Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory  (Read 25630 times)

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory
« Reply #64 on: July 27, 2020, 04:17:24 PM »
Advertisement
All very interesting but understanding the assassination is just not that complicated. The SBT is the only plausible explanation and all the theatrics will not alter that fact.

Gov Connally was struck by the first shot. He said he cried out Oh No No No after he was struck. Nelly and Jackie both independently stated that he cried out Oh No No No after the first shot. JBC stated he only heard two shots which is confirmed by many eyewitnesses who also stated there was only two shots.

Bill Newman in the Jay Watson interview after the assassination: "stated he heard a shot and could not tell which man was hit first."

DPD Bobbi Hargis

Dallas, Nov. 23 (Special) B.W. Hargis, 31, Dallas motorcycle patrolman who was riding in President Kennedy's motorcade, gave this account today of the Assassination:
"We turned left onto Elm St. off Houston, about a half block from where it happened. I was right alongside the rear fender on the left side of the President's car, near Mrs. Kennedy."
"When I heard the first explosion, I knew it was a shot. I thought that Gov. Connally had been hit when I saw him turn toward the President with a real surprised look."
"The President then looked like he was bent over or that he was leaning toward the Governor, talking to him."
"As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of his head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood."

--------------------------------

Destroyed? The HSCA studies confirmed the beliefs of the WC.  The only thing destroyed by close examination was The Dictabelt Theory and any concept of there being four shots. Not one thing has been debunked.


Canning completely explained his placement of the wounds and how he derived the trajectory. It is your choice to either believe him or search for someone to shore up your conspiracy beliefs.

--------------------------------------------

No exit wound? Dr. Ebersol discussing the search for the bullet and xrays taken at the autopsy.

'We were asked by the Secret Service agents present to repeat the films and did so Once again there was no evidence of a bullet. I assume you are familiar with portable X ray It is not the kind that gives a fine diagnostic but it is helpful in picking up metallic fragments. It would stand out like a sore thumb either intact or shattered.
The autopsy proceeded and at this point I am simply an observer. Dr. Humes in probing the wound of entrance found it to extend perhaps over the apex of the right lung bruising the pleura and appeared to go toward or near the midline of the lower neck."



" I believe by ten or ten thirty approximately a communication equipment. location had been established with Dallas and it was learned that there had been a wound of exit in the lower neck that had been surgically repaired. I don't know if this was premortem or postmortem but at that point the confusion as far as we were concerned stopped."

---------------------

You were asked to explain how Gov Connally could have been wounded if the bullet does not first pass through JFK. Instead of answering the question you go off on an Interpretive Science rant. It appears it took 30 years for someone to finally confirm your conspiracy dreams by claiming everyone else who studied the evidence was wrong.


You wrote an article about there having been only two shots fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD. It lacks some information but is the right idea. Apparently you no longer believe this to be true? You are the third conspiracy propagator to touch on the idea there was only two shots. Each time, instead of understanding that is the answer and the reality of the assassination, the conclusion is ignored or altered to reach some other conclusion. To me that is amazing especially given the large amount of evidence and witness support all pointing to the two shot conclusion.

'Gov Connally was struck by the first shot. He said he cried out Oh No No No after he was struck. Nelly and Jackie both independently stated that he cried out Oh No No No after the first shot. JBC stated he only heard two shots which is confirmed by many eyewitnesses who also stated there was only two shots'.

JBC said that he heard the first and third shots, and knew he was in shock when he felt the second. He knew the first shot was from a high-powered rifle. Thus 'no/no/no'. He also said that after the shooting started, he did not see Kennedy at all. Therefore, he could not have known which shot struck Kennedy at the outset.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2020, 04:24:23 PM by Bill Chapman »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory
« Reply #64 on: July 27, 2020, 04:17:24 PM »


Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 929
Re: Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory
« Reply #65 on: July 27, 2020, 07:21:33 PM »
Here is another fact that destroys the single-bullet theory, a fact that few lone-gunman theorists ever address: The "hole" in the front of Connally's shirt consisted of two very uneven vertical tears, one of which was over half an inch (1.7 cm) longer than the other. The HSCA:

Quote
Clothing-Shirt (front). . . . The midpoint of the defect is 15.7 centimeters to the right of the midline and 27.9 centimeters below the shoulder seam. The long axis extends inferiorly and medially at an angle of approximately 60° from the vertical axis of the shirt. This joins medially a vertical linear tear measuring 3.1 by 0.1 to 0.2 centimeters and is paralleled by another vertical linear tear measuring 4.8 by 0.1 to 0.2 centimeters. (7 HSCA 145)

It does not require advanced English skills to see that the "defect" consisted of two very uneven vertical tears, and that one tear was 1.7 cm longer than the other, or over half an inch longer than the other, which is not the kind of "defect" that you would get from a nearly pristine bullet but rather from a deformed bullet or from a large fragment.

Now, obviously, these tears sound much more like tears from a deformed bullet or a bullet fragment than from a bullet such as CE 399, just as Connally's chest surgeon, Dr. Robert Shaw, concluded. Given that the bullet shattered several inches of rib bone, it is not a bit surprising that the bullet fragmented.

The SBT is just whacky nonsense that falls apart on several grounds, if one is willing to consider the evidence objectively.

Of course you guys grasp onto the HSCA's conclusion that the fragments in the neck x-ray were artifacts, and that the Clark Panel just got it wrong, and that even your usual fallback expert, Lattimer, got it wrong. It's just comical. What about Custer's testimony that he saw bullet fragments in the neck x-rays he took at the autopsy? Let me guess: he was "mistaken."

By the way the HSCA FPP said the transverse process at T1 was "fractured," just to set the record straight.

Are you guys ever going to deal with the ARRB evidence that the doctors determined absolutely that the back wound had no exit point?

And are you ever going to deal with Dr. Mantik's finding that, based on the x-rays, there is no path from the back wound to the throat wound without smashing through the spine? Ignoring it won't make it go away.

Dr. Mantik's finding confirms what Dr. John Nichols deduced decades ago: Dr. John Nichols, who was a professor of forensic pathology at the University of the Kansas, had already reached the same conclusion, even though he was unable to study the autopsy x-rays. Dr. Nichols deduced from the trajectories involved and from his knowledge of human anatomy that no bullet could have gone from the back wound to the throat wound without smashing into one of the transverse processes of the spine--not just grazing it but smashing into it. Said Dr. Nichols,


Quote
Figure 6 is the view through Oswald's telescopic sight at Frame 222, showing the depressed angle of 20.23 degrees prevailing at the first shot as measured in the FBI reenactment. I have both measured and calculated the lateral angle at this frame to be 9.21 degrees. Elementary anatomy indicated that the minimum lateral angle for the bullet to miss the transverse processes and emerge in the midline [of the throat] is 28 degrees; this is obviously impossible from Oswald's alleged firing position.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2020, 02:30:57 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
Re: Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory
« Reply #66 on: July 28, 2020, 03:30:21 PM »
'Gov Connally was struck by the first shot. He said he cried out Oh No No No after he was struck. Nelly and Jackie both independently stated that he cried out Oh No No No after the first shot. JBC stated he only heard two shots which is confirmed by many eyewitnesses who also stated there was only two shots'.

JBC said that he heard the first and third shots, and knew he was in shock when he felt the second. He knew the first shot was from a high-powered rifle. Thus 'no/no/no'. He also said that after the shooting started, he did not see Kennedy at all. Therefore, he could not have known which shot struck Kennedy at the outset.

Maybe you need to redo this reply and include all the relevant information. Also try and understand the relationship between Jackie's, Nelly's, and JBC's statement. JBC wasn't the only one there.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory
« Reply #66 on: July 28, 2020, 03:30:21 PM »


Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
Re: Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory
« Reply #67 on: July 28, 2020, 03:32:54 PM »
Here is another fact that destroys the single-bullet theory, a fact that few lone-gunman theorists ever address: The "hole" in the front of Connally's shirt consisted of two very uneven vertical tears, one of which was over half an inch (1.7 cm) longer than the other. The HSCA:

It does not require advanced English skills to see that the "defect" consisted of two very uneven vertical tears, and that one tear was 1.7 cm longer than the other, or over half an inch longer than the other, which is not the kind of "defect" that you would get from a nearly pristine bullet but rather from a deformed bullet or from a large fragment.

