The Truly Magical Bullet

[Jim Brunsman]

Again, Mr. Troll trots out the most idiotic of all possible  theories, the thoroughly discredited SBT.  The troll wants answers, but he is a member of the SBT cult, so this is likely to result in twisting of the truth. What happened to the front and back shots that didn't exit the body? The same thing that happened to the wound at the top of the head: Humes is the one changing the evidence at the "pre-autopsy autopsy." There are three witnesses at that sinister autopsy who report Humes was using a saw on the president's head PRIOR to the formal autopsy that began at 8:00. My opinion, based upon MANY YEARS of studying the issue, is that Humes was under orders to remove all the lead he could find and lie about it. Remember Dennis David's testimony of being ordered to write a receipt for bullet fragments by a Secret Service officer. Douglas Horne's voluminous research on the subject provides all you need to know...I'LL BET ANYTHING MR. TROLL HASN'T READ ANY OF THAT...

To be fair, since I believe the president's body was illegally and grossly tampered with at Bethesda, the trolls can be forgiven for believing the government's propaganda that a "lone nut" committed this horrendous act. But that's only true up to a point. When the evidence is clearly explained to them, and they still spout the same tired bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns, then I will challenge you. Mr. Gee Troll is so obnoxious and lacking in any facts, that he deserves a retaliatory response.

The other problem the trolls have is totally ignoring the Parkland Hospital doctors and nurses. All of these witnesses testified the frontal shot was an entry. They also unanimously reported the head wound was in the lower right of the BACK OF THE HEAD. These are not administrators like Humes and Boswell. These doctors and nurses treated gunshot wounds often. Are you going to be like Specter and try to twist their testimony? The other reason I trust their eyewitness testimony is that no ridiculous SBT had been created at that point, so there was no predetermined conclusion to adhere to. The Parkland personnel didn't turn the president over so they didn't see the back wound (or its corresponding exit wound on the front of the body).


P.S. I think it's incredibly spombleprofglidnoctobunsty to take personal shots at John for standing up to your bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns. He is looking for the truth. Are you?

[Jerry Freeman]

Proponents of the SBT don't have to explain any missing bullets.

They don't have to explain what happened to 'both shots', because they believe one shot caused the non-fatal wounds to JFK and JBC, and that 399 is the bullet that did the wounding.
 
The explanation for what happened to the bullet that entered JFK's back/neck region is simple, it exited his throat and went on to hit JBC.

   
Spoken like a faithful parrot.

Oswald did it.... Awwwwrrk Oswald

[Richard Rubio]

Psssssst Jimbo, I'm going to let you in on a little secret buddy, so listen closely.

Proponents of the SBT don't have to explain any missing bullets.

They don't have to explain what happened to 'both shots', because they believe one shot caused the non-fatal wounds to JFK and JBC, and that 399 is the bullet that did the wounding.

The explanation for what happened to the bullet that entered JFK's back/neck region is simple, it exited his throat and went on to hit JBC.

By the way Jimbo, I've been taking it easy on you kooks. If as you say the back shot never exited, that means there are two vanishing bullets for you to account for.

Even if you could account for the bullet that entered JFK's back and never exited, that still wouldn't get you off the hook for explaining what happened to the bullet that entered JFK's throat, now would it, Einstein ?

There's nothing baffling about the SBT.

What is baffling, is that if the SBT is wrong, what happened to the bullet that supposedly entered JFK's throat. ?

I'd say it's baffling how the drooling kooks can go on insisting there was a frontal entry neck wound, when they can't explain what happened to the bullet. Actually, that's not really baffling it all. That's what drooling kooks do. Amusing, yes. Baffling, no.

So Jimbo, now that that's been explained to you, feel free to explain what happened to the bullet that entered JFK's throat.

Challenge still stands, droolers.

Agreed!

