Need single bullet theory diagram

[James R Gordon]

David.

I have created a quick diagram to explain the change of initial trajectory fro 27º to 17.72º

I have pulled the lines out a bit but they are close to the area of the body where the bullet struck struck Connally in the back.

The Black line represents 27º. The Red line represents 17.72º.

As I commented reducing the trajectory value will force the line vertically higher. As I suspected when the bullet hits a rib it will likely be the 4th rib. I suspect your scenario will work but the consequence will mean that the injuries received by Connally will be different.

James

Link to Image:-

[Ray Mitcham]

2 hours ago, François Carlier said:

Hello everybody,
(First of all, I'd like to thank the moderators for agreeing to let me subscribe to this forum again. I intend to act more as a lurker/reader than anything else, and I shall insure that anytime I post a comment I'll be polite, cordial, and respectful.)

Well, I have spent hours reading this thread (and others) and I can't help being surprised. The point is, I've spent almost all my life studying the Kennedy assassination and getting to know the "research community" quite well, so I guess I should be prepared by now. Still, I must admit that it still comes as a surprised to learn that there still are some people who deny the obvious and keep expressing doubts about the rightly-called-by-Dale-Myers single bullet fact.
Before I go on, I must digress a little bit.

People who know me may remember that for years I have been advocating the study of critical-thinking skills. Indeed, that's the key.
Take James DiEugenio, for example. He is considered as an expert on the Kennedy assassination, since he has studied the case extensively. But, to put it simply, I have read all the books that he has read about the Kennedy assassination (meaning I know as much as he knows), but he hasn't read the slightest book on critical thinking, or so it seems (meaning that I know a lot more than him in that area, and that's crucial).
As I have always said, what has always struck me in all this Kennedy-assassination debate, is the lack of understanding of critical-thinking rules and laws by most, if not all, conspiracy theorists.
And that's sad.
May I suggest to Jim DiEugenio to read these books :
- Robert Baker et Joe Nickell, Missing pieces, Prometheus Books, 1992
- Michael Barkun, A culture of conspiracy, University of California Press; 2013
- Antony Flew, How to think straight, Prometheus Books, 1998
- Martin Gardner, Science : good, bad and bogus, Prometheus Books, 1989
- William D. Gray, Thinking critically about new-age ideas, Wadsworth Publishing. Company, 1991
- Peter Knight, Conspiracy Culture : From the Kennedy Assassination to the X-Files, Routledge, 2000
- Elizabeth Loftus, Eyewitness testimony, Harvard University Press, 1996
- Kathryn S. Olmsted, Real enemies, Oxford University Press, 2009
- Hy Ruchlis, Clear thinking, Prometheus Books, 1990
- Hy Ruchlis, How do you know it's true ?, Prometheus Books, 1991
It's a short list, but it will be helpful to begin with.
That's my contention here : conspiracy theorists do not apply logic, nor common sense. Otherwise, they would simply end up admitting that the only truth is the official version.
I've been studying the paranormal world for most of my life (from astrology to so-called haunted houses to so-called sorcerers and wizards or parapsychology and all the rest). I have learned that it's all bull. Nothing else. Bad reporting from journalists (mostly in the case of so-called haunted houses : when you go there yourself and investigate you realize than nothing ever happened there, nor anywhere else for that matter), lies from attention-seekers, honest mistakes, self-delusion, etc. all explain the so-called phenomena.
All of that helped me realize that there is a huge difference between what you read in the newspapers or books and what is true. So many "experts" are nothing but ignorant. They lead you astray.
And I have always said that this is exactly what you witness in the Kennedy-assassination "research" world.
How many times on this forum have I read posts full of fallacies ? How many times have I thought : "That member shows bias, that member is using a fallacious argument, that member is so illogical, …" ? As they say on a web site devoted to critical thinking, there are several ways in which arguments can go awry.
For example, who in this forum has ever read "The thinker's guide to fallacies" ?
It can be downloaded for free on line :
file:///C:/Users/ZEC/Documents/---%20livres/3.%20complots%20&%20compagnie/Fallacies.pdf
It should be mandatory reading. I mean, every member should be asked to read such a book before beginning to post comments here. The overall quality of the debates would be greatly enhanced and improved.
Fallacies are plentiful here. They should be spotted and members should try all they can to erase them.
That's what I think.

