A History of the Single-Bullet Theory Follies

[Michael T. Griffith]

Mr. SPECTER - Referring now to the front side of the Governor's shirt, what, if anything, did you observe with respect to a tear or a hole thereon, as to the body of the shirt?
Mr. FRAZIER - I found in the right chest area of the shirt, considering the shirt when it is being worn, a very irregular tear more or less in the form of an "H," of the letter "H." This tear was approximately 1 1/2 inches in height, with the crossbar tear being approximately 1 inch in width, which caused a very irregularly shaped and enlarged hole in the front of the shirt. The hole is located 5 inches from the right-side seam, and 9 inches below the top of the right sleeve. The 9-inch figure is from the top of the right shoulder where the sleeve adjoins the yoke of the shirt.
Mr. SPECTER - Had that garment been cleaned and pressed, Mr. Frazier, prior to the time you examined it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - Were there sufficient characteristics then remaining on the hole on the front side to enable you to formulate an opinion as to the cause of the hole?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - Could it have been caused by a 6.5 millimeter bullet exiting from the chest of the Governor?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it could.
Mr. SPECTER - Now what, if anything----
Mr. DULLES - Could I ask there, would the size and character of this hole indicate the condition of the bullet, I mean as to whether it was tumbling or whether it was a mutilated bullet or anything of that kind?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it would not.
Mr. DULLES - Even a bullet in full flight, full velocity could have made this kind of a hole in the shirt?
Mr. FRAZIER - It could have, particularly if the shirt had been wrinkled at the time it passed through, and particularly because the material in this shirt tore rather severely at the time the object passed through, indicating a very weak structure of the cotton fiber, so that it would tear out of all proportion to a stronger fabric.
And for that reason, the shape of the hole could be affected by the condition of the material as well as any folds in the material or, as you say, by a mutilated bullet or a passage of a bullet through the cloth at an angle to the surface or the passing of a bullet partially sideways through the cloth.

Oh, well, that settles it! Frazier said that CE 399, a virtually undeformed bullet, could have made the "very irregular tear," shaped like an H, 1.5 inches high, 1.75 inches wide on the right side of the H, 1.25 inches on the left side of the H, with a 1-inch wide crossbar tear connecting the sides of the H, so it must be true--never mind that the exit hole in Connally's coat was only 0.5 inches high (i.e., just half an inch high) and 0.38 inches wide and was nearly perfectly circular!

Did you stop to think about this before you posted it? Why not try thinking for yourself instead of blindly accepting every factoid the FBI peddled?

Now think, just think: How could the same bullet that tore a 1.5-inch x 1.75-inch/1.25-inch H-shaped hole in the shirt have then torn a hole in the coat that was 200% smaller in height and width than the hole in the shirt? How would that work?

Look at these high-quality, close-up photos of the holes in Connally's coat and shirt:

https://share.google/meleOhNbOCbAGaReB

I notice you once again declined to face the fact that we know that no bullet exited the shirt slits because there was no hole in the tie and there is no way a bullet exiting the slits could have magically weaved around the body of the knot and then nicked the top of the knot near the left edge. Ignoring this hard physical evidence will not make it go away.

[Tom Graves]

Oh, well, that settles it! Frazier said that CE 399, a virtually undeformed bullet, could have made the "very irregular tear," shaped like an H, 1.5 inches high, 1.75 inches wide on the right side of the H, 1.25 inches on the left side of the H, with a 1-inch wide crossbar tear connecting the sides of the H, so it must be true--never mind that the exit hole in Connally's coat was only 0.5 inches high (i.e., just half an inch high) and 0.38 inches wide and was nearly perfectly circular!

Did you stop to think about this before you posted it? Why not try thinking for yourself instead of blindly accepting every factoid the FBI peddled?

Now think, just think: How could the same bullet that tore a 1.5-inch x 1.75-inch/1.25-inch H-shaped hole in the shirt have then torn a hole in the coat that was 200% smaller in height and width than the hole in the shirt[/b][/i]? How would that work?

Look at these high-quality, close-up photos of the holes in Connally's coat and shirt:

https://share.google/meleOhNbOCbAGaReB

I notice you once again declined to face the fact that we know that no bullet exited the shirt slits because there was no hole in the tie and there is no way a bullet exiting the slits could have magically weaved around the body of the knot and then nicked the top of the knot near the left edge. Ignoring this hard physical evidence will not make it go away.

Comrade Griffith,

Why do you keep spreading KGB-approved lies like, "CE-399 is virtually undeformed"?

How much does "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin pay you, anyway?

