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 Historical content remains viewable.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

The Single-Bullet Theory: A Common-Sense Approach

26 views
Skip to first unread message

David Von Pein

unread,
Feb 25, 2007, 1:09:44 AM2/25/07
to
THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY:

A LOGICAL AND COMMON-SENSE APPROACH TO IT

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

Here are some of my thoughts regarding the Single-Bullet Theory, and
the likelihood that ANY conspiracy-oriented alternative could be MORE
credible than the SBT (given the known wounds in the two victims and
other known evidence surrounding the 11/22/63 shooting event). ......

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

If the Single-Bullet Theory is 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.*

* = Mark Fuhrman's anti-SBT, pro-LN stance notwithstanding here.
Because there are numerous reasons why I feel that Mr. Fuhrman is
wrong when he asserts that a bullet went all the way through JFK,
missed John Connally, and also failed to plunge into the seats or the
floor of the limousine in front of Kennedy. Here's why Fuhrman is just
flat-out wrong re. his analysis:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4c7616a35ac60e22

If conspiracy theorists 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 -- okay.
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 CTers want to argue 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 theory that we're forced to substitute for the official
SBT falls apart on 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......

ARLEN 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?"

ROBERT FRAZIER -- "No, sir."

-- Or: --

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

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

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

3.) The 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
and 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 within such a covert 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?

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 lone-assassin scenario rests on the very logical and
sound shoulders of the Single-Bullet Theory -- 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 and 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-and-out guesses by the CT community) are far less
credible and less substantive and far less believable than is the
official version of the event -- the SBT.

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.

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.

Based on what I've seen of 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 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 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

David Von Pein
May 2005
February 2007

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

RELATED LINKS (ROOTED IN SOME ADDITIONAL COMMON SENSE):

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

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8ee3ea6cfa4a58c9

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bed05a055b2f4133

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bf3ae3c6c0993e13

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6f6c34dca27986d7

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

Walt

unread,
Feb 25, 2007, 6:01:13 AM2/25/07
to
On 25 Feb, 00:09, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY:
>
> A LOGICAL AND COMMON-SENSE APPROACH TO IT

Oxymoron.....A figure of speech in which contradictory terms are
brought together.....Like

THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY ------ LOGICAL AND COMMON-SENSE


I'm starting to worry about the LNer's...... If they really believe
the SBT is logical and commonsense....We've got a lot of people
( though still a small minority) running loose, who are playin with
less than a full deck.

Walt


aeffects

unread,
Feb 25, 2007, 8:21:08 AM2/25/07
to


yep, logic and common sense, when you the JFK assassination, combine
the OTHER assassinations with the attempted assassinations during that
60's decade... you don't need to wonder about logic and common sense.

Nutter's simply want the status quo -- a 40+ year comfortable history
they can (in denial) live and age with... Keep 'dem nasty ole commies
contained, if you will.....

Gil Jesus

unread,
Feb 25, 2007, 8:45:33 AM2/25/07
to

While I agree with you Walt, it amazes me that there are people out
there who think that every shot fired from every weapon HAS to exit
what it hits. Of course, in their minds, there has never been a bullet
that has not exited. Perhaps they think that all ammunition is
military-style ammunition.

But their theory is blown away by the autopsy doctors who indicated
that Dr. Humes was able to feel the end of the wound with the tip of
his finger. Of course, to the "logical and commonsense" mind, this may
mean nothing, but to those of us less enlightened, it means that the
bullet that made that particular wound DID NOT EXIT.

That bullet was removed at Walter Reed and handed over to the Secret
Service, who then gave it to the FBI at Bethesda, receiving a
"receipt" from the FBI for one "missile".

The shape of the throat wound alone, with its jagged edges and gaping
hole, was not as it was when the body left Parkland Hospital.

The wound was mutilated by the doctors at Walter Reed in their
attempt to locate and remove the bullet. They knew the bullet was in
there somewhere because it DID NOT EXIT. They did such a hack job,
that they eradicated any trace that there was a bullet hole there, and
as a result, the autopsy doctors at Bethesda MISSED the bullet wound
in the throat.

Humes was so confused by the condition of the wounds that he was
unable to determine which type of wound they were, calling the back
wound "presumably of entrance" and the throat wound "presumably of
exit".

