NEW ARTICLE: JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible

[Andrew Mason]

Dr Shires has no problem understanding what he meant, but obviously you do.

Shires used "tangential" and I used "oblique".  Shires explained that the bullet entered the thigh at a shallow angle, which is what I am saying as well.  That is apparent from the wound on the skin surface. What is important is not the terminology but the description.  Don't take my word for it. Take his:


A bullet cannot penetrate a surface if its trajectory is perfectly tangential to the surface.  The trajectory has to be at an angle greater than zero.  You seem to have difficulty with that concept.

[Jack Nessan]

Shires used "tangential" and I used "oblique".  Shires explained that the bullet entered the thigh at a shallow angle, which is what I am saying as well.  That is apparent from the wound on the skin surface. What is important is not the terminology but the description.  Don't take my word for it. Take his:


A bullet cannot penetrate a surface if its trajectory is perfectly tangential to the surface.  The trajectory has to be at an angle greater than zero.  You seem to have difficulty with that concept.

Wow This whole goofy theory does not work at all, and this is your focus?

The world really should thank you. All this theory has produced is the realization that SBT is not only the correct answer, but it is also the only answer. A theory with two bullets that vanished and who knows what with the fragmented other one, has absolutely no value at all. This theory does not provide an answer to a single issue or explain the known evidence into any viable coherent understanding. Nor does it incorporate the evidence into a coherent answer of the wounds in even the remotest sense of understanding of how they occurred. Actually, it is absolutely unbelievable, but thanks for proving SBT beyond any doubt at all for everyone.

[Andrew Mason]

Wow This whole goofy theory does not work at all, and this is your focus?

The world really should thank you. All this theory has produced is the realization that SBT is not only the correct answer, but it is also the only answer. A theory with two bullets that vanished and who knows what with the fragmented other one, has absolutely no value at all. This theory does not provide an answer to a single issue or explain the known evidence into any viable coherent understanding. Nor does it incorporate the evidence into a coherent answer of the wounds in even the remotest sense of understanding of how they occurred. Actually, it is absolutely unbelievable, but thanks for proving SBT beyond any doubt at all for everyone.

You have not understood my "theory".  I never suggested that the remains of two bullets were not found.  I suggest that the second shot fragmented and some fragments struck the windshield and frame so those fragments did not disappear. Other fragments of the second shot went a bit higher and left the car and one of them struck Tague.  Tague said he was struck on the second shot and Greer said he sensed something in the car being struck on the second shot.   The two large fragments CE567 and CE569 were likely from the same bullet and likely the third shot.  CE399 was from the first shot that struck JFK in the neck and continued its right to left trajectory before striking JBC much farther left than his right armpit.

My "theory" is that the witness evidence as to the relative spacing of the shots, the witness evidence that JFK reacted to the first shot, together with the witness and photographic evidence that the first shot was after z186 cannot all be wrong.  All that evidence is well corroborated and consistent only with all three shots striking within the car.

The SBT says that all of this evidence has to be rejected. Let me know what you think of my "theory" when you have understood the above.  At the same time, maybe provide an explanation of why all that evidence can all be wrong in the same way....

[Jack Nessan]

You have not understood my "theory".  I never suggested that the remains of two bullets were not found.  I suggest that the second shot fragmented and some fragments struck the windshield and frame so those fragments did not disappear. Other fragments of the second shot went a bit higher and left the car and one of them struck Tague.  Tague said he was struck on the second shot and Greer said he sensed something in the car being struck on the second shot.   The two large fragments CE567 and CE569 were likely from the same bullet and likely the third shot.  CE399 was from the first shot that struck JFK in the neck and continued its right to left trajectory before striking JBC much farther left than his right armpit.

My "theory" is that the witness evidence as to the relative spacing of the shots, the witness evidence that JFK reacted to the first shot, together with the witness and photographic evidence that the first shot was after z186 cannot all be wrong.  All that evidence is well corroborated and consistent only with all three shots striking within the car.

