The Shifting Single-Bullet Theory--It Always "Works" No Matter What

[John Mytton]

And, FYI, Tague also said one of the shots came from the grassy knoll.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think that it is consistent with what you heard and saw that day, that the shots could have come from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository?
Mr. TAGUE. Yes.

JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think that it is consistent with what you heard and saw that day, that the shots could have come from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository?
Mr. TAGUE. Yes.JohnM

So that's it, huh? End of story? Nothing else to see here? I suspect you went running to a pro-WC website and found this excerpt from Tague's testimony and didn't bother to see if there was more to the story. Right?

I'm guessing you don't know that when Tague was interviewed on camera in 1966, he said that his first impression about the origin of the shots was that they came from a point to his left, and he pinpointed the area of the grassy knoll as the area from which he initially believed the shots had originated. He then explained that he later, after the shooting, changed his mind based on the things he had read in the newspapers and then from the Warren Report. Here's the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVnYTgZzWCk.

Were you aware of these facts? Did the pro-WC source that you consulted mention these facts?

FYI, JFK aide Kennedy O'Donnell told the WC the same thing that Tague told the Commission, yet years later O'Donnell revealed that he heard shots from the grassy knoll, and that the FBI had pressured him into saying that all the shots came from the TSBD--and Dave Powers, who was in the follow-up car with O'Donnell, confirmed O'Donnell's story.

I'm also guessing you do not know that years later, Tague, after he researched the JFK case, reverted back to his original view that shots were fired from the grassy knoll. He spent many pages on this point in his books, especially in his 2013 book. Were you aware of this fact? Did the pro-WC website that you went running to mention this fact? Why is it that I always have to educate you about evidence that you obviously had no idea existed?

I notice that you ignored the key point that Tague insisted that he and the nearby curb were not hit by the first shot that he heard but by a shot that came after that. He told the WC that the curb shot was the second or third shot that he heard. In his 2013 book, Tague said he was certain that the curb shot was the third shot he heard. However, your version of the shooting requires that your alleged lone gunman missed with his first shot, even though the WC clearly leaned toward a second-shot miss for the alleged lone assassin.

Do you understand why a second-shot miss wreaks havoc on the lone-gunman theory, which is why virtually all WC apologists claim the miss was the first shot of the alleged lone gunman's supposed three shots?

Which of your supposed lone gunman's alleged three shots could have caused the Aldredge curb strike on the north side of Elm Street near the TSBD and the Foster-Walthers grass-manhole-cover strike on the south side of Elm Street over 300 feet from the TSBD?

[Jack Nessan]

So was Brehm just lying when he told the FBI two days later, on 11/24, that he heard a shot after the second-shot headshot? The FBI agents would have had no reason to fabricate that part of his statement.

It is a mighty thin reed to rely on his 11/22 TV interview, when he was clearly in shock, and to infer that he meant that he heard only two shots and no more. He never said "only two shots." A reporter said "two shots," and Brehm answered "two shots." He was almost certainly thinking of the shots that hit JFK and was focused on those two shots. After he had calmed down and was interviewed two days later, he said he heard a third shot but that it came after the headshot, and he never wavered from that. 

At least two sets of two shots came very closely together and each of these sets would have sounded like one shot to many people, so it is not a bit surprising that some people thought they only heard two shots. Plus, many people commented that one of the shots sounded very different than the others, and many people probably did not notice this shot, which is another reason that it's not surprising that some people thought they only heard two shots.

You really should stop posting until you have done your homework, until you have read some of the scholarly books on the evidence of multiple gunmen.

A two-shot assassination is ludicrous. Even with three shots, the lone-gunman theory can't get a bullet to the Tague curb. The attempts to get a bullet or fragment from the sixth-floor window to the Tague curb are downright farcical, not to mention contradictory.

In addition to the Tague curb strike, we have

-- the Aldredge curb strike
-- the Foster manhole/grass strike
-- the deformed bullet found in the limo in DC, seen and handled by Dr. James Young (and verified by Chief Mills)
-- the pavement strike behind the limo early in the shooting (seen and reported independently by five witnesses)
-- the large fragment seen by autopsy x-ray tech Jerrol Custer (this may well have been the same slug that Admiral Osborne told the HSCA that he saw at the autopsy, the same slug documented in the FBI-to-Stover receipt for a "missile" found during the autopsy--no, I don't buy the tale that the agents called two or three small fragments a "missile"; they knew the difference between a few small fragments and a missile, and Custer and Osborne were not hallucinating).

A three-shot scenario can't explain these extra bullets and misses, much less a two-shot scenario.

Always amusing how much you believe in these posts.

