Jump to content
The Education Forum

Did Anyone See What I Saw?


Recommended Posts

One night last week, I watched this Kennedy documentary that had Oswald as the lone assassin. They put together a computer animated simulation of the assassination to prove Oswald shot Kennedy and both Kennedy and Connelly were hit by the same bullet because of the way both reacted in the limo. They began to talk about the "pristine" bullet, which I've seen in various books. There was hardly a dent on it. I think they found it on Connelly's stretcher.

On this show, they mocked the pristine bullet theory by showing a bullet that looked crushed like a bottle cap run over by a train. It definitely was not pristine. So, in effect, could they have switched bullets and called the used bullet they showed the magic bullet? Did anyone else notice this trickery? I forget what channel it was on -- the History Channel, Discovery, The Learning Channel, etc.

There is a site about the pristine bullet. I wonder what you think of it -- Were we shown only one side to the bullet as this guy mainlains? I love the last line about what children should never do again. Is this a joke?

http://karwas.gso.uni-edu/JFK/issues_and_e...ine_bullet.html

Kathy C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One night last week, I watched this Kennedy documentary that had Oswald as the lone assassin. They put together a computer animated simulation of the assassination to prove Oswald shot Kennedy and both Kennedy and Connelly were hit by the same bullet because of the way both reacted in the limo. They began to talk about the "pristine" bullet, which I've seen in various books. There was hardly a dent on it. I think they found it on Connelly's stretcher.

On this show, they mocked the pristine bullet theory by showing a bullet that looked crushed like a bottle cap run over by a train. It definitely was not pristine. So, in effect, could they have switched bullets and called the used bullet they showed the magic bullet? Did anyone else notice this trickery? I forget what channel it was on -- the History Channel, Discovery, The Learning Channel, etc.

There is a site about the pristine bullet. I wonder what you think of it -- Were we shown only one side to the bullet as this guy mainlains? I love the last line about what children should never do again. Is this a joke?

http://karwas.gso.uni-edu/JFK/issues_and_e...ine_bullet.html

Kathy C

Kathy, this program has been discussed in depth. Here is part of my discussion of the program in chapter 12b at patspeer.com...

In 2004, the Discovery Channel began running a new program entitled JFK: Beyond the Magic Bullet. While appearing authoritative, using scientists and experts to simulate the shooting in Dealey Plaza, the program was rife with errors and/or distortions. Ultimately, it demonstrated reasons to disbelieve the magic bullet theory, but then turned around and claimed the opposite!

They simulated the shots from the sniper's nest by placing their shooter on on an elevated platform, at a distance of 180 feet, the distance they claim the HSCA claimed for the second shot. Well, there are two problems with this: one is that the HSCA claimed the shot came at around Z-190, which according to the Warren Commission’s recreation, would make it roughly 160 feet, and two is that the Dale Myers animation they used as evidence depicted the shot at Z-224, which would make it roughly 190 feet. It’s unclear where they derived their 180 foot measurement, but the Warren Commission, which failed to pick an exact moment for the shot, estimated the length of the shot to be 180 feet.

They then shot through a gelatin block simulating Kennedy's back and neck to see if the exiting bullet would leave an elongated entrance like the one they claimed was on Connally. (Following the well-worn path of Dr.s Lattimer and Baden, previously discussed, they incorrectly believed the bullet was traveling sideways upon impact with Connally). When the bullet headed straight through the gelatin with scarcely a wobble, they decided to add rope into the gelatin to better simulate the "dense sinu" of the human neck. There is a huge problem with this: Dr. Humes et al testified that the bullet striking Kennedy's neck passed between the strap muscles, and not through them. Their second try, not surprisingly, created the wound desired. They then expanded their test to include two gelatin blocks representing Connally's chest, and were similarly pleased with the results.

They then began to shoot at simulated human torsos. After shooting on some empty shells, they placed a target on a fully-simulated torso of the President at a point several inches to the right of the wound seen on the autopsy photos. They claimed this placement came after “triple-measurement.” What they failed to mention was that the autopsy measurements reflected the distance from the shoulder and from the back of the head and that their torso had no head. The HSCA and Clark Panel made estimates as to the distance from the spine, which they clearly ignored. Even so, the shooter missed this target and actually hit the torso very close to where the wound is depicted on the autopsy photos. (See Exhibit 1 on the slide above.) I’d like to think this “miss” was on purpose.

But this was just the beginning of their troubles. Since their “magic bullet,” after traversing simulated torsos of both Kennedy and Connally, failed to explode the simulated wrist to the extent Connally’s was damaged and actually bounced off the simulated thigh, they had to look for it in the surrounding brush. They found a clearly deformed bullet several yards to the right of the torsos. (See Exhibit 2 on the slide above.)

During a slow-motion replay of the shooting, moreover, the narrator stated as a matter-of-fact that the bullet “struck Kennedy in the neck.” Someone should have told the writer that that particular lie, although an all-time favorite, died with the HSCA. At this point, the direction of the program became obvious. While one of the great controversies surrounding the single-bullet theory is whether or not a bullet striking Kennedy in the back from above would exit his throat as purported, the program failed to show a close-up of the bullet's exit from the Kennedy torso. Nevertheless, the profile shot of the bullet's path made it clear the bullet exited from the Kennedy torso's chest, and not its throat. (See Exhibit 3.)

They then conducted a post-mortem to see what went wrong with their simulation. After taking the Connally torso to a doctor for a cat-scan, they concluded that the bullet struck two of Connally’s ribs instead of the one struck by the “magic bullet” and that this was why their bullet was more damaged. Still, the cat-scan revealed more than the producers of the show could possibly have desired.

The cat-scan (Exhibit 4 above) revealed that the two damaged ribs on the Connally torso were the 8th and 9th ribs, some distance below the entrance on Connally’s 5th rib. This demonstrated once again that the bullet trajectory from the sniper's nest didn't quite line-up with Kennedy's and Connally's wounds.

But this wasn't all the cat-scan revealed.

Astonishingly, (and as seen in Exhibit 5) it also revealed that the simulated ribs on the Connally torso were not even connected to the sternum! This meant that there was no bones in the front of the Connally torso to slow or damage the “magic bullet” before it struck the simulated wrist.

Since the purpose of the simulation was purportedly to see if a bullet creating Kennedy's and Connally's wounds might emerge as undamaged as the "magic" bullet, CE 399, removing bone from the purported path of the bullet was undoubtedly deceptive and dishonest.

At this point, I ran a quick replay. I went back to the beginning of the program where they created the torsos and noticed this time that the Kennedy torso had no spine, and that neither torso had shoulder blades. While these bones may have been left out because the producers believed the real “magic” bullet missed these bones, the exclusion of Connally’s front ribs, where the bullet made its exit, was inexcusable. That this was no mistake is confirmed by the statements of their wound ballistics expert. When they were preparing for their torso shoot by shooting at two gelatin blocks simulating Connally's chest, he said "The thorax is not one piece of muscle. It is a piece of muscle, some bone, then an airspace--the lung--and then another piece of tissue after that." It's almost certain he knew perfectly well that the bullet exiting Connally's chest exited through his fifth rib, and not through just "another piece of tissue".

It then became clear. Rather than testing if a bullet hitting the President in the assumed location would go on to hit Connally in his armpit, wrist and thigh, and come out largely unblemished, the program’s creators were testing if such a bullet, after missing Kennedy’s spine, which is doubtful, after exiting Kennedy’s throat, which is doubtful, and after hitting Connally’s ribs in only one place, which is doubtful, would go on to create the other wounds and appear unblemished.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, the program’s creators neglected to tell their audience the significance of that which they did discover. That the tumbling bullet in their re-enactment hit two ribs while the bullet striking Connally stuck but one suggested that the bullet striking Connally was not tumbling. This supported the statements of Dr. Robert Shaw, Connally’s doctor, who said the entrance wound was only 1.5 cm long. It was, however, in direct contradiction with all too many single-assassin theorists, including the HSCA’s Dr. Baden, who cite the fact (which is not a fact) that the bullet was tumbling as evidence that the bullet first struck Kennedy. These single-assassin theorists, and the Discovery program under their influence, repeat like a mantra that the entrance in Connally’s armpit was 3 cm, the size of a bullet traveling sideways, and ignore Shaw’s statements that the wound was but 1.5 cm and the inconvenient fact that the corresponding tear in Connally’s jacket was only 1.7 cm. (As discussed in the Ovoid? Oy Vey! section of chapter 11.)

In any event, instead of telling the audience the significance of the bullet hitting two ribs, the Beyond the Magic Bullet program cut to some supposed expert stating that their simulation had taken the “magic” out of the “magic bullet”.

But the program wasn’t over. For their final act they took an autopsy report reflecting the wounds incurred by their simulated torsos to an L.A. County Coroner. Surprisingly, the face sheet created for the Kennedy torso revealed that the bullet exited not from the torso’s throat but from its left chest, and that it probably would have hit its spine (if it had one) and must have hit its sternum (if it had one). (Exhibit 6 above.) Even worse, a probe poked through a skeleton by the doctor to depict the path of the bullet exploded the program’s assertion of replicating the magic bullet, as the probe passed below the clavicle and first rib. (Exhibit 7.) A bullet traveling on such a trajectory would not have bruised the President’s lung, but pierced it, and would have exited far below his throat.

In conclusion, one might state that the Discovery Channel did recreate the magic bullet, if one is to acknowledge that magic is deliberate deception designed to create the illusion that fantastic events have taken place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same producer is doing the upcoming Discovery Channel program focusing on the JFK limousine.

Edited by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Kathleen, Pat, Pamela,

Yes, I did see the show - it was on "The History Channel" - my impression of the show was that they were bound and determined that they were going to PROVE that LHO was the assassin, that the bullet COULD HAVE been pristine, and their various other assertions that could pass the "My-Name-is-Winston-I-rewrite-history-because-I-work-for-the-'Ministry of Truth' Orwellian" litmus test.

Oh, they went to great expense, and to such great lengths to "prove" these things - and in so doing, merely reaffirming my opinion that it's (the Government whitewash) all been lies, ALWAYS!

Is there a reason for them to come out some 40-odd years later (with the "we have to tell the NEW generation just what happened, but WE'RE using the voluminous amount of MODERN forensic techniques available NOW, and not through the accepted-practices of 1963; we couldn't tell THAT story - because it was a lie - we have to make it exciting and entertaining and, most of all, PLAUSIBLE for these info-tainment 'suckers'."), is it because they have a whole, new generation to attempt to brainwash?? Say, can anyone tell me just when the sealed documents are supposed to become UNsealed?

Pat, I'll have to check out your prior thread and your links.

~JD~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same producer is doing the upcoming Discovery Channel program focusing on the JFK limousine.

And we know that will be a bunch of lies.

Kathy C

I did talk with the producer a bit about the earlier program on the SBT and my impression was that what energized the program was a desire to recreate by experiment what might have happened. So, to that extent, there may be a difference between going in over their heads and being unable to realize that, and actual lies or propaganda. At the same time, I didn't have the impression that the experiment was entirely objective, in that it was not grounded in fact, but took off in flight based on the SBT 'theory' of the WCR.

As I posted in an article here in '04 called "The Pretty Pig's Saturday Night" -- link:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...+saturday+night

there is no one "SBT" theory, but instead different scenarios pushed at different times. The WC scenario, which is based on faulty information (incorrect limo measurement and use of the wrong car) gave only a range of frames where something 'could' have happened. HSCA focused on Z-190. It was Posner who 'narrowed down' his scenario to Z222-3, based on the illusion of the 'lapel flip' which was actually just a shadow from the side window of the limo.

So, in order for the experiment to be grounded, they would have first needed to define which scenario they were using and why. I explained that, and got a blank look in return. He did then acknowledge that there had been a lot of controversial and/or negative feedback on the DC boards once the show had aired.

Edited by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...