The (laughable) SBT

[David Von Pein]

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Here's what I wonder: I wonder how anyone in 2022, after all we now know, can get on a public forum and defend the single-bullet theory, especially with such utterly erroneous, ridiculous material.

Given the alignment of the two limo victims at the time of the shooting, plus the location of the only known shooter in Dealey Plaza, plus the fact that no bullets were found in JFK's body at all, plus the fact that a whole bullet which positively came out of the gun that was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD was found inside the hospital where the two victims were taken, plus the fact that the two injured limo victims reacted to an external stimulus at precisely the same moment in time on the Zapruder Film....I wonder how anyone in 2022 (or any other year or millennium) can be so blind as to not accept the Single-Bullet Theory as fact.

~shrug~

 

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

The back wound was shallow and had no exit point.

That must be why the three autopsy doctors signed an autopsy report which said this:

"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck."

 

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

The bullet that struck JFK's back was traveling at a slightly upward trajectory,

Which is an HSCA determination that (IMO) is proven to be erroneous by taking just a cursory glance at the two autopsy photographs on this webpage.

 

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

JFK and Connally were never aligned in a way that would make the SBT possible.

Talk about gushing forth "utterly erroneous, ridiculous material". The above statement made by Mr. Michael Griffith is definitely just that. The alignment of Kennedy and Connally at Zapruder frames Z220 to Z225 is just about perfect for the SBT to occur. And, of course, it did occur (at circa Z224)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/vince-bugliosi-dale-myers-and-sbt.html

 

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

There was no hole through JFK's tie and no nick on the edge of the tie.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1244.html#JFK's-Necktie

 

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

The holes in the front of JFK's shirt were slits made by one of the nurses.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1187.html#JFK-Shirt-Fibers

 

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Only by assuming a far-fetched bunching of both JFK's coat and his shirt in nearly perfect millimeter-for-millimeter correspondence can one put the back wound where the WC placed it.

And since we know there was only ONE hole in JFK's shirt and only ONE hole in JFK's jacket and only ONE hole in JFK's upper back [this hole], then where can CTers possibly hope to go with their arguments concerning this topic?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-862.html

 

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

JFK is clearly, clearly, clearly reacting to severe external stimulus before Connally even begins to turn to his right--anyone who denies this is either blind or is dissembling.

Actually, President Kennedy and Governor Connally are clearly (clearly, clearly) reacting to the SBT bullet at precisely the same moment in time just after coming out from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign.

Anyone who denies the obvious simultaneous reaction of the two limo victims in the above Z-Film clip must be either blind or related to the conspiracy theorists who participated in this 2015 SBT discussion at The Education Forum.

 

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

There is no path from the back wound to the throat wound that would not have done severe damage to the spine, as Dr. Mantik has proved.

Yeah, that must be why those three autopsy doctors discussed earlier said all this:

"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea, and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained, this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body."

 

And then there's the Clark Panel, consisting of four more people you get to call either li@rs or totally incompetent boobs, who said the following in their 1968 report:

"The possibility that this bullet [the SBT bullet] might have followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found. 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. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck."

 

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

CE 399 was planted and looked nothing like the bullet that was "found" at Parkland Hospital.

Yeah, that must be why O.P. Wright told the FBI in June 1964 that the CE399 bullet "looks like the slug found at Parkland Hospital".

Let me guess: You think the FBI was lying out their ass in CE2011, right?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#CE399

 

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Etc., etc., etc.

If those "etc." items are anything like your other points, you're in major trouble.

 

Edited September 28, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Benjamin Cole]

10 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Given the alignment of the two limo victims at the time of the shooting, plus the location of the only known shooter in Dealey Plaza, plus the fact that no bullets were found in JFK's body at all, plus the fact that a whole bullet which positively came out of the gun that was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD was found inside the hospital where the two victims were taken, plus the fact that the two injured limo victims reacted to an external stimulus at precisely the same moment in time on the Zapruder Film....I wonder how anyone in 2022 (or any other year or millennium) can be so blind as to not accept the Single-Bullet Theory as fact.

~shrug~

 

That must be why the three autopsy doctors signed an autopsy report which said this:

"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck."

 

Which is an HSCA determination that (IMO) is proven to be erroneous by taking just a cursory glance at the two autopsy photographs on this webpage.

 

Talk about gushing forth "utterly erroneous, ridiculous material". The above statement made by Mr. Michael Griffith is definitely just that. The alignment of Kennedy and Connally at Zapruder frames Z220 to Z225 is just about perfect for the SBT to occur. And, of course, it did occur (at circa Z224)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/vince-bugliosi-dale-myers-and-sbt.html

 

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1244.html#JFK's-Necktie

 

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1187.html#JFK-Shirt-Fibers

 

And since we know there was only ONE hole in JFK's shirt and only ONE hole in JFK's jacket and only ONE hole in JFK's upper back [this hole], then where can CTers possibly hope to go with their arguments concerning this topic?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-862.html

 

Actually, President Kennedy and Governor Connally are clearly (clearly, clearly) reacting to the SBT bullet at precisely the same moment in time just after coming out from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign.

Anyone who denies the obvious simultaneous reaction of the two limo victims in the above Z-Film clip must be either blind or related to the conspiracy theorists who participated in this 2015 SBT discussion at The Education Forum.

 

Yeah, that must be why those three autopsy doctors discussed earlier said all this:

"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea, and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained, this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body."

 

And then there's the Clark Panel, consisting of four more people you get to call either li@rs or totally incompetent boobs, who said the following in their 1968 report:

"The possibility that this bullet [the SBT bullet] might have followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found. 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. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck."

 

Yeah, that must be why O.P. Wright told the FBI in June 1964 that the CE399 bullet "looks like the slug found at Parkland Hospital".

Let me guess: You think the FBI was lying out their ass in CE2011, right?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#CE399

 

If those "etc." items are anything like your other points, you're in major trouble.

 

DVP-

Show the whole Z-clip. JBC does a 180-degree turn in his seat, after JFK has been struck in the throat. 

Then as JBC returns almost face forward, he opens his mouth wide, and is pushed forward, as if shot,  ~Z 295. 

JBC recounts this shooting in exactly this way, including being pushed forward by the impact of the bullet.

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)

Sure looks like JBC was shot ~Z 295. The problem is, that is less than one second before Z-312. 

Also, what say you about the small round bullet hole in the rear of JBC's shirt? It is evidence of a straight shot, and not a tumbling bullet. 

Dr. Robert Shaw, JBC's surgeon with an enormous amount of experience in bullet wounds (WWII surgeon) called the JBC injury a straight shot. 

 

 

[Michael Griffith]

14 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Given the alignment of the two limo victims at the time of the shooting, plus the location of the only known shooter in Dealey Plaza, plus the fact that no bullets were found in JFK's body at all, plus the fact that a whole bullet which positively came out of the gun that was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD was found inside the hospital where the two victims were taken, plus the fact that the two injured limo victims reacted to an external stimulus at precisely the same moment in time on the Zapruder Film....I wonder how anyone in 2022 (or any other year or millennium) can be so blind as to not accept the Single-Bullet Theory as fact.

~shrug~

 

That must be why the three autopsy doctors signed an autopsy report which said this:

"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck."

 

Which is an HSCA determination that (IMO) is proven to be erroneous by taking just a cursory glance at the two autopsy photographs on this webpage.

 

Talk about gushing forth "utterly erroneous, ridiculous material". The above statement made by Mr. Michael Griffith is definitely just that. The alignment of Kennedy and Connally at Zapruder frames Z220 to Z225 is just about perfect for the SBT to occur. And, of course, it did occur (at circa Z224)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/vince-bugliosi-dale-myers-and-sbt.html

 

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1244.html#JFK's-Necktie

 

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1187.html#JFK-Shirt-Fibers

 

And since we know there was only ONE hole in JFK's shirt and only ONE hole in JFK's jacket and only ONE hole in JFK's upper back [this hole], then where can CTers possibly hope to go with their arguments concerning this topic?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-862.html

 

Actually, President Kennedy and Governor Connally are clearly (clearly, clearly) reacting to the SBT bullet at precisely the same moment in time just after coming out from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign.

Anyone who denies the obvious simultaneous reaction of the two limo victims in the above Z-Film clip must be either blind or related to the conspiracy theorists who participated in this 2015 SBT discussion at The Education Forum.

 

Yeah, that must be why those three autopsy doctors discussed earlier said all this:

"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea, and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained, this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body."

 

And then there's the Clark Panel, consisting of four more people you get to call either li@rs or totally incompetent boobs, who said the following in their 1968 report:

"The possibility that this bullet [the SBT bullet] might have followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found. 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. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck."

 

Yeah, that must be why O.P. Wright told the FBI in June 1964 that the CE399 bullet "looks like the slug found at Parkland Hospital".

Let me guess: You think the FBI was lying out their ass in CE2011, right?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#CE399

 

If those "etc." items are anything like your other points, you're in major trouble.

You are free to keep seeing the emperor's new clothes. Your arguments simply ignore the mass of new evidence that has surfaced since the 1970s. 

How can you quote the autopsy report on the back wound with a straight face, given everything we now know about the report and about the extensive, prolonged probing of the back wound? Several autopsy witnesses described the repeated probing, even after internal organs were removed to give the doctors a better view and to facilitate the probing. One of the medical technicians could see the probe pushing against the lining of the chest cavity--the wound had no exit. On the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors were certain the back wound was a shallow wound with no exit.

But you dismiss all this evidence and choose to rely on the bogus autopsy report.

Where on the autopsy x-rays is the EOP-to-right-orbit fragment trail described in the autopsy report? How did the autopsy doctors "miss" the most largest, most obvious "fragment" on the skull x-rays, the 6.5 mm object?

[Chris Bristow]

On 9/27/2022 at 8:56 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

As an old woodworker, let me add...you can shoot with the grain, and it goes easy.

If you shoot against the grain, it goes tough. 

2x4s, 4x4s etc are cut with the grain, of course.

You can pound a nail into the end of 2 x4 easily.

Driving the nail sideways into the board takes more effort. 

Pine is a very soft wood. Try shooting into oak, if you likely get different results. 

 

Yes it breaks much easier along the grain. If I remember correctly the grain is fairly tight on pine and I guess the bullet would at least partially pass through the darker and softer grain lines on some of the boards.
  You mentioned the shot at frame 390 and I have wondered where that shot would have come from. J.C's wounds suggest it would have to come from the direction of the northwest tower of the old red courthouse. Not trying to start a new CT here but where would a shot at 390 come from?

Edited September 29, 2022 by Chris Bristow

[Benjamin Cole]

8 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Yes it breaks much easier along the grain. If I remember correctly the grain is fairly tight on pine and I guess the bullet would at least partially pass through the darker and softer grain lines on some of the boards.
  You mentioned the shot at frame 390 and I have wondered where that shot would have come from. J.C's wounds suggest it would have to come from the direction of the northwest tower of the old red courthouse. Not trying to start a new CT here but where would a shot at 390 come from?

CB-

 

If I mentioned a shot at Z-390 I was mistaken. 

From what I can tell, JFK is shot in the throat while behind the Stemmons Freeway sign (from the viewer's perspective), JBC at ~Z-295 and then JFK at Z-312. 

Tink Thompson has posited a later shot. Personally, I do not see it. 

For me, the clear refutation of the SBT is the timing of shots: One at ~Z-295 and one at Z-312.

That works to less than one second between shots---clearly impossible with a single-shot, bolt action rifle. 

Add to that, the small round bullet hole in the rear of JBC's shirt. That absolutely rules out a "tumbling bullet." 

DVP's version requires that JBC after being shot through the chest from the rear, with a near mortal wound, from a very large slug, then turns around and does a 180-turn in his seat to look for JFK, and then JBC turns forward, and then imagines being shot in the back and pushed forward (a violent thrust forward captured in non-imaginary Z-film).  

I have to say, the DVP version just does not hold water: It does not conform with the clear testimony of JBC and his wife, or the indisputable record of the Z-film, or the indisputable small, round bullet hole in the rear of JBC's shirt. 

 

[Chris Bristow]

6 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

CB-

 

If I mentioned a shot at Z-390 I was mistaken. 

From what I can tell, JFK is shot in the throat while behind the Stemmons Freeway sign (from the viewer's perspective), JBC at ~Z-295 and then JFK at Z-312. 

Tink Thompson has posited a later shot. Personally, I do not see it. 

For me, the clear refutation of the SBT is the timing of shots: One at ~Z-295 and one at Z-312.

That works to less than one second between shots---clearly impossible with a single-shot, bolt action rifle. 

Add to that, the small round bullet hole in the rear of JBC's shirt. That absolutely rules out a "tumbling bullet." 

DVP's version requires that JBC after being shot through the chest from the rear, with a near mortal wound, from a very large slug, then turns around and does a 180-turn in his seat to look for JFK, and then JBC turns forward, and then imagines being shot in the back and pushed forward (a violent thrust forward captured in non-imaginary Z-film).  

I have to say, the DVP version just does not hold water: It does not conform with the clear testimony of JBC and his wife, or the indisputable record of the Z-film, or the indisputable small, round bullet hole in the rear of JBC's shirt. 

 

I think the frame 390 mistake was mine, I meant to say 295. His turnaround after 223 when he has lost 4 in of rib and has a sucking chest wound seems impossible to me. Dr Shaw felt the wound was too severe for a delayed reaction. But I'm also stuck with where the bullet would have come from because JC was facing more towards the side of the limo.

[Andrew Prutsok]

7 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

CB-

 

If I mentioned a shot at Z-390 I was mistaken. 

From what I can tell, JFK is shot in the throat while behind the Stemmons Freeway sign (from the viewer's perspective), JBC at ~Z-295 and then JFK at Z-312. 

Tink Thompson has posited a later shot. Personally, I do not see it. 

For me, the clear refutation of the SBT is the timing of shots: One at ~Z-295 and one at Z-312.

That works to less than one second between shots---clearly impossible with a single-shot, bolt action rifle. 

Add to that, the small round bullet hole in the rear of JBC's shirt. That absolutely rules out a "tumbling bullet." 

DVP's version requires that JBC after being shot through the chest from the rear, with a near mortal wound, from a very large slug, then turns around and does a 180-turn in his seat to look for JFK, and then JBC turns forward, and then imagines being shot in the back and pushed forward (a violent thrust forward captured in non-imaginary Z-film).  

I have to say, the DVP version just does not hold water: It does not conform with the clear testimony of JBC and his wife, or the indisputable record of the Z-film, or the indisputable small, round bullet hole in the rear of JBC's shirt. 

 

How could Connally, who was mere feet from JFK and himself shot, possibly know more than people on this forum about how things transpired? It's insane.

[Sean Coleman]

1 hour ago, Chris Bristow said:

I think the frame 390 mistake was mine, I meant to say 295. His turnaround after 223 when he has lost 4 in of rib and has a sucking chest wound seems impossible to me. Dr Shaw felt the wound was too severe for a delayed reaction. But I'm also stuck with where the bullet would have come from because JC was facing more towards the side of the limo.

Chris, for JC’s injuries I like the SW window shooter (theory) as seen by Arnold Rowland at 1215pm standing back from the window with a ‘high powered rifle.’ I like to think JC sustained his injuries as he twisted to the left. 

 

[Sean Coleman]

……..as he twisted left, and as he was sat somewhat awkwardly, his back was exposed to the TSBD and the shot went thru back,nipple,wrist into thigh. 
But…..where’s the bullet?

This theory doesn’t get talked about much.

[David Von Pein]

12 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

DVP's version requires that JBC after being shot through the chest from the rear, with a near mortal wound, from a very large slug, then turns around and does a 180-turn in his seat to look for JFK, and then JBC turns forward, and then imagines being shot in the back and pushed forward (a violent thrust forward captured in non-imaginary Z-film).  

I have to say, the DVP version just does not hold water: It does not conform with the clear testimony of JBC and his wife, or the indisputable record of the Z-film, or the indisputable small, round bullet hole in the rear of JBC's shirt. 

I have no idea why you're labeling it "the DVP version", because the version of the SBT that you're talking about (as it relates specifically to Governor Connally having the ability to turn completely around in his seat AFTER being hit in the back, wrist, and leg by a bullet) is exactly the same as the Warren Commission's version and even the HSCA's version.....because both the WC and the HSCA also concluded that Gov. Connally definitely DID turn around in his seat and stare right at JFK at a point in time AFTER Connally had been hit by the one and only bullet that pierced his body.

But it's still okay with me if you want to call it the "DVP Version". I like being associated with something filled with so much common sense and logic (plus the number of whole bullets that are in evidence---one).

Edited September 30, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Benjamin Cole]

5 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

I have no idea why you're labeling it "the DVP version", because the version of the SBT that you're talking about (as it relates specifically to Governor Connally having the ability to turn completely around in his seat AFTER being hit in the back, wrist, and leg by a bullet) is exactly the same as the Warren Commission's version and even the HSCA's version.....because both the WC and the HSCA also concluded that Gov. Connally definitely DID turn around in his seat and stare right at JFK at a point in time AFTER Connally had been hit by the one and only bullet that pierced his body.

But it's still okay with me if you want to call it the "DVP Version". I like being associated with something filled with so much common sense and logic (plus the number of whole bullets that are in evidence---one).

DVP--

Well, fair enough, yes the WC and the HSCA did promote to SBT, although within this forum, you are the main proponent.

BTW, I welcome your comments, although I wholeheartedly disagree with them. But a forum is a place for various viewpoints, and not a cocooned echo chamber. 

I think we can dismiss the WC SBT due to the nature of that body, and its mission---to present LHO as a leftie-loner-loser and the solo culprit.

There was no defense counsel for LHO---like watching the 1/6 hearings treatment of Trump.

Also, any government investigation of itself...well, likely to come to a convenient answer, especially if elements of the government were involved. 

On the HSCA, I assume the installation of Robert Blakey and the deposing of Richard Sprague came with a condition---Blakey keep the CIA out of it, or there would be no HSCA. Blakey agreed.

To this day, I do not understand why Blakey thought JBC had been struck with a tumbling bullet, when there is small round hole in the back of JBC's shirt.  Blakey has written he viewed JBC's scar on JBC's back and therefore concluded a bullet had been tumbling when it struck JBC.

Blakely therefore and erroneously concluded that nothing could make a bullet tumble unless it had first passed through JFK's neck. 

But Dr. Robert Shaw testified he enlarged, or debrided, the JBC wound to remove dead tissue, a standard procedure.  Shaw had operated on literally hundreds of wartime bullet wounds, and thought JBC had received a straight shot. 

Blakey may be a fine lawyer, but as a detective he fails sadly. 

All in all, the record shows a straight shot to JBC, and less than one second before JFK is shot. 

This fact does not exonerate LHO. It only reveals that LHO, if the gunman armed with a single-shot bolt action rifle, did not act alone. 

My own guess is LHO was instructed to shoot and miss at JFK (the Walker scenario), a Northwoods-type operation to heighten anti-Cuba tensions. Someone piggy-backed on the LHO plan and shot for real. 

So, that is my view. I think you especially have a tough nut to crack on the "tumbling bullet." 

 

 

Edited October 1, 2022 by Benjamin Cole

[Chris Bristow]

8 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:

……..as he twisted left, and as he was sat somewhat awkwardly, his back was exposed to the TSBD and the shot went thru back,nipple,wrist into thigh. 
But…..where’s the bullet?

This theory doesn’t get talked about much.

If he was shot around fr 223 the TSB might work but I am theorizing about a shot much later around fr 290. That is a problematic trajectory that leads toward the corner of northwest corner of the red courthouse.

[Benjamin Cole]

9 hours ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

How could Connally, who was mere feet from JFK and himself shot, possibly know more than people on this forum about how things transpired? It's insane.

Well, in my i-armchair, I am expert on everything. 

One thing has always struck me about the JBC testimony: JBC saying he was pushed forward by the impact of the bullet. 

In fact, we know the bullet that struck JBC took out about five inches of hard rib, as it traveled through his body.

Ergo, the bullet was meeting resistance--it follows that JBC would be pushed forward. 

That, and the indisputable small round bullet hole in the rear of JBC's shirt---it adds up to a straight shot, but one less than a second before the final Z-312 shot to JFK. 

 

 

 

 

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

To this day, I do not understand why Blakey thought JBC had been struck with a tumbling bullet, when there is small round hole in the back of JBC's shirt.  Blakey has written he viewed JBC's scar on JBC's back and therefore concluded a bullet had been tumbling when it struck JBC.

Blakely therefore and erroneously concluded that nothing could make a bullet tumble unless it had first passed through JFK's neck. 

But Dr. Robert Shaw testified he enlarged, or debrided, the JBC wound to remove dead tissue, a standard procedure.  Shaw had operated on literally hundreds of wartime bullet wounds, and thought JBC had received a straight shot. 

[...]

I think you especially have a tough nut to crack on the "tumbling bullet."

From 2012.....

PAT SPEER SAID:

Thanks, John [McAdams], for pointing out that the HSCA FPP's report was at odds with Baden's testimony and subsequent claims. He said they'd concluded Connally's back wound "had to have been" caused by a bullet first striking something else, when they'd only concluded it "probably" was caused by a bullet hitting the back while out of alinement.

That's quite the difference, and suggests that he was unduly impressed with Lattimer, while others were not.


JOHN McADAMS SAID:

You are SLOW getting this.

The HSCA FPP knew perfectly well that the wound was 1.5 cm. at its
longest diameter WHEN it concluded that the bullet was tumbling.

The link I posted [this one] shows that.

During Baden's testimony, this document was entered into evidence.

I can't find where Baden said what the dimensions of the back wound were. If he told the HSCA 3.0 cm., you need to post a link.

But given the links I posted above, that's grossly implausible.

I did find where Baden and two HSCA staffers pressed Lattimer on whether a 1.5 cm. wound would be the result of tumbling, and he said yes:

http://history-matters.com/HSCA Volume 7

So your essay gives the entirely FALSE impression that the judgment of a tumbling bullet was the result of the HSCA buying the 3.0 cm. figure.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The topic of the size of the entry wound in John Connally's back and whether or not the bullet was tumbling as it entered Connally is, indeed, interesting. Dr. John Lattimer's tests clearly indicate that a Carcano/Western Cartridge bullet that has passed through a simulated JFK neck will nearly always tumble before reaching the Connally target and, hence, result in a larger-sized entry hole in the Connally target:

Quoting Dr. Lattimer:

"Five cardboard skins simulating Connally were placed the same distance from Kennedy's neck as Connally was seated in the automobile in front of the President. The Carcano bullets that made the holes in these targets had passed through a simulation of Kennedy's neck, striking only soft tissues. Five of the six bullets tumbled end over end after leaving the neck and struck Connally's skin traveling almost sideways. .... These results confirmed our previous observations that these bullets almost always tumbled after passing through a neck.

[...]

An oval hole in our simulated back of Connally was caused by our test bullet that had first passed through a simulation of Kennedy's neck, causing that bullet to wobble and start to tumble end over end. Connally's wound of entry was elongated, like the one in the center of [the test] target. The punctate round hole, with black margins, of the type that always occurred when our test bullets struck the Connally target without hitting something else first, can be seen to the right of Connally's outline in the photograph [via Figure 106 on Page 265 of "Kennedy And Lincoln"]. These bullets never wobbled or tumbled spontaneously; they were stable in their flight to the target UNLESS THEY HIT SOMETHING ELSE FIRST [DVP's emphasis], such as Kennedy's neck, whereupon they turned almost completely sideways." -- John K. Lattimer; Pages 237 and 265 of "Kennedy And Lincoln" (c.1980)

-------------

The thing that has me scratching my head somewhat is this:

The longest dimension of John Connally's back wound was determined to be approximately 1.5 centimeters (15 millimeters), which is exactly the same size of the lengthiest portion of the wound that was in the back of President Kennedy's head (although, to be perfectly frank, the entry wound in JFK's head doesn't look particularly elliptical or egg-shaped to me; that is to say: it doesn't look to me as if the "north/south" dimension of the wound is more than TWICE the size of the width of the wound, which is what the autopsy report says [15 x 6 mm.] and is confirmed in the Clark Panel report, which also states that the measurement for that wound is 15 x 6 millimeters, so I have no choice but to adhere to those corroborative figures, but the wound doesn't look that egg-shaped to me):



So, according to official reports, we've got JFK's head entry wound being the exact same size (15 mm.) as the wound in Connally's upper back. But only ONE of those bullets could have possibly been tumbling when it reached its destination. The bullet which struck JFK's head was certainly not tumbling before it hit his head, and that bullet almost certainly did not hit anything else before striking the back of Kennedy's head.

So the retort made by conspiracy theorists over the years has been --- Why are you so certain that the Connally bullet HAD to be tumbling and why are you certain that bullet had to have hit JFK first, when a bullet that had NOT hit anything first struck JFK in the head and left a wound that was the exact same size?

It's a fair enough question. And I don't have the exact answer. Perhaps the answer could be the position of JFK's head at the moment when Oswald's 6.5-mm. bullet struck the back of his skull.

Vincent Bugliosi had this to say in his JFK book:

"It should be noted that a bullet striking at such a sharply acute angle—as suggested by the ovoid shape of the entrance wound [in Connally's back]—from the right (no one, not even the conspiracy theorists, allege that the gunman was to Kennedy’s and Connally’s left rear) could not have exited, as it did, from the right side of Connally’s chest, unless it had been deflected from its leftward direction immediately after entering the governor’s body.

Yet, the only bone struck by the bullet, before it exited, was a relatively soft rib located near the exit point on the right side of Connally’s chest, the bullet hitting the bone as it was about to exit. In other words, the known path of the bullet precludes the possibility that the ovoid shape of the entrance wound was the result of a bullet striking the governor at a tangential angle (i.e., from the side). (7 HSCA 144; see also FBI Record 124-10029-10010, FBI Laboratory Report, April 22, 1964, p.3)

However, the same tangential effect could have been caused not by a bullet from the right, but by a bullet exiting Kennedy’s throat and proceeding on a straight line into Connally’s body, which, we know from the Zapruder film, was turned fairly sharply to the right at the moment of impact.

Either situation (a bullet coming from the right, which we can be very confident never happened, or a bullet hitting Connally at an angle only because we know Connally was turned to the right) would explain why the bullet causing the exit wound to Kennedy’s throat, which was believed to be around a quarter of an inch in diameter (the tracheotomy precludes us from knowing for sure), just approximately two feet later (distance between Kennedy and Connally) caused an entrance wound to Connally’s back that was around six-tenths of an inch in diameter, over twice the size of the exit wound to Kennedy’s throat." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 287 of Endnotes (footnote) in "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

----------------

Regarding JFK's head (entry) wound, Bugliosi said this:

"As to the long length of the wound, the bullet [quoting from page 86 of the Warren Report] "struck at a tangent or an angle causing a fifteen-millimeter cut. The cut reflected a larger dimension of entry than the bullet's diameter of 6.5 millimeters (about a quarter of an inch), since the missile, in effect, sliced along the skull for a fractional distance until it entered"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 391 of "Reclaiming History"

---------------

To reiterate my earlier thought -- I'm thinking that the angle of Kennedy's head at the moment of impact could have been a contributing factor to explain why the entry wound wasn't more circular in shape. Yes, that's just a guess on my part. But I think it's worth contemplating since we know that JFK's head was tilted considerably forward (and to the left) when the fatal bullet struck.

Another line of reasoning that could be utilized by LNers is this one:

After Bullet CE399 exited JFK's throat, it DID NOT tumble into John Connally's back at all, and the reason for the elongated (15 mm.) size of Connally's back wound was due merely to a tangential strike,* which is exactly the same explanation given by the Warren Commission on page 86 of its Final Report to explain the 15-millimeter size of the entrance wound in Kennedy's head (see the text in Bugliosi's book also cited above).

Hence, there was also a very small wound of exit in Kennedy's throat--which, given the "tangential strike" explanation for Connally's back wound, would "solve" another supposed problem that conspiracists often bring up -- i.e., Why did the bullet suddenly start to tumble into Connally's back even though it left a nice round wound in Kennedy's throat, which is more indicative of a NON-tumbling bullet that it is a tumbling missile?

The above scenario is, however, in conflict with the majority of Dr. Lattimer's tests, which are tests that resulted in 5 out of 6 bullets that tumbled into the Connally target after having gone through a simulated Kennedy neck.

But, anyway, it's some food for "Tumbling vs. Tangential" thought, I think.**

----------

* Vince Bugliosi, in one particular section of his book, seems to be advocating a combination of a tumbling bullet AND a tangential strike. It's possible, however, that I have misinterpreted what Vince means when he is discussing the various possibilities for why Governor Connally's back wound was "ovoid" (i.e., egg-shaped).


** And there's very likely something in the official Warren Commission and/or HSCA volumes which focuses more light on this subject and provides some reasonable (and scientific) explanation for why we have a 15-millimeter entry wound in Governor Connally's back that was allegedly the result of a tumbling bullet, while at the same time we also have a 15-millimeter wound in the back of President Kennedy's head which was obviously not caused by a tumbling bullet.

David Von Pein
October 21-22, 2012

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1147.html

Edited October 1, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Bob Ness]

12 hours ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

How could Connally, who was mere feet from JFK and himself shot, possibly know more than people on this forum about how things transpired? It's insane.

Yeah. Kinda like that. It's pretty hard for me to throw out contemporaneous eye-witness accounts of the event for the intellectual mumbo-jumbo and rigmarole of crusaders of any party.

I think somebody has even suggested that splintering of a foot long piece of rib would not be noticed for a few seconds. What a joke.