Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory


Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory  (Read 4464 times)

Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
    • JFK Assassination Web Page
Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #16 on: December 27, 2022, 04:48:45 PM »
You seem to grasp the concept there was only two shots. How do you now explain the wound in JBC's back if the bullet does not first pass through JFK?

Where do you get the idea that I believe there were only two shots?

JBC was hit by a separate bullet, quite possibly by two bullets (one to the back and the other to his wrist).

Two bullets struck JFK's head, one from behind (slightly above the EOP) and one from the front (in the right temple). This is why there is a cloud of tiny fragments in the right frontal region on the lateral autopsy skull x-ray. This is why the autopsy doctors saw two fragment trails in the skull, one that started at the EOP and went upward to the right orbit, and one that started in the right frontal region and went upward toward the back of the head--and why they had to ignore one of those two fragment trails to maintain the fiction of a single shot to the head from behind. They chose to ignore the high fragment trail. However, the plotters decided that the high fragment trail was less problematic than the low one, so the low one--the one described in the autopsy report but not seen on the skull x-rays--was made to disappear.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #16 on: December 27, 2022, 04:48:45 PM »


Online Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2033
  • Halifax - Canada
Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #17 on: December 27, 2022, 05:01:54 PM »
Where do you get the idea that I believe there were only two shots?

JBC was hit by a separate bullet, quite possibly by two bullets (one to the back and the other to his wrist).

Two bullets struck JFK's head, one from behind (slightly above the EOP) and one from the front (in the right temple). This is why there is a cloud of tiny fragments in the right frontal region on the lateral autopsy skull x-ray. This is why the autopsy doctors saw two fragment trails in the skull, one that started at the EOP and went upward to the right orbit, and one that started in the right frontal region and went upward toward the back of the head--and why they had to ignore one of those two fragment trails to maintain the fiction of a single shot to the head from behind. They chose to ignore the high fragment trail. However, the plotters decided that the high fragment trail was less problematic than the low one, so the low one--the one described in the autopsy report but not seen on the skull x-rays--was made to disappear.

Right ... right. It's the Single-Bullet Theory that stretches credibility. :D

Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #18 on: December 27, 2022, 06:17:43 PM »
Where do you get the idea that I believe there were only two shots?

JBC was hit by a separate bullet, quite possibly by two bullets (one to the back and the other to his wrist).

Two bullets struck JFK's head, one from behind (slightly above the EOP) and one from the front (in the right temple). This is why there is a cloud of tiny fragments in the right frontal region on the lateral autopsy skull x-ray. This is why the autopsy doctors saw two fragment trails in the skull, one that started at the EOP and went upward to the right orbit, and one that started in the right frontal region and went upward toward the back of the head--and why they had to ignore one of those two fragment trails to maintain the fiction of a single shot to the head from behind. They chose to ignore the high fragment trail. However, the plotters decided that the high fragment trail was less problematic than the low one, so the low one--the one described in the autopsy report but not seen on the skull x-rays--was made to disappear.

Due to the positioning of the two men in the car, the wound in JBC's back can only be explained if the bullet first passes through JFK. This four- shot scenario now leaves two shots, instead of just one, that strike no one. The Zapruder film leaves no doubt as to how many bullets struck JFK's head.

Greer and Kellerman are two shot witnesses.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #18 on: December 27, 2022, 06:17:43 PM »


Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
    • JFK Assassination Web Page
Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #19 on: December 28, 2022, 02:12:11 PM »
Another interesting fact worth noting about the absence of missing fabric from the slits in the front of JFK's shirt: every undisputed, acknowledged clothing hole made by bullets during the assassination had fabric missing from it. The rear holes in JFK's coat and shirt have fabric missing from them. The holes in the front and back of Connally's coat and shirt all have fabric missing from them. Gee, how about that?! That's because when bullets rip through clothing, they invariably remove some fabric. Yet, no fabric is missing from the shirt slits. Why? Because they were not made by a bullet.

This explains why no metallic traces were found on the slits, why the slits are so irregular in shape, why one of the slits extends partly into the neckband but the other does not, and why the FBI lab initially declined to attribute the slits to a bullet but said they could have been made by a fragment.

Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #20 on: December 28, 2022, 02:42:56 PM »
Another interesting fact worth noting about the absence of missing fabric from the slits in the front of JFK's shirt: every undisputed, acknowledged clothing hole made by bullets during the assassination had fabric missing from it. The rear holes in JFK's coat and shirt have fabric missing from them. The holes in the front and back of Connally's coat and shirt all have fabric missing from them. Gee, how about that?! That's because when bullets rip through clothing, they invariably remove some fabric. Yet, no fabric is missing from the shirt slits. Why? Because they were not made by a bullet.

This explains why no metallic traces were found on the slits, why the slits are so irregular in shape, why one of the slits extends partly into the neckband but the other does not, and why the FBI lab initially declined to attribute the slits to a bullet but said they could have been made by a fragment.

Based on your belief that there were only two shots fired from the sniper's nest, it is known that one bullet caused all the damage on its path through the JFK and JBC, so what is your explanation for this phenomenon.

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10095
Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #21 on: December 29, 2022, 04:20:01 AM »
Due to the positioning of the two men in the car, the wound in JBC's back can only be explained if the bullet first passes through JFK.

 BS:

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #21 on: December 29, 2022, 04:20:01 AM »


Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
    • JFK Assassination Web Page
Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #22 on: December 29, 2022, 01:11:30 PM »
Due to the positioning of the two men in the car, the wound in JBC's back can only be explained if the bullet first passes through JFK.

