Amazingly, you again refuse to process the fact that your supposed lone gunman would have had to score both of his hits within 5.6 seconds, since you claim his first shot missed (and missed not just JFK but the entire gigantic limo). So he most certainly would have had a serious time constraint, especially given his poor rifle skills and given the firing times of the Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test.

And I guess you missed the fact that the HSCA's rifle test counted as hits any shot that landed anywhere in the silhouette, tripling or quadrupling the size of the target area that the alleged lone gunman supposedly hit twice within 5.6 seconds.

Just when I think you can't get any dumber, you surprise me. I not only have acknowledged the maximum time allowed for Oswald's last two shots, I have pointed out that he actually only took about 4.97 seconds between the last two shots. That was ample time for two aimed shots at such close ranges. But you are so dumb, you think Blakey's test that limited the shooters to just 1.7 seconds was a fair comparison. It wasn't remotely possible the test shooters could have accurately fired a Carcano in such a short time span. How stupid are you that you even need to have that pointed out to you.

Perhaps it's an insult to juveniles to point out the juvenile nature of so many of your replies. Your supposed lone gunman would have had no choice but to use the scope, unless you want to theorize that for some odd reason he took precious time to needlessly attach the scope after the shooting before he began his impossible dash down to the second-floor lunchroom.

You really are a pathetic a-hole. I have never argued that I thought Oswald used the iron sights. I pointed out that Blakey chose not to have his test shooters use the scope. It was YOU who countered that OTHER LNs have postulated that as if I am obligated to defend that position. I did nothing more than point out it is theoretically possible Oswald could have used the iron sights but I never subscribed to that theory. You are just playing word games because you have no arguments of substance to make.

Oh boy. . . .

One, the time span between Z209 and Z312, or 103 frames, would have been 5.6 seconds, not 4.97 seconds (103 frames divided by 18.3 frames per second equals 5.62 seconds).

.

Now you put your piss poor reading comprehension on display for the rest of us to laugh at. Oswald did not fire a shot at Z209. The WC calculated that Oswald would not even have had a clear shot until Z210 and it is foolish to think he would fire a shot the instant his target came into the clear. Based on the reactions of JFK and JBC at Z226 and Zapruder's camera jiggle at Z227, it is likely JFK was struck about Z222, plus or minus one frame. That shot would have been fired in the Z219-220 window, about 91 frames before the headshot was fired. I can't dumb it down for you more than that. I don't know why you keep insisting the shot would have to have been fired at Z209. That was never the conclusion of the WC. Perhaps you got your information from Walter Cronkite who made the false claim the WC concluded Oswald fired his FIRST shot at Z210, probably the sloppiest piece of reporting he did in his entire career. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I believe Uncle Walter said that in 1988, years after he left the anchor desk at CBS and might have been getting a little fuzzy in the head at his advanced age. What's your excuse?

Two, if it is "perfectly reasonable" to believe your supposed lone assassin went two for two after the limo cleared the oak tree, why did the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test fail to do this? Why did they fire so inaccurately on their second and third shots?

My source indicates the shooters were trying to fire THREE shots in under SIX seconds, a time constraint Oswald was not under. That made the test considerably more difficult.

LOL! You seem to be forgetting that he would have had to acquire the target and then aim starting immediately in Z210 before he could fire his second shot. The human brain takes 1/6th of a second, or 166.67 milliseconds, to register and respond to visual data. 166.67 milliseconds equals three Zapruder frames (166.67 milliseconds divided by 54.64 milliseconds per Zapruder frame).

Sure, go ahead and cut the firing time between the head shot and Z209 by two frames with the head shot being fired at Z310-311. Be my guest. That's 101 frames instead of 103, which equals 5.51 seconds instead of 5.62 seconds.

You seem to be showing signs of dementia. Why do you keep using Z209 as the time Oswald fired his second shot. You are the first person I've seen claim that. Walter Cronkite reported the WC concluded Oswald fired his first shot at Z210 which is about as dumb as what you keep insisting. It's really not much of a challenge arguing with adversaries who have such a poor command of basic facts.

Anyway, again, why did the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test fail to score two hits with their last two shots in any of their shot series? Why did they fire so inaccurately on their second and third shots?

