Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Some innocent single-bullet questions

7 views
Skip to first unread message

Steve

unread,
May 26, 2009, 11:38:27 PM5/26/09
to
You all know me, I'm a curious person. I think everyone would agree,
(even those in the conspiracy community,) that there are few things
more entertaining that hearing conspiracy nuts attempt to explain what
really DID happen during the assassination. Most conspiracy crazies
won't ever step into this trap because it exposes the weaknesses of
their life's pursuit when they are unable to explain, in narrative
form, what DID happen rather than what they are best at: explaining
what DIDN'T happen. So here are a couple of simple questions that the
conspiracy crazies can address if they choose to:

1. Where was the gunman located that shot Connally in the back? It
is taught in the first two minutes of Conspiracy Lunacy 101 that one
must NOT accept the single bullet solution therefore there MUST be
alternative explanation. Right? Therefore, please where this second
gunman was located so that he/she could fire a high-powered rifle into
Connally's back such as to leave an elongated wound considering that
Kennedy was seated directly in line of such a shot.

2. Please explain what happened to the bullet that struck Kennedy in
the upper back, considering of course that Kennedy's entire body was x-
rayed and NO bullet or fragment thereof was found that would account
for the shot to the upper back. Please keep in mind that the bullet
that struck Kennedy in the upper back also did NOT strike any bone and
was therefore NOT deflected off its straight-line course (which
according to the seating arrangement in the limousine would then
travel on to strike Connally.) I'm am confident you will offer
forensic evidence to support your explaination.

3. Since it is a sacred axiom among conspiracy loonies that the neck
wound to Kennedy was an entrance wound, please explain where the exit
wound for that bullet is, (I won't embarass you further by asking
where the actual bullet is because we both know you don't have a
clue), just explain what happened to the exit wound. If the frontal
shot was fired from the grassy knoll/stockade fence area, then there
should of course be an exit wound LOWER on Kennedy's left side back
shouldn't there? Where is it?


Good luck kids. Let the bumper car display begin as theory bangs into
theory into theory into theory into theory.

Now a couple of things will happen:

1. Some will refuse to address these issues since they will realize
they don't have answers.

2. Healy will make some incoherent comment that will cause all sane
individuals to wrinkle their noses and ask, "Huh"?

3. Some will refuse to ANSWER the question sbut will instead fall
back into their more comfortable role of turning the tables and ASKING
me questions--thus deflecting responsibility to actually provide
answers or explanations.

4. Some will avoide the issue and simply reveal where I live or make
a non-sequitur insult in hopes of deflecting attention from their
inability to answer these tough questions.

a1e...@verizon.net

unread,
May 27, 2009, 2:32:22 AM5/27/09
to
On May 26, 11:38 pm, Steve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You all know me, I'm a curious person.  I think everyone would agree,
> (even those in the conspiracy community,) that there are few things
> more entertaining that hearing conspiracy nuts attempt to explain what
> really DID happen during the assassination.  Most conspiracy crazies
> won't ever step into this trap because it exposes the weaknesses of
> their life's pursuit when they are unable to explain, in narrative
> form, what DID happen rather than what they are best at:  explaining
> what DIDN'T happen.  So here are a couple of simple questions that the
> conspiracy crazies can address if they choose to:
>
> 1.  Where was the gunman located that shot Connally in the back?  It
> is taught in the first two minutes of Conspiracy Lunacy 101 that one
> must NOT accept the single bullet solution therefore there MUST be
> alternative explanation.  Right?  Therefore, please where this second
> gunman was located so that he/she could fire a high-powered rifle into
> Connally's back such as to leave an elongated wound considering that
> Kennedy was seated directly in line of such a shot.

Assuming that we know the angular orientation of Connally when shot
then the answer to your question depends upon whose report of the back
wound one believes.

According to the forensic panel, a tumbled bullet entered the back and
made a virtually rectangular wound. However, Doctor Shaw never
described the wound as rectangular. Instead he insisted upon its
elliptical shape and his colleague, Doctor Gregory, supported Shaw's
position by calling the wound linear with a rounded central portion.

Tests by Edgewood Arsenal showed that a simulation of Connally's
torso consumed 400 ft-lb of kinetic energy from a MC bullet, which
transited with a negligible angle of yaw. Allowing a 30-degree yaw
angle to produce the 15-mm elongation of the wound increases the
required kinetic energy for transit to 1200 ft- lb. This increase
makes uncertain an exit from the torso and prohibits an entry into the
thigh after transit of the wrist.

Shaw verbally specified the longer axis of the elliptical wound as 15
mm. He did not give the length of the shorter axis nor the angle
between the longer axis and an anatomical feature. In fact, Shaw never
told us whether the 15 mm represented the longer axis of abrasion or
the hole.

Despite these ambiguities, the length of the 15-mm axis is sufficient
to place the incidence angle near 60 degree and in total conflict with
the location of the exit wound with respect to the location of the
entry wound.

So, Steve, which incredible story of the back wound do you buy?
Personally, I reject both.

>
> 2.  Please explain what happened to the bullet that struck Kennedy in
> the upper back, considering of course that Kennedy's entire body was x-
> rayed and NO bullet or fragment thereof was found that would account
> for the shot to the upper back.  Please keep in mind that the bullet
> that struck Kennedy in the upper back also did NOT strike any bone and
> was therefore NOT deflected off its straight-line course (which
> according to the seating arrangement in the limousine would then
> travel on to strike Connally.)  I'm am confident you will offer
> forensic evidence to support your explaination.

Please specify the directions of the single bullet as it entered
Kennedy's back. I purposely used the plural of direction since
analysis of the abrasion collar places the entering bullet on a course
that differs by about 60 degree from the trajectory inferred from an
analysis of the wider of the abrasion. For your convenience, I include
references to the relevant documentation.

