When faced with this:
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. Drs. Charles
Gregory and Robert Shaw, who attended Connally at Parkland Hospital, described the wound as “linear” and “elliptical” in shape, indicating
that the bullet was out of alignment with its trajectory just before striking Connally’s body. The HSCA said that a factor which “significantly” influenced its conclusion that the bullet that struck Connally had first struck and passed through Kennedy “was the ovoid
shape of the wound in the Governor’s back, indicating that the bullet
had begun to tumble or yaw before entering. An ovoid wound is
characteristic of one caused by a bullet that has passed through or
glanced off an intervening object…The forensic pathology panel’s conclusions were consistent with the so-called single bullet theory
advanced by the Warren Commission,” to wit, that one bullet had passed “through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally.”
My firearms expert at the London trial, Monty Lutz, told me that “no bullet traveling at 2,000 feet per second is going to start to tumble
or yaw on its own until around 200 yards. When Connally was struck he
was around 60 yards from the window, so the bullet had to have hit
something before it hit him, and other than Kennedy’s body, there was nothing between the sixth-floor window and him. Not the oak tree, or
its leaves. Nothing.”
It has to be emphasized that at the time Connally was struck by a
bullet (somewhere between Z frames 210 and 222),* the oak tree to the
north of Elm close to the Depository Building was no longer in the
line of fire from the sniper’s nest to Connally’s body.
So Kennedy’s body was the only intervening object that the Connally
bullet could have first hit. HSCA physical scientist Larry M.
Sturdivan told the committee that the Carcano bullet was a “very
stable bullet, perhaps one of the most stable bullets that we have
ever done experimentation with.” He said that it would only start yawing—and then very little, “perhaps less than a degree”—at “about
100 meters” (about 110 yards) and “if it had struck [Connally] without having previously encountered another object, it [Connally’s back
wound] would never have been elongated. This bullet is too stable. It
would have had to be a nice round hole.”
Here's the quesition that Chickenshit will refuse to answer: What is
the "virtually conclusive evidence" that Bugs was talking about?
Chickenshit responded 11 times, and only answered these questions:
Question 1: What is the "virtually conclusive evidence" that Bugs was talking about?
Ans: "The shape of the wound."
Question 2: What was the shape of the wound?
Ans: Oval...
Question 3: So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that
was "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
It was on this third question that Chickenshit's cowardice took over,
and he's not yet answered it.
11 responses, and only two answers. His cowardice is a proven fact.
Believers run...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!!!
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 8:48:33?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
When faced with this:
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. Drs. Charles
Gregory and Robert Shaw, who attended Connally at Parkland Hospital,
described the wound as “linear” and “elliptical” in shape, indicating
that the bullet was out of alignment with its trajectory just before
striking Connally’s body. The HSCA said that a factor which
“significantly” influenced its conclusion that the bullet that struck
Connally had first struck and passed through Kennedy “was the ovoid
shape of the wound in the Governor’s back, indicating that the bullet
had begun to tumble or yaw before entering. An ovoid wound is
characteristic of one caused by a bullet that has passed through or
glanced off an intervening object…The forensic pathology panel’s
conclusions were consistent with the so-called single bullet theory
advanced by the Warren Commission,” to wit, that one bullet had passed
“through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally.”
My firearms expert at the London trial, Monty Lutz, told me that “no
bullet traveling at 2,000 feet per second is going to start to tumble
or yaw on its own until around 200 yards. When Connally was struck he
was around 60 yards from the window, so the bullet had to have hit
something before it hit him, and other than Kennedy’s body, there was
nothing between the sixth-floor window and him. Not the oak tree, or
its leaves. Nothing.”
It has to be emphasized that at the time Connally was struck by a
bullet (somewhere between Z frames 210 and 222),* the oak tree to the
north of Elm close to the Depository Building was no longer in the
line of fire from the sniper’s nest to Connally’s body.
So Kennedy’s body was the only intervening object that the Connally
bullet could have first hit. HSCA physical scientist Larry M.
Sturdivan told the committee that the Carcano bullet was a “very
stable bullet, perhaps one of the most stable bullets that we have
ever done experimentation with.” He said that it would only start
yawing—and then very little, “perhaps less than a degree”—at “about
100 meters” (about 110 yards) and “if it had struck [Connally] without
having previously encountered another object, it [Connally’s back
wound] would never have been elongated. This bullet is too stable. It
would have had to be a nice round hole.”
Here's the quesition that Chickenshit will refuse to answer: What is
the "virtually conclusive evidence" that Bugs was talking about?