Gee, could it be they were trying to fire 3 shots in about the same amount of time Oswald fired his last 2.

Before you repeat your "they fired too quickly" goop, I'll repeat the fact Hendrix took 8 seconds for his first set of shots and 7 seconds for his second set, while Staley took 6.75 seconds for his first set and 6.45 seconds for his second set.

That's still faster than Oswald would have had to shoot. If my analysis is correct, Oswald had 9 seconds to fire his three shots. If Tom Graves is correct, he took over 10 seconds.

Miller fired more rapidly (4.6, 5.15, and 4.45 seconds), but his shots were also the most inaccurate.

Exactly. The faster one shoots, the less accurate they are. Oswald wasn't trying to shoot in a specified period of time. He could aim his rifle at his target an put a slow squeeze on the trigger. The shot he might have rushed was the first shot because he tried to get that shot off after the limo passed his window but before it went under the tree. Not surprising that he missed with that one.

Even though Hendrix took 8 seconds in his first series and 7 seconds in second series, he failed to duplicate Oswald's alleged feat. Needless to say, Miller and Staley also failed to do so. This was the case even though all three riflemen took as long as they wanted before firing their first shot.

In fact, the second and third shots of all three of these world-class riflemen were severely off the mark, with many of them missing the silhouette completely.

Yes, that's what can happen when you prioritize speed over accuracy. Oswald didn't make that mistake.

But when we strip away all of your evasion, distortion, and omission, you're saying that a guy who barely qualified in the second of three Marine Corps rifle qualification categories while using a superb semi-automatic rifle and with at least 6 seconds per shot to fire at targets he'd recently practiced against -- you're saying that this guy did what the three Master-rated riflemen could not do. That's what you're saying.

They test shooters were trying to shoot for speed instead of accuracy. Oswald's top score was just two points below Charles Whitman who killed a dozen people and injured many more from a height and distances far greater than Oswald. He even managed to hit a moving target when he shot a bicyclist a few blocks away.

This gets back to your discrediting unwillingness to even admit the obvious fact that it is easier to fire accurately and quickly with a semi-automatic rifle than it is with a bolt-action rifle.

Operating the bolt adds little time to the process. Mostly it involves reacquiring the target and then making a controlled squeeze on the trigger. When a shooter rushes his shot, the tendency is to jerk the trigger rather than squeeze it and accuracy suffers. [/quote]

Uh-huh, but we've seen that you can't put Oswald in the sixth-floor window when confronted with the evidence that he was not on the sixth floor during the shooting. [/quote]

No such evidence exists. Oswald has no alibi the time the shots were fired.

Nope, in fact we've just seen another example of your stunning inability or refusal to process contrary facts.
 
Oh, boy! What a tough guy you are! This is the kind of juvenile sputtering I would expect from someone with such an low level of education and lack of integrity and character. You've proven you can't even comprehend English at a high-school level and that you have no business pretending to know enough about the JFK case to comment on it with any credibility.

Says the clown who keeps insisting I have taken the position that Oswald fired his second shot at Z209. I can say without hesitation that in 35 years of arguing this case in online forums, I have never once taken such a stupid position.

Here, too, you either can't comprehend high-school-level English or you're once again pretending not to understand what would constitute duplication of Oswald's alleged shooting feat.

No, I want YOU to define what YOU would consider an acceptable duplication. I understand your reluctance. If you define reasonable parameters for a duplication, you know there have been duplications that would fit those parameters. If you define impossible parameters for a duplication, you will demonstrate once again what an a-hole you are. So you take the cowardly way out and refuse to specify what would constitute a duplication. It's what we've come to expect from you.

Umm, just a reminder that your theory of the shooting has "Oswald" scoring two hits in two shots within 5.6 seconds, or 2.8 seconds per shot, and that the target area that he allegedly hit was at least three times smaller than the target area allowed for the HSCA's expert riflemen to score hits, and they were only firing from 20 feet up and were allowed to take as much time as they wanted for their first shot in each series.

Here's where you show just how bad your analytical skills are. 2 shots in 5.6 seconds is not 2.8 seconds per shot. The clock starts when the first shot is fired. That leaves 5.6 seconds for the next shot. This fallacy was pointed out many years ago but apparently despite your vast research, you still don't understand that.

