Jump to content
The Education Forum
Michael Hogan

Things Don't Add Up : A Novel of Kennedy Assassination Research

Recommended Posts

Mr. Lamson

Has it ever occurred to you that, if the back of the jacket (plus the shirt, by necessity) was "folded" or "bunched" (or whatever verb it is you are using this week), there is an excellent chance the bullet would have passed through this bunch (or fold), producing two or possibly three bullet holes in the jacket (and shirt) instead of the single bullet hole seen?

Of course I've considered it and I also did a bit of work that shows that does not have to be the case. Have you?

Yes I have. From the experiment I did with a friend of mine, the bunching produced several folded layers of material. A shot through the collar line would have penetrated all of these folds, leaving quite a number of holes through the jacket, once the jacket was laid flat.

If JFK's jacket (and shirt) were bunched up as you claim, the collars of both would still be in place at the collar line, unless you believe both collars were riding up on the back of JFK's head somewhere?

If the bullet entered at the collar line, why are there no holes through the collars of the jacket and the shirt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Lamson

Has it ever occurred to you that, if the back of the jacket (plus the shirt, by necessity) was "folded" or "bunched" (or whatever verb it is you are using this week), there is an excellent chance the bullet would have passed through this bunch (or fold), producing two or possibly three bullet holes in the jacket (and shirt) instead of the single bullet hole seen?

Of course I've considered it and I also did a bit of work that shows that does not have to be the case. Have you?

Yes I have. From the experiment I did with a friend of mine, the bunching produced several folded layers of material. A shot through the collar line would have penetrated all of these folds, leaving quite a number of holes through the jacket, once the jacket was laid flat.

If JFK's jacket (and shirt) were bunched up as you claim, the collars of both would still be in place at the collar line, unless you believe both collars were riding up on the back of JFK's head somewhere?

If the bullet entered at the collar line, why are there no holes through the collars of the jacket and the shirt?

Then you simply failed. A hole just below the inner bottom of the fold only produces one hole and moves the wound UP. Simple work, and you failed? Imagine that.

Edited by Craig Lamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, how 'bout it, David? Is there even the slightest chance, in your opinion, that they lied?

Or do you really think the chalk mark was added onto the jacket in the location of the wound in CE 386?

Conspiracy theorists are just dying to call people "liars", aren't they? It never ends.

And in this instance, it's even sillier than usual--a lot sillier--because the chalk mark that was placed on the stand-in's back is unquestionably closer to the true and accurate location of where the bullet entered JFK's back than are the Rydberg drawings.

So, Pat, I have a difficult time labelling someone a xxxx who, in effect, is making something more accurate (even though you want to call it a "lie").

Plus, there's also this testimony about the coat of JFK to be considered [at 5 H 133]:

ARLEN SPECTER -- "What marking, if any, was placed on the back of...the stand-in for President Kennedy?"

THOMAS J. KELLEY -- "There was a chalk mark placed on his coat, in this area here."

MR. SPECTER -- "And what did that chalk mark represent?"

MR. KELLEY -- "That represented the entry point of the shot which wounded the President."

MR. SPECTER -- "And how was the location for that mark fixed or determined?"

MR. KELLEY -- "That was fixed from the photographs of a medical drawing that was made by the physicians...and an examination of the coat which the President was wearing at the time."

Therefore, it would seem as if the chalk mark was also based (at least in part) on the hole in JFK's jacket, which IMO is just totally ridiculous, since we know that the hole in the coat is located well BELOW the hole in JFK's skin (due to the fact that Kennedy's coat was bunched up higher than normal when the shooting occurred).

Which means that if the jacket on the JFK stand-in in the photo below were to be "bunched up" a little bit (and we can see it isn't bunched up at all in this photograph), it would make the chalk mark rise a little higher on the back of the stand-in, which would mean it would almost perfectly line up with where Arlen Specter is holding the metal rod in this picture:

Opposite-Angle-View-Of-CE903.gif

That "bunching up" of the jacket could very well be the answer as to why the chalk mark is located below the level of Specter's pointer. If we bunch up the jacket a little bit (like JFK's coat was bunched, per the Croft photo), it's a perfect alignment.

