Jump to content
The Education Forum
Fred Litwin

Need single bullet theory diagram

Recommended Posts

I edited my last post to include this....

(But I do want to say "Thanks" for the diagram you [James R. Gordon] produced. After all, I did ask you to provide a chart of some kind, and you did the best you could. But I truly believe you've got something incorrect in your diagram, because the sum total of the evidence indicates that ONE GUNMAN---firing from the 6th floor of the Depository---caused all of the wounds to Governor Connally's body.)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David,

It has nothing to do with my diagram which may or may not be incorrect, It has everything to do with Maths and Trigonometry. Two angles each of a different value cannot reach the same destination.

Share this post


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

David,

It has nothing to do with my diagram which may or may not be incorrect, It has everything to do with Maths and Trigonometry. Two angles each of a different value cannot reach the same destination.

I (truly) have no idea why you're saying such a thing, James. I really don't. The bullet simply struck an object (a rib) on its path through John Connally's body, and thusly the bullet changed trajectory from a 17-degree downward angle to a steeper 27-degree downward angle prior to exiting Connally's chest below the right nipple. No "math"-defying antics at all here. Merely a rib that changed the bullet path.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David,

I am certain you know exactly what I am saying. But I will spell it out here. A trajectory of 17.72º compared to am trajectory of 27º will ALWAYS will flow vertically upwards. I suggested that such a bullet is likely hit the 4th rib instead of the 5th rib.

That is what I meant when I stated  that two angles each of a different value cannot reach the same destination. The same destination being the 5th rib.

Do you now understand my point?

Share this post


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

...two angles each of a different value cannot reach the same destination. The same destination being the 5th rib.

Do you now understand my point?

Okay, James. I thought by "same destination", you were talking about the exit wound in the front of Connally's chest. But you weren't talking about the exit wound, you were talking about the rib as the "destination". Sorry.

But, James, your own diagram (below) disproves this statement of yours....

"Two angles each of a different value cannot reach the same destination."

And yet that EXACT thing DOES happen in the chart/diagram that you created yesterday. Your "two angles" (one of them angled at 17 degrees and the other at 27 degrees) ARE, indeed, "reaching the same destination [rib]" ---- i.e., they are BOTH hitting ("reaching") the fourth rib.

So, if (as you admit is possible) your chart is slightly off in some way (like, say, the entry wound in the back being a little bit off?), why couldn't those same two lines "reach the same destination" of the FIFTH rib, versus hitting the fourth?

Trajectories_zpsvrnandcl.jpg

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David.

When I initially posted these values I believed I had made an error. Infact I had not I had meerly posted incorrect values.

Therefore I stand by my initial  position. My position is  that the 17.72º trajectory would not strike the 5th rib,bit it may well the 4th rib.

Link to File:-
two%20Values%20V2_zpszxhr4tzs.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

I edited my last post to include this....

(But I do want to say "Thanks" for the diagram you [James R. Gordon] produced. After all, I did ask you to provide a chart of some kind, and you did the best you could. But I truly believe you've got something incorrect in your diagram, because the sum total of the evidence indicates that ONE GUNMAN---firing from the 6th floor of the Depository---caused all of the wounds to Governor Connally's body.)

A 6.5 Carcano round from the Depository cannot account for Kennedy's EOP wound, so why would you be so hasty to label the torso wounds in this case?

Edited by Micah Mileto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Oh, please, David. IF the other evidence pointed towards the SBT, the external trajectory might not be a deal-killer. Not for me, at least.

This is the doctrine of the VichyCT: "The SBT trajectory works, BUT..."

This is the beef I've had with Pat Speer since he appeared in 2003 and the reason I regard him as on "the other side."

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Oh, please, David. IF the other evidence pointed towards the SBT, the external trajectory might not be a deal-killer. Not for me, at least.

This is the same Pat Speer who took the podium at the Bethesda Conference in 2014 and evoked Gaeton Fonzi's breakthrough interview with Arlen Specter in 1966, which caused the author of the SBT to have an emotional breakdown because it was obvious the SBT trajectory didn't work given the clothing evidence.

Speer basked in the reflected glory of Fonzi's achievement and now he says the SBT trajectory is hunky dorry...

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

This is the doctrine of the VichyCT: "The SBT trajectory works, BUT..."

This is the beef I've had with Pat Speer since he appeared in 2003 and the reason I regard him as on "the other side."

Please don't let me be misunderstood -- I don't divide the world into LNers and CTs, and I don't believe in "disinformation agents."

The JFK cover-up lay in ruins in the summer of 1966 -- Specter's meltdown -- when that autumn LIFE magazine established the JFK Question of Conspiracy Parlor Game with a cover story -- "A Matter of Reasonable Doubt."

