Jump to content


Spartacus

The Magic Bullet Theory


  • Please log in to reply
198 replies to this topic

#1 Gary L. Aguilar

Gary L. Aguilar

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 18 July 2006 - 07:40 AM

This is part of an article co-written with Josiah Thompson. The full article, with illustrations, can be found here:

http://www.history-m...MoreMagical.htm

Among the myriad JFK assassination controversies, none more cleanly divides Warren Commission supporter from skeptic than the “Single Bullet Theory.” The brainchild of a former Warren Commission lawyer, Mr. Arlen Specter, now the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, the theory is the sine qua non of the Warren Commission’s case that with but three shots, including one that missed, Lee Harvey Oswald had single handedly altered the course of history.

Mr. Specter’s hypothesis was not one that immediately leapt to mind from the original evidence and the circumstances of the shooting. It was, rather, born of necessity, if one sees as a necessity the keeping of Oswald standing alone in the dock. The theory had to contend with the considerable evidence there was suggesting that more than one shooter was involved.

For example, because the two victims in Dealey Plaza, President Kennedy and Governor John Connally, had suffered so many wounds – eight in all, it had originally seemed as if more than two slugs from the supposed “sniper’s nest” would have been necessary to explain all the damage. In addition, a home movie taken by a bystander, Abraham Zapruder, showed that too little time had elapsed between the apparent shots that hit both men in the back for Oswald to have fired, reacquired his target, and fired again. The Single Bullet Theory neatly solved both problems. It posited that a single, nearly whole bullet that was later recovered had caused all seven of the non-fatal wounds sustained by both men. [1]

But the bullet that was recovered had one strikingly peculiar feature: it had survived all the damage it had apparently caused virtually unscathed itself. The shell’s near-pristine appearance, which prompted some to call it the “magic bullet,” left many skeptics wondering whether the bullet in evidence had really done what the Commission had said it had done. Additional skepticism was generated by the fact the bullet was not found in or around either victim. It was found instead on a stretcher at the hospital where the victims were treated.

Mr. Specter’s idea was that, after passing completely through JFK and Governor Connally, the bullet had fallen out of the Governor’s clothes and onto a stretcher at Parkland Hospital. But it was never unequivocally established that either victim had ever lain on the stretcher where the bullet was discovered. [2] Nevertheless, studies done at the FBI Laboratory seemed to unquestionably link the missile to Oswald’s rifle, and the FBI sent the Warren Commission a memo on July 7, 1964 detailing how it had run down the bullet’s chain of possession, which looked pretty solid. According to the FBI, the two hospital employees who discovered the bullet originally identified it as the same bullet six months later in an FBI interview

That a bullet, fired from Oswald’s weapon and later identified by hospital witnesses, had immediately turned up on a stretcher in the hospital where the victims were treated struck some as perhaps a little too convenient. Suspicions it had been planted ensued. But apart from its peculiar provenance, there was little reason in 1964 to doubt the bullet’s bona fides. But then in 1967, one of the authors reported that one of the two hospital employees who had found the bullet, Parkland personnel director O.P. Wright, had told him that the bullet he saw and held on the day of the assassination did not look like the bullet that later turned up in FBI evidence. That claim was in direct conflict with an FBI memo of July 7, 1964, which said that Wright had told an FBI agent that the bullet did look like the shell he’d held on the day of the murder.

For thirty years, the conflict lay undisturbed and unresolved. Finally, in the mid 1990s, the authors brought this conflict to the attention of the Assassinations Records Review Board, a federal body charged with opening the abundant, still-secret files concerning the Kennedy assassination. A search through newly declassified files led to the discovery of new information on this question. It turns out that the FBI’s own, once-secret files tend to undermine the position the FBI took publicly in its July, 1964 memo to the Warren Commission, and they tend to support co-author Josiah Thompson. Thompson got a further boost when a retired FBI agent, in a recorded telephone interview and in a face-to-face meeting, flatly denied what the FBI had written about him to the Warren Commission in 1964.

The story begins in a ground floor elevator lobby at the Dallas hospital where JFK and John Connelly were taken immediately after being shot. According to the Warren Commission, Parkland Hospital senior engineer, Mr. Darrell C. Tomlinson, was moving some wheeled stretchers when he bumped a stretcher “against the wall and a bullet rolled out.” [3] He called for help and was joined by Mr. O.P. Wright, Parkland’s personnel director. After examining the bullet together, Mr. Wright passed it along to one of the U.S. Secret Service agents who were prowling the hospital, Special Agent Richard Johnsen. [4]

Johnsen then carried the bullet back to Washington, D. C. and handed it to James Rowley, the chief of the Secret Service. Rowley, in turn, gave the bullet to FBI agent Elmer Lee Todd, [5] who carried it to agent Robert Frazier in the FBI’s Crime Lab. [6] Without exploring the fact that the HSCA discovered that there may have been another witness who was apparently with Tomlinson when the bullet was found, what concerns us here is whether the bullet currently in evidence, Commission Exhibit #399, is the same bullet Tomlinson found originally.

The early history of the bullet, Commission Exhibit #399, is laid out in Warren Commission Exhibit #2011. This exhibit consists of a 3-page, July 7, 1964 FBI letterhead memorandum that was written to the Warren Commission in response to a Commission request that the Bureau trace “various items of physical evidence,” among them #399. #2011 relates that, in chasing down the bullet’s chain of possession, FBI agent Bardwell Odum took #399 to Darrell Tomlinson and O.P. Wright on June 12, 1964. The memo asserts that both men told Agent Odum that the bullet “appears to be the same one” they found on the day of the assassination, but that neither could “positively identify” it.

Positive identification” of a piece of evidence by a witness means that the witness is certain that an object later presented in evidence is the same one that was originally found. The most common way to establish positive identification is for a witness to place his initials on a piece of evidence upon first finding it. The presence of such initials is of great help later when investigators try to prove a link through an unbroken chain of possession between the object in evidence and a crime.

Understandably, neither Tomlinson nor Wright inscribed his initials on the stretcher bullet. But that both witnesses told FBI Agent Odum, so soon after the murder, that CE 399 looked like the bullet they had found on a stretcher was compelling reason to suppose that it was indeed the same one.

However, CE #2011 included other information that raised questions about the bullet. As first noted by author Ray Marcus, [7] it also states that on June 24, 1964, FBI agent Todd, who received the bullet from Rowley, the head of the Secret Service, returned with presumably the same bullet to get Secret Service agents Johnsen and Rowley to identify it. #2011 reports that both Johnsen and Rowley advised Todd that they “could not identify this bullet as the one” they saw on the day of the assassination. # 2011 contains no comment about the failure being merely one of not “positively identifying” the shell that, otherwise, “appeared to be the same” bullet they had originally handled.

Thus, in #2011 the FBI reported that both Tomlinson and Wright said #399 resembled the Parkland bullet, but that neither of the Secret Service Agents could identify it. FBI Agent Todd originally received the bullet from Rowley on 11/22/63 and it was he who then returned on 6/24/64 with supposedly the same bullet for Rowley and Johnsen to identify. Given the importance of this case, one imagines that by the time Todd returned, they would have had at least a passing acquaintance. Had it truly been the same bullet, one might have expected one or both agents to tell Todd it looked like the same bullet, even if neither could “positively identify” it by an inscribed initial. After all, neither Tomlinson nor Wright had inscribed their initials on the bullet, and yet #2011 says that they said they saw a resemblance.

