10 Reasons to Believe That Oswald Was Innocent

[Michael T. Griffith]

Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on July 27, 2026, 03:02:59 PM
LOL! Are you really just a child? What kind of nonsense is this? I have to wonder about your level of intelligence to make such an argument. Anyway, no, slightly horizontal is nothing like being slightly pregnant. Bullet angles are not an all-or-nothing proposition. Bullets can strike at a wide range of horizontal angles, from very slight to slight to moderate to sharp. Bullets can also yaw by a wide range of degrees, from 1 degree upward. The fact that you need this explained to you says much about your credibility.

JC: They's be throwing snowballs in hell before I need you to explain anything to me.

Humm, well, as we have seen, I had to explain to you that, unlike pregnancy, bullet angles are never an all-or-nothing proposition, because you made the cringe-worthy argument that "slightly horizontal" is like "slightly pregnant," a bogus analogy that not even a retarded teenager would make.

This was as bad and discrediting as your jaw-dropping argument from a few days earlier in which you compared a supersonic bullet hitting an object sideways with a car "sliding sideways into a guard rail." It would be hard to imagine a more blundering, bogus, and unintelligent analogy.

JC: So tell us where a bullet could have been fired from which would have produced the angled entry into JBC's back.

Are you seriously asking this question in 2026? Have you never seen a 1963 picture of Dealey Plaza? Are you truly unable to conceive of a shooting location that would have produced a slightly horizontal angle of impact on Connally's back? Really?   

Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on July 27, 2026, 03:02:59 PM
The bullet that struck Connally's back must have done so at a slightly horizontal angle or while slightly yawing because the wound path through Connally was not very wide but surprisingly narrow, as Dr. Shaw explained.

JC: Just what would have caused the bullet to yaw if it had not struck someone or something first?

I think the bullet could have simply struck at a slightly horizontal angle, but, anyway, bullets can yaw for a number of reasons that don't involve hitting something first. Bullets can yaw because of muzzle blast turbulence (when high-pressure propellant gases escape the muzzle unevenly, they can push against the base of the bullet as it clears the barrel and induce a slight yaw), aerodynamic forces acting on an asymmetrical center of mass (which can happen with spitzer bullets), and crosswinds inducing gyroscopic precession (the wind was gusting off and on in the plaza).

You keep avoiding the key point that a 1.5-cm-wide wound could not have been caused by a bullet traveling sideways unless the bullet had been only 1.4 to 1.5 cm in width. Oswald's alleged ammo was twice that length.

Also, a bullet that was markedly yawing, but not yawing quite enough to hit sideways (i.e., not 90 degrees), would not have caused a wound that was only 1.5 cm in width. A markedly yawing bullet would have created a wound that was well over 2.0 cm in width.

You see, these are the reasons that your fellow SBT believers here, along with Myers, Lattimer, and Posner, dishonestly (or blunderingly) cite the wound's post-surgery width of 3.0 cm. They understand that a bullet flying sideways or markedly yawing would not have made a wound that was only 1.5 in width. But you're such a fringe, poorly read SBT believer that you don't even know this much.

Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on July 27, 2026, 03:02:59 PM
Again, a bullet striking in this manner could have easily created a 1.5 x 0.8 cm entry wound, virtually identical in size to JFK's rear head entry wound (1.5 x 0.6 cm), which in turn explains the surprisingly narrow wound path through Connally's chest.

JC: While you're at it, see if you can figure out why a bullet entering at that angle wouldn't have continued through to the left side of JBC's torso instead of exiting from the right side as it did.

LOL! Seriously? When passing through soft tissue, bullets can veer slightly in any direction, and they can certainly change course after they smash a rib bone. Do you ever actually stop and think about your arguments before you post them? Did you forget that the bullet smashed 4-5 inches of rib bone after it entered the chest?

Furthermore, if we look at Z234, the frame selected by Connally himself as the moment of impact, we see his torso is turned to the right by about 10 degrees, which could explain the slight elongation of the back wound by itself, just as the fact that JFK's head rotation could explain why the rear head entry wound was only 1.5 cm in width.

Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on July 27, 2026, 03:02:59 PM
To believe your whacky theory, we'd have to assume that your supposedly sideways-streaking bullet magically straightened out almost completely a few milliseconds after penetrating the back so that it could create a narrow wound path through Connally's chest.

JC: I guess the concept of a tumbling bullet escapes you. The orientation of such a bullet is going to be constantly changing. The long axis of the bullet will go from parallel to the direction of travel, to perpendicular and everywhere in between.

Another howler. You simply ignored the point and repeated your specious theory. A bullet tumbling as you describe is not going to create a narrow wound path. Do you just lack the capacity to understand this self-evident point? Even when the chest-wound bullet smashed 4-5 inches of rib bone, it did so while doing only minimal damage to the surrounding tissue, as Dr. Shaw noted. How can you not grasp this point?

Just go look at photos or slow-motion footage of bullets traveling through ballistics gelatin. Naturally, when the bullet is markedly yawing, it creates a wide path through the gelatin, but it creates a narrow path when it is not markedly yawing. I mean, most people would say, "Well, yeah, duh, of course!" But you keep acting like you don't understand this.

