Because you are his attack dog.

[Anthony Marsh]

Never. Where did your missed shot go? Show me the bullet. Because you
are a WC defender you always argue with a double standard.

> And that Connally - sitting right in front of JFK - got hit by a bullet
> that completely missed JFK.
>

XPectre demonstrated how the bullet could miss JFK.

> Two magic bullets.
>
> Even Cyril Wecht doesn't believe that.
>

You have no authority to speak for Dr. Wecht.

[Anthony Marsh]

Why does the bullet have to exit JFK?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/15/2014 6:12 PM, Lanny wrote:
> On Thursday, May 15, 2014 1:11:26 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>>
>> What else could they do? Would you be the guy who pushes the trigger to
>>
>> start WWIII?
>
>

> This may be the most irrational clich� of the thoroughly lame attempt to

> explain a massive post-assassination government conspiracy; the idea that
> "discovery" of a Cuban- or Soviet-backed conspiracy would have resulted in
> such public outrage that LBJ would have "no choice" but to respond with an
> all-out nuclear strike.
>
> Only a year before the assassination when the United States was as close
> to nuclear Armageddon as it has ever been during the Cuban missile crisis,
> I don't remember the President, the Joint Chiefs or any other White House
> advisors suggesting that "the wishes of the American people" were a
> material factor in deciding whether to invade Cuba, enforce a naval
> blockade or launch a hellish nuclear first strike against the Soviet
> Union.
>
> For that matter, what was in LBJ's governing background that would portray
> him as so self-effacing that he would render himself captive to the
> desires of his constituents on a matter as grave as that of a nuclear
> exchange?
>
> Like hell.
>

Do you understand that assassination is a causus belli? Did you ever
read The Guns of August? I suggest that you read history.

[FELIX LEITER]

On Thursday, May 15, 2014 9:14:13 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 5/15/2014 6:12 PM, Lanny wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, May 15, 2014 1:11:26 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >> What else could they do? Would you be the guy who pushes the trigger to
>
> >>
>
> >> start WWIII?
>
> >
>
> >
>

> > This may be the most irrational clich� of the thoroughly lame attempt to

>
> > explain a massive post-assassination government conspiracy; the idea that
>
> > "discovery" of a Cuban- or Soviet-backed conspiracy would have resulted in
>
> > such public outrage that LBJ would have "no choice" but to respond with an
>
> > all-out nuclear strike.
>
> >
>
> > Only a year before the assassination when the United States was as close
>
> > to nuclear Armageddon as it has ever been during the Cuban missile crisis,
>
> > I don't remember the President, the Joint Chiefs or any other White House
>
> > advisors suggesting that "the wishes of the American people" were a
>
> > material factor in deciding whether to invade Cuba, enforce a naval
>
> > blockade or launch a hellish nuclear first strike against the Soviet
>
> > Union.
>
> >
>
> > For that matter, what was in LBJ's governing background that would portray
>
> > him as so self-effacing that he would render himself captive to the
>
> > desires of his constituents on a matter as grave as that of a nuclear
>
> > exchange?
>
> >
>
> > Like hell.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Do you understand that assassination is a causus belli? Did you ever
>
> read The Guns of August? I suggest that you read history.

I am not his attack dog. This is libel. We are both guilty of libel.
Next topic.

[Lanny]

On Thursday, May 15, 2014 9:14:13 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 5/15/2014 6:12 PM, Lanny wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, May 15, 2014 1:11:26 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >> What else could they do? Would you be the guy who pushes the trigger to
>
> >>
>
> >> start WWIII?
>
> >
>
> >
>

> > This may be the most irrational clich� of the thoroughly lame attempt to

>
> > explain a massive post-assassination government conspiracy; the idea that
>
> > "discovery" of a Cuban- or Soviet-backed conspiracy would have resulted in
>
> > such public outrage that LBJ would have "no choice" but to respond with an
>
> > all-out nuclear strike.
>
> >
>
> > Only a year before the assassination when the United States was as close
>
> > to nuclear Armageddon as it has ever been during the Cuban missile crisis,
>
> > I don't remember the President, the Joint Chiefs or any other White House
>
> > advisors suggesting that "the wishes of the American people" were a
>
> > material factor in deciding whether to invade Cuba, enforce a naval
>
> > blockade or launch a hellish nuclear first strike against the Soviet
>
> > Union.
>
> >
>
> > For that matter, what was in LBJ's governing background that would portray
>
> > him as so self-effacing that he would render himself captive to the
>
> > desires of his constituents on a matter as grave as that of a nuclear
>
> > exchange?
>
> >
>
> > Like hell.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Do you understand that assassination is a causus belli? Did you ever
>
> read The Guns of August? I suggest that you read history.

I certainly understand that the assassination of a nation's leader is a
*justification* for war. I am simply asserting that it is not necessarily
an *obligation* for war and certainly not an obligation for a nuclear war.
Conventional warfare would certainly be an available and preferable
option.

Furthermore, not even the arrogance of a Lyndon Johnson could believe that
he could permanently conceal the culpability of the USSR or Cuba in
Kennedy's assassination IF they were, in fact, responsible.

And it is patently ludicrous to believe that a government conspiracy to
conceal a foreign conspiracy to assassinate the President would begin
within mere hours of the assassination before a plethora of material and
critical facts surrounding the assassination were known.

If LBJ and his cronies hoped to weave a believable lie through the Warren
Commission or the FBI, it would likely require knowing a lot more
unassailable truth than they knew on the afternoon and ensuing weekend of
the assassination itself.

The United States government would appear rather exposed if it cast Lee
Harvey Oswald as the modern day John Wilkes Booth only to have radio
Moscow broadcast the Kremlin's claim of responsibility for the murder and
throw down an international gauntlet.

Such bizarre developments could not be ruled out when so little facts were
immediately known.

[claviger]

The WCR found no evidence of a sniper on the GK. The HSCA speculated there
was a sniper on the GK who missed the closest shot at the Limousine.
Either way no shot from the GK hit the President in the head.

> The 2 motorcycle cops that were following 'to the left and behind' the limo
> were pelted with brains, blood, tissue and fluids. Check the testimony of
> Bobby Hargis, one of those cops.

We have many times. The motorcycle escort was behind the Limousine and had
to drive through the suspended brain ejecta and the wind was blowing into
the motorcade. He also mentioned his impression one of the shots came from
somewhere close to the Limousine.

> If you want to understand the CT positions, so that you can argue
> successfully, you have to walk a mile in their shoes, not just parrot the
> usual LN excuses.
> Chris

You also have to suspend Logic, ignore Physics, avoid Occam's Razor, and
no matter what, never resort to Holistic thinking.

[mainframetech]

And off we go again...:)

First:

"So where was the second sniper located? That should be easy too based on
trajectory analysis."

ANS.
It's so easy that a big complicated "trajectory analysis" is
unnecessary, and I doubt that many here would know how to do one. Sounds
nice, but it's a waste. Try using common sense first. Now, there is the
TSBD from the 6th floor and up would be a possible location, but also the
Dal-Tex building would be better, and the top of a few of the buildings on
Houston street would be good too. And then there's the Grassy Knolls,
both of them. And the door of a boxcar on the tracks, behind the pergola,
and from under the overpass, oh lordee, so many choices.

The best choice of all those places would be the GK behind the fence in
the parking lot there.

Next:

"Here's a hint: There were no open windows in the County Records Building
during the parade. So either the Dal-Tex or TSBD are the only logical
options. There were several employees in open windows and one on the fire
escape in the Dal-Tex building. No witness reported hearing a gunshot
from this location."

ANS.
Guess what. Your hint is useless. One possible location is the roof
of the county records building, as well as the top of any of the buildings
along Houston Street. The Dal-Tex had some windows open, and if a shooter
fired from way back in the room, and used as silencer, you would probably
never hear a thing. There almost had to be silencers used because of all
the bullet strikes in the Plaza that day. The previous question we
handled many of the locations for a shooter.

