NEW ARTICLE: JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible

[Jack Nessan]

It is in front of his torso and therefore can't be seen in Willis' photo. We can see that in the zfilm.
No evidence?  I gather you don't think that:

• Nellie's testimony that she watched JFK react to the first shot and then saw her husband hit by the second qualifies as "evidence"
• Altgens' testimony that his #6 photo (showing JFK reacting to his neck wound) was taken after the first but before any other qualifies as "evidence"
• SA George Hickey's statement that he was turned forward watching JFK for the last two shot qualifies as "evidence"
• the statements of over 20 witnesses that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot qualify as "evidence"

It is in front of his torso and therefore can't be seen in Willis' photo. We can see that in the zfilm.

Unbelievable, you know JFK was waving at Z210, what again is this post about?

What is interesting is you do know he is waving at Z210, but you thought you would just make up this nonsense in an effort to try and prove this theory? This three shot scenario is not only improbable, but also unbelievable. You never asked yourself if it made sense for two different bullets to strike JBC’s thigh? They would have fractured his thigh in this instance. All you have done is split SBT and create a second shot where there was not one.

Wouldn’t it just be easier to admit you can’t prove a third shot? Now you are proposing some kind of goofy logic to add credibility to opinions you consider are some kind of evidence to support this oddball theory. 

Nellie's testimony that she watched JFK react to the first shot and then saw her husband hit by the second qualifies as "evidence"

This is just wrong. Nellie saw JFK react to the first shot, and Nellie along with Jackie acknowledged JBC’s verbal reaction to having been struck by a bullet as having occurred after the first shot but before the second.

Altgens' testimony that his #6 photo (showing JFK reacting to his neck wound) was taken after the first but before any other qualifies as "evidence"

All the eyewitness in total were of the exact same opinion.

SA George Hickey's statement that he was turned forward watching JFK for the last two shot qualifies as "evidence"

SA Hickey saw the bullet impact JFK’s head and make his hair fly forward on the second shot. 

The statements of over 20 witnesses that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot qualify as "evidence"

Over 50+ eyewitnesses saw JFK react to the first shot. All of them stated he reacted to the first shot.

What again is the difference between your unproven three shot act and Michael Griffiths? Your theory has two bullets in JBC’s thigh and Michael has shooters everywhere, but no other bullets or fragments except for the ones matched to LHO’s carcano, are ever found.

[Andrew Mason]

It is in front of his torso and therefore can't be seen in Willis' photo. We can see that in the zfilm.

Unbelievable, you know JFK was waving at Z210, what again is this post about?

What is interesting is you do know he is waving at Z210, but you thought you would just make up this nonsense in an effort to try and prove this theory?

I notice that you are no longer insisting we can see JFK's arm in Willis' photo.  Progress. 

There is no z210. It was destroyed by Life Magazine. Besides, we can't see JFK's hand after z206.  In z206 his hand is aligned with the forearm and it is in front of him. When he was waving (e.g. prior to z193) his hand was up, perpendicular to this forearm.

This three shot scenario is not only improbable, but also unbelievable. You never asked yourself if it made sense for two different bullets to strike JBC’s thigh?

I never asked myself if it made sense because it never occurred to me that he was hit by two bullets in the thigh.  There was only one thigh wound.

They would have fractured his thigh in this instance. All you have done is split SBT and create a second shot where there was not one.

The SBT says that all wounds other than the JFK head wound were caused by one bullet. So by definition, there cannot be two SBT shots.

Wouldn’t it just be easier to admit you can’t prove a third shot? Now you are proposing some kind of goofy logic to add credibility to opinions you consider are some kind of evidence to support this oddball theory.

An oddball "theory" observed by 132 witnesses?

Nellie's testimony that she watched JFK react to the first shot and then saw her husband hit by the second qualifies as "evidence"

This is just wrong. Nellie saw JFK react to the first shot, and Nellie along with Jackie acknowledged JBC’s verbal reaction to having been struck by a bullet as having occurred after the first shot but before the second.

Nellie's testimony at 4 H 147:

SA George Hickey's statement that he was turned forward watching JFK for the last two shot qualifies as "evidence"

SA Hickey saw the bullet impact JFK’s head and make his hair fly forward on the second shot. 

