The Truly Magical Bullet

[John Iacoletti]

There's a bald headed kook that thinks continually asking what happened to the 'missed shot' absolves him of the responsibility of explaining what he thinks happened to the bullet that supposedly entered JFK's throat.

Wrong again.  I didn't claim that a bullet entered JFK's throat.  I'm merely pointing out your raging hypocrisy and special pleading.  Your bullet "didn't disappear" it simply "wasn't recovered".

Without being able to explain where the bullet that entered JFK's throat went, the frontal entry theory has no viability.

Without being able to explain where the bullet that missed went, the missed bullet theory has no viability.  Note:  saying "that's different" is not an explanation.

Your "challenge" is as empty as your rhetoric.

[John Iacoletti]

The SBT is wrong because it conflicts with large bodies of consistent and well corroborated evidence. But that does not mean that someone other than, or in addition to, Oswald fired shots.

It doesn't even mean that Oswald fired any shots.

[John Iacoletti]

Instead of your lazy and increasingly tedious insults answer the question of what happened, you have the same information as us?

a) both men react simultaneously

You see what you want to see.

b) both men are lined up perfectly with the 6th floor snipers nest window.

Only if you start with the assumption that the SBT is true, make assumptions about which of the conflicting accounts of the wound locations were and then move Kennedy and Connally around in the limo until they sort of line up.

c) the amount of lead missing from CE399 is virtually equal with the tiny pieces found in Connally's wrist

Unable to determine without knowing the starting weight.

d) the rear entry on Connally was linear meaning that CE399 passed through something first to cause tumbling.

Not necessarily.  An ovoid wound could merely mean that it entered at an angle.

e) CE399 was not pristine and showed heavy deformation on one side indicating that it struck primarily side on.

Let's be honest here.  There's no evidence that CE 399 was involved in the assassination at all.

f) as the bullet passed through Connally it caused less and less damage, a full on bullet shatters bone but Connally only had a fractured wrist.

Depends what kind of weapon fired it and from where.  You're pre-assuming the same high powered rifle from the TSBD caused all the wounds.

[John Mytton]

Not necessarily.  An ovoid wound could merely mean that it entered at an angle.

No, you're not making sense.
Since the entrance and exit points on Connally are on record, we know the path through Connally was down and to the right which by definition indicates someone high and behind and we can also confirm that Connally's wound was more than twice as long than it was wide which demonstrates a totally non compliant entrance angle therefore Connally must have been hit by a tumbling bullet.


JohnM

[John Mytton]

You see what you want to see.

Yawn, I see what complies with all the evidence.








JohnM

[Andrew Mason]

Dr Gregory was actually there and said the wound was a linear wound and by his size description the bullet entry had to have hit at a more obtuse angle or a tumbling bullet and since we know the bullets path through Connally this effectively rules out an obtuse angle.

Dr. Shaw was there also and he was the thoracic surgeon who actually did the work on Connally's chest wounds. Gregory treated the wrist wound. Dr. Shaw described it as elliptical about 1.5 centimetre long and a smaller width. He was not a ballistics expert, but he had treated bullet wounds during WWII. He definitely said that it did not have the characteristics of a puncture wound striking at a right angle and he thought it could have been made by either a bullet that was tumbling or a non-tumbling bullet striking at a tangent. He said this (6H95):

"Now, you have to also take into consideration, however, whether the bullet enters at a right angle or at a tangent. If it enters at a tangent there will be some length to the wound of entrance."

And as the WC investigated, a full on bullet smashes, Connally's linear wrist wound was only a fracture therefore caused by a slower moving bullet.

Yes. But it had to be moving slower because it had passed through JBC's chest.

Dr Gregory again describes a chaotically moving bullet.

Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Gregory, what was then the relative size of the wounds on the back and front side of the wrist itself?
Dr. GREGORY - As I recall them, the wound dimensions would be so far as the wound on the back of the wrist is concerned about a haft a centimeter by two and a half centimeters in length. It was rather linear in nature. The upper end of it having apparently lost some tissue was gapping more than the lower portion of it.

He is describing the wound on the back of the wrist. This bullet had just exited the chest.  What does that have to do with the state of the bullet entering the back?

[Howard Gee]

The SBT is wrong because it conflicts with large bodies of consistent and well corroborated evidence. But that does not mean that someone other than, or in addition to, Oswald fired shots.

The shot timing that follows from the evidence is 1...........2......3. The sequence of shots is: shot#1 hits JFK in upper back and exits his throat under his neck tie knot; shot#2 just misses JFK's head on the right side and strikesJBC in the right armpit exiting through his jacket pocket and strikes the back of his foream shattering the radius and fragmenting into several pieces that deflect away from the point of contact; shot#3 strikes JFK in the head.  There is abundant consistent evidence that supports this and that conflcts with any other explanation. Moreover, the zfilm and the evidence enables us to pinpoint shot#2 and #3 and bracket shot#1 to within a couple of frames.

Andrew, while I disagree with your negative assessment of the viability of the SBT as well as your version of the shot sequencing and wounding, I think what you have proposed is at least a reasonable accounting of the mechanics of the assassination.

Of course, due to the proximity of the wounding of JFK and JBC your version of what happened would almost certainly require two assassins behind the limo (for which there is no evidence), but at least it's possible.

In any event, at least you have approached the assassination sequence logically.

Since you do NOT believe that there was a frontal throat entry wound, there is no need to lump you in with the drooling kooks that continue to insist JFK's throat wound was one of entry even though they can't answer the fundamental question of what happened to the bullet that entered his throat.

Challenge still on for the drooling kooks.

What happened to the bullet that you insist entered JFK's throat ?