Jump to content
The Education Forum
Fred Litwin

Need single bullet theory diagram

Recommended Posts

On 7/1/2018 at 4:04 AM, James R Gordon said:

 

SBT%202_zpsffsko8jk.jpg

Back in the late 90's I pummeled Dale K. Myers -- in a series of exchanges on the newsgroups -- regarding the too-low location of the holes in JFK's clothing.

The above was his rebuttal.

Shows the top of JFK's jacket collar launched up an inch into his hairline.

Since all the Elm St. photos show a normal amount of shirt collar above the jacket collar, let's call this for what it is: prevarication.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, James R Gordon said:

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 [was in] 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.

Yes, I read that testimony too. But it doesn't specifically say that Connally was STANDING when the 25d measurement was taken. It could mean that JBC was seated but just not "the way he was" when he was shot. (See what I mean?) Anyway, it's a very small difference either way, as Dr. Shaw noted at 4 H 138 --- "That didn't make much difference" [R. Shaw].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even David if you are right, when Connally is positioned as he believved he was when he was struck the trajectory angle is 27º. True Robert Shaw comments that is is not a large difference, but it is a difference.

Even if Connally was seated the first time when he is seated correctly we get the TRUE trajectory angle of 27º.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, James R Gordon said:

2. Robert Frazier who had full access to John Connolly’s [sic] clothes and made measurements on them and calculated based on the holes in the jacket the angle of trajectory was 40º.  

But why would anyone use ONLY the CLOTHING holes to try and determine the bullet's trajectory? We KNOW the HOLES IN CONNALLY'S BODY (SKIN) resulted in a measured angle of 25 to 27 degrees, not 30 to 40 degrees. And the BODY (SKIN) wounds are obviously the BEST EVIDENCE to use, right?

So why, James, did you even bring up the clothing angles? Just to bolster your very weak "The SBT Was Impossible" claim?

We all know that the hole in the front of Connally's jacket was much lower than the hole in his chest. But, just like with the holes in JFK's clothing, since there's only ONE hole in the front of JBC's jacket and only ONE hole in the front of his chest.....it must mean what? That ONE bullet went through BOTH of those holes.

So, again, what was your point in emphasizing the low hole in Connally's suit coat, James G.? You don't think there were TWO bullets involved in John Connally's chest injury....do you?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


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

Even if Connally was seated the first time, when he is seated correctly we get the TRUE trajectory angle of 27º.

Yes, after reading the pertinent Shaw testimony again the other day, I concur with you on that point. The correct angle is 27 degrees, not 25.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, François Carlier said:

...this thread will go nowhere, because science has already resolved the issue. The single bullet is a valid point.

Amen, Francois. And it's good to see you posting again. I see that you had not posted here since September of 2010. That's a long dry spell. Please post more often. You always make good solid points.

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there I was thinking it  was your your “very weak "The SBT Was Impossible" claim? ”

The link between Robert Shaw and Robert Frazier is that each emphasise the very steep trajectory of the wound to John Connally. Their angles maybe different but each tells the same story: the bullet that was fired and John Connally suffered came from a very steep angle. First - even though Frazier worked on the clothes and therefore his angle was obviously not as accurate as Robert Shaw's determination both worked on primary evidence. Even though the angles are different there is a correlation between them. Amd finally I have only just brgun on Frazier's work.

I cannot explain why, but a change has taken place within me and I am now going to see this discussion through to the bitter end. I have onlyjust begun, there is a series of topics I will hereafter be introducing. And in most cases I will be working from primary evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

It is simply not possible.  The true angle is much closer to what Frazier marks above, and also to what the Sibert-O'Neill report says was the angle in JFK's back bullet channel.

You don't know what you're talking about. You're just spitting out theories about steeper angles just to hear yourself talk.

The exact angle measurements were taken by surveyors in Dealey Plaza on May 24, 1964, when the WC and FBI performed their assassination re-enactments. The exacting measurements are revealed on page 106 of the WCR....

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0065b.htm

But Jim D. thinks all those detailed measurements about the angles are nothing but LIES spouted by the WC, right Jim?

And Jim must think that Dale Myers just made up his own set of figures too (via Myers' "Secrets Of A Homicide" project). All of these figures are just lies too, right Jim?....

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl3.htm

In short, DiEugenio (as usual) is blowing smoke (and a lot of hot air).

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, David Von Pein said:

You don't know what you're talking about. You're just spitting out theories about steeper angles just to hear yourself talk.

The exact angle measurements were taken by surveyors in Dealey Plazxa on May 24, 1964, when the WC and FBI performed their assassination re-enactments. The exacting measurements are revealed on page 106 of the WCR....

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0065b.htm

But Jim D. thinks all those detailed measurements about the angles are nothing but LIES spouted by the WC, right Jim?

