Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory

[John Mytton]

What part of "rear quadrant" are you having trouble with?

Just how dense are you? Exactly what have I got to do with where Clint Hill indicates JFK's wound location to be and if Clint personally considers anything past a persons face or some other position to be the rear of someone's head then who are we to argue and how can that possibly overrule his actual physical demonstration?



JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

A few other fatal problems with the single-bullet theory (SBT):

* Dr. Charles Gregory, the surgeon who operated on Gov. Connally’s wrist, said the wrist wound appeared to have been made by an “irregular bullet,” a bullet with sharp edges:

Dr. GREGORY: The wound of entrance (on the wrist) is characteristic in my view of an irregular missile in this case, an irregular missile which has tipped itself off as being irregular by the nature of itself.
Mr. DULLES: What do you mean by irregular?
Dr. GREGORY: I mean one that has been distorted. It is in some way angular, it has sharp edges or something of this sort It is not rounded or pointed in the fashion of an ordinary missile. (4 H 124)

Obviously, this rules out CE 399.

* Dr. Robert Shaw, Connally’s chest surgeon, told the Warren Commission (WC) that the thigh wound appeared to have been made by a fragment, not by a whole bullet:

Dr. SHAW: I have always felt that the wounds of Governor Connally could be explained by the passage of one missile through his chest, striking his wrist and a fragment of it going on into his left thigh. (6 H 91)

This is by far the most logical, credible, and forensically likely explanation for the thigh wound, especially given that at least three sizable fragments were removed from Connally’s wrist, according to both Dr. Gregory and Nurse Audrey Bell.

* Nurse Bowron told WC that she and Nurse Henchliffe cut off JFK’s clothing:

Miss BOWRON. We tried to start an I.V. cutdown and I don't know whether it was his left or his right leg, and Miss Henchliffe and I cut off his clothing. . . . (6 H 136)

* When former Senate investigator Harold Weisberg interviewed Dr. Charles Carrico, who was the only doctor who saw the throat wound before the shirt and tie were removed, Carrico confirmed that the throat wound was above the collar; he was “definite on this” (Weisberg, Never Again, 2007 edition, p. 241). Weisberg continued:

When I asked him if he saw any bullet holes in the shirt or tie, he was definite in saying “No.” I asked if he recalled Dulles’s question and his own pointing to above his own shirt collar as the location of the bullet hole. He does remember this, and he does remember confirming that the hole was above the collar. . . . (Never Again, p. 242; the interview was done in 1975)

* Dr. Carrico also told Weisberg that the nurses used scalpels to remove the president’s shirt and tie because they were, understandably, in a great hurry, and that it was “likely” that the nurses made the slits and the nick in the tie, adding, “I saw neither the nick in the tie nor the cuts in the shirt before the nurses started cutting” (Weisberg Subject Index File, under “Dr. Carrico,” items 02 and 03, http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Carrico%20Charles%20J%20Dr/Item%2002.pdf; http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/N%20Disk/New%20York%20Times/Item%2093.pdf, p. 4; https://books.google.com/books?id=SC-wBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=henchliffe+bowron+cut+slits+jfk%27s+shirt+tie+nick&source=bl&ots=ef1P2ARFOz&sig=ACfU3U21sIV4eKHljvOHhXi5T684t1VgZA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiM-bKcnaDrAhVDrVkKHRT6AHcQ6AEwBXoECA0QAQ#v=onepage&q&f=true, pp. 95-96).

[Jerry Organ]

* Nurse Bowron told WC that she and Nurse Henchliffe cut off JFK’s clothing:

Miss BOWRON. We tried to start an I.V. cutdown and I don't know whether it was his left or his right leg, and Miss Henchliffe and I cut off his clothing. . . . (6 H 136)

We know that. But where did they say they used scalpels to cut the clothing?

* When former Senate investigator Harold Weisberg interviewed Dr. Charles Carrico, who was the only doctor who saw the throat wound before the shirt and tie were removed, Carrico confirmed that the throat wound was above the collar; he was “definite on this” (Weisberg, Never Again, 2007 edition, p. 241). Weisberg continued:[/size]

We're not sure what kind of questions Weisberg put to Carrico nor how biased was Weisberg's interpretation.

Other doctors (and the autopsy photo) say the throat wound was at the tie knot level.