That's just silly. You folks are like the fawning subjects in the story of The Emperor's New Clothes. The amount of evidence you are ignoring in making this claim is incredible and embarrassing.

Let's just try to get you to explain two things, okay?

One: The Z186 shot, identified by the HSCA experts, causes JFK's cheeks to puff, causes him to freeze his waving motion in mid-wave, causes Jackie to suddenly turn to look at JFK, and causes JFK to start reaching for his throat--all before he disappears behind the freeway sign at Z207. Anyone with a functioning brain and functioning eyes can see these reactions. (Clearly, this was the throat shot, which is why JFK starts to reach for his throat, but never mind this for now.)

By the way, and I forget to mention this earlier, the first Secret Service analysis of the photographic evidence, mainly the Zapruder film, concluded that JFK was hit before Z200.

Now, how could the Z186 shot have anything to do with Connally's dramatic reactions that start 50 frames later, in Z236, especially the rapid and visible dropping of his right shoulder? Keep in mind that Connally himself--the guy who actually experienced the shot--after studying enlargements of the Zapruder frames for Life magazine, said that he was hit at Z234 and that he was absolutely certain he was not hit before Z230.

Remember, too, that even bullets fired from the low-velocity Carcano rifle would have been traveling at 2,100 fps, which equals 114 feet per Zapruder frame.

Two: How could the Z186 shot have suddenly knocked JFK visibly forward 40 frames later, starting at Z226, when the Z312 head shot causes JFK's head to start moving forward in that frame, i.e., within 1/18-second? Beginning at Z226, JFK's upper body is visibly knocked sharply forward, and his hands and elbows are flung upward and forward. The force and speed of these movements are quite startling when one compares Z226, where they are first discernible, to Z232, just 1/3-second later. Again, how could the Z186 shot have caused these violent movements?

Government-hired experts have studiously avoided dealing with the dramatic Z226-232 movements because they obviously, plainly show that JFK was struck by a bullet in the back at Z226. Part of the problem with acknowledging these movements is that Connally's shoulder does not begin its dramatic collapse until Z236, much too late to have been caused by a Z224 shot, and, as mentioned, Connally himself was certain he was not hit before Z230 and identified Z234 as the moment he was struck.

« Last Edit: December 29, 2022, 01:21:58 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #23 on: December 29, 2022, 02:11:15 PM »
That's just silly. You folks are like the fawning subjects in the story of The Emperor's New Clothes. The amount of evidence you are ignoring in making this claim is incredible and embarrassing.

Let's just try to get you to explain two things, okay?

One: The Z186 shot, identified by the HSCA experts, causes JFK's cheeks to puff, causes him to freeze his waving motion in mid-wave, causes Jackie to suddenly turn to look at JFK, and causes JFK to start reaching for his throat--all before he disappears behind the freeway sign at Z207. Anyone with a functioning brain and functioning eyes can see these reactions. (Clearly, this was the throat shot, which is why JFK starts to reach for his throat, but never mind this for now.)

By the way, and I forget to mention this earlier, the first Secret Service analysis of the photographic evidence, mainly the Zapruder film, concluded that JFK was hit before Z200.

Now, how could the Z186 shot have anything to do with Connally's dramatic reactions that start 50 frames later, in Z236, especially the rapid and visible dropping of his right shoulder? Keep in mind that Connally himself--the guy who actually experienced the shot--after studying enlargements of the Zapruder frames for Life magazine, said that he was hit at Z234 and that he was absolutely certain he was not hit before Z230.

Remember, too, that even bullets fired from the low-velocity Carcano rifle would have been traveling at 2,100 fps, which equals 114 feet per Zapruder frame.

Two: How could the Z186 shot have suddenly knocked JFK visibly forward 40 frames later, starting at Z226, when the Z312 head shot causes JFK's head to start moving forward in that frame, i.e., within 1/18-second? Beginning at Z226, JFK's upper body is visibly knocked sharply forward, and his hands and elbows are flung upward and forward. The force and speed of these movements are quite startling when one compares Z226, where they are first discernible, to Z232, just 1/3-second later. Again, how could the Z186 shot have caused these violent movements?

Government-hired experts have studiously avoided dealing with the dramatic Z226-232 movements because they obviously, plainly show that JFK was struck by a bullet in the back at Z226. Part of the problem with acknowledging these movements is that Connally's shoulder does not begin its dramatic collapse until Z236, much too late to have been caused by a Z224 shot, and, as mentioned, Connally himself was certain he was not hit before Z230 and identified Z234 as the moment he was struck.

Do you think the Willis photo of JFK waving to the TSBD secretaries at approximately Z202 was a hoax? It is known where the first shot occurred. Right in front of them. They said so, there were not any HSCA members standing beside them. To believe a shot at Z186 means he would have to go back waving to the crowd after being wounded. What a politician to be able to accomplish that.


You want to quote the HSCA, but seemingly forgetful when it comes to Mr. Canning’s analysis of the film and concluding the only possible explanation for the wound to have occurred in JBC’s back was a bullet having first passed through JFK. 

 
The eyewitnesses were unanimous in stating JFK reacted to the first shot. Only Elizabeth Woodward stated he reacted after the second shot, but she states it was after he turned back forward, which does not occur until after Z207.

The experts should have taken the time to talk to the eyewitnesses who were present at the time of the actual assassination.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #23 on: December 29, 2022, 02:11:15 PM »


 

Mobile View