A Sensible And Common-Sense Approach To The Single-Bullet Theory

49 views
Skip to first unread message

David VP

unread,
Apr 7, 2006, 11:18:45 PM4/7/06
to
THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY: AN ANTI-CONSPIRACIST'S COMMON-SENSE APPROACH
TO IT.........

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just felt the need to interject a few more thoughts regarding the
Single-Bullet Theory (and the likelihood that ANY CT alternative to the
SBT could be MORE credible, given the known wounds and the known
evidence, than the SBT conclusion reached by the Warren Commission).

If the SBT is indeed incorrect, then we are forced to believe that not
just ONE, but TWO, rifle bullets failed to penetrate all the way
through the neck and back of JFK -- from probably high-powered weapons,
because WHY would any plotters trying to kill the President -- and no
doubt wanting to MAKE SURE THEY KILL HIM AT ALL COSTS -- utilize
anything BUT high-powered weaponry in such a murder attempt?

Logical? I say no, it is not.

If you wish to argue that perhaps ONE of the shots was a "dum-dum" of
some type, or that ONE shot was a misfire and therefore the velocity
entering Kennedy was severely reduced -- OK. But TWO such shots of this
kind that do not transit the soft flesh of JFK in the throat AND upper
back regions?

Odds please?

Even if you want to argue (and you have and shall again no doubt) that
the "angles" are not PRECISELY dead-on correct for the SBT to "work" or
"align" properly back to the "Oswald window" in the Texas School Book
Depository -- in my considered viewpoint, ANY conspiracy theory that
we're forced to "substitute" for the official SBT falls apart on many,
many different levels.

For example -- Here's what certainly MUST have occurred (via the CT
account) INSTEAD of the SBT:

1.) Three shots must "replace" the one single shot known as the "SBT".
There IS no way around this first point here. Because LACKING the SBT
to explain the throat wound to JFK and both of the victims' separate
back wounds, CTers are forced to postulate that one of the two
following things occurred........

A.) The bullet that struck JFK did go all the way through him but,
somehow spectacularly, MISSED the man sitting right in front of him who
was in direct line to receive this bullet and this bullet was then
scooped up from inside the limo by plotters after the fact and disposed
of AND the damage to the inside of the limousine that was no doubt
caused by this bullet was completely eradicated in very short order
after the event. Likely (even in a CT world)? Hardly. Especially in
light of this WC testimony from Robert Frazier of the FBI......

Mr. SPECTER -- "Did your examination of the President's limousine
disclose any other holes or markings which could have conceivably been
caused by a bullet striking the automobile or any part of the
automobile?"

Mr. FRAZIER -- "No, sir."

-- Or: --

B.) Lacking the T&T shot through JFK, we're left to accept a 3-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?

2.) All three of these (supposedly) entry wounds on JFK & 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. Even CTers must admit that the
likelihood of these wounds aligning in such a fashion on two victims is
pretty remote at best. For, if THREE gunmen managed to pull that
shooting feat off with three different bullets, then it's a
marksmanship accomplishment that should be featured prominently at
Ripley's Believe-It-Or-Not Museum, IMHO.

3.) ALL THREE bullets that are replacing the SBT via a CTer's alternate
theory now ALL get lost! Or are ALL disposed of by evil plotters! In
either instance, all three bullets that peppered Kennedy & Connally are
never entered into any kind of Official record representing this murder
case. Odds please? Is this a logical conclusion to come to?

For one thing: Why didn't Dr. Malcolm Perry (or Dr. Carrico or Dr.
Jenkins or Dr. McClelland) physically SEE the bullet that only ventured
part way through Mr. Kennedy's throat? It seems logical to me, given
the HANDS-ON circumstances we're dealing with here re. Perry's having
to make an actual incision into this VERY wound in the throat for
tracheostomy purposes, that Perry (or others) might very well have been
able to see the bullet in JFK's throat, seeing as how it did not exit,
per this theory.

In short, how could the "plotters" have possibly gotten THAT LUCKY so
that all three of those whole bullets, in 2 bodies, were never
recovered by anyone at Parkland Hospital, and so lucky to NOT have even
ONE of these three bullets enter the official record at any time?
Especially with regard to the Connally AWOL bullet. Here's a bullet
that enters a man who LIVED through the ordeal, and whose body could
not be "controlled" later at some "fixed" or "phonied" autopsy by the
conspirators (as many CTers believe occurred with respect to JFK's
autopsy at Bethesda).

This Connally bullet, IMO, is the KEY bullet that shows beyond any
reasonable doubt that no foul play was afoot with respect to the
bullets. This unexpected SECOND victim of the assassination attempt
(JBC), and yet ANOTHER (THIRD) bullet that is "conveniently missing",
makes it FAR more difficult to believe in a vast conspiracy and
cover-up in this case (overall). I ask: What are the odds that the
plotters could have "controlled" all the trace evidence within TWO
victims in such a plot, one of whom survived the shooting?

4.) With respect to TWO separate bullets that BOTH fail to transit the
body of President Kennedy -- I'll ask again the same recurring inquiry
here -- What Are The Odds? What is the likelihood that these
conspirators would have had TWO "dud" rounds fired into JFK? -- TWO
non-lethal missiles that pierce his body only a LITTLE BIT, and fail to
kill him OR to penetrate the soft tissues of his neck and upper back?
Doesn't this sound the slightest bit GOOFY to anyone else but me?

But perhaps a better question here might be -- WHY would killers, bent
on having a dead President by the end of November 22nd, have utilized
such low-powered weaponry in a Presidential assassination attempt?
Shouldn't they have wanted, and insisted, on the MAXIMUM firepower
possible here? And if not, why not? Why would ANY "Pre-Kill" shots NEED
to be fired at the President? Just...why? Does this add up at all?

It would also be very interesting to know the odds of JFK having NO
metal fragments or trace evidence of bullets left inside his neck &
back regions IF he had been, in fact, shot TWICE in these areas of the
body AND if these bullets had remained in him for several hours after
he was shot by these non-transiting missiles.

I'm not entirely sure how valid this argument might be on my LN behalf
-- but isn't it a little more than likely that at least one of these
bullets that somehow just came to a dead STOP in JFK's neck & back
would have left at least a tiny bit of trace evidence behind? (Or do
the CTers that espouse this theory also theorize that every last tiny
grain of metal fragments that either of these bullets MIGHT have left
inside JFK's body was somehow completely eradicated, too, prior to
autopsy and prior to the X-rays being taken?)

When combined all together, don't ALL of these CT points that would
have HAD to have occurred in order to explain the "SBT wounds" AND lack
of bullets entering the official record seem just a tad far-fetched and
unrealistic?

To me, they're more than just a "tad" far-fetched and unreasonable --
they're downright illogical from every point-of-view. It seems to me
that any attempts to explain those wounds that were sustained at
virtually an identical time by John Kennedy and John Connally in a "CT
light" fail to hold up the least little bit when held up to the bright
light of scrutiny.

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.

And -- Any such "multi-shooter" scenario is also very unlikely
(probability-wise alone) from the popular "Frame The Patsy Oswald"
standpoint. Would these plotters have deliberately been so foolhardy
and utterly reckless as to fire three separate shots into JFK's body
(including the head shot), from varying angles (some of them non-"SN"
angles), and yet STILL, incredibly, expect every last scrap of
ballistic evidence to get traced back to ONLY Lee Oswald's rifle AND
get traced back to only Oswald's "Sniper's Nest" window in the
Depository? They couldn't POSSIBLY have thought that this
"Multi-Shooter Patsy Plan" could succeed on its BEST day! Could they?
(I think not.)

Whereas, the "LN alternative" rests (IMO) on the very logical and sound
shoulders of the "SBT" -- a theory in which all of the following is
thoroughly explained.......

1.) Every bullet (totalling 'one' in number) is recovered and enters
the official record (Bullet #CE399). There are no mysteries as to any
"missing" missiles.

2.) The fact that no bullets were found inside JFK or JBC is perfectly
logical and to be expected via the SBT. Plus the very important fact
that no bullet holes or similar missile damage was done to the limo's
interior in the back seat areas of the automobile.

3.) All wounds to both men are perfectly consistent with the SBT. The
downward, back-to-front and slightly right-to-left "alignment" of the
wounds suffered by JFK & JBC are, IMO, wholly indicative of a single
shot that passed through both men (esp. when factoring in the oblong
wound in the back sustained by JBC, plus the lack of bullets found in
the bodies, AND the fact that no one ELSE was hit by gunfire in the
limousine, AND the fact that no damage was done to the car's rear or
jump seats by any missiles during the shooting).

4.) Via the Zapruder Film, the SBT "holds up" under intense scrutiny as
well (IMO), with both victims reacting to external (bullet) stimulus at
virtually an identical time on the film. People will no doubt argue
this point until the cows come home, but I still defy ANYONE to look at
the Z-Film (running at regular, real-time speed) and tell me they can
say with certainty that President Kennedy and Governor Connally are NOT
reacting to being hit by a bullet at the very same point in time.

------------

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-&-out guesses by the CT community) are FAR less
credible and less substantive and far less BELIEVABLE (IMO) than is the
official version of the event -- the SBT.

In fact, even the majority of CTers (from what I've seen anyway) cannot
even agree with EACH OTHER on some of the most essential and basic
things that occurred on Elm Street on 11-22-63.

IOW -- Why should I place any faith in any of a wide variety of
unsupportable theories coming from a horde of self-appointed "experts"
in the CT community who berate the Official WC version of events
sometimes without even FULLY knowing what the WC conclusions are? (This
comment isn't really directed at Lancer Forum members, but is aimed
mostly at other people I've encountered in this regard.)

But, IMO, 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.

>From what I've seen re. these "tests" (the FAA simulation, Mr. Myers'
project, and the 2004 Discovery Channel SBT re-creation, which should,
in my view, be VERY convincing to any critic of the theory, but, of
course, is not), they've been conducted in an open and wholly
above-board and honest manner, with re-creations that are as close to
being as accurate as humanly possible (esp. given the "unknowns"
regarding some measurements -- like the EXACT positioning of Mr.
Connally's wrist at the moment the bullet hit him, plus the EXACT
positioning of JFK and JBC to each other in the car during the
shooting; these things can only be "guesses" to a certain extent, no
matter which side of the debate you reside on, as I'm sure even all
CTers will concur).

What I'd like to see are similar "Discovery Channel"-like tests done by
the CT side, in order to PROVE once and for all their belief that the
SBT is so full of holes you could drive the President's X-100 Lincoln
convertible through them! Thus far, I've seen NO such tests that would
PROVE that either Mr. Myers or The Discovery Channel people got it
completely wrong.

Until such proof can be reasonably demonstrated, I truly cannot see how
anyone can totally dismiss the possibility (or probability, IMO) that
the Single-Bullet Theory is the CORRECT THEORY in the JFK murder case.

Even when viewed at a slower speed, I still challenge anyone watching
this top clip (below) of the Zapruder Film to provide one shred of
verifiable proof that the Single-Bullet Theory is a Lone-Nutter's wild
fantasy.

Tell me the truth, what do you see here? ..........

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4594.gif

http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/222-262%20full-small.gif

www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=28318


David Von Pein
May 2005

David VP

unread,
Apr 7, 2006, 11:21:23 PM4/7/06
to
Where's The Cohesive, Logical "Conspiracy-Oriented Substitute" For The
Single-Bullet Theory? Anybody Seen It Yet? I Sure Haven't

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Warren Commission, in late 1964, issued its 888-page Final Report
on the assassination of President John Kennedy. The Commission
concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald had murdered JFK, and in so doing, had
acted alone. Also within that report rests one of the most
controversial so-called "theories" in history -- the "Single-Bullet
Theory".

The "SBT" has been battered from proverbial pillar to post by
conspiracy theorists for multiple decades now since JFK's tragic death
in 1963. And it's been an undeserved bad rap, too, in my opinion.
Because the SBT is almost certainly the only conceivable (accurate)
scenario to explain the injuries sustained by victims JFK and John B.
Connally in Dallas on 11/22/63.

Lacking the SBT, so many weird and incredible and, frankly, impossible,
things would have had to have taken place in Dealey Plaza, it would
make a Max Fleischer cartoon seem believable by comparison.

Many people ("CTers" by specific categorization) seem to think that the
holes in JFK's clothing are rock-solid "proof" that the Single-Bullet
Conclusion is worthy of only disdain. They'll claim the holes in
Kennedy's coat and shirt were "too low" to accommodate the accuracy of
the SBT scenario.

But, it must be remembered that the JFK jacket hole in dispute is a
hole on the BACK side of President Kennedy's suit jacket, not the front
side (with the front part of the jacket, of course, much more likely to
move around with ease).

Therefore, since the portion of the coat/jacket on JFK's back isn't
going to be moving around like a coat lapel at the front, the coat hole
lining up with the hole in his shirt is understandable, IMO.

The bottom line of this argument is -- CTers have taken one single
aspect of the "whole" that makes up the SBT scenario (JFK's clothing
holes on his back) and then they have seemingly chosen to ignore all of
the surrounding evidence that says the SBT is the ONLY way the shooting
could have occurred.

Plus -- I'm thinking it's quite possible that JFK's back brace might
have aided in keeping those two layers of clothing (shirt and jacket)
TOGETHER to some extent...more so than if he wasn't wearing the back
brace. I'll admit straight away, that this is just simply a wild guess
on my part (but CTers do nothing BUT "guess" 24/7 re. many aspects of
the JFK murder case; so I suppose an LNer can do it on occasion as
well). But it seems within the bounds of reason. I've never worn a
brace like that on my back, and don't know for sure how it might "bind"
or affect the clothing of the wearer of such an item. But it might have
had some effect on the clothing to a small, or not so small, degree.

