SBT opponents -- Where did the bullet go?

[OHLeeRedux]

If you don't believe the Single Bullet Theory, then you must answer the
question, Where did the bullet go after it exited JFK's throat? Its
trajectory would have caused it to hit something or someone in the limo,
Governor Connally's back for instance. If you reject that hypothesis, then
what options are left?

1) The throat wound was an entrance, not an exit, wound. This only serves
to raise other questions. Where did the bullet come from? The trajectory
is all wrong for a Grassy Knoll shot. It would have had to come from
almost street level, but such a shot would have been blocked by the limo.
Also, where did THAT bullet go? Saying that it exited JFK's back raises
the same trajectory problems.

2) The bullet simply vanished into thin air. As incredible as this might
seem, it raises fewer problems than option 1. All you have to do is state
it as fact and refuse to explain further.

So which is the more reasonable answer, the Single Bullet Theory or the
Vanishing Bullet Theory?

[John Fiorentino]

Where did the bullet go?

David Belin asked that repeatedly for years.

John F.





"OHLeeRedux" <tse3...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:02afaf47-5d6d-497f...@googlegroups.com...

[mainframetech]

Why insist that the bullet came out the throat wound? A few doctors
thought it might be an entrance wound, and that certainly makes more sense
with all the other information in the case. You ask what options are
left, and there is one you haven't considered.

If a bullet came from the front and went in to the entry wound on the
right forehead just in the hairline, passed through the brain building up
pressure, then blasting out the 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK, peppering
both motorcycle cops that were behind and to the left of the limo with
blood, brains and fluids, then we would have a sensible scenario. The
foolishness with pretending that a bullet (CE399) found on the WRONG
stretcher at Parkland had anything to do with the murder is way of the
reservation.

The spray of material somewhat forward in the Z-film might well be what
is called 'tail splash' from a wound where a bullet goes into the body.
The splash of material comes out in the exact direction that the bullet
came from. Making the bullet in this case come from in front. The bullet
could easily have been lost in the grass of Dealey Plaza. There were even
stories and photos of cops pickling up things form the grass, but they
never reported anything from their pickings.

You've also forgotten to consider the through-and-through hole in the
windshield seen by 6 witnesses. If a bullet came through that hole, it
would be in good shape to make the throat wound. here are a number of
forward positions that might make that kind of bullet path possible.


So it looks like the vanishing bullet theory is closer to the truth,
though we might need a whole new scenario and a name for it. Maybe the
'Probable Bullet Theory'.

Chris

[John Fiorentino]

And the fact that the bullet didn't show up on the x-rays most likely
indicates what??


John F.



"mainframetech" <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1cc051c4-c8e3-4109...@googlegroups.com...

[Herbert Blenner]

On Friday, December 13, 2013 7:49:33 PM UTC-5, OHLeeRedux wrote:

The Forensic Pathology Panel reported that the discolored bullet wound of
the throat had a slightly denuded margin. These characteristics were cited
by the panel to argue that entering bullets made the transverse wound of
the back and the scalp wound.

Further, Commander Humes did not mention discoloration nor denudation of
the longitudinal back wound.

So proper evaluation of the medical evidence answers your questions. A
bullet entered the throat and exited the back.

Herbert

[Anthony Marsh]

Then show us the path of the path and pinpoint where it was fired from.
Mars?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/14/2013 10:15 AM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Where did the bullet go?
>
> David Belin asked that repeatedly for years.
>
> John F.
>

Did Belin ask where the miss went?

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, December 14, 2013 12:36:08 PM UTC-5, John Fiorentino wrote:
> And the fact that the bullet didn't show up on the x-rays most likely
>
> indicates what??
>

It indicates that either the bullet had an exit from the body or it was
dug out by someone before the autopsy but after the Parkland ER.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

And the "dug out of the body" explanation is supposedly MORE reasonable
than the Single-Bullet Theory? I beg to differ.

And isn't it rather remarkable that the person sitting in front of JFK
also had a bullet wound in his upper back? Plus the added facts of JFK
having a bullet hole in his throat and JFK having no bullets in his body.

CTers who hate the SBT never seem bothered in the least by those last
observations I just mentioned. They'll simply add yet another bullet to
the mix to account for John Connally's back wound.

