The "Single Bullet Theory"

[Craig Lamson]

Martin, Craig's post is revealing in a number of ways.

1. He always claims to be an agnostic about the Kennedy assassination, and only interested in the photographic evidence. And yet, here he offers up a rare bit of info, that only those who've studied the case would know, which is unrelated to the photographic evidence. Either he's studied the case more than he'll admit, or someone tipped him off.

2. That bit of info is that there's a reason Myers' Connally appeared to be a midget in the animation used in Beyond the Magic Bullet. And the reason is that the producers of the program filmed Myers' animation off a monitor...from the side! This changed the relative proportions of Kennedy and Connally.

3. By offering up a "sigh" Craig suggests that the Connally midget is a harmless anomaly, when it is almost certainly a deliberate deception. When I first brought up the Connally midget some years ago, Myers responded in a similarly condescending manner, and suggested that only an idiot would not realize that the producers of the program--for no good reason whatsoever--would FEATURE an animated depiction of the Kennedy assassination filmed at an angle off a monitor. Fortunately, a few of Myers' biggest defenders, including David Von Pein, admitted that they too had been fooled, and that they had never suspected that the close-up views of the animation--in which the the borders of the monitor had been cropped off--had been filmed at an angle.

4. Craig also fails to admit that, by admitting the animation was filmed at an angle, he is admitting that the single-bullet shot doesn't align. You see, the producers of Beyond the Magic Bullet added a digital trajectory line over the distorted animation, and GUESS WHAT--it pointed back to the sniper's nest! Even die-hard lone-nutters should be able to see that this means that the trajectory would not align if the figures had not been distorted.

You are truly a funny man Pat. Forget your silly attempt at spin. Lets concentrate on the photographic principles of perspective at play in this simple illustration. You do understand perspective, don't you? Oh I forgot perspective totally confuses you.

So lets review? Speers sez Myers made Connally a midget as a deliberate lie. Myers says that's not true. It is just the camera angle.

Lets test the claim by Myers and see if it will in fact cause the effect he claims...via simple photographs

So Myers is correct. Simply taking the photo from an angle CAN change the relative size of two items that are the exact same size.

WOW. Maybe Speer has it all wrong...again. Imagine that.

Sigh is right. The photographic intelligence of Speer and Hinrichs is simply non existent.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

What is wrong? Watching a Dale Meyers' animation of the JFK assassination is like watching NORAD track Santa Claus on Christmas Eve. Interesting and colorful but don't necessarily believe the lone nutter baloney/cartoon propaganda that Meyers always pushes.

It is pretty clear: what Meyers is doing in this little example is depicting John Connally, a 6'4" man, who was taller and physically bigger than John Kennedy, as cartoon character who is smaller and shorter than John Kennedy. I think this example speaks to the broader non-quality of Meyers's work and theories.

Not just this. It's not a non-quality (I dislike it to it call work) obfcuscation.

It is betraying with full intention which makes it clear that Myers is not hesitate to betray without any morality.

Not hesitate to receive an Emmy award for "that".

It tells a lot about this person.

Martin

"is not hesitate to betray without any morality."

Sounds more like the Warren Commission to me!

[Pat Speer]

Martin, Craig's post is revealing in a number of ways.

1. He always claims to be an agnostic about the Kennedy assassination, and only interested in the photographic evidence. And yet, here he offers up a rare bit of info, that only those who've studied the case would know, which is unrelated to the photographic evidence. Either he's studied the case more than he'll admit, or someone tipped him off.

2. That bit of info is that there's a reason Myers' Connally appeared to be a midget in the animation used in Beyond the Magic Bullet. And the reason is that the producers of the program filmed Myers' animation off a monitor...from the side! This changed the relative proportions of Kennedy and Connally.

3. By offering up a "sigh" Craig suggests that the Connally midget is a harmless anomaly, when it is almost certainly a deliberate deception. When I first brought up the Connally midget some years ago, Myers responded in a similarly condescending manner, and suggested that only an idiot would not realize that the producers of the program--for no good reason whatsoever--would FEATURE an animated depiction of the Kennedy assassination filmed at an angle off a monitor. Fortunately, a few of Myers' biggest defenders, including David Von Pein, admitted that they too had been fooled, and that they had never suspected that the close-up views of the animation--in which the the borders of the monitor had been cropped off--had been filmed at an angle.

4. Craig also fails to admit that, by admitting the animation was filmed at an angle, he is admitting that the single-bullet shot doesn't align. You see, the producers of Beyond the Magic Bullet added a digital trajectory line over the distorted animation, and GUESS WHAT--it pointed back to the sniper's nest! Even die-hard lone-nutters should be able to see that this means that the trajectory would not align if the figures had not been distorted.

You are truly a funny man Pat. Forget your silly attempt at spin. Lets concentrate on the photographic principles of perspective at play in this simple illustration. You do understand perspective, don't you? Oh I forgot perspective totally confuses you.

So lets review? Speers sez Myers made Connally a midget as a deliberate lie. Myers says that's not true. It is just the camera angle.

Lets test the claim by Myers and see if it will in fact cause the effect he claims...via simple photographs

So Myers is correct. Simply taking the photo from an angle CAN change the relative size of two items that are the exact same size.

WOW. Maybe Speer has it all wrong...again. Imagine that.

Sigh is right. The photographic intelligence of Speer and Hinrichs is simply non existent.

Craig, your reading comprehension is TERRIBLE, LOL. In the post above I acknowledged that Myers' explanation for the size differential made sense. I also claimed, however, that it made no sense for a relatively big-budget documentary to FEATURE animation filmed off a screen at an angle. I then claimed that the strange strange coincidence (?) that the trajectory lines added over this distorted image of Kennedy and Connally just so happened to point back to the sniper's nest suggested that their using the distorted images was no accident.

But do you address,this? NO. Instead you attack me for saying "Myers made Connally a midget as a deliberate lie" and PRETEND I was claiming Myers made Connally a midget, when I said NO such thing.

Several years ago, I raised questions about the midget. Myers failed to acknowledge this until some of his devoted followers begged him to respond. He then responded by admitting I was right, but claimed it was the producers of Beyond the Magic Bullet who made Connally a midget, and not him. He claimed, furthermore, that this was obvious to everyone. It was NOT. Not one of his followers knew that the Connally figure had been distorted due to its being filmed at an angle.

When I pointed out that this distortion demonstrated that Kennedy and Connally's wounds did NOT align, furthermore, Myers offered instead that his animation as depicted in Beyond the Magic Bullet was of no value, one way or the other. This aroused the ire of one David Von Pein...who continued to insist that the animation in Beyond the Magic Bullet proves the wounds aligned, in spite of the fact Myers had disavowed this animation...

Edited April 27, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Craig Lamson]

Craig, your reading comprehension is TERRIBLE, LOL. In the post above I acknowledged that Myers' explanation for the size differential made sense. I also claimed, however, that it made no sense for a relatively big-budget documentary to FEATURE animation filmed off a screen at an angle. I then claimed that the strange strange coincidence (?) that the trajectory lines added over this distorted image of Kennedy and Connally just so happened to point back to the sniper's nest suggested that their using the distorted images was no accident.

But do you address,this? NO. Instead you attack me for saying "Myers made Connally a midget as a deliberate lie" and PRETEND I was claiming Myers made Connally a midget, when I said NO such thing.

Several years ago, I raised questions about the midget. Myers failed to acknowledge this until some of his devoted followers begged him to respond. He then responded by admitting I was right, but claimed it was the producers of Beyond the Magic Bullet who made Connally a midget, and not him. He claimed, furthermore, that this was obvious to everyone. It was NOT. Not one of his followers knew that the Connally figure had been distorted due to its being filmed at an angle.

When I pointed out that this distortion demonstrated that Kennedy and Connally's wounds did NOT align, furthermore, Myers offered instead that his animation as depicted in Beyond the Magic Bullet was of no value, one way or the other. This aroused the ire of one David Von Pein...who continued to insist that the animation in Beyond the Magic Bullet proves the wounds aligned, in spite of the fact Myers had disavowed this animation...

I missed you admission, such that it is, my bad. But boy you have fallen even deeper into your rabbit hole Pat. You "logic" once again shows how intellectually hollow your arguments really are.

Lets head deep into the burrow of Speerian "logic" and see his utter folly.

Lets review.

Speer says the distorted views created by the off angle camera was a deliberate lie, designed to fool the viewer. And since the the distorted view, when overlaid with a line in post production that connected JFK, JBC and the 6th floor, the animation as produced by Myers was faulty and Myers was a xxxx.

Pretty amazing stuff. Too bad its a total load of bull hockey. But sadly, that just the kind of stuff Speer produces, bull hockey based on ignorance.

ANYONE would do screen captures and try to debunk the work is just beyond silly. It's shows a complete lack of graphic intelligence of those who tried.

And then there is the overlaid line. This is CLASSIC blunder on Speer's part. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows you can't draw a line between items on a 2d depiction of a 3d scene and expect it to prove anything other than you can draw a line. This is basic stuff, and Speer fails completely.

All you have proven...once again...is you don't have the first clue what it is you are talking about.

Of course NONE of this proves anything one way or the other about the validity of the actual Myers animation.

[Pat Speer]

Craig, your reading comprehension is TERRIBLE, LOL. In the post above I acknowledged that Myers' explanation for the size differential made sense. I also claimed, however, that it made no sense for a relatively big-budget documentary to FEATURE animation filmed off a screen at an angle. I then claimed that the strange strange coincidence (?) that the trajectory lines added over this distorted image of Kennedy and Connally just so happened to point back to the sniper's nest suggested that their using the distorted images was no accident.

But do you address,this? NO. Instead you attack me for saying "Myers made Connally a midget as a deliberate lie" and PRETEND I was claiming Myers made Connally a midget, when I said NO such thing.

Several years ago, I raised questions about the midget. Myers failed to acknowledge this until some of his devoted followers begged him to respond. He then responded by admitting I was right, but claimed it was the producers of Beyond the Magic Bullet who made Connally a midget, and not him. He claimed, furthermore, that this was obvious to everyone. It was NOT. Not one of his followers knew that the Connally figure had been distorted due to its being filmed at an angle.

When I pointed out that this distortion demonstrated that Kennedy and Connally's wounds did NOT align, furthermore, Myers offered instead that his animation as depicted in Beyond the Magic Bullet was of no value, one way or the other. This aroused the ire of one David Von Pein...who continued to insist that the animation in Beyond the Magic Bullet proves the wounds aligned, in spite of the fact Myers had disavowed this animation...

I missed you admission, such that it is, my bad. But boy you have fallen even deeper into your rabbit hole Pat. You "logic" once again shows how intellectually hollow your arguments really are.

Lets head deep into the burrow of Speerian "logic" and see his utter folly.

Lets review.

Speer says the distorted views created by the off angle camera was a deliberate lie, designed to fool the viewer. And since the the distorted view, when overlaid with a line in post production that connected JFK, JBC and the 6th floor, the animation as produced by Myers was faulty and Myers was a xxxx.

Pretty amazing stuff. Too bad its a total load of bull hockey. But sadly, that just the kind of stuff Speer produces, bull hockey based on ignorance.

ANYONE would do screen captures and try to debunk the work is just beyond silly. It's shows a complete lack of graphic intelligence of those who tried.

And then there is the overlaid line. This is CLASSIC blunder on Speer's part. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows you can't draw a line between items on a 2d depiction of a 3d scene and expect it to prove anything other than you can draw a line. This is basic stuff, and Speer fails completely.

All you have proven...once again...is you don't have the first clue what it is you are talking about.

Of course NONE of this proves anything one way or the other about the validity of the actual Myers animation.

What nonsense, Craig. If Kennedy and Connally's wounds were in a straight line leading back to the sniper's nest, as claimed by single-assassin theorists, it can be demonstrated via an overhead shot showing their relative positions in the car. Myers does just that in both Beyond Conspiracy and Beyond the Magic Bullet. He does so, however, by sliding Connally's seat inboard 6 inches from the door, when it was only 2 1/2 inches inboard. When I brought this deception to the attention of some of his followers, he tried to cover his rump by blaming a dead man, PETER JENNNINGS, for the error in Beyond Conspiracy. I then pointed out that Myers himself performed the narration in Beyond the Magic Bullet, and it was equally deceptive. He then claimed the deception was done for "clarity" and that Connally had actually been sitting on the left side of the seat, 6 inches inboard of the door. Unless he is so disgustingly stupid that he thought his placing the seat in the wrong location was not deceptive, and that people being sold that his animation accurately depicted the positions of Kennedy and Connally in the limo did not have the right to know that, in his analysis, Connally's left butt cheek was half off the seat, he is a xxxx.

I don't think he's so stupid.

[James R Gordon]

Now look at this Myers illustration

Martin

Martin,

I agree that Connelly was taller than JFK, and I absolutely agree that Myers plays "fast and loose" with his data but in this case his representation of the different heights of the two me in the car appear correct.

The croft image, taken a couple of seconds before the assassination began, has them both positioned similar to how Myers also has. Even when you take into account the 3.9º degree slope of Elm Street

Connelly is still siting lower than JFK.

Although Myers is wrong about many aspects of what takes place in the car, maybe he has the relative heights correct.

James.

[Pamela Brown]

The SBT is often declaired impossible due to the perceived angles of this one shot.

Let's forget about Stone's theories for a moment. I have been looking into the ballistic scenario for a while, not in depth. But still. Most, if not all of those explanations which refutes the SBT refer to problems with the angles.

So, my question is this: what rules out the fact that the bullet changed it's angle - upwards -, after it hit Kennedy in the back? High velocity bullets are known to do this all the time? When taking part of sketches and such, it is always assumed that the entrance angle of the bullet equals that of the exit angle.

Is that really so?

With all due respect, though you wish to focus on the ballistics of an upward shot, does it not help to be grounded in when and where you think this shot took place first?

Let's not beg the question that there is no one "Single Bullet Theory". Instead, there are a series of SB scenarios.

I explain this in an article on the EF called "The Pretty Pig's Saturday Night".

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2372

[Gil Jesus]

As anyone who is a student of "written history" is aware, merely due to the fact that it is written, does not establish it as being fact and/or factual.

The SBT is an intentional obfuscation of the simple facts of the assassination, which has little to support it other than the "written" word.

As time progresses, we tend to learn more and more about what constitutes "factual history", as opposed to mere "written history".

I agree. I've always been one who believes that the only proof of a transiting bullet is an established bullet track through the body. Since the back wound was probed and no track was established, I cannot accept a transiting bullet as fact.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Gil Jesus

[Craig Lamson]

Craig, your reading comprehension is TERRIBLE, LOL. In the post above I acknowledged that Myers' explanation for the size differential made sense. I also claimed, however, that it made no sense for a relatively big-budget documentary to FEATURE animation filmed off a screen at an angle. I then claimed that the strange strange coincidence (?) that the trajectory lines added over this distorted image of Kennedy and Connally just so happened to point back to the sniper's nest suggested that their using the distorted images was no accident.

But do you address,this? NO. Instead you attack me for saying "Myers made Connally a midget as a deliberate lie" and PRETEND I was claiming Myers made Connally a midget, when I said NO such thing.

Several years ago, I raised questions about the midget. Myers failed to acknowledge this until some of his devoted followers begged him to respond. He then responded by admitting I was right, but claimed it was the producers of Beyond the Magic Bullet who made Connally a midget, and not him. He claimed, furthermore, that this was obvious to everyone. It was NOT. Not one of his followers knew that the Connally figure had been distorted due to its being filmed at an angle.

When I pointed out that this distortion demonstrated that Kennedy and Connally's wounds did NOT align, furthermore, Myers offered instead that his animation as depicted in Beyond the Magic Bullet was of no value, one way or the other. This aroused the ire of one David Von Pein...who continued to insist that the animation in Beyond the Magic Bullet proves the wounds aligned, in spite of the fact Myers had disavowed this animation...

I missed you admission, such that it is, my bad. But boy you have fallen even deeper into your rabbit hole Pat. You "logic" once again shows how intellectually hollow your arguments really are.

Lets head deep into the burrow of Speerian "logic" and see his utter folly.

Lets review.

Speer says the distorted views created by the off angle camera was a deliberate lie, designed to fool the viewer. And since the the distorted view, when overlaid with a line in post production that connected JFK, JBC and the 6th floor, the animation as produced by Myers was faulty and Myers was a xxxx.

Pretty amazing stuff. Too bad its a total load of bull hockey. But sadly, that just the kind of stuff Speer produces, bull hockey based on ignorance.

ANYONE would do screen captures and try to debunk the work is just beyond silly. It's shows a complete lack of graphic intelligence of those who tried.

And then there is the overlaid line. This is CLASSIC blunder on Speer's part. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows you can't draw a line between items on a 2d depiction of a 3d scene and expect it to prove anything other than you can draw a line. This is basic stuff, and Speer fails completely.

All you have proven...once again...is you don't have the first clue what it is you are talking about.

Of course NONE of this proves anything one way or the other about the validity of the actual Myers animation.

What nonsense, Craig. If Kennedy and Connally's wounds were in a straight line leading back to the sniper's nest, as claimed by single-assassin theorists, it can be demonstrated via an overhead shot showing their relative positions in the car. Myers does just that in both Beyond Conspiracy and Beyond the Magic Bullet. He does so, however, by sliding Connally's seat inboard 6 inches from the door, when it was only 2 1/2 inches inboard. When I brought this deception to the attention of some of his followers, he tried to cover his rump by blaming a dead man, PETER JENNNINGS, for the error in Beyond Conspiracy. I then pointed out that Myers himself performed the narration in Beyond the Magic Bullet, and it was equally deceptive. He then claimed the deception was done for "clarity" and that Connally had actually been sitting on the left side of the seat, 6 inches inboard of the door. Unless he is so disgustingly stupid that he thought his placing the seat in the wrong location was not deceptive, and that people being sold that his animation accurately depicted the positions of Kennedy and Connally in the limo did not have the right to know that, in his analysis, Connally's left butt cheek was half off the seat, he is a xxxx.

I don't think he's so stupid.

Don't try and shift the goalposts Speer. You know we are NOT talking about an "overhead diagram" but rather the 2d depiction of the animation in the tv show. Talk about being deceptive...sheesh.

So you don't like the fact that he moved Connally, seat and all. Does the fact that the SEAT EDGE was incorrect change the ACTUAL POSITION of Connally? OF course not. Nothing DECEPTIVE at all, you just don't like the results. Your very silly nitpicks make you look very SMALL. Of course that's not news.

Now if you can prove the actual positioning of Connally (not his seat) was wrong then you MIGHT have something. But of course you can't do that so you resort to your patented and very silly "speersian" logical leaps".

Myers handed you your head on a platter. Since your head has been removed from your body, it impossible for you to understand how badly you have been beaten and how silly this makes you look.

[David Von Pein]

When I pointed out that this distortion demonstrated that Kennedy and Connally's wounds did NOT align, furthermore, Myers offered instead that his animation as depicted in Beyond the Magic Bullet was of no value, one way or the other. This aroused the ire of one David Von Pein...who continued to insist that the animation in Beyond the Magic Bullet proves the wounds aligned, in spite of the fact Myers had disavowed this animation.

Two-part SBT series from 2008:

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/dale-myers-and-sbt.html

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/dale-myers-and-sbt-part-2.html

-----------------------------------------------

More SBT:

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Single-Bullet-Theory

-----------------------------------------------

Complete (new) "JFK Archives" website index:

Edited April 30, 2011 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

CE 399 is not the same bullet that was found at Parkland.

Utter nonsense from DiEugenio (as usual).

Of course CE399 is the exact same bullet found by Tomlinson at Parkland. And there are several reasons (based on common sense alone) to know that CE399 was not "planted" or "switched", as discussed below:

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#CE399

[David Von Pein]

The SBT is so obviously true, only hard-headed anti-SBTers have to wrestle with it.

1.) JFK hit in UPPER BACK with a bullet.

2.) JBC hit in UPPER BACK with a bullet.

3.) JBC is sitting directly in front of JFK ("directly", that is, from Oswald's slightly "right-to-left" perspective of the victims as Oswald was shooting the victims from the TSBD's 6th floor).

4.) Both victims are reacting at precisely the same time in the Z-Film (despite the constant protestations from the CT crowd).

5.) No bullets in JFK.

6.) No substantial damage in JFK's neck/back to account for a FMJ bullet suddenly stopping dead in its tracks--let alone TWO such missiles, which is the ridiculous scenario that CTers like Farley are forced to swallow.

And, somehow, when adding up #1 thru #6 above, the SBT is a scenario that is not only improbable according to the CT brigade--it's TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

The anti-SBT crowd is off the rails of reality.

Edited April 30, 2011 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Nice dodge, Lee boy.

You know, of course, that no reasonable person can get around the logic laid out in points #1 thru #6 listed above. So, you did exactly what you accused me of doing in your previous post -- you "ignore everything". Lovely.

If you ever come up with a reason why the guy you think did it actually did it[,] you will drop by and let us know[,] won't you?

Sure: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswalds-motive.html

Edited April 30, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Now look at this Myers illustration

Martin

Martin,

I agree that Connelly was taller than JFK, and I absolutely agree that Myers plays "fast and loose" with his data but in this case his representation of the different heights of the two me in the car appear correct.

The croft image, taken a couple of seconds before the assassination began, has them both positioned similar to how Myers also has. Even when you take into account the 3.9º degree slope of Elm Street

Connelly is still siting lower than JFK.

Although Myers is wrong about many aspects of what takes place in the car, maybe he has the relative heights correct.

James.

HEY, I HAVE A QUESTION: WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT BLACK PEOPLE THOUGHT ABOUT JOHN F. KENNEDY'S POLICIES ON CIVIL RIGHTS IN 1963? Another question is HOW MANY SMILING, WAVING, HAPPY BLACK PEOPLE DO YOU SEE IN THE CROFT PHOTO LITERALLY ONE OR TWO SECONDS BEFORE JFK WAS HIT WITH THE FIRST BULLETS?

I count at least 12 or 13 waving, smiling, happy black people who are greeting John Kennedy literally just yards and seconds away from his death. Black Americans and progressive Americans on civil rights were VERY AWARE that John Kennedy and his Administration were pushing the ball forward on civil rights. Maybe not as aggressively as liberals today with 20/20 hindsight would have wanted, but the trajectory then was in a FORWARD direction and black folks and liberals knew it on 11/22/63.

Another question for you: WHY DO YOU THINK THAT MILLIONS OF AMERICANS IN THE SIXTIES, SEVENTIES AND EIGHTIES HAD PICTURES ON THE WALLS OF THEIR HOMES OF MARTIN LUTHER KING AND JOHN KENNEDY ... BUT NOT LYNDON JOHNSON, THE JOKER WHO PASSED THE 1964-65 RIGHTS ACTS?

You need to think about that 3rd question a little bit. Go ahead think....

Think a little more ...

The answer is because black folks were not stupid. They knew the Kennedys were the ones (really the civil rights marchers, activists were the true ones) in government who were "moving the ball forward" on civil rights. And they and millions of other Americans smelled a RAT in the JFK assassination and suspected that the official story was garbage and that their leaders (kennedys, MLK) were murdered in high level conspiracies.

And they were right. And isn't it kind of funny that Lyndon Johnson was President or Vice President when all those murders happened. And didn't his Administration cover up the crimes in all three of those murders.

And Lyndon Johnson wondered why his picture was not up in the homes of black Americans.

You know, folks, it is ok to THINK and use common sense. Black folk did.

[David Josephs]

The SBT is so obviously true, only hard-headed anti-SBTers have to wrestle with it.

1.) JFK hit in UPPER BACK with a bullet.

and when probed by the lead pathologist and recorded by 2 FBI agents... the wound was shallow, non-transiting and at a 45-60 degree downward angle... no disection of the wound was allowed. The 6th floor TSBD window is at a 17 degree angle from JFK's back at the time of the supposed SBT shot... + 3.9 degrees for the street... oh, plus the back wound is higher than the throat wound - oops

2.) JBC hit in UPPER BACK with a bullet.

and exits after a 25-27 degree downward angle... hits JC wrist on the BACK of the wrist, exits the front and leaves multiple fragments which weigh more than what was lost from CE399

3.) JBC is sitting directly in front of JFK ("directly", that is, from Oswald's slightly "right-to-left" perspective of the victims as Oswald was shooting the victims from the TSBD's 6th floor).

score one for DVP

4.) Both victims are reacting at precisely the same time in the Z-Film (despite the constant protestations from the CT crowd).

not true... as JFK emerges from the sign we can already see his hands clinching and raising while JC sits there without a change in expression.. we see the jacket lapel move... could be wind, could be another shot but there is no way to connect the shot that JFK is already reacting to, to a shot going thru him and hitting JC at the same moment.. then there is JC and Nellie's testimony.. 1 shot, then JC is hit.. 2nd shot. This testimony is supported by the Zfilm

5.) No bullets in JFK.

yet a bullet with minimal damage, no fibers or blood is found on a stretcher... could have been JFK's? Humes felt the bullet could have been dislodged with external cardiac massage... why couldn't CE399 be that bullet? Becuase the SBT would no longer work... and there is no indication that bullet was ever in contact with skin, bone, fibers, blood... but you are correct according to the government's tale of the sitch... no bullet where there should have been... same with the throat wound of entrance... which in itself renders the SBT moot.

6.) No substantial damage in JFK's neck/back to account for a FMJ bullet suddenly stopping dead in its tracks--let alone TWO such missiles, which is the ridiculous scenario that CTers like Farley are forced to swallow.

Since we do not have a sectioned neck, or photos of probes, there is nothing that proves transit thru the body... nothing. Internal Damage could have been the result of a number of different possibilities...

now - I wonder who had access and exclusive control over the limo, bullet and body ???

And, somehow, when adding up #1 thru #6 above, the SBT is a scenario that is not only improbable according to the CT brigade--it's TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

The anti-SBT crowd is off the rails of reality.

Just helping you find the train station DVP... when you finally see the RAILS for yourself, reality might make sense to you as well...