But a discrepancy in the President's clothing holes pales in overall
significance when compared to the things that are "out of whack" re.
the pro-CT side of the SBT equation.

Things like:

Disappearing bullets.....Pictures that have to be faked.....Three
autopsy doctors who have to be falsifying official documents.....And
three gunmen performing the impossible at-the-same-time task of
shooting JFK in such a way to even come remotely close to being able to
say (later) that these THREE shots all "line up" to a "Single Bullet"
possibility.

Even WITH clothing holes that cannot be completely reconciled to the
square inch to align with JFK's back (skin) wound, the SBT is far, far
ahead of ANY conspiracy-slanted substitute for it. In fact, I've yet to
hear a good, sound, logical, based-on-the-evidence "CT substitute" for
the Single-Bullet Theory. I wonder if we'll ever be treated to such a
revelation by conspiracy authors/promoters? Unlikely to happen, IMO.
Because no such "believable" CT version of the shooting exists.

CTers, IMO, still haven't a leg to wobble on with respect to the SBT.
Because virtually everything "fits" re. the SBT for the Lone-Assassin
side.

But CTers, in trying to debunk the Single-Bullet Theory, are attempting
to do so, even though the conspiracists have......

1.) No bullets where there most certainly ought to be bullets found
(and THREE of them at that, discounting CE399 of course; because no
self-respecting CTer would dare think that that bullet was ACTUALLY
part of the "real" shooting).

2.) No damage inside JFK's back/neck where there certainly should be
some degree of damage if two whole bullets had just stopped inside the
President as if they'd hit a brick wall.

3.) No good, rooted-in-logic explanation for why Governor Connally's
back wound was "oblong" in shape if that wound had been caused by an
unimpeded bullet in flight.

4.) No real good explanation (at all) as to why on Earth those two
missiles just stopped inside Jack Kennedy's body without exiting. (Two
"duds"? Or two "misfires"? TWO?? Come now. What are the odds?)

5.) Not a single witness saying they saw an additional non-Oswald
shooter.

6.) No proof whatsoever that the Official Autopsy Report has been
"faked" or "phonied up" by the autopsy doctors (all three of whom
signed off on said document).

7.) No proof at all that the autopsy photos and X-rays have been
"faked" in some manner to "hide" the true wounds.

8.) No proof at all to show that the 19 different HSCA panel members
who authenticated the autopsy photos/X-rays all lied when they said
this in 1978:

"From the reports of the experts' analyses of the autopsy photographs
and X-rays, the evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and
X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and
that they had not been altered in any manner."

9.) And to repeat a variation of #1 just for amplification -- WHERE DID
ALL THOSE BULLETS GO? WHERE? Can some conspiracy theorist please
provide the waiting world with the answer to that very important
question? I, for one, would certainly like to hear it. It should be an
amusing answer, if nothing else.

David Von Pein
March 2006

Lt.Bullitt

unread,
Apr 7, 2006, 11:49:04 PM4/7/06
to
I think we can safely say now that the "bullet didn't go all the way
through" theory is nonsense. Mainly because JFK & Connally react
virtually simultaneously in the Z film.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 8, 2006, 1:07:35 AM4/8/06
to

Davey-Boy is too frightened of the evidence to be able to answer a refutation of
the nonsense he posted below.

I wonder why he can't respond to a complete refutation of his sillyness without
snipping it to virtually nothing?


In article <1144466325.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...


--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 8, 2006, 1:10:13 AM4/8/06
to
In article <1144468144.5...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Lt.Bullitt
says...

>
>I think we can safely say now that the "bullet didn't go all the way
>through" theory is nonsense. Mainly because JFK & Connally react
>virtually simultaneously in the Z film.

How silly! The *hard* evidence has always been *against* transit... which was,
of course, a speculation developed *AFTER* the autopsy, and not based on what
they found during the autopsy.

All the silliness that LNT'ers spout - all to avoid what is clearly obvious...
multiple shooters that day.

David VP

unread,
Apr 8, 2006, 2:33:16 AM4/8/06
to
>> "The *hard* evidence has always been *against* transit..."

You must mean that "hard" object that those TWO bullets must have hit
to stop the TWO bullets dead in their proverbial tracks after entering
JFK, Sr. ... right?

And what hard object DID stop those two projectiles, Mr. CT? You have
no idea do you? Of course not...because it's not in the "hard evidence"
of the case. It's only in your hard head.

BTW -- Have you EVER met a conspiracy theory you didn't fall madly in
love with? I'm doubting it.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 8, 2006, 4:00:40 PM4/8/06
to
In article <1144477996.6...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...

>
>> The *hard* evidence has always been *against* transit...
>
>You must mean that "hard" object that those TWO bullets must have hit
>to stop the TWO bullets dead in their proverbial tracks after entering
>JFK, Sr. ... right?


I didn't really think that you'd understand what "evidence" means...

>And what hard object DID stop those two projectiles, Mr. CT? You have
>no idea do you? Of course not...because it's not in the "hard evidence"
>of the case. It's only in your hard head.
>
>BTW -- Have you EVER met a conspiracy theory you didn't fall madly in
>love with? I'm doubting it.

Have you ever met eyewitness testimony that you could believe?

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Apr 9, 2006, 1:16:43 PM4/9/06
to
David VP wrote:
>>> "The *hard* evidence has always been *against* transit..."
>
> You must mean that "hard" object that those TWO bullets must have hit
> to stop the TWO bullets dead in their proverbial tracks after entering
> JFK, Sr. ... right?

I don't know what caliber he is thinking of, but some bullets can stop
within a couple of inches of soft tissue. Especially a .22. And even a
.45 can be stopped by hitting the vertebrae.

>
> And what hard object DID stop those two projectiles, Mr. CT? You have
> no idea do you? Of course not...because it's not in the "hard evidence"
> of the case. It's only in your hard head.
>
> BTW -- Have you EVER met a conspiracy theory you didn't fall madly in
> love with? I'm doubting it.
>

*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Apr 9, 2006, 1:52:13 PM4/9/06
to


At which frame do you see them react virtually simultaneously?
Some people pick frame Z-224, but the problem with that frame is that by
Z-224 Kennedy had already been reacting for 4 frames, indicating that he
was struck before Z-221.
Pick another frame.

David VP

unread,
Apr 9, 2006, 2:14:28 PM4/9/06
to
>>"I don't know what caliber he is thinking of, but some bullets can stop within a couple of inches of soft tissue. Especially a .22..."

Beautiful plan indeed. And yet another indication that this plot many
CTers favor was being carried out by imbeciles (probably Barney Fife
and Floyd The Barber).

They need Kennedy dead -- quickly would be nice -- so what do they do?
They decide they'll shoot twice at him with bullets/guns so weak that
the ammunition isn't likely to kill him with either shot -- the bullets
will just stop inside his soft flesh.

I guess the plotters were of the opinion that JFK would die almost
instantly from "lead poisoning" or maybe from "sheer fright" after
being hit by these weak-sister bullets, huh?

Or, as I said before, they might have just been dealing JFK a fair hand
-- and giving the President a chance to escape "The Big One" which
would come about 5 seconds later.

