Bump for Robert:
(The below originally was posted by me here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10743586#post10743586 )
Bob never did respond to this:
== QUOTE ==
It doesn't appear you're taking into account that rifle bullets typically travel faster than sound.
Of course I am. I'm pretty sure I told you that I presumed the early shots to have come from a subsonic weapon.
That is, in the Warren Commission narrative, Tague could have been wounded by a fragment from the third shot (the head shot) AND have heard that third shot thereafter.
I addressed that issue many years ago. The trajectories just don't work. This is from an article I wrote sometime around the turn of the millenium.
The image below illustrates the minimum ascending angle necessary for a bullet fragment to have exited the President's head and flown out over the top of the windshield. Keep in mind that his head was tilted downward and forward at Z312, considerably lower than it is in this picture, which was taken as the limo departed Love Field.
Had our hypothetical fragment continued at this angle, at a reasonably high velocity, it would have passed nearly 30 feet above the Main St. pavement, leaving the curbing and Mr. Tague completely unscathed. But that presumes a high velocity. Certainly, the fragment might have run out of gas and simply fallen to the area of the curbing. But if that happened, it would have lost most of its velocity and could not have struck the curbing with nearly enough force to have caused the lead to smear. The drawing below illustrates the principle.
That's physics for you. So inconvenient to your theory.
I guess it's "inconvenient" for Posner and Bugliosi too then, since both of them deny the WC theory and claim the Tague wound was the result of a ricochet from the
first shot
But there is one expert who contradicts BOTH the WC and the LN guys. His name was James Tague and his recollection was that it was the second shot that caused his minor wound.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any idea which bullet might have made that mark?
Mr. TAGUE. I would guess it was either the second or third. I wouldn't say definitely on which one.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear any more shots after you felt yourself get hit in the face?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. You think you did?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.
Mr. LIEBELER. How many?
Mr. TAGUE. I believe that it was the second shot, so I heard the third shot afterward.
Are you starting to see a pattern, Hank? Have you noticed that almost the witnesses support me and contradict you, even your own witnesses
Your argument here applies to the convential narrative as well. In fact, according to you, Tague should have heard TWO shots after he was struck by a fragment of that Z285 shot .... the sound of the Z285 shot arriving afterward, and then the sound of the Z313 shot.
The 285 shot would not have been perceived to have arrived "afterward". I don't think you understand how this stuff works. The sounds associated with that shot would have seemed simultaneous, with no perceptible gaps.
And you're insisting on a new bullet at Z285 that nobody sees evidence for
That's untrue. There is a real world outside these little forums, full of hardcore advocates, in which people actually admit what they see.
(except you) while simultaneously explaining away the evidence of the bullet striking both men at Z223, claiming it was inaudible.
LOL! It was inaudible. That much is beyond dispute.
John Connally was very clear about that. He heard the 150-160 shot but only "felt" the one that hit him at 223. Nellie, Jackie, Greer, and Kellerman all heard the same thing - one shot, delay and then closely bunched shots at the end - exactly the same thing that most other witnesses heard.
I'm sure you understand Nellie, which you proved by refusing to answer those three little, fatal questions that all of you dodged
And just to keep things straight, the fact that nobody heard that shot does not "explain it away". The shot was quite real and it wounded both JFK and Connally.
So convenient for your theory that the conspirators used a suppressed weapon for only one of the four shots, don't you think?
Wrong again. You know very well, that I explained to you the probable reason why that first shot was audible. It struck the pavement with considerable force, causing sparks to fly upward, causing the "firecracker" sound that many witnesses reported. The next shot only passed through human flesh, so it remained entirely inaudible to most witnesses.
Or maybe you're just assuming what you need to prove
Until you have a better explanation for why those witnesses only heard a single early shot and why there were no reactions then, even remotely similar to the ones following 285 and 313, you have no right to question my motives.
My conclusions are what any sane, objective man would come to. And you will prove that by failing to even try to present a better explanation.
