Jump to content
The Education Forum
Fred Litwin

Need single bullet theory diagram

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:

There is only one explanation why the trajectory angle changed by 9.28º: that shot was taken from a different location.

So, was there an airplane or helicopter or hot-air balloon hovering above Dealey Plaza that day? Because lacking such an "aerial" explanation, then where could any assassin have been located in order to cause a 27-degree downward angle through Connally's chest at circa Z224 of the Zapruder home movie?

Could any make-believe shooter on top of ANY of the rooftops in the area have created a 27-degree angle at circa Z224? That's the question James R. Gordon now needs to answer (as he continues to ignore Warren Commission Report Page 107).

Also See....

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/11/single-bullet-theory.html

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Von Pein Said:-
So, was there an airplane or helicopter or hot-air balloon hovering above Dealey Plaza that day? Because lacking such an "aerial" explanation, then where could any assassin have been located in order to cause a 27-degree downward angle through Connally's chest.
Could any make-believe shooter on top of ANY of the rooftops in the area have created a 27-degree

“Where” is for a different conversation and a different day. What is clear is that this wound could not have come from the Oswald window. You have established that the trajectory for that location was 17.92º. If the Oswald window were the location then the trajectory for the Connaly wound has to be 17.92º: that is the maths for that location.

Therefore if Robert Shaw assisted by Charles Gregory measure the angle of Connolly’s wound in front of the Commission and conclude it was 27º then there are only two explanations:-
1. It cannot have come from the Oswald window.
2. It had to come from somewhere else - however inconvenient that is for the WC

James

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:

2. It had to come from somewhere else - however inconvenient that is for the WC

Bull. The extra 8 degrees of deflection (from 17 to 25) BEGINS after the bullet struck the rib. It's right there on page 107. You just don't like the explanation. Nothing new about that, of course.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does seems strange, David, that you insist CT's prove what actually happened, but applaud LN's when they push a series of conflicting images and theories about what actually happened. I mean, how can the SBT be obviously correct if those within its thrall can't even agree on what it is with any precision?

skepticvskeptic.jpg

 

 

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You actually think those two "Skeptic" diagrams are miles apart, Pat?

They're virtually identical. Very little difference.

Here's another one....

SBT+Artist+Rendering+From+%2527Reclaimin

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Von Pein Said:-
Bull. The extra 8 degrees of deflection (from 17 to 25) BEGINS after the bullet struck the rib. It's right there on Page 107. You just don't like the explanation. Nothing new about that.

First it is an extra 10 degrees. Though the WC make no reference they know exactly what that 25º measurement referred to. It was a measurement taken when Connally was standing before the Commission. You are happy to reference a report that wilfully distorts the record to get an answer they are happier with. The correct measurement of the trajectory angle is 27º. Connally was seated in the car when he was shot, he was not standing up in the car. 4H137-138.

“You just don't like the explanation.” Well that is rich coming from someone who happily accepts a distorted record. So you - and the WC - are happy to quote the lower figure even though both of you are well aware that figure describes Connally standing erect.

It is an embarrassing joke to believe that until the 5th rib the angle of trajectory was 17.92º and once the bullet hit the 5th rib it changed to 27º. Only in your mind and that of the WC was the trajectory through Connally part 17.92º and part 27º. And you believe such a preposterous explanation!!! “Nothing new about that.”


James

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:

It is an embarrassing joke to believe that until the 5th rib the angle of trajectory was 17.92º [sic] and once the bullet hit the 5th rib it changed to 27º. Only in your mind and that of the WC was the trajectory through Connally part 17.92º [sic; it's really 17.72º, via the trajectory seen in CE903] and part 27º. And you believe such a preposterous explanation!!! “Nothing new about that.”

There's absolutely nothing "preposterous" about it in the least. The bullet struck the rib and changed its trajectory. It's to be expected. Why on Earth you think such a thing is "preposterous" is preposterous. The same "deflection" thing happened with the head shot too ----> http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl3.htm

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Von Pein Said:-
Nothing preposterous about it in the least. The bullet struck the rib and changed its trajectory. It's to be expected. The same thing happened with the head shot too.