Dr. Ronald C. Jones in 2003 points to level of neck wound. (from Vaughan)

* Dr. Carrico also told Weisberg that the nurses used scalpels to remove the president’s shirt and tie because they were, understandably, in a great hurry, and that it was “likely” that the nurses made the slits and the nick in the tie, adding, “I saw neither the nick in the tie nor the cuts in the shirt before the nurses started cutting” (Weisberg Subject Index File, under “Dr. Carrico,” items 02 and 03, http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Carrico%20Charles%20J%20Dr/Item%2002.pdf; http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/N%20Disk/New%20York%20Times/Item%2093.pdf, p. 4; https://books.google.com/books?id=SC-wBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=henchliffe+bowron+cut+slits+jfk%27s+shirt+tie+nick&source=bl&ots=ef1P2ARFOz&sig=ACfU3U21sIV4eKHljvOHhXi5T684t1VgZA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiM-bKcnaDrAhVDrVkKHRT6AHcQ6AEwBXoECA0QAQ#v=onepage&q&f=true, pp. 95-96).

Weisberg on Carrico:

    "Usual to cut off and unbutton collar and top shirt. Speed essential. Usual to cut tie..."

Tie only thing Carrico said was cut. The collar was unbuttoned. Carrico not seeing any slits could meant he simply didn't notice them.

    "You have to determine which things, which are immediately life threatening
    and cope with them, before attempting to evaluate the full extent of the injuries."

In fact, Carrico couldn't recall seeing the nurses cut the clothing. And I take this to mean he didn't see the throat wound until the shirt was opened:

    "We opened his shirt and coat and tie and observed a small wound
     in the anterior lower third of the neck"

[Michael T. Griffith]

Here is a very helpful graphic that shows that a bullet going from the HSCA-established back wound to the throat wound would have had to smash through the transverse process:



This also debunks Jerry Organ's fanciful theory that, like a laser-guided bullet, CE 399 could have gone through the small roundish opening between C7 and T1.

Dr. Carrico's interview with Weisberg makes it clear that Dr. Carrico told the WC that the throat wound was above the collar. Whatever "ambiguity" some WC apologists claim to see in Carrico's exchange with Dulles about the throat wound's location should be completely cleared up by Carrico's interview with Weisberg. Carrico even noted that he recalled his exchange with Dulles on the subject, and he repeated that the wound was above the collar. Significantly, Carrico added that he saw no slits in JFK's shirt and no nick in the tie before the nurses (Bowron and Henchliffe) began cutting away JFK's clothing.

It is really very simple:

* The bullet that struck the back was a misfire, which is why it only penetrated a short distance and stopped. Numerous witnesses from all over the plaza recalled that one of the early shots sounded like a firecracker--that is exactly how a misfire can sound.

* The throat wound was either made by a fragment of glass from the windshield bullet or it was made by the windshield bullet itself, and, as Dr. Perry initially said, the projectile ranged downward into the chest. That's why the wound was a small, neat wound--it was an entrance wound, just as Dr. Perry repeatedly said on 11/22/63.

* The tie nick and the slits in the front of JFK's shirt were made by the nurses as they hurriedly cut away the clothing. That's why no copper traces were found around the edges of the slits, unlike the holes in the back of the coat and shirt. That's why the tie nick does not line up with the slits. That's why there's no hole through the tie knot or any other part of the tie.

* Connally was hit by a separate bullet, which is plainly evident in the Zapruder film.

* The Connally bullet broke into fragments as it smashed several inches of rib bone, and some of those fragments exited close together and made the H-shaped tears in the front of Connally's shirt; one of those fragments shattered Connally's wrist, leaving at least three sizable fragments, according to Dr. Gregory and Nurse Bell; and the thigh wound was made by one of the fragments from the chest or from the wrist.

[Jerry Organ]

Michael T. Griffith:

• "It's like you guys are stuck in a time warp. You need to beam back to at least the early 2000s."
• "When are you going to beam yourself into at least the mid-2000s and start dealing with the
  scientific and research developments that began to occur in the case in the mid-1990s?"
• "Have you set your computer's calendar to 1992 or something?"
• "You are many years behind the information curve."

Graphics example offered by Griffith:




Recent sample graphics showing what LNers/Truth-Seekers are actually doing:

[Michael T. Griffith]

Michael T. Griffith:

• "It's like you guys are stuck in a time warp. You need to beam back to at least the early 2000s."
• "When are you going to beam yourself into at least the mid-2000s and start dealing with the
  scientific and research developments that began to occur in the case in the mid-1990s?"
• "Have you set your computer's calendar to 1992 or something?"
• "You are many years behind the information curve."

