Mr. Dulles. Is the hole in the shirt and the hole in the coat you have just described in a position that indicates that the same instrument, whatever it was, or the same bullet, made the two?
Mr. Frazier. Yes, they are.
They are both—the coat hole is 5 and 3/8th inches below the top of the collar. The shirt hole is 5 and 3/4 inches, which could be accounted for by a portion of the collar sticking up above the coat about a half inch. (5 H 60)
Mr. Frazier. And they are both located approximately the same distance to the right of the midline of both garments. (5 H 60)
Although the jacket had bunched up slightly from time to time during the motorcade as Kennedy waved to the crowd, it had never bunched up sufficiently to allow a bullet to enter at the required angle. In a photograph taken no more than 1.2 seconds before any non–fatal shot from the sixth floor could have been fired, the jacket can clearly be seen to be at or very close to its normal position. Buttoned–up shirts tend to be much less flexible than jackets. President Kennedy’s shirt in particular could not have bunched up significantly: it had been made to measure; it was held in place by a belt; it had a long tail, on which Kennedy was sitting; and the hot weather would have caused the shirt to stick to the president’s back. The hole in the shirt lined up almost exactly with the hole in the jacket. (http://22november1963.org.uk/single-bullet-theory-jfk-assassination)
The jacket and shirt would have had to ride up about 4 inches to match the upper blemish. Since the holes in the shirt and jacket are nearly on top of one another, they would have had to ride straight up almost identical distances. At frame 2225 the President was not waving to the crowd, but was holding his arms in front of his chest. His suit does not look bunched up. The picture taken earlier in the motorcade and offered by Lattimer as evidence of the suit “riding up” does not show it bunched up anything like 4 inches.
The back brace was a simple corset worn under his clothing around his waist. It would not have pushed his clothing up. A close look at the Willis photo discussed above shows the shirt was not riding up about 1.2 seconds earlier. (http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/snyder_skeptic.pdf)
The photographs finally disclosed to Weisberg show that the suggested bullet holes in the shirt's front neckband are not bullet holes at all. They are slits made by scalpels used by nurses to cut off the President's necktie. One nurse who cut off the clothing confirmed this, adding impressive credence to Weisberg's observations. (Reasonable Doubt, 1985, p. 60)
What also struck me about the slits is how unlikely a bullet could have passed through there (see Weisberg's photo, if necessary) and also nicked the left outside of the knot of the tie.
Furthermore, there was no obvious fabric missing from the slits, whereas the hole in the back (even before FBI sampling) clearly had lost some fabric during the bullet passage. According to the experts on bullet transit, such missing fabric is typical. If this bullet really transited the neck (or upper chest), and according to the Warren Commission, lost very little speed, then why didn't it also remove fabric from the area of the slits?
The shape of the slits is much more compatible with a scalpel than with a bullet.
Dr. Charles Carrico, the doctor who examined Kennedy in the emergency room before his shirt and tie were removed, testified to the Warren Commission (and later confirmed in an interview) that the anterior neck wound was above the knot of his tie. A wound location this high in the front would render fatuous the whole teetering premise of the Warren Commission. (The commission ignored Dr. Carrico's testimony on this point, even though he was the doctor in the best position to have any direct knowledge.) (Reasonable Doubt, p. 60, original emphasis)
Both FBI agents who were at President Kennedy’s autopsy (agents James Sibert and Francis O’Neill), as well as Navy enlisted autopsy technicians Paul O’Connor and James Jenkins, observed a sharp downward angle for the shallow bullet track in JFK’s upper back. The location of the upper thorax wound, combined with this sharp downward angle, was entirely inconsistent with the absurd single-bullet. . . . Both O’Connor and Jenkins observed the use of metal probes in this shallow bullet track, and both recalled that the probing of the back wound made an impression on the intact pleura in the vicinity of the descending aorta (below the heart). This is one of many elegant proofs that the single-bullet theory is nonsense. (http://assassinationofjfk.net/most-jfk-medical-evidence-would-not-be-admissible-at-trial-doug-horne/)
Surprisingly, recent exchanges here with WC apologists about the single-bullet theory (SBT) indicate that they are not only unaware of facts from released files and recent research that refute the theory, but that they are unaware of well-documented facts that have been known for decades that refute the theory. Let us, therefore, review some of the facts that debunk the SBT.
But, before we look at those facts, we first need to remember that the Warren Commission (WC) only cooked up the SBT in desperation after it could no longer ignore the wounding of James Tague. The FBI had already concluded that JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets, that two bullets hit Kennedy and that one hit Connally. When the WC finally had to acknowledge the Tague wounding, it was forced to cook up the SBT because it could not admit that more than three shots were fired without admitting that there was more than one gunman.
This desperate theory created what has come to be known as “the magic bullet,” Commission Exhibit (CE) 399. This bullet, according to the SBT, struck Kennedy in the back, exited his throat, entered Connally's back below the right armpit, plowed through his chest and broke bone (knocking out 4 inches of rib bone) in the process, exited beneath the right nipple, entered and fractured the right wrist bone, and then penetrated deep into the Governor's thigh, but emerged in nearly pristine condition. Yet, the bullet that struck JFK in the head, which was supposedly the same kind of bullet as CE 399, broke into dozens of fragments, leaving two sizable fragments in the limousine and leaving around 40 fragments in the skull.
Some of the facts that refute the SBT:
* When I recently mentioned in another thread that the holes in JFK’s coat and shirt overlap and align with each other, one longtime WC apologist called this factual statement “kooky.” But the fact that the holes overlap and align almost exactly has been known for decades.
The hole in the coat is 5.375 inches (5 and 3/8th inches) from the top of the coat’s collar and 1.75 inches (1 and 3/4th inches) from coat’s midline. The hole in the back of the shirt is 5.75 inches from the top of the shirt’s collar and 1.125 inches from the shirt’s midline.
FBI firearms and ballistics examiner Robert Frazier explained to the WC that the two holes lined up vertically after factoring in the fact that the shirt collar was about half an inch above the coat collar. Frazier made this observation after Alan Dulles asked him if the position of the holes indicated that they were made by the same bullet. Frazier said yes, and explained why:
As for the horizontal position of the holes, Frazier said that both holes are “approximately the same distance” from the middle of both garments:
* Such nearly perfect vertical and horizontal alignment of the rear shirt and coat holes makes the bunched-clothing theory extremely implausible on its face. WC defenders have advanced this theory to try to explain the fact that the holes in the rear of the shirt and coat place the back wound in the same low location documented by the autopsy face sheet (marked “verified”), by the death certificate (also marked “verified”), by Sibert and O’Neill’s report on the autopsy, by the FBI report on the autopsy, by the transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session, by Clint Hill’s description of the wound, and by the wound diagrams that Kellerman, Sibert, and O’Neill drew for the HSCA.
That location—at least 5 inches below the collar line—makes the single-bullet theory impossible. Thus, lone-gunman theorists argue that Kennedy’s coat and shirt were bunched so significantly, and to the same degree, that the holes in them were made by a bullet that struck several inches higher than the position indicated by the holes with the coat and shirt lying normally. British researcher Jeremy Bojczuk explains some of the reasons that the bunched-clothing theory is invalid:
Dr. Art Snyder, a physicist at Stanford University:
Chuck Marler conducted experiments and was never able to duplicate the amount of bunching required by the bunched-clothing theory (https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jefferies-film-and-the-bunching-of-jfk-s-suit-coat).
* The WC claimed that as the magic bullet exited JFK’s throat, it exited through the shirt and created the two overlapping holes in the front of the shirt. This claim was debunked decades ago. The “holes” are actually slits, and the WC ignored the fact that although copper traces were found at the holes in the back of the coat and shirt, no such traces were found in the “holes” in the front of the shirt, even though the FBI’s Robert Frazier informed the commission of this fact (5 H 62). Frazier also noted that the front shirt slits were “not specifically characteristic of a bullet hole” (5 H 61).
The front-shirt slits were made by one of the Parkland Hospital nurses as the medical staff hurriedly removed JFK’s shirt and tie. Harold Weisberg obtained high-quality photos of the shirt and tie and observed that the supposed “bullet holes” are slits with the jagged edges indicative of an accidental cut from a sharp surgical instrument, and one of the Parkland nurses confirmed this. Rockefeller Foundation scholar and investigative journalist Henry Hurt:
Dr. David Mantik confirmed this when he was allowed to examine Kennedy’s clothing, and he also noted that there is no fabric missing from the slits, unlike the bullet hole in the back of the shirt:
* The WC also claimed that as the magic bullet allegedly exited JFK’s throat, it nicked the knot of his tie: “a missile entered the back of his clothing in the vicinity of his lower neck and exited through the front of his shirt immediately behind his tie, nicking the knot of his tie in its forward flight” (WCR, p. 91).
This could not have happened. The cuts in the shirt are directly beneath where the knot of the tie was, but photos of the tie show there was no damage to the knot except for a tiny nick near (but not on) its left edge.
When Harold Weisberg was finally able to obtain high-quality photos of JFK’s tie, he discovered what the WC and the FBI apparently had wanted to keep secret: there is no hole through the tie knot and no hole on the edge of the knot. The nick is visibly inward from the edge of the knot—it is close, but it is not on the edge, so it could not have been made by an exiting bullet. Obviously, it was made by one of the nurses as they hurriedly removed JFK’s clothing.
Furthermore, material surrounding the tie-knot nick was removed to test for traces of copper. No such traces were found.
* There is a simple, straightforward explanation for the above facts: the throat wound was above the shirt collar and the tie knot. Hurt:
* The wound in the throat was too small to have been an exit wound for a 6.5 mm bullet. Dr. Pierre Finck, one of the autopsists, wrote that the throat wound was approximately 5 mm in diameter. Parkland doctor Malcolm Perry, who saw the throat wound before the tracheotomy was performed, told Dr. James Humes, the chief autopsy doctor, that the throat wound was "only a few mm in size, 3-5 mm.” The alleged lone gunman supposedly used 6.5 mm bullets. A missile of this caliber would have made a much larger wound if it had exited the throat.
In the WC's own wound ballistics tests, the smallest exit wound that was created in the simulated human necks was 10 mm in diameter. WC supporters attempt to explain these tests, and the throat wound's contrastingly small size and neat appearance, by speculating that the collar band of Kennedy's shirt restrained the skin of the neck and prevented it from stretching too far, thereby enabling the bullet to cause the resulting wound to be small and neat. This theory is invalid, however, because WC supporters also claim that the bullet made the slits in the front of the President's shirt as it allegedly exited his neck, and, crucially, those slits were undeniably below the collar band (see, for example, the photo of the slits in Weisberg, Never Again, 1995, p. 245).
* Files released by the ARRB provide confirmation of the considerable preexisting evidence that the autopsy doctors determined that the back wound had no exit point. The doctors even removed the chest organs and turned the body “every which way” to probe the wound again to ensure they could see where the probe came out; they could see the probe pressing against the lining of the chest cavity—there was no exit point; the bullet never penetrated into the chest cavity.
Thanks to ARRB-released documents, we now know that Dr. Robert Karnei, who saw most of the autopsy, reported that the autopsy doctors "tried every which way" to find the back wound's exit point with a probe. Dr. Karnei said they moved the body into different positions; they even turned the body over. The autopsy doctors, added Dr. Karnei, spent "a long time" trying to find the exit point. They eventually realized that it had no exit point.
Again, the autopsy doctors could see where the wound tract ended and that it did not go beyond the lining of the chest cavity, as could others who were there, as Doug Horne points out:
* When Dr. Mantik was able to study the autopsy x-rays, he discovered that there was no path from the back wound to the throat wound without smashing through the spine (Assassination Science, p. 15; Mantik, “The Medical Evidence Decoded,” https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_Medical_Evidence_Decoded.pdf, pp. 38-40). The SBT is a physical impossibility.
Some sources for further study:
http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/snyder_skeptic.pdf
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/files/NP2%20SingleBull.pdf (Anthony Marsh)
http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-single-bullet-fantasy-part-1.html
http://22november1963.org.uk/single-bullet-theory-jfk-assassination
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jefferies-film-and-the-bunching-of-jfk-s-suit-coat
https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_Medical_Evidence_Decoded.pdf
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_A_Philadelphia_Lawyer_Analyzes_the_Presidents_Back_and_Neck_Wounds.html
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=4268#relPageId=20
http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm
http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery.html
https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/10/06/navy-doctor-bullet-found-jfks-limousine-never-reported/
http://assassinationofjfk.net/most-jfk-medical-evidence-would-not-be-admissible-at-trial-doug-horne/
I wanted to let this go but I can't. I understand I've stumbled into some crazy kind of world where up is down and black is white and that's okay, I'm just about getting my head round it, but your reference to the "bunched-clothing theory" is a piece of craziness too far. In the "Fragments" thread John Mytton posted the following graphic:
(https://i.postimg.cc/pL7v26BF/jacket-bunch-elm-st-love-field.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Just take a few seconds out of your day and watch as the picture changes from JFK at Love Field (the one where he's stood up) to the one where he's sat in the limo (on Elm Street seconds before he is shot in the back). This graphic proves - it doesn't hint or postulate or theorise - it PROVES that Kennedy's jacket was bunched up at the back just before he was shot in the back.You can line up all the experts you want and take all the measurements you want, this is irrefutable photographic evidence. It is the "Bunched-Clothing Fact". That's that. It's over. Done. Finished.
And if that wasn't enough - the graphic also proves that all your experts have made a catastrophic mistake in their measurements. In the Love Field picture look at the collar of JFK's jacket, you will notice a clear gap between the top of the jacket collar and the top of the shirt collar. You will also notice a clear gap between the top of his shirt collar
to the bottom of his hair revealing his neck. Now look at the Elm Street photo, you will notice that the top of the jacket collar is the same level as the top of his shirt collar and that both have ridden up to touch the bottom of his hair.
D'Oh
I wanted to let this go but I can't. I understand I've stumbled into some crazy kind of world where up is down and black is white and that's okay, I'm just about getting my head round it, but your reference to the "bunched-clothing theory" is a piece of craziness too far. In the "Fragments" thread John Mytton posted the following graphic:
Just take a few seconds out of your day and watch as the picture changes from JFK at Love Field (the one where he's stood up) to the one where he's sat in the limo (on Elm Street seconds before he is shot in the back). This graphic proves - it doesn't hint or postulate or theorise - it PROVES that Kennedy's jacket was bunched up at the back just before he was shot in the back.
Three points:
One, your graphic only shows modest bunching of the jacket, and the bunching is not high enough nor in the right place to produce bullet holes in the coat and shirt that would be 2-3 inches lower than the alleged actual wound location.
Two, you still have the problem of the shirt, and the extreme unlikelihood that the shirt would bunch in nearly identical correspondence with the coat, for the reasons explained in my OP.
Three, other photo evidence of JFK shortly before the timeframe of the first shot seems to show his coat almost flat on his back. For example, go to 27:21 and 27:25 in the documentary Inside JFK's Assassination, which shows us a clear profile view of Kennedy just seconds before the first shot:
https://www.amazon.com/Inside-JFKs-Assassination-Patrick-Jeudy/dp/B079C86SYN
"The jacket may have bunched up but the fitted shirt he was wearing wouldn't have."
Good, you see the jacket has bunched up, you see it as well. Thank you for saving my sanity. As for the shirt, you don't have a clue what's going on with the shirt, absolutely no idea whatsoever. That's what is important - you making a statement about the shirt you have no idea about and believing it's a fact. We can see the jacket bunched up and riding up his back so that the jacket collar is either touching or just below the hairline on the back of JFK's neck. We can see that. That's a fact.
One, your graphic only shows modest bunching of the jacket, and the bunching is not high enough nor in the right place to produce bullet holes in the coat and shirt that would be 2-3 inches lower than the alleged actual wound location.
There you go again. Your interpretation of a photo doesn’t constitute a “fact”. JFK’s is sitting in one photo and standing in the other. His head is not at the same angle.
How many seconds was Croft taken before the back shot? You don’t know, because you don’t know for a fact when the back shot occurred. Apart from the same slight bulge not being visible in Willis 5, and the hole in the shirt lining up, can this slight bulge in Croft account for a 2-3 inch displacement?
How many seconds was Croft taken before the back shot?
You don’t know, because you don’t know for a fact when the back shot occurred.
Am I wrong or wasn't there a timing problem with the Carcano?
JFK & JBC were hit by seperate bullets.
But the time between the 2 bullets hitting them was less than the fastest the Carcano could be fired, cycled & fired again, even without aiming.
This is pretty close to the mark. The HSCA PEP concluded that Kennedy was hit at Z188-190, but Alvarez much more credibly concluded that JFK was hit at Z226. JFK's reaction right after Z188 was probably in response to being stung on the back of the head by two fragments from the bullet that struck the curb near the limousine (these fragments are visible on the autopsy skull x-rays--they only penetrated a tiny fraction of an inch into the skull--and the only plausible ballistics and forensic explanation for them is that they separated from a bullet outside the limo before they hit the skull).