Also:

You don't deny, do you Pat, that the chalk mark on the JFK stand-in is more accurate in its placement than the obviously-inaccurate placement (particularly laterally) that we find in Rydberg's drawing?

Therefore--again--what's there to gripe about here?

In the final analysis, the WC got it right. But you'd rather call the people who got it right "liars" anyway. Right, Pat?

That's a peculiar hobby you CTers have.

Footnote----

I'll also add this important note:

The picture we see in CE903 is based on merely the AVERAGE angle between Z-Film frames 210 and 225, which means in order for the CE903 angle to be PRECISELY accurate, it would mean that the SBT bullet hit JFK & Connally at exactly Z217.5 (which is the halfway point between Z210 and 225). But it's very unlikely and improbable that the WC managed to hit the SBT Z-frame squarely on the head at Z217.5. The bullet, IMO, is obviously striking the victims a little later than that--at Z224.

So a tiny little bit of slack and margin-of-error needs to be given to Mr. Specter and the Commission and the angle seen in CE903. Because, let's face it, if Kennedy and Connally weren't hit at exactly Z217.5 (and they very likely were not hit at that precise moment), then the angle and other measurements are going to be just slightly off (which is something I also talk about HERE in one of my "CE903" articles).

Based on the obvious truth about the angles that I just mentioned above, is there any chance that Pat Speer (or any other conspiracy theorist) would be willing to cut Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission just a tiny bit of slack when it comes to the Single-Bullet Theory?

And if not....tell me why not?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And DVP tries to hijack another thread.

Please note how Mr. Jeffries will completely overlook the posts made by the half-a-dozen (or so) other people in this thread (including an EF moderator).

Those "other" people (except for Craig L.) aren't to be deemed "hijackers" though, because they aren't dirty rotten LNers like DVP. Only DVP is the "hijacker" here. The CTers get a pass. How surprising.

In actuality, of course, this thread wasn't "hijacked" by anybody. It merely started to go down different paths (as almost every forum thread does eventually). It's the nature of the beast. I wonder if there's ever been a thread of more than 4 or 5 pages that HASN'T been "hijacked"? I doubt it.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Lamson

Has it ever occurred to you that, if the back of the jacket (plus the shirt, by necessity) was "folded" or "bunched" (or whatever verb it is you are using this week), there is an excellent chance the bullet would have passed through this bunch (or fold), producing two or possibly three bullet holes in the jacket (and shirt) instead of the single bullet hole seen?

Of course I've considered it and I also did a bit of work that shows that does not have to be the case. Have you?

Yes I have. From the experiment I did with a friend of mine, the bunching produced several folded layers of material. A shot through the collar line would have penetrated all of these folds, leaving quite a number of holes through the jacket, once the jacket was laid flat.

If JFK's jacket (and shirt) were bunched up as you claim, the collars of both would still be in place at the collar line, unless you believe both collars were riding up on the back of JFK's head somewhere?

If the bullet entered at the collar line, why are there no holes through the collars of the jacket and the shirt?

Then you simply failed. A hole just below the inner bottom of the fold only produces one hole and moves the wound UP. Simple work, and you failed? Imagine that.

Mr. Lamson

As usual, your logic is quite assumptive and badly flawed.

In your world, was the bullet not supposed to have gone through the collar line? If so, the collar of JFK's shirt was still in place, and was obviously not penetrated by a bullet. If it was not in place, the collar would also have ridden up in the front. If it had, the bullet would have exited well below the tie knot.

However, let us assume, for a second, just to help you out a little, that the bullet entered just below the two collars. Where were the folds bunched up to? If they were bunched up just below the collars, the bullet, entering just below the collars, would have penetrated all of the folds, leaving numerous holes.

The only way for your theory to work is for all of the bunching, in both jacket and shirt, to have been at or above the level of the collar. Considering that the shirt was buttoned up and there was a tie around his neck, this amount of bunching above the collar line takes quite a bit of imagination to produce.

In other words, Mr. Lamson, it is quite likely it did not occur the way you believe it did. If you can produce photos showing the folded (bunched) material to be all at the level of or higher than the jacket collar, I would be happy to look at them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a simple explanation of why the Single Bullet Theory does not work. Please look at the following photos and diagrams.

attachicon.gif39311W-21.jpg

attachicon.gifspine-cervical-posterior-11.jpg

attachicon.gifc9ee9_cervical_vertebrae_5642641091_33064b5d66.jpg

The first diagram shows a cross section of the human neck at cervical vertebra C7. The back of the neck is at the bottom of the diagram. C7 can be seen in the lower pat of the diagram with the transverse processes projecting out to each side. The trachea (windpipe) can be seen in the upper part of the diagram with the vertical black opening in the centre of it.

As we all know, it is held that JFK was shot, from behind, at the level of the C7 - T1 vertebrae; T1 being the first thoracic vertebra directly below C7, and that the bullet passed through JFK's neck and travelled through the right side of his trachea before exiting.

It is not possible for the bullet to have travelled BETWEEN C7 and T1, as the two posterior skeletal photos clearly show. The vertebrae are tightly packed in this region of the spine, and a bullet, especially one travelling at a downward angle from the 6th floor of the TSBD, would have to pass on the outside of the extreme tip of the right transverse process on its way to JFK's trachea. If it had passed between C7 and T1, it would have done a great amount of damage, none of which is visible on the x-rays of JFK.

So, referring again to the cross-sectional diagram, place a straight edge or protractor outside of the tip of the right transverse process and also in contact with the right side of the trachea. The last time I tried this, I came up with an angle of 26°. John Connally would have had to have been sitting in the middle of the limousine in order to be hit under the right armpit by the SBT.

P.S. When you laid your straight edge on the diagram, did you notice the red circle about halfway from the tip of the right transverse process to the right side of the trachea? That is one of the two carotid arteries that are the main blood supply to the brain. The SBT could not have traversed the claimed route without damaging the right carotid artery. There would have been an unmistakable spurting of blood from this wound that would have been quite noticeable in the Zapruder film.

It is a strange thing. The second I show how anatomically impossible it is for the SBT to have occurred, the Lone Nuts disappear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Lamson Has it ever occurred to you that, if the back of the jacket (plus the shirt, by necessity) was "folded" or "bunched" (or whatever verb it is you are using this week), there is an excellent chance the bullet would have passed through this bunch (or fold), producing two or possibly three bullet holes in the jacket (and shirt) instead of the single bullet hole seen?

Of course I've considered it and I also did a bit of work that shows that does not have to be the case. Have you?

Yes I have. From the experiment I did with a friend of mine, the bunching produced several folded layers of material. A shot through the collar line would have penetrated all of these folds, leaving quite a number of holes through the jacket, once the jacket was laid flat. If JFK's jacket (and shirt) were bunched up as you claim, the collars of both would still be in place at the collar line, unless you believe both collars were riding up on the back of JFK's head somewhere? If the bullet entered at the collar line, why are there no holes through the collars of the jacket and the shirt?

Then you simply failed. A hole just below the inner bottom of the fold only produces one hole and moves the wound UP. Simple work, and you failed? Imagine that.

Mr. Lamson As usual, your logic is quite assumptive and badly flawed. In your world, was the bullet not supposed to have gone through the collar line? If so, the collar of JFK's shirt was still in place, and was obviously not penetrated by a bullet. If it was not in place, the collar would also have ridden up in the front. If it had, the bullet would have exited well below the tie knot. However, let us assume, for a second, just to help you out a little, that the bullet entered just below the two collars. Where were the folds bunched up to? If they were bunched up just below the collars, the bullet, entering just below the collars, would have penetrated all of the folds, leaving numerous holes. The only way for your theory to work is for all of the bunching, in both jacket and shirt, to have been at or above the level of the collar. Considering that the shirt was buttoned up and there was a tie around his neck, this amount of bunching above the collar line takes quite a bit of imagination to produce. In other words, Mr. Lamson, it is quite likely it did not occur the way you believe it did. If you can produce photos showing the folded (bunched) material to be all at the level of or higher than the jacket collar, I would be happy to look at them.

