single bullet theory is not true says Soily

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Single Bullet Fact: Bullets travel in a straight line & curves downward when gravity takes affect on it at long distances. Also wind can be a factor!

Nov. 22nd, 1963 was a calm sunny day. So the bullet traveled a short distance & hit Kennedy's back, exited out his neck & began to tumble, struck Connelly's side, breaking 3 of his ribs & causing a 3 inch hole, exited out his chest hitting his wrist & then landing in his lap.

If a .58 caliber bullet fired from a Civil War rifle can penetrait through 24 inches of 2 X 4's, then it's a proven fact that a single bullet can cause that much damage into 2 humans.

Bullets don't magically turn in mid-air, it's impossible!

 

[CurtC]

So the bullet traveled a short distance & hit Kennedy's back, exited out his neck & began to tumble, struck Connelly's side, breaking 3 of his ribs & causing a 3 inch hole, exited out his chest hitting his wrist & then landing in his lap.

It didn't land in his lap - it embedded in his thigh.

 

[Soily]

It didn't land in his lap - it embedded in his thigh.

Factoid. No evidence any bullet was ever in connollys thigh. His own surgeon thought he was hit by fragments of other bullets. In fact, startlingly, we have no evidence any of the fragments in either men were fired by the Oswald rifle.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Factoid. No evidence any bullet was ever in connollys thigh. His own surgeon thought he was hit by fragments of other bullets. In fact, startlingly, we have no evidence any of the fragments in either men were fired by the Oswald rifle.

So still not answering questions, Soily? I have to say, some real stumpers have been put to you so I'm not surprised at your simply wanting them to go away. That one about "What is your hypothesis?", I think that's the one that really made you clam up.

 

[riptowtan]

Factoid. No evidence any bullet was ever in connollys thigh. His own surgeon thought he was hit by fragments of other bullets. In fact, startlingly, we have no evidence any of the fragments in either men were fired by the Oswald rifle.

Those damn magic fragments hopping over Connally to get his thigh and wrist! Still in denial mode about the fact that the only bullets found that day were all linked to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all weapons. The fragments found in Connally add up to what was missing from CE399. so it all fits. And looking at the rest of the evidence it makes complete sense. Since you haven't proposed an alternative that better explains all of the evidence and is plausible, you should accept the single bullet theory. All you have is an empty sac, and no one here is buying it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

roundhead banned, 7forever flew the coop, fourbrick abandoned the thread after dropping Joke White on us, Soily abstaining from answering questions...

Disappointing, really.

 

[CurtC]

Whatever happened to Rouser? I sorta miss him.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

JFK conspiracy theorists. They'd be boring if they weren't so entertaining.

Actually, no, they're pretty boring as well.

 

[dafydd]

JFK conspiracy theorists. They'd be boring if they weren't so entertaining.

Actually, no, they're pretty boring as well.

There must be something missing in their lives.Otherwise why would they pursue this nonsense after all these years?

 

[Fourbrick]

roundhead banned, 7forever flew the coop, fourbrick abandoned the thread after dropping Joke White on us, Soily abstaining from answering questions...

Disappointing, really.

Sorry Robo but I haven't abandoned the thread. Just been away.

Maybe you all think Jack White was a joke. That's your prerogative.

How about this opinion? ( I won't say from an"expert" as there are too many of same on here.)

Major John Pickard, commander of the photographic department at the Canadian Defense Department,:

"The pictures have the earmarks of being faked. The shadows fall in conflicting directions. The shadow of Oswald's nose falls in one direction and that of his body in another. The photos were shot from a slightly different angle, a different distance, with the gun in a different hand. So, if one photo is laid on top of another, nothing could match exactly. Yet, impossibly, while one body is bigger, in the other the heads match perfectly, bearing out Oswald's charge that his head was pasted on an incriminating photograph."

or this from another "non expert"

Retired Detective Superintendent Malcolm Thompson, a past president of the Institute of Incorporated Photographers in England.

Thompson said he detected retouching in the photos around the area of Oswald's head and on the butt of the rifle. He also noted inconsistencies in the location of shadows and the different chin on Oswald
Thompson stated: "One can only conclude that Oswald's head has been stuck on to a chin which is not Oswald's chin.... My opinion is that those photographs are faked.... I consider the pictures to be the result of a montage."


Comments?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Did they examine the photographs or the negatives?

 

[Ranb]

Maybe you all think Jack White was a joke. That's your prerogative.

So why do you quote Pickard, Thompson and White? White claims to lack the training and knowledge required to be an expert photo analyst.