[Matt Grantham]

 Pardon me if I can't avoid a little sarcasm, or whatever you chose to call it, but at times it is a bit entertaining to watch the results of the cognitive calamity that occurs with some of these nutters Their blinded angry sheep dogma that they own the rights to a CE 399 to a singular interpretation, in exclusion to all others, is such a classic example Even though the condition of bullet for all intents and purposes fits the condition of a bullet that would have fallen out of JFS back wound such chicanery cannot not even be considered since they already own the copyright of that bullet

[Tim Nickerson]

Pardon me if I can't avoid a little sarcasm, or whatever you chose to call it, but at times it is a bit entertaining to watch the results of the cognitive calamity that occurs with some of these nutters Their blinded angry sheep dogma that they own the rights to a CE 399 to a singular interpretation, in exclusion to all others, is such a classic example Even though the condition of bullet for all intents and purposes fits the condition of a bullet that would have fallen out of JFS back wound such chicanery cannot not even be considered since they already own the copyright of that bullet

Matt, you've got it backwards. My interpretation of CE-399 has given me no discomfort whatsoever. It's those who are confronted with it that are afflicted with cognitive calamity. Just go ahead and try coming up with a plausible alternative yourself. "A bullet falling out of JFK's back" simply will not stand up to any amount of scrutiny.

[Richard Rubio]

Pardon me if I can't avoid a little sarcasm, or whatever you chose to call it, but at times it is a bit entertaining to watch the results of the cognitive calamity that occurs with some of these nutters Their blinded angry sheep dogma that they own the rights to a CE 399 to a singular interpretation, in exclusion to all others, is such a classic example Even though the condition of bullet for all intents and purposes fits the condition of a bullet that would have fallen out of JFS back wound such chicanery cannot not even be considered since they already own the copyright of that bullet

Sure, you're pardoned, I see the first post on the previous page putting down lone gunman theories, I see a picture of a parrot but you think it is the "nutters" who are blinded angry sheep. Interesting.

[Jack Trojan]

Psssssst Jimbo, I'm going to let you in on a little secret buddy, so listen closely.

Proponents of the SBT don't have to explain any missing bullets.

They don't have to explain what happened to 'both shots', because they believe one shot caused the non-fatal wounds to JFK and JBC, and that 399 is the bullet that did the wounding.

The explanation for what happened to the bullet that entered JFK's back/neck region is simple, it exited his throat and went on to hit JBC.

By the way Jimbo, I've been taking it easy on you kooks. If as you say the back shot never exited, that means there are two vanishing bullets for you to account for.

Even if you could account for the bullet that entered JFK's back and never exited, that still wouldn't get you off the hook for explaining what happened to the bullet that entered JFK's throat, now would it, Einstein ?

There's nothing baffling about the SBT.

What is baffling, is that if the SBT is wrong, what happened to the bullet that supposedly entered JFK's throat. ?

I'd say it's baffling how the drooling kooks can go on insisting there was a frontal entry neck wound, when they can't explain what happened to the bullet. Actually, that's not really baffling it all. That's what drooling kooks do. Amusing, yes. Baffling, no.

So Jimbo, now that that's been explained to you, feel free to explain what happened to the bullet that entered JFK's throat.

Challenge still stands, droolers.

First off, how old are you? What's comical is that you seem to think that if the droolers can't explain where the MB went then you win and that somehow proves the SBT. Like all the LNers, you wouldn't know a logical fallacy if it bit you on the arse. You're in desperate need of some critical thinking skills.

What else is comical is that you assume the conspirators are telling the truth re where all the bullets went and what was found in the limo. The same limo that the SS and FBI scrubbed of evidence then restored for re-service. Then you resort to ridiculing everyone that doesn't believe the WC narrative like the shill and/or sucker that you are.

So tell us droolers why the MB couldn't have entered the throat and exited the back? And before you can ask where the MB went, pls explain how CE-399 showed up the way it did, clean and pristine and on the wrong gurney. How was that possible? Then show us how the MB trajectory was possible from the 6th floor of the TSBD. And don't cite some fictitious study that doesn't even address the issue.

Face it, unless you have tricks up your sleeve (besides infantile insults) you need to answer my questions before I will answer yours. And keep in mind that you can't cite the bible to prove that it's true, just like you can't use the autopsy photos,  x-rays and testimony from the conspirators to prove the SBT is true.

And lastly, us droolers only need 1 contradiction to the LNer narrative to believe there was a conspiracy, while you need to dismiss every single piece of evidence that suggests Saint Oz was not a lone nut. You do realize that both can be true, right? Instead you take the fringe position that most of the world rejects and call us kooks. Go figure.

[Tim Nickerson]

CE-399 showed up the way it did, clean and pristine and on the wrong gurney.

None of that is true.