The SBT will never be defeated by conspiracists. And that's because the
SBT will always make more sense than any anti-SBT theory. (The truth
usually does make the most sense, of course.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Single-Bullet-Theory

[mainframetech]

There is no need for any CTs to bother about the SBT. It defeats
itself by simply being described to any sensible person.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/14/2013 10:20 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Saturday, December 14, 2013 8:20:01 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Saturday, December 14, 2013 12:36:08 PM UTC-5, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>
>>> And the fact that the bullet didn't show up on the x-rays most likely
>>
>>>
>>
>>> indicates what??
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It indicates that either the bullet had an exit from the body or it was
>>
>> dug out by someone before the autopsy but after the Parkland ER.
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris
>
> And the "dug out of the body" explanation is supposedly MORE reasonable
> than the Single-Bullet Theory? I beg to differ.
>

How about the fell our during heart massage? Isn't that even more
ridiculous?

> And isn't it rather remarkable that the person sitting in front of JFK
> also had a bullet wound in his upper back? Plus the added facts of JFK
> having a bullet hole in his throat and JFK having no bullets in his body.
>

Not really, when you consider the tendency of that rifle to shoot high and
to the right. A bullet missing JFK by inches would hit Connally. Specter
demonstrated that.

> CTers who hate the SBT never seem bothered in the least by those last
> observations I just mentioned. They'll simply add yet another bullet to
> the mix to account for John Connally's back wound.
>

The FBI didn't need no damn stinkin SBT. Neither did the WC until
Specter realized there was a timing problem.

> The SBT will never be defeated by conspiracists. And that's because the
> SBT will always make more sense than any anti-SBT theory. (The truth
> usually does make the most sense, of course.)
>

Hubris much?

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Single-Bullet-Theory
>

[Anthony Marsh]

If there had been no WC, you'd be here defending the FBI's three shots,
three hits solution.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, stop being silly.

[John Fiorentino]

It would be nice to know what happened to the miss.

More evidentiary to know what happened to the bullets which hit.

John F.




"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:52acea5b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Herbert Blenner]

They recovered about one third the weight of the head shot bullet. Did the
remaining two thirds of this bullet go to Venus or perhaps took the longer
journey to Jupiter?

Herbert

[mainframetech]

Head shot bullet? Wasn't that the infamous CE399 'magic' bullet found on
the WRONG stretcher at Parkland? That later couldn't be identified by 4
men who had handled it previously? One of whom said the bullet they
showed him was the wrong shape? That bullet?

Chris

[John McAdams]

On 17 Dec 2013 16:30:32 -0500, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

No.

>That later couldn't be identified by 4
>men who had handled it previously?

See how you have been bamboozled by buff books?

People who handled it but DID NOT MARK IT were unable to confirm that
it was the same bullet.

But they never said it *wasn't.*

The buff books have lied to you.

Tomlinson and Wright, although failing to positively identify the
bullet, said it "looks like" and "appears to be" the bullet they had
recovered.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/399doc.jpg

>One of whom said the bullet they
>showed him was the wrong shape? That bullet?
>

Tink Thompson got Tomlinson to say that years later.

In 1964 Tomlinson said it "appears to be" the bullet he recovered.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/399doc.jpg

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

[BT George]

On Saturday, December 14, 2013 9:20:09 PM UTC-6, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Saturday, December 14, 2013 8:20:01 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, December 14, 2013 12:36:08 PM UTC-5, John Fiorentino wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > And the fact that the bullet didn't show up on the x-rays most likely
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > indicates what??
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > It indicates that either the bullet had an exit from the body or it was
>
> >
>
> > dug out by someone before the autopsy but after the Parkland ER.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Chris
>
>
>
> And the "dug out of the body" explanation is supposedly MORE reasonable
>
> than the Single-Bullet Theory? I beg to differ.
>
>
>
> And isn't it rather remarkable that the person sitting in front of JFK
>
> also had a bullet wound in his upper back? Plus the added facts of JFK
>
> having a bullet hole in his throat and JFK having no bullets in his body.
>
>
>
> CTers who hate the SBT never seem bothered in the least by those last
>
> observations I just mentioned. They'll simply add yet another bullet to
>
> the mix to account for John Connally's back wound.
>
>

Also those CT's who reject any shots as coming from the rear, never seem
interested in questions like:

1) From just *WHERE* were any frontal bullets fired that could account for
JFK's and Connally's wounds?

