JFK Assassination Forum

TG-

This is a photo of the small round hole in the rear of Gov. JBC's assassination-day shirt.



This small round shirt-hole was actually enlarged twice, legitimately, once by the FBI and once by the HSCA, to test cloth for metallic residue. The initial hole was even smaller, but unfortunately it appears there are no photos of the original, even smaller hole.

JBC's surgeon, Dr. Robert Shaw, who worked on 700-odd wartime bullet wounds while serving in the WWII Army, was of the opinion that JBC received a direct shot from above and behind, which left an ovoid wound, north-south on JBC's back, per his drawing of the wound.

Shaw described the wound as “elliptical” which is a symmetrical shape, not “ovoid” or egg-shaped, which is not symmetrical. SBT proponents suggest the two terms are interchangeable. They are not.

An elliptical shaped entry wound is made by a pristine bullet striking the skin surface at an angle other than 90 degrees. An ovoid shape can be made by a yawing bullet. A yawing or tumbling bullet cannot make a symmetrical elliptical entry wound.

Shaw expanded or debrided JBC's back wound to remove dead flesh and any foreign material, leading to confusion about the actual size of initial wound later.

In addition, the exit hole in JBC's assassination-day suit is also small and round, indicating the slug was not tumbling as it exited JBC.



I conclude the slug that struck Gov. JBC's back was not tumbling, in concordance with the sentiments of Dr. Shaw, a very experienced surgeon, with no evident axes to grind.

Shaw also described the missile having made a “small tunnelling wound” (7 HSCA 149).

The "tumbling bullet" appears to be among the many myths subscribed to by LNT'ers, or CT'ers, regarding the JFKA, in order to buttress their narratives. 

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/lobbyexhibits/jfk-suit

Although I am not a CT by any means, I agree that the evidence against the SBT is substantial.

Karmelo Anthony was old enough to stick a knife in Austin Metcalf's heart. Austin Metcalf never got a chance to get any older. Karmelo Anthony got off easy. If it had been up to me, he would stay in prison until Austin Metcalf got out of grave. He doesn't deserve to have a quality life. I hope he dies in prison. The sooner the better.

   I'm not defending what this guy did, but his age should factor into whether you decide to basically end his life. Obviously, your being seated onna jury murder case is out of the question.

The next issue I'd like to discuss regarding using logic and critical thinking in the JFK assassination is the lone-gunman theory's problematic and implausible shooting scenario: Oswald firing three shots in 4.8 to 11 seconds, wildly missing his first and closest and easiest shot, and then scoring two hits in 5.6 seconds after JFK reemerged into view from beneath the oak tree at Z210. This scenario shows a pronounced lack of logic and critical thinking.

There is wide disagreement among lone-gunman theorists about when Oswald started firing and when his first hit occurred. However, the majority view among lone-gunman theorists is that the first shot occurred well before Z166 and missed (not only missed JFK but the entire huge limousine), that the second shot hit JFK and Connally at Z224, and that the third shot hit JFK's head at Z312. This is why they say Oswald would have had up to 11 seconds to fire his supposed three shots.

Here is one giant problem with this scenario: Oswald's alleged shooting feat has never been duplicated. Never. Not even once. In all the rifle tests that have been done, not even experienced, expert riflemen have scored two hits in three shots in 4.8 to 11 seconds on their first attempt and with their two hits landing in an area no more than 14 inches tall and 4 inches wide (previously I've said 12 x 4 inches, but I'll posit 14 x 4 inches just to be extra cautious).

What makes this fact even more telling and devastating is that not one of the rifle tests included all the conditions under which Oswald supposedly fired. Consider:

-- The rifle tests allowed the participants to fire practice rounds before firing for record, but Oswald would have had no such opportunity.

-- The rifle tests included rifles that had been zeroed, but the alleged murder weapon's scope was misaligned, and a Marine Corps rifle expert told the WC that it would have taken 10 shots to zero the alleged murder weapon and that using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat even more difficult. Plus, there is no evidence that Oswald zeroed his alleged rifle in the weeks leading up to the assassination.

-- The rifle tests did not simulate the cramped, inhibiting conditions of the sixth-floor sniper's nest. Pat Speer has done an excellent job of documenting those conditions. 

-- The rifle tests, such as the WC's rifle test and the 1967 CBS rifle test, counted as "hits" many shots that landed far outside the 14 x 4-inch area in which Oswald's alleged shots supposedly landed. Even then, not one of the WC's Master-rated riflemen was able to duplicate Oswald's supposed shooting feat, which is especially revealing because the WC's test was the only test that used the alleged murder weapon and because the riflemen fired from only 30 feet up and were allowed to take as much time as they wanted for their first shot. Also, only one of the 12 riflemen in the CBS test was able to score two "hits" in three shots on his first attempt, but not all of his hits landed in the required 14 x 4-inch area.

-- Nearly all the participants in the rifle tests were experienced, highly skilled riflemen, whereas Oswald was at best a mediocre marksman and was regarded as a poor shot by nearly everyone who saw him shoot in the Marine Corps and in his hunting club in Minsk.

In the rifle tests, most of the riflemen's first hits came on their first shots. This only makes sense because their first shots were the closest and easiest, just as would have been the case with the sixth-floor gunman. Yet, most lone-gunman theorists contend that Oswald missed both JFK and the entire huge limo with his first, closest, and easiest shot, with some of them floating the illogical and fanciful theory that Oswald hit the guy rod or the support arm of the traffic signal on Elm Street with his first shot and long before Z166.

Even if one wants to assume Oswald would have had up to 11 seconds to fire, if he had missed with his first shot, he would have had to go 2/2 on his final two shots starting at Z210, which means he would have only had 5.6 seconds to fire those two shots. In the WC's rifle test, the three Master-rated riflemen missed nearly every one of their second and third shots.

It should be noted that many if not most lone-gunman theorists--certainly all the ones who regularly post in this forum--make the surprising, discrediting claim that Oswald's alleged shooting feat would not have been difficult, with many claiming it would have been "easy." WC staffer Wesley Liebeler told the WC in an internal memo that the portrayal of the alleged shooting feat as not very difficult was "simply dishonest" (11 HSCA 230).

The inability of lone-gunman theorists to admit that the alleged shooting feat would have been extremely difficult even for a highly skilled marksman indicates a marked lack of objectivity, a key component of critical thinking.

Finally, there are three other pronounced problems with the lone-gunman shooting scenario:

One, there is strong, convincing evidence that more than three shots were fired during the assassination, which renders the lone-gunman shooting scenario invalid from the outset. We have a number of credible accounts of extra bullets and missed shots in Dealey Plaza, two of them supported by photographic evidence. Lone-gunman theorists lamely reply that every single one of the witnesses in every single one of these accounts must have been "mistaken," another display of their tendency to judge the evidence by their theory rather than judge their theory by the evidence. They conclude that all those witnesses "must" have been mistaken because they cannot allow that more than three shots were fired.

Two, there is strong, convincing evidence that CE 543, the dented shell found in the sixth-floor sniper's nest, could not have fired a bullet during the assassination. So convincing is the evidence on this point that it has led some lone-gunman theorists to make the untenable claim that the sixth-floor gunman only fired two shots, with some of these theorists even arguing that Oswald did not fire the ammo that hit JFK in the head in Z312 but that Secret Service agent George Hickey accidentally shot JFK in the head (the mortal-error theory).

Three, the single-bullet theory (SBT) has been refuted. Without the SBT, there can be no single-assassin scenario. JFK's clothing provides hard physical evidence that refutes the SBT. In 2023, the respected forensic engineering firm Knott Laboratories conducted the most sophisticated, data-intensive SBT trajectory analysis ever done and found that the SBT is impossible. Also, Gov. John Connally, who was supposedly hit by the alleged SBT bullet at Z224, refuted this myth. After viewing the Zapruder film a few times, he informed the WC that he was not hit before Z230. Two years later, in 1966, LIFE magazine gave Connally the chance to study a high-quality print of the Zapruder film under high magnification to determine when he was hit, and he concluded he was unquestionably not hit before Z229 and identified Z234 as the moment of impact.

Even if one buys the mortal-error theory, the collapse of the SBT means that JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets fired by two gunman from behind.

For more information on these issues, I recommend interested readers check out the following sources:

The 1967 CBS Rifle Test: More Evidence Against the Lone-Gunman Theory
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4580.0.html

What Would a Valid Lone-Gunman Rifle Test Look Like?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4589.0.html

When Could Oswald Have "Zeroed" (Sighted-In) the Alleged Murder Weapon?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4543.0.html

Chapter 15 in Pat Speer's online book A New Perspective on the John F. Kennedy Assassination
https://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-15

Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view

The Dented Bullet Shell: Hard Evidence of Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ihue8a0GmN_Ptl38bPjpu1F99nqU0Z6f/view

JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view?usp=sharing

Ten Reasons I Reject the Single-Bullet Theory
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-7AW56BXCumXFsOwyN6lE0WTBltOzeYI/view

Knott Laboratory's Historic 2023 SBT Trajectory Analysis
https://knottlab.com/cases/knott-lab-presents-digital-reconstruction-and-findings-on-the-assassination-of-president-john-f-kennedy/
https://knottlab.com/knott-lab-uses-forensic-science-to-refute-warren-commission-findings-on-jfk-assassination/





 

WOW! Just WOW! If anyone would care to see what NiederNut in full flight looks like, check out the last couple of pages of this thread. Led by James Wilkinson, a number of the members have turned on the illustrious Harvard-trained psychiatrist, and he does not handle it well. Wilkinson ends up thanking God that he isn't one of the good doctor's patients. This is Exhibit A for what I am always talking about - i.e., intelligent, highly educated, able to hold a responsible position but pretty much nuttier than a fruitcake in assorted compartments of his mind. One would hope that Some CTers We Could Mention would have the introspection to look in the mirror and ask, "Good God, is this perhaps me as well?" Or at least look at some of the high-profile hucksters of their pet theories and ask, "Eek, is this guy perhaps just another NiederNut?"

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/32104-the-current-state-of-the-jfk-education-forum/

Jack you are confusing two different responses. Here’s what I wrote in reply #42 regarding the slight indentations:

“Based on what I can see in this video, I think that there is reason to believe that the slight indentations on the other empty cartridges besides CE 543 might have also been caused by an impact with the rear bridge.”

My reply #59 is regarding the two dents in the necks of CE 543 and the HSCA test cartridge.

“I am now of the strong opinion that the rear bridge caused both dents.”

When you wrote in reply #67 that “… but Charles claimed came from the rear receiver of the rifle” you were referring to the slight indentations some believe are chamber marks.

What I wrote about the slight indentations some believe are chamber marks in reply #59 is obviously not a claim so I objected in reply #69 and specified what I actually wrote.

Then in reply #71 you have mistakenly tried to apply the words in reply #59 to the slight indentations some believe are chamber marks. Again, reply #59 is about the two dents in the necks of two different cartridges (CE 543 and the HSCA test cartridge) it is not about the slight indentations some believe are chamber marks.

Whether or not your mistake was intentional is debatable. But regardless of the intent, your mistake confused matters. If this was intentional, I still say shame on you. If it was unintentional, you might want to consider an apology for your mistake.

Where in any of your replies did you clarify how wrong you were to make the claim that the rear bridge of the rifle caused all the dents on all the shells? You appeared to just skedaddle from such an ignorant statement.

What mistake? Nobody even cares about the dent in the HSCA shell casing, it is not even similar to CE 543. I guess someone desperate would.

There are two dents on CE 543, not just one. Have you not been following the discussion at all? The dented lip and the indent in the center of it that caused the dent. The rear bridge of the rifle could never have caused either of the dents. That was explained to for which you had no explanation at all. You have never explained how that was even possible or could have happened other than your opinion about some grainy photo.

Remember you obscured the center dimple on CE 543 with your line. Was that on purpose or inadvertent. If this was intentional, I still say shame on you. If it was unintentional, you might want to consider an apology for your mistake. Either way, there are two dents not just one. You know, the reason the HSCA was never able to replicate it, or anyone else and definitely not you.

While we are at it. You obviously believe the mouth of CE 543 is pushed in, but you posted a picture claiming it is virtually undetectable because of your yellow line.  To add insult to injury you then claim there is minimal flaring if any at all. If it is not flared how about explain the picture showing the dent with the blue line and how this is even possible without flaring. Maybe you need to rectify all the dents and your pictures so that it does not look like so much deception.