NO SBT UNTIL APRIL OF 1964
tomnln
There was NO SBT until April of 1964.
Only because they were FORCED to recognize that James Tague was wounded.
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:RUvTj.1597$tM1....@newsfe20.lga...
> No response Jas???
>
>
>
> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:8%aSj.59124$QC.4...@newsfe20.lga...
>>
>> "Jas" <jst...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:4818...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>> tomnln wrote: "James;
>>>
>>> Please tell me exactly WHEN (date) the Warren Commission gave
>>> "Conception" to the SBT?"
>>>
>>> I don't know.
>>>
>>> James
>>
>>
>>
>> Didn't the WCR say it was discovered Friday night after Humes called
>> Dallas & spoke to Dr. Perry?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:ckIRj.5034$1M1....@newsfe23.lga...
>>>> James;
>>>>
>>>> Please tell me exactly WHEN (date) the Warren Commission gave
>>>> "Conception" to the SBT?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Jas" <jst...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:4816a777$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>>>> Hmmmmmmm. Looks like you and I are talking about 2 different things.
>>>>>
>>>>> The title of this thread is "JFK, Addison's Disease, Iatrogenic
>>>>> Cushing's Syndrome, and the SBT" having to do with the curvature of
>>>>> Kennedy's upper back. So...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...What in hell's half acre are you talking about, my friend?
>>>>>
>>>>> Herbert wrote: "Did you honestly mistake an incidence angle for a
>>>>> downward trajectory angle or did you make this up?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Number one, I don't like being patronized. You've done this twice now.
>>>>> Number two, no, we're not talking about incidence angle, *you're*
>>>>> talking about incidence angle. I was talking about Kennedy's
>>>>> osteoporosis and the way it helps to explain the downward trajectory
>>>>> through his neck.
>>>>>
>>>>> It started, I believe, by you declaring the Warren Commission's SBT
>>>>> "dead before conception," which is not true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do me a favor. In your next post, try staying on topic, and speaking
>>>>> English.
>>>>>
>>>>> James
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Herbert Blenner" <a1e...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:a7313eb0-6c42-45fe...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Apr 27, 9:25 pm, "Jas" <jste...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Herbert wrote: "These stumbling blocks are sufficient to declare the
>>>>>> SBT
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dead before conception."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quite a leap of faith to declare this, don't you think Herbert?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Herbert also wrote: "To make matters worse for the SBT, the FPP has
>>>>>> the 45
>>>>>>
>>>>>> degree angle of incidence lying in a plane perpendicular to the plane
>>>>>> documented by the Bethseda. So which, SBT do you defend?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Herbert, obviously, and as you know but asked anyway I guess to prove
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> point :>) -- I defend the official Warren Commission findings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to see the documentation for this alleged 45 degree
>>>>>> downward
>>>>>> trajectory. Please post links or referral to documents if you can.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have quoted my use the "45 degree angle of incidence" so explain
>>>>> how you arrived at a "45 degree downward trajectory."
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Has it occurred to you that if, in fact, it is a 45 degree downward
>>>>>> angle,
>>>>>> which it isn't, there exists no place above the limo in Dealey at the
>>>>>> time
>>>>>> of the shot to facilitate any deflection and/or direct shot to cause
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> bullet to enter at a 45 degree angle? In other words, what surface
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> you have your deflected bullet deflecting off of, might I ask?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Use your eyes and your common sense (there's that pesky phrase
>>>>>> again --
>>>>>> "common sense"). It doesn't take a ballistics expert to figure this
>>>>>> out.
>>>>>
>>>>> You should heed your own advice. If I meant a 45 degree downward angle
>>>>> then I would not have called it an incidence angle. As for the
>>>>> forensic experts they recognize the relationship between the
>>>>> dimensions of an elliptical bullet hole and the incidence angle of the
>>>>> striking bullet. For example see
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.jbpub.com/samples/0763735299/Girard%20Sample%20Chapter%202.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> On page 45 of "Investigating and Processing Physical Evidence" Girard
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Source:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/holegeometry.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> "Most bullet holes are elliptically shaped, so trigonometry can be
>>>>> used to estimate the angle of entry. The following equation can be
>>>>> used to estimate the angle of entry" [theta].
