The SBT And The Significance Of "CE903"
David Von Pein
REPEAT PERFORMANCE......
THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY AND THE IMPORTANCE OF WARREN COMMISSION
EXHIBIT #903:
==================================================
As can be seen in Warren Commission Exhibit #903 (linked below), the
"Single-Bullet Theory" trajectory works just fine. In fact, it works
absolutely perfectly. Which would be virtually impossible if MULTIPLE
bullets had actually done the damage to the two victims (JFK & John
Connally) that the Warren Commission said was very likely caused by
only one single bullet (CE399).
And the pointer/rod in Exhibit 903 is just where the autopsy photo of
John Kennedy's back shows the wound to be located, with the exit wound
exactly at the "tie knot" via CE903, just exactly where JFK sustained
damage from the flight of a bullet. .....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
And look at the angle -- DOWNWARD (17 DEGREES), FROM BACK TO FRONT.
Without a doubt.
Also: When CTers attempt to use the "opposite angle" photo to CE903,
which shows Arlen Specter holding the rod a little above where he is
holding it in CE903 itself....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Evidence/Mag_Bull.jpg
....the CTers who claim that something is "fishy" or "misleading" are
doing so without ever having determined exactly WHAT THAT OTHER PHOTO
IS, and for what exact purpose it was taken, etc.*
* = Oh, I know it was taken the same day as CE903....but it's unfair
to say that it depicts the WC's SBT trajectory precisely, because it
is NOT an official Warren Commission exhibit like CE903.
Let's listen to the testimony of the man who took the photo we see in
CE903 (Lyndal Shaneyfelt).....
ARLEN SPECTER -- "I now hand you a photograph which has been marked as
Commission Exhibit No. 903 and ask you if you know who the
photographer was?"
LYNDAL L. SHANEYFELT -- "Yes; I took this photograph."
MR. SPECTER -- "When was that photograph taken?"
MR. SHANEYFELT -- "It was taken Sunday afternoon, May 24, 1964."
MR. SPECTER -- "Is there a white string which is apparent in the
background of that photograph?"
MR. SHANEYFELT -- "That is correct."
MR. SPECTER -- "What is the angle of declination of that string?"
MR. SHANEYFELT -- "That string was placed along the wall by the
surveyor at an angle of 17 degrees-43'-30''." ....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
MR. SPECTER -- "Did the surveyor make that placement in your
presence?"
MR. SHANEYFELT -- "He did."
MR. SPECTER -- "Were the stand-ins for President Kennedy and Governor
Connally positioned in the same relative positions as those occupied
by President Kennedy and Governor Connally depicted in the Zapruder
films?"
MR. SHANEYFELT -- "Yes; these positions were approximately the
position of the President and Governor Connally in the Zapruder films
in the area around frame 225 as they go behind the signboard and as
they emerge from the signboard."
MR. SPECTER -- "Was the rod which is held in that photograph
positioned at an angle as closely parallel to the white string as it
could be positioned?"
MR. SHANEYFELT -- "Yes."
MR. SPECTER -- "And through what positions did that rod pass?"
MR. SHANEYFELT -- "The rod passed through a position on the back of
the stand-in for the President at a point approximating that of the
entrance wound, exited along about the knot of the tie or the button
of the coat or button of the shirt, and the end of the rod was
inserted in the entrance hole on the back of Governor Connally's coat
which was being worn by the stand-in for Governor Connally."
MR. SPECTER -- "And was Governor Connally's stand-in seated in the
position where the point of exit would have been below the right
nipple at the approximate point described by Governor Connally's
doctors?"
MR. SHANEYFELT -- "That is correct."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm
--------------------------------
Anti-SBT conspiracy theorists simply cannot fight the "SBT perfection"
that exists in CE903....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
As mentioned by Shaneyfelt in his WC testimony, the stand-in
representing Governor Connally is wearing the same jacket that JBC
wore on 11/22/63....and that pointer/rod being held by Mr. Specter,
which is coming out of JFK's tie knot, is being placed right into the
exact bullet hole in that jacket in CE903.
CE903 shows:
1.) Downward (back-to-front) angle of the bullet path (17 degrees) =
Perfect.
2.) Upper-back JFK wound = Perfect.
3.) JFK exit wound at tie knot = Perfect.
4.) Entry wound on JBC's back = Perfect (with Specter's metal rod
being jammed into the same hole on JBC's exact jacket where a bullet
just happened to penetrate Connally's suit jacket on 11/22/63, by
gosh!).
5.) Exit wound on JBC's chest (under right nipple) = Perfect via CE903
as well.
Sum Total.....
No "zig-zag" path.
No "magic" bullet.
No "SBT conspiracy".
In short: CE903 = S.B.T. PERFECTION!
~MARK VII~
--------------------------------
PAGE 107 OF THE WARREN COMMISSION REPORT:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0066a.htm
--------------------------------
MORE ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CE903:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bf3ae3c6c0993e13
--------------------------------
AND A QUOTE FROM THE MAN WHO IS "RECLAIMING HISTORY":
"Several factors make it clear that Kennedy and Connally WERE struck
by the same bullet. There's absolutely no evidence of the existence of
any separate bullet hitting Connally." -- Vincent Bugliosi
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cfb02505fe1534df
Gerry Simone (O)
you prove or show that the approach angle or angle of incidence depicted by
CE903 works with a shot originating from the SN?
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1174900669.5...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
Why bother? You wouldn't believe it anyway. Would you?
Most hardline CTers wouldn't believe the SBT even if they were able to
somehow SEE CE399 crashing through both bodies in super-duper slo-mo.
An apple must resemble a banana to the majority of CTers.
IOW -- A goodly number of conspiracists simply will not utilize common
sense IN CONJUNCTION with the admittedly-imprecise-to-the-millimeter
measurements required to irrevocably PROVE what you need LNers to
prove re. the SBT's flight path.
Since CTers ignore the "SUM TOTAL" of pro-SBT evidence, such a sum
total becomes meaningless to an anti-SBT CTer. And I can only shake my
head in utter amazement and bewilderment when I encounter such
ignorance (daily).
Andrew Mason
I shake my head daily at LNers who concede, wrongly in my view, that
without the SBT there would have to be two shooters. The SBT is not
required to prove that LHO fired all three shots. "I can only shake my
head in utter amazement and bewilderment when I encounter such
ignorance (daily)."
There is only one piece of evidence that seems at first glance to
support the SBT and that is the fact that the bullet that passed through
JFK's neck had to have hit something in the limousine. However, the
rest of the evidence (Connallys, shot pattern witnesses, first shot hit
JFK witnesses, Altgens, Greer, Newman etc) conflicts with the SBT. So,
it seems to me you have to find an explanation for the path of the first
shot through JFK that fits the rest of the evidence. The SBT in any of
its versions does not do it.
Andrew Mason
>
>
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "ASSUMING that the positions, size and shape of the stand-ins are true, can you prove or show that the approach angle or angle of incidence depicted by CE903 works with a shot originating from the SN?" <<<
>
>
> Why bother? You wouldn't believe it anyway. Would you?
>
> Most hardline CTers wouldn't believe the SBT even if they were able to
> somehow SEE CE399 crashing through both bodies in super-duper slo-mo.
>
Is that anything like the WC defenders who can't see the Black Dog Man
or the grassy knoll shooter?
Gerry Simone (H)
reasonable doubt.
You state emphatically that that exhibit proves the SBT, so extend the angle
and direction from the wound and follow it thru to the SN, allowing for the
incline of the road, etc., etc., and try something that real life forensic
investigators do all the time, thankfully with the aid of laser beacons.
Bugliosi would never use your excuse.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1175056139....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Gerry Simone (H)
"Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message
news:130k1qp...@corp.supernews.com...
Anthony Marsh
> Since this newsgroup is dominated by LN'ers, I thought I would throw in an
> opposing viewpoint.
>
> WC903 has a few problems with being "absolutely perfect..." as to a
> recreation of the SBT.
>
> 1. The car isn't the same as the one Kennedy rode in. The ride height is
> different, as well as the seat positions, so the relative body positions are
> different than would have been if they used the Lincoln. This difference
> would change the 17 degree... angle of declination.
>
> 2. The metal rod is above JFK shoulder, and as we know the wound is in his
> back (below the strap muscle) not his neck. If you jam the rod through the
> stand-in's back, again this would change the 17 degree... angle of
> declination. Not to mention a different exit point.
>
> 3. This exhibit assumes that the shot occured at Z225. At Z225 (see
> attachment) JFK's right arm postion is different than the "recreation"
> exhibit. In CE903 they have the Connally stand-in leaning forward and to
> his right, while in Z225 he appears to be more erect, almost leaning back.
>
> Not quite a "perfect" photo recreation. IMHO you didn't prove your case.
>
Very astute. Also at Z-225 JFK's hands are up in front of his throat
blocking a bullet from hitting Connally.
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1174900669.5...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Andrew Mason
> Is it beyond possible for the neck shot to have come from the front?
Not on the evidence in this case. The JFK back wound was an entrance
wound and had to exit somewhere. Besides, the trajectory does not work
unless the gun was in the car.
Andrew Mason
WhiskyJoe
> ASSUMING that the positions,
> size and shape of the stand-ins
> are true, can you prove or show
> that the approach angle or angle
> of incidence depicted by CE903
> works with a shot originating
> from the SN?
The vertical angle looks about right to me. The vertical angle of the
pointer should be 17 degrees (20 degrees relative to the horizon, 17
degrees relative to the limousine, taking into account the 3 degree slope
of Elm Street). I get a measurement of 22 degrees, from the two dimension
picture. But this is reasonable. If one photographs a pointer from the
side, at 90 degrees to the pointer, a pointer at 17 degrees will appear as
being 17 degrees in the photograph. But as one positions the camera
further around, the apparent angle will increase. If the photographer was
directly in front of the pointer, the pointer will appear to make a 90
degree angle with the horizon, not 17 degrees, which is the true angle. It
is apparent that the camera was positioned well forward of the ideal
position, where a line from the camera to the closest point of the pointer
makes a 90 degree angle with the pointer itself. So I think the true angle
of the pointer was likely very close to 17 degrees. All in all, it appears
Mr. Specter had it set up pretty accurately.
What never ceases to amaze me, for those who do not believe in the SBT, is
that how oblivious they are to the amazing luck of the plotters. It would
be the height of recklessness to use shooters from all kinds of different
angles. It would be bound to give the game away.
* If someone else, like Mrs. Kennedy, was wounded, there is no way they
could make a single bullet theory from the sniper's nest. But as luck
would have, it was Connally who was wounded by the errant shot. That was
great luck. The SBT theory works best if the two people wounded are JFK
and Connally.
* It is amazing that as JFK and Connally emerge from behind the sign, they
just happen to be in the position to make the SBT work. Even if CTers are
right, the bullets surely struck within a couple of inches of where they
need to strike to make the SBT work.
* It is amazing, of the six people in the limousine, that just two people
in the limousine, JFK and Connally, react to something as they emerge from
behind the sign, and they react simultaneously, starting at frames
225-226.
* What is the first movement we see from Connally as he emerges from
behind the sign? The right side of his jacket appears to move, the same
part of the jacket that supposedly would be shot a second or two later.
What is the second movement we see from Connally? His right arm flies up
in front of his face, the same arm that supposedly would be shot a second
or two later.
* The pattern of the wounds, from back to front, always go from high to
low, JFK's neck, Connally's chest, Connally's wrist, Connally's thigh. It
could just have easily have been wounds to JFK's chest and Connally's
neck.
* It seems surprising that the bullet that wounded JFK did not go on to
wound Connally. It also seems surprising that Connally was not shielded
from a bullet by JFK.
All in all, if the SBT is false, than the plotters had amazing luck.
Either that, or the Zapruder film was totally faked to make it look like
JFK and Connally were in the right positions, and reacted at the same
time, and caused the fake coat bulge. And yet, I have never heard any CTer
acknowledge this unbelievable streak of lucky breaks that the plotters
got. It seems God himself must be Protestant and sent a puff of wind at
the perfect time to move Connally's jacket. How can anyone hope to defeat
a conspiracy that is this wide spread.
WhiskyJoe
> Is it beyond possible for the
> neck shot to have come from
> the front?
Pretty much. The windshield is in the way. There are no tall buildings in
front of the limousine, that would allow a sniper to shoot over the
windshield. It is most unlikely a sniper would be foolish enough to
attempt a shot through the windshield. JFK is a good 6 feet behind the
windshield. Even a minor deflection will likely miss JFK, alert him that
he is being fired upon and may cause him to duck out of sight.
There is a crack in the windshield. One or two witnesses said it was a
bullet hole, but pictures proof that is wrong. But let's say it was a
bullet hole. That still doesn't help, because the Altgens picture at frame
255 shows no bullet hole or crack in the windshield at that time.
Anthony Marsh
And that's exactly what happened, except that they could count on people
like you to ignore the obvious.
> * If someone else, like Mrs. Kennedy, was wounded, there is no way they
> could make a single bullet theory from the sniper's nest. But as luck
> would have, it was Connally who was wounded by the errant shot. That was
> great luck. The SBT theory works best if the two people wounded are JFK
> and Connally.
>
You can't tell bullets what to do. She could have been wounded.
> * It is amazing that as JFK and Connally emerge from behind the sign, they
> just happen to be in the position to make the SBT work. Even if CTers are
> right, the bullets surely struck within a couple of inches of where they
> need to strike to make the SBT work.
>
It is amazing that you can't see that JFK and Connally are never in any
position which could possibly make the SBT work.
> * It is amazing, of the six people in the limousine, that just two people
> in the limousine, JFK and Connally, react to something as they emerge from
> behind the sign, and they react simultaneously, starting at frames
> 225-226.
>
It is amazing that you think the bullet could emerge from Kennedy's
throat and go through his hand raised up in front of his throat and then
hit Connally leaving no damage to his hand.
> * What is the first movement we see from Connally as he emerges from
> behind the sign? The right side of his jacket appears to move, the same
> part of the jacket that supposedly would be shot a second or two later.
> What is the second movement we see from Connally? His right arm flies up
> in front of his face, the same arm that supposedly would be shot a second
> or two later.
>
> * The pattern of the wounds, from back to front, always go from high to
> low, JFK's neck, Connally's chest, Connally's wrist, Connally's thigh. It
> could just have easily have been wounds to JFK's chest and Connally's
> neck.
>
No. There was no wound in JFK's neck. It struck his back below the
throat exit.
> * It seems surprising that the bullet that wounded JFK did not go on to
> wound Connally. It also seems surprising that Connally was not shielded
> from a bullet by JFK.
>
>
>
> All in all, if the SBT is false, than the plotters had amazing luck.
The plotters could count on people like you.
> Either that, or the Zapruder film was totally faked to make it look like
> JFK and Connally were in the right positions, and reacted at the same
> time, and caused the fake coat bulge. And yet, I have never heard any CTer
> acknowledge this unbelievable streak of lucky breaks that the plotters
> got. It seems God himself must be Protestant and sent a puff of wind at
> the perfect time to move Connally's jacket. How can anyone hope to defeat
> a conspiracy that is this wide spread.
Connally's jacket does not move.
Anthony Marsh
> Gerry Simone (H) wrote:
>
>> Is it beyond possible for the neck shot to have come from the front?
>
> Not on the evidence in this case. The JFK back wound was an entrance
> wound and had to exit somewhere. Besides, the trajectory does not work
> unless the gun was in the car.
>
Of course the throat shot was not from the front, but you incorrectly
assume the wound points and a straight line trajectory.
Anthony Marsh
>> Is it beyond possible for the
>> neck shot to have come from
>> the front?
>
> Pretty much. The windshield is in the way. There are no tall buildings in
> front of the limousine, that would allow a sniper to shoot over the
> windshield. It is most unlikely a sniper would be foolish enough to
> attempt a shot through the windshield. JFK is a good 6 feet behind the
> windshield. Even a minor deflection will likely miss JFK, alert him that
> he is being fired upon and may cause him to duck out of sight.
>
Correct in general, except for a few rare cases. There could be some shot
angles from the side not needing to go over the windshield, but no
practical angles from practical positions early enough. Various people
have shot through windshields to kill their victims. JFK could not duck
out of sight. He was restrained by the close quarters and the back brace.
Andrew Mason
* If someone else, like Mrs. Kennedy, was wounded, there is no way they could make a single bullet theory from the sniper's nest. But as luck would have, it was Connally who was wounded by the errant shot. That was great luck. The SBT theory works best if the two people wounded are JFK and Connally.
* It is amazing that as JFK and Connally emerge from behind the sign, they just happen to be in the position to make the SBT work. Even if CTers are right, the bullets surely struck within a couple of inches of where they need to strike to make the SBT work.
* It is amazing, of the six people in the limousine, that just two people in the limousine, JFK and Connally, react to something as they emerge from behind the sign, and they react simultaneously, starting at frames 225-226.
* What is the first movement we see from Connally as he emerges from behind the sign? The right side of his jacket appears to move, the same part of the jacket that supposedly would be shot a second or two later. What is the second movement we see from Connally? His right arm flies up in front of his face, the same arm that supposedly would be shot a second or two later.
* The pattern of the wounds, from back to front, always go from high to low, JFK's neck, Connally's chest, Connally's wrist, Connally's thigh. It could just have easily have been wounds to JFK's chest and Connally's neck. * It seems surprising that the bullet that wounded JFK did not go on to wound Connally. It also seems surprising that Connally was not shielded from a bullet by JFK.
All in all, if the SBT is false, than the plotters had amazing luck. Either that, or the Zapruder film was totally faked to make it look like JFK and Connally were in the right positions, and reacted at the same time, and caused the fake coat bulge. And yet, I have never heard any CTer acknowledge this unbelievable streak of lucky breaks that the plotters got. It seems God himself must be Protestant and sent a puff of wind at the perfect time to move Connally's jacket. How can anyone hope to defeat a conspiracy that is this wide spread.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
You and Fuhrman.
>> * If someone else, like Mrs. Kennedy, was wounded, there is no way they
>> could make a single bullet theory from the sniper's nest. But as luck
>> would have, it was Connally who was wounded by the errant shot. That was
>> great luck. The SBT theory works best if the two people wounded are JFK
>> and Connally.
>>
> The reasoning here does not support the SBT any more than a three
> shot-three hit scenario (which the Connallys said they observed).
>> * It is amazing that as JFK and Connally emerge from behind the sign, they
>> just happen to be in the position to make the SBT work. Even if CTers are
>> right, the bullets surely struck within a couple of inches of where they
>> need to strike to make the SBT work.
>>
> Well, within about 11 - 13 inches.
>
Close enough for a WC defender.
Which would be a kinda SBT.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh wrote:
?? The SBT requires one shot to have missed. I am proposing a double
bullet theory, in that two bullets produced all of JFK and JBC's non fatal
wounds. I kind of like the acronym DouBT, which describes what it casts
on the SBT (and also what it removes from the LN conclusion).
Andrew Mason
pjsp...@aol.com
publish photos depicting the back wound mark on the stand-in, and that
Specter pulled false testimony out of Kelley stating that the back wound
mark was established by the Rydberg drawings, something both men knew to
be untrue? Granted, just because they DECEIVED the commission and the
nation about the back wound's location, it doesn't PROVE the SBT, or some
variation, didn't occur. But wouldn't you agree that, since Specter was
so blatantly dishonest on this point, it should make intelligent people
wonder if the whole SBT was not birthed in dishonesty?