Anyway, let's get back to the subject at hand, namely this thread about the single bullet.
I believe in the single bullet. To me, it's not a theory, it's a fact. It's an obvious fact. It has been demonstrated. It has been proven. Better yet : I could almost say that it has been replicated !
In 2013, I organized the only national conference on the 50^th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination to take place in France. Experts and journalists were there as speakers. French journalist Philip Labro was there. He is well-known in France. As a young journalist making a documentary in New York, he was sent to Dallas on November 22^nd, 1963 and he went to the Dallas Police Department, even talking to Jack Ruby. He recounted all of that in a book in 2013. Other French Kennedy-assassination experts were there, among whom Alain Boquet, who gave a brilliant scientific demonstration about the validity of the single bullet (http://50ansjfk.blogspot.com/p/alain-boquet.html).
There is no question that the single-bullet theory (if you want to call it a "theory") is valid and is true.
And yet, despite the overwhelming evidence, there are still a few people on this forum who try to deny the facts.
Why ?
It is because even if they realize that it is true, they don't dare admit it, since, as they say, "people are rarely grateful for a demonstration of their gullibility" ?
I wonder. It's hard for people to admit that they had been wrong. It shouldn't be. I, for one, would have no difficulty. But to most people, it is hard.
People who have been claiming that there was a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination now feel compelled to maintain that stance. That's because of their pride.
Especially since they have written on a public forum, for all to see, which makes it harder for them to now admit that they had been wrong.
That's human, I guess.
That's why they'd rather pounce on David Von Pein. It helps them avoid the real issue.

But the fact remains. The bottom line is, the single bullet – Lee Oswald's second shot -- is indeed what happened in Dealey Plaza on November 22^nd, 1963.
I won't spend my time explaining and demonstrating here, mainly for four reasons :
- Mel Ayton, Vincent Bugliosi, Gerald Posner, John McAdams, Jim Moore, Dale Myers, Larry Sturdivan, among many others, have already done a very good job giving evidence on this matter ;
- I have myself written a book which already explains and demonstrates the single bullet. I don't need to repeat or copy/paste all of it here ;
- David Von Pein is already here, making a wonderful job. He's the best and I could never explain as well as he does (if only because I am French and don't master the English language anywhere as well as he).
- There are none so deaf as those who will not listen. Indeed I know one thing : I could spend hours, days, weeks, months, years, even decades here, giving all the evidence in the world to prove the validity of the single bullet, backed by all the best scientists in the world, it would be to no avail in front of conspiracy believers, who want to believe and could not care less about the facts.
In this particular thread, I defer to David Von Pein, 100%.

One thing that I loved here : sentences such as "I have to admit, this is fun, being able to sit it out while watching Davey get pummeled from pillar to post" + "Davey is being wasted on about three different issues" + "Let me add one more point about DVP being skewered on this issue of the Single Bullet Fantasy." (James DiEugenio) ; "This is the fatal flaw in the SBT." (James Gordon) ; "But the Lone Nutters and the Main Stream Media still have their heads in the sand."(Ron Bulman).
Very typical of what most people do when they argue. They try to pretend that the other party is wrong, but in essence they are just trying to convince themselves, and in actuality are only deluding themselves.
I find it entertaining. But they should know that repeating something untrue a hundred times will never make it true. Sorry…

