Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory

[Bill Chapman]

Everybody knows [do they not?] that you don't wash suits. Even if suits were washed...why would she wash an obviously ruined garment?

I was talking about the shirt, Clouseau. And would your CT overbearing penchant for nitpicking be salved if I said she had it cleaned? Maybe she did: You tell me. You lot are obviously into the minutiae of the case more than me. 

[Michael T. Griffith]

Instead of stating the the tear is wrong explain how the tear should have looked. The tear does not mean a thing.

You are not to be taken seriously. No serious student of the JFK case would get on a public board and claim that clothing holes made by bullets in a homicide do not "mean a thing."

"Explain how the tear should have looked"?! This is comical. The "tear"--it's actually three tears--"should" have looked nothing like an H if it had been made by CE 399.

The "tear" is not "wrong." The "tear" is what it is. The point, which you keep dancing around, is that no object shaped like CE 399 could have produced an H-shaped tear, much less an H-shaped tear with two uneven parallel tears.

Any rational, honest person with an elementary grasp of geometry and a lick of common sense can easily grasp this fact.

You don't like Baden but a person promoting a helmet ricochet is some kind of an acknowledged expert?

Dr. Mantik does not "promote" the helmet-ricochet theory. The quote you provided, which you got from me, shows that he does not "promote" it--he calls it a theory that has no analysis behind it. How is that "promoting" it?

And, by the way, the helmet-ricochet theory is not nearly as problematic as the single-bullet theory (SBT).

Dr Mantik seems to be big believer in the idea of a ricochet of any kind or actually any other conspiracy available.

So now you're moving the goal posts and saying that to suggest that JFK was hit by any ricochet is somehow untenable.

What exactly is the problem with the perfectly rational suggestion that some fragments from the bullet that struck the curb early in the shooting sequence hit JFK in the back of the head? There are at least two very small fragments on the outer table of the skull in the back of the skull in the autopsy skull x-rays, and these could have only been ricochet fragments, because obviously they did not have enough force to penetrate beyond the skull's outer table, and there is no way they "sheared off" a jacketed missile. Ballistics expert Howard Donahue was the first expert to recognize that the only explanation for the tiny fragments in the back of the head is that they are ricochet fragments.

It also appears he is a little butt sore over Speer somewhat ignoring him as did Dr Ebersol. I think I understand why. Are all the other experts referenced of the same type as Dr Mantik?

This is a sleazy ad hominem attack, and as usual you have your facts wrong. Mantik was simply reviewing Speer's work, and Dr. Ebersole agreed to speak with Dr. Mantik, twice, because he recognized him as a qualified expert on radiology. Dr. Ebersole granted only two interviews to private researchers in his lifetime, and one of them was to Dr. Mantik. So I don't know where you get the claim that Ebersole "ignored" Mantik.

Pat Speer also states the Xray are authentic which appears is Dr. Mantik's pet peeve.

Uh, well, that's because there is hard scientific evidence that the x-rays have been altered. Speer doesn't lay a finger on this evidence. He does not even appear to understand it.

Chapter 18: X-ray Specs
Note 4: This is actually Chapter 18a (18b follows), but Speer labels it simply as 18.
Note 5. These twenty questions were prompted by Speer’s comments, although the wording
here is (mostly) my own.
1. Why were the JFK X-rays taken with a portable unit—and does it matter? (p. 1)
.......

