JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
The deformation of CE-399 adds credibility to the SBT
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: Tom Graves on September 12, 2025, 04:29:05 AM ---Comrade Griffith, Did they try to squeeze off all three shots in 6.8 seconds or something like that?-- Tom
--- End quote ---
Is this how you explain in your own mind the fact that the WC's three Master-rated riflemen, using the alleged murder weapon itself, did not even come close to duplicating Oswald's alleged performance? This suggests to me that you are immune to fact and reason when it comes to the JFK case.
Do you understand what the NRA rating of Master means? Even the Army's Ronald Simmons told the WC that the Master rating was far above the Marine Corps rating of Sharpshooter. There's simply no comparison.
The only way you can expand the firing time to 10-11 seconds is to make the silly assumption that your supposedly highly skilled lone gunman was not only foolish enough to fire almost straight down with his first shot but was stupid enough to fire when a traffic-signal pole or a tree branch was smack-dab in the middle of his center of aim, or very close to it. The tale gets even worse and sillier when you try to explain the manhole-cover-grass bullet hole and the Tague curb bullet mark and wounding with a fragment from this mythical shot.
(Trying to attribute the Tague bullet mark and wound to a fragment from the head shot is just about as absurd, given that any fragments would have exited the top or right side of the head, would have been heading away from the Tague curb/Tague, and would have had to clear both the roll bar and the windshield before starting its amazing 260-foot journey.)
If there was a shot in the missing-frame range of Z110-117 (or pseudo Z110-117), how in the world do you explain the Z145-155 shot and the Z186-190 shot? Let's take the Z145-155 shot, since the Z186-190 shot is covered adequately in the HSCA PEP report, in PEP member William Hartmann's HSCA testimony, and by Olson and Turner in the Journal of Forensic Sciences:
-- There is a noticeable blur episode in the Zapruder film at around Z158.
-- Connally starts to turn his head rapidly to the right at Z162.
-- A 10-year-old girl named Rosemary Willis, running along the grass to the left of the limousine, begins to noticeably slow down between Z162 and Z174, and she is standing still by no later than Z187. When she was an adult, Ms. Willis explained that she stopped running because she heard a loud noise behind her.
Are you seriously going to argue that the Z158 blur episode and Connally's and Rosemary Willis's reactions were in response to a shot at pseudo Z110-117? Really?
The problem is that you can't objectively, credibly analyze Oswald's alleged shooting feat and all the shot reactions that refute it because you are chained down by the three-shots-only myth.
Tom Graves:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on September 12, 2025, 06:16:07 PM ---Is this how you explain in your own mind the fact that the WC's three Master-rated riflemen, using the alleged murder weapon itself, did not even come close to duplicating Oswald's alleged performance? This suggests to me that you are immune to fact and reason when it comes to the JFK case.
Do you understand what the NRA rating of Master means? Even the Army's Ronald Simmons told the WC that the Master rating was far above the Marine Corps rating of Sharpshooter. There's simply no comparison.
The only way you can expand the firing time to 10-11 seconds is to make the silly assumption that your supposedly highly skilled lone gunman was not only foolish enough to fire almost straight down with his first shot but was stupid enough to fire when a traffic-signal pole or a tree branch was smack-dab in the middle of his center of aim, or very close to it. The tale gets even worse and sillier when you try to explain the manhole-cover-grass bullet hole and the Tague curb bullet mark and wounding with a fragment from this mythical shot.
(Trying to attribute the Tague bullet mark and wound to a fragment from the head shot is just about as absurd, given that any fragments would have exited the top or right side of the head, would have been heading away from the Tague curb/Tague, and would have had to clear both the roll bar and the windshield before starting its amazing 260-foot journey.)
If there was a shot in the missing-frame range of Z110-117 (or pseudo Z110-117), how in the world do you explain the Z145-155 shot and the Z186-190 shot? Let's take the Z145-155 shot, since the Z186-190 shot is covered adequately in the HSCA PEP report, in PEP member William Hartmann's HSCA testimony, and by Olson and Turner in the Journal of Forensic Sciences:
-- There is a noticeable blur episode in the Zapruder film at around Z158.
-- Connally starts to turn his head rapidly to the right at Z162.
-- A 10-year-old girl named Rosemary Willis, running along the grass to the left of the limousine, begins to noticeably slow down between Z162 and Z174, and she is standing still by no later than Z187. When she was an adult, Ms. Willis explained that she stopped running because she heard a loud noise behind her.
Are you seriously going to argue that the Z158 blur episode and Connally's and Rosemary Willis's reactions were in response to a shot at pseudo Z110-117? Really?
The problem is that you can't objectively, credibly analyze Oswald's alleged shooting feat and all the shot reactions that refute it because you are chained down by the three-shots-only myth.
--- End quote ---
Dear Comrade Griffith,
I guess you don't want to answer the question.
Pity that.
Carry on.
"Former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin cherishes what you do.
-- Tom
Andrew Mason:
--- Quote from: Tom Graves on July 30, 2025, 04:22:08 AM ---Given the fact that that kind of bullet has a tendency to start tumbling / yawing when it exits something soft like a block of ballistics gel or a human neck, the unusual deformation of CE-399 lends credence to the so-called Single Bullet Theory.
--- End quote ---
It gives credibility to the theory that it struck something hard on its base once. I don't see how that supports the SBT which struck something hard at least twice.
The only way it could be consistent with the SBT is if it struck something hard more than once but in the same place on its base.
Tom Graves:
--- Quote from: Andrew Mason on September 12, 2025, 06:45:50 PM ---It gives credibility to the theory that it struck something hard on its base once. I don't see how that supports the SBT which struck something hard at least twice.
The only way it could be consistent with the SBT is if it struck something hard more than once but in the same place on its base.
--- End quote ---
Seein' as how Connally's fifth rib was soft, thin, and pliable, the only hard thing CE-399 struck was the radial bone in Connally's wrist.
Royell Storing:
--- Quote from: Tom Graves on September 12, 2025, 06:50:45 PM ---Seein' as how Connally's fifth rib was soft, thin, and pliable, the only hard thing CE-399 struck was the radial bone in Connally's wrist.
--- End quote ---
The above is like saying the only "hard thing" a bullet struck was a light pole. You guys continue running away from the "pristine" condition of this bullet. And then there's the minute grain loss of CE399. The negligible grain loss issue is exactly why Humes did not support the SBT.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version