Why the SBT (Single Bullet Theory) is BS

[Denise Hazelwood]

A recent back-and-forth between myself and a Single Bullet Theory (SBT) proponent on this forum site prompted me to add an article to my website on "Why the SBT is BS" at https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/why-the-sbt-is-bs.html . Not just the Connally's insistence that there was no "single bullet," but the location of the back wound--not just on the clothing but also on the body--being too low to support the SBT, renders the SBT "impossible," as one laboratory study concluded. Proponents of the SBT point to ballistic evidence--specifically CE-399--as being "proof" for the SBT, claiming that "no other bullets were found." However, there were actually two stretcher bullets: one that came off Connally's stretcher, was pocketed by a nurse, and subsequently transferred to Texas Highway Patrol Officer Bobby Nolan (witnessed Dallas DA by Henry Wade), plus the better-known Tomlinson/Wright/Todd chain, plus the chain for the wrist fragments (plural) that were removed from Governor Connally during his surgery, which Audrey Bell said she had given to an FBI agent or Secret Service agent (there were apparently two agents), mentioning "Sorrels" by name. Tomlinson and Wright, meanwhile, described their stretcher bullet as "pointed," which certainly doesn't match CE-399 (although it would match the typically pointed AR-15 bullets). Plus there's Jerrol Custer's "king-size" bullet fragment falling out of the President's back when the body was lifted for X-rays. There's a lot to question about the ballistic evidence that purportedly "supports" the SBT.

The "Why the SBT is BS" article doesn't do a deep dive into the chains of custody of the various bullets and fragments from Parkland Hospital. For that, I recommend my article "Multiple Stretcher Bullets, AKA "The Connally Bullet Revisited" at https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/multiple-stretcher-bullets-aka-the-connally-bullet-revisited.html . This is necessarily a much longer article (I've updated it with jump links so that you can now jump to specific sections), and you may want to take it in "bites" rather than all at once, but it does present all the anecdotal accounts and other evidence (some of which I contend was forged) surrounding the so-called "Connally" bullet. I contend that chains of custody were "merged" (i.e., the Nolan bullet chain with the Audrey Bell wrist fragments chain) and CE-399 was substituted for the original "pointed" stretcher bullet in order to "disappear" the original pointed AR-15 bullet. I've withheld none of the evidence, but I do give my own conclusions, including the name of the nurse (Diana Bowron) whom I believe was responsible for pocketing the original Connally bullet, later turning it over to Bobby Nolan. It is a much longer article, but worth the read if you are interested in a deeper dive into the Parkland Hospital ballistic evidence than is given in "Why the SBT is BS" article.

Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments. You can disagree with my conclusions all you like, but please do so in a civil tone.

[Joe Bauer]

More than one Parkland nurse claimed she saw an intact bullet.

Connally's own lead surgeon himself later claimed there was no way CE-399 could have caused all of Connally's bone injuries.

Connally's last wound in the thigh could not have been made by a 95% intact bullet of like CE-399. Especially since it did not enter straight on. Connally's lead surgeon knew this fact.

CE-399 changed direction so many times due to bone deflection ... and we are told to accept that it entered Connally's inner thigh without a much wider entry wound?

And why the two different "chain of custody" reports? 

And Jack Ruby whacked Lee Oswald right inside the Dallas Police Department building only to show the world "Jews had guts?"

[Pat Speer]

7 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

A recent back-and-forth between myself and a Single Bullet Theory (SBT) proponent on this forum site prompted me to add an article to my website on "Why the SBT is BS" at https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/why-the-sbt-is-bs.html . Not just the Connally's insistence that there was no "single bullet," but the location of the back wound--not just on the clothing but also on the body--being too low to support the SBT, renders the SBT "impossible," as one laboratory study concluded. Proponents of the SBT point to ballistic evidence--specifically CE-399--as being "proof" for the SBT, claiming that "no other bullets were found." However, there were actually two stretcher bullets: one that came off Connally's stretcher, was pocketed by a nurse, and subsequently transferred to Texas Highway Patrol Officer Bobby Nolan (witnessed Dallas DA by Henry Wade), plus the better-known Tomlinson/Wright/Todd chain, plus the chain for the wrist fragments (plural) that were removed from Governor Connally during his surgery, which Audrey Bell said she had given to an FBI agent or Secret Service agent (there were apparently two agents), mentioning "Sorrels" by name. Tomlinson and Wright, meanwhile, described their stretcher bullet as "pointed," which certainly doesn't match CE-399 (although it would match the typically pointed AR-15 bullets). Plus there's Jerrol Custer's "king-size" bullet fragment falling out of the President's back when the body was lifted for X-rays. There's a lot to question about the ballistic evidence that purportedly "supports" the SBT.

The "Why the SBT is BS" article doesn't do a deep dive into the chains of custody of the various bullets and fragments from Parkland Hospital. For that, I recommend my article "Multiple Stretcher Bullets, AKA "The Connally Bullet Revisited" at https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/multiple-stretcher-bullets-aka-the-connally-bullet-revisited.html . This is necessarily a much longer article (I've updated it with jump links so that you can now jump to specific sections), and you may want to take it in "bites" rather than all at once, but it does present all the anecdotal accounts and other evidence (some of which I contend was forged) surrounding the so-called "Connally" bullet. I contend that chains of custody were "merged" (i.e., the Nolan bullet chain with the Audrey Bell wrist fragments chain) and CE-399 was substituted for the original "pointed" stretcher bullet in order to "disappear" the original pointed AR-15 bullet. I've withheld none of the evidence, but I do give my own conclusions, including the name of the nurse (Diana Bowron) whom I believe was responsible for pocketing the original Connally bullet, later turning it over to Bobby Nolan. It is a much longer article, but worth the read if you are interested in a deeper dive into the Parkland Hospital ballistic evidence than is given in "Why the SBT is BS" article.

Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments. You can disagree with my conclusions all you like, but please do so in a civil tone.

I didn't read the whole thing, but you really should leave Audrey Bell out of your argument. Her latter-day story about handing multiple fragments to the FBI or SS is nonsense, as proven by a nurse who wrote an article a few years after the assassination...named Audrey Bell.

[Micah Mileto]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

 

To be fair, few bat an eye at Sibert and O'Neill calling multiple fragments a "missile".

[Pat Speer]

Just now, Micah Mileto said:

To be fair, few bat an eye at Sibert and O'Neill calling multiple fragments a "missile".

To be fair she specified in her article that she gave the fragment to the Department of Public Safety, the Highway Patrol, and then spent years telling everyone who would listen she gave fragments to the "boogey man"--the FBI or Secret Service. 

I am now an old person. Old people's recollections of events years and decades prior are not reliable and should be double-checked against earlier statements and documents.

People who base their theories on the recollections of old people are wasting everyone's time, IMO. 

In the case of Bell she got lots of attention from her latter-day recollections, and was no doubt encouraged to make wilder and wilder statements. I think I'll call it the "Jean Hill effect."

 

[Denise Hazelwood]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Her latter-day story about handing multiple fragments to the FBI or SS is nonsense, as proven by a nurse who wrote an article a few years after the assassination...named Audrey Bell.

I do address the AORN article purportedly written by Bell on my website. Long story short, I believe her sworn testimony over an unsworn article. Given the CIA’s presence in the media (and my own experience that they had a presence where they had no business being—namely at the same institution that “certified” the Oswald back yard photos) I have to wonder whether Bell actually wrote that paragraph.

[David Von Pein]

Denise said this in her new SBT article....

"In order for the SBT to work, the first entrance, into Kennedy, has to be at the level of the neck, not the back."

But that statement is just not accurate at all. And the proof that it's not accurate rests on Page 96 of WC Volume #18, which is where we find CE903, which has Arlen Specter demonstrating the trajectory for the Single-Bullet Theory, and the entrance wound in Kennedy is NOT up in the "NECK". It's in the upper back, just where this autopsy photo shows it to be (or at least very, very close to the exact "north/south" location of the entry wound seen in that autopsy photograph).

CE903:

 

Another very bizarre statement made by Denise Hazelwood in her new 2024 SBT article is this one:

"My own contention is that it was Connally (not Kennedy) who was struck by a bullet when the limousine was in the Z313 position."

In case anyone has forgotten (which is not likely at a forum like this one), this is frame 313 of the Zapruder Film.

Denise, based on her bold statement I just quoted, quite obviously thinks the Z-Film has been significantly altered and tampered with. I, however, disagree strongly with such a contention.

 

Edited June 15 by David Von Pein

[Denise Hazelwood]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Denise, based on her bold statement I just quoted, quite obviously thinks the Z-Film has been significantly altered and tampered with. I, however, disagree strongly with such a contention.

True, I do think the Z-film has been significantly altered, thus explaining the "jumping lamppost" and "JFK rising from the dead" and other anomalies.

But as far as the Z-313 "head shot" goes, that alteration could be quite minimal. The Hofeling .gif (posted in my "What Happened--Shot 3" article shows that the "head shot" alteration need only to paint in a single frame "head shot" into Z-313 to establish the myth that this was the JFK head shot. If you take out that one frame, it looks like Connally was hit rather than Kennedy, with Connally's actions matching his words describing the point at which he was hit. Does that "head shot" even look real? Not to me. And I remember reading from a film expert that it didn't look real to them, either. I can't source that at the moment, but look how sharp the edges of the "spray" are--fake. Other alterations included removing, say, 2 out of every 3 frames (a number proposed by David Mantik, I believe) to speed up the action and hide the slow-down and stop of the limousine. That would account for the impossibly fast head turns by Greer and others, the impossibly fast "jumping out from behind his father" accomplished by Charles Brehm's son. But once you agree that any part of the film was deliberately altered, you can't rely on the film as evidence anymore.

You are, of course, free to believe whatever you like, but I really do wish you would reconsider your misplaced trust in the film. And once you do that, give my scenario the consideration it's due.

[Denise Hazelwood]

Regarding this photograph of the supposed SBT trajectory:

Clint Hill testified under sworn oath that the back wound was about 6 inches below the neck line, which aligns pretty well with the holes in the shirt and coat (5 3/8 inches and 5 3/4 inches down from the top of the collar). The wound was described as slightly to the right of the spine. So now, given those entrances and exits, we have an upward trajectory that is also somewhat right-to-left. If we apply that information to the CE903 photograph, we get something like this (sorry for the small size, but I am now at the limit of my allowed file size):

The back entrance should be some 5 to 6 inches below the top of the collar. The original image actually depicts the trajectory of a bullet that passes over Kennedy's shoulder, perhaps grazing him, on its way to Connally. So to get to that original trajectory from the correct entrance point, the bullet would have to travel upwards and to the left, then exit the throat, then angle downwards and to the right in order to enter under Connally's arm pit, then turn again to the left to exit his nipple area, go through his wrist, and enter his thigh. Thus, the "magic bullet" trajectory, approximated by my red annotation. 

My blue line annotation depicts the given angle entering at the correct back wound location, and continuing on. It would have exited at Kennedy's mid-chest level, not his throat. 

See the problem?

It should be pointed out that the farther the limousine travels down Elm Street, the flatter the angle becomes. and researchers have been debating for a very long time the exact point in the Z-film at which Connally was hit. So I'm not sure where Specter got his angle trajectory from, but whatever.

[Denise Hazelwood]

Here's another (small--sorry) image, this of CE 886, "Photographic exhibit depicting position A, which did not show on the Zapruder film, but which was established as first point at which a person in the southeast corner window of the sixth floor of theT exas School Book Depository Building could have gotten a shot at the back of the President as his car rounded the corner from Houston Street to Elm Street." From Hearings, Vol. XVIII, p. 85. Notice how the cross-hairs are centered on the white tape at the correct back wound location.

[David Von Pein]

48 minutes ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

So I'm not sure where Specter got his angle trajectory from...

Lyndal Shaneyfelt testified that the angle of the string on the wall behind Specter in CE903 is 17 degrees, 43 minutes, 30 seconds [hereafter 17-43-30]. But that particular measurement, keep in mind, is only an AVERAGE angle from the Depository's sixth floor to the chalk mark on the back of the JFK stand-in. It's the average angle between Zapruder Film frames 210 and 225, as testified to by Shaneyfelt.

If you split the difference between Z210 and Z225, the 17-43-30 angle would actually equate to the SBT shot striking at Z217.5. But it's very unlikely and improbable that the Warren Commission managed to hit the SBT Z-frame squarely on the (half-frame) head at Z217.5. The bullet, in my own opinion, is obviously striking the victims a little later than that--at Z224.

Therefore, what we see in Commission Exhibit 903 really isn't the EXACT angle of the bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally. And I'll admit that.

So a tiny little bit of slack and margin-of-error needs to be given to Mr. Specter and the Warren Commission concerning the angle of trajectory depicted in CE903. Because, let's face it, if Kennedy and Connally weren't hit at exactly Z217.5 (and they very likely were not hit at that precise moment in time), then the angle and other measurements are going to be just slightly off.

Based on the obvious truth about the angles that I just mentioned above, is there any chance that Pat Speer (or any other conspiracy theorist) would be willing to cut Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission just a tiny bit of slack when it comes to the Single-Bullet Theory?

But the end result of the reconstruction we see being done in CE903 certainly demonstrates that the rod (angled at 17+ degrees) would pass through both victims and end up in the exact bullet hole in Connally's coat that really was struck by a bullet on Nov. 22....and without any zig-zagging or bending of Specter's pointer either.

Let me ask this of the CTers:

Do you REALLY think that the Warren Commission has skewed the angles and the measurements and the wound locations that are depicted in CE903 so badly that the SBT is a total impossibility?

If you do believe such a thing, I think you need to re-examine CE903 and the testimony of Lyndal Shaneyfelt and Robert Frazier.

In any event, CE903 is the Warren Commission's trajectory for the SBT, and it does not require a wound way up in the NECK of Kennedy (which is what most CTers seem to want to believe; i.e., those CTers seem to believe that the WC's own trajectory for the SBT requires the back wound to be "moved" way up into the neck; but that is just a flat-out myth and a lie, as CE903 vividly demonstrates).

And, as mentioned earlier, the "17-43-30" measurement is just an "average" between Z210 and Z225. So there would be a little bit of leeway on the precise angles. That is, if JFK had been shot as early as Z210, the angle would have been slightly steeper than the 17-43-30 angle, since the limo was closer to the muzzle of Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle in the Texas School Book Depository at Z210.

But if the bullet really struck at Z225 (or Z224, just one frame away from 225), then the true angle to Kennedy's back wound would have been less (or shallower) than the 17-43-30 figure.

Shaneyfelt said the exact measurement at Z225 was 20 degrees, 11 minutes (which includes the 3.15-degree street grade; without the slope of the street, the angle would, of course, have been about 17 degrees downward).

The main point being -- A little "margin of error" must come into play when examining the 17-43-30 angle and when examining Commission Exhibit No. 903.

And when factoring in any small "margin of error" that must be included when discussing this topic of the angles and CE903, it seems fairly obvious to me that even the opposite-angle photograph below does not demonstrate the total impossibility of the Single-Bullet Theory.

In fact, based on my own personal belief about when the SBT occurred (which is at Z224), this photo below is just about spot-on perfect, in that the angle being depicted (if it is exactly the same 17-43-30 angle that we see depicted in CE903) would be TOO STEEP of an angle for any shot at precisely Z224. The angle in the photo below would, therefore, have to be lessened slightly to accommodate a shot going through both victims at exactly Z224.

And if you lessened the angle slightly, then where would Specter's pointer be located? It would very likely then be located a little below the place he's got it in this picture--which would place the pointer smack-dab over the top of the chalk mark on John F. Kennedy's stand-in:



More......

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/ce903-part-3

 

Edited June 15 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

7 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

I do address the AORN article purportedly written by Bell on my website. Long story short, I believe her sworn testimony over an unsworn article. Given the CIA’s presence in the media (and my own experience that they had a presence where they had no business being—namely at the same institution that “certified” the Oswald back yard photos) I have to wonder whether Bell actually wrote that paragraph.

My God. It was a nursing magazine for a nursing organization of which she was a member. 

The idea the CIA would infiltrate a magazine of this type and change a few words around in an article to counter what the writer had never said before and would not come to claim for another decade or so is silly, IMO. Real real silly. 

 

[Denise Hazelwood]

5 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/ce903-part-3.html#Angles

But the CE903 trajectory isn't using the level of the chalk mark on the Kennedy model's back. See the CE 886 chalk mark in my post above. Specter can't use a trajectory from that level, because it would be an upward trajectory through Kennedy's body to exit at the throat, not a downward trajectory towards Connally's arm pit. Additionally, that ignores Custer's sworn deposition of a king-size bullet fragment falling out of Kennedy's back during the autopsy.

[David Von Pein]

11 minutes ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

But the CE903 trajectory isn't using the level of the chalk mark on the Kennedy model's back. See the CE 886 chalk mark in my post above. Specter can't use a trajectory from that level, because it would be an upward trajectory through Kennedy's body to exit at the throat, not a downward trajectory towards Connally's arm pit.

Just do an "eyeball" comparison yourself of where the "wound" is in these two pictures. It sure looks to me like Specter's got it pretty close to being right (even though he didn't drill the rod clean through the JFK stand-in). Do you really think Specter's north/south placement of the wound is way off here? ....

    

 

Edited June 15 by David Von Pein

[Denise Hazelwood]

4 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The idea the CIA would infiltrate a magazine of this type and change a few words around in an article to counter what the writer had never said before and would not come to claim for another decade or so is silly, IMO. Real real silly. 

They infiltrated the school where I used to work, by having certain administrators and professors on their payroll. The CIA infiltrated the media, per Carl Bernstein. I suspect that they had assets in JAMA, given the "hit job" that was done on Charles Crenshaw. They don't have to have "spies" in these institutions the common sense, but just assets on their payroll willing to do their bidding.

The AORN article is admittedly problematic. I knew about it, and didn't hide it. But it does conflict with Audrey Bell's sworn statements. I choose her sworn statements. You choose the unsworn AORN article.

I'm just trying to figure how to resolve the two conflicting accounts, and someone else changing her article was the solution I came up with. It would explain why Bell herself brought up the "fragment" vs. "fragment" discrepancy, especially if she knew that someone had changed her words in the AORN article, and she wanted to set the record straight in the sworn account. 

Equally problematic is the John Connally/Bobby Nolan/Henry Wade account of the Connally bullet, which doesn't match the Tomlinson/Wright account at all, or Audrey Bell's sworn account of giving her fragments (plural) to a SS/FBI agent. To me, there are 3 chains that were merged into 2, because the nurse of the Connally account didn't know proper procedures. Apparently you think that Audrey Bell was the one who didn't know procedures. But her procedure was to give ballistic evidence to the DPD crime lab liaison who worked with the hospital. Giving it to FBI/SS was out of procedure, which is why she executed a memo. She would never have handed ballistic evidence to some random Texas Highway Patrol Officer just standing in the hallway, IMO. That's why I attribute the Connally bullet nurse as being Diana Bowron, who had just graduated from a nursing program in England, and was known to have been involved with moving Connally to a stretcher.