You know, when you get on here and pretend not to understand such basic, self-evident facts, you show that you're either unserious and unreliable or that you are sorely lacking in essential comprehension and reasoning skills.   

[John Corbett]

Humm, well, as we have seen, I had to explain to you that, unlike pregnancy, bullet angles are never an all-or-nothing proposition, because you made the cringe-worthy argument that "slightly horizontal" is like "slightly pregnant," a bogus analogy that not even a retarded teenager would make.

This was as bad and discrediting as your jaw-dropping argument from a few days earlier in which you compared a supersonic bullet hitting an object sideways with a car "sliding sideways into a guard rail." It would be hard to imagine a more blundering, bogus, and unintelligent analogy.

In order to dumb it down for you any more than I did, I would have had to draw pictures for you but I don't have any crayons.

Are you seriously asking this question in 2026? Have you never seen a 1963 picture of Dealey Plaza? Are you truly unable to conceive of a shooting location that would have produced a slightly horizontal angle of impact on Connally's back? Really?   

Oh, I can figure out an angle. I just want YOU to tell me where such a shot could have come from. I want you to be the one to make yourself look foolish.

I think the bullet could have simply struck at a slightly horizontal angle, but, anyway, bullets can yaw for a number of reasons that don't involve hitting something first. Bullets can yaw because of muzzle blast turbulence (when high-pressure propellant gases escape the muzzle unevenly, they can push against the base of the bullet as it clears the barrel and induce a slight yaw), aerodynamic forces acting on an asymmetrical center of mass (which can happen with spitzer bullets), and crosswinds inducing gyroscopic precession (the wind was gusting off and on in the plaza).

As the Haags demonstrated on the Nova presentation, the Carcano bullet is cylindrical in shape with a rounded noise. As such, it maintains tight contact with the inside of the barrel which gives it a tremendous amount of stability and very little yaw as it exits the muzzle. I fully expect you to now pretend you know more about ballistics than the Haags.

You keep avoiding the key point that a 1.5-cm-wide wound could not have been caused by a bullet traveling sideways unless the bullet had been only 1.4 to 1.5 cm in width. Oswald's alleged ammo was twice that length.

Now you are the one pretending yaw is either all or nothing. The bullet did not have to be traveling with its axis completely perpendicular to the direction of travel.

Also, a bullet that was markedly yawing, but not yawing quite enough to hit sideways (i.e., not 90 degrees), would not have caused a wound that was only 1.5 cm in width. A markedly yawing bullet would have created a wound that was well over 2.0 cm in width. 

This is comical. A yawing bullet could produce any width up to the length of the bullet depending on the amount of yaw. /quote]

You see, these are the reasons that your fellow SBT believers here, along with Myers, Lattimer, and Posner, dishonestly (or blunderingly) cite the wound's post-surgery width of 3.0 cm. They understand that a bullet flying sideways or markedly yawing would not have made a wound that was only 1.5 in width. But you're such a fringe, poorly read SBT believer that you don't even know this much. [/quote]

You really do need people to draw pictures for you so you can understand.

LOL! Seriously? When passing through soft tissue, bullets can veer slightly in any direction, and they can certainly change course after they smash a rib bone. Do you ever actually stop and think about your arguments before you post them? Did you forget that the bullet smashed 4-5 inches of rib bone after it entered the chest?

That would be a fair point if the bullet hit bone on the way in, not the way out.

Furthermore, if we look at Z234, the frame selected by Connally himself as the moment of impact, we see his torso is turned to the right by about 10 degrees, which could explain the slight elongation of the back wound by itself, just as the fact that JFK's head rotation could explain why the rear head entry wound was only 1.5 cm in width.

You continue to pretend JBC's right arm didn't suddenly flip upward in response to the bullet striking his wrist about Z222. You seem to think the arm flip was in anticipation of the bullet hitting him about a half second later.

Another howler. You simply ignored the point and repeated your specious theory. A bullet tumbling as you describe is not going to create a narrow wound path. Do you just lack the capacity to understand this self-evident point? Even when the chest-wound bullet smashed 4-5 inches of rib bone, it did so while doing only minimal damage to the surrounding tissue, as Dr. Shaw noted. How can you not grasp this point?

Here again, you seem to need someone to draw pictures for you to understand. The axis of a tumbling bullet is constantly changing orientation. Maybe it would help if I used smaller words.

Just go look at photos or slow-motion footage of bullets traveling through ballistics gelatin. Naturally, when the bullet is markedly yawing, it creates a wide path through the gelatin, but it creates a narrow path when it is not markedly yawing. I mean, most people would say, "Well, yeah, duh, of course!" But you keep acting like you don't understand this.

As the Haags demonstrated, a bullet passing through ballistic gel makes a wide channel, but the channel then collapses back on itself after the bullet passes. That's why they also used ballistic soap which does not collapse and maintains the full width of the channel.

You know, when you get on here and pretend not to understand such basic, self-evident facts, you show that you're either unserious and unreliable or that you are sorely lacking in essential comprehension and reasoning skills.

You pretend the silly things you propose are facts. It's the only way to support your nutty conclusions.