2) Exactly *HOW* did a frontal shot manage to hit JFK in the lower front
of the throat, yet somehow miss Connally altogether? (Two things they
*have* to believe to be true else they have their own "frontal" SBT to
deal with.)

3) How was Connally perforated from chest to back with a bullet that
clearly passed through him, without that same bullet entering into JFK and
thus creating a "frontal" SBT?

4) What was the trajectory of said Connally frontal chest to back shot?
(The limo floorboard maybe?)

5) What was the source of the bullet/fragments that could explain his
fractured wrist and shallow thigh wound? (Aliens shooting weak bullets
from the sky?)


Those CT's who accept some rear shots, but still reject the SBT, also have
some questions they don't like much to answer:

1) Where was this location and how do shots from there explain the various
wounds in a way that make a SBT unnecessary?

2) Where did the shot that hit JFK's neck go if not into Connally or the
limo somewhere?

3) How did this shooter manage Conally's perforating wound from back to
chest, without also hitting JFK?

4) Again, how did Connally get his fractured wrist and shallow thigh
injury from a rear-ward shot, unless it was the same bullet that struck
him in the back and exited his chest? If so was it not already doing
*most* of what the SBT already insists a FMJ round is capable of? (I.e.,
inflicting at least 5 of the 7 wounds attributed to Oswald's bullet?)

>
> The SBT will never be defeated by conspiracists. And that's because the
>
> SBT will always make more sense than any anti-SBT theory. (The truth
>
> usually does make the most sense, of course.)
>
>
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Single-Bullet-Theory

Agreed. The SBT can be maligned till the cows come home, but the
competing explanations will always be more ad hoc and prove to stretch the
grounds of credulity even more than the very theory they have to be
concocted to reject.

BT George

[Anthony Marsh]

Close. You are talking about the two largest fragments which were found in
the front of the limo. But you can't prove that they came from the head
shot.

Where did YOUR missed shot go? Prove it and show me the bullet.

[David Von Pein]

JOHN McADAMS SAID:

People who handled it but DID NOT MARK IT were unable to confirm that it
was the same bullet. But they never said it *wasn't.*

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ray Marcus: Did anybody show you the bullet after the time you found it,
and after the time you gave it to Mr. Wright?

Darrell Tomlinson: I seen it one time after that. I believe Mr. Shanklin
from the FBI had it out there at the hospital in personnel with Mr. Wright
there when they called me in.

Marcus: When Shanklin and Mr. Wright called you in at that time, did they
show you the bullet?

Tomlinson: Yes.

Marcus: Did they ask you if it looked like the same one?

Tomlinson: Yes, I believe they did.

Marcus: And as far as you could tell--- of course, you weren't making a
ballistics test of it--- but as far as you could tell, did it look like
the same one to you?

Tomlinson: Yes, it appeared to be the same one.

----------

More:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-76.html

[Herbert Blenner]

Who are you to tell others that I am talking about the found fragments,
especially when I differentiated the two found fragments from the
remaining two thirds of the bullet.

Your desperation to deflect discussion from the slightly denuded and
discolored margin of the throat wound is clearly showing.

Herbert

[curtj...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, December 13, 2013 7:49:33 PM UTC-5, OHLeeRedux wrote:

Or the MBT (Multiple Bullet Theory). Many bullets seen and/or possible
anc illary potentials.

Dr. Marion Baker said there was damage from the throat wound downward in
the trachea to the chest area. JFK's internal organs were taken out
during autopsy then put back in. Bullet seen falling to floor at autopsy
from the loading of JFK onto gurney, so bullet fell out. Bullet given to
Agt. Sibert.

Bullets in Dealey Plaza besides limo.

http://theshotsindealeyplaza.com/?page_id=12

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/extrabullets.htm

Besides that. Bullet in stretcher at Parkland.

Bullet 'troughs' seen by witnesses husband and wife with FBI day after the
assassination...where they lined up to the Dal-Tex or Records Building,
not TSBD.

[Bud]

What do people who aren`t ignorant of the field of wound ballistics
think about it?

>
>
> Chris

[Bud]

You are showing yourself to be ignorant of the ideas you argue against.

> That later couldn't be identified by 4
>
> men who had handled it previously?

How could they make a positive identification?

> One of whom said the bullet they
>
> showed him was the wrong shape?

The first person to handle the bullet said the one in evidence looks
like the one he found.

> That bullet?
>
>
>
> Chris

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 8:27:28 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:
> On 17 Dec 2013 16:30:32 -0500, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Monday, December 16, 2013 8:47:13 PM UTC-5, Herbert Blenner wrote:
>
> >> On Saturday, December 14, 2013 7:59:33 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Head shot bullet? Wasn't that the infamous CE399 'magic' bullet found on
>
> >the WRONG stretcher at Parkland?
>
>
>
> No.
>
>
>
> >That later couldn't be identified by 4
>
> >men who had handled it previously?
>
>
>
> See how you have been bamboozled by buff books?
>

Banmboozled by books about men in good physical shape? Odd. And yet I
could as easily say the same about the whacky theories put out by the WC
politicians.

>
>
> People who handled it but DID NOT MARK IT were unable to confirm that
>
> it was the same bullet.
>

I won't have a problem if you want to claim that the 2 agents 'forgot'
to mark evidence as they are taught to do. But what of the 2 Parkland
employees who might not know of such methods? One of whom was clear that
the bullet shown to him was NOT the right shape? You have some
documentation giving the true story on that? Have you somehow gotten
Thompson to go back on his research that nailed down the wrong stretcher
to the young boy instead of Connally? Did you somehow get Tomlinson to go
back on his statement to NOVA that the bullet was found on the wrong
stretcher? Inquiring minds want to know.

The chain of custody is not all that clear with that bullet. Will you
try to tell me that John Hunt made mistakes or lied in these 2 articles on
the vagaries of CE399 and its odd chain of custody?

http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm
http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery.html

Here is Tomlinson's statement to NOVA on the stretchers, and if you
need it, his drawing of the hallway and the stretchers is below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx1sxYc8r2A

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/stretcherdiagram.jpg

>
>
> But they never said it *wasn't.*
>
>
>
> The buff books have lied to you.
>
>
>
> Tomlinson and Wright, although failing to positively identify the
>
> bullet, said it "looks like" and "appears to be" the bullet they had
>
> recovered.
>


>
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/399doc.jpg
>

An interesting document. No date on it, which is odd. The 4 men have
said they couldn't identify the bullet, so that part agrees with my
knowledge. It (by that time) was a longish bullet with the rounded nose
that fit the MC rifle.

>
>
>
>
> >One of whom said the bullet they
>
> >showed him was the wrong shape? That bullet?
>
> >
>
>
>
> Tink Thompson got Tomlinson to say that years later.
>

"Got him to say that"? Are you saying that Thompson set up Tomlinson to
lie to everyone? Tomlinson seemed so honest in his video. Or did
Thompson wheedle it out of him as a further explanation of his inability
to identify? Is that located somewhere that I can dig it up? Or is it in
a book by Thompson?

>
>
> In 1964 Tomlinson said it "appears to be" the bullet he recovered.
>
>
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/399doc.jpg
>

Of course you know I have a problem with reports and other work from
the FBI in this case. They've been shown to lie where they can make the
whacky 'lone nut' WC theory look probable in the past.


Coupled with all the problems with the bullets and their chain of
custody, it is easy to envision a situation where Frazier and friends
tested the MC rifle and saved a test bullet to replace the bullet (what
ever rifle it was from) that was logged into evidence. Oddly, a picture
of the CE399 bullet and a test bullet next to it, look very similar.
Both with slightly flattened side, a slight bend, and a bit of material
missing out of the tail end! Here's the photo. The CE572 is the test
bullet:

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

The CE399 is supposed to have gone through 2 people 7 times including 2
bone strikes! The bullet at the right end was fired into the wrist of a
cadaver I believe.

Chris

[John Fiorentino]

Obviously Tony a "miss" is different than a "hit"................but you
probably learned that in grade school.........no?

John F.




