Jump to content
The Education Forum

Need single bullet theory diagram


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

And what the heck has any of that got to do with this comment of mine that you were responding to?....

"And what better VISUAL source for the assassination could you possibly get?" 

The Elm St. photos, which show JFK's jacket collar in a normal position with a band of white shirt collar above the jacket collar.

As opposed to Myers' animation, which shows the jacket collar up an inch into the hairline.

You know this is true, David.

Yet you assert otherwise.

What's that called?

Prevarication.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 263
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

And what the heck has any of that got to do with this comment of mine that you were responding to?....

"And what better VISUAL source for the assassination could you possibly get?" 

I was responding to your slippery-slope, non-sequitor, falsely-foundated illogic that Myers' model somehow has any relevance, because  he pre-supposed the trajectory of a mythical bullet based of a false assumption. The Z-film can't do anything for that kind of stupidity, criminality and treason; but the gas chamber could have, if the perps were still alive. But, I ask, is it not a crime to cover for criminals after the fact? Of course, I am speaking of the perps involved in the OFFICIAL cover-up, not you, David. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

New nickname....

Michael "Non Sequitur" Clark.

 

I take it as a compliment, David. People misspell words all the time, here. Yet, you hold me to a higher standard in choosing to point-out my misspellings. It tells me two things: you don't want to argue facts with me because you end-up taking too many lumps; and, you expect more from me. I accept the challenge... lumps will be delivered liberally to you; and I will take greater care with my spelling, on my next post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't pointing out your misspellings, Michael. I used the word "non sequitur" as a playful reference to describe what you did in this post of yours, which was, indeed, a "non sequitur". I wasn't mocking the fact that you misspelled the same word (although I can certainly see why you might think I was). But I was using that word on my own to describe your actions, not your spelling.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

I wasn't pointing out your misspellings, Michael. I used the word "non sequitur" as a playful reference to what you did in this post of yours, which was, indeed, a "non sequitur". I wasn't mocking the fact that you misspelled the same word. I was using it on my own to describe your actions, not your spelling.

David, your "sic" inserted into a quote from me, a few posts ago, when I misspelled "Commission" was noted. So, I accept the compliment. You can't take it back. Now quit running from the spinach, peas, organ meat, or whatever it is you are trying to avoid in this debate. It's good for you, just like mamma says. 

Edited by Michael Clark
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

David, your "sic" inserted into a quote from me, a few posts ago, when I misspelled "Commission" was noted. So, I accept the compliment. You can't take it back....

But I wasn't mocking your spelling in the "non sequitur" post, even though you think I was.

OK?

Let's move on.

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

A little while back - DVP accepted that Robert Shaw had defined the angle of the wound through Connally's chest  as 27º - However he insisted that the bullet struck Connally at an angle of 17.27º and only when the bullet struck the 5th rib it changed its trajectory angle to 27º.

If the bullet did indeed struck Connally at 17-27º it would not strike the 5th rib. Reason it was now on a shallower angle and would miss the 5th rib. I suggested on P. 12 - in a quickly put together graphic - that if that was indeed the entry angle then the bullet would actually strike the 4th rib and the location of the exit wound would be different.

No surprise DVP did not reply.

James

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
James R Gordon said:

YOU say that until it strikes the rib, the bullet trajectory is 17.72º. As I pointed out, that might work, but the rib is likely to be the 4th rib rather than the 5th.

As always with CTers, everything is Oh so close....but never quite close enough to even consider the POSSIBILITY that the LNer's conclusions could be true.

Quoting a fellow LNer....

"When [conspiracy theorists] look at the evidence, anything involving [Oswald's] culpability is "almost, but not quite". He can almost make this shot, but not quite. He can almost make it downstairs from the 6th floor in time to encounter Baker, but not quite. He can almost make it to 10th & Patton from the boardinghouse in time to shoot Tippit, but not quite. So close, but yet so far, as kooks judge things." -- Bud; June 18, 2006

And Bud could have added this one too....

The trajectory angle of the bullet depicted in CE903 is almost correct, but not quite. Specter's rod almost intersects Kennedy's upper-back wound, but not quite. And the angle through Connally's chest is almost correct if JBC's fifth rib was struck by the bullet, but not quite. It's so very close, but never close enough, per the "Never Say Approximately" conspiracy theorists.

~sigh~

https://quoting-common-sense.blogspot.com

 

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

As always with CTers, everything is Oh so close....but never quite close enough to even consider the POSSIBILITY that the LNer's conclusions could be true.

Quoting a fellow LNer....

"When [conspiracy theorists] look at the evidence, anything involving [Oswald's] culpability is "almost, but not quite". He can almost make this shot, but not quite. He can almost make it downstairs from the 6th floor in time to encounter Baker, but not quite. He can almost make it to 10th & Patton from the boardinghouse in time to shoot Tippit, but not quite. So close, but yet so far, as kooks judge things." -- Bud; June 18, 2006

And Bud could have added this one too....

The trajectory angle of the bullet depicted in CE903 is almost correct, but not quite. Specter's rod almost intersects Kennedy's upper-back wound, but not quite. And the angle through Connally's chest is almost correct if JBC's fifth rib was struck by the bullet, but not quite. It's so very close, but never close enough, per the "Never Say Approximately" conspiracy theorists.

~sigh~

https://quoting-common-sense.blogspot.com

 

Oh, please, David. IF the other evidence pointed towards the SBT, the external trajectory might not be a deal-killer. Not for me, at least. But you add it to the list of other problems, i.e.

1) the doctors being unable to find a bullet path heading inward from the back wound,

2) the trajectory of a bullet connecting the back wound to the throat wound's heading straight through the transverse process of the spine (when the nose of the bullet was undamaged),

3) the damage to the neck's being far less than one would expect from the passage of a high-velocity bullet,

4) the throat wound's being smaller than the back wound even though the top bullet wound expert on the HSCA FPP claimed a shored wound of exit is always larger than the entrance of the bullet on the other side of the body,

etc, etc, until you finally arrive at the fact

1000) the supposedly high-velocity bullet lost very little velocity in Kennedy's neck, Connally's chest, and Connally's wrist and yet somehow failed to pierce Connally's thigh...

and then

1001) ended up on Ronnie Fuller's stretcher...

it's 100% CLEAR, and both a scientific and historical fact, that CE 399 did not transit Kennedy's neck and go on to cause all the wounds on Connally. It truly is 2 plus 2 equals 4 kind of stuff...once you do your homework...(which you clearly have never done...beyond reading Bugliosi, and watching Myers' videos...)

I mean, c'mon....none of it adds up, David. Well, when nothing adds up, it's time to re-think things.

And, no, you don't get to insist the earth is flat because you can't conceive it's being round. That's YOUR problem. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

David,

You wilfully distort what I said. Nothing in my post was “almost correct”: in describing CE 903 and Robert Shaw’s measurement, everything was precise. It is you who introduce the concept of approximation.

It was you - it was not me - who stated that the bullet entered Robert Shaw’s shoulder at 17.72º and when it hit the fifth rib it changed its trajectory to 27º. You - not me - that said  “the trajectory probably remained at about 17.72 deg re e s.” All I said was that two trajectories - one of 17.72º and another of 27º - starting from the same point cannot both reach the same point.

So unless you can explain how in your universe two trajectories with a difference of  9.28º can both hit the same destination point: - regardinng the chest wound to John Connally - it is game over. Avoiding to address a specific point is always seen as an admission of the point. Bluster is not the same as addressing the question and so far bluster is all you have engaged in.


James

Link to post
Share on other sites

James G.,

And you think you've somehow PROVEN (via your makeshift diagram) that the 17-degree and 27-degree angles cannot co-exist in this case?

Pardon me if I disagree with you.

(But I do want to say "Thanks" for the diagram you produced. After all, I did ask you to provide a chart of some kind, and you did the best you could. But I truly believe you've got something incorrect in your diagram, because the sum total of the evidence indicates that ONE GUNMAN---firing from the 6th floor of the Depository---caused all of the wounds to Governor Connally's body.)

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

David,

It has nothing to do with the diagram. It is all about MATHS. One trajectory which is shallower than the other cannot possiblee reach the same target when the other trajectory is 9.28º larger. It has nothing to do with one party stating they dissagree. You cannot disagree ithe MATHS. Maths alwats trumps opinion. Please note I edited my post. When I talk about “game over” I am only referring to Connally's chest wound.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...