The Truly Magical Bullet

[Howard Gee]

BUSTED !

Might as well 'modify' some images to show a bullet lodged in JFK's throat.

That's as close as you're going to get to explaining where the supposed anterior entry bullet went.

Challenge still on, fakers and kooks.

Where'd your bullet go ?

[Joe Elliott]

Key word there..."theoretical"
"Sideways"?
Instead of 'Magic' maybe we should call it the Sidewinder Bullet.

Real world tests show that many bullets, including the WCC/MC start to yaw and will travel ?sideways? upon hitting a target like a neck. ?Sideways bullets?, or ?Sidewinder Bullets? if you like, do occur in real live and what is expected, by the experts, as a result of a WCC/MC passing through a neck.



Currently, there is no small device that can be embedded in a WCC/MC bullet, survive the violent acceleration when it is fired and record the accelerations over time (from which the velocity can be calculated) as the bullet passes through bodies. High speed photography won?t tell the speed of the bullet through opaque bodies, like a goat carcass. Theoretical calculations sometimes have to be relied on in science.

Some things can be told without relying solely on theory. They can hit bones embedded in ballistic gel. And get good estimates of the speed of the bullet through the transparent ballistic gel as it strikes the bone to find out the speeds at which bone will break and bullets will deform. And these tests confirm that their theories of at what speed will a bone deform a bullet, at what speed a bullet will break a bone, are good.

To CTers, ?Theoretical? is a funny word. Why rely on theory when one can have certainty? The SBT is a wacky theory. This is known for a certainty because it is assumed so. So, there is no need for any real world testing to check this, no need to consult with experts who do these sort of tests.

For cranks, there is no need for real world tests, for consulting with experts, for relying on theory. They have absolute certainty.

[Jerry Freeman]

To CTers, ?Theoretical? is a funny word. Why rely on theory when one can have certainty? The SBT is a wacky theory. 

What is wacky [outrageous] is the overwhelming number of theories that the Warren Commission had to overcome.
This one being that one guy created all this chaotic maelstrom of incidents...the junk rifle with a scope and four bullets smuggled into a building unobserved or hidden up his backside...and using only three of those bullets to shoot two guys in the incredible manner that was described.
The other umpteen hundred theories accepted by the Warren Commission are scattered throughout the forum.
 The government had the political clout at that time to go out and find a whole bunch of guys...[good old boys] to back up all their theories.
Why is that so hard [at his time] to accept?
 

[Gary Craig]

Real world tests show that many bullets, including the WCC/MC start to yaw and will travel ?sideways? upon hitting a target like a neck. ?Sideways bullets?, or ?Sidewinder Bullets? if you like, do occur in real live and what is expected, by the experts, as a result of a WCC/MC passing through a neck.



Currently, there is no small device that can be embedded in a WCC/MC bullet, survive the violent acceleration when it is fired and record the accelerations over time (from which the velocity can be calculated) as the bullet passes through bodies. High speed photography won?t tell the speed of the bullet through opaque bodies, like a goat carcass. Theoretical calculations sometimes have to be relied on in science.

Some things can be told without relying solely on theory. They can hit bones embedded in ballistic gel. And get good estimates of the speed of the bullet through the transparent ballistic gel as it strikes the bone to find out the speeds at which bone will break and bullets will deform. And these tests confirm that their theories of at what speed will a bone deform a bullet, at what speed a bullet will break a bone, are good.

To CTers, ?Theoretical? is a funny word. Why rely on theory when one can have certainty? The SBT is a wacky theory. This is known for a certainty because it is assumed so. So, there is no need for any real world testing to check this, no need to consult with experts who do these sort of tests.

For cranks, there is no need for real world tests, for consulting with experts, for relying on theory. They have absolute certainty.

"Real world tests show that many bullets, including the WCC/MC start to yaw and will travel ?sideways? upon hitting a target like a neck."

BINGO

"Parkland Hospital estimated the size of the supposed bullet exit hole in JFK's throat to be "3 mm to 5 mm in diameter," but...?.. wound ballistics experts at Edgewood Arsenal carried out experiments showing bullets from Oswald's rifle would cause exit wounds two to three times that size."
 

[Jerry Freeman]

This analysis does not address whether or not there was a conspiracy to assassinate President John F. Kennedy. But it does prove how the US government, beginning with the Clark Panel in 1969, misrepresented key evidence in one of the most important murder cases in our history. And that misrepresentation, in turn, has made it unnecessarily difficult to accept the government?s basic finding that JFK was struck in the rear of his head by one bullet.

    Such ambiguities, if not absurdities, too often characterize the official conclusions pertaining to the medical evidence in this case. In this regard the government bears a large portion of the blame for widespread skepticism about the basic conclusion of the Warren Commission, that Lee Harvey Oswald was solely responsible for all of the president?s wounds.
     The reluctance of physicians to criticize other physicians is a widespread problem (and not unknown in many other professions). Thus, it should not come as much of a surprise that various panels found it easier to criticize Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck who were outside their ?old boy? network. Moving the entry wound up, after all, did not have fundamental repercussions.

http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2013/09/canal.html[/size]

[Tim Nickerson]

"Parkland Hospital estimated the size of the supposed bullet exit hole in JFK's throat to be "3 mm to 5 mm in diameter," but...?.. wound ballistics experts at Edgewood Arsenal carried out experiments showing bullets from Oswald's rifle would cause exit wounds two to three times that size."

The is FALSE.

[Joe Elliott]

"Real world tests show that many bullets, including the WCC/MC start to yaw and will travel ?sideways? upon hitting a target like a neck."

BINGO

"Parkland Hospital estimated the size of the supposed bullet exit hole in JFK's throat to be "3 mm to 5 mm in diameter," but...?.. wound ballistics experts at Edgewood Arsenal carried out experiments showing bullets from Oswald's rifle would cause exit wounds two to three times that size."

Of course, the yawing started in the neck. Had hardly yawed very much upon exiting the neck but had yawed by an estimated 30 to 60 degrees by the time it hit the back of Connally, allowing the side of the bullet to be ?squeezed? upon hitting the rib.

[Gary Craig]

The is FALSE.

"The is FALSE."

OK, whatever you say.