Do you ever think through what you say? Lets look at your explanation. In your opinion the bullet starts its journey with a trajectory of 17.72º and when it comes into contact with the rib changes its trajectory to 27º. So it starts a journey - that was measured throughout as 27º - now at 17.72º. That means the bullet starts its journey 9.28º shallower: i.e. towards Connolly’s right side. If that is the bullet’s trajectory the bullet will not hit the rib because it now has too shallow a trajectory. The bullet can only strike the rib if its trajectory angle is 27º throughout, and you are saying it only becomes 27º once it strikes the rib.

And there is the flaw in your argument.

James

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

The bullet can only strike the rib if its trajectory angle is 27º throughout, and you are saying it only becomes 27º once it strikes the rib.

No, the trajectory is not "27 degrees throughout". The TOTAL DECLINATION ANGLE between the two wounds in Connally was said to be approx. 25 degrees (again see WCR, p.107 please; plus, as you cited previously, 4 H 137-138 indicates two different measurements made by Dr. Shaw on Connally's body---the first one was 25 degrees, the second was 27 degrees).

So, for a brief period after entering Connally's upper back, the trajectory probably remained at about 17.72 degrees. The bullet then hit the rib, causing the steeper deflection. But I don't know why you would insist that the steeper (25 to 27º) angle had to necessarily START at the instant the bullet struck Connally's upper back. The steeper trajectory angle very likely began when the missile hit the fifth rib, with the angle being measured between the two bullet holes (which seems logical to me).

What source do you have to prove this statement of yours, James?....

"The bullet can only strike the rib if its trajectory angle is 27º throughout."

Also see Dr. Shaw's testimony at 4 H 105.

And also see CE680, showing the trajectory of the bullet through Connally's body (with the solid line, initialed by Shaw [R.R.S.], being drawn in by Shaw during his testimony to correct the steeper dotted line, which Shaw said was incorrect)....

WH_Vol17_0182a.jpg

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

You actually think those two "Skeptic" diagrams are miles apart, Pat?

They're virtually identical. Very little difference.

Here's another one....

SBT+Artist+Rendering+From+%2527Reclaimin

Funny you should mention that. That illustration proves Bugliosi's incompetence. He went around the country claiming CT's were dishonest because they failed to acknowledge the jump seat was 6 inches inboard from the door, while at the same time the illustration in his book showed that the jump seat was not 6 inches inboard from the door. He also presented a timeline which pushed that the SBT occurred at Z-224, while writing elsewhere in the book that it occurred as early as z-210. And that's not even to get into the fact he presented expert testimony in the mock trial claiming the SBT shot occurred at Z-190. In short, he didn't have a clue what he was talking about, but, not unlike our president, thought that if he was mean enough and nasty enough no one would notice. He was almost right.

http://www.patspeer.com/BVM2.jpg?attredirects=0

 

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Funny you should mention that. That illustration proves Bugliosi's incompetence. He went around the country claiming CT's were dishonest because they failed to acknowledge the jump seat was 6 inches inboard from the door, while at the same time the illustration in his book showed that the jump seat was not 6 inches inboard from the door...

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-217.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/dale-myers-and-sbt.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/dale-myers-and-sbt-part-2.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Von Pein Said:-
No, the trajectory is not "27 degrees throughout". And nobody said it was. The TOTAL DECLINATION ANGLE between the two wounds in Connally was said to be approx. 25 degrees (again see WCR, p.107 please; plus, as you cited previously, 4 H 137-138 indicate two different measurements made by Dr. Shaw on Connally's body---the first one was 25 degrees, the second was 27 degrees).

So, for a brief period after entering Connally's upper back, the trajectory probably remained at about 17.72 degrees. The bullet then hit the rib, causing the steeper deflection. But I don't know why you would insist that the steeper (25 to 27º) angle had to necessarily START at the instant the bullet struck Connally's upper back. The steeper trajectory angle very likely began when the missile hit the fifth rib, with the angle being measured between the two bullet holes (which seems logical to me).

You say “I don't know why you would insist that the steeper (25 to 27º) angle had to necessarily START at the instant the bullet struck Connally's upper back.”
Very simple to reply. The 27º degree is the angle measured as Connally was seated before he was struck. Yes 25º is a smaller angle but that was the angle when he was standing. Accuracy may have no importance to you but I feel it is important to use the angle that accurately describes Connolly’s position.