Chickenshit responded 11 times, and only answered these questions:
Question 1: What is the "virtually conclusive evidence" that Bugs was
talking about?
Ans: "The shape of the wound."
Question 2: What was the shape of the wound?
Ans: Oval...
Question 3: So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that
was "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
You removed part of my answer.
It was on this third question that Chickenshit's cowardice took over,
and he's not yet answered it.
You want more to remove?
Bugliosi went on to explain the concept. That you want to ignore
that fact is of no consequence.
11 responses, and only two answers. His cowardice is a proven fact.
Believers run...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!!!
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 02:56:49 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 8:48:33?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
When faced with this:
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. Drs. Charles
Gregory and Robert Shaw, who attended Connally at Parkland Hospital,
described the wound as “linear” and “elliptical” in shape, indicating
that the bullet was out of alignment with its trajectory just before
striking Connally’s body. The HSCA said that a factor which
“significantly” influenced its conclusion that the bullet that struck >> Connally had first struck and passed through Kennedy “was the ovoid
shape of the wound in the Governor’s back, indicating that the bullet >> had begun to tumble or yaw before entering. An ovoid wound is
characteristic of one caused by a bullet that has passed through or
glanced off an intervening object…The forensic pathology panel’s
conclusions were consistent with the so-called single bullet theory
advanced by the Warren Commission,” to wit, that one bullet had passed >> “through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally.”
My firearms expert at the London trial, Monty Lutz, told me that “no
bullet traveling at 2,000 feet per second is going to start to tumble
or yaw on its own until around 200 yards. When Connally was struck he
was around 60 yards from the window, so the bullet had to have hit
something before it hit him, and other than Kennedy’s body, there was >> nothing between the sixth-floor window and him. Not the oak tree, or
its leaves. Nothing.”
It has to be emphasized that at the time Connally was struck by a
bullet (somewhere between Z frames 210 and 222),* the oak tree to the
north of Elm close to the Depository Building was no longer in the
line of fire from the sniper’s nest to Connally’s body.
So Kennedy’s body was the only intervening object that the Connally
bullet could have first hit. HSCA physical scientist Larry M.
Sturdivan told the committee that the Carcano bullet was a “very
stable bullet, perhaps one of the most stable bullets that we have
ever done experimentation with.” He said that it would only start
yawing—and then very little, “perhaps less than a degree”—at “about
100 meters” (about 110 yards) and “if it had struck [Connally] without
having previously encountered another object, it [Connally’s back
wound] would never have been elongated. This bullet is too stable. It
would have had to be a nice round hole.”
Here's the quesition that Chickenshit will refuse to answer: What is
the "virtually conclusive evidence" that Bugs was talking about?
Chickenshit responded 11 times, and only answered these questions:
Question 1: What is the "virtually conclusive evidence" that Bugs was
talking about?
Ans: "The shape of the wound."
Question 2: What was the shape of the wound?
Ans: Oval...
Question 3: So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that
was "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
You removed part of my answer.Whine some more, Chickenshit.
I clearly abbreviated your answer to
what was supported by the statement of Bugliosi.
If you want to label yourself a liar, you go right ahead.
It was on this third question that Chickenshit's cowardice took over,
and he's not yet answered it.
You want more to remove?This is the coward's attempt to justify not answering the question.
Bugliosi went on to explain the concept. That you want to ignoreIt's not "ignoring" it when I ask you to state what it is.
that fact is of no consequence.
**YOU**
are proving your cowardice. Just as I predicted.
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was11 responses, and only two answers. His cowardice is a proven fact.
Believers run...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!!!
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:07:17?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 02:56:49 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 8:48:33?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
When faced with this:
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. Drs. Charles
Gregory and Robert Shaw, who attended Connally at Parkland Hosapital,
described the wound as “linear” and “elliptical” in shape, indicating
that the bullet was out of alignment with its trajectory just before
striking Connally’s body. The HSCA said that a factor which
“significantly” influenced its conclusion that the bullet that struck
Connally had first struck and passed through Kennedy “was the ovoid
shape of the wound in the Governor’s back, indicating that the bullet
had begun to tumble or yaw before entering. An ovoid wound is
characteristic of one caused by a bullet that has passed through or
glanced off an intervening object…The forensic pathology panel’s
conclusions were consistent with the so-called single bullet theory
advanced by the Warren Commission,” to wit, that one bullet had passed >>>> “through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally.”
My firearms expert at the London trial, Monty Lutz, told me that “no
bullet traveling at 2,000 feet per second is going to start to tumble
or yaw on its own until around 200 yards. When Connally was struck he
was around 60 yards from the window, so the bullet had to have hit
something before it hit him, and other than Kennedy’s body, there was
nothing between the sixth-floor window and him. Not the oak tree, or
its leaves. Nothing.”
It has to be emphasized that at the time Connally was struck by a
bullet (somewhere between Z frames 210 and 222),* the oak tree to the
north of Elm close to the Depository Building was no longer in the
line of fire from the sniper’s nest to Connally’s body.
So Kennedy’s body was the only intervening object that the Connally
bullet could have first hit. HSCA physical scientist Larry M.
Sturdivan told the committee that the Carcano bullet was a “very
stable bullet, perhaps one of the most stable bullets that we have
ever done experimentation with.” He said that it would only start
yawing—and then very little, “perhaps less than a degree”—at “about
100 meters” (about 110 yards) and “if it had struck [Connally] without >>>> having previously encountered another object, it [Connally’s back
wound] would never have been elongated. This bullet is too stable. It
would have had to be a nice round hole.”
Here's the quesition that Chickenshit will refuse to answer: What is
the "virtually conclusive evidence" that Bugs was talking about?
Chickenshit responded 11 times, and only answered these questions:
Question 1: What is the "virtually conclusive evidence" that Bugs was
talking about?
Ans: "The shape of the wound."
Question 2: What was the shape of the wound?
Ans: Oval...
Question 3: So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that
was "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
You removed part of my answer.
Whine some more, Chickenshit.
You hate the truth.
I clearly abbreviated your answer to
what was supported by the statement of Bugliosi.
If you want to label yourself a liar, you go right ahead.
This is the coward's attempt to justify not answering the question.It was on this third question that Chickenshit's cowardice took over,
and he's not yet answered it.
You want more to remove?
Bugliosi went on to explain the concept. That you want to ignoreIt's not "ignoring" it when I ask you to state what it is.
that fact is of no consequence.
I told you what it was...
**YOU**
are proving your cowardice. Just as I predicted.
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was11 responses, and only two answers. His cowardice is a proven fact.
Believers run...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!!!
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Was Bugliosi...
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:16:41?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 10:27:21 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:07:17?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 02:56:49 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 8:48:33?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
When faced with this:
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. Drs. Charles
Gregory and Robert Shaw, who attended Connally at Parkland Hosapital, >>>>>> described the wound as “linear” and “elliptical” in shape, indicating >>>>>> that the bullet was out of alignment with its trajectory just before >>>>>> striking Connally’s body. The HSCA said that a factor which
“significantly” influenced its conclusion that the bullet that struck >>>>>> Connally had first struck and passed through Kennedy “was the ovoid >>>>>> shape of the wound in the Governor’s back, indicating that the bullet >>>>>> had begun to tumble or yaw before entering. An ovoid wound is
characteristic of one caused by a bullet that has passed through or >>>>>> glanced off an intervening object…The forensic pathology panel’s
conclusions were consistent with the so-called single bullet theory >>>>>> advanced by the Warren Commission,” to wit, that one bullet had passed >>>>>> “through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally.”
My firearms expert at the London trial, Monty Lutz, told me that “no >>>>>> bullet traveling at 2,000 feet per second is going to start to tumble >>>>>> or yaw on its own until around 200 yards. When Connally was struck he >>>>>> was around 60 yards from the window, so the bullet had to have hit >>>>>> something before it hit him, and other than Kennedy’s body, there was >>>>>> nothing between the sixth-floor window and him. Not the oak tree, or >>>>>> its leaves. Nothing.”
It has to be emphasized that at the time Connally was struck by a
bullet (somewhere between Z frames 210 and 222),* the oak tree to the >>>>>> north of Elm close to the Depository Building was no longer in the >>>>>> line of fire from the sniper’s nest to Connally’s body.
So Kennedy’s body was the only intervening object that the Connally >>>>>> bullet could have first hit. HSCA physical scientist Larry M.
Sturdivan told the committee that the Carcano bullet was a “very
stable bullet, perhaps one of the most stable bullets that we have >>>>>> ever done experimentation with.” He said that it would only start
yawing—and then very little, “perhaps less than a degree”—at “about >>>>>> 100 meters” (about 110 yards) and “if it had struck [Connally] without >>>>>> having previously encountered another object, it [Connally’s back
wound] would never have been elongated. This bullet is too stable. It >>>>>> would have had to be a nice round hole.”
Here's the quesition that Chickenshit will refuse to answer: What is >>>>>> the "virtually conclusive evidence" that Bugs was talking about?
Chickenshit responded 11 times, and only answered these questions: >>>>>>
Question 1: What is the "virtually conclusive evidence" that Bugs was >>>>>> talking about?
Ans: "The shape of the wound."
Question 2: What was the shape of the wound?
Ans: Oval...
Question 3: So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that >>>>>> was "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
You removed part of my answer.
Whine some more, Chickenshit.
I clearly abbreviated your answer to
what was supported by the statement of Bugliosi.
If you want to label yourself a liar, you go right ahead.
This is the coward's attempt to justify not answering the question.It was on this third question that Chickenshit's cowardice took over, >>>>>> and he's not yet answered it.
You want more to remove?
Bugliosi went on to explain the concept. That you want to ignore
that fact is of no consequence.
It's not "ignoring" it when I ask you to state what it is.
**YOU** are proving your cowardice. Just as I predicted.
11 responses, and only two answers. His cowardice is a proven fact. >>>>>>
Believers run...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!!!
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Was Bugliosi...
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 10:27:21 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:07:17?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 02:56:49 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 8:48:33?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
When faced with this:
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. Drs. Charles
Gregory and Robert Shaw, who attended Connally at Parkland Hosapital, >>>> described the wound as “linear” and “elliptical” in shape, indicating
that the bullet was out of alignment with its trajectory just before >>>> striking Connally’s body. The HSCA said that a factor which
“significantly” influenced its conclusion that the bullet that struck
Connally had first struck and passed through Kennedy “was the ovoid >>>> shape of the wound in the Governor’s back, indicating that the bullet >>>> had begun to tumble or yaw before entering. An ovoid wound is
characteristic of one caused by a bullet that has passed through or >>>> glanced off an intervening object…The forensic pathology panel’s >>>> conclusions were consistent with the so-called single bullet theory >>>> advanced by the Warren Commission,” to wit, that one bullet had passed
“through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally.”
My firearms expert at the London trial, Monty Lutz, told me that “no >>>> bullet traveling at 2,000 feet per second is going to start to tumble >>>> or yaw on its own until around 200 yards. When Connally was struck he >>>> was around 60 yards from the window, so the bullet had to have hit
something before it hit him, and other than Kennedy’s body, there was >>>> nothing between the sixth-floor window and him. Not the oak tree, or >>>> its leaves. Nothing.”
It has to be emphasized that at the time Connally was struck by a
bullet (somewhere between Z frames 210 and 222),* the oak tree to the >>>> north of Elm close to the Depository Building was no longer in the
line of fire from the sniper’s nest to Connally’s body.
So Kennedy’s body was the only intervening object that the Connally >>>> bullet could have first hit. HSCA physical scientist Larry M.
Sturdivan told the committee that the Carcano bullet was a “very
stable bullet, perhaps one of the most stable bullets that we have
ever done experimentation with.” He said that it would only start >>>> yawing—and then very little, “perhaps less than a degree”—at “about
100 meters” (about 110 yards) and “if it had struck [Connally] without
having previously encountered another object, it [Connally’s back >>>> wound] would never have been elongated. This bullet is too stable. It >>>> would have had to be a nice round hole.”
Here's the quesition that Chickenshit will refuse to answer: What is >>>> the "virtually conclusive evidence" that Bugs was talking about?
Chickenshit responded 11 times, and only answered these questions:
Question 1: What is the "virtually conclusive evidence" that Bugs was >>>> talking about?
Ans: "The shape of the wound."
Question 2: What was the shape of the wound?
Ans: Oval...
Question 3: So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that >>>> was "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
You removed part of my answer.
Whine some more, Chickenshit.
You hate the truth.
I clearly abbreviated your answer to
what was supported by the statement of Bugliosi.
If you want to label yourself a liar, you go right ahead.
This is the coward's attempt to justify not answering the question.It was on this third question that Chickenshit's cowardice took over, >>>> and he's not yet answered it.
You want more to remove?
Bugliosi went on to explain the concept. That you want to ignoreIt's not "ignoring" it when I ask you to state what it is.
that fact is of no consequence.
I told you what it was...
**YOU**
are proving your cowardice. Just as I predicted.
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was11 responses, and only two answers. His cowardice is a proven fact. >>>>
Believers run...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!!!
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Was Bugliosi...
