JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Howard Gee on May 28, 2018, 04:58:54 AM
-
The CKs absolutely love to insist that JFK's back wound and throat wound are unrelated. They insist that JFK's throat wound was an entrance wound.
Just one little problem for the Kooks: ask them what happened to the bullet that supposedly entered JFK's throat from the front - and they get a glazed over look on their faces and sit there mouths agape, stuttering and drooling.
So here's the challenge, drooling Kooks - explain what happened to the bullet that you insist entered JFK's throat from the front.
Sorry, rehashing for the billionth time why you think CE399 wounding both JFK and the Governor is an impossibilty, or any other subterfuge or diversion to avoid explaining what happened to the bullet that you insist entered JFK's throat from the front isn't an acceptable response.
Time to man up, Kooks.
-
Mr. Gee insults those who believe the throat wound is an entrance wound. Why ignore the sworn testimony of the Parkland witnesses? Please state how you explain their consistent sworn testimony? It's a logical question to ask what happened to this bullet. I don't have an answer for you. Some believe the shot through the windshield caused this wound which makes sense except it appears the windshield isn't hit until later. There's the same problem from the other direction. The bullet that entered JFK's back DID NOT EXIT according to the autopsy witnesses. Sorry, but logic dictates you are wrong in both directions! Yes, it CERTAINLY means that the boneheaded SBT is once again easily debunked. Those are only two of the most obvious reasons the SBT is nonsense. So let's spell it out, because not everyone understands these issues. If the back shot didn't exit, how could JBC be hit with this bullet?
Let's say for a second that the back wound DID penetrate JFK's body. From the alleged patsy's perch, there's a steep downward angle. That shot would not have exited anywhere near JFK's throat. The SBT was Arlen Specter's creation. It was based on extremely false reasoning when faced with the timing problem posed by the Zapruder film.He then had the audacity to challenge and threaten witnesses who testified contrary to his bogus SBT fantasy. It was an embarrassingly bad theory in 1964. It's even more silly now.
-
To believe that both the back and the neck wounds on JFK were entrance wounds requires:
** the shooters to have used low velocity, low power weapons
Even through the z312 shot fragmented, as a result of hitting bone, the skull, at near muzzle velocity, the fragments had no problem going all the way through the skull. One fragment cracked the windshield, another dented the windshield frame while a third flew on another 80 yards and nicked Mr. Tague. It was able to do this because of the high speed (2150 f/s). A similar round would surely go all the way through JFK?s neck, leaving both an entrance and exit wound. JFK?s neck simply would not stop such a bullet, leaving only an entrance wound.
So, to believe that both wounds are entrance wounds, I would have to accept:
** The shooters elected to use a frontal shooter, even though this will tend to make it apparent there were multiple shooters.
** The shooters elected to use lower velocity weapons, even though these are inherently less accurate, particularly with a moving target.
** The shooters elected to use lower velocity weapons, even though these are inherently less lethal than a regular rifle.
** The shooters elected to use lower velocity weapons, even through they would inherently tend to make it appear Oswald was not the shooter, since they would not leave an exit wound.
** And, most fantastically of all, by sheer luck, a frontal shooter and a rear shooter, hit on opposite sides of the neck, allowing the wounds to be explained by a shot from the rear. What a fantastic lucky break for the conspirators.
-
The possibility has been raised that the wound was from glass from the windshield hole
I assume it is generally agreed the angle from the snipers nest would have been 17 degrees downward and almost 7 degrees to the left?
-
The CKs absolutely love to insist that JFK's back wound and throat wound are unrelated. They insist that JFK's throat wound was an entrance wound.
Just one little problem for the Kooks: ask them what happened to the bullet that supposedly entered JFK's throat from the front - and they get a glazed over look on their faces and sit there mouths agape, stuttering and drooling.
So here's the challenge, drooling Kooks - explain what happened to the bullet that you insist entered JFK's throat from the front.
Sorry, rehashing for the billionth time why you think CE399 wounding both JFK and the Governor is an impossibilty, or any other subterfuge or diversion to avoid explaining what happened to the bullet that you insist entered JFK's throat from the front isn't an acceptable response.
Time to man up, Kooks.
Everyone, including the LNers know who the kook is here. It is not up to CTs to guess how the conspirators covered their tracks. It is up to dufuses like you to defend the WC with facts supporting the LNer narrative. Like the good little shill/sucker that you are.
-
Just as I suspected, the drooling kooks are unable to answer the most basic and obvious question relating to their insistence that JFK was hit in the throat by a bullet fired from the front - where did this bullet go ?
Well, so far it's only been a day, so we'll have to give you glazed droolers some more time to come up with an even remotely plausible answer.
Perhaps 55 years will be enough time.
Just kidding Kooks, obviously nothing will deter you from insisting JFK was struck in the throat from the front even though you are completely baffled by the most obvious and mundane question relating to your absurd insistence.
Where did the bullet that entered JFK's throat go ?
THE TRULY MAGICAL DISAPPEARING FRONTAL ENTRY BULLET
-
Humes Rejected the SBT and he ran the so called autopsy. Case Closed
-
Humes Rejected the SBT and he ran the so called autopsy. Case Closed
How could Humes accept or reject the SBT just from taking part in the autopsy?
Did he examine the wounds to Connally?
Did he study the Zapruder film to find out the time (or times) JFK and Connally received their initial wounds?
Did he study the Zapruder film to check the locations of JFK and Connally at the time of the initial wounding?
What a meager argument a CTer needs to convince themselves that the SBT is false. Case Closed.
-
How could Humes accept or reject the SBT just from taking part in the autopsy?
Did he examine the wounds to Connally?
Did he study the Zapruder film to find out the time (or times) JFK and Connally received their initial wounds?
Did he study the Zapruder film to check the locations of JFK and Connally at the time of the initial wounding?
What a meager argument a CTer needs to convince themselves that the SBT is false. Case Closed.
There's a reason the SBT is a Theory. Try doing some actual research with regard to Humes. You obviously have no idea as to why he Rejected the SBT.
-
The CKs absolutely love to insist that JFK's back wound and throat wound are unrelated. They insist that JFK's throat wound was an entrance wound.
Just one little problem for the Kooks: ask them what happened to the bullet that supposedly entered JFK's throat from the front - and they get a glazed over look on their faces and sit there mouths agape, stuttering and drooling.
So here's the challenge, drooling Kooks - explain what happened to the bullet that you insist entered JFK's throat from the front.
Sorry, rehashing for the billionth time why you think CE399 wounding both JFK and the Governor is an impossibilty, or any other subterfuge or diversion to avoid explaining what happened to the bullet that you insist entered JFK's throat from the front isn't an acceptable response.
Time to man up, Kooks.
Howard,
Why are you limiting the challenge to Kooks only? I think that you may be overusing that term. Not all CTs are Kooks.
-
Humes Rejected the SBT ...
Did not.
-
Howard,
Why are you limiting the challenge to Kooks only? I think that you may be overusing that term. Not all CTs are Kooks.
You're right, Tim.
The challenge isn't limited to Kooks only.
Anyone can participate.
In fact, everyone is encouraged to explain what happened to the bullet that entered JFK's throat. Obviously, the drooling kooks need assistance.
Here, I'll go first.
JFK was hit in the throat by an ice bullet which vanished when it melted.
-
Once again, Mr. Gee acts like an infantile troll. Not impressed. Ask yourself why you are obsessed with this when you can't begin to answer my questions about the case. Are you such a forensic expert that you can be such a douche on this question? I honestly admitted I don't know what happened but I accept the comment from a Dallas doctor that the bullet ranged downward in the chest and did not exit the body. But I am not a ballistics expert and there are much more important issues to explore
What about the back wound? Why is that any different? The autopsy witnesses reported Humes was frustrated that there was no lane of exit for the back wound and could feel the end of it with his finger. Explain, Mr. Troll, how this bullet could be any threat to Governor Connally. But try to do it using your own brain instead of the programming installed by the cover up commissions...
-
Question:
If the ?Back of the Neck? and the ?Front of the Neck? wounds were not caused by the same bullet, do people who do not accept the SBT look at this as just an incredible coincidence? Two different bullets caused wounds whose locations suggest that they were caused by the same bullet?
-
The CKs absolutely love to insist that JFK's back wound and throat wound are unrelated. They insist that JFK's throat wound was an entrance wound.
Just one little problem for the Kooks: ask them what happened to the bullet that supposedly entered JFK's throat from the front - and they get a glazed over look on their faces and sit there mouths agape, stuttering and drooling.
So here's the challenge, drooling Kooks - explain what happened to the bullet that you insist entered JFK's throat from the front.
Sorry, rehashing for the billionth time why you think CE399 wounding both JFK and the Governor is an impossibilty, or any other subterfuge or diversion to avoid explaining what happened to the bullet that you insist entered JFK's throat from the front isn't an acceptable response.
Time to man up, Kooks.
And if you want to observe a blatant double-standard, ask Howard to explain what happened to the "first missed shot" that he believes in and watch him stutter and drool.
-
Even through the z312 shot fragmented, as a result of hitting bone, the skull, at near muzzle velocity, the fragments had no problem going all the way through the skull. One fragment cracked the windshield, another dented the windshield frame while a third flew on another 80 yards and nicked Mr. Tague.
You can demonstrate anything you want if you just assume in advance that the things that you want to believe are true.
-
Question:
If the ?Back of the Neck? and the ?Front of the Neck? wounds were not caused by the same bullet, do people who do not accept the SBT look at this as just an incredible coincidence? Two different bullets caused wounds whose locations suggest that they were caused by the same bullet?
Good point.
This doesn't even take into account the fact that Kennedy and Connally are seen reacting simultaneously (or at least close to it).
To believe Kennedy and Connally were hit by two different bullets, you must believe that they were hit at almost the exact same time and the bullets that hit each man caused wounds in the two that align with each other as if they came from one bullet.
-
ALL the 3 bullet are amazing bullets.
1st bullet: WC theorizes was fired at closest range to JFK limo, MISSES the ENTIRE limo. That bullet disappeared, never has been found.
2nd bullet: CE 399. Truly a remarkable bullet able to remain almost impervious to a whole lot of different forces applied to the FMJ outer shell, from being deflected by elastic human tissue and muscle, to being b slowed by liquid lung tissue, then squeezed and deflected again by rib bones, and then finally shattering wrist bones while "Tumbling end over end" and entering JCs upper wrist BACKWARDS???, ( causing the jagged wound).
3rd bullet: The head shot Z312-313 bullet. This bullet exploded into at least 6 sizeable fragments of which one is said to have exited from JFK skull and flown over the front seat to the left of Greers head, and flew acrross the green to strike curb near Tague. The explosion seen in Z film at Z313 from this bullet only lasted 1/18th of a second then evaporated instanteously into the air BEFORE the left hand motorcycle rider, HARGIS, gets spalttered with force he thought was like being hit by "concrete" debris.??
no. 3 bullet is even more amazing considering the orientation of JFKs head at the time of impact is leaning leftward and turned approx 45 degree left, such that if the HSCA diagram for bullet entry and exit (from SE 6th story TSBD), is correct it could only be a very small tangential area of the upper right rear part of the JFK skull, and one has to question an MC FMJ bullet shattering so dramatically into 6 pieces plus leaving trail of fine fragments in brain, from impacting tangentially such a small area of a rigid bone spherical shell.
-
And if you want to observe a blatant double-standard, ask Howard to explain what happened to the "first missed shot" that he believes in and watch him stutter and drool.
Watch this, John. I won't stutter or drool, instead I'll offer a reasonable plausible explanation.
The missed shot probably hit concrete and might have fragmented making it even more difficult to find or recover.
Even if it didn't fragment, there's a huge difference in trying to recover a bullet that could have gone anywhere in or around Dealey Plaza after missing the limo compared to a bullet that supposedly entered JFK's throat.
Of course a common sense distinction like that is lost on the drooling Kooks.
But I digress, this thread is about the droolers explaining what happened to the bullet that supposedly entered JFK's throat, not about what happened to the missed shot or the viability of the SBT.
So John, the ball is back in your court.
If you believe that JFK's throat wound was an entrance wound it's incumbent on you to offer a plausible explanation of what happened to that bullet if you want to be taken seriously and not dismissed as a drooling kook.
As I suspected it would, this thread is well on the way to becoming a debate about the SBT. That is not the purpose of this thread.
Nope, this thread was intended to give the drooling kooks an opportunity to explain where the bullet that supposedly entered JFK's throat went.
So far the droolers haven't been able to do that.
Until they can offer an explanation of where the bullet they insist entered JFK's throat went, they must be regarded as just a bunch of kooks by any reasonable person.
CHALLENGE STILL ON. STEP TO THE PLATE KOOKS.
-
All the CTers are dodging it, so I will ask it again:
Question:
If the ?Back of the Neck? and the ?Front of the Neck? wounds were not caused by the same bullet, do people who do not accept the SBT look at this as just an incredible coincidence? Two different bullets caused wounds whose locations suggest that they were caused by the same bullet?
Does anyone want to step up and say ?Yes, that was a bit of a coincidence. Yes, the conspirators really caught a break there.? Or claim ?No, there was no coincidence. The shooters probably just used magnetic bullets?. [/i]
-
ALL the 3 bullet are amazing bullets.
1st bullet: WC theorizes was fired at closest range to JFK limo, MISSES the ENTIRE limo. That bullet disappeared, never has been found.
Nothing amazing here. Ballistic tests conducted by Luke and Michael Haag show that the bullet would into very small fragments upon striking the asphalt, leaving a small hole in the asphalt, very much like the damage very busy roads receive on a regular basis. There was no extensive search of the street made. It is no wonder that the bullet, or its fragments, were ever found.
2nd bullet: CE 399. Truly a remarkable bullet able to remain almost impervious to a whole lot of different forces applied to the FMJ outer shell, from being deflected by elastic human tissue and muscle, to being b slowed by liquid lung tissue, then squeezed and deflected again by rib bones, and then finally shattering wrist bones while "Tumbling end over end" and entering JCs upper wrist BACKWARDS???, ( causing the jagged wound).
3rd bullet: The head shot Z312-313 bullet. This bullet exploded into at least 6 sizeable fragments of which one is said to have exited from JFK skull and flown over the front seat to the left of Greers head, and flew acrross the green to strike curb near Tague. The explosion seen in Z film at Z313 from this bullet only lasted 1/18th of a second then evaporated instanteously into the air BEFORE the left hand motorcycle rider, HARGIS, gets spalttered with force he thought was like being hit by "concrete" debris.??
no. 3 bullet is even more amazing considering the orientation of JFKs head at the time of impact is leaning leftward and turned approx 45 degree left, such that if the HSCA diagram for bullet entry and exit (from SE 6th story TSBD), is correct it could only be a very small tangential area of the upper right rear part of the JFK skull, and one has to question an MC FMJ bullet shattering so dramatically into 6 pieces plus leaving trail of fine fragments in brain, from impacting tangentially such a small area of a rigid bone spherical shell.
Find me one ballistic expert who find any of this remarkable. It may seem remarkable to people who have not run ballistic tests. With a strong emotional belief to find it remarkable since that would mean conspiracy. But no ballistic expert who does ballistic tests in the real world and has learned from observations, the effects of bullets on bone, the effects of bone on bullets, the path of bullets through tissues, the yawing of bullets that they undergo. After 50 years of searching, the CTers have not found such an expert. Just thousands of armchair experts who state how remarkable it is.
-
All the CTers are dodging it, so I will ask it again:
Question:
If the ?Back of the Neck? and the ?Front of the Neck? wounds were not caused by the same bullet, do people who do not accept the SBT look at this as just an incredible coincidence? Two different bullets caused wounds whose locations suggest that they were caused by the same bullet?
Does anyone want to step up and say ?Yes, that was a bit of a coincidence. Yes, the conspirators really caught a break there.? Or claim ?No, there was no coincidence. The shooters probably just used magnetic bullets?. [/i]
LNer BS.
There was a wound in JFK's back and a wound in the front of his neck.
The wounds weren't dissected or tracked through the body.
After Oswald was murdered in police custody and it became apparent there would be no trial or serious inquiry into the facts the inexperienced autopsy doctors made an uneducated guess that the wound in JFK's back and the one in the front of his neck were connected.
-
LNer BS.
There was a wound in JFK's back and a wound in the front of his neck.
The wounds weren't dissected or tracked through the body.
After Oswald was murdered in police custody and it became apparent there would be no trial or serious inquiry into the facts the inexperienced autopsy doctors made an uneducated guess that the wound in JFK's back and the one in the front of his neck were connected.
But if the wounds were caused by two different bullets, how do you explain them being on opposite sides of the neck? Coincidence?
Why are CTers so reluctant to answer this and just want to change the subject?
-
But if the wounds were caused by two different bullets, how do you explain them being on opposite sides of the neck? Coincidence?
Why are CTers so reluctant to answer this and just want to change the subject?
You just don't understand that they weren't both in the neck.
Not to worry though, your equal to your peers.
Swallowing the WC hook, line and sinker does that to your ilk.
------------------
JFK is thrown forward in less than 1/2 of a second.
quote author=Martin Hinrichs
"What we see here is in my eyes clearly the impact-moment of the shot which hits Kennedy in his back."
(http://www.jfkennedy.it/Immagini/Leprovedelcomplotto/nelfilmdiZapruder/backhit.gif)
(http://www.jfkennedy.it/Immagini/Leprovedelcomplotto/nelfilmdiZapruder/Z229-235.gif)
"Credit Giuseppe Sabatino"
Martin
-
Watch this, John. I won't stutter or drool, instead I'll offer a reasonable plausible explanation.
The missed shot probably hit concrete and might have fragmented making it even more difficult to find or recover.
You said "plausible explanation", not wild-ass guess that you made up out of whole cloth.
But two can play that game: then the the bullet that supposedly entered JFK's throat probably hit concrete and might have fragmented making it even more difficult to find or recover.
Besides being a wholly unpleasant arrogant troll, you're also a raging hypocrite. Your drooling conjectures are somehow superior because . . .
Reasons.
-
All the CTers are dodging it, so I will ask it again:
Question:
If the ?Back of the Neck? and the ?Front of the Neck? wounds were not caused by the same bullet, do people who do not accept the SBT look at this as just an incredible coincidence? Two different bullets caused wounds whose locations suggest that they were caused by the same bullet?
Does anyone want to step up and say ?Yes, that was a bit of a coincidence. Yes, the conspirators really caught a break there.? Or claim ?No, there was no coincidence. The shooters probably just used magnetic bullets?. [/i]
Joe, it's only the people who already believe in the SBT who think that the locations suggest that they were caused by the same bullet.
-
Nothing amazing here. Ballistic tests conducted by Luke and Michael Haag show that the bullet would into very small fragments upon striking the asphalt, leaving a small hole in the asphalt, very much like the damage very busy roads receive on a regular basis. There was no extensive search of the street made. It is no wonder that the bullet, or its fragments, were ever found.
Why do you suppose there was no extensive search of the street made? Wasn't there supposedly an investigation? Oh yeah, the investigation had a predetermined conclusion.
But what is the good reason for believing there was a first missed shot at all if there is not evidence of such? Just because you're assuming that the SBT is true and that there were 3 shots fired? Because a couple of witnesses said something hit the pavement somewhere? A couple of witnesses reported smoke on the grassy knoll too. It's obvious that LNers will defend every element of the narrative no matter how much handwaving is required, but will then turn around and chide others for doing anything similar.
-
The bullet that entered JFK's back DID NOT EXIT according to the autopsy witnesses.
But not according to Dr. Humes, who conducted the autopsy! Why is his conclusion not considered important? Why is a passive observer with no medical training who reached no conclusion used to reject the autopsy findings?
-
Andrew Mason responded to my post: "But not according to Dr. Humes, who conducted the autopsy! Why is his conclusion not considered important? Why is a passive observer with no medical training who reached no conclusion used to reject the autopsy findings?"
I know it's hard to believe Humes would lie. But a thorough examination of the autopsy shows many problems. The FBI "Sibert and O'Neill" report states the same thing and when the agents were questioned about this, they said they wrote what Humes said:
?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.?
Other autopsy witnesses stated the same thing and there was considerable consternation that they could not find this bullet.
In my view, Humes was in a very difficult situation. They made Boswell and Humes do TWO brain examinations! This is another bizarre part of the story that has not been explained.
-
ALL the 3 bullet are amazing bullets.
1st bullet: WC theorizes was fired at closest range to JFK limo, MISSES the ENTIRE limo. That bullet disappeared, never has been found.
According to the evidence in this case (22+ witnesses who said JFK reacted to it; 40+ witnesses who said that there was only one shot before the midpoint between the first and last; 20+ witnesses who said that the first shot was after z186-191; all of which is consistent with the zfilm and the evidence of those closest to the wounding) the first shot did not miss but struck JFK in the upper back and exited his throat and, according to the trajectory and seating position of JFK and JBC, went to the left side of JBC.
2nd bullet: CE 399. Truly a remarkable bullet able to remain almost impervious to a whole lot of different forces applied to the FMJ outer shell, from being deflected by elastic human tissue and muscle, to being b slowed by liquid lung tissue, then squeezed and deflected again by rib bones, and then finally shattering wrist bones while "Tumbling end over end" and entering JCs upper wrist BACKWARDS???, ( causing the jagged wound).
Struck JBC in the torso (right armpit) and wrist, sending fragments to the windshield, left sun visor (Greer; zfilm), and over the windshield to the street/curb near James Tague (Tague said he was not hit on the first shot or the last shot and there were only three shots).
3rd bullet: The head shot Z312-313 bullet. This bullet exploded into at least 6 sizeable fragments of which one is said to have exited from JFK skull and flown over the front seat to the left of Greers head, and flew acrross the green to strike curb near Tague. The explosion seen in Z film at Z313 from this bullet only lasted 1/18th of a second then evaporated instanteously into the air BEFORE the left hand motorcycle rider, HARGIS, gets spalttered with force he thought was like being hit by "concrete" debris.??
no. 3 bullet is even more amazing considering the orientation of JFKs head at the time of impact is leaning leftward and turned approx 45 degree left, such that if the HSCA diagram for bullet entry and exit (from SE 6th story TSBD), is correct it could only be a very small tangential area of the upper right rear part of the JFK skull, and one has to question an MC FMJ bullet shattering so dramatically into 6 pieces plus leaving trail of fine fragments in brain, from impacting tangentially such a small area of a rigid bone spherical shell.
The third shot is the easiest to figure out because we can see what it did and because of the specific autopsy findings. You seem to be forgetting that there was an entry hole in the back of JFK's skull that exhibited beveling on the inside of the skull. And the pieces of skull that fit the large hole or "defect" in the right cerebral hemisphere of the skull were embedded with minute metallic fragments. How does the inside surface of the skull above and to the right of the eye get embedded with minute metallic fragments from a bullet entering from the other side?
-
I know it's hard to believe Humes would lie. But a thorough examination of the autopsy shows many problems. The FBI "Sibert and O'Neill" report states the same thing and when the agents were questioned about this, they said they wrote what Humes said:
?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.?
Other autopsy witnesses stated the same thing and there was considerable consternation that they could not find this bullet.
That is quite true. It is hard to believe that he would lie, and repeat the lie under oath. One would need clear and convincing evidence of a lie. But there is a much simpler explanation: initial confusion because of the lack of an apparent exit wound.
What you have quoted may be correct, but this reflects conversations that occurred before Humes became aware that there was a bullet wound in the throat in the same spot where they had done the tracheostomy. Humes stated in his autopsy report CE387 at p.4:
- "The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily probed. The wound presumably of exit was that described by Dr. Malcolm Perry of Dallas in the low anterior cervical region. When observed by Dr. Perry the wound measured "a few millimeters in diameter", however it was extended as a tracheostomy incision and thus its character is distorted at the time of autopsy.
He elaborated on this in his WC testimony (2 H 361):
- 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.
-
Why do you suppose there was no extensive search of the street made? Wasn't there supposedly an investigation? Oh yeah, the investigation had a predetermined conclusion.
There was no plan for an investigation because it was assumed the President would not be killed. There was little or no planning for what to do next if the President was killed.
No extensive search of the street was made, so the only conclusion is that the investigation had a predetermined conclusion? You?re the one who makes the unwarranted assumption.
Question:
1. Is assuming ?The traffic was not shutdown because the investigation had a predetermined conclusion? an unwarranted assumption?
The street was reopened to traffic within a fraction of an hour. It was, after all, about the busiest street in Dallas. Access to the freeway from Downtown Dallas would be greatly curtailed.
While shutting down busy streets, even freeways, is common nowadays, even for fatal traffic accidents, let alone murders, I believe this was unknown before 1964.
Questions:
2. Can anyone name a single case, in Texas, before 1964, where such a busy street was shut down so a murder investigation could be conducted?
3. Can anyone name a single case, anywhere in the U. S., before 1964, where such a busy street was shut down so a murder investigation could be conducted?
4. Murders had been committed by busy streets before, but the street was not immediately shutdown. It is reasonable to expect the Dallas police to suddenly do something they had never done before?
5. Is it even likely the police would be able to find a few scattered metal fragments somewhere within ten thousand square feet of pavement if they did conduct such a search?