Source:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0093
a.htm

(465) A red-brown to black area of skin surrounds the wound, forming
what is called an abrasion collar. It was caused by the bullet's
scraping the margins of the skin on penetration and is characteristic
of a gunshot wound of entrance. The abrasion collar is larger at the
lower margin of the wound, evidence that the bullet's trajectory at
the instant of penetration was slightly upward in relation to the
body.

Source:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0098
b.htm

Mr. KLEIN. And the panel found an abrasion collar on the wound of the
President's back of the kind you have shown us in these drawings?
Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. This represents a diagram, a blowup of the actual
entrance perforation of the skin showing an abrasion collar. The
abrasion collar is wider toward 3 o'clock than toward 9 o'clock, which
would indicate a directionality from right to left and toward the
middle part of the body, which was the impression of the doctors on
reviewing the photographs initially at the Archives.
End of quotation.

I believe that the end of May is be kind to Baden week, so I attribute
his mistake of calling the wider portion of the abrasion an abrasion
collar to respect for Mr. Klein rather than an attempt to confuse the
issues.

>
> 3.  Since it is a sacred axiom among conspiracy loonies that the neck
> wound to Kennedy was an entrance wound, please explain where the exit
> wound for that bullet is, (I won't embarass you further by asking
> where the actual bullet is because we both know you don't have a
> clue), just explain what happened to the exit wound.  If the frontal
> shot was fired from the grassy knoll/stockade fence area, then there
> should of course be an exit wound LOWER on Kennedy's left side back
> shouldn't there?  Where is it?

A perforating back to throat wound requires that the bullet went
nearly straight into the back. So how do you explain either trajectory
reported by the forensic panel as containing a considerable upward or
a considerable left component of its striking velocity?

Alternately one could use synthesis to calculate the dimensions of a
simple bullet hole on the straight line that joined entry and exit
sights. The incidence angle between this straight line and the
perpendicular to the entry site on a straight back measures about 20
degree. So the length of the longer axis of the elliptical hole would
be 1/cos (20) or 1.06 times the length of the shorter axis. Allowing
for entry on a curved portion of the back reduces the incidence angle
to about 10 degree and reduces the ratio of axial lengths to a mere 1/
cos (10) or 1.015. In other wounds the locations of the back and the
neck wounds require a round entry hole.

Obviously the 1.75 axial ratio of the 7 mm by 4 mm bullet hole
reported by Commander Humes and the 1.43 axial ratio of the 10 mm by 7
mm abrasion shown on the autopsy are in irreconcilable conflict with
the minuscule ratio of 1.06 as required by the locations of the two
wounds.

Herbert

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
May 27, 2009, 4:32:42 AM5/27/09
to

>>> "Obviously the 1.75 axial ratio of the 7 mm by 4 mm bullet hole reported by Commander Humes and the 1.43 axial ratio of the 10 mm by 7 mm abrasion shown on the autopsy are in irreconcilable conflict with the minuscule ratio of 1.06 as required by the locations of the two wounds." <<<

What a bunch of highbrow, meaningless bullshit.

Herbert's supply of meaningless crap like the above never runs out,
does it?

I wonder if conspiracists like Mr. Herbert Blenner ever wonder why it
is that TWO major U.S. Governmental investigative bodies (the Warren
Commission and the House Select Committee), fifteen years apart, BOTH
came to the conclusion that a single bullet (CE399 to be precise) DID,
indeed, slice through both JFK and John Connally on November 22, 1963,
in Dealey Plaza?

I guess it's just too bad that Herb Blenner wasn't called upon to
provide the WC and/or the HSCA with his expert analysis regarding the
"1.75 axial ratio" and "1.43 axial ratio" and the "irreconcilable
conflict" that exists with respect to the Single-Bullet Theory.

Somehow or another it would seem that BOTH of the official U.S.
Government's investigative organizations that were assembled
specifically to try and find out the truth about what happened in
Dallas on 11/22/63 totally blew it when they both signed-off on a
single-bullet conclusion that nearly every CTer in the world seems to
think is nothing but a crock of smelly shit!

It's just too damn bad that brilliant scientists like Herb Blenner
weren't on the WC or HSCA panels in order to make those guys see the
light regarding those ever-important "axial ratios", huh?

But, maybe Herbert will be lucky and will be asked to solve the whole
"SBT" mystery when the Government re-examines the case in the future
due to the outraged fist-pounding efforts of all the many armchair
anti-SBT crackpots in this world who think they know MUCH more than
the (apparently) stupid SBT-backing retards who served on those
previous two U.S. Government commissions.

But back here in the real world of sanity and common sense, Dale Myers
said it quite nicely on May 26th, 2009, when he said this:

"Few understand that the single bullet theory was and is the
obvious solution to a perplexing question: What happened to the bullet
that entered Kennedy’s upper-right back and exited his throat? Instead
of dealing with the firearms, medical, and trajectory evidence
surrounding this question, detractors and spin doctors have been
conjuring up ridiculous zigzagging bullet diagrams that supposedly
reveal the stupidity of the Warren Commission’s theory for the better
part of a half century. Believe me it’s taken its toll. Today, the
vast majority of otherwise clear thinking Americans have chucked
common sense and embraced a zigzagging bullet theory that is far more
magical than the straight-line bullet trajectory proposed by the
Commission. It’s a weird world, isn’t it?" -- Dale K. Myers; 05/26/09

www.jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2009/05/song-remains-same.html

And Vincent T. Bugliosi weighs in with a hefty dose of good old-
fashioned common sense regarding the Single-Bullet Theory too (which
is common sense that is always ignored by the conspiracy-seeking
crowd, naturally):

"The single-bullet theory [is] so obvious that a child could
author it. .... We can have all the confidence in the world, by an
examination of the physical evidence and the utilization of common
sense, that [a single bullet wounded both Kennedy and Connally]. When
you can establish the single-bullet theory by reference to evidence
other than the [Zapruder] film, you necessarily know that the film
itself cannot, by definition, show something else. .... Since we KNOW
Kennedy and Connally were not hit by separate bullets, we know, before
we even look at the film, that it CANNOT show otherwise. ....