And there the conflicted story sat, until one of the current authors published a book in 1967.

Two Different Accounts from One Witness
Six Seconds in Dallas reported on an interview with O.P. Wright in November 1966. Before any photos were shown or he was asked for any description of #399, Wright said: “That bullet had a pointed tip.”

“Pointed tip?” Thompson asked.

“Yeah, I’ll show you. It was like this one here,” he said, reaching into his desk and pulling out the .30 caliber bullet pictured in Six Seconds.”[8]

As Thompson described it in 1967, “I then showed him photographs of CE’s 399, 572 (the two ballistics comparison rounds from Oswald’s rifle) (sic), and 606 (revolver bullets) (sic), and he rejected all of these as resembling the bullet Tomlinson found on the stretcher. Half an hour later in the presence of two witnesses, he once again rejected the picture of 399 as resembling the bullet found on the stretcher.”[9]

Thus in 1964 the Warren Commission, or rather the FBI, claimed that Wright believed the original bullet resembled #399. In 1967, Wright denied there was a resemblance. Recent FBI releases prompted by the JFK Review Board support author Thompson’s 1967 report.

A declassified 6/20/64 FBI AIRTEL memorandum from the FBI office in Dallas (“SAC, Dallas” – i.e., Special Agent in Charge, Gordon Shanklin) to J. Edgar Hoover contains the statement, “For information WFO (FBI Washington Field Office), neither DARRELL C. TOMLINSON [sic], who found bullet at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, nor O. P. WRIGHT, Personnel Officer, Parkland Hospital, who obtained bullet from TOMLINSON and gave to Special Service, at Dallas 11/22/63, can identify bullet … .”

Whereas the FBI had claimed in CE #2011 that Tomlinson and Wright had told Agent Odum on June 12, 1964 that CE #399 “appears to be the same” bullet they found on the day of the assassination, nowhere in this previously classified memo, which was written before CE #2011, is there any corroboration that either of the Parkland employees saw a resemblance. Nor is FBI agent Odum’s name mentioned anywhere in the once-secret file, whether in connection with #399, or with Tomlinson or with Wright.

A declassified record, however, offers some corroboration for what CE 2011 reported about Secret Service Agents Johnsen and Rowley. A memo from the FBI’s Dallas field office dated 6/24/64 reported that, “ON JUNE TWENTYFOUR INSTANT RICHARD E. JOHNSEN, AND JAMES ROWLEY, CHIEF … ADVISED SA ELMER LEE TODD, WFO, THAT THEY WERE UNABLE TO INDENTIFY RIFLE BULLET C ONE (# 399, which, before the Warren Commission had logged in as #399, was called “C ONE”), BY INSPECTION (capitals in original).

Convinced that we had overlooked some relevant files, we cast about for additional corroboration of what was in CE # 2011. There should, for example, have been some original “302s ” – the raw FBI field reports from the Agent Odum’s interviews with Tomlinson and Wright on June 12, 1964. There should also have been one from Agent Todd’s interviews with Secret Service Agents Johnsen and Rowley on June 24, 1964. Perhaps somewhere in those, we thought, we would find Agent Odum reporting that Wright had detected a resemblance between the bullets. And perhaps we’d also find out whether Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen or Rowley had supplied the Bureau with any additional descriptive details about the bullet.

In early 1998, we asked a research associate, Ms. Cathy Cunningham, to scour the National Archives for any additional files that might shed light on this story. She looked but found none. We contacted the JFK Review Board’s T. Jeremy Gunn for help. [Fig. 7] On May 18, 1998, the Review Board’s Eileen Sullivan, writing on Gunn’s behalf, answered, saying: “[W]e have attempted, unsuccessfully, to find any additional records that would account for the problem you suggest.”[10] [Fig. 8] Undaunted, one of us wrote the FBI directly, and was referred to the National Archives, and so then wrote Mr. Steve Tilley at the National Archives.

On Mr. Tilley’s behalf, Mr. Stuart Culy, an archivist at the National Archives, made a search. On July 16, 1999, Mr. Culy wrote that he searched for the FBI records within the HSCA files as well as in the FBI records, all without success. He was able to determine, however, that the serial numbers on the FBI documents ran “concurrently, with no gaps, which indicated that no material is missing from these files.”[11] [Fig. 10] In other words, the earliest and apparently the only FBI report said nothing about either Tomlinson or Wright seeing a similarity between the bullet found at the hospital and the bullet later in evidence, CE #399. Nor did agent Bardwell Odum’s name show up in any of the files.

[editor's note: Dr. Aguilar followed up in 2005 with the National Archives, asking them in letters dated March 2 and March 7 to search for any FBI "302" reports that would have been generated from CE399 being shown to those who handled it. On March 17, 2005 David Mengel of NARA wrote back reporting that additional searches had not uncovered any such reports.]

Stymied, author Aguilar turned to his co-author. “What does Odum have to say about it?” Thompson asked.

“Odum? How the hell do I know? Is he still alive?”

“I’ll find out,” he promised.

Less than an hour later, Thompson had located Mr. Bardwell Odum’s home address and phone number. Aguilar phoned him on September 12, 2002. He was still alive and well and living in a suburb of Dallas. The 82-year old was alert and quick-witted on the phone and he regaled Aguilar with fond memories of his service in the Bureau. Finally, the Kennedy case came up and Odum agreed to help interpret some of the conflicts in the records. Two weeks after mailing Odum the relevant files – CE # 2011, the three-page FBI memo dated July 7, 1964, and the “FBI AIRTEL” memo dated June 12, 1964, Aguilar called him back.

Mr. Odum told Aguilar, “I didn’t show it [#399] to anybody at Parkland. I didn’t have any bullet … I don’t think I ever saw it even.” [Fig. 11] Unwilling to leave it at that, both authors paid Mr. Odum a visit in his Dallas home on November 21, 2002. The same alert, friendly man on the phone greeted us warmly and led us to a comfortable family room. To ensure no misunderstanding, we laid out before Mr. Odum all the relevant documents and read aloud from them.

Again, Mr. Odum said that he had never had any bullet related to the Kennedy assassination in his possession, whether during the FBI’s investigation in 1964 or at any other time. Asked whether he might have forgotten the episode, Mr. Odum remarked that he doubted he would have ever forgotten investigating so important a piece of evidence. But even if he had done the work, and later forgotten about it, he said he would certainly have turned in a “302” report covering something that important. Odum’s sensible comment had the ring of truth. For not only was Odum’s name absent from the FBI’s once secret files, it was also it difficult to imagine a motive for him to besmirch the reputation of the agency he had worked for and admired.

Thus, the July 1964 FBI memo that became Commission Exhibit #2011 claims that Tomlinson and Wright said they saw a resemblance between #399 and the bullet they picked up on the day JFK died. However, the FBI agent who is supposed to have gotten that admission, Bardwell Odum, and the Bureau’s own once-secret records, don’t back up #2011. Those records say only that neither Tomlinson nor Wright was able to identify the bullet in question, a comment that leaves the impression they saw no resemblance. That impression is strengthened by the fact that Wright told one of the authors in 1966 the bullets were dissimilar. Thus, Thompson’s surprising discovery about Wright, which might have been dismissed in favor of the earlier FBI evidence in #2011, now finds at least some support in an even earlier, suppressed FBI memo, and the living memory of a key, former FBI agent provides further, indirect corroboration.

But the newly declassified FBI memos from June 1964 lead to another unexplained mystery. Neither are the 302 reports that would have been written by the agents who investigated #399’s chain of possession in both Dallas and Washington. The authors were tempted to wonder if the June memos were but expedient fabrications, with absolutely no 302s whatsoever backing them up.

But a declassified routing slip turned up by John Hunt seems to prove that the FBI did in fact act on the Commission’s formal request, as outlined in # 2011, to run down #399s chain of possession. The routing slip discloses that the bullet was sent from Washington to Dallas on 6/2/64 and returned to Washington on 6/22/64. Then on 6/24/64, it was checked out to FBI Agent Todd. What transpired during these episodes? If the Bureau went to these lengths, it seems quite likely that Bardwell Odum, or some other agent in Dallas, would have submitted one or more 302s on what was found, and so would Agent Elmer Todd in Washington. But there are none in the files. The trail ends here with an unexplained, and perhaps important, gap left in the record.

Besides this unexplained gap, another interesting question remains: If the FBI did in fact adjust Tomlinson and Wright’s testimonies with a bogus claim of bullet similarity, why didn’t it also adjust Johnsen and Rowley’s? While it is unlikely a certain answer to this question will ever be found, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the FBI authors of #2011 would have been more reluctant to embroider the official statements of the head of the Secret Service in Washington than they would the comments of a couple of hospital employees in Dallas.

In a memo to the Warren Commission [C. E. #2011] concerning its investigation of the chain of possession of C.E. #399, the FBI reported that two Parkland Hospital eyewitnesses, Darrell Tomlinson and O. P. Wright, said C.E. #399 resembled the bullet they discovered on the day JFK died. But the FBI agent who is supposed to have interviewed both men and the Bureau’s own suppressed records contradict the FBI’s public memo. Agent Odum denied his role, and the FBI’s earliest, suppressed files say only that neither Tomlinson nor Wright was able to identify the bullet in question. This suppressed file implies the hospital witnesses saw no resemblance, which is precisely what Wright told one of the authors in 1967.

What we are left with is the FBI having reported a solid chain of possession for #399 to the Warren Commission. But the links in the FBI’s chain appear to be anything but solid. Bardwell Odum, one of the key links, says he was never in the chain at all and the FBI’s own, suppressed records tend to back him up. Inexplicably, the chain also lacks other important links: FBI 302s, reports from the agents in the field who, there is ample reason to suppose, did actually trace #399 in Dallas and in Washington. Suppressed FBI records and recent investigations thus suggest that not only is the FBI’s file incomplete, but also that one of the authors may have been right when he reported in 1967 that the bullet found in Dallas did not look like a bullet that could have come from Oswald’s rifle.

Notes

[1] The eighth wound, JFK’s head wound, accounted for one of the bullets. And evidence from the scene and from a home movie taken of the murder by a bystander, Abraham Zapruder, suggests that a third bullet had missed entirely.

[2] Josiah Thompson. Six Seconds in Dallas. Bernard Geis Associates for Random House, 1967, p. 161 – 164.

[3] The President’s Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy – Report. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1964, p. 81. See also 6H130 – 131.

[4] 18H800. See also: Thompson, J. Six Seconds in Dallas. New York: Bernard Geis Associates for Random House, 1967, p. 155.

[5] 24H412.

[6] 3H428; 24H412.

[7] See Ray Marcus monograph, The Bastard Bullet.

[8] Text of email message from Josiah Thompson to Aguilar, 12/10/99.

[9] Thompson, Josiah. Six Seconds in Dallas. New York: Bernard Geis Associates for Random House, 1967, p. 175.

[10] 5/11/98 email message from Eileen Sullivan re: “Your letter to Jeremy Gunn, April 4, 1998.”

[11] Personal letter from Stuart Culy, archivist, National Archives, July 16, 1999.











#2 Pat Speer

Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 July 2006 - 09:12 AM

Von Pein, I ask you for the edification of others. Where did the bullet enter? Where did it exit? At what level did it pass the spine? Did it pass above or below the first rib?

To some, the single-bullet theory is a religion. Surely, you've done actual research on this theory. What tests did you peform and what were your conclusions?

#3 Antti Hynonen

Antti Hynonen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 955 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Helsinki, Finland
  • Interests:JFK assassination debate

Posted 18 July 2006 - 10:27 AM

David R. Von Pein Posted Today, 08:42 AM
QUOTE(Pat Speer @ Jul 18 2006, 04:12 AM)

Von Pein, I ask you for the edification of others. Where did the bullet enter? Where did it exit? At what level did it pass the spine? Did it pass above or below the first rib?

To some, the single-bullet theory is a religion. Surely, you've done actual research on this theory. What tests did you peform and what were your conclusions?


The SBT proves ITSELF in so many ways (mostly of the "common-sense" variety)....and it's remarkable how so many CTers have been duped into thinking it's an LNer's wet dream. It's nothing of the kind. Myers' work proves the SBT is doable, and the Discovery Channel re-creation came so close to replicating the event, at the VERY LEAST CTers should open up an eye and admit to the SBT's "possibility" if nothing else.

Ask yourself (please) -- Could that Australian Discovery Channel re-creation ("JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet") have possibly come that close to a near-perfect (not perfect to the square-inch, true, but very close) duplication of something that CTers say is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE?


Think about that, please, for a moment.

Could ANY true-to-life re-creation (sans the "living bodies" of the victims) -- utilizing an actual WCC/MC bullet fired from an actual MC rifle from a 60-foot-high perch -- have come THAT CLOSE to re-creating a "Wet Dream" invented by Mr. Specter?

The fact that the JBC mock torso (during that re-creation) was struck in just exactly the same general locations on the "body" where the real JBC suffered injuries in 1963 -- all AFTER a bullet had gone cleanly through a mock Kennedy torso -- should tell any reasonable person assessing the SBT's viability that the theory is most-certainly far from "impossible".

Coupled with Mr. Myers' detailed animated work, which hone in in even more detail re. the angles, etc., these two things (Myers & Disc. Channel) prove beyond doubt that the SBT lives & breathes (regardless of Mr. Speer's "above or below the first rib?" inquiries).

An EXACT TO-THE-INCH re-creation of the SBT is not possible and everybody should know why. It's not gonna happen, unless we can somehow get JFK & JBC to come back to life and do the whole nine yards all over again.

But the "No Bullets Left In JFK" thing is just not gonna fly from a CTer POV. No way. No how.

I want Pat to tell the world -- WHERE ARE THE MULTIPLE BULLETS THAT MUST REPLACE THE SBT??

Re. the more-technical questions, there's no question the SBT works re. the angle through JFK and the one through JBC too. JFK was struck 5.5 in. below the right mastoid, which IS above the anterior portion of the neck where the bullet exited (and where the autopsy report unambiguously says the bullet "exited").

http://www.jfklancer...tos/zeroang.jpg

And if the SBT is wrong -- then SOMETHING ELSE is right. What the heck is it? Not a single CTer has answered that question in a believable way (following any of the known evidence) in 40+ years. Key word there = "believable".

Lots of my other detailed thoughts re. the SBT are in those links above.

If the SBT is false -- I'm a monkey's second cousin (or uncle even). (Mark Fuhrman's crazy anti-SBT, pro-LN theory notwithstanding.)


Mr. Von Pein,
I your posting (quoted above, with sections highlighted), you discuss the Australian documentary: "JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet".

Regarding this documentary (which I saw several months ago), I'd have a couple of questions which left me somewhat puzzled. Perhaps you can help?:

1) In the mock shooting, where did the "magic bullet" exit Kennedy's body? Why was this location on the JFK dummy never shown (should have been in the center of Kennedy's throat, below the Adams apple)? At least I didn't see it... Would have been interesting to compare to the actual wound location and shape, size etc.

2) Why do you think the bullet didn't do the same damage to Connally's wrist and thigh as the actual bullet? In other words, how successful was their attempt after all?

3) A more challenging mock shooting would have been the attempt to replicate the Kennedy head shot. I was disappointed that the Australian team didn't attempt that as well, since they had most of the equipment and materials set up there. What do you think? Of course the title of the documentary would have to be changed.... (In my mind the head shot could be called the second magic bullet (OR MAGIC SHOT)).

4) The forensic pathologist interviewed in the show was asked for an opinion regarding the number of shooters after he read the damage to the victims from the reports given to him (or something to that effect). The pathologist thought there were at least 2 shooters.... Any thoughts on that?

Kind regards,

#4 Pat Speer

Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,364 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 July 2006 - 10:43 AM


Von Pein, I ask you for the edification of others. Where did the bullet enter? Where did it exit? At what level did it pass the spine? Did it pass above or below the first rib?

To some, the single-bullet theory is a religion. Surely, you've done actual research on this theory. What tests did you peform and what were your conclusions?


The SBT proves ITSELF in so many ways (mostly of the "common-sense" variety)....and it's remarkable how so many CTers have been duped into thinking it's an LNer's wet dream. It's nothing of the kind. Myers' work proves the SBT is doable, and the Discovery Channel re-creation came so close to replicating the event, at the VERY LEAST CTers should open up an eye and admit to the SBT's "possibility" if nothing else.

Ask yourself (please) -- Could that Australian Discovery Channel re-creation ("JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet") have possibly come that close to a near-perfect (not perfect to the square-inch, true, but very close) duplication of something that CTers say is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE?

Think about that, please, for a moment.

Could ANY true-to-life re-creation (sans the "living bodies" of the victims) -- utilizing an actual WCC/MC bullet fired from an actual MC rifle from a 60-foot-high perch -- have come THAT CLOSE to re-creating a "Wet Dream" invented by Mr. Specter?

The fact that the JBC mock torso (during that re-creation) was struck in just exactly the same general locations on the "body" where the real JBC suffered injuries in 1963 -- all AFTER a bullet had gone cleanly through a mock Kennedy torso -- should tell any reasonable person assessing the SBT's viability that the theory is most-certainly far from "impossible".

Coupled with Mr. Myers' detailed animated work, which hone in in even more detail re. the angles, etc., these two things (Myers & Disc. Channel) prove beyond doubt that the SBT lives & breathes (regardless of Mr. Speer's "above or below the first rib?" inquiries).

An EXACT TO-THE-INCH re-creation of the SBT is not possible and everybody should know why. It's not gonna happen, unless we can somehow get JFK & JBC to come back to life and do the whole nine yards all over again.

But the "No Bullets Left In JFK" thing is just not gonna fly from a CTer POV. No way. No how.

I want Pat to tell the world -- WHERE ARE THE MULTIPLE BULLETS THAT MUST REPLACE THE SBT??

Re. the more-technical questions, there's no question the SBT works re. the angle through JFK and the one through JBC too. JFK was struck 5.5 in. below the right mastoid, which IS above the anterior portion of the neck where the bullet exited (and where the autopsy report unambiguously says the bullet "exited").

http://www.jfklancer...tos/zeroang.jpg

And if the SBT is wrong -- then SOMETHING ELSE is right. What the heck is it? Not a single CTer has answered that question in a believable way (following any of the known evidence) in 40+ years. Key word there = "believable".

Lots of my other detailed thoughts re. the SBT are in those links above.

If the SBT is false -- I'm a monkey's second cousin (or uncle even). (Mark Fuhrman's crazy anti-SBT, pro-LN theory notwithstanding.)


Here is what I've written on Beyond the Magic Bullet, the complete nonsense Mr. VP holds in such high esteem. Images are included in the Single Bullet Theory section of the link at the bottom...

"In 2004, the Discovery Channel began running a program entitled JFK: Beyond the Magic Bullet. While appearing authoritative, using scientists and experts to simulate the shooting in Dealey Plaza, the program was rife with errors and/or distortions. Ultimately, it showed how incredible the magic bullet theory really is, but then turned around and claimed the opposite!

They attempted the shot from a hanging platform, at a distance of 180 feet, the distance they claim the HSCA claimed for the second shot. Well, there are two problems with this: one is that the HSCA claimed the shot came at around Z-190, which according to the Warren Commission’s recreation, would make it roughly 160 feet, and two is that the Dale Myers animation they used as evidence depicted the shot at z-224, which would make it roughly 190 feet. It’s unclear where they derived their 180 foot measurement.

They placed a target on the simulated torso representing the President at a point several inches to the right of the actual wound on the autopsy photos. They claimed this placement came after “triple-measurement.” What they failed to mention was that the autopsy measurements measured the distance from the shoulder and from the back of the head and their torso had no head. The HSCA and Clark Panel made estimates as to the distance from the spine, which they clearly ignored. Even so, the shooter missed this target and actually hit the torso very close to where the wound is depicted on the autopsy photos. I’d like to think this “miss” was on purpose.

When their “magic bullet,” after traversing both the Kennedy and Connally torsos, failed to explode the simulated wrist to the extent Connally’s was damaged and bounced off the simulated thigh, they looked for it in the surrounding area, only to find a clearly deformed bullet several yards to the right of the torsos. They then conducted a post-mortem to see what went wrong. During a slow-motion replay of the shooting, the narrator stated matter-of-factly that the bullet “struck Kennedy in the neck.” Someone should have told the writer that that lie died with the HSCA. During these replays they never showed the front of either torso.

After taking the Connally torso to a doctor, who ran a cat-scan, they concluded that the bullet struck two of Connally’s ribs instead of the one struck by the “magic bullet” and that this was why their bullet was more damaged. But the cat-scan revealed more than the producers of the show could possibly have desired, as the cat-scan revealed that the simulated ribs on the Connally torso were not even connected to the sternum in front! This meant that there was no bone in the front of Connally’s chest for the “magic bullet” to strike, and thus create more damage and/or slow it down before it struck his wrist. At this point, I ran a replay of my own. I went back to the part of the program where they created the torsos and I discovered that the Kennedy torso had no spine, and that neither torso had shoulder blades. While these bones may have been left out because the producers believed the real “magic” bullet missed these bones, the exclusion of Connally’s front ribs, where the bullet made its exit, is inexcusable. To make matters worse, the cat-scan also revealed that the two damaged ribs on the Connally torso were the 8th and 9th ribs, in the middle of the back, some distance from the actual entrance on Connally’s 5th rib in his armpit.

At this point in the program it all became clear. Rather than testing if a bullet hitting the President in the assumed location would go on to hit Connally in his armpit, wrist and thigh, and come out largely unblemished, the program’s creators were testing if such a bullet, after missing Kennedy’s spine, which is doubtful, after exiting Kennedy’s throat, which is doubtful, and after hitting Connally’s ribs in only one place, which is doubtful, would go on to create the other wounds and appear unblemished.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, the program’s creators neglected to tell their audience the significance of that which they did discover. That the tumbling bullet in the re-enactment hit two ribs while the real bullet struck but one is indicative that the real bullet was not tumbling. This supports the statements of Dr. Robert Shaw, Connally’s doctor, who said the entrance wound was only 1.5 cm long, but is in direct contradiction with the many lone-nut theorists, including the HSCA’s Dr. Baden, who cite the fact (which is not a fact) that the bullet was tumbling as evidence that the bullet first struck Kennedy. These lone-nut theorists, and the Discovery program itself, repeat like a mantra that the entrance in Connally’s armpit was 3 cm, the size of a bullet traveling sideways, and ignore Shaw’s statements and the inconvenient fact that the tear in Connally’s jacket was only 1.7 cm. While acknowledging this, HSCA ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan has argued that a 1.5- 1.7 cm wound is still ovoid and is therefore still an indication that the bullet struck something (such as a President) before striking Connally. He fails to mention, if he’s even aware, that an elongated wound can also be taken as an indication that the weapon responsible was equipped with a silencer, as reported in papers by Ronchi and Ugolini (Zacchia, 1980) and Menzies et al (Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1981). In any event, instead of telling the audience the significance of the bullet hitting two ribs, the program cut to some supposed expert stating that their simulation had taken the “magic” out of the “magic bullet”.

But the program wasn’t over. For their final act they took an autopsy report reflecting the wounds incurred by their simulated torsos to an L.A. County Coroner. Surprisingly, the face sheet created for the Kennedy torso revealed that the bullet exited not from the torso’s throat but from its left chest, and that it probably would have hit its spine (if it had one) and must have hit its sternum (if it had one). Even worse, a probe poked through a skeleton by the doctor to depict the path of the bullet exploded the program’s assertion of replicating the magic bullet, as the probe passed below the clavicle and first rib. A bullet traveling on such a trajectory would not have bruised the President’s lung, but pierced it, and would have exited far below his throat. In conclusion, one might state that the Discovery Channel did recreate the magic bullet, if one is to acknowledge that magic is deliberate deception designed to create the illusion that fantastic events have taken place.

Unfortunately, such misrepresentations are so commonplace these days they‘re barely even noticed. In 2003 a Discovery Channel program entitled “The JFK Conspiracy Myths” attempted to show that Oswald had enough time to perform the shooting by having a sharpshooter on a scaffold shoot at watermelons riding in a remote- controlled limousine. That the sharp shooter hired by the program, Michael Yardley, was able to hit a moving target 3 times in 7.87 seconds (longer than the Warren Commission’s scenario) was supposed to prove that Oswald, who hadn’t fired his rifle in months, if ever, and who had never been trained in shooting at a moving target from an elevated perch, would have been able to accomplish a similar feat. While the program mentioned that Yardley fired six other sets of three shots, and that four of these proved successful (with the other two marred by equipment failure), they failed to mention the timing of these other sets. This leads one to suspect the other sets took longer than the already too long 7.87 seconds quoted in the program. Even worse, when it came time to test the accuracy of Yardley’s shooting, they provided him with a rifle hooked up to a laser switch. As a laser beam travels at the speed of light, making it dramatically easier to hit a moving target, and as a laser beam suffers no bullet drop or wind resistance, this demonstration was akin to playing with a stacked deck. Additionally, the lack of recoil from the laser rifle made it considerably easier to shoot and re-aim. Court TV, in 2003, was equally guilty. During the program JFK: Investigation Reopened they jumped on the deceptive animation bandwagon and defended the feasibility of the single-bullet theory. Of course, to do this they had to lift the back wound above the shoulder line. Even worse, in order to have the bullet go through Connally at the required angle from the sniper’s nest, they had the limousine swerve drastically to the left, even crossing the lane divider, just as the bullet was fired, and then swerve right back again just after. As no one testified to such a swerve and as no such swerve is visible on any of the films, the creators of the program were clearly of the mind-set that it was more important to have the shot line up than to depict the path of the limousine accurately. When will all this deception come to an end?"

Edited by Pat Speer, 18 July 2006 - 10:46 AM.


#5 Antti Hynonen

Antti Hynonen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 955 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Helsinki, Finland
  • Interests:JFK assassination debate

Posted 18 July 2006 - 11:21 AM

David R. Von Pein Posted Today, 09:57 AM
QUOTE
In the mock shooting, where did the "magic bullet" exit Kennedy's body? Why was this location on the JFK dummy never shown (should have been in the center of Kennedy's throat, below the Adams apple)?

Yes, I was puzzled by that too. BUT, the location of the front wound on the mock JFK is actually shown, but in the form of a doctor's chart, where the bullet's exit has been marked (kinda like the Boswell Face Sheet). The exit was way lower than the throat, in the upper chest. However, as I mentioned, there's no way the SBT can ever be duplicated perfectly. The shot also entered too low and to the left (although it also looked like the research team placed the actual back wound in the wrong place...so that adds to the confusion I suppose).

But, in a general not-to-the-inch sense, the test bullet performed amazingly like the real CE399, with the test bullet also emerging PERFECTLY INTACT (not fragmented at all)....a key point IMO, proving that Dr. Wecht's theory of such a bullet HAVING to be all but mutilated beyond recognition obviously is in serious error.



QUOTE
2) Why do you think the bullet didn't do the same damage to Connally's wrist and thigh as the actual bullet? In other words, how successful was their attempt after all?

Well, since the test bullet broke two JBC ribs, instead of one, and was slowed more by doing this in JBC's mock body, it didn't do as severe a wrist damage in the test either. And the bullet did not penetrate the thigh. It bounced off.

But I want to again stress the SIMILARITIES between the test and the real deal in '63 (instead of stressing the dis-similiarities, which I admit there are). That test bullet took the same general path through TWO bodies, did an approx. amount of bodily damage in two bodies, did damage to the very Connally body parts that WERE damaged in JBC in '63, and the bullet came out in pretty good (unfragmented) shape.

A pretty decent re-creation of a so-called "IMPOSSIBLE" event if you ask me.

Here's the test bullet after it emerged from the JBC body:

http://216.122.129.1..._files/6735.jpg

Other pics:

http://216.122.129.1..._files/6720.jpg

http://216.122.129.1..._files/6726.jpg

http://216.122.129.1..._files/6721.jpg


QUOTE
3) A more challenging mock shooting would have been the attempt to replicate the Kennedy head shot. I was disappointed that the Australian team didn't attempt that as well, since they had most of the equipment and materials set up there. What do you think?