Great plot -- if you're a brainless idiot that is.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Apr 9, 2006, 2:19:01 PM4/9/06
to
David VP wrote:
> THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY: AN ANTI-CONSPIRACIST'S COMMON-SENSE APPROACH
> TO IT.........
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I just felt the need to interject a few more thoughts regarding the
> Single-Bullet Theory (and the likelihood that ANY CT alternative to the
> SBT could be MORE credible, given the known wounds and the known
> evidence, than the SBT conclusion reached by the Warren Commission).
>
> If the SBT is indeed incorrect, then we are forced to believe that not
> just ONE, but TWO, rifle bullets failed to penetrate all the way

No, that is a logical fallacy. Just because the SBT is impossible does
not require non-penetrating bullets.

> through the neck and back of JFK -- from probably high-powered weapons,
> because WHY would any plotters trying to kill the President -- and no
> doubt wanting to MAKE SURE THEY KILL HIM AT ALL COSTS -- utilize
> anything BUT high-powered weaponry in such a murder attempt?
>

If you talk to professionals they will tell you that you don't want to
select FMJ ammo which only wounds and does not necessarily kill. You
want ammo which stops in the body and mushrooms, fragments.

> Logical? I say no, it is not.
>
> If you wish to argue that perhaps ONE of the shots was a "dum-dum" of
> some type, or that ONE shot was a misfire and therefore the velocity

Why a dum-dum? There are other better bullets to use.

> entering Kennedy was severely reduced -- OK. But TWO such shots of this
> kind that do not transit the soft flesh of JFK in the throat AND upper
> back regions?
>

Others may imagine a different type of round. The WCC M-C ammo does not
misfire. You could have reduced velocity on the first shot naturally.
If you have a different caliber you can have non-transiting bullets.

> Odds please?
>
> Even if you want to argue (and you have and shall again no doubt) that
> the "angles" are not PRECISELY dead-on correct for the SBT to "work" or
> "align" properly back to the "Oswald window" in the Texas School Book
> Depository -- in my considered viewpoint, ANY conspiracy theory that
> we're forced to "substitute" for the official SBT falls apart on many,
> many different levels.
>

It is much more than just the angles not pointing to the sniper's nest.
The angles do not line up between the two men.

> For example -- Here's what certainly MUST have occurred (via the CT
> account) INSTEAD of the SBT:
>
> 1.) Three shots must "replace" the one single shot known as the "SBT".

Why three? One bullet goes through Kennedy and a second bullet goes
through Connally, just as the Connallys and the FBI said.

> There IS no way around this first point here. Because LACKING the SBT
> to explain the throat wound to JFK and both of the victims' separate
> back wounds, CTers are forced to postulate that one of the two
> following things occurred........
>

You don't need a SBT to explain Kennedy's wounds.

> A.) The bullet that struck JFK did go all the way through him but,
> somehow spectacularly, MISSED the man sitting right in front of him who
> was in direct line to receive this bullet and this bullet was then
> scooped up from inside the limo by plotters after the fact and disposed
> of AND the damage to the inside of the limousine that was no doubt
> caused by this bullet was completely eradicated in very short order
> after the event. Likely (even in a CT world)? Hardly. Especially in
> light of this WC testimony from Robert Frazier of the FBI......
>

That bullet would not have been on a course to remain in the limo.
It went over the windshield.
And how do you KNOW what damage was done inside the limousine and by
which bullet?

> Mr. SPECTER -- "Did your examination of the President's limousine
> disclose any other holes or markings which could have conceivably been
> caused by a bullet striking the automobile or any part of the
> automobile?"
>
> Mr. FRAZIER -- "No, sir."
>

As far as he knew on 11/22/63.

> -- Or: --
>
> B.) Lacking the T&T shot through JFK, we're left to accept a 3-Shot
> scenario to explain these wounds to the two victims -- fired by THREE

No, that is a false argument.

> 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?
>
> 2.) All three of these (supposedly) entry wounds on JFK & 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. Even CTers must admit that the
> likelihood of these wounds aligning in such a fashion on two victims is
> pretty remote at best. For, if THREE gunmen managed to pull that
> shooting feat off with three different bullets, then it's a
> marksmanship accomplishment that should be featured prominently at
> Ripley's Believe-It-Or-Not Museum, IMHO.
>

Dale Myers' cartoons show that there was room above JFK's shoulder for a
bullet to hit Connally.

> 3.) ALL THREE bullets that are replacing the SBT via a CTer's alternate
> theory now ALL get lost! Or are ALL disposed of by evil plotters! In
> either instance, all three bullets that peppered Kennedy & Connally are
> never entered into any kind of Official record representing this murder
> case. Odds please? Is this a logical conclusion to come to?
>

The one which went through Connally could certainly be CE 399. But I
don't see you complaining about the WC theory that one shot missed
everything and was never recovered.

> For one thing: Why didn't Dr. Malcolm Perry (or Dr. Carrico or Dr.
> Jenkins or Dr. McClelland) physically SEE the bullet that only ventured
> part way through Mr. Kennedy's throat? It seems logical to me, given
> the HANDS-ON circumstances we're dealing with here re. Perry's having
> to make an actual incision into this VERY wound in the throat for
> tracheostomy purposes, that Perry (or others) might very well have been
> able to see the bullet in JFK's throat, seeing as how it did not exit,
> per this theory.
>

He would not see it if it penetrated a few inches.

> In short, how could the "plotters" have possibly gotten THAT LUCKY so
> that all three of those whole bullets, in 2 bodies, were never
> recovered by anyone at Parkland Hospital, and so lucky to NOT have even
> ONE of these three bullets enter the official record at any time?

So what if additional bullets were recovered? That could be covered up.

> Especially with regard to the Connally AWOL bullet. Here's a bullet
> that enters a man who LIVED through the ordeal, and whose body could
> not be "controlled" later at some "fixed" or "phonied" autopsy by the
> conspirators (as many CTers believe occurred with respect to JFK's
> autopsy at Bethesda).
>

But certainly the WC defenders can simply LIE about Connally's wounds
and the family can refuse to have him exhumed.

> This Connally bullet, IMO, is the KEY bullet that shows beyond any
> reasonable doubt that no foul play was afoot with respect to the
> bullets. This unexpected SECOND victim of the assassination attempt
> (JBC), and yet ANOTHER (THIRD) bullet that is "conveniently missing",
> makes it FAR more difficult to believe in a vast conspiracy and
> cover-up in this case (overall). I ask: What are the odds that the
> plotters could have "controlled" all the trace evidence within TWO
> victims in such a plot, one of whom survived the shooting?
>
> 4.) With respect to TWO separate bullets that BOTH fail to transit the
> body of President Kennedy -- I'll ask again the same recurring inquiry
> here -- What Are The Odds? What is the likelihood that these
> conspirators would have had TWO "dud" rounds fired into JFK? -- TWO
> non-lethal missiles that pierce his body only a LITTLE BIT, and fail to
> kill him OR to penetrate the soft tissues of his neck and upper back?
> Doesn't this sound the slightest bit GOOFY to anyone else but me?
>

You sound goofy with all your strawman arguments and false assumptions.

> But perhaps a better question here might be -- WHY would killers, bent
> on having a dead President by the end of November 22nd, have utilized
> such low-powered weaponry in a Presidential assassination attempt?
> Shouldn't they have wanted, and insisted, on the MAXIMUM firepower
> possible here? And if not, why not? Why would ANY "Pre-Kill" shots NEED
> to be fired at the President? Just...why? Does this add up at all?
>

Then you could also ask why all conspirators do not use bombs and
machine guns in every assassination.
It's kinda hard to frame a lone nut patsy when you have 25 machine guns
blazing. Idiot.

Lt.Bullitt

unread,
Apr 10, 2006, 4:17:34 PM4/10/06
to
Another strong indicator for the SBT being valid is the fact that the 3
surgeons that operated on Connally concluded that all his wounds were
caused by one bullet. And again, JFK & the governor reacted virtually
simultaneously at frame 224-25. Since both men made dramatic body
movements in frames 225-228, the 4 frame argument mentioned earlier is
a complete joke. It takes 4 frames for someone (JFK) just to get an
anguished look on his face? Hogwash.

Just face it, the single bullet theory is an almost certain fact. Any
other scenario that explains those 7 wounds is at least ten times more
unlikely than the SBT which makes it virtually impossible to have
occurred.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 10, 2006, 8:39:22 PM4/10/06
to
In article <1144700254....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Lt.Bullitt
says...

>
>Another strong indicator for the SBT being valid is the fact that the 3
>surgeons that operated on Connally concluded that all his wounds were
>caused by one bullet.


When LNT'ers are forced to *lie* about the testimony in order to make a point,
does anyone think that they've said anything other than that they are willing to
lie?

Dr. SHAW - This is again the testimony that I believe Dr. Gregory will be
giving, too. It is a matter of whether the wrist wound could be caused by the
same bullet, and we felt that it could but we had not seen the bullets until
today, and we still do not know which bullet actually inflicted the wound on
Governor Connally.
Mr. DULLES - Or whether it was one or two wounds?
Dr. SHAW - Yes.
Mr. DULLES - Or two bullets?
Dr. SHAW - Yes; or three.
Mr. DULLES - Why do you say three?
Dr. SHAW - He has three separate wounds. He has a wound in the chest, a wound of
the wrist, a wound of the thigh.
Mr. DULLES - Oh, yes; we haven't. come to the wound of the thigh yet, have we?
Mr. McCLOY - You have no firm opinion that all these three wounds were caused by
one bullet?
Dr. SHAW - I have no firm opinion.


>And again, JFK & the governor reacted virtually
>simultaneously at frame 224-25.

Considering that you can't *see* JFK until then, this is a rather dishonest
statement, isn't it? Even the WC was unwilling to put it any closer than from
210 to 224.

>Since both men made dramatic body
>movements in frames 225-228, the 4 frame argument mentioned earlier is
>a complete joke. It takes 4 frames for someone (JFK) just to get an
>anguished look on his face? Hogwash.
>
>Just face it, the single bullet theory is an almost certain fact.

Just tap your heels three times, and keep repeating this. I *guarantee* that if
you do so, you'll believe this.


>Any
>other scenario that explains those 7 wounds is at least ten times more
>unlikely than the SBT which makes it virtually impossible to have
>occurred.

You should tell that to the people who were there... or the doctors that worked
on Connally. Shaw, for example, didn't feel it was a stretch to think that
Connally's wounds were caused by more than one bullet.

Do you suppose Dr. Shaw was an idiot?

Lt.Bullitt

unread,
Apr 10, 2006, 9:50:19 PM4/10/06
to
Regarding Shaw:

Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Shaw, would you think it consistent with the facts
that you know as to Governor Connally's wounds that he could have been
struck by the same bullet which passed through President Kennedy,
assuming that a missile with the muzzle velocity of 2,000 feet per
second, a 6.5-millimeter bullet, passed through President Kennedy at a
distance of 160 to 250 feet from the rifle, passing through President
Kennedy's body, entering on his back and striking only soft tissue and
exiting on his neck; could that missile have also gone through Governor
Connally's chest in your opinion?
Dr. SHAW - Yes, taking your description of the first wound sustained by
the President, which I, myself, did not observe, and considering the
position of the two men in the limousine, I think it would be perfectly
possible for the first bullet to have passed through the soft tissues
of the neck of President Kennedy and produced the wounds that we found
on Governor Connally.
Mr. SPECTER - Could that bullet then have produced all the wounds that
you found on Governor Connally?
Dr. SHAW - Yes, I would still be postulating that Governor Connally was
struck by one missile.

We can add Mrs. Connally to the list also:

Dr. SHAW - That is true as far as the wounds are concerned, this
theory, I feel, is tenable. It doesn't conform to the description of
the sequence of the events as described by Mrs. Connally.
Mr. SPECTER - In what respect Dr. Shaw?
Dr. SHAW - Well she feels that the Governor was only struck by one
bullet.

Dr Gregory's opinion:

Mr. SPECTER - Would you consider it possible, in your professional
opinion, for the same bullet to have inflicted all of the wounds which
you have described on Governor Connally?
Dr. GREGORY - Yes; I believe it very possible, for a number of reasons.
One of these is the apparent loss of energy manifested at each of the
various body surfaces, which I transacted, the greatest energy being at
the point of entry on the posterior aspect of the chest and of the
fifth rib, where considerable destruction was .done and the least
destruction having been done in the medial aspect of the thigh where
the bullet apparently expended itself.
----------------------
Mr. SPECTER - Do you think it possible that Governor Connally was shot
by two bullets, with one hitting in the posterior part of his body and
the second one striking the back side of his wrist?
Dr. GREGORY - The possibility exists, but I would discount it for these
reasons--ordinarily, a missile in flight---I'll qualify that---a high
velocity missile in flight does not tend to carry organic material into
the wound which it creates.
I believe if you will inspect the record which was prepared by Dr.
Shaw, there is no indication that any clothing or other organic
material was found in the chest wound.
An irregular missile can carry debris into a wound and such debris was
carried into the wound of the wrist. I would have expected that an
undistorted high velocity missile striking the wrist would not have
carried material into it.
Mr. SPECTER - Was there any other characteristic which led and leads
you to conclude that the wrist was not the initial point of impact of a
single high velocity bullet?
Dr. GREGORY - Yes. Based on our experience with high velocity missile
wounds of the forearm produced by rifles of the deer hunting calibre,
there is tremendous soft tissue destruction as well as bone
fragmentation which not infrequently culminates in amputation of the
part.
I do not believe that the missile wound in Governor Connally's right
forearm was produced by a missile of such magnitude at the time it
struck him. It either had to be one of lower initial energy or a
missile which had been partially expended elsewhere before it struck
his wrist.