Another point. David Von Pein was right in underlining a very good point : (I quote) : "JFK conspiracy theorists have NEVER (not once) offered up any kind of a valid and reasonable and sensible and believable alternative to the Warren Commission's Single-Bullet Theory".
That's true. And that should make them think. I mean, after 55 years, they still spit on the official version all the while being able to offer no alternative at all !!!!! And they don't even agree with each other.
And what did James DiEugenio say ? I quote : "Our side should never fall for this.  Never."
Can you believe it ? How convenient ! How easy ! James DiEugenio denies the facts and wants us to reject the single bullet version of events but is unable to tell us what else could have happened ? In other words, according to James DiEugenio, we have the choice between the single bullet theory on the one hand, and nothing on the other hand… (Well, maybe Kennedy wasn't assassinated that day, after all…)
And to top it all, he goes on to write : (I quote) : "As I have said many times, no one will ever know for certain the precise circumstances of Kennedy's murder."
What ?
Speak for yourself, Mister DiEugenio. Because, we know what happened. We do !
Well, to cut a long story short, no offense, but my point is : this thread will go nowhere, because science has already resolved the issue. The single bullet is a valid point. Those who try to deny it are only splitting hairs (which, by the way, can be done by anybody about any topic : it looks as if you are giving arguments but in reality you are not). There will always be those who don't want to believe.
One could claim that there was a conspiracy, namely that Lee Oswald did fire that shot but he was paid by the CIA, or it was in fact Bonnie Ray Williams who fired that shot (and then he ran back one floor down), or any such theory that anybody wants to put forth but the fact remains that that shot existed, it was a single bullet with the path that is known in the official version of events. I say that those who continue to try to deny the single-bullet theory are wasting their time.
 

 

To the unbiased mind, the SBt is the least plausible solution To those who are somewhat knowledgable about physics, ballistics and anatomy, the SBT is nothing short of a miracle. And if those same people who are physics savvy, also happen to know a few facts about the incident and its aftermath, the SBT is totally impossible.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Ray Mitcham

[James DiEugenio]

Typical Carlier sophistry.

He says I deny the facts of the Single Bullet Fantasy.  

THERE ARE NO FACTS TO THE SINGLE BULLET FANTASY!!

How can it be a fact if the wound track was not dissected?

How can it be a fact if the malleable probe would not connect that night at the autopsy?

How can it be a fact if the so called exit is smaller than the so called entrance?

How can it be a fact if the FBI disagreed and the CIA disagreed!  And the WC kept the former out of the volumes so no one would know?

How can it be a fact if CE 399 was found on the wrong gurney? (Josiah Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas, pp. 154-72)

I have been smiling as every argument that DVP has put forth has been utterly neutralized by Speer and Gordon.  And not only neutralized, but they show that DVP does not even know his own source material as well as he thinks he does. To the point that  Carlier had to join back up.  But the above five facts that I listed go outside any silly assumptions from the WC volumes about trajectory analysis. And the attempts by hacks like Myers and Posner to revise that data and make a new analysis work.

I repeat what I said:  No one will ever know the precise manner in which President Kennedy was killed. For the simple reason that the autopsy that night set a standard for negligence.  And that negligence was deliberately and malignantly covered up by Arlen Specter for the Warren Commission.  As Pat Speer, among others, has just shown with facts.  Part of this designed cover up was keeping the autopsy doctors on the stand for as little  time as possible.  Boswell's testimony takes up about a page in the Commission volumes.  Try and find the testimony of Sibert and O'Neill.  Try and find the Burkley death certificate.  Try and find the testimony of Stringer, the autopsy photographer.  Anyone who has looked into these matters understands why Specter avoided those matters of fact.  Because they all would have clashed with his predetermined conclusion.  Or, let us put it another way. As the late Yale attorney Allard Lowenstein once said in regards to the RFK murder, "Its been my experience as an attorney that people who have nothing to hide don't hide things."

Specter knowingly and purposefully covered up just what happened at Bethesda that night.  For good reason.  Because when Finck was cross examined at length about it at the trial of Clay Shaw, we got our first look at why the  autopsy was completely compromised.  

Those are facts that the American public did not find out about until almost six years after Kennedy was killed. In other words, in 26 volumes of evidence and testimony, you will not find anything like what Finck admitted to in New Orleans.  Its not in the Warren Commission. Because Specter did not want it there.

Edited July 6, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[James R Gordon]

In the FBI SA Robert Frazier undertook most of the work on John Connolly’s clothes. The image below comes from Robert Frazier’s workbooks.
The image below is from original scans gathered at NARA II, and is courtesy of John Hunt.

