A History of the Single-Bullet Theory Follies

[Tim Nickerson]

You guys don't even know the basics of the relevant evidence of your own case. Here's the HSCA wound diagram for the back wound:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HSCA-JFK-neck2-6-43.jpg

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M53a_Kennedy.pdf
7 HSCA, Figure 12, p. 100

Now, look at those HSCA illustrations and tell me why I am wrong to say that the HSCA FPP located the back wound slightly below or at least level with the throat wound. Let's hear it.

Notice, also, how far the HSCA FPP had to have JFK leaning forward.

And I note you avoided the fact that the FPP also observed that the back wound's abrasion collar proves the bullet struck the back at a slightly upward angle. That's why they had to assume JFK was leaning so far forward when the bullet struck.

Compare the HSCA FPP's Figure 12 with the WC's CE 385 and with Lattimer's Figure 8 in his Wound Ballistics Review article.

CE 385: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_385.pdf
Lattimer Figure 8: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/pdf/lattimer.pdf

Lattimer's downward trajectory through the neck seems to be slightly steeper than the WC's. It's definitely steeper than the HSCA FPP's. But, nah, the SBT still magically works! Never you mind the 10-15-degree differences in downward angles between the HSCA, WC, and Lattimer SBT illustrations! It just must work, lest we be forced to admit there were multiple gunmen!

Finally, I trust you're not denying that Myers puts the back wound noticeably above the throat wound, right? Look at his animation:

You can see that he has the back wound visibly above the throat wound (3:55-3:57). It's worth noting that Myers rotates Connally at least 25 degrees to the right (3:22-3:23). Curiously, Myers seems to be using Connally's rotation seen in Z238-242 as Connally's position when the SBT bullet allegedly struck (3:26-3:30), which of course is both erroneous and misleading, not to mention that it invalidates the Z224-lapel-flip SBT.

The drawing of JFK leaning significantly forward was not something that represented the view of the FPP as a whole. 

"Several members of the panel believe, based on an examination of these enhancements, that when the body is repositioned in the anatomic position (not the position at the moment of shooting) the direction of the missile in the body on initial penetration was slightly upward, inasmuch as the lower margin of the skin is abraded in an upward direction. Furthermore, the wound beneath the skin appears to be tunneled from below upward."

Several members of the panel, not the panel as a whole. Not even a majority.

The FPP determined that the entry wound on Kennedy was superior to the ribs. Meaning that it was in the neck. While Kennedy appeared to be hunched forward due to his hunchback physique, he didn't need to be hunched forward much at all for the bullet to traverse his neck at a downward angle of 17.5 degrees.

Your claim that "the HSCA established that the back wound is actually slightly below the throat wound, or at least level with it" is false.

Your claim that "In his SBT analysis, Myers has his Connally figure rotated 15 degrees to the right" is false.

Nothing that you offered in that above alters those two facts. 

Your OP contains others false claims as well.

[Michael T. Griffith]

The drawing of JFK leaning significantly forward was not something that represented the view of the FPP as a whole.

I'm afraid you again do not know what you are talking about. Figure 12 was in the FPP's final report. Only Dr. Wecht dissented from any part of the report. Dr. Baden, the FPP chairman, endorsed that marked forward lean in a TV interview to explain how the bullet could have hit at the panel's location for the back wound, which was at least 1 inch lower than the WC's placement, and still have exited the throat.

"Several members of the panel believe, based on an examination of these enhancements, that when the body is repositioned in the anatomic position (not the position at the moment of shooting) the direction of the missile in the body on initial penetration was slightly upward, inasmuch as the lower margin of the skin is abraded in an upward direction. Furthermore, the wound beneath the skin appears to be tunneled from below upward."

You are missing the point of this statement and misapplying it. Even Dr. Wecht agreed that the abrasion collar shows the bullet hit at a slightly upward angle. The statement alludes to the second illustration in Figure 12, which shows JFK in three positions: upright, leaning somewhat forward, leaning markedly forward. This statement also reflects the dispute between Wecht and the rest of the FPP over the implications of the abrasion collar relating to the bullet's alleged course through the neck. The key admission here is that "the wound beneath the skin" is tunneled "from below upward."

The FPP majority's argument that the bullet's path would have been upward only with JFK in the anatomical position is nonsense, and is refuted by Figure 12. Even in Figure 12's third position in the right-side illustration, the back wound is still at least level with the throat wound, but this can be obscured to the casual viewer by the two other positions in the right-side illustration, but the left-side illustration makes this clear because there are no distractions from overlaps from the two other positions.

As Wecht later noted, no matter how much forward lean you assume for JFK above the horizontal plane, upward tunneling below the skin is upward tunneling below the skin and totally contradicts the trajectory from the sixth-floor window--unless you have JFK doubled over so that he is below the horizontal plane, which of course not even Baden was willing to do.

The FPP determined that the entry wound on Kennedy was superior to the ribs. Meaning that it was in the neck. While Kennedy appeared to be hunched forward due to his hunchback physique, he didn't need to be hunched forward much at all for the bullet to traverse his neck at a downward angle of 17.5 degrees.