5. Was JFK struck by a ricochet fragment? (pp. 3-4)
Yes, most likely he was, perhaps by even more than one. Howard Donahue (whose home I
once visited) lists the evidence for these events (Mortal Error 1992, Bonar Menninger). OTF is
a good candidate for this. Another is a small fragment near the top of the scalp—on the left side
(see Figures 1 and 2). This latter one is visible on both the AP and lateral skull X-rays, even in
poor quality prints, and it does lie way off the main trail of debris. Its appearance on the extant
X-rays (as viewed at NARA) is totally consistent on the two views and also strongly suggests a
metallic fragment. Furthermore, there are even other candidates for ricochet fragments (they
7
are well off the main trail of debris), which I have observed at NARA. Also see my comments
under Figures 1 and 2 about very tiny metal fragments near OTF (on the lateral X-ray) and also
near the 6.5 mm object (on the AP X-ray). (For data on ricochet angles, see “FBI: Bouncing
Bullets.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. S. 2-6 u. 20-23. Washington, Sept/Oct 1969. A more
recent article is by L. C. Haag, “Bullet ricochet: an empirical study and a device for measuring
ricochet angle.” AFTE Journal 7 (3): 44-51, December 1975.) Whether such bullets must have
struck James Chaney (as Speer insists, albeit without any analysis) would depend critically on
the origin of the shot (Speer only mentions the sniper’s nest) as well as its timing.

Yes, so clearly Mantik is not "endorsing" the helmet-ricochet idea. He simply notes that Speer "insists" on this idea and that Speer provides no analysis to support it.

However,
Speer is correct to cite Vincent DiMaio and to conclude that ricochet bullets do not break into
narrow cross-sections or slices (even though Speer promptly introduces his own slice).

You are very confused. DiMaoi was talking about the behavior of FMJ bullets. Mantik has never said that the two small fragments in the back of the head came from FMJ ammo. He has, however, noted that the lone-gunman theory requires that they did, and that FMJ bullets have never been known to behave in this manner.

He is
also correct to confirm that the nose and tail of the bullet (which supposedly deposited the 6.5
mm object) were both reportedly found in the limousine.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. No one disputes that the 6.5 mm object would have to be a cross-section fragment if it came from the alleged FMJ headshot bullet, since the nose and tail of that bullet were allegedly found in the limousine. This is a non-point and a non-issue. You are ignoring the fact that FMJ bullets never behave like this: they never magically have a cross-section "shear off" as they enter skull, and any material "sheared off" the bullet would have been deposited above the entry point, not below it.

[Irrelevant Speer claims SNIPPED]

Baden was the spokesman for a panel of ten renown pathologists with a combined 100,000+ pathology examinations between them. They concluded with the exception of Cyril Wecht that the shots originated from the 6th floor of the TSBD. It is really very simple.

So, I take it you're not going to address any of the facts about Baden's checkered record that I pointed out? Crickets?

And this "panel of ten renown pathologists" went along with the Clark Panel's erroneous and debunked placement of the rear head entry wound in the cowlick. The FPP also missed the second small fragment in the back of the head (Dr. McDonnel had to call their attention to it). The FPP had to ignore what their own expert consultants told them about the Harper fragment and about the fact that the x-rays show frontal bone missing.  This "panel of ten renown pathologists," with the exception of Wecht, went along with the goofy and impossible SBT and never explained Wecht's devastating objections to the theory.

Why do you suppose that Baden refused Wecht's request that the panel arrange to have an SBT ballistics test done? In the WC's ballistics tests, one bullet that was merely fired into cotton wadding emerged with more deformity than CE 399. In those same tests, bullets that were fired into goat chests emerged with much more deformity than CE 399.  So did bullets that were fired into the wrists of human cadavers.  And, as mentioned, Nurse Bell has reported that at least three metal fragments were removed from Connally, which obviously could not have come from CE 399.

The eyewitnesses stated the shots came from the 6th floor.

This is comical. Over 30 witnesses in Dealey Plaza said shots came from the grassy knoll.

The trajectory analysis places the shots originating from the 6th floor.

I've already addressed this nonsense. You make a claim; I refute the claim; and then you turn around and keep repeating it.

The rifle was found on the 6th floor.

Oh, well, gee! That clinches it! Are you talking about the rifle that had a badly misaligned scope? The rifle that the DPD and the FBI "forgot" to test to see if it had been fired recently? (There was already a standard way to test rifles to see if they had been fired recently--by swabbing the barrel--but neither the DPD nor the FBI did this.)

Now why do you suppose that the DPD and the FBI ignored such a basic, well-established, and crucial test?