Yes, that would have been nice to see. And to see that if, after a slight forward movement, the head would move backward, toward the gunman. Although, again, how likely are we to ever see a PERFECT DUPLICATION of such a "jet-effect" like scenario WITHOUT subjecting a real live human being to such a test? Not very likely IMO. Any volunteers? .... Hmmm, no hands?? I don't blame you. I'm not doin' it either.



QUOTE
4) The forensic pathologist interviewed in the show was asked for an opinion regarding the number of shooters after he read the damage to the victims from the reports given to him (or something to that effect). The pathologist thought there were at least 2 shooters.... Any thoughts on that?

Oh, you bet I have thoughts on that. That last part (with the L.A. physician), in fact, was one of the best parts of the documentary....in that it PROVED beyond all doubt (unless some CTers want to accuse that doc of being "in" on some Disc. Channel "plot"; lol) that a professional doctor CAN, indeed, be mistaken about the SBT-like wounds on two victims that were hit by just one bullet.

He didn't say "2 shooters"...because he couldn't have known that detail. But, in his opinion, he said the damage was done by probably "more than one bullet".

Many CTers have argued with me, saying that the doctor's remarks about his belief that "more than one bullet" did the damage he was looking at on the X-rays somehow proved that one bullet COULDN'T have done the real damage to JFK & JBC.

I follow that silly argument up with --- Well, for pity's sake, man -- THAT WAS THE WHOLE IDEA OF SHOWING THE DOCTOR THE X-RAYS. By him being wrong, it just proves that it was certainly possible for doctors like Cyril Wecht (et al) to possibly be in error re. the real Kennedy case and the SBT too.


Thank you for your replies.

I agree that the Australian test bullet came out more intact than I had expected. However, in all fairness the differences between the actual and mock shootings should have been clearly outlined as well. To me it seemed like they edited or were hiding the exit wound in the JFK torso (which was in a different location thatn the actual).

In my mind the team only did a half decent job (could have been due to financial restrictions), as they didn't use more than one set of dummies. They should have had 2 or three sets of dummies to ensure that at the very least the equivalent number of (similar) bones were hit, as in the actual event.

To compare CE399 with their bullet, the minimum requirement ought to have been that the test bullet hit a similar set of bones (in number and density) and tissue. Now their test remains incomplete. The FMJ rounds that I've fired (into fresh wood) have usually mushroomed a little, so I'm surprised to see the test bullet relatively intact. Also one of the Australian team members said he thought the test bullet was not quite like CE399, as it was more bent. I assume the test results would be even more dissimilar, if it had indeed hit all sections of the intended targets.

I can't understand how the shooter missed the target drawn on the torso, I've done better shooting without a scope, and I'm only an average shot....

Still puzzled.... as in my mind the test did not perform as the actual "magic bullet".

In relation to this, I still think about the JFK autopsy comments regarding the wound in the back (which as I recall was proded) and then the pathologist conlcuded it was only an inch or so deep. In other words I still think the neck wound (in the front) must be from a different shot that the back wound.... why neither seemed to penetrate the body completely, I don't know. Now, trying to fathom the back wound being the entry and the neck wound the exit doesn't make sense, the angle gets too complicated...

Let's remember that the magic bullet has received it's name from a multitude of traits; not only because of being relatively intact, but also from the number of wounds attributed to it and also the debated path it took. Therefore the test firing and the documentary should have adequately addressed all these issues, not just the condition of the bullet.

Edited by Antti Hynonen, 18 July 2006 - 11:42 AM.


#6 David G. Healy

David G. Healy

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,151 posts

Posted 18 July 2006 - 11:28 AM

In the mock shooting, where did the "magic bullet" exit Kennedy's body? Why was this location on the JFK dummy never shown (should have been in the center of Kennedy's throat, below the Adams apple)?


Yes, I was puzzled by that too. BUT, the location of the front wound on the mock JFK is actually shown, but in the form of a doctor's chart, where the bullet's exit has been marked (kinda like the Boswell Face Sheet). The exit was way lower than the throat, in the upper chest. However, as I mentioned, there's no way the SBT can ever be duplicated perfectly. The shot also entered too low and to the left (although it also looked like the research team placed the actual back wound in the wrong place...so that adds to the confusion I suppose).

But, in a general not-to-the-inch sense, the test bullet performed amazingly like the real CE399, with the test bullet also emerging PERFECTLY INTACT (not fragmented at all)....a key point IMO, proving that Dr. Wecht's theory of such a bullet HAVING to be all but mutilated beyond recognition obviously is in serious error.


2) Why do you think the bullet didn't do the same damage to Connally's wrist and thigh as the actual bullet? In other words, how successful was their attempt after all?


Well, since the test bullet broke two JBC ribs, instead of one, and was slowed more by doing this in JBC's mock body, it didn't do as severe a wrist damage in the test either. And the bullet did not penetrate the thigh. It bounced off.

But I want to again stress the SIMILARITIES between the test and the real deal in '63 (instead of stressing the dis-similiarities, which I admit there are). That test bullet took the same general path through TWO bodies, did an approx. amount of bodily damage in two bodies, did damage to the very Connally body parts that WERE damaged in JBC in '63, and the bullet came out in pretty good (unfragmented) shape.

A pretty decent re-creation of a so-called "IMPOSSIBLE" event if you ask me.

Here's the test bullet after it emerged from the JBC body:

http://216.122.129.1..._files/6735.jpg

Other pics:

http://216.122.129.1..._files/6720.jpg

http://216.122.129.1..._files/6726.jpg

http://216.122.129.1..._files/6721.jpg

3) A more challenging mock shooting would have been the attempt to replicate the Kennedy head shot. I was disappointed that the Australian team didn't attempt that as well, since they had most of the equipment and materials set up there. What do you think?


Yes, that would have been nice to see. And to see that if, after a slight forward movement, the head would move backward, toward the gunman. Although, again, how likely are we to ever see a PERFECT DUPLICATION of such a "jet-effect" like scenario WITHOUT subjecting a real live human being to such a test? Not very likely IMO. Any volunteers? .... Hmmm, no hands?? I don't blame you. I'm not doin' it either. :)


4) The forensic pathologist interviewed in the show was asked for an opinion regarding the number of shooters after he read the damage to the victims from the reports given to him (or something to that effect). The pathologist thought there were at least 2 shooters.... Any thoughts on that?


Oh, you bet I have thoughts on that. That last part (with the L.A. physician), in fact, was one of the best parts of the documentary....in that it PROVED beyond all doubt (unless some CTers want to accuse that doc of being "in" on some Disc. Channel "plot"; lol) that a professional doctor CAN, indeed, be mistaken about the SBT-like wounds on two victims that were hit by just one bullet.

He didn't say "2 shooters"...because he couldn't have known that detail. But, in his opinion, he said the damage was done by probably "more than one bullet".

Many CTers have argued with me, saying that the doctor's remarks about his belief that "more than one bullet" did the damage he was looking at on the X-rays somehow proved that one bullet COULDN'T have done the real damage to JFK & JBC.