Next:

"Not sure what your point is. For a head shot maybe a sniper could shoot
over the in-between passenger, but the wound was lower in the back. Do you
think it just coincidence the body wounds on the President and Governor
line-up on the same trajectory to the 6th floor window of the TSBD?"

ANS.
I'm not convinced they line up all that well. My point was that the
positioning of the 2 men by various artists doesn't match photos that show
them almost directly in a line, which changes all their calculations.
But no matter, since there were multiple shooters, and they could be in
any one of 5-8 places around the Plaza, hitting Connally with a separate
bullet was no problem. Remember, Connally himself said there was an extra
bullet. And he was THERE, not guessing from where we sit.

Next:

"That is exactly what the bullet did. The ER doctor only found one bullet
and some small fragments."

ANS.
Cool! You admit to the Connally surgery bullet, found on his gurney,
that the nurse gave to the state trooper. The fragments weren't all that
small, one was a quarter inch wide, too much material to come out of CE399
tail end. The reason for my comment about the bullet going through JFK
was that there was NO blood and tissue that was seen or found going
forward from JFK or JBC at all. If a bullet had gone through the back of
JFK and come out the front (throat), then went through Connally a few
times, there would be blood and tissue that went forward from the wounds
that had exits outside. Yet there was nothing mentioned as being found or
seen in the famous Z-film or from a search of the limo, made by Frazier.

If the throat were an exit wound, then Connally and maybe his wife
would be peppered with the blood from the throat wound.

Next:

" It took two human bodies to slow this one down. This particular bullet was known for stability and penetration. It was designed that way by international
treaty and was called the "humane bullet" because it punctured small round
holes through enemy soldiers."

ANS.
I refer you again (and again) to the image made for the WC:
https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/5/5e/Photo_hsca_ex_294.jpg

Look again at an MC type round CE856 on the right. It was stopped just
as you said, but it hit a wrist bone of a cadaver. That was enough to not
only stop the bullet, but the dramatically damage the front end,
regardless of treaties. The bullet you'd like to think went through 2
people 7 times, including 2 bones had none of that damage. So it didn't
go through a wrist bone, and not through anything else but a test set-up.
It was a test bullet, proved to you before.

Next:

"so this bullet acted in a
predictable way. Because it did not collide with bone it bored a hole
through soft tissue in the first victim. Whether it tumbled or not between
the two victims it struck bone in the second victim which caused it to
destabilize."

ANS.
If we're predicting what bullets will do, I predict that a bullet that
went through another person, then many times through a second person and
was only stopped at a wrist bone, would have the end damaged, like CE856.
But it wasn't damaged that way, and so it didn't go through anyone.

Next:

"The .357 magnum handgun has
been known to puncture through 6 apartments in a row before losing energy,
which is why it is not recommended for home defense in a crowded
neighborhood."

ANS.
It's nice to know that a Magnum will go through lots of things.
Naturally it has nothing to do with our problem here. Given that the MC
type bullet is what you're talking about, I'll agree that it will go
through things too, but I've seen tests made for the WC that show that an
MC type bullet won't go through a wrist bone without damage, just like
CE856.

All questions answered.

Chris

[claviger]

The Single Bullet Theory - Google Groups

On Thursday, May 15, 2014 12:13:50 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:17:54 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:38:26 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > > On 5/13/2014 10:20 PM, claviger wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 4:22:31 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> Here we go again.
>
> First:
>
> "You've have 50 years to prove it and this is the best you can do? So where
> was this sniper located when he fired this shot and what was the
> trajectory angle of declination? What kind of weapon and where is the
> bullet?"

Basic logical questions anyone would ask.

> ANS.
>
> It's the old LN line of '50 years and nothing new'.

It's called a truism.

> No matter how many things you point out to them that are new in the last
> 50 years, they forget and go back to their old corny lines.

As the little old lady once said in the famous commercial: "Where's the
beef?" Might be corny but true. CTs have a wealth of theories based on a
poverty of evidence.

> Go check the ARRB information. The new answers to many of the cover ups are there.

I have. That is where I discovered conclusive proof there was no UGATOR
(Unnamed General at the Operating Room) at Bethesda N H.

> One of the shooter locations was the Grassy Knoll,

Alleged shooter location. Both Bowers and Sitzman could see behind the
wooden fence. There was nobody there during the parade.

> and there were many other spots around Dealey Plaza that would suit nicely, and certainly better than the 6th floor of the TSBD.

The best position to line up down Elm Street would have been the Dal-Tex
Building. Again, many employees watching from open windows and one on the
fire escape. None of the witnesses reported seeing a sniper or hearing a
shot from this location. James Files claims a shot was fired from a closet
window with a silencer. He also claims to be the sniper on the GK with a
long handgun firing mercury tipped bullets.

> And I'm not going to calculate the "trajectory angle of declination"
> for you. Common sense will do what's needed.

Show us some of that common sense and just tell us where the other sniper
was located. We can figure out what the geometry from that location and
whether it works or not.

> The kill shot was perfectly possible from the GK,

Yes, the kill shot was possible from the GK but no verifiable witness saw
anyone behind the fence. The HSCA concluded based on the dubious "acoustic
evidence" there was a shot fired from there, but it missed the Limousine
entirely. So the patsy in the sixth floor window did more damage than the
"insurance shot" unless you have evidence that James Files was right.

> and that would fit with the small entrance wound on the right forehead
> and the 'large hole' exit in the BOH that 40 people saw.

That 40 people thought they saw. At the time of the head shot the
President was leaning forward with his head slightly turned to the left,
which exposed his right profile to the wooden fence on the GK. A shot from
that location could hit the right temple but if it acted like a normal
bullet it would either exit the left side of the skull or embed into the
inside of the skull across from the entrance hole. Marsh claims it was an
exploding bullet but the fragmentation pattern does not support this
theory. Files claims the mercury bullet exploded the head. No evidence for
that either.

From the Marsh location for a sniper on the GK would be a 45º angle to
the President in the backseat. If that bullet exploded a hole in the back
of the skull there should be a gaping hole on the left side of the
temporal-occipital region. None of the witnesses place it there. Dr
Giesecke and Dr McClelland both said there was a wound on the left side of
the head, but later corrected those false impressions.

> The acoustic evidence need not be used to show conspiracy and cover up.

What evidence can you offer that does prove conspiracy and cover up?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/16/2014 11:12 AM, Lanny wrote:
> On Thursday, May 15, 2014 9:14:13 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 5/15/2014 6:12 PM, Lanny wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, May 15, 2014 1:11:26 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> What else could they do? Would you be the guy who pushes the trigger to
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> start WWIII?
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>

>>> This may be the most irrational clich� of the thoroughly lame attempt to

>>
>>> explain a massive post-assassination government conspiracy; the idea that
>>
>>> "discovery" of a Cuban- or Soviet-backed conspiracy would have resulted in
>>
>>> such public outrage that LBJ would have "no choice" but to respond with an
>>
>>> all-out nuclear strike.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Only a year before the assassination when the United States was as close
>>
>>> to nuclear Armageddon as it has ever been during the Cuban missile crisis,
>>
>>> I don't remember the President, the Joint Chiefs or any other White House
>>
>>> advisors suggesting that "the wishes of the American people" were a
>>
>>> material factor in deciding whether to invade Cuba, enforce a naval
>>
>>> blockade or launch a hellish nuclear first strike against the Soviet
>>
>>> Union.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> For that matter, what was in LBJ's governing background that would portray
>>
>>> him as so self-effacing that he would render himself captive to the
>>
>>> desires of his constituents on a matter as grave as that of a nuclear
>>
>>> exchange?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Like hell.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you understand that assassination is a causus belli? Did you ever
>>
>> read The Guns of August? I suggest that you read history.
>
> I certainly understand that the assassination of a nation's leader is a
> *justification* for war. I am simply asserting that it is not necessarily
> an *obligation* for war and certainly not an obligation for a nuclear war.
> Conventional warfare would certainly be an available and preferable
> option.
>

I notice that you are afraid to answer my questions.
Not a good sign for you.
You know nothing about that time because you weren't even around then
and you refuse to read any history books or historical documents.
Several times the Joint Chiefs of Staff urged JFK to attack Cuba and he
refused because it might start a nuclear war. He publicly warned the
Soviets that any nuclear attack from Cuba would cause WWIII.
He urged his staff to read The Guns of August, which shows how an
assassination can lead to World War. I urged you to read it too, but you
won't because you are sure you know everything without having to do any
homework.

