Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory

[Tim Nickerson]

The photo of the back has been doctored. This is obvious from the fact that it shows no damage to the back of the skull (the occipital and right-parietal regions), whereas optical density measurements of the autopsy skull x-rays indicate there is bone missing in the occipital region, whereas the Harper Fragment came from the occipital region, and whereas autopsy F8 shows significant damage to the occipital region. Yet, in the autopsy photo of the back, the occipital region is undamaged. 

Dr. Boswell's autopsy face sheet diagram shows the wound five to six inches below the neck. That face sheet, by the way, was marked "verified."

Where is this damage to the back of the skull (the occipital) that you refer to? I mean, the face sheet is marked "verified", right? Also notice that the wound in the "back" is marked as being 14 cm below the tip of the right mastoid process. So, how do you get that it was five to six inches below the neck?

[David Von Pein]

JFK's Clothing & The SBT....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-862.html

[Dan O'meara]

It seems possible that as soon as JFK got in the limousine he jammed himself right in the corner of the seating to give his bad back support for the journey ahead. This snap from Love Field, taken soon after he gets in the limo shows the back of his smooth-fitting jacket all creased and bunched up.



We know from the Croft photo it stays like this for nearly the the whole journey until seconds before the shooting. To imagine it then straightens itself out seconds after the Croft photo and just before the shooting starts seems silly, to say the least. The Willis and Betzner blow-ups show no fine detail, they're just blocks of colour and can be ignored.
We see what we want to see I suppose. Some see 'modest' or 'moderate' bunching, as if to downplay its significance, I see 'significant' bunching, easily enough to move the hole in the jacket down a few inches when in the correct position, however, I still think the SBT is baloney but for other reasons.
Bringing the shirt into it is baffling. We cannot see it, we have no idea what is happening with it. We have photographic evidence it can bunch up just as much as the jacket.
To find out how much the jacket bunched up compare it to the autopsy photos of the back wound. To find out how much the shirt bunched up compare it to the jacket.

[John Iacoletti]

We know from the Croft photo it stays like this for nearly the the whole journey until seconds before the shooting.

Two photos tell you nothing about the “whole journey”. Also some people think the shooting started before Croft.

The Willis and Betzner blow-ups show no fine detail, they're just blocks of colour and can be ignored.

So can you.

We see what we want to see I suppose.

Exactly.

To find out how much the jacket bunched up compare it to the autopsy photos of the back wound. To find out how much the shirt bunched up compare it to the jacket.

In yet another “coincidence”, the shirt hole happens to line up with the lower “just a spot of blood” on the autopsy photo.

[Dan O'meara]

Two photos tell you nothing about the “whole journey”. Also some people think the shooting started before Croft.

In yet another “coincidence”, the shirt hole happens to line up with the lower “just a spot of blood” on the autopsy photo.

John is of course correct - two photos cannot tell us about the whole journey but as John and his compendious knowledge well knows, there are numerous photos and film clips showing the bunching of the jacket taken at various times on the motorcade route. We can know, with a great degree of certainty, from this copious amount of evidence that the jacket is bunched up for the duration of the journey ( if there is one clear pic of the jacket smoothed down during this journey please provide it).
As for the shooting before Croft. Firstly, I would never hide behind the phrase 'some people think' and I would like to think I wouldn't bring up a point that had already been fully explained to me. But not John, so let me take your hand once again and walk you through it - the Croft photo can be synchronised, with a fair degree of accuracy, to z160. If we roll the Zfilm from that point we see JFK waving indicating that he has not been shot in the back. It's really that simple so please don't bring it up again.

As for the "coincidence" you mention I'm not that far down the road in my research to have come across the multiple bullet wounds in the back theory that 'some people think'   is a possibility.

[John Iacoletti]

John is of course correct - two photos cannot tell us about the whole journey but as John and his compendious knowledge well knows, there are numerous photos and film clips showing the bunching of the jacket taken at various times on the motorcade route.

You keep moving the goal posts. Your original statement was merely, “We know from the Croft photo it stays like this for nearly the the whole journey until seconds before the shooting”. By the way, what are these “numerous photos and film clips” that show a bunched jacket?

We can know, with a great degree of certainty, from this copious amount of evidence that the jacket is bunched up for the duration of the journey ( if there is one clear pic of the jacket smoothed down during this journey please provide it).

Now wait just a cotton-pickin’ minute. It’s your claim that it was bunched for the entire motorcade. It’s nobody’s job to prove you wrong. And you’ve already dismissed Willis and Betzner as not clear enough (that’s convenient). But since you asked, how about Towner?

As for the shooting before Croft. Firstly, I would never hide behind the phrase 'some people think'

I’m not “hiding”. You claimed that Croft was “before the shooting” and most LNers place their alleged “first missed shot” prior to Z-160.

and I would like to think I wouldn't bring up a point that had already been fully explained to me. But not John, so let me take your hand once again and walk you through it -

You sure are condescending. Unfortunately for you, that doesn’t make you right.

the Croft photo can be synchronised, with a fair degree of accuracy, to z160. If we roll the Zfilm from that point we see JFK waving indicating that he has not been shot in the back.

You said “before the shooting”, not “before being shot in the back”. Besides, how can you be certain this is an intentional wave and not something else. And how do you know somebody can’t still wave after being shot? Didn’t Ronald Reagan?

[Dan O'meara]

You keep moving the goal posts. Your original statement was merely, “We know from the Croft photo it stays like this for nearly the the whole journey until seconds before the shooting”. By the way, what are these “numerous photos and film clips” that show a bunched jacket?

John, relax baby. I agreed we can't know the whole story from two pics. Agreeing with you isn't moving the goalposts, don't you see that. As for the numerous pics, this is what I rustled up in 5 minutes, I've no doubt there's lots more but this will suffice:










Now wait just a cotton-pickin’ minute. It’s your claim that it was bunched for the entire motorcade. It’s nobody’s job to prove you wrong. And you’ve already dismissed Willis and Betzner as not clear enough (that’s convenient). But since you asked, how about Towner?

It would've been convenient if the Willis and Betzner pics were any good. As for Towner, as bad as it is, in the opening frame, if you look real close...

I’m not “hiding”. You claimed that Croft was “before the shooting” and most LNers place their alleged “first missed shot” prior to Z-160.

In a previous post we talked explicitly about Croft and the shot in the back, this was the 'shooting' I was referring to. I even specify at the end of my post. Not good enough for Pedantic John.

You sure are condescending. Unfortunately for you, that doesn’t make you right.

You make it so easy but don't be upset



You said “before the shooting”, not “before being shot in the back”. Besides, how can you be certain this is an intentional wave and not something else. And how do you know somebody can’t still wave after being shot? Didn’t Ronald Reagan?

"...how can you be certain this is an intentional wave..."

 

I can't believe I was taking you seriously

[John Iacoletti]

John, relax baby.

I'm not your baby.

It would've been convenient if the Willis and Betzner pics were any good.

Ah, that's the problem.  The counter-examples to your sweeping claim that his jacket was bunched for the entire motorcade are just not "any good".   

In a previous post we talked explicitly about Croft and the shot in the back, this was the 'shooting' I was referring to.

Which shows that you're just moving the goal posts when you are corrected.

As for the numerous pics, this is what I rustled up in 5 minutes, I've no doubt there's lots more but this will suffice: