JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[ColdCaseJury]

(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?

Or are you suggesting the two wounds are connected, but fired from a different trajectory? If so, what one? Or are the two wounds unconnected - if so where are the corresponding exit/entrance wounds?

It is years ago since I researched the assassination, so would be grateful to be brought up to speed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is this the same study?

https://www.npr.org/2013/11/22/24673...-cold-case-jfk

[Aethelwulf]

Is this the same study?

https://www.npr.org/2013/11/22/24673...-cold-case-jfk

Yes, was going to quote some text but if you look it's copyright.

[GBinOz]

Hi Frank,

This conversation has been preying on my mind.

The president was alive at this stage and capable of head movement without external factors.
This is a surprising answer, to say the very least, George. Are we really to believe he would be motionless for some 3 seconds, very likely unconscious as a result from the first bullet that ever hit him, and then, on impact of the bullet that made his head explode, move his head an inch or 2 forward all by himself? I find that very unconvincing.

My response (in blue) was to your question:
In frame 313 the president’s head is slightly ahead of the position it was in in frame 312. It’s just the president’s head and nothing or nobody else in the car, not even the president’s torso.

I was in error here. I was thinking you were referring to the instant before the shot, and obviously (now) you were not. I have been looking at images here:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig1_325023601




As a result of the esteem in which I hold you opinions, I am re-examining this evidence. I recall you asked whether the head shot from the rear might, IMO, have been frangible. My first impression is that, while the exit debris is on the correct side, the quantity is not what I would attribute to a frangible projectile, being more consistent with a FMJ. To add a few comments, to my knowledge cartridges for the Carcano were all FMJ. Could the projectile be replaced. Yes. But it would have to be hand made. Could it be fired from the TSBD rifle. Probably so. Would the sighting image be the same as for the FMJ. No. The conversion would require a bullet extractor, a high end powder scale and a loading press. I would say at least a hundred rounds would need to be loaded with different powder loads to match the weight velocity equation of the original projectiles so that the drop table would roughly equate. There would have to be test firings at a range. Even then, the drop tables would vary with distance to a moving target. I consider it unlikely that Oswald would have either the equipment or the skill to achieve this task, but it could be achieved by someone with more professional skills. A far easier and more practical solution is another shooter with a rifle set up for the frangible round.

At this stage I am awaiting your reply to my last post and pondering on all the possibilities.

Best regards, George

[GBinOz]

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

Your use of the word "polite" has sent at least two members scurrying for a dictionary.

[DJA]

[caz]

You will not be producing any examples from the history of warfare or violent crime of anyone ever having been propelled backwards by a shot from behind?

You will not say whether you have ever seen such footage of people being shot from behind, including footage taken of massacres in Nazi-occupied territory?

You will not answer the point about the entrance wound to Kennedy's back being raised by five inches in order to sustain the Single Bullet Theory?

Could people please stop shouting all the way through a post, as my ears are bleeding. It won't make the arguments any stronger.

Thank you in advance.

Love,

Caz
X

[GBinOz]

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.

I suggest we round up a couple of new five year olds, as the best the current ones can come up with is "My response is……shut up."

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, was going to quote some text but if you look it's copyright.

Cheers Wulf, I wasn’t sure.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I suggest we round up a couple of new five year olds, as the best the current ones can come up with is "My response is……shut up."

Your lack of self-awareness is nothing short of staggering George. You complain about my ‘shut up’ response with an insult. Add that to the other quotes that I posted directly from you (which you completely turned a blind eye too!) and we see nothing but hypocrisy.

Perhaps if you and Fishy spent less time complaining about some my posts (which were nothing more than mocking, dismissive or sarcastic - and which I’ve taken responsibility for; unlike yourself and Fishy) and took a look at your own posts; and also if you’d taken the usual ‘forum’ approach of responding to posts (rather than just dismissing them as WC apologist lies or because they have any connection to Vincent Bugliosi) followed by bombarding me with questions that you demand answered for then a reasonable discussion could have been had. Also if you and other CT’s didn’t rely on the hollow and frankly embarrassing cries of ‘fake’ and ‘forgery’ every time that you’re confronted with contrary evidence then an adult discussion could have taken place.

On the bright side, you appear to have gained a substitute while Fishy is moving house.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No response to my detailed post about Holland, Boone, Towner and Desroe I see. Then again, the rule is that CT’s only ask questions.

Or my long and detailed post about the obvious shortcomings of the 18 witnesses that George used?

Or the point about why would conspirators set up a fraudulent autopsy at Bethesda but apply not a single precaution at Parkland (especially when considering the Parkland had to have been the hospital that a wounded Kennedy would have been taken to; unlike Bethesda where there were other options, and Bethesda was the decision of the family.)

It really couldn’t be clearer (it’s hear in black and white) how conspiracists are clearly resistant to answering difficult questions even going to the extent of using fake outrage as an excuse for silence.

[caz]

‘Nit picking.’ The last resort of the man without detailed evidence. IP does well not to engage personally with HS but to confront his arguments. That is the best policy. Keep going. Rather like Sinatra, HS is always about to do his last tour. But he keeps coming back. A few hours ago he questioned whether Davis was ever in the Texas Theatre. Now he accepts this as fact since- guess what- the WC said so. The WC and Bugliosi are his bible, that much is clear. Faith before fact is his mantra.

I was accused recently that my boxing metaphor of the head moving towards the source of impact, unprecedented in boxing history, was wrong on the basis I had no expertise in this area. I respect experts but never to the extent they have the right to loot my common sense. I would recommend this approach to others.

Therefore I would offer any physics ‘expert’ the opportunity to go into the ring with Mike Tyson and disprove my wild claim. If his head is driven forward as Tyson inflicts brain damage I will accept the results as conclusive. HS is obviously invited to test the theory as well before he heads off to his next barbecue. Best of luck and have a medical team on standby.

Hi cobalt,

How is a punch to a man's head in a boxing ring relevant to, or comparable with, a bullet fired at a moving target from some distance out in the open, in windy conditions?

I don't know; I'm just asking the question because I'm interested. How is a boxing-gloved fist relevant to the peer-reviewed scientific findings regarding bullets?

How are you hoping to counter those specific findings using the sport of boxing? Come on, cobalt, I know you're better than this.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The Doctors and scientist have been produced Cobalt. Clearly you no more. Fine.

Tyson’s fist is a tad heavier than a bullet. I’m not a scientist and I knew that.

Careful, HS, or you'll be accused of 'nit picking'.

Not the easiest job in boxing gloves, I should imagine, or while carrying an unfeasibly long ham and cheese baguette, even by American standards. But I'd only be guessing. Nitty Nora used a comb dipped in Dettol when I was a girl.

Would it be another guess that a boxing glove and a bullet can pack identical punches with identical results?

Why do I keep thinking of Roger Irrelevant when reading some of the more outlandish CT guff on this thread?

If a CT is credible, it needs arguments about boxing like it needs a bullet hole in the head.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I'm not going to get personal, but I imagine others reading this will wonder, as I do, what kind of investigator would deprecate the eyewitness testimony of a secret service agent who saw Kennedy's head as close up as anyone ever could have seen it and testified that he saw a large piece of the back of his skull lying on the back seat and a corresponding gap in the back of the skull?

It shocks me to see someone treating evidence in that way.

So now we can trust all secret service agents, in PI's opinion, to have been beyond reproach in this case?

Fascinating.

I thought they'd be near the top of the list of suspected conspirators. Either that, or the secret service had no intelligence in either sense of the word.

[cobalt]

In response to Caz's point regarding boxing:

The use of analogy has been established since at least the time of Plato so is not unique to this JFK site. No analogy can be perfect of course and is bound to contain differences, but the idea is to try to shed light on a topic. In this case the empirical observation that a human struck with great force- whether by a fist, car or bullet- will be thrown away from that force, not towards it. I doubt wind conditions make any difference to that observation.

Peer reviewed experts examining ballistics can set up their dead goats and test dummies and reach agreement I don’t doubt.