Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
John Hunt

Repost for Melvyn with better graphic sizing

Recommended Posts

Melvyn Shares his Ignorance of the Evidence With Us Again!! To wit:

> Readers beware - Hunt has constructed this scenario through one error I made

> in a previous post when I left out a short phrase. As you will see from the

> following 'scenario' 8 shots account for all wounds and bullet holes:

>

<snippage of irrelevant material>

> BULLET 1 - Missed Kennedy and struck Paul Schrade in the forehead.

> BULLET 2 - The shoulder pad shot as RFK was raising his arm - this bullet

> then possibly hit one of the other four victims after travelling upwards to

> the ceiling tiles and ricocheting. The main candidate for this shot is

> Elizabeth Evans. Evans believed she was bending down at the time of the

> shooting - the bullet could have ricocheted off the pantry floor, then

> struck Evans in the head –

Wrong. The attached scale diagram, which I have posted for you four times now, shows that your proposed Evans ricochet shot is absolutely ludicrous. Run the image by Larry Sturdivan and ask him if your ill-conceived proposal is possible. I dare you!!!!!!!

> …or, she could have been standing upright when the

> bullet ricocheted a second time off the floor.

Once again, I will point out your obvious error; The shot that hit Evans in the forehead entered one inch below the hairline and traveled UPWARD for several inches and was lodged between her scalp and skull. Did you catch that?? Upwards. The ricochet shot was headed downward. In order for your proposal to be possible, the bullet would have to stop in mid air, rotate 65 degrees, then continue on into Evans head in the upward manner that it did. Are you really going to stand by that notion??

Were I you, I would educate myself on the evidence before offering a scenario that is so easily debunked. It would make you look like less of a hack.

> This bullet could account for

> two of the ceiling tile holes, entry and exit.

No it does not. Once you divorce the ricochet shot from Evans, you are back up to nine bullets from an eight-shot revolver. The only candidate left that can alleviate you of your discomfort would be if the ricochet shot hit William Weisel. But without question, that did not happen.

How do we know that? Because the slug which ricocheted back down into the pantry would have deformed grossly upon striking the concrete ceiling. Yet the slug pulled from William Weisel’s body was in nearly perfect condition. In fact, it was the best preserved of all the officially recovered bullets. A photo of the bullet pulled from Weisel is attached. Included is an image of the Stroll bullet, which did ricochet off the pantry floor before entering his leg. (Both photos were taken by Sirhan’s former researcher, Rose Lynn Mangan at CSA.)

I dare you to run the image by Sturdivan and ask him if the Weisel bullet ricocheted off anything. I dare you!!

Bottom line – The ceiling tile ricochet shot hit neither Elizabeth Evans or William Weisel. Therefore you are back up to nine shots. You’re all done, Ayton.

Let me ask you a question, Mel. Why do you continue to post this unworkable scenario after having been educated on several occasions as to just how preposterous it is?? I would love to see you defend what you have written but it didn’t happen the last three times I posted this rebuttal. I’m confident that this time around, you will defend yourself. :-)

John Hunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are also still putting across your points in an angry and immature manner. Calm down and post sensibly, please. I assure you, your credibility will improve.

You will recall that Dan Moldea and Thomas Noguchi believed that no one could determine, for sure, the paths of the bullets or the exact positioning or angle of Sirhan’s gun relative to the paths.The crowd was in motion before and after the first shot.

In all your previous diagrams you have made ASSUMPTIONS in the form of 'stick figures' which does not do justice to the dynamics of the shooting and the positioning of Sirhan. You have all victims standing upright as if there is evidence that shows this. There isn’t. No one can reconstruct the location and posture of each person in the pantry at any given second. This is why I have only posited a ‘scenario’, one amongst many that can account for the victims’ wounds and the damage to the ceiling tiles.

