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

[Andrew Mason]

Mason’s Theory

A Mason Three Shot Theory ---nothing but a perversion of a theory once entertained by the WC, specifically Attorney Specter, who discarded this nonsense after proving it was not a possibility after examining the known evidence and rightfully determined it wasn’t even plausible to consider.

If he didn’t consider it, how could he have determined it was not possible? 

Three of the seven members of the WC refused to accept the SBT.  The WC could not say which bullet missed.

One bullet in the thigh: CE399 (after exiting from JFK's throat).  One bullet through JBC's chest and wrist, fragmenting striking windshield and Tague.  Third bullet at z313

Bullet one—Causes only minor injury to the thigh despite traveling at 2000 fps. Vanishes into thin air or becomes CE 399 depending on the current need.

It is always a good idea to understand what it is you are critiquing. 2000 fps is the bullet speed bullet before it strikes JFK in the back and exits his throat.  It passes through 4 layers of cloth, a layer of skin, strong upper neck muscle, the neck, throat, skin, 4 more layers of cloth and strikes a tie knot and begins tumbling.  It then strikes the thigh obliquely after passing through another two layers of cloth. It doesn’t vanish.  It is CE399.

Bullet two—Fragments into several fragments that used to be the known fragments of the headshot at Z313 shot or vanish into thin air or become CE 399 depending on the current need.

Always good to read the posts you critique.  I never said any of that.   

Bullet three—Headshot, the bullet really does break into fragments, but the fragments leave the car and vanish into thin air, because if they don’t vanish into thin air then the whole theory is shown to be completely ridiculous.

Let me know when you have read my post. I am not suggesting that the fragments from the headshot left the car. It is likely that the two large fragments found in the car are from the third shot.

Or how about can the opinions of people, who are standing in an echo chamber, on what they thought they heard for the number of shots, be considered proof of anything when it is known to be in direct conflict with the eyewitness statements and physical evidence of the same event?

You weren’t there.  They were.  Witnesses from all different locations heard three distinct shots.

Now, just how much, depends of course upon what the original missile weighed. In other words, on the basis of the metal left behind in Governor Connally's body, as far as I could tell, the missile that struck it could be virtually intact, insofar as mass was concerned, but probably was distorted.
…
The attending physician, Dr Gregory, three different times stated the bullet did not fragment and only a few tiny flakes were present but instead remained intact. But why would you want to believe him when you have this wonderful totally fictional theory that the WC themselves discarded.

He said CE567 and CE569 were the kind of missiles that could have caused JBC’s wrist wound. Neither is a whole bullet that remained intact.  Read my last post. I have set out his testimony on this.

[Jack Nessan]

If he didn’t consider it, how could he have determined it was not possible? 

Three of the seven members of the WC refused to accept the SBT.  The WC could not say which bullet missed.
It is always a good idea to understand what it is you are critiquing. 2000 fps is the bullet speed bullet before it strikes JFK in the back and exits his throat.  It passes through 4 layers of cloth, a layer of skin, strong upper neck muscle, the neck, throat, skin, 4 more layers of cloth and strikes a tie knot and begins tumbling.  It then strikes the thigh obliquely after passing through another two layers of cloth. It doesn’t vanish.  It is CE399.
Always good to read the posts you critique.  I never said any of that.   
Let me know when you have read my post. I am not suggesting that the fragments from the headshot left the car. It is likely that the two large fragments found in the car are from the third shot.You weren’t there.  They were.  Witnesses from all different locations heard three distinct shots.
He said CE567 and CE569 were the kind of missiles that could have caused JBC’s wrist wound. Neither is a whole bullet that remained intact.  Read my last post. I have set out his testimony on this.

It is pointless to read your posts, basically they are just an unfounded uninformed opinion without a sliver of truth to them.

AMason: “One bullet in the thigh: CE399 (after exiting from JFK's throat).  One bullet through JBC's chest and wrist, fragmenting striking windshield and Tague.  Third bullet at z313” 

 ------------

Bullet one—Causes only minor injury to the thigh despite traveling at 2000 fps. Vanishes into thin air or becomes CE 399 depending on the current need. 

The current need is the shot needed to be CE 399 not a different bullet. The problem is it doesn’t fit any part of what is known about the assassination. Just some wild explanation thrown out into the world.