The shells were found on the 6th floor.

Seriously? Are we back to this level of gullibility? So your alleged lone gunman carefully hid the rifle but left his shell casings in plain view? Are you aware that one of the casings could not have been used to fire a bullet during the assassination?

The bullet and fragments of another bullet were found to match the rifle found on the 6th floor.

You are many years behind the information curve:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/death-of-the-naa-verdict

And what about all the other fragments that we now know were removed during the autopsy, and the extra bullet that was found in the limo?

A large number of witnesses state there was only two shots.

A larger number of witnesses said there were three shots. Even the WC said there were three shots, and that one of those shots missed the entire limousine.

A number of witnesses state the head shot or the car accelerated after the second shot.

This is so silly. You have a lot of reading to do. Part of the problem is that you have only read one side of the story.

On and on it goes always revolving around the fact there was only two shots, The one thing no one states is there was a shot from the Records building or Dal Tex building.

Actually, several witnesses said they thought shots might have come from the Dal-Tex Building or the County Records Building. The Dal-Tex Building was right across the street from the TSBD, and the County Records Building was almost as close to the TSBD.

Even Cyril Wecht, the lone dissenting pothogist on the HSCA panel,  thought the trajectory was from the TSBD.

Uh, Dr. Wecht destroyed the SBT. He also said one of the shots came from the front.

You need to beam yourself into at least the late 1990s. The ARRB disclosures destroy the SBT. We now know that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said the back wound had no exit point. The back-to-throat tale was not invented until two days after the autopsy.

[John Iacoletti]

What about Howard Brennan bubba? Wasn't he the Commission's star witness?

Mr. McCLOY. Did you see the rifle explode? Did you see the flash of what was either the second or the third shot?
Mr. BRENNAN. No.
Mr. McCLOY. Could you see that he had discharged the rifle?
Mr. BRENNAN. No. For some reason I did not get an echo at any time. The first shot was positive and clear and the last shot was positive and dear, with no echo on my part.
Mr. McCLOY. Yes. But you saw him aim?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. Did you see the rifle discharge, did you see the recoil or the flash?
Mr. BRENNAN. No.
Mr. McCLOY. But you heard the last shot.
Mr. BRENNAN. The report; yes, sir.

[Michael T. Griffith]

The absurdity of the single-bullet theory can be seen in the fact that the HSCA had to assume JFK was leaning far forward when the magic bullet hit him, in order to make their SBT trajectory work, but this assumption is demonstrably false.

[Jerry Organ]

The absurdity of the single-bullet theory can be seen in the fact that the HSCA had to assume JFK was leaning far forward when the magic bullet hit him, in order to make their SBT trajectory work, but this assumption is demonstrably false.

The HSCA didn't say Kennedy's head had to be tilted forward to make the SBT work. They said:

    "The best record of Kennedy's posture, torso inclination, and
     shoulder "hunching" is a photograph taken by Robert Croft at
     about the time of Zapruder frame 161."
   "... there is no indication in the Zapruder movie that Kennedy
     changed his inclination substantially before he was hit in the
     back."
    "Thus, it was assumed that, except for turning his head by
     about 60° and his torso perhaps by 5°, Kennedy made no major
     changes in posture after frame 161."

Croft photo (Z161)

HSCA Final Drawing showing similarity to Croft photo but with Kennedy having 60° head turn and 5° torso turn, and Connally turned as well

The Dox drawing with the Kennedy head tilted was to demonstrate how Clyde Snow's "anatomical position" wound track would have to be tilted to reflect the wounding posture for the track. It is demonstrative of that concept only.



The angle to the President from the Sniper's Nest at about Z190 was about 24°, and about 20° for the early-Z220s. The wound track angle on the full drawing (on the left of JFK Exhibit F-46) is about 27°; the downward wound track angles of the drawing on the right are 23° and 6°. The panel said that the missile track would have traveled "downward by 4.0° relative to Kennedy if he were sitting erect (not inclined forward or aft"). The middle silhouette, then, is the closest to how they positioned the wound track prior to adjustments for life changes justified from the Croft photo.

