Jump to content
The Education Forum

Single bullet angles


Mark Henceroth
 Share

Recommended Posts

Nice site, Mark. Very interesting analysis.

Did you take into account the fact that the HSCA forensic pathology panel concluded that President Kennedy's back wound was at the approximate level of the first thoracic vertebra, approximately 5 cm below the shoulder and 1 cm below the hole in the throat? (See HSCA Hearings Vol. 7 pgs. 85, 92 & 175)

Thanks Martin, I'm going to do a section on the declination angle also, this was just the bird's eye view or lateral angles, I'll make separate drawings for the declination, I have the data and they line up fairly easily also, I just need to get them on the site maybe later today or next couple days, I just finished this part of it recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

www.jfksbt.com

They seem easy enough to line up at 223.

Through Connally at 25 degrees

Through Kennedy at 16 degrees

Bullet path to center-line of car 5.5 degrees.

I have several drawings of this located here.

www.jfksbt.com

Let me know what you think about them.

At least you are willing to define that you are attempting to prove the Posner SB scenario. You do realize that conflicts with the WC and HSCA scenarios?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Pamela , yes, I do not believe that the HSCA or the WC had plotted it correctly, at least not if I am using a like map. I don't really see how it would be possible by either of their definitions at least not on a straight line. My objective was to see whether or not it could happen, not exactly to prove that it did or not. My result at least for me is that yes it is very much possible on a straight line of travel to shoot right through the two men and hit all the critical sites at least laterally , a bird's eye view.

I know that I can fairly easily line up the first four wounds including both entries and exit sites of the two men's torsos on the declination angle but I really have no way to know for sure the height or position of Connally's hands and legs, I'm not sure there is an accurate way to determine those measurements so I will have to rely on some logic and typical measurement to produce a credible scenario of where they may be situated in the limo.

Edited by Mark Henceroth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

To whom it may concern

The angles you are using are in direct conflict with the original evidence (pre burned notes of Humes and imo Finck that Humes stole)

After a while... "Oooops we got it wrong the first time, it could not have happened that way and be consistent with Oswald did it" gets a bit old, don't you think?

FBI Report of Autopsy

"This opening was probed by Dr. HUMES with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger."

This post of Michael Griffith's work explains quite alot - thanks Bernice

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15105&view=findpost&p=175791

Gunn: Could you explain to me what your recollection is of that, or to what you were referring with that statement [his abovementioned statement to the HSCA]?

O'Neill: Because I had heard--I had seen, supposedly, drawings from some publication where Boswell made drawings or alluded to the bullet wound in the back not actually in the back, but in the back of the neck. And I disagreed with that thoroughly. (Deposition, p. 111).

So when Boswell claimed the back wound was not in the back but rather in the back of the neck, O'Neill "disagreed with that thoroughly."

O'Neill was then asked to examine Exhibit No. 159, on which Boswell had relocated the back wound to a spot on the back of the neck. O'Neill said in reply, ". . . naturally, I would disagree with that," adding the following:

O'Neill: But I can't understand why he [boswell] would do something like that, really, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHERE IT WAS IN ANY SIZE, SHAPE, OR FORM-FASHION. (Deposition, p. 114, emphasis added)

So, we now have another very solid, emphatic witness that the back wound was where Boswell ORIGINALLY marked it on the autopsy face sheet. And, as most of us know, this low location, which rules out the single-bullet theory, is supported by the holes in the back of Kennedy's shirt and coat, by the death certificate, by the 1/27/64 WC transcript, by Special Agent (SA) Clint Hill's description of the wound, by SA Glen Bennett's description of the wound, by SA Roy Kellerman's 8-24-77 HSCA wound diagram, by SA James Sibert's 8-25-77 HSCA wound diagram, and by the accounts of medical assistants at the autopsy.

James Sibert

The following is a brief summary of key points from James Sibert's deposition to the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). Sibert is a former FBI agent who witnessed the unloading of the body from the casket and who witnessed the autopsy from a distance of a few feet.

* Sibert said he doubted the single-bullet theory (SBT)because the back wound was just too low on the back for it to be possible (Deposition of James W. Sibert to ARRB, September 11, 1997, pp. 161-162). He added that another reason he doubted the SBT was what he saw when the pathologists probed the back wound (Deposition, p. 162).

* Sibert unequivocally placed the back wound BELOW the scapula, i.e., below the top of the shoulder blade (Deposition, pp. 74-75, 114, 161-162).

* Sibert said the autopsy pathologists determined that the back wound had no point of exit (Deposition, pp. 110-112, 118-119).

* Sibert said that the placement of the back wound below the scapula was both what he saw **and that it was "the first location that Humes gave us," i.e., that that was the location Humes gave for the wound during the autopsy (Deposition, pp. 161-162). (It should be noted that that location agrees with the location given for the wound on the autopsy face sheet.)

* Sibert noted that the back wound location's matched the holes in the back of the president's shirt and coat, and he rejected the theory that the shirt and coat bunched-up high enough to account for the location of the clothing holes, observing that the shirt would not have moved markedly even if Kennedy had raised his arm and that the president's back brace would have helped to hold the shirt in place (Deposition, p. 162).

DR. MALCOM PERRY- The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes, that is correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice site, Mark. Very interesting analysis.

Did you take into account the fact that the HSCA forensic pathology panel concluded that President Kennedy's back wound was at the approximate level of the first thoracic vertebra, approximately 5 cm below the shoulder and 1 cm below the hole in the throat? (See HSCA Hearings Vol. 7 pgs. 85, 92 & 175)

Thanks Martin, I'm going to do a section on the declination angle also, this was just the bird's eye view or lateral angles, I'll make separate drawings for the declination, I have the data and they line up fairly easily also, I just need to get them on the site maybe later today or next couple days, I just finished this part of it recently.

How's it coming along, Mark?

Martin,

His name isn't Mark, Martin. It's, funnily enough, Martin. He claims Mark is short for Martin, Martin. Or should I say, Mark?

"Mark Henceroth" is a pseudonym.

Lee AKA Fred

Thanks Leroy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are all waiting with baited breath Martin, or Mark. Or at least DVP is.

I don't need to see anything else relating to the SBT to convince me that it's true. I've known for quite some time that the SBT is quite obviously the correct scenario. And (deep down) I'm pretty sure most conspiracy believers do, too.

The CTers can't really believe that TWO (yes, two!) bullets just stopped dead in their tracks after entering JFK's upper back and throat. That type of crazy belief is much, much sillier than anything Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania ever purported.

Fellow LNer "Bud" said it very well when he humorously said:

"The assassins choose bullets that inflict non-lethal, 1-inch-deep wounds? Instead of feeding JFK to lions, they decided to nibble him to death by [using] ducks?" -- Bud; April 1, 2006

XX.+Single-Bullet+Theory+Blog+Logo.png

XX.+Quoting+Common+Sense+Blog+Logo.png

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Mark Henceroth" is a pseudonym.

Lee AKA Fred

Right Lee.

He is posting still under a fantasy name and i've reported it already to Evan Burton (moderator).

Evan may have missed my PM.

For the Forum Rules:

edrules.jpg

I think either the Member posting under his Pseudonym "Mark Henceroth" should reveal his real name

or the forum Rules should be changend.

Thank you forward.

PS. I hope Kathy Beckett will read my words.

best

Martin

Edited by Martin Hinrichs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are all waiting with baited breath Martin, or Mark. Or at least DVP is.

I don't need to see anything else relating to the SBT to convince me that it's true. I've known for quite some time that the SBT is quite obviously the correct scenario. And (deep down) I'm pretty sure most conspiracy believers do, too.

The CTers can't really believe that TWO (yes, two!) bullets just stopped dead in their tracks after entering JFK's upper back and throat. That type of crazy belief is much, much sillier than anything Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania ever purported.

Fellow LNer "Bud" said it very well when he humorously said:

"The assassins choose bullets that inflict non-lethal, 1-inch-deep wounds? Instead of feeding JFK to lions, they decided to nibble him to death by [using] ducks?" -- Bud; April 1, 2006

I snipped your images/links just because two images allowed to publish in one posting.

David, here an accurate map of Dealey Plaza with a cutted SS-100-x but relevant occupants.

v-jfkneckcompo-1.jpg

v-jbcbackcompo-2.jpg

The SBT is simply not working and Arlen Specter knows it.

Btw, i'am not one of the crowd whom believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was not involved in the plot to kill Kennedy.

To be frank, i dislike this fellow after reading tons of books and testimonies.

I don't know what his order was, but after all he acted not alone.

When i say acting, i don't mean shooting!

Martin

Edited by Martin Hinrichs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is" whatever his name is' allowed to post under a false name?

Oh because MH says my name is false then it's false ? We're talking about a guy that takes blurry pictures of illuminated light bulbs and calls it evidence of a conspiracy. The site ownwer or John Simkins has my name. MH just wants me out of here as he does on the other forums because I expose his incredibly inept attempts at hoodwinking people with trick photograpy.The diagram he posted is not even from 221-224, that's why it looks skewed, it's obvious to anyone with a half a brain.

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...