Question on the evolution of the SBT

[bigdog]

I know the standard CT line is that the SBT was an invention of necessity
to save the lone assassin theory after it was discovered that Tague had
apparently been hit by a stray shot or fragment and the JFK and JBC were
hit too closely together to have been hit by seperate shots from Oswald's
bolt action rifle. BLAH! BLAH! BLAH. In a rare moment of clarity, Marsh
has pointed out that orignally, the hypothesis was three shots, three
hits. I am curious as to the actual genesis of the SBT. Who first came up
with it, was it the brainchild of one man or a team effort. Was it a
EUREKA! moment or did it evolve slowly. What was the key piece(s) of
evidence that led the investigators to the possibility of a single bullet
hitting both men. Was it repeated viewings of the Z-film. Was it the photo
recreating in Dealey Plaza? Or was there something else that triggered it.
Also, for those members of the commision who didn't believe the SBT, are
they on record as stating what their objections were?

[JOHN]

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

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:15:21 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:

It is doubtful that you'd get an honest answer to that question. The
person themselves that thought it up is probably passed on. But why would
anyone let on that they thought it up, when it was supposed to be the
result of serious forensic thinking?

As you've just done by admitting that it had to be "thought up", you've
said that there really is no proof of such an event, and now with the
advent of the information from the AARB that that the SBT is a dead issue,
why bother tracking it down? We know now the bullet that hit JFK in the
back never went on to hit Connally. Why bother chasing foolish theories?

Chris

[Ace Kefford]

On Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:15:21 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:

This is a good question, and I know I have read more about it. Relying on
my "memory" I am pretty sure that the single-bullet theory (SBT) predated
the focus on the Tague hit. From that same shaky source of my memory I
recall an article by Arlen Specter where he gave his version of the
origin.

I'm sure those with more knowledge and more time can provide a good
back-and-forth on the issue. Looking forward to it as a genuine matter of
discussion.

[Robert Harris]

One bullet probably did pass through both men, but there are three very
important issues here, which are much more important.

The first is, that the angles from the alleged sniper's nest are
inconsistent with the known wound locations. This brief presentation
which I made in 2008 goes into detail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eGupSng-Po

The second is that the actual bullet which wounded those men, was not
the same one that Daryl Tomlinson recovered. The actual bullet fell from
Connally's stretcher, onto the floor where it was recovered by a nurse,
as confirmed by Connally himself. Now, we might doubt the man, since he
wasn't in very good condition at the time, but DA Henry Wade ran into
what had to have been that same nurse, who showed him the bullet and
told him that it came from Connally's "gurney".

She told officer Bobby Nolan exactly the same thing, when she turned it
over to him, to be delivered to the DPD that evening. There is much more
about this issue, including the fact that CE399 is missing the initials
of both of the men who signed it prior to it leaving Parkland.

The third problem is that no one heard the shot that (apparently)
wounded both men. Connally stated specifically that he never heard the
shot that hit him, and the evidence is pretty much conclusive, that the
single early shot that most witnesses heard, was the one prior to that,
circa 150-160, which involved turns by Mrs. Kennedy, SA Hickey, and the
agents on the right side of the followup car, all of which happened
prior to 223.

It is a serious mistake to look at these issues at the most simplistic
level. Like any other crime, you have to look at your evidence in
detail, in order to get to the bottom of what happened.




Robert Harris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

I'm only familiar with the WC and its internal work from the Epstein book
(flawed but interesting) and from Shenon's book issued last year (pretty
good but he tries to cover too much).

As you probably know, the staff (and it was largely a staff-driven
investigation; as they usually are anyway) was assigned different tasks or
parts to investigate. Wesley Liebeler and William Coleman, for example,
were assigned to look into any foreign connections that Oswald had. They
went to MC and talked to the CIA people there. Coleman wrote up their
conclusions. Shenon interviewed both men for his book; Liebeler died in
2002 but Coleman is still alive.

Both the Epstein and Shenon account attribute the source to Specter. He
was assigned to investigate the actual shooting. According to Shenon,
Specter came up with the general idea after informally interviewing Humes
before he testified. Humes told Specter that the bullet that entered JFK's
back exited without hitting any bone. When Humes testified Specter zeroed
in on the key question: what happened to the bullet if it went through
soft tissue.

The Connally's testimony caused all sorts of problems for this. Specter
believed, according to Shenon's account, that Nelly misled John about what
happened. Bot the Connallys were shown the Zapruder film the morning of
their testimony and actually left the room at one point as they argued
over when he got hit and how reacted.

In any, case I think the CW is correct: Specter was the source of the SBT
and was able to get others to go along. Although Russell and Cooper
vehemently disagreed, as you know.

Russell's disagreement is mentioned in the Shenon book.

[Jean Davison]

Specter told Gaeton Fonzi that the SBT was "a combination of a lot
of factors" but the "most persuasive single point was the absence of any
mark in the limousine." Since the experts said the bullet that exited
JFK's throat was still traveling so fast it should've damaged someone or
something in the limo, the SBT answered the question, "If it didn't hit
the car, where did it go?"

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=146570&relPageId=19

I think there's more on the SBT's origin in these interviews. I
can't find it at the moment, but here's the link:

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/docset/getList.do?docSetId=1954

Early on Humes suggested that Connally's chest wound may've been
caused by the same bullet because of the trajectory but he doubted it
would've gone on to injure his wrist/thigh. Specter asked Connally's
doctors hypothetical questions about a possible SBT in April 1964. (The
Dealey Plaza re-enactment was later, in May.) The doctors doubted the SBT
because of the unmangled condition of the bullet, but the ballistics
experts disagreed. The WC commissioners objected for the same reason, I
think.

Jean

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/18/2014 11:15 PM, bigdog wrote:
> I know the standard CT line is that the SBT was an invention of necessity
> to save the lone assassin theory after it was discovered that Tague had

Some kooks say that, but it is not true. Specter didn't give a damn
about Tague. It was how fast the Carcano could be reloaded which caused
the SBT. JFK could not be hit before frame 210 and Connally could not be
hit after frame 240. That leaves only 30 frames for 2 shots. Not enough
time for one rifle to fire both shots.
Hence conspiracy.

Might as well close shop and head for the fallout shelter.

> apparently been hit by a stray shot or fragment and the JFK and JBC were
> hit too closely together to have been hit by seperate shots from Oswald's
> bolt action rifle. BLAH! BLAH! BLAH. In a rare moment of clarity, Marsh
> has pointed out that orignally, the hypothesis was three shots, three
> hits. I am curious as to the actual genesis of the SBT. Who first came up
> with it, was it the brainchild of one man or a team effort. Was it a
> EUREKA! moment or did it evolve slowly. What was the key piece(s) of
> evidence that led the investigators to the possibility of a single bullet
> hitting both men. Was it repeated viewings of the Z-film. Was it the photo
> recreating in Dealey Plaza? Or was there something else that triggered it.
> Also, for those members of the commision who didn't believe the SBT, are
> they on record as stating what their objections were?
>

It was a combination of viewing the Zapruder frames and the expert
opinions of the doctors.
They said Connally could not have been hit after frame 240.
If JFK could not have been hit before 210 that gives you only 30 frames
for 2 shots.
Now, if you were really smart you could dream up a theory that JFK was
hit at frame 190 as the HSCA said and then Connally was hit at frame 230
as HE said. JFK did not say which frame he was hit at.
40 frames is enough time for one shooter.
You could be famous.

[bigdog]

On Friday, December 19, 2014 10:31:35 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:15:21 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > I know the standard CT line is that the SBT was an invention of necessity
> > to save the lone assassin theory after it was discovered that Tague had
> > apparently been hit by a stray shot or fragment and the JFK and JBC were
> > hit too closely together to have been hit by seperate shots from Oswald's
> > bolt action rifle. BLAH! BLAH! BLAH. In a rare moment of clarity, Marsh
> > has pointed out that orignally, the hypothesis was three shots, three
> > hits. I am curious as to the actual genesis of the SBT. Who first came up
> > with it, was it the brainchild of one man or a team effort. Was it a
> > EUREKA! moment or did it evolve slowly. What was the key piece(s) of
> > evidence that led the investigators to the possibility of a single bullet
> > hitting both men. Was it repeated viewings of the Z-film. Was it the photo
> > recreating in Dealey Plaza? Or was there something else that triggered it.
> > Also, for those members of the commision who didn't believe the SBT, are
> > they on record as stating what their objections were?
>
>
>
> It is doubtful that you'd get an honest answer to that question. The
> person themselves that thought it up is probably passed on. But why would
> anyone let on that they thought it up, when it was supposed to be the
> result of serious forensic thinking?
>

It's called deductive reasoning and is part of any investigative process.
You gather forensic evidence and then try to figure out what that evidence
is telling you. The SBT was a product of just such deductive reasoning.
That's why I am curious as to the particulars of how they arrived at that
conclusion, which to date remains the only plausible explaination of the
forensic evidence ever presented.

> As you've just done by admitting that it had to be "thought up", you've
> said that there really is no proof of such an event, and now with the
> advent of the information from the AARB that that the SBT is a dead issue,
> why bother tracking it down? We know now the bullet that hit JFK in the
> back never went on to hit Connally. Why bother chasing foolish theories?
>

Not only is logic not your strong suit, but reading comprehension seems to
be a problem for you as well.

[Jean Davison]

On 12/18/2014 10:15 PM, bigdog wrote:

The newspaper article about Tague that supposedly forced a SBT
didn't appear until June 5, too late to be responsible:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=1014944

Like Josiah Thompson, the WC left open the possibility that Tague
was hit by a fragment from the head shot bullet, meaning that there
could've been three hits in the WC's scenario even with Tague.

"Publicity about Tague forced the WC to adopt the SBT" is JFK Myth
#114 or thereabouts.

Jean

[mainframetech]

We can hide from the fact that the prosectors found that the back wound
bullet had "NO EXIT" from the body of JFK, but it remains a fact and
continues to discredit any comments saying otherwise. It also discredits
the wacky WC lawyers theory of a 'single bullet' striking 2 men in the
limo. Only the most fearful won't look up the truth in the sworn
testimony of James Sibert (FBI agent) who observed the autopsy and made
notes of it all. The proof is what has scared so many of the LN crowd,
and even some CTs too. Fear that their cherished long held beliefs are
proved wrong by the facts in the record.

To find the information mentioned above in sworn testimony, go to:

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=68509

Read 'page 111' lower left of page.

And the corroboration is from the report of the interview of James
Jenkins, Bethesda Technologist:

"Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound in JFK's upper posterior
thorax, that did not transit the body. He recalled Dr. Humes sticking his
finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes' finger making an indentation in
the intact pleura as he viewed Humes' probing from the other side, where
the right lung would have been before its removal. The pleura was intact.
Jenkins also recalled seeing a bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the
right lung (but not at the top, or apex of the right lung)." From:
http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html

As a recent researcher said:

"It is a serious mistake to look at these issues at the most simplistic
level. Like any other crime, you have to look at your evidence in
detail, in order to get to the bottom of what happened."

To know about the SBT, one has to look into the detail of the ARRB
autopsy files, and not show fear of them.

Chris

[jfk...@gmail.com]

My essay on "the SBT" (hint -- there is no such thing) might give you some
good ideas...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2372

Pamela

[bigdog]

I've long believed that it was Nellie who wrongly led John to believe JFK
had been hit with the first shot and since he knew he had been hit by the
second, he rejected the SBT on that basis. It sounds as if left to his own
devices, Connally might have accepted that both he and JFK had been hit by
the second bullet. But like a lot of men, he probably had learned that
it's easier just to agree with the wife rather than argue with her about
it. Of course Connally did believe he got hit around Z230 because he saw
himself twist and dip back to his right immediately after that. Since it
was obvious JFK had been hit prior to that, that only reenforced what
Nellie had told him. I doubt that anyone ever pointed out to him his
sudden arm flip that began simultaneously with JFK's upward arm movement
at Z226. I would bet if he had ever noticed that part, he would be an SBT
convert as would most people.