No impact to the head was observed by Hickey on the second shot 18 H 762:

The statements of over 20 witnesses that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot qualify as "evidence"

Over 50+ eyewitnesses saw JFK react to the first shot. All of them stated he reacted to the first shot.

What again is the difference between your unproven three shot act and Michael Griffiths? Your theory has two bullets in JBC’s thigh and Michael has shooters everywhere, but no other bullets or fragments except for the ones matched to LHO’s carcano, are ever found.

One bullet in the thigh: CE399 (after exiting from JFK's throat).  One bullet through JBC's chest and wrist, fragmenting striking windshield and Tague.  Third bullet at z313.

[Jack Nessan]

I notice that you are no longer insisting we can see JFK's arm in Willis' photo.  Progress. 

There is no z210. It was destroyed by Life Magazine. Besides, we can't see JFK's hand after z206.  In z206 his hand is aligned with the forearm and it is in front of him. When he was waving (e.g. prior to z193) his hand was up, perpendicular to this forearm.
I never asked myself if it made sense because it never occurred to me that he was hit by two bullets in the thigh.  There was only one thigh wound.

The SBT says that all wounds other than the JFK head wound were caused by one bullet. So by definition, there cannot be two SBT shots.
An oddball "theory" observed by 132 witnesses?

Nellie's testimony at 4 H 147:


No impact to the head was observed by Hickey on the second shot 18 H 762:


One bullet in the thigh: CE399 (after exiting from JFK's throat).  One bullet through JBC's chest and wrist, fragmenting striking windshield and Tague.  Third bullet at z313.

I notice that you are no longer insisting we can see JFK's arm in Willis' photo.  Progress. 

We? I see it, you never will because you cannot admit it.

This whole story has run its course. Seriously, you thought just adding a bullet to the shot sequence would not require an explanation for what happened to the extra bullet? The bullet breaking into fragments is obviously not any kind of answer. Then to add insult to injury you are denying the Z313 shot fragmented?

AMason three shot theory:

[b]One bullet in the thigh: CE399 (after exiting from JFK's throat).  One bullet through JBC's chest and wrist, fragmenting striking windshield and Tague.  Third bullet at z313
[/b]
No broken or damaged femur from the first shot. No second bullet anywhere. No fragmentation from the headshot, despite extensive testimony to the contrary

If you are going to drag a theory out of the garbage heap of three shot theories and call it your own, how about selecting one that hasn’t been disproven in so many different ways.

Mr. SPECTER - For the purpose of this consideration, I am interested to know whether the metal which you found in the wrist was of sufficient size so that the bullet which passed through the wrist could not have emerged virtually completely intact or with 158 grains intact, or whether the portions of the metallic fragments were so small that that would be consistent with having Virtually the entire 6.5-mm. bullet emerge.
Dr. GREGORY - Well, considering the small volume of metal as seen by X-ray, and the very small dimensions of the metal which was recovered, I think several such fragments could have been flaked off of a total missile mass without reducing its volume greatly.
Now, just how much, depends of course upon what the original missile weighed. In other words, on the basis of the metal left behind in Governor Connally's body, as far as I could tell, the missile that struck it could be virtually intact, insofar as mass was concerned, but probably was distorted.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you have any idea at all as to what the fragments which you observed in the Governor's wrist might weigh, Doctor?
Dr. GREGORY - No, not really, but it would have been very small---very small.
 
There is no z210. It was destroyed by Life Magazine. Besides, we can't see JFK's hand after z206.  In z206 his hand is aligned with the forearm and it is in front of him. When he was waving (e.g. prior to z193) his hand was up, perpendicular to this forearm.


I never asked myself if it made sense because it never occurred to me that he was hit by two bullets in the thigh.  There was only one thigh wound.

Exactly, I wish you would, that is the problem.
 

The SBT says that all wounds other than the JFK head wound were caused by one bullet. So by definition, there cannot be two SBT shots.

No. Not in your theory. Anything and everything are possible, unexplainable but possible, and that is the problem. Your theory has two bullets striking JBC’s thigh. SBT has one bullet doing all the wounding. You have two with no clear explanation of where the bullets ended up.  Now fragments are flying everywhere. 