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 12:15:32 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:16:41?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 10:27:21 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:07:17?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 02:56:49 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 8:48:33?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>> When faced with this:
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. Drs. Charles >>>>>> Gregory and Robert Shaw, who attended Connally at Parkland Hosapital, >>>>>> described the wound as “linear” and “elliptical” in shape, indicating
that the bullet was out of alignment with its trajectory just before >>>>>> striking Connally’s body. The HSCA said that a factor which
“significantly” influenced its conclusion that the bullet that struck
Connally had first struck and passed through Kennedy “was the ovoid >>>>>> shape of the wound in the Governor’s back, indicating that the bullet
had begun to tumble or yaw before entering. An ovoid wound is
characteristic of one caused by a bullet that has passed through or >>>>>> glanced off an intervening object…The forensic pathology panel’s >>>>>> conclusions were consistent with the so-called single bullet theory >>>>>> advanced by the Warren Commission,” to wit, that one bullet had passed
“through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally.”
My firearms expert at the London trial, Monty Lutz, told me that “no
bullet traveling at 2,000 feet per second is going to start to tumble >>>>>> or yaw on its own until around 200 yards. When Connally was struck he >>>>>> was around 60 yards from the window, so the bullet had to have hit >>>>>> something before it hit him, and other than Kennedy’s body, there was
nothing between the sixth-floor window and him. Not the oak tree, or >>>>>> its leaves. Nothing.”
It has to be emphasized that at the time Connally was struck by a >>>>>> bullet (somewhere between Z frames 210 and 222),* the oak tree to the >>>>>> north of Elm close to the Depository Building was no longer in the >>>>>> line of fire from the sniper’s nest to Connally’s body.
So Kennedy’s body was the only intervening object that the Connally >>>>>> bullet could have first hit. HSCA physical scientist Larry M.
Sturdivan told the committee that the Carcano bullet was a “very >>>>>> stable bullet, perhaps one of the most stable bullets that we have >>>>>> ever done experimentation with.” He said that it would only start >>>>>> yawing—and then very little, “perhaps less than a degree”—at “about
100 meters” (about 110 yards) and “if it had struck [Connally] without
having previously encountered another object, it [Connally’s back >>>>>> wound] would never have been elongated. This bullet is too stable. It >>>>>> would have had to be a nice round hole.”
Here's the quesition that Chickenshit will refuse to answer: What is >>>>>> the "virtually conclusive evidence" that Bugs was talking about? >>>>>>
Chickenshit responded 11 times, and only answered these questions: >>>>>>
Question 1: What is the "virtually conclusive evidence" that Bugs was >>>>>> talking about?
Ans: "The shape of the wound."
Question 2: What was the shape of the wound?
Ans: Oval...
Question 3: So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that >>>>>> was "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
You removed part of my answer.
Whine some more, Chickenshit.
I clearly abbreviated your answer to
what was supported by the statement of Bugliosi.
If you want to label yourself a liar, you go right ahead.
This is the coward's attempt to justify not answering the question. >>>>It was on this third question that Chickenshit's cowardice took over, >>>>>> and he's not yet answered it.
You want more to remove?
Bugliosi went on to explain the concept. That you want to ignore
that fact is of no consequence.
It's not "ignoring" it when I ask you to state what it is.
**YOU** are proving your cowardice. Just as I predicted.
11 responses, and only two answers. His cowardice is a proven fact. >>>>>>
Believers run...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!!!
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Was Bugliosi...
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 3:18:41?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 12:15:32 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:16:41?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 10:27:21 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:07:17?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 02:56:49 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 8:48:33?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>> When faced with this:
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. Drs. Charles >>>>>>>> Gregory and Robert Shaw, who attended Connally at Parkland Hosapital, >>>>>>>> described the wound as “linear” and “elliptical” in shape, indicating >>>>>>>> that the bullet was out of alignment with its trajectory just before >>>>>>>> striking Connally’s body. The HSCA said that a factor which
“significantly” influenced its conclusion that the bullet that struck >>>>>>>> Connally had first struck and passed through Kennedy “was the ovoid >>>>>>>> shape of the wound in the Governor’s back, indicating that the bullet >>>>>>>> had begun to tumble or yaw before entering. An ovoid wound is
characteristic of one caused by a bullet that has passed through or >>>>>>>> glanced off an intervening object…The forensic pathology panel’s >>>>>>>> conclusions were consistent with the so-called single bullet theory >>>>>>>> advanced by the Warren Commission,” to wit, that one bullet had passed >>>>>>>> “through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally.”
My firearms expert at the London trial, Monty Lutz, told me that “no >>>>>>>> bullet traveling at 2,000 feet per second is going to start to tumble >>>>>>>> or yaw on its own until around 200 yards. When Connally was struck he >>>>>>>> was around 60 yards from the window, so the bullet had to have hit >>>>>>>> something before it hit him, and other than Kennedy’s body, there was >>>>>>>> nothing between the sixth-floor window and him. Not the oak tree, or >>>>>>>> its leaves. Nothing.”
It has to be emphasized that at the time Connally was struck by a >>>>>>>> bullet (somewhere between Z frames 210 and 222),* the oak tree to the >>>>>>>> north of Elm close to the Depository Building was no longer in the >>>>>>>> line of fire from the sniper’s nest to Connally’s body.
So Kennedy’s body was the only intervening object that the Connally >>>>>>>> bullet could have first hit. HSCA physical scientist Larry M.
Sturdivan told the committee that the Carcano bullet was a “very >>>>>>>> stable bullet, perhaps one of the most stable bullets that we have >>>>>>>> ever done experimentation with.” He said that it would only start >>>>>>>> yawing—and then very little, “perhaps less than a degree”—at “about >>>>>>>> 100 meters” (about 110 yards) and “if it had struck [Connally] without >>>>>>>> having previously encountered another object, it [Connally’s back >>>>>>>> wound] would never have been elongated. This bullet is too stable. It >>>>>>>> would have had to be a nice round hole.”
Here's the quesition that Chickenshit will refuse to answer: What is >>>>>>>> the "virtually conclusive evidence" that Bugs was talking about? >>>>>>>>
Chickenshit responded 11 times, and only answered these questions: >>>>>>>>
Question 1: What is the "virtually conclusive evidence" that Bugs was >>>>>>>> talking about?
Ans: "The shape of the wound."
Question 2: What was the shape of the wound?
Ans: Oval...
Question 3: So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that >>>>>>>> was "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
You removed part of my answer.
Whine some more, Chickenshit.
I clearly abbreviated your answer to
what was supported by the statement of Bugliosi.
If you want to label yourself a liar, you go right ahead.
This is the coward's attempt to justify not answering the question. >>>>>>It was on this third question that Chickenshit's cowardice took over, >>>>>>>> and he's not yet answered it.
You want more to remove?
Bugliosi went on to explain the concept. That you want to ignore >>>>>>> that fact is of no consequence.
It's not "ignoring" it when I ask you to state what it is.
**YOU** are proving your cowardice. Just as I predicted.
11 responses, and only two answers. His cowardice is a proven fact. >>>>>>>>
Believers run...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!!!
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Was Bugliosi...
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 12:20:01 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 3:18:41?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 12:15:32 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:16:41?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 10:27:21 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:07:17?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 02:56:49 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 8:48:33?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>> When faced with this:
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. Drs. Charles >>>>>>>> Gregory and Robert Shaw, who attended Connally at Parkland Hosapital,
described the wound as “linear” and “elliptical” in shape, indicating
that the bullet was out of alignment with its trajectory just before
striking Connally’s body. The HSCA said that a factor which >>>>>>>> “significantly” influenced its conclusion that the bullet that struck
Connally had first struck and passed through Kennedy “was the ovoid
shape of the wound in the Governor’s back, indicating that the bullet
had begun to tumble or yaw before entering. An ovoid wound is >>>>>>>> characteristic of one caused by a bullet that has passed through or >>>>>>>> glanced off an intervening object…The forensic pathology panel’s
conclusions were consistent with the so-called single bullet theory >>>>>>>> advanced by the Warren Commission,” to wit, that one bullet had passed
“through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally.” >>>>>>>>
My firearms expert at the London trial, Monty Lutz, told me that “no
bullet traveling at 2,000 feet per second is going to start to tumble
or yaw on its own until around 200 yards. When Connally was struck he
was around 60 yards from the window, so the bullet had to have hit >>>>>>>> something before it hit him, and other than Kennedy’s body, there was
nothing between the sixth-floor window and him. Not the oak tree, or
its leaves. Nothing.”
It has to be emphasized that at the time Connally was struck by a >>>>>>>> bullet (somewhere between Z frames 210 and 222),* the oak tree to the
north of Elm close to the Depository Building was no longer in the >>>>>>>> line of fire from the sniper’s nest to Connally’s body. >>>>>>>>
So Kennedy’s body was the only intervening object that the Connally
bullet could have first hit. HSCA physical scientist Larry M. >>>>>>>> Sturdivan told the committee that the Carcano bullet was a “very >>>>>>>> stable bullet, perhaps one of the most stable bullets that we have >>>>>>>> ever done experimentation with.” He said that it would only start >>>>>>>> yawing—and then very little, “perhaps less than a degree”—at “about
100 meters” (about 110 yards) and “if it had struck [Connally] without
having previously encountered another object, it [Connally’s back >>>>>>>> wound] would never have been elongated. This bullet is too stable. It
would have had to be a nice round hole.”
Here's the quesition that Chickenshit will refuse to answer: What is
the "virtually conclusive evidence" that Bugs was talking about? >>>>>>>>
Chickenshit responded 11 times, and only answered these questions: >>>>>>>>
Question 1: What is the "virtually conclusive evidence" that Bugs was
talking about?
Ans: "The shape of the wound."
Question 2: What was the shape of the wound?
Ans: Oval...
Question 3: So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that
was "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
You removed part of my answer.
Whine some more, Chickenshit.
I clearly abbreviated your answer to
what was supported by the statement of Bugliosi.
If you want to label yourself a liar, you go right ahead.
This is the coward's attempt to justify not answering the question. >>>>>>It was on this third question that Chickenshit's cowardice took over,
and he's not yet answered it.
You want more to remove?
Bugliosi went on to explain the concept. That you want to ignore >>>>>>> that fact is of no consequence.
It's not "ignoring" it when I ask you to state what it is. >>>>>>**YOU** are proving your cowardice. Just as I predicted.
11 responses, and only two answers. His cowardice is a proven fact. >>>>>>>>
Believers run...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!!!
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Was Bugliosi...
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 3:26:12?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 12:20:01 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 3:18:41?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 12:15:32 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:16:41?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 10:27:21 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:07:17?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 02:56:49 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 8:48:33?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> When faced with this:
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. Drs. Charles >>>>>>>>>> Gregory and Robert Shaw, who attended Connally at Parkland Hosapital,
described the wound as “linear” and “elliptical” in shape, indicating
that the bullet was out of alignment with its trajectory just before >>>>>>>>>> striking Connally’s body. The HSCA said that a factor which >>>>>>>>>> “significantly” influenced its conclusion that the bullet that struck
Connally had first struck and passed through Kennedy “was the ovoid >>>>>>>>>> shape of the wound in the Governor’s back, indicating that the bullet
had begun to tumble or yaw before entering. An ovoid wound is >>>>>>>>>> characteristic of one caused by a bullet that has passed through or >>>>>>>>>> glanced off an intervening object…The forensic pathology panel’s >>>>>>>>>> conclusions were consistent with the so-called single bullet theory >>>>>>>>>> advanced by the Warren Commission,” to wit, that one bullet had passed
“through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally.”
My firearms expert at the London trial, Monty Lutz, told me that “no >>>>>>>>>> bullet traveling at 2,000 feet per second is going to start to tumble
or yaw on its own until around 200 yards. When Connally was struck he
was around 60 yards from the window, so the bullet had to have hit >>>>>>>>>> something before it hit him, and other than Kennedy’s body, there was
nothing between the sixth-floor window and him. Not the oak tree, or >>>>>>>>>> its leaves. Nothing.”
It has to be emphasized that at the time Connally was struck by a >>>>>>>>>> bullet (somewhere between Z frames 210 and 222),* the oak tree to the
north of Elm close to the Depository Building was no longer in the >>>>>>>>>> line of fire from the sniper’s nest to Connally’s body.
So Kennedy’s body was the only intervening object that the Connally >>>>>>>>>> bullet could have first hit. HSCA physical scientist Larry M. >>>>>>>>>> Sturdivan told the committee that the Carcano bullet was a “very >>>>>>>>>> stable bullet, perhaps one of the most stable bullets that we have >>>>>>>>>> ever done experimentation with.” He said that it would only start >>>>>>>>>> yawing—and then very little, “perhaps less than a degree”—at “about >>>>>>>>>> 100 meters” (about 110 yards) and “if it had struck [Connally] without
having previously encountered another object, it [Connally’s back >>>>>>>>>> wound] would never have been elongated. This bullet is too stable. It
would have had to be a nice round hole.”
Here's the quesition that Chickenshit will refuse to answer: What is >>>>>>>>>> the "virtually conclusive evidence" that Bugs was talking about? >>>>>>>>>>
Chickenshit responded 11 times, and only answered these questions: >>>>>>>>>>
Question 1: What is the "virtually conclusive evidence" that Bugs was
talking about?
