Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory

[Bill Chapman]

You don't even know what that means.  Just like "gaslighting" and "BUMP".  You're a poser.

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

And you are indeed gaslighting simply by claiming that I don't what the term means.

Conclusion: You're a JAQer and a gaslighter.

[Jack Nessan]

Huh? Do you even understand the issue here? Now, I'll tell you what: Let's see you produce or find a diagram, just a basic one, that shows how a tumbling bullet--you pick the angle of the pitch and yaw--would produce two vertical tears that were parallel but markedly differed in length--differed by 35% (4.8 cm vs. 3.1 cm) and were joined in the middle by a third tear to form an H.

You don't seem to be taking into account the fact that the tears paralleled each other. We're not talking tears that ran different directions at different angles. We're talking about two parallel vertical tears, joined in the middle by a tear so that they and the joining tear form an H. Perhaps it would help to quote the Warren Commission's description of the tears:

Do tell me how a single bullet that looked anything like CE 399 could have produced such a tear? Use some common sense to visualize in your mind how the bullet/fragment would have had to be shaped to produce an H-shaped tear with uneven sides. This is basic geometry.

Right! Because he was just the guy who experienced the hit! Yeah, what would he know?! And when he spent almost an hour looking at high-quality blowups of frames Z190-240 for Life magazine, he, being the person who was actually hit and knowing his own facial expressions, etc.--he was in no position to determine when he was hit!

This is nitpicking nonsense. Connally never, ever wavered from his insistence that he was not hit by the first shot and that was hit as he was turning after hearing the first shot, and the Zapruder film confirms this clearly.

Gosh! Maybe because she was focused on her husband?! Lots of people only heard two shots, partly because two of the shots came in very rapid succession and partly because of where they were and/or what they were doing at the time.

Did it ever occur to you that in his first statement Connally had not yet seen the Zapruder film, and that in his subsequent statements he was including hindsight observations based on his having seen the film? The point is that Connally never veered from his insistence that he was not hit by the first shot.

Any trajectory analysis that assumes a bullet exited Kennedy's throat is invalid from the outset, as I document in the OP of this thread. Again, no bullet exited the tie knot or the front of the shirt. No bullet penetrated the chest and lung cavities--we know this now from released documents. There was no path from the back wound to the throat wound without smashing through the spine, which is undoubtedly part of the reason that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said the back wound had no exit point.

Now, you need to explain how on this planet any bullet that looked anything like CE 399 could have produced an H-shaped tear with uneven vertical sides. Let's hear and/or see it. This is silly because the laws of geometry and physics tells us that there is no way a virtually pristine bullet could have produced an H-shaped tear with uneven sides. But, please do give it a shot.

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

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

Michael Griffith: "Did it ever occur to you that in his first statement Connally had not yet seen the Zapruder film, and that in his subsequent statements he was including hindsight observations based on his having seen the film? The point is that Connally never veered from his insistence that he was not hit by the first shot."

This exactly the point. JBC did not remember what had happened. His memory of the assassination is he turned to his left and seen JFK slumped. He never waivered in his statement that he cried out after he was wounded and both Nelly and Jackie stated repeatedly this was after the first shot. Jackie stated her attention was diverted from JFK because she is watching JBC screaming. SA Kellerman sitting in front of Gov Connally placed the headshot as the second shot. Once again another witness verifying JBC and JFK were both struck by the first shot.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, to the best of your ability to recollect, exactly when did your automobile first accelerate?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Our car accelerated immediately on the time-at the time--this flurry of shots came into it.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you say the acceleration--
Mr. KELLERMAN. Between the second and third shot.
Senator COOPER. Might I ask a question there?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
Senator COOPER. A few minutes ago you said in response to a question that when you spoke to the driver the car leaped forward from an acceleration immediately. Did that acceleration occur before the second shot was fired?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir. Just about the time that it came in.
Senator COOPER. About the time it came in?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER. Not before?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No.

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

Why ignore the witnesses who are completely unimpaired and simply observed what happened in favor of JBC who was wounded and could not properly recall what happened until he views the Zapruder film?

Perhaps McCloy explains it best.


Mr. McCLOY - Warren Commission Member to the HSCA about SBT

Twice in my life, and I am sure a number of people in this room may have had a somewhat similar experience, I stood right alongside of a man as he was shot. The first man--it was in World War I in France--was killed. The second man recovered from his wound. The circumstances of the second experience were really quite amazing. I am convinced, after my experience, that on occasion, when you are shot, you don't know the minute you are hit. There is a sort of a perceptible period following the impact before you get the full realization that you have been hit. In the first case, it was a fellow officer in World War I. We were not far apart and he quietly said, "Jack, I think I am hit." He shortly collapsed subsequently and died of his wound. The other experience, which is almost unbelievable, was in Berlin when we were rehearsing for the reception of President Truman, who was going to visit us at the American headquarters in Berlin after the war. I had been, as you know, an official of the Government, Military Governor, and later High Commissioner for Germany, and Gen. Lucius Clay, my predecessor as Military Governor was with me, and we began to rehearse the ceremony because President Truman was coming along that afternoon to visit the headquarters. We were rehearsing, for example, who would step up and first shake hands with the President, when the bugles should sound off, et cetera--"You are going to do this and you that." There was a friend of mine who was on Clay's staff and who later became a very distinguished jurist in Massachusetts. He became Chief Judge of the Supreme Judicial Court. His name was Cutter, and we designated him to pose as the President. We said, "you are going to be President Truman, you are going to be the President and are to stand here." We started through the rehearsal. This was in front of the headquarters in Berlin and, by George, Cutter turned to me at a certain point, sort of hesitated and said, "Jack, I think I'm shot," and in a little while, he collapsed. You can imagine what a tizzy that created.


I know Governor Connally very well; I have shot quail with him and I know he's a good shot and I know he is familiar with firearms. Frankly, I don't think he knew exactly when he was hit. I saw his recent testimony--at least somebody reported to me, perhaps indirectly, that he wasn't as certain now as when he first appeared before us--before our Commission when he said he was sure it wasn't the same shot which hit President Kennedy which hit him. I don't know where that bullet could have gone if it didn't go through Governor Connally. Moreover, Governor Connally didn't know until the next day, I think it was, that he had been shot in the hand, as well as in the body. I am suggesting that the certainty which he felt earlier isn't entirely reliable. The Germans have a word for it. They call it the "nachschlag." I believe those who had been close to places where people have been shot are frequently aware of a perceptible delay on the part of the victim in registering an awareness of the shot.

The OP proved nothing, lots of opinions and no facts. The SBT alone explains the only manner in which JBC could have been wounded. Physical evidence and eyewitness testimony confirm JBC was struck by the same bullet that passed through JFK.

There has not been one fact presented disproving SBT. At every turn opinion is offered as fact based on some lone professional offering a new analysis in direct contradiction to numerous other professional people.  If anything your own analysis of the event helps prove the SBT is the only answer.

It seems every thing is being done to avoid the question. Explain JBC's wound if the bullet does not pass through JFK first. The trajectory of the bullet is from behind and from the 6th floor of the TSBD. You wrote a paper stating there was only two viable shells found in the SN. You no longer believe your own analysis?

[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.