JFK Assassination Forum

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Jim Brunsman on April 08, 2018, 05:36:22 AM

Title: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jim Brunsman on April 08, 2018, 05:36:22 AM
Witnesses at the autopsy reported that Humes seemed very frustrated that the back wound did not exit the body and the bullet wasn't to be found. Humes probed this wound and felt the end of it with his finger. All you "Oswald framers" out there need to explain how a bullet that didn't exit the president's body was supposed to hit the governor. Never mind the fact that the throat wound was an entry wound according to all the Parkland witnesses. This should end the debate about the magic bullet because that's only one of MANY reasons it's impossible for anyone to commit this assassination alone.

P.S. This is my first new topic so I hope I haven't repeated what someone else has posted. By way of introduction, I learned of the assassination when Sister Mary Pierre told my first grade class. I now reflect on how deeply affected the nuns were to lose the first Catholic president in such a violent way. I have been interested in the assassination from the start and read everything I could get my hands on. I have met a few people related to the investigation. I met Mark Weiss, the acoustic expert briefly. I spoke to Robert Pierpoint of CBS News. He stuck to the Warren Commission story and was in the press bus at the back of the motorcade so he witnessed little of note. I interviewed Robert Groden in Dealey Plaza but there were too many others there to get into detail. I interviewed David Lifton on the phone in 1986 because I was astounded at "Best Evidence." Since then Doug Horne has corroborated much of Lifton's shocking research.
  I remain frustrated that the media and mainstream educators refuse to do the research that will exonerate Oswald. I think it's ridiculous that the patsy's name is the one associated with this horrific crime. There are some intelligent folks here who totally buy the frame job. For me it's so obvious that there are multiple assassins. It's much the same as how polarized our views are concerning Donald Trump. To me it's painfully obvious he is a repugnant and despicable human being who cares only about himself and a few select Caucasian one percenters. But I know a very few people who stand by the president and can rationalize his infantile behavior. I'm not one of them. So there!
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 08, 2018, 05:51:29 AM
Witnesses at the autopsy reported that Humes seemed very frustrated that the back wound did not exit the body and the bullet wasn't to be found. Humes probed this wound and felt the end of it with his finger. All you "Oswald framers" out there need to explain how a bullet that didn't exit the president's body was supposed to hit the governor. Never mind the fact that the throat wound was an entry wound according to all the Parkland witnesses. This should end the debate about the magic bullet because that's only one of MANY reasons it's impossible for anyone to commit this assassination alone.

P.S. This is my first new topic so I hope I haven't repeated what someone else has posted. By way of introduction, I learned of the assassination when Sister Mary Pierre told my first grade class. I now reflect on how deeply affected the nuns were to lose the first Catholic president in such a violent way. I have been interested in the assassination from the start and read everything I could get my hands on. I have met a few people related to the investigation. I met Mark Weiss, the acoustic expert briefly. I spoke to Robert Pierpoint of CBS News. He stuck to the Warren Commission story and was in the press bus at the back of the motorcade so he witnessed little of note. I interviewed Robert Groden in Dealey Plaza but there were too many others there to get into detail. I interviewed David Lifton on the phone in 1986 because I was astounded at "Best Evidence." Since then Doug Horne has corroborated much of Lifton's shocking research.
  I remain frustrated that the media and mainstream educators refuse to do the research that will exonerate Oswald. I think it's ridiculous that the patsy's name is the one associated with this horrific crime. There are some intelligent folks here who totally buy the frame job. For me it's so obvious that there are multiple assassins. It's much the same as how polarized our views are concerning Donald Trump. To me it's painfully obvious he is a repugnant and despicable human being who cares only about himself and a few select Caucasian one percenters. But I know a very few people who stand by the president and can rationalize his infantile behavior. I'm not one of them. So there!

Hi Jim,

Welcome to the forum.

We "Oswald framers" don't need to explain how a bullet that didn't exit the president's body was supposed to hit the governor because we are still free to not indulge the fantasies of CTs. The bullet that struck Kennedy at the base of the neck from the rear exited his body. It's in the autopsy report. You should read it.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Bernd Werner on April 08, 2018, 03:52:00 PM
Witnesses at the autopsy reported that Humes seemed very frustrated that the back wound did not exit the body and the bullet wasn't to be found. Humes probed this wound and felt the end of it with his finger. All you "Oswald framers" out there need to explain how a bullet that didn't exit the president's body was supposed to hit the governor. Never mind the fact that the throat wound was an entry wound according to all the Parkland witnesses. This should end the debate about the magic bullet because that's only one of MANY reasons it's impossible for anyone to commit this assassination alone

And all of Oswald's defenders need to explain how two bullets could be removed from Kennedys throat without leaving any additional wounds.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 08, 2018, 04:30:19 PM
Hi Jim,

Welcome to the forum.

We "Oswald framers" don't need to explain how a bullet that didn't exit the president's body was supposed to hit the governor because we are still free to not indulge the fantasies of CTs. The bullet that struck Kennedy at the base of the neck from the rear exited his body. It's in the autopsy report. You should read it.

How could the autopsy doctors state this with certainty, when they didn't track the wound through the body, Tim?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 08, 2018, 05:59:32 PM
How could the autopsy doctors state this with certainty, when they didn't track the wound through the body, Tim?

Ray,

They had an entrance wound in the posterior at the base of the neck. The X-Rays revealed no bullet inside the body.  After removing the breastplate they found a contusion on the apex of the upper lobe of the right lung. It was obvious to them that the bullet had gone over the top of that lung. They came to realize that the bullet had to have exited from the front of the neck. Humes' phone call to Dr. Perry confirmed it for them.

Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 08, 2018, 06:52:16 PM
Ray,

They had an entrance wound in the posterior at the base of the neck. The X-Rays revealed no bullet inside the body.  After removing the breastplate they found a contusion on the apex of the upper lobe of the right lung. It was obvious to them that the bullet had gone over the top of that lung. They came to realize that the bullet had to have exited from the front of the neck. Humes' phone call to Dr. Perry confirmed it for them.

It was a cock-up of an autopsy. How can an incredible autopsy be considered as any evidence.

So the "bullet hit the top of the right lung" and exited through the throat?  ;D

If that was the case then the bullet would have been travelling in an upward direction.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 08, 2018, 07:38:09 PM
It was a cock-up of an autopsy. How can an incredible autopsy be considered as any evidence.

It was an official autopsy. That the findings of it don't match up with your conspiratorial beliefs is your problem, not mine.

Quote
So the "bullet hit the top of the right lung" and exited through the throat?  ;D

If that was the case then the bullet would have been travelling in an upward direction.

The bullet never hit the top of the right lung. It passed over the top of the right lung. It did so in a downward direction.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on April 08, 2018, 08:34:26 PM
It was an official autopsy. That the findings of it don't match up with your conspiratorial beliefs is your problem, not mine.



 Well its been pretty polite up to this point , but I am going to object to this There is the logical fallacy of begging the question, and in my opinion it is particularly prevalent among those who official stories of some sort behind them Apparently this perspective allows them a free pass form this otherwise prohibitive fundament of logic based solely on the conclusion of organization Conclusion's, regardless of who came up with them, are not not allowed to explain debates at premises according to the rules of logic
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 08, 2018, 08:45:23 PM

 Well its been pretty polite up to this point , but I am going to object to this There is the logical fallacy of begging the question, and in my opinion it is particularly prevalent among those who official stories of some sort behind them Apparently this perspective allows them a free pass form this otherwise prohibitive fundament of logic based solely on the conclusion of organization Conclusion's, regardless of who came up with them, are not not allowed to explain debates at premises according to the rules of logic

Matt, I think that you may be speaking at a level that is above my pay grade because I'm having difficulty understanding what you just said there.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 08, 2018, 09:46:53 PM

Mr. SPECTER - What specific experience have you had, if any, with respect to gunshot wounds?
Commander HUMES - My type of practice, which fortunately has been in peacetime endeavor to a great extent, has been more extensive in the field of natural disease than violence. However, on several occasions in various places where I have been employed, I have had to deal with violent death, accidents, suicides, and so forth. Also I have had training at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, I have completed a course in forensic pathology there as part of my training in the overall field of pathology.


No experience in forensic pathology and you've asked for it.

Mr. SPECTER - Have you had any additional, special training or experience in missile wounds?
Colonel FINCK - For the past 3 years I was Chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and in that capacity I reviewed personally all the cases forwarded to us by the Armed Forces, and some civilian cases from the United States and our forces overseas. The number of these cases amounts to approximately 400 cases. I was called as a consultant in the field of missile wounds for this particular case, and also last year in February 1963, the Surgeon General of the Army sent me to Vietnam for a wound ballistics mission, I had to testify in a murder trial involving a 30/30 rifle in the first week of March this year, and I came back yesterday after one week in Panama where I had to testify. I was sent to Panama by the Secretary of the Army regarding the fatalities of the events of 9-10 in January of 1964.
Mr. SPECTER - Have you been certified by the American Board of Pathology, Doctor Finck?
Colonel FINCK - I was certified in pathology anatomy by the American Board of Pathology in 1956, and by the same American Board of Pathology in the field of forensic pathology in 1961.
...............................
Mr. SPECTER - Did you have occasion to participate in the autopsy of the late President Kennedy?
Colonel FINCK - Yes; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - And are you one of the three coauthors of the autopsy report which has been previously marked and introduced into evidence here?
Colonel FINCK - Yes, I am.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on April 08, 2018, 11:05:19 PM
Matt, I think that you may be speaking at a level that is above my pay grade because I'm having difficulty understanding what you just said there.

 Not everyone has the same definition of the logical fallacy of begging the question. Not a fan of Wikipedia in general but here is there first sentence

To beg the question is to assume the truth of the conclusion of an argument in the premises in order for the conclusion to follow. It is a type of circular reasoning and an informal fallacy, in which an arguer makes an argument that requires the desired conclusion to be true. This often occurs in an indirect way such that the fallacy's presence is hidden or at least not easily apparent.

 So if you are saying the conclusion of the autopsy is a reason to not discuss the details or premises ,I would suggest that is to beg the question If you personally have faith in their conclusion you have every reason to be confident in it, on a personal level that is great But if you are suggesting the rest of us need to consider the conclusion of the autopsy as prerequisite for debating the details, I would tend to argue that is begging the question
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jim Brunsman on April 09, 2018, 02:35:37 AM
Base of the neck? Who are you, Gerald Ford?  It's not smart to regurgitate one of the most disparaged acts of the entire assassination cover-up. Mr. Ford didn't think the wound that is clearly in the back comported with an exit wound in the throat. So he moved it! He was correct since a shot originating from the 6th floor of the TSBD traveling at a downward trajectory would likely exit considerably lower than the throat. I can't believe we're still explaining this after all these years. How about a little intellectual honesty? For the record, my only interest is the truth and I resent individuals distorting history in order to assuage their own biases...
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jim Brunsman on April 09, 2018, 02:56:25 AM
Tim, saying that this was an official autopsy seems to suggest that you thought the autopsy was conducted with care and precision. The accounts of the eyewitnesses paint a very disturbing picture. Also, don't forget the FBI's autopsy report. Sibert and O'Neill reported:
  "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.
Inasmuch as no complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other area of the body as determined by total body X?Rays and inspection revealing there was no point of exit, the individuals performing the autopsy were at a loss to explain why they could find no bullets."
  Humes burned his autopsy notes. The conclusions of the final autopsy report are totally incongruent with the known facts in the case (entry wounds in throat and right temple with massive exit wound in the lower right rear of JFK's head). One day I hope we get a clearer picture of what went on at Bethesda that night, and I give great praise to David Lifton and Douglas Horne for their research on this subject.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 09, 2018, 03:04:16 AM
Not everyone has the same definition of the logical fallacy of begging the question. Not a fan of Wikipedia in general but here is there first sentence

To beg the question is to assume the truth of the conclusion of an argument in the premises in order for the conclusion to follow. It is a type of circular reasoning and an informal fallacy, in which an arguer makes an argument that requires the desired conclusion to be true. This often occurs in an indirect way such that the fallacy's presence is hidden or at least not easily apparent.

 So if you are saying the conclusion of the autopsy is a reason to not discuss the details or premises ,I would suggest that is to beg the question If you personally have faith in their conclusion you have every reason to be confident in it, on a personal level that is great But if you are suggesting the rest of us need to consider the conclusion of the autopsy as prerequisite for debating the details, I would tend to argue that is begging the question

Matt, did you read the two posts that my posts were in response to? If so, what do you make of the content and tone of both?  I'm not saying that the conclusion of the autopsy is reason to cut off any discussion of the details. I am more than willing to discuss every aspect of the case. But surely you have to concede that the autopsy report does have standing and cannot be easily dismissed. For the record, I never rely on the autopsy report alone when discussing the medical aspects of the case. There are the autopsy photos and x-rays, the Zapruder film, the numerous testimonies of the Bethesda Pathologists, and other sources that are available for consideration.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 09, 2018, 03:13:39 AM
Base of the neck? Who are you, Gerald Ford?  It's not smart to regurgitate one of the most disparaged acts of the entire assassination cover-up. Mr. Ford didn't think the wound that is clearly in the back comported with an exit wound in the throat. So he moved it! He was correct since a shot originating from the 6th floor of the TSBD traveling at a downward trajectory would likely exit considerably lower than the throat. I can't believe we're still explaining this after all these years. How about a little intellectual honesty? For the record, my only interest is the truth and I resent individuals distorting history in order to assuage their own biases...

Gerald Ford never moved the the entry wound by even as much as a mm in any direction. All that he did was recommend that the wording in the draft report be changed in order that it would more accurately reflect the wording contained in the autopsy report. The autopsy report has the bullet traversing downward through the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 09, 2018, 09:14:37 AM
It was an official autopsy. That the findings of it don't match up with your conspiratorial beliefs is your problem, not mine.


It may well have been an official autopsy but even you can't deny that it was a"flawed" autopsy. for example.

Finck (If ever a guy was well named, he was :))

"Q: But you did take orders and did not dissect the throat area?
Finck: Well, these are not direct orders, these are suggestions and directions. I was not told, "I give you a direct order" or that sort of thing.
[/quote]

Quote
The bullet never hit the top of the right lung. It passed over the top of the right lung. It did so in a downward direction.


Explain how a bullet travelling in a downward direction, just above the top of the right lung, could exit the throat.

(https://s19.postimg.org/b2k5c7ngf/Lungs.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/b2k5c7ngf/)
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on April 09, 2018, 03:34:25 PM
Matt, did you read the two posts that my posts were in response to? If so, what do you make of the content and tone of both?  I'm not saying that the conclusion of the autopsy is reason to cut off any discussion of the details. I am more than willing to discuss every aspect of the case. But surely you have to concede that the autopsy report does have standing and cannot be easily dismissed. For the record, I never rely on the autopsy report alone when discussing the medical aspects of the case. There are the autopsy photos and x-rays, the Zapruder film, the numerous testimonies of the Bethesda Pathologists, and other sources that are available for consideration.

 Tim yes your tone has been very reasonable and I appreciate it I did quote your one particular comment several posts back that seemed to suggest you were using this fallacy, but maybe I just cannot not understand it in the way you intended Either way, I am not interested in contesting some past quote to death, if you say your open discussion to every aspect, lets leave it at that.

As far as needing to admit the autopsy has standing? Yes kind of I would agree that everything needs to be considered but in the light that those leading the autopsy were strangely inexperienced and the indication of military control is a concern Your point however is spot on since if I were to dismiss all of the autopsy information I would be basically guilty That does not mean, for me at least, the entire autopsy cannot be swept away as all fake and part of a conspiracy I would then be guilty of the very logical fallacy I have already cited. for what is worth I do not see logic as some absolute guidepost. It comes to most people naturally without having to read and quote them Onward we go
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Bernd Werner on April 09, 2018, 09:25:48 PM
What two bullets?

The two bullets that must have been in Kennedy's throat, if the bullet, that caused the wound in Kennedys back, did not exit his body. If this bullet didn't pass through Kennedys body, the wound in Kennedys throat must have been caused by another bullet entering his throat. Therefore two bullet should have been found or must have been removed, if no bullet was found there.

Explain how a bullet travelling in a downward direction, just above the top of the right lung, could exit the throat.

Where do you get the idea from, that the bullet "travelled just above the top of the right lung"?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 10, 2018, 12:14:47 AM
Explain how a bullet travelling in a downward direction, just above the top of the right lung, could exit the throat.

(https://s19.postimg.org/b2k5c7ngf/Lungs.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/b2k5c7ngf/)

It's not explainable using that image.



Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 10, 2018, 04:25:23 AM
Tim yes your tone has been very reasonable and I appreciate it I did quote your one particular comment several posts back that seemed to suggest you were using this fallacy, but maybe I just cannot not understand it in the way you intended Either way, I am not interested in contesting some past quote to death, if you say your open discussion to every aspect, lets leave it at that.

As far as needing to admit the autopsy has standing? Yes kind of I would agree that everything needs to be considered but in the light that those leading the autopsy were strangely inexperienced and the indication of military control is a concern Your point however is spot on since if I were to dismiss all of the autopsy information I would be basically guilty That does not mean, for me at least, the entire autopsy cannot be swept away as all fake and part of a conspiracy I would then be guilty of the very logical fallacy I have already cited. for what is worth I do not see logic as some absolute guidepost. It comes to most people naturally without having to read and quote them Onward we go

Matt, we can agree that the autopsy report is not beyond discussion. I sensed from the testimony of one of the Pathologists that he was not particularly bothered by people questioning the report.  This was decades later. He did stick to his guns though and deferred to the autopsy photos and x-rays when challenged on certain details.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 10, 2018, 12:14:14 PM
It's not explainable using that image.

Take a look at the following:

(https://i.imgur.com/jJscSfW.png)

Tim, perhaps you would mark on the photo above, the line you believe the bullet took.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 10, 2018, 12:45:08 PM

Where do you get the idea from, that the bullet "travelled just above the top of the right lung"?

Bernd, I was bouncing Tim's own post back at him.

"They had an entrance wound in the posterior at the base of the neck. The X-Rays revealed no bullet inside the body.  After removing the breastplate they found a contusion on the apex of the upper lobe of the right lung. It was obvious to them that the bullet had gone over the top of that lung. They came to realize that the bullet had to have exited from the front of the neck. Humes' phone call to Dr. Perry confirmed it for them."
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on April 10, 2018, 02:13:09 PM
Bernd, I was bouncing Tim's own post back at him.

"They had an entrance wound in the posterior at the base of the neck. The X-Rays revealed no bullet inside the body.  After removing the breastplate they found a contusion on the apex of the upper lobe of the right lung. It was obvious to them that the bullet had gone over the top of that lung. They came to realize that the bullet had to have exited from the front of the neck. Humes' phone call to Dr. Perry confirmed it for them."

 Are we not supposed to be confused by the terms contusion on the apex of the lung and over the top of the lung
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 10, 2018, 02:40:11 PM
Are we not supposed to be confused by the terms contusion on the apex of the lung and over the top of the lung

Was the contusion on the apex of the lung supposedly caused by the bullet?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on April 10, 2018, 04:16:13 PM
Was the contusion on the apex of the lung supposedly caused by the bullet?

 Seemingly the apex of the lung is part of the lung. Therefore to say that, and then at the same time claim it went above the lung is some kind of problem
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Royell Storing on April 10, 2018, 07:53:19 PM
Mr. SPECTER - Have you had any additional, special training or experience in missile wounds?
Colonel FINCK - For the past 3 years I was Chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and in that capacity I reviewed personally all the cases forwarded to us by the Armed Forces, and some civilian cases from the United States and our forces overseas. The number of these cases amounts to approximately 400 cases. I was called as a consultant in the field of missile wounds for this particular case, and also last year in February 1963, the Surgeon General of the Army sent me to Vietnam for a wound ballistics mission, I had to testify in a murder trial involving a 30/30 rifle in the first week of March this year, and I came back yesterday after one week in Panama where I had to testify. I was sent to Panama by the Secretary of the Army regarding the fatalities of the events of 9-10 in January of 1964.
Mr. SPECTER - Have you been certified by the American Board of Pathology, Doctor Finck?
Colonel FINCK - I was certified in pathology anatomy by the American Board of Pathology in 1956, and by the same American Board of Pathology in the field of forensic pathology in 1961.
...............................
Mr. SPECTER - Did you have occasion to participate in the autopsy of the late President Kennedy?
Colonel FINCK - Yes; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - And are you one of the three coauthors of the autopsy report which has been previously marked and introduced into evidence here?
Colonel FINCK - Yes, I am.


            Guess you forgot to mention that Humes called in Finck to assist him. By the time Finck arrived at the Official JFK Autopsy, it was already well under way. Humes had already had his way with JFK's body/wounds by the time Finck got to the autopsy.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on April 10, 2018, 08:23:00 PM
 I was looking for more information on this and came upon someone mentioning a couple of independent investigators of the Bethesda autopsy but lost the link somehow Anybody know who they might be?

 Is there anything beyond a quote  in regard to bruising of the upper part of the right lung that supports the notion that they tracked the wound from the front side of the throat backwards?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 10, 2018, 11:44:59 PM
Well its been pretty polite up to this point , but I am going to object to this There is the logical fallacy of begging the question, and in my opinion it is particularly prevalent among those who official stories of some sort behind them

Yep, it's the favorite debate technique of the LNers.  Along with shifting the burden of proof.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 11, 2018, 05:04:06 AM
Seemingly the apex of the lung is part of the lung. Therefore to say that, and then at the same time claim it went above the lung is some kind of problem

Matt, why is that a problem? The apex of the lung was bruised by the shockwave of the bullet as it passed above it.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Gary Craig on April 11, 2018, 06:37:30 AM
Matt, why is that a problem? The apex of the lung was bruised by the shockwave of the bullet as it passed above it.

"The apex of the lung was bruised by the shockwave of the bullet as it passed above it."

How does a bullet creating a shockwave that bruises the top of JFK's lung, as it passes over top of it, exit

the front of his throat through a clean punched out hole roughly the same diameter as the alleged bullet?

Doctors who saw the wound pre-tracheotomy said it was an entrance wound. Their reasoning: The shock

wave from a rifle bullet would have created more damage and left a much larger exit wound in the front of

JFK's throat.


http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=622&relPageId=5 (http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=622&relPageId=5)

ARRB MD 41 - White House Transcript of Dallas Press Conference

-snip-

Q. Where was the entrance wound?

Dr.Perry: There was an entrance wound in the neck, in regards the one on the
head, I cannot say.


Q. Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? At him?

Dr.Perry: It appeared to be coming at him.

-snip-

Q. Doctor, describe the entrance wound. You think from the front in the throat?

Dr.Perry: The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes,
that is correct.


-snip-

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

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/31st_Issue/vs_wounds.html (http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/31st_Issue/vs_wounds.html)

Mr. Specter. What would be the considerations which, in your mind, would make it, as you characterized it, unlikely?

Dr. Baxter. It would be unlikely because the damage that the bullet would create would be--first its speed would create
a shock wave which would damage a larger number of tissues, as in its path, it would tend to strike, or usually would strike,
tissues of greater density than this particular missile did and would then begin to tumble and would create larger jagged--the
further it went, the more jagged would be the damage that it created; so that ordinarily there would have been a rather large
wound of exit. (VI, H-42)

"Mr. Specter had even more severe problems with Dr. Ronald Coy Jones of Parkland Hospital, whom he asked about the neck wounds:"

Mr. Specter. In this report, Dr. Jones, you state the following, "Previously described severe skull and brain injury was noted
as well as a small hole in the anterior midline of the neck thought to be a bullet entrance wound." What led you to the thought
that it was a bullet entrance wound, sir?

