Historic Truth

[Pat Speer]

13 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Connally knew he was not hit by the first shot.

 

Connally assumed (incorrectly) that the President was hit by the first shot.

 

Therefore, Connally believed he and the President were hit by separate shots.

 

The Zapruder film clearly shows Connally was incorrect about that.

 

You realize, of course, that the witnesses watching Kennedy at the time of the first shot overwhelmingly claimed he was hit by this shot? And that the few who did not, such as Mary Woodward, claimed he'd moved in a manner inconsistent with his behavior if he hadn't been shot? 

Kennedy turns to his left before the limo goes behind the sign in the Z-film. Witnesses said he'd jerked to his left after the first shot. It follows, then, that he was shot before he went behind the sign in the film. This was, moreover, the conclusions of the HSCA photography panel separate from the conclusions of the HSCA acoustics experts. And yet Myers, in his animation, depicts JFK leaning over the side of the limo and waving to the crowd for another two seconds. Hmmm.... I wonder why...

[Tom Gram]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

For Myers to have done what he did without ever referring to either the provenance of CE 399 or the condition of the bullet? Or Dr. Dolce?

Or the size of the back wound vs the size of the throat wound? And for him to make JFK into a hunchback in order to camouflage what the true location of the back wound was? And then as both Speer and Harris have pointed out, the hijinks Myers did with the positioning of JBC and JFK in the car and the relative size of both men?

A disgrace.

Henry Lee is probably the best man in America at reconstructions.  He is certified in many states and a few countries.  He told us for our film that you cannot do a trajectory analysis in this case.  The simple reason being that neither of JFK's wounds were dissected. Now, did Dale M ever bring this fact up on the show? Did he tell us what happened with Dr. Finck in New Orleans as to why there was no dissection?  Did he bring in any kind of forensic expert to explain why he was doing it anyway--in spite of that fact? Not that I can recall.  And then, where are Dale's credentials in crime scene reconstruction?  Does he have any?  And if he does not, then why on earth should anyone trust him?  

The reason he did it is the same reason Bill Brown does what he does. Gus Russo was the lead reporter for Jennings.  Russo got his pal on in order to deliver a deliberate provocation to the critics.  The problem is, Dale left all of the above out, and then turned his simulation into a low camp circus in order to do it.  Never even bringing up the problem that CE 399 was likely found on the wrong gurney.

But that didn't matter to Dale and Gus. (Although ABC took Gus' name off the show when I pointed out he had said his book was nominated for a Pulitzer when it wasn't.)   And Tom is right about Dale's math for the acoustics.  He hid it for a very long time.  And when it was finally revealed it did not compute as he said it did.

But this is the kind of guy Bill Brown trusts for "historic truth".  🤮

 

As far as I know, Myers is still hiding his math on the dictabelt he used for his time calculations in With Malice.

You gave a great example of Myers doing the same kind of thing on a different topic and getting caught fudging data in another thread, but I’m pretty sure the Tippit timeline calculations are a separate issue. 

What’s funny about this is in Myers’ most recent unhinged rant at the Ed Forum on his blog he contradicted his own book by saying his calculations actually represented real time, then said words to the effect of “anyone can check this themselves with a copy of the Channel one tape and a stopwatch”. Well, it doesn’t really work that way, according to Myers himself. 

Myers used a stopwatch, but his final number was calculated by interpolating between timestamps with a linear regression in conjunction with his alleged “anchors method” - and as far as I know Myers has never published that math.

So basically, Myers was defending calculations that are impossible to replicate by saying that anyone can do it themselves. 🙄

[David Von Pein]

6 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

why — given JFK’s shallow wound right of T3 — is ce399 an issue since no 6.5mm Full Metal Jacket ever left a shallow wound in soft tissue?

You must be kidding by asking me this question!

There was no "shallow wound" in JFK's back. That's part of the CTer version of events. It's certainly NOT what I believe and it's certainly NOT what the autopsy doctors concluded:

"The other missile...made its exit through the anterior surface
of the neck." -- Page 6 of JFK's Autopsy Report [Warren Report, Page 543]

Edited September 3, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

32 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

You must be kidding by asking me this question!

There was no "shallow wound" in JFK's back. That's part of the CTer version of events. It's certainly NOT what I believe and it's not what the autopsy doctors concluded:

"The other missile...made its exit through the anterior surface
of the neck." -- Page 6 of JFK's Autopsy Report [Warren Report, Page 543]

Concluding something is not the same as observing something, David. Doctors are supposed to report what they observe. It was either a colossal FU to not dissect the back wound, or a deliberate avoidance. In either case, their conclusion the bullet traversed the body was akin to "A man went in the front door of an office complex, and a man went out the back door of an office complex, and we conclude it was the same man without ever going inside and verifying that the front door leads to a hallway which leads to the back door. We just don't know. In fact, when we looked inside the front door, it appeared to lead to a dead end, and, oh yeah, the name over the back door (its appearance) was of a different company than the name over the front door. So we just don't know. But we're supposed to say something and act official and all, so we're just gonna say whatever it takes to get our employers off our back. So, yeah, the man who went in the front door somehow made his way over to the back door, which was left open, but, of course, we don't actually know if it was left open by someone coming in or by someone coming out. But yeah, we'll just say what we're supposed to... The man who came in the front door left through the back door."

That's not science, David. That's guesswork. And uneducated guesswork at that... If they'd done a little homework they'd have found that beyond that they could find no entrance into the body from the back wound, the small size of the throat wound and yes, even the x-rays, were strong evidence that no bullet passed between the back wound location and the throat wound location. If they'd done their jobs and dissected the back wound, of course, they could have proved this one way or another, but they did not. Which means we have to rely upon the available evidence. And this is in perfect alignment with one conclusion--NO bullet traversed from the back wound to the throat wound. 

Edited September 3, 2022 by Pat Speer

[David Von Pein]

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Does CE 399 give the physical appearance of a bullet that had done what it was purported to do?

Yes. Check the Fackler Bullet. (Let me guess....more fakery, right Pat?)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1140.html

 

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Did Kennedy's body give the physical appearance of a bullet's having traveled from his back wound to his throat wound?

Yes. Definitely. (And also see my NEXT POST.)

 

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Did Connally's clothing and back wound give the appearance of him being struck by a tumbling bullet?

Yes. Connally's back wound was somewhat "elliptical", according to one of Connally's surgeons, Dr. Robert Shaw:

"The wound of entrance...was about a centimeter and a half in its greatest diameter, roughly elliptical in shape." -- Dr. Robert R. Shaw [WC Volume 4, Pgs. 107-108]

 

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Did the studies performed for the WC indicate that the damage to the bodies of Kennedy and Connally were consistent with the damage one would expect from a high velocity bullet?

I'd say yes. But keep in mind that in this instance we're discussing here (the "SBT"), the "high-velocity bullet" hit no bones at all inside JFK's body. The bullet only did "bony" damage to John Connally's body---and that damage was sustained only after the bullet had been slowed significantly by passing through Kennedy's body. And a slowed-down bullet (which CE399 most certainly was once it got to John Connally) is, of course, going to do much less damage to the things it then hits.

 

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Were the locations of JFK's and JBC's wounds in line with a shot from the sniper's nest at the time the WC (or HSCA, or Myers) believed the SBT shot was fired?

Yes. Most definitely. And I can't understand why you think otherwise.

 

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

There's probably a bunch more. None of it adds up.

Actually, it ALL "adds up". It adds up to the only logical and sensible conclusion that a person can reach---and that conclusion is: The Single-Bullet Theory is true.

And the SBT conclusion becomes even more crystalized in reality after asking yourself the #1 key question that must be asked relating to John F. Kennedy's wounds: Why were no bullets found in JFK's body? Where did the bullet(s) go?

 

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

And those tasked with making it add up told numerous lies.

Nonsense. Since the SBT was so obviously the truth of the matter, there was no need to tell any lies about it.

 

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

At what point do you say "Yikes! There's reason to doubt!" 

And at what point will conspiracy theorists begin to realize that their anti-SBT theories are far more ludicrous, unsupportable, and untenable than is the single-bullet conclusion endorsed by both the Warren Commission and the HSCA?

Yikes indeed!

 

Edited September 4, 2022 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

40 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

If they'd done a little homework they'd have found that beyond that they could find no entrance into the body from the back wound, the small size of the throat wound and yes, even the x-rays, were strong evidence that no bullet passed between the back wound location and the throat wound location.

The Clark Panel found a "track" between JFK's back and throat wounds, Pat. But, naturally, those Clark boys were merely telling more lies, right? ....

"There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea described in the Autopsy Report." -- Via the 1968 Clark Panel Report

 

[James DiEugenio]

Tom:

According to Don Thomas, Dale M did reveal his acoustics math, and it did not come close to proving what he said it did on Jennings.  (See Hear No Evil, pp. 676-82)

Really I don't even know why we are talking about this stuff.

The guy is a hack.

I mean Jack Tatum?

 

 

Edited September 4, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

3 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

Folks can hear it from the horse's mouth: Dr. Joseph Dolce ( pronounced Dole-chay) on CE 399 causing all of the non-fatal wounds :

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/dolce.mp4

Summary by Dr. Cyril Wecht:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/wecht_magic-bullet.mp4

Let us not forget the finest forensic pathologist in America at the time, Milton Helpern.  

He did not buy CE 399 and he had nothing but scorn for the autopsists.

It always breaks me up when the other side says we do not have any so called "experts" on our side. What do you call Helpern, Wecht, Dolce and Lee?

Edited September 4, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Tom Gram]

22 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Tom:

According to Don Thomas, Dale M did reveal his acoustics math, and it did not come close to proving what he said it did on Jennings.  (See Hear No Evil, pp. 676-82)

Really I don't even know why we are talking about this stuff.

The guy is a hack.

I mean Jack Tatum?

 

 

Thanks Jim, I will check that out. I remember you mentioning it in the other thread but I thought it was different than his Tippit killing timing calculations. Is that what Myers was talking about on Jennings? 

Bill Brown should actually post something resembling original research. I agree with your take and do not see the point of threads like this - but I guess it doesn’t hurt to dismantle Myers every now and then. 

[James DiEugenio]

This reference was the stuff Dale M used for his acoustics declarations on the Jennings show.

Not the Tippit case.

 

[Tom Gram]

2 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

This reference was the stuff Dale M used for his acoustics declarations on the Jennings show.

Not the Tippit case.

 

That’s what I thought - so in that case I’m pretty sure Myers has never published the actual math he used for his Tippit timing calculations discussed in the introduction to With Malice. 

What I think he did is use his dubious so-called “anchors” method to artificially deflate the error in his calculations. I’d gladly be proven wrong about this but I think it’s a valid concern. With Malice is heavily based on those calculations, and if Myers is going to go off the rails telling people to reproduce his work he needs to tell people exactly how to do that.

[Benjamin Cole]

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/sites/default/files/public/tslac/landing/documents/jfk-damaged-clothing18.pdf

See page 3, above.

The bullet hole in the rear of JBC's shirt is nearly round 3/8th by 3/8ths, and that is after enlargement to remove cloth for testing. 

The Mannlicher-Carcano slug is a little more than 1/4 inch in diameter, but 1 and 1/4 inch long.

That leaves less than 1/16th of inch around the entering bullet on all sides (and again, the original hole has been enlarged by removal of fabric). 

In other words, the bullet that struck JBC in his back was not tumbling. 

JBC was likely was shot from above, and that angle was amplified by JBC leaning back at time of impact. Hence the elliptical wound. 

We know, from the small bullet hole in the rear of JBC's shirt, that the tumbling bullet story is not possible.

JBC's wounds were enlarged during surgery, the removal of dead flesh, per Shaw's testimony. Looking at JBC's scars is  misleading. 

JBC's surgeon, Dr. Robert Shaw, who had worked on hundreds of wartime bullet wounds, concluded JBC had suffered a direct shot. 

This seems pretty cut and dried. 

 

 

 

Edited September 4, 2022 by Benjamin Cole

[Chris Bristow]

5 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/sites/default/files/public/tslac/landing/documents/jfk-damaged-clothing18.pdf

See page 3, above.

The bullet hole in the rear of JBC's shirt is nearly round 3/8th by 3/8ths, and that is after enlargement to remove cloth for testing. 

The Mannlicher-Carcano slug is a little more than 1/4 inch in diameter, but 1 and 1/4 inch long.

That leaves less than 1/16th of inch around the entering bullet on all sides (and again, the original hole has been enlarged by removal of fabric). 

In other words, the bullet that struck JBC in his back was not tumbling. 

JBC was likely was shot from above, and that angle was amplified by JBC leaning back at time of impact. Hence the elliptical wound. 

We know, from the small bullet hole in the rear of JBC's shirt, that the tumbling bullet story is not possible.

JBC's wounds were enlarged during surgery, the removal of dead flesh, per Shaw's testimony. Looking at JBC's scars is not misleading. 

JBC's surgeon, Dr. Robert Shaw, who had worked on hundreds of wartime bullet wounds, concluded JBC had suffered a direct shot. 

This seems pretty cut and dried. 

 

 

 

Yes the hole in the shirt is the death of the tumbling bullet theory. Thank you for mentioning that. Knowing the bullet did not tumble into Connally's rib makes the pristine nature of the tip of 399 much harder to explain.

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Yes the hole in the shirt is the death of the tumbling bullet theory. Thank you for mentioning that. Knowing the bullet did not tumble into Connally's rib makes the pristine nature of the tip of 399 much harder to explain.

Thanks Chris.

I will post soon on the "Most Simple Explanation on Why There Were (At Least) Two Gunman on 11/22."

This is what JBC said: 

Connally: I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (1 HSCA 42)

As we know, eyewitness and victim accounts can not be 100% guaranteed. 

But I think we can trust a guy who says he remembers being knocked over by a bullet. 

 

[Gil Jesus]

54 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

 

But I think we can trust a guy who says he remembers being knocked over by a bullet. 

 

And a Texan who had experience shooting.

He heard a shot, he recognized it as a rifle shot. He turned to the right, didn't see the President and was turning back to the left and got almost facing straight forward when he felt the impact of the bullet that hit him.

This is his summary and it's significant because the BULLET WAS TRAVELLING FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF SOUND. So if he HEARD the shot and was not hit, then that bullet did not hit him. And that's what he said.

"I'm convinced that the first shot did not hit me. Then I was hit."

He heard the shot that did not hit him, then felt the impact of the bullet that did.

His account is evidence that Kennedy was slumping to his left, out of Connally's range of vision at the first shot. Then Connally was hit. Connally's account indicates he and the President were hit by separate shots and resulted in the FBI and SS reports on the assassination concluding just that.

More importatntly, it blows away the SBT and provides proof of a second gunman.

Edited September 4, 2022 by Gil Jesus