"The result of [Dale] Myers's efforts is a remarkably compelling
view of the assassination of President Kennedy that is consistent with
the Warren Commission's and HSCA's conclusion that Kennedy and
Connally were, indeed, struck by the same bullet. ....

"With respect to the second shot fired in Dealey Plaza, the
"single-bullet THEORY" is an obvious misnomer. Though in its incipient
stages it was but a theory, the indisputable evidence is that it is
now a proven FACT, a wholly supported conclusion. .... And no sensible
mind that is also informed can plausibly make the case that the bullet
that struck President Kennedy in the upper right part of his back did
not go on to hit Governor Connally." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Via the
pages of "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F.
Kennedy" (c.2007)

http://blogs.myspace.com/davidvp1961

And David Von Pein (yes, that's me) said it pretty well too (if you
don't mind my saying so) when he said this in May 2005:

"Lacking a shot that transits JFK, we're left to accept a three-
shot scenario to explain these wounds to the two victims -- fired by
THREE separate gunmen as well (two from the rear and one from the
front). Given the very tight timeline (even per CTers, who have JFK
hit in the throat with Shot #1 at Z195 to Z200 approx.), I'd like to
know how there could have possibly been LESS than three gunmen
utilized to inflict all these wounds in the allowable timeframe?

"[And] all three of these (supposedly) entry wounds on JFK and
JBC line themselves up in such a fashion on the bodies to give the
APPEARANCE that they could have ALL been "in line" so as to have been
caused by just a single missile passing through both men
simultaneously.

"I have yet to hear any reasonable and believable CT explanation
that logically rationalizes and defends this amazing "wound placement"
occurrence on TWO different victims. ....

"If the only way to explain away the SBT to fit a conspiracy
scenario is to come up with a plot that includes three different
shooters, firing three bullets into two different victims, from three
different locations, and incredibly have all three of these missiles
pepper the victims in just such a pattern so that it looks like it
COULD (even remotely so) be reconciled into a "SBT", and then (on top
of this miracle bit of shooting by three different gunmen) to get ALL
THREE of these separate bullets to vanish and to never enter the
official record -- then, from where I sit, plain ol' common sense is
telling me that something's just a bit screwy about this "CT" plot
which perfectly worked out to appease the WC and its loyal
followers. ....

"Many CTers don't think it's necessary at all to come up with
any kind of logical "alternative" scenario to explain all the wounds
to JFK and JBC -- let alone a full, complete version of the pre-Head
Shot event which would tie up all or most of the "loose ends" with
regard to this event. They just seem to KNOW that the SBT is dead
wrong based on the angles being slightly off or the reactions of the
two victims being far enough apart to make the SBT an impossibility.

"But any CT substitute answers to reconcile all these wounds in
two victims (when such answers occasionally are provided, always in
the form of pure out-and-out guesses by the CT community) are far less
credible and less substantive and far less believable than is the
official version of the event -- the SBT. ....

"The critics have done little to disprove the SBT. But, on the
flip-side of that coin, there have been true-to-life and animated
tests performed over the years that have backed up (concretely) the
validity of the Single-Bullet Theory. But these tests, too, have been
ridiculed as being "inaccurate", with "manufactured" angles and
results, and incorrect measurements utilized. I, naturally, completely
and fervently disagree." -- DVP; May 2005

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a7cf61c59d09bc05

www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuYMY7K9TlQ

www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=36F3E31AC09738EA

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

mnhay27

unread,
May 27, 2009, 8:37:55 AM5/27/09
to
On May 27, 4:38 am, Steve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 1.  Where was the gunman located that shot Connally in the back?  It
> is taught in the first two minutes of Conspiracy Lunacy 101 that one
> must NOT accept the single bullet solution therefore there MUST be
> alternative explanation.  Right?  Therefore, please where this second
> gunman was located so that he/she could fire a high-powered rifle into
> Connally's back such as to leave an elongated wound considering that
> Kennedy was seated directly in line of such a shot.

If I remember correctly, Josiah Thompson measured the angles and
concluded that the shot that hit Connally came from the Dal Tex. He
placed the shot at z236-7, a split second before Connally's shoulder
drops dramatically. At that point, he is turned sharply to his right
so it certainly seems possible.

>
> 2.  Please explain what happened to the bullet that struck Kennedy in
> the upper back, considering of course that Kennedy's entire body was x-
> rayed and NO bullet or fragment thereof was found that would account
> for the shot to the upper back.  Please keep in mind that the bullet
> that struck Kennedy in the upper back also did NOT strike any bone and
> was therefore NOT deflected off its straight-line course (which
> according to the seating arrangement in the limousine would then
> travel on to strike Connally.)  I'm am confident you will offer
> forensic evidence to support your explaination.

It's most likely that the bullet did exit the throat. Pathology
Professor John Nichols, MD, Ph.D, and Dr Gary Aguilar have voiced the
opinion that the bullet was deflected by the transverse process of the
first thoracic vertebra. The X-rays apparently do show this to be
fractured. (see 7HSCA219)

>
> 3.  Since it is a sacred axiom among conspiracy loonies that the neck
> wound to Kennedy was an entrance wound, please explain where the exit
> wound for that bullet is, (I won't embarass you further by asking
> where the actual bullet is because we both know you don't have a
> clue), just explain what happened to the exit wound.  If the frontal
> shot was fired from the grassy knoll/stockade fence area, then there
> should of course be an exit wound LOWER on Kennedy's left side back
> shouldn't there?  Where is it?

It certainly seems most likely that the back wound was the entrance
and the throat wound was the exit. But both apparantly had the
characteristics of an entrance. Of course bullets usually make a
larger exit than entrance and the back wound was, by all accounts,
larger than the throat. There is only circumstantial evidence of a
pathway between them that doesn't really favour either conclusion. The
sad fact is, when Humes chose not to disect that wound (or was ordered
not to if Finck is to be believed), he may well have caused
unnecessary confusion. Bullets don't always follow a straight line so
it's a bit simplistic to say that we know where the exit "should" have
been.

Steve

unread,
May 27, 2009, 9:16:27 AM5/27/09
to

Herbert followed the path I predicted: He turned the tables and
decided to question ME. What a surprise. Incidentally herbert are
you aware that Connally's back wound existed until his death and when
it was shown to the WC it was an eliptical entrance wound. So that
settles that. For the most part, your verbose answer didn't address
any of the points I raised did it?

mnhay's comments were silly at best. A full velocity bullet entered
the neck, didn't strick ANY bone and somehow didn't exit the neck.
Now THAT is a magic bullet. And then when x-rayed it doesn't appear
on the x-rays?

No wonder the conspiracy crazies don't attempt to answer questions--
this is what happens.

taral...@mailinator.com

unread,
May 27, 2009, 10:19:39 AM5/27/09
to

What I have noticed on this newsgroup is no different than other JFK
newsgroups I've been reading. Conspiracy folks tend to ask more
questions than they are capable of responding to. Mr. Holmes and Mr.
Jesus apparently believe this resolves something. What it actually
shows is ignorance of the current state of JFK research. Why? Simply
put, had Mr. Jesus and Mr. Holmes done the necessary research, their
questions would be answered and have been throughout the 46 years
since the event. This appears to be a common tactic of the conspiracy
side. When unable to intelligently respond to subject matter, they
resort to asking questions that have no relevance to the known
scientific and ballistics accepted as fact by more astute
researchers. Although I can be classified as a fence sitter on this
case, I lean towards the LN side and candidly have been driven in that
direction not only by the evidence but by the inability of the
conspiracy side to present anything relevant to alter my direction.

Robert Harris

unread,
May 27, 2009, 10:44:40 AM5/27/09
to
In article
<cb4afe92-8e44-494e...@z8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Steve <sahi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> You all know me, I'm a curious person. I think everyone would agree,
> (even those in the conspiracy community,) that there are few things
> more entertaining that hearing conspiracy nuts attempt to explain what
> really DID happen during the assassination.


Name calling is not a good tactic, Steve, especially when you are in
such a tiny minority, attacking the general consensus of people who have
studied this crime.

But if you want to understand the shot at frame 223, which almost
certainly, did pass through both victims, you should study this video.

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

By far, the strongest argument your adversaries present is that the
angles through the known wound locations are inconsistent with a shot
from Oswald's apparent location.

And indeed, they are. The WC had to misplace the entry wound in JFK's
neck to make the SBT appear plausible. The HSCA pretended that JFK was
leaning forward, much further than he actually was.

Dale Myers dealt with the problem by pushing the two victims closer
together to make the angles work,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTZl1pqryBo

The simple fact is, that if you look at plausible angles, the trajectory
points directly toward the only professional criminal in Dealey Plaza
that day who was arrested, and who had connections to Carlos Marcellos,
the mafia don, who confessed to a reliable FBI informant, that he
ordered the assassination.

Jim Braden also turned up at the same hotel with Jack Ruby and other
Chicago thugs on the eve of the assassination. Do you REALLY think that
was a coincidence??

I also posted this followup video on Braden,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXYvZ_--ZFA&feature=PlayList&p=2B4955381F0
622B2&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=8


Robert Harris

Ben Holmes

unread,
May 27, 2009, 10:58:21 AM5/27/09
to
In article <1e595d39-03fb-40ed...@j18g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
taral...@mailinator.com says...
>
>On May 27, 9:16=A0am, Steve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On May 27, 5:37=A0am, mnhay27 <mnha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 27, 4:38=A0am, Steve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > 1. =A0Where was the gunman located that shot Connally in the back? =
>=A0It

>> > > is taught in the first two minutes of Conspiracy Lunacy 101 that one
>> > > must NOT accept the single bullet solution therefore there MUST be
>> > > alternative explanation. =A0Right? =A0Therefore, please where this se=
>cond
>> > > gunman was located so that he/she could fire a high-powered rifle int=

>o
>> > > Connally's back such as to leave an elongated wound considering that
>> > > Kennedy was seated directly in line of such a shot.
>>
>> > If I remember correctly, Josiah Thompson measured the angles and
>> > concluded that the shot that hit Connally came from the Dal Tex. He
>> > placed the shot at z236-7, a split second before Connally's shoulder
>> > drops dramatically. At that point, he is turned sharply to his right
>> > so it certainly seems possible.
>>
>> > > 2. =A0Please explain what happened to the bullet that struck Kennedy =
>in
>> > > the upper back, considering of course that Kennedy's entire body was =

>x-
>> > > rayed and NO bullet or fragment thereof was found that would account
>> > > for the shot to the upper back. =A0Please keep in mind that the bulle=
>t
>> > > that struck Kennedy in the upper back also did NOT strike any bone an=

>d
>> > > was therefore NOT deflected off its straight-line course (which
>> > > according to the seating arrangement in the limousine would then
>> > > travel on to strike Connally.) =A0I'm am confident you will offer

>> > > forensic evidence to support your explaination.
>>
>> > It's most likely that the bullet did exit the throat. Pathology
>> > Professor John Nichols, MD, Ph.D, and Dr Gary Aguilar have voiced the
>> > opinion that the bullet was deflected by the transverse process of the
>> > first thoracic vertebra. The X-rays apparently do show this to be
>> > fractured. (see 7HSCA219)
>>
>> > > 3. =A0Since it is a sacred axiom among conspiracy loonies that the ne=

>ck
>> > > wound to Kennedy was an entrance wound, please explain where the exit
>> > > wound for that bullet is, (I won't embarass you further by asking
>> > > where the actual bullet is because we both know you don't have a
>> > > clue), just explain what happened to the exit wound. =A0If the fronta=

>l
>> > > shot was fired from the grassy knoll/stockade fence area, then there
>> > > should of course be an exit wound LOWER on Kennedy's left side back
>> > > shouldn't there? =A0Where is it?

>>
>> > It certainly seems most likely that the back wound was the entrance
>> > and the throat wound was the exit. But both apparantly had the
>> > characteristics of an entrance. Of course bullets usually make a
>> > larger exit than entrance and the back wound was, by all accounts,
>> > larger than the throat. There is only circumstantial evidence of a
>> > pathway between them that doesn't really favour either conclusion. The
>> > sad fact is, when Humes chose not to disect that wound (or was ordered
>> > not to if Finck is to be believed), he may well have caused
>> > unnecessary confusion. Bullets don't always follow a straight line so
>> > it's a bit simplistic to say that we know where the exit "should" have
>> > been.
>>
>> Herbert followed the path I predicted: =A0He turned the tables and
>> decided to question ME. =A0What a surprise. =A0Incidentally herbert are

>> you aware that Connally's back wound existed until his death and when
>> it was shown to the WC it was an eliptical entrance wound. =A0So that
>> settles that. =A0For the most part, your verbose answer didn't address

>> any of the points I raised did it?
>>
>> mnhay's comments were silly at best. A full velocity bullet entered
>> the neck,

Yep... that *IS* the original assertions of the Parkland staff...


>> didn't strick ANY bone and somehow didn't exit the neck.
>> Now THAT is a magic bullet.

Untrue. There was a perfectly logical and medically understandable
explanation... indeed, it was the *REASON* for some of the treatment protocols
in the emergency room. Can you tell anyone here where the DOCTORS thought this
bullet went, and why they thought that?

>> And then when x-rayed it doesn't appear
>> on the x-rays?
>>
>> No wonder the conspiracy crazies don't attempt to answer questions--


We don't have problems answering questions... indeed, there's 45 Questions
*STILL* waiting for any intelligent LNT'er to answer.

>> this is what happens.
>
>What I have noticed on this newsgroup is no different than other JFK
>newsgroups I've been reading. Conspiracy folks tend to ask more
>questions than they are capable of responding to.


You're a liar, Tara. I DEFY you to ask a question concerning the evidence in
this case that I'll not respond to.

But you won't...


>Mr. Holmes and Mr.
>Jesus apparently believe this resolves something.


The fact that you refuse to discuss or defend the WC's evidence in this case
DOES prove something... it proves that you can't.

And when the numbers of LNT'ers who cannot answer for the evidence grows, it
shows that indeed, there *IS* no non-conspiratorial answer to much of the
evidence.


>What it actually
>shows is ignorance of the current state of JFK research.

That's funny! CT'ers are discussing the evidence, and you are running from it.

In fact, you just recently illustrated that you weren't even aware of Delgado's
testimony in 1964... what's "recent" about that?


>Why? Simply
>put, had Mr. Jesus and Mr. Holmes done the necessary research, their
>questions would be answered and have been throughout the 46 years
>since the event.

You're a liar, Tara... the answers don't exist that you can accept. For there
are *NO* non-conspiratorial answers to the questions I raise.

If there were, then all you have to do is cite the answer. But you can't. Why
is that?


>This appears to be a common tactic of the conspiracy
>side. When unable to intelligently respond to subject matter, they
>resort to asking questions that have no relevance to the known
>scientific and ballistics accepted as fact by more astute
>researchers.


You've refused to defend or support ANY of the evidence in this case. Why is
that, Tara? Or is that even your real name?


>Although I can be classified as a fence sitter on this
>case, I lean towards the LN side and candidly have been driven in that
>direction not only by the evidence


You're a liar. You refuse to even *name* this supposed evidence that you claim
has led you to your faith.

You'll *CONTINUE* to refuse to get specific on the evidence, since I'm quite
sure you're aware that almost anything you say will be refuted by the facts
known to many posters on this forum.


>but by the inability of the
>conspiracy side to present anything relevant to alter my direction.

Nothing *can* be offered that would "alter your direction". But likewise,
you'll continue to refuse to defend the WC's theory.

Embarrassing, isn't it?


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

mnhay27

unread,
May 27, 2009, 11:05:23 AM5/27/09
to
On May 27, 2:16 pm, Steve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> mnhay's comments were silly at best.  A full velocity bullet entered
> the neck, didn't strick ANY bone and somehow didn't exit the neck.
> Now THAT is a magic bullet.  And then when x-rayed it doesn't appear
> on the x-rays?

How on earth did you manage to turn my comment that "the bullet was


deflected by the transverse process of the

first thoracic vertebra" into " A full velocity bullet entered the
neck, didn't strick ANY bone"? The transverse process is, as Dr
Aguilar described it, a "pinkie-like bone." And we know that the The X-
rays show this to be fractured. (see 7HSCA219)

And how did you turn my comment "It's most likely that the bullet did
exit the throat" into "somehow didn't exit the neck"? Why ask a
question if you're just going to twist or ignore the replies you get?

Are you even interested in discussing the evidence or do you just come
on here to make yourself feel like more of a man by hurling insults at
people? If it's the latter, let me know so I can ignore your posts.