Ans: "The shape of the wound."
Question 2: What was the shape of the wound?
Ans: Oval...
Question 3: So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that >>>>>>>>>> was "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
You removed part of my answer.
Whine some more, Chickenshit.
I clearly abbreviated your answer to
what was supported by the statement of Bugliosi.
If you want to label yourself a liar, you go right ahead.
This is the coward's attempt to justify not answering the question. >>>>>>>>It was on this third question that Chickenshit's cowardice took over,
and he's not yet answered it.
You want more to remove?
Bugliosi went on to explain the concept. That you want to ignore >>>>>>>>> that fact is of no consequence.
It's not "ignoring" it when I ask you to state what it is. >>>>>>>>**YOU** are proving your cowardice. Just as I predicted.
11 responses, and only two answers. His cowardice is a proven fact. >>>>>>>>>>
Believers run...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!!!
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Was Bugliosi...
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 12:29:12 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 3:26:12?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 12:20:01 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 3:18:41?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 12:15:32 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:16:41?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 10:27:21 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>> wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 11:07:17?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 02:56:49 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 8:48:33?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> When faced with this:
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. Drs. Charles
Gregory and Robert Shaw, who attended Connally at Parkland Hosapital,
described the wound as “linear” and “elliptical” in shape, indicating
that the bullet was out of alignment with its trajectory just before
striking Connally’s body. The HSCA said that a factor which >>>>>>>>>> “significantly” influenced its conclusion that the bullet that struck
Connally had first struck and passed through Kennedy “was the ovoid
shape of the wound in the Governor’s back, indicating that the bullet
had begun to tumble or yaw before entering. An ovoid wound is >>>>>>>>>> characteristic of one caused by a bullet that has passed through or
glanced off an intervening object…The forensic pathology panel’s
conclusions were consistent with the so-called single bullet theory
advanced by the Warren Commission,” to wit, that one bullet had passed
“through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally.” >>>>>>>>>>
My firearms expert at the London trial, Monty Lutz, told me that “no
bullet traveling at 2,000 feet per second is going to start to tumble
or yaw on its own until around 200 yards. When Connally was struck he
was around 60 yards from the window, so the bullet had to have hit
something before it hit him, and other than Kennedy’s body, there was
nothing between the sixth-floor window and him. Not the oak tree, or
its leaves. Nothing.”
It has to be emphasized that at the time Connally was struck by a >>>>>>>>>> bullet (somewhere between Z frames 210 and 222),* the oak tree to the
north of Elm close to the Depository Building was no longer in the
line of fire from the sniper’s nest to Connally’s body. >>>>>>>>>>
So Kennedy’s body was the only intervening object that the Connally
bullet could have first hit. HSCA physical scientist Larry M. >>>>>>>>>> Sturdivan told the committee that the Carcano bullet was a “very
stable bullet, perhaps one of the most stable bullets that we have
ever done experimentation with.” He said that it would only start
yawing—and then very little, “perhaps less than a degree”—at “about
100 meters” (about 110 yards) and “if it had struck [Connally] without
having previously encountered another object, it [Connally’s back
wound] would never have been elongated. This bullet is too stable. It
would have had to be a nice round hole.”
Here's the quesition that Chickenshit will refuse to answer: What is
the "virtually conclusive evidence" that Bugs was talking about? >>>>>>>>>>
Chickenshit responded 11 times, and only answered these questions:
Question 1: What is the "virtually conclusive evidence" that Bugs was
talking about?
Ans: "The shape of the wound."
Question 2: What was the shape of the wound?
Ans: Oval...
Question 3: So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that
was "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
You removed part of my answer.
Whine some more, Chickenshit.
I clearly abbreviated your answer to
what was supported by the statement of Bugliosi.
If you want to label yourself a liar, you go right ahead.
This is the coward's attempt to justify not answering the question. >>>>>>>>It was on this third question that Chickenshit's cowardice took over,
and he's not yet answered it.
You want more to remove?
Bugliosi went on to explain the concept. That you want to ignore >>>>>>>>> that fact is of no consequence.
It's not "ignoring" it when I ask you to state what it is. >>>>>>>>**YOU** are proving your cowardice. Just as I predicted.
11 responses, and only two answers. His cowardice is a proven fact.
Believers run...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!!!
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was >>>>>>>> "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Was Bugliosi...
Why does Ben refuse to ask me questions?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 125:11:47 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,851 |