Michael Walton

BTW, Michael, not only have I likely forgotten more about the JFK assassination than you will ever know, I also am able to understand, technically and medically, why some things in this case are possible and others are not; something I am beginning to notice you are totally incapable of. Then why are you here Bob? Are you here to just throw around snide remarks or do you genuinely care about what happened on 11/22? For me, I want to know. Being Canadian, you may not realize it but Kennedy's death shook the foundations of this country that can be felt even today. Just today is the 53rd anniversary of the I Have A Dream speech in DC. Some outlets are publishing photos of that event, and there was MLK and JFK in the White House. Even though there was still a lot of s### that needed to be taken care of, it was still a very hopeful time in this country. And then the Bad Guys pretty much ripped his administration out and threw it in the garbage, just like they did in Africa and elsewhere. And not a one single citizen had the Constitutional right to do this through the election process; if they didn't like him, then vote him out of office. But here we are - we've been through Vietnam, Watergate, Iran Contra, and god knows what else and if you're a student of history, you have to ask yourself - would the country have gone through all of this if Kennedy had not been murdered? My hunch says we wouldn't have. I'm not saying he would have made it all wine and roses, but it could have been very different than how it turned out to be.

It's a myth in your mind only, Bob. Humes said it was shallow and handled the body. The report and witnesses said that "the end of the opening could be felt with the finger." Sorry Bob but I have to go with what they said vs. your fantasy myth, just like I'm going to go with Oswald himself saying he was innocent compared to your fantasy about a mystery agent getting a message to Oswald about keeping quiet all weekend.

SL - Do you believe me now Mike? Kudos, Sandy. I'm sure your figures are right being the engineer you are. Question - doesn't the distance of the target matter, too? If I was trying to send an object a mile away, I can see how I'd have to point it upward in order to ensure it arrives there, right? And if I'm sending something a much shorter distance, I'd add a lot less loft right? I'm not talking about baseballs or bullets here - but any object. BP - Of course he won't believe you, Sandy, he's a TV producer; he knows better. Sure explains the quality of TV documentaries lately. Ha, this is hilarious, Bob. So what you're saying is because I'm a TV producer that I want to fudge my stories or convey a story that isn't true? This is hilarious indeed because aren't you the guy, over on another thread, that was making up this big story about a whispering savant who somehow got to Oswald and told him to keep quiet? Here, I'll refresh your memory: Why did Oswald not proclaim innocence, Lance? C'mon now, a smart fellow like you should have no trouble figuring this one out, or are you just pretending to have trouble with it? Shortly after his arrest, I would imagine a message was put through to Oswald to just sit tight and keep his mouth shut, things would change at the last minute and he would be set free. Now, he might have thought about telling everything he knew about a conspiracy but, what good would that do? I then pointed out to you, Bob, that you must have forgotten that Oswald did speak - quite a bit - about his innocence that entire weekend. We even have "documentary" evidence here of LHO saying "I'm nothing but a patsy" on film. Of course, when I pointed this out to you, Bob, you played Whack A Mole with my reply by saying: He might have said he was a patsy but, did he say who was making him a patsy? Which is a totally off-the-wall, changing-the-subject (hence I call those kind of replies Whack A Mole ones) kind of reply. Just because I'm a TV producer doesn't make me think I know any more than you, Bob. I do seek the truth here like you do, Bob, but I also try to keep things realistic and plausible, too, without making up wild and wacky claims like ice bullets and trench-coat wearing secret agents stepping up to Oswald during a police interview, where he whispers in his ear, Oswald nods, and then says "I have nothing more to say about this matter" until he's gunned down by Ruby. I mean really, Bob? It's obvious, based on that reply elsewhere, that you're really not fully versed on the JFK case. If you were, and if you were keeping things plausible here (plausible as in "does it have the ring of truth?"), you'd never have made such an outlandish claim.

That's a good point, Ron, and I, too don't remember ever reading an official (ahem) story from DPD on when exactly they got up there.

Hi Ron - maybe because she said 4 or 5 minutes later so they figured no harm, no foul?