Croft. Better luck next time bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Lamson

I am not surprised you do not have an answer. I have noticed you are long on talk and short of anything substantial, such as proof or evidence.

Would you be so good as to show me how Croft proves your argument for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Lamson

I am not surprised you do not have an answer. I have noticed you are long on talk and short of anything substantial, such as proof or evidence.

Would you be so good as to show me how Croft proves your argument for you?

bobby sez:

"If you can produce photos showing the folded (bunched) material to be all at the level of or higher than the jacket collar, I would be happy to look at them."

Can you even remember what you wrote bobby?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like another professor on the cia payroll....my tax dollars at work ....makes me sick.

Yeah, right. Anybody who has the gall to think Oswald was guilty (or "no conspiracy") is automatically labeled "CIA".

Makes me sick.

Well....It doesn't matter what makes you sick, the real question behind Ortiz's comment is rather simple: does anyone in the world, any student or teacher of history have ANY rational warrant for believing such a premise/conclusion? (Oswald did it = CIA Propaganda, etc) Anyone who is a student or teacher (in the honest, factual and true searching manner) are certainly warranted for espousing such conclusions, especially regarding political assassinations during the Cold War era.

Edited by B. A. Copeland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Lamson

I am not surprised you do not have an answer. I have noticed you are long on talk and short of anything substantial, such as proof or evidence.

Would you be so good as to show me how Croft proves your argument for you?

bobby sez:

"If you can produce photos showing the folded (bunched) material to be all at the level of or higher than the jacket collar, I would be happy to look at them."

Can you even remember what you wrote bobby?

Mr. Lamson

Please just prove your arguments for us with pictures, if that is possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Lamson

I am not surprised you do not have an answer. I have noticed you are long on talk and short of anything substantial, such as proof or evidence.

Would you be so good as to show me how Croft proves your argument for you?

bobby sez:

"If you can produce photos showing the folded (bunched) material to be all at the level of or higher than the jacket collar, I would be happy to look at them."

Can you even remember what you wrote bobby?

Mr. Lamson

Please just prove your arguments for us with pictures, if that is possible.

I did...Croft.

Surely you know the Croft photo in question don't you?

Better yet, just do a simple search. You use that little box at the top right of this page that says...well...search.

There are huge threads detailing all of this.

Why don't you get back to us when you have digested ALL of it....

Edited by Craig Lamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Lamson

Yes, I am familiar with the Croft photo. There is a small wrinkle in the material of his suit coat on the right hand side, likely from his right arm being raised. However, the wrinkle is not seen on the left side, indicating that it is far too small to allow for a bullet entering JFK at the collar line to leave a hole in his jacket and shirt 5-6" below the collar line.

However, if the wrinkle is as large as you claim it is, the inside fold of the wrinkle would extend down JFK's back quite a ways. Are you not concerned that the C7/T1 juncture would be somewhat higher than the bottom fold of the wrinkle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Lamson

Yes, I am familiar with the Croft photo. There is a small wrinkle in the material of his suit coat on the right hand side, likely from his right arm being raised. However, the wrinkle is not seen on the left side, indicating that it is far too small to allow for a bullet entering JFK at the collar line to leave a hole in his jacket and shirt 5-6" below the collar line.

However, if the wrinkle is as large as you claim it is, the inside fold of the wrinkle would extend down JFK's back quite a ways. Are you not concerned that the C7/T1 juncture would be somewhat higher than the bottom fold of the wrinkle?

You don't have the first clue bobby. Do your research and get back to me when you have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...