"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:52b0ef46$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Anthony Marsh]

So you refuse to answer. As I expected.

> Your desperation to deflect discussion from the slightly denuded and
> discolored margin of the throat wound is clearly showing.
>

The point you avoided is that you have no proof that those two large
fragments came from the head shot. Even Frazier said he couldn't be sure
if they both came from one bullet or two.

> Herbert
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/17/2013 8:46 PM, BT George wrote:
> On Saturday, December 14, 2013 9:20:09 PM UTC-6, David Von Pein wrote:
>> On Saturday, December 14, 2013 8:20:01 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, December 14, 2013 12:36:08 PM UTC-5, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> And the fact that the bullet didn't show up on the x-rays most likely
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> indicates what??
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> It indicates that either the bullet had an exit from the body or it was
>>
>>>
>>
>>> dug out by someone before the autopsy but after the Parkland ER.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> And the "dug out of the body" explanation is supposedly MORE reasonable
>>
>> than the Single-Bullet Theory? I beg to differ.
>>
>>
>>
>> And isn't it rather remarkable that the person sitting in front of JFK
>>
>> also had a bullet wound in his upper back? Plus the added facts of JFK
>>
>> having a bullet hole in his throat and JFK having no bullets in his body.
>>
>>
>>
>> CTers who hate the SBT never seem bothered in the least by those last
>>
>> observations I just mentioned. They'll simply add yet another bullet to
>>
>> the mix to account for John Connally's back wound.
>>
>>
>
> Also those CT's who reject any shots as coming from the rear, never seem
> interested in questions like:
>

Those CT"s"?
I know of only one CTer who claims that no shots came from the rear.
Talk about a straw man argument.
At the Midwest Conference in Chicago Earl Rose took a poll of the
approximately 500 reseachers in the room. Only one said that NO shots
came from the rear. David Lifton. When I corner him back at the hotel I
asked him how a shot from the front could dent the chrome topping. And
he had no clue. He said maybe it was always dented.

> 1) From just *WHERE* were any frontal bullets fired that could account for
> JFK's and Connally's wounds?
>
> 2) Exactly *HOW* did a frontal shot manage to hit JFK in the lower front
> of the throat, yet somehow miss Connally altogether? (Two things they
> *have* to believe to be true else they have their own "frontal" SBT to
> deal with.)
>
> 3) How was Connally perforated from chest to back with a bullet that
> clearly passed through him, without that same bullet entering into JFK and
> thus creating a "frontal" SBT?
>

I like your "frontal SBT." Have you copyrighted it yet?

Ad hoc? You mean like 50 years? Was the FBI report ad hoc?
Was the WC ad hoc when they said three shots, three hits?

> BT George
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/18/2013 6:06 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Obviously Tony a "miss" is different than a "hit"................but you
> probably learned that in grade school.........no?
>
> John F.
>

So you refuse to answer the question. Because you are a WC defender.

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 10:08:26 AM UTC-5, curtj...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 13, 2013 7:49:33 PM UTC-5, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>
> > If you don't believe the Single Bullet Theory, then you must answer the
>
> >
>
> > question, Where did the bullet go after it exited JFK's throat? Its
>
> >
>
> > trajectory would have caused it to hit something or someone in the limo,
>
> >
>
> > Governor Connally's back for instance. If you reject that hypothesis, then
>
> >
>
> > what options are left?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 1) The throat wound was an entrance, not an exit, wound. This only serves
>
> >
>
> > to raise other questions. Where did the bullet come from? The trajectory
>
> >
>
> > is all wrong for a Grassy Knoll shot. It would have had to come from
>
> >
>
> > almost street level, but such a shot would have been blocked by the limo.
>
> >
>
> > Also, where did THAT bullet go? Saying that it exited JFK's back raises
>
> >
>
> > the same trajectory problems.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 2) The bullet simply vanished into thin air. As incredible as this might
>
> >
>
> > seem, it raises fewer problems than option 1. All you have to do is state
>
> >
>
> > it as fact and refuse to explain further.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > So which is the more reasonable answer, the Single Bullet Theory or the
>
> >
>
> > Vanishing Bullet Theory?
>
>
>
> Or the MBT (Multiple Bullet Theory). Many bullets seen and/or possible
>

> anc= illary potentials.