Graphics example offered by Griffith:



Recent sample graphics showing what LNers/Truth-Seekers are actually doing:

Humm, why didn't you mention that you and Mytton have recently cited the HSCA's contradictory SBT trajectory graphics? Did that slip your mind? Just look at your and Mytton's replies from the last few weeks and you'll see that you did this, in case you just can't recall doing so right now.

And should I mention that just a few weeks ago you were on this board defending Lattimer's bogus SBT diagram? Did that slip your mind too?

Are you guys ever going to address the fact that the ARRB's forensic pathologist, Dr. Robert Kirschner, rejected the SBT? Here is the ARRB interview summary of Dr. Kirschner's comments about CE 399 and the SBT:

Dr. Kirschner examined CE 399 at his own request He was very dubious about the possibility of the single bullet theory being true for two reasons:

(A) Lack of deformation of the nose of the bullet was incompatible, he felt, with a medium-high velocity rifle projectile inflicting the bone damage known to have been inflicted on Governor Connally.

(B) In order for the bullet to remain pristine and undeformed after performing the described bone damage to Connally, he opined that its velocity would have to have been slowed considerably prior to striking Governor Connally; this, however, would have ensured a massive cavity and very large wound track and an unmistakable large gaping exit wound in the anterior throat as well, which is not consistent with what was observed at Parkland, namely a small, neat nearly circular 3-6 mm wound Almost certainly a breached carotid artery and massive hemorrhaging would have accompanied this kind of exit wound. (ARRB meeting report, 4/11/96, pp. 3-4)

We know from Humes's notes on his phone call with Dr. Perry, that Perry told him that the throat wound was only 3-5 mm in diameter: "only a few mm in size, 3-5 mm" (ARRB, MD 5, 000088). I am still waiting for you guys to explain how a non-tumbling/non-yawing bullet could have made the irregular front shirt slits and how it could have nicked the tie at a point that was *not* on the edge of the knot, and yet how a tumbling/yawing bullet could have made the small, neat entry-like wound in the throat.

Part of the problem is that you need two different bullets for different parts of the SBT's alleged journey: for some parts you need a non-tumbling/non-yawing bullet, but for other parts you need a tumbling/yawing bullet.

I am also still waiting for you guys to explain how a bullet shaped like CE 399 could have made the H-shaped tears in the front of Connally's shirt. You can't explain this, because it is impossible, but you don't care.

[Jerry Organ]

Humm, why didn't you mention that you and Mytton have recently cited the HSCA's contradictory SBT trajectory graphics? Did that slip your mind? Just look at your and Mytton's replies from the last few weeks and you'll see that you did this, in case you just can't recall doing so right now.

And should I mention that just a few weeks ago you were on this board defending Lattimer's bogus SBT diagram? Did that slip your mind too?

You're always initiating discussion of things from past decades.



Yet those who respond are the ones grounded in the past. Never you.

Are you guys ever going to address the fact that the ARRB's forensic pathologist, Dr. Robert Kirschner, rejected the SBT? Here is the ARRB interview summary of Dr. Kirschner's comments about CE 399 and the SBT:[/size]

We know from Humes's notes on his phone call with Dr. Perry, that Perry told him that the throat wound was only 3-5 mm in diameter: "only a few mm in size, 3-5 mm" (ARRB, MD 5, 000088). I am still waiting for you guys to explain how a non-tumbling/non-yawing bullet could have made the irregular front shirt slits and how it could have nicked the tie at a point that was *not* on the edge of the knot, and yet how a tumbling/yawing bullet could have made the small, neat entry-like wound in the throat.

I guess Kirschner believes the collar had nothing to do with restricting the size of the throat wound. Must be one of those "above the collar" experts. Maybe he believes scalpels were used to cut off the clothing and that a nurse "confirmed" it to Henry Hurt.

Part of the problem is that you need two different bullets for different parts of the SBT's alleged journey: for some parts you need a non-tumbling/non-yawing bullet,

What "parts"? The SBT only has a non-tumbling bullet for the neck transit.

but for other parts you need a tumbling/yawing bullet.

Passing through soft tissue like the neck will probably cause the bullet to tumble. No "magic" or "Golden Plates" miracle. The Haags demonstrated tumbling in the NOVA documentary.

I am also still waiting for you guys to explain how a bullet shaped like CE 399 could have made the H-shaped tears in the front of Connally's shirt. You can't explain this, because it is impossible, but you don't care.[/size]

Not a valid vimeo URL

The vertical tears were more likely, IMO, caused by the forward punching out of the shirt fabric by the 6.5mm bullet. The jacket is a coarser material and wouldn't tear the same way. You seem to comically think the shirt tears must be caused by a H-shaped bullet or multiple fragments.

[Michael T. Griffith]

You're always initiating discussion of things from past decades. Yet those who respond are the ones grounded in the past. Never you.

You guys talk about the large head wound but never deal with the duplicated OD measurements of the autopsy skull x-rays, which prove that a sizable chunk of occipital bone is missing in the skull x-rays.

You guys talk about the 6.5 mm fragment but dismiss or ignore the duplicated OD measurements that prove that it is a ghosted object, which explains why there is no corresponding object on the lateral skull x-rays and why the autopsy doctors said nothing about the object.

You guys still claim that the autopsy x-rays and photos are all pristine and authentic but refuse to deal with the hard scientific evidence that they have been altered, e.g., the impossible white patch on the lateral skull x-rays, the non-metallic 6.5 mm object, the emulsion issues, the conflict between the skull x-rays and autopsy photos F3 and F5, the conflict between autopsy photos F3 and F5 vs. F8, the conflicts between the autopsy report and the skull x-rays (such as the magically disappearing low fragment trail in the skull x-rays), etc., etc.

You guys still refuse to accept the HSCA's acoustical analysis of the DPD dictabelt, even though it has been confirmed and even though its critics have been soundly refuted. Why? Because you can't accept that more than three shots were fired.

You guys still cling to the 1964 claim that only three shots were fired, which is why you must come up with pathetic excuses for rejecting the later credible accounts of extra bullets and bullet fragments being found in the limo and at the autopsy, even though one of them was confirmed by a doctor at the autopsy and by the petty officer who found the deformed extra bullet. Nah, they were "all" just "mistaken" or "lying." Right. . . .

You guys still peddle the SBT even after all the evidence from ARRB-released documents that the autopsy doctors positively, absolutely determined that the back wound had no exit point because they and others could see that the wound tract did not penetrate the chest cavity, because they could see this after pathologists removed the chest organs, angled the body, and probed again, because they could see the probe pushing against the lining of the chest cavity. But, "nah," you say, "somehow, someway, by a process we can't explain, they were all mistaken, and never you mind that we now know that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said the back wound had no exit point, which was why the second draft said the throat wound was caused by a fragment from the head shot!"

And on and on we could go.

I guess Kirschner believes the collar had nothing to do with restricting the size of the throat wound.

This old, ridiculous yarn?! This is exactly the kind of stuck-in-the-past nonsense that I'm talking about. Let's just skip over the fact that the back wound had no exit point and observe that unless JFK's tailor-made collar had a choke hold on his throat, it would not have constricted the skin even remotely enough to affect the size of an exit wound made by a bullet that would have transited the neck in a tiny fraction of a second. Even assuming the collar was uncomfortably, unusually tight, the bullet would have exited the throat before the collar had a chance to react in any meaningful way to the bullet’s split-second passage.

And of course you are dismissing Dr. Carrico's report that the throat wound was above the collar, even though his placement is supported by his 11/22/63 admission note, even though he told the WC that it was above the collar, and even though he told Weisberg the same thing. You must assume he was "mistaken" or that he was lying.

Must be one of those "above the collar" experts. Maybe he believes scalpels were used to cut off the clothing and that a nurse "confirmed" it to Henry Hurt.

So in other words, any witness who says anything that you can't accommodate is either mistaken or lying. So the nurse lied to Henry Hurt, or she just erred. Dr. Carrico erred or lied when he said the nurses used scalpels to cut the clothing because they were in a desperate hurry. Dr. Carrico erred or lied when he said he saw no slits on the shirt and no nick on the tie before the nurses began cutting away the clothing. Dr. Gregory and Nurse Bell both erred or lied when they said they removed at least three sizable fragments from Connally's wrist. You see, you can't admit any of these things without destroying your entire theory of the case.

Now, Dr. Kirschner knew every little about the JFK case when he worked for the ARRB. I seriously doubt that he had even heard of the controversy over whether the throat wound was above the collar or how the front shirt slits were made. Doug Horne had to bring Dr. Kirschner up to speed on the basics of the single-bullet theory before he examined CE 399.

What "parts"? The SBT only has a non-tumbling bullet for the neck transit.

LOL! How did it do the damage to T1 that even the HSCA FPP acknowledged without starting to yaw? How? I've asked this question several times, but still have received no answer.

And what about the other parts of the bullet's mythical journey? Frazier acknowledged that the slits were not what you would normally expect to occur with a bullet's exit and that they could have been made by a smaller projectile such as a bone fragment:

The hole in the front of the shirt does not have the round characteristic shape caused by a round bullet entering cloth. It is an irregular slit. It could have been caused by a round bullet, however, since the cloth could have torn in a long slit-like way as the bullet passed through it. But that is not specifically characteristic of a bullet hole to the extent that you could say it was to the exclusion of being a piece of bone or some other type of projectile.

As you know, because I pointed this out to you, the FBI lab experts did not say the slits could have been made by a whole bullet but said they could have been made by a fragment. But Frazier decided to go beyond the lab analysis.

When are you going to admit you were wrong about the shirt slits' length? You said they were both the same length, but even the HSCA said they were not.

And how about the nick on the tie knot? The nick is visibly inward from the left edge of the knot, so how could it have been nicked by an exiting bullet?

Furthermore, unless JFK's tie knot was severely off-center, an exiting bullet would have had to make a hole through the knot. Just look at the photo of the shirt slits; look where the slits would be located if the collar were buttoned; and you'll see that if a bullet exited those slits, it would have had to go through the tie knot. But the only defect on the tie knot is a tiny nick on the left side of the knot, and, again, the nick is not even on the edge of the knot. This fact alone destroys the SBT.

This cold, hard physical evidence has been around for decades, ever since Harold Weisberg obtained photos of the tie, but you guys still will not deal with it honestly and credibly.

And I notice that you have once again, for about the fifth time, ignored the fact that no metallic traces of any kind were found on the edges of JFK's shirt slits, not even when the HSCA subjected the slits to super-sensitive spectrographic and x-ray testing. The holes in the back of the coat and shirt had such traces, but, gee, surprise, surprise, the front shirt slits had none, not even a tiny speck.

Passing through soft tissue like the neck will probably cause the bullet to tumble. No "magic" or "Golden Plates" miracle. The Haags demonstrated tumbling in the NOVA documentary.

The Haags are quacks who don't even know many of the basics of the case. The original size of Connally’s back wound, before debridement, was only 1.5 cm—the same size as the entrance wound in Kennedy’s head. It was 3 cm after cleaning and enlarging—as Connally’s surgeon, Robert Shaw, M.D., testified (4 H 104, 107; 6 H 85-86, 88). In his operative report, Shaw simply described the wound’s size after surgery, but in his testimony he said the original size was only 1.5 cm. And the holes in the back of Connally’s shirt and jacket were also 1.5 cm, per the FBI (5 H 64). Shaw also noted that the bullet created a “small tunneling wound” (7 HSCA 149), and he noted “the neat way in which it stripped the rib out without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it” (4 H 116). So, obviously, at that point the bullet had not yet begun to tumble or yaw to any significant degree, if at all.

The vertical tears were more likely, IMO, caused by the forward punching out of the shirt fabric by the 6.5mm bullet. The jacket is a coarser material and wouldn't tear the same way. You seem to comically think the shirt tears must be caused by a H-shaped bullet or multiple fragments.

SMH. Umm, did you not notice that your ridiculous GIF shows a tear that looks nothing like the H-shaped tears in Connally's shirt? Did you somehow overlook this? And did you just not notice that your GIF has the bullet exiting at neither a horizontal nor vertical angle but at a diagonal angle in relation to the shirt?

You keep embarrassing yourself with these clownish GIFs and diagrams, such as the HSCA SBT trajectory diagram that had the bullet entering above the throat wound and entering at a downward angle, and that put the exit point well below the throat! I mean, do you think that people cannot see these things or something? I just don't get it.

You still have not explained how a bullet could create two uneven vertical tears that have a horizontal tear between so that they form an H. It is not enough to simply insist that "oh, yeah, this could have happened." Okay, HOW could it have happened? HOW? Show me a single case where an exiting bullet created tears shaped like that. Describe the geometry and the movement that would have been involved in creating those tears with a whole bullet exiting the way your GIF shows, or exiting any other way for that matter.

Look, let's be honest: We both know that you can't explain how a bullet shaped like CE 399 could have made those tears. You just can't, and you know it. You won't admit it, but we both know it.