Those unsure of which I write, should watch part 2 of my video series, now
playing on Veoh, Metacafe, or on the website of the director, here
<http://www.noisivision.com/jfk.htm>
On Mar 26, 12:54 pm, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> A (PARTIAL) REPLAY FROM EARLIER SEPARATE POSTS....BUT WORTHY OF A
> REPEAT PERFORMANCE......
>
> THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY AND THE IMPORTANCE OF WARREN COMMISSION
> EXHIBIT #903:
>
> ==================================================
>
> As can be seen in Warren Commission Exhibit #903 (linked below), the
> "Single-Bullet Theory" trajectory works just fine. In fact, it works
> absolutely perfectly. Which would be virtually impossible if MULTIPLE
> bullets had actually done the damage to the two victims (JFK & John
> Connally) that the Warren Commission said was very likely caused by
> only one single bullet (CE399).
>
> And the pointer/rod in Exhibit 903 is just where the autopsy photo of
> John Kennedy's back shows the wound to be located, with the exit wound
> exactly at the "tie knot" via CE903, just exactly where JFK sustained
> damage from the flight of a bullet. .....
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...
> http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-History-Assassination-President-Kenn...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cfb02505fe1534df
Andrew Mason
> David, is it a coincidence that the WC failed to accept into evidence or
> publish photos depicting the back wound mark on the stand-in, and that
> Specter pulled false testimony out of Kelley stating that the back wound
> mark was established by the Rydberg drawings, something both men knew to
> be untrue? Granted, just because they DECEIVED the commission and the
> nation about the back wound's location, it doesn't PROVE the SBT, or some
> variation, didn't occur. But wouldn't you agree that, since Specter was
> so blatantly dishonest on this point, it should make intelligent people
> wonder if the whole SBT was not birthed in dishonesty?
There is no reason to impute dishonesty. This "make the evidence fit the
theory" approach is typical of all investigations. When one has a
genuine belief that the theory is correct, the human tendency is to stop
looking at alternative explanations and to make the evidence fit.
Specter based the SBT on the belief that the bullet passing through JFK
had to have struck JBC. Everyone assumed that this meant that it struck
him in the back. This was not an unreasonable belief if one assumes that
all of JBC's wounds are caused by one bullet. That assumption was never
seriously questioned and it should have been. But it was not dishonest.
AM
Anthony Marsh
> David, is it a coincidence that the WC failed to accept into evidence or
> publish photos depicting the back wound mark on the stand-in, and that
No coincidence at all. But that does not mean that they are fakes. It
means that they would put the lie to the WC's fiction.
Anthony Marsh
Not necessarily. Depending on what you mean by a miss.
But I'll endorse your DouBT. Is that copyrighted or a Service Mark?
> Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
> pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
>> David, is it a coincidence that the WC failed to accept into evidence
>> or publish photos depicting the back wound mark on the stand-in, and
>> that Specter pulled false testimony out of Kelley stating that the
>> back wound mark was established by the Rydberg drawings, something
>> both men knew to be untrue? Granted, just because they DECEIVED the
>> commission and the nation about the back wound's location, it doesn't
>> PROVE the SBT, or some variation, didn't occur. But wouldn't you
>> agree that, since Specter was so blatantly dishonest on this point, it
>> should make intelligent people wonder if the whole SBT was not birthed
>> in dishonesty?
>
> There is no reason to impute dishonesty. This "make the evidence fit the
> theory" approach is typical of all investigations. When one has a
> genuine belief that the theory is correct, the human tendency is to stop
> looking at alternative explanations and to make the evidence fit.
>
> Specter based the SBT on the belief that the bullet passing through JFK
> had to have struck JBC. Everyone assumed that this meant that it struck
> him in the back. This was not an unreasonable belief if one assumes that
> all of JBC's wounds are caused by one bullet. That assumption was never
> seriously questioned and it should have been. But it was not dishonest.
>
Of course their reasoning is flawed, but a bullet exiting Kennedy's throat
could not have hit Connally's wrist. Connally's body was in the way.
WhiskyJoe
> David, is it a coincidence that
> the WC failed to accept into
> evidence or publish photos
> depicting the back wound mark
> on the stand-in, and that
> Specter pulled false testimony
> out of Kelley stating that the
> back wound mark was established
> by the Rydberg drawings,
> something both men knew to
> be untrue?
If I may step in here, to make a point ...
So here is a picture of Specter deceiving the nation by misrepresenting
the location of JFK's back wound.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...
And here is the location of where the back wound really is:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
I may be missing something here, but don't both these pictures indicate
the same location? Specter seems to be pointing at a location well below
the neck crease, but higher than the right shoulder. And that's just where
the autopsy photograph shows the bullet hole. How is Specter deceiving us
when his pointer seems to be at the same level as the bullet hole in the
autopsy picture?
Andrew Mason
Right. JBC was hit in one other place besides the back and the wrist. Do
you remember what that place was?
Andrew Mason
WhiskyJoe
(Correction to a link)
> David, is it a coincidence that
> the WC failed to accept into
> evidence or publish photos
> depicting the back wound mark
> on the stand-in, and that
> Specter pulled false testimony
> out of Kelley stating that the
> back wound mark was established
> by the Rydberg drawings,
> something both men knew to
> be untrue?
If I may step in here, to make a point ...
So here is a picture of Specter deceiving the nation by
misrepresenting
the location of JFK's back wound.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
Anthony Marsh
> (Correction to a link)
>
>> David, is it a coincidence that
>> the WC failed to accept into
>> evidence or publish photos
>> depicting the back wound mark
>> on the stand-in, and that
>> Specter pulled false testimony
>> out of Kelley stating that the
>> back wound mark was established
>> by the Rydberg drawings,
>> something both men knew to
>> be untrue?
>
> If I may step in here, to make a point ...
>
> So here is a picture of Specter deceiving the nation by
> misrepresenting
> the location of JFK's back wound.
>
Please don't put me in the difficult position of defending a lying scum
like Specter. But in fact Specter was not attempting to duplicate the
wounds. He did not have permission to put the rod through the agent's body
and his theory has the bullet go through JFK's body. So the closest he
could get was to place the rod on the agent's shoulder. NB to WC
defenders: Notice that CE 903 proves that a bullet COULD go over President
Kennedy's right shoulder and hit Connally where the WC said he was hit.
QED.
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
>
> And here is the location of where the back wound really is:
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
>
Where? Which is the entrance wound according to you and is that ABOVE or
BELOW the top of the shoulders? Most WC defenders are quick to point out
that this photo is not the original so no claims can be based on a fifth
generation copy. And then WC defenders like Chad Zimmerman actually view
the original in the National Archives and report back that the wound is
actually ABOVE the top of the shoulders in the neck.
> I may be missing something here, but don't both these pictures
> indicate
> the same location? Specter seems to be pointing at a location well
> below
> the neck crease, but higher than the right shoulder. And that's just
> where
No. Specter could not place the rod in the correct location because he
was denied permission to put the rod through the agent's body.
> the autopsy photograph shows the bullet hole. How is Specter deceiving
> us
> when his pointer seems to be at the same level as the bullet hole in
> the
> autopsy picture?
>
His picture is well orchestrated to deceive.
The entrance hole on JFK's back was lower than where Specter is holding
the rod.
>
Anthony Marsh
The thigh. But that could not be a direct hit.
> Andrew Mason
David Von Pein
crease, but higher than the right shoulder. And that's just where the
autopsy photograph shows the bullet hole. How is Specter deceiving us when
his pointer seems to be at the same level as the bullet hole in the
autopsy picture?" <<<
You're 100% correct, Joe. Arlen Specter isn't deceiving anybody. Which has
been a big part of my whole point when harping on CE903 recently...which
is a Commission exhibit that (IMO) is a KEY exhibit in pointing up the
viability of Specter's SBT.
And I shall thank Jean Davison (again) for stressing the importance of
CE903 in previous posts of hers too. It was Jean's posts on another forum,
in fact, that sparked my further interest in the largely- overlooked CE903
exhibit.
Exhibit 903 positively shows the SBT to be a reasonable version of the
multi-victim shooting from strictly the basis of what 903 is designed to
show, i.e., that the angle and wound locations line up to perfection to
support the idea that one bullet COULD (and probably DID, given other
evidence) traverse the path of Specter's pointer in 903 (hence, a single
bullet could have very well taken this path on 11/22/63 in Dealey
Plaza).....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
And remember that the Connally stand-in is wearing the EXACT jacket that
JBC was wearing when he was shot....and Specter's pointer/rod is being
inserted into the bullet hole on JBC's jacket....and it's doing so while
the pointer is ALSO lined up through JFK's back wound and "tie knot" exit
wound in the throat of the Kennedy stand-in.
What are the ODDS that this type of perfect "SBT alignment" could be even
REMOTELY achieved via Mr. Specter's pointer if two or three different
bullets had actually caused the wounds that line up beautifully (1, 2, 3)
on the TWO different victims?
I will never, EVER understand the anti-SBTers and their adamant stance
that the Single-Bullet Theory is "impossible" or a "wet dream" or, as
Oliver Stone wants America to believe via his 1991 motion picture, "one of
the grossest lies ever forced on the American people"!
Tell the truth, CTers....is this (below) really a "gross lie"? Or is it
the way things most likely occurred on Elm Street on Nov. 22, 1963 (given
the known wounds suffered by JFK & JBC)?.....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
Giving credit where credit is, IMO, very much due (to J. Davision): The
material in my essay below deserves to be repeated at least once a month.
It's so simple. And yet so many people fail to see the logic of it.
Thankfully, Jean Davison DID see it. And so do I.....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bf3ae3c6c0993e13
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh wrote:
Direct, as in direct from throat to thigh. Dr. Shires was quite adamant
that it could because it hit on a tangent. No one has refuted this
contention. Unfortunately, this trajectory was never investigated by the
WC or the HSCA. It fits the trajectory and the thigh wound
characteristics. And it is a much better explanation for the condition of
CE399 than the SBT.
Until it has been properly investigated, I don't really care what the arm
chair ballistics experts might say about it. It fits the evidence, whereas
the SBT does not. It explains why JBC said he was hit in the back by the
second shot and Nellie saw JFK reacting to the first shot. Unfortunately
for you, Anthony, it also fits the LN conclusion and does not require a
complicated multiple shooter scenario.
Andrew Mason
James K. Olmstead
CE 903 can also show a seperate over JFK's shoulder strike to JC's back,
since the angle would be about the same depending on the position of the
limo at the time of the shot.
Spector has the rod at least 6" away from the stand in's neck exit and
it's angled left to right. The end of the rod hidden behind the JC's back
does not end at the JC entry point, although the line of the rod, may
aligen with the edge of the shoulder back area, (illusion) the rod does
not point to the actual wound entry....if it touches any part of the stand
in's body it touches the LEFT side of the body not the right.
IF JFK and JC were aligned as indicated in CE903, the round fired still
has to tumble and travel to the right about 8-9", if not more.
The round travels right to left through JFK (that can't be argued) and
to strike JC at his marked entry point location, it needs to travel a
short distance left to right after exiting. That little bit of travel is
what most called the "Magic Bullet" at first and one of the cornerstone
objections to the SBT as presented.
If Spector would have placed the rod along the left side of JFK's stand
in's neck and tie, and pointed to the JC back entry point. you could see
the left to right trajectory needed.....however it would also show the
primary fault with a SBT trajectory.
If one thinks CE 903 is a perfect example in support of the SBT they are
wrong. All it takes is a coat hanger or rod cut to length and two seated
individuals to show the faults of CE 903. The string angle maybe
perfect.........but there is serious considerations to the rod placement
and the illusion of striking the JC back entry point. Camera angles can
be deceptive.
jko
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1175478975.6...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
And by this (CT) logic we'd then have to stretch coincidence to absurd
degrees (yet again in this case, per CTer beliefs) and then believe
that a separate bullet whizzed just barely over Kennedy's shoulder and
just happened to strike Connally in the EXACT position where a bullet
coming out of JFK's neck would ALSO have very likely struck the
Governor.
Plus, of course, we'd also have to ask: What happened the the 1 or 2
JFK missiles? If one bullet went clear through him, why didn't it hit
JBC or the limo? And if you want to swallow to "2 JFK hits" nonsense,
you're in even deeper do-do, when you try to explain away TWO
disappearing whole bullets that never exited his body AND explain away
those clean-as-a-whistle X-rays that show no bony substances hit
inside JFK that could have caused either of those bullets to stop on a
dime.
In short, CTers are willing to grasp at the extraordinary 2- or 3-
bullet alternative (with ALL bullets disappearing in a "399 Was
Planted" mindset, which 99% of CTers possess) instead of simply
accepting the BY FAR most-reasonable conclusion, which is.....
S.
B.
T.
Peter Fokes
<mdltd...@cox.west.net> wrote:
>Since this newsgroup is dominated by LN'ers, I thought I would throw in an
>opposing viewpoint.
>
>WC903 has a few problems with being "absolutely perfect..." as to a
>recreation of the SBT.
>
>1. The car isn't the same as the one Kennedy rode in. The ride height is
>different, as well as the seat positions, so the relative body positions are
>different than would have been if they used the Lincoln. This difference
>would change the 17 degree... angle of declination.
>
>2. The metal rod is above JFK shoulder, and as we know the wound is in his
>back (below the strap muscle) not his neck. If you jam the rod through the
>stand-in's back, again this would change the 17 degree... angle of
>declination. Not to mention a different exit point.
>
>3. This exhibit assumes that the shot occured at Z225. At Z225 (see
>attachment) JFK's right arm postion is different than the "recreation"
>exhibit. In CE903 they have the Connally stand-in leaning forward and to
>his right, while in Z225 he appears to be more erect, almost leaning back.
>
>Not quite a "perfect" photo recreation. IMHO you didn't prove your case.
>
>Michael
That is too obvious a conclusion for David VP to understand.
I'm afraid you will now be viewed, not as an intelligent and sentient
being, but as a part of the MYTHICAL CT BEAST that inhabits a portion
of David VP's brain.
He is trying to exorcise it on the newsgroup by typing "CTers"
innumerable times but I'm not sure it's working for him ...
PF
Peter Fokes
<newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>ASSUMING that the positions, size and shape of the stand-ins are true,
Enough said.
He must "assume" tis true, for to admit the reality of an
"approximation" or "relative position" means perfection is lost
forever and ever and the MYTHICAL CT BEAST can wiggle its way free
.....
THE HORROR~!
PF
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>>>> "ASSUMING that the positions, size and shape of the stand-ins are true, can you prove or show that the approach angle or angle of incidence depicted by CE903 works with a shot originating from the SN?" <<<
>
>
>Why bother? You wouldn't believe it anyway. Would you?
LOL!
You see.... You pose a question and YOU become the issue.
>Most hardline CTers
LOL!
Hardline? Pray tell, what is such a BEAST anyway?
Do they have horns on their heads?
> wouldn't believe the SBT even if they were able to
>somehow SEE CE399 crashing through both bodies in super-duper slo-mo.
LOL!
Again, his argument is not about the JFK assassination but a
characterization of anyone who might DARE disagree with him.
>An apple must resemble a banana to the majority of CTers.
I will forthwith upload a page with two pictures:
A banana and an apple.
Then I will ask CTs-only to look at said pictures and offer their
hardline CT opinions on which of the two pictures is a BANANA and
which is an APPLE.
LNers need not concern themselves with such an experiment since they
already KNOW no one but an LN knows the difference between a banana an
an apple!
>IOW -- A goodly number of conspiracists
Goodly number?
3
9
309
65
2,389
????
> simply will not utilize common
>sense
David VP's reply continues, and yet -- as you can see as clearly as a
BANANA and an APPLE (dare I assume you can see so clearly?) - his
argument has yet to swerve from a monologue on the nature of a CT.
His is a mythical biographic approach to a generic creature (i.e.
beast) known as THE CTer!
> IN CONJUNCTION with the admittedly-imprecise-to-the-millimeter
>measurements required to irrevocably PROVE what you need LNers to
>prove re. the SBT's flight path.
>
>Since CTers ignore the "SUM TOTAL" of pro-SBT evidence,
Yet again, we can find no substantive argument here, only a
characterization of that MYTHICAL BEAST inhabiting David VP's cortex.
It is obvious such a beast is a mere "approximation" of anything
really REAL ... but "assuming" such an "approximation" is REAL neatly
avoids the problem of dealing with actualities.
>such a sum
>total becomes meaningless to an anti-SBT CTer.
IS the BEAST now fragmenting? Dare I say David VP has not just one
single mythic BEAST in mind but variants that flare at times up such
as this "anti-SBT CTer?"
> And I can only shake my
>head in utter amazement and bewilderment when I encounter such
>ignorance (daily).
Twould be healthier for all of us if just shaking your head could
clear said head of the BEAST that lurks within!
But alas, tis not possibile.
The MYTHIC IGNORANT BEAST WITH NO COMMON SENSE will only EXIT when its
creator stops thinking about it ....
And I see no sign of that occurring EVEN when SIR Vincent Galahad
Bugliosi rides into the FRAY with jousting pole pointed directly at
the BEAST!
I do advise you to DUCK though, David VP!
PF
Andrew Mason
>>>>"Notice that CE 903 proves that a bullet COULD go over President Kennedy's right shoulder and hit Connally where the WC said he was hit." <<<
>
>
> And by this (CT) logic we'd then have to stretch coincidence to absurd
> degrees (yet again in this case, per CTer beliefs) and then believe
> that a separate bullet whizzed just barely over Kennedy's shoulder and
> just happened to strike Connally in the EXACT position where a bullet
> coming out of JFK's neck would ALSO have very likely struck the
> Governor.
What is the matter with that? It is exactly what Nellie and John
Connally (as well as SA Kinney and SA Hickey) said happened. So it is
not just CT logic. It is what the evidence says happened.
>
> Plus, of course, we'd also have to ask: What happened the the 1 or 2
> JFK missiles? If one bullet went clear through him, why didn't it hit
> JBC or the limo?
It did. Just not in the back. Do you ever read my posts?
> And if you want to swallow to "2 JFK hits" nonsense,
> you're in even deeper do-do, when you try to explain away TWO
> disappearing whole bullets that never exited his body AND explain away
> those clean-as-a-whistle X-rays that show no bony substances hit
> inside JFK that could have caused either of those bullets to stop on a
> dime.
>
> In short, CTers are willing to grasp at the extraordinary 2- or 3-
> bullet alternative (with ALL bullets disappearing in a "399 Was
> Planted" mindset, which 99% of CTers possess) instead of simply
> accepting the BY FAR most-reasonable conclusion, which is.....
There is a simple explanation for CE399 that explains its near pristine
condition and is consistent with all the evidence. The SBT is
inconsistent with too much evidence, and the trajectory has huge
problems as CE903 shows. It doesn't work.
Andrew Mason
>
> S.
> B.
> T.
>
>
Anthony Marsh
I refute it. It is physically impossible. The bullet would blow through
the thigh. The loss going through Kennedy's neck is only about 150 fps.
Look at some of the shooting tests to simulate the wrist wound. Full
velocity shatters the wrist and goes through. Reduced velocity breaks
the wrist and goes through. You can simulate the loss of velocity by
firing through water or gelatin. It still does horrendous damage.
