JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on July 22, 2025, 07:44:01 PM
-
It would take many pages to detail the history of the follies of the single-bullet theory (SBT). Below is a condensed version of those follies--the many changes, contradictions, and bogus assumptions that have been put forth in defense of the theory. From its inception, the SBT has undergone some drastic changes in its assumptions about JFK's back wound, the location of JFK and Connally, JFK's forward lean when hit, and Connally's degree of turning when hit, among other issues.
Consider:
* At first the back wound was above the throat wound, but now it's level with or slightly below the throat wound, a difference of at least 1 inch in its vertical location on the back. But, we are told, the SBT still works!
In Dale Myers' SBT animation, the back wound is above the throat wound, noticeably above it. But the HSCA established that the back wound is actually slightly below the throat wound, or at least level with it.
* At first the alleged magic-bullet hit came at right around frame 210 of the Zapruder film (Z210), then it was at Z188, but now it's "positively" at Z224, based on a 56-millisecond supposed flip of Connally's lapel, never mind that pieces of fabric cannot move up and down that quickly.
* At first the alleged magic-bullet hit was the first shot, but now it's "positively" the second shot.
* At first, no one denied that JFK is clearly reacting to a wound in Z225, which proves he must have been hit no later than Z221, because it would take at least 4 frames for him to react to a wound with his hands and arms. But, at the 1992 ABA mock Oswald trial, Dr. Robert Piziali, who headed the Failure Analysis SBT trajectory analysis, denied that Z225 shows JFK reacting to a wound! Piziali put forth this specious denial because he admitted that if JFK reacted in Z225, the bullet that caused this reaction could not have hit him later than Z221, which would destroy his Z224-lapel-flip SBT.
To show the confusion that exists among SBT defenders, I note that Dr. John Lattimer, a devout WC apologist, concluded Kennedy shows a "reflex reaction" to a wound in Z225 and opined the wound occurred at about Z220. In fact, in his book Kennedy and Lincoln (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Johanovich, 1980), Lattimer acknowledged that Kennedy's elbows are beginning to "fly upward in frame 224" (p. 241), yet current SBT defenders claim the magic bullet hit him in Z223-224, making his Z224 reaction a physical impossibility.
* At first the SBT required that Connally was rotated 20-30 degrees to the right when the missile struck, but now we're assured the theory can still work even though some of the theory's defenders admit Connally's torso was rotated only 10-15 degrees.
In his SBT analysis, Myers has his Connally figure rotated 15 degrees to the right, whereas fellow lone-gunman theorist Todd Wayne Vaughan measures the degree of rotation as being only 10 degrees. In the Zapruder film we see Connally's shoulders are facing nearly parallel to the roll bar in Z223-224. The roll bar is a fixed horizontal point inside the limousine, and thus provides us with an excellent measuring rod. One can look at Z223-224 and plainly see that Connally's shoulders are nearly parallel to the roll bar. FBI photographic expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt noted to the WC that in Z222 Connally is turned only slightly to the right and that in the few frames thereafter he is "almost square, straight on with the car momentarily."
Dr. Thomas Canning did the HSCA's SBT trajectory analysis. Incredibly, he ignored the HSCA FPP's findings about the location of the back wound. Canning found that he could not get his vertical trajectory lines to match up when he used the back wound's location as determined by the FPP--even that was too low--so he moved it up by 1 inch. In order to make the horizontal trajectory work, Canning had to assume Connally was positioned so far to the left that his right shoulder was practically in the middle of the jump seat. Z224 alone visibly refutes any attempt to move Connally that far to the left, but ignoring Connally's actual horizontal position was the only way Canning could get the horizontal trajectory to line up.
* At first the SBT assumed Kennedy was sitting normally in his seat when the missile struck, but now the theory must assume he was leaning so far forward that most of his back was off the seat (ala Myers' SBT "reconstruction"), a notion that is not supported by the photographic evidence. Dr. Michael Baden, the chief of the HSCA forensic panel, claimed JFK was leaning so far forward that he was almost doubled over when the SBT bullet hit him. He said this because the HSCA's forensic experts determined that the bullet struck JFK's back at a slightly upward angle and that the back wound was nearly 2 inches lower than where the WC placed it.
* At first the conflict between the holes in the back of the coat and shirt and the official locations for the back wound were explained by speculating that the coat and shirt "bunched" up to or beyond the collar, but now, in response to photographic evidence, we're told the coat and shirt bunched by forming a hump below the collar.
This bizarre theory assumes the shirt--which was tailor-made and on whose tails Kennedy was sitting--bunched in nearly perfect, millimeter-for-millimeter correspondence with the coat. However, photos and footage show that Kennedy's coat was fairly flat, and certainly not bunched into some hump near the collar, shortly before Kennedy was first hit with a bullet. Willis slide 5, which was taken moments before the first hit, shows Kennedy's coat was lying flat or nearly flat on his back when the slide was taken. Professor Josiah Thompson, author of the highly acclaimed book Six Seconds in Dallas, confirmed this fact by studying the original color slide under a microscope. Even assuming the coat was significantly bunched, the odds that the shirt would bunch in nearly perfect correspondence with the coat are astronomically remote.
Sources for further study:
10 Reasons I Reject the Single-Bullet Theory
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-7AW56BXCumXFsOwyN6lE0WTBltOzeYI/view
The Shifting Sands of the Single-Bullet Theory
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MOKXTpq1hC5UHrF-JanDjQvzk2q0HvRF/view
The Magic Bullet: Even More Magical Than We Knew?
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm
Big Lie About a Small Wound in Connally's Back
https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/BigLieSmallWound/BigLieSmallWound.htm
-
It would take many pages to detail the history of the follies of the single-bullet theory (SBT). Below is a condensed version of those follies--the many changes, contradictions, and bogus assumptions that have been put forth in defense of the theory. From its inception, the SBT has undergone some drastic changes in its assumptions about JFK's back wound, the location of JFK and Connally, JFK's forward lean when hit, and Connally's degree of turning when hit, among other issues.
Consider:
* At first the back wound was above the throat wound, but now it's level with or slightly below the throat wound, a difference of at least 1 inch in its vertical location on the back. But, we are told, the SBT still works!
In Dale Myers' SBT animation, the back wound is above the throat wound, noticeably above it. But the HSCA established that the back wound is actually slightly below the throat wound, or at least level with it.
* At first the alleged magic-bullet hit came at right around frame 210 of the Zapruder film (Z210), then it was at Z188, but now it's "positively" at Z224, based on a 56-millisecond supposed flip of Connally's lapel, never mind that pieces of fabric cannot move up and down that quickly.
* At first the alleged magic-bullet hit was the first shot, but now it's "positively" the second shot.
* At first, no one denied that JFK is clearly reacting to a wound in Z225, which proves he must have been hit no later than Z221, because it would take at least 4 frames for him to react to a wound with his hands and arms. But, at the 1992 ABA mock Oswald trial, Dr. Robert Piziali, who headed the Failure Analysis SBT trajectory analysis, denied that Z225 shows JFK reacting to a wound! Piziali put forth this specious denial because he admitted that if JFK reacted in Z225, the bullet that caused this reaction could not have hit him later than Z221, which would destroy his Z224-lapel-flip SBT.
To show the confusion that exists among SBT defenders, I note that Dr. John Lattimer, a devout WC apologist, concluded Kennedy shows a "reflex reaction" to a wound in Z225 and opined the wound occurred at about Z220. In fact, in his book Kennedy and Lincoln (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Johanovich, 1980), Lattimer acknowledged that Kennedy's elbows are beginning to "fly upward in frame 224" (p. 241), yet current SBT defenders claim the magic bullet hit him in Z223-224, making his Z224 reaction a physical impossibility.
* At first the SBT required that Connally was rotated 20-30 degrees to the right when the missile struck, but now we're assured the theory can still work even though some of the theory's defenders admit Connally's torso was rotated only 10-15 degrees.
In his SBT analysis, Myers has his Connally figure rotated 15 degrees to the right, whereas fellow lone-gunman theorist Todd Wayne Vaughan measures the degree of rotation as being only 10 degrees. In the Zapruder film we see Connally's shoulders are facing nearly parallel to the roll bar in Z223-224. The roll bar is a fixed horizontal point inside the limousine, and thus provides us with an excellent measuring rod. One can look at Z223-224 and plainly see that Connally's shoulders are nearly parallel to the roll bar. FBI photographic expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt noted to the WC that in Z222 Connally is turned only slightly to the right and that in the few frames thereafter he is "almost square, straight on with the car momentarily."
Dr. Thomas Canning did the HSCA's SBT trajectory analysis. Incredibly, he ignored the HSCA FPP's findings about the location of the back wound. Canning found that he could not get his vertical trajectory lines to match up when he used the back wound's location as determined by the FPP--even that was too low--so he moved it up by 1 inch. In order to make the horizontal trajectory work, Canning had to assume Connally was positioned so far to the left that his right shoulder was practically in the middle of the jump seat. Z224 alone visibly refutes any attempt to move Connally that far to the left, but ignoring Connally's actual horizontal position was the only way Canning could get the horizontal trajectory to line up.
* At first the SBT assumed Kennedy was sitting normally in his seat when the missile struck, but now the theory must assume he was leaning so far forward that most of his back was off the seat (ala Myers' SBT "reconstruction," a notion that is not supported by the photographic evidence. Dr. Michael Baden, the chief of the HSCA forensic panel, claimed JFK was leaning so far forward that he was almost doubled over when the SBT bullet hit him. He said this because the HSCA's forensic experts determined that the bullet struck JFK's back at a slightly upward angle and that the back wound was nearly 2 inches lower than where the WC placed it.
* At first the conflict between the holes in the back of the coat and shirt and the official locations for the back wound were explained by speculating that the coat and shirt "bunched" up to or beyond the collar, but now, in response to photographic evidence, we're told the coat and shirt bunched by forming a hump below the collar.
This bizarre theory assumes the shirt--which was tailor-made and on whose tails Kennedy was sitting--bunched in nearly perfect, millimeter-for-millimeter
correspondence with the coat. However, photos and footage show that Kennedy's coat was fairly flat, and certainly not bunched into some hump near
the collar, shortly before Kennedy was first hit with a bullet. Willis slide 5, which was taken moments before the first hit, shows Kennedy's coat was lying flat or nearly flat on his back when the slide was taken. Professor Josiah Thompson, author of the highly acclaimed book Six Seconds in Dallas, confirmed this fact by studying the original color slide under a microscope. Even assuming the coat was significantly bunched, the odds that the shirt would bunch in nearly perfect correspondence with the coat are astronomically remote.
Sources for further study:
10 Reasons I Reject the Single-Bullet Theory
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-7AW56BXCumXFsOwyN6lE0WTBltOzeYI/view
The Shifting Sands of the Single-Bullet Theory
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MOKXTpq1hC5UHrF-JanDjQvzk2q0HvRF/view
The Magic Bullet: Even More Magical Than We Knew?
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm
Big Lie About a Small Wound in Connally's Back
https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/BigLieSmallWound/BigLieSmallWound.htm
There are so many false claims in that that it's not worth even bothering to address them.
-
There are so many false claims in that that it's not worth even bothering to address them.
Why don't you identify just two of the claims that you say are false? Or just one?
-
Why don't you identify just two of the claims that you say are false? Or just one?
In Dale Myers' SBT animation, the back wound is above the throat wound, noticeably above it. But the HSCA established that the back wound is actually slightly below the throat wound, or at least level with it.
-
Why don't you identify just two of the claims that you say are false? Or just one?
Here's one more;
In his SBT analysis, Myers has his Connally figure rotated 15 degrees to the right,
Myers has Connally rotated 37 degrees to the right at Z223.
-
Griffith: In Dale Myers' SBT animation, the back wound is above the throat wound, noticeably above it.
But the HSCA established that the back wound is actually slightly below the throat wound, or at least level with it.
Griffith: In his SBT analysis, Myers has his Connally figure rotated 15 degrees to the right.