This is more of your self-delusion and misrepresentation of the FPP's findings. For starters, the FPP said the back wound was located in "the upper right back" (12 HSCA 80). Let me repeat that: "the upper right back." Not the neck. "The upper right back."

Second, compare HSCA FPP Figure 24 with CEs 385 and 386. The FPP not only located the wound at least 1 inch lower than did the WC but also closer to the spine/farther away from the right ear.

But, magically, the SBT trajectory still works! Move the wound down and to the right, but, don't worry, the trajectory will somehow, someway still magically work.

Your claim that "the HSCA established that the back wound is actually slightly below the throat wound, or at least level with it" is false.

Umm, no, it is not. You've offered nothing that proves it is false and have ignored the evidence that proves it is true. HSCA FPP Figure 12 proves that the FPP put the wound level with or slightly below the throat wound.

You have a habit of proclaiming things to be false without proving your claim in the slightest and while ignoring contrary evidence. Look at how many times you have made the bizarre, demonstrably false claim that the 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment are the same fragment. This is not only self-evidently erroneous but just plain odd.

Again, compare HSCA FPP Figure 24 with CEs 385 and 386. The FPP not only located the wound at least 1 inch lower but also closer to the spine than did the WC.

Your claim that "In his SBT analysis, Myers has his Connally figure rotated 15 degrees to the right" is false.

First off, I said "Myers rotates Connally at least 25 degrees to the right," not just 15 degrees. If you don't see this, then you don't understand rotation angles and how to measure them.

I note that you ignored the fact that Myers uses Connally's rotation seen in Z238 and applies it to the moment of impact, which of course invalidates his bogus animation from the get-go. Connally was barely rotated at all in Z224, when the SBT allegedly hit him.

Folks, to get some idea of the ball of confusion that exists in the SBT camp, compare how Myers has Connally positioned and rotated to how NASA's Dr. Tom Canning positioned and rotated Connally in his SBT analysis for the HSCA. You will wonder if they were viewing the same photographic evidence.

[Lance Payette]

I am not an SBT fanatic, but there are so many variables and unknowns that it seems to me that attempting to poke holes in the SBT really isn't productive. It's like Cliff Varnell at the Ed Forum, who insists the alignment of the holes in the clothing, the back wound and the throat wound is IMPOSSIBLE, CASE CLOSED, NOTHING FURTHER TO DISCUSS, IF YOU DON'T AGREE YOU'RE JUST A FOOL. But then Cliff has no plausible theory of his own. It's just "coincidence" that the alignment is as close as it is, and the throat wound was the frontal entry of a CIA-issued ice bullet that melted before it exited the body. Well, Cliffaroo, ya know ....

It seems to me that if you want to attack the SBT, you need a genuinely plausible, evidence-based alternative theory. To work backwards from "there are problems with the SBT" to "there must have been a second gunman who fired at nearly the same time as Oswald" seems to me to be just non-evidence-based and pretty implausible ad hoc speculation. To engage in that sort of speculation, we would need to be able to say the SBT is IMPOSSIBLE - and there are just too many variables and unknowns to be able to say this, no matter how many forensic experts and pseudo-experts insist they have recreated "exactly" what occurred.

[Tim Nickerson]

I'm afraid you again do not know what you are talking about. Figure 12 was in the FPP's final report. Only Dr. Wecht dissented from any part of the report. Dr. Baden, the FPP chairman, endorsed that marked forward lean in a TV interview to explain how the bullet could have hit at the panel's location for the back wound, which was at least 1 inch lower than the WC's placement, and still have exited the throat.

You are missing the point of this statement and misapplying it. Even Dr. Wecht agreed that the abrasion collar shows the bullet hit at a slightly upward angle. The statement alludes to the second illustration in Figure 12, which shows JFK in three positions: upright, leaning somewhat forward, leaning markedly forward. This statement also reflects the dispute between Wecht and the rest of the FPP over the implications of the abrasion collar relating to the bullet's alleged course through the neck. The key admission here is that "the wound beneath the skin" is tunneled "from below upward."

The FPP majority's argument that the bullet's path would have been upward only with JFK in the anatomical position is nonsense, and is refuted by Figure 12. Even in Figure 12's third position in the right-side illustration, the back wound is still at least level with the throat wound, but this can be obscured to the casual viewer by the two other positions in the right-side illustration, but the left-side illustration makes this clear because there are no distractions from overlaps from the two other positions.

As Wecht later noted, no matter how much forward lean you assume for JFK above the horizontal plane, upward tunneling below the skin is upward tunneling below the skin and totally contradicts the trajectory from the sixth-floor window--unless you have JFK doubled over so that he is below the horizontal plane, which of course not even Baden was willing to do.

This is more of your self-delusion and misrepresentation of the FPP's findings. For starters, the FPP said the back wound was located in "the upper right back" (12 HSCA 80). Let me repeat that: "the upper right back." Not the neck. "The upper right back."