Now, diagram this and show me that Connally's thigh could be hit by a
direct shot and that his torso or head are not in the way.
> Until it has been properly investigated, I don't really care what the
> arm chair ballistics experts might say about it. It fits the evidence,
> whereas the SBT does not. It explains why JBC said he was hit in the
> back by the second shot and Nellie saw JFK reacting to the first shot.
> Unfortunately for you, Anthony, it also fits the LN conclusion and does
> not require a complicated multiple shooter scenario.
>
You have a cute idea, but you have not tested it or proved it.
> Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Specter seems to be pointing at a location well below the neck
> crease, but higher than the right shoulder. And that's just where the
> autopsy photograph shows the bullet hole. How is Specter deceiving us when
> his pointer seems to be at the same level as the bullet hole in the
> autopsy picture?" <<<
>
>
> You're 100% correct, Joe. Arlen Specter isn't deceiving anybody. Which has
> been a big part of my whole point when harping on CE903 recently...which
> is a Commission exhibit that (IMO) is a KEY exhibit in pointing up the
> viability of Specter's SBT.
>
> And I shall thank Jean Davison (again) for stressing the importance of
> CE903 in previous posts of hers too. It was Jean's posts on another forum,
> in fact, that sparked my further interest in the largely- overlooked CE903
> exhibit.
>
> Exhibit 903 positively shows the SBT to be a reasonable version of the
> multi-victim shooting from strictly the basis of what 903 is designed to
> show, i.e., that the angle and wound locations line up to perfection to
> support the idea that one bullet COULD (and probably DID, given other
> evidence) traverse the path of Specter's pointer in 903 (hence, a single
> bullet could have very well taken this path on 11/22/63 in Dealey
> Plaza).....
>
Thanks to CE 903 we know that the SBT is fiction and that there was
enough room for a bullet to go over Kennedy's should and hit Connally's
back.
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
>
> And remember that the Connally stand-in is wearing the EXACT jacket that
> JBC was wearing when he was shot....and Specter's pointer/rod is being
> inserted into the bullet hole on JBC's jacket....and it's doing so while
> the pointer is ALSO lined up through JFK's back wound and "tie knot" exit
> wound in the throat of the Kennedy stand-in.
>
Wrong. The pointer does NOT line up with JFK's back wound. That was one
of their lies.
> What are the ODDS that this type of perfect "SBT alignment" could be even
> REMOTELY achieved via Mr. Specter's pointer if two or three different
> bullets had actually caused the wounds that line up beautifully (1, 2, 3)
> on the TWO different victims?
>
What are the odds that WC defenders can invent a new SBT each month and
each time, each frame the two men line up perfectly every time?
> I will never, EVER understand the anti-SBTers and their adamant stance
> that the Single-Bullet Theory is "impossible" or a "wet dream" or, as
> Oliver Stone wants America to believe via his 1991 motion picture, "one of
> the grossest lies ever forced on the American people"!
>
> Tell the truth, CTers....is this (below) really a "gross lie"? Or is it
> the way things most likely occurred on Elm Street on Nov. 22, 1963 (given
> the known wounds suffered by JFK & JBC)?.....
>
More nonsense. You seem to forget that the HSCA had its own SBT, at
Z-190 when the two men again lined up perfectly, and also found conspiracy.
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
>
> Giving credit where credit is, IMO, very much due (to J. Davision): The
> material in my essay below deserves to be repeated at least once a month.
> It's so simple. And yet so many people fail to see the logic of it.
> Thankfully, Jean Davison DID see it. And so do I.....
>
Yes, Jean is an expert in the old insert foot in mouth.
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bf3ae3c6c0993e13
>
>
Andrew Mason
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/shot_pattern_excerpt.PDF
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/shot_pattern_excerpt.PDF
It is not just the trajectory. You don't even have to consider the problems with the trajectory. The witness evidence as to the shot pattern is sufficient. You can ignore the witness evidence if you like, but that doesn't make the evidence go away. It is the fact that so many agreed independently on the same shot pattern was 1.............2....3. That removes any possibility of a second shot SBT. That and, of course, all the witnesses who said that JFK reacted immediately to the first shot.
The collossal mistake LNers make is in conceding that the SBT is needed for the LN conclusion. It isn't.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
CE 903 does not indicate that a bullet exiting Kennedy's throat could
hit Connally's thigh. Connally's body would be in the way.
Anthony Marsh
In short, you misrepresent what CTers believe.
> S.
> B.
> T.
>
>
Andrew Mason
It amazes me that CE903 could be considered as evidence, let alone proof,
of anything. All the stick shows is that you can draw a straight line from
JFK's neck to JBC's right armpit. We don't know the vertical or horizontal
angle of the stick relative to the car. It has to be identical to that of
a line from the SN to have any probative value at all. And they used the
wrong car! Did no one realize that JBC's position sitting on a floor jump
seat is completely different than this standing sitting on a bench seat?
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
So show us your evidence.
> It is physically impossible.
Dr. Shires examined the wound and did not share your view. He said it
could have been a full speed bullet striking on a tangent.
> The bullet would blow through
> the thigh.
Perhaps, if it hit it at 90 degrees. But not if it hit on a sharp angle.
> The loss going through Kennedy's neck is only about 150 fps.
Cite? According to the Edgewood ballistics tests, the muzzle velocity
was 2165 feet. After travelling 180 feet, the speed was down to 1904 fps
and after passing through a simulated neck, it was down to 1772 fps. WCR
92. That works out to a 33% loss of bullet energy. As you know, it is
the energy that determines penetrating power. It also loses a great
deal of penetrating power if it is tumbling, which it appears to have
done since it appears to have struck butt-first.
> Look at some of the shooting tests to simulate the wrist wound. Full
> velocity shatters the wrist and goes through. Reduced velocity breaks
> the wrist and goes through.
The thigh is not the wrist. The femur is not a radius. Many people have
been shot in the leg in battle by similar jacketed bullets and have not
had their legs blown apart. Dr. Shires had treated many. And those were
direct hits, not passing through someone's neck. Dr. Shires said that if
the bullet hits tangentially, and this wound was quite tangential - much
longer than it was wide, a pristine bullet could make such a wound.
> You can simulate the loss of velocity by
> firing through water or gelatin. It still does horrendous damage.
> Now, diagram this and show me that Connally's thigh could be hit by a
> direct shot and that his torso or head are not in the way.
Sure:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/JBC_thigh_shot.JPG
>
>> Until it has been properly investigated, I don't really care what the
>> arm chair ballistics experts might say about it. It fits the evidence,
>> whereas the SBT does not. It explains why JBC said he was hit in the
>> back by the second shot and Nellie saw JFK reacting to the first shot.
>> Unfortunately for you, Anthony, it also fits the LN conclusion and
>> does not require a complicated multiple shooter scenario.
>>
>
> You have a cute idea, but you have not tested it or proved it.
I don't have to. The evidence says it happened. You have to refute the
evidence that says it happened.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
The HSCA concluded that the thigh wound was made by a bullet
travelling at a much slower speed than one would expect the bullet to
have after exiting the President's neck.
>> It is physically impossible.
>
> Dr. Shires examined the wound and did not share your view. He said it
> could have been a full speed bullet striking on a tangent.
>
As I said before, I don't care what Dr. Shires thought. He was not a
forensic pathologist nor a wound ballistics expert.
>> The bullet would blow through the thigh.
> Perhaps, if it hit it at 90 degrees. But not if it hit on a sharp angle.
>
>> The loss going through Kennedy's neck is only about 150 fps.
>
> Cite? According to the Edgewood ballistics tests, the muzzle velocity
> was 2165 feet. After travelling 180 feet, the speed was down to 1904 fps
> and after passing through a simulated neck, it was down to 1772 fps. WCR
> 92. That works out to a 33% loss of bullet energy. As you know, it is
Nonsense.
1904-1772=132, slightly less than the 150 fps I said, which is rounded
out. And again you purposely fail to note my qualifiers and create a
false controversy.
I say that the loss is minimal, only about 150 fps.
Then you claim that I am wrong and ask me for a citation and make your
own claim that it was actually a loss of 132 fps.
Just to create a controversy.
> the energy that determines penetrating power. It also loses a great
> deal of penetrating power if it is tumbling, which it appears to have
> done since it appears to have struck butt-first.
>
No and no. No evidence of tumbling and no evidence of striking butt-first.
>
>
>> Look at some of the shooting tests to simulate the wrist wound. Full
>> velocity shatters the wrist and goes through. Reduced velocity breaks
>> the wrist and goes through.
>
> The thigh is not the wrist. The femur is not a radius. Many people have
> been shot in the leg in battle by similar jacketed bullets and have not
> had their legs blown apart. Dr. Shires had treated many. And those were
> direct hits, not passing through someone's neck. Dr. Shires said that if
> the bullet hits tangentially, and this wound was quite tangential - much
> longer than it was wide, a pristine bullet could make such a wound.
>
Sure, under different conditions.
Show me how long it was versus how wide it was. Show me the wound.
>> You can simulate the loss of velocity by firing through water or
>> gelatin. It still does horrendous damage.
>> Now, diagram this and show me that Connally's thigh could be hit by a
>> direct shot and that his torso or head are not in the way.
>
> Sure:
> http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/JBC_thigh_shot.JPG
>
More nonsense. You claim that duplicates Connally's position when he was
hit at the same time as Kennedy?
And put a black dot on your thigh where he wound was and let's see if we
can see it.
Then draw a line of trajectory leaving Kennedy's throat.
This should be fun.
Here is where the doctors marked where the thigh wound was.
> http://www.dealeyplazauk.co.uk/The%20Wounding%20of%20John%20Connally_files/image017.jpg
On the INSIDE of the left thigh. I don't see that point on YOUR thigh.
>>
>>> Until it has been properly investigated, I don't really care what the
>>> arm chair ballistics experts might say about it. It fits the
>>> evidence, whereas the SBT does not. It explains why JBC said he was
>>> hit in the back by the second shot and Nellie saw JFK reacting to the
>>> first shot. Unfortunately for you, Anthony, it also fits the LN
>>> conclusion and does not require a complicated multiple shooter scenario.
>>>
>>
>> You have a cute idea, but you have not tested it or proved it.
>
> I don't have to. The evidence says it happened. You have to refute the
> evidence that says it happened.
>
Nonsense. That is no way to present a wacky theory.
> Andrew Mason
Herbert Blenner
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > Andrew Mason wrote:
>
> >> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >>> Andrew Mason wrote:
>
If the bullet touched the thigh on a tangent then it would have lost
negligible speed. So this scenario raises the significant problem of
what gradually slowed and stopped CE 399?
>
> Until it has been properly investigated, I don't really care what the arm
> chair ballistics experts might say about it. It fits the evidence, whereas
> the SBT does not. It explains why JBC said he was hit in the back by the
> second shot and Nellie saw JFK reacting to the first shot. Unfortunately
> for you, Anthony, it also fits the LN conclusion and does not require a
> complicated multiple shooter scenario.
The sole description of Connally's thigh wound as round disputes a
bullet entering tangentially or touching on a tangent.
Herbert
>
> Andrew Mason- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
David Von Pein
Where are the other bullets?
Where is the limo damage via a T&T shot thru JFK that miraculously
missed JBC?
Where is the back & neck damage inside JFK via the "2 shots went in &
never went out again" scenario?
Why is this "2-victim, in-tandem, right-arm" action happening on the Z-
Film.....
http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/225-226%20Full.gif
Why is JBC's back wound keyhole-like, indicative of a tumbling
projectile?
Why are there no substantial fragments inside Connally?
Why are there no fragments (at all) inside Kennedy's neck/back?
How did a shot from behind hit JBC where we know he was hit without
going through the person sitting right behind him first?
What are the odds of ANYONE being able to come remotely close to even
concocting a half-assed/half-baked "SBT" if such a theory is totally
impossible and unworkable?
Any chance any anti-SBTer can answer all of these questions in a
reasonable, within-the-evidence manner?
I'm not holding my breath.
Andrew Mason
David Von Pein wrote:
>If the SBT is false.......
>
>Where are the other bullets?
>
>
CE399 (1) fragments in the car and ones that went over the windshield,
one of which stuck the curb near Tague and deflected up to his cheek
(2) and fragments in the car and perhaps fragments that went over the
windshield (3).
>Where is the limo damage via a T&T shot thru JFK that miraculously
>missed JBC?
>
>
>
It didn't miss JBC. It just didn't strike him in the back. You don't
even have to see the huge trajectory problem to realize this. The
witnesses tell you this is what occurred.
David, I swear you have asked these questions at least 3 times and I
have answered each with the same answer, with no response. Is there any
particular reason you keep asking these questions since you do not
appear to be interested in the responses?
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
I think that you will find many examples where a soldier's leg has stopped an FMJ bullet without destroying the femur. You may even find examples where soldiers have been wounded in the leg and didn't know it right away.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh wrote:
I wasn't sure if you were saying that the total loss of muzzle speed
after going through the neck was 150 fps. It is more like 400 fps. The
fact is that a bullet travelling at 1772 fps has 1/3 less energy than it
had when it left the muzzle. That is all I wanted to establish.
> Then you claim that I am wrong and ask me for a citation and make your
> own claim that it was actually a loss of 132 fps.
> Just to create a controversy.
>
>> the energy that determines penetrating power. It also loses a great
>> deal of penetrating power if it is tumbling, which it appears to have
>> done since it appears to have struck butt-first.
>>
>
> No and no. No evidence of tumbling and no evidence of striking
> butt-first.
The recreations (e.g. Beyond the Magic Bullet - Discovery Channel) all
show the bullet tumbling. Dr. Gregory thought the thigh wound was made
by the butt end of an intact missile: 4 H 128
Dr. GREGORY. These items represent distorted bits of a missile, a jacket
in one case, and part of a jacket and a lead core in the other. These
are missiles having the characteristics which I mentioned earlier, which
tend to carry organic debris into wounds and tend to create irregular
wounds of entry. One of these, it seems to me, could conceivably have
produced the injury which the Governor incurred in his wrist.
Mr. Specter. In his wrist?
Dr. GREGORY. Yes.
Mr. Specter. And in his thigh?
Dr. GREGORY. I don’t know about that, sir. It is possible. But the
rather remarkably round natnre of the wound in the thigh leads me to
believe that it was produced by something like the butt end of an intact
missile.
>
>>
>>
>>> Look at some of the shooting tests to simulate the wrist wound. Full
>>> velocity shatters the wrist and goes through. Reduced velocity
>>> breaks the wrist and goes through.
>>
>>
>> The thigh is not the wrist. The femur is not a radius. Many people
>> have been shot in the leg in battle by similar jacketed bullets and
>> have not had their legs blown apart. Dr. Shires had treated many. And
>> those were direct hits, not passing through someone's neck. Dr.
>> Shires said that if the bullet hits tangentially, and this wound was
>> quite tangential - much longer than it was wide, a pristine bullet
>> could make such a wound.
>>
>
> Sure, under different conditions.
> Show me how long it was versus how wide it was. Show me the wound.
Unfortunately, it was never photographed. We have to go by Dr. Shire's
observations.
>
>>> You can simulate the loss of velocity by firing through water or
>>> gelatin. It still does horrendous damage.
>>> Now, diagram this and show me that Connally's thigh could be hit by
>>> a direct shot and that his torso or head are not in the way.
>>
>>
>> Sure:
>> http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/JBC_thigh_shot.JPG
>>
>
> More nonsense. You claim that duplicates Connally's position when he
> was hit at the same time as Kennedy?
> And put a black dot on your thigh where he wound was and let's see if
> we can see it.
> Then draw a line of trajectory leaving Kennedy's throat.
> This should be fun.
> Here is where the doctors marked where the thigh wound was.
>
>> http://www.dealeyplazauk.co.uk/The%20Wounding%20of%20John%20Connally_files/image017.jpg
>>
>
>
> On the INSIDE of the left thigh. I don't see that point on YOUR thigh.
The point is that the seat or the torso did not block the path from the
rear. JBC was turned quite sharply to the right before he disappeared
behind the sign which is when the first shot occurred, according to all
the witness evidence. So the inner thigh could easily be visible. He
also could have had his left leg out farther to the left.
>
>>>
>>>> Until it has been properly investigated, I don't really care what
>>>> the arm chair ballistics experts might say about it. It fits the
>>>> evidence, whereas the SBT does not. It explains why JBC said he was
>>>> hit in the back by the second shot and Nellie saw JFK reacting to
>>>> the first shot. Unfortunately for you, Anthony, it also fits the LN
>>>> conclusion and does not require a complicated multiple shooter
>>>> scenario.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You have a cute idea, but you have not tested it or proved it.
>>
>>
>> I don't have to. The evidence says it happened. You have to refute
>> the evidence that says it happened.
>>
>
> Nonsense. That is no way to present a wacky theory.
Let me see. You, who believes that more than three shots were fired,
some with silencers, are saying that my three shot- three hit scenario
which is what the Connallys and others said happened, is wacky?
Andrew Mason
David Von Pein
on their heads?" <<<
I'm not sure. Do you? I haven't checked for horns. Better check your
mirror, Pete.
Tails? Probably.
>>> "Again, his argument is not about the JFK assassination but a
characterization of anyone who might DARE disagree with him." <<<
No, it's about the JFK assassination evidence (all of which supports the
SBT of course). Maybe your horns and tail got in the way and you failed to
see my CS&L-like points.
>>> "LNers need not concern themselves with such an experiment since they
already KNOW no one but an LN knows the difference between a banana an an
apple!" <<<
Hmmmm...all of a sudden I have this craving for grapes.
>>> "{BLAH-BLAH-SOMETHING OR OTHER}...as you can see as clearly as a
BANANA and an APPLE...{MORE BLAH...}..." <<<
And now I want an apricot too. Damn you, PF!! I'm out of apricots.
>>> "IS the BEAST now fragmenting? Dare I say David VP has not just one
single mythic BEAST in mind but variants that flare at times up such as
this "anti-SBT CTer?"" <<<
Nurse Ratched is approaching Peter's dwelling....
~knock on door~
>>> "The MYTHIC IGNORANT BEAST WITH NO COMMON SENSE will only EXIT when
its creator stops thinking about it. And I see no sign of that occurring
EVEN when SIR Vincent Galahad Bugliosi rides into the FRAY with jousting
pole pointed directly at the BEAST! I do advise you to DUCK though, David
VP!" <<<
~Ratched breaks in Fokes' door, seizes him bodily~
~strait-jacket applied by force~
~Peter humbly succumbs~
~placed in cell next to R.P. McMurphy~
~McMurphy is also Jack "HERE'S JOHNNY" Torrance, remember~
~Peter never sleeps....just in case~
============================
VB (GALAHAD) BREAK, KIDS........
"Several factors make it clear that Kennedy and Connally WERE struck
by the same bullet. There's absolutely no evidence of the existence of
any separate bullet hitting Connally." -- VB
David Von Pein
>>> "The bottom line is that the SBT does not fit with the evidence. It
was made up to explain where the first bullet went but was based on an
incorrect reconstruction using the wrong car. No one has ever investigated
the other possibility of the neck shot going into the thigh. I think you
have to admit that the neck to thigh makes it easier to explain the
condition of CE399." <<<
DVP SAYS:
In my opinion, looking for an LN/LHO "replacement" for the wholly-
plausible and acceptable (per the evidence) SBT is akin to continuing to
search for your lost car keys in the sofa cushions AFTER you've already
found them.