Myers has Connally rotated 37 degrees to the right at Z223.
Tim,
Please don't confuse Michael T. Griffith with the facts.
-- Tom
-
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCGYkogJiRoQGm7DHLk_rzN8_9EmTXDcm5GXM8gGiu5TeQiF0OxRgjTOX7mKylfq-Kzul0TxFpvwPMDOz4rfQf4KjCmrE7ijOmQVYyjFHuk5f5mcOKa-ZpvSXoEtvWQJzUO_KFx4HKBrw/s558/XX.+Single-Bullet+Theory+Blog+Logo.png) (http://www.single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com)
-
In Dale Myers' SBT animation, the back wound is above the throat wound, noticeably above it. But the HSCA established that the back wound is actually slightly below the throat wound, or at least level with it.
You guys don't even know the basics of the relevant evidence of your own case. Here's the HSCA wound diagram for the back wound:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HSCA-JFK-neck2-6-43.jpg
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M53a_Kennedy.pdf
7 HSCA, Figure 12, p. 100
Now, look at those HSCA illustrations and tell me why I am wrong to say that the HSCA FPP located the back wound slightly below or at least level with the throat wound. Let's hear it.
Notice, also, how far the HSCA FPP had to have JFK leaning forward.
And I note you avoided the fact that the FPP also observed that the back wound's abrasion collar proves the bullet struck the back at a slightly upward angle. That's why they had to assume JFK was leaning so far forward when the bullet struck.
Compare the HSCA FPP's Figure 12 with the WC's CE 385 and with Lattimer's Figure 8 in his Wound Ballistics Review article.
CE 385: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_385.pdf
Lattimer Figure 8: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/pdf/lattimer.pdf
Lattimer's downward trajectory through the neck seems to be slightly steeper than the WC's. It's definitely steeper than the HSCA FPP's. But, nah, the SBT still magically works! Never you mind the 10-15-degree differences in downward angles between the HSCA, WC, and Lattimer SBT illustrations! It just must work, lest we be forced to admit there were multiple gunmen!
Finally, I trust you're not denying that Myers puts the back wound noticeably above the throat wound, right? Look at his animation:
You can see that he has the back wound visibly above the throat wound (3:55-3:57). It's worth noting that Myers rotates Connally at least 25 degrees to the right (3:22-3:23). Curiously, Myers seems to be using Connally's rotation seen in Z238-242 as Connally's position when the SBT bullet allegedly struck (3:26-3:30), which of course is both erroneous and misleading, not to mention that it invalidates the Z224-lapel-flip SBT.
-
You guys don't even know the basics of the relevant evidence of your own case. Here's the HSCA wound diagram for the back wound:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HSCA-JFK-neck2-6-43.jpg
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M53a_Kennedy.pdf
7 HSCA, Figure 12, p. 100
Now, look at those HSCA illustrations and tell me why I am wrong to say that the HSCA FPP located the back wound slightly below or at least level with the throat wound. Let's hear it.
Notice, also, how far the HSCA FPP had to have JFK leaning forward.
And I note you avoided the fact that the FPP also observed that the back wound's abrasion collar proves the bullet struck the back at a slightly upward angle. That's why they had to assume JFK was leaning so far forward when the bullet struck.
Compare the HSCA FPP's Figure 12 with the WC's CE 385 and with Lattimer's Figure 8 in his Wound Ballistics Review article.
CE 385: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_385.pdf
Lattimer Figure 8: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/pdf/lattimer.pdf
Lattimer's downward trajectory through the neck seems to be slightly steeper than the WC's. It's definitely steeper than the HSCA FPP's. But, nah, the SBT still magically works! Never you mind the 10-15-degree differences in downward angles between the HSCA, WC, and Lattimer SBT illustrations! It just must work, lest we be forced to admit there were multiple gunmen!
Finally, I trust you're not denying that Myers puts the back wound noticeably above the throat wound, right? Look at his animation:
You can see that he has the back wound visibly above the throat wound (3:55-3:57). It's worth noting that Myers rotates Connally at least 25 degrees to the right (3:22-3:23). Curiously, Myers seems to be using Connally's rotation seen in Z238-242 as Connally's position when the SBT bullet allegedly struck (3:26-3:30), which of course is both erroneous and misleading, not to mention that it invalidates the Z224-lapel-flip SBT.
The drawing of JFK leaning significantly forward was not something that represented the view of the FPP as a whole.
"Several members of the panel believe, based on an examination of these enhancements, that when the body is repositioned in the anatomic position (not the position at the moment of shooting) the direction of the missile in the body on initial penetration was slightly upward, inasmuch as the lower margin of the skin is abraded in an upward direction. Furthermore, the wound beneath the skin appears to be tunneled from below upward."
Several members of the panel, not the panel as a whole. Not even a majority.
The FPP determined that the entry wound on Kennedy was superior to the ribs. Meaning that it was in the neck. While Kennedy appeared to be hunched forward due to his hunchback physique, he didn't need to be hunched forward much at all for the bullet to traverse his neck at a downward angle of 17.5 degrees.
Your claim that "the HSCA established that the back wound is actually slightly below the throat wound, or at least level with it" is false.
Your claim that "In his SBT analysis, Myers has his Connally figure rotated 15 degrees to the right" is false.
Nothing that you offered in that above alters those two facts.
Your OP contains others false claims as well.
-
The drawing of JFK leaning significantly forward was not something that represented the view of the FPP as a whole.
I'm afraid you again do not know what you are talking about. Figure 12 was in the FPP's final report. Only Dr. Wecht dissented from any part of the report. Dr. Baden, the FPP chairman, endorsed that marked forward lean in a TV interview to explain how the bullet could have hit at the panel's location for the back wound, which was at least 1 inch lower than the WC's placement, and still have exited the throat.
"Several members of the panel believe, based on an examination of these enhancements, that when the body is repositioned in the anatomic position (not the position at the moment of shooting) the direction of the missile in the body on initial penetration was slightly upward, inasmuch as the lower margin of the skin is abraded in an upward direction. Furthermore, the wound beneath the skin appears to be tunneled from below upward."
You are missing the point of this statement and misapplying it. Even Dr. Wecht agreed that the abrasion collar shows the bullet hit at a slightly upward angle. The statement alludes to the second illustration in Figure 12, which shows JFK in three positions: upright, leaning somewhat forward, leaning markedly forward. This statement also reflects the dispute between Wecht and the rest of the FPP over the implications of the abrasion collar relating to the bullet's alleged course through the neck. The key admission here is that "the wound beneath the skin" is tunneled "from below upward."
The FPP majority's argument that the bullet's path would have been upward only with JFK in the anatomical position is nonsense, and is refuted by Figure 12. Even in Figure 12's third position in the right-side illustration, the back wound is still at least level with the throat wound, but this can be obscured to the casual viewer by the two other positions in the right-side illustration, but the left-side illustration makes this clear because there are no distractions from overlaps from the two other positions.
As Wecht later noted, no matter how much forward lean you assume for JFK above the horizontal plane, upward tunneling below the skin is upward tunneling below the skin and totally contradicts the trajectory from the sixth-floor window--unless you have JFK doubled over so that he is below the horizontal plane, which of course not even Baden was willing to do.
The FPP determined that the entry wound on Kennedy was superior to the ribs. Meaning that it was in the neck. While Kennedy appeared to be hunched forward due to his hunchback physique, he didn't need to be hunched forward much at all for the bullet to traverse his neck at a downward angle of 17.5 degrees.
This is more of your self-delusion and misrepresentation of the FPP's findings. For starters, the FPP said the back wound was located in "the upper right back" (12 HSCA 80). Let me repeat that: "the upper right back." Not the neck. "The upper right back."
Second, compare HSCA FPP Figure 24 with CEs 385 and 386. The FPP not only located the wound at least 1 inch lower than did the WC but also closer to the spine/farther away from the right ear.
But, magically, the SBT trajectory still works! Move the wound down and to the right, but, don't worry, the trajectory will somehow, someway still magically work.
Your claim that "the HSCA established that the back wound is actually slightly below the throat wound, or at least level with it" is false.
Umm, no, it is not. You've offered nothing that proves it is false and have ignored the evidence that proves it is true. HSCA FPP Figure 12 proves that the FPP put the wound level with or slightly below the throat wound.
You have a habit of proclaiming things to be false without proving your claim in the slightest and while ignoring contrary evidence. Look at how many times you have made the bizarre, demonstrably false claim that the 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment are the same fragment. This is not only self-evidently erroneous but just plain odd.
Again, compare HSCA FPP Figure 24 with CEs 385 and 386. The FPP not only located the wound at least 1 inch lower but also closer to the spine than did the WC.
Your claim that "In his SBT analysis, Myers has his Connally figure rotated 15 degrees to the right" is false.
First off, I said "Myers rotates Connally at least 25 degrees to the right," not just 15 degrees. If you don't see this, then you don't understand rotation angles and how to measure them.
I note that you ignored the fact that Myers uses Connally's rotation seen in Z238 and applies it to the moment of impact, which of course invalidates his bogus animation from the get-go. Connally was barely rotated at all in Z224, when the SBT allegedly hit him.
Folks, to get some idea of the ball of confusion that exists in the SBT camp, compare how Myers has Connally positioned and rotated to how NASA's Dr. Tom Canning positioned and rotated Connally in his SBT analysis for the HSCA. You will wonder if they were viewing the same photographic evidence.
-
I am not an SBT fanatic, but there are so many variables and unknowns that it seems to me that attempting to poke holes in the SBT really isn't productive. It's like Cliff Varnell at the Ed Forum, who insists the alignment of the holes in the clothing, the back wound and the throat wound is IMPOSSIBLE, CASE CLOSED, NOTHING FURTHER TO DISCUSS, IF YOU DON'T AGREE YOU'RE JUST A FOOL. But then Cliff has no plausible theory of his own. It's just "coincidence" that the alignment is as close as it is, and the throat wound was the frontal entry of a CIA-issued ice bullet that melted before it exited the body. Well, Cliffaroo, ya know ....
It seems to me that if you want to attack the SBT, you need a genuinely plausible, evidence-based alternative theory. To work backwards from "there are problems with the SBT" to "there must have been a second gunman who fired at nearly the same time as Oswald" seems to me to be just non-evidence-based and pretty implausible ad hoc speculation. To engage in that sort of speculation, we would need to be able to say the SBT is IMPOSSIBLE - and there are just too many variables and unknowns to be able to say this, no matter how many forensic experts and pseudo-experts insist they have recreated "exactly" what occurred.
-
I'm afraid you again do not know what you are talking about. Figure 12 was in the FPP's final report. Only Dr. Wecht dissented from any part of the report. Dr. Baden, the FPP chairman, endorsed that marked forward lean in a TV interview to explain how the bullet could have hit at the panel's location for the back wound, which was at least 1 inch lower than the WC's placement, and still have exited the throat.
You are missing the point of this statement and misapplying it. Even Dr. Wecht agreed that the abrasion collar shows the bullet hit at a slightly upward angle. The statement alludes to the second illustration in Figure 12, which shows JFK in three positions: upright, leaning somewhat forward, leaning markedly forward. This statement also reflects the dispute between Wecht and the rest of the FPP over the implications of the abrasion collar relating to the bullet's alleged course through the neck. The key admission here is that "the wound beneath the skin" is tunneled "from below upward."
The FPP majority's argument that the bullet's path would have been upward only with JFK in the anatomical position is nonsense, and is refuted by Figure 12. Even in Figure 12's third position in the right-side illustration, the back wound is still at least level with the throat wound, but this can be obscured to the casual viewer by the two other positions in the right-side illustration, but the left-side illustration makes this clear because there are no distractions from overlaps from the two other positions.
As Wecht later noted, no matter how much forward lean you assume for JFK above the horizontal plane, upward tunneling below the skin is upward tunneling below the skin and totally contradicts the trajectory from the sixth-floor window--unless you have JFK doubled over so that he is below the horizontal plane, which of course not even Baden was willing to do.
This is more of your self-delusion and misrepresentation of the FPP's findings. For starters, the FPP said the back wound was located in "the upper right back" (12 HSCA 80). Let me repeat that: "the upper right back." Not the neck. "The upper right back."
Second, compare HSCA FPP Figure 24 with CEs 385 and 386. The FPP not only located the wound at least 1 inch lower than did the WC but also closer to the spine/farther away from the right ear.
But, magically, the SBT trajectory still works! Move the wound down and to the right, but, don't worry, the trajectory will somehow, someway still magically work.
Umm, no, it is not. You've offered nothing that proves it is false and have ignored the evidence that proves it is true. HSCA FPP Figure 12 proves that the FPP put the wound level with or slightly below the throat wound.
You have a habit of proclaiming things to be false without proving your claim in the slightest and while ignoring contrary evidence. Look at how many times you have made the bizarre, demonstrably false claim that the 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment are the same fragment. This is not only self-evidently erroneous but just plain odd.
Again, compare HSCA FPP Figure 24 with CEs 385 and 386. The FPP not only located the wound at least 1 inch lower but also closer to the spine than did the WC.
It was not an FPP majority argument that the bullet's path would have been upward in Kennedy. It was an FPP minority belief. Baden was one of the several members of the minority.
The FPP determined that the entry wound on Kennedy was superior to the ribs. T1 is the vertebrae for the uppermost rib. The wound was above that vertebrae. It was in the neck. That conclusion of the panel was no doubt based somewhat on the fact that the right transverse processes of T1 and C7 were damaged.
In examining posrterior autopsy photos, the FPP determined that the entry wound was 6 cm below the most prominent neck crease. The Clark panel found it to be 5.5 cm below that crease. That skin fold in visible in the left lateral view. The throat wound is visible as well. The Clark panel measured that throat wound to be about 9 cm below the skin fold. Kennedy really didn't need to be leaning forward much as all for the bullet to traverse downward through the neck as it did. Thomas Canning determined that he was hunched forward between 11° and 18°.
(https://i.imgur.com/Z4gaQFq.jpeg)
The 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment are the same fragment. Humes did not remove the 7 x 2 mm fragment from the frontal skull bone, as you foolishly claim.
First off, I said "Myers rotates Connally at least 25 degrees to the right," not just 15 degrees. If you don't see this, then you don't understand rotation angles and how to measure them.
I note that you ignored the fact that Myers uses Connally's rotation seen in Z238 and applies it to the moment of impact, which of course invalidates his bogus animation from the get-go. Connally was barely rotated at all in Z224, when the SBT allegedly hit him.
Folks, to get some idea of the ball of confusion that exists in the SBT camp, compare how Myers has Connally positioned and rotated to how NASA's Dr. Tom Canning positioned and rotated Connally in his SBT analysis for the HSCA. You will wonder if they were viewing the same photographic evidence.
"Computer analysis shows that JBC turned sharply to the right beginning at Z157. This right turn continues until Z193 where JBC's shoulders are rotated 48 degrees right, relative to the midline of the limousine. At this point, JBC begins a slow rotation leftward. This smooth leftward turn continues until frame 223. At this point JBC's shoulders are rotated 37 degrees right, relative to the limousine. JBC's sharp right turn of 48 degrees, and the subsequent leftward rotation of 11 degrees is the only such movement prior to the first impact."
https://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl1.htm
You claimed that Myers has his Connally figure rotated 15 degrees to the right. I do understand rotation angles and how to measure them. Your claim is false.
Thomas Canning determined that Connally was rotated about 30 degrees to the right. You've been at this stuff for decades and you're still as ignorant on it as ever.
-
"Computer analysis shows that JBC turned sharply to the right beginning at Z157. This right turn continues until Z193 where JBC's shoulders are rotated 48 degrees right, relative to the midline of the limousine. At this point, JBC begins a slow rotation leftward. This smooth leftward turn continues until frame 223. At this point JBC's shoulders are rotated 37 degrees right, relative to the limousine. JBC's sharp right turn of 48 degrees, and the subsequent leftward rotation of 11 degrees is the only such movement prior to the first impact."
https://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl1.htm
Thomas Canning determined that Connally was rotated about 30 degrees to the right.
So, which is it?
37 degrees, or about 30 degrees?
Split the difference?
-
So, which is it?
37 degrees, or about 30 degrees?
Split the difference?
Canning wasn't trying to be precise. However, I usually go with the 30 degree figure. You can split the difference if you like.
A right rotation of 30 degrees moves the point on Connally's back where the bullet entered 3.25 inches to the left.
(https://i.imgur.com/eTjfbnX.png)
-
Canning wasn't trying to be precise. However, I usually go with the 30 degree figure. You can split the difference if you like.
A right rotation of 30 degrees moves the point on Connally's back where the bullet entered 3.25 inches to the left.
(https://i.imgur.com/eTjfbnX.png)
Thanks.
This is at Z-223?
-
Thanks.
This is at Z-223?
Yes. If you were to use Myers' 37 degrees, then the point of entry would be even more to the left. When taking the maximum of 8.6 inches provided by ITEK plus that 3.25 inches given by the 30 degree right rotation, the lateral angle of trajectory part of the SBT is beyond being destroyed by CTs.
-
How do you deal with people who are so unwilling to face facts that they can't even admit that the HSCA FPP put the back wound about 1 inch lower than did the WC? How do you reason with people who won't acknowledge what is plainly visible in HSCA FPP Figure 24 and in CEs 385 and 386? I mean, really, how?
How can you engage in rational discussion with people who allow themselves to imagine that a wound whose visible interior is tunneled upward would somehow magically become tunneled downward if the body were in the anatomical position, not to mention the abrasion collar, which proves the bullet struck at a slightly upward angle after supposedly being fired from an elevation of 60 feet?
-
How do you deal with people who are so unwilling to face facts that they can't even admit that the HSCA FPP put the back wound about 1 inch lower than did the WC? How do you reason with people who won't acknowledge what is plainly visible in HSCA FPP Figure 24 and in CEs 385 and 386? I mean, really, how?
How can you engage in rational discussion with people who allow themselves to imagine that a wound whose visible interior is tunneled upward would somehow magically become tunneled downward if the body were in the anatomical position, not to mention the abrasion collar, which proves the bullet struck at a slightly upward angle after supposedly being fired from an elevation of 60 feet?
Griffith,
Why are you such a rabid JFKA tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorist and gaslighter?
Does somebody pay you to try to discredit the Warren Commission Report's conclusion that a self-described Marxist former Marine sharpshooter and radar operator by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald fired all three shots at JFK in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza and killed him even though one of his shots missed everything?
If so, is it "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin by any chance?
-
Griffith, Why are you such a rabid JFKA tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorist and gaslighter? Does somebody pay you to try to discredit the Warren Commission Report's conclusion that a self-described Marxist former Marine sharpshooter and radar operator by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald fired all three shots at JFK in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza and killed him even though one of his shots missed everything? If so, is it "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin by any chance?
This silliness is your answer to the evidence I have presented in this thread and to the facts I mentioned in my previous reply???
"Marine sharpshooter"?! You must know this is misleading, at best. You're referring to the fact that on Oswald's very best day at a Marine rifle range, he barely managed to qualify in the "Sharpshooter" category, the second of three qualification categories. In basic training, I saw guys who'd never fired a rifle before qualify in the "Sharpshooter" category. Of course, Oswald was using a semi-automatic rifle and firing at stationary targets on which he had practiced for days before firing for record. This was vastly less difficult than his alleged 11/22/63 shooting performance.
When three NRA-Master-rated riflemen, using the alleged murder rifle, attempted to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting feat for the WC, they failed miserably, even though the targets were not moving, even though they fired from only 30 feet up, and even though they took as much time as they wanted for their first shot. Most of their shots landed far from the aiming point, and many of their shots didn't even hit within the target silhouettes on the target boards. Are you aware that the greatest Marine sniper of all time, Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock, said he didn't believe Oswald could have done the shooting?
If Oswald fired a rifle on 11/22, why did every single test done on his right-cheek paraffin cast, including the super-sensitive NAA test, find no traces of nitrates, even though the control test proved that NAA was 100% reliable in detecting nitrate residues in paraffin casts of men who'd fired rifles?
I discuss Oswald's poor marksmanship skills at great length in my recent book A Comforting Lie: The Myth that a Lone Gunman Killed President Kennedy.
-
[...]
Griffith,
The truth regarding the wounds that JFK and JBC sustained before the fatal head shot (Hint: they were all caused by CE-399) was not immediately apparent because:
1) Investigators didn't realize that JFK was sitting significantly farther to the right and higher than JBC, and that JBC was turned about 35 degrees to his right when he was hit.
2) Investigators didn't realize that that kind of bullet has a tendency to start tumbling upon exiting something soft, like a block of ballistics gel or a human neck
3) Oswald took 10.2 seconds to fire all three shots in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza, and only his last two shots were "captured" by the Zapruder film
4) James Tague may have been wounded by a bullet fragment from the fatal head shot
5) Most of JFK's body may have been hidden behind the Stemmons Freeway sign when he was hit by CE-399
6)JFK reacted to being hit by CE-399 more quickly and in a different way than JBC because CE-399 passed through his neck and nicked his spinal column whereas it passed through JBC's chest and didn't nick his spinal column
7) The bullet hole in JFK's throat was mistaken by Dr. Perry as an entrance wound because it was small. It was small because JFK's shirt collar and tie were exerting pressure on his skin when it exited
8 ) The aforementioned exit wound in JFK's throat was virtually obliterated by the tracheostomy that was performed at Parkland Hospital
9) The autopsy doctors didn't know about the bullet hole in JFK's throat until the next day
10) The autopsy doctors weren't able to physically track the path of CE-399 through JFK's corpse because rigor mortis had set in
11) Etc. Etc. Etc.
Get over it, Griffith.
Not everyone is as perfect as you and the eye doctor known as Dr. Gary "Rudeness" Aguilar.
-
To show the confusion that exists among SBT defenders, I note that Dr. John Lattimer, a devout WC apologist, concluded Kennedy shows a "reflex reaction" to a wound in Z225 and opined the wound occurred at about Z220. In fact, in his book Kennedy and Lincoln (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Johanovich, 1980), Lattimer acknowledged that Kennedy's elbows are beginning to "fly upward in frame 224" (p. 241), yet current SBT defenders claim the magic bullet hit him in Z223-224, making his Z224 reaction a physical impossibility.
It is crucial to note that even if we assume that JFK does not start to react until Z225, this still means that the bullet that caused the reaction must have hit no later than Z221, because no human could visibly move their hands upward and inward less than four frames after being hit. This is why Dr. Robert Piziali, testifying for the prosecution in the 1992 mock Oswald trial, denied that JFK is reacting to a wound in Z225. Under cross-examination, Piziali admitted that if JFK is reacting to a wound in Z225, the bullet that caused this reaction could not have hit him after Z221, which would destroy his Z224-lapel-flip SBT, so he was forced to deny JFK's obvious wound reaction in Z225.
In fact, we know from the 4/22/64 WC memorandum that when a group of wound ballistics experts, the autopsy doctors, and commission staffers reviewed the Zapruder film frame by frame, with the aid of enlargements, the consensus was that Kennedy "had been definitely hit by frames 224-225" (p. 1). It should be noted that this group included Dr. F. W. Light, the deputy chief of the Biophysics Division at Edgewood Arsenal, and Dr. Alfred G. Olivier, the chief of the Wound Ballistics Branch of the Biophysics Division at Edgewood Arsenal. The group further noted that the Z224-225 reaction may have begun as early as Z199, and also at around Z204-205:
The reaction shown in frames 224-225 may have started at an earlier
point--possibly as early as frame 199 (where there appears to be some
jerkiness in his movement) or, with a higher degree of possibility,
at frames 204-205 (where his right elbow appears to be raised to an
artificially high position). (WC memo, 4/22/64, p. 1)
Of course, JFK's Z225 wound reaction, not to mention his Z224 and earlier reaction, destroys the Z224-lapel-flip SBT.