Dr. Jones. The hole was very small and relatively clean cut, as you would see in a bullet that is entering rather than exiting
from a patient. If this were an exit wound, you would think that it exited at a very low velocity to produce no more damage than
this had done, and if this were a missile of high velocity, you would expect more of an explosive type of exit wound, with more
tissue destruction than this appeared to have on superficial examination. (VI, H-55)

"Even Mr. Specter could not find in this account much opportunity for turning this neck wound into an exit wound. So, in good prosecutor
-like fashion, he prodded for the thin slant of Commission daylight in Dr. Jones's otherwise dark view of the Commission's suggestions:"


Mr. Specter. Would it be consistent, then, with an exit wound, but of low velocity, as you put it?

Dr. Jones. Yes, of very low velocity to the point that you might think that this bullet barely made it through the soft tissues and
just enough to drop out of the skin on the opposite side. (VI, H-55)
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 11, 2018, 09:58:12 AM
Tim, perhaps you would mark on the photo above, the line you believe the bullet took.

Bump for Tim.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on April 11, 2018, 02:51:30 PM
Matt, why is that a problem? The apex of the lung was bruised by the shockwave of the bullet as it passed above it.

 When I fist saw the quote here I don't think it included the term bruised I found that somewhere else
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 12, 2018, 03:59:31 AM
Bump for Tim.

Here you go ray:

(https://i.imgur.com/tyKHnfw.png)
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 12, 2018, 04:46:45 AM
"The apex of the lung was bruised by the shockwave of the bullet as it passed above it."

How does a bullet creating a shockwave that bruises the top of JFK's lung, as it passes over top of it, exit

the front of his throat through a clean punched out hole roughly the same diameter as the alleged bullet?

Doctors who saw the wound pre-tracheotomy said it was an entrance wound. Their reasoning: The shock

wave from a rifle bullet would have created more damage and left a much larger exit wound in the front of

JFK's throat.


http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=622&relPageId=5 (http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=622&relPageId=5)

ARRB MD 41 - White House Transcript of Dallas Press Conference

-snip-

Q. Where was the entrance wound?

Dr.Perry: There was an entrance wound in the neck, in regards the one on the
head, I cannot say.


Q. Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? At him?

Dr.Perry: It appeared to be coming at him.

-snip-

Q. Doctor, describe the entrance wound. You think from the front in the throat?

Dr.Perry: The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes,
that is correct.


-snip-

Mr. SPECTER - Based on your observations of the neck wound alone, do you have a sufficient basis to form an opinion as to whether it was an entrance wound or an exit wound.
Dr. PERRY - No, sir. I was unable to determine that since I did not ascertain the exact trajectory of the missile. The operative procedure which I performed was restricted to securing an adequate airway and insuring there was no injury to the carotid artery or jugular vein at that level and at that point I made the procedure.
Mr. SPECTER - Based on the appearance of the neck wound alone, could it have been either an entrance or an exit wound?
Dr. PERRY - It could have been either.
Mr. SPECTER - Permit me to supply some additional facts, Dr. Perry, which I shall ask you to assume as being true for purposes of having you express an opinion.
Assume first of all that the President was struck by a 6.5 mm. copper-jacketed bullet fired from a gun having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second, with the weapon being approximately 160 to 250 feet from the President, with the bullet striking him at an angle of declination of approximately 45 degrees, striking the President on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula, being 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process, passing through the President's body striking no bones, traversing the neck and sliding between the large muscles in the posterior portion of the President's body through a fascia channel without violating the pleural cavity but bruising the apex of the right pleural cavity, and bruising the most apical portion of the right lung inflicting a hematoma to the right side of the larynx, which you have just described, and striking the trachea causing the injury which you described, and then exiting from the hole that you have described in the midline of the neck.
Now, assuming those facts to be true, would the hole which you observed in the neck of the President be consistent with an exit wound under those circumstances?
Dr. PERRY - Certainly would be consistent with an exit wound.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, assuming one additional fact that there was no bullet found in the body of the President, and assuming the facts which I have just set forth to be true, do you have an opinion as to whether the wound which you observed in the President's neck was an entrance or an exit wound?
Dr. PERRY - A full jacketed bullet without deformation passing through skin would leave a similar wound for an exit and entrance wound and with the facts which you have made available and with these assumptions, I believe that it was an exit wound.

Quote
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/31st_Issue/vs_wounds.html (http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/31st_Issue/vs_wounds.html)

Mr. Specter. What would be the considerations which, in your mind, would make it, as you characterized it, unlikely?

Dr. Baxter. It would be unlikely because the damage that the bullet would create would be--first its speed would create
a shock wave which would damage a larger number of tissues, as in its path, it would tend to strike, or usually would strike,
tissues of greater density than this particular missile did and would then begin to tumble and would create larger jagged--the
further it went, the more jagged would be the damage that it created; so that ordinarily there would have been a rather large
wound of exit. (VI, H-42)

Dr Baxter: We could not determine, or did not determine at that time whether this represented an entry or an exit wound. Judging from the caliber of the rifle that we later found or become acquainted with, this would more resemble a wound of entry. However, due to the density of the tissues of the neck and depending upon what a bullet of such caliber would pass through, the tissues that it would pass through on the way to the neck, I think that the wound could well represent either exit or entry wound.
Mr. Specter: Assuming some factors in addition to those which you personally observed, Dr. Baxter, what would your opinion be if these additional facts were present: First, the President had a bullet wound of entry on the right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the Scapula with the wound measuring 7 by 4 mm. in oval shape, being 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process--assume this is the set of facts, that the wound Just described was caused by a 6.5 mm bullet shot from approximately 160 to 250 feet away from the President, from a weapon having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second, assuming as a third factor that the bullet passed through the President's body, going in between the strap muscles of the shoulder without violating the pleura space and exited at a point in the midline of the neck, would the hole which you saw on the President's throat be consistent with an exit point, assuming the factors which I have Just given to you?
Dr. Baxter: Although it would be unusual for a high velocity missile of this type to cause a wound as you have described, the passage through tissue planes of this density could have well resulted in the sequence which you outline; namely, that the anterior wound does represent a wound of exit.
Mr. Specter: What would be the considerations which, in your mind, would make it, as you characterized it, unlikely?
Dr. Baxter : It would be unlikely because the damage that the bullet would create would be---first its speed would create a shock wave which would damage a larger number of tissues, as in its path, it would tend to strike, or usually would strike, tissues of greater density than this particular missile did and would then begin to tumble and would create larger jagged--the further it went, the more jagged would be the damage that it created; so that ordinarily there would have been a rather large wound of exit.
Mr. Specter: But relating the situation as I hypothesized it for you?
Dr. Baxter: Then it is perfectly understandable that this wound of exit was not of any greater magnitude than it was.


Quote
"Mr. Specter had even more severe problems with Dr. Ronald Coy Jones of Parkland Hospital, whom he asked about the neck wounds:"

Mr. Specter. In this report, Dr. Jones, you state the following, "Previously described severe skull and brain injury was noted
as well as a small hole in the anterior midline of the neck thought to be a bullet entrance wound." What led you to the thought
that it was a bullet entrance wound, sir?

Dr. Jones. The hole was very small and relatively clean cut, as you would see in a bullet that is entering rather than exiting
from a patient. If this were an exit wound, you would think that it exited at a very low velocity to produce no more damage than
this had done, and if this were a missile of high velocity, you would expect more of an explosive type of exit wound, with more
tissue destruction than this appeared to have on superficial examination. (VI, H-55)

"Even Mr. Specter could not find in this account much opportunity for turning this neck wound into an exit wound. So, in good prosecutor
-like fashion, he prodded for the thin slant of Commission daylight in Dr. Jones's otherwise dark view of the Commission's suggestions:"


Mr. Specter. Would it be consistent, then, with an exit wound, but of low velocity, as you put it?

Dr. Jones. Yes, of very low velocity to the point that you might think that this bullet barely made it through the soft tissues and
just enough to drop out of the skin on the opposite side. (VI, H-55)

Mr. SPECTER - What is your experience, Doctor, if any, in the treatment of bullet wounds?
Dr. JONES - During our residency here we have approximately 1 complete year out of the 4 years on the trauma service here, and this is in addition to the 2 months that we spend every other day and every other night in the emergency room during our first year, so that we see a tremendous number of bullet wounds here in that length of time, sometimes as many as four and five a night.
Mr. SPECTER - Have you ever had any formal training in bullet wounds?
Dr. JONES - No.
Mr. SPECTER - Have you ever had occasion to observe a bullet wound which was inflicted by a missile at approximate size of a 6.5 ram. bullet which passed through the body of a person and exited from a neck without striking anything but soft tissue from the back through the neck, where the missile came from a weapon of the muzzle velocity of 2,000 feet per second, and the victim was in the vicinity of 160 to 250 feet from the weapon?
Dr. JONES - No; I have not seen a missile of this velocity exit in the anterior portion of the neck. I have seen it in other places of the body, but not in the neck.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on April 12, 2018, 04:58:26 AM
Is there any WC testimony on the wound in the back an evidence of the path from that wound to front throat wound?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 12, 2018, 05:31:37 AM
Is there any WC testimony on the wound in the back an evidence of the path from that wound to front throat wound?

Matt, I think Humes' WC testimony is the only one that talks about the entry wound in the 'back",  other than mere references to it in other testimonies. The HSCA FPP and two or three Radiologists  examined the autopsy X-rays to try and determine the path from entry to exit. There are references in the HSCA Volumes to damage to the transverse processes of T1 and C7 and one of the radiologists noted interstitial air between the two wounds that would indicate that a bullet had passed through.

Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 12, 2018, 10:46:03 AM
Here you go ray:

(https://i.imgur.com/tyKHnfw.png)

Trouble is, Tim, the bullet entered the back at a  downward angle o 45/60˚ according to Sibert and O'Neill.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 12, 2018, 03:36:37 PM
Trouble is, Tim, the bullet entered the back at a  downward angle o 45/60˚ according to Sibert and O'Neill.

Did Sibert and O'Neill measure a downward angle o 45/60 degrees? If so, how did they manage to do it?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 12, 2018, 03:46:44 PM
Did Sibert and O'Neill measure a downward angle o 45/60 degrees? If so, how did they manage to do it?

Probably not, as they were watching the ludicrous autopsy by Finck, Humes and Boswell and reported what they saw and heard.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 12, 2018, 03:51:51 PM
Probably not, as they were watching the ludicrous autopsy by Finck, Humes and Boswell and reported what they saw and heard.

Ok, so they didn't measure themselves. Who did the measuring and what method and tools did they use to come up with the 45/60 degree figure?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Royell Storing on April 12, 2018, 05:15:36 PM
Here you go ray:

(https://i.imgur.com/tyKHnfw.png)


       The JFK Autopsy Photo clearly shows a wound in JFK's BACK. The Autopsy Face Sheet clearly displays a wound in JFK's BACK. Humes placed his finger inside a wound on JFK's BACK.  The above illustration is pure Fiction.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 12, 2018, 07:05:03 PM
Ok, so they didn't measure themselves. Who did the measuring and what method and tools did they use to come up with the 45/60 degree figure?

Unfortunately, Tim, like you, I wasn't present at the autopsy, so I can't answer your question. However Sibert and O'Neill were and they reported what they heard. Or, because what they said doesn't agree with your bible, the Warren Report, maybe you think the FBI agents were just mistaken or lying,
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on April 12, 2018, 07:47:18 PM
 Have to add Silbert and O'Neil to WC's strange list of those not called before it
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 12, 2018, 08:56:32 PM
Did Sibert and O'Neill measure a downward angle o 45/60 degrees? If so, how did they manage to do it?

Did agent Bookhout measure Linnie Mae Randle's paper bag?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on April 12, 2018, 09:01:17 PM
Ok, so they didn't measure themselves. Who did the measuring and what method and tools did they use to come up with the 45/60 degree figure?

 Since Humes claimed to have stick his finger in the wound I assume it was an estimate It is a wide range which seems like a reasonable way to estimate

Not to mention that is of secondary importance to the findings of the location of the wound on the body and the wound's depth
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 12, 2018, 09:56:10 PM
Unfortunately, Tim, like you, I wasn't present at the autopsy, so I can't answer your question. However Sibert and O'Neill were and they reported what they heard. Or, because what they said doesn't agree with your bible, the Warren Report, maybe you think the FBI agents were just mistaken or lying,

Ray, The Warren Report is not my Bible. I rarely refer to the Report itself. I do accept the findings of the report written by the Pathologists who did a forensic examination on Kennedy's body. I also accept the authenticity of the autopsy photos and x-rays. Humes was asked about the 45 to 60 degrees mentioned in the Sibert/O'Neill report. He said that he had just guestimated.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 12, 2018, 09:57:08 PM
Have to add Silbert and O'Neil to WC's strange list of those not called before it

Why should Sibert and O'Neill have been called before the WC? Should everyone who observed the autopsy have been called before the Commission?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 12, 2018, 09:58:09 PM
Since Humes claimed to have stick his finger in the wound I assume it was an estimate It is a wide range which seems like a reasonable way to estimate

Not to mention that is of secondary importance to the findings of the location of the wound on the body and the wound's depth

Matt, 

Did Humes claim that he stuck a finger in the wound? I know that he said that he attempted to probe the wound with his finger but I doubt that he said that the finger went into the wound to any depth. The wound hole was 4 mm by 7 mm in size. My smallest finger is 13 mm wide at the first knuckle. I doubt that Humes' digits were smaller than mine.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on April 12, 2018, 11:41:00 PM
Why should Sibert and O'Neill have been called before the WC? Should everyone who observed the autopsy have been called before the Commission?

 Probably Yes but especially FBI
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 13, 2018, 02:00:55 AM
Probably Yes but especially FBI

Why would the two FBI agents, who were there as observers, be more important than John Stringer(photographer) and John Ebersole(Radiologist)?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Gary Craig on April 13, 2018, 02:56:03 PM
Why should Sibert and O'Neill have been called before the WC? Should everyone who observed the autopsy have been called before the Commission?

"Why should Sibert and O'Neill have been called before the WC?"

They took notes and filed a report. And they didn't burn them and rewrite it after Ozzie was murdered by

Ruby.

The relevant question is; "Why weren't they called before the commission?"

The answer is, what they saw and put in their report was in direct conflict with the WCR, especially

Spector's "Magic Bullet".

They were called before the HSCA. They drew the illustrations below depicting JFK's wounds for that

committee.

Sibert
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/sebert.jpg)

O'Neil
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/oneil.jpg)



INTERVIEW WITH FORMER FBI AGENT JAMES SIBERT (JUNE 30, 2005)
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Royell Storing on April 13, 2018, 03:01:20 PM
Why should Sibert and O'Neill have been called before the WC? Should everyone who observed the autopsy have been called before the Commission?

      FBI Agents that viewed the JFK Autopsy and filed a report citing "surgery to the head area" being present when JFK's body was initially removed from his coffin, should have been questioned by the WC.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 13, 2018, 03:05:23 PM
"Why should Sibert and O'Neill have been called before the WC?"

They took notes and filed a report. And they didn't burn them and rewrite it after Ozzie was murdered by

Ruby.

The relevant question is; "Why weren't they called before the commission?"

The answer is, what they saw and put in their report was in direct conflict with the WCR, especially

Spector's "Magic Bullet".

They were called before the HSCA. They drew the illustrations below depicting JFK's wounds for that

committee.

Sibert
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/sebert.jpg)

O'Neil
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/oneil.jpg)



INTERVIEW WITH FORMER FBI AGENT JAMES SIBERT (JUNE 30, 2005)

Oops, their sketches seem to destroy Tim's sketch of the entry point. They MUST have been mistaken or are LYING.

Thanks for posting these, Gary.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Ken Jacobs on April 13, 2018, 06:50:44 PM
Why don't you ask the man who stood at JFK's shoulder, helping move the body for photos, xrays, etc.? If he tells you he saw, from inches away, a small entry wound in JFK's temple, exactly where the Press Secretary pointed to as he announced JFK's death, how would this have occurred?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 13, 2018, 09:13:44 PM
"Why should Sibert and O'Neill have been called before the WC?"

They took notes and filed a report. And they didn't burn them and rewrite it after Ozzie was murdered by

Ruby.

The relevant question is; "Why weren't they called before the commission?"

The answer is, what they saw and put in their report was in direct conflict with the WCR, especially

Spector's "Magic Bullet".

They were called before the HSCA. They drew the illustrations below depicting JFK's wounds for that

committee.

Sibert
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/sebert.jpg)

O'Neil
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/oneil.jpg)


INTERVIEW WITH FORMER FBI AGENT JAMES SIBERT (JUNE 30, 2005)

(https://i.imgur.com/QCtKH4w.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/RgkPjye.jpg)

"Examination of photographs of anterior and posterior views of thorax, and anterior, posterior and lateral views of neck (Photographs 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 38, 39, 40, 41). There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the skin of the back located approximately 15 cm. medial to the right acromial process, 5 cm. lateral to the mid-dorsal line and 14 cm. below the right mastoid process. This wound lies approximately 5.5 cm. below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck. This fold can also be seen in a lateral view of the neck which shows an anterior tracheotomy wound. This view makes it possible to compare the levels of these two wounds in relation to that of the horizontal plane of the body. A well defined zone of discoloration of the edge of the back wound, most pronounced on its upper and outer margins, identifies it as having the characteristics of the entrance wound of a bullet. The wound with its marginal abrasion measures approximately 7 mm. in width by 10 mm. in length. The dimensions of this cutaneous wound are consistent with those of a wound produced by a bullet similar to that which constitutes exhibit CE 399. At the site of and above the tracheotomy incision in the front of the neck, there can be identified the upper half of the circumference of a circular cutaneous wound the appearance of which is characteristic of that of the exit wound of a bullet. The lower half of this circular wound is obscured by the surgically produced tracheotomy incision which transects it. The center of the circular wound is situated approximately 9 cm. below the transverse fold in the skin of the neck described in a preceding paragraph. This indicates that the bullet which produced the two wounds followed a course downward and to the left in Its passage through the body."

http://www.jfklancer.com/ClarkPanel.html

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/bunch/necktransitbunch.gif)
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 13, 2018, 09:15:34 PM
Oops, their sketches seem to destroy Tim's sketch of the entry point. They MUST have been mistaken or are LYING.

Thanks for posting these, Gary.

Here's another one for you Ray:

(https://i.imgur.com/V7KrPqN.png)
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 13, 2018, 09:18:36 PM
Why don't you ask the man who stood at JFK's shoulder, helping move the body for photos, xrays, etc.? If he tells you he saw, from inches away, a small entry wound in JFK's temple, exactly where the Press Secretary pointed to as he announced JFK's death, how would this have occurred?

Who is he and where can he be reached?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on April 13, 2018, 10:54:46 PM
Here's another one for you Ray:

(https://i.imgur.com/V7KrPqN.png)
[/quote

 The dot in the back in this diagram is contrary to everything I have seen Whose signature is it if I may and when was it made available
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 13, 2018, 11:48:02 PM
Paul O'Connor, I believe.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on April 14, 2018, 05:31:50 AM
Paul O'Connor, I believe.

 Thanks John I thought that might be the case. But I thought he was a bit of an autopsy skeptic if you will I would be interested how he justifies the location of that back wound
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 14, 2018, 10:35:20 AM
Here's another one for you Ray:

(https://i.imgur.com/V7KrPqN.png)

O'Connor to the HSCA

O'Connor said for a while there was no discussion of any other wounds until later on, when they found the bullet wound in the... ?back in the neck?... just above C7. O.Connor said it was approximately dead center in the midline of the back.

Just above C7! Agrees  with Burkley on the position in the back.

On the death certificate that Burkley signed, the back wound was located ?at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra? (ARRB MD6, p.2).
The autopsy descriptive sheet, the pathologists? official diagram of the wounds to the body, placed the back wound in the same location. Burkley signed the sheet, ?Verified? (ARRB MD1).

Sibert and On'Neill report.
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.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on April 14, 2018, 02:26:03 PM
It is obvious that Nickerson cannot cite any evidence showing that the throat wound was ever tracked or probed, therefore, he cannot show that there was any connection between the back wound and the throat wound.

In short, his beloved WC's SBT is sunk.
That is not evidence that the bullet did not go through. The evidence that it did go through JFK's neck is the following:
1. There was an entry wound on the back.
2. There was an exit wound in the neck (this is confirmed by the holes in the shirt and the abrasion on the tie knot.
3. There was no bullet in JFK.

This is consistent with a shot from the SN:
4. There was evidence of a sniper in the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD.
5. The angle through JFK of the bullet path is consistent with a shot from the SN going undeflected through JFK if JFK was turned slightly right as he appears in the zfilm.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on April 14, 2018, 04:02:53 PM
 3 out 5 Pretty good
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on April 14, 2018, 04:56:15 PM
 On a different tact, I am a bit curious about the claim that when we see Connally's shirt puff up at one of the first couple of frames as the motorcade emerges from behind the sign is proof he is shot at the same time as the President Clearly JFK is already reacting before this frame How is that possible?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 14, 2018, 05:18:06 PM
On a different tact, I am a bit curious about the claim that when we see Connally's shirt puff up at one of the first couple of frames as the motorcade emerges from behind the sign is proof he is shot at the same time as the President Clearly JFK is already reacting before this frame How is that possible?

Where do you see JFK reacting prior to z225? What specifically is he doing that you interpret to be a reaction resulting from  being shot?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 14, 2018, 05:19:38 PM
O'Connor to the HSCA

O'Connor said for a while there was no discussion of any other wounds until later on, when they found the bullet wound in the... ?back in the neck?... just above C7. O.Connor said it was approximately dead center in the midline of the back.

Just above C7! Agrees  with Burkley on the position in the back.

On the death certificate that Burkley signed, the back wound was located ?at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra? (ARRB MD6, p.2).
The autopsy descriptive sheet, the pathologists? official diagram of the wounds to the body, placed the back wound in the same location. Burkley signed the sheet, ?Verified? (ARRB MD1).

Sibert and On'Neill report.
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.

Ray, are you alright?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on April 15, 2018, 08:15:11 PM
On a different tact, I am a bit curious about the claim that when we see Connally's shirt puff up at one of the first couple of frames as the motorcade emerges from behind the sign is proof he is shot at the same time as the President Clearly JFK is already reacting before this frame How is that possible?
You are quite right. From z195 to z226 JFK changes both his body position/hand position and facial expression. The change in appearance of JBC's jacket could not be from a bullet that struck JFK at z224 because the changes in JFK occurred before the change in jacket appearance..

The zfilm is not clear enough to conclude that the front of JBC's jacket moves outward. The change between z223 and z224 appears to be the reverse of the change from 222 to 223. What is seen is a change in the amount of white shirt, which could be due to a change in light or jacket movement. It could have the same cause as JFK's change in appearance if JFK was shot in the neck enough time before z224 to allow him to react to it and the change in appearance of JBC's jacket is caused by JBC beginning to react to hearing the shot. In any event, there is abundant evidence that there was only one shot at this point. There is consistent evidence that JFK was hit by the first shot and JBC was hit in the torso by the second. That tells you that JBC is reacting to something other than his chest wound. He said he reacted to hearing the first shot.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on April 15, 2018, 09:30:23 PM
Cite your supporting evidence for each of your points. You won't be able to of course because it doesn't exist.
1. and 2. Robert Frazier 5 H 59-62. 3. JFK autopsy xrays show no bullet in the body. 4. Howard Brennan, Robert Jackson, Mrs. Cabell, Amos Euins all saw the rifle in the 6th floor window. Bonnie Ray Williams, Harold Norman and James Jarman also heard a bolt action rifle being fired 3 times in the same location. 5. The HSCA report beginning at 41 outlines the trajectory evidence of the path from the SN through JFK's neck.