In other words -- Why keep looking for something when the answer is
already on the table?
The "Single-Bullet Theory" fits perfectly with the vast majority of the
evidence in the case, with any "replacement" requiring much larger leaps
of faith and utter guesswork than does the SBT (including at least one
missing bullet).
And the "From JFK's Neck Straight To JBC's Thigh" scenario isn't possible
either, IMO. This image from Dale Myers' exacting computer simulation
(based almost entirely on the Zapruder Film itself) certainly doesn't
favor that type of trajectory.....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/SOH_1061.jpg
Plus: The "Neck Directly To Thigh" theory has another big hurdle to
overcome, and that is the likelihood that Connally's thighbone (femur)
would almost certainly have been struck and shattered by a bullet that
ONLY went through John Kennedy's neck first.
That bullet, per the WC, was travelling at approx. 1,775 fps when it
exited JFK's throat. At that speed, there's no way it's only going to
cause the superficial type of wound that John Connally did suffer on
November 22, 1963.
Plus: There's also the extensive Warren Commission testimony given by the
FBI's Robert Frazier, wherein Frazier states his opinion, in some detail,
that it's very unlikely that Governor Connally could have been shot in the
back after Z-Film frame #225.....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr3.htm
I've grown very attached to an often-overlooked Warren Commission exhibit
in recent weeks -- that exhibit being CE903.....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
That exhibit perfectly illustrates the flight path (and general
"workability") of the SBT, in my estimation....with the bullet holes in
the "victims" lining up to as close to perfection as I think could ever be
hoped for via a simulation like that -- with the wound that begins the SBT
path (JFK's back wound) being in the upper back, just like the autopsy
photo shows, and not in the "neck", like lots of conspiracists think is
required in order to make the SBT doable.
Here are some of the miraculous "SBT"-like coincidences that Andrew Mason
and Mark Fuhrman must swallow:
1.) The shape of JBC's back wound, which was a long (not rounded) wound,
indicating a tumbling bullet....which indicates the bullet probably struck
something (which had to be JFK) before hitting Connally's back.
2.) A disappearing bullet that went into (or through) a victim(s) and was
never recovered.
3.) And the incredible co-inky of having Connally hit on his back by a
separate Oswald bullet just where a missile would also have almost
certainly hit him (or damn close anyway) if the bullet coming out of JFK
had continued moving straight and downward and into the man in front of
the President. (Andrew's analysis notwithstanding.)
BTW, the stand-in for Governor Connally that is seen in CE903 is wearing
the exact same jacket that John Connally was wearing when he was
shot....with Specter's probe/rod being inserted directly into the bullet
hole in that jacket. How much more PERFECT could you possibly get?*
* = Even when accounting for a slight degree of "plus or minus" regarding
the exact seating positions of the victims; but the stand- ins' positions
look just about spot-on accurate to me in CE903.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
Now, it's true that the car used there (in CE903) is the Secret Service
car and not JFK's Lincoln Continental....but the JBC stand-in is
definitely seated lower than JFK's stand-in (which is correct), and the WC
says in the Warren Report that the differences between the two types of
automobiles were taken into account during the May 1964 re- creation in
Dealey Plaza.
What I'd really love to see myself is an OVERHEAD view of what we see in
CE903. Such an alternate view would really be helpful in determining the
lateral position of the two stand-in "victims" in the vehicle.
But, unfortunately, Lyndal Shaneyfelt (who took the photo seen in CE903)
didn't take an overhead photo (possibly due to such a photographic
position being impractical to achieve in that garage setting).
Shaneyfelt said the following during his WC testimony:
"The rod passed through a position on the back of the stand-in for the
President at a point approximating that of the entrance wound, exited
along about the knot of the tie or the button of the coat or button of the
shirt, and the end of the rod was inserted in the entrance hole on the
back of Governor Connally's coat which was being worn by the stand- in for
Governor Connally." -- Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt; 1964
Plus there's the Zapruder Film.....
The Z-Film is certainly showing a simultaneous hit to the men, in my
opinion. I like this toggling clip below, which shows the RIGHT ARMS of
BOTH victims moving upward IN PERFECT TANDEM immediately after a Z224
bullet strike.....
http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/225-226%20Full.gif
The SEVERAL different "reactions" that can be seen on John Connally just
after Z224 but prior to Z230 just cannot be dismissed, IMO. They just
can't. Just look.....
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4594.gif
RE. AN EARLY "CIRCA Z160" FIRST SHOT.......
I disagree with Andrew on that too.
There's evidence of a missed shot at around Z160, IMO. Connally's
"first-shot right turn", which begins at Z164, for one thing. And Jackie
and JFK both turn to their RIGHT as well just about this time too, and
Jackie's turn begins after she had been facing HARD LEFT just before
turning.
And there's Rosemary Willis' "I stopped when I heard a shot" (via Posner's
book). And she has almost completely stopped and is looking directly at
the TSBD by about Z189-Z190.
Here's Z189....
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z189.jpg
It's not overwhelming proof of a Z160 "miss", no. But since that shot must
have MISSED any victims, we're not gonna get somebody holding up a sign,
like in a Warner Brothers' cartoon, saying: "There Was A Shot Here".
That'd be nice, but we'll have to utilize other means to figure it out. ;)
=====================================================
Here's some more about CE903 and Jean Davison's keen observations as
well.....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bf3ae3c6c0993e13
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c65419db537d4abf
=====================================================
David Von Pein
Andrew,
Why didn't Connally feel the bullet going into his thigh (via your
"Neck-To-Thigh" scenario)?
And that would have been the FIRST of the two bullets to hit JBC, per your
theory. But Connally only felt the blow to his back. And he also always
felt he was hit by just ONE bullet....which was also the general consensus
of his doctors.
Dr. Shaw even said at his 11/22 press conference that it was his feeling
that all of Connally's wounds were caused by just a single bullet.
You have major obstacles to your anti-SBT, but pro-LN theory, IMO.
Another one, of course, is GETTING KENNEDY OUT OF OSWALD'S WAY, in order
for LHO to have been able to hit JBC in the back with an unimpeded shot.
All obstacles are eliminated by accepting the WC's SBT.
The SBT = No missing missiles....Connally's testimony lines up nicely with
the SBT (whether he ever realized it or not)....the alignment of the
victims is good for the SBT (whether CTers realize it or not)....JBC's
small thigh wound is perfectly explained by the LAST REMAINS of the SBT
scenario, i.e., a very slow-moving bullet....Connally's elongated back
wound is also perfect via a SBT scenario....as is the Z-Film analysis of
the victims' movements....and CE399, via Guinn, very likely struck JBC's
wrist (which presents yet another of Andrew's problems with his theory).
The SBT works...in every way.
And even when LNers try to reconcile the shooting in non-SBT ways, the SBT
still shines brightly...as evidenced by the many problems I've mentioned
with Andrew's theory...and Mark Fuhrman's too.
Andrew Mason
David Von Pein wrote:
"Hardline? Pray tell, what is such a BEAST anyway? Do they have hornson their heads?" <<< I'm not sure. Do you? I haven't checked for horns. Better check your mirror, Pete. Tails? Probably."Again, his argument is not about the JFK assassination but acharacterization of anyone who might DARE disagree with him." <<< No, it's about the JFK assassination evidence (all of which supports the SBT of course).
So not only does all the evidence not support the SBT. I don't see any of the evidence supporting the SBT. None.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
David Von Pein wrote:
ANDREW MASON SAID THIS:"The bottom line is that the SBT does not fit with the evidence. Itwas made up to explain where the first bullet went but was based on an incorrect reconstruction using the wrong car. No one has ever investigated the other possibility of the neck shot going into the thigh. I think you have to admit that the neck to thigh makes it easier to explain the condition of CE399." <<< DVP SAYS: In my opinion, looking for an LN/LHO "replacement" for the wholly- plausible and acceptable (per the evidence) SBT is akin to continuing to search for your lost car keys in the sofa cushions AFTER you've already found them. In other words -- Why keep looking for something when the answer is already on the table?
The whole CT world sees what LNers do not, which is that the SBT does not fit with the evidence. They use its failure as evidence of two shooters. It is a matter of record that the SBT conflicts with a lot of very reliable evidence. Many people on this board go to great pains to explain how all the witnesses who recalled the 1.........2....3 shot pattern were all wrong and how those who saw JFK react to the first shot were all wrong. So LNers admit that the SBT does not fit the evidence. And they concede that if it is wrong, there had to have been two shooters. LNers actually help the CT cause by adhering to the SBT.
The "Single-Bullet Theory" fits perfectly with the vast majority of the evidence in the case, with any "replacement" requiring much larger leaps of faith and utter guesswork than does the SBT (including at least one missing bullet).
And the "From JFK's Neck Straight To JBC's Thigh" scenario isn't possible either, IMO. This image from Dale Myers' exacting computer simulation (based almost entirely on the Zapruder Film itself) certainly doesn't favor that type of trajectory..... http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/SOH_1061.jpg
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/FA_first_shot.jpg
Myers uses smoke and mirrors to make the viewer believe that the shot from the SN goes through the middle of JFK and 8 inches to the right of JBC's middle even though it is going right to left. He refuses to say in his recreation where JBC and JFK are in their seats and he refuses to show how their positions fit with those seen in the zfilm. It does not work.
Plus: The "Neck Directly To Thigh" theory has another big hurdle to overcome, and that is the likelihood that Connally's thighbone (femur) would almost certainly have been struck and shattered by a bullet that ONLY went through John Kennedy's neck first.
That bullet, per the WC, was travelling at approx. 1,775 fps when it exited JFK's throat. At that speed, there's no way it's only going to cause the superficial type of wound that John Connally did suffer on November 22, 1963.
Plus: There's also the extensive Warren Commission testimony given by the FBI's Robert Frazier, wherein Frazier states his opinion, in some detail, that it's very unlikely that Governor Connally could have been shot in the back after Z-Film frame #225.....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr3.htm I've grown very attached to an often-overlooked Warren Commission exhibit in recent weeks -- that exhibit being CE903..... http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm That exhibit perfectly illustrates the flight path (and general "workability") of the SBT, in my estimation....with the bullet holes in the "victims" lining up to as close to perfection as I think could ever be hoped for via a simulation like that -- with the wound that begins the SBT path (JFK's back wound) being in the upper back, just like the autopsy photo shows, and not in the "neck", like lots of conspiracists think is required in order to make the SBT doable.
Here are some of the miraculous "SBT"-like coincidences that Andrew Mason and Mark Fuhrman must swallow: 1.) The shape of JBC's back wound, which was a long (not rounded) wound, indicating a tumbling bullet....which indicates the bullet probably struck something (which had to be JFK) before hitting Connally's back.
2.) A disappearing bullet that went into (or through) a victim(s) and was never recovered.
3.) And the incredible co-inky of having Connally hit on his back by a separate Oswald bullet just where a missile would also have almost certainly hit him (or damn close anyway) if the bullet coming out of JFK had continued moving straight and downward and into the man in front of the President. (Andrew's analysis notwithstanding.)
BTW, the stand-in for Governor Connally that is seen in CE903 is wearing the exact same jacket that John Connally was wearing when he was shot....with Specter's probe/rod being inserted directly into the bullet hole in that jacket. How much more PERFECT could you possibly get?*
* = Even when accounting for a slight degree of "plus or minus" regarding the exact seating positions of the victims; but the stand- ins' positions look just about spot-on accurate to me in CE903. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm Now, it's true that the car used there (in CE903) is the Secret Service car and not JFK's Lincoln Continental....but the JBC stand-in is definitely seated lower than JFK's stand-in (which is correct), and the WC says in the Warren Report that the differences between the two types of automobiles were taken into account during the May 1964 re- creation in Dealey Plaza.
What I'd really love to see myself is an OVERHEAD view of what we see in CE903. Such an alternate view would really be helpful in determining the lateral position of the two stand-in "victims" in the vehicle.
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/kgb_above.JPG
And there's Rosemary Willis' "I stopped when I heard a shot" (via Posner's book). And she has almost completely stopped and is looking directly at the TSBD by about Z189-Z190.
Here's Z189.... http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z189.jpg It's not overwhelming proof of a Z160 "miss", no. But since that shot must have MISSED any victims, we're not gonna get somebody holding up a sign, like in a Warner Brothers' cartoon, saying: "There Was A Shot Here". That'd be nice, but we'll have to utilize other means to figure it out. ;)
I must say, David, that it is gratifying to see you actually respond!
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
David Von Pein wrote:
Addendum to my last post........ Andrew, Why didn't Connally feel the bullet going into his thigh (via your "Neck-To-Thigh" scenario)? And that would have been the FIRST of the two bullets to hit JBC, per your theory. But Connally only felt the blow to his back. And he also always felt he was hit by just ONE bullet....which was also the general consensus of his doctors.
Dr. Shaw even said at his 11/22 press conference that it was his feeling that all of Connally's wounds were caused by just a single bullet.
Dr. SHAW. Mr. Dulles, I thought I knew just how the Governor was wounded until I saw the pictures today, and it becomes a little bit harder to explain. I felt that the wound had been caused by the same bullet that came out through the chest with the Governor’s arm held in approximately this position.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the right hand held close to the body?
Dr. SHAW. Yes, and this is still a possibility. But I don’t feel that it is the only possibility.
Senator COOPER. Why do you say you don’t think it is the only possibility? What causes you now to say that it is the location-
Dr. SHAW. This is again the testimony that I believe Dr. Gregory will be giving, too. It is a matter of whether the wrist wound could be caused by the same bullet, and we felt that it could but we had not seen the bullets until today, and we still do not know which bullet actually inflicted the wound on Governor Connally.
Mr. DULLES. Or whether it was one or two wounds?
Dr. SHAW. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. Or two bullets?
Dr. SHAW. Yes; or three.
Mr. DULLES. Why do you say three?
Dr. SHAW. He has three separate wounds. He has a wound in the chest, a wound of the wrist, a wound of the thigh.
Mr. DULLES. Oh, yes; we haven’t come to the wound of the thigh yet, have we?
Mr. MCCLOY. You have no firm opinion that all these three wounds were caused by one bullet?
Dr. SHAW. I have no firm opinion.
You have major obstacles to your anti-SBT, but pro-LN theory, IMO. Another one, of course, is GETTING KENNEDY OUT OF OSWALD'S WAY, in order for LHO to have been able to hit JBC in the back with an unimpeded shot. All obstacles are eliminated by accepting the WC's SBT.
The SBT = No missing missiles
....Connally's testimony lines up nicely with the SBT (whether he ever realized it or not)....the alignment of the victims is good for the SBT (whether CTers realize it or not)....JBC's small thigh wound is perfectly explained by the LAST REMAINS of the SBT scenario, i.e., a very slow-moving bullet....Connally's elongated back wound is also perfect via a SBT scenario....as is the Z-Film analysis of the victims' movements....and CE399, via Guinn, very likely struck JBC's wrist (which presents yet another of Andrew's problems with his theory).
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> David Von Pein wrote:
>> ANDREW MASON SAID THIS:
>>
>>
>>>>> "The bottom line is that the SBT does not fit with the evidence. It
>>>>>
>> was made up to explain where the first bullet went but was based on an
>> incorrect reconstruction using the wrong car. No one has ever investigated
>> the other possibility of the neck shot going into the thigh. I think you
>> have to admit that the neck to thigh makes it easier to explain the
>> condition of CE399." <<<
>>
>> DVP SAYS:
>>
>> In my opinion, looking for an LN/LHO "replacement" for the wholly-
>> plausible and acceptable (per the evidence) SBT is akin to continuing to
>> search for your lost car keys in the sofa cushions AFTER you've already
>> found them.
>>
>> In other words -- Why keep looking for something when the answer is
>> already on the table?
>>
> Because we want to get it right.
>
> The whole CT world sees what LNers do not, which is that the SBT does
> not fit with the evidence. They use its failure as evidence of two
> shooters. It is a matter of record that the SBT conflicts with a lot of
Ah, excuse me. Remember the HSCA? They found two shooters, but they also
had their own SBT. Many conspiracy believers find two shooters because
of the shot from the front.
> very reliable evidence. Many people on this board go to great pains to
> explain how all the witnesses who recalled the 1.........2....3 shot
> pattern were all wrong and how those who saw JFK react to the first shot
> were all wrong. So LNers admit that the SBT does not fit the evidence.
> And they concede that if it is wrong, there had to have been two
> shooters. LNers actually help the CT cause by adhering to the SBT.
>
Your shot pattern theory is nonsense.
>> The "Single-Bullet Theory" fits perfectly with the vast majority of the
>> evidence in the case, with any "replacement" requiring much larger leaps
>> of faith and utter guesswork than does the SBT (including at least one
>> missing bullet).
>>
> What is the vast majority of evidence?. Those are just vacuous words.
> The SBT only agrees with how you interpret the zfilm.
One does not need to rely on the Zapruder film to believe or disbelieve
the SBT. There is the clothing evidence. There are other films and
photos. There is the limousine evidence. There is the medical evidence.
>> And the "From JFK's Neck Straight To JBC's Thigh" scenario isn't possible
>> either, IMO. This image from Dale Myers' exacting computer simulation
>> (based almost entirely on the Zapruder Film itself) certainly doesn't
>> favor that type of trajectory.....
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/SOH_1061.jpg
>>
> The trajectory is to the left of JBC.. See the Failure Analysis recreation:
> http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/FA_first_shot.jpg
>
Someone just uploaded a photo showing the thigh hit is impossible.
Connally's body is in the way.
> Myers uses smoke and mirrors to make the viewer believe that the shot
> from the SN goes through the middle of JFK and 8 inches to the right of
> JBC's middle even though it is going right to left. He refuses to say in
> his recreation where JBC and JFK are in their seats and he refuses to
> show how their positions fit with those seen in the zfilm. It does not work.
>
>> Plus: The "Neck Directly To Thigh" theory has another big hurdle to
>> overcome, and that is the likelihood that Connally's thighbone (femur)
>> would almost certainly have been struck and shattered by a bullet that
>> ONLY went through John Kennedy's neck first.
>>
> Not according to the doctor who treated the wound, Dr. Shires. He
> thought it could have been caused by a bullet at full speed because of
> the tangential strike on the thigh.
Dr. Shires is unqualified to speculate on such matters.
>> That bullet, per the WC, was travelling at approx. 1,775 fps when it
>> exited JFK's throat. At that speed, there's no way it's only going to
>> cause the superficial type of wound that John Connally did suffer on
>> November 22, 1963.
>>
> And your authority for that is?.... A bullet at 1775 fps has 1/3 less
> energy than it had when it left the muzzle. If it is tumbling, strikes
> the thigh on a steep tangent and butt-first, I say that the thigh can
> stop it easily. No one has done a demonstration to prove otherwise.
Pure nonsense.
>> Plus: There's also the extensive Warren Commission testimony given by the
>> FBI's Robert Frazier, wherein Frazier states his opinion, in some detail,
>> that it's very unlikely that Governor Connally could have been shot in the
>> back after Z-Film frame #225.....
