Jump to content
The Education Forum
Fred Litwin

Need single bullet theory diagram

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

When the bullet traveled through John Connallly why was its trajectory angle 27º?

The bullet trajectory through Connally's upper torso was about 25 degrees. The steeper angle through his chest was probably due to the bullet deflecting off the rib. (See WCR, page 107....)

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

And I see nothing magical about the bullet striking the back of Connally's wrist first. If he's sitting there, holding his Stetson on his lap, with the back of his right hand pretty much facing UPWARD, why can't a bullet exiting his chest strike the back part of that wrist? I never have understood why CTers make that scenario out to be impossible. I don't think it is impossible at all.

Share this post


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

Let's call these claims of DVP's for what they are -- fraud.

DVP (emphasis added):

Therefore, it would seem as if the chalk mark was also based (at least in part) on the hole in JFK's jacket, which IMO is just totally ridiculous, since we know that the hole in the coat is located well BELOW the hole in JFK's skin (due to the fact that Kennedy's coat was bunched up higher than normal when the shooting occurred).

Which means that if the jacket on the JFK stand-in in the photo above were to be "bunched up" a little bit (and we can see it isn't bunched up at all in that photograph), it would make the chalk mark rise a little higher on the back of the stand-in, which would mean it would almost perfectly line up with where Arlen Specter is holding the metal rod in that picture.

That "bunching up" of the jacket could very well be the answer as to why the chalk mark is located below the level of Specter's pointer. If we bunch up the jacket a little bit (like JFK's coat was bunched, per the Croft photo), it's a perfect alignment. </q>

So "higher than normal" = "a little higher" = "a little bit."

A little fraud.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David,

25º was the trajectory angle when Connally was standing. Did you not see I stated that 27º angle was taken when he was seated in the position he believed he was in when he was shot. Did you miss that??? 

As regards the entrance and exit point of the arm wound you have no idea what you are talking about. The entrance to the wound was slightly above the right thumb and on the same side of the hand as the right thumb. The exit was on the palm of the hand above the wrist. If you are considering the SBT as the cause of these wounds then because the entrance and exit are essentially horrizontal even your estimate of downward trajectory angle of approx 17º could not cause these wounds. The SBT might be able to inflict a wound of entrance where the entrance wound is, but it could not replicate it. The actual would of extrance is a channel left to right wound. And if the SBT was able to strike JBC in that location the exit wound would be on the opposite side of the hand. It would not be on the palm.

Until the bullet struck the 5th rib it simply was muscle it encountered. So on entering Connolly's body there was nothing to change its trajectory. It stuck no bone on entry. Yet it changed its direction by 9.28º. Something caused that bullet to have a different trajectory and that something was because it was a different bullet. If it was the same bullet - i.e. the SBY - why is its trajectory angle not 17.72º

James

Share this post


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

DVP (emphasis added):

Therefore, it would seem as if the chalk mark was also based (at least in part) on the hole in JFK's jacket, which IMO is just totally ridiculous, since we know that the hole in the coat is located well BELOW the hole in JFK's skin (due to the fact that Kennedy's coat was bunched up higher than normal when the shooting occurred).

Which means that if the jacket on the JFK stand-in in the photo above were to be "bunched up" a little bit (and we can see it isn't bunched up at all in that photograph), it would make the chalk mark rise a little higher on the back of the stand-in, which would mean it would almost perfectly line up with where Arlen Specter is holding the metal rod in that picture.

That "bunching up" of the jacket could very well be the answer as to why the chalk mark is located below the level of Specter's pointer. If we bunch up the jacket a little bit (like JFK's coat was bunched, per the Croft photo), it's a perfect alignment. </q>

So "higher than normal" = "a little higher" = "a little bit."

A little fraud.

Precisely, Cliff. The trouble is DVP doesn't seem to understand the corner he painted  himself into.

Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Gordon:

Can't wait to see how DVP gets back to you on those two salient points.

The second of which, I agree with you, he does not seem to understand in its real ramifications.

I have to admit, this is fun, being able to sit it out while watching Davey get pummeled from pillar to post.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


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

Did you not see I stated that 27º angle was taken when he was seated in the position he believed he was in when he was shot. Did you miss that??? 

We're only talking about a 2-degree difference. If the true angle through Connally's body after the bullet struck his rib was 27 degrees instead of 25, okay. It's not a big deal to me. (Again see WCR page 107.)

BTW, how many bullets do you think hit the two victims, James? By my rough count, you must think at least 5 different bullets hit JFK & Connally. (And it would be 6 if you think Kennedy suffered two separate head shots.)

 

Quote

The entrance to the wound was slightly above the right thumb and on the same side of the hand as the right thumb. The exit was on the palm of the hand above the wrist. If you are considering the SBT as the cause of these wounds then because the entrance and exit are essentially horrizontal [sic] even your estimate of downward trajectory angle of approx 17º could not cause these wounds.