Second, compare HSCA FPP Figure 24 with CEs 385 and 386. The FPP not only located the wound at least 1 inch lower than did the WC but also closer to the spine/farther away from the right ear.

But, magically, the SBT trajectory still works! Move the wound down and to the right, but, don't worry, the trajectory will somehow, someway still magically work.

Umm, no, it is not. You've offered nothing that proves it is false and have ignored the evidence that proves it is true. HSCA FPP Figure 12 proves that the FPP put the wound level with or slightly below the throat wound.

You have a habit of proclaiming things to be false without proving your claim in the slightest and while ignoring contrary evidence. Look at how many times you have made the bizarre, demonstrably false claim that the 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment are the same fragment. This is not only self-evidently erroneous but just plain odd.

Again, compare HSCA FPP Figure 24 with CEs 385 and 386. The FPP not only located the wound at least 1 inch lower but also closer to the spine than did the WC.

It was not an FPP majority argument that the bullet's path would have been upward in Kennedy. It was an FPP minority belief. Baden was one of the several members of the minority.

The FPP determined that the entry wound on Kennedy was superior to the ribs. T1 is the vertebrae for the uppermost rib. The wound was above that vertebrae. It was in the neck.  That conclusion of the panel was no doubt based somewhat on the fact that the right transverse processes of T1 and C7 were damaged.

In examining posrterior autopsy photos, the FPP determined that the entry wound was 6 cm below the most prominent neck crease. The Clark panel found it to be 5.5 cm below that crease. That skin fold in visible in the left lateral view. The throat wound is visible as well. The Clark panel measured that throat wound to be about 9 cm below the skin fold. Kennedy really didn't need to be leaning forward much as all for the bullet to traverse downward through the neck as it did. Thomas Canning determined that he was hunched forward between 11° and 18°.



The 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment are the same fragment. Humes did not remove the 7 x 2 mm fragment from the frontal skull bone, as you foolishly claim. 

First off, I said "Myers rotates Connally at least 25 degrees to the right," not just 15 degrees. If you don't see this, then you don't understand rotation angles and how to measure them.

I note that you ignored the fact that Myers uses Connally's rotation seen in Z238 and applies it to the moment of impact, which of course invalidates his bogus animation from the get-go. Connally was barely rotated at all in Z224, when the SBT allegedly hit him.

Folks, to get some idea of the ball of confusion that exists in the SBT camp, compare how Myers has Connally positioned and rotated to how NASA's Dr. Tom Canning positioned and rotated Connally in his SBT analysis for the HSCA. You will wonder if they were viewing the same photographic evidence.

"Computer analysis shows that JBC turned sharply to the right beginning at Z157. This right turn continues until Z193 where JBC's shoulders are rotated 48 degrees right, relative to the midline of the limousine. At this point, JBC begins a slow rotation leftward. This smooth leftward turn continues until frame 223. At this point JBC's shoulders are rotated 37 degrees right, relative to the limousine. JBC's sharp right turn of 48 degrees, and the subsequent leftward rotation of 11 degrees is the only such movement prior to the first impact."

https://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl1.htm

You claimed that Myers has his Connally figure rotated 15 degrees to the right.  I do understand rotation angles and how to measure them.  Your claim is false.

Thomas Canning determined that Connally was rotated about 30 degrees to the right. You've been at this stuff for decades and you're still as ignorant on it as ever. 

[Tom Graves]

"Computer analysis shows that JBC turned sharply to the right beginning at Z157. This right turn continues until Z193 where JBC's shoulders are rotated 48 degrees right, relative to the midline of the limousine. At this point, JBC begins a slow rotation leftward. This smooth leftward turn continues until frame 223. At this point JBC's shoulders are rotated 37 degrees right, relative to the limousine. JBC's sharp right turn of 48 degrees, and the subsequent leftward rotation of 11 degrees is the only such movement prior to the first impact."

https://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl1.htm

Thomas Canning determined that Connally was rotated about 30 degrees to the right.

So, which is it?

37 degrees, or about 30 degrees?

Split the difference?

[Tim Nickerson]

So, which is it?

37 degrees, or about 30 degrees?

Split the difference?

Canning wasn't trying to be precise. However, I usually go with the 30 degree figure. You can split the difference if you like.

A right rotation of 30 degrees moves the point on Connally's back where the bullet entered 3.25 inches to the left.

[Tom Graves]

Canning wasn't trying to be precise. However, I usually go with the 30 degree figure. You can split the difference if you like.

A right rotation of 30 degrees moves the point on Connally's back where the bullet entered 3.25 inches to the left.

Thanks.

This is at Z-223?

[Tim Nickerson]

Thanks.

This is at Z-223?

Yes. If you were to use Myers' 37 degrees, then the point of entry would be even more to the left. When taking the maximum of 8.6 inches provided by ITEK plus that 3.25 inches given by the 30 degree right rotation, the lateral angle of trajectory part of the SBT is beyond being destroyed by CTs.