Quote
Many of the medical witnesses said that the throat wound was one of entry. One doctor said that IF it was one of exit then the bullet that caused the small wound only had the energy to "drop out" of JFK's throat. Obviously it wouldn't have the energy to go on and do all the damage to JBC as claimed.

Even the WCR said that it was PROBABLY a wound of exit. Probably leaves conjecture. Autopsies are NOT conducted to leave conjecture.

All this has been, and will be, covered in my "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" series.
In order to determine whether the back wound is an entry or exit wound one has to consider all the evidence. None of the doctors had examined the clothing. Frazier did that examination. He was never contradicted.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on April 16, 2018, 03:02:38 AM
The HSCA report beginning at 41 outlines the trajectory evidence of the path from the SN through JFK's neck.to consider all the evidence. None of the doctors had examined the clothing. Frazier did that examination. He was never contradicted.
[/quote]
 
 Maybe this not what you are suggesting but forensic pathology is science It does not take into account outside circumstances We have seen the pictures, examiners etc and we have heard from the witnesses Those are the facts in terms of the forensics I like forensics I think they are the bedrock  of cases They are certainly not superseded by mere opinions of a commission

 I am a litle confused Are you LN and still saying a separate bullet Connally ? One could say that I suppose if we considered the IFT (Incredible Frgament Theory)where a fragment of the third shot broke off and hit Tague


Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on April 16, 2018, 04:54:23 AM

 Maybe this not what you are suggesting but forensic pathology is science.  It does not take into account outside circumstances.  We have seen the pictures, examiners etc and we have heard from the witnesses.  Those are the facts in terms of the forensics. I like forensics I think they are the bedrock  of cases They are certainly not superseded by mere opinions of a commission.
Forensics may or may not be useful. Some "forensic" analyses are not reliable without other evidence.  A good example is hair and fibre analysis. Other kinds of forensic "science" are simply unproven.  A good example is bullet lead analysis.  Remarkably, comparative bullet lead analysis was introduced without any testing of the theory.  When it was subjected to scrutiny, it was found to be completely unreliable (see: the Wikipedia article on CBLA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_bullet-lead_analysis) ).  Another example is jiggle analysis.  Until it can be tested and shown to consistently and accurately identify shots from just the camera jiggles (which has never been done) it remains junk science.

Quote
I am a litle confused Are you LN and still saying a separate bullet Connally ? One could say that I suppose if we considered the IFT (Incredible Frgament Theory)where a fragment of the third shot broke off and hit Tague
I accept that Oswald was the lone assassin because there is overwhelming, consistent evidence and no evidence that anyone else was involved.  I do not accept the SBT because there is overwhelming evidence that:
1. the first shot was after z186.
2. the first shot struck JFK
3. the second shot struck JBC.
4. the only evidence we have is that a fragment from the second shot struck James Tague. This is corroborated somewhat by Wm. Greer who heard a concussion on the second shot - which is likely when fragments caused the windshield damage in the president's limo.
5. the shot pattern was 1......2...3, the last two being closer together - see my summary here (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf). 

So there was only one shot before the midpoint between 1 and 3.  That puts the second shot after z256.  This fits with Hickey (who said he was looking at JFK at the time of the second shot and saw JFK's hair lift on the side of his head and thought it missed - he was turned backward until sometime after z255 - Altgens) , Greer (said he turned around immediately after the second shot - he turns at z280 or so), and Altgens (who said his z255 photo was after the first and before any other shot).  Nothing conflicts with JBC being hit after z270 except subjective interpretations of some people (including, ironically, the Connallys themselves) as to when the Governor looked like he was hit.

6. there is evidence from Hickey and the zfilm that a second shot at z272 barely missed JFK.
7. a separate shot at about z272 striking JBC's fifth rib, deflecting slightly to go along the rib for a few inches on the outside of the rib and then penetrating the rib and exiting, striking JBC on the top of the right radius that was pressed against chest  is consistent with the position of the body and wrist.  However, the bullet should have deflected away from the point of contact, which was on the top, distal side of the radius.  That is consistent with the bullet fragmenting and fragments striking the top of the windshield and at least one going over the windshield. That is consistent with the evidence that Tague was struck on the second shot and Greer sensed a "concussion" on the second shot.
8. the trajectory of a shot through JBC striking his wrist and then his thigh never works at any position.  However, there is a distinct possibility that the first shot through JFK proceeded downward and to JBC's left and struck his left thigh, butt first. That is consistent with the condition of CE399 and the wound characteristics of the thigh.

Three shots, three hits.  A second shot at z272 leaves just enough time for Oswald to fire a third by z313. There is abundant evidence that the last shot was fired quickly after the second. All wounds are explained. It is really just a matter of seeing what the evidence says and putting aside "expert" opinions of what people thing JBC is doing in the zfilm.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 17, 2018, 12:09:15 AM
1. and 2. Robert Frazier 5 H 59-62. 3. JFK autopsy xrays show no bullet in the body.

That doesn't tell you anything about whether there was a bullet in the body at Parkland...or in the limo.

Quote
4. Howard Brennan, Robert Jackson, Mrs. Cabell, Amos Euins all saw the rifle in the 6th floor window.

Not quite.  Cabell saw a "projection".  Euins saw a "pipe thing".

Quote
Bonnie Ray Williams, Harold Norman and James Jarman also heard a bolt action rifle being fired 3 times in the same location.

None of them mentioned anything about hearing a bolt action rifle in their first day affidavits.  And BRW said TWO shots.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 17, 2018, 12:15:10 AM
I accept that Oswald was the lone assassin because there is overwhelming, consistent evidence and no evidence that anyone else was involved.

There is not overwhelming, consistent evidence that Oswald killed JFK.  There's speculation and conjecture, and a little bit of weak, indirect, inconsistent, tainted, circumstantial evidence.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on April 17, 2018, 10:50:24 AM
There is not overwhelming, consistent evidence that Oswald killed JFK.  There's speculation and conjecture, and a little bit of weak, indirect, inconsistent, tainted, circumstantial evidence.
So you would say that Vincent Bugliosi's 52 points are weak? How is it that one can point to 52 different circumstances, all pointing to Oswald as the murderer?

Even Oswald's brother and daughter and, until recently perhaps, his wife, accept that he did the deed.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on April 17, 2018, 03:31:42 PM
Long term memory loss or not on the old board before it was taken down?

That list was picked apart and destroyed several times.

Usually popped up after some LN's mountain-of-evidence got flattened.

And you, apparently, as if that was evidence of anything.
[/quote

 Daughter did not sat she believes he did it Though there are two daughters I believe Mom said he did not do it
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on April 17, 2018, 05:31:46 PM
Long term memory loss or not on the old board before it was taken down?

That list was picked apart and destroyed several times. Usually popped up after some LN's mountain-of-evidence got flattened.
The point about circumstantial evidence is that each piece by itself means little. It is the collective effect (including even weak pieces of evidence) of all these circumstances that proves the case.  The question is: is it possible that there could be an innocent person to whom all these pieces of circumstantial evidence point?  The actions of Oswald immediately after the assassination are key pieces of evidence.  The answer that most reasonable people who have examined the evidence is "no". 

You do not attack circumstantial evidence by raising doubts about individual pieces of evidence. There is just too much of it in this case to succeed in doing that. You do it by showing that the circumstantial evidence is consistent with an innocent explanation.


Quote
And you, apparently, as if that was evidence of anything.
It is not evidence of anything except that three people who had the greatest interest in convincing themselves that Oswald was innocent could not reach that conclusion from this evidence.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on April 17, 2018, 08:58:45 PM
  The question is: is it possible that there could be an innocent person to whom all these pieces of circumstantial evidence point?  The actions of Oswald immediately after the assassination are key pieces of evidence.

 A conspiracy's purpose would of course be aimed to create evidence to frame an individual, so a simple preponderance is not sufficient What do you think Oswald did immediately after?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 17, 2018, 11:17:27 PM
A conspiracy's purpose would of course be aimed to create evidence to frame an individual, so a simple preponderance is not sufficient What do you think Oswald did immediately after?

Thanked his lucky stars when he wasn't held at the TSBD.
Made sure he wasn't caught at home.
Panicked and shot Tippit, the poor dumb cop.
Panicked at the TT

That's it. It's all over now.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 17, 2018, 11:56:13 PM
So you would say that Vincent Bugliosi's 52 points are weak? How is it that one can point to 52 different circumstances, all pointing to Oswald as the murderer?

One cannot.  Most of the "53" aren't evidence at all.  He left his wedding ring in a cup.  He preferred Dr Pepper to Coke.  He wasn't chatty with the cab driver.  He didn't read the newspaper in the domino room that day.

Quote
Even Oswald's brother and daughter and, until recently perhaps, his wife, accept that he did the deed.

Is that supposedly evidence too?  Which daughter, though?  I wasn't aware that either one of them accepted this.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 18, 2018, 12:02:38 AM
The point about circumstantial evidence is that each piece by itself means little. It is the collective effect (including even weak pieces of evidence) of all these circumstances that proves the case.

In this case, the collective effect also means little, because almost none of your "evidence" actually points to Oswald.

Quote
The actions of Oswald immediately after the assassination are key pieces of evidence.

No they aren't.  You're taking what Oswald did and speculating that they are the actions of a guilty person.  That's not evidence.

Quote
You do not attack circumstantial evidence by raising doubts about individual pieces of evidence. There is just too much of it in this case to succeed in doing that.

No, there really isn't.  Once you try to enumerate it, that becomes patently obvious.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 18, 2018, 12:08:53 AM
June said she wanted to see more evidence. Marina changed her mind years later.
That makes 2 out of 3 for your side.

You can count Rachel out too.


Quote
Uncle Vinnie says he could convict on 20% of Bug53
Your man would still fry, son.

Not unlike you and other LNers on this forum, Uncle Vinnie mistook arrogance for truth.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 18, 2018, 12:12:19 AM
Thanked his lucky stars when he wasn't held at the TSBD.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Quote
Made sure he wasn't caught at home.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Quote
Panicked and shot Tippit, the poor dumb cop.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Quote
Panicked at the TT

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Quote
That's it. It's all over now.

Assumes facts not in evidence.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 18, 2018, 05:01:22 AM
edit
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 18, 2018, 05:04:36 AM
You can count Rachel out too.


Not unlike you and other LNers on this forum, Uncle Vinnie mistook arrogance for truth.

Your boy would fry, son
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Ray Mitcham on April 18, 2018, 08:19:07 AM
Your boy would fry, son

Like many innocent people in the past.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 18, 2018, 05:28:41 PM
Your boy would fry, son

Sadly, these crap one-liners are the only thing Chapman has got.  Anything to avoid actually talking about the evidence.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 18, 2018, 05:42:11 PM
Sadly, these crap one-liners are the only thing Chapman has got.  Anything to avoid actually talking about the evidence.

Crybaby

You lot are silly and highly mockable

I've come to my conclusion
No need to seek your approval

This case is a slam dunk
Your boy would fry, son

 
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 18, 2018, 07:23:21 PM
Crybaby

You lot are silly and highly mockable

I've come to my conclusion
No need to seek your approval

This case is a slam dunk
Your boy would fry, son

I'm not crying, nor is he my boy, or me your son.  Condescension doesn't make your claims any more compelling.

It's easy to come to a conclusion.  Justifying it is a different matter.  If the answer is "faith", then why don't you just say so?

Here's another question you will avoid like the plague: 

what about this case makes it a "slam dunk"?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 18, 2018, 07:24:06 PM
The CT mantra

Empty posturing is your mantra.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Bernd Werner on April 30, 2018, 09:03:19 PM
Doctors who saw the wound pre-tracheotomy said it was an entrance wound. Their reasoning: The shock

wave from a rifle bullet would have created more damage and left a much larger exit wound in the front of

JFK's throat.

Unfortunately these doctors had no experience with wound ballistics, so there reasoning was just the guess of laymen.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 30, 2018, 09:34:28 PM
Which is at best a wild speculation by Sibert an O'Neill, or is there any evidence supporting this path?

Do you think Sibert and O'Neill just made this up?  Or were they reporting what they heard the autopsy doctors saying?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 30, 2018, 09:55:30 PM
I know, that there was no analysis of the bullet path of the non lethal wound. If this path was not analysed, no definite assertion about the angle of the entering bullet could be made.

Then why did the autopsy doctors make that assertion?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Bernd Werner on April 30, 2018, 10:02:54 PM
Then why did the autopsy doctors make that assertion?

I don't know, I don't even know, if they even stated it. All I know is, that the bullet path was not probed, and that guys, that refuse the single bullet theory use this as an argument, if it matches their believes. It is quite funny, that you ignore this now, as it doesn't fit!
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 30, 2018, 10:04:26 PM
I don't know, I don't even know, if they even stated it. All I know is, that the bullet path was not probed, and that guys, that refuse the single bullet theory use this as an argument, if it matches their believes. It is quite funny, that you ignore this now, as it doesn't fit!

So if your point is that the autopsy doctors didn't know what they were doing, I'll go along with that.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on April 30, 2018, 10:22:56 PM
 Bernard  said

I know, that there was no analysis of the bullet path of the non lethal wound. If this path was not analysed, no definite assertion about the angle of the entering bullet could be made. If anyone cites this angle as evidence against the single bullet theory, I'd call this person disingenuous! I for myself try to relate on actual evidence.


 Matt replies  Who has ever asserted this? Folks cite that most of them thought it was an entrance wound, but the angle? I don't get it
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Mike Orr on May 01, 2018, 06:36:23 PM
 Specter asked Pierre Finck, " Could CE 399 have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?"

 "No," Finck replied, " for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist," the problem being as Finck put it, " there was practically no loss of this bullet."
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 01, 2018, 07:53:53 PM
Specter asked Pierre Finck, " Could CE 399 have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?"

 "No," Finck replied, " for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist," the problem being as Finck put it, " there was practically no loss of this bullet."

Finck was wrong. There were five fragments in the wrist. One of the five was considerably larger than the other four. If all five fragments had been the size of the largest, their combined mass would still not exceed the amount of mass missing from CE-399.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 01, 2018, 08:43:30 PM
Finck was wrong.

That's easy for you to say.

Quote
There were five fragments in the wrist. One of the five was considerably larger than the other four. If all five fragments had been the size of the largest, their combined mass would still not exceed the amount of mass missing from CE-399.

That would require that you know what the starting mass of CE399 was...
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Mike Orr on May 01, 2018, 11:58:10 PM
Ballistics evidence for CE 399 which was barely distorted and almost whole despite claims that it broke 10cm of Connally's 5th rib and shattered his radius ( wrist )and had a fragment or fragments left in his thigh that were not removed . CE 399 also has a very dubious chain of possession . This alone would probably result in CE 399 not being allowed as evidence in a court .
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Bernd Werner on May 02, 2018, 09:31:44 PM
So if your point is that the autopsy doctors didn't know what they were doing, I'll go along with that.

I know one further thing: Everyone, who mastered high school maths, should be able to figure out, that an entering angle of 45? is just ridiculous!

Matt replies  Who has ever asserted this? Folks cite that most of them thought it was an entrance wound, but the angle? I don't get it

I think you should read this thread, this claim was posted not long ago!
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 02, 2018, 10:48:30 PM
I know one further thing: Everyone, who mastered high school maths, should be able to figure out, that an entering angle of 45? is just ridiculous!

I think you should read this thread, this claim was posted not long ago!

 I am not disputing that an estimate of the angle might very well be wrong, but my question is basically so what? Maybe I could phrase it better, but I do not get the overall significance of this point in the bigger picture
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 03, 2018, 12:47:40 AM
Finck was wrong. There were five fragments in the wrist. One of the five was considerably larger than the other four. If all five fragments had been the size of the largest, their combined mass would still not exceed the amount of mass missing from CE-399.

What was the mass missing from CE-399?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Mytton on May 03, 2018, 12:56:38 AM
What was the mass missing from CE-399?



Are you people still trying this old game, YAWN!
The truth of the matter is that whoever planted a whole bullet had absolutely no idea of how many fragments would be retrieved from ongoing surgery and had no idea of how many bullets or fragments would be discovered, so you want us to believe that some guy took a wild guess and planted a bullet that just happens to satisfy all the medical criteria and recovered physical evidence, yeah sure pull the other one it plays jingle bells.


JohnM
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 03, 2018, 01:01:22 AM


Are you people still trying this old game, YAWN!
The truth of the matter is that whoever planted a whole bullet had absolutely no idea of how many fragments would be retrieved from ongoing surgery and had no idea of how many bullets or fragments would be discovered, so you want us to believe that some guy took a wild guess and planted a bullet that just happens to satisfy all the medical criteria and recovered physical evidence, yeah sure pull the other one it plays jingle bells.


JohnM


 I am not sure how many of us suggest it was a planted bullet More likely it ids the bullet that fell out of JFK's back wound and folks took it from there to meet their needs
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Mytton on May 03, 2018, 01:02:55 AM

 I am not sure how many of us suggest it was a planted bullet More likely it ids the bullet that fell out of JFK's back wound and folks took it from there to meet their needs






A bullet entering from the front or back?



JohnM
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 03, 2018, 01:09:26 AM
Are you people still trying this old game, YAWN!
The truth of the matter is that whoever planted a whole bullet had absolutely no idea of how many fragments would be retrieved from ongoing surgery and had no idea of how many bullets or fragments would be discovered, so you want us to believe that some guy took a wild guess and planted a bullet that just happens to satisfy all the medical criteria and recovered physical evidence, yeah sure pull the other one it plays jingle bells.

And by "old game", you mean exposing your bad arguments.

You either have evidence that CE399 was involved in the assassination or you don't.

And you don't.

You can't even show that CE399 was the same bullet that Tomlinson found.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 03, 2018, 01:25:05 AM
And by "old game", you mean exposing your bad arguments.

You either have evidence that CE399 was involved in the assassination or you don't.

And you don't.

You can't even show that CE399 was the same bullet that Tomlinson found.

Back
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Mytton on May 03, 2018, 01:25:38 AM
And by "old game", you mean exposing your bad arguments.

You either have evidence that CE399 was involved in the assassination or you don't.

And you don't.

You can't even show that CE399 was the same bullet that Tomlinson found.



So you have no answers either, no worries, thanks for your participation.



JohnM
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 03, 2018, 01:40:41 AM
So you have no answers either, no worries, thanks for your participation.

Sure, I have an answer.  The answer is that you have utterly failed to prove your case that Oswald shot JFK.  Again.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Mytton on May 03, 2018, 02:13:46 AM
Sure, I have an answer.  The answer is that you have utterly failed to prove your case that Oswald shot JFK.  Again.


Quote
Sure, I have an answer.

No you don't.

Quote
The answer is that you have utterly failed to prove your case that Oswald shot JFK.

I don't know how many times I have to tell you, a defence lawyer doesn't get to be a jury on his own case, it's unethical!

Quote
Again.

Like that makes a difference?



JohnM
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 03, 2018, 04:26:58 AM
What was the mass missing from CE-399?

Taking the average of the three WCC 6.5mm bullets weighed by FBI agent Robert Frazier and subtracting the weight of CE-399:

160.85 + 161.5 + 161.1 grains = 483.45

483.45 ? 3 = 161.15 grains

161.15 - 158.6 = 2.55 grains missing from CE-399
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Mytton on May 03, 2018, 04:51:07 AM
Taking the average of the three WCC 6.5mm bullets weighed by FBI agent Robert Frazier and subtracting the weight of CE-399:

160.85 + 161.5 + 161.1 grains = 483.45

483.45 ? 3 = 161.15 grains

161.15 - 158.6 = 2.55 grains missing from CE-399



Yep, John Lattimer extruded the same amount of lead that was missing from CE399 and made 41 similar sized pieces.

(https://s18.postimg.cc/hch0z5qsp/john_lattimer_sbf_lead.jpg)



JohnM
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 03, 2018, 06:09:02 PM
Taking the average of the three WCC 6.5mm bullets weighed by FBI agent Robert Frazier and subtracting the weight of CE-399:

160.85 + 161.5 + 161.1 grains = 483.45

483.45 ? 3 = 161.15 grains

161.15 - 158.6 = 2.55 grains missing from CE-399

 From Lattimer
Since bullet 399 weighed 158.6 grains when found, we
have assumed that it lost between 1.2 grains and 2.9 grains,
with a mean probability of 2.2 grains.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/wound3.txt
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Bernd Werner on May 03, 2018, 09:44:38 PM
I am not disputing that an estimate of the angle might very well be wrong, but my question is basically so what? Maybe I could phrase it better, but I do not get the overall significance of this point in the bigger picture

Well, let's work this out! Why could it be significant, if someone uses an angle as an argument against the single bullet theory, that is just ridiculous? Just as a reminder: You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out, basic trigonometry is enough.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 03, 2018, 11:53:59 PM
I don't know how many times I have to tell you, a defence lawyer doesn't get to be a jury on his own case, it's unethical!

But the prosecuting lawyer does?

(http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/raspberry_1325.JPG)

This isn't about lawyering.  You can either demonstrate that your argument is true, or you cannot.

And it's "defense".  Speak English.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 03, 2018, 11:55:13 PM
Taking the average of the three WCC 6.5mm bullets weighed by FBI agent Robert Frazier and subtracting the weight of CE-399:

Translation: you don't actually know the starting weight of CE399.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 04, 2018, 04:52:20 AM
Taking the average of the three WCC 6.5mm bullets weighed by FBI agent Robert Frazier and subtracting the weight of CE-399:

160.85 + 161.5 + 161.1 grains = 483.45

483.45 ? 3 = 161.15 grains

161.15 - 158.6 = 2.55 grains missing from CE-399

So CE-399 was slightly below avg in mass if your numbers are accurate, which I doubt. But where on the MB did the fragments originate from? The MB looked slightly flattened and not missing any material to me. What is the variance of mass with a FMJ bullet of this type anyway? When you find that out, let's talk.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 04, 2018, 04:49:53 PM
 Speaking of non sequiturs. the idea that no fragments would exist in chest where the bullet fractured a rib, but instead the only fragments would be near the much smaller bones in the wrist certainly meets the criteria for me
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 04, 2018, 08:13:58 PM
Speaking of non sequiturs. the idea that no fragments would exist in chest where the bullet fractured a rib, but instead the only fragments would be near the much smaller bones in the wrist certainly meets the criteria for me

The rib bone is much thinner than the radius and probably not as hard. Four lead fragments were surgically removed from Connally. There were no fragments known to be left in Connally other than the tiny one in his thigh and a tiny one in his wrist. The CT claim that the mass of fragments deposited in Connally exceeded the mass missing from CE-399 does not even come close to holding water.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 04, 2018, 08:16:41 PM
So CE-399 was slightly below avg in mass if your numbers are accurate, which I doubt. But where on the MB did the fragments originate from? The MB looked slightly flattened and not missing any material to me. What is the variance of mass with a FMJ bullet of this type anyway? When you find that out, let's talk.

