The Truly Magical Bullet

[John Mytton]

Not necessarily.  An ovoid wound could merely mean that it entered at an angle.

No, you're not making sense.
Since the entrance and exit points on Connally are on record, we know the path through Connally was down and to the right which by definition indicates someone high and behind and we can also confirm that Connally's wound was more than twice as long than it was wide which demonstrates a totally non compliant entrance angle therefore Connally must have been hit by a tumbling bullet.


JohnM

[John Mytton]

You see what you want to see.

Yawn, I see what complies with all the evidence.








JohnM

[Andrew Mason]

Dr Gregory was actually there and said the wound was a linear wound and by his size description the bullet entry had to have hit at a more obtuse angle or a tumbling bullet and since we know the bullets path through Connally this effectively rules out an obtuse angle.

Dr. Shaw was there also and he was the thoracic surgeon who actually did the work on Connally's chest wounds. Gregory treated the wrist wound. Dr. Shaw described it as elliptical about 1.5 centimetre long and a smaller width. He was not a ballistics expert, but he had treated bullet wounds during WWII. He definitely said that it did not have the characteristics of a puncture wound striking at a right angle and he thought it could have been made by either a bullet that was tumbling or a non-tumbling bullet striking at a tangent. He said this (6H95):

"Now, you have to also take into consideration, however, whether the bullet enters at a right angle or at a tangent. If it enters at a tangent there will be some length to the wound of entrance."

And as the WC investigated, a full on bullet smashes, Connally's linear wrist wound was only a fracture therefore caused by a slower moving bullet.

Yes. But it had to be moving slower because it had passed through JBC's chest.

Dr Gregory again describes a chaotically moving bullet.

Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Gregory, what was then the relative size of the wounds on the back and front side of the wrist itself?
Dr. GREGORY - As I recall them, the wound dimensions would be so far as the wound on the back of the wrist is concerned about a haft a centimeter by two and a half centimeters in length. It was rather linear in nature. The upper end of it having apparently lost some tissue was gapping more than the lower portion of it.

He is describing the wound on the back of the wrist. This bullet had just exited the chest.  What does that have to do with the state of the bullet entering the back?

[Howard Gee]

The SBT is wrong because it conflicts with large bodies of consistent and well corroborated evidence. But that does not mean that someone other than, or in addition to, Oswald fired shots.

The shot timing that follows from the evidence is 1...........2......3. The sequence of shots is: shot#1 hits JFK in upper back and exits his throat under his neck tie knot; shot#2 just misses JFK's head on the right side and strikesJBC in the right armpit exiting through his jacket pocket and strikes the back of his foream shattering the radius and fragmenting into several pieces that deflect away from the point of contact; shot#3 strikes JFK in the head.  There is abundant consistent evidence that supports this and that conflcts with any other explanation. Moreover, the zfilm and the evidence enables us to pinpoint shot#2 and #3 and bracket shot#1 to within a couple of frames.

Andrew, while I disagree with your negative assessment of the viability of the SBT as well as your version of the shot sequencing and wounding, I think what you have proposed is at least a reasonable accounting of the mechanics of the assassination.

Of course, due to the proximity of the wounding of JFK and JBC your version of what happened would almost certainly require two assassins behind the limo (for which there is no evidence), but at least it's possible.

In any event, at least you have approached the assassination sequence logically.

Since you do NOT believe that there was a frontal throat entry wound, there is no need to lump you in with the drooling kooks that continue to insist JFK's throat wound was one of entry even though they can't answer the fundamental question of what happened to the bullet that entered his throat.

Challenge still on for the drooling kooks.

What happened to the bullet that you insist entered JFK's throat ?

[Howard Gee]

Wrong again.  I didn't claim that a bullet entered JFK's throat.  I'm merely pointing out your raging hypocrisy and special pleading.  Your bullet "didn't disappear" it simply "wasn't recovered".

Without being able to explain where the bullet that missed went, the missed bullet theory has no viability.  Note:  saying "that's different" is not an explanation.

Your "challenge" is as empty as your rhetoric.

Should I take this as a concession that you agree a frontal throat entry didn't happen ?

Of course you never claimed a bullet entered JFK's throat.

You don't have the stones to state what you think happened.

Never have, never will.

As for the rest of the drooing kooks (who at least have the guts to state what they think happened), challenge still on.

[Jerry Freeman]

You don't contribute anything, why are you here?

Telling me to leave the forum?
 



 

[Bill Chapman]

Yes I'm aware that they used a QM type car for their reenactment.  Here's a photo of it while they were prepping to do the reenactment.  Note the JFK stand-in is actually higer than the JBC stand-in:



Here's the closest we'll ever get to seeing the actual car with the actual victims in it from above:



Note that the two victims are more on a level plane in the Lincoln than the FBI version. So what does that tell me? It tells me that even with the JFK stand-in's back marked with the white patch, which is an accurate representation of where the back wound hit (based on the autopsy photo), and even with that stand-in sitting further upward to actually *aid* the SBT (most probably unintentionally by the FBI), it's still physically impossible to get a bullet through that back wound (where it terminated BTW according to Humes), through his throat and into JBC. There was no exit of the back wound. None. His head was turned to the right facing the women over by the sign when the back wound hit.  Look at the Willis photo to see how much his head was turned.

That's what I'm seeing and I trust my eyes. If you see something different, then that's totally on you.

In the image of the limo beside the bus, note that JFK is leaning well over to his right, a lean that wasn't evident at the time of the twofer. Given that, if Kennedy were to sit upright in the bus/limo photo, he would practically be towering over JBC. Even Jackie is way higher that JBC.

There are multiple images taken at normal perspective showing the true relationship re JFK/JBC seating positions.

[John Iacoletti]

Yawn, I see what complies with all the evidence.

Unless you're claiming to see a bullet in those frames, you are just offering your own interpretation of their movements.  Nothing more.