This was because the wounds had been enlarged so much in order to
remove the bullets, that it was impossible to determine from which
direction the shots had come.

Despite this problem, Humes went to his rec room and wrote out an
autopsy report.

Once Oswald was dead, however, the autopsy revisions began.


Walt

unread,
Feb 25, 2007, 10:00:33 AM2/25/07
to
On 25 Feb, 07:45, "Gil Jesus" <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On 25 Feb, 00:09, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY ------ LOGICAL AND COMMON-SENSE
>
> > I'm starting to worry about the LNer's...... If they really believe
> > the SBT is logical and commonsense....We've got a lot of people
> > ( though still a small minority) running loose, who are playin with
> > less than a full deck.
>
> > Walt
>
> While I agree with you Walt, it amazes me that there are people out
> there who think that every shot fired from every weapon HAS to exit
> what it hits. Of course, in their minds, there has never been a bullet
> that has not exited. Perhaps they think that all ammunition is
> military-style ammunition.
>
> But their theory is blown away by the autopsy doctors who indicated
> that Dr. Humes was able to feel the end of the wound with the tip of
> his finger. Of course, to the "logical and commonsense" mind, this may
> mean nothing, but to those of us less enlightened, it means that the
> bullet that made that particular wound DID NOT EXIT.

Gil, that back wound was the EXIT point for the bullet that struck JFK
in the throat.

We're talkin about logic and commonsense, right?.....

I can't believe much of what the autopsy doctors said.... Some were
part of the conspiracy, and others realized very quickly that this was
no ordinary murder.... They knew it was a Coup d etat and they rather
enjoyed breathing.

So regardless what Humes said he was lying..... I challenge you to
take a ordinary lead pencil and poke it through a piece of paper and
then try to put your finger through the hole. A 6.5mm bullet makes
an ENTRANCE hole SMALLER than a lead pencil. Dr Humes could NOT
have probed an ENTRANCE wound with his finger PERIOD!!

He probed an EXIT wound in which the bullet had started to yaw.....The
sidewise traveling bullet created an ELONGATED EXIT wound 4mm X 7mm
( which is still too small to probe with a finger) Since the skin
and muscle will stretch it's posible that Humes did penetrate perhaps
an inch, but that was as far as he could go. We don't know exactly
where that bullet started to yaw, but it could be the point that Dr
Humes thought was the end of the "ENTRANCE??" hole.

>
> That bullet was removed at Walter Reed and handed over to the Secret
> Service, who then gave it to the FBI at Bethesda, receiving a
> "receipt" from the FBI for one "missile".

Substantiation please.


>
> The shape of the throat wound alone, with its jagged edges and gaping
> hole, was not as it was when the body left Parkland Hospital.

That's correct..... ALL ALL of the doctors who saw the throat wound at
Parkland identified it in there minds as an ENTRANCE wound. They had
seen hundreds of bullet wounds so they knew what an entrance wound
looked like.

>
> The wound was mutilated by the doctors at Walter Reed in their
> attempt to locate and remove the bullet. They knew the bullet was in
> there somewhere because it DID NOT EXIT. They did such a hack job,
> that they eradicated any trace that there was a bullet hole there, and
> as a result, the autopsy doctors at Bethesda MISSED the bullet wound
> in the throat.

I believe they mutilated the throat wound to decieve to autopsy
doctors into believing that throat wound was an EXIT wound.

>
> Humes was so confused by the condition of the wounds that he was
> unable to determine which type of wound they were, calling the back
> wound "presumably of entrance" and the throat wound "presumably of
> exit".

Confused?? Yes he was.....and I'd like to point out that Humes had
consumed some alcohol prior to the autopsy. So I wonder if he was
sober.