The lead fragments came from the base of the bullet.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 04, 2018, 08:32:23 PM
The rib bone is much thinner than the radius and probably not as hard. Four lead fragments were surgically removed from Connally. There were no fragments known to be left in Connally other than the tiny one in his thigh and a tiny one in his wrist. The CT claim that the mass of fragments deposited in Connally exceeded the mass missing from CE-399 does not even come close to holding water.

 I have seen that there is some evidence to question whether that fragments removed from Connally is in question, though I cannot find more on that As far as the radius being larger and stronger, I see no proof of that, though it seems hard to find facts on that. However the bullet when it hit the ribs would have been significantly greater than when it hit the wrist and would again reinforce the notion that we should have seen fragments from that impact
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 04, 2018, 10:31:18 PM
The rib bone is much thinner than the radius and probably not as hard. Four lead fragments were surgically removed from Connally. There were no fragments known to be left in Connally other than the tiny one in his thigh and a tiny one in his wrist. The CT claim that the mass of fragments deposited in Connally exceeded the mass missing from CE-399 does not even come close to holding water.

LN-ers believe what the autopsy doctors said, except when they don't.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 05, 2018, 02:50:30 AM
I have seen that there is some evidence to quest;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;ion whether that fragments removed from Connally is in question, though I cannot find more on that As far as the radius being larger and stronger, I see no proof of that, though it seems hard to find facts on that. However the bullet when it hit the ribs would have been significantly greater than when it hit the wrist and would again reinforce the notion that we should have seen fragments from that impact

Ribs are long, flat, curved bones no more than a centimeter or two in width and a few millimeters in depth.

http://www.innerbody.com/anatomy/skeletal/upper-torso#continlued

"The distal end of the radius is large and of quadrilateral form."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radius_(bone)

Also, the bullet struck the wrist bone base forward. That could explain why so many lead fragments were deposited there.

The CT claim that the mass of fragments deposited in Connally exceeded the mass missing from CE-399 does not even come close to holding water.

Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Mike Orr on May 05, 2018, 04:49:43 AM
    If CE 399 was found on a stretcher that can't even be identified as John Connally's stretcher then we would have to think that there is no chain of possession from when the bullet was found . You work your way back from the scene and the only way back from this scene starts with a clean bullet ( No blood or anything else on the bullet found ) . The evidence in the JFK murder is very weak . The front entry wound on JFK's neck actually closed back up to the way it looked which was a small neat hole that looked like an entry wound and it looked like it did before the incision was made for the tracheostomy at Parkland and it sure didn't look like the wound we see at Bethesda which looks like a garbled mess of flesh at his neck. The top of JFK's head was not missing at Parkland as it was at Bethesda where Thomas Robinson said " Oh the Drs. did that " . It sounds like whoever was running the show at Bethesda was sure trying to make it look like all the shots were from the 6th floor.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jim Brunsman on May 05, 2018, 03:19:59 PM
I think Mike makes a couple of important points. First, there are chain of possession problems on virtually everything in the case. But he also mentions Tom Robinson's eyewitness account of the doctors using a saw on the president's skull prior to the official autopsy. This is clearly the "surgery of the head area" the FBI agents reported. This is extremely important evidence and it helps explain the subterfuge perpetrated on the world. It's almost impossible to believe, but David Lifton and Douglas Horne were correct in their painstaking research. However, we still don't have a definitive account of what happened in the Bethesda morgue on 11/22/63.

I have a related question for everyone. Does anyone know who selected Humes and Boswell for the autopsy of the century? With the greatest forensic pathologists in the world theoretically available to conduct this immensely important examination, they select a couple of administrators?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 05, 2018, 03:39:34 PM
 Just for the record debating about the mass that is missing fro CE 399, for me at least, is in now way giving it validity to all it has claimed to have done Just an exercise in curiosity, and having the potential to shoot down the theory from yet another angle
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Howard Gee on May 05, 2018, 07:27:14 PM
Autopsy proves SBT impossible ??

Not even close.

If one accepts that JFK's back wound was an entry wound and that no bullet was found in the body, it stands to reason that the bullet transversed his body and could have gone on to strike JBC. 

So, no, the autopsy doesn't prove the SBT impossible.

I guess it's possible that somehow the bullet that entered JFK's back fell out and was never recovered, but that leaves the CTs another conundrum.

If the bullet that struck JFK in the back did not pass through his body and the throat wound is indeed an entrance wound, then where did the bullet that caused the throat wound go ?

I'm sure one of the geniuses here that claim the SBT is an impossibility has a logical answer.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Mike Orr on May 05, 2018, 07:40:09 PM
      Jim B.
Dr. Humes : Well , I was summoned from my home late in afternoon of that day (Nov.22,1963) by the Surgeon General of the Navy and the Commanding officer of the Naval Medical Center, and the Commanding Officer of the Navy Medical school, and much to my surprise, was told that the body of the late President was being brought to our laboratories and that I was to examine the President and ascertain his cause of death.

        mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscahume.htm
 
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 05, 2018, 09:06:02 PM
Autopsy proves SBT impossible ??

Not even close.

If one accepts that JFK's back wound was an entry wound and that no bullet was found in the body, it stands to reason that the bullet transversed his body and could have gone on to strike JBC. 

So, no, the autopsy doesn't prove the SBT impossible.

I guess it's possible that somehow the bullet that entered JFK's back fell out and was never recovered, but that leaves the CTs another conundrum.

If the bullet that struck JFK in the back did not pass through his body and the throat wound is indeed an entrance wound, then where did the bullet that caused the throat wound go ?

I'm sure one of the geniuses here that claim the SBT is an impossibility has a logical answer.

 James Young was a Navy doctor in 63


?Letter From James Young to Gerald Ford (Excerpted)

Dear President Ford,

I was active-duty Navy and assigned to the White House as White House Physician in 1963, when President Kennedy was assassinated?

Knowing that you were on the Warren Commission at that time, I am writing to you confidentially, to see if you have any knowledge about an issue which has puzzled me for years?

My particular problem is a description of what occurred at the autopsy. During the autopsy examination, Dr. Jim Humes, then the Chief of Pathology at Bethesda Naval Hospital, and two other pathologists stated that some pieces of President Kennedy?s skull bones were missing. In order to reconstruct the President?s head for burial, Dr. Humes wanted to find those pieces which were missing. Dr. Burkley and I requested two of our corpsmen who were assigned to our White House medical unit, to go to the Executive Office Building where the Secret Service had placed the ?Queen Mary,? the open convertible in which President Kennedy had been shot, for bone fragments.

Two of the corpsmen left and returned sometime later with three varying sized pieces of President Kennedy?s skull bones. In addition, they brought back in an envelope a spent misshapen bullet which they had found on the back floor of the ?Queen Mary? where they had found the pieces of skull bones. The bullet and pieces of skull were given to Dr. Jim Humes.

Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jim Brunsman on May 06, 2018, 12:56:36 AM
Thanks Mike. I was aware of Humes' testimony on this matter, but I wondered if LBJ or one of his minions called....
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jim Brunsman on May 06, 2018, 01:16:24 AM
The newbie is not only arrogant but misinformed. Do your research on what the autopsy witnesses said. There was considerable confusion about how the back wound did not exit the president. Again, tired of explaining this, but unless you can manufacture another wound on the rear of the president's body that DID exit on the front, the imbecilic SBT is COMPLETELY OBLITERATED. Never mind all the other evidence that shows the theory is total nonsense. The official autopsy report is such a pack of lies, it should be featured in every forensic textbook as an example of how NOT to conduct an autopsy.
You state:
"If one accepts that JFK's back wound was an entry wound and that no bullet was found in the body, it stands to reason that the bullet transversed his body and could have gone on to strike JBC." No, remember, Humes probed the wound and could feel the end of it with his finger. THE BULLET DID NOT TRAVERSE THE BODY. How could this bullet have been a threat to JBC? Come on SBT folks, let's hear more nonsense explanations of this!
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 06, 2018, 01:30:40 AM
The newbie is not only arrogant but misinformed. Do your research on what the autopsy witnesses said. There was considerable confusion about how the back wound did not exit the president. Again, tired of explaining this, but unless you can manufacture another wound on the rear of the president's body that DID exit on the front, the imbecilic SBT is COMPLETELY OBLITERATED. Never mind all the other evidence that shows the theory is total nonsense. The official autopsy report is such a pack of lies, it should be featured in every forensic textbook as an example of how NOT to conduct an autopsy.
You state:
"If one accepts that JFK's back wound was an entry wound and that no bullet was found in the body, it stands to reason that the bullet transversed his body and could have gone on to strike JBC." No, remember, Humes probed the wound and could feel the end of it with his finger. THE BULLET DID NOT TRAVERSE THE BODY. How could this bullet have been a threat to JBC? Come on SBT folks, let's hear more nonsense explanations of this!

You are a BLOWHARD. The SBT has in no way been obliterated. It hasn't even been scratched.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 06, 2018, 01:46:57 AM
The newbie is not only arrogant but misinformed. Do your research on what the autopsy witnesses said. There was considerable confusion about how the back wound did not exit the president. Again, tired of explaining this, but unless you can manufacture another wound on the rear of the president's body that DID exit on the front, the imbecilic SBT is COMPLETELY OBLITERATED. Never mind all the other evidence that shows the theory is total nonsense. The official autopsy report is such a pack of lies, it should be featured in every forensic textbook as an example of how NOT to conduct an autopsy.
You state:
"If one accepts that JFK's back wound was an entry wound and that no bullet was found in the body, it stands to reason that the bullet transversed his body and could have gone on to strike JBC." No, remember, Humes probed the wound and could feel the end of it with his finger. THE BULLET DID NOT TRAVERSE THE BODY. How could this bullet have been a threat to JBC? Come on SBT folks, let's hear more nonsense explanations of this!

 Don't forget that the missing X ray from Bethesda was supposedly an image of JFK's upper lung, so it is possible the bullet id inside of JFK's chest IMO
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 06, 2018, 02:10:10 AM
Don't forget that the missing X ray from Bethesda was supposedly an image of JFK's upper lung, so it is possible the bullet id inside of JFK's chest IMO

There is no missing x-ray.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 06, 2018, 05:31:54 AM
There is no missing x-ray.

." (7 HSCA 115)
The next nail on the box demonstrating forgery or tampering
with the autopsy photographs and X-rays is Dr. Humes' clear
statements about having taken chest photographs, which are
missing from the National Archives: "That's one photograph that
we were distressed not to find when we first went through and
catalogued these photographs, (in 1966-7) because I distinctly
recall going to great lengths to try and get the interior upper
6
portion of the right thorax illuminated--you know the technical
difficulties with that, getting the camera positioned and so
forth, and what happened to that film, I don't know. There were
a couple of films that apparently had been exposed to light or
whatever and then not developed, but we never saw that
photograph." (7 HSCA 253) This is more evidence of Robert
Bouck's "burn party."
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 06, 2018, 05:37:11 AM
." (7 HSCA 115)
The next nail on the box demonstrating forgery or tampering
with the autopsy photographs and X-rays is Dr. Humes' clear
statements about having taken chest photographs, which are
missing from the National Archives: "That's one photograph that
we were distressed not to find when we first went through and
catalogued these photographs, (in 1966-7) because I distinctly
recall going to great lengths to try and get the interior upper
6
portion of the right thorax illuminated--you know the technical
difficulties with that, getting the camera positioned and so
forth, and what happened to that film, I don't know. There were
a couple of films that apparently had been exposed to light or
whatever and then not developed, but we never saw that
photograph." (7 HSCA 253) This is more evidence of Robert
Bouck's "burn party."

Humes thought that a photograph of the opened upper chest had been taken. A photograph. It's unlikely that such a photograph was taken but that's another matter. There is no missing x-ray.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 06, 2018, 02:15:00 PM
Humes thought that a photograph of the opened upper chest had been taken. A photograph. It's unlikely that such a photograph was taken but that's another matter. There is no missing x-ray.

 Semantics Xray of the upper chest correct? Supposedly there is one but I cannot find it
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Gary Craig on May 06, 2018, 02:38:24 PM
Here is the Attorney General, in a taped phone call, telling LBJ they don't have the photo of JFK's right lung.
The one Humes testified was taken.


http://www.jfklancer.com/Clark.LBJ.html (http://www.jfklancer.com/Clark.LBJ.html)

http://www.jfklancer.com/Clark.LBJ.html

Date: 1-21-67 12:00 Noon

Time: 7 mins 25 secs at the end of a 8 mins 31 secs conversation

Phone Conversation between Acting Attorney General Ramsey Clark and President Lyndon Johnson
Re: Autopsy Photos

-snip-

"That is, there may be a photo missing. Dr. Humes, Commander and Naval doctor, testified before the Warren Commission that this one photo made of the highest portion of the right lung."

-snip-

"It could be contended that that photo could show the course and direction the bullet that entered the lower part of the neck and exited the front part."

-snip-

"We are left with one specific problem. Dr. Humes did testify before the Warren Commission there was such a photo [that] we don't have."


-snip-

Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 06, 2018, 03:26:58 PM
Here is the Attorney General, in a taped phone call, telling LBJ they don't have the photo of JFK's right lung.
The one Humes testified was taken.


http://www.jfklancer.com/Clark.LBJ.html (http://www.jfklancer.com/Clark.LBJ.html)

http://www.jfklancer.com/Clark.LBJ.html

Date: 1-21-67 12:00 Noon

Time: 7 mins 25 secs at the end of a 8 mins 31 secs conversation

 If the back shot did enter the upper lung , and not just the superficial of a couple of inches that Humes implies, then there is the problem of where is the bullet Stating the obvious I know, but the LN will come hunting that all this is all the riddle that falls at the feet of the CT

Phone Conversation between Acting Attorney General Ramsey Clark and President Lyndon Johnson
Re: Autopsy Photos

-snip-

"That is, there may be a photo missing. Dr. Humes, Commander and Naval doctor, testified before the Warren Commission that this one photo made of the highest portion of the right lung."

-snip-

"It could be contended that that photo could show the course and direction the bullet that entered the lower part of the neck and exited the front part."

-snip-

"We are left with one specific problem. Dr. Humes did testify before the Warren Commission there was such a photo [that] we don't have."


-snip-
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 06, 2018, 03:29:03 PM
The newbie is not only arrogant but misinformed. Do your research on what the autopsy witnesses said. There was considerable confusion about how the back wound did not exit the president. Again, tired of explaining this, but unless you can manufacture another wound on the rear of the president's body that DID exit on the front, the imbecilic SBT is COMPLETELY OBLITERATED. Never mind all the other evidence that shows the theory is total nonsense. The official autopsy report is such a pack of lies, it should be featured in every forensic textbook as an example of how NOT to conduct an autopsy.
You state:
"If one accepts that JFK's back wound was an entry wound and that no bullet was found in the body, it stands to reason that the bullet transversed his body and could have gone on to strike JBC." No, remember, Humes probed the wound and could feel the end of it with his finger. THE BULLET DID NOT TRAVERSE THE BODY. How could this bullet have been a threat to JBC? Come on SBT folks, let's hear more nonsense explanations of this!
What is more imbecilic? 1. to conclude that the probing of the wound path done by Humes was not determinative of the actual path, or 2. to conclude that a finger-sized bullet just stopped after penetrating a few inches of flesh and striking no bone and then disappeared?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 06, 2018, 03:39:39 PM
What is more imbecilic? 1. to conclude that the probing of the wound path done by Humes was not determinative of the actual path, or 2. to conclude that a finger-sized bullet just stopped after penetrating a few inches of flesh and striking no bone and then disappeared?

1-Humes told not to probe the path

2- The bullet you claimed disappeared appeared at either Parkland or with Dr Young

 Haven't we been through this before?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Howard Gee on May 06, 2018, 04:13:03 PM
What is more imbecilic? 1. to conclude that the probing of the wound path done by Humes was not determinative of the actual path, or 2. to conclude that a finger-sized bullet just stopped after penetrating a few inches of flesh and striking no bone and then disappeared?

I'll go with option 2.

Not to mention that those who insist that JFK's throat wound was an entrance wound are suggesting TWO disappearing bullets.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 06, 2018, 11:59:35 PM
What is more imbecilic? 1. to conclude that the probing of the wound path done by Humes was not determinative of the actual path, or 2. to conclude that a finger-sized bullet just stopped after penetrating a few inches of flesh and striking no bone and then disappeared?

 Could you elaborate on number one? You believe what Humes said or have you determined something else?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 07, 2018, 02:42:35 AM
Semantics Xray of the upper chest correct? Supposedly there is one but I cannot find it


(8.) Anterior-posterior view of the right shoulder and right chest on 14 x 17" film bearing the X-ray number 21296.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=594&search=x-rays_1966#relPageId=2&tab=page


(9) Anterior-posterior film of the chest on 14 x 17" film bearing the X-ray number 21296.

(10) Anterior-posterior view of the left shoulder and left chest on 14 x 17" film bearing the X-ray number 21296.

(11) Anterior-posterior view of the abdomen and lower chest on 14 x 17" film bearing the X-ray number 21296.


https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=594&search=x-rays_1966#relPageId=3&tab=page


Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 07, 2018, 02:25:51 PM
Could you elaborate on number one? You believe what Humes said or have you determined something else?
I believe what Humes' said: ie. in his testimony and his autopsy report.  In his testimony to the WC (2H361) he said:

Commander HUMES. .... Attempts to probe in the vicinity of this wound were unsuccessful without fear of making a false passage.
Mr. SPECTER. What do you mean by that, Doctor?
Commander HUMES. Well, the defect in the fascia was quite similar, which
is the first firm tissue over the muscle beneath the skin, was quite similar to
this. We were unable, however, to take probes and have them satisfactorily
fall through any definite path at this point.

In his autopsy report (CE387, 16H983) he said:

The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right, side of the neck. This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the
anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Bernd Werner on May 07, 2018, 09:15:45 PM
James Young was a Navy doctor in 63


?Letter From James Young to Gerald Ford (Excerpted)

Dear President Ford,

I was active-duty Navy and assigned to the White House as White House Physician in 1963, when President Kennedy was assassinated?

Knowing that you were on the Warren Commission at that time, I am writing to you confidentially, to see if you have any knowledge about an issue which has puzzled me for years?

My particular problem is a description of what occurred at the autopsy. During the autopsy examination, Dr. Jim Humes, then the Chief of Pathology at Bethesda Naval Hospital, and two other pathologists stated that some pieces of President Kennedy?s skull bones were missing. In order to reconstruct the President?s head for burial, Dr. Humes wanted to find those pieces which were missing. Dr. Burkley and I requested two of our corpsmen who were assigned to our White House medical unit, to go to the Executive Office Building where the Secret Service had placed the ?Queen Mary,? the open convertible in which President Kennedy had been shot, for bone fragments.

Two of the corpsmen left and returned sometime later with three varying sized pieces of President Kennedy?s skull bones. In addition, they brought back in an envelope a spent misshapen bullet which they had found on the back floor of the ?Queen Mary? where they had found the pieces of skull bones. The bullet and pieces of skull were given to Dr. Jim Humes.

Red Herring noticed.

Autopsy proves SBT impossible ??

Not even close.

If one accepts that JFK's back wound was an entry wound and that no bullet was found in the body, it stands to reason that the bullet transversed his body and could have gone on to strike JBC. 

So, no, the autopsy doesn't prove the SBT impossible.

That's absolutely correct.

Quote
I guess it's possible that somehow the bullet that entered JFK's back fell out and was never recovered, but that leaves the CTs another conundrum.

If the bullet that struck JFK in the back did not pass through his body and the throat wound is indeed an entrance wound, then where did the bullet that caused the throat wound go ?

This would be a good argument, if you didn't answer it right before: It fell out and was never recovered. ;)

Never mind all the other evidence that shows the theory is total nonsense.

But as this "evidence" doesn't exist ...

Quote
No, remember, Humes probed the wound and could feel the end of it with his finger. THE BULLET DID NOT TRAVERSE THE BODY. How could this bullet have been a threat to JBC? Come on SBT folks, let's hear more nonsense explanations of this!

Do you understand the concept of "rigor mortis"?

Semantics Xray of the upper chest correct? Supposedly there is one but I cannot find it

I found it for you, it is picture No. 12:

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 07, 2018, 10:43:50 PM
Red Herring noticed.


This would be a good argument, if you didn't answer it right before: It fell out and was never recovered. ;)


 Thanks for the link  to the photograph Pleass explain the red herring comment

 
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jim Brunsman on May 07, 2018, 11:41:43 PM
I guess I'm a "blowhard" because I stated my opinion based on many years of research on this case. Mr. Nickerson is wedded to an impossible theory and I can understand why his ego would be upset when the real evidence contradicts the moronic SBT. But you have to analyze all the evidence to arrive at this point. There was an obvious and bungled cover up that fooled quite a few people.

One question: Why is the Parkland evidence completely opposite the autopsy conclusions? Are you telling us that Clint Hill, and all the hospital staff were lying?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 08, 2018, 02:33:00 AM
Part 1 of destroying the SBT:

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/JFK_MB_C7.jpg)

The circle on the x-ray shows the damage caused by the MB. Looks like it smashed thru bone to me. But it looks kinda high on JFK to have come from the TSBD. LNers what do you think?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 08, 2018, 02:46:08 AM
Part 2 of destroying the SBT:

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

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/C7.png)
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 08, 2018, 02:52:54 AM
Part 3 of destroying the SBT:

LNers all, show us how the MB was possible.

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasers.jpg)

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

Good luck!
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jack Nessan on May 08, 2018, 02:33:19 PM
I guess I'm a "blowhard" because I stated my opinion based on many years of research on this case. Mr. Nickerson is wedded to an impossible theory and I can understand why his ego would be upset when the real evidence contradicts the moronic SBT. But you have to analyze all the evidence to arrive at this point. There was an obvious and bungled cover up that fooled quite a few people.

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


Given the alignment of JBC and JFK in the car and the use of jacketed military ammunition, how do you explain the location and trajectory of the elliptical wound in JBC's back if the bullet does not first pass through JFK?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 08, 2018, 03:07:37 PM

Given the alignment of JBC and JFK in the car and the use of jacketed military ammunition, how do you explain the location and trajectory of the elliptical wound in JBC's back if the bullet does not first pass through JFK?

 Maybe give it a Posner spin, so to speak, and say that it hit a tree branch
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 08, 2018, 08:40:27 PM

Given the alignment of JBC and JFK in the car and the use of jacketed military ammunition, how do you explain the location and trajectory of the elliptical wound in JBC's back if the bullet does not first pass through JFK?
An elliptical wound is made by a non-tumbling bullet striking nose first at an angle.  It cannot be made by a tumbling bullet. An ellipse is a symmetrical shape. 

A tumbling bullet makes an asymmetrical shape that looks either like the side profile of the bullet or is ovoid ie. egg-shaped (rounded at both ends but more pointed at one end than the other).

Dr. Shaw said the wound was "elliptical" not "ovoid".  Dr. Shaw made a point of noting that the bullet made a "tunneling" path through JBC.  That is consistent with a non-tumbling bullet and inconsistent with a tumbling bullet.

This just another example of the twisting of facts that proponents of the SBT make.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 08, 2018, 08:52:38 PM
An elliptical wound is made by a non-tumbling bullet striking nose first at an angle.  It cannot be made by a tumbling bullet. An ellipse is a symmetrical shape. 

A tumbling bullet makes an asymmetrical shape that looks either like the side profile of the bullet or is ovoid ie. egg-shaped (rounded at both ends but more pointed at one end than the other).

Dr. Shaw said the wound was "elliptical" not "ovoid".  Dr. Shaw made a point of noting that the bullet made a "tunneling" path through JBC.  That is consistent with a non-tumbling bullet and inconsistent with a tumbling bullet.

This just another example of the twisting of facts that proponents of the SBT make.

(https://i.imgur.com/9Kwbtek.png)
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 08, 2018, 08:56:11 PM
Part 1 of destroying the SBT:

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/JFK_MB_C7.jpg)

The circle on the x-ray shows the damage caused by the MB. Looks like it smashed thru bone to me. But it looks kinda high on JFK to have come from the TSBD. LNers what do you think?

It never touched bone.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 08, 2018, 08:59:09 PM
Part 2 of destroying the SBT:

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

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/C7.png)

You say that the bullet must have exited at T1 , yet your graphic has it exiting at C7.

How have you determined that the exit wound was at C6?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 08, 2018, 09:06:29 PM
It never touched bone.

Yes it did. It must have. At a 12 degree pitch, the bullet hits the spine as depicted on JFK's x-ray. You do trust the x-ray, don't you?

(http://www.readclip.com/images/MB_Back_T1_Throat_12.png)
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 08, 2018, 09:15:27 PM
You say that the bullet must have exited at T1 , yet your graphic has it exiting at C7.

No, draw a horizontal line from the point the bullet hits JFK's back. That is the bottom of C7. The bullet actually exits at T1. But don't trust my graphic BTW, I was giving you the full benefit of the doubt to help you out. I just couldn't fudge it enough to make it work.

Quote
How have you determined that the exit wound was at C6?

What vertebrae is just below your Adam's apple? Better yet, do my laser experiment and SHOW me how the bullet entered at C7 and exited at C7.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 09, 2018, 12:04:17 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/9Kwbtek.png)
And the point is?.....  That hardly looks like an ellipse.  It looks like a bullet hole from a non-jacketed or soft point bullet that was yawing after it struck the first object.  The irregular outline of the entry in the skin is due to the irregular outline of the bullet nose after striking the first target.

Find an entry wound from a bullet fired at a 30 degree angle to the target surface.  You will find that it makes an ellipse whose long axis is twice as long as the short axis. That is what Shaw observed.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 09, 2018, 05:43:12 AM
And the point is?.....  That hardly looks like an ellipse.  It looks like a bullet hole from a non-jacketed or soft point bullet that was yawing after it struck the first object.  The irregular outline of the entry in the skin is due to the irregular outline of the bullet nose after striking the first target.

Find an entry wound from a bullet fired at a 30 degree angle to the target surface.  You will find that it makes an ellipse whose long axis is twice as long as the short axis. That is what Shaw observed.

The point is that that  is what a wound made from a yawed bullet strike looks like. It does look like an ellipse.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 09, 2018, 06:01:39 AM
No, draw a horizontal line from the point the bullet hits JFK's back.

Why?

Quote
What vertebrae is just below your Adam's apple?

Why do you ask? The bullet wound in Kennedy's throat was not just below the Adam's apple.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 09, 2018, 04:39:36 PM
The point is that that  is what a wound made from a yawed bullet strike looks like. It does look like an ellipse.
That hole looks roughly circular to me. You are looking at it from the side not directly above the wound.  If JBC's wound was made a tumbling bullet you would see a distinct ovoid shape, not an ellipse.  A true elliptical shape can only be made by a pristine bullet striking at an angle to the surface.  In the case of JBC's entrance wound, Dr. Shaw said that the long axis was twice as long as the short axis of the ellipse. 
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Gary Craig on May 09, 2018, 05:07:24 PM
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/connally.jpg%201.jpg)
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 09, 2018, 07:30:28 PM
That hole looks roughly circular to me. You are looking at it from the side not directly above the wound.  If JBC's wound was made a tumbling bullet you would see a distinct ovoid shape, not an ellipse.  A true elliptical shape can only be made by a pristine bullet striking at an angle to the surface.  In the case of JBC's entrance wound, Dr. Shaw said that the long axis was twice as long as the short axis of the ellipse.

The wound looks ovoid to me. The wound is ovoid. According to the measurement tool of Gimp, the long axis is twice as long as the short axis.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 10, 2018, 01:58:28 AM
The wound looks ovoid to me. The wound is ovoid. According to the measurement tool of Gimp, the long axis is twice as long as the short axis.

Did Gimp compensate for the oblique view?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 10, 2018, 11:06:08 PM
Autopsy proves SBT impossible ??

Not even close.

If one accepts that JFK's back wound was an entry wound and that no bullet was found in the body, it stands to reason that the bullet transversed his body and could have gone on to strike JBC. 

So, no, the autopsy doesn't prove the SBT impossible.

I guess it's possible that somehow the bullet that entered JFK's back fell out and was never recovered, but that leaves the CTs another conundrum.

If the bullet that struck JFK in the back did not pass through his body and the throat wound is indeed an entrance wound, then where did the bullet that caused the throat wound go ?

I'm sure one of the geniuses here that claim the SBT is an impossibility has a logical answer.

Oh goody, Howard's back.

Since you're the logical genius, where did the bullet from the "first missed shot" go?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 11, 2018, 01:09:48 AM

So, no, the autopsy doesn't prove the SBT impossible.

.....

I'm sure one of the geniuses here that claim the SBT is an impossibility has a logical answer.
I agree that the autopsy does not disprove the SBT. What disproves the SBT the trajectory, are the following:

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

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

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

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

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

There is nothing in the evidence or the zfilm that conflicts with this 1.....2...3 shot sequence.  All three shots struck occupants in the car. There was no missed shot.

According to the evidence, the first shot struck JFK and went to JBC's left side, the second shot struck JBC in the right armpit and fragmented striking the radius and fragments deflected off the radius striking the windshield and frame and at least one fragment clearing the windshield and striking the curb near Tague. The third shot struck JFK in the head at z313.

That is the only explanation that fits the evidence.  And the evidence is perfectly consistent with all shots having been fired by Oswald with the MC rifle from the 6th Floor window of the TSBD.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 11, 2018, 01:24:07 AM
I agree that the autopsy does not disprove the SBT. What disproves the SBT the trajectory, are the following:

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

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

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

>

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

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

There is nothing in the evidence or the zfilm that conflicts with this 1.....2...3 shot sequence.  All three shots struck occupants in the car. There was no missed shot.

According to the evidence, the first shot struck JFK and went to JBC's left side, the second shot struck JBC in the right armpit and fragmented striking the radius and fragments deflected off the radius striking the windshield and frame and at least one fragment clearing the windshield and striking the curb near Tague. The third shot struck JFK in the head at z313.

That is the only explanation that fits the evidence.  And the evidence is perfectly consistent with all shots having been fired by Oswald with the MC rifle from the 6th Floor window of the TSBD.

 CE 399 already had problems and you want to add that the  leftover 2.2 grains could account for what was in Connally, the damage to the interior of windshield, and the fragment that hit Tague?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jim Brunsman on May 11, 2018, 03:05:22 AM
There were so many errors in your post, I don't know where to start. So I will respond only to item #3) second and third shot were very close together. Are you "Oswald Framers" so blind that you don't see what this means? It takes time to operate the bolt of the "humanitarian rifle." YOU CAN'T HAVE A SINGLE ASSASSIN AND TWO SHOTS VERY CLOSE TOGETHER, RIGHT? This could be done with an automatic rifle, but not a bolt action rifle. If you have two shots close together, you have two assassins. But again, this is only one of a startling number of reasons why the magic bullet is a scientific impossibility.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jack Nessan on May 11, 2018, 06:46:56 AM
Dr. SHAW - This was a small wound approximately a centimeter and a half in its greatest diameter. It was roughly elliptical. It was just medial to the axilliary fold or the crease of the armpit, but we could tell that this wound, the depth of the wound, had not penetrated the shoulder blade.


Given the alignment of JBC and JFK in the car and the use of jacketed military ammunition, how do you explain the location and trajectory of the elliptical wound in JBC's back if the bullet does not first pass through JFK?

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/e3/10/ba/e310ba335fae65b3df49948208ac1866--kennedy-assassination-the-kennedys.jpg
(http://)
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Howard Gee on May 11, 2018, 11:07:07 AM
Oh goody, Howard's back.

Since you're the logical genius, where did the bullet from the "first missed shot" go?

Most likely struck concrete to the right rear of the limo and was never recovered.

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

If you think the SBT is wrong - come up with something better.

CTs have been claiming the SBT is wrong and impossible but just can't come up with anything better that fits what's shown in Zapruder.

Not only has the SBT not been proven wrong, the more you study the assassination, the more obvious it becomes that it's the only truly viable theory that explains what we see in Zapruder and the wounds to both men.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 11, 2018, 02:02:40 PM
Dr. SHAW - This was a small wound approximately a centimeter and a half in its greatest diameter. It was roughly elliptical. It was just medial to the axilliary fold or the crease of the armpit, but we could tell that this wound, the depth of the wound, had not penetrated the shoulder blade.


Given the alignment of JBC and JFK in the car and the use of jacketed military ammunition, how do you explain the location and trajectory of the elliptical wound in JBC's back if the bullet does not first pass through JFK?

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/e3/10/ba/e310ba335fae65b3df49948208ac1866--kennedy-assassination-the-kennedys.jpg
(http://)

 You already asked this. Was there something in the answer you did not agree with?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 11, 2018, 02:20:07 PM
Most likely struck concrete to the right rear of the limo and was never recovered.

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



 Since we have Humes testimony that he saw bruising above JFK's left lung and  the subsequent disappearance of the photo, or photos, of the lung, there is reason to believe either bullet went into the chest However in the case of the supposed shallow wound in the back it seems more than likely it is CE 399 the magic bullet
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 11, 2018, 06:05:30 PM
That is the only explanation that fits the evidence.  And the evidence is perfectly consistent with all shots having been fired by Oswald with the MC rifle from the 6th Floor window of the TSBD.

"Consistent" is weasel words.  It's also consistent with all shots having been fired by anybody from the 6th Floor window of the TSBD.  Or from the Daltex.  Or shots from both places.  Etc. Etc.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 11, 2018, 06:09:03 PM
Most likely struck concrete to the right rear of the limo and was never recovered.

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

Can I use the same lame excuse?  "Most likely it was never recovered".

Quote
Not only has the SBT not been proven wrong, the more you study the assassination, the more obvious it becomes that it's the only truly viable theory that explains what we see in Zapruder and the wounds to both men.

What do you mean "we", kimosabe?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Howard Gee on May 11, 2018, 10:08:18 PM
Can I use the same lame excuse?  "Most likely it was never recovered".

What do you mean "we", kimosabe?

See if you can keep up.  I said 'most likely hit concrete'. Not 'most likely never recovered'.

What do you think happened to the 'missed shot' ?

Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 11, 2018, 10:15:01 PM
See if you can keep up.  I said 'most likely hit concrete'. Not 'most likely never recovered'.

So the bullet that hit JFK in the back was never recovered.  See how easy that is by your standards?

Quote
What do you think happened to the 'missed shot' ?

What missed shot?  How do you know there was one?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Howard Gee on May 11, 2018, 10:34:10 PM
So the bullet that hit JFK in the back was never recovered.  See how easy that is by your standards?

What missed shot?  How do you know there was one?

No, the bullet that hit JFK in the back was recovered. CE399.

You're the one that asked about the 'missed shot'.

I responded.

Feel free to outline your sequence of shots fired, location of shooter(s), and where the bullets wound up.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 11, 2018, 11:12:24 PM
No, the bullet that hit JFK in the back was recovered. CE399.

LOL.  And your evidence that CE399 hit JFK in the back would be ...?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 12, 2018, 01:08:57 AM
 Howard Welcome to the round and round
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 12, 2018, 04:09:35 AM
Did Gimp compensate for the oblique view?

The obliqueness of the view is too minor to matter.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Tim Nickerson on May 12, 2018, 04:11:21 AM
CE 399 already had problems and you want to add that the  leftover 2.2 grains could account for what was in Connally, the damage to the interior of windshield, and the fragment that hit Tague?

Matt , you are confused. What do the fragment that hit Tague and the damage to the windshield have to do with CE-399?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 12, 2018, 05:52:51 AM
CE 399 already had problems and you want to add that the  leftover 2.2 grains could account for what was in Connally, the damage to the interior of windshield, and the fragment that hit Tague?
No. CE399 was the first shot. The second fragmented as I said.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 12, 2018, 05:59:26 AM
There were so many errors in your post, I don't know where to start. So I will respond only to item #3) second and third shot were very close together. Are you "Oswald Framers" so blind that you don't see what this means? It takes time to operate the bolt of the "humanitarian rifle." YOU CAN'T HAVE A SINGLE ASSASSIN AND TWO SHOTS VERY CLOSE TOGETHER, RIGHT? This could be done with an automatic rifle, but not a bolt action rifle. If you have two shots close together, you have two assassins. But again, this is only one of a startling number of reasons why the magic bullet is a scientific impossibility.
If the second shot was just before JFK's hair flies up, which was seen to occur by Hickey on the second shot, (which is just before Greer turns around for the first time, which he said he did immediately after the second shot)  then the second shot was about z271-272.  That fits the shot pattern: 1 ..........(4 seconds).........2..(2.3 seconds)..3

2.3 seconds between 2 and 3, is enough time for Oswald to fire all the shots.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 12, 2018, 06:04:29 AM
Dr. SHAW - This was a small wound approximately a centimeter and a half in its greatest diameter. It was roughly elliptical. It was just medial to the axilliary fold or the crease of the armpit, but we could tell that this wound, the depth of the wound, had not penetrated the shoulder blade.


Given the alignment of JBC and JFK in the car and the use of jacketed military ammunition, how do you explain the location and trajectory of the elliptical wound in JBC's back if the bullet does not first pass through JFK?

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/e3/10/ba/e310ba335fae65b3df49948208ac1866--kennedy-assassination-the-kennedys.jpg
(http://)
An elliptical wound is made by a non-yawing bullet striking at an angle to the target surface. A yawing or tumbling bullet makes either a bullet shaped entry mark or an asymmetrical ovoid (egg) shape. At z272 the car alignment and JFK's leftward movement allowed a shot from the SN to strike only JBC, just missing JFK's head. Hickey observed JFK's hair fly up at the moment of the second shot.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 12, 2018, 06:07:39 AM
Most likely struck concrete to the right rear of the limo and was never recovered.

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

If you think the SBT is wrong - come up with something better.
According to the trajectory, it went to JBC's left side. It did not appear to strike the car. So it struck JBC on the left side.

Quote
Not only has the SBT not been proven wrong, the more you study the assassination, the more obvious it becomes that it's the only truly viable theory that explains what we see in Zapruder and the wounds to both men.
It is disproved by the evidence. There is a much simpler explanation that fits the evidence and, of course, that Oswald fired all three shots.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Howard Gee on May 12, 2018, 07:00:54 AM
According to the trajectory, it went to JBC's left side. It did not appear to strike the car. So it struck JBC on the left side.
It is disproved by the evidence. There is a much simpler explanation that fits the evidence and, of course, that Oswald fired all three shots.

You're correct about the 3 shots but the rest of your analysis is seriously flawed.

You have the first shot hitting JFK and going where ?  Hitting JBC on the left side ?

Makes no sense.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jack Nessan on May 12, 2018, 01:11:01 PM
You already asked this. Was there something in the answer you did not agree with?


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



HSCA Trajectory Analysis.
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.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 12, 2018, 02:52:11 PM
You're correct about the 3 shots but the rest of your analysis is seriously flawed.

You have the first shot hitting JFK and going where ?  Hitting JBC on the left side ?

Makes no sense.
It went to the left of JBC's midline, according to the trajectory and the observed positions of the two men. JBC had one wound on the left side. What does not make sense?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 12, 2018, 03:00:27 PM


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

Most witnesses did not notice JBC but there are a few witnesses, including Nelly and Jackie, who did and who state JBC was hit by the first shot . There was only one bullet and fragments of another bullet recovered, the fact there was only two shots simply aids and clarifies the understanding of the assassination.
Neither Nellie nor Jackie stated that JBC was hit by the first shot.

He did receive a small wound on the first shot but JBC did not feel and did not react to it.  He did not notice it until the next day.  What he reacted to was the sound of the first shot.  He immediately recognized it as a rifle shot and he feared an assassination was taking place and turned around to see JFK.  His "oh, no, no, no" drew Jackie's attention. Nellie said he uttered those words before the second shot.  You can see him saying "oh, no, no, no" in the z240s and you can see Jackie turning to look at him.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 12, 2018, 03:15:51 PM

What answer? No answer is an an answer. The only explanation there is for JBC's wound is a bullet passing through JFK. Despite all the posturing and gnashing of teeth about how impossible it was for one bullet to cause all the wounds, in the end it is the only possible answer there is. It seems to be a lot easier to question the actions of the WC and DPD and the vaguery of what they should have done, than it is to actually explain the mechanics of the assassination.
Why is it not possible that the bullet through JFK struck JBC in the left thigh? No one ever considered that possibility. But the trajectory  (http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/JBC_z200_rear1_reenactment.jpg)makes it quite plausible.

Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Bernd Werner on May 12, 2018, 08:14:16 PM
Pleass explain the red herring comment

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

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

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

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

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

Part 2 of destroying the SBT:

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

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/C7.png)

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

Part 3 of destroying the SBT:

LNers all, show us how the MB was possible.

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasers.jpg)

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

Good luck!

Ok, question answered, you didn't!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And where is the missing bullet?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 12, 2018, 08:32:47 PM
There are at least a dozen credible witnesses that stated or testified to having seen a large hole in the back lower portion JFK's skull That has more credence than whatever went on at Bethesda in my book
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Bernd Werner on May 12, 2018, 08:38:11 PM
There are at least a dozen credible witnesses that stated or testified to having seen a large hole in the back lower portion JFK's skull That has more credence than whatever went on at Bethesda in my book

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

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

I think, it is more likely, that hell freezes over.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jim Brunsman on May 12, 2018, 08:56:48 PM
Nice try, but several witnesses reported the second and third shots as a "bam-bam" and stressed they were "very close together" (Lee Bowers, et al). If Oswald or any other human was operating the "humanitarian rifle", they would have to cycle the bolt after the second shot and reacquire the target AND fire accurately. Can anyone honestly say that there's such a thing as two shots "very close together" from a bolt action rifle? I think not...

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

Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 13, 2018, 12:50:37 AM
Nice try, but several witnesses reported the second and third shots as a "bam-bam" and stressed they were "very close together" (Lee Bowers, et al). If Oswald or any other human was operating the "humanitarian rifle", they would have to cycle the bolt after the second shot and reacquire the target AND fire accurately. Can anyone honestly say that there's such a thing as two shots "very close together" from a bolt action rifle? I think not...
You are basing your conclusion on a few "verys"? What about the other witnesses who said the last two were not faster than one could operate a bolt-action rifle? (eg. Emmett Hudson, James Romack) and what about Harold Norman who actually described the sound of the bolt action? And what about Greer who said he turned around immediately after the second shot? He is turned around by z280. Are you suggesting that he turned before the second shot?

Quote
I started this thread knowing there would be many who would concoct scenarios to fit the discredited SBT. But the extent to which folks twist the evidence reminds me of trying to have an intelligent discussion with a Trump supporter. I will state it again because I'm an ineffective communicator. The single bullet theory is impossible because no shots exited from the front of the president's body. Several witnesses saw the president before the SBT could be fabricated. They report the throat wound as one of entrance. End of ballgame for SBT, just from a different direction!
That is the poorest argument against the SBT. The SBT is wrong but that is not the reason. The throat wound was an exit wound. Just look at the clothing. How does a bullet go under the tie knot? Who could have fired it? Where did it go. More to the point, where did the bullet in the back go?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jim Brunsman on May 13, 2018, 01:15:45 AM

No, there is no evidence to support a conclusion that the throat wound was an exit. For me, the clothing is slightly relevant, but I have no idea how bullets behave when striking cloth. I'm interested in the evidence that was collected BEFORE the ridiculous SBT was concocted. What about the sworn testimony of highly trained and experienced Parkland hospital doctors and nurses? Not one of these witnesses EVER reported the throat wound as an exit. Sure, Specter twisted and bullied several witnesses to change their opinions, but that doesn't change the basic facts. In addition, all of these witnesses reported the head wound to be in the back of the head, which proves the autopsy photos are a fraud.

Where did the bullet go that penetrated a distance so small that Dr. Humes could feel the end of it with his finger? I have no idea, but there are reports of bullets and fragments in this case that make no sense at all. What about the lead that Dennis David was ordered to catalog during the autopsy? The truth is simple. If one person was doing the shooting, everything would come together. But the reality is completely different. There are so many inconsistencies in the evidence, that you could spend a lifetime investigating them.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 13, 2018, 03:12:50 AM
So you're building your case solely on witness accounts. That seems to be a little bit moot, doesn't it?
Moot? How?

If you can provide evidence to explain how all witnesses missed seeing JFK smile and wave after the first shot, let alone for three seconds after the first shot please feel free. Then you would have to explain how 20+ observed him react as if he was hit in the neck on the first shot. That would merely be a start. You would ten have to explain Croft, Betzner, Hughes, Altgens, Greer, Hickey all making consistent observations that excude the second shot SBT. Then you would have to explain the shot pattern evidence.  And the explain Tague being hit on the second shot. Oh, and if you think you can do that, try explaining why the motorcade witnesses put the VP car completing the turn before the first shot. And then explain why the occupants.of the VP security car thought the had almost completed the turn? Why did Mrs Cabell think her car had entered the Intersection. Etc.

An individual witness can be wrong. But if multiple independent witnesses report consistent observations, on what basis can that evidence be disregarded? . 
Quote
And where is the missing bullet?
There is no missing bullet. They all struck JFK and/or JBC. The first is CE399. The second fragmented and deflected up off the radius and sent metal flakes into the wrist. Other fragments hit the windshield, windshield frame and at least one left the car and struck the curb near Tague. Likely others cleared the windshield. The third was obvious
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Mike Orr on May 13, 2018, 07:49:43 PM
        David W. Mantik, MD., Ph. D.
     The JFK Autopsy Materials ,Twenty Conclusions after Nine Visits

      This site was very good and also had many diagrams which were very helpful .

       assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/Pittsburgh.pdf
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 14, 2018, 12:05:30 AM

The list of eyewitnesses who stated there was only two shots is a long one.
Well, maybe if you use a large font and triple spacing. There were 17 witnesses who said they heard 2 shots. None of them were sure that there were only two.  On the other hand there were at least 132 who heard three shots and most were pretty definite about that.   Here is what the distribution looks like. (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Statistical_corroboration_no_shots.pdf)
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 15, 2018, 12:32:48 AM
Andrew Mason is also a big believer in an imaginary shot. You two should get together and solve the mystery of where that shot took place because there is absolutely no proof that it ever happened and the WC was never sure it happened.
Imaginary shot? It is not correct to say that there is no evidence of a third shot, if that is your point. 

In addition to 130+ witnesses who heard exactly three shots, there are many witnesses who felt or saw the effects of each of the three shots. There are witnesses who were able to say where the President was, or describe the position of their car in the motorcade, at the time of the first shot.  There are witnesses, like Hickey and Kinney, who described where they were looking and what they saw at the time of the second shot. There is Tague who said he felt the effect of the second shot.  There is Greer who said he turned around immediately after the second shot (he turns around between z278-280). 
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 15, 2018, 02:03:25 PM
As I see it:

As far as the witnesses are concerned. The media had a severe influence on the witnesses and is noted by both the WC and the HSCA and can be seen in their evolving statements. The earliest statements in a lot of cases are made by the eyewitnesses to the media themselves. There is a big difference between the statements of the eyewitnesses and the earwitnesses. In general two shots by the eyewitnesses vs three shots by the earwitnesses. The eyewitnesses explain the location of the limousine and the number of shots and the reaction that was taking place in the car.
A classic example of ignoring evidence because it doesn't fit a preferred theory. 