Obviously, 2.3 was a typo. I meant to type 2.8.

It's still a half-a$$ed calculation. Using your bogus time frame for the shot being at Z209, that would have left Oswald 5.6 seconds for the follow up head shot. You ought to consider taking up a new hobby. This one requires analytical skills which you don't seem to possess.

This is a ball of confused evasion. You purposely, or perhaps ignorantly, keep missing the forest for the trees (or in this case a few small bushes). The nanosecond that JFK emerged from beneath the tree, the sixth-floor gunman would have had to begin acquiring and aiming at his target, and the human brain takes 166.67 milliseconds (1/6th of a second) just to recognize and react to visual data. That means it would have taken him at least three Zapruder frames to acquire and aim.

So what. He didn't fire that shot until about a half second. 9-10 frames after his target came into the clear.

This is just a continuation of your ducking and dodging around the fact that your supposed single assassin would have had to score two hits with his final two shots within 5.6 seconds,

Not at all difficult at such close ranges.

yet the WC's Master-rated riflemen missed nearly all of their second and third shots, even though Hendrix took 8 seconds for his first series and 7 seconds for his second series, and Staley took 6.75 seconds for his first series and 6.45 seconds for his second series.

You keep ignoring the fact that they were trying to fire 3 shots in the time Oswald only fired 2.

Your "detailed explanation" is nonsense. You keep ignoring the fact that the gunman would have had to acquire and aim at his target before firing his second shot. Your "detailed explanation" is junior-high-level sophistry in an effort to avoid dealing with the inconvenient fact that going two for two in 5.6 seconds would have been extremely difficult even for an experienced, expert riflemen, as the WC, CBS, and HSCA rifle tests all proved.

Are you really so ignorant that you don't know in all these tests, the shooters were trying to fire 3 shots, not 2, in a compressed time frame.

Hello? Hello? Did you miss the fact that the gunman could not have used the iron sights with the scope attached to the rifle? How long is it going to take for your brain to process this information? I mean, this is just unbelievable.

I'll make a bet with you. I'll pay you $100 dollars if you can find a post of mine where I said Oswald used the iron sights. If you can't find such a post, you only have to pay me $10. Do we have a bet?

The rifle was found with the scope attached. So, if you want to add time for attaching the scope to Oswald's alleged dash to the second floor, please put this on the table. While you're at it, explain why he would have bothered to do so instead of just stuffing the scope into a box (where it likely would not have been found for months, if ever).

You do love your strawman arguments. For starters, I have never said Oswald used the iron sights. You also seem to be unaware the scope on his rifle was offset which means had he chosen to do so, he could have used the iron sights with the scope in place.

You've made this same argument several times in other threads. Why don't you tell readers that I've pointed out that Marine rifle expert MSG James Zahm said that using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat more difficult? Huh? did this "slip your mind"? Let me repeat what I've presented to you in other threads:

Is this supposed to be a newsflash? You really are showing signs of senility. Seriously. You should get it checked out.

Mr. SPECTER. Can you characterize the increased efficiency of a marksman in using a four-power scope as opposed to using only the iron sights?

Sergeant ZAHM. Well, with the iron sights you have more room for error in the fact that you have three variables. You have your targets, your front sight and your rear sight, and you have the possibility of an error in aligning the sights, and then you also have the possibility of an error in the sights on the targets, which we refer to as the sight picture. Looking through aperture or even the open buckhorn type sights, when you are concentrating on your sights, your targets tend to become blurred because of the close focus of your eye in aligning the sights. (11 H 307)

You keep making the strawman argument that I have claimed Oswald used the iron sights. I guess when you can't refute what I have actually written, it's easier to make up things I have never stated and take issue with those.

Another juvenile dodge. I didn't say it was an established fact that the alleged lone gunman used the iron sights. I said that a number of your fellow WC apologists have argued that "Oswald" used the iron sights when they've been confronted with the fact that the rifle's scope was defective.

That's right, a-hole. OTHER LNs have postulated Oswald used the iron sights. I have never taken that position. So why do you falsely keep claiming I have?