These are not calculations that are not open for debate. Nobody here - and I include myself - is in any position to challenge Robert Frazier’s work.

Frazier did a series of calculations. The one below was a trajectory angle for the bullet that injured Connally while he was in a seated position.

His calculations for the trajectory angle - based on the the fact that Connally was seated - was 40º. So much of this argument has been focused on the WC 17.72º trajectory angles.

Now we have two angles describing the passage of the bullet through the chest of John Connally that are beyond question.
1 Robert Shaw’s measurement of 27º. He was the surgeon who worked on John Connally and he was the surgeon who in front of the WC measured John Connolly’s wound.
2. Robert Frazier who had full access to John Connolly’s clothes and made measurements on them and calculated based on the holes in the jacket the angle of trajectory was 40º.  

The WC SBT is a political proposition. Robert Shaw and Robert Frazier were simply focused on what was the angle of the bullet through the body of John Connally. There is a world of difference between the WC and these two gentlemen. The WC were focused on creating an answer to what they thought had happened. That is very different to the work of Robert Shaw and Robert Frazier.

In addition I assume everyone has noted that both real calculations are way above the calculation and supposition of the WC.

Link to File:-

[Cliff Varnell]

6 hours ago, François Carlier said:

Well, I have spent hours reading this thread (and others) and I can't help being surprised. The point is, I've spent almost all my life studying the Kennedy assassination and getting to know the "research community" quite well, so I guess I should be prepared by now. Still, I must admit that it still comes as a surprised to learn that there still are some people who deny the obvious and keep expressing doubts about the rightly-called-by-Dale-Myers single bullet fact.

Mr. Carlier,  find it hard to be respectful to people who refuse to accept basic physical facts that anyone can observe.

Turn your head to the right, sir, and glance down upon your right shoulder-line as you raise your right arm and wave your right hand.

Observe the fabric of your shirt indent as it eases sideways a fraction of an inch.

That is a universal phenomenon -- it occurs literally hundreds of billions of times a day on this planet.

But folks like you and Von Pein deny it happened with Kennedy.

Why should we respect you guys at all if you don't possess sufficient intellectual honesty to observe physical reality?

 

 

Edited July 6, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

7 hours ago, François Carlier said:

Another point. David Von Pein was right in underlining a very good point : (I quote) : "JFK conspiracy theorists have NEVER (not once) offered up any kind of a valid and reasonable and sensible and believable alternative to the Warren Commission's Single-Bullet Theory".
That's true.

Flat-out prevarication.

The FBI had been briefed to be on the look-out for wound patterns featuring entrance wounds with no exits and no bullets in the body at autopsy.

[James DiEugenio]

As per Mr. Gordon's illustration via John Hunt, from what I understand, the new analysis coming out in November by Larry Schnapf will also show a steeper angle of declination.

And again, I am glad Mr Gordon brought this issue up.

I challenge anyone to stand about two blocks from Dealey Plaza and look at it from a side angle.  No objective person can look at that view and then visually measure the angle of the hit  from the sixth floor, to Kennedy's back and say that the angle of declination is what the WC says it is.  I happened to do this by accident one night.  I was returning to my hotel which was about two blocks from Dealey Plaza and as I was walking in the front door, I happened to look over at the plaza which was off to my right side.

It is simply not possible.  The true angle is much closer to what Frazier marks above, and also to what the SIbert-O'Nneill report says was the angle in JFK's  back bullet channel. Because remember, if you buy the WR, the bullet that went through JFK went through nothing but soft tissue.  

As Mr. Gordon notes above, the Single Bullet Fantasy is a political proposition.  It is completely indefensible as a forensic concept. 

Edited July 6, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Cliff Varnell]

Mr. Carlier, I sincerely thank you for not mentioning me in your post.  You and Mr. Von Pein will indulge in great fake debates with others on this thread -- but you guys cannot challenge anything I cite.

I appreciate the fact you don't even try.

