Oswald took 10.2 seconds to fire all three shots.

[Charles Collins]

Let's see how you handle this Charles.
John said this - "...it seems to me that the ragged edges on Connally's shirt hole(measured from each extremity to be roughly 3/4 of an inch)..."


Do you agree that this shows a hole "roughly 3/4 of an inch?

What are you gonna do Charles?
How are you going to answer this question?

The hole in the shirt appears to me to be around 3/8”; which is significantly larger than 6.5mm (.255906”). It therefore conforms to what we would expect regarding a yawing 6.5mm bullet which is significantly longer than the 6.5mm diameter. That the hole in the shirt appears to be smaller than the ~3/4” wound in JBC’s back is to be expected expected due to the stretching and rebound as I described and John Mytton documented quite well. Ballistics are involved, however this is not rocket science.

[Tom Graves]

The hole in the shirt appears to me to be around 3/8”; which is significantly larger than 6.5mm (.255906”). It therefore conforms to what we would expect regarding a yawing 6.5mm bullet which is significantly longer than the 6.5mm diameter.

Yes, 3/8" is about 9.5 mm, so (if my math is correct) the hole in JBC's shirt was about 46% bigger in diameter than it would have been if the bullet had gone straight in, i.e., without tumbling.

[Royell Storing]

The hole in the shirt appears to me to be around 3/8”; which is significantly larger than 6.5mm (.255906”). It therefore conforms to what we would expect regarding a yawing 6.5mm bullet which is significantly longer than the 6.5mm diameter. That the hole in the shirt appears to be smaller than the ~3/4” wound in JBC’s back is to be expected expected due to the stretching and rebound as I described and John Mytton documented quite well. Ballistics are involved, however this is not rocket science.

   I have seen Shot Guns make holes in clothing much like the above. This is what GUESSING gets you. This is where you are at. Spin the wheel conclusions.

[Charles Collins]

   I have seen Shot Guns make holes in clothing much like the above. This is what GUESSING gets you. This is where you are at. Spin the wheel conclusions.

Yes, 000 buckshot is 0.36” in diameter and should make a similar hole, perhaps slightly smaller.

[Dan O'meara]

The hole in the shirt appears to me to be around 3/8”; which is significantly larger than 6.5mm (.255906”). It therefore conforms to what we would expect regarding a yawing 6.5mm bullet which is significantly longer than the 6.5mm diameter. That the hole in the shirt appears to be smaller than the ~3/4” wound in JBC’s back is to be expected expected due to the stretching and rebound as I described and John Mytton documented quite well. Ballistics are involved, however this is not rocket science.

"The hole in the shirt appears to me to be around 3/8”..."

Of course it is, the measurement is right there for everyone to see and you're right to throw John under the bus over this.
John's refusal to retract his insane observation that this hole is anywhere near 3/4 of an inch is an embarrassment for all Nutters as it reveals the extreme mentality you would all rather remained out of sight.
It's bad enough you all refuse to acknowledge that four of the six people involved in the chain of custody refused to identify CE 399 as the bullet they handled that day.
It's bad enough that Wright specifically denied that CE 399 was the bullet and that the bullet he handled was a pointed "hunting slug".
It's bad enough that you all refuse to acknowledge that not a single person verified CE 399 as the bullet found at Parkland before it was entered into evidence as the bullet found at Parkland.
It's bad enough that you all seem to think it quite normal and proper that none of the first four people to handle the bullet - Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen or Rowley - was asked to identify CE 399 as the bullet found at Parkland hospital by the Warren Commission, even though two of these people actually testified.
It's bad enough that you don't have a problem with Tomlinson, the man who initially discovered the bullet, not being asked a single question about the bullet itself during his tesimony!!
He wasn't asked to describe it and he wasn't shown CE 399 to identify it (he wasn't even shown a picture of it)

All of this is bad enough, but to have someone so desperate to show the bullet tumbled he is willing to deny what everyone can see right before their eyes...that is just unacceptable.

"It therefore conforms to what we would expect regarding a yawing 6.5mm bullet which is significantly longer than the 6.5mm diameter."

When you say "we" in the above sentence, you mean Nutters.
Of course you would look at it that way.
You literally have no choice.
A 6.5mm bullet passing through the centre of a 9.5mm square hole leaves a 1.5mm gap around it. Only Nutters can see this as evidence of yawing/tumbling.
The hole conforms to what sane people would expect reagrding a non-yawing bullet.
If the bullet yawed it would have left a hole closer to 30mm in the back of JBC's shirt.
It is clearly nothing like this.

"That the hole in the shirt appears to be smaller than the ~3/4” wound in JBC’s back..."

Unfortunately, those not too familiar with the testimonial evidence, like Tom, might think that this 3/4 of an inch wound in JBC's back that keeps getting mentioned, has some kind of validity to it. This observation came from Dr Gregory who had nothing to do with the wounds in JBC's torso, he dealt with JBC's wrist. There is every chance he is describing JBC's wound after it has been debrided, after damaged tissue had been removed from the wound.
Isn't it strange that Nutters don't seem inclined to quote Dr Robert Shaw, the man who actually dealt with JBC's torso wounds and who described a significantly smaller back wound. The reason they don't like to quote Shaw is because he thought a) the wound in JBC's back was so clean it was a direct hit, that the bullet hadn't passed through any object before hitting JBC and b) the idea of CE 399 causing the wounds to JBC was a crock:

Mr. SPECTER: What is your opinion as to whether bullet 399 could have inflicted all of the wounds on the Governor, then, without respect at this point to the wound of the President's neck?
Dr. SHAW: I feel that there would be some difficulty in explaining all of the wounds as being inflicted by bullet Exhibit 399 without causing more in the way of loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of the bullet.

[Tom Graves]

"The hole in the shirt appears to me to be around 3/8”..."

Of course it is, the measurement is right there for everyone to see and you're right to throw John under the bus over this.
John's refusal to retract his insane observation that this hole is anywhere near 3/4 of an inch is an embarrassment for all Nutters as it reveals the extreme mentality you would all rather remained out of sight.
It's bad enough you all refuse to acknowledge that four of the six people involved in the chain of custody refused to identify CE 399 as the bullet they handled that day.
It's bad enough that Wright specifically denied that CE 399 was the bullet and that the bullet he handled was a pointed "hunting slug".
It's bad enough that you all refuse to acknowledge that not a single person verified CE 399 as the bullet found at Parkland before it was entered into evidence as the bullet found at Parkland.
It's bad enough that you all seem to think it quite normal and proper that none of the first four people to handle the bullet - Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen or Rowley - was asked to identify CE 399 as the bullet found at Parkland hospital by the Warren Commission, even though two of these people actually testified.
It's bad enough that you don't have a problem with Tomlinson, the man who initially discovered the bullet, not being asked a single question about the bullet itself during his tesimony!!
He wasn't asked to describe it and he wasn't shown CE 399 to identify it (he wasn't even shown a picture of it)

All of this is bad enough, but to have someone so desperate to show the bullet tumbled he is willing to deny what everyone can see right before their eyes...that is just unacceptable.

"It therefore conforms to what we would expect regarding a yawing 6.5mm bullet which is significantly longer than the 6.5mm diameter."

When you say "we" in the above sentence, you mean Nutters.
Of course you would look at it that way.
You literally have no choice.
A 6.5mm bullet passing through the centre of a 9.5mm square hole leaves a 1.5mm gap around it. Only Nutters can see this as evidence of yawing/tumbling.
The hole conforms to what sane people would expect reagrding a non-yawing bullet.
If the bullet yawed it would have left a hole closer to 30mm in the back of JBC's shirt.
It is clearly nothing like this.

"That the hole in the shirt appears to be smaller than the ~3/4” wound in JBC’s back..."

Unfortunately, those not too familiar with the testimonial evidence, like Tom, might think that this 3/4 of an inch wound in JBC's back that keeps getting mentioned, has some kind of validity to it. This observation came from Dr Gregory who had nothing to do with the wounds in JBC's torso, he dealt with JBC's wrist. There is every chance he is describing JBC's wound after it has been debrided, after damaged tissue had been removed from the wound.
Isn't it strange that Nutters don't seem inclined to quote Dr Robert Shaw, the man who actually dealt with JBC's torso wounds and who described a significantly smaller back wound. The reason they don't like to quote Shaw is because he thought a) the wound in JBC's back was so clean it was a direct hit, that the bullet hadn't passed through any object before hitting JBC and b) the idea of CE 399 causing the wounds to JBC was a crock:

Mr. SPECTER: What is your opinion as to whether bullet 399 could have inflicted all of the wounds on the Governor, then, without respect at this point to the wound of the President's neck?
Dr. SHAW: I feel that there would be some difficulty in explaining all of the wounds as being inflicted by bullet Exhibit 399 without causing more in the way of loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of the bullet.

How many bad guys and bad gals do you figure were involved altogether in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up, O'meara?

Oodles and Gobs?

[Dan O'meara]

How many bad guys and bad gals do you figure were involved altogether in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up, O'meara?

Oodles and Gobs?

I'm working on a 'minimum' conspiracy involving 5 people and a patsy.

I don't think there was a cover-up as such. The staggeringly incompetent DPD were absolutely convinced they had their man as soon as Oswald was arrested in the TT and they were going to do whatever it took to show exactly that.
Less than 48 hours after the assassination Hoover had voiced his decision that the outcome of any investigation would show that Oswald was the lone assassin. The outcome of the investigation had been decided before the investigation had really got going. Probably because, like the DPD, he was so convinced that Oswald, the cop-killing Commie, was their man.
I would imagine the FBI had to hide the fact they were fully aware Oswald was on the motorcade route as it didn't look too good.
Both the DPD and the FBI 'broke the rules' in their eagerness to nail Oswald as the lone assassin but not because they were covering up for the real conspirators (IMO).

[Tom Graves]

A "minimum" conspiracy involving five people and a patsy.

Why did the conspirators chose Oswald to be their patsy?

Because he was a self-described Marxist who had defected to the USSR and had recently been to the Soviet and Cuban consulates in Mexico City?

If so, when did they start patsy-ing him?