> Furthermore, not even the arrogance of a Lyndon Johnson could believe that
> he could permanently conceal the culpability of the USSR or Cuba in
> Kennedy's assassination IF they were, in fact, responsible.
>

There is a big difference between believing rumors and proving facts.
That's why the goal of the cover-up was to cut off speculation. So that
the public would not believe the wildest claims and demand retaliation.

> And it is patently ludicrous to believe that a government conspiracy to
> conceal a foreign conspiracy to assassinate the President would begin
> within mere hours of the assassination before a plethora of material and
> critical facts surrounding the assassination were known.
>

You know nothing. Within MINUTES of the assassination disinformation
agents were claiming that Castro was the mastermind.

> If LBJ and his cronies hoped to weave a believable lie through the Warren
> Commission or the FBI, it would likely require knowing a lot more
> unassailable truth than they knew on the afternoon and ensuing weekend of
> the assassination itself.
>

They were not interested in unassailable truth. Only convincing the
pubic that it was not a conspiracy.

> The United States government would appear rather exposed if it cast Lee
> Harvey Oswald as the modern day John Wilkes Booth only to have radio
> Moscow broadcast the Kremlin's claim of responsibility for the murder and
> throw down an international gauntlet.
>

Are you really THAT naive that you think the Soviets would publicly take
credit for it? No, no one is THAT stupid. You are just setting up a
strawman argument to prove how tough you are in knocking it down.

> Such bizarre developments could not be ruled out when so little facts were
> immediately known.
>

That's why LBJ said that speculation should be cut off.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Underscore this point:

"Marsh claims it was an exploding bullet but the fragmentation pattern
does not support this theory. "

Forensic pathologists who have examined the x-rays all say they are (1)
x-rays of JFK and (2) they show fracturing from the back of the head
forward. No other direction.

A bullet entered the back of the head and exited the right side.

[mainframetech]

Since the conspirators would be in charge of all evidence and the
government itself, there wasn't too much they wouldn't be able to
accomplish after the murder. And sure enough, they were put in charge of
all evidence except the body and the limo, which they proceeded to steal
away from Dallas and take to where they had control of them and also
control of the autopsy. All evidence and all paths to solution were in
their hands, and it took relatively few people to do it.

Chris

[mainframetech]

OK :::sigh ::: off we go again.

First:

"Basic logical questions anyone would ask."

ANS.

Nope, they wouldn't. Most people don't seal with "trajectories" and
such. They have common sense.

Next:

"As the little old lady once said in the famous commercial: "Where's the
beef?" Might be corny but true. CTs have a wealth of theories based on a
poverty of evidence."

ANS.
Typical LN comment. You tell them tons of evidence and proof of what
happened and they can't think past your first words, and they go back to
the old lines. 'You have no evidence after 50 years', 'you haven't proved
anything', etc., etc. Of course, they are totally unable to answer any
questions you put to them, and they ignore them and go back again.

Next:

"I have. That is where I discovered conclusive proof there was no UGATOR
(Unnamed General at the Operating Room) at Bethesda N H."

ANS.
Unbelievable! It's getting wilder and wilder as we go. What proof do
you have that there was no general (unnamed) at the autopsy? What
difference does it matter if there was a general unnamed, or named? They
still carry the same weight with the military doctors. There was a good
deal of testimony from many that were at the autopsy of the generals and
an admiral passing in orders to the prosectors as they went through the
autopsy. Often telling them to skip a procedure. Do I have to go to the
testimony and root out all of that testimony? Seems foolish since you
obviously need to go through that testimony for yourself so you'll believe
it. At this point, I don't know why it's important to you that a general
was unnamed. Let me know.

Next:

"Alleged shooter location. Both Bowers and Sitzman could see behind the
wooden fence. There was nobody there during the parade."

ANS.
If you'll check the testimony of Bowers, you'll find that he saw 3 men
at different times behind the fence in that area. Here's his testimony
proving you're wrong again:

"Mr. BALL - Now, were there any people standing on the high side---high
ground between your tower and where Elm Street goes down under the
underpass toward the mouth of the underpass?

Mr. BOWERS - Directly in line, towards the mouth of the underpass, there
were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set,
in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about
midtwenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket.
Mr. BALL - Were they standing together or standing separately?
Mr. BOWERS - They were standing within 10 or 15 feet of each other, and
gave no appearance of being together, as far as I knew.
Mr. BALL - In what direction were they facing?
Mr. BOWERS - They were facing and looking up towards Main and Houston,
and following the caravan as it came down."

And if you have done your research, you'll find that his friend (Walter
Rischel) said Bowers let him in on further information that he wouldn't
tell to anyone else, that he was afraid for his life to tell the whole
story of what he had seen behind the fence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNivLlyMneU
Since there is no corroboration for the Rischel story, you will have to
decide yourself if he is on the level. Lee Bowers was a careful person and
not taken to odd behavior, and his death in a road accident later is
peculiar.

Sitzman was in front of the fence and may not have seen what Bowers saw.

Next:

"The best position to line up down Elm Street would have been the Dal-Tex
Building. Again, many employees watching from open windows and one on the
fire escape. None of the witnesses reported seeing a sniper or hearing a
shot from this location. James Files claims a shot was fired from a closet
window with a silencer. He also claims to be the sniper on the GK with a
long handgun firing mercury tipped bullets."

ANS.
I can't speak to the James Files story. There's no corroboration, but
since there were many shooters there that day, it's possible unless there
is something wrong found in his statements. I'm happy that you've picked
just a few of the possible shooter locations. The Dal-Tex building was a
good one, and firing from back in a room with a silencer could be
possible. Witnesses might not hear any shots.

Next:

"Yes, the kill shot was possible from the GK but no verifiable witness saw
anyone behind the fence. The HSCA concluded based on the dubious "acoustic
evidence" there was a shot fired from there, but it missed the Limousine
entirely. So the patsy in the sixth floor window did more damage than the
"insurance shot" unless you have evidence that James Files was right."

ANS.
OK, we agree that a kill shot was possible from the GK. And as you now
know, Lee Bowers saw 2 men behind the fence as the motorcade was coming
along. As to the acoustic evidence, I don't use it myself to prove
anything. There were other places they should have put microphones and
they didn't. As with the WC, the HSCA was hampered by having to deal with
evidence that had been altered and work with photos that were also proved
to be altered.

The HSCA had no way to tell that a shot from the GK missed the
limousine. Actually, a shot form there killed JFK by hitting him in the
right forehead and passing through his brain and blowing out the back of
his head. Evidence shows that, but you never see such evidence when it's
shown to you.

Next:

"Show us some of that common sense and just tell us where the other sniper
was located. We can figure out what the geometry from that location and
whether it works or not."

ANS.
One of the shooters (I use that term, since NO ONE at Dealey Plaza was
a real sniper) was on the GK to the right of the motorcade. The kill shot
came from there, as noted above. There were other shooters spotted around
the Plaza. Possibly on a rooftop of a building along Houston Street.

Next:

"That 40 people thought they saw. At the time of the head shot the
President was leaning forward with his head slightly turned to the left,
which exposed his right profile to the wooden fence on the GK. A shot from
that location could hit the right temple but if it acted like a normal
bullet it would either exit the left side of the skull or embed into the
inside of the skull across from the entrance hole. Marsh claims it was an
exploding bullet but the fragmentation pattern does not support this
theory. Files claims the mercury bullet exploded the head. No evidence for
that either."

