Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

"Frangible bullets? I've heard of them for at least 50 years, I only heard of you this year."

Perhaps you would like to define a frangible bullet and its construction for everyone here, Kenneth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Frangible bullets? I've heard of them for at least 50 years, I only heard of you this year."

Perhaps you would like to define a frangible bullet and its construction for everyone here, Kenneth.

"Perhaps you would like to define a frangible bullet and its construction for everyone here, Kenneth."

Sure, I'll get to that right after I finish this plumbing job I'm on. And once I do, tell me what that has to do with "who shot John"?

Edited by Kenneth Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything. Once it is explained what type of bullet hit JFK in the head and back, no one could think for one minute that a minimum wage earner could have pulled this thing off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything. Once it is explained what type of bullet hit JFK in the head and back, no one could think for one minute that a minimum wage earner could have pulled this thing off.

Have you suggested it was a minimum wage earner? I haven't investigated what the min wage was in 63. I would suspect the shooters were all well paid. Tell me why you think it matters what kind of bullet hit him in the back or head or throat. Whatever he was shot with was sufficient to kill him so the type is not important, only the net effect. If it turns out that he was shot with a low velocity 38, he's still gonna be dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imported from this EF thread....

How did the bullet avoid going through the vertebrae, Dave? Magic?

Well, Bob, all I can say is....

You are obviously incorrect in your analysis. Simple as that.

Also....

The HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel had no problem with the bullet going clean through JFK's body. Nor did the autopsy doctors have any difficulty arriving at such a "thru-&-thru" conclusion (after Dr. Humes talked with Dr. Perry on the morning of November 23rd, that is).

But I'm supposed to believe a man by the name of Robert Prudhomme instead, while ignoring those TWELVE pathologists who said that a bullet DID go through JFK's back and neck.

You think you know more than TWELVE different pathologists, Bob? Please enlighten me on WHY you think that.

And here's another panel which concluded something that Robert Prudhomme thinks could have only resulted from "magic". So this brings the total number of doctors that Bob P. needs to ignore up to sixteen....

Quoting from the Clark Panel Report (emphasis added by DVP).....

"The other bullet struck the decedent's back at the right side of the base of the neck between the shoulder and spine and emerged from the front of his neck near the midline. The possibility that this bullet might have followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found.

There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea described in the Autopsy Report. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck.

The possibility that the path of the bullet through the neck might have been more satisfactorily explored by the insertion of a finger or probe was considered. Obviously the cutaneous wound in the back was too small to permit the insertion of a finger. The insertion of a metal probe would have carried the risk of creating a false passage, in part because of the changed relationship of muscles at the time of autopsy and in part because of the existence of postmortem rigidity.

Although the precise path of the bullet could undoubtedly have been demonstrated by complete dissection of the soft tissue between the two cutaneous wounds, there is no reason to believe that the information disclosed thereby would alter significantly the conclusions expressed in this report."

[END QUOTE.]

These excerpts deserve a replay and lots of extra emphasis:

"The possibility that this bullet might have followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found."

"Any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck."

"There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds..."

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-1968-clark-panel-report.html

---------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave has no answers. All he can do is tell us the great panels, commissions and committees said it was true so that MUST mean it is true.

Kind of sad that he can't seem to come up with any logical arguments of his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything. Once it is explained what type of bullet hit JFK in the head and back, no one could think for one minute that a minimum wage earner could have pulled this thing off.

Have you suggested it was a minimum wage earner? I haven't investigated what the min wage was in 63. I would suspect the shooters were all well paid. Tell me why you think it matters what kind of bullet hit him in the back or head or throat. Whatever he was shot with was sufficient to kill him so the type is not important, only the net effect. If it turns out that he was shot with a low velocity 38, he's still gonna be dead.

Patience, please. All will be answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't ya love how Prudhomme likes to drag things out?

"Patience, please. All will be answered", Robert assures us all.

And the answers from the Mighty Bob P. will be coming straight from Mount Sinai in tablet form, no doubt. (Won't they, Bob?)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Dave, unlike some people, I don't get paid to be on this forum. I have contractual obligations that must be met, and can't spend all of my time on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once it is explained what type of bullet hit JFK in the head and back, no one could think for one minute that a minimum wage earner could have pulled this thing off.

And yet, according to almost every CTer on the Web, the PRE-assassination plotters tried to frame Lee Oswald.

Which would mean, logically, that whoever was trying to frame LHO prior to Nov. 22 would have been doing everything they could to make it look like the patsy DID commit the crime -- even though Robert Prudhomme assures us that ..... "Once it is explained what type of bullet hit JFK in the head and back, no one could think for one minute that a minimum wage earner could have pulled this thing off."

Oh, those strange patsy-framers. So brilliant. And yet at the same time---so amazingly stupid.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Dave, unlike some people, I don't get paid to be on this forum. I have contractual obligations that must be met, and can't spend all of my time on here.

Yeah, I can understand that. The Anybody But Oswald Clubs of the United States, Canada, & the United Kingdom are overflowing with members. Your contractual obligations must be overwhelming, Bob.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once it is explained what type of bullet hit JFK in the head and back, no one could think for one minute that a minimum wage earner could have pulled this thing off.

And yet, according to almost every CTer on the Web, the PRE-assassination plotters tried to frame Lee Oswald.

Which would mean, logically, that whoever was trying to frame LHO prior to Nov. 22 would have been doing everything they could to make it look like the patsy DID commit the crime -- even though Robert Prudhomme assures us that ..... "Once it is explained what type of bullet hit JFK in the head and back, no one could think for one minute that a minimum wage earner could have pulled this thing off."

Oh, those strange patsy-framers. So brilliant. And yet at the same time---so amazingly stupid.

Unlucky.

Oswald was set up as an Agent of Fidel but those tasked with killing him promptly failed.

So those at the top of the plot switched gears and dictated the Lone Nut scenario to LBJ and Hoover in the hours following JFK's demise.

Or so I speculate.

I can't say I KNOW exactly what happened, and neither can Robert P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, those strange patsy-framers. So brilliant. And yet at the same time---so amazingly stupid.

Unlucky.

Oswald was set up as an Agent of Fidel but those tasked with killing him promptly failed.

So those at the top of the plot switched gears and dictated the Lone Nut scenario to LBJ and Hoover in the hours following JFK's demise.

Or so I speculate.

And in addition to convincing LBJ and J. Edgar to begin the "Frame Oswald" campaign, those amazing PRE-assassination plotters were also somehow able to convince everybody in Dallas law enforcement to start framing the very same patsy named Oswald?? Is that what you think happened, Cliff?

UNLUCKY plotters, you say?

Hardly. Seems to me that those assassins were the luckiest plotters known to man.

"[it was] either Oswald alone, or thousands working to make it look like Oz did it alone." -- Bud (aaj/acj); Jan. 19, 2007

"A cast of thousands, cutting across all walks of life, all working against the poor patsy, all quiet to this day. Just because it can't happen won't stop kooks from insisting it did." -- Bud; Aug. 11, 2007

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't say I KNOW exactly what happened, and neither can Robert P.

I think your speculation is essentially correct, though of course I don't know either. I do find it hard to imagine that the conspirators would initially plan to blame a military-style ambush on one person. What I think they would do is "identify" one of the ambushers, which is why they spent so much time and effort setting up Oswald beforehand. (The unconfirmed story that some "lost" Oswald luggage was found at the Mexico City airport after the assassination would fit right into such a scenario.) What is harder to figure is who messed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, those strange patsy-framers. So brilliant. And yet at the same time---so amazingly stupid.

Unlucky.

Oswald was set up as an Agent of Fidel but those tasked with killing him promptly failed.

So those at the top of the plot switched gears and dictated the Lone Nut scenario to LBJ and Hoover in the hours following JFK's demise.

Or so I speculate.

And in addition to convincing LBJ and J. Edgar to begin the "Frame Oswald" campaign, those amazing PRE-assassination plotters were also somehow able to convince everybody in Dallas law enforcement to start framing the very same patsy named Oswald?? Is that what you think happened, Cliff?

Dallas Assistant District Attorney William Alexander initially charged Oswald with the murder of JFK "as part of an International Communist Conspiracy."

Deal with it.

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...