To DiEugenio-Speer-Gordon: please note nutters are more than happy to go around and around with you guys, but other than a little bit of drive-by sneering from Von Pein, they have no answer to the clothing evidence.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

Greetings, Francois. I see you're still holding onto your myths. I have read--plenty--of stuff from the "critical thinking" community, and most of what you get when it comes to the Kennedy assassination is critical thinking in critical condition.

The basic argument is this.

1. Experts are usually right.

2. The "experts" to study the Kennedy assassination mostly buy into the single-bullet-theory.

3. Most of those who disagree with them are laymen.

4. Many of these laymen believe in a wacky theory or two.

THEREFORE, the experts are almost certainly correct.

 

And that's as far as it goes. I have discussed the single-bullet theory or attempted to discuss the single-bullet theory with two members of the Warren Commission's staff, Robert Blakey, and the editor of Skeptic Magazine. All have hidden behind the same towel---that some experts said it was probable--and I'm no expert, so I must therefore be wrong...but that they would never take the time to find out if I was wrong, because, y'know, I must be wrong....and besides....there's a lot of "minutiae" in which one might get lost, and that's the problem...people like me...who actually take the time to study this stuff...must be hopelessly lost...yeah, that's it. You're lost, buddy, and I know this because...I refuse to look!"

The cognitive dissonance is deafening...ear-shattering, even. The old canard repeated by DVP and yourself that CT's must come up with something you like better before you'll even acknowledge the drool on the chin of your KING is an embarrassment to genuine "critical thinking."

And that's not even to say that the one genuine expert on "critical thinking" to study this case is...Jim Fetzer.

Case closed?

[Cliff Varnell]

Destroying the Single Bullet Theory is child's play.  Any child can be sufficiently self-aware of how their shirts move when they move around.

What is a BIG DEAL is how we most efficiently and effectively establish the basic physical facts of the conspiracy.

When Gaeton Fonzi confronted Arlen Specter with the clothing evidence in 1966 -- Specter had an emotional meltdown.

When confronted with the clothing evidence David Von Pein was forced to admit JFK's jacket was bunched up "a little bit."

Long-time Bunch Fallacist Pat Speer had a come-to-Jesus moment and decided to cite the Specter Meltdown at the Bethesda Conference in 2014.

No other evidence of conspiracy in the case has this impact.

And it's the only case for conspiracy the Millennial Generation is going to buy en masse.

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

23 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

And that's as far as it goes. I have discussed the single-bullet theory or attempted to discuss the single-bullet theory with two members of the Warren Commission's staff, Robert Blakey, and the editor of Skeptic Magazine. All have hidden behind the same towel---that some experts said it was probable--and I'm no expert, so I must therefore be wrong...but that they would never take the time to find out if I was wrong, because, y'know, I must be wrong....and besides....there's a lot of "minutiae" in which one might get lost, and that's the problem...people like me...who actually take the time to study this stuff...must be hopelessly lost...yeah, that's it. You're lost, buddy, and I know this because...I refuse to look!"

You couldn't get him to look at his own shirt?

You had a chance to nail the guy right in the face with his own shirt.

Ya blew it, Pat.

[François Carlier]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Typical Carlier sophistry.

He says I deny the facts of the Single Bullet Fantasy.  

THERE ARE NO FACTS TO THE SINGLE BULLET FANTASY!!

How can it be a fact if the wound track was not dissected?

How can it be a fact if the malleable probe would not connect that night at the autopsy?

How can it be a fact if the so called exit is smaller than the so called entrance?

How can it be a fact if the FBI disagreed and the CIA disagreed!  And the WC kept the former out of the volumes so no one would know?

How can it be a fact if CE 399 was found on the wrong gurney? (Josiah Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas, pp. 154-72)

I have been smiling as every argument that DVP has put forth has been utterly neutralized by Speer and Gordon.  And not only neutralized, but they show that DVP does not even know his own source material as well as he thinks he does. To the point that  Carlier had to join back up.  But the above five facts that I listed go outside any silly assumptions from the WC volumes about trajectory analysis. And the attempts by hacks like Myers and Posner to revise that data and make a new analysis work.