But what is the good reason for believing there was a first missed shot at all if there is not evidence of such? Just because you're assuming that the SBT is true and that there were 3 shots fired? Because a couple of witnesses said something hit the pavement somewhere? A couple of witnesses reported smoke on the grassy knoll too. It's obvious that LNers will defend every element of the narrative no matter how much handwaving is required, but will then turn around and chide others for doing anything similar.
As you well know, a missed shot is not required for the SBT to work. All the wounds, all the damage to the limousine, the wound to Mr. Tague, can be explained, and is best explained, by two shots, one at z222 and the other at z312.
Still, the evidence for an early missed shot is pretty persuasive.
** Although all the damage is best explained by two bullets, three shells were found on the sixth floor, which means three shots were probably (although not absolutely) fired.
** Governor Connally, reported an early shot that didn?t hit him. Other witnesses report an early shot that, as far as they knew, did not hit anyone.
** A strong Zapruder camera jiggle, like the ones that correspond to z222 and z312, corresponds to z153.
** The angular speed of the target at z153 would be particularly high, 3.8 degrees per second, as opposed to 1.8 degrees per second at z222 and 0.55 degrees per second at z312, which could result in a shot that misses the entire limousine. At least this seems plausible to me.
** A shot at z153 makes some sense. It is about as late as Oswald could wait until the target goes behind a tree. When the target re-emerges around z206 or so, for all Oswald knows, the standing Secret Service agents in the follow-up car might block his view. He may have felt, despite the difficulty of tracking the target that this might be his last real chance.
-
I certainly am not going to waste my time coming up with examples that law enforcement closes down busy streets for murder investigations Besides that they could have searched the areas adjacent to the street without much problem eh?
-
No extensive search of the street was made, so the only conclusion is that the investigation had a predetermined conclusion? You?re the one who makes the unwarranted assumption.
No, you misunderstood. There definitely was a predetermined conclusion. That's indisputable.
Question:
1. Is assuming ?The traffic was not shutdown because the investigation had a predetermined conclusion? an unwarranted assumption?
You seem to have gone completely off in the weeds here...
Still, the evidence for an early missed shot is pretty persuasive.
To you, maybe.
** Although all the damage is best explained by two bullets, three shells were found on the sixth floor, which means three shots were probably (although not absolutely) fired.
Why do 3 found shells make it "probable" that 3 shots were fired, as opposed to say an already empty shell ejection followed by 2 shots for example?
** Governor Connally, reported an early shot that didn?t hit him. Other witnesses report an early shot that, as far as they knew, did not hit anyone.
Nelly said that the early shot that didn't hit her husband hit the president though.
** A strong Zapruder camera jiggle, like the ones that correspond to z222 and z312, corresponds to z153.
We've been through that before. You're cherry picking your jiggles to support your predetermined narrative.
** The angular speed of the target at z153 would be particularly high, 3.8 degrees per second, as opposed to 1.8 degrees per second at z222 and 0.55 degrees per second at z312, which could result in a shot that misses the entire limousine. At least this seems plausible to me.
That does nothing to show that such a shot was actually made.
-
they LNs only have 2 experiemts that im aware of that produced a MC bullet close to the condition of CE399
1. bullet fired thru 36 peices of pineboard glued together sideways
2. bullet fired at 900ft/sec into wristbone directly.
1. :D
2. Totally NOT a proof because A: bullet was orignally fired at 2000ft/sec and was slowed down to 900 ft by human bodie tissue, and sqeezed thru rib bones. B. The bullet entered JCs upper wrist BACKWARDS to have caused the jagged wound. It was spinning end over end in effect. Thus the 900ft/sec test bullet that hits a wristbone nose first is not representative of the WC theory.
-
But not according to Dr. Humes, who conducted the autopsy! Why is his conclusion not considered important? Why is a passive observer with no medical training who reached no conclusion used to reject the autopsy findings?
The conclusions importance is the facts that is based upon What was Humes conclusion based on?
-
You said "plausible explanation", not wild-ass guess that you made up out of whole cloth.
But two can play that game: then the the bullet that supposedly entered JFK's throat probably hit concrete and might have fragmented making it even more difficult to find or recover.
Besides being a wholly unpleasant arrogant troll, you're also a raging hypocrite. Your drooling conjectures are somehow superior because . . .
Reasons.
Another bad hair day, Johnny ?
You asked me to speculate about what might have happened to the missed shot.
My response was that it hit concrete and probably fragmented making it very difficult to find.
I also pointed out that finding a bullet that missed the limo and could have wound up anywhere in or around the plaza would naturally be far more difficult than locating where a frontal entry bullet to JFK's throat went.
I think those are logical, reasonable, rational responses and observations.
But to Johnny, they're 'wild ass guesses, made up out of whole cloth', by a 'wholly unpleasant arrogant troll'.
Take a deep breath, Johnny boy.
And instead of trolling this thread with your garbage, try to explain what happened to the bullet that entered JFK's throat.
I'm assuming you were being facetious about the bullet that entered JFK's throat hitting concrete and fragmenting. Unless JFK's Adam's apple was made of concrete or there was another concrete structure in his throat, I think we can rule out your answer. So, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you were being facetious.
But don't worry Johnny, there's still time for you to answer the question posed in this thread - What happened to the bullet that suppoedly entered JFK's throat ??
If, like the rest of the drooling kooks, you're unable to offer a plausible answer, please go back to your corner and suck your thumb or polish your shiney dome.
Try not to troll this thread.
Now, can we get back on topic ?
Challenge still open.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BULLET THAT ENTERED JFK'S THROAT ?
-
No, you misunderstood. There definitely was a predetermined conclusion. That's indisputable.
It seems that you are not only a believer in Large Secret Enduring Conspiracies, but in mind reading as well. How else could you tell that the police didn?t do something they never did, shutdown a vital street for hours to search the streets for possible bullet fragments, because right from the get go, they had a predetermined conclusion.
How does them bringing in the three tramps for questioning and summoning many policemen to check out a man who ignored their call to stop and entered a library fit in to the police following ?a predetermined conclusion?.
Why do 3 found shells make it "probable" that 3 shots were fired, as opposed to say an already empty shell ejection followed by 2 shots for example?
That is why I said ?probable?, not ?absolutely?. It is possible Oswald left a shell there to create a mystery for the police, so they would falsely assume that there was an extra shot that was never fired there. It is even less likely that Oswald left the shell in the rifle after his last practice shot many months earlier, and never operated the bolt that would have ejected it.
Most likely, the three shells mean there were three shots fired from that rifle from that floor. And there is evidence for all three shots.
Nelly said that the early shot that didn't hit her husband hit the president though.
And the Zapruder film shows her looking at neither man until well after both were obviously wounded. But there is no need for a witness to be actually looking at the two men during the z220?s to refute a SBT during the z220?s, so long as her memory refutes the SBT.
We've been through that before. You're cherry picking your jiggles to support your predetermined narrative.
No, not an arbitrary cherry pick. I eliminate the four strong jiggles associated with JFK starting to disappear behind the sign because tests show that someone filming a subject that disappears behind the something in the foreground will jiggle the camera. It doesn?t matter if there were shots then or not, we would expect the camera to jiggle anyway during this period.
The 3 remaining strongest camera jiggles, imply shots at z153, z222 and z312. And the camera jiggles get stronger and stronger with each shot, as the barrel of the rifle gets pointed closer and closer to Mr. Zapruder?s general direction.
A coincidence? Possibly. But probably not.
-
How many more Magic Bullet threads do we need to start here?
-
And the Zapruder film shows her looking at neither man until well after both were obviously wounded. But there is no need for a witness to be actually looking at the two men during the z220?s to refute a SBT during the z220?s, so long as her memory refutes the SBT.
How is JBC "obviously wounded" in the z220's?
No, not an arbitrary cherry pick. I eliminate the four strong jiggles associated with JFK starting to disappear behind the sign because tests show that someone filming a subject that disappears behind the something in the foreground will jiggle the camera. It doesn?t matter if there were shots then or not, we would expect the camera to jiggle anyway during this period.
What "tests" are you referring to? Camera jiggle theory has never been used to consistently and accurately pinpoint shots. Never. It is just an untested theory.
The 3 remaining strongest camera jiggles, imply shots at z153, z222 and z312. And the camera jiggles get stronger and stronger with each shot, as the barrel of the rifle gets pointed closer and closer to Mr. Zapruder?s general direction.
How is it that Zapruder jiggled the camera in response to a shot at z222 before he would have heard any sound from the shot? The bullet travels at about twice the speed of sound. A shot at z222, which was about 185 feet from the SN would have been fired about 90 ms earlier. So the sound, traveling at 1130 fps, would have reached Zapruder, who was about 275 feet from the SN, about 240 ms. after firing, or about 150 ms after z222 i.e. z225.
-
Another bad hair day, Johnny ?
You asked me to speculate about what might have happened to the missed shot.
My response was that it hit concrete and probably fragmented making it very difficult to find.
I also pointed out that finding a bullet that missed the limo and could have wound up anywhere in or around the plaza would naturally be far more difficult than locating where a frontal entry bullet to JFK's throat went.
I think those are logical, reasonable, rational responses and observations.
Of course you do.
So your "logical", "common sense", speculative answer (guess) is "duh....I dunno....it musta disappeared".
So, unless you're a raging hypocrite, then you should also accept the same answer for where the throat shot bullet went.
The fact that you find that kind of answer "plausible" only when you are the one giving it not only shows your hypocrisy, but also your megalomaniacal arrogance. Not to mention your continued cowardly and juvenile namecalling when your fallacious and vacuous arguments are shot down again and again. Keep it up though. You're making your side cringe with each and every post.
-
It seems that you are not only a believer in Large Secret Enduring Conspiracies, but in mind reading as well. How else could you tell that the police didn?t do something they never did, shutdown a vital street for hours to search the streets for possible bullet fragments, because right from the get go, they had a predetermined conclusion.
How ironic. You seem to be the self-appointed mindreader here as I have never said that I believe in "Large Secret Enduring Conspiracies" nor did I ever say anything about the police shutting down a street. Those are your strawmen.
How does them bringing in the three tramps for questioning and summoning many policemen to check out a man who ignored their call to stop and entered a library fit in to the police following ?a predetermined conclusion?.
I think you are very confused. It was the Warren Commission "investigation" that had the predetermined conclusion.
That is why I said ?probable?, not ?absolutely?. It is possible Oswald left a shell there to create a mystery for the police, so they would falsely assume that there was an extra shot that was never fired there. It is even less likely that Oswald left the shell in the rifle after his last practice shot many months earlier, and never operated the bolt that would have ejected it.
You never give any actual justifications when you label things "probable" or "likely". That just seems to correlate with whether you just want to believe it or not.
For one thing, you don't know that Oswald did anything with that rifle, but what's so unlikely about leaving an empty shell in a rifle to protect the firing pin?
Most likely, the three shells mean there were three shots fired from that rifle from that floor. And there is evidence for all three shots.
Really? What is the sum total of evidence for the alleged "first missed shot"?
And the Zapruder film shows her looking at neither man until well after both were obviously wounded.
Way overstated. Nellie's head is visible in very few Z frames before the head shot.
-
What "tests" are you referring to? Camera jiggle theory has never been used to consistently and accurately pinpoint shots. Never. It is just an untested theory.
Not only that, but Joe continues to completely ignore the "jiggle" near Z290, which is as big as the one near Z158, and the jiggle near Z190 for no other reason than that they don't fit his "probable" predetermined narrative.
-
What "tests" are you referring to? Camera jiggle theory has never been used to consistently and accurately pinpoint shots. Never. It is just an untested theory.
Jiggle analysis is not just an untested theory. A film camera operator will involuntarily "jiggle" the camera in response to a loud sound. This has been demonstrated beyond doubt. Whether we can identify the jiggles and pinpoint shots is another matter. But what a Camera Shake Analysis CAN tell you is when shots were NOT fired, which can be as informative as finding their jiggles amongst the background noise on film.
How is it that Zapruder jiggled the camera in response to a shot at z222 before he would have heard any sound from the shot? The bullet travels at about twice the speed of sound. A shot at z222, which was about 185 feet from the SN would have been fired about 90 ms earlier. So the sound, traveling at 1130 fps, would have reached Zapruder, who was about 275 feet from the SN, about 240 ms. after firing, or about 150 ms after z222 i.e. z225.
A film records camera shake very accurately. While stabilizing the Z film I filtered out the noise and graphed the camera shake to look for gunshot jiggles. I used the confirmed jiggle at frame 313 as my control and looked for similar jiggle patterns such as at z225. There appears to be approx. a 5 frame delay between hearing the shot and reflexively jiggling the camera.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/Zshake_yd-d.png)
Note that there's a telltale jiggle that peaks at z230, which suggests that Zapruder was responding to a sound at z225. If your math is correct, then the sound reached Zapruder 1/6th of a second after the bullet struck JFK at z222, behind the Stemmons sign.
Note the splices at z158 & z213.
Note the massive edit at z333 just when we would expect to see a hole in the back of JFK's head.
-
What "tests" are you referring to? Camera jiggle theory has never been used to consistently and accurately pinpoint shots. Never. It is just an untested theory.
So is the Magic Bullet!!... a theory that was never proven.
-
Jiggle analysis is not just an untested theory. A film camera operator will involuntarily "jiggle" the camera in response to a loud sound. This has been demonstrated beyond doubt. Whether we can identify the jiggles and pinpoint shots is another matter. But what a Camera Shake Analysis CAN tell you is when shots were NOT fired, which can be as informative as finding their jiggles amongst the background noise on film.
The problem is that camera shake and panning errors occur for a variety of reasons. Zapruder was not panning at a constant rate. He stops panning in several places (from z165 to about z186 and z214 to z222 there no panning at all). He resumes panning at z223 but then stops panning from z227 to z232 (keep your eye on the position of the tree in the background). So there is bound to be some jerkiness to the image because he is starting and stopping all the time. Is that because of a shot? I don't think it has been shown that people reflexively start and stop panning when they hear a shot - or just before they hear a shot as in the case of the panning that starts at z223.
And you cannot say that people will consistently jiggle the camera when they hear a loud noise without data from actual experiments using a large sample of people that bears this out. That is the difference between science and a plausible theory.
A film records camera shake very accurately. While stabilizing the Z film I filtered out the noise and graphed the camera shake to look for gunshot jiggles. I used the confirmed jiggle at frame 313 as my control and looked for similar jiggle patterns such as at z225. There appears to be approx. a 5 frame delay between hearing the shot and reflexively jiggling the camera.
Let's assume that you are right, that Zapruder would have jiggled the camera in response to hearing a shot. According to this Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startle_response), a reflexive startle response should begin within 60-121 ms. for the head, neck and shoulders to move, or within about 1-2 frames of the loud sound. Let's suppose that the jiggle at z200 was in response to the first shot (Willis, Betzner, motorcade and Elm St. witnesses, etc). If that was a startle reflex within 60-121 ms of the sound, it would put the shot sound reaching Zapruder at z198 from a bullet that struck 3 frames earlier at z195 and fired at z193-194. This also fits with Jack Ready's release of his right-hand from the handhold and the beginning of his rearward turn which occurs between z198 and z199. Because Ready was behind the limo, he would have heard the muzzle blast about 2 frames before Zapruder (path difference = 275-150 ft = 125 ft; time diff. = 125/1130 = .110 s or 110 ms.). All of that fits a shot at z193-194. There is a lot of witness evidence that puts the first shot about that time. That is corroborated by other evidence such as the Secret Service film showing JFK at that point to be clear of the oak tree as viewed from the SN. Why do jiggle analysis "experts" reject that jiggle as a response to a shot?
-
The missed shot probably hit concrete and might have fragmented making it even more difficult to find or recover.
Actually, it wouldn?t have to hit concrete to fragment. Asphalt will cause the bullet to fragment as well. The following video shows what would happen:
If the police had shut down the street for several hours, trying up traffic in downtown Dallas for the rest of the day, to conduct a careful search of over ten thousand square feet of street pavement, all they would have found was some metal fragments in a small hole in the street. None of these fragments could have been linked to the rifle they were fired from.
CTers insist a careful search should have been made of the street. The whole case against Oswald goes up in smoke because this was not done.
I don?t see why they think this would make such a big difference.
** A rifle found on the sixth floor.
** A bullet found at the hospital that was fired from that rifle.
** Two bullet fragments found that were fired from the rifle were found in the limousine.
** Fingerprints of the suspect found on the rifle and on the boxes by the window.
** A suspect who leaves the scene immediately who pulled a gun on the first police officer who approaches him (actually, likely the first two officers) within 75 minutes later.
All of this is not enough to convince them that Oswald is guilty. I doubt a small hole, like the small holes one typically finds on a road, with a bunch of metal fragments that can?t be tied to any rifle, can convince them.
By the way, this test pretty well lays to rest the theory that the bullet ricocheted off the street and went on to wound Mr. Tague about one hundred yards down the street. Instead the bullet would fragment into many little pieces that would fly up about a couple of feet and fall straight back down onto the road. I don?t think one can find a ballistic expert, who conducted a real-world experiment on this would ever say anything different.
But, why go with real-world experiments when armchair guesses of what might have happened to a bullet hitting the road can give on a much happier result.
In the following video, Luke and Michael Haag talk about the Single Bullet Theory:
While there is much that CTers, backed up with extensive armchair research, have found to question the Single Bullet Theory, Ballistic Experts, who conduct real-world research, have found this theory to be very good.
Where is the ballistic expert, who conduct real-world research, who think differently? In the United States? In Europe> In Japan? In India? Even in Russia? No where to be found. The explanation? The Large Secret Enduring Conspiracy controls all of them. None dare speak.
-
Jiggle analysis is not just an untested theory. A film camera operator will involuntarily "jiggle" the camera in response to a loud sound. This has been demonstrated beyond doubt. Whether we can identify the jiggles and pinpoint shots is another matter. But what a Camera Shake Analysis CAN tell you is when shots were NOT fired, which can be as informative as finding their jiggles amongst the background noise on film.
A film records camera shake very accurately. While stabilizing the Z film I filtered out the noise and graphed the camera shake to look for gunshot jiggles. I used the confirmed jiggle at frame 313 as my control and looked for similar jiggle patterns such as at z225. There appears to be approx. a 5 frame delay between hearing the shot and reflexively jiggling the camera.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/Zshake_yd-d.png)
Note that there's a telltale jiggle that peaks at z230, which suggests that Zapruder was responding to a sound at z225. If your math is correct, then the sound reached Zapruder 1/6th of a second after the bullet struck JFK at z222, behind the Stemmons sign.
Note the splices at z158 & z213.
Note the massive edit at z333 just when we would expect to see a hole in the back of JFK's head.
The data you show is off.
The study by Dr. William Hartmann conducted in 1978 for the HSCA found strong jiggles in the Zapruder film, consistent with a startle reaction. The 6 strongest jiggles are shown in the chart below:
jiggle corres. strength
frame frame
158/159 153 2.4
191 185 2.5 sign
197 192 3.4 sign
210 205 2.5 sign
227 222 2.6
318 313 3.7
The first column shows where the frame the jiggle was found. The second column shows which frame this jiggle would be associated with, assuming a 5-frame delay in the startle reaction., The third number shows the strength of the startle reaction. The fourth word ?sign? indicates a jiggle that was likely caused by the limousine passing behind the sign.
Source of information, Larry Sturdivan?s book ?The JFK Myths?.
Tests show that loud noises cause involuntary camera jiggles. But so, does the subject passing behind an object in the foreground. The camera jiggles at z191, z197 and z210 happen while the limousine is starting to pass behind the sign or is almost totally hidden. We would expect jiggles here, whether there are shots or not.
The other three camera jiggles are associated with frames z153, z222 and z313.
A shot at z313 (actually, probably more like z312) is certain.
A shot at z222 is very, very likely, due to the Connally coat movement at z224 and the reactions of JFK and Connally during the z220?s.
A shot at z153 has the least support but does have the testimony of Governor Connally and the apparent reaction by Rosemary Willis.
While the original film had some minor damaged and needed a couple of splices, intact copies were available and used by Dr. Hartmann where needed.
In any case, the jiggle you note at z230 was not at z230 but at z227. This is too bad because a jiggle at z230 would imply a shot at z225, which is just too late to be associated with the coat movement at z224. But the jiggle which was actually at z227, implies a shot at z222, which matches perfectly with the coat movement at z224, which the tests by Dr. Lattimer would cause the coat to move a tenth of a second after the shot strikes Connally.
Of course, I understand, that the camera jiggle at z227, and the coat movement at z224, should be looked at as an amazing coincidence. Nothing more.
-
Yes Joe, obviously asphalt would cause fragmentation.
Just a reminder though...this thread was posted to give the drooling kooks that insist the throat wound was frontal entry an opportunity to explain what happened to the bullet that supposedly entered JFK's throat.
As you can see, the kooks have no answer.
When the drooling kooks get cornered and exposed for what they are, all they can do is try to divert attention from the fact that they have no answer.
Rather than admit they're unable to answer a simple question which demolishes their frontal entry fantasy, they divert by asking 'what happened to the missed shot ?'.
That's not going to work.
Challenge still stands, droolers....
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BULLET THAT ENTERED JFK'S THROAT ?
-
What made CE 399 a Truly Magical Bullet was the fact that it did not traverse the body of JFK . Jerry Ford could have moved that back entrance to wherever he wanted to move it and so he put it at the base of the neck but the path of that entry wound only went down to the knuckle of Humes little finger and the path downward was at what Humes said was a 45 to 60 degree angle downward. I used to think Jerry Ford was a good man until he moved that back wound on JFK and made it a base of the neck wound and of course when he pardoned Richard Nixon . I know , that's another story
-
The room in which they worked was crowded with a variety of non?medical onlookers, several of whom were giving orders to the pathologists.
The written records from the autopsy are incomplete, and perhaps corrupt. The original autopsy report was deliberately destroyed by Dr James Humes, the senior pathologist, after the murder of Lee Oswald. The rewritten autopsy report includes measurements and other data that do not exist in the pathologists? surviving notes and diagrams.
The photographic record is incomplete. The pathologists and photographers recalled ordering and taking photographs which appear no longer to exist.
http://22november1963.org.uk/pierre-finck-jfk-back-throat-wounds
Various descriptions of the small hole in the President's throat were given at Parkland Hospital by the doctors who saw it before a tracheotomy incision erased its outline. . . . [A]ll seemed to agree on the size of the hole. It was small ? so small, in fact, that one doctor believed it was too small to be even the entry hole of a high velocity bullet (6H56). Dr. Perry described it over the phone to Commander Humes as between 3 and 5 millimeters in diameter (17H29). This is half the diameter of an ordinary pencil, much too small to be he exit wound of a transiting bullet.
It was a cover-up.
So if somebody [lone gunman parrots] wants to know what happened to a bullet...they might as well look where the sun doesn't shine.
-
Nothing magical about 399.
Re-enactments of the assassination duplicating the same positioning, distances, and using the same ammo and anatomically correct forensic 'dummies' have demonstrated the viability of the SBT.
It's just the drooling kook 'dummies' that deny this.
What is magical is the fantasy frontal entry bullet that supposedly caused JFK's throat wound that vanished into thin air.
C'mon droolers, where did the bullet go ?
-
Actually, it wouldn?t have to hit concrete to fragment. Asphalt will cause the bullet to fragment as well. The following video shows what would happen:
Interesting video. Thanks for posting. A few comments:
1. the shot through the branches is well done. If there was any doubt before, this makes it clear that tree branches do not cause jacketed bullets to deflect or even deform, let alone lose their jacket. Someone should show this to Gerald Posner who not only thinks that the oak tree deflected it over to the curb near Tague and also deformed it, causing it to lose its jacket.
2. The asphalt test shows a noticeable plume of debris in an area where there quite a few people. It is difficult to imagine no one around noticing it and even more difficult to imagine that no one ever found the divot.
3. I would be surprised if the bullet jacket completely disintegrated. The jacket has a much higher melting point (1085 Celsius as opposed to 327C for lead). The bullet compression results in molten lead that explodes into a spray of tiny droplets in all directions that essentially disappear. But there should be large jacket pieces around. I would like to see the slow motion version of the film.
-
What made CE 399 a Truly Magical Bullet was the fact that it did not traverse the body of JFK . Jerry Ford could have moved that back entrance to wherever he wanted to move it and so he put it at the base of the neck but the path of that entry wound only went down to the knuckle of Humes little finger and the path downward was at what Humes said was a 45 to 60 degree angle downward. I used to think Jerry Ford was a good man until he moved that back wound on JFK and made it a base of the neck wound and of course when he pardoned Richard Nixon . I know , that's another story
Questions:
1. How do you explain the coincidence of two bullets, one from the front and one from the back, that just happen to hit on opposite sides of the neck?
2. How do you explain a shooter using a bullet that only penetrates an inch or two?
3. How do you explain Dr. Humes not being able to feel a bullet that only penetrates an inch or two?
A bullet that only penetrates an inch or two implies a low velocity bullet, that is inherently inaccurate against a moving target and not as lethal as a regular bullet. It is not a plausible scenario.