What about the opinion of Hany Farid? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/05/hany-farid-dartmouth-scie_n_347862.html Why are you not commenting on his analysis? Do you support the conclusions of those who say the photos were faked merely because it in turn supports your line of reasoning on the matter?

You go on and on about how some posters here are "experts" because they are not impressed with White. But you have to remember, White himself claims to lack the expertise to analyze photos. Why are you calling White an expert when he clearly says he is not?

Ranb

 

[Fourbrick]

What about the opinion of Hany Farid? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/05/hany-farid-dartmouth-scie_n_347862.html Why are you not commenting on his analysis? Do you support the conclusions of those who say the photos were faked merely because it in turn supports your line of reasoning on the matter?



Ranb

Farid (who did work for the F.B.I.)examined only one of the photos. And he investigated only the nose shadow, not the rest of the shadow inconsistencies in the other photos.

Regarding the photo he said

"You can never really prove an image is real, but the evidence that people have pointed to that the photo is fake is incorrect," Farid said Thursday. "As an academic and a scientist, I don't like to say it's absolutely authentic ... but it's extremely unlikely to have been a fake.”

And he admitted, "We are really bad at judging shadows. I'm bad at it and this is what I do for a living."”

Farid said “There is no evidence of digital tampering evident on the photo.”

As digital enhancing was not available in 1963, it is not surprising.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Interestingly enough, we have Marina's testimony that she took the pictures. Where is her testimony incorrect? Sorry, the photos aren't faked.

 

[Ranb]

Farid said “There is no evidence of digital tampering evident on the photo.”

As digital enhancing was not available in 1963, it is not surprising.

Got a link to those words you are quoting? If he was examining a digital copy, then there is no need to roll your eyes at his statement.

You are rather evasive when it comes to answering simple questions.

1. Do you support the conclusions of those who say the photos were faked merely because it in turn supports your line of reasoning on the matter?

2. Why are you calling White an expert when he clearly says he is not?

Ranb

 

[Fourbrick]

As a previous contributor said, you can't rely on individual testimony.

When asked how she took the photos she said she took them at eye level, (like any normal camera). Trouble was the camera she used was an Imperial Reflex camera which is held at waste level, not up to the eye.

She originally said that she took just one photo. When shown the second, she admitted that she might have taken two. She in fact took three according to the evidence.

Yeh, a great witness.

 

[Ranb]

Interestingly enough, we have Marina's testimony that she took the pictures. Where is her testimony incorrect? Sorry, the photos aren't faked.

You do not understand. The CT dingbats will point to the hearsay statements published in CT books claiming that Marina later claimed she did not take the photos. That is all the iron clad evidence they need to show the photos were faked after they realize that White was not actually an expert in anything.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

As a previous contributor said, you can't rely on individual testimony.....When asked how she took the photos she said she took them at eye level, (like any normal camera). Trouble was the camera she used was an Imperial Reflex camera which is held at waste level, not up to the eye.

I have used a camera of this type before. While it can be held at the waist, it is not required to do so. Like any other camera it can be held near the eye or away, whatever it takes to get the desired photo.

Ironic that you would say one can not rely on individual testimony. White claims no expertise in photo analysis, but he is your champion, or was a few days ago. Why did you rely on White so much recently? Can not find someone with any integrity to prop up your claims?

Ranb

 

[Fourbrick]

You are rather evasive when it comes to answering simple questions.

1. Do you support the conclusions of those who say the photos were faked merely because it in turn supports your line of reasoning on the matter?

No.

2. Why are you calling White an expert when he clearly says he is not?

Ranb

O.k. let's say he's not an "expert." What about the other "experts" opinions shown above?

 

[RoboTimbo]

As a previous contributor said, you can't rely on individual testimony.

When asked how she took the photos she said she took them at eye level, (like any normal camera). Trouble was the camera she used was an Imperial Reflex camera which is held at waste level, not up to the eye.

She originally said that she took just one photo. When shown the second, she admitted that she might have taken two. She in fact took three according to the evidence.

Yeh, a great witness.

Two days ago, I was at a botannical garden with my wife. I took my cell phone out to take some pictures of birds. Later that evening, I was showing them to my wife and told her I had taken three pictures. There were actually four.

Do you think the fact that I had forgotten the number of pictures I took invalidates the fact that I knew that I had taken pictures of birds? How about the orientation of the photos? I had forgotten that I held the phone horizontally for three of them and vertically for the last. Does that invalidate my knowledge of taking pictures of birds? Please show your work in your explanation.