[bigdog]

Good information, Jean. Thanks.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/20/2014 11:54 AM, Jean Davison wrote:
> On 12/18/2014 10:15 PM, bigdog wrote:
>> I know the standard CT line is that the SBT was an invention of necessity
>> to save the lone assassin theory after it was discovered that Tague had
>> apparently been hit by a stray shot or fragment and the JFK and JBC were
>> hit too closely together to have been hit by seperate shots from Oswald's
>> bolt action rifle. BLAH! BLAH! BLAH. In a rare moment of clarity, Marsh
>> has pointed out that orignally, the hypothesis was three shots, three
>> hits. I am curious as to the actual genesis of the SBT. Who first came up
>> with it, was it the brainchild of one man or a team effort. Was it a
>> EUREKA! moment or did it evolve slowly. What was the key piece(s) of
>> evidence that led the investigators to the possibility of a single bullet
>> hitting both men. Was it repeated viewings of the Z-film. Was it the
>> photo
>> recreating in Dealey Plaza? Or was there something else that triggered
>> it.
>> Also, for those members of the commision who didn't believe the SBT, are
>> they on record as stating what their objections were?
>>
>
> Specter told Gaeton Fonzi that the SBT was "a combination of a lot
> of factors" but the "most persuasive single point was the absence of any
> mark in the limousine." Since the experts said the bullet that exited

Great, so now you are defending liars. Anyone with eyes can see the dent
of the chrome topping, which I proved was caused by a bullet fragment.
But you can't because you are a WC defender. The SS LIED and said that
dent was always there, for at least 2 years. Would you sell a new car
with a dent like that?
And the HSCA didn't even address the issue of the dent.
And no one except me noticed that the back of the rearview mirror was
smashed in. Even Robert Groden denied it.
I don't care if you can't explain it, but at least admit it.
Don't hold your breath and pretend there is no air.

> JFK's throat was still traveling so fast it should've damaged someone or
> something in the limo, the SBT answered the question, "If it didn't hit
> the car, where did it go?"
>

Is this a monument to stupidity? And we put these people in charge of
our government?

> https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=146570&relPageId=19
>
>
> I think there's more on the SBT's origin in these interviews. I
> can't find it at the moment, but here's the link:
>
> https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/docset/getList.do?docSetId=1954
>
> Early on Humes suggested that Connally's chest wound may've been
> caused by the same bullet because of the trajectory but he doubted it
> would've gone on to injure his wrist/thigh. Specter asked Connally's

Early on when? You mean at 8:17 PM during the autopsy?
Or do you mean during the group meeting of the WC on April 14, 1964?

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/FBI_2998.pdf

This is what I call the Modified Single Bullet Theory.
What makes YOU more qualified to overrule the doctors?
Where did you get your medical degree? Devry?

> doctors hypothetical questions about a possible SBT in April 1964. (The

That's called laying the groundwork.

> Dealey Plaza re-enactment was later, in May.) The doctors doubted the
> SBT because of the unmangled condition of the bullet, but the ballistics
> experts disagreed. The WC commissioners objected for the same reason, I

Which ballistics experts? You mean John Lattimer?
Why do you never read what the experts actually said?

> think.
>
> Jean
>


Do you yet realize that about half of the WC members did not believe in
the Single-Bullet Theory and that even LBJ himself did not believe in
the Single-Bullet Theory?
Because I know that you don't actually have the WH tapes and are
technically challenged I will not ask you to listen to the Russell-LBJ
tape. Instead I will just quote what your fellow WC defenders have said
about it and you must believe your fellow WC defenders even if you don't
believe me and refuse to listen to the tape for yourself:

All databases
Preferences
English
Help
Full text
Back to results
Previous Document
2
of 4
Next
Abstract (summary)
Translate [unavailable for this document]
Full Text
Translate [unavailable for this document]
Listening in on LBJ's Oval Office; The Kennedy Assassination Tapes Max
Holland Alfred A. Knopf: 456
pp., $26.95: [HOME EDITION]
Posner, Gerald.
Los Angeles Times
[Los Angeles, Calif] 29 Aug 2004: R.5.
[Max Holland] does a yeoman's job of taking to task earlier authors who
selectively used the conversations to advance everythin
g from theories about JFK
having been killed as retribution for the murder of South Vietnamese
President Ngo Dinh Diem to overstating [Lyndon B. Johnson]
's eventual disagreements
with the Warren Commission's conclusions. And because of his vast
knowledge of the commission (Holland won a 2001 J. Anthony Lu
kas Award for his work
in progress, "A Need to Know: Inside the Warren Commission"), he
presents adequate background to anchor every conversation. The
succinct annotations
accompanying the transcripts provide necessary, and often lively,
information about their proper context. And Holland knows the
subject well enough to point
out when fleeting and otherwise unnoticeable references are about the
Warren Commission.
Also "The Kennedy Assassination Tapes" corrects a much-referred- to
conversation between LBJ and Richard Russell, his close fri
end and Warren Commission
member, in which Russell says to Johnson, "Well, I don't believe it,"
and Johnson replies, "I don't either." Although this has
mostly been cited as meaning the
two did not share the commission's lone-assassin conclusion, it referred
instead to Russell's doubts about the single-bullet th
eory.

LBJ replied, "I don't either."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGqvhn93qos

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/20/2014 11:43 AM, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 18, 2014 10:15:21 PM UTC-6, bigdog wrote:
>> I know the standard CT line is that the SBT was an invention of necessity
>> to save the lone assassin theory after it was discovered that Tague had
>> apparently been hit by a stray shot or fragment and the JFK and JBC were
>> hit too closely together to have been hit by seperate shots from Oswald's
>> bolt action rifle. BLAH! BLAH! BLAH. In a rare moment of clarity, Marsh
>> has pointed out that orignally, the hypothesis was three shots, three
>> hits. I am curious as to the actual genesis of the SBT. Who first came up
>> with it, was it the brainchild of one man or a team effort. Was it a
>> EUREKA! moment or did it evolve slowly. What was the key piece(s) of
>> evidence that led the investigators to the possibility of a single bullet
>> hitting both men. Was it repeated viewings of the Z-film. Was it the photo
>> recreating in Dealey Plaza? Or was there something else that triggered it.
>> Also, for those members of the commision who didn't believe the SBT, are
>> they on record as stating what their objections were?
>
> I'm only familiar with the WC and its internal work from the Epstein book
> (flawed but interesting) and from Shenon's book issued last year (pretty
> good but he tries to cover too much).

So you refuse to read the actual WC documents?
That explains why you are a WC defender.

>
> As you probably know, the staff (and it was largely a staff-driven
> investigation; as they usually are anyway) was assigned different tasks or
> parts to investigate. Wesley Liebeler and William Coleman, for example,
> were assigned to look into any foreign connections that Oswald had. They
> went to MC and talked to the CIA people there. Coleman wrote up their
> conclusions. Shenon interviewed both men for his book; Liebeler died in
> 2002 but Coleman is still alive.
>
> Both the Epstein and Shenon account attribute the source to Specter. He
> was assigned to investigate the actual shooting. According to Shenon,
> Specter came up with the general idea after informally interviewing Humes
> before he testified. Humes told Specter that the bullet that entered JFK's
> back exited without hitting any bone. When Humes testified Specter zeroed
> in on the key question: what happened to the bullet if it went through
> soft tissue.
>

But Specter had already been poisoned by Rowley's lie that the bullet
did not hit the limo.

BTW, there was a rumor that the repair crew found a bullet hole in the
floor of the car.

[Bud]

On Friday, December 19, 2014 10:31:35 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:

> On Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:15:21 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > I know the standard CT line is that the SBT was an invention of necessity
> > to save the lone assassin theory after it was discovered that Tague had
> > apparently been hit by a stray shot or fragment and the JFK and JBC were
> > hit too closely together to have been hit by seperate shots from Oswald's
> > bolt action rifle. BLAH! BLAH! BLAH. In a rare moment of clarity, Marsh
> > has pointed out that orignally, the hypothesis was three shots, three
> > hits. I am curious as to the actual genesis of the SBT. Who first came up
> > with it, was it the brainchild of one man or a team effort. Was it a
> > EUREKA! moment or did it evolve slowly. What was the key piece(s) of
> > evidence that led the investigators to the possibility of a single bullet
> > hitting both men. Was it repeated viewings of the Z-film. Was it the photo
> > recreating in Dealey Plaza? Or was there something else that triggered it.
> > Also, for those members of the commision who didn't believe the SBT, are
> > they on record as stating what their objections were?
>
>
>
> It is doubtful that you'd get an honest answer to that question.

Or an answer a conspiracy hobbyist wouldn`t spin into being dishonest.

> The
> person themselves that thought it up is probably passed on. But why would
> anyone let on that they thought it up, when it was supposed to be the
> result of serious forensic thinking?

Something you should try. Maybe then you`d figure out why the SBT *must*
be true.

> As you've just done by admitting that it had to be "thought up", you've
> said that there really is no proof of such an event,

Like what, time lapse photography of the bullet in flight?

> and now with information from the AARB that that the SBT is a dead issue,

> why bother tracking it down? We know now the bullet that hit JFK in the
> back never went on to hit Connally. Why bother chasing foolish theories?

Why are conspiracy hobbyists intent on inventing them?

> Chris

[David Von Pein]

1967 interview with Arlen Specter, with Specter explaining the genesis of
the SBT (at least in part)....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9khMObVg3I

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/19/2014 10:47 PM, Ace Kefford wrote:
> On Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:15:21 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>> I know the standard CT line is that the SBT was an invention of necessity
>> to save the lone assassin theory after it was discovered that Tague had
>> apparently been hit by a stray shot or fragment and the JFK and JBC were
>> hit too closely together to have been hit by seperate shots from Oswald's
>> bolt action rifle. BLAH! BLAH! BLAH. In a rare moment of clarity, Marsh
>> has pointed out that orignally, the hypothesis was three shots, three
>> hits. I am curious as to the actual genesis of the SBT. Who first came up
>> with it, was it the brainchild of one man or a team effort. Was it a
>> EUREKA! moment or did it evolve slowly. What was the key piece(s) of
>> evidence that led the investigators to the possibility of a single bullet
>> hitting both men. Was it repeated viewings of the Z-film. Was it the photo
>> recreating in Dealey Plaza? Or was there something else that triggered it.
>> Also, for those members of the commision who didn't believe the SBT, are
>> they on record as stating what their objections were?
>
> This is a good question, and I know I have read more about it. Relying on
> my "memory" I am pretty sure that the single-bullet theory (SBT) predated
> the focus on the Tague hit. From that same shaky source of my memory I
> recall an article by Arlen Specter where he gave his version of the
> origin.

Not sure what you mean. You think the SBT shot happened before the curb
near Tague was hit? Tague seemed to think it was a later shot.
WC defenders can't agree on what caused it. Rahn and Sturdivan think it
was a fragment from the head shot.
Or do you mean when did the WC invent the SBT and when did they admit
the curb was hit by a bullet or fragment?
The WC tried to deny the mark on the curb for months. In the mean time
they had no need for a SBT until late April 1964.
The WC didn't seem to take Tague seriously until 7/23/64.

[bigdog]

On Saturday, December 20, 2014 5:36:44 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 12/18/2014 11:15 PM, bigdog wrote:
> > I know the standard CT line is that the SBT was an invention of necessity
> > to save the lone assassin theory after it was discovered that Tague had
>
> Some kooks say that, but it is not true. Specter didn't give a damn
> about Tague. It was how fast the Carcano could be reloaded which caused
> the SBT. JFK could not be hit before frame 210 and Connally could not be
> hit after frame 240. That leaves only 30 frames for 2 shots. Not enough
> time for one rifle to fire both shots.
> Hence conspiracy.

Hence the SBT.

>
> Might as well close shop and head for the fallout shelter.
>

Right. If it was a conspiracy, it had to be the Russians. No chance anyone
else was behind it.

> > apparently been hit by a stray shot or fragment and the JFK and JBC were
> > hit too closely together to have been hit by seperate shots from Oswald's
> > bolt action rifle. BLAH! BLAH! BLAH. In a rare moment of clarity, Marsh
> > has pointed out that orignally, the hypothesis was three shots, three
> > hits. I am curious as to the actual genesis of the SBT. Who first came up
> > with it, was it the brainchild of one man or a team effort. Was it a
> > EUREKA! moment or did it evolve slowly. What was the key piece(s) of
> > evidence that led the investigators to the possibility of a single bullet
> > hitting both men. Was it repeated viewings of the Z-film. Was it the photo
> > recreating in Dealey Plaza? Or was there something else that triggered it.
> > Also, for those members of the commision who didn't believe the SBT, are
> > they on record as stating what their objections were?
> >
>
>
> It was a combination of viewing the Zapruder frames and the expert
> opinions of the doctors.
> They said Connally could not have been hit after frame 240.
> If JFK could not have been hit before 210 that gives you only 30 frames
> for 2 shots.
> Now, if you were really smart you could dream up a theory that JFK was
> hit at frame 190 as the HSCA said and then Connally was hit at frame 230
> as HE said. JFK did not say which frame he was hit at.
> 40 frames is enough time for one shooter.
> You could be famous.