>
>
>
> Dr. Marion Baker said there was damage from the throat wound downward in
>
> the trachea to the chest area. JFK's internal organs were taken out
>
> during autopsy then put back in. Bullet seen falling to floor at autopsy
>
> from the loading of JFK onto gurney, so bullet fell out. Bullet given to
>
> Agt. Sibert.
>
>
>
> Bullets in Dealey Plaza besides limo.
>
>
>
> http://theshotsindealeyplaza.com/?page_id=12
>
>
>
> http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/extrabullets.htm
>
>
>
> Besides that. Bullet in stretcher at Parkland.
>
>
>
> Bullet 'troughs' seen by witnesses husband and wife with FBI day after the
>
> assassination...where they lined up to the Dal-Tex or Records Building,
>
> not TSBD.

The bullet at Parkland was found on the WRONG stretcher, and most
likely was planted, to be replaced later with a test bullet from the MC
rifle.

Wayne and Edna Hartman were a couple that saw 2 gouges on the ground
and were told by a cop that they were from bullets. They lined up with
the Grassy Knoll. When they told the FBI, the FBI reported that the
gouges lined up with the TSBD!

Chris

[mainframetech]

Why do you leave MY name tagged on after YOUR comment? Trying to make
it look like I said it?

Chris

[mainframetech]

Bud, Stop leaving MY name after YOUR comments.

For those that want the scoop on the attempted identification of the
CE399 bullet, which had not been properly identified earlier, go here:

http://www.ctka.net/2011/Harris_Bell_Article.html

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Learn how QUOTING works.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Anybody can see that you didn't say that, Chris.

Chillax, dude, this happens all the time.

And you really should worry more about the things you really have said.

Ha ha.

/sm

[Herbert Blenner]

Your tactics are clear. You attempt to start a flame war when confronted
by evidence which conflicts with your naive view of the assassination.

I repeat my comment which you have ignored. “Your desperation to

deflect discussion from the slightly denuded and discolored margin of the
throat wound is clearly showing.”

The Forensic Pathology Panel cited denudations of the inferior margins of
the scalp and the transverse back wounds while arguing that entering
bullets produced these wounds. These arguments strengthen the case for
attributing the denuded margin of the remnant throat wound to an entering
bullet.

Herbert

[mainframetech]

Learn how to post properly and not leave other people's names around.
It's easy to tell who your replying to by looking up the hidden text.

Chris

[Bud]

Why would I remove things that I didn`t write?

> Trying to make
>
> it look like I said it?

I think most of the other posters here understand the posting system and
how to tell who wrote what. Someday maybe you will get up to speed, but
then again you are a Truther.

>
>
> Chris

[Bud]

<snicker> You don`t even realize why this is funny, do you? Let me help
you out, I don`t think you`ll be able to figure this out unless I walk you
through it. I insert my comments *directly* under the content I want to
address. I don`t care what is after that. The only way I would post
directly under your name would be if I were addressing your name, like if
you spelled it wrong.

> For those that want the scoop on the attempted identification of the
>
> CE399 bullet, which had not been properly identified earlier, go here:

You aren`t showing how it could have been positively identified.


> http://www.ctka.net/2011/Harris_Bell_Article.html
>
>
>
> Chris

[mainframetech]

http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm
http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery.html

>
>
>
> You aren`t showing how it could have been positively identified.
>

the CE399 wasn't positively identified. It was an FBI screw up.



>
>
>
>
> > http://www.ctka.net/2011/Harris_Bell_Article.html
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
Chris

[Bud]

You haven`t shown how it would be possible for the witnesses to do such
a thing.

[mainframetech]

Witnesses? Why would witnesses mess with evidence? Maybe the FBI now,
they have a bad record with this case.

Frazier was in charge of bullet evidence, and he was also connected
with testing of the MC rifle, that gave him access to test bullets from
the MC rifle. Whatever bullet they found at Parkland on the WRONG
stretcher could easily be replaced with a test bullet and then any further
testing of CE399 would be from the MC rifle, sealing Oswald as the guilty
shooter. When they needed verification of that bullet, 4 people that had
handled it earlier were shown the CE399 ands asked to identify it. None
of the would. 2 were SS agents.

