Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory  (Read 16068 times)

Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 927
Re: Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory
« Reply #16 on: July 11, 2020, 07:25:06 PM »
Advertisement


JFK's specially tailored shirt that never bunches up at the neck.

Huh??? The "bunch" is almost flat, like a modest neat fold. What are you looking at? And the nearly flat "bunch" does not go above the collar, and it's certainly not enough of a bunch to create a hole in the shirt that would be 2-3 inches below the impact point on the back. And should we consider the fact that JFK is not sitting back against a seat and that there's no coat over the shirt in this photo?

And what about the Dealey Plaza photography that shows JFK's jacket flat or nearly flat on his back seconds before the first shot?



« Last Edit: July 11, 2020, 07:40:03 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory
« Reply #16 on: July 11, 2020, 07:25:06 PM »


Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory
« Reply #17 on: July 11, 2020, 07:58:56 PM »
This is pretty close to the mark. The HSCA PEP concluded that Kennedy was hit at Z188-190, but Alvarez much more credibly concluded that JFK was hit at Z226. JFK's reaction right after Z188 was probably in response to being stung on the back of the head by two fragments from the bullet that struck the curb near the limousine (these fragments are visible on the autopsy skull x-rays--they only penetrated a tiny fraction of an inch into the skull--and the only plausible ballistics and forensic explanation for them is that they separated from a bullet outside the limo before they hit the skull).

Beginning at Z226, Kennedy's body is visibly jolted sharply forward, and the position of his hands and elbows--particularly his elbows--changes dramatically, as they are flung upward and forward. The force and speed of these movements of his arms and elbows are quite startling when one compares frame 226, where they are first discernible, to frame 232 just 1/3-second later. Although the WC, and to a great extent the HSCA, ignored these movements, they are among the most dramatic and visible reactions on JFK's part in the entire Zapruder film.

After carefully studying high-quality blowups of the Zapruder film at Life magazine, Connally himself said the impact of the bullet that struck him occurred at Z234.

If Kennedy was hit at Z186 and Connally at Z234, they were hit 48 frames/2.6 seconds apart. If JFK was hit at Z226 and Connally at Z234, they were hit 8 frames/0.45 seconds apart.

But let's take the longer interval of 2.6 seconds. Even that almost certainly would have been beyond Oswald's ability to do and still score two hits in three shots. Yes, if you just fire the Carcano as rapidly as you can, you can fire at a rate of 1.66 seconds per shot, but not with the degree of accuracy required by the lone-gunman scenario.

Using the alleged murder rifle itself, the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test--Miller, Staley, and Hendrix--utterly failed to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting feat. In the first series, Miller took 4.6 seconds to fire three shots, Staley took 6.75 seconds, and Hendrix took 8.25 seconds. In the second series, Miller took 5.15 seconds, Staley took 6.45 seconds, and Hendrix took 7 seconds. They missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes 20 out of 21 times, even though they were firing from an elevation of only 30 feet (not 60) and even though the targets were stationary!

Yet, we're supposed to believe that Oswald, who was at best a mediocre shot in the Marines, scored two hits in three shots from 60 feet up on a moving target in only 5.56 seconds.

In the 1980s, some WC apologists began claiming that Oswald would have had 8.4 seconds to fire, not 5.56 seconds. But you can only expand the alleged lone gunman's firing time to 8.4 seconds if you assume that he fired at around Z160 and that he completely missed not only JFK but the entire huge limousine with his first and closest shot, the only shot that he had ample time to aim and fire, a proposition that even the WC admitted was unlikely.

Was Oswald a Poor Shot?
https://miketgriffith.com/files/poorshot.htm

How Long Would the Alleged Lone Gunman Have Had to Fire?
https://miketgriffith.com/files/howlong.html

'However, the only way WC supporters can increase the time span is to assume their lone gunman fired at around frame 160 of the Zapruder film (Z160) and that he completely missed, not only Kennedy, but the entire huge limousine'.

As a 'patsy' Oswald was supposed to miss all shots, apparently. Unfortunately, the little twerp was an even worse shot than your gang of conspirators could have imagined, it seems.

It gets worse for your conspirators:

A) @Tippit, the little pipsqueak attempted to fire warning shots at a poor dumb cop; but again, he missed
B) @The TT, the little darling angel, apparently realizing the movie—or something—was 'all over now' (and that he shouldn't have been doing what boys do) in attempting to hand his revolver over, accidentally caught his finger on the trigger and almost killed more cops
« Last Edit: July 12, 2020, 12:01:44 AM by Bill Chapman »

Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2277
Re: Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory
« Reply #18 on: July 11, 2020, 08:17:48 PM »
Huh??? The "bunch" is almost flat, like a modest neat fold. What are you looking at? And the nearly flat "bunch" does not go above the collar, and it's certainly not enough of a bunch to create a hole in the shirt that would be 2-3 inches below the impact point on the back. And should we consider the fact that JFK is not sitting back against a seat and that there's no coat over the shirt in this photo?

Seems to me there's enough shirt material raised up to raise the flat part that's below up two inches. Or do you think Roger Stone should have been pardoned?

(Both answers tell us all we need to know about your perception skills).

Quote
And what about the Dealey Plaza photography that shows JFK's jacket flat or nearly flat on his back seconds before the first shot?

   

Do any of these pictures (taken on Houston Street) count as "Dealey Plaza photography"? They all show a clothing bunch at the nape area that's high enough to obscure the jacket collar. In the middle picture, Connally's jacket collar casts a shadow line on his back, but no such shadow can be seen on Kennedy's jacket.

On Elm Street, the best photograph we have (in terms of resolution quality and view to subject) is the Croft photo, which shows the same bunch.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2020, 08:29:07 PM by Jerry Organ »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory
« Reply #18 on: July 11, 2020, 08:17:48 PM »


Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
Re: Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory
« Reply #19 on: July 11, 2020, 09:26:19 PM »

But, before we look at those facts, we first need to remember that the Warren Commission (WC) only cooked up the SBT in desperation after it could no longer ignore the wounding of James Tague.

When did the wounding of James Tague become a problem for the WC? June or July of 1964?

Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3725
Re: Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory
« Reply #20 on: July 11, 2020, 09:31:16 PM »
... no bunch...The bunch ... the bunch.... the bunch tapers ...... one-inch high bunch...
    One-inch on each side of the bunch.

It's all a bunch of it alright. Everybody see where the wound is?--- So get off it.


JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory
« Reply #20 on: July 11, 2020, 09:31:16 PM »


Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
Re: Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory
« Reply #21 on: July 11, 2020, 09:37:52 PM »
It's all a bunch of it alright. Everybody see where the wound is?--- So get off it.



 Thumb1: About 5.5 cm below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck. 3.5 cm above the exit wound in the throat.

Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2277
Re: Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory
« Reply #22 on: July 11, 2020, 11:33:37 PM »
Thumb1: About 5.5 cm below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck. 3.5 cm above the exit wound in the throat.

Now that I know the wound is at C7, I look at that autopsy photo and see how much of the back the wound IS NOT in. The right scapula (which the entry is above) now seems more prominent.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory
« Reply #22 on: July 11, 2020, 11:33:37 PM »


Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4236
Re: Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory
« Reply #23 on: July 12, 2020, 01:59:27 AM »
This is pretty close to the mark. The HSCA PEP concluded that Kennedy was hit at Z188-190, but Alvarez much more credibly concluded that JFK was hit at Z226. JFK's reaction right after Z188 was probably in response to being stung on the back of the head by two fragments from the bullet that struck the curb near the limousine (these fragments are visible on the autopsy skull x-rays--they only penetrated a tiny fraction of an inch into the skull--and the only plausible ballistics and forensic explanation for them is that they separated from a bullet outside the limo before they hit the skull).

Beginning at Z226, Kennedy's body is visibly jolted sharply forward, and the position of his hands and elbows--particularly his elbows--changes dramatically, as they are flung upward and forward. The force and speed of these movements of his arms and elbows are quite startling when one compares frame 226, where they are first discernible, to frame 232 just 1/3-second later. Although the WC, and to a great extent the HSCA, ignored these movements, they are among the most dramatic and visible reactions on JFK's part in the entire Zapruder film.

After carefully studying high-quality blowups of the Zapruder film at Life magazine, Connally himself said the impact of the bullet that struck him occurred at Z234.

If Kennedy was hit at Z186 and Connally at Z234, they were hit 48 frames/2.6 seconds apart. If JFK was hit at Z226 and Connally at Z234, they were hit 8 frames/0.45 seconds apart.

But let's take the longer interval of 2.6 seconds. Even that almost certainly would have been beyond Oswald's ability to do and still score two hits in three shots. Yes, if you just fire the Carcano as rapidly as you can, you can fire at a rate of 1.66 seconds per shot, but not with the degree of accuracy required by the lone-gunman scenario.

Using the alleged murder rifle itself, the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test--Miller, Staley, and Hendrix--utterly failed to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting feat. In the first series, Miller took 4.6 seconds to fire three shots, Staley took 6.75 seconds, and Hendrix took 8.25 seconds. In the second series, Miller took 5.15 seconds, Staley took 6.45 seconds, and Hendrix took 7 seconds. They missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes 20 out of 21 times, even though they were firing from an elevation of only 30 feet (not 60) and even though the targets were stationary!

Yet, we're supposed to believe that Oswald, who was at best a mediocre shot in the Marines, scored two hits in three shots from 60 feet up on a moving target in only 5.56 seconds.

In the 1980s, some WC apologists began claiming that Oswald would have had 8.4 seconds to fire, not 5.56 seconds. But you can only expand the alleged lone gunman's firing time to 8.4 seconds if you assume that he fired at around Z160 and that he completely missed not only JFK but the entire huge limousine with his first and closest shot, the only shot that he had ample time to aim and fire, a proposition that even the WC admitted was unlikely.


What gives you the right to cite the Zapruder Film of evidence of anything, you keep saying and giving "examples" of the Zapruder film being edited, changed, doesn't match Nix, impossible motion of Brehm's kid, Greer's impossible head turn, missing actions etc etc yet when it suits, you point out Zapruder frame numbers and precise timing of events? WTF, it makes as much sense as if I cited the Star Wars films to calculate the speed of light.



https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2596.0.html

JohnM
« Last Edit: July 12, 2020, 03:39:09 AM by John Mytton »