What?s a better explanation? Medical experts are unanimous that you cannot reliably probe a wound, hours after rigor mortis has set in, with a finger. Not even a little finger. The autopsy doctors did not have access to the proper tools and did the best they could in the amount of time they allocated for themselves. They could have, and arguably should have, forced Mrs. Kennedy to wait a few more hours, after a very long and terrible day, and dissect the wound path, but they did not do that.
So, the best explanation is that, this was not really a short one or two, inch wound path but a much longer one, and the wound path probably terminated with the throat wound that just happened to be on the other side of the neck.
-
Interesting video. Thanks for posting. A few comments:
1. the shot through the branches is well done. If there was any doubt before, this makes it clear that tree branches do not cause jacketed bullets to deflect or even deform, let alone lose their jacket. Someone should show this to Gerald Posner who not only thinks that the oak tree deflected it over to the curb near Tague and also deformed it, causing it to lose its jacket.
Gerald Posner?s theory of a tree deflected bullet has not been a popular theory among LNers for many years. I don?t know if half the LNers ever supported it.
Of course, Gerald Posner was not a ballistic expert and did not perform any scientific experiments like Luke and Michael Haag have done.
2. The asphalt test shows a noticeable plume of debris in an area where there quite a few people. It is difficult to imagine no one around noticing it and even more difficult to imagine that no one ever found the divot.
Even with almost all eyes on the President and Jackie? Even so, I recall there were a few witnesses who reported dust being kicked up off the street.
3. I would be surprised if the bullet jacket completely disintegrated. The jacket has a much higher melting point (1085 Celsius as opposed to 327C for lead). The bullet compression results in molten lead that explodes into a spray of tiny droplets in all directions that essentially disappear. But there should be large jacket pieces around. I would like to see the slow motion version of the film.
I don?t think the bullet melts. It is just torn apart into small pieces. The lead and the copper jacket both. I never read anything in Larry Sturdivan?s book that describes bullets fragmenting due to partial or total melting.
The Haags searched for the bullet and/or large fragments, and found none.
Is there anything in the literature by a ballistic expert about bullets melting, partially or fully, as a result of striking rock or asphalt? Or any target?
-
Yes Joe, obviously asphalt would cause fragmentation.
Just a reminder though...this thread was posted to give the drooling kooks that insist the throat wound was frontal entry an opportunity to explain what happened to the bullet that supposedly entered JFK's throat.
As you can see, the kooks have no answer.
When the drooling kooks get cornered and exposed for what they are, all they can do is try to divert attention from the fact that they have no answer.
I don?t know about drooling, but they have provided no answers.
How just a big coincidence happened that two bullets would just happen to strike on opposite sides of the neck?
What happened to the bullets that stayed in the body? Easy. The autopsy doctors were forced to hide the truth, the obvious answer to anyone who believes in Large Secret Enduring Conspiracies. There might have been two bullets and a monkey wrench found in the neck and we never would have heard about it.
Why would the shooters be using inherently inaccurate, less lethal special bullets that only penetrate an inch or two? No answer.
-
Not only that, but Joe continues to completely ignore the "jiggle" near Z290, which is as big as the one near Z158, and the jiggle near Z190 for no other reason than that they don't fit his "probable" predetermined narrative.
That Z190 "jiggle" WOULD fit Roseary Willis coming to an abrupt halt at Z195 and that would fit nicely with Betzer Z186 and Wiliis photo Z205, the period of time both of those photographers thought they heard the 1st shot fired.
But that would be 1 sec before Z224 and so, that would mess up the MC rifle fired 3 times theory, unless someone can show its possible shoot 2 shots in 1 sec with an MC rifle.
-
Even with almost all eyes on the President and Jackie? Even so, I recall there were a few witnesses who reported dust being kicked up off the street.
If you are referring to Virgie Baker (Rachley), initially, she said she thought saw something hit in front of the President's car on the road, not the curb (her November 24, 1963 interview). She didn't mention it in her March 1964 FBI statement (22 H 635/6). In her deposition to the WC, she said that it hit BEHIND the President's car past the Stemmons freeway sign (7 H 510):
"Mr. LIEBELER. Where was the thing that you saw hit the street in relation to the
President?s car? I mean, was it in front of the car, behind his car, by the side of his car or
was it close to the car?
Mrs. BAKER. I thought it was-well-behind it."
Exhibit CE354 was marked to show where she said the bullet hit. She put it well past the
Stemmons sign. Now if that was BEHIND the President's car (I'm not sure how she
would have seen that because the follow-up car would have been in the way), it must
have happened at about z250. It couldn't have happened at z160. [Mrs. Baker was
standing at the point marked 1. and the thing that hit the road was at the point marked 2.
on CE354. See:
http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0487a.htm (http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0487a.htm)
I don?t think the bullet melts. It is just torn apart into small pieces. The lead and the copper jacket both. I never read anything in Larry Sturdivan?s book that describes bullets fragmenting due to partial or total melting.
The Haags searched for the bullet and/or large fragments, and found none.
Is there anything in the literature by a ballistic expert about bullets melting, partially or fully, as a result of striking rock or asphalt? Or any target?
It depends on the target. It is just a matter of physics. The bullet asborbs energy when it compresses. If the bullet does not deform or displace the target then all of the kinetic energy of the bullet is absorbed by the bullet itself. A 10 gram bullet travelling at 670 m/sec has 2250 Joules of kinetic energy. When that energy is transferred to the bullet, the bullet heats up. If enough energy is absorbed, the bullet lead melts. You can see this, for example, in these clips:
The specific heat of lead is .128 Joules per gram-degree C. The melting point of lead is 327C. So in order to bring 10 grams of lead initially at 20C the bullet to its melting point it just has to absorb 307 x 10 x .128 Joules = 392 Joules or less than 20% of the total bullet energy. There is additional energy of 22.4 J/g to actually melt it, so an additional 224 Joules would be needed to melt 10 grams of lead, for a total of 616 Joules or less than 30% of the total bullet energy.
We can estimate that the 10 gram bullet has 8 g. of lead and 2 g. of copper jacket. Copper has a specific heat of .385 J/g-deg. C, a melting point of 1083 deg. C, and a latent heat of melting of 207 J/g (9 times that of lead). So to melt 2 grams of copper initially at 20C, the jacket needs to absorb 2 x 1063 x .385 + 2 x 207 = 1233 Joules or over half the bullet energy.
Since it is apparent that a significant amount of energy is transferred to the target when hitting asphalt, there is likely not enough energy available from the impact to melt the copper even if the jacket absorbed all the compression energy. But the 8 g of lead absorbing its share of half the bullet energy (.8 x .5 x 2250 = 900 J.) receives almost twice the amount of energy needed to melt all the lead.
-
CTers insist a careful search should have been made of the street. The whole case against Oswald goes up in smoke because this was not done.
Who has insisted that a careful search should have been made of the street? That's a complete strawman. I merely asked why you believe that a shot hit the pavement if there is no evidence of such. You and and the coward keep whining that nobody is answering your contrived question, but you're certainly avoiding all the inconvenient questions put to you.
I don?t see why they think this would make such a big difference.
** A rifle found on the sixth floor.
** A bullet found at the hospital that was fired from that rifle.
** Two bullet fragments found that were fired from the rifle were found in the limousine.
** Fingerprints of the suspect found on the rifle and on the boxes by the window.
** A suspect who leaves the scene immediately who pulled a gun on the first police officer who approaches him (actually, likely the first two officers) within 75 minutes later.
All of this is not enough to convince them that Oswald is guilty.
And for good reason, Joe. None of this tells you anything about who fired a weapon at JFK. And the bit about Oswald pulling a gun on an officer is a flat out fabrication that you all keep repeating with no evidence to support it.
-
Rather than admit they're unable to answer a simple question which demolishes their frontal entry fantasy, they divert by asking 'what happened to the missed shot ?'.
It's not a diversion. It points out your drooling hypocrisy. "Duh, I dunno...musta disappeared" is apparently a reasonable answer, but only when you're the one giving it.
Your "challenge", like everything you post here, is BS trolling.
-
Re-enactments of the assassination duplicating the same positioning, distances, and using the same ammo and anatomically correct forensic 'dummies' have demonstrated the viability of the SBT.
Name one.
C'mon droolers, where did the bullet go ?
Duh...I dunno...musta disappeared. Just like that pavement bullet you made up.
-
1. How do you explain the coincidence of two bullets, one from the front and one from the back, that just happen to hit on opposite sides of the neck?
Why do you pretend that there is agreement that the two wounds were on "opposite sides of the neck"?
-
the chip on the curb does not seem consistent with being hit by an entire bullet. That is total speculation, but maybe we should shot some curbs with Carcanos A lot gun enthusiasts out there
-
That Z190 "jiggle" WOULD fit Roseary Willis coming to an abrupt halt at Z195 and that would fit nicely with Betzer Z186 and Wiliis photo Z205, the period of time both of those photographers thought they heard the 1st shot fired.
But that would be 1 sec before Z224 and so, that would mess up the MC rifle fired 3 times theory, unless someone can show its possible shoot 2 shots in 1 sec with an MC rifle.
Exactly, which is why Joe and his ilk ignore it or contrive a different "explanation". The Stemmons sign is already in the frame when Zapruder "resumes filming" at Z133. Why does it suddenly cause a jiggle at Z190? And Joe completely ignores and refuses to even address the jiggle at Z290.
-
It's not a diversion. It points out your drooling hypocrisy. "Duh, I dunno...musta disappeared" is apparently a reasonable answer, but only when you're the one giving it.
Your "challenge", like everything you post here, is BS trolling.
Here's the problem, Johnny.
You asked what could have happened to a missed shot. I responded that it probably hit concrete and fragmented and rationally explained why trying to find a bullet that missed the limo and could wind up anywhere in or around the plaza would be much more difficult than finding a bullet that supposedly entered JFK's throat.
I never said "Duh, I dunno...musta disappeared", and if you weren't such a hairless drooling kook you'd realize that the entire point of this thread is that a 'vanishing' bullet isn't a reasonable or plausible position to take.
However, that's precisely the position you and the rest of the drooling kooks have taken.
Challenge still on to all kooks (especially the goofy midget bald ones)....
Where did the bullet go ?
-
That Z190 "jiggle" WOULD fit Roseary Willis coming to an abrupt halt at Z195 and that would fit nicely with Betzer Z186 and Wiliis photo Z205, the period of time both of those photographers thought they heard the 1st shot fired.
But that would be 1 sec before Z224 and so, that would mess up the MC rifle fired 3 times theory, unless someone can show its possible shoot 2 shots in 1 sec with an MC rifle.
I did a study of the Zapruder film and found that Rosemary Willis started to slow down in the z160?s. She came to a complete stop by around z195 but was slowing down well before then.
One can download the individual frames, measure the distance Rosemary is from some ?landmark? and with a little study, one can see the slowdown starts well before z195.
And does this also fit with Altgens photograph at z255, which he also thought was taken about the time of the first shot. It seems that Betzer, Willis and Altgens thought their photograph was taken at about the time of the first shot, even thought these three photographs cover a time span of 4 seconds. It seems they all thought their photograph was of special significance.
-
the chip on the curb does not seem consistent with being hit by an entire bullet. That is total speculation, but maybe we should shot some curbs with Carcanos A lot gun enthusiasts out there
Good luck with hitting the precise corner of a curb with a Carcano, or any other rifle, with a shot from 80 yards away.
And to get, not a bullet, but a bullet fragment, to hit the precise corner of a curb, will take a lot of trail shots before, by some fluke, it is done.
Or, one can drive a car, with a tire with lead balancing weights on it, up against the curb, simulating a careless or impaired driver. That shouldn?t be too hard to recreate. And is, most probably, how the smear (not a chip) was formed on the corner of the curb.
-
If you are referring to Virgie Baker (Rachley), initially, she said she thought saw something hit in front of the President's car on the road, not the curb (her November 24, 1963 interview). She didn't mention it in her March 1964 FBI statement (22 H 635/6). In her deposition to the WC, she said that it hit BEHIND the President's car past the Stemmons freeway sign (7 H 510):
"Mr. LIEBELER. Where was the thing that you saw hit the street in relation to the
President?s car? I mean, was it in front of the car, behind his car, by the side of his car or
was it close to the car?
Mrs. BAKER. I thought it was-well-behind it."
Exhibit CE354 was marked to show where she said the bullet hit. She put it well past the
Stemmons sign. Now if that was BEHIND the President's car (I'm not sure how she
would have seen that because the follow-up car would have been in the way), it must
have happened at about z250. It couldn't have happened at z160. [Mrs. Baker was
standing at the point marked 1. and the thing that hit the road was at the point marked 2.
on CE354. See:
http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0487a.htm (http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0487a.htm)
I think there was more than one witness as I recall who saw something strike the road.
Ms. Baker could see something to the right of the limousine. Nothing would have definitely blocked her view. Perhaps the motorcycles. Perhaps not.
It depends on the target. It is just a matter of physics. The bullet asborbs energy when it compresses. If the bullet does not deform or displace the target then all of the kinetic energy of the bullet is absorbed by the bullet itself. A 10 gram bullet travelling at 670 m/sec has 2250 Joules of kinetic energy. When that energy is transferred to the bullet, the bullet heats up. If enough energy is absorbed, the bullet lead melts. You can see this, for example, in these clips:
The specific heat of lead is .128 Joules per gram-degree C. The melting point of lead is 327C. So in order to bring 10 grams of lead initially at 20C the bullet to its melting point it just has to absorb 307 x 10 x .128 Joules = 392 Joules or less than 20% of the total bullet energy. There is additional energy of 22.4 J/g to actually melt it, so an additional 224 Joules would be needed to melt 10 grams of lead, for a total of 616 Joules or less than 30% of the total bullet energy.
We can estimate that the 10 gram bullet has 8 g. of lead and 2 g. of copper jacket. Copper has a specific heat of .385 J/g-deg. C, a melting point of 1083 deg. C, and a latent heat of melting of 207 J/g (9 times that of lead). So to melt 2 grams of copper initially at 20C, the jacket needs to absorb 2 x 1063 x .385 + 2 x 207 = 1233 Joules or over half the bullet energy.
Since it is apparent that a significant amount of energy is transferred to the target when hitting asphalt, there is likely not enough energy available from the impact to melt the copper even if the jacket absorbed all the compression energy. But the 8 g of lead absorbing its share of half the bullet energy (.8 x .5 x 2250 = 900 J.) receives almost twice the amount of energy needed to melt all the lead.
This is outside of my field of expertise but checking the internet for the amount of energy needed to melt lead, your calculations look good to me.
There is certainly enough kinetic energy to melt all the lead, but surely not all the energy will go into heat. Much of the energy will go into breaking up part of the asphalt into little fragments. And much of it will go into breaking up the copper jacket into little fragments. And much of it will go into breaking up the lead into little fragments.
While it is theorically possible for all the lead to melt, maybe only 5%, or 10% of the energy goes into heat. Maybe less. I do not know.
A brief look at the video, I see bullet fragments being created, but it?s not clear to me that any liquid metal was formed.
I would be interested in any video which clearly shows the bullet turned to liquid, or a ballistic expert who states that a bullet hitting asphalt or rock will melt all the lead in the bullet.
-
Good luck with hitting the precise corner of a curb with a Carcano, or any other rifle, with a shot from 80 yards away.
And to get, not a bullet, but a bullet fragment, to hit the precise corner of a curb, will take a lot of trail shots before, by some fluke, it is done.
Or, one can drive a car, with a tire with lead balancing weights on it, up against the curb, simulating a careless or impaired driver. That shouldn?t be too hard to recreate. And is, most probably, how the smear (not a chip) was formed on the corner of the curb.
My point was that others here called it a chip and am suggesting it is too insignificant so why you are suggesting I am overestimating its significance There is likely already existing examples of what a rifle shot does to a curb in similar circumstance I never suggested a bullet fragment test would be necessary Certainly not if you could provide compelling evidence a single bullet would create damage well beyond what is seen at Elm st You are not an anti re creationist are you?
-
My point was that others here called it a chip and am suggesting it is too insignificant so why you are suggesting I am overestimating its significance There is likely already existing examples of what a rifle shot does to a curb in similar circumstance I never suggested a bullet fragment test would be necessary Certainly not if you could provide compelling evidence a single bullet would create damage well beyond what is seen at Elm st You are not an anti re creationist are you?
I?m not an anti re-creationist, just an anti Creationist. I am meanly pointing out that the experiment you propose is very difficult.
People, at least most people, who think the curb smear was caused by a bullet, don?t think it was caused by a bullet, but by a bullet fragment.
It is impossible to predict the exact path of a bullet fragment. They are generally deflected some by the first target they strike which creates the fragments. Getting the fragment to hit a desired second target, like a melon, is a little difficult. Getting the fragment to hit precisely on the edge of the curb, just like the curb near Mr. Tague, is going to take days and days of testing, I imagine.
Getting a fragment to hit a curb that is just 3 feet behind the first target would be difficult. Getting a fragment to hit a curb that is 80 yards behind the first target, to recreate the speed the fragment would strike the curb near Mr. Tague, would be extraordinarily difficult.
I am not against trying to recreate a proposed scenario. I just hope the person who does so is not blind to other possibilities, like the lead smear being formed by one of the thousands of cars that pass by there each day.
If they try out both scenarios, I think they will find it is far easier for a car to put a lead smear precisely on the corner of a curb than a bullet fragment to do so. And far more likely.
-
I?m not an anti re-creationist, just an anti Creationist. I am meanly pointing out that the experiment you propose is very difficult.
People, at least most people, who think the curb smear was caused by a bullet, don?t think it was caused by a bullet, but by a bullet fragment.
It is impossible to predict the exact path of a bullet fragment. They are generally deflected some by the first target they strike which creates the fragments. Getting the fragment to hit a desired second target, like a melon, is a little difficult. Getting the fragment to hit precisely on the edge of the curb, just like the curb near Mr. Tague, is going to take days and days of testing, I imagine.
Getting a fragment to hit a curb that is just 3 feet behind the first target would be difficult. Getting a fragment to hit a curb that is 80 yards behind the first target, to recreate the speed the fragment would strike the curb near Mr. Tague, would be extraordinarily difficult.
I am not against trying to recreate a proposed scenario. I just hope the person who does so is not blind to other possibilities, like the lead smear being formed by one of the thousands of cars that pass by there each day.
If they try out both scenarios, I think they will find it is far easier for a car to put a lead smear precisely on the corner of a curb than a bullet fragment to do so. And far more likely.
Bullet test not difficult
Fragment test more difficult and far less important if bullet test is relatively significant
Pretty sure I have already made that clear, but you keep speaking like you are explaining something to me
-
Bullet test not difficult
Fragment test more difficult and far less important if bullet test is relatively significant
Pretty sure I have already made that clear, but you keep speaking like you are explaining something to me
I should think that most people who think a bullet was involved think the smear was caused by a fragment, not a bullet. After all, the curb was not, presumably, the target.
-
I should think that most people who think a bullet was involved think the smear was caused by a fragment, not a bullet. After all, the curb was not, presumably, the target.
Yes that seems to be the case to me as well, but I don't have much to base that upon beyond just what I imagine a bullet would do to a curb
-
I'm thinking the size of the curb chip is indicative that it was caused by a fragment. Most of us have seen the photo of the pen being held next to the chip and realize the chip was tiny.
But a reminder, this thread wasn't intended to be about the curb chip.
This thread offers the droolers an opportunity to explain what happened to the bullet they insist entered JFK's throat from the front.
SO FAR....CRICKETS
-
I'm thinking the size of the curb chip is indicative that it was caused by a fragment. Most of us have seen the photo of the pen being held next to the chip and realize the chip was tiny.
But a reminder, this thread wasn't intended to be about the curb chip.
This thread offers the droolers an opportunity to explain what happened to the bullet they insist entered JFK's throat from the front.
SO FAR....CRICKETS
According to the FBI examiners, and also James Underwood and Tom Dillard, there was no chip. It was a mark on the curb but there was no nick in the concrete and no concrete missing from the curb. See the FBI letter July 17, 1964(Shaneyfelt Ex. 26 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0248b.htm) and the August 12, 1964 FBI analysis report (Shaneyfelt Ex. 27). (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0250a.htm)
-
Poor Mr. Gee. Still acting like a troll. He makes an enormous deal out of the frontal shot, but has no problem with the back shot not exiting, even though it destroys the SBT. Let Mr. SBT explain what happened to both of these shots. He's the expert, let's allow him to lecture us all on this rather baffling situation...
-
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pdf/WH19_Decker_Ex_5323.pdf
ASSASSINATION Or PRESIDENT KENNEDY
Officer Buddy Walther_ Deputy Sheriff Dallas County Sheriff's Office
Date Nov 22, 1963
-snip-
"...I immediately went to the triple underpass
on Elm Street in an effort to locate possible marks left by stray bullets.
While I was looking for possible marks, some unknown person stated to
me that something had hit his face while he was parked on Main Street,
the next lane south from Elm, as the traffic had been stopped for the
parade. Upon examining the curb and pavement in this vicinity I found
where a bullet had splattered on the top edge of the curb on Main Street
which would place the direction of firing, high and behind the position
the Presidents car was in when he was shot..."
-snip-
-
Psssssst Jimbo, I'm going to let you in on a little secret buddy, so listen closely.
Proponents of the SBT don't have to explain any missing bullets.
They don't have to explain what happened to 'both shots', because they believe one shot caused the non-fatal wounds to JFK and JBC, and that 399 is the bullet that did the wounding.
The explanation for what happened to the bullet that entered JFK's back/neck region is simple, it exited his throat and went on to hit JBC.
By the way Jimbo, I've been taking it easy on you kooks. If as you say the back shot never exited, that means there are two vanishing bullets for you to account for.
Even if you could account for the bullet that entered JFK's back and never exited, that still wouldn't get you off the hook for explaining what happened to the bullet that entered JFK's throat, now would it, Einstein ?
There's nothing baffling about the SBT.
What is baffling, is that if the SBT is wrong, what happened to the bullet that supposedly entered JFK's throat. ?
I'd say it's baffling how the drooling kooks can go on insisting there was a frontal entry neck wound, when they can't explain what happened to the bullet. Actually, that's not really baffling it all. That's what drooling kooks do. Amusing, yes. Baffling, no.
So Jimbo, now that that's been explained to you, feel free to explain what happened to the bullet that entered JFK's throat.
Challenge still stands, droolers.
-
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/smear.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Photo_hsca_ex_682.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Photo_hsca_ex_683.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/hittingpavement4.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/hittingpavement3.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/hittingpavement2.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/hittingpavement1.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/hittingpavement.jpg)
-
Is F 682 is the Roger Craig Bullet and skull fragment pickup?
-
Again, Mr. Troll trots out the most idiotic of all possible theories, the thoroughly discredited SBT. The troll wants answers, but he is a member of the SBT cult, so this is likely to result in twisting of the truth. What happened to the front and back shots that didn't exit the body? The same thing that happened to the wound at the top of the head: Humes is the one changing the evidence at the "pre-autopsy autopsy." There are three witnesses at that sinister autopsy who report Humes was using a saw on the president's head PRIOR to the formal autopsy that began at 8:00. My opinion, based upon MANY YEARS of studying the issue, is that Humes was under orders to remove all the lead he could find and lie about it. Remember Dennis David's testimony of being ordered to write a receipt for bullet fragments by a Secret Service officer. Douglas Horne's voluminous research on the subject provides all you need to know...I'LL BET ANYTHING MR. TROLL HASN'T READ ANY OF THAT...
To be fair, since I believe the president's body was illegally and grossly tampered with at Bethesda, the trolls can be forgiven for believing the government's propaganda that a "lone nut" committed this horrendous act. But that's only true up to a point. When the evidence is clearly explained to them, and they still spout the same tired bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns, then I will challenge you. Mr. Gee Troll is so obnoxious and lacking in any facts, that he deserves a retaliatory response.
The other problem the trolls have is totally ignoring the Parkland Hospital doctors and nurses. All of these witnesses testified the frontal shot was an entry. They also unanimously reported the head wound was in the lower right of the BACK OF THE HEAD. These are not administrators like Humes and Boswell. These doctors and nurses treated gunshot wounds often. Are you going to be like Specter and try to twist their testimony? The other reason I trust their eyewitness testimony is that no ridiculous SBT had been created at that point, so there was no predetermined conclusion to adhere to. The Parkland personnel didn't turn the president over so they didn't see the back wound (or its corresponding exit wound on the front of the body).
P.S. I think it's incredibly spombleprofglidnoctobunsty to take personal shots at John for standing up to your bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns. He is looking for the truth. Are you?
-
Proponents of the SBT don't have to explain any missing bullets.
They don't have to explain what happened to 'both shots', because they believe one shot caused the non-fatal wounds to JFK and JBC, and that 399 is the bullet that did the wounding.
The explanation for what happened to the bullet that entered JFK's back/neck region is simple, it exited his throat and went on to hit JBC.
Spoken like a faithful parrot.
Oswald did it.... Awwwwrrk Oswald
(https://d27ucmmhxk51xv.cloudfront.net/media/english/illustration/parrot.jpg?version=1.1.55)
-
Psssssst Jimbo, I'm going to let you in on a little secret buddy, so listen closely.
