JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Don't be daft PI.



I could suggest that you're being daft.

It's easy to do, but I prefer to employ reasoned argument.

You are saying, by implication, that Sibert and O'Neill were daft too.





First the drawings aren't to any sort of scale.



It does not matter.

The back wound is obviously several inches below the throat wound, as noted by Sibert and O'Neill.

The back wound was, as recorded on the autopsy diagrams, 15 cm below the neckline.




The actual photo of the entry wound at the top of the right shoulder area is in the right place for the exit in the throat when you look at the photo of JFK in the car.


That is not true.



The angle of a downward trajectory is also correct too because when seated in the posture shown in the car, the entry wound on the upper back is higher relative to the exit wound on the throat.



That is not true.


A bullet entering Kennedy's back six inches below the neckline at an angle of 45-60 degrees could not have exited the front of Kennedy's throat.



You just can't grasp what is actually a very simple issue



If it's so simple and you are right, why did the Warren Commission lawyers have to raise the back wound by five inches in order to line up the back wound and the throat wound?

And why do their drawings and reconstructions show a much smaller angle than the 45-60 degrees estimated by Hume?

You are contriving arguments on which even the Warren Commission did not rely, in order to try to prove its findings correct.

What you are suggesting is laughable: that a bullet entering Kennedy's back six inches below the neckline at a downward angle of 45-60 degrees could have passed through the front of his throat.

I suggest you do a reconstruction (without bullets), showing a real person, the point of entry of the bullet, the downwards trajectory, and the point at which it exits the body.

It will be somewhere in the lower abdomen - if not lower.

Why don't you try it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please see my replies below.

Wulf has addressed this point. If you don’t like the answer then tough. I’m not willing to go over this point again.

I’ve just made a post pointing to a man behind the picket fence at the time of the murder confirmed by 2 people who saw zilch. You avoid that like the plague I see (as do the others) I don’t know why I’m surprised.

If some people read more than just the works of conspiracy theorists you might get somewhere.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Wulf has addressed this point. If you don’t like the answer then tough. I’m not willing to go over this point again.

He has not addressed anything.

He has not replied yet.

It's not a question of not liking the answer; I haven't even received one.

I didn't ask you to go over anything, so there's no need to tell me that you refuse to do something that I haven't asked you to do.

Maybe using words like tough the way you do may seem appropriate to you, but over here it's not considered polite.

Maybe even over there.

[GBinOz]

As you know, it’s not my view, but it’s good to know.

Hi Frank,

I'm not entirely clear on your view. Can you elaborate please?

Best regards, George

[Aethelwulf]

Please see my replies below.

I reckon a five year old could grasp this. Given the position of JFK as shown the when sitting in the car, the entry wound on JFK's upper right back is relatively higher than the where exit would be on the throat. It really is that simple. Is anyone sure what the actual angle was - clearly there was a large uncertainty at the time (15 degrees). I don't know if any modern studies have looked at this. The wounds clearly show a downward trajectory from the upper right back, out through lower throat and hitting Connally's hand.

I know you can't really understand. I won't reply to you again because you just can't get this, instead you just demand answers like a stroppy child.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I reckon a five year old could grasp this. Given the position of JFK as shown the when sitting in the car, the entry wound on JFK's upper right back is relatively higher than the where exit would be on the throat. It really is that simple. Is anyone sure what the actual angle was - clearly there was a large uncertainty at the time (15 degrees). I don't know if any modern studies have looked at this. The wounds clearly show a downward trajectory from the upper right back, out through lower throat and hitting Connally's hand.

I know you can't really understand. I won't reply to you again because you just can't get this, instead you just demand answers like a stroppy child.

Try another language Wulf.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

I reckon a five year old could grasp this.

That is a gratuitous insult.

I suggest you yourself behave like a grown-up instead of making remarks like that.



Given the position of JFK as shown the when sitting in the car, the entry wound on JFK's upper right back is relatively higher than the where exit would be on the throat. It really is that simple.


If it is so simple, can you refer readers to experts who agree with your explanation?

Did the Warren Commission share your view?

Or the HSCA?

Or any of the writers cited on this forum?




Is anyone sure what the actual angle was - clearly there was a large uncertainty at the time (15 degrees). I don't know if any modern studies have looked at this. The wounds clearly show a downward trajectory from the upper right back, out through lower throat and hitting Connally's hand.



You are still evading the issue, which is that a bullet entering Kennedy's back about six inches below the neckline at a downward angle of 45-60 degrees could not have exited the front of his throat, regardless of how he was sitting.



I know you can't really understand.

I know you can't do the reconstruction I challenged you to do, because if you did, it would prove your theory wrong.



I won't reply to you again because you just can't get this, instead you just demand answers like a stroppy child.



I suggest the real reason you won't reply is that you cannot substantiate your theory - whether by reference to any research by anyone else or by doing the reconstruction I challenged you to do.

I avoid insulting people, but the truth is that your latest post is about as childish a response as it is possible to post.

You are in a tight corner, with no way out, and you resort to insult and announce that you will make no further response.

I suppose one could not expect a more sensible response from someone who once commented on one of my posts as follows:

'what are you on about'

Even a child of five could have managed to post something more appropriate - and with some punctuation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please see my replies below.

The single bullet theory has been recreated using CGI and more. Whatever words that you type next are irrelevant. It is PROVEN that it lines up. Responding further to your points on this subject is pointless and tedious. Wulf has tried explaining it to you but it’s a case of

[cobalt]

‘If the conspirators had little interest in reports and autopsies then why did they allegedly fake them?’
I thought I had made clear the distinction between conspirators (before the act) and those involved in the cover-up (after the act.)

The conspirators had from the 6^th June 1963, the date JFK’s Texas visit was announced, to organise the assassination. On 25^th September Dallas was confirmed as a host city and the motorcade, which Kennedy wanted, confirmed on 4^th October. There would have been three main objectives: to organise a team of shooters; to select the best place from which to shoot; and to provide a suitable ‘patsy’ the assassination could be blamed on in order to draw public attention away from the real conspirators.

Arranging shooters was the easy part: the CIA had been training anti-Castro Cubans for a planned incursion into Cuba since at least 1961 and JFK was seen as a person who had betrayed them. Reconnaissance, spotters, arranging logistics such as transport, weapons and fake ID along with a team of four shooters would have required no more than a dozen personnel.

As for the ‘patsy,’ Oswald had been doing a good job of incriminating himself with his visits to Cuban and Russian embassies in Mexico and FPFC activities. The suspicion is that he embarked on these fool’s errands at the behest of elements within the CIA. For example his brief leafleting in New Orleans was covered by local media who must have been alerted. Oswald’s job at the TSBD began on October 16^th after the skeleton plan for JFK’s visit had been agreed upon.

The conspirators’ biggest problem was presumably selecting the site for the assassination. The first choice for Kennedy’s luncheon had been the Statler Hilton which is little over half a mile from the TSBD. However the Bottlers’ Convention of Carbonated Beverages had already booked that venue and were reluctant to give it up. As a result Richard Nixon, representing Pepsi as a lawyer, spent the evening before the assassination there before leaving early next morning.
The Trade Mart was considered a security risk and although it was mooted on 4^th November by the Dallas Chamber of Commerce as an alternative venue, it was not until 14^th November this was confirmed. This fateful decision allowed the turn into Elm Street past the TSBD although that possibility may have been anticipated by the conspirators some time beforehand or influenced by them at a later date. One DPD officer claimed the turn was unnecessary and that had the motorcade proceeded down Main Street then it would still have been possible to make a right turn on to the Stemmons Freeway towards the Trade Mart. No one has ever taken ownership of that Elm Street decision for obvious reasons in light of what occurred.

I think we can discount the notions of chauffeur William Greer or Lyndon Johnson being part of any conspiracy: they were in the firing line themselves and would have had to have great trust in the assassins’ accuracy. But Johnson must have worked out who was behind the assassination.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The single bullet theory has been recreated using CGI and more. Whatever words that you type next are irrelevant. It is PROVEN that it lines up. Responding further to your points on this subject is pointless and tedious. Wulf has tried explaining it to you but it’s a case of

I have two short documentaries on YouTube, refuting two computerised reconstructions which purport to prove the validity of the single bullet theory.

One is by Dale Myers.

The other is by Luke and Michael Haag.

They all make the same basic mistake, of showing the bullet passing through Kennedy's shirt and jacket collars.

There would have been four bullet holes instead of two.

There were no holes in Kennedy's collars.

All three investigators, in their presentations, fail to mention the fact that Kennedy was shot in the back.

How could they, while at the same time claiming that he was shot in the back of the neck?

Furthermore, the Haags show the shot entering at a downwards angle of something like 20 degrees, whereas Hume estimated it at 45 to 60 degrees.




You have to fall back on responses like 'Responding further to your points on this subject is pointless and tedious' because the alternative is to lose the argument.

You claim, 'It is PROVEN that it lines up'.

It always is 'proven', with completely different conditions!

The Warren Commission raised the entrance wound by five inches.

Wulf raises Kennedy's back.

Others raise Kennedy's shirt and jacket.

These are all contrivances - to get the wounds to line up.

But the wounds do not line up.


You like to challenge me to find other members who agree with me.

Well, how many members can you find who agree with you and Wulf that


(1) Kennedy could have been sitting in such a position that a wound to his back six inches below the neckline could have been at a higher level than his Adam's apple?


(2) A bullet entering the same back wound at a downwards angle of 45-60 degrees could have gone on to exit Kennedy's throat?


Your response will likely be something along the lines of 'It is proven; it would be pointless and tedious to try explaining it to them.'

You and Wulf are in a tight spot and the only cards you have left to play are condescension and a refusal to respond further.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have two short documentaries on YouTube, refuting two computerised reconstructions which purport to prove the validity of the single bullet theory.

One is by Dale Myers.

The other is by Luke and Michael Haag.

They all make the same basic mistake, of showing the bullet passing through Kennedy's shirt and jacket collars.

There would have been four bullet holes instead of two.

There were no holes in Kennedy's collars.

All three investigators, in their presentations, fail to mention the fact that Kennedy was shot in the back.

How could they, while at the same time claiming that he was shot in the back of the neck?

Furthermore, the Haags show the shot entering at a downwards angle of something like 20 degrees, whereas Hume estimated it at 45 to 60 degrees.




You have to fall back on responses like 'Responding further to your points on this subject is pointless and tedious' because the alternative is to lose the argument.

You claim, 'It is PROVEN that it lines up'.

It always is 'proven', with completely different conditions!

The Warren Commission raised the entrance wound by five inches.

Wulf raises Kennedy's back.

Others raise Kennedy's shirt and jacket.

These are all contrivances - to get the wounds to line up.

But the wounds do not line up.


You like to challenge me to find other members who agree with me.

Well, how many members can you find who agree with you and Wulf that


(1) Kennedy could have been sitting in such a position that a wound to his back six inches below the neckline could have been at a higher level than his Adam's apple?


(2) A bullet entering the same back wound at a downwards angle of 45-60 degrees could have gone on to exit Kennedy's throat?


Your response will likely be something along the lines of 'It is proven; it would be pointless and tedious to try explaining it to them.'

You and Wulf are in a tight spot and the only cards you have left to play are condescension and a refusal to respond further.

No. My response is……shut up.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

No. My response is……shut up.

That's all you can do when you have lost an argument: issue insults.

[Pcdunn]

like 20 degrees, whereas Hume estimated it at 45 to 60 degrees.
.

How do we know Hume's estimation of the angle WAS correct?

[Joshua Rogan]

How do we know Hume's estimation of the angle WAS correct?

Very good point. For this angle to be correct the president would have had to be reclining drastically, or the shooter would have needed to be firing from about the 15th floor of the TSBD.

[Aethelwulf]

Very good point. For this angle to be correct the president would have had to be reclining drastically, or the shooter would have needed to be firing from about the 15th floor of the TSBD.

The Haag's have published their research in Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners journal (sounds like a rather niche read)(https://www.safetylit.org/citations/...ls&citationIds[]=citjournalarticle_452726_20). The paper isn't open access so can't get the full details

They did an interview about it though - well worth a read (https://www.npr.org/2013/11/22/24673...-cold-case-jfk). They went to the Plaza and the book building and used laser scanning to create a 3D model of the site, including the inside and out of the book building. Any point in the model is accurate to within 5 mm. Obviously this technology wasn't available at the time. Whatever angle they have will be more accurate to those computed at the time. Look at the actual photo of the entry wound on JFK's upper back just below the neck and the photo of him in the car. It all lines up.

They also conducted extensive research on the bullets. They got bullets from the same manufacturer and fired them through three feet of wood and they were intact. The different responses of the bullets are discusses (back shot and head shot) and there is no mystery.

Now that is it, I'm wasting far too much time.