The Magic Bullet Theory

[Karl Hilliard]

10 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

 
Everything points to the SBT being correct. Why CTers refuse to acknowledge this "SBT pattern" only leaves me scratching my head. ... 

....There's the incredible "SBT-like" pattern of the wounds on the two victims.

....No bullets inside JFK's body.

....CE399 (from LHO's rifle) found on Connally's stretcher. 

....The Zapruder Film shows the victims reacting at precisely the same time.

 

"....There's the incredible "SBT-like" pattern of the wounds on the two victims."

Incredible? Yes indeed. I have searched for any other instance that.. two persons were injured back to back and almost to death with one bullet in combat or any other such shooting incident in recorded history and have found nothing.  If it could be equally assumed that there was more than one shooter from behind...the wounds would have more logically been explained.

....No bullets inside JFK's body.

Amend that to ...no bullets were found because perhaps no bullets were looked for.

....CE399 (from LHO's rifle) found on Connally's stretcher.

This has been discussed ad nauseum....possessing the magical power to be found and also virtually undamaged...the discovery being almost like a junior high school prank.

....The Zapruder Film shows the victims reacting at precisely the same time.

The governor reacts much as he described. One's imagination can see whatever they want to believe. If there was really only one shooter with a cheap rifle firing from that window hitting two persons and killing JFK like he did...it would seriously be the most remarkable... even phenomenal event in all creation.

 

[David Von Pein]

56 minutes ago, Karl Hilliard said:

Amend that to ...no bullets were found because perhaps no bullets were looked for.

You must be kidding. Of course they looked for bullets. ....

Mr. SPECTER - Did you search the body to determine if there was any bullet inside the body?

Dr. HUMES - Before the arrival of Colonel Finck we had made X-rays of the head, neck and torso of the President, and the upper portions of his major extremities, or both his upper and lower extremities. At Colonel Finck's suggestion, we then completed the X-ray examination by X-raying the President's body in toto, and those X-rays are available.

Mr. SPECTER - What did those X-rays disclose with respect to the possible presence of a missile in the President's body?

Dr. HUMES - They showed no evidence of a missile in the President's body at any point.

 

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To be clear, Zedlitz was not a "blow-out wound on the back of the head" witness and believed the "McClelland" drawing to be inaccurate. 

 

When contacted by Vince Palamara in 1998, Dr. William Zedlitz reported that he arrived in Trauma Room One just before the tracheotomy was performed. He said he noted "a massive head injury to the right occipito-parietal area (right posterior-lateral) of the cranium." He said the wound covered an area approximately 10-12 centimeters in diameter. Well, this is too big to be the wound in the McClelland drawing, but is in the approximate location of that wound. Zedlitz spoke in public at the 2003 Lancer Conference in Dallas, however, and further detailed his observations. He said Kennedy was supine (flat on his back) when he (Zedlitz) came in the room. He then said the head wound was "massive--the entire posterior and right side of the head was nothing but matted hair and clots, and pieces of bone and tissue, and it was a mess. I gently palpated the area and it felt like somebody had boiled an egg and then dropped it. And then picked it up. The bones were just in crinkly pieces." He was asked about this again and added: "There was an area, I'd say, 8 by 12 centimeters in the back of the head on the right hand side on the occipito-parietal area, that was gone. And it was filled with blood, tissue, hair, bone fragments, and brain fragments, and that's all you could see." Well, this is not the gaping hole behind the ear depicted in the McClelland drawing.

Zedlitz was then asked to depict the location of Kennedy's head wound on his own head. He placed his hand on the back of his head, with his fingers stretching from above his right ear on back to just below the top of his ear. He then admitted that beyond this area one "couldn't really tell the depth of it, or the extent of it." He was then asked if he had to rotate Kennedy's head to get a good look at the wound, and responded "No, no, there was enough of it there." He was then asked if he'd placed his hand under the head to palpate the skull, and said "No, it was in the back, and to the side." When then asked if he'd felt the extent of the wound, he admitted "No, I didn't see all of the wound. I couldn't see all of it because he was laying on that." (He then pointed to the back of his head)." He was then asked about the wound again. He put his hand back where the wound is in the McClelland drawing, and responded "It wasn't strictly straight back." He then moved his hand up to the top of his head with his fingers stretching above his right ear, and continued "It was top, back, and side." When then asked if the skull in this area was gone, he replied "It was in pieces." When then asked if the shattered skull in this area was still attached to the scalp, he continued "I could not tell. It was covered with blood and hair and other stuff. I could feel the bones but they felt like they were (he wiggled his fingers) loose." He expanded: "The bony fragments that were there were loose. And there was a spongy mass in the center of that, most obvious without bone, so I guess part of the bone was gone, but still there were fragments of bone still there." When then asked the million dollar question if he felt the autopsy photos showing the back of the head to be intact were altered, he clarified "The back of the head was not intact, but it was covered, as again I mention, with hair, blood, tissue, y'know, it was all there so you couldn't tell whether it was intact underneath that or not."

So, yeah... Zedlitz had placed the wound about half-way between the location of the wound in the autopsy photos and the location of the wound in the McClelland drawing. His extended description of the wound, and insistence he could see it without rotating Kennedy's head, moreover, supported that the wound was not as depicted in the McClelland drawing.

Edited July 28, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Bill Brown]

No discussion on the single bullet theory would be complete without mention of Dale Myers' work (apologies in advance if this has been posted earlier in this thread; I'm not going back and reading through it)...

 

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/intro.htm

 

Beginning at the 8-minute mark...

 

https://archive.org/details/BeyondConspiracy

[Chris Bristow]

How much variation in the wound description is normal? I noticed when Dr Jones was demonstrating the head wound location he started in the temporal occipital down behind the ear. Then he raises it an inch or two, felt around some more, then raised it another two inches and ended up in the upper occipital parietal. This doctor knows his anatomy and has been asked to demonstrate the wound location many times prior, yet he had to feel around for it and lands in three different spots before finding the location he wanted. I think this shows that we have to allow for a fair amount of variance when you have so many weighing in and some only saw it for a moment.
  But when you compare the wound placements of low vs high occipital against the amount of variation between the official location and that of the occipital locations, the official vs Parkland location is far greater than the occipital variances from Parkland.  The fact so many saw it in the O.C. makes any version of the argument 'They all just got it wrong' untenable.
 The Parkland issue has been dissected for decades and there are many arguments that hinge on small difference in description. Zedlitz reported a much larger wound but he palpitated the wound and had a tactile impression as well as visual. Since the wound was described as a mess of hair, scalp, bone and brain it is possible Zedlitz 12cm size could have included what other staff did not see with their eyes alone.
Zedlitz Saw the wound in the beginning possibly before the reported piece of brain fell out in front of McClelland. In addition Dr Perry's chest compressions sent large amounts of brain and blood out of the wound. What other doctors reported as a cavity could have become more visible after Dr Zedlitz's left.

  Many witnesses like Bell and even McClelland have used the term "Back of the head" as they placed their hand in the RIGHT posterior. Many used the same generic "Back of the head" description in a general way but then  specifically indicated the right rear. The drawing nurse Bowron approved(Is that contested?) shows the right rear even though she used the general term "Back of the head". Theran Ward wrote 'Back of the head" in his report but the photo of Theran Ward shows him touching his fingers to the right mastoid area.

 Testimony from the WC has been cited to show Dr Clark agreed with the hole being on top of the head because he did not disagree with Specter when Specter said "Now you have described the massive wound at the top of the president's head"
Well Arlen Specter completely misquoted Clark and this has to be taken into account. Just a few pages earlier Clark said "There was a large gaping wound in the RIGHT POSTERIOR PART."
 Clark neither corrected Specter or modified his own testimony at that point. Clark did not clear up the misquote he simply did not address it at all. This can't be taken evidence he was agreeing with specter. It is ambiguous at best.
   It is also said Clark called off the resuscitation because there was no heartbeat. But in reality his last words before calling off the resuscitation was "And the head wound was un survivable". Or as Dr's Perry and Peters testified, he used the word "mortal'.
Lack of a pulse or neurological and muscular response was noted by Clark. To call off the efforts based on those facts is a judgment call but the patients condition being deemed mortal is definitive. There is no judgment call to be made after that. The patient will not live and there is zero reason to continue with resuscitation. The two points here are Clark had to get a good look at the wound, and his reason for giving up on JFK was more about the head wound than the lack of pulse.
 

  In the end we have an autopsy photo that shows the right rear in tact. I know McClelland theorized about them pulling the scalp over the hole but the official autopsy has no hole there. I think we can give plausible explanations for the variation of the Occipital wound description. But I don't think there is a good explanation for the huge difference in the official wound location and occipital wound locations. 
 I know this thread has veered of the single bullet theory some but this thread is already 16 yrs old. Maybe the next generation will sort it out by 2039?

