Once you clear out the time-wasting noise and faux debate and recognize that the men are Lovelady & Shelley then you can orient the timing of Couch/Darnell and match it to Frazier's statements that he was facing Sarah Stanton at that moment as seen in Darnell...

Internet JFK researchers are a bunch of nuts and egotists who are more interested in avoiding the evidence than responsibly recognizing it...

There has been no kind of debate, let alone a "faux debate".
You were asked as simple question and gave an answer that defied any kind of logic or reason.
And it was really a rhetorical question because anyone with any kind of credibility would have instantly conceded that there can't be more detail in the image that has less detail.
But not you.
How can there be any kind of debate, faux or otherwise, with such a person?

Unfortunately, Studebaker was not looking for evidence, he was being directed to it by the detectives.

Exactly how do you fingerprint a chicken bone? You left the part out where Studebaker states he did not know of any. Not that is not the same as there weren’t any. He was being directed to them not searching for them himself. Others decided how important the evidence was.

You do not seem to know this but there were spots that pieces of chicken were noted by the various detectives. Actually, not knowing is a good description of your understanding of the various aspects of the assassination.

Mr. BALL. Now, did you see a chicken bone over near the boxes in the south-east corner, over near where you found the cartridges and the paper sack? Mr.
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I don't believe there was one there.
Mr. BALL. You didn't see any. One witness, a deputy sheriff named Luke Mooney said he found a piece of chicken partly eaten up on top of one of the boxes; did you see anything like that?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.

It doesn't mean it wasn't there, it means he did not see it because the other detectives did see it.

Mr. BALL. Was anything like that called to your attention?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I can't recall anything like that. It ought to be in one of these pictures, if it is.

Givens told Shelley he was eating a chicken sandwich on the 6th floor that day. You think Givens purposely lied about it. Givens told Shelley before the assassination.

Mr. BALL - Now you say that you thought that you had seen someone had eaten fried chicken that morning?
Mr. SHELLEY - I thought I had; those colored boys are always eating chicken.
Mr. BALL - Do you think you did or do you know?
Mr. SHELLEY - I asked Charles Givens whether it was him that was eating and he said it was a sandwich.
Mr. BALL - Was that before you went down for lunch?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, sir; it was pretty early in the morning, about 9:30.
Mr. BALL - Where was it?
Mr. SHELLEY - It was two-thirds across the building toward the west because I didn't put plywood over there and he didn't get too far from where we were actually working.

Obviously, Givens had his lunch sack with him.

Chicken bones story
Shelley

Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody eating fried chicken on that floor that morning?
Mr. SHELLEY - At one time I think I said I did but Charles Givens was the guy that was eating and he was further on over toward the west side and he was eating a sandwich so he says.
Mr. BALL - Now you say that you thought that you had seen someone had eaten fried chicken that morning?
Mr. SHELLEY - I thought I had; those colored boys are always eating chicken.
Mr. BALL - Do you think you did or do you know?
Mr. SHELLEY - I asked Charles Givens whether it was him that was eating and he said it was a sandwich.
Mr. BALL - Was that before you went down for lunch?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes, sir; it was pretty early in the morning, about 9:30.
Mr. BALL - Where was it?
Mr. SHELLEY - It was two-thirds across the building toward the west because I didn't put plywood over there and he didn't get too far from where we were actually working.

Chicken Bone Story as compiled by Colin Crow

Two lunches. There was BRW’s lunch with a pop bottle and Fritos bag right where he stated it was located, 3rd aisle. In addition, there was a single piece of chicken on a carton used as a barricade with an explanation from Mr. Shelley.
 
Mr. BALL - Now you say that you thought that you had seen someone had eaten fried chicken that morning?
Mr. SHELLEY - I thought I had; those colored boys are always eating chicken

Bonnie Ray Williams stated that he ate his lunch near the windows on the south side of the sixth floor.

The place where BRW ate his lunch and the remains of his lunch were found

Luke Mooney was first on the scene of the SN. His initial report mentions the lunch.