A few expert riflemen have said they fire more accurately with iron sights than with scopes, but they are in the minority. Most expert riflemen prefer to use scopes because they fire more accurately with them. 

No $hit.

You've "explained" nothing. You've just ducked and dodged around the fact that "Oswald" could not have used the iron sights with the scope attached to the rifle. This is just another example of your refusal to admit anything.

Actually he could have because the scope was offset, a basic fact you seem ignorant of.

I used to duel with Tony Marsh on McAdams' forum but he had the best command of the facts of anyone I have come across, LN or CT. You're no Tony Marsh.

Another pile of timeworn claims that makes you sound like you're caught in a time warp and are writing in the late 1960s. Every one of those arguments has been thoroughly examined and proven to be fraught with problems or easily explainable.

Apparently you aren't up to the task.

I've already answered this. 

The classic Tony Marsh dodge when faced with a question he had no answer for.

Uh-huh, again, a number of your fellow WC apologists have argued that "Oswald" used the iron sights in an attempt to explain the evidence that the alleged murder weapon's scope was defective.

You seem to have the nutty idea that I am obligated to defend positions other LNs have taken. Why is that?

Oh, wow, any veteran who's fired at a Marine Corps rifle range is gonna recognize what deceptive nonsense you're peddling here.

So now, according to you, even someone who qualified in the lowest category of rifle qualification had capabilities that were "well within" those required to perform the alleged lone-gunman shooting feat! What a total joke.

The lowest class of USMC marksman were the ones that didn't qualify at all. To achieve even the grade of marksman, Oswald had to demonstrate some proficiency with a rifle and be able to consistently hit targets at ranges far greater than he shot JFK at.

If so, again, why did the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test fail to score two hits with their last two shots in any of their shot series? Why did they fire so inaccurately on their second and third shots?

Why do you keep asking the same question over an over again. Even though you are getting boring, I won't fall back on your lame dodge of "I've already answered that". I think this is the third time I've answered you question in just this post. Those other marksmen were trying to fire 3 shots in the time Oswald took to fire his last two. I wonder if you are going to ask this question again in this post. When you can't remember what you have already written, that could be a sign of senility.

I should add that 11 of the 12 riflemen in the CBS rifle test failed to score two hits in three shots on their first attempt, and the only one of the 12 who did this was an experienced, expert rifleman, and any of shots that landed anywhere on the target silhouette were counted as hits, even if they were far from the small area that Oswald allegedly hit twice with his final two shots.

Not surprising given that the dummies at CBS like Cronkite and Rather were under the impression that the WC concluded Oswald fired all 3 of his shots in 5.6 seconds or less. It's not surprising at all they had trouble doing that.

And, of course, none of the HSCA's experienced, expert riflemen scored two hits in three shots on any of their series, even though they fired from only 20 feet up, even though any of their shots that landed anywhere on the target silhouette was counted as a hit,  and even though they were allowed to take as much as time as they wanted for their first shot.

They could take as much time as they wanted for the first shot but were supposed to fire the follow up shots in 1.7 seconds. At least that's the claim you made in your OP.

You bet. I'll let readers decide whose arguments are more credible.

You're in luck because we have CTs on this forum who are almost as dumb as you.

Uh-huh. In other words, you were unaware that many of your fellow WC apologists have praised the Carcano as an accurate, reliable weapon. You're just too much of a juvenile to admit it.

More of your strawman arguments. I've never made such an argument and I'm not responsible for what others have stated.

Oh, so here we go. You went grasping to McAdams' old website and stumbled across these statements. I'm not even sure you understand what you've quoting here. You're blowing a lot of smoke. Half of this stuff doesn't even actually apply to what we're talking about.

Are you really going to try to claim these are not accurate transcripts of WC testimony. Go ahead. Make my day. I'll be more than happy to find the same testimony in other sources and jam them right up your nose.

This testimony most certainly applies to what we have talked about. You made the false claim that the two large fragments recovered from the limo could not be matched to Oswald's rifle and I presented verbatim testimony that shows you lied about that.

Let's cut through your smoke and put it this way: Show me where in any of these statements Frazier or Nicol explained the fact that NAA testing did not show that the limo fragments must have come from Oswald's bullets and that it showed they could have come from other bullets. Oh, gee, that's right: Frazier and Nicol testified before NAA testing had been done on any of the fragments.