Due to the vagaries of human nature the JFK assassination is given to fascinating complexities -- and folks want to play the parlor game.

But Fonzi v. Specter in the early summer of '66 showed the SBT trajectory did not work -- NO reasonable doubt.

I divide the research-universe into those who acknowledge the root physical facts of the JFK assassination (T3 back wound/throat entrance wound), and those who don't.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Cliff, we know. You pride yourself on finding one fact you like and insisting that that fact is the only fact that matters and that anyone who looks beyond that fact is a traitor to the cause. I'm just not that full of myself. I accept the possibility I could be wrong about a fact or two or three...

But when I look at EVERY aspect of the single-bullet theory...the clothing...the back wound location... the supposed internal trajectory...the ballistics tests performed by Olivier...the small size of the throat wound...the condition of CE 399...the supposed re-enactments by the WC on down to Dale Myers...and find the evidence for the SBT to be lacking at every turn, well, then I KNOW I'm onto something. The SBT is a hoax. And that's a Fact.

So the difference between you and me is a big one--you look for ONE thing...and then latch onto it like a pit bull...and I try to look at everything...and see how it adds up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Yes, Cliff, we know. You pride yourself on finding one fact you like and insisting that that fact is the only fact that matters and that anyone who looks beyond that fact is a traitor to the cause.

No, Pat, you are NOT "looking beyond the fact" that JFK was shot in the back at T3 -- you are denying that fact.

You're not getting beyond the SBT because you treat redundancies as revelations.

Debunking the SBT is requires a simple observation -- it's no big deal, it's not a mystery to be solved.

9 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 I'm just not that full of myself.

Oh really? 

You claim to have "put the final nail into the coffin of the SBT" -- even though you endorse the validity of the SBT trajectory!

Quote

I accept the possibility I could be wrong about a fact or two or three...

You refuse to admit the Fox 5 BOH autopsy photo is fake.

In 1963 it was possible to fake a photo.  

It's never been possible for casual body movement to move more than a fraction of an inch of clothing fabric.

Quote

But when I look at EVERY aspect of the single-bullet theory...the clothing...the back wound location

You claim that the back wound was at T1.

This is a fraud, whether you know it or not.

Quote

... the supposed internal trajectory...

Fake debate.  Moot.

Quote

the ballistics tests performed by Olivier...

Fake debate.  Moot.

Quote

the small size of the throat wound

The bullet holes in JFK's clothes are too low to have been associated with the hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, which could ONLY have been created by a shot to the throat from the front.

So any discussions back and forth on the size of the entrance wounds is Fake Debate....and...<wait for it!>...Moot.

Quote

...the condition of CE 399...

Germane to discussions of the FBI's role in the cover-up, otherwise...you know...

Quote

the supposed re-enactments by the WC on down to Dale Myers

Dale K. Myers!

A T1 back wound would require both the jacket and the shirt to look like this.

SBT%202_zpsffsko8jk.jpg

Note the jacket collar is up into his hairline.

You own the above, Pat. 

That's your T1 back wound in action.

JFKs shirt collar is visible in all the Elm St. photos.

T1 is a fraud.

Quote

...and find the evidence for the SBT to be lacking at every turn, well, then I KNOW I'm onto something.

And that's your problem.  You think you're solving a mystery when all it takes is a simple observation of physical reality.

Quote

The SBT is a hoax. And that's a Fact.

That's the subtext of my work, but the context of yours.

Quote

So the difference between you and me is a big one--you look for ONE thing...and then latch onto it like a pit bull...and I try to look at everything...and see how it adds up.

I operate from root physical facts; you operate from a root assumption that the Fox 5 photo is genuine.

It's an infallible universal Law of Clothing Design that casual body movement results in fractions of an inch of fabric ease.

It's the most readily observable phenomenon on the planet.

And you refuse to accept it.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Cliff. You have embraced a few facts, while I have performed a detailed analysis of most every aspect of the SBT. There are a dozen reasons to reject the SBT. You, for some strange reason, think we should all focus on but one. You then attack everyone who disagrees with you on whether we should focus on this one point, even when they agree with your point---that the clothing entrances are too low to support the SBT..

My position, as you know, is that having the bullet entrance at T-1, where the HSCA placed it, is yet another nail in the coffin of the SBT. This fact is borne out, moreover, by the fact every so-called expert claiming the SBT works, from Specter to Lattimer to Canning to Myers, etc. moves the back wound above T-1 when depicting the SBT.

You, however, choose to believe the bullet entered at T-3. Fine. Feel free to believe that. But you keep claiming LN depictions of the SBT use an entrance at T-1, when they do not, as I have proved over and over and over again.

So, from my perspective, you are the vichy. I mean, think about it, if every CT said fine the autopsy photos are legit and the back wound was at T-1, and then defied the likes of Myers to create a depiction of the single-bullet theory using the T--1 entrance, they would be forced to make such an attempt, and fail.

But no, you keep the focus on the clothes, which they keep claiming moved, and you keep claiming the autopsy photos are fake...which allows them to cite a bunch of experts in defense...

And this allows them to escape. Here are two SBT-killers, one embraced by you, and the other ignored by you. Why ignore a slam dunk?

holeintheevidence.jpg

portableholefixed.jpg

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Sorry, Cliff. You have embraced a few facts, while I have performed a detailed analysis of most every aspect of the SBT.

Sorry, Pat, you refuse to accept the fact JFK was shot in the back at T3 because you want to inflate the significance of the rest of your analysis.

And debunking the SBT is the least of our concerns -- it's more important to observe the throat wound as an entrance, another fact you obfuscate.

You obfuscate the location of the back wound, the direction of the throat shot, and the fact that the Fox 5 autopsy photo is a demonstrable fake.

Quote

There are a dozen reasons to reject the SBT. You, for some strange reason, think we should all focus on but one. You then attack everyone who disagrees with you on whether we should focus on this one point, even when they agree with your point---that the clothing entrances are too low to support the SBT..

That's a tertiary concern.  My main concerns are with observing the T3 back wound and the throat entrance wound -- and the Fox 5 photo as a fraud.

Who gives a flying fug about the SBT?

Quote

My position, as you know, is that having the bullet entrance at T-1, where the HSCA placed it, is yet another nail in the coffin of the SBT.

But it's a lie and you're obfuscating what caused the hairline fracture at T1.  A shot in the back at T1 could have caused that fracture -- but the wound was at T3, too low.

This FACT establishes the throat wound as an entrance -- no exiting bullet or bullet/bone fragment could have left a hairline fracture at T1.

That HAD to come from a shot to the throat from the front.

You obfuscate this crucial information by biting on the T1 Fraud.

Quote

This fact is borne out, moreover, by the fact every so-called expert claiming the SBT works, from Specter to Lattimer to Canning to Myers, etc. moves the back wound above T-1 when depicting the SBT.

You, however, choose to believe the bullet entered at T-3. Fine. Feel free to believe that.

It's not a matter of belief.   The bullet hole in the shirt is 4 inches below the bottom of the collar and you can't get your shirt to move more than a fraction of an inch given casual movement.

VichyCts throw in with the nutters on this issue, and pretend that the movement of their own shirts ain't so...

Quote

But you keep claiming LN depictions of the SBT use an entrance at T-1, when they do not, as I have proved over and over and over again.

Excuse me?  Von Pein cites the Fox 5 photo which shows a wound at T1.

It's the same misinformation you peddle.

Quote

So, from my perspective, you are the vichy.

I'm not the one promoting The Big Lie about Fox 5.

You are.

Quote

 

I mean, think about it, if every CT said fine the autopsy photos are legit and the back wound was at T-1, and then defied the likes of Myers to create a depiction of the single-bullet theory using the T--1 entrance, they would be forced to make such an attempt, and fail.

They did make an attempt -- see the animation posted previously -- and they claimed victory...before the weaponized fact arrived:

The top of your back isn't 4 inches below your clothing collars, Pat.

You can't get your shirt to move more than a fraction of an inch unless you exaggerate your movements.

But it's convenient to your assumption to endlessly claim that Fox 5 is genuine, and no amount of evidence is going to move you, anymore than the lone nutters who agree with you.

Bugliosi put the back wound at T1.  So does McAdams.  So do you -- against all evidence and logic.

Quote

But no, you keep the focus on the clothes, which they keep claiming moved, and you keep claiming the autopsy photos are fake...which allows them to cite a bunch of experts in defense...

Von Pein acknowledged that the Croft 3 photo shows "a little bit" of jacket elevation.  The bullet hole in the jacket was 4.125" below low the bottom of the collar; the defect in the shirt 4" even.

The  jacket was bunched up "a little bit" -- 1/8 inch.  Von Pein destroyed his own claims by making a simple observation of physical fact.

Have you ever wrung such a significant concession out of Von Pein?

You and Von Pein go around and around about bullshed but I don't buy in.

Von Pein admitted something you cannot admit -- JFK's jacket was elevated a little bit -- so I have to give him higher marks than you.

Quote

And this allows them to escape. Here are two SBT-killers, one embraced by you, and the other ignored by you. Why ignore a slam dunk?

holeintheevidence.jpg

portableholefixed.jpg

You think the world begins and ends with debunking the SBT.

T3 is 4 inches below the bottom of the collar -- why can't you just acknowledge that obvious fact and get rid of the T1 crap?

Edited by Cliff Varnell

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...