Walt

YoHarvey

unread,
Feb 25, 2007, 10:11:19 AM2/25/07
to


Walter Reed?????????????????????????? Gil "Chico" Jesus with MORE
science fiction!!! Does he offer PROOF?? Nope. I've asked Chico 7
times to back up his statement that: JFK's body was switched at
Parkland. Does he offer PROOF? Nope. Chico apparently is a David
Lifton groupie!! Tell us Chico, do you also agree with LIfton that
Dealey Plaza consisted of underground tunnels built so the assassins
could escape? Do you agree with Lifton that their were shooters in
the "plastic" trees that were removed from the Plaza on the night of
11/22????? Chico and his band of merry CT's are terribly entertaining
and remarkably consistent in their stupidity...but hey, it's a free
country and these
idiots can be very amusing. Do they respond to even one issue raised
by DVP? Of course not. They can't. All they can consistently do is
provide us with
scenarios so far out in left field as to be cartoonish. Chico? Help
society. Don't have children.

Herbert Blenner

unread,
Feb 25, 2007, 1:24:45 PM2/25/07
to
On Feb 25, 1:09�am, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY:
>
> A LOGICAL AND COMMON-SENSE APPROACH TO IT
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Here are some of my thoughts regarding the Single-Bullet Theory, and
> the likelihood that ANY conspiracy-oriented alternative could be MORE
> credible than the SBT (given the known wounds in the two victims and
> other known evidence surrounding the 11/22/63 shooting event). ......
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

The HSCA had to change the shape of President Kennedy's back wound and
alter the cause of Governor Connally's back wound in order to argue
wounding by a common bullet. In particular the FPP transformed the
highly eccentric oval hole in President Kennedy's back into a nearly
round hole. This transformation, effected by a drawing of the wound,
changed the striking angle of the bullet by about 45 degree. In this
manner the HSCA evaded the insurmountable problem of how an obstacle
between Kennedy's back and neck deflected a supersonic bullet by the
better part of 45 degree and emerged with a substantial fraction of
its entrance speed.

Even worse the FPP attempted to rewrite the book on forensic analysis.
They resorted to another drawing that showed a bullet with yaw made an
elliptical hole. This was their wimpish counter to the accepted
explanation that a tangential entry by a bullet with negligible yaw
makes an elliptical hole while a bullet with considerable yaw makes a
nearly rectangular hole. So in reality two of the initial three wounds
of the SBT rests upon two drawings that dispute the physical
evidence.

The FPP mimicked the WC by failing to provide a reasonable explanation
for the approximate 25 degree deflection required by the alleged
transit of a bullet from Connally's chest to his thigh by way of the
wrist. On this point, SBT defenders universally falter.

Medical examination of Connally's wrist wounds showed that the bullet
smashed bone with negligible grazing. Under these conditions the
direction of the force from the yielding bone is aligned with the
direction of the bullet. So the assumption that the wrist deflected
the single bullet from a straight path fails.

In fact the FPP denied the only qualitatively reasonable explanation
advanced by Dr. Shaw that a grazing collision with Connally's rib
deflected the bullet. This knee jerk reaction left the FPP up a creek
without a paddle. As a result SBT apologists exercised their
imaginations. For example, one drawing shows a bullet deflecting upon
entering Connally, holding a straight path during transit then
deflecting upon exit. If this weren't so sad it would be laughable.

The bottom line is attributing six of the seven wounds to a single
bullet wholly rests upon the accuracy of the observations by the
Parkland doctors, who according to some could not tell whether the
large gaping hole in Kennedy's head was in front or in the rear.

Herbert

> 3.) All wounds to both men are perfectly ...
>
> read more »


Walt

unread,
Feb 25, 2007, 8:36:12 PM2/25/07
to
On 25 Feb, 12:24, "Herbert Blenner" <a1ea...@aol.com> wrote:

Herbert, I can't find any memo written by a doctor who was right
there in Trauma Room #1 who says the gapping hole was in the front of
the head. Can you direct me to a memo weitten by a Parkland doctor who
actually saw the wounds who said the large hole was in the front of
the head?

Walt

> > read more ?


David Von Pein

unread,
Mar 17, 2007, 7:52:14 AM3/17/07
to
>>> "Medical examination of Connally's wrist wounds showed that the bullet smashed bone with negligible grazing. Under these conditions the direction of the force from the yielding bone is aligned with the direction of the bullet. So the assumption that the wrist deflected the single bullet from a straight path fails." <<<

And you somehow know EXACTLY what angle John Connally's wrist was
situated (in direct relation to the impacting bullet) at the instant
the bullet struck....right?

One simple question re. that --- How??

0 new messages