This is what you do when you've been caught in an obvious lie. You try to divert the conversation to an unrelated issue. NAA testing had nothing to do with the ballistic matching of the fragments to Oswald's rifle. That was done through the long established process of comparing recovered bullets to test bullets fired from a weapon. If the markings are the same, that establishes the recovered bullets and the test bullets were fired from the same weapon. That is how Frazier and Nicol determined the recovered fragments had passed through the barrel of Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.

Show me where they explain the fact that the limo fragments are deformed in ways that bear no resemblance to any of the fragments from the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test. Ignoring contrary facts won't make them go away. Firearms and ballistics expert Howard Donahue was the first to point out this crucial fact, noting that it is more likely the fragments were from the bullet that hit pavement and that were then sprayed into the limo. Nothing you have presented above even addresses this point.

Another of your pathetic attempts at diversion. The fragments were proven to have been fired from Oswald's rifle.

So here's where we stand. Two bullets were positively matched to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons. You are denying either of these bullets struck JFK. That would mean that none of the bullets that struck JFK and JBC were recovered. How do you explain that. Were they shot with magic disappearing bullets?

Show me where they explain the fact that forensic science has known for decades that FMJ bullets will not shatter into dozens of tiny pieces inside a skull. This was widely known even in the 1960s, and it has been reaffirmed in forensic sources since then.

This is where you try to demonstrate expertise you don't actually possess.

And this is not to mention the serious, documented, widely discussed problems with the chain of custody and origin of the bullet fragments, the spent shells, and CE 399.

At various times, you have pretended to be a doctor, a ballistics expert, a radiologist, and now you are playing lawyer. You aren't very good at any of these.

Oh, really?! Well, what is your evidence that CE 399 hit anyone during the assassination?

It was recovered from the gurney of one of the victims. How do you suppose it got there. PFM (pure freaking magic)?

Wow, this should be interesting! No one's ever claimed to have such evidence before. Alert the news media! John "I Don't Need to Be Objective and I Don't Need a Rational Explanation" Corbett is going to present evidence that CE 399 hit JFK and/or Connally! This I gotta see.

That conclusion requires common sense, an asset you clearly don't possess. I served on a jury in a murder case. The prosecution presented us with two bullets recovered from the site of the murder. No attempt was made to prove those two bullets had passed through the victim and the defense wasn't dumb enough to argue that they hadn't. The judge instructed us to use our judgement to make logical inferences (aka common sense) from the evidence presented. We as a jury unanimously convicted the accused because we didn't need anybody to prove to us the bullets placed in evidence had passed through the victim's body.

Another one of your overheated juvenile reactions to simple facts that you don't want to hear.

No, this is just another example of your ignorance of long-established facts that refute your version of the shooting.

In almost 63 years, no one has presented any facts the refute what I know happened on 11/22/1963, although many have tried. Most of them did a better job than you have.

"The Dented Shell: Hard Evidence of Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination"

No, they do not. There were no "recovered bullets." There were recovered bullet fragments, and two groups of scientists proved decades ago that NAA testing does not show that those fragments could have only come from Oswald's ammo, in addition to the fact that the limo fragments appear to have struck pavement first, not skull bone.  [/quote]

We don't need NAA testing to know the recovered bullet and fragments had been fired by Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons. [/quote]

Still another juvenile dodge. You pretend that I haven't already presented a small mountain of documented evidence that other bullets hit JFK, starting with my article [/quote]

Really? Whatever happened to those bullets? Were they magic disappearing bullets?

"Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds."[/u]

No, they would just realize that your replies exhibit juvenile, amateurish dissembling and evasion. They would realize that you've done nothing but offer comical dodges to wound-ballistics tests and observations from forensic and ballistics experts regarding the behavior of FMJ bullets.

They would realize that your analysis of all things related to the JFKA is FUBAR.

They would also notice that you still have not offered a shred of evidence for your fiction that WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets behave differently than all FMJ bullets. You invented this silly dodge to avoid admitting the importance of the JFK headshot wound-ballistics tests and the observations by forensic and ballistics experts about the behavior of FMJ ammo.