Proponents of the SBT don't have to explain any missing bullets.
They don't have to explain what happened to 'both shots', because they believe one shot caused the non-fatal wounds to JFK and JBC, and that 399 is the bullet that did the wounding.
The explanation for what happened to the bullet that entered JFK's back/neck region is simple, it exited his throat and went on to hit JBC.
By the way Jimbo, I've been taking it easy on you kooks. If as you say the back shot never exited, that means there are two vanishing bullets for you to account for.
Even if you could account for the bullet that entered JFK's back and never exited, that still wouldn't get you off the hook for explaining what happened to the bullet that entered JFK's throat, now would it, Einstein ?
There's nothing baffling about the SBT.
What is baffling, is that if the SBT is wrong, what happened to the bullet that supposedly entered JFK's throat. ?
I'd say it's baffling how the drooling kooks can go on insisting there was a frontal entry neck wound, when they can't explain what happened to the bullet. Actually, that's not really baffling it all. That's what drooling kooks do. Amusing, yes. Baffling, no.
So Jimbo, now that that's been explained to you, feel free to explain what happened to the bullet that entered JFK's throat.
Challenge still stands, droolers.
Agreed!
-
Pardon me if I can't avoid a little sarcasm, or whatever you chose to call it, but at times it is a bit entertaining to watch the results of the cognitive calamity that occurs with some of these nutters Their blinded angry sheep dogma that they own the rights to a CE 399 to a singular interpretation, in exclusion to all others, is such a classic example Even though the condition of bullet for all intents and purposes fits the condition of a bullet that would have fallen out of JFS back wound such chicanery cannot not even be considered since they already own the copyright of that bullet
-
Pardon me if I can't avoid a little sarcasm, or whatever you chose to call it, but at times it is a bit entertaining to watch the results of the cognitive calamity that occurs with some of these nutters Their blinded angry sheep dogma that they own the rights to a CE 399 to a singular interpretation, in exclusion to all others, is such a classic example Even though the condition of bullet for all intents and purposes fits the condition of a bullet that would have fallen out of JFS back wound such chicanery cannot not even be considered since they already own the copyright of that bullet
Matt, you've got it backwards. My interpretation of CE-399 has given me no discomfort whatsoever. It's those who are confronted with it that are afflicted with cognitive calamity. Just go ahead and try coming up with a plausible alternative yourself. "A bullet falling out of JFK's back" simply will not stand up to any amount of scrutiny.
-
Pardon me if I can't avoid a little sarcasm, or whatever you chose to call it, but at times it is a bit entertaining to watch the results of the cognitive calamity that occurs with some of these nutters Their blinded angry sheep dogma that they own the rights to a CE 399 to a singular interpretation, in exclusion to all others, is such a classic example Even though the condition of bullet for all intents and purposes fits the condition of a bullet that would have fallen out of JFS back wound such chicanery cannot not even be considered since they already own the copyright of that bullet
Sure, you're pardoned, I see the first post on the previous page putting down lone gunman theories, I see a picture of a parrot but you think it is the "nutters" who are blinded angry sheep. Interesting.
-
Psssssst Jimbo, I'm going to let you in on a little secret buddy, so listen closely.
Proponents of the SBT don't have to explain any missing bullets.
They don't have to explain what happened to 'both shots', because they believe one shot caused the non-fatal wounds to JFK and JBC, and that 399 is the bullet that did the wounding.
The explanation for what happened to the bullet that entered JFK's back/neck region is simple, it exited his throat and went on to hit JBC.
By the way Jimbo, I've been taking it easy on you kooks. If as you say the back shot never exited, that means there are two vanishing bullets for you to account for.
Even if you could account for the bullet that entered JFK's back and never exited, that still wouldn't get you off the hook for explaining what happened to the bullet that entered JFK's throat, now would it, Einstein ?
There's nothing baffling about the SBT.
What is baffling, is that if the SBT is wrong, what happened to the bullet that supposedly entered JFK's throat. ?
I'd say it's baffling how the drooling kooks can go on insisting there was a frontal entry neck wound, when they can't explain what happened to the bullet. Actually, that's not really baffling it all. That's what drooling kooks do. Amusing, yes. Baffling, no.
So Jimbo, now that that's been explained to you, feel free to explain what happened to the bullet that entered JFK's throat.
Challenge still stands, droolers.
First off, how old are you? What's comical is that you seem to think that if the droolers can't explain where the MB went then you win and that somehow proves the SBT. :D Like all the LNers, you wouldn't know a logical fallacy if it bit you on the arse. You're in desperate need of some critical thinking skills.
What else is comical is that you assume the conspirators are telling the truth re where all the bullets went and what was found in the limo. The same limo that the SS and FBI scrubbed of evidence then restored for re-service. Then you resort to ridiculing everyone that doesn't believe the WC narrative like the shill and/or sucker that you are.
So tell us droolers why the MB couldn't have entered the throat and exited the back? And before you can ask where the MB went, pls explain how CE-399 showed up the way it did, clean and pristine and on the wrong gurney. How was that possible? Then show us how the MB trajectory was possible from the 6th floor of the TSBD. And don't cite some fictitious study that doesn't even address the issue.
Face it, unless you have tricks up your sleeve (besides infantile insults) you need to answer my questions before I will answer yours. And keep in mind that you can't cite the bible to prove that it's true, just like you can't use the autopsy photos, x-rays and testimony from the conspirators to prove the SBT is true.
And lastly, us droolers only need 1 contradiction to the LNer narrative to believe there was a conspiracy, while you need to dismiss every single piece of evidence that suggests Saint Oz was not a lone nut. You do realize that both can be true, right? Instead you take the fringe position that most of the world rejects and call us kooks. Go figure.
-
CE-399 showed up the way it did, clean and pristine and on the wrong gurney.
None of that is true.
-
None of that is true.
Uh huh, sure as hell is. There was no blood, tissue or bone on CE-399, which is impossible. It smashed thru bones and dropped out of Connally only slightly deformed, unlike the FMJ bullet that disintegrated in JFK's head. And it showed up on a gurney outside the OR, which was not the gurney that Connally was brought in on.
Which one is not true?
-
The problem is that camera shake and panning errors occur for a variety of reasons. Zapruder was not panning at a constant rate. He stops panning in several places (from z165 to about z186 and z214 to z222 there no panning at all). He resumes panning at z223 but then stops panning from z227 to z232 (keep your eye on the position of the tree in the background). So there is bound to be some jerkiness to the image because he is starting and stopping all the time. Is that because of a shot? I don't think it has been shown that people reflexively start and stop panning when they hear a shot - or just before they hear a shot as in the case of the panning that starts at z223.
You are obviously not a data analyst. You're jumping thru hoops trying to figure out how the body responds to gunshots when the data gives you all that info. Look at the "signature" reflexive response at z313. That is your control.
And you cannot say that people will consistently jiggle the camera when they hear a loud noise without data from actual experiments using a large sample of people that bears this out. That is the difference between science and a plausible theory.
No, I have done my research into this. A reflexive response to a loud noise is an up and down motion (y axis). I filtered out the X and focused on the Y because this jiggle motion is significant versus "panning", which is not associated with a gunshot jiggle. All the other jiggle analyses seemed to ignore this aspect.
Let's assume that you are right, that Zapruder would have jiggled the camera in response to hearing a shot. According to [snip] this Wikipedia page, a reflexive startle response should begin within 60-121 ms. for the head, neck and shoulders to move, or within about 1-2 frames of the loud sound. Let's suppose that the jiggle at z200 was in response to the first shot (Willis, Betzner, motorcade and Elm St. witnesses, etc). If that was a startle reflex within 60-121 ms of the sound, it would put the shot sound reaching Zapruder at z198 from a bullet that struck 3 frames earlier at z195 and fired at z193-194. This also fits with Jack Ready's release of his right-hand from the handhold and the beginning of his rearward turn which occurs between z198 and z199. Because Ready was behind the limo, he would have heard the muzzle blast about 2 frames before Zapruder (path difference = 275-150 ft = 125 ft; time diff. = 125/1130 = .110 s or 110 ms.). All of that fits a shot at z193-194. There is a lot of witness evidence that puts the first shot about that time. That is corroborated by other evidence such as the Secret Service film showing JFK at that point to be clear of the oak tree as viewed from the SN. Why do jiggle analysis "experts" reject that jiggle as a response to a shot?
Ok, but you are flying in the dark here. Apply the hypothetical with the actual data and look for reflexive signature jiggles, not the psychological ones. The data should not be affected by bias thinking.
-
Uh huh, sure as hell is. There was no blood, tissue or bone on CE-399, which is impossible. It smashed thru bones and dropped out of Connally only slightly deformed, unlike the FMJ bullet that disintegrated in JFK's head. And it showed up on a gurney outside the OR, which was not the gurney that Connally was brought in on.
Which one is not true?
Tell us what FMJ ammo is designed to do, in terms of damage to itself and the victim.
-
Tell us what FMJ ammo is designed to do, in terms of damage to itself and the victim.
Not explode in your head, for one. You're forced to conclude that the skull is somehow different from other bone to explain the conditions of CE-399 and the Head Shot bullets. That and the (cough cough) "Jet Effect".
-
First off, how old are you? What's comical is that you seem to think that if the droolers can't explain where the MB went then you win and that somehow proves the SBT. :D Like all the LNers, you wouldn't know a logical fallacy if it bit you on the arse. You're in desperate need of some critical thinking skills.
What else is comical is that you assume the conspirators are telling the truth re where all the bullets went and what was found in the limo. The same limo that the SS and FBI scrubbed of evidence then restored for re-service. Then you resort to ridiculing everyone that doesn't believe the WC narrative like the shill and/or sucker that you are.
So tell us droolers why the MB couldn't have entered the throat and exited the back? And before you can ask where the MB went, pls explain how CE-399 showed up the way it did, clean and pristine and on the wrong gurney. How was that possible? Then show us how the MB trajectory was possible from the 6th floor of the TSBD. And don't cite some fictitious study that doesn't even address the issue.
Face it, unless you have tricks up your sleeve (besides infantile insults) you need to answer my questions before I will answer yours. And keep in mind that you can't cite the bible to prove that it's true, just like you can't use the autopsy photos, x-rays and testimony from the conspirators to prove the SBT is true.
And lastly, us droolers only need 1 contradiction to the LNer narrative to believe there was a conspiracy, while you need to dismiss every single piece of evidence that suggests Saint Oz was not a lone nut. You do realize that both can be true, right? Instead you take the fringe position that most of the world rejects and call us kooks. Go figure.
"What's comical is that you seem to think that if the droolers can't explain where the MB went then you win and that somehow proves the SBT. :D Like all the LNers, you wouldn't know a logical fallacy if it bit you on the arse. You're in desperate need of some critical thinking skills."
Sheeeeeesh. Another drooling kook lecturing on critical thinking.
Listen up, Trojan. The drooling kook's inability to explain where the bullet went does not prove the SBT, it just demonstrates that the frontal entry is a fantasy.
As far as the rest of your post goes, if we can't use the autopsy photos, x-rays, witness testimony - or for that matter any photos, films, documents, witness testimony or physical evidence - because it's all been faked by the nefarious boogeyman conspirators, then what are we supposed to use ?
The drooling kooks are forced once again to claim that every piece of evidence is faked, (even though they can't show that any of it is) and simultaneously assure the rest of us that they are the sole arbiters of the truth and that there had to be a massive conspiracy to assassinate JFK and frame Saint Oz for the deed (even though they have no evidence to support their contention).
One more thing, Jackie....I haven't seen anyone use the Bible yet to prove the SBT and honestly don't know why you mentioned that, (other than your obvious drooling kook derangement) but find it interesting that you apparently choose to mock people of faith while you're busy worshipping in the Church of Saint Oz.
Challenge still on, droolers.
See if you can do better than drooling Jackie 'all the evidence is faked' Trojan.
Where did the bullet go ?
-
You asked what could have happened to a missed shot. I responded that it probably hit concrete and fragmented and rationally explained why trying to find a bullet that missed the limo and could wind up anywhere in or around the plaza would be much more difficult than finding a bullet that supposedly entered JFK's throat.
You didn't "rationally explain" anything. You just declared that it was probably the case.
I never said "Duh, I dunno...musta disappeared", and if you weren't such a hairless drooling kook you'd realize that the entire point of this thread is that a 'vanishing' bullet isn't a reasonable or plausible position to take.
And yet you believe that your bullet vanished. Cognitive dissonance anyone? Better throw out some more juvenile insults to cover it up.
Coward.
-
I did a study of the Zapruder film and found that Rosemary Willis started to slow down in the z160?s. She came to a complete stop by around z195 but was slowing down well before then.
. . . and you're just assuming that she's slowing down because of a gun shot?
-
Good luck with hitting the precise corner of a curb with a Carcano, or any other rifle, with a shot from 80 yards away.
Seriously, Joe? Good luck hitting the precise corner of a guy's skull too...
-
I think there was more than one witness as I recall who saw something strike the road.
I think you base a lot of your arguments on things that you think you recall.
-
There was no blood, tissue or bone on CE-399, which is impossible.
What if it passed througb JFK's neck and stuck butt-first in JBC's left thigh? Has anyone ever tried to obtain any trace DNA from CE399? If it had JBC's DNA wedged into the base that would remove any doubt about its authenticity. There may be comparative DNA from JBC on his clothing (despite being cleaned).
-
Psssssst Jimbo, I'm going to let you in on a little secret buddy, so listen closely.
Proponents of the SBT don't have to explain any missing bullets.
They don't have to explain what happened to 'both shots', because they believe one shot caused the non-fatal wounds to JFK and JBC, and that 399 is the bullet that did the wounding.
Yeah, they just have to explain why they think CE 399 actually went through any human body.
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif)
-
Matt, you've got it backwards. My interpretation of CE-399 has given me no discomfort whatsoever. It's those who are confronted with it that are afflicted with cognitive calamity. Just go ahead and try coming up with a plausible alternative yourself. "A bullet falling out of JFK's back" simply will not stand up to any amount of scrutiny.
..and yet a bullet rolling out from under a pad on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland Hospital and then transforming from a pointed tip to a rounded tip somehow does.
-
Sheeeeeesh. Another drooling kook lecturing on critical thinking.
Yeah, it's so much easier to be a childish cowardly troll than to actually come up with a coherent argument for what you believe.
One more thing, Jackie....I haven't seen anyone use the Bible yet to prove the SBT and honestly don't know why you mentioned that, (other than your obvious drooling kook derangement) but find it interesting that you apparently choose to mock people of faith while you're busy worshipping in the Church of Saint Oz.
And there you have it folks. He believes in the SBT and that Oswald did it as a matter of faith. Which is why he is unable to defend it with evidence.
He believes in his own vanishing bullet, but not anyone else's. What a tool.
-
The hairless pygmy once again resorts to prevaricating.
Nice try, Johnny. 'My' bullet didn't vanish. Already told you what probably happened to it.
Yeah, you said it vanished. Who do you think you're fooling, Coward?
-
Which one is not true?
You claimed that CE-399 showed up clean and pristine and on the wrong gurney. None of those three are true.
-
Not explode in your head, for one. You're forced to conclude that the skull is somehow different from other bone to explain the conditions of CE-399 and the Head Shot bullets. That and the (cough cough) "Jet Effect".
Actually FMJ ammo was designed to pass through flesh w/o breaking up. But if it hit a large bone nose-first, the victim possibly wouldn't be so lucky, as the round could break apart and result in a shattering-type wound.
Furthermore, I understand that a bullet cannot throw a body at all and that a neurological, stiffening event caused JFK's movement backwards.
-
Wrong again, hairless one.
Still hiding behind the Incredible Hulk like the Incredible Gutless Coward that you are?
I don't have a vanishing bullet, I have a bullet that struck concrete and fragmented and was never recovered in the expanse of a plaza.
LOL. In other words, it vanished. You're hilarious. Where's that bullet, Coward?
I don't believe Oswald did it as a matter of faith, I believe Oswald did it based on evidence, which has been gone over ad infinitum.
And by "evidence, which has been gone over", you mean regurgitating the WC conclusions and trolling the forum with infantile insults.
On the other hand, you're forced to claim that every bit of evidence incriminating Saint Oz is faked, tainted, or meaningless.
Except I never claimed that. You're just not very good at any of this, are you?
-
In case you haven't noticed Johnny, the vast majority of posters here use an avatar supplied by Duncan's software when registering.
Yeah, but you're the only one hiding behind a cartoon who makes comments about other people's appearances. Which is why you're a coward and they are not.
For the umpteenth time, the bullet that missed the limo probably fragmented and wasn't recovered.
It's really amusing how you think there's a difference between "wasn't recovered" and "disappeared". But by all means, keep digging.
-
Actually FMJ ammo was designed to pass through flesh w/o breaking up. But if it hit a large bone nose-first, the victim possibly wouldn't be so lucky, as the round could break apart and result in a shattering-type wound.
Furthermore, I understand that a bullet cannot throw a body at all
Are you suggesting Hollywood is getting it wrong with all these actors falling backwards when shot?
-
Yes, goofball. I'm 'hiding'. And just to be clear, I haven't made comments about other people's appearances. Just yours. YIKES !
I'm another person, goofball.
Sorry that you can't understand the difference between a bullet fragmenting and not being recovered in a large plaza and that of a bullet entering a throat and vanishing, but that's your problem.
Your problem is that you're desperately jumping through hoops trying to justify why "wasn't recovered" and "disappeared" mean different things. And failing miserably.
Where'd the bullet go ?
You tell me, Mr. "wasn't recovered"!
-
Are you suggesting Hollywood is getting it wrong with all these actors falling backwards when shot?
What, Hollywood get something wrong? THAT NEVER HAPPENS!
-
What, Hollywood get something wrong? THAT NEVER HAPPENS!
Gotta admit I did not see another proponent of this theory coming
In regard to Hollywood it is up to the public to put pressure on the industry and a deception such as this is certainly worthy of a concerted effort
-
1) You're the only person whose appearance I've commented on bcz you're the only goofball that has his own picture as an avatar. You're another person ?
Good point. For me to be "another person", you would have to be a person. You're just a troll.
2) Sorry, wasn't recovered from a large plaza after fragmenting and vanishing after entering a throat are two completely different things. Not recovered and vanished aren't synonyms, doofus. Too bad you can't comprehend that.
Sorry, there is no difference between "not recovered" and "disappeared", except in your little special pleading fantasy world. If your bullet didn't disappear then produce it.
You keep lobbing the softballs, and I'll keep hammering them (and you) over the fence.
In your dreams. You strikeout every time. All you've got is logical fallacies, insults, and cowardice.
-
The CKs absolutely love to insist that JFK's back wound and throat wound are unrelated. They insist that JFK's throat wound was an entrance wound.
Just one little problem for the Kooks: ask them what happened to the bullet that supposedly entered JFK's throat from the front - and they get a glazed over look on their faces and sit there mouths agape, stuttering and drooling.
So here's the challenge, drooling Kooks - explain what happened to the bullet that you insist entered JFK's throat from the front.
Sorry, rehashing for the billionth time why you think CE399 wounding both JFK and the Governor is an impossibilty, or any other subterfuge or diversion to avoid explaining what happened to the bullet that you insist entered JFK's throat from the front isn't an acceptable response.
Time to man up, Kooks.
Howard, it'd be nice if investigators had found everything related to the case. Your question is similar to if someone had asked if every shred of Kennedy's brain tissue had been found. The answer would obviously be "no," and were all fragments from the shooting found? Obviously not.
It doesn't mean, though, that it didn't happen.
Here's a video I made a while back showing what appears to be the shooting sequence. Take a look at the end to what Dr. Perry said. Then look at the government's own recreation image. If you're honest, you can clearly see how a shot from Oswald's perch would not have gone through his neck and on to JBC.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxa3NqTEpScWNQZnc/view
That, in and of itself, is strong evidence toward more than one shooter.
-
Your question is similar to if someone had asked if every shred of Kennedy's brain tissue had been found. The answer would obviously be "no," and were all fragments from the shooting found? Obviously not.
Michael, your example isn't similar at all. Kennedy's brain was blown all over the place, inside and outside the limo. That doesn't compare at all with single metal object that should have been found in the limo.
Here's a video I made a while back showing what appears to be the shooting sequence. Take a look at the end to what Dr. Perry said. Then look at the government's own recreation image. If you're honest, you can clearly see how a shot from Oswald's perch would not have gone through his neck and on to JBC.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxa3NqTEpScWNQZnc/view
That, in and of itself, is strong evidence toward more than one shooter.
Strong evidence toward more than one shooter? I don't think so. Perry testified that the wound in the throat could have been an exit wound and he maintained that position every time he was asked about it throughout the years.
In your scenario, you have two bullets unaccounted for. What happened to those bullets?
-
Howard, it'd be nice if investigators had found everything related to the case. Your question is similar to if someone had asked if every shred of Kennedy's brain tissue had been found. The answer would obviously be "no," and were all fragments from the shooting found? Obviously not.
It doesn't mean, though, that it didn't happen.
Here's a video I made a while back showing what appears to be the shooting sequence. Take a look at the end to what Dr. Perry said. Then look at the government's own recreation image. If you're honest, you can clearly see how a shot from Oswald's perch would not have gone through his neck and on to JBC.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxa3NqTEpScWNQZnc/view
That, in and of itself, is strong evidence toward more than one shooter.
That recreation image is not the limo, it's the SS Queen Mary and has no jump seats.
There's no evidence of more than one shooter, but feel free to provide evidence that someone other than the prime suspect knew that an attempt on the POTUS was to be made that day.
-
Michael, your example isn't similar at all. Kennedy's brain was blown all over the place, inside and outside the limo. That doesn't compare at all with single metal object that should have been found in the limo.
Strong evidence toward more than one shooter? I don't think so. Perry testified that the wound in the throat could have been an exit wound and he maintained that position every time he was asked about it throughout the years.
In your scenario, you have two bullets unaccounted for. What happened to those bullets?
Actually it does because metal is known to break into tiny fragments scattered all over the place at high velocity.
-
That recreation image is not the limo, it's the SS Queen Mary and has no jump seats.
There's no evidence of more than one shooter, but feel free to provide evidence that someone other than the prime suspect knew that an attempt on the POTUS was to be made that day.
Yes I'm aware that they used a QM type car for their reenactment. Here's a photo of it while they were prepping to do the reenactment. Note the JFK stand-in is actually higer than the JBC stand-in:
(https://kennedykilledhimself.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/recreate.jpg)
Here's the closest we'll ever get to seeing the actual car with the actual victims in it from above:
(https://latimesphoto.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/jfk02_lcb3z1nc.jpg)
Note that the two victims are more on a level plane in the Lincoln than the FBI version. So what does that tell me? It tells me that even with the JFK stand-in's back marked with the white patch, which is an accurate representation of where the back wound hit (based on the autopsy photo), and even with that stand-in sitting further upward to actually *aid* the SBT (most probably unintentionally by the FBI), it's still physically impossible to get a bullet through that back wound (where it terminated BTW according to Humes), through his throat and into JBC. There was no exit of the back wound. None. His head was turned to the right facing the women over by the sign when the back wound hit. Look at the Willis photo to see how much his head was turned.
That's what I'm seeing and I trust my eyes. If you see something different, then that's totally on you.
-
Actually it does because metal is known to break into tiny fragments scattered all over the place at high velocity.
What did the bullet hit after exiting Kennedy that caused it to break into tiny fragments? What happened to those fragments?
-
Howard, it'd be nice if investigators had found everything related to the case. Your question is similar to if someone had asked if every shred of Kennedy's brain tissue had been found. The answer would obviously be "no," and were all fragments from the shooting found? Obviously not.
It doesn't mean, though, that it didn't happen.
Here's a video I made a while back showing what appears to be the shooting sequence. Take a look at the end to what Dr. Perry said. Then look at the government's own recreation image. If you're honest, you can clearly see how a shot from Oswald's perch would not have gone through his neck and on to JBC.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxa3NqTEpScWNQZnc/view
That, in and of itself, is strong evidence toward more than one shooter.
Mike, I understand you don't accept the SBT. We've heard why the SBT is wrong for 55 years.
Well, if the SBT is wrong, don't you think it's time to state what you think is correct ?
So again, please stop telling me why you think the SBT is wrong.
If you believe in a frontal entry wound, you should be able to answer a simple fundamental question - what happened to that bullet ?
There's a bald headed kook that thinks continually asking what happened to the 'missed shot' absolves him of the responsibility of explaining what he thinks happened to the bullet that supposedly entered JFK's throat.
It doesn't.
Without being able to explain where the bullet that entered JFK's throat went, the frontal entry theory has no viability.
So let's hear what happened to the theorized frontal entry bullet, and after hearing that, we'll weigh the merits of the frontal entry bullet theory against that of the SBT.
Challenge still on.
What happened to the frontal entry bullet in JFK's throat ?
