Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory

[Scotty Jakes]

But, before we look at those facts, we first need to remember that the Warren Commission (WC) only cooked up the SBT in desperation after it could no longer ignore the wounding of James Tague. The FBI had already concluded that JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets, that two bullets hit Kennedy and that one hit Connally. When the WC finally had to acknowledge the Tague wounding, it was forced to cook up the SBT because it could not admit that more than three shots were fired without admitting that there was more than one gunman.

This right here is excellent proof that the heads of WC members were not exposed to sunlight as they formulated their solution to the criminal mystery they were supposed to solve.  My question is, where their heads in their own bungers or did they have their heads in the bungers of the disgraceful member sitting next to them.

[John Iacoletti]

JAQer. You attempt to garner plausible deniability by framing baiting statements as questions, resulting in your 'where-did-I-claim-that' schtick.

No, they are legitimate questions that expose the "it's true because I say so" nature of the LN propaganda.

[Tim Nickerson]

This right here is excellent proof that the heads of WC members were not exposed to sunlight as they formulated their solution to the criminal mystery they were supposed to solve.  My question is, where their heads in their own bungers or did they have their heads in the bungers of the disgraceful member sitting next to them.

Griffith's claim is false and he knows it. The WC realized the single bullet fact well before Tague came forward in June.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Oh my. What drama! Time to look into this scholarly "clear contrary evidence" Griffith has been shoveling for decades.



Looks like a bullet traveling downward could have entered a man's lower neck at the back two-inches over from the mid-line, pass between the vertebra processes without a "smashing") and emerge at the lower mid-line of the throat. As that fellow from the South used to say: "Sur-prise, sur-prise, sur-prise!"

Lots of nice-looking graphics are worthless if they're based on bogus input data. Let us first list the facts we must ignore to even consider your model:

* There are no bullet holes in the front of JFK's shirt (only narrow slits made by nurses, and the slits have no fabric missing).

* There is no bullet hole through JFK's tie knot.

* The rear clothing holes--along with the autopsy face sheet, the death certificate, the Sibert & O'Neill report on the autopsy, the FBI report on the autopsy, the wound diagrams drawn by witnesses for the HSCA, J. Lee Rankin's observation in the 1/27/64 executive WC session, and Dr. Ebersole--put the back wound well below C7.

Now, leaving aside all of these facts, your model has the bullet magically going through the small notch at C7 as if it were laser guided and without so much as grazing the bone.

And then there is fact that we now know that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors absolutely, positively determined that the back wound had no exit point, and that the first two drafts of the autopsy report reported this fact, and that the back-wound-to-throat-wound myth was only created many hours after the autopsy, after it was decided that the throat-wound-caused-by-headshot-fragment story was unacceptable.

It's just incredible that we have to just keep going around and around in these ludicrous circles because you guys won't deal with all the evidence that has come forth since the 1990s.

And, I see that no one has ventured to offer an explanation for how CE 399 could have created the H-shaped tears in the front of Connally's shirt. The only response on this problem has been Jack Nessan's hilarious statement:

The bullet exited JBC's chest sideways. The shape of the tear is meaningless, the bullet was tumbling. Anything is possible.

Uh, no, the shape of the tear is important forensic evidence, as any forensic textbook will tell you, and "anything" is not possible when you're talking about an object whose measurements and condition are known. Again, if CE 399 exited the chest sideways and was tumbling, how could this object have created an H-shaped tear with two parallel but uneven vertical tears joined by a horizontal tear? This is basic geometry. Let me help you visualize the problem, and I have not even made the vertical tears uneven:



Obviously, obviously, the tears in the front of Connally's shirt were made by multiple fragments or by a very oddly deformed bullet or fragment. This is basic geometry and common sense, for crying out loud. But you have a tiny minority of Americans who simply cannot allow themselves to admit this.

[Jack Nessan]

Lots of nice-looking graphics are worthless if they're based on bogus input data. Let us first list the facts we must ignore to even consider your model:

* There are no bullet holes in the front of JFK's shirt (only narrow slits made by nurses, and the slits have no fabric missing).

* There is no bullet hole through JFK's tie knot.

* The rear clothing holes--along with the autopsy face sheet, the death certificate, the Sibert & O'Neill report on the autopsy, the FBI report on the autopsy, the wound diagrams drawn by witnesses for the HSCA, J. Lee Rankin's observation in the 1/27/64 executive WC session, and Dr. Ebersole--put the back wound well below C7.

Now, leaving aside all of these facts, your model has the bullet magically going through the small notch at C7 as if it were laser guided and without so much as grazing the bone.

And then there is fact that we now know that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors absolutely, positively determined that the back wound had no exit point, and that the first two drafts of the autopsy report reported this fact, and that the back-wound-to-throat-wound myth was only created many hours after the autopsy, after it was decided that the throat-wound-caused-by-headshot-fragment story was unacceptable.

It's just incredible that we have to just keep going around and around in these ludicrous circles because you guys won't deal with all the evidence that has come forth since the 1990s.

And, I see that no one has ventured to offer an explanation for how CE 399 could have created the H-shaped tears in the front of Connally's shirt. The only response on this problem has been Jack Nessan's hilarious statement:

Uh, no, the shape of the tear is important forensic evidence, as any forensic textbook will tell you, and "anything" is not possible when you're talking about an object whose measurements and condition are known. Again, if CE 399 exited the chest sideways and was tumbling, how could this object have created an H-shaped tear with two parallel but uneven vertical tears joined by a horizontal tear? This is basic geometry. Let me help you visualize the problem, and I have not even made the vertical tears uneven:



Obviously, obviously, the tears in the front of Connally's shirt were made by multiple fragments or by a very oddly deformed bullet or fragment. This is basic geometry and common sense, for crying out loud. But you have a tiny minority of Americans who simply cannot allow themselves to admit this.

Interesting, the entrance wound  in JBC's back is completely ignored, instead you are concerned about the exit wound and of all things the shirt tears that means nothing. You still cannot explain a different trajectory than the trajectory presented by the WC and the HSCA that caused all of the wounds.  You still cannot dispute the fact the bullet must pass through JFK to strike JBC in the back so instead you want to focus on the shirt and a couple of tears that resulted from the bullet exiting JBC's chest.

Baden was correct. The assassination because of the alignment of JBC and JFK can only be understood in the context that the bullet first passing through JFK then struck JBC in the back. If all these people you are quoting cannot explain JBC's back wound why bother reading their analysis, maybe focus on the the real evidence and witness statements. A lot more informative than these conspiracy motivated experts. Dr Mantik actually hypothesized the bullet bounced off DPD Chaney's helmet and struck JFK. Really, this is someone to take seriously? I can only assume the rest of these people tell a similar story.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Interesting, the entrance wound  in JBC's back is completely ignored, instead you are concerned about the exit wound

Evasion. I'd be more than happy to discuss the entrance wound in Connally's back, and I suspect you are blissfully unaware of the problems it poses for the SBT, but JBC’s back wound is not the issue at hand.

and of all things the shirt tears that means nothing.

In other words, you know there is no way you can explain how an object shaped like CE 399 could have made those tears. So you are reduced to making the bizarre, ignorant claim that the shape and nature of bullet holes in clothing "means nothing."

Even the WC knew better. The commission asked their expert witnesses about all the clothing holes and about what those holes indicated about the objects that made them (e.g., FBI expert Robert Frazier's testimony about the JFK and JBC clothing holes).

The tears in the front of Connally's shirt form an H because they were not made by CE 399. A teenager with grade-school geometry skills could figure that out. The laws of geometry and physics require that the defect that an object leaves in clothing will be determined by the shape of the object and by its yaw, pitch, and roll angles when it transits the clothing. Those angles cannot make an object shaped like CE 399 magically produce tears that form an H. Not on this planet.

To anyone who is not emotionally committed to seeing the emperor's new clothes, the only logical conclusion is that the tears were made by multiple fragments or by a very oddly shaped large fragment or bullet. There is no other plausible explanation. Not on this planet.

You still cannot explain a different trajectory than the trajectory presented by the WC and the HSCA that caused all of the wounds.  You still cannot dispute the fact the bullet must pass through JFK to strike JBC in the back. . . .