John Connally's hand was a MOVABLE object, James. And we can't (and don't) know EXACTLY what position his hand/wrist was in when the bullet smashed into it. Therefore, neither you nor I can say precisely what angle his hand was in (in relation to the descending bullet that was coming at him) at the exact moment of the bullet's impact.

 

Quote

The SBT might be able to inflict a wound of entrance where the entrance wound is, but it could not replicate it. The actual would of extrance is a channel left to right wound. And if the SBT was able to strike JBC in that location the exit wound would be on the opposite side of the hand. It would not be on the palm.

And you feel comfortable concluding these things even though you really have NO IDEA exactly what position Mr. Connally's right hand/wrist was in at the moment the missile struck him, right? That's incredibly silly, James.

 

Quote

Until the bullet struck the 5th rib it simply was muscle it encountered. So on entering Connolly's [sic] body there was nothing to change its trajectory. It stuck [sic] no bone on entry. Yet it changed its direction by 9.28º. Something caused that bullet to have a different trajectory and that something was because it was a different bullet. If it was the same bullet - i.e. the SBY [sic] - why is its trajectory angle not 17.72º[?]

Maybe you should read Page 107 of the WCR again....

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

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Precisely, Cliff. The trouble is DVP doesn't seem to understand the corner he painted  himself into.

Ray, I'm convinced that if everyone called David Von Pein out for his fraudulent presentation of the clothing evidence, eventually he'd STFU and go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Ray, I'm convinced that if everyone called David Von Pein out for his fraudulent presentation of the clothing evidence, eventually he'd STFU and go away.

No such "fraudulent presentation" exists, of course. Such a thing only exists in the exceptionally fertile (and humorous) imagination of Mr. Clifford "Everything Revolves Around The Clothing And Nothing Else Matters At All" Varnell.

Share this post


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

No such "fraudulent presentation" exists,  

Sure it does. 

The word "normal" is a term of art in clothing design -- refers to casual movements of the body and fabric.

"Normal" body/fabric movement exclusively involves a fraction of an inch of fabric "ease" (another term of art for the colloquial term "bunching").

The other category of body/fabric movement pertains to reaching or stretching movements -- "gross ease" is the term of art for what the SBT requires.

When we move casually our shirts ease "a little bit" -- your words, David.

Quote

of course. Such a thing only exists in the exceptionally fertile (and humorous) imagination of Mr. Clifford "Everything Revolves Around The Clothing And Nothing Else Matters At All" Varnell.

Correct! --In terms of demolishing the SBT and establishing the following FACTS:

JFK was shot in the throat from the front.

JFK wasn't shot in the back with a 6.5mm FMJ given the shallow wound in soft tissue at T3.

The Fox 5 autopsy photo is a fake -- implicating elements in the military and/or the Secret Service in the cover-up.

The back wound locations improperly described in the final autopsy report are fraudulent.

JFK was shot in the back at T3, no exit, no round found at autopsy.

He was shot in the throat from the front, no exit, no round found during autopsy.

The central question of the JFK murder case: what happened to the rounds causing the back and throat wounds?

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Von Pein said:-
“We’re only talking about a 2-degree difference.”

Do you actually read what you write? “We’re only talking about a 2-degree difference.” Suppose CE 903 was configured to 19.72º are you seriously suggesting that would have no affect on the SBT. I mean after all we are “only talking about a 2º difference.” You are an embarrassment to JFK research when you can make a statement like that.

David Von Pein said:-
John Connally's hand was a MOVABLE object, James. And we can't (and don't) know EXACTLY what position his hand/wrist was in when the bullet smashed into it. Therefore, neither you nor I can say precisely what angle his hand was in (in relation to the descending bullet that was coming at him) at the exact moment of the bullet's impact.

Yes maybe we don’t know precisely where the hand might have been - but we do know three things.
1. We know where the exit wound is
2. We know the shape and position of the wounds on Connolly’s right hand
3 We know the direction of the bullet as it exited Connolly’s chest.

From these three facts we can make conclusions.

You say “Therefore, neither you nor I can say precisely what angle his hand was in (in relation to the descending bullet that was coming at him) at the exact moment of the bullet's impact.” Really I do not mean yo be insulting, but what kind of researcher are you?

You know the trajectory of the bullet as it passed through John Connally. You have a visual drawing of the shape of the entrance wound on John Connolly’s right hand. Drawn by the surgeon who had attended to him and created at approximately 4pm on Friday 22nd. And you have a chart describing the position of the exit wound. Maybe you are not the kind of researcher that can look at these facts and judge whether the injuries on the hand could have been inflicted by a bullet travelling through Connally’s body at an angle of 27º but the rest of us are.