-
Here's the closest we'll ever get to seeing the actual car with the actual victims in it from above:
(https://latimesphoto.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/jfk02_lcb3z1nc.jpg)
Note that the two victims are more on a level plane in the Lincoln than the FBI version. So what does that tell me? It tells me that even with the JFK stand-in's back marked with the white patch, which is an accurate representation of where the back wound hit (based on the autopsy photo), and even with that stand-in sitting further upward to actually *aid* the SBT (most probably unintentionally by the FBI), it's still physically impossible to get a bullet through that back wound (where it terminated BTW according to Humes), through his throat and into JBC. There was no exit of the back wound. None. His head was turned to the right facing the women over by the sign when the back wound hit. Look at the Willis photo to see how much his head was turned.
That's what I'm seeing and I trust my eyes. If you see something different, then that's totally on you.
Note that the two victims are more on a level plane in the Lincoln than the FBI version.
You're using a photo taken from above to supposedly determine what plane Kennedy and Connally are on. Sorry, that won't cut it.
-
What happened to the frontal entry bullet in JFK's throat ?
Howard, in summary, I don't know. And as much as many Lone Nutter believers like to think, there are many other unknowns in this case as well. They like to think that the government solved everything. They didn't. As a matter of fact, that is why the SBT has fallen apart for one very important reason - Commander Humes clearly explained that the back wound terminated in the body. In other words, the deepest it went was I think a half a pinky finger.
But despite this, the government had to manufacture the SBT to explain how it all happened, with an emphasis on the word manufacture.
-
You're using a photo taken from above to supposedly determine what plane Kennedy and Connally are on. Sorry, that won't cut it.
I don't think you understand what it is I've tried to explain with those two photos.
-
Strong evidence toward more than one shooter? I don't think so. Perry testified that the wound in the throat could have been an exit wound and he maintained that position every time he was asked about it throughout the years.
In your scenario, you have two bullets unaccounted for. What happened to those bullets?
Couple of things there. Dr Perry's ass was was on the line. Everybody's was. So he said -could have been an exit rather than could have been an entry. Same difference is it not? Coulda woulda shoulda... 'exit' sounded better to the WC. Nothing strong about that argument either.
By his reaction, Kennedy looked like he could have been shot in the throat.
The bullet could have lodged somewhere down his throat. Who knows? No one knows it didn't. They threw his body in the ground 72 hours later.
-
Mike, I understand you don't accept the SBT. We've heard why the SBT is wrong for 55 years.
Well, if the SBT is wrong, don't you think it's time to state what you think is correct ?
The SBT is wrong because it conflicts with large bodies of consistent and well corroborated evidence. But that does not mean that someone other than, or in addition to, Oswald fired shots.
The shot timing that follows from the evidence is 1...........2......3. The sequence of shots is: shot#1 hits JFK in upper back and exits his throat under his neck tie knot; shot#2 just misses JFK's head on the right side and strikesJBC in the right armpit exiting through his jacket pocket and strikes the back of his foream shattering the radius and fragmenting into several pieces that deflect away from the point of contact; shot#3 strikes JFK in the head. There is abundant consistent evidence that supports this and that conflcts with any other explanation. Moreover, the zfilm and the evidence enables us to pinpoint shot#2 and #3 and bracket shot#1 to within a couple of frames.
-
One more thing, Jackie....I haven't seen anyone use the Bible yet to prove the SBT and honestly don't know why you mentioned that, (other than your obvious drooling kook derangement) but find it interesting that you apparently choose to mock people of faith while you're busy worshipping in the Church of Saint Oz.
Challenge still on, droolers.
All this psychotic babbling proves one thing... that maturity does not necessarily come with age :D
-
All this psychotic babbling proves one thing... that maturity does not necessarily come with age :D
Instead of your lazy and increasingly tedious insults answer the question of what happened, you have the same information as us?
a) both men react simultaneously
b) both men are lined up perfectly with the 6th floor snipers nest window.
c) the amount of lead missing from CE399 is virtually equal with the tiny pieces found in Connally's wrist
d) the rear entry on Connally was linear meaning that CE399 passed through something first to cause tumbling.
e) CE399 was not pristine and showed heavy deformation on one side indicating that it struck primarily side on.
f) as the bullet passed through Connally it caused less and less damage, a full on bullet shatters bone but Connally only had a fractured wrist.
JohnM
-
There is abundant evidence that ....
... what was all written in that post was physically impossible.
Does anyone read something besides their own posts?
I would like to know the source of information that each poster has reviewed besides the Reader's Digest condensed version of the Warren Report.
May I propose one word?...DOUBT
(https://i2.wp.com/jfkfacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Bond-5.png?resize=300%2C229)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQuJjfSTX-x0knKGoPz4ntNARKVMDp1-UVlvgMuBRzp0C_dD2CI)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTf1SLLYNUrxgvuWGsD1PHwDSrtgYOfdf-af8yLB2SkUNbhCBtI-w)
If someone refuses to review the some forty witnesses stating that shots came from the grassy
knoll area I can provide nothing more.....
http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-witnesses
Some 21 police and Secret Service claimed shots fired from the railroad area....
http://jfkfacts.org/21-jfk-cops-who-heard-a-grassy-knoll-shot/
The single bullet idea was a unproven theory.
The body spasm convulsion stuff was an unproven theory.
-
Instead of your lazy and increasingly tedious insults answer the question of what happened, you have the same information as us?
This 'Saint Oz and droolers' crap is totally incorrigible.
Defending it? Go ahead...OK by me ;D
-
This 'Saint Oz and droolers' crap is totally incorrigible.
Defending it? Go ahead...OK by me ;D
You don't contribute anything, why are you here?
JohnM
-
You don't contribute anything, why are you here?
JohnM
Howard has been well tolerated, not that he deserves it, but one of a the very few who states they are sick of it is met with a personal attack?
-
Howard has been well tolerated, not that he deserves it, but one of a the very few who states they are sick of it is met with a personal attack?
Howard's fine and asks sensible questions but Jerry who seems like real no friends Loser is just being a wanker looking for a fight.
JohnM
-
Howard's fine and asks sensible questions but Jerry who seems like real no friends Loser is just being a wanker looking for a fight.
JohnM
Howard is fine and asks sensible questions and is not looking for a fight??? :D
-
Instead of your lazy and increasingly tedious insults answer the question of what happened, you have the same information as us?
a) both men react simultaneously
Well, we can't be sure how simultaneous the reactions began because JFK could have begun reacting behind the Stemmons sign. The HSCA panel thought he began reacting before he disappeared behind the sign. He appears to be already reacting with his face and hands when he is first seen in z224. Besides, it is readily apparent from the testimony of JBC himself, Jackie and Nellie that he did react to the shot that struck JFK - the one that witnesses said caused JFK to react by moving left/bringing his hands to his neck/assuming a blank look. It is just that JBC said that this was not the shot that he felt hit him in the back.
b) both men are lined up perfectly with the 6th floor snipers nest window.
It is hardly perfect. JBC has to be about 13 inches left of JFK for the trajectory to work. At z222-224 JFK's hands would appear to be in the path of a bullet from his throat to JBC.
c) the amount of lead missing from CE399 is virtually equal with the tiny pieces found in Connally's wrist
No one knows how what CE399 initially weighed exactly. The damage to the radius was severe. The radius is one of the hardest and strongest bones in the human body. More to the point, Greer felt a concussion from the second shot and Tague said he was not hit on the first or third shot and there were only three shots. It that is true, that means that a considerable fragment from the second shot left the car.
d) the rear entry on Connally was linear meaning that CE399 passed through something first to cause tumbling.
The rear entry on JBC was elliptical, not linear and it is symmetrical. This is inconsistent with a tumbling bullet whose entry profile would necessarily be non-symmetrical.
e) CE399 was not pristine and showed heavy deformation on one side indicating that it struck primarily side on.
"Heavy deformation" is a bit of an exaggeration. It was pushed in on the base only. That is consistent with striking the thigh butt-first which is how Dr Gregory described the cause of the thigh wound.
f) as the bullet passed through Connally it caused less and less damage, a full on bullet shatters bone but Connally only had a fractured wrist.
??What about the complete obliteration of the last 10 cm of JBC's fifth rib? The bullet pentrated and destroyed that rib sending bone shards into lower lobe of the right lung. What about the "tunnelling" wound path that Dr. Shaw described? What about the multiple fracture of the radius - a very hard bone?
-
Well, we can't be sure how simultaneous the reactions began because JFK could have begun reacting behind the Stemmons sign. The HSCA panel thought he began reacting before he disappeared behind the sign. He appears to be already reacting with his face and hands when he is first seen in z224. Besides, it is readily apparent from the testimony of JBC himself, Jackie and Nellie that he did react to the shot that struck JFK - the one that witnesses said caused JFK to react by moving left/bringing his hands to his neck/assuming a blank look. It is just that JBC said that this was not the shot that he felt hit him in the back. It is hardly perfect. JBC has to be about 13 inches left of JFK for the trajectory to work. At z222-224 JFK's hands would appear to be in the path of a bullet from his throat to JBC. No one knows how what CE399 initially weighed exactly. The damage to the radius was severe. The radius is one of the hardest and strongest bones in the human body. More to the point, Greer felt a concussion from the second shot and Tague said he was not hit on the first or third shot and there were only three shots. It that is true, that means that a considerable fragment from the second shot left the car.The rear entry on JBC was elliptical, not linear. This is inconsistent with a tumbling bullet which necessarily non-symmetrical."Heavy deformation" is a bit of an exaggeration. It was pushed in on the base only. That is consistent with striking the thigh butt-first which is how Dr Gregory described the cause of the thigh wound.??What about the complete obliteration of the last 10 cm of JBC's fifth rib? The bullet pentrated and destroyed that rib sending bone shards into lower lobe of the right lung. What about the "tunnelling" wound path that Dr. Shaw described? What about the multiple fracture of the radius - a very hard bone?
Dr Gregory was actually there and said the wound was a linear wound and by his size description the bullet entry had to have hit at a more obtuse angle or a tumbling bullet and since we know the bullets path through Connally this effectively rules out an obtuse angle.
Mr. SPECTER - What did the wound of entry look like, Doctor?
Dr. GREGORY - It appeared to me that the wound of entry was sort of a linear wound, perhaps three-quarters of an inch in length with a rounded central portion. Whereas, the wound of exit was rather larger than this, perhaps an inch and a half across.
And as the WC investigated, a full on bullet smashes, Connally's linear wrist wound was only a fracture therefore caused by a slower moving bullet.
(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/9/90/Photo_hsca_ex_84.jpg)
(https://s15.postimg.cc/rqxn6t1x7/connally_xray_copare.jpg)
Dr Gregory again describes a chaotically moving bullet.
Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Gregory, what was then the relative size of the wounds on the back and front side of the wrist itself?
Dr. GREGORY - As I recall them, the wound dimensions would be so far as the wound on the back of the wrist is concerned about a haft a centimeter by two and a half centimeters in length. It was rather linear in nature. The upper end of it having apparently lost some tissue was gapping more than the lower portion of it.
JohnM
-
There's a bald headed kook that thinks continually asking what happened to the 'missed shot' absolves him of the responsibility of explaining what he thinks happened to the bullet that supposedly entered JFK's throat.
Wrong again. I didn't claim that a bullet entered JFK's throat. I'm merely pointing out your raging hypocrisy and special pleading. Your bullet "didn't disappear" it simply "wasn't recovered".
Without being able to explain where the bullet that entered JFK's throat went, the frontal entry theory has no viability.
Without being able to explain where the bullet that missed went, the missed bullet theory has no viability. Note: saying "that's different" is not an explanation.
Your "challenge" is as empty as your rhetoric.
-
The SBT is wrong because it conflicts with large bodies of consistent and well corroborated evidence. But that does not mean that someone other than, or in addition to, Oswald fired shots.
It doesn't even mean that Oswald fired any shots.
-
Instead of your lazy and increasingly tedious insults answer the question of what happened, you have the same information as us?
a) both men react simultaneously
You see what you want to see.
b) both men are lined up perfectly with the 6th floor snipers nest window.
Only if you start with the assumption that the SBT is true, make assumptions about which of the conflicting accounts of the wound locations were and then move Kennedy and Connally around in the limo until they sort of line up.
c) the amount of lead missing from CE399 is virtually equal with the tiny pieces found in Connally's wrist
Unable to determine without knowing the starting weight.
d) the rear entry on Connally was linear meaning that CE399 passed through something first to cause tumbling.
Not necessarily. An ovoid wound could merely mean that it entered at an angle.
e) CE399 was not pristine and showed heavy deformation on one side indicating that it struck primarily side on.
Let's be honest here. There's no evidence that CE 399 was involved in the assassination at all.
f) as the bullet passed through Connally it caused less and less damage, a full on bullet shatters bone but Connally only had a fractured wrist.
Depends what kind of weapon fired it and from where. You're pre-assuming the same high powered rifle from the TSBD caused all the wounds.
-
Not necessarily. An ovoid wound could merely mean that it entered at an angle.
No, you're not making sense.
Since the entrance and exit points on Connally are on record, we know the path through Connally was down and to the right which by definition indicates someone high and behind and we can also confirm that Connally's wound was more than twice as long than it was wide which demonstrates a totally non compliant entrance angle therefore Connally must have been hit by a tumbling bullet.
JohnM
-
You see what you want to see.
Yawn, I see what complies with all the evidence.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KCPYZe3ljVA/UolSwZ4DOwI/AAAAAAAAw1o/JH7p-L7CfvU/s1600/110a.+Z224-Z225+Toggling+Clip.gif)
(http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/225-226%20Full.gif)
JohnM
-
Dr Gregory was actually there and said the wound was a linear wound and by his size description the bullet entry had to have hit at a more obtuse angle or a tumbling bullet and since we know the bullets path through Connally this effectively rules out an obtuse angle.
Dr. Shaw was there also and he was the thoracic surgeon who actually did the work on Connally's chest wounds. Gregory treated the wrist wound. Dr. Shaw described it as elliptical about 1.5 centimetre long and a smaller width. He was not a ballistics expert, but he had treated bullet wounds during WWII. He definitely said that it did not have the characteristics of a puncture wound striking at a right angle and he thought it could have been made by either a bullet that was tumbling or a non-tumbling bullet striking at a tangent. He said this (6H95):
"Now, you have to also take into consideration, however, whether the bullet enters at a right angle or at a tangent. If it enters at a tangent there will be some length to the wound of entrance."
And as the WC investigated, a full on bullet smashes, Connally's linear wrist wound was only a fracture therefore caused by a slower moving bullet.
Yes. But it had to be moving slower because it had passed through JBC's chest.
Dr Gregory again describes a chaotically moving bullet.
Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Gregory, what was then the relative size of the wounds on the back and front side of the wrist itself?
Dr. GREGORY - As I recall them, the wound dimensions would be so far as the wound on the back of the wrist is concerned about a haft a centimeter by two and a half centimeters in length. It was rather linear in nature. The upper end of it having apparently lost some tissue was gapping more than the lower portion of it.
He is describing the wound on the back of the wrist. This bullet had just exited the chest. What does that have to do with the state of the bullet entering the back?
-
The SBT is wrong because it conflicts with large bodies of consistent and well corroborated evidence. But that does not mean that someone other than, or in addition to, Oswald fired shots.
The shot timing that follows from the evidence is 1...........2......3. The sequence of shots is: shot#1 hits JFK in upper back and exits his throat under his neck tie knot; shot#2 just misses JFK's head on the right side and strikesJBC in the right armpit exiting through his jacket pocket and strikes the back of his foream shattering the radius and fragmenting into several pieces that deflect away from the point of contact; shot#3 strikes JFK in the head. There is abundant consistent evidence that supports this and that conflcts with any other explanation. Moreover, the zfilm and the evidence enables us to pinpoint shot#2 and #3 and bracket shot#1 to within a couple of frames.
Andrew, while I disagree with your negative assessment of the viability of the SBT as well as your version of the shot sequencing and wounding, I think what you have proposed is at least a reasonable accounting of the mechanics of the assassination.
Of course, due to the proximity of the wounding of JFK and JBC your version of what happened would almost certainly require two assassins behind the limo (for which there is no evidence), but at least it's possible.
In any event, at least you have approached the assassination sequence logically.
Since you do NOT believe that there was a frontal throat entry wound, there is no need to lump you in with the drooling kooks that continue to insist JFK's throat wound was one of entry even though they can't answer the fundamental question of what happened to the bullet that entered his throat.
Challenge still on for the drooling kooks.
What happened to the bullet that you insist entered JFK's throat ?
-
Wrong again. I didn't claim that a bullet entered JFK's throat. I'm merely pointing out your raging hypocrisy and special pleading. Your bullet "didn't disappear" it simply "wasn't recovered".
Without being able to explain where the bullet that missed went, the missed bullet theory has no viability. Note: saying "that's different" is not an explanation.
Your "challenge" is as empty as your rhetoric.
Should I take this as a concession that you agree a frontal throat entry didn't happen ?
Of course you never claimed a bullet entered JFK's throat.
You don't have the stones to state what you think happened.
Never have, never will.
As for the rest of the drooing kooks (who at least have the guts to state what they think happened), challenge still on.
-
You don't contribute anything, why are you here?
Telling me to leave the forum?
-
Yes I'm aware that they used a QM type car for their reenactment. Here's a photo of it while they were prepping to do the reenactment. Note the JFK stand-in is actually higer than the JBC stand-in:
(https://kennedykilledhimself.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/recreate.jpg)
Here's the closest we'll ever get to seeing the actual car with the actual victims in it from above:
(https://latimesphoto.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/jfk02_lcb3z1nc.jpg)
Note that the two victims are more on a level plane in the Lincoln than the FBI version. So what does that tell me? It tells me that even with the JFK stand-in's back marked with the white patch, which is an accurate representation of where the back wound hit (based on the autopsy photo), and even with that stand-in sitting further upward to actually *aid* the SBT (most probably unintentionally by the FBI), it's still physically impossible to get a bullet through that back wound (where it terminated BTW according to Humes), through his throat and into JBC. There was no exit of the back wound. None. His head was turned to the right facing the women over by the sign when the back wound hit. Look at the Willis photo to see how much his head was turned.
That's what I'm seeing and I trust my eyes. If you see something different, then that's totally on you.
In the image of the limo beside the bus, note that JFK is leaning well over to his right, a lean that wasn't evident at the time of the twofer. Given that, if Kennedy were to sit upright in the bus/limo photo, he would practically be towering over JBC. Even Jackie is way higher that JBC.
There are multiple images taken at normal perspective showing the true relationship re JFK/JBC seating positions.
-
Yawn, I see what complies with all the evidence.
Unless you're claiming to see a bullet in those frames, you are just offering your own interpretation of their movements. Nothing more.
-
Should I take this as a concession that you agree a frontal throat entry didn't happen ?
No, but I'll take that as a concession that you don't understand basic logic or the written English language.
Of course you never claimed a bullet entered JFK's throat.
You don't have the stones to state what you think happened.
Never have, never will.
It doesn't take "stones" to make up a conclusion and then insist that it's right unless someone else can prove you wrong, while insulting them with childish remarks. What that takes is arrogance and cowardice.
Still trying to figure out the difference between "not recovered" and "disappeared"?
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif)
If a bullet entered JFK's throat , it was just "not recovered". By Coward the Troll's own standards, that is a sufficient "explanation".
-
And we are sure Connally at 225 is just not flinching from the sound of the shot
-
And we are sure Connally at 225 is just not flinching from the sound of the shot
Anyone who tells you they are sure of when shots were fired by looking at the Z film is either lying or delusional.
-
Telling me to leave the forum?
I don't need to tell you anything, guys like you usually run out of puff then go back under their rock.
JohnM
-
Dr. Shaw was there also and he was the thoracic surgeon who actually did the work on Connally's chest wounds. Gregory treated the wrist wound. Dr. Shaw described it as elliptical about 1.5 centimetre long and a smaller width. He was not a ballistics expert, but he had treated bullet wounds during WWII. He definitely said that it did not have the characteristics of a puncture wound striking at a right angle and he thought it could have been made by either a bullet that was tumbling or a non-tumbling bullet striking at a tangent. He said this (6H95):
"Now, you have to also take into consideration, however, whether the bullet enters at a right angle or at a tangent. If it enters at a tangent there will be some length to the wound of entrance."
Yes. But it had to be moving slower because it had passed through JBC's chest.
He is describing the wound on the back of the wrist. This bullet had just exited the chest. What does that have to do with the state of the bullet entering the back?
Andrew it's time that you faced reality, Dr Shaw and Dr Gregory saw the exact same wound and gave similar descriptions, that Connally's back wound was more than twice as long as it was wide which indicates an incidence angle of greater than 45 degrees, and of course we know the entrance point on Connally so we can extrapolate back to Oswald's position and we find that there is no way that Connally's entrance wound was caused by any tangential entrance, the bullet from Oswald's position would have whacked him virtually square on.
(https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/BigLieSmallWound/lattimer266.gif)
Connally's position at the time.
(http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/223-224%20Full.gif)
So logically the sort of wound and angle received by Kennedy would have been very similar to a non tumbling bullet on Connally but from both the Dr's testimonies we know that from the wound dimensions that the bullet did indeed tumble.
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg)
JohnM
-
It doesn't take "stones" to make up a conclusion and then insist that it's right
.
Q: Mr. Specter ? going now to the crucial point of whether the wound in the neck was caused by a bullet coming from the front or rear ? can you saw how it was determined that the exit point for the bullet was in the front, rather than in the rear?
A: Yes, I can tell you how the evidence was analyzed to determine which conclusion was accurate.
The President was found with a series of bullet wounds when examined both at Parkland Hospital and by the autopsy surgeons. At each place, they had only limited access.
*******************************************************************
The characteristics of the entry and exit marks on the goatskin show that it is not possible to tell conclusively whether the point of exit on the goatskin, from a bullet that had traveled through the simulated neck, would be a wound of entry or a wound of exit, because of the factors involved in a high-powered missile which is stable when it passes through a relatively porous material.
*******************************************************************
Q: Could we get to this matter of the pictures of the President's body? Have you seen the pictures?
A: The complete set of pictures taken at the autopsy was not made available to me or to the Commission. I was shown one picture of the back of a body which was represented to be the back of the President, although it was not technically authenticated. It showed a hole in the position identified in the autopsy report. To the best of my knowledge, the Commission did not see any photographs or X-rays.
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/11/14/overwhelming-evidence-oswald-was-the-assassin
Admission of theories with no supporting evidence. Analysis or anal cyst?
The parrots never dig any deeper than.....the orifice found on their backside
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/VYoRYiE4XSdX2/giphy.gif)
-
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/11/14/overwhelming-evidence-oswald-was-the-assassin
Admission of theories with no supporting evidence. Analysis or anal cyst?
The parrots never dig any deeper than.....the orifice found on their backside
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/VYoRYiE4XSdX2/giphy.gif)
Ouch, Dr Freeman squawks out another personal opinion, yawn!
JohnM
-
I don't need to tell you anything, guys like you usually run out of puff then go back under their rock.
I don?t know what this guys' problem is, but I?m guessing it?s hard to pronounce (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
-
There are multiple images taken at normal perspective showing the true relationship re JFK/JBC seating positions.
I'm just not seeing it. He may be sitting on a very small riser of some sort but nothing like the QM photo. The were pretty even in their seating height.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d1/6f/2a/d16f2a9cc4ecd8bec6a5d3563ee89087.jpg)
-
I don?t know what this guys' problem is, but I?m guessing it?s hard to pronounce (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
I don?t know what this guys' problem is
Problem?
but I?m guessing it?s hard to pronounce
Yep, just another skill that's beyond your grasp.
JohnM
-
I'm just not seeing it. He may be sitting on a very small riser of some sort but nothing like the QM photo. The were pretty even in their seating height.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d1/6f/2a/d16f2a9cc4ecd8bec6a5d3563ee89087.jpg)
(http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/croft.jpg)
JohnM
-
Andrew it's time that you faced reality, Dr Shaw and Dr Gregory saw the exact same wound and gave similar descriptions, that Connally's back wound was more than twice as long as it was wide which indicates an incidence angle of greater than 45 degrees, and of course we know the entrance point on Connally so we can extrapolate back to Oswald's position and we find that there is no way that Connally's entrance wound was caused by any tangential entrance, the bullet from Oswald's position would have whacked him virtually square on.
You're a master at assuming Oswald did it in order to prove that Oswald did it.
- How do you know Connally's wounds were caused by a bullet from "Oswald's position"?
- How do you even know where "Oswald's position" was?
-
You're a master at assuming Oswald did it in order to prove that Oswald did it.
- How do you know Connally's wounds were caused by a bullet from "Oswald's position"?
- How do you even know where "Oswald's position" was?
Brennan testified that he saw Oswald in the Sniper's Nest window.
The shells were found on the floor of the Sniper's Nest.
Harold Norman who was directly below confirmed that he heard those shells hit the floor.
The rifle found was directly linked to Lee Harvey Oswald.
The rifle had Oswald's prints.'
The rifle had threads that matched Oswald's shirt he was arrested in.
The sniper's nest was covered with Oswald's prints.
Nobody said they gave Oswald permission to leave three minutes after the assassination.
Oswald jumped on a bus then got off the bus and then caught a taxi for probably the first time in his life.
Oswald got out of the Taxi way beyond his Rooming House.
Oswald virtually ran in and out of his Rooming House.
And on and on the Mountain of Evidence goes....
JohnM
-
Brennan testified that he saw Oswald in the Sniper's Nest window.
Failed to identify him on 11/22 even after seeing Oswald on TV labeled as the killer. Then embellished a story about seeing the shooter from the belt up.
The shells were found on the floor of the Sniper's Nest.
How does that demonstrate what the source of Connally's wounds was? Or where Oswald was?
Harold Norman who was directly below confirmed that he heard those shells hit the floor.
How does that demonstrate what the source of Connally's wounds was? Or where Oswald was?
The rifle found was directly linked to Lee Harvey Oswald.
Unscientific handwriting "analysis" of two block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon.
The rifle had Oswald's prints.'
No, a single partial palmprint was found on an index card a week later.
The rifle had threads that matched Oswald's shirt he was arrested in.
Threads that "might have" come from that shirt.
The sniper's nest was covered with Oswald's prints.
His job was to get books out of boxes.
Nobody said they gave Oswald permission to leave three minutes after the assassination.
So what? How does that demonstrate what the source of Connally's wounds was? Or where Oswald was?
Oswald jumped on a bus then got off the bus and then caught a taxi for probably the first time in his life.
So what? How does that demonstrate what the source of Connally's wounds was? Or where Oswald was?
Oswald got out of the Taxi way beyond his Rooming House.
Oswald virtually ran in and out of his Rooming House.
And on and on the Mountain of Evidence goes....
So what? How does that demonstrate what the source of Connally's wounds was? Or where Oswald was?
and on and on and on. Throw out a bunch of rhetoric that has nothing to do with anybody killing anybody and hope it sounds like evidence.
-
Jerry Freeman, are you one of the frontal throat entry douchenozzles ?
-
Brennan testified that he saw Oswald in the Sniper's Nest window.
The shells were found on the floor of the Sniper's Nest.
Harold Norman who was directly below confirmed that he heard those shells hit the floor.
The rifle found was directly linked to Lee Harvey Oswald.
The rifle had Oswald's prints.'
The rifle had threads that matched Oswald's shirt he was arrested in.
The sniper's nest was covered with Oswald's prints.
Nobody said they gave Oswald permission to leave three minutes after the assassination.
Oswald jumped on a bus then got off the bus and then caught a taxi for probably the first time in his life.
Oswald got out of the Taxi way beyond his Rooming House.
Oswald virtually ran in and out of his Rooming House.
And on and on the Mountain of Evidence goes....
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/g69ZPJfLy7hD2/200w.gif)
-
Failed to identify him on 11/22 even after seeing Oswald on TV labeled as the killer. Then embellished a story about seeing the shooter from the belt up.
Seriously?, Brennan saw the guy on TV so a positive ID was a slam dunk but his genuine fear for his family made him understandably reluctant.
But we know from Brennan's affidavit description that must have also been the 12:4x Police radio broadcast that the man in the sniper's nest window reasonably matched Oswald and what makes this condemning proof is the fact that he testified under oath to seeing Oswald.
Btw I don't understand your constant harping, in Brennan's testimony he said he saw Oswald sitting on the window sill therefore he saw him from the belt up.
JohnM
-
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/g69ZPJfLy7hD2/200w.gif)
Hilarious, this has spectacularly backfired because it's "you" the Youtube mindless repeating parrot that is saying "NO".
Next time think through your insults because this time you fcuked up badly! Sucko!
JohnM
-
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/g69ZPJfLy7hD2/200w.gif)
All that's missing is the audio of 'there is no supporting evidence' and I'd swear that's the parrot that thinks he's sunk the Warren Commission.
-
Howard Gee, you are a brainless troll. You constantly use personal insults to try to harm those who post the truth. You have not responded to my answers to your narrow minded questions, but continue to take really nasty shots at John. Nobody is impressed with your infatuation with what happened to the frontal wound in JFK's throat. To obsess about one aspect of this case is incredibly idiotic. I asked you to explain several things in a previous post, and you ignored it. Doesn't this make you a coward?
What can you bring to the case that nobody has discovered? How can you prove the patsy did anything? Are you trusting the most corrupt, ignorant investigation ever conducted? Remember who appointed these commissioners. It was LBJ, the mastermind behind this incredibly evil deed. I don't know if your ignorance and arrogance originates from the Warren Commission or some other discredited source, but your bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns will be challenged here.
For the record, I'm deeply offended at your personal insults directed at John. He's a tough guy and can take it, but you make yourself look like such a douche...
-
Howard Gee, you are a brainless troll. You constantly use personal insults to try to harm those who post the truth. You have not responded to my answers to your narrow minded questions, but continue to take really nasty shots at John. Nobody is impressed with your infatuation with what happened to the frontal wound in JFK's throat. To obsess about one aspect of this case is incredibly idiotic. I asked you to explain several things in a previous post, and you ignored it. Doesn't this make you a coward?
What can you bring to the case that nobody has discovered? How can you prove the patsy did anything? Are you trusting the most corrupt, ignorant investigation ever conducted? Remember who appointed these commissioners. It was LBJ, the mastermind behind this incredibly evil deed. I don't know if your ignorance and arrogance originates from the Warren Commission or some other discredited source, but your bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns will be challenged here.
For the record, I'm deeply offended at your personal insults directed at John. He's a tough guy and can take it, but you make yourself look like such a douche...
Awwwwww, Brusman is 'deeply offended' by a 'brainless troll'.
Put down the violin, widdle drama queen.
Where'd the frontal entry throat bullet go ?
-
The troll continues his assaults on the truth. I made several points earlier that you ignored. Coward...
-
For the record, I'm deeply offended at your personal insults directed at John. He's a tough guy and can take it, but you make yourself look like such a douche...
"On a personal note, I could not believe Nova used you as an expert witness on their very strange JFK show from the late eighties. I thought you came across as an ignorant buffoon and the least qualified person imaginable to speak on acoustics. Reading your posts on this site makes me want to wretch. You are one of the chief engineers on the Ignorance Express. Sorry to be so harsh. I hate disinformation..."
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,717.msg16020.html#msg16020
Yes, I can see that you are deeply offended at personal assaults. ::)
-
Just calling it like I see it, Mr. Delusion...Anyone who can defend the imbecilic Warren Report is likely a moron. Are you a moron too?
-
The troll continues his assaults on the truth. I made several points earlier that you ignored. Coward...
I am missing the assaults on truth All he seems to do is ask the same question over and over mixed in with his name calling I got to say the quality of the name calling is pretty disappointing If you are gonna go there show some creativity or something
-
Just calling it like I see it, Mr. Delusion...Anyone who can defend the imbecilic Warren Report is likely a moron. Are you a moron too?
Personal attack indeed.
You all can't answer it. I agree, Mr. Gee brings up legitimate points and you try to discredit him. Plenty of insults fly around in these threads.
I say Howard is a great debater. My 2 cents. Call me whatever.
-
'deeply offended' by a 'brainless troll'.
Where'd the frontal entry throat bullet go ?
So busy being a......
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQbV-Q83qd_gT_sibgYK1iJWKrDn1i3JhQEOVg6X9MWLwy7BCdi)
Didn't read my response here...
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,753.msg16909.html#msg16909
-
The troll continues his assaults on the truth. I made several points earlier that you ignored. Coward...
Bunman, the only point you have rests on top of the vacuous area between your ears.
I started this thread to give the drooling kooks that insist on a frontal entry throat wound an opportunity to explain where that bullet went.
You want to rant about LBJ killing JFK ? Start your own thread and I'll be happy to expose you as a drooling kook there.
Now, back on topic....
Where did the frontal entry throat bullet go ?
-
I say Howard is a great debater. My 2 cents.
You paid too much
-
Andrew it's time that you faced reality, Dr Shaw and Dr Gregory saw the exact same wound and gave similar descriptions, that Connally's back wound was more than twice as long as it was wide which indicates an incidence angle of greater than 45 degrees, and of course we know the entrance point on Connally so we can extrapolate back to Oswald's position and we find that there is no way that Connally's entrance wound was caused by any tangential entrance, the bullet from Oswald's position would have whacked him virtually square on.
?. The target surface was JBC's right armpit. If the right armpit was square to a bullet from the SN JBCs right side would have to be facing the SN and he would have to be leaning to his left (I.e. a perpendicular to the skin surface at the right armpit impact location would have to point to the SN). We know that the bullet entered on a downward oblique angle relative to the perpendicular because it followed along the fifth rib. I don't know about you but my ribs tend to run roughly parallel to the skin surface.
The length to width ratio of the elliptical entry wound indicates the angle of the bullet axis to a line perpendicular to the target surface at the point of impact. The relationhip between the angle to the perpendicular to the surface and the length to width ratio of the ellipse is: W = L cosΘ. So, if L/W =2 then cosΘ = 1/2 and Θ.= 60 degrees. All you need for that to occur is for JBC to be leaning back and to the right and turned to his right.
(https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/BigLieSmallWound/lattimer266.gif)
Connally's position at the time.
(http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/223-224%20Full.gif)
So logically the sort of wound and angle received by Kennedy would have been very similar to a non tumbling bullet on Connally but from both the Dr's testimonies we know that from the wound dimensions that the bullet did indeed tumble.
You are assuming the second shot to be at z222. At z272 he was leaning back and to his right and turned to his right.
-
So busy being a......
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQbV-Q83qd_gT_sibgYK1iJWKrDn1i3JhQEOVg6X9MWLwy7BCdi)
Didn't read my response here...
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,753.msg16909.html#msg16909
Here's your genius answer to what happened to the bullet:
"By his reaction, Kennedy looked like he could have been shot in the throat.
The bullet could have lodged somewhere down his throat. Who knows? No one knows it didn't. They threw his body in the ground 72 hours later."
You're forgetting just one little detail. An autopsy was performed before 'they threw his body on the ground'.
And guess what ?
There was no bullet lodged in his throat.
In fact the x-rays show there was no bullet lodged in JFK's throat or chest for that matter.
Yeah, I know. Don't bother. I'll say it for you....
They were faked !
Just like every other bit of evidence in the case.
Challenge still on.
See if you can do better than 'who knows? they threw JFK in the ground 72 hours later'.
Where'd the bullet go ?
-
?. The target surface was JBC's right armpit. If the right armpit was square to a bullet from the SN JBCs right side would have to be facing the SN and he would have to be leaning to his left (I.e. a perpendicular to the skin surface at the right armpit impact location would have to point to the SN). We know that the bullet entered on a downward oblique angle relative to the perpendicular because it followed along the fifth rib. I don't know about you but my ribs tend to run roughly parallel to the skin surface.
The length to width ratio of the elliptical entry wound indicates the angle of the bullet axis to a line perpendicular to the target surface at the point of impact. The relationhip between the angle to the perpendicular to the surface and the length to width ratio of the ellipse is: W = L cosΘ. So, if L/W =2 then cosΘ = 1/2 and Θ.= 60 degrees. All you need for that to occur is for JBC to be leaning back and to the right and turned to his right.
You are assuming the second shot to be at z222. At z272 he was leaning back and to his right and turned to his right.
Andrew I do find that more compelling Good point
-
Seriously?, Brennan saw the guy on TV so a positive ID was a slam dunk but his genuine fear for his family made him understandably reluctant.
Yeah, he was so "afraid for his family" that he forgot to tell his family and talked to news reporters.
But we know from Brennan's affidavit description that must have also been the 12:4x Police radio broadcast
No it wasn't. The police broadcast had a height in the description. Brennan's affidavit did not.
that the man in the sniper's nest window reasonably matched Oswald
..and by "reasonably matched", you mean wrong age, wrong weight, wrong height, and wrong clothing.
and what makes this condemning proof is the fact that he testified under oath to seeing Oswald.
His memory "improved" in the intervening months. Never mind how the hell he saw a guy supposedly crouched behind boxes from the belt up.
Btw I don't understand your constant harping, in Brennan's testimony he said he saw Oswald sitting on the window sill therefore he saw him from the belt up.
The guy sitting on the windowsill did not have a rifle. Unfortunately he said he saw the guy with the rifle from the belt up at the time he was aiming the head shot.
-
So busy being a......
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQbV-Q83qd_gT_sibgYK1iJWKrDn1i3JhQEOVg6X9MWLwy7BCdi)
It is quite a sight watching Howard become more and more unhinged with every post because he's getting so utterly slapped around for his hypocrisy and ridiculous arguments. He wants you to do better than "who knows", when his answer to what happened to the "missed shot" is "who knows". LOL.
That's the thing about trolls. If you stop feeding them they have to keep escalating more and more to keep getting off, in an ever increasing desperate attempt to keep getting attention.
-
You're forgetting just one little detail. An autopsy was performed before 'they threw his body on the ground'.
Really? No sh!t! Were you there?
There was no bullet lodged in his throat.
No one looked for one.
In fact the x-rays show there was no bullet lodged in JFK's throat or chest for that matter.
Did you see the X-rays? The Warren Commission did not even see the X-rays.
I wish to ask where you obtain your information?
...The extant photographs and X-rays are limited and poor-quality, and have been subject to varying interpretation. There is for instance no photo clearly showing the fatal entrance wound, though there is testimony that one was taken. Other photos, including one of the chest and one or more with a probe through Kennedy's body illustrating a bullet path, were testified to but are not present in the collection.
The release of the House Select Committee on Assassinations' files in the 1990s, and new interviews with autopsy participants, have added to concerns that the photographic and X-ray record of the autopsy has been tampered with.Saundra Kay Spencer, the woman who processed autopsy photos after the assassination, told the Review Board under oath that the pictures in existence are not from the set she developed. Photographer John Stringer similarly disavowed the existing brain photos which he is supposed to have taken.
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Autopsy_Photos_and_X-Rays.html
Bums off the street are given a more proper autopsy than Kennedy got.
-
It is quite a sight watching Howard become more and more unhinged with every post because he's getting so utterly slapped around for his hypocrisy and ridiculous arguments.
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/5KfqXl7ZCKqgE/200w.gif)
Braaawwwk you got me... braaaaaaawwk
-
Looks like the poor bird got shot in the throat.
Wonder where that bullet went.
-
Looks like the poor bird got shot in the throat.
Wonder where that bullet went.
Like your magic bullet, Howard. It didn't exist.
-
Like your magic bullet, Howard. It didn't exist.
Oh, I get it now, Ray.
CE399 doesn't exist and JFK and JBC were just playacting like the bird.
Thanks for clearing that up.
-
Oh, I get it now, Ray.
CE399 doesn't exist and JFK and JBC were just playacting like the bird.
Thanks for clearing that up.
You're learning, Howard. Good.
-
I wish to ask where you obtain your information?
I love the delicate nuance I am likely to use it as well if you don't mind It seems especially well suited for the for the rabid breed
-
CE399 doesn't exist ...
CE 399 does exist. There's a picture of it. Just never hit anything.
-
CE 399 does exist. There's a picture of it. Just never hit anything.
Man up and post the rear view of CE 399, and tell us it it never hit anything
-
Man up and post the rear view of CE 399, and tell us it it never hit anything
How about you post the rear view of CE 399, and show us how you know it went through two men, caused 7 wounds, shattered 10 cm. of Connally's fifth rib, and the radius of his right wrist. Then somehow emerged under a pad on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland hospital without a trace of bone, blood, tissue, or clothing fibers on it.
-
Man up and post the rear view of CE 399, and tell us it it never hit anything
Pristine bullets DO NOT come out pristine after hitting one of the hardest bones in the body.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-df1WUlRVD1A/Uo4ySucGsII/AAAAAAAAAjI/FZzLVDpvrzg/s320/8-resized-600.jpg.png)
-
Pristine bullets DO NOT come out pristine after hitting one of the hardest bones in the body.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-df1WUlRVD1A/Uo4ySucGsII/AAAAAAAAAjI/FZzLVDpvrzg/s320/8-resized-600.jpg.png)
Micheal, Sometimes Pristine bullets DO come out pristine after hitting one of the hardest bones in the body. It depends on how fast they are traveling when they strike the bone.
(https://i.imgur.com/0EeadUb.jpg)
The bullet in that pic had been fired into the wrist bone of a human cadaver at a velocity of about 1100 ft/s.
-
Nothing magical about 399.
Re-enactments of the assassination duplicating the same positioning, distances, and using the same ammo and anatomically correct forensic 'dummies' have demonstrated the viability of the SBT.
Are you talking CBS in the seventies? Maybe you are just talking alignments and angles and not the ability to get the shots off?
-
Are you talking CBS in the seventies? Maybe you are just talking alignments and angles and not the ability to get the shots off?
Matt, I think you mean CBS in 1967. I believe that they just looked at the ability to get the shots off. The alignments and angles were looked at in the 1970s by ITEK and the HSCA.
-
Matt, I think you mean CBS in 1967. I believe that they just looked at the ability to get the shots off. The alignments and angles were looked at in the 1970s by ITEK and the HSCA.
Thank you for the correction Tim
-
Thank you for the correction Tim
You're welcome Matt. CBS had their 11 riflemen try to get on three shots in 5.6 seconds or less, trying to hit the moving target. According to Dan Rather, they all took their first shot at approximately the point at which the Warren Commission deduced that the first shot was fired. The problem with that is that the Warren Commission never concluded when the first shot was fired.
-
(http://www.jfk-info.com/Exf294.gif)
Dr. WECHT: This exhibit, F-294, is a composite photo that I believe clearly, dramatically and most succinctly demonstrates the absurdity, the scientific untenability of the single bullet theory. This is Commission exhibit 399. I will not engage in semantical quibbling with my friend and collegue, Dr. Baden, whether you can be near pristine or fully pristine. It is a near pristine bullet, again, with the only deformity being demonstrated at the base...
Mr. PURDY: Dr. Wecht, is it your opinion that no bullet could have caused all of the wounds to President Kennedy and Governor Connally or the Commission exhibit 399 could not have caused all of the wounds to both men?
Dr. WECHT: Based upon the findings in this case, it is my opinion that no bullet could have caused all these wounds, not only 399 but no other bullet that we know about or any fragment of any bullet that we know about in this case.
Connally Wrist Xray .....
(http://www.jfk-info.com/exf84.gif)
The deformity on the base was probably made when the missile was cast...
The Single Bullet Theory is just that..a theory ...it is the silliest most ridiculous theory I ever heard.
-
The deformity on the base was probably made when the missile was cast...
?? The bullet base has to make a tight seal with the shell (to seal in the gunpowder contained in the shell). There is no way that bullet deformity was there before firing.
The Single Bullet Theory is just that..a theory ...it is the silliest most ridiculous theory I ever heard.
What about the Trump theory that there was no collusion with Russia. Or that Canada is a threat to US national security because the British burned the White House in the War of 1812 (which the US under James Madison started in order to take over the remaining British colonies to the north).
-
(https://i.imgur.com/0EeadUb.jpg)
The bullet in that pic had been fired into the wrist bone of a human cadaver at a velocity of about 1100 ft/s.
Had this bullet passed through a human torso causing an impact on the fifth rib that felt like someone had given him a hard punch and that then obliterated 10 cm of rib sending bone shards into the right lung ripping gashes in the lower lobe before exiting? How was the 1100 fps measured? Was it a guess? Where did it strike the radius and what damage did it do to the radius?
-
There is no way that bullet deformity was there before firing.
Absolutely correct.
I was in error there.
The bullet was fired and I knew that.
Silly me.
The bullet had been fired...but not at the Kennedy car.
It was fired into a pillow or mattress or a bale of cotton maybe from the MC rifle before both items were planted to be 'found' by the cops.
-
(http://www.jfk-info.com/Exf294.gif)
The deformity on the base was probably made when the missile was cast...
The Single Bullet Theory is just that..a theory ...it is the silliest most ridiculous theory I ever heard.
That Wecht used that exhibit to argue against the SBT shows how non-credible that he is. Surely, he must have known better.
-
Had this bullet passed through a human torso causing an impact on the fifth rib that felt like someone had given him a hard punch and that then obliterated 10 cm of rib sending bone shards into the right lung ripping gashes in the lower lobe before exiting?
No, it did not. Why do you ask?
How was the 1100 fps measured? Was it a guess? Where did it strike the radius and what damage did it do to the radius?
The 1100 was approximated. It fractured the radius. Not sure where on the radius but I'll try to look it up.
-
That Wecht used that exhibit to argue against the SBT shows how non-credible that he is.
Cyril Wecht is a foremost forensic pathologist.
He has been the president of both the American Academy of Forensic Science and the American College of Legal Medicine, and currently heads the board of trustees of the American Board of Legal Medicine.
Tim Nickerson [who isn't/doesn't] keeps trying to constantly, continuously, and most persistently convince himself that he is always right.
-
No, it did not. Why do you ask?
I thought you were suggesting that this bullet's similarity to CE399 was evidence that CE399 could have caused all of JBC's wounds. If not, what was your point?
-
That Wecht used that exhibit to argue against the SBT shows how non-credible that he is. Surely, he must have known better.
LN-ers accept the opinions of experts. Except when they don't.
-
Cyril Wecht is a foremost forensic pathologist.
So are Baden, Coe, Loquvam, Fisher, Spitz, and DiMaio. They disagree with St Cyril. Does that count?
-
Had this bullet passed through a human torso causing an impact on the fifth rib that felt like someone had given him a hard punch and that then obliterated 10 cm of rib sending bone shards into the right lung ripping gashes in the lower lobe before exiting? How was the 1100 fps measured? Was it a guess? Where did it strike the radius and what damage did it do to the radius?
The point of the demonstration was to show that below a certain velocity, a bullet ceases to be noticeably deformed by an impact. And 1100fps is still pretty quick. Extend the implications of this test into the question at hand (and there are always caveats to that, but still, that's the data we got) and you come into something like, the great bulk of damage to the bullet would have been from Connally's rib.
-
So are Baden, Coe, Loquvam, Fisher, Spitz, and DiMaio.
You might provide links there instead of making pithy statements.
Dr. Vincent J.M. Di Maio? Hell.... calls were made to revoke his medical license after his handling of the Zimmerman case. The other guys??
The desperate HSCA pulled all kinds of guys out of their backsides in order to bolster the fraudulent Warren Report.
-
Cyril Wecht is a foremost forensic pathologist.
Tim Nickerson [who isn't/doesn't] keeps trying to constantly, continuously, and most persistently convince himself that he is always right.
The four bullets next to CE 399 in that exhibit were not used to calculate the velocities at which the carcano bullet will begin to deform. The two bullets (CE572) had been fired into cotton wadding at near muzzle velocity. CE853 had been fired through a goat rib at near muzzle velocity. CE856 had been fired through the wrist of a human cadaver at near muzzle velocity. CE 399
struck Connally's wrist at well below muzzle velocity.
Wound ballistics expert Dr. Larry Sturdivan highlights Wecht's ignorance on the matter:
"Earlier, the FBI inadvertently proved that cotton waste, when compressed as it builds up on a penetrating bullet, is denser than soft tissue. They did this by firing WCC/MC bullets from the Oswald rifle into cotton waste at muzzle velocity. They were trying to recover undeformed bullets fired from the Oswald rifle. Such bullets were needed as ballistic standards with which to compare CE 399 and the fragments recovered from the floor of the limousine to determine whether they were fired from Oswald's weapon. The bullets they recovered in this manner were suitable as standards, but were deformed to a greater extent than CE 399. This point was missed entirely by Dr. Wecht in his HSCA testimony when he used the picture reproduced as figure 4 that contains those bullets. He claimed that the deformation in cotton waste proved that CE 399 did not smash the Governor's wrist since it would have been deformed more in the "hard bone". He considered the effect of strength and, perhaps, density of the target on deformation---but not the much greater effect of velocity." -- Larry Sturdivan, The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination, pages 130 and 131.
https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Myths-Scientific-Investigation-Assassination/dp/1557788472
-
Dr. Vincent J.M. Di Maio? Hell.... calls were made to revoke his medical license after his handling of the Zimmerman case.
Calls made by who?
-
I thought you were suggesting that this bullet's similarity to CE399 was evidence that CE399 could have caused all of JBC's wounds. If not, what was your point?
Andrew, perhaps you should take a closer look at my post and that which it was responding to.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,753.msg17306.html#msg17306
-
Calls made by who?
Easily found...
Dr. DiMaio is a disgrace to his profession. Every Defense attorney with an obviously guilty client can get Dimaio to testify for their defense. Above you see the reporters discussing Phil Spector who was found guilty but would go from place to place threatening people with a gun until one day he actually shot someone. Di Maio said no Spector did not kill someone the victim shot herself.
While this situation is particularly egregious, this is not the first time that Dr. Dimaio had testified as a paid gun for a defense attorney.
https://www.change.org/p/revoke-the-lic-of-dr-vincent-di-maio-medical-examiner-for-the-defense-in-the-zimmerman-case
Defense or prosecution ...whoever needs him the most.
The bullets they recovered in this manner were suitable as standards, but were deformed to a greater extent than CE 399.
Any deformation at all should dis-prove the theory.
I'm arguing with knot holes.
-
You might provide links there instead of making pithy statements.
Dr. Vincent J.M. Di Maio? Hell.... calls were made to revoke his medical license after his handling of the Zimmerman case. The other guys??
The desperate HSCA pulled all kinds of guys out of their backsides in order to bolster the fraudulent Warren Report.
You seem to know exactly who who these guys are, and why I mentioned them, so why ask for links?
Anyway, since you brought them all up, here is the HSCA FPP:
Michael M. Baden, M.D., Chairman of the Panel, Chief Medical Examiner, New York City, N.Y.
John I. Coe, M.D., Chief Medical Examiner, Hennepin County, Minn.
Joseph H. Davis, M.D., Chief Medical Examiner, Dade County, Miami,
George S. Loquvam, M.D., Director, Institute of Forensic Sciences, Oakland, Calif.
Charles S. Petty, M.D., Chief Medical Examiner, Dallas County, Dallas, Tex.
Earl F. Rose, M.D., LL.B., Professor of Pathology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
Werner V. Spitz, M.D., Medical Examiner, Detroit, Mich.
Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D., Coroner, Allegheny County, Pittsburgh,
James T. Weston, M.D., Chief Medical Investigator, School of Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, N. Mex
Four were Chief Medical Examiners of major cities/counties at the time. Not some backwoods backbenchers, as you would have it.
Spitz was CME of Wayne County (ie, Detroit); he is author, along with Russel Fisher, of one of the foundational texts of forensic pathology
Fisher is considered to be something of the father of modern American Forensic pathology.
Vince DiMaio was CME of Bexar Couty, TX (ie, San Antonio), and is the guy who literally wrote the book on gunshot wounds.
BTW, who called for DiMiao's license to be revoked? Was it medical experts, legal experts, or just a bunch of random internet crackpots who didn't like something he said?
But, again, you already seem to know who they were and what they think. So why the bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns exercise in demanding links?
-
Easily found... https://www.change.org/p/revoke-the-lic-of-dr-vincent-di-maio-medical-examiner-for-the-defense-in-the-zimmerman-case
Defense or prosecution ...whoever needs him the most.
Any deformation at all should dis-prove the theory.
I'm arguing with knot holes.
A Change.org petition that has 26 signatories?? :o
WOW!!
-
A Change.org petition that has 26 signatories??
You asked
-
You seem to know exactly who who these guys are, and why I mentioned them, so why ask for links?
But, again, you already seem to know who they were and what they think. So why the bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns exercise in demanding links?
I "demanded" nothing so cut the crap.
I see that the gospel according to Bugliosi is the chief source of reference for the parrots here.
So I will search for links that might be relevant to CE 399
In a segment on the Kennedy assassination produced for the HBO program Autopsy, Dr. Michael Baden made a number of claims that were certifiably false and/or extremely doubtful. Here are but a sampling of them:
1. At roughly 3 minutes into the program, Baden discusses the initial press conference given by Kennedy's emergency room doctors. Baden says "In fact, the doctors down in Texas, where the shooting occurred, indicated he'd been shot in the back and in the front." The doctors, in fact, indicated no such thing. They described an entrance in Kennedy's throat and a large wound on the back of his head. They presumed this to be an exit for the bullet entering his throat. They said nothing to indicate the bullet causing this wound came from behind Kennedy.
2. A few minutes later, the program's narrator discusses the initial autopsy and states "Because the pathologist's notes were stained with blood, he burned them. After he found out that tracheotomy had been performed in Dallas, he tried to reconstitute his notes, based on what he could remember." This is nonsense. Dr. Humes, the pathologist in question, testified that he burned his notes only after copying them, and that he burned these notes after he found out about the tracheotomy. The implication that the initial autopsy report was in error because Dr. Humes couldn't remember what he saw is unjustified and undoubtedly deceptive, feeding into Dr. Baden's eventual conclusion that the mistakes in the autopsy report were all "innocent."
3. Shortly thereafter, when discussing the autopsy photos, Dr. Baden repeats the story of Floyd Riebe, a navy photographer whose camera was confiscated by the Secret Service. He then explains what he considers to be the poor quality of the photos by stating "The only one who was taking photographs was a Secret Service person who'd never taken autopsy photos before." This is frighteningly inaccurate. The lone autopsy photographer was John Stringer, the navy's top autopsy photographer, and Riebe's superior. In his memoirs, published nearly 20 years ago, Baden claimed the lone photographer was an FBI photographer. This incensed the original autopsists, Dr. James Humes and Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, to such an extent that they made a point of debunking Baden's claim and discussed Stringer's qualifications and abilities in a 1992 interview in the Journal of the American Medical Association. One would think Dr. Baden would remember his getting schooled in such a public fashion.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/11988-baden-blithers-on/
There is a 4-5-6-7-8-9 claims that follow.
On Coe- found nothing
Davis testified on the fatal shot.. not in discussion here.
Dittos Loquvam
etc etc
What Bugliosi doesn't reveal is that the magic bullet theory was cooked up by Arlen Specter and Gerald Ford because they had to have it or the single shooter myth was doomed.
-
The point of the demonstration was to show that below a certain velocity, a bullet ceases to be noticeably deformed by an impact. And 1100fps is still pretty quick. Extend the implications of this test into the question at hand (and there are always caveats to that, but still, that's the data we got) and you come into something like, the great bulk of damage to the bullet would have been from Connally's rib.
A couple of points:
1. The SBT has CE399 striking bone other than nose-first, and it has it striking and shattering a rib at a speed much greater than 1100 fps.
2. The SBT has CE399 striking the radius butt-first at about 1100 fps to explain the dent in the butt end.
So if there is any meaningful demonstration it should be to have the bullet strike a radius butt-first at 1100 fps and see what both the bullet and radius look like.
-
A couple of points:
1. The SBT has CE399 striking bone other than nose-first, and it has it striking and shattering a rib at a speed much greater than 1100 fps.
2. The SBT has CE399 striking the radius butt-first at about 1100 fps to explain the dent in the butt end.
So if there is any meaningful demonstration it should be to have the bullet strike a radius butt-first at 1100 fps and see what both the bullet and radius look like.
One of the Fackler test bullets was travelling over 1300 ft/s when it struck and fractured the radius bone. That bullet also was not deformed at all.
-
I "demanded" nothing so cut the crap.
You demanded it mostly nicely, but over the years, I've seen how that goes when someone asks for documentation for something they already know. In any case, why did you ask for linkage when you already knew who they were and what their position was?
I see that the gospel according to Bugliosi is the chief source of reference for the parrots here.
Actually, I've never so much as picked up his book. Are you really that presumptuous?
So I will search for links that might be relevant to CE 399
In a segment on the Kennedy assassination produced for the HBO program Autopsy, Dr. Michael Baden made a number of claims that were certifiably false and/or extremely doubtful. Here are but a sampling of them:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/11988-baden-blithers-on/
"1. At roughly 3 minutes into the program, Baden discusses the initial press conference given by Kennedy's emergency room doctors. Baden says "In fact, the doctors down in Texas, where the shooting occurred, indicated he'd been shot in the back and in the front." The doctors, in fact, indicated no such thing. They described an entrance in Kennedy's throat and a large wound on the back of his head. They presumed this to be an exit for the bullet entering his throat. They said nothing to indicate the bullet causing this wound came from behind Kennedy.
2. A few minutes later, the program's narrator discusses the initial autopsy and states "Because the pathologist's notes were stained with blood, he burned them. After he found out that tracheotomy had been performed in Dallas, he tried to reconstitute his notes, based on what he could remember." This is nonsense. Dr. Humes, the pathologist in question, testified that he burned his notes only after copying them, and that he burned these notes after he found out about the tracheotomy. The implication that the initial autopsy report was in error because Dr. Humes couldn't remember what he saw is unjustified and undoubtedly deceptive, feeding into Dr. Baden's eventual conclusion that the mistakes in the autopsy report were all "innocent."
3. Shortly thereafter, when discussing the autopsy photos, Dr. Baden repeats the story of Floyd Riebe, a navy photographer whose camera was confiscated by the Secret Service. He then explains what he considers to be the poor quality of the photos by stating "The only one who was taking photographs was a Secret Service person who'd never taken autopsy photos before." This is frighteningly inaccurate. The lone autopsy photographer was John Stringer, the navy's top autopsy photographer, and Riebe's superior. In his memoirs, published nearly 20 years ago, Baden claimed the lone photographer was an FBI photographer. This incensed the original autopsists, Dr. James Humes and Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, to such an extent that they made a point of debunking Baden's claim and discussed Stringer's qualifications and abilities in a 1992 interview in the Journal of the American Medical Association. One would think Dr. Baden would remember his getting schooled in such a public fashion."
There is a 4-5-6-7-8-9 claims that follow.
None of them have to do with Baden's qualifications, abilities, or really anything at all about forensic medicine. How well Baden knows the exact story about Stringer and Reibe is immaterial with regard to what the photos and x-rays show, and says nothing about the skills required to correctly interpret such material. Ditto with exactly what Humes did with his notes, or with exactly what the Dallas doctors said in the news conference. It's like saying Jackie Stewart couldn't drive because he didn't remember the names of the pit crew or what the team owner told him about turn 4 at Spa. What a silly way to argue!
On Coe- found nothing
Davis testified on the fatal shot.. not in discussion here.
Dittos Loquvam
etc etc
All but Wecht signed off on the HSCA FPP report. He was allowed to testify to his dissent, and his dissenting opinion was added as an appendix to it. If any of the other non-Wecht members of the HSCA FPP disagreed with the SBT, they've been mighty quiet about it for a very long time. For that matter, I've never heard that Wecht has claimed that other FPP members didn't believe in the SBT. He's not exactly a quiet guy, or a particularly diplomatic one, so the silence is significant.
In his dissenting opinion, he singles out Weston and Spitz in particular for arguing for the SBT. And, he points out with no small umbridge:
"I should like to point out in its report (first page of part 1), the statement that following its very first meeting at the National Archives on September 18, 1977, 'it was disclosed that subpanel l was in unanimous agreement with respect to the interpretation of the evidence.' (Subpanel 1 consisted of a]] the FPP members except Spitz, Wecht and Weston.)"
Loquvam and Weston wrote the FPP report supporting the FPP Baden and Petty testified for it.
Given all that, there is no room to argue that the other FPP members didn't agree with the SBT, unless someone comes up with evidence otherwise. I've never found any.
What Bugliosi doesn't reveal is that the magic bullet theory was cooked up by Arlen Specter and Gerald Ford because they had to have it or the single shooter myth was doomed.
Which really doesn't apply to the question of how many experienced forensic pathologists agree with the SBT vs how many disagree with it. Why change the subject?
-
A couple of points:
1. The SBT has CE399 striking bone other than nose-first, and it has it striking and shattering a rib at a speed much greater than 1100 fps.
2. The SBT has CE399 striking the radius butt-first at about 1100 fps to explain the dent in the butt end.
So if there is any meaningful demonstration it should be to have the bullet strike a radius butt-first at 1100 fps and see what both the bullet and radius look like.
the SBT has CE399 striking the rib, but is agnostic about the bullet's particular attitude at impact. Shaw said that the impact was what he called a "slap wound," where the bullet hit the rib in something like a glancing blow. The rib broke from being compressed inward by the impact. Dr Gregory originated the idea that Connally's wrist wound was caused by a bullet striking tail first. This was based on his observation that the entry wound was too ragged to be a "normal" nose-first affair. He'd been a field surgeon in the Korean War, and knew a bit about bullet wounds. He also had the luxury of not needing to work fast, unlike Shaw or the teams in the ER. Lattimer did a lot of work weighing out something like a couple hundred 6.5mm WCC rounds; he found that they averaged about 1.6gr more than CE399, with a very tight distribution around the mean. He also used a vise to squeeze a few 6.5mm rounds into a shape as close to CE399 as he could manage; this resulted in about 1.5gr of lead being extruded out of the tail of the bullet. Per Gregory's and Lattimer's input, it would seem that the bullet would have hit the radius going backwards, lead-extrusion first, and the impact would shear off the extrusion or otherwise cause it to separate from the bullet proper, which would account for the fragments in the wrist and thigh. And, it would imply that the bulk of the flattening and bending would have occurred in the rib impact.
-
Which really doesn't apply to the question of how many experienced forensic pathologists agree with the SBT vs how many disagree with it. Why change the subject?
Actually, I've never so much as picked up his book. Are you really that presumptuous?
The topic is the Magic Bullet if you didn't notice.
About the other....Bugliosi seemed to buy the SBT, hook, line and sinker and you seem to also so... uhhhh....yeah I presumed. So what?
What is this crap about Jackie Stewart?
Someone doesn't stand up and agree so that means that they disagree?
Talk about 'presume'.
Back to square one....
Provide a link where a forensic specialist/scientific/medical professional DISAGREES with Cyril Wecht on the SBT and proves where Dr Wecht is wrong regarding CE 399...or shut up about it.
-
Provide a link where a forensic specialist/scientific/medical professional DISAGREES with Cyril Wecht on the SBT and proves where Dr Wecht is wrong regarding CE 399...or shut up about it.
I already did. You ignored it. Wecht is a nut and is essentially a knownothing when it comes to this stuff.
-
I already did. Wecht is a nut and is essentially a knownothing when it comes to this stuff.
You're funny. You should change your moniker to Snickerson.
OK so I'm slow. Perhaps you could link to your link.
Should be easy for someone sharp ......like you.
-
I already did. You ignored it. Wecht is a nut and is essentially a knownothing when it comes to this stuff.
Any expert who disagrees with the party line is a "nut" by definition as far as LNers are concerned.
But ask them how many firearms experts agreed with Nicol that a slug pulled out of Tippit could be matched to a specific revolver and they all go silent...
-
Any expert who disagrees with the party line is a "nut" by definition as far as LNers are concerned.
But ask them how many firearms experts agreed with Nicol that a slug pulled out of Tippit could be matched to a specific revolver and they all go silent...
Tim?
-
The following tables are from Larry Sturdivan?s ?The JFK Myths?:
Abbreviations used mean:
m/s is meters per second
f/s is feet per second
Conn. Is Connally
Page 118
Table II. Approximate Velocities At Which WCC/MC Bullets and Bones Deform
Orientation Velocity Velocity Velocity Muzzle
Of the at which at which at which Velocity
Bullet the bullet bone will soft
will deform tissue
shatter the will
bone bullet deform
bullet
Point First 120 m/s 520 m/s 730 m/s 600 m/s
Sideways 135 m/s 425 m/s 610 m/s
Point First 400 f/s 1700 f/s 2400 f/s 2160 f/s
Sideways 450 f/s 1400 f/s 2000 f/s
This table was calculated comparing the theorical ?tissue? drag with the yield strength of the WCC/MC bullet, based on it?s copper alloy shell and lead core. Which these are all theorical calculations, real world tests confirm this table.
Page 144
Table III. Probable Velocity and Orientation of CE 399 at Various Points Along Its Trajectory
Muzzle At Impact At Impact Penetrating At Impact At Impact
Velocity on JFK?s on Conn.?s Connally?s on Conn.?s on
Neck Back Rib Wrist Thigh
660 m/s 615 m/s 500 m/s 440 m/s 150 m/s 40 m/s
+- 10 +- 10 +- 15 through +- 30 +- 6
244 m/s
+- 30
2160 f/s 2015 f/s 1830 f/s 1450 f/s 500 f/s 135 fps
+- 30 +- 30 +- 100 through +- 100 +- 20
800 f/s
+- 100
Table III was a rough estimate based on the shooting of goat carcasses. This table differs from Mr. Sturdivan?s estimates presented to the HSCA back in the 1970?s. More extensive experiments have allowed a more accurate table. All values are approximate estimates but based on real world experiments.
The margin of error generally becomes greater and greater at later portions of its flight. This is because the margins of error are additive. If there is a 10 m/s error range in the speed the bullet is going when it reaches the first target, and a 20 m/s error range on the effect of the first target on the velocity, then there will be a 30 m/s error range when it reaches the second target. The exception is the speed of the bullet that barely penetrated Connally?s thigh, since the bullet would have to be going just fast enough to penetrate the skin, but not much faster to prevent it from penetrating deep into the thigh.
A couple of points:
1. The SBT has CE399 striking bone other than nose-first, and it has it striking and shattering a rib at a speed much greater than 1100 fps.
Larry Sturdivan?s estimate, the best estimate available (I believe) is that CE399 struck the rib at initially at 1450 f/s, just fast enough to deform the bullet. The bullet was travelling sideways at this point. It hit the rib with the back half of the bullet, causing the deformation. That is why the bullet is squeezed some near the base, with little or no deformity of the front half of the bullet.
Had the bullet still been traveling with the pointed end first, as it did through the air, it would have not deformed at all since such a bullet will not deform once the velocity dips below 1700 f/s.
Once the bullet slowed to about 1400 f/s, which still going through the rib, the deformation of the bullet stopped since even a sideways bullet won?t deform below 1400 f/s.
2. The SBT has CE399 striking the radius butt-first at about 1100 fps to explain the dent in the butt end.
So if there is any meaningful demonstration it should be to have the bullet strike a radius butt-first at 1100 fps and see what both the bullet and radius look like.
The wrist bone deformed the bullet a minimum amount, since it was travelling relatively slowly at that time, 500 f/s.
As the bullet got squeezed near the base of the bullet, some lead oozed out of the base of the bullet, like toothpaste being squeezed from a tube. This exposed soft lead was scraped off of the base of the bullet. Otherwise the wrist bone did not deform the bullet.
The wrist bone, while stronger than the rib bone, failed to further deform the bullet because it?s velocity was so much less striking the wrist bone than the rib bone.
-
these are all theoretical calculations
The bullet was traveling sideways at this point.
Key word there..."theoretical"
"Sideways"?
Instead of 'Magic' maybe we should call it the Sidewinder Bullet.
-
Damn near impossible debating with deniers and obfuscaters. They're obsessed with trying to rationalize the improbable and their mandate is to deny every single piece of evidence that suggests LHO was not a lone nut. They are actually conspiracy denialists that must pooh-pooh all evidence counter to the LN narrative by either ignoring, obfuscating, or calling you a drooling CT kook, because that's all they got.
And I thought LNers were supposed to be advocates of Occam's Razor where the simplest explanation is the most probable. But how likely was it that a FMJ bullet with a downward trajectory of -17 deg yaw, by -12 deg pitch, relative to JFK's body position and the 6th floor window of the TSBD, struck JFK in the back at the T1 vertebrae then exited a small hole in the throat at C7 without hitting the spine, then suddenly tumbles into Connally? Because that's not what the x-ray tells us:
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/x-ray_mb.gif)
Clearly the MB hit the C7 vertebrae, yet the LNers even deny their own x-ray evidence. And what does an overhead view tell us?
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/MB_Back_C7_Throat_12.png)
Looks like the bullet couldn't avoid either C7 or T1, and it didn't according to the x-ray.
My point being, that the MB not only smashed thru Connally's bones, but JFK's spine as well. Then it shows up in the darndest place with no trace of JFK or Connally on it and only slightly flattened at the base. What would Mr. Occam say about that?
-
You're funny. You should change your moniker to Snickerson.
OK so I'm slow. Perhaps you could link to your link.
Should be easy for someone sharp ......like you.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,753.msg17505.html#msg17505
"Earlier, the FBI inadvertently proved that cotton waste, when compressed as it builds up on a penetrating bullet, is denser than soft tissue. They did this by firing WCC/MC bullets from the Oswald rifle into cotton waste at muzzle velocity. They were trying to recover undeformed bullets fired from the Oswald rifle. Such bullets were needed as ballistic standards with which to compare CE 399 and the fragments recovered from the floor of the limousine to determine whether they were fired from Oswald's weapon. The bullets they recovered in this manner were suitable as standards, but were deformed to a greater extent than CE 399. This point was missed entirely by Dr. Wecht in his HSCA testimony when he used the picture reproduced as figure 4 that contains those bullets. He claimed that the deformation in cotton waste proved that CE 399 did not smash the Governor's wrist since it would have been deformed more in the "hard bone". He considered the effect of strength and, perhaps, density of the target on deformation---but not the much greater effect of velocity." -- Larry Sturdivan, The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination, pages 130 and 131.
https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Myths-Scientific-Investigation-Assassination/dp/1557788472
There is at least one other poster here who can confirm that the excerpt above is indeed genuine. Barring that, here's a part of Sturdivan's HSCA testimony that says essentially the same:
"Mr. STURDIVAN - On F-294, it shows the picture of five bullets. Commission exhibit 399, of course, is the infamous bullet. The commission exhibit 572, as I understand it, were a couple of bullets that were recovered in cotton-waste media, which, incidentally, is a little denser than tissue and, therefore, caused perhaps a little more extensive deformation than a soft recovery in gelatin would have. Exhibit 853 is a bullet that has ricocheted from the rib of a goat carcass, as Dr. Wecht indicated. However, let's remember that the goat, which is roughly 100 pounds, is much, much smaller than Governor Connally and, therefore, the bullet passed through a relatively small amount of soft tissue before it hit the bone and, therefore, lost correspondingly less velocity. So, we would have to say that the striking velocity on that bullet, C.E. 853, was much in excess of the striking velocity on Governor Connally, even if the bullet had passed through nothing before it hit Governor Connally. C.E. 856 is a bullet that was shot directly into a cadaver wrist without passing through anything before it hit. It is characteristic of the kind of deformation that you would expect of a bullet that strikes at high velocity. In other words, this was direct proof that the bullet that struck Governor Connally's wrist was not at high velocity; that is, CE-399 was not at high velocity. Otherwise, it would have been deformed as this bullet was in striking dense bone."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/hscastur.htm
-
The topic is the Magic Bullet if you didn't notice.
The topic of this thread is the "truly magical bullet"...the bullet that many CT's want to believe hit JFK in the throat, then somehow seems to have disappeared without a trace before it even made it all the way past the trachea. That's not the magic bullet you are looking for, stormtrooper. In any case, you brought up the SBT, which is only tangentially acquainted with the magic bullet (I should say the untruly magic bullet, just to avoid confusing you). The two ideas are wrongly conflated. Even if, arguendo, CE399 were some sort of plant, that wouldn't prevent JFK and JBC from being hit by the same projectile. It just wouldn't have been CE399.
About the other....Bugliosi seemed to buy the SBT, hook, line and sinker and you seem to also so... uhhhh....yeah I presumed. So what?
The epic rush to judgement of it says a lot about how you think, and you don't really seem to think a lot, judging from what I've seen from you so far.
What is this crap about Jackie Stewart?
It was a simile, used to demonstrate the complete pointlessness of your trying to impugn Baden's credentials as an FP with a pack of half-assed, beside-the-point accusations.
Someone doesn't stand up and agree so that means that they disagree?
Talk about 'presume'.
You don't read too well, do you? The HSCA FPP issued a report endorsing the SBT, among other things. While the report was written by Loquvam and Weston, it represented the opinion of the panel. The only dissenter was Cyril Wecht. In his dissent, Wecht noted that Spitz and Weston were pro-SBT, and then he noted that "'it was disclosed that subpanel I was in unanimous agreement with respect to the interpretation of the evidence." That is, everyone on subpanel I supported the SBT. All of them. Wecht helpfully notes that subpanel I was composed of all FPP members except himself, Weston, and Sptiz, the two guys he already labelled as SBTites. So, out of the whole FPP, Wecht was the only gut who didn't like the SBT.
As I said, Petty and Baden testified to the HSCA that they agreed with the SBT. Since Loquvam wrote the report, we know he supported it. And (again) Wecht named Spitz and Weston as SBT men. At a minimum, that's the SBT's 5 to your single Wecht. Not a very fair fight.
On the other hand, it's been 40 years since the report was issued. 40 years of opportunity for any of the FPP members to come out and say "I didn't agree with the SBT." None did.
Back to square one....
Provide a link where a forensic specialist/scientific/medical professional DISAGREES with Cyril Wecht on the SBT and proves where Dr Wecht is wrong regarding CE 399...or shut up about it.
Square one was a question about what happened to a hypothetical bullet that hit JFK in the throat with the upmost in hypothetical violence, and it was directed at CT's.
Square one in this particular exchange was your observation that the famously anti-SBT "Cyril Wecht is a foremost forensic pathologist." While your statement is technically true, it doesn't tell the whole story: Wecht is in a small (probably a very small) minority of FPs who have seen the evidence and think that the SBT is impossible.
I've already pointed you to where to find the information you demand. I guess you just don't want to find it, or even think about it.
As for the CE399 demand, it is Wecht who is making the specific claim (ie, that it couldn't do what they said it did, and come out looking like it does), and it is therefore his responsibility to prove his claim. By extension, it is up to anyone who champions Wecht's claim to prove it. That means you. Your petulant demands otherwise is nothing more than a half-assed attempt to shift the burden.
-
Any expert who disagrees with the party line is a "nut" by definition as far as LNers are concerned.
But ask them how many firearms experts agreed with Nicol that a slug pulled out of Tippit could be matched to a specific revolver and they all go silent...
That's a poor analogy. Wecht was not, and is not, a wound ballistics expert. His opinion was based on ignorance, not on science. Also the FBI experts never disagreed with Nicol. That is, they never claimed that Nicol couldn't have possibly matched the slug to Oswald's revolver. They did their examinations, he did his. It's possible that their standard for what qualified as a match was more stringent than his.
-
[...]
Clearly the MB hit the C7 vertebrae, yet the LNers even deny their own x-ray evidence. And what does an overhead view tell us?
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/MB_Back_C7_Throat_12.png)
Looks like the bullet couldn't avoid either C7 or T1, and it didn't according to the x-ray.
My point being, that the MB not only smashed thru Connally's bones, but JFK's spine as well. Then it shows up in the darndest place with no trace of JFK or Connally on it and only slightly flattened at the base. What would Mr. Occam say about that?
Yeah, well, about that CT image. Why does the "C7" in "C7 intervertebral disc" look so bright compared to the rest of the text in the image? In fact, why does the image look so much like the "T1-T2 intervertebral disc" image from this site: https://mrimaster.com/anatomy%20neck%20axial.html ? Also, why is the subclavian artery visible in an image of the neck (think of the meaning of the word "subclavian" for a second). Or parts of the pleural cavity, for that matter.
I would say that someone, at some point, modified the original image from, removing "T1-T2" and crudely replacing it with "C7"
-
Yeah, well, about that CT image. Why does the "C7" in "C7 intervertebral disc" look so bright compared to the rest of the text in the image? In fact, why does the image look so much like the "T1-T2 intervertebral disc" image from this site: https://mrimaster.com/anatomy%20neck%20axial.html ? Also, why is the subclavian artery visible in an image of the neck (think of the meaning of the word "subclavian" for a second). Or parts of the pleural cavity, for that matter.
I would say that someone, at some point, modified the original image from, removing "T1-T2" and crudely replacing it with "C7"
Mitch, someone did modify the original image by removing T1 and replacing it with C7. It was Trojan himself. He's not able to discuss or defend his position in a reasonable manner. Just ask him where he got the 12? from.
-
The topic of this thread is the "truly magical bullet"
OK whatever
The epic rush to judgement of it says a lot about how you think, and you don't really seem to think a lot, judging from what I've seen from you so far.
Insulting one's intelligence like this is what makes you a true blue troll.
And you haven't "seen'' me.
It was a simile, used to demonstrate the complete pointlessness of your trying....
All I did was try and provide links on forensics.
You don't read too well, do you? The HSCA FPP issued a report ...
Blah Blah... take the rest of your post and shove it up your backside.
Must have taken 3 or 4 hours for you to construct all that drivel.
-
Mitch, someone did modify the original image by removing T1 and replacing it with C7. It was Trojan himself. He's not able to discuss or defend his position in a reasonable manner. Just ask him where he got the 12? from.
I can't say I know who actually did it. Just that someone did, and the fact of fabrication completely destroys whatever argument JT was trying to make. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the 12? came from the same place as his earlier "Newsweek" faux pas.
He also doesn't understand Occam's Razor. (hint for the ill-advised: It's not the simplest explanation that is most likely to be correct, it's the one that make the fewest assumptions, postulates, axioms, and other a priori assertions).
-
Yeah, well, about that CT image. Why does the "C7" in "C7 intervertebral disc" look so bright compared to the rest of the text in the image? In fact, why does the image look so much like the "T1-T2 intervertebral disc" image from this site: https://mrimaster.com/anatomy%20neck%20axial.html ? Also, why is the subclavian artery visible in an image of the neck (think of the meaning of the word "subclavian" for a second). Or parts of the pleural cavity, for that matter.
I would say that someone, at some point, modified the original image from, removing "T1-T2" and crudely replacing it with "C7"
I modified the image to show C7 to corroborate the x-ray. That's precisely where the bullet hit JFK's spine. Do you think that by modifying the image somehow discredits my post and that I was trying to sneak one by you? Paranoid much? :D
-
Mitch, someone did modify the original image by removing T1 and replacing it with C7. It was Trojan himself. He's not able to discuss or defend his position in a reasonable manner. Just ask him where he got the 12? from.
I got the 12? from you dufus.
-
He also doesn't understand Occam's Razor. (hint for the ill-advised: It's not the simplest explanation that is most likely to be correct, it's the one that make the fewest assumptions, postulates, axioms, and other a priori assertions).
Fewest assumptions = simplest. EOS
But by all means, how many assumptions (and denial) must you make to accept the SBT versus that CE-399 was planted?
Show us Occam's Razor in the hands of an expert, such as yourself.
-
I modified the image to show C7 to corroborate the x-ray. That's precisely where the bullet hit JFK's spine. Do you think that by modifying the image somehow discredits my post and that I was trying to sneak one by you? Paranoid much? :D
Yes it does, and yes you were. And no, I'm not. Though I probably should be with you.
The honest approach would have been to not alter the image and explain why you chose it instead of one of the actual C7 images. The rest of us would still laugh at you for it, but we'd think you were an earnest dweeb, and not a dishonest schmuck.
For that matter, of the three axial sections traversing T1, you chose....none of them. You chose the image of a section below T1. And then you still had to cut and paste part of an illustration from somewhere else to make it all work the way you wanted to.
-
I can't say I know who actually did it.
I can because he originally posted the image unmodified on May 8.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,606.msg14037.html#msg14037
He posted the image in modified form on May 31 and I called him out on it.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,70.msg16424.html#msg16424
-
I got the 12? from you dufus.
Did not, you moron.
-
Yes it does, and yes you were. And no, I'm not. Though I probably should be with you.
The honest approach would have been to not alter the image and explain why you chose it instead of one of the actual C7 images. The rest of us would still laugh at you for it, but we'd think you were an earnest dweeb, and not a dishonest schmuck.
For that matter, of the three axial sections traversing T1, you chose....none of them. You chose the image of a section below T1. And then you still had to cut and paste part of an illustration from somewhere else to make it all work the way you wanted to.
An honest approach? :D That's comical coming from a LNer. Did you think I modified an "official" autopsy image of JFK? Or is it because that's all you got? I modified the image to show the path of the bullet as shown in the x-ray. I could only find an overhead scan showing T1 so I modified it to show C7. I didn't realize LNers needed a disclaimer that it wasn't an "official" image of JFK and to use it at your own risk. You guys need to get a clue.
So what about the x-ray image, Sheriff? I modified that one too to show the bullet hole thru C7. Is that one dishonest too?
-
BUSTED !
Might as well 'modify' some images to show a bullet lodged in JFK's throat.
That's as close as you're going to get to explaining where the supposed anterior entry bullet went.
Challenge still on, fakers and kooks.
Where'd your bullet go ?
-
Key word there..."theoretical"
"Sideways"?
Instead of 'Magic' maybe we should call it the Sidewinder Bullet.
Real world tests show that many bullets, including the WCC/MC start to yaw and will travel ?sideways? upon hitting a target like a neck. ?Sideways bullets?, or ?Sidewinder Bullets? if you like, do occur in real live and what is expected, by the experts, as a result of a WCC/MC passing through a neck.
Currently, there is no small device that can be embedded in a WCC/MC bullet, survive the violent acceleration when it is fired and record the accelerations over time (from which the velocity can be calculated) as the bullet passes through bodies. High speed photography won?t tell the speed of the bullet through opaque bodies, like a goat carcass. Theoretical calculations sometimes have to be relied on in science.
Some things can be told without relying solely on theory. They can hit bones embedded in ballistic gel. And get good estimates of the speed of the bullet through the transparent ballistic gel as it strikes the bone to find out the speeds at which bone will break and bullets will deform. And these tests confirm that their theories of at what speed will a bone deform a bullet, at what speed a bullet will break a bone, are good.
To CTers, ?Theoretical? is a funny word. Why rely on theory when one can have certainty? The SBT is a wacky theory. This is known for a certainty because it is assumed so. So, there is no need for any real world testing to check this, no need to consult with experts who do these sort of tests.
For cranks, there is no need for real world tests, for consulting with experts, for relying on theory. They have absolute certainty.
-
To CTers, ?Theoretical? is a funny word. Why rely on theory when one can have certainty? The SBT is a wacky theory.
What is wacky [outrageous] is the overwhelming number of theories that the Warren Commission had to overcome.
This one being that one guy created all this chaotic maelstrom of incidents...the junk rifle with a scope and four bullets smuggled into a building unobserved or hidden up his backside...and using only three of those bullets to shoot two guys in the incredible manner that was described.
The other umpteen hundred theories accepted by the Warren Commission are scattered throughout the forum.
The government had the political clout at that time to go out and find a whole bunch of guys...[good old boys] to back up all their theories.
Why is that so hard [at his time] to accept?
-
Real world tests show that many bullets, including the WCC/MC start to yaw and will travel ?sideways? upon hitting a target like a neck. ?Sideways bullets?, or ?Sidewinder Bullets? if you like, do occur in real live and what is expected, by the experts, as a result of a WCC/MC passing through a neck.
Currently, there is no small device that can be embedded in a WCC/MC bullet, survive the violent acceleration when it is fired and record the accelerations over time (from which the velocity can be calculated) as the bullet passes through bodies. High speed photography won?t tell the speed of the bullet through opaque bodies, like a goat carcass. Theoretical calculations sometimes have to be relied on in science.
Some things can be told without relying solely on theory. They can hit bones embedded in ballistic gel. And get good estimates of the speed of the bullet through the transparent ballistic gel as it strikes the bone to find out the speeds at which bone will break and bullets will deform. And these tests confirm that their theories of at what speed will a bone deform a bullet, at what speed a bullet will break a bone, are good.
To CTers, ?Theoretical? is a funny word. Why rely on theory when one can have certainty? The SBT is a wacky theory. This is known for a certainty because it is assumed so. So, there is no need for any real world testing to check this, no need to consult with experts who do these sort of tests.
For cranks, there is no need for real world tests, for consulting with experts, for relying on theory. They have absolute certainty.
"Real world tests show that many bullets, including the WCC/MC start to yaw and will travel ?sideways? upon hitting a target like a neck."
BINGO
"Parkland Hospital estimated the size of the supposed bullet exit hole in JFK's throat to be "3 mm to 5 mm in diameter," but...???????.. wound ballistics experts at Edgewood Arsenal carried out experiments showing bullets from Oswald's rifle would cause exit wounds two to three times that size."
-
This analysis does not address whether or not there was a conspiracy to assassinate President John F. Kennedy. But it does prove how the US government, beginning with the Clark Panel in 1969, misrepresented key evidence in one of the most important murder cases in our history. And that misrepresentation, in turn, has made it unnecessarily difficult to accept the government?s basic finding that JFK was struck in the rear of his head by one bullet.
Such ambiguities, if not absurdities, too often characterize the official conclusions pertaining to the medical evidence in this case. In this regard the government bears a large portion of the blame for widespread skepticism about the basic conclusion of the Warren Commission, that Lee Harvey Oswald was solely responsible for all of the president?s wounds.
The reluctance of physicians to criticize other physicians is a widespread problem (and not unknown in many other professions). Thus, it should not come as much of a surprise that various panels found it easier to criticize Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck who were outside their ?old boy? network. Moving the entry wound up, after all, did not have fundamental repercussions.
http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2013/09/canal.html[/size]
-
"Parkland Hospital estimated the size of the supposed bullet exit hole in JFK's throat to be "3 mm to 5 mm in diameter," but...???????.. wound ballistics experts at Edgewood Arsenal carried out experiments showing bullets from Oswald's rifle would cause exit wounds two to three times that size."
The is FALSE.
-
"Real world tests show that many bullets, including the WCC/MC start to yaw and will travel ?sideways? upon hitting a target like a neck."
BINGO
"Parkland Hospital estimated the size of the supposed bullet exit hole in JFK's throat to be "3 mm to 5 mm in diameter," but...???????.. wound ballistics experts at Edgewood Arsenal carried out experiments showing bullets from Oswald's rifle would cause exit wounds two to three times that size."
Of course, the yawing started in the neck. Had hardly yawed very much upon exiting the neck but had yawed by an estimated 30 to 60 degrees by the time it hit the back of Connally, allowing the side of the bullet to be ?squeezed? upon hitting the rib.
-
The is FALSE.
"The is FALSE."
OK, whatever you say.
-
Of course, the yawing started in the neck. Had hardly yawed very much upon exiting the neck but had yawed by an estimated 30 to 60 degrees by the time it hit the back of Connally, allowing the side of the bullet to be ?squeezed? upon hitting the rib.
The ER Dr's said it was a entry wound.
But you know better.
And you're qualified to state that because...?????????????..?
-
The ER Dr's said it was a entry wound.
But you know better.
And you're qualified to state that because...?????????????..?
Yes, and you know better, and should know better, that ER doctors are often wrong. If they weren?t, there would be no need for autopsies. ER doctors just concentrate on working as fast as possible to save lives. Autopsy doctors have a lot more time to make careful observations and their primary job is to figure out what caused the death, which is not the job of the ER doctors.
-
Yes, and you know better, and should know better, that ER doctors are often wrong. If they weren?t, there would be no need for autopsies. ER doctors just concentrate on working as fast as possible to save lives. Autopsy doctors have a lot more time to make careful observations and their primary job is to figure out what caused the death, which is not the job of the ER doctors.
And you're qualified to state that as fact because...????????????
-
And you're qualified to state that as fact because...????????????
Because they never skip having an autopsy just because a patient died in the Emergency Room and has already been examined by a doctor.
Question:
Can you name a single case where an autopsy was not done because the patient had already been examined by Emergency Room doctors?
-
Because they never skip having an autopsy just because a patient died in the Emergency Room and has already been examined by a doctor.
Question:
Can you name a single case where an autopsy was not done because the patient had already been examined by Emergency Room doctors?
LOL
-
An honest approach? :D That's comical coming from a LNer. Did you think I modified an "official" autopsy image of JFK? Or is it because that's all you got? I modified the image to show the path of the bullet as shown in the x-ray. I could only find an overhead scan showing T1 so I modified it to show C7. I didn't realize LNers needed a disclaimer that it wasn't an "official" image of JFK and to use it at your own risk. You guys need to get a clue.
Anyone who wants to dig through all the hot air in your reply will find, in the middle of all that whargarrbl, there is the statement: "I modified the image to show the path of the bullet as shown in the x-ray." That's not what you did. You selected the wrong section, then tried to relabel it in order to mislead. And it's one of a consecutive series of axial images from the cerebellum to the bottom of T2, so it shouldn't have been too hard to find the right one. For that matter, the internet is littered with CT example images, or any section, so I can't buy your explanation that it was the only one you could find.
So what about the x-ray image, Sheriff? I modified that one too to show the bullet hole thru C7. Is that one dishonest too?
At this point, does it really matter? You've already sunk your credibility.
-
The is FALSE.
I'm sure you didn't mean it this way. When I read it, all I could think of was Mary McCarthy and Lillian Hellman
-
Fewest assumptions = simplest. EOS
But by all means, how many assumptions (and denial) must you make to accept the SBT versus that CE-399 was planted?
Show us Occam's Razor in the hands of an expert, such as yourself.
Consider for a moment Newton's second law, F=ma. Simple isn't it?
But it doesn't tell the whole story. It assumes that the mass cannot deform, and that there is no drag acting on it once it moves.
So, the real equation has to add those terms, and we get the familiar 2nd order ODE, F=ma+cv+kx where cv is the the drag term and kx represents the deformation of the mass under load. F=ma is simple, but F=ma+cv+kx is correct.
At least, more correct. F=ma+cv+kx assumes that the ma, cv, and kx terms are linear. But they really aren't. It turns out that mass is a function of velocity, and kx is only considered to be linear through a relatively limited range of x-values.
Removing the assumptions makes things more complicated.
But you're a physicist, so you know that already, right?
-
Did not, you moron.
Did so. You claimed that the back wound was 2 inches right of center and the distance from the back to neck was 6.5 inches, correct? I put the wound 2 inches right of the spine and extended a line thru the spine and out the throat. The angle for that happened to be 12 degrees. I admit that I shouldn't have extended the line to the chest cavity but this was merely to show you the path of the MB thru JFK's spine. You seem to be confusing this with the pitch angle from the 6th floor of the TSBD. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and setting that at 9 degrees, when the official angle was actually estimated to be 7 degrees.
Here's YOUR final solution:
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/MB_Back_C7_Throat_12.png)
Looks like the bullet smashes thru C7 to me (just above T1 as depicted in the graphic AND the x-ray)
-
Anyone who wants to dig through all the hot air in your reply will find, in the middle of all that whargarrbl, there is the statement: "I modified the image to show the path of the bullet as shown in the x-ray." That's not what you did.
Yes it is.
You selected the wrong section, then tried to relabel it in order to mislead. And it's one of a consecutive series of axial images from the cerebellum to the bottom of T2, so it shouldn't have been too hard to find the right one. For that matter, the internet is littered with CT example images, or any section, so I can't buy your explanation that it was the only one you could find.
:D
-
Consider for a moment Newton's second law, F=ma. Simple isn't it?
But it doesn't tell the whole story. It assumes that the mass cannot deform, and that there is no drag acting on it once it moves.
So, the real equation has to add those terms, and we get the familiar 2nd order ODE, F=ma+cv+kx where cv is the the drag term and kx represents the deformation of the mass under load. F=ma is simple, but F=ma+cv+kx is correct.
At least, more correct. F=ma+cv+kx assumes that the ma, cv, and kx terms are linear. But they really aren't. It turns out that mass is a function of velocity, and kx is only considered to be linear through a relatively limited range of x-values.
Removing the assumptions makes things more complicated.
But you're a physicist, so you know that already, right?
Yes I am, and you obviously aren't and it takes one to know one. You do realize that Occam's Razor is just a philosophical principle, right?
-
Did so.
Did not.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,181.msg11339.html#msg11339
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,181.msg11566.html#msg11566
You claimed that the back wound was 2 inches right of center and the distance from the back to neck was 6.5 inches, correct?
That is correct.
I put the wound 2 inches right of the spine and extended a line thru the spine and out the throat. The angle for that happened to be 12 degrees. I admit that I shouldn't have extended the line to the chest cavity but this was merely to show you the path of the MB thru JFK's spine. You seem to be confusing this with the pitch angle from the 6th floor of the TSBD. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and setting that at 9 degrees, when the official angle was actually estimated to be 7 degrees.
Here's YOUR final solution:
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/MB_Back_C7_Throat_12.png)
Looks like the bullet smashes thru C7 to me (just above T1 as depicted in the graphic AND the x-ray)
That's your solution, not mine. You have the torso positioned incorrectly, the bullet wrongly exiting the center of the trachea , and you have not factored in Kennedy's head being turned 60 degrees to the right. That right rotation of the head results in about 3 degrees rotation of the C7 vertebrae and it moves the point in space of the exit location on the trachea to the right.
-
I'm sure you didn't mean it this way. When I read it, all I could think of was Mary McCarthy and Lillian Hellman
;D
-
Consider for a moment Newton's second law, F=ma. Simple isn't it?
But it doesn't tell the whole story. It assumes that the mass cannot deform, and that there is no drag acting on it once it moves.
So, the real equation has to add those terms, and we get the familiar 2nd order ODE, F=ma+cv+kx where cv is the the drag term and kx represents the deformation of the mass under load. F=ma is simple, but F=ma+cv+kx is correct.
At least, more correct. F=ma+cv+kx assumes that the ma, cv, and kx terms are linear. But they really aren't. It turns out that mass is a function of velocity, and kx is only considered to be linear through a relatively limited range of x-values.
Removing the assumptions makes things more complicated.
But you're a physicist, so you know that already, right?
Yes I am, and you obviously aren't and it takes one to know one. You do realize that Occam's Razor is just a philosophical principle, right?
Why do I have this feeling that it would be fairly entertaining to have you explain what you think is wrong about my physics? Or why you consider yourself a 'physicist' and any conventionally-accepted definition of the term?
And, yes, Occam's Razor is a rule of thumb. But I explained how it applies in terms of classical mechanics, especially in the sense that the simplest answer is not the most correct one.
-
Did not.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,181.msg11339.html#msg11339
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,181.msg11566.html#msg11566
That is correct.
That's your solution, not mine. You have the torso positioned incorrectly, the bullet wrongly exiting the center of the trachea , and you have not factored in Kennedy's head being turned 60 degrees to the right. That right rotation of the head results in about 3 degrees rotation of the C7 vertebrae and it moves the point in space of the exit location on the trachea to the right.
But I thought you said JFK was turned towards Jackie. Otherwise, JFK's head orientation had nothing to do with C7 and T1. Here is YOUR solution then (which is also close to mine).
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/MB_Back_C7_Throat_12.png)
Still smashes thru JFK's spine anyway you slice it.
-
Why do I have this feeling that it would be fairly entertaining to have you explain what you think is wrong about my physics? Or why you consider yourself a 'physicist' and any conventionally-accepted definition of the term?
I'm a physicist because I took the time to get a degree in physics, your Wikipedia cut and paste notwithstanding.
-
I'm a physicist because I took the time to get a degree in physics, your Wikipedia cut and paste notwithstanding.
So you should be able to explain what was wrong with the physics I posted with little difficulty.
And, no, it wasn't cut-n-pasted from Wikipedia or anywhere else. I'll even repost what I wrote.
Consider for a moment Newton's second law, F=ma. Simple isn't it?
But it doesn't tell the whole story. It assumes that the mass cannot deform, and that there is no drag acting on it once it moves.
So, the real equation has to add those terms, and we get the familiar 2nd order ODE, F=ma+cv+kx where cv is the the drag term and kx represents the deformation of the mass under load. F=ma is simple, but F=ma+cv+kx is correct.
At least, more correct. F=ma+cv+kx assumes that the ma, cv, and kx terms are linear. But they really aren't. It turns out that mass is a function of velocity, and kx is only considered to be linear through a relatively limited range of x-values.
Removing the assumptions makes things more complicated.
-
So you should be able to explain what was wrong with the physics I posted with little difficulty.
And, no, it wasn't cut-n-pasted from Wikipedia or anywhere else. I'll even repost what I wrote.
Consider for a moment Newton's second law, F=ma. Simple isn't it?
But it doesn't tell the whole story. It assumes that the mass cannot deform, and that there is no drag acting on it once it moves.
So, the real equation has to add those terms, and we get the familiar 2nd order ODE, F=ma+cv+kx where cv is the the drag term and kx represents the deformation of the mass under load. F=ma is simple, but F=ma+cv+kx is correct.
At least, more correct. F=ma+cv+kx assumes that the ma, cv, and kx terms are linear. But they really aren't. It turns out that mass is a function of velocity, and kx is only considered to be linear through a relatively limited range of x-values.
Removing the assumptions makes things more complicated.
Not sure how this advances the SBT, but welcome to physics. But don't confuse practical with hypothetical. Hypothetically speaking, anything is possible and "complicated" is a relative term.
-
But I thought you said JFK was turned towards Jackie.
You thought wrong.
Otherwise, JFK's head orientation had nothing to do with C7 and T1.
How do you figure that?
Here is YOUR solution then (which is also close to mine).
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/MB_Back_C7_Throat_12.png)
Still smashes thru JFK's spine anyway you slice it.
Nope. You have to rotate C7 relative to the torso, not together with the torso. Also, you still have the bullet exiting midpoint of the trachea, not to the right of the midline where the wound was located. And you have to move the trachea itself laterally to the right. Not sure how much. Perhaps only a half inch.
-
You thought wrong.
How do you figure that?
Nope. You have to rotate C7 relative to the torso, not together with the torso. Also, you still have the bullet exiting midpoint of the trachea, not to the right of the midline where the wound was located. And you have to move the trachea itself laterally to the right. Not sure how much. Perhaps only a half inch.
Transversing the spine?
-
Transversing the spine?
It did not strike bone. If that's what you're asking.
-
Transversing the spine?
I think that's an exciting new Xtreme sportz skiing move
-
Not sure how this advances the SBT, but welcome to physics. But don't confuse practical with hypothetical. Hypothetically speaking, anything is possible and "complicated" is a relative term.
You're a little late. My welcome to physics came in the 80's. Anyway, I used the progression out of F=ma as an example because it's well enough documented that it's hard to argue with. And it's a good example of something that is generally taken as simple and foundational is more complicated that folks tend to think.
-
So you should be able to explain what was wrong with the physics I posted with little difficulty.
And, no, it wasn't cut-n-pasted from Wikipedia or anywhere else. I'll even repost what I wrote.
Consider for a moment Newton's second law, F=ma. Simple isn't it?
But it doesn't tell the whole story. It assumes that the mass cannot deform, and that there is no drag acting on it once it moves.
So, the real equation has to add those terms, and we get the familiar 2nd order ODE, F=ma+cv+kx where cv is the the drag term and kx represents the deformation of the mass under load. F=ma is simple, but F=ma+cv+kx is correct.
At least, more correct. F=ma+cv+kx assumes that the ma, cv, and kx terms are linear. But they really aren't. It turns out that mass is a function of velocity, and kx is only considered to be linear through a relatively limited range of x-values.
Removing the assumptions makes things more complicated.
Hey Mitch watch out, Trojan our resident Einstein is on record as being a Nuclear Scientist/Photogrammetrist/Optical Printer Operator/Film Editor/Special Effects Supervisor/Physicist/Lasers lasers lasers/ etc etc etc...
So yeah, basically whatever hat needs to be worn, he's worn it!
JohnM
-
From Fred's article, you can see that Miller is a complete screwball and not credible at all.
From all of Litwin's article on his so-called "blog", you can see that Fred is a complete screwball and not credible at all.
He constantly calls things "misleading" simply because he believes something different is true.