And Jim must think that Dale Myers just made up his own set of figures too (via Myers' "Secrets Of A Homicide" project). All of these figures are just lies too, right Jim?....

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl3.htm

In short, DiEugenio (as usual) is blowing smoke (and a lot of hot air).

Yeah, that’s funny. They took measurements to a point from which a gun was never fired....😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Yeah, that’s funny. They took measurements to a point from which a gun was never fired....😂

And yet a gun was seen in that exact window by numerous witnesses at the precise time when a gun was being fired at JFK on Nov. 22. (Funny co-inky, huh?)  Did they all lie? Or were they seeing just a "prop gun"?

(You must be related to Harold Weisberg, Michael. He believed in that same silly junk too.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Francois:

Precisely what makes Myers and Von Pein "experts" and "scientists"?

Von Pein ran a KFC place and Myers worked in television for decades.  How does that compute to the rubric of  expert and scientist.  Or is that value judgment of yours just because they say what you want to hear?

Now, let us go to your critical thinking skills in regards to Thompson's book, Six Seconds in Dallas.

When Thompson started his book he was a Ph.D. professor in philosophy.  An expert on Kierkegaard.  So he was good at analyzing information and making generalizations and adding value judgments.  Thompson took his undergraduate degree, his MA and his Ph. D. from Yale.  Do you want to compare that with what Von Pein and Myers' educational background was?  I mean do you know what the acceptance rate is at a college like Yale?  

Thompson started his book with a deal from Time Life to work on their reinquiry into the JFK case.  That inquiry was later aborted but it did last for awhile.  As part of this assignment, he had access to the Zarpuder film: the film itself and transparencies. Very few people in America had that access at that time.  This allowed him to make very precise observations based on the film.  Which is why he called his book a micro study.  No book released at that time, or even in that era, had this unique visual quality to it. This is one reason it was excerpted in Saturday Evening Post. The editorial board was convinced by his demonstration that there had been three assassins.  As most normal thinking people would have been.

Now, if one reads the pages I specified you will see that from eyewitness testimony, Thompson builds a good case through about four different witnesses that CE 399 was found on the stretcher of Ronnie Fuller, a little boy who had fallen and cut himself.  Not just that, but also through three charts and diagrams. All in all, this is about 12 pages of  detailed analysis of information. If that is not critical thinking then what is it?

Looking back, the first generation of critics were, if anything, too conservative. A point I make in my The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today.  In fact, Thompson has a new book ready in which he revises and updates his original findings. But my second point is this: today its not important how many books one reads. Not really.  Because the declassification of the ARRB and their medical inquiry has changed the terrain of the case so much.  

If you can show me where you or DVP has used this newly declassified  information, please do.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Yes, after reading the pertinent Shaw testimony again the other day, I concur with you on that point. The correct angle is 27 degrees, not 25.

So David if we are in agreement here what does that say about the SBT and the 17-27º trajectory?

James

Share this post


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

So David if we are in agreement here what does that say about the SBT and the 17-27º trajectory?

It says that Oswald's bullet hit the two victims at a 17-degree angle, and then the bullet changed course to a 27-degree angle after striking JBC's fifth rib....just as WCR Page 107 says. But I'm supposed to merely think that Page 107 is nothing but a rotten evil LIE, right Jim?

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0066a.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To those ridiculous remarks above that I am just spewing out silly theories to hear myself talk.

I stand by what I said.  Anyone can go to Dealey Plaza and stand right next to where I was two blocks from the plaza. You can look at that view from that angle and visualize it to the alleged point where the  WC says the first shot hit JFK. Now you can deny your lying eyes of course, but that is what the WC case is all about.

That angle is much closer to Frazier's illustration and what SIbert and O'Neil wrote in their report. Which shows that I am not spitting out stuff to hear myself talk.

If one recalls, the two FBI agents quoted an angle of 45 degrees for the bullet channel into JFK's back.

As per Von Pein's other babblings: first, the evidence for the sixth floor sniper's nest has all been rendered dubious by the fine work of Allan Eaglesham at Manuscript Services.  Anyone can go there and see the very good case he makes about the phoniness of that scene. Also Barry Krusch did the same in his book.  The crime scene as described by the WC did not exist in the first hour. (See DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, pp. 92-94)  

As per the surveyor plot, wow can DVP not know about all the problems with that issue?  Yep.

I believe that their angle of declination is much more attuned to the second floor Dal Tex building.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I believe that the angle of declination is much more attuned to the second floor Dal Tex building.

Does this mean you're in bed with Weisberg and believe that NO SHOTS came from the 6th Floor? (Please say yes, Jim. It'll make my day if you do.)

https://app.box.com/embed/preview/3rrtvmfia343qhdiihcn

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...