COUNTY OF DALLAS
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
SUPPLEMENTARY INVESTIGATION REPORT
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY
Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney, Dallas County Sheriff's Department.
Date: November 23 1963
I was standing in front of the Sheriff's office at 505 Main Street, Dallas, When President Kennedy and the motorcade passed by. Within a few seconds after he had passed me and the motorcade had turned the corner I heard a shot and I immediately started running towards the front of the motorcade and within seconds heard a second and a third shot. I started running across Houston Street and down across the lawn to the triple underpass and up the terrace to the railroad yards. I searched along with many other officers, this area, when Sheriff Bill Decker came up and told me and the Officers Sam Webster and Billy Joe Vickery to surround the Texas School Book Depository building. As we approached the two big steel wire gates to the building dock at the back of the building on Elm Street side, we saw that the loading dock had locks on it and I then pulled the steel gates closed and requested of a citizen standing there to see that no-one came out or went in until I could get a uniformed officer there, which he did. Officers Webster, Victory, and myself took to the building. Officers Webster and Victory took the stairs and I told them I would take the freight elevator. At the time I got on the elevator two women who work in the building got on the elevator, saying they wanted to go to their office. As the elevator started up, we went up one floor and the power to the elevator was cut off. I got out on the floor with these women and looked around in their office and I then took to the stairs and went to the 6th floor, and Officers Webster and Vickery went up to the 7th floor. I was the only person on the 6th floor when I searched it and was reasonably sure that there was no one else on this floor as I searched it and then criss-crossed it, seeing only stacks of cartons of books. I was at that time also checking for open windows and fire escapes. I found where someone had been using a skill saw in laying some flooring in one corner of this floor and I then went to the 7th floor and was assisting in searching it out and crawled into the attic opening and decided it was too dark and came down to order flash lights. I then went on back to the 6th floor and went direct to the far corner and then discovered a cubby hole which had been constructed out of cartons which protected it from sight and found where someone had been in an area of perhaps 2 feet surrounded by cardboard cartons of books. Inside this cubby hole affair was three more boxes so arranged as to provide what appeared to be a rest for a rifle. On one of these cartons was a half-eaten piece of chicken. The minute that I saw the expended shells on the floor, I hung my head out of the half opened window and signalled to Sheriff Bill Decker and Captain Will Fritz who were outside the building and advised them to send up the Crime Lab Officers at once that I had located the area from which the shots had been fired. At this time, Officers Webster, Victory, and McCurley came over to this spot and we guarded this spot until Crime Lab Officers got upstairs within a matter of a few minutes. We then turned this area over to Captain Fritz and his officers for processing. At this time I continued to search this 6th floor along with many other officers and within a few minutes, I heard Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone holler out that he had found the rifle near the staircase between some rows of cartons. We continued to search the building for a suspect.



McCurley's Report
 

Officer A. D. McCurley, Deputy Sheriff, Dallas County Sheriff's Office (Statement 11/22/63)

Officer Jack Faulkner and I, together with several other City officers went to the building and started checking the floors. We were searching the 6th floor when Deputy Sheriff Mooney, who was also on the 6th floor, hollered that he had found the place where the assassin had fired from. I went over and saw 3 expended shells laying by the window that faced onto Elm Street, along with a half-eaten piece of chicken that was laying on a cardboard carton. It appeared as if the assassin had piled up a bunch of boxes to hide from the view of anyone who happened to come up on that floor and had arranged 3 other cartons of books next to the window as though to make a rifle rest. This area was roped off and guarded until Captain Will Fritz of Dallas Police Department Homicide Bureau arrived. It was about this same time that Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone yelled that he had found the rifle which had been placed between some rows of cardboard boxes near the staircase which leads down to the 5th floor.

Officer Jack Faulkner

There were also some chicken bones. Evidently he had chicken for his lunch. There were people that worked with him that had left maybe at noon. I don't know where they went because I didn't investigate that part of it. I've also heard of a bag which carried the rifle, but I never saw that. It could have been there, but I didn't notice it.
From "No More Silence: An Oral History of the Assassination of President Kennedy" - Larry A. Sneed