I repeat what I said:  No one will ever know the precise manner in which President Kennedy was killed. For the simple reason that the autopsy that night set a standard for negligence.  And that negligence was deliberately and malignantly covered up by Arlen Specter for the Warren Commission.  As Pat Speer, among others, has just shown with facts.  Part of this designed cover up was keeping the autopsy doctors on the stand for as little  time as possible.  Boswell's testimony takes up about a page in the Commission volumes.  Try and find the testimony of Sibert and O'Neill.  Try and find the Burkley death certificate.  Try and find the testimony of Stringer, the autopsy photographer.  Anyone who has looked into these matters understands why Specter avoided those matters of fact.  Because they all would have clashed with his predetermined conclusion.  Or, let us put it another way. As the late Yale attorney Allard Lowenstein once said in regards to the RFK murder, "Its been my experience as an attorney that people who have nothing to hide don't hide things."

Specter knowingly and purposefully covered up just what happened at Bethesda that night.  For good reason.  Because when Finck was cross examined at length about it at the trial of Clay Shaw, we got our first look at why the  autopsy was completely compromised.  

Those are facts that the American public did not find out about until almost six years after Kennedy was killed. In other words, in 26 volumes of evidence and testimony, you will not find anything like what Finck admitted to in New Orleans.  Its not in the Warren Commission. Because Specter did not want it there.

Mister DiEugenio,
Thank you for your reply. I have read it.
You don't get it, Sir.
I don't deny what you are saying (though I am more cautious than you are when it comes to Josiah Thompson).
I was just trying to help you and what you call your side (if that makes sense to you)
I have no ax to grind.
My point was simply that it is always easy to split hairs and nitpick.
But it goes nowhere. You can even end up deluding yourself.
There is a pitfall that we all have to be careful about.
People such as Alain Boquet, or Dale Myers, or David Von Pein, and other experts and scientists have demonstrated and proved the validity of the single bullet theory. Those people are better than me, and I dare say that they are also better than you.
They have convinced me. I'm glad that I learned about critical thinking. That makes me an open-minded person. And I defer to the experts.
In other words, what I am saying is that we have to learn how to handle conflicting evidence (yes, I agree, there is such a thing as conflicting evidence).
If you bring some part of the evidence to the table, claiming that you have reached conclusion A, and then David Von Pein comes along, bringing the other half of the evidence to the table, claiming that he has reached conclusion B, well, both of you may be talking in earnest and bringing true information into the debate, the fact remains that one of you must be wrong. Who ? Well, the key is to get the overall picture. That's all I am saying.
I'm saying that despite what seems to be a conflict, or what seems to be a mystery or what seems to show this or that, we should be able to all get to the one and only truth (since it happened only one way) about the shooting. We should honestly follow the best-evidence concept (that David Lifton talks about in his book).
I say that some of the evidence that conspiracy proponents use is not relevant, all things considered.
There are things that you must discard. It is a mistake to cling to small items that may seem to disprove the right conclusion but in essence are just "noise".
And when you have eliminated the noise, what remains is the validity of the single-bullet theory.

I hope that you understand my point.
 

Edited July 6, 2018 by François Carlier

[Micah Mileto]

8 hours ago, François Carlier said:

 

I like how you think "conspiracy theorists accuse Bonnie Ray Williams of being paid by the CIA" after you just listed a bunch of literature on the several different non-homicidal ways eyewitness memory and statements can be messed up.

Are you aware that the reported small "entrance" wound in the back of Kennedy's head next to the external occipital protuberace has even more problems than his small torso wounds?

[Cliff Varnell]

3 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

People such as Alain Boquet, or Dale Myers, or David Von Pein, and other experts and scientists have demonstrated and proved the validity of the single bullet theory. Those people are better than me, and I dare say that they are also better than you.

Call this comment for what it is -- a little bit of prevarication.

[Micah Mileto]

4 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

 

Did your books teach you to fear in-depth discussion as "delusional nit-picking"?