ANS.
39+ people DID see the 'large hole' in the back of head of JFK.
Trying to discredit that many people when there is NO ONE except 2
prosectors that say there was ONLY a small hole there is ridiculous. You
couldn't ask for more corroboration of a sight. Also, since I've offered
a challenge to anyone to find someone that saw ONLY a small hole in that
same BOH area, and NO ONE has come forward, you kind of just have to let
go of old habits and face the facts. Otherwise, you'll have to explain to
me how it happened that so many people, many of whom were medically
trained, saw the same 'large hole'. Is it because you believed the
altered photo from the autopsy? What was it that locked you into such a
mistake?

Now your guesses as to what the bullet would do if it hit JFK in the
right forhead seem to leave some things out. One is the possibility that
the bullet hit the forehead area and glanced only a tiny bit to the left
and then pushed through the skull and on into the brain at a slightly
different angle blowing out the back of the skull. If you check into
"Gunshot Wounds" by Dr. Vincent DiMaio here:
http://www.e-reading.ws/bookreader.php/135302/Gunshot_wounds._Practical_asp
ects_of_firearms,_ballistics,_and_forensic_techniques.pdf

Look up chapter 3 and figure 3.1 near the beginning of the chapter, and
see the path of a rifle shot that hits the head then expands until the
pressure that had built up blows out the back of the head.

It's interesting that you seem to have a picture in mind of a
"fragmentation pattern". Let me in on it, where is it? You also think
that pattern makes the possibility of an exploding bullet an
impossibility, and I don't see why, particularly since the back of the
head was blown out. Among the X-rays at the archives, I've seen a
description of one of them (they were all copies there) and it had a large
amount of tiny fragments all over the brain area. The X-rays we've seen
were phonies, so they didn't show it.

Next:

"From the Marsh location for a sniper on the GK would be a 45º angle to
the President in the backseat. If that bullet exploded a hole in the back
of the skull there should be a gaping hole on the left side of the
temporal-occipital region. None of the witnesses place it there".

Here's McClelland's description of the head wound from his testimony:

"Mr. SPECTER - Before proceeding to describe what you did in connection
with the tracheostomy, will you more fully describe your observation with
respect to the head wound?

Dr. McCLELLAND - As I took the position at the head of the table that I
have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a
position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted
that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted.
It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the
parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be
fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the
occipital bone being fractured in its lateral haft, and this sprung open
the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down
into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at
least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the
cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. There was a large amount of
bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in the
skull which had been blasted open."

You're mistaken again. You decided that a bullet coming in from the GK
was at a 45 degree angle, yet that angle would change as the limo
proceeded along Elm Street. When did the bullet strike? That will decide
the angle, not your guess. And you haven't added in the possibility of
the skull slightly bending the path of the bullet before it went through
the skull and out the back. The glancing blow on the skull was possible
from the angles discussed.

Next:

"What evidence can you offer that does prove conspiracy and cover up?"

ANS.
See? Just as I predicted. The standard LN line. 'No evidence has
been shown!!' I've spent many hours showing you what happened, and the
evidence that leads to those conclusions, and you missed it all! Go back
through all my talking and find all the evidence for each thing I've said
was so. I'm not repeating the whole thing again. Use your head. Argue
with the evidence if you want, but don't tell me I didn't show any.

All questions answered.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Here we go down the yellow brick road again.

First:

"The WCR found no evidence of a sniper on the GK. The HSCA speculated there
was a sniper on the GK who missed the closest shot at the Limousine.
Either way no shot from the GK hit the President in the head."

ANS.
So you're so deeply invested in the WCR that you can't think for
yourself anymore. Brainwashing is like that sometimes. Let's deal with
basics first. The WCR was NOT the last word on the murder, and their job
was to shut you and others up and get you doing what your government told
you to do. Believe whatever they say, and that they NEVER lied to you.

Sorry, but the WCR made many mistakes that were found and pointed out
over 50 years of work. The fact there were 5 panels trying to shut up the
public shows how little the WCR was believed by the general public. You
act like since those 2 panels decided there was NO kill shot from the GK,
that there was no kill shot from the GK! Amazing, since the evidence
points to there being a killer there behind the fence.

There was even a witness to 2 men back there with a rifle, that ran and
got rid of the rifle right after the shooting. That man was Ed Hoffman,
who went to the authorities right away and tried to tell them what he had
seen, but the FBI told him to shut up and go away and he did for a few
years. When he finally told his story, the LN troops ran out of hiding
and said he had remembered years later to state his experience and it was
too late, not knowing that he had tried to tell the story right away, but
was hampered because he was a deaf-mute and they couldn't follow what he
was saying to them. They didn't bother to get an interpreter either.

Since the WC and the HSCA were dedicated to telling the public to shut
up and go what they were told, they did their job and you listened.
Those 2 were not the last word in this murder.

Next:

"We have many times. The motorcycle escort was behind the Limousine and had
to drive through the suspended brain ejecta and the wind was blowing into
the motorcade. He also mentioned his impression one of the shots came from
somewhere close to the Limousine."

ANS.
So even though you agree that the material was blown to the left and
behind the limo, you can't believe that a bullet hit JFK from the front
and blasted that material back and to the left! Even more amazing! And
I'll even bet you think the brains, fluids and blood came out of the top
of JFK's head through some imaginary hole there, right? Nurses and
doctors at Parkland all agreed that the 'large hole' was at the rear of
the head ONLY. There was NO damage to the top of the head anywhere.
Check the testimony of nurses Bowron and Bell, both of whom drew pictures
of where the damage was at the rear of the head:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

Next:

"You also have to suspend Logic, ignore Physics, avoid Occam's Razor, and
no matter what, never resort to Holistic thinking."

ANS.
Don't be silly. Logic, physics and all the other tools are exactly
what we need instead of lawyers wacky theories like the 'single bullet'
and the 'lone nut'.

All questions answered.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/16/2014 4:44 PM, claviger wrote:
> The Single Bullet Theory - Google Groups
>
> On Thursday, May 15, 2014 12:13:50 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:17:54 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:38:26 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2014 10:20 PM, claviger wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 4:22:31 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>> Here we go again.
>>
>> First:
>>
>> "You've have 50 years to prove it and this is the best you can do? So where
>> was this sniper located when he fired this shot and what was the
>> trajectory angle of declination? What kind of weapon and where is the
>> bullet?"
>
> Basic logical questions anyone would ask.
>

That you would never ask of WC defenders. Hypocrite.
What wa the distance and angle of your shot from Hickey?
Do ANY of your fellow WC defenders agree with your theory?
Or do they call you a kook?

>> ANS.
>>
>> It's the old LN line of '50 years and nothing new'.
>
> It's called a truism.
>
>> No matter how many things you point out to them that are new in the last
>> 50 years, they forget and go back to their old corny lines.
>
> As the little old lady once said in the famous commercial: "Where's the
> beef?" Might be corny but true. CTs have a wealth of theories based on a
> poverty of evidence.
>
>> Go check the ARRB information. The new answers to many of the cover ups are there.
>
> I have. That is where I discovered conclusive proof there was no UGATOR
> (Unnamed General at the Operating Room) at Bethesda N H.
>

It does not say that.

>> One of the shooter locations was the Grassy Knoll,
>
> Alleged shooter location. Both Bowers and Sitzman could see behind the
> wooden fence. There was nobody there during the parade.
>

How is SItzman going to seee behind her? Eyes on ther back of her head?
Bower said he couldn't see the man dressed in dark clothes because of
the tree. If there was a shooter in the TSBD sticking his head out the
window, how come everyone in Dealey Plaza didn't see him?

>> and there were many other spots around Dealey Plaza that would suit nicely, and certainly better than the 6th floor of the TSBD.
>
> The best position to line up down Elm Street would have been the Dal-Tex
> Building. Again, many employees watching from open windows and one on the
> fire escape. None of the witnesses reported seeing a sniper or hearing a
> shot from this location. James Files claims a shot was fired from a closet
> window with a silencer. He also claims to be the sniper on the GK with a
> long handgun firing mercury tipped bullets.
>

B ut we know he was only a con man.

>> And I'm not going to calculate the "trajectory angle of declination"
>> for you. Common sense will do what's needed.
>
> Show us some of that common sense and just tell us where the other sniper
> was located. We can figure out what the geometry from that location and
> whether it works or not.
>

No, you can't. I already diagrammed it for you and you are still confused.

>> The kill shot was perfectly possible from the GK,
>
> Yes, the kill shot was possible from the GK but no verifiable witness saw
> anyone behind the fence. The HSCA concluded based on the dubious "acoustic
> evidence" there was a shot fired from there, but it missed the Limousine
> entirely. So the patsy in the sixth floor window did more damage than the
> "insurance shot" unless you have evidence that James Files was right.
>

And no one saw the man who shot President Chen therefore he was not
shot. And no one saw Agca shooting the Pope, therefore the Pope was not
shot. You are so illogical.

>> and that would fit with the small entrance wound on the right forehead
>> and the 'large hole' exit in the BOH that 40 people saw.
>
> That 40 people thought they saw. At the time of the head shot the
> President was leaning forward with his head slightly turned to the left,
> which exposed his right profile to the wooden fence on the GK. A shot from
> that location could hit the right temple but if it acted like a normal
> bullet it would either exit the left side of the skull or embed into the
> inside of the skull across from the entrance hole. Marsh claims it was an
> exploding bullet but the fragmentation pattern does not support this
> theory. Files claims the mercury bullet exploded the head. No evidence for
> that either.
>

Forget the right temple. There is no entrance wound there, only a skull
bone sticking out. An intact bone can not be an entrance wound.


> From the Marsh location for a sniper on the GK would be a 45� angle to

> the President in the backseat. If that bullet exploded a hole in the back
> of the skull there should be a gaping hole on the left side of the
> temporal-occipital region. None of the witnesses place it there. Dr
> Giesecke and Dr McClelland both said there was a wound on the left side of
> the head, but later corrected those false impressions.
>

I have never said the bullet exploded out the back. Stop making up crap.
FYI, a bullet does not have to exit.

>> The acoustic evidence need not be used to show conspiracy and cover up.
>
> What evidence can you offer that does prove conspiracy and cover up?
>
>

Well, you may not realize it, but my proving that the Zapruder film is
authentic proves conspiracy.

[Lanny]

Once again your undisputed ignorance of my reading habits and knowledge of
world and American history, not to mention the specific amount of it I've
actually lived through, only serves to fulfill your apparent desire to
appear every bit as foolish as your silly conclusion that the
assassination of the mere "heir presumptive" of the Austrian-Hungarian
Empire and its tenuous relationship to the far more substantive issues
behind the origin of the first World War IS SOMEHOW RELEVANT to
understanding that the assassination of a sitting head of state of one
super power by the government of a rival super power would, in theory and
in fact, constitute a legitimate *causus belli.*

Give me a freaking break.

As for doing my historical homework, you should try it sometime, to wit:

*************************************************************************

"To Kennedy, the lesson [of Tuchman's book] was clear: Great powers
could accidentally slide into war if their leaders were inattentive to the
dangers ahead of them, and it was his job to prevent that from happening.
"I am not going to follow a course which will allow anyone to write a
comparable book about this time [called] 'The Missiles of October',"
Kennedy told his brother Bobby during the crisis. He wanted to "send
a copy of that book to every Navy officer," he said. JFK made his aides
read "The Guns of August" and had copies distributed to every US
military base in the world. Quite possibly, Kennedy's careful reading
of the book helped prevent a nuclear war.

Nobody disputes that what Kennedy found in that book was crucial:
It helped him step back, appreciate what was truly at stake, and stand
up to the generals. "It had a huge impact on his thinking, becoming the
dominant metaphor for JFK on the crisis," says Graham Allison, a
Harvard political scientist and the author of "Essence of Decision:
Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis."

But historians now know something else as well: Barbara Tuchman's
thesis about WWI was wrong. In fact, the war wasn't the accident she
portrayed: Subsequent research in the archives of Imperial Germany has
conclusively shown that Germany did want a war, one that would allow
it to dominate the continent. Today, "Hardly any scholars accept the
Tuchman thesis that WWI was an accidental or inadvertent war," says
John Mearsheimer, a University of Chicago professor."

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2012/10/20/cuban-missile-crisis-did-mistake-save-world/hYf8nEauKjnul3fmFCg3PM/story.html

***************************************************************************

And there is certainly no evidence that President Kennedy believed that
political assassination was the likely preeminent prelude to war that his
military and civilian advisers needed to understand. Rather it was the
far more dangerous motives of the struggle of nation-states for strategic
advantage, colonial expansion and the heated tension of ethnic and
religious nationalism and how these and other elements can spin a
nonetheless well-crafted foreign policy out of control.

None of this, of course, has anything to do with Lyndon Johnson's own
speculations as to the possibility of a foreign-based conspiracy in the
assassination of President Kennedy. I'm simply saying that if he actually
believed he could conceal the facts of such a conspiracy indefinitely or
even curtail the speculation of others as we know has taken place, then
the man was hopelessly naïve.

And if he or anyone else thought it a reasonable strategy to manipulate
forensic evidence at autopsy or physical evidence in the hands of the FBI
in an effort to achieve such an objective, then the degree to which he and
they were disconnected from reality remains difficult to quantify to this
day.

[Anthony Marsh]

That was MY point, but obvious you didn't read it and didn't get it.

> Nobody disputes that what Kennedy found in that book was crucial:
> It helped him step back, appreciate what was truly at stake, and stand
> up to the generals. "It had a huge impact on his thinking, becoming the
> dominant metaphor for JFK on the crisis," says Graham Allison, a
> Harvard political scientist and the author of "Essence of Decision:
> Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis."
>
> But historians now know something else as well: Barbara Tuchman's
> thesis about WWI was wrong. In fact, the war wasn't the accident she
> portrayed: Subsequent research in the archives of Imperial Germany has
> conclusively shown that Germany did want a war, one that would allow
> it to dominate the continent. Today, "Hardly any scholars accept the
> Tuchman thesis that WWI was an accidental or inadvertent war," says
> John Mearsheimer, a University of Chicago professor."
>

So is the author claiming that Germany assassinated Archduke Ferdinand
or was the first to declare war? Otherwise the point is moot.

> http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2012/10/20/cuban-missile-crisis-did-mistake-save-world/hYf8nEauKjnul3fmFCg3PM/story.html
>
> ***************************************************************************
>
> And there is certainly no evidence that President Kennedy believed that
> political assassination was the likely preeminent prelude to war that his
> military and civilian advisers needed to understand. Rather it was the
> far more dangerous motives of the struggle of nation-states for strategic
> advantage, colonial expansion and the heated tension of ethnic and
> religious nationalism and how these and other elements can spin a
> nonetheless well-crafted foreign policy out of control.
>

That was not his point. His point was that when both sides are on a hair
trigger you never know what little incident might have unintended
consequences. Like the US Navy proving how tough they were by using
depth charges to force a Russian sub to surface, not knowing it was
armed with a nuclear warhead. On one Russian commander kept his cool
and vetoed launching the nuke.

> None of this, of course, has anything to do with Lyndon Johnson's own
> speculations as to the possibility of a foreign-based conspiracy in the
> assassination of President Kennedy. I'm simply saying that if he actually
> believed he could conceal the facts of such a conspiracy indefinitely or
> even curtail the speculation of others as we know has taken place, then

> the man was hopelessly na�ve.
>

You know nothing about cover-ups. It is not necessary to make it last
forever. Nixon only needed it to last for two terms and then he wouldn't
care. For some people they just need it to last until after the next
election.

> And if he or anyone else thought it a reasonable strategy to manipulate
> forensic evidence at autopsy or physical evidence in the hands of the FBI
> in an effort to achieve such an objective, then the degree to which he and
> they were disconnected from reality remains difficult to quantify to this
> day.
>

Meaningless drivel.

You wasted a lot of time just to prove that I am right. You did not live
through the Cuban Missile Crisis and you did not read The Guns of August
or the historical documents. You just watch pundits on Fox News and
parrot what they say.

[FELIX LEITER]

> > From the Marsh location for a sniper on the GK would be a 45� angle to

>
> > the President in the backseat. If that bullet exploded a hole in the back
>
> > of the skull there should be a gaping hole on the left side of the
>
> > temporal-occipital region. None of the witnesses place it there. Dr
>
> > Giesecke and Dr McClelland both said there was a wound on the left side of
>
> > the head, but later corrected those false impressions.
>
> >
>
>
>
> I have never said the bullet exploded out the back. Stop making up crap.
>
> FYI, a bullet does not have to exit.
>
>
>
> >> The acoustic evidence need not be used to show conspiracy and cover up.
>
> >
>
> > What evidence can you offer that does prove conspiracy and cover up?
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> Well, you may not realize it, but my proving that the Zapruder film is
>
> authentic proves conspiracy.

If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a
conservative at forty, you have no brain.

[Anthony Marsh]

That's easy to do when you aren't even looking for evidence.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/16/2014 11:47 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, May 16, 2014 11:12:13 AM UTC-4, Lanny wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 15, 2014 9:14:13 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/15/2014 6:12 PM, Lanny wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> On Thursday, May 15, 2014 1:11:26 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> What else could they do? Would you be the guy who pushes the trigger to
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> start WWIII?
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>

>>>> This may be the most irrational clich� of the thoroughly lame attempt to

Not all cover-ups are perfect. Things leak out. People talk.

> accomplish after the murder. And sure enough, they were put in charge of
> all evidence except the body and the limo, which they proceeded to steal
> away from Dallas and take to where they had control of them and also
> control of the autopsy. All evidence and all paths to solution were in
> their hands, and it took relatively few people to do it.
>
> Chris
>

Wrong. The DPD handled the evidence. The Secret Service handled the
evidence.

[Anthony Marsh]

>> From the Marsh location for a sniper on the GK would be a 45� angle to

>>
>> the President in the backseat. If that bullet exploded a hole in the back
>>
>> of the skull there should be a gaping hole on the left side of the
>>
>> temporal-occipital region. None of the witnesses place it there. Dr
>>
>> Giesecke and Dr McClelland both said there was a wound on the left side of
>>
>> the head, but later corrected those false impressions.
>>
>>
>>
>>> The acoustic evidence need not be used to show conspiracy and cover up.
>>
>>
>>
>> What evidence can you offer that does prove conspiracy and cover up?
>
> Underscore this point:
>
> "Marsh claims it was an exploding bullet but the fragmentation pattern
> does not support this theory. "
>

Yes, it does. It spread from front to back as a cone.

> Forensic pathologists who have examined the x-rays all say they are (1)
> x-rays of JFK and (2) they show fracturing from the back of the head
> forward. No other direction.
>

No.
Fracturing in the back of the head is caused by contrecoup from the shot
to the forehead. Doctors are often wrong about wound patterns.

> A bullet entered the back of the head and exited the right side.
>

Show me the entrance wound. Show me the exit wound.

>
>
>
>
>
>

[cmikes]

Buy don't you realize that Tony knows much more about wound ballistics,
autopsy procedures, and reading X-rays than any forensic pathologist?
Yes, of course, they all have years of training and some of them had
decades of experience, but this Tony Marsh we're talking about here, he's
obviously smarter and more qualified than any these rookies.

[FELIX LEITER]

> > the man was hopelessly na�ve.

>
> >
>
>
>
> You know nothing about cover-ups. It is not necessary to make it last
>
> forever. Nixon only needed it to last for two terms and then he wouldn't
>
> care. For some people they just need it to last until after the next
>
> election.
>
>
>
> > And if he or anyone else thought it a reasonable strategy to manipulate
>
> > forensic evidence at autopsy or physical evidence in the hands of the FBI
>
> > in an effort to achieve such an objective, then the degree to which he and
>
> > they were disconnected from reality remains difficult to quantify to this
>
> > day.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Meaningless drivel.
>
>
>
> You wasted a lot of time just to prove that I am right. You did not live
>
> through the Cuban Missile Crisis and you did not read The Guns of August
>
> or the historical documents. You just watch pundits on Fox News and
>
> parrot what they say.

Marsh wrote "You just watch pundits on Fox News." How do you know what is
said on Fox News if you don't watch it. Marsh, I'm sick of your bovine
excrement. You probably watch CNN (Communist News Network).

[FELIX LEITER]

> >> From the Marsh location for a sniper on the GK would be a 45� angle to

>
> >>
>
> >> the President in the backseat. If that bullet exploded a hole in the back
>
> >>
>
> >> of the skull there should be a gaping hole on the left side of the
>
> >>
>
> >> temporal-occipital region. None of the witnesses place it there. Dr
>
> >>
>
> >> Giesecke and Dr McClelland both said there was a wound on the left side of
>
> >>
>
> >> the head, but later corrected those false impressions.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> The acoustic evidence need not be used to show conspiracy and cover up.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> What evidence can you offer that does prove conspiracy and cover up?
>
> >
>
> > Underscore this point:
>
> >
>
> > "Marsh claims it was an exploding bullet but the fragmentation pattern
>
> > does not support this theory. "
>
> >
>
>
>
> Yes, it does. It spread from front to back as a cone.
>
>
>
> > Forensic pathologists who have examined the x-rays all say they are (1)
>
> > x-rays of JFK and (2) they show fracturing from the back of the head
>
> > forward. No other direction.
>
> >
>
>
>
> No.
>
> Fracturing in the back of the head is caused by contrecoup from the shot
>
> to the forehead. Doctors are often wrong about wound patterns.
>
>
>
> > A bullet entered the back of the head and exited the right side.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Show me the entrance wound. Show me the exit wound.
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >

Things leak out? When are the leaks coming? Mark Felt is dead.

[cmikes]

On Saturday, May 17, 2014 7:45:57 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> >> From the Marsh location for a sniper on the GK would be a 45� angle to

>
> >>
>
> >> the President in the backseat. If that bullet exploded a hole in the back
>
> >>
>
> >> of the skull there should be a gaping hole on the left side of the
>
> >>
>
> >> temporal-occipital region. None of the witnesses place it there. Dr
>
> >>
>
> >> Giesecke and Dr McClelland both said there was a wound on the left side of
>
> >>
>
> >> the head, but later corrected those false impressions.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> The acoustic evidence need not be used to show conspiracy and cover up.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> What evidence can you offer that does prove conspiracy and cover up?
>
> >
>
> > Underscore this point:
>
> >
>
> > "Marsh claims it was an exploding bullet but the fragmentation pattern
>
> > does not support this theory. "
>
> >
>
>
>
> Yes, it does. It spread from front to back as a cone.
>
>
>
> > Forensic pathologists who have examined the x-rays all say they are (1)
>
> > x-rays of JFK and (2) they show fracturing from the back of the head
>
> > forward. No other direction.
>
> >
>
>
>
> No.
>
> Fracturing in the back of the head is caused by contrecoup from the shot
>
> to the forehead. Doctors are often wrong about wound patterns.
>
>
>
> > A bullet entered the back of the head and exited the right side.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Show me the entrance wound. Show me the exit wound.
>

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dox2big.jpg
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >

[Mitch Todd]

"mainframetech" wrote in message
news:73bc1902-aefc-4e83...@googlegroups.com...

> Now your guesses as to what the bullet would do if it hit JFK in the
>right forhead seem to leave some things out. One is the possibility that
>the bullet hit the forehead area and glanced only a tiny bit to the left
>and then pushed through the skull and on into the brain at a slightly
>different angle blowing out the back of the skull. If you check into
>"Gunshot Wounds" by Dr. Vincent DiMaio here:

>http://www.e-reading.ws/bookreader.php/135302/Gunshot_wounds._Practical_asp=

>ects_of_firearms,_ballistics,_and_forensic_techniques.pdf
>
> Look up chapter 3 and figure 3.1 near the beginning of the chapter, and
>see the path of a rifle shot that hits the head then expands until the
>pressure that had built up blows out the back of the head.