Steve

unread,
May 27, 2009, 11:31:53 AM5/27/09
to

Not one of my questions was addressed. Just as I predicted. Claims
of misplaced bullet locations don't account for the lack of a sniper
located where they could hit Connally WITHOUT hitting Kennedy. And no
one has produced a bullet or bullets as I challenged. But several DID
turn the tables and pose questions for ME to answer--just as I also
predicted.

One thing about conspiracy crazies--they ARE predictable and they are
NEVER able to answer questions that call for actual evidence.

taral...@mailinator.com

unread,
May 27, 2009, 11:33:09 AM5/27/09
to

Nothing *can* be offered that would "alter your direction". But
likewise,
you'll continue to refuse to defend the WC's theory.

Embarrassing, isn't it?

Mr. Holmes? Your anger is evident. Calm down. Why do you insist I
defend the public record? Numerous commissions and documented experts
in various fields of ballistics, pathology and science have already
done so. They surely know more than I do Mr. Holmes, and I have no
doubt they know more than you do. The fact Mr. Holmes that you are
ignored on this newsgroup when you are screaming for notoriety
exacerbates your anger apparently. Might I suggest professional help?

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
May 27, 2009, 11:50:27 AM5/27/09
to

This simply tells me you are a novice to the evidence in this case (IF
you are aware of it at all) as NOTHING screams conspiracy more than
the WC's OWN evidence.

Take the time to learn it, that way you are NOT relying on folks
"tones" or writing styles to help you make up your mind on one of the
most important events in American history.

bigdog

unread,
May 27, 2009, 11:58:35 AM5/27/09
to
On May 26, 11:38 pm, Steve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Steve, good luck ever trying to get a CT to offer a COMPLETE scenario
of the shots which is contrary to the SBT. The will snipe at the SBT
and make vague references to shots from other directions, but if you
ask them to describe from where and when each of the shots were fired
that cause ALL the wounds to JFK and JBC, they will run for cover. The
SBT as offered by the WC was fairly specific on these points. The SB
was fired some time between Z210-224 and the head shot was fired at
Z313. The theorized a missed shot but did not feel the evidence was
conclusive enough to say whether it came before or after the SB or
even after Z313. In any case, I really wouldn't care about shots the
CTs believed missed if they could just present a complete scenario for
the shots that hit JFK and JBC. Tell us from where, approximately
when, and what wounds each of these shots caused. We should offer some
kind of prize for the first CT that steps up to the plate and actually
tries to answer those questions.

taral...@mailinator.com

unread,
May 27, 2009, 12:11:37 PM5/27/09
to

This simply tells me you are a novice to the evidence in this case (IF


you are aware of it at all) as NOTHING screams conspiracy more than
the WC's OWN evidence.


I am absolutely a novice to this case. As stated previously, I've
read several pro conspiracy books and several pro Oswald books. I am
currently reading the Warren Commission report. At this point my
observations are simply that I have not yet observed any alternative
to the single bullet theory. None. In addition, how do you explain
the numerous forensic and pathology experts aboard the various
investigative commissions who also endorse two shots, both from
behind? I also understand JAMA and the American Academy of Science
also endorse the findings of the WC and the HSCA. That's alottttttt
of experts. Are you claiming they as a group are wrong or, part of a
conspiracy?

bigdog

unread,
May 27, 2009, 12:12:10 PM5/27/09
to
On May 27, 4:32 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Obviously the 1.75 axial ratio of the 7 mm by 4 mm bullet hole reported by Commander Humes and the 1.43 axial ratio of the 10 mm by 7 mm abrasion shown on the autopsy are in irreconcilable conflict with the minuscule ratio of 1.06 as required by the locations of the two wounds." <<<
>
> What a bunch of highbrow, meaningless bullshit.
>
David, I love it. A perfect description of a language I have called
Blennerese.

> Herbert's supply of meaningless crap like the above never runs out,
> does it?
>

But it sounds good, doesn't it. It reminds me of a line from the movie
Pearl Harbor. Jimmy Doolitle (played by Alec Baldwin) says to a pilot
(played by Ben Afleck) "THAT'S BULLSHIT...(pause)...but it's good
bullshit".

> I wonder if conspiracists like Mr. Herbert Blenner ever wonder why it
> is that TWO major U.S. Governmental investigative bodies (the Warren
> Commission and the House Select Committee), fifteen years apart, BOTH
> came to the conclusion that a single bullet (CE399 to be precise) DID,
> indeed, slice through both JFK and John Connally on November 22, 1963,
> in Dealey Plaza?
>

It's really hard to say what Herbie believes because he is incapable
of expressing his beliefs in plan language. He prefers to express
himself in jargon only a geek could love.

> I guess it's just too bad that Herb Blenner wasn't called upon to
> provide the WC and/or the HSCA with his expert analysis regarding the
> "1.75 axial ratio" and "1.43 axial ratio" and the "irreconcilable
> conflict" that exists with respect to the Single-Bullet Theory.
>

I can just hear the chairman of the HSCA now. "What the fuck did he
just say?".

> Somehow or another it would seem that BOTH of the official U.S.
> Government's investigative organizations that were assembled
> specifically to try and find out the truth about what happened in
> Dallas on 11/22/63 totally blew it when they both signed-off on a
> single-bullet conclusion that nearly every CTer in the world seems to
> think is nothing but a crock of smelly shit!
>
> It's just too damn bad that brilliant scientists like Herb Blenner
> weren't on the WC or HSCA panels in order to make those guys see the
> light regarding those ever-important "axial ratios", huh?
>

Can you imagine the field day the CTs would have had if Herbie had
authored any portion of the WCR?

> But, maybe Herbert will be lucky and will be asked to solve the whole
> "SBT" mystery when the Government re-examines the case in the future
> due to the outraged fist-pounding efforts of all the many armchair
> anti-SBT crackpots in this world who think they know MUCH more than
> the (apparently) stupid SBT-backing retards who served on those
> previous two U.S. Government commissions.
>
> But back here in the real world of sanity and common sense, Dale Myers
> said it quite nicely on May 26th, 2009, when he said this:
>
>       "Few understand that the single bullet theory was and is the
> obvious solution to a perplexing question: What happened to the bullet
> that entered Kennedy’s upper-right back and exited his throat? Instead
> of dealing with the firearms, medical, and trajectory evidence
> surrounding this question, detractors and spin doctors have been
> conjuring up ridiculous zigzagging bullet diagrams that supposedly
> reveal the stupidity of the Warren Commission’s theory for the better
> part of a half century. Believe me it’s taken its toll. Today, the
> vast majority of otherwise clear thinking Americans have chucked
> common sense and embraced a zigzagging bullet theory that is far more
> magical than the straight-line bullet trajectory proposed by the
> Commission. It’s a weird world, isn’t it?" -- Dale K. Myers; 05/26/09
>

Come on, David. Don't start quoting people who speak in plain English
that everyone can understand.

> www.jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2009/05/song-remains-same.html
>
> And Vincent T. Bugliosi weighs in with a hefty dose of good old-
> fashioned common sense regarding the Single-Bullet Theory too (which
> is common sense that is always ignored by the conspiracy-seeking
> crowd, naturally):
>
>       "The single-bullet theory [is] so obvious that a child could
> author it. .... We can have all the confidence in the world, by an
> examination of the physical evidence and the utilization of common
> sense, that [a single bullet wounded both Kennedy and Connally]. When
> you can establish the single-bullet theory by reference to evidence
> other than the [Zapruder] film, you necessarily know that the film
> itself cannot, by definition, show something else. .... Since we KNOW
> Kennedy and Connally were not hit by separate bullets, we know, before
> we even look at the film, that it CANNOT show otherwise. ....
>

Damn it, David. You're doing it again.

>       "The result of [Dale] Myers's efforts is a remarkably compelling
> view of the assassination of President Kennedy that is consistent with
> the Warren Commission's and HSCA's conclusion that Kennedy and
> Connally were, indeed, struck by the same bullet. ....
>
>       "With respect to the second shot fired in Dealey Plaza, the
> "single-bullet THEORY" is an obvious misnomer. Though in its incipient
> stages it was but a theory, the indisputable evidence is that it is
> now a proven FACT, a wholly supported conclusion. .... And no sensible
> mind that is also informed can plausibly make the case that the bullet
> that struck President Kennedy in the upper right part of his back did
> not go on to hit Governor Connally." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Via the
> pages of "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F.
> Kennedy" (c.2007)
>

That is way too simple an explaination. We know it is more complicate
than that.

Oh, so now you're going to inject common sense into the discussion.
Come on, David. Fight fair.

> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a7cf61c59d09bc05
>
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuYMY7K9TlQ
>
> www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=36F3E31AC09738EA
>
> www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

bigdog

unread,
May 27, 2009, 12:18:59 PM5/27/09
to
On May 27, 8:37 am, mnhay27 <mnha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 4:38 am, Steve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > 1.  Where was the gunman located that shot Connally in the back?  It
> > is taught in the first two minutes of Conspiracy Lunacy 101 that one
> > must NOT accept the single bullet solution therefore there MUST be
> > alternative explanation.  Right?  Therefore, please where this second
> > gunman was located so that he/she could fire a high-powered rifle into
> > Connally's back such as to leave an elongated wound considering that
> > Kennedy was seated directly in line of such a shot.
>
> If I remember correctly, Josiah Thompson measured the angles and
> concluded that the shot that hit Connally came from the Dal Tex. He
> placed the shot at z236-7, a split second before Connally's shoulder
> drops dramatically. At that point, he is turned sharply to his right
> so it certainly seems possible.
>
JBC started turning to his right and dipping his shoulder at Z235.
This followed immediately his initial reaction of flipping his right
arm up and down in a span of one half second which began at Z225.

>
>
> > 2.  Please explain what happened to the bullet that struck Kennedy in
> > the upper back, considering of course that Kennedy's entire body was x-
> > rayed and NO bullet or fragment thereof was found that would account
> > for the shot to the upper back.  Please keep in mind that the bullet
> > that struck Kennedy in the upper back also did NOT strike any bone and
> > was therefore NOT deflected off its straight-line course (which
> > according to the seating arrangement in the limousine would then
> > travel on to strike Connally.)  I'm am confident you will offer
> > forensic evidence to support your explaination.
>
> It's most likely that the bullet did exit the throat. Pathology
> Professor John Nichols, MD, Ph.D, and Dr Gary Aguilar have voiced the
> opinion that the bullet was deflected by the transverse process of the
> first thoracic vertebra. The X-rays apparently do show this to be
> fractured. (see 7HSCA219)
>
It still came out the middle of his throat. Where did it go?

>
>
> > 3.  Since it is a sacred axiom among conspiracy loonies that the neck
> > wound to Kennedy was an entrance wound, please explain where the exit
> > wound for that bullet is, (I won't embarass you further by asking
> > where the actual bullet is because we both know you don't have a
> > clue), just explain what happened to the exit wound.  If the frontal
> > shot was fired from the grassy knoll/stockade fence area, then there
> > should of course be an exit wound LOWER on Kennedy's left side back
> > shouldn't there?  Where is it?
>
> It certainly seems most likely that the back wound was the entrance
> and the throat wound was the exit. But both apparantly had the
> characteristics of an entrance. Of course bullets usually make a
> larger exit than entrance and the back wound was, by all accounts,
> larger than the throat. There is only circumstantial evidence of a
> pathway between them that doesn't really favour either conclusion. The
> sad fact is, when Humes chose not to disect that wound (or was ordered
> not to if Finck is to be believed), he may well have caused
> unnecessary confusion. Bullets don't always follow a straight line so
> it's a bit simplistic to say that we know where the exit "should" have
> been.

Well yes, Humes should have disected the wound, and been allowed to
disect the wound. Just one of many mistakes made during that weekend.
Mistakes do not reveal conspiracy. Mistakes reveal human falibility.

Since the tracheotomy was performed over the exit wound, we know it's
approximate location and this still demands an explaination for where
the bullet went if it did not strike JBC. In order to miss striking
anyone or anything else in the limo, it would have required a
deflection far greater than any proposed zigzagging the CTs have tried
to pin on the SBT.

mnhay27

unread,
May 27, 2009, 12:57:47 PM5/27/09
to

For the record, during our last discussion "Bigdog" felt the need to
insult me. (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/
browse_thread/thread/32c52a8542a24633/6f0d117fcf988767?
hl=en&q=#6f0d117fcf988767) Being a grown man, I don't play those
games. Therefore, I have no intention of replying to any of his posts.

tomnln

unread,
May 27, 2009, 1:37:50 PM5/27/09
to
Doctor's testimony are here>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/testimony.htm


<a1e...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:d524d03a-79cd-4d55...@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

a1e...@verizon.net

unread,
May 27, 2009, 2:43:41 PM5/27/09
to
On May 27, 9:16 am, Steve <sahist...@yahoo.com> wrote:


Indeed, the postoperative shape of the wound settles the question. You
are ignorant of the evidence.

Source:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0049b.htm

"Attention was next turned to the wound of entrance. The skin
surrounding the wound was removed in an elliptical fashion, enlarging
the incision to approximately 3 cm."

Prior to surgery, Doctor Shaw reported an elliptical wound of
entrance.
Source:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0048a.htm

"When Governor Connally was examined, it was found that there was a
small wound of entrance roughly elliptical in shape, and approximately
a cm. and a half in its longest diameter, in the right posterior
shoulder, which is medial to the fold of the axilla."

As for the interpretation of an elliptical bullet hole, I suggest the
following text.

Criminalistics: Forensic Science and Crime by James Girard, PhD,
American University

See page 45 of chapter two at the following link.

http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/9780763735296/

Alternately click the following link.

http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/holegeometry.jpg


Girard call the angle between the direction of the bullet and the
perpendicular to the surface at the entry site an entry angle whereas
I use the more general term of incidence angle to describe the same
trigonometric functions of the same ratio of axes.

Of course the special circumstances of the assassination necessitated
adapting the standard textbook analysis of elliptical bullet holes to
deformable tissues. Readers can find applied examples of this
extension in part one of the following link.

http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/punchingholes.htm

Herbert

>
> mnhay's comments were silly at best.  A full velocity bullet entered
> the neck, didn't strick ANY bone and somehow didn't exit the neck.
> Now THAT is a magic bullet.  And then when x-rayed it doesn't appear
> on the x-rays?
>
> No wonder the conspiracy crazies don't attempt to answer questions--

> this is what happens.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

a1e...@verizon.net

unread,
May 27, 2009, 5:22:27 PM5/27/09
to
On May 27, 4:32 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Obviously the 1.75 axial ratio of the 7 mm by 4 mm bullet hole reported by Commander Humes and the 1.43 axial ratio of the 10 mm by 7 mm abrasion shown on the autopsy are in irreconcilable conflict with the minuscule ratio of 1.06 as required by the locations of the two wounds." <<<
>
> What a bunch of highbrow, meaningless bullshit.
>
> Herbert's supply of meaningless crap like the above never runs out,
> does it?

Readers should note that David Von Pein repeats Shaneyfelt's foolish
error of equating three degrees and nine minutes to 3.9 degrees, even
though Arlen Specter questioned the equation and Shaneyfelt
acknowledged his mistake.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0085b.htm

No wonder Shaneyfelt's other error of reducing the 15 degree 21 minute
declination angle of the bullet by the 3 degree 9 minute declination
angle of Elm Street goes over DVP's head. In reality the 12 degree 12
minute difference between these declination angles represent the
impact angle of the bullet upon the declining surface of Elm Street.

Herbert

David Von Pein

unread,
May 27, 2009, 6:01:39 PM5/27/09
to

Keep clinging to that chaff, Herbert. It's a conspiracy theorist's
bread-and-butter.

BTW, any idea where the bullet went after it left JFK's throat (if it
didn't hit Connally)?

====================================

"I can give you my opinion based on this [May 24, 1964]
reconstruction [in Dealey Plaza], as I understand your question. All
of these things refer to the reconstruction and assuming particularly
that the path of the projectile to the President was also the same
path--the same angle--as it went through his body and then on, and in
that connection...in my opinion the bullet had to strike in the car,
either the car itself or an occupant of the car. ....

"And in fact, I think it is rather...obvious when you look at
the photographs themselves that the crosshair of the telescopic sight
actually would give you the point of impact of the bullet if the
weapon is sighted in and if there is no change in the line of sight
the bullet had to strike the car shown in each of these photographs,
which is frame 225 on this end of this series, and frame 207 on the
other end of the series. It shows that there would be no chance for
the bullet to miss the car at all...if it had no deflection in its
path." -- ROBERT A. FRAZIER; FBI; W.C. TESTIMONY; 1964


====================================

bigdog

unread,
May 27, 2009, 7:58:08 PM5/27/09
to
> games. Therefore, I have no intention of replying to any of his posts.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

If you can't take the heat...

0 new messages