As Sirhan started firing the crowd was moving, people were jerking backwards and forwards, some pantry witnesses were even pushed out of the swinging doors. There is no one who can give a precise diagram showing the positioning and angle of Sirhan's gun for all 8 shots - it is therefore impossible to show in which direction Sirhan's gun had been pointing by reference to the angle of the bullet entries to the victims, including RFK. Remember Frank Burns’ statement in which he said Sirhan’s gun was ‘pursuing’ RFK as the Senator was going down? If Sirhan fired at this moment described by Burns angles of bullet paths gauged with reference to RFK’s clothes and wounds would be meaningless. For example, as Noguchi said, “The senator had three gunshot wounds - a head wound behind his right ear and two through the right armpit. To reconstruct a scenario of the shooting, the gunshot wound to the head wouldn't tell us much, except how close the assailant may have been. We must remember the body is constantly moving, with arms, especially, changing position”.

A lot of the misunderstanding about the shooting rests on your general lack of knowledge about how crowds react during violent incidents. You do not factor in the dynamics of crowd movement and of how crowds can rapidly change direction and positioning in an instant (nor did the official investigators for that matter). This would have been especially true in the pantry shooting after the first shot when people reacted out of fear, shock and perhaps defensively. People in the pantry were also turning their heads to look for the source of the sounds; on realizing a gun had been fired some would have stumbled, fallen and crashed into objects around them and clashed with others in the crowd. The eyewitnesses and victims were busy covering up and falling all over each other.

We only have Elizabeth Evans’ guesses about her positioning when the first shot was fired. We do not know if her head had been tilted or if she had been pushed backwards following the first shot.There are any number of ways in which she could have been positioned which allowed the bullet to go ‘upwards’ through her scalp. I could have added in my post: “….or as Sirhan was grabbed by Uecker his gun could have been in an area below the waist and if Evans had been standing up or moving upwards when she was wounded this could have accounted for the angle of the bullet wound.”

You have, once more, engaged in a disingenuous ‘multiple postings routine’. I'm curious as to why the moderator would have allowed you to do that.Please stick to the original post so readers will not have to jump around.And please revise your stick figure diagrams – perhaps another diagram will show the victims in alternative positions to match the angles of the entry wounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> You are also still putting across your points in an angry and immature

> manner. Calm down and post sensibly, please. I assure you, your credibility

> will improve.

>

> You will recall that Dan Moldea and Thomas Noguchi believed that

That Moldea and Noguchi said anything about certainly is irrelevant, and a cop-out. Intellectually throwing one’s hands up in the air is just not good enough. Analyzing the evidence of the ceiling tile ricochet shot is a perfect example. Unless you have a bullet ricochet a second time off the pantry floor, you have nine shots. .

no one

> could determine, for sure, the paths of the bullets or the exact positioning

> or angle of Sirhan's gun relative to the paths. The crowd was in motion

> before and after the first shot.

While true, that does not elevate us from the responsibility of examining the evidence. And when we do, we find serious problems.

>

> In all your previous diagrams you have made ASSUMPTIONS in the form of

> 'stick figures' which does not do justice to the dynamics of the shooting

> and the positioning of Sirhan.

The diagrams are static by nature. I put the crime back to life and motion with Pat Speer and John Simkin in Dallas. The diagrams illustrate the issues. If you have something in particular that you would like to complain about, let me know. As for Evans, the fact is that the bullet hit her and traveled upward in her head…the bullet re-entering from the ceiling tile was headed downward. The only way to get that trajectory to work is to have Evens bent over backwards as if attempting to do a back flip. (See the attached static diagram.) In that scenario, the bullet path would still be anatomically upward in Evan’s head, and accommodate the downward trajectory of the bullet. If you have a single piece of evidence that Evens was bending over backwards, let me know. As is obvious, “stick” figures have no consequences in the discussion of Evans and the ceiling shot. They graphically illustrate the problem you face.

You have all victims standing upright as if

> there is evidence that shows this. There isn't. No one can reconstruct the

> location and posture of each person in the pantry at any given second.

But that does not alleviate you from explaining how a downward traveling bullet struck Evans in an upward manner. So far, you posit the theory that the bullet ricocheted a second time off the floor. As I wrote to you…parade that gem past Sturdivan and see what he says. I know what he is going to say because I consulted him on bullet ricochets three years ago when he did not know he was commenting on the RFK case. Unlike you, I did my homework first.