>>
> After z240, not z225. He predicated that opinion on the bullet through
> JBC going straight without deflection. He offered no opinion on whether
> it did that. No one even looked at the possibility that the first shot
> went into JBC's thigh. The trajectory fits naturally. It does not fit
Some people thought about it and dismissed it as impossible.
No, which fits with the bullet striking a curved surface, Connally's
right armpit.
The KGB used the original limousine?
And what's wrong with that?
Herbert Blenner
>
> >>Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >>>Andrew Mason wrote:
>
> >>>>Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >>>>>Andrew Mason wrote:
>
> >>>>>>pjspe...@AOL.COM wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>David, is it a coincidence that the WC failed to accept into
> >>>>>>>evidence or publish photos depicting the back wound mark on the
> >>>>>>>stand-in, and that Specter pulled false testimony out of Kelley
> >>>>>>>stating that the back wound mark was established by the Rydberg
> >>>>>>>because they DECEIVED the commission and the nation about the back
> >>>>>>>wound's location, it doesn't PROVE the SBT, or some variation,
> >>>>>>>blatantly dishonest on this point, it should make intelligent
> >>>>>>>people wonder if the whole SBT was not birthed in dishonesty?
>
> >>>>>>There is no reason to impute dishonesty. This "make the evidence
> >>>>>>fit the theory" approach is typical of all investigations. When one
> >>>>>>has a genuine belief that the theory is correct, the human tendency
> >>>>>>is to stop looking at alternative explanations and to make the
> >>>>>>evidence fit.
>
> >>>>>>Specter based the SBT on the belief that the bullet passing through
> >>>>>>JFK had to have struck JBC. Everyone assumed that this meant that
> >>>>>>it struck him in the back. This was not an unreasonable belief if
> >>>>>>one assumes that all of JBC's wounds are caused by one bullet. That
> >>>>>>assumption was never seriously questioned and it should have been.
> >>>>>>But it was not dishonest.
>
> >>>>>Of course their reasoning is flawed, but a bullet exiting Kennedy's
> >>>>>throat could not have hit Connally's wrist. Connally's body was in
> >>>>>the way.
>
> >>>>Right. JBC was hit in one other place besides the back and the wrist.
> >>>>Do you remember what that place was?
>
> >>>The thigh. But that could not be a direct hit.
>
> >>that it could because it hit on a tangent. No one has refuted this
> >>contention. Unfortunately, this trajectory was never investigated by the
> >>WC or the HSCA. It fits the trajectory and the thigh wound
> >>characteristics. And it is a much better explanation for the condition of
> >>CE399 than the SBT.
>
> >If the bullet touched the thigh on a tangent then it would have lost
> >negligible speed. So this scenario raises the significant problem of
> >what gradually slowed and stopped CE 399?
>
> The muscle and the femur eventually stop it. The bullet at that point
> has about 1200 J of energy, roughly the amount of energy required to
> raise the temperature of 300 grams (.3 kg) of water 1 degree C. It is
> even more understandable with a tangential hit (which distributes the
> stopping energy over a longer time period, thereby reducing the stopping
> force significantly) by a tumbling bullet. See my little diagram of a
> possible way this can happen:http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/JBC_thigh_bullet_sticking.pdf
>
A bullet with yaw, which strikes tangentially makes a linear wound
that resembles a parallelogram with rounded corners. This shape
differs from the round wound observed and documented by the Parkland
doctors. Further a bullet with yaw makes a wound track whose size is
comparable with the surface wound. So the observation of surprisingly
little soft tissue damage beneath a large surface wound disputes entry
by a bullet with yaw.
Source: WCR, Treatment of Governor Connally
While the second operation was in progress, Dr. George T. Shires,
assisted by Drs. Robert McClelland, Charles Baxter, and Ralph Don
Patman, treated the gunshot wound in the left thigh. This punctuate
missile wound, about two-fifths inch in diameter (1 centimeter) and
located approximately 5 inches above the left knee, was cleansed and
closed with sutures; but a small metallic fragment remained in the
Governor's leg.
Source: WCR, The Governor's Wounds
In addition, Governor Connally suffered a puncture wound in the left
thigh that was approximately two-fifths of an inch (1 centimeter) in
diameter and located approximately 5 or 6 inches above the Governor's
left knee. On the Governor's leg, very little soft-tissue damage was
noted, which indicated a tangential wound or the penetration of a
larger missile entering at low velocity and stopping after entering
the skin.
The reported roundness of the thigh wound conflicted with attributing
the relative absence of soft tissue damage to a tangential entry.
Source: WC testimony of Dr. Charles Francis Gregory
Mr. SPECTER - As to the thigh wound, what, if anything, did you
observe as to a wound on the thigh, Dr. Gregory?
Dr. GREGORY - I was apprised that the Governor had a wound of the
thigh, and I did examine it immediately the limb was available for it
after Dr. Shaw had completed the surgery. The wound was located on the
inner aspect of the thigh, a little to the front surface about a third
of the way up from the knee. The wound appeared to me to be rounded,
almost a puncture type of wound in dimension about equal to a pencil
eraser, about 6 mm.
Source: WC testimony of Dr. Charles Francis Gregory
Mr. SPECTER - What other wounds, if any, did you notice on the
Governor at that time?
Dr. GREGORY - In addition to the chest wound and the wound just
described in his right forearm there was a wound in the medical aspect
of his left thigh. This was almost round and did not seem to have
disturbed the tissues badly, but did definitely penetrate and pass
through the skin and to the fascia beneath. I could not tell from the
superficial inspection whether it had passed through the fascia. An X-
ray was made of his thigh at that time and there was not present in
his thigh any missile of sufficient magnitude, in my opinion, to have
produced the wound observed on his medial aspect. Repeat X-rays failed
to reveal any such missile and an additional examination failed to
reveal any wound of exit.
Mr. SPECTER - What did the X-rays reveal with respect to the presence
of a missile?
Dr. GREGORY - In the thigh there was a very small shadow, perhaps 1
mm. by 2 mm. in dimension, lying close to the medial aspect of the
femur, that is, the thigh bone, but was in my opinion much too small
to have accounted for the dimensions of the wound on the medial aspect
of his thigh or a wound of that character.
Mr. SPECTER - What were the dimensions of the wound on the medial
aspect of his thigh. Dr. GREGORY - I would say that that wound was
about a centimeter in diameter, much larger than the identifiable
fragment of metal in the thigh. I might add that this prompted some
speculation on our part, my part, which was voiced to someone that
some search ought to be made in the Governor's clothing or perhaps in
the auto or some place, wherever he may have been, for the missile
which had produced this much damage but which was not resident in
him. Mr. SPECTER - Approximately what type of a missile would it have
taken to produce a wound which you have described on his thigh? Dr.
GREGORY - Well, it would take a fragment of metal of approximately the
same diameter--a centimeter, and in general---round. Mr. SPECTER -
Would that correspond with the measurement of a 6.5-mm. missile? Dr.
GREGORY - I will have to guess--I don't know what dimension-of a 6.5-
mm.--yes, a 6.5-mm. would be .65 cm., approximately, yes, that could
have very well have occurred from such a missile, yes, sir.
Source: WC testimony of Dr. George T. Shires
Mr. SPECTER - And what did you observe as to the wound on the thigh?
Dr. SHIRES - The wound on the thigh was a peculiar one. There was a 1
cm. punctate missile wound over the junction of the middle and lower
third of the leg and the medial aspect of the, thigh. The peculiarity
came in that the X-rays of the left leg showed only a very small 1 mm.
bullet fragment imbedded in the femur of the left leg. Upon
exploration of this wound, the other peculiarity was that there was
very little soft tissue damage, less than one would expect from an
entrance wound of a centimeter in diameter, which was seen on the
skin. So, it appeared, therefore, that the skin wound was either a
tangential wound or that a larger fragment had penetrated or stopped
in the skin and had subsequently fallen out of the entrance wound.
Judging from this contradictory testimony, I would say that the
doctors are putting out the cover story for what stopped the stretcher
bullet.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>> "Hardline? Pray tell, what is such a BEAST anyway? Do they have horns
>>>>>
>> on their heads?" <<<
>>
>> I'm not sure. Do you? I haven't checked for horns. Better check your
>> mirror, Pete.
>>
>> Tails? Probably.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> "Again, his argument is not about the JFK assassination but a
>>>>>
>> characterization of anyone who might DARE disagree with him." <<<
>>
>> No, it's about the JFK assassination evidence (all of which supports the
>> SBT of course).
> This is a bit of an overstatement, given that the witnesses said that
> JFK reacted to the first shot by moving left and bringing his hands to
> his neck. How many said he turned to the crowd, smiled and waved after
> the first shot? Answer: none. Then you have all the witnesses who put
> the first shot well after z160 (Croft) and z180(all occupants of the VP
> car), and after z186 (Betzner) after z191 (the six occupants of the VP
> followup car) and just after z198 (Mary Woodward). Who put the first
> shot before z186? Answer: none. And then you have Nellie Connally who
> said that the first shot hit JFK and the second hit JBC in the back.
> Then you have all those witnesses (45 by last count) who put the second
> and third shot close together which means that there could not have been
> a first shot miss.
>
You can't base facts on which witnesses you hand pick.
Anthony Marsh
Oh please. I clearly said that the loss of about 150 fps is from going
through Kennedy's neck.
>> Then you claim that I am wrong and ask me for a citation and make your
>> own claim that it was actually a loss of 132 fps.
>> Just to create a controversy.
>
>
>>
>>> the energy that determines penetrating power. It also loses a great
>>> deal of penetrating power if it is tumbling, which it appears to have
>>> done since it appears to have struck butt-first.
>>>
>>
>> No and no. No evidence of tumbling and no evidence of striking
>> butt-first.
>
> The recreations (e.g. Beyond the Magic Bullet - Discovery Channel) all
> show the bullet tumbling. Dr. Gregory thought the thigh wound was made
> by the butt end of an intact missile: 4 H 128
>
He is entitled to his opinion, but he is not qualified to offer it.
> Dr. GREGORY. These items represent distorted bits of a missile, a jacket
> in one case, and part of a jacket and a lead core in the other. These
> are missiles having the characteristics which I mentioned earlier, which
> tend to carry organic debris into wounds and tend to create irregular
> wounds of entry. One of these, it seems to me, could conceivably have
> produced the injury which the Governor incurred in his wrist.
> Mr. Specter. In his wrist?
> Dr. GREGORY. Yes.
> Mr. Specter. And in his thigh?
> Dr. GREGORY. I don’t know about that, sir. It is possible. But the
> rather remarkably round natnre of the wound in the thigh leads me to
> believe that it was produced by something like the butt end of an intact
> missile.
>
Notice please that he says here "round." You'll next ignore that and
claim that it was tangential and elongated. You cherry pick what fits
your wacky theory.
Someone just uploaded a photo which shows that Connally's torso was in
the way. Was the photo a fake?
> behind the sign which is when the first shot occurred, according to all
> the witness evidence. So the inner thigh could easily be visible. He
> also could have had his left leg out farther to the left.
>
No, it couldn't. Not from the angle of view from the sniper's nest.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Until it has been properly investigated, I don't really care what
>>>>> the arm chair ballistics experts might say about it. It fits the
>>>>> evidence, whereas the SBT does not. It explains why JBC said he was
>>>>> hit in the back by the second shot and Nellie saw JFK reacting to
>>>>> the first shot. Unfortunately for you, Anthony, it also fits the LN
>>>>> conclusion and does not require a complicated multiple shooter
>>>>> scenario.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have a cute idea, but you have not tested it or proved it.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't have to. The evidence says it happened. You have to refute
>>> the evidence that says it happened.
>>>
>>
>> Nonsense. That is no way to present a wacky theory.
>
> Let me see. You, who believes that more than three shots were fired,
> some with silencers, are saying that my three shot- three hit scenario
> which is what the Connallys and others said happened, is wacky?
There you go again, making false claims. I do not believe that silencers
were used. Do you think you need to fall back on such tactics to win an
argument? Look at the damn photo.
>
> Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
You think? Which means that you are unaware of any and can not cite any.
If you could, the conditions would be very different. Not a M-C at such
a high velocity.
Anthony Marsh
> If the SBT is false.......
>
If the WC is correct ............................
> Where are the other bullets?
>
Where is the bullet which they said missed. Show it to me.
> Where is the limo damage via a T&T shot thru JFK that miraculously
> missed JBC?
>
Scrap yard when they rebuilt the limousine.
Chrome topping according to Fuhrman.
> Where is the back & neck damage inside JFK via the "2 shots went in &
> never went out again" scenario?
>
Huh?
> Why is this "2-victim, in-tandem, right-arm" action happening on the Z-
> Film.....
>
There is none.
> http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/225-226%20Full.gif
>
> Why is JBC's back wound keyhole-like, indicative of a tumbling
> projectile?
>
Why is the supposed head wound keyhole-like?
> Why are there no substantial fragments inside Connally?
>
Why are there STILL more fragments remaining inside Connally than could
possibly have come from CE 399?
> Why are there no fragments (at all) inside Kennedy's neck/back?
>
FMJ bullet.
> How did a shot from behind hit JBC where we know he was hit without
> going through the person sitting right behind him first?
>
See CE 903. Plenty of room above Kennedy's right shoulder.
> What are the odds of ANYONE being able to come remotely close to even
> concocting a half-assed/half-baked "SBT" if such a theory is totally
> impossible and unworkable?
>
Who has the power to cover up?
> Any chance any anti-SBTer can answer all of these questions in a
> reasonable, within-the-evidence manner?
>
Any chance you'll ever answer my questions?
> I'm not holding my breath.
>
>
I gave up on you a long time ago.
Anthony Marsh
Water?
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh wrote:
I didn't say that you had to reject the SBT to believe in two shooters.
You could imagine any number of additional shots and shooters and still
believe in the SBT.
>
>> very reliable evidence. Many people on this board go to great pains
>> to explain how all the witnesses who recalled the 1.........2....3
>> shot pattern were all wrong and how those who saw JFK react to the
>> first shot were all wrong. So LNers admit that the SBT does not fit
>> the evidence. And they concede that if it is wrong, there had to have
>> been two shooters. LNers actually help the CT cause by adhering to
>> the SBT.
>>
>
> Your shot pattern theory is nonsense.
It is not my shot pattern theory. It is what the overwhelming number of
witnesses who commented on the shot pattern said it was: the last two
shots being closer together. My only contribution to this is the "theory"
is the view that they could not possibly all be wrong. So you are not
only saying that the witnesses all recalled it incorrectly, but you are
also inventing new principles of statistics that would attribute no
significance to the fact that 44 of the witnesses said it was
1.........2...3 and 6 said it was the other way around.
>
>>> The "Single-Bullet Theory" fits perfectly with the vast majority of
>>> the evidence in the case, with any "replacement" requiring much
>>> larger leaps of faith and utter guesswork than does the SBT
>>> (including at least one missing bullet).
>>>
>>
>> What is the vast majority of evidence?. Those are just vacuous words.
>> The SBT only agrees with how you interpret the zfilm.
>
>
> One does not need to rely on the Zapruder film to believe or
> disbelieve the SBT. There is the clothing evidence. There are other
> films and photos. There is the limousine evidence. There is the
> medical evidence.
>
>>> And the "From JFK's Neck Straight To JBC's Thigh" scenario isn't
>>> possible either, IMO. This image from Dale Myers' exacting computer
>>> simulation (based almost entirely on the Zapruder Film itself)
>>> certainly doesn't favor that type of trajectory.....
>>>
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/SOH_1061.jpg
>>>
>>
>> The trajectory is to the left of JBC.. See the Failure Analysis
>> recreation:
>> http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/FA_first_shot.jpg
>>
>
> Someone just uploaded a photo showing the thigh hit is impossible.
> Connally's body is in the way.
I can absolutely guarantee you that it is quite possible. I think I can
show that it was, in fact, highly probable. The left leg had to be out to
the left and raised up, which I say was the most natural position for a
person on Connally's build to be sitting in that floor mounted jump seat.
Connally's torso had to be turned - just like he was turned in z200. My
photo shows that the thigh becomes visible as JBC turns his shoulders to
the right.
>
>> Myers uses smoke and mirrors to make the viewer believe that the shot
>> from the SN goes through the middle of JFK and 8 inches to the right
>> of JBC's middle even though it is going right to left. He refuses to
>> say in his recreation where JBC and JFK are in their seats and he
>> refuses to show how their positions fit with those seen in the zfilm.
>> It does not work.
>>
>>> Plus: The "Neck Directly To Thigh" theory has another big hurdle to
>>> overcome, and that is the likelihood that Connally's thighbone
>>> (femur) would almost certainly have been struck and shattered by a
>>> bullet that ONLY went through John Kennedy's neck first.
>>>
>>
>> Not according to the doctor who treated the wound, Dr. Shires. He
>> thought it could have been caused by a bullet at full speed because
>> of the tangential strike on the thigh.
>
>
> Dr. Shires is unqualified to speculate on such matters.
He is as qualified as you.
>
>>> That bullet, per the WC, was travelling at approx. 1,775 fps when it
>>> exited JFK's throat. At that speed, there's no way it's only going
>>> to cause the superficial type of wound that John Connally did suffer
>>> on November 22, 1963.
>>>
>>
>> And your authority for that is?.... A bullet at 1775 fps has 1/3
>> less energy than it had when it left the muzzle. If it is tumbling,
>> strikes the thigh on a steep tangent and butt-first, I say that the
>> thigh can stop it easily. No one has done a demonstration to prove
>> otherwise.
>
>
> Pure nonsense.
Words, Anthony. I prefer evidence.
>
>>> Plus: There's also the extensive Warren Commission testimony given
>>> by the FBI's Robert Frazier, wherein Frazier states his opinion, in
>>> some detail, that it's very unlikely that Governor Connally could
>>> have been shot in the back after Z-Film frame #225.....
>>>
>>
>> After z240, not z225. He predicated that opinion on the bullet
>> through JBC going straight without deflection. He offered no opinion
>> on whether it did that. No one even looked at the possibility that
>> the first shot went into JBC's thigh. The trajectory fits naturally.
>> It does not fit
>
>
> Some people thought about it and dismissed it as impossible.
Name one who even suggested it..... I'm waiting.
That doesn't explain why it was elliptical. It struck him in the right
armpit because his back was turned. If he was facing forward, how does a
bullet strike the armpit from the rear?
No. The company that made the documentary used the original limousine.
If you don't see what is wrong with that, I am afraid I can't help you.
Andrew Mason
Herbert Blenner
> >On Apr 2, 12:19?am, Andrew Mason <a.ma...@dufourlaw.com> wrote:
>
> >>Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >>>Andrew Mason wrote:
>
> >>>>Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >>>>>Andrew Mason wrote:
>
> >>>>>>pjspe...@AOL.COM wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>David, is it a coincidence that the WC failed to accept into
> >>>>>>>evidence or publish photos depicting the back wound mark on the
> >>>>>>>stand-in, and that Specter pulled false testimony out of Kelley
> >>>>>>>stating that the back wound mark was established by the Rydberg
> >>>>>>>because they DECEIVED the commission and the nation about the back
> >>>>>>>wound's location, it doesn't PROVE the SBT, or some variation,
> >>>>>>>blatantly dishonest on this point, it should make intelligent
> >>>>>>>people wonder if the whole SBT was not birthed in dishonesty?
