The Magic Bullet Theory

[Cliff Varnell]

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/sibert.htm

The information gathered onto the (Wim Dankbaar) site above shows the holes in the Presidents clothing and the article regarding fmr. President Ford's actions regarding the back wound among other things.

I think it is very dishonest to alter evidence in that manner. If the evidence were self explanatory, supportive of a single assassin, there would be no need to alter anything. I have questioned and will continue questioning the motives of the WC!

David R. Von Pein Posted Today, 10:12 AM

But, can I get you to at least concede that the back wound in that photo is positively HIGHER than the throat wound?

No. The back wound and the throat wound were at best at the same level. Add to this the downward angle of the bullet and you have an "impossible bullet theory" a la Arlen Specter. I'm afraid Pat Speer is right about the wounds.

The picture you posted contains an arbitrary line drawn to help promote a fantasy. The key problem remains: a bullet on a downward path, on a left to right trajectory, will not become a bullet on an upward right to left trajectory or anything else of the sort. It defies all logic.

Antti -- JFK's back wound was almost 2 inches to the right of his spine -- the autopsy

photo Von Pein cites for comparison is LEFT PROFILE.

The back wound is NOT visible. Von Pein is manufacturing evidence again.

And no, Pat Speer is wrong about the location of the back wound.

The clothing holes, six federal agents, more than a half-dozen medical personnel,

and three contemporaneous documents (two marked "verified) place the wound

at T3, or LOWER.

A "T1 back wound" is a myth, and why any CT would push this pernicious nonsense

is beyond me.

Edited July 21, 2006 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

LOL. I wonder how posting TWO ADMITTED-TO-BE-AUTHENTIC AUTOPSY PHOTOS (per Antti himself) is "manufacturing evidence" on my part.

Annti's opinions do not erase the fact that the HSCA questioned the

authenticity of the Fox 5 photo, and your other photo doesn't show

the back wound.

The trajectory you present is an obvious fiction.

Don't you have EYES, Cliff??

For God sake, just look at the TWO pics (in tandem).

Is the back wound higher or not? Obviously it is.

The back wound isn't visible in one of the photos -- open your eyes Von Pein.

The other photo was not produced according to autopsy protocol, was declared

"obviously deficient as scientific evidence," "more confusing than informative,"

etc. (see quotes from HSCA Vol 7 earlier in this thread.)

There is not one uncompromised piece of evidence for a wound higher than T3.

Edited July 21, 2006 by Cliff Varnell

[Bill Miller]

OK, Bill, do your photographic stuff. Point out to us here just exactly how you can PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that JBC's wrist is "too high" for the SBT to work in these frames. (I see no "shirt cuff" in 223 or 224. Bill does though. Surprise! It's a good thing Bill has "labelled" the stuff in his above post...otherwise, there's no possible way to identify exactly what it is we're looking at. Especially in the gif below.).....

David, you must be stumped to ignore the lightened frames that I used and instead use the darker ones that hide the cuff in shadow. That is like turning a light off in a dark room and saying, "There, I told you I couldn't see anything." You just keep using the dark frames, but do not post bitching to Jack and others for using poor quality images because there is no difference in that and in what you are trying to do to save faith.

Bill Miller

Edited July 21, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Pat Speer]

And no, Pat Speer is wrong about the location of the back wound.

The clothing holes, six federal agents, more than a half-dozen medical personnel,

and three contemporaneous documents (two marked "verified) place the wound

at T3, or LOWER.

A "T1 back wound" is a myth, and why any CT would push this pernicious nonsense

is beyond me.

Cliff, the HSCA FPP made many mistakes. They confirmed the high entrance on the back of Kennedy's head, for example. But in their analysis of the wound locations, they were pretty much dead on. The 14cm measurement by Humes and my own analysis of the photo, using anatomy books, (horrors) , confirms that the wound is on the level of T1.

A bullet entering at T1 on a 17 degree descent would not exit from a man's throat unless it was deflected by bone. If it was deflected by bone the bullet would almost certainly have suffered more damage than CE399. The only way for this trajectory to work, therefore, is for the SBTheorist to assert that Kennedy was leaning forward when hit. The Zapruder film pretty much rules that out...people don't lean forward for 1/3 of a second or so and then straighten up for no reason. People like DVP who go on and on about "what are the odds" and "where is the evidence" know that they'd look pretty foolish to insist that the ONE split second Kennedy was obscured in the Zapruder film was the ONE split second Kennedy decided to lean forward as rapidly as possible. You let them off the hook when you start arguing that the wound was at T3. You allow them to argue whether the wound was at T1 or T3, when it really doesn't matter much, as both are too low on Kennedy's back to support their WEAK theory. (Any theory whose proponents refuse to identify what comprises their theory, such as how the bullet passed throught the president without striking bone, is a weak theory, in my opinion.)

On an earlier post, you mentioned our old friend Dr. Zimmerman. Any idea why his website has been taken down? Did he get tired of our using his work defending the SBT, to debunk it?

Edited July 24, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Jack White]

The president's physician, present at both Parkland and Bethesda, said T3.

Jack

Edited July 21, 2006 by Jack White

[Pat Speer]

The president's physician, present at both Parkland and Bethesda, said T3.

Jack

Unfortunately, there is no evidence that Burkley did a thorough inspection of Kennedy's wounds. It seems likely his "third thoracic vertebrae" was the position he saw marked on the face sheet. But, as stated, it makes little difference. Whether at the level of T3 or T1, the wound was too low to support the single-bullet theory.

[Bill Miller]

Here's something apparently Bill never thought of re. the above Z-Frames ..... WHERE'S CONNALLY'S STETSON THAT HE HELD ALL THE WAY TO PARKLAND IN THE VERY SAME HAND YOU SAY IS VISIBLE IN 223 & 224?

Is it your contention that JBC's light-colored (white wasn't it?) Stetson cowboy hat would be totally out of view while the hand, wrist, and cuff are in view?

The hat can be seen through the side glass and just to our right of Kellerman's upper arm. One would think that after seeing the clip I posted in #133 showing the hand ... that they'd understand that the Stetson would be found near the finger side of the hand. But the important issiue is that the bullet hit the coat material just above the white cuff ... seeing no bullet went through the hat - its basically a moot issue where it was located in a downward turned hand.

I suppose it's POSSIBLE that not a single bit of his hat can be seen, but his hand/wrist actually IS viewable (per YOUR theory, not mine; I'm not conceding for a moment that it's actually Connally's wrist/hand/cuff). But doesn't this cast at least a tad bit of doubt on your "wrist too high" theory (at all)?

I have gone to great effort to make the clip in a way that even someone who isn't good at interpretating an image could at least follow the illustrations. Don't think for a moment that anyone can be fooled by you claiming not to see the point being made because there is a difference in not seeing something Vs. not being honest enough to admit that you are seeing it. You use these forums as a place to get off by jerking people around and that was quite obvious in your "Mr. Burns" response (post 23) over complying to the forum rules.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t=15#entry69698

Bill Miller

Edited July 22, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Where's Connally's Stetson in those frames Bill?

David, let me know if there is anything else you want to pretend not to be able to see. As the lapel comes down ... more light is making its way onto the hand and cuff. By Z226 the lapel is all the way down and the hand and cuff become even brighter. Note the skin tones on both sides of the side window's frame.

Bill Miller

Frames Z224 and Z225

Of course there are scads of other year-long members here who are picture-less too. But they're CTers...so, naturally, they aren't hassled about that silly rule. Right?

I don't know if they are poster's or lurker's, but it appears that your position is that if someone else is defying the rules, then you feel you should do the same ... did I read you correctly?

Bill Miller

Edited July 22, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

There's no way in heck you can prove that's Connally's hand. And IF it is a "hand", why couldn't it be his LEFT hand? He did have two of them on 11/22.

~~Awaits Bill's Next Bit Of Superior Brilliance~~

David, even all the official versions that you embrace had claimed that Connally was holding his hat in his right hand. In fact, if you have the MPI DVD ... just forward the frames one at a time and you can follow the hat and hand right up to this position ...

... but of course you already knew this, but rather than to admit you were mistaken because it would mean there was a conspiracy - you pretend that there is a chance that Connally was holding his hat with his left hand. Well, it is Connally's right hand and you're screwed. I do however appreciate your response because it will offer testiment to others that there are some people who will turn a blind eye to the evidence just as your have now attempted to do before admitting that there was a conspiracy in JFK's murder.

Bill Miller

Edited July 22, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Brendan Slattery]

Don't buy into the SBT? Well, that leaves you short one bullet. Where'd it go?

Edited July 22, 2006 by Brendan Slattery

[Bill Miller]

I was merely stating in the previous post that your "hand/wrist" is not clear enough in the Z-Film to verify that it IS, in fact, a hand/wrist.

But, as long as you're happy with your data, that's all that matters.

I am certainly happy that I have exposed your dishonesty. Merely following the skin toned object as it rises and while the following frames become sharper makes it quite clear that it was Connally's hand. Below is what you said ... you even went as far as to imply it could be Connally's left hand because after all "he did have two of them on 11/22".

(DVP) "And IF it is a "hand", why couldn't it be his LEFT hand? He did have two of them on 11/22."

By the way, your mentioning Groden's opinion as to the number of shots fired has no bearing on the SBT and the clip I have presented other than it was a weak attempt on your part at trying to draw attention away from Connally's wrist position when he ws shot.

Bill Miller

Don't buy into the SBT? Well, that leaves you short one bullet. Where'd it go?

I believe the assassination evidence is short several bullets, but 43 years after the fact is too late to run a complete and thorough investigation. The important thing is that the clip demonstrates that regardless of what evidence was gathered or had disappeared - Connally's wrist is not in the right place to have made the SBT work, thus there was a conspiracy.

Bill Miller

Edited July 22, 2006 by Bill Miller

[John Simkin]

Of course there are scads of other year-long members here who are picture-less too. But they're CTers...so, naturally, they aren't hassled about that silly rule. Right?

It is true that I have been slack imposing this rule over the last few months. The problem is that I have been too busy. However, no one has refused to post a picture like you. So I have suspended your membership. If you do not send me a picture within seven days all your posts will be deleted from this forum.

[Bill Miller]

Connally's wrist is not in the right place to have made the SBT work...

Bill has no PROOF of this statement. None.

His self-evaluation of the Z-Film is not "proof", regardless of what Bill The Photo Expert claims.

David, if you ever make it back to the forum, then feel free to be more specific concerning your remark above. It seems to me that you had recognized the proof. You didn't argue the location of the wrist, but rather you challeneged it even being a hand. Next, having failed, you opted to imply it may have been Connally's left hand. Once that failed, now you are trying to say that there is no proof that the wrist is in the wrong place. The official version has Connally's right wrist out over the center of his body because they knew it needed to be there to make things line up. So when someone like yourself claims that I have not evaluated the film correctly despite your numerous errors in interpreting the images - I don't feel bad because you are not qualified to understand anything that is presented in favor of conspiracy to kill JFK and even if you could understand it - you have shown yourself to be less than eager to be forthright in evaluating the evidence.

Bill Miller

Edited July 22, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Bill Charleston]

Once that failed, now you are trying to say that there is no proof that the wrist is in the wrong place. The official version has Connally's right wrist out over the center of his body because they knew it needed to be there to make things line up. So when someone like yourself claims that I have not evaluated the film correctly despite your numerous errors in interpreting the images -

Having read zillions of comments on this thread, since Connelly's wrist isn't in the right place (postulated, maybe backed up by photographic evidence), would someone CLEARLY state what DID happen in the shooting.

[John Simkin]

It should be pointed out that three of the members of the Warren Commission, Russell, Bloggs and Cooper did not accept the single-bullet theory. Ford, Dulles and McCoy applied considerable pressure on them and they eventually agreed to sign the report. One wonders if this would have happened if the FBI agents who attended JFK’s autopsy, Francis X. O'Neill and James W. Sibert, were allowed to testify before the WC. We now know that after examining the wounds they both rejected the lone-gunman theory. The same is also true of Jerrol Francis Custer, the man who took the X-rays and Paul O’Connor, the lab technician at the autopsy. The important point is that Arlen Specter interviewed all the witnesses before they were called before the Warren Commission. This was clearly an important part of the cover-up.