Mrs. MOONEYHAM heard a gunshot and observed President KENNEDY slump to the left of the seat of the car. At the time of the initial shot, Mrs. MOONEYHAM believed that a firecracker had gone off. Following the first shot, there was a slight pause and then two more shots were discharged, the second and third shots sounding closer together. Mrs. MOONEYHAM observed Mrs. KENNEDY climb up on the back of the car and her eyes were then diverted toward the left of the Presidential Motorcade on Elm Street toward a bystander, a man who had falle to the ground. Despite my doubts about witnesses not always getting their story right (after all, no one was standing around expecting this to happen) she pretty much got the above correct because you can see the falling man in this video: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Hr9Lrku-CxenlSZHZsX3pHa2s/view You can clearly see the guy throw himself down. And the above clearly shows the car slow down significantly at and just after the last shot and then speeds away. She also got the shot sequence correct (two close together shots) was pretty good on her part as the Z film backs that up. I'm not so sure if she got it right about seeing someone "...4 or 5 minutes later" in the window and if she did, I can't imagine that person being anyone other than the police. As I've said elsewhere, I think the TSBD was nothing more than the stage to frame Oswald - he worked there, the shells (one with a dented lip) were there, the books were piled up for the nest, and of course the gun was hidden there. Note - the video has an intro title that I put on it for another post (Swan Song) so that's why that title is there.

We can keep arguing this forever. I'm not doubting what either of you are saying about loft or whatever it's called. I agree with you that the slower an object is moving, you have to add some loft or whatever in order to ensure that it arrives where you want it to (based on a baseball throw for example). I just don't think you have to add that much loft to a throw (150 feet high worth) to get it to the catcher's glove 84 yards away. Loft yes...but not that much loft. But to stick to this thread, Humes said it was a shallow wound. The front autopsy photo shows no exit wound from the back entrance wound. This proves this shot from the back did not go through Kennedy, so we have that evidence. Do I agree or believe everything Humes said? No because I think he was coached later to try to get everything to match up with the WC results. But he said that it was a shallow wound so that's all we have to go by. If you don't want to agree with him, that's your choice. I choose to agree with him. See the drawing below. Again - and remember - I DO agree about the loft thing. But the distance from the DT building to Z 225 was only 66 yards. And even with a slow moving bullet of 409 MPH, that's an increase of over 400% in velocity compared to a ball thrown at 85 MPH. There has to have been a gun firing a round-nosed bullet at that speed from that distance to have caused a wound like we see in the autopsy photo and causing a shallow wound.

Bob - Why did Oswald not proclaim innocence, Lance? C'mon now, a smart fellow like you should have no trouble figuring this one out, or are you just pretending to have trouble with it? Bob, I'm pretty surprised you forgot about this after having made the above statement: If someone claims - like Oswald says here - that he's a patsy and they're just taking him in because he lived over in Russia, that's a pretty strong statement of denial in my book. Shortly after his arrest, I would imagine a message was put through to Oswald to just sit tight and keep his mouth shut, things would change at the last minute and he would be set free. Now, he might have thought about telling everything he knew about a conspiracy but, what good would that do? Bob, I've always kind of thought your claims on this forum lean toward speculation, but the one above is wildly speculative. How do you know he he was told to be quiet? The notes from Fritz state he said he was out in front during the parade and when shown the back yard photos, was smart enough to know they were fakes. So he was acting far from being someone who whispered to him to be quiet. This forum is to discuss theories but let's not get too carried away with fantasy and wild speculation; it only hurts the case for seeking the truth in the case.

Yes, you're right it's all instinct. I, too, never stood out there making calculations. Neither did these guys. The point though is look at many of Ray's videos. It would take miles and miles for the ball, based on the speed they throw it at and if by some miracle the ball held a constant speed, to keep angling upward to reach a height of 150 feet. That's why that calculation has to be wrong. These guys are throwing the ball anywhere from 80 to 90 mph. I could throw the ball no harder than 87 mph. Either way, that's hardly a blip in speed to even the slowest moving bullet. This whole discussion of balls and bullets started when I said that, yes, there CAN be a bullet or a gun out there that fires an ordinary bullet (not a gizmo concoction) that would have enough speed to move constantly at the target from the DT building, go through clothing and hit gristle and muscle but come to a stop without penetrating. If you look here: https://doc-0g-bk-docs.googleusercontent.com/docs/securesc/ha0ro937gcuc7l7deffksulhg5h7mbp1/o444a3359kuf9vbqq5opsnfkhhlq7226/1472220000000/12170580501158663845/*/0B7Hr9Lrku-CxZ08yMUVXcHhtdEU ...that distance was only 70 odd yards away. So we're expected to believe that there was no ordinary bullet on the face of the Earth that day that could not travel 70 yards, go through clothing and muscles and gristle, and just stop at whatever distance Humes said it was during the autopsy? Was that the Bad Guys' plan all along? Was the shot supposed to be closer to the neck? We just don't know. Just like we also don't know how in the world these same sharp shooters fired a shot way down beyond the car and hit the curb. * * And I know some are going to say that that shot hit the oak tree and richocheted but I don't believe that either. The reason is because I don't think ANY shots came from the TSBD. I thought it was there mainly to just be the "evidence" show for Crazy Kid because he worked there.

Every thread deserves a final rebuttal. Here's mine. Thank you. The answer to the above, and in conclusion, is that the Zapruder film was NOT filmed at 48 FPS; and it was NOT doctored or altered in any way. Instead, the Bad Guys knew this film was a fully packed keg of dynamite evidence showing conspiracy. So instead of showing this film to the world days after it was filmed, they did the opposite - they suppressed it from public view, and members of the media twisted and turned what was actually shown in the film to minimize or effectively sweep under the rug the evidence that more than one shooter was involved and that Oswald could not have pulled off the firing as the they claim he did. As seen in the video below, when the Nix film and Zapruder film are matched frame for frame, played side by side, and stabilized, they match up perfectly. Ask yourself - how can that be? How can the Bad Guys take the so-called "48 FPS" Z film, doctor it and remove 67% of the frames, and then by some miracle, both films miraculously match up when played side by side? The answer is simple - they didn't because there was no such thing as a "67% of the frames removed from the 48 FPS" version of the film like this thread claims. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxenlSZHZsX3pHa2s

Bob - I think my dog has a better comprehension of trajectories and ballistics. You know, Bob, while others are actually making something here and arguing their case, the most I've seen you do is copy and paste from the WR and throw around snide remarks. If you're such an "expert," why don't you take the challenge - get a gun, go out in the woods, get a dummy or a dead deer, put some clothes on it, and fire some rounds and take pictures and video of the result and publish it here. Yeah, that's what I thought. Sandy - I'm an engineer, Mike. I'm overqualified for this problem. Like anybody else, engineers do make mistakes. Please, anybody, point out what mistake I've made here. I don't believe I've made any. I didn't know you were an engineer so I have respect for you for going to college and learning a profession. That's great. I'm a multimedia producer (the old term for it was TV producer) and have been one for 30 years now. But anyway, here are two additional images: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxTXo1QXVBRUhfTUU https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxcUJOZndlY0M3UkE There's just no way you have to aim to throw a ball that distance the same height as a 2-story building, Sandy. No way. I know this may not matter to you, too, but I've done this before. And I'm picturing myself standing out in the outfield with a ball in my hand saying, "Yep. I remember looking up in the air around, say, 150 feet up, and using that as my benchmark to ensure my throw reaches home plate as shown in the videos. Yep, indeed." But back to this thread - there are just too many variables for 11/22 for us to say, "Oh, it's impossible for a shot to have just pretty much come to a dead stop in Kennedy's upper back like Humes says. It just had to have been a dart or a special concoction to cause a wound like that."

Uh, no. You're both wrong. According to Sandy you have to aim the ball "150 feet" in order to make it go where you want. Think about that for a minute. That's equal to a 15-story building. Imagine a baseball field with a 15-story building sitting in the middle of it, a guy goes way out in the outfield and aims for home but projects the ball the same trajectory as the 15-story building. Somewhere along the line, his math analysis is way, way off. There is no freaking way that you have to aim the ball the equivalent of a 15-story building to throw the ball 110 to 120 yards. It seems like Sandy doesn't care that I've actually done this numerous times before my arm fell apart. Watch my video and your video. The most he aimed it upward is I'm going to guess 25-30 feet at the most in order to get it where he wanted. You can clearly see this when the ball is halfway there - the other players are looking up to it as it's about 25-30 feet from the ground. And to stick to this thread's topic - I think this whole thread is a good example of others on this forum - the simple, down-to-earth reasoning behind the back wound just seems too hard for people to believe, so they come up with outlandish ways for how it happened. Researchers here say it couldn't have happened that way, but I say, "how do we know that?" Because someone said a few words and came up with a crazy alternative theory? Until someone takes a dummy, puts a shirt and coat on it, positions it the same distance between the DT building and Z 225, and fires a number of bullets similar to C399 and 10 out of 10 bullets all go through and through the dummy and not stop shallow like Humes said, then I'll continue to believe that what Humes said was correct.

I really like the way David Josephs talks about real-world stuff in his post. I know we sometimes get bogged down with quotes, counter-quotes, facts and figures and so on. But some of his good stuff is: From Magazine Marina and baby go with Ruth on Sept 23, Ozzie and 2 small suitcases are seen leaving Magazine - these were described as small, 18" suitcases which are supposed to fit a 32" piece of a rifle? Ruth and Micheal testify to NEVER SEEING A RIFLE in their home, in fact never seeing a rifle until Nov 22. Ozzie calls from Dallas on the 4th of October asking that Marina ask Ruth to come get him... Marina basically hangs up o him and he supposedly hitchhikes to Irving. Does he have the rifle with him now Dave? If so, where is it? He hitchhikes to the Paine's (according to the story) and there is no mention of a rifle or pistol from then on until Nov 22 and the ridiculous garage story Ruth concocts. I mean if this whole case wasn't so tragically sad, you could make a great tongue in cheek comedy bit out of it - imagine Lee hitch hiking, getting hung up on, and going around lunging his rifle and pistol. Just like, too, he's at work all day but some how sneaks out and mails his gun MO several miles away. At least for me, there has to be some common sense and plausibility in the narrative and Josephs points out some great implausible ones in the narrative.

Taking it seriously doesn't mean it actually happened, Cliff. That's one of the more interesting things I find on this forum - people get hooked on ideas that some government official said and think it's gospel. It's not. Government officials can be wrong too. James Humes was a "government official" yet some here don't want to believe what he said about the wound being shallow. And Cliff, please don't now say "it's not my theory..." It's obvious that even though someone else came up with it, YOU believe it. So disavowing by saying someone else came up with it falls pretty flat in my book.

I got totally into this at the time and it was my belief-then and now- that John and the boys were just having a bit of fun. Of course there were "clues" and of course it was a hoax. Fetzer and his minion probably believe the earth is flat too. I agree Dawn. Lennon was a prankster as it's been said when he sang "Baby, You're A Rich Man," the words "...you're a rich man too" but he changed it toward the end in jest or as a dig to their manager Brian Epstein "...you're a rich fag Jew." And something about the Abbey Road album cover with Paul being bare-footed...as in you're buried with no shoes on. Though by the time they made that album my hunch is the fun and games were over and they couldn't stand each other. Still...

Sandy and all, I'm sorry but I'm just not buying any of this and I think it's important for researchers who don't agree to post as well as for those who do agree. I made a rough measurement of the distance of JFK to the Dal Tex building as seen here: https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxZ08yMUVXcHhtdEU A shot from there is about 66 yards away. Then I have some videos below. The using different media in his bullets video (sodium, liquid, etc.) shows what would happen when fired into a water tank. Then there's a guy firing a dart into a deer dummy. So my question up to this point is...really? After watching this stuff, and then going back in time 53 years, was it plausible that the bad guys would try something so exotic? And I know Cliff is now going to say that yes, there was an alphabet soup entity that existed. But that's not what I'm getting at here. Was it PLAUSIBLE, meaning would the bad guys have taken that much of a risk to try something so exotic or out of the ordinary that they'd try exotic bullets or darts or whatever? The bad guys' goals were to: 1) kill Kennedy; 3) shoot JBC to get him out of the way to make a clear shot for Kennedy; 3) make the shooting look as close to possible that the shots only came from their set dressing - the TSDB. We now know today that they succeeded with #1 and #2 but failed miserably with #3. The Z film proves otherwise and the throw down gun they used to frame Oswald would not have allowed anyone to pull it off. But that's what the objectives were. So you really have to try to keep things plausible here - would they have taken a chance to try something exotic? I really don't think they would have. If you watch the video where the guy is firing into the tank of water, watch the lead bullet one. Look how it slows down compared to all of the exotic ones. And this guy fired right on top of the tank literally. You mean to tell me that a shot from 66 yards away using just a plain old bullet could NOT just pierce the clothing, into skin and muscle and stop and leaving a shallow wound - and even, if possible, falling out somewhere where it's recovered and magically turned into the SBT? Based on common sense and plausibility, I think it's VERY possible. We now arrive to the idea Sandy brought up, about how things moving in the air will eventually fall to the ground and his formula he used. Yes, it does make sense but let's just forget about this for a minute and discuss the ball player in the video below throwing home. I used to do this all the time when I played in HS and college - throwing a strike from the outfield to home. If you watch the video, the player is about 25-30 feet from the 390 foot ballpark wall. So that's a rough distance from where he threw it to home of about 120 yards. If you watch the ball he throws it and it's starting to fall as it arrives at home plate. He threw it from 120 yards away, yet if you go back up to my graphic, a shot from the DT building to the limo has a rough distance of about 66 yards. I mean here's a human being throwing a ball a greater distance than the back shot and it's just starting to fall from the straight line and there's no doubt the player threw it probably at 80 MPH to beat the runner. Yet, based on the discussion of this thread, we're expected to believe that a bullet, even a slow moving one, would not be possible to be fired from the DT into Kennedy's back, and just going through his clothing, making a piercing wound into his back, and then just stopping where it makes a shallow wound? I'm left trying to figure out why no one thinks this is possible. I think it's very possible. Now I know Bob P is going to say, "Oh you don't understand ballistics and guns and distances and wounds" and so on. And I say to that...so what? I could never own a gun or fire one in my life but it doesn't mean you can't figure things out. And I think sometimes common sense and plausibility should have equal weight to trying to figure things out compared to formulas, being an expert with guns and bullets and ballistics, and so on. Bob can also say "so you drank the koolaid, huh?" as if just because I believe in what Humes said about the back wound I've fallen for everything hook, line, and sinker. If I did fall for it all, then I wouldn't be explaining above how I think the shots played out from the DT building. In other words, Bob, not every single thing in the WC is a consipracy. https://youtu.be/ZJA57vEc27o https://youtu.be/A7d7QxJviv8

Great thanks for fixing them.

Thanks for explaining this, Sandy. Could the clothing have somehow slowed the bullet down enough so by the time it hit the skin and grizzle and muscle that it'd make it shallow like Humes said? What do you think about what I explained in an earlier post - that perhaps 399 was the actual back bullet and somehow fell out? And because Specter was already desperate to make the multiple shots work, he turned it into the Magic Bullet? We know that 399 could NOT have been the bullet that caused Connally's wounds since there were fragments displayed as evidence taken from him and those fragments were larger than anything missing from 399. And no bullet would stay that intact while smashing into one of the hardest bones in the body (the wrist bone). So maybe somehow this 399 bullet was the actual back wound bullet, it fell out (not from Connally but from Kennedy's back) and then presto! - it was turned into the bullet that caused all of the wounds in both of them.

Gus Russo - IMO, he sold his soul for "prestige" and cash. The great American way: http://www.ctka.net/russo.html Just like Myers did when he made his hilariously sad and totally f###ed up cartoon for the network: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter12c%3Aanimania Here are images from my own "animation" https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxZERPRWlhXzBWMTQ https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxcmwzUDZWZjhmZ0U https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxSG51OXF1eXZJdUk https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxc1VxMlE2WEQtRVk

Dave - nice job but I clicked on some of the photos on your site and they don't open into a larger photo. You may want to fix that.

Just so you know, Cliff, what you write doesn't fall on deaf ears. EDIT: Well probably on SOME deaf ears. No, I was not making a joke. What I said had nothing to do with you in particular. I was talking about people who don't take Cliff's dart theory seriously. Furthermore, I would NEVER make fun of a person's disability. (I have one myself, BTW.) Sandy - no problem and thanks for explaining. Sorry this mucked up your thread and I know we're all passionate about trying to get to the bottom of Kennedy's murder here.

Bob - I can see you are another who has the inability to grasp the simple ballistical concept I have been trying to explain. Long live the shallow back wound myth, and those gullible enough to believe it! Bob, Jim Humes said it was shallow and it could not be easily probed. Yes there was bruising on the tip of the lung and in the inside portion of the surrounding tissue. I'd expect that to be the case when a fast-moving bullet would go into someone. But that's how Hume described it. I don't know why you consider that a myth. I don't consider it a myth because that's the best and only testimony we have from someone who actually handled the body. None of us here on this board were in the room that night. But he was along with the agents, the other doctors, and the military guys who said (according to Finck) to keep it moving and don't dissect the wounds.

Dave - Thanks, Pat. I'm glad I didn't waste my time watching it. You know, Dave, I'm going to say this nicely because I do admire all of your efforts to put together the many great videos and radio broadcasts that you've posted. You've made a great historical record for current and future generations. But I've never gone to your website before until I read your comments on the other thread that mentioned the money order. And, boy - and really I'm not trying to be nasty here - but I was shocked at what you've done over there. I thought it was going to be a lot of copy and pasting from McAdams's site but instead there's a lot of "coulda woulda and shouldas" over there. For example, on the mailing of the MO, you have nothing more than "he coulda done it in the morning." I was so shocked because - is that all you can offer? As for the video that Chuck made, I was also very impressed with it. The only thing I don't agree with are the painting in of the Z film and the altering of it. But I really think he did a great job.

Sandy, we'll have to agree to disagree. I've never bought into the umbrella having a dart, nor do I think there was a need to use high-tech bullets. I do find it interesting that the back wound bullet was never found. Maybe C399, the so-called Magic Bullet, was the actual bullet that hit Kennedy in the back, it fell out, and then they "projected" it as the bullet that went through both JFK and JCC. When you think about it, it's not that far-fetched. The wound was shallow and according to Humes didn't penetrate very far and didn't hit anything that would have broken it up too much. Maybe that first shot was just a way to plant the evidence of the Carcano rifle - hit him in the back where the bullet could be retrieved and prove it came from Oswald's gun. Unfortunately, it didn't work out that way for them, the bullet got lost in the shuffle, the Zapruder film proved that the shot sequence was way too close, the wounds didn't match up, and the SBT was born. As I said earlier, this is all speculation of course but it seems plausible in my mind and far more likely than using dissolving bullets made by some James Bondsey, alphabet soup CIA entity. And while we're on the topic of the inner workings, look what happened to Oswald. They could have smuggled in some high-tech poison while he was in jail that weekend that caused him instant death and then they could have said he got a hold of it and killed himself for the good of the nation. But after he wasn't killed at the Texas Theater, they went low-tech and just had their Mob guy shoot him on national TV no less. Regarding the umbrella, the only thing I do find a little odd about that tall black guy waving and the umbrella guy is the way they quietly sat down together on the curb, looked around, and then split up. Most people immediately after the shooting were running around, crying, and so forth but those two guys did have some odd behavior. I've always thought that the umbrella was there to draw Kennedy and JCC's attention to it, to kind of get them to look at it, a low-tech version of holding them in place. It is, after all, strange that after an over one mile drive through the streets of Dallas, something as conspicuous as a guy opening up an umbrella on a sunny day just so happened to take place next to a black guy who is waving in an odd manner, and then right in the middle of the kill zone.

Wow. Touchy, ain't ya? Not at all, Cliff. A touchy person would have reported this to the board admin, like I was reported a while back from a touchy member who couldn't take the heat of my rebuttals to his ridiculous claims. And I just wanted to give Sandy (and maybe you, too?) some ideas on how you can make some other jokes at others' expense, but you wouldn't dare say to that person's face; in other words, it's so, so easy to talk #### behind a keyboard. This seems to have left you bent out of shape, for some reason. It's not left me bent at all. As a matter of fact, that's why I was not going to even reply about it because when I read what you wrote - about alphabet soups and millennials - it gave me one of those "face palm, eye rolling, sighing" moments. :-) It's not my theory. It's what the autopsists thought. I've pointed this out a half-dozen times -- what part of this don't you grasp? Fine. So what's your larger point? If we're arguing here about the steep angle of the back wound, and no bullet recovered, and so on, and if the autopsists said they thought that plastic bullets or ice or some other disappearing bullet caused the wound, and then you took this single "theory" from them and tacked on an alphabet soup of a CIA entity had access to high tech gizmo bullets, and I said we're giving them too much credit, that it was not necessary to do this that good old regular bullets would do...and now you're referring back to the autopists, that it ("it" being the key word here) was their theory, not yours, and.... See what I'm getting at here? You can't just take a few words from an FBI agent and then expand it into a corny James Bondsey, CIA, alphabet soupy plastic/powdery theory and then when someone calls you out on it, say, "wasn't me....that's what they said at the autopsy." See what I mean, Cliff? Do you see what I mean? And yet you can't defend the 100% first-shot/kill-shot Pet Theory of yours. You seem to think if you repeat your Pet Theory over and over it becomes fact... I have no idea what you're talking about...a "pet theory." And now I have "my" pet theory. That's a new one to me.