I'll stick with the single bullet at or about Z223 with both men reacting
simultaneously at Z226. It fits ALL the evidence. It is the only
explaination that does. Boring as hell but the truth.

[bigdog]

On Saturday, December 20, 2014 8:37:29 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> We can hide from the fact that the prosectors found that the back wound
> bullet had "NO EXIT" from the body of JFK, but it remains a fact and
> continues to discredit any comments saying otherwise. It also discredits
> the wacky WC lawyers theory of a 'single bullet' striking 2 men in the
> limo. Only the most fearful won't look up the truth in the sworn
> testimony of James Sibert (FBI agent) who observed the autopsy and made
> notes of it all. The proof is what has scared so many of the LN crowd,
> and even some CTs too. Fear that their cherished long held beliefs are
> proved wrong by the facts in the record.
>
> To find the information mentioned above in sworn testimony, go to:
>
> https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=68509

Your silly fairy tale has been already been exposed. It contributes
nothing to this discussion. You can keep repeating it until the cows come
home. It's still crap.

[bigdog]

For starters, CE399 wasn't pristine. Not even close. It had significant
damage. Damage which has been reproduced experimentally using animal
carcasses to simulate both the soft tissue and bone CE399 would have
passed through. Like CE399, it came out bent and flattened on one side.

Next, contrary to what your article states, nobody thought of the SBT
until about five months later. The original hypothesis was that JFK had
been hit by the first and third shots and JBC by the second. After months
of examination, that hypothesis was discarded in favor of the SBT for
obvious reasons. It was the only one that could fit all the evidence. You
also incorrectly state that only CE399 could be matched to Oswald's rifle.
The truth is that two of the fragments recovered from the limo had
sufficient markings for the FBI to positively match them to Oswald's
rifle.

It is true that the WCR focused on Oswald as the lone assassin because the
evidence pointed to him alone. There is zero credible evidence that
anybody else took part in the crime, before, during, or after the
shooting.

It was not assumed the shots came from behind. The medical evidence
indicated that the wounds to JFK and JBC were caused by bullets fired from
behind them. The evidence was conclusive. It was the finding of the
original autopsy team and that finding was confirmed by every panel who
subsequently reexamined the medical evidence. The WC concluded the shots
were fired from the sniper's nest on the 6th floor because all the
physical evidence indicated that.

I could go one but what would be the point. It seems to me if you are
going to to go to the trouble to write an article attempting to refute the
SBT or any other finding of the WC, you should have better command of the
facts than you demonstrated here.

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-683.html

[mainframetech]

LOL! You've been listening to Harris...go git 'im, bd...:)

Chris

[bigdog]

Thanks, David. I thought you would probably have something in your
archives.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/20/2014 11:09 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, December 20, 2014 5:36:44 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 12/18/2014 11:15 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>> I know the standard CT line is that the SBT was an invention of necessity
>>> to save the lone assassin theory after it was discovered that Tague had
>>
>> Some kooks say that, but it is not true. Specter didn't give a damn
>> about Tague. It was how fast the Carcano could be reloaded which caused
>> the SBT. JFK could not be hit before frame 210 and Connally could not be
>> hit after frame 240. That leaves only 30 frames for 2 shots. Not enough
>> time for one rifle to fire both shots.
>> Hence conspiracy.
>
> Hence the SBT.

Yes, the SBT was invented to deny conspiracy.

>>
>> Might as well close shop and head for the fallout shelter.
>>
>
> Right. If it was a conspiracy, it had to be the Russians. No chance anyone
> else was behind it.
>

Wrong. LBJ thought Russia. Hoover and others thought Cuba. Invading Cuba
would trigger WWIII. No one suspected Canada. If the US nuked Canada we
might not hear about it for weeks.

So you throw your fellow WC defenders under the bus.
How did Connally react at Z-226. Show me? How come he couldn't see that
on the much better Zapruder frames that he looked at and thought he saw
himself hit at frame 230? Are you saying that you have much better
quality frames than LIFE or just that you are a better guesser?

>

[Anthony Marsh]

His genesis is based on 2 Big LIES.

1. The bullet hit no bone.
Humes was not qualified to state that as a fact.
A real forensic pathologist examined the X-rays carefully, which Humes
could not, and concluded that the bullet hit T-1.

2. There was no damage to the limousine.
The WC never admitted that the chrome topping was struck by a bullet or
fragment. Neither will you nor most WC defenders. The SS lied and said
that mark was made years earlier, not during the shooting.
Only years later did we hear about a hole in the floor.
Only I can see that the back of the rearview mirror is smashed in.
You WC defenders can not.
I went to the auto store and asked if they had any of those rearview
mirrors with the smashed in back and the clerk said that they don't sell
damaged parts. I asked Ford and they said that new cars are not shipped
with damaged parts.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

I think so. Specter apparently thought so and was frustrated about it
(according to Shenon's book).

Shenon gives an interesting account of their conversation when they were
watching the Zapruder film. They were in strong disagreement at several
moments and had to leave the room at one point.

[David Von Pein]

Oh, I've got more than just the Specter interview....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-652.html

[Jean Davison]

Connally told the HSCA that since he never saw JFK before he
himself was wounded, he didn't know when Kennedy was hit. Line 46 here:

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=45448

The one thing Connally was always adamant about was that he himself
was hit by the second shot, not the first or third.

Jean

[bigdog]

On Sunday, December 21, 2014 11:44:57 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 12/20/2014 11:09 PM, bigdog wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 20, 2014 5:36:44 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 12/18/2014 11:15 PM, bigdog wrote:
> >>> I know the standard CT line is that the SBT was an invention of necessity
> >>> to save the lone assassin theory after it was discovered that Tague had
> >>
> >> Some kooks say that, but it is not true. Specter didn't give a damn
> >> about Tague. It was how fast the Carcano could be reloaded which caused
> >> the SBT. JFK could not be hit before frame 210 and Connally could not be
> >> hit after frame 240. That leaves only 30 frames for 2 shots. Not enough
> >> time for one rifle to fire both shots.
> >> Hence conspiracy.
> >
> > Hence the SBT.
>
> Yes, the SBT was invented to deny conspiracy.
>

The SBT was "invented" because it was the only explaination that fit ALL the evidence. It still is.

> >>
> >> Might as well close shop and head for the fallout shelter.
> >>
> >
> > Right. If it was a conspiracy, it had to be the Russians. No chance anyone
> > else was behind it.
> >
>
> Wrong. LBJ thought Russia. Hoover and others thought Cuba. Invading Cuba
> would trigger WWIII. No one suspected Canada. If the US nuked Canada we
> might not hear about it for weeks.
>

You missed the point. It is ridiculous to think that if there had been a conspiracy, it could only the Russians. There are any number of entities that could have been behind it. In the end, only one guy was behind it. The guy who fired the rifle. His rifle. From his workplace.

Oh, you can't see Connally's right arm suddenly fly upward at the same instant JFK's arms fly upwards. Since you can't refute that this happened, this is where you insert your one word response. "No". You are just too predictable. We've had this conversation so many times, I not only know my lines, I know your lines.

> How come he couldn't see that
> on the much better Zapruder frames that he looked at and thought he saw
> himself hit at frame 230? Are you saying that you have much better
> quality frames than LIFE or just that you are a better guesser?
>

Connally didn't remember jerking his right arm upward because it was an involuntary movement so he wasn't looking for that movement. He remembered doubling over and twisting to his right and he saw himself doing that right after Z230 so he guessed that is about when he was hit. It wasn't a bad guess. Less than a half a second off. There is no doubt that Connally's right arm suddenly moved upward at Z226 and that JFK's arms started upward at that same frame. You know that is true but you refuse to admit that because it would give credence to the SBT and you would lose your conspiracy hobbyist's card if you were to ever do that.

[Anthony Marsh]

To prevent WWIII.
A noble cause.

>> As you've just done by admitting that it had to be "thought up", you've
>> said that there really is no proof of such an event,
>
> Like what, time lapse photography of the bullet in flight?
>
>> and now with information from the AARB that that the SBT is a dead issue,
>> why bother tracking it down? We know now the bullet that hit JFK in the
>> back never went on to hit Connally. Why bother chasing foolish theories?
>
> Why are conspiracy hobbyists intent on inventing them?
>

Why did the WC create them? Why not just tell the truth?

>> Chris
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Not good because she didn't explain WHEN he suggested it, or document
exactly what he said.
Did he propose any SBT on the night of the autopsy?

[Anthony Marsh]

If there was no SBT, where did the bullets go???

A couple of simple questions can clear this up, but you never answer my
questions.

1. Can you see that the chrome strip was dented by a bullet or fragment?
2. Can you see that the back of the rearview mirror was smashed in?

[tom...@cox.net]

Ace Kefford <bglo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:15:21 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > I know the standard CT line is that the SBT was an invention of

> > necessity=
> =20

> > to save the lone assassin theory after it was discovered that Tague

> > had=
> =20

> > apparently been hit by a stray shot or fragment and the JFK and JBC

> > were=
> =20

> > hit too closely together to have been hit by seperate shots from

> > Oswald's=
> =20

> > bolt action rifle. BLAH! BLAH! BLAH. In a rare moment of clarity,

> > Marsh=
> =20

> > has pointed out that orignally, the hypothesis was three shots,

> > three=20 hits. I am curious as to the actual genesis of the SBT. Who
> > first came up=
> =20
> > with it, was it the brainchild of one man or a team effort. Was it a=20
> > EUREKA! moment or did it evolve slowly. What was the key piece(s) of=20

> > evidence that led the investigators to the possibility of a single

> > bullet=
> =20

> > hitting both men. Was it repeated viewings of the Z-film. Was it the

> > phot=
> o=20

> > recreating in Dealey Plaza? Or was there something else that triggered

> > it=
> .=20

> > Also, for those members of the commision who didn't believe the SBT,

> > are=
> =20

> > they on record as stating what their objections were?
>

> This is a good question, and I know I have read more about it. Relying
> on my "memory" I am pretty sure that the single-bullet theory (SBT)
> predated the focus on the Tague hit. From that same shaky source of my
> memory I recall an article by Arlen Specter where he gave his version of
> the origin.
>

> I'm sure those with more knowledge and more time can provide a good
> back-and-forth on the issue. Looking forward to it as a genuine matter
> of discussion.

===========================================================================
=== the single bullet theory was born on 4-13-1964 during a commission
executive session ! ! !

[tom...@cox.net]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Friday, December 19, 2014 10:31:35 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:15:21 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > > I know the standard CT line is that the SBT was an invention of

> > > necessi=
> ty=20

> > > to save the lone assassin theory after it was discovered that Tague
> > > had=
> =20
> > > apparently been hit by a stray shot or fragment and the JFK and JBC

> > > wer=
> e=20

> > > hit too closely together to have been hit by seperate shots from

> > > Oswald=
> 's=20

> > > bolt action rifle. BLAH! BLAH! BLAH. In a rare moment of clarity,
> > > Marsh=
> =20
> > > has pointed out that orignally, the hypothesis was three shots,
> > > three=
> =20
> > > hits. I am curious as to the actual genesis of the SBT. Who first

> > > came =
> up=20

> > > with it, was it the brainchild of one man or a team effort. Was it
> > > a=20 EUREKA! moment or did it evolve slowly. What was the key
> > > piece(s) of=20 evidence that led the investigators to the possibility

> > > of a single bull=
> et=20

> > > hitting both men. Was it repeated viewings of the Z-film. Was it the

> > > ph=
> oto=20

> > > recreating in Dealey Plaza? Or was there something else that

> > > triggered =
> it.=20

> > > Also, for those members of the commision who didn't believe the SBT,

> > > ar=
> e=20

> > > they on record as stating what their objections were?

> >=20
> >=20
> >=20

> > It is doubtful that you'd get an honest answer to that question.

> > The=
> =20

> > person themselves that thought it up is probably passed on. But why

> > woul=
> d=20

> > anyone let on that they thought it up, when it was supposed to be

> > the=20 result of serious forensic thinking?
> >=20
>
> It's called deductive reasoning and is part of any investigative process.
> You gather forensic evidence and then try to figure out what that
> evidence is telling you. The SBT was a product of just such deductive
> reasoning. That's why I am curious as to the particulars of how they
> arrived at that conclusion, which to date remains the only plausible
> explaination of the forensic evidence ever presented.

>
> > As you've just done by admitting that it had to be "thought up",

> > you've=
> =20
> > said that there really is no proof of such an event, and now with
> > the=20 advent of the information from the AARB that that the SBT is a
> > dead issue=
> ,=20

> > why bother tracking it down? We know now the bullet that hit JFK in

> > the=
> =20

> > back never went on to hit Connally. Why bother chasing foolish

> >theories? =20
>
> Not only is logic not your strong suit, but reading comprehension seems
> to be a problem for you as well.
WHEN YOU LEARN HOW TO READ, YOU'LL DISCOVER THAT THE COMMISSION'S EXECUTIVE
OF APRIL 13, 1964 IS WHEN THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY WAS BORN ! ! !
===========================================================================

[tom...@cox.net]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, December 20, 2014 11:43:05 AM UTC-5, stevemg...@yahoo.com

> wrot= e:

> > On Thursday, December 18, 2014 10:15:21 PM UTC-6, bigdog wrote:
> > > I know the standard CT line is that the SBT was an invention of

> > > necessi=
> ty=20

> > > to save the lone assassin theory after it was discovered that Tague

> > > had=
> =20

> > > apparently been hit by a stray shot or fragment and the JFK and JBC

> > > wer=
> e=20

> > > hit too closely together to have been hit by seperate shots from

> > > Oswald=
> 's=20

> > > bolt action rifle. BLAH! BLAH! BLAH. In a rare moment of clarity,

> > > Marsh=
> =20

> > > has pointed out that orignally, the hypothesis was three shots,

> > > three=
> =20

> > > hits. I am curious as to the actual genesis of the SBT. Who first

> > > came =
> up=20

> > > with it, was it the brainchild of one man or a team effort. Was it

> > > a=20 EUREKA! moment or did it evolve slowly. What was the key
> > > piece(s) of=20 evidence that led the investigators to the possibility
> > > of a single bull=
> et=20

> > > hitting both men. Was it repeated viewings of the Z-film. Was it the

> > > ph=
> oto=20

> > > recreating in Dealey Plaza? Or was there something else that

> > > triggered =
> it.=20

> > > Also, for those members of the commision who didn't believe the SBT,

> > > ar=
> e=20

> > > they on record as stating what their objections were?

> >=20

> > I'm only familiar with the WC and its internal work from the Epstein

> > book=
> =20

> > (flawed but interesting) and from Shenon's book issued last year

> > (pretty=
> =20

> > good but he tries to cover too much).

> >=20
> > As you probably know, the staff (and it was largely a staff-driven=20

> > investigation; as they usually are anyway) was assigned different tasks

> > o=
> r=20

> > parts to investigate. Wesley Liebeler and William Coleman, for example,

> > =
> =20

> > were assigned to look into any foreign connections that Oswald had.

> > They=
> =20

> > went to MC and talked to the CIA people there. Coleman wrote up

> > their=20 conclusions. Shenon interviewed both men for his book;
> > Liebeler died in=
> =20

> > 2002 but Coleman is still alive.

> >=20

> > Both the Epstein and Shenon account attribute the source to Specter.

> > He=
> =20

> > was assigned to investigate the actual shooting. According to Shenon,

> > =20 Specter came up with the general idea after informally interviewing
> > Humes=
> =20

> > before he testified. Humes told Specter that the bullet that entered

> > JFK'=
> s=20

> > back exited without hitting any bone. When Humes testified Specter

> > zeroed=
> =20

> > in on the key question: what happened to the bullet if it went

> > through=20 soft tissue.
> >=20

> > The Connally's testimony caused all sorts of problems for this.

> > Specter=
> =20

> > believed, according to Shenon's account, that Nelly misled John about

> > wha=
> t=20

> > happened. Bot the Connallys were shown the Zapruder film the morning

> > of=
> =20

> > their testimony and actually left the room at one point as they

> > argued=20 over when he got hit and how reacted.
> >=20

> > In any, case I think the CW is correct: Specter was the source of the

> > SBT=
> =20
> > and was able to get others to go along. Although Russell and Cooper=20

> > vehemently disagreed, as you know.

> >=20

> > Russell's disagreement is mentioned in the Shenon book.
>
> I've long believed that it was Nellie who wrongly led John to believe JFK
> had been hit with the first shot and since he knew he had been hit by the
> second, he rejected the SBT on that basis. It sounds as if left to his
> own devices, Connally might have accepted that both he and JFK had been
> hit by the second bullet. But like a lot of men, he probably had learned
> that it's easier just to agree with the wife rather than argue with her
> about it. Of course Connally did believe he got hit around Z230 because
> he saw himself twist and dip back to his right immediately after that.
> Since it was obvious JFK had been hit prior to that, that only reenforced
> what Nellie had told him. I doubt that anyone ever pointed out to him his
> sudden arm flip that began simultaneously with JFK's upward arm movement
> at Z226. I would bet if he had ever noticed that part, he would be an SBT
> convert as would most people.

===========================================================================
== CONNALLY VIEWED THE "Z" FILM FRAME BY FRAME AND, CONCLUDED THAT HE WAS
HIT AT FRAME 2324 HIS DOCTORS CONCLUDED CONNALLY WAS HIT AT FRAME 236 ! ! !
THAT'S THE DISADVANTAGE YOU'RE AT BY NOT HAVING READ THE OFFICIAL
EVIDENCE/TESTIMONY IN THE 26 VOLUMES ! ! !
===========================================================================

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
==== I'LL BET YOU CN TELL US EXACTLY HOW THE RUSSIONS WERE ABLE TO FORCE
OUR GOV'T AND, NATIONAL MEDIA TO LIE TO THE WORLD ! ! ! OR, CAN'T YOU ! ! !
===========================================================================

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
======WOW, BIGDOG BELIEVES THAT THE FBI ARE NOTHING BUT LIARS ! ! !
===========================================================================

[tom...@cox.net]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, December 20, 2014 8:48:00 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > My essay on "the SBT" (hint -- there is no such thing) might give you

> > som=
> e=20
> > good ideas...=20
> >=20
> > http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3D2372
> >=20

>
> For starters, CE399 wasn't pristine. Not even close. It had significant
> damage. Damage which has been reproduced experimentally using animal
> carcasses to simulate both the soft tissue and bone CE399 would have
> passed through. Like CE399, it came out bent and flattened on one side.
>
> Next, contrary to what your article states, nobody thought of the SBT
> until about five months later. The original hypothesis was that JFK had
> been hit by the first and third shots and JBC by the second. After months
> of examination, that hypothesis was discarded in favor of the SBT for
> obvious reasons. It was the only one that could fit all the evidence. You
> also incorrectly state that only CE399 could be matched to Oswald's
> rifle. The truth is that two of the fragments recovered from the limo had
> sufficient markings for the FBI to positively match them to Oswald's
> rifle.
>
> It is true that the WCR focused on Oswald as the lone assassin because
> the evidence pointed to him alone. There is zero credible evidence that
> anybody else took part in the crime, before, during, or after the
> shooting.

>==========================================================================
>=====
WRONG CORBETT; THE EVIDENCE TAMOERING TOOK PLACE AFTER THE ASSASSINATION!
! ! YOU REALLY SHOULD HAVE READ THE OFFICIAL EVIDENCE/TESTIMONY ! ! !
===========================================================================
===

> It was not assumed the shots came from behind. The medical evidence
> indicated that the wounds to JFK and JBC were caused by bullets fired
> from behind them. The evidence was conclusive. It was the finding of the
> original autopsy team and that finding was confirmed by every panel who
> subsequently reexamined the medical evidence. The WC concluded the shots
> were fired from the sniper's nest on the 6th floor because all the
> physical evidence indicated that.
>
> I could go one but what would be the point. It seems to me if you are
> going to to go to the trouble to write an article attempting to refute
> the SBT or any other finding of the WC, you should have better command of
> the facts than you demonstrated here.

=========================================================================
DO YOU HAVE COMMAND OF THE FACTS BIGDOG ? ? ?
===========================================================================

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
====== I HEARD THAT WORD "PROBABLE" AGAIN; DID YOU HEAR IT ? ? ?
===========================================================================

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, December 21, 2014 10:10:11 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, December 20, 2014 8:48:00 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > My essay on "the SBT" (hint -- there is no such thing) might give you some
> > good ideas...
> >
> > http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2372
> >
>
> For starters, CE399 wasn't pristine. Not even close. It had significant
> damage. Damage which has been reproduced experimentally using animal
> carcasses to simulate both the soft tissue and bone CE399 would have
> passed through. Like CE399, it came out bent and flattened on one side.
>

As we know, no two experiments will turn out EXACTLY the same. In this
case, we need a picture of the bullets in question, and here's the WC
photo of the CE399 and friends:

https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/5/5e/Photo_hsca_ex_294.jpg

Note the first bullet on the left is the CE399 bullet, and right next
to it is a 'test' bullet the FBI created the day after the murder using
the MC rifle. The test bullet has the same slight bend and flattening in
the middle as the CE399 bullet, and it also has a slight bit of material
missing from the tail end. The CE399 is really a test bullet!! The
person who held custody of all the bullets in the case was Robert Frazier,
who was also on the team testing the MC rifle! He could easily have
gotten a test bullet from the MC rifle, and replaced the CE399 bullet with
a test bullet, which would guarantee that the CE399 bullet found on the
WRONG stretcher at Parkland was now a bullet from the MC rifle, which it
wasn't before the switch.

We know there was a switch because when there was doubt about the CE399
bullet, they had it taken out and shown to 4 men that had handled the
original CE399 bullet the day of the murder, and they all refused to
identify this new CE399 bullet. One of them even noted that the original
bullet was 'pointy nosed' and the one shown was a 'round nosed' bullet!
Now we have bd coming along with a story about tests that prove something.
The photo we just looked at also has a bullet to the far right that was
fired into a human cadaver wrist. Now the problem is that the story of
the CE399 bullet is that it had hit JFK and Connally 7 times, including 2
bone strikes!! Yet it looks nothing like the rightmost bullet! So
someone is playing with your head and not giving you the straight info on
the bullets.

> Next, contrary to what your article states, nobody thought of the SBT
> until about five months later. The original hypothesis was that JFK had
> been hit by the first and third shots and JBC by the second. After months
> of examination, that hypothesis was discarded in favor of the SBT for
> obvious reasons. It was the only one that could fit all the evidence. You
> also incorrectly state that only CE399 could be matched to Oswald's rifle.
> The truth is that two of the fragments recovered from the limo had
> sufficient markings for the FBI to positively match them to Oswald's
> rifle.
>

While the fragments were probably from a single bullet, it was found in
the front seat of the limousine, and was probably at best a remainder of
the bullet that hit the limousine high on the chrome overhead above the
windshield and above the front seat:

http://www.doewatch.com/jfk/jfklimohole.jpg

In fact, both bullets 'found' were from the MC rifle, but neither had
hit or hurt anyone. The kill shot was a different bullet from a different
direction, as proved at the autopsy, but ignored because it went against
the 'lone nut' scenario that Hoover pushed form the beginning.

> It is true that the WCR focused on Oswald as the lone assassin because the
> evidence pointed to him alone. There is zero credible evidence that
> anybody else took part in the crime, before, during, or after the
> shooting.
>

Completely false information. Many bits of evidence say that Oswald
wasn't involved in the shooting of JFK, the main one being that he wasn't
on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting.

There is credible evidence that the kill shot hit JFK in the right
temple/forehead in a small (5mm) wound above the right eye. That wound
was seen by a number of autopsy personnel, but ignored after being
identified by Pierre Finck (the bullet specialist) as an entry wound.
That was corroborated by an X-ray showing metal fragments in the skull
emanating from the small wound and going to the rear in an expanding cone
and probably then causing the blow-out of the skull at the BOH seen by
over 40 witnesses.