And Dr. Shires:

Dr. SHIRES - This, at the time of the discussion of Governor Connally's
injuries with his wife, before he really regained consciousness from
surgery, was the apparent position that he was in in the car, which
would explain one missile producing all three wounds.
-------------------
Mr. SPECTER - Now, looking again at Diagram No. 5, what is your
professional opinion, if you have one, as to whether Governor
Connally's chest injury, wrist injury, and thigh injury were caused by
the same bullet?
Dr. SHIRES - Well we all thought, me included, that this was probably
one missile, one bullet.
Mr. SPECTER - When you say "we all thought," whom. do you mean by that?

Dr. SHIRES - Dr. Shaw, Dr. Gregory---as we were reconstructing the
events in the operating room in an attempt to plot out trajectory as
best we could, this appeared to be our opinion.
Mr. SPECTER - Did any of your assistants consult with you in those
calculations?
Dr. SHIRES - I guess nearly all of them we have listed.
Mr. SPECTER - Dr. McClelland, Dr. Baxter and Dr. Patman?
Dr. SHIRES - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - How about Dr. Osborne and Dr. Parker?
Dr. SHIRES - They were working with Dr. Gregory. If they discussed it,
I'm sure they did---it was before I got there.
Mr. SPECTER - How about Dr. Boland and Dr. Duke who worked with Dr.
Shaw?
Dr. SHIRES - Now, again, I talked to them and they were discussing it
as they did the chest procedure, and again thought the same thing.
Everyone was under the impression this was one missile---through and
through the chest, through and through the arm and the thigh.
Mr. SPECTER - Was there any one of the doctors on either of these
three teams who had a different point of view?
Dr. SHIRES - Not that I remember.


>When LNT'ers are forced to *lie* about the testimony in order to make a point,
> does anyone think that they've said anything other than that they are willing to
> lie?

Do you know the definition of the word *lie*? My guess is that you
have no idea.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Apr 10, 2006, 10:04:04 PM4/10/06
to
Lt.Bullitt wrote:
> Another strong indicator for the SBT being valid is the fact that the 3
> surgeons that operated on Connally concluded that all his wounds were
> caused by one bullet. And again, JFK & the governor reacted virtually

NO, that is NOT what they said.

> simultaneously at frame 224-25. Since both men made dramatic body
> movements in frames 225-228, the 4 frame argument mentioned earlier is
> a complete joke. It takes 4 frames for someone (JFK) just to get an
> anguished look on his face? Hogwash.
>

Dr. Frank McCarthy testified that it took 4 frames for JFK to have
reacted by raising his hand up in front of his throat as we see in
Z-225. This means that JFK was hit no later than Z-221. Hence no SBT at
Z-224. Pick another frame.

> Just face it, the single bullet theory is an almost certain fact. Any
> other scenario that explains those 7 wounds is at least ten times more
> unlikely than the SBT which makes it virtually impossible to have
> occurred.
>

Lt.Bullitt

unread,
Apr 10, 2006, 10:39:00 PM4/10/06
to
"Dr. Frank McCarthy testified that it took 4 frames for JFK to have
reacted by raising his hand up in front of his throat as we see in
Z-225. This means that JFK was hit no later than Z-221. Hence no SBT at

Z-224."
That doesn't make any sense. It took only 3 frames(225-227) for
Connally to dramatically change his body position after he was hit.
But it takes 4 frames to raise a hand? Not likely. JFK's first
reaction was the anguished look on his face, THEN he raised his arms
to his throat. His arms didn't reach his throat until frame 227.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Apr 10, 2006, 11:26:38 PM4/10/06
to
David VP wrote:
>>> "I don't know what caliber he is thinking of, but some bullets can stop within a couple of inches of soft tissue. Especially a .22..."
>
> Beautiful plan indeed. And yet another indication that this plot many
> CTers favor was being carried out by imbeciles (probably Barney Fife
> and Floyd The Barber).
>

As I said before, it is not my theory. But surely you must know that
many assassinations are carried out with .22 caliber bullets. Look at
the Mossad's assassinations to revenge the Munich massacre. Their weapon
of choice was a moderated .22 Beretta.

> They need Kennedy dead -- quickly would be nice -- so what do they do?
> They decide they'll shoot twice at him with bullets/guns so weak that
> the ammunition isn't likely to kill him with either shot -- the bullets
> will just stop inside his soft flesh.
>

If you think that a .22 can not kill, try talking to the Palestinians.

> I guess the plotters were of the opinion that JFK would die almost
> instantly from "lead poisoning" or maybe from "sheer fright" after
> being hit by these weak-sister bullets, huh?
>

Weak-sister bullets are used all the time. The .22 High-Standard was the
standard assassination weapon of the CIA.

> Or, as I said before, they might have just been dealing JFK a fair hand
> -- and giving the President a chance to escape "The Big One" which
> would come about 5 seconds later.
>
> Great plot -- if you're a brainless idiot that is.
>

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 11, 2006, 10:23:16 AM4/11/06
to
In article <1144720219.3...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Lt.Bullitt
says...

His *CONCLUSIONS* have already been quoted. Here, he's being asked a
speculative question - THAT DOES NOT HAVE A MEDICAL FOUNDATION FROM THE AUTOPSY
- although Dr. Shaw is certainly led to believe that it does.

So it looks like you lied about the doctors "concluding". Why is that?


>Dr. SHAW - Yes, taking your description of the first wound sustained by
>the President, which I, myself, did not observe, and considering the
>position of the two men in the limousine, I think it would be perfectly
>possible for the first bullet to have passed through the soft tissues
>of the neck of President Kennedy and produced the wounds that we found
>on Governor Connally.
>Mr. SPECTER - Could that bullet then have produced all the wounds that
>you found on Governor Connally?
>Dr. SHAW - Yes, I would still be postulating that Governor Connally was
>struck by one missile.
>
>We can add Mrs. Connally to the list also:


Of course, Mrs. Connally is NOT a doctor, and NOT a part of your dishonest
recitation of the "truth" about doctors "concluding"

So why would you bother to bring her in?


>Dr. SHAW - That is true as far as the wounds are concerned, this
>theory, I feel, is tenable. It doesn't conform to the description of
>the sequence of the events as described by Mrs. Connally.
>Mr. SPECTER - In what respect Dr. Shaw?
>Dr. SHAW - Well she feels that the Governor was only struck by one
>bullet.


And then, you can't even quote her words... how sad...

>Dr Gregory's opinion:
>
>Mr. SPECTER - Would you consider it possible, in your professional
>opinion, for the same bullet to have inflicted all of the wounds which
>you have described on Governor Connally?

Again, another speculative question...


>Dr. GREGORY - Yes; I believe it very possible, for a number of reasons.
>One of these is the apparent loss of energy manifested at each of the
>various body surfaces, which I transacted, the greatest energy being at
>the point of entry on the posterior aspect of the chest and of the
>fifth rib, where considerable destruction was .done and the least
>destruction having been done in the medial aspect of the thigh where
>the bullet apparently expended itself.
>----------------------
>Mr. SPECTER - Do you think it possible that Governor Connally was shot
>by two bullets, with one hitting in the posterior part of his body and
>the second one striking the back side of his wrist?


The following answer, is the *ONLY* thing that might qualify as a "conclusion"
by a single doctor.

Lied, didn't you?


This is, of course, in direct conflict with what Dr. Shaw stated.

Rather dishonest of you to assert that all doctors "concluded" when no such
thing happened, isn't it?


You stated that they had *concluded*... that is dishonest, it's a
misrepresentation of the facts, and when you *LIE* about the evidence in such a
manner - you do the truth no good at all.

All you do is reveal that you're willing to lie to support the "truth".

Here's another one that you rather dishonestly skipped, since you decided to
start posting all the doctor's testmony:

Mr. SPECTER - Assume, if you will, another set of hypothetical circumstances:
That the 6.5 millimeter bullet traveling at the same muzzle velocity, to wit,
2,000 feet per second, at approximately 165 feet between the weapon and the
victim, struck the President in the back of the neck passing through the large
strap muscles, going through a fascia channel, missing the pleural cavity,
striking no bones and emerging from the lower anterior third of the neck, after
striking the trachea. Could such a projectile have then passed into the
Governor's back and inflicted all three or all of the wounds which have been
described here today?
Dr. GREGORY - I believe one would have to concede the possibility, but I believe
firmly that the probability is much diminished.

Doesn't sound like Dr. Gregory "concluded", does it?

Why lie about the evidence if this is a "sensible and common-sense approach?"

Why can't you tell the truth?

aeffects

unread,
Apr 11, 2006, 12:11:54 PM4/11/06
to
Top Post

looks like another 'bullit' bit the big one... evidence keeps doing 'em
in!

Lt.Bullitt

unread,
Apr 11, 2006, 1:47:54 PM4/11/06
to
>Mr. SPECTER - Now, looking again at Diagram No. 5, what is your
>professional opinion, if you have one, as to whether Governor
>Connally's chest injury, wrist injury, and thigh injury were caused by
>the same bullet?
>Dr. SHIRES - Well we all thought, me included, that this was probably
>one missile, one bullet.

>Mr. SPECTER - When you say "we all thought," whom. do you mean by that?

>Dr. SHIRES - Dr. Shaw, Dr. Gregory---as we were reconstructing the
>events in the operating room in an attempt to plot out trajectory as
>best we could, this appeared to be our opinion.
>Mr. SPECTER - Did any of your assistants consult with you in those
>calculations?
>Dr. SHIRES - I guess nearly all of them we have listed.
>Mr. SPECTER - Dr. McClelland, Dr. Baxter and Dr. Patman?
>Dr. SHIRES - Yes.
>Mr. SPECTER - How about Dr. Osborne and Dr. Parker?
>Dr. SHIRES - They were working with Dr. Gregory. If they discussed it,
>I'm sure they did---it was before I got there.
>Mr. SPECTER - How about Dr. Boland and Dr. Duke who worked with Dr.
>Shaw?
>Dr. SHIRES - Now, again, I talked to them and they were discussing it
>as they did the chest procedure, and again thought the same thing.
>Everyone was under the impression this was one missile---through and
>through the chest, through and through the arm and the thigh.
> Mr. SPECTER - Was there any one of the doctors on either of these
>three teams who had a different point of view?
>Dr. SHIRES - Not that I remember.

"This is, of course, in direct conflict with what Dr. Shaw stated."

So now Dr. Shires is a liar?


"Here's another one that you rather dishonestly skipped, since you
decided to
start posting all the doctor's testmony:


Mr. SPECTER - Assume, if you will, another set of hypothetical
circumstances:
That the 6.5 millimeter bullet traveling at the same muzzle velocity,
to wit,
2,000 feet per second, at approximately 165 feet between the weapon and
the
victim, struck the President in the back of the neck passing through
the large
strap muscles, going through a fascia channel, missing the pleural
cavity,
striking no bones and emerging from the lower anterior third of the
neck, after
striking the trachea. Could such a projectile have then passed into the

Governor's back and inflicted all three or all of the wounds which have
been
described here today?
Dr. GREGORY - I believe one would have to concede the possibility, but
I believe
firmly that the probability is much diminished."

Doesn't sound like Dr. Gregory "concluded", does it?


The problem with using this part of Gregory's testimony is the fact
that I never stated the doctors "concluded" one bullet caused all seven
wounds, only Connally's five wounds.

Why did you feel the need to lie about what I said???

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 11, 2006, 5:45:57 PM4/11/06
to
In article <1144777674....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Lt.Bullitt
says...

What he said is in direct conflict with what Dr. Shaw stated. What part of that
sentence did you not understand? Are you going to attempt to assert that they
both *agreed* on this point?

And who was it that stated: "Another strong indicator for the SBT being valid is


the fact that the 3 surgeons that operated on Connally concluded that all his
wounds were caused by one bullet."

Was that a *true* statement? Or was it a misrepresentation of the the
eyewitness statements & testmony?


>"Here's another one that you rather dishonestly skipped, since you
>decided to start posting all the doctor's testmony:
>
>
>Mr. SPECTER - Assume, if you will, another set of hypothetical
>circumstances:
>That the 6.5 millimeter bullet traveling at the same muzzle velocity,
>to wit,
>2,000 feet per second, at approximately 165 feet between the weapon and
>the
>victim, struck the President in the back of the neck passing through
>the large
>strap muscles, going through a fascia channel, missing the pleural
>cavity,
>striking no bones and emerging from the lower anterior third of the
>neck, after
>striking the trachea. Could such a projectile have then passed into the
>
>Governor's back and inflicted all three or all of the wounds which have
>been described here today?
>Dr. GREGORY - I believe one would have to concede the possibility, but
>I believe firmly that the probability is much diminished."
>
>Doesn't sound like Dr. Gregory "concluded", does it?
>
>
>The problem with using this part of Gregory's testimony is the fact
>that I never stated the doctors "concluded" one bullet caused all seven
>wounds, only Connally's five wounds.
>
>Why did you feel the need to lie about what I said???

"Another strong indicator for the SBT being valid is the fact that the 3

surgeons that operated on Connally concluded that all his wounds were
caused by one bullet."

The "SBT" is *IMPOSSIBLE* if one bullet did not cause *ALL* of Connally's
wounds... please try to be honest...

I continue to defy ANY LNT'er to *QUOTE* any "lie" I make, and give the citation
that makes it a lie, yet every last one of you continue to refuse to do so. Why
is that so difficult to do?


Why not simply admit that you overstretched the truth - admit what the doctors
*ACTUALLY* said, and move on?

You're beginning to look just like Tony - who makes a mistake, then ends up
proclaiming it as the truth just so he can avoid admitting a mistake.

You made a mistake, and now you're desperately trying to defend a position that
my quote of Dr. Shaw illustrates is simply false.

And to defend a lie on *YOUR* part, you accuse me of something you can't
demonstrate.

How sad...