You are the one claiming those bullets could not have fragmented in they manner in which they were found. The burden is on you to prove that hypothesis.

Yes, I have provided a ton of evidence, but you've either ignored it or offered absurd special pleading in response to it.

The problem isn't the evidence you present. The problem is your FUBAR analysis of that evidence.

Oh, were those bullet fragments found in JFK's skull?! We're talking about how FMJ bullets fragment inside skulls, not how they fragment after they leave skulls and hit other objects.

The lead fragments from the bullet's core found inside JFK's skull is ample proof the bullet fragmented before it exited the skull.

Oh? What "nonsense" have I posted on this point?

Just about everything you have posted.

Let's see: I've cited sources that actually show those x-rays so that anyone can see for themselves that the test bullets did not fragment into dozens of tiny pieces and did not produce fragmentation patterns that even remotely resemble the pattern seen in the JFK skull x-rays. I've cited forensic experts, including Dr. Vincent DiMaio and Dr. Halbert Fillinger, considered two of the greatest forensic experts in the world in the 20th and 21st centuries, who've observed that FMJ bullets will not shatter into dozens of tiny fragments inside skulls.

Why would you assume all bullets would fragment in the same manner?

I guess in your uneducated, dissembling mind, such scholarly evidence constitutes "nonsense," hey? 

I love how you throw the word "scholarly" around to give you posts credence. It's not working.

Uh-huh, another juvenile dodge and a silly strawman argument. No one says FMJ bullets will never fragment at all. The point is that on the rare when FMJ bullets do fragment, they will not shatter into dozens of tiny pieces. Let me refresh your memory yet again by once more quoting what Dr. Vincent DiMaio said on this issue:

It would take hundreds of test firings of FMJ Carcano bullets into a human skull to determine how they might fragment. We only have one case study and that is the JFKA.

An x-ray of an individual shot with a full metal-jacketed rifle bullet . . . usually fails to reveal any bullet fragments at all even if the bullet has perforated bone such as the skull or spine. If any fragments are seen, they are very sparse in number. . . . (Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)

That is based on how other types of FMJ bullets behave one striking a skull. Different makes, diameters, lengths, velocities, etc. It would be very poor science to assume that Carcano bullets would fragment in the same manner as these other bullets.

In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a 'lead snowstorm'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318, emphasis added)

When you finally felt compelled to address these statements, you committed the baffling gaffe of claiming that DiMaio was talking about FMJ handgun bullets, even though, as we see, he twice specified he was talking about FMJ rifle bullets.

I'll bet you can't find a case study DiMaio did of a 6.5mm FMJ Carcano bullet behaves when striking a skull.

Your fallback argument is your fiction that WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets do not behave like other FMJ bullets. I'm still waiting for you to cough up a shred of evidence to support this desperate claim.

The burden is on you to prove that those bullets DO fragment in the same manner as other types of FMJ bullets. Still waiting.

I won't bother responding to this juvenile rant, especially coming from someone as uneducated and immature as you.

More ignorance and deceit. For the hundredth time, there was no "fragmented bullet" found in the limo.

You are a liar.

Sheesh, this is another example of your poor command of the English language. There were two bullet fragments found in the limo. They weighed a total of 65.6 grains (44.6 grains plus 21.0 grains), barely one-third of the mass of a WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullet. Both of them were severely deformed, with parts of them peeled back almost 180 degrees, yet not a single one of the bullet fragments from the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test was deformed in this way, not one. This led court-certified firearms and ballistics expert Howard Donahue to argue that the limo fragments came from the bullet that hit the pavement near the limo.

Where is Donahue's proof for his theory?

I see Nickerson has posted photos of some of the fragments from the WC's headshot test. Notice that not one of them has a large part of its peeled backward by nearly 180 degrees. Certainly some of them are deformed, but not to the degree of the two limo fragments, as Donahue noted.

What kind of dumba$$ would think bullets are going to fragment in the same manner?

Nothing?  Maybe Google I'Ashea Myles who is the leftist TN judge overseeing the matter.  It is the height of stupidity to claim that because a state is "red" that it does not have leftist judges.  Many of these folks come from the urban areas such as Nashville and Memphis that are overwhelmingly represented by democrats.