This is a good example of the tendency of WC defenders to uncritically and hastily accept "expert" conclusions without considering the implications. Leaving aside the fact that coat lapels cannot flip up and down in the space of 1/18th of a second, and leaving aside the clear indications of a wound reaction before Z224, if the lapel flip was caused by a bullet, then JFK's Z224/Z225 reaction categorically proves he must have been hit by a different bullet.
-
I discuss Oswald's poor marksmanship skills at great length in my recent book A Comforting Lie: The Myth that a Lone Gunman Killed President Kennedy.
Griffith,
Oswald was a very good marksman by civilian standards.
https://www.rrauction.com/auctions/lot-detail/345171706200220-lee-harvey-oswalds-us-marine-corps-rifle-score-book-warren-commission-exhibit-no-239/
-
* At first the back wound was above the throat wound, but now it's level with or slightly below the throat wound, a difference of at least 1 inch in its vertical location on the back. But, we are told, the SBT still works!
In Dale Myers' SBT animation, the back wound is above the throat wound, noticeably above it. But the HSCA established that the back wound is actually slightly below the throat wound, or at least level with it.
This is not an argument just against the SBT. It is an argument that the bullet did not transit JFK's neck. That appears to be at odds with all the evidence.
* At first the alleged magic-bullet hit came at right around frame 210 of the Zapruder film (Z210), then it was at Z188, but now it's "positively" at Z224, based on a 56-millisecond supposed flip of Connally's lapel, never mind that pieces of fabric cannot move up and down that quickly.
* At first the alleged magic-bullet hit was the first shot, but now it's "positively" the second shot.
I agree that the shifting time of the shot through JFK and the change in sequence does not instill confidence that the Single Bullet Theory is a "Fact".
* At first, no one denied that JFK is clearly reacting to a wound in Z225, which proves he must have been hit no later than Z221, because it would take at least 4 frames for him to react to a wound with his hands and arms. But, at the 1992 ABA mock Oswald trial, Dr. Robert Piziali, who headed the Failure Analysis SBT trajectory analysis, denied that Z225 shows JFK reacting to a wound! Piziali put forth this specious denial because he admitted that if JFK reacted in Z225, the bullet that caused this reaction could not have hit him later than Z221, which would destroy his Z224-lapel-flip SBT.
To show the confusion that exists among SBT defenders, I note that Dr. John Lattimer, a devout WC apologist, concluded Kennedy shows a "reflex reaction" to a wound in Z225 and opined the wound occurred at about Z220. In fact, in his book Kennedy and Lincoln (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Johanovich, 1980), Lattimer acknowledged that Kennedy's elbows are beginning to "fly upward in frame 224" (p. 241), yet current SBT defenders claim the magic bullet hit him in Z223-224, making his Z224 reaction a physical impossibility.
Latimer lacked the "ne" in his qualifications to be a neurologist.
His theory that JFK assumed the "Thorburn position" is not supported by any qualified neurologist. The original report of Dr. Thorburn shows that it took a few days for the unfortunate falling victim to assume the "Thorburn position" and that was because the spinal cord was crushed between the 5th and 6th vertebrae which resulted in: "complete paralysis of the lower limbs, and of the abdominal and thoracic muscles. All the muscles of the arms were paralysed, with the exception of the biceps, brachialis antiens, supinator longus and deltoid, the consequence being that the elbows were flexed, the shoulder abducted and rotated outwards, and the hands and arms fell into the position indicated in the annexed engraving (Fig. 1)":
(https://i.postimg.cc/Gt6vDKtr/Thorburn-position.jpg)
* At first the SBT required that Connally was rotated 20-30 degrees to the right when the missile struck, but now we're assured the theory can still work even though some of the theory's defenders admit Connally's torso was rotated only 10-15 degrees.
In his SBT analysis, Myers has his Connally figure rotated 15 degrees to the right, whereas fellow lone-gunman theorist Todd Wayne Vaughan measures the degree of rotation as being only 10 degrees. In the Zapruder film we see Connally's shoulders are facing nearly parallel to the roll bar in Z223-224. The roll bar is a fixed horizontal point inside the limousine, and thus provides us with an excellent measuring rod. One can look at Z223-224 and plainly see that Connally's shoulders are nearly parallel to the roll bar. FBI photographic expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt noted to the WC that in Z222 Connally is turned only slightly to the right and that in the few frames thereafter he is "almost square, straight on with the car momentarily."
I agree that this makes it very difficult to get the right armpit far enough left to intersect with a right to left path from JFK's midline. Also, at z225, JFK is not leaning over the right side of the car as he was earlier making the SBT less feasible. It also appears that JFK's hands may have been in the way of a path from the throat to JBC's right armpit just before z225.
Your argument about the trajectory not going from JFK's throat to JBC's right armpit is reasonable one that has evidentiary support. But not the suggestion that a bullet did not transit JFK's neck.
-
Now the alleged magic-bullet hit "positively" came at Z224, based on a 56-millisecond supposed flip of Connally's lapel, never mind that pieces of fabric cannot move up and down that quickly.
Griffith,
Don't forget the movement of JBC's tie in Z-222.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/video/JFK_sbt.mp4
-
Latimer lacked the "ne" in his qualifications to be a neurologist.
His theory that JFK assumed the "Thorburn position" is not supported by any qualified neurologist. The original report of Dr. Thorburn shows that it took a few days for the unfortunate falling victim to assume the "Thorburn position" and that was because the spinal cord was crushed between the 5th and 6th vertebrae which resulted in: "complete paralysis of the lower limbs, and of the abdominal and thoracic muscles. All the muscles of the arms were paralysed, with the exception of the biceps, brachialis antiens, supinator longus and deltoid, the consequence being that the elbows were flexed, the shoulder abducted and rotated outwards, and the hands and arms fell into the position indicated in the annexed engraving (Fig. 1)":
(https://i.postimg.cc/Gt6vDKtr/Thorburn-position.jpg)
https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Thorburn+position
That one will piss off a lot of CTs. :D
I prefer St*rdivan's description myself. He says that the damage to the spinal nerves caused by the shockwave of the single bullet passing by resulted in Kennedy assuming that "Thorburn-like posture".
-
This is not an argument just against the SBT. It is an argument that the bullet did not transit JFK's neck. That appears to be at odds with all the evidence.
[SNIP]
Your argument about the trajectory not going from JFK's throat to JBC's right armpit is reasonable one that has evidentiary support. But not the suggestion that a bullet did not transit JFK's neck.
The idea that a bullet transited JFK's neck is at odds with all of the best evidence that we now have:
-- The ARRB disclosures about the absolute, complete, final determination during the autopsy that the back wound had no exit point.
-- The fact that the shirt slits were made by the nurses.
-- The fact that JFK's tie had no hole in it, only a small nick near the left edge of the knot.
-- The fact that the shirt slits had no metallic traces around them, had no fabric missing from them, and were below the inside collar band. The photographic evidence makes it clear that JFK's tie knot was neatly centered between the collar band, which proves that no bullet could have exited the slits and then created a nick near the left edge on the surface of the tie knot.
-- The fact that there was no path from the back wound to the throat wound without smashing through the spine--not just nicking the edge of C7 or T1 but smashing through the middle part of the spine, as Dr. Mantik established with an overhead CT scan of an adult male with the same height and width as JFK.
-- The fact that the throat wound was only 3-5 mm in diameter, neat, and punched-in.
-- The fact that the damage that the Parkland doctors observed under/behind the throat wound clearly indicated the bullet ranged downward into his chest.
-- The hard physical evidence of the rear clothing holes in JFK's coat and shirt, which prove the back wound was too low on the back to have exited the throat, even if we did not already know that on the night of the autopsy, the pathologists absolutely, positively, and completely determined that the back wound had no exit point.
-
I prefer St*rdivan's description myself. He says that the damage to the spinal nerves caused by the shockwave of the single bullet passing by resulted in Kennedy assuming that "Thorburn-like posture".
And what qualifications in neurology does Larry Sturdivan have?
As far as I can tell, no qualified neurologist and no documented case establishes that:
- the so-called Thorburn position is a reflex position.
- that it is assumed where there is no compression or damage to the spinal cord
- that JFK's reaction could be anything other than a natural response to startle or pain and "air hunger" as he struggles to breathe.
We have a spine to protect the spinal cord from the effects of impacts to the body. The 2000 fps bullet passed within 1-2 inches from the spine in 1 to 2 24000ths of a second. If it lost 600 Joules of its initial 1860 Joules of energy in passing through the neck, that means it deposited about 1/3rd of that or 200 Joules in the region near the spine. But that is over a complete 360 degrees around the bullet. In the direction of the spine it would be maybe 1/8th of that or 25 Joules.
25 Joules is the energy that a 25 watt lightbulb puts out in 1 second or the energy of a baseball moving at 18 m/sec or 40 mph.
-
The idea that a bullet transited JFK's neck is at odds with all of the best evidence that we now have:
-- The ARRB disclosures about the absolute, complete, final determination during the autopsy that the back wound had no exit point.
....Until they discovered that the tracheostomy was done at the same location as the pre-existing throat wound. Nurse Heschliffe saw the throat wound which she described as a small round hole (6 H 141):
- Mr. SPECTER. Did you see any wound on any other part of his body?
Miss HESCHLIFFE. Yes; in the neck.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe it. please?
Miss HESCHLIFFE. It was just a little hole in the middle of his neck.
Mr. SPECTER. About how big a hole was it?
Miss HESCHLIFFE. About as big around as the end of my little finger.
This was also seen by Dr. Carrico: "We opened his shirt and coat and tie and observed a small wound in the anterior lower third of the neck" (6 H 3) and by Dr. Perry: "Dr. PERRY. The wound was roughly spherical to oval in shape, not a punched out wound, actually, nor was it particularly ragged. It was rather clean cut, but the blood obscured any detail about the edges of the wound exactly" (6 H 9).
-- The fact that the shirt slits were made by the nurses.
That is not the evidence. The cut to the tie to the left side of the knot and was a clean cut :
(https://i.postimg.cc/fbpvHg16/tie-knot.jpg)
They had pulled the tie down before cutting it. You can see this from the tie in CE395.
-- The fact that JFK's tie had no hole in it, only a small nick near the left edge of the knot.
That nick was closely examined by the FBI and found to be elongated horizontally (Frazier 5 H 62). The tie was cut vertically.
-- The fact that the shirt slits had no metallic traces around them, had no fabric missing from them, and were below the inside collar band. The photographic evidence makes it clear that JFK's tie knot was neatly centered between the collar band, which proves that no bullet could have exited the slits and then created a nick near the left edge on the surface of the tie knot.
They did not cut the tie near the throat. How would they cut the shirt underneath the tie knot?
-
And what qualifications in neurology does Larry Sturdivan have?
As far as I can tell, no qualified neurologist and no documented case establishes that:
- the so-called Thorburn position is a reflex position.
- that it is assumed where there is no compression or damage to the spinal cord
- that JFK's reaction could be anything other than a natural response to startle or pain and "air hunger" as he struggles to breathe.
We have a spine to protect the spinal cord from the effects of impacts to the body. The 2000 fps bullet passed within 1-2 inches from the spine in 1 to 2 24000ths of a second. If it lost 600 Joules of its initial 1860 Joules of energy in passing through the neck, that means it deposited about 1/3rd of that or 200 Joules in the region near the spine. But that is over a complete 360 degrees around the bullet. In the direction of the spine it would be maybe 1/8th of that or 25 Joules.
25 Joules is the energy that a 25 watt lightbulb puts out in 1 second or the energy of a baseball moving at 18 m/sec or 40 mph.
Sturdivan's main expertise is wound ballistics. He has had his work published in peer-reviewed journals. One such being "BALLISTICS FOR THE NEUROSURGEON" published in Neurosurgery, which is the official journal of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons. His work has also been published in The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, Journal of Surgical Research, and Computers in Biology and Medicine, to name a few others. He did not call the position that Kennedy assumed immediately post single bullet shot the Thorburn Position. He said that JFK assumed a Thorburn-like posture.
-
Sturdivan's main expertise is wound ballistics.
Which requires no qualifications in any medical field. Sturdivan had no medical education. He studied how bullets damage the body using animals and ballistic gel as targets. He has no qualifications to opine on the neurological effect of bullets.
He has had his work published in peer-reviewed journals. One such being "BALLISTICS FOR THE NEUROSURGEON" published in Neurosurgery, which is the official journal of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons.
He was one of several authors. The others had medical qualifications. So the publication does not mean he has any neurological qualifications. He can say that a bullet can create a pressure in the skull or neck but he can’t say what the neurological effect is.
He did not call the position that Kennedy assumed immediately post single bullet shot the Thorburn Position. He said that JFK assumed a Thorburn-like posture.
He was simply following Latimer. And has been noted Latimer was a urologist not a neurologist.
-
Which requires no qualifications in any medical field. Sturdivan had no medical education.
The fact that he's a wound ballistics expert contradicts your assertion.
He studied how bullets damage the body using animals and ballistic gel as targets. He has no qualifications to opine on the neurological effect of bullets.
If that was the case, the HSCA would not have had him testify or would have challenged the testimony that he gave.
He was one of several authors. The others had medical qualifications.
So what?
So the publication does not mean he has any neurological qualifications.
That he is named as one of the authors indicates that he has some neurological expertise.
He can say that a bullet can create a pressure in the skull or neck but he can’t say what the neurological effect is.
Why can't he say what the neurological effect is?
He was simply following Latimer. And has been noted Latimer was a urologist not a neurologist.
He was not following Lattimer. He was stating a known fact. When the seventh and eighth cervical nerves are damaged, everything below is disabled. With Thorburn's patient, the damage to spinal nerves at the level of C6 was gradual. With JFK, the damage to the nerves at the level of C7 was instantaneous. That's why Sturdivan referred to the position assumed by JFK as a Thorburn-like Posture. In reality, he could have just referred to it as the Thorburn Position.
-
....Until they discovered that the tracheostomy was done at the same location as the pre-existing throat wound.
That myth was debunked years ago. The autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound. They even probed it. Keep in mind that we know that at least one of the early drafts of the autopsy report, written after Humes supposedly first learned of the throat wound, said nothing about the wound being an exit point for the back wound. The Parkland doctors' 11/22 press conference was broadcast on national TV, and in that presser Dr. Perry twice said the throat wound was an entrance wound. Dr. Robert Livingston, the scientific director at NIH at the time, saw that press conference and called Dr. Humes to discuss the throat wound before the autopsy began.
I recommend that you read about the ARRB and other disclosures regarding the fact that the autopsy doctors were absolutely, totally, positively certain that the back wound had no exit point. They established this with multiple probings. They removed the chest organs and positioned the body "every which way" to facilitate the probing. People near the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity. This explains why one of the early drafts of the autopsy report said the throat wound was caused by an exiting head-shot fragment.
When the HSCA interviewed autopsy witness Richard Lipsey, who was General Wehle's aide at the autopsy, he was very worried that his disclosure about the non-exiting back wound would be made public. Lipsey explained that the autopsy doctors positively established that the back wound had no exit point:
The other bullet had entered from behind and hit his chest cavity and the
bullet went down into the body. And during the autopsy, this is the only part
that I can imagine would be of any--really, what I’ve told you right there,
of strictly confidential nature that was never written up anywhere. And I
presume, am I right, that this tape and this conversation is strictly confidential?
You know, it’s not going to be published I guess is what I’m getting at? . . .
They turned the body up at one point to determine where that bullet that
entered back here that didn't have an exit mark. Where was that bullet?
And so when it got to down to where they thought it hit his chest cavity,
they opened him up and started looking in here. That's why I remember
one thing, they took, after they had taken all his organs out, during the
autopsy they had them sitting up there: "Now let's see if we can find the
bullet." They cut all his organs apart.
A number of other witnesses described how thoroughly and extensively the pathologists tried to find the exit point for the back wound and the bullet that had created it. One of the disclosures includes the fact that Finck announced toward the end of the autopsy that he had determined the back wound had no exit point.
Finck was the only forensic pathologist at the autopsy. When Finck indicated he was going to dissect the back wound, a standard and crucial autopsy procedure, a senior military officer ordered him not to do so, as Finck admitted in his testimony at the Clay Shaw trial. When Finck asked to examine JFK's clothing, another crucial and standard autopsy procedure, a senior military officer said he did not need to see the clothing. There was a reason that Humes and Boswell excluded Finck from the first brain exam that was done two to three days after the autopsy.
Nurse Heschliffe saw the throat wound which she described as a small round hole (6 H 141):
- Mr. SPECTER. Did you see any wound on any other part of his body?
Miss HESCHLIFFE. Yes; in the neck.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe it. please?
Miss HESCHLIFFE. It was just a little hole in the middle of his neck.
Mr. SPECTER. About how big a hole was it?
Miss HESCHLIFFE. About as big around as the end of my little finger.
Yes, and the throat wound was also punched-in and not jagged, and there was more damage behind the wound than to the surface of the wound, clear indications of an entrance wound.
This was also seen by Dr. Carrico: "We opened his shirt and coat and tie and observed a small wound in the anterior lower third of the neck" (6 H 3)
Carrico was not saying that he didn't see the throat wound until after they opened the shirt and coat. Carrico specified to Dulles that the throat wound was above the tie/collar. Carrico explained this in detail when interviewed by Harold Weisberg. He was adamant that the throat wound was above the tie and was visible before they removed the shirt. Dr. Ronald Jones said the same thing. I cover this in more detail in the OP for the thread "The Entrance Wound in the Throat, the Front Shirt Slits, and Tie Knot Nick."
and by Dr. Perry: "Dr. PERRY. The wound was roughly spherical to oval in shape, not a punched out wound, actually, nor was it particularly ragged. It was rather clean cut, but the blood obscured any detail about the edges of the wound exactly" (6 H 9).
Yeap, all of which are indications of an entry wound.
That is not the evidence. The cut to the tie to the left side of the knot and was a clean cut:
They had pulled the tie down before cutting it. You can see this from the tie in CE395.
That nick was closely examined by the FBI and found to be elongated horizontally (Frazier 5 H 62). The tie was cut vertically.
First off, none of this addresses the fact that no bullet exiting the shirt slits could have made a nick near the left edge of the tie knot. We have ample photographic evidence that JFK's tie knot was neatly centered between the collar band. A bullet exiting the slits would have had to tear through the middle of the bottom half of the tie knot, but there was no hole in the tie. No bullet exiting the slits could not have magically weaved around the body of the tie knot to create a nick near the left edge. That is a manifestly impossible scenario. These facts alone destroy the SBT.
Dr. Carrico said he saw no nick in the tie until after the nurses started cutting away the clothing. We have to remember that the nurses were in an extreme hurry when they began cutting off the clothing. It is entirely reasonable to assume that one of the nurses accidentally nicked the tie knot before steadying herself and snipping the tie above the knot.
They did not cut the tie near the throat. How would they cut the shirt underneath the tie knot?
Again, Dr. Carrico and one of the nurses confirmed that the nurses made the shirt slits. There is no fabric missing from the slits. If a bullet had made the shirt slits, some fabric would be missing, but none is missing. Also, both Weisberg and Mantik reported that they could see the jagged edges of a sharp blade when they examined the slits under high magnification.
-
The fact that he's a wound ballistics expert contradicts your assertion.
If that was the case, the HSCA would not have had him testify or would have challenged the testimony that he gave.
So what?
This is why courts do not allow witnesses to provide opinion evidence unless 1. the evidence cannot be understood without special knowledge and 2. the witness has the qualifications to satisfy the court that they are an "expert" in the particular field.
I have no doubt that Sturdivan was qualified to give expert opinion evidence on wound ballistics. But he lacked qualifications to opine on the neurological effects. He could have provided his estimate of the lateral pressure made by the bullet in passing through the neck (which he did not do). But he wasn't qualified to say what the neurological effect of that would have been. If he had actually done tests to measure the amount of compression on the spinal cord and nerves coming out of the spine at the C6 - C7 level he could have given that information to a neurologist who might form an opinion as to what the neurological effect would have been.
That he is named as one of the authors indicates that he has some neurological expertise.
If a qualified neurologist wants to add a physicist to the article to provide an analysis of the physics, that doesn't disqualify the paper from being considered a worthwhile paper for a neurology publication. But it does not make the physicist a neurologist.
He was not following Lattimer. He was stating a known fact. When the seventh and eighth cervical nerves are damaged, everything below is disabled. With Thorburn's patient, the damage to spinal nerves at the level of C6 was gradual. With JFK, the damage to the nerves at the level of C7 was instantaneous. That's why Sturdivan referred to the position assumed by JFK as a Thorburn-like Posture. In reality, he could have just referred to it as the Thorburn Position.
The question is whether, and to what extent, the pressure on the neck muscles 1-2 inches from the spine from the one twelfth of a millisecond that the bullet applies that pressure in passing through the neck will interfere with the function of those nerves. We know that if the nerves are damaged, there is a neurological effect. There is no evidence that any of these nerves were damaged. The autopsy found no damage.
-
This is why courts do not allow witnesses to provide opinion evidence unless 1. the evidence cannot be understood without special knowledge and 2. the witness has the qualifications to satisfy the court that they are an "expert" in the particular field.
I have no doubt that Sturdivan was qualified to give expert opinion evidence on wound ballistics. But he lacked qualifications to opine on the neurological effects. He could have provided his estimate of the lateral pressure made by the bullet in passing through the neck (which he did not do). But he wasn't qualified to say what the neurological effect of that would have been. If he had actually done tests to measure the amount of compression on the spinal cord and nerves coming out of the spine at the C6 - C7 level he could have given that information to a neurologist who might form an opinion as to what the neurological effect would have been.
If a qualified neurologist wants to add a physicist to the article to provide an analysis of the physics, that doesn't disqualify the paper from being considered a worthwhile paper for a neurology publication. But it does not make the physicist a neurologist.
The question is whether, and to what extent, the pressure on the neck muscles 1-2 inches from the spine from the one twelfth of a millisecond that the bullet applies that pressure in passing through the neck will interfere with the function of those nerves. We know that if the nerves are damaged, there is a neurological effect. There is no evidence that any of these nerves were damaged. The autopsy found no damage.
The autopsy did not determine that the seventh and eighth cervical nerves were not damaged. Sturdivan described what damage to those nerves would result in. We see that in the position that Kennedy assumed beginning at about Z225. It may be that the nerves were not permanently damaged. Neurosurgeon Dr. Kenneth Strully believed that they were not. But the description of his seen below is rather similar to that given by Sturdivan.
The following are excerpts from a letter sent by Strully to Dr.
Robert Artwohl, dated April 9, 1994:
"Before all else, it is necessary to remember that this assassination reveals a sequence of neural responses initiated in the neck by the shock wave and cavitation induced by the bullet in its traverse of the neck. This traumatized all structures in a 6 inch radius in all directions from the path of passage through the neck. This spread of forces occurred in a fraction of a second, traumatizing all neural structures in the immediate vicinity within a fraction of a second as determined by the speed of the missile according to ballistic studies. As a result, contraction of the muscles innervated by nerves closest to the bullet's path took place first; -- right deltoid, left deltoid, right biceps followed by the left biceps and sequential contraction of all muscles in the forearms, hands, chest, abdominal walls and paraspinal muscle groups, with muscles in the lower extremities, farthest from the shock wave, responding last. All neural structures in the neck were stimulated at the same moment but the distance an impulse had to travel to cause muscle contractions in the hamstrings and gluteal muscles was greater, thus the motor responses in these muscles occurred much later."
.....
"There is no evidence here of Kennedy having assumed Thorburn's Position which is seen in quadriplegics due to transverse lesions of the spinal cord at the C6 level. The position is assumed involuntarily. With quadriplegia, the patient lying in the supine position can only contract the biceps while the triceps, anconeus and muscles innervated by the C6 root and all others innervated by spinal nerves distal to the C6 level are paralyzed. The patient under these circumstances cannot extend the forearm at the elbow once contraction of the biceps occurs to flex the forearm at the elbow. Kennedy did not reach for his throat. All movements seen in the films, occurring relative to the bullet's passage, were involuntary; lifting of the shoulders was a result of contraction of the deltoids followed by contraction of the biceps muscles which flexed the upper extremities at the elbows, then forearm and intrinsic muscles of the hands causing clenching of the hands."
-
The autopsy did not determine that the seventh and eighth cervical nerves were not damaged. Sturdivan described what damage to those nerves would result in. We see that in the position that Kennedy assumed beginning at about Z225. It may be that the nerves were not permanently damaged. Neurosurgeon Dr. Kenneth Strully believed that they were not. But the description of his seen below is rather similar to that given by Sturdivan.
The following are excerpts from a letter sent by Strully to Dr.
Robert Artwohl, dated April 9, 1994:
"Before all else, it is necessary to remember that this assassination reveals a sequence of neural responses initiated in the neck by the shock wave and cavitation induced by the bullet in its traverse of the neck. This traumatized all structures in a 6 inch radius in all directions from the path of passage through the neck. This spread of forces occurred in a fraction of a second, traumatizing all neural structures in the immediate vicinity within a fraction of a second as determined by the speed of the missile according to ballistic studies. As a result, contraction of the muscles innervated by nerves closest to the bullet's path took place first; -- right deltoid, left deltoid, right biceps followed by the left biceps and sequential contraction of all muscles in the forearms, hands, chest, abdominal walls and paraspinal muscle groups, with muscles in the lower extremities, farthest from the shock wave, responding last. All neural structures in the neck were stimulated at the same moment but the distance an impulse had to travel to cause muscle contractions in the hamstrings and gluteal muscles was greater, thus the motor responses in these muscles occurred much later."
.....
"There is no evidence here of Kennedy having assumed Thorburn's Position which is seen in quadriplegics due to transverse lesions of the spinal cord at the C6 level. The position is assumed involuntarily. With quadriplegia, the patient lying in the supine position can only contract the biceps while the triceps, anconeus and muscles innervated by the C6 root and all others innervated by spinal nerves distal to the C6 level are paralyzed. The patient under these circumstances cannot extend the forearm at the elbow once contraction of the biceps occurs to flex the forearm at the elbow. Kennedy did not reach for his throat. All movements seen in the films, occurring relative to the bullet's passage, were involuntary; lifting of the shoulders was a result of contraction of the deltoids followed by contraction of the biceps muscles which flexed the upper extremities at the elbows, then forearm and intrinsic muscles of the hands causing clenching of the hands."
Ok. Strully appears to have the proper qualifications. I can't seem to find his actual letter, but I will assume it is an accurate summary.
I am not sure how long it takes for an involuntary reaction to occur but I expect it takes less than the time required for a voluntary reaction. A voluntary reaction requires around 150 ms. Three frames is 165 ms. This article (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2468867321000328) indicates that the involuntary reaction takes less than 100 ms.
Strully refers to the clenching of the hand as an involuntary reaction so it appears that he is referring to the reaction that begins at z226. Before then, JFK's right hand does not appear to be clenched although the left could be. The right hand clenches in z226. Since the bullet passed to the right of the spine, I am not sure how that would cause the left hand to clench before the right. So, I will assume neither hand is clenched until z226:
(https://i.postimg.cc/jjkCbZtY/JFK-reaction-224-230.gif)
So, Strully's opinion would suggest that JFK was hit within two frames of z226 or no earlier than z224. Which means that JFK had already moved away from the right side of the car, that his hands were already in front of him at z224 and Jackie was already turned looking at him before he was shot.
-
FYI, Tom Robinson, the mortician who reassembled JFK's skull and prepared the body for burial, said the back wound was about 6 inches below the throat wound. This agrees with the rear clothing holes, the death certificate, the autopsy face sheet, and several eyewitnesses at the autopsy.
-
Ok. Strully appears to have the proper qualifications. I can't seem to find his actual letter, but I will assume it is an accurate summary.
I am not sure how long it takes for an involuntary reaction to occur but I expect it takes less than the time required for a voluntary reaction. A voluntary reaction requires around 150 ms. Three frames is 165 ms. This article (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2468867321000328) indicates that the involuntary reaction takes less than 100 ms.
Strully refers to the clenching of the hand as an involuntary reaction so it appears that he is referring to the reaction that begins at z226. Before then, JFK's right hand does not appear to be clenched although the left could be. The right hand clenches in z226. Since the bullet passed to the right of the spine, I am not sure how that would cause the left hand to clench before the right. So, I will assume neither hand is clenched until z226:
(https://i.postimg.cc/jjkCbZtY/JFK-reaction-224-230.gif)
So, Strully's opinion would suggest that JFK was hit within two frames of z226 or no earlier than z224. Which means that JFK had already moved away from the right side of the car, that his hands were already in front of him at z224 and Jackie was already turned looking at him before he was shot.
From what I've obtained from several sources, the average reflex reaction time to a physical stimulus is 150 ms. The reflex reaction of Kennedy is initiated at Z225.
-
FYI, Tom Robinson, the mortician who reassembled JFK's skull and prepared the body for burial, said the back wound was about 6 inches below the throat wound. This agrees with the rear clothing holes, the death certificate, the autopsy face sheet, and several eyewitnesses at the autopsy.
From the HSCA testimony of Tom Robinson;
Purdy: Specifically, when you say the body, you saw the back,I want to know specifically if either you know there was not a wound from the head down to the waist anywhere on the back, neck or whatever, or that the autopsy work may have either obliterated it or made it not evident
to you that there was such a wound?
Robinson: It miqht have done that, there was - . . but the back itself, there was no wound there, no.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md63.pdf
-
When Harold Weisberg examined high-quality photos of JFK's shirt at the National Archives, he noticed there is less blood inside the collar band than on the outside, which doesn't fit the SBT scenario. If a bullet had exited the throat, one would expect there would be just as much blood, if not more, on the inside of the collar band as on the outside of it. Not only did Weisberg find this is not the case, but he also discovered that where the sides of the shirt overlap, there is no blood at all:
This is less blood inside the collar band than on the outside of the fabric, not consistent
with the bloodstains coming from the body side. Where the sides of the shirt overlapped
in wearing, no blood. (Post Mortem, p. 347)
Weisberg also found evidence that confirmed the belief that the slits were made by the emergency room nurses as they cut away the president's clothing--he could see the zigzag mark of a cutting blade on the slits:
The dead giveaway of the fabrication that this is where the magical bullet must have exited,
according to the official story, is the nonmagical, mute evidence of the slit on the left side.
The irregular, zigzag mark of a cutting blade is visible with an engraver's lens no more powerful
than the 10-power miniature I carry. (Post Mortem, p. 347)
One of the nurses confirmed this to researcher Henry Hurt, and Dr. Carrico told Weisberg that the throat wound was above the collar and that he did not notice any nick in the tie or slits near the collar before the nurses began cutting away JFK's clothing.
Dr. David Mantik likewise noticed the zigzag mark of a cutting blade in the front shirt slits. He also noted that there is no fabric missing from the slits, clear proof that no bullet or fragment created them.
-
[...]
Griffith,
Which do you believe:
1) The wound in JFK's throat was caused by a bullet fragment from the fatal head shot, or
2) The wound in JFK's throat was caused by a paralyzing ice bullet that was fired from the far end of the Triple Underpass bridge.
-- Tom
-
Another devastating piece of evidence against the SBT is the H-shaped exit hole in the front of Connally's shirt. WC apologists almost never talk about this hole. No one has yet explained how the SBT's virtually intact bullet could have produced the H-shaped tear in Connally’s shirt.
The Warren Commission described the tear as follows:
A very irregular tear in the form of an "H" was observed on the front side
of the Governor's shirt, approximately 1 1/2 inches high, with a crossbar
tear approximately 1 inch wide, located 5 inches from the right side seam
and 9 inches from the top of the right sleeve. (Warren Commission Report,
p. 94)
Obviously, this tear was created by a badly deformed bullet, or a large badly deformed bullet fragment, or multiple bullet fragments. It is hard to imagine how CE 399, the hero of the SBT, could have produced such an H-shaped tear.
-
Another devastating piece of evidence against the SBT is the H-shaped exit hole in the front of Connally's shirt. WC apologists almost never talk about this hole. No one has yet explained how the SBT's virtually intact bullet could have produced the H-shaped tear in Connally’s shirt.
The Warren Commission described the tear as follows:
A very irregular tear in the form of an "H" was observed on the front side
of the Governor's shirt, approximately 1 1/2 inches high, with a crossbar
tear approximately 1 inch wide, located 5 inches from the right side seam
and 9 inches from the top of the right sleeve. (Warren Commission Report,
p. 94)
Obviously, this tear was created by a badly deformed bullet, or a large badly deformed bullet fragment, or multiple bullet fragments. It is hard to imagine how CE 399, the hero of the SBT, could have produced such an H-shaped tear.
Mr. SPECTER - Referring now to the front side of the Governor's shirt, what, if anything, did you observe with respect to a tear or a hole thereon, as to the body of the shirt?
Mr. FRAZIER - I found in the right chest area of the shirt, considering the shirt when it is being worn, a very irregular tear more or less in the form of an "H," of the letter "H." This tear was approximately 1 1/2 inches in height, with the crossbar tear being approximately 1 inch in width, which caused a very irregularly shaped and enlarged hole in the front of the shirt. The hole is located 5 inches from the right-side seam, and 9 inches below the top of the right sleeve. The 9-inch figure is from the top of the right shoulder where the sleeve adjoins the yoke of the shirt.
Mr. SPECTER - Had that garment been cleaned and pressed, Mr. Frazier, prior to the time you examined it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - Were there sufficient characteristics then remaining on the hole on the front side to enable you to formulate an opinion as to the cause of the hole?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - Could it have been caused by a 6.5 millimeter bullet exiting from the chest of the Governor?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it could.
Mr. SPECTER - Now what, if anything----
Mr. DULLES - Could I ask there, would the size and character of this hole indicate the condition of the bullet, I mean as to whether it was tumbling or whether it was a mutilated bullet or anything of that kind?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it would not.
Mr. DULLES - Even a bullet in full flight, full velocity could have made this kind of a hole in the shirt?
Mr. FRAZIER - It could have, particularly if the shirt had been wrinkled at the time it passed through, and particularly because the material in this shirt tore rather severely at the time the object passed through, indicating a very weak structure of the cotton fiber, so that it would tear out of all proportion to a stronger fabric.
And for that reason, the shape of the hole could be affected by the condition of the material as well as any folds in the material or, as you say, by a mutilated bullet or a passage of a bullet through the cloth at an angle to the surface or the passing of a bullet partially sideways through the cloth.
-
Mr. SPECTER - Referring now to the front side of the Governor's shirt, what, if anything, did you observe with respect to a tear or a hole thereon, as to the body of the shirt?
Mr. FRAZIER - I found in the right chest area of the shirt, considering the shirt when it is being worn, a very irregular tear more or less in the form of an "H," of the letter "H." This tear was approximately 1 1/2 inches in height, with the crossbar tear being approximately 1 inch in width, which caused a very irregularly shaped and enlarged hole in the front of the shirt. The hole is located 5 inches from the right-side seam, and 9 inches below the top of the right sleeve. The 9-inch figure is from the top of the right shoulder where the sleeve adjoins the yoke of the shirt.
Mr. SPECTER - Had that garment been cleaned and pressed, Mr. Frazier, prior to the time you examined it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - Were there sufficient characteristics then remaining on the hole on the front side to enable you to formulate an opinion as to the cause of the hole?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - Could it have been caused by a 6.5 millimeter bullet exiting from the chest of the Governor?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it could.
Mr. SPECTER - Now what, if anything----
Mr. DULLES - Could I ask there, would the size and character of this hole indicate the condition of the bullet, I mean as to whether it was tumbling or whether it was a mutilated bullet or anything of that kind?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it would not.
Mr. DULLES - Even a bullet in full flight, full velocity could have made this kind of a hole in the shirt?
Mr. FRAZIER - It could have, particularly if the shirt had been wrinkled at the time it passed through, and particularly because the material in this shirt tore rather severely at the time the object passed through, indicating a very weak structure of the cotton fiber, so that it would tear out of all proportion to a stronger fabric.
And for that reason, the shape of the hole could be affected by the condition of the material as well as any folds in the material or, as you say, by a mutilated bullet or a passage of a bullet through the cloth at an angle to the surface or the passing of a bullet partially sideways through the cloth.
Oh, well, that settles it! Frazier said that CE 399, a virtually undeformed bullet, could have made the "very irregular tear," shaped like an H, 1.5 inches high, 1.75 inches wide on the right side of the H, 1.25 inches on the left side of the H, with a 1-inch wide crossbar tear connecting the sides of the H, so it must be true--never mind that the exit hole in Connally's coat was only 0.5 inches high (i.e., just half an inch high) and 0.38 inches wide and was nearly perfectly circular!
Did you stop to think about this before you posted it? Why not try thinking for yourself instead of blindly accepting every factoid the FBI peddled?
Now think, just think: How could the same bullet that tore a 1.5-inch x 1.75-inch/1.25-inch H-shaped hole in the shirt have then torn a hole in the coat that was 200% smaller in height and width than the hole in the shirt? How would that work?
Look at these high-quality, close-up photos of the holes in Connally's coat and shirt:
https://share.google/meleOhNbOCbAGaReB
I notice you once again declined to face the fact that we know that no bullet exited the shirt slits because there was no hole in the tie and there is no way a bullet exiting the slits could have magically weaved around the body of the knot and then nicked the top of the knot near the left edge. Ignoring this hard physical evidence will not make it go away.
-
Oh, well, that settles it! Frazier said that CE 399, a virtually undeformed bullet, could have made the "very irregular tear," shaped like an H, 1.5 inches high, 1.75 inches wide on the right side of the H, 1.25 inches on the left side of the H, with a 1-inch wide crossbar tear connecting the sides of the H, so it must be true--never mind that the exit hole in Connally's coat was only 0.5 inches high (i.e., just half an inch high) and 0.38 inches wide and was nearly perfectly circular!
Did you stop to think about this before you posted it? Why not try thinking for yourself instead of blindly accepting every factoid the FBI peddled?
Now think, just think: How could the same bullet that tore a 1.5-inch x 1.75-inch/1.25-inch H-shaped hole in the shirt have then torn a hole in the coat that was 200% smaller in height and width than the hole in the shirt[/b][/i]? How would that work?
Look at these high-quality, close-up photos of the holes in Connally's coat and shirt:
https://share.google/meleOhNbOCbAGaReB
I notice you once again declined to face the fact that we know that no bullet exited the shirt slits because there was no hole in the tie and there is no way a bullet exiting the slits could have magically weaved around the body of the knot and then nicked the top of the knot near the left edge. Ignoring this hard physical evidence will not make it go away.
Comrade Griffith,
Why do you keep spreading KGB-approved lies like, "CE-399 is virtually undeformed"?
How much does "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin pay you, anyway?
-- Tom
-
Comrade Griffith, Why do you keep spreading KGB-approved lies like, "CE-399 is virtually undeformed"? How much does "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin pay you, anyway? -- Tom
Why do you keep denying reality? Or is your eyesight just extremely poor? As anyone can see in the photos of CE 399, the bullet has no deformation whatsoever except for a slight deformation at its base, which is not even visible unless you look at the photo of the bottom of the bullet. One can also see that the bullet's lands and grooves are intact. And, as no one disputes, the bullet weighed only 2.4 grains less after its alleged journey through two men than it did before it was fired, which means that it retained 98.5% of its substance.
Are you so pathologically determined to believe in the lone-gunman theory that you can't see what everyone else can see in the photos of CE 399? Are you aware that the WC described CE 399 as "a nearly whole bullet," and that the FBI's ballistics expert Robert Frazier said the bullet was only "slightly flattened" at its base?
Why are we even talking about CE 399's condition when you refuse to face the fact that we know that no bullet exited the shirt slits because there was no hole in the tie and because there is no way a bullet exiting the slits could have magically weaved around the body of the knot and then nicked the top of the knot? Why do you keep Ignoring this hard physical evidence? If a bullet had exited the shirt slits, it could not have missed the tie knot, but there was no hole through the tie, only a nick on the top of the knot.
-
Why do you keep denying reality? Or is your eyesight just extremely poor? As anyone can see in the photos of CE 399, the bullet has no deformation whatsoever except for a slight deformation at its base, which is not even visible unless you look at the photo of the bottom of the bullet. One can also see that the bullet's lands and grooves are intact. And, as no disputes, the bullet weighed only 2.4 grains less after its alleged journey through two men than it did before it was fired, which means that it retained 98.5% of its substance.
Are you so pathologically determined to believe in the lone-gunman theory that you can't see what everyone else can see in the photos of CE 399? Are you aware that the WC described CE 399 as "a nearly whole bullet," and that the FBI's ballistics expert Robert Frazier said the bullet was only "slightly flattened" at its base?
Why are we even talking about CE 399's condition when you refuse to face the fact that we know that no bullet exited the shirt slits because there was no hole in the tie and because there is no way a bullet exiting the slits could have magically weaved around the body of the knot and then nicked the top of the knot? Why do you keep Ignoring this hard physical evidence? If a bullet had exited the shirt slits, it could not have missed the tie knot, but there was no hole through the tile, only a nick on the top of the knot.
There you go, again, Comrade Griffith!
Btw, you never answered my question on another thread:
Did they [the geniuses at the FBI or wherever] try firing the kind of bullets Oswald killed JFK with through a living man's lower neck/upper back (or through a corpse or a block of ballistics gel in case there were no volunteers) in such a way that the bullet would then travel about three feet and penetrate a turned-35-degrees-to-his-right living man's (or corpse's) chest from back-to-front, ride along (and smash) his fifth rib in the process, exit below his nipple, and then penetrate his wrist butt-end-first and strike in the living man (or corpse) the only hard bone that CE-399 is known to have hit in either JFK or JBC, the volunteer's (or corpse's) radial bone, while tumbling and/or twirling?
Tangentially (pardon the pun), are you aware of the fact that CE-399 ended up with a longitudinal twist?
How do you suppose that happened?
Do you postulate that it was manufactured by Chubby Checker?
-
There you go, again, Comrade Griffith!
Btw, you never answered my question on another thread:
Did they [the geniuses at the FBI or wherever] try firing the kind of bullets Oswald killed JFK with through a living man's lower neck/upper back (or through a corpse or a block of ballistics gel in case there were no volunteers) in such a way that the bullet would then travel about three feet and penetrate a turned-35-degrees-to-his-right living man's (or corpse's) chest from back-to-front, ride along (and smash) his fifth rib in the process, exit below his nipple, and then penetrate his wrist butt-end-first and strike in the living man (or corpse) the only hard bone that CE-399 is known to have hit in either JFK or JBC, the volunteer's (or corpse's) radial bone, while tumbling and/or twirling?
Tangentially (pardon the pun), are you aware of the fact that CE-399 ended up with a longitudinal twist? How do you suppose that happened? Do you postulate that it was manufactured by Chubby Checker?
So never mind that even Frazier said CE 399 is only "slightly flattened." Never mind the photos of CE 399. Never mind that bullets merely fired into cotton wadding emerged with the same or more damage as CE 399. Just never mind all that.
And now you have declared that all wound ballistics tests are a waste of time. According to your silly question, no such test can be valid unless it involves live humans and hits at exactly the same angles and speed alleged for the original bullet. What a stupendously silly, uneducated argument. Be sure to contact all the forensic and wound ballistics experts who conduct wound ballistics tests and tell them they're wasting their time!
Why are we even talking about CE 399's condition when you refuse to face the fact that we know that no bullet exited the shirt slits because there was no hole in the tie and because there is no way a bullet exiting the slits could have magically weaved around the body of the knot and then nicked the top of the knot? Why do you keep Ignoring this hard physical evidence? If a bullet had exited the shirt slits, it could not have missed the tie knot, but there was no hole through the tie, only a nick on the top of the knot (which was made by one of the Parkland nurses as they hurriedly cut away JFK's clothing).
-
So never mind that even Frazier said CE 399 is only "slightly flattened." Never mind the photos of CE 399. Never mind that bullets merely fired into cotton wadding emerged with the same or more damage as CE 399. Just never mind all that.
And now you have declared that all wound ballistics tests are a waste of time. According to your silly question, no such test can be valid unless it involves live humans and hits at exactly the same angles and speed alleged for the original bullet. What a stupendously silly, uneducated argument. Be sure to contact all the forensic and wound ballistics experts who conduct wound ballistics tests and tell them they're wasting their time!
Why are we even talking about CE 399's condition when you refuse to face the fact that we know that no bullet exited the shirt slits because there was no hole in the tie and because there is no way a bullet exiting the slits could have magically weaved around the body of the knot and then nicked the top of the knot? Why do you keep Ignoring this hard physical evidence? If a bullet had exited the shirt slits, it could not have missed the tie knot, but there was no hole through the tie, only a nick on the top of the knot (which was made by one of the Parkland nurses as they hurriedly cut away JFK's clothing).
Dear Comrade Griffith,
Firing a Carcano bullet through two live human beings or, if you insist, two corpses (or, if you're running really low on corpses, just one largish one of the male type "sitting in" for JBC about three feet in front of, and significantly lower and farther to the left than a large boneless block of ballistics gel (representing JFK's upper torso and neck), and, most importantly, turned 35 degrees to his right, is not necessary for ballistics analysis to determine whether or not CE-399 was fired from Oswald's Carcano to the exclusion of all other firearms in the known universe, but it would be necessary to do (perhaps a trillion times!) in order to replicate exactly the damage that CE-399 did to itself and to JBC's fifth rib and radial bone after it penetrated JFK's lower neck / upper back while travelling about 1,300 mph, nicked the transverse process of his T-1 vertebra, bruised the top of his lung, and exited his throat just below his Adam's apple.
The lesson yet to be learned by Comrade Griffith:
Cherry-picking, hyperbole and gaslighting will get you nowhere (except, perhaps, another lucrative, KGB-approved tinfoil-hat JFKA book contract).
But then, again, maybe that's why you're here.
Either that, or "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin wants you to be here so that you can continue spreading (perhaps even unwittingly!) KGB-endorsed JFKA . . . uhh . . ."fibs."
-- Tom
-
Oh, well, that settles it! Frazier said that CE 399, a virtually undeformed bullet, could have made the "very irregular tear," shaped like an H, 1.5 inches high, 1.75 inches wide on the right side of the H, 1.25 inches on the left side of the H, with a 1-inch wide crossbar tear connecting the sides of the H, so it must be true--never mind that the exit hole in Connally's coat was only 0.5 inches high (i.e., just half an inch high) and 0.38 inches wide and was nearly perfectly circular!
Did you stop to think about this before you posted it? Why not try thinking for yourself instead of blindly accepting every factoid the FBI peddled?
Now think, just think: How could the same bullet that tore a 1.5-inch x 1.75-inch/1.25-inch H-shaped hole in the shirt have then torn a hole in the coat that was 200% smaller in height and width than the hole in the shirt? How would that work?
Look at these high-quality, close-up photos of the holes in Connally's coat and shirt:
https://share.google/meleOhNbOCbAGaReB
What exactly are you saying? That the hole in the jacket and the hole in the shirt were not caused by the same object? That is what you're saying, even though you don't realize it.
I notice you once again declined to face the fact that we know that no bullet exited the shirt slits because there was no hole in the tie and there is no way a bullet exiting the slits could have magically weaved around the body of the knot and then nicked the top of the knot near the left edge. Ignoring this hard physical evidence will not make it go away.
The bullet never passed through the necktie. Nor did it magically weaved around the body of the knot. It grazed the left side of the knot, leaving a nick in it.
-
My fellow CTers, we can't just keep saying the SBT is nonsense. We know it's nonsense, of course, notwithstanding the umpteen medical and forensic experts who think it isn't, but still: we do have to have our own theory of CE 399, do we not? I mean, there it is, daring us to explain it. So, let's collectively don our tinfoil propellor beanies and attempt to explain it, OK?
1. It can't be the bullet that barely penetrated JFK's back and fell out to be discovered in the back seat by Landis and/or on a stretcher at Parkland by Tomlinson, can it? CE 399 has suffered some serious damage to its fanny, so it can't have simply penetrated an inch or two - on its fanny, no less - and dropped out, can it?
2. Do we think it went through JFK's back and throat and then did ... well, what? Hit the windshield frame, perhaps? Would this scenario account for its curious condition and curious provenance? Think, people.
3. We don't think it caused all of Connally's wounds, do we? If we think that, aren't we splitting hairs in rejecting the SBT? I mean, if it inflicted all of JBC's wounds, the SBT isn't much of a stretch - is it?
4. Was it a post-assassination plant? How would that have worked - was it prepared in advance or in the short time before it was discovered by Landis and/or Tomlinson? How and why would anyone have done that? What was the necessity for a bullet like CE 399 at all? What does it add to the case against the patsy? Why did the conspirators plant such an oddly pristine bullet that would inevitably raise so many questions? Think, people.
I have seen all of the foregoing scenarios suggested. Our heroes, Gary Aguilar and Tink Thompson of "The Magic Bullet: Even More Magic Than We Knew" fame, seem to favor the plant hypothesis - which, I must confess, seems to me the most implausible of all. If a gun were held to my head (a poor choice of words indeed), I think I'd opt for #1. Aren't we kind of painted into the corner of #4 because none of the other choices really works? Am I missing a choice #5?
Help me out here, my fellow beanie wearers. I eschew all the technical stuff and simply like to go to bed at night with some level of confidence that what we believe actually makes sense. What do we believe about CE 399 that actually makes sense?
-
My fellow CTers, we can't just keep saying the SBT is nonsense. We know it's nonsense, of course, notwithstanding the umpteen medical and forensic experts who think it isn't, but still: we do have to have our own theory of CE 399, do we not? I mean, there it is, daring us to explain it. So, let's collectively don our tinfoil propellor beanies and attempt to explain it, OK? [SNIP]
PRIVATE MEMO FOR FELLOW LONE-GUNMAN THEORISTS, NOT TO BE POSTED ON A PUBLIC FORUM
The above post by our fellow WC believer, Lance Payette, is a helpful model to follow in order to avoid facing inexplicable facts that we just have to trust will one day be explained. Of course, I am mainly referring to the fact that JFK's tie had no hole through it, that the tie knot was undeniably centered on the collar band, that the front shirt slits had no fabric missing and no metallic traces around them, and that the nick on the tie knot was only a few millimeters deep and was located on the upper surface of the knot. I know that to a rational mind these facts seem to self-evidently destroy our beloved SBT, since it seems undeniable that any bullet exiting the slits could not have avoided tearing through the tie, but, again, we must have faith that one day these facts will be explained.
I also recommend Lance's fine reply because it pretends that those who reject the SBT must be wearing "tinfoil propellor beanies," which diverts attention away from the fact that our theory of the shooting is rejected by 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world, and that even three members of the WC rejected our beloved SBT.
Now, I realize that Lance failed to acknowledge that a number of forensic, ballistic, scientific, and medical experts have rejected the SBT. I also realize that Lance failed to mention the stark contradictions between the first version of the SBT (posited by the WC and our beloved Dr. John Lattimer), the HSCA's version of the SBT, and the current Z224-lapel-flip version of the SBT. When pesky SBT doubters point out these facts, let us trot out Lance's line about tinfoil propellor beanies.
In addition, Lance has the right idea when he skillfully falls back on the tactic of pretending that SBT doubters must provide an alternative explanation that we find acceptable before we should feel any obligation to explain the contradictions in our versions of the SBT. After all, yes, our own experts have admitted that JFK's Z225 reaction proves he was hit by no later than Z221, but maybe one day science will discover that our current knowledge of human reaction times, though established by numerous scientific tests, is inaccurate--maybe one day science will discover that humans can react 300% more rapidly than all scientists now say they can!
Please note how Lance adroitly avoided dealing with the fact that Connally himself, the man who actually experienced the wounding, insisted he was not hit before Z229. Never mind that he reached this conclusion after studying high-quality prints of the Zapruder frames under high magnification for Life magazine. Connally was not a forensic expert. Just because he knew himself better than anyone else and was the one who felt the bullet's impact does not mean we have to accept his rejection of the idea that he was hit before Z229. After all, he didn't know about the Z224 lapel flip, and we must have faith that a lapel can flip up and down in 55 milliseconds (1/18th of second). Surely this happens all the time, or at least some of the time.
I also direct your attention to Lance's commendable avoidance of the fact that Connally's back wound was the same width as JFK's head wound (1.5 cm), which might seem to an unbiased and unindoctrinated observer to prove that the bullet was not tumbling but struck the back at a slightly horizontal angle. We know that the bullet must have struck the rib bone sideways and then hit the wrist bone sideways, in order to explain how CE 399's nose emerged undamaged. Dr. Robert Shaw must have somehow, someway been mistaken when he said the bullet created only a narrow wound path through Connally's chest. After all, even doctors make mistakes sometimes.
Additionally, I can't speak highly enough of Lance's wise avoidance of the confusing, baffling, mysterious subject of the SBT wound ballistics tests. Allow me to suggest that perhaps our brother Tom Graves goes a bit too far when he argues that wound ballistics tests are worthless unless they exactly duplicate the original bullet's trajectory, speed, and impact angle. Making that argument might make us look unscientific and amateurish, not to mention desperate. Lance's approach of simply ignoring the wound ballistics tests seems a safer and wiser course of action.
When pesky SBT doubters point out that no bullet in any wound ballistics test has emerged looking like CE 399 after doing even half of its alleged damage, and that even bullets merely fired into cotton wadding emerged with the same or greater deformation as CE 399, I again recommend reciting Lance's line about tinfoil propellor beanies.
Another point worthy of commendation is Lance's avoidance of the 2023 Knott Laboratory SBT trajectory analysis, coupled with his avoidance of the substantial contradictions between the pro-SBT trajectory analyses. The uninitiated don't need to know that the Knott Lab analysis was the most sophisticated SBT trajectory study ever done. We would prefer that they never even learn of its existence. It will only confuse them.
Yes, if the Knott study had not found the SBT to be impossible but had endorsed it, we would be noting that Knott Lab is a respected forensic engineering reconstruction firm and that its SBT analysis was the first study that included a digital replica of Dealey Plaza based on a laser scan of the plaza and millions of data points. But, somehow the Knott scientists reached the tinfoil-hat conclusion that the SBT is impossible. Go figure. We know better.
I suggest picking one of the post-2007 pro-SBT trajectory studies and not mentioning any of the others. If you choose Dale Myers' SBT study, please be sure not to mention Robert Harris's response to it. Plus, to avoid confusing the uninitiated, I would not cite Myers' study as a response to the Knott Lab study, just in case mentioning the Knott analysis leads some folks to Google more information about the Knott analysis.
Needless to say, Lance's summary dismissal of the bizarre notion that CE 399 was planted is the way to go. We all know that federal agents and local police never plant evidence, never alter evidence, and never fabricate evidence. I feel sorry for those who think they live in a world where government personnel do such things to cover up wrongdoing. We, the enlightened, know better.
Now, mind you, if any pesky WC critics start trotting out cases where federal and/or local law enforcement personnel have been caught planting, altering, or faking evidence, label those critics as anti-American and recite Lance's line about tinfoil propellor beanies. Just because there may be hundreds of cases where government personnel have faked/altered/planted evidence does not mean we should think for one second that CE 399 was planted. This just could not have happened.
Finally, I stress that this memo is to be kept private and not shared in a public forum. The uninitiated might come away thinking that we are knowingly deluding ourselves, that we resemble a cult that refuses to face hard facts that refute our position. But this is only how it looks to those who have not bravely embraced our enlightened theory of the shooting. Remember, good friends, 1/4 to 1/3 of the Western world agrees with us.
-
My fellow CTers, we can't just keep saying the SBT is nonsense. We know it's nonsense, of course, notwithstanding the umpteen medical and forensic experts who think it isn't, but still: we do have to have our own theory of CE 399, do we not? I mean, there it is, daring us to explain it. So, let's collectively don our tinfoil propellor beanies and attempt to explain it, OK?
...
Help me out here, my fellow beanie wearers. I eschew all the technical stuff and simply like to go to bed at night with some level of confidence that what we believe actually makes sense. What do we believe about CE 399 that actually makes sense?
While I am not a CTer, I agree that the SBT conflicts with a lot of reliable, mutually consistent evidence (1......2...3 shot pattern, JFK reacting to first shot, first shot after z186, second shot just before Greer makes first turn to rear).
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.
-
While I am not a CTer, I agree that the SBT conflicts with a lot of reliable, mutually consistent evidence (1......2...3 shot pattern, JFK reacting to first shot, first shot after z186, second shot just before Greer makes first turn to rear).
The simplest explanation for CE399 is that it caused JFK's neck wound and one of JBC's wounds.
That explanation is impossible. JFK's clothing proves that the back wound was well below the throat wound, rendering the SBT impossible from the outset, that no bullet exited the shirt slits, and that no bullet exiting the shirt slits could have nicked the outer surface of the tie knot. The throat wound was your typical entry wound--small (3-6 mm), neat, and punched-in. The damage behind and below the throat wound was larger than the wound itself, a telltale indicator of an entry wound. Moreover, the fact that the damage was to the right and below the wound is inconsistent with the SBT bullet's alleged left-to-right trajectory trajectory.
JFK’s Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view
Why JFK's Tie and Shirt Slits Destroy the Single-Bullet Theory
https://sites.google.com/view/jfkshirtandtiedestroysbt/home
-
That explanation is impossible. JFK's clothing proves that the back wound was well below the throat wound, rendering the SBT impossible from the outset, that no bullet exited the shirt slits, and that no bullet exiting the shirt slits could have nicked the outer surface of the tie knot. The throat wound was your typical entry wound--small (3-6 mm), neat, and punched-in. The damage behind and below the throat wound was larger than the wound itself, a telltale indicator of an entry wound. Moreover, the fact that the damage was to the right and below the wound is inconsistent with the SBT bullet's alleged left-to-right trajectory trajectory.
JFK’s Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view
Why JFK's Tie and Shirt Slits Destroy the Single-Bullet Theory
https://sites.google.com/view/jfkshirtandtiedestroysbt/home
If the shot from the SN through JFK's neck is impossible to reconcile with the facts, as you suggest, you have an even bigger problem explaining how a shot from the front could have occurred. You are not suggesting that the gun was fired from within the car, are you?
-
If the shot from the SN through JFK's neck is impossible to reconcile with the facts, as you suggest, you have an even bigger problem explaining how a shot from the front could have occurred. You are not suggesting that the gun was fired from within the car, are you?
I wouldn't put it past him, Andrew. Michael Griffith thinks the Babushka Lady shot President Kennedy with some kind of camera-gun (I'm not joking).