Beginning at Z226, Kennedy's body is visibly jolted sharply forward, and the position of his hands and elbows--particularly his elbows--changes dramatically, as they are flung upward and forward. The force and speed of these movements of his arms and elbows are quite startling when one compares frame 226, where they are first discernible, to frame 232 just 1/3-second later. Although the WC, and to a great extent the HSCA, ignored these movements, they are among the most dramatic and visible reactions on JFK's part in the entire Zapruder film.
After carefully studying high-quality blowups of the Zapruder film at Life magazine, Connally himself said the impact of the bullet that struck him occurred at Z234.
If Kennedy was hit at Z186 and Connally at Z234, they were hit 48 frames/2.6 seconds apart. If JFK was hit at Z226 and Connally at Z234, they were hit 8 frames/0.45 seconds apart.
But let's take the longer interval of 2.6 seconds. Even that almost certainly would have been beyond Oswald's ability to do and still score two hits in three shots. Yes, if you just fire the Carcano as rapidly as you can, you can fire at a rate of 1.66 seconds per shot, but not with the degree of accuracy required by the lone-gunman scenario.
Using the alleged murder rifle itself, the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test--Miller, Staley, and Hendrix--utterly failed to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting feat. In the first series, Miller took 4.6 seconds to fire three shots, Staley took 6.75 seconds, and Hendrix took 8.25 seconds. In the second series, Miller took 5.15 seconds, Staley took 6.45 seconds, and Hendrix took 7 seconds. They missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes 20 out of 21 times, even though they were firing from an elevation of only 30 feet (not 60) and even though the targets were stationary!
Yet, we're supposed to believe that Oswald, who was at best a mediocre shot in the Marines, scored two hits in three shots from 60 feet up on a moving target in only 5.56 seconds.
In the 1980s, some WC apologists began claiming that Oswald would have had 8.4 seconds to fire, not 5.56 seconds. But you can only expand the alleged lone gunman's firing time to 8.4 seconds if you assume that he fired at around Z160 and that he completely missed not only JFK but the entire huge limousine with his first and closest shot, the only shot that he had ample time to aim and fire, a proposition that even the WC admitted was unlikely.
Was Oswald a Poor Shot?
https://miketgriffith.com/files/poorshot.htm
How Long Would the Alleged Lone Gunman Have Had to Fire?
https://miketgriffith.com/files/howlong.html
This is pretty close to the mark. The HSCA PEP concluded that Kennedy was hit at Z188-190, but Alvarez much more credibly concluded that JFK was hit at Z226. JFK's reaction right after Z188 was probably in response to being stung on the back of the head by two fragments from the bullet that struck the curb near the limousine (these fragments are visible on the autopsy skull x-rays--they only penetrated a tiny fraction of an inch into the skull--and the only plausible ballistics and forensic explanation for them is that they separated from a bullet outside the limo before they hit the skull).You join this forum to post 50+ years of conspiracy garbage that’s been discussed to death calling LN’s “apologists” in a condescending tone hoping for what? You’ve presented nothing new or relevant. As usual.
Beginning at Z226, Kennedy's body is visibly jolted sharply forward, and the position of his hands and elbows--particularly his elbows--changes dramatically, as they are flung upward and forward. The force and speed of these movements of his arms and elbows are quite startling when one compares frame 226, where they are first discernible, to frame 232 just 1/3-second later. Although the WC, and to a great extent the HSCA, ignored these movements, they are among the most dramatic and visible reactions on JFK's part in the entire Zapruder film.
After carefully studying high-quality blowups of the Zapruder film at Life magazine, Connally himself said the impact of the bullet that struck him occurred at Z234.
If Kennedy was hit at Z186 and Connally at Z234, they were hit 48 frames/2.6 seconds apart. If JFK was hit at Z226 and Connally at Z234, they were hit 8 frames/0.45 seconds apart.
But let's take the longer interval of 2.6 seconds. Even that almost certainly would have been beyond Oswald's ability to do and still score two hits in three shots. Yes, if you just fire the Carcano as rapidly as you can, you can fire at a rate of 1.66 seconds per shot, but not with the degree of accuracy required by the lone-gunman scenario.
Using the alleged murder rifle itself, the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test--Miller, Staley, and Hendrix--utterly failed to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting feat. In the first series, Miller took 4.6 seconds to fire three shots, Staley took 6.75 seconds, and Hendrix took 8.25 seconds. In the second series, Miller took 5.15 seconds, Staley took 6.45 seconds, and Hendrix took 7 seconds. They missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes 20 out of 21 times, even though they were firing from an elevation of only 30 feet (not 60) and even though the targets were stationary!
Yet, we're supposed to believe that Oswald, who was at best a mediocre shot in the Marines, scored two hits in three shots from 60 feet up on a moving target in only 5.56 seconds.
In the 1980s, some WC apologists began claiming that Oswald would have had 8.4 seconds to fire, not 5.56 seconds. But you can only expand the alleged lone gunman's firing time to 8.4 seconds if you assume that he fired at around Z160 and that he completely missed not only JFK but the entire huge limousine with his first and closest shot, the only shot that he had ample time to aim and fire, a proposition that even the WC admitted was unlikely.
Was Oswald a Poor Shot?
https://miketgriffith.com/files/poorshot.htm
How Long Would the Alleged Lone Gunman Have Had to Fire?
https://miketgriffith.com/files/howlong.html
You join this forum to post 50+ years of conspiracy garbage that’s been discussed to death calling LN’s “apologists” in a condescending tone hoping for what? You’ve presented nothing new or relevant. As usual.
(https://i.postimg.cc/HnvVqMF5/JFK-photo-shirt-bunch.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
JFK's specially tailored shirt that never bunches up at the neck.
This is pretty close to the mark. The HSCA PEP concluded that Kennedy was hit at Z188-190, but Alvarez much more credibly concluded that JFK was hit at Z226. JFK's reaction right after Z188 was probably in response to being stung on the back of the head by two fragments from the bullet that struck the curb near the limousine (these fragments are visible on the autopsy skull x-rays--they only penetrated a tiny fraction of an inch into the skull--and the only plausible ballistics and forensic explanation for them is that they separated from a bullet outside the limo before they hit the skull).
Beginning at Z226, Kennedy's body is visibly jolted sharply forward, and the position of his hands and elbows--particularly his elbows--changes dramatically, as they are flung upward and forward. The force and speed of these movements of his arms and elbows are quite startling when one compares frame 226, where they are first discernible, to frame 232 just 1/3-second later. Although the WC, and to a great extent the HSCA, ignored these movements, they are among the most dramatic and visible reactions on JFK's part in the entire Zapruder film.
After carefully studying high-quality blowups of the Zapruder film at Life magazine, Connally himself said the impact of the bullet that struck him occurred at Z234.
If Kennedy was hit at Z186 and Connally at Z234, they were hit 48 frames/2.6 seconds apart. If JFK was hit at Z226 and Connally at Z234, they were hit 8 frames/0.45 seconds apart.
But let's take the longer interval of 2.6 seconds. Even that almost certainly would have been beyond Oswald's ability to do and still score two hits in three shots. Yes, if you just fire the Carcano as rapidly as you can, you can fire at a rate of 1.66 seconds per shot, but not with the degree of accuracy required by the lone-gunman scenario.
Using the alleged murder rifle itself, the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test--Miller, Staley, and Hendrix--utterly failed to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting feat. In the first series, Miller took 4.6 seconds to fire three shots, Staley took 6.75 seconds, and Hendrix took 8.25 seconds. In the second series, Miller took 5.15 seconds, Staley took 6.45 seconds, and Hendrix took 7 seconds. They missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes 20 out of 21 times, even though they were firing from an elevation of only 30 feet (not 60) and even though the targets were stationary!
Yet, we're supposed to believe that Oswald, who was at best a mediocre shot in the Marines, scored two hits in three shots from 60 feet up on a moving target in only 5.56 seconds.
In the 1980s, some WC apologists began claiming that Oswald would have had 8.4 seconds to fire, not 5.56 seconds. But you can only expand the alleged lone gunman's firing time to 8.4 seconds if you assume that he fired at around Z160 and that he completely missed not only JFK but the entire huge limousine with his first and closest shot, the only shot that he had ample time to aim and fire, a proposition that even the WC admitted was unlikely.
Was Oswald a Poor Shot?
https://miketgriffith.com/files/poorshot.htm
How Long Would the Alleged Lone Gunman Have Had to Fire?
https://miketgriffith.com/files/howlong.html
Huh??? The "bunch" is almost flat, like a modest neat fold. What are you looking at? And the nearly flat "bunch" does not go above the collar, and it's certainly not enough of a bunch to create a hole in the shirt that would be 2-3 inches below the impact point on the back. And should we consider the fact that JFK is not sitting back against a seat and that there's no coat over the shirt in this photo?
And what about the Dealey Plaza photography that shows JFK's jacket flat or nearly flat on his back seconds before the first shot?
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0049.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Skaggs%234_Rose_mary_Willis.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_alt5Groden.jpg) |
But, before we look at those facts, we first need to remember that the Warren Commission (WC) only cooked up the SBT in desperation after it could no longer ignore the wounding of James Tague.
... no bunch...The bunch ... the bunch.... the bunch tapers ...... one-inch high bunch...
One-inch on each side of the bunch.
It's all a bunch of it alright. Everybody see where the wound is?--- So get off it.
(https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zimmerman/frontmenu_i000003.jpg)
Thumb1: About 5.5 cm below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck. 3.5 cm above the exit wound in the throat.
This is pretty close to the mark. The HSCA PEP concluded that Kennedy was hit at Z188-190, but Alvarez much more credibly concluded that JFK was hit at Z226. JFK's reaction right after Z188 was probably in response to being stung on the back of the head by two fragments from the bullet that struck the curb near the limousine (these fragments are visible on the autopsy skull x-rays--they only penetrated a tiny fraction of an inch into the skull--and the only plausible ballistics and forensic explanation for them is that they separated from a bullet outside the limo before they hit the skull).
Beginning at Z226, Kennedy's body is visibly jolted sharply forward, and the position of his hands and elbows--particularly his elbows--changes dramatically, as they are flung upward and forward. The force and speed of these movements of his arms and elbows are quite startling when one compares frame 226, where they are first discernible, to frame 232 just 1/3-second later. Although the WC, and to a great extent the HSCA, ignored these movements, they are among the most dramatic and visible reactions on JFK's part in the entire Zapruder film.
After carefully studying high-quality blowups of the Zapruder film at Life magazine, Connally himself said the impact of the bullet that struck him occurred at Z234.
If Kennedy was hit at Z186 and Connally at Z234, they were hit 48 frames/2.6 seconds apart. If JFK was hit at Z226 and Connally at Z234, they were hit 8 frames/0.45 seconds apart.
But let's take the longer interval of 2.6 seconds. Even that almost certainly would have been beyond Oswald's ability to do and still score two hits in three shots. Yes, if you just fire the Carcano as rapidly as you can, you can fire at a rate of 1.66 seconds per shot, but not with the degree of accuracy required by the lone-gunman scenario.
Using the alleged murder rifle itself, the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test--Miller, Staley, and Hendrix--utterly failed to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting feat. In the first series, Miller took 4.6 seconds to fire three shots, Staley took 6.75 seconds, and Hendrix took 8.25 seconds. In the second series, Miller took 5.15 seconds, Staley took 6.45 seconds, and Hendrix took 7 seconds. They missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes 20 out of 21 times, even though they were firing from an elevation of only 30 feet (not 60) and even though the targets were stationary!
Yet, we're supposed to believe that Oswald, who was at best a mediocre shot in the Marines, scored two hits in three shots from 60 feet up on a moving target in only 5.56 seconds.
In the 1980s, some WC apologists began claiming that Oswald would have had 8.4 seconds to fire, not 5.56 seconds. But you can only expand the alleged lone gunman's firing time to 8.4 seconds if you assume that he fired at around Z160 and that he completely missed not only JFK but the entire huge limousine with his first and closest shot, the only shot that he had ample time to aim and fire, a proposition that even the WC admitted was unlikely.
Before? How do you know that the back shot hasn't already occurred?
And should we consider the fact that JFK is not sitting back against a seat and that there's no coat over the shirt in this photo?
Nellie Connally and Jackie both stated that the first shot hit both men, referencing when JBC cried out Oh No No No, which Gov Connally stated he cried out when he was hit.
I heard a noise that I didn't think of as a gunshot. I just heard a disturbing noise and turned to my right from where I thought the noise had come and looked in the back and saw the President clutch his neck with both hands.
He said nothing. He just sort of slumped down in the seat. John had turned to his right also when we heard that first noise and shouted, "no, no, no," and in the process of turning back around so that he could look back and see the President--I don't think he could see him when he turned to his right--the second shot was fired and hit him.
I'm sorry, but that's just comical. It is well known that Jackie Kennedy did not believe the single-bullet theory, and it is especially well known that Nellie Connally didn't buy the theory. Let's read Nellie's testimony. She said she heard a noise, that she saw Kennedy reach for his neck, and that Gov. Connally was in the process of turning around to look at Kennedy when "the second shot was fired and hit him":
So Nellie Connally most certainly did not say that JFK and her husband were hit by the same shot. And, of course, Gov. Connally himself insisted that he was not hit until Z234, and, after all, he was the one who experienced the hit. He looked at high-quality blowups of the Zapruder film at Life magazine and was adamant that he was not hit by Z224 and that Z234 was the frame of impact of the bullet that hit him.
Before? How do you know that the back shot hasn't already occurred?
JohnM
The Croft photo can be synchronised with the Zfilm with a reasonable degree of accuracy to z160, give or take a few frames. Croft can be seen on the right-hand side actually taking the picture. As the Zfilm rolls from this point Kennedy waves at the crowd. He would not do this if he'd been shot in the back. This should be fairly obvious. It is a fact that Kennedy has not been shot in the back at the time of the Croft photo.
Less than 9 seconds after the Croft photo is taken the infamous head-shot occurs. We can be confident JFK is shot in the back before the head-shot so when I say that JFK is shot in the back a matter of seconds after the Croft photo, it is an obviously accurate statement. To claim this statement is 'unfounded' displays wilful ignorance. JFK is shot in the back a matter of seconds after the Croft photo is taken. That is a fact.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTTThc6d/Calvery-misidentification-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
In defending the idea that the shirt bunched in nearly perfect correspondence with the coat, someone else said (I'm paraphrasing),"We don't know what was going on with the shirt under the coat." Well, true. We don't know, but, gosh can't we use some common sense? When JFK was hit in the back, most of his back was reclined against the seat. Given the nearly perfect alignment of the coat and shirt holes, the shirt would have had to almost perfectly duplicate the bunching of the coat, both vertically and horizontally. You do not have to be a scientist to know that such a scenario is wildly implausible.
Furthermore, I see that SBT defenders are still ignoring the fact that the coat and shirt would have had to bunch from T3 up to and over C7/T1. Just any modest bunching anywhere on the coat will not work. It has to be bunching that would pull the part of the coat that was over T3 and move it to be over C7/T1. The modest bunching that we see in some photos/frames in JFK's coat just before the shot to his back does not even come close to doing that.
Below is a graphic to give you some idea of the vertical difference between a wound at T3 and a wound at C7/T1. The graphic also shows how far down a T3 wound would be based on the white dot that was placed on the back of stand-ins to represent the location of the hole in JFK's coat in some WC reenactments (since the graphic is large, you'll need to scroll over to see the reenactment photos--or you can just click on the link to open the photo in a new window).
https://miketgriffith.com/files/t3vst1c7.jpg
(https://miketgriffith.com/files/t3vst1c7.jpg)
The Croft photo can be synchronised with the Zfilm with a reasonable degree of accuracy to z160, give or take a few frames. Croft can be seen on the right-hand side actually taking the picture. As the Zfilm rolls from this point Kennedy waves at the crowd. He would not do this if he'd been shot in the back.
This should be fairly obvious. It is a fact that Kennedy has not been shot in the back at the time of the Croft photo.
Less than 9 seconds after the Croft photo is taken the infamous head-shot occurs. We can be confident JFK is shot in the back before the head-shot
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTTThc6d/Calvery-misidentification-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
I think you'll find that's "Gloria Calvert" according to Westbrook Scranton ;D
Don't know what your overall thoughts are on things but I thought the work by you and Larsen on Calvery was excellent and will take some seriously convincing counter-evidence to convince me otherwise.
When did Scranton ever even see this photo?
Maybe so, but you’re also the guy who keeps calling his subjective opinions “facts”.
Thumb1: About 5.5 cm below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck. 3.5 cm above the exit wound in the throat.
* Dr. Boswell's autopsy face sheet diagram shows the wound five to six inches below the neck. That face sheet, by the way, was marked "verified."
* The President's death certificate places the wound at the third thoracic vertebra, which corresponds to the holes in the coat and shirt. This document was also marked "verified."
* Dr. John Ebersole, who got a look at the back wound during the autopsy, said the wound was near the fourth thoracic vertebra (63:721). This is even slightly lower than where the death certificate places the wound.
* Secret Service agent Clint Hill, who was called to the morgue for the specific purpose of viewing Kennedy's wounds, said the entrance point was "about six inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column" (18:77-78). Hill's placement of the wound corresponds closely to the location of the holes in the President's shirt and coat.
* The FBI's 9 December 1963 report on the autopsy, which was based on the report of two FBI agents who attended the autopsy (James Sibert and Francis O'Neill), located the wound below the shoulder (i.e., below the top of the shoulder blade) (18:83, 149-168).
* Three Navy medical technicians who assisted with the autopsy, James Jenkins, Paul O'Connor, and Edward Reed, have stated that the wound was well below the neck. Jenkins and O'Connor have also reported that it was probed repeatedly and that the autopsy doctors determined that it had no point of exit (10:260, 262, 302-303; 63:720).
* Floyd Riebe, one of the photographers who took pictures at the autopsy, recalls that the back wound was probed and that it was well below the neck (10:162-163, 302).
* Former Bethesda lab assistant Jan Gail Rudnicki, who was present for much of the autopsy, says the wound was "several inches down on the back" (10:206).
* Former Parkland nurse Diana Bowron, who washed the President's body before it was placed in the casket, has indicated that the back wound was two to three inches below the hole shown in the alleged autopsy photo of JFK's back, and this hole, by the HSCA's own admission, is about two inches lower than where the WC placed the wound. In other words, Nurse Bowron located the wound five to six inches below the neck, and at the same time challenged the authenticity of the alleged autopsy picture of the President's back. We will return to her account in a moment. (Some WC defenders argue that Bowron told the WC she didn't see any wound other than the large head wound. But if one reads her testimony carefully, it is clear she was speaking of the condition of Kennedy's body when she first saw it in the limousine. What she said in effect was that she didn't notice any wounds other than the head wound when she first saw his body lying in the limousine. See 6 H 136.)
* In the transcript of the 27 January 1964 executive session of the Warren Commission, we read that chief counsel J. Lee Rankin said the bullet entered Kennedy's back below the shoulder blade (63:632). Rankin even referred to a picture which he said showed that "the bullet entered below the shoulder blade" (68:78-79).
* Three recently released HSCA wound diagrams place the wound well below the neck, and in fact in almost the exact same spot shown on the autopsy face sheet. The diagrams were drawn for Select Committee investigators by Kellerman, Sibert, and O'Neill, each of whom got a very good, prolonged look at the body. This shows that when Kellerman said the wound was "in the shoulder," he meant it was visibly below the top of the right shoulder blade. Each agent placed the wound well below the neck, and visibly below the throat wound. (https://miketgriffith.com/files/backwound.htm)
Admiral George Burkley's death certificate (dated 23 November 1963) placed this wound at T3 (the third thoracic vertebra). Burkley's choice of T3 raises a serious question. It is not likely that he would merely have glanced at the body and made this correlation by himself. More likely, he obtained this information from the pathologists, either at the autopsy, or during the next day when the autopsy report was being written. Ebersole, in my conversation with him, actually placed the wound at T4. Ebersole's comments must be taken seriously because his specialty (like mine) was radiation oncology. This is the sole specialty in which correlation of internal anatomy with external anatomy is essential. ("The Medical Evidence Decoded," p. 39, https://themantikview.com/pdf/The_Medical_Evidence_Decoded.pdf)
The photo of the back has been doctored. This is obvious from the fact that it shows no damage to the back of the skull (the occipital and right-parietal regions), whereas optical density measurements of the autopsy skull x-rays indicate there is bone missing in the occipital region, whereas the Harper Fragment came from the occipital region, and whereas autopsy F8 shows significant damage to the occipital region. Yet, in the autopsy photo of the back, the occipital region is undamaged.
Dr. Boswell's autopsy face sheet diagram shows the wound five to six inches below the neck. That face sheet, by the way, was marked "verified."
We know from the Croft photo it stays like this for nearly the the whole journey until seconds before the shooting.
The Willis and Betzner blow-ups show no fine detail, they're just blocks of colour and can be ignored.
We see what we want to see I suppose.
To find out how much the jacket bunched up compare it to the autopsy photos of the back wound. To find out how much the shirt bunched up compare it to the jacket.
| (https://i.postimg.cc/XYPmjd6K/JFK-Love-Field-collar-bunch.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/bunch/love-field-cap-showing-bunch-at-nape.jpg) |
Two photos tell you nothing about the “whole journey”. Also some people think the shooting started before Croft.
In yet another “coincidence”, the shirt hole happens to line up with the lower “just a spot of blood” on the autopsy photo.
John is of course correct - two photos cannot tell us about the whole journey but as John and his compendious knowledge well knows, there are numerous photos and film clips showing the bunching of the jacket taken at various times on the motorcade route.
We can know, with a great degree of certainty, from this copious amount of evidence that the jacket is bunched up for the duration of the journey ( if there is one clear pic of the jacket smoothed down during this journey please provide it).
As for the shooting before Croft. Firstly, I would never hide behind the phrase 'some people think'
and I would like to think I wouldn't bring up a point that had already been fully explained to me. But not John, so let me take your hand once again and walk you through it -
the Croft photo can be synchronised, with a fair degree of accuracy, to z160. If we roll the Zfilm from that point we see JFK waving indicating that he has not been shot in the back.
You keep moving the goal posts. Your original statement was merely, “We know from the Croft photo it stays like this for nearly the the whole journey until seconds before the shooting”. By the way, what are these “numerous photos and film clips” that show a bunched jacket?
John, relax baby. I agreed we can't know the whole story from two pics. Agreeing with you isn't moving the goalposts, don't you see that. As for the numerous pics, this is what I rustled up in 5 minutes, I've no doubt there's lots more but this will suffice:
(https://i.postimg.cc/1Xt13JKs/jfk-bunch-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/MKn8k3TY/jfk-bunch-3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/qR1WS2HY/jfk-bunch-4.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/cJmztfCH/jfk-bunch-5.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/zB2P05nY/jfk-bunch-7.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/rw2Zhfts/jfk-bunch-9.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/bdcgBvrW/jfk-bunch-10.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/HLZfPQgN/jfk-bunch-11.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/hvpx9PxV/JFK-Love-Field-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Now wait just a cotton-pickin’ minute. It’s your claim that it was bunched for the entire motorcade. It’s nobody’s job to prove you wrong. And you’ve already dismissed Willis and Betzner as not clear enough (that’s convenient). But since you asked, how about Towner?
It would've been convenient if the Willis and Betzner pics were any good. As for Towner, as bad as it is, in the opening frame, if you look real close...
I’m not “hiding”. You claimed that Croft was “before the shooting” and most LNers place their alleged “first missed shot” prior to Z-160.
In a previous post we talked explicitly about Croft and the shot in the back, this was the 'shooting' I was referring to. I even specify at the end of my post. Not good enough for Pedantic John.
You sure are condescending. Unfortunately for you, that doesn’t make you right.
You make it so easy but don't be upset
(https://i.postimg.cc/qqWrLtnK/Calvery-misidentification-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
You said “before the shooting”, not “before being shot in the back”. Besides, how can you be certain this is an intentional wave and not something else. And how do you know somebody can’t still wave after being shot? Didn’t Ronald Reagan?
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Animation_Croft-Towner.gif) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Aspect ratio adjusted roughly | (https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AWPgvdCB43o/V98vUhQEM8I/AAAAAAAAzbo/LJrtbTCyu0w_zc85v_Nl3zYCSaE73zEvQCEw/s640/Towner%2Bfilm%2Bsequence.gif) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Aspect ratio adjusted roughly |
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_PDVD_067.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_PDVD_098.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_PDVD_106.jpg) | ||
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_PDVD_107.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_PDVD_118.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_PDVD_130.jpg) |
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/PDVD_098.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/PDVD_107.jpg) | |
| (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)[/img] | ||
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/PDVD_118.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/PDVD_130.jpg) |
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/willis04.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Willis 04 | (https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hunt/towner.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Jim Towner slide, taken during the Towner film; Right: Kennedy during motorcade |
John, relax baby.
It would've been convenient if the Willis and Betzner pics were any good.
In a previous post we talked explicitly about Croft and the shot in the back, this was the 'shooting' I was referring to.
As for the numerous pics, this is what I rustled up in 5 minutes, I've no doubt there's lots more but this will suffice:
John is of course correct - two photos cannot tell us about the whole journey but as John and his compendious knowledge well knows, there are numerous photos and film clips showing the bunching of the jacket taken at various times on the motorcade route. We can know, with a great degree of certainty, from this copious amount of evidence that the jacket is bunched up for the duration of the journey ( if there is one clear pic of the jacket smoothed down during this journey please provide it).
As for the shooting before Croft. Firstly, I would never hide behind the phrase 'some people think' and I would like to think I wouldn't bring up a point that had already been fully explained to me. But not John, so let me take your hand once again and walk you through it - the Croft photo can be synchronised, with a fair degree of accuracy, to z160. If we roll the Zfilm from that point we see JFK waving indicating that he has not been shot in the back. It's really that simple so please don't bring it up again.
As for the "coincidence" you mention I'm not that far down the road in my research to have come across the multiple bullet wounds in the back theory that 'some people think' is a possibility.
(https://i.postimg.cc/qqWrLtnK/Calvery-misidentification-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Yeah a dress jacket will "bunch". What will NOT "bunch" is a Dress Shirt ANCHORED by a Dress Tie behind the dress jacket. The bullet hole in JFK's dress jacket lines up with the bullet hole in JFK's Dress Shirt. JFK was POTUS and before that Rich. His dress clothing was Fitted. He was Not running around in rags off the rack at Robert Hall's.
Why not date this pic? POTUS flying Commercial? HAHAHAHAHAHA
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gt68O4rRqtI/VcZFdL7n-_I/AAAAAAAAQA4/5UBNyCe4LS0/s1600/kennedy-2.jpg)With all this talk about the jacket, why no talk about the hole in the jacket collar?
(https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/qctimes.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/f/20/f20ab2b9-97fc-5080-9776-3402e510f532/528d9fc4ad75b.image.jpg)
With the right arm elevated, there's usually a jacket bunch at the back above the right side of the midline. The top of the shirt collar should be above the top of the jacket collar at the nape, but on the right side it becomes obscured by the jacket.
With all this talk about the jacket, why no talk about the hole in the jacket collar?
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z162.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/20131029-010255.JPG) |
In the Zapruder film, the right side of the top of the President's jacket is both higher than the left side and is substantially higher than the level of the necktie knot.
Subcutaneous emphysema is present just to the right of the cervical spine immediately above the apex of the right lung. Also several small metallic fragments are present in this region. (p. 13)
SBT provides the only explanation for the wound to Gov Connally. The wound in his back can only have resulted from a bullet passing through JFK.
Nelly, Jackie, Bill Newman, DPD Hargis, all reference the wounding of Gov Connally by the first shot.
Mr. SAWYER. If we were to start at the other end then and assume that a bullet were fired at the approximate time we have determined from the sixth floor of the depository, would it have of necessity given the wounds in the President, would it of necessity, based on what you have determined as to locations somewhat, also have hit Governor Connally?
Mr. CANNING. The bullet would have had to have been substantially deflected by passing through the President in order to miss the Governor. It seems almost inevitable that the Governor would be hit with the alinements that we have found.
Mr. SAWYER. So that if we assume, as apparently is the fact, that this jacketed bullet did not hit anything solid in the way of bone in the President but only traversed the soft tissue of the neck, and presuming the approximate location of the limousine at the time and the posture as nearly as can be determined of the President at that time, that in your view then, absent a deflection of that bullet, it could not have missed Governor Connally.
Mr. CANNING. That is my view, yes.
Mr. SAWYER. I think that is all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DEVINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Canning, I am extremely impressed with your testimony, the logic, the studies you have made, particularly since you have conducted and supervised research on the flight of trajectory and stability of high speed projectiles or missiles.
I would ask one question on your margin of error that you provided on that Texas School Book Depository that is partially covered.
One has a yellow circle. One has the red circle. In all of those margins of error that you have demonstrated, the window, the key window, in the Texas Depository is always included, isn't it?
Mr. CANNING. Yes.
Mr. DEVINE. So you do not exclude that in any of your--
Mr. CANNING. No.
Mr. DEVINE. Based on--you are classified of course as an expert in your field as an engineer.
And on the trajectory studies, would you say that your studies would reveal that it is consistent that there may have been a single shot that went through the President's neck and through the body of Governor Connally?
Mr. CANNING. I am confident that that is in fact the case.
Mr. DEVINE. You are positive?
Mr. CANNING. Well, positive is a very strong word.
Mr. DEVINE. I understand. But it is totally consistent with your studies; is that correct?
Mr. CANNING. Yes, it is.
Mr. DEVINE. Thank you very much.
That's your answer to the forensic evidence from the x-rays cited by the Clark Panel? Just repeat the same old timeworn, debunked claims? Do explain how a bullet could have chipped the spine and/or deposited a trail of fragments if that bullet was CE 399. You can't do it.
I take it you did not read the OP? The SBT is impossible because there was no path from the back wound to the throat wound without smashing through the spine,
because the "holes" in the front of the shirt are slits made by nurses,
because the nick on tie knot was not on the edge of the knot, because the WC's own ballistics tests produced bullets that were far more deformed than CE 399, etc., etc., etc. Go read the OP.
This is just nonsense. Nellie and her husband both swore up and down that they heard the first shot before Connally was hit. Connally himself said he was not hit before Z234, and he's the guy who experienced it and who knew his body better than anyone else. But you guys just keep ignoring this fact. The guy who was hit survived. He felt the hit. He experienced. After viewing high-quality blowups of the Zapruder film, he insisted he was not hit before Z234.
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z200-z249/z233.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z200-z249/z234.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z200-z249/z235.jpg) |
More abject nonsense. Sheesh, this goop was debunked years ago. As many scholars have pointed out, Canning ignored the HSCA FPP's placement and description of the back wound, and even then he had to fiddle with reality to get his reconstruction to "work." Go look at his model trajectory. It's ridiculous. It bears no resemblance to Kennedy's position at the time of the first hit.
| (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/sbt/f145_sbtslope.gif) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Canning used the frame Z190 based on the (later disproven) acoustics evidence. | (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/sbt/f144_sbttrajectory.gif) |
This is what is so frustrating about dealing with lone-gunman theorists. You seem to be stuck in a time warp. You simply ignore all the research done over the last 30 years that has destroyed the single-bullet theory.
It is perhaps revealing that the HSCA's trajectory expert, Dr. Thomas Canning, was only able to make the single-bullet theory's vertical trajectory work in part by essentially ignoring the location and nature of the back wound documented by the committee's pathology panel (see 1 HSCA 190-192). Canning also admitted the trajectory through Kennedy's neck did not match up with the trajectory from Kennedy's neck to Connally's back, though he attributed this to "experimental error" and opined that the trajectories were within a "reasonable" margin of variance:
"Yes, those two angles are different. The line of sight that one obtains by using Governor Connally's back wound and President Kennedy's neck wound is slightly different from the angle which is determined by using the President's wounds alone. . . .
"What I am saying is that our interpretation of the data tells us that if we were to determine one trajectory based on the two pieces of information, one the Governor's wound, and the President's neck wound, that that will give us one line. The other wound, the other wound pair in the President, will give us a second line. Those two lines do not coincide simply because of experimental error." (1 HSCA 191)
To be fair to Canning, it should be mentioned that after he testified at the HSCA's hearings, Canning wrote a letter to the HSCA's chief counsel, G. Robert Blakey, in which he complained that he had had trouble getting accurate, consistent information on the locations of the wounds:
"The most frustrating problem for me was to get quantitative data—and even consistent descriptions—from the forensic pathologists."
Canning added that his study of the photographic record had revealed major discrepancies in the Warren Commission's findings:
"When I was asked to participate in analysis of the physical evidence regarding the assassination of John Kennedy, I welcomed the opportunity to help set the record straight. I did not anticipate that study of the photographic record of itself would reveal major discrepancies in the Warren Commission findings. Such has turned out to be the case." (Letter from Thomas Canning to G. Robert Blakey, January 5, 1978) (https://miketgriffith.com/files/10reasons.htm)
WC apologists can post all the trajectory diagrams they want, but those diagrams not only disagree among themselves but they ignore the fact that we learned in the 1990s from ARRB interviews and released documents that the autopsy doctors determined for an absolute certainty that the back wound had no exit point.
That's your answer to the forensic evidence from the x-rays cited by the Clark Panel? Just repeat the same old timeworn, debunked claims? Do explain how a bullet could have chipped the spine and/or deposited a trail of fragments if that bullet was CE 399. You can't do it.
I take it you did not read the OP? The SBT is impossible because there was no path from the back wound to the throat wound without smashing through the spine, because the "holes" in the front of the shirt are slits made by nurses, because the nick on tie knot was not on the edge of the knot, because the WC's own ballistics tests produced bullets that were far more deformed than CE 399, etc., etc., etc. Go read the OP.
This is just nonsense. Nellie and her husband both swore up and down that they heard the first shot before Connally was hit. Connally himself said he was not hit before Z234, and he's the guy who experienced it and who knew his body better than anyone else. But you guys just keep ignoring this fact. The guy who was hit survived. He felt the hit. He experienced. After viewing high-quality blowups of the Zapruder film, he insisted he was not hit before Z234.
More abject nonsense. Sheesh, this goop was debunked years ago. As many scholars have pointed out, Canning ignored the HSCA FPP's placement and description of the back wound, and even then he had to fiddle with reality to get his reconstruction to "work." Go look at his model trajectory. It's ridiculous. It bears no resemblance to Kennedy's position at the time of the first hit.
This is what is so frustrating about dealing with lone-gunman theorists. You seem to be stuck in a time warp. You simply ignore all the research done over the last 30 years that has destroyed the single-bullet theory.
All very interesting but understanding the assassination is just not that complicated. The SBT is the only plausible explanation and all the theatrics will not alter that fact.
Gov Connally was struck by the first shot. He said he cried out Oh No No No after he was struck. Nelly and Jackie both independently stated that he cried out Oh No No No after the first shot. JBC stated he only heard two shots which is confirmed by many eyewitnesses who also stated there was only two shots.
Bill Newman in the Jay Watson interview after the assassination: "stated he heard a shot and could not tell which man was hit first."
DPD Bobbi Hargis
Dallas, Nov. 23 (Special) B.W. Hargis, 31, Dallas motorcycle patrolman who was riding in President Kennedy's motorcade, gave this account today of the Assassination:
"We turned left onto Elm St. off Houston, about a half block from where it happened. I was right alongside the rear fender on the left side of the President's car, near Mrs. Kennedy."
"When I heard the first explosion, I knew it was a shot. I thought that Gov. Connally had been hit when I saw him turn toward the President with a real surprised look."
"The President then looked like he was bent over or that he was leaning toward the Governor, talking to him."
"As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of his head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood."
--------------------------------
Destroyed? The HSCA studies confirmed the beliefs of the WC. The only thing destroyed by close examination was The Dictabelt Theory and any concept of there being four shots. Not one thing has been debunked.
Canning completely explained his placement of the wounds and how he derived the trajectory. It is your choice to either believe him or search for someone to shore up your conspiracy beliefs.
--------------------------------------------
No exit wound? Dr. Ebersol discussing the search for the bullet and xrays taken at the autopsy.
'We were asked by the Secret Service agents present to repeat the films and did so Once again there was no evidence of a bullet. I assume you are familiar with portable X ray It is not the kind that gives a fine diagnostic but it is helpful in picking up metallic fragments. It would stand out like a sore thumb either intact or shattered.
The autopsy proceeded and at this point I am simply an observer. Dr. Humes in probing the wound of entrance found it to extend perhaps over the apex of the right lung bruising the pleura and appeared to go toward or near the midline of the lower neck."
" I believe by ten or ten thirty approximately a communication equipment. location had been established with Dallas and it was learned that there had been a wound of exit in the lower neck that had been surgically repaired. I don't know if this was premortem or postmortem but at that point the confusion as far as we were concerned stopped."
---------------------
You were asked to explain how Gov Connally could have been wounded if the bullet does not first pass through JFK. Instead of answering the question you go off on an Interpretive Science rant. It appears it took 30 years for someone to finally confirm your conspiracy dreams by claiming everyone else who studied the evidence was wrong.
You wrote an article about there having been only two shots fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD. It lacks some information but is the right idea. Apparently you no longer believe this to be true? You are the third conspiracy propagator to touch on the idea there was only two shots. Each time, instead of understanding that is the answer and the reality of the assassination, the conclusion is ignored or altered to reach some other conclusion. To me that is amazing especially given the large amount of evidence and witness support all pointing to the two shot conclusion.
Clothing-Shirt (front). . . . The midpoint of the defect is 15.7 centimeters to the right of the midline and 27.9 centimeters below the shoulder seam. The long axis extends inferiorly and medially at an angle of approximately 60° from the vertical axis of the shirt. This joins medially a vertical linear tear measuring 3.1 by 0.1 to 0.2 centimeters and is paralleled by another vertical linear tear measuring 4.8 by 0.1 to 0.2 centimeters. (7 HSCA 145)
Figure 6 is the view through Oswald's telescopic sight at Frame 222, showing the depressed angle of 20.23 degrees prevailing at the first shot as measured in the FBI reenactment. I have both measured and calculated the lateral angle at this frame to be 9.21 degrees. Elementary anatomy indicated that the minimum lateral angle for the bullet to miss the transverse processes and emerge in the midline [of the throat] is 28 degrees; this is obviously impossible from Oswald's alleged firing position.
'Gov Connally was struck by the first shot. He said he cried out Oh No No No after he was struck. Nelly and Jackie both independently stated that he cried out Oh No No No after the first shot. JBC stated he only heard two shots which is confirmed by many eyewitnesses who also stated there was only two shots'.
JBC said that he heard the first and third shots, and knew he was in shock when he felt the second. He knew the first shot was from a high-powered rifle. Thus 'no/no/no'. He also said that after the shooting started, he did not see Kennedy at all. Therefore, he could not have known which shot struck Kennedy at the outset.
Here is another fact that destroys the single-bullet theory, a fact that few lone-gunman theorists ever address: The "hole" in the front of Connally's shirt consisted of two very uneven vertical tears, one of which was over half an inch (1.7 cm) longer than the other. The HSCA:
It does not require advanced English skills to see that the "defect" consisted of two very uneven vertical tears, and that one tear was 1.7 cm longer than the other, or over half an inch longer than the other, which is not the kind of "defect" that you would get from a nearly pristine bullet but rather from a deformed bullet or from a large fragment.
Now, obviously, these tears sound much more like tears from a deformed bullet or a bullet fragment than from a bullet such as CE 399, just as Connally's chest surgeon, Dr. Robert Shaw, concluded. Given that the bullet shattered several inches of rib bone, it is not a bit surprising that the bullet fragmented.
The SBT is just whacky nonsense that falls apart on several grounds, if one is willing to consider the evidence objectively.
Of course you guys grasp onto the HSCA's conclusion that the fragments in the neck x-ray were artifacts, and that the Clark Panel just got it wrong, and that even your usual fallback expert, Lattimer, got it wrong. It's just comical. What about Custer's testimony that he saw bullet fragments in the neck x-rays he took at the autopsy? Let me guess: he was "mistaken."
By the way the HSCA FPP said the transverse process at T1 was "fractured," just to set the record straight.
Are you guys ever going to deal with the ARRB evidence that the doctors determined absolutely that the back wound had no exit point?
And are you ever going to deal with Dr. Mantik's finding that, based on the x-rays, there is no path from the back wound to the throat wound without smashing through the spine? Ignoring it won't make it go away.
Dr. Mantik's finding confirms what Dr. John Nichols deduced decades ago: Dr. John Nichols, who was a professor of forensic pathology at the University of the Kansas, had already reached the same conclusion, even though he was unable to study the autopsy x-rays. Dr. Nichols deduced from the trajectories involved and from his knowledge of human anatomy that no bullet could have gone from the back wound to the throat wound without smashing into one of the transverse processes of the spine--not just grazing it but smashing into it. Said Dr. Nichols,
Maybe you need to redo this reply and include all the relevant information. Also try and understand the relationship between Jackie's, Nelly's, and JBC's statement. JBC wasn't the only one there.
Maybe you need to redo this reply and include all the relevant information. Also try and understand the relationship between Jackie's, Nelly's, and JBC's statement. JBC wasn't the only one there.
No, this easy to explain. The bullet hole in the shirt is elongated with resulting multiple tears originating from the same hole. The bullet exited JBC's chest length wise.
How did the bullet enter Gov Connally's back if it does not first pass through JFK? That is the million dollar question.
By your own admission there were only two shots from the 6th floor. Dr Canning's trajectory analysis also places the shots from the 6th floor window. The eyewitnesses place the shots from the 6th floor. Three men on the fifth floor place below the SN place the shots on the 6th floor. There is only evidence of two bullets both matched to the rifle found on the 6th floor. A majority of the eyewitnesses state they only heard two shots. Jackie, Nelly, DPD Hargis, Bill Newman all state JFK and JBC were struck by the same shot. On and on and on it goes.
When you answer the question about Connally's wound you are left with SBT as the only alternative. You may not like the answer but it is the only one that explains it. All the wound analysis and various statements over time do not begin to change what is readily obvious.
Create all the conspiracy theories you want about who was shooting and why, but first start with the correct information.
Chapman is a Warren Commission propagandist and therefore will never ever include "all the relevant information" as he knows it will destroy his case. All they have is lies, misrepresentations, omissions and distortions. The Report was demolished 50+ years ago and they are still peddling this bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns. It's pathetic.
How did the bullet enter Gov Connally's back if it does not first pass through JFK? That is the million dollar question. By your own admission there were only two shots from the 6th floor.
Now just think about that. Think about it for a second. Take a breath, pretend that your mind is open to logic and fact, and think about it. If CE 399 was the bullet, how in the world would you end up with one vertical tear being over half an inch longer than the other vertical tear? If the bullet exited "length wise, how on earth would you end up with one vertical tear being half an inch longer than the other vertical tear? How? Think about it.
Obviously, to all except those who slavishly defend the impossible, such uneven tears--one over half an inch longer than the other--are typical of what you would see with a deformed bullet or a fragment with one edge longer than the other.
This is hilarious. It is only "the million dollar question" if you have read nothing but pro-WC propaganda and/or if you refuse to allow for a rear shot from one of the nearby buildings, such as the Dal-Tex Building and the County Records Building.
Every single argument you just put forward is either wrong, irrelevant, or misleading. I have already quoted John and Nellie Connally's statements, and they both swore up and down that Connally was not hit by the first shot. Connally never deviated from this position, and when asked by Life magazine to study high-quality blowups of the Zapruder film, he was adamant that he was not hit before Z234.
You keep ignoring basic facts:
* The rear holes in the coat and jacket place the back wound at least 5 inches below the top of the collar, and this location is confirmed by the autopsy face sheet, by the death certificate, by the FBI report on the autopsy, by Dr. Ebersole, and by Sibert and O'Neill's report on the autopsy.
Here we have hard physical evidence of the wound's location, and you guys respond by making up this nutty, desperate, laughable bunched-clothing theory when we all know that there is not one single photo or frame that shows JFK's coat bunched anywhere close to the degree and formation that could enable a bullet that struck 2-3 inches higher to produce holes that would be 5-plus inches below the top of the collar with the shirt and coat in normal position. It's pure poppycock.
* There were no bullet holes in the front of JFK's shirt, only two narrow slits made by the Parkland nurses.
* There was no bullet hole through JFK's tie, only a small nick made by the Parkland nurses, and the nick is not even on the edge of the knot.
* We know from ARRB-released records that the autopsy doctors positively, absolutely determined that the back wound had no exit point. They removed the chest organs and turned the body into several positions for each probe attempt, and they were able to see the end of the wound tract and that it did not enter the chest lining--they could see the probe pushing against the chest lining.
* Dr. Mantik has confirmed Dr. Nichols' analysis that there is no path from the back wound to the throat wound on the x-rays without smashing through the spine. It is just impossible. Sorry, but that's just how it is.
'JBC always stated he only heard two shots. He was struck by the same bullet as JFK which is what Nelly and Jackie referenced in JBC crying out OH No No No. Bill Newman and DPD Hargis both observed by JBC’s reacting to having been struck by the first shot.'
JBC said there were 3 shots. He heard the first & third shots. He felt the second, the one that felt like someone punched him. He stated that he was in shock, which he reckoned was why he didn't actually hear the report.
How do you know the shot that hit Connally’s back came from the 6th floor?
Wrong. He said he heard two shots. He assumed there was a shot he didn't hear. Jackie, Nelly, Newman, Hargis, Hill, Landis, Chaney, Brennan, Williams and 30 to 40 other eyewitnesses never heard it either.
Wrong. He said he heard two shots. He assumed there was a shot he didn't hear. Jackie, Nelly, Newman, Hargis, Hill, Landis, Chaney, Brennan, Williams and 30 to 40 other eyewitnesses never heard it either.
Wrong. He said he heard two shots. He assumed there was a shot he didn't hear.
Wrong. He said he heard two shots. He assumed there was a shot he didn't hear. Jackie, Nelly, Newman, Hargis, Hill, Landis, Chaney, Brennan, Williams and 30 to 40 other eyewitnesses never heard it either.
Just curious but why would the tears be the same given the bullet was tumbling? Actually why would you ever think they would be the same under any circumstances?
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. (p. 94)
Gov Connally is a poor choice for witness reliability.
His initial statement he states he saw JFK slumped after the first shot only to change his statement completely later.
Nelly's initial statement made through Julian Read was that she did not know anything about a third shot.
JBC 11/27/63 Parkland Hospital--- First statement made by JBC was the interview in the Parkland Hospital. JBC clearly states JFK was struck by the first shot which is exactly what Nelly, Jackie, Hill, and all the other eyewitnesses stated. His WC statement is completely opposite which leads you to question whether JBC really remembers exactly what happened. JBC goes from turning left and seeing JFK slump in the Parkland Hospital interview to turning right and not seeing JFK at all in the WC Testimony.
“And then we had just turned the corner [from Houston onto Elm], we heard a shot; I turned to my left
I was sitting in the jump seat. I turned to my left to look in the back seat – the president had slumped. He had said nothing. Almost simultaneously, as I turned, I was hit and I knew I had been hit badly.”[Debunked HSCA testimony and arguments SNIPPED]
That's what Bill said right? Unless I am misreading his post?
JAQer. Want some fries with that nothingburger?
Once again, Chapman has no answers, just assumptions and grandstanding.
Once again, Iacoletti is doing nothing more than JAQing.
Dr. Mantik's finding confirms what Dr. John Nichols deduced decades ago: Dr. John Nichols, who was a professor of forensic pathology at the University of the Kansas, had already reached the same conclusion, even though he was unable to study the autopsy x-rays. Dr. Nichols deduced from the trajectories involved and from his knowledge of human anatomy that no bullet could have gone from the back wound to the throat wound without smashing into one of the transverse processes of the spine--not just grazing it but smashing into it.
| (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/C7_animation.gif) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) From Wikimedia Commons | C7 highlighted in animation. |
Oh my. What drama! Time to look into this scholarly "clear contrary evidence" Griffith has been shoveling for decades.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/nichols-neck-transit-theory.jpg)
Looks like a bullet traveling downward could have entered a man's lower neck at the back two-inches over from the mid-line, pass between the vertebra processes without a "smashing") and emerge at the lower mid-line of the throat. As that fellow from the South used to say: "Sur-prise, sur-prise, sur-prise!"
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/C7_animation.gif)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
From Wikimedia Commons | C7 highlighted in animation.
You don't even know what that means. Just like "gaslighting" and "BUMP". You're a poser.
Huh? Do you even understand the issue here? Now, I'll tell you what: Let's see you produce or find a diagram, just a basic one, that shows how a tumbling bullet--you pick the angle of the pitch and yaw--would produce two vertical tears that were parallel but markedly differed in length--differed by 35% (4.8 cm vs. 3.1 cm) and were joined in the middle by a third tear to form an H.
You don't seem to be taking into account the fact that the tears paralleled each other. We're not talking tears that ran different directions at different angles. We're talking about two parallel vertical tears, joined in the middle by a tear so that they and the joining tear form an H. Perhaps it would help to quote the Warren Commission's description of the tears:
Do tell me how a single bullet that looked anything like CE 399 could have produced such a tear? Use some common sense to visualize in your mind how the bullet/fragment would have had to be shaped to produce an H-shaped tear with uneven sides. This is basic geometry.
Right! Because he was just the guy who experienced the hit! Yeah, what would he know?! And when he spent almost an hour looking at high-quality blowups of frames Z190-240 for Life magazine, he, being the person who was actually hit and knowing his own facial expressions, etc.--he was in no position to determine when he was hit!
This is nitpicking nonsense. Connally never, ever wavered from his insistence that he was not hit by the first shot and that was hit as he was turning after hearing the first shot, and the Zapruder film confirms this clearly.
Gosh! Maybe because she was focused on her husband?! Lots of people only heard two shots, partly because two of the shots came in very rapid succession and partly because of where they were and/or what they were doing at the time.
Did it ever occur to you that in his first statement Connally had not yet seen the Zapruder film, and that in his subsequent statements he was including hindsight observations based on his having seen the film? The point is that Connally never veered from his insistence that he was not hit by the first shot.
Any trajectory analysis that assumes a bullet exited Kennedy's throat is invalid from the outset, as I document in the OP of this thread. Again, no bullet exited the tie knot or the front of the shirt. No bullet penetrated the chest and lung cavities--we know this now from released documents. There was no path from the back wound to the throat wound without smashing through the spine, which is undoubtedly part of the reason that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said the back wound had no exit point.