Figure 3.1 shows a high-speed photograph of a temporary cavity
in a large rectangular block of ballistic gelatin. How you get a
head out of that is anyone's guess.

[mainframetech]

Hmm. I was a conservative UNTIL I was forty. Then I saw what wackos
the conservatives really were and slowly changed over to liberal democrat.
It fit with the constitution to a greater degree.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

>>>> From the Marsh location for a sniper on the GK would be a 45??? angle to

>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> the President in the backseat. If that bullet exploded a hole in the back
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> of the skull there should be a gaping hole on the left side of the
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> temporal-occipital region. None of the witnesses place it there. Dr
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Giesecke and Dr McClelland both said there was a wound on the left side of
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> the head, but later corrected those false impressions.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> The acoustic evidence need not be used to show conspiracy and cover up.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> What evidence can you offer that does prove conspiracy and cover up?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Underscore this point:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> "Marsh claims it was an exploding bullet but the fragmentation pattern
>>
>>> does not support this theory. "
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, it does. It spread from front to back as a cone.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Forensic pathologists who have examined the x-rays all say they are (1)
>>
>>> x-rays of JFK and (2) they show fracturing from the back of the head
>>
>>> forward. No other direction.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Fracturing in the back of the head is caused by contrecoup from the shot
>>
>> to the forehead. Doctors are often wrong about wound patterns.
>>
>>
>>
>>> A bullet entered the back of the head and exited the right side.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Show me the entrance wound. Show me the exit wound.
>>
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dox2big.jpg

That's just a cartoon. Just Baden's opinion. He lied about the wounds to
make the trajectory lead back to the sniper's nest. I asked you show me
the wounds, not a cartoon.

>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>

[mainframetech]

Oh, C,mon. The gel represents human tissue. If the bullet enters at
the right forehead/temple then pushes at the skull and is slightly offset
toward the right rear, then continues toward the back of the head, just
like in the figure, expanding as it goes, then the pressure builds in the
skull in the direction the bullet is traveling and pops out the back of
the skull. If you read DiMaio that's a standard rifle bullet process.
The gel will represent the brain matter and fluid and shows what happens
inside the head as the bullet passes, and points out how it balloons out
at the end of it's travel. In the head a bullet wouldn't travel as far
before blowing out the skull in the rear, but that's there too.

What is it that you can't see in the figure?

Chris

[claviger]

On Sunday, May 4, 2014 6:25:17 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, May 3, 2014 9:30:15 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 3, 2014 12:16:28 PM UTC-5, Herbert Blenner wrote:
> > > According to the Warren Commission a bullet entered the posterior skull to
> > > the right of the midline and exited the right side of the head slightly to
> > > the rear and superior to the right temple. Did this bullet make a U-turn
> > > inside the brain cavity?
> > No of course not. The source of that bullet was not the Grassy Knoll
> > which was to the right of the Limousine. The WCR source of the head shot
> > was from behind the Limousine, so the entrance wound and exit wound are in
> > alignment with the position of the rifle in the 6th floor window. The
> > trajectory from the rifle to the exit wound is basically a straight line.
> > If the rifle that fired the head shot was behind the wooden fence where
> > Marsh places the sniper it would be 9' west from the corner of the fence
> > near the sidewalk that leads to the parking area behind the pergola. The
> > angle of the trajectory from that position to the backseat of the
> > Limousine would be approximately 45º. If the bullet maintained this
> > trajectory it would exit the left side of the skull. Mainframetech claims
> > there was a massive exit wound in the back of the skull where Dr
> > McClelland approved a sketch. That would be the right side of the
> > posterior skull in the occipital bone.
>
> > At the time of the head shot the President was leaning forward and his
> > head was slightly turned to the left. That means the profile of the right
> > side of his head was basically facing where the GK sniper was supposedly
> > positioned.
>
> > If the bullet entered the temple or right side of the forehead and exited
> > where McClelland indicated it would need to make a 90º turn to the left
> > inside the skull. Otherwise if it stayed on trajectory it would have
> > blown out a hole somewhere on the left side of the skull. There was no
> > exit wound on the left side of the skull. There was no exit wound on the
> > back of the skull. There was a massive exit wound on the top right side
> > of the skull.
>
> Amazing denial of evidence that has NO opposition.

What do you mean by NO opposition?

> 39+ people SAW the'large hole' in the BOH of JFK, and yet to hug the WC
> report to their chests, the LNs will ignore anything!

We haven't ignored the autopsy report, the Clark Commission, the HSCA, and
the Zapruder film or witnesses who got it right. By contrast you ignore
all this evidence to live in your own CT fantasy world.

> Find me ANY person except a couple of the prosectors (who were under orders) > that saw ONLY a small hole in the BOH of JFK. And yet even though no one
> will come forward with info on a small hole in the BOH, the 39+ people that
> saw a large hole are ignored!

There is a photo of the small hole near the cowlick. You provided a photo
where the top of the skull is blown out. Photos from the Zapruder film
corroborate the photos from the autopsy. No large hole in the back of the
head.


> Pure madness!
>
> Now let's go further into Oz. If a bullet came from the 6th floor of
> the TSBD and struck the BOH of JFK, where did it exit? Out the side?

Since the President was leaning forward the top of the head was at an
angle facing the front seat. When this exit wound erupted is sprayed the
Connallys with brain matter, blood, and skull fragments.

> Doesn't this drawing strike anyone as odd?
>
> http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/6615/wcvshsca.jpg

No, the WCR drawing on the left uses the EOP entry point while the HSCA
Dox drawing uses the cowlick entry point.

> The angle of the bullet path is nowhere near coming from that high in
> the street. The angle has to be greater, yet the figure looks stupid
> already, and even the altered Z-film says the head wasn't that far forward
> when struck by the kill shot!

What is the angle you dispute? Do you even know from the WCR or HSCA? Did
you try to measure the photo?

> Talk about 90 degree angles, if the bullet struck the rear of the head, then > popped out the side, that's a 90 degree angle. Of course, there's no one
> (except 2 prosectors) that will state that they saw ONLY a small bullet hole > in the BOH...:)

Three prosectors, and their work was reviewed by three differemnt panels
of medical experts. Who else could see this small hole covered by hair?
That is why we have autopsies in the first place, so professionals can
closely examine the body for clues.

> It's just foolishness. We need to clear our mind of all the
> prepackaged scenarios that have been shoved at us for 50 years and take
> our cue from real evidence and sense.

Did you take Geometry in high school? If so, did you make a passing grade?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/19/2014 4:47 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Sunday, May 4, 2014 6:25:17 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 3, 2014 9:30:15 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>> On Saturday, May 3, 2014 12:16:28 PM UTC-5, Herbert Blenner wrote:
>>>> According to the Warren Commission a bullet entered the posterior skull to
>>>> the right of the midline and exited the right side of the head slightly to
>>>> the rear and superior to the right temple. Did this bullet make a U-turn
>>>> inside the brain cavity?
>>> No of course not. The source of that bullet was not the Grassy Knoll
>>> which was to the right of the Limousine. The WCR source of the head shot
>>> was from behind the Limousine, so the entrance wound and exit wound are in
>>> alignment with the position of the rifle in the 6th floor window. The
>>> trajectory from the rifle to the exit wound is basically a straight line.
>>> If the rifle that fired the head shot was behind the wooden fence where
>>> Marsh places the sniper it would be 9' west from the corner of the fence
>>> near the sidewalk that leads to the parking area behind the pergola. The
>>> angle of the trajectory from that position to the backseat of the

>>> Limousine would be approximately 45?. If the bullet maintained this

>>> trajectory it would exit the left side of the skull. Mainframetech claims
>>> there was a massive exit wound in the back of the skull where Dr
>>> McClelland approved a sketch. That would be the right side of the
>>> posterior skull in the occipital bone.
>>
>>> At the time of the head shot the President was leaning forward and his
>>> head was slightly turned to the left. That means the profile of the right
>>> side of his head was basically facing where the GK sniper was supposedly
>>> positioned.
>>
>>> If the bullet entered the temple or right side of the forehead and exited

>>> where McClelland indicated it would need to make a 90? turn to the left

So you don't see anything wrong with both diagrams?
And you think both are right?
Or you're just AFRAID to discuss the medical evidence?

