Follow-up to my thread-starting post..............

Here's something else to ponder regarding the possibilities/probabilities/likelihood of JFK and Connally being hit by a single bullet at Z223-Z224:

Given what we can see via the Zapruder Film, it's quite possible (but not provable given the street-sign obstruction) that Z-Frame #225 is the exact moment when BOTH Kennedy AND Connally FIRST open their mouths in distress.

Z225 is obviously the first frame on the Z-Film in which we can observe the "open-mouthed" reaction of both JFK & JBC. But, since that friggin' Road Sign From Hell is blocking our view for that one single second in time, it can never be determined whether or not Z225 is, in fact, the precise moment when JFK FIRST opened his mouth.

However -- It is at least a possibility that cannot be entirely ruled out. It just can't be verified and proven that JFK FIRST opens his mouth (in an obvious involuntary reaction to having just been hit by a gunshot) at just exactly the very same Z-Frame when we KNOW Mr. Connally has first opened his mouth.

If it COULD be conclusively proven that both men have opened their previously-CLOSED mouths in exactly the same 1/18th of a second in time, I believe that point all by itself would go a long way toward PROVING beyond any reasonable doubt that both victims are, indeed, reacting to having just been shot by one single missile.

Because -- What is the likelihood (or, IOW, What Are The ODDS, as I am in favor of continually asking this group of Forum members) that BOTH John Kennedy AND John Connally would have had both of their mouths CLOSED at Z224 -- but then, an eighteenth of a second later, would both be seen with their mouths in an OPEN position IF THE TWO MEN HAD BEEN HIT BY SEPARATE BULLETS OVER A SPACE OF MORE TIME?

I ask: What could have caused this simultaneous sign-of-distress open-mouthed coincidence, if NOT a bullet striking each of them just a fraction of an instant earlier? (And, IMO, Bullet #CE399, to be specific.)

Again (to repeat) -- I'm not purporting this theory as 'FACT'. Because, obviously, I cannot do that, because we can't physically see Kennedy's mouth in Frame 224. All I'm suggesting is that it is definitely a possibility that certainly cannot be DISPROVEN either.

The more the Zapruder Film is studied and picked apart frame by frame, the more I begin to hate the City Of Dallas Highway Department
for putting that damn Stemmons Freeway sign where it was on Elm Street (circa 1963).

Anyway, I consider this post's info more Food For Thought when it comes to attempting to determine whether or not the 'SBT' is valid. IMO, the SBT is valid from every avenue of CT scrutiny.





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

I also have another challenge for conspiracists ..... Pop in your DVD of MPI's "Image Of An Assassination: A New Look At The Zapruder Film", and select the "Close-Up Frame" or "Medium Frame" version of the Z-Film from the DVD's Menu Selection (either one will suffice). ... Then continually toggle back and forth between Z224 and Z225 (using your remote's "Slow/Search" buttons). I challenge anyone -- after watching Governor Connally's facial reactions when comparing these two Z-Frames -- to reach the conclusion that Mr. Connally is NOT reacting (at precisely Z225) to having been just an instant earlier struck by a bullet.

Pardon the pro-SBT pun, but when watching this Z224-Z225 sequence of frames multiple times consecutively, it's painfully obvious to me that JBC has distinctly CHANGED his facial appearance from a totally benign one to one reflecting a man who has just that moment (at Z225) begun to react to an external stimulus of some kind in the short space of one Zapruder film frame. A definite startled reaction forms on the face of Mr. Connally at precisely this Z225 point on the film (open mouth and slight "lurch" forward). IMO, there's no question that there's a "startling" (and quite remarkable) difference in Connally's appearance from Z224 to Z225.

And yet MANY conspiracy theorists fail to see ANY sign at all of Connally's having been hit prior to any Z236 point on the film (approx.). This is simply an illogical conclusion to reach, IMO, esp. when evaluating JBC's obviously-different facial "look" in Z225 vs. Z224.

Plus, of course, the other pre-Z236 indications of a JBC "hit" as well -- shoulder movement and hat flipping skyward involuntarily. And that's not even factoring in the proverbial "lapel flip" in this pro-SBT argument either; because, even without the flip of the good ol' lapel, there's still a whole bunch of stuff telling me that Connally is already a victim of a gunshot wound by Z-Frames 225 through 230.

What do you see happening between Z224 and Z225 here? ........

David:

You spend an awful lot of time trying to reconcile the SBT but very little time trying to explain the shot that matters.

Point is, even if he SBT is true, we've still got two shooters. And even if LHO fired the SB, he still didn't kill Kennedy.

No objective person can watch the Zapruder Film and come to any other conclusion.

Mental masturbation.

Puh-leeze.

Chuck

We don't have to agree, but, let's agree to disagree agreeably.

The alleged locations of the wounds were manufactured to fit the SBT.

If the true locations of the wounds were stated, they would not in any way indicate the possibility of a Single Bullet Theory.

The true locations of the wounds would clearly show that there was more than one shooter.

Tony

The entire cover up was contingent upon Humes going along with the LN scenario on Friday night.

I like it how you like to pick and choose which questions to answer oh knowledgeble one!
The "SBT theory" is exactly that a theory!, much like a fairy it does not exist and never happened!!!!!!!!!

Of course, Mr. Von Pein has once again proven beyond any shadow of a doubt which end of the horse he is.

"how utterly and wholly implausible any non-SBT, multi-shot conspiracy scenario is"

And where is your proof that the SBT is anything but impossible ?

Show us any exmaple in the history of gunfire, PROOF not theory, that a bullet has done what this bullet was alleged to have done.

Show us a bullet that has gone through TWO victims and not had so much as a microscopic trace of blood from EITHER victim on it.
Show us a bullet that has gone through a minimum of 8 layers of clothing and not had so much as a microscopic thread from ANY of the clothing of EITHER victim on it.
Show us a bullet that has destroyed bone and not had so much as a microscopic trace of bone particle on it.
Show us a bullet that entered each victim at a different angle, despite not having been deflected in any way shape or form.
Show us a bullet, travelling in a downward trajectory, which changes direction upward, then downward again, without having been deflected.

And then show us a bullet that has not just done one of the above, but ALL of the above.

Your ignorance is amusing. For the SBT to be possible, this bullet never travelled in the same direction or had the same angle.

"How utterly and wholly impossible" the Single Bullet Theory is.

I agree that anyone who believes such nonsense as the SBT must have had their common sense shot to hell.

http://www.youtube.com/GJJdude

As I posted in another thread -

Colonel Allison Folsom, who examined Oswald’s Marine Corps records for the WC, testified that Oswald’s record showed that his marksmanship was “not good,” and that his average score over a two-day period was 36 when “people should get a score of between 48 and 50.”

Oswald's record also showed that he scored at the very bottom in classification and aptitude tests when he entered the Marine Corps in 1956, that he was court-martialed twice, demoted from private first class down to private, and that he had only nine years of school.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/folsom.htm


A document prepared by FBI agent James Hosty stated that Oswald and his wife had been evicted from their apartment in March 1963 because Oswald “apparently drank to excess and beat his wife on numerous occasions,” and there had been “numerous complaints from the other tenants due to Oswald’s drinking and beating his wife.”

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/hosty.htm


On December 1, 1963, a Washington Post reporter, reporting from Dallas wrote -

“Accounts here of his income during the last year and a half of his life indicate that he was bounced from one job to the next and led the life of a harried, penny-pinching common laborer of uncommon mind. He may have been exigent to the point of desperation six weeks or so before the assassination.”


WC member John Sherman Cooper testified to the HSCA about Oswald and stated, “I think he felt he was a failure . . . He knew he was a failure at everything he tried, frustrated, with a very sad life.”


Now for a few facts on Presidential assassinations -

President McKinley was assassinated in 1901. The nine Presidents who succeeded McKinley served sixty consecutive years in the Oval Office without being assassinated. Those sixty years encompassed two World Wars, the Great Depression, and the Korean War.

On November 22, 1963, President Kennedy was assassinated, allegedly by a neurotic malcontent who happened to have been working as a stock clerk for five weeks in a building along the President’s motorcade route; a man who allegedly, when he heard where the motorcade route was, decided to bring a rifle to work three days later and assassinate the President of the United States with no problem whatsoever, because this neurotic malcontent, while not very good at anything else, was supposedly a phenomenal marksman, but he was only a phenomenal marksman on that particular day.

So much for the LN position.

Tony

The entire cover up was contingent upon Humes going along with the LN scenario on Friday night.

While perusing the "JFK Murder Solved" website/forum, I noticed a thread asking members "How Many Shots Were Fired?" -- And I got a huge kick (and a very healthy laugh) out of "Mr. Dankbaar's" post in that thread.

He believes that AT LEAST EIGHT (8) shots rang out in DP on 11/22 -- and possibly UP TO TWELVE (12)!

Can you just IMAGINE this? 8 to 12 shots are flying through the air, and yet ONLY THREE of these rounds are heard by the vast majority of earwitnesses, and the only bullets recovered miraculously are linked to ONLY Oswald's rifle.

12 shots! LOL! JFK would have been literally riddled with holes had 12 shots been fired at him by XXX number of assassins. And yet, even in a 12-Shot plot like this, many people still feel a "Patsy" plan was in place, with all the evidence expected to end up leading authorities back to only one rear shooter (LHO).

Can anybody else (but me) see a teeny-tiny problem with such a 8-to-12-Shot shooting scenario?

Mr. Dankbaar's assassination shot assortment:

Definite shots:
1.) JFK in back
2.) JFK in throat
3.) JFK in back of head
4.) JFK in right temple (from the knoll)
5.) Connally through torso
6.) Connally through wrist
7.) Missed bullet on curb, wounding James Tague
8.) Nick on top of windshield

Disputable shots:
9.) Bullet on Elm street, leaving stretch mark
10.) Bullet through road sign
11.) Missed bullet in grass south of Elm street
12.) Connally in thigh (may have been torso or wrist bullet)

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

Wim's 10th (possible) shot is a curious one, which has absolutely no logical reason for being included on such a list. But that obviously doesn't matter; CTers are free to make stuff up along the way, even if the evidence doesn't support it (such as 9 of these 12 shots for example). .......

10.) Bullet through road sign

It's also interesting to take note of Wim's "Connally" shots. He's got Connally hit possibly THREE separate times. And yet, per CTers, ZERO of these bullets are seen or recovered that hit Gov. Connally. Logical?

I guess it also doesn't matter to some CTers that "Large-Volume Shot Theories" like this 8-to-12-Shot assortment of missile blasts totally contradicts and debunks OTHER evidence that the same CTers might very well believe as well. A good example being: the HSCA's 'acoustics' evidence, which purported just FOUR shots being fired in DP. Not eight. Not ten. And certainly not nearly 12.

Just HOW does the HSCA's "4-Shot" acoustics data even come remotely close to such high-numbered shooting theories like Mr. Dankbaar's? (Or even ANYONE'S lesser-numbered 5-Shot or 6-Shot scenarios?)

WHY were there only FOUR "impulses" of gunfire "discovered" on the DPD radio tape if, in fact, many (many!) more shots were actually fired? (And the "silenced" argument cannot be valid in this debate either; because, as I've been told in no uncertain terms by members of this very Forum, the acoustic "impulses" being examined would have PICKED UP the "sonic" {silent} impulses of even shots that might have been fired utilizing sound-suppression devices.)

These type of wild, off-the-wall very high-numbered shot theories are just plain laughable (and I truly think most Lancer members here would agree with me to the extent that EIGHT to TWELVE shots is just flat-out ludicrous given the totality of the evidence in the case). Such "wild guesses" are wholly unsupported by ANY of the evidence in the case whatsoever.

BTW -- A similar "poll" on the "Murder Solved" website has members voting as to the "Number Of Total Shooters" in DP. Although the votes (to date) have been minimal in volume, there have been multiple votes for "5 Shooters".