-- Tom

[Michael T. Griffith]

Comrade Griffith, Why do you keep spreading KGB-approved lies like, "CE-399 is virtually undeformed"? How much does "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin pay you, anyway? -- Tom

Why do you keep denying reality? Or is your eyesight just extremely poor? As anyone can see in the photos of CE 399, the bullet has no deformation whatsoever except for a slight deformation at its base, which is not even visible unless you look at the photo of the bottom of the bullet. One can also see that the bullet's lands and grooves are intact. And, as no one disputes, the bullet weighed only 2.4 grains less after its alleged journey through two men than it did before it was fired, which means that it retained 98.5% of its substance.

Are you so pathologically determined to believe in the lone-gunman theory that you can't see what everyone else can see in the photos of CE 399? Are you aware that the WC described CE 399 as "a nearly whole bullet," and that the FBI's ballistics expert Robert Frazier said the bullet was only "slightly flattened" at its base?

Why are we even talking about CE 399's condition when you refuse to face the fact that we know that no bullet exited the shirt slits because there was no hole in the tie and because there is no way a bullet exiting the slits could have magically weaved around the body of the knot and then nicked the top of the knot? Why do you keep Ignoring this hard physical evidence? If a bullet had exited the shirt slits, it could not have missed the tie knot, but there was no hole through the tie, only a nick on the top of the knot.

[Tom Graves]

Why do you keep denying reality? Or is your eyesight just extremely poor? As anyone can see in the photos of CE 399, the bullet has no deformation whatsoever except for a slight deformation at its base, which is not even visible unless you look at the photo of the bottom of the bullet. One can also see that the bullet's lands and grooves are intact. And, as no disputes, the bullet weighed only 2.4 grains less after its alleged journey through two men than it did before it was fired, which means that it retained 98.5% of its substance.

Are you so pathologically determined to believe in the lone-gunman theory that you can't see what everyone else can see in the photos of CE 399? Are you aware that the WC described CE 399 as "a nearly whole bullet," and that the FBI's ballistics expert Robert Frazier said the bullet was only "slightly flattened" at its base?

Why are we even talking about CE 399's condition when you refuse to face the fact that we know that no bullet exited the shirt slits because there was no hole in the tie and because there is no way a bullet exiting the slits could have magically weaved around the body of the knot and then nicked the top of the knot? Why do you keep Ignoring this hard physical evidence? If a bullet had exited the shirt slits, it could not have missed the tie knot, but there was no hole through the tile, only a nick on the top of the knot.

There you go, again, Comrade Griffith!

Btw, you never answered my question on another thread:

Did they [the geniuses at the FBI or wherever] try firing the kind of bullets Oswald killed JFK with through a living man's lower neck/upper back (or through a corpse or a block of ballistics gel in case there were no volunteers) in such a way that the bullet would then travel about three feet and penetrate a turned-35-degrees-to-his-right living man's (or corpse's) chest from back-to-front, ride along (and smash) his fifth rib in the process, exit below his nipple, and then penetrate his wrist butt-end-first and strike in the living man (or corpse) the only hard bone that CE-399 is known to have hit in either JFK or JBC, the volunteer's (or corpse's) radial bone, while tumbling and/or twirling?

Tangentially (pardon the pun), are you aware of the fact that CE-399 ended up with a longitudinal twist?

How do you suppose that happened?

Do you postulate that it was manufactured by Chubby Checker?

[Michael T. Griffith]

There you go, again, Comrade Griffith!

Btw, you never answered my question on another thread:

Did they [the geniuses at the FBI or wherever] try firing the kind of bullets Oswald killed JFK with through a living man's lower neck/upper back (or through a corpse or a block of ballistics gel in case there were no volunteers) in such a way that the bullet would then travel about three feet and penetrate a turned-35-degrees-to-his-right living man's (or corpse's) chest from back-to-front, ride along (and smash) his fifth rib in the process, exit below his nipple, and then penetrate his wrist butt-end-first and strike in the living man (or corpse) the only hard bone that CE-399 is known to have hit in either JFK or JBC, the volunteer's (or corpse's) radial bone, while tumbling and/or twirling?

Tangentially (pardon the pun), are you aware of the fact that CE-399 ended up with a longitudinal twist? How do you suppose that happened? Do you postulate that it was manufactured by Chubby Checker?

So never mind that even Frazier said CE 399 is only "slightly flattened." Never mind the photos of CE 399. Never mind that bullets merely fired into cotton wadding emerged with the same or more damage as CE 399. Just never mind all that.

And now you have declared that all wound ballistics tests are a waste of time. According to your silly question, no such test can be valid unless it involves live humans and hits at exactly the same angles and speed alleged for the original bullet. What a stupendously silly, uneducated argument. Be sure to contact all the forensic and wound ballistics experts who conduct wound ballistics tests and tell them they're wasting their time!

Why are we even talking about CE 399's condition when you refuse to face the fact that we know that no bullet exited the shirt slits because there was no hole in the tie and because there is no way a bullet exiting the slits could have magically weaved around the body of the knot and then nicked the top of the knot? Why do you keep Ignoring this hard physical evidence? If a bullet had exited the shirt slits, it could not have missed the tie knot, but there was no hole through the tie, only a nick on the top of the knot (which was made by one of the Parkland nurses as they hurriedly cut away JFK's clothing).

[Tom Graves]

So never mind that even Frazier said CE 399 is only "slightly flattened." Never mind the photos of CE 399. Never mind that bullets merely fired into cotton wadding emerged with the same or more damage as CE 399. Just never mind all that.

And now you have declared that all wound ballistics tests are a waste of time. According to your silly question, no such test can be valid unless it involves live humans and hits at exactly the same angles and speed alleged for the original bullet. What a stupendously silly, uneducated argument. Be sure to contact all the forensic and wound ballistics experts who conduct wound ballistics tests and tell them they're wasting their time!

Why are we even talking about CE 399's condition when you refuse to face the fact that we know that no bullet exited the shirt slits because there was no hole in the tie and because there is no way a bullet exiting the slits could have magically weaved around the body of the knot and then nicked the top of the knot? Why do you keep Ignoring this hard physical evidence? If a bullet had exited the shirt slits, it could not have missed the tie knot, but there was no hole through the tie, only a nick on the top of the knot (which was made by one of the Parkland nurses as they hurriedly cut away JFK's clothing).

Dear Comrade Griffith,

Firing a Carcano bullet through two live human beings or, if you insist, two corpses (or, if you're running really low on corpses, just one largish one of the male type "sitting in" for JBC about three feet in front of, and significantly lower and farther to the left than a large boneless block of ballistics gel (representing JFK's upper torso and neck), and, most importantly, turned 35 degrees to his right, is not necessary for ballistics analysis to determine whether or not CE-399 was fired from Oswald's Carcano to the exclusion of all other firearms in the known universe, but it would be necessary to do (perhaps a trillion times!) in order to replicate exactly the damage that CE-399 did to itself and to JBC's fifth rib and radial bone after it penetrated JFK's lower neck / upper back while travelling about 1,300 mph, nicked the transverse process of his T-1 vertebra, bruised the top of his lung, and exited his throat just below his Adam's apple.

The lesson yet to be learned by Comrade Griffith:

Cherry-picking, hyperbole and gaslighting will get you nowhere (except, perhaps, another lucrative, KGB-approved tinfoil-hat JFKA book contract).

But then, again, maybe that's why you're here.

Either that, or "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin wants you to be here so that you can continue spreading (perhaps even unwittingly!) KGB-endorsed JFKA . . . uhh . . ."fibs."

-- Tom

[Tim Nickerson]

Oh, well, that settles it! Frazier said that CE 399, a virtually undeformed bullet, could have made the "very irregular tear," shaped like an H, 1.5 inches high, 1.75 inches wide on the right side of the H, 1.25 inches on the left side of the H, with a 1-inch wide crossbar tear connecting the sides of the H, so it must be true--never mind that the exit hole in Connally's coat was only 0.5 inches high (i.e., just half an inch high) and 0.38 inches wide and was nearly perfectly circular!

Did you stop to think about this before you posted it? Why not try thinking for yourself instead of blindly accepting every factoid the FBI peddled?

Now think, just think: How could the same bullet that tore a 1.5-inch x 1.75-inch/1.25-inch H-shaped hole in the shirt have then torn a hole in the coat that was 200% smaller in height and width than the hole in the shirt? How would that work?

Look at these high-quality, close-up photos of the holes in Connally's coat and shirt:

https://share.google/meleOhNbOCbAGaReB

What exactly are you saying? That the hole in the jacket and the hole in the shirt were not caused by the same object? That is what you're saying, even though you don't realize it.

I notice you once again declined to face the fact that we know that no bullet exited the shirt slits because there was no hole in the tie and there is no way a bullet exiting the slits could have magically weaved around the body of the knot and then nicked the top of the knot near the left edge. Ignoring this hard physical evidence will not make it go away.

The bullet never passed through the necktie. Nor did it magically weaved around the body of the knot. It grazed the left side of the knot, leaving a nick in it.