This

> is why I have only posited a 'scenario', one amongst many

“one amongst many” Keep repeating that… So far, you have failed to give even one plausible explanation to explain how the ceiling shot hit Evans.

that can account

> for the victims' wounds and the damage to the ceiling tiles.

>

> As Sirhan started firing the crowd was moving, people were jerking backwards

> and forwards, some pantry witnesses were even pushed out of the swinging

> doors. There is no one who can give a precise diagram showing the

> positioning and angle of Sirhan's gun for all 8 shots - it is therefore

> impossible to show in which direction Sirhan's gun had been pointing by

> reference to the angle of the bullet entries to the victims, including RFK.

> Remember Frank Burns' statement in which he said Sirhan's gun was 'pursuing'

> RFK as the Senator was going down? If Sirhan fired at this moment described

> by Burns angles of bullet paths gauged with reference to RFK's clothes and

> wounds would be meaningless.

Not only would it not be meaningless, it would be monumental and you would have a MAJOR problem. Had you worked that scenario through (which you obviously did not) you would understand the ramification: If Sirhan fire downward as RFK was falling, then none of the bullets that hit RFK or his cloths could do its double-duty and create the second bullet hole in the ceiling tile. And if the second tile shot is divorced from ANY of RFK’s wound…the bullet count goes back up to nine! Did you really NOT figure that out in advance?? Ouch!!!

> For example, as Noguchi said, "The senator had

> three gunshot wounds - a head wound behind his right ear and two through the

> right armpit. To reconstruct a scenario of the shooting, the gunshot wound

> to the head wouldn't tell us much, except how close the assailant may have

> been. We must remember the body is constantly moving, with arms, especially,

> changing position".

>

>

> A lot of the misunderstanding about the shooting rests on your general lack

> of knowledge about how crowds react during violent incidents.

You have no idea what I think or know. How many people do you know who put the crime in back in motion live in front of an audience?? Me. So don’t presume to know what I think.

> We only have Elizabeth Evans' guesses about her positioning when the first

> shot was fired. We do not know if her head had been tilted or if she had

> been pushed backwards following the first shot. There are any number of ways

> in which she could have been positioned which allowed the bullet to go

> 'upwards' through her scalp. I could have added in my post: "..or as Sirhan

> was grabbed by Uecker his gun could have been in an area below the waist and

> if Evans had been standing up or moving upwards when she was wounded this

> could have accounted for the angle of the bullet wound."

So if the ceiling tile shot did not hit Evans, who did it hit?? If you read my post, I’m sure you will agree that it did not hit Weisel. If it did not hit Evans or Weisel, ten you you have a ninth shot. Please be more careful when tossing put “possibilities.”

John Hunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> You are also still putting across your points in an angry and immature

> manner. Calm down and post sensibly, please. I assure you, your credibility

> will improve.

>

> You will recall that Dan Moldea and Thomas Noguchi believed that

That Moldea and Noguchi said anything about certainly is irrelevant, and a cop-out. Intellectually throwing one’s hands up in the air is just not good enough. Analyzing the evidence of the ceiling tile ricochet shot is a perfect example. Unless you have a bullet ricochet a second time off the pantry floor, you have nine shots. .

no one

> could determine, for sure, the paths of the bullets or the exact positioning

> or angle of Sirhan's gun relative to the paths. The crowd was in motion

> before and after the first shot.

While true, that does not elevate us from the responsibility of examining the evidence. And when we do, we find serious problems.

>

> In all your previous diagrams you have made ASSUMPTIONS in the form of

> 'stick figures' which does not do justice to the dynamics of the shooting

> and the positioning of Sirhan.

The diagrams are static by nature. I put the crime back to life and motion with Pat Speer and John Simkin in Dallas. The diagrams illustrate the issues. If you have something in particular that you would like to complain about, let me know. As for Evans, the fact is that the bullet hit her and traveled upward in her head…the bullet re-entering from the ceiling tile was headed downward. The only way to get that trajectory to work is to have Evens bent over backwards as if attempting to do a back flip. (See the attached static diagram.) In that scenario, the bullet path would still be anatomically upward in Evan’s head, and accommodate the downward trajectory of the bullet. If you have a single piece of evidence that Evens was bending over backwards, let me know. As is obvious, “stick” figures have no consequences in the discussion of Evans and the ceiling shot. They graphically illustrate the problem you face.