Quote
There is limited physical evidence. Bullet, bullet fragments, shells, and rifle. Each provide a clue as to the answer. The cycle time of the carcano provides a parameter to the assassination based on  2.3 second cycle time. The only scenario that explains wounding JBC with a separate shot is a conspiracy and a second shooter.
??This is because you have convinced yourself that JBC has been shot by z240: you think he looks like he is reacting to being shot in the chest before z240.  But according to the evidence there was only one shot to that point. So what you are really saying is: "If I ignore the evidence and go with what I think I am seeing in the zfilm, if JBC's chest wounds were caused by a separate shot, there must have been a second shooter". 

Quote
Three shots by LHO in 5.4 seconds is a stretch, two shots at a distance of 55 yards and 88 yards is no feat of marksmanship. Three shots would require an even shot spacing not a bunched two shots at the end.
How about 3 shots in 6.4 seconds: z195, z271, z313.  That is what the evidence shows.

Quote
SBT with a jacketed bullet is common sense. That is exactly what the bullet is designed to do. The bullet will go until it runs out of energy. JBC was in front of JFK and the only way to explain the wound in his back is the bullet must pass through JFK first.
Common sense reasoning applied to the evidence is a good idea. You are forgetting the evidence part.

Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Gary Craig on May 15, 2018, 04:54:17 PM
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/pavement.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/pavement1.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/pavement2.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/pavement3.jpg)
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jack Nessan on May 16, 2018, 12:30:57 PM
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/pavement.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/pavement1.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/pavement2.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/pavement3.jpg)

Good set of witnesses for proving SBT.

Austin Miller---Proves SBT----Accounts for all the shots in his statement.  One shot hit the street. Two shots hit JFK and JBC. No mention of a seperate shot hitting near Tague.

Royce Skelton----Proves SBT------ Accounts for all the shots in his statement. Two shots hit the street, Two shots hit  JBC and JFK. . No mention of a seperate shot hitting near Tague.

Hugh Betzner----Proves SBT------ Two shot witness.

Buddy Walters ----Proves SBT----Talking about Tague, who thought he was struck by the second bullet which again proves the first shot struck both JFK and JBC. Walters obviously thought the head shot was the second shot because he states "the last shot went high and above the presidents car"
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 16, 2018, 03:22:31 PM
- statements of witnesses reporting what looked like a missed shot
Miller and Skelton say that they thought a bullet struck the pavement to the left (south) of the limo. Since a bullet is too small and moving too fast to be seen by humans, all we can say is that they saw something hit the pavement to the south side. We know that a piece of JFK's skull was found on the south side of the street.  Reports that something that looked like smoke was coming from trees and police were looking on the ground on the GK for something are not evidence of a missed shot.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 16, 2018, 03:37:14 PM
Good set of witnesses for proving SBT.

Austin Miller---Proves SBT----Accounts for all the shots in his statement.  One shot hit the street. Two shots hit JFK and JBC. No mention of a seperate shot hitting near Tague.
Except that he reported one shot and then two more, which suggests a 1 and 2-3 grouping which excludes the second shot SBT.

Quote
Royce Skelton----Proves SBT------ Accounts for all the shots in his statement. Two shots hit the street, Two shots hit  JBC and JFK. . No mention of a seperate shot hitting near Tague.
?? That seems to be 4 shots.  In his Dec. 17/63 FBI statement he said that he saw dust spray on the pavement on the driver's side of the limo and then "a few seconds" later heard 3 shots.

Quote
Hugh Betzner----Proves SBT------ Two shot witness.
No. He is an "at least two shots" witness. Read his statement.

Quote
Buddy Walters ----Proves SBT----Talking about Tague, who thought he was struck by the second bullet which again proves the first shot struck both JFK and JBC. Walters obviously thought the head shot was the second shot because he states "the last shot went high and above the presidents car"
Walters is guessing.  The curb smear was analyzed and no copper was found, just lead and antimony. That indicates that the curb was struck by a lead fragment.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 16, 2018, 04:13:11 PM
. We know that a piece of JFK's skull was found on the south side of the street.  Reports that something that looked like smoke was coming from trees and police were looking on the ground on the GK for something are not evidence of a missed shot.

 That is strangely phrased  I suppose I guess I should congratulate you in your formulation of a sort of double dipper of discounting any shots from the front hit JFK Witnesses mean something, where skull pieces end up have meaning as well Apparently evidence is only a fact that lines up with your conclusion
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 16, 2018, 07:12:03 PM
That is strangely phrased  I suppose I guess I should congratulate you in your formulation of a sort of double dipper of discounting any shots from the front hit JFK Witnesses mean something, where skull pieces end up have meaning as well Apparently evidence is only a fact that lines up with your conclusion
To reach a conclusion that there was a shot from the front, I would need evidence of such a shot. This is not evidence of such a shot.

Not only is there a lack of any evidence of a shot from the front, there is a great deal of evidence of three shots from the rear, that they were fired from the SN, and that there were only three shots heard.  Also, the trajectory required for the wounds on JFK and JBC would preclude a shot from the front.  Without a hole in the windshield, a shot from the front just doesn't work.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Mike Orr on May 16, 2018, 09:11:17 PM


         Dr. Cyril H. Wecht , you tube -- " A Case For Conspiracy With Dr. Cyril H. Wecht " 1:58:07 long.

         This is a very good talk about the JFK Assassination from the Texas School Book Depository .

          Dr. James Humes and Dr. J. Thornton Boswell had never done a gunshot autopsy , EVER !
          One of the top forensic Pathologist & Medical Examiners , Dr. Milton Helpren from New York
          City , told Dr. Wecht that he was packed and ready to answer the phone call that he thought
          would come for him to do this autopsy on JFK !  That call never came !
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 16, 2018, 10:09:06 PM
To reach a conclusion that there was a shot from the front, I would need evidence of such a shot. This is not evidence of such a shot.

Not only is there a lack of any evidence of a shot from the front, there is a great deal of evidence of three shots from the rear, that they were fired from the SN, and that there were only three shots heard.  Also, the trajectory required for the wounds on JFK and JBC would preclude a shot from the front.  Without a hole in the windshield, a shot from the front just doesn't work.

There isn't a straight line trajectory from the TSBD that makes the MB work. If so, then show us with 2 lasers and a re-enactment.

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasers.jpg)

As far as the head shot goes, the following trajectory from the overpass works without going thru the windshield. The same applies for the throat wound.

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/TrainOverpassTurkeyShoot.jpg)

Otherwise, we can only speculate which direction the bullet came from that passed thru the windshield. Daltex building?

Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Zeon Mason on May 17, 2018, 04:10:43 AM
WTF could possibly the shooter be aiming at with his 1st shot to have completely missed the ENTIRE LIMO?? and at the closest range of only 53 meters away?


This the range MOST of the CBS shooters were able to hit the target in the test trial.


Yet the "expert" sniper for some reason wasnt even aiming at the limo at all and that bullet has never been found.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 17, 2018, 08:39:39 AM
WTF could possibly the shooter be aiming at with his 1st shot to have completely missed the ENTIRE LIMO?? and at the closest range of only 53 meters away?
Good question. 

There is no evidence that any shot missed. In fact, there is evidence that each of the shots hit.  There are at least 70 witnesses who provided evidence that the first shot struck JFK (they said either that JFK reacted to his neck wound on the first shot or that the last two shots occurred after JFK is seen reacting to his neck wound in the zfilm).  Not a single witness said he smiled and waved after the first shot (which is what the SBT says happened).  Gov. Connally, supported by a number of witnesses close-by, gave evidence that he was hit in the torso by the second shot.  We can see the effect of the third shot.

Not only is it difficult to understand how the sniper could have missed the entire limo at 160-175 feet, but it is difficult to understand how the bullet could have failed to leave a mark anywhere in Dealey Plaza. It is even more difficult to understand how a missed shot could have given so many people the impression that it struck JFK.


Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jack Nessan on May 17, 2018, 01:52:21 PM
Except that he reported one shot and then two more, which suggests a 1 and 2-3 grouping which excludes the second shot SBT.
?? That seems to be 4 shots.  In his Dec. 17/63 FBI statement he said that he saw dust spray on the pavement on the driver's side of the limo and then "a few seconds" later heard 3 shots.
No. He is an "at least two shots" witness. Read his statement.
Walters is guessing.  The curb smear was analyzed and no copper was found, just lead and antimony. That indicates that the curb was struck by a lead fragment.


You completely and utterly missed the whole point so you could advance this odd unsupported belief in an imaginary shot at Z270. Each of these people are stating that two shots caused all the wounds to the people riding in the car.


Where does Betzner mention a third shot. He doesn't. He mentions a second shot and what happens in the car.


Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 17, 2018, 04:17:48 PM

You completely and utterly missed the whole point so you could advance this odd unsupported belief in an imaginary shot at Z270.
What is imaginary about 45+ people saying there were 3 shots and the last two were closer together?  What is imaginary about Hickey saying he was facing JFK on the second shot and kept facing him?  He  is turned rearward in Altgens' photo at z256.  What is imaginary of about Greer saying he turned around to look behind immediately after the second shot and we see him turning from z278 or so to z280? That is evidence of a second shot between z256 and z278. Hickey said JFK's hair on his right side flew up on the second shot.  His hair flies up from z273-276.

Quote
Each of these people are stating that two shots caused all the wounds to the people riding in the car.

Where does Betzner mention a third shot. He doesn't. He mentions a second shot and what happens in the car.
He says that there were at least two shots.  That means he is not sure how many but there were a minimum of 2.  That is not evidence that there were only two shots.  None of these four witnesses went so far to say which shots struck and what they struck.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 17, 2018, 06:15:50 PM
WTF could possibly the shooter be aiming at with his 1st shot to have completely missed the ENTIRE LIMO?? and at the closest range of only 53 meters away?


This the range MOST of the CBS shooters were able to hit the target in the test trial.


Yet the "expert" sniper for some reason wasnt even aiming at the limo at all and that bullet has never been found.

The LNers contend that Oswald lined up JFK thru his wonky scope and missed the entire limo with his 1st shot. Realizing his scope was grossly misaligned, he switched to the iron sights and scored a 2 for 2 in 5 secs flat. But if he was such an expert marksman then he would have known the scope would be useless since he had obviously never fired the rifle before, otherwise, he would have surely zeroed the scope during practice sessions.

Ask yourself why Oswald didn't take the 1st shot when the limo almost stopped turning onto Elm? JFK was delivered to him on a silver platter. How could he miss a stationary target at ~40 feet? And why did the FBI edit the turn onto Elm out of the Z film? And where is the original Z film? It would tell all.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jack Nessan on May 18, 2018, 05:08:11 AM
What is imaginary about 45+ people saying there were 3 shots and the last two were closer together?  What is imaginary about Hickey saying he was facing JFK on the second shot and kept facing him?  He  is turned rearward in Altgens' photo at z256.  What is imaginary of about Greer saying he turned around to look behind immediately after the second shot and we see him turning from z278 or so to z280? That is evidence of a second shot between z256 and z278. Hickey said JFK's hair on his right side flew up on the second shot.  His hair flies up from z273-276.
He says that there were at least two shots.  That means he is not sure how many but there were a minimum of 2.  That is not evidence that there were only two shots.  None of these four witnesses went so far to say which shots struck and what they struck.



These witnesses don't state anything like what you have stated they said. These are their statements from 11/22.

Samuel A. Kinney  11/22
Special Agent
White House Detail

I was driving SS 679-X, follow-up. As we turned off Main Street (left) about 4 minutes from our destination of Trade Mart. The first shot was fired as we were going into an underpass. The first shot was fired, I glanced from the taillight of SS 100-X, at the President and it appeared that he had been shot because he slumped to the left. Immediately he sat up again.* At this time the second shot was fired and I observed hair flying from the right side of his head. With this, simultaneously with the President's car, we stepped on the gas. I released the siren at that time. I did hear three shots but do not recall which shots were those that hit the President.

Kinney identifies shot 1 and shot 2


George Hickey: 11/22
Just prior to the shooting I was seated in the rear of SS-6',9-X on the left side. As 100-X made the turn and proceeded a short-distance I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear. I stood partially up and turned to the rear to see if I could observe anything. Nothing was observed and I turned around and looked at the President's car. The President was slumped to the left in the car and I observed him come up. I heard what appeared to be two shots and it seemed as if the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward. I then reached down, picked up the AR 15, cocked and loaded it- and stood part way up in the car and looked about. By this time, 100-X had 679-X had passed under the overpass and was proceeding at a high rate of speed towards the hospital.


JFK's hair flew forward from the impact of the bullet




WILLIAM R. GREER'S REPORT ON
DALLAS, TEXAS

......A short distance ahead, the street passed under a railroad or expressway. A building stood on the right side of the street, that would have been the last building we would have had to pass before entering the underpass.

The President's automobile was almost past this building and I was looking at the overpass that we were about to pass under in case someone was on top of it, when I heard what I thought was the backfire of a motorcycle behind the President's automobile. After the second shot, I glanced over my right shoulder and saw Governor Connally start to fall, I knew then that something was wrong and I immediately pushed the accelerator to the floor and Mr. Kellerman said, get out of here.

Greer said he heard two shots and then he sped away. Matches Kellerman's description stating "get out of here" after the headshot. Greer accelerates after the headshot, just like the Zapruder film showed. Greer said there was two shots to that point, Kellerman said three.


[/I



I don't see it, point out where Betzner states there is a third shot.

No, Skelton, Miller, and Walters identify every shot. They are specific as to where the shots landed. They leave two shots hitting the occupants of the car.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Gary Craig on May 18, 2018, 05:41:54 AM
Mr. SPECTER. As you are positioning yourself in the witness chair, your right hand is up with the finger at the ear level as if clutching from the right of the head; would that be an accurate description of the position you pictured there?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes. Good. There was enough for me to verify that the man was hit. So, in the same motion I come right back and grabbed the speaker and said to the driver, "Let's get out of here; we are hit," and grabbed the mike and I said, "Lawson, this is Kellerman,"--this is Lawson, who is in the front car. "We are hit; get us to the hospital immediately." Now, in the seconds that I talked just now, a flurry of shells come into the car. I then looked back and this time Mr. Hill, who was riding on the left front bumper of our followup car, was on the back trunk of that car; the President was sideways down into. the back seat.

~snip~

Mr. SPECTER. Now, in your prior testimony you described a flurry of shells into the car. How many shots did you hear after the first noise which you described as sounding like a firecracker?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Mr. Specter, these shells came in all together.
Mr. SPECTER. Are you able to say how many you heard?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say two, and it was like a double bang--bang, bang.
Mr. SPECTER. You mean now two shots in addition to the first noise?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir; yes, sir; at least.
Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate of the time, in seconds, from the first noise sounding like a firecracker until the second noise which you heard?
Mr. KELLERMAN. This was instantaneous

~snip~

Mr. SPECTER. Can you describe the sound of the flurry of shots by way of distinction with the way you have described the sound of the first shot?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Well, having heard all types of guns fired, most of them, rather, if I recall correctly these were two sharp reports, sir. Again, I am going to refer to it as like a plane going through a sound barrier; bang, bang.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, you are referring to the flurry?
Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right.
Mr. SPECTER. Did it sound differently from the first noise you have described as being a firecracker?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes; definitely; very much so.

~snip~

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Kellerman, you said earlier that there were at least two additional shots. Is there any area in your mind or possibility, as you recollect that situation, that there could have been more than two shots, or are you able to say with any certainty?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say that I have, from the firecracker report and the two other shots that I know, those were three shots. But, Mr. Specter, if President Kennedy had from all reports four wounds, Governor Connally three, there have got to be more than three shots, gentlemen.
Senator COOPER. What is that answer? What did he say?
Mr. SPECTER. Will you repeat that, Mr. Kellerman?
Mr. KELLERMAN.President Kennedy had four wounds, two in the head and shoulder and the neck. Governor Connally, from our reports, had three. There have got to be more than three shots.
Representative FORD. Is that why you have described--
Mr. KELLERMAN. The flurry.
Representative FORD. The noise as a flurry?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jack Nessan on May 18, 2018, 10:30:05 AM
Mr. SPECTER. As you are positioning yourself in the witness chair, your right hand is up with the finger at the ear level as if clutching from the right of the head; would that be an accurate description of the position you pictured there?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes. Good. There was enough for me to verify that the man was hit. So, in the same motion I come right back and grabbed the speaker and said to the driver, "Let's get out of here; we are hit," and grabbed the mike and I said, "Lawson, this is Kellerman,"--this is Lawson, who is in the front car. "We are hit; get us to the hospital immediately." Now, in the seconds that I talked just now, a flurry of shells come into the car. I then looked back and this time Mr. Hill, who was riding on the left front bumper of our followup car, was on the back trunk of that car; the President was sideways down into. the back seat.

~snip~

Mr. SPECTER. Now, in your prior testimony you described a flurry of shells into the car. How many shots did you hear after the first noise which you described as sounding like a firecracker?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Mr. Specter, these shells came in all together.
Mr. SPECTER. Are you able to say how many you heard?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say two, and it was like a double bang--bang, bang.
Mr. SPECTER. You mean now two shots in addition to the first noise?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir; yes, sir; at least.
Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate of the time, in seconds, from the first noise sounding like a firecracker until the second noise which you heard?
Mr. KELLERMAN. This was instantaneous

~snip~

Mr. SPECTER. Can you describe the sound of the flurry of shots by way of distinction with the way you have described the sound of the first shot?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Well, having heard all types of guns fired, most of them, rather, if I recall correctly these were two sharp reports, sir. Again, I am going to refer to it as like a plane going through a sound barrier; bang, bang.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, you are referring to the flurry?
Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right.
Mr. SPECTER. Did it sound differently from the first noise you have described as being a firecracker?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes; definitely; very much so.

~snip~

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Kellerman, you said earlier that there were at least two additional shots. Is there any area in your mind or possibility, as you recollect that situation, that there could have been more than two shots, or are you able to say with any certainty?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say that I have, from the firecracker report and the two other shots that I know, those were three shots. But, Mr. Specter, if President Kennedy had from all reports four wounds, Governor Connally three, there have got to be more than three shots, gentlemen.
Senator COOPER. What is that answer? What did he say?
Mr. SPECTER. Will you repeat that, Mr. Kellerman?
Mr. KELLERMAN.President Kennedy had four wounds, two in the head and shoulder and the neck. Governor Connally, from our reports, had three. There have got to be more than three shots.
Representative FORD. Is that why you have described--
Mr. KELLERMAN. The flurry.
Representative FORD. The noise as a flurry?


Kellerman states the car accelerated after the second shot and before the third shot. The car is seen to accelerate after the head shot and there were not another shot after the head shot. Kellerman repeats twice the car accelerating after the second shot and before a third shot.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, to the best of your ability to recollect, exactly when did your automobile first accelerate?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Our car accelerated immediately on the time-at the time--this flurry of shots came into it.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you say the acceleration--
Mr. KELLERMAN. Between the second and third shot
.


Senator COOPER. Might I ask a question there?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
Senator COOPER. A few minutes ago you said in response to a question that when you spoke to the driver the car leaped forward from an acceleration immediately. Did that acceleration occur before the second shot was fired?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir. Just about the time that it came in.
Senator COOPER. About the time it came in?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER. Not before?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No.




Roy H. Kellerman
Assistant Special Agent in Charge
11-29-63

We were still traveling at the normal rate of speed of from 12 to 15 miles per hour when I heard a noise, similar to a firecracker, exploding in the area to the rear of the car, about 12:30 p.m.

Immediately I heard what I firmly believe was the President's voice, "My God, I'm hit!" I turned around to find out what happened when two additional shots rang out, and the President slumped into Mrs. Kennedy's lap and Governor Connally fell_to Mrs. Connally's lap. I heard Mrs. Kennedy shout, "What are they doing to you?"


Clint Hill -------two shots

On the left hand side was a grass area with a few people scattered along it observing the motorcade passing, and I was visually scanning these people when I heard a noise similar to a firecracker. The sound came from my right rear and I immediately moved my head in that direction. In so doing, my eyes had to cross the Presidential automobile and I saw the President hunch forward and then slump to his left. I jumped from the Follow-up car and ran toward the Presidential automobile. I heard a second firecracker type noise but it had a different sound-- like the sound of shooting a revolver into something hard. I saw the President slump more toward his left.

I jumped onto the left rear step of the Presidential automobile. Mrs. Kennedy shouted, "They've shot his head off;" then turned and raised out of her seat as if she were reaching to her right rear toward the back of the car for something that had blown out. I forced her back into her seat and placed my body above President and Mrs. Kennedy. SA Greer had, as I jumped onto the Presidential automobile, accelerated the Presidential automobile forward. I heard ASAIC Kellerman call SA Lawson on the two-way radio and say, "To the nearest hospital, quick." I shouted as loud as I could at the Lead car, "To the hospital, to the hospital."




]Paul E. Landis, Jr.------ two shots


I think I recall Special Agent Jack Ready saying, "What was it? A fire cracker?" I remarked ''I don't know, I don't see any smoke." All during this time I was scanning the crowd and returning my gaze to the President's car. By then I think I had my gun out, but I do not recall exactly when it was drawn. I then thought that maybe one of the cars in the motorcade had had a blowout that had echoed off the buildings. I looked at the front right tire of the President's car and saw it was alright and glanced to see the right rear tire but could not as the follow-up car was too close. In fact, from my position on the running board of the follow-up car I could not see the rear bumper of the President's car. I glanced back towards the President, he still appeared upright in his seat, leaning slightly towards Mrs. Kennedy. It was at this moment that I heard a second report and saw the President's head split open and pieces of flesh and blood flying through the air. I also remember Special Agent Clinton Hill attempting to climb onto the back of the car at the time the second shot was fired. I would guess that the time between the first and second shot was approximately four or five seconds.


Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 18, 2018, 01:59:02 PM


These witnesses don't state anything like what you have stated they said. These are their statements from 11/22.

Samuel A. Kinney  11/22
Special Agent
White House Detail

I was driving SS 679-X, follow-up. As we turned off Main Street (left) about 4 minutes from our destination of Trade Mart. The first shot was fired as we were going into an underpass. The first shot was fired, I glanced from the taillight of SS 100-X, at the President and it appeared that he had been shot because he slumped to the left. Immediately he sat up again.* At this time the second shot was fired and I observed hair flying from the right side of his head. With this, simultaneously with the President's car, we stepped on the gas. I released the siren at that time. I did hear three shots but do not recall which shots were those that hit the President.

Kinney identifies shot 1 and shot 2

Kinney observes hair flying from the right side of his head. That is an odd way to describe his head exploding. It is very similar to what Hickey said occurred on the second shot (18H762):

"The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn?t seem to be any impact against his head."

Kinney identifies shots 1 and 2 by what he saw occur with the President. He said that he heard three shots. That suggests he may not have been looking at the President at the time of the third shot. He may have been distracted by the slowing down of the limo just before the head shot and by Clint Hill running between the two cars.