Officer Roger Craig, Deputy Sheriff

Mr. BELIN - About how soon after they were found did you see them, laying on the floor?
Mr. CRAIG - Oh, a couple of minutes. I went right on over there. I was at the far north end of the building. The cartridges were on the southeast corner.
Mr. BELIN - Well, how did you know they had been found there? Did someone yell---or what?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes; someone yelled across the room that "here's the shells."
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember who that was?
Mr. CRAIG - No; I couldn't recognize the voice.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Then, what did you do?
Mr. CRAIG - I went over there and--uh--didn't get too close because the shells were laying on the ground and there was--uh--oh, a sack and a bunch of things laying over there. So, you know, not to bother the area, I just went back across.
Mr. BELIN - Now, you say there was a sack laying there?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes; I believe it was laying on top of a box, if I'm not mistaken.
Mr. BELIN - How big a sack was that?
Mr. CRAIG - It was a paper bag (indicating with hands)--a small paper bag.
Mr. BELIN - Well, the kind-of paper bag that you carry your lunch in?
Mr. CRAIG - Yeah,--uh-huh.

Gerald Hill also recalls the finding of the SN and the Chicken Leg and Bag of top of the SN Boxes

Mr. HILL. We hadn't been there but a minute until someone yelled, "Here it is," or words to that effect.
I moved over and found they had found an area where the boxes had been stacked in sort of a triangle shape with three sides over near the window.
Mr. BELIN. What did you see over there?
Mr. HILL. There was the boxes. The boxes were stacked in sort of a three-sided shield.
That would have concealed from general view, unless somebody specifically walked up and looked over them, anyone who was in a sitting or crouched position between them and the window. In front of this window and to the left or east corner of the window, there were two boxes, cardboard boxes that had the words "Roller books," on them.
On top of the larger stack of boxes that would have been used for concealment, there was a chicken leg bone and a paper sack which appeared to have been about the size normally used for a lunch sack. I wouldn't know what the sizes were. It was a sack, I would say extended, it would probably be 12 inches high, 10 inches long, and about 4 inches thick.

At this point, I asked the deputy sheriff to guard the scene, not to let anybody touch anything, and I went over still further west to another window about the middle of the building on the south side and yelled down to the street for them to send us the crime lab.

 

Harry Weatherford

The 11-23-63 report of Deputy Sheriff Harry Weatherford notes "I came down to the 6th floor, and while searching this floor, Deputy Luke Mooney said "here are some shells." I went over to where he was and saw 3 expended rifle shells, a sack on the floor and a partially eaten piece of chicken on top of one of the cartons which was used as a sort of barricade."

Officer Brewer

Mr. BELIN. Did you go and take a look at the cartridge cases?
Mr. BREWER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. How many cartridge cases did you see?
Mr. BREWER. Three.
Mr. BELIN. Where were they?
Mr. BREWER. They were there under, by the window.
Mr. BELIN. What window?
Mr. BREWER. In the southeast corner of the building, facing south.
Mr. BELIN. See anything else there at the time by the window?
Mr. BREWER. Paper lunch sack and some chicken bones or partially eaten piece of chicken, or a piece at chicken.

Officer Haygood

Mr. BELIN. You saw some shells there?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Where did you see them?
Mr. HAYGOOD. They were there under the window.
Mr. BELIN. Which window?
Mr. HAYGOOD. On the southeast corner.
Mr. BELIN. South side or east side?
Mr. HAYGOOD. On the southeast corner facing south.
Mr. BELIN. See any paper bags or anything around there?
Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes; there was a lunch bag there. You could call it a lunch bag.
Mr. BALL. Where was that?
Mr. HAYGOOD. There at the same location where the shells were.

Eugene Boone

Mentions seeing the chicken before discovering the rifle in his Oral History with the 6th Floor Museum.
-----------------------------

BRW describing his location

Mr. WILLIAMS. ...So I decided to move to a two-wheeler.
Mr. BALL. A two-wheeler truck, you mean?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. I remember sitting on this two-wheeler. By that time, I was through, and I got up and I just left then.