Now, you need to explain how on this planet any bullet that looked anything like CE 399 could have produced an H-shaped tear with uneven vertical sides. Let's hear and/or see it. This is silly because the laws of geometry and physics tells us that there is no way a virtually pristine bullet could have produced an H-shaped tear with uneven sides. But, please do give it a shot.
But, before we look at those facts, we first need to remember that the Warren Commission (WC) only cooked up the SBT in desperation after it could no longer ignore the wounding of James Tague. The FBI had already concluded that JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets, that two bullets hit Kennedy and that one hit Connally. When the WC finally had to acknowledge the Tague wounding, it was forced to cook up the SBT because it could not admit that more than three shots were fired without admitting that there was more than one gunman.
JAQer. You attempt to garner plausible deniability by framing baiting statements as questions, resulting in your 'where-did-I-claim-that' schtick.
This right here is excellent proof that the heads of WC members were not exposed to sunlight as they formulated their solution to the criminal mystery they were supposed to solve. My question is, where their heads in their own bungers or did they have their heads in the bungers of the disgraceful member sitting next to them.
Oh my. What drama! Time to look into this scholarly "clear contrary evidence" Griffith has been shoveling for decades.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/nichols-neck-transit-theory.jpg)
Looks like a bullet traveling downward could have entered a man's lower neck at the back two-inches over from the mid-line, pass between the vertebra processes without a "smashing") and emerge at the lower mid-line of the throat. As that fellow from the South used to say: "Sur-prise, sur-prise, sur-prise!"
The bullet exited JBC's chest sideways. The shape of the tear is meaningless, the bullet was tumbling. Anything is possible.
Lots of nice-looking graphics are worthless if they're based on bogus input data. Let us first list the facts we must ignore to even consider your model:Interesting, the entrance wound in JBC's back is completely ignored, instead you are concerned about the exit wound and of all things the shirt tears that means nothing. You still cannot explain a different trajectory than the trajectory presented by the WC and the HSCA that caused all of the wounds. You still cannot dispute the fact the bullet must pass through JFK to strike JBC in the back so instead you want to focus on the shirt and a couple of tears that resulted from the bullet exiting JBC's chest.
* There are no bullet holes in the front of JFK's shirt (only narrow slits made by nurses, and the slits have no fabric missing).
* There is no bullet hole through JFK's tie knot.
* The rear clothing holes--along with the autopsy face sheet, the death certificate, the Sibert & O'Neill report on the autopsy, the FBI report on the autopsy, the wound diagrams drawn by witnesses for the HSCA, J. Lee Rankin's observation in the 1/27/64 executive WC session, and Dr. Ebersole--put the back wound well below C7.
Now, leaving aside all of these facts, your model has the bullet magically going through the small notch at C7 as if it were laser guided and without so much as grazing the bone.
And then there is fact that we now know that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors absolutely, positively determined that the back wound had no exit point, and that the first two drafts of the autopsy report reported this fact, and that the back-wound-to-throat-wound myth was only created many hours after the autopsy, after it was decided that the throat-wound-caused-by-headshot-fragment story was unacceptable.
It's just incredible that we have to just keep going around and around in these ludicrous circles because you guys won't deal with all the evidence that has come forth since the 1990s.
And, I see that no one has ventured to offer an explanation for how CE 399 could have created the H-shaped tears in the front of Connally's shirt. The only response on this problem has been Jack Nessan's hilarious statement:
Uh, no, the shape of the tear is important forensic evidence, as any forensic textbook will tell you, and "anything" is not possible when you're talking about an object whose measurements and condition are known. Again, if CE 399 exited the chest sideways and was tumbling, how could this object have created an H-shaped tear with two parallel but uneven vertical tears joined by a horizontal tear? This is basic geometry. Let me help you visualize the problem, and I have not even made the vertical tears uneven:
(https://miketgriffith.com/files/jbcshirtexittears2.jpg)
Obviously, obviously, the tears in the front of Connally's shirt were made by multiple fragments or by a very oddly deformed bullet or fragment. This is basic geometry and common sense, for crying out loud. But you have a tiny minority of Americans who simply cannot allow themselves to admit this.
Interesting, the entrance wound in JBC's back is completely ignored, instead you are concerned about the exit wound
and of all things the shirt tears that means nothing.
You still cannot explain a different trajectory than the trajectory presented by the WC and the HSCA that caused all of the wounds. You still cannot dispute the fact the bullet must pass through JFK to strike JBC in the back. . . .
Baden was correct. The assassination because of the alignment of JBC and JFK can only be understood in the context that the bullet first passing through JFK then struck JBC in the back.
Too many unforced errors added up, including picked-apart trial testimony in the “Dr. X” case, leading to the acquittal of Mario Jascalevich in a spate of poison-murders at Riverdell Hospital; a Housing Authority patrolman whose January 1979 murder went undetected for 12 hours, his body removed from the scene before a proper death investigation; conflicting conclusions relating to the chokehold death of a Brooklyn businessman at the hands of police; and off-the-cuff comments about the possibly sexual-intercourse-interrupting death of Governor Nelson Rockefeller.
Ultimately, memos from district attorney Robert Morgenthau and city health commissioner Reinaldo Ferrer, documenting their criticism of Baden for “sloppy record keeping, poor judgment, and a lack of cooperation,” were the final straw. (Morgenthau later stated that Baden was “cavalier and uncooperative” with respect to evidence lost by the OCME.) Koch demoted Baden in August 1979, replacing him with Elliot Gross. (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/why-to-be-skeptical-of-michael-baden-on-epsteins-death.html)
If all these people you are quoting cannot explain JBC's back wound why bother reading their analysis, maybe focus on the real evidence and witness statements.
A lot more informative than these conspiracy motivated experts. Dr Mantik actually hypothesized the bullet bounced off DPD Chaney's helmet and struck JFK. Really, this is someone to take seriously? I can only assume the rest of these people tell a similar story.
By the way, Audrey Bell, the Parkland nurse who assisted with the surgery on Gov. Connally, told the ARRB that she was certain that they removed at least 3 bullet fragments from Connally (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=715#relPageId=2&tab=page). Those fragments could not have come from CE 399.
Lots of nice-looking graphics are worthless if they're based on bogus input data. Let us first list the facts we must ignore to even consider your model:
* There are no bullet holes in the front of JFK's shirt (only narrow slits made by nurses, and the slits have no fabric missing).
* There is no bullet hole through JFK's tie knot.
* The rear clothing holes--along with the autopsy face sheet, the death certificate, the Sibert & O'Neill report on the autopsy, the FBI report on the autopsy, the wound diagrams drawn by witnesses for the HSCA, J. Lee Rankin's observation in the 1/27/64 executive WC session, and Dr. Ebersole--put the back wound well below C7.
| What They Said | How You Lied About It | My Comment | ||||
| Silbert-O'Neill | "below the shoulders" | located the wound below the shoulder (i.e., below the top of the shoulder blade) | They could have meant the shoulder line. | |||
| J. Lee Rankin | "the bullet entered below the shoulder blade" | You don't acknowledge that "below the shoulder blade" would be about T7/T8 and well below the clothing holes. | Rankin could have meant the shoulder line. |
Now, leaving aside all of these facts, your model has the bullet magically going through the small notch at C7 as if it were laser guided and without so much as grazing the bone.
And then there is fact that we now know that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors absolutely, positively determined that the back wound had no exit point, and that the first two drafts of the autopsy report reported this fact, and that the back-wound-to-throat-wound myth was only created many hours after the autopsy, after it was decided that the throat-wound-caused-by-headshot-fragment story was unacceptable.
It's just incredible that we have to just keep going around and around in these ludicrous circles because you guys won't deal with all the evidence that has come forth since the 1990s.
And, I see that no one has ventured to offer an explanation for how CE 399 could have created the H-shaped tears in the front of Connally's shirt. The only response on this problem has been Jack Nessan's hilarious statement:
Uh, no, the shape of the tear is important forensic evidence, as any forensic textbook will tell you, and "anything" is not possible when you're talking about an object whose measurements and condition are known.
Again, if CE 399 exited the chest sideways and was tumbling, how could this object have created an H-shaped tear with two parallel but uneven vertical tears joined by a horizontal tear? This is basic geometry. Let me help you visualize the problem, and I have not even made the vertical tears uneven:
(https://miketgriffith.com/files/jbcshirtexittears2.jpg)
Obviously, obviously, the tears in the front of Connally's shirt were made by multiple fragments or by a very oddly deformed bullet or fragment. This is basic geometry and common sense, for crying out loud. But you have a tiny minority of Americans who simply cannot allow themselves to admit this.
| Not a valid vimeo URL |
And then there's Connally's suit. Odd that it was laundered before being admitted into evidence by the WC.
Nelly said she washed it. Dumb move.Everybody knows [do they not?] that you don't wash suits. Even if suits were washed...why would she wash an obviously ruined garment?
Evasion. I'd be more than happy to discuss the entrance wound in Connally's back, and I suspect you are blissfully unaware of the problems it poses for the SBT, but JBC’s back wound is not the issue at hand.
In other words, you know there is no way you can explain how an object shaped like CE 399 could have made those tears. So you are reduced to making the bizarre, ignorant claim that the shape and nature of bullet holes in clothing "means nothing."
Even the WC knew better. The commission asked their expert witnesses about all the clothing holes and about what those holes indicated about the objects that made them (e.g., FBI expert Robert Frazier's testimony about the JFK and JBC clothing holes).
The tears in the front of Connally's shirt form an H because they were not made by CE 399. A teenager with grade-school geometry skills could figure that out. The laws of geometry and physics require that the defect that an object leaves in clothing will be determined by the shape of the object and by its yaw, pitch, and roll angles when it transits the clothing. Those angles cannot make an object shaped like CE 399 magically produce tears that form an H. Not on this planet.
To anyone who is not emotionally committed to seeing the emperor's new clothes, the only logical conclusion is that the tears were made by multiple fragments or by a very oddly shaped large fragment or bullet. There is no other plausible explanation. Not on this planet.
I've already addressed this issue, and this issue has been thoroughly examined in many critiques of the SBT. A gunman in the Dal-Tex Building or the County Records Building could have missed JFK, either narrowly or substantially, and struck Connally instead.
Are you aware that in 1975 a rusted shell casing was found on the roof of the County Records Building? The casing was found under a lip of roofing tar at the base of the roof's parapet on the side facing the plaza. Humm, what a coincidence, hey?
Baden is a quack celebrity pathologist who twisted the evidence to fit the lone-gunman theory. Do you have any idea how many times Baden has been destroyed under cross-examination in courtrooms? Do you know that Baden has been dismissed as medical examiner twice, once by NYC and once by Suffolk County, NY? In speaking of why Baden was fired as NYC's medical examiner, Sarah Weinman writes,
Many more pages could be devoted to discussing Baden's long history of dubious "expert conclusions" and of getting shredded under cross-examination.
When Baden chaired the HSCA FPP, on several occasions he overruled his own expert consultants and/or other members of the panel. It was Baden who insisted that the FPP accept the Clark Panel's now-discredited claim that the rear head entry wound was in the cowlick.
What on earth are you talking about? What is your basis for saying they "cannot explain JBC's back wound"? You don't even know what you're talking about. You just keep repeating the same debunked myths over and over, and you refuse to deal with serious, substantive issues, such as how an object shaped like CE 399 could have made tears that formed an H, or the ARRB-released evidence that the autopsy doctors categorically and absolutely determined that the back wound had no exit point at that autopsy (which is why the first two drafts of the autopsy report said the back wound had no exit point), and that there are no bullet holes in the front of JFK's shirt nor in his tie.
Where does Dr. Mantik say that a bullet bounced off Chaney's helmet? I have read everything Dr. Mantik has ever written, and I have never come across that claim. Pat Speer has made that claim, and when Dr. Mantik replied to Speer, he mentioned Speer's claim but did not endorse it (https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-autopsy-x-rays-david-mantik-vs-pat-speer).
By the way, Audrey Bell, the Parkland nurse who assisted with the surgery on Gov. Connally, told the ARRB that she was certain that they removed at least 3 bullet fragments from Connally (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=715#relPageId=2&tab=page). Those fragments could not have come from CE 399.
Amos Euins was the only witness who claimed to see shots fired from the TSBD 6th floor.
What about Howard Brennan bubba? Wasn't he the Commission's star witness?
Everybody knows [do they not?] that you don't wash suits. Even if suits were washed...why would she wash an obviously ruined garment?
Instead of stating the the tear is wrong explain how the tear should have looked. The tear does not mean a thing.
You don't like Baden but a person promoting a helmet ricochet is some kind of an acknowledged expert?
Dr Mantik seems to be big believer in the idea of a ricochet of any kind or actually any other conspiracy available.
It also appears he is a little butt sore over Speer somewhat ignoring him as did Dr Ebersol. I think I understand why. Are all the other experts referenced of the same type as Dr Mantik?
Pat Speer also states the Xray are authentic which appears is Dr. Mantik's pet peeve.
Chapter 18: X-ray Specs
Note 4: This is actually Chapter 18a (18b follows), but Speer labels it simply as 18.
Note 5. These twenty questions were prompted by Speer’s comments, although the wording
here is (mostly) my own.
1. Why were the JFK X-rays taken with a portable unit—and does it matter? (p. 1)
.......
5. Was JFK struck by a ricochet fragment? (pp. 3-4)
Yes, most likely he was, perhaps by even more than one. Howard Donahue (whose home I
once visited) lists the evidence for these events (Mortal Error 1992, Bonar Menninger). OTF is
a good candidate for this. Another is a small fragment near the top of the scalp—on the left side
(see Figures 1 and 2). This latter one is visible on both the AP and lateral skull X-rays, even in
poor quality prints, and it does lie way off the main trail of debris. Its appearance on the extant
X-rays (as viewed at NARA) is totally consistent on the two views and also strongly suggests a
metallic fragment. Furthermore, there are even other candidates for ricochet fragments (they
7
are well off the main trail of debris), which I have observed at NARA. Also see my comments
under Figures 1 and 2 about very tiny metal fragments near OTF (on the lateral X-ray) and also
near the 6.5 mm object (on the AP X-ray). (For data on ricochet angles, see “FBI: Bouncing
Bullets.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. S. 2-6 u. 20-23. Washington, Sept/Oct 1969. A more
recent article is by L. C. Haag, “Bullet ricochet: an empirical study and a device for measuring
ricochet angle.” AFTE Journal 7 (3): 44-51, December 1975.) Whether such bullets must have
struck James Chaney (as Speer insists, albeit without any analysis) would depend critically on
the origin of the shot (Speer only mentions the sniper’s nest) as well as its timing.
However,
Speer is correct to cite Vincent DiMaio and to conclude that ricochet bullets do not break into
narrow cross-sections or slices (even though Speer promptly introduces his own slice).
He is
also correct to confirm that the nose and tail of the bullet (which supposedly deposited the 6.5
mm object) were both reportedly found in the limousine.
[Irrelevant Speer claims SNIPPED]
Baden was the spokesman for a panel of ten renown pathologists with a combined 100,000+ pathology examinations between them. They concluded with the exception of Cyril Wecht that the shots originated from the 6th floor of the TSBD. It is really very simple.
The eyewitnesses stated the shots came from the 6th floor.
The trajectory analysis places the shots originating from the 6th floor.
The rifle was found on the 6th floor.
The shells were found on the 6th floor.
The bullet and fragments of another bullet were found to match the rifle found on the 6th floor.
A large number of witnesses state there was only two shots.
A number of witnesses state the head shot or the car accelerated after the second shot.
On and on it goes always revolving around the fact there was only two shots, The one thing no one states is there was a shot from the Records building or Dal Tex building.
Even Cyril Wecht, the lone dissenting pothogist on the HSCA panel, thought the trajectory was from the TSBD.
What about Howard Brennan bubba? Wasn't he the Commission's star witness?
The absurdity of the single-bullet theory can be seen in the fact that the HSCA had to assume JFK was leaning far forward when the magic bullet hit him, in order to make their SBT trajectory work, but this assumption is demonstrably false.
(https://miketgriffith.com/files/sbtbogus1.jpg)
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/croft~0.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Croft photo (Z161) | (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/sbt/f145_sbtslope.gif) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) HSCA Final Drawing showing similarity to Croft photo but with Kennedy having 60° head turn and 5° torso turn, and Connally turned as well |
The HSCA didn't say Kennedy's head had to be tilted forward to make the SBT work.
The HSCA didn't say Kennedy's head had to be tilted forward to make the SBT work. They said: [SNIP]
The HSCA didn't say Kennedy's head had to be tilted forward to make the SBT work. Can you show us where the HSCA said Kennedy's head had to be literally tilted forward some-30° for the SBT to work?
The abrasion collar is larger at the lower margin of the wound, evidence that the bullet's trajectory at the instant of penetration was slightly upward in relation to the body. (7 HSCA 175)
In an aside to Inspector Thomas Kelley, the Secret Service’s liaison with the Commission, one of the staff lawyers offered as “an outside possibility” that the first shot might have gone through JFK with sufficient velocity “to penetrate Connally’s body, wrist, and leg.” Kelley later confided to the FBI’s L.T. Gauthier that the idea was “ridiculous” and that a shot under those circumstances would have gone completely “wild.”
In April Eisenberg arranged for two sessions to determine which fames of the Zapruder movie captured the impact of the first and second bullets. He enlisted the support of medical doctors for both sessions. In the April 14 conference the three pathologists who had performed the autopsy, Humes, Boswell, and Finck, viewed Zapruder’s 8-mm movie and frames of the assassination for the first time.
Since Humes had written the official autopsy protocol, he more or less took the lead in this session. After viewing the Zapruder film and studying the slides, the Bethesda Navy doctor hypothesized that Connally had been hit by the first two shots. He thought that the first shot that had exited JFK’s throat had then passed through Connally’s chest, losing velocity in its flight, lodged itself in the governor’s clothing, and later appeared on his stretcher. The second bullet, a separate shot, according to Humes’s reconstruction, had hit Connally’s wrist with such impact that it shattered into fragments, one of those fragments causing the wound to the governor’s left thigh.
Just as they had testified before the Warren Commission a month earlier, Humes and the two other prosectors had not changed their opinion about Connally’s wrist wound. All three were convinced that the near-pristine CE 399 was not mutilated enough to have shattered the governor’s wrist bone. (Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why, University Press of Kansas, 2005, pp. 221)
Getting SomeFactsBiased Opinions Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory
So that's your answer to the fact that, as late as April 1964, even the three autopsy doctors insisted that Connally's wrist must have been struck by a separate bullet because they knew that the wrist bone is one of the hardest bones in the body and that CE 399 could not have shattered that bone without incurring significant damage?
Does the fact that the WC's own ballistics tests confirmed this mean anything to you? Are you aware that the WC's top wound ballistics expert, Dr. Joseph Dolce, told the commission that the SBT was impossible and that his ballistics tests proved this?
Why do you suppose that Dr. Baden, chairman of the HSCA FPP, refused Dr. Wecht's request that the panel arrange to have ballistics tests done to determine whether a bullet could do all the damage attributed to CE 399 and still emerge in nearly pristine condition?
Why do you suppose Baden refused to call Dr. Dolce as a witness, even after Dr. Dolce said he wanted to testify? Could it be because Baden knew that Dolce was going to say that the SBT was fiction and that the WC had ignored its own ballistics tests?
How about the fact that the slits in the front of JFK's shirt are not the same length, that they have no fabric missing from them, and that no metallic traces were found on them? That's because they were not bullet holes but slits made by the nurses who hurriedly cut off Kennedy's clothing, as one of the nurses confirmed to Henry Hurt.
Indeed a magic bullet, which caused slits rather than holes. Since when did a bullet cause slits?
It's alleged that the holes in the shirt collar were made by a scalpel.
You actually think a nurse used a scalpel (as opposed to blunt-nosed scissors) to remove the President's clothing? ???
Robert A. Frazier: "The hole in the front of the shirt does not have the round characteristic shape caused by a round bullet entering cloth. It is an irregular slit. It could have been caused by a round bullet, however, since the cloth could have torn in a long slitlike way as the bullet passed through it."
The first FBI laboratory reports on Kennedy’s clothes revealed that the holes in his coat and shirt submitted to both X-ray and spectrographic analysis showed traces of copper (bullet metal) around the edges of the holes. This was forensically consistent with JFK having been shot in the back with copper-jacketed ammunition. The same tests run on Kennedy’s collar and tie showed no bullet metal was found in the surrounding fabric. Rather than admit that the slits in the President’s collar and nick in his tie were not caused by an assassin’s bullet, the FBI lab report noted that the slits had the “characteristics of an exit hole for a bullet fragment.” (https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bugliosi_Fails_to_Resuscitate_the_Single-Bullet_Theory.html)
The reason the Commission did not include a picture of the shirt collar was that it dared not. The slit on the left-hand side of the shirt and collar was much longer than the slit on the right-hand side. To claim there was an alignment was patently untrue. . . .
The fact that the slits were not aligned destroys the Commission's contention that they were made by a bullet. Bullets make holes and not slits unless they are tumbling when they strike flesh or cloth. Carrico described Kennedy's anterior neck wound as "rather round and there were no ragged edges or ostellic lacerations." (Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why, University Press of Kansas, 2005, p. 268)
There is fabric missing in the holes
and they do line up. That's a thread extending upright from the righthand hole.
So that's your answer to the fact that, as late as April 1964, even the three autopsy doctors insisted that Connally's wrist must have been struck by a separate bullet because they knew that the wrist bone is one of the hardest bones in the body and that CE 399 could not have shattered that bone without incurring significant damage?
Does the fact that the WC's own ballistics tests confirmed this mean anything to you?
Sigh. . . . Once again, yet again, once more you are repeating arguments that have long since been refuted. Yes, the nurses used scalpels. Dr. Carrico stated that this was "the usual practice" in an emergency, and one of the nurses who helped cut JFK's clothing confirmed to Henry Hurt that the nurses made those slits and the nick in the tie knot.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QCNmxNbr/jfk-shirt-matched-holes.gif)
Nelly said she washed it. Dumb move.Nelly washed Connally's suit?
Thanks Bill, that's an interesting self explanatory GIF.
JohnM
Thanks Bill, that's an interesting self explanatory GIF.
JohnM
(https://i.postimg.cc/QCNmxNbr/jfk-shirt-matched-holes.gif)
The holes are not aligning perfectly because the animator didn't center vertically the button-hole with the button.
Nelly washed Connally's suit?
Nelly washed Connally's suit?
Howard Brennan was an important eyewitness, on the same day not only did he give a fairly accurate identification of Oswald...Nonsense--Brennan did not identify Oswald. Quit making stuff up.
No. I was talking about the shirt. From memory, I thought she had washed it. Freeman was, unsurprisingly & in true CTer fashion, playing it a little loose with what I had actually said.Any fashion you want--You keep chasing your tail...not my fault.
Nonsense--Brennan did not identify Oswald. Quit making stuff up.
Huh? I said in the post you quoted that on the same day Brennan gave a "fairly accurate description" of Oswald(see below).
There was almost 50 windows in the depository on the side facing Elm street with many people including women and 3 black men and Brennan identified a slender white male in the exact window that had a sniper's nest with 3 shells. Also note that Oswald was 1 of only a few in the building who didn't have an alibi at the time.
He was a white man in his early 30's, slender, nice looking, slender and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brennan1.htm
Oswald's receding hairline visually added years to his life.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sDkVy11t/oswald-arrest-dallas.jpg)
Oswald's face was slender and he's wearing what looks to be an oversized shirt which makes guessing an exact weigh problematic.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QCRrXnNp/oswald-arrest-shirt.jpg)
JohnM
Dr. Charles J. Carrico was the first physician to examine the agonal Kennedy, whose breathing was spasmodic and his color cyanotic (bluish gray), symptoms associated with a terminal patient. Because time was critical the attending nurses took scalpels and cut off Kennedy’s clothes. In their haste to free the patient from his clothes one of the nurses nicked the tie and left two slits in his shirt collar. As Carrico explained to Specter the use of scalpels was “the usual practice” in a medical emergency of this nature. Allen Dulles, who accompanied Specter to Dallas, asked Carrico twice to show him the location of the hole in Kennedy’s anterior neck. The Parkland doctor responded on both occasions locating a point above the collar line. So Specter had unimpeachable first-hand testimony that would have persuaded any good faith investigation to have ruled out the Commission’s single-bullet explanation. (https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bugliosi_Fails_to_Resuscitate_the_Single-Bullet_Theory.html)
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/scaled/2013/10/16/article-2462106-18C360B200000578-808_636x382.jpg)The laundering of Connally's suit is pretty strange, considering we have Kennedy's coat intact.
The white Arrow brand shirt, size 16 with a 35-inch sleeve, has faded over the years and the now-brown blood stains and spatters cover nearly all of it. There are bullet holes in the shirt's chest, back shoulder and right cuff. Three buttons are missing, presumably due to emergency medical responders ripping the garment away to reach Connelly's chest wound.
The damage to the three-button Oxford Clothes suit from John L. Ashe of Fort Worth is less pronounced.
Nellie Connally had it cleaned before it was presented to the state archives, Anderson said, so there's no evidence of blood. But the coat has bullet holes that match those on the shirt, plus a hole on the left leg just above and toward the inside of the knee.
https://www.cleveland.com/nation/2013/10/suit_worn_by_john_connally_on.html
(https://i.postimg.cc/TYCr4MwL/Gregory-ex1-connally-wounds.png)
JohnM
Below is a close-up of the slits in the front of JFK’s shirt. As you can plainly see, the slits are not the same shape and are not the same length.
(https://miketgriffith.com/files/jfkshirtslits.jpg)
If someone looks at this picture and says the slits are the same shape and length, they either have poor vision or they are being dishonest. It is that simple.
One of the Parkland nurses confirmed years ago that the nurses made those slits and the nick in the tie knot while they were hurriedly trying to cut away JFK’s clothing. And Dr. Carrico, who saw the throat wound before the shirt was removed, indicated twice that the wound was above the collar. Dr. McKnight:
This explains why the FBI lab found no metallic traces, not even copper, on the edges of the slits. It also explains why the throat wound was a small, neat puncture wound, about 3-5 mm in diameter, as we know from the Parkland doctors’ 11/22/63 treatment reports, from their WC testimony, and from their statements to private researchers.
Incidentally, Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, told the HSCA that when JFK’s body arrived at Bethesda, the tracheostomy incision was neatly sutured (HSCA deposition, 3/11/1978). This is not a bit surprising, since it makes sense that in preparing the body for the casket, one of the Parkland doctors or nurses would have sutured the tracheostomy incision, which would have only taken a minute or two to do.
You can get a slightly better look at the JFK shirt slits in Dr. McKnight’s enlargement of JFK’s collar:
https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/a5/Pict_essay_mcknightsbt_shirt_lrg.jpg
Below is a close-up of the slits in the front of JFK’s shirt. As you can plainly see, the slits are not the same shape and are not the same length.
(https://miketgriffith.com/files/jfkshirtslits.jpg)
If someone looks at this picture and says the slits are the same shape and length, they either have poor vision or they are being dishonest. It is that simple.
And Dr. Carrico, who saw the throat wound before the shirt was removed, indicated twice that the wound was above the collar.
(https://i.postimg.cc/0NR5NBQ5/jfk-throat-wound-compare.gif)
JohnM
Carrico must have been doing a handstand at the time
Huh? I said in the post you quoted that on the same day Brennan gave a "fairly accurate description" of Oswald(see below).
Oswald's face was slender and he's wearing what looks to be an oversized shirt which makes guessing an exact weigh problematic.
May a thousand camels f*rt in my general direction*
*Source: Monty Python
You can’t even quote Monty Python correctly. What a waste of oxygen.
Different age, different weight, different clothing.
different clothing
Howard Brennan was an important eyewitness, on the same day not only did he give a fairly accurate identification of OswaldAgain...consult a dictionary or go back to school and learn how to use one. Identification means that he ascertained it was Oswald. Did he know Oswald? A given description that could have been 50,000 other guys in downtown Dallas.
Think Different*
Brennan estimated age at a distance and angle
Oswald thinning hair, sullen demeanour adds years
Brennan estimated weight at a distance and angle
Thick neck, bulky shirt a factor
'Different clothing'
Bright sunshine contrasted with deep shadow visually lightens objects
Colour is subjective
An altogether fair assessment
-------
Bonus
-------
CTers are now 'knowledge-advanced' for having read this
*apologies to Apple
The camera-right hole has a thread that goes up pass the collar seam. Is all.
McKnight's claim: "As Carrico explained to Specter the use of scalpels was "the usual practice” in a medical emergency of this nature."
Dr. Carrico: As I said after I had opened his shirt and coat, I proceeded
with the examination and the nurses removed his clothing as is the
usual procedure.
Spector: And was no examination of clothing made, Dr. Carrico?
Dr. Carrico: Again, this was a matter of time. The clothes were removed; the
nurses, as is the usual practice. And the full attention was devoted to trying
to resuscitate the President.
Dr. Carrico appears to be describing as "usual practice" the removal of clothing in general, but NOT the use of scalpels.
McKnight's claim: "Allen Dulles, who accompanied Specter to Dallas, asked
Carrico twice to show him the location of the hole in Kennedy’s anterior neck.
The Parkland doctor responded on both occasions locating a point above
the collar line"
Dulles: Will you show us about where it was?
Dr. Carrico: Just about where your tie would be.
Dulles: Where did it enter?
Dr. Carrico: It entered?
Dulles: Yes.
Dr. Carrico: At the time we did not know --
Dulles: I see.
Dr. Carrico: The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.
Dulles: I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is?
Dr. Carrico: Yes, sir; just where the tie...
Dulles: A little bit to the left.
Dr. Carrico: To the right.
It's somewhat ambiguous, but the first time Carrico says "about where your tie would be" and the second time he says "just where the tie...". To me, it seems about where the tie knot was. I would say it's more unclear as to what Dulles refers to with "you put your hand right above where your tie is" because that would as well apply to Carrico with his hand over the surface of the tie, not above the level of it.
Todd Vaughn, whom McKnight acknowledges in his essay, discovered a 1997 interview of Carrico by Bob Porter, of the Sixth Floor Museum ( Link (https://emuseum.jfk.org/view/objects/asitem/items@:17289) YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7ngt-SqGv0) ).
Porter: You don’t know exactly where it was or not?
Dr. Carrico: ...whether it was through the collar or not but it was certainly
at the collar line. It was just about right there, just to the right of the
trachea and just a, certainly where his collar should have been.
In the same interview, Carrico describes scissors being used:
Dr. Carrico: Yeah the - what, uh - I - you know I was doing other stuff.
I was looking at his head and stuff, and Diane was doing that.
But what you normally do is you take scissors, right there, or
right there...
Dr. Carrico said the wound "was fairly round" and "an even round wound", and "5- to 8-mm. in size". Dr. Perry said the wound was "approximately 5 mm. in diameter"; Dr Perry said "roughly 5 mm. in size or so"; Dr. Jones said "probably no larger than a quarter of an inch in diameter."
No one, including those with him when he first saw the President, confirmed Ebersole's recollection.
While most probably offer honest recollections, lawyers are taught that witness testimony can be unreliable. The witness believes it to be true.
Wow, you will try to bend and twist anything, won't you? First off, I noticed you snipped and ignored the point that one of the Parkland nurses confirmed that a nurse made the slits and nicked the tie knot. I notice you just snipped and ignored that. I guess perhaps you didn't want to have to resort to calling her a liar or to saying she was "mistaken."
Circular arguments are so compelling.
What was the name of the nurse, and where can we read her statement on the matter?
| (https://images2.imgbox.com/18/f4/iRNulWfn_o.gif) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Dr. Ronald C. Jones in 2003 points to neck wound location. (from Vaughan) |
I believe it's Diana Bowron. She merited a whole chapter named after her in Livingstone's 1993 book "Killing the Truth".
Todd Vaughan wrote:
During Dr. Carrico's interview, he mentions a nurse named Diana Bowron.
In the 1990’s conspiracy author Harrison Livingstone (High Treason, Killing
the Truth) located, corresponded with, and interviewed Bowron. I just happen
to have a cassette tape copy of the telephone interview he did with her.
Livingstone also published a transcript of the interview in his 1993 book,
"Killing the Truth", and he also included a statement that Diana Bowron
wrote for him.
In both the interview and the statement, Diana Bowron claims that she saw
President Kennedy’s throat wound while Kennedy was still in the limousine
in the Parkland Hospital ambulance bay. In her written statement for
Livingstone she says:
"I turned his head, and seeing the entry wound in the front of the throat, I could
feel no pulse at the jugular."
Bowron gives no more details in the interview with Livingstone, simply stating
that she saw the throat wound while the President was still in the car.
Seeing the wound while the President was still in the car certainly implies that
the throat wound may have been at least visible above the collar line, and
possibly actually located above the collar line, assuming that Bowron didn’t
manipulate the collar at all while feeling for the pulse.
But incredibly, Livingstone never elicits any more information about this from
Bowron. He never asks her how she was able to see the wound or whether
or not it was above the collar line.
And Bowron never explains, and Livingstone never asks, how she cut off the
President's clothes.
McKnight writes:
"Nurse Diane Bowron told Specter “...Miss Henchliffe and I cut off his clothing.”
(6H 136) The instrument used was a scalpel, Carrico told Weisberg. The
record of this conversation can be found in the Weisberg Subject Index File
under “Dr. Carrico,” items 02 and 03."
Apparently, Bowron is a "source" for the use of scalpels only because she help cut off the President's clothing. How do we know scalpels were used? Dr. Carrico "told" Weisberg.
There is a December 1971 note made by Weisberg concerning Dr. Carrico:
"Clothes cut off by nurses while he did his own emergency work, which precluded
watching them. Folded back. Usual to cut off and unbutton collar and top shirt.