 

An oddball "theory" observed by 132 witnesses?

Yes, to oddball, no to 132 witnesses
 
 
 One more time just for you.
Nellie's testimony at 4 H 147:

Nellie:  As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I recall John saying, "Oh, no, no, no.

Gov Connally: I immediately, when I was hit, I said, "Oh, no, no, no." And then I said, "My God, they are going to kill us all."   


No impact to the head was observed by Hickey on the second shot 18 H 762:

Yes, there was you have to cite a later statement to erase what he originally stated.

In his original after incident 11/22 statement. The 11/22/63 statement you ignore. You know before the “medias influence.” referenced by WC and HSCA panels.

(11-22-63 report, 18H765) “As 100-X made the turn and proceeded a short distance, I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear. I stood partially up and turned to the rear to see if I could observe anything. Nothing was observed and I turned around and looked at the President’s car. The President was slumped to the left in the car. I heard what appeared to be two shots and it seemed as if the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward.”
  [/i][/u]
In your 1 week later “media influenced” version, the second shot was the shot that made JFK’s air fly forward.

It is obvious why you are afraid of the 11/22 first report. His head was hit by a shot and then his hair flew forward. A completely different meaning than what you posted. You like and rely on the time altered HSCA version. In your version the second shot is the shot that makes his hair fly forward.

11/30/63 Hickey

“It looked to me as if the president was struck in the right upper rear of the head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn’t seem to be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to his left again”

 A Mason:This is consistent with Oswald trying to get the second and third shots off as quickly as possible without having to re-aim because the car was getting away. The first shot occurred as soon as JFK emerged from under the oak tree. This was just after JFK passed the lamp post before the Thornton sign.  The second shot occurred as JFK was moving slightly left to right, almost directly away from Oswald. It just missed JFK on the right side and struck JBC in the right armpit and wrist.  The third shot fired on the exact same trajectory as the second without having to re-aim, 2.3 seconds later struck him in the head as his head moved to the right.  Believe it or not, there is actually uncontradicted evidence that this is what occurred. 

For all the reasons stated previous, this is just wrong for so many reasons.

[Andrew Mason]

I notice that you are no longer insisting we can see JFK's arm in Willis' photo.  Progress. 

We? I see it, you never will because you cannot admit it.

I would admit it if there was anything in the photo that could be his arm.  There isn't. Here: you mark where you think JFK's waving right arm/hand is:


or just describe how many pixels you think his hand is from some identifiable point.

This whole story has run its course. Seriously, you thought just adding a bullet to the shot sequence would not require an explanation for what happened to the extra bullet?

It would be more accurate to say that you subtracted a shot from the evidence of three shots.

The bullet breaking into fragments is obviously not any kind of answer. Then to add insult to injury you are denying the Z313 shot fragmented?

The bullet breaking into fragments and leaving the car is an answer. And there is evidence that this occurred on the second shot.

I never suggested that the shot at z312-313 did not fragment. The two fragments found in the car (CE567 and CE569) are likely from that head shot. No one in the car said that they sensed an impact within the car (as Greer did on the second shot) and no one outside the car sensed an impact from that shot (as Tague did, on the second shot).

AMason three shot theory:
No broken or damaged femur from the first shot.

There was lead embedded in the femur as seen on two different xrays of the left thigh.  The impact was oblique and dented the base of CE399.  There is no reason to believe that it would break the femur after passing through JFK and thigh muscle at an oblique angle.  You would need a pristine bullet hitting square-on to stand a chance of breaking the femur, one of the strongest bones in the body.

No second bullet anywhere.

There may have been some flecks of lead in the windshield frame and glass and in JBC, possibly on the floor.  Most of it appears to have gone over the windshield.  I know you find that convenient but that is the evidence.  Do you think Tague happened to be hit by the ONLY fragment that left the car?
 

The SBT says that all wounds other than the JFK head wound were caused by one bullet. So by definition, there cannot be two SBT shots.

No. Not in your theory. Anything and everything are possible, unexplainable but possible, and that is the problem. Your theory has two bullets striking JBC’s thigh. SBT has one bullet doing all the wounding. You have two with no clear explanation of where the bullets ended up.  Now fragments are flying everywhere. 

In the scenario provided by the evidence: 3 shots, 3 hits, one shooter, there is no SBT.  I have no idea why you think I am suggesting 2 bullets striking JBC's thigh.

No impact to the head was observed by Hickey on the second shot 18 H 762:

Yes, there was you have to cite a later statement to erase what he originally stated.

In his original after incident 11/22 statement. The 11/22/63 statement you ignore. You know before the “medias influence.” referenced by WC and HSCA panels.

(11-22-63 report, 18H765) “As 100-X made the turn and proceeded a short distance, I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear. I stood partially up and turned to the rear to see if I could observe anything. Nothing was observed and I turned around and looked at the President’s car. The President was slumped to the left in the car. I heard what appeared to be two shots and it seemed as if the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward.”
  [/i][/u]
In your 1 week later “media influenced” version, the second shot was the shot that made JFK’s air fly forward.

In his first statement he referred to two shots and two observations on those shots.  In his later statement he clarified what he saw on each shot.  On shot 2 he saw JFK's hair fly forward. On shot 3, he saw the right side of his head was hit.  I don't know of any report that talked about what happened to JFK on the second shot that suggested that just his hair flew forward.  We can see his hair flying forward, by the way.  It starts at z273.

[Jack Nessan]

I would admit it if there was anything in the photo that could be his arm.  There isn't. Here: you mark where you think JFK's waving right arm/hand is:


or just describe how many pixels you think his hand is from some identifiable point.It would be more accurate to say that you subtracted a shot from the evidence of three shots.
The bullet breaking into fragments and leaving the car is an answer. And there is evidence that this occurred on the second shot.

I never suggested that the shot at z312-313 did not fragment. The two fragments found in the car (CE567 and CE569) are likely from that head shot. No one in the car said that they sensed an impact within the car (as Greer did on the second shot) and no one outside the car sensed an impact from that shot (as Tague did, on the second shot).
There was lead embedded in the femur as seen on two different xrays of the left thigh.  The impact was oblique and dented the base of CE399.  There is no reason to believe that it would break the femur after passing through JFK and thigh muscle at an oblique angle.  You would need a pristine bullet hitting square-on to stand a chance of breaking the femur, one of the strongest bones in the body.There may have been some flecks of lead in the windshield frame and glass and in JBC, possibly on the floor.  Most of it appears to have gone over the windshield.  I know you find that convenient but that is the evidence.  Do you think Tague happened to be hit by the ONLY fragment that left the car?
 In the scenario provided by the evidence: 3 shots, 3 hits, one shooter, there is no SBT.  I have no idea why you think I am suggesting 2 bullets striking JBC's thigh.
In his first statement he referred to two shots and two observations on those shots.  In his later statement he clarified what he saw on each shot.  On shot 2 he saw JFK's hair fly forward. On shot 3, he saw the right side of his head was hit.  I don't know of any report that talked about what happened to JFK on the second shot that suggested that just his hair flew forward.  We can see his hair flying forward, by the way.  It starts at z273.

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

Same nonsense on a different day. Maybe it is time to go back to fantasy land to create a new theory. This time leave Nelly and JBC, Jackie, and SA Hickey out of it.

You now have stated the second shot fragmented and hit the window molding and the curb by Tague. The attending surgeon, Dr Gregory, completely dismisses the whole theory you just presented. The bullet did not fragment. There was no fragmented bullet associated with the wrist, and a bullet did exit the wrist but backwards and in a whole state. The exiting bullet then struck JBC’s thigh backwards and deposited a small amount of lead on the femur. You're always claiming that you follow the evidence. That is what the evidence shows that occurred. 

You failed to explain this. Where is the whole bullet that damaged the wrist if it isn’t the one that damaged the thigh? Where is the proof there even being a third shot? You have never presented anything.

[Andrew Mason]

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

Same nonsense on a different day. Maybe it is time to go back to fantasy land to create a new theory. This time leave Nelly and JBC, Jackie, and SA Hickey out of it.

In other words, let's not look at all the evidence.

Is there a particular reason that you are avoiding telling us where you think JFK's waving hand or arm, or part thereof, is in the Willis #5 photo?  You are the only person who seems to think it can be seen.

You now have stated the second shot fragmented and hit the window molding and the curb by Tague. The attending surgeon, Dr Gregory, completely dismisses the whole theory you just presented. The bullet did not fragment. There was no fragmented bullet associated with the wrist, and a bullet did exit the wrist but backwards and in a whole state. The exiting bullet then struck JBC’s thigh backwards and deposited a small amount of lead on the femur. You're always claiming that you follow the evidence. That is what the evidence shows that occurred. 

Gregory's view was that the wrist wound was caused by an irregular missile but the thigh wound was not (4 H 121-122).  :

"Dr. GREGORY. My initial impression was that whatever produced the wound of the wrist was an irregular object, certainly not smooth nosed as the business end of this particular bullet is because of two things. The size of the wound of entrance. and the fact that it is irregular surfaced permitted it to pick up organic debris, materials, threads, and carry them into the wound with it.
Now, you will note that Dr. Shaw earlier in his testimony and in all of my conversations with him, never did indicate that there was any such loss of material into the wrist, nor does the back of this coat which I hare examined show that it lost significant amounts of cloth but I think the tear in this coat sleeve does imply that there were bits of fabric lost. and I think those were resident in the wrist. I think we recovered them.

.... (4 H 124):
Dr. GREGORY, The wound of entrance is characteristic in my view of an irregular missile in this case, an irregular missile which has tipped itself off as being irregular by the nature of itself.
Mr. DULLES. What do you mean by irregular?
Dr. GREGORY. I mean one that has been distorted. It is in some way angular, it has edges or sharp edges or something of this sort. It is not rounded or pointed in the fashion of an ordinary missile. The irregularity of it also, I submit, tends to pick up organic material and carry it into the limb, and this is a very significant takeoff, in my opinion.
...
Dr. GREGORY. There is one additional piece of information that is of pertinence but I don’t know how effectively it can be applied to the nature of the missile.
That is the fact that dorsal branch of the radial nerve, a sensory nerve in this immediate vicinity was partially transected together with one tendon leading to the thumb, which was totally transected.
This could have been produced by a missile entering in the ordinary fashion, undisturbed, undistorted. But again it is more in keeping with an irregular surface which would tend to catch and tear a structure rather than push it aside.

... (4 H  128 after being shown bullet fragments CE567 and CE569 with photos CE568 and CE570):
"Dr. GREGORY. These items represent distorted bits of a missile, a jacket in one case, and part of a jacket and a lead core in the other.
These are missiles having the characteristics which I mentioned earlier, which tend to carry organic debris into wounds and tend to create irregular wounds of entry. One of these, it seems to me, could conceivably have produce the injury which the Governor incurred in his wrist.
Mr. DULLES. In his wrist?
Dr. GREGORY. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. And in his thigh?
Dr. GREGORY. I don’t know about that, sir. It is possible. But the rather remarkably round nature of the wound in the thigh leads me to believe that it was produced by something like the butt end of an intact missile."

You failed to explain this. Where is the whole bullet that damaged the wrist if it isn’t the one that damaged the thigh? Where is the proof there even being a third shot? You have never presented anything.

Why do you think that any fragments that left the car (one of which we know struck Tague and one of which almost made it over the windshield) should have been recovered? 

[Jack Nessan]

In other words, let's not look at all the evidence.

Is there a particular reason that you are avoiding telling us where you think JFK's waving hand or arm, or part thereof, is in the Willis #5 photo?  You are the only person who seems to think it can be seen.

Gregory's view was that the wrist wound was caused by an irregular missile but the thigh wound was not (4 H 121-122).  :

"Dr. GREGORY. My initial impression was that whatever produced the wound of the wrist was an irregular object, certainly not smooth nosed as the business end of this particular bullet is because of two things. The size of the wound of entrance. and the fact that it is irregular surfaced permitted it to pick up organic debris, materials, threads, and carry them into the wound with it.
Now, you will note that Dr. Shaw earlier in his testimony and in all of my conversations with him, never did indicate that there was any such loss of material into the wrist, nor does the back of this coat which I hare examined show that it lost significant amounts of cloth but I think the tear in this coat sleeve does imply that there were bits of fabric lost. and I think those were resident in the wrist. I think we recovered them.

.... (4 H 124):
Dr. GREGORY, The wound of entrance is characteristic in my view of an irregular missile in this case, an irregular missile which has tipped itself off as being irregular by the nature of itself.
Mr. DULLES. What do you mean by irregular?
Dr. GREGORY. I mean one that has been distorted. It is in some way angular, it has edges or sharp edges or something of this sort. It is not rounded or pointed in the fashion of an ordinary missile. The irregularity of it also, I submit, tends to pick up organic material and carry it into the limb, and this is a very significant takeoff, in my opinion.
...
Dr. GREGORY. There is one additional piece of information that is of pertinence but I don’t know how effectively it can be applied to the nature of the missile.
That is the fact that dorsal branch of the radial nerve, a sensory nerve in this immediate vicinity was partially transected together with one tendon leading to the thumb, which was totally transected.
This could have been produced by a missile entering in the ordinary fashion, undisturbed, undistorted. But again it is more in keeping with an irregular surface which would tend to catch and tear a structure rather than push it aside.

... (4 H  128 after being shown bullet fragments CE567 and CE569 with photos CE568 and CE570):
"Dr. GREGORY. These items represent distorted bits of a missile, a jacket in one case, and part of a jacket and a lead core in the other.
These are missiles having the characteristics which I mentioned earlier, which tend to carry organic debris into wounds and tend to create irregular wounds of entry. One of these, it seems to me, could conceivably have produce the injury which the Governor incurred in his wrist.
Mr. DULLES. In his wrist?
Dr. GREGORY. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. And in his thigh?
Dr. GREGORY. I don’t know about that, sir. It is possible. But the rather remarkably round nature of the wound in the thigh leads me to believe that it was produced by something like the butt end of an intact missile."
 
Why do you think that any fragments that left the car (one of which we know struck Tague and one of which almost made it over the windshield) should have been recovered?

Mason’s Theory

A Mason Three Shot Theory ---nothing but a perversion of a theory once entertained by the WC, specifically Attorney Specter, who discarded this nonsense after proving it was not a possibility after examining the known evidence and rightfully determined it wasn’t even plausible to consider.

One bullet in the thigh: CE399 (after exiting from JFK's throat).  One bullet through JBC's chest and wrist, fragmenting striking windshield and Tague.  Third bullet at z313

Bullet one—Causes only minor injury to the thigh despite traveling at 2000 fps. Vanishes into thin air or becomes CE 399 depending on the current need.

Bullet two—Fragments into several fragments that used to be the known fragments of the headshot at Z313 shot or vanish into thin air or become CE 399 depending on the current need.

Bullet three—Headshot, the bullet really does break into fragments, but the fragments leave the car and vanish into thin air, because if they don’t vanish into thin air then the whole theory is shown to be completely ridiculous.

Attending Surgeons testimony:

Dr Shaw:

Dr. SHAW ­ He says that he did not hear a second shot, but did hear­­­no, wait a minute, I shouldn't say that. He heard only two shots so that he doesn't know which shot other than the first one he did not hear. He only remembers hearing two shots, his wife says distinctly she heard three. (he being JBC) (Nellies first statement on the assassination was "she did not know about a third shot"
Mr. SPECTER - And did you find, or do you know whether any fragment was found in his wrist or the quantity of fragments in his wrist?
Dr. SHAW - It is my understanding that only foreign material from the suit of Governor Connally was found in the wrist, although in the X-ray of the wrist there appeared to be some minute metallic fragments in the wrist.

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

Mr. SPECTER ­ Dr. Shaw, would you think it consistent with the facts that you know as to Governor Connally's wounds that he could have been struck by the same bullet which passed through President Kennedy, assuming that a missile with the muzzle velocity of 2,000 feet per second, a 6.5­millimeter bullet, passed through President Kennedy at a distance of 160 to 250 feet from the rifle, passing through President Kennedy's body, entering on his back and striking only soft tissue and exiting on his neck; could that missile have also gone through Governor Connally's chest in your opinion?

 Dr. SHAW ­ Yes, taking your description of the first wound sustained by the President, which I, myself, did not observe, and considering the position of the two men in the limousine, I think it would be perfectly possible for the first bullet to have passed through the soft tissues of the neck of President Kennedy and produced the wounds that we found on Governor Connally.
 
Mr. SPECTER ­ Could that bullet then have produced all the wounds that you found on Governor Connally?
Dr. SHAW ­ Yes, I would still be postulating that Governor Connally was struck by one missile

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

Dr. SHAW ­ Yes, we have talked on more than one occasion about this. The Governor admits that certain aspects of the whole incident are a bit hazy. He remembers hearing a shot. He recognized it as a rifle shot and turned to the right to see whether President Kennedy had been injured. He recognized that the President had been injured, but almost immediately, he stated, that he felt a severe shock to his right chest
------------
Dr. SHAW - I have always felt that the wounds of Governor Connally could be explained by the passage of one missile through his chest, striking his wrist and a fragment of it going on into his left thigh. I had never entertained the idea that he had been struck by a second missile.
----------------
Mr. SPECTER - As to the wound on the back of Governor Connally, was there any indication that the bullet was tumbling prior to the time it struck him?
Dr. SHAW - I would only have to say that I'm not a ballistics expert, but the wound on his chest was not a single puncture wound, it was long enough so that there might have been some tumbling.
Mr. SPECTER - You mean the wound on his back?
Dr. SHAW - The wound on his back--yes, it was long enough so that there might have been some tumbling. In other words, it was not a spherical puncture wound.

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

Maybe the question Arlan Specter should have asked Dr Gregory was ---can the bullet fragments or even a whole bullet completely disappear, this way Andrew does not have to explain where they are or anything about them?

Or how about can the opinions of people, who are standing in an echo chamber, on what they thought they heard for the number of shots, be considered proof of anything when it is known to be in direct conflict with the eyewitness statements and physical evidence of the same event? Remember Andrew, you always follow the evidence unless it has to do with a third shot and the fact there is no evidence. What again is the difference between you and Michael Griffith? Both of you believe a shot occurred that you have zero proof ever took place.

Dr Gregory:

Dr Gregory completely dismisses the idea the bullet fragmented. Maybe he did not know about bullets or bullet fragments that can vanish if they are a problem for Andrew’s three shot fictional fantasy.
Mr. SPECTER - For the purpose of this consideration, I am interested to know whether the metal which you found in the wrist was of sufficient size so that the bullet which passed through the wrist could not have emerged virtually completely intact or with 158 grains intact, or whether the portions of the metallic fragments were so small that that would be consistent with having Virtually the entire 6.5-mm. bullet emerge.
Dr. GREGORY - Well, considering the small volume of metal as seen by X-ray, and the very small dimensions of the metal which was recovered, I think several such fragments could have been flaked off of a total missile mass without reducing its volume greatly.
Now, just how much, depends of course upon what the original missile weighed. In other words, on the basis of the metal left behind in Governor Connally's body, as far as I could tell, the missile that struck it could be virtually intact, insofar as mass was concerned, but probably was distorted.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you have sufficient experience with gunshot wounds to comment as to whether a 6.5-mm. bullet could have passed through the Governor's wrist in the way you have described, leaving the fragments which you have described and still have virtually all the bullet missile intact, or having 158 grains of a bullet at that time?
Dr. GREGORY - Well, I am not an expert on ballistics, but one cannot escape certain ballistic implications in this business.
I would say, first of all, that how much of the missile remains intact as a mass depends to some extent on how hard the metal is. Obviously, if it is very soft, as lead, it may lose more fragments and therefore more weight and volume than it might if it is made of a harder material or is jacketed in some way.

Mr. SPECTER - Would you have any idea at all as to what the fragments which you observed in the Governor's wrist might weigh, Doctor?
Dr. GREGORY - No, not really, but it would have been very small---very small.

The attending physician, Dr Gregory, three different times stated the bullet did not fragment and only a few tiny flakes were present but instead remained intact. But why would you want to believe him when you have this wonderful totally fictional theory that the WC themselves discarded.