Autopsy proves SBT impossible

[Andrew Mason]

Dr. SHAW - This was a small wound approximately a centimeter and a half in its greatest diameter. It was roughly elliptical. It was just medial to the axilliary fold or the crease of the armpit, but we could tell that this wound, the depth of the wound, had not penetrated the shoulder blade.


Given the alignment of JBC and JFK in the car and the use of jacketed military ammunition, how do you explain the location and trajectory of the elliptical wound in JBC's back if the bullet does not first pass through JFK?

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/e3/10/ba/e310ba335fae65b3df49948208ac1866--kennedy-assassination-the-kennedys.jpg

An elliptical wound is made by a non-yawing bullet striking at an angle to the target surface. A yawing or tumbling bullet makes either a bullet shaped entry mark or an asymmetrical ovoid (egg) shape. At z272 the car alignment and JFK's leftward movement allowed a shot from the SN to strike only JBC, just missing JFK's head. Hickey observed JFK's hair fly up at the moment of the second shot.

[Andrew Mason]

Most likely struck concrete to the right rear of the limo and was never recovered.

Now you tell me, if the SBT is incorrect....what happened to the bullet that hit JFK in the back....and if the throat wound wasn't an exit wound what caused that wound and what happened to that bullet ?

If you think the SBT is wrong - come up with something better.

According to the trajectory, it went to JBC's left side. It did not appear to strike the car. So it struck JBC on the left side.

Not only has the SBT not been proven wrong, the more you study the assassination, the more obvious it becomes that it's the only truly viable theory that explains what we see in Zapruder and the wounds to both men.

It is disproved by the evidence. There is a much simpler explanation that fits the evidence and, of course, that Oswald fired all three shots.

[Howard Gee]

According to the trajectory, it went to JBC's left side. It did not appear to strike the car. So it struck JBC on the left side.
It is disproved by the evidence. There is a much simpler explanation that fits the evidence and, of course, that Oswald fired all three shots.

You're correct about the 3 shots but the rest of your analysis is seriously flawed.

You have the first shot hitting JFK and going where ?  Hitting JBC on the left side ?

Makes no sense.

[Jack Nessan]

You already asked this. Was there something in the answer you did not agree with?

What answer? No answer is an an answer. The only explanation there is for JBC's wound is a bullet passing through JFK. Despite all the posturing and gnashing of teeth about how impossible it was for one bullet to cause all the wounds, in the end it is the only possible answer there is. It seems to be a lot easier to question the actions of the WC and DPD and the vaguery of what they should have done, than it is to actually explain the mechanics of the assassination.



HSCA Trajectory Analysis.
Mr. SAWYER. If we were to start at the other end then and assume that a bullet were fired at the approximate time we have determined from the sixth floor of the depository, would it have of necessity given the wounds in the President, would it of necessity, based on what you have determined as to locations somewhat, also have hit Governor Connally?
Mr. CANNING. The bullet would have had to have been substantially deflected by passing through the President in order to miss the Governor. It seems almost inevitable that the Governor would be hit with the alinements that we have found.
Mr. SAWYER. So that if we assume, as apparently is the fact, that this jacketed bullet did not hit anything solid in the way of bone in the President but only traversed the soft tissue of the neck, and presuming the approximate location of the limousine at the time and the posture as nearly as can be determined of the President at that time, that in your view then, absent a deflection of that bullet, it could not have missed Governor Connally.
Mr. CANNING. That is my view, yes.

[Andrew Mason]

You're correct about the 3 shots but the rest of your analysis is seriously flawed.

You have the first shot hitting JFK and going where ?  Hitting JBC on the left side ?

Makes no sense.

It went to the left of JBC's midline, according to the trajectory and the observed positions of the two men. JBC had one wound on the left side. What does not make sense?

[Andrew Mason]

Essential? It is simply what happened. Why would you want a false understanding of the assassination? If you are able to show that SBT is not true then do so.

Most witnesses did not notice JBC but there are a few witnesses, including Nelly and Jackie, who did and who state JBC was hit by the first shot . There was only one bullet and fragments of another bullet recovered, the fact there was only two shots simply aids and clarifies the understanding of the assassination.

Neither Nellie nor Jackie stated that JBC was hit by the first shot.

He did receive a small wound on the first shot but JBC did not feel and did not react to it.  He did not notice it until the next day.  What he reacted to was the sound of the first shot.  He immediately recognized it as a rifle shot and he feared an assassination was taking place and turned around to see JFK.  His "oh, no, no, no" drew Jackie's attention. Nellie said he uttered those words before the second shot.  You can see him saying "oh, no, no, no" in the z240s and you can see Jackie turning to look at him.

[Andrew Mason]

What answer? No answer is an an answer. The only explanation there is for JBC's wound is a bullet passing through JFK. Despite all the posturing and gnashing of teeth about how impossible it was for one bullet to cause all the wounds, in the end it is the only possible answer there is. It seems to be a lot easier to question the actions of the WC and DPD and the vaguery of what they should have done, than it is to actually explain the mechanics of the assassination.

Why is it not possible that the bullet through JFK struck JBC in the left thigh? No one ever considered that possibility. But the trajectory makes it quite plausible.

[Bernd Werner]

Pleass explain the red herring comment

Your quote contains nothing, that is related to the SBT.

I guess I'm a "blowhard" because I stated my opinion based on many years of research on this case. Mr. Nickerson is wedded to an impossible theory and I can understand why his ego would be upset when the real evidence contradicts the moronic SBT.

"When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

One question: Why is the Parkland evidence completely opposite the autopsy conclusions? Are you telling us that Clint Hill, and all the hospital staff were lying?

Why do you think, that "lying" is the only alternative to explain the contradictions?

Part 2 of destroying the SBT:

If the MB entered at C7 (according to the x-ray) then it must have exited at T1 if it had a 17 degree downward trajectory from the TSBD. JFK's throat exit wound was actually at C6. LNers, WTF?

Did you include the slope of the street in your argument?

Part 3 of destroying the SBT:

LNers all, show us how the MB was possible.



Point 2 lasers at one another at a 17 degree angle and get in between them to show us how the MB entered at C7 and exited at C6/C7.

Good luck!

Ok, question answered, you didn't!

I agree that the autopsy does not disprove the SBT. What disproves the SBT the trajectory, are the following:

1. the 20+ witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot (not by smiling and waving for 3 seconds but by assuming  a blank look, moving to the left, reaching for his neck/chest);

2. the 20+ witnesses who placed the first shot after z191 (eg. Betzner, Hughes, bystanders along Elm, occupants of the VP car who said that they had completed the turn - it is still turning at z191, similarly for VP security and Cabell cars, etc.);

3. the 40+ witnesses who distinctly recalled that the last two shots were closer together and in rapid succession;

4. the individual witnesses like Greer, Hickey and Altgens who put the second shot after z255; and

5. Tague, who said he was struck on the second shot. That is inconsistent with the second shot SBT.  Greer said he sensed a "concussion" on the second shot and turned around immediately, which supports a strike on the windshield frame on that second shot.

So you're building your case solely on witness accounts. That seems to be a little bit moot, doesn't it?

All three shots struck occupants in the car. There was no missed shot.

And where is the missing bullet?