The "Single Bullet Theory"

[David G. Healy]

...

You know, of course, that no reasonable person can get around the logic laid out in points #1 thru #6 listed above.

...

and whose logic be that, young man? Bugliosi's perhaps... You're so transparent even the Craigster can't help ya. Here's a franchisee (SBT in this case) reality, the NAME doesn't necessarily sell an honest nor healthy product... You've been taken son, but I've come to know and expect that of you....

(emphasis: mine)

[Mark Knight]

According to the DVP scenario, the SBT and the first bullet accounts for Connally's wounds.

So I have a question for DVP...IF you and the WC are correct [HUGE "if", there]...how or why was there copper residue [as in, possibly from a copper-jacketed bullet??] found by Heiberger in his spectrographic analysis on the defect in the COLLAR of JFK's coat?

Explain away, Davey...like Ross Perot, I'm all ears.

[Martin Hinrichs]

Martin,

I agree that Connally 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.

Hi James

When see the whole turnaround in 3D in the shows you will face that Connally is always a midget and JFK has a shoulder blade like Schwarzenegger.

This is not a mistake.

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

Connally is still siting lower than JFK.

The slope on Elm differs from 3.3 to 3.5° degree on Elm. The more towards the triple underpass, the lower at some point.

Well, Croft is taken at an angle and not orthogonal like the Screenshot i provided from Myers.

I'am 3D artist since 1992 and know what i'am talking about.

Myers is free to join this forum and is able to answer. He did not.

But he should be aware that i'am going to publish his work on all well known international 3D Forums

with a Poll.

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

Realtive, very relative. In most cases incorrcet.

Connally was sitting lower but his body was taller a bit. There is no room to neglect it.

And JFK was not a hunchback as Myers illustrated.

The sidewiew i showed was not the only "mistake".

In German: Wir können es aufdröseln bis ins kleinste, er hat betrogen. Das steht fest.

My best to you

Martin

[Martin Hinrichs]

View the image I posted and learn to become a more intelligent human being Martin. Then perhaps you will understand what is wrong with your gif above is the person who created it.

You already dropped to my shadowing of "to take serious persons" Craig.

Sorry, i will publish my work when it's done exactly when i think it's done and follow

zero rule of any request.

Let it say that way, you have to thank my clients thats it's not already done.

I know what you did with your camera, your lenses and your applications. The public deservers the answers too.

Meanwhile i will try to give an inspiraton.

It's not your music taste but the words are important:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTfZXh427B0

Martin

[Martin Hinrichs]

Sounds more like the Warren Commission to me!

Sounds similar Tom, sure.

Martin

[Martin Hinrichs]

Sigh.....

Read this and learn to become a better human, Craig.

http://skdesigns.com/internet/articles/quotes/williamson/our_deepest_fear/

Martin

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.

I know that all Pat.

Craig is a LN'er as the night is dark.

Good sign is he didn't rephrased it again in the last time.

A small step forward.

best to you

Martin

[Craig Lamson]

You already dropped to my shadowing of "to take serious persons" Craig.

Sorry, i will publish my work when it's done exactly when i think it's done and follow

zero rule of any request.

Let it say that way, you have to thank my clients thats it's not already done.

I know what you did with your camera, your lenses and your applications. The public deservers the answers too.

Martin

So typical of you mickey, we all hear you proclaim...I'm gonna do 'X" and we wait and wait and it never happens. You are just the little boy who cried wolf.

But I do so hope you actually do publish what you say you will. Since I did what I said I did with "my camera, my lenses and my applications", your little gambit is going to backfire on you. What's gonna happen is the world will see just how incompetent your really are. It's gonna get bloody and it will not end well for you mickey. You are right, the public does deserve to know...just how bad you are at all of this mr. "I'm 3d expert, just believe me". ROFLMAO!

I have a huge pile of new photographic proofs to show your continued incompetence. I gotta thank you for that silly dvd cover exercise you produced. It's the gift that keeps on giving.

So bring it on mickey...I am ready and waiting. Maybe I should publish just a bit of your sillyness to set you up. We will see.

Let's Dance.

Now back to the subject at hand in this thread..your failure to understand something as simple as how perspective works.

I suggest you prove your point for once about the Myers animation.

Oh wait, that will never happen. "

All we ever get from your is "I'am 3D artist since 1992 and know what i'am talking about".

ROFLMAO!

Edited May 1, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[David G. Healy]

...

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.

see below:

Some, such as Ron Hepler and Gary Mack, are well-known and established researchers in the case; regardless of differences, one knows who one is dealing with. But others, such as Joe Durnavich, David Wimp, and Craig Lamson, are more ephemeral.

we've known about the Craigster and his (ya won't be rewriting any film-photo history while the 6th Floor Mausoleum is around) cohorts-aka The Gang:

Joe Durnavich

Louis Girdler

James Gordon

Ron Hepler

Barb Junkkarinen

Craig Lamson

Josiah Thompson

David Wimp

since 2002. It seems the Craigster is a bit *less* ephemeral than John Costella assumed...

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/thegang.html

p.s. Shame Dale (want to see my EMMY) Myers won't give up his Lightwave project files...

Edited May 1, 2011 by David G. Healy

[David Von Pein]

So I have a question for DVP...IF you and the WC are correct [HUGE "if", there]...how or why was there copper residue [as in, possibly from a copper-jacketed bullet??] found by Heiberger in his spectrographic analysis on the defect in the COLLAR of JFK's coat?

Who cares?

Are you now going to suggest that there was a bullet hole in JFK's coat collar?

Of course, Bob Frazier explained the existence of that "defect". It wasn't a bullet hole. The defect was made by the FBI.

[David Josephs]

DJ: 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

Not so fast.

According to Groden, he has pictures taken from behind which will show that JBC and JFK were lined up in front of each other. These will be in his new book called Absolute Proof.

So the angle from right to left, which is obvious when you are on the sixth floor, is an oblique one.

So much for throwing the man a bone... point taken Jim yet it does seem to me that JC is slightly to the left of JFK as we look from the trunk... so from 6th floor ... yada, yada yada

But I must also say Jim... the if DVP is correct and JC is DIRECTLY in front of JFK as DVp states, then a shot traveling right to left from the 6th floor, exiting the throat SHOULD hit JC in the left shoulder... right?

he'd have to be about a foot to JFK's left for the SBT shot to work...

[David Josephs]

Amen

[Martin Hinrichs]

So typical of you mickey, we all hear you proclaim...I'm gonna do 'X" and we wait and wait and it never happens. You are just the little boy who cried wolf.

But I do so hope you actually do publish what you say you will. Since I did what I said I did with "my camera, my lenses and my applications", your little gambit is going to backfire on you. What's gonna happen is the world will see just how incompetent your really are. It's gonna get bloody and it will not end well for you mickey. You are right, the public does deserve to know...just how bad you are at all of this mr. "I'm 3d expert, just believe me". ROFLMAO!

I have a huge pile of new photographic proofs to show your continued incompetence. I gotta thank you for that silly dvd cover exercise you produced. It's the gift that keeps on giving.

So bring it on mickey...I am ready and waiting. Maybe I should publish just a bit of your sillyness to set you up. We will see.

Let's Dance.

Now back to the subject at hand in this thread..your failure to understand something as simple as how perspective works.

I suggest you prove your point for once about the Myers animation.

Oh wait, that will never happen. "

All we ever get from your is "I'am 3D artist since 1992 and know what i'am talking about".

ROFLMAO!

Read and listen to my already provided links and try to learn Craig.

Try to become a better human.

Call me Mickey or whatever you will...i call you by your name.

[Glenn Viklund]

The smoke DVP is trying to blow on this is right out of Myers and Vince. (He almost never has an original concept. Except calling people kooks.)

He is trying to say that JBC is so far inboard that the wound would not be to the left of the spine.

This is nonsense. It exists only in Myers computer world. Which DVP likes to say is the real world. Which shows you how delusional he is.

The whole idea behind Myers' BS (besides him making money off lying about Kennedy's death), was to get people to stop looking at the Z film and the real films and photos. That real evidence does not back up what Myers is saying. The real inboard dimensions of the jump seat is much less than what Myers' uses. And if you factor in Kennedy's actual position in the back seat, it seems to me that they are just about lined up.

Therefore, any shot from the so-called "sniper's perch", would be an oblique one. The trajectory would be right to left. Through both men.

But like I said, its all BS anyway. I hate even talking about this crap.

It never happened. And the FBI knew it that night. Which is why they switched the bullets. And its why Von Pein has to lie about this.

Jim,

Would you please care to explain why DVP is "lying"? See, this is something I don't really understand. For what reason is it not possible to reach different conclusions on what happened in Dealey Plaza that day, without being accused of lying?

I don't know how many times I've seen this, from both sides of the aisle I might add, and it destroys any possibility of a civilized discussion. It is obvious that what happened is indeed very complicated to explain. No matter what conclusions one reaches, it must by necessity to a degree be based on a number of assessments that in turn at best are a question of probabilities and uncertain assumptions. Experts disagree, witnesses disagree, independent researchers disagree and in this case two different government entities disagree - to me all of this just underlines the difficulty in explaining the assassination and the sequence of events. Accordingly, it's to be expected that we all have different interpretations and come to different conclusions. Would you not agree that it's perfectly plausible to reach different conclusions without "lying" or having any other sinister motives?

And yes, of course I know that some say that the SBT is BS; "it couldn't have happened, and this is conclusive". Well, I may certainly be a relative newbie to the JFK case, but I don't buy it. I've seen nothing "conclusive" that excludes the possibility of a single bullet hitting both men. Whether Oswald was involved or not, is an entirely different question. Personally, I've tried for a long time to understand what happened at the Plaza and more specifically in the limo.

Admittedly, so far without much success. Not because of a lack of data, but primarily, I think, because there are too many unknowns involved. Just to mention one, related to the SBT: how - exactly - these two men were seated at the moment of impact is, needless to say, crucial to the explanation of what happened. As JFK was obscured by the Stemmons sign at this very moment in the Z-film, how can it then be determined with certainty how, exactly, he was seated and how this related to Conallys position? It probably can't and therefore it's obviously a necessity to make assumptions.

Jim, you mentioned CE399. So let's assume for a moment that you are correct about this not being the bullet in question. Would that exclude the possibility of the SBT? No, it would not. It would certainly raise other questions, I agree. But conclusively rule out the SBT - not as far as I'm concerned. I'd appreciate it - if indeed this is your position - if you would care to elaborate on this point.

Edited May 1, 2011 by Glenn Viklund

[Chris Davidson]

Overhead!!!

chris

[David Von Pein]

It [the SBT] never happened. And the FBI knew it that night. Which is why they switched the bullets. And it's why Von Pein has to lie about this.

Delusional DiEugenio strikes again. Everybody's a "xxxx" in DiEugenio's crazy world of conspiracy....even me. Unbelievable.

Maybe Jimbo should take another look at my "Points 1 thru 6" in my previous post re the SBT, and then try to tell a reasonable person that the SBT is an imaginary crock of xxxx invented by Arlen Specter.

BTW, neither DiEugenio nor anybody else has ever "proven" that CE399 is a fake bullet. They haven't even come close to "proving" any such vile accusation. And, yes, it IS a vile and irresponsible accusation. Not to mention an extraordinary one, which requires an equal amount of extraordinary proof to back it up. And the Tomlinson/Wright business isn't even close to proving 399 is not the stretcher bullet.

And the time discrepancies re Bob Frazier and Elmer Todd (the 7:30 vs. 8:50 discrepancy) isn't proof either. And DiEugenio should know why -- because the FBI wasn't even in possession of Oswald's rifle until several hours AFTER either one of those times.

Plus, if the FBI was monkeying around with all of the evidence and the associated paperwork (which is what DiEugenio believes is the case), then why wouldn't they simply fake some of the documents to make the Frazier/Todd times MATCH re the bullet? Ever wonder about that, Jimbo?

Edited May 1, 2011 by David Von Pein