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

[Andrew Mason]

What is and has been missing from your posts is the proof of a third shot.

There is plenty of evidence that three shots were fired.  What is missing is the kind of evidence that you find persuasive. 

You obviously don't think that the three men on the fifth floor immediately below the SN provide credible evidence of three shots from directly above them. You don't think that the three shells found on the floor or Harold Norman's evidence that he heard three shots, three bolt action sounds and three shells hit the floor is credible.  You think that the 132 people who recalled three distinct shots are unreliable but the 17 who recalled just two are much more reliable.  You think that the Connallys, who insisted that JBC was hit by the second shot followed by a third that sprayed the car with blood and brain matter were hallucinating. Etc.
 

[Tommy Shanks]

Michael Griffith believing the Dictabelt evidence proves more than three shots should tell you everything you need to know. It has been proven for decades that the motorcycle policeman with his mic stuck open was nowhere near Dealey Plaza during the assassination.

[Jack Nessan]

There is plenty of evidence that three shots were fired.  What is missing is the kind of evidence that you find persuasive. 

You obviously don't think that the three men on the fifth floor immediately below the SN provide credible evidence of three shots from directly above them. You don't think that the three shells found on the floor or Harold Norman's evidence that he heard three shots, three bolt action sounds and three shells hit the floor is credible.  You think that the 132 people who recalled three distinct shots are unreliable but the 17 who recalled just two are much more reliable.  You think that the Connallys, who insisted that JBC was hit by the second shot followed by a third that sprayed the car with blood and brain matter were hallucinating. Etc.

There is plenty of evidence that three shots were fired.  What is missing is the kind of evidence that you find persuasive.

Huh? There is no evidence of a third shot and you have repeatedly failed to provide proof of a third shot. You would think that would be a clue, but you have dramatically shown you are incapable of figuring it out. The fact you bring this up and in these words is all telling about your inability to provide evidence of any kind.
 
You obviously don't think that the three men on the fifth floor immediately below the SN provide credible evidence of three shots from directly above them.

Not of three shots but definitely there were only two shots. Two of the three are two shot witnesses, Williams two shots in Sheriffs Affidavit, Jarmin second shot was the headshot, both provided statements of just two shots. Norman waited 3 or 4 days before giving a statement. You know Media’s Influence. The different panels stated it.

You don't think that the three shells found on the floor or Harold Norman's evidence that he heard three shots, three bolt action sounds and three shells hit the floor is credible.  You think that the 132 people who recalled three distinct shots are unreliable but the 17 who recalled just two are much more reliable.   

Three shells mean nothing. In light of Thompson’s observation, they now mean less than nothing. 

Your witness analysis, especially BRW, Jarmin, and Norman is as hokey as your theory.


You think that the Connallys, who insisted that JBC was hit by the second shot followed by a third that sprayed the car with blood and brain matter were hallucinating. Etc.

This is new. You are alternately stating JBC was and was not hit by the first bullet. What is this the 10th variation of this weird theory.

AM “The simplest explanation for CE399 is that it caused JFK's neck wound and one of JBC's wounds.  CE399's condition is inconsistent with the missile that caused the back and wrist wounds.  It has one dent in its base. That is consistent with having struck the femur base-first.  We don't have enough evidence to determine what it did after that.  All we know is that it ended up on a stretcher in Parkland.”

We have been over the Connolly’s statements endlessly. You admitted he was hit by the first shot because Jackie and Nellie both stated he was cried out after the first shot. JBC himself only heard two shots. In your bizarre theory you have him being struck by the first shot having passed through JFK, but that was meaningless, I guess.

 

[Andrew Mason]

There is plenty of evidence that three shots were fired.  What is missing is the kind of evidence that you find persuasive.

Huh? There is no evidence of a third shot and you have repeatedly failed to provide proof of a third shot. You would think that would be a clue, but you have dramatically shown you are incapable of figuring it out. The fact you bring this up and in these words is all telling about your inability to provide evidence of any kind.

You don't seem to understand that 132 people stating that they heard three distinct shots is evidence of three shots.  Just because you don't think they are accurate or reliable doesn't affect the fact that it is evidence.

You obviously don't think that the three men on the fifth floor immediately below the SN provide credible evidence of three shots from directly above them.

Not of three shots but definitely there were only two shots. Two of the three are two shot witnesses, Williams two shots in Sheriffs Affidavit, Jarmin second shot was the headshot, both provided statements of just two shots. Norman waited 3 or 4 days before giving a statement. You know Media’s Influence. The different panels stated it.


You don't think that the three shells found on the floor or Harold Norman's evidence that he heard three shots, three bolt action sounds and three shells hit the floor is credible.  You think that the 132 people who recalled three distinct shots are unreliable but the 17 who recalled just two are much more reliable.   

Three shells mean nothing. In light of Thompson’s observation, they now mean less than nothing. 

Your witness analysis, especially BRW, Jarmin, and Norman is as hokey as your theory.

Again, you are simply making my point.  The witnesses gave evidence that there were three shots. Your suggestion that they really meant they heard only two does not change the fact that they all stated that they heard three shots, so it is evidence that three shots occurred.  You just don't attribute any weight to the evidence.

You think that the Connallys, who insisted that JBC was hit by the second shot followed by a third that sprayed the car with blood and brain matter were hallucinating. Etc.

This is new. You are alternately stating JBC was and was not hit by the first bullet. What is this the 10th variation of this weird theory.

I am saying that the Connallys stated that JBC was hit by the second shot.  This does not necessarily mean that he was only hit by the second shot because he never felt the thigh wound or the wrist wound.

AM “The simplest explanation for CE399 is that it caused JFK's neck wound and one of JBC's wounds.  CE399's condition is inconsistent with the missile that caused the back and wrist wounds.  It has one dent in its base. That is consistent with having struck the femur base-first.  We don't have enough evidence to determine what it did after that.  All we know is that it ended up on a stretcher in Parkland.”

We have been over the Connolly’s statements endlessly. You admitted he was hit by the first shot because Jackie and Nellie both stated he was cried out after the first shot. JBC himself only heard two shots. In your bizarre theory you have him being struck by the first shot having passed through JFK, but that was meaningless, I guess.

JBC yelling "oh, no, no" was not necessarily in response to being hit.  Nellie said that he uttered this after the first shot and before the second shot.  JBC himself was not entirely sure if it was before or after the second shot but stated that he uttered it not because he was hit but because he realized that a tragic assassination was unfolding (1 HSCA 43).  In Life Magazine, Nov. 25/66 Connally stated:

• “Between the time I heard the first shot and felt the impact of the other bullet that obviously hit me, I sensed something was wrong, and said, ‘Oh no, no, no.’ After I felt the impact I glanced down and saw that my whole chest was covered with blood.”

Since he did not feel the thigh wound (and that is not uncommon especially when wounded in an extremity), and since a straight line trajectory through JFK's neck at the time of the first shot just after z186 goes to JBC's left side, I suggest that the first shot could have caused JBC's thigh wound.

[Michael T. Griffith]

There is plenty of evidence that three shots were fired.  What is missing is the kind of evidence that you find persuasive.

Huh? There is no evidence of a third shot and you have repeatedly failed to provide proof of a third shot. You would think that would be a clue, but you have dramatically shown you are incapable of figuring it out. The fact you bring this up and in these words is all telling about your inability to provide evidence of any kind.
 
You obviously don't think that the three men on the fifth floor immediately below the SN provide credible evidence of three shots from directly above them.

Not of three shots but definitely there were only two shots. Two of the three are two shot witnesses, Williams two shots in Sheriffs Affidavit, Jarmin second shot was the headshot, both provided statements of just two shots. Norman waited 3 or 4 days before giving a statement. You know Media’s Influence. The different panels stated it.

You don't think that the three shells found on the floor or Harold Norman's evidence that he heard three shots, three bolt action sounds and three shells hit the floor is credible.  You think that the 132 people who recalled three distinct shots are unreliable but the 17 who recalled just two are much more reliable.   

Three shells mean nothing. In light of Thompson’s observation, they now mean less than nothing. 

Your witness analysis, especially BRW, Jarmin, and Norman is as hokey as your theory.

You think that the Connallys, who insisted that JBC was hit by the second shot followed by a third that sprayed the car with blood and brain matter were hallucinating. Etc.

This is new. You are alternately stating JBC was and was not hit by the first bullet. What is this the 10th variation of this weird theory.

AM “The simplest explanation for CE399 is that it caused JFK's neck wound and one of JBC's wounds.  CE399's condition is inconsistent with the missile that caused the back and wrist wounds.  It has one dent in its base. That is consistent with having struck the femur base-first.  We don't have enough evidence to determine what it did after that.  All we know is that it ended up on a stretcher in Parkland.”

We have been over the Connolly’s statements endlessly. You admitted he was hit by the first shot because Jackie and Nellie both stated he was cried out after the first shot. JBC himself only heard two shots. In your bizarre theory you have him being struck by the first shot having passed through JFK, but that was meaningless, I guess.

I'm not going to waste time responding to most of your nonsensical, erroneous reply. I will just point out one thing: I have never "admitted" that Connally was hit by the first shot. I would never make such a ridiculous claim.

Connally said that he heard the first shot and then turned around to see if JFK was okay, and that he was only hit after he was in the process of making a second turn.

You keep ignoring the fact that Connally insisted he was not hit before Z231, and that when he was asked about Z228 and the frames immediately preceding it, he said there was no doubt whatsoever that he was not yet hit by Z228.

I take it you're never going to address the physical evidence discussed in my article, which is the subject of this thread. Let me refresh your memory:

The motorcade photos that show JFK's tie knot prove that the knot was centered squarely in the middle of the collar band, and the evidence photos of the tie knot prove the nick on the knot was not on the knot's edge, which facts prove there is no way that a bullet exiting the shirt slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot or could have nicked the outer surface of the tie knot.

The evidence photos of the holes in the back of JFK's shirt and coat prove the back wound was far too low for the bullet to have exited the throat. The rear clothing holes place the wound in the same location specified in the certified death certificate, in the autopsy face sheet (marked "verified'), and in the Sibert and O'Neill HSCA wound diagrams. The autopsy photo of the back wound proves the wound was at least 1 inch lower than where the WC bogusly placed it, as you can see in my article.

JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view

[Zeon Mason]

So was the “ hole” in the throat of JFK above the tie knot or not?

Myttons diagram looks like the SBT trajectory would have the hole in JFKs throat be at or below the tie knot so this seems to me to be confirming that a bullet exiting the throat had a fair probability of going thru the tie knot if the knot was exactly centered with the bullet hole.

But if the bullet went slightly to one side of the knot, or just above it, or just below it, IDK if the fabric gets torn, clipped or whatever because I have not  actually seen a demonstration with a dummy yet.

Was the Knick in the Tie knot caused by the nurse or someone else with a scalpel?

I’m skeptical  that the Knick could have been caused by a bullet exiting JFKs throat, but I’m equally skeptical it could have been caused by a bullet entering the throat.

From the footage of Charlie Kirk’s neck wound (I could barely watch because it’s very horrible) the blood immediately was gushing  out of the neck.

But I cannot quite see this same blood gush effect from JFKs throat in Z film frames so is this an anomaly or is it because JFKs throat wound did not hit an artery or vein?

[Tom Graves]

Was the nick in the tie knot caused by the nurse or someone else with a scalpel?

They were out of scalpels that day, so they had to use machetes.