>> The angle of the bullet path is nowhere near coming from that high in
>> the street. The angle has to be greater, yet the figure looks stupid
>> already, and even the altered Z-film says the head wasn't that far forward
>> when struck by the kill shot!
>
> What is the angle you dispute? Do you even know from the WCR or HSCA? Did
> you try to measure the photo?
>
>> Talk about 90 degree angles, if the bullet struck the rear of the head, then > popped out the side, that's a 90 degree angle. Of course, there's no one
>> (except 2 prosectors) that will state that they saw ONLY a small bullet hole > in the BOH...:)
>
> Three prosectors, and their work was reviewed by three differemnt panels
> of medical experts. Who else could see this small hole covered by hair?

WHO ALL said the autopsy doctors were incompetent.
What small hole? Show me. Humes had no trouble seeing the dab of fat on
top of the hair and mistaking it for an entrance wound.

> That is why we have autopsies in the first place, so professionals can
> closely examine the body for clues.
>

But first you need professionals, not quacks.

>> It's just foolishness. We need to clear our mind of all the
>> prepackaged scenarios that have been shoved at us for 50 years and take
>> our cue from real evidence and sense.
>
> Did you take Geometry in high school? If so, did you make a passing grade?
>

No, in grade school. A.

[mainframetech]

And off we go...:)

First:

"What do you mean by NO opposition?"

ANS.
I mean that the facts are such that there can be no sane opposition.
If there were, you would have stopped me in my tracks to answer that
opposition.

Next:

"We haven't ignored the autopsy report, the Clark Commission, the HSCA, and
the Zapruder film or witnesses who got it right. By contrast you ignore
all this evidence to live in your own CT fantasy world."

ANS.
So you believe that all the testimony that was recorded in the case is
part of a fantasy world? You think that I'm not quoting sworn testimony
when I say I am? Are you so locked into your WC fantasy that you'll
listen to nothing and argue nothing, or admit that certain facts you've
been completely unable to argue against? Who's in their own fantasy
world? I'd say it was you. I've carefully answered all questions you've
been able to come up with, yet you have heard nothing, and probably
checked into nothing. If you had, you would be thinking differently now.

Next:

"There is a photo of the small hole near the cowlick. You provided a photo
where the top of the skull is blown out. Photos from the Zapruder film
corroborate the photos from the autopsy. No large hole in the back of the
head."

ANS.
As I predicted you have presented NOTHING. If you had, then you would
have provided a link to this statement from a witness. Any photo can be
fixed, and we know that at least one and maybe more of the autopsy photos
were altered to take in the suckers. I asked for a witness, but I'll look
at a photo if you provide a link. You haven't done so. Now, you've
suggested that I provide you with a link to a photo of the top of the head
blown out. That would be impossible, since it wasn't blown out by the
time the body left Parkland, based on sworn testimony. However there are
many DRAWINGS of the top of the head being gone or popping off that you
can find. No true photos that I know of. When I said 39+ people saw the
'large hole' in the back of the head of JFK, that doesn't mean that the
conspirators would leave such evidence around, because it would imply a
shot from the front, and that would imply a second shooter, and a
conspiracy. However, we have that oversized amount of sworn testimony to
the rear exit 'large hole' to make it up.

Next:

"Since the President was leaning forward the top of the head was at an
angle facing the front seat. When this exit wound erupted is sprayed the
Connallys with brain matter, blood, and skull fragments."

ANS.
What angle facing the front seat? It isn't any kind of reasonable
position if you're talking about that stupid drawing I showed. What
'exit' wound? There was no exit wound that could spray forward. Ask
Bobby Hargis and his cycle buddy where the spray of blood, brains and
fluids went. Back and to the left, just like the bullet that hit the head
of JFK from the front. If you know of some testimony or statements that
say blood and brains sprayed forward onto the Connallys, I'd like to see
it. Or if you have testimony from Connally or his wife about that.

Since the body of JFK left Parkland with NO damage to the TOP of the
head, what exit wound are you talking about? Where was it? There was no
damage to the top of the head until 6:35pm when Humes and Boswell got at
the body and created a huge hole there and pulled the brain out through
it. Show this exit wound! I predict you'll ignore the request again.

Next:

"No, the WCR drawing on the left uses the EOP entry point while the HSCA
Dox drawing uses the cowlick entry point."

ANS.
LOL! They couldn't agree on the entry point. All they had was
theories! They are just drawings! They will show whatever the boss of
the artist wanted her to show. Show the photos those 2 drawings came from
why don't you? I doubt there was much room for those 2 entry points with
the whole back of the head blown out...:) Now let's take the leftmost
drawing. Are you trying to tell me that a bullet came from the 6th floor
into the BOH of JFK and made an exact 90 degree angle to the right and
blew out the right side of the head? I mean just try to picture that...:)
Or was it the right drawing, where a bullet came in from the rear of the
head and made a 90 degree (or more) turn upward to blow out the top of the
head? LOL! You gotta be kidding me...:)

Next:

"What is the angle you dispute? Do you even know from the WCR or HSCA? Did
you try to measure the photo?"

ANS.
I just mentioned the 2 angles I would dispute above in the previous
answer. Either a 90 degree turn to the right or a 90 degree turn upward in
either case to blow out the right side of the head, or the top of the
head. Both make no sense, but there's no sense in measuring photos, they
don't show a bullet that hit the head from the front and passed through
the brain leaving a 'large hole ' in the BOH that 39+ people saw. and
where is my testimony of ONLY a small hole in the BOH of JFK? I had said
you couldn't show that to me, have you given up looking? If so, just
admit it.

Next:

"Three prosectors, and their work was reviewed by three differemnt panels
of medical experts. Who else could see this small hole covered by hair?
That is why we have autopsies in the first place, so professionals can
closely examine the body for clues."

ANS.
You keep forgetting that the prosectors were under orders. They were
not to let anyone point out a way for a bullet to go into the head from
the front. They were supposed to do damage to the body to make it look
like it was hit from above and behind to fool the suckers. Also to remove
any bullets that might have been left in the body, so that they wouldn't
prove that another rifle was involved besides Oswald's. All this was done
before the 'official' autopsy began at 8:00pm.

Remember too, that all those 5 panels that looked at altered photos and
copied and altered X-rays were looking at incorrect information. What
else could they find but what they were supposed to find, which is that
the wacky WC 'lone nut' theory was right. None of them were looking at
the body BEFORE Humes and Boswell got at it.

Next:

"Did you take Geometry in high school? If so, did you make a passing grade?"

ANS.
Yep, and I passed with high marks. I even taught that class one day as
a test from the instructor. But all that was wasted to figure out this
stuff. It just takes an open mind not locked into a religious faith that
the WC could never make a mistake...:)

All questions answered.

Chris

[Mitch Todd]

"mainframetech" wrote in message
news:a17f090f-0d97-4c7d...@googlegroups.com...

>On Sunday, May 18, 2014 9:09:10 AM UTC-4, Mitch Todd wrote:
>> "mainframetech" wrote in message
>>

The gelatin approximates the behavior of soft tissue. Last I checked, the
soft tissue on my head was surrounded by very hard stuff called bone,
which complicates the terminal equations, as it were. If you get hit in
the head hard enough to blow out pieces of skull, the blown out area can
contain the exit, or the entry or both or neither. The blowout tends to
happen roughly at right angles to the bullets path, not along it, due to
the radial forces exerted by the temporary cavity. The interaction of the
fractures radiating out from the entry/ exit and the heaving fractures
caused by hoop stress plays a role, too