Edited July 28, 2022 by Chris Bristow

[Micah Mileto]

7 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

You must be kidding. Of course they looked for bullets. ....

 

 

My bets might be on an altered throat wound. That's a 170-page essay still coming soon - The Case for an Altered Throat Wound.

Edited July 29, 2022 by Micah Mileto

[Denny Zartman]

I'm grateful for @Vince Palamara for posting all those references about the depth of JFK's back wound. I thought I was missing something while reading all this debate.

From what I have read, the back wound was found to be shallow. The doctors at Bethesda reported that they could feel the end of the back wound with a finger. They tried to examine it with probes with no success. They were confused when discussing it with each other. Finally they called Parkland, learned about the discovery of a bullet there, then concluded that the bullet that made the back wound fell out of JFK's back when they were doing chest compressions in Dallas.

It seems the back wound was never tracked through the body. It should be noted that the single bullet theory was not a theory arrived at by doctors, but devised by a lawyer.

We could go on and talk about the rest of the implausibility regarding CE 399, but in my opinion it's academic.

All indications are that it was a shallow wound, and if so, the single bullet theory ends there.

Edited July 29, 2022 by Denny Zartman

[Vince Palamara]

3 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

I'm grateful for @Vince Palamara for posting all those references about the depth of JFK's back wound. I thought I was missing something while reading all this debate.

From what I have read, the back wound was found to be shallow. The doctors at Bethesda reported that they could feel the end of the back wound with a finger. They tried to examine it with probes with no success. They were confused when discussing it with each other. Finally they called Parkland, learned about the discovery of a bullet there, then concluded that the bullet that made the back wound fell out of JFK's back when they were doing chest compressions in Dallas.

It seems the back wound was never tracked through the body. It should be noted that the single bullet theory was not a theory arrived at by doctors, but devised by a lawyer.

We could go on and talk about the rest of the implausibility regarding CE 399, but in my opinion it's academic.

All indications are that it was a shallow wound, and if so, the single bullet theory ends there.

Thanks!

[Bill Brown]

4 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

I'm grateful for @Vince Palamara for posting all those references about the depth of JFK's back wound. I thought I was missing something while reading all this debate.

From what I have read, the back wound was found to be shallow. The doctors at Bethesda reported that they could feel the end of the back wound with a finger. They tried to examine it with probes with no success. They were confused when discussing it with each other. Finally they called Parkland, learned about the discovery of a bullet there, then concluded that the bullet that made the back wound fell out of JFK's back when they were doing chest compressions in Dallas.

It seems the back wound was never tracked through the body. It should be noted that the single bullet theory was not a theory arrived at by doctors, but devised by a lawyer.

We could go on and talk about the rest of the implausibility regarding CE 399, but in my opinion it's academic.

All indications are that it was a shallow wound, and if so, the single bullet theory ends there.

So the assassin's high-powered rifle fired off a round that only entered the President's back a couple inches and then just stopped, even though it hadn't hit bone.  Yeah, okay.

 

This is real simple.  The wound track closed.

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

So the assassin's high-powered rifle fired off a round that only entered the President's back a couple inches and then just stopped, even though it hadn't hit bone.  Yeah, okay.

 

This is real simple.  The wound track closed.

Oh Lord, Bill. Get thee to a library. Every book and article on wound ballistics will tell you that bullet wounds in general and high velocity wounds in particular leave a permanent cavity within muscle tissue that can readily be probed. The back wound was, officially, not probed, beyond Humes using his finger. He said, moreover, that there was no sign the bullet entered past the outer layer of tissue, and that trying to probe such a shallow wound with no visible entrance into the underlying muscle might create a false passage. Later, when trying to piece things together, he remembered that the strap muscles at the front of the throat were bruised. So he mused that the bullet creating the back wound could have exited the throat. Specter, however, realized that this was weak sauce and so presented the strap muscles as residing on Kennedy's back, and that the bullet creating the back wound had slipped between two muscles, and that that was why there was no hole in the muscle tissue. There was a problem with this, of course. There are no strap muscles on the back, and the lone muscle at the location of the back wound location was the trapezius muscle. And yes, I've looked, and could find no record of anyone being shot in the trapezius muscle where there was no hole in the trapezius muscle. Nevertheless, Specter pushed this falsehood till the end. 

Until single-assassin theorists can acknowledge that massive deceptions were engaged to help sell the single-bullet theory, and the single-assassin conclusion, there is no single-bullet theory, let alone a single-bullet "fact", as purported by Specter and Myers. It is the single-bullet HOAX, pure and simple. 

[David Von Pein]

57 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Until single-assassin theorists can acknowledge that massive deceptions were engaged to help sell the single-bullet theory, and the single-assassin conclusion, there is no single-bullet theory, let alone a single-bullet "fact", as purported by Specter and Myers. 

For Pete sake, what does common sense tell you about JFK's wounds, Pat?

1.) A bullet hole of entry in JFK's upper back.

2.) A bullet hole in JFK's neck/throat.

3.) Not a single bullet located in JFK's body.

And this fourth item below needs to be tacked on here as an extra bonus in the "common sense" department, which is something that nobody (not even a CTer) can possibly argue with:

4.) Anybody wanting to kill President Kennedy would have to be a complete moron/idiot to have fired two very low-powered, non-lethal bullets into Kennedy's throat and upper back, which would result in both of those bullets penetrating JFK's body only a few inches (each) and causing virtually no damage to the President's body whatsoever. (But, hey, maybe the killers just wanted to give JFK a fighting chance to survive those TWO shots, right?)

Please get real!!

Do you, Patrick J. Speer, really think that somebody (or a team of covert "somebodies") dug two bullets out of JFK's body prior to (or during) his autopsy on 11/22/63?

Lacking the above hunk of covert silliness to explain the lack of bullets left inside Kennedy, what else do you have to offer to reconcile that "No Bullets In Kennedy" fact? Did BOTH of the missiles just fall out on their own---never to be seen by anyone at either Parkland or Bethesda?

Please lay out your scenario, because I'm anxious to hear what it is. (Yes, you've probably said it all before--on your website or here at the EF--but please tell me again right now. Thanks.)

Quote

It is the single-bullet HOAX, pure and simple. 

You're too smart a fellow to believe that, Pat.

Because when just the tiniest bit of common sense and rational thought is applied to the known facts surrounding the double-man wounding of John Kennedy and John Connally on November 22, 1963, the Single-Bullet Theory is not only not  the "hoax" you say it is, but it is unquestionably the ONLY scenario that makes ANY sense at all when it comes to JFK's non-fatal wounds. (And Connally's too.)

 

Edited July 29, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Bill Brown]

53 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Oh Lord, Bill. Get thee to a library. Every book and article on wound ballistics will tell you that bullet wounds in general and high velocity wounds in particular leave a permanent cavity within muscle tissue that can readily be probed. The back wound was, officially, not probed, beyond Humes using his finger. He said, moreover, that there was no sign the bullet entered past the outer layer of tissue, and that trying to probe such a shallow wound with no visible entrance into the underlying muscle might create a false passage. Later, when trying to piece things together, he remembered that the strap muscles at the front of the throat were bruised. So he mused that the bullet creating the back wound could have exited the throat. Specter, however, realized that this was weak sauce and so presented the strap muscles as residing on Kennedy's back, and that the bullet creating the back wound had slipped between two muscles, and that that was why there was no hole in the muscle tissue. There was a problem with this, of course. There are no strap muscles on the back, and the lone muscle at the location of the back wound location was the trapezius muscle. And yes, I've looked, and could find no record of anyone being shot in the trapezius muscle where there was no hole in the trapezius muscle. Nevertheless, Specter pushed this falsehood till the end. 

Until single-assassin theorists can acknowledge that massive deceptions were engaged to help sell the single-bullet theory, and the single-assassin conclusion, there is no single-bullet theory, let alone a single-bullet "fact", as purported by Specter and Myers. It is the single-bullet HOAX, pure and simple. 

"Every book and article on wound ballistics will tell you that bullet wounds in general and high velocity wounds in particular leave a permanent cavity within muscle tissue that can readily be probed."

 

Pat, If we're agreeing that the assassin(s) used a high velocity round, you're saying that a bullet fired from a high-powered rifle only entered the back a couple inches and then stopped, even though it did not hit bone.  Are you really thinking this through?

 

Edited July 29, 2022 by Bill Brown

[Pat Speer]

33 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

For Pete sake, what does common sense tell you about JFK's wounds, Pat?

1.) A bullet hole of entry in JFK's upper back.

2.) A bullet hole in the very lowest part of JFK's neck/throat.

3.) Not a single bullet located in JFK's body.

And this fourth item needs to be tacked on here as an extra bonus in the "common sense" department, which is something that nobody (not even a CTer) can possibly think is wrong):

4.) Anybody wanting to kill President Kennedy would have to be a complete moron/idiot to have fired two very low-powered, non-lethal bullets into Kennedy's throat and upper back, which would result in both of those bullets penetrating JFK's body only a few inches (each) and causing virtually no damage to the President's body whatsoever. Buit, hey, maybe the killers just wanted to give JFK a fighting chance to survive those TWO shots, huh? (Please get real!!)

Do you, Patrick J. Speer, really think somebody (or team of covert "somebodies") dug two bullets out of JFK's body prior to (or during) his autopsy on 11/22/63?

Lacking the above hunk of covert silliness to explain the lack of bullets left inside Kennedy, what else do you have to offer to reconcile that "No Bullets In Kennedy" fact? Did BOTH of the missiles just fall out on their own---never to be seen by anyone at either Parkland or Bethesda? Please lay out your scenario, because I'm anxious to hear what it is.

You're way way too smart a fellow to believe that, Pat.

Because when just the tiniest bit of common sense and rational thought is applied to the known facts surrounding the double-man wounding of John Kennedy and John Connally on November 22, 1963, the Single-Bullet Theory is not only not  the "hoax" you say it is, but it is unquestionably the ONLY scenario that makes ANY sense at all when it comes to JFK's non-fatal wounds. (And Connally's too.)

 

David, I've laid out my scenario on my website and on numerous forums for 15 years or more. But it doesn't matter what I think. What matters according to your boy Bugliosi is the historical record. 

As to your points..

1.) A bullet hole of entry in JFK's upper back. (That showed no signs of penetrating beyond the outer layer, which is unthinkable if this was high-velocity bullet, as pushed by the single-bullet HOAX.)

2.) A bullet hole in the very lowest part of JFK's neck/throat. (That was recorded as being too small to be the exit of a high-velocity bullet, particularly one that had been tumbling, as pushed by the single-bullet HOAX.)

3.) Not a single bullet located in JFK's body. (No argument here.)

And this fourth item needs to be tacked on here as an extra bonus in the "common sense" department, which is something that nobody (not even a CTer) can possibly think is wrong):

4.) Anybody wanting to kill President Kennedy would have to be a complete moron/idiot to have fired two very low-powered, non-lethal bullets into Kennedy's throat and upper back, which would result in both of those bullets penetrating JFK's body only a few inches (each) and causing virtually no damage to the President's body whatsoever. Buit, hey, maybe the killers just wanted to give JFK a fighting chance to survive those TWO shots, huh? (Please get real!!)  (Yes, let's get real. This is a straw man argument. I never said the throat wound only penetrated a few inches, or even that it was an entrance. And you're also wrong. The CIA's Manual on Assassination recommended the use of subsonic ammunition in assassination attempts. Are you, David, Von Pein, telling me you don't think the CIA knows how to kill people?)

The thought occurs that you suffer from a lack of imagination. The SBT HOAX makes sense to you because you were told it was logical by a singularly illogical man, Bugliosi. But have you ever read a book on wound ballistics? Or gunshot wounds? Or anatomy? I suspect not. Because if you had, you would know that the trajectory of the bullet and the nature of the wounds outlined by the SBT HOAX make no sense, and that a better solution is required. 

Now, I've always been open to a single-assassin solution, but the single-bullet theory is junk, propped up by deliberate deceptions regarding the nature of Kennedy's wounds, and the position of the men in the limousine. I have been waiting, for years now, for someone to come up with an SBT not reliant upon Specter's lies and deceptions and Myers' inaccurate animation. But, alas, none has been proposed. Instead we get the same ole arguments. And this has led me to believe that single-bullet theorists are a modern day Flat Earth Society, with an emotional attachment to nonsense. 

 

 

Edited July 29, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

16 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

"Every book and article on wound ballistics will tell you that bullet wounds in general and high velocity wounds in particular leave a permanent cavity within muscle tissue that can readily be probed."

 

Pat, If we're agreeing that the assassin(s) used a high velocity round, you're saying that a bullet fired from a high-powered rifle only entered the back a couple inches and then stopped, even though it did not hit bone.  Are you really thinking this through?

 

I didn't say that a high-velocity round entered Kennedy's back. I'm saying that since the doctors found no evidence the bullet penetrated beyond the outer layer, that it was almost certainly not a high-velocity round. 

[Paul Cummings]

29 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I didn't say that a high-velocity round entered Kennedy's back. I'm saying that since the doctors found no evidence the bullet penetrated beyond the outer layer, that it was almost certainly not a high-velocity round. 

or it could have been a ricochet. Thanks again Pat great stuff!