>>>>>
>>>>> cos [theta] = Shorter dimension / Longer dimension
>>>>>
>>>>> Theta is the incidence angle between the trajectory of the impinging
>>>>> bullet and the perpendicular to the entry site. Obviously the
>>>>> incidence angle differs from the trajectory angle of the bullet
>>>>> whenever the perpendicular to the wound is not parallel to level
>>>>> ground.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If, for example, the shot fired from the easternmost sixth floor
>>>>>> window of
>>>>>> the TSBD at around Z 223 deflected off a branch of the Texas live oak
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> was situated in front of the building, it wouldn't have entered
>>>>>> Kennedy at
>>>>>> any 45 degree angle in his upper back where it actually did. It would
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> more than likely deflected off to one side or another, or somewhere
>>>>>> underneath the window where Oswald was, possibly striking one of the
>>>>>> spectators in Dealey (or motorcade members) that were situated closer
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> the TSBD, thus facilitating a possible 45 degree angle from the two
>>>>>> positions between shooter and victim. Or, it would have broken up and
>>>>>> sent
>>>>>> some fragments in any direction, take your pick.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Clark Panel described the abrasion surrounding the bullet hole in
>>>>> President Kennedy's back as a 7 mm by 10 mm ellipse. These dimensions
>>>>> were confirmed by the FPP. Using the above relationship gives cos
>>>>> [theta] = 7 mm / 10 mm so the angle theta becomes 46 degree. Likewise
>>>>> correcting the 4 mm by 7 mm dimensions of the oval bullet hole for
>>>>> elastic relaxation and swell of tissues gives an incidence angle of 42
>>>>> degree.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless, of course, you're maintaining there was a shot from the more
>>>>>> western side of the 6th floor (or 5th, or 4th floor) something of
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> there is absolutely no evidence of occurring. Unless you want to
>>>>>> start
>>>>>> manufacturing evidence. Then, we just enter the conspiracist's
>>>>>> merry-go-round of making things up, yada yada, to support their
>>>>>> personal
>>>>>> theories.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you honestly mistake an incidence angle for a downward trajectory
>>>>> angle or did you make this up?
>>>>>
>>>>> Herbert
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
David Von Pein
>>> "Only because they were FORCED to recognize that James Tague was wounded." <<<
The CTers who think that the WC was FORCED into accepting the SBT due
to the Tague wounding are just flat-out wrong....and the Warren Report
itself proves that those CTers are wrong in this regard, via the WC's
acknowledgment (on Page #117) of the possibility that a fragment from
the bullet that struck JFK in the head could have possibly caused
Tague's injury and the curb damage on Main Street.
Why do so many CTers totally ignore WCR Page 117 (below)?:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm
So, as can easily be seen on Page 117, the possibility of head-shot
fragments perhaps accounting for the Main-Street curb damage and, in
turn, Tague's slight injury wasn't any ADDENDUM or ADD-ON by the
Commission (i.e., it wasn't added in AFTER the WR was published); it's
right there IN the Warren Report itself.
So, again, why do so many CTers insist that the WC was pigeonholed
into the SBT simply due to the Tague incident?
Simply put, that's a lie.
tomnln
Nothing but, Speculation's of the WCR.
SEE page 117 of the WCR you allude to>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/you_asked_for_it.htm
AGAIN;
The SBT was "Invented" in April of 1964.>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/april_22.htm
These official Records come from YOUR Official Sources.
And, YOU'RE Stuck with them.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6fcd08ff-2c28-489d...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
>>> "The SBT was "Invented" in April of 1964." <<<
Planet Earth to Nutsack....
Planet Earth to Nutsack....
