The deformation of CE-399 adds credibility to the SBT

[Tom Graves]

Clearly, you did not bother to read Hunt's article. He addresses S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n's many flawed arguments and shifting assumptions. Here's the link to Hunt's article again:

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm

Dr. Milton Helpern, one of the greatest forensic pathologists of the 20th century, who supervised over 10,000 gunshot-wound autopsies, noted that human skin is tough, elastic, and resistant, and that this was one of the reasons he did not buy the SBT:

I cannot accept the premise that this bullet [CE 399] thrashed around in all that bony tissue
and lost only 1.4 to 2.4 grains of its original weight. I cannot believe, either, that this bullet
is going to emerge . . . with its lands and grooves intact.

Mr. Specter and the Commission have asked too much from this bullet. You must remember
that next to bone, the skin offers the greatest resistance to a bullet in its course
through the body than any other kind of tissue. The energy of the bullet is sometimes so
spent that it can't quite get out through the final layer of skin, and it comes to rest just
beneath the outside layer of skin. If it does get through the skin, it may not
have enough energy to penetrate even an undershirt or a light cotton blouse. . . .

This single-bullet theory requires us to believe that this bullet went through seven layers
of skin—tough, elastic, resistant skin. . . . In addition to these seven layers of tough
human skin, this bullet [CE 399] passed through other layers of soft tissue; and
then these shattered bones!

I just can’t believe that this bullet had the force to do what Mr. Specter and the Commission
have demanded of it; and I don't think they have really stopped to think out carefully what
they have asked of this bullet for the simple reason that they still do not understand the
resistant nature of human skin to bullets. (Where Death Delights, pp. 62-63)

Dear Comrade Griffith,

Did John Hunt pass away before he could watch Luke and Mike Haag prove in the 2013 PBS NOVA documentary, "Cold Case JFK," that that kind of bullet can penetrate 36 inches of pine wood without being deformed, and that it has a tendency to start yawing / tumbling when it exits something soft -- like a block of ballistics gel or a human neck?

-- Tom

[Michael T. Griffith]

Dear Comrade Griffith,

Did John Hunt pass away before he could watch Luke and Mike Haag prove in the 2013 PBS NOVA documentary, "Cold Case JFK," that that kind of bullet can penetrate 36 inches of pine wood without being deformed, and that it has a tendency to start yawing / tumbling when it exits something soft -- like a block of ballistics gel or a human neck?

-- Tom

So you're still assuming that a bullet exited the throat and the shirt slits, even though we know the tie had no hole through it? Ignoring hard physical evidence that destroys the SBT will not make that evidence go away. This is called self-delusion and denial.

The Haags??? You're citing the Haags??? The Haags are quacks when it comes to the JFK case. They clearly failed to do their homework. Their stuff was debunked years ago. Dr. Gary Aguilar discusses just a couple of the problems with the junk science behind the Haags' SBT research:

To buck up the controversial SBT, Lucien Haag “proved” that the bullet that struck Governor Connally had passed through JFK first. His evidence? Haag said that the missile didn’t leave a small, puncture-type wound in the Governor’s back, like a typical entrance wound. Instead, it left an oval, 3-cm long, “yawed” entry wound, the full length of Commission Exhibit, #399, the so-called “magic bullet.” The ovality of that back wound was forensic proof, Haag asserted, that the bullet had been destabilized by passing through JFK and was traveling sideways, not point forward, when it hit Connally’s back. As we pointed out, this particular myth has long been debunked. Connally’s back wound was no more oval than JFK’s skull wound, and no one has ever argued JFK’s fatal missile had been destabilized and was yawing when it took the President’s life. (https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/nova-s-cold-case-jfk-junk-science-pbs)

The Haags should have known that Dr. Shaw said Connally's back wound was 1.5 cm wide, the same width as JFK's head wound. The 3-cm size was the size of the wound after Shaw debrided and cleaned it, as Shaw himself explained. This is JFK 101 stuff, and the Haags couldn't even get this simple stuff right. They used the misleading 3-cm size to support their assumption that the bullet that allegedly exited JFK's throat was traveling sideways when it hit Connally, even though Dr. Shaw said the bullet created a narrow wound track through Connally's chest. How does a bullet traveling sideways create a 1.5-cm wide entry wound and a narrow wound track through a torso? And on and on we could go.

More reading on the Haags' junk science:

https://kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/AguilarWechtAFTA2016.pdf

https://share.google/nZYCiaroTEpjo1c5h

Isn't it curious that in every other SBT wound ballistics test, FMJ bullets that did even just some of the damage attributed to CE 399 emerged more deformed than CE 399? Don't you find that curious?

BTW, can you tell where in their writings the Haags address the fact that JFK's tie had no hole through it, proving that no bullet exited the throat and the shirt slits? Where do they address the fact that the shirt slits had no fabric missing from them and no metallic traces around them, that one of the Parkland nurses confirmed that nurses made the slits, that the slits look nothing like any of the other clothing exit holes in JFK and Connally's clothing, and that Dr. Carrico confirmed that the throat wound was above the collar and tie?

[Tom Graves]

[...]

Dear Comrade Griffith,

Please tell us, again, how many bad guys you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, the planting of false evidence, the getting-away, the altering of photos, films, and x-rays, and the all-important (and evidently continuing!!!) cover up?

Just "20 to 30"?

Really?

Were they multi-tasking like crazy?

Also, please answer this question:

Does Vladimir Putin pay you, or do you do it for free?

-- Tom

[Michael T. Griffith]

Bumping this reply because Tom Graves ignored it and once again responded with his phony strawman questions about how many people were involved in the plot and cover-up.

So you're still assuming that a bullet exited the throat and the shirt slits, even though we know the tie had no hole through it? Ignoring hard physical evidence that destroys the SBT will not make that evidence go away. This is called self-delusion and denial.

The Haags??? You're citing the Haags??? The Haags are quacks when it comes to the JFK case. They clearly failed to do their homework. Their stuff was debunked years ago. Dr. Gary Aguilar discusses just a couple of the problems with the junk science behind the Haags' SBT research:

To buck up the controversial SBT, Lucien Haag “proved” that the bullet that struck Governor Connally had passed through JFK first. His evidence? Haag said that the missile didn’t leave a small, puncture-type wound in the Governor’s back, like a typical entrance wound. Instead, it left an oval, 3-cm long, “yawed” entry wound, the full length of Commission Exhibit, #399, the so-called “magic bullet.” The ovality of that back wound was forensic proof, Haag asserted, that the bullet had been destabilized by passing through JFK and was traveling sideways, not point forward, when it hit Connally’s back. As we pointed out, this particular myth has long been debunked. Connally’s back wound was no more oval than JFK’s skull wound, and no one has ever argued JFK’s fatal missile had been destabilized and was yawing when it took the President’s life. (https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/nova-s-cold-case-jfk-junk-science-pbs)

The Haags should have known that Dr. Shaw said Connally's back wound was 1.5 cm wide, the same width as JFK's head wound. The 3-cm size was the size of the wound after Shaw debrided and cleaned it, as Shaw himself explained. This is JFK 101 stuff, and the Haags couldn't even get this simple stuff right. They used the misleading 3-cm size to support their assumption that the bullet that allegedly exited JFK's throat was traveling sideways when it hit Connally, even though Dr. Shaw said the bullet created a narrow wound track through Connally's chest. How does a bullet traveling sideways create a 1.5-cm wide entry wound and a narrow wound track through a torso? And on and on we could go.

More reading on the Haags' junk science:

https://kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/AguilarWechtAFTA2016.pdf

https://share.google/nZYCiaroTEpjo1c5h

Isn't it curious that in every other SBT wound ballistics test, FMJ bullets that did even just some of the damage attributed to CE 399 emerged more deformed than CE 399? Don't you find that curious?

BTW, can you tell where in their writings the Haags address the fact that JFK's tie had no hole through it, proving that no bullet exited the throat and the shirt slits? Where do they address the fact that the shirt slits had no fabric missing from them and no metallic traces around them, that one of the Parkland nurses confirmed that nurses made the slits, that the slits look nothing like any of the other clothing exit holes in JFK and Connally's clothing, and that Dr. Carrico confirmed that the throat wound was above the collar and tie?

[Tom Graves]

Bumping this reply because Tom Graves ignored it and once again responded with his phony strawman questions about how many people were involved in the plot and cover-up.

Dear Comrade Griffith,

Do you deny that the Haags showed that that kind of bullet can penetrate 36 inches of pine wood without being deformed, and that it has a tendency to start yawing / tumbling upon exiting something soft -- like a bloc of ballistics gel or a human neck?

-- Tom

[Michael T. Griffith]

BTW, speaking of the Haags, there is good reason to doubt their truthfulness. Regarding Oswald's alleged shooting feat, Luke and Mike Haag claim that they duplicated it many times:

[Luke]"It’s a very clear picture. There was plenty of time to shoot all three shots from when the car turned the corner into Elm. We tried replicating it ourselves and could do so many times."

[Mike]"I've shot this drill these distances with a firearm that my dad acquired that is exactly the same as Oswald's rifle with ammunition of this type. These are not really tough shots."

Wow! That's amazing, considering that the WC's three Master-rated riflemen, using the alleged murder weapon itself, did not even come close to duplicating Oswald's supposed performance. In the 1967 CBS rifle test, not one of the 11 expert riflemen duplicated Oswald's alleged feat (a few of them did score two or three hits but only on their second or third attempts--Oswald would have had only one attempt--and they were all allowed to fire practice rounds before the test and did not have to fire through a half-open window in cramped conditions).

The Haags have also claimed that an FMJ bullet they fired into pine wood penetrated 3 feet into the wood and emerged undeformed. Pure hokum. No FMJ bullet tearing through 3 feet of pine is going to emerge with its lands and grooves intact. Here's a picture of an FMJ bullet that penetrated only a few inches into a piece of store-bought pine wood--notice that the bullet's lands and grooves are twisted and no longer run straight:

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10009147442527916&set=pcb.24054241594265168

Again, that FMJ bullet only penetrated a matter of a few inches into pine wood, yet it emerged with its lands and grooves distorted. But, the Haags claim that their FMJ bullet penetrated 36 inches of pine wood and emerged undeformed. Bollocks. Hogwash.

More reading on the Haags' junk science:

https://kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/AguilarWechtAFTA2016.pdf

https://share.google/nZYCiaroTEpjo1c5h

Finally, regarding Tom Graves' silly question about the number of plotters, I have explained to him several times that when I say "20 or 30," I am talking about the head planners who initiated the plot and who knew all the components of the plot, and that there were dozens of other people involved but that many of them did not realize they were aiding the plot and many knew very little about the overall plot and its scope.

How many people who were involved with the planning and preparations for D-Day knew all the components of the plan and understood how the various units would execute the plan? And mind you, D-Day was no criminal conspiracy but a closely guarded military secret, and the D-Day operation involved the deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops, hundreds of Navy ships, and thousands of military aircraft. At the most, perhaps 100 of those who planned D-Day knew the entire scope and logistics of the operation.

Or, take the Iran-Contra conspiracy. There were maybe two or three dozen high-level plotters who knew the whole scheme and the big picture. Most of those who were involved in the plot either did not know they were aiding a plot or only understood one small aspect of the plot and did not realize how their aspect related to others.

[Tom Graves]

BTW, speaking of the Haags, there is good reason to doubt their truthfulness. Regarding Oswald's alleged shooting feat, Luke Haag claims that he and his brother duplicated it many times.

Wow! That's amazing, considering that the WC's three Master-rated riflemen, using the alleged murder weapon itself, did not even come close to duplicating Oswald's supposed performance. In the 1967 CBS rifle test, not one of the 11 expert riflemen duplicated Oswald's alleged feat (a few of them did score two or three hits but only on their second or third attempts--Oswald would have had only one attempt--and they were all allowed to fire practice rounds before the test and did not have to fire through a half-open window in cramped conditions).

Dear Comrade Griffith,

How many seconds did those experts have to fire all three shots?

Six?

Seven?

Gasp . . . eight?

Based on a scientific analysis of the timing of the conscious reactions of five people in the limo and two others near it to the sounds of Oswald's first, missing-everything shot half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming, Oswald took 10.2 seconds.

The Haags have also claimed that an FMJ bullet they fired into pine wood penetrated 3 feet into the wood and emerged undeformed.

They didn't claim that, Comrade Griffith.

They showed it.

Perhaps you missed it.

Or . . .  gasp . . . do you think the "Cold Case JFK" show was a hoax, and that the Haags are just two of the oodles and gobs of bad guys who are still trying to cover up the actions of the evil, evil CIA or [fill in the blank] on 11/22/63?

Do you think the evidence that Russia installed The Traitorous Orange Bird (rhymes with "Xxxx") as our "president" on 20 January 2017 is a hoax, too?

Finally, regarding Tom Graves' silly question about the number of plotters, I have explained to him several times that when I say "20 or 30," I am talking about the head planners who initiated the plot and who knew all the components of the plot, and that there were dozens of other people involved but that many of them did not realize they were aiding the plot and many knew very little about the overall plot and its scope.

So, a couple hundred, then?

Couple thousand?


-- Tom