Then there was Wright who complained that the bullet shown to him was
the wrong shape...that it was round nosed, whereas the original bullet was
pointy nosed. This suggests replacement of the original bullet. Along
those lines, look at the bullets in this photo. The left one is CE399,
and the next one is CE572, which was marked as a test bullet. Note that
the 2 bullets have the same slightly flattened and bent middle, and they
are missing a bit of material from the tail end. The CE399 bullet was
said to have gone through 2 people 7 times, including 2 bones. The last
bullet on the right was fired into a cadaver wrist. You decide.

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

>
>
> > It was an FBI screw up. Some of it possibly intentional.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > http://www.ctka.net/2011/Harris_Bell_Article.html
>
>
Chris

[James Morgan]

On Friday, December 13, 2013 7:49:33 PM UTC-5, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> If you don't believe the Single Bullet Theory, then you must answer the
>
> question, Where did the bullet go after it exited JFK's throat? Its
>
> trajectory would have caused it to hit something or someone in the limo,
>
> Governor Connally's back for instance. If you reject that hypothesis, then
>
> what options are left?
>
>
>
> 1) The throat wound was an entrance, not an exit, wound. This only serves
>
> to raise other questions. Where did the bullet come from? The trajectory
>
> is all wrong for a Grassy Knoll shot. It would have had to come from
>
> almost street level, but such a shot would have been blocked by the limo.
>
> Also, where did THAT bullet go? Saying that it exited JFK's back raises
>
> the same trajectory problems.
>
>
>
> 2) The bullet simply vanished into thin air. As incredible as this might
>
> seem, it raises fewer problems than option 1. All you have to do is state
>
> it as fact and refuse to explain further.
>
>
>
> So which is the more reasonable answer, the Single Bullet Theory or the
>
> Vanishing Bullet Theory?

I heard that the car was rushed to Detroit and refurbished. So there went
the bullet and all the other evidence.

[Anthony Marsh]

So you're saying that the Secret Service and the FBI missed a whole bullet
during their examinations of the limo? The FBI found very tiny bullet
fragments inside the tracks for the jump seat on the floor.

[curtj...@hotmail.com]

You should have an opposing thread ot all the UnConspiracy believers.
Where did the bullets not go?

[mainframetech]

There is indeed evidence that the limo was surreptitiously packed off
to Michigan on Nov. 25th and stripped of all interior and the windshield
with the through-and-through hole in it was replaced. The story of the
windshield is within this video. Look for the name Doug Weldon and skip
to 11:35:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKgg6nVS_iI


Since the 'kill shot' came from the front of the limo, and the blast
from the head of JFK sent blood, brains, and fluids onto the 2 motorcycle
cops that were behind and to the left of the limo, it seems possible that
the bullet might have gone from the entry in the right forehead through
the brain and blasting out the back of the head, in which case it may have
wound up on the street, or the grass nearby.

Chris

[Peter Makres]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEaOS_0iQKc

[James Morgan]

On Friday, December 13, 2013 7:49:33 PM UTC-5, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> If you don't believe the Single Bullet Theory, then you must answer the
>
> question, Where did the bullet go after it exited JFK's throat? Its
>
> trajectory would have caused it to hit something or someone in the limo,
>
> Governor Connally's back for instance. If you reject that hypothesis, then
>
> what options are left?
>
>
>
> 1) The throat wound was an entrance, not an exit, wound. This only serves
>
> to raise other questions. Where did the bullet come from? The trajectory
>
> is all wrong for a Grassy Knoll shot. It would have had to come from
>
> almost street level, but such a shot would have been blocked by the limo.
>
> Also, where did THAT bullet go? Saying that it exited JFK's back raises
>
> the same trajectory problems.
>
>
>
> 2) The bullet simply vanished into thin air. As incredible as this might
>
> seem, it raises fewer problems than option 1. All you have to do is state
>
> it as fact and refuse to explain further.
>
>
>
> So which is the more reasonable answer, the Single Bullet Theory or the
>
> Vanishing Bullet Theory?

as dick Russell told lbj the single bullet theory is preposterous

[Anthony Marsh]

And LBJ said, "Well, I don't believe it either."