It's called -- INVESTIGATING THE CRIME!
============================================================
"You call it the theory--I call it the conclusion. It was a
theory until we found the facts--that's why I refer to it as the
Single-Bullet Conclusion." -- Arlen Specter; circa 1967
============================================================
tomnln
Your WCR said they knew it when Humes talked to Dr. Perry in the wee small
hours of the 23rd.
Looks like you KNEW they LIED.
To defend those Lies, makes you an "Accessory fter the Fact" ( A Felony)
Are you Disagreeing with your own official records NUTSACK SUCKER???
Here's the official Citation you "Cowardly" SNIPPED>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/april_22.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a5203846-1774-449b...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Only because they were FORCED to recognize that James Tague was wounded." <<<
"The CTers who think that the WC was FORCED into accepting the SBT due
to the Tague wounding are just flat-out wrong....and the Warren Report
itself proves that those CTers are wrong in this regard, via the WC's
acknowledgment (on Page #117) of the possibility that a fragment from
the bullet that struck JFK in the head could have possibly caused
Tague's injury and the curb damage on Main Street."
Of course they were forced into it as NO reasonable people would
willingly use the SBT to prove their point. You had the FBI, the
Secret Service and the DPD say there were 3 shots and 3 hits. Hoover
said this as well, ONLY after Tague came forward did they invent the
SBT and began moving wounds around to make it work. Why didn't they
prove a fragment (which one?) caused the wound to Tague and the big
mark in the curb? They had the all the resources at their disposal
but they didn't prove it, why? Also, the fragment would have had to
make a 25 degree right turn to go on and hit Tague as it has been
shown NO bullet from the SE 6th floor window could land near where
Tague was standing.
"Why do so many CTers totally ignore WCR Page 117 (below)?:"
Because like the rest of your theory it PROVES NOTHING, it is just an
assertion without any proof behind it.
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm
"So, as can easily be seen on Page 117, the possibility of head-shot
fragments perhaps accounting for the Main-Street curb damage and, in
turn, Tague's slight injury wasn't any ADDENDUM or ADD-ON by the
Commission (i.e., it wasn't added in AFTER the WR was published); it's
right there IN the Warren Report itself."
This is as ridiculous as the SBT theory itself. How much energy does
a fragment from a low-to-medium velocity rifle have? You are saying
it hits a skull, becomes frangible (when is designed NOT to be so),
and breaks into fragments (how many?) and one (or more?) goes on to
have the energy and speed to hit a Main St. curb AND the curb near
Tague at the Triple Underpass. This is as silly as saying the North
Vietnamese would march across the steppes, Middle East and all of
Europe to take Paris.
"So, again, why do so many CTers insist that the WC was pigeonholed
into the SBT simply due to the Tague incident?"
Because this is how it happened, they said for months there were three
shots and three hits, only when Tague wouldn't go away and be hidden
did the SBT emerge. As I have asked before, why did the autopsy tell
them there were three hits (they said this until April 1964), but when
Tague came forward there were just two, how does this happen? Either
there are 3 wounds are there aren't.
"Simply put, that's a lie."
You catching on, your theory is one BIG lie.
robcap...@netscape.com
>
> Planet Earth to Nutsack....
> Planet Earth to Nutsack....
>
"It's called -- INVESTIGATING THE CRIME!"
You are hilarious!!! When did this happen again?
> ============================================================
>
> "You call it the theory--I call it the conclusion. It was a
> theory until we found the facts--that's why I refer to it as the
> Single-Bullet Conclusion." -- Arlen Specter; circa 1967
>
> ============================================================
What facts is he talking about? I have never seen any facts or proof
from him or any WC entity. He believes in fantasies too.
lazu...@webtv.net
throat..all theory...the only people who got a good look at the throat
were the parkland nurses and doctors who were unanimous it looed like an
entrance. Can you imagine any other murder case when multiple doctors
and nurses testimonies would not be accepted?