Speed essential. Usual to cut tie a single thickness and pull out, not to cut through
knot. Thinks likely when I described nick in knot and slits in shirt front that slit made
when cutting tie."
We have no transcript; only Weisberg's interpretation. Carrico may have ventured the tie knot nick was made during removal of clothes, but doesn't say it was a scalpel used. Weisberg thinks a scalpel was used to remove the clothing, therefore Dr. Carrico "confirms" it.
Carrico told the Commission he didn't examine the clothing.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you have any occasion or opportunity to examine the
President's clothing?
Dr. CARRICO - We did not do that.
Mr. SPECTER - And was no examination of clothing made, Dr. Carrico?
Dr. CARRICO - Again, this was a matter of time. The clothes were removed
the nurses, as is the usual practice, and the full attention was devoted to
trying to resuscitate the President.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/18/f4/iRNulWfn_o.gif)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Dr. Ronald C. Jones in 2003 points to neck wound location. (from Vaughan)
LOL! "Ambiguous"???! It is only "ambiguous" in your mind because you don't want to read plain English.
Dulles: I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is?
Dr. Carrico: Yes, sir; just where the tie...
Dulles: A little bit to the left.
Dr. Carrico: To the right.
What don't you understand about "You put your hand right above your tie?" and "Yes, sir"? Gosh, this is just silly. If Carrico had meant to put his hand ON his tie, he would have easily done so.
And did you notice that Carrico said it was "the entrance"?
You can’t even quote Monty Python correctly. What a waste of oxygen.
Thanks Jerry.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you notice any other wound on the President's body?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir.
And where did Bowron say that large hole was? Why did you leave out the question and answer that come immediately before this segment? Let us read what you omitted:
Mr. SPECTER. You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON. The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER. And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON. Well, it was very bad--you know. (6 H 136)
You omitted this because you did not want readers to know that the nurse who packed JFK's large head wound with gauze squares and who wrapped his head in a sheet said that the large wound was in the back of the head. It would be pretty silly and lame to suggest that after packing the wound with gauze and wrapping the head in a sheet, she would "mistake" a wound that was above and forward of the right ear for a wound that was in the back of the head.
As for Dr. Jones, he did not arrive until after JFK's clothing had been removed. By his own admission, he got to Trauma Room 1 "a few minutes" after Dr. Carrico, Nurse Bowron, Nurse Henchliffe, and Nurse Nelson had already arrived there (6 H 52-53). Jones did not see them remove the clothing because this had already been done by the time he arrived.
By the way, Jones said the throat wound was no more than 1/4 inch in diameter (6 H 53). He added that it was a "very small, smooth wound" and that therefore it looked like it could have been made by a bone fragment (6 H 54). But Jones never saw the throat wound's location in relation to the shirt collar because JFK's clothing had already been removed by the time he entered the room.
Jones did get a good look at the head wound, however. Guess where he said it was located? Let us read what he said:
Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe as precisely as you can the nature of the
head wound?
Dr. JONES. There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood. (6 H 53-54)
Regarding the "irregular" slits in the front of JFK's shirt (that was the WC's term for them) and Organ's silly claim that the slits are the same length, even the HSCA FPP said the slits are not the same length: the FPP said that the right slit is 1.5 cm long and that the left slit is 1.4 cm long (7 HSCA 89).
Concerning Dr. Jones' depiction of the throat wound's location in the video that Jerry Organ linked, he puts the wound well below where other doctors put it--he puts it at least 1 inch below the Adam's apple. But Dr. Perry said said it was "just below" the Adam's apple--which would be slightly above the collar. Dr. Carrico, as we've seen, pointed to a point just above his collar when asked where the throat wound was.
Moreover, if Dr. Jones' depiction is correct, there would be a hole through JFK's tie knot, but there is none--there is only small nick near the left edge that was made by one of the nurses as she rushed to cut off the tie. This is another huge problem for the SBT. You wanna push the wound down to the level of the tie knot? Okay, then there should be a hole through the tie, but there's only a tiny nick, and the nick is not even on the edge of the knot.
You guys can't get the bullet from the back wound to the throat wound without ignoring a pile of evidence to the contrary. You can't explain how a non-yawing/non-tumbling bullet could make two slits of unequal length while supposedly exiting the front of JFK's shirt. You can't explain how your magic bullet could have missed the tie knot. And you can't explain how any bullet of any type could have made the H-shaped tear in the front of Connally's shirt. You can't do these things because your SBT is a joke that was only cooked up in desperation by some WC lawyers who were not allowed to admit that there was more than one gunman.
UPDATE re suit or shirtDo you understand why Connally's suit was laundered?
My apologies to Tonkoviich and Freeman: I just did a double-take on my claim of saying that Nellie washed his shirt I actually did say suit originally.
May a thousand camels f*rt in my general direction*
*Source: Monty Python
Jackie:
'Top, behind the forehead'
Still waiting for the source of this alleged quote.
Regarding the "irregular" slits in the front of JFK's shirt (that was the WC's term for them) and Organ's silly claim that the slits are the same length, even the HSCA FPP said the slits are not the same length: the FPP said that the right slit is 1.5 cm long and that the left slit is 1.4 cm long (7 HSCA 89).
Do you understand why Connally's suit was laundered?
Hint: might have something to do with Connally's political future.
Do you know what "non-sequitur" means?
JohnM
Do you know what "non-sequitur" means?Yes, your postings are, primarily, non sequiturs. You seem unable to answer questions, so you post unrelated info, and meaningless graphics.
JohnM
Do you understand why Connally's suit was laundered?
Hint: might have something to do with Connally's political future.
Yes, your postings are, primarily, non sequiturs. You seem unable to answer questions, so you post unrelated info, and meaningless graphics.
Now, why would the Connaly suit be laundered?
But , not JFK's?
There was a very good reason to launder the suit. And, it was tied to the single bullet theory.
Do you understand that, or do I need to explain it for you?
McAdams site
Nope.
Google:
No results found for "behind the forehead" site:mcadams.posc.mu.edu.
It's from a book apparently; I saw the quote on McAdam's site in a graphic layout similar in style to a DPD dispatch layout @McAdams. It might be on the McAdams page (in another graphics layout) where he compares witness testimony as to what they said at the time and then later.
It's from a book apparently; I saw the quote on McAdam's site in a graphic layout similar in style to a DPD dispatch layout @McAdams. It might be on the McAdams page (in another graphics layout) where he compares witness testimony as to what they said at the time and then later.
OK, I would really like to see your conclusion because figuring out what you perceive to be reality becomes excessively time consuming and frankly I have better things to do.
JohnM
Why launder the suit? It was no accident.
More likely it's yet another Chapman recollection failure.
For someone who wants to seem to be neutral you sure make a lot of negative assertions.Why was the suit laundered?
The chair with Lincolns "blood stains" that Lincoln was murdered in, is forever on display and even though there appears to be some doubt as to what caused the "blood stains" it still is a macabre way to remember the dead President and perhaps Mrs Connally didn't want her husband and his suit remembered in the centuries to come in some circus sideshow.
Not my arrows, just some photos I found online of where people are pointing out what they believe to be "blood stains".
(https://m.salon24.pl/5eb847634ddce1e7085fc2213dd89f20,750,0,0,0.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/CxVbTKp3/LIncoln-s-blood-stained-chair.jpg)
And on it goes....
A pillow from Willie Clark’s bed at the Petersen House is now a priceless relic. On it, you can see the blood of President Abraham Lincoln.
https://www.fords.org/lincolns-assassination/lincolns-pillow/
(https://i.postimg.cc/C5zWjghN/Lincoln-s-blood-stained-pillow.jpg)
Mark Knight a devout CT who's an Admin from the Ed Forum shares his opinion.
(https://i.postimg.cc/9MzxkY6X/Mark-knight-ed-forum-connally.jpg)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was reported that Robert Kennedy allegedly stole his brothers brain for a similar reason.
Mr Hills comments came as it was reported that JFK’s missing brain was stolen by Robert Kennedy after his assassination to stop it ever going on display, according to secret US government files.
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/jfk-assassination-robert-f-kennedy-took-his-brothers-brain-after-autopsy/news-story/e22123c43934d769aaa439bb0eeea761
JohnM
LOL. Here's the actual quote from the White book:
She remembered, as I sat paralyzed, the pink-rose ridges on the inside of the skull, and how from here on down (she
made a gesture just above her forhead) "his head was so beautiful. I tried to hold the top of his head down, maybe I
could keep it in . . . but I knew he was dead."
My recollection is fine
Jackie had the best view.
'Top, behind the forehead' said she.
Except for the part where you falsely presented this as a quote from Jackie.
Not only does "the graphic" not have quotation marks, but it has the actual White passage immediately underneath "the graphic". Not to mention that you didn't even get the wording right of the summarization that you tried to pass off as a Jackie quote. But that's the kind of sloppiness we've come to expect.
Jackie had the best view.
'Top, behind the forehead' said she.
Keep dancing, Chapman.
Recollection failure:
'Top, behind the forehead' said she.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQymWe4zNo-auo50kp2Q9NWXEBWOmO2J3EQmg&usqp=CAU)
Jackie Kennedy
Top - above the forehead
Theodore White
'In Search of History'
(Warner Books, 1978), pp. 521-522
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/chapman-bozo.jpg)
Why do you keep ignoring Jackie's declassified WC testimony, which the WC omitted, where she said that she was trying to hold the back of JFK's head together? Let's read it yet again:
"I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on." (5 H 180, declassified version—this portion of her testimony was omitted from the published version, but it was “declassified” in 1972)
Clint Hill saw the wound up-close while on the back hood on the way to the hospital, and he said the large wound was in the "right-rear" part of the head: "The right rear portion of his head was missing" (2 H 141).
What is especially impressive and important about Hill is that he saw this same right-rear head wound again at the Bethesda morgue, when he was called to come to the morgue for the express purpose of viewing and recording JFK's wounds.
And after the autopsy, Tom Robinson, the mortician, reassembled JFK's skull, and he told both the HSCA and the ARRB that the large head wound was in the back of the head--he even diagrammed it for the ARRB. Was he "mistaken"? Did Nurse Bowron make the same "mistake" when she washed the head and packed the large head wound with gauze squares and said the wound was in the "back of the head"?
Clint Hill saw the wound up-close while on the back hood on the way to the hospital, and he said the large wound was in the "right-rear" part of the head: "The right rear portion of his head was missing" (2 H 141).
Not only does "the graphic" not have quotation marks, but it has the actual White passage immediately underneath "the graphic". Not to mention that you didn't even get the wording right of the summarization that you tried to pass off as a Jackie quote. But that's the kind of sloppiness we've come to expect.
Why do you keep ignoring Jackie's declassified WC testimony, which the WC omitted, where she said that she was trying to hold the back of JFK's head together?
Instead of putting your own biased interpretation in Clint's mouth, let's see what Clint himself meant.
I have no need to 'pass off' anything. You lot have that market cornered.
The graphic is the only thing I recollected. Therefore I posted only that. And I'm not responsible for how White or anyone else chooses to sum up his lengthier description in order to fit a limited space in the overall graphic.
Jackie had the best view.
'Top, behind the forehead' said she.
By the way, it's not a "graphic" -- it's a table.
So you're going to latch onto a hyper-literal interpretation of "look down"
Says the guy who thought Jackie said "Top, behind the forehead"
You are responsible for putting words into Jackie's mouth that she didn't say. By the way, it's not a "graphic" -- it's a table.
When did this become a Literary Forum?
"Ignored"? Chapman has no friggin' clue what Jackie said. He reads McAdams' site, misunderstands it, and then misquotes it. Which is what he does with all the details of the case.
Nellie Connally and Jackie both stated that the first shot hit both men, referencing when JBC cried out Oh No No No, which Gov Connally stated he cried out when he was hit.Neither Nellie Connally nor Jackie Kennedy said that the first shot hit both men. Jackie seemed to recall that JFK reacted to the first shot but it is not clear. She said her attention was drawn by Gov. Connally shouting. She did not say Connally had been hit.
The eyewitnesses state JFK reacted to the first shot.That is a bit of an understatement. Every witness who observed JFK's reaction to the first shot said he reacted visibly in ways that are not seen until after z223. They recalled things he is not seen doing before disappearing behind the Stemmons sign: moving left, bringing his hands up to his face/neck, pretending to duck etc. When you combine that evidence with the photographic evidence and the absence of any reliable evidence of a missed first shot, let alone any reasonable explanation of how he could have missed the entire vehicle from above at less than 60 yards, there is no reason at all to conclude that the first shot did not hit JFK. But there is no evidence at all that it hit Gov. Connally in the back/armpit and fairly cogent evidence (from the Connally's themselves) that it did not.
A large number of them also stated there was only two shots.It depends on what you mean by "large". It is certainly a very small proportion of the witnesses who heard only two shots - less than 10%. As tabulated for the HSCA of 178 witnesses: 17 recalled hearing two; 7 said they heard two or three shots; 132 reported hearing exactly three shots; 6 people said they heard four shots; and 9 said they were not sure how many shots they heard. A further 7 bystanders reported hearing 1, 5, 6, or 8 shots. (D. M. Green, “Analysis of Earwitness Reports Relating to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy”, Report No. 4034, 8 HSCA 128 at 142).
That's how I recalled it.
And the person who entered the sum-up in the non-graphic is the one responsible for putting words in her mouth.
What part of "rear quadrant" are you having trouble with?
When I asked him if he saw any bullet holes in the shirt or tie, he was definite in saying “No.” I asked if he recalled Dulles’s question and his own pointing to above his own shirt collar as the location of the bullet hole. He does remember this, and he does remember confirming that the hole was above the collar. . . . (Never Again, p. 242; the interview was done in 1975)
* Nurse Bowron told WC that she and Nurse Henchliffe cut off JFK’s clothing:
Miss BOWRON. We tried to start an I.V. cutdown and I don't know whether it was his left or his right leg, and Miss Henchliffe and I cut off his clothing. . . . (6 H 136)
* When former Senate investigator Harold Weisberg interviewed Dr. Charles Carrico, who was the only doctor who saw the throat wound before the shirt and tie were removed, Carrico confirmed that the throat wound was above the collar; he was “definite on this” (Weisberg, Never Again, 2007 edition, p. 241). Weisberg continued:[/size]
| (https://images2.imgbox.com/18/f4/iRNulWfn_o.gif) |
* Dr. Carrico also told Weisberg that the nurses used scalpels to remove the president’s shirt and tie because they were, understandably, in a great hurry, and that it was “likely” that the nurses made the slits and the nick in the tie, adding, “I saw neither the nick in the tie nor the cuts in the shirt before the nurses started cutting” (Weisberg Subject Index File, under “Dr. Carrico,” items 02 and 03, http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Carrico%20Charles%20J%20Dr/Item%2002.pdf; http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/N%20Disk/New%20York%20Times/Item%2093.pdf, p. 4; https://books.google.com/books?id=SC-wBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=henchliffe+bowron+cut+slits+jfk%27s+shirt+tie+nick&source=bl&ots=ef1P2ARFOz&sig=ACfU3U21sIV4eKHljvOHhXi5T684t1VgZA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiM-bKcnaDrAhVDrVkKHRT6AHcQ6AEwBXoECA0QAQ#v=onepage&q&f=true, pp. 95-96).
| (https://i.postimg.cc/s2xYbpn4/JFKAutopsy-Morph.gif) | (https://images2.imgbox.com/59/63/9pNRwQo7_o.jpg) | (https://news.dartmouth.edu/sites/dart_news.prod/files/news/farid-oswald-597.jpg) |
Michael T. Griffith:Graphics example offered by Griffith:
- "It's like you guys are stuck in a time warp. You need to beam back to at least the early 2000s."
- "When are you going to beam yourself into at least the mid-2000s and start dealing with the
scientific and research developments that began to occur in the case in the mid-1990s?"- "Have you set your computer's calendar to 1992 or something?"
- "You are many years behind the information curve."
(https://images2.imgbox.com/18/4e/r2x7YKBA_o.jpg)
Recent sample graphics showing what LNers/Truth-Seekers are actually doing:
Dr. Kirschner examined CE 399 at his own request He was very dubious about the possibility of the single bullet theory being true for two reasons:
(A) Lack of deformation of the nose of the bullet was incompatible, he felt, with a medium-high velocity rifle projectile inflicting the bone damage known to have been inflicted on Governor Connally.
(B) In order for the bullet to remain pristine and undeformed after performing the described bone damage to Connally, he opined that its velocity would have to have been slowed considerably prior to striking Governor Connally; this, however, would have ensured a massive cavity and very large wound track and an unmistakable large gaping exit wound in the anterior throat as well, which is not consistent with what was observed at Parkland, namely a small, neat nearly circular 3-6 mm wound Almost certainly a breached carotid artery and massive hemorrhaging would have accompanied this kind of exit wound. (ARRB meeting report, 4/11/96, pp. 3-4)
Humm, why didn't you mention that you and Mytton have recently cited the HSCA's contradictory SBT trajectory graphics? Did that slip your mind? Just look at your and Mytton's replies from the last few weeks and you'll see that you did this, in case you just can't recall doing so right now.