A tangential looking wound not your oblique wound according to Dr. Shire the attending surgeon.

Dr Shire… “then it's possible that small fragments could have gone into bone as it did and that the damage to the soft tissues was done only by that small fragment, so that the major portion of the bullet simply hit the skin in a tangent and went on in its course elsewhere.

 ----------------

Bullet two—Fragments into several fragments that used to be the known fragments of the headshot at Z313 shot or vanish into thin air or become CE 399 depending on the current need. 

Instead of fragments from the shot at Z313 the need became for this fictional shot two to fragment and disappear. There is no clear point in the description of the wounding as to when it fragmented. It just did to make this fantasy story seem viable.

This nonsense is unbelievable and cannot be explained in any matter. The attending physician did not think it had fragmented. Dr Gregory states three times the bullet was whole.

A whole bullet just vanished into thin air. No fragments to be recovered. Who would of thunk it. A pure fantasy fictional account. 

-------

Bullet three—Headshot,

The bullet really did break into fragments, but according to you the fragments all stay in the car but not enough of them to make a whole bullet. They vanished into thin air in the car.

Not only is there no proof of a third shot, but the explanation also provided makes absolutely no sense from the standpoint of both of the statements of physicians, and no evidence of a bullet is ever discovered.

 

[Andrew Mason]

A tangential looking wound not your oblique wound according to Dr. Shire the attending surgeon.

Shires said tangential but he obviously meant something greater than zero degrees to the thigh (ie. greater than parallel to the thigh/femur).  Otherwise, there would be no strike on the thigh at all.   So I said oblique ie. something a bit more than zero and significantly less than 90 degrees.  If it was, as Shires suggested, close to tangential, (ie. oblique), then it is not going to do as much damage as a hit straight on (perpendicular) to the thigh.

Your repetitive assertion of "no evidence of three shots" has been dealt with many times with putting forward the evidence of three shots .  But you keep asserting "no evidence".  This is rather unproductive use of readers' time.

[Jack Nessan]

Shires said tangential but he obviously meant something greater than zero degrees to the thigh (ie. greater than parallel to the thigh/femur).  Otherwise, there would be no strike on the thigh at all.   So I said oblique ie. something a bit more than zero and significantly less than 90 degrees.  If it was, as Shires suggested, close to tangential, (ie. oblique), then it is not going to do as much damage as a hit straight on (perpendicular) to the thigh.

Your repetitive assertion of "no evidence of three shots" has been dealt with many times with putting forward the evidence of three shots .  But you keep asserting "no evidence".  This is rather unproductive use of readers' time.

Dr Shires stated tangential because he meant tangential. The only one confused about the difference between tangential, oblique and parallel is the author of a nonsense theory.
Dr Shires has no problem understanding what he meant, but obviously you do.

Dr Shire… “then it's possible that small fragments could have gone into bone as it did and that the damage to the soft tissues was done only by that small fragment, so that the major portion of the bullet simply hit the skin in a tangent and went on in its course elsewhere.

You have never provided a shred of evidence. Up to this point you have done nothing but state your confused opinion, and demand it be considered proof.

 As bizarre as this theory has always been, it has finally reached its zenith with a shot that all evidence of it now vanishes into thin air and a claim that a doctor did not know the difference between tangential and parallel, because every piece of information available about the witnesses, wounds, timing and etc points away from this goofy theory. 

[Andrew Mason]

and a claim that a doctor did not know the difference between tangential and parallel

I don’t see a difference between “tangential” and “zero degrees” when you are talking about a bullet path in relation to its target surface.  Perhaps you can tell us what you think the difference is and, if so, what angle other than zero degrees a tangential line would be to such a surface.

[Jack Nessan]

I don’t see a difference between “tangential” and “zero degrees” when you are talking about a bullet path in relation to its target surface.  Perhaps you can tell us what you think the difference is and, if so, what angle other than zero degrees a tangential line would be to such a surface.

A Mason:
 Shires said tangential but he obviously meant something greater than zero degrees to the thigh (ie. greater than parallel to the thigh/femur).

Here is your problem. Figure it out. If only you really knew what you were talking about.

There is no more babysitting this ridiculous nonsense. The only one confused about the difference between tangential, oblique and parallel is the author of this nonsense theory.

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

[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.