She ordered the preservation of evidence for the investigation
so what? - she has done nothing wrong

Chancellor Rules State Must Preserve Evidence Related to Christa Pike’s Failed Execution
https://nashvillebanner.com/2026/10/07/christa-pike-failed-execution-evidence-ruling/

good for you - and what happened in TN in recent weeks has nothing to do with DEMS or leftists
that's your own ignorant prejudice

Nothing?  Maybe Google I'Ashea Myles who is the leftist TN judge overseeing the matter.  It is the height of stupidity to claim that because a state is "red" that it does not have leftist judges.  Many of these folks come from the urban areas such as Nashville and Memphis that are overwhelmingly represented by democrats.

The sooner we can conclude that the Single Bullet Theory ( CE 399 )in no way shape or form could have possibly taken place on Nov. 22 , 1963 then we can start making our way through the JFK Assassination and concentrate on what actually took place that day .  Theories should be sorted out as to make this case in a factual matter so we can come to the realization as to what the facts are so we can move on .

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.

MG: Not surprisingly, WC apologists continue to assume their alleged magic bullet was tumbling through Connally's chest after supposedly hitting his back while traveling sideways or while markedly tumbling.

A perfectly logical observation given that it has been demonstrated experimentally that a Carcano bullet will predictably yaw after exiting a block of ballistic gel and the entry wound on JBC's back was elongated.

I've already refuted this, several times. 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.

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." 

As usual, you address the wrong question. The question isn't whether the bullet would have yawed while passing through JFK's neck. The question is what it will do upon exiting. The Haag team demonstrated that the bullet would predictably yaw when exiting. The bullet would have yawed after exiting JFK's throat and before it entered JBC's back.

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.

Nobody has claimed the bullet was perfectly perpendicular to JBC's back when it made its entry. The bullet would make an elongated wound even if it had not rotated 90 degrees before entering JBC''s back. Once more, MTG's poor analytical skills rear their ugly head.

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:

Dr. Shaw, Connally's chest surgeon, noted that the bullet created a small tunneling wound and shattered the rib while doing only minor damage to the muscles beside it. He reported that the bullet created a "small tunneling wound" (7 HSCA 149), and he noted "the neat way in which it stripped the rib out without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it" (4 H 116).

In addition, the fact that the entry wound in Connally's back was only 1.5 x 0.8 cm rules out a sideways-striking bullet, or even a markedly tumbling bullet. The wound's dimensions simply show that Connally was turning when the bullet struck, just as he said he was. Stewart Fillmore, a retired FBI agent who has conducted SBT wound-ballistics tests, has noted this point in another thread in this forum:

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:

However, Connally said consistently until the day he died that he was turning as he was hit. I know from many firearms training sessions in the FBI using turning targets that a stable bullet striking a rotating target will leave an elongated entry.  So I did tests on the range shooting into the Connally target while it was rotated from its right to left. The results were an elongated entry approximately 1.5 cm wide. (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,5189.msg185514.html#msg185514)

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. 
 

As has been explained to you numerous times, the bullet did not enter JFK's back on an upward angle.

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)

That would have required a shot fired from below the entry wound, which is ludicrous. The bullet entered JFK's sloping upper back below perpendicular to the surface of his back but still on a downward trajectory. It's a simple concept which is why it is puzzling that you have so much trouble grasping it.

It wasn't the lean of JFK's torso that produced the angle of entry, it was the slope of his back which created an obtuse angle to the flight of the bullet.

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.
 

MG: You see, for years WC apologists have trumpeted the fact that the HSCA FPP majority endorsed the SBT. They've endlessly pointed out that the majority consisted of "eight eminent forensic pathologists" (vs. only one dissenter, Dr. Wecht) and that these experts "studied the medical evidence for two years."

But, as we see from their replies in this thread, WC apologists have been trumpeting the FPP's SBT endorsement without realizing that the FPP's SBT destroys the SBT.

That's an illogical assessment.

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.

We have a photo of the back wound and comparing that photo to the profile view of JFK on the autopsy table, it is quite easy to see with the naked eye that the entry wound on JFK's back is well above the exit wound in JFK's throat.

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."

That's without taking into account the 3 degree slope of Elm St.

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?