Now, obviously, these tears sound much more like tears from a deformed bullet or a bullet fragment than from a bullet such as CE 399, just as Connally's chest surgeon, Dr. Robert Shaw, concluded. Given that the bullet shattered several inches of rib bone, it is not a bit surprising that the bullet fragmented.

The SBT is just whacky nonsense that falls apart on several grounds, if one is willing to consider the evidence objectively.

Of course you guys grasp onto the HSCA's conclusion that the fragments in the neck x-ray were artifacts, and that the Clark Panel just got it wrong, and that even your usual fallback expert, Lattimer, got it wrong. It's just comical. What about Custer's testimony that he saw bullet fragments in the neck x-rays he took at the autopsy? Let me guess: he was "mistaken."

By the way the HSCA FPP said the transverse process at T1 was "fractured," just to set the record straight.

Are you guys ever going to deal with the ARRB evidence that the doctors determined absolutely that the back wound had no exit point?

And are you ever going to deal with Dr. Mantik's finding that, based on the x-rays, there is no path from the back wound to the throat wound without smashing through the spine? Ignoring it won't make it go away.

Dr. Mantik's finding confirms what Dr. John Nichols deduced decades ago: Dr. John Nichols, who was a professor of forensic pathology at the University of the Kansas, had already reached the same conclusion, even though he was unable to study the autopsy x-rays. Dr. Nichols deduced from the trajectories involved and from his knowledge of human anatomy that no bullet could have gone from the back wound to the throat wound without smashing into one of the transverse processes of the spine--not just grazing it but smashing into it. Said Dr. Nichols,


No, this easy to explain. The bullet hole in the shirt is elongated with resulting multiple tears originating from the same hole. The bullet exited JBC's chest length wise.

-------------------

How did the bullet enter  Gov Connally's back if it does not first pass through JFK? That is the million dollar question. By your own admission there were only two shots from the 6th floor.  Dr Canning's trajectory analysis also places the shots from the 6th floor window. The eyewitnesses place the shots from the 6th floor. Three men on the fifth floor place below the SN place the shots on the 6th floor. There is only evidence of two bullets both matched to the rifle found on the 6th floor. A majority of the eyewitnesses state they only heard two shots. Jackie, Nelly, DPD Hargis, Bill Newman all state JFK and JBC were struck by the same shot. On and on and on it goes.

When you answer the question about Connally's wound you are left with SBT as the only alternative. You may not like the answer but it is the only one that explains it. All the wound analysis and various statements over time do not begin to change what is readily obvious.

Create all the conspiracy theories you want about who was shooting and why, but first start with the correct information.


Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory
« Reply #68 on: July 28, 2020, 04:04:52 PM »
Maybe you need to redo this reply and include all the relevant information. Also try and understand the relationship between Jackie's, Nelly's, and JBC's statement. JBC wasn't the only one there.

Your relevant information did not include the relevant information that I supplied.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2020, 04:05:18 PM by Bill Chapman »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory
« Reply #68 on: July 28, 2020, 04:04:52 PM »


Offline Joffrey van de Wiel

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 134
Re: Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory
« Reply #69 on: July 28, 2020, 05:30:54 PM »
Maybe you need to redo this reply and include all the relevant information. Also try and understand the relationship between Jackie's, Nelly's, and JBC's statement. JBC wasn't the only one there.

Chapman is a Warren Commission propagandist and therefore will never ever include "all the relevant information" as he knows it will destroy his case. All they have is lies, misrepresentations, omissions and distortions. The Report was demolished 50+ years ago and they are still peddling this bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns. It's pathetic.

Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 929
Re: Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory
« Reply #70 on: July 28, 2020, 07:00:57 PM »
No, this easy to explain. The bullet hole in the shirt is elongated with resulting multiple tears originating from the same hole. The bullet exited JBC's chest length wise.