Lt.Bullitt

unread,
Apr 11, 2006, 6:31:45 PM4/11/06
to
Ben Holmes wrote:
> How sad...
>
>
> --
The only thing that might be sad (to you) is the fact that after 40
years the single bullet theory is still the most probable cause of how
the seven wounds were sustained to JFK & Gov. Connally. It has never
been disproven. You're a liar (to yourself mostly) if you think it
has. Certainly Connally's three surgeons never "concluded" it wasn't
true.

And please, before you foolishly call another person a liar, either
look up the meaning of the word or quit thinking everyone's a liar but
you. Paranoia is a dangerous thing if carried to far.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 11, 2006, 9:16:31 PM4/11/06
to
In article <1144794705.2...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, Lt.Bullitt
says...

>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> How sad...
>>
>>
>> --
>The only thing that might be sad (to you) is the fact that after 40
>years the single bullet theory is still the most probable cause of how
>the seven wounds were sustained to JFK & Gov. Connally. It has never
>been disproven.

Of course it has. CAT scans have proven that any bullet transiting JFK *MUST*
have gone through cervical vertebrae.

You've started with a speculation *NOT* based on a primary examination of the
body, and you've ended up with a travesty.


>You're a liar

And yet, you can't *QUOTE* any statement of mine that you claim is a lie, along
with a citation to the evidence that makes it so.

I keep challenging you kooks to do so, and no-one ever seems to even try...


> (to yourself mostly) if you think it has.


Feel free to check out a CAT scan yourself...


>Certainly Connally's three surgeons never "concluded" it wasn't true.


That was *NOT* your assertion. It's interesting that you've finally backed off
from your misrepresentation of the evidence... and yet can't bring yourself to
simply retract it.

An excellent demonstration of your character, no doubt.


>And please, before you foolishly call another person a liar, either
>look up the meaning of the word or quit thinking everyone's a liar but
>you. Paranoia is a dangerous thing if carried to far.

Lied, didn't you? You stated that the doctors had "concluded" that one bullet
had done all of Connally's injuries, yet the very first quote I gave listed
quite a different "conclusion", didn't it?

If you don't want to be called a liar, be careful what you assert on this forum,
we don't have any censorship here, and if you make a statement that is not in
line with the evidence and testimony, you'd better qualify it as your opinion -
or you're going to be correctly labeled a liar.

And yes, I *do* know what the term means.

Lt.Bullitt

unread,
Apr 11, 2006, 11:19:44 PM4/11/06
to
>The only thing that might be sad (to you) is the fact that after 40
>years the single bullet theory is still the most probable cause of how
>the seven wounds were sustained to JFK & Gov. Connally. It has never
>been disproven.

"Of course it has. CAT scans have proven that any bullet transiting
JFK *MUST*
have gone through cervical vertebrae."

You're living in denial if you actually believe what you just typed.
Try telling a serious assassination researcher that & see how long they
can keep a straight face. Looks like you think Fetzer & Mantik are the
best sources in regards to the SBT. How sad. There is 0 evidence to
support your silly claim. Where did the bullet go after it went
through JFK's vertebrae? Hmm? Sorry, but in the "real" world the SBT
has just grown stronger over the years. I guess in the world you live
in the 1st moon landing was a complete fraud & George Bush blew up the
twin towers.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Apr 12, 2006, 9:14:07 AM4/12/06
to


Yes, it takes JFK 4 frames to raise his hand that far up from a rested
position. Ask Dr. McCarthy. You were not even aware of his testimony.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 12, 2006, 9:38:52 AM4/12/06
to
In article <1144811984.3...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, Lt.Bullitt
says...

>
>>>The only thing that might be sad (to you) is the fact that after 40
>>>years the single bullet theory is still the most probable cause of how
>>>the seven wounds were sustained to JFK & Gov. Connally. It has never
>>>been disproven.
>
>> "Of course it has. CAT scans have proven that any bullet transiting
>> JFK *MUST* have gone through cervical vertebrae."
>
>You're living in denial if you actually believe what you just typed.

You took the words right out of my mouth...


>Try telling a serious assassination researcher that & see how long they
>can keep a straight face. Looks like you think Fetzer & Mantik are the
>best sources in regards to the SBT. How sad. There is 0 evidence to
>support your silly claim.

Other than a CAT scan, of course...

>Where did the bullet go after it went
>through JFK's vertebrae? Hmm?

Hint: It didn't.

>Sorry, but in the "real" world the SBT
>has just grown stronger over the years.

This would explain why the numbers of people that believe a conspiracy happened
have been growing over the years, and the minority that believe the WCR have
been shrinking.

Sorry... but you really *don't* have any facts to support that statement.

>I guess in the world you live in the 1st moon landing was a complete fraud
>& George Bush blew up the twin towers.

Nope. How silly! In fact, more than once I've pointed out that the polling
numbers that believe the "moon hoax" and the "we blew up the twin towers" are
numerically similar to the number of people that still believe in the WCR.

Now, can you *MEDICALLY* show a trajectory that will not pass through the
vertebrae?

Lt.Bullitt

unread,
Apr 12, 2006, 12:02:31 PM4/12/06
to
Ben Holmes wrote:

> >> "Of course it has. CAT scans have proven that any bullet transiting
> >> JFK *MUST* have gone through cervical vertebrae."
> >
> >You're living in denial if you actually believe what you just typed.
>
> You took the words right out of my mouth...
>
>
> >Try telling a serious assassination researcher that & see how long they
> >can keep a straight face. Looks like you think Fetzer & Mantik are the
> >best sources in regards to the SBT. How sad. There is 0 evidence to
> >support your silly claim.
>
> Other than a CAT scan, of course...

Your "belief" that David Mantik has disproven the SBT is not based in
reality. Your continued faith in Fetzer & Mantik show how far away
you are from the real world & really hamper your ability to critically
think about the case.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 12, 2006, 6:21:47 PM4/12/06
to

It's simply amazing how many outright cowards there are in the LNT'er ranks...

Snip and run, snip and run... it's all they know how to do.

In article <1144857751.0...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, Lt.Bullitt
says...


>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>
>> >> "Of course it has. CAT scans have proven that any bullet transiting
>> >> JFK *MUST* have gone through cervical vertebrae."
>> >
>> >You're living in denial if you actually believe what you just typed.
>>
>> You took the words right out of my mouth...
>>
>>
>> >Try telling a serious assassination researcher that & see how long they
>> >can keep a straight face. Looks like you think Fetzer & Mantik are the
>> >best sources in regards to the SBT. How sad. There is 0 evidence to
>> >support your silly claim.
>>
>> Other than a CAT scan, of course...
>
>Your "belief" that David Mantik has disproven the SBT is not based in
>reality.


And yet, you can't offer any rebuttal above the intellectual level of "no, your
wrong, I'm right". Facts don't faze you, nor does your inability to refute
evidence.


>Your continued faith in Fetzer & Mantik show how far away
>you are from the real world & really hamper your ability to critically
>think about the case.

How sad...

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages