Need single bullet theory diagram

[David Von Pein]

32 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

It is impossible for a presumed bullet to exit directly below the top button of the shirt and then only nick the outside edge of the tie knot. That is the physical evidence, and therefore a bullet did not pass through the front of the shirt or nick the tie. Whatever Dr Perry observed was therefore above the upper edge of JFK’s shirt. No matter how “magic”, a bullet passing through clothing must leave a corresponding track, and what you think you see in a photograph does not cancel that out.

The alleged correspondence of defects in the shirt and tie was a piece of semantic trickery by Hoover, bought into by the Warren Commission and later the HSCA because it allowed a better argument for the trajectory of the SBT. This demonstrates that the need to construct a particular argument overwhelmed the observable features of the physical evidence. 

And you KNOW with 100% certainty that such a tie/shirt configuration is "impossible", eh Jeff? (You've done tests on it, have you?)

A tie is a MOVABLE object, you know. You can easily move it back and forth to the left and right when it is tied. Maybe JFK's tie was situated a little bit askew and off-center to the right when the bullet struck him, which would have placed a smaller amount of the necktie in the path of the bullet, causing the bullet to just nick the left side of the tie instead of hitting squarely in the center of the tie knot.

But such a scenario involving a SLIGHTLY OFF-CENTER NECKTIE is not even on a conspiracy theorist's radar, is it Jeff? You like the "semantic trickery" explanation much better, don't you?

[Jeff Carter]

A tie is a movable object - below the knot. Look closely at the photograph you posted with the blue circle and try to visualize how it could be possible for the knot of the tie to become “slightly off-center”, let alone how its outer edge could twist in the manner necessary to line up with the top button of the shirt. It is physically impossible short of being purposely manipulated, which the photographic evidence shows did not happen.

[Ray Mitcham]

Since when did a bullet travelling at high speed, make a slit in in the fabric of a shirt rather than a hole. Sorry, David, but it just din't happen. It ain't no bullet hole in the shirt, it is a cut.

[Ray Mitcham]

Quote from DVP.

"

MR. SHANEYFELT -- "The rod passed through a position on the back of the stand-in for the President at a point approximating that of the entrance wound, exited along about the knot of the tie or the button of the coat or button of the shirt, and the end of the rod was inserted in the entrance hole on the back of Governor Connally's coat which was being worn by the stand-in for Governor Connally."

Did Shaneyfelt ensure that the coat and the shirt were bunched up, as DVP insists happened,  ?

[David Von Pein]

11 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Did Shaneyfelt ensure that the coat and the shirt were bunched up, as DVP insists happened?

No. The stand-in's coat was not "bunched up", which is precisely the point I made a few years ago as a possible explanation for why Specter's rod was a little too high in one of the "opposite angle" photos....

"It would seem as if the chalk mark was also based (at least in part) on the hole in JFK's jacket, which IMO is just totally ridiculous, since we know that the hole in the coat is located well BELOW the hole in JFK's skin (due to the fact that Kennedy's coat was bunched up higher than normal when the shooting occurred). Which means that if the jacket on the JFK stand-in in [this] photo were to be "bunched up" a little bit (and we can see it isn't bunched up at all in that photograph), it would make the chalk mark rise a little higher on the back of the stand-in, which would mean it would almost perfectly line up with where Arlen Specter is holding the metal rod in that picture. That "bunching up" of the jacket could very well be the answer as to why the chalk mark is located below the level of Specter's pointer. If we bunch up the jacket a little bit (like JFK's coat was bunched, per the Croft photo), it's a perfect alignment." -- DVP
 

[Ray Mitcham]

If the coat and shirt weren't bunched up, then according to your arguments, the rod couldn't line up they way you say it does. You want it both ways David. Your "perfect alignment" is only in your mind.

[David Von Pein]

13 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

If the coat and shirt weren't bunched up, then according to your arguments, the rod couldn't line up they way you say it does. You want it both ways David. Your "perfect alignment" is only in your mind.

And you, Ray, being a CTer, require absolute perfect to-the-millimeter perfection in a SBT re-creation before you'll even begin to consider it valid. But, realistically, it's just not reasonable to expect an event like this to be able to be re-created right down to the last inch. IMO, however, CE903 comes very close to SBT perfection (even though I realize that the 17.72-degree angle isn't exactly right, since it's an angle for the equivalent of Z217.5 and not what I believe is the true SBT Z-Film frame of Z224).

So, if you want to say I "want it both ways", OK. But the Z217.5 angle seen in CE903 is so incredibly close to being "perfect", why would I quibble with it and raise hell with Mr. Specter & Company (especially since I fully realize that complete and total "perfection" is not a reasonable expectation)?

Edited July 3, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Ray Mitcham]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

And you, Ray, being a CTer, require absolute perfect to-the-millimeter perfection in a SBT re-creation before you'll even begin to consider it valid. But, realistically, it's just not reasonable to expect an event like this to be able to be re-created right down to the last inch. IMO, however, CE903 comes very close to SBT perfection (even though I realize that the 17.72-degree angle isn't exactly right, since it's an angle for the equivalent of Z217.5 and not what I believe is the true SBT Z-Film frame of Z224).

So, if you want to say I "want it both ways", OK. But the Z217.5 angle seen in CE903 is so incredibly close to being "perfect", why would I quibble with it and raise hell with Mr. Specter & Company (especially since I fully realize that complete and total "perfection" is not a reasonable expectation)?

How can it be "perfect' when the coat and shirt aren't bunched up, if the pointer is at the hole in the jacket?

[Cliff Varnell]

JFK's jacket was bunched up 1/8th of an inch.

His shirt wasn't bunched up at all.

How can folks wear a shirt 16 hours a day and not know how the shirt moves when they move?

Let's call these claims of DVP's for what they are -- fraud.

[Ron Bulman]

Single Bullet THEORY.  Did the CIA not instruct their agents, in writing, how to label and cast aspersions on Theorist's who questioned the veracity of the Warren Omission findings and perpetuate these aspersions by disseminating them through trusted reliable contacts in the Main Stream Media?  Did they not suggest using the term Conspiracy Theorist as a derogatory insinuation?

Yet the Warren Omission relies on this THEORY created by Speculatin' Spector to support the 3 shots/2 hits THEORY that only became necessary after wounded witness James Tague came forward in 1964.  They relied on the directed, coerced and rewritten work of pathologists with relevantly little autopsy experience who did Not follow standard autopsy procedures.  The back wound was not dissected.  The throat wound was not dissected.  A probe was never inserted connecting the two wounds.

With the help of FBI informant and future un elected (I.E. appointed by Nixon) President in moving the back wound Up 2-3 inches to the neck, Specter created a Conspiracy THEORY.  He, with the help of Ford Conspired  to  create this (still) unproven Theory to accommodate the necessity of only two shots hitting in order to fit the preconceived never proven Theory that Oswald acted alone.  So who are the real nutty conspiracy theorists here?

In the 55 years since much more factual evidence has come out debunking these two silly Conspiracy Theories regarding the sbT and Oswald acting alone (if at all) than any realistic support for them.  But the Lone Nutters and the Main Stream Media still have their heads in the sand.  

[Ron Bulman]

7 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Single Bullet THEORY.  Did the CIA not instruct their agents, in writing, how to label and cast aspersions on Theorist's who questioned the veracity of the Warren Omission findings and perpetuate these aspersions by disseminating them through trusted reliable contacts in the Main Stream Media?  Did they not suggest using the term Conspiracy Theorist as a derogatory insinuation?

Yet the Warren Omission relies on this THEORY created by Speculatin' Spector to support the 3 shots/2 hits THEORY that only became necessary after wounded witness James Tague came forward in 1964.  They relied on the directed, coerced and rewritten work of pathologists with relevantly little autopsy experience who did Not follow standard autopsy procedures.  The back wound was not dissected.  The throat wound was not dissected.  A probe was never inserted connecting the two wounds.

With the help of FBI informant and future un elected (I.E. appointed by Nixon) President in moving the back wound Up 2-3 inches to the neck, Specter created a Conspiracy THEORY.  He, with the help of Ford Conspired  to  create this (still) unproven Theory to accommodate the necessity of only two shots hitting in order to fit the preconceived never proven Theory that Oswald acted alone.  So who are the real nutty conspiracy theorists here?

In the 55 years since much more factual evidence has come out debunking these two silly Conspiracy Theories regarding the sbT and Oswald acting alone (if at all) than any realistic support for them.  But the Lone Nutters and the Main Stream Media still have their heads in the sand.  

BTW, didn't the FBI never change their 3 shots, 3 hits opinion, even though the Warren Omission still relied on them as their "investigative" arm? 

[James DiEugenio]

That is true Ron.  And its something that all these WC zealots ignore.

As well as the fact that the CIA analysis said it was a conspiracy.

 

So within about 10 weeks, you have three different verdicts on the Kennedy case.  The CIA one was of course kept secret and the WC solved the FBI difference by ditching their report.  It was not included in the volumes.

 

[David Von Pein]

19 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

...and the WC solved the FBI difference by ditching their report. It was not included in the volumes.

Why would the WC include something in its report that was so obviously wrong?

Should they have included the incorrect "dead Secret Service agent" story too?

[Ron Bulman]

48 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Why would the WC include something in its report that was so obviously wrong?

Should they have included the incorrect "dead Secret Service agent" story too?

They didn't include the 3 shot 3 hit Theory because it didn't support the 3 shot 2 hit Theory necessitated by Tauge's wound that caused Speculatin' Specter and Jerry Ford's silly Magical Pristine silly single bullet CONSPIRACY THEORY. 

[James R Gordon]

David,

Two questions I would like you to address.

Q1. On page 2 of this thread you comment:
The SBT bullet path is pretty much "explained" right there within CE903. It's right there in the picture. All you have to do is look at it and comprehend what it's telling you.
And even though a little "margin of error" must be granted Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission with respect to what we see in CE903 (because the 17.72-degree downward angle is, indeed, just the AVERAGE angle between Zapruder frames 210 and 225, plus there's the fact that the car being used in CE903 is not the SS-100-X limo), there are two things seen in CE903 that don't require any "margin of error" --- the "tie knot" exit wound location in JFK's throat and the entry hole in John Connally's back (with Specter's metal rod being inserted directly into the bullet hole in Connally's jacket---a jacket which the stand-in is wearing in CE903).
So you make it clear that at Z 210-225 CE903 demonstrates that the trajectory angle of the bullet from Oswald window to JBC’s back entrance was 17.72º.
Accepting that as fact. When the bullet traveled through John Connallly why was its trajectory angle 27º? This angle was measured in May 1964 before the WC on John Connally himself while he was seated and Connally explained he was in the exact position he was in when shot. From the Oswald window to Connally’s entrance the angle never changes. You have stated to everyone that the trajectory angle was 17.72º. Now it changes by 9.28º. Why is the trajectory stable until it reaches John Connally? Why is John Connally’s internal trajectory different by 9.28º from John Kennedy’s internal trajectory?

Q2. You claim that the SBT occurred between Z210 - Z 225. Part of the SBT is that John Connally’s arm is stuck. Some people think it was his wrist that was damaged. It was not his wrist, it was his arm at the Vista 4th at the bottom of the right radius.
Just before the film totally blurs at Z 187 John Connally’s arm is seen folded over his chest and very close to where the bullet will exit and with the palm side towards his chest. From Z 222 - Z 229 we do not see John Connally’s right arm and hand.
Qa. If we cannot see his arm and hand during these frames how are you able to prove it was struck then? I am not asking for assertion. I am asking how can you prove it.

Although we see John Connally’s right arm against his chest at Z 187, John Connally was not stuck in the arm on the palm-side of his arm. He was struck on the other side. The bullet’s internal trajectory traveled from the outside of the arm towards the palm side of the arm.
Qb. Now please demonstrate how anyone can physically twist their arm around so that the outside of the arm is now facing the chest exit wound and in position to be struck by the bullet.

James.