> It was not assumed the shots came from behind. The medical evidence
> indicated that the wounds to JFK and JBC were caused by bullets fired from
> behind them. The evidence was conclusive. It was the finding of the
> original autopsy team and that finding was confirmed by every panel who
> subsequently reexamined the medical evidence. The WC concluded the shots
> were fired from the sniper's nest on the 6th floor because all the
> physical evidence indicated that.
>

Those at the autopsy that made the judgment that the bullets came from
behind only had followed orders to say that. That's why it was critical
to have the autopsy at a military installation where the people had to
follow orders. If the body had been allowed to be autopsied at Parkland
in Dallas, the results would have been very different, and there would
have been a decision that there had been a conspiracy to kill the POTUS.

> I could go one but what would be the point. It seems to me if you are
> going to to go to the trouble to write an article attempting to refute the
> SBT or any other finding of the WC, you should have better command of the
> facts than you demonstrated here.

The SBT is dead and bd doesn't have the facts. Actually he has been
pretending the facts were different since the time he learned of them.
The facts from the sworn testimony of Bethesda personnel is that the kill
shot came in from in front of the limo, and an X-ray corroborates that.

links can be supplied in the sworn testimony for anyone that has the
guts to check it out.

Chris

[mainframetech]

LOL! Wrong yet again! Hard to say 'fairy tale' while the link is there
for all to check out and see that it's real! For those interested ,read
'page 111' at that link...:)

Those that will have the guts to actually read the passage linked will
find to their surprised that the SBT is dead from long ago, and remains
dead now.

Try not to let the propaganda get you all twisted up. The statement
and the situation from the autopsy is clear. They tried to find an exit
for the back wound bullet, and what they found was that "There's NO EXIT"
from the body of JFK for that bullet.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

This the value of a propaganda asset. Only feeding the public part of the
story to bias it in their favor. Not telling the whole story because it
would show that they are wrong.

Within hours of being shot Connally told Martin Agronsky of the New York
Times that before he was hit he had seen the President and the President
was slumped.

Because some people here are Internet challenged and can not even click on
a link, I guess I have to upload my whole Web article about this. We can
be sure that you will not actually LISTEN to the WAV file to hear Connally
say it himself. Each year you will deny that he said it and claim that it
was only made up from conspiracy kooks imagination:

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


Did Connally turn left or right?
One of the problems with the book Assassination Science is that some
authors misuse or misquote eyewitness testimony. It is bad enough that
eyewitness testimony is already acknowledged to be the most unreliable
form of evidence. But it is made worse when sloppy researchers misquote
eyewitness testimony to support insupportable conclusions. But it is even
worse when a researcher simply makes up an eyewitness statement from his
imagination in order to support his pre-conceived conclusion. On page 214
Jack White lists his observations of the Zapruder film which he thinks
prove that the film is a fake. In Observation 5, Jack White states that,
"Connally said he turned to his left to look at the President, then turned
to his right. The film does not show this." Jack White does not provide
any footnotes for his chapter, so the reader can not find out where this
statement came from. After repeated questioning Jack finally admitted that
he had based that on an article by Milicent Cranor. He did not bother to
fact check it himself.
Throughout his life John Connally had always testified consistently
that he heard a shot, turned to his right to look at the President, then
started to turn to his left when he was hit facing approximately forward.
The only account that differs from that is his bedside interview from
November 27, 1963. Milicent Cranor, one of Jack's defenders, points out in
her article in The Fourth Decade (July 1994, pages 38-39) that CBS and
later NOVA cut several words out of the rebroadcast of Connally's
statement, specifically Connally's reference to turning left. She points
out that Martin Agronsky of the New York Times preserved the reference to
the left turn in his November 28, 1963 report. But does she faithfully
quote what the New York Times wrote? I doubt it. Here is what she wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Connally.wav

Texas" can be ordered from JFK Lancer. I transcribed verbatim the
original Connally bedside statement. And you can also listen to the
original statement to compare it to my transcription:


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

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

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

and I knew I'd been hit badly.

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

Governor Connally.
We had--we had gone, I guess, 150 feet, maybe 200 feet, I don't recall
how far it was, heading down to get on the freeway, the Stemmons
Freeway, to go out to the hall where we were going to have lunch and, as
I say, the crowds had begun to thin, and we could--I was anticipating
that we were going to be at the hall in approximately 5 minutes from the
time we turned on Elm Street.
We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot.
I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I
instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from
over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder,
and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not
catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested,
because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle
shot, and I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that
this is an assassination attempt.
So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left
shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got
about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to
the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back.

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


Mr. CORNWELL. Thank you, very much.
Governor, let me ask you the same question. What is your memory of the
events? What did you see and hear? What happened after the limousine started
down Elm Street and passed underneath the Texas School Book Depository?
Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. Cornwell, we had just turned to Elm. We had gone, I
suspect, oh, 150, 200 feet when I heard what I thought was a rifle shot
and I
thought it came from--I was seated right, as you know, the jump seat
right in
front of the President, and they have a fairly straight back on them so
I was
sitting up fairly erect. I thought the shot came from back over my right
shoulder, so I turned to see if I could catch a sight of the President
out of
the corner of my eye because I immediately had, frankly, had fear of an
assassination because I thought it was a rifle shot.
I didn't think it was a blowout or explosion of any kind. I didn't
see the
President out of the corner of my eye, so I was in the process of, at
least I
was turning to look over my left shoulder into the back seat to see if I
could
see him. I never looked, I never made the full turn. About the time I turned
back where I was facing more or less straight ahead, the way the car was
moving,
I was hit. I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the
bullet. It
went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left
of my
right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double
and when
I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. So, I
knew I
had been badly hit and I more or less straightened up. At about this
time, Nelly
reached over and pulled me down into her lap.

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

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

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

[Anthony Marsh]

All you have are the official lies. Never the original documents.
And you may post people's comments out of context on your web site to
bias the argument, but you are afraid to answer my questions here. The
old hit and run tactic.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Indeed. We know the first shot missed everybody - the Z film shows that -
the third shot hit JFK - the Z film shows that.

That means, logically, that the second shot hit both JFK and Connally.

There are no other possibilities.

[bigdog]

Can you see JFK's head exploded and that fragments of that bullet were
later found on the floor of the limo. It was these fragments that caused
the superficial damage to interior of the limo. Now what the hell does
that have to do with the SBT? That was a different shot.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Question: How could a bullet, hitting only soft tissue, exiting JFK's
throat hit the chrome strip or the mirror? The bullet was headed downward
as it exited his throat.

I don't see how it lines up.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/21/2014 10:21 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-683.html
>

James Tague's injury and the damage to the curb on Main Street forced
the Warren Commission to adopt the Single-Bullet Theory. Because without
the SBT, the Commission knew it could not explain Tague's wounding and
the curb damage within a shooting scenario that did not include one
bullet that went through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally.

David Von Pein
August 30, 2009


But the WC did not even try to explain Tague's wound. They tried to
ignore him. He did not come up until July 1964.
Long after Specter had invented his SBT in late April 1964.
You are suffering from Temporal Displacement Disorder. Chocolate milk
will help alleviate the symptoms.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/21/2014 10:10 PM, bigdog wrote:

> On Saturday, December 20, 2014 8:48:00 PM UTC-5, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> My essay on "the SBT" (hint -- there is no such thing) might give you some
>> good ideas...
>>
>> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2372
>>
>

> For starters, CE399 wasn't pristine. Not even close. It had significant
> damage. Damage which has been reproduced experimentally using animal
> carcasses to simulate both the soft tissue and bone CE399 would have
> passed through. Like CE399, it came out bent and flattened on one side.
>

So did the bullet which Henry Hurt shot into a barrel of water.
How come never never SHOW any of the test bullets?

> Next, contrary to what your article states, nobody thought of the SBT
> until about five months later. The original hypothesis was that JFK had
> been hit by the first and third shots and JBC by the second. After months
> of examination, that hypothesis was discarded in favor of the SBT for
> obvious reasons. It was the only one that could fit all the evidence. You
> also incorrectly state that only CE399 could be matched to Oswald's rifle.
> The truth is that two of the fragments recovered from the limo had
> sufficient markings for the FBI to positively match them to Oswald's
> rifle.
>

> It is true that the WCR focused on Oswald as the lone assassin because the
> evidence pointed to him alone. There is zero credible evidence that
> anybody else took part in the crime, before, during, or after the
> shooting.
>

> It was not assumed the shots came from behind. The medical evidence

Yes, it was. That's what the Secret Service told the doctors.
That's what they showed on TV.

> indicated that the wounds to JFK and JBC were caused by bullets fired from
> behind them. The evidence was conclusive. It was the finding of the

No. They were unqualified to make those findings.

> original autopsy team and that finding was confirmed by every panel who
> subsequently reexamined the medical evidence. The WC concluded the shots
> were fired from the sniper's nest on the 6th floor because all the
> physical evidence indicated that.
>

> I could go one but what would be the point. It seems to me if you are
> going to to go to the trouble to write an article attempting to refute the
> SBT or any other finding of the WC, you should have better command of the
> facts than you demonstrated here.
>

Which article? Where's YOUR article?

[Anthony Marsh]

No, Connally said frame 230.

[Bud]

Kennedy and Connally getting hit by the same bullet prevented WWIII?

> A noble cause.
>
> >> As you've just done by admitting that it had to be "thought up", you've
> >> said that there really is no proof of such an event,
> >
> > Like what, time lapse photography of the bullet in flight?
> >
> >> and now with information from the AARB that that the SBT is a dead issue,
> >> why bother tracking it down? We know now the bullet that hit JFK in the
> >> back never went on to hit Connally. Why bother chasing foolish theories?
> >
> > Why are conspiracy hobbyists intent on inventing them?
> >
>
> Why did the WC create them? Why not just tell the truth?

You shown yourself to be unable to handle the truth.

> >> Chris
> >
> >

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/22/2014 3:40 PM, tom...@cox.net wrote:

So now it's April 13, 1964? There was no executive session on April 13,
1964. In each message you keep guessing at a date. I predict that you
will get it right on your thirteenth guess.
And use more exclamation points or we won't take you
seriously!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anthony Marsh]

Show us. Stop guessing.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/22/2014 1:14 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, December 21, 2014 11:44:57 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 12/20/2014 11:09 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>> On Saturday, December 20, 2014 5:36:44 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> On 12/18/2014 11:15 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>>>> I know the standard CT line is that the SBT was an invention of necessity
>>>>> to save the lone assassin theory after it was discovered that Tague had
>>>>
>>>> Some kooks say that, but it is not true. Specter didn't give a damn
>>>> about Tague. It was how fast the Carcano could be reloaded which caused
>>>> the SBT. JFK could not be hit before frame 210 and Connally could not be
>>>> hit after frame 240. That leaves only 30 frames for 2 shots. Not enough
>>>> time for one rifle to fire both shots.
>>>> Hence conspiracy.
>>>
>>> Hence the SBT.
>>
>> Yes, the SBT was invented to deny conspiracy.
>>
> The SBT was "invented" because it was the only explaination that fit ALL the evidence. It still is.
>>>>
>>>> Might as well close shop and head for the fallout shelter.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right. If it was a conspiracy, it had to be the Russians. No chance anyone
>>> else was behind it.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong. LBJ thought Russia. Hoover and others thought Cuba. Invading Cuba
>> would trigger WWIII. No one suspected Canada. If the US nuked Canada we
>> might not hear about it for weeks.
>>
> You missed the point. It is ridiculous to think that if there had been a conspiracy, it could only the Russians. There are any number of entities that could have been behind it. In the end, only one guy was behind it. The guy who fired the rifle. His rifle. From his workplace.
>

I didn't say ONLY the Russians. Some also said the Cubans.

As always you fold when called.

>> How come he couldn't see that
>> on the much better Zapruder frames that he looked at and thought he saw
>> himself hit at frame 230? Are you saying that you have much better
>> quality frames than LIFE or just that you are a better guesser?
>>
> Connally didn't remember jerking his right arm upward because it was an involuntary movement so he wasn't looking for that movement. He remembered doubling over and twisting to his right and he saw himself doing that right after Z230 so he guessed that is about when he was hit. It wasn't a bad guess. Less than a half a second off. There is no doubt that Connally's right arm suddenly moved upward at Z226 and that JFK's arms started upward at that same frame. You know that is true but you refuse to admit that because it would give credence to the SBT and you would lose your conspiracy hobbyist's card if you were to ever do that.
>
>

I did not say "remember." I said SEE.
How come your SBT disagrees with all the other ones out there if it is
an absolute truth?

[Anthony Marsh]

Which of the two large fragments found in the front seat compartment do
you think hit the chrome topping? The nose fragment or the base fragment?
What happened to the rest of that bullet? Those two fragments add up to
only about 40% of a WCC bullet.

> http://www.doewatch.com/jfk/jfklimohole.jpg
>
> In fact, both bullets 'found' were from the MC rifle, but neither had
> hit or hurt anyone. The kill shot was a different bullet from a different
> direction, as proved at the autopsy, but ignored because it went against
> the 'lone nut' scenario that Hoover pushed form the beginning.
>
>

Do you think the shooter was just trying to hit the limo and miss
everyone?

[David Von Pein]

I love how Tony Marsh attempts to make it look as if **I** myself think
the WC invented the SBT because of James Tague's injury. (That's pretty
low, Marsh.)

Let's see what Marsh left out of the quote he cited from my website.....

[Quote on...]

Why is it that no conspiracy theorist will ever (ever!) take a good look at
Page 117 of the Warren Report?

I can answer that last question too -- It's because if they were to
actually read and evaluate what the Warren Commission said on Page #117 of
its final report (including the "probably" verbiage utilized by the
Commission in the "Conclusion" paragraph on that same page), those
conspiracy theorists would be forced to toss one of their pet theories
(aka myths) out the nearest window. And that theory/myth is the following
one:

James Tague's injury and the damage to the curb on Main Street forced the
Warren Commission to adopt the Single-Bullet Theory. Because without the
SBT, the Commission knew it could not explain Tague's wounding and the
curb damage within a shooting scenario that did not include one bullet
that went through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally.

David Von Pein
August 30, 2009

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-683.html

[bigdog]

Where you trying to see how many silly statements you could jam into one
post. I think this might be a personal best for you.

[Jason Burke]

You're making no sense - again - Rossley.

[tom...@cox.net]

THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY WAS BORN DURING A COMMISSION EXECUTIVE SESSION ON
MARCH 13, 1964 ! ! ! JUST ONE MORE ADDITIONAL LIE BY THE COMMISSION ! !
===========================================================================
====






Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 12/20/2014 10:13 PM, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, December 19, 2014 10:31:35 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:

> >> On Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:15:21 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> >>> I know the standard CT line is that the SBT was an invention of
> >>> necessity to save the lone assassin theory after it was discovered

> >>> that Tague had apparently been hit by a stray shot or fragment and

> >>> the JFK and JBC were hit too closely together to have been hit by
> >>> seperate shots from Oswald's bolt action rifle. BLAH! BLAH! BLAH. In
> >>> a rare moment of clarity, Marsh has pointed out that orignally, the
> >>> hypothesis was three shots, three hits. I am curious as to the actual
> >>> genesis of the SBT. Who first came up with it, was it the brainchild
> >>> of one man or a team effort. Was it a EUREKA! moment or did it evolve
> >>> slowly. What was the key piece(s) of evidence that led the
> >>> investigators to the possibility of a single bullet hitting both men.
> >>> Was it repeated viewings of the Z-film. Was it the photo recreating
> >>> in Dealey Plaza? Or was there something else that triggered it. Also,
> >>> for those members of the commision who didn't believe the SBT, are
> >>> they on record as stating what their objections were?
> >>
> >>
> >>

> >> It is doubtful that you'd get an honest answer to that question.
> >

> > Or an answer a conspiracy hobbyist wouldn`t spin into being
> > dishonest.
> >
> >> The

> >> person themselves that thought it up is probably passed on. But why

> >> would anyone let on that they thought it up, when it was supposed to
> >> be the result of serious forensic thinking?
> >
> > Something you should try. Maybe then you`d figure out why the SBT
> > *must* be true.
> >
>
> To prevent WWIII.

> A noble cause.

>
> >> As you've just done by admitting that it had to be "thought up",

> >> you've said that there really is no proof of such an event,
> >
> > Like what, time lapse photography of the bullet in flight?
> >

> >> and now with information from the AARB that that the SBT is a dead
> >> issue, why bother tracking it down? We know now the bullet that hit
> >> JFK in the back never went on to hit Connally. Why bother chasing
> >> foolish theories?
> >

> > Why are conspiracy hobbyists intent on inventing them?
> >
>
> Why did the WC create them? Why not just tell the truth?
>

> >> Chris
> >
> >

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

[tom...@cox.net]

Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/20/2014 8:01 PM, bigdog wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 20, 2014 11:43:05 AM UTC-5, stevemg...@yahoo.com

> > wrote:

> >> On Thursday, December 18, 2014 10:15:21 PM UTC-6, bigdog wrote:
> >>> I know the standard CT line is that the SBT was an invention of
> >>> necessity to save the lone assassin theory after it was discovered
> >>> that Tague had apparently been hit by a stray shot or fragment and
> >>> the JFK and JBC were hit too closely together to have been hit by
> >>> seperate shots from Oswald's bolt action rifle. BLAH! BLAH! BLAH. In
> >>> a rare moment of clarity, Marsh has pointed out that orignally, the
> >>> hypothesis was three shots, three hits. I am curious as to the actual
> >>> genesis of the SBT. Who first came up with it, was it the brainchild
> >>> of one man or a team effort. Was it a EUREKA! moment or did it evolve
> >>> slowly. What was the key piece(s) of evidence that led the
> >>> investigators to the possibility of a single bullet hitting both men.
> >>> Was it repeated viewings of the Z-film. Was it the photo recreating
> >>> in Dealey Plaza? Or was there something else that triggered it. Also,
> >>> for those members of the commision who didn't believe the SBT, are
> >>> they on record as stating what their objections were?
> >>

> >> I'm only familiar with the WC and its internal work from the Epstein

> >> book (flawed but interesting) and from Shenon's book issued last year
> >> (pretty good but he tries to cover too much).

> >>
> >> As you probably know, the staff (and it was largely a staff-driven

> >> investigation; as they usually are anyway) was assigned different

> >> tasks or parts to investigate. Wesley Liebeler and William Coleman,
> >> for example, were assigned to look into any foreign connections that
> >> Oswald had. They went to MC and talked to the CIA people there.
> >> Coleman wrote up their conclusions. Shenon interviewed both men for
> >> his book; Liebeler died in 2002 but Coleman is still alive.

> >>
> >> Both the Epstein and Shenon account attribute the source to Specter.

> >> He was assigned to investigate the actual shooting. According to
> >> Shenon, Specter came up with the general idea after informally
> >> interviewing Humes before he testified. Humes told Specter that the
> >> bullet that entered JFK's back exited without hitting any bone. When
> >> Humes testified Specter zeroed in on the key question: what happened
> >> to the bullet if it went through soft tissue.

> >>
> >> The Connally's testimony caused all sorts of problems for this.

> >> Specter believed, according to Shenon's account, that Nelly misled
> >> John about what happened. Bot the Connallys were shown the Zapruder
> >> film the morning of their testimony and actually left the room at one
> >> point as they argued over when he got hit and how reacted.

> >>
> >> In any, case I think the CW is correct: Specter was the source of the

> >> SBT and was able to get others to go along. Although Russell and
> >> Cooper vehemently disagreed, as you know.

> >>
> >> Russell's disagreement is mentioned in the Shenon book.
> >
> > I've long believed that it was Nellie who wrongly led John to believe
> > JFK had been hit with the first shot and since he knew he had been hit
> > by the second, he rejected the SBT on that basis. It sounds as if left
> > to his own devices, Connally might have accepted that both he and JFK
> > had been hit by the second bullet. But like a lot of men, he probably
> > had learned that it's easier just to agree with the wife rather than
> > argue with her about it. Of course Connally did believe he got hit
> > around Z230 because he saw himself twist and dip back to his right
> > immediately after that. Since it was obvious JFK had been hit prior to
> > that, that only reenforced what Nellie had told him. I doubt that
> > anyone ever pointed out to him his sudden arm flip that began
> > simultaneously with JFK's upward arm movement at Z226. I would bet if
> > he had ever noticed that part, he would be an SBT convert as would most
> > people.
> >
> >

> Connally told the HSCA that since he never saw JFK before he
> himself was wounded, he didn't know when Kennedy was hit. Line 46 here:
>
> https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchR
> esult&absPageId=45448
>
> The one thing Connally was always adamant about was that he himself
> was hit by the second shot, not the first or third.
>
> Jean

===========================================================================
= THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY WAS BORN DURING A COMMISSION EXECUTIVE SESSION
ON MARCH 13, 1964 LOOK IT UP

[Jason Burke]

On 12/22/2014 12:40 PM, tom...@cox.net wrote:

> bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, December 19, 2014 10:31:35 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:

>>> On Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:15:21 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>>>> I know the standard CT line is that the SBT was an invention of

>>>> necessi=
>> ty=20

>>>> to save the lone assassin theory after it was discovered that Tague

>>>> had=
>> =20

>>>> apparently been hit by a stray shot or fragment and the JFK and JBC

>>>> wer=
>> e=20

>>>> hit too closely together to have been hit by seperate shots from

>>>> Oswald=
>> 's=20

>>>> bolt action rifle. BLAH! BLAH! BLAH. In a rare moment of clarity,

>>>> Marsh=
>> =20

>>>> has pointed out that orignally, the hypothesis was three shots,

>>>> three=
>> =20

>>>> hits. I am curious as to the actual genesis of the SBT. Who first

>>>> came =
>> up=20

>>>> with it, was it the brainchild of one man or a team effort. Was it

>>>> a=20 EUREKA! moment or did it evolve slowly. What was the key
>>>> piece(s) of=20 evidence that led the investigators to the possibility
>>>> of a single bull=
>> et=20

>>>> hitting both men. Was it repeated viewings of the Z-film. Was it the

>>>> ph=
>> oto=20

>>>> recreating in Dealey Plaza? Or was there something else that

>>>> triggered =
>> it.=20

>>>> Also, for those members of the commision who didn't believe the SBT,

>>>> ar=
>> e=20

>>>> they on record as stating what their objections were?

>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20

>>> It is doubtful that you'd get an honest answer to that question.

>>> The=
>> =20

>>> person themselves that thought it up is probably passed on. But why

>>> woul=
>> d=20

>>> anyone let on that they thought it up, when it was supposed to be

>>> the=20 result of serious forensic thinking?
>>> =20
>>
>> It's called deductive reasoning and is part of any investigative process.
>> You gather forensic evidence and then try to figure out what that
>> evidence is telling you. The SBT was a product of just such deductive
>> reasoning. That's why I am curious as to the particulars of how they
>> arrived at that conclusion, which to date remains the only plausible
>> explaination of the forensic evidence ever presented.
>>

>>> As you've just done by admitting that it had to be "thought up",

>>> you've=
>> =20
>>> said that there really is no proof of such an event, and now with

>>> the=20 advent of the information from the AARB that that the SBT is a
>>> dead issue=
>> ,=20

>>> why bother tracking it down? We know now the bullet that hit JFK in

>>> the=
>> =20

>>> back never went on to hit Connally. Why bother chasing foolish

>>> theories? =20
>>
>> Not only is logic not your strong suit, but reading comprehension seems
>> to be a problem for you as well.
> WHEN YOU LEARN HOW TO READ, YOU'LL DISCOVER THAT THE COMMISSION'S EXECUTIVE
> OF APRIL 13, 1964 IS WHEN THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY WAS BORN ! ! !
> ===========================================================================
>

So you're saying it took a bit of time to get it correct? Is that what
you're saying, Rossley? And how does this affect your case, Tom? In the TR
universe does everything have to be immediately correct? First time out,
that sort of thing?

Is that it, Rossley?

[Jean Davison]

Don't be so hard on yourself, Tony. You can tell the whole story
if you try.

In what Z frame is Connally turned left far enough to see Kennedy
"slumped"? Frame number please.

Jean

[Anthony Marsh]

The LIE of the SBT prevented WWIII.

>> A noble cause.
>>
>>>> As you've just done by admitting that it had to be "thought up", you've
>>>> said that there really is no proof of such an event,
>>>
>>> Like what, time lapse photography of the bullet in flight?
>>>
>>>> and now with information from the AARB that that the SBT is a dead issue,
>>>> why bother tracking it down? We know now the bullet that hit JFK in the
>>>> back never went on to hit Connally. Why bother chasing foolish theories?
>>>
>>> Why are conspiracy hobbyists intent on inventing them?
>>>
>>
>> Why did the WC create them? Why not just tell the truth?
>
> You shown yourself to be unable to handle the truth.
>

Wasn't the character who said that convicted of murder?

>>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

So you refuse to answer my questions and repeat the false information
that I just complained about. It did noy just hit soft tissue.
It hit the top of T-1 and was deflected up. In fact, Mark Furhman shows
it exiting the throat and hitting the chrome topping.
If all the bullets were headed down then how could anything hit the
chrome topping?

[Anthony Marsh]

Then do you endorse Lattimer's theory that fragments from the head shot
hit the chrome topping?
Both Myers and the HSCA show an intact bullet leaving the head on a
downward trajectory. How do YOU get the bullet to exit the head and then
go an an upward trajectory to hit the chrome topping?

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 12/23/14, 3:09 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> I love how Tony Marsh attempts to make it look as if **I** myself think
> the WC invented the SBT because of James Tague's injury. (That's pretty
> low, Marsh.)
>

I really doubt that the misrepresentation was intentional. Tony tends to
read things so fast in his haste to reply that he very often misses the
point.

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
==== EXCEPT FOR TWO SHOOTERS INDICATED BY OFFICIAL EVIDENCE/TESTIMONY ! ! !
===========================================================================
======

[Bud]

I was speaking forensically and you are speaking fantastically.

> >> A noble cause.
> >>
> >>>> As you've just done by admitting that it had to be "thought up", you've
> >>>> said that there really is no proof of such an event,
> >>>
> >>> Like what, time lapse photography of the bullet in flight?
> >>>
> >>>> and now with information from the AARB that that the SBT is a dead issue,
> >>>> why bother tracking it down? We know now the bullet that hit JFK in the
> >>>> back never went on to hit Connally. Why bother chasing foolish theories?
> >>>
> >>> Why are conspiracy hobbyists intent on inventing them?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Why did the WC create them? Why not just tell the truth?
> >
> > You shown yourself to be unable to handle the truth.
> >
>
> Wasn't the character who said that convicted of murder?

He was speaking of a larger truth.

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 12:42:01 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>

> The LIE of the SBT prevented WWIII.
>

I'd love to see the logic path that brought you to that conclusion. It
must be a real obstacle course.

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 12:43:09 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> Then do you endorse Lattimer's theory that fragments from the head shot
> hit the chrome topping?
> Both Myers and the HSCA show an intact bullet leaving the head on a
> downward trajectory. How do YOU get the bullet to exit the head and then
> go an an upward trajectory to hit the chrome topping?

Lattimer's theory certainly makes sense. I'll let Myers speak for himself
on this issue.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/24/2014 12:48 AM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> On 12/23/14, 3:09 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>> I love how Tony Marsh attempts to make it look as if **I** myself think
>> the WC invented the SBT because of James Tague's injury. (That's pretty
>> low, Marsh.)
>>
>
> I really doubt that the misrepresentation was intentional. Tony tends to
> read things so fast in his haste to reply that he very often misses the
> point.
>

Some WC defenders do indeed think think the Tague wounding is what
created the Single-Bullet Theory.
But that came out in June. By the end of April Specter was proposing HIS
SBT base on the timing of the shots.

>
>> Let's see what Marsh left out of the quote he cited from my website.....
>>
>> [Quote on...]
>>
>> Why is it that no conspiracy theorist will ever (ever!) take a good
>> look at
>> Page 117 of the Warren Report?
>>
>> I can answer that last question too -- It's because if they were to
>> actually read and evaluate what the Warren Commission said on Page
>> #117 of
>> its final report (including the "probably" verbiage utilized by the
>> Commission in the "Conclusion" paragraph on that same page), those
>> conspiracy theorists would be forced to toss one of their pet theories
>> (aka myths) out the nearest window. And that theory/myth is the following
>> one:
>>
>> James Tague's injury and the damage to the curb on Main Street forced the
>> Warren Commission to adopt the Single-Bullet Theory. Because without the
>> SBT, the Commission knew it could not explain Tague's wounding and the
>> curb damage within a shooting scenario that did not include one bullet
>> that went through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally.
>>
>> David Von Pein
>> August 30, 2009
>>
>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-683.html
>>
>>
>
>

I don't know how anyone can misinterepret his last paragraph. He blames
the SBT on Tague.
His words, not mine.
ALbeit from 2009. Maybe he's smartened up since then and should write a
correction and apology.
And yes, he apparently thinks that Tague had to be wounded by a separate
bullet, even though several prominent WC defenders think Tague was
injured by a fragment from the head shot.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/24/2014 12:48 AM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:

I am not the one citing the Tague wounding as the raison d'etre for the
Single Bullet Theory. It comes from the WC defenders here. Why doesn't
DVP clean up his own house before attacking WC critics?
You never see him correcting his fellow WC defenders.

[Anthony Marsh]

I did. Read the damn article:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

and I knew I'd been hit badly.

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

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

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

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

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


Mr. CORNWELL. Thank you, very much.
Governor, let me ask you the same question. What is your memory of the
events? What did you see and hear? What happened after the limousine started
down Elm Street and passed underneath the Texas School Book Depository?
Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. Cornwell, we had just turned to Elm. We had gone, I
suspect, oh, 150, 200 feet when I heard what I thought was a rifle shot
and I thought it came from--I was seated right, as you know, the jump seat
right in front of the President, and they have a fairly straight back on
them so I was sitting up fairly erect. I thought the shot came from back
over my right shoulder, so I turned to see if I could catch a sight of the
President out of the corner of my eye because I immediately had, frankly,
had fear of an assassination because I thought it was a rifle shot.
I didn't think it was a blowout or explosion of any kind. I didn't
see the President out of the corner of my eye, so I was in the process of,
at least I was turning to look over my left shoulder into the back seat to
see if I could see him. I never looked, I never made the full turn. About
the time I turned back where I was facing more or less straight ahead, the
way the car was moving, I was hit. I was knocked over, just doubled over
by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about
2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet
drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could
see I was just drenched with blood. So, I knew I had been badly hit and I
more or less straightened up. At about this time, Nelly reached over and
pulled me down into her lap.

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

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

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

> In what Z frame is Connally turned left far enough to see Kennedy
> "slumped"? Frame number please.
>

He didn't specify because they are both hidden by the sign.
Probably about frame 215.

> Jean

[Anthony Marsh]

How can we look it up when it doesn't exist? I thought you said it was
on April 13, 1964. Keep guessing. You'll eventually get something right.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/23/2014 11:36 PM, tom...@cox.net wrote:

> THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY WAS BORN DURING A COMMISSION EXECUTIVE SESSION ON
> MARCH 13, 1964 ! ! ! JUST ONE MORE ADDITIONAL LIE BY THE COMMISSION ! !
> ===========================================================================
> ====
>

Then why can't you show us the executive session of March 13, 1964?

[Anthony Marsh]

But it's your own fellow WC defenders who claim that Tague was the cause
of the SBT. Attack them.

[Anthony Marsh]

A forensic lie?

>>>> A noble cause.
>>>>
>>>>>> As you've just done by admitting that it had to be "thought up", you've
>>>>>> said that there really is no proof of such an event,
>>>>>
>>>>> Like what, time lapse photography of the bullet in flight?
>>>>>
>>>>>> and now with information from the AARB that that the SBT is a dead issue,
>>>>>> why bother tracking it down? We know now the bullet that hit JFK in the
>>>>>> back never went on to hit Connally. Why bother chasing foolish theories?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why are conspiracy hobbyists intent on inventing them?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why did the WC create them? Why not just tell the truth?
>>>
>>> You shown yourself to be unable to handle the truth.
>>>
>>
>> Wasn't the character who said that convicted of murder?
>
> He was speaking of a larger truth.
>

He was espousing Fascism and lawlessness.

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 3:53:28 PM UTC-5, tom...@cox.net wrote:

> ===========================================================================
> ==== EXCEPT FOR TWO SHOOTERS INDICATED BY OFFICIAL EVIDENCE/TESTIMONY ! ! !
> ===========================================================================
> ======
>

Not really, Tom. All the credible evidence points to Oswald alone from the 6th floor of the TSBD. If there was "official evidence" of a second shooter, why did you admit in our radio debate that you had no evidence that anyone except Oswald was involved in the crime..

[David Von Pein]

Incredible. I posted the full context of my 2009 post and STILL Marsh
misinterprets it. He still thinks **I MYSELF** think the SBT was created
due to Tague's existence. Even though I prefaced that last paragraph with
these words....

"...if they [CTers] were to actually read and evaluate what the Warren

Commission said on Page #117 of its final report (including the "probably"
verbiage utilized by the Commission in the "Conclusion" paragraph on that
same page), those conspiracy theorists would be forced to toss one of
their pet theories (aka myths) out the nearest window. And that

theory/myth is the following one:..."

Now, let's see Marsh misrepresent what I said for a third time now.
That'll be fun.

[Jean Davison]

How is that possible? He's turned right when he goes behind the
sign just as he is when he emerges 15 frames later. He is out of view
for only about eight tenths of a second.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z207.jpg

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z222.jpg

Besides, when JFK appears at Z225, he's not "slumped."

The Z film shows what he described in every interview except the
one with Agronsky.

Jean

[mainframetech]

Useless guessing. If you want to prove what was the kill shot and where
it hit, just look up the many witnesses to the small (5mm) wound in the
right forehead/temple over the right eye. That wound also had an X-ray
taken that showed metal fragments leading from it to the rear in an
enlarging cone, leading to the blow-out at the BOH seen by over 40
witnesses. But it will tawke courage to see proof that will change your
thinking. Only the strongest will look. first we have the forensic
pathologist, Pierre Finck seeing the wound, as an entry wound:

Here's the report of an interview with James Jenkins, Bethesda
technologist who assisted at the autopsy:

"Jenkins recalled the large posterior hole in JFK's head, but also
recalled a small (approximately 5 mm in diameter) hole in the right
temporal bone, just forward of and just above the right ear. He saw this
quite early in the autopsy, and recalls that Dr. Finck saw this and
commented on it. The circumference was gray, which suggested to Jenkins
the passage of a bullet. He said that even Dr. Finck speculated that a
bullet might have caused this hole."

The small wound was seen by many witnesses, yet the prosectors
purposely left it out of the Autopsy Report. They had to have had orders
to ignore anything that suggested another shooter that would blow the
'lone nut' theory of the WC lawyers.

And then the corroboration:

Jerrol Custer, Bethesda X-ray technician, describing the 'cone effect' of
bullet in small (5mm) entry wound in forehead:

Q: When did that happen?
A: That was during - after the first set of skull films were taken. And the
AP cervical spine showed metal fragments. And one of the laterals also
showed a - bone fragments that had the cones effect.
If you've ever used a fragment bullet - when it goes in, it fragments.
And the further it goes in,
the cone becomes bigger. So, you have a small-
Let me borrow your pen. I know this is hard to put it on record.
Like your cone starts small. And it goes - As you come out, it expands.
Say, this being the front of the skull: the forehead, the orbits, the
nasion, which is the nose, the jaw -
come back, the occipital region.
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
page 100-101

Yep, there it is. But only courage will cause anyone to check it out
to be sure it's there. It's in the sworn testimony of Jerrol Custer in
the ARRB files...:)

Chris

[CASSIUS CLAY BERTRAND]

There were two shooters. Harvey and Lee.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yeah, so what? You got a point?
Looking with the head turned slightly is not the same thing as turning
his body.

> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z207.jpg
>
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z222.jpg
>
> Besides, when JFK appears at Z225, he's not "slumped."
>

Yes, he is.

> The Z film shows what he described in every interview except the
> one with Agronsky.
>

As Loftus suggests look for the earliest statements.

> Jean
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Again you are misattributing and smearing. I pointed out that some WC
defenders believe it, so stop saying "Those conspiracy theorists" as if
only a kook could believe it. There are plenty of kooks on your side of
the aisle and you give them a free pass.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Whoops, you just did it again.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Nope. Take a deep breath, and read it again.
You have totally misconstrued Von Pein's point.

[Anthony Marsh]

Have you even seen his diagram?

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, December 25, 2014 3:53:49 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:

Oh ,stop your crap! there's no "credible evidence" pointing at Oswald,
or even his rifle. The real evidence shows that a shooter other than
someone in the 6th floor TSBD window made the kill shot. The wound was
from forward of the limousine. There was a small (5mm) entry wound seen
by many witnesses that was over the right eye in the temple/forehead area.
It was recognized by Pierre Finck as an entry wound. It was corroborated
by an X-ray that showed metal fragments beginning at that wound and
expanding in a cone shape towards the rear of the skull, where it probably
blew out the BOH of JFK, seen by over 40 witnesses. The prosectors
carefully left that wound off their Autopsy Report. Of course, it will
take a courageous person to look up the information and confirm it in
sworn testimony. Most LNs are scared of what they will find...:)

In an interview, James Jenkins, Bethesda technologist who assisted at

the autopsy, said:

"Jenkins recalled the large posterior hole in JFK's head, but also recalled
a small (approximately 5 mm in diameter) hole in the right temporal bone,
just forward of and just above the right ear. He saw this quite early in the
autopsy, and recalls that Dr. Finck saw this and commented on it. The
circumference was gray, which suggested to Jenkins the passage of a bullet. He
said that even Dr. Finck speculated that a bullet might have caused this
hole."

From: http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/james-jenkins-revelations-from-a-witness-to-jfks-autopsy/#more-10273

The corroboration was from Jerrol Custer in sworn testimony, Bethesda
X-ray technician at the autopsy:

Q: When did that happen?
A: That was during - after the first set of skull films were taken. And the
AP cervical spine
showed metal fragments. And one of the laterals also showed a - bone
fragments that had the cones effect.
If you've ever used a fragment bullet - when it goes in, it fragments.
And the further it goes in,
the cone becomes bigger. So, you have a small-
Let me borrow your pen. I know this is hard to put it on record.
Like your cone starts small. And it goes - As you come out, it expands.
Say, this being the front of the skull: the forehead, the orbits, the
nasion, which is the nose, the jaw - come back, the occipital region.

From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
page 100-101

All the links are provide, now we se which LN has the guts to check it
out, and even harder, to admit that s/he did the checking...:)

Chris

[bigdog]

Good luck with this, Jean. I went around and around with Tony on this very
point over several weeks. You'll never get him to be specific or explain
how what he is claiming is remotely possible. But you probably already
know that. Still, it's fun to see him put on his dancing shoes.

[bigdog]

And very predictable.

[Jean Davison]

As Marsh says, eyewitness testimony is the most unreliable type of
evidence. The film shows when Connally turned and which way.

Jean

[bigdog]

On Thursday, December 25, 2014 6:50:37 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 11:45:19 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 12:43:09 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > >
> > > Then do you endorse Lattimer's theory that fragments from the head shot
> > > hit the chrome topping?
> > > Both Myers and the HSCA show an intact bullet leaving the head on a
> > > downward trajectory. How do YOU get the bullet to exit the head and then
> > > go an an upward trajectory to hit the chrome topping?
> >
> > Lattimer's theory certainly makes sense. I'll let Myers speak for himself
> > on this issue.
>
>
>
> Useless guessing. If you want to prove what was the kill shot and where
> it hit, just look up the many witnesses to the small (5mm) wound in the
> right forehead/temple over the right eye.

The temple is not over the right eye.

> That wound also had an X-ray
> taken that showed metal fragments leading from it to the rear in an
> enlarging cone, leading to the blow-out at the BOH seen by over 40
> witnesses. But it will tawke courage to see proof that will change your
> thinking. Only the strongest will look. first we have the forensic
> pathologist, Pierre Finck seeing the wound, as an entry wound:
>

Finck signed a report that said the missile exited there.

> Here's the report of an interview with James Jenkins, Bethesda
> technologist who assisted at the autopsy:
>

Sure. Who cares what the doctors who performed the autopsy said. We have a
technician who was looking over their shoulder to tell us what the autopsy
revealed.

> "Jenkins recalled the large posterior hole in JFK's head, but also
> recalled a small (approximately 5 mm in diameter) hole in the right
> temporal bone, just forward of and just above the right ear. He saw this
> quite early in the autopsy, and recalls that Dr. Finck saw this and
> commented on it. The circumference was gray, which suggested to Jenkins
> the passage of a bullet. He said that even Dr. Finck speculated that a
> bullet might have caused this hole."
>
> The small wound was seen by many witnesses, yet the prosectors
> purposely left it out of the Autopsy Report. They had to have had orders
> to ignore anything that suggested another shooter that would blow the
> 'lone nut' theory of the WC lawyers.
>
> And then the corroboration:
>
> Jerrol Custer, Bethesda X-ray technician, describing the 'cone effect' of
> bullet in small (5mm) entry wound in forehead:
>

Oh, goodie. On eavesdropping technician corroborating another. We can just
toss out the autopsy report. We can go by what the technicians remembered
30 years later.

> Q: When did that happen?
> A: That was during - after the first set of skull films were taken. And the
> AP cervical spine showed metal fragments. And one of the laterals also
> showed a - bone fragments that had the cones effect.
> If you've ever used a fragment bullet - when it goes in, it fragments.
> And the further it goes in,
> the cone becomes bigger. So, you have a small-
> Let me borrow your pen. I know this is hard to put it on record.
> Like your cone starts small. And it goes - As you come out, it expands.
> Say, this being the front of the skull: the forehead, the orbits, the
> nasion, which is the nose, the jaw -
> come back, the occipital region.
> From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
> page 100-101
>
> Yep, there it is.

Why do you continue to ignore what the autopsy report says and instead go
by 30 year old memories of people who weren't qualified to analyze the
medical evidence in the first place. Oh, that's right. You do that because
you are a conspiracy hobbyist and you don't want to accept what the
evidence tells us.

> But only courage will cause anyone to check it out
> to be sure it's there. It's in the sworn testimony of Jerrol Custer in
> the ARRB files...:)
>

Courage isn't necessary to buy into that crap. All that is needed is to
take leave of one's senses.

[bigdog]

On Thursday, December 25, 2014 9:30:44 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, December 25, 2014 3:53:49 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 3:53:28 PM UTC-5, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> >
> > > ===========================================================================
> > > ==== EXCEPT FOR TWO SHOOTERS INDICATED BY OFFICIAL EVIDENCE/TESTIMONY ! ! !
> > > ===========================================================================
> > > ======
> > >
> > Not really, Tom. All the credible evidence points to Oswald alone from the 6th floor of the TSBD. If there was "official evidence" of a second shooter, why did you admit in our radio debate that you had no evidence that anyone except Oswald was involved in the crime..
>
>
>
>
> Oh ,stop your crap! there's no "credible evidence" pointing at Oswald,
> or even his rifle. The real evidence shows that a shooter other than
> someone in the 6th floor TSBD window made the kill shot. The wound was
> from forward of the limousine. There was a small (5mm) entry wound seen
> by many witnesses that was over the right eye in the temple/forehead area.
> It was recognized by Pierre Finck as an entry wound. It was corroborated
> by an X-ray that showed metal fragments beginning at that wound and
> expanding in a cone shape towards the rear of the skull, where it probably
> blew out the BOH of JFK, seen by over 40 witnesses. The prosectors
> carefully left that wound off their Autopsy Report. Of course, it will
> take a courageous person to look up the information and confirm it in
> sworn testimony. Most LNs are scared of what they will find...:)
>

Oh goodie. The original autopsy team and every review panel comprised of
qualified medical examiners has unanimously agreed a bullet hit JFK in the
back of the head and exited from his temple but you want us to discard all
of that because two technicians 30 years later said they thought there was
an entrance wound in the temple. What's the matter. Couldn't you get the
janior to weight in?

Why would you think this is remotely important?

> All the links are provide, now we se which LN has the guts to check it
> out, and even harder, to admit that s/he did the checking...:)
>

We are all aware of this. It is over 20 years old and is as irrelevant
today as it was back then.

[bigdog]

But he'll continue to maintain in the 3/4 of a second he was hidden from
view, he turned all the way around to his left, saw JFK slumped, and then
turn all the way back to the position he was in when he disappeared. Then
when you point out how ludicrous that is, he'll deny he said that.

[Jason Burke]

Oh dear. Tom?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/26/2014 11:02 AM, bigdog wrote:
> On Thursday, December 25, 2014 6:50:37 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 11:45:19 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 12:43:09 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Then do you endorse Lattimer's theory that fragments from the head shot
>>>> hit the chrome topping?
>>>> Both Myers and the HSCA show an intact bullet leaving the head on a
>>>> downward trajectory. How do YOU get the bullet to exit the head and then
>>>> go an an upward trajectory to hit the chrome topping?
>>>
>>> Lattimer's theory certainly makes sense. I'll let Myers speak for himself
>>> on this issue.
>>
>>
>>
>> Useless guessing. If you want to prove what was the kill shot and where
>> it hit, just look up the many witnesses to the small (5mm) wound in the
>> right forehead/temple over the right eye.
>
> The temple is not over the right eye.
>
>> That wound also had an X-ray
>> taken that showed metal fragments leading from it to the rear in an
>> enlarging cone, leading to the blow-out at the BOH seen by over 40
>> witnesses. But it will tawke courage to see proof that will change your
>> thinking. Only the strongest will look. first we have the forensic
>> pathologist, Pierre Finck seeing the wound, as an entry wound:
>>
>
> Finck signed a report that said the missile exited there.
>

No. You are making up crap again. Even the HSCA did not say the missile
exited at the wound over the right eye.

>> Here's the report of an interview with James Jenkins, Bethesda
>> technologist who assisted at the autopsy:
>>
>
> Sure. Who cares what the doctors who performed the autopsy said. We have a
> technician who was looking over their shoulder to tell us what the autopsy
> revealed.
>

Especially when The Three Stooges missed the throat wound.

>> "Jenkins recalled the large posterior hole in JFK's head, but also
>> recalled a small (approximately 5 mm in diameter) hole in the right
>> temporal bone, just forward of and just above the right ear. He saw this
>> quite early in the autopsy, and recalls that Dr. Finck saw this and
>> commented on it. The circumference was gray, which suggested to Jenkins
>> the passage of a bullet. He said that even Dr. Finck speculated that a
>> bullet might have caused this hole."
>>
>> The small wound was seen by many witnesses, yet the prosectors
>> purposely left it out of the Autopsy Report. They had to have had orders
>> to ignore anything that suggested another shooter that would blow the
>> 'lone nut' theory of the WC lawyers.
>>
>> And then the corroboration:
>>
>> Jerrol Custer, Bethesda X-ray technician, describing the 'cone effect' of
>> bullet in small (5mm) entry wound in forehead:
>>
>
> Oh, goodie. On eavesdropping technician corroborating another. We can just
> toss out the autopsy report. We can go by what the technicians remembered
> 30 years later.
>

Eavesdropping? They were right in the autopsy room working with the
autopsy doctor. You will try any cheap trick to deny facts.

>> Q: When did that happen?
>> A: That was during - after the first set of skull films were taken. And the
>> AP cervical spine showed metal fragments. And one of the laterals also
>> showed a - bone fragments that had the cones effect.
>> If you've ever used a fragment bullet - when it goes in, it fragments.
>> And the further it goes in,
>> the cone becomes bigger. So, you have a small-
>> Let me borrow your pen. I know this is hard to put it on record.
>> Like your cone starts small. And it goes - As you come out, it expands.
>> Say, this being the front of the skull: the forehead, the orbits, the
>> nasion, which is the nose, the jaw -
>> come back, the occipital region.
>> From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
>> page 100-101
>>
>> Yep, there it is.
>
> Why do you continue to ignore what the autopsy report says and instead go
> by 30 year old memories of people who weren't qualified to analyze the
> medical evidence in the first place. Oh, that's right. You do that because
> you are a conspiracy hobbyist and you don't want to accept what the
> evidence tells us.
>

Because we know that the autopsy report was an official lie. That's why
you rely on it.

[cmikes]

Tony's problem with this is that he recognizes that the Zapruder film is
authentic, since he's not certifiably insane, but at the same time, he's
arguing that Conally does something that is not shown on the film. So he
has no choice but to bob, weave and dodge while blowing enough smoke that
he hopes no one notices.

[cmikes]

But if we're going to accept decades old hearsay evidence, have I got some
for Chris. Finck told Jenkins, who told Doug Horne, who told Robert Prey
that "all conspiracy theorists are lying sacks of shit who are just too
cowardly to accept reality." Now, I would never say that or believe it,
but that comes right from Pierre Finck, through Jenkins, Horne and Prey,
so it's relevant to the discussion.

[Jean Davison]

LOL. Yes, you know Mr. Marsh well, Bigdog. Let's sit back and
enjoy the show.

Jean