I follow that silly argument up with --- Well, for pity's sake, man -- THAT WAS THE WHOLE IDEA OF SHOWING THE DOCTOR THE X-RAYS. By him being wrong, it just proves that it was certainly possible for doctors like Cyril Wecht (et al) to possibly be in error re. the real Kennedy case and the SBT too.



no doubt Mr. Von Pain will be launching into his infamous support for Vin Bugliosi and his "everything that ails the CTer" cure all, forth coming books (15 years in the making). Maybe Ben could assist you in keeping your arguments/debate regarding case evidence, particulary WCR evidence in this case, on point?

Oh, how much lower was Connally's 're-creation' chest exit wound, when compared to the actual?

Edited by David G. Healy, 18 July 2006 - 11:30 AM.


#7 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,087 posts

Posted 18 July 2006 - 12:06 PM

According to the Warren Commission this was the path of the bullet that hit both JFK and Connally.

Attached Files



#8 David G. Healy

David G. Healy

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,151 posts

Posted 18 July 2006 - 12:15 PM

According to the Warren Commission this was the path of the bullet that hit both JFK and Connally.


From what I recall John, the Australian Outback test results has the round exiting Connally's chest much lower than the WCR...

#9 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,087 posts

Posted 18 July 2006 - 12:29 PM

David R. Von Pein, what do you make of the testimony of Francis X. O'Neill and James W. Sibert? When John F. Kennedy was assassinated on 22nd November, 1963, the FBI sent O'Neill to Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland "to assume jurisdiction over any violations that might fall within our purview." James W. Sibert was also sent to the air base "so there would be two of us to be a witness to whatever might happen."

Sibert and O'Neill then accompanied the coffin to Bethesda Naval Hospital. The agents also attended the autopsy carried out by Dr. Joseph Humes. Sibert and O'Neill wrote up a FD 302 report on what they witnessed.

Arlen Spector, the assistant counsel to the Warren Report, interviewed both Sibert and O'Neill after the assassination. However, as a result of what they told them, they were not called to testify before the Warren Commission. Specter was the man closely associated with the lone gunman theory. Their FD 302 report also became a classified document.

The Warren Commission reported: "A bullet had entered the base of the back of Kennedy's neck slightly to the right of the spine. It traveled downward and exited from the front of the neck, crossing a nick in the left lower portion of the knot in the President's necktie."

When the FD 302 report was eventually declassified it became clear why Sibert and O'Neill did not appear before the Warren Commission. It included the following passage: "During the later stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below his shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column." This evidence is supported by the bullet holes in Kennedy's clothing and completely undermined the lone gunman theory. As Jim Marrs points out in Crossfire: "If the President's wound was between the shoulder blades, this was lower than the position of the neck wound making for an upward trajectory - totally inconsistent with the idea of shots from sixty feet above and behind the President."

#10 Antti Hynonen

Antti Hynonen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 955 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Helsinki, Finland
  • Interests:JFK assassination debate

Posted 18 July 2006 - 12:30 PM

Yes, the path of the bullet can not be explained, if you take into account all of the primary evidence and the single bullet theory.

The Wound in Kennedy's back (according to the autopsy photos) is located around the bottom half of the shoulder blade on the right side of his back. The alleged exit wound is in the centerline of the throat, below the Adams apple (thus indicating an upward path) unless Kennedy was bent down and over considerably (which I don't recall from the photos or footage seen from that day).

When comparing to the actual photos displaying the back wound, the Rydberg drawings are inaccurate, and so is the WC drawing posted by John Simkin.

#11 Thomas H. Purvis

Thomas H. Purvis

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,055 posts

Posted 18 July 2006 - 01:05 PM


Von Pein, I ask you for the edification of others. Where did the bullet enter? Where did it exit? At what level did it pass the spine? Did it pass above or below the first rib?

To some, the single-bullet theory is a religion. Surely, you've done actual research on this theory. What tests did you peform and what were your conclusions?


The SBT proves ITSELF in so many ways (mostly of the "common-sense" variety)....and it's remarkable how so many CTers have been duped into thinking it's an LNer's wet dream. It's nothing of the kind. Myers' work proves the SBT is doable, and the Discovery Channel re-creation came so close to replicating the event, at the VERY LEAST CTers should open up an eye and admit to the SBT's "possibility" if nothing else.

Ask yourself (please) -- Could that Australian Discovery Channel re-creation ("JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet") have possibly come that close to a near-perfect (not perfect to the square-inch, true, but very close) duplication of something that CTers say is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE?

Think about that, please, for a moment.

Could ANY true-to-life re-creation (sans the "living bodies" of the victims) -- utilizing an actual WCC/MC bullet fired from an actual MC rifle from a 60-foot-high perch -- have come THAT CLOSE to re-creating a "Wet Dream" invented by Mr. Specter?

The fact that the JBC mock torso (during that re-creation) was struck in just exactly the same general locations on the "body" where the real JBC suffered injuries in 1963 -- all AFTER a bullet had gone cleanly through a mock Kennedy torso -- should tell any reasonable person assessing the SBT's viability that the theory is most-certainly far from "impossible".

Coupled with Mr. Myers' detailed animated work, which hone in in even more detail re. the angles, etc., these two things (Myers & Disc. Channel) prove beyond doubt that the SBT lives & breathes (regardless of Mr. Speer's "above or below the first rib?" inquiries).

An EXACT TO-THE-INCH re-creation of the SBT is not possible and everybody should know why. It's not gonna happen, unless we can somehow get JFK & JBC to come back to life and do the whole nine yards all over again.

But the "No Bullets Left In JFK" thing is just not gonna fly from a CTer POV. No way. No how.

I want Pat to tell the world -- WHERE ARE THE MULTIPLE BULLETS THAT MUST REPLACE THE SBT??

Re. the more-technical questions, there's no question the SBT works re. the angle through JFK and the one through JBC too. JFK was struck 5.5 in. below the right mastoid, which IS above the anterior portion of the neck where the bullet exited (and where the autopsy report unambiguously says the bullet "exited").

http://www.jfklancer...tos/zeroang.jpg

And if the SBT is wrong -- then SOMETHING ELSE is right. What the heck is it? Not a single CTer has answered that question in a believable way (following any of the known evidence) in 40+ years. Key word there = "believable".

Lots of my other detailed thoughts re. the SBT are in those links above.

If the SBT is false -- I'm a monkey's second cousin (or uncle even). (Mark Fuhrman's crazy anti-SBT, pro-LN theory notwithstanding.)




"And if the SBT is wrong -- then SOMETHING ELSE is right. What the heck is it? Not a single CTer has answered that question in a believable way (following any of the known evidence) in 40+ years. Key word there = "believable".

David;

It is not a matter of "if the SBT is wrong".

And, although a SBT did in fact go through JFK and ultimately strike JBC, said bullet was neither the first shot, nor was the actual bullet CE399 which was the first shot.

It is/was in fact the true "Magic" bullet, which happens to have been the third shot fired, and with a little assistance from Specter & Company, was made to completely disappear.

Therefore: "Politicians, not unlike Magicians, can make things disappear!"

Lastly, certainly the WC version of the "SBT" is possible.
Merely that, due to the angles and positions of JFK & JBC at the time of the first shot, it was not possible.
Merely that, due to various impact with bone, it is physically impossible for CE399 to have remained in the condition found.
Merely that, due to the anomalies which are possessed by CE399, it would have been impossible for the bullet to have achieved these deformations from impact with human tissue and/or human bone.