>
> >>>>>>There is no reason to impute dishonesty. This "make the evidence
> >>>>>>fit the theory" approach is typical of all investigations. When one
> >>>>>>has a genuine belief that the theory is correct, the human tendency
> >>>>>>is to stop looking at alternative explanations and to make the
> >>>>>>evidence fit.
>
> >>>>>>Specter based the SBT on the belief that the bullet passing through
> >>>>>>JFK had to have struck JBC. Everyone assumed that this meant that
> >>>>>>it struck him in the back. This was not an unreasonable belief if
> >>>>>>one assumes that all of JBC's wounds are caused by one bullet. That
> >>>>>>assumption was never seriously questioned and it should have been.
> >>>>>>But it was not dishonest.
>
> >>>>>Of course their reasoning is flawed, but a bullet exiting Kennedy's
> >>>>>throat could not have hit Connally's wrist. Connally's body was in
> >>>>>the way.
>
> >>>>Right. JBC was hit in one other place besides the back and the wrist.
> >>>>Do you remember what that place was?
>
> >>>The thigh. But that could not be a direct hit.
>
> >>that it could because it hit on a tangent. No one has refuted this
> >>contention. Unfortunately, this trajectory was never investigated by the
> >>WC or the HSCA. It fits the trajectory and the thigh wound
> >>characteristics. And it is a much better explanation for the condition of
> >>CE399 than the SBT.
>
> >If the bullet touched the thigh on a tangent then it would have lost
> >negligible speed. So this scenario raises the significant problem of
> >what gradually slowed and stopped CE 399?
>
> The muscle and the femur eventually stop it. The bullet at that point
> has about 1200 J of energy, roughly the amount of energy required to
> raise the temperature of 300 grams (.3 kg) of water 1 degree C. It is
> even more understandable with a tangential hit (which distributes the
> stopping energy over a longer time period, thereby reducing the stopping
> force significantly) by a tumbling bullet. See my little diagram of a
> possible way this can happen:http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/JBC_thigh_bullet_sticking.pdf
A bullet with yaw, which strikes tangentially makes a linear wound that
Chad Zimmerman
"Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message news:1316crp...@corp.supernews.com...
David Von Pein wrote:
Addendum to my last post........
Andrew,
Why didn't Connally feel the bullet going into his thigh (via your
"Neck-To-Thigh" scenario)?
And that would have been the FIRST of the two bullets to hit JBC, per your
theory. But Connally only felt the blow to his back. And he also always
felt he was hit by just ONE bullet....which was also the general consensus
of his doctors.
That is true. But we cannot assume at all that he would have felt anything from such a bullet. He never felt the thigh wound.
He didn't know he was shot in the thigh until he was told the next day. So if he didn't feel until the next day, why would he have felt it in the first four seconds?
Since he immediately recognized the sound as a rifle shot and feared the President was being assassinated, why would his mind focus on a leg wound that cause no pain or any sensation that we know of.
Dr. Shaw even said at his 11/22 press conference that it was his feeling
that all of Connally's wounds were caused by just a single bullet.
Where do you get that? It was a working hypothesis, but he had no firm opinion (4 H 109):
Dr. SHAW. Mr. Dulles, I thought I knew just how the Governor was wounded until I saw the pictures today, and it becomes a little bit harder to explain. I felt that the wound had been caused by the same bullet that came out through the chest with the Governor’s arm held in approximately this position.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the right hand held close to the body?
Dr. SHAW. Yes, and this is still a possibility. But I don’t feel that it is the only possibility.
Senator COOPER. Why do you say you don’t think it is the only possibility? What causes you now to say that it is the location-
Dr. SHAW. This is again the testimony that I believe Dr. Gregory will be giving, too. It is a matter of whether the wrist wound could be caused by the same bullet, and we felt that it could but we had not seen the bullets until today, and we still do not know which bullet actually inflicted the wound on Governor Connally.
Mr. DULLES. Or whether it was one or two wounds?
Dr. SHAW. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. Or two bullets?
Dr. SHAW. Yes; or three.
Mr. DULLES. Why do you say three?
Dr. SHAW. He has three separate wounds. He has a wound in the chest, a wound of the wrist, a wound of the thigh.
Mr. DULLES. Oh, yes; we haven’t come to the wound of the thigh yet, have we?
Mr. MCCLOY. You have no firm opinion that all these three wounds were caused by one bullet?
Dr. SHAW. I have no firm opinion.
You have major obstacles to your anti-SBT, but pro-LN theory, IMO.
Another one, of course, is GETTING KENNEDY OUT OF OSWALD'S WAY, in order
for LHO to have been able to hit JBC in the back with an unimpeded shot.
All obstacles are eliminated by accepting the WC's SBT.
Only if you think 80 witnesses were hallucinating. Perhaps it should be called the Single Bullet Theory with Lots of Spectators on Drugs or the SBT/LSD theory.
The SBT = No missing missiles
Really. So where did the missing shot go? Tague said he was hit on the second shot. There is no evidence that it struck anything before the striking the curb and yet it had to have lost its jacket somehow. The missing shot scenario has no evidence at all. Furthermore, how did Oswald miss at such a close range?
....Connally's testimony lines up nicely with
the SBT (whether he ever realized it or not)....the alignment of the
victims is good for the SBT (whether CTers realize it or not)....JBC's
small thigh wound is perfectly explained by the LAST REMAINS of the SBT
scenario, i.e., a very slow-moving bullet....Connally's elongated back
wound is also perfect via a SBT scenario....as is the Z-Film analysis of
the victims' movements....and CE399, via Guinn, very likely struck JBC's
wrist (which presents yet another of Andrew's problems with his theory).
The latest word on the NAA is that it is inconclusive. See: Randich and Grant's paper "Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives", J. Forensic Sci. Vol. 51, p. 722
Chad Zimmerman
"Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message news:1316bib...@corp.supernews.com...
(So, since you dont' have that information, you can claim that it does not work? Have you seen him line up the frames with the Zapruder film? He did this in the 2004 Discovery Channel special.)
Plus: The "Neck Directly To Thigh" theory has another big hurdle to overcome, and that is the likelihood that Connally's thighbone (femur) would almost certainly have been struck and shattered by a bullet that ONLY went through John Kennedy's neck first.Not according to the doctor who treated the wound, Dr. Shires. He thought it could have been caused by a bullet at full speed because of the tangential strike on the thigh.
(What tangential strike on the thigh? The hole was round. If you can figure out how to create a round hole with a tangential strike, more power to you. This is the primary problem that so many have with your scenario- it has to go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to get it to work, Andrew. Lattimer's tests showed that the thigh should break if it went straight from the neck to the leg.)
That bullet, per the WC, was travelling at approx. 1,775 fps when it exited JFK's throat. At that speed, there's no way it's only going to cause the superficial type of wound that John Connally did suffer on November 22, 1963.And your authority for that is?.... A bullet at 1775 fps has 1/3 less energy than it had when it left the muzzle. If it is tumbling, strikes the thigh on a steep tangent and butt-first, I say that the thigh can stop it easily. No one has done a demonstration to prove otherwise.
(You, who I assume has absolutely no personal experience with a Carcano, states that it is possible. It would mean about as much if Rosie O'Donnell said the same. While you need someone to disprove your claim, you have not proven yours either. Always the burden of the other person.)
Plus: There's also the extensive Warren Commission testimony given by the FBI's Robert Frazier, wherein Frazier states his opinion, in some detail, that it's very unlikely that Governor Connally could have been shot in the back after Z-Film frame #225.....After z240, not z225. He predicated that opinion on the bullet through JBC going straight without deflection. He offered no opinion on whether it did that. No one even looked at the possibility that the first shot went into JBC's thigh. The trajectory fits naturally.
(So you have a FA, Myer's or SS photograph that shows the thigh in direct line...or just a photo of someone else sitting in a chair?)
It does not fit the SBT. Just have a look at exhibit CE893 showing the view of JFK from the SN (using the wrong car) at frame 207. How on earth can you say, even with JBC in the contorted position that he is not actually in at z207, that the bullet through JFK goes to the right side of JBC? Even in that photo, the shot through JFK's neck goes to JBC's left side. You can see JBC's right armpit directly from the SN well to the right of JFK's middle. See: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0052a.htm
(I think you said it all when you informed us that it was the wrong car. If it is the wrong car, then how about the wrong positions, etc.?)
How on earth can you say that without knowing what the horizontal angle of that stick is to the direction of the car? Is it the same as that from the back of JFK's neck to the SN? Specter doesn't give that. So this is a meaningless demonstration. It shows only that the vertical angle from JFK's neck to the right armpit is down. We don't need a stick to see that.http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr3.htm I've grown very attached to an often-overlooked Warren Commission exhibit in recent weeks -- that exhibit being CE903..... http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm That exhibit perfectly illustrates the flight path (and general "workability") of the SBT, in my estimation....with the bullet holes in the "victims" lining up to as close to perfection as I think could ever be hoped for via a simulation like that -- with the wound that begins the SBT path (JFK's back wound) being in the upper back, just like the autopsy photo shows, and not in the "neck", like lots of conspiracists think is required in order to make the SBT doable.
Here are some of the miraculous "SBT"-like coincidences that Andrew Mason and Mark Fuhrman must swallow: 1.) The shape of JBC's back wound, which was a long (not rounded) wound, indicating a tumbling bullet....which indicates the bullet probably struck something (which had to be JFK) before hitting Connally's back.It was elliptical, 1.5 cm in the long axis, which fits either with the bullet yawing (possibly) or with the back turned at an angle to the direction of the bullet (ie with JBC turned to the right and leaing back - just as he is seen in z271.
(Which leaves a really strange deflection that you still find plausible, but I doubt any ballistics expert would.)
2.) A disappearing bullet that went into (or through) a victim(s) and was never recovered.You say. Tague said he was hit on the second shot and Greer said there was a concussion from the second shot. That fits with fragments deflecting off the radius and one going over the windshield and or more one striking the windshield or frame.
(Can fit with other things, too.)
3.) And the incredible co-inky of having Connally hit on his back by a separate Oswald bullet just where a missile would also have almost certainly hit him (or damn close anyway) if the bullet coming out of JFK had continued moving straight and downward and into the man in front of the President. (Andrew's analysis notwithstanding.)Well, Nellie was there and she said there were three hits and three shots. Is it a coincidence if the explanation fits the evidence?
(Well, Nellie couldn't see anyone get hit, so she wouldn't know for sure. She wasn't hit, she doesn't know. JBC's own descriptions of his movementsafter being shot do NOT fit with what you see after your shot. JBC was always charasmatic about discussing how Nellie thought it happened. I'vealways thought that he never really believed in what she recalled and almost always said that all he knew was that he was not hit with the firstor third shot.)
(Huh? Are you suggesting that it would be normal for someone to mention that someone waved for several seconds? Wouldn't simply stating, as they did, that he waved be enough? It appears you are assuming that someone would've commented on the length of the wave if it surpassed some preconceived time boundary.).....Chad
Chad Zimmerman
camera angle similar to the TSBD trajectory? The image you have on your
site is terribly misleading with a straight rear and above camera angle
and a very short chair back.
Chad
"Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message
news:1317nr0...@corp.supernews.com...
Andrew Mason
>
> "Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message
> news:1316crp...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> David Von Pein wrote:
>
> Addendum to my last post........
>
> Andrew,
>
> Why didn't Connally feel the bullet going into his thigh (via your
> "Neck-To-Thigh" scenario)?
>
> And that would have been the FIRST of the two bullets to hit JBC, per your
> theory. But Connally only felt the blow to his back. And he also always
> felt he was hit by just ONE bullet....which was also the general consensus
> of his doctors.
>
> That is true. But we cannot assume at all that he would have felt
> anything from such a bullet. He never felt the thigh wound.
>
> (So, since he never felt it, you feel that you can just make it as
> though it never produced any abnormal sensation to attract his
> attention?
I am not saying that. JBC said that. Why would there be pain? Do you
know this from personal experience? Have you ever been shot? I have had
clients who have been knifed who have told me that they did not know
they had been cut until after the fight.
> If all the wounds were caused by one bullet (SBT), then the
> pain gate theory explains why he never felt it. However, if the first
> time he was hit was just in the leg, you don't actually have a good
> reason as to why he didn't feel it. There is a difference, although you
> pretend there isn't.)
It is 4 seconds. During that 4 seconds he was concerned about the
President being killed. Can you state positively based on some evidence
that you can refer me to which says that wounds to the thigh are always
felt?
>
> He didn't know he was shot in the thigh until he was told the next day.
> So if he didn't feel until the next day, why would he have felt it in
> the first four seconds?
>
> (Gee, I wonder. Couldn't be the chest wound and all the meds, could it?
He wasn't getting any meds in the car on the way to Parkland.
> Cripes, he was asleep pretty much until the next day, Andrew. Let me
> shoot you in the leg and see if you can't feel it for 4 seconds. This is
> what happens when those that have no medical training whatsoever start
> theorizing about things that require intimate knowledge on the subject.)
So tell me, does a person who is shot always feel it? Is that your
medical opinion? What about Ronald Reagan? He did not know he had been
shot until after he was hustled into the car.
>
> Since he immediately recognized the sound as a rifle shot and feared the
> President was being assassinated, why would his mind focus on a leg
> wound that cause no pain or any sensation that we know of.
> There is no evidence that a wound like that causes pain. He said he felt
> no pain from any of his wounds until he got to Parkland.
>
> (Couldn't be due to that hole in his chest, could it?)
I don't think it is a good idea to speculate. The trajectory of the
bullet from the SN goes to JBC's left. The wound in the thigh fits
CE399. All I am saying is that JBC did not realize he had been hit by a
bullet in the thigh for four seconds before he was hit in the chest. If
you are telling me as a matter of fact that everyone who is shot like
that feels it, then say it and explain why? I have never been shot so I
don't know what it feels like.
There are two things that move JFK out of the way (he is not really in
the way to begin because the limo is angled a little to the SN): 1. JFK
moves left (he is not up against the right side in z271 but is over
toward Jackie). and 2. the car turns slightly to the right from z200-271.
>
> All obstacles are eliminated by accepting the WC's SBT.
You have a big problem with the shot pattern. How do you eliminate all
those witnesses? And how about all those who said that JFK reacted on
the first shot (16 to 0 by my last count)? And what about the
convergence on a first shot well after z180? How do you eliminate all
that evidence? You just ignore it?
>
> Only if you think 80 witnesses were hallucinating. Perhaps it should be
> called the Single Bullet Theory with Lots of Spectators on Drugs or the
> SBT/LSD theory.
>
> (...or, gulp, witness testimony isn't all that one cracks it up to be.
> I'd venture to say that more people are wrongfully convicted based upon
> witness testimony above any other cause. All of this has to do with
> perception and much has to do with perception of time. Now, since you're
> into proof, find some proof that people accurately recall timing during
> such events.)
It actually has very little to do with witness reliability. It has to do
with the fact that such a large proportion of the witnesses agreed on
the shot pattern.
They also agree that the first shot occurred after z186. They also
agreed on JFK reacting to the first shot? How do you explain that no one
in the entire crowd said that JFK continued to smile and wave at the
crowd after the first shot? How do you explain that?
>
>
> The SBT = No missing missiles
> Really. So where did the missing shot go? Tague said he was hit on the
> second shot. There is no evidence that it struck anything before the
> striking the curb and yet it had to have lost its jacket somehow. The
> missing shot scenario has no evidence at all. Furthermore, how did
> Oswald miss at such a close range?
>
> (...yet every hunter has missed a target a short ranges, Andrew. You
> seem to need an exact answer to admit the possibility. Simply not
> understanding something does not preclude it.)
You have fired a FMJ bullet at a limo sized target at 120 feet and missed?
>
> ....Connally's testimony lines up nicely with
> the SBT (whether he ever realized it or not)....the alignment of the
> victims is good for the SBT (whether CTers realize it or not)....JBC's
> small thigh wound is perfectly explained by the LAST REMAINS of the SBT
> scenario, i.e., a very slow-moving bullet....Connally's elongated back
> wound is also perfect via a SBT scenario....as is the Z-Film analysis of
> the victims' movements....and CE399, via Guinn, very likely struck JBC's
> wrist (which presents yet another of Andrew's problems with his theory).
The real problem with the SBT is that it does not fit what people observed.
To your credit, you see that if the witness evidence is right, the SBT
has a big problem.
My "theory" is that the witnesses actually observed what they
confidently said they observed. Most people would not call that a
theory. I say that the agreement of the witnesses cannot be explained
as a mistake. And there are many bodies of independent evidence here
that do not fit the SBT (shot pattern, late first shot, JFK hit on first
shot, JBC hit on second).
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
Actually you said "The loss going through Kennedy's neck is only about
150 fps." Now you are adding the word "from" to clarify what you meant.
If you say a bullet has lost 150 fps, I assume you mean it has lost
150 fps from its muzzle speed.
I am just relying on Dr. Shires' observations. That is how he described
it: 7 HSCA 337:
"The wound in the skin was described as a tangential wound, which means
that it was larger than a direct entry of the fragment wherever it might
be located, would have generally made . Therefore, the tangential
nature, the long nature of the wound could have been made by the
fragment on a tangent to the skin, then entering subcutaneous or bone,
or it could have been made by a larger missile with a fragment coming
off and lodging in subcutaneous tissue or bone ."
What photo are you referring to?
>
>> behind the sign which is when the first shot occurred, according to
>> all the witness evidence. So the inner thigh could easily be visible.
>> He also could have had his left leg out farther to the left.
>>
>
> No, it couldn't. Not from the angle of view from the sniper's nest.
Why? What is wrong with my photo showing the thigh visible from the rear?
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Until it has been properly investigated, I don't really care what
>>>>>> the arm chair ballistics experts might say about it. It fits the
>>>>>> evidence, whereas the SBT does not. It explains why JBC said he
>>>>>> was hit in the back by the second shot and Nellie saw JFK reacting
>>>>>> to the first shot. Unfortunately for you, Anthony, it also fits
>>>>>> the LN conclusion and does not require a complicated multiple
>>>>>> shooter scenario.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You have a cute idea, but you have not tested it or proved it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't have to. The evidence says it happened. You have to refute
>>>> the evidence that says it happened.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nonsense. That is no way to present a wacky theory.
>>
>>
>> Let me see. You, who believes that more than three shots were fired,
>> some with silencers, are saying that my three shot- three hit scenario
>> which is what the Connallys and others said happened, is wacky?
>
>
> There you go again, making false claims. I do not believe that silencers
> were used. Do you think you need to fall back on such tactics to win an
> argument? Look at the damn photo.
Sorry. I had you mixed up with Robert Harris. I apologize. But you do
think there were more than 4 shots and seem to think that is not wacky.
So I guess "wacky" means any theory that you do not agree with.
Andrew Mason
>
>>
>> Andrew Mason
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> Do you have an image of someone on a real chair with a normal back and a
> camera angle similar to the TSBD trajectory? The image you have on your
> site is terribly misleading with a straight rear and above camera angle
> and a very short chair back.
>
It wouldn't help. The thigh wound was on the inside of the thigh and
thus always blocked by Connally's body.
Andrew Mason
I agree. Tell me which witnesses I should include that I have ommitted.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
CE 903 proves that is easily possible.
David Von Pein
>>> "JBC was always charasmatic about discussing how Nellie thought it happened. I've always thought that he never really believed in what she recalled and almost always said that all he knew was that he was not hit with the first or third shot." <<<
DVP now says:
Exactly.
And we know that JBC never "saw" JFK during the entire critical time
(in order to KNOW when JFK was first hit by a bullet, that is). But
CTers still love to prop JBC up as an anti-SBT witness based on WHAT
HE SAW and/or what he KNEW. That's just silly.
Plus: we have JBC on camera in 1967 saying the SBT is "possible".....
EDDIE BARKER -- "Do you believe, Governor Connally, that the first
bullet could have missed, the second one hit both of you, and the
third one hit President Kennedy?"
JOHN CONNALLY -- "That's possible. That's possible. .... The only way
that I could ever reconcile my memory of what happened and what
occurred, with respect to the One-Bullet Theory is, it HAD to be the
SECOND bullet that might have hit us both."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/741a872f58796bfe
Anthony Marsh
Which wound are you talking about?
The thigh wound was never described that way.
No one ever used the word parallelogram or described it as very
elogated. It was said to be ROUND.
But that does not prove the angle that it hit at.
> Source: WCR, Treatment of Governor Connally
>
> While the second operation was in progress, Dr. George T. Shires, assisted
> by Drs. Robert McClelland, Charles Baxter, and Ralph Don Patman, treated
> the gunshot wound in the left thigh. This punctuate missile wound, about
> two-fifths inch in diameter (1 centimeter) and located approximately 5
> inches above the left knee, was cleansed and closed with sutures; but a
> small metallic fragment remained in the Governor's leg.
>
> Source: WCR, The Governor's Wounds
>
> In addition, Governor Connally suffered a puncture wound in the left thigh
> that was approximately two-fifths of an inch (1 centimeter) in diameter
> and located approximately 5 or 6 inches above the Governor's left knee.
> On the Governor's leg, very little soft-tissue damage was noted, which
> indicated a tangential wound or the penetration of a larger missile
> entering at low velocity and stopping after entering the skin.
>
And I like the way WC defender embrace this shallow wound theory and
then say it is impossible for the back wound.
Andrew Mason
> Do you have an image of someone on a real chair with a normal back and a
> camera angle similar to the TSBD trajectory? The image you have on your
> site is terribly misleading with a straight rear and above camera angle
> and a very short chair back.
The chair back is identical to the cushion he is sitting on and is the
width of the back. The cushion is a normal seat cushion from a chair and
it goes to the same height on his back that the jump seat does on JBC.
The jump seats in the limo folded up so that the back was the same
height as the seat length. see:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/limo_seats_up_dillard.jpg
The seat back certainly didn't block a shot from JFK's neck. At least
not unless you think the yellow arrow in this drawing extended back to a
point above JFK's neck:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/thigh_trajectory_ED.pdf
Whether the torso blocks the thigh depends on how much the shoulders are
turned and how much the legs are apart. Try sitting like that with your
legs together!
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>
>> Do you have an image of someone on a real chair with a normal back and
>> a camera angle similar to the TSBD trajectory? The image you have on
>> your site is terribly misleading with a straight rear and above camera
>> angle and a very short chair back.
>
> The chair back is identical to the cushion he is sitting on and is the
> width of the back. The cushion is a normal seat cushion from a chair and
> it goes to the same height on his back that the jump seat does on JBC.
> The jump seats in the limo folded up so that the back was the same
> height as the seat length. see:
> http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/limo_seats_up_dillard.jpg
>
Correct, sorta.
> The seat back certainly didn't block a shot from JFK's neck. At least
> not unless you think the yellow arrow in this drawing extended back to a
> point above JFK's neck:
> http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/thigh_trajectory_ED.pdf
>
The seat back certainly could never block a shot hitting Connally where
he was actually hit in his right armpit.
> Whether the torso blocks the thigh depends on how much the shoulders are
> turned and how much the legs are apart. Try sitting like that with your
> legs together!
>
Nonsense. You don't know where Connally's thigh was hit. It was in the
INNER thigh. A bullet can not hit it directly from any shot from the
sniper's nest. Connally's body is in the way when he is seen seated
normally in the early portions of the Zapruder film.
Anthony Marsh
There might be someone out there on this planet who could postulate 3 or
more shooters and yet still believe in the SBT. But I have never met him
and I suspect that he would be made out of straw.
>>
>>> very reliable evidence. Many people on this board go to great pains
>>> to explain how all the witnesses who recalled the 1.........2....3
>>> shot pattern were all wrong and how those who saw JFK react to the
>>> first shot were all wrong. So LNers admit that the SBT does not fit
>>> the evidence. And they concede that if it is wrong, there had to have
>>> been two shooters. LNers actually help the CT cause by adhering to
>>> the SBT.
>>>
>>
>> Your shot pattern theory is nonsense.
>
> It is not my shot pattern theory. It is what the overwhelming number of
> witnesses who commented on the shot pattern said it was: the last two
> shots being closer together. My only contribution to this is the
> "theory" is the view that they could not possibly all be wrong. So you
> are not only saying that the witnesses all recalled it incorrectly, but
> you are also inventing new principles of statistics that would attribute
> no significance to the fact that 44 of the witnesses said it was
> 1.........2...3 and 6 said it was the other way around.
>
Nonsense. Whenever anyone comes up with a wacky theory and can not
defend it, he falls back on the old chestnut that all the witnesses saw
it that way. Pure bunk.
Someone uploaded a picture showing the leg could not be out that far.
And even worse it was not taken from the angle much more to the right
ala the sniper's nest.
>>
>>> Myers uses smoke and mirrors to make the viewer believe that the shot
>>> from the SN goes through the middle of JFK and 8 inches to the right
>>> of JBC's middle even though it is going right to left. He refuses to
>>> say in his recreation where JBC and JFK are in their seats and he
>>> refuses to show how their positions fit with those seen in the zfilm.
>>> It does not work.
>>>
>>>> Plus: The "Neck Directly To Thigh" theory has another big hurdle to
>>>> overcome, and that is the likelihood that Connally's thighbone
>>>> (femur) would almost certainly have been struck and shattered by a
>>>> bullet that ONLY went through John Kennedy's neck first.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not according to the doctor who treated the wound, Dr. Shires. He
>>> thought it could have been caused by a bullet at full speed because
>>> of the tangential strike on the thigh.
>>
>>
>> Dr. Shires is unqualified to speculate on such matters.
>
> He is as qualified as you.
>
Nonsense.
>>
>>>> That bullet, per the WC, was travelling at approx. 1,775 fps when it
>>>> exited JFK's throat. At that speed, there's no way it's only going
>>>> to cause the superficial type of wound that John Connally did suffer
>>>> on November 22, 1963.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And your authority for that is?.... A bullet at 1775 fps has 1/3
>>> less energy than it had when it left the muzzle. If it is tumbling,
>>> strikes the thigh on a steep tangent and butt-first, I say that the
>>> thigh can stop it easily. No one has done a demonstration to prove
>>> otherwise.
>>
>>
>> Pure nonsense.
>
> Words, Anthony. I prefer evidence.
>
No, you don't and that's the problem. You cherry pick witness statements
and misrepresent them.
Because it went through his right sleeve and hit the inside curved part
of his right torso in the armpit. Striking a curved surface is one cause
of an elliptical entrance wound.
Oh really? I'd like to see your documentation for that. The original
limousine that President Kennedy was killed in. Prove it. Back up your
claims.
Do not rely on eyewitness testimony.
> Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>
>> Do you have an image of someone on a real chair with a normal back and
>> a camera angle similar to the TSBD trajectory? The image you have on
>> your site is terribly misleading with a straight rear and above camera
>> angle and a very short chair back.
>>
>
> It wouldn't help. The thigh wound was on the inside of the thigh and
> thus always blocked by Connally's body.
Anthony is right. There is no conceivable way that the torso could be
turned an extra 1/4 of a centimeter to expose the thigh entrance wound
location in this photo: http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/JBC_thigh_shot.JPG
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
Absolute nonsense. I said what I meant and I meant what I said. I would
not talk about going through unless I meant only the loss by going
through. And the word is loss and in how much velocity the bullet loses
at each point.
If you can't understand simple English, get your teacher to explain the
messages to you.
Then you attempted to refute my figure of about 150 fps by citing one
test which actually came out to a loss of only 132 fps as if to prove me
wrong. How silly.
Then you added some nonsense about 33% energy.
That is the heart of your problem, relying on witness statements. What
about a witness who says that he saw an intact bullet fall out of the
casket. Does that prove there was an additional bullet? Where is it now?
Show it to me. Hoover said it fell out of the head. Does that make it a
fact?
> "The wound in the skin was described as a tangential wound, which means
> that it was larger than a direct entry of the fragment wherever it might
> be located, would have generally made . Therefore, the tangential
FRAGMENT, not BULLET. There's your proof. Shires said it was a fragment,
not a bullet, so you must accept that as absolute proof that it was only
a fragment, not an intact bullet!
The photo someone uploaded which shows a man with his thigh sticking out
to the left. Someone offered it as proof that a direct hit to the thigh
was possible, but A.) it does not show the point on the thigh where the
wound was and B. it was taken from the wrong angle.
>>
>>> behind the sign which is when the first shot occurred, according to
>>> all the witness evidence. So the inner thigh could easily be visible.
>>> He also could have had his left leg out farther to the left.
>>>
>>
>> No, it couldn't. Not from the angle of view from the sniper's nest.
>
> Why? What is wrong with my photo showing the thigh visible from the rear?
>
Lots of things. See A and B above for starters.
You don't even know where the damn thigh wound was.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Until it has been properly investigated, I don't really care what
>>>>>>> the arm chair ballistics experts might say about it. It fits the
>>>>>>> evidence, whereas the SBT does not. It explains why JBC said he
>>>>>>> was hit in the back by the second shot and Nellie saw JFK
>>>>>>> reacting to the first shot. Unfortunately for you, Anthony, it
>>>>>>> also fits the LN conclusion and does not require a complicated
>>>>>>> multiple shooter scenario.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have a cute idea, but you have not tested it or proved it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have to. The evidence says it happened. You have to refute
>>>>> the evidence that says it happened.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense. That is no way to present a wacky theory.
>>>
>>>
>>> Let me see. You, who believes that more than three shots were fired,
>>> some with silencers, are saying that my three shot- three hit
>>> scenario which is what the Connallys and others said happened, is wacky?
>>
>>
>> There you go again, making false claims. I do not believe that
>> silencers were used. Do you think you need to fall back on such
>> tactics to win an argument? Look at the damn photo.
>
> Sorry. I had you mixed up with Robert Harris. I apologize. But you do
> think there were more than 4 shots and seem to think that is not wacky.
> So I guess "wacky" means any theory that you do not agree with.
>
And who said that I don't think it is wacky? I have always said that I
do not have enough proof yet for the fifth shot. I am working on it.
The HSCA proved 4 shots and rejected the fifth shot. I did not make up
the fifth shot from my imagination. It is listed on the BBN cross
correlations at 140.32 secs.
> Andrew Mason
>>
>>>
>>> Andrew Mason
>>
>>
>
Anthony Marsh
> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>
>>
>> "Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message
>> news:1316crp...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>
>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>> Addendum to my last post........
>>
>> Andrew,
>>
>> Why didn't Connally feel the bullet going into his thigh (via your
>> "Neck-To-Thigh" scenario)?
>>
>> And that would have been the FIRST of the two bullets to hit JBC, per
>> your
>> theory. But Connally only felt the blow to his back. And he also always
>> felt he was hit by just ONE bullet....which was also the general
>> consensus
>> of his doctors.
>>
>> That is true. But we cannot assume at all that he would have felt
>> anything from such a bullet. He never felt the thigh wound.
>>
>> (So, since he never felt it, you feel that you can just make it as
>> though it never produced any abnormal sensation to attract his attention?
>
> I am not saying that. JBC said that. Why would there be pain? Do you
> know this from personal experience? Have you ever been shot? I have had
> clients who have been knifed who have told me that they did not know
> they had been cut until after the fight.
>
Connally also said that he did not feel the wrist wound. It may be due
to the shock of the bullet going through his chest.
Herbert Blenner
> >> even more understandable with a tangential hit (which distributes the
> >> stopping energy over a longer time period, thereby reducing the stopping
> >> force significantly) by a tumbling bullet. See my little diagram of a
> >> possible way this can happen:http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/JBC_thigh_bullet_sticking.pdf
>
> > A bullet with yaw, which strikes tangentially makes a linear wound that
> > resembles a parallelogram with rounded corners. This shape differs from
> > the round wound observed and documented by the Parkland doctors. Further a
> > bullet with yaw makes a wound track whose size is comparable with the
> > surface wound. So the observation of surprisingly little soft tissue
> > damage beneath a large surface wound disputes entry by a bullet with yaw.
>
> Which wound are you talking about?
I am talking about the wound described immediately above my comments.
Hint. Read the title of the link.
>
> The thigh wound was never described that way.
> No one ever used the word parallelogram or described it as very
> elogated.
Nor did I contend that anyone described the thigh wound as linear or
resembling a parallelogram with rounded corners. Instead, I described a
wound made by a tangential strike by a bullet with yaw.
> It was said to be ROUND.
Dr. Gregory who did not get a good look called the thigh wound round. By
contrast, Dr. Shires who operated on the thigh wound never explicitly
described its shape and called the 1 cm surface wound too large for the
underlying damage. This observation is consistent with a tangential entry
by the bullet.
> But that does not prove the angle that it hit at.
Roundness of the bullet hole on the skin proves a non tangential entry
by a bullet without yaw.
Herbert
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh wrote:
Nonsense. All he has to do is turn his torso right, which he does from
z180-200. His thigh becomes visible from the rear if it is sufficiently
to the left because it is pointing up well above the waist.
Andrew Mason
Chad Zimmerman
The main problem I have with the photograph is that it is not taken, or
doesn't appear to be, from the angle the bullet would've been traveling.
Instead, the pictures is straight behind the JBC stand-in, making it look
conceivable, but is it if you move over and take the correct angle. My
guess is the leg disappears.
Chad
"Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message
news:13191u3...@corp.supernews.com...
Chad Zimmerman
> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>
>>
>> "Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message
>> news:1316crp...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>
>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>> Addendum to my last post........
>>
>> Andrew,
>>
>> Why didn't Connally feel the bullet going into his thigh (via your
>> "Neck-To-Thigh" scenario)?
>>
>> And that would have been the FIRST of the two bullets to hit JBC, per
>> your
>> theory. But Connally only felt the blow to his back. And he also always
>> felt he was hit by just ONE bullet....which was also the general
>> consensus
>> of his doctors.
>> That is true. But we cannot assume at all that he would have felt
>> anything from such a bullet. He never felt the thigh wound.
>>
>> (So, since he never felt it, you feel that you can just make it as though
>> it never produced any abnormal sensation to attract his attention?
>
> I am not saying that. JBC said that.
Andrew, you're not separating the shot sequences in your mind very well.
You are saying that since JBC never felt any pain in the leg, that it is
possible that your scenario is valid. However, others say that IF JBC was
hit with only one bullet, that the chest wound may have trumped any other
feeling associated with being shot.
You can't use JBC's own words to support your scenario of his wounding,
since the other is a possibility. If he was hit with only one shot, then
we might understand his not feeling the leg wound because of the chest
wound. However, you want us to believe that the deposition of kinetic
energy is what causes the *feeling*, yet your bullet has to come to a
complete stop in the left leg at almost 1800 fps.
Now, you can mathematically argue about the decrease in energy, but you
still cannot provide any actual support that a bullet traveling at 1800fps
and stopping in the leg would not be felt...and would not break the
leg...or pass clean through.
Thus, because some surgeon (not ballistics expert) makes some jackass
claim that it may have hit tangentially- leaving a perfectly round
hole???- you think you have a case. It is a stretch of the imagination.
>Why would there be pain?
Why wouldn't he feel anything, Andrew? 1800fps to 0 fps...and not the
slightest sensation?
I think the burden is on you, not me.
Do you
> know this from personal experience? Have you ever been shot? I have had
> clients who have been knifed who have told me that they did not know they
> had been cut until after the fight.
Cripes. You make the argument about the deposition of kinetic energy
causing sensation..then talk about a knife with hardly any. Go figure.
I really hate it when attorneys try to play doctor. Sorry.
>
>
>> If all the wounds were caused by one bullet (SBT), then the pain gate
>> theory explains why he never felt it. However, if the first time he was
>> hit was just in the leg, you don't actually have a good reason as to why
>> he didn't feel it. There is a difference, although you pretend there
>> isn't.)
>
> It is 4 seconds. During that 4 seconds he was concerned about the
> President being killed.
So he says, but never actually looked at him. Concern doesn't necessitate
complete lack of any awareness of a bullet losing 1800fps entering his
leg.
Can you state positively based on some evidence
> that you can refer me to which says that wounds to the thigh are always
> felt?
Sure, it is right next to the information that says it is never felt.
Neither exist.
>
>>
>> He didn't know he was shot in the thigh until he was told the next day.
>> So if he didn't feel until the next day, why would he have felt it in the
>> first four seconds?
>>
>> (Gee, I wonder. Couldn't be the chest wound and all the meds, could it?
>
> He wasn't getting any meds in the car on the way to Parkland.
No, he slipped unconscious on the way, then was awakened when the car
stopped at the hospital. IOW, he didn't exactly have hit wits about him.
But, what the hell does the ride to the hospital have anything to do with
his being medicated until the next day?
>
>> Cripes, he was asleep pretty much until the next day, Andrew. Let me
>> shoot you in the leg and see if you can't feel it for 4 seconds. This is
>> what happens when those that have no medical training whatsoever start
>> theorizing about things that require intimate knowledge on the subject.)
>
> So tell me, does a person who is shot always feel it?
Typical lawyer question. Ask something that everyone already knows.
Of course not, you know that. Everyone knows that. However, you make an
argument about the deposition of KE causing perception, then plainly
ignore it when convenient, or make some completely untested hypothesis
that it didn't have enough energy to create a feeling.
Do YOU think that a bullet losing 1800fps of energy in the leg would be
enough to create a sensation?
If not, please shoot yourself in the left leg with a .38 and let us know.
Is that your
> medical opinion? What about Ronald Reagan? He did not know he had been
> shot until after he was hustled into the car.
Cripes, was JBC grabbed and thrown into a car? Kind of a distraction,
isn't it?
Please show me such a movement that would distract him for 4 seconds.
Is this how you argue in court? Use completely unlike scenarios to draw
similarities?
>
>>
>> Since he immediately recognized the sound as a rifle shot and feared the
>> President was being assassinated, why would his mind focus on a leg wound
>> that cause no pain or any sensation that we know of.
>> There is no evidence that a wound like that causes pain. He said he felt
>> no pain from any of his wounds until he got to Parkland.
>> (Couldn't be due to that hole in his chest, could it?)
>
> I don't think it is a good idea to speculate. The trajectory of the bullet
> from the SN goes to JBC's left. The wound in the thigh fits CE399.
Only when you let a lawyer make the ballistic interpretations, right?
Tell me how a damned ROUND wound was created by a tangential strike
and how the bullet hit the leg on its side?
This involves serious mental gymnastics, imo.