Mr. HILL. There was the boxes. The boxes were stacked in sort of a three-sided shield.
That would have concealed from general view, unless somebody specifically walked up and looked over them, anyone who was in a sitting or crouched position between them and the window. In front of this window and to the left or east corner of the window, there were two boxes, cardboard boxes that had the words "Roller books," on them.
On top of the larger stack of boxes that would have been used for concealment. there was a chicken leg bone and a paper sack which appeared to have been about the size normally used for a lunch sack. I wouldn't know what the sizes were. It was a sack, I would say extended, it would probably be 12 inches high, 10 inches long, and about 4 inches thick.
Then, on the floor near the baseboard or against the baseboard of the south wall of the building, in front of the second window, in front of the, well, we would have to say second window from the east corner, were three spent shells.
This is actually the jacket that holds the powder and not the slug. At this point, I asked the deputy sheriff to guard the scene, not to let anybody touch anything, and I went over still further west to another window about the middle of the building on the south side and yelled down to the street for them to send us the crime lab. Not knowing or not getting any indication from the street

There was clearly two locations where remnants of chicken were found. The two detectives charged with preserving the area describe first the lunch left by BR Williams,

Mr. JOHNSON. Now you got to remember he told L. D. Montgomery, my partner, and I to preserve the scene, and we remained there near that corner.
Now over to the right, which would be back toward the west of the window, there was a lunch sack--a brown paper bag--and some remnants of fried chicken, and a pop bottle.
And I stayed closer to that pop bottle while we were waiting for the crime lab to finish their work.
Mr. BELIN. Now there was a sack and a pop bottle. Was there anything else other than the sack and the pop bottle?
Mr. JOHNSON. And the remnants of fried chicken.
Mr. BELIN. The remnants of fried chicken, was that right by that window, or was it by another set of windows?
Mr. JOHNSON. That was by some other window.
Mr. BELIN. Now there are, I believe, on the south side of the building, seven pairs of windows?
Mr. JOHNSON. I didn't count them. I couldn't say.
Mr. BELIN. Would you say it was toward the east, or the west, or the center?
Mr. JOHNSON. Where the sack was?
Mr. BELIN. Yes.
Mr. JOHNSON. It would be toward the west. I believe the next set of windows to my--I am pretty sure it was.
102

Mr. BELIN. You said it would be in the second pair of windows counting from the east wall?
Mr. JOHNSON. To the west.
Mr. BELIN. Is where you found it, was it between the second and the third set of windows or between the first and the second, or right by the second?
Mr. JOHNSON. Right by the second pair of windows.
Mr. BELIN. Now you stayed over there?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. And your partner, Detective Montgomery, stayed over by the first pair of windows?
Mr. JOHNSON. By the corner.

Mr. BELIN. By the corner window, southwest corner of the sixth floor?
Were you there when Lieutenant Day and Studebaker came in to take pictures?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know of your own personal knowledge whether anything prior to the time that they took the first set of pictures up had been moved there?
Mr. JOHNSON. No, sir; as far as I know, they hadn't been moved. They weren't supposed to have been, and that was our job to keep them out of there, and nobody came in there, I am pretty sure
-------------------------
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Well, sir, as I say, there was a lot of boxes and there was a sack and there was this pieces of chicken.
Mr. BALL. Was there a piece of chicken over there?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir--there was chicken bones and what not--it looked like somebody had been eating chicken there.
Mr. BALL. Where was that?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It was right there with the boxes---right there on the floor.
Mr. BALL On the floor?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. All right.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Well, let me see, there was one piece of chicken on a box and there was a piece on the floor--just kind of scattered around right there.
Mr. BALL. Where was the paper sack?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Let's see--the paper sack--I don't recall for sure if it was on the floor or on the box, but I know it was just there----one of those pictures might show exactly where it was.
Mr. BALL. I don't have a picture of the paper sack.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. You don't? Well, it was there--I can't recall for sure if it was on one of the boxes or on the floor there.
Mr. BALL. It was over in what corner?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It would be the southeast corner of the building there where the shooting was.
Mr. BALL. Did you turn the sack over to anybody or did you pick it up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes---let's see Lieutenant Day and Detective Studebaker came up and took pictures and everything, and then we took a Dr. Pepper bottle and that sack that we found that looked like the rifle was wrapped up in.
Mr. BALL. Now, where was the Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It was over a little more to the west of that window.
Mr. BALL. There was a sack of chicken bones with that--near that Dr. Pepper bottle?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. No; the Dr. Pepper bottle, the best I can recall, was sitting over there by itself.
Mr. BALL. Where was the sack with the chicken in it?
97