Quote
George Hickey: 11/22
Just prior to the shooting I was seated in the rear of SS-6',9-X on the left side. As 100-X made the turn and proceeded a short-distance I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear. I stood partially up and turned to the rear to see if I could observe anything. Nothing was observed and I turned around and looked at the President's car. The President was slumped to the left in the car and I observed him come up. I heard what appeared to be two shots and it seemed as if the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward. I then reached down, picked up the AR 15, cocked and loaded it- and stood part way up in the car and looked about. By this time, 100-X had 679-X had passed under the overpass and was proceeding at a high rate of speed towards the hospital.


JFK's hair flew forward from the impact of the bullet

Hickey gave a second statement that clarified what he observed. Have a look at his Nov. 30 statement. 18H762 which I have quoted above. He says that JFK's hair flew forward NOT FROM ANY BULLET IMPACT WITH THE HEAD BUT FROM THE BULLET JUST MISSING THE HEAD. You can see JFK's hair fly up and forward from z273-276. We know that Hickey was not looking forward at z256 because we see him facing to the rear in Altgens' photo. So we know that the last two shots were after z256.

Quote
WILLIAM R. GREER'S REPORT ON
DALLAS, TEXAS

......A short distance ahead, the street passed under a railroad or expressway. A building stood on the right side of the street, that would have been the last building we would have had to pass before entering the underpass.

The President's automobile was almost past this building and I was looking at the overpass that we were about to pass under in case someone was on top of it, when I heard what I thought was the backfire of a motorcycle behind the President's automobile. After the second shot, I glanced over my right shoulder and saw Governor Connally start to fall, I knew then that something was wrong and I immediately pushed the accelerator to the floor and Mr. Kellerman said, get out of here.

Greer said he heard two shots and then he sped away. Matches Kellerman's description stating "get out of here" after the headshot. Greer accelerates after the headshot, just like the Zapruder film showed. Greer said there was two shots to that point, Kellerman said three.
He clarifies in his WC testimony (2H118):

"I knew that after I heard the second one, that is when I looked over my shoulder, and I was conscious that there was something wrong, because that is when I saw Governor Connally. And when I turned around again to the best of my recollection there was another one, right immediately after. "

He described two turns to look rearward. These turns are seen in the zfilm. The first turn, which he said was just after the second shot, occurs at z278-80. At 2H119 he was asked to clarify the timing of this turn relative to the second shot and he said it was "almost simultaneously". The second turn was just before the third shot. That occurs at around z305.

Quote
I don't see it, point out where Betzner states there is a third shot.
He does not identify a third shot expressly. He said that there were "at least two shots". Saying "at least two shots" indicates that he was not counting the number of shots.  So you cannot use Betzner's statement as evidence that there were only two shots.

Quote
No, Skelton, Miller, and Walters identify every shot. They are specific as to where the shots landed. They leave two shots hitting the occupants of the car.
I am not sure what you are reading.

Miller says he heard 3 shots. Then he says "a man in the back seat slumped over". Then he says "one shot apparently hit the street past the car" but does not identify which shot that was.

Skelton describes 4 shots.  On the first shot he said something hit the pavement to the left rear of the car. Then he said he heard two more shots and saw a woman in the car grab a man.  Then he said he heard another shot and saw the bullet hit the pavement.

I don't see where Walters describes the effects of any of the shots. He described a "first retort" and then "2 succeeding retorts".

Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Ray Mitcham on May 18, 2018, 02:07:22 PM
Landis report.

At approximately this point, I would say, the President's car and the Follow-up car had just completed their turns and both were straightening out.

At this moment I heard what sounded like the report of a high-powered rifle (Shot 1)from behind me, over my right shoulder. When I heard the sound there was no question in my mind what it was. My first glance was at the President, as I was practically looking in his direction anyway. I saw him moving in a manner which I thought was to look in the direction of the sound. I did not realize that President Kennedy had been shot at this point.

I immediately returned my gaze, over my right shoulder, toward the modernistic building I had observed before. With a quick glance I saw nothing and immediately started scanning the crowd at the intersection from my right to my left. I observed nothing unusual and began to think that the sound had been that of a fire cracker but I hadn't seen any smoke. In fact, I recall Special Agent Jack Ready saying, "What was it? A Fire Cracker?" I remarked, "I don't know; I don't see any smoke.'' So far the lapsed period of time could not have been over two or three seconds.

All during this time I continued to scan the crowd, returning my gaze towards the President's car. It must have been another second or two before the next shot was fired  (Shot 2)because, as I recall having seen nothing out of the ordinary, I then thought that maybe one of the cars in the motorcade had had a blowout that had echoed off the buildings. I looked at the right front tire of the President's car and saw it was all right. I then glanced to see the right rear tire, but could not because the Follow-up car was too close.

I also thought of trying to run and jump on the President's car but did not think I could make it because of the speed at which we were traveling. I decided I had better stay where I was so that I would at least be near the First Lady, to whom I am assigned. I think that it was at this point that I thought, ''Faster, Faster, Faster," thinking that we could not get out of the area soon enough. However, I don't have any idea as to how fast we were then moving.

I had drawn my gun, but I am not sure exactly when I did this. I did leave my suit coat unbuttoned all during the motorcade movement, thinking at the time that I could get to my gun faster this way, if I had to.

I glanced towards the President and he still appeared to be fairly upright in his seat, leaning slightly toward Mrs. Kennedy with his head tilted slightly back. I think Mrs. Kennedy had her right arm around the President's shoulders at this time. I also remember Special Agent Clinton Hill attempting to climb onto the back of the President's car.
It was at this moment that I heard a second report(Shot 3) and it appeared that the President's head split open with a muffled exploding sound. I can best describe the sound as I heard it, as the sound you would get by shooting a high powered bullet into a five gallon can of water or shooting into a melon. I saw pieces of flesh and blood flying through the air and the President slumped out of sight towards Mrs. Kennedy.

Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 18, 2018, 05:49:04 PM
Kellerman states the car accelerated after the second shot and before the third shot. The car is seen to accelerate after the head shot and there were not another shot after the head shot.

How do you know there wasn't another shot after the head shot?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jack Nessan on May 19, 2018, 12:11:59 AM
Kinney observes hair flying from the right side of his head. That is an odd way to describe his head exploding. It is very similar to what Hickey said occurred on the second shot (18H762):

"The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn?t seem to be any impact against his head."

Kinney identifies shots 1 and 2 by what he saw occur with the President. He said that he heard three shots. That suggests he may not have been looking at the President at the time of the third shot. He may have been distracted by the slowing down of the limo just before the head shot and by Clint Hill running between the two cars.
Hickey gave a second statement that clarified what he observed. Have a look at his Nov. 30 statement. 18H762 which I have quoted above. He says that JFK's hair flew forward NOT FROM ANY BULLET IMPACT WITH THE HEAD BUT FROM THE BULLET JUST MISSING THE HEAD. You can see JFK's hair fly up and forward from z273-276. We know that Hickey was not looking forward at z256 because we see him facing to the rear in Altgens' photo. So we know that the last two shots were after z256.
He clarifies in his WC testimony (2H118):

"I knew that after I heard the second one, that is when I looked over my shoulder, and I was conscious that there was something wrong, because that is when I saw Governor Connally. And when I turned around again to the best of my recollection there was another one, right immediately after. "

He described two turns to look rearward. These turns are seen in the zfilm. The first turn, which he said was just after the second shot, occurs at z278-80. At 2H119 he was asked to clarify the timing of this turn relative to the second shot and he said it was "almost simultaneously". The second turn was just before the third shot. That occurs at around z305.
He does not identify a third shot expressly. He said that there were "at least two shots". Saying "at least two shots" indicates that he was not counting the number of shots.  So you cannot use Betzner's statement as evidence that there were only two shots.
I am not sure what you are reading.

Miller says he heard 3 shots. Then he says "a man in the back seat slumped over". Then he says "one shot apparently hit the street past the car" but does not identify which shot that was.

Skelton describes 4 shots.  On the first shot he said something hit the pavement to the left rear of the car. Then he said he heard two more shots and saw a woman in the car grab a man.  Then he said he heard another shot and saw the bullet hit the pavement.

I don't see where Walters describes the effects of any of the shots. He described a "first retort" and then "2 succeeding retorts".



The biggest clue to  maybe you are wrong is that you feel all these witness statements need your explanation so they can be properly understood. How about re-examine your interpretations first.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jack Nessan on May 19, 2018, 12:20:12 AM
Landis report.

At approximately this point, I would say, the President's car and the Follow-up car had just completed their turns and both were straightening out.

At this moment I heard what sounded like the report of a high-powered rifle (Shot 1)from behind me, over my right shoulder. When I heard the sound there was no question in my mind what it was. My first glance was at the President, as I was practically looking in his direction anyway. I saw him moving in a manner which I thought was to look in the direction of the sound. I did not realize that President Kennedy had been shot at this point.

I immediately returned my gaze, over my right shoulder, toward the modernistic building I had observed before. With a quick glance I saw nothing and immediately started scanning the crowd at the intersection from my right to my left. I observed nothing unusual and began to think that the sound had been that of a fire cracker but I hadn't seen any smoke. In fact, I recall Special Agent Jack Ready saying, "What was it? A Fire Cracker?" I remarked, "I don't know; I don't see any smoke.'' So far the lapsed period of time could not have been over two or three seconds.

All during this time I continued to scan the crowd, returning my gaze towards the President's car. It must have been another second or two before the next shot was fired  (Shot 2)because, as I recall having seen nothing out of the ordinary, I then thought that maybe one of the cars in the motorcade had had a blowout that had echoed off the buildings. I looked at the right front tire of the President's car and saw it was all right. I then glanced to see the right rear tire, but could not because the Follow-up car was too close.

I also thought of trying to run and jump on the President's car but did not think I could make it because of the speed at which we were traveling. I decided I had better stay where I was so that I would at least be near the First Lady, to whom I am assigned. I think that it was at this point that I thought, ''Faster, Faster, Faster," thinking that we could not get out of the area soon enough. However, I don't have any idea as to how fast we were then moving.

I had drawn my gun, but I am not sure exactly when I did this. I did leave my suit coat unbuttoned all during the motorcade movement, thinking at the time that I could get to my gun faster this way, if I had to.

I glanced towards the President and he still appeared to be fairly upright in his seat, leaning slightly toward Mrs. Kennedy with his head tilted slightly back. I think Mrs. Kennedy had her right arm around the President's shoulders at this time. I also remember Special Agent Clinton Hill attempting to climb onto the back of the President's car.
It was at this moment that I heard a second report(Shot 3) and it appeared that the President's head split open with a muffled exploding sound. I can best describe the sound as I heard it, as the sound you would get by shooting a high powered bullet into a five gallon can of water or shooting into a melon. I saw pieces of flesh and blood flying through the air and the President slumped out of sight towards Mrs. Kennedy.

That is the 11/30 version of Landis's statement. What a surprise a third shot was added.


This is Paul Landis 11/27 statement where he states ". I do not recall hearing a third shot."


] Paul E. Landis, Jr.------ two shots
Special Agent
November 27, 1963
WC 1024 pages 758-759



......I think I recall Special Agent Jack Ready saying, "What was it? A fire cracker?" I remarked ''I don't know, I don't see any smoke." All during this time I was scanning the crowd and returning my gaze to the President's car. By then I think I had my gun out, but I do not recall exactly when it was drawn. I then thought that maybe one of the cars in the motorcade had had a blowout that had echoed off the buildings. I looked at the front right tire of the President's car and saw it was alright and glanced to see the right rear tire but could not as the follow-up car was too close. In fact, from my position on the running board of the follow-up car I could not see the rear bumper of the President's car. I glanced back towards the President, he still appeared upright in his seat, leaning slightly towards Mrs. Kennedy. It was at this moment that I heard a second report and saw the President's head split open and pieces of flesh and blood flying through the air. I also remember Special Agent Clinton Hill attempting to climb onto the back of the car at the time the second shot was fired. I would guess that the time between the first and second shot was approximately four or five seconds.

My reaction at this time was that the shot came from somewhere towards the front, but I did not see anyone on the overpass, and looked along the right-hand side of the road. By this time we were almost at the overpass, and the only person I recall seeing was a negro male in light green slacks and a beige colored shirt running across a grassy section towaras some concrete steps and what appeared to be a low stone wall. He was in a bent over position, and I did not notice anything in his hands. By now both the President's car and the follow-up car were traveling at a high rate of speed. As we passed under the overpass, I was looking back and saw a motorcycle policeman stopping approximately where I saw the negro running. I do not recall hearing a third shot.
Paul E. Landis, Jr. Special Agent November 27, 1963


The "It must have been another second or two before the next shot was fired (Shot 2)because..." Landis added the extra shot to the 11/30 statement but also left the "second shot" part of his 11/27 statement.

Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jack Nessan on May 19, 2018, 12:23:27 AM
How do you know there wasn't another shot after the head shot?


Altgens who was standing 15 feet away was very certain there was not a shot after the head shot.


Mr. LIEBELER - Did you have any idea where the sound came from when you were standing there at No. 3 on Commission Exhibit No. 354?
Mr. ALTGENS - Well, it sounded like it was coming up from behind the car from my position--I mean the first shot, and being fireworks--who counts fireworks explosions? I wasn't keeping track of the number of pops that took place, but I could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for the last shot, but I cannot tell you how many shots were in between. There was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the head. That was the last shot--that much I will say with a great degree of certainty.


LIEBELER - You also testified that you were standing perhaps no more than 15 feet away when the President was hit in the head and that you are absolutely certain that there were no shots fired after the President was hit in the head?
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir; that's correct.


Mr. LIEBELER - The important thing is--it's not all that important as to how far you were away from the car at the time you took the picture--the thing that I want to establish is that you are absolutely sure that you took Exhibit No. 203 at about the time the first shot was fired and that you are quite sure also in your own mind, that there were no shots fired after you saw the President hit in the head.
Mr. ALTGENS - That is correct; in both cases.

Mr. ALTGENS - Well, it seems obvious now, when you think back on it--of course, at the time you don't reason these things out in a state of shock, but it seemed obvious to me afterwards that there wouldn't be another shot if the sniper saw what damage he did. He did enough damage to create enough attention to the fact that everybody knew he was firing a gun. Another shot would have truly given him away, because everybody was looking for him, but as I say, that's an obvious conclusion on my part, but there was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the head.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 19, 2018, 02:40:34 AM


The biggest clue to  maybe you are wrong is that you feel all these witness statements need your explanation so they can be properly understood. How about re-examine your interpretations first.
?? What explanation or interpretation is needed for:

""The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn?t seem to be any impact against his head."

"I knew that after I heard the second one, that is when I looked over my shoulder, and I was conscious that there was something wrong, because that is when I saw Governor Connally. And when I turned around again to the best of my recollection there was another one, right immediately after. "

"I heard three shots. The last two were in rapid succession."

The "biggest clue to maybe you are wrong" is that you want to draw conclusions that are not only unsupported by the statements you cite but which conflict with other statements by the same people, of which you are either not aware, or deliberately ignore.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jack Nessan on May 21, 2018, 02:25:47 PM
?? What explanation or interpretation is needed for:

""The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn?t seem to be any impact against his head."

"I knew that after I heard the second one, that is when I looked over my shoulder, and I was conscious that there was something wrong, because that is when I saw Governor Connally. And when I turned around again to the best of my recollection there was another one, right immediately after. "

"I heard three shots. The last two were in rapid succession."

The "biggest clue to maybe you are wrong" is that you want to draw conclusions that are not only unsupported by the statements you cite but which conflict with other statements by the same people, of which you are either not aware, or deliberately ignore.


?? What explanation or interpretation is needed for:



Whatever do I mean. Apparently their statements need to be explained to be properly understood. How about develope a set of guidelines to evaluate these statements instead of just randomly quoting whatever fits this strange theory. These witnesses were adding to and altering these statements as time went on.



Kinney:

Kinney identifies shots 1 and 2 by what he saw occur with the President. He said that he heard three shots. That suggests he may not have been looking at the President at the time of the third shot. He may have been distracted by the slowing down of the limo just before the head shot and by Clint Hill running between the two cars.


Huh? Doesn't suggest anything.


Hickey:

Hickey gave a second statement that clarified what he observed.




A bullet impacting the side of his head is the same a one going past? A passing bullet makes his hair move? How does it not hit Kellerman?





Greer:

He clarifies in his WC testimony (2H118):




It is the first time he adds an additional shot and goes from two shots to three. Specter writes a memo to Rankin addressing the addition of a shot by Greer. Still in his statement he states he accelerated after the second shot.




Betzner:


He does not identify a third shot expressly. He said that there were "at least two shots". Saying "at least two shots" indicates that he was not counting the number of shots.  So you cannot use Betzner's statement as evidence that there were only two shots. 





Says you. He describes only two shots. Where does Betzner mention a third shot?




Miller:


Miller says he heard 3 shots. Then he says "a man in the back seat slumped over". Then he says "one shot apparently hit the street past the car" but does not identify which shot that was.



 Two shots account for all the wounds in the car.




Skelton:

Skelton describes 4 shots.  On the first shot he said something hit the pavement to the left rear of the car. Then he said he heard two more shots and saw a woman in the car grab a man.  Then he said he heard another shot and saw the bullet hit the pavement.



Two shots account for all the wounds.




Walters:


I don't see where Walters describes the effects of any of the shots. He described a "first retort" and then "2 succeeding retorts".



Yes he does. Two shots account for all the wounds. Walters description of the last shot: "the last shot went high and above the presidents car"


Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Ray Mitcham on May 21, 2018, 04:11:58 PM
Walters.

"Mr. Decker:

I was standing on Main Street in front of the Criminal Courts Building the morning of November 22, 1963 and observed the Presidential procession pass by. Just after it had turned the corner and a very short time later I heard what was shots, 3 in number."
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Bernd Werner on May 21, 2018, 09:56:13 PM
Moot? How?

Because you're building up your case solely on witness accounts and not on actual evidence.

Quote
If you can provide evidence to explain how all witnesses missed seeing JFK smile and wave after the first shot, let alone for three seconds after the first shot please feel free. Then you would have to explain how 20+ observed him react as if he was hit in the neck on the first shot. That would merely be a start. You would ten have to explain Croft, Betzner, Hughes, Altgens, Greer, Hickey all making consistent observations that excude the second shot SBT. Then you would have to explain the shot pattern evidence.  And the explain Tague being hit on the second shot. Oh, and if you think you can do that, try explaining why the motorcade witnesses put the VP car completing the turn before the first shot. And then explain why the occupants.of the VP security car thought the had almost completed the turn? Why did Mrs Cabell think her car had entered the Intersection. Etc.

Sorry, but I don't have to provide evidence to your claims! It is e.g. your duty to provide evidence for the your claim that Tague was "hit on the second shot"

Quote
An individual witness can be wrong. But if multiple independent witnesses report consistent observations, on what basis can that evidence be disregarded?


It can be disregarded on the basis that witness accounts are prone to be inaccurrate. It can be disregarded on the basis that the witnesses you quote are actually not independent, because they all were in the same place - Dealey Plaza. It can be disregarded, because it seems, that you never tried to approve the witness accounts by actual evidence.

Quote
There is no missing bullet. They all struck JFK and/or JBC. The first is CE399. The second fragmented and deflected up off the radius and sent metal flakes into the wrist. Other fragments hit the windshield, windshield frame and at least one left the car and struck the curb near Tague. Likely others cleared the windshield. The third was obvious

To the best of my knowlegde the only bullets that were proven to hit was the fatal shot and the bullet recovered at Parkland Hospital. When and where did the second bullet, you claimed to hit, fragment? And what happened to the bullet that hit Kennedy in the back and exited at his neck?

As far as the head shot goes, the following trajectory from the overpass works without going thru the windshield. The same applies for the throat wound.

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/TrainOverpassTurkeyShoot.jpg)

Really? Then please explain, why your picture doesn't include the windshield!

Quote
Otherwise, we can only speculate which direction the bullet came from that passed thru the windshield. Daltex building?

There was no such bullet, especially no bullet that hit the windshield from the front!
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 22, 2018, 03:26:40 AM
Because you're building up your case solely on witness accounts and not on actual evidence.
Witness testimony is evidence. Courts use witnesss all the time. 20+ witnesses independently reporting consistent observations of an event is pretty reliable. The most unreliable conclusions are those based on expert testimony that conflicts with actual witnesses.

Quote
Sorry, but I don't have to provide evidence to your claims! It is e.g. your duty to provide evidence for the your claim that Tague was "hit on the second shot"
I did.  Tague and Greer and the zfilm.
 
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 22, 2018, 04:41:13 AM
To the best of my knowlegde the only bullets that were proven to hit was the fatal shot and the bullet recovered at Parkland Hospital. When and where did the second bullet, you claimed to hit, fragment? And what happened to the bullet that hit Kennedy in the back and exited at his neck?

First off, no bullets have been proven to be anything except maybe that the Magic Bullet wasn't so magic. But if you believe the Magic Bullet smashed thru bones and caused 7 wounds then showed up on the wrong gurney with no trace of blood, bone or tissue in swimming pool condition, then you truly believe in magic.

Greer slowed the limo down to the Turkey Shoot Point where 3 shots would sound like one providing the shooters timed it right. And at least one of the bullets was frangible.

Quote
Really? Then please explain, why your picture doesn't include the windshield!

You'll have to ask Zapruder why he didn't include the windshield in the shot. The downward angle (yaw) from the overpass would have cleared the windshield giving the sniper unobstructed access to JFK's head at Z313 to blow out a fist sized hole in the right occipital region of JFK's skull as witnessed by many of the medical staff at Parkland.

Quote
There was no such bullet, especially no bullet that hit the windshield from the front!

It is unknown which direction the shot went thru the windshield because the windshield was inexplicably removed from the limo and promptly displayed in a museum as authentic. Right. The limo was then scrubbed clean of evidence and recommissioned into service for another 13 years, instead of preserved as crucial evidence in the most infamous crime of the century.

The shot thru the windshield might have been the throat shot which was clearly an entrance wound that a Parkland doctor altered via a tracheotomy to portray it as an exit wound, which he performed on a dead person. At what point does any of this stink to you?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jack Nessan on May 22, 2018, 05:16:26 AM
Walters.

"Mr. Decker:

I was standing on Main Street in front of the Criminal Courts Building the morning of November 22, 1963 and observed the Presidential procession pass by. Just after it had turned the corner and a very short time later I heard what was shots, 3 in number."


Sheriff Decker CE Exhibit 5323

"As the Motorcade was proceeding down Elm Strcet, I distinctly remember hearing 2 shots. As I heard the first retort, I looked back over my shoulder and new what appeared to me to bo a spray of water come out of the rear seat of the President's car."

Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Ray Mitcham on May 22, 2018, 11:27:35 AM

Sheriff Decker CE Exhibit 5323

"As the Motorcade was proceeding down Elm Strcet, I distinctly remember hearing 2 shots. As I heard the first retort, I looked back over my shoulder and new what appeared to me to bo a spray of water come out of the rear seat of the President's car."

Decker.

?At about that time of the conversation there were two shots that I heard. There were three shots fired but I do not recall hearing one of them.?

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7460464

Seems Decker knew there were at least three shots.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 22, 2018, 01:18:48 PM
Walters.

"Mr. Decker:

I was standing on Main Street in front of the Criminal Courts Building the morning of November 22, 1963 and observed the Presidential procession pass by. Just after it had turned the corner and a very short time later I heard what was shots, 3 in number."
This is not a statement of Sheriff Decker. Decker was riding in the left rear seat of the lead car in the motorcade, which was driven by Chief Curry.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jack Nessan on May 22, 2018, 01:37:11 PM
Decker.