The SBT says that all of this evidence has to be rejected. Let me know what you think of my "theory" when you have understood the above.  At the same time, maybe provide an explanation of why all that evidence can all be wrong in the same way....

It does not matter what you have suggested. Nobody cares. It is all wrong. The witness interpretation is so out of the realm of reality you are no longer in sight. The doctors completely dismiss the whole notion of your shot sequence with their WC testimonies. Honestly, there is absolutely nothing in this whole theory connected to the known information of the JFKA. I have seen it all and there is less than nothing here.

If you can convince yourself that SBT is not the answer after what the doctors stated and the witnesses stated and the known evidence of the JFKA, you can convince yourself of anything, maybe that is the problem.

[Michael T. Griffith]

I think dispassionate/objective readers will see that the lone-gunman theorists who have replied in this thread have failed to explain the photographic and physical evidence discussed in the article linked in the OP.

[Jack Nessan]

I think dispassionate/objective readers will see that the lone-gunman theorists who have replied in this thread have failed to explain the photographic and physical evidence discussed in the article linked in the OP.

The article is basically a t**d wrapped in a lot of toilet paper. Sum it up for all the dispassionate/objective readers. If SBT is not the answer what is your answer?

[Andrew Mason]

The article is basically a t**d wrapped in a lot of toilet paper. Sum it up for all the dispassionate/objective readers. If SBT is not the answer what is your answer?

The answer is: no missed shot, one shooter. 

[Michael T. Griffith]

Wow This whole goofy theory does not work at all, and this is your focus?

The world really should thank you. All this theory has produced is the realization that SBT is not only the correct answer, but it is also the only answer. A theory with two bullets that vanished and who knows what with the fragmented other one, has absolutely no value at all. This theory does not provide an answer to a single issue or explain the known evidence into any viable coherent understanding. Nor does it incorporate the evidence into a coherent answer of the wounds in even the remotest sense of understanding of how they occurred. Actually, it is absolutely unbelievable, but thanks for proving SBT beyond any doubt at all for everyone.

More Flat Earther material that simply ignores a massive body of evidence, including hard physical evidence and undeniable photographic evidence. Only in the delusional dream world of lone-gunman theorists is the SBT "a coherent answer" and "the only answer." Three of the seven members of the WC itself didn't buy the SBT. The guy who actually experienced the second set of wounds in the shooting, Gov. Connally, flatly rejected the SBT's requirement that he was hit before Z229. The latest incarnation of the SBT requires the hilarious and preposterous assumption that JFK is not reacting to a wound in Z225, never mind that a veritable boat load of previous lone-gunman theorists freely admitted that Z225 shows JFK reacting to a wound.

You still have not gotten around to explaining how a bullet that exited the shirt slits could have nicked the top surface of the tie knot inward from the knot's left edge when the tie knot was neatly centered in the middle of the collar band.

Your only answer to the hard physical evidence of the rear JFK clothing holes is the ridiculous bunched-clothing theory that (1) is refuted by Croft 3 and Willis Slide 5 and (2) is absurd on its face because it requires us to believe that the shirt magically bunched in nearly perfect correspondence with the coat, even though JFK's seated position pinned at least half of the shirt against the seat.

Your only answer to the fact that the autopsy face sheet, the death certificate, and the wound diagrams of FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill all place the back wound well below the throat wound is to lamely claim they were all "mistaken," never mind that their location agrees with the rear clothing holes.

You can't cite a single wound ballistics test that has even come close to duplicating the SBT's magical journey and resulting condition, nor can you cite a single case in forensic history where an FMJ bullet did so much damage but emerged with its lands and grooves intact and with the less than 4 grains lost from its substance.

You have to simply ignore the facts about JFK's throat wound (small, neat, and punched-in), Connally's back wound (too small to have been caused by a bullet that hit sideways), and the wound tract through Connally's chest (too narrow to have been made by a bullet traveling sideways/tumbling) because all three wounds refute the SBT's assumption that the bullet was tumbling when it supposedly left JFK's throat and hit and tore through Connally while traveling sideways, yet CE 399's deformation shows that whatever it hit, it hit with its side.

And on and on we could go.