The 27º degree trajectory angle is total. It does not begin 25º and then move to 27º. It is 27º all the time. I thought you would have realised that.

However lets look at your proposition. The trajectory angle begins at 17.72º and when the bullet strikes the rib changes to 27º. 17.72º trajectory is a 9.28º shallower trajectory. That trajectory would miss the rib, because with that trajectory the bullet is further away from the ribs. The bullet would only not strike the ribs and allow the change in trajectory angle. It also would mean that the bullet wouldn’t exit where we know it did.

The chart you used does not describe 17.72º it is based on 27º. Whatever angle that line actually describes it was a recollection by Shaw. His correction created a line that looked more correct. The actual accurate trajectory angle was the one he measured on Connally before the WC.

James

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:

Yes 25º is a smaller angle but that was the angle when he was standing.

What's your source for that "standing" conclusion? Because I didn't see anything in Shaw's testimony about a "standing" measurement being taken. I looked for it too, and I didn't see anything in Shaw's testimony that confirmed what position JBC was in when the 25-degree angle was taken. Did I miss it? Can you cite it for me?

 

34 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:

The chart you used does not describe 17.72º it is based on 27º.

Yes, I know that's not the 17-degree angle. I just posted it as an "FYI" bonus.

 

34 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:

However let's look at your proposition. The trajectory angle begins at 17.72º and when the bullet strikes the rib changes to 27º. 17.72º trajectory is a 9.28º shallower trajectory. That trajectory would miss the rib, because with that trajectory the bullet is further away from the ribs. The bullet would only not strike the ribs and allow the change in trajectory angle. It also would mean that the bullet wouldn’t exit where we know it did.

I disagree (again). Maybe you can create a chart to illustrate your point about how JBC's rib couldn't possibly have been hit if the bullet enters his back at 17+ degrees....then continues on that same 17+-degree trajectory until it gets to the area of JBC's fifth rib....then the bullet hits the rib and changes to a steeper angle....and then the missile exits under the right nipple....with the OVERALL angle between the entry and exit wounds being the steeper-than-17 angle (whether it be 25 or 27 degrees).

Can the "impossibility" of such a bullet journey be visually demonstrated via a schematic/chart? That'd be nice to see, if possible.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Von Pein Said:-
What's the source for that "standing" conclusion? I didn't see anything in Shaw's testimony about a "standing" measurement being taken. I looked for it too, and I didn't see anything in Shaw's testimony that confirmed what position JBC was in when the 25-degree angle was taken. Did I miss it? Can you cite it for me?

The actual conversation before the WC is below.
Mr Dulles: Doctor, would the angle be the same if the Governor were seated now the way he waist the chair?
That means that the 25º degree angle that has just been taken was when Connally was standing That is why Dulles asks what would the angle be if he were seated.
Dr. Shaw That is a good question. Of course, we don’t know exactly whether he was back or tipped forward. But I don’t think there is going to be much difference
Mr Dulles Were you seated in about that way, Governor?
Governor Connally Mr Dulles, I would say I was in about this position when I was hit, with my face approximately looking toward you, 20º off of centre
Dr. Shaw Yes; I got 27º

David Von Pein Said:-
I disagree (again). Maybe you can draw a chart to illustrate your point about how JBC's rib couldn't possibly have been hit if the bullet enters his back at 17+ degrees....then continues on that same 17+-degree trajectory until it gets to the area of JBC's fifth rib....then the bullet hits the rib and changes to a steeper angle (whether it be 25 or 27 degrees). Can the "impossibility" of such a bullet journey be visually demonstrated via a schematic/chart? That'd be nice to see, if possible.

After I posted I realised I had made an error. The change in the value would be a vertical one and not a horizontal one. Put simply it would not be the 5th rib the bullet would strike but the 4th or 3rd rib. The exit point would also be different. Your position might work but it would give you a different outcome and different injuries to Connally.


James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 50th 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 22nd, 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 22nd, 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.
 

Edited by François Carlier

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...