?At about that time of the conversation there were two shots that I heard. There were three shots fired but I do not recall hearing one of them.?

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7460464

Seems Decker knew there were at least three shots.

No, Decker knew there was two shots. Seems someone told him there was three shots.  Decker reiterates he heard just two shots. The only way he would know there was supposedly three shots is by someone telling him there were three.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Ray Mitcham on May 22, 2018, 01:58:39 PM
No, Decker knew there was two shots. Seems someone told him there was three shots.  Decker reiterates he heard just two shots. The only way he would know there was supposedly three shots is by someone telling him there were three.

Agreed, but obviously he believed that there were three shots, otherwise he wouldn't have said it.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 23, 2018, 11:04:23 PM
Altgens who was standing 15 feet away was very certain there was not a shot after the head shot.

Hill, Moorman, and Brehm said there was at least one shot after the head shot.  Any particular reason to prefer Altgens?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Jack Nessan on May 24, 2018, 07:39:31 AM
Hill, Moorman, and Brehm said there was at least one shot after the head shot.  Any particular reason to prefer Altgens?


Altgens is the only witness who was actually asked about it and also the general belief by the bulk of the eyewitnesses that was there was not a shot after the head shot.

Brehm shouldn't be in this list of witnesses. He originally told the press there was but two shots. Later changes to three with the second shot still being the head shot.

Hill's testimony is hard to rectify with anything. Basically she stated the first two shots account for all the wounds followed by three to four more shots.

Moorman mentions just two shots and then describes Jackie climbing on the car. She then adds a total number of three to four shots. Moorman then goes from stating three to four shots to stating there was two to three shots which is unusual for an eyewitness to reduce the number.


Brehm---------- originally describes just two shots. Later he states a third shot.

Charles Brehm
Dallas Times Herald 11/22/63

"The witness Brehm was shaking uncontrollably as he further described the shooting. "The first shot must not have been too solid, because he just slumped. Then on the second shot he seemed to fall back." Brehm seemed to think the shots came from in front of or beside the President. He explained the President did not slump forward as if he would have after being shot from the rear. The book depository building stands in the rear of the President's location at the time of the shooting."




Brehm later adds a shot in a radio interview Brehm, a former U.S. soldier, gave to NBC:

?I happened to be about fifteen feet away from the President when the first shot hit him. There is some discussion now as to whether there was one or two shots that hit him, but the first shot rang out and I was positive when I saw the look on his face and saw him grab his chest and saw the reaction of his wife that he had been shot and just at that time, which was probably a few seconds later the second shot rang out and he just absolutely went down into the seat of the car.

There was a third shot that went and by that time I had grabbed my little five year old boy who was with me and ran away from the scene of the thing. But the only thing that I did witness and something I?m sorry I did witness very honestly was the look on his face when that shot hit, and the look again on him and his wife?s face when the shots started to ring out. And it was very obviously that he was hit.

The first two shots that were heard. The first one hit the president?there was no doubt whatsoever?because his face winced and he grabbed himself and he slumped down. I do believe without any doubt that the second one hit him because he had an immediate reaction with that second shot. I do know there was a third shot but as I said by that time I had grabbed my boy and started to go. I did not witness Governor Connally?s being hit.?


=================================


Hill---------  First two shots cause all the wounds. Three or four shots after the car accelerates.

Sheriffs Affidavit 11/22

Just as the President looked up toward us two shots rang out and I saw the President grab his chest and fall forward across Jackie?s lap and she fell across his back ad said "My God he has been shot." There was instant pause between the first two shots an the motorcade seemingly halted for an instant and three or four more shots rang out and the motorcade sped away

================================


Moorman--------- two shots account for all the wounds. Moorman changes from three or four shots to two or three shots. First two shots is all she describes causing all the wounds.

Sheriffs affidavit 11/22

Jean Hill and I were standing on the grass by the park on Elm Street between the underpass and the corner of Elm & Houston. I had a Polaroid Camera [sic] with me and was intending to take pictures of President Kennedy and the motorcade. As the motorcade started toward me I took two pictures. As President Kennedy was opposite me I took a picture of him. As I snapped the picture of President Kennedy, I heard a shot ring out. President Kennedy kind of slumped over. Then I heard another shot ring out and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up in the car and said, "My God he had been shot." When I heard these shots ring out, I fell to the ground to keep from being hit myself. I heard three or four shots in all. After the pictures I took were developed, the Picture [sic] of President Kennedy showed him slumped over. When the pictures were developed, they came out real light. These pictures have been turned over to Officers [sic] investigating this incident.

FBI Interview 11/23

MARY ANN MOORMAN, 2832 Ripplewood, telephone number DA 1-9390, advises that she and a friend named JEAN HILL, 9402 Bluff Creek, Dallas, Texas, watched the President KENNEDY parade from the grassy area in the parkway between Main and Elm Streets, and at approximately 12:25 p.mp, as well as she recalls, she took a photograph of the procession as it proceeded toward her. She took this photgraph with a polaroid camera, and the photograph showed the police motorcycle escort preceding the President's car. In the background of this photograph she said the Texas School Book Depository Building was visible.

She took a second photograph of the President as his automobile passed her, and just as she snapped the the picture, she heard what she at first thought was a firecracker and very shortly thereafter heard another similar sound which she later determined to have been gunfire. She knows that she heard two shots and possibly a third shot. She recalls seeing the president "sort of jump" and start to slump sideways in the seat, and seems to recall President KENNEDY's wife scream, "My God, he's been shot"!




++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




There are a few more witnesses who state there was a shot after the head shot. All the wounds to both men are still accounted for with the first two shots, either by describing the second shot as the head shot or the action of the car after the headshot.


Marilyn Willis ------------ Second shot a Red Halo

Marilyn Willis (FBI Report on 6-19-64) "...when the motorcade passed on Elm Street in front of where she was standing she heard a noise that sounded like a firecracker or a backfire. A few seconds later she stated she heard another report and saw the top of President Kennedy's head "blow off and ringed by a red halo." She stated she believes she heard another shot following this."

===============================


James Jarman-----------  Two shots and then the car accelerates

11/23

He said that he heard a shot and then saw President KENNEDY
move his right hand up to his head. After an elapse of three
or four seconds, he heard a second shot and then the vehicle
bearing President KENNEDY speeded up and he was unable to
observe any more about the presidential vehicle.
He said a
third shot was heard- by-him closely following the second shot
possibly within/second or two afterward. He said these shots
sounded to him to be too loud to have been anywhere outside the
TSBD building.


Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Steve Taylor on May 24, 2018, 06:13:36 PM

Altgens is the only witness who was actually asked about it and also the general belief by the bulk of the eyewitnesses that was there was not a shot after the head shot.

Brehm shouldn't be in this list of witnesses. He originally told the press there was but two shots. Later changes to three with the second shot still being the head shot.

Hill's testimony is hard to rectify with anything. Basically she stated the first two shots account for all the wounds followed by three to four more shots.

Moorman mentions just two shots and then describes Jackie climbing on the car. She then adds a total number of three to four shots. Moorman then goes from stating three to four shots to stating there was two to three shots which is unusual for an eyewitness to reduce the number.


Brehm---------- originally describes just two shots. Later he states a third shot.

Charles Brehm
Dallas Times Herald 11/22/63

"The witness Brehm was shaking uncontrollably as he further described the shooting. "The first shot must not have been too solid, because he just slumped. Then on the second shot he seemed to fall back." Brehm seemed to think the shots came from in front of or beside the President. He explained the President did not slump forward as if he would have after being shot from the rear. The book depository building stands in the rear of the President's location at the time of the shooting."




Brehm later adds a shot in a radio interview Brehm, a former U.S. soldier, gave to NBC:

?I happened to be about fifteen feet away from the President when the first shot hit him. There is some discussion now as to whether there was one or two shots that hit him, but the first shot rang out and I was positive when I saw the look on his face and saw him grab his chest and saw the reaction of his wife that he had been shot and just at that time, which was probably a few seconds later the second shot rang out and he just absolutely went down into the seat of the car.

There was a third shot that went and by that time I had grabbed my little five year old boy who was with me and ran away from the scene of the thing. But the only thing that I did witness and something I?m sorry I did witness very honestly was the look on his face when that shot hit, and the look again on him and his wife?s face when the shots started to ring out. And it was very obviously that he was hit.

The first two shots that were heard. The first one hit the president?there was no doubt whatsoever?because his face winced and he grabbed himself and he slumped down. I do believe without any doubt that the second one hit him because he had an immediate reaction with that second shot. I do know there was a third shot but as I said by that time I had grabbed my boy and started to go. I did not witness Governor Connally?s being hit.?


=================================


Hill---------  First two shots cause all the wounds. Three or four shots after the car accelerates.

Sheriffs Affidavit 11/22

Just as the President looked up toward us two shots rang out and I saw the President grab his chest and fall forward across Jackie?s lap and she fell across his back ad said "My God he has been shot." There was instant pause between the first two shots an the motorcade seemingly halted for an instant and three or four more shots rang out and the motorcade sped away

================================


Moorman--------- two shots account for all the wounds. Moorman changes from three or four shots to two or three shots. First two shots is all she describes causing all the wounds.

Sheriffs affidavit 11/22

Jean Hill and I were standing on the grass by the park on Elm Street between the underpass and the corner of Elm & Houston. I had a Polaroid Camera [sic] with me and was intending to take pictures of President Kennedy and the motorcade. As the motorcade started toward me I took two pictures. As President Kennedy was opposite me I took a picture of him. As I snapped the picture of President Kennedy, I heard a shot ring out. President Kennedy kind of slumped over. Then I heard another shot ring out and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up in the car and said, "My God he had been shot." When I heard these shots ring out, I fell to the ground to keep from being hit myself. I heard three or four shots in all. After the pictures I took were developed, the Picture [sic] of President Kennedy showed him slumped over. When the pictures were developed, they came out real light. These pictures have been turned over to Officers [sic] investigating this incident.

FBI Interview 11/23

MARY ANN MOORMAN, 2832 Ripplewood, telephone number DA 1-9390, advises that she and a friend named JEAN HILL, 9402 Bluff Creek, Dallas, Texas, watched the President KENNEDY parade from the grassy area in the parkway between Main and Elm Streets, and at approximately 12:25 p.mp, as well as she recalls, she took a photograph of the procession as it proceeded toward her. She took this photgraph with a polaroid camera, and the photograph showed the police motorcycle escort preceding the President's car. In the background of this photograph she said the Texas School Book Depository Building was visible.

She took a second photograph of the President as his automobile passed her, and just as she snapped the the picture, she heard what she at first thought was a firecracker and very shortly thereafter heard another similar sound which she later determined to have been gunfire. She knows that she heard two shots and possibly a third shot. She recalls seeing the president "sort of jump" and start to slump sideways in the seat, and seems to recall President KENNEDY's wife scream, "My God, he's been shot"!




++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




There are a few more witnesses who state there was a shot after the head shot. All the wounds to both men are still accounted for with the first two shots, either by describing the second shot as the head shot or the action of the car after the headshot.


Marilyn Willis ------------ Second shot a Red Halo

Marilyn Willis (FBI Report on 6-19-64) "...when the motorcade passed on Elm Street in front of where she was standing she heard a noise that sounded like a firecracker or a backfire. A few seconds later she stated she heard another report and saw the top of President Kennedy's head "blow off and ringed by a red halo." She stated she believes she heard another shot following this."

===============================


James Jarman-----------  Two shots and then the car accelerates

11/23

He said that he heard a shot and then saw President KENNEDY
move his right hand up to his head. After an elapse of three
or four seconds, he heard a second shot and then the vehicle
bearing President KENNEDY speeded up and he was unable to
observe any more about the presidential vehicle.
He said a
third shot was heard- by-him closely following the second shot
possibly within/second or two afterward. He said these shots
sounded to him to be too loud to have been anywhere outside the
TSBD building.

The following is a GIF of 321-346.  Beginning at about 321, JFK's head accelerates forward.  Clint Hill stated that the last shot he heard was just as he was reaching the limo at about 339.  (At 313 he had just dismounted the Queen Mary and was only beginning to run).  Until 330, Connally can be seen still holding his hat in his right hand in the line of fire.  From 330-337 his hand is driven very rapidly down under the front of the seat.  Jackie, who until just prior to 343 has remained relatively cool is now beginning to flee from the car. Kellerman said a flurry of shots came into the car.  UPI's first wire reports described 3 bursts of gunfire.  Shortly thereafter, UPI quoted an SS officer as claiming it came from an automatic weapon.

Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Bernd Werner on May 24, 2018, 10:55:16 PM
No. Where is the evidence of a shot from the GK?

The evidence are the 33 people (according to John McAdams (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm)) testifying that they heard shots from the grassy knoll. According to your interpretation of witness testimony this means, that there was a shooter at the grassy knoll!

Quote
Experience and clinical trials show that witnesses are generally accurate in observing salient details of an event.
A salient detail is a detail that most witnesses of the event recalled.  See: Loftus (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/loftus.pdf). 

And the Warren Commission surely used multiple choice tests for their interrogations. You can't be serious, can you?

BTW, the book you quote actually supports my point of view on witness testimony, as it focusses on the fallability of such testimony. Quoting a part of the book and neglecting the rest is nothing else than quote mining!

Quote
Experts who provide opinions that do not fit with well corroborated witness accounts are invariably wrong. I can give you many examples.

No, it is indeed vice versa! Witness testimony is actually quite unreliable, I think the Wikipedia article on eyewitness testimony (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony)  is a good starting point for your own research on that topic.

Quote
Not really. He figured it out. He knew it was not the first shot and he knew that it was not the last shot. And he recalled hearing exactly three shots.

Really?

I would guess it was either the second or third. I wouldn?t say definitely on which one.

I believe that it was the second shot, so I heard the third shot afterwards.

That's not knowing to me, that's guessing!

Futhermore: Tague testified, that there was a fresh bullet mark on the curb.

About 12 to 15 feet right on the top of round of the curb, was the mark that very definitely was fresh, and I would say it was a mark of a bullet.

This contradicts your hypothesis, that all bullets hit Kennedy and/or Connally. Why do you exclude this part of his testimony?

Quote
The problems occur when you fail to consider all the remaining possibilities or when you exclude something as impossible when it isn't.

Well, there is no evidence for your hypothesis of three shots that hit, but there is evidence for a shot that didn't hit. So your hypothesis seems quite impossible.

Who has excluded the impossible?

The Warren Commission (yes, they indeed got something right!).

Quote
I'm still waiting for a LNer to demonstrate the trajectory and body positions of JFK and Connally that makes it work.


And I am still waiting for a conspiracy buff to demonstrate that the single bullet is not possible.

Quote
Where is your evidence that this was even possible?


In contrast to conspiracy buffs, the "lone nutters" did experiments and proved, that the single bullet indeed was possible.

Quote
I can't prove it wasn't possible because that would be proving a negative. It's up to you to at least show that it was possible, so you can exclude the impossible, otherwise, you're stuck with improbable.

That's a very lousy attempt of shifting the burden of proof and actually wrong! You cannot prove, that something doesn't exist, but you can prove, that something didn't happen.

Example: I can prove easily, that the Las Vegas Knights didn't win the Stanley Cup in 2017, because they joined the NHL for the season 2017/18.

Quote
I could post frames of the fireball blasting out of JFK's right temple and the top right side of his head but I'm sure you have some obfuscation for it, so I won't bother.

It is new to me, that a fireball bursted out of Kennedy's head, I always thought it were brain tissue and blood.

Quote
So why did you think the magic bullet crashed thru bones and came out looking so pristine?

Which bones were hit by the bullet?

Quote
Go ahead and draw the red line on Z312 yourself. What angle do you get when you just clear the windshield, providing it did? My graphics weren't intended to be a photogrammetric analysis but don't let me stop you:

1) Using Google Maps, go to a satellite view of the overpass and measure the distance from the overpass to JFK's head at Z312.
2) Find out the height of the overpass at the point where the trajectory angle lines up with JFK's head orientation at Z312.
3) Assume the limo was tipped down 5 degrees on its path down Elm.
4) Use some geometry to see if the bullet cleared the windshield before striking JFK's head. (IMO the knoll shot was the frangible bullet)
5) Exclude the impossible and see what's left.

As I am well aware of the geometrical problems involved, I won't do that. Your analysis is doomed to fail, because your approach is flawed. A line drawn on a two dimensional picture does not reproduce the angle in the three dimensional environment.

Quote
I'm merely proposing that if the head shot came from the front, to have cleared the windshield, then it must have came from the overpass. Simple as that. Never claimed that's how it happened, only that it was possible. See the difference?

OT, but nevertheless totally impossible.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 24, 2018, 11:47:02 PM
In contrast to conspiracy buffs, the "lone nutters" did experiments and proved, that the single bullet indeed was possible.

Only if you make a lot of assumptions about contradictory accounts of the wound locations, the exact positions of the limo occupants, and the location of the shooter.

But lots of things are possible.  Can they show that it actually happened?  And so what if it did?  How does that get you to the identity of the shooter?
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Andrew Mason on May 25, 2018, 12:02:21 AM
The evidence are the 33 people (according to John McAdams (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm)) testifying that they heard shots from the grassy knoll. According to your interpretation of witness testimony this means, that there was a shooter at the grassy knoll!
No it doesn't.  The quality of a witness observation is depends on the ability of a human to make the observation.  Detecting gunshot sounds and the relative spacing is rather easy to do.  Determining where the shots came from is much more difficult. Direction is determined by the brain sensing a time difference between the sound wave front reaching each ear.  The sense of direction can be fooled by reflected sound. Dealey Plaza had many surfaces that reflected sound.  So I would expect that some people would be confused as to the direction of the sound source.  That confusion is reflected in the distribution of witness evidence. 

Having said that, many more witnesses said the sound source was around the TSBD. According the the analysis of earwitness accounts by DM Green for the HSCA (at 8 HSCA 140), the distribution of 178 witnesses was:

TSBD: 49  (27.5%)
GK:  21  (11.8%)
Other: 30  (16.9%)
Unknown: 78   (43.8%)

Quote
BTW, the book you quote actually supports my point of view on witness testimony, as it focusses on the fallability of such testimony. Quoting a part of the book and neglecting the rest is nothing else than quote mining!
Eyewitness identification evidence is problematic. Unless the witness recognized the person at the time of the event, eyewitness identification is really an opinion of a witness that the person being seen in a photograph or lineup is the same person that they saw earlier.

But, fact observation is fundamentally different.  As the studies referred to by Loftus show, where a detail is recalled by most eyewitnesses, accuracy is quite high - around 98%. This makes perfect sense. Where you have many witnesses independently saying the same thing, it boggles the mind to suggest that they all independently made up the same fact!

Any given witness can be wrong.  My point is that you do not have to know anything about and individual's reliability as a witness to determine that if 22+ people independently reported seeing a simple observable fact and 0 reported a different fact, you are making a big mistake if you find in favour of the fact that 0 people observed.





Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Bernd Werner on May 25, 2018, 12:08:32 AM
Only if you make a lot of assumptions about contradictory accounts of the wound locations, the exact positions of the limo occupants, and the location of the shooter.

1. There are various photographs and x-rays, that can be used to find out the wound locations.

2. The position of the "limo occupants" can be established by photos and videos.

3. The location of the shooter can be established by aligning the entrance and exit wounds of JFk.

Quote
But lots of things are possible.  Can they show that it actually happened?

And how about you? Can you prove, that the single bullet didn't happen?

Quote
And so what if it did?  How does that get you to the identity of the shooter?

Quite easy, if you know the position of the shooter, you can search this place for further evidence and link it to the shooter.

No it doesn't.  The quality of a witness observation is depends on the ability of a human to make the observation.

But that contradicts your previous argument. Just to remind you, you stated:

Quote
An individual witness can be wrong. But if multiple independent witnesses report consistent observations, on what basis can that evidence be disregarded?

It seems, that you are trying to move the goalpost.

Quote
Detecting gunshot sounds and the relative spacing is rather easy to do.
 

Obviously not, as many witnesses (including Tague!) testified, that they thought the first shot was a firecracker or  a backfire of one of the vehicles!

Quote
Determining where the shots came from is much more difficult. Direction is determined by the brain sensing a time difference between the sound wave front reaching each ear.  The sense of direction can be fooled by reflected sound. Dealey Plaza had many surfaces that reflected sound.  So I would expect that some people would be confused as to the direction of the sound source. That confusion is reflected in the distribution of witness evidence. 

While this is surely true (see Zapruders testimony [I do not classify him as an "knoll witness" because of this fact]), can you prove this for every witness?

Quote
Having said that, many more witnesses said the sound source was around the TSBD.


This is of course true, but it is no contradiction to a shooter at the grassy knoll! The common argument is, that a further shooter was present at the grassy knoll and this proves a conspiracy (which is actually not true).

Quote
But, fact observation is fundamentally different.  As the studies referred to by Loftus show, where a detail is recalled by most eyewitnesses, accuracy is quite high - around 98%.


What part of her book are you referring to? Is it table 3.1? If so, did you know, that this table represents the results of a multiple choice test? Now tell me, which investigator uses multiple choice tests for his interrogations?

Quote
Where you have many witnesses independently saying the same thing, it boggles the mind to suggest that they all independently made up the same fact!

I never claimed, that the witnesses made up this fact! You are just putting words in my mouth.You futhermore fell prey to the "argumentum ad populum fallacy". Just because a lot of people said, that something occured, doesn't necessarily mean, that something occured. You have to confirm this accounts by actual facts.

Quote
Any given witness can be wrong.  My point is that you do not have to know anything about and individual's reliability as a witness to determine that if 22+ people independently reported seeing a simple observable fact and 0 reported a different fact, you are making a big mistake if you find in favour of the fact that 0 people observed.

Well, to the best of my knowledge no witness ever observed, that a bullet fragmented, therefore it didn't happen (according to YOUR logic).
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 25, 2018, 12:39:02 AM
1. There are various photographs and x-rays, that can be used to find out the wound locations.

You would think so, wouldn't you?  Unfortunately, different panels examining the same materials couldn't even agree on where the entry wound in the head was located.

Quote
2. The position of the "limo occupants" can be established by photos and videos.

Somewhat.  Unless the areas of interest are not visible in the photos and videos.  And there's the problem of interpolating 3D position from a 2D image.

Quote
3. The location of the shooter can be established by aligning the entrance and exit wounds of JFk.

Assuming you can figure out where those are, IF they are entries or exits, and didn't deflect much in transit.  Then you can only get direction, not distance.  And there's even a margin of error on direction.

Quote
And how about you? Can you prove, that the single bullet didn't happen?

Did I miss your proof that it did happen?  I don't know if it happened or not.  Or even how that helps us determine who did the shooting.

Quote
Quite easy, if you know the position of the shooter, you can search this place for further evidence and link it to the shooter.

Be my guest.
Title: Re: Autopsy proves SBT impossible
Post by: Bill Chapman on May 27, 2018, 01:41:46 AM
Nice try, but several witnesses reported the second and third shots as a "bam-bam" and stressed they were "very close together" (Lee Bowers, et al). If Oswald or any other human was operating the "humanitarian rifle", they would have to cycle the bolt after the second shot and reacquire the target AND fire accurately. Can anyone honestly say that there's such a thing as two shots "very close together" from a bolt action rifle? I think not...

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

I read that HSCA testing showed the rifle could be fired twice in 1.67 seconds. The catch is that the second one of the two shots missed; only the first could be aimed precisely. I would contend that even just pointing at the target still leaves open the possibility that the shooter could have scored the headshot due to pure dumb luck.