The Truly Magical Bullet

[Gary Craig]

All the CTers are dodging it, so I will ask it again:


Question:

If the ?Back of the Neck? and the ?Front of the Neck? wounds were not caused by the same bullet, do people who do not accept the SBT look at this as just an incredible coincidence? Two different bullets caused wounds whose locations suggest that they were caused by the same bullet?


Does anyone want to step up and say ?Yes, that was a bit of a coincidence. Yes, the conspirators really caught a break there.? Or claim ?No, there was no coincidence. The shooters probably just used magnetic bullets?. [/i]

LNer BS.

There was a wound in JFK's back and a wound in the front of his neck.

The wounds weren't dissected or tracked through the body.

After Oswald was murdered in police custody and it became apparent there would be no trial or serious inquiry into the facts the inexperienced autopsy doctors made an uneducated guess that the wound in JFK's back and the one in the front of his neck were connected.

[Joe Elliott]

LNer BS.

There was a wound in JFK's back and a wound in the front of his neck.

The wounds weren't dissected or tracked through the body.

After Oswald was murdered in police custody and it became apparent there would be no trial or serious inquiry into the facts the inexperienced autopsy doctors made an uneducated guess that the wound in JFK's back and the one in the front of his neck were connected.

But if the wounds were caused by two different bullets, how do you explain them being on opposite sides of the neck? Coincidence?

Why are CTers so reluctant to answer this and just want to change the subject?

[Gary Craig]

But if the wounds were caused by two different bullets, how do you explain them being on opposite sides of the neck? Coincidence?

Why are CTers so reluctant to answer this and just want to change the subject?

You just don't understand that they weren't both in the neck.

Not to worry though, your equal to your peers.

Swallowing the WC hook, line and sinker does that to your ilk.

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

JFK is thrown forward in less than 1/2 of a second.

quote author=Martin Hinrichs
 
"What we see here is in my eyes clearly the impact-moment of the shot which hits Kennedy in his back."






"Credit Giuseppe Sabatino"

Martin

[John Iacoletti]

Watch this, John. I won't stutter or drool, instead I'll offer a reasonable plausible explanation.

The missed shot probably hit concrete and might have fragmented making it even more difficult to find or recover.

You said "plausible explanation", not wild-ass guess that you made up out of whole cloth.

But two can play that game:  then the the bullet that supposedly entered JFK's throat probably hit concrete and might have fragmented making it even more difficult to find or recover.

Besides being a wholly unpleasant arrogant troll, you're also a raging hypocrite.  Your drooling conjectures are somehow superior because . . .

Reasons.

[John Iacoletti]

All the CTers are dodging it, so I will ask it again:


Question:

If the ?Back of the Neck? and the ?Front of the Neck? wounds were not caused by the same bullet, do people who do not accept the SBT look at this as just an incredible coincidence? Two different bullets caused wounds whose locations suggest that they were caused by the same bullet?


Does anyone want to step up and say ?Yes, that was a bit of a coincidence. Yes, the conspirators really caught a break there.? Or claim ?No, there was no coincidence. The shooters probably just used magnetic bullets?. [/i]

Joe, it's only the people who already believe in the SBT who think that the locations suggest that they were caused by the same bullet.

[John Iacoletti]

Nothing amazing here. Ballistic tests conducted by Luke and Michael Haag show that the bullet would into very small fragments upon striking the asphalt, leaving a small hole in the asphalt, very much like the damage very busy roads receive on a regular basis. There was no extensive search of the street made. It is no wonder that the bullet, or its fragments, were ever found.

Why do you suppose there was no extensive search of the street made?  Wasn't there supposedly an investigation?  Oh yeah, the investigation had a predetermined conclusion.

But what is the good reason for believing there was a first missed shot at all if there is not evidence of such?  Just because you're assuming that the SBT is true and that there were 3 shots fired?  Because a couple of witnesses said something hit the pavement somewhere?  A couple of witnesses reported smoke on the grassy knoll too.  It's obvious that LNers will defend every element of the narrative no matter how much handwaving is required, but will then turn around and chide others for doing anything similar.

[Andrew Mason]

The bullet that entered JFK's back DID NOT EXIT according to the autopsy witnesses.

But not according to Dr. Humes, who conducted the autopsy!  Why is his conclusion not considered important? Why is a passive observer with no medical training who reached no conclusion used to reject the autopsy findings?