Autopsy proves SBT impossible

[Andrew Mason]

Essential? It is simply what happened. Why would you want a false understanding of the assassination? If you are able to show that SBT is not true then do so.

Most witnesses did not notice JBC but there are a few witnesses, including Nelly and Jackie, who did and who state JBC was hit by the first shot . There was only one bullet and fragments of another bullet recovered, the fact there was only two shots simply aids and clarifies the understanding of the assassination.

Neither Nellie nor Jackie stated that JBC was hit by the first shot.

He did receive a small wound on the first shot but JBC did not feel and did not react to it.  He did not notice it until the next day.  What he reacted to was the sound of the first shot.  He immediately recognized it as a rifle shot and he feared an assassination was taking place and turned around to see JFK.  His "oh, no, no, no" drew Jackie's attention. Nellie said he uttered those words before the second shot.  You can see him saying "oh, no, no, no" in the z240s and you can see Jackie turning to look at him.

[Andrew Mason]

What answer? No answer is an an answer. The only explanation there is for JBC's wound is a bullet passing through JFK. Despite all the posturing and gnashing of teeth about how impossible it was for one bullet to cause all the wounds, in the end it is the only possible answer there is. It seems to be a lot easier to question the actions of the WC and DPD and the vaguery of what they should have done, than it is to actually explain the mechanics of the assassination.

Why is it not possible that the bullet through JFK struck JBC in the left thigh? No one ever considered that possibility. But the trajectory makes it quite plausible.

[Bernd Werner]

Pleass explain the red herring comment

Your quote contains nothing, that is related to the SBT.

I guess I'm a "blowhard" because I stated my opinion based on many years of research on this case. Mr. Nickerson is wedded to an impossible theory and I can understand why his ego would be upset when the real evidence contradicts the moronic SBT.

"When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

One question: Why is the Parkland evidence completely opposite the autopsy conclusions? Are you telling us that Clint Hill, and all the hospital staff were lying?

Why do you think, that "lying" is the only alternative to explain the contradictions?

Part 2 of destroying the SBT:

If the MB entered at C7 (according to the x-ray) then it must have exited at T1 if it had a 17 degree downward trajectory from the TSBD. JFK's throat exit wound was actually at C6. LNers, WTF?

Did you include the slope of the street in your argument?

Part 3 of destroying the SBT:

LNers all, show us how the MB was possible.



Point 2 lasers at one another at a 17 degree angle and get in between them to show us how the MB entered at C7 and exited at C6/C7.

Good luck!

Ok, question answered, you didn't!

I agree that the autopsy does not disprove the SBT. What disproves the SBT the trajectory, are the following:

1. the 20+ witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot (not by smiling and waving for 3 seconds but by assuming  a blank look, moving to the left, reaching for his neck/chest);

2. the 20+ witnesses who placed the first shot after z191 (eg. Betzner, Hughes, bystanders along Elm, occupants of the VP car who said that they had completed the turn - it is still turning at z191, similarly for VP security and Cabell cars, etc.);

3. the 40+ witnesses who distinctly recalled that the last two shots were closer together and in rapid succession;

4. the individual witnesses like Greer, Hickey and Altgens who put the second shot after z255; and

5. Tague, who said he was struck on the second shot. That is inconsistent with the second shot SBT.  Greer said he sensed a "concussion" on the second shot and turned around immediately, which supports a strike on the windshield frame on that second shot.

So you're building your case solely on witness accounts. That seems to be a little bit moot, doesn't it?

All three shots struck occupants in the car. There was no missed shot.

And where is the missing bullet?

[Matt Grantham]

There are at least a dozen credible witnesses that stated or testified to having seen a large hole in the back lower portion JFK's skull That has more credence than whatever went on at Bethesda in my book

[Bernd Werner]

There are at least a dozen credible witnesses that stated or testified to having seen a large hole in the back lower portion JFK's skull That has more credence than whatever went on at Bethesda in my book

But there is no relation to the SBT, that is discussed here. Therefore, your argument is a red herring.

Now you tell me, if the SBT is incorrect....what happened to the bullet that hit JFK in the back....and if the throat wound wasn't an exit wound what caused that wound and what happened to that bullet ?

I think, it is more likely, that hell freezes over.

[Jim Brunsman]

Nice try, but several witnesses reported the second and third shots as a "bam-bam" and stressed they were "very close together" (Lee Bowers, et al). If Oswald or any other human was operating the "humanitarian rifle", they would have to cycle the bolt after the second shot and reacquire the target AND fire accurately. Can anyone honestly say that there's such a thing as two shots "very close together" from a bolt action rifle? I think not...

I started this thread knowing there would be many who would concoct scenarios to fit the discredited SBT. But the extent to which folks twist the evidence reminds me of trying to have an intelligent discussion with a Trump supporter. I will state it again because I'm an ineffective communicator. The single bullet theory is impossible because no shots exited from the front of the president's body. Several witnesses saw the president before the SBT could be fabricated. They report the throat wound as one of entrance. End of ballgame for SBT, just from a different direction!

[Andrew Mason]

Nice try, but several witnesses reported the second and third shots as a "bam-bam" and stressed they were "very close together" (Lee Bowers, et al). If Oswald or any other human was operating the "humanitarian rifle", they would have to cycle the bolt after the second shot and reacquire the target AND fire accurately. Can anyone honestly say that there's such a thing as two shots "very close together" from a bolt action rifle? I think not...

You are basing your conclusion on a few "verys"? What about the other witnesses who said the last two were not faster than one could operate a bolt-action rifle? (eg. Emmett Hudson, James Romack) and what about Harold Norman who actually described the sound of the bolt action? And what about Greer who said he turned around immediately after the second shot? He is turned around by z280. Are you suggesting that he turned before the second shot?

I started this thread knowing there would be many who would concoct scenarios to fit the discredited SBT. But the extent to which folks twist the evidence reminds me of trying to have an intelligent discussion with a Trump supporter. I will state it again because I'm an ineffective communicator. The single bullet theory is impossible because no shots exited from the front of the president's body. Several witnesses saw the president before the SBT could be fabricated. They report the throat wound as one of entrance. End of ballgame for SBT, just from a different direction!

That is the poorest argument against the SBT. The SBT is wrong but that is not the reason. The throat wound was an exit wound. Just look at the clothing. How does a bullet go under the tie knot? Who could have fired it? Where did it go. More to the point, where did the bullet in the back go?