The rest of this post is the usual made up fantasy you are famous for, but this is actually interesting. I thought it was just a few people not five:

MTG---“the pavement strike behind the limo early in the shooting (seen and reported independently by five witnesses)”

This is interesting, do you know their names or what they said? It is good to actually read these things because so much of your posts are comprised of made up fantasy.

Obviously, you are not big on thinking things through. Actually, it always goes back to you don’t think for yourself. You let internet clowns do your thinking for you. If one of the shot hits the street, then what hit Tague in this odd theory? I bet it would be the fragment from the second shot, you know the head shot, or nothing at all hit him.

The lead on the curb was a lead smear not an impact mark from a bullet. Most likely a lead weight from a car wheel. If you have ever seen the cement work on the triple overpass it is not hard to visualize what left a mark on his cheek. He did press himself against it. All he saw after was the SS car leaving the area.

Sorry, but a two shot scenario is the answer and the only answer. What a let down Huh? All these fanciful conspiracy stories and to find out the answer is so simple. The answer has been there all along from day one when the WC conclusion was the media influenced the witnesses into inflating the number of shots. A conclusion echoed by the HSCA Sound Analysis report. It is an answer that has been proven by available evidence and can be verified by the FBI examining the chamber of the rifle and verifying the existence of an anomaly in the chamber causing the indentation or "chamber mark" referenced in Hoover's letter to Rankin.

 Three shots is nothing more than a mistake, courtesy of a simple news bulletin from Merriman Smith and read by Walter Cronkite that has taken on a life of its own.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Oh Really?? Hahahaha!

Allowing for slightly differing camera angles, focal length and camera lenses and the fact that Kennedy's autopsy photos show Kennedy with a violently fractured skull and no muscle control, the location of the throat wound is definitely not above the tie knot and in fact perfectly corresponds to the precise location of Kenney's tie knot.

Anyway Griffith, do keep trying because 1 day you may actually get something right, but in the mean time, I absolutely love constantly destroying the Forum Bully! JohnM

You have not read a single scholarly article or book that questions the claim that the throat wound was an exit wound, have you? We just saw in your response regarding Tague that you obviously did not know, or perhaps chose to ignore the fact, that Tague initially believed shots came from the grassy knoll, then changed his mind based on newspaper stories and later the Warren Report, and then changed his mind again after he researched the JFK case for himself.

Let me try this: Let me ask you some simple, straightforward questions about the throat wound in reply to your repetition of the claim that it was an exit wound:

-- Why did the first two drafts of the autopsy report say nothing about the throat wound being an exit wound for the back wound?

-- How could a bullet have exited the throat without tearing through the tie or at least nicking the edge of the tie? You realize that when Harold Weisberg finally obtained clear close-up photos of the tie from the National Archives, we learned that there was no hole through the tie and no nick on either edge of the tie, right? Right? You know about this, right?

-- Why did the Parkland doctors who saw and/or treated the throat wound describe a laceration of the pharynx and trachea that was larger than the wound itself? As Dr. Nathan Jacobs pointed out, the fact that the damage behind the throat wound was larger than the wound itself indicates that the throat wound was entrance wound (Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, p. 158).

-- Why was the throat wound only about 4-5 mm in diameter and punched-in, when every single soft-tissue exit wound in the WC's own wound ballistics tests was much larger and punched-out?

-- Why did the three Parkland doctors who saw the throat wound before the shirt was removed and who commented on the wound's location state that the throat wound was above the tie knot/collar?

-- If the irregular slits in the collar were made by an exiting bullet, why did the FBI fail to find any metal traces in the fabric of the slits--or in the tie? As Rockefeller Foundation scholar Henry Hurt noted, "the FBI laboratory—after spectrographic analysis—could find no metal traces on the tie or the neckband of the collar, traces that should have been there if a bullet had caused the damage" (Reasonable Doubt, pp. 59-60). The FBI found metal traces around the holes in the back of JFK's shirt and coat, but no traces on the tie or around the slits in the front. Why?

-- If the irregular slits in JFK's shirt collar were made by an exiting bullet, why is there no fabric missing from the slits? When bullets exit clothing, they invariably remove some fabric, just as the bullet that exited Connally's chest removed fabric when it made the holes in Connally's shirt and coat. FYI, the bullet that entered JFK's back also removed fabric when it made the holes in JFK's shirt and coat? What gives?

-- If the throat wound was an exit wound, how do you explain the recent Knott Laboratory forensic 3D laser analysis that proved that the SBT is physically impossible by establishing that JFK and Connally were not aligned in a way that would have allowed a bullet that exited JFK's throat to cause Connally's back wound? Did you forget about this, or were you hoping that everybody else did?

[John Mytton]

You have not read a single scholarly article or book that questions the claim that the throat wound was an exit wound, have you? We just saw in your response regarding Tague that you obviously did not know, or perhaps chose to ignore the fact, that Tague initially believed shots came from the grassy knoll, then changed his mind based on newspaper stories and later the Warren Report, and then changed his mind again after he researched the JFK case for himself.