You have all victims standing upright as if

> there is evidence that shows this. There isn't. No one can reconstruct the

> location and posture of each person in the pantry at any given second.

But that does not alleviate you from explaining how a downward traveling bullet struck Evans in an upward manner. So far, you posit the theory that the bullet ricocheted a second time off the floor. As I wrote to you…parade that gem past Sturdivan and see what he says. I know what he is going to say because I consulted him on bullet ricochets three years ago when he did not know he was commenting on the RFK case. Unlike you, I did my homework first.

This

> is why I have only posited a 'scenario', one amongst many

“one amongst many” Keep repeating that… So far, you have failed to give even one plausible explanation to explain how the ceiling shot hit Evans.

that can account

> for the victims' wounds and the damage to the ceiling tiles.

>

> As Sirhan started firing the crowd was moving, people were jerking backwards

> and forwards, some pantry witnesses were even pushed out of the swinging

> doors. There is no one who can give a precise diagram showing the

> positioning and angle of Sirhan's gun for all 8 shots - it is therefore

> impossible to show in which direction Sirhan's gun had been pointing by

> reference to the angle of the bullet entries to the victims, including RFK.

> Remember Frank Burns' statement in which he said Sirhan's gun was 'pursuing'

> RFK as the Senator was going down? If Sirhan fired at this moment described

> by Burns angles of bullet paths gauged with reference to RFK's clothes and

> wounds would be meaningless.

Not only would it not be meaningless, it would be monumental and you would have a MAJOR problem. Had you worked that scenario through (which you obviously did not) you would understand the ramification: If Sirhan fire downward as RFK was falling, then none of the bullets that hit RFK or his cloths could do its double-duty and create the second bullet hole in the ceiling tile. And if the second tile shot is divorced from ANY of RFK’s wound…the bullet count goes back up to nine! Did you really NOT figure that out in advance?? Ouch!!!

> For example, as Noguchi said, "The senator had

> three gunshot wounds - a head wound behind his right ear and two through the

> right armpit. To reconstruct a scenario of the shooting, the gunshot wound

> to the head wouldn't tell us much, except how close the assailant may have

> been. We must remember the body is constantly moving, with arms, especially,

> changing position".

>

>

> A lot of the misunderstanding about the shooting rests on your general lack

> of knowledge about how crowds react during violent incidents.

You have no idea what I think or know. How many people do you know who put the crime in back in motion live in front of an audience?? Me. So don’t presume to know what I think.

> We only have Elizabeth Evans' guesses about her positioning when the first

> shot was fired. We do not know if her head had been tilted or if she had

> been pushed backwards following the first shot. There are any number of ways

> in which she could have been positioned which allowed the bullet to go

> 'upwards' through her scalp. I could have added in my post: "..or as Sirhan

> was grabbed by Uecker his gun could have been in an area below the waist and

> if Evans had been standing up or moving upwards when she was wounded this

> could have accounted for the angle of the bullet wound."

So if the ceiling tile shot did not hit Evans, who did it hit?? If you read my post, I’m sure you will agree that it did not hit Weisel. If it did not hit Evans or Weisel, ten you you have a ninth shot. Please be more careful when tossing put “possibilities.”

John Hunt

This one has the graphic. I posted one reply with a graphic attached. I have no idea why the post was duplicated without the graphic.

John Hunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Ayton folded up his tent and went home...again.

That would make this the 4th time, now.

The pattern is clear: I make my case sticking strictly to the "Official Evidence." Melvyn regurgitates the same easily debunkable, ill-conceived junk. I call him on it, again sticking to the "Official Evidence." ...and Melvyn paddles quietly off into the shadows.

I'll be right here, Mel, if you ever muster up the will to stand and fight like a man.

John Hunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
see previous posts - stick to one so people don't have to jump around - and don't be so silly.

"previous posts"?? There is ONE post containing zero substantive content, and merely more of you whining about being regarded by your given name.

Keep running away Melvyn.

John Hunt

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
Sign in to follow this  

×