All I am saying is that JBC did not realize he had been hit by a
> bullet in the thigh for four seconds before he was hit in the chest. If
> you are telling me as a matter of fact that everyone who is shot like that
> feels it, then say it and explain why? I have never been shot so I don't
> know what it feels like.
I never said that all people feel it, Andrew. Typical all or nothing
argument.
Pointless. Now you're reducing yourself to the typical CT style argument
by asking someone if they've fired a FMJ bullet at a limo-sized target.
Your lack of comprehending the possible does not make it impossible. This
is what happens with CT books. They can't understand something, so the
declare it impossible and move on.
People miss, Andrew. Live with it. It is a fact of life. I've missed an
entire deer at 30 yards with a 12-guage. It was standing still.
Maybe he lost tracking through the trees. We don't know. Nobody does. That
doesn't preclude it from happening. Most hunters would tell you the same
thing- they don't understand how they miss the easy shots.
Nevertheless, you have some major issues to contend with, imo. You have
some extremely unlikely ballistics taking place and no clear way to
explain it.
Chad
Andrew Mason
> Andrew,
>
> The main problem I have with the photograph is that it is not taken, or
> doesn't appear to be, from the angle the bullet would've been traveling.
> Instead, the pictures is straight behind the JBC stand-in, making it look
> conceivable, but is it if you move over and take the correct angle. My
> guess is the leg disappears.
The picture was intended to show that the thigh was visible from the
rear from the position of JFK, who was slightly to the right of JBC. The
camera is well to the right of the middle of the "jump" seat as you can
see by comparing the right side to the left side of the cushions (also
look at the lines on the floor on either side of the cushion). The
camera is farther to the right than JFK actually was in the limo, since
the right side of the jump seat was 2.5 inches from the inside of the
door and 3.5 inches inside the wall beside JFK. JFK's spine was at least
8 inches inside that wall, or 5.5 inches to the left of the right edge
of the jump seat.
The height of the camera is not quite right,though. To give you a view
of the path from the JFK's neck the camera should have been about 4
inches lower than it was.
Now, if you really believe that JBC's right armpit was further left than
JFK's neck (which you have to believe if you accept the SBT) you are not
going to agree with this photo. Obviously if you think the bullet went
from JFK's middle to JBC's right side, you will not agree that it also
went to his left side.
Andrew Mason
Unless JBC felt the shot, he would not have any reason to believe he was
hit by it.
What causes the feeling is nerves being excited. If nerves are not
excited, I don't see how there would be any feeling. I don't think that
nerve excitement is the same as nerve obliteration. If you blast a hole
through someone obliterating tissue and leaving adjacent nerves intact,
you don't necessarily cause a sensation at all.
So I don't think "feeling" is necesarily related to the amount of energy
deposited. If the bullet moves bone, the movement of the bone against
intact nerves will cause a feeling. This may be why JBC felt the impact
of the bullet in his back.
>
> Now, you can mathematically argue about the decrease in energy, but you
> still cannot provide any actual support that a bullet traveling at 1800fps
> and stopping in the leg would not be felt...and would not break the
> leg...or pass clean through.
I am not saying that JBC did not feel it. He said he did not feel it.
You say he did not feel it, although it did cause pain, because he was
preoccupied with the pain of his chest wound. But there is not only a
lack of evidence that it caused pain, but direct evidence from JBC that
it did not. I am saying he did not feel it because it did not cause
pain. If it did not cause pain, the thigh wound could just as easily
have happened on shot #1 as on #2.
So I think you need some good evidence that such a bullet will
neccessarily always be felt.
>
> Thus, because some surgeon (not ballistics expert) makes some jackass
> claim that it may have hit tangentially- leaving a perfectly round
> hole???- you think you have a case. It is a stretch of the imagination.
I can't say it is a jackass claim. How is a cylindrical bullet going to
leave anything but a round hole, whether it strikes tangentially or not?
If it strikes tangentially, the surface of the skin will show an
elongated or elliptical abrasion but not the hole through the flesh.
Besides, it is not because of Dr. Shires that that I think I have a
case. His evidence merely leaves it as a possibility.
What tells us that it happened that way is the overwhelming amount of
consistent witness evidence that the last two shots were closer together
and the Connally's clear evidence, supported by several others, that he
was hit in the back on the second shot. This means that JFK was hit on
the first shot because he is obviously reacting by z225 and there was
only one shot to that point. If JBC was not hit in the back by the
bullet that passed through JFK's neck, then there is only one
possibility of where the bullet went.
>
>
>>Why would there be pain?
>
>
> Why wouldn't he feel anything, Andrew? 1800fps to 0 fps...and not the
> slightest sensation?
>
> I think the burden is on you, not me.
Tell me, if a person is shot and he says he felt no pain, do you say to
him: prove it? The evidence that he was not conscious of being hit in
the thigh comes from JBC and the shot pattern witnesses, as explained above.
>
> Do you
>
>>know this from personal experience? Have you ever been shot? I have had
>>clients who have been knifed who have told me that they did not know they
>>had been cut until after the fight.
>
>
> Cripes. You make the argument about the deposition of kinetic energy
> causing sensation..then talk about a knife with hardly any. Go figure.
>
>
> I really hate it when attorneys try to play doctor. Sorry.
I am not giving you my expert opinion. I am simply putting forth an
explanation of the evidence that exists. As I say, I am not saying that
JBC did not feel the wound because that is my opinion. I am saying he
did not feel it because that is what the evidence says.
It is not a matter of lawyers playing doctor. Lawyers argue evidence.
Doctors don't decide cases. Ordinary people do. And lawyers, not
doctors, are usually the ones advocating. That is all I am doing.
It is you, not me, who is trying to play doctor. It is you who is
providing evidence, saying that the scenario which flows from the
evidence (JBC being hit in the back after JFK hit in the neck because he
was hit on the second shot and the second shot was just before the
third) cannot be right because it does not fit with your opinion of how
the shot must have felt.
That is not the question. The question is, on this occasion did this
bullet, striking JBC's thigh the way it did, however that was,
necessarily create a sensation that would have registered in JBC's
conscious mind at that time? I don't how to find the answer to that
question except by looking at the evidence in this case.
In my view, the fact that the last two shots were after JFK was hit in
the neck and the fact that JBC was hit in the back on the second shot,
if those are facts, gives you the answer to that question. If yo want to
argue that those are not the facts, fine.
>
> If not, please shoot yourself in the left leg with a .38 and let us know.
>
> Is that your
>
>>medical opinion? What about Ronald Reagan? He did not know he had been
>>shot until after he was hustled into the car.
>
>
> Cripes, was JBC grabbed and thrown into a car? Kind of a distraction,
> isn't it?
>
> Please show me such a movement that would distract him for 4 seconds.
>
> Is this how you argue in court? Use completely unlike scenarios to draw
> similarities?
You seem to have difficulty connecting here. Where did I ever suggest
that Ronald Reagan being shot was similar to JBC being shot? I was
asking you if you were saying that a person always feels being shot. I
was asking you if that was your medical opinion. If a doctor tells me
that a person always feels a bullet entering his body, I might ask him
about a well known scenario in which the President of the U.S. was shot
and didn't feel it. Legitimate question.
>
>
>>>Since he immediately recognized the sound as a rifle shot and feared the
>>>President was being assassinated, why would his mind focus on a leg wound
>>>that cause no pain or any sensation that we know of.
>>>There is no evidence that a wound like that causes pain. He said he felt
>>>no pain from any of his wounds until he got to Parkland.
>>> (Couldn't be due to that hole in his chest, could it?)
>>
>>I don't think it is a good idea to speculate. The trajectory of the bullet
>>from the SN goes to JBC's left. The wound in the thigh fits CE399.
>
>
> Only when you let a lawyer make the ballistic interpretations, right?
Lawyers are capable of drawing straight lines and questioning whether
someone's line is straight. As a suggestion, I would avoid trying to
limit a person's capacity based on what they do for a living. I have a
lot of faith in juries. Ordinary people from all walks of life can
analyse evidence.
>
> Tell me how a damned ROUND wound was created by a tangential strike
> and how the bullet hit the leg on its side?
I thought I had shown you this before:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/JBC_thigh_bullet_sticking.pdf
>
> This involves serious mental gymnastics, imo.
Much less serious mental gymnastics than trying to explain how so many
people wrongly imagined that the last two shots were closer together
when in fact they were farther apart. That is the key to this whole
case, imo. That, and the evidence that JBC was not hit in the back by
the first shot.
>
>
> All I am saying is that JBC did not realize he had been hit by a
>
>>bullet in the thigh for four seconds before he was hit in the chest. If
>>you are telling me as a matter of fact that everyone who is shot like that
>>feels it, then say it and explain why? I have never been shot so I don't
>>know what it feels like.
>
>
> I never said that all people feel it, Andrew. Typical all or nothing
> argument.
So why did JBC have to feel it if he was shot like that?
I can easily accept that a person missed a shot if there was evidence
that it missed. But there is evidence here that it did not miss. Like 16
witnesses who said JFK reacted to it.
>
> People miss, Andrew. Live with it. It is a fact of life. I've missed an
> entire deer at 30 yards with a 12-guage. It was standing still.
Why were you shooting a deer with a 12 gauge shotgun?
>
> Maybe he lost tracking through the trees. We don't know. Nobody does. That
> doesn't preclude it from happening. Most hunters would tell you the same
> thing- they don't understand how they miss the easy shots.
I can see missing a sprinting target. But a slow moving limo at 120
feet? If there was evidence that it missed, like you I would have no
problem accepting that it occurred. But when you just say it must have
missed, when the people in the car say all three shots hit (as well as
all the witnesses who distinctly recalled a shot pattern that precludes
any miss) and insist it still missed, it is a legitimate question.
>
> Nevertheless, you have some major issues to contend with, imo. You have
> some extremely unlikely ballistics taking place and no clear way to
> explain it.
I disagree. The real issue here is how so many independent bodies of
witnesses could be wrong. The three shot three hit scenario is based on
that evidence. I can't explain exactly how the bullet stuck JBC in the
leg, but that doesn't mean I, or any jury member, could not conclude it
happened. I don't have a problem with the ballistics the same way that
you don't have a problem with the lack of an explanation for the shot
missing the car: "We don't know. Nobody does. That doesn't preclude it
from happening."
Andrew Mason
>
>
> Chad
Anthony Marsh
No, he might also see the blood, as he said for his chest wound.
Some people notice when their arm is shot off when they go to reach for
something and can't grab it. They put 2 and 2 together.
Nonsense. If the bullet enters sideways it will produce an elongated
hole, not a round hole.
> Besides, it is not because of Dr. Shires that that I think I have a
> case. His evidence merely leaves it as a possibility.
>
You cherry pick which doctor to believe.
If your theory were correct, then maybe he felt the bullet still in his
thigh and wondered what that thing was sticking in his leg.
Anthony Marsh
> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>
>> Andrew,
>>
>> The main problem I have with the photograph is that it is not taken,
>> or doesn't appear to be, from the angle the bullet would've been
>> traveling. Instead, the pictures is straight behind the JBC stand-in,
>> making it look conceivable, but is it if you move over and take the
>> correct angle. My guess is the leg disappears.
>
> The picture was intended to show that the thigh was visible from the
> rear from the position of JFK, who was slightly to the right of JBC. The
So what if the thigh is visible? The point of impact is not visible.
Thus the bullet could not directly hit his thigh where it was hit.
> camera is well to the right of the middle of the "jump" seat as you can
> see by comparing the right side to the left side of the cushions (also
> look at the lines on the floor on either side of the cushion). The
> camera is farther to the right than JFK actually was in the limo, since
> the right side of the jump seat was 2.5 inches from the inside of the
> door and 3.5 inches inside the wall beside JFK. JFK's spine was at least
> 8 inches inside that wall, or 5.5 inches to the left of the right edge
> of the jump seat.
>
Not the same angle as from the sniper's nest.
> The height of the camera is not quite right,though. To give you a view
> of the path from the JFK's neck the camera should have been about 4
> inches lower than it was.
>
> Now, if you really believe that JBC's right armpit was further left than
> JFK's neck (which you have to believe if you accept the SBT) you are not
> going to agree with this photo. Obviously if you think the bullet went
> from JFK's middle to JBC's right side, you will not agree that it also
> went to his left side.
>
That is not the point. The point is that Connally's body blocks a direct
hit to the thigh.
Anthony Marsh
Nope. You can't see the black dot on the inner thigh when the photo is
taken from the angle a bullet would be coming from.
> Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
Good God, man. He actually worked on the wound and he described it as
round. How can it be elliptical and round?
Did he claim the hole was 1 cm round?
>
>> But that does not prove the angle that it hit at.
>
> Roundness of the bullet hole on the skin proves a non tangential entry
> by a bullet without yaw.
>
Not quite.
>
> Herbert
Andrew Mason
We are not talking about a bullet entering sideways. We are talking
about a bullet striking a surface in which its long axis is in the
direction of motion but is at a slight angle (i.e. not quite parallel)
to the surface. That produces a round hole and an elliptical wound at
the surface.
>
>> Besides, it is not because of Dr. Shires that that I think I have a
>> case. His evidence merely leaves it as a possibility.
>>
>
> You cherry pick which doctor to believe.
Which doctor should I listen to? As far as I can recall, Shires was the
only one of JFK's doctors who commented on this.
He said he never felt it. Why would he have felt the bullet in my "theory"?
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
Nonsense. I have just shown you a picture that shows his thigh is not
blocked. Connally's body could have blocked it, depending on how his
torso was turned. If Connally's body actually blocked it, he would have
had a hole in the left side of his back. But when the first shot
occurred, he was turned sharply right exposing the thigh.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
> Andrew,
>
> The main problem I have with the photograph is that it is not taken, or
> doesn't appear to be, from the angle the bullet would've been traveling.
> Instead, the pictures is straight behind the JBC stand-in, making it look
> conceivable, but is it if you move over and take the correct angle. My
> guess is the leg disappears.
>
Of course, but worse yet is that he doesn't even know where the bullet
actually hit, well on the inside of the thigh. I challenged him to redo
it from the correct angle AND place a black dot on the inner thigh.
Herbert Blenner
> >>> resembles a parallelogram with rounded corners. This shape differs from
> >>> the round wound observed and documented by the Parkland doctors. Further a
> >>> bullet with yaw makes a wound track whose size is comparable with the
> >>> surface wound. So the observation of surprisingly little soft tissue
> >>> damage beneath a large surface wound disputes entry by a bullet with yaw.
> >> Which wound are you talking about?
>
> > I am talking about the wound described immediately above my comments.
> > Hint. Read the title of the link.
>
> >> The thigh wound was never described that way.
> >> No one ever used the word parallelogram or described it as very
> >> elogated.
>
> > Nor did I contend that anyone described the thigh wound as linear or
> > resembling a parallelogram with rounded corners. Instead, I described a
> > wound made by a tangential strike by a bullet with yaw.
>
> >> It was said to be ROUND.
>
> > Dr. Gregory who did not get a good look called the thigh wound round. By
> > contrast, Dr. Shires who operated on the thigh wound never explicitly
> > described its shape and called the 1 cm surface wound too large for the
> > underlying damage. This observation is consistent with a tangential entry
> > by the bullet.
>
> Good God, man. He actually worked on the wound and he described it as
> round.
Who are you talking about?
Source: WCR
While the second operation was in progress, Dr. George T. Shires,
assisted by Drs. Robert McClelland, Charles Baxter, and Ralph Don
Patman, treated the gunshot wound in the left thigh.
End of source.
Dr. Gregory who did not work on the thigh was the only one to describe
the shape of the wound as round.
> How can it be elliptical and round?
Nobody called the thigh wound elliptical. Instead Dr. shires, who
never called the wound round, attributed the larger surface hole with
surprisingly less underlying damage to a tangential entry. These
descriptions infer an elliptical surface hole.
> Did he claim the hole was 1 cm round?
Dr. Gregory claimed that the round thigh wound had two differing
diameters.
Source: WC testimony of Dr. Charles Francis Gregory
Mr. SPECTER - As to the thigh wound, what, if anything, did you
observe as to a wound on the thigh, Dr. Gregory? Dr. GREGORY - I was
apprised that the Governor had a wound of the thigh, and I did
examine it immediately the limb was available for it after Dr. Shaw
had completed the surgery. The wound was located on the inner aspect
of the thigh, a little to the front surface about a third of the way
up from the knee. The wound appeared to me to be rounded, almost a
puncture type of wound in dimension about equal to a pencil eraser,
about 6 mm.
End of source.
Source: WC testimony of Dr. Charles Francis Gregory
Mr. SPECTER - What were the dimensions of the wound on the medial
aspect of his thigh.
Dr. GREGORY - I would say that that wound was about a centimeter in
diameter, much larger than the identifiable fragment of metal in the
thigh. I might add that this prompted some speculation on our part, my
part, which was voiced to someone that some search ought to be made in
the Governor's clothing or perhaps in the auto or some place, wherever
he may have been, for the missile which had produced this much damage
but which was not resident in him.
End of source.
>
>
>
> >> But that does not prove the angle that it hit at.
>
> > Roundness of the bullet hole on the skin proves a non tangential entry
> > by a bullet without yaw.
>
> Not quite.
Could you elaborate on "not quite"?
By elaborate, I mean explain how it could happen.
Herbert
>
>
>
>
>
> > Herbert- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Andrew Mason
What if he was turned more and the thigh was out to the left a bit more?
Why would the inner thigh not be exposed?
Andrew Mason
>
>> Andrew Mason
>
>
Herbert Blenner
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > Andrew Mason wrote:
>
> >> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>
> >>>news:13191au...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> >>>> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>
A bullet with negligible misalignment between its long axis and direction
of motion produces an elliptical hole on the skin when the angle of
incidence between its direction of motion and the perpendicular to the
skin is considerable. In particular the length of the minor axis divided
by the length of the major axis of the hole before elastic relaxation
equals the cosine of the incidence angle. Under these conditions of the
so-called tangential entry the bullet punches a cylindrical hole beneath
the skin.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
NO, that does not work. Translate your photo into an overhead drawing
and then draw a line from the sniper's nest. It has to go through
Connally's body to hit the inner part of his left thigh.
> Andrew Mason
>>
>>> Andrew Mason
>>
>>
>
Anthony Marsh
Sure, but you will not be able to follow it.
> By elaborate, I mean explain how it could happen.
>
It depends on the type of bullet. If the bullet is small and roundish, a
tangential strike may appear to be to be round. Same applies to a fragment
from a bullet.
Anthony Marsh
No, the photo shows that we can only see the outside part of the thigh.
The wound was on the inside part which we can not see. Again, take the
challenged. Place a black dot where the wound actually was and then
rephotograph so that we can see the black dot.
Your argument about needing a wound in Connally's back is circular
reasoning. It is because Connally's back blocked the shot and we know that
he did not have a wound on the left side of his back, that we know that
the thigh could not be hit directly from the sniper's nest.
Anthony Marsh
What are you babbling about? You know nothing about ballistics.
Because your theory seems to have a whole bullet stuck in his thigh.
Andrew Mason
I am not sure where you are having difficulty. This is not about
ballistics. It is about geometry. A bullet striking the thigh on an
angle makes a round hole with an elongated surface wound. Slice a
cylinder on an angle and you get an ellipse.
Andrew Mason