Let me try this: Let me ask you some simple, straightforward questions about the throat wound in reply to your repetition of the claim that it was an exit wound:

-- Why did the first two drafts of the autopsy report say nothing about the throat wound being an exit wound for the back wound?

-- How could a bullet have exited the throat without tearing through the tie or at least nicking the edge of the tie? You realize that when Harold Weisberg finally obtained clear close-up photos of the tie from the National Archives, we learned that there was no hole through the tie and no nick on either edge of the tie, right? Right? You know about this, right?

-- Why did the Parkland doctors who saw and/or treated the throat wound describe a laceration of the pharynx and trachea that was larger than the wound itself? As Dr. Nathan Jacobs pointed out, the fact that the damage behind the throat wound was larger than the wound itself indicates that the throat wound was entrance wound (Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, p. 158).

-- Why was the throat wound only about 4-5 mm in diameter and punched-in, when every single soft-tissue exit wound in the WC's own wound ballistics tests was much larger and punched-out?

-- Why did the three Parkland doctors who saw the throat wound before the shirt was removed and who commented on the wound's location state that the throat wound was above the tie knot/collar?

-- If the irregular slits in the collar were made by an exiting bullet, why did the FBI fail to find any metal traces in the fabric of the slits--or in the tie? As Rockefeller Foundation scholar Henry Hurt noted, "the FBI laboratory—after spectrographic analysis—could find no metal traces on the tie or the neckband of the collar, traces that should have been there if a bullet had caused the damage" (Reasonable Doubt, pp. 59-60). The FBI found metal traces around the holes in the back of JFK's shirt and coat, but no traces on the tie or around the slits in the front. Why?

-- If the irregular slits in JFK's shirt collar were made by an exiting bullet, why is there no fabric missing from the slits? When bullets exit clothing, they invariably remove some fabric, just as the bullet that exited Connally's chest removed fabric when it made the holes in Connally's shirt and coat. FYI, the bullet that entered JFK's back also removed fabric when it made the holes in JFK's shirt and coat? What gives?

-- If the throat wound was an exit wound, how do you explain the recent Knott Laboratory forensic 3D laser analysis that proved that the SBT is physically impossible by establishing that JFK and Connally were not aligned in a way that would have allowed a bullet that exited JFK's throat to cause Connally's back wound? Did you forget about this, or were you hoping that everybody else did?

You have not read a single scholarly article or book that questions the claim that the throat wound was an exit wound, have you?

Don't be Dick all your life, I simply responded to your claim that the bullet hole was above the tie knot and I irrevocably proved otherwise! So why with this absurd deflection by irrationally shifting the goal posts?
Just admit you were wrong and we can move on and btw, you can also correct your web pages and perhaps in the next edition of your book issue a formal apology!

Again for the slow learners, the bullet hole and subsequent tracheotomy surgery was at the height of the height of the tie knot and was not above the tie knot.



And your hero McClelland even ghoulishly signed this autopsy photo.



JohnM

[Andrew Mason]

Nicely done John.  But I thought the lower .gif needed a bit of adjusting to make the shoulder levels closer. This shows that the bullet exited at the level of the tie knot on the left side. 


which generally fits with the break in the tie as shown in CE 395

[Jerry Organ]

-- Why was the throat wound only about 4-5 mm in diameter and punched-in, when every single soft-tissue exit wound in the WC's own wound ballistics tests was much larger and punched-out?

The distinguished war surgeon and noted medical author Dr John Lattimer discovered that a tight shirt collar, with its multiple reinforced stitching, kept the exit wound to a small size. Here's a quote from an article that is about exit wounds being contained in general:

    "If the area of exit is pressed against a firm object (even a tight
     pants waistband), the skin edges will be abraded (or “shored”).
     Sometimes, the entrance and exit truly cannot be distinguished"

-- If the throat wound was an exit wound, how do you explain the recent Knott Laboratory forensic 3D laser analysis that proved that the SBT is physically impossible by establishing that JFK and Connally were not aligned in a way that would have allowed a bullet that exited JFK's throat to cause Connally's back wound? Did you forget about this, or were you hoping that everybody else did?

We all can readily explain your falling for the Knott 3D study because you know little about perspective and line-of-sight analysis. For over a quarter of a century, you have promoted the claim that the Top-of-the-Head Photo shows the cowlick wound in a place that is actually the vertex area.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

Nicely done John.  But I thought the lower .gif needed a bit of adjusting to make the shoulder levels closer. This shows that the bullet exited at the level of the tie knot on the left side. 


which generally fits with the break in the tie as shown in CE 395

That there break is huge. Could only be made by 2 slugs, one entering, one exiting.