To even consider acceptance of the WC version of the SBT, goes against all logic for factual researchers.

Unfortunately, far too many who recognize the basic problems with the SBT theory, thereafter immediately assume that this has something to do with some "GIANT" government conspiracy to cover up for multiple assassins and/or some part on the US Government in the assassination.

Therefore, the trips into "Alice in Wonderland" theories which come about as a result of such failures to consider all of the facts and evidence.
And, that there remains those who, for whatever reason, are more than willing to sell and promote the "Wonderland" scenarios, is no more indicative of our society than the fact that many believe them.

Tom

P.S. Perhaps legal adoption would make the "cousin" and "Uncle" aspect more acceptable to society when the final facts of the assassination of JFK are revealed.

#12 Thomas H. Purvis

Thomas H. Purvis

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,055 posts

Posted 18 July 2006 - 01:30 PM

Move over "Alice", Mr. Von Pein has entered the hole, and is as lost as are the body snatchers, etc;

#13 Thomas H. Purvis

Thomas H. Purvis

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,055 posts

Posted 18 July 2006 - 01:58 PM

Move over "Alice", Mr. Von Pein has entered the hole, and is as lost as are the body snatchers, etc;



And, although the HSCA utilized a little better "cartoon" drawings, they to managed to divert as well as confuse.

In this lateral drawing, the "back entry" wound was not even drawn in.
It has been placed in the shown location based on the "Posterior" drawing which they also made, and not unlike all of the other cartoons, as well as the TV/movie versions of same.

IT DON"T WORK.

In placement of the back entry onto this drawing, from the anterior drawing, it represents a passage angle of only 3-degrees downward.

Had the entry point on the back/upper neck been in this position, with an 18-degree downward angle of entry, the bullet would have passed through the upper lobe of the lung (disregarding the cross-angle of fire), or else exited in the mid-chest area below the sternum.

Had the entry point of the back/upper neck been in this position, with the autopsy reported 45-degree to 60-degree downward angle of entry, the bullet would have exited in the mid chest region.

Personally, I like cartoon drawings as much as the next person.
However, when dealing with the facts of the assassination of JFK, it would be appreciated if those who continually attempt to pull the wool over my eyes, and divert from the facts, would pass on.

Then, perhaps there will be little opposition to a final presentation of the facts.

#14 Thomas H. Purvis

Thomas H. Purvis

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,055 posts

Posted 18 July 2006 - 04:27 PM


Move over "Alice", Mr. Von Pein has entered the hole, and is as lost as are the body snatchers, etc;



And, although the HSCA utilized a little better "cartoon" drawings, they to managed to divert as well as confuse.

In this lateral drawing, the "back entry" wound was not even drawn in.
It has been placed in the shown location based on the "Posterior" drawing which they also made, and not unlike all of the other cartoons, as well as the TV/movie versions of same.

IT DON"T WORK.

In placement of the back entry onto this drawing, from the anterior drawing, it represents a passage angle of only 3-degrees downward.

Had the entry point on the back/upper neck been in this position, with an 18-degree downward angle of entry, the bullet would have passed through the upper lobe of the lung (disregarding the cross-angle of fire), or else exited in the mid-chest area below the sternum.

Had the entry point of the back/upper neck been in this position, with the autopsy reported 45-degree to 60-degree downward angle of entry, the bullet would have exited in the mid chest region.

Personally, I like cartoon drawings as much as the next person.
However, when dealing with the facts of the assassination of JFK, it would be appreciated if those who continually attempt to pull the wool over my eyes, and divert from the facts, would pass on.

Then, perhaps there will be little opposition to a final presentation of the facts.



In event that one choses to destroy the CE399 SBT theory, then they should first do so through utilization of the, often "cartoonish" evidence with which the WC as well as the HSCA presented this myth.

And, although the throat exit wound of JFK is, for all practical purposes, accurately demonstrated in the HSCA drawing made by Ida Dox, that is about ALL.

Therefore, one can utilize this somewhat accurate location of the anterior throat wound and thus work backwards to again discredit most of the WC & HSCA SBT theory/myth/aka lie.

Since the apex of the right lung of JFK was bruised, as well as the surrounding parietal pluera, it is most unlikely that a bullet passing through the neck of JFK at an 18-degree downward angle of fire, would have passed close enough to the apex of the lung to have bruised it.

And, with the cross angle of fire, this bullet could not have fractured and fragmented the right transverse process of either the 6th and/or 7th vertebra (as reported by the Clark Panel as well as the HSCA Medical Panel), without having created severe damage throughout the neck of JFK, only to exit at/about the third tracheal ring.

Then, when one throws in the reported 45-degree to 60-degree downward angle of entry, as documented and reported, the impossibility of the CE399 SBT becomes even more obvious and evident.

#15 Thomas H. Purvis

Thomas H. Purvis

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,055 posts

Posted 18 July 2006 - 04:29 PM


Move over "Alice", Mr. Von Pein has entered the hole, and is as lost as are the body snatchers, etc;



And, although the HSCA utilized a little better "cartoon" drawings, they to managed to divert as well as confuse.

In this lateral drawing, the "back entry" wound was not even drawn in.
It has been placed in the shown location based on the "Posterior" drawing which they also made, and not unlike all of the other cartoons, as well as the TV/movie versions of same.

IT DON"T WORK.

In placement of the back entry onto this drawing, from the anterior drawing, it represents a passage angle of only 3-degrees downward.

Had the entry point on the back/upper neck been in this position, with an 18-degree downward angle of entry, the bullet would have passed through the upper lobe of the lung (disregarding the cross-angle of fire), or else exited in the mid-chest area below the sternum.

Had the entry point of the back/upper neck been in this position, with the autopsy reported 45-degree to 60-degree downward angle of entry, the bullet would have exited in the mid chest region.

Personally, I like cartoon drawings as much as the next person.
However, when dealing with the facts of the assassination of JFK, it would be appreciated if those who continually attempt to pull the wool over my eyes, and divert from the facts, would pass on.

Then, perhaps there will be little opposition to a final presentation of the facts.



In event that one choses to destroy the CE399 SBT theory, then they should first do so through utilization of the, often "cartoonish" evidence with which the WC as well as the HSCA presented this myth.

And, although the throat exit wound of JFK is, for all practical purposes, accurately demonstrated in the HSCA drawing made by Ida Dox, that is about ALL.

Therefore, one can utilize this somewhat accurate location of the anterior throat wound and thus work backwards to again discredit most of the WC & HSCA SBT theory/myth/aka lie.

Since the apex of the right lung of JFK was bruised, as well as the surrounding parietal pluera, it is most unlikely that a bullet passing through the neck of JFK at an 18-degree downward angle of fire, would have passed close enough to the apex of the lung to have bruised it.

And, with the cross angle of fire, this bullet could not have fractured and fragmented the right transverse process of either the 6th and/or 7th vertebra (as reported by the Clark Panel as well as the HSCA Medical Panel), without having created severe damage throughout the neck of JFK, only to exit at/about the third tracheal ring.

Then, when one throws in the reported 45-degree to 60-degree downward angle of entry, as documented and reported, the impossibility of the CE399 SBT becomes even more obvious and evident.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users