Mr. MONTGOMERY. It was right around where the boxes were--where the hulls there were.
Mr. BALL. The picture was taken of the sack by Mr. Studebaker, and he said it was the third set of windows near the little two-wheel truck?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Over there by the Dr. Pepper bottle.
Mr. BALL. Correct.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I was thinking it was right there--it was probably that sack I'm thinking about---the one we found on the floor there that was used.
Mr. BALL. Here are two pictures, which are Exhibits H and I in the Studebaker depositions, which show the paper sack and the Dr. Pepper bottle and a two-wheel truck, and that is in Exhibit H, and Exhibit I shows the Dr. Pepper bottle and a two-wheel truck.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Is this the sack right here, now?
Mr. BALL. That's right--do you remember that?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I don't remember the sack being right there--I remember it was there somewhere, but exactly--I don't.
Mr. BALL. Evidently you don't know?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Now, was there some more chicken some place there also?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes--there would be some more chicken over here around where the hulls were found.
Mr. BALL. Now, I will show you a picture of----
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I know there was one piece laying up on top of the box there.
Mr. BALL. I show you a picture which is Exhibit J, which shows some boxes in the picture that's in the southeast corner there.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Can you tell me where the chicken was?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I believe it was right up on these boxes right along in there. There's some boxes coming along in there.
Mr. BALL. Coming along in there you mean it's outside of the view of the pictures?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir; right along in here.
Mr. BALL. And that would be to the north, of that point?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And what did you see on top of those boxes?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. There was one piece of chicken there.
Mr. BALL. Partially eaten?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes; I believe it was partially eaten---on that picture right there I was just looking at.
Mr. BALL. That's Exhibit J.
--------------------------------------------

It is to bad you are having a hard time accepting the fact there was two lunches, two places the chicken bones were found. Exactly the way Shelley described others eating chicken during the day. There was BRW’s lunch with a pop bottle and Fritos bag right where he stated it was located, 3rd aisle. In addition, there was a single piece of chicken on a carton used as a barricade with an explanation from Mr. Shelley. Not one of these officers' statements mention the frito bag or pop bottle with the chicken remnants on the barricade box

You left the part out where Studebaker states he did not know of any. Not that is not the same as there weren’t any.

I reproduced a part of Studebaker's testimony where he specifically stated there were no other chicken bones other than the ones in the lunch sack:

Mr. BALL. That's the sack, is that right?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And it shows - it has some chicken bones in it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Any chicken bones in any other place?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.
Mr. BALL. None outside the sack?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; they were all inside the sack, wrapped up and put right back In. It had a little piece of Fritos in the sack, too.

Studebaker is unequivocal - no other chicken bones anywhere else.
  What is really funny - and this is so like you - you then reproduce a part of Studebaker's testimony that you believe makes him sound less sure, when in reality he is doubling down on his certainty:

Mr. BALL. Now, did you see a chicken bone over near the boxes in the south-east corner, over near where you found the cartridges and the paper sack? Mr.
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I don't believe there was one there.
Mr. BALL. You didn't see any. One witness, a deputy sheriff named Luke Mooney said he found a piece of chicken partly eaten up on top of one of the boxes; did you see anything like that?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.

  You are so funny.
But it doesn't matter because you will still continue to push your wrong-headed nonsense no matter how much the evidence refutes what you are proposing.
As far as Studebaker is concerned there is only one set of lunch remains.
Remember, there are pictures of Studebaker actually inside the SN dusting boxes. To imagine he couldn't see chicken remains right on top of the boxes he was examining is so ridiculous it is totally in keeping with how you view this case.

He was being directed to them not searching for them himself.

You must cite evidence for this assertion.
What evidence do you have that Studebaker needed other detectives to do his job for him?
Or have you already started to invent things out of thin air and present them as a fact?
Remember, I've dealt with you before, Jack. I know exactly how this is going to go.

Thank you for posting the evidence from multiple first responders who discovered BRW's lunch remains on top of the SN. If, as you say, there were two sets of lunch remains, what happened to the set found on top of the SN? Where did they go? Why weren't they recorded by Studebaker or Day?
And don't just make something up like you usually do. Provide evidence for your assertions. Like I do 

Another surreal reply where you simply ignore a mass of information that has been presented and documented to you and then repeat your same old arguments that are refuted by that information.