Can you show us where the HSCA said Kennedy's head had to be literally tilted forward some-30° for the SBT to work?

[Michael T. Griffith]

The HSCA didn't say Kennedy's head had to be tilted forward to make the SBT work.

Oh, sheesh. We've already covered all this ground, but you just keep repeating claims that have long since been debunked. Again, for the zillioneth time, Canning ignored the HSCA FPP's placement of the wound and the FPP's trajectory for the bullet as it hit the back because he could not get them to work, as we'll see below. How many times does this have to be pointed out to you before you will acknowledge it?

And both Canning and the FPP ignored the fact:

* that the slits in the front of JFK's shirt were not bullet holes but were made by Parkland nurses as they hurriedly cut away JFK's clothing, as one of the nurses confirmed to Henry Hurt.

* that the slits in the front of JFK's shirt have no fabric missing from them and have the jagged edges typical of having been made by a sharp instrument, as Harold Weisberg discovered years ago, and as Dr. Mantik confirmed when he examined JFK's clothing at the National Archives.

* that there is no hole through the knot of JFK's tie, and that the small nick on the knot was not on the edge of the knot and was obviously made by a nurse hurriedly cutting off JFK's clothing at Parkland.

* that the back wound was actually at T3, as documented by the "verified" death certificate, the "verified" autopsy face sheet, Sibert and O'Neill's report on the autopsy, the FBI report on the autopsy, Rankin's observation on the back wound in the 1/27/64 WC executive session, wound diagrams drawn by witnesses for the HSCA and the ARRB, Clint Hill and Roy Kellerman's descriptions of the back wound, Dr. Ebersole's description of the wound, and the hard physical evidence of the clothing holes in the back of JFK's shirt and coat.

* that it is very unlikely that the alleged magic bullet would have begun to markedly tumble or yaw in the very short distance between Kennedy's throat and Connally's back after supposedly transiting Kennedy without even grazing bone but only having gone through soft tissue.

* that the H-shaped tear in the front of Connally's shirt, which tear includes two uneven parallel vertical tears, could not have been caused by CE 399, at least not on this planet.

And the FPP suppressed all the autopsy witness testimony that made it crystal clear that at the autopsy, the doctors were absolutely, positively certain that the back wound had no exit point because they could see the end of the wound tract and the probe pushing against the chest lining. Others at the autopsy could see this as well, as we now know.

Lipsey and Ebersole both confirmed that the autopsy doctors learned of the throat wound during the autopsy, not the next day as they later claimed, and Lipsey revealed that they attributed the throat wound to a fragment from the head shot because they had already established that the back wound had no exit point. Rankin's comment about the throat wound during the 1/27/64 WC executive session confirms Lipsey's account: Rankin mentioned that the "autopsy" said a head-shot fragment caused the throat wound. (Rankin was looking at the second draft of the autopsy report. We know from multiple sources that the first draft of the autopsy report did not attempt to explain the throat wound and said the back wound had no exit point. Only the third version of the autopsy report said the back-wound bullet made the throat wound.)

And surely you are not going to tell me that JFK is not leaning far forward in the lifelike diagram in F-46, are you?

The HSCA didn't say Kennedy's head had to be tilted forward to make the SBT work. They said: [SNIP]

The HSCA didn't say Kennedy's head had to be tilted forward to make the SBT work. Can you show us where the HSCA said Kennedy's head had to be literally tilted forward some-30° for the SBT to work?

I know what the HSCA FPP "said." They said, as you quoted, that all the trajectories on F-46 "could produce the autopsy findings"! Amazing! They all work! That is ludicrous. Just ludicrous. One of those trajectories goes upward from the horizontal plane from start to finish! There is no way such a trajectory could trace back to the sixth-floor window, no matter how far JFK leaned forward. How can you ignore such obvious facts?