I'm surprised the gunmen weren't shooting EACH OTHER as they pressed for available firing locations in the relatively-small Dealey Plaza.

(I also cannot quite figure out why that website is titled "JFK Murder Solved", when the murder has obviously NOT been "solved" to the satisfaction of even the most hard-boiled conspiracy theorists.)

Tue May-10-05 04:32 AMby David Von Pein

I just felt the need to interject a few more thoughts regarding the Single-Bullet Theory (and the likelihood that ANY CT alternative to the SBT could be MORE credible, given the known wounds and the known evidence, than the SBT conclusion reached by the Warren Commission).

I've stated most of this previously here on the Lancer Forum, but feel it needs elaborated on some more to drive the point home as to just how utterly and wholly implausible any non-SBT, multi-shot conspiracy scenario is in this regard.

David, I'm surprised you haven't gotten a visit from the Humane Society for beating a dead horse!

I'd like, if possible, to get just ONE CTer on this board to step out of the conspiracy pit for just a minute and evaluate the points I'm going to make below and then be willing to agree with me that in order to believe that things really happened the way many CTers say they did, the CT version of what occurred to explain ALL the "SBT wounds" that were sustained by both JFK and JBC requires FAR greater leaps of faith and produces MANY more "unexplainable" loose ends than does the official Single-Bullet Theory version of events. .........

So let me get this straight, you want us to think like you? In your dreams, maybe.


If the SBT is indeed incorrect, then we are forced to believe that not just ONE, but TWO, rifle bullets failed to penetrate all the way through the neck and back of JFK -- from probably high-powered weapons, because WHY would any plotters trying to kill the President -- and no doubt wanting to MAKE SURE THEY KILL HIM AT ALL COSTS -- utilize anything BUT high-powered weaponry in such a murder attempt?

This statement is your Achilles Heel. You CANNOT think of it happening in any way other than what you have been brainwashed into believing it happened. You can't think outside the box that the "official team" has put you in with their BIG LIE technique of propaganda. You can't explain the wounds other than being inflicted from high powered rifles. You will keep tripping over that mindset forever.

Logical? I say no, it is not.

It doesn't have to meet your criteria for what you think is logical. It only has to fit the way the crime was committed which is not the SBT explanation.

If you wish to argue that perhaps ONE of the shots was a "dum-dum" of some type, or that ONE shot was a misfire and therefore the velocity entering Kennedy was severely reduced -- OK. But TWO such shots of this kind that do not transit the soft flesh of JFK in the throat AND upper back regions?

You are going to dictate the way it happened because you can't think of any other explanation?

Odds please?

This assassination happened only one way so the odds are 1 to 1.

Even if you want to argue (and you have and shall again no doubt) that the "angles" are not PRECISELY dead-on correct for the SBT to "work" or "align" properly back to the "Oswald window" in the Texas School Book Depository -- in my considered viewpoint, ANY conspiracy theory that we're forced to "substitute" for the official SBT falls apart on many, many different levels.

David, you continue to IGNORE the facts. The FIRST SHOT hit JFK but not Connally. Therefore the SBT is a myth.

For example -- Here's what certainly MUST have occurred (via the CT account) INSTEAD of the SBT:

1.) Three shots must "replace" the one single shot known as the "SBT". There IS no way around this first point here. Because LACKING the SBT to explain the throat wound to JFK and both of the victims' separate back wounds, CTers are forced to postulate that one of the two following things occurred........

A.) The bullet that struck JFK did go all the way through him

( Not true, your mistaken assumption)

but, somehow spectacularly, MISSED the man sitting right in front of him who was in direct line to receive this bullet and this bullet was then scooped up from inside the limo by plotters after the fact and disposed of AND the damage to the inside of the limousine that was no doubt caused by this bullet was completely eradicated in very short order after the event. Likely (even in a CT world)? Hardly. (More of your wistful speculation) Especially in light of this WC testimony from Robert Frazier of the FBI......

Mr. SPECTER -- "Did your examination of the President's limousine disclose any other holes or markings which could have conceivably been caused by a bullet striking the automobile or any part of the automobile?"

Mr. FRAZIER -- "No, sir."

Obviously Mr Frazier and those who heard this testimony must have all been in a stupor. What about the Windshield defect? What about the bullet hit on the chrome strip above the windshield? What about the inside of the driver's side windshield support defect?

-- Or: --

B.) Lacking the T&T shot through JFK, we're left to accept a 3-Shot scenario to explain these wounds to the two victims -- fired by THREE separate gunmen as well (two from the rear and one from the front). Given the very tight timeline (even per CTers, who have JFK hit in the throat with Shot #1 at Z195 to Z200 approx.), I'd like to know how there could have possibly been LESS than three gunmen utilized to inflict all these wounds in the allowable timeframe?

Have you ever considered 2 shots from the front and 2 shots from the rear from 2 shooters?

2.) All three of these (supposedly) entry wounds on JFK & JBC line themselves up in such a fashion on the bodies to give the APPEARANCE that they could have ALL been "in line" so as to have been caused by just a single missile passing through both men simultaneously. .... I have yet to hear any reasonable and believable CT explanation that logically rationalizes and defends this amazing "wound placement" occurrence on TWO different victims. Even CTers must admit that the likelihood of these wounds aligning in such a fashion on two victims is pretty remote at best. For, if THREE gunmen managed to pull that shooting feat off with three different bullets, then it's a marksmanship accomplishment that should be featured prominently at Ripley's Believe-It-Or-Not Museum, IMHO.

David if you contort the two men into positions they were not in during the shooting sequence you can have it your way!

3.) ALL THREE bullets that are replacing the SBT via a CTer's alternate theory now ALL get lost! Or are ALL disposed of by evil plotters! In either instance, all three bullets that peppered Kennedy & Connally are never entered into any kind of Official record representing this murder case. Odds please? Is this a logical conclusion to come to?

Whoa! You are conveniently ignoring the fragments given to Dennis David from the autopsy at Bethesda that he said was more than enough for one bullet but not enough for 2 bullets. And the whole bullet Dr. David Osborne picked up and held in his hand that had rolled out of the wrapping when they took JFK's body out of the shipping casket and placed him on the autopsy table.

For one thing: Why didn't Dr. Malcolm Perry (or Dr. Carrico or Dr. Jenkins or Dr. McClelland) physically SEE the bullet that only ventured part way through Mr. Kennedy's throat? It seems logical to me, given the HANDS-ON circumstances we're dealing with here re. Perry's having to make an actual incision into this VERY wound in the throat for tracheostomy purposes, that Perry (or others) might very well have been able to see the bullet in JFK's throat, seeing as how it did not exit, per this theory.

You need to get your anatomy book out again and look at where the bullet struck JFK's neck. It was in the midline of the lower third of the anterior(front) of the neck. That bullet, which was obviously NOT a high powered bullet, went in the middle of the front of the neck and made a defect (tear) in the third tracheal ring on the right side as it passed through and continued on to cause a bruised area of the apical ( top or peak ) area of the right lung. This was a bullet that was reported to have lodged deep in the shoulder by several newspapers and could be part of the fragments given to Dennis David. The simple answer is it didn't stop near the surface of the neck as you have speculated and deliberately misstated.

In short, how could the "plotters" have possibly gotten THAT LUCKY so that all three of those whole bullets, in 2 bodies, were never recovered by anyone at Parkland Hospital, and so lucky to NOT have even ONE of these three bullets enter the official record at any time? Especially with regard to the Connally AWOL bullet. Here's a bullet that enters a man who LIVED through the ordeal, and whose body could not be "controlled" later at some "fixed" or "phonied" autopsy by the conspirators (as many CTers believe occurred with respect to JFK's autopsy at Bethesda).

David you don't have to rely on luck if you are really good at this sort of thing and have control of the investigation, the investigators, the media, and the evidence.

This Connally bullet, IMO, is the KEY bullet that shows beyond any reasonable doubt that no foul play was afoot with respect to the bullets. This unexpected SECOND victim of the assassination attempt (JBC), and yet ANOTHER (THIRD) bullet that is "conveniently missing", makes it FAR more difficult to believe in a vast conspiracy and cover-up in this case (overall). I ask: What are the odds that the plotters could have "controlled" all the trace evidence within TWO victims in such a plot, one of whom survived the shooting?

Which Connally bullet are you referring to? The Magic Bullet, CE399, OR, the bullet that caused the wound in Connally's thigh which supposedly "fell out" because it was a shallow wound? You might want to look closely at Dr. Patterson's description of the wrist wound and the wound in Connally thigh. Dr. Patterson didn't believe the bullet that caused the thigh wound could just fall out because that wound was too deep and left a fragment close to the bone.

4.) With respect to TWO separate bullets that BOTH fail to transit the body of President Kennedy -- I'll ask again the same recurring inquiry
here -- What Are The Odds? What is the likelihood that these conspirators would have had TWO "dud" rounds fired into JFK? -- TWO non-lethal missiles that pierce his body only a LITTLE BIT, and fail to kill him OR to penetrate the soft tissues of his neck and upper back? Doesn't this sound the slightest bit GOOFY to anyone else but me?

It's just you David. If it actually happens your so called "odds" are 1 to 1. The truth is you have no proof to support your assumptions other than the BIG LIE propaganda from the "official team" that you have been brainwashed by.

But perhaps a better question here might be -- WHY would killers, bent on having a dead President by the end of November 22nd, have utilized such low-powered weaponry in a Presidential assassination attempt? Shouldn't they have wanted, and insisted, on the MAXIMUM firepower possible here? And if not, why not? Why would ANY "Pre-Kill" shots NEED to be fired at the President? Just...why? Does this add up at all?

When we catch up with them you'll need to ask them that question. It was their plan.

It would also be very interesting to know the odds of JFK having NO metal fragments or trace evidence of bullets left inside his neck & back regions IF he had been, in fact, shot TWICE in these areas of the body AND if these bullets had remained in him for several hours after he was shot by these non-transiting missiles.

David you keep getting probability and possibility confused. If something actually happens the "odds" are 1 to 1.

I'm not entirely sure how valid this argument might be on my LN behalf -- but isn't it a little more than likely that at least one of these bullets that somehow just came to a dead STOP in JFK's neck & back would have left at least a tiny bit of trace evidence behind? (Or do the CTers that espouse this theory also theorize that every last tiny grain of metal fragments that either of these bullets MIGHT have left inside JFK's body was somehow completely eradicated, too, prior to autopsy and prior to the X-rays being taken?)

Keep looking David, the answer is out there.

When combined all together, don't ALL of these CT points that would have HAD to have occurred in order to explain the "SBT wounds" AND lack of bullets entering the official record seem just a tad far-fetched and unrealistic?

Not if it is possible, which it was. David try explaining this crime without using the SBT propaganda because the SBT is part of THE BIG LIE coverup.

To me, they're more than just a "tad" far-fetched and unreasonable -- they're downright illogical from every point-of-view. It seems to me that any attempts to explain those wounds that were sustained at virtually an identical time by John Kennedy and John Connally in a "CT light" fail to hold up the least little bit when held up to the bright light of scrutiny.

Well, David, that's just the way it is. You can't see it any other way than the SBT is your answer. Even Guinn said there was no connection between Connally's wounds and Kennedy's wounds. You/they have no proof to support the SBT. The Elm street witnesses including Phil Willis who snapped a photo at Zf 202 as a startle reaction to hearing the First Shot and John Connally who heard the first shot but was not wounded by the first shot, prove the SBT is false. You cannot defend the indefensible!

If the only way to "explain away" the SBT to "fit" a conspiracy scenario is to come up with a "plot" that includes THREE different shooters, firing THREE bullets into two different victims, from THREE different locations, and incredibly have all three of these missiles pepper the victims in just such a pattern so that it looks like it COULD (even remotely so) be reconciled into a "SBT", and THEN (on top of this miracle bit of shooting by three different gunmen) to get ALL THREE of these separate bullets to vanish and to never enter the official record -- then, from where I sit, plain ol' common sense is telling me that something's just a bit screwy about this "CT" plot which perfectly worked out to appease the WC and its loyal followers.

This is your your misguided argument based on your erroneous speculation that you continue to repeat. Give it up David, there was no Single Bullet that wounded both JFK and JBC. It a myth made up by the "official team" and has no basis in fact.

And -- Any such "multi-shooter" scenario is also very unlikely (probability-wise alone) from the popular "Frame The Patsy Oswald" standpoint. Would these plotters have deliberately been so foolhardy and utterly reckless as to fire three separate shots into JFK's body (including the head shot), from varying angles (some of them non-"SN" angles), and yet STILL, incredibly, expect every last scrap of ballistic evidence to get traced back to ONLY Lee Oswald's rifle AND get traced back to only Oswald's "Sniper's Nest" window in the Depository? They couldn't POSSIBLY have thought that this "Multi-Shooter Patsy Plan" could succeed on its BEST day! Could they? (I think not.)

More of your misguided argument based on your erroneous speculation that you continue to repeat. Give it up David, there was no Single Bullet that wounded both JFK and JBC. It a myth made up by the "official team" and has no basis in fact.


Whereas, the "LN alternative" rests (IMO) on the very logical and sound shoulders of the "SBT" -- a theory in which all of the following is thoroughly explained.......

1.) Every bullet (totalling 'one' in number) is recovered and enters the official record (Bullet #CE399). There are no mysteries as to any "missing" missiles.

2.) The fact that no bullets were found inside JFK or JBC is perfectly logical and to be expected via the SBT. Plus the very important fact that no bullet holes or similar missile damage was done to the limo's interior in the back seat areas of the automobile.

3.) All wounds to both men are perfectly consistent with the SBT. The downward, back-to-front and slightly right-to-left "alignment" of the wounds suffered by JFK & JBC are, IMO, wholly indicative of a single shot that passed through both men (esp. when factoring in the oblong wound in the back sustained by JBC, plus the lack of bullets found in the bodies, AND the fact that no one ELSE was hit by gunfire in the limousine, AND the fact that no damage was done to the car's rear or jump seats by any missiles during the shooting).

4.) Via the Zapruder Film, the SBT "holds up" under intense scrutiny as well (IMO), with both victims reacting to external (bullet) stimulus at virtually an identical time on the film. People will no doubt argue this point until the cows come home, but I still defy ANYONE to look at the Z-Film (running at regular, real-time speed) and tell me they can say with certainty that President Kennedy and Governor Connally are NOT reacting to being hit by a bullet at the very same point in time.

David, NONE of your 4 assumptions about the SBT are supported by evidence. They are merely your wishful thinking.

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

Many CTers don't think it's necessary at all to come up with any kind of logical "alternative" scenario to explain all the wounds to JFK and JBC -- let alone a full, complete version of the pre-Head Shot event which would tie up all or most of the "loose ends" with regard to this event. They just seem to KNOW that the SBT is dead wrong based on the angles being slightly off or the reactions of the two victims being far enough apart to make the SBT an impossibility.

We don't just know the SBT is wrong we can prove it is wrong. You can't see it any other way than the SBT is your answer. Even Guinn said there was no connection between Connally's wounds and Kennedy's wounds. You/they have no proof to support the SBT. The Elm street witnesses including Phil Willis who snapped a photo at Zf 202 as a startle reaction to hearing the First Shot and John Connally who heard the first shot but was not wounded by the first shot, prove the SBT is false. You cannot defend the indefensible!


But any CT substitute "answers" to reconcile all these wounds in two victims (when such "answers" occasionally are provided, always in the form of pure out-&-out guesses by the CT community) are FAR less credible and less substantive and far less BELIEVABLE (IMO) than is the official version of the event -- the SBT.

You can believe elephants can fly if you choose to but you cannot prove the SBT is anything other than a part of the BIG LIE by the 'official team."

In fact, even the majority of CTers (from what I've seen anyway) cannot even agree with EACH OTHER on some of the most essential and basic things that occurred on Elm Street on 11-22-63.

That may be true but it still doesn't make the SBT true.

IOW -- Why should I place any faith in any of a wide variety of unsupportable theories coming from a horde of self-appointed "experts" in the CT community who berate the Official WC version of events sometimes without even FULLY knowing what the WC conclusions are? (This comment isn't really directed at Lancer Forum members, but is aimed mostly at other people I've encountered in this regard.)

You don't have to but please stop whining about it!

But, IMO, the critics have done little to disprove the SBT. But, on the flip-side of that coin, there have been true-to-life and animated tests performed over the years that have backed up (concretely) the validity of the Single-Bullet Theory. But these tests, too, have been ridiculed as being "inaccurate", with "manufactured" angles and results, and incorrect measurements utilized. I, naturally, completely and fervently disagree.

You sure live in your own little world, David. When you stop ducking the Elm street witnesses' testimony about when the first shot was fired and who was hit by that first shot and who wasn't and John Connally's testimony about what he experience during the shooting then you will KNOW the SBT is part of the "official team's" BIG LIE to cover the truth about the assassination.

From what I've seen re. these "tests" (the FAA simulation, Mr. Myers' project, and the 2004 Discovery Channel SBT re-creation, which should, in my view, be VERY convincing to any critic of the theory, but, of course, is not), they've been conducted in an open and wholly above-board and honest manner, with re-creations that are as close to being as accurate as humanly possible (esp. given the "unknowns" regarding some measurements -- like the EXACT positioning of Mr. Connally's wrist at the moment the bullet hit him, plus the EXACT positioning of JFK and JBC to each other in the car during the shooting; these things can only be "guesses" to a certain extent, no matter which side of the debate you reside on, as I'm sure even all CTers will concur).

They can conduct any test they want but it will still not be accurate because they all ignore the basic truth of what happened when the first shot was fired at about Zf 195 to Zf 200 which is when the First Shot was fired. Garbage In Garbage Out.


What I'd like to see are similar "Discovery Channel"-like tests done by the CT side, in order to PROVE once and for all their belief that the SBT is so full of holes you could drive the President's X-100 Lincoln convertible through them! Thus far, I've seen NO such tests that would PROVE that either Mr. Myers or The Discovery Channel people got it completely wrong.

Until such proof can be reasonably demonstrated, I truly cannot see how anyone can totally dismiss the possibility (or probability, IMO) that the Single-Bullet Theory is the CORRECT THEORY in the JFK murder case.

Even when viewed at a slower speed, I still challenge anyone watching this top clip (below) of the Zapruder Film to provide one shred of verifiable proof that the Single-Bullet Theory is a Lone-Nutter's wild fantasy.

Not until you and the rest of the LNers stop ducking the Elm street witnesses' testimony about when the first shot was fired and who was hit by that first shot and who wasn't and John Connally's testimony about what he experience during the shooting then you will KNOW the SBT is part of the "official team's" BIG LIE to cover the truth about the assassination.


Tell me the truth, what do you see here? Thank you. ..........

Face it David, Kennedy was hit by the first shot and Connally wasn't. There was no Single Bullet that hit both men, they were hit by separate bullets.

Regards, Jim





>..........
>
>
>
>
>

"But, IMO, the critics have done little to disprove the SBT. But, on the flip-side of that coin, there have been true-to-life and animated tests performed over the years that have backed up (concretely) the validity of the Single-Bullet Theory. But these tests, too, have been ridiculed as being "inaccurate", with "manufactured" angles and results, and incorrect measurements utilized. I, naturally, completely and fervently disagree."


"true-to-life and animated tests performed over the years that have backed up """"concretely"""" the validity of the Single-Bullet Theory" Yeah, right.

Which ones?? Meyer's cartoon fraud where he hunched JFK over like Quasimoto?? Or do you mean the show that recently replicated the two torsos and ended up with a munched up MC round??

If these ar not the "concrete" studies you had in mind, feel free to share.

John Hunt

>I just felt the need to interject a few more thoughts
>regarding the Single-Bullet Theory (and the likelihood
>that ANY CT alternative to the SBT could be MORE
>credible, given the known wounds and the known evidence, than
>the SBT conclusion reached by the Warren Commission).
>
>I've stated most of this previously here on the Lancer Forum,
>but feel it needs elaborated on some more to drive the point
>home as to just how utterly and wholly implausible any
>non-SBT, multi-shot conspiracy scenario is in this regard.
>
>I'd like, if possible, to get just ONE CTer on this board to
>step out of the conspiracy pit for just a minute and
>evaluate the points I'm going to make below and then be
>willing to agree with me that in order to believe that things
>really happened the way many CTers say they did, the CT
>version of what occurred to explain ALL the "SBT wounds" that
>were sustained by both JFK and JBC requires FAR greater
>leaps of faith and produces MANY more "unexplainable"
>loose ends than does the official Single-Bullet Theory version
>of events. .........
>
>
>If the SBT is indeed incorrect, then we are forced to believe
>that not just ONE, but TWO, rifle bullets failed to penetrate
>all the way through the neck and back of JFK -- from probably
>high-powered weapons, because WHY would any plotters trying to
>kill the President -- and no doubt wanting to MAKE SURE
>THEY KILL HIM AT ALL COSTS -- utilize anything BUT
>high-powered weaponry in such a murder attempt?
>
>Logical? I say no, it is not.
>
>If you wish to argue that perhaps ONE of the shots was a
>"dum-dum" of some type, or that ONE shot was a misfire and
>therefore the velocity entering Kennedy was severely reduced
>-- OK. But TWO such shots of this kind that do not transit the
>soft flesh of JFK in the throat AND upper back regions?
>
>Odds please?
>
>Even if you want to argue (and you have and shall again no
>doubt) that the "angles" are not PRECISELY dead-on correct for
>the SBT to "work" or "align" properly back to the "Oswald
>window" in the Texas School Book Depository -- in my
>considered viewpoint, ANY conspiracy theory that we're forced
>to "substitute" for the official SBT falls apart on many, many
>different levels.
>
>For example -- Here's what certainly MUST have occurred (via
>the CT account) INSTEAD of the SBT:
>
>1.) Three shots must "replace" the one single shot known as
>the "SBT". There IS no way around this first point
>here. Because LACKING the SBT to explain the throat wound to
>JFK and both of the victims' separate back wounds, CTers are
>forced to postulate that one of the two following things
>occurred........
>
>A.) The bullet that struck JFK did go all the way
>through him but, somehow spectacularly, MISSED the man sitting
>right in front of him who was in direct line to receive this
>bullet and this bullet was then scooped up from inside the
>limo by plotters after the fact and disposed of AND the damage
>to the inside of the limousine that was no doubt caused by
>this bullet was completely eradicated in very short order
>after the event. Likely (even in a CT world)? Hardly.
>Especially in light of this WC testimony from Robert Frazier
>of the FBI......
>
>Mr. SPECTER -- "Did your examination of the President's
>limousine disclose any other holes or markings which could
>have conceivably been caused by a bullet striking the
>automobile or any part of the automobile?"
>
>Mr. FRAZIER -- "No, sir."
>
>-- Or: --
>
>B.) Lacking the T&T shot through JFK, we're left to accept a
>3-Shot scenario to explain these wounds to the two victims --
>fired by THREE separate gunmen as well (two from the rear and
>one from the front). Given the very tight timeline (even per
>CTers, who have JFK hit in the throat with Shot #1 at Z195 to
>Z200 approx.), I'd like to know how there could have possibly
>been LESS than three gunmen utilized to inflict all these
>wounds in the allowable timeframe?
>
>2.) All three of these (supposedly) entry wounds on JFK & JBC
>line themselves up in such a fashion on the bodies to give the
>APPEARANCE that they could have ALL been "in line" so
>as to have been caused by just a single missile passing
>through both men simultaneously. .... I have yet to hear any
>reasonable and believable CT explanation that logically
>rationalizes and defends this amazing "wound placement"
>occurrence on TWO different victims. Even CTers must admit
>that the likelihood of these wounds aligning in such a fashion
>on two victims is pretty remote at best. For, if THREE gunmen
>managed to pull that shooting feat off with three different
>bullets, then it's a marksmanship accomplishment that should
>be featured prominently at Ripley's Believe-It-Or-Not
>Museum, IMHO.
>
>3.) ALL THREE bullets that are replacing the SBT via a CTer's
>alternate theory now ALL get lost! Or are ALL disposed of by
>evil plotters! In either instance, all three bullets that
>peppered Kennedy & Connally are never entered into any kind of
>Official record representing this murder case. Odds please? Is
>this a logical conclusion to come to?
>
>For one thing: Why didn't Dr. Malcolm Perry (or Dr. Carrico
>or Dr. Jenkins or Dr. McClelland) physically SEE the bullet
>that only ventured part way through Mr. Kennedy's throat? It
>seems logical to me, given the HANDS-ON circumstances we're
>dealing with here re. Perry's having to make an actual
>incision into this VERY wound in the throat for tracheostomy
>purposes, that Perry (or others) might very well have been
>able to see the bullet in JFK's throat, seeing as how it did
>not exit, per this theory.
>
>In short, how could the "plotters" have possibly gotten THAT
>LUCKY so that all three of those whole bullets, in 2 bodies,
>were never recovered by anyone at Parkland Hospital, and so
>lucky to NOT have even ONE of these three bullets enter the
>official record at any time? Especially with regard to the
>Connally AWOL bullet. Here's a bullet that enters a man who
>LIVED through the ordeal, and whose body could not be
>"controlled" later at some "fixed" or "phonied" autopsy by the
>conspirators (as many CTers believe occurred with respect to
>JFK's autopsy at Bethesda).
>
>This Connally bullet, IMO, is the KEY bullet that shows
>beyond any reasonable doubt that no foul play was afoot
>with respect to the bullets. This unexpected SECOND victim of
>the assassination attempt (JBC), and yet ANOTHER (THIRD)
>bullet that is "conveniently missing", makes it FAR more
>difficult to believe in a vast conspiracy and cover-up in this
>case (overall). I ask: What are the odds that the plotters
>could have "controlled" all the trace evidence within TWO
>victims in such a plot, one of whom survived the shooting?
>
>4.) With respect to TWO separate bullets that BOTH fail to
>transit the body of President Kennedy -- I'll ask again the
>same recurring inquiry
> here -- What Are The Odds? What is the likelihood that these
>conspirators would have had TWO "dud" rounds fired into JFK?
>-- TWO non-lethal missiles that pierce his body only a
>LITTLE BIT, and fail to kill him OR to penetrate the soft
>tissues of his neck and upper back? Doesn't this sound the
>slightest bit GOOFY to anyone else but me?
>
>But perhaps a better question here might be -- WHY would
>killers, bent on having a dead President by the end of
>November 22nd, have utilized such low-powered weaponry in a
>Presidential assassination attempt? Shouldn't they have
>wanted, and insisted, on the MAXIMUM firepower possible here?
>And if not, why not? Why would ANY "Pre-Kill" shots NEED to be
>fired at the President? Just...why? Does this add up at all?
>
>It would also be very interesting to know the odds of JFK
>having NO metal fragments or trace evidence of bullets left
>inside his neck & back regions IF he had been, in fact,
>shot TWICE in these areas of the body AND if these bullets had
>remained in him for several hours after he was shot by
>these non-transiting missiles.
>
>I'm not entirely sure how valid this argument might be on my
>LN behalf -- but isn't it a little more than likely that at
>least one of these bullets that somehow just came to a dead
>STOP in JFK's neck & back would have left at least a tiny bit
>of trace evidence behind? (Or do the CTers that espouse this
>theory also theorize that every last tiny grain of metal
>fragments that either of these bullets MIGHT have left inside
>JFK's body was somehow completely eradicated, too, prior to
>autopsy and prior to the X-rays being taken?)
>
>When combined all together, don't ALL of these CT
>points that would have HAD to have occurred in order to
>explain the "SBT wounds" AND lack of bullets entering the
>official record seem just a tad far-fetched and unrealistic?
>
>To me, they're more than just a "tad" far-fetched and
>unreasonable -- they're downright illogical from every
>point-of-view. It seems to me that any attempts to explain
>those wounds that were sustained at virtually an identical
>time by John Kennedy and John Connally in a "CT light" fail to
>hold up the least little bit when held up to the bright light
>of scrutiny.
>
>If the only way to "explain away" the SBT to "fit" a
>conspiracy scenario is to come up with a "plot" that includes
>THREE different shooters, firing THREE bullets into two
>different victims, from THREE different locations, and
>incredibly have all three of these missiles pepper the victims
>in just such a pattern so that it looks like it COULD (even
>remotely so) be reconciled into a "SBT", and THEN (on top of
>this miracle bit of shooting by three different gunmen) to get
>ALL THREE of these separate bullets to vanish and to never
>enter the official record -- then, from where I sit, plain ol'
>common sense is telling me that something's just a bit screwy
>about this "CT" plot which perfectly worked out to appease the
>WC and its loyal followers.
>
>And -- Any such "multi-shooter" scenario is also very
>unlikely (probability-wise alone) from the popular "Frame
>The Patsy Oswald" standpoint. Would these plotters have
>deliberately been so foolhardy and utterly reckless as to fire
>three separate shots into JFK's body (including the head
>shot), from varying angles (some of them non-"SN" angles), and
>yet STILL, incredibly, expect every last scrap of ballistic
>evidence to get traced back to ONLY Lee Oswald's rifle AND get
>traced back to only Oswald's "Sniper's Nest" window in the
>Depository? They couldn't POSSIBLY have thought that this
>"Multi-Shooter Patsy Plan" could succeed on its BEST
>day! Could they? (I think not.)
>
>Whereas, the "LN alternative" rests (IMO) on the very logical
>and sound shoulders of the "SBT" -- a theory in which all of
>the following is thoroughly explained.......
>
>1.) Every bullet (totalling 'one' in number) is recovered and
>enters the official record (Bullet #CE399). There are no
>mysteries as to any "missing" missiles.
>
>2.) The fact that no bullets were found inside JFK or JBC is
>perfectly logical and to be expected via the SBT. Plus the
>very important fact that no bullet holes or similar missile
>damage was done to the limo's interior in the back seat areas
>of the automobile.
>
>3.) All wounds to both men are perfectly consistent with the
>SBT. The downward, back-to-front and slightly right-to-left
>"alignment" of the wounds suffered by JFK & JBC are, IMO,
>wholly indicative of a single shot that passed through both
>men (esp. when factoring in the oblong wound in the back
>sustained by JBC, plus the lack of bullets found in the
>bodies, AND the fact that no one ELSE was hit by gunfire in
>the limousine, AND the fact that no damage was done to the
>car's rear or jump seats by any missiles during the
>shooting).
>
>4.) Via the Zapruder Film, the SBT "holds up" under intense
>scrutiny as well (IMO), with both victims reacting to external
> bullet) stimulus at virtually an identical time on the film.
>People will no doubt argue this point until the cows come
>home, but I still defy ANYONE to look at the Z-Film (running
>at regular, real-time speed) and tell me they can say with
>certainty that President Kennedy and Governor Connally are NOT
>reacting to being hit by a bullet at the very same point in
>time.
>
>------------
>
>Many CTers don't think it's necessary at all to come up with
>any kind of logical "alternative" scenario to explain all the
>wounds to JFK and JBC -- let alone a full, complete
>version of the pre-Head Shot event which would tie up
>all or most of the "loose ends" with regard to this event.
>They just seem to KNOW that the SBT is dead wrong based on the
>angles being slightly off or the reactions of the two victims
>being far enough apart to make the SBT an impossibility.
>
>But any CT substitute "answers" to reconcile all these wounds
>in two victims (when such "answers" occasionally are provided,
>always in the form of pure out-&-out guesses by the CT
>community) are FAR less credible and less substantive and far
>less BELIEVABLE (IMO) than is the official version of the
>event -- the SBT.
>
>In fact, even the majority of CTers (from what I've seen
>anyway) cannot even agree with EACH OTHER on some of the most
>essential and basic things that occurred on Elm Street on
>11-22-63.
>
>IOW -- Why should I place any faith in any of a wide variety
>of unsupportable theories coming from a horde of
>self-appointed "experts" in the CT community who berate the
>Official WC version of events sometimes without even FULLY
>knowing what the WC conclusions are? (This comment isn't
>really directed at Lancer Forum members, but is aimed mostly
>at other people I've encountered in this regard.)
>
>But, IMO, the critics have done little to disprove the
>SBT. But, on the flip-side of that coin, there have been
>true-to-life and animated tests performed over the years that
>have backed up (concretely) the validity of the Single-Bullet
>Theory. But these tests, too, have been ridiculed as being
>"inaccurate", with "manufactured" angles and results, and
>incorrect measurements utilized. I, naturally, completely and
>fervently disagree.
>
>From what I've seen re. these "tests" (the FAA simulation,
>Mr. Myers' project, and the 2004 Discovery Channel SBT
>re-creation, which should, in my view, be VERY convincing to
>any critic of the theory, but, of course, is not), they've
>been conducted in an open and wholly above-board and honest
>manner, with re-creations that are as close to being as
>accurate as humanly possible (esp. given the "unknowns"
>regarding some measurements -- like the EXACT positioning of
>Mr. Connally's wrist at the moment the bullet hit him, plus
>the EXACT positioning of JFK and JBC to each other in the car
>during the shooting; these things can only be "guesses" to a
>certain extent, no matter which side of the debate you reside
>on, as I'm sure even all CTers will concur).
>
>What I'd like to see are similar "Discovery Channel"-like
>tests done by the CT side, in order to PROVE once and for all
>their belief that the SBT is so full of holes you could
>drive the President's X-100 Lincoln convertible through them!
>Thus far, I've seen NO such tests that would PROVE that either
>Mr. Myers or The Discovery Channel people got it completely
>wrong.
>
>Until such proof can be reasonably demonstrated, I
>truly cannot see how anyone can totally dismiss the
>possibility (or probability, IMO) that the Single-Bullet
>Theory is the CORRECT THEORY in the JFK murder
>case.
>
>Even when viewed at a slower speed, I still challenge anyone
>watching this top clip (below) of the Zapruder Film to provide
>one shred of verifiable proof that the Single-Bullet
>Theory is a Lone-Nutter's wild fantasy.
>
>Tell me the truth, what do you see here? Thank you.
>..........
>
>
>
>



To tell the truth, David, in spite of all your lopsided and inaccurate rhetoric
you still can't escape the Elm Street witnesses who heard the first shot and SAW JFK's IMMEDIATE REACTION TO THE FIRST SHOT. John Connally HEARD THE FIRST SHOT BUT WAS NOT WOUNDED BY THE FIRST SHOT. HE HAS TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS HIT BY ANOTHER SHOT. The truth is the SBT is just a THEORETICAL SMOKESCREEN developed by the OFFICIAL TEAM to hide the truth about the murder. CE399 was planted because it CANNOT be forensically connected to the wounding of JFK and JBC. Your obstinance is only exceeded by your inability to recognize the TRUTH. If a group can control the evidence, which witness testimony to use, the investigators, the investigation, the media, and the official decisions and opinions about what happened in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 they can MAKE IT TURN OUT ANY WAY THEY WANT IT, officially, of course. Abe Lincoln said it best, "Your can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." That's why more than 70% of Americans don't believe the OFFICIAL VERSION of the assassination. They know the truth is Kennedy and Connally were hit by two different bullets so the SBT isn't what really happened. Turn out the lights, the party's over. We CTers may not KNOW what really happened but we do know the OFFICIAL VERSION is not true. Regards, Jim
>