You misspelled "disinformation". I'm sure that was just a typo.

I've already refuted this, several times.

You misspelled "disputed".

Again, Connally's back wound was no more "elongated" than JFK's rear head entry wound. The moderate degree of elongation was due to the fact that Connally was turning when the bullet hit him.

JBC was not turned enough to create such an elongated wound. It has been shown experimentally that a Carcano bullet will yaw when exiting soft tissue. JBC was in direct line with the shooter and the exit wound in JFK's throat which means it would have been almost impossible for that bullet to have missed hitting him in the back. You seem to want to believe a couple of silly factoids.

1. CE399 did not hit either man.
2. JFK was hit by a different bullet than the one that hit JBC.

If the above are true, how did CE399 end up at Parkland Hospital? What happened to the bullet that struck JFK in the back? What happened to the bullet that struck JBC in the back?

I'm wondering if you will play dodgeball with the above questions or resort to your favorite fallback reply of "I already answered that".


Speaking of FMJ bullets passing through ballistics gelatin, I notice you ignored the fact that in the HSCA's wound ballistics test, the FMJ bullet created a narrow and almost straight path through the gelatin. I also noticed you ignored the fact that Dr. Shaw pointed out that the bullet that transited Connally's chest created a remarkably narrow wound path.

You see, I've pointed out these facts to you several times, but you just keep ignoring them and keep repeating your yawing-bullet myth.

In addition, you also keep ignoring the fact that whatever CE 399 hit, it hit while traveling sideways. That's why so many SBT defenders -- including Posner, Lattimer, Myers, and the Haags -- have falsely used the Connally back wound's post-debridement width of 3.0 cm, instead of its actual width of 1.5 cm.

This is also why the quacks the Haags have their SBT bullet hitting Connally's rib sideways. They are probably oblivious to the fact that Dr. Shaw noted that the Connally chest bullet created a "small tunneling wound" and that it "stripped the rib out without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it." 

The Haags are downright quacks. And, again, we have a wealth of evidence that the back wound had no exit point and that the throat wound was an entry wound. But you refuse to acknowledge this evidence and just keep assuming that a bullet transited the neck.

LOL! Your reading-comprehension problem is what has once more reared its ugly head. I have never said or implied that the bullet hit Connally's back at a "perfectly perpendicular" angle. Where in the world do you get that bit of fiction? I've said the exact opposite. I mean, seriously, can you read above a grade-school level?

To read your statement above, one would never guess that you were responding to this statement of mine:

And I notice you dishonestly snipped, without notice, Stewart Fillmore's observation about why Connally's back wound was only moderately elongated (1.5 cm). Let's read what you snipped:

Again, the likes of Posner, Myers, Lattimer, and the Haags have falsely claimed the wound was 3.0 cm wide, doubling its actual width, in order to accommodate a sideways-traveling bullet, since CE 399 was 1.2 inches long and a wound 3.0 cm wide is 1.18 inches wide. Ah, but a wound only 1.5 cm wide is only 0.59 inches wide, not nearly wide enough to have been made by a sideways-traveling CE 399. 
 
Umm, you mean "as has been" claimed to me "numerous times," and I've answered that false claim by citing the HSCA FPP's unanimous conclusion that the bullet hit JFK's back at an upward angle and by citing the FPP's SBT diagram.

You keep repeating your false claim and keep ignoring facts that refute it.

I've cited the HSCA FPP's SBT diagram (7 HSCA 100, Figure 12), which shows the bullet traveling upward through the neck and shows JFK leaning substantially forward.

I've noted that the FPP's report say that the back wound's abrasion collar is "evidence that the bullet's trajectory at the instant of penetration was slightly upward in relation to the body." Let's read what the FPP said on this issue, yet again:

A red-brown to black area of skin surrounds the wound, forming what is called an abrasion collar. It was caused by the bullet's scraping the margins of the skin on penetration and is characteristic of a gunshot wound of entrance. The abrasion collar is larger at the lower margin of the wound, evidence that the bullet's trajectory at the instant of penetration was slightly upward in relation to the body. (7 HSCA 175)

I've also answered your false claim by citing Dr. Spitz's 1975 finding:

There is no doubt that the bullet which struck the President’s back penetrated the skin in a sharply upward direction, as is evident from the width of the abrasion at the lower half of the bullet wound of entrance. The term "sharply upward direction" is used because it is evident from this injury that the missile traveled upwards within the body. (Report of Werner Spitz, 4/24/75, p. 1, Rockefeller Commission papers)

LOL! Not on this planet. Go look at the FPP's SBT trajectory diagram again. As mentioned, it shows the bullet traveling upward through the neck while also showing JFK leaning substantially forward.

Go watch the demonstration of the FPP's SBT trajectory given by Dr. Baden, the FPP chairman: He actually demonstrated the upward trajectory through the neck with a wooden pointer in his filmed interview for NOVA's 1988 JFKA documentary. He leaned markedly forward, still holding the pointer, to show how an upward trajectory through the neck could line up with the sixth-floor window.

The problem is that you don't have the integrity or objectivity to admit that no photo or frame shows JFK leaning that far forward, so you prefer to cling to the fiction that the bullet traveled downward through the neck.

Yes, given JFK's posture during the SBT timeframe, a projectile that entered his back at an upward angle would have had to be fired from a point below the entry wound -- yes, such as a large fragment from the bullet that hit the pavement behind the limo. A large fragment from the pavement bullet would have hit the back at an upward angle.

This would also explain why the back wound was so shallow and had no exit point.
 
No, that's a perfectly logical assessment. Your reply is just further proof of how much you guys are in denial about the FPP's version of the SBT.

Just a few months ago, you repeatedly and emphatically cited the HSCA FPP's "unanimous" conclusions and demanded their acceptance. You didn't realize that most of those conclusions, especially their version of the SBT, are fatal to your theory of the shooting.

Now that you're confronted with the fact that the FPP's SBT destroys the SBT, you're ducking and weaving and stumbling all over the place.

Well, now, that's amazing, because the HSCA FPP, to whom you used to frequently appeal as an unquestionable authority, determined that the back wound was slightly below the throat wound, and that the bullet hit the back at an upward angle.

I guess all nine of the FPP's forensic pathologists just couldn't see what you claim is "quite easy to see with the naked eye."

LOL! Are you the same John Corbett who claimed, just a few months ago, that a difference of 2 inches in the back wound's location and a difference of 4 inches in the rear head wound's location would have no effect on those wounds' trajectories back to the sixth-floor window? Is there another John Corbett who posts in this forum?

I know you don't know enough about geometry to understand this, but the street's downward slope, coupled with the distance from the sixth-floor window at which the bullet would have hit, does nothing to explain the clear physical indications in the back wound that the bullet entered at an upward angle. Even Wecht agreed that the wound's abrasion collar and interior tunneling showed the bullet hit at an upward angle.

This is a rhetorical question, since you'll probably duck it, but why do you suppose that the SBT diagrams of Lattimer, Canning, and Myers all assume that JFK was sitting upright when the bullet hit yet place the back wound in noticeably different locations?
[/quote]

Once you clear out the time-wasting noise and faux debate and recognize that the men are Lovelady & Shelley then you can orient the timing of Couch/Darnell and match it to Frazier's statements that he was facing Sarah Stanton at that moment as seen in Darnell...

Internet JFK researchers are a bunch of nuts and egotists who are more interested in avoiding the evidence than responsibly recognizing it...

    The variable here that is Never addressed, would be DPD Officer Smith also being filmed well down the Elm St Extension at the same time that these 2 Guys were filmed. Officer Smith was positioned on Houston St, had to be told about shots being fired through the bushes on the Elm St Extension, at which point Smith then ran around the corner and started checking the bushes along the Elm St Extension. The timestamp of :20 seconds after the kill that is attached to those 2 Guys and Officer Smith is just not physically possible for Officer Smith. 

only jfk nut bags allowed to post here today for one hour. should I say something profound, hero ?  how about…….
thinking is the best way to travel !

 your turn, sir graves lol, unless I’m on ignore lol