David Von Pein said:-
And you feel comfortable concluding these things even though you really have NO IDEA exactly what position Mr. Connally's right hand/wrist was in at the moment the missile struck him, right? That's incredibly silly, James.
No, what is really “incredibly silly” is someone who is deaf and blind to anything that is not in the 26 volumes. The 26 volumes are filled with a great deal of exceptionally pertinent info and facts. Most if not all of us are dependant on the 26 volumes for our research. But unlike you, we are fully aware that the 26 volumes are also a political document with a particular view of the facts contained therein.

David Von Pein said:-
Maybe you should read Page 107 of the WCR again....
And maybe you should get a hold of the complete Parkland medical document on John Connally and see what actually happened and what his doctors really said. Some of that is probably on page 107, but I can guarantee some was deliberately excluded.

James.

Share this post


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

Do you actually read what you write? “We’re only talking about a 2-degree difference.” Suppose CE 903 was configured to 19.72º are you seriously suggesting that would have no affect on the SBT.

Point taken. But the "two degrees" I was talking about is the angle through JBC's chest AFTER the bullet has already entered Connally's body. Since it's been established by Connally's doctors that JBC was struck by only ONE bullet, it's obvious what the ultimate path was for that ONE bullet (regardless of the PRECISE angle through the chest) --- i.e., entering the upper right back, through the chest, exiting below the right nipple, striking the right wrist, and then ending up in the left thigh.

You obviously think that at least 2 bullets struck Connally, even though you don't have enough bullets to support such a theory.

But a few "disappearing missiles" never seem to concern CTers, do they James?

 

Quote

I mean after all we are “only talking about a 2º difference.” You are an embarrassment to JFK research when you can make a statement like that. 

If I were you James, I wouldn't be scolding another person for being "an embarrassment to JFK research". Not with this "embarrassment" of yours archived for all to see.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Von Pein said:

Since it's been established by Connally's doctors that JBC was struck by only ONE bullet, it's obvious what ultimate path that ONE bullet took (regardless of the PRECISE angle through the chest) --- i.e., from upper back, through the chest, exiting below the right nipple, striking the right wrist, and then ending up in the left thigh.

You really do not know Connally's doctors opinion. Yes that is what the 26 volumes say, but it is not what the doctors said.The doctors were not convinced only one bullet had been involved. If you had a copy of the hand drawing you would see why they had concerns. But your problem is not just how could the SBT cause the wounds to the hand. One of your problems is that whatever caused the hand wound would not be able to cause the leg wound. It was moving in the opposite direction. I might have supplied you with what the Connally doctors believed and why they believed it.. But I am not going to. I will leave it for you to research into. The truth is not always what is in the 26 volumes even though you keep telling us so.

David Von Pein said:

If I were you James, I wouldn't be scolding another person for being "an embarrassment to JFK research". Not with this "embarrassment" of yours archived for all to see.

Absolutely great news. But do not be so sure that it will be me who will be embaressed.

Share this post


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

The bullet trajectory through Connally's upper torso was about 25 degrees. The steeper angle through his chest was probably due to the bullet deflecting off the rib. (See WCR, page 107....)

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

And I see nothing magical about the bullet striking the back of Connally's wrist first. If he's sitting there, holding his Stetson on his lap, with the back of his right hand pretty much facing UPWARD, why can't a bullet exiting his chest strike the back part of that wrist? I never have understood why CTers make that scenario out to be impossible. I don't think it is impossible at all.

"back part of his wrist".  Shattering one bone in it, after some say traversing JFK's neck and Connally's arm pit/rib and nipple,  diverting to his thigh, leaving more of it in them than was missing from it.  But coming out pristine, to fall out, whole, and pristine, on "somebody's" stretcher in Parkland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point Ron. DVP will, of course, inform you that the 26 Volumes can explain everything.He will also tell you that only one fragment was found and retrieved from Connally's hand. Actually 4 lead fragments were retrieved.I have the NARA official picture of them.  For quite a time these items were described as "fragments" inclufing the hand written doctors hand written on the afternoon of the 22nd describing of what was done to the arm and what was retrieved from the arm. until at a point when "fragments became "fragment."  I believe in July/August 1964 these four fragments arrived at the Atomic Commission for analysis. I do not yet. know what their conclusion was. I do believe their report never went to the Commission and so you will get an appropriate 26 volume response from DVP.

At some point DVP will come across the drawing of Connolly's right hand and I await how he can explain that the graphical description of the entry wound could be caused by CE399.

James

Share this post


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

DVP...will also tell you that only one fragment was found and retrieved from Connally's hand. Actually, 4 lead fragments were retrieved. I have the NARA official picture of them.

I've never claimed that only one fragment was recovered from Governor Connally's wrist.

I've also posted on my website (and discussed) the NARA photo you mentioned (showing the four Connally fragments)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/connally-bullet-fragments.html

 

Edited by David Von Pein

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...