And should I mention that just a few weeks ago you were on this board defending Lattimer's bogus SBT diagram? Did that slip your mind too?
Are you guys ever going to address the fact that the ARRB's forensic pathologist, Dr. Robert Kirschner, rejected the SBT? Here is the ARRB interview summary of Dr. Kirschner's comments about CE 399 and the SBT:[/size]
We know from Humes's notes on his phone call with Dr. Perry, that Perry told him that the throat wound was only 3-5 mm in diameter: "only a few mm in size, 3-5 mm" (ARRB, MD 5, 000088). I am still waiting for you guys to explain how a non-tumbling/non-yawing bullet could have made the irregular front shirt slits and how it could have nicked the tie at a point that was *not* on the edge of the knot, and yet how a tumbling/yawing bullet could have made the small, neat entry-like wound in the throat.
Part of the problem is that you need two different bullets for different parts of the SBT's alleged journey: for some parts you need a non-tumbling/non-yawing bullet,
but for other parts you need a tumbling/yawing bullet.
I am also still waiting for you guys to explain how a bullet shaped like CE 399 could have made the H-shaped tears in the front of Connally's shirt. You can't explain this, because it is impossible, but you don't care.[/size]
| Not a valid vimeo URL |
You're always initiating discussion of things from past decades. Yet those who respond are the ones grounded in the past. Never you.
I guess Kirschner believes the collar had nothing to do with restricting the size of the throat wound.
Must be one of those "above the collar" experts. Maybe he believes scalpels were used to cut off the clothing and that a nurse "confirmed" it to Henry Hurt.
What "parts"? The SBT only has a non-tumbling bullet for the neck transit.
The hole in the front of the shirt does not have the round characteristic shape caused by a round bullet entering cloth. It is an irregular slit. It could have been caused by a round bullet, however, since the cloth could have torn in a long slit-like way as the bullet passed through it. But that is not specifically characteristic of a bullet hole to the extent that you could say it was to the exclusion of being a piece of bone or some other type of projectile.
Passing through soft tissue like the neck will probably cause the bullet to tumble. No "magic" or "Golden Plates" miracle. The Haags demonstrated tumbling in the NOVA documentary.
The vertical tears were more likely, IMO, caused by the forward punching out of the shirt fabric by the 6.5mm bullet. The jacket is a coarser material and wouldn't tear the same way. You seem to comically think the shirt tears must be caused by a H-shaped bullet or multiple fragments.
You guys talk about the large head wound but never deal with the duplicated OD measurements of the autopsy skull x-rays, which prove that a sizable chunk of occipital bone is missing in the skull x-rays.
You guys talk about the 6.5 mm fragment but dismiss or ignore the duplicated OD measurements that prove that it is a ghosted object, which explains why there is no corresponding object on the lateral skull x-rays and why the autopsy doctors said nothing about the object.
You guys still claim that the autopsy x-rays and photos are all pristine and authentic but refuse to deal with the hard scientific evidence that they have been altered, e.g., the impossible white patch on the lateral skull x-rays, the non-metallic 6.5 mm object, the emulsion issues, the conflict between the skull x-rays and autopsy photos F3 and F5, the conflict between autopsy photos F3 and F5 vs. F8, the conflicts between the autopsy report and the skull x-rays (such as the magically disappearing low fragment trail in the skull x-rays), etc., etc.
You guys still refuse to accept the HSCA's acoustical analysis of the DPD dictabelt, even though it has been confirmed and even though its critics have been soundly refuted. Why? Because you can't accept that more than three shots were fired.
You guys still cling to the 1964 claim that only three shots were fired, which is why you must come up with pathetic excuses for rejecting the later credible accounts of extra bullets and bullet fragments being found in the limo and at the autopsy, even though one of them was confirmed by a doctor at the autopsy and by the petty officer who found the deformed extra bullet. Nah, they were "all" just "mistaken" or "lying." Right. . . .
You guys still peddle the SBT even after all the evidence from ARRB-released documents that the autopsy doctors positively, absolutely determined that the back wound had no exit point because they and others could see that the wound tract did not penetrate the chest cavity,
because they could see this after pathologists removed the chest organs, angled the body, and probed again, because they could see the probe pushing against the lining of the chest cavity. But, "nah," you say, "somehow, someway, by a process we can't explain, they were all mistaken, and never you mind that we now know that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said the back wound had no exit point, which was why the second draft said the throat wound was caused by a fragment from the head shot!"
And on and on we could go.[/size]
This old, ridiculous yarn?! This is exactly the kind of stuck-in-the-past nonsense that I'm talking about. Let's just skip over the fact that the back wound had no exit point and observe that unless JFK's tailor-made collar had a choke hold on his throat, it would not have constricted the skin even remotely enough to affect the size of an exit wound made by a bullet that would have transited the neck in a tiny fraction of a second. Even assuming the collar was uncomfortably, unusually tight, the bullet would have exited the throat before the collar had a chance to react in any meaningful way to the bullet’s split-second passage.
And of course you are dismissing Dr. Carrico's report that the throat wound was above the collar, even though his placement is supported by his 11/22/63 admission note, even though he told the WC that it was above the collar, and even though he told Weisberg the same thing. You must assume he was "mistaken" or that he was lying.[/size]
So in other words, any witness who says anything that you can't accommodate is either mistaken or lying. So the nurse lied to Henry Hurt,
or she just erred. Dr. Carrico erred or lied when he said the nurses used scalpels to cut the clothing because they were in a desperate hurry. Dr. Carrico erred or lied when he said he saw no slits on the shirt and no nick on the tie before the nurses began cutting away the clothing.
Dr. Gregory and Nurse Bell both erred or lied when they said they removed at least three sizable fragments from Connally's wrist. You see, you can't admit any of these things without destroying your entire theory of the case.
Now, Dr. Kirschner knew every little about the JFK case when he worked for the ARRB. I seriously doubt that he had even heard of the controversy over whether the throat wound was above the collar or how the front shirt slits were made. Doug Horne had to bring Dr. Kirschner up to speed on the basics of the single-bullet theory before he examined CE 399. [/size]
LOL! How did it do the damage to T1 that even the HSCA FPP acknowledged without starting to yaw? How? I've asked this question several times, but still have received no answer.
And what about the other parts of the bullet's mythical journey? Frazier acknowledged that the slits were not what you would normally expect to occur with a bullet's exit and that they could have been made by a smaller projectile such as a bone fragment:[/size]
As you know, because I pointed this out to you, the FBI lab experts did not say the slits could have been made by a whole bullet but said they could have been made by a fragment. But Frazier decided to go beyond the lab analysis.
When are you going to admit you were wrong about the shirt slits' length? You said they were both the same length, but even the HSCA said they were not.
And how about the nick on the tie knot? The nick is visibly inward from the left edge of the knot, so how could it have been nicked by an exiting bullet?
Furthermore, unless JFK's tie knot was severely off-center,
an exiting bullet would have had to make a hole through the knot. Just look at the photo of the shirt slits; look where the slits would be located if the collar were buttoned; and you'll see that if a bullet exited those slits, it would have had to go through the tie knot. But the only defect on the tie knot is a tiny nick on the left side of the knot, and, again, the nick is not even on the edge of the knot. This fact alone destroys the SBT.
This cold, hard physical evidence has been around for decades, ever since Harold Weisberg obtained photos of the tie, but you guys still will not deal with it honestly and credibly.
And I notice that you have once again, for about the fifth time, ignored the fact that no metallic traces of any kind were found on the edges of JFK's shirt slits, not even when the HSCA subjected the slits to super-sensitive spectrographic and x-ray testing. The holes in the back of the coat and shirt had such traces, but, gee, surprise, surprise, the front shirt slits had none, not even a tiny speck.[/size]
The Haags are quacks who don't even know many of the basics of the case. The original size of Connally’s back wound, before debridement, was only 1.5 cm—the same size as the entrance wound in Kennedy’s head. It was 3 cm after cleaning and enlarging—as Connally’s surgeon, Robert Shaw, M.D., testified (4 H 104, 107; 6 H 85-86, 88). In his operative report, Shaw simply described the wound’s size after surgery, but in his testimony he said the original size was only 1.5 cm. And the holes in the back of Connally’s shirt and jacket were also 1.5 cm, per the FBI (5 H 64). Shaw also noted that the bullet created a “small tunneling wound” (7 HSCA 149), and he noted “the neat way in which it stripped the rib out without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it” (4 H 116). So, obviously, at that point the bullet had not yet begun to tumble or yaw to any significant degree, if at all.
SMH. Umm, did you not notice that your ridiculous GIF shows a tear that looks nothing like the H-shaped tears in Connally's shirt? Did you somehow overlook this? And did you just not notice that your GIF has the bullet exiting at neither a horizontal nor vertical angle but at a diagonal angle in relation to the shirt?
You keep embarrassing yourself with these clownish GIFs and diagrams, such as the HSCA SBT trajectory diagram that had the bullet entering above the throat wound and entering at a downward angle, and that put the exit point well below the throat! I mean, do you think that people cannot see these things or something? I just don't get it.
You still have not explained how a bullet could create two uneven vertical tears that have a horizontal tear between so that they form an H. It is not enough to simply insist that "oh, yeah, this could have happened." Okay, HOW could it have happened? HOW? Show me a single case where an exiting bullet created tears shaped like that. Describe the geometry and the movement that would have been involved in creating those tears with a whole bullet exiting the way your GIF shows, or exiting any other way for that matter.
Look, let's be honest: We both know that you can't explain how a bullet shaped like CE 399 could have made those tears. You just can't, and you know it. You won't admit it, but we both know it.[/size]
On the other hand, you've shown yourself willing to believe anything however far-fetched as long as it intrigues your obsession for conspiracy.
Sort of proves the base-of-the-back-of-the-neck wound wasn't anywhere near T3.
Failure to probe. Ever hear tell of rigor mortise? And muscle groups at autopsy can be in a different position than when the wounding occurred.
Lattimer's tests prove otherwise.
Only Dulles says above the collar, but twice Carrico says the tie in reference to the level of the wound.
We don't know what Carrico said to Weisberg or what questions were put to him; we only have a brief vaguely-worded memo about it. That means I think Weisberg may be applying his own bias, not that either one is lying. That's where your mind goes.
There's a nurse who spoke to Henry Hurt? And she "confirmed" they used scalpels to remove the clothing? Cite for this historic interview, please.
Carrico said he didn't see the slits, but he also said he was looking at the head wound and not the clothing, and that he first saw the throat wound after the clothing was removed.
He said they never examined the clothing, period, even after the life-saving efforts had been done.
When I asked him if he saw any bullet holes in the shirt or tie, he was definite in saying “No.” I asked if he recalled Dulles’s question and his own pointing to above his own shirt collar as the location of the bullet hole. He does remember this, and he does remember confirming that the hole was above the collar. . . . (Never Again, p. 242; the interview was done in 1975)
How much tumbling do you think it would induce with two-or-three inches of soft tissue left to travel and at the speed it was going?
Cite, please. And you're talking about a millimeter difference.
I don't know for sure it was nicked by a bullet, anymore than you can know for sure how the tie knot was oriented by time it got to Dealey Plaza.
"Severely off-center"? Geeze, Tennessee Williams wouldn't exaggerate that much.
My 3D study shows the bullet going by on the left side of the tie knot. Kennedy's tie knot was fairly narrow.
Please show where bullet holes must necessarily have metallic traces and are not affected by things like saturation of body fluids.
The hole on the back of the jacket was "elongated in a horizontal direction approximately five-eighths of an inch in length and one-fourth of an inch in height". About 1.59 cm x .635 cm.
Ballistics expert Michael t. Griffith reported today that bullets can only travel forward nose-on.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/be/b3/6O2YmfG9_o.png)
Hopefully they can see where you think the "throat" is in the HSCA drawing.
Fine, go on thinking bullets are H-shaped.
CBS used a military doctor and former Warren Commission consultant to test whether a bullet could penetrate both Kennedy and Connally. In all four tests the bullet failed to penetrate the equivalent of Connally’s thigh. . . .
He [Alexander Bickel] credited CBS for its retesting of the bullet but noted that the test “disproved” the conclusion and that the CBS expert, Dr. W. F. Enos, had stated “it’s highly improbable.” (Mal Jay Hayman, Burying the Lead: The Media and the JFK Assassination, Trine Day LLC, 2019, pp. 214, 218)
However, they never mention the fact that the 14-cm measurement clearly appears to be in pen, whereas all the other markings on the face sheet seem to be in pencil, and that, if nothing else, the measurement is clearly darker than all the other markings on the face sheet. This, of course, suggests that the measurement was added to the sheet after the autopsy.
I didn't notice this before. I've heard Bugliosi say this as fact (the 14cm measurement) and when he did it sounded convincing until i read your post.
However, they never mention the fact that the 14-cm measurement clearly appears to be in pen, whereas all the other markings on the face sheet seem to be in pencil, and that, if nothing else, the measurement is clearly darker than all the other markings on the face sheet. This, of course, suggests that the measurement was added to the sheet after the autopsy.
I wonder if this specific measurement was added in several weeks, months after the fact to support the SBT.
That's a safe bet. We know that as of January 27, 1964, "the autopsy" still placed the back wound below the top of the shoulder blade. We know this from the declassified transcript of the Warren Commission's 1/27/64 executive session where Rankin refers to an autopsy photo showing the back wound "below the shoulder blade."
To me the "shoulder blade" might be the top of your shoulder (where you knock off dandruff, or where Biden likes to put his hands). This might, or might not, simply be a case of semantics.
The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel determined that the bullet that hit President Kennedy in the upper back travelled upward to the exit in the throat when the body was placed in the anatomical position. It produced a drawing of JFK's position when the Single Bullet supposedly hit him in the back, and has him leaning forward to a considerable degree:
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeanine_Young/publication/51024719/figure/fig11/AS:669323941142553@1536590671926/The-shot-that-hit-Kennedy-in-the-neck.png)
Is this actually backed up by the Zapruder film or other photographic evidence? I tried looking for it but I don't know at what frame the President was hit in the back.
You have to imagine the head (but not area where the missile channel is) being returned to upright; cervical vertebrae will rotate to accommodate it. The Committee thought the public was smart enough that such a common sense caveat was unnecessary.
That's just bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns and you know it Organ. The picture I posted (with accompanying question addressed to the non-morons on this site) is part of HSCA's JFK exhibit #46:
(https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/images/HSCA_Vol7_pg55.jpg)
The caption reads in part:
Also depicted is a drawing demonstrating the possible trajectories through the neck of President Kennedy, depending on the position of the body.
The drawing on the right half shows that when the head is tilted to face forward, the upper body changes position too. This is natural as only lifting your head to face forward but with your upper body slumped down to a degree as depicted on the left leads to a uncomfortable and unnatural position.
Of the three trajectories, two do not match to a shot fired by Oswald from his position. Only one does. So back to my original question: does photographic evidence support JFK-46?
You have to imagine the head (but not area where the missile channel is) being returned to upright; cervical vertebrae will rotate to accommodate it. The Committee thought the public was smart enough that such a common sense caveat was unnecessary.
This is silly. If the head is returned to the upright position, the missile channel is going to move, as HSCA exhibit F-46 shows. With the head upright, the bullet would have exited with an upward trajectory.
But, of course, this is all academic anyway, because we now know that the back wound had no exit point, and that the front shirt slits and the nick on the tie were made by the nurses, not by a bullet.
This is silly. If the head is returned to the upright position, the missile channel is going to move, as HSCA exhibit F-46 shows. With the head upright, the bullet would have exited with an upward trajectory.
But, of course, this is all academic anyway, because we now know that the back wound had no exit point, and that the front shirt slits and the nick on the tie were made by the nurses, not by a bullet.
Yes, Dr. Carrico told Harold Weisberg that the slits in the front of the shirt and the nick on the tie were caused by the scalpels of the nurses cutting the clothes off, under his personal supervision. And the FBI found no copper residue on those slits, but the holes in the back of the shirt and suit jacket did contain traces of copper.
Dr. Carrico testified under oath that the wound in the anterior neck was located above the collar of the shirt.
Agents Francis X. O’Neill, Jr. and James W. Sibert attended the autopsy and wrote a report, which for some reason wasn't included in the Warren Commission's volumes. THey wrote:
During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column. This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger.
This angle of 45 degrees also popped up during Assistent Counsel Arlen Specter's questioning of the Parkland doctors:
"Permit me to add some facts which I shall ask you to assume as being true for purposes of having you express an opinion.
First of all, assume that the President was struck by a 6.5 mm. copper-jacketed bullet from a rifle having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second at a time when the President was approximately 160 to 250 feet from the weapon, with the President being struck from the rear at a downward angle of approximately 45 degrees, being struck on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula 14 centimeters from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 centimeters below the tip of the right mastoid process."
How did a downward angle of 45 degrees change to an upward angle of some 25 degrees as per the HSCA?