Now just think about that. Think about it for a second. Take a breath, pretend that your mind is open to logic and fact, and think about it. If CE 399 was the bullet, how in the world would you end up with one vertical tear being over half an inch longer than the other vertical tear? If the bullet exited "length wise, how on earth would you end up with one vertical tear being half an inch longer than the other vertical tear? How? Think about it.

Obviously, to all except those who slavishly defend the impossible, such uneven tears--one over half an inch longer than the other--are typical of what you would see with a deformed bullet or a fragment with one edge longer than the other.


How did the bullet enter  Gov Connally's back if it does not first pass through JFK? That is the million dollar question.

This is hilarious. It is only "the million dollar question" if you have read nothing but pro-WC propaganda and/or if you refuse to allow for a rear shot from one of the nearby buildings, such as the Dal-Tex Building and the County Records Building.

By your own admission there were only two shots from the 6th floor.  Dr Canning's trajectory analysis also places the shots from the 6th floor window. The eyewitnesses place the shots from the 6th floor. Three men on the fifth floor place below the SN place the shots on the 6th floor. There is only evidence of two bullets both matched to the rifle found on the 6th floor. A majority of the eyewitnesses state they only heard two shots. Jackie, Nelly, DPD Hargis, Bill Newman all state JFK and JBC were struck by the same shot. On and on and on it goes.

When you answer the question about Connally's wound you are left with SBT as the only alternative. You may not like the answer but it is the only one that explains it. All the wound analysis and various statements over time do not begin to change what is readily obvious.

Create all the conspiracy theories you want about who was shooting and why, but first start with the correct information.

Every single argument you just put forward is either wrong, irrelevant, or misleading. I have already quoted John and Nellie Connally's statements, and they both swore up and down that Connally was not hit by the first shot. Connally never deviated from this position, and when asked by Life magazine to study high-quality blowups of the Zapruder film, he was adamant that he was not hit before Z234.

You keep ignoring basic facts:

* The rear holes in the coat and jacket place the back wound at least 5 inches below the top of the collar, and this location is confirmed by the autopsy face sheet, by the death certificate, by the FBI report on the autopsy, by Dr. Ebersole, and by Sibert and O'Neill's report on the autopsy.

Here we have hard physical evidence of the wound's location, and you guys respond by making up this nutty, desperate, laughable bunched-clothing theory when we all know that there is not one single photo or frame that shows JFK's coat bunched anywhere close to the degree and formation that could enable a bullet that struck 2-3 inches higher to produce holes that would be 5-plus inches below the top of the collar with the shirt and coat in normal position. It's pure poppycock.

* There were no bullet holes in the front of JFK's shirt, only two narrow slits made by the Parkland nurses.

* There was no bullet hole through JFK's tie, only a small nick made by the Parkland nurses, and the nick is not even on the edge of the knot.

* We know from ARRB-released records that the autopsy doctors positively, absolutely determined that the back wound had no exit point. They removed the chest organs and turned the body into several positions for each probe attempt, and they were able to see the end of the wound tract and that it did not enter the chest lining--they could see the probe pushing against the chest lining.

* Dr. Mantik has confirmed Dr. Nichols' analysis that there is no path from the back wound to the throat wound on the x-rays without smashing through the spine. It is just impossible. Sorry, but that's just how it is.




« Last Edit: July 28, 2020, 07:20:07 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory
« Reply #71 on: July 28, 2020, 07:05:27 PM »
Chapman is a Warren Commission propagandist and therefore will never ever include "all the relevant information" as he knows it will destroy his case. All they have is lies, misrepresentations, omissions and distortions. The Report was demolished 50+ years ago and they are still peddling this bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns. It's pathetic.

That which I posted regarding JBC is relevant information. That information was missing in Jack Nessan's post. Readers can easily scroll back and find the post in question and fill in for themselves that which has already been claimed.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2020, 07:57:56 PM by Bill Chapman »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory
« Reply #71 on: July 28, 2020, 07:05:27 PM »