Why I believe the SBT is nothing but BS

[Ray Mitcham]

If "A" (the single bullet) is impossible, then "B" needs to be investigated. As James has proven that "A" cannot be true, that leaves us with the problem of "B".

Unfortunately, James is correct, you cannot answer his dissertation and you just blather on about trying to prove the alternative. There are a number of solutions to the alternative, but we don't have to prove them to show that the Single bullet Theory is sunk without trace. As you can't accept it because of your flat earth outlook, James is right and you should be completely ignored. As somebody previously said you may be a good librarian, but then nobody would ask a librarian to explain a book to them.

Better get back to your cataloguing.

[Robert Prudhomme]

P.S.

No one said the bullet did not enter JFK's back and exit his throat. On the contrary, I think it is quite possible for the bullet to have gone through JFK's upper chest without hitting any bones. Unfortunately, as James has pointed out, in order to do so and miss the vertebrae, it had to be travelling at a lateral angle of 26-28° from right to left. Viewed from the rear of the limo, this would have placed the path of the bullet WAY to Connally's left.

Where did this bullet go? Why don't you ask the folks who disappeared the limo from Dallas to Washington, DC in such a panic on 22/11/63?

Edited June 1, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

The cartoon photo James has posted from PBS Nova's "Cold Case" of the bullet transiting JFK and Connally is a perfect example of the impossibility of the SBT, and also an example of the nonsense the public is prepared to accept.

Look at Connally's right forearm. According to medical evidence given to the WC by Connally's surgeon, the bullet entered the BACK of Connally's forearm, passed between the radius and ulna bones (after smashing the radius bone) and exited the PALM side of the forearm. Cold Case, of course, shows the bullet going the opposite direction.

Did they think no one would notice?

Look again at the cartoon. Try to imagine Connally's forearm being rotated far enough back to align the back of the forearm and the space between the two bones with the bullet exiting Connally's chest, and then try rotating your own forearm that far back. Having trouble?

Did they portray the wounding of the forearm in the incorrect manner simply because they knew how ridiculous it would appear if portrayed the way the medical evidence dictated?

[David Von Pein]

No one said the bullet did not enter JFK's back and exit his throat. On the contrary, I think it is quite possible for the bullet to have gone through JFK's upper chest without hitting any bones.

Here again we are confronted with a situation where a conspiracy theorist can get SO CLOSE to accepting the official version of some part of the JFK investigation, but that CTer just can't quite allow himself to accept the EXACT official version.

In this instance, we know we've got three bullet holes in two men that generally line themselves up pretty well to permit the passage of one bullet through those three holes -- Kennedy's back wound, Kennedy's throat wound, and Connally's back wound.

But the CTers don't think it's quite GOOD ENOUGH. They'd rather change the locations just a WEE bit; or change the trajectory just a TAD bit, like Cyril Wecht does when he says that his "analysis" has led him to believe the sniper wounded JFK in the upper back from a SECOND-floor window of the Book Depository, rather than the sixth floor (which is the only verified location for ANY assassin throughout Dealey Plaza).

So, there again, Wecht can't QUITE bring himself to accept the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper causing the damage to Kennedy's neck and back, so he conveniently moves the assassin to a place where there is NO evidence a sniper was ever situated.

And this "CLOSE BUT NO CIGAR" tactic employed by conspiracy theorists manifests itself in other ways in the JFK and Tippit murders too (which is something I credit an LNer named Bud at the aaj forum for bringing up, and it's a good point too), e.g.:

The CTers say that Oswald couldn't quite make it from the sixth floor down to the second floor in time for his encounter with Marrion Baker. CLOSE, but not CLOSE ENOUGH, it would seem, per CTers.

Oswald couldn't quite make it to Tenth Street to kill Tippit. Again, CLOSE, but just a very few minutes off, per CTers.

Oswald didn't have enough time to fire his three shots. CLOSE, but no cigar. He would have needed just a LITTLE BIT more time to do it. And, per the Italians in 2007, it would have taken Oswald NINETEEN seconds to get off the three shots. (The people doing the tests must have been 110 years old.)

And then we've got CTers like Bob Harris who DO accept the notion of ONE bullet going clean through both Kennedy and Connally...but Harris has decided (with no evidence to back him up whatsoever) that the gunman who fired the SBT shot did so from another building entirely. The sniper wasn't even in the Depository, per Harris.

"So close....and yet not quite close enough."

The above is a CTer motto.

Edited June 1, 2014 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

Dave, only a fool would say what you just posted, or a fanatic. Did you not read that the angle of a bullet passing through JFK makes the SBT impossible?

P.S. You're ranting again, Dave. Try to remember what the doctor said about your blood pressure.

[David Von Pein]

Dave, only a fool would say what you just posted, or a fanatic. Did you not read that the angle of a bullet passing through JFK makes the SBT impossible?

CTers love that word--"Impossible". (Even more than they love the "Close but not quite close enough" argument.)

But only a fool would TOTALLY IGNORE what BOTH official investigations concluded regarding the SBT.

And only a person with no ability at all to properly evaluate the Zapruder Film could possibly believe that Kennedy and Connally are NOT reacting at the very same time here:

Edited June 1, 2014 by David Von Pein

[James R Gordon]

"No one said the bullet did not enter JFK's back and exit his throat. On the contrary, I think it is quite possible for the bullet to have gone through JFK's upper chest without hitting any bones. Unfortunately, as James has pointed out, in order to do so and miss the vertebrae, it had to be travelling at a lateral angle of 26-28° from right to left. Viewed from the rear of the limo, this would have placed the path of the bullet WAY to Connally's left."

Robert you are quite right. I had not been previously aware of John Nichols research. I was stunned at the reported power of the rifle. I intend to check just how powerful that rifle is. Nichol's point was that the power of the bullet was such that there was no way it would not have smashed into the partition. So, if the SBT were legitimate, there should be damage to the partition.

Dr. Nichol's had confirmed what I already worked out which was that when the bullet struck 4.5cm right of the spine and moving towards the centre of the body it had no option but to impact with the spine. What I did not know, and which has not been reported by supporters of the WC was that between the entry wound and the spine was a difference of only 10cm. And since the bullet is traveling towards the centre of the body it is closing that distance as it is travelling. It takes a unique mind not to see the importance of that.

What was also a surprise to me was how far right the entry point has to be before the spine can be missed. The entry point has to be adjusted by around 18º before the spine will not be affected.

There is a lot of important information I am going to have to think about.

Edited June 1, 2014 by James R Gordon

[Robert Prudhomme]

David von Pein is about two French fries short of a Happy Meal.

[Mark Knight]

I won't resort to personal insults when I talk about Mr. Von Pein. But he's apparently a man of tremendous faith...in the Warren Commission. In his mind, it's a matter of "They said it, I believe it, that settles it." Never mind that their "solution" is in conflict with basic human physiology; to Mr. Von Pein, as long as the WC report supports the conclusion, facts [such as human physiology] are immaterial. And apparently statements by his revered experts are "The Gospel," even if they fail the tests of simple human anatomy and physiology.

It must be a blessing to have that kind of faith. But to continue the religious tone, I was taught to "Prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good." I would think that human anatomy and physiology would trump ANYONE's statement, because a knowledge of anatomy and physiology--even the bare basics--would fall under the "prove all things" banner...and if the basic structure of the human body proves the statements of "experts" to be wrong, then it would logically make the statements of those "experts" something one would NOT "hold fast."

Unless you're Mr. Von Pein. [Wonder if he prays to St. Arlen?]

[David Von Pein]

My, how original, Bob. First, the "Von Pain" remark. Now, the "Happy Meal".

When's recess in your kindergarten class?

Edited June 1, 2014 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Mark Knight speaks as if I am the *ONLY* person in the world who believes in the SBT, even though virtually every "LNer" to be found on the planet, plus the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations, thinks the SBT is true (save Mark Fuhrman).

The SBT isn't some off-the-wall theory that I scraped up by myself one day last week. It's been here and believed by MANY people since 1964.

If you choose to sidestep the logic that I've presented in my posts in this thread, Mark, you are, of course, free to sidestep all you want. But my arguments are rational ones nonetheless (even with the great Jim Gordon's analysis staring me in the face).

Edited June 1, 2014 by David Von Pein

[Mark Knight]

But my arguments are rational ones nonetheless (even with the great Jim Gordon's analysis staring me in the face).

Back in the day, there were rational arguments that the Earth was flat, and that the sun revolved around the Earth, too. And back in the day, many, many people believed those premises. BUT once more accurate evidence was brought to light, the tide began to turn...and those who actually examined the newer evidence discovered that they might need to reconsider the conclusions that they had held dear for so many, many years.

And there were many in those days who clung to their cherished beliefs despite the new, more accurate evidence. SURELY the great thinkers of years gone by COULDN'T have been wrong...SURELY not. But the evidence, upon careful examination, showed that those great thinkers of old were mistaken.

A new day has dawned, Mr. Von Pein. Now mere mortals, with the aid of their home computers, can construct three-dimensional models of the human body, with accurately placed skeletal structures and internal organs. Now the man on the street can explore what lies beneath the skin of the human being without the aid of a biology textbook with those clever-but-deceiving overlays. And it's rather eye-opening.

While I don't endorse a particular product, this link illustrates how simple it is to find such 3D software: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=3d+human+anatomy+software

Enlightenment...it's actually a GOOD thing, because it leads us to the truth.

[David Von Pein]

Mark,

You should send some of that anatomy software to Dr. Wecht too. He needs it as much as I do--and he's on your side of the fence in believing the SBT is a crock of feces. And yet he still thinks a bullet DID go through JFK's body--and it went through the two known and documented bullet holes we see in the autopsy photographs.

It's amazing how many totally blind "faith-based" people there are in the world of the JFK debate, isn't it Mark? Even Dr. Cyril Wecht is among that group it would seem.

Edited June 1, 2014 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

Dave

If the SBT is such a wonderful theory, and so many believe in it, why can not one single one of you show us the path the bullet took through JFK's vertebrae to avoid breaking any of them?

We're all ears, Dave.

[Mark Knight]

Mr. Von Pein, as a journalism student I took an advertising course or two in college. So I can see the techniques you're using to "sell" your point of view. Bandwagon/peer pressure, loaded words, emotional words, appeal to authority ["Nine out of ten doctors prefer Camels"], the use of false alternatives, ridicule, and especially repetition. [interesting that most of the same approaches are used in propaganda as well.]

Yet you refuse to demonstrate that your belief is possible. A simple demonstration, using a model of the human body, would be sufficient. Mr. Gordon isn't afraid to go that route to make his point. In fact, I'm pretty sure that Mr. Gordon's beliefs have changed over time precisely BECAUSE of what he discovered while using a model of the human body to prove/disprove his beliefs.

Based upon my own research of the physiology of the human body, I find Mr. Gordon's work to be extraordinarily illuminating. To fire up the "bandwagon" approach, I would highly recommend that you do some similar research, Mr. Von Pein...and decide for yourself AFTER doing your research.

Nine out of ten forum members believe you won't risk your treasured beliefs by exposing them to such an examination.