The HSCA FPP didn't "say" that they had to ignore the amount of missing frontal bone in the skull x-rays to make their head-wound reconstruction "work," but that is exactly what they did. The HSCA FPP didn't "say" they had to ignore their best expert's placement of the Harper fragment to make their head-wound reconstruction "work," but that is exactly what they did.

The HSCA FPP did say that the small, neat entrance-like wound in the throat could have been made by an exiting high-velocity bullet that had not begun to tumble or yaw yet, but the alleged murder weapon was a low-velocity rifle, and Connally's back wound was made by a bullet that had begun to tumble or yaw.

Finally, I can't believe you would cite the HSCA's "final drawing" of the SBT trajectory. Are you kidding me? Did you happen to notice that in that diagram, the back wound is markedly above the throat wound? Heck, that drawing has the "throat" wound well below the throat! Did you not notice any of these things? Let's take a look:



And did you notice that in this diagram, the bullet is striking the back at a downward angle in relation to the body, whereas the FPP said that the back wound’s abrasion collar indicated that the bullet was traveling at a slightly upward trajectory in relation to the body when it hit the back? Said the FPP,

The abrasion collar is larger at the lower margin of the wound, evidence that the bullet's trajectory at the instant of penetration was slightly upward in relation to the body. (7 HSCA 175)

You cannot square this with the "final drawing" of the SBT's mythical trajectory, and you know it. But I suspect you will keep seeing the emperor's new clothes.

[Michael T. Griffith]

You never see Warren Commission (WC) apologists talk about the fact that when Secret Service inspector Thomas Kelley first heard about the single-bullet theory, he called it “ridiculous.”

Nor do you ever see WC apologists talk about the fact that as late as April 1964, the autopsy doctors insisted that Connally must have been hit by two bullets because they said CE 399 was not deformed enough to have shattered the wrist bone, one of the hardest bones in the body.

WC staffer Melvin Eisenberg was tasked with determining the shooting sequence. Eisenberg held a conference with the autopsy doctors on April 14, 1964, to view the Zapruder film and to determine the order of the bullet hits. All three doctors—Humes, Boswell, and Finck—insisted that Connally was hit by two bullets because they said CE 399 could not have shattered Connally’s wrist bone without suffering significant deformity (a fact that the WC’s own ballistics tests later confirmed).

Dr. Gerald McKnight, a professor emeritus of history at Hood College in Maryland, discusses these revealing facts in his landmark book Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why:

In an aside to Inspector Thomas Kelley, the Secret Service’s liaison with the Commission, one of the staff lawyers offered as “an outside possibility” that the first shot might have gone through JFK with sufficient velocity “to penetrate Connally’s body, wrist, and leg.” Kelley later confided to the FBI’s L.T. Gauthier that the idea was “ridiculous” and that a shot under those circumstances would have gone completely “wild.”

In April Eisenberg arranged for two sessions to determine which fames of the Zapruder movie captured the impact of the first and second bullets. He enlisted the support of medical doctors for both sessions. In the April 14 conference the three pathologists who had performed the autopsy, Humes, Boswell, and Finck, viewed Zapruder’s 8-mm movie and frames of the assassination for the first time.

Since Humes had written the official autopsy protocol, he more or less took the lead in this session. After viewing the Zapruder film and studying the slides, the Bethesda Navy doctor hypothesized that Connally had been hit by the first two shots. He thought that the first shot that had exited JFK’s throat had then passed through Connally’s chest, losing velocity in its flight, lodged itself in the governor’s clothing, and later appeared on his stretcher. The second bullet, a separate shot, according to Humes’s reconstruction, had hit Connally’s wrist with such impact that it shattered into fragments, one of those fragments causing the wound to the governor’s left thigh.

Just as they had testified before the Warren Commission a month earlier, Humes and the two other prosectors had not changed their opinion about Connally’s wrist wound. All three were convinced that the near-pristine CE 399 was not mutilated enough to have shattered the governor’s wrist bone. (Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why, University Press of Kansas, 2005, pp. 221)

[Bill Chapman]

Getting Some Facts Biased Opinions Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory