Re: Bugliosi's SBT Refuted - Watch Von Penis Run Away!

On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 21:09:37 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 11:39:01?AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my 
>> responses...) 
>> 
>> >"1. Perhaps the biggest argument the anti-single-bullet-theory 
>> > advocates make is that the alignment of Kennedy's and Connally's 
>> > bodies to each other was such that any bullet passing through Kennedy 
>> > would have had to make a right turn in midair to go on and hit John 
>> > Connally - thus, the 'magic bullet' of conspiracy lore. ..." Pg 458 
>> 
>> This might be Bugliosi's opinion... but I think the problem *first* 
>> begins with demonstrating transit - there's very little evidence that 
>> a bullet transited JFK's body. But to deal with Bugliosi's point - tis 
>> true that some CT authors have misrepresented Connally's position 
>> relative to JFK, but this is hardly the nail in the coffin that 
>> Bugliosi believes it to be. Particularly since the proponents of the 
>> SBT need Connally to be turned to his right *MORE THAN HE WAS*. 
>> 
>> > "2. A second powerful reason to believe in the validity of the 
>> > single-bullet theory without any reference to the Zapruder film is the 
>> > lack of any physical evidence supporting a second gunman. As has 
>> > already been established, *three* shell casings ejected from Oswald's 
>> > Mannlicher-Carcano rifle were found on the sixth floor of the Book 
>> > Depository Building beneath the southeasternmost window. If, indeed, a 
>> > fourth shot had been fired that day (and hence, there was a second 
>> > assassin), how is it possible that not one person, out of an estimated 
>> > crowd of four to five hundred spectators in Dealey Plaza, saw a second 
>> > gunman? (e.g., a shell casing, a fourth bullet, a second rifle, etc.)? 
>> > Are we to believe, then, that the second gunman simply vanished into 
>> > thin air? Or is that nonsense? Again the lack of any physical evidence 
>> > of a second gunman, all by itself, is extremely powerful evidence 
>> > supporting the single-bullet theory." Pg 462-463 
>> 
>> Bugliosi doesn't address the known problems with CE543, (the lack of a 
>> 'chamber-mark'), nor the fact that the *earliest* evidence shows only 
>> *two* shells, not three. 
>> 
>> Bugliosi argues that if a second gunman was not seen by anyone, then 
>> he doesn't exist. A rather silly argument, as he himself must 
>> certainly know. 
>> 
>> I'm not surprised that he doesn't want to deal with the Z-film, since 
>> it shows the strongest evidence that the SBT never happened. 
>> 
>> > "3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive 
>> > evidence proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound 
>> > in Governor Connally's back was not circular, but oval. ..." Pg 463 
>> 
>> Bugliosi has just proven that JFK had someone *BEHIND* him! Amazing! 
>> Since the bullet that entered JFK's back left an oval wound, we 
>> clearly have a "magic bullet" twice... not once. 
>> 
>> "Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper 
>> border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound." 
>> 
>> That makes JFK's at *least* as 'oval' as the entry wound that Connally 
>> sustained: (1.5 x .8mm) 
>> 
>> (Note: Chickenshit is running from this fact right now - and has been 
>> doing so for weeks...) 
>> 
>> But that (a -triple- body transit), is, of course, simply silly. But 
>> Bugliosi must believe it. Let's play a simple game... Let's change 
>> *two* words in Bugliosi's assertion: 
>> 
>> ***************************************************** 
>> 3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence 
>> proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in 
>> President Kennedy's back was not circular, but oval. 
>> ***************************************************** 
>> 
>> Hmmm... the underlying evidence is correct, isn't it? So based on the 
>> assertion that Bugliosi made, he *MUST* accept that JFK had someone 
>> *BEHIND* him that took a bullet too... 
>> 
>> But serious people will recognize that the hit on Connally was 
>> tangential, and because of this - WOULD HAVE TO LEAVE AN OVAL ENTRY 
>> WOUND. For as Dr. Shaw himself noted to the HSCA: "The shape of the 
>> entrance wound was consistent with a missile striking striking in a 
>> slightly downward trajectory." But Bugliosi isn't interested in the 
>> opinion & testimony of the doctor who actually treated this wound. 
>> 
>> (And to think, this is a famous prosecutor - and he can't make 
>> arguments any better than this???) 
>> 
>> > "4. Another reason why we know Connally was hit by the same bullet 
>> > that had struck Kennedy is that the argument that there wasn't enough 
>> > time to fire a second shot from the bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano 
>> > rifle, and hence Connally must have been hit by a second assassin, 
>> > *doesn't go anywhere*. It would only go somewhere if Commission 
>> > Exhibit No. 399, *the bullet that struck Connally* (and which the 
>> > Warren Commission and HSCA concluded had first struck Kennedy), hadn't 
>> > been fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons. 
>> > Therefore, even if we assume that Commission Exhibit No. 399 did not 
>> > first pass through Kennedy's body, *we still know that it was fired 
>> > from Oswald's rifle, not a different rifle*, and we don't have any 
>> > evidence of a second assassin, only Oswald. Or did Oswald, after 
>> > shooting Kennedy in the back, hand his rifle to a second gunman 
>> > standing beside him and say, 'I just shot Kennedy, now you shoot 
>> > Connally?' " Pg. 463-464 
>> 
>> Bugliosi correctly notes that if a *separate* shot hit Connally, then 
>> there was a second assassin. He makes the presumption that CE399 
>> struck JFK ... then Connally - although the evidence that such 
>> happened just isn't there. Most of the medical and some of the 
>> ballistic testimony was in disagreement with this scenario. 
>> 
>> Bugliosi also makes the presumption that we "don't have any evidence 
>> of a second shooter" - which, of course, is a misrepresentation of the 
>> testimony that we have. There is *indeed* "evidence" of a second 
>> assassin. Bugliosi's final statement demonstrates (in my opinion, of 
>> course) the desperation that Bugliosi is feeling... 
>> 
>> > "5. Finally, there's another reason, almost too embarrassingly simple 
>> > to mention, why, independent of all the conclusive reasons set forth 
>> > above, we can almost be certain that the shot that hit Kennedy also 
>> > hit Connally: *no separate bullet was available to hit Connally* ..." 
>> 
>> Considering that one bullet that was fired that day (as even Bugliosi 
>> will admit) WAS NEVER RECOVERED AT ALL, Bugliosi seems rather silly at 
>> this point. We know, from the record, that at least one bullet was 
>> never found, yet, on *that* basis, Bugliosi should be arguing that 
>> there were only two shots fired... Yet he won't make such a silly 
>> statement. 
>> 
>> Yet he expects people to follow his fifth "reason", despite the facts. 
>> 
>> Again, we see omission, since you'll search in vain to find anything 
>> of substance that Chaney related concerning the assassination. We 
>> *know* that James Chaney was the closest non-limo eyewitness to the 
>> shooting, and we *know* that he even had a better viewpoint than 
>> Jackie - who was sitting on the *OTHER* side. What did James Chaney 
>> say? Unfortunately, the Warren Commission didn't bother to interview 
>> the closest police eyewitness to the crime, but we do have secondary 
>> evidence to what Chaney saw: 
>> 
>> Mr. BELIN - What other officers did you talk to and what did they say 
>> that you remember? Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the 
>> statement that the two shots hit Kennedy first and then the other one 
>> hit the Governor. 
>> 
>> But you won't find this in Bugliosi's book - it contradicts the theory 
>> he's attempting to defend. Were Bugliosi attempting to actually be 
>> honest and thorough, he certainly should have dealt with this problem. 
>> 
>> But remember (especially Toddy and Mark - who chastised me for this 
>> prediction) that I predicted that Bugliosi tome would omit evidence 
>> and misrepresent evidence. 
>> 
>> On what basis can Bugliosi defend not telling his readers about James 
>> Chaney? 
>> 
>> Now, however, we get to the interesting part... Here's what Bugliosi 
>> has to say on page 464: 
>> 
>> > "Each of the above five reasons, alone and by themselves, proves the 
>> > single-bullet theory *independent* of the Zapruder film. (I would defy 
>> > any conspiracy theorist to come up with even one - much less five - 
>> > logical arguments that are independent of the Zapruder film and 
>> > support the proposition that Kennedy and Connally were hit by separate 
>> > bullets.)" 
>> 
>> My oh my!! I almost can't *believe* that Bugliosi actually made such a 
>> challenge. Perhaps, not being on the Internet, he doesn't understand 
>> the level of knowledge that some have of the evidence. Now, 
>> understanding that the SBT was never a particular specialty of mine (I 
>> much prefer the medical evidence), I'll see what I can come up with. 
>> 
>> (By the way, I'm amused that Bugliosi wants to restrict the use of the 
>> Z-film ... which is perhaps the strongest evidence of all that the SBT 
>> is wrong.) 
>> 
>> Here it goes: 
>> 
>> 1. The closest police *eyewitness* asserted that separate bullets 
>> struck JFK and Connally - and despite Bugliosi's wishes, the Zapruder 
>> film *corroborates* this. (Actually, there's *NO* eyewitness to my 
>> knowledge that testifies in a manner that would corroborate the SBT) 
>> 
>> 2. The SBT *requires* that there was a transit of the bullet through 
>> JFK - although this was *never* demonstrated. Indeed, efforts were 
>> made at the autopsy to *PREVENT* this determination. I can only 
>> presume that there was a reason - and the logical one is to leave 
>> facts uncovered. 
>> 
>> 3. Governor Connally was there, and *HE* asserts that it didn't happen 
>> this way. 
>> 
>> 4. The downward angles through the President and Connally don't match 
>> up. In fact, once you discard the mythical forward lean of JFK, *if* 
>> you presumed transit, the bullet trajectory was either flat, or moving 
>> *UPWARD*. Connally's angle was *measured* at, as I recall, 25 degrees. 
>> The SBT *requires* JFK to be leaning quite a bit forward, something 
>> that the Zapruder film (yes, despite Bugliosi's desire, evidence is 
>> evidence) does not show. 
>> 
>> 5. The doctors involved, particularly after seeing the alleged bullet, 
>> CE399 - testified that they didn't believe this scenario. Dr. Shaw, 
>> Dr. Gregory, Dr. Finck, Dr. Humes... all stated that CE399 either 
>> couldn't have done what it was alleged to have done, or it was highly 
>> improbable. So too did one of the ballistics experts, who was simply 
>> excised from history by the WCR. 
>> 
>> 6. Both the FBI and Secret Service believed that all three shots hit 
>> targets... that is, JFK was hit by two bullets, and Connally was hit 
>> by a different bullet. Interestingly, this information was hidden by 
>> the WCR - and you won't find it in the 26 volumes either. (Nor, I 
>> believe, does Bugliosi reveal this little tidbit. I could be mistaken, 
>> however, as I've not made it all the way through his book... but at 
>> the *logical* place to deal with it, when Bugliosi was discussing the 
>> SBT, it never appears) 
>> 
>> Example: 
>> 
>> "Preliminary Special Dallas Report No. 1, Assassination of the 
>> President 
>> 
>> At the foot of Elm Street, at a point approximately 200 feet east of 
>> the Houston Street Triple Underpass, on the approach to the Stemmons 
>> Freeway, President Kennedy, who was seated on the right rear seat, was 
>> shot. Immediately thereafter Governor Connally, seated in the right 
>> jump seat, was shot once. The President was then shot the second 
>> time." (Archives, CD 87, Dated Nov. 28) 
>> 
>> 7. Many other eyewitnesses believed that Connally was hit by a 
>> separate bullet. As SSID points out on page 63, "The witnesses' 
>> unanimity on this point was expressed both in newspaper accounts and 
>> official reports. On November 24 The New York Times reported that 
>> after President Kennedy was hit by the first bullet, 'the Governor 
>> turned to see what had happened when he was struck in the back by 
>> another bullet.' This remained the orthodox account in the press right 
>> up to the time the Warren Report with it's controversial 
>> 'single-bullet theory' made its debut." 
>> 
>> 8. There would have been no need for Ford to verbally "move" the 
>> location of the back wound, if the facts were all correct and the SBT 
>> wasn't the desperate theory that it is. 
>> 
>> 9. The SBT was so persuasive that almost half of the Commissioners 
>> didn't believe it. (Russell, Cooper, Boggs) Nor has it proven 
>> persuasive to those experts who would normally be expected to believe 
>> it. For example, Dr. Milton Helpern, who was at one time the Chief 
>> Medical Examiner of New York City... and who has conducted more than 
>> 10,000 autopsies on people killed by bullets. Even Bugliosi would find 
>> it difficult to label Dr. Helpern a "kook". 
>> 
>> 10. The argument must be made (and indeed, is) that Connally, although 
>> bones were broken, had a delayed reaction, while JFK was reacting 
>> quite promptly. This argument is also made by Bugliosi, citing 
>> examples of where people were injured, but didn't realize it until 
>> later. Such an argument is silly in the face of the damage to 
>> Connally's body. 
>> 
>> 11. Audrey Bell, a nurse that helped in Connally's treatment, 
>> describes bullet fragments that could not have come from CE399. 
>> 
>> 12. The HSCA's trajectory analysis, NOVA's computer simulation, and 
>> Posner's SBT diagram all assume Connally was rotated to the right by 
>> some 20-25 degrees in order to get the SBT's horizontal trajectory to 
>> work, a notion that is plainly refuted by the Zapruder film. Again, 
>> the current version of the SBT espoused by most lone-gunman theorists 
>> says the alleged magic-bullet hit occurred at ZZ223-224. In the 
>> Zapruder film we see Connally's shoulders are facing nearly parallel 
>> to the roll bar in Z224. 
>> 
>> The roll bar is a fixed horizontal point inside the limousine, and 
>> thus provides us with an excellent measuring rod. One can look at Z224 
>> and plainly see that Connally's shoulders are nearly parallel to the 
>> roll bar, which would not be the case if his torso were rotated 20-25 
>> degrees to the right. FBI photographic expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt noted 
>> to the WC that in Z222 Connally is turned only slightly to the right 
>> and that in the few frames thereafter he is "almost square, straight 
>> on with the car momentarily": 
>> 
>> Mr. SHANEYFELT. I might say that as--in the motion picture as the car 
>> comes out from behind the signboard, the Governor is turned slightly 
>> to his right in this manner. This would be in the first frame, in 
>> frame 222, he is turned just slightly to his right, and from there on 
>> he turns almost square, straight on with the car momentarily, and 
>> there is a jerking motion there at one point in the film about there, 
>> at which time he starts to turn this way and continues to turn. (5 H 
>> 155) 
>> 
>> Like its supposed bullet, the SBT itself seems to be magical. Even 
>> when its defenders must admit that a previous key assumption of the 
>> theory is invalid, the theory is still, somehow, someway, supposed to 
>> be true. The degree of rotation of Connally's shoulders is a good 
>> example of the theory's magical ability to adapt. As mentioned, 
>> previous trajectory analyses assumed Connally was rotated markedly to 
>> the right, by about 20-25 degrees, when the alleged magic bullet hit 
>> him. Now, lone-gunman theorists like Todd Vaughan and Dale Myers 
>> acknowledge that Connally is rotated no more than 15 degrees to the 
>> right in Z224 (Vaughan says 10 degrees, while Myers says 15 degrees). 
>> But, somehow, someway, the SBT still supposedly works, according to 
>> its defenders, even though previous "expert" trajectory studies found 
>> it essential to assume Connally was rotated markedly to the right when 
>> the missile struck. 
>> 
>> (A similar feat of magical adaptation can be seen in the magic 
>> bullet's vertical trajectory. For years WC supporters, based on the 
>> chief autopsy doctor's Rydberg diagram and on Arlen Specter's 
>> reenactment of the SBT, assumed the bullet struck at a point that was 
>> visibly ABOVE the throat wound, AND that the bullet's path from the 
>> back wound to the throat wound was DOWNWARD. Then, the HSCA came along 
>> and determined that the back wound was nearly 2 inches lower than 
>> where it appears in the Rydberg diagram, that the bullet's path 
>> through the body actually would have been "SLIGHTLY UPWARD," and that 
>> the tissue beneath the back wound seen in the autopsy photos is 
>> tunneled UPWARD. But, the SBT's defenders reconsidered the new 
>> evidence and announced that somehow, someway, the theory's vertical 
>> trajectory still worked.) 
>> 
>> [#12 has been taken in whole from Mike Griffith's writings - Thanks, 
>> Mike!] 
>> 
>> 13. Dr. Mantik has demonstrated by using CAT scans that a bullet 
>> striking JFK in the back, and exiting midline of the throat, *had* to 
>> have gone through the spine. Didn't happen, therefore transit didn't 
>> happen. And transit, of course, is the *FIRST* prerequisite for the 
>> SBT. 
>> 
>> 14. CE399 had no blood, no fibers, nothing... it was clean of any 
>> human debris. I find that rather incredible for a bullet that is 
>> supposed to have done what Bugliosi & the WC/HSCA claims it to have 
>> done. 
>> 
>> 15. FBI Agent James Sibert said he doubted the single-bullet theory 
>> (SBT) because the back wound was just too low on the back for it to be 
>> possible (Deposition of James W. Sibert to ARRB, September 11, 1997, 
>> pp. 161-162). 
>> 
>> Well... I think I got carried away... Bugliosi only challenged someone 
>> to produce a *single* logical argument, sadly... I've managed only 15. 
>> (With a little help from my library and Mike Griffith) 
>> 
>> But I'm sure that others could add to this list. Seems that Bugliosi 
>> is lucky not to be on the Internet - it would be mighty embarrassing 
>> for him to know that his "challenge" was met so easily. 
>> 
>> And by a non-lawyer...
>
>
>Fringe reset.

A "fringe reset" would mean that someone has answered this, refuting
what I posted with citations & evidence ... sometime in the past.

Never happened.

You can't cite any answers to this post.

You lose!