I've already addressed this issue, and this issue has been thoroughly examined in many critiques of the SBT. A gunman in the Dal-Tex Building or the County Records Building could have missed JFK, either narrowly or substantially, and struck Connally instead.

Are you aware that in 1975 a rusted shell casing was found on the roof of the County Records Building? The casing was found under a lip of roofing tar at the base of the roof's parapet on the side facing the plaza. Humm, what a coincidence, hey?

Baden was correct. The assassination because of the alignment of JBC and JFK can only be understood in the context that the bullet first passing through JFK then struck JBC in the back.

Baden is a quack celebrity pathologist who twisted the evidence to fit the lone-gunman theory. Do you have any idea how many times Baden has been destroyed under cross-examination in courtrooms? Do you know that Baden has been dismissed as medical examiner twice, once by NYC and once by Suffolk County, NY? In speaking of why Baden was fired as NYC's medical examiner, Sarah Weinman writes,

Too many unforced errors added up, including picked-apart trial testimony in the “Dr. X” case, leading to the acquittal of Mario Jascalevich in a spate of poison-murders at Riverdell Hospital; a Housing Authority patrolman whose January 1979 murder went undetected for 12 hours, his body removed from the scene before a proper death investigation; conflicting conclusions relating to the chokehold death of a Brooklyn businessman at the hands of police; and off-the-cuff comments about the possibly sexual-intercourse-interrupting death of Governor Nelson Rockefeller.

Ultimately, memos from district attorney Robert Morgenthau and city health commissioner Reinaldo Ferrer, documenting their criticism of Baden for “sloppy record keeping, poor judgment, and a lack of cooperation,” were the final straw. (Morgenthau later stated that Baden was “cavalier and uncooperative” with respect to evidence lost by the OCME.) Koch demoted Baden in August 1979, replacing him with Elliot Gross. (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/why-to-be-skeptical-of-michael-baden-on-epsteins-death.html)

Many more pages could be devoted to discussing Baden's long history of dubious "expert conclusions" and of getting shredded under cross-examination.

When Baden chaired the HSCA FPP, on several occasions he overruled his own expert consultants and/or other members of the panel. It was Baden who insisted that the FPP accept the Clark Panel's now-discredited claim that the rear head entry wound was in the cowlick.

If all these people you are quoting cannot explain JBC's back wound why bother reading their analysis, maybe focus on the real evidence and witness statements.

What on earth are you talking about? What is your basis for saying they "cannot explain JBC's back wound"? You don't even know what you're talking about. You just keep repeating the same debunked myths over and over, and you refuse to deal with serious, substantive issues, such as how an object shaped like CE 399 could have made tears that formed an H, or the ARRB-released evidence that the autopsy doctors categorically and absolutely determined that the back wound had no exit point at that autopsy (which is why the first two drafts of the autopsy report said the back wound had no exit point), and that there are no bullet holes in the front of JFK's shirt nor in his tie. 

A lot more informative than these conspiracy motivated experts. Dr Mantik actually hypothesized the bullet bounced off DPD Chaney's helmet and struck JFK. Really, this is someone to take seriously? I can only assume the rest of these people tell a similar story.

Where does Dr. Mantik say that a bullet bounced off Chaney's helmet? I have read everything Dr. Mantik has ever written, and I have never come across that claim. Pat Speer has made that claim, and when Dr. Mantik replied to Speer, he mentioned Speer's claim but did not endorse it (https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-autopsy-x-rays-david-mantik-vs-pat-speer).

By the way, Audrey Bell, the Parkland nurse who assisted with the surgery on Gov. Connally, told the ARRB that she was certain that they removed at least 3 bullet fragments from Connally (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=715#relPageId=2&tab=page). Those fragments could not have come from CE 399.

[Tim Nickerson]

By the way, Audrey Bell, the Parkland nurse who assisted with the surgery on Gov. Connally, told the ARRB that she was certain that they removed at least 3 bullet fragments from Connally (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=715#relPageId=2&tab=page). Those fragments could not have come from CE 399.

Why couldn't those fragments have come from CE 399?

[Bill Chapman]

And then there's Connally's suit. Odd that it was laundered before being admitted into evidence by the WC.

Nelly said she washed it. Dumb move.